`
`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 IPR2017-014061
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`Title: FAST-PATH APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING DATA
`CORRESPONDING A TCP CONNECTION
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,673,072
`
`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. Wistron Corporation, which filed a Petition in Case
`
`IPR2018-00329, has been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`PATENT OWNER HAS FAILED TO REBUT PETITIONER’S
`SHOWING THAT A POSA WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED
`TO COMBINE ERICKSON WITH TANENBAUM96 ................................. 2
`
`A. A POSA Would Have Naturally Looked to Tanenbaum96
`When Implementing Erickson’s TCP Functionality ............................. 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Tanenbaum96 Does Not Teach Away from the Invention ................... 5
`
`A POSA Would Have a Reasonable Expectation of Success
`Using Tanenbaum96
`to
`Implement Erickson’s TCP
`Functionality .......................................................................................... 8
`
`D. At the Time of the 072 Invention, the Industry Was Actively
`Working On Offload ........................................................................... 13
`
`III. THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES EACH LIMITATION OF THE
`CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Has Failed To Rebut Petitioner’s Showing that
`The Prior Art Discloses “Dividing, By The Interface Device,
`The Data Into Segments” .................................................................... 14
`
`Patent Owner Has Failed To Rebut Petitioner’s Showing that
`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” ................................................................................. 18
`
`Patent Owner Has Failed To Rebut Petitioner’s Showing that
`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” ...... 19
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`IV. THE EVIDENCE OF OBVIOUSNESS FAR OUTWEIGHS
`PATENT OWNER’S ALLEGED “OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE” .................. 19
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Patent Owner Has Not Shown Nexus Between The Challenged
`Claims Of The 072 Patent and The “Objective Evidence” ................. 19
`
`There Is No Evidence of Long-Felt Need ........................................... 21
`
`There Is No Evidence of Commercial Success ................................... 21
`
`There Is No Evidence of Praise ........................................................... 23
`
`There Is No Evidence of Trying and Failing ...................................... 24
`
`There Is No Evidence of Skepticism ................................................... 24
`
`V.
`
`THE REAL PARTY OF INTEREST IS CORRECTLY NAMED ............... 24
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`601 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 4
`Bosch Auto. Serv. Sols., LLC v. Matal,
`878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 23
`Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II,
`IPR2014-00786, Paper 46 (Sept. 23, 2015) ........................................................... 4
`Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`501 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 10
`Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. LP v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc.,
`825 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 18
`In re Arora,
`369 F. App’x 120 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 12
`In re Cree, Inc.,
`818 F.3d 694 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 22
`In re Ethicon, Inc.,
`844 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 7
`In re Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`611 F. App’x 969 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 25
`In re Merck & Co.,
`800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 15
`
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 3, 14
`
`Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.,
`667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 4
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`
`Lowe’s Co. v. Nichia Corp.,
`IRP2018-00066, Paper 7 a(Apr. 25, 2018) .......................................................... 15
`MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 16
`Meiresonne v. Google, Inc.,
`849 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................7, 8
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`874 F.3d 724 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................ 9
`MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP,
`747 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 20
`Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A.,
`469 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 5
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 9
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 9
`Soft Gel Techs., Inc. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc.,
`864 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................7, 9
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 20
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 1
`Eastern District of Texas Patent L.R. 3-1(f) ............................................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072 (“072 Patent”)
`Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No.
`7,673,072 (“072 File History”)
`Declaration of Robert Horst
`Curriculum Vitae of Robert Horst
`U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”)
`Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
`New Jersey (1996) (“Tanenbaum96”)
`Transmission Control Protocol, “Darpa Internet Protocol
`Specification,” RFC: 793, Sept. 1981 (“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 of Rice Mayors regarding Tanenbaum, Andrew S.,
`Computer Network
`Not Used
`Stevens, W. Richard and Wright, Gary R., TCP/IP Illustrated
`Volume 2: The Implementation, Addison-Wesley (1995)
`(“Stevens2”)
`TCP Control Block Interdependence (“RFC2140”)
`Thia, Y.H., Woodside, C.M., “A Reduced Operation Protocol
`Engine (ROPE) for a Multiple-Layer Bypass Architecture,”
`Protocols for High Speed Networks (Dordrecht), 1995 (“Thia”)
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Ex.1018
`
`Ex.1019
`
`Ex.1020
`Ex.1021
`
`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Ex.1024
`
`Ex.1025
`
`Description
`
`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
`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”)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Ex.1026
`
`Ex.1027
`
`Ex.1028
`
`Ex.1029
`
`Ex.1030
`
`Ex.1031
`
`Ex.1032
`
`Ex.1033
`
`Ex.1034
`
`Ex.1035
`
`Ex.1036
`
`Description
`
`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”)
`U.S. Provisional Application 60/061,809 (“1997 Provisional
`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”)
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Exs.1037-
`1039
`
`Ex.1040
`
`Exs.1041-
`1042
`Ex.1043
`Exs.1044-
`1081
`
`Ex.1082
`
`Exs.1083-
`1109
`Ex. 1110
`Ex. 1111
`
`Ex. 1112
`
`Ex. 1113-
` 1204
`Ex. 1205
`
`Ex. 1206
`
`Ex. 1207
`
`Description
`
`Not Used
`
`Alacritech’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Alacritech, Inc.
`v. Dell Inc., Intel Corporation, et al.)
`
`Not Used
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,937,169 (“Connery”)
`
`Not Used
`
`Alacritech’s Infringement Contentions For Intel Ex. 2 - 072
`(Intel)
`LR 3-1 Infringement Chart
`
`Not Used
`
`Declaration of Garland Stephens
`Declaration of S. Christopher Kyriacou
`Alacritech’s Answer from Alacritech v. CenturyLink, et al.
`16cv693
`
`Numbers 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=a
`ny
`Website:
`https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_
`detail.php?rfc=793&pubstatus%5B%5D=Any&pub_date_type=a
`ny
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Exs. 1208-
`1209
`
`Ex. 1210
`
`Exs. 1211-
`1222
`
`Description
`
`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)
`
`Not Used
`
`Ex. 1223
`
`Ex. 1224
`
`Ex. 1225
`
`Ex. 1226
`
`Ex. 1227
`
`Declaration of Robert Horst, Ph.D. In Support of Petitioner’s
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`Deposition of Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., Volume 1 (May 03,
`2018)
`Deposition of Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., Volume 2 (May 04
`2018)
`Number Not Used
`New ASIC drives Alacritech into storage by R. Merritt, EE Times
`(January 11, 2011)
`Internet page from Alacritech.com downloaded on May 6, 2018
`Ex. 1228
`Ex. 1229
`Number Not Used
`Ex. 1230 Why Are We Deprecating Network Performance Features? By B.
`Wilson downloaded on May 2, 2018
`Alacritech, Inc.’s Answer and Counterclaims to Intel
`Corporation’s Complaint in Intervention from Alacritech v.
`CenturyLink, et al., 16cv693, Eastern District of Texas (D.I. 94)
`(December 13, 2016)
`Alacritech’s First Amended and Supplemental Patent Initial
`Disclosure from Alacritech v. CenturyLink, et al., 16cv693,
`Eastern District of Texas (February 24, 2017)
`Alacritech, Inc.’s Answer and Counterclaims to Cavium Inc.’s
`Complaint in Intervention from Alacritech v. CenturyLink, et al.,
`ix
`
`Ex. 1231
`
`Ex. 1232
`
`Ex. 1233
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Description
`
`16cv693, Eastern District of Texas (D.I. 137) (February 24, 2017)
`Course Information for Fall 1997 “Introduction to Computer
`Communication Networks”
`Patent Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas
`Updated Curriculum Vitae of Robert Horst
`
`Numbers Not Used
`
`IETF SNMP Working Group Internet Draft SNMP
`Communications Services by Frank J. Kastenholz (April 1991)
`On Systems Integration: Tuning the Performance of a
`Commercial TCP Implementation by D. Leon Guerrero and Ophir
`Frieder (1992)
`John S. Quarterman, Abraham Silberschatz, and James L.
`Peterson. 1985. 4.2BSD and 4.3BSD as examples of the UNIX
`system. ACM Comput. Surv. 17, 4 (December 1985), 379-418.
`Numbers Not Used
`Excerpt from Report of Alacritech’s Expert Dr. Kevin C.
`Almeroth Concerning Intel’s Infringement from from Alacritech
`v. CenturyLink, et al., 16cv693, Eastern District of Texas
`(October 23, 2017)
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth in Support of Alacritech’s
`Motion for Preliminary Injunction of Microsoft’s Infringement of
`Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 6,697,868 from Alacritech, Inc. v.
`Microsoft Corporation, Northern District of California,
`04cv03284 (D.I. 27) (November 19, 2004)
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth in Support of Alacritech’s
`Reply to Microsoft’s Opposition to of Alacritech’s Motion for
`Preliminary Injunction from Alacritech, Inc. v. Microsoft
`Corporation, Northern District of California, 04cv03284 (D.I. 73)
`(February 11, 2005)
`
`x
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Ex. 1234
`
`Ex. 1235
`Ex. 1236
`Exs. 1237-
`1239
`Ex. 1240
`
`Ex. 1241
`
`Ex. 1242
`
`Ex. 1243-
`1248
`
`Ex. 1249
`
`Ex. 1250
`
`Ex. 1251
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Nothing in Patent Owner’s Response (“Response”) rebuts Petitioner’s
`
`showing that the challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In its
`
`Response, Patent Owner focuses the majority of its argument on the motivation to
`
`combine Tanenbaum96 with Erickson. However, Erickson explicitly states its
`
`invention can be used with TCP/IP, it describes Tanenbaum as a source of
`
`information about TCP/IP, and TCP/IP was designed to be an alternative transport
`
`protocol for the Internet Protocol. Furthermore, a POSA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination because
`
`expertise in TCP/IP was widespread and high and a POSA would need only to
`
`adapt freely available TCP source code to do so.
`
`While Patent Owner also contends three limitations are not met, these
`
`arguments focus on the prior art references in isolation and fail to address
`
`Petitioner’s combination. These arguments fail as a matter of law and on the facts.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner argues that “secondary considerations” weigh against a
`
`finding of obviousness. But its cursory, unsubstantiated assertions about the
`
`“secondary considerations” are completely untethered to the challenged claims of
`
`the 072 Patent and unsupported by the evidence.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER HAS FAILED TO REBUT PETITIONER’S
`SHOWING THAT A POSA WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO
`COMBINE ERICKSON WITH TANENBAUM96
`A. A POSA Would Have Naturally Looked to Tanenbaum96 When
`Implementing Erickson’s TCP Functionality
`Erickson explicitly states that the disclosed network interface device
`
`supports TCP. Paper No. 1 (“Pet.”) at 33; Ex. 1005 at 5:41-51, 8:4-6 (“There are
`
`different scripts for different types of datagrams 702 (e.g., UDP or TCP).”).
`
`Erickson also identifies an earlier version of Tanenbaum96 as a source of
`
`information concerning TCP/IP and incorporates a portion by reference. Pet. at 34.
`
`Yet Patent Owner argues that a POSA “would never have combined Tanenbaum
`
`with Erickson because the references are completely different, and technically
`
`incompatible” because “Erickson is directed to a UDP implementation, in contrast
`
`to Tanenbaum’s TCP/IP implementation.”2 Paper No. 34 (“POR”) at 39. Patent
`
`Owner’s argument is directly contradicted by Erickson and the other prior art of
`
`record.
`
`First, both TCP and UDP were designed to be alternative transport protocols
`
`for the Internet Protocol. Pet. at 18-19, 34; Ex. 1223, ¶¶ 24-25. In some cases, the
`
`same application programming interfaces (APIs) of higher level protocols were
`
`supported over both TCP and UDP over IP. Ex. 1223, ¶ 30. For example, the
`
`2 Tanenbaum96 also discusses UDP at length. See, e.g., 1006.539.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`freely available Berkeley Sockets implementation of TCP/IP also supported
`
`UDP/IP, using the same programming interface. Ex. 1223, ¶ 31; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 36-
`
`37. Other examples included NFS, SNMP, and RPC. Ex. 1223, ¶¶ 32-34. Patent
`
`Owner’s conclusory claim that TCP/IP and UDP/IP are “completely different and
`
`technically incompatible” is simply not credible.
`
`Indeed, UDP and TCP have so many similarities that Patent Owner’s expert
`
`Dr. Almeroth taught both together in a single lecture to undergraduate students in
`
`his Fall 1997 “Introduction to Computer Communication Networks” class, within
`
`months of the alleged first effective filing date of the 072 Patent. Ex. 1234. While
`
`TCP has more features than UDP, they are the “two main protocols” designed to
`
`operate over IP. Ex. 1003, ¶ 109 (citing Ex. 1006.539); see also Pet. at 18-19. As
`
`Erickson itself states, TCP was “well-known within the art.” Ex. 1005 at 4:38-43.
`
`Patent Owner also argues that the differences between UDP and TCP mean
`
`that a POSA would have “to fundamentally redesign Erickson to include
`
`functionality not discussed in either reference.” POR at 40. This argument
`
`contradicts Erickson’s express disclosure that it supports TCP by means of a TCP
`
`script (i.e., not a “fundamental redesign”). This argument also fails as matter of
`
`law because the obviousness inquiry looks at the combined teachings of
`
`Tanenbaum96 and Erickson. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`In any event, Patent Owner offers no evidence or even a reasoned
`
`explanation of why Erickson’s disclosure that the disclosed network interface
`
`supports TCP via a TCP script is wrong. Indeed, Patent Owner offers only the
`
`conclusory testimony of its expert, Dr. Almeroth, whose declaration includes large
`
`portions that are identical to Patent Owner’s brief.3 Dr. Almeroth’s opinion is
`
`entitled to little weight because it merely parrots the arguments expressed in the
`
`Response. See, e.g., Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II, IPR2014-00786,
`
`Paper 46 at 31 (Sept. 23, 2015) (giving expert testimony no weight where it
`
`“parrots Patent Owner’s argument and fails to provide sufficient explanation or
`
`elaboration”).4 Dr. Almeroth’s opinion, which is contrary to the teachings of the
`
`patent at issue and the prior art of record, cannot avoid a determination of
`
`invalidity. See, e.g., Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (rejecting expert testimony that conflicted with the disclosure in the prior
`
`art); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`
`3 When Petitioner’s counsel asked Dr. Almeroth whether he copied identical
`
`portions of his declaration from Patent Owner’s brief, Patent Owner’s counsel
`
`directed him not to answer. Ex. 1224 at 185:2-186:5.
`
`4 In contrast, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Horst, cites extensive evidence in support of
`
`the motivation to combine. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 137-148 (citing Section V); App. A.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`(rejecting expert testimony that was conclusory and contrary to the intrinsic
`
`evidence).
`
`Second, Erickson incorporates an earlier version of Tanenbaum by
`
`reference. Pet. at 34. This alone is sufficient to show a motivation to combine
`
`these references. Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978,
`
`990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (affirming motivation to combine a publication with a
`
`medical center where the publication expressly mentioned the medical center). A
`
`POSA
`
`implementing a TCP script for Erickson would have
`
`turned
`
`to
`
`Tanenbaum96, the most recent edition of Tanenbaum. Pet. at 35.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Erickson cites Tanenbaum for “a reason unrelated
`
`to protocol offload.” POR at 42. However, Erickson explicitly referred to
`
`Tanenbaum for a “discussion of the form and structure of TCP sockets and
`
`packets”— information that would be needed to implement Erickson’s TCP script.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 4:38-43; Ex. 1223, ¶ 35.
`
`B.
`Tanenbaum96 Does Not Teach Away from the Invention
`Patent Owner claims that Tanenbaum96 “expressly teaches away from the
`
`use of a separate device, such as Erickson’s I/O adapter, for TCP/IP protocol
`
`processing.” POR at 35-36. Not only does this argument ignore the prior art
`
`combination Petitioner actually relied upon, it misstates the teachings of
`
`Tanebaum96.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`First, and most importantly, although Tanenbaum96 does teach transport
`
`layer processing on a network adapter, Petitioner is relying on Erickson for its
`
`teaching of an offload method using a second processor on an I/O adapter running
`
`a script. Pet. at 41-42, 64-65, 72. While Erickson provides exemplary UDP
`
`pseudocode, it explicitly states that it also supports a TCP script. Pet. at 33-34.
`
`Patent Owner’s teaching away argument is built on the false premise that
`
`Tanenbaum96 is the base reference for the combination. For example, it argues
`
`that “Petitioners provide no explanation as to how, or indeed, why a POSA would
`
`have modified Tanenbaum.” POR at 38 (emphasis added). This misses the point.
`
`Petitioner has argued that a POSA would start with Erickson and then consult
`
`Tanenbaum96 to implement Erickson’s disclosed TCP script, not the other way
`
`around. Pet. at 38-76.
`
`Second, Tanenbaum96 in fact explicitly discusses offloading the transport
`
`layer to the interface card. Pet. at 29; Ex. 1006.498, 1006.530 (“[The transport
`
`entity] may also be contained on a coprocessor chip or network board plugged
`
`into the host’s backplane.”) (emphasis added.) As Dr. Horst explained,
`
`“Tanenbaum96’s transport entity, when on the NIC, corresponds to the I/O adapter
`
`device of Erickson.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 121. At most, Tanenbaum96 suggests that
`
`offloading using two different processors may not work well if the second
`
`processor is cheaper and slower than the main CPU unless the protocol is very
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`simple. Ex. 1006.588-589. While Tanenbaum96 expresses a preference for simple
`
`protocols and having the main CPU do the work, it does not suggest that a “plug-in
`
`board with a second CPU and its own program” will not work well if the second
`
`CPU is fast enough, regardless of the complexity of the offloaded protocol. Id. “A
`
`reference that ‘merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention
`
`but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into’ the
`
`claimed invention does not teach away.” Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 849 F.3d
`
`1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted).
`
` There is no “clear
`
`discouragement” of practicing the offloading solution laid out in Erickson. In re
`
`Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner’s “focused attack” on Tanenbaum96 ignores
`
`what the combination of prior art references teaches. See, e.g., Soft Gel Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 864 F.3d 1334, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding prior art
`
`reference does not teach away where Patent Owner attacked a single reference but
`
`ignored that the Board’s decision was based on the “combination of references”).
`
`Petitioner’s combination is the use of Tanenbaum96’s TCP “fast path” processing
`
`to implement TCP processing on Erickson’s adapter. Pet. at 35-37. Erickson
`
`provides motivation to move protocol processing to the I/O device adapter. Id.
`
`Furthermore, Tanenbaum96 states that while “in the ESTABLISHED state” TCP
`
`processing is “straightforward,” not complex. Ex.1006.583-584. A POSA would
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`have understood that the TCP fast path, which avoids most TCP and IP layer
`
`processing, would be “straightforward” to implement using the network interface
`
`in Erickson. Pet. at 35-37; Ex. 2028 at 135:17-24.
`
`As the Board recognized (Paper No. 10 (“Decision”) at 16), there is nothing
`
`in Tanenbaum96 to suggest Erickson’s objectives would be undermined or render
`
`Erickson inoperative for its intended purpose. See Meiresonne, 849 F.3d at 1383-
`
`84. Despite this, Patent Owner argues that applying TCP to Erickson would
`
`generate additional PCI bus and I/O access “in contravention of one of Erickson’s
`
`stated goals.” POR at 54. This argument fails for at least two reasons.
`
`First, Erickson was focused on preventing the copying of data multiple times
`
`(Ex. 1005 at 3:1-5), but does not suggest avoiding TCP for this reason. Quite the
`
`opposite, Erickson explicitly suggests that its benefits will apply to TCP as well.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 5:41-51, 8:4-6. Furthermore, each of the benefits identified by
`
`Erickson in increasing the efficiency of I/O operations is still provided in a TCP/IP
`
`implementation. Ex. 1005 at 3:1-22; Ex. 1223, ¶ 37. Second, reducing copies (and
`
`PCI bus accesses) is actually a motivation for combining Erickson with
`
`Tanenabum96 because using Tanenbaum96’s “fast path” to implement Erickson’s
`
`“fast” Direct Application Interface would result in a reduction of copies. Pet. at
`
`35-36; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 110-111, 140-144; Ex. 1223, ¶ 36.
`
`C. A POSA Would Have a Reasonable Expectation of Success Using
`Tanenbaum96 to Implement Erickson’s TCP Functionality
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`A theme throughout Patent Owner’s argument is that it would not be
`
`obvious to combine Tanenbaum96 and Erickson due to a lack of reasonable
`
`expectation of success in making the combination. This argument is premised on
`
`the incorrect notion that the prior art references must lay out every detail of the
`
`implementation. See, e.g., POR at 55. However, this is both legally and factually
`
`groundless.
`
`First, nothing requires that an obviousness combination lay out every detail
`
`of an actual implementation. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc., 874
`
`F.3d 724, 730 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming obviousness decision where the prior art
`
`disclosed everything except for details
`
`that would have been routinely
`
`implemented by a POSA); Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013) (finding a POSA would be capable of making adjustments in implementing
`
`the combination). All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success, not
`
`“absolute predictability” or “absolute certainty.” Soft Gel Techs., Inc. v. Jarrow
`
`Formulas, Inc., 864 F.3d 1334, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017); PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI
`
`Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Second, Patent Owner ignores that applying Tanenbaum96’s TCP teachings
`
`to Erickson was well within the skill of a POSA. See Pet. at 34-37; Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`137-148. As Tanenbaum96 (an introductory college textbook)5 points out, free
`
`source code implementations of TCP/IP were readily available in Berkeley Unix
`
`and were “quite good.” Ex.1006.061; see also Pet. at 18; Ex. 1003.103 n.9; Ex.
`
`1223, ¶¶ 26-27. The Berkeley source code was extensively documented in widely
`
`used textbooks. Pet. at 18; Ex. 1223, ¶¶ 26-29; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 26, 34. Tanenbaum96
`
`also points out that “[m]any TCP implementations” already implemented a “fast
`
`path” header prediction. Ex. 1006.585; see Ex. 1003, ¶ 70 (includes “fast-path”).
`
`This is included in Berkeley Unix. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 66-68. Therefore, a POSA seeking
`
`to implement Tanenbaum96’s fast path on Erickson’s second processor need only
`
`adapt freely available TCP source code to do so.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner highlights the level of skill in the art, suggesting that
`
`this shows why the invention would not be obvious. POR at 46-47. But this logic
`
`is backwards. An invention is more likely to be obvious if there is a higher level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 501
`
`F.3d 1254, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding district court’s level of skill in the art
`
`was too low and that under a higher level of skill in the art the claims were
`
`obvious). While Patent Owner mentions a number of supposed “complexities,”
`
`
`5 See Ex. 1234; Ex. 1225 at 474:17-476:10.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`such as updating context and the additional parameters, even it admits these
`
`supposed “complexities” are “inherent” to TCP/IP.6 POR at 51-55.
`
`Patent Owner spends pages nitpicking the implementation details, claiming
`
`the prior art combination is not enabling. POR at 41, n. 41. But these details were
`
`well within the skills of a POSA. For example, preventing race conditions depends
`
`on the actual implementation and data structures. Ex. 1223, ¶ 38. As Dr. Horst
`
`explained, Erickson implemented hardware to account for race conditions (Ex.
`
`2028 at 138:5-19)—and POSAs had been routinely solving this problem in
`
`multiprocessors for decades. Ex. 1223, ¶¶ 38-39.
`
`Patent Owner’s complaints about the “inherent memory and processing
`
`limitations” in Erickson (POR at 40-41) are a red herring. Patent Owner argues
`
`that “Erickson itself acknowl
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
