`
`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