`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, INC.,
`WISTRON CORPORATION, and DELL INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-014061
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2017-01718, Wistron
`Corporation, which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-00327, and Dell Inc., which
`filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-00371, have been joined as petitioners in this
`proceeding.
`
`06973-00001/10168699.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Pursuant to Parties’ Stipulation Regarding Schedule dated June 8, 2018
`
`(Paper 52), Patent Owner timely moves for observations on cross-examination in
`
`light of Patent Owner’s cross-examination of Petitioner’s witness, Robert Horst on
`
`June 8, 2018. The transcript of Dr. Horst’s cross-examination testimony is being
`
`filed as exhibit 2600 (“Ex. 2600”).
`
`Observations on Cross-Examination:
`
`1. In exhibit 2600, on page 16 line 2 to page 20 line 16, the witness testified
`
`that:
`
`• The first script divides the data into segments by repetitively
`
`extracting only one segment’s worth of data from the host to the
`
`adaptor.
`
`• The second script divides the data into segments in a similar way, i.e.,
`
`repetitively copying one segment’s worth of data from the host to the
`
`adaptor.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the non-disclosure of claim elements [1.4],
`
`[9.4], and [15.4], “dividing, by the interface device, the data into segments” , on
`
`pages 1003.102-1003.103 of Exhibit 1003 (Horst Opening Declaration), pages 24-
`
`33 of Corrected Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 34), and pages 20-21 of Exhibit
`
`1223 (Horst Reply Declaration).
`
`06973-00001/10168699.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`The testimony is relevant because the claim elements require two things: 1)
`
`“transferring data from the network host to the interface device, after transferring
`
`the protocol header information to the interface device”; and 2) “dividing, by the
`
`interface device, the data into segments.” (emphasis added). In other words, the
`
`claim requires first, transferring some data to the interface device, and second,
`
`dividing the same date. However, according to the first and the second scripts,
`
`after the data is transferred from the host to the adaptor, no further division is
`
`performed.
`
`2. In exhibit 2600, on page 16 line 2 to page 20 line 16, the witness testified
`
`that:
`
`• The third script divides the data into segments by transferring all of
`
`the data identified by the user from the host to the adaptor and
`
`repeatedly extracting one segment, and encapsulating and transmitting
`
`it to the Ethernet.
`
`• By doing this, the adaptor has to be subject to termination conditions
`
`in determining when to stop sending data, including the consideration
`
`of Window size, because the window size indicates that the receive
`
`side no longer has room to accept the writes.
`
`06973-00001/10168699.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`This testimony is relevant to the non-disclosure of claim elements [1.4],
`
`[9.4], and [15.4], “dividing, by the interface device, the data into segments” , on
`
`pages 1003.102-1003.103 of Exhibit 1003 (Horst Opening Declaration), pages 24-
`
`33 of Corrected Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 34), and pages 20-21 of Exhibit
`
`1223 (Horst Reply Declaration), as well as to the motivation to combine Erickson
`
`and the TCP protocol disclosed in Tanenbaum96 and the expectation of success
`
`thereof, on pages 34-37 of Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper 1), pages 35-55
`
`of Corrected Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 34), and pages 2-14 of Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner's Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper 45).
`
`The testimony is relevant because determining the Window field in TCP
`
`header is necessary for the operation of the third script allegedly rendering the
`
`“dividing” step obvious. However, Petitioner does not disclose any specific
`
`evidence as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in performing this necessary step, i.e., determining the
`
`Window field, in the adaptor disclosed by Erickson.
`
`3. In exhibit 2600, on page 13 line 21 to page 14:11, the witness testified that:
`
`• The determination of how the Window field works is a fairly complex
`
`process.
`
`06973-00001/10168699.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`• The Window field is a part of the TCP header, so the Window field
`
`has to be determined for processing TCP packets.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the motivation to combine Erickson and the
`
`TCP protocol disclosed in Tanenbaum96 and the expectation of success thereof, on
`
`pages 34-37 of Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper 1), pages 35-55 of
`
`Corrected Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 34), and pages 2-14 of Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner's Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review (Paper 45).
`
`The testimony is relevant because determining the Window field in TCP
`
`header is necessary for processing TCP packets and is a complex process.
`
`However, Petitioner does not disclose any specific evidence as to why a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`performing this necessary step, i.e., determining the Window field, in the adaptor
`
`disclosed by Erickson.
`
`
`
`Date: June 15, 2018
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
` James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`06973-00001/10168699.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner –
`Alacritech, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`06973-00001/10168699.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certify that
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION was
`
`served on June 15, 2018 by filing it through the Patent Review Processing System,
`
`
`
`as well as by e-mailing copies to:
`
`Garland T. Stephens (Reg. No. 37,242)
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`intel.alacritech.ipr@weil.com
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 1700
`HOUSTON, TX 77002-2784
`
`Anne M. Cappella (Reg. No. 43,217)
`Adrian Percer (Reg. No. 46,986)
`Jeremy Jason Lang (Reg. No. 73,604)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 802-3141
`Fax: (650) 802-3100
`anne.cappella@weil.com
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`jason.lang@weil.com
`
`Patrick McPherson (Reg. No. 46,255)
`David T. Xue
`Karineh Khachatourian
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`DTXue@duanemorris.com
`karinehk@duanemorris.com
`
`Christopher TL Douglas (Reg. No. 56,950)
`Kirk Bradley
`
`06973-00001/10168699.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2017-01406
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072
`
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, North Carolina 28280
`christopher.douglas@alston.com
`kirk.bradley@alston.com
`
`Benjamin E. Weed
`Erik J. Halverson
`K&L GATES LLP
`benjamin.weed.ptab@klgates.com
`erik.halverson@klgates.com
`
`Date: June 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
` James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner –
`Alacritech, Inc.
`
`06973-00001/10168699.1
`
`8
`
`
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
