`(072 Patent)
`
`IPR2017-1406 (Intel)
`IPR2018-0375 (Dell)
`IPR2017-1707 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-0329 (Wistron)
`
`*All citations herein are to the IPR2017-01406 case unless otherwise noted.
`
`97
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Instituted Grounds
`
`• Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96
`
` 072 Patent: Claims 1, 2-8, 9, 10-14 and 15, 16-
`21
`
`Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (Erickson)
`Ex. 1006 – Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks (Tanenbaum96)
`
`98
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have been motivated to combine
`Tanenbaum96 with Erickson
`
`2. Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the
`limitations of claims 1-21 of the 072 Patent
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`99
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would have been motivated to
`combine Tanenbaum96 with Erickson
`
` See 036 Patent, Dispute 1, slides 6-53
`
`100
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96
`discloses the limitations of claims 1-21 of the 072
`Patent
`a) The prior art discloses “dividing, by the interface device, the
`data into segments” (all claims)
`b) 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”
`(claim 2)
`c) 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” (claims 7, 14, 21)
`
`101
`
`
`
`“Dividing, by the interface device, the
`data into segments”
`
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`102
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: TCP entity divides data
`into segments (TCP packets)
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 43;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 15;
`Ex. 1003.100 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.540 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 43;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply ) at 15;
`Ex. 1003.100 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.543 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`103
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Transport entity may
`reside on network interface
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 43-44;
`Ex. 1003.100 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.498 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 6;
`Ex. 1006.530 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`104
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches that its interface
`device stores and transmits user data
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 33, 42-43, 44;
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 15;
`Ex. 1003.100-.101 (072 Horst. Decl.);
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:39-46.
`
`105
`
`
`
`Erickson divides the data and transmits
`data using adapter
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 44-46;
`Ex. 1003.100-.101 (072 Horst Decl.); Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:51-64, 8:30-35.
`
`106
`
`
`
`Erickson’s single page embodiment can
`support TCP
`• POSA would understand a typical page of virtual
`address space (4K bytes) would be greater than a
`typical MSS segment (1500 bytes)
`
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 16-17;
`Ex. 1003.103 (072 Horst Decl.).
`
`107
`
`
`
`I/O traffic would not be a factor in
`successfully implementing a TCP script
`
`Paper 46 (072 Reply) at 16-17;
`Ex. 1223 (072 Horst Reply Decl.) ¶ 46.
`
`.
`
`108
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96 discloses the
`limitations of claims 1-7 of the 036 Patent
`a) The prior art discloses “dividing, by the interface device, the data
`into segments” (all claims)
`b) 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” (claim 2)
`c) 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” (claims 7, 14, and 21)
`
`109
`
`
`
`“transferring status information ... during the same
`operation as ... protocol header information”
`
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent), Claim 2.
`
`110
`
`
`
`072 patent: “Status information” can be
`“basic frame header” information
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) 51;
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent) at claim 3.
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) 51;
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent) at 32:56-59.
`
`111
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches “almost everything”
`about datagram is “pre-negotiated”
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 53;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 6:57-6:62.
`.
`
`112
`
`
`
`Erickson’s datagram template is a basic
`frame header including status information
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 53;
`Ex.1003.111 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 8:2-4.
`.
`
`113
`
`
`
`“Same operation” because protocol
`header includes status information
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 40, 53;
`Ex. 1003.074, .112 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex.1005 (Erickson) at 6:63-7:4.
`.
`
`114
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum96 discloses the
`limitations of claims 1-7 of the 036 Patent
`a) The prior art discloses “dividing, by the interface device, the data
`into segments” (all claims)
`b) 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”
`(claim 2)
`c) 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”
`(claims 7, 14, and 21)
`
`115
`
`
`
`“Receiving .... and updating ... by the
`interface device”
`
`Ex. 1001 (072 Patent), Claims 7, 14, 21.
`
`116
`
`
`
`PO ignores the teaching of the
`combination
`• Patent Owner argues about each reference separately:
`
`• But Petitioner relies on Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96:
`
`Paper 34 (072
`Response) at 34.
`
`Paper 1 (072
`Petition) at 62.
`
`117
`
`
`
`Obvious to use Tanenbaum96’s fast-path
`connection records with Erickson’s adapter
`
`......
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 61-62, 70-71;
`Ex. 1003.110, .121-.122 (072 Horst Decl.);
`Ex. 1006.584-.585 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`118
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`a) Patent Owner has improperly expanded the scope of
`claims 22-29
`
`b) Patent Owner does not show adequate written description
`support
`
`c) Substitute claims 22-29 are indefinite
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`119
`
`
`
`“Protocol header information” untied to any
`other information in substitute claim 22
`
`Paper 54 (072 Sur-Reply for Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 3.
`
`120
`
`
`
`“Protocol header information” untied to “context”
`would infringe claim 22, but not claim 1
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 7.
`
`121
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`a) Patent Owner has improperly expanded the scope of claims
`22-29
`
`b) Patent Owner does not show adequate written
`description support
`
`c) Substitute claims 22-29 are indefinite
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`122
`
`
`
`PO must supply written description support
`after Aqua Products
`
`Paper 54 (072 Sur-Reply for Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 5;
`Nov. 21, 2017 USPTO Memo
`
`123
`
`
`
`PO identifies same 10 pages and 12 figures for
`every independent claim limitation
`
`Same written
`description support
`as 036 Patent
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to
`Motion to Amend) at 4-5;
`Paper 62 (072 Corrected
`Exhibits for Motion to
`Amend), Appx. A.
`
`124
`
`
`
`Too late to provide written description
`support in Reply
`
`• PO provides alleged “exemplary” written description support for
`the first time in its Reply
`
`Paper 47 (072 Reply ISO Motion to Amend) at 6;
`Ex. 2305 (Almeroth Decl. ISO Reply) at 25.
`
`125
`
`
`
`Written description support provided by PO
`is insufficient
`
`• Patent Owner cites to written description support not included
`in its original motion
`
`• Patent Owner has not identified any written description support
`for:
`“Transferring the context information to an interface device”
`•
`• Creating a “template header” from any “protocol header information”
`
`Paper 54 (072 Sur-Reply for Motion to Amend) at 7-8.
`
`126
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`a) Patent Owner has improperly expanded the scope of claims
`22-29
`
`b) Patent Owner does not show adequate written description
`support
`
`c) Substitute claims 22-29 are indefinite
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`127
`
`
`
`Claim 22 is indefinite
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 8-10;
`Ex. 1210 (072 Horst Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Amend) ¶ 18.
`
`128
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “creating a context that includes a MAC layer
`address, an IP address, and TCP state information for the
`connection” (limitation 22.1)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “transferring the context information to an interface
`device” (limitation 22.2)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “transferring data ... after transferring the context
`information to the interface device” (limitation 22.3)
`
`iv. Prior art discloses “creating headers for the segments, by the interface
`device, from a template header” containing “TCP state information”
`(limitation 22.5)
`
`129
`
`
`
`Erickson: “Pre-negotiated” header that
`includes “almost everything” for UDP
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 11-12;
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 6:58-7:3, Fig. 6.
`
`130
`
`
`
`POSA would have replaced UDP header
`with TCP header
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 12;
`Ex. 1006 (Tanenbaum96) at .584, Fig. 6-50.
`
`131
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “creating a context that includes a MAC layer
`address, an IP address, and TCP state information for the connection”
`(limitation 22.1)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “transferring the context information to an
`interface device” (limitation 22.2)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “transferring data ... after transferring the context
`information to the interface device” (limitation 22.3)
`
`iv. Prior art discloses “creating headers for the segments, by the interface
`device, from a template header” containing “TCP state information”
`(limitation 22.5)
`
`132
`
`
`
`Erickson discloses transferring
`“datagram template” to I/O adapter
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 42;
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 13.
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:65-8:9.
`
`133
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “creating a context that includes a MAC layer
`address, an IP address, and TCP state information for the connection”
`(limitation 22.1)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “transferring the context information to an interface
`device” (limitation 22.2)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “transferring data ... after transferring the
`context information to the interface device” (limitation 22.3)
`
`iv. Prior art discloses “creating headers for the segments, by the interface
`device, from a template header” containing “TCP state information”
`(limitation 22.5)
`
`134
`
`
`
`Data is transferred after the context
`information
`
`Paper 1 (072 Petition) at 42-43;
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 14;
`Ex. 1210.024 (072 Horst Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Amend);
`Ex. 1005 (Erickson) at 7:39-48, Fig. 7.
`
`135
`
`
`
`072 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Motion to Amend 072 Patent should be denied
`
`d) Substitute claims are obvious
`
`i. Prior art discloses “creating a context that includes a MAC layer
`address, an IP address, and TCP state information for the connection”
`(limitation 22.1)
`
`ii. Prior art discloses “transferring the context information to an interface
`device” (limitation 22.2)
`
`iii. Prior art discloses “transferring data ... after transferring the context
`information to the interface device” (limitation 22.3)
`
`iv. Prior art discloses “creating headers for the segments, by the
`interface device, from a template header” containing “TCP state
`information” (limitation 22.5)
`
`136
`
`
`
`POSA would have replaced UDP header
`with TCP header
`
`Paper 40 (072 Opp. to Motion to Amend) at 12;
`Ex. 1006 (Tanenbaum96) at .584, Fig. 6-50.
`
`137
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`(241 Patent)
`
`IPR2017-1392 (Intel)
`IPR2018-0372 (Dell)
`IPR2017-1728 (Cavium)
`IPR2018-0328 (Wistron)
`
`All citations herein are to the IPR2017-01405 case unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Instituted Grounds
`
`• Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and
`Alteon
` Claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23
`• Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96
`(Common to 036 and 072 Patents)*
` Claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 24
`
`* This combination is discussed on slides 6-53 (regarding 036 and 072 patents)
`
`Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”)
`Ex. 1006 – Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks (“Tanenbaum96”)
`Ex. 1033 – “Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief (“Alteon”)
`
`139
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`b. Alteon with Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`2. The prior art discloses all of the disputed
`limitations of the 241 Patent
`3. Alteon is Prior Art
`4. Motion to Amend 241 Patent
`
`140
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`
` See 036 Patent, Dispute 1, slides 6-53
`
`141
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`b. Alteon with Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`i.
`A POSA would have been motivated to apply Alteon’s
`interrupt reductions to Erickson and Tanenbaum96
`Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the combination
`(see slides 33-40)
`iii. Erickson and Alteon are compatible
`
`ii.
`
`Ex. 1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”)
`Ex. 1006 – Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks (“Tanenbaum96”)
`Ex. 1033 – “Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief (“Alteon”)
`
`142
`
`
`
`PO has admitted that using fewer than
`one interrupt per packet was known
`
`44 – 33 = At least 11 segments with no interrupts
`
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6;
`Ex. 1031.006 (1997 Provisional).
`
`143
`
`
`
`Erickson sought to avoid operating
`system intervention
`
`Ex. 1003.101 (Horst Decl.) at ¶ 169.
`
`Ex. 1005.010 (Erickson) at 3:1-10.
`
`144
`
`
`
`Alteon shows that sending fewer
`interrupts was known and desirable
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 47-48;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 5;
`Ex. 1033.022-.023 (Alteon).
`
`145
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`b. Alteon with Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`i.
`A POSA would have been motivated to apply Alteon’s interrupt
`reductions to Erickson and Tanenbaum96
`ii. Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the combination
`(see slides 33-40)
`iii. Erickson and Alteon are compatible
`
`146
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`1. A POSA would be motivated to combine
`a. Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`b. Alteon with Erickson and Tannenbaum96
`i.
`A POSA would have been motivated to apply Alteon’s interrupt
`reductions to Erickson and Tanenbaum96
`Tanenbaum96 does not teach away from the combination
`(see slides 33-40)
`iii. Erickson and Alteon are compatible
`
`ii.
`
`147
`
`
`
`Erickson is not limited to a single page
`architecture
`
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 8:16-24;
`Ex. 1223.024 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶¶ 47-49;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 11-12.
`
`148
`
`
`
`A single page is sufficient to hold
`multiple TCP segments
`
`Ex. 1223.023-.024 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 46;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 11-12.
`
`149
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`2. The prior art discloses all of the disputed limitations of the
`241 Patent
`a) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and Alteon discloses the
`limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the 241 Patent
`(receive claims)
`b) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the limitations of
`claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 21 of the 241 Patent
`(transmit claims)
`
`150
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`a) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and Alteon discloses the
`limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the 241 Patent
`i.
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer
`headers “without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a destination
`in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an interrupt
`(claim 2)
`The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a second
`mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as having
`IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`151
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001.142 (241 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`152
`
`
`
`The prior art combination teaches
`header validation on the adapter
`
`Ex. 1005.007 (Erickson) at 7:21-33;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 5-6;
`Ex. 1003.115 (Horst Decl.) at A-5;
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 53-54.
`
`153
`
`
`
`The prior art combination teaches
`header validation on the adapter
`
`Ex. 1006.589 (Tanenbaum96);
`Ex. 1003.059-.060 (Horst Decl.) at ¶ 100;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6.
`
`154
`
`
`
`There is “no reason to interrupt the
`processing of the host computer”
`
`Paper 11 (Institution Decision) at 19;
`Paper 41 (241 Reply) at 17;
`Ex. 1003.095-.096 (Horst Decl.) at ¶ 159.
`
`155
`
`
`
`Priority application admits using fewer
`than 1 interrupt per packet was known
`
`44 – 33 = At least 11 segments with no interrupts
`
`Ex. 1031.006 (1997 Provisional);
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6-7.
`.
`
`156
`
`
`
`Alteon teaches using fewer than one
`interrupt per packet
`
`Ex. 1033.022-.023 (Alteon);
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 5.
`
`157
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches transfer without
`interrupts using polling and snooping
`
`“Incoming data is then written
`to the virtual memory and
`detected by polling or
`"snooping" hardware.”
`
`Ex. 1005.003, -.012 (Erickson) at Fig. 2, 8:50-52;
`Ex. 1223.025-.026 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶¶ 50-52;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6.
`
`158
`
`
`
`Dr. Horst explains that snooping and
`polling do not involve interrupts
`
`Ex. 1223.025 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 50;
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 6:25-31;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6.
`
`159
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`a) The combination of Erickson, Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the
`241 Patent
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer headers
`“without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a
`destination in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an interrupt
`(claim 2)
`The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a second
`mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as having
`IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`160
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001.142 (241 Patent), Claim 1.
`
`161
`
`
`
`Erickson transfers data to applications in
`the host directly without headers
`
`Ex. 1005.005, -.010 (Erickson) at Fig. 4, 5:6-14;
`Ex. 1003.119 (Horst Decl.) at A-9-10;
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 56-57 56-58;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 7;
`Ex. 1223.014-.015 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 29.
`
`162
`
`.
`
`
`
`Alteon transfers data to applications in
`the host without headers
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 57;
`Ex. 1003.124 (Horst Decl.) at A-15;
`Ex. 1033.021 (Alteon).
`
`163
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`a. The combination of Erickson, Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the
`241 Patent
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer headers
`“without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a destination
`in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`iii. The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an
`interrupt (claim 2)
`The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a second
`mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as having
`IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`164
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 2
`
`Ex. 1001.142 (241 Patent), Claim 2.
`
`165
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches that the MAC layer
`header is processed on the adapter
`
`Ex. 1005.007 (Erickson), Fig. 6.
`
`166
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`a) The combination of Erickson, Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the
`241 Patent
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer headers
`“without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a destination
`in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an interrupt
`(claim 2)
`iv. The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a
`second mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as having
`IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iii.
`
`v.
`
`167
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 3
`
`Ex. 1001.142 (241 Patent), Claim 3.
`
`168
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: The processing of
`application headers
`
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 8;
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 60;
`Ex. 1006.055 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`169
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Receive Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`a) The combination of Erickson, Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`discloses the limitations of claims 1, 2-8, 18, 22, and 23 of the
`241 Patent
`The prior art discloses validation of network and transport layer headers
`“without an interrupt dividing the processing” (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses sending the data from each packet to a destination
`in memory without sending any of the headers (claim 1)
`The prior art discloses processing MAC layer headers without an interrupt
`(claim 2)
`The prior art discloses processing an upper layer header by a second
`mechanism (claim 3)
`The prior art discloses sorting the packets by classifying each as
`having IP and TCP headers (claim 6)
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`170
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 6
`
`Ex. 1001.143 (241 Patent), Claim 6.
`
`171
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Parsing the header to
`determine packet’s protocol
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 63-64;
`Ex. 1006.433 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`172
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Transmit Claims)
`
`i.
`
`b) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the limitations of
`claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 21 of the 241 Patent
`The prior art discloses “prepending the MAC, network, and
`transport layer headers at one time as a sequence of bits ”
`(claim 9)
`The prior art discloses prepending each packet header without an
`interrupt dividing the prepending of the MAC, IP, and TCP headers
`(claim 17)
`iii. The prior art discloses dividing the data into multiple segments
`and prepending a packet header to each of the segments by a
`second processor/mechanism (claims 9 and 17)
`
`ii.
`
`173
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 19
`
`Ex. 1001.143 (241 Patent), Claim 19.
`
`174
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches the use of a template
`to create headers
`
`It would have been
`obvious to prepend the
`populated header to the
`data at one time
`
`Ex. 1005.007, .011 (Erickson) at Fig. 6, 6:57-62
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 13-14;
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 73-74;
`Ex. 1003.075-79,.136-.141 (Horst Decl.) at ¶¶ 131-136, A-16 – A-31.
`
`175
`
`
`
`Dr. Almeroth’s interpretation would result in
`an invalid packet
`
`3
`
`2
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Ex. 2026.068 (Almeroth) at ¶ 134;
`Ex. 1005.007 (Erickson) Fig. 6, 7:50-64;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 13-14.
`
`176
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches the use of a template
`to create headers
`
`Paper 11 (Institution Decision) at 17-18.
`
`177
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Transmit Claims)
`
`i.
`
`b) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the limitations of
`claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 21 of the 241 Patent
`The prior art discloses “prepending the MAC, network, and
`transport layer headers at one time as a sequence of bits ” (claim
`9)
`ii. The prior art discloses prepending each packet header
`without an interrupt dividing the prepending of the MAC, IP,
`and TCP headers (claim 17)
`iii. The prior art discloses dividing the data into multiple segments
`and prepending a packet header to each of the segments by a
`second processor/mechanism (claims 9 and 17)
`
`178
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claim 17
`
`Ex. 1001.143 (241 Patent), Claim 17.
`
`179
`
`
`
`The MAC header is part of the
`prepopulated header template
`
`MAC
`layer
`
`Network
`layer
`
`Transport
`layer
`
`Ex. 1005.007 (Erickson) Fig. 6;
`Paper 4 (241Petition) at 50-51.
`
`180
`
`
`
`There is “no reason to interrupt the
`processing of the host computer”
`
`Paper 11 (Institution Decision) at 19;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 14;
`Ex. 1223.016 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 31.
`
`181
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes (Transmit Claims)
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`b) Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 discloses the limitations of
`claims 9, 10-16, 17, 19-21, and 21 of the 241 Patent
`The prior art discloses “prepending the MAC, network, and
`transport layer headers at one time as a sequence of bits ” (claim
`9)
`The prior art discloses prepending each packet header without an
`interrupt dividing the prepending of the MAC, IP, and TCP headers
`(claim 17)
`iii. The prior art discloses dividing the data into multiple
`segments and prepending a packet header to each of the
`segments by a second processor/mechanism (claims 9 and
`17)
`
`182
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Claims 9, 17
`
`Ex. 1001.143 (241 Patent), Claims 9, 17.
`
`183
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches that its interface
`device stores and transmits user data
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 67;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 15-16;
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 7:39-41.
`
`184
`
`
`
`Erickson: Scripts executed by the
`adapter implement TCP/IP
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 73;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 15;
`Ex. 1005.011 (Erickson) at 5:47-51.
`
`185
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: TCP segments data
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 73;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 15-16;
`Ex. 1003.149 (Horst Decl.) at A-39;
`Ex. 1006.540 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 73;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply ) at 15-16;
`Ex. 1003.149 (Horst Decl.) at A-39;
`Ex. 1006.543 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`186
`
`
`
`Tanenbaum96: Transport entity may
`reside on network interface
`
`Paper 4 (241 Petition) at 39;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 10;
`Ex. 1003.150 (Horst Decl.) at A-40;
`Ex. 1006.498 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 10;
`Ex. 1003.152 (Horst Decl.) at A-42;
`Ex. 1006.530 (Tanenbaum96).
`
`187
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Alteon is Prior Art
`a) Alteon was available on Alteon.com before
`the priority date
`
`b) Alteon and Alteon.com were known to POSAs
`
`c)Patent Owner Submitted a Substantively
`Identical version of Alteon as Prior Art
`
`188
`
`
`
`Alteon was easily accessible from
`Alteon.com
`
`Ex. 1203.001 (Alteon Website);
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 3;
`Ex. 1223.015 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 26.
`
`189
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Alteon is Prior Art
`a) Alteon was available on Alteon.com before the
`priority date
`
`b) Alteon and Alteon.com were known to
`POSAs
`
`c)Patent Owner Submitted a Substantively
`Identical version of Alteon as Prior Art
`
`190
`
`
`
`Dr. Horst: Alteon was well known to
`POSAs
`
`Ex. 1223.014 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 28;
`Ex. 1220.006 (Networking Article);
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 4.
`
`191
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`3. Alteon is Prior Art
`a) Alteon was available on Alteon.com before the
`priority date
`
`b) Alteon and Alteon.com were known to POSAs
`
`c)Patent Owner Submitted a Substantively
`Identical version of Alteon as Prior Art
`
`192
`
`
`
`PO submitted a substantively identical
`version of Alteon as prior art
`
`Ex. 1033.017 (Alteon); Ex. 1221.002 (PO Submission);
`Ex. 1239.017 (Comparison); Ex. 1223.013-.014 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 27; Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 3-4.
`
`193
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motion to Amend 241 Patent should be denied
`a) Patent Owner does not show adequate
`written description support
`
`b) Substitute claims 25-32 (Receive) are obvious
`over Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and
`Alteon
`
`c) Substitute claims 33-48 (Transmit) are obvious
`over Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96
`
`194
`
`
`
`PO must supply written description support
`after Aqua Products
`
`Paper 54 (Sur-reply for Motion to Amend) at 2.
`
`195
`
`
`
`PO identifies same disclosure for every
`element without explanation
`
`Paper 25 (Motion to Amend) at
`Appendix A, p. i (emphasis added);
`Paper 40 (Opp. Motion to Amend) at 3.
`
`196
`
`
`
`Too late to provide written description
`support in reply
`
`• Patent Owner provides alleged “exemplary” written description
`support for the first time in its Reply
`
`Paper 46 (Reply ISO Motion to Amend) at 6;
`Ex. 2305.006 (Almeroth Decl. ISO Reply) at 6.
`
`197
`
`
`
`Written description support inadequate
`
`• Patent Owner’s identified
`support for sending data to
`a “destination in memory
`allocated to an application
`running on the host
`computer” is insufficient
`• The cited portions of the 878
`Application (Ex. 2021)
`contains no reference to the
`destination being allocated to
`an application
`
`Ex. 2021 (241 Application) at Fig. 3;
`Paper 54 (SurReply ISO Opp Motion to Amend) at 4-5;
`Paper 42 (Reply ISO Motion to Amend) at 3.
`
`198
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motion to Amend 241 Patent should be denied
`a) Patent Owner does not show adequate written
`description support
`
`b) Substitute claims 25-32 (Receive) are
`obvious over Erickson in view of
`Tanenbaum96 and Alteon
`
`c) Substitute claims 33-48 (Transmit) are obvious
`over Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96
`
`199
`
`
`
`New limitation requires that the headers are
`not sent to a host protocol stack
`
`Paper 25 (Motion to Amend) at
`Appendix A, p. i (emphasis added).
`
`200
`
`
`
`Erickson: Transfer of data without headers to
`the application
`
`Ex. 1005.005, .011 (Erickson) at Fig. 4; 5:6-14;
`Paper 4 (Petition) at 57.
`
`201
`
`
`
`241 Patent: Disputes
`
`4. Motion to Amend 241 Patent should be denied
`a) Patent Owner does not show adequate written
`description support
`
`b) Substitute claims 25-32 (Receive) are obvious
`over Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96 and
`Alteon
`
`c) Substitute claims 33-48 (Transmit) are
`obvious over Erickson in view of
`Tanenbaum96
`
`202
`
`
`
`New limitation requires dividing, prepending,
`and transmitting without an interrupt
`
`Paper 25 (Motion to Amend) at Appendix A, p. x, xii (emphasis added).
`
`203
`
`
`
`There is “no reason to interrupt the
`processing of the host computer”
`
`Paper 11 (Institution Decision) at 19;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 14;
`Ex. 1223.016 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶ 31.
`
`204
`
`
`
`The nextid() function does not require
`interrupts
`
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 7:50-65, 8:10-12;
`Ex. 1255 (Horst Amend SurReply Decl.) at ¶¶ 12-14;
`Paper 54 (SurReply Motion to Amend) at 10-11.
`
`205
`
`
`
`Erickson teaches the transfer to data
`without interrupts via polling
`
`“Incoming data is then written
`to the virtual memory and
`detected by polling or
`"snooping" hardware. The
`snooping hardware, after
`detecting the write to virtual
`registers, generates an
`exception for the system bus
`controller.”
`
`Ex. 1005.012 (Erickson) at 8:56-57;
`Ex. 1223.025-.026 (Horst Reply Decl.) at ¶¶ 50-52;
`Paper 45 (241 Reply) at 6;
`Paper 54 (SurReply ISO Mtn. to Amend) at 11.
`
`206
`
`