Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 83
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November 26, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, LLC, DELL INC., and
`WISTRON COPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-014061
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`____________
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed a petition in Case IPR2017-01707, was joined as
`a petitioner in this proceeding. Cavium, Inc. has now been converted to
`Cavium, LLC. Paper 78. Wistron Corporation, which filed a petition in
`Case IPR2018-00329, and Dell Inc., which filed a petition in Case
`IPR2018-00375, also have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November 26, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, LLC, DELL INC., and
`WISTRON COPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-014061
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`____________
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed a petition in Case IPR2017-01707, was joined as
`a petitioner in this proceeding. Cavium, Inc. has now been converted to
`Cavium, LLC. Paper 78. Wistron Corporation, which filed a petition in
`Case IPR2018-00329, and Dell Inc., which filed a petition in Case
`IPR2018-00375, also have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–21 (“the challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,673,072 B2 (“the ’072 patent,” Ex. 1001) under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319. Alacritech, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition
`and Preliminary Response, we instituted an inter partes review of all
`challenged claims. Paper 10 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec.”).
`Responsive to petitions and requests for joinder filed in IPR2017-01707,
`IPR2018-00329, and IPR2018-00375, we later joined Cavium, Inc. (now
`Cavium, LLC), Wistron Corp., and Dell, Inc., respectively, as petitioners in
`this proceeding. See Papers 15, 43, 51, 78. Intel Corporation, Cavium,
`LLC, Wistron Corp., and Dell, Inc. are identified herein collectively as
`“Petitioner.”
`Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Corrected Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 34, “Response” or “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a
`Reply (Paper 46, “Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a Contingent
`Motion to Amend (Paper 25, “Mot. Amend.”), to which Petitioner filed a
`Response (Paper 40, “Resp. Mot. Amend.”). Patent Owner filed a Reply to
`Petitioner’s Response (Paper 47, “Reply Mot. Amend.”), and Petitioner filed
`a Sur-reply (Paper 54, “Sur-reply Mot. Amend.”).
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 59), to which Patent
`Owner filed an Opposition (Paper 63), and Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Opposition (Paper 66).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 60), to which
`Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 64), and Patent Owner filed a Reply to
`Patent Owner’s Opposition (Paper 67).
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 32).
`Oral argument for this proceeding was held on September 13, 2018,
`and a transcript has been entered into the record as Paper 79 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). We base our decision on
`the preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`Having reviewed the arguments of the parties and the supporting
`evidence, we conclude, for the reasons that follow, that Petitioner has shown
`by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable. We also deny in part and dismiss in part Patent Owner’s
`Motion to Exclude, deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, deny Patent
`Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend; and grant Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Seal.
`
`
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`The parties indicate that the ’072 patent is asserted in Alacritech,
`Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Alacritech,
`Inc. v. Wistron Corp., 2:16-cv-00692-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); and Alacritech,
`Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.). Paper 75, 2; Paper
`76, 4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`
`B. The ’072 Patent
`
`The ’072 patent, titled “Fast-path Apparatus for Transmitting Data
`Corresponding to a TCP Connection,” describes “a device for processing
`network communication that greatly increases the speed of that processing
`and the efficiency of transferring data being communicated.” Ex. 1001,
`[54], 5:24–27. The processing “includes employing representative control
`instructions for a given message that allow data from the message to be
`processed via a fast-path” that “bypasses conventional protocol processing
`of headers that accompany the data.” Id. at 5:38–44.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent.
`Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
`matter:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`establishing, at a host computer, a transport layer
`connection, including creating a context that includes protocol
`header information for the connection;
`transferring the protocol header information to an interface
`device;
`transferring data from the network host to the interface
`device, after transferring the protocol header information to the
`interface device;
`dividing, by the interface device, the data into segments;
`creating headers for the segments, by the interface device,
`from a
`template header containing
`the protocol header
`information; and
`prepending the headers to the segments to form transmit
`packets.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`Ex. 1001, 97:17–31.
`
`D. Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 1–21 as unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Erickson2 and Tanenbaum,3 which was the only
`proposed challenge stated in the Petition. Pet. 14; Dec. 20.
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review instituted on a petition filed prior to
`November 13, 2018, we construe claim terms in an unexpired patent
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that it was unnecessary
`to provide an express construction of any claim term for purposes of
`institution of inter partes review. Dec. 8. The parties do not challenge that
`determination in their post-institution briefing, and we are not persuaded that
`any express construction is required for purposes of this Decision. See Vivid
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618, issued June 16, 1998 (“Erickson,” Ex. 1005).
`3 Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks (3d ed. 1996) (“Tanenbaum,”
`Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(explaining that only those terms that are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`B. Analysis of the Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`
`1. General Principles
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when presented, objective evidence of
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`2. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`(“POSA”) with respect to the technology described in the ’072 patent as of
`the October 14, 1997, filing date of the earliest provisional application from
`which the ’072 patent claims priority would be “a person with at least the
`equivalent of a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering or
`electrical engineering with at least five years of industry experience
`including experience in computer architecture, network design, network
`protocols, software development, and hardware development.” Pet. 27.
`Patent Owner proposes a slightly different assessment (i.e., “a person with a
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or the
`equivalent, and several years’ experience in the fields of computer
`networking and/or networking protocols”), but argues that “[a]ny differences
`between this and Petitioners’ proposed level of ordinary skill would have no
`bearing on the analysis presented.” PO Resp. 23. To the extent necessary
`for purposes of this Decision, we have adopted Patent Owner’s assessment.
`3. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`a. Overview of Erickson
`Erickson is directed to a “method of controlling an input/output (I/O)
`device connected to a computer to facilitate fast I/O data transfers.”
`Ex. 1005, Abstract. Figure 3 of Erickson is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts data flow in accordance with Erickson’s invention. As
`shown in Figure 3, slow application 306 uses normal stream processing 308
`and pass-through driver 310 to send information to I/O device adapter 314
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`and then to commodity interface 322. Id. at 4:53–61. Alternatively, fast
`applications 302 and 304 send information directly to I/O adapter 314 via
`setup driver 312 or “virtual hardware” 316 and 318, avoiding the overhead
`of the streams processing and pass-through driver. Id. at 4:61–5:3.
`b. Overview of Tanenbaum
`Tanenbaum is a book that describes general principles, as well as
`detailed aspects, of data transmission in computer networks, including
`TCP/IP and UDP/IP protocols. See generally Ex. 1006.
`4. Discussion – Differences Between the Claimed Subject Matter
`and the Prior Art
`Having reviewed the Petition, Response, and Reply, as well as the
`presented evidence, we determine, for the reasons that follow, that Petitioner
`has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged
`claims are unpatentable on the asserted ground.
`a. Independent Claim 1
`Petitioner contends claims 1–21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Erickson and Tanenbaum.
`Pet. 38–76. As set forth in more detail below, Petitioner relies on Erickson
`as teaching or suggesting all limitations recited in independent claim 1, with
`the exception of “dividing . . . data into segments” and creating headers “for
`the segments,” which limitations Petitioner contends are disclosed by
`Erickson in view of Tanenbaum. Id. at 38–50. Petitioner relies on the
`testimony of Dr. Robert Horst to support its contentions regarding how the
`cited references describe the claim limitations. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`In its Response, Patent Owner raises two principal arguments with
`respect to Petitioner’s contentions: first, that the combination of Erickson
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`and Tanenbaum does not show or suggest “dividing, by the interface device,
`the data into segments”; and second, that there is no motivation to combine
`Erickson and Tanenbaum. PO Resp. 24–33, 35–56 (emphases omitted).
`Patent Owner relies on the testimony of Dr. Kevin Almeroth in support of its
`arguments. Id. (citing Ex. 2026).
`We address the parties’ contentions with respect to each limitation of
`claim 1 in turn below.
`“A method comprising: establishing, at a host computer, a
`transport layer connection, including creating a context that
`includes protocol header information for the connection”
`Petitioner persuasively contends Erickson discloses an I/O device
`adapter 314 is connected to a host computer and that a user process running
`on the host computer establishes a “transport layer connection.” Pet. 38
`(citing Ex. 1005, 1:65–67, 6:1–9; Ex. 1003, Appendix A § 1.1). Petitioner
`further contends the user process creates a “context” by “opening a device
`driver and specifying the protocol type (e.g., UDP or TCP).” Id. at 39–40
`(citing Ex. 1005, 6:1–9, 8:2–9). According to Petitioner, the created context
`“includes protocol header information,” as the claim requires, because it is
`described as “including ‘almost everything’ concerning a UDP datagram
`‘except the actual user data.’” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1005, 6:57–7:4).
`Furthermore, Petitioner contends, the context is “for the connection,”
`because it discloses TCP scripts which are inherently connection oriented.
`Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003, Appendix A § 1.1). We agree.
`Patent Owner does not raise any counterarguments or point to any
`contrary evidence with respect to this limitation, and we are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s arguments and cited evidence that the limitation is taught by
`Erickson.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`
`“transferring the protocol header information to an interface
`device”
`Petitioner persuasively contends Erickson I/O device adapter 314 is
`the claimed “interface device.” Pet. 41. Petitioner also contends that
`Erickson’s datagram template 702 in the I/O device adapter’s memory,
`comprises protocol header information that was transferred to the I/O device
`adapter from the host computer. Id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:39–41,
`5:37–51, 8:2–4).
`Patent Owner does not raise any counterarguments or point to any
`contrary evidence with respect to this limitation, and we are persuaded by
`Petitioner’s arguments and cited evidence that the limitation is taught by
`Erickson.
`“transferring data from the network host to the interface
`device, after transferring the protocol header information to the
`interface device”
`Petitioner persuasively contends that in Erickson, data is transferred
`from the host to the interface device, after transferring the protocol header
`information to the interface device, because template 702 resides in the
`adapter’s memory before the script is executed to store data in the I/O device
`adapter’s memory. Id. at 42–43 (quoting Ex. 1005, 7:39–48 (“FIG. 7 is a
`block diagram illustrating a UDP datagram template 702 (without a user data
`area) residing in the I/O device adapter’s memory. . . . The I/O device
`adapter stores the user data provided by the user process in the I/O device
`adapter’s memory, and then transmits the completed UDP datagram 702
`over the media.”).
`Patent Owner does not raise any counterarguments or point to any
`contrary evidence with respect to this limitation, and we are persuaded by
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`Petitioner’s arguments and cited evidence that the limitation is taught by
`Erickson.
`“dividing, by the interface device, the data into segments”
`Petitioner contends Erickson in combination with Tanenbaum
`discloses this limitation. Pet. 43. We are persuaded, for the reasons stated
`below, by Petitioner’s contentions. As Petitioner persuasively contends,
`although Erickson’s exemplary context is UDP, it also discloses the use of
`TCP, refers readers to the 1981 edition of Tanenbaum, and discloses use of
`TCP/IP scripts. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:38–43); id. at 44 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 5:47–51). Petitioner provides persuasive evidence that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement “fast path”
`TCP/IP on Erickson’s I/O device adapter in view of the 1996 version of
`Tanenbaum (i.e., Ex. 1006) with a high expectation of success to take
`advantage of TCP/IP’s popularity for Internet and World Wide Web
`processing. Id. at 35–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–148).
`Petitioner further contends that Tanenbaum discloses that TCP/IP data
`is exchanged in segments. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1006, 525 (“The sending and
`receiving TCP entities exchange data in the form of segments.”), 522 (“A
`TCP entity accepts user data streams from local processes, breaks them up
`into pieces . . . and sends each piece as a separate IP datagram.”)).4 We
`agree. Petitioner also persuasively contends that the “transport entity, which
`does the dividing, can be on a network interface card (network interface
`device).” Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1006, 480). According to Petitioner,
`
`
`4 We refer to the original page numbering in Tanenbaum, not the exhibit
`page numbers added by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`
`A POSA would know how to modify Erickson’s UDP
`script (udpscript at Ex.1005, Erickson at 7:51-64) so that, rather
`than filling in the UDP Length and Checksum shown in
`Erickson, the modified script would fill in the TCP Sequence
`number, Length and Checksum. This script involves minimal
`changes from the UDP script. Ex.1003, Horst Decl. Appendix A
`limitation 1.4. The “dividing, by the interface device, the data
`into segments” limitation is met by the foregoing obvious TCP
`script for Erickson. Erickson’s senduserdatagram (Ex.1005,
`Erickson at 7:23-32) user process triggers the I/O device adapter
`to send each segment, by “spanking” the GO register. The
`adapter calculates the TCP checksum, transmits the packet,
`updates the shared state in Hardware Register 504, and waits for
`GO to be set again for the next segment. Repeated invocations
`of the TCP script (by repeatedly spanking the GO register) with
`pointers to data for consecutive segments result in the interface
`device dividing the user data stream into TCP segments.
`Pet. 44–45. Petitioner contends other TCP scripts would also have been
`obvious modifications to Erickson. Id. at 45–46 (citing Ex. 1003,
`Appendix A § 1.4).
`Patent Owner advances various arguments as to why the proposed
`combination does not teach “dividing, by the interface device, the data into
`segments” or teaches away from such a combination.
`First, Patent Owner contends “Tanenbaum and Erickson both perform
`data division (or segmentation) on the host, and neither one suggests
`segmentation being performed on the NIC.” PO Resp. 24. According to
`Patent Owner, “Erickson’s I/O device adapter receives and operates on
`single UDP datagrams and has no need to further divide the datagrams into
`segments.” Id. at 25. Additionally, Patent Owner contends, “Erickson’s
`pseudocode procedures that prepare a UDP datagram for transmission
`require the memory address and length of the user data to be provided as two
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`parameters.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 at 7:21–8:2; Ex. 2028 at 120:7–123:7).
`“As such,” Patent Owner asserts, “it is clear that the both the
`senduserdatagram() and udpscript() procedures in Erickson operate on a
`single UDP datagram only,” and “[t]here is no built-in functionality within
`Erickson’s I/O device adaptor for dividing a large block of user data into
`multiple segments.” Id. (citing Ex. 2026 ¶ 91).
`Further, Patent Owner contends, whereas Petitioner alleges that the
`combination of Tanenbaum and Erickson discloses this limitation because
`Tanenbaum describes a TCP entity that can accept user data streams and
`break them up into pieces, the traditional TCP functionality described by
`Tanenbaum occurs completely on the host and not on the network interface
`device.” Id. at 25–26 (citing Pet. 43–44; Ex. 2026 ¶ 92). While recognizing
`that Tanenbaum discloses that the transport entity “can be . . . on the
`network interface card,” Patent Owner contends that statement “refers to
`transport entities as a generic class, and is not specific to any particular
`protocol” and “does not necessarily apply to the TCP entity that Petitioner
`relies on for Tanenbaum’s disclosure of dividing data into segments.” Id.
`at 26 (citing Ex. 1006, 480, 522). To the contrary, Patent Owner contends,
`“when discussing the TCP entity, Tanenbaum expressly states that it is
`‘either a user process or part of the kernel that manages TCP streams and
`interfaces to the IP layer’—both of which refer to processes on the host, not
`a separate network interface.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 522). According to
`Patent Owner, “[t]his makes sense in view of Tanenbaum’s later discussion
`of Fast TPDU processing, in which Tanenbaum explains that offloading
`transport protocol processing for complex protocols such as TCP/IP is
`difficult and does not make sense.” Id. at 26–27 (citing Ex. 1005, 570–71;
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`Ex. 2026 ¶ 94). Thus, at best, Patent Owner concludes, the combination of
`Erickson and Tanenbaum “shows traditional segmentation by the host
`protocol stack and then the prepending of a single header to a single UDP
`datagram,” as “there is not mechanism for dividing data segments in
`Erickson’s I/O device, nor is one disclosed in Tanenbaum that would
`function on a network interface.” Id. at 28 (emphases omitted) (citing
`Ex. 2026 ¶ 96).
`Second, Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s argument Erickson could
`have been modified to implement certain scripts that would perform the
`claimed dividing operation “relies entirely on the conclusory opinions of
`Petitioner’s expert,” as “[i]t is undisputed that neither Erickson nor
`Tanenbaum disclose the scripts that Dr. Horst alleges would have been
`obvious to those of ordinary skill.” Id. at 29 (citing Pet. 44–46). According
`to Patent Owner, Petitioner “cannot rely on the purported knowledge of one
`of ordinary skill to fill-in the gaps and allege that entire limitations not
`disclosed the prior art would have been obvious to add.” Id. at 30. Patent
`Owner contends such argument “should be procedurally barred under
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b), which limits inter partes review to ‘ground[s] that could
`be raised under 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of
`patents or printed publications.” Id. at 30–31. And “even assuming
`arguendo that Dr. Horst’s scripts are not strictly a product of hindsight
`reconstruction,” Patent Owner contends, “a POSA would nevertheless have
`had no motivation to implement them with Erickson’s adapter,” because the
`scripts “would have defeated the stated purpose of Erickson” and “Dr. Horst
`admitted in his deposition that his scripts would require multiple DMA
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`transfers requiring repeated access to the I/O bus.” Id. at 32 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 41:37–40; Ex. 2029, 99:14–100:2).
`Third, Patent Owner contends that, not only does the combination of
`Erickson and Tanenbaum not disclose an interface device being able to
`divide data into segments, it teaches away from an interface having such a
`separate processor. PO Resp. 35–55. While acknowledging Petitioner’s
`arguments regarding similarities between UDP and TCP, as well as
`Tanenbaum’s disclosure of a fast-path procedure for TCP, Erickson’s
`reference to the 1981 version of Tanenbaum, and the growing popularity of
`TCP/IP in the mid-1990s, Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art “would never have combined these references for a plurality
`of reasons, none of which are addressed in the Petition.” Id. at 35.
`According to Patent Owner, Tanenbaum “expressly teaches away
`from the use of a separate device, such as Erickson’s I/O adapter, for TCP/IP
`protocol processing.” Id. at 35–36. Indeed, Patent Owner contends,
`Tanenbaum “goes so far as to characterize the notion that processing should
`be offloaded as a “‘myth’” and “goes even further, expressly teaching that
`faster processing can be achieved by making the protocol simply, and
`having the main CPU do the work”:
`Furthermore, when two general-purpose CPUs communicate,
`race conditions can occur, so elaborate protocols are needed
`between the two processors to synchronize them correctly[.]
`Usually, the best approach is to make the protocols simple and
`have the main CPU do the work.
`PO Resp. 36–37 (quoting Ex. 1006, 570–71). Patent Owner contends,
`“Tanenbaum cites to the ‘race conditions’ created by offloading ‘elaborate
`protocols,’ but offers no solution to this problem, a fact Petitioner’s own
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`expert agrees with.” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 2029, 24:24–25:8, 25:12–14,
`26:18–19). “Nor would one of ordinary skill in the art understand how to
`offload based on Tanenbaum’s disclosure,” according to Patent Owner, and
`“Tanenbaum explicitly discloses that TCP transport entities are implemented
`in ‘a user process or part of the kernel that manages TCP streams and
`interfaces to the IP Layer’—both of which are host processes, i.e., both
`occur on the host cpu, not a network interface.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 2026
`¶ 110; Ex. 1006, 522). Moreover, Patent Owner contends, “Petitioner
`provides no explanation as to how, or indeed, why a POSA would have
`modified Tanenbaum in such a way.” Id.
`Further, according to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art “would never have combined Tanenbaum with Erickson because the
`references are completely different, and technically incompatible,” insofar as
`“Erickson is directed to a UDP implementation, in contrast to Tanenbaum’s
`TCP/IP implementation.” Id. at 39. Patent Owner contends the “differences
`between UDP and TCP would require a POSA ‘to fundamentally redesign
`Erickson to include functionality not discussed in either reference.’” Id.
`at 40 (quoting Ex. 2026 ¶ 111). Further, Patent Owner contends, a POSA
`would not even know how to modify Erickson’s I/O device adapter to
`support TCP. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶ 113).
`Still further, Patent Owner contends, Tanenbaum does not include an
`express motivation to combine the cited references. Id. at 42. Specifically,
`Patent Owner asserts, Erickson cites the 1981 edition of Tanenbaum for a
`reason unrelated to protocol offload, and “a POSA would not have incentive
`to pick specific, unrelated parts of Tanenbaum and combine it with Erickson,
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`particularly in view of Tanenbaum’s teaching away from offloading for
`TCP/IP.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 2026 ¶ 114).
`Patent Owner additionally contends that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining
`Tanenbaum with Erickson (id. at 43–44); that Petitioner “mischaracterize[s]
`the purported similarities between Erickson and Tanenbaum” (id. at 45); that
`the complexities of the technology weigh against combining Erickson and
`Tanenbaum (id. at 46–49); that marketplace demands discouraged offloading
`TCP/IP protocol processing (id. at 49–51); and that combining Erickson with
`Tanenbaum would have the increased complexity of Erickson’s I/O adapter,
`including by increasing I/O bus access and requiring additional logic (id.
`at 51–55).
`In its Reply, Petitioner responds that Erickson explicitly states its
`invention can be used with TCP/IP and describes Tanenbaum as a source of
`information about TCP/IP, and that both TCP and UDP were designed to be
`alternative transport protocols for the Internet Protocol.” Pet. Reply 1–2.
`According to Petitioner, TCP and UDP were the “two main protocols”
`designed to operate over IP; were known alternatives; both were cited by
`Erickson; and Tanenbaum discussed both protocols at length. Id. at 1–3
`(citing Ex. 1005, 8:4–6 (“There are different scripts for different types of
`datagrams 702 (e.g., UDP or TCP).”); Ex. 1006, 521; Ex. 1003 ¶ 109;
`Ex. 1223 ¶¶ 24–25, 30). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s arguments
`that differences between UDP and TCP would require a “fundamental[]
`redesign” contradict Erickson’s express disclosure that it supports TCP by
`means of a TCP script. Id. at 3. Petitioner argues that Tanenbaum does not
`teach away from the invention and that Patent Owner’s argument is based on
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`the false premise that Tanenbaum is the base reference for the combination,
`whereas Petitioner’s combination is the use of Tanenbaum’s TCP fast-path
`processing to implement TCP processing for Erickson’s adapter. Id. at 5–6
`(citing PO Resp. 38; Pet. 38–76).
`Addressing the portion of Tanenbaum cited by Patent Owner as
`teaching away, Petitioner contends, “[a]t most, Tanenbaum[] 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 simple,” but “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. at 6–7 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 570–71). Further, Petitioner asserts, Tanenbaum “states that while
`‘in the ESTABLISHED state’ TCP processing is ‘straightforward,’ not
`complex.” Id. at 7 (quoting Ex. 1006, 565–66).
`With respect to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the “dividing”
`limitation, Petitioner argues those fail as a matter of law and also are wrong
`on the facts. Pet. Reply 14–15. First, Petitioner contends, Patent Owner
`attacks the prior art references individually and in isolation, rather than
`addressing the combination identified by Petitioner. Id. (citing PO
`Resp. 24–33; In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
`Further, Petitioner contends, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, “the
`Federal Circuit has been clear that it is appropriate to rely on expert
`testimony about ordinary skill in the art in determining obviousness.” Id.
`at 18 (citing Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. LP v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc.,
`825 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Second, Petitioner contends, Patent
`Owner’s arguments are factually incorrect because “dividing . . . into
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`segments” is required by TCP, as a connection-oriented protocol that accepts
`an arbitrarily long stream of data and transports it in packets (i.e., “TCP
`segments”) of a fixed maximum length. Id. at 15 (citing Pet. 43). Petitioner
`points out that “Patent Owner . . . does not argue that, if a POSA were to
`implement Tanenbaum[]’s TCP/IP processing on Erickson’s adapter, this
`limitation would not be met,” and “[t]here is . . . no dispute that if
`Tanenbaum[]’s fast TCP/IP protocol processing were performed by
`Erickson’s network interface device, the combination would meet the
`limitation of ‘dividing, by the interface device, the data into segments,’” as
`argued in the Petition. Id. (citing Pet. 43–46; Ex. 1003, Appendix A § 1.4).
`Indeed, Petitioner argues, “Erickson explicitly teaches that TCP/IP
`could be implemented on Erickson’s adapter,” and a “POSA would certainly
`have had more than a reasonable expectation of success in implementing
`Erickson’s TCP/IP scripts based on Tanenbaum[] (e.g., using freely
`available TCP segmentation source code, which would result in Erickson’s
`adapter ‘dividing, by the network interface device, the data into segments’ as
`claimed.” Id. (citing Ex. Pet. 18, 43–46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 140, Appendix A § 1.4).
`Regarding Patent Owner’s argument that the proposed scripts would
`“require repetition, creating undesirable I/O bus access that would slow
`down Erickson’s system” (PO Resp. 32), Petitioner contends Patent Owner
`is incorrect because “no extra data movement across the I/O bus is required”
`for “both the UDP script and the exemplar TCP scripts.” Pet. Reply 17
`(citing Ex. 1223 ¶ 46). Furthermore, Petitioner contends, Dr. Almeroth
`conceded on cross-examination that it would be within the abilities of a
`POSA to put a loop around the “senduserdatagram” code in Erickson, which
`“would have resulted in the GO bit being repeatedly spanked,” contrary to
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01406
`Patent 7,673,072 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s argument. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1224, 85:23–87:6;
`Ex. 1003, Appendix A § 1.4).
`After full consideration of the parties’ respective arguments and
`evidence, we are persuaded, for the reasons stated by Petitioner and
`discussed above, th
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
