Patent Owner Plectrum LLC
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Plectrum LLC
`Case: IPR2017-01430
`Patent 5,978,951
`
`Oral Hearing August 2, 2018
`
`1
`
`

`

`Outline
`
`• ‘951 Patent Background
`
`• Cheriton
`
`• Grounds 1, 2, and 3 – “Row” Limitations of Claims 1, 2, and 21
`
`• Grounds 3 and 4 – Rationale for Combining Cheriton And Jain
`References
`
`2
`
`

`

`‘951 Patent Background
`
`‘951 Patent Background
`
`3
`
`

`

`‘951 Patent Background
`
`/’\
`
`‘951 Patent Background
`
`mums-main
`
`United States Patent
`\|~l|
`|l||
`I'ulunt NumbL-r:
`5,978,951
`
`Luwler cl aL
`MI
`11m Inf Patent:
`”0“: 2.1999
`
`sxnu‘x Mm Held-(NI.
`sauum
`IuALHr MAM mm mm
`ukllxmknn
`Prmlrln J' nmmwi—mealmd \ MuHL
`
`
`Ammm- Ayn-w. "1' [Tm—M gum". S‘murgin. (:wunin
`
`Immum ('IIIIsIIherEIaWIur.WuI)un I:
`sun-mun Q. Hi". Wcmum, Ilulrld
`
`MES”Int—1'
`I
`”Winn Immm “mm/L
`ling” ,wum..r..u ”lulll \
`
`A maul and mm.- mauugcmml r.» :1 mm; w hIiclgc
`HEWKMM mm." M, mm.
`rimmn, mm |.. Van Nam, cm»;
`nmlorpnm-Mmghlghrsp-JWIflcxmlwdc‘m-nxaitw mm»
`allrll Mm
`.m. I“...
`mmu...rk.u1.a..m.m ”Hm“;
`
`l:_\\.12 and mm 3 mu. m:
`«mun max hr
`u\ and fn||UlI\ ”mm uuxh
`
`m] Amy“ .‘Anm Cil'pornlinn, 51mm < lxm‘ um
`rum-[Ix m uni: “Mum an immune mmimng unwumil
`
`mznipulmilm m m. mm ml .Igu mm. .md mm”;
`I3|l A”) mum-uym
`hILJ.
`
`
`
`
`[54] HIGH SPEED CACHE MANAGEMENT UNIT
`FOR USE IN A BRIDGE/ROUTER
`
`-
`,
`.
`.
`[73] ASSlgIlBB. 3Com Corporatlon, Santa Clara, Callf.
`
`[21] App1.N0.:08f927,336
`
`[22] Wed:
`
`Sep. 11, 1997
`
`4
`
`m W m“:
`““1"”
`“I mm“ mm.“
`
`[m 1mm; flIrWunhug nu- mm
`'
`'
`mm fiufliuminmmunuwnwnh‘ um mummmwm-mm
`ugly... A cyclic l::\unian‘.y wt 1:». mar. xlmu m Im
`
`Imkm up
`II“ hull mml .mnuxlummm mm H
`,
`_
`‘
`
`us! nnmmlmm mm mmrrmam um.»m.|.<‘n(‘
`"‘“mmw‘”
`In“ (an N ILK'I'UH" Iu
`”\th.
`\IIVIh-Nlluxl ”Em. L‘trlllp
`N1 DUL‘UMLNJ‘
`
`
`
`
`.Im puma Id. rem (mm; Mm»- luukup «on
`In mm.5:
`(Immmx.
`H Y
`|.
`-
`I n:u:n\.|l mlwmk 'Ihler In an
`
`ad.
`'w mama n...“ w “Imam mm m
`‘ mm m
`Ull‘lp‘
`HUI-H mm ullnl.
`=‘xlnr‘5-a
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`ZEl'hIilms lllh'nvlngfihn‘lu
`'.‘|L II)?
`{TONI MINE Vamitl 1‘
`
`‘13}
`
`
`
`
`
`mm ”MEIER F’ 2::
`
`1m
`
`
`T
`{nu
`“2
`““5“?“
`
`
`
`
`:05 rma
`14r~~mn
`~ fifimfi}
`WW
`”ch
`— REGISTERFILE
`I
`
`
`
`
`I- Wm1:53 W 1m.--
`
`
`
`M3;
`“”3
`L'“ "47% r-
`LSSEKG’E
`:
`‘
`
`
`mc— - J ‘
`j ”'1’:
`I
`{“28
`
`333:}
`‘4— mm:
`‘-'
`=
`IADORESS
`3
`‘Lk £3ng “:
`—-
`ASSEMBLY
`1 CACHE
`‘
`:
`Lozengewwj
`'
`my I
`NT‘CP
`
`U ‘1‘ 9
`
`12-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`&
`
`25
`
`
`
`

`

`‘951 Patent Background
`
`‘951 Patent Background
`
`
`
`30
`
`FRAME
`PROCESSOR
`
`
`
`
`1 2D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MED—“3305:1312
`THE
`
`112
`
`
`
`INTFC INPUT
`
`
`REGISTER FILE
`
`
`
`INT FC OUTPUT
`
`
`
`
`
`LREGISTER FILE
`LDOKUP
`
`
`
`
`OUEUE
`
`114
`
`
`
`OUTPUT
`
`CACHE
`
`ADDRESS
`PACKET
`
`
`LOOKUP
`A8 SEMB LY
`CACHE
`
`
`CONTRU LLE R
`
`_________J
`CACHE LOOKUP UNITT
`
`5
`
`I |
`
`122
`
`

`

`Cheriton
`
`Cheriton
`
`6
`
`

`

`Cheriton
`
`Cheriton
`
` 1| MI‘T I I1 FflR MFFIC MAMGEMFN'I',
`”I'MI" II'.' Pltllllil1'lil'.-1'l‘|(fl.. ACCESS
`
`15.
`'INI'HI'IIHANIHMEHIH'FHRWARIHN“ [N
`n mmm mm“m
`
`,
`,
`M“ WW”
`
`
`Mun N r rm: II
`-mu._ m1 (JD-J
`
`
`
`
`/wlll
`
`/flil'fl Put-I
`aim
`
`.
`
`I
`
`flmm mm
`
`1| WWI ma
`
`PM .0 ELIH.”
`FM fill: ”DU
`
`
`
`m su In;
`F935
`
`
`
`_
`
`_
`
`am Rim? (’LI
`.
`ms mm»:
`H “m!
`EFIJ [M
`l‘n‘fm HOCT L0
`Sta-mm W1
`
`11D PIER
`
`E11131.“ tPl'
`IKE MI W
`
`PIE»! KEEN.-
`fifln: [LEI
`:1th J‘![|1 I'hTh‘
`
`F mam
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[1's]
`
`
`
`IIII\IIIIIIIIIIUJIMQLIAI I IIIHI
`United States Patent m]
`w] PalentNumhcr:
`6.091.725
`
`\“I Date of | aunt:
`'JuL 18. 1000
`Cllen‘toll (:1 III.
`0mm PUR[[(‘AI10NS
`L5H m, mm H»: IRAHIC MAM
`
`
`‘
`11m u I-mnnm .ATHIMAC
`\MLham SmlLingleau and ('vmpu\crE'ommuni/mkmm’l"
`CONTROL Ah 1 IA KliT MIRWARDIM.
`.11. Puma: um umr WI: Rmr, .‘lvm kw}
`A mmGRAM LOMI’LTHR N WORK
`luwunm mud R.Clm1|nn. Animus“.
`'M Nmn nix am. vmm WAN MM. 01wa
`
`vanm “mum Groun m't‘ liSl. Kw. Inna.»
`Ikcllmlshrllu. ham at Palm Nm‘ (an
`m Mum: Cinl hymn», m. 5... low. um.
`{I H WWW“ mm W)
`t’n'mnrj' anmmell—Min Jung
`\‘IN
`IM mm mm‘ m » mumml rm Anw'ne)‘. Age)”. 4r l'Frm—Ohhn. Syn-1k, Mcflclland‘
`um... urnlu 1m v
`mm. a. Nunladl, w"
`'
`_
`
`[53(d].iml'mml\
`V
`mm mm pm on: nf
`.
`IW
`usnmu
`
`”Wt“-
`nm mmm mum .n mhanud dnlsg
`mammal wmwwrmlwfls. nu mwminn pm:
`
`scrumw mm
`MWzlmnyampathclsmncmsmxlwnt
`
`mm mm. wurm-dnlimhunaddnxxpn' Mmdihgllm
`[2|] App]. No" Magma
`pukfl MA rerL mum-«wit ununmmlmdmmg. any;
`[33] “N "m 2,. 1”!
`a wgwpled mm The llmocumg
`Ilm n! Amy-m;
`
`
`mm INSG
`uxh Huw mm mm
`,
`um flul m n: 's'mul'lul
`v
`
`,
`,
`31w'nzu70-191371mn
`numgumun.
`flow m/umL. pkkck ram-«um
`my.
`mnim], and mhu nmwm'k managemm m m. 1m
`,
`
`
`
`jmjjsbgjgb m, nu
`al’ulny m mmml nflwurk mm. m l wrnw ham "Hum
`
`“1; Mn 1
`
`wulr mg ml; law we“,‘ w. W, ,m [m m [mam mum.““r mumx mm. .19. M L n. lug-mu unlipll‘u
`
`New” um
`mum. invmumg vldsn and muhimulm «arm n..-
`NJ
`amuum ul nun“ mwumu» and handwmm ”mum:
`LL; PM aw IJUK‘UML-N rs
`a...“ m ml, [law m. u mum, u mHLd h,
`
`
`m mmm:
`mm“. 1a m: dynmm “9mm. M \lx.
`m2 ”awn
`fluwud. m
`mm.» m Iv mm bawd (In “m1
`umm). m
`mu WWI-m-
`mm In
`Inillm and m mun nmmunlulud m
`
`
`
`
`“mum mun ”WWW
`9mm” compumnnwml: wh' m «and; mmm]
`mm mm“. m on.
`
`
`
`Ingbflvmurl m. mm); mm m m nvlwurk m wrr nm N dauyam 9mm cmcrlng m. mm”: m Inm-
`mu mm...‘ m, mmmpuumn h n um.“ mm mm
`mm mm. moi.
`
`mm BWmIMme' m. L‘Imnhhn ml um]
`‘I‘m I-uwsm m uu‘.
`
`ma mmLM Imam-1m: m-mmn Mm u mu. m
`le Imm- M "N-
`1’3:-
`mqmm m1} Lhmgc». m vxmmg mlwurt pmumw m»
`wrm,. wuu.
`
`mu whmmm
`
`Myrh-Iwu mws wax:
`SCIIInsfiDuMIIgSMQIi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Cheriton
`
`Cheriton
`
`mam PH 910::
`
`[5311]
`
`
`
`1.I'IFETLlIiL PATH
`REDS?) DATA EIUS
`
`8
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Conclusory Explanation
`Regarding “Row” Limitations Is Deficient
`
`9
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Conclusory Explanation
`Regarding “Row” Limitations Is Deficient
`
`Partial Institution Decision (p. 14)
`
`10
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Conclusory Explanation
`Regarding “Row” Limitations Is Deficient
`
`Decision Denying Request For Rehearing (p. 4)
`
`11
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Conclusory Explanation
`Regarding “Row” Limitations Is Deficient
`
`June 6, 2018 Order (p. 6)
`
`12
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Conclusory Explanation
`Regarding “Row” Limitations Is Deficient
`
`In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
`2016)
`
`13
`
`

`

`The Seshan Declaration Does Not Cure The
`Petition’s Conclusory Explanation
`• Seshan Declaration (¶ 62)
`
`14
`
`

`

`The Seshan Declaration Does Not Cure The
`Petition’s Conclusory Explanation
`• Seshan Declaration (¶ 87)
`
`15
`
`

`

`The Seshan Declaration Does Not Cure The
`Petition’s Conclusory Explanation
`• Seshan Declaration (¶ 88)
`
`16
`
`

`

`The Seshan Declaration Does Not Cure The
`Petition’s Conclusory Explanation
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v Societa Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dell ‘Elettronica
`S.P.A., IPR2017-00565, Paper No. 13 at 13 (June 15, 2017 Decision)
`
`17
`
`

`

`The Seshan Declaration Repeats, Verbatim,
`The Conclusory Paragraphs Of The Petition
`Petition
`Seshan Declaration
`
`18
`
`

`

`The Seshan Declaration Repeats, Verbatim,
`The Conclusory Paragraphs Of The Petition
`Petition (p. 23)
`Seshan Declaration (¶ 62)
`
`19
`
`

`

`The Seshan Declaration Repeats, Verbatim,
`The Conclusory Paragraphs Of The Petition
`Petition (p. 30)
`Seshan Declaration (¶ 87)
`
`20
`
`

`

`The Seshan Declaration Repeats, Verbatim,
`The Conclusory Paragraphs Of The Petition
`Petition (p. 30-31)
`Seshan Declaration (¶ 88)
`
`21
`
`

`

`The Seshan Declaration Repeats, Verbatim,
`The Conclusory Paragraphs Of The Petition
`Petition (p. 31)
`Seshan Declaration (¶¶ 88-89)
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Supplemental Reply May Not Present
`Arguments That Are Not In The Petition
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23
`
`Freightcar America, Inc. v. National Steel Car, Ltd., IPR2016-
`00788, Sept. 25, 2017 Final Written Decision at 18-19.
`
`23
`
`

`

`As Admitted By Petitioner, The Petition Does Not
`Propose Modifying Cheriton
`
`Request For Rehearing at 11-12.
`
`24
`
`

`

`Arguments In Petitioner’s Supplemental
`Reply That Are Not In The Petition
`
`Supplemental Reply (p. 3-4)
`
`25
`
`

`

`Arguments In Petitioner’s Supplemental
`Reply That Are Not In The Petition
`
`Supplemental Reply (p. 5)
`
`26
`
`

`

`Arguments In Petitioner’s Supplemental
`Reply That Are Not In The Petition
`
`Supplemental Reply (p. 7, 8)
`
`27
`
`

`

`Even If Considered, Arguments In Petitioner’s
`Supplemental Reply Are Unpersuasive
`
`Supplemental Reply at 2-3.
`
`28
`
`

`

`Even If Considered, Arguments In Petitioner’s
`Supplemental Reply Are Unpersuasive
`
`Supplemental Reply at 4.
`
`29
`
`

`

`Even If Considered, Arguments In Petitioner’s
`Supplemental Reply Are Unpersuasive
`
`Seshan Declaration at ¶ 62.
`
`30
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Insufficient Rationale For
`Combining Cheriton And Jain
`
`31
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Insufficient Rationale For
`Combining Cheriton And Jain
`
`Petition (p. 58)
`
`32
`
`

`

`The Petition’s Insufficient Rationale For
`Combining Cheriton And Jain
`
`Patent Owner Response at 6.
`
`33
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply May Not Present Arguments
`That Are Not In The Petition
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23
`
`Freightcar America, Inc. v. National Steel Car, Ltd., IPR2016-
`00788, Sept. 25, 2017 Final Written Decision at 18-19.
`
`34
`
`

`

`Reply
`
`Reply Vs. Petition
`Petition
`
`Reply Vs. Petition
`
`Petition
`Reply
`
`_—/1
`_/’|
`
`mama's Reply haw all'cn'linn
`IPItlm? 0H”
`
`
`
`
`
`DEERET NC; El ”MI-ls
`fiIqun bchlfol U-ifird hum: Im:.
`By:
`DIVI'I‘I L. (1va lug. Na. 3037!}
`DII'GI V. WIIiIIIs. Rag. Nu. 15£2I
`MW .'|. Law. Egg. Na. 55.?”
`WiImflCnflfl Pickling Ilaklld DolrLLf
`um Pcllllyluni: Aw. Nw
`Wallimglm. IX' mom
`Tel 1m: M] m
`Emil. .m'ul uranlushfil wilmfilulc am
`Roda-I Mama-pm. Eng. NA «2.43:
`Imam 24mm. «3.1% 71.5":
`Unified Honk
`
`lulsi'mu-fi
`Ave. NW. I-‘Ium II'I
`wmummlx.m
`
`Tel NE! 915 310.11
`E
`«haw mn'fiulpuwm..um
`Emu J“
`“if
`“nu"
`UNITED STATES PRTEN‘I' ANIJ 'I'MDEMRKK (I'HE‘E
`
`IIILFO‘RE 'I‘IiE PATIENT TI! IAl. ANT} APPEAL MARI)
`
`UNIFIkUI'AIhNTS INL‘.
`Pdifim
`r-
`FLEC‘I'RUM Lu:
`FINN (MOI
`mum? mun
`"u“ 5.91535:
`mmmgws up“
`
`Immn-m-uo Pn'linn
`Pane-I $373.95!
`
`
`I736 mus
`IWKIZ‘I’ N0:
`
`ull'lul Pale-Ila Inc.
`I~I|cd uu httlnlf
`_
`By: Daud L. LII'IIIMIGIL Reg. No. HATE:
`DIIIWI V. Wllha'ms. lug. Na 45.23
`Will-cl ('IIIcI “dining llab ml Dun .l.P
`HITS Femsylvllilfiw- NW
`Waflliwn. DC 2am
`Tel:[]12}|\film
`Email: [militate-mum wine-human
`Ml Mllsl'lghni. has. No. 02.429
`lunalllan Sum-d. kg. N... 715";
`Unificd Palms
`ms (“n-M1
`Aw. uw. n... m
`
`Washing“. DC. 20009
`1:I:13fl21flIJG—W3I
`Emu'
`Ilmlmrxa \mrifinfiuncuhxm
`.
`. y .
`.
`
`EmulJmlIIunlfl
`Iflodpalclls.mm
` lINI
`STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK mun:
`MORE 11lli PAW TRIAL AND "PERL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED mums INC.
`”mm"
`‘_
`PLEL'IRUM LL{.'
`P‘Iul flue:
`ll‘RZDI'I-Dl-Ul]
`Palm 5373.95:
`PETITION ma INTER man‘s uwcw or
`us PATENT so. 5311.95:
`CHALLEVGING CLAIMS |-6.I. 11-”. AND 21-1-1
`UN DER .‘5 UMAi 3|! AXIS 3'] (T.
`.It. § 411M
`
`
`
`35
`
`
`
`

`

`Reply (p. 3)
`
`Reply Vs. Petition
`Petition (58)
`
`Reply Vs. Petition
`
`Reply (p. 3)
`
`Petition (58)
`
`
`
`— Resp. 5. Patent Owner provides no support for
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the CRC hashing of Jain in
`
`place of the XOR—based hashing of Cbefiron.—
`
`—
`
`“5 “”cgafi‘m—imfl the ”PM“: is ““-— — (Semen
`
`1177 {$1000}. This is particularly true in light of Chairman‘s explicit note that
`
`alternative hash functions might be employed, and Jain‘s explicit teaching that a
`
`CRC—based hashing fimction is an altcmative to an XOR—based hashing ftu'lction.
`
`{Seshan 11 T? (ex 1007)}.
`
`36
`
`

`

`Reply (p. 3-12)
`
`Reply Vs. Petition
`Petition (58)
`
`Reply Vs. Petition
`
`Reply (p. 3-12)
`
`Petition (58)
`
`37
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Jain describes the use of a CRC hashing function as an alternative to the use
`
`of XOR—based hashing for hashing a network address;
`
`(Sfihm1l176 (EXIM'In,
`
`Page
`
`Cher-iron itself notes that the XOR fiJnction "is used for illustration only" and that
`
`“it will be apparent to anyone skilled in the art that other hash functions fi'on'l the
`
`one shown can be used‘" (Cher-I'm», 9148—5] (H1002);
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the CRC hashing ot‘Jar'n in
`
`place of the XOR—based hashing of Chaim».—
`
`——
`
`(Seshan
`
`1177 (EXIOO'Fn. This is particularly true in light of Cberimn‘s explicit note that
`
`CLAIMS 8 AND 1 l ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF CHERITON AND
`
`A.
`
`1.—
`
`2.=
`3‘=
`
`4‘—
`
`alternative hash functions might be employed, and Jam's explicit teaching that a
`
`B.
`
`Cheriton discloses an “input packetizer" and an “output packetizer."
`
`
`
`
`l2
`
`CRC—hased hashing function is an alternative to an XOR—based hashing fmetion.
`
`{Seshan 11 TI (15x 1007)).
`
`

`

`Even If Considered, Arguments In Petitioner’s
`Reply Are Unpersuasive
`
`Reply at 9.
`
`38
`
`

`

`Reply Vs. In re Kahn
`
`Reply at 9
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`39
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Plectrum LLC
`
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Plectrum LLC
`Case: IPR2017-01430
`Patent 5,978,951
`
`Oral Hearing August 2, 2018
`
`40
`
`