UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Patent No. 6,910,069
`
`_____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. NICHOLAS BAMBOS, Ph.D.
`
`BUNGIE - EXHIBIT 1003
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Patent No. 6,910,069
`
`_____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. NICHOLAS BAMBOS, Ph.D.
`
`BUNGIE - EXHIBIT 1003
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1
`
`SCOPE OF WORK.......................................................................................... 2
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’069 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`
`IV. RELATED PROSECUTION ........................................................................ 10
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 13
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE ART ................ 16
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL AND RELEVANT TIME ....................... 39
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 40
`
`IX. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`SUPPORTING THE GROUND OF UNPATENTABILITY ....................... 43
`
`X.
`
`GROUND OF UNPATENTABILITY BASED ON FRANCIS IN
`VIEW OF GILBERT ..................................................................................... 50
`
`XI. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS .................................................................. 88
`
`XII. APPENDIX – LIST OF EXHIBITS .............................................................. 90
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Nicholas Bambos, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am R. Weiland Professor of Engineering at Stanford University,
`
`having a joint appointment in the Department of Electrical Engineering and the
`
`Department of Management Science & Engineering. I am also currently serving as
`
`the Fortinet Chairman of the Department of Management Science & Engineering.
`
`Before joining Stanford as an Associate Professor in 1996, I served as an Assistant
`
`Professor (1990-95), and tenured Associate Professor (1995-96) in the Electrical
`
`Engineering Department of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). I
`
`received my Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley (1989) in
`
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (EECS). Also from U.C. Berkeley,
`
`I received a M.S. in EECS (1987), and a M.A. in Mathematics (1989). I graduated
`
`in Electrical Engineering from the National Technical University of Athens-Greece
`
`(1984) with first class honors.
`
`2.
`
`At Stanford University, I head the Network Architecture and
`
`Performance Engineering research group, working on high-performance design of
`
`computer systems and networks. From 1999 to 2005 I was the Director of the
`
`Stanford Networking Research Center project. I have held the Cisco Systems
`
`Faculty Development Chair (1999-2003) in computer networking at Stanford
`
`University and have won the IBM Faculty Development Award (2002) for research
`
`1
`
`
`
`in performance engineering of computer systems and networks. I have also been
`
`the recipient of the National Young Investigator Award of the National Science
`
`Foundation (1992). I have served as editor of various research journals (including
`
`the “Wireless Networks” and “Computer Networks” research journals), as
`
`technical reviewer for numerous networking and computing research journals, and
`
`on various technical panels for the National Science Foundation, etc.
`
`3.
`
`For over 25 years, I have done research in and taught
`
`computing/networking technology concepts and design principles (at Stanford
`
`since 1996 and at UCLA during 1989-96). I have graduated over 25 Ph.D.
`
`students who have then been in leadership positions in academia and the
`
`information technology industry (Stanford University, California Institute of
`
`Technology, Columbia University, New York University, University of Michigan;
`
`Cisco, IBM Labs, Qualcomm, ST Micro, Google, Intel, Nokia, MITRE, Sun Labs,
`
`Broadcom, Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
`
`4.
`
`My professional curriculum vitae, including my publications and
`
`patents, is submitted as Exhibit 1004
`
`II.
`
`SCOPE OF WORK
`
`5.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a petition is being filed with the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`No. 6,910,069 to Holt et al. (the “’069 patent,” attached as Exhibit 1001), entitled
`
`“Joining A Broadcast Channel.”
`
`6.
`
`I have been retained by Bungie, Inc. (“Bungie”) to offer an expert
`
`opinion on the unpatentability of certain claims of the ’069 patent. I receive $450
`
`per hour for my work on this case, which is my standard rate. No part of my
`
`compensation is dependent on my opinions or on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`7.
`
`Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinions on claims 1-5,
`
`7, 8, and 11-13 of the ’069 patent (“subject claims”). In connection with this
`
`analysis, I have reviewed the ’069 patent and its file history with respect to its
`
`original examination. I have also reviewed various other documents in arriving at
`
`my opinions. The documents relied upon in arriving at my opinions are listed in
`
`the Appendix to this declaration.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’069 PATENT
`
`8.
`
`At the top of Column 1, the ’069 patent lists a set of nine patent
`
`applications all filed on the same day (July 31, 2000), one of which is the
`
`application that led to the ’069 patent.
`
`9.
`
`The subject claims are directed to a “method for adding a participant
`
`to a network of participants, each participant being connected to three or more
`
`other participants.” EX1001, claim 1 at 28:49-51. Much of the specification,
`
`however, concerns other concepts that are not directly related to the subject claims.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`10.
`
`For example, while a significant portion of the specification is
`
`directed to the actual broadcasting or sending of messages over a network, these
`
`concepts are not part of the subject claims. Compare e.g., id. at 7:29-8:64 (section
`
`entitled “Broadcasting Through the Graph”) with id. at claim 1. Again, the subject
`
`claims are only concerned with “adding a participant to a network of participants.”
`
`Id.
`
`11. As another example, a large portion of the specification concerns m-
`
`regular and m-connected graphs. M-regular refers to the number of connections
`
`per node: “A graph in which each node is connected to four other nodes is referred
`
`to as a 4-regular graph.” Id. at 4:40-41. M-connected refers to the number of node
`
`failures it would take for a network to become divided into two parts: “it would
`
`take a failure of four computers to divide the graph into disjoint sub-graphs, that is
`
`two separate broadcast channels. This property is referred to as being 4-
`
`connected.” Id. at 4:45-49. Claim 14 of the ’069 patent, about which I have not
`
`formed any opinion, is directed to such concepts of regularity and connectedness:
`
`“method for adding nodes to a graph that is m-regular and m-connected to maintain
`
`the graph as m-regular.” Id., claim 14 at 30:3-5.
`
`12. According to the specification, however, m-regularity is not possible
`
`to maintain as participants join when the number of connections is odd. Id. at
`
`14:64-15:2 (“If the number of internal connections is odd, then when the broadcast
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`channel has an odd number of computers connected, one of the computers will
`
`have less than that odd number of internal connections. In such a situation, the
`
`broadcast network is neither m-regular nor m-connected.”). The subject claims
`
`allow for odd numbers of connections, meaning the subject claims go beyond m-
`
`regular embodiments and the constraints applicable to such embodiments. Thus,
`
`the discussion of m-regular embodiments in the specification is of limited
`
`usefulness in understanding the subject claims.
`
`13. Claim 1’s method includes three steps (the first of which includes two
`
`sub-steps): (1) identifying a pair of network nodes (participants) by (a) a joining
`
`node contacting a portal computer node and (b) that portal computer node sending
`
`connection requests for the joining node to randomly selected neighboring nodes
`
`on the network; (2) disconnecting the pair of randomly selected nodes from each
`
`other; and (3) connecting the joining node to both of the randomly selected nodes.
`
`14.
`
`The elements added by the dependent subject claims concern similar
`
`aspects, such as the random selection of nodes on the network (claims 3-5), and the
`
`use of a portal computer (claims 7-8), as well as the character of the underlying
`
`network (claim 2 increases the number of connections from at least three to four;
`
`claims 11 and 12 specify connections via the Internet and TCP/IP; and claim 13
`
`provides that participants are computer processes).
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I thus briefly address how the ’069 patent describes the key concepts
`
`pertinent to the subject claims: (1) nodes like those the ’069 patent refers to as
`
`“portal computers;” (2) random node selection; and (3) disconnecting nodes from
`
`one another in favor of connections to a joining node.
`
`16.
`
`Portal computers. At the outset, I observe again that much of the
`
`disclosure in the ’069 patent regarding portal computers is not entirely
`
`representative of the subject claim scope because the discussion largely assumes
`
`m-regularity, which claim 1 does not require. When the specification describes
`
`portal computers, the “description assumes that the broadcast channel is in the
`
`large regime,” meaning “five or more computers are connected,” and there is “a 4-
`
`regular graph.” EX1001 at 5:24-34. See also id. at 14:52-56 (“In the embodiment
`
`described above [discussing portal computers], each fully connected computer has
`
`four internal connections. The broadcast technique can be used with ... any even
`
`number of internal connections.”). Claim 1, by contrast, has no m-regularity
`
`limitation; it only requires a network of four or more participants, and allows for an
`
`odd number of connections. Id., claim 1 (“each participant being connected to
`
`three or more other participants”). See also id. at 14:62-15:2 (“When the number
`
`of internal connectors is even, then the broadcast channel can be maintained as m-
`
`regular and m-connected (in the steady state). If the number of internal
`
`connections is odd … the broadcast network is neither m-regular nor m-
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`connected.”); 5:26-29 (“When there are fewer than five computers connected, the
`
`broadcast channel cannot be a 4-regular graph. In such a case, the broadcast
`
`channel is considered to be in a ‘small regime.’”); 17:38-39 (“When in the small
`
`regime, a fully connected process may have less than four neighbors.”); 19:53-55
`
`(“When in the small regime, the expected number of holes [empty internal
`
`connections] varies from one to three.”); Figures 5E, 5F (nodes with fewer than
`
`four connections).
`
`17. Although much of the disclosure about portal computers is limited to
`
`m-regular embodiments—not the other possible embodiments encompassed by
`
`claim 1—the ’069 patent nonetheless describes concepts applicable to portal
`
`computers more generally. Portal computers are nodes that are a point of contact
`
`for another node locating and joining the network. E.g., id. at 5:37-39 (“Each
`
`computer is aware of one or more ‘portal computers’ through which that computer
`
`may locate the broadcast channel.”); 12:33-35 (“Each computer that can connect to
`
`the broadcast channel has a list of one or more portal computers through which it
`
`can connect to the broadcast channel.”). The portal computer is then responsible
`
`for directing the identification of other nodes “to be the seeking computer’s
`
`neighbors.” Id. at 5:42-45 (4-regular embodiment; the “portal computer then
`
`directs the identifying of four computers (i.e., to be the seeking computer’s
`
`neighbors) to which the seeking computer is to connect.”). “The portal computer
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`may also enforce security and not allow an unauthorized user to connect to the
`
`broadcast channel.” Id. at 28:44-46.
`
`18. Random node selection.1 “[T]he neighbors of a newly connecting
`
`computer are preferably selected randomly from the set of currently connected
`
`computers.” Id. at 13:23-25. One example of this random selection process is
`
`described as a “random walk through the graph:”
`
`To select [a pair of neighbors for the joining node2], a portal computer
`sends an edge connection request message through one of its internal
`connections that is randomly selected. The receiving computer again
`sends the edge connection request message through one of its internal
`connections that is randomly selected. This sending of the message
`
`1 The ’069 patent also discusses random selection of port numbers for certain
`
`communications, which is not pertinent. E.g., EX1001 at 11:30-12:31 (“Port
`
`Selection” section).
`
`2 The text reads: “To select the four computers ….” This is presumably because
`
`the discussion again concerns only the 4-regular embodiment. The random-
`
`selection process described would also work for selecting a pair of neighbors for
`
`the joining node. The specification does not describe a process for randomly
`
`selecting a node for an odd-numbered connection to the joining node, such as a
`
`third connection to the joining node.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`corresponds to a random walk through the graph that represents the
`broadcast channel. Eventually, a receiving computer will decide that
`the message has traveled far enough to represent a randomly selected
`computer.
`
`Id. at 13:36-45. The number of “hops” or “steps” the connection request message
`
`must take may be set at the outset of the “random walk” by the portal computer.
`
`Id. at 13:55-63.
`
`19. Disconnecting nodes from one another in favor of connections to a
`
`joining node. Once a random pair is selected, the selected pair break their
`
`connection in favor of connecting to the joining computer. For example, once the
`
`“random walk” process is complete, the last two computers in the “walk” may
`
`break their connection to one another and then connect to the joining computer. Id.
`
`at 13:45-48. This assumes that the computers at the end of the “random walk” are
`
`not already connected to the joining computer. Id. at 13:48-54. “The process of
`
`breaking the connection between two neighbors and reconnecting each of the
`
`former neighbors to another computer [the joining node] is referred to as ‘edge
`
`pinning’ ....” Id. at 6:5-8. “Point-to-point connections” between nodes are also
`
`referred to as “edges.” Id. at 4:25-28.
`
`20.
`
`Figures 3A and 3B depict this step. In these figures, nodes E and B
`
`go from having a connection between them to having no connection between them
`
`and each having a connection to added node Z.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`21. My opinion, as discussed further throughout this declaration, is the
`
`method for adding a node to a network claimed by the ’069 patent—including, but
`
`not limited to, these key concepts discussed above—was well known and would
`
`have been obvious to those in this field.
`
`IV. RELATED PROSECUTION
`
`22.
`
`The original examination of the application that led to the ’069 patent
`
`included one (non-final) rejection, on January 12, 2004. While I have reviewed the
`
`entire original file history in general (EX1002), I focus my discussion here on this
`
`aspect of the file history as it relates to my opinions herein.
`
`23.
`
`The examiner’s sole rejection of then-pending claims included several
`
`prior art grounds. EX10023 at 1201-1217. In response, the applicant amended its
`
`claims, and argued (among other things) that the prior art identified by the
`
`3 File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069. EX1002.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`examiner did not render obvious the claims as amended. Exhibit 1002 at 1268-
`
`1290.
`
`24.
`
`In particular, several then-pending claims were rejected as obvious
`
`over Gilbert (U.S. Patent No. 6,490,247, “Gilbert”) (EX1021) in view of Hughes
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 6,553,020, “Hughes”). EX1002 at 1207-1216. The examiner
`
`described the network “graph” in Gilbert as “m-regular and m-connected” (“2-
`
`regular and 2-connected”), where this m-regularity is maintained when a node is
`
`added. Id. at 1211.
`
`25. Regarding Gilbert, in addition to concurrently amending the then-
`
`pending claims, the applicant made several arguments attempting to distinguish
`
`those amended claims from Gilbert. Numerous times, the applicant stated that in
`
`Gilbert, the selection of the neighboring nodes is not random. See id. at 1284-
`
`1290.
`
`26. Alongside its argument regarding random selection of neighboring
`
`nodes, in one instance, the applicant also stated that in Gilbert, “the seeking node,
`
`not the portal node, contacts the neighboring participants to which the seeking
`
`participant is to connect,” citing Gilbert at Column 6, lines 57-61. Id. at 1284.
`
`27.
`
`These lines of Gilbert state: “Alternatively, the primary node
`
`identifies another node on the network for the node wishing to enter the network to
`
`contact. Alternatively still, the node wishing to enter the network contacts the
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`node on the network to which it is closest.” EX1021 at 6:57-61. I discuss below
`
`what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Gilbert to be disclosing
`
`in this passage, and how it actually relates to an earlier step in the process for
`
`adding a node, the step of locating a portal computer, not the subsequent step of
`
`contacting neighbors for the joining node.
`
`28.
`
`I also observe that the applicant did not cite or distinguish many other
`
`pertinent disclosures of Gilbert. The applicant did not cite or distinguish the other
`
`alternative examples of “primary node” functionality disclosed in Gilbert, for
`
`example, some of which I also discuss below. Nor did the applicant cite or
`
`distinguish the other alternative embodiments in Gilbert concerning a “joinder
`
`module within the network manager” (EX1021 at 6:26-39 and related claims such
`
`as claim 5) or the embodiment concerning a “gatekeeper node” (Id. at 6:67-7:6),
`
`which I also discuss below. Finally, the applicant did not contest the examiner’s
`
`statement that Gilberts discloses a m-regular and m-connected graph. See EX1002
`
`at 1211.
`
`29.
`
`Finally, of note, the examiner’s rejection also stated that with respect
`
`to claim 12, “Examiner takes official notice that TCP/IP is a standard well known
`
`protocol used for Internet communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious
`
`to connect the participants via TCP/IP for the same reasons as connecting
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`participants via the Internet—i.e. to allow global communications on the existing
`
`Internet network.” Id.
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`30.
`
`I am informed by counsel that in order for a reference to be
`
`considered a prior art publication it must be publicly accessible, meaning that the
`
`reference has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that
`
`persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising
`
`reasonable diligence can locate it. I understand that a reference need only be
`
`accessible to interested members of the relevant public.
`
`31.
`
`I am informed by counsel that a claimed invention is not patentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for obviousness, if the differences between the invention
`
`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 the subject matter pertains.
`
`32.
`
`I am further informed by counsel that a determination of obviousness
`
`requires inquiries into: (1) the scope and contents of the art when the invention was
`
`made; (2) the differences between the art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art when the invention was made; and, to the extent
`
`they exist, (4) secondary indicia of obviousness.
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`33.
`
`I am informed by counsel that hindsight must not be used when
`
`comparing the prior art to the invention for obviousness. Thus, a conclusion of
`
`obviousness must be firmly based on knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made without the use of post-filing
`
`knowledge.
`
`34.
`
`I am informed by counsel that obviousness may be established by
`
`showing that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of more than
`
`one item of prior art, and that in order for a claimed invention to be considered
`
`obvious, there must be some rational underpinning for combining cited references
`
`as proposed.
`
`35.
`
`I am informed by counsel that in determining whether a piece of prior
`
`art would have been combined with other prior art or with other information within
`
`the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the following are examples of
`
`approaches and rationales that may be considered:
`
`(a) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`
`(b) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`predictable results;
`
`(c) Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(e) Applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious
`to try” (choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success);
`
`(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it
`for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference
`or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`invention.
`
`36.
`
`I am informed by counsel that obviousness may also be shown by
`
`demonstrating that it would have been obvious to modify what is taught in a single
`
`piece of prior art to create the patented invention.
`
`37.
`
`I am informed by counsel that among the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is presumed to be aware of the pertinent art.
`
`38.
`
`I am informed by counsel that, in the present proceeding, patent
`
`claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of and
`
`consistent with the specification. I also understand that, at the same time, claim
`
`terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the relevant field in the context of the entire
`
`patent disclosure (absent some reason to the contrary such as a special definition
`
`provided in the specification). Thus, I understand that whether an interpretation
`
`would be reasonable is considered from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
`
`otherwise that may be afforded by the specification.
`
`39.
`
`I have followed these principles in my analysis throughout this
`
`declaration.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE ART
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, and as explained in further detail below, the subject
`
`claims of the ’069 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the relevant time (i.e., prior to July 31, 2000).
`
`41.
`
`The subject claims are directed to employing basic and well-known
`
`concepts and procedures for adding a node to an existing computer network.
`
`42.
`
`In this section, I explain some well-known concepts and key
`
`terminology pertinent to the field of computer networks as of July 2000, and
`
`provide exemplary references that support my explanation. This discussion
`
`includes several types of topologies, which are ways to arrange the various parts of
`
`a computer network; and several different protocols and algorithms for distributing
`
`information throughout such networks. I then move on from these background
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`concepts to discuss various known techniques for adding a node to such
`
`networks—i.e., the heart of the subject claims.
`
`43. Concepts and terminology. Computer networks and their topologies
`
`are routinely represented using graphs to depict or model relationships or
`
`connections between nodes. See, e.g., EX1001 at 4:25-30 (“The broadcast
`
`technique overlays the underlying network system with a graph of point-to-point
`
`connections (i.e., edges) between host computers (i.e., nodes) through which the
`
`broadcast channel is implemented.”); EX10224 at 3:67-4:8.
`
`44.
`
`Typically, each node on a graph represents a participant (e.g.,
`
`computer, router, processor), and each edge (line) between two nodes represents a
`
`connection (communication) between them. EX1001 at 4:25-30; EX1022 at 3:67-
`
`4:8. The term neighbors refers to nodes that are directly connected by an edge to
`
`each other on the graph. See e.g., EX1001 at 4:25-30; EX1022 at 4:64-67.
`
`45.
`
`For example, in the graph drawn below, there are seven nodes
`
`numbered 1-5, 7-8, which are connected by seven links. Node 2 is directly
`
`connected to its neighbors (nodes 1 and 3), but not to the others (nodes 4, 5, 7, and
`
`8), with which it may only communicate indirectly (e.g., in this example, nodes 1
`
`and 3 could potentially communicate via node 2, but nodes 1 and 3 themselves are
`
`not directly connected).
`
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,170,482 to Shu et al. (“Shu 482”). EX1022.
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`46.
`
`The connection between nodes can be physical connections or logical
`
`connections. See e.g., EX10235 at 53-54. A physical connection is where there is
`
`a point-to-point physical link (e.g., an Ethernet cable) connecting two nodes, and
`
`data is transmitted between these nodes via that physical link. See e.g., id. at 52.
`
`A logical connection (or virtual connection) represents a point-to-point data link
`
`between nodes, but has no particular regard for the underlying physical
`
`interconnection of the devices. See e.g., id. at 54. For example, in the below
`
`figure, while nodes A and F are not physically connected, a logical overlay has
`
`been implemented to the underlying network such that nodes A and F are logically
`
`connected directly to one another. EX10246 at 10–11.
`
`5 Frank et al., Multicast Communication on Network Computers, IEEE Software
`
`(1985) (“Frank 1985”). EX1023.
`
`6 Friesen et al., Resource Management with Virtual Paths in ATM Networks,
`
`IEEE Network (1996) (“Friesen 1996”). EX1024.
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`47.
`
`In graph theory, the degree of a node refers to the number of nodes to
`
`which it is connected, in other words, the number of neighbors it has. EX10257 at
`
`118; EX1022 at 4:10-12. A regular graph is one in which each node has the same
`
`degree (i.e., each node is connected to the same number of neighbors). EX1025 at
`
`118; EX10268 at 11 ¶2. An m-regular graph is one in which each node has degree
`
`m, in other words, a graph in which each node is connected to exactly m other
`
`nodes (i.e., has exactly m neighbors). See EX1001 at 4:40-43; EX1025 at 118.
`
`7 Dalal, Yogen Kantilal, Broadcast Protocols in Packet Switched Computer
`
`Networks, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University (1977) (“Dalal”). EX1025.
`
`8 Chen et al., Addressing, Routing, and Broadcasting in Hexagonal Mesh
`
`Multiprocessors, IEEE Transactions on Computers (1990) (“Chen 1990”).
`
`EX1026.
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`For example, the figure drawn below shows a 4- regular graph in which each of the
`
`six nodes is connected to exactly four other nodes:
`
`48.
`
`Topologies. The above network is arranged in a regular mesh
`
`topology. See EX1026 at 11 ¶1. Other regular network topologies include, ring,
`
`torus, Manhattan street network, and hypercube (respectively illustrated below).
`
`See e.g., EX1022 at 4:53-57, 6:4-21, Fig. 1C (ring), Fig. 2D (hypercube); EX10279
`
`at 324 ¶5, Fig. 1 (torus); EX102810 at 510 ¶2, Fig. 1 (Manhattan street network).
`
`9 Fragopoulou et al., Efficient Algorithms for Global Data Communication on
`
`the Multidimensional Torus Network, Parallel Processing Symposium
`
`Proceedings, IEEE (1995) (“Fragopoulou 1995”). EX1027.
`
`10 Maxemchuk, Nicholas F., Routing in the Manhattan Street Network, IEEE
`
`Transactions on Communications (1987) (“Maxemchuk”). EX1028.
`
`-20-
`
`
`
`Ring
`
`EX1022 Fig. 1C
`
`Torus
`
`1027 Fig. 1
`
`Manhattan Street Network
`EX1028 Fig. 1
`49. Regular topologies can be incomplete (i.e., each node is connected to
`
`Hypercube
`EX1022 Fig. 2D
`
`less than all other nodes) as shown in the above examples, or complete (i.e., each
`
`node is connected to all other nodes) as shown below in the following figure. See,
`
`e.g., EX1026 at 11 ¶1, Fig. 6 (illustrating a 6-regular incomplete mesh); EX1022 at
`
`5:4-7, Fig. 1F (illustrating a 7-regular complete mesh). A node in a complete
`
`-21-
`
`
`
`topology is sometimes referred to as “fully connected,” meaning it has a direct
`
`connection to every other node.
`
`EX1022 Fig. 1F.
`
`50. Network topologies may also be non-regular. A network is non-
`
`regular when nodes have different degrees (i.e., nodes have a different number of
`
`neighbors). See e.g., EX1026 at 11 ¶2. Non-regular topologies include tree and
`
`non-regular mesh (respectively illustrated below). See e.g., EX1022 at 4:61-62,
`
`Fig. 1D (tree); EX1026 at 11 ¶1, Fig 2 (mesh).
`
`-22-
`
`
`
`Tree
`Mesh
`EX1022 Fig. 1D
`EX1026 Fig. 2.
`51. All network topologies share a basic purpose, to facilitate the
`
`distribution of data among each of the participants of a network. See e.g., EX1023
`
`at 49 ¶1 (“Communication is essential to distributed systems…”).
`
`52.
`
`The different types of network topologies have various advantages
`
`and disadvantages. See e.g., EX1026 at 16 ¶5-17 ¶4 (comparing several
`
`topologies). Nevertheless, given their common purpose, concepts and protocols
`
`developed for or applicable to one topology are often applicable or adaptable for
`
`use in another topology. See, e.g., EX102911 at 387 ¶1 (“Often, the results
`
`developed for meshes [] can be extended to tori with suitable modifications.…”).
`
`In general, in the field of computer networks, a broad variety of interconnection
`
`topologies has been considered.
`
`11 Chalasani et al., Adaptive Wormhold Routing in Tori with Faults, IEE
`
`Proceedings – Computers and Digital Techniques (1995) (“Chalasani”). EX1029.
`
`-23-
`
`
`
`53. Data transmission algorithms and protocols. Routing algorithms, of
`
`which there are many, describe the manner in which data propagates through a
`
`network. See, e.g., EX103012 at abstract; EX1023 generally. Generally speaking,
`
`routing algorithms typically fall within three categories: unicast—one-to-one
`
`delivery of data, broadcast—one-to-all delivery of data, and multicast—one-to-
`
`some delivery of data. See e.g., id. at 51. Such algorithms make use of protocols,
`
`of which there are also many, and which define certain rules for network
`
`communications. As the examiner of the ’069 patent observed, also noted above,
`
`TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) is one such well-known
`
`protocol, and is a primary protocol used for internet communications. EX1002 at
`
`1211.
`
`54. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know of many ways to
`
`implement each of these types of routing algorithms, including hybrid or mixed
`
`algorithms that make use of aspects of two or more other algorithms.
`
`55.
`
`In many routing algorithm implementations, certain nodes have
`
`designated functionality or responsibilities. A basic example is a client-server
`
`implementation, where a server node provides resources used by client nodes. A
`
`client may transmit information to a server, which may then make it available to
`
`12 U.S. Patent No. 5,056,085 to Vu (“Vu 085”). EX1030.
`
`-24-
`
`
`
`other clients. One reason to make use of a central server is for security purposes.
`
`A server may control or restrict access to information and services, such as by
`
`requiring client authorization like a password or certificate.
`
`56. A more sophisticated example, Core Based Trees (CBT), is a routing
`
`algorithm that may be implemented on a tree topology that overlays the internet.
`
`EX103113 at 85; see also EX1032.14 CBT uses a single router (core node) at the
`
`“core” of the tree, from which branches emanate. E
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
