`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS INDIA LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01845
`Patent U.S. 6,775,235
`______________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOEL WILLIAMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 1
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`III. 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Qualifications and Experience ......................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Education and work experience ............................................................ 2 
`B. 
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 4 
`C. 
`Documents and other materials relied upon .......................................... 5 
`Statement of Legal Principles .......................................................................... 5 
`A.  Anticipation ........................................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 6 
`IV.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 8 
`A. 
`“selects between network interfaces on a per-packet
`basis”/“make network path selections on a packet-by-packet
`basis.” .................................................................................................... 9 
`“dynamic load balancing” ................................................................... 15 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 18 
`C. 
`The ’235 Patent .............................................................................................. 19 
`V. 
`VI.  The Applied Art ............................................................................................. 24 
`A.  Guerin .................................................................................................. 24 
`B. 
`Admitted Prior Art............................................................................... 24 
`C. 
`Bollapragada ........................................................................................ 25 
`D. 
`Shaffer ................................................................................................. 25 
`E. 
`Smith.................................................................................................... 26 
`VII.  Claims 5-6, 8, 10, 14, and 22 are not obvious over Guerin in view of
`the Admitted Prior Art. .................................................................................. 26 
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 2
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`X. 
`
`A. 
`
`
`
`The combination of Geurin and the Admitted Prior Art fails to
`disclose “obtaining at least two known location address ranges
`which have associated networks.” ....................................................... 26 
`Guerin fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed
`“determining whether the destination address lies within a
`known location address range” ........................................................... 33 
`Guerin fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed
`“selecting” following the required “receiving” step, as is
`required by Claim 5. ............................................................................ 38 
`VIII.  Claims 4, 9, and 24 are not obvious over Guerin in view of the
`Admitted Prior Art and Bollapragada ............................................................ 41 
`IX.  Claim 19 is not is not obvious over a combination of Guerin, the
`Admitted Prior Art and Bollapragada ............................................................ 46 
`Claims 11-13 and 23 are not obvious over a combination of Guerin,
`the Admitted Prior Art, Bollapragada, and Smith ......................................... 50 
`A. 
`Claims 11-13 ....................................................................................... 50 
`B. 
`Claim 23 .............................................................................................. 51 
`XI.  Claim 20 is not obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Guerin. .................. 52 
`XII.  Claim 21 is not obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Guerin in view
`of the Admitted Prior Art further in view of Fowler. .................................... 55 
`XIII.  Claims 1 and 15 are not under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Guerin in view
`of the Admitted Prior Art in view of Bollapragada further in view of
`Shaffer ............................................................................................................ 55 
`A. 
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 55 
`B. 
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 59 
`XIV.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 3
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`Inttroductionn
`
`
` My n. name is Joe
`
`
`
`el William
`s.
`
`
`
`I havve been enggaged by thhe Exclusivve Licenseee FatPipe,, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`(“FatPippe”) to invvestigate annd opine onn certain isssues relatiing to U.S.. Patent Noo.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6,775,235 B2 (“thhe ’235 pattent”) in coonnection wwith FatPippe’s Respoonse to Pet
`
`
`
`
`
`ition
`
`Review in IPfor Interr Partes R
`
`
`
`
`PR2017-01845.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`. t
`
`
`
`In thiis declaratiion, I will ffirst discusss the technnology bacckground
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`related to the ’2355 patent an
`
`
`
`
`
`d then provvide my annalyses andd opinions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` on claimss 1,
`
`
`
`4-15, annd 19-24 foor the ’2355 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`44.
`
`
`
`This declarationn is based on the infoormation c
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`urrently avvailable to
`
`me.
`
`
`
`To the eextent that additionall informatioon becomees availabl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e, I reservee the right
`
`to
`
`review of
`
`document
`
`s
`
`
`
`continue my invesstigation annd study, wwhich mayy include a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hat positions thy from deps testimonyd, as well ase producedhat may beand infoormation th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may nott yet be takken.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`In forrming my opinions, II have relieed on inforrmation annd evidencee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identified in this ddeclarationn, includingg the ’235 ppatent, thee prosecutioon history,, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. e
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prior artt referencees listed in the Grounnds of Petittioner’s chaallenges, thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dy. declarattions submmitted by DDr. Reddy, aand the depposition teestimony off Dr. Redd
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 4
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`and
`
`
`
`Attacched as Exhhibit A to tthis declarration is a ccopy of myy curriculuum
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A 6
`
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Quualificationns and Experience
`
`
`
`
`A. Educatiion and woork experiience
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vitae, wwhich proviides a subsstantially complete lisst of my edducation, eexperience
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`publicattions that aare relevannt to the subbject matteer of this reeport.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I receeived a B.SS. in Compputer Sciennce from thhe Ohio Staate Univerrsity
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`77.
`
`
`
`in 1978.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`er ers and othework routemerous netwign of numon the desiI havve worked o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`network devices ffor a numbeer of majorr Silicon VValley commpanies, inccluding HPP,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. k
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco, SSpace Systtems Loral, and a nummber of smmall start-upp companiies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I worrked for Beell Telephoone Laboraatories fromm 1970 to
`
`
`
`99.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1978. As aan
`
`
`
`Associaate Membeer of the Teechnical Sttaff, I parti
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cipated in
`
`
`
`the develoopment of
`
`interfaces
`
`.
`
`
`
`networkk managemment systemms and cenntral office
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Whil10. le working
`
`
`
`for Bell TTelephone LLaboratori
`
`
`
`State es, I attendded Ohio S
`
`
`
`
`
`Universsity, receivving a Bachhelor of Sccience in C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`omputer SScience in 11978.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1982, I worrked at the Vidar Divvision of TTRW as a
`
`
`
`
`
` From11. m 1978 to 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Superviisor of Softftware Engiineering, wwhere I wa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s responsibble for the
`
`
`
`design andd
`
`
`
`implemmentation off telephonee central offfice switcching and trransmissioon equipmeent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 5
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`12.
`
`
`
`In 19982, I begann working as an indeependent coonsultant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the speccification, rreview, deesign, and iimplementtation of neetworking,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`telecommmunicatioons, and commputer operating sysstems.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specializinng in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Over13. r the course
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e of my carreer, I havee developeed extensivve expertise
`e in
`
`
`
`the speccification, ddesign andd developmment of netwworking eqquipment aand compuuter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systemss. Much of f my work iinvolves assessing, ddesigning,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and debuggging syste
`
`ms
`
`
`
`of the tyype at issuee in this caase, as welll as systemms level arcchitecture aand designn.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`
`
`I havve worked oon numeroous networkking and mmessaging
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`systems. MMy
`
`
`
`networkking experiience datess to the earrly days of f networkinng, before tthe “Internnet”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was welll known. IIt includes modem, ddirect wiredd, and wireeless compputer links.. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have addvanced myy skills witth experiennce with leeading edgee communnications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technoloogy ever siince, incluuding TCP//IP, satellitte and wireeless protoccols, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`various network roouting protocols.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`
`
`I alsoo hold or h
`
`
`
`uding tions (incluber of positave also heeld a numb
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`leadershhip positionns) in a vaariety of proofessional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`associatioons. I am a
`
`Senior
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Member of the Asssociation ffor Compuuting Machhinery (“A
`
`
`
`
`
`CM”), a LLife Senior
`
`
`
`Member of the Insstitute of EElectrical aand Electroonics Enginneers (“IEEEE”), and aa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Senior CCertified PProfessionaal Consultaant in the PProfessionaal and Techhnical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Consulttants Assocciation, thee latter of wwhich I preeviously seerved as prresident. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 6
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`previouusly served as a Vice Chair of thhe IEEE C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`onsultants
`
`
`
`Network oof Silicon
`
`
`
`
`
`ectors. ard of Dirently serve Valley ((“CNSV”) and curren on the Boa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`
`
`Fi Alliaance.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`
`
`I wass a past conntributing mmember off both the DDSL Forumm and the WWi-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I am
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a named innventor onn six patentts issued byy the Uniteed States
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent aand Trademmark Office, four of wwhich are ddirected too networkinng:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gistrationr Event RegMethod forstem and M7,552 – SysU.S. Patent No. 9,367
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,2055,841 — Syystem and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Method foor Computiing Slope oof a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Road in an Electric VVehicle;
`
`
`
`
`
`etwork Prootocol for WWireless BBroadband--
`
`
`
`U U R U I
`
`
`
`SDN Usingg ATM;
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,151
`,312 — N
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`S U o U B A U B 1
`
`
`
`acity ction Capathe Connecmproving tache for Im4,956 — CaU.S. Patent No. 5,914
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a Commuunications Switch;
`
`
`
`
`
`ry of Wirethe Deliverystem for t6,989 — SyU.S. Patent No. 5,886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`less
`
`
`
`Broadband Integratedd Services DDigital Nettwork (ISDDN) Usingg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Asynchronoous Transffer Mode (AATM); andd
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,9422,812 — Device for CCompressinng Empty
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cans.
`
`
`
`B. Compennsation
`
`
`8.
`
`compensa
`I am
`
`
`ted at a ratte of $450
`
`
`
`per hour fofor the servvices I provvide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to FatPiipe in connnection witth FatPipe’’s Responsse to Petitioon for Inte
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`r Partes
`
`
`
`4
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 7
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`or
`
`t the
`
`
`
`declarattion are doocuments annd materiaals identifieed in this ddeclarationn, includingg the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’235 paatent, the prrosecution history, thhe prior artt referencess, the petittion agains
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’235 paatent, and innformationn discussedd in this deeclaration,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`including tthe referennces
`
`
`
`
`
`provideed in Petitiooner’s grouunds and aany other reeferences sspecificallyy identifiedd in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Revieww in IPR20117-01845. The compeensation iss not continngent uponn my
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`performmance, the ooutcome o
`
`
`
`
`
`f this interr partes revview or anyy other prooceedings,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`any issuues involveed in or rellated to thi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeddings.
`
`
`
`s inter parrtes revieww or any othher
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Documeents and oother mateerials relieed upon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The d9. documents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C 1
`
`
`
`
`
`ed in this ns expressethe opinions on which I rely for t
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this decclaration.
`
`III. Staatement off Legal Prrinciples
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Anticipaation
`
`
`
`for a patennt claim too be valid, tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`A 2
`
`
`20.
`
`
`
`It is mmy understtanding thaat in order
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimedd inventionn must be nnovel. If eaach and eveery elemennt of a claimm is discloosed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in a singgle prior arrt referencee, then the claimed innvention iss anticipateed. In ordeer for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an invenntion in a cclaim to bee anticipateed, all of thhe elementts and limittations of tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim mmust be discclosed in aa single pri
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or referencce, arrangeed as in thee claim. A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim iss anticipateed only if eeach and evvery elemeent as set foforth in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim is
`
`
`
`found, eeither exprressly or innherently d
`
`
`
`
`
`escribed, i
`
`n a single
`
`
`
`prior art reeference. Inn
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 8
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`order foor a referennce to inherrently discclose a clai
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`m limitatioon, that claaim limitattion
`
`
`
`must neecessarily bbe present in the referrence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Obvioussness
`
`
`
`It is mmy understtanding thaat obviousnness is a baasis for invvalidity. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B 2
`
`
`21.
`
`
`
`understaand that where a prioor art refereence does nnot disclosse all of thee limitationns
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a givven patent cclaim, that patent claiim is invallid if the diifferences
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`between thhe
`
`
`
`claimedd subject mmatter and tthe prior arrt referencee are such
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ject that the claaimed subj
`
`
`
`invention
`
`
`
`was madee to a
`
`
`
`matter aas a whole would havve been obvious at thhe time the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`person hhaving orddinary skilll in the releevant art (““POSA”). II understannd that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obvioussness can bbe based onn a single pprior art re
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ference or
`
`
`
`a combinaation of
`
`
`
`referencces that either expresssly or inheerently discclose all limmitations oof the claimmed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inventioon. In an obbviousnesss analysis, it is not neecessary too find preciise teachinngs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the prrior art directed to thhe specific subject maatter claimmed becausee inferencees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and creaative steps that a POSSA would employ caan be takenn into accouunt.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`222.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`yzed ust be analyC. § 103 mur 35 U.S.Cness underat obviousnI undderstand tha
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from thee perspectiive of a POOSA, at thee time the iinvention wwas made.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In analyziing
`
`
`
`obvioussness, I undderstand thhat it is impportant to uunderstandd the scopee of the claaims,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the leveel of skill inn the relevvant art, thee scope andd content oof the priorr art, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differennces between the prioor art and thhe claims,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and any seecondary cconsiderati
`
`
`
`ons.
`
`
`
`6
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 9
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`223.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat assessinng which prrior art refeferences to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`combine aand
`
`
`
`how theey may be combined to match the assertedd claim maay not be bbased on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hindsighht reconstrruction or eex-post reaasoning. Hiindsight reeconstructiion is usingg the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent ittself as a rooad map foor recreatinng the inveention. In aassessing oobviousnesss,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only whhat was knoown beforee the invenntion was mmade can bbe considerred.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`224.
`
`
`
`I alsoo understannd that onee importantt guard agaainst such hhindsight
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reconstrruction is aa determinaation whetther a POS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A would hhave been mmotivated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`taught, or suggested to combbine the rellevant teacchings of thhe prior arrt to duplic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ate
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e of the patat the timethe pateent claims a
`
`
`
`ented inveention.
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat determinning the sccope and coontent of thhe prior arrt
`
`
`
`225.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requiress consideraation of whhether the pprior art w
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as reasonaably relevannt to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`red by the ntion coverg the invenparticullar problemm the invenntors faced in making
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent cclaims.
`
`
`
`226.
`
`
`
`terial re any mather there arning whethat determinI undderstand tha
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differennces between the scoppe and conntent of thee prior art aand each chhallenged
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim off the patennt under revview requirres consideeration of tthe claimeed inventionn as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a wholee to determmine whetheer or not itt would havve been obbvious in liight of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prior artt. If the priior art disccloses all thhe steps or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`elements iin separatee referencees,
`
`
`
`consideeration shouuld be giveen to whethher it woulld have beeen obviouss to combinne
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 10
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`those reeferences. II understannd that a cllaim is not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obvious mmerely becaause all of f the
`
`
`
`steps orr elements of that claiim alreadyy existed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`227.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I alsoo understannd that wheen prior artrt teaches aaway from
`
`
`
`
`
`combiningg
`
`
`
`prior artt referencees, the discovery of a successfull way to coombine theem is less
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`likely too be obviouus. Prior arrt teaches aaway fromm an inventiion when aa POSA w
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ould
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be discoouraged or diverted ffrom followwing the paath leadingg to the invvention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`becausee of the prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`228.
`
`
`
` I undderstand thhat in orderr to rely onn inherencyy in an obvviousness
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`analysiss for establlishing the existence of a claim
`
`
`
`limitationn in the prioor art, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`missingg descriptivve materiall must neceessarily be present inn the prior aart and nott
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`merely probably oor possiblyy present.
`
`aim Consttruction
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat in an intter partes rreview, claaims are giiven the
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. Cla
`
`
`
`229.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`broadesst reasonabble interpreetation (“BRRI”) in lighht of the sppecificatioon of the paatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in whichh it appearrs. Both thee specification and thhe prosecuttion historyy can inforrm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the claimm interprettation but ddo not necessarily limmit it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat extrinsicc evidence such as teextbooks, aarticles,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dictionaaries, etc. ccan be usedd to help innterpret thee claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 11
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I undderstand thaat the BRI
`cannot be
`
`
`
`
`
`
` construedd so broadlyy as to
`
`
`
`31.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`encomppass prior aart technoloogies excluuded by thee use of thhose terms
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the pateent
`
`
`
`specificcation.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ctive the perspeceted from tbe interprems should bat the claimI undderstand tha
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` understannd that the
`
`
`
`’235 patennt
`
`
`
`on Decembmber 29, 20
`
`00 and a
`
`
`
`. My opiniion is the ssame for eiither
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a POSA at the ttime the innvention was made. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ation filed nal applicaa provisionclaims ppriority to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`er 28, 2001n Decembeart filed oncontinuation-in-pa
`
`
`
`date.
`
`
`
`A. “selects between nnetwork innterfaces oon a per-ppacket bassis”/“makee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`networkk path seleections on a packet--by-packett basis.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A 3
`
` Claim3. m 4 recites
`
`
`
`
`
`
`et a per-packerfaces on atwork inter“selects between net
`
`
`
`
`
`basis” aand claim 99 recites “mmake network path seelections oon a packett-by-packett
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`basis.” AA POSA wwould havee understoood these terrms to meaan “for eacch packet,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`makes aa discrete cchoice betwween netwoork paths/iinterfaces.””
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The f34. first part of
`
`
`
`
`
`f these claiim terms reequires a sselection prrocess. Thee
`
`
`
`
`
`’235 paatent’s speccification aand file history use thhe term “seelect” (and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e between ice is madeforms oof the wordd) to mean that a choi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`all alternaative
`
`ore
`two or mo
`
`
`
`possibillities. (EX11001, 4:16–21, 6:62––7:5, 11:2––10, 12:60––61, 14:400–43, 14:599–
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`67, 15:665–16:4, 166:15–27). FFor exampple, the speecification
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`states that
`
`“[d]uring
`a
`
`
`
`path sellecting stepp 908, the ppath selecttor 704 seleects the paath over whhich the paacket
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`will be sent; selection is madde betweenn at least twwo paths, eeach of whhich goes oover
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 12
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`a differeent networrk 106 thann the other..” (EX100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1, 14:40–443, emphassis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POSA wwould undeerstand thee plain andd ordinary mmeaning o
`
`
`
`f the term
`
`
`
`“select” too be
`
`
`
`“to chooose from aa number orr group.” ((EX2028, pp. 1059). AAccordinglly, a POSAA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would uunderstandd that the teerms “seleccts betweenn network
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interfaces”” and “makke
`
`
`
`
`
`networkk path selecctions” reqquire that aa choice is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`availablle networkk paths/inteerfaces.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`t’s specificcation and
`
` The ’35. ’235 paten
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`being madde betweenn at least twwo
`
`
`
`file historyy use the teerm “per-
`
`
`
`
`
`packet” and “packket-by-packket” in acccordance wwith its plaiin and ordiinary meanning.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(EX10001, 6:67–7::5, 9:12–177, 14:44–4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6, 16:15–221). A POSSA would uunderstandd the
`
`
`
`
`
`1). 028, p. 861ch.” (EX20be “for eacm “per” to bplain annd ordinaryy meaning of the term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordiingly, a POOSA wouldd have undderstood th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at a processs occurrinng on a per
`
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`packet oor packet-bby-packet bbasis requiires the proocess to occcur for eacch packet.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`h its use of f the term ““select” an
`
`
`
` Cons36. sistent with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d “per-paccket,” the ’
`
`235
`
`
`
`basis fromm
`
`
`
`patent eexpressly ddistinguishees path selection appplied on a pper-packet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`path sellection appplied to muultiple packkets:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This path seelecting steep 908 mayy be perforrmed once
`
`
`
`
`eelection mmay pertain to multiple packets.
`
`14:44–46)).
`(EX1001,
`
` per packeet, or a giveen
`
`T s
`
`
`
`This passage is immportant beecause it diistinguishees per-packket path sellection fromm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for each rred path fngle, preferociate a sinwhich assoing tables wconventtional routi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`destinattion. The selection off the preferrred path ooccurs, for
`
`
`
`
`
`example, wwhen the
`
`
`
`10
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 13
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`routing
`
`
`
`
`table is uppdated, andd all incomming packetts for a givven destinaation will bbe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d path untime preferredrouted oon the sam
`
`
`
`l the routinng table is
`
`
`
`updated aggain with aa
`
`
`
`
`
`new preeferred pathh.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The ’37. ’235 paten
`
`
`
`
`
`t makes a ssimilar disstinction beetween graanular and
`
`
`
`
`
`coarse nnetwork seelection. Seelecting maay divide nnetwork traaffic at the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`packet-byy-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`packet, TCP/UDPP session, pper-departmment, or peer-router leevels:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`particular,
`
`prior apprroaches forr selecting
`
`which nettwork to usse for
`In
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whhich packett(s) are coaarse. For innstance, alll packets frfrom departtment X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`might be sentt over the fframe relayy connectioon 106 whhile all packkets from
`
`
`
`
`deppartment YY are sent oover the Innternet 500
`. (EX1001
`
`, 4:17–21)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Looad-balanciing is prefeerably done on a per--packet bassis for site--to-site
`
`
`datta traffic ovver the Int
`
`
`
`
`CP or UDP ne on a TCnet, or donernet or fraame relay n
`that use a
`
`
`
`
`
`sesssion basis for Interneet traffic, aas opposedd to prior appproaches
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`perr-departmeent and/or pper-router basis for ddividing traaffic. (EX11001,
`
`7:338–42).
`
`teria to be r other critundancy, orncing, redu[T]]he inventiion allows load-balan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`useed dynamiccally, on a granularitty as fine aas packet-bby-packet, tto direct
`router
`
`
`
`
`pacckets to ann Internet roouter and/oor a frame
`
`relay/poinnt-to-point
`
`
`
`
`acccording to the criteriaa.” (EX10001, 9:12–1
`7).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A POSAA would unnderstand from thesee exampless of coarse
`
`
`
`network s
`
`
`
`election thhat
`
`
`
`an initiaal selectionn is made bbetween neetworks, annd subsequuent packetts are chec
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`against that initiall selection to determine which nnetwork too route the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`toward.
`
`
`
` This initiaal selectionn is enforceed by the rrouting tab
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`le le until a rrouting tabl
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`ked
`
`packets
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 14
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`betweenn network ppaths for eeach incomming packett. It is my oopinion th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at a POSAA
`
`change
`
`
`
`
`occurs. Thhus, coarsee selection does not enntail makinng a discreete choice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would cconstrue peer-packet ppath selectiion to excluude the rouuting of paackets baseed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on a sinngle selection that appplies to muultiple subssequent paackets, as inn the case
`
`
`
`
`
`of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`per-department neetwork seleection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Furth38. her, with re
`
`
`
`
`
`eference too Fig. 9, thee ’235 pateent further
`
`
`
`the distiinction bettween seleccting on a pper-packett basis and d selecting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`elaboratess on
`
`
`
`on a multipple-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`packet bbasis. The packet seleection proccess in Figg. 9 can (1)) be repeateed for eachh
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`packet ((EX1001, 16:15–21) or (2) occuur just oncce for each receive-seend pair off
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d pair of eceive-sendhe same recket with thlowing pacat each folladdresses such tha
`
`
`
`
`
`address
`
`
`
`
`
`
`es is routedd accordinng to the prreviously s
`
`
`
`elected nettwork pathh (EX1001
`
`
`
`,
`
`
`
`16:21–332). The diifference between perr-packet seelection annd standardd routing baased
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on pre-sselected neetwork pathh is shownn in the annnotations too Fig. 9 be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`low.
`
`
`
`12
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 15
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peer-packet NNetwork SSelection
`
`
`
`Reepeats Thee Selectionn Loop
`
`
`Foor Each Paacket
`
`
`Alterrnatively,
`The Selec
`tion
`Then
`
`
`Loopp Occurs OOnce And
`
`
`
`Eachh Packet Iss Simply RRouted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (EX10001, Fig. 9).
`
`
`
`
`
`he Board’s constructiion regardiing the aboove-noted
`
`
`
`
`
` Furth39. hermore, th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimedd phrase in IPR 2016--00976, is completelyy consistennt with thee above
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`analysiss. In IPR2
`
`
`
`016-009766, the Boarrd stated thhe followinng:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 16
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`P e b w P s
`
`b e a S s
`
`e s
`
`o c p t
`
`c p
`
`
`
`Petitioner aargued that claim 4 mmust be bro
`
`
`
`ad enoughh to encomppass the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mbodimennt in whichh selectionss were perfformed forr multiple ppackets
`
`
`
`
`because it wwould be immproper too construe cclaim 4 in
`a manner
`that
`
`
`We do nott agree. Thhe
`
`
`
`would excluude that emmbodimentt. Reply 2.
`
`
`
`Patentee deescribed muultiple embbodiments
`
`
`in the speccification aand as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`uuch, the Paatentee was free to deetermine wwhich emboodiments wwould
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be encompaassed by wwhich claimms. Here, wwe are preseented withh
`
`
`
`vidence thhat the Pateentee drafteed claim 5
`
`
`to cover bboth emboddiments
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nd drafted dependentt claims too focus on tthe individdual emboddiments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Such a draffting choicee is within the purvieew of the PPatentee annd we
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eee no reasoon why wee must consstrue claimm 4 in a maanner that wwould
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ncompass all embodiments. Thhe Patenteee’s choice tto describee the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eelection ass occurringg on a “per packet bassis” whenn viewed inn light
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the speciification annd the otheer claims inndicates a ddecision too direct
`
`
`laim 4 to thhe embodiiment in w
`
`
`
`hich routess are selectted for eacch
`
`
`
`
`packet. As ssuch, we finnd that thee languagee of claims
`
`4 and 9 inndicates
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hhat these claims are ddirected too the emboddiment wh
`erein path
`
`
`packet. Thherefore, wwe
`
`
`
`
`seelection is performedd for each individual
`
`
`
`
`
`network electing a no mean “seonstrue thee disputed phrases to
`
`
`
`path/interfaace for eacch packet.””
`
`(Ex. 20225, at 9).
` There
`
`440.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`hat derstood thefore, it is my opinioon that a POOSA wouldd have und
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selections on a perr-packet orr packet-byy-packet baasis requirre the selecction proceess
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to multiplee applied td cannot bepacket andindividual to occurr for each i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` packets.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 17
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`B. “dynammic load b
`
`alancing”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ims 11–13
`
` Chall41. lenged clai
`
` recite the
`
`
`
`term “dynnamic load--balancingg.”
`
`
`
`
`
`B 4
`
`
`
`In the context of the ’235 paatent’s speccification,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ancing” to c load-balathe termm “dynamic mean “dis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a POSA wwould havee understoood
`
`
`
`tributing ppackets bassed on actuual
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`traffic aassessed affter the paccket arrivess.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The ’442. ’235 paten
`
`
`
`t’s specificcation expllicitly and
`
`
`
`repeatedlyy describess
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dynamic load balaancing as bbalancing loads in ressponse to aactual trafffic. For
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`examplee, the ’2355 specificattion distingguishes loaad-balancinng betweenn routers thhat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are assoociated with differentt departmennts within
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the enterpprise from lload-balan
`
`
`
`cing
`
`dynami
`
`cally to ac
`
`
`
`count for aactual trafffic:
`
`Fo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`r instance, a local areea networkk (LAN) att site 1 mayy be set upp to send
`all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A1 and to router Apartments td sales depounting andtraffic fromm the acco
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sennd all traffiic from thee engineeriing departmment to rouuter B1. Thhis may
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proovide a verry rough baalance of thhe traffic lload betweeen the routters, but it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`doees not attemmpt to balaance routerr loads dynnamically iin responsee to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`acttual traffic and thus iis not “loadd-balancingg” as that tterm is useed herein.
`
`
`
`
`(EXX1001, 2:661–65, empphasis addded).
`
`
`
`The phrrase “as thaat term is uused hereinn” in this ppassage infoforms a POOSA that thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’235 speecificationn imposes cconstraints on the meeaning of thhe term “looad-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`balancinng,” relativve to the wway that terrm was useed conventiionally to ddescribe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`balancinng traffic loads betweeen routerss. In particcular, dynammic load-bbalancing iin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the conttext of the patented innvention reequires thaat load-balaancing is pperformed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on
`
`
`
`15
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2027, pg. 18
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the basiis of the acctual trafficc observed at the timee of balanccing on thee available
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lines.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would undderstand froom the aboove-quotedd passage thhat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus443. , a POSA w
`
`
`
`dynamic load-balaancing is liimited to ““balance[inng] router lloads dynaamically in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`response to actuall traffic.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`t further deescribes dyynamic loaad-balancinng as beingg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The ’444. ’235 paten
`
`
`
`based on the actuaal traffic affter the paccket arrive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s at the conntroller:
`
`
`
`
`[I]nn some casses the pathh for the n
`
`ext packet
`
`may be deetermined bby the
`
`
`
`
`
`paccket path sselector beffore the paacket arrivees, e.g., in
`
`a round-roobin
`
`
`
`maanner, whille in other cases the ppath is deteermined affter the paccket
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`arrrives, e.g., using per-ppacket dynnamic loadd balancingg. (EX10011, 14:53–
`
`58)).
`
`
`
`This passage distinguishes (A) pre-seleection of ppacket pathhs prior to tthe arrival
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of
`
`cket paths, tion of pacamic selectm (B) dynantroller frompackets at the con
`
`after the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d on actualcket, basedarrival oof each pac
`
`
`
`traffic connditions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The r445. round-robi
`
`
`
`n approachh, for exammple, pre-s
`
`
`
`elects the ppacket pathhs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mple, e, for examrticular linebecausee each incooming packket is alreaddy destinedd for a par
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a packet to line 1, next pack
`
`
`
`
`
`et to line 22, next packket to line
`
`
`
`
`
`3, next paccket to linee 1
`
`
`
`
`
`e ou