UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`- vs. –
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED
`
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`DECLARATION OF NARASIMHA REDDY, PHD, UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN
`
`SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,775,235
`
`1
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 
`
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 7 
`
`III.  Understanding of Patent Law ........................................................................ 11 
`
`IV.  The ’235 Patent .............................................................................................. 13 
`
`V. 
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 15 
`
`VI.  Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ............................................................... 17 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`“parallel network configuration” / “parallel” ...................................... 18 
`
`“disparate networks” ........................................................................... 18 
`
`“private network” ................................................................................ 19 
`
`“independent…networks” ................................................................... 20 
`
`VII.  Detailed Invalidity Analysis .......................................................................... 20 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 5-6, 8, 10, 14, and 22 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. §103 over Guerin and the Admitted Prior Art ........................ 24 
`
`1. 
`
`Prior Art References ................................................................ 24 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`Background on Guerin ................................................... 24 
`
`Background on Admitted Prior Art ............................... 26 
`
`2. 
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 5-6, 8, 10, 14, and 22 ..... 27 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`c) 
`
`d) 
`
`e) 
`
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 27 
`
`Claim 6 ........................................................................... 42 
`
`Claim 8 ........................................................................... 43 
`
`Claim 10 ......................................................................... 44 
`
`Claim 14 ......................................................................... 47 
`
`
`
`2
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`f) 
`
`Claim 22 ......................................................................... 48 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: Claim 7 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over
`Guerin, the Admitted Prior Art, and Monachello ............................... 49 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Prior Art References ................................................................ 50 
`
`a) 
`
`Background on Monachello ........................................... 50 
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claim 7 ....................................... 50 
`
`a) 
`
`Claim 7 ........................................................................... 50 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground 3: Claims 4, 9, 19, and 24 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 over Guerin, the Admitted Prior Art, and Bollapragada ........... 53 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Prior Art References ................................................................ 53 
`
`a) 
`
`Background on Bollapragada ........................................ 53 
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 4, 9, 19, and 24 ............... 53 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`c) 
`
`d) 
`
`Claim 4 ........................................................................... 53 
`
`Claim 9 ........................................................................... 74 
`
`Claim 19 ......................................................................... 76 
`
`Claim 24 ......................................................................... 82 
`
`D.  Ground 4: Claims 11-13 and 23 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 over Guerin, the Admitted Prior Art, Bollapragada, and
`Smith .................................................................................................... 82 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Prior Art References ................................................................ 82 
`
`a) 
`
`Background on Smith ..................................................... 82 
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 11-13 and 23 .................. 83 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`Claim 11 ......................................................................... 83 
`
`Claim 12 ......................................................................... 85 
`
`
`
`3
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`c) 
`
`Claim 13 ......................................................................... 87 
`
`d) 
`
`Claim 23 ......................................................................... 88 
`
`E. 
`
`Ground 5: Claim 20 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over
`Guerin .................................................................................................. 88 
`
`1. 
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claim 20 ..................................... 88 
`
`a) 
`
`Claim 20 ......................................................................... 88 
`
`F. 
`
`Ground 6: Claim 21 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over
`Guerin, the Admitted Prior Art, and Fowler ....................................... 90 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Prior Art References ................................................................ 91 
`
`a) 
`
`Background on Fowler .................................................. 91 
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claim 21 ..................................... 91 
`
`a) 
`
`Claim 21 ......................................................................... 91 
`
`G.  Ground 7: Claims 1 and 15 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103
`over Guerin, the Admitted Prior Art, Bollapragada, and Shaffer ...... 95 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Prior Art References ................................................................ 95 
`
`a) 
`
`Background on Shaffer .................................................. 95 
`
`Unpatentability Analysis of Claims 1 and 15 .......................... 96 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 96 
`
`Claim 15 ....................................................................... 102 
`
`VIII.  Availability for cross-examination .............................................................. 102 
`
`IX.  Conclusion ................................................................................................... 103 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`I, Narasimha Reddy, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Cisco Systems Inc. (“Cisco”) as
`
`an independent expert witness for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235 (“the ’235 Patent”). I am being
`
`compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time I spent in connection
`
`with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1,
`
`4-15, and 19-24 (each a “Challenged Claim” and collectively the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) of the ’235 Patent are invalid as they would have been obvious to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the earliest claimed
`
`priority date. It is my opinion that all of the Challenged Claims would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA after reviewing the prior art discussed below.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`e)
`
`EX1001, the ’235 Patent;
`
`EX1002, the file history of the ’235 Patent;
`
`the prior art references discussed below:
`
` US Patent 6,243,754 to Guerin et al. (“Guerin”) (EX1006);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,748,439 to Monachello et al.
`
`(“Monachello”) (EX1007);
`
`
`
`5
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
` Inside Cisco IOS Software Architecture by Vijay
`
`Bollapragada et al. (“Bollapragada”) (EX1008);
`
` US Patent No. 6,122,743 to Shaffer et al. (“Shaffer”)
`
`(EX1012);
`
` U.S. Patent No. 7,296,087 to Peter J. Ashwood Smith
`
`(“Smith”) (EX1015);
`
` Virtual Private Networks by Dennis Fowler (“Fowler”)
`
`(EX1014).
`
`4.
`
`I understand that the ’235 Patent issued on August 10, 2004 from U.S.
`
`Patent Appl. No. 10/361,837 (“the ’837 application”), filed on February 7, 2003.
`
`The ’837 application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`60/355,509 (“the ’509 Provisional”), filed February 8, 2002. The ’837 application
`
`is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 10/034,197 (“the ’197
`
`Application”), filed December 28, 2001, which claims priority to U.S. provisional
`
`Application No. 60/259,269, filed December 29, 2000. The face of the ’235 Patent
`
`lists Sanchaita Datta and Bhaskar Ragula as the purported inventors.
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon
`
`my education and experience in the relevant field of art, and have considered the
`
`viewpoint of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), as of December 29,
`
`2000. I have also considered:
`
`
`
`6
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`a)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`b)
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`
`below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness, and
`
`d) my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area
`
`as described below.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation in view of the patent specification and the understandings of a
`
`POSITA. I further understand that this is not the same claim construction standard
`
`as one would use in a District Court proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`7. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is attached as an Appendix A to this Declaration. As set forth in my
`
`curriculum vitae:
`
`8.
`
`I am currently the J.W. Runyon Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. I have over 25
`
`years of experience in a wide variety of technologies and industries relating to data
`
`communications, storage systems, distributed systems, including the development
`
`of mechanisms and protocols for detecting and avoiding network congestion.
`
`
`
`7
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`9. My academic credentials include a Bachelor’s of Technology Degree
`
`in Electronics and Electrical Communications Engineering from the Indian
`
`Institute of Technology, in Kharagpur, India, in August 1985. I then received a
`
`Masters of Science and a Ph.D. degree in Computer Engineering from the
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in May 1987 and August 1990,
`
`respectively.
`
`10. My professional background and technical qualifications are stated
`
`above and are also reflected in my Curriculum Vitae, which is attached as
`
`Appendix A to this Declaration. I am being compensated at a rate of $550.00 per
`
`hour, with reimbursement for actual expenses, for my work related to this Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review. My compensation is not dependent on, and in no way
`
`affects, the substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`11.
`
`I have worked for over 25 years in the field of Electrical Engineering.
`
`My primary focus and research interest has been on Computer Networks, Storage
`
`Systems, Multimedia systems, and Computer Architecture. I have authored and co-
`
`authored over a hundred technical papers and several book chapters related to
`
`several of these interests, including on such topics as multipath routing, route
`
`control, high-speed networks, congestion, packet management, quality of service
`
`regulation, network security, network modeling, differentiated services, storage
`
`system enhancements, and multimedia system enhancements to name a few
`
`
`
`8
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`examples. I am listed as an inventor on five patents in the field of multi-node
`
`communication networks.
`
`12. My employment history following my graduation from the University
`
`of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign began at the IBM Almaden Research Center in
`
`San Jose, California in 1990. At IBM, I worked on projects related to disk arrays,
`
`multiprocessor communication, hierarchical storage systems and video servers.
`
`13.
`
`In 1995, I joined the faculty of the department of Electrical
`
`Engineering at Texas A&M University initially as an Associate Professor and was
`
`later promoted to a full, tenured professor. At Texas A&M, I am Associate Agency
`
`Director for Strategic Initiatives and Centers for the Texas A&M Engineering
`
`Experiment Station (TEES), which engages in engineering and technology-
`
`oriented research and educational collaborations. Further, I currently serve as
`
`Associate Dean for Research.
`
`14. At Texas A&M, I have taught dozens of courses related to computer
`
`networking and communications, as well as computer architecture, multimedia
`
`systems and networks, topics in networking security, multimedia storage and
`
`delivery, as well as networking for multimedia applications. I have also served on
`
`various committees for the benefit of the scientific community and the Texas
`
`A&M University community.
`
`
`
`9
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`15.
`
`I am a member of a number of professional societies, including the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), where I have been elevated
`
`to an IEEE Fellow, and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). I have
`
`been responsible for chairing or co-chairing numerous conferences and programs,
`
`as well as presenting research at major IEEE and ACM conferences. For example,
`
`I served as program co-chair for the 2008 5th International Conference on
`
`Broadband Communications, Networks and Systems, panels co-chair for the 2008
`
`3rd International Conference on Communication Systems Software & Middleware,
`
`and panel chair of the IEEE Conference of High Performance Computer
`
`Architecture.
`
`16. My recent presentations include a Keynote speech at International
`
`Conference on Information Technology-New Generations in 2013, a Keynote
`
`speech at IEEE International Symposium on Computers and Communications
`
`2010, several invited talks including Georgia Tech (2013), COMSNETS
`
`Conference (2013), Int. Conf. on Networking and Communications (2012),
`
`Samsung (2011), Korea University (2011), Aijou University (2011), Catedra Series
`
`talk at University of Carlos III, Madrid (2009), Thomson Research, Paris (2009),
`
`Telefonica Research, Barcelona (2009) and a Distinguished seminar at IBM Austin
`
`Research Lab (2008).
`
`
`
`10
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`17.
`
`I have received multiple awards in the field of networks and computer
`
`architecture. I received the NSF Career Award from 1996-2000. I received an
`
`outstanding professor award by the IEEE student branch at Texas A&M during
`
`1997-1998, an outstanding faculty award by the department of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering during 2003-2004, a Distinguished Achievement award for
`
`teaching from the former students association of Texas A&M University, and a
`
`citation “for one of the most influential papers from the 1st ACM Multimedia
`
`conference.”
`
`18. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A. Additional
`
`information regarding my education, technical experience and publications,
`
`including a list of the US patents of which I am an inventor/co-inventor, is
`
`included therein.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`19.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ’235 Patent would have been anticipated or obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the patent, in
`
`light of the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102, a reference must teach each and every element of the claim. Further, it is my
`
`understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the
`
`
`
`11
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`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. I also
`
`understand that the obviousness analysis takes into account factual inquiries
`
`including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`and the differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. I understand some of these rationales include the
`
`following: combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device (method,
`
`or product) in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device
`
`(method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing
`
`from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; and 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.
`
`22. The analysis in this declaration is in accordance with the above-stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`
`
`12
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`IV. THE ’235 PATENT
`
`23. The ’235 Patent is titled “Tools and Techniques for Directing Packets
`
`over Disparate Networks” and was issued on August 10, 2004.
`
`24. The ’235 Patent describes in its background that organizations “have
`
`used frame relay networks and point-to-point leased line networks for
`
`interconnecting geographically dispersed offices or locations” and alleges that
`
`“these networks also tend to be expensive, and there are relatively few options for
`
`reliability and redundancy.” EX1001, 1:28-37. The ’235 Patent further
`
`characterizes frame relay networks as “an example of a network that is ‘disparate
`
`from the Internet and from Internet-based virtual private networks for purposes of
`
`the present invention.” EX1001, 1:56-58.
`
`25. The ’235 Patent further explains that a point-to-point network “may
`
`become suddenly unavailable for use” and mentions a known solution “involving
`
`two or more ‘private’ networks in parallel,” whereas the ’235 Patent “focuses on
`
`architectures involving disparate networks in parallel.” EX1001, 2:4-20. The ’235
`
`then goes on to describe “various architectures involving multiple networks …
`
`known in the art” such as those depicted in FIGs. 1-5. EX1001, 2:33-35. Each of
`
`those solutions describes sites connected to each other using multiple networks,
`
`and in the case of FIG. 5, a connection from site 1 to site 2 using either a frame
`
`relay network or an Internet network. EX1001, FIG. 5.
`
`
`
`13
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`26. The ’235 Patent mentions as its alleged solution “an inventive
`
`controller” which “examines the IP data traffic meant to go through it and makes
`
`determinations and takes steps” which include sending traffic over various
`
`networks. EX1001, 6:34-36, 7:21-25. In one example, if “traffic is destined for
`
`the Internet” the controller sends traffic over two different lines. EX1001, 7:26-27.
`
`Comparatively, if “traffic is destined for location B, then there are at least three
`
`paths from the current location (A) to location B: frame relay line 5, VPN line 1, or
`
`Internet line 2.” EX1001, 7:46-48. The controller may then choose “the
`
`communication line based on load-balancing criteria” or choose “the
`
`communication line that is either the preferred line or…[a] currently functional
`
`(backup) line.” EX1001, 7:51-56.
`
`27. Representative independent claim 4 recites this well-known concept:
`
`4. A controller which controls access to multiple networks in
`a parallel network configuration,
`suitable networks
`comprising Internet-based networks and private networks
`from at least one more provider, in combination, the
`controller comprising:
`
`a site interface connecting the controller to a site;
`
`at least two network interfaces which send packets toward
`the networks; and
`
`
`
`14
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`a packet path selector which selects between network
`interfaces on a per-packet basis according to at least: a
`destination of the packet, an optional presence of alternate
`paths to that destination, and at least one specified criterion
`for selecting between alternate paths when such alternate
`paths are present;
`
`wherein the controller receives a packet through the site
`inter-face and sends the packet through the network
`interface that was selected by the packet path selector.
`
`28. As I discuss below in more detail, the systems and methods of
`
`directing packets to two different networks presented in the ’235 Patent were well
`
`known to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest priority date of the
`
`’235 Patent.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record, and that a POSITA to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art has ordinary creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`30.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`
`
`15
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems. There are likely a wide range of
`
`educational backgrounds in the technology fields pertinent to the ’235 Patent. The
`
`concepts disclosed in the ’235 Patent are relatively simple and would have been
`
`covered by an undergraduate-level course on network architecture.
`
`31.
`
`I am very familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art of network architecture would have possessed in
`
`December 2000. Specifically, my experience in the industry, with colleagues from
`
`academia, with graduate students whose work I supervised, and with engineers
`
`practicing in the industry during the relevant timeframe allowed me to become
`
`personally familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the area of network architecture. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony
`
`below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of
`
`network architecture at the time of the priority date of the ’235 Patent.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art needed
`
`to have the capability of understanding of network architecture applicable to the
`
`’235 Patent is (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Electrical and/or
`
`Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately two years of
`
`work experience in the field of network architecture. Lack of work experience can
`
`be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Such academic and industry
`
`
`
`16
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`experience would be necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or anticipated
`
`in the industry and what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought
`
`and understood at the time. I believe I possess such experience and knowledge,
`
`and am qualified to opine on the ’235 Patent.
`
`33. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art during the time period around the earliest claimed priority date of the ’235
`
`Patent. I would have been a person with at least ordinary skill in the art at that
`
`time.
`
`VI. BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
`
`34.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’235
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification.
`
`35.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the
`
`’235 Patent along with portions of the prosecution history of the ’235 Patent (Ex.
`
`1002). Consistent with the ’235 Patent disclosure, I have given the terms in the
`
`Challenged Claims the broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`17
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`A.
`
`“parallel network configuration” / “parallel”
`
`36. These terms appear in independent claims 1, 4, 5, 19, 20, 21, and 22.
`
`37. The ’235 Patent does not provide an explicit definition for the term
`
`“parallel” or phrase “parallel network configuration.” The ’235 Patent
`
`characterizes the prior art arrangement in FIG. 1 as depicting “parallel” frame relay
`
`networks 106 and 108, noting that “an alternate path is available if either (but not
`
`both) of the frame relay networks fails.” EX1001, 3:64-66.
`
`38. Therefore, it is my opinion that a POSITA would understand the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “parallel” to be “providing an alternate path
`
`to a destination.”
`
`B.
`
`“disparate networks”
`
`39. This term appears in claims 1, 2, 5, 13, and 22.
`
`40. The ’235 Patent does not provide an explicit definition for the phrase
`
`“disparate networks.” Rather, the ’235 Patent gives examples of networks that are
`
`disparate from the Internet and from Internet-based virtual private networks.
`
`These examples include frame relay networks (EX1001, 1:56-58) and point-to-
`
`point networking technology such as a T1 or T3 connection (id. at 59-60). A
`
`dictionary defines “disparate” as “distinct in kind; essentially different; dissimilar.”
`
`EX1012. Furthermore, the ’235 Patent describes FIG. 5 as “illustrating a prior art
`
`approach having a frame relay network configured in parallel with a VPN or other
`
`
`
`18
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`Internet-based network that is disparate to the frame relay network…” EX1001,
`
`5:25-29.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 5
`
`
`
`41. Thus, a POSITA would have understood the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of “disparate networks” to be “networks that are dissimilar or distinct
`
`in kind.”
`
`C.
`
`“private network”
`
`42. This term appears in claims 1 and 4.
`
`43. The ’235 Patent does not provide an explicit definition for the term
`
`“private network.” However, to the extent construction of this term is necessary, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that the term “private network” should encompass
`
`at least frame relay networks, point-to-point networks, and similar technologies,
`
`
`
`19
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`but should expressly exclude Internet-based solutions. This is clear from at least
`
`column 2, line 23-25, where the ’235 Patent states that “Virtual private networks
`
`[VPNs] are Internet-based, and hence disparate from private networks, i.e., from
`
`frame relay and point-to-point networks.” Thus, from this discussion in the ’235
`
`Patent, a POSITA would have understood that Internet-based networks, including
`
`Internet-based VPNs, are not within the definition of a “private network” and are
`
`therefore excluded from the meaning of the term.
`
`D.
`
`“independent…networks”
`
`44. This phrase appears in claim 1.
`
`45. The ’235 Patent provides an explicit definition for the term
`
`“independent”: “routing information need not be shared between the networks.”
`
`EX1001, 6:2-3. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the phrase “independent…networks” to mean a
`
`configuration in which routing information need not be shared between networks.
`
`VII. DETAILED INVALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`46.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’235 Patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The
`
`discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art references I
`
`reviewed teach the limitations of the Challenged Claims of the ’235 Patent.
`
`
`
`20
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`47. As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the
`
`prior art and any potential differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`
`prior art. I conducted my analysis as of the earliest claimed priority date of the
`
`’235 Patent: December 29, 2000. I have also considered the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art as of that date.
`
`48.
`
`I have been informed that all claims of the ’235 Patent may not be
`
`entitled to its earliest claimed priority date of December 29, 2000. To that end, I
`
`have been asked to identify whether the prior applications to which the ’235 Patent
`
`claims priority to provide written description support for the limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims. It is my opinion that at least challenged claims 1, 5-15, and
`
`22-24 are not supported by at least some of the applications to which the ’235
`
`Patent claims priority.
`
`49.
`
`In particular, claims 1, 5-15, and 22-24 recite the term “disparate
`
`networks” and specify that the disparate networks are in a parallel arrangement.
`
`As I detailed previously, a POSITA would have understood the term “disparate
`
`networks” to mean “networks that are dissimilar or distinct in kind.” It is my
`
`opinion that at least the ’197 Application, to which the ’235 Patent claims priority,
`
`does not provide support for an arrangement having “disparate networks”
`
`employed in a parallel configuration.
`
`
`
`21
`
`CISCO EX1005
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Narasimha Reddy Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`
`50. As a prelimi