`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`RIOT GAMES, INC., and
`VALVE CORP.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PALTALK HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -1321
`U.S. Patent No. 5,822,523 & 5,822,523 C1
`U.S. Patent No. 6,226,686 & 6,226,686 C1
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`CORRECTED REPLY DECLARATION OF DR. STEVE R. WHITE
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NOS. 5,822,523 AND 6,226,686
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2018-01238, -1241, -1242, and -1243 have been joined with these
`
`proceeding.
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – Cover
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`I do hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 21, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Steve R. White
`
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. i
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Analysis ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Skilled Artisan’s Understanding of “Aggregated Payload” and
`“Aggregated Message” .......................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness of Combining Aldred and RFC 1692 ............................ 11
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Relevant Disclosure of RFC 1692 ............................................ 11
`
`Relevant Disclosure of Aldred .................................................. 14
`
`C.
`
`Relevant Disclosure of Aldred in view of RFC 1692 ......................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. ii
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. Steve R. White, make this declaration. All statements herein
`
`made of my own knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true. I am over 21 and otherwise
`
`competent to make this declaration. Although I am being compensated for my
`
`time in preparing this declaration, the opinions herein are my own.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as an expert witness in
`
`the above-captioned proceedings. I previously submitted a declaration (Ex.1007)
`
`and had my deposition taken in connection with these proceedings. My original
`
`declaration describes my background and qualifications, my understanding of the
`
`legal standards for patentability, my description of the state of the art, my overview
`
`of the patents, and my overview of the prior art. I have been asked to further
`
`provide my opinion about certain statements and analysis provided by Dr. Kevin
`
`C. Almeroth (Ex.2002) regarding the state of the art of the technology described in
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 5,822,523 (“’523 Patent”) (Ex.1001) and 6,226,686 (“’686
`
`patent”) (Ex.1002) and on the patentability of these patents.
`
`II. Analysis
`
`3.
`
`In addition to the documents I considered in forming my opinion in
`
`my original declaration, I have also reviewed and considered the following in
`
`preparation of this declaration, as well as any other cited reference or document in
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 1
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`this declaration: Declaration of Dr. Kevin Almeroth (Ex.2002); CV of Kevin C.
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`Almeroth (Ex.2003); Transmission Control Protocol, RFC 793 (Ex.1051); Excerpts
`
`of the Declaration of Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D. from IPR2017-01391 (Ex.1056), and
`
`Excerpts of the Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D. from IPR2017-00769
`
`(Ex.1058). I offer the following analysis in response to Dr. Almeroth’s opinions
`
`regarding the ’523 and ’686 patents.
`
`A.
`
`Skilled Artisan’s Understanding of “Aggregated Payload” and
`“Aggregated Message”
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Dr. Almeroth has offered an opinion as to whether
`
`and how an Ordinary Artisan would understand the terms “aggregated payload”
`
`and “aggregated message.” Ex.2002 (Almeroth Decl.), ¶40. Specifically, I
`
`understand that Dr. Almeroth stated:
`
`With respect to the term “aggregated payload,” and the closely related
`term “aggregated message,” I am not aware of a commonly
`understood meaning for the term “aggregated payload” at the time of
`filing of the ‘523 and ‘686 Patents, and I was not personally aware of
`specific and understood meanings of the terms in the industry in 1996.
`While a POSITA could make an educated guess as to what could
`make up an “aggregated payload” or an “aggregated message,” a
`POSITA would have had to turn to the specific disclosure of the ‘523
`and ‘686 Patents to determine the exact meaning and composition of
`an “aggregated payload” and an “aggregated message,” as defined by
`the inventors of the ‘523 and ‘686 Patent.
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 2
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`Id.
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`5.
`
`I respectfully disagree. I note that Dr. Almeroth does not argue that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have to turn to the specific disclosure of
`
`the ’523 and ’686 patents to understand the meaning of “aggregated,” “payload,”
`
`or “message,” so I have focused my analysis of whether a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand the meaning of “aggregated payload” and “aggregated
`
`message” in the context of the claims and the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“aggregated,” “payload,” or “message.”7 In my opinion, the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the words “aggregated,” “payload,” and “message” in the context of
`
`the claims provides sufficient context to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`understand the terms “aggregated payload” and “aggregated message.” This
`
`meaning is consistent with the meaning of those words as used in the specification.
`
`
`
`7 I have also considered this issue based on the construction of
`
`“aggregating/aggregated” previously identified by Patent Owner in district court:
`
`“to collect two or more data items together as a unit, however, where each data
`
`item retains its identity and may be extracted from the unit.” Ex.1016, 93. I
`
`understand that the parties dispute the proposed construction of this and other
`
`terms in district court.
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 3
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`6.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “messages”
`
`and “payloads” can exist on multiple layers of a system architecture. This would
`
`include the OSI scheme and other layered system architectures. For example, in
`
`the TCP/IP context, there can be an IP “message” (i.e., an IP datagram) comprising
`
`an IP header and IP payload. E.g., Ex.1011 (RFC 791 (describing IP); Ex.1051
`
`(RFC 793 (describing TCP). That IP “payload” can be an entire TCP “message”
`
`(i.e., a TCP segment) comprising a TCP header and TCP payload. That TCP
`
`“payload” can comprise an entire session “message” comprising a session header
`
`and session payload. That session “payload” can then comprise application data.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the terms “message”
`
`and “payload” apply to the layer on which they are transmitted. This is consistent
`
`with the ’523 and ’686 patent’s usage of the terms “message” and “payload.” E.g.,
`
`Ex.1001 (523 patent), 1:24-51, 3:53-4:13; Ex.1002 (686 patent), 1:28-55, 3:57-
`
`4:17.
`
`7.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that
`
`“messages” can contain other messages as a “payload,” including the headers and
`
`payloads of those inner messages. For example, an IP “message” (i.e., an IP
`
`datagram) can contain an entire TCP “message” (i.e., a TCP segment) as the IP
`
`“payload,” including the TCP header and TCP payload. E.g., Ex.1011 (RFC 791
`
`(describing IP); Ex.1051 (RFC 793) (describing TCP). In the case of RFC 1692,
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 4
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`an IP “message” can contain multiple TCP segments as the IP “payload,” including
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`multiple TCP headers and TCP payloads. Ex.1010 (RFC 1692), 2-5. In the
`
`context of the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims, the “payload portion” of
`
`an IP packet could comprise a TCP header and its payload, and an “aggregated
`
`payload” and “aggregated message” could comprise multiple TCP headers with
`
`each of their payloads.
`
`8.
`
`The ’523 and ’686 Patents describe conventional network protocols
`
`including TCP and IP. See, e.g., Ex.1001, 26:28-29; Ex.1002, 26:28-29. I
`
`understand that Dr. Almeroth included the following figures in prior declarations
`
`in different proceedings as illustrating the headers and payloads in a layered
`
`communications network involving IP.
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 5
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`Ex.1058, 3.
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`
`
`Ex.1056, 5. I believe these figures accurately represent how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood the different types of layered headers in the
`
`Internet protocol suite. Also, I agree with Dr. Almeroth’s statement that “[e]ach
`
`layer is generally not aware of which portion of the data from the preceding layer
`
`constitutes the layer header or the user data; as such, each layer treats the data it
`
`receives from the preceding layer as some generic payload.” Ex.1056, 4 (emphasis
`
`added); see id., 5 (“Each layer of the receiving host recognizes and manipulates
`
`only the headers associated with that layer, since to that layer the higher layer
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 6
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`header data is included with and indistinguishable from the payload data.”
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`(emphasis added)).
`
`9.
`
`Below is the text of claim 1 of the ’523 patent, with the two terms
`
`identified by Dr. Almeroth emphasized:
`
`1. A method for providing group messages to a plurality of host
`computers connected over a unicast wide area communication
`network, comprising the steps of:
`
`providing a group messaging server coupled to said network,
`said server communicating with said plurality of host computers using
`said unicast network and maintaining a list of message groups, each
`message group containing at least one host computer;
`
`sending, by a plurality of host computers belonging to a first
`message group, messages to said server via said unicast network, said
`messages containing a payload portion and a portion for identifying
`said first message group;
`
`aggregating, by said server in a time interval determined in
`accordance with a predefined criterion, said payload portions of said
`messages to create an aggregated payload;
`
`forming an aggregated message using said aggregated payload;
`
`and
`
`transmitting, by said server via said unicast network, said
`aggregated message to a recipient host computer belonging to said
`first message group.
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 7
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`10. Claim 1 of the ’523 patent recites “aggregating … said payload
`
`portions of said messages to create an aggregated payload.” In the context of the
`
`claim as a whole, the phrase “aggregated payload” is the result of “aggregating …
`
`said payload portions of said messages.” I believe a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would not need to turn to the specification of the ’523 patent to understand the
`
`meaning of the term “aggregated payload” in the context of the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of these terms and the claim as a whole. Having reviewed the
`
`specification of the ’523 patent, however, I believe that, even after having
`
`reviewed the specification, a person of ordinary skill would have applied the same
`
`understanding of the term that is apparent from the claims.
`
`11. As also stated above, claim 1 of the ’523 patent recites “forming an
`
`aggregated message using said aggregated payload.” In the context of the claim as
`
`a whole, the phrase “aggregated message” is the result of forming a “message
`
`using said aggregated payload.” I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not need to turn to the specification of the ’523 patent to understand the
`
`meaning of the term “aggregated message” in the context of the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of these terms and the claim as a whole. Having reviewed the
`
`specification of the ’523 patent, however, I believe that, even after having
`
`reviewed the specification, a person of ordinary skill would have applied the same
`
`understanding of the term that is apparent from the claims.
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 8
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`12. As another example, below is the text of claim 1 of the ’686 patent:
`
`1. A method for facilitating communications among a plurality of host
`computers over a network to implement a shared, interactive
`application, comprising the steps of:
`
`(1) receiving a create message from one of the plurality of host
`computers, wherein said create message specifies a message group to
`be created;
`
`(2) receiving join messages from a first subset of the plurality
`of host computers, wherein each of said join messages specifies said
`message group;
`
`(3) receiving host messages from a second subset of said first
`subset of the plurality of host computers belonging to said message
`group, wherein each of said messages contains a payload portion and
`a portion that is used to identify said message group;
`
`(4) aggregating said payload portions of said host messages
`received from said second subset of the plurality of host computers to
`create an aggregated payload;
`
`(5) forming an aggregated message using said aggregated
`payload; and
`
`(6) transmitting said aggregated message to said first subset of
`the plurality of host computers belonging to said message group;
`
`wherein said aggregated message keeps the shared, interactive
`application operating consistently on each of said first subset of the
`plurality of host computers.
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 9
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`13. Claim 1 of the ’686 patent recites “aggregating said payload portions
`
`of said host messages … to create an aggregated payload.” In the context of the
`
`claim as a whole, the phrase “aggregated payload” is the result of “aggregating
`
`said payload portions of said host messages.” I believe a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would not need to turn to the specification of the ’686 patent to
`
`understand the meaning of the term “aggregated payload” in the context of the
`
`plain and ordinary meaning of these terms and the claim as a whole. Having
`
`reviewed the specification of the ’686 patent, however, I believe that, even after
`
`having reviewed the specification, a person of ordinary skill would have applied
`
`the same understanding of the term that is apparent from the claims.
`
`14. Claim 1 of the ’686 patent recites “forming an aggregated message
`
`using said aggregated payload.” In the context of the claim as a whole, the phrase
`
`“aggregated message” is the result of forming a “message using said aggregated
`
`payload.” I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would not need to turn to
`
`the specification of the ’686 patent to understand the meaning of the term
`
`“aggregated message” in the context of the plain and ordinary meaning of these
`
`terms and the claim as a whole. Having reviewed the specification of the ’686
`
`patent, however, I believe that, even after having reviewed the specification, a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have applied the same understanding of the term
`
`that is apparent from the claims.
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 10
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`B. Obviousness of Combining Aldred and RFC 1692
`I understand that Dr. Almeroth has offered an opinion regarding
`15.
`
`whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`modify Aldred’s central serialization point to utilize RFC 1692’s TMux scheme.
`
`See Ex.2002 (Almeroth Decl.), ¶¶60-85. I discuss portions of his opinion below.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that Dr. Almeroth has offered the opinion that “using the
`
`TMux protocol disclosed in RFC 1692 could disrupt the required order of the
`
`serialisation operation of Aldred in light of the disclosure in RFC 1692 that large
`
`packets should not be multiplexed and immediately transmitted.” Ex.2002
`
`(Almeroth Decl.), ¶66; see id., ¶¶60-81. After reviewing his analysis and
`
`supporting evidence, I respectfully disagree.
`
`i.
`
`Relevant Disclosure of RFC 1692
`
`17. RFC 1692 explains that “TMux is not intended for multiplexing long
`
`streams composed of large blocks of data that are typically transmitted by such
`
`applications as FTP.” Ex.1010 (RFC 1692), 1. When describing how multiplexed
`
`messages are constructed, RFC 1692 explains that it “is also suggested that larger
`
`segments (e.g., those over 700 octets) should be sent as standard IP datagrams, and
`
`not multiplexed.” Id., 6-7. “This is to ensure that the delay caused by the TMux
`
`timer does not put a delay on those segments for which it is inadvisable.” Id. RFC
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 11
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`1692 concludes that the “size of the largest segments to be multiplexed should (if
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`possible) be configurable.” Id.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that Dr. Almeroth concludes from this disclosure that
`
`“while the TMux timer has not expired, any packets … that should not be TMuxed,
`
`such as large packets, would be transmitted immediately in a separate datagram
`
`before the TMuxed message under construction that includes the small packets is
`
`transmitted.” Ex.2002 (Almeroth Dec.), ¶¶73-75 (citing Ex.1010 (RFC 1692), 1,
`
`2, 4, 7) (emphasis added).
`
`19. As a factual matter, however, RFC 1692 does not actually state that
`
`the “larger segments” are sent ahead of any multiplexed message under
`
`construction. The portions of RFC 1692 relied upon by Dr. Almeroth (Ex.1010
`
`(RFC 1692), 1, 2, 4, 7) do not expressly support his out-of-order concept.
`
`20. Additionally, a review of RFC 1692 as a whole would lead one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to the opposite conclusion. Although RFC 1692 suggests
`
`“that larger segments … should be sent as standard IP datagrams, and not
`
`multiplexed” (Ex.1010 (RFC 1692), 7), later in the document it further explains
`
`this suggestion. In Section 5.2 (“Deciding Which Segments to Multiplex”), RFC
`
`1692 states:
`
`It is the responsibility of the sender to decide which segments should
`be TMux’d and which should not. For example, segments sent by FTP
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 12
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`should not normally be multiplexed. … However, if a segment that
`would not normally be multiplexed is to be sent and a TMux message
`is already under construction, then the extra segment can be added to
`the TMux message under construction, and this complete message
`should be sent immediately, rather than waiting for the timer to
`expire.
`
`Ex.1010 (RFC 1692), 8-9 (emphasis added).
`
`21. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that RFC 1692
`
`suggests that in the case where a multiplexed message is under construction, the
`
`larger segment is NOT sent before the message under construction. Instead, it is
`
`added to the multiplexed message under construction in a buffer and the whole
`
`message is sent immediately. Ex.1010 (RFC 1692), 8-9. The order of segments is
`
`therefore maintained by the TMux between receipt by the IP layer and
`
`transmission as an IP packet.
`
`22. This disclosure is consistent with the situation described in Section
`
`3.3. (“Multiplexed Message Construction”), which suggested the larger segments
`
`be sent without “the delay caused by the TMux timer.” Ex.1010 (RFC 1692), 6-7.
`
`Because the larger segment is added to the multiplexed message and the whole
`
`message is sent immediately, that avoids “the delay caused by the TMux timer” for
`
`this larger segment. Ex.1010 (RFC 1692), 6-7, 8-9.
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 13
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`23.
`
`I therefore respectfully disagree with Dr. Almeroth’s opinion that
`
`RFC 1692 discloses that larger segments are sent before “the TMuxed message
`
`under construction that includes the small packets is transmitted.” Ex.2002
`
`(Almeroth Decl.), ¶¶73-75. As explained above and in the reference itself, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand RFC 1692 to suggest
`
`multiplexing those larger segments into any multiplexed message under
`
`construction and sending the complete packet immediately, which would result in
`
`larger segments being sent in order relative to smaller segments.
`
`ii.
`
`Relevant Disclosure of Aldred
`
`24. Regardless of whether RFC 1692 sends segments in-order or out-of-
`
`order, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Aldred maintains
`
`the order of its data packets in two ways.
`
`25. First, Aldred provides an order guarantee at the logical channel level
`
`and regardless of the underlying networking scheme. Aldred explains that “[a]
`
`sending port such as 45 sends data packets down the channel; a receiving port such
`
`as 46 receives data packets from the channel in the order in which they were sent.”
`
`Ex.1009 (Aldred), 6 (emphasis added).8 Aldred further explains that its scheme
`
`
`
`8 The “data packets” of Aldred can be application-level messages.
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 14
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`allows nodes “to define multiple dedicated logical data channels between shared
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`applications, suitable to a broad range of multi-media traffic, independently of the
`
`structure of the underlying physical network.” Id., 3. Therefore, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that Aldred’s channel provides an order
`
`guarantee independent of the underlying physical network. This means that even if
`
`the underlying physical network re-ordered the physical network packets, Aldred’s
`
`channels would still provide their updates in order and maintain serialization. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would read Aldred’s disclosure related to
`
`channels as maintaining the order of events at a logical level and regardless of the
`
`physical connection, which would resolve any out-of-order IP packet transmission.
`
`26.
`
`I also note that Aldred is not limited to messages of any particular
`
`size. For example, Aldred describes a system having, among other applications, a
`
`“chalkboard,” “file transfer,” and “video/voice link.” Ex.1009, 27-28, Fig. 13. An
`
`Ordinary Artisan would understand the “chalkboard” application can send only
`
`small messages and the “file transfer” or “voice/video link” applications can send
`
`only larger messages. Thus, Aldred considers systems that can send only small
`
`messages, big messages, or both.
`
`27.
`
`I note the ’523 and ’686 patents also disclose the claimed invention is
`
`applicable to applications with many different message sizes. The ’523 and ’686
`
`patents disclose networked games which can send both large and small messages,
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 15
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`including games that send generally large “audio” messages. E.g., Ex.1001, 1:58-
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`2:12; Ex.1002, 1:62-2:16; Ex.1006 at 277-78 (discussing “Suzuki” an “avatar-
`
`based virtual world system” where “users are able to talk to other uses by
`
`providing audio dat[a]”). They also disclose hosts that are, for example,
`
`“television set top boxes or any other device with a programmable controller
`
`capable of implementing the ULP protocol.” Ex.1001, 27:35-38; Ex.1002, 27:35-
`
`38. The breadth of the potential “hosts” in the specification would inform a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention can work with applications
`
`that send many kinds of messages.
`
`28. Second, Aldred discloses the use of TCP/IP. Ex.1009 (Aldred), 29-
`
`30, Fig. 10. This protocol is also expressly considered by RFC 1692, which is an
`
`extension of IP that supports both TCP and UDP. Ex.1010 (RFC 1692), 6-7.
`
`29. TCP is a highly reliable host-to-host protocol between hosts in packet-
`
`switched computer communication networks. Ex.1051 (RFC 793), 1. This
`
`reliability is implemented by sequence numbers that allow out-of-order TCP
`
`segments to be correctly reordered upon receipt:
`
`The TCP must recover from data that is damaged, lost, duplicated, or
`delivered out of order by the internet communication system. This is
`achieved by assigning a sequence number to each octet transmitted,
`and requiring a positive acknowledgment (ACK) from the receiving
`TCP. If the ACK is not received within a timeout interval, the data is
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 16
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`retransmitted. At the receiver, the sequence numbers are used to
`correctly order segments that may be received out of order and to
`eliminate duplicates. Damage is handled by adding a checksum to
`each segment transmitted, checking it at the receiver, and discarding
`damaged segments.
`
`Ex.1051 (RFC 793), 4 (emphasis added). “A natural way to think about processing
`
`incoming segments is to imagine that they are first tested for proper sequence
`
`number (i.e., that their contents lie in the range of the expected ‘receive window’ in
`
`the sequence number space) and then that they are generally queued and processed
`
`in sequence number order.” Id., 53; see also Ex.1056, 3 (“IP, like the postal
`
`service, will route the envelope-like packets to the destination, but TCP (like the
`
`numbering of the individual pages) sets the rules to allow the recipient to verify
`
`that all of the pages have been received and to reassemble the pages in the right
`
`order.”).
`
`30. This means that the order that the TCP segments are sent to a host (or
`
`arrive at a host) is irrelevant to whether layers above TCP on that host receive an
`
`in-order stream of information. Regardless of the order of the received TCP
`
`segments, the TCP protocol will use the sequence numbers to re-order the TCP
`
`segments upon receipt. Ex.1051 (RFC 793), 4. The TCP protocol will then
`
`present the upper layers with data from the TCP segments in the same order it was
`
`added to TCP segments by the sender. Ex.1051 (RFC 793), 53. These upper
`
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 17
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`layers including the “ends of channels [that] are known as ports” in Aldred.
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`Ex.1009, 6. Aldred explains these “ports” may not correspond to any fixed
`
`network implementation because “[t]here may be no direct mapping between the
`
`logical channel structure seen by the aware application and the physical
`
`communication network in existence between the nodes.” Id. The “logical
`
`network model” of Aldred is implemented “in a physical network, transparently to
`
`the application program[].” Id., 2. In the context of Aldred, this means that the
`
`order of serialized data is maintained when serialized data is presented to a “port”
`
`regardless of whether the underlying packets (having TCP segments) used to
`
`transport the serialized data are received in-order or out-of-order by the destination
`
`node’s TCP functionality.
`
`31.
`
`I note that this functionality is confirmed by the ’523 and ’686
`
`patents: “TCP is a connection oriented service to applications that does provide
`
`reliable delivery of a data stream. It handles division of the stream into packets
`
`and ensures reliable, in order delivery.” Ex.1001 (523 patent), 3:44-50; Ex.1002
`
`(686 patent), 3:48-54 (both citing RFC 793 (Ex.1051)) (emphasis added).
`
`32.
`
`I therefore respectfully disagree with Dr. Almeroth’s opinion that any
`
`re-ordering of TCP segments by “the TMux protocol disclosed in RFC 1692 could
`
`disrupt the required order of the serialisation operation of Aldred ….” Ex.2002
`
`(Almeroth Decl.), ¶66. Aldred maintains the order of Aldred application packets
`Petitioner Riot Games – Ex. 1053 – p. 18
`Riot Games, Inc. v. PalTalk Holdings, Inc., IPR2018-00129, -130, -131, -132
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00129, 130 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,822,523)
`IPR2018-00131, 132 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,226,686)
`
`within a logical channel regardless of the underlying physical network, and its use
`
`Reply Decl. of Dr. White
`
`of TCP would additionally maintain the order of its serialized data through TCP’s
`
`use of sequence numbers.
`
`33.
`
`I also understand that Dr. Almeroth questions whether it would have
`
`been obvious to utilize TMux in Aldred in light of Aldred’s “alternative bandwidth
`
`solutions.” Ex.2002, ¶¶82-85. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand TMux complements Aldred’s existing bandwidth and dynamic re-
`
`allocation techniques. TMux can apply to “situations where small packets are
`
`generated.” Ex.1010, 1. These packets can be redundant. A person of ordinary
`
`skill would understand that (1) TMux is useful when you have lots of small TCP
`
`segments, as you do in th
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
