`
`
`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