UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WISTRON CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR. No. IPR2018-00328
`U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`Title: FAST-PATH APPARATUS FOR RECEIVING DATA CORRESPONDING
`TO A TCP CONNECTION
`
`
`Petition For Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241 Under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`9.
`
`9.3
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 1
`2.1 Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ................................... 1
`2.2 Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information ........... 1
`2.3 Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................ 2
`2.4 Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................ 2
`2.5 Fee for Inter Partes Review ................................................................. 5
`2.6 Proof of Service ................................................................................... 5
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (§
`42.104(B)) ...................................................................................................... 5
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 6
`4.1 TCP/IP ................................................................................................. 7
`4.2 UDP/IP .............................................................................................. 10
`4.3 Protocol Offload ................................................................................ 11
`OVERVIEW OF THE 241 PATENT .......................................................... 12
`241 PATENT PROSECUTION HISTORY ................................................ 15
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 15
`7.1 Applicable Law ................................................................................. 15
`7.2 Construction of Claim Terms ............................................................ 16
`7.2.1 “[first/second] mechanism” .................................................... 16
`7.2.2 “without an interrupt dividing” ............................................... 24
`PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................... 25
`DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART ...................................................... 26
`9.1 U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”) ........................................... 26
`9.2 Tanenbaum96: A. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 3rd ed.
`(1996) ................................................................................................ 28
`“Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End
`Performance” by Alteon Networks (Ex.1033, “Alteon”) ................. 31
`9.4 Alacritech’s expert admits that almost all of the limitations are
`found in the prior art .......................................................................... 33
`9.5 Motivations To Combine Erickson and Tanenbaum96 .................... 34
`9.6 Motivations To Combine Erickson, Tanenbaum96, and Alteon ...... 38
`10. GROUND #1: CLAIMS 1-8, 18, 22, AND 23 ARE
`UNPATENTABLE AS OBVIOUS OVER ERICKSON IN
`COMBINATION WITH TANENBAUM96 AND ALTEON .................... 40
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`10.1 Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 41
`10.1.1 [1.P] A method for network communication, the method
`comprising: .............................................................................. 41
`10.1.2 [1.1] receiving a plurality of packets from the network,
`each of the packets including a media access control
`layer header, a network layer header and a transport
`layer header; ............................................................................ 41
`10.1.3 [1.2] processing the packets by a first mechanism, so
`that for each packet the network layer header and the
`transport layer header are validated without an interrupt
`dividing the processing of the network layer header and
`the transport layer header; ....................................................... 43
`10.1.4 [1.3] sorting the packets, dependent upon the
`processing, into first and second types of packets, so
`that the packets of the first type each contain data; ................ 45
`10.1.5 [1.4] sending, by the first mechanism, the data from
`each packet of the first type to a destination in memory
`allocated to an application without sending any of the
`media access control layer headers, network layer
`headers or transport layer headers to the destination. ............. 46
`10.2 Claim 2 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 48
`10.2.1 [2.1] The method of claim 1, wherein processing the
`packets by a first mechanism further comprises:
`processing the media access control layer header for
`each packet without an interrupt dividing the processing
`of the media access control layer header and the
`network layer header. .............................................................. 48
`10.3 Claim 3 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 49
`10.3.1 [3.1] The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`processing an upper layer header of at least one of the
`packets by a second mechanism, thereby determining
`the destination, wherein the upper layer header
`corresponds to a protocol layer above the transport
`layer. ........................................................................................ 49
`10.4 Claim 4 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 51
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`10.4.1 [4.1] The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`processing an upper layer header of at least one of the
`packets of the second type by a second mechanism,
`thereby determining the destination. ....................................... 51
`10.5 Claim 5 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 51
`10.5.1 [5.1] The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`processing a transport layer header of another packet by
`a second mechanism, prior to receiving the plurality of
`packets from the network, thereby establishing a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection for the
`packets of the first type. .......................................................... 51
`10.6 Claim 6 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 53
`10.6.1 [6.1] The method of claim 1, wherein sorting the
`packets includes classifying each of the packets of the
`first type as having an Internet Protocol (IP) header and
`a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). ................................ 53
`10.7 Claim 7 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 54
`10.7.1 [7.1.1] The method of claim 1, further comprising:
`transmitting a second plurality of packets to the
`network, ................................................................................... 54
`10.7.2 [7.1.2] each of the second plurality of packets
`containing a media access control layer header, a
`network layer header and a transport layer header, ................ 55
`10.7.3 [7.1.3] including processing the second plurality of
`packets by the first mechanism, so that for each packet
`the media access control layer header, the network layer
`header and the transport layer header are prepended at
`one time as a packet header. ................................................... 56
`10.8 Claim 8 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 60
`10.8.1 [8.1] The method of claim 1, wherein the first
`mechanism is a sequencer running microcode. ...................... 60
`11. GROUND #2: CLAIMS 9-24 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS OVER ERICKSON IN COMBINATION WITH
`TANENBAUM96 ........................................................................................ 60
`11.1 Claim 9 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 61
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`11.1.1 [9.P] A method for communicating information over a
`network, the method comprising: ........................................... 61
`11.1.2 [9.1] obtaining data from a source in memory allocated
`by a first processor; ................................................................. 61
`11.1.3 [9.2] dividing the data into multiple segments; ...................... 62
`11.1.4 [9.3.1] prepending a packet header to each of the
`segments by a second processor, thereby forming a
`packet corresponding to each segment, .................................. 62
`11.1.5 [9.3.2] each packet header containing a media access
`control layer header, a network layer header and a
`transport layer header, wherein the network layer header
`is Internet Protocol (IP), the transport layer header is
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and ............................. 63
`11.1.6 [9.3.3] the media access control layer header, the
`network layer header and the transport layer header are
`prepended at one time as a sequence of bits during the
`prepending of each packet header; and ................................... 63
`11.1.7 [9.4] transmitting the packets to the network. ........................ 63
`11.2 Claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 64
`11.2.1 [10.1] The method of claim 9, wherein each packet
`header is formed based upon a block of information
`created by the first processor. ................................................. 64
`11.3 Claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 64
`11.3.1 [11.1] The method of claim 9, further comprising:
`receiving another packet from the network, the other
`packet containing a receive header including
`information corresponding to a network layer and a
`transport layer; and ................................................................. 64
`11.3.2 [11.2] determining, by the second processor, whether
`the other packet corresponds to the same TCP
`connection as the transmitted packets. .................................... 65
`11.4 Claim 12 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 66
`11.4.1 [12.1] The method of claim 9, further comprising
`establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
`connection by the first processor and using the
`connection to prepend the packet header to each of the
`segments by the second processor. ......................................... 66
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`11.5 Claim 13 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 70
`11.5.1 [13.1] The method of claim 9, further comprising
`creating a template header and forming each packet
`header based upon the template header. ................................. 70
`11.6 Claim 14 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 70
`11.6.1 [14.1] The method of claim 9, wherein obtaining data
`from the source in memory allocated by the first
`processor is performed by a Direct Memory Access
`(DMA) unit controlled by the second processor. .................... 70
`11.7 Claim 15 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 70
`11.7.1 [15.1] The method of claim 9, further comprising
`prepending an upper layer header to the data, prior to
`dividing the data into multiple segments. ............................... 70
`11.8 Claim 16 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 72
`11.8.1 [16.1] The method of claim 9, further comprising:
`receiving another packet from the network, the other
`packet containing a receive header including
`information corresponding to a network layer and a
`transport layer; and ................................................................. 72
`11.8.2 [16.2] selecting whether to process the other packet by
`the first processor or by the second processor. ....................... 72
`11.9 Claim 17 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 73
`11.9.1 [17.P] A method for communicating information over a
`network, the method comprising: ........................................... 73
`11.9.2 [17.1] providing, by a first mechanism, a block of data
`and a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection; ....... 73
`11.9.3 [17.2] dividing, by a second mechanism, the block of
`data into multiple segments; ................................................... 75
`11.9.4 [17.3.1] prepending, by the second mechanism, an
`outbound packet header to each of the segments,
`thereby forming an outbound packet corresponding to
`each segment, .......................................................................... 75
`11.9.5 [17.3.2] the outbound packet header containing an
`outbound media access control layer header, an
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`outbound Internet Protocol (IP) header and an outbound
`TCP header, ............................................................................. 75
`11.9.6 [17.3.3] wherein the prepending of each outbound
`packet header occurs without an interrupt dividing the
`prepending of the outbound media access control layer
`header, the outbound (IP) header and the outbound TCP
`header; and .............................................................................. 75
`11.9.7 [17.4] transmitting the outbound packets to the network. ...... 76
`11.10 Claim 19 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 76
`11.10.1
`[19.1] The method of claim 17, further
`comprising creating a template header and using the
`template header to form each outbound packet header. ......... 76
`11.11 Claim 20 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 76
`11.11.1
`[20.1] The method of claim 17, wherein the TCP
`connection is passed from the first mechanism to the
`second mechanism. ................................................................. 76
`11.12 Claim 21 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 76
`11.12.1
`[21.1] The method of claim 20, further
`comprising prepending an upper layer header to the
`block of data, prior to dividing the block of data into
`multiple segments. .................................................................. 76
`11.13 Claim 24 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 ....................................................... 77
`11.13.1
`[24.1] The method of claim 17, further
`comprising: processing a transport layer header of
`another inbound packet, prior to receiving the plurality
`of packets from the network, thereby establishing a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection for the
`inbound packets. ...................................................................... 77
`12. GROUND #3: CLAIMS 18, 22, 23 ARE UNPATENTABLE AS
`OBVIOUS OVER ERICKSON IN COMBINATION WITH
`TANENBAUM96 ........................................................................................ 77
`12.1 Claim 18 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 78
`12.1.1 [18.1] The method of claim 17, further comprising:
`receiving multiple inbound packets from the network,
`each of the inbound packets including an inbound media
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`access control layer header, an inbound IP header and
`an inbound TCP header; .......................................................... 78
`12.1.2 [18.2] processing the inbound packets, so that for each
`packet the inbound IP header and the inbound TCP
`header are validated without an interrupt dividing the
`processing of the inbound network layer header and the
`inbound transport layer header; .............................................. 78
`12.1.3 [18.3] wherein the processing the inbound packets is
`performed simultaneously with the prepending the
`outbound packet header to each of the segments. ................... 78
`12.2 Claim 22 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 79
`12.2.1 [22.1] The method of claim 17, further comprising:
`receiving multiple inbound packets from the network,
`each of the inbound packets including an inbound media
`access control layer header, an inbound IP header and
`an inbound TCP header; .......................................................... 79
`12.2.2 [22.2] processing the inbound packets, so that for each
`packet the inbound IP header and the inbound TCP
`header are validated without an interrupt dividing the
`processing of the inbound network layer header and the
`inbound transport layer header; and ........................................ 79
`12.2.3 [22.3] sending data from each inbound packet to a
`destination in memory allocated to an application
`without sending any of the media access control layer
`headers, IP headers or TCP headers to the destination. .......... 79
`12.3 Claim 23 is unpatentable as obvious over Erickson in
`combination with Tanenbaum96 and Alteon .................................... 80
`12.3.1 [23.1] The method of claim 22, further comprising:
`processing an upper layer header of at least one of the
`packets by the second mechanism, thereby determining
`the destination, wherein the upper layer header
`corresponds to a protocol layer above the transport
`layer. ........................................................................................ 80
`13. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`Ex.1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241 (“241 Patent”)
`Ex.1002 Excerpts from Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`(“241 File History”)
`
`Ex.1003 Declaration of Robert Horst
`
`Ex.1004 Curriculum Vitae of Robert Horst
`
`Ex.1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,768,618 (“Erickson”)
`Ex.1006 Tanenbaum, Andrew S., Computer Networks, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
`New Jersey (1996). (“Tanenbaum96”)
`Ex.1007 Transmission Control Protocol, “Darpa Internet Protocol
`Specification”, RFC: 793, Sept. 1981. (“RFC 793”)
`Ex.1008 Stevens, W. Richard, TCP/IP Illustrated Volume 1: The Protocols,
`Addison-Wesley (1994). (“Stevens1”)
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Lilinkamp, J., Mandell. R. and Padlipsky, M., “Proposed Host-Front
`End Protocol”, Network Working Group Request for Comments: 929,
`Dec. 1984. (“RFC 929”)
`
`Ex.1010 Not Used
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Librarian Declaration of Rice Majors regarding Andrew S.
`Tanenbaum, Computer Networks (3rd ed. 1996) (Ex.1006,
`“Tanenbaum96”)
`
`Ex.1012 Not Used
`Ex.1013 Stevens, W. Richard and Gary R. Wright, TCP/IP Illustrated Volume
`2: The Implementation, Addison-Wesley (1995). (“Stevens2”)
`
`Ex.1014 Not Used
`Ex.1015 Thia, Y.H., Woodside, C.M., “A Reduced Operation Protocol Engine
`(ROPE) for a Multiple-Layer Bypass Architecture”, Protocols for
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`High Speed Networks (Dordrecht), 1995. (“Thia”)
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Biersack, E. W., Rütsche E., “Demultiplexing on the ATM Adapter:
`Experiments with Internet Protocols in User Space”, Journal on High
`Speed Networks, Vol. 5, No. 2, May 1996. (“Biersack”)
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Rütsche, E., Kaiserswerth, M., “TCP/IP on the Parallel Protocol
`Engine”, Proceedings, IFIP Conference on High Performance
`Networking, Liege (Belgium), Dec. 1992. (“Rütsche92”)
`Ex.1018 Rütsche, E., “The Architecture of a Gb/s Multimedia Protocol
`Adapter”, Computer Communication Review, 1993. (“Rütsche93”)
`
`Ex.1019
`
`Padlipsky, M. A., “A Proposed Protocol for Connecting Host
`Computers to Arpa-Like Networks Via Directly-Connected Front End
`Processors”, Network Working Group RFC #647, Nov. 1974. (“RFC
`647”)
`
`Ex.1020 U.S. Patent No. 5,619,650 (“Bach”)
`
`Ex.1021 U.S. Patent No. 5,915,124 (“Morris”)
`
`Cooper, E.C., et al., “Protocol Implementation on the Nectar
`Communication Processor”, School of Computer Science, Carnegie
`Mellon University, Sept. 1990. (“Cooper”)
`
`Kung, H.T., et al., “A Host Interface Architecture for High-Speed
`Networks”, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
`and Network Systems Corporation. (“Kung”)
`
`Exhibit D to Declaration of Dr. Gregory L. Chesson in Support of
`Microsoft’s Opposition to Alacritech’s Motion for Preliminary
`Injunction: “Protocol Engine Handbook”, Protocol Engines
`Incorporated, Oct. 1990. (“Chesson”)
`
`Kanakia, H., Cheriton, D.R., “The VMP Network Adapter Board
`(NAB): High-Performance Network Communication for
`Multiprocessors”, Communications Architectures & Protocols,
`Stanford University, Aug. 1988. (“Kanakia”)
`
`ii
`
`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Ex.1024
`
`Ex.1025
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Ex.1026
`
`Ex.1027
`
`Ex.1028
`
`Description
`
`Kung, H.T., Cooper, E.C., et al., “Network-Based Multicomputers:
`An Emerging Parallel Architectures”, School of Computer Science,
`Carnegie Mellon University. (“Kung and Cooper”)
`
`Dalton, C., et al., “Afterburner: Architectural Support for High-
`Performance Protocols”, Networks & Communications Laboratories,
`HP Laboratories Bristol, July 1993. (“Dalton”)
`
`Murphy, E., Hayes, S., Enders, M., TCP/IP Tutorial and Technical
`Overview Fifth Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey, (1995).
`(“Murphy”)
`
`Ex.1029
`
`MacLean, A.R., Barvick, S. E., “An Outboard Processor for High
`Performance Implementation of Transport Layer Protocols”, IEEE
`Globecom ‘91, Phoenix, AZ, Dec. 1991. (“MacLean”)
`Ex.1030 Clark, D.D., et al., “An Analysis of TCP Processing Overhead”, IEEE
`Communications Magazine, June 1989. (“Clark”)
`Ex.1031 U.S. Provisional Application 60/061,809 (“Alacritech 1997
`Provisional Application”)
`
`Culler, E.C., et al., “Parallel Computing on the Berkeley NOW”,
`Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley.
`(“Culler”)
`
`“Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End
`Performance”, Alteon Networks, Inc. First Edition, Sept. 1996.
`(“Alteon”)
`
`Smith, J.A., Primmer, M., “Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel
`Protocol Chip”, Hewlett-Packard Journal, Article 12, Oct. 1996.
`(“Smith”)
`
`Patterson, D.A., Hennessy, J.L., Computer Architecture: A
`Quantitative Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., San
`Mateo, CA (1990). (“Patterson”)
`
`Internet Protocol, “Darpa Internet Protocol Specification”, RFC: 791,
`
`iii
`
`Ex.1032
`
`Ex.1033
`
`Ex.1034
`
`Ex.1035
`
`Ex.1036
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`Sept. 1981. (“RFC 791”)
`
`Ex.1037 Not Used
`
`Woodside, C. M., Ravindran, K. and Franks, R. G.. “The protocol
`bypass concept for high speed OSI data transfer.” IFIP Workshop on
`Protocols for High Speed Networks. 1990. (“Woodside”)
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement Pursuant to Rule
`4-3 (Alacritech, Inc. v. Dell Inc, Intel Corporation, et al.) (“JCCS”)
`
`Not Used
`
`Ex.1038
`
`Ex.1039
`
`Exs.1040-
`1050
`
`Ex.1051 U.S. Patent No. 4,027,293
`
`Ex.1052 U.S. Patent No. 5,329,630
`
`Not Used
`
`Ex.1053-
`1061
`Ex.1062 Rebuttal Declaration of Paul S. Min in Support of Plaintiff’s Claim
`Construction Brief (“Min Rebuttal Declaration”)
`
`Ex.1063-
`1076
`
`Not Used
`
`Ex.1077 Deposition of Paul S. Min on March 21, 2017 (“Min Depo”)
`
`Ex.1078-
`1086
`
`Not Used
`
`Ex.1087
`
`Librarian Declaration of Christopher Butler regarding “Gigabit
`Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End Performance”,
`Alteon Networks, Inc. First Edition, Sept. 1996. (Ex.1033, “Alteon”)
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123,
`
`Wistron Corporation (“Petitioner” or “Wistron”) hereby petitions the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board to institute an inter partes review of claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,337,241, titled “Fast-Path Apparatus for Receiving Data Corresponding to a
`
`TCP connection” (Ex.1001, the “241 Patent”), and cancel those claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`2.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`2.1 Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that (1) the 241 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and, (2) if the Board grants the accompanying Motion for Joinder, Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review of the challenged claims of
`
`the 241 Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`This Petition is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b). The Motion seeks to join this
`
`petition to instituted IPR2017-01392 filed by Intel Corporation and later joined by
`
`Cavium, Inc.
`
`2.2 Notice of Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4), and 42.10(a), Petitioner
`
`provides the following designation of Lead and Back-Up counsel.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`Lead Counsel
`Benjamin E. Weed
`Reg. No. 65,939
`K&L Gates LLP
`70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`benjamin.weed.PTAB@klgates.com
`T: (312) 781-7166
`F: (312) 827-8152
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Erik J. Halverson
`Reg. No. 73,552
`K&L Gates LLP
`70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`erik.halverson@klgates.com
`T: (312) 807-4240
`F: (312) 345-8529
`
`Petitioner consents to service by electronic mail. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(b), a Power of Attorney for Petitioner is attached.
`
`2.3 Notice of Real-Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Petitioner—and co-defendants in the below mentioned district court
`
`litigation, SMS InfoComm Corporation and Wiwynn Corporation—are the real-
`
`parties-in-interest with regard to this Petition. No other parties exercised or could
`
`have exercised control over this Petition; no other parties funded or directed this
`
`Petition. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48759-60.
`
`2.4 Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Petitioner identifies the following district court proceedings involving the
`
`241 patent:
`
`• Alacritech, Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.);
`
`• Alacritech, Inc. v. Wistron Corp., 2:16-cv-00692-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.);
`
`• Alacritech, Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2:16-cv-00695-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`
`
`Petitioner identifies the following administrative proceedings involving the
`
`241 patent:
`
`• Intel Corp., v. Alacritech, Inc., IPR2017-01392;
`
`• Intel Corp., v. Alacritech, Inc., IPR2017-01713;
`
`• Cavium, Inc. v. Alacritech, Inc., IPR2017-01728;
`
`• Cavium, Inc. v. Alacritech, Inc., IPR2017-01733.
`
`The patent family to which the ’241 patent belongs contains 21 additional
`
`U.S. patents or patent applications:
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 10/092,967 (filed Mar. 6, 2002, issued Jul. 8,
`
`2003 as U.S. Patent No. 6,591,302);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 10/023,240 (filed Dec. 17, 2001, issued Nov.
`
`15, 2005 as U.S. Patent No. 6,965,941);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/464,283 (filed Dec. 15, 1999, issued Jul.
`
`30, 2002 as U.S. Patent No. 6,427,173);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/439,603 (filed Nov. 12, 1999, issued Jun.
`
`12, 2001 as U.S. Patent No. 6,247,060);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/067,544 (filed Apr. 27, 1998, issued May
`
`1, 2001 as U.S. Patent No. 6,226,680);
`
`• U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/061,809 (expired);
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/384,792 (filed Aug. 27, 1999, issued Aug.
`
`13, 2002 as U.S. Patent No. 6,434,620);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/141,713 (filed Aug. 28, 1998, issued May
`
`14, 2002 as U.S. Patent No. 6,389,479);
`
`• U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/098,296 (expired);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/416,925 (filed Oct. 13, 1999, issued Oct.
`
`22, 2002 as U.S. Patent No. 6,470,415);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/514,425 (filed Feb. 28, 2000, issued Jul.
`
`30, 2002 as U.S. Patent No. 6,427,171);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/675,484 (filed Sept. 29, 2000, issued Oct.
`
`19, 2004 as U.S. Patent No. 6,807,581);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/675,700 (filed Sept. 29, 2000, issued Dec.
`
`31, 2013 as U.S. Patent No. 8,621,101);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/789,366 (filed Feb. 20, 2001, issued Jun.
`
`29, 2004 as U.S. Patent No. 6,757,746);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/801,488 (filed Mar. 7, 2001, issued Feb. 3,
`
`2004 as U.S. Patent No. 6,687,758);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/802,551 (filed Mar. 9, 2001, issued Jul. 11,
`
`2006 as U.S. Patent No. 7,076,568);
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/802,426 (filed Mar. 9, 2001, issued May 9,
`
`2006 as U.S. Patent No. 7,042,898);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/802,550 (filed Mar. 9, 2001, issued Dec. 2,
`
`2003 as U.S. Patent No. 6,658,480);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/855,979 (filed May 14, 2001, issued Nov.
`
`7, 2006 as U.S. Patent No. 7,133,940);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/970,124 (filed Oct. 2, 2001, issued Oct. 17,
`
`2006 as U.S. Patent No. 7,124,205);
`
`• U.S. Patent Application No. 09/464,283 (filed Dec. 15, 1999, issued Jul.
`
`30, 2002 as U.S. Patent No. 6,427,173).
`
`2.5 Fee for Inter Partes Review
`
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a), and any other required fees, to Deposit Account No. 02–1818. Please
`
`indicate docket number 1156441.00082 on the account statement.
`
`2.6 Proof of Service
`
`Proof of service of this Petition on the Patent Owner at the correspondence
`
`address of record for the 241 Patent is attached.
`
`3.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED (§
`42.104(B))
`
`Ground #1: Claims 1-8 of the 241 Patent are invalid under (pre-AIA) 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) on the ground that they are obvious over:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,337,241
`
`a)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,768,618, to Erickson, titled “Method for
`
`Performing Sequence of Actions in Device Connected to
`
`Computer in Response to Specified Values Being Written Into
`
`Snooped Sub Portions of Address Space,” filed on Dec. 21,
`
`1995 and issued on Jun. 16, 1998 (Ex.1005, “Erickson”) in
`
`combination with
`
`b)
`
`Computer Networks, A. Tanenbaum, 3rd ed. (1996) (Ex.1006,
`
`“Tanenbaum96”) and
`
`c)
`
`“Gigabit Ethernet Technical Brief: Achieving End-to-End
`
`Performance” by Alteon Networks (Ex.1033, “Alteon”).
`
`Ground #2: Claims 9-17, 19-21, and 24 of the 241 Patent are invalid under
`
`(pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the ground that they are obvious over:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Erickson in combination with
`
`Tanenbaum96.
`
`Ground #3: Claims 18, 22, and 23 of the 241 Patent are invalid under (pre-
`
`AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 10