`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________
`
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00727
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`__________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`The Board Should Reject PO’s Attempt to Narrow the Plain Meaning of
`“Packet” ........................................................................................................... 3
`A. A POSITA Would Have Understood that ATM Cells Are A Type of
`“Data Packet” ......................................................................................... 3
`B. No Construction Is Necessary for “Packet” Because The ‘629 Patent
`Expressly Describes that ATM Cells are “Packets” ............................... 5
`C. PO’s Construction for “Packet” Should Be Rejected As Unhelpful. ..... 7
`1. The Claimed “Data Packets” Should Not be Construed to Require
`a Packet-Switched Network. ........................................................... 7
`2. PO’s Requirement That a Packet Have a Header Are Inconsistent
`with the Board’s Prior Construction ............................................. 11
`3. PO’s Proposed Construction Improperly Excludes Preferred
`Embodiments ................................................................................ 12
`4. PO’s Reliance On ATM as “Circuit-Centric” to Suggest ATM is
`Not Packet-Switched is Misplaced ............................................... 16
`III. Claims 1-4 Are Obvious in Light of Dyson and Raychaudhuri .................... 18
`A. The Dyson/Raychaudhuri Combination Discloses “Packets” Under
`Any of the Constructions from the Prior IPR ....................................... 18
`PO’s Argument on the Motivation to Combine Dyson/Raychaudhuri is
`Incorrect ................................................................................................ 21
`C. Dyson Is Prior Art, and Petitioners Have Provided Sufficient Proof ... 24
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,629 to Jorgensen (“the ’629 Patent”)
`
`CV of Zygmunt Haas
`
`Expert Declaration of Zygmunt Haas
`
`A Dynamic Packet Reservation Multiple Access Scheme for Wireless
`ATM by Deborah A. Dyson and Zygmunt J. Haas (“Dyson”)
`
`WATMnet: A Prototype Wireless ATM System for Multimedia
`Personal Communication by D. Raychaudhuri et al. (“Raychaudhuri”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,020,056 to Chennakeshu (“Chennakeshu”)
`
`A Multimedia Synchronization Model and Its Implementation in
`Transport Protocols by Chun-Chuan Yang and Jau-Hsiung Huang
`(“Yang”)
`
`for Local Wireless
`Packet Reservation Multiple Access
`Communications by D.J. Goodman et al. (“Goodman”)
`
`PRMA/DA: A New Media Access Control Protocol for Wireless
`ATM by Jeong Geun Kim et al. (“Kim”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,287,347 to Spanke
`
`PO Infringement Contentions, Exhibit B.
`
`Computer Dictionary & Handbook by Charles J. Sippl et al., 3rd ed.
`(1981) (“Computer Dictionary”)
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/092542
`
`Computer Networks by Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 3rd ed. (1996)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,754,181 to Elliott
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,185,860 to Wu
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`
`“SWAN: An Indoor Wireless ATM network” by E. Hyden, et al.
`(1995)
`
`Mobile Cellular Telecommunications: Analog and Digital Systems by
`William C.Y. Lee, 2nd ed. (1995)
`
`NEC Combines High-Speed IP Packet Processing with ATM
`Switching, Japan Industrial Journal, May 22, 1998.
`
`RFC 2063
`
`RFC 1483
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in another proceeding
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in another proceeding
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in another proceeding
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in another proceeding
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in another proceeding
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in another proceeding
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Heidari
`
`IPR2014-00527, Paper 41, Final Written Decision
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary
`
`Focal Dictionary
`
`Webster’s Dictionary
`
`Computer Desktop Encyclopedia
`
`Second Expert Declaration of Zygmunt Haas
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`2:17-cv-00577-JRG, Dkt. 293 (1/8/19)
`
`2:17-cv-00577-JRG, Excerpts of 1/3/2019 Pretrial Conference
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (18th Ed. 2002)
`
`Exhibit number reserved for use in another proceeding
`
`MILCOM’97 Proceedings, Technical Sessions
`
`ISDN: An Introduction by William Stallings (1989)
`
`PO’s Patent Local Rule 4-1 Identification of Terms for Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Patent Owner Response (“POR”) re-urges the same arguments that were
`
`already correctly rejected by the Board’s Institution Decision. Specifically, Patent
`
`Owner’s (“PO’s”) arguments all rely on the incorrect assertion that Dyson’s
`
`disclosure of a “Packet Reservation Multiple Access” procedure does not really
`
`use packets because ATM cells are not the claimed “data packets.” The Board’s
`
`Institution Decision correctly rejected PO’s arguments in part because the
`
`specification explicitly discloses ATM, and IP over ATM, as embodiments of the
`
`invention. ID, 15-16. PO’s continued assertion that ATM cells are not “packets” is
`
`inconsistent with the specification of the ‘629 Patent and contrary to a POSITA’s
`
`understanding of that term. PO’s assertions are unsupported and contrary to all the
`
`evidence, both intrinsic and extrinsic, and thus the Board should maintain its initial
`
`determination in this regard.
`
`PO’s position requires ignoring multiple descriptions in the patent of ATM
`
`as being a packet-based system, including specific passages that confirm the ATM
`
`cell has a “ATM cell packet format” and that “voice over ATM” is an example of a
`
`“voice over packet” protocol. Ex. 1001, 26:5-6; Col. 9 (Table 1). Furthermore, the
`
`‘629 Patent specifically confirms that “packet switching breaks a media stream into
`
`pieces known as, for example, packets, cells or frames.” Id., 31:1-3. POR has no
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`persuasive explanation for these passages, and simply invites the Board to ignore
`
`them. The descriptions in the ‘629 Patent are consistent with how a POSITA
`
`would have understood standard ATM—that is, ATM “is a high-speed packet-
`
`switching technique using short fixed-length packets called cells.” Ex. 1019, 4;
`
`Ex. 1035, ¶¶5-6.
`
`PO’s reliance on the Board’s construction of “packet” from the earlier IPR
`
`decision—IPR2017-00527 (the ’527 IPR) is also misplaced. Ex. 1030, 8-9
`
`(construing “packet” as “a piece or segment of a data/media stream that serves as a
`
`unit of transmission over a packet switched network.”). As an initial matter,
`
`evidence presented in the Petition shows that ATM cells meet that construction.
`
`Ex. 1019, 4; Ex. 1035, ¶¶28-29. PO, however, relies on that construction in
`
`support of an argument that the claimed “packets” must have a header with a
`
`specific type of control information (i.e., a destination address). POR, 9-12. But
`
`the Board in the ‘527 IPR specifically rejected the notion that a packet must
`
`contain a header per se. Ex. 1030, 7-9; Ex. 1035, ¶¶22-31. The evidence also
`
`shows that PO’s arguments that ATM was not packet-switched are simply wrong
`
`and contrary to fact. Even setting these fundamental flaws aside, the POR is
`
`devoid of any analysis showing why that construction should be adopted here,
`
`when that prior construction was decided in the context of a different dispute over
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`claims of much different scope. In light of the clear disclosures in the patent that
`
`ATM uses “packets,” a construction for that term is not necessary and PO’s
`
`construction should be rejected as unhelpful.
`
`Thus, Claims 1-4 of the ’629 Patent should be cancelled as unpatentable.
`
`II. The Board Should Reject PO’s Attempt to Narrow the Plain Meaning of
`“Packet”
`A. A POSITA Would Have Understood that ATM Cells Are A Type
`of “Data Packet”
`The primary patentability argument advanced by the POR is that ATM cells
`
`are not packets and that ATM was not a packet-switched technology. POR, 29-34,
`
`40-45; Ex. 2020, ¶¶ 38-53. This argument is demonstrably false and contrary to
`
`fact. A POSITA would have understood at the time of the ‘629 Patent that ATM
`
`was, by definition, a well-known packet-switched technology. Ex. 1035, ¶¶ 5-6
`
`(citing Ex. 1019, 4 (describing that ATM “is a high-speed packet-switching
`
`technique using short fixed-length packets called cells”); Ex. 1032, 4 (defining
`
`ATM “A packet switching communications standard which uses packets of
`
`constant length called ATM cells.”); Ex. 1031, 3 (explaining ATM, “Data … is
`
`broken into packets containing 53 bytes each, which are switched between any two
`
`modes in the system.”); Ex. 1033 (defining “cell” as “In [ATM] networking, a
`
`small unit of data that has been broken up for efficient transmission (synonymous
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`with packet).”); Ex. 1034 (similar description).
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`
`Despite
`
`incontrovertible evidence
`
`that ATM was a packet-switched
`
`technology that uses a type of packets called ATM cells, PO and Dr. Heidari
`
`contend that ATM cells are somehow not packets in the context of the ‘629 Patent.
`
`POR, p. 9-13; Ex. 2020, 16-20. But, as conceded by PO’s expert, the ATM
`
`described by the ‘629 Patent is the same “standard ATM” as Dyson/Raychaudhuri.
`
`Ex. 1029, 53:25-54:6; 55:14–58:13. Notably, in rendering his opinion that ATM
`
`cells are not packets, Dr. Heidari conceded he had not reviewed any dictionaries
`
`for basic descriptions of ATM nor reviewed Ex. 1019. Ex. 1029 (Heidari Tr.),
`
`41:21-23; 42:17-20; 42:21-43:8.1
`
`PO thus advances a theory that the ‘629 Patent specification somehow
`
`1 Dr. Heidari’s opinions on ATM are highly suspect—Dr. Heidari was unable to
`
`recall the name of even one extrinsic source on ATM he had ever reviewed before
`
`signing his declaration. Ex. 1029, 26:15-17; 41:21-23; 42:17-20; 42:21-43:8;
`
`50:18-51:8. When confronted with dictionary evidence directly contradicting his
`
`opinions, he incredibly claimed that “you shouldn’t be relying on a dictionary
`
`about what an ATM does or does not, what a cells means or not, in the context of
`
`this IPR.” Id., 216:16-217:14, 117:7-118:15. He cited no evidence to support his
`
`opinions. Id., 211:8-15.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`defined or narrowed the meaning of the ordinary term “packet” in a way that
`
`excludes ATM cells.2 As explained below, the ‘629 Specification confirms the
`
`opposite—ATM cells are expressly described as packets, consistent with the
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`B. No Construction Is Necessary for “Packet” Because The ‘629
`Patent Expressly Describes that ATM Cells are “Packets”
`Claim 1’s “data packet” does not require construction to resolve the parties’
`
`dispute. A POSITA would have understood that in the ‘629 Patent, an ATM cell is
`
`simply a type of “data packet” consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term.
`
`Ex. 1035, ¶¶5-8, 18-21. A POSITA would have recognized that the term “cell”
`
`was synonymous with “packet.” Ex. 1035 ¶19 (citing Ex. 1033 (defining “cell” in
`
`ATM networking as being “synonymous with packet”)). That ATM cells are
`
`packets is also confirmed by the express disclosures of the patent.
`
`First, the ‘629 Patent confirms that ATM cells have an “ATM cell packet
`
`format.” Ex. 1001, 26:1-14 (“As those skilled in the art will recognize, other
`
`
`2 Notably, PO conceded that the term packet did not require construction in the co-
`
`pending district court litigation. Ex. 1042 (“Intellectual Ventures I LLC (‘IV’)
`
`hereby provides notice
`
`that IV does not propose any
`
`terms for claim
`
`construction.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`format are available, including, e.g., a transmission control program, internet
`
`protocol (TCP/IP) packet format, an asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) cell
`
`packet format.”). A POSITA would have understood this to refer to the well-
`
`known 53-byte packet format of ATM cells. Ex. 1035, ¶20 (citing Ex. 1001, 35:1-
`
`5).
`
`Second, the ‘629 Patent provides definitions that expressly acknowledge the
`
`packet-based nature of ATM. Table 1 of “definitions” of “terms [that] are used
`
`throughout the remainder of the description of the invention.” Ex. 1001, Col. 9. In
`
`the definition of “packetized voice,” Table 1 states that “voice over packet refers to
`
`the carrying of telephony or voice traffic over a data network, e.g., voice over
`
`frame, voice over ATM, voice over IP.” A POSITA would have understood that
`
`this definition acknowledges the use of packets in ATM. Ex. 1035, ¶21.
`
`Third, the ’629 Patent itself discloses that ATM is a packet-switched
`
`network, confirming the use of packets in ATM. Ex. 1001, 36:16-21 (“When
`
`using ATM, longer packets cannot delay shorter packets as in other packet-
`
`switched networks, because long packets are separated into many fixed length
`
`cells.”);3 31:1-3 (“Packet switching breaks a media stream into pieces known as,
`
`3 Contrary to PO’s position, the word “other” in this sentence clearly links ATM as
`
`being a type of packet-switched network. Ex. 1035 n. 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`
`for example, packets, cells, or frames.”); Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 29-30.4
`
`Moreover, none of the citations relied on by Dr. Heidari support a
`
`conclusion that an “ATM cell” was something other than a packet or that ATM
`
`was not a packet switched network. Ex. 1035, ¶6-8; 32-33. The use of the
`
`different word—cell—merely reflects that a cell is a type of packet. Id., ¶32.
`
`Given the evidence in the ’629 Patent that expressly confirms that ATM cells are
`
`“packets,” no specific construction is necessary to conclude that the ATM cell,
`
`consistent with the ordinary meaning, is a packet as claimed. Ex. 1035 ¶21.
`
`C.
`
`for “Packet” Should Be Rejected As
`
`PO’s Construction
`Unhelpful.
`1.
`The Claimed “Data Packets” Should Not be Construed to
`Require a Packet-Switched Network.
`The POR provides no reasoning or analysis to justify the Board’s adoption
`
`of “packet” from the prior ‘527 IPR.5 POR, 30-32 (citing the ID and ’527 IPR ID).
`
`
`4 Dr. Heidari had no persuasive explanation reconciling these statements with his
`
`opinion—he simply insisted they were being taken “out of context.” See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1029, 147:3-153:17, 124:14-128:17.
`
`5 PO’s reliance on the prosecution history of related patents is also irrelevant.
`
`POR, 14-15. For example, those claims recite, in part, a “packet-centric protocol,”
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`In the ’527 IPR, the Board construed “packet” to mean “a piece or segment of a
`
`data/media stream that serves as a unit of transmission over a packet switched
`
`network.” Ex. 1030, 8-9. This construction was provided in the context of a
`
`different dispute involving entirely different claims of different scope than are at
`
`issue in this IPR.6
`
`A claim construction analysis begins with, and is centered on, the claim
`
`language itself. See Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d
`
`1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The ’527 Patent claims involved “receiving a first
`
`packet from a wired data network,” while the challenged claims 1-4 of the ’629
`
`Patent are directed to, e.g., “reserving a first slot for a first data packet of an
`
`internet protocol (IP) flow in a future transmission frame.” Ex. 1035 ¶34. This is
`
`a significant difference, because in the “data packets” here are not necessarily the
`
`which does not appear in any of the ’629 Patent claims or within any claim
`
`constructions.
`
`6 The ’527 IPR focused on a dispute over whether the claimed “packet” required a
`
`“header,” which the Board found was not required. Ex. 1030, 7-9. The matter of
`
`what is a “packet-switched network” was not at issue. And as discussed below in
`
`Section II.C.2, PO’s current arguments are inconsistent with the Board’s prior
`
`construction relating to the header issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`same format as packets that may be received from a network (such as data network
`
`142). Ex. 1035, ¶35. Instead, the claimed data packets are those formatted for
`
`wireless transmission. Ex. 1035, ¶35. The ‘629 Patent does not place any
`
`requirement that the claimed data packets be in a format suitable for transmission
`
`over a packet-switched network, so long as they are formatted for transmission in a
`
`slot of a wireless transmission frame. Ex. 1035, ¶¶36.
`
`As shown by Figure 14 of the ’629 Patent, the data packets that are placed in
`
`each slot comprise segmented portions of the IP datagram, not the entire IP
`
`datagram that is received over network 142. See Ex. 1035, ¶¶37-41; Ex. 1001,
`
`35:11-13 (“ATM segments variable length IP packet flows into fixed size cells
`
`using a segmentation and resequencing algorithm (SAR).”); 50:59-66 (discussing
`
`Fig. 14: “SAR and framer 606 breaks up, sequences, and frames the data packets
`
`for wireless transmission.”); see also 49:25-29; 49:64-50:3; 51:9-12; 79:33-51;
`
`258:9-259:9 (conceding the specification contemplates IP flows may be segmented
`
`to fit into fixed size slots “as needed.”). Dr. Haas notes that the ’629 Patent
`
`explains that the slots are fixed in length and capable of storing a single data
`
`packet; however, IP datagrams are of variable length, so a POSITA would have
`
`understood that the IP packets may require segmentation to form each “data
`
`packet” suitable for transmission in a fixed length slot. Ex. 1035, ¶38-39; Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`1001, 61:26-27.
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`
`Notably, the ‘629 Patent discloses an IP-over-ATM embodiment in which
`
`the IP flows are segmented into fixed size ATM cells and each ATM cell would
`
`contain the header information necessary to transmit the data packet over the ATM
`
`packet-switched network.
`
` Ex. 1035, ¶40 (citing Ex. 1001, 35:10-12).
`
`Nevertheless, there is no disclosure in the ‘629 Patent that the data packets that are
`
`placed into the wireless transmission slots must be capable of being switched over
`
`a packet-switched network. Id. (noting the disclosure of generic “data packets” as
`
`well as “ATM cells”). The SAR process described by the patent would create data
`
`packets with sufficient control information to allow for reassembly by the receiver
`
`but not necessarily contain the control information necessary for transmission to a
`
`node beyond the wireless receiving unit. Id. ¶¶41-42.
`
`For these reasons, the ‘629 claims should not be limited to any particular
`
`data network, aside from the recitation of the claimed “data packets of an IP flow.”
`
`Ex. 1035, ¶42; Ex. 1001, 34:34-39; 37:32-37 (explaining that data network 142 can
`
`be any number of packet-centric networks, including an IP network over ATM
`
`network). In any event, the facts show that ATM cells meet the Board’s
`
`construction of packet, even if limited to packet-switched networks. As described
`
`above, ATM is a packet-switched protocol that breaks a media stream into packets
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`known as cells. Ex. 1035, ¶28-29; Ex. 1031-1034. This is entirely consistent with
`
`the disclosures of the ‘629 Patent. Ex. 1035, ¶29; Ex. 1001, 31:1-4; 36:16-18.
`
`2.
`
`PO’s Requirement That a Packet Have a Header Are
`Inconsistent with the Board’s Prior Construction
`Even if the Board were to adopt the construction from the ’527 IPR, ATM
`
`cells meet that construction. Ex. 1035, ¶¶22-23; 28. PO’s attempts to further limit
`
`this construction are flawed for several reasons.
`
`First, PO argues that to be routed in a “packet-switched network” a “packet”
`
`requires the additional limitations of having a header and a “destination address”
`
`within that header. POR, 9-12; Ex. 1029, 143:21-145:19. Neither of the
`
`competing constructions from the ‘527 IPR required a destination address, and
`
`PO’s current position that a packet must have a header is precisely the issue that
`
`the Board resolved against PO in the ’527 IPR. Ex. 1030, 9 (“To the extent that
`
`the ‘packet’ of claims 1, 13, and 18 is required to have a header, such requirement
`
`is imposed by the express claim language ‘comprises a header’ and is not imposed
`
`by virtue of the definition of ‘packet’ per se.”); Ex. 1035, ¶¶22-24. Under the
`
`Board’s prior analysis, a packet may exist before any header information is added.
`
`Id. The Board’s prior decision therefore does not require a destination address. Id.
`
`Dr. Heidari admitted that he did not even consider the Board’s decision in the ’527
`
`IPR. Ex. 1029, 106:17-19, 107:19-108:24, 109:8-111:10.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`Second, a POSITA would have understood that the ATM cell does indeed
`
`contain information sufficient to route the packet to the destination, which is a fact
`
`that the ‘629 Patent recognizes. Ex. 1035, ¶25 (citing Ex. 1001, 35:65-36:3 (“An
`
`ATM cell header includes a … virtual path identifier (VPI), a virtual channel
`
`identifier (VCI) … VPI and VCI hold local significance only, and identify the
`
`destination.”)). There is no basis to limit the claimed packet to a particular kind of
`
`destination information while excluding the form of destination information
`
`contained in an ATM cell. See id., ¶26 (explaining that an explicit destination
`
`address is a feature of a particular embodiment of packet-switching called
`
`datagram).
`
`Accordingly, PO’s argument that a packet must contain a header with a
`
`destination address should be rejected.
`
`3.
`
`PO’s Proposed Construction
`Preferred Embodiments
`“[A] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the
`
`Improperly Excludes
`
`scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.” On-Line Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed.Cir.2004). The
`
`’629 Patent specifically contemplates: “[I]n an embodiment, data network 142 can
`
`be an internet protocol (IP) network over an ATM network.” Ex. 1001, 37:33-34;
`
`Ex. 1035, ¶43. POR improperly seeks to exclude this embodiment that uses ATM
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`cells from the claims. Although PO makes the argument that “data network 142
`
`encompasses prior art circuit-switched ATM techniques,” (POR at 23) PO is
`
`incorrect to say that data network 142 is only prior art. Both Fig. 3A and 3B
`
`include data network 142 and are described as an “embodiment of the invention.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 41:25-26 (Figure 3A), 41:31-32 (Figure 3B); Ex. 1035, ¶43.
`
`Furthermore, Figure 15A specifically shows that the data that is scheduled and sent
`
`over the wireless medium is received via network 142. Ex. 1001, 62:31-39. Dr.
`
`Haas also clarifies that IP-over-ATM is a packet switched network. Ex. 1035, ¶43.
`
`As discussed above, the patent discloses an embodiment in which packets of
`
`an IP flow may be segmented into ATM cells (i.e., the claimed “data packets”). In
`
`particular, the patent states that “ATM segments variable length IP packet flows
`
`into fixed sized cells using a segmentation and resequencing algorithm (SAR).”
`
`Ex. 1001, 35:11-13. A POSITA would have understood that the fixed size data
`
`packets in Figure 14 may include the fixed size cells containing segments of IP
`
`flows. Ex. 1035, ¶44. In addition, a POSITA would have understood Figure 10 to
`
`disclose an embodiment consistent with IP-over-ATM:
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`
`Ex. 1035, ¶¶45-46 (explaining that IP packets would be segmented by SAR
`
`1004 into smaller data packets such as ATM cells using the algorithm of Figure
`
`
`
`14).
`
`Further, this IP-over-ATM embodiment was expressly disclosed in the
`
`provisional specifically for transmission over the wireless medium. Ex. 1035,
`
`¶¶47-50; Ex. 1013, 7. A POSITA would have understood the “packets” being
`
`placed into queues at the MAC layer would comprise ATM cells containing
`
`segments of IP packets. Ex. 1035, ¶¶47-49; Ex. 1013, 7, 9-10.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown above, the MAC exists below the ATM layer, which itself is
`
`below the IP layer—meaning that a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`“packets” being placed into queues at the MAC layer would comprise ATM cells
`
`containing segments of IP packets. Id., 3. Consistently with the Figure 10
`
`embodiment of the patent, the provisional describes that “[a]ll data traversing the
`
`wireless link is encoded into small cells with a set payload size optimized for the
`
`wireless medium.” Id., 9.
`
`Both the ‘629 Patent and its provisional contemplate embodiments of the
`
`invention in which time slots would be reserved for ATM cells comprising data
`
`packets of an IP flow. Id., 10 (“The MAC layer provides for automatic time slot
`
`reservation for real time applications such as audio and video sessions requiring
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`CBR-like QoS handling.”). Thus, IP-over-ATM is clearly an embodiment of the
`
`invention, and the Board should not construe the claimed data packets to exclude
`
`this embodiment as urged by PO.
`
`4.
`
`PO’s Reliance On ATM as “Circuit-Centric” to Suggest
`ATM is Not Packet-Switched is Misplaced
`PO argues that ATM is not a “packet switched network” because it is a
`
`“circuit-centric” network. POR, 13-14. PO’s argument reflects a fundamental
`
`misunderstanding of packet-switched technologies. Ex. 1035, ¶¶ 5, 9. PO is
`
`incorrect because it conflates the concept of traditional circuit-switching with the
`
`use of virtual circuits in packet-switched networks, such as ATM. Id. A POSITA
`
`would understand that ATM is a packet-switched protocol that uses virtual circuits.
`
`Ex. 1035, ¶¶10, 16 (citing Ex. 1032 (“Virtual circuits are encountered in a Packet
`
`Switched Network (PSN), such as ATM[.]”). 7
`
`PO’s position appears to be based on the wrong assumption that a network
`
`cannot be packet-switched and circuit-centric—this
`
`is
`
`inconsistent with
`
`embodiments in the specification, including ATM and frame relay. See Ex. 1001,
`
`
`7 Dr. Heidari was unable to articulate any meaning for “packet-switching” that
`
`excluded ATM other than to suggest the term must somehow exclude ATM. Ex.
`
`1029, 238:2-241:20; 245:22-246:7.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`34:64-65 (describing frame relay and ATM as “connection-oriented, circuit centric
`
`services”); 37:5-24 (describing frame relay as “packet-switched”).
`
`A POSITA would have understood that ATM is a “packet switching”
`
`standard that uses packets of fixed length called ATM cells. Ex. 1035, ¶¶ 9-17; Ex.
`
`1041, 32 (“[T]here is increasing interest in fast packet switching, often referred to
`
`as asynchronous transfer mode (ATM).”). PO’s argument that ATM is a circuit-
`
`switched network (exclusive of a packet-switched network) due to its use of virtual
`
`circuits is incorrect. POR, 12-13. Ex. 1035, ¶9. A POSITA would have understood
`
`that traditional circuit switching includes a dedication of physical resources for the
`
`duration of a call, while packet switching breaks up user data into packets and
`
`provides resource sharing. Ex. 1035,¶¶11-14; Ex. 1041, 8. There are two types of
`
`packet-switching techniques: datagram, where each packet is treated independent,
`
`and virtual circuits. Ex. 1035, ¶14 (quoting Ex. 1041, 9, 16).8 But, virtual circuits
`
`are a packet-switching technique where packets take a fixed route for the duration
`
`of the logical connection. The fact that the route is preestablished does not equate
`
`8At best, PO’s argument amounts to an argument that the claims should be
`
`construed to exclude all virtual circuit packet switching, but PO has provided no
`
`analysis to show why that should be the case, and it is unsupported by the ‘629
`
`Patent claim language and description.
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`virtual circuits with traditional circuit-switching. Id., ¶¶15-17; Ex. 1041 at 66. The
`
`fact that ATM uses virtual circuits confirms, rather than refutes, that ATM is a
`
`packet-switched protocol. Id., ¶¶30-31.9
`
`III. Claims 1-4 Are Obvious in Light of Dyson and Raychaudhuri
`PO advances only three arguments to show that the claims of the ’629 Patent
`
`are not unpatentable, all of which fail. PO argues that (1) Dyson/Raychaudhuri do
`
`not disclose “packets” because they use ATM cells, (2) a POSITA would not have
`
`combined Dyson/Raychaudhuri, and (3) Dyson is not prior art. Each of these
`
`arguments fail for reasons discussed below, and Claims 1-4 of the ’629 Patent
`
`should be found unpatentable.10
`
`A. The Dyson/Raychaudhuri Combination Discloses “Packets”
`Under Any of the Constructions from the Prior IPR
`PO’s only argument regarding the disclosure of Dyson and Raychaudhuri is
`
`based on its improper interpretation of the Board’s prior construction of “packet”
`
`
`9 Petitioners note that while PO disputes the construction of “packet,” it does not
`
`dispute whether the prior art discloses these limitations.
`
`10 PO does not specifically address any other grounds or claims besides Ground 1
`
`and Claim 1, thus Petitioners have not reiterated its arguments on these from the
`
`Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`
`
`from the ‘527 IPR to exclude ATM cells. Even if the Board adopts the “packet”
`
`construction from the ’527 IPR, this would not affect the outcome of this Petition
`
`because ATM cells are “packets” under the Board’s prior construction. Ex. 1035,
`
`¶¶22-31. That is, an ATM cell is “a piece or segment of data/media stream that
`
`serves as a unit of transmission over a packet-switched network.” Id. Both the
`
`’629 Patent and extrinsic evidence confirm that an ATM cell is a packet (“unit of
`
`transmission”) and that ATM can be transmitted in a “packet switched network.”
`
`