`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARITY NETWORKS LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01643
`Patent 6,831,891
`_______________
`___________________________________
`PATENT OWNER PARITY NETWORKS LLC’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE .................................... 1
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`A.
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................ 1
`B.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ‘891 PATENT .................................................... 2
`C.
`OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ....................................................... 5
`1.
`SCHWARTZ ................................................................................. 5
`2. MULLER ....................................................................................... 7
`3.
`FIROIU .......................................................................................... 8
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................... 10
`D.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 11
`E.
`SUMMARY OF PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS ....................... 12
`F.
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
`INSTITUTING AN INTER PARTES REVIEW .............................................. 14
`A.
`SCHWARTZ AND MULLER DO NOT DISCLOSE THE
`"ESTABLISHING AT EACH INPUT PORT, A NUMBER OF
`VIRTUAL OUTPUT QUEUES EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF
`OUTPUT PORTS" LIMITATION OF INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 OR
`THE CORRESPONDING LIMITATIONS OF INDEPENDENT
`CLAIMS 3 AND 5 ................................................................................. 16
`SCHWARTZ AND MULLER DO NOT DISCLOSE THE
`"ACCEPTING OR DISCARDING DATA AT EACH VIRTUAL
`OUTPUT QUEUE DIRECTED TO A QUEUE ACCORDING TO A
`QUANTITY OF DATA IN THE QUEUE RELATIVE TO QUEUE
`CAPACITY BY PROVIDING A QUEUE MANAGER FOR
`MONITORING QUANTITY OF QUEUED DATA IN RELATION TO
`A PRESET THRESHOLD" LIMITATION OF INDEPENDENT
`CLAIM 1 OR THE CORRESPONDING LIMITATIONS OF
`
`B.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 3 AND 5 .................................................... 18
`A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO
`COMBINE SCHWARTZ AND MULLER IN THE MANNER
`PETITIONER SUGGESTS ................................................................... 19
`FIROIU AND MULLER DO NOT DISCLOSE THE "ACCEPTING
`OR DISCARDING DATA AT EACH VIRTUAL OUTPUT QUEUE
`DIRECTED TO A QUEUE ACCORDING TO A QUANTITY OF
`DATA IN THE QUEUE RELATIVE TO QUEUE CAPACITY BY
`PROVIDING A QUEUE MANAGER FOR MONITORING
`QUANTITY OF QUEUED DATA IN RELATION TO A PRESET
`THRESHOLD" LIMITATION OF INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 OR
`THE CORRESPONDING LIMITATIONS OF INDEPENDENT
`CLAIMS 3 AND 5 ................................................................................. 22
`A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO
`COMBINE FIROIU AND MULLER IN THE MANNER
`PETITIONER SUGGESTS ................................................................... 25
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 27
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Previously Filed – Petitioner
`
`Ex. No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,831,891 to Mansharamani (“’891 Patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Nicholas Bambos
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Nicholas Bambos
`PCT International Application No. WO 00/02347 A2 to Schwartz et
`al. (“Schwartz”)
`PCT International Application No. WO 00/52882 A2 to Muller et al.
`(“Muller”)
`Canadian Patent Application No. CA 2 310 531 A1 to Firoiu et al.
`(“Firoiu”)
`June 13, 2002 Applicant’s Response to Office Action from the
`Prosecution History of the ‘891 Patent
`January 6, 2003 Applicant’s Response to Office Action from the
`Prosecution History of the ‘891 Patent
`February 13, 2004 Applicant’s Response to Office Action from the
`Prosecution History of the ‘891 Patent
`“Original Complaint” (Docket Entry #1) filed in Parity Networks,
`LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM (E.D.
`Texas)
`Executed Summons (Docket Entry #9) filed in Parity Networks, LLC
`v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM (E.D. Texas)
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) did not submit a statement of
`
`material facts in its Petition for inter partes review. Paper 1 (Petition).
`
`Accordingly, no response to a statement of material facts is due pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(a), and no facts are admitted.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Parity Networks LLC (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits
`
`this Patent Owner Preliminary Response under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.107(a). It is being timely filed on or before February 6, 2019 pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.107(b).
`
`“The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless
`
`the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under
`
`section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`
`the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Here, institution should
`
`be denied because Petitioner has failed to establish that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it will prevail on any of its propositions of unpatentability.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`A.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board deny institution of a trial with respect to all claims of United States Patent
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`No. 6,831,891 (“‘891 Patent”).
`
`
`
`B. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘891 PATENT
`
`
`
`The ‘891 Patent involves “routing packets through alternative paths between
`
`nodes in a routing fabric, and pertains in particular to methods by which back-ups in
`
`a fabric may be avoided.” Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 1:5-8.
`
`The ‘891 Patent discusses several drawbacks in the prior art methodology for
`
`avoiding packet congestion at an input port. In particular, the ‘891 Patent discusses
`
`“Flow Control” as a prior art methodology to prevent traffic overflow at a particular
`
`input node. Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 1:43-45. “Such Flow Control is very well-
`
`known in the art, and comprises a process of monitoring ports for real or potential
`
`traffic overflow, and notifying an upstream port to stop or slow sending of further
`
`data.” Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 1:46-49. As depicted in FIG. 1 below “if node
`
`G as shown in FIG. 1, becomes overloaded at a particular input port, for example,
`
`the port from D, the Flow Control at G will notify D to restrict or suspend traffic to
`
`G. In this example, D may receive traffic from upstream neighbors that it cannot
`
`forward to G, and it may then have to notify these neighbors to suspend sending
`
`traffic to D. This example illustrates how Flow Control may cause traffic changes
`
`made by nodes as a result of an overflow condition at a downstream node to
`
`propagate further upstream affecting further nodes, and further stopping or diverting
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`traffic.” Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 1:49-59.
`
`
`
`“A serious problem with Flow Control as conventionally practiced is that the
`
`upstream notifications, inherent in flow control, propagate further and hinder or stop
`
`traffic that there is no need to stop, partly because the interconnections of nodes may
`
`be quite complicated and the alternative paths quite numerous. Further, a node that
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`has been informed of a downstream overload condition cannot select to stop or divert
`
`traffic just for that particular link, but only to stop or divert all traffic. These effects,
`
`because of the complexity and interconnection of nodes in a fabric, can result in
`
`complete stultification of parts of a system, or of an entire network.” Exhibit 1001
`
`(‘891 Patent) at 1:64-2:8.
`
`The ‘891 Patent provides a solution that utilizes a device and method “for
`
`managing data traffic at [a] switching element in a fabric network, each node having
`
`two or more internally coupled ports…comprising the steps of (a) establishing a
`
`managed queuing system comprising one or more queues associated with each port,
`
`for managing incoming data traffic; and (b) accepting or discarding data directed to
`
`a queue according to the quantity of data in the queue relative to queue capacity.”
`
`Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 2:20-28. “In some embodiments all data is discarded
`
`for a full queue. In some other embodiments, the queue manager monitors quantity
`
`of queued data in relation to a preset threshold, and begins to discard data at a
`
`predetermined rate when the quantity of queued data reaches the threshold. In still
`
`other embodiments the queue manager increases the rate of discarding as quantity
`
`of queued data increases above the preset threshold, discarding all data traffic when
`
`the queue is full.” Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 2:29-38. Thus, the ‘891 Patent
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`provides a solution that can be superior to the prior art method of Flow Control.
`
`C. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`1.
`SCHWARTZ
`International Application No. WO 00/02347 A2 to Schwartz et al.
`
`
`
`(“Schwartz”) is directed to “the field of digital communications, and more
`
`particularly to systems and method for switching packets of digital data in a
`
`switching node used in a digital data network.” Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at 1:5-7.
`
`“[T]he invention provides a new and improved switching node which provides for
`
`the linear increase in packet queues, relative to increasing numbers of input/output
`
`ports, that is characteristic of switching nodes that provide for input queuing, while
`
`avoiding the relative inefficient usage of the switching fabric interconnecting input
`
`and output ports that is characteristic of a switching node that provides for input-
`
`queueing of packets transferred by the switching node.” Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at
`
`3:7-14. “[T]he invention provides a switching node, including a plurality of input
`
`port modules, a plurality of output port modules and a switching fabric for
`
`transferring packets in a network, each packet including a destination address. Each
`
`input port module is connected to a communication link for receiving packets
`
`thereover, and each output module is connected to a communication link for
`
`transmitting packets thereover.” Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at 3:14-19. “Each input
`
`port module, upon receiving a packet from the communication link connected
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`thereto, buffers the packet and generates a meta-data packet therefor, the meta-data
`
`packet identifying the output port module that is to transmit the packet, and generates
`
`identifier information for the packet, in particular the identification of the input port
`
`module in which the packet is buffered and a pointer to the location in the input port
`
`module in which the packet is buffered. After generating the meta-data packet, the
`
`input port module provides it to the switching fabric, in particular to a packet meta-
`
`data processor portion thereof.” Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at 3:19-26.
`
`
`
`“The switching fabric includes both the packet meta-data processor portion
`
`and a packet switch portion. The packet meta-data processor portion receives the
`
`meta-data packets generated by all of the input port modules and operational status
`
`information from all of the output port modules. The operational status information
`
`for each output port module includes information that is useful in making a
`
`determination for each respective output port module as to whether or not packets
`
`that would be transmitted by the respective output port module are to be discarded,
`
`or dropped.” Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at 3:27-4:3. Consequently, in contrast to the
`
`‘891 Patent, Schwartz teaches accepting all data into a queue at an input port and
`
`discarding or transmitting data stored in that queue at the input port based on
`
`whether the current status information associated with the output port module
`
`indicates that the output port module has sufficient capacity to receive the packet.
`
`This is different from the ‘891 Patent which determines how full the queue is at the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`input port before accepting a packet into that queue at the input port. Paper 1
`
`(Petition) at 31-34; Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at 10:18-11:29; Exhibit 1001 (‘891
`
`Patent) at 3:31-34, 3:52-64.
`
`Schwartz further discloses, “[s]ince the packets are buffered at the input port
`
`modules until the determination has been made by the packet meta-data processor
`
`that they are to be transmitted by respective output port modules, and further until
`
`they are requested by the respective output port modules to be transferred thereto
`
`for transmission, only ‘N’ buffers, or queues, are needed, one for each input port
`
`module, whereas in an output-queued switching node N2 buffers would be
`
`required.” Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at 4:23-29. Hence, in contrast to the ‘891
`
`Patent, Schwartz teaches a single queue for each input port module regardless of
`
`the number of output port modules whereas the ‘891 Patent teaches and claims, at
`
`each input port, a number of virtual output queues equal to the number of output
`
`ports. Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 4:39-44, 4:62-67, 5:16-6:4.
`
`2. MULLER
`International Application No. WO 00/52882 A2 to Muller et al. (“Muller”) is
`
`
`
`
`directed to “the fields of computer systems and computer networks” and “relates to
`
`a Network Interface Circuit (NIC) for processing communication packets exchanged
`
`between a computer network and a host computer system.” Exhibit 1005 (Muller)
`
`at 1:5-8.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`“In one embodiment of the invention packets are received from a network and
`
`stored in a packet queue prior to being transferred to a host computer. If the rate of
`
`packet transfers to the host computer cannot keep pace with the rate of packet
`
`arrivals at the queue, one or more packets may be dropped. Therefore, a system and
`
`method of discarding packets in a random manner is provided, such that the effect
`
`of lost packets is fairly distributed among network communicants.” Exhibit 1005
`
`(Muller) at 1:17-22. “A fullness gauge or indicator is employed to indicate how full
`
`the packet queue is.” Exhibit 1005 (Muller) at 1:25-26. “This fullness indicator thus
`
`fluctuates as the level of network traffic stored in the packet queue ebbs and flows.”
`
`Exhibit 1005 (Muller) at 1:29-30. “For one or more of the multiple packet queue
`
`regions, a programmable probability indicator is assigned. Each probability
`
`indicator indicates the probability of dropping a packet when the fullness indicator
`
`indicates that the level of traffic stored in the queue is within the probability
`
`indicator’s associated region. Probability indicators may be programmed and re-
`
`programmed as the level of traffic in the packet queue changes. The probability
`
`indicator may take the form of a percentage or ratio that is configured to randomly
`
`select packets to be discarded.” Exhibit 1005 (Muller) at 4:30-5:3.
`
`FIROIU
`3.
`Canadian Patent Application No. 2,310,531 A1 to Firoiu et al. (“Firoiu”)
`
`
`
`
`“generally relates to networks and, more particularly, the invention relates to the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`management of a queue at a node in a network.” Exhibit 1006 (Firoiu) at 1:12-13.
`
`“A method, apparatus, and computer program product for determining a drop
`
`probability for use in a congestion control module located in a node in a network are
`
`disclosed. A weight value for determining a weighted moving average of a queue
`
`in a node is first systematically calculated. The weighted moving average is
`
`calculate[ed] and an average queue size for the node is determined based upon the
`
`weighted moving average. A control function associated with the congestion control
`
`module is evaluated using the average queue size to determine the drop probability.
`
`The weight value may be calculated by first determining a sampling period for
`
`measuring the queue size. Next, a time period for which samples significantly
`
`contribute to the average queue size is calculated. The weight is determined based
`
`upon the sampling period and the time period.” Exhibit 1006 (Firoiu) at 2:17-27.
`
`
`
`“Nodes within the network each have at least one ingress and one egress port.
`
`A node may receive multiple flows of data, usually in the form of packets, into one
`
`or more of the ingress ports where each flow is stored and queued in a buffer prior
`
`to routing the data flow to an egress port in the node. As more information flows
`
`into the buffer, the queue becomes larger until the capacity of the buffer is reached
`
`and then the subsequent data is lost. To prevent overflow, the buffer of each node
`
`is regulated by a node congestion control module that operates in conjunction with
`
`an end-system congestion control module. The node congestion control module
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`regulates the average queue size by indicating to the sending node that congestion is
`
`occurring at the receiving node.” Exhibit 1006 (Firoiu) at 4:27-5:1. “[T]he node
`
`congestion module may send an acknowledgement packet from the receiver
`
`indicating that congestion is occurring and again the end-system congestion control
`
`module decreases the sending rate at the sending node.” Exhibit 1006 (Firoiu) at
`
`5:7-9. Therefore, in contrast to the ‘891 Patent, Firoiu teaches the use of the very
`
`Flow Control technique that the ‘891 Patent discourages and attempts to improve
`
`upon.
`
`D.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`“The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
`
`
`
`
`presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention.” Manual of
`
`Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) 2141.II.C. Factors that may be considered
`
`in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; (4) sophistication of the technology; and (5)
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`Petitioner proposes that “[t]he technical field of the ‘891 Patent is computer
`
`software and hardware with applications to efficiently moving data-packets between
`
`routers and other hardware connected in networks such as the internet and the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`processors and circuitry, including nodes or switching elements in a routing fabric
`
`utilized for such applications.” Paper 1 (Petition) at 16. Petitioner further contends a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and
`
`either (a) a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical
`
`engineering, or a related field or (b) two or more years of work or research experience
`
`in networking and computing.” Paper 1 (Petition) at 16-17. Patent Owner does not
`
`take issue with Petitioner’s description of the field of the ‘891 Patent’s invention or
`
`proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at this time but reserves the
`
`right to challenge Petitioner’s description of the field of the invention and definition
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art should trial be instituted.
`
`
`
`E. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In an inter partes review (“IPR”) filed before November 13, 2018, the Board
`
`construes claim terms in an unexpired patent using their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100 (b). The claim language should be read in light of the specification
`
`as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (June 20, 2016). The broadest
`
`reasonable meaning given to claim language must take into account any definitions
`
`presented in the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Under
`
`this standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would
`
`be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`
`Petitioner proposes that “[t]he broadest, reasonable scope and ordinary
`
`meaning of the claim limitations of the ‘891 Patent that are relevant for analysis of
`
`the specific grounds of invalidity raised in this Petition is sufficiently clear that none
`
`of the terms requires formal construction by the Board.” Paper 1 (Petition) at 5.
`
`Patent Owner does not take a position on claim construction for any terms of the
`
`‘891 Patent at this time. However, Patent Owner reserves the right to present claim
`
`constructions for any and all terms of the ‘891 Patent should trial be instituted.
`
`F.
`
`SUMMARY OF PATENT OWNER’S ARGUMENTS
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail in showing unpatentability on the grounds asserted in the Petition.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). While it is not required to file a preliminary response, Patent
`
`Owner takes this opportunity to explain the reasons the Board should not institute
`
`trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a).
`
`The Board should deny the Petition because Schwartz and Muller do not
`
`disclose “establishing at each input port, a number of virtual output queues equal to
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the number of output ports, each virtual output queue at each individual input port
`
`dedicated to an individual output port, storing only packets destined for the
`
`associated output port, for managing incoming data traffic” as claimed by
`
`independent claim 1 of the ‘891 Patent or other similar limitations of the other
`
`independent claims of the ‘891 Patent.
`
`Likewise, Schwartz and Muller fail to teach “accepting or discarding data at
`
`each virtual output queue directed to a queue according to a quantity of data in the
`
`queue relative to queue capacity by providing a queue manager for monitoring
`
`quantity of queued data in relation to a preset threshold” as recited in independent
`
`claim 1 of the ‘891 Patent or other similar limitations of the other independent
`
`claims of the ‘891 Patent. Schwartz instead teaches creating and maintaining a
`
`single queue at an input port for all output ports. Schwartz further teaches accepting
`
`all packets into a queue maintained at the input port and basing a decision on
`
`whether to discard some or all of these data packets stored in the queue on the
`
`capacity of the output port to handle them. Muller is not applied to these limitations
`
`and, at any rate, cannot cure these deficiencies.
`
`Firoiu and Muller also do not disclose “accepting or discarding data at each
`
`virtual output queue directed to a queue according to a quantity of data in the queue
`
`relative to queue capacity by providing a queue manager for monitoring quantity of
`
`queued data in relation to a preset threshold” as recited in independent claim 1 or
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`other similar limitations of the other independent claims of the ‘891 Patent. Instead,
`
`Firoiu actually teaches the very Flow Control methodology the ‘891 Patent
`
`discourages while Muller is not applied and does not teach this limitation.
`
`Furthermore, the Petitioner does not adequately explain why a person of skill
`
`in the art would be motivated to combine the references in the manner suggested in
`
`the Petition. Indeed, Schwartz’s teaching to accept all packets into an input
`
`buffer/queue regardless of queue capacity and fullness and Firoiu’s disclosure of
`
`the Flow Control methodology teach away from combination with Muller to
`
`achieve the patented invention of the ‘891 Patent.
`
`Patent Owner does not attempt to fully address the myriad of other
`
`deficiencies of the underdeveloped grounds asserted in the Petition. See
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. et al. v. Cronos Technologies, LLC, CBM 2014-00082, Paper
`
`12 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (“nothing may be gleaned from the Patent Owner’s
`
`challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for any particular
`
`reason”). However, the deficiencies addressed herein are dispositive and preclude
`
`trial on any asserted ground.
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
`INSTITUTING AN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`The Petition both advances grounds of rejection that do not disclose all of
`
`the limitations of the independent claims at issue and fails to provide a proper
`
`analysis of why the prior art references would be combined in an obviousness
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`rejection.
`
`Independent claim 1 involves a method claim that recites:
`
`A method for managing data traffic at switching element nodes in a fabric
`
`network, each switching element node having a plurality of input and output ports,
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) establishing at each input port, a number of virtual output queues equal to
`
`the number of output ports, each virtual output queue at each individual
`
`input port dedicated to an individual output port, storing only packets
`
`destined for the associated output port, for managing incoming data
`
`traffic; and
`
`(b) accepting or discarding data at each virtual output queue directed to a
`
`queue according to a quantity of data in the queue relative to queue
`
`capacity by providing a queue manager for monitoring quantity of queued
`
`data in relation to a preset threshold, and discarding data from each virtual
`
`output queue at a predetermined rate, when the quantity of queued data
`
`reaches or exceeds the threshold;
`
`wherein in step (b), the queue manager increases the rate of discarding as
`
`quantity of queued data increase above the preset threshold, discarding all
`
`data traffic when the queue is full.
`
`Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 4:34-56. Independent claims 3 and 5 recite
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`similar limitations to independent claim 1 but are directed to apparatus claims for a
`
`switching element node and a data router rather than a method claim. Schwartz,
`
`Firoiu and Muller do not disclose these independent claim limitations and would
`
`not be combined in the manner Petitioner suggests.
`
`A.
`
`SCHWARTZ AND MULLER DO NOT DISCLOSE THE
`“ESTABLISHING AT EACH INPUT PORT, A NUMBER OF
`VIRTUAL OUTPUT QUEUES EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF
`OUTPUT PORTS” LIMITATION OF INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
`OR
`THE
`CORRESPONDING
`LIMITATIONS
`OF
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 3 AND 5
`
`Neither Schwartz nor Muller disclose “establishing at each input port, a
`
`
`
`
`number of virtual output queues equal to the number of output ports, each virtual
`
`output queue at each individual input port dedicated to an individual output port,
`
`storing only packets destined for the associated output port, for managing
`
`incoming data traffic” as recited in independent claim 1 or the corresponding
`
`limitations of independent claims 3 and 5. Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 4:39-44,
`
`4:62-67, 5:16-6:4 (emphasis added).
`
`The ‘891 Patent specification clarifies that “there are nine queue managers
`
`209, one for each external port 205” and “[e]ach queue manager comprises a set of
`
`virtual output queues (VOQ), with individual VOQs associated with individual
`
`ones of the available outputs on a card.” Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 3:33-35,
`
`3:54-57. “Data traffic coming in on any one port, for example, is directed to a first-
`
`in-first-out (FIFO) queue associated with an output port, and the queue manager is
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`enabled to discard all traffic when the queue to which data is directed is full.”
`
`Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 3:59-62.
`
`
`
`The Petition relies on Schwartz for teaching “establishing at each input port,
`
`a number of virtual output queues equal to the number of output ports, each virtual
`
`output queue at each individual input port dedicated to an individual output port,
`
`storing only packets destined for the associated output port, for managing incoming
`
`data traffic.” Petition at 28-31. However, Schwartz teaches the exact opposite of
`
`this limitation when it recites: “[s]ince the packets are buffered at the input port
`
`modules until the determination has been made by the packet meta-data processor
`
`that they are to be transmitted by respective output port modules, and further until
`
`they are requested by the respective output port modules to be transferred thereto
`
`for transmission, only ‘N’ buffers, or queues, are needed, one for each input port
`
`module, whereas in an output-queued switching node N2 buffers would be
`
`required.” Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at 4:23-29 (emphasis added). In other words,
`
`Schwartz teaches a single queue for each input port module regardless of the
`
`number of output port modules wherein that single queue stores packets destined
`
`for a variety of output ports whereas the ‘891 Patent teaches and claims, “at each
`
`input port, a number of virtual output queues equal to the number of output
`
`ports” and “storing only packets destined for the associated output port” at each
`
`virtual output queue. Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 4:39-44, 4:62-67, 5:16-6:4
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, Petitioner did not apply Muller against this limitation, and in any
`
`event, Muller would not cure the deficiencies of Schwartz related to this limitation.
`
`B.
`
`SCHWARTZ AND MULLER DO NOT DISCLOSE THE
`“ACCEPTING OR DISCARDING DATA AT EACH VIRTUAL
`OUTPUT QUEUE DIRECTED TO A QUEUE ACCORDING TO
`A QUANTITY OF DATA IN THE QUEUE RELATIVE TO
`QUEUE CAPACITY BY PROVIDING A QUEUE MANAGER
`FOR MONITORING QUANTITY OF QUEUED DATA IN
`RELATION TO A PRESET THRESHOLD” LIMITATION OF
`INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 OR THE CORRESPONDING
`LIMITATIONS OF INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 3 AND 5
`
`
`Petitioner relies on Schwartz for disclosing “accepting or discarding data at
`
`each virtual output queue directed to a queue according to a quantity of data in the
`
`queue relative to queue capacity by providing a queue manager for monitoring
`
`quantity of queued data in relation to a preset threshold” as claimed in independent
`
`claim 1 and the corresponding limitations of independent claims 3 and 5. Paper 1
`
`(Petition) at 31-36, 42, 46-47.
`
`Schwartz teaches accepting all data into a queue at an input port and
`
`discarding or transmitting data stored in that queue at the input port based on
`
`whether the current status information associated with the output port module 21(n)
`
`indicates that the output port module 21(n) has sufficient capacity to receive the
`
`packet from the input port module 20(n) and transmit it. Paper 1 (Petition) at 31-
`
`34; Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at 10:18-11:29. In other words, in Schwartz, accepting
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`or discarding data destined for each virtual output queue located at the input ports,
`
`is not being done “according to a quantity of data in the queue relative to queue
`
`capacity by providing a queue manager for monitoring quantity of queued data
`
`in relation to a preset threshold,” but rather such data is always accepted and stored
`
`in a queue at the input port without regard to how full the queue is and only later
`
`removed from the queue based on a determination of the output port’s ability to
`
`receive and transmit the packet. Paper 1 (Petition) at 31-34; Exhibit 1004
`
`(Schwartz) at 10:18-11:29; Exhibit 1001 (‘891 Patent) at 3:31-34, 3:52-64
`
`(emphasis added). This process is entirely different from the ‘891 Patent invention
`
`which discards data packets prior to them being queued at the input port when the
`
`queue is full and accepts data packets into the queue at the input port when the
`
`queue is determined to be empty or not over a threshold of fullness. Paper 1
`
`(Petition) at 31-34; Exhibit 1004 (Schwartz) at 10:18-11:29; Exhibit 1001 (‘891
`
`Patent) at 3:31-34, 3:52-64.
`
`Petitioner did not apply Muller to this limitation, and in any event, it would
`
`not cure the deficiency discussed above with respect to the teaching of Schwartz.
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 35.
`
`C. A POSITA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO
`COMBINE SCHW
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
