`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`Panasonic Avionics Corp.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2018-00043
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. BILL LIN,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`Page 1 of 128
`
`

`

`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. 
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 
`II. 
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 6 
`III.  Understanding of Patent Law .......................................................................... 8 
`IV.  The ’459 Patent .............................................................................................. 11 
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................. 11 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 15 
`V. 
`VI.  Claim interpretation in inter partes review ................................................... 17 
`A. 
`“redirection server” ............................................................................. 18 
`VII.  Detailed Invalidity Analysis .......................................................................... 20 
`A. 
`Claims 91-99, 108-120, and 122-125 are obvious over Abraham
`in view of Malkin, further in view of Telia. ........................................ 21 
`1. 
`Overview of Abraham ............................................................. 21 
`2. 
`Overview of Malkin ................................................................. 25 
`3. 
`Reasons to Combine Abraham and Malkin ............................. 27 
`4. 
`Overview of Telia .................................................................... 32 
`5. 
`Reasons to Combine Abraham and Telia ................................ 33 
`6. 
`Claim 91 ................................................................................... 37 
`7. 
`Claim 92 ................................................................................... 74 
`8. 
`Claim 93 ................................................................................... 76 
`9. 
`Claim 94 ................................................................................... 78 
`10. 
`Claim 95 ................................................................................... 82 
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 2 of 128
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`11. 
`Claim 96 ................................................................................... 84 
`Claim 97 ................................................................................... 87 
`12. 
`Claim 98 ................................................................................... 90 
`13. 
`Claim 99 ................................................................................... 95 
`14. 
`Claim 108 ................................................................................. 97 
`15. 
`Claim 109 ............................................................................... 104 
`16. 
`Claim 110 ............................................................................... 108 
`17. 
`Claim 111 ............................................................................... 116 
`18. 
`Claim 112 ............................................................................... 117 
`19. 
`Claim 113 ............................................................................... 117 
`20. 
`Claim 114 ............................................................................... 118 
`21. 
`Claim 115 ............................................................................... 118 
`22. 
`Claim 116 ............................................................................... 119 
`23. 
`Claim 117 ............................................................................... 119 
`24. 
`Claim 118 ............................................................................... 120 
`25. 
`Claim 119 ............................................................................... 120 
`26. 
`Claim 120 ............................................................................... 121 
`27. 
`Claim 122 ............................................................................... 122 
`28. 
`Claim 123 ............................................................................... 123 
`29. 
`Claim 124 ............................................................................... 123 
`30. 
`Claim 125 ............................................................................... 124 
`31. 
`VIII.  Conclusion ................................................................................................... 128 
`Ex. 1003
`
`3
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 3 of 128
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`I, Dr. Bill Lin, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert witness on behalf of
`
`Panasonic Avionics Corp. (“Panasonic” or “Petitioner”) for the above-captioned
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459 (“the ’459
`
`Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this matter. My compensation is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims
`
`91-99, 108-120, and 122-125 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’459 Patent are
`
`unpatentable as they would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention. It is my opinion that all of
`
`the limitations of these claims would have been obvious to a POSITA after
`
`reviewing U.S. Patent No. 5,983,270 to Abraham et al. (“Abraham”), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,247,054 to Malkin (“Malkin”), and European Patent No. EP0762707A2 to
`
`Telia (“Telia”), as discussed further below.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`4
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 4 of 128
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`the ’459 Patent, Ex. 1001;
`
`the prosecution history of the ’459 Patent, Ex. 1002;
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,983,270 to Abraham et al. (“Abraham”), Ex. 1005;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,247,054 to Malkin (“Malkin”), Ex. 1006;
`
`European Patent No. EP0762707A2 to Telia (“Telia”), Ex. 1007;
`
`The prosecution history of Pat. No. 6,779,118, surrendered for
`
`RE46,459, Ex. 1008;
`
`g)
`
`The prosecution history of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/009,301,
`
`Ex. 1009;
`
`h)
`
`The prosecution history of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/011,485,
`
`Ex. 1010;
`
`i)
`
`The prosecution history of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/012,149,
`
`Ex. 1011;
`
`j)
`
`The prosecution history of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/012,342,
`
`Ex. 1012;
`
`k)
`
`The prosecution history of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/012,378,
`
`Ex. 1013; and
`
`l)
`
`The prosecution history of Inter Partes Reexam control no.
`
`95/002,035, Ex. 1014.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 5 of 128
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`
`
`the documents listed above;
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness,
`
`and any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this declaration;
`
`and
`
`c) my knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area as
`
`described below.
`
`6.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all bold italics emphasis in any quoted
`
`material has been added.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`7.
`
`I am a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and an
`
`Adjunct Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of
`
`California, San Diego (UCSD).
`
`8. My Curriculum Vitae, which states my qualifications more fully, is
`
`filed as a separate Exhibit (Ex. 1004). A list of all cases in which I have testified
`
`as an expert at trial or by deposition in the last four years is also included in Ex.
`
`1004.
`
`9.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1985, a Master of Science
`
`degree in 1988, and a Ph.D. in 1991, all in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 6 of 128
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`Sciences from the University of California, Berkeley.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I joined UCSD in 1997, and I have been a tenured professor since
`
`1999. My research has focused on all aspects of computer networking and
`
`computer design problems, including the design of data networks, high-
`
`performance switches and routers, packet monitoring and network security
`
`methods, many-core processors, and systems-on-chip designs.
`
`11. At UCSD, I am a Principal Investigator in the UCSD Center for
`
`Networked Systems (CNS). CNS brings together researchers to work on a range
`
`of challenges in the design of future networked systems. I am also a Principal
`
`Investigator in the UCSD Center for Wireless Communications (CWC). CWC
`
`brings together researchers to work on a range of challenges in the design of future
`
`wireless communications and mobile networking systems.
`
`12. Prior to joining UCSD, I was the Head of the Systems and
`
`Communications Group at IMEC in Leuven, Belgium, where I led a team of
`
`researchers who worked on a range of computer design problems, including
`
`specialized processors for network processing and wireless communications.
`
`13.
`
`I have served as an Associate or Guest Editor for several journals
`
`published by the Association for Computing Machinery (“ACM”) and the Institute
`
`of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”). I have also served as General
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 7 of 128
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`
`Chair of several ACM/IEEE conferences, and on the Organizing or Steering
`
`Committees of many ACM/IEEE conferences, and I have served on the Technical
`
`Program Committees of numerous ACM/IEEE conferences.
`
`14.
`
`I am the author of over 170 peer-reviewed publications in the field of
`
`computer engineering dating to the 1980s, including publications on the subjects of
`
`stateful firewalls, denial-of-service attacks, and other network security problems. A
`
`number of my publications have received best paper awards or distinguished paper
`
`citations. I have also given numerous invited and keynote talks around the world. I
`
`am the inventor of five patents, including several patents in the field of network
`
`security.
`
`15.
`
`In summary, I have over 25 years of experience in research and
`
`development in the areas of computer networking and computer design.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`16.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been
`
`informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions. My
`
`understanding of the law was provided to me by Panasonic’s attorneys.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’459 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’459 Patent. I have applied May 4, 1998 as the earliest
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 8 of 128
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`
`possible priority date. I understand, however, that the ’459 Patent claims may not
`
`be entitled to this date, and that the actual entitled priority date may be later.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it would have been obvious as of
`
`its earliest effective priority date. Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim
`
`would have been obvious from the perspective of a POSITA at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made. I understand that a claim could have been obvious from a
`
`single prior art reference or from a combination of two or more prior art references.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`20.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 9 of 128
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by
`
`mere substitution of one element for another known in the field and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. Also, I understand that obviousness does
`
`not require physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of
`
`what the combined teachings would have suggested to persons of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`22. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this combination,
`
`common sense should guide and no rigid requirement of finding a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine is required. When a product is available,
`
`design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
`
`same field or different one. If a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`can implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability. For
`
`the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device and a
`
`POSITA would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`
`using the technique would have been obvious. I understand that a claim would
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 10 of 128
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`
`have been obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art
`
`references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited in the
`
`claims.
`
`23.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventors of the ’459
`
`Patent or any assignee of the ’459 Patent that any secondary considerations tend to
`
`rebut the obviousness of any Challenged Claim of the ’459 Patent.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`25. The analysis in this declaration is in accordance with the above-stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`IV. THE ’459 PATENT
`A. Overview
`26. The ’459 Patent is directed to “[a] data redirection system” for “use in
`
`dynamically redirecting and filtering Internet traffic.” ’459 Patent, Abstract; 1:20-
`
`22. The system “allows for creating and implementing dynamically changing rules,
`
`to allow the redirection, blocking, or allowing, of specific data traffic for specific
`
`users, as a function of database entries and the user’s activity.” Id., 3:7-11.
`
`27. The ’459 Patent’s system “employs: a dial-up network server 102, an
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 11 of 128
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`
`authentication accounting server 204, a database 206 and a redirection server 208.”
`
`’459 Patent, 4:1-3. A personal computer (PC) 100 connects to the network through
`
`the system, as illustrated in FIG. 2:
`
`’459 Patent, FIG. 2.
`
`
`
`28. The ’459 Patent teaches that the PC 100 can connect to the dial-up
`
`networking server 102 via modem or a “local area network (LAN).” ’459 Patent,
`
`4:5-7. The IP address assigned to the PC 100 may be “dynamically assign[ed]” or
`
`“permanently assigned.” Id., 4:12-16. The ’459 Patent admits that “dynamic IP
`
`address assignment [is] well known in the art.” Id., 4:17-18.
`
`29. When a user at PC 100 establishes a new session (i.e., by having the
`
`user’s “user ID” authorized), an “Auto-Navi component” of the authentication
`
`accounting server 204 “sends the redirection server 208 (1) the filter and
`Ex. 1003
`
`12
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 12 of 128
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`
`redirection information stored in database 206 for that user ID and (2) the
`
`temporarily assigned IP address for the session.” ’459 Patent, 4:19-32. The
`
`“redirection information” is in the form of a “rule set,” which the redirection server
`
`208 “is program[m]ed to implement … for the IP address.” Id., 5:1-8.
`
`30. The “[r]ule sets … are unique for each user ID, or a group of user
`
`ID’s.” ’459 Patent, 4:53-54. They “specify elements or conditions about the user’s
`
`session” including types of service that may be accessed, locations that may or
`
`may not be accessed, how long to apply rules, when to remove the rule set, and
`
`how to modify the rule set. Id., 4:54-60. The redirection server 208 implements the
`
`rule set and checks data packets, blocks or allows packets “as a function of the rule
`
`sets,” redirects data packets based on the rule sets, and “dynamically chang[es] the
`
`rule sets based on conditions.” Id., 5:5-12.
`
`31. The ’459 Patent teaches that “[a] user’s access can be dynamically
`
`changed by editing the user’s database record and commanding the Auto-Navi
`
`component of the authentication accounting server 204 to transmit the user’s new
`
`rule set and current IP address to the redirection server 208.” ’459 Patent, 5:30-35.
`
`Rule sets may be removed from the system after their lifetime expires. Id., 4:60-62.
`
`The ’459 Patent also discusses periodically redirecting the user to a location “based
`
`on a period of time or some other condition.” Id., 5:46-47. This is done by “setting
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 13 of 128
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`
`an initial temporary rule set” to redirect to a location. Id., 5:51-54. After
`
`redirection, the initial temporary rule set is replaced with a standard rule set. Id.,
`
`5:53-57. After a period of time, the rule set is reinstated. Id., 5:58-59.
`
`32. When a user logs out or disconnects, “the redirection server will
`
`remove all remaining rule sets” for the user. ’459 Patent, 7:6-7, 58-59.
`
`33.
`
`Independent claim 91 is generally representative of the Challenged
`
`Claims:
`
`91. A system comprising:
`
`a redirection server programmed with a user's rule set correlated
`to a temporarily assigned network address;
`
`wherein the rule set contains at least one of a plurality of
`functions used to control data passing between the user and a public
`network;
`
`wherein the redirection server is configured to automatically
`modify at least a portion of the rule set while the rule set is correlated
`to the temporarily assigned network address;
`
`wherein the redirection server is configured to automatically
`modify at least a portion of the rule set as a function of some
`combination of time, data transmitted to or from the user, or location
`the user accesses; and
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 14 of 128
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`wherein the redirection server is configured to modify at least a
`portion of the rule set as a function of time while the rule set is
`correlated to the temporarily assigned network address.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:36-53.
`
`34.
`
`It is my opinion that the claimed elements and functionality of the
`
`’459 Patent were well-known before the claimed priority date of the ’459 Patent.
`
`Accordingly, as I show in this declaration, the claims of the ’459 Patent were
`
`obvious before the claimed priority date of the ’459 Patent.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART
`35.
`
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`
`prior art of record, and that a POSITA to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art. I understand that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art has ordinary creativity, and is not a robot.
`
`36.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems. There are likely a wide range of
`
`educational backgrounds in the technology field pertinent to the ’459 Patent.
`Ex. 1003
`
`15
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 15 of 128
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`37.
`
`
`I am very familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a POSITA
`
`in
`
`the field of networking security and access controls, e.g. “Internet
`
`communications” (see Ex. 1001, 1:20-22), would have possessed during the late
`
`1990s, especially as this field pertains to the configuration and operation of a
`
`firewall, redirection, rules-based packet control, and common networking protocols
`
`like IP, TCP, HTTP, and DHCP. Specifically, my experience in the field, with
`
`colleagues from academia, and with engineers practicing in the industry during the
`
`relevant timeframe allowed me to become personally familiar with the knowledge
`
`and capabilities of a POSITA. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony below refers
`
`to the knowledge of a POSITA during the time period around the earliest alleged
`
`priority date of the ’459 Patent.
`
`38.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill in the art needed to have the
`
`capability of understanding the engineering principles applicable to the ’459 Patent
`
`is (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering, Computer
`
`Science, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately three years of experience
`
`working in hardware and/or software design and development related to network
`
`security and access controls, such as the configuration and operation of a firewall,
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 16 of 128
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`
`redirection,1 rules-based packet control, and common networking protocols like IP,
`
`TCP, HTTP, and DHCP. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional
`
`education, and vice versa. I believe I possess such experience and knowledge, and
`
`am qualified to opine on the ’459 Patent.
`
`39. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of May 4, 1998.
`
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION IN INTER PARTES REVIEW
`40.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’459
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. I have been informed that
`
`claims in an inter partes review (“IPR”) are normally given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, but that when a patent is
`
`expired that standard changes to one similar to the standard used in District Court
`
`proceedings. Here, the ’459 Patent will expire during the course of the proceeding,
`
`and therefore the District Court standard will be applied herein.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The ’459 Patent admits that redirection was known in the art. Ex. 1001, 1:47-2:11
`
`(discussing “current redirection technology” (2:7)).
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 17 of 128
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`41.
`
`
`It is my further understanding that claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, unless the inventor has set forth a special meaning for a term. I have
`
`been informed that the District Court standard also dictates that the claim terms be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA.
`
`I have been informed that the District Court standard dictates that claim
`
`construction begins with the claim language itself, further informed by the intrinsic
`
`evidence of the specification and the prosecution history.
`
`A.
`“redirection server”
`42. All of the challenged claims require a “redirection server.” The
`
`“redirection server” is recited in the independent claims as being “programmed
`
`with a user’s rule set” and “configured to automatically modify at least a portion of
`
`the rule set while the rule set is correlated to the temporarily assigned network
`
`address,” as “a function of some combination of time, data transmitted to or from
`
`the user, or location the user accesses.” See, e.g., ’459 Patent, 16:37-49.
`
`43. The ’459 Patent’s specification discusses the term “redirection server”
`
`in the following manner:
`
`The redirection server 208 is logically located between the user's
`computer 100 and the network, and controls the user's access to the
`network. The redirection server 208 performs all the central tasks of
`Ex. 1003
`18
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 18 of 128
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`the system. The redirection server 208 receives information regarding
`newly established sessions from the authentication accounting server
`204. The Auto-Navi component of the authentication accounting
`server 204 queries the database for the rule set to apply to each new
`session, and forwards the rule set and the currently assigned IP
`address to the redirection server 208. The redirection server 208
`receives the IP address and rule set, and is programed to implement
`the rule set for the IP address, as well as other attendant logical
`decisions such as: checking data packets and blocking or allowing
`the packets as a function of the rule sets, performing the physical
`redirection of data packets based on the rule sets, and dynamically
`changing the rule sets based on conditions. When the redirection
`server 208 receives information regarding a terminated session from
`the authentication accounting server 204, the redirection server 208
`removes any outstanding rule sets and information associated with the
`session. The redirection server 208 also checks for and removes
`expired ride sets from time to time.
`
`’459 Patent, 4:63-5:19. The ’459 Patent continues:
`
`It will be clear to one skilled in the art that the invention may be
`implemented to control (block, allow and redirect) any type of
`service, such as Telnet, FTP, WWW and the like.
`
`Id., 8:24-26.
`
`44. Consistent with the specification, in the context of the ’459 Patent
`
`“redirection server” refers to a server that is operable to control packets by
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 19 of 128
`
`

`

`
`
`
`blocking, allowing, and redirecting.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`45. Accordingly, it is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that the term “redirection server” includes a server
`
`operable to control network access by applying the following actions: block, allow,
`
`and redirect.
`
`VII. DETAILED INVALIDITY ANALYSIS
`46.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’459 Patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The
`
`discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art references
`
`identified below teach the limitations of the Challenged Claims of the ’459 Patent.
`
`It is my opinion that Abraham combined with Malkin and Telia would have
`
`rendered the subject matter of the Challenged Claims obvious to a POSITA.
`
`47. As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the
`
`prior art and any differences between the alleged invention and the prior art. I
`
`describe in detail below the scope and content of the prior art, as well as any
`
`differences between the alleged invention and the prior art, on an element-by-
`
`element basis for each Challenged Claim of the ’459 Patent.
`
`48. As described in detail below, the alleged invention of the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the identified prior art
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 20 of 128
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`references as well as the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`
`
`A. Claims 91-99, 108-120, and 122-125 are obvious over Abraham in
`view of Malkin, further in view of Telia.
`1. Overview of Abraham
`49. Abraham “relates to managing the communication of data packets
`
`transmitted via an intranetwork or an internetwork and more particularly to
`
`monitoring, logging and blocking data packets transmitted via an intranetwork or
`
`internetwork.” Abraham, 1:13-17. Abraham accomplishes this with a “network
`
`server 50” that is configured to “manage the communication of IP packets between
`
`the LAN 44 and the Internet 40.” Id., 6:24-27. Abraham’s teachings allow
`
`“specific rules for the users of the computers connected to the LAN 44” to be set
`
`and changed. Id., 6:27-31.
`
`50. Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates the network server (50) and its
`
`relationship between the LAN 44 and the Internet 40:
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003
`Panasonic Avionics v. Linksmart
`
`Page 21 of 128
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`
`
`
`
`Abraham, FIG. 2 (annotated to highlight network server).
`
`51. The network server 50 “stores a network management program 80
`
`formed in accordance with the present invention for managing the flow of IP
`
`packet traffic passing through the netwo