IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Haller et al.
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,295,532
`Issue Date:
`November 13, 2007
`Appl. Serial No.: 09/932,180
`Filing Date:
`August 17, 2001
`Title:
`SYSTEM, DEVICE AND COMPUTER READABLE
`MEDIUM FOR PROVIDING NETWORKING SERVICES
`ON A MOBILE DEVICE
`
`IPR Control No.: IPR2015-01443
`Atty Docket No.: 00035-0003IP2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 7,295,532 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`APPLE 1027
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`V.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ........................... 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................ 1
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ......................................... 1
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..................... 2
`D. Service Information .................................................................................. 2
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 3
`II.
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................ 3
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)................................. 3
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ............... 3
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’532 PATENT ............................................................. 6
`A. Brief Description ....................................................................................... 6
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date ........................ 9
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10
`A-1. “software component…loaded…from the one or more devices
`connected to said one or more cellular networks” ........................ 11
`VI. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR
`WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`’532 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .......................................................... 12
`A. [GROUND 1] – Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 14 are obvious over
`Marchand in view of Router Plugins in view of Hoffman under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................ 12
`B. [GROUND 2] – Claim 7 is obvious over Marchand in view of Router
`Plugins in view of Hoffman in view of 802.11b under 35 U.S.C. § 103
` ................................................................................................................. 43
`C. [GROUND 3] – Claim 9 is obvious over Marchand in view of Router
`Plugins in view of Hoffman in view of RFC 2663 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
` ................................................................................................................. 46
`D. [GROUND 4] – Claim 10 is obvious over Marchand in view of Router
`Plugins in view of Hoffman in view of Larsson under 35 U.S.C. § 103 48
`E. [GROUND 5] – Claims 15, 16, and 24 are obvious over Marchand in
`view of Router Plugins in view of Hoffman in view of Schweitzer under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ....................................................................................... 52
`VII. REDUNDANCY ........................................................................................... 59
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT-1001
`
`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`
`EXHIBITS
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532 to Haller, et al. (“the ’532
`Patent”)
`
`EXHIBIT-1002
`
`Reserved
`
`EXHIBIT-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei
`
`EXHIBIT-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei
`
`EXHIBIT-1005
`
`EXHIBIT-1006
`
`EXHIBIT-1007
`
`EXHIBIT-1008
`
`EXHIBIT-1009
`
`PCT Publication Number WO 2001/076154
`(“Marchand”)
`
`“Router Plugins: A Software Architecture for Next
`Generation Routers,” Computer Communication Review
`(1998), vol. 28, No. 4, p. 229-240 (“Router Plugins”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,622,017 to Hoffman, et al.
`(“Hoffman”)
`
`802.11b, “Supplement to IEEE Standard for Information
`Technology – Telecommunications and In-formation
`Exchange Between Systems – Local and Metropolitan
`Area Networks – Specific Requirements. Part 11:
`Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
`Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications: Higher-Speed
`Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band,” Print
`ISBN 0738118117, published January 20, 2000
`(“802.11b”)
`
`“IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology
`and Considerations,” RFC 2663, August 1999 (“RFC
`2663”)
`
`EXHIBIT-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,535,498 to Larsson, et al. (“Larsson”)
`
`EXHIBIT-1011
`
`EXHIBIT-1012
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,963,912 to Schweitzer, et al.
`(“Schweitzer”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 09/541,529 to Marchand
`(“Marchand Priority”)
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`(collectively “Samsung”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”) (Samsung and Apple,
`
`collectively “Petitioners”) petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, and 23-24
`
`(“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532 (“’532 Patent”). As explained
`
`in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail
`
`with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Apple Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioners are not aware of any disclaimers, reexamination certificates or
`
`petitions for inter partes review for the ’532 Patent. The ’532 Patent is the subject
`
`of a Civil Action Numbers 14-cv-4355 (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.), filed June 17, 2014;
`
`14-cv-4428 (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.), filed June 18, 2014; and 14-cv-7954 (U.S.D.C.
`
`1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`
`S.D.N.Y.), filed October 2, 2014.1
`
`Concurrently with this petition, Petitioners are filing one (1) other petition
`
`for IPR (identified with attorney docket number 00035-0003IP1 and proceeding
`
`number IPR2015-01442) of the ’532 Patent. The relationship between the limited
`
`grounds presented in these two petitions is discussed in Section VII.
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`Samsung provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`Kevin Greene, Reg. No. 46,031
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 202-783-2331
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 202-783-2331
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Please address all correspondence and service to counsel at the address
`
`provided in Section I(C). Samsung also consents to electronic service by email at
`
`IPR00035-0003IP2@fr.com.
`
`
`1 The unpatentability positions herein take into account Patent Owner’s
`
`infringement positions in the co-pending litigation and in some instances are based
`
`in-part on these positions.
`
`2
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`II.
`The Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account
`
`No. 06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and any
`
`additional fees.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’532 Patent is available for IPR. The earliest
`
`service of complaints against the Petitioners was against Samsung on June 20,
`
`2014. This petition is being filed within one year of that date. Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting this review challenging the Challenged Claims
`
`on the below-identified grounds.
`
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`
`Petitioners request an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth
`
`in the table shown below, and requests that each of the Challenged Claims be
`
`found unpatentable. An explanation of unpatentability is provided in the detailed
`
`description that follows, which indicates where each element can be found in the
`
`cited prior art, and the relevance of that prior art. Additional explanation and
`
`support for each ground of unpatentability is set forth in Exhibit 1003, the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei, referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`
`
`3
`
`6
`
`

`

`’532 Patent Claims
`Ground
`Ground 1 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12,14,
`and 23
`Ground 2 7
`
`Ground 3 9
`
`Ground 4 10
`
`Ground 5 15, 16, and 24
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`Basis for Unpatentability
`Marchand in view of Router Plugins in
`view of Hoffman under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Marchand in view of Router Plugins in
`view of Hoffman in view of 802.11b under
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Marchand in view of Router Plugins in
`view of Hoffman in view of RFC 2663
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`Marchand in view of Router Plugins in
`view of Hoffman in view of Larsson under
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`Marchand in view of Router Plugins in
`view of Hoffman in view of Schweitzer
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The ’532 Patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/932,180, filed August
`
`17, 2001. Because the ’532 Patent does not include a priority claim, the filing date
`
`of August 17, 2001 (hereinafter the “Critical Date”) is the earliest possible priority
`
`date to which this patent is entitled.
`
`Marchand (Ex. 1005) qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(e).
`
`Specifically, Marchand was filed on March 27, 2001. Since Marchand is an
`
`international application filed after November 29, 2000, its prior art effect under 35
`
`U.S.C § 102(e) is governed by § 102(e) as amended by the American Inventor’s
`
`Protection Act (AIPA). Public Law 107-273, Sec. 4508. Under that version of
`
`§ 102(e), “an international application filed under the treaty defined in section
`
`4
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`351(a) [i.e., the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)] shall have the effects for the
`
`purposes of this subsection [i.e., § 102(e)] of an application filed in the United
`
`States . . . if the international application designated the United States and was
`
`published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.” Public Law
`
`107-273, Sec. 4505. Marchand designated the United States and was published in
`
`English under Article 21(2) of the PCT. See Marchand, bibliographic page. As
`
`with an application filed in the United States, the effective § 102(e) date of such an
`
`international application is the application’s earliest priority date. See 35 U.S.C
`
`§ 120 and § 365(c). Marchand claims priority from Marchand Priority (Ex. 1012),
`
`which is a prior national application that was filed on April 3, 2000. This date is
`
`before the ’033 Patent’s Critical Date. Accordingly, Marchand qualifies as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C § 102(e). Marchand and Marchand Priority share the same
`
`disclosure so Marchand has the benefit of priority of Marchand Priority for the
`
`disclosure relied on.
`
`Router Plugins (ex. 1006) qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C
`
`§ 102(b). Specifically, Router Plugins was published in Computer Communication
`
`Review in 1998, which was more than one year before the Critical Date.
`
`Hoffman (Ex. 1007) qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C § 102(e).
`
`Specifically, Hoffman is a U.S. patent that was filed on April 24, 2000, which was
`
`before the Critical Date.
`
`5
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`802.11b (Ex. 1008) qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C § 102(b).
`
`Specifically, 802.11b was published by the IEEE on January 20, 2000, which was
`
`more than one year before the Critical Date.
`
`RFC 2663 (Ex. 1009) qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C § 102(b).
`
`Specifically, RFC 2663 was published by The Internet Society in August 1999,
`
`which was more than one year before the Critical Date.
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1010) qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C § 102(e).
`
`Specifically, Larsson is a U.S. patent that was filed on December 6, 1999, which
`
`was before the Critical Date
`
`Schweitzer (Ex. 1011) qualifies as prior art at least under 35 U.S.C § 102(e).
`
`Specifically, Schweitzer is a U.S. patent that was filed on April 20, 2000, which
`
`was before the Critical Date.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ’532 PATENT
`A. Brief Description2
`The ’532 Patent describes a device that provides wireless communication
`
`
`2 This description of the ’532 Patent is based on statements made in the
`
`specification of the ’532 Patent. Petitioners do not represent that the descriptions in
`
`the specification of the ’532 Patent are included in the elements of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`6
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`between a local area network (LAN) and a wide area network (WAN). Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract; 1:61-63; Ex. 1003 at 18. A system 100 of the ’532 Patent is illustrated in
`
`Figure 1:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 from the ’532 Patent
`Device 106 is coupled to LAN 116 by a short-range wireless connection
`
`110, and is coupled to WAN 105 by a cellular connection 111. Ex. 1001 at 5:33-
`
`35; 5:52-55; Ex. 1003 at 19. According to the ’532 Patent, examples of the device
`
`106 include “a cellular handset or telephone[,] a cellular enabled PDA, wireless
`
`modem and/or a wireless laptop computer.” Ex. 1001 at 6:16-19; Ex. 1003 at 19.
`
`Device 106 has software for routing packets between the LAN 116 and the WAN
`
`105. Ex. 1001 at 1:65-67; Ex. 1003 at 19. For example, the device 106 has
`
`installed a microrouter 404 with software to route communications between local
`
`devices 107 on the LAN 116 and the WAN 105. Ex. 1001 at 8:29-37; Ex. 1003 at
`
`19.
`
`7
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`In addition to the routing software, device 106 also has other software that
`
`can be installed for providing various “LAN network services” to local devices 107
`
`on the LAN 116. Ex. 1001 at Abstract; 5:12-13; 8:33-35; Ex. 1003 at 20. The
`
`additional software can be in the form of software components called “plug-ins
`
`406” that “may be added to the microrouter 404.” Ex. 1001 at 6:29-31; 8:33-36;
`
`Ex. 1003 at 20. The plug-ins 406 are “downloaded from manager server 102 at
`
`run-time over WAN 105.” Ex. 1001 at 11:28-30; Ex. 1003 at 20. The manager
`
`server 102 is located on an “IP backend network.” Ex. 1001 at 15:59-60; Ex. 1003
`
`at 20. In particular, the manager server 102 is “coupled to carrier backbone 104”
`
`depicted in FIG. 1 as a wired network. Ex. 1001 at 6:22-32; FIG. 1; Ex. 1003 at 20.
`
`In turn, the carrier backbone 104 is coupled to a WAN 105 that “includes a cellular
`
`network” accessible by device 106 via “cellular signal 111.” Ex. 1001 at 6:20-32;
`
`5:52-54; FIG. 1; Ex. 1003 at 20. Therefore, the device 106 is able to use a cellular
`
`signal to download software components, such as plug-ins, from remote servers
`
`that are accessible through various types of networks. Id.
`
`Once the plug-ins 406 are loaded, the device 106 adds the plug-ins 406 to
`
`microrouter 404 using software components called “hooks 590,” which are
`
`“application program interfaces (‘API’) for plug-ins 406.” Ex. 1001 at 8:45-49;
`
`10:2-7; Ex. 1003 at 21. The software plug-ins 406 enable the device 106 to
`
`provide various network services to the local devices 107 on LAN 116. Ex. 1001 at
`
`8
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`10:52-55; Ex. 1003 at 21. Such network services may include, for example, a
`
`firewall service, a packet monitoring service, and other “extended network
`
`services” for the LAN 116. Ex. 1001 at 8:33-37; 10:52-55; Ex. 1003 at 21. Device
`
`106 loads the software for providing such LAN network services from a remote
`
`device on the WAN 105, such as Manager Server 102, via the cellular connection
`
`111. Ex. 1001 at Abstract; 6:29-31; 8:36-38; Ex. 1003 at 21. As such, a remote
`
`operator on the WAN 105 is able to load software on the device 106 in order to
`
`provide various LAN network services to devices on the LAN 116. Ex. 1001 at
`
`Abstract; 5:10-13; 10:11-17; Ex. 1003 at 21.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art as of the Critical Date
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date of the ’532 Patent
`
`(hereinafter a “POSITA”) would have had a Master’s of Science Degree in an
`
`academic area emphasizing electrical engineering, computer engineering, or
`
`computer science (or a similar technical Master’s Degree, or higher degree) with a
`
`concentration in communication and networking systems or, alternatively, a
`
`Bachelor Degree (or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing electrical
`
`engineering, computer engineering, or computer science and having two or more
`
`years of experience in communication and networking systems. Ex. 1003 at 15.
`
`Additional education in a relevant field, such as computer science, computer
`
`engineering, or electrical engineering, or industry experience may compensate for
`
`9
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above. Id. Unless
`
`noted otherwise in this Petition, references to what would have been known or
`
`understood by a POSITA refers to the knowledge of a POSITA as of the Critical
`
`Date, or before.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For
`
`this proceeding only, Petitioners submit constructions for the following terms.3 All
`
`
`3 Petitioners’ claim construction proposals are for the sole purpose of determining
`
`whether the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the Challenged Claims. Neither
`
`by making these proposals, nor by analyzing the cited art, do Petitioners concede
`
`that any Challenged Claim meets statutory standards for patent claiming.
`
`Petitioners recognize that IPR is not an appropriate forum to address certain issues,
`
`such as the patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or the
`
`failure to comply with § 112, and, therefore reserves all rights to contend that one
`
`or more Challenged Claims are invalid for reasons out of scope for IPR, including
`
`but not limited to the failure to claim patentable subject matter under § 101 and
`
`lack of definiteness or written description under § 112. The failure to claim
`
`patentable subject matter under § 101 or the presence of definiteness and
`
`10
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`remaining terms should be given their broadest reasonable meaning. 4
`
`A-1.
`“software component…loaded…from the one or more devices
`connected to said one or more cellular networks”
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, this term should be
`
`construed broadly enough to encompass software components that are loaded from
`
`one or more devices that are either directly or indirectly coupled to the one or more
`
`cellular networks. This construction is consistent with the description in the ’532
`
`Patent. The ’532 Patent has no disclosure of loading software components directly
`
`from a device on a cellular network. Ex. 1003 at 24. Instead, the only description
`
`of loading software components in the ’532 Patent is with reference to loading
`
`“network service plug-ins” from a “manager server 102” on an “IP backend
`
`network.” Ex. 1001 at 15:59-60; Ex. 1003 at 24. In particular, the ’532 Patent
`
`
`description problems in the Challenged Claims is no bar to IPR in appropriate
`
`circumstances; the Board may set aside such issues when reviewing claims under
`
`§§ 102 and 103. E.g., Vibrant Media, Inc. v. Gen’l Elec. Co., IPR2013-00172,
`
`2014 WL 3749773, at *6–7 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. July 28, 2014).
`
`4 Because the standards of claim interpretation applied in litigation differ from PTO
`
`proceedings, any interpretation of claim terms in this IPR is not binding upon
`
`Petitioners in any litigation related to the subject patent. See In re Zletz, 13
`
`USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`11
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`states that the manager server 102 is coupled to a “carrier backbone 104,” which is
`
`depicted in FIG. 1 as a wired network. Ex. 1001 at 6:22-32; 5:52-54; FIG. 1; Ex.
`
`1003 at 24. The carrier backbone 104 is then coupled to a WAN 104 that includes
`
`a cellular network. Id. Therefore, the only disclosure in the ’532 Patent regarding
`
`downloading software components from a device through a cellular network is
`
`with reference to downloading plug-ins from manager server 102, which is
`
`indirectly coupled, via carrier backbone 104, to a cellular network. Ex. 1003 at 24.
`
`Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “software
`
`component…loaded…from the one or more devices connected to said one or more
`
`cellular networks” should at least encompass software components that are loaded
`
`from one or more devices that are either directly or indirectly coupled to said one
`
`or more cellular networks.
`
`VI. MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY
`CLAIM FOR WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS
`ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT
`LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ’532 PATENT IS
`UNPATENTABLE
`
`As detailed below, this petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of
`
`Petitioners prevailing with respect to each (and therefore at least one) of the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’532 Patent.
`
`A.
`[GROUND 1] – Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 14 are obvious
`over Marchand in view of Router Plugins in view of Hoffman
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`12
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`
`Overview of Marchand
`
`Marchand describes a mobile phone configured to act as a gateway between
`
`two different networks, an “external wireless IP network” and a local wireless “ad-
`
`hoc network.” Ex. 1005 at title; Abstract; 1:5-7; Ex. 1003 at 25. A mobile phone
`
`gateway 33 of Marchand is illustrated in Figure 3:
`
`Figure 3 from Marchand (annotated)
`
`
`
`The mobile gateway 33 communicates with both the external IP network 35
`
`and the local network 30 using two different communication interfaces. Ex. 1005
`
`at 11:7-10; Ex. 1003 at 26. For example, the mobile gateway 33 has a “cellular
`
`radio modem” such as a CDMA or EDGE radio modem, to communicate with
`
`devices on the external IP network 35, which may be a “cellular network” that
`
`implements a “General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) network.” Ex. 1005 at 6:23-
`
`24; 7:19-23; 11:7-8; Ex. 1003 at 26.
`
`13
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`On the local side, “a wireless IP network is established between devices”
`
`using “short-range radio link[s].” Ex. 1005 at Abstract; 1:26-31; 2:11-12; 6:1-8;
`
`11:7-8; Ex. 1003 at 27. As an example, the mobile gateway 33 and other devices
`
`on the local network 30 may have a “Bluetooth chipset” to use Bluetooth short-
`
`range communication on the local network 30, which may be a Bluetooth Piconet.
`
`Id. The mobile gateway 33 acts as a Bluetooth “master unit” for locally connected
`
`devices, such as laptop 31 and printer 32, acting as Bluetooth “slaves to the mobile
`
`phone.” Ex. 1005 at 3:26-27; Ex. 1003 at 27.
`
`The mobile gateway 33 performs routing for IP packets between the local
`
`ad-hoc network 30 and the external wireless network 35. Ex. 1005 at 7:12-17; Ex.
`
`1003 at 29. To perform routing between the two different networks, the mobile
`
`gateway 33 “has two IP addresses.” Ex. 1005 at 10:30-31; Ex. 1003 at 29, 30. On
`
`the local side, the mobile gateway 33 has “a private IP address” recognized by
`
`devices on the local network 30. Ex. 1005 at 4:23-30; Ex. 1003 at 29, 30. On the
`
`external side, the mobile gateway 33 has “a public IP address recognized in the
`
`wireless IP network.” Id. During operation, the mobile gateway 33 receives IP
`
`packets from the public network 35 “through its public IP address, and forwards
`
`the received packets to the private IP address of the destination device” in the local
`
`network 30. Ex. 1005 at 7:14-17; Ex. 1003 at 30. The mobile gateway 33 “also
`
`14
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`translates in the other direction for data going out of” the local network 30 to the
`
`external IP network 35.” Id.
`
`In addition to communicating with external networks via the mobile gateway
`
`33, Marchand describes that local devices on the Bluetooth ad-hoc piconet can
`
`communicate with each other. Ex. 1005 at 10:3-11; Ex. 1003 at 31. For example,
`
`Marchand describes that, “a user with a Bluetooth-compliant mobile phone may
`
`walk into a room that has a printer and a laptop computer, both of which are also
`
`Bluetooth-compliant” and “print a file from the laptop on the printer.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`10:3-7; Ex. 1003 at 31. Marchand describes that such communication between
`
`local devices may also involve IP addresses. Ex. 1005 at 10:8-11; Ex. 1003 at 31.
`
`In addition to routing IP packets, the mobile gateway 33 provides various
`
`types of network services to devices on the local ad-hoc network. Ex. 1003 at 32.
`
`For example, a SIP call control client on the mobile gateway 33 enables devices on
`
`the network 30 to send e-mail. Ex. 1005 at 10:18-23; Ex. 1003 at 32. In particular,
`
`“[i]f a visitor with a communication device such as a PDA comes to the office
`
`location and wants to send some e-mail, but does not have a connection, he may
`
`register with the Piconet and use the call control client that the host's mobile phone
`
`is providing” to be able to “send and receive his e-mail through the host's mobile
`
`phone.” Id .
`
`15
`
`18
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`Therefore, Marchand’s system enables a mobile phone to act as a gateway
`
`between a local area network and an external cellular IP network, and facilitates
`
`routing of IP packets between the two networks using public and private IP
`
`addresses. Ex. 1005 at Abstract; 4:23-30; Ex. 1003 at 30-33. Notably, Marchand
`
`discloses a combination of software and hardware to perform its functionality. Ex.
`
`1003 at 33. For example, Marchand discloses hardware such as the “cellular radio
`
`modem” and “Bluetooth chipset” discussed above, as well as software such as a
`
`link layer, “a network transport layer 17 that is implemented using the Internet
`
`Protocol (IP)[,] an operating system layer 18, a Java technology layer 19[,]a JINI
`
`technology layer 20,” JINI call control client 41, and SIP client 42. Ex. 1005 at
`
`6:14-22, 7:26-8:10; Ex. 1003 at 33.
`
`Overview of Router Plugins
`
`Router Plugins describes a software architecture for routers. Ex. 1006 at
`
`title; Ex. 1003 at 35. In particular, Router Plugins describes an extensible and
`
`modular router software architecture that can “dynamically upgrade router
`
`software in an incremental fashion.” Ex. 1006 at Abstract; Ex. 1003 at 35. The
`
`modular software architecture of Router Plugins “fits very well into the operating
`
`system of small and mid-sized routers.” Ex. 1006 at p. 230, col. 1, ¶5; Ex. 1003 at
`
`35.
`
`16
`
`19
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`The software architecture of Router Plugins “allows code modules, called
`
`plugins, to be dynamically added and configured” on the router. Ex. 1006 at
`
`Abstract; Ex. 1003 at 36. The code modules, or plugins, are “loaded into the
`
`kernel” of a router in a “simple yet flexible fashion,” and managed using a
`
`software component called the “Plugin Control Unit (PCU).” Ex. 1006 at p. 231,
`
`col. 1, ¶2; Ex. 1003 at 36. In particular, the PCU “is a component which glues the
`
`individual plugins to the networking subsystem, and which provides a control-path
`
`interface used by other kernel components…to talk to the plugin.” Id; Ex. 1003 at
`
`37. The PCU enables the code modules, or plugins, to be dynamically loaded and
`
`unloaded into the networking subsystem of the router. Id. Plugins are “loaded into
`
`the kernel [using the modload command].” Ex. 1006 at p. 232, col. 2, ¶1; Ex. 1003
`
`at 37. “Once loaded into the kernel, plugins register their callback function
`
`through a function call to the PCU.” Ex. 1006, at p. 234, col. 2, ¶7; Ex. 1003 at 37.
`
`As part of that, “the [callback] function [registered by the plugin] is used [by the
`
`PCU] to send messages to the plugin.” Ex. 1006, at p. 232, col. 1, ¶2 and col. 2, ¶1;
`
`Ex. 1003 at 37.
`
`The “router plugins are kernel software modules that are dynamically loaded
`
`into the kernel and are responsible for performing certain specific functions on
`
`specified network flows.” Ex. 1006 at p. 230, col. 1, footnote 1; Ex. 1003 at 38. As
`
`examples of network functions, there can be various types of plugins for providing
`
`17
`
`20
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`different network functions, such as “plugins for packet scheduling,…plugins for
`
`IP security,…a routing plugin, a statistics gathering plugin for network
`
`management applications, a plugin for congestion control (RED), a plugin
`
`monitoring TCP congestion backoff behaviour, a firewall plugin.” Ex. 1006 at p.
`
`232, col. 1, ¶1, col. 2, ¶1; Ex. 1003 at 38. All of these plugins “come in the form
`
`of dynamically loadable kernel modules.” Id.
`
`The software architecture of Router Plugins is also “particularly well suited
`
`to the implementation of…flow classification, and for enforcing the configured
`
`profiles of differential service flows.” Ex. 1006 at p. 230, col. 1, ¶5; Ex. 1003 at
`
`41. The enforcement can be done either “on a per-application flow basis” or “on a
`
`generalized class-based approach.” Id. The flow classification and enforcement
`
`can be implemented, for example, by a “packet scheduling” plugin that can
`
`implement “class-based packet scheduling” to ensure Quality of Service (QoS) for
`
`different flows. Ex. 1006 at p. 230, col. 2, ¶4; p. 235, col. 2, ¶2; Ex. 1003 at 41.
`
`The packet scheduling plugin has a filter, or gate, as an entry point to the plugin.
`
`Ex. 1006 at p. 231, col. 2, ¶3; Ex. 1003 at 41. The filter matches to particular
`
`packets and passes those packets to the packet scheduling plugin. Ex. 1006 at p.
`
`231, col. 2, ¶3; p. 235, col. 2, ¶2; Ex. 1003 at 41. As such, the packet scheduling
`
`plugin can implement a “packet scheduling scheme which provides fair link
`
`18
`
`21
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 00035-0003IP2
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532
`bandwidth distribution among different flows.” Ex. 1006 at p. 237, col. 2, ¶2; Ex.
`
`1003 at 41.
`
`Using these various types of plugins, Router Plugins implements an
`
`“extensible and modular software architecture” that “allows code modules called
`
`plugins to be dynamically loaded into the kernel” and enable the router to provide
`
`various network services. Ex. 1006 at p. 239, col. 2, ¶3; p. 232, col. 1, ¶1; Ex. 1003
`
`at 42.
`
`Overview of Hoffman
`
`Hoffman describes a cellular mobile station, such as a “digital cellular
`
`telephone” or “mobile handset,” that uses “over-the-air programming” to download
`
`software modules, or plug-ins, into the handset. Ex. 1007 at Abstract; 5:8-12; 7:22-
`
`26; Ex. 1003 at 43. Such over-the-air programming over cellular connections
`
`allows a user to download software onto a mobile handset from “any equipment
`
`coupled to the Internet 21, virtually anywhere in the world” and “access a server 37
`
`of an independent supplier of feature programming for the handset 5, such as the
`
`manufacturer or a third party.” Ex. 1007 at 9:11-17; Ex. 1003 at 43. Hoffman
`
`explains that although alternative techniques exist for loading software onto mobile
`
`handset, for