GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD.
`v.
`NOMADIX, INC.
`
`Case IPR2019-00211 (Patent 7,953,857)
`Case IPR2019-00253 (Patent 8,626,922)
`
`NOMADIX’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Judge Sally C. Medley
`Judge Daniel J. Galligan
`Judge Jason W. Melvin
`February 25, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Guest Tekv. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211 and -00253
`
`Nomadix Ex.(cid:3)2008
`
`
`v.
`NOMADIX, INC.
`
`Case IPR2019-00211 (Patent 7,953,857)
`Case IPR2019-00253 (Patent 8,626,922)
`
`NOMADIX’S DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`Judge Sally C. Medley
`Judge Daniel J. Galligan
`Judge Jason W. Melvin
`February 25, 2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Guest Tekv. Nomadix
`IPR2019-00211 and -00253
`
`Nomadix Ex.(cid:3)2008
`
`
`
`CLAIMCONSTRUCTION
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`“calculating a delay period”
`requires calculating a
`length of time
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)10(cid:882)13
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)2(cid:882)7
`
`
`
`’857 patent
`
`Based upon (a) the predetermined bandwidth chosen by the
`subscriber as determined from the authorization file; (b) the
`size of the current data packet; and/or (c) the size and time of
`the previous packet sent by the subscriber and processed at
`the bandwidth manager, it is determined if the packet needs
`to be queued for a period of time to ensure that the subscriber
`does not receive a bandwidth greater than that which the
`subscriber selected, as determined at decision block 320. If
`the packet should be delayed, then at block 330, the
`appropriate delay is calculated and the packet is
`placed in the appropriate timeslot of a ring buffer.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)10011 at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)11(cid:3)l.(cid:3)63(cid:3)(cid:882) col.(cid:3)12(cid:3)l.(cid:3)6
`1All(cid:3)citations(cid:3)are(cid:3)to(cid:3)exhibits(cid:3)and(cid:3)papers(cid:3)from(cid:3)
`IPR2019(cid:882)00211(cid:3)unless(cid:3)otherwise(cid:3)indicated.
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)29(cid:882)32
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)10(cid:882)13
`
`
`
`’857 patent
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1001(cid:3)fig.(cid:3)4B
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)29(cid:882)32
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)10(cid:882)13
`
`
`
`’857 patent
`
`The subscriber selectable bandwidth module 32 calculates the
`appropriate delay, if any, using the size (in bytes) of the
`current data packet, and the size and time of the previous
`packet delivered from the subscriber. For example, if the
`user/subscriber has paid for a downlink: bandwidth of 100
`kilobits per second (kbps), and the gateway device 12 receives
`a data packet with the size of 1,500 bytes (12,000 bits), it
`would schedule a delay between packets of 0.12
`seconds (12,000 bits in a packet/100,000 bits per second
`bandwidth limit).
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1001(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)8(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)39(cid:882)48
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)10(cid:882)13
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)29(cid:882)32
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s dictionary definition supports Patent Owner
`
`Webster’s Dictionary
`
`period
`An interval of time marked by the occurrence of certain
`conditions or events <a period of six weeks> [.]
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1023
`
`7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)2(cid:882)3
`
`
`
`Petitioner selectively cites from Nomadix’s patent
`
`’857 patent
`
`While the ring buffer may have more than 120 timeslots in
`order to achieve greater accuracy, increasing the granularity
`produces increased overhead in a system.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1001(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)9(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)47(cid:882)51
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)1(cid:882)2
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)3(cid:882)4
`
`
`
`’857 patent
`
`The subscriber selectable bandwidth module 32
`calculates the appropriate delay, if any, using the size
`(in bytes) of the current data packet, and the size and time
`of the previous packet delivered from the subscriber. For
`example, if the user/subscriber has paid for a downlink:
`bandwidth of 100 kilobits per second (kbps), and the
`gateway device 12 receives a data packet with the size of
`1,500 bytes (12,000 bits), it would schedule a delay
`between packets of 0.12 seconds (12,000 bits in a
`packet/100,000 bits per second bandwidth limit).
`
`If it is determined that the packet should be delayed,
`then the subscriber selectable bandwidth module 32
`places the packet in memory in a virtual queue for
`later delivery.
`
`9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)3(cid:882)4
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1001(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)8(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)39(cid:882)51
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s citation conflicts with Petitioner’s position
`
`’857 patent
`
`If the packet needs to be queued, then it is determined at
`block 350 how long the packet should be delayed, and
`then the packet is placed in the appropriate timeslot of the
`ring buffer.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1001(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)12(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)11(cid:882)14
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)1(cid:882)2
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)5
`
`
`
`Before the district court, Petitioner
`proposed construing “calculate a delay
`period” as “mathematically determine a
`length(cid:3)of(cid:3)timeto delay transmission of a
`received packet.”
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1025(cid:3)at(cid:3)26(cid:882)27
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)5(cid:882)6
`
`
`
`“calculating a delay period”
`requires calculating a
`length of time
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)10(cid:882)13
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)2(cid:882)7
`
`
`
`Bonomi does not calculate a
`delay period
`
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)15(cid:882)21
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)7(cid:882)9
`
`
`
`Bonomi
`
`Whether the estimated arrival time X complies with the
`traffic contract is determined at step 33 where X is compared
`to t+1/(cid:466). If X is less than or equal to t+(cid:468)/(cid:466) then the connection
`is complying with the traffic contract and the cell is
`conforming as shown in step 34. In the case of a conforming
`cell, conformance time c equals the current time t. As shown
`in step 35, if X is greater than t+(cid:468)/(cid:466) the cell is non-conforming
`and the conformance time is set to comply with the contracted
`traffic parameters, c=X–(cid:468)/(cid:466).
`
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1004(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)8(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)30(cid:882)38
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)33(cid:882)38
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)7(cid:882)9
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)16(cid:882)18
`
`
`
`Bonomi
`
`If the cell is non-conforming, the cell is enqueued on a sorting
`bin as shown in step 44. In an embodiment having b sorting
`bins of grain g in the sorting unit, the cell is enqueued onto
`sorting bin [(c mod bg)/g].
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1004(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)8(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)49(cid:882)52
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)7(cid:882)9
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)41(cid:882)44
`
`
`
`Bonomi
`
`13. The method of shaping traffic in claim 1 wherein each
`said sorting bin corresponds to a single delay period between
`said conformance time and said current time.
`
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1004(cid:3)at(cid:3)claim(cid:3)13
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)39(cid:882)40
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)18(cid:882)21
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)7(cid:882)9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert on Bonomi’s “comparison”
`
`DordalTr.
`
`Q. So this comparison, do you agree that that is not a
`calculation of a delay period?
`. . .
`THE WITNESS: At that point this is an abstract
`calculation that is determining whether the packet is
`conformant, yes. That’s not the end of the process, but
`yes, at that point we are not calculating a delay
`period.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2005(cid:3)at(cid:3)85:3(cid:882)10
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)16(cid:882)18
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert on Bonomi’s “conformance time”
`
`DordalTr.
`
`Q. Now, the setting of the conformance time, is that a
`calculation of a time delay period?
`. . .
`A: The calculation of a conformance time . . . . It’s not a
`delay interval as such.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2005(cid:3)at(cid:3)94:22(cid:882)95:6
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)17(cid:882)18
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)8
`
`
`
`A person of ordinary skill would
`not be motivated to combine
`Bonomi and Borella
`
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)21(cid:882)36
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)10(cid:882)14
`
`
`
`Bonomi is directed to ATM networks
`
`Bonomi
`
`[Bonomi] . . . relates to integrated traffic shaping in an
`asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switch operating in a
`high speed network.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1004(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)1(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)8(cid:882)10
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)49
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)22(cid:882)23
`
`
`
`Dr. Stubblebine’s ATM Reference Diagram
`
`Stubblebine Decl.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)53
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)53(cid:882)54
`
`
`
`Dr. Stubblebine’s Reference Diagram - Annotated
`
`Stubblebine Decl.
`
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)56
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)55(cid:882)56
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)24(cid:882)25
`
`
`
`Borella is directed to IP networks
`
`Borella
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)29
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1006(cid:3)fig.(cid:3)3
`
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)59(cid:882)61
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)27(cid:882)30
`
`
`
`Dr. Stubblebine’s IP Reference Diagram
`
`Stubblebine Decl.
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)57(cid:882)58
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)57
`
`
`
`Stubblebine Decl.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)67
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)62(cid:882)67
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)31(cid:882)32
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Stubblebine Decl.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)67
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)62(cid:882)67
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)31(cid:882)34
`
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`“It is impermissible within the
`framework of section 103 to pick and
`choose from any one reference only so
`much of it as will support a given
`position, to the exclusion of other
`parts necessary to the full
`appreciation of what such reference
`fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill
`in the art.”
`Bausch(cid:3)&(cid:3)Lomb,(cid:3)Inc.(cid:3)v.(cid:3)Barnes(cid:486)Hind/Hydrocurve,(cid:3)Inc.,
`796 F.2d 443, 448 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
`(quoting In(cid:3)re(cid:3)Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241 (C.C.P.A. 1965))
`
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)12(cid:882)13
`
`
`
`A person of ordinary skill would
`not be motivated to combine
`Teraslinnaand Bonomi
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)36(cid:882)41
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)14(cid:882)16
`
`
`
`Teraslinna
`
`Disadvantages of the present approach of associating a
`corresponding bandwidth constraint with each virtual
`connection become evident when implementing a virtual
`private network (VPN).
`
`. . .
`
`If N subscribers are to be fully interconnected in a virtual
`private network, i.e. each subscriber is capable of
`transmitting information to each other subscriber, N(N-1)
`one-way virtual connections are required (one connection
`from each of N subscribers to the N-1 others).
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1008(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)2(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)24(cid:882)27,(cid:3)(cid:3)30(cid:882)34
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)72(cid:882)74
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)37(cid:882)40
`
`
`
`Teraslinna
`
`Briefly, embodiments of the present invention overcome
`the above-described shortcomings of previous resource
`management methods and systems in that bandwidth is
`not associated with each virtual connection.
`Instead, bandwidth is associated with each source
`endpoint independent of the number of virtual
`connections emanating from the source endpoint to
`potential destination endpoints.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1008(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)3(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)53(cid:882)59
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)37(cid:882)38
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)15(cid:882)16
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)71
`
`
`
`Bonomi’s features are tied to
`per-connection bandwidth shaping,
`which is antithetical to Teraslinna
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)36(cid:882)41
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)14(cid:882)16
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)70(cid:882)76
`
`
`
`Bonomi
`
`The present invention addresses this problem by . . . .
`ensuring that each connection has a quantity of cells
`in the output queue proportionate to the connection's
`bandwidth.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1004(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)5(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)17(cid:882)29
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)38(cid:882)39
`
`
`
`Bonomi
`
`The granularity of the bins (i.e [sic], the number of
`consecutive conformance times associated with a
`single bin) and the shaping rate of the slowest
`incoming connection (i.e., the minimum shaping rate,
`(cid:466)min) determine the maximum number of sorting bins
`required for the illustrated embodiment of the present
`invention. The optimal number of sorting bins for a
`sorting unit in the present invention varies depending
`on the divergence of incoming connection bandwidth
`parameters; the lowest shaping rate determines the
`range and the highest shaping rate determines the
`grain.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1004(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)7(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)38(cid:882)47
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)38(cid:882)39
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)14(cid:882)16
`
`
`
`Even ifa reference “does not teach
`away,” its statements can be
`relevant to a finding whether a
`skilled artisan would be motivated
`to combine that reference with
`another reference
`
`See(cid:3)Apple(cid:3)Inc.(cid:3)v.(cid:3)Samsung(cid:3)Elecs.(cid:3)Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1051 n.15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)40
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)15(cid:882)16
`
`
`
`Rupp does not disclose a user-selected
`network communication bandwidth or
`data transmission parameter
`
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)48(cid:882)52
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)17(cid:882)19
`
`
`
`Rupp
`
`Purpose and Objectives
`
`. . . answer the question of how people value the quality of
`their Internet access.
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1007(cid:3)at(cid:3)4
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)78
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)50(cid:882)51
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s expert on Rupp’s “quality of service”
`
`DordalTr.
`
`Q. . . . What is a quality of service?
`. . .
`A: . . . In the Rupp system, the focus appears to be
`entirely on guarantees of the minimum bandwidth.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2005(cid:3)at(cid:3)36:14(cid:882)37:1
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)50
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)17(cid:882)18
`
`
`
`Rupp
`
`In contrast to common industry practice, the
`overall available bandwidth is not reduced in the
`multiplexing process and the whole network is
`heavily overprovisioned to make sure that none
`of the subjects experience deteriorations of their
`selected quality level due to potential bottlenecks at
`the INDEX access network.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1007(cid:3)at(cid:3)3
`
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)81(cid:882)83
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)50(cid:882)52
`
`
`
`Petitioner attempts to go
`beyond the four corners of Rupp
`with Dr. Rupp’s declaration
`
`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1028(cid:3)¶(cid:3)2
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)18
`
`
`
`A person of ordinary skill would
`not be motivated to combine
`Chandranand Rupp
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)87(cid:882)94
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)52(cid:882)58
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)19(cid:882)22
`
`
`
`Rupp
`
`Rupp describes its network as “overprovisioned”
`
`Stubblebine Decl.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1007(cid:3)at(cid:3)3
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)88
`
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)88(cid:882)89
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)53(cid:882)55
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)19(cid:882)21
`
`
`
`Rupp
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1007(cid:3)at(cid:3)3
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)88(cid:882)89
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)53(cid:882)54
`
`
`
`Rupp
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1007(cid:3)at(cid:3)3
`
`43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)88(cid:882)89
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)53(cid:882)54
`
`
`
`Rupp
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1007(cid:3)at(cid:3)3
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)88(cid:882)89
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)53(cid:882)54
`
`
`
`Rupp
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1007(cid:3)at(cid:3)3
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)88(cid:882)89
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)53(cid:882)54
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`“Rupp does not provide implementation details for its
`Stubblebine Decl.
`experimental network system, but in terms of what
`Rupp does disclose, Rupp relies on a complex traffic
`flow . . . . For example, the encapsulation and de-
`encapsulation operations involved in tunneling are
`time-intensive operations that involve a large amount
`of buffering and copying of data, which introduces
`inefficiencies and congestion.”
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶(cid:3)91
`
`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)55(cid:882)56
`
`
`
`Chandran
`
`One potential solution . . . employs separate
`queues for each individual interface or destination
`that requires flow control. Unfortunately, this
`solution does not scale well for systems having
`many destinations. Each new network destination
`requires a new and separate queue. And each new
`separate queue requires its own additional memory
`and its own additional CPU resources (overhead to
`identify the appropriate queue, etc.). If a system
`needs to service 5000 destinations, then it also
`needs to provide and service 5000 distinct queues.
`
`What is needed, therefore, is an improved
`technique for traffic shaping on a per-
`destination basis.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1005(cid:3)at(cid:3)col.(cid:3)1(cid:3)ll.(cid:3)33(cid:882)44
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)2004(cid:3)¶¶(cid:3)90(cid:882)92
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)19(cid:882)20
`
`
`
`Additional Slides
`
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Petitioner has not established
`that Rupp is prior art
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)41(cid:882)48
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)16(cid:882)17
`
`
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of
`establishing that a reference
`qualifies as a printed publication.
`A printed document qualifies as a
`printed publication only when it
`becomes sufficiently publicly
`accessible.
`
`Acceleration(cid:3)Bay,(cid:3)LLC(cid:3)v.(cid:3)Activision(cid:3)Blizzard(cid:3)Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)42
`
`
`
`GrenierDecl.
`
`51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1012
`
`Response(cid:3)at(cid:3)44(cid:882)48
`
`
`
`“Petitioner may not submit new
`evidence or argument in reply that it
`could have presented earlier, e.g. to
`make out a prima facie case of
`unpatentability.”PTAB Trial Prac. Guide at 14 (Aug. 2018)
`
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)16(cid:882)17
`
`
`
`Knightly Decl.
`
`Rupp Decl.
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1027
`
`Ex.(cid:3)1028
`
`53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur(cid:882)reply(cid:3)at(cid:3)16(cid:882)17
`
`
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
