IPR2019-00211, No. 31 Other Not for motions - Petitioners Demonstrative Exhibits (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00211
`Patent No. 7,953,857
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`

`Petitioner’s Hearing Presentation
`February 25, 2020
`
`IPR2019-00211, Patent 7,953,857 B2
`IPR2019-00253, Patent 8,626,922 B2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`Roadmap
`
`• Overview of challenged patents
`
`•
`
`Summary of prior art
`
`• Obviousness analysis – Ground 1 (Bonomi + Borella)
`
`• Obviousness analysis – Ground 2 (Chandran + Rupp)
`
`• Obviousness analysis – Ground 3 (Teraslinna + Bonomi)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`Overview of ’857 and ’922 patents
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`Exemplary challenged claim
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the user
`in a network, the system comprising:
`a first network interface for communicating over a
`communication link with a user device during a
`network session;
`a second network interface for communicating with
`one or more computer networks;
`a data storage system including an indication of a
`network communication bandwidth associated with
`the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay period
`associated with a received packet based on the
`network communication bandwidth associated with
`the user, and the processor further configured to
`delay transmission of the packet based on the delay
`period to prevent the user device from achieving a
`bandwidth greater than the network communication
`bandwidth associated with the user device and
`selected by the user.
`
`IPR2019‐00211, Ex. 1001, 857
`patent, claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`Prosecution History for ’857 patent
`
`Claim amendment that led to issuance over record prior art
`
`Ex. 1003, 1/26/2011 Office Action
`Resp., at 2‐3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`Standards at the time of the alleged invention
`
`4.2 Traffic Contract Specification
`A traffic contract specifies the negotiated characteristics of
`a connection.
`(R) The traffic contract at the Public UNI shall consist of a
`connection traffic descriptor and a set of QoS parameters
`for each direction of the connection and shall include the
`definition of a compliant connection.
`(O) The Private UNI may optionally support the same traffic
`contract as the Public UNI or a different traffic contract.
`The connection traffic descriptor consists of all parameters
`and the conformance definition used to specify
`unambiguously the conforming cells of the connection, i.e.,:
`the source traffic descriptor (i.e., PCR, SCR, MBS, and MCR),
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`Standards at the time of the alleged invention
`
`4.4.2 Generic Cell Rate Algorithm (GCRA)
`The GCRA is used to define conformance with respect to
`the traffic contract. For each cell arrival, the GCRA
`determines whether the cell conforms to the traffic contract
`of the connection. The UPC function may implement the
`GCRA, or one or more equivalent algorithms to enforce
`conformance.
`
`5.5 Traffic Shaping
`Traffic shaping is a mechanism that alters the traffic
`characteristics of a stream of cells on a connection to
`achieve better network efficiency whilst meeting the QoS
`objectives, or to ensure conformance….
`….
`Examples of traffic shaping are peak cell rate reduction,
`burst length limiting, reduction of CDV by suitably spacing
`cells in time, and cell scheduling policy.
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`The prior art of invalidity grounds 1‐3
`
`Bonomi
`Ex. 1004
`
`Chandran
`Ex. 1005
`
`Teraslinna
`Ex. 1006
`
`Rupp
`Ex. 1007
`
`Borella
`Ex. 1008
`
`9
`
`

`Bonomi and Borella
`
`A scalable integrated traffic shaper for a use in a
`packet switched network that regulates multiple
`connections and prevents lost data by integrating
`link scheduling and traffic shaping to fairly arbitrate
`between incoming connections.
`
`A method and system for assigning priority or classes of
`service of messages delivered in a packet‐based network.
`The method and system allows for implementation of
`differentiated classes of service according to the
`requirements of the network application or user.
`
`Ex. 1004, Abstract
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1006, Abstract
`
`11
`
`

`Bonomi discloses all limitations except for a “user”
`Bonomi
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`a first network interface for communicating
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`A scalable integrated traffic shaper for a use in a packet
`a second network interface for communicating
`switched network that regulates multiple connections and
`with one or more computer networks;
`prevents lost data by integrating link scheduling and traffic
`a data storage system including an indication
`shaping to fairly arbitrate between incoming connections.
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`(each connection ‘contracts’ to transmit cells to the network at a rate ρ
`associated with the user, and the processor
`(bandwidth descriptor) . . . when the connection is established. The network
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`will not allow the connection to be established if there are insufficient network
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`resources (e.g., . . . bandwidth) . . . .”)
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`Ex. 1004, Abstract; 2:14‐20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`Bonomi discloses all limitations except for a “user”
`Bonomi
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`a first network interface for communicating
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`a second network interface for communicating
`with one or more computer networks;
`a data storage system including an indication
`Second network
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`interface
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`associated with the user, and the processor
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`First network
`interface
`
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`Bonomi discloses all limitations except for a “user”
`Bonomi
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`a first network interface for communicating
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`a second network interface for communicating
`with one or more computer networks;
`a data storage system including an indication
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`associated with the user, and the processor
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`“[E]ach connection entry 410 in connection table 400
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`includes fields that describe the connection . . . . The
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`connection descriptor fields are . . . shaping rate, ρ, 412[.]”
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 6; 11:55‐57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`Bonomi discloses all limitations except for a “user”
`a processor configured to calculate a delay period associated with a received
`packet based on the network communication bandwidth associated with the user
`
`“The integrated traffic shaper . . . further includes an arithmetic logic
`.
`unit to perform the comparison and pointer manipulation operations”
`Ex. 1004 at 12:38‐41
`
`“Whether the estimated arrival time X complies with the traffic
`contract is determined … where X is compared to t+1/ρ. . . [I]f X is
`greater than t+σ/ρ the cell is non‐conforming and the conformance
`time is set to comply with the contracted traffic parameters, c=X‐σ/ρ.”
`Id. at 8:30‐38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`Bonomi discloses all limitations except for a “user”
`a processor configured to calculate a delay period associated with a received
`packet based on the network communication bandwidth associated with the user
`
`“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.”
`.
`
`sorting bins
`
`“each…sorting bin corresponds to a single delay period between
`.
`said conformance time and said current time.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at 8:50‐52; claim 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`Petitioner’s Expert
`“[(c mod bg)/g] … represents the bin number on [a] clock face
`diagram....[It] represents the delay between the 0 time and
`the value [(c mod bg)/g]. That is, if c=1370 milliseconds (ms),
`b=18 and g=100ms, then c mod bg = 1370 and [1370/100] =
`13. This is a delay of 13 clock ‘ticks’ relative to the zero point
`on the clock….Therefore, in my opinion, a calculated bin
`represents an interval of time to delay packets….”
`
`Dr. Peter Dordal
`
`Ph.D., Harvard University; M.S., B.A.,
`Univ. of Chicago, Mathematics
`
`Loyola University of Chicago, Associate
`Professor, Former Chair,
`Computer Science Dept (1982‐present)
`
`Experienced in implementing systems with
`bandwidth management
`
`Numerous publications, e.g., complete
`textbook on computer networks
`
`Ex. 1002, Attachment A (CV);
`Ex. 2005 at 8:9‐9:7; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 13‐15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`

`Bonomi discloses all limitations except for a “user”
`Bonomi
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`“if the cell is non‐conforming, it is enqueued on a sorting
`a first network interface for communicating
`bin [until] . . . the cells in the sorting bin are conforming”
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`a second network interface for communicating
`“A cell is conforming if its conformance time c has been
`with one or more computer networks;
`reached or passed”
`a data storage system including an indication
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`“Conformance time is the time at which an arriving cell
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`conforms to the contracted traffic parameters of the
`period associated with a received packet based
`connection the cell is coming from.”
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`associated with the user, and the processor
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`Ex. 1004 at 8:64‐66; 7:10‐11; 8:3‐5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`Borella discloses the “user” limitations
`Borella
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`a first network interface for communicating
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`a second network interface for communicating
`with one or more computer networks;
`a data storage system including an indication
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`associated with the user, and the processor
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`

`Borella discloses the “user” limitations
`Borella
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`“[u]sers may select the quality of service, i.e.,
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`amount of bandwidth . . . and the cost they are
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`willing to pay. The service selection could be . . .
`a first network interface for communicating
`provided dynamically during a session.”
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`a second network interface for communicating
`with one or more computer networks;
`a data storage system including an indication
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`associated with the user, and the processor
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`“[T]he system includes user customer premises
`equipment . . . 40 and telephony device 44
`connected via a communication line 46 . . . to a
`Remote Access Server (RAS) 22”
`
`“a user profile may include a class of service
`field [bandwidth] to indicate which class of
`service the packets from the user may utilize”
`
`Ex. 1006 at 12:32‐37; 7:1‐4; 12:32‐33; 3:22‐27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`Motivation to combine Bonomi and Borella
`
`“Rather than users or user devices, Bonomi refers to
`‘connections’ . . . . Although the connections are between
`two endpoint devices, and although ATM networks . . .
`typically involve user devices, Bonomi does not expressly
`state that the endpoint devices are user devices.”
`
`“Borella does expressly disclose networks that include
`user devices as endpoint devices, including bandwidths
`associated with user devices and selected by users.”
`
`“In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`1999 would have had reason and motivation to combine
`the respective teachings of Bonomi with those of
`Borella.”
`
`IPR2019‐00211, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 72‐73
`
`Dr. Peter Dordal
`
`Ph.D., Harvard University; M.S., B.A.,
`Univ. of Chicago, Mathematics
`
`Loyola University of Chicago, Associate
`Professor, Former Chair,
`Computer Science Dept (1982‐present)
`
`Experienced in implementing systems with
`bandwidth management
`
`Numerous publications, e.g., complete
`textbook on computer networks
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`Exemplary motivations to combine
`
`• “both are directed to .
`.
`.
`. managing bandwidth in a .
`.
`network. Both . . . are also directed to the same problem of . . .
`enforcing bandwidth constraints . . . . They also involve the same
`type of networks (ATM .
`.
`.) and same ways of enforcing
`bandwidth constraints (e.g., leaky or token bucket).”
`
`• “ATM networks (. . . described in Bonomi . . .) were originally
`developed
`to
`accommodate
`the
`high‐speed
`bandwidth
`requirements of user devices such as computers and mobile
`phones . . . . So naturally a person implementing the networks
`would do so having user devices as the network endpoints.”
`
`• “[A POSITA] would have been motivated to implement Borella’s
`technique of storing service classes with desired bandwidths for
`user devices in user profiles so that they may be retrieved later
`for traffic management. . . .”
`
`Dr. Peter Dordal
`
`Ph.D., Harvard University; M.S., B.A.,
`Univ. of Chicago, Mathematics
`
`Loyola University of Chicago, Associate
`Professor, Former Chair,
`Computer Science Dept (1982‐present)
`
`Experienced in implementing systems with
`bandwidth management
`
`Numerous publications, e.g., complete
`textbook on computer networks
`
`• “allowing the user to dynamically select the bandwidth limits
`and associating the bandwidth limits with user devices . . . would
`have provided a more efficient and effective way to limit
`resource usage and avoid Internet traffic congestion.”
`IPR2019‐00211, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 74‐77
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`Exemplary mo(cid:415)va(cid:415)ons to combine − KSR
`
`• “[the modification] . . . would have amounted to the simple
`substitution of one element from Bonomi (i.e., functionality that
`associates a negotiated bandwidth constraint with a network
`connection in general) for another known element (functionality
`allowing a user to select a bandwidth constraint and associate
`the constraint with a network endpoint that is a user device).”
`
`• “That . . . would have resulted in the predictable result of a
`bandwidth management system . . . that enforces bandwidth
`constraints selected by users on the user devices.”
`
`• “a skilled artisan also would have had a reasonable expectation
`of success. . . . The combination would have amounted to making
`minor software adjustments to Bonomi’s traffic shaper. . . .”
`IPR2019‐00211, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 78‐82
`
`Dr. Peter Dordal
`
`Ph.D., Harvard University; M.S., B.A.,
`Univ. of Chicago, Mathematics
`
`Loyola University of Chicago, Associate
`Professor, Former Chair,
`Computer Science Dept (1982‐present)
`
`Experienced in implementing systems with
`bandwidth management
`
`Numerous publications, e.g., complete
`textbook on computer networks
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`

`Response to Patent Owner’s Arguments
`• Argument 1: Bonomi allegedly does not disclose calculating a
`delay “period.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`

`Bonomi discloses calculating a delay period under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation
`Patent Owner contends that calculating a delay “period”
`requires calculating a length of time in, e.g., minutes or
`seconds. PO’s Resp. § V.A.
`
`•
`
`• However, neither the claims nor the specification require a
`delay “period” to be in units of time.
`
`•
`
`Indeed, the plain meaning of “period” is an “interval,”
`which would include calculating a specific timeslot or
`other interval for delaying packets as in Bonomi. Ex. 1023;
`Pet.’s Reply §§ II, III.A.1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`

`Bonomi further discloses calculating a delay period under
`Patent Owner’s construction
`
`“Whether the estimated arrival time X complies with the traffic
`contract is determined … where X is compared to t+1/ρ. . . [I]f X is
`greater than t+σ/ρ the cell is non‐conforming and the conformance
`time is set to comply with the contracted traffic parameters, c=X‐σ/ρ.”
`
`Ex. 1004 at 8:30‐38
`
`Dr. Dordal: “The conformance time represents the future clock time at
`which the packet may be sent. For example, conformance time could
`be c=1370 ms from clock initialization.”
`
`Ex. 1023 ¶ 16
`
`“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.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1004 at 8:50‐52
`28
`
`

`Response to Patent Owner’s Arguments
`• Argument 1: Bonomi allegedly does not disclose calculating a
`“delay period.”
`
`• Argument 2: Allegedly, no motivation to combine.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`Patent Owner’s arguments are incorrect
`
`•
`
`•
`
`First, Patent Owner contends Bonomi “is completely reliant on underlying
`technologies unique to ATM networking” and thus “Bonomi teaches away
`from implementing its solution in IP networks” (Resp. § VII.A.2.a).
`−  This argument is irrelevant – Petitioner is not arguing Bonomi
`would be reconfigured to implement another network type besides ATM.
`−  Also, Bonomi is not limited to ATM networks. Ex. 1004 at 6:36‐38 (“This
`traffic shaper is optimally suited for, but not limited to, … switches in an
`Asynchronous Transfer Mode network.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Borella’s “marking” or “stamping” packets
`with traffic classification information is rooted in IP technology and therefore
`incompatible with Bonomi (Resp. § VII.A.2.b).
`−   This argument is also irrelevant – Petitioner is not incorporating Borella’s
`“marking” or “stamping” of packets – it only proposes incorporating
`Borella’s disclosure of a “user” device and bandwidths selected by a “user.”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`

`Patent Owner’s arguments are incorrect
`
`•
`
`Third, Patent Owner contends that the “IP‐rooted technology of Borella
`cannot be incorporated into Bonomi.” For example, it argues that Borella’s
`“differentiated services architecture” is incompatible with Bonomi’s ATM‐
`based technology and would make Bonomi inoperable for its intended
`purpose (Resp. § VII.A.2.a).
`−  But this argument is also directed to modiﬁca(cid:415)ons not proposed
`and bodily incorporates irrelevant aspects of Borella into Bonomi.
`−  Pe(cid:415)(cid:415)oner does not propose incorpora(cid:415)ng Borella’s entire differentiated
`services architecture – again, it proposes incorporating Borella’s
`disclosure of a “user” device and bandwidths selected by a “user.”
`−  Also, Borella is neither limited to IP networks, nor teaches away from
`ATM networks.  Ex. 1006 at 3:18‐20 (“The remote network access system
`30 provides a variety of different types of users access to an IP network
`or other type of packet‐based network….”).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`

`Chandran and Rupp
`
`A time‐based buffering system buffers data based upon
`how long the data should be held in order to comply with
`a traffic shaping policy.
`
`This paper describes a platform designed to obtain a basic
`understanding of how individuals value Internet usage
`when offered different Quality of Service choices. . . . INDEX
`. . . has two main objectives: (a) Measurement of user
`demand . . . ; and (b) Demonstration of an end‐to‐end
`system that provides access to a diverse group of users at
`attractive price‐quality combinations.
`Ex. 1007, Abstract
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract
`
`

`Chandran discloses all limitations except for
`limitation 1.C (a data storage system…)
`Chandran
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`a first network interface for communicating
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`a second network interface for communicating
`with one or more computer networks;
`a data storage system including an indication
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`associated with the user, and the processor
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`

`Chandran discloses all limitations except for
`limitation 1.C (a data storage system…)
`Chandran
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`a first network interface for communicating
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`a second network interface for communicating
`with one or more computer networks;
`A time‐based buffering system buffers data based upon
`a data storage system including an indication
`how long the data should be held in order to comply with
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`a traffic shaping policy.
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`“This may be employed to . . . limit a network entity to the amount of
`associated with the user, and the processor
`bandwidth that it has paid for. A network employs a ‘policing algorithm’ to
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`determine when traffic to or from a particular network user should be limited.”
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract; 1:12‐18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`

`Second network
`interface
`
`Chandran discloses all limitations except for
`limitation 1.C (a data storage system…)
`Chandran
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`a first network interface for communicating
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`a second network interface for communicating
`with one or more computer networks;
`a data storage system including an indication
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`associated with the user, and the processor
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`First network
`interface
`
`user
`device
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`processor
`
`Chandran discloses all limitations except for
`limitation 1.C (a data storage system…)
`Chandran
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`a first network interface for communicating
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`“If . . . the amount of traffic allowed to the destination or source has been
`a second network interface for communicating
`exceeded, block 14 must determine whether to . . . buffer packet 12.”
`with one or more computer networks;
`a data storage system including an indication
`“this is accomplished by first calculating a traffic shaping delay required
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`before the packet can be transmitted without violating the policy.”
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`associated with the user, and the processor
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`“Such algorithm compares an allowed bandwidth for the destination
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`with the bandwidth . . . to be used (if the packet is transmitted) of the
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`destination. The bandwidth to be used . . . may be determined based
`associated with the user device and selected by
`upon an instantaneous calculation.”
`the user.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 5:1‐4; 5:52‐54; 8:1‐3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`Chandran discloses all limitations except for
`limitation 1.C (a data storage system…)
`Chandran
`’857 patent, claim 1
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically
`“block 14 forwards the packet to traffic shaper 16….[which]
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the
`determine[s] which of the buckets of structure 18 should be used to
`user in a network, the system comprising:
`buffer the packet…. by finding a bucket that is scheduled to dequeue its
`a first network interface for communicating
`contents at…the time when the calculated traffic shaping delay is up.”
`over a communication link with a user device
`during a network session;
`a second network interface for communicating
`“whenever new piece of data is enqueued, the system may dequeue
`with one or more computer networks;
`the contents of all buckets that have “timed‐out' (i.e., passed their
`a data storage system including an indication
`scheduled dequeuing time based on the value of “b”).”
`of a network communication bandwidth associated
`with the user device and selected by the user; and
`a processor configured to calculate a delay
`period associated with a received packet based
`on
`the
`network
`communication
`bandwidth
`associated with the user, and the processor
`further configured to delay transmission of
`the
`packet based on the delay period to prevent the
`user device from achieving a bandwidth greater
`than the network
`communication bandwidth
`associated with the user device and selected by
`the user.
`
`“[the] system buffers data based upon how long
`the data should be held in order to comply with
`a traffic shaping policy.”
`
`“This may be employed to . . . limit a network
`entity to the amount of bandwidth...paid for….”
`
`Ex. 1005 at 5:61‐6:1; 7:8‐11; Abstract; 1:13‐16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT E

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

Still Working On It

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

This document could not be displayed.

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.

One Moment Please

Your document is on its way!

Sealed Document

We are redirecting youto a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

We are unable to display this document.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases