UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,857 to Short et al.
`Issued: May 31, 2011
`Filed: April 30, 2010
`
`Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC DATA TRANSFER
`MANAGEMENT ON A PER SUBSCRIBER BASIS IN A COMMUNICATIONS
`NETWORK
`
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00211
`
`____________
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Peter Dordal
`
`GUEST TEK EXHIBIT 1024
`Guest Tek v Nomadix, IPR2019-00211
`
`
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,857 to Short et al.
`Issued: May 31, 2011
`Filed: April 30, 2010
`
`Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMIC DATA TRANSFER
`MANAGEMENT ON A PER SUBSCRIBER BASIS IN A COMMUNICATIONS
`NETWORK
`
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00211
`
`____________
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Peter Dordal
`
`GUEST TEK EXHIBIT 1024
`Guest Tek v Nomadix, IPR2019-00211
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF OPINION ............................................................................. 1
`II.
`III. CLAIMS AT ISSUE ........................................................................................ 2
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 3
`FURTHER OPINIONS REGARDING OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1
`V.
`AND 9 OF THE ‘922 PATENT ...................................................................... 4
`A. My Opinion in Reply to Dr. Stubblebine Regarding the Combination of
`Bonomi and Borella............................................................................... 4
`1.
`Bonomi discloses calculating a delay period .............................. 4
`2.
`A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Bonomi
`and Borella ................................................................................ 13
`B. My Opinion in Reply to Dr. Stubblebine Regarding the Combination of
`Chandran and Report #98-010P .......................................................... 19
`C. My Opinion in Reply to Dr. Stubblebine Regarding the Combination of
`Teraslinna and Bonomi ....................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`My name is Dr. Peter Dordal, and I have been retained as a technical
`
`expert by counsel for Petitioner Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. to provide
`
`assistance in the above captioned inter partes review proceeding. I have reviewed
`
`the Declaration of Stuart G. Stubblebine and associated materials, and make the
`
`following statements in reply to his declaration, based on my own personal
`
`knowledge. If called as a witness, I could and would testify to the following.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINION
`2.
`As I previously described, it is my opinion that claims 1 and 9 of the
`
`‘857 patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`October 22, 1999, which I understand is the earliest date of the purported invention
`
`claimed in the ‘857 patent, based on any one of the following grounds:
`
`(1) Obviousness over U.S. Patent No. 5,864,540 (“Bonomi”) in view of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,587,433 (“Borella”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
`
`(2) Obviousness over U.S. Patent No. 7,392,279 (“Chandran”) in view of
`
`IEEE’s INDEX Project Report #98-010P (“Report #98-010P”) under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103; and
`
`(3) Obviousness over U.S. Patent No. 5,623,492 (“Teraslinna”) in view of
`
`Bonomi under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed Dr. Stubblebine’s declaration and, in my view, none of
`
`
`
`
`
`the arguments that he makes changes the opinions I set forth in my original
`
`declaration
`
`4.
`
`As mentioned, I have been asked to opine on the validity of claims 1
`
`and 9 of the ‘857 patent. Claim 1 recites a “system for allowing a user to dynamically
`
`control an amount of bandwidth available to the user in a network.” Claim 9 recites
`
`most of the same limitations of claim 1, except claim 9 is in method form, directed
`
`to “A method of dynamically managing transmission of packets.”
`
`III. CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`5.
`The full language of the claims is as follows, where the individual
`
`subparagraphs have been designated (1.a)-(1.e) and (9.a)-(9.d) for convenient
`
`reference:
`
`1. A system for allowing a user to dynamically control an amount of
`bandwidth available to the user in a network, the system comprising:
`
`[1.a] a first network interface for communicating over a communication
`link with a user device during a network session;
`
`[1.b] a second network interface for communicating with one or more
`computer networks;
`
`[1.c] a data storage system including an indication of a network
`communication bandwidth associated with the user device and selected
`by the user; and
`
`[1.d] a processor configured to calculate a delay period associated with a
`received packet based on the network communication bandwidth
`associated with the user, and
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`[1.e] 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.
`
`
`9. A method of dynamically managing transmission of packets, the method
`comprising:
`
`[9.a] establishing a network session over a communication link between
`a network and a user device of a user;
`
`[9.b] associating a data transmission parameter selected by the user with
`the user device;
`
`[9.c] receiving a packet and calculating a delay period associated with the
`packet based on the data transmission parameter; and
`
`[9.d] delaying transmission of the packet based on the delay period to
`prevent the user device from achieving a data transmission greater than
`the data transmission parameter associated with the user device and
`selected by the user.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`6.
`I understand that the terms of the unexpired ‘857 patent claims are to
`
`be given their broadest reasonable interpretation as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention in view of the ‘857 patent’s
`
`specification.
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Stubblebine opines that the term “period” in the phrase “delay
`
`period” in the claims at issue means a calculated “length of time.” Para. 32. I
`
`disagree. In my opinion, the term “period” does not require a specific length of time.
`
`8.
`
`For example, the claims do not refer to calculating a “length” of time.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`They refer to calculating a “period.” To a skilled artisan applying a broadest
`
`reasonable construction, particularly in computer networking, a period is simply an
`
`interval of time. Dr. Stubblebine notes that the ’857 patent refers to determining an
`
`amount of “delay” (such as 0.12 seconds). However, the claims broadly refer to a
`
`delay “period.” So while I agree that 0.12 seconds arguably qualifies as a period,
`
`the claims are not limited as such. The specification also refers to placing packets
`
`in “timeslots,” which are also intervals or sets of time for delaying packets in my
`
`opinion. ‘857 patent at 9:38-54; 12:11-16. So, to a skilled artisan, calculating a
`
`delay period would also include calculating a specific timeslot or other interval for
`
`delaying packets.
`
`9.
`
`Also, Dr. Stubblebine seems to suggest that the delay period must be
`
`the actual amount of time an associated packet is delayed. That is not true in my
`
`opinion. The language of Claim 1 (step 1e), for example, says only that the packet
`
`delay is “based on” the calculated delay period.
`
`V.
`
`FURTHER OPINIONS REGARDING OBVIOUSNESS OF
`CLAIMS 1 AND 9 OF THE ‘857 PATENT
`A. My Opinion
`in Reply to Dr. Stubblebine Regarding the
`Combination of Bonomi and Borella
`In my opinion, the combination of Bonomi and Borella renders claims
`
`10.
`
`1 and 9 of the ‘857 patent invalid as obvious.
`
`1.
`Bonomi discloses calculating a delay period
`11. Dr. Stubblebine argues that Bonomi does not teach calculating a delay
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`period as in the claims at issue. As I previously opined, I disagree.
`
`12. As I previously explained, the Bonomi ‘540 patent discloses a
`
`mechanism for traffic shaping; that is, for delaying packets that have arrived too
`
`soon. This provides a general mechanism for implementation of bandwidth limits
`
`through so-called traffic shaping. Bonomi calculates the transmission time as
`
`follows [col 8 line 50]:
`
`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]
`
`The calculation of the sorting bin here starts with the future conformance time c. The
`
`product bg represents the total time range covered by the sorting bins. The grain
`
`interval g may be calculated on system startup. The actual value of g ends up stored
`
`in a system variable. The division c mod bg yields a time interval in the range 0 to
`
`bg (if the time unit for c and g is such that these values are integers, the mod operator
`
`here represents integer arithmetic; otherwise, it may represent real-number modular
`
`arithmetic). This represents a point on a “clock face” in which one full revolution
`
`represents the time bg. Dividing by g gives a position on this clock face in units of
`
`g, that is, a value from 0 to b; the [∙] operator then rounds this off to the nearest
`
`integer [Paragraph 25].
`
`13.
`
`In other words, the calculation [(c mod bg)/g] represents a conversion
`
`of the future conformance time to time units measured in intervals of length g. To
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`illustrate, here is a diagram of the “clock face” with b=18 bins. The grain interval g
`
`represents the time for one “tick” of the clock hand. If the grain g were 0.1 seconds
`
`(each bin would represent 0.1 seconds delay, such that bin 1 would be 0.1 s delay,
`
`bin 2 would be 0.2 s delay, etc., then the total time for one revolution of the hand
`
`would be 1.8 seconds.
`
`
`In Bonomi, each bin has attached to it a queue for packets, allowing
`
`14.
`
`multiple packets to be placed in each bin. The [(c mod bg)/g] computation quoted
`
`above is often seen as the calculation of a future transmission time. The actual
`
`amount of delay (which is not necessarily the recited “delay period” itself, as I
`
`explained above) is then that future time minus the current time.
`
`15. As a result, it is my opinion, as I previously noted in my original
`
`declaration, that the value [(c mod bg)/g] represents a calculated delay period. That
`
`value represents the bin number on the clock face diagram above that corresponds
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`to the conformance time c. It is equivalent to first converting the time c to units of
`
`length g, and then reducing modulo b. So the value 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. The same applies if, for example, c =
`
`180001370; again, c mod bg = 1370. Bonomi confirms this in its claim 13, where it
`
`states that each bin corresponds to a “single delay period” between conformance
`
`time and current time. Therefore, in my opinion, a calculated bin represents an
`
`interval of time to delay packets. That is, the determination of the appropriate sorting
`
`bin does indeed “calculate a delay period” (i.e., the delay relative to bin 0, the starting
`
`point). This is precisely how the ’857 patent calculates its timeslots to place
`
`incoming packets in to delay their transmission time.
`
`16. For non-conforming packets, the calculated future conformance time c
`
`is also, in my opinion, a delay period as recited in the claims at issue, especially
`
`under Dr. Stubblebine’s construction of delay period. I indicated this in my original
`
`petition. 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. Of course, as I previously explained, it is calculated. Bonomi sets the
`
`conformance time to comply with the contracted traffic parameters, c=X-σ/ρ. Ex.
`
`1004 at 8:18-2130-38; 12:38-40.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`17.
`
`In conventional terms, the packet is then delayed by a time interval
`
`equal to the conformance time minus the current time. So future conformance time
`
`c represents a “delay interval”, namely, the delay between clock startup when the
`
`time is zero, and the calculated conformance time. This may not necessarily be the
`
`actual delay amount for a packet, but it is still a calculated “delay period associated
`
`with a received packet.” The time of clock startup may represent the time at which
`
`the system was initialized, if the clock is zeroed on startup, or may represent a fixed
`
`epoch, such as the Unix system clock which generally has its zero point at the start
`
`of January 1, 1970. Either form of zero time suffices here.
`
`18. So, at this point we are using as the delay the interval of time from the
`
`zero point of the system clock, T=0, to the conformance time, T=c. We are, in effect,
`
`arguing that the conformance time can be understood as a delay. The conformance
`
`time, c, represents an absolute number. It might be measured in units of milliseconds,
`
`microseconds or nanoseconds. In the ATM literature each packet has the same size
`
`and so packet times can be measured in the unit of how long it takes to transmit one
`
`packet, sometimes called the “slot time”. This would mean the packet time was
`
`equivalent to the slot sequence number. This correspondence may break down
`
`during idle periods, during which slot boundaries may not be maintained, but this is
`
`nonetheless a common convention.
`
`19. Therefore, the calculation of the future conformance time, which
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`represents the delay relative to system initialization (such as 1370 ms), is a delay
`
`period within the meaning of the claims at issue. It is also clear that the patent
`
`teaches, as to future conformance time, how to “delay transmission of the packet
`
`based on the delay period”, that is, based on the calculated conformance time. The
`
`packet is transmitted at the conformance time, and delayed until conformance time.
`
`So the packet delay is clearly based on the conformance time: the packet delay (for
`
`delayed packets) is the conformance time minus the current time.
`
`20.
`
`I was asked durin my deposition whether a conformance time was a
`
`“delay interval.” Transcript at 94:22–95:6. I understood that question to mean
`
`whether the conformance time was equivalent to the delay interval that was the
`
`actual delay that an incoming packet would be delayed (i.e., the transmission time
`
`minus the current time). That is why I stated “the calculation of a conformance time
`
`is a time typically in the future. So it’s a specific clock time. It’s not a delay interval
`
`as such.” However, that does not mean, and I never intended to suggest, that the
`
`conformance time does not satisfy the “delay period” in the claims. It does, because
`
`it is a specific length of time (e.g., 1.37 s) used to delay packets. Again, the “delay
`
`period” in the claims is not necessarily the specific amount of actual delay (i.e., the
`
`future transmission time of a packet minus the current time).
`
`21.
`
`In my opinion, there are also other time periods that would qualify as
`
`“delay periods” in Bonomi under Dr. Stubblebine’s construction. For example, the
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`clock rotation time, b×g, i.e., the delay period for one revolution of the hand in the
`
`diagram above about the clock face, represents a calculated delay period in seconds.
`
`The calculation of b×g is not trivial, unlike the calculation of g for instance, as it will
`
`involve a multiplication. The transmission time of a packet is also “based on [this]
`
`delay period” in that it is used in the calculation of the conformance time. Also, if
`
`the actual delay time until the packet is to be sent exceeds b×g, then the packet is
`
`dropped; such a packet has too large a delay. In other words, the range of the bins
`
`is b×g, and therefore the transmission time of the packet is “based on [this] delay
`
`period.”
`
`22. Now, just to address some of Dr. Stubblebine’s other arguments on this
`
`particular issue. He states: “the conformance time c is less than the estimated arrival
`
`time X, and is thus earlier than the estimated arrival time of the cell. (Bonomi at col.
`
`8 l. 38 (“c=X–σ/ρ”).).” Para. 38. However, the conformance time c is less than the
`
`estimated arrival time X only for early-arriving packets. If the actual arrival time t is
`
`greater than x, then c=t and so c is also greater than X. We have c = max(t, X-σ/ρ)
`
`in general.
`
`23. Dr. Stubblebine also says “Petitioner fails to identify anything in
`
`Bonomi teaching delaying a packet based on a point in time earlier than the estimated
`
`arrival time.” First, it is unclear what Dr. Stubblebine means, or why basing the
`
`delay on a time earlier than X is relevant. Second, it is not actually true: the
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`theoretical arrival time X is based on the arrival time of the previous packet, tp, and
`
`the theoretical arrival time Xp of that packet: X = max(tp, Xp) + σ/ρ.
`
`24.
`
`In para. 41-43, Dr. Stubblebine concludes that Bonomi’s formulas do
`
`not make sense. I disagree. The formula [(c mod bg)/g], for example, makes sense
`
`when times c and g are measured in small enough units that these are integers, as
`
`they would be in Bonomi. For example, if c and g are measured in microseconds,
`
`any fractional part of a microsecond can be ignored as inconsequential. The values
`
`c and g would often be measured in ticks of the system clock. The system clock-tick
`
`unit might be 1/60 second, or 1/100 second, or 1 millisecond, or smaller, but any
`
`time measured in ticks of this clock would be an integer.
`
`25. The division by g may indeed yield a non-integer in general, but the
`
`square brackets [ ] here (omitted from Stubblebine) are meant to denote the
`
`rounding-down of (c mod bg)/g to an integer. In the Rexford and Bonomi Infocom
`
`'97 paper incorporated into the Bonomi patent, the formula is rendered in Figure 6
`
`with the symbols ⌊ (left floor) and ⌋ (right floor); the notation ⌊x⌋ (or left-floor x
`
`right-floor) has long been used to denote the result of rounding x down to the nearest
`
`integer less than or equal to x. In the patent application, the left-floor and right-floor
`
`characters were replaced with “[” and “]”.
`
`26. The quantity σ/ρ represents the bucket size, normalized to units of time
`
`(σ represents the bucket size as a number of bytes, and ρ represents the transmission
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`rate in bytes/sec, so σ/ρ represents the time needed to transmit one bucket). A skilled
`
`artisan would have understood that it is appropriate to round time units off to the
`
`nearest integer, including applying this to σ/ρ. A skilled artisan would also have
`
`understood that, if σ/ρ were to be represented in time units according to the system
`
`clock, it would have to be an integer; cf the discussion of system time in Paragraph
`
`24.
`
`27.
`
`In an ATM setting, the time unit can also be the (constant) time needed
`
`to send one ATM cell. The number of bins b is always an integer. If c and g are
`
`taken to be integers, then the calculation above returns an integer.
`
`28. Regarding the time when t mod g == g-1, this represents the last tick of
`
`the system clock for a bin of length g; that is, the last moment of that bin’s duration.
`
`A skilled artisan would understand that computer system clocks measure time in
`
`integer steps, particularly as to Bonomi. The time counter is incremented at a set
`
`rate; the value of that time counter is the system clock. So Bonomi would be
`
`understood as treating all time values, both absolute times and delays, as integers.
`
`The clock is initialized to a set value, often 0, at system startup.
`
`29. Most systems have access to a time-of-day clock as well, and thus can
`
`calculate the time of day given the current value of the system clock (system time
`
`counter). But, internally, the latter format is most often used; a practitioner of
`
`ordinary skill reading the Bonomi patent would have understood that time was being
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`used in this way.
`
`2.
`
`A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
`Bonomi and Borella
`In my opinion, a skilled artisan would have been motivated and would
`
`30.
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in combing Bonomi and Borella to
`
`achieve the claims at issue. I explained my reasoning in my original declaration.
`
`31. Dr. Stubblebine, in paragraphs 48 through 69, argues that Borella
`
`cannot be combined with Bonomi, and that the ATM network architecture suggested
`
`by Bonomi is not compatible with the IP architecture required by Borella. I disagree.
`
`32. The Borella patent discloses the idea of allowing users to set their
`
`bandwidth limits dynamically, in combination with an enforcement mechanism.
`
`While the Borella patent introduces its own enforcement mechanism, my proposed
`
`combination of Borella with Bonomi assumes only the use from Borella of the
`
`general abstract idea of a user device and user-selected bandwidth. (For example, I
`
`do not propose incorporating Borella’s “marking” or “stamping” packets,
`
`reinterpreting the second byte of the IP header, the layers of the IP protocol stack,
`
`the specific format of packets that the Internet Protocol dictates, or any other
`
`additional IP based differentiated services architecture features of Borella. My
`
`proposed combination would not implicate any of those additional features.) There
`
`is no reason, in my opinion, that those specific aspects of Borella could not be
`
`implemented in Bonomi’s system. I set forth the specific modificiations that would
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`be needed to Bonomi in my original declaration, and maintain my opinion that they
`
`would comprise minor software adjustments, for example. Doing so would not
`
`interfere with Bonomi’s objectives and it would not render Bonomi inoperable of its
`
`intended purpose.
`
`33. Dr. Stubblebine states the following in para. 50-51: “Altering Bonomi’s
`
`teachings in this manner would defeat the purpose of Bonomi….A skilled artisan
`
`would have understood that modifying Bonomi as Petitioner proposes to ‘manage
`
`bandwidth on a per-user [basis] (as opposed to per-connection [basis])’ (id.) would
`
`have eliminated the benefits gained by Bonomi’s traffic shaper.” I disagree.
`
`Bonomi's traffic shaper was based on ATM (notably, Bonomi is not limited to ATM
`
`though, as it expressly envisions using its system in non-ATM networks, Bonomi at
`
`at 6:36-38), in which the switching infrastructure must be aware of each individual
`
`network connection. But managing and regulating bandwidth involves the same
`
`ideas, whether bandwidth is based on users as in IP or on connections as in ATM,
`
`and any POSITA would have understood this. In particular, even a POSITA with
`
`only a casual understanding of ATM would have understood this.
`
`34.
`
`I also disagree with Dr. Stubblebine’s suggestion that managing
`
`bandwidth on a per-user basis “would have eliminated the benefits gained by
`
`Bonomi's traffic shaper.” Traffic shaping means to delay packets as necessary to
`
`enforce conformance with a token-bucket traffic specification; this naturally applies
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`to both per-connection shaping and per-user shaping. Bonomi combines traditional
`
`token-bucket shaping with some ideas from Fair Queuing; none of that depends on
`
`knowing what kind of flow (per-user or per-connection) is being shaped.
`
`35. While Bonomi nominally discloses a mechanism for shaping ATM
`
`traffic, there is nothing in the patent that actually requires the use of ATM networks.
`
`It would have been clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that what Bonomi
`
`discloses is in fact a very general way of applying different bandwidth constraints to
`
`different traffic flows, when all the flows are being sent through the same router.
`
`Bonomi is not limited to ATM networks, and does not teach away from
`
`implementing its system in IP networks.
`
`36.
`
`In particular, the fact that ATM packets are all of a fixed size does not
`
`play a role in Bonomi. In the original calendar-queue mechanism of Wallmeier and
`
`Worster [1992], the calendar queue consisted of fixed-length timeslots equal in
`
`length to the transmission time of one ATM packet (or cell), but, in Bonomi, the
`
`calendar-queue timeslots are large enough to hold multiple packets, and therefore
`
`are large enough to hold IP packets of differing sizes. In fact, although not necessary
`
`to my opinion, Rexford & Bonomi, Infocom '97, which Bonomi incorporates
`
`expressly confirms this: “to reduce the size of the shaper, each bin can represent a
`
`range of g consecutive conformance times.” [Rexford & Bonomi, Infocom '97,
`
`section 2.2]. The following passage from Rexford & Bonomi, section 5.1, also
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`alludes to the possibility of variable packet size: “Each connection generates
`
`periodic bursts of cells according to an on/off model with leaky-bucket parameters
`
`(σin,ρin), with the peak rate equal to the link bandwidth; the burst length σin could
`
`correspond to the packet or message size in a data transmission.”
`
`37. ATM does in fact allow a form of bundling of multiple “user”
`
`connections into one; the user bundle is identified by the Virtual Path Identifier
`
`(VPI) and the individual connections within the bundle by the Virtual Channel
`
`Identifier (VChI). This option was not universally used, but the point is that an ATM
`
`connection identified by the Virtual Path Identifier is in some sense a per-user
`
`connection, or might be depending on how the site configures its connections. (When
`
`this ATM option is used, the individual-VPI connections bundled into a single VChI
`
`might represent an individual end-user or might represent some other group of traffic
`
`flows, aggregated together based on some other traffic attribute.)
`
`38. As for the architectural difference between the ATM and IP layer
`
`models, this applies largely to software design (that is, in implementing one layer,
`
`one can ignore all other layers except the programming interface offered by the layer
`
`below, and the programming interface offered in turn to the layer above). The layer
`
`model is completely irrelevant to bandwidth management at intervening switches
`
`and routers. Here is a paragraph by famous networking expert David Clark about the
`
`perils of taking the layering models too seriously, from the Forward of the textbook
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Computer Networks: A Systems Approach, copyright 1996, by Peterson & Davie:
`
`It seems obvious to organize a networking book around this layered model.
`
`However, there is a peril to doing so, because the OSI model is not really
`
`successful at organizing the core concepts of networking. Such basic
`
`requirements as reliability, flow control, or security can be addressed at most,
`
`if not all, of the OSI layers. This fact has led to great confusion in trying to
`
`understand the reference model. At times it even requires a suspension of
`
`disbelief. Indeed, a book organized strictly according to a layered model has
`
`some of the attributes of spaghetti code.
`
`I agree with this passage.
`
`39. As another example, in the Rexford & Bonomi [1997] paper on which
`
`the patent application is based, the authors refer to references 14 through 21
`
`addressing fair arbitration schemes: “In contrast to first-in first-out scheduling, fair
`
`arbitration schemes [14-21] can limit traffic distortions by guaranteeing that each
`
`backlogged connection receives its share of the link bandwidth on a small time
`
`scale.” I also agree with this statement as well.
`
`40.
`
`Indeed, many existing textbooks on networking introduce ATM as “just
`
`another networking technology” that, abstractly at least, has much in common with
`
`IP. This is particularly true when IP-based network reservations (eg via the RSVP
`
`protocol) are being introduced. ATM and RSVP share many features relating to
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`reservation creation and reservation acceptance. For example, Craig Partridge's book
`
`Gigabit Networking, Addison-Wesley 1994, discusses both ATM and IP networks
`
`in considerable detail. Minoli and Schmidt, in chapter 7 of their book Internet
`
`Architectures, Wiley 1999, write: “To support QoS on the Internet, ISPs need to rely
`
`on new technologies and protocols, including, among others, asynchronous transfer
`
`mode.” I agree with this in spirit, though in 2019 it is clear that ATM has little
`
`future.
`
`41.
`
`In the 1990's, ATM was widely recognized as offering the potential for
`
`connection management that was missing from IP. A POSITA in search of
`
`information about congestion management and bandwidth control would have
`
`quickly become aware that ATM had been the source of many innovations in this
`
`area of connection management.
`
`42.
`
`In paragraphs 61 and 62, Dr. Stubblebine states that Borella's proposed
`
`mechanism relies on specific elements of the IP header, in particular the six-bit
`
`Differentiated Services field, while Bonomi is based on ATM. However, the only
`
`features we are envisioning be adopted from Borella is the abstract concept of user
`
`devices and user-selected bandwidths, and not Borella's proposed IP-based
`
`implementation mechanism. An artisan who encountered Bonomi’s bandwidth
`
`constraint mechanism, and who wanted to implement it, would have been led
`
`naturally to Borella's constraining bandwidths on a per user basis with user profiles
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`for the various advantages and reasons I stated in my original declaration. The fact
`
`that specific embodiments in Bonomi relate to ATM and those of Borella relate to
`
`IP networks is irrelevant. That difference would not negate a skilled artisan from
`
`combining the features that I propose. Notably, Borella is neither limited to IP
`
`networks, nor teaches away from ATM networks. Borella at 3:18-20.
`
`B. My Opinion
`in Reply to Dr. Stubblebine Regarding the
`Combination of Chandran and Report #98-010P
`In my opinion, the combination of Chandran and Report #98-010P
`
`43.
`
`renders claims 1 and 9 of the ‘857 patent invalid as obvious.
`
`44. Dr. Stubblebine opines that Rupp does not disclose a user profile
`
`containing an indiciate of a bandwidth or data transmission parameter “within the
`
`constraints of claims 1 and 9, beginning in paragraph 77. I disagree. First, my
`
`proposed combination does not depend on whether Rupp discloses a minimum or
`
`maximum bandwidth amount. I only rely on Rupp for its data storage system’s
`
`including a user-selected bandwidth associated with a user device as in limitations
`
`1.c and 9.b. When the selected bandwidth is a placed in a user profile in Chandran’s
`
`memory 10, the underlying functionality of Chandran’s system (including its
`
`bandwidth constraint algorithm) is what would determine whether the bandwidth is
`
`a minimum or maximum as recited in limitations 1.e and 9.d. And because Chandran
`
`discloses maximum bandwidths, it would be a maximum bandwidth as recited in the
`
`claims at issue.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`45. Also, Dr. Stubblebine’s argument that Rupp discloses setting a
`
`minimum bandwidth, while the '857 and '922 patents disclose setting a maximum
`
`bandwidth. But this distinction is inconsistent with this passage from Section 2.3 of
`
`Rupp: “After a subject has chosen a desired quality level, the QoS must be adjusted
`
`(i.e. degraded) accordingly. As the current Internet infrastructure does not permit
`
`controlling QoS, the INDEX Billing Gateways do not only control and measure
`
`network usage, but they are also capable of selectively degrading the performance
`
`of certain TCP connections (e.g., all connections on behalf of a given subject). User
`
`quality choices map to entry points of an internal “emulated network” composed of
`
`different elements including leaky bucket, random router and packet delay or packet
`
`drop.”
`
`46. The language here – that the user QoS level must be “degraded” –
`
`clearly discloses that the user-selected bandwidth is intended as a maximum. (It is
`
`also clear that the Rupp mechanism may delay packets, just as is done in the 857
`
`patent.)
`
`47. Dr. Stubblebine also suggests Rupp is not in the same field of endeavor
`
`as the 857 patent. I also disagree with that opinion.
`
`48. Rupp, et al, was an investigation of how users responded to Internet
`
`pricing based on bandwidth. In order to run their study, they had to implement a
`
`mechanism by which users could select their bandwidth dynamically. The report
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`described, and thus entered as prior art, a specific bandwidth-control mechanism, as
`
`well as the abstract idea of constraining bandwidth on a per-user basis. Someone
`
`familiar with bandwidth-control
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
