`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
`
`