`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00253
`Patent No. 8,626,922
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSRATIVE 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
`
`
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`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 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. 1004
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`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”
`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
`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
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT ‐ NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`32
`
`
`
`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; Abs