`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 2
`
`A. Mobile Computer ................................................................................ 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Institution Decision Correctly Held That The
`“Mobile Computer” Must At Least Be “Moving From
`One Network To Another” ....................................................... 3
`
`Petitioner Incorrectly Argues That, Contrary To The
`Panel’s Holding, The “Mobile Computer” Need Only
`Be Capable Of Moving Between Networks ............................ 4
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Is Inconsistent With
`The Intrinsic Evidence ................................................... 4
`
`Petitioner’s Argument About The Background
`Of The Invention’s Use Of The Terms Mobile
`Terminal/Mobile Host Misses The Point ...................... 6
`
`The Evidence Provided By Dr. Goldschlag On
`“Mobile Terminal” Is Unreliable And
`Unpersuasive ................................................................... 7
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Dr. Goldschlag’s Testimony Is Evasive,
`Contradictory, And Biased .................................. 7
`
`Dr. Goldschlag Inappropriately Relies On A
`Generic College Dictionary ................................. 9
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner Incorrectly Argues That, Contrary To The
`Panel’s Holding, The “Mobile Computer” Need Only
`Be Capable Of Moving Between Physical Locations ........... 10
`
`B.
`
`Substitute/Substituting ...................................................................... 10
`
`ii
`
`
`
`III. GROUNDS 1 AND 2: CLAIMS 1-11 ARE PATENTABLE OVER
`THE COMBINATION OF RFC3104 AND GRABELSKY ....................11
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Reply Relies On Dr. Goldschlag’s Obviousness
`Testimony, Which Applies An Erroneous Standard ..................... 11
`
`RFC3104/Grabelsky Fail to Teach The Mobile Computer
`Of Claims 1-5 And 8-11 .................................................................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner Is Advancing A New Theory Of RFC3104
`That Was Not Disclosed In The Petition And Should
`Be Disregarded ........................................................................ 13
`
`Petitioner’s New Theory Is A Reimagination Of
`RFC3104 That Is Not Disclosed Or Remotely
`Suggested By The Reference .................................................. 16
`
`Petitioner’s Effort to Support Its New Theory With
`Mischaracterized Deposition Testimony Fails ..................... 19
`
`Petitioner’s Application Of RFC3104 Using Its New
`Theory Fails To Meet The Limitations Of Claim 1 ............. 21
`
`A POSITA Would Have No Expectation Of Success
`That Petitioner’s Newly Theorized Modification Of
`The RFC3104 System Would Operate As Intended ............ 23
`
`C. RFC 3104/Grabelsky Fail To Teach Claim 1’s Translation
`Table That Enables “The Intermediate Computer . . . To
`Find A Destination Address . . . Using the Unique Identity”
`Read From The Secure Message Received From The Mobile
`Computer ........................................................................................... 24
`
`D.
`
`The Dependent Claims Are Separately Patentable ........................ 27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 Should Be Confirmed ............................................... 27
`
`RFC3104/Grabelsky Fail To Teach The Two-Part
`Translation Table Of Claim 4 ................................................ 27
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`3.
`
`RFC3104/Grabelsky Fail To Teach The “Source
`Address Of The Forwarded Message Is The Same As
`The First Network Address” Per Claim 11 .......................... 27
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Ex Parte Wang,
`2014 WL 6789993 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd.: November 26 2014) (Appeal
`2012-009481) ......................................................................................................24
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..........................................................................10
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..........................................................................12
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................15
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2001 U.S. Pat. No. 8,346,949 B2
`
`2002 Declaration of George N. Rouskas
`
`2003 CV of George N. Rouskas
`
`2004 Network Working Group Request for Comments: 3103 (M. Borella, et
`al.) (Oct. 2001), “Realm Specific IP: Protocol Specification” (RFC3103)
`
`2005 Declaration of Patrick Maloney (“Maloney dec.”) in Support of RFC3103
`
`2006 U.S. Pat. No. 9,712,502 (Ex. 2002 from IPR2019-00824)
`
`2007
`
`Institution Decision from IPR2019-00822 for U.S. Pat. No. 8,346,949
`
`2008 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Goldschlag (1-30-2020)
`
`2009 CV of Michael Borella
`
`2010 Declaration of Michael Borella
`
`2011 RFC2131, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol,” (March 1997) (R.
`
`2012 Declaration of Patrick Maloney (“Maloney dec.”) in Support of RFC2131
`
`2013 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Goldschlag (7-7-2020)
`
`2014 Time-Stamped Deposition Transcript of Dr. Goldshlag (7-7-2020)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`I.
`
` INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`
`
`Proper claim construction in this case is dispositive for Patent Owner (PO).
`
`But even under Petitioner’s proposed construction, the Petition still fails. Claim 1
`
`of the 494 Patent describes a mobile computer sending secure messages to a
`
`destination terminal through an intermediate computer over a secure connection. A
`
`unique identity found in a secure message is used by a translation table to
`
`determine a destination address for the message before it is securely forwarded to
`
`the destination address. For at least three reasons, Petitioner has not proven Claim
`
`1 would have been obvious.
`
`
`
`First, the panel properly interpreted the “mobile computer” of claim 1 to at
`
`least require “moving between networks.” Petitioner admits that if the computer in
`
`the proposed RFC3104/Grabelsky combination moved between networks, it would
`
`lose its connection. Therefore, if it were a “mobile computer,” the combination’s
`
`computer could not send a secure message to an intermediate computer that
`
`securely forwards the secure message to the destination address as claimed.
`
`
`
`Second, even if the computer in the combination were considered a “mobile
`
`computer,” the limitations of the claim are not satisfied because the
`
`RFC3104/Grabelsky combination fails to teach claim 1’s recited feature of a
`
`translation table that translates the unique identity in the received message to a
`
`destination address to which the message is forwarded. Grabelsky’s address table
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`does not disclose mapping a tuple (the alleged “unique identifier” from RFC3104)
`
`to a destination address.
`
`
`
`Third, Petitioner offers a wholly new theory of the case involving a
`
`contrived scenario of hosts engaging in a flurry of activity including connecting,
`
`disconnecting, and reestablishing secure connections that is not disclosed in
`
`RFC3104. This is a major modification to the system disclosed in RFC3104. A
`
`POSITA would have no reasonable expectation of success that RFC3104 could be
`
`modified as proposed while serving its intended purpose of providing for the two-
`
`way secure transmission of packets between the hosts through the RFC3104 server.
`
`
`
`The dependent claims are separately patentable.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Mobile Computer
`
`The panel correctly held that a “mobile computer” must at least be “moving
`
`from one network to another.” Instn. Dec. (Paper 7) 10.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction—"a computer that is capable of moving
`
`between networks or physical locations” (Reply 2)—is inconsistent with that
`
`holding and with the intrinsic evidence.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`1. The Institution Decision Correctly Held That The “Mobile
`Computer” Must At Least Be “Moving From One Network
`To Another”
`
`The intrinsic evidence supports the panel’s construction that the recited
`
`“mobile computer” must at least be “moving from one network to another.” Instn.
`
`Dec. (Paper 7) 10.
`
`The specification describes mobility as follows:
`
`In this text, the term mobility and mobile terminal does not
`
`only mean physical mobility, instead the term mobility is
`
`in the first hand meant moving from one network to
`
`another, which can be performed by a physically fixed
`
`terminal as well.
`
`Ex. 1001 [494 Patent] 4:34-38 (emph. added). The plain import of “in the first
`
`hand” is that a requirement of mobility is that the computer is “moving from one
`
`network to another.”
`
`
`
`The panel’s holding, that a “mobile computer” must at least be “moving
`
`from one network to another,” is supported by other portions of the specification as
`
`well. The summary and detailed description of the invention consistently describe
`
`mobile computers as being devices that are moving from one network to another.
`
`See POR 14-16 (citing 494 Patent 7:56-8:2, 8:3-10, 11:5-29). The background
`
`section of the 494 Patent consistently disparages secure connection systems where
`
`the computer is not moving from one network to another and instead are capable of
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`only static secure connections. POR 12-14 (citing Ex. 2002 [Rouskas Decl.] ¶ 83;
`
`494 Patent 4:15-27, 4:42-45, 4:60-64]. Thus, the mobile computer is explicitly
`
`described as one that is not fixed to a static secure connection (its home address)
`
`but is instead moving between networks.
`
`
`
`Also, as the Board correctly noted (Instn. Dec. 10), a second passage of the
`
`494 Patent provides confirmation. Ex. 1001[494 Patent] 4:50-51 (“The mobile
`
`terminal is mobile in the sense that it changes its network point of attachment
`
`frequently.”).
`
`2. Petitioner Incorrectly Argues That, Contrary To The
`Panel’s Holding, The “Mobile Computer” Need Only Be
`Capable Of Moving Between Networks
`
`a. Petitioner’s Construction Is Inconsistent With The
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Petitioner argues that the claimed “mobile computer” does not need to be
`
`“moving between networks” (as held by the panel) so long as it is “capable of”
`
`moving between networks. Reply, 2. Petitioner’s argument is incorrect because it
`
`contradicts the claim language, the specification’s definition, the detailed
`
`description, and the patent’s stated purpose.
`
`First, the language of Claim 1 recites the “mobile computer” in a specific
`
`context. For example, the “mobile computer” sends a “secure message…to the
`
`first network address having an encrypted data payload of a message and a unique
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`identity, the data payload encrypted with a cryptographic key derived from a key
`
`exchange protocol,” where an intermediate computer assigned with the first
`
`network address in a telecommunications network “securely forward[s] the
`
`encrypted data payload to the destination address using a network address of the
`
`intermediate computer as a source address of a forwarded message containing the
`
`encrypted data payload.” It is not enough that the computer be capable of moving
`
`between networks in some other context at some other time. The mobile computer
`
`must be moving between networks in the recited context.
`
`Second, Petitioner’s argument contradicts the specification’s definition,
`
`adopted by the panel, that “the term mobility is in the first hand meant moving
`
`from one network to another.” Ex. 1001 [494 Patent] 4:34-38. Merely being
`
`capable of moving is insufficient.
`
`Third, Petitioner’s argument contradicts other portions of the detailed
`
`description, as discussed above in Section II.A.1, that confirm the “mobile
`
`computer” is actually “moving from one network to another.”
`
`Fourth, Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with the patent’s stated
`
`purpose: to securely forward a secure message when a computer is mobile, rather
`
`than merely when it is fixed to a certain network. Ex. 1001 [494 Patent] 4:17-38;
`
`7:56-61. The panel’s holding comports with that purpose.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`b. Petitioner’s Argument About The Background Of The
`Invention’s Use Of The Terms Mobile Terminal/Mobile
`Host Misses The Point
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply spends three pages arguing that the use of terms such as
`
`mobile terminal and mobile host in the background section involves static secure
`
`connections and therefore PO’s construction is incorrect. Reply 5-8. However, as
`
`explained above in Section II.A.1, the term “mobile computer” is informed by
`
`fundamental aspects of the specification. First, the background section of the 494
`
`Patent consistently disparages secure connections where the mobile device is
`
`confined to a static secure connection—a point that Petitioner does not dispute.
`
`Second, the detailed description section of the 494 Patent consistently describes a
`
`mobile computer as moving from one network to another and thereby is not limited
`
`to a static secure connection—another point that Petitioner does not dispute.
`
`
`
`Petitioner refers to testimony of Dr. Rouskas, but Dr. Rouskas offered no
`
`opinions on the meaning of “mobile terminal” or “mobile host” in the cited
`
`testimony. See Reply, citing Ex. 1023 [Dep. Tr. Rouskas] 175:12-176:1. What is
`
`important—and contrary to the Petition’s assertion (Reply 7)—is that Dr. Rouskas
`
`(unlike Petitioner) considered the specification as a whole, including the background
`
`section and the detailed description in forming his opinion on the meaning of
`
`“mobile computer.” Ex. 2002 [Rouskas Decl.] ¶¶ 82-85.
`
`6
`
`
`
`c. The Evidence Provided By Dr. Goldschlag On “Mobile
`Terminal” Is Unreliable And Unpersuasive
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Goldschlag’s testimony offered in support of Petitioner’s construction of
`
`“mobile computer” is unreliable because it is (i) evasive, contradictory, and biased;
`
`and (ii) inappropriately based on a generic college dictionary.
`
`i. Dr. Goldschlag’s Testimony Is Evasive,
`Contradictory, And Biased
`
`Dr. Goldschlag’s opinions should be given little weight because his
`
`deposition testimony was contradictory and evasive, with his answers depending
`
`on which party was asking the questions.
`
`For example, during cross-examination Dr. Goldschlag was asked a simple
`
`yes-or-no question: does a handheld calculator in the 2002 timeframe meet his
`
`definition of the claim term “mobile computer”? Over the course of more than an
`
`hour and a half, Dr. Goldschlag avoided giving a straightforward and responsive
`
`answer to the question. Ex. 2014 (Dep. Tr. 133:10-171:13) (Time: 14:20:57-
`
`15:56:11). Dr. Goldschlag’s evasiveness and filibustering eventually forced Patent
`
`Owner to contact the Board, which resulted in the Board asking Apple’s counsel to
`
`instruct the witness to try to answer questions yes or no with whatever explanation
`
`is required. (Dep. Tr. 190:18-191:22).
`
`After that instruction, Dr. Goldschlag directly answered the question and
`
`testified that a handheld calculator in the 2002 timeframe did not meet his
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`definition of “mobile computer.” Ex. 2014 [Goldschlag Depo.] 192:6-193:5 (“it
`
`wouldn’t be a mobile computer.”). As this inconsistency demonstrates, Dr.
`
`Goldschlag’s opinion testimony in this case is unreliable and entitled to little or no
`
`weight.
`
`Tellingly, after having the opportunity between cross and re-direct to discuss
`
`his testimony with Apple’s counsel, and being asked the same question by them on
`
`redirect, Dr. Goldschlag gave the opposite answer he had given to PO’s counsel.
`
`In particular, Dr. Goldschlag changed his testimony to say a handheld calculator
`
`did in fact meet his definition of “mobile computer.” Ex. 2014 [Goldschlag Depo.]
`
`290:1-13) (“a hand-held calculator circa, you know, 2000, would be a mobile
`
`computer”).
`
`Dr. Goldschlag’s deposition testimony was inconsistent and contradictory in
`
`other ways. Just as an example, he confidently and repeatedly testified that
`
`common handheld calculators were computers. Ex. 2014 [Goldschlag Depo.]
`
`129:1-4, 130:4-5. When it became clear that that answer might hurt his client, Dr.
`
`Goldschlag walked back his testimony, testifying he did not know and could not
`
`figure out whether they were computers. Ex. 2014 [Goldschlag Depo.] 171:11-13,
`
`192:15-16, 290:4-5.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`This was emblematic of Dr. Goldschlag’s overall approach to this case, in
`
`which even Dr. Goldschlag was unable to say he was evaluating the issues in a
`
`neutral fashion. Ex. 2008 [First Goldschlag Depo.] 8:13-19:17.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board should take into
`
`consideration Dr. Goldschlag’s evasive and inconsistent testimony and apparent
`
`bias in according the weight given to his testimony overall.
`
`ii. Dr. Goldschlag Inappropriately Relies On A
`Generic College Dictionary
`
`Dr. Goldschlag’s claim construction largely relies on a non-technical
`
`definition of “mobile” selected from a generic college dictionary. Ex. 1022
`
`[Goldschlag Reply Decl.] ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1025 [Merriam’s Collegiate Dictionary]
`
`797). Ex. 2013 [Dep. Tr. Goldschlag] 198:5-8; 199:9-14. The definition Dr.
`
`Goldschlag selected (“capable of moving or being moved”) used a “missile
`
`launcher” as an example. Ex. 1025, 797. That is how far off it is from the issue at
`
`hand.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Goldschlag’s reliance on a generic college dictionary definition
`
`relating to missile launchers had a significant impact on his erroneous construction.
`
`Under cross-examination, he admitted that the “capable of” language of his
`
`construction was lifted directly from that dictionary definition. Ex. 2013 [Dep. Tr.
`
`Goldschlag] 200:21-201:5. Dr. Goldschlag’s heavy reliance on a general-use
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`dictionary definition is contrary to Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1320-
`
`1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`3. Petitioner Incorrectly Argues That, Contrary To The
`Panel’s Holding, The “Mobile Computer” Need Only Be
`Capable Of Moving Between Physical Locations
`
`Petitioner’s argument, that the recited “mobile computer” need only move
`
`between physical locations contradicts the panel’s holding and is not supported by
`
`the testimony Petitioner cites.
`
`Dr. Rouskas consistently testified that “mobile computer” in the claims
`
`requires a “computer that moves from one network to another” and not merely
`
`moving from one physical location to another. Ex. 1023 [Rouskas Depo.] 17:6-20:3,
`
`159:13-160:10; Ex. 2002 [Rouskas Decl.] ¶ 78-85.
`
`
`
`Dr. Borella did not expressly construe “mobile computer,” but adopts the
`
`panel’s holding that it at least requires moving from one network to another. Ex.
`
`2010 [Borella Decl.] ¶ 42; Ex. 1024 [Borella Depo.] 230:19-20.
`
`Dr. Goldschlag’s testimony on this topic is unreliable, as demonstrated
`
`above in section II.A.2.c.i.
`
`B.
`
`Substitute/Substituting
`
`On reply, Petitioner declines to address this claim term. Reply 8. No
`
`response is provided to PO’s construction or the evidence supporting it. The term
`
`requires construction, however, because Petitioner continues to assert that the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`substituting required by claim 2 is met by merely adding a header to an existing
`
`header. See POR (citing Pet. 50-52). Apple has not withdrawn this theory, so the
`
`dispute remains. See Reply 26 (citing Pet. 50-52, Ex. 2022 [Goldschlag Reply
`
`Decl.] ¶ 52).
`
`III.
`
`GROUNDS 1 AND 2: CLAIMS 1-11 ARE PATENTABLE OVER THE
`COMBINATION OF RFC3104 AND GRABELSKY
`
`Obviousness requires that as of the date of the invention (a) the prior art
`
`teaches or suggests each of the limitations of the claim; (b) there exists an apparent
`
`reason to combine and/or modify the prior art as proposed; and (c) a person of
`
`ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success that the proposed
`
`combination and/or modification of the prior art would operate for its intended
`
`purpose. None of these three requirements was met by the Petition. The Reply does
`
`not cure the deficiency.
`
`A. The Reply Relies On Dr. Goldschlag’s Obviousness Testimony,
`Which Applies An Erroneous Standard
`
`The Reply relies primarily on Dr. Goldschlag’s testimony. However, that
`
`testimony is unreliable.
`
`First, Dr. Goldschlag applies an incorrect obviousness standard in which an
`
`apparent reason to combine is not needed. In his original declaration, Dr.
`
`Goldschlag stated that for obviousness to be established it is only necessary to: (1)
`
`identify the particular references that, singly or in combination, make the patent
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`obvious; (2) specifically identify which elements of the patent claim appear in each
`
`of the asserted references; and (3) explain how the prior art references could have
`
`been combined in order to create the inventions claimed in the asserted claim. Ex.
`
`1002 [Goldschlag Decl.] ¶ 25. In his reply declaration, Dr. Goldschlag reiterates
`
`that he has applied this framework in his obviousness analysis. Ex. 1022
`
`[Goldschlag Reply Decl.] ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`Dr. Goldschlag’s test for obviousness fails to include the critical element
`
`that a POSITA would have an apparent reason to combine and/or modify the prior
`
`art as proposed. Instead, Dr. Goldschlag’s “test” is that the prior art could have
`
`been combined in order to create the invention defined by the claim. Dr.
`
`Goldschlag’s test not only departs from the requirements of KSR, but it is actually
`
`a how-to guide for carrying out the hindsight reconstruction that KSR warns
`
`against: that the prior art could be combined—not would be combined—in order
`
`to create the invention defined by the claim. TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (cite omitted) (original italics) (reversing because
`
`expert reasoning that “one of ordinary skill in the art could combine these
`
`references, not that they would have been motivated to do so” is insufficient).
`
`Dr. Goldschlag’s original and reply declarations are replete with conclusory
`
`reasoning applying his hindsight-biased framework to find obviousness based on
`
`his “could have” standard. See, e.g., Ex. 1022 [Reply Decl.] ¶ 35 (values for first
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`partition “could simply be substituted” with values for second partition), ¶ 39
`
`(logical parameters “could be” stored in the transition table), ¶ 40 (host Y or X
`
`“could be” a mobile computer); Ex. 1002 [Original Decl.] ¶ 94 (host Y or X “could
`
`be” a mobile computer), ¶ 132 (values for the first partition “could” be substituted),
`
`¶ 153 (RSIP server N “could” be given key information).
`
`Second, Dr. Goldschlag’s obviousness test also omits the requirement that
`
`he must demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success that the proposed combination and/or modification of the
`
`prior art would operate for its intended purpose.
`
`Third, as demonstrated in Section II.A.2.c.i, Dr. Goldschlag is generally an
`
`unreliable witness in these proceedings.
`
`B. RFC3104/Grabelsky Fail to Teach The Mobile Computer Of
`Claims 1-5 And 8-11
`
`1. Petitioner Is Advancing A New Theory Of RFC3104 That Was
`Not Disclosed In The Petition And Should Be Disregarded
`
`Petitioner’s original theory was that RFC3104 disclosed that Host Y was the
`
`recited mobile computer that would be changing network addresses during the
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`course of an IPSec-over-RSIP1 session where Y would be sending data packets to
`
`X through Server N. Pet. 29 (“RFC3104 discloses an RSIP server N (‘intermediate
`
`computer’) forwarding a message (e.g., data packets) sent from a host Y (‘mobile
`
`computer’) to a host X (‘destination’)”), 30 (“Once an SA is established, host Y is
`
`able to securely send messages to RSIP client X, forwarded through RSIP server
`
`N.”), 34 (host Y . . . would be a “mobile computer” that sends IPSec packets to its
`
`peer via RSIP server N.”). The Petition’s theory did not mention anything about
`
`the IPSec-over-RSIP connections having to be disconnected and reestablished or
`
`reconnected while the alleged mobile computer Host Y moves from one network to
`
`another. Neither the Petition nor Dr. Goldschlag’s declaration even mentions the
`
`words “disconnect” or “reconnect.”
`
`In its Reply, Petitioner and its expert have discarded the Petition’s argument
`
`and now they forward a completely new theory which is that the host Y would
`
`function as a mobile computer by changing addresses as it moves between
`
`
`
`1 Dr. Goldschlag correctly explained that RFC3104 discloses creating an
`
`RSIP connection and an IPSec connection. The IPSec connection is layered over
`
`the RSIP connection, i.e., the connection an IPSec-over-RSIP connection. See Ex.
`
`2013 [Goldschlag Depo.] 236:2-22; 237:15-238:5; 239:8-13.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`networks, disconnecting its IPSec-over-RSIP connection in the first network, and
`
`then establishing a different IPSec-over-RSIP connection at the new network.2 In
`
`short, the established IPSec-over-RSIP connection would be destroyed and a new
`
`one would have to be created. Reply 10-14.
`
`“Rather than explaining how its original petition was correct, [Petitioner]’s
`
`subsequent arguments amount to an entirely new theory of prima facie obviousness
`
`absent from the petition. Shifting arguments in this fashion is foreclosed by
`
`statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines.” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Continental
`
`
`
`2 Petitioner’s new theory creates a dilemma. If host Y is the mobile
`
`computer that establishes a new IPSec-RSIP connection, then host Y will establish
`
`a binding to address Na which allows Server N to decapsulate packets received
`
`from Yb and route them from Na to Xa--no demultiplexing using tuples occurs.
`
`This conflicts with Petitioner’s reading of the claim onto RFC3104 where Yb is a
`
`legacy host sending packets to Xa which requires Server N to perform tuple
`
`demultiplexing so that Petitioner can meet the “translation table” mapping
`
`required by claim 1. See Pet. 21, 45. Petitioner is applying the reference to the
`
`claim in two contradictory manners, and the new theory does not allow the
`
`reference to meet the translation table limitation of the claim.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`Automotive Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This is an improper
`
`new argument based on improper evidence that should be disregarded by the
`
`Board. Moreover, Petitioner’s disavowal of its original theory coupled with its
`
`submission of an improper new theory and evidence is dispositive of this case.
`
`Without the improper new theory and evidence, Petitioner has no case that the
`
`claimed combination of the mobile computer, secure messages and secure
`
`forwarding is met by the references.
`
`2. Petitioner’s New Theory Is A Reimagination Of RFC3104
`That Is Not Disclosed Or Remotely Suggested By The
`Reference
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s reinterpretation of RFC3104 is a completely imagined one.
`
`Petitioner argues that RFC3104 discloses a “new scenario” where host computers
`
`X and Y in the RSIP system (a) will regularly change networks, (b) will
`
`intentionally disconnect their existing IPSec-over-RSIP connections and then (c)
`
`will reestablish new IPSec-over-RSIP connections through repeated new rounds of
`
`signaling exchanges at new networks. Petitioner’s new scenario is not remotely
`
`disclosed in RFC3104.
`
`
`
`RFC3104 refers to the figure below and states that its discussion “assumes
`
`this model,” which has a host X at address Xa and a host Y at address Yb:
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`
`
`POR 27 (showing Core Diagram of RFC3104). RFC3104 goes on to describe how
`
`the RSIP connection is established between Xa and the RSIP Server N and how an
`
`IPSec connection between X and Y is established and layered over the RSIP
`
`connection. Ex. 1004 [RFC3104] 2-5. Once the connections are established, “IPsec
`
`packets from Y destined for X arrive at RSIP server N [where] [t]hey are
`
`demultiplexed based on the following minimum tuple of demultiplexing fields: -
`
`protocol (50 or 51) – SPI - destination IP address. If N is able to find a matching
`
`mapping, it tunnels the packet to X . . .” Ex. 1004 [RFC3104] 5.
`
`
`
`RFC3104 also discloses an example of how IPSec-over-RSIP might be
`
`implemented in the so-called “Roadwarrior Diagram”:
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`POR 27. Here, it is conceptualized that a remote user with laptop X connects
`
`through RSIP Server N to the internal corporate network to the “user’s desktop”
`
`host Y including the IPSec connection between X and Y layered over the RSIP
`
`connection. Ex. 1004 [RFC3104] 16.
`
`
`
`Nowhere in either the Core Diagram or the Roadwarrior Diagram does
`
`RFC3104 disclose hosts Xa or Yb (a) changing networks, (b) terminating their
`
`RSIP and IPSec connections, and (c) reestablishing new IPSec-over-RSIP
`
`connections through new rounds of signaling at a new network. The document
`
`does not refer to terminating an IPSec connection or an RSIP connection, or to
`
`reestablishing an IPSec connection or an RSIP connection. PO’s expert testimony
`
`shows that Petitioner’s new scenario set forth in its Reply is not disclosed or
`
`suggested by RFC3104. See Ex. 2002 [Rouskas Decl.] ¶¶ 56-64, 93-98, 100-108,
`
`113-117.
`
`
`
`The first listed author of RFC3104, Dr. Michael Borella, testifies that
`
`RFC3104 was not concerned with mobility and disclosed the X and Y hosts as
`
`being at static addresses Xa and Yb. Dr. Borella explains that RFC3104 did not
`
`disclose X or Y changing addresses, much less does it describe going through
`
`rounds of changing networks, terminating connections, and then reestablishing new
`
`connections. Ex. 2010 [Borella Dec.] ¶¶ 26-39, 46-63.
`
`18
`
`
`
`3. Petitioner’s Effort To Support Its New Theory With
`Mischaracterized Deposition Testimony Fails
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that Dr. Rouskas testified that “the Roadwarrior scenario
`
`does contemplate a scenario where the laptop would be moved to different
`
`locations, and it would reconnect back to the server.” Reply 10, 12 (citing Ex. 1023
`
`152:10-153:9). The quote is not Dr. Rouskas’s testimony—it is Apple counsel’s
`
`question. Ex. 1023 152:16-20. Further, Petitioner’s counsel had stated that the
`
`predicate to his question was: “I'm not asking you about whether or not the laptop
`
`moves while maintaining a connection. I'm simply asking you, in the Roadwarrior
`
`scenario is it contemplated that the laptop might move locations, regardless of
`
`whether it maintains a connection or not?” Ex. 1023 152:1-6. Dr. Rouskas’s
`
`innocuous response that “a laptop can be expected to connect to different networks
`
`and have different fixed IP addresses at different points in time” (Ex. 1023 152:13-
`
`15) does not remotely support Petitioner’s reinterpretation of RFC3104.
`
`
`
`Dr. Rouskas never testified that RFC3104 discloses that the host could
`
`change networks and still send a secure message as required by the claims. He did
`
`not testify that the host could change networks, intentionally disconnect the
`
`existing IPSec-over-RSIP connection and reconnect to a new connection after
`
`destroying the first connection. He said the very opposite. The same is true for the
`
`testimony of Dr. Borella. The cited testimony from Dr. Borella (Reply 10, 12,
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00823
`Patent 9,712,494
`
`
`citing Borella at 224:9-2