UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOKIA CORP. AND NOKIA OF AMERICA CORP.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case: IPR2019-01292
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §42
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 1 of 93
`
`

`

`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................ vii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8.................................7
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ..........................................7
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))...................................................7
`C.
`Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ......................................7
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ............................................8
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. §42.103) .................................................8
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ........................8
`A.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))...........................................8
`B.
`Summary of the Challenges (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)–(2)).....................9
`C.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3)).........................................9
`D.
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4)) .......9
`E.
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5)).....................................10
`SUMMARY OF THE ’646 PATENT ........................................................10
`Overview of the ’646 Patent....................................................................10
`A.
`Priority Date ............................................................................................12
`B.
`The Prosecution History of the ’646 Patent ............................................13
`C.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))............................14
`A.
`“Conversational Flow[s]”........................................................................14
`B.
`“State of the Flow” ..................................................................................15
`C.
`“State Operations”...................................................................................15
`D.
`“Flow-entry database”.............................................................................16
`E.
`“Parser Record”.......................................................................................16
`F.
`“Parsing/Extraction Operations” .............................................................17
`G. Means-Plus-Function Terms ...................................................................17
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’646 PATENT .....................................................................................18
`Prior Art...................................................................................................19
`1.
`Riddle.......................................................................................19
`Summary of the Problem and Solution....................................20
`The Operation of Riddle ..........................................................22
`Wakeman .................................................................................25
`Cheriton ...................................................................................26
`
`a)
`b)
`
`A.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`i
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 2 of 93
`
`

`

`B.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Bruins.......................................................................................27
`4.
`RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 ...........28
`5.
`Count 1: Riddle in View of Wakeman and Bruins Renders Claims 1, 2,
`3, 16, and 18 as Obvious; and Riddle in View of Wakeman, Cheriton,
`and Bruins Renders Claim 7 as Obvious.................................................30
`1.
`Claim 1.....................................................................................30
`Limitation [1 Pre] “A packet monitor for examining packet
`passing through a connection point on a computer network,
`each packet conforming to one or more protocols, the monitor
`comprising:” ............................................................................30
`Limitation [1a] “(a) a packet acquisition device coupled to the
`connection point and configured to receive packets passing
`through the connection point;” ................................................33
`Limitation [1b] “(b) a memory for storing a database
`comprising flow-entries for previously encountered
`conversational flows to which a received packet may belong, a
`conversational flow being an exchange of one or more packets
`in any direction as a result of an activity corresponding to the
`flow;” .......................................................................................34
`Limitation [1c] “(c) a cache subsystem coupled to the flow-
`entry database memory providing for fast access of flow-
`entries from the flow-entry database;” ....................................42
`Limitation [1d] “(d) a lookup engine coupled to the packet
`acquisition device and to the cache subsystem and configured
`to lookup whether a received packet belongs to a flow-entry in
`the flow-entry database, the looking up being via the cache
`subsystem; and”.......................................................................44
`Limitation [1e] “(e) a state processor coupled to the lookup
`engine and to the flow-entry-database memory, the state
`processor being to perform any state operations specified for
`the state of the flow starting from the last encountered state of
`the flow in the case that the packet is from an existing flow,
`and to perform any state operations required for the initial state
`of the new flow in the case that the packet is not from an
`existing flow.”..........................................................................46
`Claim 2.....................................................................................49
`Limitation [2] “A packet monitor according to claim 1, further
`comprising: a parser subsystem coupled to the packet
`acquisition device and to the lookup engine such that the
`acquisition device is coupled to the lookup engine via the
`ii
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`2.
`
`a)
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 3 of 93
`
`

`

`b)
`
`3.
`
`a)
`
`4.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`g)
`
`parser subsystem, the parser subsystem configured to extract
`identifying information from a received packet,” ...................49
`Limitation [2b] “wherein each flow-entry is identified by
`identifying information stored in the flow-entry, and wherein
`the cache lookup uses a function of the extracted identifying
`information.”............................................................................50
`Claim 3.....................................................................................51
`Limitation [3] “A packet monitor according to claim 2,
`wherein the cache subsystem is an associative cache subsystem
`including one or more content addressable memory cells
`(CAMs).” .................................................................................51
`Claim 7.....................................................................................52
`Limitation [7 Pre] “A packet monitor for examining packets
`passing through a connection point on a computer network,
`each packet conforming to one or more protocols, the monitor
`comprising:” ............................................................................52
`Limitation [7a] “a packet acquisition device coupled to the
`connection point and configured to receive packets passing
`through the connection point;” ................................................52
`Limitation [7b] “an input buffer memory coupled to and
`configured to accept a packet from the packet acquisition
`device;”....................................................................................52
`Limitation [7c] “a parser subsystem coupled to the input buffer
`memory, the parsing subsystem configured to extract selected
`portions of the accepted packet and to output a parser record
`containing the selected portions;”............................................54
`Limitation [7d] “a memory for storing a database of one or
`more flow-entries for any previously encountered
`conversational flows, each flow-entry identified by identifying
`information stored in the flow-entry;”.....................................56
`Limitation [7e] “a lookup engine coupled to the output of the
`parser subsystem and to the flow-entry memory and configured
`to lookup whether the particular packet whose parser record is
`output by the parser subsystem has a matching flow-entry, the
`looking up using at least some of the selected packet portions
`and determining if the packet is of an existing flow;” ............57
`Limitation [7f] “a cache subsystem coupled to and between the
`lookup engine and the flow-entry database memory providing
`for fast access of a set of likely-to-be-accessed flow-entries
`from the flow-entry database; and” .........................................59
`iii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 4 of 93
`
`

`

`h)
`
`i)
`
`j)
`
`k)
`
`5.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`Limitation [7g] “a flow insertion engine coupled to the flow-
`entry memory and to the lookup engine and configured to
`create a flow-entry in the flow-entry database, the flow-entry
`including identifying information for future packets to be
`identified with the new flow-entry,” .......................................60
`Limitation [7h] “the lookup engine configured such that if the
`packet is of an existing flow, the monitor classifies the packet
`as belonging to the found existing flow; and”.........................62
`Limitation [7i] “if the packet is of a new flow, the flow
`insertion engine stores a new flow-entry for the new flow in
`the flow-entry database, including identifying information for
`future packets to be identified with the new flow-entry,”.......63
`Limitation [7j] “wherein the operation of the parser subsystem
`depends on one or more of the protocols to which the packet
`conforms.” ...............................................................................63
`Claim 16...................................................................................64
`Limitation [16 Pre] “A method of examining packets passing
`through a connection point on a computer network, each
`packets conforming to one or more protocols, the method
`comprising:” ............................................................................64
`Limitation [16a] “(a) receiving a packet from a packet
`acquisition device; ...................................................................65
`Limitation [16b] “(b) performing one or more
`parsing/extraction operations on the packet to create a parser
`record comprising a function of selected portions of the
`packet;”....................................................................................65
`Limitation [16c] “(c) looking up a flow-entry database
`comprising none or more flow-entries for previously
`encountered conversational flows, the looking up using at least
`some of the selected packet portions and determining if the
`packet is of an existing flow, the lookup being via a cache;” .65
`Limitation [16d] “(d) if the packet is of an existing flow,
`classifying the packet as belonging to the found existing flow;
`and”..........................................................................................66
`Limitation [16e] “(e) if the packet is of a new flow, storing a
`new flow-entry for the new flow in the flow-entry database,
`including identifying information for future packets to be
`identified with the new flow-entry,” .......................................66
`
`iv
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 5 of 93
`
`

`

`6.
`
`a)
`
`g)
`
`Limitation [16f] “wherein the parsing/extraction operations
`depend on one or more of the protocols to which the packet
`conforms.” ...............................................................................67
`Claim 18...................................................................................67
`Limitation [18] “A method according to claim 16, wherein the
`function of the selected portions of the packet forms a
`signature that includes the selected packet portions and that
`can identify future packets, wherein the lookup operation uses
`the signature and wherein the identifying information stored in
`the new or updated flow-entry is a signature for identifying
`future packets.”........................................................................67
`The ’646 Patent Count 2: Riddle in View of Wakeman, Bruins, and
`Further in View of RFC 1945 Renders Claims 1, 2, 3, 16 and 18 as
`Obvious; and Riddle in View of Wakeman, Cheriton, Bruins, and
`Further in View of RFC 1945 Renders Claim 7 as Obvious ..................68
`VIII. FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD DENYING
`INSTITUTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 314 and 325 .................................75
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................79
`
`C.
`
`v
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 6 of 93
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2015-00812, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016).........................................29
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................19
`STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .....................................................................................................7, 8
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.10(b) ...................................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)....................................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.103 ......................................................................................................8
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104 ....................................................................................9, 10, 14, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ..............................................................................................26, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) .............................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ..........................................................................................9, 13, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. §112.........................................................................................................20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...................................................................................................18
`
`vi
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 7 of 93
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`EX1001
`EX1002
`EX1003
`EX1004
`EX1005
`EX1006
`EX1007
`EX1008
`EX1009
`EX1010
`
`EX1011
`
`EX1012
`
`EX1013
`EX1014
`EX1015
`EX1016
`EX1017
`EX1018
`EX1019
`EX1020
`
`EX1021
`
`EX1022
`
`EX1023
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099 (the “’099 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725 (the “’725 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 (the “’646 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751 (the “’751 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789 (the “’789 Patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Kevin Jeffay
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,412,000 to Riddle et al. (“Riddle”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,046,980 to Packer et al. (“Packer”)
`RFC 1945, Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 (“RFC
`1945”)
`RFC 2616, Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 (“RFC
`2616”)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Ericsson Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-
`00381-JRG, Dkt. No. 74, Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement (June 7, 2019)
`WO 97/23076 A1 to Baker (“Baker”)
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/141,903
`File History for US Patent No. 6,651,099
`File History for US Patent No. 6,665,725
`File History for US Patent No. 6,771,646
`File History for US Patent No. 6,839,751
`File History for US Patent No. 6,954,789
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 66, Claim Construction Memorandum and
`Order (March 14, 2017)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 324-1, Declaration of Sadaf R. Abdullah
`(October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 324-2, Dr. Kevin Almeroth’s
`Demonstrative Slides (October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 250, Transcript from Oct. 12, 2017
`(October 17, 2017)
`
`vii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 8 of 93
`
`

`

`EX1024
`
`EX1025
`
`EX1026
`
`EX1027
`
`EX1028
`
`EX1029
`
`EX1030
`
`EX1031
`EX1032
`
`EX1033
`
`EX1034
`
`EX1035
`
`EX1036
`
`EX1037
`EX1038
`
`EX1039
`
`EX1040
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 323-1, Declaration of Steven Udick
`(October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 323-2, Dr. Almeroth’s direct testimony
`demonstratives (October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 314-1, Declaration of Michael Lyons
`(October 5, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 314-4, Russell Dietz’s demonstratives
`(October 5, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 244, Transcript from Oct. 10, 2017 AM
`session (October 17, 2017)
`Certified Translation of German Federal Patent Court Nos. 2Ni
`26/16 (EP) and 2(Ni 46/16) (July 12, 2018)
`RFC 1889 - RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time
`Applications (“RFC 1889”)
`RFC 2326 - Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) (“RFC 2326”)
`Redline showing a comparison of US Pat. No. 6,412,000 to Riddle
`et al. (“Riddle”) to provisional application number 60/066,864
`PointCast Inc. is Testing a New Screen-Saver Product, the Wall
`Street Journal (April 15, 1996)
`Brown, Judy, PointCast Network Provides a world of Information,
`News, Weather, Stock Quotes Can Be Displayed, Milwaukee
`Journal Sentinel (March 18, 1996)
`PointCast Makes Debut On Internet Screens to Acclaim, Internet
`Business News (March 19, 1996)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 55-21, Packet Intelligence’s Tutorial
`(January 20, 2017)
`Provisional application number 60/066,864
`Claim chart comparing claims 1, 8, and 11 of Riddle to the
`specification of provisional application number 60/066,864
`File History for US Patent No. 6,771,646 – February 10, 2004,
`Response to Office Action
`RFC 765 – File Transfer Protocol (“RFC 765”)
`
`viii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 9 of 93
`
`

`

`EX1041
`
`EX1042
`
`EX1043
`
`EX1044
`
`EX1045
`
`EX1046
`
`EX1047
`
`EX1048
`
`EX1049
`
`EX1050
`
`EX1051
`
`EX1052
`
`EX1053
`EX1054
`
`EX1055
`
`EX1056
`EX1057
`EX1058
`
`EX1059
`
`EX1060
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862,
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper No. 6 (June 5, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 9 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 8 (July 26, 2017)
`RFC 1543, Instructions to RFC Authors (“RFC 1543”)
`RFC 2026, The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3 (“RFC
`2026)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-
`CV-230-JRG, Dkt. No. 314, NetScout’s JMOL of No
`Infringement (October 5, 2018)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,740,175 to Wakeman et al. (“Wakeman”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,091,725 to Cheriton et al. (“Cheriton”)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863,
`Decision Re Institution, Paper No. 6 (August 31, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863,
`Patent Owner’s Notice of Abandonment, Paper No. 8 (Dec. 1,
`2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863,
`Adverse Judgment, Paper No. 9 (Dec. 20, 2017)
`
`ix
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 10 of 93
`
`

`

`EX1061
`EX1062
`EX1063
`EX1064
`EX1065
`EX1066
`EX1067
`
`EX1068
`
`RFC 793 – Transmission Control Protocol (“RFC 793”)
`Table Comparing Claims 1, 10, and 17 of the ’725 Patent
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,308,148 to Bruins et al. (“Bruins”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,805,808 to Hasani et al. (“Hasani”)
`Claim Listing for U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789
`Omitted
`International Standard ISO/IEC 7498 - Information processing
`systems -- Open Systems Interconnection -- Basic Reference
`Model -- Part 4: Management framework (Nov. 15, 1989)
`RFC 791 – Internet Protocol (“RFC 791”)
`
`x
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 11 of 93
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Nokia Corp. and Nokia of America Corp. (collectively “Petitioners”) request
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 16, and 18 (collectively, “the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 (EX1003, “the ’646 Patent”).
`
`Sandvine Corporation and Sandvine Incorporated ULC (collectively, “Sandvine”)
`
`previously challenged the ’646 Patent in IPR2017-00450 based primarily on U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,115,393 (“Engel”). EX1047, 6-7. In IPR2017-00450 the Board denied
`
`institution because it found that Engel failed to show the claimed “conversational
`
`flow[s].” EX1047, 25. The prior art used in this Petition discloses all of the
`
`limitations of the Challenged Claims including the claimed “conversational
`
`flow[s].”
`
`The ’646 Patent incorporates U.S. Patent No. 6,661,099 Patent (“the ’099
`
`Patent”) by reference. EX1003, 1:16-19, 1:66-2:2. The ’099 Patent describes:
`
` a “flow” as “a stream of packets being exchanged between any two
`
`addresses in the network,”
`
` a “connection flow” as “all
`
`the packets involved with a single
`
`connection,” and
`
`1
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 12 of 93
`
`

`

` a “conversational flow” as “the sequence of packets that are exchanged
`
`in any direction as a result of an activity—for instance, the running of
`
`an application on a server as requested by a client.”
`
`See, e.g., EX1001, 2:35-40, 12:4-5.
`
`According to Packet Intelligence, LLC (“Patent Owner”), “[t]he problem with
`
`only tracking connection flows is that certain applications and protocols may
`
`generate multiple connections. In other words, a single application may spawn
`
`multiple connections for a single activity.” EX1041, 16-17. An example of the
`
`alleged problem according to the Patent Owner is demonstrated through Skype.
`
`EX1036, 18-19. As shown below, Skype generates multiple separate connection
`
`flows for video, audio, and control information. Id.
`
`2
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 13 of 93
`
`

`

`EX1036, 18.
`
`As shown by Patent Owner’s “conversational
`
`flow” slide below, a
`
`“conversational flow” requires linking each of those separate connection flows into
`
`one “conversational flow.”
`
`3
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 14 of 93
`
`

`

`EX1036, 19.
`
`Similarly, the Patent Owner provided the following illustration to distinguish
`
`the Engle prior art reference in the previous IPR.
`
`4
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 15 of 93
`
`

`

`EX1047, 20.
`
`The Board wrote “packets 1 and 2 may both result from the same application
`
`(e.g., video and audio traffic using Skype), but Engel would not link them as being
`
`part of a single conversational flow.” EX1047, 20. Further, “we do not see—and
`
`Petitioner does not point
`
`to—anything in Engel
`
`indicating that
`
`it
`
`links
`
`communications by application (as opposed to by layer and client-server pair) as our
`
`interpretation of ‘conversational flows’ above requires.” EX1047, 21. The Board
`
`quoted the ’099 Patent and noted “[w]hat distinguishes this invention from prior art
`
`5
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 16 of 93
`
`

`

`network monitors is that it has the ability to recognize disjointed flows as belonging
`
`to the same conversational flow.” Id.
`
`This Petition relies upon prior art that discloses all of the limitations of the
`
`challenged claims, including the claimed conversational flows in three different
`
`ways. First, the prior art discussed below links disjointed TCP flows for FTP
`
`applications. EX1006, ¶¶512-522. The German Federal Patent Court has already
`
`invalidated a family member of the ’646 Patent and found that linking disjointed
`
`TCP flows for FTP applications is a conversational flow. EX1029, 35-36. Second,
`
`the prior art discussed below recognizes disjointed flows for an application called
`
`PointCast. EX1006, ¶¶523-531. The provisional patent application that lead to the
`
`’646 Patent admits that consolidating disjointed flows for PointCast
`
`is a
`
`conversational flow. EX1014, 7:18-24. Third, the prior art discussed below links
`
`HTTP flows based upon information in HTTP header fields, such as the HTTP
`
`Referer field. EX1006, ¶¶644-656. The Patent Owner’s expert has stated that linking
`
`HTTP flows based upon information in HTTP header fields, such as the HTTP
`
`Referer field yields, a conversational flow. EX1006, ¶¶646-650.
`
`6
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 17 of 93
`
`

`

`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`
`A.
`
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties in interest are Nokia of America Corporation, Nokia Corp.
`
`(collectively, “Nokia”), Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’646 Patent is at issue in Packet Intelligence LLC v. Nokia of America
`
`Corporation, No. 2:18-cv-00382 (E.D. Tex.), Packet Intelligence LLC v. Ericsson
`
`Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 2:18-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.), Packet
`
`Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., No. 2:16-cv-230 (E.D. Tex.), and
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, No. 3:19-cv-02471 (N.D. Cal).
`
`Petitioners are also contemporaneously filing petitions for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725 (IPR2019-01291), 6,651,099 (IPR2019-01290),
`
`6,839,751 (IPR2019-01289), and 6,954,789 (IPR2019-01293).1
`
`C.
`
`Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead counsel for Nokia is Thomas W. Davison (Reg. No. 57,160), 950 F
`
`Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004-1404, Tel: 202-239-3933, Fax: (202) 654-4913
`
`1 Collectively, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,099, 6,665,725, 6,771,646, 6,839,751, and
`
`6,954,789 are referred to as the “Challenged Patents.”
`
`7
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 18 of 93
`
`

`

`and Stephen Lareau (Reg. No. 62,273). Backup counsel for Nokia is S. Benjamin
`
`Pleune (Reg. No. 52,421), M. Scott Stevens (Reg. No. 54,762), and Stephen Lareau
`
`(Reg. No. 62,273), each of Alston & Bird LLP, Bank of America Plaza, 101 South
`
`Tryon Street, Suite 4000, Charlotte, NC 28280-4000, Tel: 704.444.1000, Fax:
`
`704.444.1111.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R §42.10(b), Powers of Attorney are being submitted with
`
`this Petition.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4))
`
`Petitioners
`
`consent
`
`to
`
`electronic
`
`service
`
`directed
`
`to
`
`Tom.Davison@alston.com, Ben.Pleune@alston.com, Scott.Stevens@alston.com,
`
`and Stephen.Lareau@alston.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. §42.103)
`
`Petitioners authorize the Patent Office to charge Deposit Account No. 16-
`
`0605 for the Petition fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a), and for any additional fees.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’646 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging Claims
`
`1, 2, 3, 7, 16, and 18 (the “Challenged Claims”) on the grounds identified herein.
`
`8
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 19 of 93
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Summary of the Challenges (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)–(2))
`
`Pursuant
`
`to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioners request
`
`cancellation of the Challenged Claims (1, 2, 3, 7, 16, and 18) in the ’646 Patent on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Count 1: (a) Claims 1, 2, 3, 16, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) over Riddle in view of Wakeman and Bruins; and (b) Claim 7 is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Riddle in view of Wakeman, Cheriton,
`
`and Bruins.
`
`Count 2: (a) Claims 1, 2, 3, 16, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) over Riddle in view of Wakeman, Bruins, and further in view of RFC 1945;
`
`and (b) Claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Riddle in view of
`
`Wakeman, Cheriton, Bruins, and further in view of RFC 1945.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims of the ’646 Patent should be
`
`construed is provided below.
`
`D.
`
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4))
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims of the ’646 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under the above grounds is provided below.
`
`9
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 20 of 93
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5))
`
`The text below provides exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied on
`
`to support the challenge and also explains the relevance of the evidence to the
`
`challenge raised. The text below also identifies the specific portions of the evidence
`
`that support the challenge. A Table of Exhibits is set forth above.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’646 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’646 Patent
`
`The ’646 Patent relates to examining packets passing through a connection
`
`point on a computer network to determine whether a packet is of an existing
`
`conversational flow. EX1003, Abstract. Fig. 3 of the ’646 Patent is reproduced
`
`below which shows a network packet monitor 300. EX1003, 7:36–45.
`
`10
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 21 of 93
`
`

`

`EX1003, Fig. 3.
`
`Parser 301 parses and extracts (reads and/or copies) selected portions of
`
`packet 302 to generate an identifying signature and analyzer 303 analyzes the packet.
`
`See EX1003, 8:5-15. For each protocol there are several fields that are recognized,
`
`such as the destination (recipient) and the source (sender). EX1003, 7:64-8:1. Values
`
`of the fields are used by monitor 300 to identify the flow. Id.
`
`Extraction process 306,
`
`implemented by an extracting and information
`
`identifying (EII) engine in parser 301, extracts (reads and/or copies) characteristic
`11
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2048 Page 22 of 93
`
`

`

`portions (signature information) from packet 302 using extraction masks supplied
`
`from the extraction-operations database (e.g., parsing/extraction database 308) to
`
`identify
`
`information
`
`from the
`
`packet. EX1003,
`
`8:5-15,
`
`9:6-17. The
`
`parsing/extraction process is required to recognize the packet as part of a flow.
`
`EX1003, 9:6-17.
`
`A parser record, which may include the signature, the hash, and the packet
`
`itself, is passed on to lookup process 314 carried out by the lookup engine (LUE) to
`
`determine whether the particular packet belongs to a known flow as indicated by the
`
`presence of a flow-entry matching the flow in a database of known flows 324.
`
`EX1003, 9:22-28; 9:45-52, 9:61-10:4.
`
`Flow-entry database 324 “stores flow-entries that include the unique flow-
`
`signature, state information, extracted information from the packet for updating
`
`flows,” and statistics about the flow. EX1003, 10:5–8. If state processing is required,
`
`then state processor 328 carries out any state operations according to state
`
`instructions from state pattern and processes database 326. EX1003, 10:47-51.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The ’646 Patent was filed on June 30, 2000 as Ser. No. 09/608,266, claiming
`
`priority to a provisional patent application, No. 60/141,903, filed on June 30, 1999.
`
`EX1003. While Petitioners do not accede to a priority date of June 30, 1999 for the
`
`