`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. and PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,099, 6,665,725, 6,771,646, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JON B. WEISSMAN UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX 1006 Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Professional Background ................................................................... 1
`
`B. Documents and Information Considered ............................................ 4
`
`C. Summary of Opinions ........................................................................ 5
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED .................................................. 8
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE CHALLENGED PATENTS ....................................10
`
`A. Technology Overview .......................................................................10
`
`1. Network Protocols and Protocol Layering....................................10
`
`2. Network Packets ..........................................................................20
`
`3. Monitoring Network Traffic ........................................................21
`
`4. Control and Data Transmission in Network Protocols ..................23
`
`B. The ’099 Patent Overview ................................................................26
`
`C. The ’725 Patent Overview ................................................................32
`
`D. The ’646 Patent Overview ................................................................35
`
`E. The ’751 Patent Overview ................................................................37
`
`F. The ’789 Patent Overview ................................................................38
`
`G. Prosecution History Overview ..........................................................40
`
`1. The ’099 Patent’s Prosecution History .........................................40
`
`2. The ’725 Patent’s Prosecution History .........................................40
`
`3. The ’646 Patent’s Prosecution History .........................................42
`
`4. The ’751 Patent’s Prosecution History .........................................45
`
`5. The ’789 Patent’s Prosecution History .........................................49
`
`
`
`i
`
`EX 1006 Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`H. Sandvine’s IPR Petitions ...................................................................49
`
`I. Nokia’s IPR Petitions ........................................................................51
`
`J. German Nullity Proceeding...............................................................53
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................57
`
`A. Riddle Overview ...............................................................................57
`
`1. Overview of Riddle ......................................................................58
`
`2. Riddle’s Hardware Components ..................................................62
`
`3. Riddle’s Parsing of Packets ..........................................................64
`
`4. Riddle’s Classifying Flows Based on Conversations ....................66
`
`5. Riddle’s Conversational Flow Analyzer .......................................74
`
`6. Riddle’s Traffic Identification Based on RTP and RTSP .............77
`
`B. Ferdinand Overview .........................................................................83
`
`C. Yu Overview ....................................................................................87
`
`D. RFC1945 Overview ..........................................................................90
`
`E. Baker Overview ................................................................................96
`
`F. Wakeman Overview .........................................................................99
`
`G. Hasani Overview ............................................................................ 104
`
`V. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................. 105
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 108
`
`A. “Conversational Flow” / “Conversational Flow-Sequence” ............ 108
`
`B. “State Of The Flow” / “State Of The Conversational Flow” ........... 115
`
`C. “The Flow” / “New Flow” / “Existing Flow” .................................. 117
`
`D. “State Operations” / “State Processing Operations” ........................ 121
`
`
`
`ii
`
`EX 1006 Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`E. “Flow-Entry Database …” Terms ................................................... 123
`
`F. “Parser Record” .............................................................................. 126
`
`G. “Child Protocol” ............................................................................. 127
`
`H. “Slicer” ........................................................................................... 127
`
`I. Means- and Step-Plus-Function Terms ........................................... 128
`
`VII. THE CLAIMS OF THE ’099 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ........... 134
`
`A. For the ’099 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand Renders
`Obvious Claims 1 and 2. ................................................................. 135
`
`1. Reasons to Modify Riddle in View of Ferdinand ....................... 135
`
`2. Independent ’099 Claim 1 .......................................................... 138
`
`3. Dependent ’099 Claim 2 ............................................................ 226
`
`B. For the ’099 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in
`View of Baker Renders Obvious Dependent Claims 4 and 5. .......... 229
`
`1. Reasons to Modify the Combination of Riddle and Ferdinand and
`Further in View of Baker ........................................................... 230
`
`2. Dependent ’099 Claim 4 ............................................................ 233
`
`3. Dependent ’099 Claim 5 ............................................................ 241
`
`C. For the ’099 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in
`View of Yu Renders Obvious Claims 1 and 2. ................................ 246
`
`1. Reasons to Modify the Combination of Riddle and Ferdinand
`Further in View of Yu ................................................................ 248
`
`2. Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in View of Yu Renders
`Obvious Identifying a “Conversational Flow-Sequence” and the
`Claimed State Tracking .............................................................. 249
`
`D. For the ’099 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Baker and
`Further in View of Yu Renders Obvious Dependent Claims 4 and
`5. 251
`
`
`
`iii
`
`EX 1006 Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`E. For the ’099 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in
`View of RFC1945 Renders Obvious Claims 1 and 2....................... 253
`
`1. Reasons to Modify the Combination of Riddle and Ferdinand
`Further in View of RFC1945 ..................................................... 258
`
`2. Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in View of RFC1945
`Renders Obvious Identifying A “Conversational Flow-Sequence.”
`................................................................................................... 262
`
`F. For the ’099 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Baker and
`Further in View of RFC1945 Renders Obvious Dependent Claims
`4 and 5. ........................................................................................... 264
`
`VIII. THE CLAIMS OF THE ’725 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ........... 265
`
`A. For the ’725 Patent, Riddle in View of Baker Renders Obvious
`Claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17. ......................................................... 266
`
`1. Reasons to Modify Riddle in View of Baker .............................. 266
`
`2. Independent ’725 Claims 10 and 17 ........................................... 269
`
`3. Dependent ’725 Claim 12 .......................................................... 331
`
`4. Dependent ’725 Claim 13 .......................................................... 333
`
`5. Dependent ’725 Claim 16 .......................................................... 338
`
`B. For the ’725 Patent, Riddle in View of Baker and Further in View
`of Yu Renders Obvious Claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17. ................... 339
`
`C. For the ’725 Patent, Riddle in View of Baker and Further in View
`of RFC1945 Renders Obvious Claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17. ......... 341
`
`IX. THE CLAIMS OF THE ’646 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ........... 342
`
`A. For the ’646 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman
`Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18. ................................... 343
`
`1. Reasons to Modify Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman 343
`
`2. Independent ’646 Claim 1 .......................................................... 345
`
`
`
`iv
`
`EX 1006 Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3. Dependent ’646 Claim 2 ............................................................ 380
`
`4. Dependent ’646 Claim 3 ............................................................ 383
`
`5. Independent ’646 Claim 7 .......................................................... 386
`
`6. Independent ’646 Claim 16 ........................................................ 411
`
`7. Dependent ’646 Claim 18 .......................................................... 416
`
`B. For the ’646 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman
`and Further in View of Yu Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 7, 16,
`and 18. ............................................................................................ 419
`
`C. For the ’646 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman
`and Further in View of RFC1945 Renders Obvious Claims 1-3, 7,
`16, and 18. ...................................................................................... 421
`
`X.
`
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ’751 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ........... 423
`
`A. For the ’751 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand Renders
`Obvious Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 15, and 17. ..................................... 424
`
`1. Reasons to Modify Riddle in View of Ferdinand ....................... 424
`
`2. Independent ’751 Claim 1 .......................................................... 424
`
`3. Dependent ’751 Claim 2 ............................................................ 446
`
`4. Dependent ’751 Claim 5 ............................................................ 451
`
`5. Dependent ’751 Claim 10 .......................................................... 452
`
`6. Dependent ’751 Claim 14 .......................................................... 455
`
`7. Dependent ’751 Claim 15 .......................................................... 458
`
`8. Independent ’751 Claim 17 ........................................................ 461
`
`B. For the ’751 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in
`View of Yu Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 15, and 17. .... 465
`
` v
`
`EX 1006 Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`C. For the ’751 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in
`View of RFC1945 Renders Obvious Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 15,
`and 17. ............................................................................................ 467
`
`XI. THE CLAIMS OF THE ’789 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ........... 469
`
`A. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand Renders
`Obvious Claims 1, 2, 13-17, 19, 20, and 42 .................................... 469
`
`1. Reasons to Modify Riddle in View of Ferdinand ....................... 470
`
`2. Independent ’789 Claim 1 .......................................................... 470
`
`3. Dependent ’789 Claim 2 ............................................................ 473
`
`4. Dependent ’789 Claim 13 .......................................................... 475
`
`5. Dependent ’789 Claim 14 .......................................................... 476
`
`6. Dependent ’789 Claim 15 .......................................................... 477
`
`7. Dependent ’789 Claim 16 .......................................................... 477
`
`8. Dependent ’789 Claim 17 .......................................................... 478
`
`9. Independent ’789 Claim 19 ........................................................ 480
`
`10. Dependent ’789 Claim 20 .......................................................... 488
`
`11. Dependent ’789 Claim 42 .......................................................... 488
`
`B. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in
`View of Baker Renders Obvious Dependent Claim 31 .................... 490
`
`1. Reasons to Modify the Combination of Riddle and Ferdinand
`Further in View of Baker ........................................................... 491
`
`2. Dependent ’789 Claim 31 .......................................................... 491
`
`C. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in
`View of Wakeman Renders Obvious Dependent Claims 33 and 34 492
`
`1. Reasons to Modify the Combination of Riddle and Ferdinand
`Further in View of Wakeman ..................................................... 492
`
` vi
`
`EX 1006 Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2. Dependent ’789 Claim 33 .......................................................... 492
`
`3. Dependent ’789 Claim 34 .......................................................... 493
`
`D. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Hasani
`Renders Obvious Claims 44, 48, and 49.......................................... 493
`
`1. Reasons to Modify the Combination of Riddle and Ferdinand
`Further in View of Hasani .......................................................... 493
`
`2. Independent ’789 Claim 44 ........................................................ 496
`
`3. Dependent ’789 Claim 48 .......................................................... 506
`
`4. Dependent ’789 Claim 49 .......................................................... 508
`
`E. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in
`View of Yu Renders Obvious Claims 1-2, 13-17, 19-20, and 42. .... 510
`
`F. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Baker and
`Further in View of Yu Renders Obvious Claim 31. ......................... 512
`
`G. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman
`and Further in View of Yu Renders Obvious Claims 33-34. ........... 514
`
`H. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Hasani and
`Further in View of Yu Renders Obvious Claims 44 and 48-49. ...... 516
`
`I. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Further in
`View of RFC1945 Renders Obvious Claims 1-2, 13-17, 19-20,
`and 42. ............................................................................................ 518
`
`J. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Baker and
`Further in View of RFC1945 Renders Obvious Claim 31. .............. 519
`
`K. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman
`and Further in View of RFC1945 Renders Obvious Claims 33-34. . 521
`
`L. For the ’789 Patent, Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Hasani and
`Further in View of RFC1945 Renders Obvious Claims 44 and 48-
`49. 522
`
`
`
` vii
`
`EX 1006 Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099 (“the ’099 Patent”)
`
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725 (“the ’725 Patent”)
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 (“the ’646 Patent”)
`
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751 (“the ’751 Patent”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789 (“the ’789 Patent”)
`
`1006 Declaration of Dr. Jon B. Weissman
`
`1007 Curriculum vitae of Dr. Weissman
`
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,412,000 (“Riddle”)
`
`1009 PCT Publication WO 92/19054 (“Ferdinand”)
`
`1010 RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 (“RFC1945”)
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,150 (“Yu”)
`
`1012 Provisional Patent Application No. 60/112,859 (“the ’859 Provisional”)
`
`1013 PCT Publication WO 97/23076 (“Baker”)
`
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,740,175 (“Wakeman”)
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,805,808 (“Hasani”)
`
`1016 Provisional Patent Application No. 60/141,903 (“the ’903 Provisional”)
`
`1017 File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`
`1018 File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725
`
`1019 File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`1020 File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 – February 10, 2004, Re-
`sponse to Office Action
`
`1021 File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751
`
`1022 File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789
`
` viii
`
`EX 1006 Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`
`
`1023 Certified Translation of German Federal Patent Court Nos. 2Ni 26/16
`(EP) and 2(Ni 46/16) (July 12, 2018)
`
`1024 Provisional Patent Application No. 60/066,864 (“the ’864 Provisional”)
`
`1025 Redline showing a comparison of Riddle to Provisional Patent Applica-
`tion No. 60/066,864
`
`1026 Claim Chart comparing claims 1, 8, and 11 of Riddle to the specifica-
`tion of Provisional Patent Application No. 60/066,864
`
`1027 U.S. Patent Application 08/977,642 (“Packer Application”)
`
`1028 U.S. Patent Application 09/198,051 (“the ’051 Application”)
`
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,802,106
`
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,038,216
`
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 6,046,980 (“Packer”)
`
`1032 PointCast Inc. is Testing a New Screen-Saver Product, The Wall Street
`Journal (April 15, 1996)
`
`1033 Gillin, Paul. Editorial, Computer World (May 13, 1996)
`
`1034 Sneider, Daniel. Redefining News in the Era of Internet By Blending
`Print and Television, Silicon Valley Start-up Shakes up Traditional
`View of News, The Christian Science Monitor (June 26, 1996)
`
`1035 PointCast Inc. 1998 SEC Filings
`
`1036 U.S. Patent No. 6,807,558
`
`1037 RFC 765 – File Transfer Protocol (“RFC765”)
`
`1038 RFC 791 – Internet Protocol (“RFC791”)
`
`1039 RFC 793 – Transmission Control Protocol (“RFC793”)
`
`1040 RFC 1543 – Instructions to RFC Authors (“RFC1543”)
`
`1041 RFC 2026 – The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3 (“RFC2026”)
`
`1042 RFC 2616 – Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1 (“RFC2616”)
`
`
`
`ix
`
`EX 1006 Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1043
`
`Description
`
`International Standard ISO/IEC 7498 – Information Processing Sys-
`tems – Open Systems Interconnection – Basic Reference Model – Part
`4: Management Framework (Nov. 15, 1989)
`
`
`
`1044
`
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC1945
`
`1045
`
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 1889 – RTP: A Transport Protocol
`for Real-Time Applications (“RFC1889”)
`
`1046
`
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 2326 – Real Time Streaming Proto-
`col (RTSP) (“RFC2326”)
`
`1047 Chart comparing Yu to Provisional Patent Application No. 60/112,859
`
`1048 Claim Chart comparing Yu’s claim 1 to the Provisional Patent Applica-
`tion No. 60/112,859
`
`1049
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Paper
`No. 10 (Opposition to Request for Rehearing) (September 15, 2017)
`
`1050
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`1051
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`1052
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`1053
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`1054
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`
`1055
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (June 5, 2017)
`
`1056
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`1057
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
` x
`
`EX 1006 Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1058
`
`Description
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`
`
`1059
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630, Paper
`No. 9 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`1060
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`1061
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`1062
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Paper
`No. 6 (Decision) (August 31, 2017)
`
`1063
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Paper
`No. 8 (Notice of Abandonment) (Dec. 1, 2017)
`
`1064
`
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Paper
`No. 9 (Adverse Judgment) (Dec. 20, 2017)
`
`1065 Nokia Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2019-01289, EX1006
`(Declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay)
`
`1066 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 55-21 (Packet Intelligence
`Technology Tutorial) (January 20, 2017)
`
`1067 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 66 (Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order) (March 14, 2017)
`
`1068 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 244 (Transcript of Proceed-
`ings held Oct. 10, 2017 AM Session) (October 17, 2017)
`
`1069 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 250 (Transcript of Proceed-
`ings held Oct. 12, 2017 PM Session) (October 17, 2017)
`
` xi
`
`EX 1006 Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`
`
`1070 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 314 (NetScout’s JMOL of
`No Infringement) (October 5, 2018)
`
`1071 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 314-1 (Declaration of Mi-
`chael Lyons) (October 5, 2018)
`
`1072 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 314-4 (Excerpts of Russell
`Dietz’s Demonstrative Slides) (October 5, 2018)
`
`1073 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 323-1 (Declaration of Steven
`Udick) (October 26, 2018)
`
`1074 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 323-2 (Excerpts from Dr.
`Kevin Almeroth’s Direct Testimony Demonstrative Slides) (October
`26, 2018)
`
`1075 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 324-1 (Declaration of Sadaf
`R. Abdullah) (October 26, 2018)
`
`1076 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 324-2 (Dr. Kevin Alme-
`roth’s Rebuttal Testimony Demonstrative Slides) (October 26, 2018)
`
`1077 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Ericsson Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. Case No.
`2:18-CV-00381-JRG, Docket Item 74 (Joint Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement) (June 7, 2019)
`
`1078 Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Cisco Systems, Inc., E.D. Tex. Case No.
`2:14-CV-252-JRG, Docket Item 89 (Packet Intelligence LLC’s Open-
`ing Claims Construction Brief) (January 26, 2015)
`
`1079 Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Joint Claim Construction and Preharing Statement
`(December 17, 2019)
`
` xii
`
`EX 1006 Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`
`
`1080 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (No-
`vember 2019)
`
`1081 Chart of third-parties’ previously-proposed terms subject to §112(6)
`and corresponding structure
`
`1082 Table Comparing Claims 1, 10, and 17 of the ’725 Patent
`
` xiii
`
`EX 1006 Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Jon B. Weissman, submit this declaration in connection with inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,099; 6,665,725; 6,771,646; 6,839,751; and 6,954,789
`
`(the “Challenged Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Juniper Networks, Inc. and Palo Alto Net-
`
`works, Inc. to offer technical opinions with respect to the Challenged Patents and
`
`prior art cited herein.
`
`A.
`
`Professional Background
`
`3.
`
`I am a Full Professor of Computer Science at the University of Minnesota,
`
`where I lead the Distributed Computing Systems Group. I received my B.S. in Ap-
`
`plied Mathematics and Computer Science from Carnegie-Mellon, and my M.S. and
`
`Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Virginia. My curriculum vitae is
`
`attached as Exhibit 1007.
`
`4.
`
`For my Ph.D. thesis, I developed the first automated scheduling system for
`
`parallel and distributed applications across heterogeneous local and wide-area net-
`
`works. I thereafter worked as a software engineer for five years in the area of dis-
`
`tributed systems.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`In 1995, I returned to academia and began my career as a professor. My re-
`
`1
`
`EX 1006 Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`search has been funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Depart-
`
`ment of Energy, and the Air Force, and has included the following projects related
`
`to the subject matter of the Challenged Patents (i.e., network traffic monitoring and
`
`processing, and real-time systems):
`
`• National Science Foundation, “Scaling the IoT with Constellation”;
`• National Science Foundation, “Location, location, location (L3): Support
`
`for Geo-Centric Applications”;
`• National Science Foundation, “One Thousand Points of Light: Accelerat-
`
`ing Data-Intensive Applications By Proxy”;
`• National Science Foundation, “A Data Mining and Exploration Middle-
`
`ware for Grid and Distributed Computing”;
`• National Science Foundation, “Toward Community Services: Putting
`
`Parallel Network Services On-line”;
`• National Science Foundation, “Resource Management for Parallel and
`
`Distributed Systems”; and
`• Air Force Office of Scientific Research, “Telecommunication Networks
`
`for Mobile and Distributed Computing and Communications.”
`
`6.
`
`I have published over 100 peer-reviewed technical articles, including some
`
`awarded or nominated for Best Paper at highly competitive international confer-
`
`ences. Many of my published papers relate to the subject matter of the Challenged
`
`Patents, including this small sample (and many more listed on my CV):
`
`• “Rethinking Adaptability in Wide-Area Stream Processing Systems,”
`
`Albert Jonathan, Abhishek Chandra, and Jon Weissman,
`
`
`
`2
`
`EX 1006 Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`10th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing;
`• “Nebula: Distributed Edge Cloud for Data Intensive Computing,”
`
`Albert Jonathan, Mathew Ryden, Kwangsung Oh, Abhishek Chandra,
`
`and Jon Weissman, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Sys-
`
`tems;
`• “TripS: Automated Multi-tiered Data Placement in a Geo-distributed
`
`Cloud Environment,” Kwangsung Oh, Abhishek Chandra, and Jon
`
`Weissman, 10th ACM International Systems and Storage Conference;
`• “Redefining Data Locality for Cross-Data Center Storage,”
`
`Kwangsung Oh, Ajaykrishna Raghavan, Abhishek Chandra, and Jon
`
`Weissman, The 2nd International Workshop on Software-Defined Eco-
`
`systems;
`• “Passive Network Performance Estimation for Large-scale, Data-Inten-
`
`sive Computing,” Jinoh Kim, Abhishek Chandra, and Jon B. Weissman,
`
`IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems;
`• “DDDAS/ITR: A Data Mining and Exploration Middleware for Grid and
`
`Distributed Computing,” Jon B. Weissman, Vipin Kumar, Varun Chan-
`
`dola, Eric Eilertson, Levent Ertoz, Gyorgy Simon, Seonho Kim, and
`
`Jinoh Kim, Workshop on Dynamic Data Driven Application Systems –
`
`DDDAS;
`• “Scheduling Parallel Applications in Distributed Networks,” Jon B.
`
`Weissman and Xin Zhao, Journal of Cluster Computing;
`• “Adaptive Resource Scheduling for Network Services,” Byoung-Dai Lee
`
`and Jon B. Weissman, IEEE 3rd International Workshop on Grid Com-
`
`puting;
`• “Eliminating the Middle-Man: Peer-to-Peer Dataflow,” Adam Barker,
`
`3
`
`EX 1006 Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Jon B. Weissman, and Jano van Hemert, 17th IEEE International Sympo-
`
`sium on High Performance Distributed Computing; and
`• “Optimizing Remote File Access for Parallel and Distributed Network
`
`Applications,” Jon B. Weissman, Mike Gingras, and Mahesh Marina,
`
`Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing.
`
`7.
`
`Additionally, I have served on the boards of several flagship journals, in-
`
`cluding IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems and IEEE Transac-
`
`tions on Computers. I am a member and former steering committee chair of the
`
`ACM International Symposium on High Performance Parallel and Distributed Sys-
`
`tems, the flagship conference in my area. And I serve as an investigator for both
`
`the Center for Research in Intelligent Storage (sponsored by the National Science
`
`Foundation) and the Digital Technology Center.
`
`8.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard consulting rate for my work on this
`
`declaration. My compensation is not dependent on and I have no financial interest
`
`in the outcome of these IPRs or any related litigation.
`
`B. Documents and Information Considered
`
`9.
`
`I have reviewed each of the Challenged Patents, including the claims of the
`
`patent in view of the specification. In addition, I have reviewed the Challenged Pa-
`
`tents’ prosecution histories, the prior art discussed herein, and the remaining exhib-
`
`its listed herein, as well as additional records from previous IPRs relating to the
`
`Challenged Patents. For convenience, portions of my declaration are based on the
`
`
`
`4
`
`EX 1006 Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay, submitted with IPR materials filed by Nokia.1
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`10.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the ’099 Patent are rendered obvious
`
`by the prior art. In the remainder of this declaration, I demonstrate that:
`
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand renders obvious claims 1 and 2 of the ’099
`
`Patent;
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and further in view of Baker renders obvious
`
`claims 4 and 5 of the ’099 Patent;
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and further in view of Yu renders obvious
`
`claims 1 and 2 of the ’099 Patent;
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and Baker and further in view of Yu renders
`
`obvious claims 4 and 5 of the ’099 Patent;
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and further in view of RFC1945 renders ob-
`
`vious claims 1 and 2 of the ’099 Patent; and
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and Baker and further in view of RFC1945
`
`renders obvious claims 4 and 5 of the ’099 Patent.
`
`11.
`
`In my opinion, claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art. In the remainder of this declaration, I demonstrate that:
`
`• Riddle in view of Baker renders obvious claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of
`
`the ’725 Patent;
`• Riddle in view of Baker and further in view of Yu renders obvious claims
`
`10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 Patent; and
`• Riddle in view of Baker and further in view of RFC1945 renders obvious
`
`
`1 Ex. 1065.
`
`
`
`5
`
`EX 1006 Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`12.
`
`
`
`claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 Patent.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 16, and 18 of the ’646 Patent are rendered
`
`obvious by the prior art. In the remainder of this declaration, I demonstrate that:
`
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and Wakeman renders obvious claims 1-3,
`
`7, 16, and 18 of the ’646 Patent;
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and Wakeman and further in view of Yu
`
`renders obvious claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18 of the ’646 Patent
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and Wakeman and further in view of
`
`RFC1945 renders obvious claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18 of the ’646 Patent.
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 15, and 17 of the ’751 Patent are ren-
`
`dered obvious by the prior art. In the remainder of this declaration, I demonstrate
`
`that:
`
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand renders obvious claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 15,
`
`and 17 of the ’751 Patent;
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and further in view of Yu renders obvious
`
`claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 15, and 17 of the ’751 Patent; and
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and further in view of RFC1945 renders ob-
`
`vious claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 14, 15, and 17 of the ’751 Patent.
`
`14.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 2, 13-17, 19, 20, 31, 33, 34, 42, 44, 48, and 49 of
`
`the ’789 Patent are rendered obvious by the prior art. In the remainder of this dec-
`
`laration, I demonstrate that:
`
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand renders obvious claims 1, 2, 13-17, 19, 20,
`
`and 42 of the ’789 Patent;
`
`
`
`6
`
`EX 1006 Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`• Riddle in view of Ferdinand and further in view of Yu renders obvious
`
`claims 1, 2, 13-17, 19, 20, and