`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. & PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioners,
`v.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`____________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) ........................... 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Section 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest ............................................. 1 
`
`Section 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ...................................................... 1 
`
`Sections 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-Up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3 
`
`II. 
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 4 
`
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER §42.104(a) ...................................... 4 
`
`IV.  SECTIONS 325(d) AND 314(a) FACTORS FAVOR PETITIONERS. ........ 4 
`
`V. 
`
`THE PURPORTED INVENTION .................................................................. 5 
`
`VI. 
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER §42.104(b) ........................ 7 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Claims and Statutory Grounds .............................................................. 7 
`
`Level of Skill in the Art and Claim Construction ................................. 7 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`“Conversational Flow” ................................................................ 8 
`
`“The Flow”/“New Flow”/“Existing Flow” ............................... 12 
`
`“Flow-Entry Database … ” Terms ............................................ 14 
`
`All Remaining Claim Terms ..................................................... 16 
`
`VII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 17 
`
`A.  Ground 1: Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman Renders
`Obvious Claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18 ...................................................... 17 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Riddle Overview ....................................................................... 17 
`
`Ferdinand Overview .................................................................. 22 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`Reasons to Modify Riddle in View of Ferdinand ..................... 25 
`
`4.  Wakeman Overview .................................................................. 27 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`Reasons to Modify the Combination of Riddle and
`Ferdinand Further in View of Wakeman .................................. 29 
`
`Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman Renders
`Obvious Claims 1 and 7. ........................................................... 30 
`
`Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman Renders
`Obvious Claims 2 and 3. ........................................................... 72 
`
`Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman Renders
`Obvious Claim 16. .................................................................... 76 
`
`Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman Renders
`Obvious Claim 18. .................................................................... 79 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman and
`Further in View of Yu Render Obvious Claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18. ... 80 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Yu Overview ............................................................................. 81 
`
`Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman and Further in
`View of Yu Teaches “Conversational Flows” and the
`Claimed State Operations. ........................................................ 83 
`
`Reasons to Modify the Combination of Riddle, Ferdinand,
`and Wakeman Further in View of Yu ....................................... 84 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground 3: Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman and
`Further in View of RFC1945 Render Obvious Claims 1-3, 7, 16,
`and 18. ................................................................................................. 87 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`RFC1945 Overview .................................................................. 87 
`
`Riddle in View of Ferdinand and Wakeman and Further in
`View of RFC1945 Teaches “Conversational Flows.” .............. 89 
`
`Reasons Modify the Combination of Riddle, Ferdinand,
`and Wakeman and in Further View of RFC1945 ..................... 93 
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`VIII.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 95 
`
`IX.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 95 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`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
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`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”)
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1043
`
`1044
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`Description
`International Standard ISO/IEC 7498 – Information Processing Sys-
`tems – Open Systems Interconnection – Basic Reference Model – Part
`4: Management Framework (Nov. 15, 1989)
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC1945
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 1889 – RTP: A Transport Protocol
`for Real-Time Applications (“RFC1889”)
`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
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Paper
`No. 10 (Opposition to Request for Rehearing) (September 15, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862, Paper
`No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (June 5, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`Description
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630, Paper
`No. 9 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862, Paper
`No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Paper
`No. 6 (Decision) (August 31, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Paper
`No. 8 (Notice of Abandonment) (Dec. 1, 2017)
`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)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`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)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`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
`1083 Declaration of Joseph Edell
`
`
`USE OF EMPHASIS IN QUOTATIONS
`
`All emphases in quotations and exhibit citations have been added, unless
`
`otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`APPLICABLE STATUTES
`
`References to 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 are to the pre-AIA versions applica-
`
`ble to the ‘646 Patent.
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (collectively, “Petition-
`
`ers”) request inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18 of U.S. Pa-
`
`tent No. 6,771,646 (“the ’646 Patent”), attached as Exhibit 1003.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)
`A.
`
`Section 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Palo Alto
`
`Networks”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Section 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`The ’646 Patent is at issue in the following cases that may affect, or be af-
`
`fected by, a decision in this proceeding: Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Net-
`
`works, Inc., 3:19-cv-04741 (N.D. Cal.); and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet In-
`
`telligence LLC, No. 3:19-cv-02471 (N.D. Cal).1 Patents related to the ’646 Patent
`
`are at issue in the following case that may affect, or be affected by, a decision in
`
`this proceeding: Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., No. 19-2041 (Fed.
`
`Cir.). Petitioners also file contemporaneously petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,651,099 (IPR2020-00335, IPR2020-00485), 6,665,725 (IPR2020-00336),
`
`6,839,751 (IPR2020-00338), and 6,954,789 (IPR2020-00339, IPR2020-00486)
`
`
`1 Both of these cases are in their early stages with the Palo Alto Networks case
`having a trial set for March 22, 2021 and the Juniper case having no trial date set.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`(collectively, including the ’646 Patent, the “Challenged Patents”), all of which are
`
`related to the ’646 Patent.2
`
`The ’646 Patent was subject to IPR petitions in IPR2017-00450 and
`
`IPR2019-01292. In IPR2017-00450, third-party Sandvine filed a petition challeng-
`
`ing ’646 claims 1-3 and 7-12, using U.S. Patent No. 6,115,393 (“Engel”) as a pri-
`
`mary reference. On July 26, 2017, the Board denied institution, finding Sandvine’s
`
`petition failed to “persuade[] that Engel teaches ‘conversational flows.’”3, 4
`
`In IPR2019-01292, third-party Nokia filed a petition challenging ’646
`
`claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18 based on some of the prior-art references that Petitioners
`
`rely on here. On September 26, 2019, the Board granted a joint motion to terminate
`
`that IPR proceeding before the preliminary-response deadline and before issuing
`
`an institution decision.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 The ’646 Patent incorporates-by-reference the U.S. Patent Applications (all filed
`on the same day) that later issued as three of the Challenged Patents. U.S. Patent
`No. 6,954,789 (filed a little over three years later) is a continuation of the ’099 Pa-
`tent and also incorporates-by-reference the other Challenged Patents.
`3 Ex. 1056 (IPR2017-00450 Institution Decision), 24. In IPR2017-00450, the
`Board identified deficiencies with Engel’s application-level “dialogs” and other
`teachings, which the instant Petition does not rely on for “conversational flows.”
`Ex. 1056, 14-24.
`4 Weissman ¶¶95-96.
`5 Weissman ¶¶97-98.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Sections 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Ser-
`vice Information
`
`Counsel For Juniper
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph F. Edell (Reg. No. 67,625)
`joe.edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Phone: +1.202.362.3524
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Adam A. Allgood (Reg. No. 67,306)
`adam.allgood@fischllp.com
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`Phone: +1.202.362.3536
`
`
`
`A Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition per 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b). Ju-
`
`niper consents to email service at Joe.Edell.IPR@fischllp.com.
`
`Counsel For Palo Alto Networks
`
`First Back-up Counsel
`Scott A. McKeown (Reg. No.
`42,866)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006-6807
`Phone: +1-202-508-4740
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice
`forthcoming)
`Mark D. Rowland (Reg. No.
`32,077)
`Andrew Radsch (pro hac vice forth-
`coming)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: +1-650-617-4000
`Fax: +1-617-235-9492
`james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`mark.rowland@ropesgray.com
`andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com
`
` Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition per 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b).
`
` A
`
`Palo Alto Networks may be served through its counsel identified above. Electronic
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`service of documents should be sent to the email addresses of the counsel identi-
`
`fied above.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee required by
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) for this Petition for inter partes review to Deposit Account No.
`
`18-1945, under Order No. 115271-0001-653. Any additional fees that might be due
`
`are also authorized.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER §42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’646 Patent is available for IPR, and Petitioners
`
`are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR on the asserted grounds.
`
`IV. SECTIONS 325(d) AND 314(a) FACTORS FAVOR PETITIONERS.
`
`For the ’646 Patent, this is the first and only Petition filed by Juniper or Palo
`
`Alto Networks. During the patent’s initial examination, the Examiner did not con-
`
`sider any of the five prior-art references relied on by Petitioners.
`
`The Board has never issued a Final Written Decision or addressed any of the
`
`grounds in this Petition. As its primary reference, Petitioners rely on Riddle, which
`
`teaches a packet monitor identifying “conversational flows.” As one of its four sec-
`
`ondary references, Petitioners rely on Ferdinand (Ex. 1009) to render obvious con-
`
`ventional features of packet monitors such as buffers and databases. The Office has
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`not considered the Riddle-Ferdinand combination during the original prosecution
`
`or prior IPR proceedings.6
`
`In prior IPR proceedings, third-party Sandvine relied on the Engel reference
`
`as its primary reference to teach the ’646 Patent’s “conversational flow” limita-
`
`tions. Petitioners’ Ferdinand is a predecessor PCT publication related to, and shar-
`
`ing a specification with, Engel. As explained above, Petitioners’ reliance on Ferdi-
`
`nand is substantially different from how Sandvine’s petition used Engel.7
`
`Thus, the Board should not deny institution under §325(d) or §314(a).
`
`V. THE PURPORTED INVENTION
`
`The ’646 Patent’ purports to classify packets into “conversational flows”
`
`based on extracted packet portions, stating that prior-art monitors classified packets
`
`into “connection flows.”8 To identify “conversational flows,” the patent describes
`
`using components commonly found in prior-art network monitors, as shown below
`
`in the ’646 Patent’s Figure 3.9
`
`
`6 The German Federal Patent Court considered Ferdinand when invalidating a Eu-
`ropean counterpart to the Challenged Patents. Accordingly, the Board may find the
`German court’s decision helpful in assessing the technology described in the Chal-
`lenged Patents. Ex. 1023, 8, 30-32 (referring to Ferdinand as E2). The German
`court found the counterpart “null and void,” and that an FTP communication,
`which includes two TCP connections, taught a “conversational flow.” Id., 2, 35-36.
`7 As noted, the Petition does not rely on Engel’s application-level “dialogs” for
`“conversational flows.” Cf. Ex. 1056, 14-24.
`8 ’099 Patent, 2:34-48; Weissman ¶¶51-55.
`9 ’646 Patent, Abstract, 7:36-12:9, 27:66–29:61, Figs. 2, 3; Weissman ¶¶68-70.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`
`The ’646 Patent includes a packet acquisition device configured to receive
`
`packets passing through the connection point10 and a cache for the memory storing
`
`the flow-entry database for packets passing through at high speeds.11
`
`The ’646 Patent claims priority to Provisional Application No. 60/141,903
`
`(“’903 Provisional”), filed on June 30, 1999. Without acceding, Petitioners rely on
`
`the claimed June 30, 1999 priority.
`
`Petitioners’ declarant, Dr. Jon B. Weissman (Ex. 1006, “Weissman”) ex-
`
`
`10 ’646 Patent, 4:67-5:8.
`11 ’646 Patent, 2:56–58, 2:37-39.
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`plains how the ’646 Patent claims nothing more than well-known techniques of ex-
`
`amining network packets to identify “conversational flows.”12 The Challenged
`
`Claims recite nothing new or inventive.
`
`VI.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER §42.104(b)
`A. Claims and Statutory Grounds
`
`Petitioners ask the Board to find Claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 18 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”) unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejections
`Challenged Claims rendered obvious under §103(a) by Riddle in view
`of Ferdinand and Wakeman
`Challenged Claims rendered obvious under §103(a) by Riddle in view
`of Ferdinand and Wakeman, and further in view of Yu
`Challenged Claims rendered obvious under §103(a) by Riddle in view
`of Ferdinand and Wakeman, and further in view of RFC1945
`
`
`
`The Examiner did not consider any of these five prior-art references during
`
`the initial examination of the application that issued as the ’646 Patent, nor are
`
`these cumulative of art the Examiner considered.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art and Claim Construction
`
`In prior IPRs, the Board determined that a POSITA “had a bachelor’s degree
`
`in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related
`
`field (or its equivalent), and one to two years of experience working in networking
`
`
`12 Weissman ¶¶1-50, 68-70, 82-86, 95-178, 185-191, 195-253, 611-761, 1-999.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`environments, including at least some experience with network traffic monitors
`
`and/or analyzers.”13 Petitioners adopt this determination here.
`
`1.
`
`“Conversational Flow”
`
`Under the BRI standard in prior IPR proceedings, the Board construed “con-
`
`versational flow” based on the specification.14 This is the first time the Board will
`
`construe the claims under Phillips. Under this new framework, Patentee’s charac-
`
`terizations of the claimed invention in IPR proceedings constitute an expansion of
`
`the intrinsic record.15 Likewise, Patentee’s arguments made in district-court litiga-
`
`tion are extrinsic evidence relevant to this term’s construction.16
`
`As Patentee’s below statements make clear, the Board should construe this
`
`term more narrowly than under the previous BRI as “the sequence of packets that
`
`are exchanged in any direction as a result of specific software program activity,
`
`where such packets form multiple connection flows that are linked based on that
`
`activity.”
`
`
`13 Ex. 1056, 13-14; Weissman ¶¶195-201, In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed.
`Cir. 1995) (prior art demonstrates the level of skill).
`14 The Board’s BRI construction was “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), where some conversational flows involve
`more than one connection, and some even involve more than one exchange of
`packets between a client and server.” Ex. 1060, 10.
`15 Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`16 35 U.S.C. §301(d).
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`In prior IPR proceedings, Patentee explicitly stated that the exchanging of
`
`packets for a “conversational flow” relates packets and connection flows based on
`
`specific software program activity:
`
`Essentially, the network monitor and methods disclosed in the ‘646 pa-
`tent categorizes network transmissions into “conversational flows,”
`which relate individual packets and connection flows based on spe-
`cific application activity.17
`
`An “application” is a software program that runs on a computer, for
`example, a web browser, word processor, Skype, etc.18
`
`Further, Patentee acknowledged in prior IPR proceedings that a “conversa-
`
`tional flow” is more than merely a single connection or a connection flow:
`
`The ’646 patent treats packets as complete units, such that information
`is extracted from the packets, entire packets are related to each other as
`part of a connection flow, and ultimately connection flows are related
`to each other when they are part of an application activity (i.e., a con-
`versational flow).19
`
`
`17 Ex. 1050, 3; id., 47.
`18 Ex. 1049, 13; Ex. 1050, 51-52 (“A conversational flow relates packets and flows
`between the client and server as related to specific application activities.”); id., 43-
`44 (“conversational flow[’s] … Packets 1 and 2 are related because they are data
`streams originating from the same instance of an application (i.e., Skype)”); id., 47
`(“conversational flows … relate packets, and ultimately connection flows, when
`they are the result of an application activity”).
`19 Ex. 1050, 45-46.
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`[I]n order to eliminate the possibility of disjointed conversational ex-
`changes, it is desirable for a network packet monitor to be able to ‘vir-
`tually concatenate’—that is, to link—the first exchange with the sec-
`ond. If the clients were the same, the two packet exchanges would then
`be correctly identified as being part of the same conversational flow.”20
`
`Similarly, in prior district-court litigation, Patentee used the software pro-
`
`gram Skype to demonstrate the alleged problem the Challenged Patents ad-
`
`dressed. Citing the below figures, Patentee asserted that a given Skype call gener-
`
`ates multiple separate connection flows (for video, audio, and control infor-
`
`mation), and argued that linking those separate connection flows based on that
`
`specific software program activity (the Skype call) creates one “conversational
`
`flow.”21
`
`
`20 Ex. 1050, 17 (citing ’099 Patent, 3:1-6); id., 47 (“each packet is part of a single
`connection flow, and different connection flows are related to each other into
`conversational flows”); id., 50 (“monitor those flows to establish relationships be-
`tween individual flows to create conversational flows”).
`21 Ex. 1066, 18-19.
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`In current district-court litigation, Patentee proposes adopting the BRI con-
`
`struction.22 But Patentee’s proposal, which for example states “some conversa-
`
`tional flows involve more than one connection,” does not differentiate “conversa-
`
`tional flows” from “connection flows.”23
`
`The prior art invalidates the Challenged Claims under Petitioners’ or Pa-
`
`tentee’s proposed construction.24
`
`2.
`
`“The Flow”/“New Flow”/“Existing Flow”
`
`The term “the flow” appears in claim 1’s step (b), and refers to the previ-
`
`ously recited “conversational flow.” As it has no other possible antecedent, this
`
`term should mean “the conversational flow.”
`
`As recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 16, the Board should construe
`
`“new flow” and “existing flow” to mean “new conversational flow” and “existing
`
`
`22 Ex. 1079.
`23 After removing optional examples, Patentee’s proposed construction distills to
`“the sequence of packets exchanged as a result of an activity,” which provides no
`differentiation from a “connection flow.” Weissman ¶¶208-213.
`24 Weissman ¶¶202-214. Palo Alto Networks has argued in district court that (a)
`due to contradictory positions Patentee has taken regarding the scope of this term,
`Patentee should be estopped from arguing that the term has a definite meaning, and
`(b) to the extent the term has a definite meaning, it should be construed consistent
`with Petitioners’ proposal here. Ex.1079. See also Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Horizon
`Pharma USA, Inc., IPR2017-01995, Paper 72, 5-8 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019). Be-
`cause the prior art invalidates the Challenged Claims under Petitioners’ narrower
`construction, those issues do not affect the merits of this Petition.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`conversational flow” based on each claim’s logical operation, the prosecution his-
`
`tory, and prior IPR proceedings. Claim 16’s step (c) recites a “looking up” to deter-
`
`mine if the “flow-entry database” includes an entry for “previously encountered
`
`conversational flows.” This “looking up” determines whether the received packet
`
`belongs to an existing conversational flow (included in the database) or a new con-
`
`versational flow (not included in the database). Depending on this determination,
`
`the next steps recite “(d) if the packet is of an existing flow, classifying the
`
`packet…(e) if the packet is of a new flow, storing a new flow entry for the new
`
`flow.”25
`
`When addressing ’646 claim 16 steps (d) and (e), the Board previously
`
`found these terms mean “new conversational flow” and “existing conversational
`
`flow”:
`
`Similar to [’646] claim 1, independent claims 7 and 16 each recite a
`database of flow-entries for previously encountered “conversational
`flows….” [C]laim [16] requires “conversational flows” at least due to
`the language of limitations (d) and (e). Limitation (d) covers the situa-
`tion where there is an “existing” conversational flow and limitation
`(e) covers storing a new flow-entry in the database for a “new” con-
`versational flow.26
`
`
`25 Weissman ¶222.
`26 Ex. 1056, 24.
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`
`The Patentee confirmed this understanding for “[new/existing] flow” during
`
`the ’646 prosecution:
`
`The analyzer subsystem …, for each packet, looks up a database of flow
`records for previously encountered conversational flows to determine
`whether a signature is from an existing flow…. [T]he analyzer further
`identifies the state of the existing flow, and performs any state pro-
`cessing operations specified for the state. In the case of a newly en-
`countered flow, the analyzer includes a flow insertion and deletion en-
`gine for inserting new flows into the database of flows.27
`
`Although, in the intrinsic record, these terms each refer to the previously re-
`
`cited “conversational flow,” Patentee has proposed “[n]o construction necessary”
`
`for each term.28
`
`For eac