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: IPR2019-01293
`U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789
`____________
`
`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. 2049 Page 1 of 90
`
`

`

`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ...........................................................................................v
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8.................................4
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ..........................................4
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))...................................................4
`C.
`Designation of Counsel (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3)) ......................................5
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)) ............................................5
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES (37 C.F.R. §42.103) .................................................6
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ........................6
`A.
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))...........................................6
`B.
`Summary of the Challenges (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(1)–(2)).....................6
`C.
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3)).........................................7
`D.
`Unpatentability of the Construed Claims (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(4)) .......7
`E.
`Supporting Evidence (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5)).......................................7
`SUMMARY OF THE ’789 PATENT ..........................................................7
`Overview of the ’789 Patent......................................................................7
`A.
`Priority Date ............................................................................................10
`B.
`The Prosecution History of the ’789 Patent ............................................10
`C.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))............................11
`A.
`“Conversational Flow[s]”........................................................................11
`B.
`“State of the Flow” ..................................................................................12
`C.
`“State Operations”...................................................................................12
`D.
`“Flow-entry database”.............................................................................13
`E.
`“Parser Record”.......................................................................................13
`F.
`“Parsing/Extraction Operations” .............................................................14
`G. Means-Plus-Function Terms ...................................................................14
`VII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT PETITIONERS
`WILL PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF
`THE ’789 PATENT .....................................................................................15
`Prior Art...................................................................................................15
`1.
`Riddle.......................................................................................15
`Summary of the Problem and Solution....................................17
`The Operation of Riddle ..........................................................19
`Wakeman .................................................................................21
`Cheriton ...................................................................................22
`
`a)
`b)
`
`A.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`i
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 2 of 90
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`a)
`b)
`c)
`d)
`e)
`f)
`g)
`
`a)
`
`a)
`b)
`
`a)
`
`a)
`
`a)
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Bruins.......................................................................................23
`4.
`Hasani ......................................................................................24
`5.
`Count 1: Claims 1, 2, and 13-17 are Anticipated by Riddle or Rendered
`Obvious by the Combination of Riddle and Bruins................................25
`1.
`Claim 1.....................................................................................25
`Limitation [1 Pre].....................................................................25
`Limitation [1a] .........................................................................27
`Limitation [1b].........................................................................28
`Limitation [1c] .........................................................................30
`Limitation [1d].........................................................................38
`Limitation [1e] .........................................................................39
`Limitation [1f]..........................................................................40
`Claim 2.....................................................................................41
`Limitation [2]...........................................................................41
`Claim 13...................................................................................42
`Limitation [13a] .......................................................................42
`Limitation [13b].......................................................................43
`Claim 14...................................................................................44
`Limitation [14].........................................................................44
`Claim 15...................................................................................45
`Limitation [15].........................................................................45
`Claim 16...................................................................................46
`Limitation [16].........................................................................46
`Claim 17...................................................................................46
`Limitation [17].........................................................................46
`a)
`Count 2: Claims 44, 48, and 49 are Anticipated by Riddle or Rendered
`Obvious by Riddle in view of Bruins and Hasani...................................47
`1.
`Claim 44...................................................................................47
`Limitation [44 Pre]...................................................................47
`Limitation [44a] .......................................................................48
`Limitation [44b].......................................................................48
`Limitation [44c] .......................................................................51
`Limitation [44d].......................................................................51
`Limitation [44e] .......................................................................51
`Claim 48...................................................................................52
`Limitation [48].........................................................................52
`Claim 49...................................................................................53
`Limitation [49].........................................................................53
`a)
`Count 3: Riddle in view of Cheriton and Bruins Renders Claims 19, 20,
`31, and 42 as Obvious .............................................................................54
`ii
`
`a)
`b)
`c)
`d)
`e)
`f)
`
`a)
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 3 of 90
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`a)
`
`a)
`b)
`c)
`
`a)
`b)
`c)
`d)
`e)
`f)
`g)
`h)
`i)
`j)
`
`Claim 19...................................................................................54
`Limitation [19 Pre]...................................................................54
`Limitation [19a] .......................................................................55
`Limitation [19b].......................................................................55
`Limitation [19c] .......................................................................56
`Limitation [19d].......................................................................59
`Limitation [19e] .......................................................................62
`Limitation [19f]........................................................................63
`Limitation [19g].......................................................................65
`Limitation [19h].......................................................................65
`Limitation [19i]........................................................................66
`Claim 20...................................................................................67
`Limitation [20].........................................................................67
`Claim 31...................................................................................67
`Limitation [31a] .......................................................................67
`Limitation [31b].......................................................................68
`Limitation [31c] .......................................................................69
`Claim 42...................................................................................70
`Limitation [42].........................................................................70
`a)
`Count 4: Riddle in View Cheriton, Bruins and Further in View of
`Wakeman Renders Claims 33 and 34 as Obvious...................................70
`1.
`Claim 33...................................................................................70
`Limitation [33].........................................................................70
`Claim 34...................................................................................73
`Limitation [34].........................................................................73
`a)
`VIII. FACTORS DO NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD DENYING
`INSTITUTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 314 and 325 .................................74
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................78
`
`E.
`
`a)
`
`2.
`
`iii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 4 of 90
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, v. Nat’ Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................16
`
`STATUTES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8...........................................................................................................................4, 5
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.10(b) .........................................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.15(a)..........................................................................................................................6
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.103............................................................................................................................6
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104..................................................................................................................6, 7, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ....................................................................................................................22, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ........................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. §112.........................................................................................................................16, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .........................................................................................................................15
`
`iv
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 5 of 90
`
`

`

`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)
`
`v
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 6 of 90
`
`

`

`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”)
`
`vi
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 7 of 90
`
`

`

`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)
`
`vii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 8 of 90
`
`

`

`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”)
`
`viii
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 9 of 90
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Nokia Corp. and Nokia of America Corp. (collectively “Petitioners”) request
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 13-17, 19, 20, 31, 33, 34, 42, 44, 48, and
`
`49 (collectively, “the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789 (EX1005,
`
`“the ’789 Patent”). Sandvine Corporation and Sandvine Incorporated ULC
`
`(collectively, “Sandvine”) previously challenged the ’789 Patent in IPR2017-00629
`
`and IPR2017-00630 based primarily on U.S. Patent No. 6,115,393 (“Engel”).
`
`EX1049, 6-7, EX1050, 6-7. In both IPRs the Board denied institution because it
`
`found that Engel failed to show the claimed “conversational flow[s].” EX1049, 20;
`
`EX1050, 20-21. The prior art used in this Petition discloses all of the limitations of
`
`the Challenged Claims including the claimed “conversational flow[s].”
`
`The ’789 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
`
` 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.”
`
`1
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 10 of 90
`
`

`

`See, e.g., EX1005, 2:42-48, 12:11-12.
`
`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.” EX1043, 16. An example of the alleged
`
`problem according to the Patent Owner is demonstrated through Skype. As shown
`
`below, Skype generates multiple separate connection flows for video, audio, and
`
`control information. Id.
`
`EX1036, 18.
`
`2
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 11 of 90
`
`

`

`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.”
`
`EX1036, 19.
`
`This Petition relies upon prior art that discloses all of the limitations of the
`
`challenged claims, including the claimed conversational flows in two different ways.
`
`First, the prior art discussed below links disjointed TCP flows for FTP applications.
`
`3
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 12 of 90
`
`

`

`EX1006, ¶¶774, 512-522. The German Federal Patent Court has already invalidated
`
`a family member of the ’789 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, ¶¶774, 523-531. The provisional patent application that lead to the ’789
`
`Patent admits that consolidating disjointed flows for PointCast is a conversational
`
`flow. EX1014, 7:18-24.
`
`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 ’789 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
`
`4
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 13 of 90
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725 (IPR2019-01291), 6,651,099 (IPR2019-01290),
`
`6,839,751 (IPR2019-01289), and 6,771,646 (IPR2019-01292).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
`
`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.
`
`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.”
`
`5
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 14 of 90
`
`

`

`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 ’789 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the
`
`Challenged Claims (1, 2, 13-17, 19, 20, 31, 33, 34, 42, 44, 48, and 49) on the grounds
`
`identified herein.
`
`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 in the ’789 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`Count 1: (a) Claims 1, 2, and 13-17 are anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. §102(e),
`
`by Riddle or (b) Claims 1, 2, and 13-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Bruins.
`
`Count 2: (a) Claims 44, 48, and 49 are anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. §102(e),
`
`by Riddle or (b) 44, 48, and 49 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Riddle
`
`in view of Bruins and Hasani.
`
`6
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 15 of 90
`
`

`

`Count 3: Claims 19, 20, 31, and 42 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`over Riddle in view of Cheriton and Bruins.
`
`Count 4: Claims 33 and 34 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over
`
`Riddle in view of Cheriton, Wakeman, and Bruins.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims of the ’789 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 ’789 Patent are
`
`unpatentable under the above grounds is provided below.
`
`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 ’789 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’789 Patent
`
`The ’789 Patent discloses “[a] monitor for and a method of examining packets
`
`passing through a connection point on a computer network.” EX1005, Abstract. The
`
`’789 Patent explains that there was a need in the art for “a real-time network monitor
`7
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 16 of 90
`
`

`

`that can provide alarms notifying selected users of problems that may occur with the
`
`network or site.” Id. at 2:3–5. The disclosed monitor receives packets passing in
`
`either direction through its connection point on the network and “elucidate[s] what
`
`application programs are associated with each packet” by extracting (reading and/or
`
`copying) information from the packet, using selected parts of the extracted
`
`information to identify this packet as part of a flow, “build[ing] a unique flow
`
`signature (also called a ‘key’) for this flow,” and “matching this flow in a database
`
`of known flows 324.” Id. at 9:6–9, 13:21–28, 13:60–65.
`
`Fig. 3 depicts various components of network packet monitor 300, including
`
`parser subsystem 301, analyzer subsystem 303, and database of known flows 324.
`
`Id. at 11:50–13:65. Parser subsystem 300 “parses the packet and determines the
`
`protocol types and associated headers for each protocol layer that exists in the packet
`
`302,” “extracts characteristic portions (signature information) from the packet 302,”
`
`and builds the “unique flow signature (also called a ‘key’) for this flow.” Id. at
`
`12:19–13:28, 33:30–34:33 (describing an example of how the disclosed monitor
`
`builds signatures and flow states in the context of a Sun Remote Procedure Call
`
`(RPC), where, after all of the required processing, “KEY-2 may . . . be used to
`
`recognize packets that are in any way associated with the application ‘a2’”), Fig. 2.
`
`8
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 17 of 90
`
`

`

`EX1005, Fig. 3.
`
`Analyzer system 303 then determines whether the packet has a matching flow-
`
`entry in database of flows 324, and processes the packet accordingly, including, for
`
`example, determining whether the packet belongs to an existing conversational flow
`
`or a new (i.e., not previously encountered) flow and, in the case of the latter,
`
`performing state processing to determine whether the conversational flow has been
`
`“fully characterized” and the classification of the conversational flow for the flow
`
`can be “finalized.” Id. at 13:60–16:52.
`
`9
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 18 of 90
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The ’789 Patent was filed on Oct. 14, 2003 as Ser. No. 10/684,776, as a
`
`continuation of the ’099 Patent, and 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 ’789 Patent, for purposes of
`
`this Petition only it is assumed that the ’789 Patent is entitled to that date.
`
`The ’789 Patent incorporates the ’099, ’751, ’725, and 646 Patents, which also
`
`claim priority to the same provisional application, by reference. EX1005, 1:6-45.
`
`C.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’789 Patent
`
`On October 14, 2003, the ’789 Patent was filed with 59 claims. EX1019, 2.
`
`That same day, Applicants filed a preliminary amendment cancelling claims 1-10,
`
`as they were non-distinguishable from the Parent ’099 Patent. EX1019, 104-112.
`
`On October 1, 2004, the Examiner rejected claims 11-59 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(e) as anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 6,483,804 to Muller (“Muller”). EX1019,
`
`174-178. On March 2, 2005, the Applicants submitted a declaration of inventor
`
`Russell Dietz to swear behind Muller. EX1019, 191-195. The declaration included
`
`exhibits allegedly showing that the Applicants had conceived of and reduced to
`
`practice independent claims 11, 29, and 54 prior to Muller. EX1019, 192-195. The
`
`dates on the exhibits were redacted making it impossible to determine their exact
`
`10
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 19 of 90
`
`

`

`date. EX1019, 195-437. On May 3, 2005, the Examiner allowed the claims. EX1019,
`
`445-447.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(3))
`
`A.
`
`“Conversational Flow[s]”
`
`The term “conversational flow[s]” is in every independent claim. The Patent
`
`Owner previously agreed this term means:
`
`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—and where some
`conversational flows involve more than one connection, and
`some even involve more than one exchange of packets between
`a client and server.
`
`EX1043, 8; EX1044, 8.
`
`In prior IPRs, the Board applied the Patent Owner’s construction. Id. Further,
`
`the Patent Owner agreed to this construction in a previous district court litigation.
`
`EX1020, 6.
`
`In the related district court action, Petitioners have proposed that
`
`“conversational flow[s]” means: “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 the activity creates multiple connection
`
`11
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 20 of 90
`
`

`

`flows.” EX1012, 7. The prior art below invalidates the ’789 Patent under both
`
`proposed constructions.
`
`B.
`
`“State of the Flow”
`
`The term “state of the flow” appears in claims and claims 13 and 44 of the
`
`’789 Patent. According to the Patent Owner “state of the flow” means “an indication
`
`of all previous events in the flow that lead to recognition of the content of all of the
`
`protocol levels.” EX1043, 31; EX1044, 31; see also EX1006, ¶¶136-141. This
`
`indication of previous events includes “parameters such as the time, length of the
`
`conversational flow, data rate, etc.” EX1005, 5:34-41; EX1006, ¶140.
`
`C.
`
`“State Operations”
`
`The term “state operations” appears in ’789 Patent claims 13, 15, 17, 44, and
`
`49. The Patent Owner alleges that “[o]ne of the innovative aspects of the [Challenged
`
`Patents] are the techniques taught to determine the protocols used in data packets
`
`and the identity of the application responsible for generating them and to ultimately
`
`determine if the packet belongs to an existing conversational flow.” EX1044, 32.
`
`According to the Patent Owner the proper construction of “state operation” is
`
`“an operation to be performed while the state processor is in a particular state.” Id.
`
`at 33. The Patent Owner has admitted “the claims themselves often define specific
`
`12
`
`Packet Intelligence Ex. 2049 Page 21 of 90
`
`

`

`state operations required for a given claim.” Id. There are numerous examples of
`
`state operations in the dependent claims. EX1006, ¶146.
`
`D.
`
`“Flow-entry database”
`
`The term “flow entry database” appears in claims 1, 19, 33, and 44 of the ’789
`
`Patent. In a previous district co