`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 47
`Entered: August 3, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. and PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Wednesday, June 9, 2021
`_________________
`
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ANDREW RADSCH, ESQUIRE
`SCOTT A. MCKEOWN, ESQUIRE
`JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQUIRE
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303
`(650) 617 4018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADAM A. ALLGOOD, ESQUIRE
`JOSEPH EDELL, ESQUIRE
`ALAN M. FISCH, ESQUIRE
`BILL SIGLER, ESQUIRE
`JEFFREY SALTMAN, ESQUIRE
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`(202) 362-3500
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ALLEN BULLWINKEL, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL HEIM, ESQUIRE
`CHRIS LIMBACHER, ESQUIRE
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
`1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713) 221-2024
`
`David Saunders, Esquire, Juniper Networks
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, June 9,
`2021, commencing at 12:33 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE WHITE: All right. Well, good morning or
`afternoon, depending on your time zones. I'm Judge White.
` And this is an oral hearing in IPR2020-00336 and
`IPR2020-00337, between Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc., and
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc., and Patent Owner, Packet
`Intelligence LLC, concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725 B1 and
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 B1.
` With me today also on the Panel, we have Judges
`Boudreau and Hamann.
` So let's start with appearances for Petitioner. In
`order to assist the court reporter, it would be great if you
`could not only state your name, but also the spelling of your
`name. So let's start with Petitioner.
` MR. RADSCH: Thank you, Your Honor. And good
`morning, good afternoon. Apologies for the technical
`difficulties.
` This is Andrew Radsch, R-A-D-S-C-H, from Ropes &
`Gray, for Petitioner, Palo Alto Networks. I'm joined here in
`our Silicon Valley office by Jim Batchelder, and by -- in
`Washington, D.C. by my colleague, Scott McKeown.
` MR. ALLGOOD: Thank you, Judge --
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay.
` MR. ALLGOOD: -- White. This is Adam Allgood,
`A-L-L-G-O-O-D, with Fisch Sigler. Also for Petitioner. And
`I'm joined on the phone today with lead counsel for these
`IPRs for Petitioner, Mr. Joe Edell, also Mr. Alan Fisch, Mr.
`4
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`Bill Sigler, Mr. Jeff Saltman, and then also joining us is
`the Director of Litigation for Juniper Networks, Mr. David
`Saunders.
` JUDGE WHITE: And who will be presenting for
`Petitioner today?
` MR. RADSCH: Your Honor, this is Andrew Radsch, again
`from Ropes & Gray. I will be presenting the opening remarks
`for Petitioner, with the exception of two issues that Mr.
`Allgood will address; namely, the dispute about flow-entry
`databases and associative cache. And Mr. McKeown will
`deliver our rebuttal remarks.
` JUDGE WHITE: Thank you.
` Okay. And who do we have for Patent Owner?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is
`Allan Bullwinkel of Heim, Payne & Chorush. A-L-L-A-N
`B-U-L-L-W-I-N-K-E-L. On behalf of Patent Owner, Packet
`Intelligence.
` With me today are co-counsel, Michael Heim, H-E-I-M,
`and Chris Limbacher, L-I-M-B-A-C-H-E-R.
` JUDGE WHITE: And Mr. Bullwinkel, will you be
`presenting for Patent Owner today?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Yes, Your Honor, I will be
`presenting.
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay. Before we begin, I'll just go
`over a few administrative matters. I don't know if you guys
`have been participating in our virtual hearings before, but
`in case you have not, just some information, and if you've
`5
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`done it before, just a refresher.
` So we're all over videoconference. Please make sure
`your microphone is muted when you're not speaking so that we
`can reduce background noise. And when it is your turn to
`speak, please double check that you are off mute so that we
`can hear what it is you have to say.
` When it comes to referring to your demonstratives,
`please clearly state for the record what slide, page number,
`paper, exhibit, what have you, you're referring to. It helps
`the proceedings move smoothly today, and it helps to keep our
`record clear when time comes to review our transcripts.
` At the end of the proceeding, after we adjourn, I
`would appreciate it if you would hold the line for just a few
`moments so that the court reporter can have an opportunity to
`ask any questions, if there's anything that need to be
`clarified, spellings and the like, so that we can have a
`clear record.
` As far as the order of proceedings today, Petitioner
`will have 60 minutes of total argument time in which to
`present their case in chief. Petitioner may reserve some
`time for rebuttal. Patent Owner, likewise, will have 60
`minutes of total argument time to present its case in chief,
`and may reserve some time for surrebuttal.
` I'll give everyone a warning when you get close to
`your time, about five minutes out, so that you can bring
`yourself to the conclusion within the times that you've
`specified.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` As for objections, we ask you not to object while the
`other party is presenting. If you think that there is
`something wrong with a demonstrative or an argument
`presented, when it is your turn, please inform us of what
`that objection is, and raise it at that time.
` So as far as rebuttal time, Petitioner, how much time
`would you like to -- would you like to reserve any, and if
`so, how much?
` MR. RADSCH: Thank you, Your Honor. Petitioner would
`like to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal, please.
` JUDGE WHITE: And Patent Owner, how much time would
`you like to reserve for surrebuttal?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Patent Owner would like to reserve
`ten minutes, please.
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay. Before we begin, there was one
`other thing I wanted to bring up.
` This case -- these cases being presented this morning
`have a number of related and overlapping issues with the
`cases that will be presented later today in IPR2020-338, 339
`and 486. And due to the -- to the similar nature of these
`proceedings, and the number of overlapping issues, for
`efficiency purposes, I would like to enter this transcript
`into those proceedings, and vice versa, so that these
`transcripts will be available in both cases.
` Petitioner, would you have any objection to having
`these transcripts entered into the other proceedings?
` MR. RADSCH: No objection from Petitioner, Your
`7
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`Honor.
` JUDGE WHITE: Patent Owner, likewise, do you have any
`objections to entering these transcripts into the other
`related proceedings?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: No objection, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay. Are there any questions from
`counsel before we get started?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Not at this time.
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay. Well, then, Petitioner, you may
`begin when ready.
` MR. RADSCH: Thank you, Your Honor. And may I please
`the Board. Again, this is Andrew Radsch from Ropes & Gray
`for Petitioner.
` I will be referring to the Petitioner's
`demonstratives during argument in this proceeding. Those
`were filed as Exhibits 1113 in both proceedings. I may also
`reference Patent Owner's demonstratives, as well as the two
`patents at issue in this proceed, and their related '099
`patent as Exhibit 1001.
` Turning to Petitioner's demonstratives, if you would
`turn to slide 5, please. We have included at slide 5
`exemplary claim language from one of the claims of the '646
`patent, or two of the claims, rather, claims 1 and 3, and
`highlighted there the four issues that we understand to be in
`dispute. And two of them also are in dispute with the '725
`patent.
` So the overlapping issues in dispute have to do with
`8
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`conversational flow, and state of the flow. Then,
`specifically to the '646 patent are issues of flow to
`database and the associative cache limitation of claim grade.
` I would like to start this morning, Your Honors, with
`claim construction, specifically to talk about the meaning of
`the term, conversational flow. And if -- if Your Honors
`would please turn to Petitioner's slide number 7. Here we
`have set forth an overview of the dispute on conversational
`flow. In our position, as we've explained and hopefully
`shown in our papers, is that the trial grounds render obvious
`the challenged claims under both the Board's preliminary
`construction and under Patent Owner's incorrect limiting
`construction of conversational flow.
` So ultimately, our view is that regardless of the
`construction adopted, the prior art clearly discloses
`conversational flows. Given the amount of ink spilled into
`briefing on the -- on the construction of this term, we would
`like to address Patent Owner's arguments about the
`construction of this term, and why they are incorrect.
` Turning to slide 8 of Petitioner's demonstratives.
`As we note here, conversational flow is not a term of art, as
`we note at the top of the slide, it was a coined term.
`There's no evidence or arguments that this is a term that had
`a meaning in the art. This is a term that Petitioner -- or
`that the Patent Owner coined, and then it defined that term
`in the specification, except for the specific lexicography as
`we've showed here in the on '099 specification. That
`9
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`specification is incorporated by a reference in the two
`patents that we're dealing with in this proceeding.
` And the Board's preliminary construction adopted
`that, that lexicography. And that is correct. And I'll note
`that's the same definition that we've just looked at on slide
`4 -- sorry, slide 5 of Petitioner's demonstratives. We're
`claiming one of the '646 patents itself defines the term,
`conversational flow, the exact same wording as found in the
`'099 specification as to the limiting portion of that
`definition as highlighted on slide 8.
` We have both claimed one of the '646 patents and the
`'099 specification defining conversational flow to be a
`sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a
`result of an activity. That's what the Board adopted
`correctly as construction in this proceeding.
` Turning to slide 13, I would like to address why
`Patent Owner's limiting statements in this proceeding about
`conversational flow are incorrect. It is argued, as shown on
`slide 9, that a conversational flow must be limited to an
`advocation activity involving a particular user or client.
`And it has said that throughout its briefing in this
`proceeding.
` As you know, the Board has already considered that --
`those arguments twice, and has them rejected them twice both
`in its Institution Decision, and again, in its request --
`denial of a request for a hearing. The position that the
`Patent Owner has advanced is that the exemplary language of
`10
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`the '099 specification, exemplary of what an activity can be,
`is limiting.
` Patent Owner has argued that a -- as shown on the top
`of slide 9, that a conversational flow involves an
`application activity involving the same client. However,
`that is merely an example, expressly so, in the
`specification, and therefore, is not and cannot be limiting.
` The Federal Circuit has been clear, as the Board has
`recognized in cases such as Catalina Marketing, that words,
`indirectly, words like for instance, or such as, are
`exemplary and not limiting.
` If we could, please, turn to slide 13.
` Patent Owner's argument to redefine the term,
`conversational flow, away from the expressed longer
`lexicography is based upon its attempt to redefine the word,
`activity, as one that requires specific client or user
`activity. That's an argument that is contrary to law. As
`the Board well knows, Federal Circuit requires there be clear
`lexicography or disclaimer to redefine a term. And they're
`seeking here to refine the term, activity. Activity is used
`in the specification in its ordinary and normal sense not
`just to refer to client-specific activity.
` At the bottom of slide 13, we point out the statement
`from the provisional application that's incorporated by
`reference into these patents, that Any network activity -- it
`gives an example -- will produce an exchange of the sequence
`of packets called a conversational flow.
`11
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` So Patent Owner argues that activity must be
`client-specific without pointing to any lexicography or any
`disclaimer about that term. What it has pointed to in its
`briefing, and again, it does this in its slides that it has
`-- that it will be presenting today, that it points to
`statements from the background of the '099 specification
`about what are the advantages or objects of the invention.
`And there are multiple objects and processes for the alleged
`invention here. But what's important about that statement is
`one, none of those are statements of lexicography that's the
`word, activity. And secondly, those statements ignore other
`statements in the specifications. And the '099 background
`discussion is different than the background discussion found
`in the '725 and '646 patents.
` And if you look at, for example, column 1, starting
`at line 60, through 62, of the '725 patent, it explains that
`there has been a need -- there's a need for realtime network
`monitor that can provide details as to the application
`programs being used. So it's explaining that what's needed
`in the -- in this context is a monitor that can understand
`the application programs being used. It says nothing about
`client-specific use application program.
` And it goes on at column 2, starting at line 30, to
`explain that what's -- what's desirable is that a monitor
`should allow a user to customize the type of data that is
`selected and analyzed.
` And Patent Owner's construction or arguments about
`12
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`the construction contravene those statements. It is arguing
`against that responsibility or require a little specificity
`of requiring client-specific flows rather than permitting, as
`the lexicography does, flows based upon other network
`activity.
` So for those reasons, we believe the Board should
`maintain its construction and the reject Patent Owner's.
` JUDGE WHITE: Well, Counselor, it seems that I
`understand Patent Owner's argument in part to be that we are
`stopping short of the actual lexicographer language by
`leaving out the rest of the sentence, the for instance going
`on and on language there, and that those exemplary statements
`should be defining. And because -- and because they view
`them as defining, that is where they get into this, which you
`consider to be more narrow claim language.
` So I want to hear more from you as to why we should
`stop at the word “activity“ and not keep going, especially in
`light of them finding some Federal Circuit cases that have
`allowed for the inclusion of more exemplary language in the
`construction.
` MR. RADSCH: Certainly, Your Honor. And I believe
`Patent Owner's arguments require sort of two steps. First,
`it says you must include exemplary language. And again, the
`Federal Circuit has been clear that the words, for instance,
`are by definition not limiting. So that will -- so that's
`not fairly part of the lexicography of this -- of this term,
`because it's merely an example.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` And as we'll note on slide 10 of our demonstratives,
`with the Federal Circuit in the NextScout appeal of a prior
`action by a patent owner, when it commented on that
`definition of conversational flow, it used only the limiting
`language to refer to how conversational flow is defined.
` Again, if we look at '646 claim 1, claim 1 defines
`conversational flow without that exemplary language. But
`even if that exemplary language should be included, it's
`merely exemplary, and it's not limiting.
` The case that they point to to argue that the Federal
`Circuit has adopted exemplary language as limiting does not
`stand for the proposition that they propose it for. That's
`the Realtime Data case, and they repeat that in their slides
`at slide 13. That that case, as the Federal Circuit defined
`the term, or construed the term, data field type. There was
`no lexicography in that term. There's merely examples and
`specification.
` I think what's critical is when the Federal Circuit
`construed that term, it did so with reference to those
`examples, but did not limit those examples. It did not limit
`the construction to those examples. Rather, it said that the
`construction of data field type was based upon the content of
`the data. It gave examples of the content, and left in the
`construction the open-ended, and other data types. So it
`took the examples, used those in the construction, but left
`it open so as not to limit -- limit it to exemplary language.
` In Federal -- and Patent Owner's arguments are to the
`14
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`contrary. Their argument is to take one example, and to
`limit the claims by that example.
` As we point to that in our briefing, there are
`embodiments, including the SAP embodiment from the
`provisional application that is an example of two different
`clients, both using a print service activity that are defined
`as being part of the same conversational flow. So there are
`examples that are contrary to Patent Owner's arguments.
` JUDGE HAMANN: Counsel, this is Judge Hamann. I'm
`trying to understand, you know. Obviously, there's a dispute
`about the for instance and whether that should be part of the
`construction. But even notwithstanding that, there seems to
`be a dispute as to the actual construction for activity. And
`it seems like Petitioner is saying plain, ordinary meaning,
`and Patent Owner may be saying something different. But it
`seems to me that there's a dispute as to the word, activity,
`that may be ripe for construction.
` Did Petitioner deal with specifically how activity
`should be construed, and why Patent Owner's construction may
`be inappropriate?
` MR. RADSCH: Yes, I think we've explained that
`activity as shown and has been quoted in your briefing and
`pointed out today, for example, in the provisional
`application -- this is at slide 13. The provisional says,
`Any network activity. It doesn't say client-specific
`activity. It says, Any network activity will produce an
`exchange of a sequence of packets called a conversational
`15
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`flow.
` As we also pointed out in our briefing, in the
`background discussion in these specifications, they refer the
`patent -- the patentee referred to prior art network activity
`monitors that it said lacked various features. Again,
`referring to activity in its ordinary sense of a broad scope
`of activity, not limited to something that is
`client-specific.
` Again, there's no lexicography, no disclaimer, of the
`term, activity, to limit it to only client-specific activity.
`And Patent Owner has not made the contention that there is.
` JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. And so -- again, Judge Hamann
`speaking.
` So what meaning would Petitioner have ascribed to the
`word, activity, in this phrase?
` MR. RADSCH: So I think our -- our position is that
`the Board doesn't necessarily need to determine the outer
`bounds of that term. The reason is because the prior art as
`we've set forth clearly demonstrates the same activity
`monitoring that the patents describe. For example, as Patent
`Owner admits, they're capable of identifying the Skype
`conversations as the prior art is, they identify disjointed
`FTP flows. They certainly identify application-based
`activity as well as client-specific application like based
`activity. So at a minimum, activity extends to identifying
`the application involved in any -- in the -- in the network
`activity.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. Does the challenged patent have
`a specific example of determining the application with
`multiple clients?
` MR. RADSCH: Yes. So for example, in the -- we have
`a slide number 12 that addresses this. This is an example
`from the provisional of the SAP, the use of the print service
`on a -- by a client. So those examples show that. In the
`first instance, the client will make a request to a print
`server, identify a print service, and later over a separate
`connection, that client, or a different client, may use that
`print service; may actually request a print job to be
`performed. It explains that those are two different
`connections.
` And what the provisional explains is that the two
`packet exchanges would be correctly identified as being part
`of the same flow if the clients are the same. It goes on to
`say, They would even be recognized if the clients were not
`the same.
` And I think that the word, they, is critical there,
`because it's referring back to the two packet exchanges. In
`this case, it would be the first exchange for the first
`client to identify the print service activity. In the second
`exchange by a second client to use that activity. They're
`saying those would all be recognized as being part of the
`same flow. The same conversational flow.
` JUDGE HAMANN: And why does Petitioner point to the
`provisional as opposed to the challenged patent for this
`17
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`disclosure?
` MR. RADSCH: So the provisional is incorporated by
`reference into the specifications of the challenged patent,
`so it's part of the specification. The specifications of the
`'646 and '725 have similar disclosures. The portions are
`spread out. So part of this discussion comes at one -- one
`part of the specification, and a couple paragraphs later, the
`discussion of the separate clients appear. We think it -- it
`appears more clearly in this context, but in any event, the
`provisional is incorporated by reference into the
`specification. So the same -- the same language does appear
`in the -- in the specification of the '725, '646, and the
`'099 patents.
` JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you.
` MR. RADSCH: So we're relying upon it here because of
`the clarity and its enclosure as referenced.
` JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you.
` MR. RADSCH: I just want to -- I do want to point out
`that Patent Owner has argued that the statements they would
`be -- even be recognized that the clients were not the same.
`And again, that's referring to the two different clients
`using a print request. They have said that that means only
`that the second request would be recognized as being a print
`service activity. Not that they would be recognized as being
`a conversational flow.
` But that ignores the word, they, in that sentence.
`They must refer back to the two packet exchanges. That is
`18
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`the first exchange to identify print service activity, and
`second, disjointed exchange from a different client to use
`that print activity. That is a -- that is a example in
`specification of a conversational flow.
` Again, we think that the prior art clearly and
`expressly discloses conversational flows even under the
`Patent Owner's narrow meaning of proposed construction.
` I'll be happy to turn to prior art now unless you
`have other questions about claim construction.
` Okay. So if we could, please, turn to slide number
`21 of Petitioner's demonstratives. As we see at the top
`here, so Riddle references the -- the reference used in
`grounds 1 and -- ground 1, rather, for teaching
`conversational flow. It teaches conversational flow both
`under the Board's and PO, Patent Owner's, constructions.
` So Patent Owner admits, as we note here, that Riddle
`will identify and combine activities in the same -- the same
`application program together. So it admits that Riddle is
`capable of identifying file share relating to work, capable
`of identifying Netflix. That meets the Board's construction.
`It also, as I'll explain, meets the Patent Owner's
`construction. So their own admission shows that Riddle
`teaches a conversational flow.
` Also, as we point out in the briefing, our position,
`too, is that the Patent Owner has waived arguments that
`Riddle does not teach conversational flow. And under the
`Board's construction is it did not address that construction
`19
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`in its briefing.
` Turning, if we could, please, to slide 4 of
`Petitioner's demonstratives.
` What -- what we've explained and what Riddle
`discloses is that in a network monitor that uses selectable
`information to classify traffic. As Patent Owner has argued
`that, as we show, Your Honors, the slide, that Riddle does
`not classify traffic per user, but only by the type of
`traffic based on profit -- property, such as the ports being,
`used is utterly inconsistent with the teachings of Riddle in
`its expressed disclosure.
` As we show here, for example, table 2 discloses the
`components, plural, from which traffic classes may be built.
`And it explains, for example, that a traffic class could be
`-- it included components such as an IP address, a port
`number Mac address for a client inside a network, and the
`same information for a server outside the network, as well as
`application information.
` So this teaching, as Dr. Weissman has explained, you
`can identify clients specific FTP flows, for example. And
`Patent Owner's own expert, Ms. Quigley, admits that Riddle
`teaches classified flows based on selectable information. At
`paragraph 63 of her Declaration, for example, she testifies
`that, Classifiers in Riddle are made up of attributes or
`specifications that allow categorizing of patents into
`traffic classes that may be of interest to the network
`manager.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` And here, we have an example of what may be of
`interest to network manager are client-specific FTP flows.
` We turn to slide 25. Here, we're -- here, we explain
`and address the teachings around service aggregates in
`Riddle. Again, service aggregates, as well as recognition of
`PointCast flows are what Petitioner has relied upon for the
`teaching of conversational flow. The service aggregate is
`described in Riddle as being between a client and a server.
`It says nothing about aggregating all FTP close together. It
`says that they're an FTP client in conversation with an FTP
`server, and the service aggregate will recognize and
`aggregate those flows, those disjointed activity flows. It
`goes on to say, These types of conversations involving FTP
`are between the same two hosts.
` So quite contrary to what Patent Owner argues, Riddle
`discloses client-specific conversational flows.
` Dr. Weissman testified, as shown on the bottom of
`slide 25, without rebuttal, As an example of a traffic class,
`Riddle is an FTP application using a specific client side IP
`address and a specific server IP address.
` Again, that's not rebutted by Petitioner -- by Patent
`Owner or its expert.
` Turning briefly to slide 26, we show here Riddle
`teaches conversational flow. Again, in its claims, as Riddle
`claim 1 and claim 2, which Patent Owner never addresses,
`claim 1 says that You can create a flow specification based
`on multiple different attributes. One or more, and one of
`21
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`those attributes is a pair of hosts. We can identify flow
`classification based on the hosts involved as well as the
`application involved. Riddle -- riddle's claim 2 teaches
`that you can recognize a disjointed second flow, or a FTP or
`the other service aggregate, and recognize those together as
`one service aggregate. So that is an expressed, clear
`teaching of a conversational flow.
` And you know, Patent Owner's argument, and they've
`made this multiple times, is that Riddle would just aggregate
`all Skype flows together. So if there are multiple Skype
`calls in a network, it wouldn't specify one Skype call from a
`different -- another client's Skype call. All that we've
`gone over is totally inconsistent with that argument. But I
`think it's important to recognize that argument doesn't
`matter from what the claims require or what Riddle discloses.
`The claims don't require there be a multiplicity of flows.
`These claims were directed to operation