`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., VMWARE,
`INC., JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY, AND ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`SABLE NETWORKS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01712
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KEVIN JEFFAY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,243,593
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1003
`Palo Alto Networks v. Sable Networks
`IPR2020-01712
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1(cid:1)
`
`SUMMARY OF GROUNDS ....................................................................... 7(cid:1)
`
`I.(cid:1)
`
`II.(cid:1)
`
`III.(cid:1) QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE ...................................................... 7(cid:1)
`
`IV.(cid:1) LEGAL UNDERSTANDING .................................................................... 13(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1) My Understanding of Claim Construction ........................................ 13(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................... 14(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1) My Understanding of Obviousness................................................... 15(cid:1)
`
`V.(cid:1)
`
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 16(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1)
`
`Traffic on computer networks increased dramatically with the
`increase of publicly available content on networks. .......................... 16(cid:1)
`
`Network administrators deployed traffic shaping to preserve
`network integrity and performance. .................................................. 18(cid:1)
`
`It was widely recognized that better classification techniques
`were needed to identify misbehaving flows. ..................................... 20(cid:1)
`
`VI.(cid:1) TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ’593 PATENT .................................. 22(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1)
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................... 25(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`“means for maintaining a set of behavioral statistics for
`the flow . . .” (claims 25 and 29) ............................................ 26(cid:1)
`
`“means for determining . . . whether the flow is
`exhibiting undesirable behavior” (claim 25) ........................... 27(cid:1)
`
`“means for enforcing . . . a penalty on the flow” (claims
`25 and 32) .............................................................................. 28(cid:1)
`
`“means for computing . . . a badness factor for the flow”
`(claim 29) ............................................................................... 28(cid:1)
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`“means for determining . . . a penalty to impose on the
`flow” (claim 31) ..................................................................... 29(cid:1)
`
`“means for determining an increased drop rate to impose
`on one or more information packets to belonging to the
`flow” (claim 37) ..................................................................... 29(cid:1)
`
`“means for imposing the increased drop rate on the flow”
`(claims 27 and 38) .................................................................. 30(cid:1)
`
`“means for receiving a particular information packet
`belonging to the flow” (claims 43 and 44) .............................. 31(cid:1)
`
`“means for determining whether to forward the particular
`information packet to a destination” (claim 43) ...................... 31(cid:1)
`
`5.(cid:1)
`
`6.(cid:1)
`
`7.(cid:1)
`
`8.(cid:1)
`
`9.(cid:1)
`
`10.(cid:1)
`
`“means for updating . . . the set of behavioral statistics to
`reflect processing of the particular information packet”
`(claims 43 and 44) .................................................................. 32(cid:1)
`
`VII.(cid:1) TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART ..................................... 33(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1) Yung ................................................................................................ 33(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1)
`
`Copeland .......................................................................................... 38(cid:1)
`
`Four-Steps Whitepaper ..................................................................... 41(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1) Ye .................................................................................................... 42(cid:1)
`
`VIII.(cid:1) GROUNDS OF REJECTION .................................................................... 45(cid:1)
`
`A.(cid:1) Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 17, 18, 25-27, 37, and 38 are
`obvious over Yung. .......................................................................... 45(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`5.(cid:1)
`
`Independent claim 1 ............................................................... 45(cid:1)
`
`Independent claim 2 ............................................................... 71(cid:1)
`
`Independent claims 4 and 5 .................................................... 74(cid:1)
`
`Independent claim 25 ............................................................. 75(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 6 and 26..................................................... 78(cid:1)
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`Dependent claims 7 and 27..................................................... 79(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 17 and 37 ................................................... 80(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 18 and 38 ................................................... 80(cid:1)
`
`6.(cid:1)
`
`7.(cid:1)
`
`8.(cid:1)
`
`B.(cid:1)
`
`Ground 2: Claims 9-13, 19-24, 29-33, and 39-44 are obvious
`over Yung in view of Copeland. ....................................................... 81(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1) Motivation to Combine .......................................................... 81(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`5.(cid:1)
`
`6.(cid:1)
`
`7.(cid:1)
`
`8.(cid:1)
`
`9.(cid:1)
`
`Independent claim 9 ............................................................... 86(cid:1)
`
`Independent claim 29 ............................................................. 89(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 10 and 30. .................................................. 91(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 11 and 31 ................................................... 92(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 12 and 32 ................................................... 93(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 13 and 33 ................................................... 94(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 19 and 39 ................................................... 95(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 20 and 40 ................................................... 96(cid:1)
`
`10.(cid:1) Dependent claims 21 and 41 ................................................... 97(cid:1)
`
`11.(cid:1) Dependent claims 22 and 42 ................................................... 99(cid:1)
`
`12.(cid:1) Dependent claims 23 and 43 ................................................. 100(cid:1)
`
`13.(cid:1) Dependent claims 24 and 44 ................................................. 103(cid:1)
`
`C.(cid:1)
`
`Ground 3: Claim 3 is obvious over Yung in view of Four-Steps
`Whitepaper. .................................................................................... 104(cid:1)
`
`1.(cid:1) Motivation to Combine ........................................................ 104(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`Independent claim 3 ............................................................. 108(cid:1)
`
`D.(cid:1) Ground 4: Claims 8, 14-16, 28 , and 34-36 are obvious over
`Yung in view of Copeland in view of Ye. ...................................... 113(cid:1)
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`1.(cid:1) Motivation to Combine ........................................................ 113(cid:1)
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 8, 14, 28, and 34 ...................................... 117(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 15 and 35 ................................................. 119(cid:1)
`
`Dependent claims 16 and 36 ................................................. 120(cid:1)
`
`IX.(cid:1) CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 121(cid:1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593 to Natchu (“ʼ593 patent”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593 (Application
`No. 11/022,599) (“’593 Pros. Hist.”)
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Curriculum Vitae of Kevin Jeffay
`U.S. Patent No. 7,664,048 to Yung et al. (“Yung”)
`“Four Steps to Application Performance Across the Network
`With Packeteer’s PacketShaper®,” archived by web.archive.org
`on March 17, 2003, with Affidavit of Elizabeth Rosenberg at-
`tached (“Four-Steps Whitepaper”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,185,368 to Copeland (“Copeland”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,295,516 to Ye (“Ye”)
`U.S. Publication No. 2004/0090923 to Kan
`Gerber, A., et al., “P2P, the Gorilla in the Cable,” Proceedings of
`National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
`(2003)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,225,271 to DiBiasio et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,561,515 to Ross
`Ben-Nun, M., “Taming The Peer To Peer Monster Using Service
`Control,” Fall Technical Forum (2003)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,839,321 to Chiruvolu
`U.S. Patent No. 7,088,678 to Freed et al.
`“NetEnforcerTM, QoS/SLA Enforcement for Service Providers,”
`Allot Communications (2001)
`“PacketShaper® Features for PacketWise 5.2,” Packeteer®, Inc.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,366,101 to Varier et al.
`Andrikopoulos, I., Pavlou, G., “Supporting Differentiated Ser-
`vices in MPLS Networks,” 1999 Seventh International Workshop
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`on Quality of Service, including Declaration from Rachel J. Wat-
`ters, Librarian and Director of Wisconsin TechSearch (“An-
`drikopoulos”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,385,924 to Riddle (“Riddle924”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,660,248 to Duffield et al.
`Sen, S., et al., “Accurate, Scalable In-Network Identification of
`P2P Traffic Using Application Signatures,” Proceedings of the
`13th International Conference on World Wide Web (2004)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,313,100 to Turner et al.
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0186661 to Santiago et al.
`U.S. Publication No. 2003/0118029 to Maher, III et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,296,288 to Hill et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,904,529 to Swander
`U.S. Patent No. 6,385,170 to Chiu et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,934,256 to Jacobson et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,342,929 to Bremler-Barr et al.
`PacketShaper® System Datasheet
`Boniforti, C., “Securing a University’s Bandwidth with Pack-
`etShaper,” SANS Institute (2003)
`Braden, R., Postel, J., “RFC 1009 – Requirements for Internet
`Gateways” (1987)
`Roughan, M., et al., “Class-of-Service Mapping for QoS: A Sta-
`tistical Signature-based Approach to IP Traffic Classification,”
`Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet
`Measurement (2004)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,027,393 to Cheriton
`U.S. Patent No. 7,433,304 to Galloway et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,357 to Packer et al.
`Szigeti, T., “QoS Best Practices,” Cisco Systems (2004)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,412,000 to Riddle et al. (“Riddle000”)
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`1039
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`Sable Networks v. Fortinet, Inc. et al. (Palo Alto Networks, HPE,
`Aruba), 5:20-cv-00109, Scheduling Order (E.D. Tex. Sept. 10,
`2020)
`Sable Networks v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 20-cv-00524, Schedul-
`ing Order (W.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2020)
`Sable Networks v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., 20-cv-00569,
`Scheduling Order (W.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2020)
`Sable Networks v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Palo Alto Networks’
`Motion to Transfer Venue, 5:20-cv-00111 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24,
`2020)
`Sable Networks v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al.,
`5:20-cv-00120, HPE’s & Aruba’s Motion to Transfer Venue,
`(E.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2020)
`Sable Networks v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 20-cv-00524 Juniper’s
`Motion to Transfer Venue (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2020)
`VMware, Inc., Form 10-Q (Sept. 4, 2020)
`Sable Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 20-cv-00524, Pre-
`liminary Infringement Contentions
`Le, L., et al., “Differential Congestion Notification: Taming the
`Elephants,” Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Confer-
`ence on Network Protocols (Oct. 2004)
`Parris M., et al., “Lightweight Active Router-Queue Management
`for Multimedia Networking,” Multimedia Computing and Net-
`working (January 1999)
`Sable Networks v. Fortinet, Inc. et al. (Palo Alto Networks, HPE,
`Aruba), 5:20-cv-00109, Consolidation Order (E.D. Tex. Sept. 10,
`2020)
`Sable Networks, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc., 20-cv-00569,
`Preliminary Infringement Chart
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`I, Dr. Kevin Jeffay, declare as follows:
`
`I.(cid:1)
`
`BACKGROUND
`1.(cid:1)
`
`I have been retained by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox, P.L.L.C.,
`
`(“SKGF”) which represents Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) in connection
`
`with the above-captioned inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593 to
`
`Natchu, titled Mechanism For Identifying And Penalizing Misbehaving Flows In A
`
`Network, (EX1001, “’593 patent”). I understand that the ’593 patent is currently
`
`assigned to Sable Networks, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`2.(cid:1)
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’593 patent, which issued to
`
`Vishnu Natchu on August 14, 2012. I understand that the ’593 patent includes 44
`
`claims and that claims 1-5, 9, 25, and 29 are the independent claims. I also
`
`understand that the Petition for inter partes review that accompanies this
`
`Declaration seeks to cancel all 44 claims (“challenged claims”) of the ’593 patent.
`
`Thus, my analysis and opinions will focus on all of the challenged claims, 1-44, of
`
`the ’593 patent. In this Declaration, I will cite to the specification of the ’593
`
`patent using a format like the following: EX1001, ’593 patent, 1:1-10. This
`
`example citation points to the ’593 patent specification at column 1, lines 1-10.
`
`3.(cid:1)
`
`In addition to the ’593 patent, I have reviewed and am familiar with
`
`the following references:
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,664,048 to Yung et al., titled “Heuristic Behavior Pattern
`
`Matching Of Data Flows In Enhanced Network Traffic Classification”
`
`(EX1005, “Yung”).
`
`•(cid:1) “Four Steps to Application Performance Across the Network With
`
`Packeteer’s PacketShaper®” (EX1006, “Four-Steps Whitepaper”), archived
`
`by web.archive.org on March 17, 2003 with Affidavit of Elizabeth
`
`Rosenberg attached.
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,185,368 to Copeland III, titled “Flow-Based Detection Of
`
`Network Intrusions” (EX1007, “Copeland”).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,295,516 to Ye, titled “Early Traffic Regulation
`
`Techniques To Protect Against Network Flooding” (EX1008, “Ye”).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Publication No. 2004/0090923 to Kan et al., titled “Network
`
`Monitoring System Responsive To Changes In Packet Arrival Variance And
`
`Mean” (EX1009).
`
`•(cid:1) “P2P, the Gorilla in the Cable,” Gerber et al., (EX1010).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,225,271 to DiDiasio et al., titled “System and Method For
`
`Recognizing Application-Specific Flows And Assigning Them To Queues”
`
`(EX1011).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,561,515 to Ross, titled “Role-Based Network Traffic-Flow
`
`Rate Control” (EX1012).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`•(cid:1) “Taming the Peer to Peer Monster Using Service Control,” Ben-Nun
`
`(EX1013).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 6,839,321 to Chiruvolu, titled “Domain Based Congestion
`
`Management” (EX1014).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,088,678 to Freed et al., titled “System and Method for
`
`Traffic Shaping Based on Generalized Congestion and Flow Control”
`
`(EX1015).
`
`•(cid:1) “NetEnforcerTM – QoS/SLA Enforcement for Service Providers,” (EX1016).
`
`•(cid:1) “PacketShaper® Features (for PacketWise 5.2)” (EX1017).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,366,101 to Varier et al., titled “Network Traffic
`
`Synchronization Mechanism” (EX1018).
`
`•(cid:1) “Supporting Differentiated Service in MPLS Networks,” Andrikopoulos et
`
`al. (EX1019).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,385,924 to Riddle, titled “Enhanced Flow Data Records
`
`Including Traffic Type Data” (EX1020).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,660,248 to Duffield, titled “Statistical, Signature-Based
`
`Approach To IP Traffic Classification” (EX1021).
`
`•(cid:1) “Accurate, Scalable In-Network Identification of P2P Traffic Using
`
`Application Signatures,” Sen et al. (EX1022).
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,313,100 to Turner et al., titled “Network Device Having
`
`Accounting Service Card” (EX1023).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Publication No. 2002/0186661 to Santiago et al., titled “System and
`
`Method For Hierarchical Policing of Flows and Subflows of a Datastream”
`
`(EX1024).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Publication No. 2003/0118029 to Maher III et al., titled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Enforcing Service Level Agreements” (EX1025).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,296,288 to Hill et al., titled “Methods, Apparatuses, and
`
`Systems Allowing for Bandwidth Management Schemes Responsive To
`
`Utilization Characteristics Associated With Individual Users” (EX1026).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 6,904,529 to Swander, titled “Method and System for
`
`Protecting a Security Parameter Negotiation Server Against Denial-Of-
`
`Service Attacks” (EX1027).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 6,385,170 to Chiu et al., titled “Method and System for
`
`Dynamically Triggering Flow-Based Quality of Service Shortcuts Through a
`
`Router” (EX1028).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 6,934,256 to Van Jacobson et al., titled “Method of
`
`Detecting Non-Responsive Network Flows” (EX1029).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,342,929 to Bremler-Barr et al., titled “Weighted Fair
`
`Queuing-Based Methods and Apparatus For Protecting Against Overload
`
`Conditions on Nodes of a Distributed Network” (EX1030).
`
`•(cid:1) “PacketShaper® - WAN Application Optimization Solutions” (EX1031).
`
`•(cid:1) “Securing a University’s Bandwidth with PacketShaper®,” Boniforti
`
`(EX1032).
`
`•(cid:1) “RFC 1009 – Requirements for Internet Gateways” Braden et al. (EX1033).
`
`•(cid:1) “Class-of-Service Mapping for QoS: A Statistical Signature-based Approach
`
`to IP Traffic Classification,” Roughan et al. (EX1034).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,027,393 to Cheriton, titled “TCP Optimized Single Rate
`
`Policer” (EX1035).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 7,433,304 to Galloway et al., titled “Classification Data
`
`Structure Enabling Multi-Dimensional Network Traffic Classification and
`
`Control Schemes” (EX1036).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 6,115,357 to Packer et al., titled “Method for Pacing Data
`
`Flow in a Packet-Based Network” (EX1037).
`
`•(cid:1) “QoS Best Practices,” Szigeti (EX1038).
`
`•(cid:1) U.S. Patent No. 6,412,000 to Riddle et al., titled “Method for Automatically
`
`Classifying Traffic in a Packet Communications Network” (EX1039).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`The ’593 patent is generally directed to classifying network traffic.
`
`4.(cid:1)
`
`EX1001, Abstract. More specifically, the ’593 patent describes using behavioral
`
`statistics of the observed behavior of flows to classify and penalize misbehaving
`
`flows. Id., 1:53-1:67. The statistics depend only on the observed behavior of the
`
`flow and do not depend on the contents (payloads) of the packets in the flow. Id.,
`
`10:36-40, 10:56-58, 11:10-12. I am familiar with the technology described in the
`
`’593 patent both as of its earliest possible priority date and actual filing date of
`
`December 22, 2004.
`
`5.(cid:1)
`
`I have been asked to consider how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) would have understood the challenged claims in light of the disclosure
`
`of the ’593 patent. I also have been asked to consider how a POSA would have
`
`understood the prior art references Yung, Copeland, Four-Steps Whitepaper, and
`
`Ye. Further, I have been asked to consider and provide my technical review,
`
`analysis, insights, and opinions regarding whether a POSA would have understood:
`
`(1) the disclosure of Yung renders claims 1, 2, 4-7, 17, 18, 25-27, 37, and 38
`
`obvious; (2) the disclosure of Yung in view of Copeland renders claims 9-13, 19-
`
`24, 29-33, 39-44 obvious; (3) the disclosure of Yung in view of Four-Steps
`
`Whitepaper renders claim 3 obvious; and (4) the disclosure of Yung in view of
`
`Copeland in view of Ye renders claims 8, 14-16, 28, 34-36 obvious.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate of $750 dollars
`
`6.(cid:1)
`
`per hour. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this inter partes
`
`review and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this declaration.
`
`7.(cid:1)
`
`I reside in Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
`
`II.(cid:1)
`
`SUMMARY OF GROUNDS
`8.(cid:1)
`
`I understand that the Petition for inter partes review of the ’593 patent
`
`asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Basis for Ground
`Ground ’593 Patent Claims
`1
`1, 2, 4-7, 17, 18, 25-27, 37, 38 Yung
`2
`9-13, 19-24, 29-33, 39-44
`Yung in view of Copeland
`3
`3
`Yung in view of Four-Steps Whitepaper
`4
`8, 14-16, 28, 34-36
`Yung in view of Copeland in view of Ye
`
`
`III.(cid:1) QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE
`9.(cid:1)
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my knowledge,
`
`training, and experience. My qualifications are stated more fully in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which has been provided as Exhibit 1004. Here, I provide a brief summary of
`
`my qualifications.
`
`10.(cid:1) Currently, I am a tenured professor in the Department of Computer
`
`Science at the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) at Chapel Hill, where I hold
`
`the position of Gillian T. Cell Distinguished Professor of Computer Science. I also
`
`currently serve as the Chairman of the Department. I have been a faculty member
`
`at UNC since 1989.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of
`
`11.(cid:1)
`
`Washington in 1989. I received a M.Sc. degree in computer science from the
`
`University of Toronto in 1984 and a B.S. degree with Highest Distinction in
`
`mathematics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1982.
`
`12.(cid:1)
`
`I have been involved in the research and development of computing
`
`systems for nearly 40 years. As a faculty member at UNC, I research and teach in
`
`the areas of computer networks, multimedia networking, distributed systems, real-
`
`time systems, and operating systems, among others. A major theme of my research
`
`has been the development of technology to improve the performance of data
`
`transfers on the Internet. My research has focused on network and operating
`
`system support for distributed real-time multimedia applications (such as audio and
`
`video streaming, voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP), and Internet
`
`videoconferencing), congestion control mechanisms in network routers,
`
`measurements and analysis of network traffic to passively assess the performance
`
`of servers on the Internet, and other areas.
`
`13.(cid:1) For example, starting in the late 1980s, my research focused on the
`
`development of network and operating system technology to enable real-time
`
`transfer of streams of audio and video data across the Internet. This work
`
`culminated in my research group developing some of the first videoconferencing
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`systems for the Internet. Several of the papers authored by myself and members of
`
`my research group on this project won awards for their technical contributions.
`
`14.(cid:1) The videoconferencing and adaptive streaming research attracted the
`
`attention of industry groups such as IBM®, Intel®, Digital Equipment
`
`Corporation, Cabletron/Aprisma, and AT&T® and Lucent Bell Laboratories. For
`
`example, starting in 1991, IBM® supported aspects of my research at UNC. These
`
`efforts resulted in U.S. Patent No. 5,892,754 on adaptive media streaming being
`
`issued to IBM® and UNC. Beyond the aforementioned companies, I have also had
`
`collaborations with Hewlett Packard, Sun Microsystems, Cisco Systems®, and
`
`CloudShieldTM, among others.
`
`15.(cid:1) My research group developed other “data conferencing” systems, also
`
`known as “shared window systems,” that could transfer desktop information from
`
`a PC to a remote PC in real-time. One system that we built, called XTV, was
`
`operational by 1991. The source code for XTV was made freely available and by
`
`1993 had been downloaded by over 600 users and institutions. The system was
`
`functionally and visually equivalent to LogMeIn®’s GoToMeetingTM and Zoom’s
`
`screen sharing products and services. In the XTV system, individual windows
`
`displayed on the desktop or the entire desktop could be shared with remote users.
`
`The XTV system also allowed remote users to control and manipulate the desktop
`
`being distributed and to remotely control applications.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`In my research I regularly build and use clusters of computers
`
`16.(cid:1)
`
`interconnected by network switches, bridges, and routers to form and evaluate
`
`experimental and production networks. For example, in the late 1990s and early
`
`2000s, my research examined router-based mechanisms for controlling the
`
`performance of network traffic. My students and I built and instrumented network
`
`routers and performed large scale experiments with this equipment to monitor and
`
`control packet flows. Such control involved detecting, classifying, and policing
`
`misbehaving or unresponsive flows and providing better-than-best-effort
`
`forwarding services to selected flows. The instrumentation included, for example,
`
`the development of network monitors that received copies of packets flowing on a
`
`network link and analyzed and stored packets or the results of analyses on these
`
`packets, all in real-time.
`
`17.(cid:1)
`
`In 2003, the international networking research community recognized
`
`aspects of this research by awarding my group at UNC the most prestigious
`
`research award for original research in computer networking. These research
`
`efforts also resulted in US Patent Nos. 7,447,209 and 8,938,532 being issued to
`
`UNC. Other aspects of the research included a research collaboration with
`
`CloudShieldTM Technologies to use deep packet inspection and processing devices
`
`to detect anomalous and/or malicious traffic in a high-speed network. More
`
`recently, my research group built a series of devices placed in-line between clients
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`and servers in a network to passively monitor, analyze, and selectively log network
`
`traffic for purposes of understanding the performance of servers present in the
`
`network.
`
`18.(cid:1) These projects, and others, took place in a networking lab that my
`
`students and I constructed at UNC over a number of years. The lab consists of
`
`several hundred computers and networking devices. Managing this lab involved
`
`installing and configuring VLANS, monitors, firewalls and other security
`
`appliances to isolate the lab from the campus network (and vice versa).
`
`19.(cid:1)
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 100 articles in peer-reviewed
`
`journals, conference proceedings, texts, and monographs in the aforementioned
`
`areas of computer science and others. I have served as Editor-in-Chief for the
`
`journal Multimedia Systems and Associate Editor for the journal Real-Time
`
`Systems. In addition, I have edited and co-edited numerous published proceedings
`
`of technical conferences and have edited a book of readings in multimedia
`
`computing and networking (with Hong-Jiang Zhang) published by Morgan
`
`Kaufman. I am a co-author (with Long Le and F. Donelson Smith) of a monograph
`
`related to computer network protocols and a co-author (with Jay Aikat and F.
`
`Donelson Smith) of a second monograph related to experimental computer
`
`networking.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`I have served on numerous proposal review panels for the National
`
`20.(cid:1)
`
`Science Foundation and other international funding agencies in the aforementioned
`
`areas of computer science. I have also served as a program chair or member of the
`
`technical program committee for over 100 professional, international, and technical
`
`conferences, workshops, and symposia.
`
`21.(cid:1)
`
`I am a named inventor on four U.S. Patents. These patents are
`
`generally related to computer networking and service delivery over networks
`
`including audio and video transmission.
`
`22.(cid:1)
`
`I have developed and taught a wide variety of courses related to
`
`distributed systems, computer networking, multimedia networking, operating and
`
`file systems, and computer security.
`
`23.(cid:1)
`
`I have served as an expert witness and technical consultant in
`
`litigation and inter partes review matters concerning computer networks,
`
`distributed systems, operating systems, multimedia networking, cellular and
`
`wireline telephony, voice over IP (VoIP) telephony, datacenter networking,
`
`embedded systems and embedded software, and real-time systems, among others. I
`
`have testified in several trials, arbitrations, and claim construction hearings as an
`
`expert witness.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`IV.(cid:1) LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`A.(cid:1) My Understanding of Claim Construction
`24.(cid:1)
`I have been advised and understand that, during an inter partes
`
`review, words in a claim are given their plain meaning, which is the meaning
`
`understood by a POSA at the time of the alleged invention after reading the entire
`
`patent. I also understand that this standard is sometimes referred to as the Phillips
`
`standard. I understand, however, that a claim term will not receive its plain
`
`meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a
`
`definition of the claim term in the specification. In such a case, the claim term will
`
`receive the definition set forth in the patent.
`
`25.(cid:1)
`
`It is my understanding that, when a claim limitation recites a generic
`
`term (e.g., “means,” “step”) and associated functional language, it may invoke
`
`means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and/or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112 paragraph 6. It is further my understanding that when a claim limitation uses
`
`the term “means” or “step” and functional language, a presumption arises that
`
`means-plus-function treatment applies. I also understand that generic “nonce”
`
`terms may also be substitutes for “means” or “step” and may thereby still invoke
`
`means-plus-function treatment. I further understand that the means-plus-function
`
`treatment is not appropriate where the terms have been modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. I also understand
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`Declara