`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ...................................................................3
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..............................................................7
`IV. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .............................................7
`V.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ..................................................7
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................... 10
`VII. THE ’593 PATENT ........................................................................... 12
`A. Overview ................................................................................. 12
`B.
`Summary of Prosecution History ................................................ 14
`C.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art................................................ 15
`D. Claim Construction ................................................................... 16
`1.
`“means for maintaining a set of behavioral statistics for
`the flow . . .” (claims 25 and 29) ........................................ 17
`“means for determining . . . whether the flow is
`exhibiting undesirable behavior” (claim 25) ........................ 17
`“means for enforcing . . . [a/the] penalty on the flow”
`(claims 25 and 32) ........................................................... 17
`“means for computing . . . a badness factor for the flow”
`(claim 29) ....................................................................... 17
`“means for determining . . . a penalty to impose on the
`flow” (claim 31) .............................................................. 17
`“means for determining an increased drop rate to impose
`on one or more information packets to belonging to the
`flow” (claim 37) .............................................................. 18
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`7.
`
`“means for imposing [an/the] increased drop rate on the
`flow” (claims 27 and 38)................................................... 18
`“means for receiving a particular information packet
`belonging to the flow” (claims 43 and 44) ........................... 18
`“means for determining whether to forward the particular
`information packet to a destination” (claim 43) .................... 18
`“means for updating . . . the set of behavioral statistics to
`reflect processing of the particular information packet”
`(claims 43 and 44) ........................................................... 19
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ................................................ 19
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 17, 18, 25-27, 37, and 38 are
`obvious over Yung. ................................................................... 19
`1.
`Overview: Yung discloses a system for classifying and
`controlling flows using behavioral statistics......................... 19
`Independent claim 1 ......................................................... 21
`2.
`Independent claim 2 ......................................................... 38
`3.
`Independent claims 4 and 5 ............................................... 41
`4.
`Independent claim 25 ....................................................... 41
`5.
`Dependent claims 6 and 26 ............................................... 43
`6.
`Dependent claims 7 and 27 ............................................... 44
`7.
`Dependent claims 17 and 37 .............................................. 45
`8.
`Dependent claims 18 and 38 .............................................. 45
`9.
`B. Ground 2: Claims 9-13, 19-24, 29-33, and 39-44 are obvious
`over Yung in view of Copeland. ................................................. 46
`1.
`Overview: Yung discloses a system for classifying and
`controlling flows using behavioral statistics, and
`Copeland calculates a flow-based concern index. ................. 46
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`2. Motivation to Combine ..................................................... 47
`3.
`Independent claim 9 ......................................................... 50
`4.
`Independent claim 29 ....................................................... 53
`5.
`Dependent claims 10 and 30. ............................................. 55
`6.
`Dependent claims 11 and 31 .............................................. 55
`7.
`Dependent claims 12 and 32 .............................................. 56
`8.
`Dependent claims 13 and 33 .............................................. 56
`9.
`Dependent claims 19 and 39 .............................................. 57
`10. Dependent claims 20 and 40 .............................................. 58
`11. Dependent claims 21 and 41 .............................................. 58
`12. Dependent claims 22 and 42 .............................................. 59
`13. Dependent claims 23 and 43 .............................................. 60
`14. Dependent claims 24 and 44 .............................................. 62
`C. Ground 3: Claim 3 is obvious over Yung in view of Four-Steps
`Whitepaper. ............................................................................. 64
`1.
`Overview: Yung discloses a system for classifying and
`controlling flows using behavioral statistics, and Four-
`Steps Whitepaper discloses tracking dropped packets. .......... 64
`2. Motivation to Combine ..................................................... 65
`3.
`Independent claim 3 ......................................................... 67
`D. Ground 4: Claims 8, 14-16, 28, and 34-36 are obvious over
`Yung in view of Copeland in view of Ye...................................... 72
`1.
`Overview: Yung-Copeland discloses a system for
`classifying flows using behavioral statistics, and Ye
`describes a congestion condition. ....................................... 72
`2. Motivation to Combine ..................................................... 74
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`3.
`Dependent claims 8, 14, 28, and 34 .................................... 76
`Dependent claims 15 and 35 .............................................. 77
`4.
`Dependent claims 16 and 36 .............................................. 78
`5.
`IX. THIS PETITION CONTAINS NEW ARGUMENTS AND PRIOR
`ART NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO THE OFFICE. .................. 78
`THE NHK SPRING DECISION IS INAPPLICABLE. ............................ 79
`X.
`XI. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................... 84
`XII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 84
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`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
`attached (“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
`Services in MPLS Networks,” 1999 Seventh International
`Workshop on Quality of Service, including Declaration from
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Rachel J. Watters, Librarian and Director of Wisconsin
`TechSearch (“Andrikopoulos”)
`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. (“Bremler”)
`PacketShaper® System Datasheet
`Boniforti, C., “Securing a University’s Bandwidth with
`PacketShaper,” 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
`Statistical 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
`
`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,
`Scheduling 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,
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`Le, L., et al., “Differential Congestion Notification: Taming the
`Elephants,” Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International
`Conference on Network Protocols (Oct. 2004)
`Parris M., et al., “Lightweight Active Router-Queue Management
`for Multimedia Networking,” Multimedia Computing and
`Networking (Jan. 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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., VMware, Inc., Juniper
`
`Networks, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and Aruba Networks, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Petitioners”) petition for inter partes review of claims 1-44
`
`(“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593 (“ʼ593 patent”). The
`
`challenged claims are directed to identifying and controlling network traffic using
`
`behavioral statistics obtained without examining packets’ payloads. But long
`
`before the ’593 patent’s filing date, classifying network traffic using payload-
`
`content-agnostic statistics was well-known in the art.
`
`The explosive growth of Internet traffic in the early 2000’s created a need
`
`among network administrators to control traffic based on class. Administrators
`
`configured policies that prioritized mission-critical traffic over games, peer-to-peer
`
`traffic, etc., and curtailed bad actors (e.g., denial-of-service) attacks upon network
`
`infrastructure. But intelligent and effective classification techniques were needed
`
`to properly apply these policies—i.e., identifying the type of traffic flows was a
`
`necessary precursor to applying class-based traffic controls. EX1003, ¶45.
`
`Numerous solutions recognized the limitations of classifying traffic using
`
`packet payloads, e.g., increased cost, difficulties with encryption and other
`
`signature-mutation techniques, etc. Overcoming these limitations by tracking
`
`empirically observable flow statistics was well known. Id., ¶45.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`One commercially available, readily deployable product that delivered
`
`traffic-shaping functionality was the PacketShaper®—a product belonging to
`
`Packeteer®, Inc. U.S. Patent No. 7,664,048 to Yung et al. is one of Packeteer®,
`
`Inc.’s patents. Yung describes classifying network traffic based on content-
`
`agnostic behavioral statistics and managing bandwidth, shaping traffic, and
`
`performing other network functions. Like the ’593 patent, Yung proposes using the
`
`observable behavior of flows, reflected in flow-level statistics, to better classify
`
`traffic. Id., ¶¶68-78.
`
`A whitepaper from Packeteer® further describes metrics available in the
`
`PacketShaper®, including dropped packets. Id., ¶¶84-88. U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,185,368 to Copeland seeks to better identify and control denial-of-service attacks
`
`by calculating a flow-based concern index value based on tracked statistics. Id.,
`
`¶¶79-83. U.S. Patent No. 7,295,516 to Ye describes controlling denial-of-service
`
`attacks when congestion arises. Id., ¶¶89-92.
`
`A skilled artisan would have recognized that these references disclosed the
`
`techniques recited in the challenged claims. None of these references were cited
`
`during prosecution of the ’593 patent. As demonstrated below, if these references
`
`had been before the examiner, the ’593 patent would not have been allowed. The
`
`Board should therefore find the claims of the ’593 patent unpatentable.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST: The real parties in interest are Palo Alto
`
`Networks, Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., Denali Intermediate Inc., Dell Inc., EMC
`
`Corporation, VMware, Inc., Juniper Networks, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`
`Company, and Aruba Networks, Inc.
`
`RELATED MATTERS:
`
`Sable Networks, Inc. et al. (collectively “Sable”) asserted the ’593 patent in
`
`six currently pending district court cases:
`
`• Sable Networks, Inc. et al. v. Nokia Corp. et al., 6-20-cv-00808 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 1, 2020);
`
`• Sable Networks, Inc. et al. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al.,
`
`5-20-cv-00120 (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2020);
`
`• Sable Networks, Inc. et al. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., 6-20-cv-00569
`
`(W.D. Tex. June 26, 2020);
`
`• Sable Networks, Inc. et al. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 5-20-cv-00111
`
`(E.D. Tex. June 18, 2020);
`
`• Sable Networks, Inc. et al. v. Fortinet, Inc., 5-20-cv-00109 (E.D. Tex
`
`June 16, 2020); and
`
`• Sable Networks, Inc. et al. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 6-20-cv-00524
`
`(W.D. Tex. June 15, 2020).
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL: Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a),
`
`Petitioners Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., VMware, Inc.,
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and Aruba
`
`Networks, Inc. appoint counsel as noted below. Powers of Attorney pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 41.10(b) accompany this Petition.
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL
`Jonathan Tuminaro (Reg. No. 61,327)
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.,
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`Phone: (202) 371-2600
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`Email: jtuminar-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`Counsel for Petitioner Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`Michael D. Specht (Reg. No. 54,463)
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.,
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`Phone: (202) 371-2600
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`Email: mspecht-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`Counsel for Petitioner Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`
`Daniel Block (Reg. No. 68,395)
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.,
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`Phone: (202) 371-2600
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`Email: dblock-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`Counsel for Petitioner Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`
`Todd Thurheimer (Reg. No. 76,231)
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.,
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`Phone: (202) 371-2600
`Fax: (202) 371-2540
`Email: tthurheimer-PTAB@sternekessler.com
`Counsel for Petitioner Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`
`Christopher TL Douglas (Reg. No. 56,950)
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
`Phone: 704.444.1000
`Fax: 704.444.1111
`Email: christopher.douglas@alston.com
`Counsel for Petitioners Dell Technologies Inc.,
`Dell Inc., EMC Corporation & VMware, Inc.
`
`Ben Pleune (Reg. No. 52,421)
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
`Phone: (704) 444-1000
`Fax: (704) 444-1111
`Email: ben.pleune@alston.com
`Counsel for Petitioners Dell Technologies Inc.,
`Dell Inc., EMC Corporation & VMware, Inc.
`
`James L. Day (Reg. No. 72,681)
`FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Phone: (415) 954-4414
`Fax: (415) 954-4480
`Email: jday@fbm.com
`Counsel for Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`Daniel Callaway (Reg. No. 74,267)
`FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Phone: (415) 954-4924
`Fax: (415) 954-4480
`Email: dcallaway@fbm.com
`Counsel for Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`Winston Liaw (Reg. No. 78,766)
`FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Phone: (415) 954-4497
`Fax: (415) 954-4480
`Email: wliaw@fbm.com
`Counsel for Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`Tiffany C. Miller (Reg. No. 52,032)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Ste. 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Phone: (619) 699-3445
`Fax: (619) 699-2701
`Email: tiffany.miller@us.dlapiper.com
`Counsel for Petitioners Hewlett Packard
`Enterprise Company and Aruba Networks, Inc.
`
`James M. Heintz (Reg. No. 41,828)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`11911 Freedom Drive, Ste. 300
`Reston, VA 20190
`Phone: (703) 773-4148
`Fax: (703) 773-5200
`Email: jim.heintz@us.dlapiper.com
`Counsel for Petitioners Hewlett Packard
`Enterprise Company and Aruba Networks, Inc.
`
`
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION: Petitioners consent to electronic service by email at
`
`the email addresses: jtuminar-PTAB@sternekessler.com, dblock-
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`PTAB@sternekessler.com, tthurheimer-PTAB@sternekessler.com,
`
`PTAB@sternekessler.com, christopher.douglas@alston.com,
`
`ben.pleune@alston.com, Dell_20cv569@alston.com, jday@fbm.com,
`
`dcallaway@fbm.com, wliaw@fbm.com, calendar@fbm.com, DLA-IPR-HPE-
`
`SableNetworks@us.dlapiper.com.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify that the ’593 patent is available for inter partes review.
`
`Petitioners also certify that they are not barred or estopped from requesting this
`
`inter partes review on the grounds identified.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioners request inter partes review and cancellation of challenged claims
`
`1-44 based on the detailed statements presented below.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`Petitioners request inter partes review on the below grounds. Per 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(c), copies of the references are filed with this petition. In support of these
`
`grounds, this petition is accompanied by a Declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`(EX1003), along with his curriculum vitae (EX1004). Dr. Jeffay’s Declaration
`
`explains what the prior art would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSA”).
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`Basis for Ground (35 U.S.C § 103)
`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
`As noted on the face of the ’593 patent, the earliest claimed priority date of
`
`the ’593 patent is December 22, 2004. Each of the references below is prior art to
`
`the ’593 patent.
`
`Yung (Exhibit 1005), titled “Heuristic Behavior Pattern Matching Of Data
`
`Flows In Enhanced Network Traffic Classification,” is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e) as it was filed on November 24, 2003, over 12 months before the earliest
`
`claimed priority date of the ’593 patent.
`
`Copeland (Exhibit 1007), titled “Flow-Based Detection Of Network
`
`Intrusions” is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as it was published June 5, 2003,
`
`over 18 months before the earliest possible priority date of the ’593 patent.
`
`Additionally, Copeland is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as it was filed on
`
`November 1, 2001, over 3 years before the earliest claimed priority date of the
`
`’593 patent.
`
`Four-Steps Whitepaper (Exhibit 1006), titled “Four Steps to Application
`
`Performance Across the Network With Packeteer®’s PacketShaper®” was
`
`published on Packeteer®’s website at least as early as March 17, 2003. Four-Steps
`
`Whitepaper is a true and accurate copy of the pdf available on the website as of
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`March 17, 2003. As the notarized Authenticating Affidavit of Internet Archive’s
`
`Record Request Processor, Elizabeth Rosenberg, explains, the publication is
`
`obtained using Internet Archive’s (https://archive.org/index.php) Wayback
`
`Machine (https://archive.org/web/), which allows users to search a particular
`
`website by its address (URL) in a web archive (a digital library of Internet
`
`websites) maintained by Internet Archive. EX1006, Affidavit. The archive of a
`
`web page is compiled using software programs (crawlers) that automatically
`
`capture and store copies of websites as they existed at the time of their capture. Id.
`
`Four-Steps Whitepaper is stamped with a URL reflecting that the publication
`
`was archived from Packeteer®’s website on March 17, 2003. Id., 4. This website
`
`offered technical manuals and documentation for Packeteer®’s traffic-management
`
`products, including the PacketShaper®. Packeteer® was a publicly traded
`
`company and a known leader in this industry. See EX1031, 1; see also EX1032, 6-
`
`7. Interested members of the public had access to Four-Steps Whitepaper before
`
`the filing of the ’593 patent. Four-Steps Whitepaper is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b) as it was published over 21 months before the earliest claimed priority
`
`date of the ’593 patent.
`
`Ye (Exhibit 1008), titled “Early Traffic Regulation Techniques To Protect
`
`Against Network Flooding,” is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as it was filed on
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`November 13, 2001, over 37 months before the earliest claimed priority date of the
`
`’593 patent.
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`In the early 2000s, a growing number of users on the Internet and other
`
`computer networks generated an ever-increasing volume of traffic. EX1009, 0004-
`
`0006. The expansion was augmented by the widespread emergence of peer-to-peer
`
`technologies (EX1010, 1), growing use of VOIP systems (EX1011, 2:64-3:22), and
`
`increased proliferation of denial-of-service attacks against network infrastructures.
`
`EX1012, 1:12-18.
`
`This explosive growth created network-capacity challenges. EX1013, 1.
`
`Network administrators aimed to safeguard the reliability of network nodes (e.g.,
`
`routers) and other network infrastructure. EX1009, 0004-0005. These efforts
`
`ensured that mission-critical network applications performed despite cost
`
`constraints and finite capacity. EX1021, 1:9-29.
`
`Various congestion-management schemes prevented slowdowns by shaping
`
`network traffic. EX1014, 1:6-8. For example, numerous product-based solutions
`
`controlled flows at the packet level. EX1015, 1:58-2:3; see also EX1016; EX1017.
`
`For practical reasons (e.g., efficiency, trust, scalability), traffic shaping was often
`
`implemented in routers. EX1018, Abstract; EX1020, 16:37-40; EX1021, 3:19-24;
`
`EX1023, 2:41-54; EX1028, Abstract; EX1030, 20:9-12; EX1036, 21:1-7; EX1037,
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`5:3-6. Administrators could configure policies in these devices applicable to traffic
`
`classes. EX1020, 12:45-67. These policies “shaped” traffic by dropping packets or
`
`applying other Quality-of-Service (“QoS”) techniques. EX1029, 2:24-30.
`
`One traffic-shaping device was the PacketShaper®, a product offered by
`
`Packeteer®. Among other features, the PacketShaper® provided QoS “to ensure
`
`that latency-sensitive, customer-critical applications get the bandwidth they need to
`
`perform at their peak.” EX1031, 3. Packeteer® was an industry leader. Id., 1
`
`(“Seventy-four percent of the world’s largest companies rely on Packeteer®
`
`innovation to solve their WAN application performance problems.”); see also
`
`EX1032 (describing an approach to securing a university’s network using the
`
`PacketShaper®).
`
`It was widely recognized that better classification techniques, i.e., improved
`
`mechanisms for identifying misbehaving flows, would spur widespread adoption
`
`of QoS-based traffic shaping. EX1021, 2:31-39. The ability to accurately identify
`
`peer-to-peer traffic was especially important in optimizing network operations
`
`because peer-to-peer traffic monopolized a large percentage of available
`
`bandwidth. EX1022, 512.
`
`Some approaches to traffic classification scanned packet payloads and/or
`
`examined ports to build application signatures. See EX1024, Abstract; see also
`
`EX1001, Background; EX1005, 4:51-55. Because applications often sought to
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`avoid detection through encryption, port hopping, and other signature-mutation
`
`techniques, some legacy systems used behavioral statistics and empirically
`
`observable flow-data to classify traffic. EX1021, Abstract; EX1007, Abstract; see
`
`also EX1005. After identifying the class of the traffic (peer-to-peer, VOIP, etc.),
`
`these approaches then employed packet-level policies to discard or prioritize
`
`packets according to packet classes. EX1025, 0010, 0059.
`
`VII. THE ’593 PATENT
`A. Overview
`The ’593 patent describes identifying misbehaving flows, e.g., peer-to-peer
`
`traffic, in a network based on behavioral statistics. EX1001, Abstract. The ’593
`
`patent, like others—e.g., Duffield (EX1021, 2:31-39), Sen (EX1022, 513),
`
`Roughan (EX1034, 135)—recognized that legacy systems were proving ineffective
`
`at classifying traffic as applications grew more sophisticated and elusive. EX1001,
`
`1:7-49. Similarly, the ’593 patent purports to solve this problem by identifying
`
`flows based on their observed behavior “because their [observed] behavior cannot
`
`be hidden, [and] misbehaving flows cannot avoid detection.” Id., 1:61-64.
`
`The ’593 patent maintains behavioral statistics reflecting a flow’s empirical
`
`behavior. Id., 2:1-3; cf. EX1021, Abstract; EX1005. The ’593 patent tracks total
`
`byte count, life duration, flow rate, and average packet size, and stores these
`
`statistics in a “flow block.” EX1001, 6:12-24.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`EX1001, FIG. 4 (annotated).
`
`
`
`Legacy systems classified flows using heuristic methods, and it was typical
`
`to calculate gradients, ranges, or other quantitative indicators of a degree of
`
`misbehavior. See EX1007, Abstract; EX1030, 7:2-5. Similarly, the ’593 patent
`
`computes a “badness factor” used to determine whether a flow exhibits undesirable
`
`behavior and indicating a degree of misbehavior. EX1001, 2:18-26. Figure 5
`
`illustrates one function for computing the badness factor considering flow rate,
`
`duration, total bytes, and average packet size as compared to thresholds. Id., 7:51-
`
`67.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`EX1001, FIG. 5 (annotated).
`
`
`
`After identifying an undesirable flow, the flow manager applied standard
`
`techniques for flow control, e.g., an increased drop rate. EX1001, 2:28-30, 6:37-42,
`
`9:7-9. The flow manager then updates the statistics to reflect the processing. Id.,
`
`7:37-45.
`
` Like other systems seeking to control denial-of-service attacks, the flow
`
`manager may enforce the penalty only if a “congestion condition” exists. Id., 2:36-
`
`39, 8:62-65; cf. EX1008, Abstract. However, the flow manager may enforce an
`
`increased drop rate on a misbehaving flow even when no congestion exists.
`
`EX1001, 10:4-16.
`
`Summary of Prosecution History
`B.
`The prosecution history of the ’593 patent is brief. The application that
`
`issued as the ’593 patent was filed on December 22, 2004. In a first round of
`
`prosecution, the examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of U.S.
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`Patent No. 6,310,881 (“Zikan”) in combination with other references. Applicant
`
`filed a Request for Continued Examination (“RCE”) on April 13, 2010. In a second
`
`round of prosecution, the examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 6,934,256 (“Jacobson”) in combination with U.S.
`
`Publication No. 2002/0032717 (“Malan”).
`
`Applicant filed another RCE on September 2, 2011, arguing that “Jacobson
`
`is not analogous prior art,” and that the Malan reference did not disclose a “set of
`
`behavioral statistics [that] is updated . . . regardless of the presence or absence of
`
`congestion.” See EX1002, 0237, 0241. On April 3, 2012, a Notice of Allowance
`
`was mailed and the Notice of Allowability noted only: “See applicant’s
`
`amendments and responses filed on 2nd September 2011.” Id., 0257. The ’593
`
`patent issued on July 25, 2012.
`
`The Examiner did not review or cite any reference relied on in this Petition.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Based on the disclosure of the ’593 patent, a POSA would have had a B.S.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field, as well
`
`as at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking, or
`
`comparable industry experience. EX1003, ¶26.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593
`
`D. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claims are “construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). If trial is instituted, all claim
`
`terms must be given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`
`POSA during the relevant timeframe in light of the specification and the
`
`prosecution history. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (en banc); see also 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`There are 10 limitations recited in the challenged claims
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
