Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 34
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Sable Networks, Inc. and
`Sable IP, LLC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Cloudflare, Inc.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`6:21-cv-00261-ADA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS SABLE NETWORKS, INC. AND SABLE IP, LLC’S
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- i -
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 34
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ......................................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..............................................................................................................2
`
`A. Default of Plain and Ordinary Meaning .........................................................................2
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function Terms ..........................................................................................2
`
`1. Evaluating Whether A Claim Invokes § 112(f) ......................................................2
`
`2. Interpretation of Means-Plus-Function Terms .......................................................2
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS.....................................................................................................3
`
`SABLE’S PREVIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST CISCO ..................................................................3
`
`DISPUTED TERMS ..................................................................................................................4
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,954,431 (The “’431 Patent”) .............................................................4
`
`1. Background of the ‘431 Patent ...............................................................................4
`
`2. “based on a characteristic” .....................................................................................5
`
`3. “means for determining a capacity of a buffer containing a microflow
`based on a characteristic” .......................................................................................6
`
`4. “weighting factor” ..................................................................................................7
`
`5. Preamble of Claim 19 .............................................................................................7
`
`6. “a delay variation substructure configured to provide a buffer value to
`dampen jitter in a transmission of the microflow” .................................................9
`
`7. “wherein at least of the wherein the packet discard time substructure, the
`microflow timeout period substructure, the weighting factor substructure,
`and the delay variation substructure is used to determine a behavior of a
`microflow” ............................................................................................................10
`
`8. “the predetermined value for the microflow timeout period substructure
`comprises is less than 32 seconds” .......................................................................11
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 6,977,932 (The “’932 Patent”) ...........................................................12
`
`1. Overview of the ‘932 Patent .................................................................................12
`
`2. “tunnel identifier” .................................................................................................12
`
`3. “aggregate flow block” .........................................................................................15
`
`4. Preambles of Claims 9 and 24 ..............................................................................17
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 7,012,919 (The “’919 Patent”) ...........................................................18
`
`1. Background of the ‘919 Patent .............................................................................18
`
`2. “aggregate flow” ...................................................................................................19
`
`3. “label switched path(s)” .......................................................................................21
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 8,243,593 (The “’593 Patent”) ...........................................................23
`
`1. Background of the ‘593 Patent .............................................................................23
`
`2. “Badness factor” and “undesirable behavior” ......................................................23
`
`3. “based at least partially upon the set of behavioral statistics” .............................27
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................28
`
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`- ii –
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 34
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150002 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2020) ................................................... 2
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................. 26
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 8, 18
`
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`Cirba Inc. v. VMWare, Inc.,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185693 (D. Del. Oct. 6, 2020) ......................................................... 26
`
`CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217955 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2017) .................................................. 24
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 26
`
`Embrex, Inc. v. Service Eng’g Corp.,
`216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 25
`
`Fractus, S.A. v. TCLl Corp.,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131561 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2021) ....................................... 14, 15, 17
`
`Greenville Commc’ns, LLC v. Cellco P’ship,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65588 (D.N.J. May 10, 2012) ............................................................ 8
`
`Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp.,
`405 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. Verizon Commcn’s,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7944 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2021) ........................................................ 10
`
`IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc.,
`206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................... 8, 18
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 25
`
`Mars, Inc. v. TruRX LLC,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187875 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2015) ...................................................... 8
`
`Mediatek, Inc. v. Sanyo Elec. Co.,
`513 F. Supp. 2d 778 (E.D. Tex. 2007) ................................................................................... 10
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`248 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Samsung Telecoms., Inc.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122869 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2018) .................................................. 10
`
`
`
`- iii –
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 34
`
`Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`215 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................. 28
`
`Novo Indus., L.P., v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Paltalk Holdings, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94462 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2008) ....................................................... 4
`
`PerfectVision Mfg. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121057 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 29, 2014) .................................................. 25
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................. 28
`
`Rowe v. Dror,
`112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Scientific Telecomms., LLC v. Adtran, Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160822 (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2016) ...................................................... 18
`
`SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181468 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2018) ................................................... 26
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Pub’lns Int’l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................. 26
`
`SuperSpeed, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4479 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2014) .................................................... 8, 17
`
`TechRadium, Inc. v. Edulink Sys., Inc.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189753 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2012) ...................................................... 5
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76681 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2016) ..................................................... 10
`
`Timeline, Inc. v. Proclarity Corp.,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70389 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 24, 2007) .................................................. 9
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 10
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 2, 9
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................................... 2, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ................................................................................................................. 2, 9, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv –
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 5 of 34
`
`Sable Networks, Inc. and Sable IP, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Sable”) respectfully
`
`submit this Responsive Claim Construction Brief regarding the parties’ proposed constructions of
`
`certain disputed claim terms of four of the six patents-in-suit in this case.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The asserted patents teach significant improvements in the field of networking technology.
`
`The patents-in-suit represent the groundbreaking work of one of the founding fathers of the
`
`Internet, Dr. Lawrence (Larry) Roberts, the company he co-founded, Caspian Networks, Inc., and
`
`its successor, Sable Networks, Inc. The patents-in-suit relate to quality-of-service traffic
`
`engineering and improvements to routing encrypted and difficult-to-identify data traffic using
`
`behavioral-statistics.
`
`Against this backdrop, Defendant Cloudflare, Inc. (“Cloudflare”) proposes constructions
`
`of several claim terms that do not need construction. The claim construction process “is simply a
`
`way of elaborating the normally terse claim language in order to understand and explain, but not
`
`to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex, Inc. v. Service Eng’g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). With respect to these terms, the Court should reject
`
`Cloudflare’s proposed rewriting of the claims. The plain and ordinary meaning of each of these
`
`terms would have been well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`inventions and adopting Cloudflare’s proposed constructions would not aid jurors’ understanding
`
`of the terms; in fact, Cloudflare’s proposed constructions would likely only inject confusion.
`
`With respect to several other terms—including one means-plus-function term—Cloudflare
`
`claims ignorance and argues indefiniteness in the face of detailed disclosures, including concrete
`
`examples, in the patents’ specifications in an effort to invalidate the entirety of the ‘593 patent,
`
`and all means-plus-function claims of the ‘431 patent. Cloudflare, however, far from satisfies its
`
`burden of establishing indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`II. THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Sable has asserted four patents against Cloudflare: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,954,431 (the “’431
`
`patent”) (Dkt. 29-2); 6,977,932 (the “’932 patent”) (Dkt. 29-3); 7,012,919 (the “’919 patent”) (Dkt.
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Page 1 of 30
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 6 of 34
`
`29-4); and 8,243,593 (the “’593 patent”) (Dkt. 29-5).
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS1
`
`A. Default of Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`“The ‘only two exceptions to [the] general rule’ that claim terms are construed according
`
`to their plain and ordinary meaning are when the patentee (1) acts as his/her own lexicographer or
`
`(2) disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.”
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150002, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19,
`
`2020) (Albright, J.) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012)).
`
`B. Means-Plus-Function Terms
`
`1. Evaluating Whether A Claim Invokes § 112(f)
`
`When claim limitations do not use the word “means,” there is a presumption that § 112(f)
`
`does not apply. Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This
`
`presumption can be rebutted, but only “if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to
`
`recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for
`
`performing that function.” Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
`
`2. Interpretation of Means-Plus-Function Terms
`
`In interpreting means-plus-function claims, after determining whether or not 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, ¶ 6 applies, “the next step is to determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the
`
`specification and equivalents thereof.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248
`
`F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A structure is “corresponding” structure if it is disclosed in the
`
`patent’s specification and if it is “clearly linked or associated with the [recited] function.” Ancora
`
`Techs., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150002, at *8 (quoting Medtronic, 248 F.3d at 1311). “In the
`
`context of a claim governed by 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6, the claim is indefinite if the claim fails to
`
`disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed functions.” Ancora Techs., 2020
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150002, at *10 (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351-
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Court’s Order Governing Proceedings, Sable will forego a “lengthy recitation[]
`of the underlying legal authorities” regarding the law of claim construction. OGP v. 3.5.1 at 4.
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Page 2 of 30
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 7 of 34
`
`52 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). However, the disclosure is only inadequate “when one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art ‘would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the
`
`corresponding function in the claim.’” Id. (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352).
`
`IV.
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Sable and Cloudflare have reached agreement on the proposed constructions of several
`
`terms. Sable confirms it agrees to the proposed constructions identified in Exhibit 6 of
`
`Cloudflare’s Opening Brief. Dkt. 29-7. Sable also agrees to Cloudflare’s proposed construction
`
`of three additional terms, and therefore does not address them herein:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`Patent and Claims
`
`“microflow / micro-
`flow”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`6,954,431 (1-29)
`
`6,977,932 (1-32)
`
`7,012,919 (1-29)
`
`“flow state information”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`6,977,932 (1-29)
`
`“packet discard time
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`6,954,431 (8, 17, 19-
`22, 24)
`
`V.
`
`SABLE’S PREVIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST CISCO
`
`Sable and Cisco Systems were briefly engaged in litigation before this Court. Sable
`
`Networks, Inc., et al. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00288-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Sable and Cisco
`
`met and conferred in good faith, and in a give and take, negotiated agreed constructions each side
`
`was prepared to accept for that case in an effort to present only those claim construction issues
`
`directly relevant to that case. See No. 6:20-cv-00288, Dkt. 41-8. Shortly thereafter, and before
`
`any claim construction hearing or any Court Order regarding the proper construction of any term,
`
`Cisco and Sable resolved their dispute and dismissed that case. Id. at Dkt. 50.
`
`Cloudflare now asks the Court to punish Sable’s good-faith, give-and-take negotiations
`
`with Cisco and allow Cloudflare to cherry pick the agreed constructions from the Cisco case
`
`Cloudflare likes while ignoring those it disfavors. When Cloudflare cited the agreed constructions
`
`from the Cisco case during the meet and confer process here, Sable offered to agree to all the
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Page 3 of 30
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 8 of 34
`
`proposed constructions in the Cisco case. See Ex.2 1 at 3 (“[T]he constructions that were agreed
`
`to in the Cisco case were part of a broader negotiation across multiple terms. We have offered
`
`Cloudflare … the option of agreeing to all the agreed constructions from the Cisco case. That
`
`offer still stands. It is inappropriate, however, for Defendant[] to cherry pick from the agreed terms
`
`in Cisco while ignoring all context of that agreement, including the rest of the agreed
`
`constructions.”).
`
`Cloudflare refused Sable’s offer yet accuses Sable of “back-tracking” and “contradicting”
`
`its claim construction positions. Cloudflare is wrong – Sable is not backtracking or contradicting
`
`itself. The Sable-Cisco agreed constructions do not come close to satisfying the applicable
`
`standards for collateral or judicial estoppel. See Paltalk Holdings, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2008
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94462, at *9-14 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2008) (finding a different court’s claim
`
`construction order on the same patent not binding because a “claim construction order cannot be
`
`considered a ‘final judgment’ . . . .”). Indeed, the Court in the Cisco case did not even conduct at
`
`Markman hearing or issue a claim construction Order.
`
`Sable’s proposed constructions here are a faithful application of the Phillips standard.
`
`Sable respectfully requests that the Court ignore Cloudflare’s red herring arguments regarding the
`
`Cisco case.
`
`VI. DISPUTED TERMS
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,954,431 (The “’431 Patent”)
`
`1. Background of the ‘431 Patent
`
`The ‘431 patent is directed to a system for efficiently routing flows of data packets across
`
`a network. The challenge the ‘431 patent sought to address was how to efficiently process data
`
`flows with significant Quality of Service (“QoS”) requirements (e.g., two-way voice and video
`
`data). Prior art systems that could provide acceptable quality, such as utilizing virtual circuits over
`
`asynchronous transfer mode protocol switching, required significant bandwidth. Id. at 1:32-61.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, citations to “Ex. __” refer to exhibits to the Declaration of Daniel P.
`Hipskind, which is submitted herewith.
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Page 4 of 30
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 9 of 34
`
`Bandwidth is a critical network resource and allocating it on a circuit-by-circuit basis is inefficient.
`
`Thus, large-scale implementations of these prior art systems would be expensive and infeasible.
`
`Id. at 1:44-48; 2:30-43.
`
`In view of these problems, the ‘431 patent provided a technology that could “associate
`
`specific state information to a uniquely identifiable set of data signals that typically have the same
`
`open system interconnection model network layer and transport layer characteristics (‘micro-
`
`flow’).” Id. at 5:44-49. This enables the network to associate a specific, quantified level of QoS
`
`to be associated with that micro-flow. Id. at 5:48-49.
`
`2. “based on a characteristic”
`
`Sable’s Proposed Construction
`
`Cloudflare’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“based on a characteristic associated with the
`microflow”
`
`The phrase “based on a characteristic” appears in claims 1 and 10 of the ‘431 patent. The
`
`phrase “based on a characteristic” requires no construction. The Court should adopt its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. The “Summary of the Invention” in the ‘431 patent specification explain that
`
`the invention claimed in the ‘431 patent generates quality of service (“QoS”) descriptors associated
`
`with each microflow, and that “[b]ased upon these descriptors, the characteristics of a specific
`
`micro-flow can be quantified and used to efficiently route the data signals . . . through a networ,”
`
`‘431 Patent at 5:42-62 (emphasis added). The plain language of claims 1 and 10, particularly
`
`within the context of the ‘431 patent specification make clear to both a POSITA and potential
`
`jurors that the characteristic referred to in the phrase “based on a characteristic” is one belonging
`
`to a micro-flow. Accordingly, no construction of “based on a characteristic” is necessary. See
`
`TechRadium, Inc. v. Edulink Sys., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189753, at *21 (S.D. Tex. July 16,
`
`2012) (“The district court’s obligation to construe claims does not extend to ‘terms with ordinary
`
`meanings, lest trial courts be inundated with requests to parse the meaning of every word in the
`
`asserted claims.’”) (citations omitted).
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Page 5 of 30
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 10 of 34
`
`3. “means for determining a capacity of a buffer containing a microflow based on
`a characteristic”
`
`Sable’s Proposed Construction
`
`Cloudflare’s Proposed Construction
`
`Function: determining a capacity of a buffer
`containing
`a microflow based on
`a
`characteristic.
`
`Indefinite
`
`
`
`Structure: ingress micro-flow manager 505
`(including the micro-flow recognizer 520 and
`micro-flow classifier 530), memory 550
`(including the storage block table 560 and flow
`block table 570), linecard 410, and equivalents
`thereof. See cols. 13:11-14:46, and associated
`Figures.
`
`The function recited in this “means-plus-function” term is: “determining a capacity of a
`
`buffer containing a microflow based on a characteristic.” ‘431 Patent at cl. 10; Ng Decl.3 ¶ 42;
`
`Dkt. 29 at 11.4 When a data packet from a micro-flow is received by the system of claim 10, the
`
`ingress linecard 410 receives the data packet, QoS descriptors are associated with the micro-flow
`
`by the ingress micro-flow manager 505. Ng Decl. at ¶ 40. “These QoS descriptor values can
`
`include a guaranteed rate (“GR”) value. . . . The GR value allows a micro-flow to be guaranteed
`
`a specific rate.” Id. (citing ‘431 Patent at 8:58-64; 9:35-44).
`
`To provide a guaranteed rate for a microflow, a POSITA would readily understand
`that a switch would be required to reserve sufficient capacity in the buffer—i.e., the
`storage block of the switch—to accommodate the GR microflow. The ingress
`microflow manager 505, which is located on the ingress linecard, therefore utilizes
`the QoS descriptors, which quantify the characteristics of microflows (id. at 5:58-
`59) to determine the capacity of the buffer to which the microflow is assigned
`
`Ng Decl. at ¶ 41. “[A] person having ordinary skill in the art would understand from the ‘431
`
`patent’s specification that the function ‘determining a capacity of a buffer containing a microflow
`
`based on a characteristic’ is performed by the the micro-flow recognizer 520 and micro-flow
`
`classifier 530, which are within the ingress micro-flow manager 505, which is within the ingress
`
`
`3 Expert Declaration of T.S. Eugene Ng, Ph.D. Regarding Claim Construction, submitted herewith.
`4 Cloudflare agrees with the claimed function, but requests the inclusion of “associated with the
`microflow” based on the argument as to whether or not “based on a characteristic” should be
`construed.
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Page 6 of 30
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 11 of 34
`
`linecard 410 of a router or switch comprising the system of Claim 10.” Ng Decl. at ¶ 45.
`
`4. “weighting factor”
`
`Sable’s Proposed Construction
`
`Cloudflare’s Proposed Construction
`
`“the portion of an available rate a micro-flow
`is able to be delegated as compared to other
`micro-flows”
`
`“factor indicating the portion of available rate
`bandwidth to be delegated to the micro-flow
`compared to other micro-flows”
`
`Sable contends that the phrase “weighting factor” should be construed simply as “the
`
`portion of an available rate a micro-flow is able to be delegated as compared to other micro-flows.”
`
`Sable’s construction is in accord with the claims and specification of the ‘431 patent, which use
`
`the term “weighting factor” to describe “how much of a portion of an AR rate a micro-flow is able
`
`to be delegated as compared to other micro-flows.” ‘431 Patent at 10:19-21.
`
`Cloudflare disagrees with Sable’s proposed construction because “Sable wants to change
`
`‘how much of a portion’ to simply ‘the portion.’” Dkt. 29 at 13. There is no difference between
`
`“how much of a portion” and “the portion.” Cloudflare does not argue (as it cannot) there is a
`
`difference between “how much of a portion” and “the portion.” A POSITA would understand that
`
`“of the network resources available to process AR [available rate] traffic microflows, the
`
`weighting factor W is used to determine what portion (i.e., how much) of those network resources
`
`are dedicated to a particular microflow.” Ng Decl. at ¶ 47 (citing ‘431 Patent at 10:19-39).
`
`Accordingly, the term “weighting factor” should be construed as “the portion of an available rate
`
`a micro-flow is able to be delegated as compared to other micro-flows.”
`
`5. Preamble of Claim 19
`
`Sable’s Proposed Construction
`
`Cloudflare’s Proposed Construction
`
`Not limiting
`
`Limiting
`
`The preamble of claim 19 states: “In a network management system for controlling data
`
`traffic through a network, the data traffic comprised of a plurality of microflows, a microflow
`
`classification structure to determine data traffic type comprising.” Claim 19 then recites three
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Page 7 of 30
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 12 of 34
`
`types of data structures comprising the microflow classification structure: (1) “a packet discard
`
`time substructure,” (2) “a weighting factor substructure,” and (3) “a delay variation substructure.”
`
`‘431 Patent at cl. 19.
`
`A data structure comprising the three data substructures required by claim 19’s limitations
`
`constitutes a complete invention—a “microflow classification structure.” “[A] preamble is not
`
`limiting ‘where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the
`
`preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.’” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,
`
`478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The “microflow classification” language merely serves as a descriptive
`
`name to the data structure made up of the data substructures described in claim 19’s limitations.
`
`“The Federal Circuit has held that the preamble has no separate limiting effect if, for example, it
`
`‘merely gives a descriptive name to the set of limitations in the body of the claim that completely
`
`set forth the invention.’” SuperSpeed, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4479, at *19
`
`(S.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2014) (quoting IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also Greenville Commc’ns, LLC v. Cellco P’ship, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`65588, at *14-15 (D.N.J. May 10, 2012) (“[T]he preamble does not explain any constituent parts
`
`of a ‘marketing system’ that do not already appear in the claims. The term simply refers to the
`
`invention as a whole ….”).
`
`Further, “preambles may often designate use and give the ‘field within which the invention
`
`has utility.’ . . . [G]eneral statements that the invention has or relates to a particular use do not
`
`overcome the general rule that the preamble term describing a use does not limit claims . . . .”
`
`Mars, Inc. v. TruRX LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187875, at *11, 11 n.8 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2015)
`
`(collecting cases) (citation omitted). The “[i]n a network management system for controlling data
`
`traffic through a network, the data traffic comprised of a plurality of microflows” and the “to
`
`determine data traffic type” language in the preamble merely explains the field of use for the
`
`“microflow classification structure” described in claim 19’s limitations. Accordingly, this
`
`language does not serve to add additional limitations to claim 19.
`
`SABLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`Page 8 of 30
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1096, page 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00261-ADA Document 34 Filed 12/03/21 Page 13 of 34
`
`Because the preamble is not a claim limitation of claim 19, it does not require construction.
`
`Should the Court, however, find the preamble of claim 19 limiting, Plaintiffs respectfully suggest
`
`the language be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`6. “a delay variation substructure configured to provide a buffer value to dampen
`jitter in a transmission of the microflow”
`
`Sable’s Proposed Construction
`
`Cloudflare’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning; not subject to 35
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`
`Indefinite
`
`The term “a delay variation substructure configured to provide a buffer value to dampen
`
`jitter in a transmission of the microflow” does not contain the word “means.” Accordingly, there
`
`is a presumption that § 112(f) does not apply. Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1007
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). To rebut this presumption, Cloudflare must “demonstrate[] that the claim term
`
`fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient
`
`structure for performing that function.” Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
`
`Cloudflare argues that means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies
`
`because, Cloudflare alleges, the term “structure” in the preamble of claim 19 and the
`
`“substructures” in the limitations of claim 19 are “generic placeholder[s] for the term ‘means.’”
`
`Dkt. 29 at 14. Cloudflare is wrong – a POSITA would not understand, in the context of