`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TODOR COOKLEV
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE .......................................................... 2
`II.
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED ........................................ 5
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 6
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 8
`VII. THE PETITION USES THE SAME ELEMENT FROM AHOPELTO
`FOR A SERVER AND NETWORK SWITCH BOX...................................11
`VIII. AHOPELTO DOES NOT TEACH OR SUGGEST “SERVER
`FUNCTIONALITY” IN COMMUNICATION WITH A PLURALITY
`OF NETWORK DEVICES (CLAIM 1) ........................................................16
`IX. AHOPELTO FAILS TO TEACH OR SUGGEST THE ALLEGED
`“SERVER FUNCTIONALITY” IS CONFIGURED FOR
`COMMUNICATION WITH A SECOND NETWORK SWITCH BOX
`(CLAIM 14). ..................................................................................................17
`THE ALLEGED COMBINATION DEOS NOT DISCLOSE OR
`RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIM 4....................................................................20
`XI. THE ALLEGED COMBINATION DOES NOT TEACH OR
`SUGGEST CLAIM 6 ....................................................................................26
`XII. THE ALLEGED COMBINATION FAILS TO TEACH OR SUGGEST
`AN OPTIMAL PATH FOR A SPECIFIC DATA STREAM FLOW AS
`REQUIRED BY CLAIM 19 ..........................................................................28
`XIII. AN “ACCESS SERVER” DOES NOT RENDER OBVIOUS
`LIMITATIONS OF CLAIMS 4–6, AND 24 ................................................30
`
`
`X.
`
`- i -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Todor V. Cooklev. I have been retained as an expert
`
`witness to provide my independent opinion in regard to the matters at issue in inter
`
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863 (“the ’863 patent”) in IPR2022-01222. I
`
`have been retained by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (“Smart Mobile”), the Patent
`
`Owner in the above proceeding. The Petitioner is Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated $400 per hour for my time spent working in
`
`connection with this case. My compensation is in no way related to the outcome of
`
`this litigation. If called as a witness, I would testify as to the statements and opinions
`
`contained in this report.
`
`3.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen and otherwise competent to make this
`
`declaration.
`
`4.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my technical
`
`background and experience in the relevant art.
`
`5.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have considered each of the documents
`
`cited herein, in light of my general knowledge in the art. I provide my testimony
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`as Petitioner defined in its petition. I am familiar with the knowledge and skill level
`
`of these people based on my years of experience in the industry and frequent
`
`interactions with such people.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
`I am currently Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at
`6.
`
`Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Indiana. At the same institution since 2008, I
`
`have served in several faculty and administrative positions, including as the Director
`
`of the Wireless Technology Center, ITT Associate Professor of Wireless
`
`Communication and Applied Research, and subsequently as Harris Professor of
`
`Wireless Communication and Applied Research.
`
`7.
`
`I graduated from the Technical University of Sofia, Bulgaria in 1988
`
`with a Diploma of Engineering in the field of Electrical Engineering. I graduated
`
`from Tokyo Institute of Technology in Tokyo, Japan in 1995 with a Doctor of
`
`Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in Electrical Engineering.
`
`8.
`
`In 1997–1999, I was an engineer at 3Com Corp. where I worked on
`
`software and firmware development. At that time, 3Com was a leading computer
`
`networking and data communication company. Palm Computing, which had
`
`developed the PalmPilot, widely recognized as the first personal digital assistant
`
`(PDA), was a division of 3Com. Additionally, I participated in the Bluetooth Special
`
`Interest Group (SIG) on behalf of 3Com.
`
`9.
`
`In 2007–2008 I served as Principal Investigator of a National Science
`
`Foundation grant awarded to the IEEE. This grant supported numerous
`
`undergraduate and graduate students to work on hardware and software projects
`
`- 2 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`incorporating the IEEE standards. A significant number of software applications and
`
`hardware devices, connected to other devices and/or the Internet using wireless local
`
`or personal area networking standards were developed as a result of this funding.
`
`10.
`
`I have contributed to the development of several major standards for
`
`communication systems and numerous amendments, including Bluetooth, DSL, Wi-
`
`Fi, cellular, and military radio systems. I have participated in many meetings of
`
`standards committees and prepared, submitted, and presented documents relating to
`
`technical matters considered by these committees. I have also drafted liaison letters
`
`among different standards committees. I have chaired some committee meetings and
`
`served in other leadership roles. For example, I have been a Voting Member of the
`
`IEEE 802.11 Working Group and served as Chairman of the IEEE Standards in
`
`Education Committee. I received an award from IEEE Standards Association in
`
`2012.
`
`11. My additional involvement with IEEE includes being elected to serve
`
`on the Board of Governors of the IEEE Standards Association in 2020 for one term
`
`beginning January 2021. The Board of Governors provides overall leadership of the
`
`IEEE Standards Association.
`
`12. Also, I am the Series Editor for Wireless and Radio Communications
`
`for the IEEE Communications Standards Magazine (which is the premier journal in
`
`the field of communication standards) and have held that position since 2017. My
`
`- 3 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`responsibilities as an editor include coordinating the review of manuscripts
`
`submitted for publication and making publication decisions.
`
`13. Since the 1990s and more particularly since 1997 I have been reviewing
`
`many manuscripts submitted for journal and conference publication, including
`
`manuscripts in the field of the ’863 Patent. In addition, since about 2000 I have
`
`reviewed and voted on many standards, including IEEE 802.11, 802.15, and 802.16.
`
`14. My current research interests include most aspects of modern wireless
`
`systems, including hardware and software architectures. A significant part of my
`
`research is specifically focused on standards-related issues. I have received a number
`
`of research grants in these areas. My teaching responsibilities have included courses
`
`in communication systems and networks, signals and systems, software-defined
`
`radio, and digital signal processing.
`
`15.
`
`I am a named inventor on more than thirty U.S. patents, most of which
`
`relate to the hardware or software aspects of communication systems. In 2019, I was
`
`inducted into the Purdue Inventors Hall of Fame. I have also authored and co-
`
`authored more than one hundred peer-reviewed articles. I also authored “Wireless
`
`Communication Standards: A Study of IEEE 802.11, 802.15, and 802.16,” published
`
`by IEEE Press. A list of my publications and patents appears in my curriculum vitae
`
`attached as Exhibit 2004.
`
`- 4 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`16. A detailed record of my professional qualifications is set forth in the
`
`attached Exhibit 2004, which is my curriculum vitae, including a list of publications,
`
`awards, courses I teach in electrical and computer engineering subjects, research
`
`grants, and professional activities. My curriculum vitae also lists the depositions,
`
`hearings, and trial at which I have testified.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`In the course of conducting my analysis and forming my opinions, I
`17.
`
`have reviewed materials including those listed below:
`
`a. The ’863 patent” (Ex. 1001);
`
`b. The file history of the ’863 patent (Ex. 1002);
`
`c. The Declaration signed by Dr. Michael Jensen in IPR2022-01222 (the
`
`“Jensen Declaration”) (Ex. 1003);
`
`d. Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael Jensen in IPR2022-01222 (Ex. 1004);
`
`e. The Petition in IPR2022-01222;
`
`f. The Institution Decision in IPR2022-01222;
`
`g. The Exhibits Cited by Petitioner in IPR2022-01222,
`
`h. U.S. Patent No. 5,970,059 issued to Ahopelto et al. (“Ahopelto”) (Ex.
`
`1005);
`
`i. U.S. Patent No. 6,636,502 issued to Lager et al. (“Matero”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`- 5 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`j. U.S. Patent No. 5,768,691 issued to Matero et al. (“Matero”) (Ex.
`
`1007);
`
`k. U.S. Patent No. 5,550,816 issued to Hardwick et al. (“Hardwick”) (Ex.
`
`1008);
`
`l. U.S. Patent No 6,697,632 issued to Sood et al. (“Sood”) (Ex. 1008);
`
`m. The exhibits and other documents cited herein.
`
`18.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the materials indicated
`
`above, and considered each of the documents cited herein in light of general
`
`knowledge in the art at the time of the invention. In formulating my opinions, I have
`
`relied upon my experience, education, and knowledge in the relevant art. In
`
`formulating my opinions, I have considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention, as well as the relevant legal standards,
`
`including the standard for obviousness.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`I understand that the person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical
`19.
`
`person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention.
`
`By “relevant,” I mean relevant to the challenged claims of the ’863 patent.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that factual indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art include the various prior art approaches employed, the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the
`
`- 6 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background of those
`
`actively working in the field. I understand that, in assessing the level of skill of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, one should consider the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those problems found in the prior art
`
`references, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, the level of education of active workers in the field, and my own
`
`experience working with those of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this IPR proceeding, Dr. Jensen asserts the
`
`following opinion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`Based on my knowledge and experience in the field and my review
`of the ’863 patent and its file history, I believe that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of alleged invention (“POSITA”)
`would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
`computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at
`least two years of experience related to the design or development
`of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent. Additional
`graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or
`significant experience in the field could substitute for formal
`education.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 27.
`
`22. For the purposes of this declaration, I accept Dr. Jensen’s proposed
`
`qualifications of a POSITA. I reserve the right to revisit the issue.
`
`- 7 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`23. As further discussed below, my opinions as stated in this declaration
`
`are valid even if the Board adopts a slightly different level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`It is my understanding that the ’863 Patent’s challenged claims are to
`24.
`
`be 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)
`
`(Nov. 13, 2018). The ’863 Patent claim terms are therefore construed “in accordance
`
`with the ordinary and customary meaning of such terms as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that Petitioner asks the Board to construe Limitation 1[d]
`
`of the ’863 patent to mean that the server (rather than the controller) is in
`
`communication with a plurality of network devices. Pet. 11–12. I do not believe
`
`resolution of this issue is necessary at this time because Petitioner’s arguments fail
`
`under any either construction so it is not necessary to construe the term to resolve
`
`this IPR. I reserve the right to do so in the future.
`
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS
`26. When considering the ’863 patent and stating my opinions, I rely on the
`
`following legal standards as described to me by the attorneys for Patent Owner.
`
`- 8 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`purported invention.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been obvious
`
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in view of the prior
`
`art and in light of the general knowledge in the art as a whole. I also understand that
`
`obviousness is ultimately a legal conclusion based on underlying facts of four
`
`general types, all of which must be considered: (1) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art; and (4) any objective indicia of non-obviousness,
`
`including any praise of the invention.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that obviousness may be established under certain
`
`circumstances by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art. Specific
`
`teachings, suggestions, or motivations to combine any first prior art reference with
`
`a second prior art reference can be explicit or implicit, but must have existed before
`
`the date of purported invention. I understand that prior art references themselves
`
`may be one source of a specific teaching or suggestion to combine features of the
`
`prior art, but that such suggestions or motivations to combine art may come from the
`
`knowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had.
`
`- 9 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a reference may be relied upon for all that it teaches,
`
`including uses beyond its primary purpose, but also including teachings that lead
`
`away from the invention. I understand that a reference may be said to teach away
`
`when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
`
`from following the path set out in the reference, although the mere disclosure of
`
`alternative designs does not teach away.
`
`31.
`
`I further understand that whether there is a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in combining references in a particular way is also relevant to the analysis.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that it is improper to use hindsight to combine references
`
`or elements of references to reconstruct the invention using the claims as a guide.
`
`My analysis of the prior art is made from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`33.
`
`I am not offering any legal opinions in this declaration. I only consider
`
`such legal standards in framing my opinions and conclusions as well as placing
`
`assertions made by Petitioner in the Petition into the proper context. Additionally,
`
`from a subject matter perspective, I understand that the Petitioner has the burden of
`
`persuasion regarding a challenge of patentability of an invention under an inter
`
`partes review.
`
`- 10 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`VII. THE PETITION USES THE SAME ELEMENT FROM AHOPELTO
`FOR A SERVER AND NETWORK SWITCH BOX
`Independent claims 1 and 14 recite “a (first) server” and “a (first)
`34.
`
`network switch box.” Ex. 1001, 12:1–4, 13:6–10. A “first server” is recited in
`
`Limitation 1[c], and the “network switch box” is recited in Limitation 1[d].
`
`Similarly, a “server” is recited in Limitation 14[e] and a “first network switch box”
`
`is recited in Limitations 14[b], [c], and [d]. As described in more detail below, it is
`
`my opinion that Ahopelto fails to teach or suggest a separate server and network
`
`switch box as argued by the Petition for claims 1 or 14.
`
`35. Petitioner attempts to satisfy these distinct limitations by mapping them
`
`to different purported functions of Ahopelto’s GPRS gateway support node
`
`(“GGSN”). Petitioner maps the “first server” of claim 1 to a purported “server
`
`functionality” located in the GGSN. Pet. 33. Similarly, Petitioner maps a “server” of
`
`claim 14 to the GGSN’s purported “server functionality.” Id., 69. Petitioner ties this
`
`purported “server functionality” to the function of checking the protocol of an
`
`encapsulated packet received by the GGSN for forwarding the packet. Id.
`
`36. Petitioner maps the “network switch box” of claim 1 to a purported
`
`“routing functionality,” again in the GGSN. Id., 38–39. The “first network switch
`
`box” of claim 14 is also mapped to the alleged “routing functionality.” Id., 62. The
`
`purported “routing functionality . . . connects data packet networks to each other,
`
`such as other operators’ GPRS systems and “an inter-operator backbone network, IP
`
`- 11 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`network, or X.25 network.” Id., 38. Although Petitioner is not clear, it appears that
`
`this alleged “routing functionality” involves “decid[ing] to which output port a
`
`packet will be sent.” Id., 39. In my opinion, the Petition fails to establish that the
`
`purported “server functionality” and “routing functionality” are two separate and
`
`distinct elements.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, Petitioner’s evidence and arguments shows that the
`
`alleged “server functionality” and “routing functionality” are not distinct and
`
`separate. Thus, they would not teach or suggest to a POSITA separate “server” and
`
`“network switch box.” For example, the Petition gives the same operations to the
`
`alleged “server functionality” and the “routing functionality.” According to the
`
`Petition, the “server functionality” determines how to forward packets. Pet. 24
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 7:35–42, 8:40–41 and 10:22–23, 48–50, 56–59). The Petition
`
`alleges the “routing functionality” does the same thing. According to the Petition the
`
`alleged “routing functionality” decides “to which output port a packet will be sent.”’
`
`Pet. 40 (quoting Ex. 1013, 14:1–3). Further suggesting that there is no distinction
`
`between the two alleged elements, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Jensen testified at his
`
`deposition that deciding where to forward a patent is an essential part of routing. Ex.
`
`2005, [Jensen Deposition] 46:22–47:1. Reading packets is an essential part of a
`
`network switch box. A POSITA would not understand an alleged “server
`
`- 12 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 14 of 36
`
`
`
`functionality” to be distinct from an alleged “network switch box” when they
`
`perform the same operations.
`
`38.
`
`I also note that the Petition relies on the same content to make
`
`allegations about both the alleged “server functionality” and the alleged “routing
`
`functionality,” which further supports my conclusion that Ahopelto does not teach
`
`separate a separate “routing functionality” and “server functionality.” For example,
`
`the Petition alleges that a connection between the “server functionality” and an IP
`
`enabled network is taught by Ahopelto through the disclosure that the GGSN
`
`connects one operator in the system with other networks. Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1005,
`
`6:16–19). The Petition uses the same passage to support its allegation that the
`
`purported “routing functionality” is connected to different networks. Pet. 43 (citing
`
`Ex. 1005, 6:16–19; Ex. 1006, 5:15–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶132–33). It is inconsistent for
`
`Petitioner to argue that the “routing functionality” and “server functionality” are
`
`equivalent to show connections to different networks, but also claim that they are
`
`separate and distinct. In another example illustrating a similar inconsistency, the
`
`Petitioner cites Ahopelto at 7:35–42 and 8:40–41 to demonstrate a “server
`
`functionality.” Pet. 24. Elsewhere, the Petition uses the same content to try to show
`
`alleged “routing functionality.” Pet. 43 (referencing Ahopelto at 7:21–42 to illustrate
`
`“routing functionality of the GGSN”), 43–44 (referencing Ahopelto at 8:27–45 to
`
`demonstrate “routing functionality of the GGSN”).
`
`- 13 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 15 of 36
`
`
`
`39. Nothing in Ahopelto would teach or suggest a distinction to a POSITA
`
`between any “server functionality” and “routing functionality” of its GGSN, let
`
`alone a “server” or “network switch box.” Ahopelto never mentions the term “server
`
`functionality” or the term “routing functionality.” Ahopelto does not even recognize
`
`these alleged functionalities so it cannot teach any distinction between them.
`
`40. Petitioner alleges that “routing functionality would be implemented as
`
`a logical entity on a shared platform or via separate hardware with the server
`
`functionality for controlling how received packets are forwarded based on protocol
`
`type.” Pet. 39. Firstly, the alleged “server” and “router” functionalities are not
`
`different so it does not matter where they are implemented. Second, this assertion
`
`lacks support, in my opinion.
`
`41. When discussing hardware, the Petition cites to Dr. Jensen’s
`
`declaration for support. Pet. 39. Dr Jensen’s cited declaration testimony, however,
`
`only addresses software. Ex. 1003, ¶123. It does not say anything about hardware.
`
`Furthermore, a POSITA would expect a router to forward a packet, which Petitioner
`
`alleges the “server functionality” performs, Pet. 24, so a POSITA would not expect
`
`this to be implemented on a separate piece of hardware. The cited references,
`
`Granholm (Ex. 1010 at 84) and Stallings (Ex. 1022 at 12), are silent as to
`
`implementing any “routing functionality” on hardware separate from an alleged
`
`“server functionality.”
`
`- 14 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 16 of 36
`
`
`
`42. Regarding software, Dr. Jensen cited Granholm and Stallings to support
`
`his contention that “the GGSN’s server functionality, access server functionality,
`
`and routing functionality, would be implemented as different logical (e.g., software)
`
`entities on a shared platform.” Ex. 1003, ¶123 (citing Ex. 1010, p.84; Ex. 1022,
`
`p.12). I disagree that Granholm and Stallings disclose or suggest GGSN “server
`
`functionality” implemented separately “routing functionality.” Consistent with my
`
`opinion, Dr. Jensen acknowledged during his deposition that Granholm does not
`
`show a “routing functionality” implemented separately from a “server functionality”
`
`Ex. 2005, 56:16–57:2. Dr Jensen further conceded that Stallings does not “teach
`
`anything about a GPRS system.” Id., 57:19–58:1. I also note that Dr. Jensen could
`
`not explain how any reference showed a separate “routing functionality” and a
`
`separate “server functionality.”
`
`Okay. But sitting here today, you can't point to any reference that
`you cited in your declaration that shows implementing the server
`functionality and the routing functionality of a GGSN as different
`entities; is that correct?
`…
`THE WITNESS: Again, I -- I think what I'm struggling with is
`your implementing them as -- separately as different entities.
`Obviously all of these things work together in a system. The
`system requires those different functionalities. You know,
`Ahopelto talks about implementing those functionalities -- he
`doesn't talk about those specific ones, but the GGSN, you know,
`
`- 15 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 17 of 36
`
`
`
`functionalities along with other functionalities on single computer.
`So I'm struggling with the “as different entities” sort of language,
`exactly what that means. Obviously they’re all there working
`together. Ex. 2005 [Jensen Depo], 63:21–64:17.
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, Ahopelto fails to teach or suggest two separate and
`
`distinct “routing” and “server” functionalities so it cannot teach or suggest the
`
`distinct “server” and “network switch box” claimed by the ’863 Patent. As Dr.
`
`Jensen acknowledged, forwarding packets is an essential part of routing, not a
`
`separate and distinct “server functionality.”
`
`VIII. AHOPELTO DOES NOT TEACH OR SUGGEST “SERVER
`FUNCTIONALITY” IN COMMUNICATION WITH A PLURALITY
`OF NETWORK DEVICES (CLAIM 1)
`44. Limitation 1[d] recites a “server configured with a controller in
`
`communication with a plurality of network devices.” Pet. 35. To meet this limitation,
`
`Petitioner argues that the “server functionality” is in communication with network
`
`devices because the GGSN, in general, is in communication with a plurality of
`
`network devices. Id., 36–37. Petitioner equates communication with the GGSN in
`
`general to a communication with all parts of the GGSN, including the alleged “server
`
`functionality.” In fact, if the “routing functionality” and “server functionality” are
`
`separate and distinct, as alleged by Petitioner, then the network devices would only
`
`need to communicate with the “routing functionality,” not the “server functionality.”
`
`- 16 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 18 of 36
`
`
`
`45. Communication with a GGSN does not imply communication with all
`
`the component parts of a GGSN. Ahopelto, of course, never references “server
`
`functionality” of a GGSN communicating with any network device because
`
`Ahopelto never discloses “server functionality” at all. Furthermore, Petitioner
`
`repeatedly asserts that the purported “server functionality” controls how to forward
`
`a packet, Pet. 24, 33, and claims the “server functionality” is in communication with
`
`“routing functionality” to accomplish this, Pet. 69. Under Petitioner’s theory,
`
`wherein the alleged “server functionality” communicates with the “routing
`
`functionality,” there is no need for the alleged “server functionality” to communicate
`
`with any alleged network devices. It would only need to communicate with the
`
`“routing functionality.” Finally, the Petition also provides a backup argument, where
`
`Limitation 1[d] requires a “controller” in communication with a plurality of network
`
`devices. Pet. 37–38. This backup argument fails for the same reasons set forth herein
`
`for the “server functionality.” Nothing in Ahopelto teaches or suggests an alleged
`
`controller communicating with any network device outside the GGSN. Nor would
`
`there be reason for it to do so.
`
`IX. AHOPELTO FAILS TO TEACH OR SUGGEST THE ALLEGED
`“SERVER FUNCTIONALITY” IS CONFIGURED FOR
`COMMUNICATION WITH A SECOND NETWORK SWITCH BOX
`(CLAIM 14).
`46. Limitation 14[e] recites “a server, wherein the server is configured for
`
`communication with the first network switch box and the second network switch
`
`- 17 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 19 of 36
`
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 20 of 36
`
`
`
`functionality is in communication with the host network because in some
`
`circumstances “a packet traverses both the router [in the home network] (i.e., “the
`
`second network switch box”) and the GGSN (i.e., the “first network switch box”
`
`with its routing functionality) . . .” Id., 69.
`
`48.
`
`If true, this only establishes that the alleged first network switch box is
`
`in communication with the alleged second network switch. Petitioner does not
`
`identify or explain how (or why) the purported “server functionality” of the GGSN
`
`is configured for communication with the second network switch box. As I have
`
`already explained in Section VIII, a POSITA would not understand communication
`
`with the GGSN, or even communication with “routing functionality” of a GGSN, to
`
`suggest communication with an allegedly separatee and distinct “server
`
`functionality.” In the matter at hand, Ahopelto, itself, never discloses a “server
`
`functionality,” let alone a server functionality configured for communication with
`
`the second network switch box. As recognized by Dr. Jensen, a router checks the
`
`address of a packet to determine where to forward a patent, not a separate server. Ex.
`
`2005, 47:6–18. Given the router’s function, there would be no need for a data packet
`
`from a second network switch box to also traverse alleged “server functionality.”
`
`Thus, in my opinion, Ahopelto does not teach or suggest “server functionality”
`
`configured for communication with a second network switch box. And Petitioner
`
`makes no effort to explain why communication between the alleged first network
`
`- 19 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 21 of 36
`
`
`
`switch box and the second network switch box equates to a server configured to
`
`communicate with the second network switch box.
`
`X. THE ALLEGED COMBINATION DEOS NOT DISCLOSE OR
`RENDER OBVIOUS CLAIM 4
`49. Claim 4 recites, “the system of claim 2, wherein the server is configured
`
`to dynamically control and change the network flow between the first network
`
`switch box and second network switch box such that the first network switch box
`
`and second network switch box transmit and receive data packets using dynamically
`
`changing network paths.” Ex. 1001, 12:21–26 In my opinion, the combination
`
`alleged by the Petition, fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 4.
`
`50. Claim 4 requires that the first network switch box and the second
`
`network switch box transmit and receive data packets “using dynamically changing
`
`network paths.” But the teachings relied upon from Ahopelto for this limitation do
`
`not teach or suggest that the alleged first network switch box receives data packets
`
`using dynamically changing network paths.
`
`51. According to the Petitioner, network paths in Ahopelto change between
`
`a first path illustrated in Fig. 10 and a second path illustrated in Fig. 12 of Ahopelto.
`
`Pet. 52. The Petition maps the “first network switch box” of claim 4 to a GGSN of
`
`a second operator network. Id., 50, 51 (mapping depicted in annotated Figs. 10 and
`
`12). The Petition maps a “second network switch box” to a router of a host network.
`
`Id., 50, 51 (mapping depicted in annotated Figs. 10 and 12).
`
`- 20 -
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 22 of 36
`
`
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, Exhibit 2008
`Page 23 of 36
`
`
`
`receive data packets using dynamically changing network paths” as recited by Claim
`
`4.
`
`54.
`
`In addition, the alleged combination also fails because the alleged
`
`combination does not render obvious, for another reason, “wherein the server is
`
`configured to dynamically control and change the network flow … such that the first
`
`network switch box and second network switch box transmit and receive data
`
`packets using dynamically changing paths.”
`
`55. Petitioner bases its argument on alleged dynamically changing network
`
`paths shown in Figs. 10 and 12. Pet. 52. Both Fig. 10 and Fig. 12 depict paths for
`
`mobile originated (“MO”) data packets. Ex. 1005, 10:13–18; 10:39–44. Mobile
`
`Originated paths are one way. They only move away from the mobile device. Ex.
`
`1005, 8:13–16; Figs. 4, 8, 10, 12. This is demonstrated by the
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
