`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`———————
`
`IPR2022-01222
`U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863
`
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`B.
`C.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 4
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6
`II.
`AHOPELTO’S GGSN FUNCTIONS RENDER OBVIOUS “SERVER”
`AND “NETWORK SWITCH BOX” ................................................................. 7
`A. Ahopelto’s GGSN Renders Obvious the “server” and “network
`switch box.” .......................................................................................... 8
`PO’s “separate and distinct” Argument Misapplies Case Law. ......... 11
`The Access Servers of Ahopelto’s GGSN Also Render Obvious
`the “server.” ........................................................................................ 14
`1.
`The Evidence of Record Shows GGSNs had Access Servers . 14
`2.
`The Access Server Renders Obvious the Server of the
`Preamble, 1[d]. ......................................................................... 14
`D. Ahopelto’s GGSN Functions Communicate With Each Other and
`Other Network Devices, Rendering Obvious 1[d], 14[e]. ................. 16
`1.
`Server Functionality (Claim 1) ................................................ 16
`2.
`Second Network Switch Box (Claim 14) ................................ 18
`3.
`Access Server (Claim 14) ........................................................ 19
`III. THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS ...........................................20
`A. Ahopelto Teaches Dynamically Switching Network Paths (Cl. 4) .... 20
`1.
`Ahopelto Teaches Dynamic Control ........................................ 20
`2.
`The Network Switch Boxes Transmit and Receive Using
`Dynamically Changing Network Paths .................................... 22
`Ahopelto Teaches Switching Network Paths in Response to an
`Application (Claim 6) ......................................................................... 24
`Ahopelto Teaches Defining the Optimal Data Path (Claim 19) ........ 26
`C.
`IV. HARDWICK AND SOOD ARE ANALOGOUS ART................................29
`A. Hardwick is Analogous Art ................................................................ 30
`B.
`Sood is Analogous Art ....................................................................... 32
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................33
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................34
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................35
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Ex.1018
`Ex.1019
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. 8,982,863 (“the ’863 patent”)
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. 8,982,863
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Allen Jensen under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Michael Allen Jensen
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,970,059 to Juha-Pekka Ahopelto, et al.
`(“Ahopelto”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,636,502 to Per Lager, et al. (“Lager”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,768,691 to Jorma Matero, et al. (“Matero”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,550,816 to Ken Hardwick, et al. (“Hardwick”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,697,632 to Prem Sood (“Sood”)
`H. Granbohm & J. Wiklund, GPRS-General packet radio service,
`Ericsson Review No. 2, 1999, pp. 82-88 (“Granbohm”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,608,832 to Jan E. Forslöw (“Forslöw”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,532,227 to Arto Leppisaari et al. (“Leppisaari”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,937,566 to Jan E. Forslöw (“Forslöw”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,649,837 to Mikko Puuskari (“Puuskari”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,584,098 to Stephen Dutnall (“Dutnall”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,269,254 to James E. Mathis (“Mathis”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,489,860 to Michael McMahon et al.
`(“McMahon”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,430,599 to Mark Baker et al. (“Baker”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,295,450 to Subramanian S. Lyer et al. (“Lyer”)
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,862,622 to Jacob W. Jorgensen (“Jorgensen”)
`C. Rigney et al., “Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
`(RADIUS),” Network Working Group, Request for Comments:
`2138, April 1997 (“RFC2138”)
`William Stallings, Data and Computer Communications (Prentice
`Hall, 5th ed., 1997)
`Daniel D. Gajski et al., Specification and Design of Embedded
`Systems (Prentice Hall, 1994)
`Joint Agreed Scheduling Order; Dkt. 30, Smart Mobile
`Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-00603 (WDTX)
`Complaint; Dkt. 1, Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6-21-cv-00603 (WDTX)
` Amended Joint Agreed Scheduling Order; Dkt. 57, Smart Mobile
`Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-00603 (WDTX)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,125,388 to Richard R. Reisman (“Reisman”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,469,998 to Alberto Burgaleta Salinas (“Salinas”)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Todor Cooklev, August 8, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1020
`
`Ex.1021
`
`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Ex.1024
`
`Ex.1025
`
`Ex.1026
`
`Ex.1027
`
`Ex.1028
`(New)
`Ex.1029
`(New)
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition demonstrated that the challenged claims are unpatentable over
`
`Ahopelto combined with other prior art. Patent Owner (“PO”) seeks to avoid the
`
`teachings of the prior art by untethering application of the art from the
`
`understanding of a POSITA or ignoring the evidence presented altogether.
`
`For example, Ahopelto’s teachings of a GGSN render obvious the “server”
`
`and “network switch box” limitations. PO seeks to avoid these teachings by arguing
`
`that words (like “server functionality”/“routing functionality”) are missing from
`
`the prior art. See POR, 7. The proper analysis, though, is on the teachings of the
`
`prior art. PO also seeks to avoid the prior arts’ teachings by arguing the Petition
`
`lacked supporting evidence. For example, PO argues that the Petition used
`
`“attorney argument” alone to demonstrate the server and router functionalities are
`
`implemented on hardware. See POR, 7. But this expressly ignores the evidence
`
`Petitioner’s expert relied upon demonstrating a POSITA’s understanding of
`
`Ahopelto’s teachings. Ex.1003, ¶¶105, 111, 113, 117, 123; Pet., 33, 35-39.
`
`The rest of PO’s arguments follow similarly flawed strategies. In view of the
`
`presented prior art, supporting evidence, and reasoned explanations, the Board
`
`should find the challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`II. AHOPELTO’S GGSN FUNCTIONS RENDER OBVIOUS “SERVER”
`AND “NETWORK SWITCH BOX”
`
`A POSITA would have understood Ahopelto’s teachings of GGSNs to
`
`include the generic functions known in the art for a “server” and a “network switch
`
`box,” since the claims themselves do not impose distinguishing limits on the terms.
`
`Claim 1’s “server” is part of a “system for controlling [IP] based wireless
`
`devices, IP based cellular phones, networks or network switches.” The “server” is
`
`“connected to at least one internet protocol enabled network” and “configured with
`
`a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices.” Ex.1001, 12:1-
`
`4. Claim 14’s server is “configured for communication with the first network
`
`switch box and the second network switch box, and a communication protocol to
`
`control the network path” using a controller. Ex.1001, 13:6-10.
`
`Claim 1’s “network switch box” is “configured with a plurality of ports,”
`
`“connected to at least two networks,” and “configured to transmit and receive one
`
`or more data packets between the at least two networks.” Ex.1001, 12:5-10. Claim
`
`14 adds a second network switch box, with each network switch box “configured
`
`with a wired and/or wireless interface” and transmit and receive “data streams.”
`
`Ex.1001, 12:64-13:5.
`
`There are several reasons the prior art demonstrates these generic
`
`limitations, which PO’s arguments overlook or misconstrue.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`A. Ahopelto’s GGSN Renders Obvious the “server” and “network
`switch box.”
`
`The evidence demonstrates it was known that GGSNs (like those systems
`
`taught in Ahopelto) include logical components for different functions, such as
`
`“server” and “network switch box” functionalities.
`
`Ahopelto teaches implementing different equipment functions (such as
`
`GGSN and SGSN) “in a single computer.” Ex.1005, 6:10-15; Pet., 37. Further,
`
`Granbohm evidences POSITA’s knowledge that GGSNs incorporated “modular
`
`software” to allow upgrading “individual modules of the platform … without
`
`disturbing traffic.” Ex.1010, p.84; Ex.1003, ¶111. Pet., 35-36. Modular functions
`
`included a “router function,” “access-server functionality,” border gateway
`
`function, and charging function. Ex.1010, pp.85, 87; Ex.1003, ¶¶111, 122; Pet., 34-
`
`36, 39; see also Ex.1011, 15:10-18 (multiple functions in GGSN); Pet., 25.
`
`Granbohm demonstrates that POSITAs knew how to implement routers and
`
`servers on the same GGSN hardware (such as Ahopelto’s GGSNs). Further, Figure
`
`7 of Exhibit 1015 confirms this knowledge, illustrating a gateway node 60
`
`“inserted in the [GGSN] 51.” Ex.1015, 10:9-13, 11:14-16. The “various functional
`
`elements” of Figure 7 “may be embodied in software in a general-purpose
`
`computer.” Ex.1015, 11:20-24. The evidence shows POSITAs understood that
`
`GGSNs include multiple functionalities, such as router and server functionalities.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`A POSITA reading Ahopelto would understand Ahopelto renders obvious
`
`
`
`the “server.” Ahopelto teaches that one function of its GGSN determines how to
`
`forward a packet based on the packet’s protocol type. Ex.1003, ¶77 (citing
`
`Ex.1005, 7:37-40, 8:40-41, 10:22-23, 48-50, 56-59); Pet., 24. Dr. Jensen referred to
`
`this for simplicity as the GGSN’s “server functionality.” Ex.1003, ¶77; Pet., 24.
`
`The GGSN’s “server functionality,” by determining how to forward a packet based
`
`on protocol type and whether that protocol type is supported, “exercises control
`
`over how a packet is routed.” Id.; see also ¶105; Pet., 24, 33-34. The GGSN’s
`
`“server functionality” therefore renders obvious a “server.”
`
`Ahopelto also renders obvious the “network switch box.” Ahopelto teaches
`
`that another function of its GGSN is connecting “at least two networks,” by
`
`connecting a data packet network to other networks. Ex.1005, Abstract; see also
`
`6:16-19; Ex.1003, ¶121; see also:
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Ex.1003, ¶128; Pet., 41.
`
`
`
`Dr. Cooklev, PO’s expert, also acknowledged that a GGSN includes a router
`
`function. Ex.1029, 62:5-61 (“Q. … Does a GGSN perform routing? A. I think it
`
`does, yes.”).
`
`Finally, Ahopelto’s GGSNs include functionality to “transmit and receive
`
`one or more data packets between the at least two networks.” Ahopelto’s GGSNs
`
`were known to have multiple ports, with a different port for each connection to the
`
`different networks. Ex.1005, Figure 1; Ex.1013, 14:1-3 (GGSN port selection);
`
`
`1 Citations to Ex.1029 herein are to page numbers as labeled.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Ex.1003, ¶125; Pet., 40. Ahopelto’s GGSNs use these multiple ports between
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`networks to receive and transmit packets. See Ex.1005, 7:21-29, 40-42 (mobile-
`
`terminated), 8:27-45 (mobile-originated); Ex.1003, ¶¶134-36; Pet., 43-44.
`
`Dr. Jensen referred to these teachings for simplicity as the GGSN’s “routing
`
`functionality.” See Ex.1003, ¶121; Pet., 45. Ahopelto’s GGSN “routing
`
`functionality” teachings render obvious the “network switch box.”
`
`B.
`
`PO’s “separate and distinct” Argument Misapplies Case Law.
`
`PO argues that the GGSN’s server and router functionalities cannot render
`
`obvious the “server” and “network switch box” limitations because they are
`
`allegedly not “separate and distinct elements.” POR, 5, 7-8 (arguing separate
`
`hardware). Inasmuch as this pertains to separate logical elements, the Petition
`
`demonstrated this as reiterated above. Otherwise, there is simply no blanket
`
`requirement for separate claim limitations to be physically separate or distinct from
`
`each other. See Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d
`
`1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010); POR, 4.
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co., which PO relied upon, dealt with a claim that
`
`recited different physical components (“spring means” and “hinged arm”). Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co., 616 F.3d at 1250-51. The challenged claims do not recite, or
`
`require, physical components that are physically distinct. Dr. Jensen explained with
`
`supporting evidence that a “server” and a “network switch box” were known to
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`POSITAs to be implemented logically on the same physical hardware, beginning
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`with Ahopelto itself. Ex.1005, 6:10-15; Ex.1010, p.84; Ex.1022, p.12; Ex.1003,
`
`¶123; Pet., 39; see also Ex.1015, 10:9-13, 11:14-16.
`
`Thus, whether Ahopelto’s GGSNs’ “server functionality” and “router
`
`functionality” have distinct hardware is irrelevant. Contra POR, 8. Instead, the
`
`question is whether a POSITA would have found the claimed “server” and
`
`“network switch box” obvious from Ahopelto’s logically distinct GGSN function
`
`teachings. The Petition demonstrated that Ahopelto’s GGSN includes the “server
`
`functionality” (checking the protocol and determining whether the packet is
`
`supported, See Ex.1005, 7:37-40, 8:40-41, 10:22-23, 48-50, 56-59; Ex.1003, ¶77;
`
`Pet., 24 and Ex.1003, ¶¶208-16 (both directions); Pet., 64-68) and, separately, the
`
`“router functionality” (normal routing mechanisms, See, e.g., Ex.1005, 8:40-45,
`
`10:22-27, 10:48-62; Ex.1003, ¶130; Pet., 42). Contra POR, 6 (alleging, incorrectly,
`
`that the same passages are cited for the different functionalities).
`
`Additionally, PO is incorrect that the GGSN’s “routing functionality” “does
`
`the same thing” as the “server functionality.” POR, 5. PO argues that Ahopelto’s
`
`server functionality decides “where” to forward a packet and that “deciding where
`
`to forward a packet is an essential part of routing” (emphasis in original), and thus
`
`Ahopelto’s “server functionality” “does the same thing” as the “routing
`
`functionality.” POR, 5; see also Ex.2005, 46:22-47:1. But Patent Owner’s
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`argument is premised on an incorrect fact: “where” to forward was not the “server
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`functionality” identified in Ahopelto.
`
`It is Ahopelto’s GGSN determining “how to forward a packet based on the
`
`‘protocol type of the encapsulated data packet’” that constitutes the “server
`
`functionality” – not “where” to forward a packet. Ex.1003, ¶77 (emphasis
`
`added)(citing Ex.1005, 7:37-40, 8:40-41, 10:22-23, 48-50, 56-59); Pet., 24.
`
`Petitioner consistently demonstrated Ahopelto’s “routing functionality” operating
`
`to achieve “where” to forward a packet. See, e.g., Ex.1003, ¶¶123-25; Pet., 39-40;
`
`accord Ex.2005, 46:22-47:18. The “server functionality” determines how to
`
`forward based on the protocol type, while the “routing functionality” determines
`
`where to forward the packet (after the appropriate protocol type has been
`
`determined and network identified). Ex.1003, ¶77; Pet., 24.
`
`Finally, PO’s focus on whether Ahopelto literally mentions the terms “server
`
`functionality” and “router functionality” is misplaced. See POR, 6-7. The question
`
`is not whether Ahopelto literally states those terms but rather whether a POSITA
`
`would have understood Ahopelto to teach them. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
`
`425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is…what the combined teachings of
`
`the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Dr.
`
`Jensen testified that a POSITA would have recognized Ahopelto’s separately-
`
`mentioned functions as respectively the “server functionality” and “router
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`functionality.” See, e.g., Ex.1005, 7:37-40, 8:40-41, 10:22-23, 48-50, 56-59;
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Ex.1003, ¶77; Pet., 24 (server functionality); Ex.1005, 8:40-45, 10:22-27, 10:48-
`
`62; Pet., 38-39 (router functionality).
`
`C. The Access Servers of Ahopelto’s GGSN Also Render Obvious the
`“server.”
`
`1.
`
`The Evidence of Record Shows GGSNs had Access Servers
`
`Ahopelto’s GGSN “connects the operator to the GPRS systems of the other
`
`operators of the GPRS network and to data networks.” Ex.1005, 6:16-19; Pet., 34.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that the GGSN includes an “access server” to
`
`achieve those network connections. Ex.1003, ¶106 (with one or more external data
`
`networks); Ex.1010, p. 87; Ex.1006, 11:51-55; Ex.1011, 15:10-18; Pet., 25, 34.
`
`The Petition relied upon Dr. Jensen’s analysis with copious supporting
`
`evidence in Ex.1005 (Ahopelto), Ex.1006, Ex.1010, and Ex.1011. PO’s assertion
`
`that the Petition “fails to provide any explanation or analysis” therefore ignores the
`
`record, and the GGSN’s access server also renders obvious the “server.” See POR,
`
`10-11; Pet., 25, 34. And, besides, Dr. Cooklev admitted that a GGSN “includes an
`
`access server.” Ex.1029, 57:8-16 (“I agree that … at the time, is a GGSN could
`
`include an access server as taught by Lager.”).
`
`2.
`
`The Access Server Renders Obvious the Server of the
`Preamble, 1[d].
`
`PO is incorrect that Petitioner “fails to explain how the ‘Access Server’
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`would meet” 1[d]’s “server configured with a controller in communication with a
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`plurality of network devices.” POR, 11. PO asserts that Petitioner only argued the
`
`“server functionality” alternative for this limitation. Id., 11-12. This is simply not
`
`true.
`
`After explaining how the “server functionality” was configured with a
`
`controller (a processor, Pet., 35), Dr. Jensen explained that the GGSN’s access
`
`server is configured with “control means” “to ‘select[] an appropriate access
`
`server’” for a network. Ex.1003, ¶112; Pet., 36. The “control means” is also a
`
`“controller” “because it controls the operation of the access server…for a desired
`
`packet network.” Ex.1003, ¶113; Pet., 36. This further renders obvious 1[d].
`
`PO also argues that Petitioner failed to connect the “access server” with any
`
`other arguments about the preamble. POR, 12. But this is also not true. Petitioner’s
`
`demonstration of Ahopelto controlling access to networks included a GGSN’s
`
`access server for that function. See Pet., 25; citing Ex.1003, ¶80, Ex.1006, 14:1-10
`
`(access server selected), 16:44-48 (selection of access server for network),
`
`Ex.1011, 15:13-18 (common access server in charge of network interfacing).
`
`Thus, the Petition demonstrated that the GGSN’s access server also renders
`
`obvious the “server” in 1[pre] and 1[d].
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`D. Ahopelto’s GGSN Functions Communicate With Each Other and
`Other Network Devices, Rendering Obvious 1[d], 14[e].
`
`1.
`
`Server Functionality (Claim 1)
`
`PO argues (for 1[d]) that “[c]ommunication with a GGSN does not imply
`
`communication with all component parts of the GGSN,” including the GGSN’s
`
`“server functionality.” POR, 14-15. PO seems to presume that “in communication
`
`with” excludes any intervening elements between endpoints. But the intrinsic
`
`record does not recite or require this, and PO did not seek a construction of the
`
`term (or any other term). Ex.1029, 42:4-43:6 (“not proposing any construction.”).
`
`Claim 1 requires the “server configured with a controller in communication
`
`with a plurality of network devices.” There is no limitation reciting the “server” or
`
`“controller” directly in communication with other devices. The specification is
`
`likewise silent on this point. Rather, and as Dr. Cooklev admitted, a server is still
`
`“in communication with” a computer when there is an intermediary router entity
`
`between them. Ex.1029, 81:18-82:3 (with respect to the ’863 patent’s Figure 9).
`
`Ahopelto embodies this very situation. Ahopelto’s GGSN’s “server
`
`functionality” is part of the GGSN. Ex.1003, ¶116; Pet., 37. The GGSN’s “server
`
`functionality” controls the packet routing by “determining the protocol type of the
`
`encapsulated packet.” Ex.1005, 7:37-40; see also 8:40-41, 10:22-23, 48-50, 56-59;
`
`Pet., 24. The GGSN’s “server functionality” has access to packets traversing the
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`other network devices (e.g., local network, router, IPX data network, and
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`interworking function IWF, Ex.1005, 7:20-26, 8:40-45) for the determination.
`
`Ahopelto’s “server functionality” is therefore “in communication with” those
`
`network devices via the routing functionality. Pet., 35-38.
`
`PO is wrong that “there would be no need for the alleged ‘server
`
`functionality’ to communicate with anything other than the alleged ‘routing
`
`functionality’.” See POR, 15-16. The claim recites “in communication with,” not
`
`“to communicate with” as PO asserts. Further, Ahopelto’s “server functionality”
`
`communicates with the “router functionality” to control how a packet is forwarded.
`
`Ex.1005, 8:40-41. Ahopelto’s “router functionality” is itself in communication
`
`with other network devices. Ex.1005, 7:20-26, 8:40-45; see also POR, 15
`
`(admitting network devices communicate with the “routing functionality”).
`
`Therefore, Ahopelto’s “server functionality”/controller2 is also “in communication
`
`with” other network devices via the “routing functionality.” See Pet., 37. It is
`
`irrelevant that Ahopelto’s “server functionality” communicates via the GGSN’s
`
`“router functionality,” since the claim does not require that the “server” avoid the
`
`“first network switch box” when “in communication with” any “network devices.”
`
`Finally, it was known that different logical GGSN components communicate
`
`
`2 Using either interpretation. Pet., 35-38.
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`with each other. Ahopelto’s different equipment functions (including HSN, SGSN,
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`GGSN) can all be implemented “in a single computer.” Ex.1005, 6:10-15;
`
`Ex.1003, ¶123; Pet., 37, 39. Indeed, it was known to implement GGSNs on a
`
`hardware platform implementing logically distinct functions. See Ex.1010, pp.84
`
`(hardware platform), 85 (“router function … integrated into the GSN”). Dr. Jensen
`
`further cited Ex.1022, showing a POSITA knew how to implement different
`
`logical entities on the same computer hardware – including communication
`
`between logical entities. Ex.1003, ¶123; Pet., 39. PO’s assertion of attorney
`
`argument only is therefore meritless. See POR, 7-8.
`
`2.
`
`Second Network Switch Box (Claim 14)
`
`PO also tries to unjustifiably narrow the limitation to direct communication
`
`in 14[e] (the server “configured for communication with … the second network
`
`switch box”). POR, 17-18. But the claim and specification, again, do not require
`
`direct communication between the server and second network switch box.
`
`In Ahopelto, a packet is “forwarded via the local network, router” to the
`
`GGSN. Ex.1005, 7:21-26. This demonstrates packet communication between the
`
`host’s router (“second network switch box”) and the GGSN’s routing functionality
`
`(“first network switch box”). Ex.1003, ¶221; Pet., 69. And the GGSN’s “server
`
`functionality” is “in communication with” the GGSN’s “router functionality” to
`
`determine the packets’ protocols. See Ex.1005, 7:37-40; see also 8:40-41, 10:22-
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`23, 48-50, 56-59; Pet., 69; see also 49 (claim 3, server functionality controls
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`routing functionality to send packets), 59 (claim 11, same with control parameters
`
`from server functionality to router functionality). Ahopelto’s “server functionality”
`
`thus communicates with the host router via the “router functionality” as well.
`
`This is another situation where a router (first network switch box) sits
`
`between Ahopelto’s server functionality and the second network switch box (host
`
`router), demonstrating that they are configured for communication with each other.
`
`See Ex.1029, 81:18-82:3.
`
`3.
`
`Access Server (Claim 14)
`
`PO again tries to narrow to direct communication, arguing that the Petitioner
`
`never addressed the access server in communication with the host (a “second
`
`network switch box”) for 14[e] (the server “configured for communication with …
`
`the second network switch box”). POR, 13. Both assertions are incorrect.
`
`The Petition demonstrated packets traverse the GGSN’s “routing
`
`functionality” (“first network switch box”) and the host (“second network switch
`
`box”) such that the switch boxes are in communication with each other. Pet., 69;
`
`Ex.1005, 7:21-26. Dr. Jensen explained that the access server is additionally in
`
`communication with the GGSN’s “routing functionality” because the access server
`
`“sends a command to either allow the routing functionality to forward traffic in a
`
`given network or not from a mobile station,” including configuration information
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`for accepted connections. Ex.1003, ¶¶188-91 (claim 11), 222 (referring to claim 11
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`analysis); Ex.1006, 12:60-65, 13:6-12; Pet., 59-60, 69-70.
`
`The Petition therefore demonstrated a GGSN’s access server is “in
`
`communication with” a host via the GGSN’s “routing functionality.” PO’s
`
`argument completely disregards this supporting evidence.
`
`III. THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS
`
`PO challenges the showing of obviousness of the dependent claims by again
`
`narrowly focusing on specific parts of the art, ignoring how a POSITA would have
`
`understood their teachings, and imposing unnecessary limitations on the claims.
`
`A. Ahopelto Teaches Dynamically Switching Network Paths (Cl. 4)
`Ahopelto Teaches Dynamic Control
`1.
`
`Ahopelto teaches the “server functionality” dynamically controlling and
`
`changing the network flow between the first and second network switch boxes with
`
`Figures 10 and 12 (when in visiting network “operator 2”). Pet., 52 (claim 4,
`
`directing back to the examples analyzed for claim 3). The Petition’s analysis of
`
`claim 3 shows packets from a mobile station routing from a visiting network
`
`through the home network to the host in one example, and routing through a third
`
`network (instead of the home network) to the host in another example. See Pet., 50-
`
`52, and annotated figures 10 and 12:
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003, ¶149; Pet., 50.
`
`Ex.1003, ¶153; Pet., 51.
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`These examples illustrate Ahopelto’s “server functionality” dynamically
`
`
`
`controlling and changing the network flow based on whether the GGSN supports
`
`the packets’ protocol or not, since the control changes depending on the packets’
`
`protocol over time. Ex.1003, ¶157-58; Pet., 52.
`
`PO argues dynamic control was not shown, alleging that the Petition is
`
`“conclusory.” POR, 25-26. The Petition, however, expressly references claim 3’s
`
`thorough analysis, demonstrating the paths changing depending on the protocol of
`
`the packet (which also captures PO’s noted construction “when and as needed,
`
`responsive to variable conditions and without the need for user intervention,” since
`
`the paths change when needed according to the protocol used).
`
`2.
`
`The Network Switch Boxes Transmit and Receive Using
`Dynamically Changing Network Paths
`
`Ahopelto further teaches the GGSN routing functionality and the host router
`
`transmitting and receiving packets using “dynamically changing network paths”
`
`based on the GGSN’s server functionality control. The claim’s plain language is
`
`met by Ahopelto’s Figures 10 and 12’s examples of the GGSN’s router
`
`functionality (“first network switch box”) transmitting and the host router (“second
`
`network switch box”) receiving the packets via changing network paths between
`
`the two (Ahopelto’s mobile-originated packets). Pet., 50-52.
`
`PO acknowledges this when arguing “that the first network switch box
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`transmits data packets.” POR, 22 (emphasis in original). The host network’s router
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`receives the packets via the changing network paths between Figures 10 and 12.
`
`Pet., 50-52. Beyond that, Ahopelto’s GGSN in operator 2 also receives mobile-
`
`originated packets en route to the host network’s router. Ahopelto illustrates
`
`between Figures 10 and 12 “dynamically changing network paths” for the packets
`
`transmitted from the GGSN in operator 2 to the host network’s router, controlled
`
`by the GGSN’s “server functionality” based on the packets’ protocols. Ex.1005,
`
`10:22-33 (Figure 10), 10:39-55 (Figure 12); Pet., 50-52.
`
`PO imposes unwarranted requirements on claim 4, including that the “first
`
`network switch box” both “transmit[s] and receive[s]” via dynamically changing
`
`network paths, and the “second network switch box” both transmits and receives
`
`via dynamically changing network paths. POR, 22-25.
`
`According to PO, the Petition failed to demonstrate the “first network switch
`
`box receives data packets using dynamically changing network paths” because the
`
`GGSN receives mobile-originated packets via the intra-operator backbone “from
`
`the same path” in Figures 10 and 12. POR, 19-20. But claim 4 does not recite or
`
`require that every part of the “network paths” changes. And PO did not propose
`
`construing this claim. Ex.1029, 42:4-43:6. It remains undisputed that other parts of
`
`the paths change between the first and second examples from Ahopelto’s Figures
`
`10 and 12. See Pet., 50-52 and above.
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PO further argues that Ahopelto’s Figures 10 and 12 examples do not show a
`
`
`
`server controlling the receipt of data packets, because Ahopelto’s GGSN does not
`
`control paths from the host router to the GGSN. See POR, 22-25. As part of this,
`
`PO misquotes claim 4 as “such that the first network switch [box] transmit[s] and
`
`receive[s] data packets using dynamically changing network paths.” POR, 22. But
`
`the actual claim language is “such that the first network switch box and the second
`
`network switch box transmit and receive data packets using dynamically changing
`
`network paths.” Claim 4’s own language does not require that each of the first
`
`network switch box and the second network switch box both transmit and receive
`
`using dynamically changing network paths. Pet., 50-52.
`
`In fact, the claimed “transmit and receive” are in the singular, not plural as
`
`PO misquotes, indicating that there is no requirement for “transmit and receive” to
`
`modify each “network switch box” individually. The plain language of claim 4
`
`merely requires that one network switch box transmit, and another receive, data
`
`packets “using dynamically changing network paths.” And that is exactly what
`
`Ahopelto’s mobile-originated teachings include, as reiterated above. Claim 4 is
`
`therefore obvious in view of Ahopelto’s teachings.
`
`B. Ahopelto Teaches Switching Network Paths in Response to an
`Application (Claim 6)
`
`The GGSN receives a packet “from the application associated with” the
`
`24
`
`

`

`
`mobile station, with different packet protocols possible. Ex.1005, 9:56-57, 6:54-61;
`
`IPR2022-01222 (’863 patent)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Pet., 54-55. Ahopelto