Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 33
`Date: December 13, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 7, 2023
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, HYUN J. JUNG, and NATHAN A. ENGELS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 33
`Date: December 13, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 7, 2023
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, HYUN J. JUNG, and NATHAN A. ENGELS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ADAM FOWLES, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`6000 Headquarters Drive, Ste. 200
`Plano, TX 75024
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`GREER SHAW, ESQUIRE
`Graves & Shaw LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on November 7,
`2023, commencing at 1:00 p.m., via video teleconference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE JUNG: Hello, this is Judge Jung, and with me are Judge
`Turner and Judge Engels. This is the oral argument for IPR2022-01222. In
`this proceeding, Petitioner, Apple Incorporated, challenges certain claims of
`U.S. Patent Number 8,982,863, or the ’863 patent. The ’863 patent is owned
`by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC. Counsel for Petitioner, please state
`your name for the record.
`MR. EHMKE: Your Honors, this is Andrew Ehmke, Lead
`Petitioner on behalf of Apple. Joining me today is my colleague, Adam
`Fowles. Mr. Fowles will be presenting on behalf of the Petition.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Ehmke. Counsel for Patent
`Owner, please introduce yourself.
`MR. SHAW: Good morning, Your Honors. This is Greer Shaw
`for Patent Owner, and with me is my partner, Phil Graves, and my co-
`counsel, who is lead counsel on this case, Rex Hwang.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you, Mr. Shaw. A few reminders for this
`hearing. If you encounter any technical difficulties, please let us know
`immediately, even if you have to interrupt. If you’re not speaking, please
`mute yourself. Please identify yourself each time you speak to help make
`the transcript clear. Please refer to demonstratives, papers, and exhibits by
`slide or page number. And there is a public connection. The Petitioner has
`60 minutes of total time to present its arguments, and the Patent Owner also
`has 60 minutes of total time to present its arguments. Each party may
`reserve time for rebuttal, and I will interrupt you when you only have a few
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`minutes remaining. That said, Mr. Fowles, you may proceed when you're
`ready.
`
`MR. FOWLES: Thank you very much. I would like to reserve 10
`minutes for rebuttal.
`JUDGE JUNG: Ten minutes it is. Thank you.
`MR. FOWLES: Thank you. With that let us move to slide 2 of
`Petitioner’s demonstratives. Looking first at the background of the ’863
`patent, those parts that are relevant to this proceeding involve a cellular
`telephone/mobile device, illustrated here in Figures 4 and 5A as CT/MD, a
`server, and a network switch box. The CT/MD is set up as a dual band
`system, and the server, referred to as server C in the patent, controls
`communication protocols and allocates channels and transfers of data via
`packets. The network switch box, finally, provides system services by
`interfacing to different environments. Moving now to slide 3, the
`independent claims focus on a system for controlling IP-based devices.
`While the claims include an IP-enabled wireless device, all of the areas of
`dispute relate, sorry, to the claims’ server and network switch box
`limitations. So we will focus on those aspects here today. Many limitations
`are shared between independent claims 1 and 14 of the ’863 patent. The
`biggest difference being where claim 1 focuses on just one network switch
`box, claim 14 includes a second network switch box as well.
`Now referring to those areas of dispute between the parties, we
`will step through those in order today unless the Board has other questions
`or issues they would like to turn to. And for the independent claims, those
`areas of dispute include first whether Ahopelto’s teachings render obvious
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`the server and network switch box limitations of the independent claims.
`And second, whether Ahopelto’s system teachings render obvious a server
`that’s in communication with a network switch box, as in claim 1, or a
`server configured for communication with first and second network switch
`boxes, as in claim 14. Patent Owner further disputes the obviousness of
`dependent claims 4, 6, and 19, and we’ll get to those.
`So let’s move now to slide 4 and the first topic. The first area of
`dispute centers around the server and network switch box limitations.
`Ahopelto’s system teachings render obvious both of these limitations in the
`challenged claims, though. So let’s look at slide 5 and look first at what
`Ahopelto teaches. Ahopelto’s Figure 1 shows a general packet radio service
`network with multiple operators, mobile devices, and destinations. The
`GPRS network includes multiple nodes to facilitate packet transfers between
`endpoints, including a GPRS gateway support node, as well as other nodes
`like the GGSN and the GPRS HSN. Now, the GGSN was instrumental in
`Ahopelto’s GPRS network in ensuring data packets reach their destination
`regardless of the protocol used. Instead, the protocol used for the packet was
`a basis for determining what networks would be used to reach the endpoint.
`And that leads us to slide 6. Ahopelto teaches that the different functions of
`the different nodes, including the GGSN, SGSN, and others can be
`implemented in a single computer. This was a well-known approach.
`Analogously, it was also known for the GGSN itself to implement multiple
`software functions on the same node, using duplicated hardware and
`modular software, for example. The evidence reflects that POSITAs
`recognized that a variety of different functions were going on inside of a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`GGSN. Some of those include a router function, a server function, an
`access server function, border gateway function, and a charging function.
`Some of these functions map to the claimed server, while others map to the
`claimed network switch box.
`Looking now at slide 7, and the server functionality of Ahopelto
`first, Ahopelto’s server functionality maps to the claimed server and renders
`it obvious. So Ahopelto teaches that one of the functions performed at the
`GGSN is to check the protocol of the encapsulated packet in order to know
`whether the GGSN supports the protocol or not. This is the server function.
`If supported, the GGSN will control the routing to direct the packet to one
`network without encapsulation, but if the protocol to the packet is not
`supported, then the GGSN will encapsulate the packet into a protocol that
`the GGSN does support and direct the packet to that different supporting
`network. And slide 8 illustrates this in annotated Figure 1 of Ahopelto,
`calling out the server functionality of the GGSNs. Now, Ahopelto also
`renders obvious the claim server separately with the access server function
`of a GGSN. So looking at slide 9 for that, the evidence demonstrates that
`Ahopelto’s GGSNs also include the access server function, and that controls
`access to the external networks by controlling the interface to the external
`networks. So the access server controls the packet’s access to those external
`networks. Other functions in Ahopelto map, specifically in Ahopelto’s
`GGSN, map to the claimed network switch box.
`For example, if we look at claim -- at slide 10, sorry, the evidence
`demonstrates that GGSN included a router function. And that router
`function maps to the claimed network switch box. Specifically, Ahopelto
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`teaches that the GGSN sends packets to the host using routing mechanisms.
`A POSITA would have understood that the routing could be accomplished
`by the router function. And this includes, according to the evidence, the
`router function deciding which output port to send the packet on once the
`server function is determined, whether the protocol is supported or not. And
`slide 11 illustrates Ahopelto’s Figure 1 again, but this time with the router
`function of the GGSN specifically called out. So basically, looking at these
`two functions, the server function in Ahopelto looks at answering the
`question of how to handle packets by looking at what language is being
`used, that is the protocol, while the router function in Ahopelto looks at
`answering the what question. What entity the endpoint is going to talk with
`using the identified language.
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel? This is Judge Turner. Can you
`provide the connection between what is a server and what is a network
`switch box?
`MR. FOWLES: Are you asking with respect to the ’863 patent
`itself or with respect to the functions identified in Ahopelto?
`JUDGE TURNER: You indulge yourself. Take whichever one
`you think makes sense. I’m asking, if one of ordinary skill in the art looks at
`a server and reads network switch box; how do you distinguish between
`those two?
`MR. FOWLES: Sure. Why don't we go to slide 14? Slide 14
`looks at what the claim requirements are for a server. And this is how I’m
`going to answer your question is first, a server, according to the claim, is
`required to be connected to at least one Internet protocol enabled network. It
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`has to be configured with a controller that is in communication with a
`plurality of network devices. And from the preamble, it has to control IP-
`based wireless devices, cellular phones, networks, or network switches.
`Claim 14 further requires that the server be configured for communication
`with the first network switch box and the second network switch box. So a
`POSITA reading these limitations, looking for a set server, the answer would
`be, what is a server? A server is an entity that’s connected to at least one IP-
`enabled network. It’s configured with a controller, and it’s in
`communication with the plurality of network devices. The claim doesn’t
`require anything beyond that. With respect to a network switch box, we
`look at slide 22. A network switch box is configured with a plurality of
`ports. It’s connected to at least two networks, and it’s configured to transmit
`and receive one or more data packets between these two networks. Claim 14
`only additionally requires a wired and/or wireless interface, and that is
`configured to transmit and receive a plurality of data packets. So --
`JUDGE TURNER: This is Judge Turner. I don’t think you’re
`quite responding to my question. I understand you’re trying. Let me try
`something else. Do we normally talk about a server talking to itself? If I
`have one entity here, that let’s say the network switch box, would I talk
`about, if I say, okay, that’s also comprised of the server, the server inside, do
`I normally talk about a network switch box sort of communicating with
`itself? Or does it talk with other network elements, per usual?
`MR. FOWLES: Both are known in the art, and Petitioner’s expert
`explained that POSITAs certainly understood that one box, so to speak, or
`maybe I should use a different word, one entity, can have multiple different
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`logical elements within it. And so yes. Can a server talk with itself, I
`wouldn’t phrase it that way. A server can certainly be a logical entity that is
`housed in the same physical hardware as another entity, like a router. And
`so, from that perspective, yes, those can talk to each other. If you want to
`characterize that as the physical entity talking to itself, then yes, it is talking
`to itself. And looking at Ahopelto, Ahopelto teaches that even different
`nodes can be integrated into the same physical device. And so in as much as
`Ahopelto describes an SGSN talking to a GGSN, that could be “talking with
`itself” if it’s implemented all on the same computer according to Ahopelto
`teachings.
`And so the GGSN with its server functionality, it does talk with the
`router functionality. It controls the router functionality in terms of which
`network the router functionality can even access in order to forward on the
`packets. And in like manner, the second network switch box, because that
`packet that the server functionality analyses traverses both the first network
`switch box, the router functionality of the GGSN, and eventually the host
`router near the host, that server functionality is in communication with both
`network switch boxes. So, does that answer your question?
`JUDGE TURNER: Oh, thank you. I’m going to let you proceed.
`MR. FOWLES: Okay. So let’s move back to slide 11 for a
`moment. Actually, slide 12. Let’s go on. So basically, the server function,
`again, looks at answering the question of how to handle packets. It looks at
`what language is being used. And then the router function of the GGSN,
`which, again, the evidence demonstrates, once a function integrated within
`GGSN, goes through the process of actually sending the packet to other
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`devices in the network. So there are a few questions that might come up
`with respect to these different functions that they have held to GGSN. One’s
`already been raised. Another question, which may be, have overtones to
`your question, are the server and network switchbox limitations required to
`be physically distinct from each other? And Patent Owner’s answered no to
`that question. The functions do not need to be physically separate. Patent
`Owner’s emphasis is instead on whether the art shows the server and
`network switchbox as distinct components.
`And it does. Ahopelto teaches, if we look at slide 13, for example,
`on each respective cites here, the distinct teachings of Ahopelto with respect
`to the server function and separately with respect to the routing function.
`And the Petition repeatedly explained the different functions performed that
`map to each respective limitation. And just because Petitioner’s citations
`were over-inclusive does not mean that we were suddenly citing to the same
`thing for different functions.
`So for the router function specifically, Ahopelto teaches sending
`the packet via a network based on the result of the server function’s
`determination with respect to that supported protocol. With respect to slide
`13, I just want to note there is a cut and paste error for some of the Petition
`citations on the righthand side under that routing function column. The first
`citation to the Petition is correct. For the remaining three, page 42 of the
`Petition does include the figures for which the 10 sites in Ahopelto will
`apply, but the specific 10 sites to the Petition are as follows. For the second
`citation, that’s the column 10, lines 22 to 27, the Petition cite should be to
`page 49. And then for the last two citations to Ahopelto the Petition cite
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`should be at page 51.
`JUDGE JUNG: Mr. Fowles, this is Judge Jung. Just to be clear,
`you’re just talking about the citations on the slide itself, right?
`MR. FOWLES: That’s right.
`JUDGE JUNG: Not citations in the Petition?
`MR. FOWLES: No, no.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. All right. While we’re on this slide, I
`don’t consider the dispute to be that Ahopelto does not explicitly say that
`there’s two separate functionalities, a routing functionality, and a server
`functionality, right? All you’re saying is one of ordinary skill in the art
`reading Ahopelto would see two different functionalities. Is that correct?
`MR. FOWLES: That’s correct. Ahopelto calls them out
`separately. For example, you know, this function of checking the protocols
`and determining whether the protocol is supported or not is described
`separately from the function of actually routing into the network which
`corresponds with what protocol is supported, et cetera.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay, so Mr. Fowles, I take away from your
`response that just because there are two separate sets of descriptions, one
`related to a server function, one related to a routing function, that there must
`be two separate functions happening inside the GGSN. Is that correct?
`MR. FOWLES: That’s correct. They are definitely distinct
`teachings that respectively render obvious the server and network switch box
`that are claimed in the independent claims.
`JUDGE JUNG: So now I want to ask you, are they actually
`distinct teachings? Like can you separate one from the other? Can you
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`actually route something without actually looking at what the encapsulation
`is under the server function and then move on to the routing function?
`MR. FOWLES: You’re asking if someone could skip the so-called
`server function?
`JUDGE JUNG: Are they actually distinct teachings? It seems to
`me that one can’t happen without the other.
`MR. FOWLES: You know, I’m not sure if the routing could
`happen without checking the protocol. I’d have to check with our expert and
`we can brief on that. But what I do know is that just because one can’t
`happen without the other doesn’t mean that they are not distinct functions. I
`think we see in many different areas that one action is contingent upon
`something else happening first. It doesn’t mean that those two functions
`necessarily have to be the same, part of the same process. And in fact, there
`is a Federal Circuit case that seems to agree that when we’re looking at
`software, that how we look at it is not as discreet as it is historically with
`physical devices. And that is, I’m referring to a case that came out after we
`had filed our reply, and it’s titled Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, I'm
`sorry, Bot M8 LLC vs. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC came out August
`30th of this year. It is a non-precedential opinion, but it’s still informative,
`and it actually dovetails with what we mentioned in our reply about the need
`to be physically distinct is just not relevant to this situation because we’re
`not looking at physical components.
`In that case, the Federal Circuit said that the rationale in Becton
`had to do with the fact that physical components would be rendered
`nonsensical if they were looking at the same structure in the prior art. But
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`when we’re looking at software, no similar nonsensical result arises is what
`the Federal Circuit said, where the claims simply recite two different
`programs or something similar because they don’t come up with a
`nonsensical result. And that’s Appeal number 2022-1569. I don’t have a
`report or citation for it.
`JUDGE JUNG: That’s okay. I just want to set aside the physical
`separateness argument for a moment. Because I believe the way the case
`has evolved, I believe you’re kind of stuck with maybe it’s the same logic,
`but it’s just different parts of the same logic that’s happening in a single
`machine. One part of the logic is dedicated to the server function, and
`another part dedicated to the routing function. Is that correct?
`MR. FOWLES: Yes, that’s correct. One part of the logic does
`apply to the server functionality, and it meets all the limitations of what the
`independent claims require the server to be, and other functions relate to the
`network switch box. That’s correct.
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay. Now, how does one of ordinary skill in the
`art reading Ahopelto get to that?
`MR. FOWLES: Get to seeing those in different functions?
`JUDGE JUNG: Of the same logic, yes. How does a -- can you
`walk me through how one of ordinary skill in the art reading Ahopelto
`would arrive at the conclusion that Ahopelto is describing a single logic with
`two different functionalities in different parts of that software?
`MR. FOWLES: I think I may have misunderstood your first
`question. I don’t think we’re talking about a situation where the same logic
`covers two different functions?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: I mean software, let’s say. Same overall software
`that controls the GGSN.
`MR. FOWLES: Well, there would be different subroutines that
`would be dealing with each different logical function. For example, looking
`at Exhibit 1010, and if we just pull up slide 6 again.
`JUDGE JUNG: So I could look at Exhibit 1010. You’re kind of
`conceding that it’s not expressly clear that Ahopelto by itself would teach
`someone of ordinary skill in the art that it’s two different parts of the same
`software controlling a GGSN.
`MR. FOWLES: Actually, that is the conclusion. A POSITA
`reading Ahopelto would see that Ahopelto teaches checking the protocol and
`determining whether it’s supported or not in the GGSN. And separate and
`distinct from that, then routing into a network based on the results of that.
`JUDGE JUNG: To get there you need us to go through Exhibit
`1010 and Exhibit 1006, is that right?
`MR. FOWLES: No, those exhibits were exhibits that the expert
`cited to support his conclusion from when he read Ahopelto alone, that
`GGSNs had multiple different functions. And two of those functions that
`Ahopelto teaches are first checking the protocol and determine whether it’s
`supported at the GGSN, and a different function that the GGSN has is the
`actual function of forwarding a packet into the network that the server
`functionality determined was appropriate. So we don’t have to go through
`these tertiary exhibits. Rather, they are bolstering and supporting Dr.
`Jensen’s opinion of what a POSITA would understand when they read
`Ahopelto itself.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`
`JUDGE JUNG: Okay, so we could just analyze Ahopelto, but I
`have to refer to Exhibit 1010 or Exhibit 1006.
`MR. FOWLES: Would you have to?
`JUDGE JUNG: Yeah, could we? I come to the same conclusion.
`MR. FOWLES: If you did not have those two exhibits, yes, a
`POSITA reading Ahopelto alone would understand that those are distinct
`teachings. And again, Exhibit 1010, Exhibit 1006, those are evidence
`simply demonstrating that, yes, a POSITA did understand that the GGSNs
`had these different functions.
`JUDGE JUNG: Thank you.
`MR. FOWLES: How is to meet the burden?
`JUDGE TURNER: This is Judge Turner. But before I let you get
`back to what you want to say, Mr. Fowles. Let me give you a hypothetical.
`Let’s say that we presume that there’s a functionality within the GGSN that
`basically determines it’s a checker. I’m just going to call it that, a checker.
`And it makes sure that the IP address, you know, looks like it’s supposed to,
`that instead of, you know, something formatted not like an IP address.
`And so therefore -- but it doesn’t say anything about it, in
`Ahopelto, but it has to be there, because if, you know, it comes in and the IP
`address is nonconforming, so it’s got to check it, because it’ll cause an error
`if it doesn’t. So I think by that logic, Ahopelto would have a checker.
`Maybe no one’s even heard of that before, but I’m sort of arguing, you
`know, maybe absurdum, that, you know, as long as I can keep coming up
`with functionality, I can come up with different aspects of this system, even
`if they’re not necessarily explicitly disclosed. Tell me how, where my logic
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`is wrong here.
`MR. FOWLES: Well, as a first task, Ahopelto does describe the
`function of checking the protocols of packets. And this checker, this idea of
`checking addresses, is not something that Ahopelto explicitly calls out. And
`so that’s the first and chief reason why I think that hypothetical doesn’t
`apply or is not analogous to what’s going on here. It’s not like we’re saying
`that there’s some function that has to be there in Ahopelto, but it doesn’t
`mention. Ahopelto explicitly teaches this act of checking the protocol and
`determining whether it’s supported. And the result of that analysis controls
`how the routing functionality then performs its job. And so that’ll be my
`first answer to your hypothetical. And I’m not sure I have --
`JUDGE TURNER: I'm calling it a checker for a reason, because if
`I have a specific element, it’s called a checker, and it has the functionality,
`but, you know, it doesn’t call it out as a separate element. Do you have that?
`I mean, eventually, the GGSN probably has thousands of functions, and it’s
`sort of like I contain multitudes. You have hundreds of elements contained
`in this one element; I'm trying to figure out where it ends.
`MR. FOWLES: Where the server element ends?
`JUDGE TURNER: Well, no, where the analysis ends. Because I
`feel like I can come up with what I call a checker. I can come up with a
`router. I can come up with a server. I can come up with all these elements
`all sort of being there, but you know, Ahopelto kind of refers to it as a single
`element.
`
`MR. FOWLES: Do you mean the GGSN?
`JUDGE TURNER: Sure.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`
`MR. FOWLES: I think the first place that we would ask when
`we -- where we should stop it is to look at the claims themselves, and what is
`it that a server has to have? And could the art have even more functions?
`We don’t have to determine that. We just have to see if a server exists in the
`prior art, specifically within that GGSN, and whether a network switch box
`exists in the GGSN. So are there thousands of other functions that also exist
`in the GGSN? Possibly. What we did was we pointed to what Ahopelto
`teaches that is adequate and sufficiently shows that there is this functionality
`within a GGSN that exercises control over how the router functionality of
`the GGSN works. That’s pretty much all what the claim requires. Is
`looking again at the claim, does the server control IP-based devices? Well,
`starting with the GGSN, yes, and looking further, the path that packets take
`is controlled in part by what that functionality of the GGSN decides. And
`so, in that way, it is exercising control over many other aspects of the
`network.
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay. Thank you.
`MR. FOWLES: So, the other aspect that is in dispute is this
`question of whether this server functionality of the GGSN is, “in
`communication with” a plurality of network devices, as in independent claim
`1, and further configured with wired and/or wireless interfaces, and to begin
`to transmit and receive packets as in claim 14.
`And I look now at slide 23. I’m sorry, 27. So, does Ahopelto
`render obvious these in-communication with limitations? Yes, it does, and
`here’s why. Looking at slide 28, independent claim 1 just requires that the
`server is in communication with that plurality of network devices like I just
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`summarized. And what does Ahopelto teach? Ahopelto teaches that when a
`packet arrives at the GGSN from an SGSN, that packet is inspected to
`determine whether the protocol used for the packet is supported. That
`inspection, that server functionality has to have access to that packet in order
`to do that analysis.
`And this demonstrates that the server functionality of Ahopelto
`that does that determination is in communication, for example, with the
`SGSN from which the packet came. And further, it’s in communication
`with all the other network devices downstream that the packet then traverses
`as it’s sent on its way. And I’ll just note, that’s with respect to the server
`functionality. The access server, which is also in a GGSN, would itself also
`be in communication with all these other network devices. And for much
`for the same reason that’s just explained. Because the access server has
`access to the packets for determining what network to use. For example,
`which ones the user has permissions to access. And then by that way, it can
`exercise control over how the GGSN then routes the packet.
`So looking now at slide 29, these packets, each of which are
`analyzed by the server functionality, are the packets, again, that traverse all
`the other network devices. And so as the evidence demonstrates, that server
`functionality is in communication with each network device. Now to the
`extent Patent Owner is insisting that the limitation requires a direct
`connection between the server and any other network device, that’s just not
`in the claim. Patent Owner’s own expert acknowledged that there could be
`other devices between the server and network device and still be in
`communication with that network device.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`
`The example that Patent Owner’s expert considered in deposition
`was based on Figure 9 of the ’863 Patent. Whether -- and there whether a
`router, if it was in between the server C and an endpoint computer 902,
`would that mean that server C is no longer in communication with the
`computer 902? And with that example, their expert agreed that the server C
`would still be in communication with computer 902. And an analogous
`situation exists here with Ahopelto. The server functionality is in
`communication with other network devices along the network path with the
`router functionality of the GGSN in between.
`And slide 30, if we move there, the same reasoning applies to the
`limitation of Claim 14, that the server is configured for communication with
`two network switch boxes. This includes the first network switch box at the
`GGSN, as well as the host router near the host, which the packet passes
`through on its way to its destination. So if there are no questions on the in-
`communication list limitations, we can move to the dependent claim issues.
`Let’s go to slide 31. Dependent claim 4 is the first dependent
`claim that is in dispute. Dependent claim 4 requires that the server be
`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. Ahopelto renders
`this obvious, and we’ll look at slide 32 to start to see why that is. In
`Ahopelto, each packet is received at a GGSN. The path the packet takes
`when transmitted from the GGSN depends upon the protocol used for the
`packet from the mobile station. Generally, Ahopelto teaches that the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01222
`Patent 8,982,863 B1
`
`protocol type, whether the GGSN supports the packets protocol or not,
`determines the network path for the packet to the endpoint.
`And in sl
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
