`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CORRIGENT CORPORATION.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`__________
`
` IPR2022-01514
`U.S. PATENT 7,330,431
`__________
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES T. GEIER
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 1 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 2
`
`A. Overview ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`III. SUMMARY OF MY OPINION ................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Instructions ................................................................................................... 5
`
`and
`Patents
`Art
`Prior
`and
`Dates
`Filing
`Effective
`B.
`Printed Publications ................................................................................................ 9
`
`IV. THE ’431 PATENT ..................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’431 Patent ....................................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 12
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 13
`
`VI. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .............................. 14
`
`VII. GROUND 1: HOLENDER IN VIEW OF WRIGHT AND POSITA
`KNOWLEDGE RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 25 AND 27 .......................... 14
`
`A. Overview of Holender ................................................................................ 15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Wright ................................................................................... 15
`
`Claims 25 and 27 ........................................................................................ 16
`
`VIII. GROUND 2: BAKER IN VIEW OF WRIGHT AND LEMIEUX AND
`POSITA KNOWLEDGE RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 25 AND 26 .......... 37
`
`A. Overview of Baker ..................................................................................... 38
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Lemieux................................................................................. 38
`
`Claims 25 and 26 ........................................................................................ 39
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 2 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`IX. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION .................................. 46
`
`X. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 3 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF CONSIDERED EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`EX1001 U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`EX1002 File History of U.S. Patent Application 10/933,572
`EX1006 U.S. Patent 6,069,894 to Holender et al. (“Holender”)
`EX1007 U.S. Patent 7,292,542 to Wright (“Wright”)
`EX1008 U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0095946 to Baker (“Baker”)
`EX1009 PCT International Publication WO 02/19616 to Lemieux (“Lemieux”)
`EX1013 Gopalan, K., “Efficient network resource allocation with QoS
`guarantees,” Technical Report TR-133, 2003 (“Gopalan”)
`EX1014 PCT International Publication WO 03/85514 to Norrgard et al.
`(“Norrgard”)
`EX1015 U.S. Patent 7,453,824 to Nucci et al. (“Nucci”)
`EX1016 European Patent EP0635958 to Iwakawa et al. (“Iwakawa”)
`EX1017 U.S. Patent 5,815,492 to Berthaud et al. (“Berthaud”)
`EX1018 Moh, S. et al., “Mapping Strategies for Switch-Based Cluster Systems
`of Irregular Topology,” Proceedings, Eighth International Conference
`on Parallel and Distributed Systems. ICPADS 2001, IEEE, 2001
`(“Moh”)
`EX1019 U.S Patent 6,331,986 to Mitra et al. (“Mitra”)
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 4 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`
`I, James T. Geier, hereby declare under penalty of perjury:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Unified Patents, LLC, (“Unified”
`
`or “Petitioner”) and asked to review and provide my opinion on the patentability of
`
`claims 25-27 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent 7,330,431 (EX1001, “the ’431
`
`Patent”). This declaration accompanies the petition for inter partes review no.
`
`IPR2022-01514 (“Petition”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard rate of $425 per hour. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this proceeding or the content of
`
`my opinions.
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed, had input into, and endorse the discussions in the
`
`Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes Review for the ’431 Patent, including the
`
`statements in the Petition regarding the ’431 Patent and its prosecution history, the
`
`scope of the claims, the prior art’s disclosure of the claims, and the statements
`
`throughout the Petition regarding a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)’s
`
`knowledge and understanding.
`
`4.
`
`In addition to endorsing the Petition, this declaration is a statement of
`
`my opinions on issues related to the patentability of the Challenged Claims.
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 5 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A. Overview
`
`5.
`
`I received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from California State
`
`University in 1985, an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from the Air Force Institute of
`
`Technology in 1990, and an M.B.A. from the University of Phoenix in 2001.
`
`6.
`
`I am a practicing engineer. For at least the last 22 years, I have worked
`
`as an independent consultant for dozens of companies, via my consulting firm
`
`Wireless-Nets, Ltd., analyzing / designing mobile devices, wireless and wired
`
`networks, and corresponding software and firmware. I have worked professionally
`
`in the general field of communications systems for over 40 years.
`
`7.
`
`I am also the author of over a dozen books on mobile and wireless /
`
`wired network topics and have served as an active participant within multiple IEEE
`
`standards organizations.
`
`8.
`
`I have significant experience designing and implementing systems
`
`involving networks that support specific services with varying bandwidth and
`
`quality of services (QoS) requirements. For example, from 1990 to 1992, I was a
`
`systems design engineer, with the rank of Captain of the U.S. Air Force, where I
`
`designed and implemented wired Ethernet networks for Wright-Patterson Air Force
`
`Base. This involved testing some of the first-available Ethernet switches in a
`
`2
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 6 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`laboratory environment and then later designing the topology and overseeing the
`
`installation of corresponding network equipment throughout Wright-Patterson Air
`
`Force Base in Ohio for supporting various bandwidth and QoS requirements for
`
`thousands of users.
`
`9.
`
`From 1994 to 1996, I was employed as a senior systems engineer at
`
`TASC, Inc., where I worked primarily on the design and implementation of
`
`communication data networks for civilian and military applications. For example, I
`
`designed a highly secure communications network for a U.S. Navy attack submarine
`
`that supported various services and performance /bandwidth requirements. In
`
`addition, while at TASC, I designed similar computer networks for various
`
`commercial organizations, such as Reynolds & Reynolds and Dayton Power &
`
`Light.
`
`10. From 1996 to 2000, I was an engineer and manager at Monarch
`
`Marking Systems, where I designed and developed wireless printers and
`
`corresponding networks for customers.
`
`11. Since 2000, I have been the principal consultant of Wireless-Net, Ltd.,
`
`where I provide independent consulting services. As a consultant, I have designed
`
`dozens of large-scale wireless and wired networks in cities, hospitals, airports, and
`
`3
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 7 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`industrial plants. These networks involved the design of network topology for
`
`supporting various services and QoS requirements.
`
`12. A copy of my curriculum vitae with full descriptions of my education,
`
`professional achievements, and qualifications is provided as EX1004. It includes a
`
`listing of additional relevant industry experience, publications, and presentations.
`
`
`III. SUMMARY OF MY OPINION
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, claims 25-27 of the ’431 Patent are unpatentable. My
`
`opinions are based on my expertise in the technology of the ’431 Patent at the time
`
`the application was filed, as well as my review of the ’431 Patent and the prior art
`
`discussed in the Petition. If the patent owner is allowed to submit additional evidence
`
`pertaining to the validity of the ’431 Patent, I intend to review that as well and update
`
`my analysis and conclusions as appropriate and allowed under the rules of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`14.
`
`I reviewed and contributed to the Petition’s explanation as to why these
`
`claims are unpatentable. The Petition’s explanation as to why these claims are
`
`unpatentable reflects my understanding, and I incorporate it herein by reference.
`
`4
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 8 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`
`A.
`
`Instructions
`
`15.
`
`I am not an attorney. My analysis and opinions are based on my
`
`expertise in this technical field, as well as the instructions I have been given by
`
`counsel for the legal standards relating to patentability.
`
`16. The materials I have reviewed in connection with my analysis include
`
`the ’431 Patent, its file history, the exhibits identified in the Petition, and the exhibits
`
`identified here.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that unpatentability in this proceeding must be proven by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence, and this is the standard I have used throughout my
`
`declaration. Further, I understand that each patent claim is considered separately for
`
`purposes of unpatentability.
`
`18.
`
`I believe that a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention would have
`
`had at least a bachelor’s degree in optical, electrical, computer, and/or network
`
`engineering (or an equivalent field) and at least two years of relevant industry
`
`experience, or the equivalent thereof, and my analysis relies on that understanding.
`
`I am qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’431 Patent as of its
`
`earliest possible priority date (September 3, 2004) because I had Bachelor’s and
`
`Master’s degrees in electrical engineering and had over ten years of experience with
`
`computer network design, and particularly relevant to the ’431 Patent, for example,
`
`5
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 9 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`when I designed and implemented Ethernet wired networks for the Wright-Patterson
`
`Air Force Base from 1990 to 1992, and when I designed and implemented
`
`communication data networks for civilian and military applications at TASC, Inc.
`
`from 1994 to 1996.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as “anticipated” if each
`
`and every feature of the claim is found in a single prior art reference.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as “obvious” if, in view
`
`of a prior art reference or a combination of prior art references, it would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention, taking into account:
`
`a. the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`b. the differences between the prior art and the claim under
`
`construction; and
`
`c. the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`21.
`
`I am informed that legal principles regarding unpatentability of a claim
`
`due to obviousness have been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I am informed
`
`that, while not absolute, the principles relating to a “motivation,” “suggestion,” or
`
`“teaching” in the prior art to combine references are useful in analyzing whether an
`
`invention is obvious. I am informed that the suggestion or motivation may be either
`
`explicit or implicit and may come from knowledge generally available to a POSITA,
`
`6
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 10 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`from the nature of the problem to be solved, or from a combination of these factors.
`
`The test for an implicit motivation, suggestion, or teaching is what the combined
`
`teachings, knowledge of a POSITA, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a
`
`whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. The problem
`
`examined is not the specific problem solved by the invention, but the general
`
`problem that confronted the inventor before the invention was made.
`
`22.
`
`I am further informed that the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that
`
`additional principles may also be applied in such an analysis. Some of those
`
`principles are set forth below.
`
`23. As I understand it, it is no longer always required to present evidence
`
`of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art references for
`
`purposes of determining whether an invention is obvious. Prior art can be combined
`
`based on an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art itself, or
`
`from a reasoned explanation of an expert or other witness.
`
`24. A patent claim composed of several elements, however, is not proved
`
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`
`known in the prior art. In order to prove obviousness, it must be shown that the
`
`improvement is not more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to
`
`their established functions. To determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`7
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 11 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary
`
`to look to interrelated teachings of multiple pieces of prior art, to the effects of
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and to the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a POSITA. Also, in determining obviousness,
`
`one must be aware of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and be cautious of
`
`arguments relying upon hindsight reasoning. An obviousness argument cannot be
`
`sustained by mere conclusory statements. Instead, it must be some articulated
`
`reasoning with some rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.
`
`25.
`
`In an obviousness analysis, it is my understanding that there are
`
`“secondary considerations” that should be analyzed if they apply. I am told that these
`
`considerations include (a) whether the prior art teaches away from the claimed
`
`invention, (b) whether there was a long felt but unresolved need for the claimed
`
`invention, (c) whether others tried but failed to make the claimed invention, (d)
`
`skepticism of experts, (e) whether the claimed invention was commercially
`
`successful, (f) whether the claimed invention was praised by others, and (g) whether
`
`the claimed invention was copied by others.
`
`26.
`
`I have also been informed that the Board construes claims according to
`
`the so-called “Phillips” standard. Under the Phillips standard, terms in a claim are
`
`8
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 12 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, consistent with the patent’s
`
`specification, as understood by a POSITA. It is my understanding that what is to be
`
`considered includes the claims, the patent specifications and drawings, and the
`
`prosecution history, including any art listed by the examiner or the applicant. It is
`
`my understanding that information external to the patent, including expert and
`
`inventor testimony and unlisted prior art, are to be considered if ambiguities remain.
`
`However, expert testimony may be useful in helping to explain the technology.
`
`B.
`
`Effective Filing Dates and Prior Art Patents and Printed
`Publications
`
`27.
`
`I am informed that I am to consider September 3, 2004 to be the priority
`
`date for the ’431 Patent, the date of filing for the ’431 Patent’s application, and the
`
`earliest possible priority date for the ’431 Patent. I express no opinion on whether
`
`the claims of the ’431 Patent warrant that priority date.
`
`28.
`
`I rely upon the following references, all of which I understand are prior
`
`art to all claims of the ’431 Patent:
`
`a. U.S. Patent 6,069,894 to Holender et al. (filed June 12, 1995)
`
`(“Holender,” EX1006);
`
`b. U.S. Patent 7,292,542 to Wright (filed March 5, 2003) (“Wright,”
`
`EX1007);
`
`9
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 13 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`c. U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0095946 to Baker (filed November 18,
`
`2002) (“Baker,” EX1008); and
`
`d. PCT International Publication WO 02/19616 to Lemieux (filed August
`
`20, 2000) (“Lemieux,” EX1009).
`
`29. The chart below summarizes my conclusions of unpatentability
`
`regarding the ’431 Patent.
`
`Ground Conclusions
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Rendered obvious by Holender in view of
`Wright and the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`Rendered obvious by Baker in view of
`Wright and Lemieux and the knowledge of
`a POSITA
`
`25, 27
`
`25, 26
`
`
`IV. THE ’431 PATENT1
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’431 Patent
`
`30. As noted above, I have reviewed and had input into the Petition,
`
`including, for example, the overview of the ’431 Patent, the review of the file history,
`
`and the characterizations of the grounds and the prior art used. I agree with the
`
`statements made therein, and adopt herein by reference.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise specified, all bold and underline emphases and color annotations
`below have been added. Text in italics is used to signify claim language and/or add
`emphasis.
`
`10
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 14 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`I have considered claims 25-27 of the ’431 Patent, which read as
`
`31.
`
`follows (bracketed paragraph breaks and numberings added):
`
`Claim 25
`
`[25-preamble] Apparatus for assigning bandwidth in a network including
`
`nodes coupled by links arranged in a physical topology, the apparatus
`
`comprising:
`
`[25a] a controller which is adapted to:
`
`[25b] receive a definition of logical connections between the nodes, the
`
`logical connections being associated with a data transmission service to be
`
`provided over the network,
`
`[25c] the logical connections having a connection topology different from the
`
`physical topology,
`
`[25d] determine respective bandwidth requirements for
`
`the
`
`logical
`
`
`
`connections based on parameters of the service,
`
`[25e] map the connection topology to the physical topology, so that each of
`
`the logical connections is associated with one or more links of the physical
`
`topology, and
`
`[25f] allocate a bandwidth for the service on each of the links in response to
`
`the bandwidth requirements of the logical connections and to the mapping.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 15 of 50
`
`

`

`Claim 26
`
`[26a] Apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the controller is comprised in
`
`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`
`one of the nodes.
`
`
`
`Claim 27
`
`[27a] Apparatus according to claim 25, wherein the controller is external to
`
`the network.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`32.
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that the factors considered in determining the ordinary
`
`level of skill in a field of art include the level of education and experience of persons
`
`working in the field; the types of problems encountered in the field; and the
`
`sophistication of the technology at the time of the purported invention, which I
`
`understand is September 3, 2004. I understand that a POSITA is not a specific real
`
`individual, but is rather a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by
`
`the factors above. I understand that a POSITA would also have knowledge of the
`
`teachings of the prior art, including the art cited below.
`
`33.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA for the ’431 Patent would have had at
`
`least a bachelor’s degree in optical, electrical, computer, and/or network engineering
`
`(or an equivalent field) and at least two years of relevant industry experience, or the
`
`12
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 16 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`equivalent thereof in the 2004 timeframe. See, e.g., EX1001, generally, 1:7-9. This
`
`description is approximate, and a higher level of education or specific skill might
`
`make up for less experience, and vice-versa. A POSITA is presumed to have
`
`knowledge of all relevant prior art, and therefore would have been familiar with each
`
`of the references cited in this declaration and the full range of teachings they contain.
`
`34. As I explained above in paragraph 18, my level of skill in the art was at
`
`least that of a POSITA before the time of the ’431 Patent. I am qualified to provide
`
`opinions concerning what a POSITA would have known and understood at that time,
`
`and my analysis and conclusions in this declaration are from the perspective of a
`
`POSITA prior to September 3, 2004. Furthermore, I have taught, worked with, and
`
`supervised persons whom I would consider to be persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in accordance with the description given above.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`35.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’431 Patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that the
`
`claims are to be construed according to the same claim construction standard that
`
`district courts use. Thus, it is my understanding that claim terms are construed
`
`according to their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`13
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 17 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`36. Based upon my review of the intrinsic record and my experience in
`
`computer network design in the 2004 timeframe, it is my opinion that express
`
`constructions are not necessary.
`
`37. Nevertheless, if the Patent Owner, seeking to avoid the prior art, offers
`
`a specific construction or interpretation for these or other terms, I would request the
`
`opportunity to address any such arguments and supplement my opinions herein.
`
`VI. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`38.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 25-27 of the ’431 Patent are unpatentable
`
`because they are obvious to a POSITA as of the earliest possible priority date. The
`
`Petition sets forth my reasons for this opinion. Below I elaborate on certain points
`
`raised in the discussion of the Petition.
`
`VII. GROUND 1: HOLENDER IN VIEW OF WRIGHT AND POSITA
`KNOWLEDGE RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 25 AND 27
`
`39.
`
`It is my opinion that Holender in view of Wright, together with the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA, discloses or renders obvious claims 25 and 27 of the ’431
`
`Patent. In addition to the opinions expressed in this declaration, I have reviewed, had
`
`input into, and endorse the discussions in the Petition regarding this ground.
`
`40.
`
`I have been asked to assume that Holender (EX1006) and Wright
`
`(EX1007) are prior art. I have done so.
`
`14
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 18 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`
`A. Overview of Holender
`
`41. An overview of Holender is provided in the Petition, which I have
`
`reviewed and with which I agree.
`
`42. As stated in the Petition, Holender is analogous art to the ’431 Patent:
`
`Holender is from the same field of data communications in a network utilizing a
`
`logical topology mapped on top of a physical topology (EX1006, Abstract, 1:9-24,
`
`1:36-44, 6:17-42, 6:43-54, Figs. 1-2), with teachings pertinent to a problem the ’431
`
`Patent was trying to solve, i.e., how to optimize bandwidth allocations across the
`
`physical links in the network based on the service provided and the logical network
`
`(id., 1:9-24, 2:24-29, 7:44-51, 16:61-17:37).
`
`B. Overview of Wright
`
`43. An overview of Wright is provided in the Petition, which I have
`
`reviewed and with which I agree.
`
`44. As stated in the Petition, Wright is analogous art to the ’431 Patent:
`
`Wright is from the same field of data communications in a network utilizing a logical
`
`topology mapped on top of a physical topology (EX1007, Abstract, 3:54-4:19, 4:35-
`
`45, 6:65-7:17, Figs. 1-3, 5), with teachings pertinent to a problem the ’431 Patent
`
`was trying to solve, i.e., determining and allocating bandwidth across the physical
`
`15
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 19 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`links in the network based on the service provided and the logical network (id.,
`
`Abstract, 1:33-44, 4:46-5:3, 6:65-7:17, Fig. 5).
`
`C. Claims 25 and 27
`
`45. As I noted above, I have reviewed and had input into the Petition,
`
`including, for example, the disclosures mapping Holender and Wright to claims 25
`
`and 27. It is my opinion that the combination of Holender and Wright, together with
`
`the knowledge of a POSITA, disclose or at least suggest each of claims 25 and 27.
`
`46.
`
`I provide the following additional comments in support of the
`
`statements in the Petition.
`
`1. Limitation [25-preamble] “Apparatus for assigning bandwidth
`in a network including nodes coupled by links arranged in a
`physical topology, the apparatus comprising:”
`
`47.
`
`I agree with the analysis in the Petition regarding the preamble. I further
`
`note that a POSITA would have understood that the “resources of a physical
`
`network” referred to in Holender, which are also described as the “transmission
`
`capacities of the physical links” to be another way of referring to the bandwidth of
`
`the physical links. Indeed, Holender itself describes one of its calculation variables
`
`denotes the “bandwidth (capacity)” for a given traffic type. EX1006, 9:8-25.
`
`48. Additionally, I understand the ’431 Patent to use the term node to refer
`
`to both physical and logical nodes present in the physical network topology and
`
`16
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 20 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`logical network topology, respectively. EX1001, 2:11-26, 6:38-53, 7:63-8:20, Figs.
`
`1, 3. On the other hand, Holender generally refers to the physical devices that make
`
`up a physical network arrangement as switches, whereas the logical equivalents that
`
`make up a logical network arrangement are described as nodes. See EX1006, Fig. 1.
`
`2. Limitation [25a] “a controller which is adapted to:”
`
`49.
`
`I agree with the analysis in the Petition regarding limitation 25a. In
`
`addition, I note that the ’431 Patent describes a “Connection Admission Controller
`
`(CAC) in the network allocates bandwidth according to the received requests,” and
`
`“performs functions” described by the specification. EX1001, 1:37-40, 6:49-53.
`
`50.
`
`In my experience, a controller as described in the ’431 Patent would
`
`have been, for example, a processor (or component) in a system that receives,
`
`interprets, and executes instructions. Controllers performing functions similar to that
`
`of the ’431 Patent’s controller were well known long before the ’431 Patent. For
`
`example, U.S. 5,815,492 to Berthaud et al. (“Berthaud,” EX1017) generally
`
`describes “dynamic bandwidth estimation and adaption in high speed packet
`
`switching networks.” EX1017, Title, Abstract. Berthaud discloses, as early as 1996,
`
`the idea of a “Route Controller (305)” that can perform various “Network Control
`
`Functions,” including (1) “Bandwidth Management for processing bandwidth
`
`reservation” and (2) “a Topology Update for distributing and maintaining, in every
`
`17
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 21 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`node, information about the logical and physical network.” Id., 7:21-8:46, Figs. 1-
`
`3. Accordingly, Berthaud demonstrates a controller capable of performing
`
`bandwidth management and topology updates related to logical and physical
`
`networks was known to a POSITA over 7 years before the date of the ’431 Patent.
`
`51. Additionally, EP 0635958 to Iwakawa et al. (“Iwakawa,” EX1016)
`
`described as early as 1993 a “circuit designing unit 31 comprises a CPU (1) 41
`
`(corresponding to the physical network topology designing unit 21 shown in Figure
`
`4) for executing a physical network topology design algorithm according to the
`
`contents of the data base 35, etc., a CPU 43 (corresponding to the physical network
`
`capacity 5 setting unit 23) for executing a physical network capacity design
`
`algorithm, a CPU 42 (corresponding to the logical network topology designing unit
`
`22) for executing a logical network topology design algorithm for use in
`
`designing a logical network using data on the number of nodes, etc. stored in the
`
`data base 35 independently of a traffic condition, and a CPU 44 for executing a
`
`logical network capacity design algorithm using a short-term traffic demand stored
`
`in the data base 36, etc.” EX1016, 10:2-10. Iwakawa provides further support that,
`
`nearly a decade before the ’431 Patent, it was known to use a processor to
`
`accomplish physical and logical topology design.
`
`18
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 22 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`52. Finally, U.S. Patent 6,331,986 to Mitra et al. (“Mitra,” EX1019)
`
`explained as early as 1998 that “as shown in FIG. 8, a switch 121 typically includes
`
`a central processing unit (CPU) 122, often referred to as a route controller, and
`
`a router 123 in mutual communication over a high-speed Ethernet link. Route
`
`controller 122 is responsible, inter alia, for selection of routes and, through a
`
`software module 124 referred to as an element manager, for element management
`
`functions.” EX1019, 9:66-10:12. In view of all of these references, the ’431 Patent’s
`
`own disclosure, and my own experience as a POSITA, the term controller would
`
`include a processor (or component) in a system that receives, interprets, and executes
`
`instructions.
`
`3. Limitation [25b] “receive a definition of logical connections
`between the nodes, the logical connections being associated with
`a data transmission service to be provided over the network,”
`
`53.
`
`I agree with the analysis in the Petition regarding limitation 25b.
`
`54.
`
`I first note my opinion as to a POSITA’s understanding of the claim
`
`language receive a definition of logical connections between the nodes. As an
`
`example, the ’431 Patent describes the process for setting up a network, e.g., “on
`
`setup of network 12, an operator of the network inputs a basic connectivity map
`
`(BCM) 28 to manager node 22.” EX1001, 7:12-16. The patent also notes that the
`
`“applied BCM is one of a number of different connectivity maps, each having a
`
`19
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 23 of 50
`
`

`

`IPR2022-01514
`U.S. Patent 7,330,431
`
`different logical topology and bandwidth relations, that the operator may input to
`
`node 22. Alternatively or additionally, more than one of the basic connectivity maps
`
`are stored in node 22, and the operator chooses one of the stored maps as the applied
`
`BCM.” Id., 7:16-22. In view of this disclosure in the specification, it is my opinion
`
`that a POSITA would have understood this claim language to simply mean that the
`
`controller receives information sufficient to define the logical connections between
`
`nodes of the logical network. In addition to the references used in the Ground, both
`
`Iwakawa and Mitra further demonstrate that the concepts of designing and
`
`implementing logical topologies was well known to a POSITA long before the ’431
`
`Patent. See EX1016, Fig. 1, 4:46-5:7; EX1019, 1:42-2:21. I also note that, later in
`
`claim 25 (i.e., in limitation 25e), this received information is used to “map[] the
`
`logical topology . . . to the existing physical topology of network 12.” EX1001, 7:32-
`
`41.
`
`55. Next, as to the disclosure of this limitation, Holender discloses “[t]he
`
`process of establishing logical networks means that the topology of each one of the
`
`logical networks is defined,” and, “[i]n other words, the structure of the nodes
`
`and logical links in each logical network is determined.” EX1006, 6:43-54. A
`
`POSITA reading this disclosure from Holender would have, at minimum, found it
`
`obvious that Holender’s controller would receive such a definition, given its logical
`
`networks comprise information about the nodes and the logical