`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., AND DELL INC.,
`Petitioners
`_______________
`IPR2023-00169
`U.S. Patent No. 7,330,431
`_______________
`DECLARATION OF HENRY HOUH, PH.D.,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 1 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 5 
`I. 
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ...................... 7 
`II. 
`III.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 13 
`IV.  RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................... 14 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’431 PATENT .......................................................... 15 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 17 
`VII. 
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .... 17 
`VIII.  CHALLENGE 1: THE COMBINATION OF BAKER AND WRIGHT
`RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-4, 7-9, 11, AND 25-26 ......................... 18 
`A. 
`Summary of Baker............................................................................... 18 
`B. 
`Summary of Wright ............................................................................. 20 
`C. 
`Reasons to Combine Baker with Wright ............................................. 21 
`D.  Detailed Analysis of Claims ................................................................ 28 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 28 
`2. 
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 55 
`3. 
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 56 
`4. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 60 
`5. 
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 61 
`6. 
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 65 
`7. 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 69 
`8. 
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 72 
`9. 
`Claim 25 .................................................................................... 76 
`10.  Claim 26 .................................................................................... 83 
`IX.  CHALLENGE 2: THE COMBINATION OF BAKER, WRIGHT, AND
`HOLENDER RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 5, 10, 12-16, 20-24, AND
`27-30 .............................................................................................................. 84 
`A. 
`Summary of Holender ......................................................................... 84 
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 2 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`Reasons to Combine Baker and Wright with Holender ...................... 85 
`Detailed Analysis of Claims ................................................................ 90 
`1. 
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 90 
`2. 
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 93 
`3. 
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 99 
`4. 
`Claim 13 .................................................................................. 111 
`5. 
`Claim 14 .................................................................................. 112 
`6. 
`Claim 15 .................................................................................. 113 
`7. 
`Claim 16 .................................................................................. 114 
`8. 
`Claim 18 .................................................................................. 114 
`9. 
`Claim 19 .................................................................................. 115 
`10.  Claim 20 .................................................................................. 116 
`11.  Claim 21 .................................................................................. 117 
`12.  Claim 22 .................................................................................. 118 
`13.  Claim 23 .................................................................................. 119 
`14.  Claim 24 .................................................................................. 124 
`15.  Claim 27 .................................................................................. 129 
`16.  Claim 28 .................................................................................. 131 
`17.  Claim 29 .................................................................................. 139 
`18.  Claim 30 .................................................................................. 139 
`CHALLENGE 3: THE COMBINATION OF BAKER, WRIGHT, AND
`ZHENG RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIM 6 ................................................. 139 
`A. 
`Summary of Zheng ............................................................................ 139 
`B. 
`Reasons to Combine Baker and Wright with Zheng ......................... 141 
`C. 
`Detailed Analysis of Claim ............................................................... 144 
`1. 
`Claim 6 .................................................................................... 144 
`
`X. 
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 3 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`XI.  CHALLENGE 4: THE COMBINATION OF BAKER, WRIGHT,
`HOLENDER, AND ZHENG RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIM 17 ............. 146 
`A. 
`Reasons to Combine Baker, Wright, and Holender with Zheng ....... 146 
`B. 
`Detailed Analysis of Claim ............................................................... 147 
`1. 
`Claim 17 .................................................................................. 147 
`XII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 149 
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 4 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`I, Henry Houh, Ph.D., do hereby declare as follows:
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Cisco Systems, Inc., Dell
`
`Technologies, Inc., and Dell Inc. (“Petitioners”) in the matter of the Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,330,431 (“the ’431 patent”) to Rao et al.
`
`
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this proceeding. My compensation is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the subject
`
`matter of claims 1-26 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’431 patent would have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It is my opinion that the Challenged Claims
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA.
`
`
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`the ‘431 patent, Ex. 1001;
`
`the prosecution history of the ’431 patent (“‘431 File History”),
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Ex. 1002;
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0095946 to Baker et al. (“Baker”), Ex.
`
`1005;
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 5 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`d.
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0174884 to Wright (“Wright”), Ex.
`
`1006;
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,104,699 to Holender et al. (“Holender”), Ex.
`
`1007; and
`
`f.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,757,247 to Zheng et al. (“Zheng”), Ex. 1008.
`
`
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered: the
`
`documents listed above; the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness; and my own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the
`
`field of network communications and security as described below, as well as
`
`portions of the following additional materials:
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0147400 to Devi (“Devi”), Ex. 1009;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,430,150 to Azuma et al. (“Azuma”), Ex. 1010;
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0038753 to Jorgensen (“Jorgensen”),
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Ex. 1011;
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,675,926 to Olsen et al. (“Olsen”), Ex. 1012;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,888 to Ricciulli (“Ricciulli”), Ex. 1013;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,450,598 to Chen et al. (“Chen”), Ex.1014;
`
`Houh, Henry H., “Designing Networks for Tomorrow’s Traffic,”
`
`Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute
`
`of Technology, February 1998 (“Houh”), Ex.1015; and
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 6 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`h.
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0223497 to Sanderson et al.
`
`(“Sanderson”), Ex.1018.
`
`
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`added. Claim terms are italicized.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
` My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Exhibit 1004. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 1998. I also received a
`
`Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1991,
`
`a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in
`
`1989, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Physics in 1990, all from MIT.
`
`
`
`I am currently self-employed as an independent technical consultant. I
`
`am also founder and until October 2022 was president of a company that provides
`
`supplemental science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (“STEM”)
`
`education to children of all ages.
`
`
`
`I first worked in the area of telecommunications in 1987 when I worked
`
`as a summer intern at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of a five-year dual degree
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 7 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`program at MIT. I continued to work at AT&T Bell Laboratories as part of this MIT
`
`program. Later, as part of my doctoral research at MIT from 1991-1998, I was a
`
`research assistant in the Telemedia Network Systems (“TNS”) group at the
`
`Laboratory for Computer Science. The TNS group built a high-speed gigabit
`
`network and created applications that ran over the network. Example applications
`
`included ones for remote video capture, processing, and display of video on
`
`computer terminals. In addition to working on the design of core network
`
`components, designing and building the high speed links, and designing and writing
`
`the device drivers for the interface cards, I also set up the group’s web server. The
`
`graduate students in the group managed all of the networking infrastructure of the
`
`group, including the routers and switches. Our system was based on the ATM
`
`protocol, and we offered several classes of service on our network. Furthermore,
`
`while some of our nodes were organized in a ring, we offered full mesh connectivity
`
`between a subset of nodes using permanent virtual circuits. I designed the system
`
`of distributing the virtual path/virtual circuit mappings which were distributed to
`
`each switch from my workstation, which acted as a controller for the virtual circuit
`
`setup.
`
` The TNS group was the first group to initiate a remote video display
`
`over the web. I helped to build the web pages that initiated these video sessions via
`
`a web interface. Vice-President Al Gore visited our group in 1996 and received a
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 8 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`demonstration of – and remotely drove – a radio controlled toy car with a wireless
`
`video camera mounted on it; the video was encoded by TNS-designed hardware,
`
`streamed over the TNS-designed network and displayed using TNS-designed
`
`software.
`
`
`
`I defended and submitted my Ph.D. thesis, titled “Designing Networks
`
`for Tomorrow’s Traffic,” in January 1998. As part of my thesis research, I analyzed
`
`local-area and wide-area flows, which included a large volume of TCP-based traffic,
`
`to show a more efficient method for routing packets in a network, based on traffic
`
`patterns at the time. My thesis also addressed real-time streamed audio and video.
`
` From 1997 to 1999, I was a Senior Scientist and Engineer at NBX
`
`Corporation, a start-up that made business telephone systems for streaming
`
`packetized audio over data networks instead of using traditional telephone lines.
`
`NBX was later acquired by 3Com Corporation, and the phone system is still used
`
`today by numerous businesses. As part of my work at NBX, I designed the core
`
`audio reconstruction algorithms for the telephones, as well as the packet
`
`transmission algorithms. I also designed and validated the core packet transport
`
`protocol used by the phone system. The protocol was used for all signaling in the
`
`phone system, including for the setup of conference calls. The NBX system also
`
`featured a computer interface for initiating phone calls, which could also initiate
`
`conference calls. The NBX system also supported TAPI, the Telephony Application
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 9 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`Programming Interface, thus allowing other computer programs to integrate with our
`
`system telephony features. I also designed the quality of service implementation for
`
`the system, which utilized the IEEE 802.1p protocol for adding traffic classes as well
`
`as supporting virtual local area networks using the IEEE 802.1Q protocol. We
`
`obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,967,963, entitled “Telecommunication method for
`
`ensuring on-time delivery of packets containing time-sensitive data,” as a result of
`
`part of this work.
`
` From 1999-2004, I was employed by Empirix or its predecessor
`
`company, Teradyne. Empirix was a leader in test tools for telecommunications
`
`protocols and systems, providing functional testing tools as well as load testing tools.
`
`From 2000-2001, I conceived and built a test platform for testing Voice-over-IP
`
`(VoIP). The first application on this new test platform was a cloud emulator for
`
`simulating the effects of transmitting VoIP over a busy network. I also prototyped
`
`a security product for web sites, by studying various types of web site attacks and
`
`designing and building a program which would determine whether security flaws
`
`existed in a customer’s web site. We tested the product on several customer web
`
`sites.
`
`
`
`In 2006, as part of my role at BBN Technologies, I helped found
`
`PodZinger Inc., now known as RAMP Inc. PodZinger utilized BBN’s speech
`
`recognition algorithms to search through the spoken words in audio and video
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 10 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`segments. While I was Vice President of Operations and Technology, PodZinger
`
`followed its initial prototype with a full streaming audio and video search solution
`
`have been awarded several United States patents. BBN also worked on network
`
`security issues, and I worked with BBN researchers in reviewing their network
`
`security projects, such as in zero-day network attack prevention.
`
`
`
`I have several patent applications pending including the following
`
`examples:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,975,296, “Automated security threat testing of web
`
`pages”,
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,877,736, “Computer language interpretation and
`
`optimization for server testing”,
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,801,910, “Method and apparatus for timed tagging of
`
`media content”,
`
`• U.S. Patent 7,590,542, “Method of Generating Test Scripts Using a Voice-
`
`Capable Markup Language”,
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,967,963, “Telecommunication method for ensuring on-
`
`time delivery of packets containing time-sensitive data”, U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 20070106685, “Method and apparatus for updating speech
`
`recognition databases and reindexing audio and video content using the
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 11 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`same”,
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070106693, “Methods and apparatus for
`
`providing virtual media channels based on media search”,
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070106760, “Methods and apparatus for
`
`dynamic presentation of advertising, factual, and informational content using
`
`enhanced metadata in search-driven media applications”,
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070112837, “Method and apparatus for
`
`timed tagging of media content”,
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070118873, “Methods and apparatus for
`
`merging media content”,
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090222442, “User-directed navigation of
`
`multimedia search results”.
`
`
`
`I have also published several papers related to networking. Those
`
`papers include “IP switching: server driven flow classification,” H. H. Houh,
`
`Proceedings of the Washington University Workshop on Integration of IP and ATM,
`
`November 1996, “ViewStation Applications: Implications for Network Traffic,” C.
`
`J. Lindblad, D. Wetherall, W. Stasior, J. F. Adam, H. H. Houh, M. Ismert, D. Bacher,
`
`B. Phillips, and D. L. Tennenhouse, IEEE Journal of Selected Areas in
`
`Communications, 1995, and “The VuNet Desk Area Network: Architecture,
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 12 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`Implementation, and Experience,” H. H. Houh, J.F. Adam, M. Ismert, C. J. Lindblad,
`
`and D. L. Tennenhouse, IEEE Journal of Selected Areas in Communications, 13 (4),
`
`May, 1995.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
` A POSITA in the field of the ’431 patent, as of its priority date of
`
`September 3, 2004, would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with
`
`network communications techniques and quality of service techniques available in
`
`the mid-2000s. Such a POSITA would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`
`computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent
`
`training, and
`
`approximately two years of experience working in the field of network
`
`communications, or more particularly, the use of logical topologies and quality of
`
`service techniques. Additional work experience can substitute for specific
`
`educational background, and vice versa.
`
` For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise noted,
`
`my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my own experience and what a
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 13 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`POSITA would have understood or known generally (and specifically related to the
`
`references I consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the relevant field
`
`as of the priority date of the ‘431 patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’431 patent, I am relying on certain basic legal
`
`principles that Cisco’s counsel has explained to me.
`
`
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’431 patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’431 patent. For
`
`purposes of this Declaration, I am applying September 3, 2004, as the priority date
`
`of the ’431 patent.
`
`
`
`I have been informed by Cisco’s counsel that a claimed invention is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`at the time the invention was made to a POSITA. I have also been informed by
`
`Cisco’s counsel that the obviousness analysis considers factual inquiries, including
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`
`
`I have been further informed by Cisco’s counsel that there are several
`
`recognized rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 14 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`obviousness. These rationales include: (a) combining prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to
`
`improve a similar device (method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known
`
`technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield
`
`predictable results; (e) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led a POSITA to modify
`
`the prior art or to combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’431 PATENT
` The ’431 patent focuses on “methods and systems for bandwidth
`
`allocation that make more efficient use of the guaranteed bandwidth available on the
`
`ring network.” ’431 patent, 2:7-10. The ring network includes nodes “coupled by
`
`links according to a physical topology,” with “[o]ne or more data transmission
`
`services operat[ing] between the nodes.” ’431 patent, 2:11-14. Each data
`
`transmission service “has a logical connection topology that may be different from
`
`the physical topology.” ’431 patent, 2:14-16. The ’431 patent provides some
`
`examples of logical topologies including a “hub-and-spoke” topology and a “full
`
`mesh” topology. See ’431 patent, 2:27-31, 7:63-8:1 (hub and spoke), 10:9-16 (full
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 15 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`mesh). Figure 3 illustrates an example of the hub-and-spoke logical topology side-
`
`by-side with the ring physical topology:
`
`Spoke
`
`Hub
`
`’431 patent, Fig. 3 (annotated).
`
`
` An “operator of the network” inputs into a “manager node” information
`
`that “defines a logical topology that connects nodes 14 of the network” as well as
`
`“required bandwidths for each of the nodes.” ’431 patent, 7:12-28. Once the manager
`
`node has the information, the controller of the manager node “maps the logical
`
`topology … to the existing physical topology of the network 12.” ’431 patent, 7:38-
`
`41. The manager node sums the bandwidth requirements of each link to result in a
`
`mapping bandwidth for each link and “allocates actual bandwidths to each of the
`
`links.” ’431 patent, 7:42-62.
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 16 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
` As I will explain below, these concepts were well known as of the
`
`priority date of the ’431 patent.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`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 for the
`
`purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be construed under the so-
`
`called Phillips standard, under which claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would have been understood by a POSITA in light of the
`
`specification and prosecution history, unless the inventor has set forth a special
`
`meaning for a term. I have also been informed that claim terms only need to be
`
`construed to the extent necessary to resolve the obviousness inquiry. I have reviewed
`
`the entirety of the ’431 patent, as well as its prosecution history. It is my opinion that
`
`for purposes of applying the prior art presented herein to evaluate the patentability
`
`of the Challenged Claims, no claim terms require express construction.
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
` The discussion in this Declaration provides a detailed analysis of how
`
`the asserted prior art references teach each limitation of the Challenged Claims.
`
` As part of my analysis, I have considered, and discuss in detail, the
`
`scope and content of the prior art and any differences between the alleged invention
`
`and the prior art.
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 17 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`
`
`It is my opinion that the alleged invention recited in the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the asserted prior art
`
`and the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`VIII. CHALLENGE 1: THE COMBINATION OF BAKER AND WRIGHT
`RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-4, 7-9, 11, AND 25-26
`A.
`Summary of Baker
` U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0095946 to Baker (Ex. 1005, “Baker”) was
`
`filed November 18, 2002, and issued September 1, 2007. Baker is titled “Logical
`
`Star Topologies for Non-Star Networks.” Baker was not before the Examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’431 patent.
`
` Like the ’431 patent, Baker describes “overlaying a logical … topology
`
`on a non-star network, such as a ring network,” including “automatically assigning
`
`network resources to a collection of elements in a network.” Baker, [0012], [0016].
`
`Network resources include bandwidth. Baker, [0062]. The logical topology in Baker
`
`is accomplished via “virtual paths.” Baker, [0031]. Baker’s example of a logical
`
`topology focuses on a logical star topology. Baker, [0012]; see, e.g., Figure 5
`
`(example of a star topology):
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 18 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`Hub
`
`Spoke
`
`Baker, FIG. 5 (annotated).
`
`
` Baker’s approach for “automatically assigning network resources”
`
`includes “detecting the topology of connected elements in the network, partitioning
`
`resources of the network, allocating the network resources, and assigning the
`
`network resources to the network elements.” Baker, [0016]. This procedure overlays
`
`the logical star topology to the underlying physical ring topology, and is performed
`
`by an “Administer Ring” routine implemented at a head node of the network. Baker,
`
`[0012], [0051]-[0053]. The result of the routine “is the assignment of one or more
`
`virtual paths from the head node to each of the other nodes in the ring” equating to
`
`a logical star topology. Baker, [0054].
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 19 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Summary of Wright
` U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0174884 to Wright (Ex. 1006, “Wright”)
`
`was filed March 5, 2003, and published September 9, 2004. Wright is titled “Method
`
`for Traffic Engineering of Connectionless Virtual Private Network Services.”
`
`Wright was not before the Examiner during prosecution of the ’431 patent.
`
` Wright’s physical components of a network include “several edge
`
`nodes 102, service nodes 104 … and internal transport links 108” that provide all of
`
`the “possible physical routes for sending packets through the VPN [virtual private
`
`network].” Wright, [0015]. Further, Wright discloses a “logical connectivity without
`
`regard to the physical implementation.” Wright, [0016]. The logical connectivity is
`
`“constrained to a specific restricted topology (e.g., a virtual topology)” through the
`
`physical network in order to “minimize the amount of bandwidth reserved on the
`
`links 108 to provide a bandwidth QoS [quality of service].” Wright, [0016]-[0017].
`
`The logical connectivity data “are in terms of edge nodes and communication
`
`requirements between edge nodes,” such as “queuing and link scheduling
`
`mechanisms to provide the bandwidth guarantees for each link.” Wright, [0024],
`
`[0018].
`
` To achieve the desired traffic engineering, Wright discloses receiving
`
`“[l]ogical connectivity data for the edge nodes,” also referred to as “logical
`
`connectivity requirements.” Wright, [0007], [0024]. Wright creates the restricted
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 20 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`topology for the VPN service based on the logical connectivity data and the data
`
`about the physical connections of the network “to provide logical connections”
`
`which have known bandwidth requirements. Wright, [0015], [0017], [0024]. Wright
`
`uses this restricted topology, based on the logical connectivity data, to calculate the
`
`required reserved physical bandwidth between and at each node. Wright, [0017],
`
`[0024]. Once calculated, Wright reserves the required bandwidth “on each link in
`
`the restricted topology.” Wright, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], [0018], [0024].
`
`C. Reasons to Combine Baker with Wright
` A POSITA would have combined Baker with Wright because they both
`
`relate to the management of network resources for connections of a logical topology
`
`over the underlying connections of a physical topology. Baker, [0016] (“the
`
`invention is a method for automatically assigning network resources to a collection
`
`of elements in a network. The method includes detecting the topology of connected
`
`elements in the network, partitioning resources of the network, allocating the
`
`network resources, and assigning the network resources to the network elements”),
`
`[0030] (“a logical star topology is overlaid on an underlying non-star network, such
`
`as a ring network”); Wright, [0005] (“the method comprises receiving physical
`
`connectivity data for a connectionless VPN … Logical connectivity data for the edge
`
`nodes is received. A restricted topology is created in response to the physical
`
`connectivity data and to the logical connectivity data. … A bandwidth requirement
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 21 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Declaration of Henry Houh, Ph.D.
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 7,330,431
`
`
`
`for each link in the restricted topology is calculated. The bandwidth requirement is
`
`reserved on each link in the restricted topology.”).
`
` Baker discloses overlaying a logical topology (its chief example being
`
`a “logical star topology”) “on an underlying non-star network, such as a ring
`
`network.” Baker, [0030]. But Baker was not concerned with where the logical
`
`topology came from. It was well-known to POSITAs for a node in a network to
`
`receive logical topology information. See, e.g., Wright, [0005]; Azuma, 3:63-67
`
`(“Each node in the network retains … logical topology information relating to
`
`routing of paths formed in the links.”); 6:26-36 (“the logical topology must be
`
`updated whenever the path establishments are changed as requested by customers.
`
`Each node executes the process for updating … the logical topology autonomously.
`
`The … logical topology table relating to the network maintained in each node are
`
`communicated from a node to all the other nodes in the network”). Wright confirms
`
`this well-known fact as well. A POSITA would have been motivated to turn to
`
`Wright for details about how logical topologies are obtained. Wright discloses a
`
`node receiving “logical connectivity data” that is used to define a “restricted
`
`topology” over a physical topology (i.e., a logical topology over a physical
`
`topology). Wright, [0005]. It would have therefore been obvious for a POSITA to
`
`turn from Baker to Wright to supplement Baker with Wright’s details about
`
`receiving logical connectivity data.
`
`Ex.1003
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. / Page 22 of 149
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Decla