Filed on Behalf of: Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`- vs. -
`
`ORCKIT IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`_____________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,652,111
`
`Case No.: IPR2023-00554
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 1
`II.
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF AND REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF ...... 2
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’111 PATENT ............................................................ 2
`A. Summary of the ’111 Patent ...................................................................... 2
`B. Priority Date .............................................................................................. 4
`STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES ......................................... 4
`V.
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 5
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5
`VIII. THE ART PRIOR TO THE ’111 PATENT .................................................... 8
`A. Lin ............................................................................................................. 8
`B. Shieh ........................................................................................................ 10
`C. Swenson .................................................................................................. 12
`IX. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-9, 12-24 AND 27-31 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER LIN IN VIEW OF SWENSON. ............................... 13
`A. Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 13
`B. Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 33
`C. Claim 3 .................................................................................................... 34
`D. Claim 4 .................................................................................................... 36
`E. Claim 5 .................................................................................................... 37
`F. Claim 6 .................................................................................................... 39
`
`i
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`
`
`G. Claim 7 .................................................................................................... 40
`H. Claim 8 .................................................................................................... 41
`I. Claim 9 .................................................................................................... 41
`J. Claim 12 .................................................................................................. 43
`K. Claim 13 .................................................................................................. 43
`L. Claim 14 .................................................................................................. 43
`M. Claim 15 .................................................................................................. 44
`N. Claim 16 .................................................................................................. 44
`O. Claim 17 .................................................................................................. 45
`P. Claim 18 .................................................................................................. 46
`Q. Claim 19 .................................................................................................. 47
`R. Claim 20 .................................................................................................. 47
`S. Claim 21 .................................................................................................. 49
`T. Claim 22 .................................................................................................. 49
`U. Claim 23 .................................................................................................. 50
`V. Claim 24 .................................................................................................. 50
`W. Claim 27 .................................................................................................. 52
`X. Claim 28 .................................................................................................. 52
`Y. Claim 29 .................................................................................................. 52
`Z. Claim 30 .................................................................................................. 53
`AA.
`Claim 31 ............................................................................................ 54
`X. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1, 5-9, 12-24 and 27-30 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER SHIEH IN VIEW OF SWENSON. .......................... 54
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`
`
`A. Claim 1 .................................................................................................... 54
`B. Claims 5-9 ............................................................................................... 66
`C. Claim 12 .................................................................................................. 66
`D. Claim 13 .................................................................................................. 67
`E. Claim 14 .................................................................................................. 67
`F. Claim 15 .................................................................................................. 67
`G. Claim 16 .................................................................................................. 68
`H. Claim 17 .................................................................................................. 68
`I. Claim 18 .................................................................................................. 69
`J. Claim 19 .................................................................................................. 69
`K. Claim 20 .................................................................................................. 69
`L. Claim 21 .................................................................................................. 70
`M. Claim 22 .................................................................................................. 70
`N. Claim 23 .................................................................................................. 71
`O. Claim 24 .................................................................................................. 72
`P. Claim 27 .................................................................................................. 72
`Q. Claims 28 ................................................................................................. 72
`R. Claims 29 ................................................................................................. 73
`S. Claim 30 .................................................................................................. 73
`XI. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS ...................................... 73
`XII. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER § 325(D) OR § 314 IS NOT
`WARRANTED .............................................................................................. 74
`XIII. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................. 77
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest .............................................................................. 77
`B. Related Matters ....................................................................................... 78
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................. 78
`XIV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 78
`APPENDIX A – CLAIM LISTING ..................................................................... A-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020) .................................... 75, 76
`Dish Network LLC v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01359, Paper 15 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2021) .............................................. 75
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`PR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ................................................ 74
`Orckit Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00276 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................. 78
`PEAG LLC v. Varta Microbattery GMBH,
`IPR2020-01214, Paper 8 (Jan. 6, 2021) .............................................................. 76
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ............................................................ 5
`
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking
`LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ....................................... 75, 77
`Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01453, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2015) ............................................. 73
`Verizon v. Huawei,
`IPR2020-01079, Paper 10 (Jan. 14, 2021) .......................................................... 77
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ................................................................................................. 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) ................................................................................................ 1, 74
`
`v
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ............................................................................................... 77
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................... 74
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 77
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 77
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111 (the ’111 Patent)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’111 Patent
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Samrat Bhattacharjee
`
`Declaration of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee, dated February 21,
`2023
`U.S. Patent No. 9,264,400 (“Lin”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0291088
`(“Shieh”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0322242
`(“Swenson)
`RFC 2460, Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
`
`Nunes, A., et al., A Survey of Software-Defined Networking:
`Past, Present, and Future of Programmable Networks
`Complaint in Orckit Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No.
`2:22-cv-00276 (E.D. Tex.)
`Amended Scheduling Order in Orckit Corp. v. Cisco Systems,
`Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00276 (E.D. Tex.)
`Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant
`Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, Vidal, K.,
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, June 21, 2022
`Federal Case Management Statistics for the Eastern District of
`Texas, as of June 30, 2022
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311, 314(a), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the Board review and cancel
`
`Claims 1-9, 12-24 and 27-31 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. 10,652,111 (“the
`
`’111 Patent,” EX1001). The claimed methods in the ’111 Patent would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) well before the ’111
`
`Patent’s earliest priority date. For example, the combination of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,264,400 (“Lin,” EX1005) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2013/0333342 (“Swenson,” EX1007) discloses deep packet inspection (“DPI”) of
`
`packets in a computer network where a network node is under the control of a
`
`central controller. The combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2013/0291088 (“Shieh,” EX1006) and Swenson teaches the same thing. The
`
`disclosures in these three prior art references, along with the knowledge of a POSA,
`
`render the Challenged Claims unpatentable as obvious, as explained below in
`
`Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’111 Patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF AND REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute a trial for an inter partes review of the
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`Challenged Claims, and that the Director cancel them as unpatentable. The analysis
`
`demonstrating the obviousness of the Challenged Claims is set forth in the below
`
`sections of this Petition and supported by the declaration of Petitioner’s expert, Dr.
`
`Samrat Bhattacharjee. EX1004, ¶¶74-318; EX1003.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’111 PATENT
`
`The ’111 Patent discloses methods and systems relating to “deep packet
`
`inspection (DPI) in a software defined network (SDN).” EX1001, Abstract; see id.,
`
`1:14-16, EX1004, ¶¶30-34. The ’111 Patent discloses a “central controller of the
`
`SDN” that is used to “configure[e] a plurality of network nodes operable in the SDN”
`
`with instructions that tell the network nodes what to do with incoming packets.
`
`EX1001, 2:27-30, 2:3-3; EX1004, ¶30. For example, the central controller may send
`
`a “probe” instruction to a network node such that, when the network node receives
`
`a packet that matches a “packet-applicable criterion,” the network node will “mirror”
`
`(i.e., send) some or all of the packet to a security component for inspection. EX1001,
`
`2:3-44; EX1004, ¶30.
`
`“[T]he central controller 111 [shown below in Figure 1 of the ’111 Patent] is
`
`configured to perform deep packet inspection on designated packets from designated
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`flows or TCP sessions.” EX1001, 4:5-7; EX1004, ¶31. “To this end, the central
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`controller 111 is further configured to instruct each of the network nodes 112 which
`
`of the packets and/or sessions should be directed to the controller 111 for packet
`
`inspections.” EX1001, 4:8-11. “The determination [of whether a packet requires
`
`inspection] is performed based on a set of instructions provided by the
`
`controller 111.” EX1001, 4:14-15. “A packet that requires inspection is either
`
`redirected to the controller 111 or mirrored and a copy thereof is sent to the
`
`controller 111.” EX1001, 4:15-18.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’111 Patent
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`During prosecution, the Applicant relied heavily on claim limitations reciting
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`
`
`“… sending, by the controller to the network node over the packet network, an
`
`instruction and a packet-applicable criterion” and “… receiving by the network node
`
`from the controller, the instruction and the criterion” to distinguish the prior art,
`
`along with arguments that there was no motivation to combine the cited art. EX1002
`
`at 322-330, 397-417, 492-501; EX1004, ¶¶35-46.
`
`
`Solely for the purposes of this Petition, Petitioner assumes that the priority
`
`date for the ’111 Patent is April 22, 2014, the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 61/982,358 to which the ’111 Patent claims priority. EX1004, ¶47.
`
`V.
`
`STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`Ground #1: Claims 1-9, 12-24 and 27-31 of the ’111 Patent are obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lin in view of Swenson and the knowledge of a POSA.
`
`Lin was filed on December 2, 2013, and issued on February 16, 2016. EX1005. Thus,
`
`Lin qualifies as prior art under at least post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
`
`Swenson claims priority to a pair of provisional applications filed on June 1,
`
`2012, and January 18, 2013, respectively. Swenson was filed as a non-provisional
`
`application on May 31, 2013. Swenson published on December 5, 2013. Thus,
`
`Swenson qualifies as prior art under at least post-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)-(2).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Ground #2: Claims 1, 5-9, 12-24 and 27-30 of the ’111 Patent are obvious
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shieh in view of Swenson and the knowledge of a
`
`POSA. Shieh was filed as a provisional application on April 11, 2012 and as a non-
`
`provisional application on April 10, 2013. Shieh published on October 31, 2013.
`
`Thus, Shieh qualifies as prior art under at least post-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1)-(2).
`
`Swenson qualifies as prior art for the reasons stated above for Ground 1.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`As of April 22, 2014, a POSA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer
`
`science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional
`
`experience, and a POSA would have had a working knowledge of hardware and
`
`software for packet-switched networking. EX1004, ¶¶48-49. Lack of work
`
`experience can be remedied by additional education and vice versa. Id., ¶48.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In inter partes review, claim terms must be given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as understood by a POSA at the time of the invention in light of the
`
`specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en
`
`banc).
`
`The claim term “controller” should be construed to mean “an entity
`
`configured to perform deep packet inspection on packets.” EX1001, 10:52-62;
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`EX1004, ¶¶69-71. The ’111 Patent discloses “a method for deep packet inspection
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`(DPI) in a software defined network (SDN), wherein the method is performed by
`
`a central controller of the SDN.” EX1001, 2:27-30 (emphasis added); see id., 3:56-
`
`59. Further, the patent states that “the central controller 111 is configured to
`
`perform deep packet inspection on designated packets from designated flows or
`
`TCP sessions.” Id., 4:5-7 (emphasis added); see id., 2:49-51, 4:8-11, 9:67-10:1.
`
`Further, the ’111 Patent describes that “the central controller 111 includes a
`
`DPI flow detection module 311, a DPI engine 312, and a memory 313, and a
`
`processing unit 314,” as shown below in Figure 3. EX1001, 5:33-36. “The DPI
`
`engine 312 [is] configured to inspect a packet or a number of bytes to provide
`
`application metadata as required by an application executed by an application server
`
`120.” EX1001, 5:36-39; see id., 5:40-59. A POSA would have known from this
`
`description that the central controller was configured in this manner to provide DPI
`
`on redirected packets, as all of the embodiments in the ’111 Patent disclose that
`
`redirected packets are sent to the central controller for DPI. See, e.g., EX1004, ¶71;
`
`EX1001, 4:8-18, 4:49-50, 8:1-5.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`Figure 3 of the ’111 Patent (Annotated)
`
`
`
`EX1001, Figure 3; see id., Figures 4-6.
`
`Further, the claim term “instruction” should be construed to mean “a
`
`command to determine if a packet requires inspection or not.” EX1001, 10:56-62;
`
`EX1004, ¶72. The ’111 Patent discloses that “each network node 112 is configured
`
`to determine if an incoming packet requires inspection or not.” EX1001, 4:12-14.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`The patent states that “the central controller 111 is further configured to instruct each
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`of the network nodes 112 which of the packets and/or sessions should be directed to
`
`the controller 111 for packet inspections.” Moreover, the exemplary instructions
`
`provided in the ’111 Patent are various commands used to determine whether or not
`
`a packet requires inspection. EX1001, 4:23-56; see id., 8:23-32, 8:40-53, 9:26-28;
`
`EX1004, ¶72.
`
`Terms not specifically construed have their plain and ordinary meaning as
`
`understood by a POSA. EX1004, ¶73.
`
`VIII. THE ART PRIOR TO THE ’111 PATENT
`
`Lin “relates generally to computer security, and more particularly but not
`
`exclusively to software defined networking.” EX1005, 1:7-9; see id., Abstract;
`
`EX1004, ¶¶50-56.1 “In one embodiment, a software defined networking (SDN)
`
`computer network includes an SDN controller and an SDN switch.” EX1005, 1:58-
`
`60; Figures 6-8. “The SDN controller inserts flow rules in a flow table of the SDN
`
`switch to create an SDN pipe between a sender component and a security
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Background discussion of software defined networking can be found in Paragraphs
`21-29 of Dr. Bhattacharjee’s declaration and in EX1009.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`component.” EX1005, 1:60-62; see id., 1:62-64, 4:8-31, 4:53-65, 6:1-12. “The SDN
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`pipe allows outgoing packets sent by the sender component to be received by the
`
`security component.” EX1005, 1:64-65; see id., 3:25-31, 6:40-48. “The security
`
`component inspects the outgoing packets for compliance with security policies and
`
`allows the outgoing packets to be forwarded to their destination when the outgoing
`
`packets pass inspection.” EX1005, 1:66-2:2; see id., 3:31-33, 6:48-63, 7:9-21.
`
`Figure 6 of Lin, reproduced below, shows “a schematic diagram of an SDN
`
`computer network 600” in which “[t]he SDN controller 610 provides a logically
`
`centralized framework for controlling the behavior of the SDN computer
`
`network 600.” EX1005, 3:40-42, 4:7-9; see id., 3:42-44, 4:9-12; EX1004, ¶51. “The
`
`SDN controller 610 may include a flow policy database 611.” EX1005, 4:12-13.
`
`“The flow policy database 611 may comprise flow policies that are enforced by the
`
`controller 610 on network traffic transmitted over the SDN computer network 600.”
`
`EX1005, 4:13-16; see id., 4:16-18. “The flow policies may be enforced in terms of
`
`flow rules (labeled as 624) that are stored in the flow tables 621 of the SDN
`
`switch 620.” EX1005, 4:18-20.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`Figure 6 of Lin
`
`
`
`
`Shieh relates “generally to network security” and discloses a “network system
`
`[that] includes a security device and a network access device.” EX1006, ¶[0002];
`
`EX1004, ¶¶57-62. “The network access device is to receive a packet from a source
`
`node destined to a destination node, and to examine a data structure maintained by
`
`the network access device to determine whether the data structure stores a data
`
`member having a predetermined value, the data member indicating whether the
`
`packet should undergo security processing,” as shown below in Figure 1 of Shieh.
`
`EX1006, Abstract; see id., ¶[0002], Figures 1, 2A, 3. “If the data member matches
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`the predetermined value, the packet is transmitted to a security device associated
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`with the network access device to allow the security device to perform content
`
`inspection.” Id., Abstract; see id., ¶[0042], ¶[0049]. “[I]n response to a response
`
`received from the security device, the packet is routed to the destination node
`
`dependent upon the response.” Id., Abstract; see id., ¶[0017], ¶[0018], ¶[0023],
`
`¶[0029], ¶[0037], Claim 1, Figure 2B; EX1004, ¶57.
`
`Figure 1 of Shieh
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`
`Swenson discloses a system and method for “selectively monitoring traffic in
`
`a service provider network.” EX1007, Abstract; see id., ¶[0018]-¶[0022]; EX1004,
`
`¶¶63-68. Figure 1 of Swenson (reproduced below) shows that “[t]he network 120 is
`
`a communication network that transmits data between the user devices 110, the
`
`steering devices 130 and the origin server 160 and/or the video optimizer 150.”
`
`EX1007, ¶[0023]. “In one embodiment, the steering device 130 characterizes traffic
`
`routed through it to identify flows of interest for further inspection at the network
`
`controller 140.” Id., ¶[0026]; see id., ¶[0058]. “Alternatively, the network controller
`
`140 interfaces with the steering device 130 to coordinate the monitoring and
`
`characterization of network traffic, such as identifying large and small objects in
`
`HTTP traffic flows.” Id., ¶[0026]. “In this case, the steering device 130 receives
`
`instructions from the network controller 140 based on the desired criteria for
`
`characterizing flows of interest for further inspection.” Id., ¶[0026]. When a flow
`
`matches a particular signature, “the steering device 130 forwards the HTTP request
`
`and a portion of the HTTP response to the network controller 140 over the [Internet
`
`content adaption protocol] client interface 404.” Id., ¶[0059]; see id., ¶[0060]. “After
`
`receiving the request and the portion of response at the ICAP server interface 406,
`
`the flow analyzer 312 of the network controller 140 performs a deep flow inspection
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`to determine if the flow is worth bandwidth monitoring and/or user detection.” Id.,
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`¶[0059]; see id., ¶[0060]; EX1004, ¶¶67-68.
`
`Figure 1 of Swenson
`
`
`
`IX. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-9, 12-24 AND 27-31 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`AS OBVIOUS OVER LIN IN VIEW OF SWENSON.
`The combination of Lin and Swenson, along with the knowledge of a POSA,
`
`renders Claims 1-9, 12-24 and 27-31 obvious. EX1004, ¶¶74-206.
`
`
`[1.0] A method for use with a packet network including a network node for
`transporting packets between first and second entities under control of a
`controller that is external to the network node, the method comprising:
`Element [1.0], to the extent it is limiting, is disclosed by Lin. EX1001, 10:51-
`
`55.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Lin discloses a method for use with a packet network. For example, Lin’s
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`
`
`Abstract states that it relates to “[a] software defined networking (SDN) computer
`
`network.” EX1005, Abstract (emphasis added). The specification further states that
`
`“[t]he present invention relates generally to computer security, and more particularly
`
`but not exclusively to software defined networking.” Id., 1:7-9; see id., 1:58-60,
`
`2:47-65, 3:25-33, 3:40-64. A POSA would have known that this computer network
`
`is a packet network. EX1004, ¶¶75-76. Indeed, Lin refers to the “transmission of
`
`packets over the SDN computer network 600.” EX1005, 4:19-21. Moreover, Figure
`
`6 of Lin shows that the system disclosed in Lin is for a packet network, as can be
`
`seen below:
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`Figure 6 of Lin (Annotated)
`
`
`
`EX1005, Figure 6; see id., Figures 1-5, 7-9.
`
`Further, Lin discloses an “SDN switch” that corresponds to the claimed
`
`network node for transporting packets between first and second entities. EX1005,
`
`1:58-2:4, 4:33-67, 6:13-23, 6:57-63; EX1004, ¶77. Lin explains that the SDN switch
`
`transports packets from a “sender” component (which corresponds to the claimed
`
`first entity), through an ingress port, out an egress port, and to the “next hop” or
`
`destination (which corresponds to the claimed second entity), as shown below in
`
`Figure 6. EX1005, 1:58-2:4, 4:33-67, 6:13-23, 6:57-63, 7:10-23; 7:39-8:18, 9:63-
`
`10:22; EX1004, ¶77.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`Figure 6 of Lin (Annotated)
`
`
`
`EX1005, Figure 6.
`
`Lin explains that the SDN switch is under the control of a “SDN controller”
`
`(which corresponds to the claimed controller) that is external to the SDN switch.
`
`EX1004, ¶78. Lin states that “the SDN controller 610 provides a logically
`
`centralized framework for controlling the behavior of the SDN computer network
`
`600,” including one or more SDN switches. EX1005, 4:8-31. The SDN controller
`
`includes a “flow policy database” that contains flow policies to control the
`
`transmission of packets through the SDN switch. Id., 4:8-31; see id., 1:58-2:4, 6:1-
`
`12. Lin explains that the SDN controller is external to the SDN switch (i.e., the
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`network node): “The SDN controller 610 and the SDN switch 620 are logically
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`separate components.” Id., 3:51-52, see id., 4:8-10. Further, Figures 1 and 6-8 of Lin
`
`show the SDN controller as external to the SDN switch:
`
`Figure 6 of Lin (Annotated)
`
`
`
`Id., Figure 6; see id., Figures 1, 7-8.
`
`17
`
`

`

`In addition, as addressed above in the claim construction section, the
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`
`
`controller is an entity configured to perform DPI on packets.2 EX1004, ¶79. The
`
`combination of Lin and Swenson discloses such a controller. Lin states that the
`
`analysis performed by security service 630 includes DPI: “Network security vendors
`
`provide network security services, such as firewall or deep packet inspection (DPI).”
`
`EX1005, 3:11-12. Moreover, Lin discloses that security service 630 “may also
`
`comprise a physical machine, e.g., a server computer, an appliance, or a gateway
`
`computer, etc.” EX1005, 5:51-55. Further, Lin states that “[t]he security service 630
`
`may be connected to the SDN switch 620 by a physical link (i.e., using a wire), a
`
`virtual link (i.e., in a virtualized environment), or by a software tunnel.” A POSA
`
`would have known from these disclosures in Lin that the security service 630 can
`
`use the same hardware or software as the controller, and that the security service 630
`
`can be connected to the SDN switch 620 in the same way as the controller. EX1004,
`
`¶79. Thus, a POSA would have understood that one of the limited number of design
`
`options would have been to implement the security service as part of a controller
`
`configured to perform DPI analysis on packets, and a POSA would have had a
`
`
`
`
`
`2 To the extent that the PTAB does not agree with this construction, Lin still discloses
`Element [1.0] for the reasons discussed above.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`reasonable expectation that the controller would have been successful in performing
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`DPI analysis. EX1004, ¶79.
`
`Further, Swenson teaches the use of a controller configured to perform DPI.
`
`EX1004, ¶80. Swenson discloses that, when its system detects a HTTP packet flow
`
`matching a particular signature, “the steering device 130 forwards the HTTP request
`
`and a portion of the HTTP response to the network controller 140 over the ICAP
`
`client interface 404.” EX1007, ¶[0059]; see id., ¶[0060]. “After receiving the request
`
`and the portion of response at the ICAP server interface 406, the flow
`
`analyzer 312 of the network controller 140 performs a deep flow inspection to
`
`determine if the flow is worth bandwidth monitoring and/or user detection.”
`
`EX1007, ¶[0059]
`
`(emphasis added); see
`
`id., ¶[0060]
`
`(stating
`
`that
`
`the
`
`“controller 140 ingests the network flow for inspection”), Figures 1, 4A-4B. A
`
`POSA would have known that a “flow” is a series of packets having a specific
`
`signature. EX1004, ¶80. As such, it would have been obvious to a POSA that
`
`Swenson’s reference to “deep flow inspection” refers to performing DPI on one or
`
`more packets in a flow. Id.
`
`In addition, Swenson discusses “an example event trace of [Swenson’s]
`
`‘continue’ working mode” in which the steering device 130 “sends an ICAP request
`
`message 516 comprising [a] HTTP GET request header and a portion of the [HTTP]
`
`response payload to the network controller 140, which inspects the message to
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`determine whether to monitor the flow or optimize the video.” EX1007, ¶[0065],
`
`Inter Partes Review Petition
`U.S. Patent 10,652,111
`
`Figure 5. A POSA would have know