`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`ERICSSON INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DANIEL BLUMENTHAL
`IN SUPPORT OF ERICSSON’S PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,886,772
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1002
`IPR2023-00581
`U.S. Patent 8,886,772
`
`Page 1 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................. 1
`II.
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED ............................................................................ 8
`IV.
`INSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................ 9
`V.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................. 13
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 14
`A.
`Broadband network architecture (LANs, PONs, MANs, WANs) ...... 15
`B.
`Layered model and Protocol Stacks .................................................... 22
`C.
`Packet switches and Routers ............................................................... 25
`D.
`Packet and Frame Technologies .......................................................... 32
`E. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) ............................................. 38
`F.
`Network Discovery and Internet Border Gateway Protocol
`BGP/IP and Open Path Shortest First (OSPF) .................................... 39
`TR-069 CPE WAN Management Protocol (CWMP) ......................... 41
`G.
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’772 PATENT .......................................................... 47
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 60
`IX. DISCUSSION OF GROUNDS ..................................................................... 63
`A. Ground 1: Angelot Discloses or Suggests Each and Every
`Feature of Claims 2-6, 11, 14 and 16 alone or in view of the
`knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. ...................... 63
`1.
`Claim 1 (cancelled) ................................................................... 74
`2.
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................103
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`Claim 3 ....................................................................................107
`3.
`Claim 4 ....................................................................................110
`4.
`Claim 5 ....................................................................................111
`5.
`Claim 6 ....................................................................................113
`6.
`Claim 10 (cancelled) ...............................................................115
`7.
`Claim 11 ..................................................................................116
`8.
`Claim 12 (cancelled) ...............................................................117
`9.
`10. Claim 14 ..................................................................................118
`11. Claim 15 (cancelled) ...............................................................119
`12. Claim 16 ..................................................................................120
`B. Ground 2: Angelot as Modified by the Knowledge of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art Discloses Each and Every
`Feature of Claims 2-6, 11, 14, 16. .....................................................120
`C. Ground 3: Angelot in view of Zakurdaev and the Knowledge of
`a person having ordinary skill in the art Discloses Every
`Feature of Claims 2-6, 11, 14, 16. .....................................................131
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................137
`
`
`
`ii
`
`X.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,886,772
`Ex. 1001
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,772
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005 Markman Order from Koninklijke KPN NV v. Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. et al., 2-14-cv-01165-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0201830 to Angelot
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0073182 to Zakurdaev
`
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0061315 to Jin
`Joint Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 57) filed in KPN v. Xiaomi,
`21-cv-00041-GBW-CJB (D. Del. June 10, 2022)
`TR-069 (“CPE WAN Management Protocol v.1.1”, Broadband
`Forum, Issue 1 Amendment 2, December 2007)
`Excerpts of Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, dated
`2002 (ISBN 0-7356-1495-4)
`RFC 2131 (“Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol”, R. Droms,
`March 1997)
`RFC 2132 (“DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions”, S.
`
`Alexander et al., March 1997)
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Joint Request for Stay Pending Settlement (Dkt. No. 105) filed in
`
`KPN v. Xiaomi, 21-cv-00041-GBW-CJB (D. Del. Nov. 28, 2022).
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`An Introduction to Packet Switching (Nick McKeown)
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`Next Generation Optical Networks, Peter Tomsu, dated 2002
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`(ISBN 0-13-028226-X)
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Optical Fiber Telecommunications, Ivan Kaminow, dated 2008
`
`(ISBN 978-0-12-374172-1)
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`A Quick Tutorial on IP Router Design, Nick McKeown, dated
`
`October 10, 2000.
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,838,256
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`I, Dr. Daniel Blumenthal, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`[001] I have been retained by Ericsson Inc. ( “Ericsson” or “Petitioner”) as
`
`an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,886,772 (the ’772
`
`patent) (Ex. 1001).1 I have been asked to consider whether certain references
`
`disclose or suggest the features recited in claims 2-6, 11, 14 and 16 of the ’772
`
`patent. My opinions are set forth below.
`
`[002] I am being compensated at a rate of $625/hour for my work in this
`
`proceeding. My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my
`
`findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or
`
`any other proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`[003] My complete qualifications and professional experience are
`
`described in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Exhibit 1003
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Where appropriate, I refer to exhibits that I understand are to be attached to the
`
`petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’772 patent.
`
`1
`
`Page 6 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`[004] The following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and
`
`professional experience.
`
`[005] My education and my experience in this and related areas span over
`
`40 years of professional and academic experience.
`
`[006] I am considered a pioneer in communications systems.
`
`[007] I received a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, in 1981, a M.S. degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from Columbia University, New York, in 1988, and a Ph.D.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Colorado, Boulder, in
`
`1993. From 1981 until 1984, I worked as an engineer at StorageTek, Louisville,
`
`Colorado, on one of the world’s first optical data storage products. From 1984 to
`
`1985 I worked as a Senior Engineer at Sievers Research in the area of optical
`
`spectroscopy. From 1985 - 1988, I worked at Columbia University Center for
`
`Telecommunications Research (CTR) as a research engineer while pursuing my
`
`Masters degree in Electrical Engineering. The CTR was one of the National
`
`Science Foundation (NSF) centers of excellence that launched the modern
`
`telecommunications networks and spawned a wide range of technologies and
`
`advances from multi-media communications, including packet communications,
`
`voice and video networking, and network layered architectures. From 1988 to 1990
`
`I worked in the Distributed Computing Systems Laboratory at the University of
`
`2
`
`Page 7 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`Pennsylvania, led by Prof. David J. Farber, one of the originators of the internet
`
`and pioneer of distributed communications systems (DCS) that is a pre-cursor to
`
`today’s internet cloud. During that period the Farber research group addressed the
`
`early work and standardization in ATM and TCP/IP Ethernet. From 1990 to 1993,
`
`I pursued my PhD degree as a graduate researcher in the NSF Optoelectronic
`
`Computing Center at the University of Colorado Boulder, where I built one of the
`
`world’s first self-routing optical packet switches. From 1993 to 1997, I was
`
`Assistant Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta where I built a research program and
`
`lab in communications and packet switching, my area of focus at the time.
`
`[008] I am currently a Distinguished Professor in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara
`
`(UCSB) where I have taught and conducted research since 1997. I also serve as the
`
`Director of the Terabit Optical Ethernet Center (TOEC). My research areas
`
`include, among others, communications and packet switching.
`
`[009] I have authored or co-authored over 512 journal and conference
`
`publications, hold 23 issued US patents, and am a co-author of a book, Tunable
`
`Laser Diodes and Related Optical Sources (New York: IEEE–Wiley, 2005) as well
`
`as other book chapters. I have published two invited papers in the prestigious,
`
`broadly read, Proceedings of the IEEE and one invited paper in the prestigious
`
`3
`
`Page 8 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`broadly read Scientific American magazine. The Proceedings of the IEEE is the
`
`leading IEEE journal that provides in-depth review, survey, and tutorial coverage
`
`of the technical developments across all engineering areas including electronics,
`
`electrical and computer engineering, and computer science and is ranked as one of
`
`the top journals by Impact Factor, Article Influence Score and serves as a resource
`
`for engineers around the world.
`
`[010] I have served as the principal investigator for multiple large-scale
`
`research programs funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`
`(DARPA)/Microsystems Technology Office (MTO) including the DARPA
`
`LASOR project that conducted research in packet switching and label swapping
`
`technologies and architectures.
`
`[011] I was an elected Board Member for the Internet-2 Architecture &
`
`Operations Advisory Council from 2008-2012.
`
`[012] In addition to my industry experience at StorageTek and Sievers, I
`
`have co-founded two companies, Packet Photonics, Inc. and Calient Technologies,
`
`Inc. Packet Photonics, Inc. provided network and data center operators with
`
`photonic integrated wavelength tunable transceiver solutions and pluggables to
`
`implement, install, operate, and maintain networks. Calient Technologies, Inc.
`
`provides software enabled adaptive MEMS mirror based photonic switching
`
`4
`
`Page 9 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`systems that enable dynamic optical layer switching and optimization in broadband
`
`and high capacity networks.
`
`[013] While working in industry and at my startup companies, I was
`
`involved in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Optical
`
`Internetworking Forum (OIF) standards bodies. For example, I contributed to
`
`proposals in the IETF that involved sending and updating impairment information
`
`related to transmission links, to nodes within a routing network using generalized
`
`multiple protocol label switching (G-MPLS) control plane protocols: Internet Draft
`
`Document: draft-ietf-ipo-impairments-01.txt, Expiration Date 2002
`
`(https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/52/I-D/draft-ietf-ipo-impairments-01.txt).
`
`[014] I was elected as a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors
`
`(NAI) in 2017. From the NAI website: “The program has 1,060 Fellows worldwide
`
`representing more than 250 prestigious universities and governmental and non-
`
`profit research institutes. Collectively, the Fellows hold more than 38,000 issued
`
`U.S. patents, which have generated over 11,000 licensed technologies and
`
`companies, and created more than 36 million jobs. In addition, over $1.6 trillion in
`
`revenue has been generated based on NAI Fellow discoveries. With the induction
`
`of the 2018 class, there are now more than 125 presidents and senior leaders of
`
`research universities and non-profit research institutes, 502 members of the
`
`National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; 40 inductees of the
`
`5
`
`Page 10 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`National Inventors Hall of Fame, 57 recipients of the U.S. National Medal of
`
`Technology and Innovation and U.S. National Medal of Science, 34 Nobel
`
`Laureates, 3 Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering recipients, 304 AAAS Fellows,
`
`200 IEEE Fellows, and 164 Fellows of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences,
`
`among other awards and distinctions.”
`
`[015] In 2020 I was recipient of the prestigious Optical Society of America
`
`C.E.K. Mees medal. The medal was established in 1961 in memory of charter
`
`member C. E. K. Mees, to recognize achievements that exemplifies the thought
`
`that "optics transcends all boundaries". Prior to 2017 the medal was presented
`
`every two years since 1962, and it has been presented annually since 2017. Former
`
`recipients of the medal include Charles H. Townes, inventor of the laser.
`
`[016] I am a Fellow of the IEEE (only 0.1% of the world-wide
`
`membership can be elected as Fellows in a given year: “According to IEEE Bylaw
`
`I-305.5, "The total number of Fellow recommendations in any one year must not
`
`exceed one-tenth of one percent of the IEEE voting membership on record as of 31
`
`December of the year preceding."). I am also a Fellow of Optica (formerly the
`
`Optical Society of America (OSA)). I am a recipient of a 1999 Presidential Early
`
`Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE) from the White House. I
`
`also received a National Science Foundation Young Investigator (NYI) Award in
`
`1994, and an Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Program (YIP) Award
`
`6
`
`Page 11 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`in 1997. The Presidential White House PECASE Award citation reads “For
`
`outstanding research and creative impact in multi-wavelength optical techniques.”
`
`[017] I have had extensive contributions to the international scientific
`
`community in the form of internationally renowned special issue journals and
`
`international conferences. I have served as the primary Guest Editor for multiple
`
`special issues of the IEEE journals including the 2003 IEEE Journal Of Selected
`
`Areas In Communications special issue on “High-Performance Optical/Electronic
`
`Switches/Routers for High-Speed Internet.” In terms of regular journal editing, I
`
`am currently on the Editorial Board of the prestigious Nature Light Science and
`
`Applications journal, and was an Associate Editor for the IEEE Photonics
`
`Technology Letters and an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on
`
`Communications for many years. I have organized and served on committees for
`
`internationally renowned conferences and topical meetings including as General
`
`Program Chair for the 2001 OSA Topical Meeting on Photonics in Switching and
`
`as Program Chair for the 1999 Meeting on Photonics in Switching. I have also
`
`served on numerous other technical program committees including the Conference
`
`on Optical Fiber Communications OFC (2018 – Present and 1997 – 2000), the
`
`Conference on Lasers and Electrooptics CLEO (1999-2000), the European
`
`Conference on Optical Communications ECOC (2004-2005) and SIGCOMM
`
`2006.
`
`7
`
`Page 12 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`[018] I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in the course of
`
`my work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims
`
`from the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`[019] The opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the
`
`documents I reviewed, my professional judgment, as well as my education,
`
`experience, and knowledge regarding optical networking systems.
`
`[020] In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I reviewed the
`
`exhibits referred to above in the table of exhibits and any other materials that I
`
`refer to in this declaration in support of my opinions.
`
`[021] I have been asked to consider the time of the claims to be the mid-to-
`
`late 2000s, including July 31, 2008, the priority date of ’772 patent. My opinions in
`
`this declaration reflect how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood the claims and the specification of the ’772 patent, the prior art to the
`
`patent, and the state of the art at the time of the the application for the 772 patent
`
`was filed.
`
`[022] As I discuss in detail below, it is my opinion that certain prior art
`
`references disclose or suggest all the features recited in the challenged claims of
`
`the ’772 patent.
`
`8
`
`Page 13 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`IV.
`
`INSTRUCTIONS
`[023] I am not an attorney. Counsel provided the following instructions to
`
`me: My analysis and opinions are based on my expertise in this technical field, as
`
`well as the instructions that I have been given by counsel for the legal standards
`
`relating to patentability as outlined in the rest of this section.
`
`[024] The materials I have reviewed in connection with my analysis
`
`include the ’772 Patent, its file history, and the exhibits identified in the Table of
`
`Exhibits above.
`
`[025] 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.
`
`[026] 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.
`
`[027] 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 person of ordinary skill in the art (“person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art”) at the time of the invention, taking into account:
`
`(a)
`
`the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`9
`
`Page 14 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`the differences between the prior art and the claim under
`
`(b)
`
`construction; and
`
`(c)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`[028] 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 person having ordinary skill in the art, 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 person having ordinary skill in the art, 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.
`
`10
`
`Page 15 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`[029] 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.
`
`[030] 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.
`
`[031] 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 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 person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art. 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
`
`11
`
`Page 16 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`conclusory statements. Instead, it must be some articulated reasoning with some
`
`rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`[032] 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.
`
`[033] 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 given their ordinary and customary meaning, consistent with the patent’s
`
`specification, as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art. 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.
`
`12
`
`Page 17 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`[034] It is my understanding that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“person having ordinary skill in the art”) is a hypothetical person who is presumed
`
`to have known the relevant prior art at the time the application that led to the
`
`Asserted Patent was filed. I understand the factors that may be considered in
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: 1) type of problems
`
`encountered in the prior art; 2) prior art solutions to those problems; 3) rapidity
`
`with which innovations are made; 4) sophistication of the technology; and 5)
`
`educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`[035] I also understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a
`
`person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. They would be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like a puzzle and have the capability of
`
`understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent
`
`art.
`
`[036] In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the
`
`claimed priority date of the ’772 patent would have had a a B.S. in Electrical
`
`Engineering or a related field with at least five years of experience in designing
`
`communications systems. More education can supplement practical experience and
`
`vice versa.
`
`13
`
`Page 18 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`[037] I understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art is a
`
`hypothetical person that is used to analyze the prior art without the benefit of
`
`hindsight. A person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to be one who thinks
`
`along the lines of conventional wisdom in the art and is not one who undertakes to
`
`innovate, whether by extraordinary insights or by patient and often expensive
`
`systematic research. A person of ordinary skill in the art is not the judge, nor a
`
`layperson, nor one skilled in remote arts, nor a genius in the art, nor the inventor.
`
`[038] I understand that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`presumed to have knowledge of all references that are sufficiently related to one
`
`another and to the pertinent art and to have knowledge of all arts reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problem that the claimed invention addresses.
`
`[039] All of my opinions in this declaration are from the perspective of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art, as I have defined it above and during the
`
`relevant time frame, i.e., late 2008. During this time frame, I possessed at least the
`
`qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as defined above.
`
`VI. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`[040] In this section, I will discuss the concepts and techniques that were
`
`known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the ’772 patent.
`
`14
`
`Page 19 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`A. Broadband network architecture (LANs, PONs, MANs, WANs)
`[041] Since the early 2000s, broadband communications networks have
`
`been designed to connect residential, business, and mobile users to services and
`
`other users through a hierarchal network architecture. The broadband network
`
`architecture provides trade-offs between cost, reach (distance), number of users,
`
`and aggregate and per user bandwidth (capacity). Early broadband networks of the
`
`2000s evolved to the cloud infrastructure that we have today. The broadband
`
`communication infrastructure connects a hierarchy of networks, including local
`
`area networks (LANs), campus networks, enterprise networks, metropolitan area
`
`networks (MANs), wide area networks (WANs) and long-haul (LH), ultralong haul
`
`(ULH) and backbone networks that formed the early internet. The design, cost,
`
`performance, and allocation of network resources were driven by what is
`
`connected to each sub-network, what that network connects to, and its aggregate
`
`capacity and cost scaling structure. As illustrated in Fig. 1, access networks
`
`connect to residential, business and mobile users and minimize the cost of
`
`equipment to the premises and monthly cost to the customer. Aggregation
`
`networks span metro- and wide-area distances and connect and have the capacity
`
`to multiple connected access networks in a region. The service edge connects
`
`multiple metro-scale, or regional networks to each other and to the core, and the
`
`core connects edge and metro networks to each other and over long distances.
`
`15
`
`Page 20 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`[042] These networks used combinations of packet/frame switching (L2
`
`and L3, described later) technologies and transport (L0 and L1, described later)
`
`technologies. Modern data switching technologies have been in development since
`
`the 1980s, and include asynchronous transfer mode (ATM), frame relay, and
`
`variable length packet IP switching. Modern transport technologies have been in
`
`development since the 1990s and early 2000s including ethernet packet transport,
`
`MPLS (multi-protocol label switching), and fiber-optic transport including SONET
`
`(synchronous optical network), WDM (wavelength division multiplexing) and
`
`OTN (optical transport network).
`
`Figure 1. Kaminow, Li, Willner (2008) Ex. 1017.
`[043] During the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a world-wide effort
`
`
`
`to develop a uniform packet transport and switching technology called
`
`asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) that would support broadband networking and
`
`transport (e.g., B-ISDN) and switching of video, voice, and data. ATM is a fixed
`
`cell size format that required customer and switch interfaces to break up video,
`
`16
`
`Page 21 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`voice, and data streams into the fixed cells (packets that are 53 Bytes long) which
`
`contained content identifier information and packet routing headers among other
`
`information. Networks, user interfaces, and routers/switches were commercialized
`
`that routed ATM packets and broadband traffic over virtual circuit that gave the
`
`user the feel of a dedicated circuit but the cost structure of sharing the bandwidth
`
`with other users. While the packetization of broadband traffic allowed users to
`
`transmit video, voice, and data over the shared internet, the cost of the ATM
`
`interfaces was too expensive for LAN users, and the technology lost out to the
`
`lower cost Ethernet and IP standards and technology.
`
`[044] Ethernet, a packet technology based on variable length packets, had
`
`evolved through the 1980s to become the TCP/IP standard that could support the
`
`transmission of video, voice and data using very low cost ethernet interfaces for
`
`each user in the LAN. At first, network Ethernet routers were built by adding
`
`interfaces to installed ATM routers. Eventually, routers and switches were
`
`deployed that were optimized for IP. Due to the low cost of Ethernet interfaces and
`
`an industry-wide commitment to reducing board-level electronic chip technologies,
`
`there was significant infrastructure investment in the early 2000s to migrate the
`
`national and world-wide communications infrastructure to an IP packet centric
`
`model all the way from the residential, business and wireless premises to the
`
`17
`
`Page 22 of 143
`
`

`

`Declaration in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent No. 8,886,772
`network core. An example of a packet transport based broadband architecture
`
`broadband to the home is shown in Fig. 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2. Kaminow, Li, Willner (2008). Ex. 1017.
`
`
`
`[045] These networks had to satisfy certain scaling rules, including the cost
`
`to interface a user at the home or business, the cost of monthly services to the user,
`
`and the cost of the aggregation equipment (Capex), operating expenditures (Opex)
`
`and maintenance at the various network layers, as well as the capacity and
`
`optimization of performance metrics like latency and bandwidth availability and
`
`downtime. An example of an early subscriber access network serving residential
`
`and business customers using a fiber optic distribution network to connect LANs to
`
`a metro network is shown in Fig. 3. The low cost interfa