Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,373,449
`
`Case IPR2024-TBD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’449 PATENT .................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Overview of the ’449 Patent .................................................................. 3
`
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent ................................................. 4
`
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims ................................................ 6
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION AND BASIS OF CHALLENGE ............................... 7
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ..................................... 9
`
`A. Goossens2002 ........................................................................................ 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Drake ...................................................................................................10
`
`Goossens2003 ......................................................................................13
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................14
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................15
`
`VII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION .................................................15
`
`A. Ground I: Claim 1–6 and 9–16 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Goossens2002 in view of Drake..........................................................15
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Goossens2002 and Drake ...................15
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................19
`
`Claim 2: “Integrated circuit according to claim 1, further
`comprising: at least one communication manager (CM)
`for managing the communication between different
`modules” ...................................................................................32
`
`Claim 3: “The Integrated circuit of claim 1, further
`comprising at least one of a switch and a router” .....................35
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Claim 4: “The Integrated circuit of claim 1, further
`comprising a chip, wherein the processing modules and
`the network are disposed on said chip” ....................................36
`
`Claim 5: “The Integrated circuit of claim 1, wherein the
`connection properties comprise at least one of data
`transport ordering, flow control, throughput, latency, and
`lossiness” ...................................................................................36
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................36
`
`Claim 9: “Integrated circuit according to claim 2, further
`comprising: at least one network interface means (NI),
`associated to each of said modules, for managing the
`communication between said modules and said network
`(N)” ...........................................................................................42
`
`9.
`
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................42
`
`10. Claim 11: “The method of claim 10, wherein the network
`manages traffic utilizing at least one of a switch and a
`router” .......................................................................................45
`
`11. Claim 12: “The method of claim 10, wherein the
`processing modules and the network are disposed on a
`chip” ..........................................................................................45
`
`12. Claim 13: The method of claim 10, wherein the
`connection properties comprise at least one of data
`transport ordering, flow control, throughput, latency, and
`lossiness” ...................................................................................45
`
`13. Claim 14: “The method of claim 10, further comprising
`the resource manager determining whether the target
`connection with the desired connection properties is
`available based on reading of a centralized or distributed
`property table comprising properties associated with the
`network” ....................................................................................46
`
`14. Claim 15: “The method of claim 10, further comprising
`the resource manager reserving the target connection
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`after determining whether the target connection with the
`desired connection properties is available” ..............................47
`
`15. Claim 16: “The method of claim 10, wherein the
`connection properties comprise at least one of
`throughput, latency and jitter” ..................................................48
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Claim 1–6 and 9–16 Are Rendered Obvious by
`Goossens2003 in view of Drake..........................................................48
`
`1. Motivation to Combine Goossens2003 and Drake ...................48
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................51
`
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................59
`
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................60
`
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................61
`
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................62
`
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................62
`
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................64
`
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................65
`
`10. Claim 11 ....................................................................................67
`
`11. Claim 12 ....................................................................................67
`
`12. Claim 13 ....................................................................................67
`
`13. Claim 14 ....................................................................................68
`
`14. Claim 15 ....................................................................................68
`
`15. Claim 16 ....................................................................................68
`
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................68
`
`IX. PTAB DISCRETION SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE
`INSTITUTION .............................................................................................69
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`A. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is Not
`Warranted ............................................................................................69
`
`B.
`
`Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is Not
`Warranted ............................................................................................70
`
`X. MANDATORY NOTICES .........................................................................72
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ..........................................................................72
`
`Related Matters ....................................................................................72
`
`Counsel Information ............................................................................73
`
`Service Information .............................................................................73
`
`XI. PAYMENT OF FEES .................................................................................73
`
`XII. CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................73
`
`XIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................74
`
`Claims Listing Appendix .......................................................................................75
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ............................................ 69
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ................................... 70, 71
`
`Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ........................................... 69
`
`Bowtech Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019) ........................................... 70
`
`CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2023) .......................................... 71
`
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019) ............................................. 69
`
`In re Gosteli,
`872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Hulu, LLC v. Sound Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) ........................................... 9
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
`463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 68
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ........................................... 70
`
`Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP,
`140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020) ........................................................................................ 71
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 69
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`In re Ziegler,
`992 F.2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 102 ...................................................................................................................... 8
`§ 103 ...................................................................................................................... 8
`§ 112 ................................................................................................................ 6, 33
`§ 119 .................................................................................................................. 6, 8
`§ 282(b) ............................................................................................................... 15
`§ 311(b) ................................................................................................................. 8
`§ 314(a) ......................................................................................................... 70, 71
`§ 315(e)(1) .......................................................................................................... 74
`§ 325(d) ............................................................................................................... 69
`§ 371 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(b) ............................................................................................................ 73
`§ 42.15(a)(1) ....................................................................................................... 73
`§ 42.100(b) .......................................................................................................... 15
`§ 42.104(a) .......................................................................................................... 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449 (the “ʼ449 Patent”)
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 7,373,449
`Declaration of Todd Mowry Ph.D. in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`Curriculum Vitae of Todd Mowry Ph.D.
`K. Goossens, et al., Networks on Silicon: Combining Best-Effort and
`Guaranteed Services (“Goossens2002”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,461,611 (“Drake”)
`K. Goossens, et al., Guaranteeing the Quality of Services in Networks
`on Chip (“Goossens2003”)
`Ahmed Amine Jerraya & Wayne Wolf, Multiprocessor Systems-on-
`Chips, Ch. 1 (2005) (“Wolf”)
`Wael Badawy, System on Chip: The Challenge and Opportunities,
`SYSTEM ON CHIP FOR REAL-TIME APPLICATIONS, 3–16 (2003)
`(“Badawy”)
`Andrei Rădulescu et al., An Efficient On-Chip Network Interface
`Offering Guaranteed Services, Shared-Memory Abstraction, and
`Flexible Network Configuration, 2 PROC. DESIGN, AUTOMATION AND
`TEST IN EUR. CONF. & EXHIBITION 878 (2004) (“Rădulescu”)
`A. Campbell et al., Integrated Quality of Service for Multimedia
`Communications, Computing Dept.
`Lancaster University
`(“Campbell”)
`D. Kandlur et al., Real-Time Communication in Multihop Networks,
`IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS, VOL.
`5, NO. 10 (1994) (“Kandlur”)
`Jose Duato, et al., Interconnection Networks: An Engineering
`Approach, IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY PRESS, Ch. 7 (1997) (“Duato”)
`Axel Jantsch and Hannu Tenhunen, Networks on Chip, Ch. 1-3 (2003)
`(“Jantsch”)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Description
`
`David E. Culler and Jaswinder Pal Singh, Parallel Computer
`Architecture, A Hardware/Software Approach, Ch. 10 (1999)
`(“Culler”)
`Hugo De Man, System-on-chip design: Impact on Education and
`Research, IEEE DESIGN & TEST OF COMPUTERS, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.
`11-19 (July-Sept. 1999) (“Man”)
`ETSI Technical Report, Trans European Trunked Radio (TETRA)
`system; Technical requirements specification, Part 2: Packet Data
`Optimised (PDO) systems (January 1994)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,658 (“Ottersten”)
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Network Sys.
`Techs., LLC v. Tex. Instruments Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00482-RWS, Dkt.
`84 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2023)
`Pl.’s Opening Claim Construction Br., Network Sys. Techs., LLC v.
`Tex. Instruments Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00482-RWS, Dkt. 98 (E.D. Tex.
`Sept. 27, 2023)
`E. Rijpkema et al., Trade-offs in the Design of a Router with Both
`Guaranteed and Best-Effort Services for Networks on Chip, 150 IEEE
`PROC.-COMPUT. DIGIT. TECH. 294–302 (2003) (“Rijpkema”)
`M. Sgroi et al., Addressing the System-on-a-Chip Interconnect Woes
`Through Communication-Based Design (2001) (“Sgroi”)
`Yasusi Kanada, A Representation of Network Node QoS Control
`Policies Using Rule-based Building Blocks (2000) (“Kanada”)
`IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, p.
`344 (“IEEE Dictionary”)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding K. Goossens, et al.,
`Networks on Silicon: Combining Best-Effort and Guaranteed Services
`IEEE Bibliographic Data Regarding K. Goossens, et al., Networks on
`Silicon: Combining Best-Effort and Guaranteed Services
`Declaration of the University of Texas at Austin Libraries regarding
`“Networks on Chip”
`SpringerLink Bibliographic Data Regarding “Networks on Chip”
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Description
`
`William J. Dally and Brian Towles, Route Packets, Not Wires: On-
`Chip Interconnection Networks, Computer Systems Laboratory
`Stanford University (2001) (“Dally”)
`Defendants’ Joint Claim Construction Br. (Excerpts), Network Sys.
`Techs., LLC v. Tex. Instruments Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00482-RWS, Dkt.
`77 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2023)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”) requests inter
`
`partes review of Claims 1–6 and 9–16 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,373,449 (the “ʼ449 Patent”) (Ex-1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Challenged Claims are directed to longstanding and well-known
`
`networking techniques for the establishment of “connections” between networked
`
`components that can provide communication services with certain properties, such
`
`as guaranteed minimum throughput or guaranteed maximum latency.
`
`During prosecution, the Challenged Claims were allowed because the cited
`
`prior art did not disclose a “resource manager” that determined whether a requested
`
`connection was available based on connection properties. But there is nothing novel
`
`about this feature. Determining whether the network resources required to provide
`
`a connection with certain properties are available—and the subsequent reservation
`
`of those resources—long pre-dates the ’449 Patent. Such a process is described, for
`
`example, in U.S. Patent No. 5,461,611 (“Drake”), which was filed a decade before
`
`the ’449 Patent.
`
`While the Challenged Claims are directed to networks implemented on an
`
`integrated circuit, the determination of the availability of resources—whether in a
`
`“network on chip” or in networks more generally—also predates the ’449 Patent.
`
`For instance, the use of connections in “network on silicon” was described in K.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`Goossens, et al., Networks on Silicon: Combining Best-Effort and Guaranteed
`
`Services (“Goossens2002”), which was published no later than August 7, 2002, and
`
`K. Goossens, et al., Guaranteeing the Quality of Services in Networks on Chip
`
`(“Goossens2003”), which was published no later than January 31, 2003.
`
`The Challenged Claims thus do not contain any novel or inventive concepts,
`
`but rather employ known networking technologies in obvious ways. As such,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that Challenged Claims be cancelled as unpatentable
`
`over the prior art on the grounds detailed below.
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE ’449 PATENT
`
`The ’449 Patent issued on May 13, 2008, from U.S. Application No.
`
`10/530,267 (Ex-1002, “the ’267 Application”) filed on April 5, 2005. The ’267
`
`Application
`
`is a national stage application (under 35 U.S.C. §371) of
`
`PCT/IB03/04414 (“the PCT application”) filed on October 7, 2003. The ’449 Patent
`
`claims priority to a foreign patent application, EP Application No. 02079196, (“the
`
`EP196 Application”) filed on October 8, 2002, but for the reasons discussed below,
`
`the Challenged Claims are not entitled to claim priority to the EP196 Application for
`
`lack of sufficient disclosure.
`
`A. Claims
`
`The ’449 Patent has 18 claims. Claims 1–6 and 9–16 are challenged herein,
`
`of which two are independent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`
`B. Overview of the ’449 Patent
`
`The ’449 Patent “relates to an integrated circuit having a plurality of
`
`processing modules and a network arranged for providing connections between
`
`processing modules.” Ex-1001, 1:5–11. The ’449 Patent explains its objective is to
`
`provide “more effective usage of the properties of the network.” Id., 7:6–11.
`
`The ’449 Patent describes that, in the “transport layer” of the network, the
`
`processing modules communicate over “connections,” which are described as “a set
`
`of channels, each having a set of connection properties, between a first module and
`
`at least one second module.” Id., 8:48–52. The set of channels may comprise a
`
`“request channel” and a “response channel.” Id., 8:52–60. “[T]he outgoing and
`
`return parts of connections can be configured independently,” such that they have
`
`different connection properties. Id., 11:4–55. The “connection properties” provided
`
`by these channels may include, for example, throughput and latency. Id., 8:62-9:3.
`
`The ’449 Patent also describes that “connections … must be first created or
`
`established with the desired properties before being used.” Id., 10:62–64. To
`
`establish such connections, a “communication manager (CM) request[s] a
`
`connection with a set of properties between two modules from the resource manager
`
`RM.” Id., 10:19–24. The ’449 Patent explains that, because “[t]he properties require
`
`resources to be implemented[,] … a connection requiring some properties is opened
`
`or not depending on the availability of these resources.” Id., 10:27–31. The resource
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`manager RM thus “enquires if such a connection based on these resources is
`
`possible.” Id., 10:24–26. If the resources are available, the resource manager RM
`
`“establishes a connection.” Id., 10:41–57.
`
`Figure 3 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the system of the ’449
`
`Patent:
`
`
`
`Ex-1001, Fig. 3.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’449 Patent
`
`The ’267 application was originally filed with 7 claims, two of them
`
`independent. The originally filed independent claims—corresponding to issued
`
`claims 1 and 10—contained a subset of the limitations found in the issued claims.
`
`Application claim 1 is representative:
`
`1. Integrated circuit comprising a plurality of processing modules (M;
`I; S; T) and a network (N; RN) arranged for providing at least one
`connection between a first and at least one second module,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`
`wherein the at least one connection comprises a set of communication
`channels each having a set of connection properties, the connection
`properties of the different communication channels of said connection
`being adjustable independently,
`
`wherein said connection supports transactions comprising outgoing
`messages from the first module to the second module and/or return
`messages from the second module to the first module.
`
`Ex-1002, 105.
`
`On March 2, 2007, the examiner rejected all pending claims as obvious over
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,807,118 (“Lin”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`
`2003/0182419 (“Barr”). Id., 53–59. The examiner found the first and third
`
`limitations were disclosed by Lin and the second limitation, a connection comprising
`
`a set of channels with independently adjustable connection properties, was disclosed
`
`by Barr. Id.
`
`On May 25, 2007, the applicants submitted an amendment. Id., 43–47. The
`
`applicants traversed the examiner’s rejection, arguing that neither Lin nor Barr
`
`disclosed multiple processing modules and a network on the same chip. Id., 48.
`
`On August 23, 2007, the examiner issued another office action rejecting the
`
`pending claims over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0103230 (“Emerson”) in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,769,046 (“Adams”). Id., 31–37. The examiner found that
`
`Emerson discloses a “system on chip (i.e. SoC) comprising numbers of processing
`
`modules communicating within the chip” over a network of connections, and Adams
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`discloses connections comprised of channels with independently adjustable
`
`connection properties. Id., 33–34.
`
`On November 20, 2007, the applicants submitted an amendment incorporating
`
`into independent application claims 1 and 7 limitations from dependent claims
`
`pertaining to a “resource manager,” among other things. Id., 21–25. The applicants
`
`traversed the examiner’s rejection, arguing that Emerson’s arbiter does not disclose
`
`a resource manager that determines “whether the at least one connection with the
`
`communication channel is available based on the connection properties being
`
`available” or “a target connection with the desired connection properties is
`
`available.” Id., 25–26 (emphasis in original).
`
`The application was allowed on January 9, 2008, with the examiner noting the
`
`cited prior art did not teach “the resource manager determines whether the at least
`
`one connection with the communication channels is available based on the
`
`connection properties being available.” Id., 13–15.
`
`D.
`
`Priority Date of the Challenged Claims
`
`Under binding Federal Circuit law, “[a] foreign patent application must meet
`
`the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in order for a later filed United
`
`States application to be entitled to the benefit of the foreign filing date under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 119.” In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As such, “the
`
`foreign priority application must be examined to ascertain if it supports, within the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`meaning of section 112, ¶ 1, what is claimed in the United States application.” In re
`
`Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`The Challenged Claims are not supported by the disclosure of the EP196
`
`Application and therefore not entitled to a priority date earlier than October 7, 2003.
`
`Ex-1003 ¶46. In particular, the EP196 Application fails to disclose the claimed
`
`“resource manager” (claims 1, 10, and the claims that depend therefrom), and its
`
`claimed functions, including “determin[ing] whether the at least one connection with
`
`said communication channels is available based on the connection properties being
`
`available” (claim 1), “determining whether a target connection with the desired
`
`connection properties is available” (claim 10), “responding with the availability of
`
`the requested connection to said communication manager” (claims 6 and 10), among
`
`others. Ex-1002, 121–169. And the EP196 Application does not disclose the
`
`claimed “communication manager” (claims 2, 10, and the claim that depend
`
`therefrom), and its claimed functions, including “forward[ing] said request (REQ)
`
`for a connection with communication channels each having a specific set of
`
`connection properties to said resource manager (RM)” (claim 6) and “forwarding
`
`the request to a resource manager” (claim 10 and the claims that depend therefrom).
`
`Id.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION AND BASIS OF CHALLENGE
`
`Petitioner’s challenge is based on the following prior art:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
` Goossens2002 (Ex-1005) – K. Goossens, et al., Networks on Silicon: Combining
`
`Best-Effort and Guaranteed Services (“Goossens2002”), published no later than
`
`August 7, 2002, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and (b) because it was
`
`published more than one year before October 7, 2003, “the date of the actual
`
`filing of the application in this country.” 35 U.S.C. §119(a).1
`
` Drake (Ex-1006) – U.S. Patent No. 5,461,611 to Drake, Jr., et al. (“Drake”), filed
`
`on June 7, 1994 and issued on October 24, 1995, is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§102(a), (b), and (e), because it was filed and issued more than one year before
`
`October 7, 2003, “the date of the actual filing of the application in this country.”
`
`35 U.S.C. §119(a).
`
` Goossens2003 (Ex-1007) – K. Goossens, et al., Guaranteeing the Quality of
`
`Services in Networks on Chip (“Goossens2003”), which was included as chapter
`
`4 of Networks on Chip, edited by A. Jantsch and H. Tenhunen (“Jantsch”), and
`
`published no later than January 31, 2003, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)
`
`because it was published before the invention of the ’449 Patent, as reflected in
`
`the filing date of the PCT Application (October 7, 2003).
`
`Goossens2002 and Goossens2003 are printed publications pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. §311(b) because they were published and publicly available before the
`
`
`1 Cites to 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103, and 119 are to the pre-AIA versions.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`priority date of the ’449 Patent. Ex-1005; Ex-1007; Hulu, LLC v. Sound Innovations,
`
`LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 17-19 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).
`
`Supporting documentation and testimonial evidence demonstrate that Goossens2002
`
`and Goossens2003 are printed publications that were publicly available prior to the
`
`’449 Patent’s priority date. See Ex-1025; Ex-1027; Ex-1028; Hulu, Paper 29 at 12-
`
`14, 17-21.
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`below:
`
`Ground
`I
`II
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claims
`Claims 1–6, 9–16
`Claims 1–6, 9–16
`
`Reference(s)
`Goossens2002 and Drake
`Goossens2003 and Drake
`
`Section VII details the statutory grounds for unpatentability of the Challenged
`
`Claims. Additional evidence is provided in the accompanying Declaration of Dr.
`
`Todd Mowry (Ex-1003) and supporting exhibits.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`A. Goossens2002
`
`Goossens2002 was authored by a group from Philips Research Laboratories
`
`that included one of the named inventors of the ’449 Patent, Kees Goossens. Ex-
`
`1005, 1. Goossens2002 is directed to “systems on silicon,” also known as a systems
`
`on chip, or “SoCs.” Id.; Ex-1003 ¶¶30–31, 63. Goossens2002 describes that such
`
`systems on silicon are potentially comprised of “hundreds of IPs,” or intellectual
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`property blocks, and is concerned with the communication among those IPs. Ex-
`
`1005, 1. Goossens2002 “propose[s] a network on silicon (NOS) to implement the
`
`communication between these IPs.” Id.
`
`The NOS proposed by Goossens2002 is a packet-switched router network that
`
`implements “guaranteed services.” Id. Goossens2002 describes that “some IPs have
`
`inherent performance requirements, such as a minimum throughput (for real-time
`
`streaming data), or bounded latency (for interrupts)” and that “[a] NOS with
`
`guaranteed services eases their integration” into larger systems on silicon. Id., 2.
`
`The guaranteed services in Goossens2002’s system are provided over “connections,”
`
`which are combinations of multiple channels between IPs that can be set up and
`
`removed by the IPs. Id., 2–3; Ex-1003, ¶64. Goossens2002 describes that the
`
`component channels “can have a combined throughput and latency guarantee (GT),
`
`or be best effort (BE), with an unspecified finite latency upper bound.” Ex-1005, 3.
`
`Goossens2002 further notes that “[a] service request may be granted or denied
`
`by the network” and suggests that this functionality is implemented in a “quality-of-
`
`service manager” that “reconfigures” the system on silicon and “steers” the network
`
`on silicon. Id.
`
`B. Drake
`
`Drake is titled “Quality of Service Management for Source Routing
`
`Multimedia Packet Networks,” and was originally assigned to International Business
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`Machines Corporation. Ex-1006, Cover. Drake describes that multimedia
`
`information—“particularly audio and full motion video”—that is communicated
`
`over a network “has unique properties that impose stringent requirements on the
`
`communications network.” Id., 1:22–24. Drake explains these requirements include
`
`the availability of “high bandwidth” (i.e., throughput) and that “the data is delivered
`
`with (a priori) bounded delay” (i.e., latency). Id., 1:34–46. Drake further describes
`
`the need for a system and method to ensure these requirements can be satisfied in
`
`packet-switched networks. Id., 1:52–57, 2:14–21; Ex-1003, ¶66.
`
`To address this need, Drake describes a quality of service management system
`
`that receives requests for “QoS connections” with specified properties, determines
`
`whether the required network resources are available, and reserves those resources
`
`for the requesting station. Ex-1006, Abstract. An exemplary embodiment of
`
`Drake’s system is shown in Figure 1 below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,373,449
`
`
`
`
`Ex-1006, Fig. 1. The components of Drake’s system include a “QoS requestor
`
`manager,” wh