IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ORCKIT CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`In re Inter Partes Review of:
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. NADER F. MIR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN
`SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 1 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Professional Background ...................................................................... 1
`
`B. Compensation ....................................................................................... 4
`
`C. Documents and Information Considered .............................................. 4
`
`D. Summary of Opinions ........................................................................... 4
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED ..................................................... 5
`
`A. Claim Language .................................................................................... 5
`
`B. Anticipation .......................................................................................... 5
`
`C. Obviousness .......................................................................................... 6
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ....................................................................... 9
`
`A. Deep Packet Inspection ......................................................................... 9
`
`B. Software-Defined Networking ............................................................ 12
`
`C. ’111 Patent Overview ......................................................................... 15
`
`D. Prosecution History Overview ............................................................ 19
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 21
`
`A. Lefebvre Overview ............................................................................. 21
`
`B. Chua Overview ................................................................................... 26
`
`C. Rash Overview .................................................................................... 28
`
`V. A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................... 29
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 30
`
`A. The “controller” Term ........................................................................ 31
`
`B. The “criterion” Term .......................................................................... 32
`
`
`
`i
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 2 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`VII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 32-36 AND 38-54 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS
`BY LEFEBVRE IN VIEW OF CHUA. ........................................................ 33
`
`A. A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Lefebvre and
`Chua. ................................................................................................... 34
`
`B. Independent Claim 32 ......................................................................... 43
`
`1. [32.preamble] “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 by the network node comprising:” .................... 43
`
`2. [32.1] “receiving, from the controller, the instruction and the
`criterion;” ....................................................................................... 46
`
`3. [32.2] “receiving, from the first entity over the packet network, a
`packet addressed to the second entity;” ......................................... 50
`
`4. [32.3] “checking if the packet satisfies the criterion;” .................. 51
`
`5. [32.4] “responsive to the packet not satisfying the criterion,
`sending over the packet network, the packet to the second entity;
`and” ................................................................................................ 52
`
`6. [32.5] “responsive to the packet satisfying the criterion, sending
`the packet over the packet network, to an entity that is included in
`the instruction and is other than the second entity.” ...................... 52
`
`C. Dependent Claims 33-36, 39-54 ......................................................... 54
`
`1. [33] The method according to claim 32, wherein the instruction is
`‘probe’, ‘mirror’, or ‘terminate’ instruction, and upon receiving the
`‘terminate’ instruction, the method further comprising blocking,
`the packet from being sent to the second entity and to the
`controller. ....................................................................................... 54
`
`2. [34] The method according to claim 32, wherein the instruction is a
`‘probe’, a ‘mirror’, or a ‘terminate’ instruction, and upon receiving
`the ‘mirror’ instruction and responsive to the packet satisfying the
`criterion, the method further comprising sending the packet to the
`second entity and to the controller. ................................................ 57
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 3 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`3. [35] The method according to claim 32, wherein the instruction is
`‘probe’, ‘mirror’, or ‘terminate’ instruction, and upon receiving the
`‘probe’ instruction and responsive to the packet satisfying the
`criterion, the method further comprising: sending the packet to the
`controller; receiving the packet, from the controller; and
`responsive to receiving the packet, sending the packet, to the
`second entity. ................................................................................. 58
`
`4. [36] The method according to claim 32, further comprising
`responsive to the packet satisfying the criterion and to the
`instruction, sending the packet or a portion thereof to the
`controller. ....................................................................................... 61
`
`5. [39] The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet
`comprises distinct header and payload fields, the header comprises
`one or more flag bits, and wherein the packet-applicable criterion
`is that one or more of the flag bits is set. ....................................... 62
`
`6. [40] The method according to claim 39, wherein the packet is an
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packet, and wherein the one
`or more flag bits comprises comprise a SYN flag bit, an ACK flag
`bit, a FIN flag bit, a RST flag bit, or any combination thereof. .... 66
`
`7. [41] The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet
`comprises distinct header and payload fields, the header comprises
`at least the first and second entities addresses in the packet
`network, and wherein the packet-applicable criterion is that the
`first entity address, the second entity address, or both match a
`predetermined address or addresses. ............................................. 66
`
`8. [42] The method according to claim 41, wherein the addresses are
`Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. .................................................... 67
`
`9. [43] The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet is an
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packet that comprises source
`and destination TCP ports, a TCP sequence number, and a TCP
`sequence mask fields, and wherein the packet-applicable criterion
`is that the source TCP port, the destination TCP port, the TCP
`sequence number, the TCP sequence mask, or any combination
`thereof, matches a predetermined value or values. ........................ 68
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 4 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`10. [44] The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet
`network comprises a Wide Area Network (WAN), Local Area
`Network (LAN), the Internet, Metropolitan Area Network (MAN),
`Internet Service Provider (ISP) backbone, datacenter network, or
`inter-datacenter network. ............................................................... 71
`
`11. [45] The method according to claim 32, wherein the first entity is a
`server device and the second entity is a client device, or wherein
`the first entity is a client device and the second entity is a server
`device. ............................................................................................ 73
`
`12. [46] The method according to claim 45, wherein the server device
`comprises a web server, and wherein the client device comprises a
`smartphone, a tablet computer, a personal computer, a laptop
`computer, or a wearable computing device. .................................. 74
`
`13. [47] The method according to claim 45, wherein the
`communication with the controller is based on, or uses, a standard
`protocol. ......................................................................................... 75
`
`14. [48] The method according to claim 47, wherein the standard
`protocol is according to, based on, or compatible with, an
`OpenFlow protocol version 1.3.3 or 1.4.0. .................................... 75
`
`15. [49] The method according to claim 48, wherein the instruction
`comprises a Type-Length-Value (TLV) structure. ........................ 76
`
`16. [50] The method according to claim 32, wherein the network node
`comprises a router, a switch, or a bridge. ...................................... 77
`
`17. [51] The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet
`network is an Internet Protocol (IP) network, and the packet is an
`IP packet. ....................................................................................... 79
`
`18. [52] The method according to claim 51, wherein the packet
`network is a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) network, and
`the packet is an TCP packet. .......................................................... 79
`
`19. [53] The method according to claim 32, further comprising:
`receiving, from the first entity over the packet network, one or
`more additional packets; checking, if any one of the one or more
`additional packets satisfies the criterion; responsive to an
`
`iv
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 5 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`additional packet not satisfying the criterion, sending over the
`packet network, the additional packet to the second entity; and
`responsive to the additional packet satisfying the criterion, sending
`the additional packet over the packet network, in response to the
`instruction. ..................................................................................... 80
`
`20. [54] The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet
`network is a Software Defined Network (SDN), the packet is
`routed as part of a data plane and the communication with the
`controller serves as a control plane. ............................................... 81
`
`VIII. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 37-38 ARE RENDERED OBVIOUS BY
`LEFEBVRE IN VIEW OF CHUA AND RASH. ......................................... 82
`
`A. A POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine Lefebvre and
`Rash. ................................................................................................... 83
`
`B. Dependent Claim 37-38 ...................................................................... 88
`
`1. [37] The method according to claim 36, further comprising
`responsive to the packet satisfying the criterion and to the
`instruction, sending a portion of the packet to the controller. ....... 88
`
`2. [38] The method according to claim 37, wherein the portion of the
`packet consists of multiple consecutive bytes, and wherein the
`instruction comprises identification of the consecutive bytes in the
`packet. ............................................................................................ 90
`
`IX. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .................................... 91
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 6 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`Exhibit
`
`EXHIBIT LIST1
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Nader Mir
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Nader Mir
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 10,097,452 (“Lefebvre”)
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 9,264,301 (“Chua”)
`
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 9,813,447 (“Rash”)
`
`1008 M. Liao, et al., “Design and Evaluation of Deep Packet Inspection
`System: A Case Study,” IET Networks, pp. 1-8 (2012)
`
`1009 A. W. Moore and K. Papagiannaki, “Toward the Accurate
`Identification of Network Applications,” In: PAM, Springer, vol. 5, pp.
`41-54 (2005)
`
`1010 RFC 3654 (available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3654, last
`accessed at April 4, 2024)
`
`1011 W. Xia, et al., “A Survey on Software-Defined Networking,” IEEE
`Communication Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 27-51 (June
`13, 2014)
`
`1012 RFC 3746 (available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3746.txt,
`last accessed April 4, 2024)
`
`1013 N. McKeown, et al., “OpenFlow: Enabling Innovation in Campus
`Networks,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol.
`38, No. 2, pp. 69-74 (April 2008)
`
`1014 Steven Levy, “Going with the Flow: Google’s Secret Switch to the
`Next Wave of Networking” (April 17, 2012) (available at
`
`
`1 Citations to page numbers reflect the number marked in the bottom of exhibits.
`
` vi
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 7 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`https://www.wired.com/2012/04/going-with-the-flow-google/, last
`accessed April 4, 2024)
`
`1015 RFC 793 (available at https://www.rfc-
`editor.org/rfc/pdfrfc/rfc793.txt.pdf, last accessed April 20, 2024)
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`“About the Open Networking Foundation,” (available at
`https://opennetworking.org/mission/, last accessed April 13, 2024)
`
`“Open Networking Foundation Specifications,” (available at
`https://opennetworking.org/software-defined-standards/specifications/,
`last accessed April 13, 2024)
`
`“OpenFlow Switch Specification,” (available at
`https://opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/openflow-
`spec-v1.4.0.pdf, last accessed April 13, 2024)
`
`1019 RFC 5810 (available at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5810.html,
`last accessed April 13, 2024)
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vii
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 8 of 103
`
`

`

`
`
`CLAIM LISTING
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`32.1
`32.2
`
`Independent Claim 32
`32.preamble 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 by the network node comprising:
`receiving, from the controller, the instruction and the criterion;
`receiving, from the first entity over the packet network, a packet
`addressed to the second entity;
`checking if the packet satisfies the criterion;
`responsive to the packet not satisfying the criterion, sending over
`the packet network, the packet to the second entity; and
`responsive to the packet satisfying the criterion, sending the packet
`over the packet network, to an entity that is included in the
`instruction and is other than the second entity.
`
`32.3
`32.4
`
`32.5
`
`
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`Dependent Claims 33-54
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the instruction is ‘probe’,
`‘mirror’, or ‘terminate’ instruction, and upon receiving the ‘terminate’
`instruction, the method further comprising blocking, the packet from
`being sent to the second entity and to the controller.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the instruction is a ‘probe’,
`a ‘mirror’, or a ‘terminate’ instruction, and upon receiving the ‘mirror’
`instruction and responsive to the packet satisfying the criterion, the
`method further comprising sending the packet to the second entity and
`to the controller.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the instruction is ‘probe’,
`‘mirror’, or ‘terminate’ instruction, and upon receiving the ‘probe’
`instruction and responsive to the packet satisfying the criterion, the
`method further comprising: sending the packet to the controller;
`receiving the packet, from the controller; and responsive to receiving the
`packet, sending the packet, to the second entity.
`The method according to claim 32, further comprising responsive to the
`packet satisfying the criterion and to the instruction, sending the packet
`or a portion thereof to the controller.
`
` viii
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 9 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`37
`
`38
`
`39
`
`40
`
`41
`
`42
`
`43
`
`44
`
`45
`
`Dependent Claims 33-54
`The method according to claim 36, further comprising responsive to the
`packet satisfying the criterion and to the instruction, sending a portion of
`the packet to the controller.
`The method according to claim 37, wherein the portion of the packet
`consists of multiple consecutive bytes, and wherein the instruction
`comprises identification of the consecutive bytes in the packet.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet comprises
`distinct header and payload fields, the header comprises one or more
`flag bits, and wherein the packet-applicable criterion is that one or more
`of the flag bits is set.
`The method according to claim 39, wherein the packet is an
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packet, and wherein the one or
`more flag bits comprises comprise a SYN flag bit, an ACK flag bit, a
`FIN flag bit, a RST flag bit, or any combination thereof.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet comprises
`distinct header and payload fields, the header comprises at least the first
`and second entities addresses in the packet network, and wherein the
`packet-applicable criterion is that the first entity address, the second
`entity address, or both match a predetermined address or addresses.
`The method according to claim 41, wherein the addresses are Internet
`Protocol (IP) addresses.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet is an
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packet that comprises source and
`destination TCP ports, a TCP sequence number, and a TCP sequence
`mask fields, and wherein the packet-applicable criterion is that the
`source TCP port, the destination TCP port, the TCP sequence number,
`the TCP sequence mask, or any combination thereof, matches a
`predetermined value or values.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet network
`comprises a Wide Area Network (WAN), Local Area Network (LAN),
`the Internet, Metropolitan Area Network (MAN), Internet Service
`Provider (ISP) backbone, datacenter network, or inter-datacenter
`network.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the first entity is a server
`device and the second entity is a client device, or wherein the first entity
`is a client device and the second entity is a server device.
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 10 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`46
`
`47
`
`48
`
`49
`
`50
`
`51
`
`52
`
`53
`
`54
`
`Dependent Claims 33-54
`The method according to claim 45, wherein the server device comprises
`a web server, and wherein the client device comprises a smartphone, a
`tablet computer, a personal computer, a laptop computer, or a wearable
`computing device.
`The method according to claim 45, wherein the communication with the
`controller is based on, or uses, a standard protocol.
`The method according to claim 47, wherein the standard protocol is
`according to, based on, or compatible with, an OpenFlow protocol
`version 1.3.3 or 1.4.0.
`The method according to claim 48, wherein the instruction comprises a
`Type-Length-Value (TLV) structure.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the network node comprises
`a router, a switch, or a bridge.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet network is an
`Internet Protocol (IP) network, and the packet is an IP packet.
`The method according to claim 51, wherein the packet network is a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) network, and the packet is an TCP
`packet.
`The method according to claim 32, further comprising: receiving, from
`the first entity over the packet network, one or more additional packets;
`checking, if any one of the one or more additional packets satisfies the
`criterion; responsive to an additional packet not satisfying the criterion,
`sending over the packet network, the additional packet to the second
`entity; and responsive to the additional packet satisfying the criterion,
`sending the additional packet over the packet network, in response to the
`instruction.
`The method according to claim 32, wherein the packet network is a
`Software Defined Network (SDN), the packet is routed as part of a data
`plane and the communication with the controller serves as a control
`plane.
`
` x
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 11 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Dr. Nader F. Mir. I understand that I am submitting this
`
`declaration in connection with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office for U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111 (“the
`
`’111 Patent”). I have been retained on behalf of Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”)
`
`to offer technical opinions with respect to the ’111 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`Regarding the ’111 Patent, I have provided my opinions on whether claims
`
`32-54 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’111 Patent would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the alleged invention in
`
`view of the prior art. It is my opinion the Challenged Claims would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA.
`
`A.
`
`PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`
`3.
`
` My complete qualifications and professional experience are described in my
`
`Curriculum Vitae (CV) (Ex. 1004). I summarize my relevant qualifications and
`
`professional experience below.
`
`4.
`
`I have over 30 years of industry and academic experience with computer
`
`networks. My areas of research include computer networks and protocols,
`
`virtualization, cloud data centers, network security, networking devices including
`
`switches, routers, gateways, virtual switches, software-defined networks (SDNs),
`
`and network function virtualization devices.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 12 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`5.
`
`I am a Full Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at San Jose
`
`State University. I joined the faculty at San Jose State University in 2001 and
`
`became a Full Professor in 2005. I previously held the positions of Associate Chair
`
`in the Department of Electrical Engineering from 2006 to 2008, and Director of the
`
`university’s off-campus graduate programs from 2006 to 2017. I have supervised
`
`more than 200 thesis and master’s projects during my career and served as a
`
`member of more than twenty other master’s and Ph.D. thesis (dissertation) defense
`
`committees. I have also served in various positions in the university’s management
`
`and administration including chairing the Department of Electrical Engineering’s
`
`Computer Networking Curriculum Committee since 2001 and chairing the
`
`Department of Electrical Engineering’s governance committee from 2006 to 2009.
`
`Prior to joining San Jose State University, I was an Associate Professor in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Kentucky
`
`from 1996 to 2001.
`
`6.
`
`I have also worked in industry. From 1985 to 1988, I was a telecom research
`
`and development engineer at the Telecommunication Research & Development
`
`Center in Surrey, England. There, I led engineering projects in telecommunication
`
`engineering including the design of a high-speed switch for digital private branch
`
`exchange (PBX) and SS7 networks. I received the best “design/idea” award for this
`
`work. I worked as a computer/communications chip-design engineer from 1989 to
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 13 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`1995 at the Computer & Communications Research Center in St. Louis, Missouri.
`
`There, I designed VLSI chips including a gigabit switch control plane switch and a
`
`Huffman encoder transmitter, both using CMOS technology. And I have served as
`
`a consultant in the areas of computer networking technology and communications
`
`engineering.
`
`7.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in electrical engineering in 1995 and an M.S. degree in
`
`electrical engineering, both from Washington University, St. Louis. I received a
`
`B.S. in electrical engineering from Polytechnic University in 1985.
`
`8.
`
`I am technical editor of IEEE Communications Standards Magazine and
`
`have served as technical editor for various journals including IEEE
`
`Communications Magazine for fifteen years. As technical editor, I accept or reject
`
`articles submitted to the journals. I am a senior IEEE member and have served on
`
`numerous technical program committees and steering committees for major IEEE
`
`communications and networking conferences.
`
`9.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 100 articles in peer-reviewed journals
`
`and conference proceedings. I have published two textbooks including “Computer
`
`and Communication Networks” which numerous universities worldwide adopted. I
`
`am a named inventor on U.S. Patent No. 7,012,895. I have received numerous
`
`awards for my work including university, national, and international awards. And I
`
`have received numerous research grants from private and governmental funding
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 14 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`agencies.
`
`10.
`
`I have served as an expert witness and technical consultant in numerous
`
`matters concerning computer networks and telecommunications.
`
`B. COMPENSATION
`
`11.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard consulting rate for my work on this
`
`declaration. I am also being compensated for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this proceeding. My compensation is not
`
`dependent on, and I have no financial interest in, the outcome of these proceedings
`
`or any related litigation.
`
`C. DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the ’111 Patent, including the claims of the patent in view of
`
`the specification. In addition, I have reviewed the ’111 Patent’s prosecution
`
`history, the prior art discussed herein, and the remaining exhibits listed herein.
`
`D.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, claims 32-54 of the ’111 Patent are rendered obvious by the
`
`prior art. In the remainder of this declaration, I demonstrate that:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,097,452 (“Lefebvre”) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,264,301 (“Chua”) renders obvious claims 32-36 and 39-54 of the
`
`’111 Patent; and
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 15 of 103
`
`

`

`• Lefebvre in view of Chua and U.S. Patent No. 9,813,447 (“Rash”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`renders obvious claims 37-38 of the ’111 Patent.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED
`
`14.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’111 patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that Juniper’s counsel has explained to me. Specifically, Juniper’s
`
`counsel has advised me of the legal concepts that are relevant to IPRs, and I have
`
`applied these concepts in reaching my opinions in this declaration.
`
`A. CLAIM LANGUAGE
`
`15.
`
`I understand that, during IPRs, patent claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning to a POSITA in view of the specification and prosecution
`
`history, unless those sources show an intent to depart from such meaning. I
`
`understand that the specification includes all the figures, description, and the
`
`claims of the patent. And I understand that one way to depart from such a meaning
`
`includes a definition for a claim term. In addition, I have been asked to assume that
`
`the claims are not indefinite. I discuss specific claim terms in the ’111 Patent
`
`below.
`
`B. ANTICIPATION
`
`16.
`
`I understand that prior art references can anticipate a patent claim under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 16 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference. I also understand that for
`
`inherency, a POSITA would recognize the missing descriptive matter would
`
`necessarily exist. And I understand that the mere fact that something may result
`
`from a given set of circumstances isn’t sufficient to establish inherency. I further
`
`understand that prior art references can anticipate based on inferences that a
`
`POSITA would reasonably expect to draw, in addition to the specific teachings of
`
`the prior art references.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a prior art document can disclose a claim feature, and
`
`anticipate an alleged invention, if that feature is described in another document that
`
`has been incorporated by reference. I also understand that, to incorporate by
`
`reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific
`
`material it incorporates, and clearly indicate where that material is found in the
`
`incorporated document. I understand that, in making the determination of the
`
`extent to which material is incorporated into a host document, the standard of a
`
`POSITA should be used to determine whether the host document describes the
`
`material to be incorporated by reference with sufficient particularity.
`
`C. OBVIOUSNESS
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the claimed subject matter would have been obvious at the time of the claimed
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 17 of 103
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`invention. I understand that a POSITA is presumed to have been aware of all
`
`pertinent prior art at the time of invention.
`
`19.
`
`In analyzing obviousness, I understand that it is important to consider the
`
`scope of the claims, the level of skill in the relevant art, the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that criteria for determining if prior art is analogous include (1)
`
`whether the prior art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
`
`addressed, and (2) if the prior art is from a different field of endeavor, whether the
`
`prior art still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem at hand. I understand
`
`that the field of endeavor is not limited to the specific point of novelty, the
`
`narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus of a field. And I
`
`understand that prior art is reasonably pertinent if it a POSITA would have looked
`
`at the prior art to solve the particular problem at hand.
`
`21. When considering the prior art, I understand the prior art should be
`
`considered as a whole. When considering a combination of prior art, I understand
`
`that I may assess whether there were apparent reasons to combine known elements
`
`in the prior art in the manner claimed in view of interrelated teachings of the prior
`
`art, the effects of demands known to the community or present in the marketplace,
`
`and/or the background knowledge possessed by a POSITA. I understand that other
`
`principles for evaluating whether the obviousness of claimed subject matter
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1003
`Juniper Networks, Inc. / Page 18 of 103
`
`

`

`include the following:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nader F. Mir
`U.S. Patent No. 10,652,111
`
`• Combining familiar elements according to known methods that does
`
`no more than yield predictable results;
`
`• Substituting one known element for another element to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Applying a known technique used to improve one device to similar
`
`devices when a POSITA would recognize the same technique would
`
`improve the similar devices in the same way and when applying the
`
`same technique is within the POSITA’s skill;
`
`• Applying predictable variations