`
` 
`
` 
`Filed on behalf of Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`Andrew B. Karp
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail: pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00727
`Patent No. 6,628,629
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE UNDER 37 CFR § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

` 
`
`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`D. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3 
`II. 
`THE PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ....................... 4 
`III.  THE ’629 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4 
`IV.  BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY .................................................. 6 
`A. 
`Circuit-Switched Networks ................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`Packets and Packet-Switched Networks ............................................... 7 
`C. 
`ATM “Cells” Are Not “Packets” In The Context Of The ’629
`Patent ..................................................................................................... 9 
`The ’629 Patent Defines Packet-Centric Networks To Exclude
`Circuit-Centric Networks (Including ATM Networks) ...................... 13 
`Related Prosecution History Defines Packet-Centric Networks
`To Exclude Circuit-Centric Networks (Including ATM
`Networks) ............................................................................................ 14 
`Petitioners Wrongly Allege That ATM Is Packet-Centric .................. 16 
`F. 
`G.  ATM Does Not Perform Packet Switching ......................................... 22 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 24 
`A. 
`“Isochronous” ...................................................................................... 24 
`B. 
`“Periodic Variation” ............................................................................ 26 
`C. 
`“No Periodic Variation” ...................................................................... 27 
`D. 
`“Packet” ............................................................................................... 29 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF ASSERTED REFERENCES ............................................ 34 
`A.  Dyson ................................................................................................... 34 
`
`E. 
`
`V. 
`
`i 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`Technical Overview Of Dyson ................................................. 34 
`1. 
`Petitioners Have Not Proven That Dyson Is Prior Art ............. 35 
`2. 
`Raychaudhuri ....................................................................................... 38 
`B. 
`VII.  PETITIONERS HAVE NOT PROVEN UNPATENTABILITY FOR
`ANY CLAIMS OF THE ’629 PATENT ....................................................... 39 
`A. 
`Petitioners Have Not Met Their Burden To Show By A
`Preponderance Of The Evidence That Claims 1, 3, And 4 Are
`Obvious Over Dyson And Raychaudhuri (Ground 1) ........................ 39 
`1. 
`Dyson Discloses Only ATM Techniques And Not
`“Packets” Or A “Packet-Switched Network” ........................... 40 
`Raychaudhuri Discloses ATM Techniques And Not
`“Packets” Or A “Packet-Switched Network” ........................... 43 
`A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art Would Not
`Have Combined Dyson With Raychaudhuri As
`Hypothesized By Petitioners’ Expert ........................................ 46 
`Petitioners Have Not Met Their Burden To Show A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claim 2 Is Obvious Over Dyson,
`Raychaudhuri, And Chennakeshu (Ground 2) .................................... 52 
`Petitioners Have Not Met Their Burden To Show A Reasonable
`Likelihood That Claim 4 Is Obvious Over Dyson,
`Raychaudhuri, Goodman, And Yang (Ground 3) ............................... 52 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 52 
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`C. 
`
`ii 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 33
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc.,
`No. 2017-1851, 2018 WL 4677441 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018) ......................... 36
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`780 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 33, 45
`Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`865 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 31
`In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.,
`696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 31
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 37
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 51
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 36, 37
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00577-JRG (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................... 25
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 40
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P.,
`327 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 29
`Kearns v. Chrysler Corp.,
`32 F.3d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 42
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 51
`Oak Tech., Inc. v. ITC,
`248 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 33
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 29
`
`iii 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................24, 25, 31
`SightSound Tech., LLC. V. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 32
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich., Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 51
`Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 33
`Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 31
`TRW Automotive US. LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-01348, 2016 WL 212791 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2016) ............................ 36
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 29
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronics, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................................ 29, 42
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.,
`642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................26, 27, 29
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .............................................................................................. 35, 36
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................................................................................................... 3
`Rules 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ...................................................................................................... 53
`37 CFR § 42.120 ........................................................................................................ 3
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 ...................................................................................................... 42
`Fed. R. Evid. 402 ...................................................................................................... 42
` 
`
` 
`
`iv 
`
`

`

` 
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`IPR2014-00527 final written decision
`’629 patent family listing of patents and applications from
`PAIR
`IPR2018-01058 petition
`IPR2018-01121 petition
`U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,975, applicant's response of 2002-11-06
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,188,671 (“Chase”)
`U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,477, applicant's response of 2001-12-20
`U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,477,applicant's response of 2001-11-30
`Wireless Intelligent ATM Network and Protocol Design for
`Future Personal Communication Systems (“Cheng”)
`IPR2018-01007 petition
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,682,622
`U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,477, applicant's response of 2001-05-14
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,640,248
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,787,080 (“Hulyalkar”)
`U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,482, applicant's response of 2003-04-02
`IPR2018-01007 Petitioners’ expert’s declaration
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,916,691 (“Goodman”)
`2:17-cv-00577, Ericsson’s claim construction proposals
`2:17-cv-00577, Intellectual Ventures I claim construction
`proposals
`Declaration of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Ghobad Heidari
`Transcript from cross-examination of Petitioners’ expert Dr.
`Zygmunt Haas, dated November 30, 2018
`
`1 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
` 
`
`Description
`
`Deposition of Sylvia Hall-Ellis in Intellectual Ventures I LLC
`v. T Mobile USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-00577-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`2:17-cv-00577, claim construction order
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures I LLC submits this Patent Owner
`
`Response under 37 CFR § 42.120 to the Petition filed by Ericsson Inc. and
`
`Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Petitioners”), requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`for claims 1–4 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,628,629 (“the ’629 patent”; Ex. 1001).
`
`The Board instituted Inter Partes Review on three grounds:
`
`1. whether claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’629 patent are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Dyson and Raychaudhuri;
`
`2. whether claim 2 of the ’629 patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Dyson, Raychaudhuri, and Chennakeshu; and
`
`3. whether claim 2 of the ’629 patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Dyson/Raychaudhuri with Goodman and Yang;
`
`The only challenged independent claim (claim 1) of the ’629 patent recites
`
`different “packets.” Ex. 1001 at 83:26 (“a data packet in the transmission frame”);
`
`83:29–30 (“a first data packet of an internet protocol (IP) flow”); 83:33–34 (“a
`
`second data packet of said IP flow”).1 In accordance with a previous IPR filed by
`
`Petitioners (IPR2014-00527) against a related patent (U.S. Pat. No. 7,496,674), the
`
`Board correctly construed “packet” to mean “a piece or segment of a data/media
`
`stream that serves as a unit of transmission over a packet switched network.”
`                                                            
`1 All emphasis to quotes is added, unless specified otherwise.
`
`3 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`Institution Decision at 15; Ex. 2001 at pp. 8–9. Yet, the Petition in the present IPR
`
`asserts only circuit-centric network references—Dyson and Raychaudhuri—
`
`against claim 1. These references employ “asynchronous transfer mode” or
`
`“ATM”, which is implemented using circuit-centric techniques. As defined by the
`
`inventor of the ’629 patent, ATM is fundamentally different from and exclusive of
`
`packet-centric techniques, as defined by the inventor of the ’629 patent. In
`
`addition, ATM cells are not transmitted over a packet-switched network, and
`
`therefore they are not “packets” as construed twice by the Board.
`
`As such, Petitioners’ grounds for alleged obviousness fail. Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests that the Board issue a Final Written Decision finding that
`
`Petitioners did not meet their burden to prove unpatentability of claims 1–4 of the
`
`’629 patent.
`
`II. THE PRIORITY DATE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Petitioners allege that the ’629 patent is not entitled to its priority claim.
`
`Patent Owner takes no position as to this allegation, because it is not necessary to
`
`resolve this issue in deciding whether or not the Petitioners have proved by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that any challenged claim of the ’629 patent is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`III. THE ’629 PATENT
`Claim 1 is the only challenged independent claim. It recites:
`
`4 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`A method for assigning future slots of a transmission frame to a data
`packet in the transmission frame for transmission over a wireless
`medium, comprising:
`
`applying a reservation algorithm;
`
`reserving a first slot for a first data packet of an internet protocol (IP)
`flow in a future transmission frame based on said reservation
`algorithm; and
`
`reserving a second slot for a second data packet of said IP flow in a
`transmission frame, subsequent in time to said future transmission
`frame based on said reservation algorithm,
`
`wherein said second data packet is placed in said second slot in an
`isochronous manner to the placing of said first data packet in said first
`slot.
`Ex. 1001 at 83:25–39.
`
`As construed by the Board, a “packet” is “a piece or segment of a data/media
`
`stream that serves as a unit of transmission over a packet switched network” in
`
`context of the specification of the ’629 patent. Institution Decision, Paper 8 at 15;
`
`Ex. 2001 at 8–9. The operation of a packet-switched network is explained by the
`
`patent itself. In short, a packet-switched network is not a circuit-switched network.
`
`Further, an ATM cell is a unit of transmission in a circuit-centric network, and in
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`any event, it is not transmitted over a packet-switched network. An ATM cell,
`
`therefore, is not a packet because it is not “a piece or segment of a data/media
`
`stream that serves as a unit of transmission over a packet switched network” as
`
`construed by the Board. Instead, an ATM cell is fundamentally different from a
`
`packet because it lacks a destination address.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`The ’629 patent details important differences between “circuit-centric”
`
`networks and “packet-centric” networks. It also explains that ATM is circuit-
`
`centric.
`
`A. Circuit-Switched Networks
`The ’629 patent explicitly describes a fundamental principle of circuit
`
`switching and circuit-centric networks—dedication of a circuit or channel. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at 29:52–53 (“Circuit switching dedicates a channel to a call for the
`
`duration of the call.”); 32:21–23 (“Unlike a circuit-centric network, a packet-
`
`centric network does not use dedicated circuits through which to transfer
`
`packets.”); 34:41–45 (“A packet-switched network such as, e.g., an IP network,
`
`unlike a circuit-switched network, does not require dedicated circuits between
`
`originating and terminating locations within the packet switched network.”). Ex.
`
`2020 at ¶ 32.
`
`6 
`
`

`

`The following illustration depicts a dedicated circuit (heavy black line with
`
`arrows) between a source and destination. Ex. 2020 at ¶ 33.
`
`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`
`
`B.
`Packets and Packet-Switched Networks
`In contrast to circuit-switched networks, packet-switched networks share
`
`(rather than dedicate) a circuit or channel with multiple traffic flows: “Packet
`
`switched networks transport packets of information which can include various
`
`types of data such as, e.g., digitized voice, data, and video. With packet switching,
`
`many different calls can share a communication channel rather than the channel
`
`being dedicated to a single call.” Ex. 1001 at 30:52–57; Ex. 2020 at ¶ 34.
`
`Bandwidth sharing is enabled by a packet-switched network, which uses
`
`“packets”: “Packet switching breaks up traffic into so-called ‘packets’ which can
`
`7 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`then be independently transported from a source node to a destination for
`
`reassembly. Thus a particular portion of bandwidth can be shared by many sources
`
`and destinations yielding more efficient use of bandwidth.” Ex. 1001 at 3:11–16.
`
`“In a packet-switched network, there is no single, unbroken physical connection
`
`between sender and receiver. The packets from many different calls share network
`
`bandwidth with other transmissions. The packets can be sent over many different
`
`routes at the same time toward the destination, and can then be reassembled at the
`
`receiving end.” Id. at 31:9–14. Thus, packet-switching is required to enable
`
`packet-centric operation, in which a selected portion of bandwidth is shared rather
`
`than being dedicated to a single connection. Ex. 2020 at ¶ 35.
`
`The figure below illustrates how a packet-switched network does not require
`
`a dedicated path. Each packet (different colors represent different packets) can be
`
`routed independently from the others. Ex. 2020 at ¶ 36.
`
`8 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`
`
`In a packet-switched network, routers route each packet independently from
`
`other packets (as illustrated in figure above). The route the packets take through
`
`the physical network between the source and destination depends on, for example,
`
`network conditions and other factors. In order to enable each router to make an
`
`independent routing decision for each packet, there is a key piece of information
`
`that each packet must carry—a destination address. As such, a packet (and
`
`specifically the header of the packet) must contain a destination address. Ex. 1001
`
`at 34:45–51; Ex. 2020 at ¶ 37.
`
`C. ATM “Cells” Are Not “Packets” In The Context Of The ’629
`Patent
`As taught by the ’629 patent, ATM uses so-called “cells” (and not packets)
`
`to transport information. See, e.g., id. at 16:21–22 (“ATM cell circuit-centric
`
`9 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`approaches”); 32:14–15 (“[ATM] is a fixed-size cell switched circuit-centric data
`
`network.”); 35:3–4 (“ATM is a high-bandwidth, low-delay, fixed-sized cell-based
`
`multiplexing network technology.”); 35:4–9 (“ATM uses fixed-length cells with
`
`the belief that the fixed length cells can be switched more easily in hardware than
`
`variable size packets . . . .”); 35:11–12 (“ATM segments variable length IP packet
`
`flows into fixed size cells . . . .”); 35:13 (“ATM cell”); 35:25–26 (“[ATM] is a cell
`
`based switching and multiplexing technology . . . .”); 35:35 (“ATM cell”); 35:38–
`
`39 (“All [ATM] cells are transferred, in sequence, over this virtual connection.”);
`
`35:40 (“transmitted [ATM] cells”); 35:47–48 (“If no hosts are ready to transmit,
`
`then an empty, or idle [ATM] cell is sent.”); 35:57 (“[ATM cells] are mapped into
`
`a physical transmission path . . . All information is multiplexed and switched in an
`
`ATM network via these fixed-length cells.”); 35:64 (“ATM cell header field”);
`
`35:65 (“ATM cell header”); 36:4–8 (four references to ATM cells); 36:8 (“ATM
`
`cell payload field”); 36:13–15 (“The fixed [ATM] cell size simplifies the
`
`implementation of ATM switches and multiplexers and enables implementation at
`
`high speeds.”); 36:16–18 (“When using ATM, longer packets cannot delay shorter
`
`packets as in other packet-Switched networks, because long packets are separated
`
`into many fixed length cells.”); 36:22–24 (“ATM switches take traffic and segment
`
`it into the fixed length cells, and multiplex the cells into a single bit stream for
`
`10 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`transmission across a physical medium.”); 36:55 (“ATM cell-switching”); 37:9–10
`
`(“ATM cells”); 37:38–39 (“ATM circuit-centric cells”); Ex. 2020 at ¶ 38.2
`
`The distinction between ATM cells and packets is not semantic—rather it is
`
`structural. As explained above, a packet (at least as defined by the ’629 patent) has
`
`an address field that contains unique data that identifies the packet’s destination in
`
`the network—i.e., a “destination address.” As the ’629 patent explains: “The
`
`packet-switched network instead breaks a message into pieces known as packets of
`
`                                                            
`2 In one place of the ’629 patent specification, the phrase “asynchronous transfer
`
`mode (ATM) cell packet format” is used. Ex. 1001 at 26:5–6. This instance,
`
`however, is in stark contrast to the entirety of the specification and should not
`
`override the fact that ATM cells are not packets (which is reiterated many times in
`
`both the specification and applicants’ statements in related prosecution). See, e.g.,
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1334–35 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001) (“[I]t is unclear whether this isolated statement in the specification is
`
`intended to be a general statement or to be limited to a particular embodiment. . . .
`
`Accordingly, we hold that the entirety of the specification dictates . . . .”); Dig.
`
`Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“This
`
`isolated passage therefore does not alter our construction, which is based on the
`
`entire written description.”). Ex. 2020 at ¶ 39.
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`information. Such packets can then be encapsulated with a header which
`
`designates a destination address to which the packet must be routed. The packet-
`
`switched network then takes the packets and routes them to the destination
`
`designated by the destination address contained in the header of the packet.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 34:45–51; see also id. at 31:28–30 (“Routers look at a packet and
`
`determine from the destination address in the header of the packet, the destination
`
`domain of the packet.”); Ex. 2020 at ¶ 40.
`
`ATM cells, by contrast, do not contain a destination address. Instead, an
`
`ATM cell specifies a “virtual circuit.” Id. at 35:13–15. The virtual circuit does not
`
`identify the destination for the ATM cell, but rather it mandates what path the
`
`ATM cell must take across the network nodes. Ex. 2020 at ¶ 41.
`
`The lack of a destination address in an ATM cell exposes a principal
`
`difference between packet-switched and circuit-switched networks. In circuit-
`
`switched networks, such as ATM, there must first be a setup phase before any user
`
`data is transferred. According to this setup, a physical route from a source node to
`
`a final destination node is discovered and each network node along the route is
`
`programmed with the proper routing information for that virtual circuit. [CITE].
`
`As such, ATM cells do not need to (and do not) carry the destination address.
`
`Instead, the header of an ATM cell contains a virtual path identifier (VPI) and a
`
`12 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`virtual channel identifier (VCI), but no destination address. Ex. 1001 at 35:65–
`
`36:1; Ex. 2020 at ¶ 42.
`
`Furthermore, the VPI and VCI values in an ATM cell are not unique.
`
`Instead, they only identify the next node along the pre-set physical route. Ex. 1001
`
`at 36:1–3. At each node along the route, the VPI and VCI fields are updated (i.e.,
`
`changed) to point to the next node along the pre-defined path. Ex. 2020 at ¶ 43.
`
`Also unlike packets, all ATM cells arrive at the destination in the same order
`
`they were transmitted. Ex. 2021 at 27:2–14. Packets, on the other hand, can be
`
`routed individually and independently at each intermediary node based on the
`
`destination address carried by each packet. This can result in packets that are part
`
`of the same flow taking different paths and arriving out of order. Ex. 2021 at
`
`31:18–25; Ex. 2020 at ¶ 44.3
`
`D. The ’629 Patent Defines Packet-Centric Networks To Exclude
`Circuit-Centric Networks (Including ATM Networks)
`The ’629 patent explicitly describes how ATM circuit-centric networks are
`
`distinct from and exclusive of packet-centric networks:
`
`e. TCP/IP Packet-centric vs. ATM Circuit-centric Data Networks
`                                                            
`3 There are other important differences between ATM cells and packets. For
`
`example, whereas ATM cells have a fixed length, packets can have variable
`
`lengths. Ex. 1001 at 32:13–14; 37:37–40; 43:20–22; Ex. 2020 at ¶ 45.
`
`13 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`
`Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) is a fixed-size cell switched
`circuit-centric data network. ATM implements virtual circuits (VCs),
`virtual paths (VPs) and transmission paths (TPs). A circuit-centric
`network like ATM sets up virtual circuits between source and
`destination nodes which provide QoS by dedicating the virtual circuit
`to a specific traffic type.
`
`Some networks are packet-centric networks. Unlike a circuit-centric
`network, a packet-centric network does not use dedicated circuits
`through which to transfer packets.
`Ex. 1001 at 32:13–23. See also id. at 14:13–14 (“With ATM networking,
`
`telephone companies could continue to provide a circuit-centric QoS mechanism . .
`
`.
`
`.”); 16:21–22
`
`(“traditional circuit-centric or ATM cell circuit-centric
`
`approaches”); 32:17 (“A circuit-centric network like ATM”); 34:38–39 (“an
`
`asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) circuit-centric network”); 34:64–65 (“Frame
`
`relay and ATM are connection-oriented circuit-centric services.”); 35:10–11 (“The
`
`ATM environment sets up virtual circuits in a circuit-centric manner.”); and
`
`37:38–39 (“ATM circuit-centric cells”). Ex. 2020 at ¶ 46.
`
`E. Related Prosecution History Defines Packet-Centric Networks To
`Exclude Circuit-Centric Networks (Including ATM Networks)
`While prosecuting family members of the ’629 patent, the applicants
`
`repeatedly emphasized that ATM technology is circuit-centric and not packet-
`
`centric. In all of these cases, the applicants overcame prior art that was rooted in
`
`ATM. For example, during the prosecution of one family member (U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,680,922), the applicant explained:
`
`14 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`As claimed, for a network protocol to be packet-centric, the protocol
`can not be circuit-centric. As clearly defined in the specification, a
`packet-centric protocol “does not use dedicated circuits through which
`to transfer packets.” [Ex. 1001 at 32:22–23] . . . A circuit-centric
`protocol and/or network such as, e.g., an asynchronous transfer mode
`(ATM) protocol network of [prior-art reference] Chase [(Ex. 2006)] is
`different from a packet-centric protocol network, in that the circuit-
`centric network assigns circuits for the ATM network. Unlike the
`circuit-centric ATM protocol, the packet-centric protocol does “not
`specifically route” the packets across a “specific channel.” [Ex. 1001
`at 32:31–33]. Instead, the packet-centric protocol places a header on
`the packet and lets the network deal with routing the packets. [Id. at
`32:33–34]. “Therefore, the outbound packets can take various routes
`to get from a source to a destination. This means that packets are in a
`datagram form and not sequentially numbered as they are in other
`protocols.” [Id. at 32:34–38] . . . As defined in the specification, the
`packet-centric protocol is not circuit-centric.
`Ex. 2005 at pp. 3–4 (Applicant’s response of November 6, 2002 in file history of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,680,922; U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,975) (emphasis in original). See,
`
`also, Ex. 2007 at pp. 8–9 (Applicant’s response of December 20, 2001 in file
`
`history of U.S. Pat. No. 6,862,622 (U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,477)) (“A circuit-centric
`
`network like ATM is different from a packet-centric protocol network, in that the
`
`circuit-centric network sets up ‘virtual circuits between source and destination
`
`nodes . . . by dedicating the virtual circuit to a specific traffic type.’ [Ex. 1001 at
`
`32:17–20].”); Ex. 2008 at pp. 8–9 (Applicant’s response of November 30, 2001 in
`
`file history of U.S. Pat. No. 6,862,622 (U.S. Appl. No. 09/349,977)) (similar
`
`argument); Ex. 2007 at p. 13 (“Furthermore, [prior-art reference] Cheng [(Ex.
`
`2009)] deals with asynchronous transfer mode (ATM). ATM is a cell centric,
`
`15 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`circuit centric protocol, unlike the packet centric protocol of the present
`
`invention.”).4 Ex. 2020 at ¶ 47.
`
`F.
`Petitioners Wrongly Allege That ATM Is Packet-Centric
`In another presently-pending IPR against a related patent (IPR2018-01007;
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,412,517), Petitioners incorrectly allege that “ATM is described by
`
`the patent as combining aspects of both circuit-centric and packet centric
`
`technologies.” Ex. 2010 at p. 24 (emphasis in original). In making this allegation,
`
`Petitioners ignore the mass of intrinsic evidence cited above in §§ IV.D and IV.E.
`
`Instead, they make the following argument while referring to two portions the
`
`specification:
`
`For example, ATM is described by the patent as combining aspects of
`both circuit-centric and packet-centric technologies. [Ex. 1001 at
`36:16–18] (“When using ATM, longer packets cannot delay shorter
`packets as in other packet switched networks.”); [id. at 34:34–39]
`(describing data network 142 as “any art-recognized packet centric
`data network” including an “ATM circuit centric network”).
`Ex. 2010 at pp. 24–25 (emphasis in original).
`
`                                                            
`4 For convenient reference and where applicable, internal citations within the
`
`quotes throughout this Patent Owner Response have been updated to reference the
`
`specification of the ’629 patent (rather than specifications of other family
`
`member).
`
`16 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`The first-cited quote, however, actually confirms that ATM is not a packet-
`
`switched network and thus is incapable of operating in a packet-centric manner.
`
`Specifically, “packet switched networks” are something “other” than “ATM.”
`
`Furthermore, the truncated excerpt of the quote provided in the Petition omits
`
`(without signaling the omission) the second half of the sentence. The full sentence
`
`proves that ATM is not a packet-switched network and that ATM cells are not
`
`packets, because it explicitly refers to packets being broken up into cells: “When
`
`using ATM, longer packets cannot delay shorter packets as in other packet
`
`switched networks, because long packets are separated into many fixed length
`
`cells.” Ex. 1001 at 36:16–18. Thus, it is clear that ATM does not use “packets”
`
`(like packet-switched networks do), but instead uses ATM “cells.” Ex. 2020 at ¶
`
`48.
`
`The second portion of the specification cited by Petitioners (id. at 34:34–39,
`
`which they allege proves that ATM encompasses packet-switching technology) is
`
`also selectively quoted. The full sentence that mentions the ATM network, which
`
`Petitioners misleadingly omit, reads, “Other examples include a private intranet, a
`
`packet-switched network, a frame relay network, and an asynchronous transfer
`
`mode (ATM) circuit-centric network.” Id. at 34:36–39. Plainly, the ’629 patent
`
`specification distinguishes a packet-switched network from an ATM circuit-centric
`
`17 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Response
`IPR2018-00727
`
`network, even in the selectively excerpted portions cited by Petitioners. Ex. 2020
`
`at ¶ 48.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioners (again in the petition of IPR2018-01007) assert that
`
`two claims in different family member patents “confirm[] that the patentees
`
`believed ATM to be packet-centric.” Ex. 2010 at p. 25. The first claim is from
`
`U.S. Pat. 6,862,622, in which claim 20 recites: “The system of Claim 13, wherein
`
`said packet-centric protocol is not an asynchronous transfer mode protocol.” Ex.
`
`2011 at 84:42–43. According to Petitioners, “the patentees believed that the
`
`broader independent Claim 13 covered ATM packet-centric