Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`and HUAWEI ENTERPRISE USA
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NNPT, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Unites States Patent No. 7,664,123
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01390
`
`Title: Generalized Virtual Router
`
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DANIEL W. ENGELS, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 1
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Background and Qualifications ........................................................... 1
`
`B. Materials Relied Upon ........................................................................ 6
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .................................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Interpretation ............................................................................ 6
`
`Prior Art
`
`........................................................................................ 7
`
`C. Anticipation ........................................................................................ 8
`
`D. Obviousness ........................................................................................ 9
`
`E.
`
`Relevant Time Period ....................................................................... 12
`
`III. THE CHALLENGED ‘123 PATENT ......................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. General Overview ............................................................................. 12
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.................................................... 12
`
`C. Disclosure and the Challenged Claim ............................................... 13
`
`IV. PRIOR ART APPLIED TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIM ....................... 14
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`E.
`
`
`Claim 1 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`by Dragone ...................................................................................... 14
`
`Claim 1 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`by Conklin ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Claim 1 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`by Yang
`...................................................................................... 25
`
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`by Conklin in View of Dragone ........................................................ 30
`
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`by Yang in View of Dragone ............................................................ 36
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 2
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, Daniel W. Engels, hereby declare as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by the law firm of Locke Lord Edwards LLP,
`
`counsel for Petitioners, to provide my opinions regarding whether U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,664,123 (“the ‘123 Patent”) is anticipated by or rendered obvious over certain
`
`prior art.
`
`2.
`
`I also reach certain opinions herein about the clarity and meaning of
`
`the relevant claim(s) from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art to which the claimed subject matter pertains.
`
`3.
`
`I have not previously been retained by either Locke Lord Edwards
`
`LLP or Petitioners in any capacity.
`
`4.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae, which summarizes my credentials and
`
`qualifications that are described briefly below, is attached as Exhibit 1004.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`I currently hold the opinions set forth in this Declaration.
`
`In summary, it is my opinion that the prior art references cited herein
`
`either anticipate or otherwise render obvious the challenged Claim 1 of the ‘123
`
`Patent.
`
`A.
`
`7.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science
`
`and Engineering at Southern Methodist University (“SMU”), in Dallas, Texas.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 3
`
`

`
`
`
`8.
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`I hold a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from
`
`the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.S. in Electrical Engineering and
`
`Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and a B.S. in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the University at Buffalo.
`
`9.
`
`At SMU, I teach the computer networking courses titled “Computer
`
`Networks and Distributed Systems I” (“Networks I”) that is offered as course
`
`number CSE4344 and “Computer Networks and Distributed Systems II”
`
`(“Networks II”) that is offered as course number CSE7344. Additionally, I am
`
`developing, and will begin teaching in September 2015, an online course focused
`
`on security for computer networking and computing systems titled “Data and
`
`Network Security” (“Network Security”)
`
`that will be offered as course
`
`MSDS7349.
`
`10. My background and training includes extensive Radio Frequency
`
`Identification (“RFID”) system design including communication protocol design,
`
`distributed system design for item identification, information management and
`
`networking, distributed system deployment utilizing RFID and bar code
`
`technologies including in retail and military supply chains and computer
`
`communication protocol design and evaluation.
`
`11. My background and training includes extensive RFID system design
`
`and communication protocol design including leading the early development of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 4
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`EPCglobal Generation 2 (“Gen2”) UHF RFID air-interface communication
`
`protocol under the MIT Auto-ID Center as Director of Protocols and as founding
`
`Co-Chair of the EPCglobal Hardware Action Group, leading the development of
`
`three MIT Auto-ID Center Generation 1 RFID air interface communication
`
`protocols and participation within the GS1, ISO/IEC 18000-6 and ISO/IEC 18000-
`
`7 RFID standards development groups.
`
`12.
`
` My background and training includes extensive distributed system
`
`and RFID system evaluation in supply chain management including co-managing
`
`the MIT Auto-ID Center Field Trial to demonstrate the usability of the EPC
`
`System within a functioning retail supply chain, advising the US DoD in their early
`
`RFID system supply chain demonstrations and trials and through consulting work
`
`with system integrators such as ODIN Technologies.
`
`13. My background and training includes extensive evaluation of RFID
`
`and bar code technologies in the healthcare field, particularly the hospital and
`
`pharmaceutical supply chains, including as director of the Healthcare Research
`
`Initiative at the MIT Auto-ID Center.
`
`14.
`
`I have authored or co-authored more than 90 peer reviewed articles on
`
`technologies, systems and applications related to distributed systems (including the
`
`EPC System), RFID systems and technologies, computer communications and
`
`applications. I served as the representative first from Revere Security and then
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 5
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`from Dupre Dimensions to the EPCglobal/GS1 and ISO/IEC RFID standards
`
`working groups developing security and file management extensions to the
`
`EPCglobal Gen2/ISO 18000-63 protocols and to the ISO 18000 series of RFID
`
`protocols working groups from March 2010 through March 2013. I served as the
`
`Chair of the IEEE Technical Committee on RFID from January 2011 until
`
`December 2012. I served as the Past-Chair of the IEEE Technical committee on
`
`RFID from January 2013 until December 2013.
`
`15. My publications are listed more fully in my list of publications
`
`attached to my curriculum vitae at Exhibit 1004. My research publications
`
`indicate my continued research into computer networking technologies, secure
`
`networking, security issues and technologies related to RFID technologies and
`
`performance, and systems and research into supply chain applications and system
`
`technologies that may be utilized with RFID enabled supply chains. Of particular
`
`relevance to computer networking is my research into the use of directional
`
`antennas for computer networking (such as my publication “Load-Sensitive
`
`Routing with Directional Antennas,” published in 2006, that investigates routing in
`
`asymmetric communication networks such as those caused by the use of
`
`directional antenna and my publication “Performance of TCP with Directional
`
`Antennas,” published in 2006, that investigates the impact of asymmetric
`
`communication channels on the performance of the TCP protocol and “Routing in
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 6
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`Heterogeneous Wireless Ad Hoc Networks,” published in 2007, that investigates
`
`routing protocols in ad hoc networks with asymmetric communication channels)
`
`and my research
`
`into secure communications (such as my publication
`
`“Hummingbird Key Establishment Protocol for Low-Power ZigBee,” published in
`
`2011, that investigates key establishment and secure communication protocols in
`
`ZigBee ad hoc networks and “A Lightweight Privacy-Preserving Mutual
`
`Authentication Protocol for RFID Systems,” published in 2011, that presents a
`
`communication protocol extension that provides for mutual authentication within
`
`an existing RFID protocol). I continue to perform secure communication research,
`
`including research into secure networking utilizing software defined networks and
`
`providing for security at all layers in the network communication stack (such as my
`
`recent submission to the IEEE Communication Magazine titled “Securing IEEE
`
`802.15.4-based IoT Systems” that presents a secure communication approach
`
`beginning at Layer 2 of the network stack).
`
`16. My activities and accomplishments related to RFID technologies and
`
`applications and their impact on industry have been recognized by my peers. In
`
`2006 I was invited to join and became a member of the AIDC 100. The AIDC 100
`
`is an invitation-only international organization of Automatic Identification and
`
`Data Capture (“AIDC”) professionals who have significantly contributed to the
`
`growth and advancement of the AIDC industry. Further, in 2014 I was awarded
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 7
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`the Ted Williams Award by AIM, the Association for Automatic Identification and
`
`Mobility. The Ted Williams Award is presented annually to a professor or student
`
`in recognition of innovative and exceptional contributions to the development of
`
`the Automatic Identification and Mobility industry that can further the growth of
`
`the industry through their work as a teacher, researcher or entrepreneur.
`
`17. Within the past four years, I have not testified at trial.
`
`18. For my work on behalf of the Petitioners, I am being compensated at a
`
`rate of $450 per hour. My compensation is not contingent upon my performance
`
`or upon the outcome of this inter partes review. I have no financial interest in the
`
`outcome of this inter partes review or in any related litigation.
`
`B. Materials Relied Upon
`
`19.
`
`In forming my opinions as expressed herein, I have reviewed the ‘123
`
`Patent, its file history, and the prior art references cited herein. Additionally, I
`
`have considered my own experience and expertise of the knowledge of the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art during the timeframe of the date of priority of the ‘123
`
`Patent.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`20.
`
`I am not an attorney and I do not opine in this Declaration on any
`
`particular methodology for interpreting patent claims. My opinions are limited to
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 8
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`what I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the
`
`meaning of certain claim terms to be based on the patent documents. I use the
`
`principles below, however, as a guide in formulating my opinions.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in deciding whether to institute inter partes review,
`
`“[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). I understand that this claim construction standard is different
`
`from – and is typically broader than – that applied in a district court for litigation
`
`purposes. I further understand that “the broader standard serves to identify
`
`ambiguities in the claims that can then be clarified through claim amendments.”
`
`Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48680, 48699 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`22.
`
`I have applied this “broadest reasonable construction” standard to my
`
`review of the claims of the ‘123 Patent discussed below.
`
`23.
`
`I am further informed and understand that it is a basic principle of
`
`patent law that assessing the validity of a patent claim involves a two-step analysis.
`
`In the first step, the claim language must be properly construed to determine its
`
`scope and meaning. In the second step, the claim as properly construed must be
`
`compared to the alleged prior art to determine whether the claim is valid.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art
`
`24.
`
`It is my understanding that only information which satisfies one of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 9
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`categories of prior art set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102 may be used in any invalidity
`
`analysis under §§ 102 or 103. Therefore, if information is not properly classified
`
`as prior art under one of the subsections of § 102 of the Patent Code, then it may
`
`not be considered in an anticipation or obviousness determination. It is also my
`
`understanding that, for inter partes review, applicable prior art is limited to patents
`
`and printed publications.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`25.
`
`I am informed and understand that the relevant law with respect to
`
`“anticipation” at the time of filing of the ‘123 Patent application was as follows:
`
`“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (a) the invention was known or used
`
`by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or
`
`a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b)
`
`the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
`
`country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the
`
`date of the application for patent in the United States…” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)-(b).
`
`26.
`
`I am further informed and understand that to anticipate a patent claim
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single asserted prior art reference must disclose each and
`
`every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently, to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that a disclosure of an asserted prior art
`
`reference can be “inherent” if the missing element is necessarily present or is the
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 10
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`inevitable outcome of the process and/or thing that is explicitly described in the
`
`asserted prior art reference.
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`27.
`
`I am informed and understand that the relevant law with respect to
`
`“obviousness” at the time of filing of the ‘123 Patent application was as follows:
`
`“A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or
`
`described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`28.
`
`I understand that whether there are any relevant differences between
`
`the prior art and the claimed invention is to be analyzed from the view of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all of the relevant
`
`art at the time of the invention. The person of ordinary skill is not an automaton,
`
`and may be able to fit together the teachings of multiple patents employing
`
`ordinary creativity and the common sense that familiar items may have obvious
`
`uses in another context or beyond their primary purposes.
`
`29.
`
`In analyzing the relevance of the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, I understand that I must consider the impact, if any, of
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 11
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`such differences on the obviousness or non-obviousness of the invention as a
`
`whole, not merely some portion of it. The person of ordinary skill faced with a
`
`problem is able to apply his or her experience and ability to solve the problem and
`
`also look to any available prior art to help solve the problem.
`
`30. An invention is obvious if a designer of ordinary skill in the art, facing
`
`the wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have seen an
`
`obvious benefit to the solutions tried by the applicant. When there is a design need
`
`or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to try the
`
`known options. If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique would have been obvious.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that I do not need to look for precise teaching in the prior
`
`art directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention. I understand that I may
`
`take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have employed in reviewing the prior art at the time of the invention.
`
`For example, if the claimed invention combined elements known in the prior art
`
`and the combination yielded results that were predictable to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim was obvious. On the other hand, if the combination of known
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 12
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`elements yielded unexpected or unpredictable results, or if the prior art teaches
`
`away from combining the known elements, then this evidence would make it more
`
`likely that the claim that successfully combined those elements was not obvious.
`
`32.
`
`In determining whether a claimed invention is invalid for obviousness,
`
`one should consider the scope and content of the prior art, the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior
`
`art, secondary indications of non-obviousness to the extent they exist, and whether
`
`the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art in light of those differences. I understand that hindsight must not be used
`
`when comparing the prior art to the invention for obviousness.
`
`33.
`
`I also understand that if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its
`
`actual application is beyond his or her skill. There may also be a specific teaching,
`
`suggestion or motivation to combine a prior art reference with another prior art
`
`reference. Such a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the prior art
`
`references may be explicit or implicit in the prior art. Further, I understand that
`
`combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent
`
`does not require a “leap of inventiveness.”
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 13
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`E. Relevant Time Period
`
`34.
`
`I understand invalidity and claim construction are generally assessed
`
`as of either the date of filing of the original application for patent or the date of
`
`invention, depending upon the analysis being performed and the particular facts.
`
`35.
`
`I understand the ‘123 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application
`
`10/763,015 (“the ‘015 Application”) on January 22, 2004. I understand, therefore,
`
`that the earliest claimed priority date of the ‘123 Patent is January 22, 2004. I
`
`understand this is the relevant time period for assessing the disclosures, meaning,
`
`and invalidity of the claims.
`
`III. THE CHALLENGED ‘123 PATENT
`
`A. General Overview
`
`36. Briefly, the challenged ‘123 Patent is directed to a routing and
`
`switching apparatus employing elements and architectures that were well known
`
`and commonplace even at the time of invention.
`
`37. More specifically, providing router control over a switching fabric and
`
`the efficiencies gained in CLOS architectures were well known and understood at
`
`the time of the ‘123 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`38. A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ‘123 Patent
`
`would have been someone possessing a knowledge of computer networking and
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 14
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`networking architecture. This person would have gained such knowledge through
`
`an advanced degree in electrical/computer engineering, computer science (or
`
`equivalent degree). Alternatively, such knowledge could be gained through an
`
`undergraduate degree in electrical/computer engineering, computer science (or
`
`equivalent degree), combined with several years experience in designing or
`
`administering data networks.
`
`C. Disclosure and the Challenged Claim
`
`39. The ‘123 Patent describes an apparatus that allows for the cross-
`
`connect and routing functionality of a system of networked devices, such as
`
`routers. The disclosed routing and switching apparatus includes a switching fabric
`
`and a matrix of switching and routing elements. At least some of the elements are
`
`interconnected by the switching fabric. A router control provides control for the
`
`switching fabric. The apparatus has both cross-connect and routing functionality.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. The apparatus is directed towards providing generalized multi-
`
`protocol label switching within a network using a “generalized virtual router.” Ex.
`
`1001, 1:5-9.
`
`40. Claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent reads as follows (brackets added for
`
`reference, and to aid in the discussion and cross-referencing between this
`
`Declaration and the main Petition):
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 15
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`Claim 1.
`
`
`
`[1.1] A routing and switching apparatus comprising:
`
`[1.2] a switching fabric; a matrix of switching elements
`
`and routing elements arranged in a CLOS architecture,
`
`[1.3] at least one of said switching elements being
`
`connected to at least one of said routing elements by said
`
`switching fabric; and
`
`[1.4] router control providing control for said switching
`
`fabric,
`
`[1.5] wherein said apparatus has both cross-connect
`
`functionality and routing functionality.
`
`IV. PRIOR ART APPLIED TO THE CHALLENGED CLAIM
`
`41.
`
`I have been provided with certain prior art references for analysis.
`
`Those references are identified and discussed below, in association with my
`
`assessment as to either anticipation or obviousness relative to the challenged Claim
`
`1 of the ‘123 Patent.
`
`A. Claim 1 is Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`by U.S. 6,542,655 (Dragone)
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion, Claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is anticipated by Dragone.
`
`43. With respect to Claim 1, element [1.1] A routing and switching
`
`apparatus comprising: Dragone teaches a routing and switching apparatus as in
`
`the preamble of Claim 1 since the reference describes a cross-connect switch
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 16
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`constructed in three stages utilizing a plurality of input and output space switches
`
`in conjunction with a plurality of routers. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:7-10. Dragone
`
`further discloses that input and output waveguides are aligned along the boundaries
`
`of the router whereby “changing the wavelength of a signal on any of the N input
`
`waveguides changes to which of the N output waveguides the signal is switched.”
`
`Ex. 1005, 3:24-26.
`
`44. Thus, in my opinion, Dragone teaches “a routing and switching
`
`apparatus,” as recited in the challenged Claim 1.
`
`45. With respect to Claim 1, element [1.2]: a switching fabric; a matrix
`
`of switching elements and routing elements arranged in a CLOS architecture;
`
`Dragone teaches a switching fabric and a matrix of switching elements and routing
`
`elements arranged in a CLOS architecture.
`
`46. For instance, Figure 4 of Dragone, shows “a nonblocking NxN cross-
`
`connect switch realized using a CLOS arrangement” as an illustrative physical
`
`embodiment of the Dragone invention. Ex. 1005, 2:27-29, FIG. 4. Furthermore,
`
`Dragone explains that in a CLOS arrangement “the building blocks in the center
`
`stage are nxn routers, and, in the other two stages, mx(2m-1) and (2m-1)xm space
`
`switches.” Ex. 1005, 2:29-31. In my opinion, it would be understood by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art that an “NxN cross-connect switch” as disclosed by
`
`Dragone is a matrix of switching and routing elements.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 17
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`47.
`
`It would also be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that
`
`an NxN cross-connect switch is a switching fabric. This much is affirmed within
`
`the specification of the ‘123 Patent: “The concept of an NxN cross-connect is
`
`understood by those skilled in the art. It is a switch fabric that can switch a signal
`
`from any N transmission lines to another N transmission lines.” Ex. 1001, 3:58-61.
`
`48. Thus, in my opinion, Dragone teaches “a switching fabric; a matrix of
`
`switching elements and routing elements arranged in a CLOS architecture,” as
`
`recited in the challenged Claim 1.
`
`49. With respect to Claim 1, element [1.3]: at least one of said switching
`
`elements being connected to at least one of said routing elements by said
`
`switching fabric; Dragone teaches at least one of said switching elements being
`
`connected to at least one of said routing elements by said switching fabric.
`
`50. Dragone discloses a three-stage NxN cross-connect switch including
`
`an input stage comprising a plurality of input space switches, an output stage
`
`comprising a plurality of output space switches, and a center stage comprising a
`
`plurality of routers. Ex. 1005, 1:61-2:11. Moreover, Dragone states that the center
`
`stage is “connected between the input stage and output stage” and provides a
`
`“connecting link” between each router and each input and output switch. Ex.
`
`1005, 2:5-11. Dragone further discloses that the “central stage of n.times.n routers
`
`[are] combined with input and output stages of nonblocking space switches.” Ex.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 18
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`1005, 4:56-57. Further still, Dragone discloses that, in one embodiment of its
`
`invention, “each input switch is connected to each of the 3 routers 401” of the
`
`apparatus, and that “at the router output side, the same respective output . . . of
`
`each of the 3 routers 401 is connected to a different input of one of the 4 output
`
`stages.” Ex. 1005, 5:49-60.
`
`51. Thus, in my opinion, Dragone teaches “at least one of said switching
`
`elements being connected to at least one of said routing elements by said switching
`
`fabric,” as recited in the challenged Claim 1.
`
`52. With respect to Claim 1, element [1.4]: router control providing
`
`control for said switching fabric; Dragone discloses “wavelength signals from
`
`lasers determine the switching path of the input signals through routers.” Ex.
`
`1005, 8:41-43. In my opinion, it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art that the routers, through which the input signals pass, would exhibit some
`
`manner of control over the propagating signals by forwarding the signals on
`
`throughout the disclosed invention.
`
`53. Dragone further discloses that “control signals . . . of the input stage
`
`and control signals . . . of the output stage together with the control signals of
`
`lasers . . . determine the switching path for each input signal through the NxN
`
`switch.” Ex. 1005, 8:44-48. As previously established, an NxN switch is well
`
`known in the art to be a switching fabric. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 19
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that, by forwarding the control
`
`signals on throughout the NxN switch, the routers are effectively providing the
`
`NxN switch (i.e., switching fabric) with control over the propagated signals.
`
`54. Thus, in my opinion, Dragone teaches “router control providing
`
`control for said switching fabric,” as recited in the challenged Claim 1.
`
`55. With respect to Claim 1, element [1.5]: wherein said apparatus has
`
`both cross-connect functionality and routing functionality; Dragone clearly states
`
`that an object of its invention is an NxN cross-connect switch utilizing an
`
`arrangement of smaller wavelength routers combined with input and output space
`
`switches. Ex. 1005, 1:32-35. Dragone further discloses that the input and output
`
`space switches can be implemented using a crossbar or CLOS type construction.
`
`Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1:43-44. Dragone further discloses that the switching elements
`
`“operate under control of a control signal.” Ex. 1005, 7:7-8. In my opinion, it
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inclusion of
`
`wavelength routers and input and output space switches arranged in a crossbar or
`
`CLOS type fashion would provide cross-connect and routing functionality.
`
`56. Thus, in my opinion, Dragone teaches “wherein said apparatus has
`
`both cross-connect functionality and routing functionality,” as recited in the
`
`challenged Claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Huawei - Exhibit 1003, p. 20
`
`

`
`
`
` Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`B. Claim 1 is Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`by U.S. 7,310,333 (Conklin)
`
`57.
`
`In my opinion, Claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is anticipated by Conklin.
`
`58. With respect to Claim 1, element [1.1] A routing and switching
`
`apparatus comprising: Conklin teaches a routing and switching apparatus as in the
`
`preamble of Claim 1 since it discloses a switch control mechanism that implements
`
`routers at both the ingress and egress stages of the mechanism. Ex. 1006, Abstract.
`
`59. Furthermore, Conklin clearly states that “a router is a functional
`
`aspect of an ingress or egress device that connects that ingress/egress device to a
`
`selected center stage device or center stage device’s port.” Ex. 1006, 3:59-61.
`
`Further still, Conklin discloses that “[i]n one implementation, ingress, egress, and
`
`center stage devices are switches. These devices may be formed by a combination
`
`of circuitry, memory, and multiplexers. Functional aspects of these devices, such
`
`as routers and sorters may be implemented using internal components of the
`
`devices.” Ex. 1006, 3:66-4:4.
`
`60. Thus, in my opinion, Conkl