`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT 7,664,123
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01390
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`by
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`
`and HUAWEI ENTERPRISE USA,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .......................................................................... iii
`
`I. Mandatory Notices ........................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party in Interest ........................................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................... 1
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information........................... 1
`
`II. Grounds for Standing .................................................................................... 2
`
`III. Relief Requested ........................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. Reasons for the Requested Relief .................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`Summary of the ‘123 Patent ................................................................ 3
`
`Prosecution History............................................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Priority Claim ........................................................................... 4
`
`The ‘015 Application ................................................................ 4
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Petition ........................................................................... 5
`
`D. Note Regarding Page Citations ........................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction .................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 6
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art...................................................... 7
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 7
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ....................................................... 7
`
`Identification of How the Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable ........... 10
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`
`Challenge #1: Claim 1 is anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 by Dragone ................................................... 10
`
`a.
`
`Summary of Dragone .................................................... 10
`
`Challenge #2: Claim 1 is anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 by Conklin .................................................... 16
`
`a.
`
`Summary of Conklin ..................................................... 16
`
`Challenge #3: Claim 1 is anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 by Yang ........................................................ 23
`
`a.
`
`Summary of Yang ......................................................... 23
`
`Challenge #4: Claim 1 is rendered obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 by Conklin in view of Dragone ..................... 29
`
`a.
`
`Reasons to Combine Conklin and Dragone ................... 30
`
`Challenge #5: Claim 1 is rendered obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 by Yang in view of Dragone ......................... 36
`
`a.
`
`Reasons to Combine Yang and Dragone ....................... 36
`
`VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`June 11, 2015
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,664,123 to Ashwood Smith
`
`1002 Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,123
`
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Daniel W. Engels, Ph.D. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`1004 Curriculum Vitae and Publication List of Dr. Daniel W. Engels, Ph.D.
`
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,542,655 to Dragone
`
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,310,333 to Conklin et al.
`
`1007 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0141804 to Yang et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`I. Mandatory Notices
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`
`The real parties in interest are Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei
`
`Enterprise USA (collectively as “Petitioner”).
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the date of filing of this Petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`Petitioner, the subject ‘123 Patent is involved in the following litigations: (i)
`
`Spherix, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., (1:14-cv-0393, D. Del.); (ii) Spherix, Inc. v.
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., (1:14-cv-0578, D. Del.); and (iii) NNPT, LLC v. Huawei
`
`Investment & Holdings Co., Ltd., et al. (2:14-cv-0677, E.D. Tex.). The Huawei
`
`defendants in the 2:14-cv-0677 matter were served with the complaint on June 11,
`
`2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`M. Scott Fuller
`Locke Lord LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (214) 740-8601
`Fax: (214) 756-8601
`sfuller@lockelord.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 54716
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Back-up Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Roy Hardin
`Locke Lord LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (214) 740-8556
`Fax: (214) 756-8556
`rhardin@lockelord.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 28304
`
`Paul Lein
`Locke Lord LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (214) 740-8662
`Fax: (214) 756-8183
`plein@lockelord.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 64567
`
`Darrian Campbell
`Locke Lord LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (214) 740-8415
`Fax: (214) 756-8036
`dcampbell@lockelord.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 70769
`
`Proof of service of this petition on the patent owner at the correspondence
`
`address of record for the ‘123 Patent is attached hereto.
`
`II. Grounds for Standing
`
`
`
`Petitioner certifies that the subject ‘123 Patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`III. Relief Requested
`
`
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent, and
`
`cancel that claim as unpatentable.
`
`IV. Reasons for the Requested Relief
`
`
`
`As explained below and in the declaration of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Daniel
`
`W. Engels, the concepts described and claimed in the ‘123 Patent were not
`
`patentable. This Petition and Dr. Engels’ declaration explain where each element
`
`is found in the prior art and why the claim would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art when the ‘123 Patent was filed.
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ‘123 Patent
`
`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is the only claim challenged herein [brackets added for reference]:
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Priority Claim
`
`The ‘123 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application 10/763,015 (“the ‘015
`
`Application”) on January 22, 2004. The earliest claimed priority date of the ‘123
`
`Patent is therefore January 22, 2004.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The ‘015 Application
`
`The ‘015 Application was filed with 20 original claims; of those, claims 1, 8,
`
`and 13 were independent claims. Ex. 1002, 19-21. The Examiner issued a Non-
`
`Final Office Action on April 10, 2008, rejecting claims 1-7 and 13-20. Claims 1
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`and 13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112; specifically, claim 13 was rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite, and claim 1 was
`
`rejected as ambiguous. Claims 1-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`
`being anticipated by Brahim (2003/0147402).
`
`
`
`Further, claims 13-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Brahim, in view of figure 1, paragraph 0035-0041, of the
`
`“Admitted Prior Art” of the ‘015 Application.
`
`
`
`The Examiner also cited, but did not rely upon, Zadikian et al. (US
`
`2006/0251419) and Chu et al. (US 2004/0255028), making it prior art of record
`
`pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
`
`
`
`On December 17, 2008, the Examiner issued a Final Office Action, rejecting
`
`claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brahim, in view of
`
`figures 1-2, paragraph 0036-0045, of the Admitted Prior Art.
`
`
`
`On April 1, 2009 the Examiner issued a Non-Final Office Action, rejecting
`
`claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brahim, in view of
`
`figures 1-2, paragraph 0036-0045, of the Admitted Prior Art.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Petition
`
`The concept of a generalized virtual router with cross-connect and routing
`
`functionality was not new as of the priority date of the ‘123 Patent. Specifically,
`
`prior art shows that similar solutions were known, and apparatuses and methods for
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`arranging switching elements and routing elements in a CLOS architecture to
`
`provide cross-connect and routing functionality in a system of networked devices
`
`existed to address the problems alleged by the ‘123 Patent. For example, the prior
`
`art described and taught by Dragone relates to the construction of an NxN cross-
`
`connect switch arranged in a CLOS architecture using smaller wavelength routers
`
`combined with space switches. Ex. 1005, Abstract. Additionally, the prior art
`
`described and taught by Conklin relates to a method of constructing a multi-stage
`
`switch element comprising interconnected ingress, egress, and center stages. Ex.
`
`1006, Abstract. Furthermore, the prior art described and taught by Yang relates to
`
`a method and apparatus for performing grouping switching in an optical network
`
`using an NxN three-stage group connector. Ex. 1007, Abstract.
`
`
`
`Because all of the limitations recited in claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent were
`
`known as claimed, such claim is unpatentable and should be canceled.
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Note Regarding Page Citations
`
`For exhibits that include suitable page numbers in their original publication,
`
`Petitioner’s citations are to those page numbers and not to the page numbers added
`
`for compliance with 37 C.F.R. 42.63(d)(2)(ii).
`
`V.
`
`Identification of Challenges and Claim Construction
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is challenged in this Petition.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`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
`
`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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 38.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`This Petition analyzes the challenged claims consistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`All claim terms are analyzed under their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification.
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is unpatentable as being anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) & (e), and/or for being obvious over the prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103. Specifically:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`Challenge #1: The challenged claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by U.S. 6,542,655 (Dragone) (Ex. 1005). Dragone is prior
`
`art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`As discussed above, the priority date of the challenged claim 1 of the ‘123
`
`Patent is January 22, 2004. Dragone claims a filing date of August 31, 2000.
`
`Dragone therefore has an effective filing date of August 31, 2000, which is before
`
`the effective filing date of January 22, 2004 of the ‘123 Patent.
`
`
`
`Challenge #2: The challenged claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by U.S. 7,310,333 (Conklin) (Ex. 1006). Conklin is prior
`
`art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`As discussed above, the priority date of the challenged claim 1 of the ‘123
`
`Patent is January 22, 2004. Conklin claims priority to provisional application no.
`
`60/392,461, filed on June 28, 2002. Conklin therefore has an effective filing date
`
`of June 28, 2002, which is before the effective filing date of January 22, 2004 of
`
`the ‘123 Patent.
`
`
`
`Challenge #3: The challenged claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by US patent application publication 2005/0141804 (Yang)
`
`(Ex. 1007). Yang is prior art under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`As discussed above, the priority date of the challenged claim 1 of the ‘123
`
`Patent is January 22, 2004. Yang claims a filing date of December 24, 2003.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`Yang therefore has an effective filing date of December 24, 2003, which is before
`
`the effective filing date of January 22, 2004 of the ‘123 Patent.
`
`
`
`Challenge #4: The challenged claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is rendered
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Conklin (Ex. 1006) in view of Dragone (Ex.
`
`1005). Conklin is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dragone is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`As discussed above, the priority date of the challenged claim 1 of the ‘123
`
`Patent is January 22, 2004. Conklin claims priority to provisional application no.
`
`60/392,461, filed on June 28, 2002. Conklin therefore has an effective filing date
`
`of June 28, 2002, which is before the effective filing date of January 22, 2004 of
`
`the ‘123 Patent. Dragone claims a filing date of August 31, 2000. Dragone
`
`therefore has an effective filing date of August 31, 2000, which is also before the
`
`effective filing date of January 22, 2004 of the ‘123 Patent.
`
`
`
`Challenge #5: The challenged claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is rendered
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Yang (Ex. 1007) in view of Dragone (Ex. 1005).
`
`Yang is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dragone is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`
`As discussed above, the priority date of the challenged claim 1 of the ‘123
`
`Patent is January 22, 2004. Yang claims a filing date of December 24, 2003.
`
`Yang therefore has an effective filing date of December 24, 2003, which is before
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`the effective filing date of January 22, 2004 of the ‘123 Patent. Dragone claims a
`
`filing date of August 31, 2000. Dragone therefore has an effective filing date of
`
`August 31, 2000, which is also before the effective filing date of January 22, 2004
`
`of the ‘123 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Identification of How the Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Challenge #1: Claim 1 is Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`by U.S. 6,542,655 (Dragone)
`
`The challenged Claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 by Dragone. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 42.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Summary of Dragone
`
`Dragone discloses a routing and switching apparatus including cross-connect
`
`switches implemented using wavelength routers. See Ex. 1005, Abstract. More
`
`specifically, Dragone describes an apparatus that utilizes an arrangement of a
`
`plurality of wavelength routers combined with a plurality of input and output
`
`switches that can be implemented in a cross-bar or CLOS-type construction. Id.
`
`
`
`Dragone discloses a three-stage system including an input stage, an output
`
`stage, and a center stage serving as the connection between the input and output
`
`stages. See id. at 1:61-2:11. The input stage includes “a plurality of input space
`
`switches, each input of each of the input switches connect[ing] to a different one of
`
`the N inlets [of the system].” Id. at 1:65-67. The output stage includes “a plurality
`
`output space switches, each output of each of the output space switches
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`connect[ing] to a different one of the N outlets [of the system].” Id. at 2:1-3. The
`
`center stage includes “a plurality of N/m.times.N/m wavelength routers, wherein a
`
`connecting link is provided between each N/m.times.N/m wavelength router and
`
`each input or output switch, so that each N/m.times.N/m wavelength router
`
`connects to each input space switch and each output switch.” Id. at 2:6-11. In
`
`other words, Dragone discloses a matrix of switching elements and routing
`
`elements arranged in a CLOS arrangement, wherein the switching and routing
`
`elements are connected. Dragone further discloses router control providing control
`
`for a switching fabric by use of wavelength signals from lasers, which determine
`
`the switching path of the input signals through routers. Id. at 8:40-48.
`
`Claim 1
`
`[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 constructed in three
`
`stages utilizing a plurality of input and output space switches in conjunction with a
`
`plurality of routers. Id. at 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; Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 43.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`Thus, Dragone teaches “a routing and switching apparatus,” as recited in the
`
`challenged Claim 1. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 44.
`
`[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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 45. 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.” Id. at 2:29-31. It
`
`is 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.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 46. 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; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 47.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`Thus, 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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 48.
`
`[1.3] at least one of said switching elements being connected to at least one of
`
`said routing elements by said switching fabric; and
`
`
`
`Dragone teaches at least one of said switching elements being connected to
`
`at least one of said routing elements by said switching fabric. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 49.
`
`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 explicitly 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. Id. at
`
`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.” Id. at
`
`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.” Id. at
`
`5:49-60. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 50.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`Thus, 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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 51.
`
`[1.4] router control providing control for said switching fabric,
`
`
`
`Dragone teaches router control providing control for said switching fabric,
`
`as required by challenged claim 1. Dragone discloses “wavelength signals from
`
`lasers determine the switching path of the input signals through routers.” Ex.
`
`1005, 8:41-43. 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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 52. 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.” Id. at 8:44-48. As previously established, an
`
`NxN switch is well known in the art to be a switching fabric. Therefore, it would
`
`be 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.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 53.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`Thus, Dragone teaches “router control providing control for said switching
`
`fabric,” as recited in the challenged Claim 1. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 54.
`
`[1.5] wherein said apparatus has both cross-connect functionality and routing
`
`functionality.
`
`
`
`Dragone teaches wherein said apparatus has both cross-connect functionality
`
`and routing functionality as required in the challenged claim 1. 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.
`
`Id. at Abstract, 1:43-44. Dragone further discloses that the switching elements
`
`“operate under control of a control signal.” Ex. 1005, 7:7-8. 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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 55.
`
`
`
`Thus, Dragone teaches “wherein said apparatus has both cross-connect
`
`functionality and routing functionality,” as recited in the challenged Claim 1. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 56.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Challenge #2: Claim 1 is Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`by U.S. 7,310,333 (Conklin)
`
`The challenged Claim 1 of the ‘123 Patent is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 by Conklin. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 57.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Summary of Conklin
`
`Conklin discloses a switching control mechanism for a switch element that
`
`interconnects high-speed data lines. More specifically, Conklin describes a
`
`method of modeling or constructing a switch element using an ingress stage with
`
`input sorters and input routers; an egress stage with output routers and output
`
`sorters; and a center stage interconnecting the ingress and egress stages. Ex. 1006,
`
`Abstract. In one embodiment of the invention disclosed in Conklin, a three-stage
`
`CLOS network configuration. Id. at 4:53-54. Under this configuration, “the
`
`ingress stage switches are each symmetrically connect to all center stage switches.
`
`Similarly, the egress stage switches are each symmetrically connected to all of the
`
`center stage switches.” Id. at 4:55-58.
`
`Claim 1
`
`[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. Id. at Abstract; Ex. 1003 at ¶
`
`58. Furthermore, Conklin clearly states that “a router is a functional aspect of an
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`ingress or egress device that connects that ingress/egress device to as selected
`
`center stage device or center stage device’s port.” Id. at 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.” Id. at
`
`3:66-4:4. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 59.
`
`
`
`Thus, Conklin teaches “A routing and switching apparatus,” as recited in the
`
`challenged Claim 1. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 60.
`
`[1.2] a switching fabric; a matrix of switching elements and routing elements
`
`arranged in a CLOS architecture,
`
`
`
`
`
`Conklin teaches a switching fabric; a matrix of switching elements and
`
`routing elements arranged in a CLOS architecture. Conklin discloses an
`
`illustrative model of a switch element comprising a plurality of ingress and egress
`
`devices, as well as a plurality of center stage devices. See Ex. 1006, 4:21-36,
`
`FIGS. 1a and 2; Ex. 1003 at ¶ 61.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`
`
`It is evident that the “switch element” that serves to connect the data lines of
`
`the system is a switching fabric. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 63.
`
`
`
`In one implementation of Conklin, the “ingress, egress, and center stage
`
`devices are switches.” Ex. 1006, 3:66-67. Moreover, Conklin discloses that the
`
`functional aspects of these devices can be routers and sorters, and that they can be
`
`“implemented using internal components of the devices.” Id. at 4:1-4. It would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that the ingress, egress, and
`
`center stage devices are switching and routing elements. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 64.
`
`Additionally, Conklin clearly states that these devices can be arranged in the well-
`
`known CLOS configuration. Ex. 1006, 6:60-63. Conklin also teaches that the
`
`ingress, egress, and center stages can be symmetrically implemented within the
`
`CLOS type configuration of the switch element. Ex. 1006, 4:53-58. It would be
`
`understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art that a “symmetric” configuration
`
`of ingress, egress, and center stage devices within a CLOS type configuration
`
`effectively manifests as a matrix structure (or its equivalent) of those devices. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 65.
`
`
`
`Thus, Conklin teaches “a switching fabric; a matrix of switching elements
`
`and routing elements arranged in a CLOS architecture,” as recited in the
`
`challenged Claim 1. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 66.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`[1.3] at least one of said switching elements being connected to at least one of
`
`said routing elements by said switching fabric; and
`
`
`
`Conklin teaches at least one of said switching elements being connected to at
`
`least one of said routing elements by said switching fabric. Conklin discloses in
`
`one implementation that “the ingress stage switches are each symmetrically
`
`connected to all center stage switches. Similarly, the egress stage switches are
`
`each symmetrically connected to all center stage switches.” Ex. 1006, 4:54-58; Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶ 67. Conklin further discloses a switch element configuration in which a
`
`plurality of routers are connected to a plurality of switches. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 68.
`
`
`
`Conklin also describes a method for initializing a switch element, or
`
`switching fabric, wherein said method includes several steps involving the
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No, 7,664,123
`
`connecting of a plurality of input and output routers to a plurality of center
`
`switches. Id. at 8:2-8, FIG. 3a. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 70.
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, Conklin 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. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 72.
`
`[1.4] router control providing control for said switching fabric,
`
`
`
`Conklin teaches a router control providing control for said switching fabric.
`
`Conklin discloses a bank, which it defines as a device programming memory that
`
`controls an ingres