Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 5, 2019
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`___________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: December 5, 2019
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONR:
`
`GREGORY P. HUH, ESQUIRE
`DAVID MCCOMBS, ESQUIRE
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2505 North Plano Road
`Suite 400
`Richardson, TX 75082
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`JAMES HANNAH, ESQUIRE
`Kramer Levin Naftalis Frankel
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, December
`5, 2019, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, before Donna Jenkins, Notary
`Public.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` - - - - -
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Good afternoon everybody.
`This is the formal hearing in IPR 2018-01454. I'm Judge
`McNamara. Judge Turner and Judge White are participating
`remotely. Could we have counsel introduce themselves please.
`Let's start with the Petitioner.
`MR. MCCOMBS: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I'm
`David McCombs here for Petitioner Cisco Systems and with me
`are Theo Foster and Gregory Huh. Gregory Huh will be making
`our presentation today.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Thank you very much. Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`MR. HANNAH: Good afternoon, Judge McNamara.
`Nice to see you again Judge White. I'll try to look that way at
`the camera instead of the screen. Nice to meet you Judge Turner.
`James Hannah on behalf of Centripetal Networks, and with me is
`Jeffrey Price.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Would you be doing the
`
`arguing?
`
`MR. HANNAH: Yes, I will be doing the argument
`today. Thanks.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. Thank you so much.
`
`
`Okay. Let me see. Each side has a 60 minutes maximum time.
`You don't have to use it all but you're certainly welcome to.
`We'll start with the Petitioner who'll present its case with regard
`to the challenged claims and any outstanding motions. Patent
`Owner will then present its opposition to Petitioner's case.
`Petitioner can use any time it reserved for rebuttal and then the
`Patent Owner will get a surrebuttal directed to issues that were
`raised in the Petitioner's rebuttal using whatever time he has
`reserved. I assume everyone is ready to proceed? All right. So
`let's begin with the Petitioner. Is there some amount of time
`you'd like me to alert you to?
`
`
`MR. HUH: Good afternoon, Your Honors. So we'll
`be reserving 15 minutes for rebuttal. Maybe a five minute
`warning would be great.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. So why don't we let
`you know when you've used up 40 minutes.
`
`
`MR. HUH: Yes, please.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay. That sounds terrific.
`
`
`MR. HUH: Thank you.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: All right. Please proceed.
`Oh, and you have handouts? Do you have hard copies of the
`demonstratives?
`
`
`MR. HUH: I do, Your Honor.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Could I have a set, please?
`
`
`MR. HUH: Certainly.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: And does the court reporter
`
`
`have a set?
`
`
`MR. HUH: Yes.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay, great. Thanks very
`much.
`MR. HUH: Okay. So as I was saying, this is Gregory
`
`
`Huh on the record on behalf of Petitioner Cisco Systems. During
`today's discussion I will refer to the slides for everybody's
`benefit as well as the record. I just want to briefly note that the
`slides have not been filed per the Board's instructions in the
`email.
`So I'll begin by looking at slide 2 and if we look at
`
`
`slide 2 there are five issues for discussion here today, and the
`first one is the construction for the preprocessing limitation and
`I'll address that in detail as well as Patent Owner's and
`Petitioner's position on that construction.
`
`
`The other issues for discussion are the fact that the
`prior art teaches a preprocessing limitation under any
`construction, that the prior art teaches a caching limitation as
`well as the claim 3 limitation of dynamically adjusting and lastly
`I will address the secondary considerations. Very likely I'll
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`address that as part of my rebuttal given that it's Patent Owner's
`burden.
`Turning to slide 3 for context provided is claim 1 and
`
`
`for the first issue the preprocessing limitation is the first
`limitation in claim 1. If we look at claim 1 it recites
`preprocessing by a network device a first rule set and a second
`rule set. Now that limitation was not construed in the petition.
`Petitioner applied the plain and ordinary meaning and the
`Board's decision on Institution also did not construe that
`limitation. However, after Institution Patent Owner in Patent
`Owner's response proposed a construction and the petition's reply
`proposed an alternative construction. We also explained and
`showed that the prior art teaches this limitation under any
`construction.
`
`
`Now turning to slide 4. At the bottom of the slide we
`have patent Owner's response with the proposed construction for
`the preprocessing limitation and in Patent Owner's response they
`construe this term as, and I'll quote it in the record,
`
`
`"Performing operations on a first rule set and a second
`rule set prior to their respective rule set being applied to
`packets."
`We would urge that the Board not adopt this
`
`
`construction for a number of reasons including that it's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`ambiguous as well as the fact that this construction limits
`preprocessing beyond the 148 specification.
`
`
`We turn to slide 5. Dr. Orso, who is Centripetal's
`expert witness, on deposition testified that well, an operation
`under its construction would be anything or nothing at all. So
`for instance, here we have a no op operation which according to
`Dr. Orso would nonetheless be an operation and no op can still
`be considered an operation, it wouldn't do anything. Given the
`fact that the operation under Centripetal's construction includes
`something that does nothing at all, the operation under its
`construction really has no meaning and therefore renders the
`construction ambiguous.
`
`
`I would further note, if we turn to slide 6, that the
`actual construction as argued by Patent Owner is not supported
`and is not limited as such in the 148 patent specification. If we
`look at Patent Owner's response according to Patent Owner on
`slide 6, Patent Owner asserts that this requires performing
`operations on the rule sets themselves. Notably, however,
`nowhere in the specification is there such a requirement.
`Absolutely nowhere in the 148 patent does it require performing
`operations on the rule sets themselves. If we look in the middle
`of slide 6 we have the 148 patent specification --
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Let me interrupt you for just a
`quick second.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`MR. HUH: Sure.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: When you said doesn’t
`
`
`require it, what does it say about performing operations on the
`rule sets themselves? I mean if it's not a requirement is it at
`least disclosed that you can perform those operations on the rule
`sets and that sort of thing?
`
`
`MR. HUH: So here we have on slide 6 in the middle
`the 148 patent which describes what the preprocessing would be.
`So we don't have to guess, we can look and see exactly what it
`says and I'll quote it in the record. This is the 148 patent at
`column 4, lines 38 to 42 and I'll quote,
`
`
`"In some embodiments preprocessing policies 130 and
`132 as rule sets may include merging two or more rules within
`the rule sets into one rule separating one or more rule sets within
`the rule sets into two or more rules or reordering one or more
`rule set within the rule sets."
`
`
`This is the extent of examples of preprocessing in the
`148 patent. What I would note here this is permissive language.
`Nowhere are these requirements in some embodiments may
`include this is permissive language, nowhere does it require
`doing any of these things. These are exemplary embodiments
`that may include these operations. I further note if you look at
`this --
`
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Claim 1 --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`MR. HUH: -- operation, go ahead Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: -- claim 1 though, it's not
`
`
`permissive right? Claim 1 says preprocessing, the very first
`thing is a method comprising and the first step is preprocessing
`by a network device a first rule set and a second rule set. So it's
`not permissive in the claim, it's a requirement of the claim,
`right?
`MR. HUH: The question is what does preprocessing
`
`
`include and what does it require.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Right.
`
`
`MR HUH: So these are examples, merging, separating
`and reordering are examples of preprocessing but they're not
`limiting examples. In fact if we look at the bottom of slide 6 Dr.
`Orso, Centripetal's expert, testifies during deposition that
`preprocessing includes other kinds of optimizations that would
`be considered preprocessing. Nowhere in the specification is it
`required that the rule sets themselves be modified or changed or
`preprocessed by some type of modification and that's exactly
`what Patent Owner is arguing and that's not supported.
`
`
`In fact, during the prosecution history of the parent
`patent in the 148, turning to slide 7, the examiner was headed on
`with the exact same question and the Office in that situation held
`that preprocessing doesn't have to modify the rule set. Here we
`have --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: What would --
`
`
`MR. HUH: -- patent, go ahead Your Honor.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: -- what would preprocessing
`
`
`be if it doesn't modify the rule set? What would that consist of?
`
`
`MR. HUH: So here we have an example during the
`prosecution history of the parent which was the same limitation
`was at issue and the examiner considered a reference that taught
`associating a threshold with a rule set. The rule set itself was
`not modified but it was associated with a threshold. The action
`of associating the threshold with the rule set according to the
`Office was the preprocessing of the rule set and Patent Owner
`now is arguing that somehow that was distinguished but simply it
`wasn't. We see at the bottom of slide 7 in the Notice of
`Allowance the examiner maintains, and I'll quote in the record,
`
`
`"The prior art teaches rule preprocessing."
`
`
`So here we have the Office in the parent application
`giving the Patentee notice that preprocessing does not have to be
`done on the rule sets themselves and I would note this. In the
`148 patent examination once they had filed that child from the
`parent which is this from the parent on slide 7, Patent Owner was
`on notice of the examiner's position, okay? Had they chosen to
`limit preprocessing to perform operations on the rule sets
`themselves they could have included that language in the claim.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`They did not. That language is not included in the actual claim
`itself. Go ahead, Your Honors.
`
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Counsel, why wouldn't modifying
`the threshold that applies to the rule set be an operation
`performed on the rule set? It doesn't necessarily have to change
`the rules within the rule set but you are modifying how that rule
`set would be applied by performing that particular operation.
`
`
`MR. HUH: So to be clear, our position is that
`modifying the rule sets is an example of preprocessing. For
`example, if you modify the rule set by merging, separating or
`reordering, those are certainly examples of preprocessing. Those
`are non- limiting examples and even for example here associating
`a threshold with a rule set is as well preprocessing. But this
`association does not modify the rule set as the reorder or do
`anything operation on the rule set within it, on the rules within
`the rule set but there is a preprocessing of the rule set. So our
`position is that the examples in the 148 patent are examples of
`preprocessing but those examples are not limiting.
`
`
`JUDGE WHITE: Are you saying that preprocessing
`can be completely divorced from the rule set? So preprocessing
`includes other forms of processing that you do before you get
`into performing operations on the rule set themselves?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`MR. HUH: Our position is that, for example if you do
`
`
`something with a rule set by associating something else with it,
`that is a preprocessing of the rule set.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: And your position then is that
`because that's already been disclosed by the reference that was
`cited in the other case, it's in the prior art?
`
`
`MR .HUH: Our position is is that this issue on
`construction was already considered by the Office. But I will
`note this that regardless, and I will walk through this for the
`Board's benefit, but regardless -- and our briefings are clear on
`this point -- regardless of the construction the prior art teaches
`preprocessing clearly. But again --
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, l et me give you a
`hypothetical. So if you might say -- and I'm going to be
`speaking orally so I know you're not looking at this and writing
`so bear with me -- so if we adopted a construction of optimizing
`by a network device a first rule set and a second rule set that
`modifies those rule sets before the network device processes
`packets, would that be acceptable to Petitioner or do you think
`that the fact that if you have optimizing through modification
`that somehow that's too narrow?
`
`
`MR. HUH: Our position is that that would be too
`narrow based on the testimony of both experts because --
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: That would be, even though that
`
`
`really sort of comports with all the examples provided in the
`specification?
`
`
`MR. HUH: The examples are not limiting, Your
`Honor, Judge Turner.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: No, I understand that. I
`(indiscernible.) They have to mean something.
`
`
`MR. HUH: Certainly.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: If I divorce myself from the
`examples the nice people at the Federal Circuit are going to
`reverse them and --
`
`
`MR. HUH: we definitely don't want that.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: -- well, we are together I think in
`that review.
`
`
`MR. HUH: Certainly.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: But somehow if we're -- again my
`concern is if we're talking about untried nine (phonetic) if you
`want something everybody can see -- if you're just talking about
`optimizing, that can be sort of nebulous. That can mean I'm
`looking at the rules and I'm jotting down notes, I'm determining
`triggers, I'm doing something -- I'm not really doing anything
`with the rule sets which seems to be Patent Owner's concern in
`saying well, look at all my examples, all my examples are doing
`something. They're either reordering or they're merging these or
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`they're doing things to the set and that's what I'm really trying to
`get at here, and you say well, you should have claimed it better
`so this is an opportunity. If we adopted the claim construction
`that maybe makes that clear.
`
`
`MR. HUH: So --
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: I think that --
`
`
`MR. HUH: Go ahead, I'm sorry.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Go ahead.
`
`
`MR. HUH: So from our perspective, Your Honor, the
`Federal Circuit has made clear that it's not for the Board or for
`anyone else to fix claims that were not properly claimed. We're
`not here to salvage a claim when in fact it wasn't properly
`written. There's no such requirement in the claim that requires
`performing operations on the rule sets themselves and nowhere is
`that in the specification. It's also improper to incorporate and
`bind (phonetic) from the specification the claims themselves
`(indiscernible) forget about the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`So from our perspective when we look at slide 9,
`which Your Honor referenced, optimizing by a network device a
`first rule set, a second rule set, before the network device
`processes packets is a proper construction at least because both
`experts agree that there's two kinds of optimizations that occur.
`
`
`Specifically if we look at slide 10 Dr. Orso,
`Centripetal's own expert, testifies that the preprocessing allows
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`for fast swapping. Now if you simply modify a rule set, that's
`not going to provide fast swapping or if you reorder the rule set
`that's not going to (indiscernible) fast swapping, but both experts
`testify in the context of the 148 patent that preprocessing
`facilitates fast swapping. So if you have an optimization that
`facilitates fast rule swapping that wouldn't be a preprocessing in
`the context of the 148 patent. Both --
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: (Indiscernible.)
`
`
`MR. HUH: Go ahead.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Sure. And I assume that if that
`preprocessing is merging, you'd have to agree that that would
`allow for fast swapping?
`
`
`MR. HUH: That would allow for fast processing but
`not for fast swapping necessarily.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Why?
`
`
`MR. HUH: Because if your --
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Like have fewer rules in a rule set
`it seems like it's easier to swap them out. I have less operations
`I would think but maybe I'm missing something.
`
`
`MR. HUH: Right. So the swapping in the context of
`the 148 patent is swapping the rule sets, not the rules in the rule
`sets. So if you have rule set one may have ten rules and then you
`merge them into five, that allows you to better and more
`efficiently apply the rule set to the process of the packets
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`because you have less rules to apply to packets and it gives you
`fast processing as far as it relates to packet processing but the
`swapping event by merging doesn't facilitate fast swapping.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay. Maybe I'm missing
`something, I don't know. So if I have ten rules and then I'm
`preprocessing for five and then later on I'm swapping that out for
`something has three rules, it seems like there has to be fewer
`operations for doing that swapping because it's smaller. Maybe
`I'm missing something fundamentally here.
`
`
`MR. HUH: So the way that, from an operational
`perspective when you're swapping out the rules, you're just
`identifying a new rule set to be applied. You're really changing
`a pointer and pointing to a new rule set to be applied to packets.
`That's the effect of merging or separating when you're swapping
`or changing the pointer to a different rule set.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Now is that true even if you're
`dynamically reallocating memory as sort of, and we haven't
`maybe gotten to those claims yet, but it seems like that's a
`different operation, isn't it?
`
`
`MR. HUH: I mean I think that's a little bit of
`different context. I don't want to muddy the record with talking
`about a limitation that's not part of -- that's part of claim 3.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: No, I understand it’s my job to
`muddy the record so.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`MR. HUH: I'm not trying to do that but I just want to
`
`
`be clear that that's a little different discussion that isn't tied to
`the construction issue.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: No, I understand that.
`Construction's on my mind because I'm going to get to it, so I'm
`just trying to understand. You're sort of saying well nothing you
`do is going to allow for a faster swapping I guess, is that what
`you're saying?
`
`
`MR. HUH: No. What we're saying is the context of
`the 148 patent is broad enough to facilitate and to permit
`preprocessing such that that preprocessing, if that allows for fast
`swapping, then that is preprocessing in the context of the 148
`patent.
`JUDGE TURNER: So again --
`
`
`MR. HUH: Again this is consistent with the
`
`
`examiner's position during prosecution where the examiner had
`the same reasoning.
`
`
`JUDGE WHITE: I think this is coming down to how
`this is coded. If you're coding this in a manner where you're
`swapping pointers and maybe this is not a big difference -- if
`you're coding in the manner where you're swapping out data
`structures, then there could be some difference . I think if you're
`really digging down to the detail level of how something's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`specifically coded as to whether you want that faster and in some
`circumstances it would be another set, wouldn't it be?
`
`
`MR. HUH: I believe that's correct, Judge White, and
`this is the whole point is that the 148 patent never provides such
`nuanced detail as to how to code it, how to somehow optimize
`these differently, right? So the disclosure of the 148 patent is
`broad to cover both kind of circumstances, whether it is or it
`isn't faster swapping and this is exactly why both experts testify
`that the preprocessing can allow for fast swapping or will it
`allow for more efficient packet processing. You know, again --
`
`
`JUDGE WHITE: I certainly agree in certain
`circumstances it would allow for faster swapping depending on
`how it's coded of course.
`
`
`MR. HUH: Right. But my point is that going back to
`slide 6, the 148 patent has very limited disclosure as to what
`preprocessing may include. They don't describe somehow how to
`limit the preprocessing to anything, right? Some embodiments
`just may include merging, separating or reordering. I would note
`that nowhere did they tell you how to perform the merging step
`or reordering, right? That disclosure is nowhere present. It's
`allowing the POSITA leeway into implementing yet how the
`person of ordinary skill decides how to do so.
`
`
`But nonetheless, I would note that even if the Board
`decides that Petitioner's construction is not appropriate and the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`Board adopts Patent Owner's construction which I believe it
`should not, the prior art nonetheless teaches preprocessing
`multiple ways.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Just one more question before you
`move on.
`MR. HUH: Certainly.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: I understand that there seems to
`
`
`be, you know, you talked about the Patent Owner's expert saying
`that you can have no operation and that would be an operation.
`But couldn't the same thing be said about optimizing? Let's say
`that my rule sets are pristine, they're perfect, so that if I'm
`optimizing by the network device these rule sets it may actually
`do nothing. That's also a possibility even under Petitioner's
`construction, yes?
`
`
`MR. HUH: I don't believe there's expert testimony on
`that point but I will say --
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: I don't know that there is either.
`I'm going to ask you and you can certainly not give me an
`answer.
`MR. HUH: No, it's not that. But what I will say is
`
`
`that the prior art -- under our construction, we identified what we
`believe is the optimization and there's no dispute that that
`optimization in fact does optimize the fast rule swapping and
`therefore would meet our construction. So I believe even beyond
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`what was necessary to apply the art, so the prior art meets the
`construction we propose and to the extent there's additional
`nuances neither expert pondered upon those.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay. Thank you.
`
`
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: One other thing I wanted to
`ask you because I'm looking at the patent itself, and it talks
`about -- this is the 148 patent and this is in column 4 looking
`down around line 25, 26 -- and it talks about a rule set contained
`within a policy may be preprocessed and then says for example,
`recent advances in packet filtering technology have reduced the
`time required to apply large rule sets. So is that another example
`of preprocessing, some kind of filtering and in that context is
`filtering changing the rule set or is it not changing the rule set,
`just filtering out certain things? It's just above where they talk
`about large rule sets.
`
`
`MR. HUH: I have it, I see it, Your Honor. I don't
`believe that that's an example. Clearly the examples follow at
`line 38.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Right, that's clear. It says in
`
`
`some embodiments preprocessing may be, but this talks about
`advances in packet filtering that reduce the time and it's in the
`context of preprocessing and I'm just trying to determine if
`filtering, and I don't even know whether or not filtering would or
`would not be modifying the rule set, so that's another whole
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`question. Are they filtering packets, are they filtering the rule
`set, I don't now what they're filtering.
`
`
`MR. HUH: Right. I think that portion there is a little
`bit unclear and I don't want to speculate here as to what that
`means.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Sorry. Thanks very much. I
`
`
`just wanted to know if you had any thoughts on that.
`
`
`MR. HUH: Now if we turn to slide 11 I'd like to now
`address Centripetal's first argument which is that the prior art
`does teach preprocessing. That's simply incorrect. It teaches it
`multiple ways.
`
`
`Turning to slide 12, Your Honors, the petition
`explained that Roese teaches preprocessing in a plain and
`ordinary meaning and now this same teaching also teaches
`preprocessing on the Petitioner's construction submitted with the
`reply. Roese teaches associating mitigating policies as well as
`associated rapid response identifiers with the PDR sets. The
`PDR sets are rule sets in the context of Roese and it's clear that
`this association of the rapid response identifier with the rule set
`facilitates quick rule swapping and there's no dispute about that.
`In fact Patent Owner in their response recognizes this, toward the
`bottom of slide 12, that Roese's invention is intended to provide
`an immediate response to a proceed trigger condition in order to
`protect the network. That is, they respond immediately by
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`swapping the rule sets. So there's no dispute that in fact Roese
`does optimize the swapping of the rule sets by associating rapid
`response identifiers with the rule sets. What I would note is if
`the Board adopts Petitioner's construction then there's no dispute
`that the prior art does teach a preprocessing limitation.
`Moreover, the prior art teaches preprocessing multiple ways
`under Centripetal's construction. Turning to slide 13. We give
`the Board additional context for the operations in Centripetal's
`construction.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Counsel, just before you move on.
`In Roese, would Petitioner acknowledge that no PER sets are
`modified? You're associating but you're not actually modifying
`a PER set, is that a correct statement on my part or would
`Petitioner quibble with that?
`
`
`MR. HUH: Well I think Roese would say otherwise.
`If you look to slide 14, our position initially is that the
`association is under Petitioner's construction of preprocessing
`but Roese also teaches changing, modifying, updating the rule
`set themselves. So I'll get to that but the answer is no. Roese
`also teaches changing the rule sets.
`
`
`JUDGE TURNER: Okay.
`
`
`MR. HUH: But just to give the Board context what
`operations are under Centripetal's construction, slide 13 here we
`have Patent Owner's response where they assert that an operation
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`on the rule sets is changes to the rule set. Dr. Orso said that if
`you modify the rule set you're making an operation, right? So if
`you change the rule set you're performing the operations under
`Centripetal's construction.
`
`
`Turning to slide 14. This is exactly what Roese
`teaches. At the top of slide 14 we have Roese's first (phonetic)
`portion where first I would note that they teach updating,
`revising, changing, adjusting at the rule sets. Those are
`operations on the rule sets themselves, right? That's clearly
`lacking on white paper, here it's yellow. I would also note that
`this could be done at any time when and as desired. So Roese
`itself teaches that you can change the rule sets at any time
`whenever you desire and as Dr. Reddy explains in his declaration
`at the bottom of slide 14 because these operations can be
`performed at any time and when and as desired, Roese
`contemplates performing the operations prior to processing
`packets. So here we have one way that Roese meets even
`Centripetal's narrow construction which should not be adopted.
`Moreover, Roese teaches preprocessing.
`
`
`Go back to slide 14 just briefly. The first underlined
`portion in red is preinstalled. Roese preinstalls the rule sets,
`right? This is also the abstract of Roese. So Roese gets rule sets
`and preinstalls them.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01454
`Patent 9,674,148 B2
`
`
`Then go on to slide 15. Both experts agree that this
`
`
`would be an operation under Centripetal's construction. Here we
`have Dr. Reddy at the very top testifying that the preinstalling of
`an already received rule set is an operation performed on the rule
`sets themselves and therefore this also meets Centripetal's
`construction. Moreover, Dr. Orso, Centripetal's own expert
`testifies that writing the rules is an operation. So there's no
`dispute then that when you are installing, preinstalling the rule
`sets in Roese or making the right operation and that is an
`operation on the rule set itself. This is the second way that
`Roese teaches that preprocessing limitation even under
`Centripetal's construction which should not be adopted because
`it's not supported. Additionally, the petition explained that
`Roese in combination with Golnabi teaches a preprocessing
`limitation.
`
`
`Going to slide 16. This is from the petition at the
`very top citing to Golnabi reference which describes combining,
`reordering and splitting the rule set to generate updated rule sets.
`This is exactly what Golnabi teaches and this is exactly
`consistent with the merging, reordering or separating portion of
`the 148 patent. So this is exactly on top of the 148
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
