Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 47
`Entered: August 3, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. and PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Wednesday, June 9, 2021
`_________________
`
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 47
`Entered: August 3, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. and PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`_________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Wednesday, June 9, 2021
`_________________
`
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ANDREW RADSCH, ESQUIRE
`SCOTT A. MCKEOWN, ESQUIRE
`JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQUIRE
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303
`(650) 617 4018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADAM A. ALLGOOD, ESQUIRE
`JOSEPH EDELL, ESQUIRE
`ALAN M. FISCH, ESQUIRE
`BILL SIGLER, ESQUIRE
`JEFFREY SALTMAN, ESQUIRE
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`(202) 362-3500
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ALLEN BULLWINKEL, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL HEIM, ESQUIRE
`CHRIS LIMBACHER, ESQUIRE
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
`1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713) 221-2024
`
`David Saunders, Esquire, Juniper Networks
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, June 9,
`2021, commencing at 12:33 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE WHITE: All right. Well, good morning or
`afternoon, depending on your time zones. I'm Judge White.
` And this is an oral hearing in IPR2020-00336 and
`IPR2020-00337, between Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc., and
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc., and Patent Owner, Packet
`Intelligence LLC, concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725 B1 and
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 B1.
` With me today also on the Panel, we have Judges
`Boudreau and Hamann.
` So let's start with appearances for Petitioner. In
`order to assist the court reporter, it would be great if you
`could not only state your name, but also the spelling of your
`name. So let's start with Petitioner.
` MR. RADSCH: Thank you, Your Honor. And good
`morning, good afternoon. Apologies for the technical
`difficulties.
` This is Andrew Radsch, R-A-D-S-C-H, from Ropes &
`Gray, for Petitioner, Palo Alto Networks. I'm joined here in
`our Silicon Valley office by Jim Batchelder, and by -- in
`Washington, D.C. by my colleague, Scott McKeown.
` MR. ALLGOOD: Thank you, Judge --
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay.
` MR. ALLGOOD: -- White. This is Adam Allgood,
`A-L-L-G-O-O-D, with Fisch Sigler. Also for Petitioner. And
`I'm joined on the phone today with lead counsel for these
`IPRs for Petitioner, Mr. Joe Edell, also Mr. Alan Fisch, Mr.
`4
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`Bill Sigler, Mr. Jeff Saltman, and then also joining us is
`the Director of Litigation for Juniper Networks, Mr. David
`Saunders.
` JUDGE WHITE: And who will be presenting for
`Petitioner today?
` MR. RADSCH: Your Honor, this is Andrew Radsch, again
`from Ropes & Gray. I will be presenting the opening remarks
`for Petitioner, with the exception of two issues that Mr.
`Allgood will address; namely, the dispute about flow-entry
`databases and associative cache. And Mr. McKeown will
`deliver our rebuttal remarks.
` JUDGE WHITE: Thank you.
` Okay. And who do we have for Patent Owner?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is
`Allan Bullwinkel of Heim, Payne & Chorush. A-L-L-A-N
`B-U-L-L-W-I-N-K-E-L. On behalf of Patent Owner, Packet
`Intelligence.
` With me today are co-counsel, Michael Heim, H-E-I-M,
`and Chris Limbacher, L-I-M-B-A-C-H-E-R.
` JUDGE WHITE: And Mr. Bullwinkel, will you be
`presenting for Patent Owner today?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Yes, Your Honor, I will be
`presenting.
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay. Before we begin, I'll just go
`over a few administrative matters. I don't know if you guys
`have been participating in our virtual hearings before, but
`in case you have not, just some information, and if you've
`5
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`done it before, just a refresher.
` So we're all over videoconference. Please make sure
`your microphone is muted when you're not speaking so that we
`can reduce background noise. And when it is your turn to
`speak, please double check that you are off mute so that we
`can hear what it is you have to say.
` When it comes to referring to your demonstratives,
`please clearly state for the record what slide, page number,
`paper, exhibit, what have you, you're referring to. It helps
`the proceedings move smoothly today, and it helps to keep our
`record clear when time comes to review our transcripts.
` At the end of the proceeding, after we adjourn, I
`would appreciate it if you would hold the line for just a few
`moments so that the court reporter can have an opportunity to
`ask any questions, if there's anything that need to be
`clarified, spellings and the like, so that we can have a
`clear record.
` As far as the order of proceedings today, Petitioner
`will have 60 minutes of total argument time in which to
`present their case in chief. Petitioner may reserve some
`time for rebuttal. Patent Owner, likewise, will have 60
`minutes of total argument time to present its case in chief,
`and may reserve some time for surrebuttal.
` I'll give everyone a warning when you get close to
`your time, about five minutes out, so that you can bring
`yourself to the conclusion within the times that you've
`specified.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` As for objections, we ask you not to object while the
`other party is presenting. If you think that there is
`something wrong with a demonstrative or an argument
`presented, when it is your turn, please inform us of what
`that objection is, and raise it at that time.
` So as far as rebuttal time, Petitioner, how much time
`would you like to -- would you like to reserve any, and if
`so, how much?
` MR. RADSCH: Thank you, Your Honor. Petitioner would
`like to reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal, please.
` JUDGE WHITE: And Patent Owner, how much time would
`you like to reserve for surrebuttal?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Patent Owner would like to reserve
`ten minutes, please.
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay. Before we begin, there was one
`other thing I wanted to bring up.
` This case -- these cases being presented this morning
`have a number of related and overlapping issues with the
`cases that will be presented later today in IPR2020-338, 339
`and 486. And due to the -- to the similar nature of these
`proceedings, and the number of overlapping issues, for
`efficiency purposes, I would like to enter this transcript
`into those proceedings, and vice versa, so that these
`transcripts will be available in both cases.
` Petitioner, would you have any objection to having
`these transcripts entered into the other proceedings?
` MR. RADSCH: No objection from Petitioner, Your
`7
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`Honor.
` JUDGE WHITE: Patent Owner, likewise, do you have any
`objections to entering these transcripts into the other
`related proceedings?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: No objection, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay. Are there any questions from
`counsel before we get started?
` MR. BULLWINKEL: Not at this time.
` JUDGE WHITE: Okay. Well, then, Petitioner, you may
`begin when ready.
` MR. RADSCH: Thank you, Your Honor. And may I please
`the Board. Again, this is Andrew Radsch from Ropes & Gray
`for Petitioner.
` I will be referring to the Petitioner's
`demonstratives during argument in this proceeding. Those
`were filed as Exhibits 1113 in both proceedings. I may also
`reference Patent Owner's demonstratives, as well as the two
`patents at issue in this proceed, and their related '099
`patent as Exhibit 1001.
` Turning to Petitioner's demonstratives, if you would
`turn to slide 5, please. We have included at slide 5
`exemplary claim language from one of the claims of the '646
`patent, or two of the claims, rather, claims 1 and 3, and
`highlighted there the four issues that we understand to be in
`dispute. And two of them also are in dispute with the '725
`patent.
` So the overlapping issues in dispute have to do with
`8
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`conversational flow, and state of the flow. Then,
`specifically to the '646 patent are issues of flow to
`database and the associative cache limitation of claim grade.
` I would like to start this morning, Your Honors, with
`claim construction, specifically to talk about the meaning of
`the term, conversational flow. And if -- if Your Honors
`would please turn to Petitioner's slide number 7. Here we
`have set forth an overview of the dispute on conversational
`flow. In our position, as we've explained and hopefully
`shown in our papers, is that the trial grounds render obvious
`the challenged claims under both the Board's preliminary
`construction and under Patent Owner's incorrect limiting
`construction of conversational flow.
` So ultimately, our view is that regardless of the
`construction adopted, the prior art clearly discloses
`conversational flows. Given the amount of ink spilled into
`briefing on the -- on the construction of this term, we would
`like to address Patent Owner's arguments about the
`construction of this term, and why they are incorrect.
` Turning to slide 8 of Petitioner's demonstratives.
`As we note here, conversational flow is not a term of art, as
`we note at the top of the slide, it was a coined term.
`There's no evidence or arguments that this is a term that had
`a meaning in the art. This is a term that Petitioner -- or
`that the Patent Owner coined, and then it defined that term
`in the specification, except for the specific lexicography as
`we've showed here in the on '099 specification. That
`9
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`specification is incorporated by a reference in the two
`patents that we're dealing with in this proceeding.
` And the Board's preliminary construction adopted
`that, that lexicography. And that is correct. And I'll note
`that's the same definition that we've just looked at on slide
`4 -- sorry, slide 5 of Petitioner's demonstratives. We're
`claiming one of the '646 patents itself defines the term,
`conversational flow, the exact same wording as found in the
`'099 specification as to the limiting portion of that
`definition as highlighted on slide 8.
` We have both claimed one of the '646 patents and the
`'099 specification defining conversational flow to be a
`sequence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a
`result of an activity. That's what the Board adopted
`correctly as construction in this proceeding.
` Turning to slide 13, I would like to address why
`Patent Owner's limiting statements in this proceeding about
`conversational flow are incorrect. It is argued, as shown on
`slide 9, that a conversational flow must be limited to an
`advocation activity involving a particular user or client.
`And it has said that throughout its briefing in this
`proceeding.
` As you know, the Board has already considered that --
`those arguments twice, and has them rejected them twice both
`in its Institution Decision, and again, in its request --
`denial of a request for a hearing. The position that the
`Patent Owner has advanced is that the exemplary language of
`10
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`the '099 specification, exemplary of what an activity can be,
`is limiting.
` Patent Owner has argued that a -- as shown on the top
`of slide 9, that a conversational flow involves an
`application activity involving the same client. However,
`that is merely an example, expressly so, in the
`specification, and therefore, is not and cannot be limiting.
` The Federal Circuit has been clear, as the Board has
`recognized in cases such as Catalina Marketing, that words,
`indirectly, words like for instance, or such as, are
`exemplary and not limiting.
` If we could, please, turn to slide 13.
` Patent Owner's argument to redefine the term,
`conversational flow, away from the expressed longer
`lexicography is based upon its attempt to redefine the word,
`activity, as one that requires specific client or user
`activity. That's an argument that is contrary to law. As
`the Board well knows, Federal Circuit requires there be clear
`lexicography or disclaimer to redefine a term. And they're
`seeking here to refine the term, activity. Activity is used
`in the specification in its ordinary and normal sense not
`just to refer to client-specific activity.
` At the bottom of slide 13, we point out the statement
`from the provisional application that's incorporated by
`reference into these patents, that Any network activity -- it
`gives an example -- will produce an exchange of the sequence
`of packets called a conversational flow.
`11
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` So Patent Owner argues that activity must be
`client-specific without pointing to any lexicography or any
`disclaimer about that term. What it has pointed to in its
`briefing, and again, it does this in its slides that it has
`-- that it will be presenting today, that it points to
`statements from the background of the '099 specification
`about what are the advantages or objects of the invention.
`And there are multiple objects and processes for the alleged
`invention here. But what's important about that statement is
`one, none of those are statements of lexicography that's the
`word, activity. And secondly, those statements ignore other
`statements in the specifications. And the '099 background
`discussion is different than the background discussion found
`in the '725 and '646 patents.
` And if you look at, for example, column 1, starting
`at line 60, through 62, of the '725 patent, it explains that
`there has been a need -- there's a need for realtime network
`monitor that can provide details as to the application
`programs being used. So it's explaining that what's needed
`in the -- in this context is a monitor that can understand
`the application programs being used. It says nothing about
`client-specific use application program.
` And it goes on at column 2, starting at line 30, to
`explain that what's -- what's desirable is that a monitor
`should allow a user to customize the type of data that is
`selected and analyzed.
` And Patent Owner's construction or arguments about
`12
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`the construction contravene those statements. It is arguing
`against that responsibility or require a little specificity
`of requiring client-specific flows rather than permitting, as
`the lexicography does, flows based upon other network
`activity.
` So for those reasons, we believe the Board should
`maintain its construction and the reject Patent Owner's.
` JUDGE WHITE: Well, Counselor, it seems that I
`understand Patent Owner's argument in part to be that we are
`stopping short of the actual lexicographer language by
`leaving out the rest of the sentence, the for instance going
`on and on language there, and that those exemplary statements
`should be defining. And because -- and because they view
`them as defining, that is where they get into this, which you
`consider to be more narrow claim language.
` So I want to hear more from you as to why we should
`stop at the word “activity“ and not keep going, especially in
`light of them finding some Federal Circuit cases that have
`allowed for the inclusion of more exemplary language in the
`construction.
` MR. RADSCH: Certainly, Your Honor. And I believe
`Patent Owner's arguments require sort of two steps. First,
`it says you must include exemplary language. And again, the
`Federal Circuit has been clear that the words, for instance,
`are by definition not limiting. So that will -- so that's
`not fairly part of the lexicography of this -- of this term,
`because it's merely an example.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` And as we'll note on slide 10 of our demonstratives,
`with the Federal Circuit in the NextScout appeal of a prior
`action by a patent owner, when it commented on that
`definition of conversational flow, it used only the limiting
`language to refer to how conversational flow is defined.
` Again, if we look at '646 claim 1, claim 1 defines
`conversational flow without that exemplary language. But
`even if that exemplary language should be included, it's
`merely exemplary, and it's not limiting.
` The case that they point to to argue that the Federal
`Circuit has adopted exemplary language as limiting does not
`stand for the proposition that they propose it for. That's
`the Realtime Data case, and they repeat that in their slides
`at slide 13. That that case, as the Federal Circuit defined
`the term, or construed the term, data field type. There was
`no lexicography in that term. There's merely examples and
`specification.
` I think what's critical is when the Federal Circuit
`construed that term, it did so with reference to those
`examples, but did not limit those examples. It did not limit
`the construction to those examples. Rather, it said that the
`construction of data field type was based upon the content of
`the data. It gave examples of the content, and left in the
`construction the open-ended, and other data types. So it
`took the examples, used those in the construction, but left
`it open so as not to limit -- limit it to exemplary language.
` In Federal -- and Patent Owner's arguments are to the
`14
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`contrary. Their argument is to take one example, and to
`limit the claims by that example.
` As we point to that in our briefing, there are
`embodiments, including the SAP embodiment from the
`provisional application that is an example of two different
`clients, both using a print service activity that are defined
`as being part of the same conversational flow. So there are
`examples that are contrary to Patent Owner's arguments.
` JUDGE HAMANN: Counsel, this is Judge Hamann. I'm
`trying to understand, you know. Obviously, there's a dispute
`about the for instance and whether that should be part of the
`construction. But even notwithstanding that, there seems to
`be a dispute as to the actual construction for activity. And
`it seems like Petitioner is saying plain, ordinary meaning,
`and Patent Owner may be saying something different. But it
`seems to me that there's a dispute as to the word, activity,
`that may be ripe for construction.
` Did Petitioner deal with specifically how activity
`should be construed, and why Patent Owner's construction may
`be inappropriate?
` MR. RADSCH: Yes, I think we've explained that
`activity as shown and has been quoted in your briefing and
`pointed out today, for example, in the provisional
`application -- this is at slide 13. The provisional says,
`Any network activity. It doesn't say client-specific
`activity. It says, Any network activity will produce an
`exchange of a sequence of packets called a conversational
`15
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`flow.
` As we also pointed out in our briefing, in the
`background discussion in these specifications, they refer the
`patent -- the patentee referred to prior art network activity
`monitors that it said lacked various features. Again,
`referring to activity in its ordinary sense of a broad scope
`of activity, not limited to something that is
`client-specific.
` Again, there's no lexicography, no disclaimer, of the
`term, activity, to limit it to only client-specific activity.
`And Patent Owner has not made the contention that there is.
` JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. And so -- again, Judge Hamann
`speaking.
` So what meaning would Petitioner have ascribed to the
`word, activity, in this phrase?
` MR. RADSCH: So I think our -- our position is that
`the Board doesn't necessarily need to determine the outer
`bounds of that term. The reason is because the prior art as
`we've set forth clearly demonstrates the same activity
`monitoring that the patents describe. For example, as Patent
`Owner admits, they're capable of identifying the Skype
`conversations as the prior art is, they identify disjointed
`FTP flows. They certainly identify application-based
`activity as well as client-specific application like based
`activity. So at a minimum, activity extends to identifying
`the application involved in any -- in the -- in the network
`activity.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` JUDGE HAMANN: Okay. Does the challenged patent have
`a specific example of determining the application with
`multiple clients?
` MR. RADSCH: Yes. So for example, in the -- we have
`a slide number 12 that addresses this. This is an example
`from the provisional of the SAP, the use of the print service
`on a -- by a client. So those examples show that. In the
`first instance, the client will make a request to a print
`server, identify a print service, and later over a separate
`connection, that client, or a different client, may use that
`print service; may actually request a print job to be
`performed. It explains that those are two different
`connections.
` And what the provisional explains is that the two
`packet exchanges would be correctly identified as being part
`of the same flow if the clients are the same. It goes on to
`say, They would even be recognized if the clients were not
`the same.
` And I think that the word, they, is critical there,
`because it's referring back to the two packet exchanges. In
`this case, it would be the first exchange for the first
`client to identify the print service activity. In the second
`exchange by a second client to use that activity. They're
`saying those would all be recognized as being part of the
`same flow. The same conversational flow.
` JUDGE HAMANN: And why does Petitioner point to the
`provisional as opposed to the challenged patent for this
`17
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`disclosure?
` MR. RADSCH: So the provisional is incorporated by
`reference into the specifications of the challenged patent,
`so it's part of the specification. The specifications of the
`'646 and '725 have similar disclosures. The portions are
`spread out. So part of this discussion comes at one -- one
`part of the specification, and a couple paragraphs later, the
`discussion of the separate clients appear. We think it -- it
`appears more clearly in this context, but in any event, the
`provisional is incorporated by reference into the
`specification. So the same -- the same language does appear
`in the -- in the specification of the '725, '646, and the
`'099 patents.
` JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you.
` MR. RADSCH: So we're relying upon it here because of
`the clarity and its enclosure as referenced.
` JUDGE HAMANN: Thank you.
` MR. RADSCH: I just want to -- I do want to point out
`that Patent Owner has argued that the statements they would
`be -- even be recognized that the clients were not the same.
`And again, that's referring to the two different clients
`using a print request. They have said that that means only
`that the second request would be recognized as being a print
`service activity. Not that they would be recognized as being
`a conversational flow.
` But that ignores the word, they, in that sentence.
`They must refer back to the two packet exchanges. That is
`18
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`the first exchange to identify print service activity, and
`second, disjointed exchange from a different client to use
`that print activity. That is a -- that is a example in
`specification of a conversational flow.
` Again, we think that the prior art clearly and
`expressly discloses conversational flows even under the
`Patent Owner's narrow meaning of proposed construction.
` I'll be happy to turn to prior art now unless you
`have other questions about claim construction.
` Okay. So if we could, please, turn to slide number
`21 of Petitioner's demonstratives. As we see at the top
`here, so Riddle references the -- the reference used in
`grounds 1 and -- ground 1, rather, for teaching
`conversational flow. It teaches conversational flow both
`under the Board's and PO, Patent Owner's, constructions.
` So Patent Owner admits, as we note here, that Riddle
`will identify and combine activities in the same -- the same
`application program together. So it admits that Riddle is
`capable of identifying file share relating to work, capable
`of identifying Netflix. That meets the Board's construction.
`It also, as I'll explain, meets the Patent Owner's
`construction. So their own admission shows that Riddle
`teaches a conversational flow.
` Also, as we point out in the briefing, our position,
`too, is that the Patent Owner has waived arguments that
`Riddle does not teach conversational flow. And under the
`Board's construction is it did not address that construction
`19
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`in its briefing.
` Turning, if we could, please, to slide 4 of
`Petitioner's demonstratives.
` What -- what we've explained and what Riddle
`discloses is that in a network monitor that uses selectable
`information to classify traffic. As Patent Owner has argued
`that, as we show, Your Honors, the slide, that Riddle does
`not classify traffic per user, but only by the type of
`traffic based on profit -- property, such as the ports being,
`used is utterly inconsistent with the teachings of Riddle in
`its expressed disclosure.
` As we show here, for example, table 2 discloses the
`components, plural, from which traffic classes may be built.
`And it explains, for example, that a traffic class could be
`-- it included components such as an IP address, a port
`number Mac address for a client inside a network, and the
`same information for a server outside the network, as well as
`application information.
` So this teaching, as Dr. Weissman has explained, you
`can identify clients specific FTP flows, for example. And
`Patent Owner's own expert, Ms. Quigley, admits that Riddle
`teaches classified flows based on selectable information. At
`paragraph 63 of her Declaration, for example, she testifies
`that, Classifiers in Riddle are made up of attributes or
`specifications that allow categorizing of patents into
`traffic classes that may be of interest to the network
`manager.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
` And here, we have an example of what may be of
`interest to network manager are client-specific FTP flows.
` We turn to slide 25. Here, we're -- here, we explain
`and address the teachings around service aggregates in
`Riddle. Again, service aggregates, as well as recognition of
`PointCast flows are what Petitioner has relied upon for the
`teaching of conversational flow. The service aggregate is
`described in Riddle as being between a client and a server.
`It says nothing about aggregating all FTP close together. It
`says that they're an FTP client in conversation with an FTP
`server, and the service aggregate will recognize and
`aggregate those flows, those disjointed activity flows. It
`goes on to say, These types of conversations involving FTP
`are between the same two hosts.
` So quite contrary to what Patent Owner argues, Riddle
`discloses client-specific conversational flows.
` Dr. Weissman testified, as shown on the bottom of
`slide 25, without rebuttal, As an example of a traffic class,
`Riddle is an FTP application using a specific client side IP
`address and a specific server IP address.
` Again, that's not rebutted by Petitioner -- by Patent
`Owner or its expert.
` Turning briefly to slide 26, we show here Riddle
`teaches conversational flow. Again, in its claims, as Riddle
`claim 1 and claim 2, which Patent Owner never addresses,
`claim 1 says that You can create a flow specification based
`on multiple different attributes. One or more, and one of
`21
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`those attributes is a pair of hosts. We can identify flow
`classification based on the hosts involved as well as the
`application involved. Riddle -- riddle's claim 2 teaches
`that you can recognize a disjointed second flow, or a FTP or
`the other service aggregate, and recognize those together as
`one service aggregate. So that is an expressed, clear
`teaching of a conversational flow.
` And you know, Patent Owner's argument, and they've
`made this multiple times, is that Riddle would just aggregate
`all Skype flows together. So if there are multiple Skype
`calls in a network, it wouldn't specify one Skype call from a
`different -- another client's Skype call. All that we've
`gone over is totally inconsistent with that argument. But I
`think it's important to recognize that argument doesn't
`matter from what the claims require or what Riddle discloses.
`The claims don't require there be a multiplicity of flows.
`These claims were directed to operation
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
