Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:
` 2201
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`“[two or more]
`software routines
`arranged in a sequence
`that was not established
`in a chain of modules
`connected before
`receiving a first packet
`of the message”
`
`#
`
`2
`
`Claim Term
`
`“sequence of [two or more]
`routines”
`
`“one or more routines”
`
`“routines in the sequence
`of routines”
`
`’683 Patent: Claims 1, 4, 5,
`8, 9, 24
`’790 Patent: Claims 1, 3, 4,
`5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18
`’104 Patent: Claims 1, 3, 5,
`10, 12, 13, 16
`’780 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 3,
`16, 20
`’839 Patent: Claim 1
`’378 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 3,
`16, 17, 20
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`’683 Patent:
`Abstract; 1:45-2:11; 2:42-53; 2:61-3:12; 3:14-38; 3:39-67; 4:1-44; 4:45-5:5;
`5:24-31; 5:32-6:3; 8:38-9:32; Figs. 1, 4, 8.
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 6, 2013 Preliminary Amendment, pp. 3-7.
`Jun. 6, 2013 Applicant Remarks, pp. 9-12.
`Dec. 6, 2013 Examiner Interview Summary Record, Applicant Initiated
`Interview Summary
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks dated, p.10.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 067099-139), pp. 11-15, 18-21, 25-33.
`Oct. 21, 2009 Interview Summary (IMPL 066871-75).
`Oct. 21, 2009 Examiner Interview Slide Presentation (IMPL 066876-93),
`slides 2-3, 5-9, 12.
`December 18, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed
`December 4, 2009 (IMPL 066818-34), pp. 3, 5, 8, 10-12
`Feb. 4, 2010 Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (IMPL 66726-31).
`Feb. 8, 2010 Amendment and Response to Advisory Action Mailed January
`21, 2010 and Summary of February 4, 2010 Interview (IMPL 066702-22),
`pp. 2-5, 7-8, 10-11, 12-17.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 1, 5-8, 17-19, 26-28.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 1, 5-9, 29-31, 34-35.
`
`1
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 1
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:
` 2202
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660 (’875 Patent):
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 2, 4-10, 17-19.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 1-3, 11-15.
`
`Implicit v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 314-cv-02856 (N.D. Cal.):
`“Sequence/List of routines, therefore, is construed as “a sequence [list] of
`software routines that was not identified (i.e., configured) prior to receiving
`a first packet of the message.”
`
`Implicit v. Trend Micro Incorporated, No. 6:17-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex.):
`“sequence of routines” means “an ordered arrangement of software routines
`that was not identified (i.e., configured) prior to receiving a first packet of
`the message”; and “sequence of two or more routines” means “an ordered
`arrangement of two or more software routines that was not identified (i.e.,
`configured) prior to receiving a first packet of the message.”
`“list of conversion routines” means “an ordered arrangement of software
`routines for changing the form of data and that was not identified (i.e.,
`configured) prior to receiving a first packet of the message.”
`
`Implicit v. Huawei (Palo Alto Networks), No. 6:17-cv-00182 (E.D. Tex.)
`(agreed construction): “an ordered arrangement of [two or more] software
`routines that was not identified (i.e., configured) prior to receiving a first
`packet of the message”
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “sequence
`of [two or more] routines” construed to mean “an ordered arrangement of
`[two or more] software routines that was not selected from a set of
`arrangements created before receiving a first packet of the message”; “list
`of conversion routines” construed to mean “an ordered arrangement of
`
`
`
`2
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 2
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:
` 2203
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`3
`
`“list of conversion
`routines”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 1
`
`“software conversion
`routines arranged in a
`sequence that was not
`established in a chain
`of modules connected
`before receiving a first
`packet of the message”
`
`
`software conversion routines that was not selected from a set of
`arrangements created before receiving a first packet of the message.”
`
`Implicit v. Juniper (F5 Networks, Inc.), No. C 10-3746 (N.D. Cal.): “non-
`predefined sequence of components” construed to mean “a sequence of
`software routines that was not identified before the first packet of a message
`was received.”
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent:
`Abstract; 1:45-2:11; 2:42-53; 2:61-3:12; 3:14-38; 3:39-67; 4:1-44; 4:45-5:5;
`5:24-31; 5:32-6:3; 8:38-9:32; Figs. 1, 4, 8.
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 6, 2013 Preliminary Amendment, pp. 3-7.
`Jun. 6, 2013 Applicant Remarks, pp. 9-12.
`Dec. 6, 2013 Examiner Interview Summary Record, Applicant Initiated
`Interview Summary
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks dated, p.10.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 067099-139), pp. 11-15, 18-21, 25-33.
`Oct. 21, 2009 Interview Summary (IMPL 066871-75).
`
`
`
`3
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 3
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:
` 2204
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`Oct. 21, 2009 Examiner Interview Slide Presentation (IMPL 066876-93),
`slides 2-3, 5-9, 12.
`December 18, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed
`December 4, 2009 (IMPL 066818-34), pp. 3, 5, 8, 10-12
`Feb. 4, 2010 Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form (IMPL 66726-31).
`Feb. 8, 2010 Amendment and Response to Advisory Action Mailed January
`21, 2010 and Summary of February 4, 2010 Interview (IMPL 066702-22),
`pp. 2-5, 7-8, 10-11, 12-17.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 1, 5-8, 17-19, 26-28.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 1, 5-9, 29-31, 34-35.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660 (’875 Patent):
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 2, 4-10, 17-19.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 1-3, 11-15.
`
`Implicit v. F5 Networks, Inc., No. 314-cv-02856 (N.D. Cal.):
`“Sequence/List of routines, therefore, is construed as “a sequence [list] of
`software routines that was not identified (i.e., configured) prior to receiving
`a first packet of the message.”
`
`Implicit v. Trend Micro Incorporated, No. 6:17-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex.):
`“sequence of routines” means “an ordered arrangement of software routines
`that was not identified (i.e., configured) prior to receiving a first packet of
`the message”; and “sequence of two or more routines” means “an ordered
`
`
`
`4
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 4
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:
` 2205
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`arrangement of two or more software routines that was not identified (i.e.,
`configured) prior to receiving a first packet of the message.”
`“list of conversion routines” means “an ordered arrangement of software
`routines for changing the form of data and that was not identified (i.e.,
`configured) prior to receiving a first packet of the message.”
`
`Implicit v. Huawei (Palo Alto Networks), No. 6:17-cv-00182 (E.D. Tex.)
`(agreed construction): “an ordered arrangement of [two or more] software
`routines that was not identified (i.e., configured) prior to receiving a first
`packet of the message”
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “sequence
`of [two or more] routines” construed to mean “an ordered arrangement of
`[two or more] software routines that was not selected from a set of
`arrangements created before receiving a first packet of the message”; “list
`of conversion routines” construed to mean “an ordered arrangement of
`software conversion routines that was not selected from a set of
`arrangements created before receiving a first packet of the message.”
`
`Implicit v. Juniper (F5 Networks, Inc.), No. C 10-3746 (N.D. Cal.): “non-
`predefined sequence of components” construed to mean “a sequence of
`software routines that was not identified before the first packet of a message
`was received.”
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 5
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:
` 2206
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`“convert the outermost
`header structure of the
`packet(s) from TCP to
`another type of header
`structure”
`
`
`#
`
`5
`
`Claim Term
`
`“convert one or more
`packets having a TCP
`format into a different
`format”
`
`“convert at least one or
`more of the packets of the
`message into a different
`format”
`
`“convert packets having a
`TCP format into a different
`format”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 1
`’790 Patent: Claims 1, 8,
`15
`’780 Patent: Claims 1, 16
`’839 Patent: Claim 1
`’378 Patent: Claims 1, 16
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`’683 Patent:
`1:24-2:3; 2:42-53; 3:39-67; 4:45-5:5; 5:32-58; 6:28-31; 6:46-54; 11:29-33;
`14:4-17.
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 3, 2013 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, pp. 3-7.
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, p.10.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 066876-93), pp. 14-15, 21-22, 28.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 8, 17-19, 19-21, 29-31.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 4-5, 7-13, 18-20, 32, 37.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 21-22, 26-28.
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “convert one
`or more packets [having a TCP format/of the message] into a different
`format” construed as “convert the outermost header structure of the
`packet(s) from TCP to another type of structure
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 6
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:
` 2207
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`6
`
`“convert one or more
`packets in a transport layer
`format into a different
`format”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 10
`
`“convert the outermost
`header structure of the
`packet(s) from a
`transport layer protocol
`header to another type
`of header structure”
`
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent:
`1:24-2:3; 2:42-53; 3:39-67; 4:45-5:5; 5:32-58; 6:28-31; 6:46-54; 11:29-33;
`14:4-17.
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 3, 2013 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, pp. 3-7.
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, p.10.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 067099-139), pp. 14-15, 21-22, 28.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 8, 17-19, 19-21, 29-31.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 4-5, 7-13, 18-20, 32, 37.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 21-22, 26-28.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 7
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:
` 2208
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`7
`
`“convert packets of the
`different format into
`another format”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 2
`’790 Patent: Claim 3
`
`“convert each packet’s
`outermost header
`structure from the
`different protocol
`header into another
`type of header
`structure”
`
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “convert one
`or more packets [having a TCP format/of the message] into a different
`format” construed as “convert the outermost header structure of the
`packet(s) from TCP to another type of structure
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent:
`1:24-2:3; 2:42-53; 3:39-67; 4:45-5:5; 5:32-58; 6:28-31; 6:46-54; 11:29-33;
`14:4-17.
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 3, 2013 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, pp. 3-7.
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, p.10.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 067099-139), pp. 14-15, 21-22, 28.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 8, 17-19, 19-21, 29-31.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 4-5, 7-13, 18-20, 32, 37.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 8
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:
` 2209
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 21-22, 26-28.
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “convert
`packets of the different format into another format” construed as “convert
`each packet’s outermost header structure from the different protocol header
`into another type of header structure”
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent:
`1:24-2:3; 2:42-53; 3:39-67; 4:45-5:5; 5:32-58; 6:28-31; 6:46-54; 11:29-33;
`14:4-17.
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 3, 2013 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, pp. 3-7.
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, p.10.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 067099-139), pp. 14-15, 21-22, 28.
`
`
`“operate on one or
`more packets whose
`outermost header is a
`TCP header”
`
`
`8
`
`“execute a Transmission
`Control Protocol (TCP)”
`
`“perform a Transmission
`control Protocol (TCP)”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 1
`’790 Patent: Claims 1, 15
`’104 Patent: Claims 1, 16
`’780 Patent: Claims 1, 16
`’839 Patent: Claim 1
`’378 Patent: Claims 1, 16
`
`
`
`9
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 9
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:
` 2210
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 8, 17-19, 19-21, 29-31.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 4-5, 7-13, 18-20, 32, 37.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 21-22, 26-28.
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “execute a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)” construed as “operate on one or
`more packets whose outermost header is a TCP header”
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent:
`1:24-2:3; 2:42-53; 3:39-67; 4:45-5:5; 5:32-58; 6:28-31; 6:46-54; 11:29-33;
`14:4-17.
`
`
`
`9
`
`“executable to perform a
`Transmission Control
`Protocol (TCP)”
`
`’790 Patent: Claim 8
`
`“operable on one or
`more packets whose
`outermost header is a
`TCP header”
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 10
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:
` 2211
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 3, 2013 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, pp. 3-7.
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, p.10.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 067099-139), pp. 14-15, 21-22, 28.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 8, 17-19, 19-21, 29-31.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 4-5, 7-13, 18-20, 32, 37.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 21-22, 26-28.
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “execute a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)” construed as “operate on one or
`more packets whose outermost header is a TCP header”
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 11
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:
` 2212
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`10
`
`“execute a
`[second/different]
`protocol”
`
`
`“execute a [third/different]
`protocol”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 2
`’790 Patent: Claim 3
`
`“operate on packets
`whose outermost
`header is a
`[second/third], different
`protocol header”
`
`
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent:
`1:24-2:3; 2:42-53; 3:39-67; 4:45-5:5; 5:32-58; 6:28-31; 6:46-54; 11:29-33;
`14:4-17.
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 3, 2013 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, pp. 3-7.
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, p.10.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 067099-139), pp. 14-15, 21-22, 28.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 8, 17-19, 19-21, 29-31.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 4-5, 7-13, 18-20, 32, 37.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 21-22, 26-28.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 12
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:
` 2213
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`“operate on one or
`more packets whose
`outermost header is a
`TCP header”
`
`11
`
`“execute a Transmission
`Control Protocol (TCP) to
`process packets having a
`TCP format”
`
`“execute TCP to process at
`least one of the subsequent
`packets having a TCP
`format”
`
`’104 Patent: Claims 1, 10,
`16
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “execute a
`[second/third], different protocol” construed as “operate on packets whose
`outermost header is a [second/third], different protocol header”
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent:
`1:24-2:3; 2:42-53; 3:39-67; 4:45-5:5; 5:32-58; 6:28-31; 6:46-54; 11:29-33;
`14:4-17.
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 3, 2013 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, pp. 3-7.
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, p.10.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 067099-139), pp. 14-15, 21-22, 28.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 8, 17-19, 19-21, 29-31.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 4-5, 7-13, 18-20, 32, 37.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 13
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:
` 2214
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 21-22, 26-28.
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “execute a
`Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)” construed as “operate on one or
`more packets whose outermost header is a TCP header
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent:
`1:24-2:3; 2:42-53; 3:39-67; 4:45-5:5; 5:32-58; 6:28-31; 6:46-54; 11:29-33;
`14:4-17.
`
`’683 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00005310-640):
`Jun. 3, 2013 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, pp. 3-7.
`
`’104 Patent Prosecution History (IMPL_GRP.B_00003200-3478):
`Feb. 22, 2016 Preliminary Amendment and Remarks, p.10.
`Reexamination Control No. 90/010,356 (’163 Patent):
`
`12
`
`“execute a second protocol
`to process packets having a
`format other than the TCP
`format, wherein the second
`protocol is an application-
`level protocol”
`
`’104 Patent: Claim 3
`
`“execute a second
`protocol to operate on
`packets whose
`outermost header is
`other than a TCP
`header, wherein the
`second protocol is an
`application-level
`protocol”
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 14
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:
` 2215
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`Sep. 1, 2009 Amendment and Response to Office Action Mailed July 7,
`2009 (IMPL 067099-139), pp. 14-15, 21-22, 28.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Jun. 4, 2012 Patent Owner Response to April 3, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL046526-75), pp. 8, 17-19, 19-21, 29-31.
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 4-5, 7-13, 18-20, 32, 37.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660:
`Jul. 10, 2012 Patent Owner Response to May 10, 2012 Office Action
`(IMPL115399-445), pp. 7-9, 17-19, 21-22, 25-26, 35.
`Feb. 21, 2013 Comments to December 21, 2012 Action Closing Prosecution
`(IMPL046677-709), pp. 2-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 21-22, 26-28.
`
`Implicit v. NetScout Systems, No. 2:18-cv-53-JRG (E.D. Tex.): “execute a
`second protocol to process packets having a format other than the TCP,
`wherein the second protocol is an application-level protocol” construed as
`“execute a second protocol to operate on packets whose outermost header is
`other than a TCP header, wherein the second protocol is an application-
`level protocol”
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent
`2:24-25; 3:1-12; 3:43-67; 5:32-6:3; 6:22-41; 6:61-67; 7:1-11; 9:3-24; 11:20-
`12:12; 12:13-28; Figs. 6, 12, 13.
`
`14A “session associated with a
`[transport layer/different]
`protocol”
`
`“information that is
`specific to a software
`routine for executing a
`
`
`
`15
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 15
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:
` 2216
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 10
`
`14B “another session associated
`with a different protocol
`that is executed, wherein
`the different protocol
`corresponds to the different
`format”
`
`’683 Patent: Claim 10
`
`15
`
`“a TCP session associated
`with [the received] one or
`more [received] packets”
`
`“a single TCP session”
`
`’790 Patent: Claim 20
`’780 Patent: Claim 13
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`specific protocol, that
`can be used for all
`packets of the message,
`and that is not
`information related to
`an overall path”
`
`
`See above for
`construction of
`“session associated
`with a [transport
`layer/different]
`protocol,” to the extent
`further construction is
`necessary, plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`“information that is
`specific to a software
`routine for executing a
`TCP, that can be used
`for all packets of the
`message, and that is not
`information related to
`an overall path.”
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 17-18.
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`See above.
`
`’683 Patent
`2:24-25; 3:1-12; 3:43-67; 5:32-6:3; 6:22-41; 6:61-67; 7:1-11; 9:3-24; 11:20-
`12:12; 12:13-28; Figs. 6, 12, 13.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 17-18
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Juniper Ex. 1026-p. 16
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161-2 Filed 11/26/19 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:
` 2217
`Exhibit B: Defendants’ Proposed Constructions and Evidence
`
`#
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`
`Defendants’ Supporting Evidence
`
`16
`
`“sessions corresponding to
`[various/respective] ones of
`the sequence of [two or
`more] routines”
`
`’790 Patent, Claims 5, 12,
`17
`’104 Patent: Claim 5, 12
`
`“information that is
`specific to a software
`routine for executing a
`specific protocol that
`can be used for all
`packets of the message,
`and that is not
`information related to
`an overall path”
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior proceedings involving the
`patents at issue, and evidence cited therein. Any prosecution histories or
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related
`families.
`’683 Patent
`2:24-25; 3:1-12; 3:43-67; 5:32-6:3; 6:22-41; 6:61-67; 7:1-11; 9:3-24; 11:20-
`12:12; 12:13-28; Figs. 6, 12, 13.
`
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 (’163 Patent):
`Dec. 3, 2012 Patent Owner Comments to October 1, 2012 Action Closing
`Prosecution (IMPL046578-630), pp. 2, 17-18
`
`All documents and evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`All briefs, orders and statements from prior pro