Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Entered: January 11, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Entered: January 11, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`
`(Paper 3, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 7, and 16 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,965,709 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’709 patent”). Huawei
`
`Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 7). With our authorization (see Paper 9), Petitioner filed a
`
`Preliminary Reply (Paper 10) to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and
`
`Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 11). Pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes review of all the challenged
`
`claims, namely, claims 1, 4, 7, and 16, based on all the grounds presented in
`
`the Petition. Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”). Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a
`
`Response (Paper 17, “PO Resp.”) to the Petition, Petitioner filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 21, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 28, “PO
`
`Sur-reply”). On October 6, 2021, we conducted an oral hearing. A copy of
`
`the transcript (Paper 30, “Tr.”) is included in the record.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons that
`
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 1, 4, 7, and 16 of the ’709 patent are unpatentable. This
`
`Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties identify one related federal district court case, Huawei
`
`Technologies Co. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-00090
`
`(W.D. Tex.). Pet. 7; Paper 4, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioner filed a petition challenging claims 17, 18, 21,
`
`and 23 (not challenged in this proceeding) of the ’709 patent in IPR2020-
`
`01143. Pet. 7; Paper 4, 2. In a separate decision, we denied instituting trial
`
`in that case. Verizon Bus. Network Servs. Inc. v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`
`IPR2020-01143, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2021) (Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review).
`
`
`
`B. The ’709 Patent
`
`The ’709 patent relates to network switching. Ex. 1001, 1:6. In
`
`particular, the ’709 patent describes layer 2 bridge forwarding of Ethernet
`
`frames across virtual local area networks (VLANs). Id. at 1:6–15, 2:20–22.
`
`To illustrate, Figure 4 of the ’709 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a diagram of a cross-VLAN bridge forwarding apparatus
`
`according to one embodiment of the ’709 patent. Id. at 3:50–52. The bridge
`
`forwarding apparatus includes at least one input port, a forwarding unit, and
`
`at least one output port. Id. at 8:57–67.
`
`The input port receives a frame from a VLAN. Id. at 8:59–60.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`The forwarding unit includes an input analyzing module, a first
`
`forwarding module, a second forwarding module, and a storage module. Id.
`
`at 9:1–18. The input analyzing module obtains the input VLAN identifier
`
`(VLAN ID) and the destination MAC (DMAC) address of the frame, and
`
`outputs the input VLAN ID and the DMAC address to a first forwarding
`
`module. Id. at 9:7–9, Fig. 4. The first forwarding module determines the
`
`virtual switching instance (VSI) that corresponds to the combination of the
`
`input port and the input VLAN ID, then searches the MAC address
`
`forwarding table corresponding to the VSI (using the DMAC address as a
`
`keyword) to obtain the output port and the output VLAN ID. Id. at 4:37–39,
`
`7:16–18, 9:10–15. To do this, the first forwarding module uses information
`
`in the storage module, which stores the relationship between the
`
`combinations of the ports and the VLAN IDs with the VSIs, as well as the
`
`MAC address forwarding tables corresponding to each VSI. Id. at 9:2–6,
`
`Fig. 4. The search result of the first forwarding module is output to the
`
`second forwarding module, which transmits the frame to the output port
`
`according to the search result. Id. at 9:16–18, Fig. 4.
`
`The output port transmits the frame to the destination VLAN. Id.
`
`at 8:66–67.
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4, 7, and 16 of the ’709 patent.
`
`Claim 1 is independent and illustrative of the claims under challenge:
`
`1. A forwarding method, comprising:
`
`receiving, via an input port, a frame associated with a first
`virtual local area network (VLAN);
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`obtaining an input VLAN identifier (ID) representing the first
`VLAN and a destination media access control (MAC)
`address of the received frame;
`
`(VSI)
`Instance
`a Virtual Switching
`determining
`corresponding to the combination of the input port and the
`input VLAN ID;
`
`obtaining an output port and an output VLAN ID, wherein the
`output VLAN ID represents a second VLAN and wherein
`the output port and the output VLAN ID relate to the
`destination MAC address and the VSI; and
`
`communicating the received frame and the output VLAN ID
`to the obtained output port, wherein the output VLAN ID
`is different from the input VLAN ID.
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4, 7, and 16 of the ’709 patent on the
`
`following two grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.1 Pet. 8, 20–
`
`58. We instituted inter partes review of both grounds. Inst. Dec. 46.
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`References
`
`1, 4, 16
`
`7
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Carrie,2 Hawthorne3
`
`Carrie, Hawthorne, Dobbins4
`
`In support of its arguments, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of Dr. Samrat
`
`Bhattacharjee (Ex. 1003). Patent Owner submits with its Response a
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) amended 35 U.S.C. § 103,
`effective March 16, 2013. See Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88
`(2011). Because the application that issued as the ’709 patent was filed
`before this date, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies.
`2 Carrie, U.S. Patent No. 7,693,158 B1, issued Apr. 6, 2010 (Ex. 1005).
`3 Hawthorne, U.S. Publ’n No. 2003/0152075 A1, published Aug. 14, 2003
`(Ex. 1006).
`4 Dobbins, U.S. Patent No. 6,711,171 B1, issued Mar. 23, 2004 (Ex. 1007).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D. (Ex. 2017).5
`
`The transcripts of the depositions of Drs. Bhattacharjee and Davis are
`
`entered in the record as Exhibits 2018 and 1036, respectively.
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`We begin our analysis by addressing the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Each of the parties has proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. In
`
`particular, Petitioner proposes:
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in October 2005
`would have had a working knowledge of the network forwarding
`art that is pertinent to the ’709 Patent, including art describing
`Ethernet (layer 2) bridges and their functionality. A POSITA
`would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science,
`computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of
`professional experience relating to network forwarding devices.
`Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional
`education, and vice versa.
`
`Pet. 13. Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Bhattacharjee.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–30). On the other hand, Patent Owner proposes:
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’709 patent
`(a “POSITA”) would have had at least a Bachelor’s or a Master’s
`degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical and
`electronics engineering, telecommunications and networking, or
`some similar field of endeavor, along with three or more years of
`experience with networking
`technologies for
`the former
`(Bachelor’s degree holder) and two or more years’ of experience
`for the latter (Master’s degree holder), or the industry equivalent
`thereof, together with an understanding of switch and router
`
`
`5 Patent Owner had submitted with its Preliminary Response a Declaration
`of Dr. Nathaniel J. Davis IV, Ph.D. (Ex. 2013), but does not rely on that
`declaration in its Response. See generally PO Resp.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`system design. Additional education or work experience in a
`relevant field may substitute for one of the other aspects of the
`qualifications stated above.
`
`PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Davis.
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 28–32).
`
`Either proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`reflected by the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). On
`
`this record, the level of ordinary skill is neither in dispute nor dispositive of
`
`any challenge. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Patent Owner’s
`
`articulation.
`
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`In this inter partes review proceeding, we construe claims of a patent
`
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe
`
`the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b). See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b) (2019). Applying that standard, we construe claims in
`
`accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In so doing, we
`
`take into account the specification and prosecution history. Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1315–17.
`
`Patent Owner proposes construing the claim term “Virtual Switching
`
`Instance (VSI)” as “a cross-VLAN bridge that binds a set of one or more
`
`virtual input ports {input port, input VLAN ID} to a virtual output port
`
`{output port, output VLAN ID}.” PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the district court’s construction of the same
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`claim term in the related litigation. Ex. 2016, 2 (Claim Construction Order).
`
`Although Petitioner acknowledges that Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction “matches” the district court’s construction, Petitioner insists
`
`that “no construction is necessary.” Pet. Reply 2. Petitioner adds that, “[i]n
`
`any event, the prior art renders this term obvious under any plain and
`
`ordinary construction, including the district court’s.” Id.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no claim term
`
`requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding.
`
`See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999).
`
`
`
`C. Obviousness over Carrie and Hawthorne
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 4, and 16 of the ’709 patent would
`
`have been obvious over Carrie and Hawthorne. Pet. 15, 20–49. Patent
`
`Owner opposes. PO Resp. 13–71. For the reasons explained below, we
`
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that claims 1, 4, and 16 would have been obvious over Carrie and
`
`Hawthorne.
`
`
`
`1. Overview of Asserted Prior Art
`
`We start with an overview of the asserted prior art, Carrie and
`
`Hawthorne.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`a. Carrie
`
`Carrie describes “selectively processing VLAN traffic from different
`
`networks while allowing flexible VLAN identifier assignment.” Ex. 1005,
`
`1:10–15. To illustrate, Figure 4 of Carrie is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a flow chart of a method according to Carrie for assigning virtual
`
`switch identifiers based on port identifiers and VLAN identifiers, and
`
`selectively processing frames using these identifiers. Id. at 7:60–63.
`
`Starting with step 400, a layer 2 frame with a VLAN identifier is
`
`received at a port of a layer 2 switch. Id. at 1:21–23, 7:64–65, Fig. 9
`
`(frame 900 with VLAN ID). Next, at step 402, a port identifier is assigned
`
`to the frame. Id. at 7:65–66. Carrie notes that the port identifier may be
`
`added to the frame on entry into the switch. Id. at 4:26–28, 9:56–57, Fig. 9
`
`(port identifier 902). At step 404, the VLAN identifier is extracted from the
`
`frame. Id. at 7:66–67. At step 406, a virtual switch identifier table is
`
`searched using the VLAN identifier and the port identifier combination to
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`determine a virtual switch identifier. Id. at 4:41–43, 7:67–8:2. The
`
`combination of port and VLAN identifiers is preferably unique. Id. at 4:50–
`
`51. The virtual switch identifier is then used to access a per-virtual-switch
`
`data structure at step 408, where the data structure may include a forwarding
`
`database. Id. at 4:43–45, 8:3–5. Thereafter, at step 410, the frame is
`
`processed according to the per-virtual-switch data structure. Id. at 8:5–6.
`
`For example, the frame may be forwarded to a node or nodes associated with
`
`the same virtual switch. Id. at 8:6–8. At step 412, the per-virtual-switch
`
`data structures are updated. Id. at 8:8–9.
`
`
`
`b. Hawthorne
`
`Hawthorne relates to forwarding traffic through a packet-based
`
`network using VLAN technology. Ex. 1006 ¶ 2. In particular, Hawthorne
`
`describes translating a VLAN ID of received VLAN traffic from an input
`
`VLAN ID to an output VLAN ID before transmitting the traffic from the
`
`network node. Id. ¶ 13. To illustrate, Figure 8 of Hawthorne is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`Figure 8 shows an example application of VLAN ID translation according to
`
`Hawthorne, which ensures the uniqueness of VLAN traffic when the same
`
`VLAN ID is used for traffic at more than one port of a network node. Id.
`
`¶ 65. For example, each of Customers A, B, and C may send traffic to the
`
`service provider edge device on VLAN ID 20, with the next hop for the
`
`traffic being to service provider network 810 via port interface 5 of the
`
`service provider edge device. Id. The VLAN ID translation rule at port
`
`interface 1 translates input VLAN ID 20 to output VLAN ID 25 and output
`
`port 5, the VLAN ID translation rule at port interface 2 translates input
`
`VLAN ID 20 to output VLAN ID 27 and output port 5, and the VLAN ID
`
`translation rule at port interface 3 translates input VLAN ID 20 to output
`
`VLAN ID 29 and output port 5. Id. Because the traffic from each input port
`
`interface is sent out of port interface 5 on different VLAN IDs, the traffic
`
`that is sent from port interface 5 can be differentiated within the service
`
`provider network based on VLAN ID alone. Id.
`
`
`
`2. Independent Claim 1
`
`We now turn to our discussion of the claims. Claim 1 is directed to a
`
`“forwarding method” that comprises five steps designated by Petitioner as
`
`steps 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5. Step 1.1 involves receiving a frame via an
`
`input port. Step 1.2 involves obtaining an input VLAN identifier and a
`
`destination MAC address of the received frame. Step 1.3 involves
`
`determining a virtual switching instance. Step 1.4 involves obtaining an
`
`output port and an output VLAN identifier. Step 1.5 involves
`
`communicating the received frame and the output VLAN identifier to the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`output port. We address these steps in turn and then consider the parties’
`
`disputes as to claim 1.
`
`
`
`a. Step 1.1: Receiving a Frame Via an Input Port
`
`Claim 1 recites “receiving, via an input port, a frame associated with a
`
`first virtual local area network (VLAN).” For this limitation, designated by
`
`Petitioner as step 1.1, Petitioner provides an annotated version of Figure 1 of
`
`Carrie, which is reproduced below. Pet. 32.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Carrie, as annotated by Petitioner, is a block diagram of a layer 2
`
`network and a layer 2 switch. See Ex. 1005, 3:51–53. The layer 2 switch
`
`has multiple ports, where each port is assigned a port identifier. Id. at 4:22–
`
`26, Fig. 1. Petitioner directs us to where Carrie teaches that “a layer 2 frame
`
`is received at a port of a layer 2 switch.” Id. at 7:64–65 (cited by Pet. 31).
`
`The layer 2 frame includes a VLAN identifier. Id. at 1:21–23; see also id.
`
`at 7:66–67 (“[T]he VLAN identifier is extracted from the layer 2 frame.”)
`
`(cited by Pet. 31). Networks assign VLAN identifiers to their layer 2 traffic.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`Id. at 1:31–35. In Figure 1, for example, Customer A uses VLAN
`
`identifier 23 on port 1. Id. at 4:33–38 (cited by Pet. 31–32).
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`
`Carrie teaches the recited limitation of step 1.1. Patent Owner does not
`
`challenge Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`
`b. Step 1.2: Obtaining an Input VLAN Identifier and
`a Destination MAC Address
`
`Claim 1 further recites “obtaining an input VLAN identifier (ID)
`
`representing the first VLAN and a destination media access control (MAC)
`
`address of the received frame.” For this limitation, designated by Petitioner
`
`as step 1.2, Petitioner directs us to where Carrie teaches that “the VLAN
`
`identifier is extracted from the layer 2 frame.” Ex. 1005, 7:64–67 (quoted
`
`by Pet. 33). As additional support, Petitioner directs us to the flow chart in
`
`Figure 4 of Carrie, which illustrates the step “EXTRACT VLAN ID FROM
`
`FRAME.” Id. at Fig. 4 (step 404) (cited by Pet. 33).
`
`Petitioner also directs us to Figure 9 of Carrie, which shows that
`
`“[f]orwarding database 910 . . . receives as input the MAC destination
`
`address” and a virtual switch ID. Ex. 1005, 10:14–15, Fig. 9 (cited by
`
`Pet. 33–34). Carrie teaches that “[u]sing the virtual switch ID in
`
`combination with the MAC destination address allows the portion of
`
`forwarding database 910 that is specific to the virtual switch to be selected.”
`
`Id. at 10:16–18 (cited by Pet. 33). The output of forwarding database 910
`
`may be an output port or a flood list. Id. at 10:23–24. We note Carrie’s
`
`teaching that “portions of the hardware illustrated in FIG. 9 may also be
`
`used to implement the processing steps illustrated in . . . FIG[]. 4.” Id.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`at 9:49–54; see also id. at 6:39–42 (stating with respect to Figure 3, “[i]f a
`
`forwarding database entry for the received MAC destination address does
`
`not exist, the frame is flooded only onto ports associated with the same
`
`virtual switch”); id. at 8:5–8 (stating with respect to Figure 4, “[i]n step 410,
`
`the frame is processed using the per-virtual-switch data structure,” where,
`
`“[f]or example, the frame may be forwarded or flooded to a node or nodes
`
`associated with the same virtual switch”).
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`
`Carrie teaches the recited limitation of step 1.2. Patent Owner does not
`
`challenge Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`
`c. Step 1.3: Determining a Virtual Switching Instance (VSI)
`
`Claim 1 further recites “determining a Virtual Switching Instance
`
`(VSI) corresponding to the combination of the input port and the input
`
`VLAN ID.” For this limitation, designated by Petitioner as step 1.3,
`
`Petitioner contends that Carrie’s “switch maintains a plurality of virtual
`
`switches, where each virtual switch is a virtual switch instance identified by
`
`a virtual switch identifier.” Pet. 34. As support, Petitioner directs us to
`
`where Carrie teaches that “when a layer 2 frame is received, [a] virtual
`
`switch identifier is determined and used to access the forwarding data for
`
`that virtual switch.” Ex. 1005, 6:37–39 (cited by Pet. 34–35). Specifically,
`
`the frame’s “VLAN identifier and the port identifier are used to determine
`
`[the] virtual switch identifier.” Id. at 2:65–3:2 (cited by Pet. 35); see also id.
`
`at code (57) (“[A] layer 2 switch includes a virtual switch identifier data
`
`structure that associates a VLAN identifier extracted from a layer 2 frame
`
`and a port identifier corresponding to a port on which a frame is received
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`with a virtual switch identifier.”) (cited by Pet. 35); id. at 5:37–40 (stating
`
`that “the VLAN identifiers and the corresponding port identifiers are
`
`provisioned in [a] virtual switch ID table,” where “each unique combination
`
`of VLAN identifier and port identifier may be assigned to a virtual switch”)
`
`(cited by Pet. 35). Carrie additionally teaches that the MAC destination
`
`address and “the virtual switch ID[ are] input into forwarding database 910”
`
`to “allow[] the portion of forwarding database 910 that is specific to the
`
`virtual switch to be selected,” and that “[t]he output of forwarding
`
`database 910 may be an output port, a flood list, or a multicast list.” Id.
`
`at 10:13–18, 23–24 (cited by Pet. 36–37). According to Petitioner, Carrie’s
`
`“virtual switch identifier identifies a virtual switching instance as claimed.”
`
`Pet. 37. Petitioner relies on the declaration testimony of Dr. Bhattacharjee.
`
`Id. at 34–37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 135–136, 138–139).
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`
`Carrie teaches the limitation of step 1.3. Patent Owner, however, challenges
`
`certain aspects of Petitioner’s analysis regarding the recited “Virtual
`
`Switching Instance (VSI).” See PO Resp. 69–71. We address the parties’
`
`dispute in further detail below. See infra Part III.B.2.f.i.
`
`
`
`d. Step 1.4: Obtaining an Output Port and an Output VLAN Identifier
`
`Claim 1 further recites “obtaining an output port and an output VLAN
`
`ID, wherein the output VLAN ID represents a second VLAN and wherein
`
`the output port and the output VLAN ID relate to the destination MAC
`
`address and the VSI.” For this limitation, designated by Petitioner as
`
`step 1.4, Petitioner relies on both Carrie and Hawthorne.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`With respect to obtaining an output port, Petitioner directs us to where
`
`Carrie teaches:
`
`The output of multiplexer 908, which is the virtual switch ID,
`is input into forwarding database 910. Forwarding database 910
`also receives as input the MAC destination address. Using the
`virtual switch ID in combination with the MAC destination
`address allows the portion of forwarding database 910 that is
`specific to the virtual switch to be selected. . . . The output of
`forwarding database 910 may be an output port, a flood list,
`or a multicast list, depending on the output of the lookup.
`
`Pet. 37–38 (quoting Ex. 1005, 10:13–25). According to Petitioner, this
`
`teaching in Carrie discloses obtaining an output port based on the virtual
`
`switch ID and the destination MAC address. Id. at 38 (Petitioner’s
`
`annotated Figure 9 of Carrie).
`
`With respect to obtaining an output VLAN ID, Petitioner turns to
`
`Hawthorne. Specifically, Petitioner directs us to where Hawthorne teaches
`
`“translating [an] input VLAN ID to an output VLAN ID,” where the input
`
`VLAN ID identifies traffic received at a network node as belonging to a first
`
`VLAN, and the output VLAN ID identifies the traffic leaving the network
`
`node as belonging to a second VLAN. Ex. 1006 ¶ 15 (cited by Pet. 38).
`
`Petitioner also directs us to where Hawthorne describes “VLAN ID
`
`translation rules [that] specify the desired relationships between input VLAN
`
`IDs and output VLAN IDs.” Id. ¶ 57 (cited by Pet. 39). For example,
`
`“VLAN ID translation rules [may] specify an input port and VLAN ID pair
`
`that translate to an output port and VLAN ID pair.” Id. Hawthorne notes
`
`that the “VLAN ID translation rules may include additional criteria,”
`
`including “a DA MAC” (i.e., destination address MAC address). Id. ¶¶ 54,
`
`57.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily
`
`skilled artisan to “utilize Hawthorne’s teachings regarding its improved
`
`VLAN translation technique in combination with Carrie’s system––for
`
`example, in order to differentiate customer traffic forwarded to a service
`
`provider network.” Pet. 24; see also id. at 27–28 (“This expanded solution
`
`would have differentiated VLAN traffic from different networks not only
`
`within Carrie’s layer 2 switch but also when forwarding such traffic to a
`
`service provider connected to a single output port.”). As support, Petitioner
`
`asserts that Carrie “allows its switch to segregate customers’ VLAN traffic
`
`from different networks even if the customers utilize the same VLAN IDs”
`
`but “does not explicitly address the problematic situation in which traffic
`
`from two different networks with the same VLAN ID is forwarded to the
`
`same output port––for example, an output port connected to a service
`
`provider serving both networks.” Id. at 25–26. Petitioner further asserts that
`
`Hawthorne’s “VLAN translation technique allows ‘the uniqueness of each
`
`customer’s VLAN traffic [to be] maintained at the output port interface’” so
`
`that “‘different customers connected to different ports of a service provider
`
`edge device [] 812 [may] independently use the same VLAN IDs to send
`
`traffic’ to a single service provider network 810.” Id. at 26 (citing Ex. 1006
`
`¶ 65).
`
`To illustrate, Petitioner provides an annotated version of Figure 8 of
`
`Hawthorne, which is reproduced below. Id. at 27.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 8 of Hawthorne, as annotated by Petitioner, “depicts an example
`
`application of VLAN ID translation that ensures the uniqueness of VLAN
`
`traffic when the same VLAN ID is used for traffic at more than one port of
`
`the network node.” See Ex. 1006 ¶ 32. According to Petitioner, an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have “modif[ied] Carrie’s layer 2 switch
`
`such that it translated an input VLAN ID of a received frame into an output
`
`VLAN ID, in the manner taught by Hawthorne,” in order to “augment
`
`Carrie’s virtual switch solution with Hawthorne’s known VLAN translation
`
`technique to create a more complete solution to the problem of different
`
`customer networks using the same VLAN ID.” Pet. 27. Petitioner adds that,
`
`“[a]s an aspect of this combination, it would have been obvious that Carrie’s
`
`output VLAN ID would relate to a particular virtual switch because the same
`
`variables that are used to select the output VLAN ID are also used to select
`
`the virtual switch identifier for that particular virtual switch––i.e., input port
`
`and input VLAN ID.” Id. at 40–41. Petitioner relies on the declaration
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`testimony of Dr. Bhattacharjee. Id. at 24–31, 40–41 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`¶¶ 118–122, 124–128, 144).
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`
`the proposed combination of Carrie and Hawthorne teaches the recited
`
`limitation of step 1.4. We also are persuaded that Petitioner’s proffered
`
`reasoning for modifying Carrie’s system to include Hawthorne’s VLAN ID
`
`translation, namely, to provide “a more complete solution to the problem of
`
`different customer networks using the same VLAN ID,” is sufficient to
`
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
`
`988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with
`
`some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.”). Specifically, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combination would provide for differentiating traffic from different
`
`customer networks that is forwarded to the same output port, even where the
`
`different customer networks use the same VLAN ID. See Ex. 1006 ¶ 65
`
`(“Because the VLAN traffic from each input port interface is sent out port
`
`interface 5 on different VLAN IDs, the traffic that is sent from port
`
`interface 5 can be differentiated within the service provider network based
`
`on VLAN ID alone.”) (cited by Pet. 26).
`
`Patent Owner challenges certain aspects of Petitioner’s analysis
`
`regarding the rationale for combining Carrie and Hawthorne. See PO Resp.
`
`13–69. We address the parties’ disputes in further detail below. See infra
`
`Parts III.B.2.f.ii–v.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`
`e. Step 1.5: Communicating the Received Frame and
`the Output VLAN Identifier to the Output Port
`
`Lastly, claim 1 recites “communicating the received frame and the
`
`output VLAN ID to the obtained output port, wherein the output VLAN ID
`
`is different from the input VLAN ID.” For this limitation, Petitioner directs
`
`us to where Carrie describes a switch fabric that “switches frames between
`
`input and output ports.” Ex. 1005, 5:20–21, Fig. 2 (cited by Pet. 41–42).
`
`Petitioner also directs us to where Hawthorne teaches that an “L2 forwarding
`
`engine attaches the translated VLAN ID to the traffic and forwards the
`
`traffic to the output port.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 60 (quoted by Pet. 42) (emphasis by
`
`Petitioner omitted). Hawthorne teaches that the translated (or output) VLAN
`
`ID is different than the input VLAN ID. Ex. 1006, code (57), ¶ 43, Fig. 2
`
`(cited by Pet. 43). According to Petitioner, “it would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA that Carrie’s switch––when modified in view of Hawthorne to
`
`determine an output VLAN ID––would have sent the determined output
`
`VLAN ID to the output port so that the frame may be tagged before
`
`transmission.” Pet. 42–43.
`
`Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`
`the proposed combination of Carrie and Hawthorne teaches the recited
`
`limitation of step 1.5. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s analysis
`
`for this limitation. See generally PO Resp.
`
`
`
`f. Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
`As noted above, Patent Owner makes several arguments. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s showing that its proposed
`
`combination of Carrie and Hawthorne teaches the recited Virtual Switching
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`Instance (VSI). Patent Owner also challenges Petitioner’s rationale for
`
`combining Carrie and Hawthorne. Patent Owner argues specifically that the
`
`proposed combination alters Carrie’s principle of operation, renders Carrie’s
`
`solution inoperable for its intended purpose, fails to provide a more
`
`complete solution, and fails to differentiate traffic from different security
`
`domains within the same entity. We address Patent Owner’s arguments in
`
`turn.
`
`
`
`i. Virtual Switching Instance (VSI)
`
`Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s showing for the recited Virtual
`
`Switching Instance, arguing that, “at a minimum, determining a VSI
`
`involves determining a cross-VLAN bridge that includes both a set of one or
`
`more virtual input ports and a virtual output port,” and that Petitioner’s
`
`“analysis of Element [1.3] . . . failed to address these minimum
`
`requirements.” PO Resp. 69–70. Patent Owner bases this argument on its
`
`proposed construction of a VSI, namely, “a cross-VLAN bridge that binds a
`
`set of one or more virtual input ports {input port, input VLAN ID} to a
`
`virtual output port {output port, output VLAN ID}.” See id. at 6. Patent
`
`Owner specifically notes that Petitioner’s “mapping of the VSI in Element
`
`[1.3] . . . relies solely on Carrie, which maps input ports and input VLAN
`
`IDs to virtual switches.” Id. at 70; see also id. at 71 (“[T]he only port-
`
`VLAN ID pairs associated with Carrie’s virtual switches are on the input
`
`side.”). According to Patent Owner, “Carrie’s virtual switches do not bind
`
`virtual input port(s) to ‘a virtual output port {output port, output VLAN
`
`ID}’ as required of the claimed VSIs, but instead provide per-virtual switch
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01141
`Patent 7,965,709 B2
`
`forwarding tables that merely specify ‘output ports’ (and not output VLAN
`
`IDs) on a per-virtual switch basis.” Id. at 71.
`
`Petitioner counters that Patent Owner’s “analysis is incomplete
`
`because it fails to consider the combination of Carrie and Hawthorne set
`
`forth in the Petition, including in element [1.4] where the claim actually
`
`recites
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
