`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`PROVEN NETWORKS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00595
`U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. KEVIN JEFFAY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,165,024
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 1
`
`

`

`V.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................1
`SUMMARY OF GROUNDS ................................................................6
`II.
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE.................................................6
`IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ............................................................. 11
`A. My Understanding of Claim Construction .................................... 11
`B. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................... 13
`C. My Understanding of Obviousness .............................................. 13
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................... 15
`A.
`The ’024 patent relies on general computer networking
`concepts. ................................................................................. 15
`1.
`Network Protocols and Protocol Layering ........................... 15
`2.
`Network Packets .............................................................. 32
`3.
`Queues in Network Interconnection Devices ....................... 33
`4.
`Congestion Control and Random Early Detection ................ 35
`5.
`Quality-of-Service and Priority Forwarding......................... 39
`6.
`Differentiated Services ..................................................... 40
`Traffic on computer networks increased dramatically with the
`increase of publicly available content on networks. ....................... 42
`C. Network administrators deployed traffic shaping to preserve
`network integrity and performance. ............................................. 44
`VI. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ’024 PATENT ............................... 46
`A.
`Claim Construction ................................................................... 49
`1.
`“communication module” (claim 16) .................................. 50
`
`B.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`VII. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRIOR ART.................................. 51
`A.
`Segel ....................................................................................... 51
`B.
`Rezaiifar .................................................................................. 54
`VIII. GROUNDS OF REJECTION .............................................................. 55
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-18, and 22-25 are obvious over
`Segel. ...................................................................................... 55
`1.
`Independent claim 1 ......................................................... 56
`2.
`Independent claim 16 ....................................................... 75
`3.
`Dependent claims 2 and 17 ............................................... 81
`4.
`Dependent claims 3 and 18 ............................................... 82
`5.
`Dependent claims 7 and 22 ............................................... 84
`6.
`Dependent claims 8 and 23 ............................................... 87
`7.
`Dependent claim 9 ........................................................... 88
`8.
`Dependent claim 11 ......................................................... 89
`9.
`Dependent claims 12 and 24 .............................................. 90
`10. Dependent claims 13 and 25 .............................................. 91
`11. Dependent claims 14 and 15 .............................................. 93
`B. Ground 2: Claims 4-6, 10, and 19-21 are obvious over Segel in
`view of Rezaiifar. ..................................................................... 95
`1. Motivation to Combine ..................................................... 95
`2.
`Dependent claims 4 and 19 ............................................... 98
`3.
`Dependent claims 5 and 20 ............................................... 99
`4.
`Dependent claims 6 and 21 ............................................. 100
`5.
`Dependent claim 10 ....................................................... 101
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 103
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 4
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`I.
`
`I, Dr. Kevin Jeffay, declare as follows:
`BACKGROUND
`I have been retained by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox, P.L.L.C.
`1.
`
`(“SKGF”), which represents Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) in connection
`
`with the above-captioned inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024 to
`
`Dolganow et al., titled “Use of DPI to Extract and Forward Application
`
`Characteristics,” (EX1001). I understand that the ’024 patent is currently assigned
`
`to Proven Networks, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’024 patent, which issued to
`
`Andrew Dolganow, Keith Allan, and Colin Leon Kahn on April 24, 2012. I
`
`understand that the ’024 patent includes 25 claims and that claims 1 and 16 are the
`
`independent claims. I also understand that the Petition for inter partes review that
`
`accompanies this Declaration seeks to cancel all 25 claims (“challenged claims”)
`
`of the ’024 patent. Thus, my analysis and opinions will focus on all of the
`
`challenged claims, claims 1-25, of the ’024 patent. In this Declaration, I will cite to
`
`the specification of the ’024 patent using a format like the following: EX1001,
`
`’024 patent, 1:1-10. This example citation points to the ’024 patent specification at
`
`column 1, lines 1-10.
`
`3.
`
`In addition to the ’024 patent, I have reviewed and am familiar with
`
`the following references:
`
`- 1 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 5
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`• U.S. Publication No. 2007/0133419 to Segel, titled “Communication Traffic
`
`Congestion Management Systems and Methods” (EX1005, “Segel”);
`
`• U.S. Publication No. 2004/0085951 to Rezaiifar et al., titled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for the Use of Micro-Tunnels in a Communications System”
`
`(EX1006, “Rezaiifar”);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,225,271 to DiBiasio et al., titled “System and Method For
`
`Recognizing Application-Specific Flows And Assigning Them To Queues”
`
`(EX1008);
`
`• Ben-Nun, M., “Taming the Peer to Peer Monster Using Service Control”
`
`(EX1010);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,660,248 to Duffield et al., titled “Statistical, Signature-
`
`Based Approach To IP Traffic Classification” (EX1012);
`
`• U.S. Publication No. 2007/0061433 to Reynolds et al., titled “Methods and
`
`Apparatus to Support Dynamic Allocation of Traffic Management
`
`Resources in a Network Element” (EX1013);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,085,775 to Pappu et al., titled “Identifying Flows Based on
`
`Behavior Characteristics and Applying User-Defined Actions” (EX1016);
`
`• U.S. Publication No. 2008/0144502 to Jackowski et al., titled “In-Band
`
`Quality-of-Service Signaling to Endpoints That Enforce Traffic Policies at
`
`- 2 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 6
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`Traffic Sources Using Policy Messages Piggybacked Onto DiffServ Bits”
`
`(EX1017);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,457,870 to Lownsbrough et al., titled “Methods,
`
`Apparatuses and Systems Facilitating Classification of Web Services
`
`Network Traffic” (EX1018);
`
`• U.S. Publication No. 2002/0186661 to Santiago et al., titled “System and
`
`Method For Hierarchical Policing of Flows and Subflows of a Data Stream”
`
`(EX1019);
`
`• U.S. Publication No. 2003/0118029 to Maher III et al., titled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Enforcing Service Level Agreements” (EX1020);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,512,683 to Anschutz et al., titled “Systems, Methods and
`
`Computer Program Products For Managing Quality of Service, Session,
`
`Authentication and/or Bandwidth Allocation in a Regional/Access Network
`
`(RAN)” (EX1021);
`
`• “Four Steps to Application Performance Across the Network With
`
`Packeteer®’s PacketShaper®,” with Affidavit of Elizabeth Rosenberg
`
`attached (EX1022, “Four Steps Whitepaper”);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,304,996 to Swenson et al., titled “System and Method for
`
`Assembling a Data Packet” (EX1023);
`
`- 3 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 7
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`• U.S. Publication No. 2006/0233101 to Luft et al., titled “Network Element
`
`Architecture for Deep Packet Inspection” (EX1024);
`
`• U.S. Publication No. 2007/0168466 to Tooley et al., titled “Managed Quality
`
`of Service Using a Web Server Smart Agent” (EX1025);
`
`• U.S. Publication No. 2006/0072457 to Noble, titled “Peer Signaling Protocol
`
`and System for Decentralized Traffic Management” (EX1026);
`
`• European Patent Application No. 1739914 to Liu, titled “Method,
`
`Apparatus, Edge Router and System For Providing a Guarantee of the
`
`Quality of Service (QoS)” (EX1027);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,634,943 to Jungck et al., titled “Transparent Provisioning
`
`of Services Over a Network” (EX1029);
`
`• RFC 1701 – Generic Routing Encapsulation (EX1030);
`
`• European Patent Application No. 2140610 to Wittgreffe et al., titled “Data
`
`Network Monitoring System, Related Method and Data Network Resource
`
`Allocation System” (EX1031);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,270,413 to Weill et al., titled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Self-Learning of VPNs from Combination of Unidirectional Tunnels in
`
`MPLS/VPN Networks” (EX1033);
`
`- 4 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 8
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`• Long, L., et al., “Differential Congestion Notification: Taming the
`
`Elephants,” Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on
`
`Network Protocols (EX1034);
`
`• Parris, M., et al., “Lightweight Active Router-Queue Management for
`
`Multimedia Networking,” (EX1035);
`
`• U.S. Publication No. 2004/0090923 to Kan et al., titled “Network
`
`Monitoring System Responsive to Changes in Packet Arrival Variance and
`
`Mean” (EX1036);
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 6,412,000 to Riddle et al., titled “Method for Automatically
`
`Classifying Traffic in a Packet Communications Network” (EX1037); and
`
`• RFC 2475 – An Architecture for Differentiated Services (EX1038).
`
`4.
`
`The ’024 patent is generally directed to a device that classifies
`
`network traffic using deep packet inspection (“DPI”) techniques. EX1001, ’024
`
`Patent, Abstract. As I discuss below, such techniques were widely known and
`
`deployed during the relevant timeframe. Systems also performed DPI with
`
`reference to other packets—both packets in an active flow and packets belonging
`
`to other flows.
`
`5.
`
`As discussed below, I am familiar with the technology described in
`
`the ’024 patent as of its actual filing date of April 3, 2008, which is also its earliest
`
`possible priority date.
`
`- 5 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 9
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`I have been asked to consider how a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`6.
`
`(“POSA”) would have understood the challenged claims in light of the disclosure
`
`of the ’024 patent. I also have been asked to consider how a POSA would have
`
`understood the prior-art references Segel and Rezaiifar. Further, I have been asked
`
`to consider and provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions
`
`regarding whether a POSA would have understood: (1) the disclosure of Segel
`
`renders claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-18, and 22-25 obvious; and (2) the disclosure of Segel
`
`in view of Rezaiifar renders claims 4-6, 10, 19-21 obvious.
`
`7.
`
`I am being compensated at my standard hourly rate of $750 dollars
`
`per hour. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this inter partes
`
`review and in no way affects the substance of my statements in this declaration.
`
`8.
`
`I reside in Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF GROUNDS
`I understand that the Petition for inter partes review of the ’024 patent
`9.
`
`asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Basis for Ground
`Ground ’024 Patent Claims
`Segel
`1
`1-3, 7-9, 11-18, 22-25
`Segel in view of Rezaiifar
`2
`4-6, 10, 19-21
`III. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my knowledge,
`10.
`
`training, and experience. My qualifications are stated more fully in my curriculum
`
`- 6 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 10
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`vitae, which has been provided as Exhibit 1004. Here, I provide a brief summary of
`
`my qualifications.
`
`11. Currently, I am a tenured professor in the Department of Computer
`
`Science at the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) at Chapel Hill, where I hold
`
`the position of Gillian T. Cell Distinguished Professor of Computer Science. I also
`
`currently serve as the Chairman of the Department. I have been a faculty member
`
`at UNC since 1989.
`
`12.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of
`
`Washington in 1989. I received a M.Sc. degree in computer science from the
`
`University of Toronto in 1984 and a B.S. degree with Highest Distinction in
`
`Mathematics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1982.
`
`13.
`
`I have been involved in the research and development of computing
`
`systems for nearly 40 years. As a faculty member at UNC, I research and teach in
`
`the areas of computer networks, multimedia networking, distributed systems, real-
`
`time systems, and operating systems, among others. A major theme of my research
`
`has been the development of technology to improve the performance of data
`
`transfers on the Internet. In this regard, I have performed original research on
`
`topics directly related to the ’024 patent. Along with my students at UNC, I have
`
`studied, developed, and prototyped mechanisms for classifying traffic in packet-
`
`based networks and for controlling (“policing”) the transmission rates of
`
`- 7 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 11
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`applications within traffic classes. This has involved designing computer systems
`
`to capture packets traversing a link in a network, analyzing packets in real-time to
`
`classify the packets according to either an application flow or traffic class, and
`
`marking packets according to traffic class to allow downstream network devices to
`
`provide forwarding services appropriate to the traffic class.
`
`14. For example, my research has focused on network and operating
`
`system support for distributed real-time multimedia applications (such as audio and
`
`video streaming, voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP), and Internet
`
`videoconferencing), and employed the aforementioned classification and marking
`
`techniques to control traffic in packet networks so as to provide a “better-than-
`
`best-effort” forwarding services to real-time applications. This line of research
`
`dates back to the late 1980s and resulted in my research group developing some of
`
`the first videoconferencing systems for the Internet. Several of the papers authored
`
`by myself and members of my research group on this research won awards for
`
`their technical contributions. Beyond the research into application, my research
`
`also considered, among other topics, congestion control mechanisms in network
`
`routers, passive measurement, and real-time analysis of network traffic to passively
`
`assess the performance of servers on the Internet. Over the years this research has
`
`attracted the attention of, and support from, industry groups such as Cisco
`
`Systems®, Hewlett Packard, Sun Microsystems, CloudShieldTM, IBM®, Intel®,
`
`- 8 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 12
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`Digital Equipment Corporation, Cabletron/Aprisma, and AT&T® and Lucent Bell
`
`Laboratories. These efforts resulted in four patents being awarded to UNC.
`
`15. Of particular interest here is the collaboration with CloudShieldTM.
`
`CloudShieldTM was an early manufacturer of DPI devices for high-speed network.
`
`In collaboration with CloudShieldTM, my research group used DPI appliances to
`
`both classify and characterize packet flows for purposes of traffic management and
`
`intrusion detection.
`
`16. Other aspects of my research include the development of real-time
`
`operating systems and other “data conferencing” systems, also known as “shared
`
`window systems.” These systems were functionally and visually equivalent to
`
`LogMeIn®’s GoToMeetingTM and Zoom’s screen sharing products and services.
`
`17. My research is largely experimental in nature. In my research, I
`
`regularly build and use clusters of computers interconnected by network switches,
`
`bridges, and routers to form and evaluate experimental and production networks. In
`
`2003, the international networking research community recognized aspects of this
`
`research by awarding my group at UNC the most prestigious research award for
`
`original research in computer networking.
`
`18. These projects, and others, take place in a networking lab that my
`
`students and I constructed at UNC over a number of years. The lab consists of
`
`several hundred computers and networking devices. Managing this lab involves
`
`- 9 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 13
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`installing and configuring VLANS, monitors, firewalls, and other security
`
`appliances to isolate the lab from the campus network (and vice versa).
`
`19.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 100 articles in peer-reviewed
`
`journals, conference proceedings, texts, and monographs in the aforementioned
`
`areas of computer science and others. I have served as Editor-in-Chief for the
`
`journal Multimedia Systems and Associate Editor for the journal Real-Time
`
`Systems. In addition, I have edited and co-edited numerous published proceedings
`
`of technical conferences, and have edited a book of readings in multimedia
`
`computing and networking (with Hong-Jiang Zhang) published by Morgan
`
`Kaufman. I am a co-author (with Long Le and F. Donelson Smith) of a monograph
`
`related to computer network protocols and a co-author (with Jay Aikat and F.
`
`Donelson Smith) of a second monograph related to experimental computer
`
`networking.
`
`20.
`
`I have served on numerous proposal review panels for the National
`
`Science Foundation and other international funding agencies in the aforementioned
`
`areas of computer science. I have also served as a program chair or member of the
`
`technical program committee for over 100 professional, international, and technical
`
`conferences, workshops, and symposia including venues targeting networking,
`
`traffic management, and quality-of-service research. I have also served on the
`
`- 10 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 14
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`steering committee for the ACM/SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference—
`
`a leading venue for experimental research in computer networking.
`
`21.
`
`I am a named inventor on four U.S. Patents. These patents are
`
`generally related to computer networking and service delivery over networks
`
`including audio and video transmission.
`
`22.
`
`I have developed and taught a wide variety of courses related to
`
`distributed systems, computer networking, multimedia networking, operating and
`
`file systems, and computer security.
`
`23.
`
`I have served as an expert witness and technical consultant in
`
`litigation and inter partes review matters concerning computer networks,
`
`distributed systems, operating systems, multimedia networking, cellular and
`
`wireline telephony, voice over IP (VoIP) telephony, datacenter networking,
`
`embedded systems and embedded software, and real-time systems, among others. I
`
`have testified in several trials, arbitrations, and claim construction hearings as an
`
`expert witness.
`
`IV. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`A. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`I have been advised and understand that, during an inter partes
`24.
`
`review, words in a claim are given their plain meaning, which is the meaning
`
`understood by a POSA at the time of the alleged invention after reading the entire
`
`- 11 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 15
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`patent. I also understand that this standard is sometimes referred to as the Phillips
`
`standard. I understand, however, that a claim term will not receive its plain
`
`meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a
`
`definition of the claim term in the specification. In such a case, the claim term will
`
`receive the definition set forth in the patent.
`
`25.
`
`It is my understanding that, when a claim limitation recites a generic
`
`term (e.g., “means,” “step”) and associated functional language, it may invoke
`
`means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and/or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112 paragraph 6. It is further my understanding that when a claim limitation uses
`
`the term “means” or “step” and functional language, a presumption arises that
`
`means-plus-function treatment applies. I also understand that generic “nonce”
`
`terms may also be substitutes for “means” or “step,” and may thereby still invoke
`
`means-plus-function treatment. I further understand that the means-plus-function
`
`treatment is not appropriate where the terms have been modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. I also understand
`
`that means-plus-function language typically begins with “means for” followed by
`
`functional language.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that when claim language invokes means-plus-function
`
`treatment, the specification must provide corresponding structure such that a POSA
`
`will understand the structure that performs the recited function. I also understand
`
`- 12 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 16
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`that the scope of means-plus-function terms will be construed to cover that
`
`corresponding structure and equivalents thereof. As such, I understand that
`
`construction of means-plus-function terms requires identification of a function as
`
`well as corresponding structure for that function. I also understand that, for a
`
`reference to anticipate or render obvious a means-plus-function term, it must
`
`provide equivalent structure for performing an equivalent function.
`
`B. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been advised and understand that a POSA is presumed to be
`27.
`
`aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a
`
`person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. With this understanding, a POSA
`
`at the time of the invention claimed in the ’024 patent would have been a person
`
`holding a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science,
`
`or an equivalent field, and at least 3-5 years of academic or industry experience in
`
`computer networking, or comparable industry experience.
`
`C. My Understanding of Obviousness
`I have been advised and understand that a claimed invention is
`28.
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a POSA to which the subject matter pertains. This means that even if
`
`- 13 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 17
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`all of the requirements of the claim cannot be found in a single prior-art reference
`
`that would anticipate the claim, the claim can still be invalid.
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that obviousness is a question of law based on
`
`underlying factual findings: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and
`
`(4) objective considerations of non-obviousness. I understand that for a single
`
`reference or a combination of references to render the claimed invention obvious, a
`
`POSA must have been able to arrive at the claims by altering or combining the
`
`applied references.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that prior art references can be combined under
`
`several different circumstances. For example, it is my understanding that one such
`
`circumstance is when a proposed combination of prior art references results in a
`
`system that represents a predictable variation, which is achieved using prior art
`
`elements according to their established functions.
`
`31.
`
`I also understand that when considering the obviousness of a patent
`
`claim, one should consider whether a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
`
`combine the references exists so as to avoid impermissibly applying hindsight
`
`when considering the prior art. I understand this test should not be rigidly applied,
`
`but that the test can be important to avoiding such hindsight.
`
`- 14 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 18
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`A. The ’024 patent relies on general computer networking concepts.
`32. To better understand my opinions on the validity of the claims of the
`
`’024 patent, in this section I provide some background on computer networking. I
`
`focus particularly on the concepts of network communication protocols, protocol
`
`layers, and data forwarding and routing.
`
`33. All of the concepts discussed in this section were well known and
`
`widely used well prior to April 3, 2008—the priority date for the ’024 patent. For
`
`example, I frequently taught these concepts to undergraduate computer science
`
`majors for over fifteen years prior to 2008.
`
`Network Protocols and Protocol Layering
`1.
`34. Broadly speaking, when one computer communicates with another
`
`computer over a computer network, hardware and/or software on that computer
`
`creates a message and transmits the message as a series of one or more data units
`
`to the destination computer. These data units are formatted and processed by
`
`devices in the network (including the source and destination computers) according
`
`to a number of rules that facilitate communications over the network. Certain rules
`
`are grouped together to define a protocol for an aspect of the communication. To
`
`communicate messages between a source and a destination computer, multiple
`
`protocols, operating in concert, are leveraged.
`
`- 15 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 19
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`35. These protocols are organized hierarchically as a series of hardware
`
`and software “layers,” which are colloquially referred to as a “protocol stack.”
`
`Layers in the stack are numbered and commonly referred to by their layer number.
`
`The layers are numbered from the lowest (most basic or primitive protocol layer)
`
`to the highest (most functional) protocol layer. Each layer is responsible for
`
`providing a discrete communication service that builds upon the service(s)
`
`provided by the lower layer(s) to provide a more functional, full-featured
`
`communication service to upper layers. Figure 1 provides a graphical illustration of
`
`the protocol-layering concept using the protocol stack described below.
`
`
`Figure 1: A graphical illustration of the Internet model protocol stack.
`36. Historically, the two most dominant models of protocol layers are the
`
`OSI (Open Systems Interconnect) model and the “Internet” model. The OSI model
`
`defines a seven-layer protocol stack, whereas the Internet model defines a simpler,
`
`five-layer protocol stack. For simplicity, the following concentrates on the five-
`
`layer Internet model. As of the earliest possible priority date of the ’024 patent,
`
`- 16 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 20
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`April 3, 2008, the five-layer Internet model was by far the dominant protocol stack
`
`in the networking and distributed systems communities.
`
`
`
`Figure 2: A comparison of the OSI protocol stack and the Internet protocol
`stack.
`
`
`37. The lowest layer, layer-1 or “L1,” is the physical layer. The physical
`
`layer protocol is typically implemented exclusively in hardware and is concerned
`
`with the low-level details of transmitting binary data (i.e., ones and zeros) over a
`
`physical medium. The physical layer refers to the physical media used to construct
`
`the network. Examples of different physical layers would be fiber optic cable,
`
`copper twisted pair wiring, or radio frequency spectrum. As these are each
`
`different physical media, each would require a different physical layer protocol
`
`because the process of transmitting binary data on the medium differs for each type
`
`of media.
`
`38. The next layer in the protocol stack, layer-2 or “L2,” is the data link
`
`layer (or simply the link layer). The link layer defines a transmission structure,
`
`typically called a frame, and is responsible for transmitting frames between
`
`- 17 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 21
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`computers on the same network. The most common example of a link layer
`
`protocol is the Ethernet protocol. The link layer uses the services of a layer-1
`
`protocol to transmit the binary data of a frame on the physical medium of the
`
`network to a destination on the network.
`
`39. A frame consists of a header and a payload. The payload is the actual
`
`data being communicated across the network and may have additional, internal
`
`structure, as described below. The header contains, among other things, a data link
`
`layer address of the computer generating the frame (a “source address”) and a link
`
`layer address of the destination computer of the frame (a “destination address”).
`
`The payload (sometimes referred to as the “body”) is analogous to a letter (“data”)
`
`mailed to someone in an envelope (a “frame”). The header is analogous to the
`
`address written on the outside of the envelope. The link layer addresses in the
`
`header of a frame (shown below as the “Source Address” and “Destination
`
`Address” of Figure 3) are often referred to as “hardware addresses” or “MAC”
`
`(Media Access Control) addresses.
`
`- 18 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 22
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`
`
`Figure 3: Illustration of the structure and major components of an Ethernet
`frame (not to scale).
`
`
`40. Frames are variable length structures with the size of a given frame
`
`primarily determined by the size of the payload being transmitted. Frames have a
`
`maximum size. Payloads that are too large to be carried in a maximal size frame
`
`must be segmented by the sender into multiple smaller payloads and transmitted in
`
`a series of frames. This segmentation process is most commonly performed by
`
`higher layer network protocols, as described below.
`
`41. Layer-2 protocols can only transmit frames between two computers
`
`on the same network. More precisely, layer-2 protocols can only transmit frames
`
`between two computers on the same local-area network (“LAN”). In fact, the
`
`technical definition of a LAN is the set of computers that are “reachable” from one
`
`another (the set of computers that can communicate with one another) via a layer-2
`
`protocol (and only a layer-2 protocol).
`
`- 19 -
`
`Microsoft
`Ex. 1003 - Page 23
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,024
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`42. LANs are created by a type of interconnection device called a bridge,
`
`switch or access point. Individual computers connect to the LAN
`
`switch/bridge/access point via some physical medium such as, in t