`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,783,788
`
`IPR Case No.: IPR2022-00211
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS 1-4,
`6 AND 7 OF U.S. PATENT 7,783,788 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§
`311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... iv 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... vi 
`CLAIMS LISTING ................................................................................................ vii 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) .......................... 1 
`Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ............................ 1 
`A. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 1 
`B. 
`Lead and Back-up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and
`C. 
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ................................ 1 
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.15 ......................................... 2 
`III. 
`IV.  CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d) ....... 3 
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104 ............................ 3 
`V. 
`VI.  DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED ................................... 3 
`The Fintiv factors (35 U.S.C. §314(a)) ................................................ 3 
`A. 
`VII.  THE ’788 PATENT ........................................................................................ 5 
`Priority Date ......................................................................................... 5 
`A. 
`Overview of the ’788 Patent ................................................................. 6 
`B. 
`The Challenged Claims ........................................................................ 9 
`C. 
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 9 
`D. 
`VIII.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) .................. 13 
`IX.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 13 
`TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE
`X. 
`PRIOR ART .................................................................................................. 14 
`Background on Network Protocols and Protocol Layering ............... 14 
`A. 
`Background on Network Interconnection Devices ............................ 24 
`B. 
`Virtualization and Virtual Machines .................................................. 26 
`C. 
`Plouffe (Ex-1004) ............................................................................... 29 
`D. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`XI. 
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`Kurose (Ex-1006) ............................................................................... 32 
`E. 
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ..................................................... 34 
`GROUND 1: Plouffe anticipates or renders obvious claims 1-3,
`A. 
`6 and 7 ................................................................................................ 34 
`Scope, Content and Motivation to Combine ............................ 34 
` 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 38 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 61 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 62 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 64 
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 65 
` 
`GROUND 2: Plouffe in view of Kurose renders obvious claim
`4 .......................................................................................................... 66 
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art and Motivation to
` 
`Combine ................................................................................... 66 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 70 
` 
`XII.  SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 72 
`XIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 72 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 73 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,783,788 (“the ’788 patent”)
`Certified File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,783,788 (“’788
`FH”)
`Declaration of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0120160 to
`Plouffe et al. (“Plouffe”)
`U.S. Patent No. U.S. 8,776,050 to Plouffe et al.
`“Computer Networking: A top-down approach featuring
`the Internet,” 3rd Ed., by J. Kurose and K. Ross, Pearson
`Education, Inc., 2005 (“Kurose”)
`ISBN 0-321-22735-2
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/796,116 to
`Quinn et al. (“116-PRV”)
`Plaintiff’s Claim Construction Brief, Intellectual Ventures I
`LLC et al. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00226 (W.D. Tex.)
`“Virtual Machines,” by James E. Smith and Ravi Nair,
`Elsevier, 2005
`ISBN: 1-55860-910-5
`U.S. Library of Congress Record for Ex-1006
`U.S. Copyright Office Record for Ex-1006
`U.S. Library of Congress Record for Ex-1009
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions in Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., No.
`6:21-cv-00226 (W.D. Tex.)
`November 17, 2021 letter to Patentee’s counsel stipulating
`to non-use of IPR grounds prior art in District Court
`Lex Machina docket report for District Judge Alan D
`Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western
`District of Texas showing 14 docket entries for
`December 7, 2022
`“Computer Networks,” 3rd Ed., by Andrew S. Tanenbaum,
`Prentice Hall, 1996
`ISBN: 0-13-349945-6
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Description
`“An Engineering Approach to Computer Networking: ATM
`networks, the internet, and the telephone network” by Srinivasan
`Keshav, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1997
`ISBN: 0-201-63442-2
`“Computer Networking: A top-down approach,” 6th Ed., by
`J. Kurose and K. Ross, Pearson Education, Inc., 2013
`ISBN-13: 978-0-13-285620-1
`ISBN-10: 0-13-285620-4
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Kevin Jeffay
`Dufresne, A. et al., How reliable are trial dates relied on by
`the PTAB in the Fintiv analysis?
`
`https://www.1600ptab.com/2021/10/how-reliable-are-trialdates-
`relied-on-by-the-ptab-in-the-fintiv-analysis/# (dated
`October 29, 2021; accessed November 3, 2021)
`Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company’s Opening Claim
`Construction Brief, Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Hewlett
`Packard Enterprise Company, Case No. 6:21-cv-00226 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`
`
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`Apple Inc. v Parus Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00686, Paper 7 (July 23, 2020) ............................................................... 5
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (March 20, 2020) ......................................................... 3
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 14
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Inter Modal Grp. – Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) ............................................................ 5
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 72
`Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science, 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
` .............................................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`
`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`CLAIMS LISTING
`[Claim 1, 1-PRE] An apparatus, comprising:
`
`[1a] a memory;
`
`[1b] one or more processors;
`
`[1c] an input/output (I/O) fabric interface;
`
`[1d] an I/O subsystem physical interface;
`
`[1e] I/O subsystem device protocol stack logic operative to control data transfer with
`
`one or more peripheral systems over the I/O subsystem physical interface; and
`
`[1f-1] virtualization logic encoded in one or more tangible media for execution and
`
`when executed operable to cause the one or more processors to:
`
`[1f-2] establish one or more persistent control connections to virtual I/O peripheral
`
`subsystem interface driver modules of one or more application servers;
`
`[1f-3] transmit I/O peripheral subsystem configurations to the one or more
`
`application servers over the respective one or more persistent control
`
`connections;
`
`[1f-4] emulate, relative to the one or more peripheral systems, the one or more
`
`application servers;
`
`[1f-5] intermediate I/O subsystem traffic between the one or more application
`
`servers and the one or more peripheral systems; and
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`[1f-6] control utilization of resources of the I/O subsystem physical interface by the
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`one or more application servers according to a configured allocation of
`
`resources for the I/O subsystem physical interface across the one or more
`
`application servers.
`
`[Claim 2, 2-PRE] The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the virtualization logic is further
`
`operable to
`
`[2a] receive a I/O subsystem message from an application server on the I/O fabric
`
`interface;
`
`[2b] forward the I/O subsystem message to the I/O subsystem protocol stack logic
`
`for processing.
`
`[Claim 3, 3-PRE] The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the logic is further operable to
`
`[3a] receive a responsive message from a peripheral system;
`
`[3b] forward the responsive message to a destination application server.
`
`[Claim 4, 4-PRE] The apparatus of claim 1 further comprising encapsulation logic
`
`operable to cause the one or more processors to:
`
`[4a] receive, from the one or more application servers, I/O subsystem messages with
`
`encapsulating headers;
`
`[4b] remove the encapsulating headers from the I/O subsystem messages; and
`
`[4c] add encapsulating headers to responsive messages received from the one or
`
`more peripheral systems.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`[Claim 6] The apparatus of claim 1 wherein I/O subsystem device protocol stack
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`logic implements a network protocol.
`
`[Claim 7] The apparatus of claim 1 wherein I/O subsystem device protocol stack
`
`logic implements a mass storage protocol.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00096
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Petitioner”) hereby seeks inter partes
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`review of claims 1-4, 6, and 7 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,783,788. (Ex-1001 (“’788 patent”).)
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)
`A. Real Party-in-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)
`The real party-in-interest in this petition is Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`
`Company, 11445 Compaq Center Drive West, Houston, Texas 77070.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)
`The following pending federal district court litigation may affect or be
`
`affected by the decision in this proceeding: Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v.
`
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Case No. 6:21-cv-00226 (W.D. Tex.)
`
`(“WDTX Proceeding”). Petitioner was served with the complaint in the WDTX
`
`Proceeding on March 10, 2021.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) and
`Service Information under 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4)
`Petitioner designates the following lead and backup counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Heath J. Briggs (Reg. No. 54,919)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1144 15th St. Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: 303-685-7418
`Facsimile: 720-904-6118
`BriggsH@gtlaw.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Elana B. Araj (Reg. No. 75,804)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Ave.
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 801-6473
`Facsimile: (212) 801-6400
`ArajE@gtlaw.com
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Stephen M. Ullmer (pro hac vice
`forthcoming)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1144 15th St. Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: 303-685-6579
`Facsimile: 303-572-6540
`UllmerS@gtlaw.com
`
`(pro hac vice
`
`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`Back-up Counsel
`Rose Cordero Prey
`forthcoming)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Ave
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 801-6473
`Facsimile: (212) 801-6400
`PreyR@gtlaw.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Leif Olson (Reg. No. 79,428)
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`1144 15th St. Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: 303-685-7401
`Facsimile: 303-572-6540
`OlsonL@gtlaw.com
`
`
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Greenberg Traurig,
`
`LLP, 1144 15th St., Suite 3300, Denver, CO 80202. Petitioner also consents to and
`
`prefers electronic service by emailing HPE-IV-IPR@gtlaw.com and counsel of
`
`record (shown above).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.15
`Petitioner authorizes the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to charge Deposit
`
`Account No. 50-2638 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) for this Petition and any
`
`additional fees.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d)
`Petitioner certifies that the word count in this Petition is 13,602 words, as
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`counted by the word-processing program (Microsoft Word for Office 365) used to
`
`generate this Petition, where such word count excludes the table of contents, table
`
`of authorities, mandatory notices, certificate of service, appendix of exhibits, and
`
`this certificate of word count. This Petition is in compliance with the 14,000 word
`
`limit set forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.24(a)(1)(i).
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`Petitioner certifies that the ’788 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred/estopped from requesting cancellation of the Challenged Claims
`
`identified below.
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Ground 1
`
`1-3, 6 and 7
`
`Ground 2
`
`4
`
`Anticipated or rendered obvious by
`Plouffe (Ex-1004)
`
`Rendered obvious by Plouffe in
`view of Kurose (Ex-1006)
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED
`A.
`The Fintiv factors (35 U.S.C. §314(a))
`Fintiv identifies six factors relating “to whether efficiency, fairness, and the
`
`merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution.” Apple Inc. v. Fintiv,
`
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5 (March 20, 2020). “[T]he Board takes a holistic
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`instituting review.” (Id. at 6.)
`
`The Fintiv factors strongly favor institution. In particular, factors 3
`
`(investment in the parallel proceeding) and 4 (overlap of issues) weigh in favor of
`
`institution. For factor 3, the WDTX Proceeding is at an early stage with virtually no
`
`investment by the court and little by the parties: a Markman hearing is scheduled for
`
`December 8, 2021, fact discovery has not yet begun,1 and expert discovery will not
`
`close until August 31, 2022. Indeed, the court has yet to rule on pending motions to
`
`dismiss and transfer.
`
`Regarding factor 4, there is no risk of duplicating efforts: Petitioner stipulates
`
`not to assert the art relied on for its unpatentability grounds herein. (Ex-1014.) Thus,
`
`this factor weighs strongly in favor of institution.
`
`Factors 1, 2, and 5 are neutral. Regarding factor 1 (grant/denial of a stay),
`
`Petitioner has not yet requested a stay in view of IPR and no evidence in this case
`
`suggests how the court will rule on a request to stay once filed. Thus, this factor is
`
`neutral.
`
`
`1 According to Judge Albright’s Order Governing Proceedings–Patent Cases, fact
`
`discovery opens one business day after the Markman hearing.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`Regarding factor 2 (trial date), the court set a trial date for December 7, 2022,
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`but that is speculative because the court set the same trial date in 14 other cases.
`
`(Ex-1015.) The court cannot simultaneously try each case. As a recent analysis
`
`found, the Board’s Fintiv denials also relied on incorrect future trial dates in the vast
`
`majority of cases. (Ex-1020.) See Apple Inc. v Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`00686, Paper 7 at 2-3 (July 23, 2020) (citing Lex Machina statistics); Sand
`
`Revolution II LLC v. Continental Inter Modal Grp. – Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 at 8-10 (June 16, 2020). Thus, this factor is neutral or weighs
`
`marginally in favor of not exercising discretion. Sand, IPR2020-01393, Paper 24 at
`
`8-10.
`
`Regarding factor 5 (same parties), Petitioner is filing this IPR after being
`
`accused of infringing the patent at issue, as is the norm, so this factor is neutral.
`
`Viewed holistically, the Fintiv factors favor institution.
`
`VII. THE ’788 PATENT
`A.
`Priority Date
`The ’788 patent was filed on January 18, 2007 as U.S. Application No.
`
`11/624,573 (“the ’788 application”), and purports to claim priority to U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/796,116, filed on April 28, 2006 (“the 116-PRV”).
`
`Without conceding the ’788 patent is entitled to claim priority to the 116-PRV,
`
`Petitioner applies the April 28, 2006 priority date herein.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`B. Overview of the ’788 Patent
`The ’788 patent relates generally to “computing platforms” and more
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`specifically “to virtualization of input/output (I/O) subsystems that facilitate the
`
`transparent sharing of I/O subsystems among multiple processing units.” (Ex-1001
`
`at 1:11-14.) The ’788 patent describe problems at the time of the ’788 patent in
`
`computer systems, including that “[s]caling such an architecture up (or down)
`
`require[d] physically adding (or removing) hardware resources.” (Id.) The ’788
`
`patent explains that “[t]his approach…is generally time consuming and costly, and
`
`fails to address the variation in demand across different applications.” (Id.) (Ex-
`
`1003-Jeffay at ¶¶63-64.)
`
`The ’788 patent purports to address this problem through disclosed “methods,
`
`apparatuses and systems directed to virtualized access to input/output (I/O)
`
`subsystems.” (Ex-1001 at 2:3-5.) In other words, the ’788 patent disclose
`
`virtualizing an application server so that “to an application server, the storage and
`
`networking resources available from the virtual I/O server, in one implementation,
`
`appear as locally attached physical resources (such as NICs [Network Interface
`
`Cards] and HBAs [Host Bus Adaptors]) to the operating system of the application
`
`server.” (Id. at 2:13-17.) (Ex-1003-Jeffay at ¶65.)
`
`FIG. 1, below, depicts a system of the ’788 patent, which includes “an I/O
`
`switch fabric interconnecting application servers and virtual I/O servers.” (Ex-1001
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`at 2:43-45.) “[T]wo application severs 102 receiving block storage device and
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`network I/O services from two virtual servers 60.” (Id. at 3:8-19.)
`
`
`
`The two virtual servers (60a, 60b) provide the application servers access to
`
`peripheral subsystems including, “storage and external networking,” which are
`
`connected to the virtual servers. (Id. at 3:12-41, 20:63-21:2.) The ’788 patent
`
`describes that the “application server 102 can take a variety of forms,” including
`
`“from a large mainframe system to commodity personal computer system or server
`
`system architectures.” (Id. at 12:6-9.) (Ex-1003-Jeffay at ¶¶66-68.)
`
`The ’788 patent discloses the components of application servers and virtual
`
`I/O servers. (Ex-1003-Jeffay at ¶¶69-73.) For example, FIG. 3, below, “illustrates
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`the protocol stack and modules of a virtual I/O server 60.” (Ex-1001 at 5:29-31; id.
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`at 2:50-52.)
`
`
`
`The protocol stack and modules include an “I/O fabric PYS [physical]
`
`interface 302,” which “generally refers to the hardware interface or interconnection
`
`to the I/O switch fabric” (id. at 5:31-33), an “I/O fabric driver stack 304,” which
`
`“generally refers to one or more drivers directed to the communication of messages
`
`across the I/O switch fabric,” including, for example, “an Infiniband host channel
`
`adapter (FICA) driver layer and an Infiniband access layer,” and “encapsulation
`
`module 306,” which “handles encapsulation processes associated with the
`
`virtualization of I/O subsystems between one or more application servers and one or
`
`more network interfaces 916 and host bus adapters 918 attached to virtual I/O server
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`60.” (Id. at 5:33-46.) The protocol stack and modules of the virtual I/O server 60
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`also include a “virtual block interface 326, which “allows for storage system access
`
`over the I/O switch fabric.” (Id. at 5:52-53.) (Ex-1003-Jeffay at ¶70.)
`
`FIG. 3, above, also shows that the protocol stack and software modules of the
`
`virtual I/O server 60 include “a management console 399 that facilitates the
`
`configuration of virtual I/O server 60 and/or one or more application servers 102.”
`
`(Ex-1001 at 6:34-35, 7:34-36.) The ’788 patent describes that “using management
`
`console 399, an operator, for example, may configure one or more virtual block
`
`devices and/or virtual network interfaces for an application server 102.” (Id. at 6:34-
`
`45.) (Ex-1003-Jeffay at ¶71.)
`
`C.
`The Challenged Claims
`Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are the Challenged Claims of the ’788 patent. Claim 1 is
`
`the only independent claim challenged.
`
`D.
`Prosecution History
`The application that resulted in the ’788 patent was filed on January 18, 2007
`
`with 23 original claims. (Ex-1002 at 111-116.) As-filed claim 1 was directed to an
`
`apparatus comprising a memory, one or more processors, an I/O fabric interface, an
`
`I/O subsystem interface, an I/O subsystem device protocol stack logic to control data
`
`transfer with one or more peripheral systems over the I/O subsystem interface, and
`
`virtualization logic to cause the one or more processors to complete various
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`functions. (Id. at 111.) As shown in this section, an amended version of this claim
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`would ultimately be allowed and granted as claim 1 of the ’788 patent.
`
`In a first action, the Examiner rejected independent claim 1 (and others) for
`
`being obvious based on U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0069369 to Tremain (“Tremain”)
`
`in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0130833 to Brownell (“Brownell”). (Ex-1002
`
`at 122-50.)
`
`In its’ response (id. at 164-194), Applicant amended independent claim 1 to
`
`require, inter alia, that the “virtualization logic” causes “the one or more processors
`
`to:” “control utilization of resources of the I/O subsystem interface by the one or
`
`more application servers according to a configured apportionment of resources for
`
`the I/O subsystem interface across the one or more application servers.” (Id. at 168
`
`(underlined text represents amendments).) Applicant argued that the cited prior art
`
`failed to disclose the “control utilization of resources” limitation shown above. (Id.
`
`at 177.)
`
`The Examiner’s next action (id. at 196-228) again rejected claim 1 (and
`
`others) over Tremain and Brownell (cited in the prior action), further in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,240,098 to Mansee (“Mansee”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 2006/0234733 to Wassifi et al. (“Wassifi”). (Ex-1002 at 199-202.) Specifically,
`
`the Examiner stated that Mansee disclosed “establishing one or more control
`
`connections to virtual I/O peripheral subsystem interface driver modules or one or
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`more application servers” and that Wassifi disclosed the newly added “control
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`utilization of resources” limitation. (Id. at 201.)
`
`In its’ next response (id. at 241-259) Applicant amended the “control
`
`utilization of resources” limitation to require that the “I/O subsystem interface” is an
`
`“I/O physical subsystem interface.” (Id. at 250, 257.) As it related to claim 1,
`
`Applicant argued that “Wassifi does not teach allocation of the resources of physical
`
`interfaces among a plurality of application servers.” (Id. at 258 (emphasis added).)
`
`According to Applicant, “Wassifi merely discloses the intercommunication of
`
`several processes 36 and signaling server processes 33, that share and ostensibly
`
`compete for the resources of the routing element.” (Id.) Applicant further stated that
`
`“Wassifi does not teach the allocation of hardware resources, such as I/O subsystem
`
`interfaces.” (Id.)
`
`In the next action (id. at 261-293), the Examiner rejected independent claim 1
`
`for being obvious over the combination of Tremain, Brownell, and Mansee. As to
`
`the “control utilization of resources” limitation, the Examiner noted Tremain used
`
`standard Gigabyte Ethernet PCI cards, so “[c]learly, there is data transfer with one
`
`or more peripheral systems (customers A-C) over the I/O subsystem physical
`
`interface (PCI cards A1-D1).” (Id. at 263.) In addition, the Examiner noted that it
`
`would have been obvious for the “virtual servers and virtual networks shown in
`
`figure 4” of Tremain “to be implemented on one server.” (Id. at 264.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
` Applicant’s next response did not dispute the Examiner’s contentions
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`regarding Tremain. (Id. at 317-330.) Rather, Applicant amended independent claim
`
`1 to require that the “virtualization logic” was “operable to cause the one or more
`
`processors to:”
`
` “establish one or more persistent control connections…” and
`
` “transmit I/O peripheral subsystem configurations to the one or more
`
`application servers over the respective one or more persistent control
`
`connections.” (Id. at 318 (underlining in original).)
`
`Applicant argued that “none of the cited references (alone or in combination)
`
`disclosed establishing persistent control connections for the exchange of I/O
`
`subsystem interface configuration information.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
`
`A Notice of Allowance subsequently issued. (Id. at 336-344.) In the reasons
`
`for allowance, the Examiner stated:
`
`The prior art of record taken alone and/or in combination fails to teach
`and/or fairly suggest “establish one or more persistent control
`connections to virtual I/O peripheral subsystem interface driver
`modules of one or more application servers; transmit I/O peripheral
`subsystem configurations to the one or more application servers over
`the respective one or more persistent control connections” in
`combination with other recited limitations in claim 1.
`
`(Id. at 341 (emphasis added).)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`VIII. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`A POSITA in the field of the ’788 patent at the time of its purported priority
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`date (April 28, 2006) would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or
`
`electrical engineering, plus
`
`two years of experience
`
`in
`
`the
`
`field of
`
`networking/communications. (Ex-1003-Jeffay at ¶¶30-34.) Additional educational
`
`in the fields of computer science and/or electrical engineering, such as a master’s or
`
`doctorate degree, may serve as a substitute for experience in the field. (Id.)
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In view of the relied-upon prior art and Petitioner’s Grounds, Petitioner does
`
`not believe any specific constructions are required. Accordingly, all terms of the
`
`’788 patent have been given their ordinary and customary meaning in this Petition
`
`(i.e., their “plain meaning”). (Ex-1003-Jeffay at ¶¶83-85.)
`
`In the related WDTX proceeding, the parties applied the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning to all Challenged Claim of the ’788 patent, only disputing the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of “I/O peripheral subsystem configurations” in independent
`
`claim 1. (Ex-1008 at 14-16; Ex-1021 at 12-13.) The Board need not resolve this
`
`dispute because, as explained below, the prior art cited herein discloses the “I/O
`
`peripheral subsystem configurations” under any reasonable construction. Vivid
`
`Technologies, Inc. v. American Science, 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Nidec
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`2017). (Ex-1003-Jeffay at ¶85.)
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to propose specific constructions if it becomes
`
`appropriate/necessary during the course of these proceedings.
`
`X.
`TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE
`PRIOR ART
`A.
`Background on Network Protocols and Protocol Layering
`As. Dr. Jeffay explains, when one computer wishes to communicate with
`
`another computer over a computer network, hardware and software on that computer
`
`will create a message and transmit the message as a series of one or more data units
`
`to the destination computer. These data units will be formatted and processed by
`
`devices in the network (including the source and destination computers) according
`
`to a number of rules that exist to facilitate communications over the network. Certain
`
`of these 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 required. (Ex-1003-Jeffay at
`
`¶37.)
`
`These protocols are organized hierarchically as a series of hardware and
`
`software “layers” and 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,
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`most functional protocol layer. Each layer is responsible for providing a discrete
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`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.2 (Id. at ¶38.)
`
`
`
`Figure 1: A graphical illustration of the Internet model protocol stack.
`
`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 filing date of the ’788 patent, January 18, 2007, the
`
`five-layer Internet model was by far the dominant protocol stack in the networking
`
`
`2 All figures in §§X.A-C are Dr. Jeffay’s unless otherwise noted.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,783,788
`IPR2022-00211
`and distributed systems communities, but the OSI model was similarly known.) (Id.
`
`Petition Requesting Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`at ¶39.)
`
`
`
`Figure 2:
`
`A comparison of the OSI protocol stack and the Internet protocol stack.
`
`The lowest layer, layer-1, or “L1,” is the physical layer. The physical la