`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TIKTOK INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2024-00757
`Patent 8,756,336
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`
`I. CELLSPIN’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS FAIL .................... 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`A. Cellspin’s representations of the litigation’s claim construction pleadings
`are not accurate. .......................................................................................... 1
`
`B. Cellspin’s claim constructions are unjustifiably narrow and fail to address
`the applicability of grounds in this proceeding .......................................... 2
`
`1. Along with ............................................................................................. 3
`
`2. Segment identifier ................................................................................. 6
`
`3. User identifier ........................................................................................ 9
`
`4. Web Service ........................................................................................ 10
`
`II. AALTONEN AND DRESCHER RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS (GROUND 1) ................................................................................ 10
`
`A. Aaltonen-Drescher renders obvious “applying a segment identifier to
`each data segment” (element 1[d]) ........................................................... 10
`
`B. Aaltonen-Drescher renders obvious “applying a user identifier to each
`data segment” (element 1[e]).................................................................... 13
`
`C. Aaltonen-Drescher renders obvious applying the identifiers “at the
`application layer level” ............................................................................. 15
`
`D. Aaltonen-Drescher renders obvious a “web service” ............................... 18
`
`III. TAKAHASHI AND NA RENDER THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`OBVIOUS (GROUNDS 2A/2B) ..................................................................... 19
`
`A. Cellspin’s arguments fail to rebut the Petition’s showing that a POSITA
`would have been motivated to combine Takahashi’s and Na’s teachings
` .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`1. Cellspin improperly argues for bodily incorporation of Takahashi and
`Na ........................................................................................................ 19
`
`2. MMS is compatible with and endorses HTTP, further undermining
`Cellspin’s bodily incorporation arguments ......................................... 21
`
`B. Takahashi-Na renders obvious “a user identifier”, and the Petition’s
`mappings of “user identifier” are consistent ............................................ 21
`
`i
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`C. Takahashi-Na renders obvious “transferring a data segment along with
`said user identifier” (element 1[f]) ........................................................... 23
`
`D. Takahashi-Na renders obvious “segment identifier” ............................... 25
`
`E. Takahashi-Na renders obvious a “web service” ....................................... 26
`
`IV. CELLSPIN’S POR EXCEEDS THE WORD LIMIT ..................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`TTI-1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,756,336 to Singh et al. (“the ’336 patent”)
`
`TTI-1002 Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’336 patent
`
`TTI-1003 Declaration of Dr. Patrick Traynor
`
`TTI-1004 Complaint, CellSpin Soft, Inc. v. ByteDance, Ltd. et al., Case No.
`2:23-cv-496, E.D. Tex., filed Oct. 20, 2023
`
`
`TTI-1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0209927 to Aaltonen et al.
`(“Aaltonen”)
`
`
`TTI-1006 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0129631 to Na et al. (“Na”)
`
`TTI-1007 HTTP: The Definitive Guide (“Gourley”)
`
`TTI-1008 RESERVED
`
`TTI-1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0315235 to Foo (“Foo”)
`
`TTI-1010
`
`International Publication No. WO 2008/028508 to Drescher et al.
`(“Drescher”)
`
`
`TTI-1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0174393 to Bosschaert et al.
`(“Bosschaert”)
`
`
`TTI-1012
`
`Internet Archive of Mobic.com, “Ericsson Unveils the First Bluetooth
`Phone,” available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20001002110758/http://www.mobic.com:
`80/, last accessed February 29, 2024.
`
`
`TTI-1013 U.S. Patent No. 8,862,757 to Singh et al. (“the ’757 patent”)
`
`TTI-1014 Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’757 patent
`
`TTI-1015 RESERVED
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`
`TTI-1016
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2005-303511 to
`Takahashi Susumu and Certified Translation (“Takahashi”)
`
`International Publication No. WO 2005/109781 to Lind et al. (“Lind”)
`
`
`TTI-1017
`
`TTI-1018 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0165982 to Hankey et
`al. ("Hankey”)
`
`
`TTI-1019 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1, June 1999 (“RFC2616”)
`
`TTI-1020 U.S. Patent No. 7,181,207 to Chow et al. (“Chow”)
`
`
`TTI-1021 U.S. Patent No. 7,333,955 to Graves et al. (“Graves”)
`
`TTI-1022 U.S. Patent No. 8,095,463 to Hartmaier (“Hartmaier”)
`
`TTI-1023 WAP MMS Architecture Overview Version 25-April-2001
`(“MMS_1.0”)
`
`
`TTI-1024 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0007196 to Ganesan
`(“Ganesan”)
`
`
`TTI-1025 Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA
`Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation
`(USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Guidance”)
`
`
`TTI-1026 TikTok Stipulation letter regarding IPR grounds in District court
`litigation
`
`
`TTI-1027 Transcript of the Deposition of Pavan M. Gajendragad
`
`TTI-1028 Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Traynor
`
`TTI-1029 Merriam Webster definition for “along with,” retrieved March 24,
`2025
`
`
`TTI-1030
`
`
`3GPP TS 23.140 (“MMS V6.9.0”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`TTI-1031 Merriam Webster definition for “in addition to,” retrieved March 25,
`2025
`
`
`TTI-1032 Order granting Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, CellSpin Soft, Inc.
`v. ByteDance, Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-496, E.D. Tex., granted
`Jan. 26, 2025
`
`
`TTI-1033 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide,
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/practice-guides
`
`
`TTI-1034
`
`
`lftp(1) – Linux man page, available at https://linux.die.net/man/1/lftp
`
`v
`
`

`

`Cellspin’s POR1 arguments lack merit and should be rejected for the reasons
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`below.
`
`I.
`
`CELLSPIN’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS FAIL
`
`A. Cellspin’s representations of the litigation’s claim construction
`pleadings are not accurate.
`
`Cellspin misrepresents multiple aspects of the claim construction arguments
`
`in the stayed co-pending litigation.
`
`First, Cellspin represents that “[t]he District Court in this matter is in the
`
`process of carrying out its claim construction role.” POR, 5-6. Not so. The co-
`
`pending litigation is stayed pending the outcome of these IPRs, and thus, the
`
`District Court has stopped all deliberation on claim construction, inter alia. TTI-
`
`1032. Thus, as any further claim construction developments in the co-pending
`
`litigation would occur after the resolution of these IPRs. Id.
`
`Second, Cellspin represents that “Petitioner is seeking to secure narrow
`
`constructions of one hundred plus claim terms in the District Court.” POR, 6-7
`
`(emphasis omitted). This is misleading. Petitioner proposed preliminary
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Cellspin uploaded additional exhibits with their POR that reuse exhibit numbers
`
`from their earlier pre-institution briefing. Unless otherwise indicated, Petitioner’s
`
`exhibit cites refer to Cellspin’s post-institution exhibits.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`constructions for only nine unique claim features for the ’336 Patent in litigation.
`
`EX-2002, 5. To the extent this has any relevance here (it does not, as the litigation
`
`is stayed), Cellspin has significantly overinflated the true scope of Petitioner’s
`
`previous preliminary claim construction arguments by double-counting similar
`
`claim features across different claims—something that is acknowledged by both
`
`Mr. Gajendragad and Cellspin’s counsel. TTI-1027, 68:18-83:15, 89:15-90:22.
`
`Finally, Cellspin’s reliance on the preliminary constructions are misplaced
`
`as the preliminary constructions are not the most current claim construction
`
`pleading. Compare EX-2002 with EX-2005. The joint claim construction statement
`
`from December 12, 2024 directly contradicts Cellspin’s assertion that Cellspin and
`
`TikTok have agreed to certain constructions (e.g., “segment” and “user identifier”).
`
`EX-2005.
`
`Accordingly, Cellspin’s representations of the status of claim construction in
`
`the co-pending litigation cannot be trusted.
`
`B. Cellspin’s claim constructions are unjustifiably narrow and fail to
`address the applicability of grounds in this proceeding
`
`Formal claim constructions are not necessary to rule in Petitioner’s favor.
`
`And yet, Cellspin advances overly narrow and unsupported constructions of
`
`various claim limitations and seeks to import a host of constructions from the co-
`
`pending and stayed litigation, despite their lacking relevance to the applicability of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`grounds advanced in this proceeding. The Board should reject Cellspin’s overly
`
`narrow and unhelpful proposed constructions. But even under Cellspin’s narrow
`
`proposed constructions, the Petition establishes unpatentability.
`
`Thus, the Board need not construe the claim terms in this proceeding. E.g.,
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Although no
`
`claim construction is necessary here, Petitioner provides the analysis below to aid
`
`the Board in understanding the Petitioner’s positions with respect to the claim
`
`construction issues:
`
`1.
`
`Along with
`
`Cellspin construes “along with” as limited to “in addition to,” such that
`
`element 1[f] would require “transferring a data segment in addition to said user
`
`identifier.” By way of support, they reproduce a block quotation from the “’802
`
`specification”2 and a portion of a Merriam Webster definition. But this evidence
`
`does not support Cellspin’s construction.
`
`First, Cellspin fails to establish that the term “along with” requires
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Cellspin refers to this publication as the “’802 specification,” yet no complete
`
`patent publication number or citation is provided and the relationship of this
`
`publication to the ’336 Patent is unclear. POR, 9-12.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`construction, much less the existence within the referenced portion of the ’802
`
`specification of a redefinition or disavow of plain meaning attributable to this term.
`
`POR, 9-12. Indeed, Cellspin fails to demonstrate that the ’802 specification does
`
`anything more than use the words “along with” without any explanation as to its
`
`meaning. Id.
`
`Second, the portion of the Merriam Webster definition that is reproduced in
`
`Cellspin’s POR is only one of multiple possible definitions for “along with” listed
`
`by Merriam Webster; contrast the sub-portion conveniently referenced by the POR
`
`against the full Merriam Webster entry, both reproduced below. POR, 11.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`POR, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`TTI-1029
`
`If fully considering the Merriam Webster dictionary offered by Cellspin, it is
`
`apparent that “along with” is NOT limited to “in addition to,” and that this term
`
`extends to other definitions, an example of which is “together with,” indicating that
`
`“along with.” POR, 11. No justification is given in the POR as to why “in addition
`
`to”—what Cellspin has elected—is preferable to this or other definitions (“together
`
`with”). Id.
`
`Third, the Merriam Dictionary fails to inform meaning attributed by a
`
`5
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`POSITA at the critical date, and we are therefore left by Cellspin without evidence
`
`of its legal relevance. POR, 9-12; Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
`
`967, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“Rather the focus is on the objective test of what one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term
`
`to mean”)3.
`
`Thus, Cellspin has failed to justify departure from the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “along with,” which would at least encompass the Petition’s
`
`application of the prior art. TTI-1028, ¶¶9-12.
`
`2.
`
`Segment identifier
`
`Contrary to what Cellspin alleges, Cellspin and TikTok have not agreed to a
`
`construction for this claim feature. POR, 12-13; EX-2005. TikTok has argued that
`
`this feature should only be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which is
`
`consistent with the ’336 Patent that neither redefines nor disavows the plain
`
`meaning of “segment identifier.” TTI-1001, 5:4-11, 7:23-29, 7:52-57. Accordingly,
`
`no basis exists for contending that the claimed segment identifier precludes an
`
`identifier that identifies a data segment, which is rendered obvious by the Petition’s
`
`prior art. Petition, 15-16, 44-46; TTI-1028, ¶¶13-14.
`
`
`
` 3
`
` All emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`In its attempt to narrow through construction, Cellspin argues that “HTTP
`
`based identifiers must be text.” POR, 12-13. But as Dr. Traynor explains, the use
`
`of text in HTTP-based identifiers is simply a design choice, and other options
`
`would have been available and thus obvious to a POSITA. TTI-1028, ¶13. For
`
`example, before the Critical Date, HTTP supported the use of numeric “cookies” to
`
`identify a user, which can be limited to simply numeric identifiers without any
`
`additional text. TTI-1007, 277-278, 283-284. Additionally, the body of an HTTP
`
`message supports binary data, indicating that HTTP messages are not simply
`
`limited to text. TTI-1007, 64.
`
`The only evidence Cellspin provides in support of its construction is found
`
`in a paper titled, the Gajendragad Declaration, EX. 2001, ¶46. POR, 12-13.
`
`Clearly EX-2001 is styled as a “declaration,” but critically, it lacks any indication
`
`that Mr. Gajendragad4 was “warned that willful false statements and the like are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001),” or a statement by
`
`Mr. Gajendragad that “all statements made of the declarant’s own knowledge are
`
`
`
` 4
`
` Throughout the POR, Cellspin erroneously refers to Mr. Gajendragad as “Dr.
`
`Gajendragad.” Mr. Gajendragad confirms that he does not possess a doctoral
`
`degree and acknowledges this is a typographical error. TTI-1027, 44:16-22.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true”
`
`as required by 37 CFR §1.68. It instead offers only that the drafter would “testify
`
`to the truth” of his opinions, without any indication that he was informed of the
`
`penalties false statements would bring. EX-2001, ¶¶6, 219. Thus, this paper is
`
`defective, leaving us with statements in EX-2001 that have no probative legal
`
`value, which should be afforded no weight. Fedex Corp. v. Katz Tech. Licensing,
`
`CBM2015-00053, Paper 9, 7-8 (PTAB June 29, 2015); Bumble Bee Foods v.
`
`Kowalski, IPR2014-00224, Paper 18, 14-15 (PTAB June 5, 2014).
`
`Also problematic is Mr. Gajendragad’s personal friendship with one of the
`
`named inventors of the ’336 Patent, which calls into question the objectivity and
`
`credibility of his opinions. Mr. Gajendragad acknowledges that he has a personal
`
`friendship with Gurvinder Singh, the first named inventor of the ’336 Patent (who
`
`he refers to as “Bobby” Singh), and that his involvement in this proceeding was
`
`first solicited by Mr. Singh. TTI-1027, 46:21-47:11. Mr. Gajendragad’s
`
`relationship to Mr. Singh prevents him from providing objective testimony, and
`
`Mr. Gajendragad’s bias is evident from answers in deposition and his conclusory
`
`statements in EX-2001. TTI-1027, 36:2-37:19 (Q: “…what do you understand your
`
`role to be in these three inter partes review proceedings?” A: “So to show the
`
`glaring shortcomings of the argument put forth by the petition.”); compare POR,
`
`19 with EX-2001, ¶60; and compare POR, 23 with EX-2001, ¶67.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`And, a review of EX-2001, ¶46, clearly shows the conclusory nature of Mr.
`
`Gajendragad’s statements. He fails to offer through citation reference to supporting
`
`evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. Thus, the
`
`cited paragraph is conclusory and unsupported, and adds little to the attorney
`
`arguments for which it is offered as support. The Board and Federal Circuit have
`
`rightly held that such opinions are unreliable and “entitled to little weight.” Xerox
`
`Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022)
`
`(precedential) (citing Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1306, 1311
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)).
`
`3.
`
`User identifier
`
`Contrary to what Cellspin alleges, Cellspin and TikTok have not agreed to a
`
`construction for this claim feature. POR, 13; EX-2005. TikTok has argued that this
`
`feature should only be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which is consistent
`
`with the ’336 Patent that neither redefines nor disavows the plain meaning of “user
`
`identifier.” See generally, TTI-1001. As before, the only evidence that Cellspin
`
`offers in support of its assertion is EX-2001, ¶47. POR, 13. As discussed above,
`
`the statements in EX-2001 should be given little to no weight. Because Cellspin
`
`provides no credible evidence in support of its construction, this feature should be
`
`given only its plain and ordinary meaning, which would encompass an identifier
`
`9
`
`

`

`that identifies a user as taught by the Petition’s prior art. Petition, 16-18, 46-48;
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`TTI-1028, ¶¶15-16.
`
`4. Web Service
`
`Cellspin alleges that “web service” should be construed to mean “[a]
`
`modular collection of Web protocol based applications that use standard Internet
`
`protocols such as HTTP, XML, and SOAP to provide connectivity.” POR, 14-15,
`
`27. Cellspin further alleges that “web service” is “being defined” accordingly in
`
`District Court—not true, as litigation is stayed. POR, 27; supra, §I.A.
`
`Again, the ’336 Patent does not define or disavow any particular definition
`
`of “web service”—the specification does not even recite the phrase (as noted in the
`
`Petition). See generally, TTI-1001; Petition, 11. More, no credible basis has been
`
`offered to depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase, which would
`
`encompass a “service” located on or available over the “web,” for example, a
`
`website as taught and rendered obvious by the Petition’s prior art. Petition, 9-11;
`
`TTI-1028, ¶¶17-19.
`
`II. AALTONEN AND DRESCHER RENDER THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS OBVIOUS (GROUND 1)
`
`A. Aaltonen-Drescher renders obvious “applying a segment
`identifier to each data segment” (element 1[d])
`
`As an initial matter, there are aspects of the Petition’s prior art mapping that
`
`are uncontested. For example, the Petition identified segment identifiers included
`
`10
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`in each of Aaltonen’s “information packets” and its “data packets” as satisfying
`
`element 1[d]. Petition, 15 (“Aaltonen discloses that ‘information packets… added
`
`to the packet stream’ ‘between groups or blocks 120 of one or more packets’ or
`
`alternatively ‘data packets’… include ‘an identifier’…). Cellspin does not dispute
`
`that Aaltonen’s data packets include a “segment identifier.” POR, 46-55. This is
`
`impactful, as Cellspin addresses only Aaltonen’s information packets and argues
`
`that identifiers must be “attached” to their respective data segments. POR, 47-48.
`
`To the extent that a segment identifier must be “attached” to its respective data
`
`segment (which the claim language does not require), Aaltonen’s data packets
`
`would disclose such an arrangement as they are within each data block (and thus
`
`each identifier within the data packet is attached to the block). Petition, 15-16.
`
`Thus, this overlooked Petition mapping renders a portion of Cellspin’s argument
`
`moot. POR, 47-48; TTI-1028, ¶20.
`
`Additionally, the POR argues that the Petition maps Aaltonen’s information
`
`packets to the “segment identifiers” of the claim. See e.g., POR, 47. This is
`
`misleading. The Petition mapped the “identifiers” within Aaltonen’s information
`
`and data packets as the claimed “segment identifiers,” not the packets themselves.
`
`Petition, 15. This is a meaningful distinction, as the identifying information within
`
`Aaltonen’s packets is not limited by Aaltonen to describing their packets, but is
`
`also credited by Aaltonen for describing the data blocks associated with their
`
`11
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`packets. Id.; TTI-1005, ¶[0103] (“each information packet can include a table
`
`uniquely identifying the block of packets before or after the respective information
`
`packet”); TTI-1028, ¶21. As discussed below, these data blocks are distinctly
`
`application layer constructs. Infra, §II.C.
`
`Contrary to Cellspin’s contention otherwise, Aaltonen-Drescher renders
`
`obvious the claims, even if narrowed based on Cellspin’s proposed construction.
`
`For example, Aaltonen discloses that segment identifiers can include “a table
`
`uniquely identifying the block of packets” (“a text string that identifies uniquely a
`
`data segment”). Petition, 15-16; TTI-1005, ¶[0103]; supra, §I.B.2. Cellspin alleges
`
`that identifiers in packets can only be binary, and thus cannot be text. POR, 54-55.
`
`The basis for this argument is Cellspin’s improper characterizations of Aaltonen -
`
`that Aaltonen’s data packets must be User Datagram Protocol (UDP) packets and
`
`their associated segment identifiers must be cyclic redundancy codes (CRC). Id.
`
`Not so. Aaltonen clearly indicates that UDP is only one possible protocol that can
`
`be used, and CRC is only an example method of segment identification. TTI-1005,
`
`¶¶[0102]-[0103] (“In accordance with various protocols, such as the User
`
`Datagram Protocol (UDP) …”). Aaltonen also clearly indicates that there are
`
`alternatives to CRC, which Dr. Traynor confirms. Id; TTI-1007, 278-296; TTI-
`
`1028, ¶22. Accordingly, to the extent CRC has any relevance to whether a segment
`
`identifier would qualify as text, Aaltonen describes embodiments where CRC is
`
`12
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`not even used as the segment identifier. TTI-1005, ¶¶[0102]-[0103]. Accordingly,
`
`it would have been to a POSITA that Aaltonen’s segment identifiers (e.g., tables)
`
`are not limited to binary data and nothing more. TTI-1028, ¶23.
`
`B. Aaltonen-Drescher renders obvious “applying a user identifier to
`each data segment” (element 1[e])
`
`The POR appears to argue that the Petition mapped a Uniform Resource
`
`Identifier (“URI”) to a user identifier. POR, 25-26, 63-64. The Petition never made
`
`such an argument. Petition, 16-18. The Petition instead turned to Drescher for this
`
`limitation, which as discussed below, renders obvious user identifiers in each
`
`communication between the server and client. Id.; TTI-1003, ¶¶55-56.
`
`Accordingly, Cellspin’s URI arguments attack a strawman. POR, 25-26, 63-64.
`
`Cellspin argues that Drescher’s user ID is “only sent in the initial request
`
`message to authenticate the user for that HTTP Session.” POR, 31-33 (emphasis
`
`omitted). However, this directly contradicts Drescher’s explicit disclosure. TTI-
`
`1010, 26:32-27:2. Drescher explicitly discloses sending its user identifier with each
`
`data chunk. Id. Specifically, Drescher discloses that although the identity of a user
`
`need be shared only once, it “may be convenient nonetheless” to include the user’s
`
`identity in “additional” messages. Id. Thus, Cellspin’s argument that the user’s
`
`identity is “only” sent in the initial message is belied by the reference’s very
`
`disclosure. Id.; TTI-1028, ¶24.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`Cellspin also attempts to support its argument by reading the Drescher’s
`
`silence as an affirmative disclosure. POR, 32-33. Specifically, Cellspin contends
`
`that Drescher’s FIGS. 8A and 8B constitute undisputable evidence that user
`
`identification is not transmitted with subsequent messages in Drescher, but these
`
`figures in Drescher do not speak to subsequent messages, nor do they indicate
`
`limitations on acceptable message formats. Indeed, nothing in the figures or
`
`supporting disclosure actually supports Cellspin’s interpretation that user
`
`identifying information cannot be included in any subsequent messages, or that
`
`FIGS. 8A and 8B are the only acceptable message formats. Id.; TTI-1010, 36:24-
`
`33, FIGS. 8A, 8B. Drescher itself indicates that the syntax of these messages is
`
`simply an “example.” TTI-1010, 7:23-24. In light of Drescher’s disclosure
`
`elsewhere, as discussed above, a more consistent interpretation is that user
`
`identification is simply not pictured in FIG. 8B, but may nonetheless be included,
`
`e.g., in other allowable message formats. TTI-1010, 26:32-27:2, FIG. 8B; TTI-
`
`1028, ¶25.
`
`Additionally, even if Cellspin’s proposed construction for user identifier was
`
`accepted (it should not be), the prior art would still render obvious this
`
`construction. Indeed, Cellspin does not even allege that Drescher does not satisfy
`
`its proposed construction, and Cellspin attacks only Aaltonen in isolation
`
`(improperly assuming identifiers must be CRC). POR, 55-63; supra, §I.B.3. But
`
`14
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`Cellspin’s argument is exposed when considering Drescher’s indication that its
`
`user identifiers include a “name particularising the… [party] involved in the
`
`request” (“a text string that identifies uniquely a user of a web service …”).
`
`Petition, 17; TTI-1010, 25:32-26:21, 34:13-35:4, 35:26-36:21. A “name” is most
`
`commonly represented by text, as opposed to binary data. Id. Moreover, Drescher
`
`discloses that user identity is used to determine “permissions” to allow “access to
`
`resources at the server” (“… and contains sufficient information to authenticate a
`
`user of the web service”). Id. Accordingly, Aaltonen and Drescher would render
`
`this construction obvious if it was applied (it should not be). Id.; TTI-1028, ¶26.
`
`C. Aaltonen-Drescher renders obvious applying the identifiers “at
`the application layer level”
`
`These identifiers are also applied at the application layer, as required by the
`
`claims. The identifying information in Aaltonen’s information and data packets
`
`describes blocks of packets (“a table uniquely identifying the block of packets”).
`
`Petition, 15; TTI-1005, ¶[0103]. These data blocks are created by Aaltonen’s
`
`content manager, an application, which “break[s] up the upload content into a
`
`plurality of portions” (“blocks”). Petition, 4-5, 9; TTI-1005, ¶[0060], FIG. 6. As
`
`Dr. Traynor explains, “functionality exposed to an application (e.g., the
`
`segmenting of data by the content manager) is distinctly application layer
`
`functionality.” TTI-1028, ¶28. Accordingly, while individual packets may be
`
`15
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`transport layer constructs, Aaltonen’s “blocks” of packets are established by an
`
`application, and are thus clearly not. Id.; Petition, 4-5, 9; TTI-1005, ¶[0060], FIG.
`
`6. As Dr. Traynor elaborates:
`
`“The OSI model is a conceptual framework composed of abstract
`
`layers, and applying rigid lines of demarcation to these layers is
`
`improper (e.g., declaring that all information carried by a particular data
`
`packet
`
`is
`
`information at
`
`the
`
`transport
`
`layer). The common
`
`understanding is that functionality exposed to an application (e.g., the
`
`segmenting of data by the content manager) is distinctly application
`
`layer functionality. Said another way, if you were to assume that all
`
`information in a data packet is assigned to the transport layer of the OSI
`
`model, application layer protocols (like HTTP) would not exist, as data
`
`in transit (e.g., a transmitted HTTP data block) could only theoretically
`
`be assigned to the transport layer. In actuality, the layers of the OSI
`
`model complement each other, and act to conceptually (not physically)
`
`separate networking functionality.”
`
`TTI-1028, ¶27.
`
`As discussed above, Mr. Gajendragad’s opinion to the contrary is not
`
`credible and should be given little to no weight. Supra, §I.B.2. For example, as
`
`evidence of the conclusory nature of his testimony, the POR argues that “a
`
`POSITA would readily appreciate the fact that FTP and HTTP had no concept of
`
`segmentation of data at the Application Layer in 2007,” citing only Mr.
`
`Gajendragad’s written opinion. POR, 19. However, Mr. Gajendragad’s written
`
`16
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`opinion simply repeats the same statement in the POR, nearly word for word,
`
`without offering any additional evidence. EX-2001, ¶60; Xerox Corp., IPR2022-
`
`00624, Paper 9 at 15. As another example, Mr. Gajendragad opines that “[a]s of
`
`2007, a POSITA would have understood that HTTP was only being used between
`
`web servers and requesting Browsers”—almost the same statement verbatim made
`
`in the POR. Compare POR, 23 with EX-2001, ¶67. Indeed, this is a trend
`
`throughout Mr. Gajendragad’s written opinion. See generally, POR; EX-2001.
`
`In addition to being conclusory, these opinions are factually incorrect. For
`
`example, as Dr. Traynor notes, “Na itself undermines the assertation that HTTP
`
`was limited to only browsers as of 2007.” TTI-1006, ¶¶[0003]-[0004], [0052],
`
`[0062], [0067]-[0068], [0072]-[0075], [0111], [0116]; TTI-1028, ¶¶29-30. Na
`
`explicitly discloses the use of HTTP in Multimedia Messaging System (MMS),
`
`which a POSITA would have readily appreciated is not confined to a web browser.
`
`Id.; see also TTI-1030, 25-26, 132-134. The MMS standard as of 2005 included
`
`messaging between MMS clients and server-based Value Added Service Providers
`
`(“VASPs”). Id. The messaging for VASP services used the Simple Object Access
`
`Protocol (“SOAP”) 1.1 format, which itself used HTTP. Id. The SOAP format
`
`allowed for many different types of communication, beyond that provided by a
`
`simple web browser, to include any combination of multimedia, images, text, and
`
`audio. Id.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Proceeding No. IPR2024-00757
`Attorney Docket No: 50048-0057IP1
`
`Additionally, the opinion that “a POSITA would readily appreciate the fact
`
`that FTP and HTTP had no concept of segmentation of data at the Application
`
`Layer in 2007” is similarly off-base. TTI-1028, ¶31. Segmentation of data at the
`
`application layer was well known prior to the Critical Date and, in addition to the
`
`prior art combinations presented in the Petition, MMS as of 2005 (a distinctly
`
`application-layer protocol) also included options to transmit a particular MM as a
`
`collection of separate elements (“streaming,” where an MM is transmitted as “one
`
`or several MM elements”). TTI-1030, 18-19, 35-36. As discussed above, when the
`
`MM in question is part of a VASP, this transmission is performed with SOAP and
`
`HTTP. TTI-1030, 25-26, 132-134. Sophisticated File Transfer Program (“lftp”) is
`
`another example of a segmented file transfer protocol that performed upload
`
`recovery at the application layer. TTI-1034.
`
`D. Aaltonen-Drescher renders obvious a “web service”
`
`Even if Cellspin’s construction of “web service” was adopted, the prior art
`
`would still disclose the construed feature. Petition, 11; TTI-1003, ¶42; TTI-1005,
`
`¶¶[0056]-[0057]; TTI-1028, ¶32; supra, §I.B.4. As explained in the Petition,
`
`Aaltonen discloses its mobile station can use “a conventional Web browser for
`
`communicating in accordance with