`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DISPERSIVE NETWORKS, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`NICIRA, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2018-00063
`
`
`Patent 9,722,815
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF NADER F. MIR, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE AND
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1
`
`A. Scope .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`B. Summary of Qualifications ............................................................................ 2
`
`C. Materials Considered ..................................................................................... 6
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS .............................................................. 7
`
`III. LEVEL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................13
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’815 PATENT............................................................13
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................20
`
`A. “Edge Device”..............................................................................................20
`
`VI. CLAIMS 1–6 and 8–11 ARE NOT INDEFINITE .........................................21
`
`A. Claim 1 – “setting another MP network flow parameter based on the
`optimal multipath network flow setting” Is Definite ............................................21
`
`B. Claim 6 – “a software as a service (SaaS) application interacts with the
`edge device and the gateway to determine a value of a specified network
`characteristic communicatively coupling the SaaS application with the edge
`device and resetting the QoS parameter based on the value of the specified
`network characteristic” Is Definite ......................................................................28
`
`C. Claim 8 – “a gateway comprising a network node equipped for interfacing
`with another computer network utilizing different communication protocols, ...
`wherein the gateway has no initial setup configuration, [and] ... wherein the
`gateway uses the initial setup configuration to automatically create multiple
`isolated configurations-per-enterprise” Is Definite ............................................32
`
`VII. CLAIMS 1–5 AND 7 ARE NOT OBVIOUS .................................................37
`
`A. Twitchell Does Not Teach Dispersive Client Software on an Edge Device
`
`37
`
`B. Twitchell Does Not Teach Implementing a Multipath Protocol between an
`Edge Device and a Gateway ................................................................................42
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`C. Twitchell Fails to Teach A Number of Other Feature Recited in Claims 1
`and 7 .....................................................................................................................47
`
`(i) Claims 1 and 7: Twitchell Fails to Teach “providing/provide an edge
`device in a local network communicatively coupled with a cloud-computing
`service in a cloud-computing network” ...........................................................47
`
`Twitchell Fails to Teach, Claim 1: “automatically detecting a set of
`(ii)
`wide area network (WAN) links connected directly to the edge device or via
`an intermediate router,” or Claim 7: “automatically detect a set of wide area
`network (WAN) links connected to the edge device” .....................................48
`
`(iii) Twitchell Fails to Teach, Claim 1: “automatically measuring the
`bandwidth of the WAN links communicatively coupling the edge device with
`a central configuration point in the cloud-computing network” ......................48
`
`(iv) Claims 1 and 7: Twitchell Fails to Teach “downloading/download,
`from the central configuration point, an enterprise-specific configuration data
`into the edge device, wherein the enterprise-specific configuration data
`comprises a gateway information” ..................................................................50
`
`to Teach “communicatively
`Claims 1 and 7: Twitchell Fails
`(v)
`coupling/couple the edge device with a gateway in the cloud-computing
`network, wherein the communicatively coupling of the edge device with the
`gateway comprises a [m]ultipath (MP) protocol, and wherein the MP protocol
`is implemented by combining a set of multiple network paths into a composite
`connection that transmits a set of data packets from a single user packet flow
`across all [p]aths simultaneously” ...................................................................51
`
`(vi) Claims 1 and 7: Twitchell Fails to Teach “measuring/measure an
`available bandwidth on each path of the set of multiple network paths
`between the edge device and the gateway;” ....................................................52
`
`(vii) Claim 1: Twitchell Fails to Disclose or Suggest “determining an
`optimal multipath network flow setting that ensures a quality of service (QoS)
`parameter of the multipath network flow” .......................................................53
`
`(viii) Claim 1: Twitchell fails to Teach “setting another MP network flow
`parameter based on the optimal multipath network flow setting” ...................55
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`(ix) Claim 7: Twitchell Fails to Teach Performing Instructions that
`“automatically measure the WAN links without using an external router” and
`“communicatively couple the edge device with a central configuration point
`in the cloud-computing network” ....................................................................56
`
`D. With Regard to Deep Packet Inspection, The Petition Fails to Explain How
`and Why a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have Combined Twitchell
`with Ray and Raleigh to Arrive at the Claimed Invention ..................................57
`
`VIII. CLAIMS 1–5 AND 7 ARE PATENT ELIGIBLE .........................................61
`
`A. Claims 1 and 7 Improve the Way Computing Devices Function And Are
`Not Directed to an Abstract Idea .........................................................................61
`
`IX. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS 12-21 ......................................................................67
`
`A. The Substitute Claims Do Not Enlarge the Scope of the Original Claims ..73
`
`B. Analysis of the Support for the Substitute Claims ......................................77
`
`C. The Substitute Claims Are Directed to Patent Eligible Subject Matter ....126
`
`D. The Substitute Claims are Definite ............................................................126
`
`E. The Substitute Claims are Patentable Over the Prior Art ..........................128
`
`X. DECLARATION ..........................................................................................130
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`I, Nader F. Mir, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Nicira, Inc. in the matter
`
`of Post-Grant Review (PGR) No. PGR2018-00063, of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,815
`
`(the “’815 patent”) to Sunil Mukundan, et al.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Scope
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to review certain materials and give my opinion
`
`about whether claims 1–5 and 7 of the ’815 Patent are obvious, whether claims 1–6
`
`and 8–11 are indefinite, and whether claims 1–5 and 7 are eligible for patenting.
`
`Assuming that one or more of the above claims are ultimately found to be
`
`unpatentable, I have also been asked to provide my opinions on whether amended
`
`substitute claims 12-21 expand the scope of the original claims of the ’815 patent,
`
`are supported by the written description of the application upon which the ’815
`
`patent was granted, would introduce new matter, and whether these substitute
`
`claims are patentable. I was also asked for my opinions regarding the meaning of
`
`certain words of the claims and the level of ordinary skill in the art. I express those
`
`opinions in this declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by the Patent Owner as an expert and am being
`
`compensated for my time. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`this proceeding, the results of my analysis, or on the substance of my opinions and
`
`testimony. I have no interest in the outcome of this matter.
`
`4.
`
`I have no financial interest in Dispersive Networks, Inc., Dispersive
`
`Technologies, Inc., VMware, Inc., or Nicira, Inc. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’815 Patent and I have had no contact with the named inventors of
`
`the ’815 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Qualifications
`
`5. My qualifications to offer expert testimony in this case are set forth in
`
`my Curriculum Vitae. Ex. 2028. I provide a brief summary of my qualifications
`
`and professional experience below.
`
`6. My professional career has spanned more than 30 years. As set forth
`
`in my CV, during these years I have gained extensive experience in design,
`
`analysis, testing, teaching, research, and performance evaluation in the general
`
`fields of communication systems and computer networks including but not limited
`
`to TCP/IP, wireless networks, communications systems, network security, network
`
`virtualizations, and multimedia networks.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently a professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering
`
`at San Jose State University in California and teach courses on various topics of
`
`communication systems and computer networks. I was previously the Associate
`
`Chairman of the Electrical Engineering Department at San Jose State University.
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`For more than 10 years, from 2006 through June 2017, I was also the director of a
`
`number of graduate programs that San Jose State University offers to several high-
`
`tech companies in the California Bay area.
`
`8.
`
`I was awarded a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering, with a focus
`
`on computer networking and communication systems and protocols, from
`
`Washington University in St. Louis in 1995. I received a Master’s of Science
`
`(M.Sc.) degree in Electrical Engineering from Washington University in St. Louis
`
`in 1990 and my Bachelors of Science (B.Sc.) degree (with honors) in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Polytechnic University, Tehran in 1985.
`
`9.
`
`For more than 30 years, I have studied, designed, and worked in the
`
`general fields of communication systems and computer networks. Based on my
`
`extensive research, engineering, and teaching experience in such fields, I have
`
`been recognized as a specialist in the areas of computer and communication
`
`networks; networking devices; protocols including but not limited to packet
`
`switched networks, integrated voice, video, data networks, computer networking,
`
`TCP/IP, network server operations, voice or video over IP, network virtualization,
`
`media streaming, databases in networks, client/server, telephone/telecom networks,
`
`and protocols, wireless networks, networking devices such as switches and routers,
`
`and network security, among others.
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`10. Prior to my current position, I was an assistant professor at the
`
`University of Kentucky in Lexington. From 1994 to 1996, I was a research
`
`scientist at the Advanced Telecommunications Institute, Stevens Institute of
`
`Technology, New Jersey, working on the design of advanced communication
`
`systems and high-speed computer networks.
`
`11. From 1990 to 1994, I worked at the Computer and Communications
`
`Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis as a research assistant on
`
`the design and analysis of high-speed switching systems and controllers for
`
`computer networks.
`
`12. From 1985 to 1988, I worked with Telecommunication Research &
`
`Development Center (TRDC), Surrey, as a telecommunications system research
`
`and development engineer, participating in the design of a high-speed digital
`
`telephone Private Branch Exchange (PBX).
`
`13.
`
`I am the named inventor on U.S. patent No. 7,012,895 B1, a switching
`
`system for use in high-speed computer networks.
`
`14.
`
`I hold several technical editorial positions for various journals,
`
`including IEEE Communication Magazine. As a Technical Editor of IEEE
`
`Communications Magazine, I am responsible for accepting or rejecting scientific
`
`articles submitted to the journal in the areas of communication systems and
`
`computer networks. Since 2015, I have also been holding the technical editorial
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`position for IEEE Communications Standards Magazine. I am a senior member of
`
`the IEEE and have served as a member of the technical program committees and
`
`the steering committees for a number of major IEEE communications and
`
`networking conferences.
`
`15.
`
`I have authored a major textbook, titled Computer & Communication
`
`Networks, by Pearson Prentice-Hall publisher which is now a standard textbook
`
`adopted world-wide for undergraduate and graduate courses in numerous
`
`universities and colleges. The first edition of the book was published in 20061 and
`
`the second edition was published in 20152 . The book contains 874 pages covering
`
`a broad range of fundamental and advanced topics in communication systems and
`
`computer networks on all layers of TCP/IP protocol stack, including wireless
`
`networks and network security. I have published more than 100 refereed technical
`
`journal articles and conference papers, all in the field of communication systems
`
`and computer networks. A list of my publications can be found in my CV. See
`
`Appendix A. Ex. 2028.
`
`16.
`
`I have received a number of prestigious university, national, and
`
`international awards. In particular, I have received a number of research grants
`
`
`1 Nader Mir, Computer and Communication Networks (Prentice-Hall, 1st ed. 2006).
`
`2 Nader Mir, Computer and Communication Networks (Prentice-Hall, 2nd ed.
`
`2015).
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`from private, state, and governmental funding agencies for conducting research in
`
`the fields of communication systems and computer networks. I am also the
`
`recipient of several university teaching recognition awards from San Jose State
`
`University; several research excellence awards; and the school’s published book
`
`award for the year 2014.
`
`17.
`
`I have been invited to give a number of talks at both national and
`
`international conferences. My speeches at conferences have focused on a variety
`
`of topics in communication systems and computer networks. I am the recipient of
`
`a number of Outstanding Presentation awards from leading international
`
`conferences.
`
`C. Materials Considered
`
`18.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have considered:
`
`(a) The Petition for Post Grant Review of US 9,722,815 dated May 1,
`
`2018;
`
`(b) U.S. Patent No. 9,722,815 to Mukundan et al. (“the ’815 Patent”
`
`or Ex. 1001);
`
`(c) Prosecution History of the ’815 Patent (Ex. 1002 );
`
`(d) U.S. Patent No. 9,071,607 to Twitchell. Jr. (“Twitchell” or Ex.
`
`1003);
`
`(e) U.S. Patent No. U.S. 8,111,692 to Ray (“Ray” or Ex. 1004);
`
`(f) U.S. Patent Publ. No. US 20012/0221955 to Raleigh et al.
`
`(“Raleigh” or Ex. 1005);
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`(g) Declaration of Richard W. Conklin (Ex. 1006);
`
`(h) U.S. Patent No. U.S. 9,715,401 to Devine et al. (“Devine et al.”
`
`or Ex. 1008);
`
`(i) U.S. Patent Publ. No. US 2011/0153909 to Dong (“Dong” or Ex.
`
`1009);
`
`(j) Dispersive Technologies Use Cases (Ex. 2024);
`
`(k) Newton’s Definition of “deep-packet inspection” (Ex. 2025);
`
`(l) Qosmos DPI Probe (Ex. 2026);
`
`(m) SonicWall RFDPI (Ex. 2027);
`
`(n) WhatIs.com definition of “parameter,” web page archive from
`
`May 16, 2013:
`
`(https://web.archive.org/web/20130516061928/https://whatis.tec
`
`htarget.com/definition/parameter) (Ex. 2029); and
`
`(o) Decision on Institution Paper No. 25, November 15, 2018.
`
`19. In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(a) The documents listed above;
`
`(b) The relevant legal standards, including the legal standards for
`
`definiteness, obviousness, patent eligibility, and written
`
`description support, as well as any additional documents cited in
`
`the body of this declaration; and
`
`(c) My knowledge and experience in the technical area of the ’815
`
`Patent.
`
`II. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`20.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ’815 Patent are definite, would have been obvious, and whether they
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. I have also been asked whether
`
`substitute claims 12-21 enlarge the scope of the original claims of the ’815 patent,
`
`are supported by the original description of the ’815 patent, whether the substitute
`
`claims would add “new matter,” and whether the substitute claims are definite and
`
`non-obvious. I offer my opinions from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a claim must particularly
`
`point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. I have been told and understand
`
`that a claim can be found indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) if it contains words or
`
`phrases whose meaning is unclear or amenable to two or more plausible
`
`constructions. I have also been informed that a claim may be considered as
`
`indefinite if fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about
`
`the scope of the invention. I have been told and understand that the definiteness
`
`requirement is not a demand for unreasonable precision, and the amount of clarity
`
`that is required necessarily invokes some standard of reasonable precision in the
`
`use of language in the context of the circumstances. I have been informed and
`
`understand that whether claims are sufficiently definite is based on the perspective
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the entire written description and
`
`prosecution history.
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 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 person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I also understand that the obviousness analysis takes into account
`
`factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claimed
`
`subject, and any secondary considerations or evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`23.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
`
`for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, and
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed and understand that an invention is patent-
`
`eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 if it claims a new and useful process, machine,
`
`manufacture, or composition of matter. However, under judicially-created
`
`exceptions to patent eligibility, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
`
`ideas are not eligible for patenting. With respect to the abstract idea exception, I
`
`have been informed and understand that the inquiry to determine whether or not an
`
`invention is patent-eligible has two steps: (1) determine whether the claim is
`
`directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, and (2) if so, whether the elements of
`
`the claim both individually and as an ordered combination transform the nature of
`
`the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. With regard to the
`
`first step, I have been told and understand that claims that are directed to a specific
`
`improvement in the capabilities of computing devices are not directed to an
`
`“abstract idea.” I have further been advised that when considering whether the
`
`claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of computing
`
`devices, it is appropriate to consider the claim limitations in light of the relevant
`
`portions of the specification. With respect to step two, I have been informed and
`
`understand that claim elements, when considered individually and in combination,
`
`reciting well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field are insufficient
`
`to render the claims patent-eligible. I have been advised that the question of
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine
`
`and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field, is a question of fact.
`
`25.
`
`I have been advised that the level of ordinary skill in the art can be
`
`determined by taking into consideration the type of problems encountered by those
`
`in this art; the solutions to those problems; the rate at which innovations are made;
`
`the sophistication of the technology; and the educational level of active workers in
`
`the field.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed and understand that if the Board should accept
`
`Petitioner’s arguments and cancel any of the original issued claims of the ’815
`
`patent, Patent Owner is making a contingent motion to amend to substitute the
`
`canceled claim(s) with corresponding proposed amended claims.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed and understand that to permit the proposed
`
`substitute claims to be accepted, the Patent Owner must show, among other things,
`
`that the substitute claims are supported by the written description of the original
`
`disclosure of the ’815patent. I have been informed that the original disclosure of
`
`the ’815 patent includes the drawing figures, specification and claims, as
`
`originally-filed in the Patent Office.
`
`28.
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that to satisfy the
`
`written description requirement, the substitute claims must be disclosed in
`
`sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`inventor had possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date sought. I
`
`understand that the Patent Owner can show possession of the claimed invention by
`
`pointing to such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and
`
`formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that to permit the
`
`proposed substitute claims to be entered, Patent Owner must show, among other
`
`things, that the substitute claims do not introduce new subject matter.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that new matter is any addition to the claims without
`
`support in the original disclosure.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed by counsel and understand that to permit the
`
`proposed substitute claims to be entered, Patent Owner must show, among other
`
`things, the substitute claims do not broaden the scope of the original claims.
`
`32.
`
`It is my understanding that in this proceeding, the claim terms of the
`
`’815 Patent are currently given their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent
`
`with the specification of the ’815 Patent, as understood by one of ordinary skill the
`
`art. I have also been advised that although the claim terms should be interpreted
`
`consistently with the specification, care should be taken to avoid unnecessarily
`
`importing limitations into the claims. I have been advised that limitations from the
`
`specification may be imported into the claims, consistent with the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, where the term at issue has been given an
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`explicit definition in the specification, or where there is a clear disclaimer of
`
`subject matter associated with the term at issue. I have been advised that claim
`
`terms are normally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is my understanding that claim
`
`terms that do not possess a special meaning to those of ordinary skill in that
`
`relevant art may be simply given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that claims in dependent form are construed to include all
`
`the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim and
`
`further limit the claim incorporated by reference.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has
`
`adopted the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person possessing
`
`a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering with at least five
`
`years of experience in the field of computer networking. Decision on Institution,
`
`Paper No. 25 (“DI”), p.13. For purposes of expressing my opinions, I have used
`
`the same definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’815 PATENT
`
`35. As the title of the ’815 patent (“Edge-Gateway Multipath Method and
`
`System”) would suggest, the ’815 patent is generally directed to methods and
`
`systems for improved connectivity between interconnected networks, such as
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`between either public or hybrid clouds and local enterprise branches or networks.
`
`The ’815 patent described methods and systems that involve edge devices as nodes
`
`in a local or enterprise network that serve to control traffic between the end users
`
`of the network, and the resources being deployed in the private and/or public
`
`cloud.
`
`36. Using deep-packet inspection, an edge (edge device) can determine a
`
`quality of service (QoS) parameter for a particular packet, as well as determining
`
`an optimal multipath network flow that ensures that the QoS parameter is satisfied
`
`for that packet. Ex. 1001, Col. 7, ll. 50-56. For instance, a packet containing
`
`voice-over-IP data will be given a higher priority than a bulk file transfer. Ex.
`
`1001, Col.5, ll. 14-25. Edge devices can apply appropriate measures to ensure
`
`satisfying the QoS requirements of the network traffic, such as forward error
`
`correction, bandwidth aggregation and intelligent load balancing. Ex. 1001, Col. 5,
`
`ll. 19–41; FIG. 2.
`
`37. These initial decisions can be revisited due to, for example, changes
`
`in the state of traffic on the network. Thus, whether precipitated by changes in the
`
`network conditions, or intervention by an administrator, the initial settings being
`
`applied to govern a particular flow of traffic on the network can be modified. A
`
`number of examples can be found in the specification of such modifications,
`
`including modifying the MP settings for packet flow “based on” the initial load-
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`balancing setting to a replication setting for future packets in the MP flow, thereby
`
`avoiding interruption. Ex. 1002, Col. 9, ll. 38-54.
`
`38. According to the ‘815 patent clients connect to the edge devices, and
`
`the edges handle routing and identify application types: “By default, when an end-
`
`user accesses an application (which may run anywhere in the public cloud), the
`
`edge device identifies the application and determines the proper QoS methods to
`
`apply for this type of flow.” Ex. 1001, Col. 10, ll. 20-23. The ’815 patent also
`
`discloses: “An ‘end-user’ (e.g. maps to a device like laptop or mobile device) that
`
`connects to an edge device 108 that can be enabled to configure and/or monitor
`
`resources and policies that are specific to a user.” Ex. 1001, Col. 4, ll. 4-8.
`
`Therefore, the ’815 patent teaches configuring the edge devices to handle routing,
`
`thus the clients need no special configuration.
`
`39. The edges can receive configuration information from what the ’815
`
`patent calls an “orchestrator” or “central controller,” in some instances
`
`automatically. Ex. 1001, Col. 4, ll. 50-54; Col. 5, ll. 61-66. The edge devices can
`
`download enterprise-specific configuration data from the “orchestrator” or “central
`
`controller,” that can include QoS levels for certain applications. Ex. 1001, Col. 5,
`
`ll. 63–66. For example, a packet containing voice-over-IP data will be given a
`
`higher priority than a bulk file transfer. Ex. 1001, Col. 5, ll. 14–25. Edge devices
`
`can send higher priority packets in parallel over higher quality paths, through a
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`composite connection to reduce latency and meet QoS requirements. Ex. 1001,
`
`Col. 5, ll. 27–35. Thus, application-aware intelligent link characterization and link
`
`selection can be performed. Ex. 1001, Col. 5, ll. 37–44.
`
`40. The methods and systems may additionally include gateways, that
`
`serve peering points for edges, and facilitates communications between networks
`
`having different communications protocols. Ex. 1001, Col. 4, ll. 20-27. The edge
`
`and gateway are coupled via a multipath protocol in the form of a composite
`
`connection. Ex. 1001, Col. 5, ll. 31-35.
`
`41. The ’815 patent has 11 claims, with claims 1, 7 and 8 being the main
`
`or independent claims. Claims 1, 7 and 8 are reproduced below.
`
`1. An edge-gateway mu[lt]ipath method comprising:
`
`providing an edge device in a local network communicatively
`
`coupled with a cloud-computing service in a cloud-computing
`
`network;
`
`automatically detecting a set of wide area network (WAN) links
`
`connected directly to the edge device or via an intermediate router;
`
`automatically measuring the bandwidth of the WAN links
`
`communicatively coupling the edge device with a central
`
`configuration point in the cloud-computing network;
`
`downloading, from the central configuration point, an
`
`enterprise-specific configuration data into the edge device, wherein
`
`the enterprise-specific configuration data comprises a gateway
`
`information;
`
`Nicira Ex. 2033
`Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc. - PGR2018-00063
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`communicatively coupling the edge device with a gateway in
`
`the cloud-computing network, wherein the communicatively coupling
`
`of the edge device with the gateway comprises a [m]ultipath (MP)
`
`protocol, and wherein the MP protocol is implemented by combining
`
`a set of multiple network paths into a composite connection that
`
`transmits a set of data packets from a single user packet flow across
`
`all [p]aths simultaneously;
`
`measuring an available bandwidth on each path of the set of
`
`multiple network paths between the edge device and the gateway;
`
`utilizing a deep-packet inspection engine to identify an
`
`application and an application type in a MP network flow;
`
`determining an optimal multipath network flow setting that
`
`ensures a quality of service (QoS) parameter of the multipath network
`
`flow; and
`
`setting another MP network flow parameter based on the
`
`optimal multipath network flow setting.
`
`
`
`7. A computerized system comprising:
`
`a processor configured to execut