`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`KONDA TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 2
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 2
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`1.
`Lawsuit(s) .................................................................................... 2
`2.
`Related Applications ................................................................... 2
`3.
`Concurrently filed petitions ........................................................ 3
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 3
`C.
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................... 4
`IV. TIME FOR FILING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.202 .......................................... 4
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ..................... 4
`VI. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED ..................... 4
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested ................................................ 4
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 5
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 6
`VIII. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 7
`A.
`The ’553 Patent ..................................................................................... 7
`B. Material Incorporated by Reference in the ’553 Patent ...................... 12
`IX. PGR ELIGIBILITY ....................................................................................... 16
`A.
`The Two Pre-AIA Applications Do Not Support Switches
`Configurable By a Flip Flop (Claim 9) ............................................... 18
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Two Pre-AIA Applications Do Not Support Claims 1, 2, 4,
`11, 12, and 14 ...................................................................................... 20
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 22
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 25
`3.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 26
`4.
`Claims 11, 12, and 14 ............................................................... 30
`C. AIA Applicability ................................................................................ 31
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 31
`X.
`XI. EARLIEST EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE ’553 PATENT ............. 32
`XII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 33
`A. Ground 1: Konda ’756 PCT Anticipates Claims 1-7, 9-15, and
`17-19 .................................................................................................... 33
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 36
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 72
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 73
`4.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 76
`5.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 77
`6.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 77
`7.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 78
`8.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 79
`9.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 81
`10. Claim 11 .................................................................................... 82
`11. Claim 12 .................................................................................... 87
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`12. Claim 13 .................................................................................... 88
`13. Claim 14 .................................................................................... 89
`14. Claim 15 .................................................................................... 90
`15. Claim 17 .................................................................................... 91
`16. Claim 18 .................................................................................... 91
`17. Claim 19 .................................................................................... 92
`B. Ground 2: Konda ’756 PCT In View of Wong Renders Claims
`1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 Obvious .............................................................. 93
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 93
`2.
`Claim 11 ..................................................................................104
`3.
`Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-15, and 17-19 ........................................105
`XIII. THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE THIS PETITION ...........................106
`XIV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`796 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 16
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .................................................... 15, 17
`Brown v. 3M,
`265 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................passim
`Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc.,
`460 F. 3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 12, 13
`D Three Enters., LLC v. Sunmodo Corp.,
`890 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 13, 14
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper No. 19 (Sept. 6, 2017) ................................................. 107
`In re Gosteli,
`872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .................................................................... 16, 17
`Grunenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC,
`PGR2018-00001, Paper 17 (May 1, 2018) ......................................................... 16
`In re Johnston,
`435 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................ 54, 69, 85, 86
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................... 94, 103
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 16
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................. 15, 16, 17
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC v. Ricoh Ams. Corp.,
`847 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................ 54, 69, 85, 86
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc.,
`IPR2017-01408, 2018 WL 6318050 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) ......................... 13, 14
`Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`881 F.3d 894 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 12
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 32
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 16, 17
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Tech., LLC,
`694 F. App’x 794 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 15
`Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd.,
`492 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 94
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Systems, Inc., IPR2015-00633, Paper
`11 (August 14, 2015) .......................................................................................... 32
`Trans Video Elecs., Ltd. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`822 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .............................................................. 15
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`841 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 94
`Ex Parte Xiaoming Bao & Stephen M. Allen,
`Appeal No. 2016-006293, 2017 WL 1397726 (PTAB Mar. 28,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 34
`Ex Parte Yamaguchi,
`88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1606, 2008 WL 4233306 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2008) ................... 34
`ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 94
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 5
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(2)(A)(iii) ................................................................................... 34
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) .................................................................................................................. 16
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) .................................................................................. 33, 34
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ................................................................................................ 107
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 32
`37 C.F.R. § 42.202 ..................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .......................................................................................... viii
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`Ex. 1002 Declaration of Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Ex. 1003 Curriculum Vitae of Jacob Baker, Ph.D., P.E.
`
`Ex. 1004 File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`Ex. 1005 File History of U.S. Application No. 14/199,168
`
`Ex. 1006 Application Body As Filed of PCT Application No. PCT/US12/53814
`
`Ex. 1007 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/531,615
`
`Ex. 1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,940,308 (“Wong”)
`
`Ex. 1009 PCT Publication No. WO 2008/109756 A1 (“Konda ’756 PCT”)
`
`Ex. 1010 As-filed Disclosure of U.S. Provisional Application 60/984,724
`(Excerpt from File History of U.S. Provisional Application No.
`60/984,724 (Ex. 1039))
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent No. 8,270,400
`
`Ex. 1012 PCT Application No. PCTUS0856064
`
`Ex. 1013 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/905,526
`
`Ex. 1014 File History of U.S. Provisional Application. No. 60/940,383
`
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 8,170,040
`
`Ex. 1016 PCT Application No. PCT/US08/64603
`
`Ex. 1017 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,387
`
`Ex. 1018 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,390
`
`vii
`
`Page 8 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`Ex. 1019 U.S. Patent No. 8,363,649
`
`Ex. 1020 PCT Application No. PCT/U08/64604
`
`Ex. 1021 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,389
`
`Ex. 1022 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,391
`
`Ex. 1023 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,392
`
`Ex. 1024 U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`
`Ex. 1025 PCT Application No. PCT/US08/64605
`
`Ex. 1026 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/940,394
`
`Ex. 1027 U.S. Pat. No. 8,898,611
`
`Ex. 1028 PCT Application No. PCT/US10/52984
`
`Ex. 1029 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/252,603
`
`Ex. 1030 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/252,609
`
`Ex. 1031 File History of U.S. Application No. 14/329,876
`
`Ex. 1032 U.S. Patent No. 9,509,634
`
`Ex. 1033 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/846,083
`
`Ex. 1034 File History of U.S. Application No. 12/601,275
`
`Ex. 1035 U.S. Patent No. 9,374,322
`
`Ex. 1036 Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss Under
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) In Related District Court Litigation
`
`Ex. 1037 RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1038 RESERVED
`
`Ex. 1039 File History of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/984,724
`
`viii
`
`Page 9 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`
`Ex. 1040 U.S. Patent No. 3,358,269
`Ex. 1040 US. Patent No. 3,358,269
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`Page 10 of 120
`
`PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`ix
`
`ix
`
`Page 10 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests post grant review
`
`(“PGR”) of claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,003,553 (“the ’553 patent”) (Ex. 1001), which, according to PTO records,
`
`is assigned to Konda Technologies, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”). For the
`
`reasons below, the challenged claims should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`The ’553 patent purports to be part of a family of applications based on U.S.
`
`Provisional Patent Application 61/531,615 (“the ’615 provisional application”)
`
`filed September 7, 2011. Prior to filing the ’615 provisional application to which
`
`the ’553 patent purports to claim priority, PO filed numerous patent applications
`
`concerning similar subject matter, and many of those earlier-filed applications are
`
`listed as related applications in the ’553 patent. (Ex. 1001, 1:8-2:62.) During
`
`prosecution of applications claiming priority to the ’615 provisional application,
`
`those earlier filed applications were relied on by the PTO for claim rejections.
`
`In addressing those previous rejections based on its own earlier-filed subject
`
`matter, PO argued that the rejected claims included “rings” that were not disclosed
`
`in the earlier-filed applications. As demonstrated below, the claims of the ’553
`
`patent do not include any “rings,” and the challenged claims of the ’553 patent are
`
`anticipated or rendered obvious by PO’s earlier-filed applications.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 11 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, during prosecution of an earlier-filed related application, PO
`
`added limitations to pending claims to overcome rejections based on Wong.
`
`However, the claims of the ’553 patent do not include the features PO previously
`
`added in order to overcome Wong, and, as demonstrated in a concurrently filed
`
`petition, Wong anticipates the challenged claims of the ’553 patent.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. as the real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`1.
`Lawsuit(s)
`PO has asserted the ’553 patent against Petitioner in Konda Technologies
`
`Inc. v. Flex Logix Technologies, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK (N.D. Cal.). PO
`
`has also asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,269,523 (“the ’523 patent”), 8,898,611 (“the
`
`’611 patent”), 9,529,958 (“the ’958 patent”), and 10,050,904 (“the ’904 patent”) in
`
`the foregoing district court litigation.
`
`2.
`Related Applications
`The ’553 patent is related to several patents and/or patent applications, as
`
`shown in the purported priority chain below:
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 12 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`Provisional Application
`61/531,615
`Filed: September 7, 2011
`
`PCT Application
`US2012/53814
`Filed September 6, 2012
`
`U.S. Application 14/199,168
`Filed March 6, 2014
`Issued as U.S. Patent 9,374,322
`
`U.S. Application 15/140,470
`Filed April 28, 2016
`Issued as U.S. Patent 10,003,553
`
`U.S. Application 15/984,408
`Filed May 20, 2018
`Pending
`
`Subject to this
`
`PGR Petition/
`
`3.
`Concurrently filed petitions
`Petitioner is concurrently filing two other petitions for PGR of certain claims
`
`of the ’553 patent.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`Lead counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224), and Backup counsel are
`
`(1) Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), (2) Paul M. Anderson (Reg. No. 39,896),
`
`and (3) Quadeer A. Ahmed (Reg. No. 60,835). Service information is Paul
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 13 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`Hastings LLP, 875 15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20005, Tel.: 202.551.1700,
`
`Fax:
`
`202.551.1705,
`
`email:
`
`PH-FlexLogix-Konda-PGR@paulhastings.com.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`The PTO is authorized to charge all fees due at any time during this
`
`proceeding, including filing fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`IV. TIME FOR FILING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.202
`The ’553 patent issued on June 19, 2018, and this Petition is being timely
`
`filed no later than the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of the ’553
`
`patent.
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’553 patent is available for PGR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting PGR on the grounds identified herein.
`
`As discussed below in Section IX, the ’553 patent is eligible for PGR
`
`because it has at least one claim that is not entitled to a pre-AIA filing date.
`
`VI. PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS RAISED
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested
`Petitioner respectfully requests review of claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19
`
`(“challenged claims”) of the ’553 patent, and cancellation of these claims as
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 14 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`unpatentable.
`
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`The challenged claims should be canceled as unpatentable on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 are unpatentable under AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published PCT Application No. WO
`
`2008/109756 (“Konda ’756 PCT”) (Ex. 1009).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-19 are unpatentable under AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Konda ’756 PCT in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,940,308 to Wong (“Wong”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`The earliest possible priority date for the ’553 patent is September 7, 2011,
`
`which corresponds to the filing date of the ’615 provisional application. (Ex. 1007,
`
`90). Konda ’756 PCT published September 12, 2008, and Wong issued on
`
`September 6, 2005. Thus, Konda ’756 PCT and Wong are prior art at least under
`
`AIA U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) with respect to the ’553 patent.
`
`Konda ’756 PCT was not considered by the Patent Office during
`
`prosecution. Wong was considered by the Patent Office during prosecution.
`
`However, Petitioner presents Wong in a new light never considered by the Office.
`
`For example, the prosecution history of the ’553 patent does not include
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 15 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`substantive discussion of Wong or any other prior art reference relating to
`
`patentability of the ’553 patent claims. Indeed, there were no claim rejections
`
`based on any prior art. Here, Petitioner presents testimony from R. Jacob Baker,
`
`Ph.D., P.E. (Ex. 1002), an expert in the field of the ’553 patent (Ex. 1002, ¶¶3-13,
`
`18; Ex. 1003), who confirms that the relevant teachings of Konda ’756 PCT and
`
`Wong disclose or suggest what is claimed by challenged claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-
`
`19 of the ’553 patent. (See Ex. 1002, ¶¶86-187; see also infra Section XIII.)
`
`As such, any consideration of Wong by the Patent Office during prosecution
`
`of the ’553 patent should not preclude the Board from considering and adopting the
`
`ground in this petition.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’553 patent would have had a master’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or a similar field, and at least two to three years of experience with
`
`integrated circuits and networks. (Ex. 1002, ¶18.) More education can supplement
`
`practical experience and vice versa. (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 16 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`VIII. BACKGROUND
`The ’553 patent generally relates to switching networks that can be used to
`
`route signals between logic blocks included on an integrated circuit device such as
`
`an FPGA. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶20-50.)
`
`A. The ’553 Patent
`The ’553 patent, which matured from the U.S. Application No. 15/140,470
`
`(“the ’470 application”), acknowledges that multi-stage hierarchical networks were
`
`known and used in many applications at the time of the alleged invention, such as
`
`in “FPGA routing of hardware designs.” (Ex. 1001, 2:66-3:1, 4:47-48.) The ’553
`
`patent states that known VLSI (very large scale integration) layouts for integrated
`
`circuits with such networks, such as the Benes network disclosed by Wong (Ex.
`
`1008) are “inefficient and complicated.” (Id., 3:2-4, 3:30-36.) For instance, the
`
`’553 patent contends that prior art network layouts “require large area to
`
`implement the switches on the chip, large number of wires, longer wires, with
`
`increased power consumption, increased latency of the signal which effect the
`
`maximum clock speed of operation.” (Id., 3:43-48; Ex. 1002, ¶¶31-32 (citing Ex.
`
`1040).)
`
`The ’553 patent alleges to disclose “[s]ignificantly optimized multi-stage
`
`networks, useful in wide target applications” where the “optimized multi-stage
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 17 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`networks in each block employ several rings of stages of switches with inlet and
`
`outlet links.” (Ex. 1001, 3:58-67 (emphasis added).) As discussed below, PO
`
`touted this concept of “rings” in the ’553 patent family as an important distinction
`
`over PO’s earlier patent applications, and, not surprisingly, the claims in the
`
`applications to which the ’553 patent claims priority (and the originally filed
`
`claims in the ’470 application itself) all include the “ring” concept. However,
`
`these “rings”—which (i) the ’553 patent describes as an important aspect of the
`
`alleged optimizations to the prior art multi-stage hierarchical networks, and (ii) PO
`
`touted as an important distinction over PO’s other applications—are not recited in
`
`the claims of the ’553 patent. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶33-38.)
`
`First, the ’553 patent’s disclosure emphasizes “rings.” Each of figures 1-15
`
`of the ’553 patent illustrates, describes, or relates to the use of “rings” in a “multi-
`
`stage hierarchical network.” (Ex. 1002, ¶33 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:42-6:22, FIGs. 1-
`
`15, 8:56-9:3, 33:26-48).) Annotated figure 1 of the ’553 patent below shows two
`
`such “rings”:
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 18 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Ring 1
`
`FIG. 1A
`
`(Ring 1, Stage Oj
`i
`
`*
`
`i
`R*CV7)
`
`3
`
`r»
`
`K
`
`«
`,4
`
`(Ring 1. Stage ’m-l7)
`I
`
`^Rng 1. Stage 1J
`I
`^ »«><1.3) K.
`RoC\i.
`
`/ ^ (cid:127) Bonim.1)
`
`-
`
`*
`*
`
`UO(1.4>
`
`£
`i
`
`4
`3
`5
`2
`5
`
`V
`
`(cid:127)-
`(cid:127)r
`
`i
`
`(cid:127)-
`1 2
`
`*
`?
`
`4
`^
`
`01
`02
`
`(Ring 2, StageOj
`1
`
`Ft2.1>
`
`r
`(cid:127)-
`
`*
`
`(Ring 2, Stage 1J
`I
`
`FM.3)
`*
`
`RX2.2IV1)
`
`2
`J
`
`(Rug 2. Stage ’n*)
`4
`
`5
`
`R
`
`B
`
`=
`
`r
`*
`(cid:127) .
`
`(Ring 1, Stage m'^ _
`<12rrV
`*
`
`I
`
`i
`
`i
`
`N
`
`4
`5
`
`l
`
`o
`
`i
`
`+ n
`12
`13
`14
`
`->
`»
`
`Ho.11;
`Pin'
`m.
`l>0(1^)
`[mi M
`.
`Wl —
`40»1
`V:?4Km
`* 3
`
`r
`if
`.
`*
`5
`
`-(cid:127)
`
`^hm.1.mi
`SOdimlJ ^
`...<
`l*0Sl.?n»O^iN:
`- 'rfm.
`UO<1>0
`4
`iXXUriCM
`rut
`aorsm
`(Ring 2. Stage *n-1*)
`I
`:JM
`s^2 2"* > rs.0* r* 0^ H*?*
`Ho<2Jn.i;
`mm
`Rc.2ir;
`*
`ijjrt
`J M
`
`5
`-
`
`p
`
`4
`
`*
`
`Uo2.2i)
`
`-
`
`S
`It
`
`4
`r-
`
`N
`
`-
`
`a
`
`“
`(cid:127)
`
`3
`- '
`
`/ *
`
`-
`
`-:
`
`U0C,2«‘1
`*
`
`:-
`
`*
`
`*
`
`N
`
`1
`n
`»
`
`M
`O
`
`:
`
`F <7.?>
`
`*
`BC(?.1)
`
`*
`
`*
`*
`
`r <2.4)
`
`eo-2 3.
`**(cid:127)
`
`5
`
`Ring 2
`
`Lo(U)
`
`«-
`
`*2.2)
`
`JM7.41
`
`*
`«-
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG.1 (annotated); Ex. 1002, ¶38.) Similarly, the figures that depict
`
`example “stages” in the ’553 patent are described as illustrating portions of a
`
`“ring.” (Ex. 1001, 4:56-5:3, 5:32-6:6, FIGs. 2A-2E, 9A-11C.)
`
`Second, during prosecution of U.S. Application No. 14/199,168 (“the ’168
`
`application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,374,322 (“the ’322 patent”) (see
`
`supra Section II.B.2), PO explicitly defined “rings” and argued that the inclusion
`
`of such rings was a “key difference[]” with respect to PO’s earlier alleged
`
`inventions disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 8,898,611 (“the ’611 patent”).
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 19 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Current application discloses stages in rings where
`forward connecting links are feedback into backward
`connecting links through one or more multiplexers and
`also backward connecting links are feedback into
`forward connecting
`links
`through one or more
`multiplexers, where US Patent No. 8,898,611 discloses
`folded and butterfly fat tree networks where in each stage
`only forward connecting
`links are feedback
`into
`backward connecting links . . . This is one of the key
`differences in the current invention. . .
`
`(Ex. 1005, 97-98 (emphases added).)
`
`The ring concept disclosed in the current application is
`not a true ring, the term ring is used in the current
`invention since in each stage backward connecting links
`are feedback to forward connecting links and vice versa
`as opposed to only a U-turn in original multi-stage
`networks.
`
`(Id., 101; see also Ex. 1001, 2:33-38; Ex. 1002, ¶¶39-42.)
`
`The claims of the ’322 patent all include this “ring” concept. (Ex. 1035,
`
`47:42-51:3.) Similarly, all of the claims of PCT Application No. PCT/US12/53814
`
`(“the ’814 PCT application”) to which the ’168 application claims priority also
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 20 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`include this “ring” concept. (Ex. 1006, 79-82 (1:3-4:23).)1.) Indeed, the originally
`
`filed claims in the ’470 application also include “rings” (Ex. 1004, 286-292) and
`
`further include specific limitations consistent with the definition PO provided for a
`
`“ring” during prosecution of the ’168 application. (Id., 287 (82:13-18)2; Ex. 1002,
`
`¶¶39-41.)
`
`But in contrast to the originally filed claims in the ’470 application, the
`
`issued claims in the ’322 patent, and the claims in the 814 PCT application, new
`
`claims 21-40 that were added by amendment during prosecution of the ’470
`
`application and that issued as claims 1-20 in the ’553 patent do not include
`
`“rings.” (Ex. 1004, 77-84.)3 In other words, issued claims 1-20 of the ’553 patent
`
`
` The ’814 PCT application as filed had errors in pagination such that the section
`
` 1
`
`that includes the claims restarts the pagination at page 1. Therefore, citations to
`
`the ’814 PCT application include both a page number for the exhibit as well as the
`
`page and line numbers printed on the page identified within the exhibit.
`
`2 When appropriate, citations to the as-filed ’470 application include page and line
`
`numbers corresponding to the application.
`
`3 While the Examiner noted in an Interview Summary that the newly presented
`
`claims would be reviewed for their compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, the claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 21 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`are missing a feature that is not only highlighted in the specification as an alleged
`
`fundamental point of novelty, but was in fact touted by PO as a “key difference[]”
`
`between the disclosure of the ’553 patent family and another patent family
`
`belonging to PO. (Ex. 1002, ¶42.)
`
`B. Material Incorporated by Reference in the ’553 Patent
`The ’553 patent attempts to incorporate by reference a list of more than 20
`
`patents and patent applications. (Ex. 1001, 1:8-2:62; Ex. 1002, ¶37.) However,
`
`the incorporations by reference of these patents and applications provide no
`
`“detailed particularity [regarding] what specific material” they incorporate and do
`
`not “clearly indicate where that material is found” in the patents and applications.
`
`Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460 F. 3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also
`
`Paice LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 881 F.3d 894, 906-07 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“To
`
`incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed
`
`particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that
`
`material is found in the various documents.”) (internal citations and quotation
`
`
`were subsequently allowed without any further rejections. (Ex. 1004, 51, 25-32.)
`
`The issued claims, however, do not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112, as demonstrated in the concurrently filed PGR petition.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 22 of 120 PGR2019-00042
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2005
`
`

`

`Petition for Post Grant Review
`Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`
`
`marks omitted). Indeed, even when material is properly incorporated, “[i]t is not
`
`sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of § 112 that the
`
`disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to
`
`speculate as to the modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but
`
`failed to disclose.” D Three Enters., LLC v. Sunmodo Corp., 890 F.3d 1042, 1050
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal citation omitted).
`
`The ’553 patent simply identifies several patents and patent applications and
`
`states that the material is incorporated in its entirety without specifying any
`
`particular portions of the documents as being relevant. (Ex. 1001, 1:8-2:62) Cook
`
`Biotech Inc., 460 F. 3d at 1376; see also Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness
`
`Inc., IPR2017-01408, 2018 WL 6318050, at *20 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) (allowing
`
`incorporation by reference where the incorporating language provided detail
`
`regarding what was disclosed in the incorporated by reference). Moreover, many,