PTAB

IPR2017-01713

Intel Corp v. Alacritech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Fast-Path Apparatus for Receiving Data Corresponding to a TCP Connection
  • Brief Description: The ’241 patent describes a system for offloading Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) processing from a host computer to an "intelligent" network interface card (INIC). The INIC provides a "fast-path" that processes TCP/IP packets directly, bypassing the host's conventional protocol stack to improve performance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 9-15, 17, and 19-21 are obvious over Connery in view of the knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Connery (Patent 5,937,169).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Connery, which teaches offloading TCP segmentation to a "smart adapter," discloses or renders obvious all limitations of the challenged claims. Independent claims 9 and 17 recite a method of communicating information where a first processor (the host) provides data, and a second processor (on the smart adapter) divides the data into segments and prepends a packet header to each segment before transmission. Petitioner asserted Connery discloses a host CPU (first processor) providing a large datagram to a smart network interface card containing its own CPU (second processor). This second processor segments the datagram and generates TCP/IP headers for each segment from a template provided by the host. While Connery describes producing a header and then sending a packet, Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to a POSA to implement this by prepending the header to the data segment, as this is a more efficient and natural method than creating the header and then appending the data. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Connery discloses creating packet headers from a template (claims 13, 19), using a DMA unit controlled by the second processor (claim 14), and receiving acknowledgement packets for the same TCP connection (claims 11-12).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The ground relies on combining Connery's express teachings with the general knowledge of a POSA. Petitioner argued a POSA would have been motivated to implement Connery's system in the most efficient way. This includes prepending headers to data segments to avoid an unnecessary data copy operation and prepending all header layers (MAC, IP, TCP) as a single sequence of bits because Connery teaches they are stored contiguously in a template. The motivation was to achieve Connery’s stated goals of reducing host CPU utilization and improving performance.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted a POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying these well-known and conventional networking techniques to Connery's system, as they were standard practices for improving efficiency.
    • Key Aspects: A threshold argument for this ground is that the ’241 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority date of October 14, 1997. Petitioner argued the 1997 provisional application fails to provide written description for key limitations, such as "prepending" headers. This makes Connery, filed on October 29, 1997, available as prior art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “[first/second] mechanism” (claim 17): Petitioner argued this term is a "nonce word" that fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, rendering it indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112. Petitioner contended the term should be construed under §112, ¶6 (means-plus-function), but that the specification fails to disclose the necessary corresponding structure or algorithm for performing the claimed functions (e.g., "providing a block of data" or "dividing the block of data").
  • “without an interrupt dividing” (claim 17): Petitioner argued this term is indefinite. The claim requires prepending of headers to occur "without an interrupt dividing" the prepending of the different header layers. Petitioner contended a POSA would not understand this limitation because the header prepending occurs on the network interface card, so a host processor interrupt would not "divide" that processing.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Entitlement: A central contention is that the ’241 patent is not entitled to the filing date of its 1997 provisional application. Petitioner argued the provisional application lacks written description for key limitations recited in the independent claims, including "prepending the headers to the segments to create packets" and prepending header layers "at one time as a sequence of bits." Petitioner alleged the provisional application describes appending data to a header, which is the opposite of prepending. This technical argument is critical to establishing Connery as valid prior art against the challenged claims.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Non-Redundancy: Petitioner filed a previous IPR petition (IPR2017-01392) against the ’241 patent. In this petition, Petitioner argued the asserted ground is not redundant with the grounds in the earlier case. The prior petition relied on combinations of Erickson and Tanenbaum96. This petition asserts a single, materially distinct ground based on Connery, which Petitioner argued expressly discloses or renders obvious all limitations of the challenged claims, resting on the threshold issue of whether the ’241 patent is entitled to its claimed priority date.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 9-15, 17, and 19-21 of the ’241 patent as unpatentable.