PTAB

IPR2018-00375

Dell Inc v. Alacritech Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Fast-Path Apparatus For Transmitting Data Corresponding to a TCP Connection
  • Brief Description: The ’072 patent describes a method for offloading Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) processing from a host computer onto an intelligent network interface card (INIC). The INIC uses a "fast path" to process packets for established connections by using a pre-stored "connection context," thereby reducing the host CPU's workload.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-21 are obvious over Erickson in view of Tanenbaum96.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Erickson (Patent 5,768,618) and Tanenbaum96 (A. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 3rd ed. (1996)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Erickson and Tanenbaum96 together taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Erickson disclosed a fast-path I/O device adapter that offloads network protocol processing, providing a detailed example for User Datagram Protocol (UDP) while expressly noting its applicability to TCP. For TCP implementation details, Erickson explicitly directed a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to the Tanenbaum textbook. Tanenbaum96, in turn, taught implementing fast-path TCP processing on a network interface card.
    • Specifically for independent claim 1, Petitioner mapped the combination as follows:
      • The host computer establishing a connection and creating a "context" was taught by Erickson’s disclosure of a user process that pre-negotiates connection details and creates a template header. Tanenbaum96 supplied the specific TCP context details, such as using a "connection record" (TCB) to maintain TCP state.
      • Transferring this context and protocol header information to the interface device was taught by Erickson’s method of storing the pre-negotiated header template in the I/O device's memory.
      • The interface device dividing data into segments—a core function of TCP not detailed in Erickson’s UDP example—was expressly taught by Tanenbaum96, which described that a "transport entity" on a network interface card breaks data streams into segments for transmission.
      • The interface device creating headers from the template was taught by Erickson’s use of an adapter script to populate a header template. Tanenbaum96 provided the corresponding TCP-specific fields (e.g., Sequence Number, Checksum) that the script would populate.
      • Prepending headers to segments to form packets was argued as an obvious implementation of Erickson’s packet assembly process.
    • Petitioner asserted that the arguments for independent claims 9 and 15 were substantially similar, as these claims recited parallel methods with minor variations in terminology, such as including "status information" in the context, which Tanenbaum96 disclosed as part of the TCP connection record. The dependent claims were allegedly met by explicit teachings in the combined references, such as adding status information (e.g., TCP sequence numbers from Tanenbaum96) or MAC layer addresses (present in Erickson’s Ethernet header template).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued for an express motivation to combine. Erickson’s specification explicitly directed a POSITA to the Tanenbaum textbook for details on TCP. Additionally, the increasing popularity of TCP/IP for the internet and World Wide Web in 1996 would have motivated a POSITA to adapt Erickson’s I/O adapter, which was detailed for UDP, to the more common TCP protocol using the teachings of a standard textbook like Tanenbaum96.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. TCP/IP was a well-known, standardized protocol, and Tanenbaum96’s teachings on fast-path TCP processing using prototype headers were directly applicable to Erickson's disclosed I/O device adapter architecture. Combining the known software methods from Tanenbaum96 with the hardware system of Erickson was presented as a predictable integration.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "context": Petitioner argued that, consistent with the patent owner’s position in co-pending litigation, this term should be construed as "data regarding an active connection." Petitioner asserted the term must at least include data for a connection, which is consistent with the teachings of the prior art.
  • "prepending": Citing the patent’s specification, Petitioner argued this term has the plain meaning of "adding to the front."
  • "status information": Petitioner argued this term, which appears in independent claims 9 and 15, was not explicitly defined in the patent. However, based on claim language and positions taken by the patent owner in litigation, Petitioner contended it included information found in the template header, such as "Acknowledgement and Sequence numbers," which were disclosed in the prototype TCP header of Tanenbaum96.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’072 patent as unpatentable.