Method and system for data demultiplexing
A method and system for demultiplexing packets of a message is provided. The demultiplexing system receives packets of a message, identifies a sequence of message handlers for processing the message, identifies state information associated with the message for each message handler, and invokes the message handlers passing the message and the associated state information. The system identifies the message handlers based on the initial data type of the message and a target data type. The identified message handlers effect the conversion of the data to the target data type through various intermediate data types.
Latest Implicit, LLC Patents:
The present application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/911,324, filed Jun. 6, 2013 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,694,683), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/236,090, filed Sep. 19, 2011 (now abandoned), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/636,314, filed Aug. 6, 2003 know U.S. Pat. No. 8,055,786), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/474,664, filed Dec. 29, 1999 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,629,163); the disclosures of each of the above-referenced applications are incorporated by reference herein in their entireties.
TECHNICAL FIELDThe present invention relates generally to a computer system for data demultiplexing.
BACKGROUNDComputer systems, which are becoming increasingly pervasive, generate data in a wide variety of formats. The Internet is an example of interconnected computer systems that generate data in many different formats. Indeed, when data is generated on one computer system and is transmitted to another computer system to be displayed, the data may be converted in many different intermediate formats before it is eventually displayed. For example, the generating computer system may initially store the data in a bitmap format. To send the data to another computer system, the computer system may first compress the bitmap data and then encrypt the compressed data. The computer system may then convert that compressed data into a TCP format and then into an IP format. The IP formatted data may be converted into a transmission format, such as an ethernet format. The data in the transmission format is then sent to a receiving computer system. The receiving computer system would need to perform each of these conversions in reverse order to convert the data in the bitmap format. In addition, the receiving computer system may need to convert the bitmap data into a format that is appropriate for rendering on output device.
In order to process data in such a wide variety of formats, both sending and receiving computer systems need to have many conversion routines available to support the various formats. These computer systems typically use predefined configuration information to load the correct combination of conversion routines for processing data. These computer systems also use a process-oriented approach when processing data with these conversion routines. When using a process-oriented approach, a computer system may create a separate process for each conversion that needs to take place. A computer system in certain situations, however, can be expected to receive data and to provide data in many different formats that may not be known until the data is received. The overhead of statically providing each possible series of conversion routines is very high. For example, a computer system that serves as a central controller for data received within a home would be expected to process data received via telephone lines, cable TV lines, and satellite connections in many different formats. The central controller would be expected to output the data to computer displays, television displays, entertainment centers, speakers, recording devices, and so on in many different formats. Moreover, since the various conversion routines may be developed by different organizations, it may not be easy to identify that the output format of one conversion routine is compatible with the input format of another conversion routine.
It would be desirable to have a technique for dynamically identifying a series of conversion routines for processing data. In addition, it would be desirable to have a technique in which the output format of one conversion routine can be identified as being compatible with the input format of another conversion routine. It would also be desirable to store the identification of a series of conversion routines so that the series can be quickly identified when data is received.
A method and system for converting a message that may contain multiple packets from an source format into a target format. When a packet of a message is received, the conversion system in one embodiment searches for and identifies a sequence of conversion routines (or more generally message handlers) for processing the packets of the message by comparing the input and output formats of the conversion routines. (A message is a collection of data that is related in some way, such as stream of video or audio data or an email message.) The identified sequence of conversion routines is used to convert the message from the source format to the target format using various intermediate formats. The conversion system then queues the packet for processing by the identified sequence of conversion routines. The conversion system stores the identified sequence so that the sequence can be quickly found (without searching) when the next packet in the message is received. When subsequent packets of the message are received, the conversion system identifies the sequence and queues the packets for pressing by the sequence. Because the conversion system receives multiple messages with different source and target formats and identifies a sequence of conversion routines for each message, the conversion systems effectively “demultiplexes” the messages. That is, the conversion system demultiplexes the messages by receiving the message, identifying the sequence of conversion routines, and controlling the processing of each message by the identified sequence. Moreover, since the conversion routines may need to retain state information between the receipt of one packet of a message and the next packet of that message, the conversion system maintains state information as an instance or session of the conversion routine. The conversion system routes all packets for a message through the same session of each conversion routine so that the same state or instance information can be used by all packets of the message. A sequence of sessions of conversion routines is referred to as a “path.” In one embodiment, each path has a path thread associated with it for processing of each packet destined for that path.
In one embodiment, the packets of the messages are initially received by “drivers,” such as an Ethernet driver. When a driver receives a packet, it forwards the packet to a forwarding component of the conversion system. The forwarding component is responsible for identifying the session of the conversion routine that should next process the packet and invoking that conversion routine. When invoked by a driver, the forwarding component may use a demultiplexing (“demux”) component to identify the session of the first conversion routine of the path that is to process the packet and then queues the packet for processing by the path. A path thread is associated with each path. Each path thread is responsible for retrieving packets from the queue of its path and forwarding the packets to the forwarding component. When the forwarding component is invoked by a path thread, it initially invokes the first conversion routine in the path. That conversion routine processes the packet and forwards the processed packet to the forwarding component, which then invokes the second conversion routine in the path. The process of invoking the conversion routines and forwarding the processed packet to the next conversion routine continues until the last conversion routine in the path is invoked. A conversion routine may defer invocation of the forwarding component until it aggregates multiple packets or may invoke the forwarding component multiple times for a packet once for each sub-packet.
The forwarding component identifies the next conversion routine in the path using the demux component and stores that identification so that the forwarding component can quickly identify the conversion routine when subsequent packets of the same message are received. The demux component, searches for the conversion routine and session that is to next process a packet. The demux component then stores the identification of the session and conversion routine as part of a path data structure so that the conversion system does not need to search for the session and conversion routine when requested to demultiplex subsequent packets of the same message. When searching for the next conversion routine, the demux component invokes a label map get component that identifies the next conversion routine. Once the conversion routine is found, the demux component identifies the session associated with that message by, in one embodiment, invoking code associated with the conversion routine. In general, the code of the conversion routine determines what session should be associated with a message. In certain situations, multiple messages may share the same session. The demux component then extends the path for processing that packet to include that session and conversion routine. The sessions are identified so that each packet is associated with the appropriate state information. The dynamic identification of conversion routines is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11,933,093, filed on Oct. 31, 2007 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,730,211), entitled “Method and System for Generating a Mapping Between Types of Data,” which is hereby incorporated by reference.
The label map get routine identifies a sequence of “edges” for converting data in one format into another format. Each edge corresponds to a conversion routine for converting data from one format to another. Each edge is part of a “protocol” (or more generally a component) that may include multiple related edges. For example, a protocol may have edges that each convert data in one format into several different formats. Each edge has an input format and an output format. The label map get routine identifies a sequence of edges such that the output format of each edge is compatible with the input format of another edge in the sequence, except for the input format of the first edge in the sequence and the output format of the last edge in the sequence.
Blocks 709-716 illustrate the processing of a list of candidate paths that extend from the passed path entry. In blocks 710-716, the routine loops selecting each candidate path and sending the message to be process by each candidate path. In block 710, the routine sets the next entry to the first path entry of the next candidate path. In decision block 711, if all the candidate paths have not yet been processed, then the routine continues at block 712, else the routine returns. In decision block 712, if the next entry is equal to the passed path entry, then the path is to be extended and the routine continues at block 705, else the routine continues at block 713. The candidate paths include a first path entry that is a reference path entry for new paths or that is the last path entry of a path being extended. In decision block 713, if the number of candidate paths is greater than one, then the routine continues at block 714, else the routine continues at block 718. In decision block 714, if the passed path entry has a multiplex list associated with it, then the routine continues at block 716, else the routine continues at block 715. In block 715, 11 the routine associates the list of candidate path with the multiplex list of the passed path entry and continues at block 716. In block 716, the routine sends the message to the next entry by recursively invoking the message send routine. The routine then loops to block 710 to select the next entry associated with the next candidate path.
Blocks 717-718 are performed when the passed path entry is a reference path entry that has a path associated with it. In block 717, if there is a path associated with the next entry, then the routine continues at block 718, else the routine returns. In block 718, the routine queues the message for the path of the next entry and then returns.
Although the conversion system has been described in terms of various embodiments, the invention is not limited to these embodiments. Modification within the spirit of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art. For example, a conversion routine may be used for routing a message and may perform no conversion of the message. Also, a reference to a single copy of the message can be passed to each conversion routine or demuxkey routine. These routines can advance the reference past the header information for the protocol so that the reference is positioned at the next header. After the demux process, the reference can be reset to point to the first header for processing by the conversion routines in sequence. The scope of the invention is defined by the claims that follow.
Claims
1. An apparatus, comprising:
- a processing unit; and
- a memory storing instructions executable by the processing unit to:
- identify a path for one or more received packets of a message, wherein the path indicates a sequence of two or more routines for processing packets in the message, wherein the path is identified based on a key located in one of the received packets, and wherein the key includes an IP address and a port address; and
- process the one or more received packets using the sequence of routines indicated in the identified path, wherein the sequence includes a routine that is used to execute a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) to convert one or more packets having a TCP format into a different format.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the key includes a remote port address and a local port address.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sequence of routines includes:
- a second routine that is used to execute a second, different protocol to convert packets of the different format into another format, wherein the second protocol is an application layer protocol.
4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the sequence of routines further includes a third routine that is used to execute a different application layer protocol to further convert the packets.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the path further indicates sessions corresponding to respective ones of the sequence of routines.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the key identifies a TCP session associated with the received one or more packets.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sequence of routines includes a routine that is executable to process the one or more packets without converting a format of the packets.
8. An apparatus, comprising:
- a processing unit; and
- a memory storing instructions executable by the processing unit to: receive one or more packets of a message; identify, using an IP address and one or more port addresses located in one of the received packets, a sequence of two or more routines for processing packets in the message; and process the one or more received packets using the identified sequence of routines, wherein the sequence includes a routine that is executable to perform a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) to convert at least one of the packets of the message into a different format.
9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the one or more port addresses include a remote port address and a local port address.
10. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the sequence of routines includes a plurality of application-level routines.
11. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the IP address and the one or more port addresses located in one of the received packets forms a key value that identifies a TCP session associated with the one or more received packets.
12. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions are executable to use the IP address and the one or more port addresses to identify sessions corresponding to various ones of the sequence of routines.
13. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions are executable to use the IP address and the one or more port addresses to identify a corresponding queue for the message.
14. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the sequence of routines includes a routine that does not perform a format conversion on the one or more received packets.
15. A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising software instructions for processing a message, wherein the software instructions, when executed, cause a computer system to:
- identify a path for one or more received packets of the message, wherein the path indicates a sequence of two or more routines for processing packets in the message, wherein the path is identified based on a key value located in one of the received packets, and wherein the key value includes an IP address and one or more port addresses;
- process the one or more received packets using the sequence of routines indicated in the identified path, wherein the sequence includes a routine that is used to execute a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) to convert one or more packets having a TCP format into a different format.
16. The computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the one or more port addresses in the key value include a remote port address and a local port address.
17. The computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the path indicates sessions corresponding to respective ones of the sequence of routines.
18. The computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the sequence of routines includes a plurality of application-level routines.
19. The computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the plurality of application-level routines includes a decryption routine.
20. The computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the sequence of routines includes a routine that is used to execute an Internet Protocol (IP) to convert packets having an IP format into the TCP format, and wherein the key value further identifies a TCP session associated with the one or more received packets.
5298674 | March 29, 1994 | Yun |
5414833 | May 9, 1995 | Hershey et al. |
5627997 | May 6, 1997 | Pearson et al. |
5761651 | June 2, 1998 | Hasebe |
5826027 | October 20, 1998 | Pedersen et al. |
5835726 | November 10, 1998 | Shwed et al. |
5848233 | December 8, 1998 | Radia et al. |
5848415 | December 8, 1998 | Guck |
5854899 | December 29, 1998 | Callon et al. |
5898830 | April 27, 1999 | Wesinger, Jr. et al. |
6091725 | July 18, 2000 | Cheriton et al. |
6104500 | August 15, 2000 | Alam et al. |
6115393 | September 5, 2000 | Engel et al. |
6119236 | September 12, 2000 | Shipley |
6141749 | October 31, 2000 | Coss et al. |
6151390 | November 21, 2000 | Volftsun et al. |
6226267 | May 1, 2001 | Spinney et al. |
6243667 | June 5, 2001 | Kerr et al. |
6259781 | July 10, 2001 | Crouch et al. |
6356529 | March 12, 2002 | Zarom |
6401132 | June 4, 2002 | Bellwood et al. |
6426943 | July 30, 2002 | Spinney et al. |
6519636 | February 11, 2003 | Engel et al. |
6598034 | July 22, 2003 | Kloth |
6629163 | September 30, 2003 | Balassanian |
6651099 | November 18, 2003 | Dietz et al. |
6678518 | January 13, 2004 | Eerola |
6680922 | January 20, 2004 | Jorgensen |
6701432 | March 2, 2004 | Deng et al. |
6711166 | March 23, 2004 | Amir et al. |
6785730 | August 31, 2004 | Taylor |
6871179 | March 22, 2005 | Kist et al. |
6889181 | May 3, 2005 | Kerr et al. |
7233569 | June 19, 2007 | Swallow |
7281036 | October 9, 2007 | Lu |
7383341 | June 3, 2008 | Saito et al. |
8055786 | November 8, 2011 | Balassanian |
8694683 | April 8, 2014 | Balassanian |
20080250045 | October 9, 2008 | Balassanian |
20090265695 | October 22, 2009 | Karino |
0807347 | November 1997 | EP |
0817031 | January 1998 | EP |
- Alexander, D. et al., “The SwitchWare Active Network Architecture”, Jun. 6, 1998, IEEE.
- Antoniazzi, S. et al., “An Open Software Architecture for Multimedia Consumer Terminals”, Central Research Labs, Italy; Alcatel SEL Research Centre, Germany, ECMAST 1997.
- Arbanowski, Stefan, “Generic Description of Telecommunication Services and Dynamic Resource Selection in Intelligent Communication Environments”, Thesis, Technische Universitat Berlin, Oct. 9, 1996. (3 documents).
- Arbanowski, S., et al., Service Personalization for Unified Messaging Systems, Jul. 6-8, 1999, The Fourth IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, ISCC '99, Red Sea, Egypt.
- Atkinson, R., “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol”, Aug. 1995, Naval Research Laboratory.
- Atkinson, R., “IP Authentication Header”, Aug. 1995, Naval Research Laboratory.
- Atkinson, R., “IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)”, Aug. 1995, Naval Research Laboratory.
- Back, G., et al., Java Operating Systems: Design and Implementation, Aug. 1998, Technical Report UUCS-98-015, University of Utah.
- Baker, Dr. Sean, “CORBA Implementation Issues”, 1994, IONA Technologies, O'Reilly Institute Dublin, Ireland.
- Barrett, R., et al., “Intermediaries: New Places for Producing and Manipulating Web Content”, 1998, IBM Almaden Research Center, Elsevier Science.
- Bellare, M., et al., “A Concrete Security Treatment of Symmetric Encryption: Analysis of the DES Modes of Operation”, Aug. 15, 1997, Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego.
- Bellare, M., et al., “A Concrete Security Treatment of Symmetric Encryption: Analysis of the DES Modes of Operation”, Aug. 15, 1997, IEEE.
- Bellare, M., et al., “XOR MACs: New Methods for Message Authentication Using Finite Pseudorandom Functions”, 1995, CRYPTO '95, LNCS 963, pp. 15-28, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
- Bellissard, L., et al., “Dynamic Reconfiguration of Agent-Based Applications”, Third European Research Seminar on Advances in Distributed Systems, (ERSADS '99) Madeira Island.
- Bolding, Darren, “Network Security, Filters and Firewalls”, 1995, www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds2-1/security.html.
- Booch, G., et al., “Software Engineering with ADA”, 1994, Third Edition, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. (2 documents).
- Breugst, et al., “Mobile Agents—Enabling Technology for Active Intelligent Network Implementation”, May/Jun. 1998, IEEE Network.
- “C Library Functions”, AUTH(3) Sep. 17, 1993, Solbourne Computer, Inc.
- Chapman, D., et al., “Building Internet Firewalls”, Sep. 1995, O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
- CheckPoint FireWall-1 Technical White Paper, Jul. 18, 1994, CheckPoint Software Technologies, Ltd.
- CheckPoint FireWall-1 White Paper, Sep. 1995, Version 2.0, CheckPoint Software Technologies, Ltd.
- Command Line Interface Guide P/N 093-0011-000 Rev C Version 2.5, 2000-2001, NetScreen Technologies, Inc.
- Coulson, G. et al., “A CORBA Compliant Real-Time Multimedia Platform for Broadband Networks”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1996, Trends in Distributed Systems CORBA and Beyond.
- Cox, Brad, “SuperDistribution, Objects As Property on the Electronic Frontier”, 1996, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
- Cranes, et al., “A Configurable Protocol Architecture for CORBA Environments”, Autonomous Decentralized Systems 1997 Proceedings ISADS, Third International Symposium Apr. 9-11, 1997.
- Curran, K., et al., “CORBA Lacks Venom”, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, UK 2000.
- Dannert, Andreas, “Call Logic Service for a Personal Communication Supporting System”, Thesis, Jan. 20, 1998, Technische Universitat Berlin.
- DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification, “Transmission Control Protocol”, Sep. 1981, Information Sciences Institute, California.
- DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification, “Internet Protocol”, Sep. 1981, Information Sciences Institute, California.
- Decasper, D., et al., “Crossbow: A Toolkit for Integrated Services over Cell Switched IPv6”, 1997, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
- Decasper, D., et al., “Router Plugins A Software Architecture for Next Generation Routers”, 1998, Proceedings of ACM SIGCONM '98.
- Deering, S., et al., Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, Dec. 1998, Nokia, The Internet Society.
- Deering, S., et al., Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, Dec. 1995, Network Working Group, RFC 1883.
- Dutton, et al, “Asynchronous Transfer Mode Technical Overview (ATM)”, Second Edition; IBM, Oct. 1995, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall PTR, USA.
- Eckardt, T., et al., “Application of X.500 and X.700 Standards for Supporting Personal Communications in Distributed Computing Environments”, 1995, IEEE.
- Eckardt, T., et al., “Personal Communications Support based on TMN and TINA Concepts”, 1996, IEEE Intelligent Network Workshop (IN '96), Apr. 21-24, Melbourne, Australia.
- Eckardt, T., et al., “Beyond In and UPT—A Personal Communications Support System Based on TMN Concepts”, Sep. 1997, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 15, No. 7.
- Egevang, K., et al., “The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)”, May 1994, Network Working Group, RFC 1631.
- Estrin, D., et al., “Visa Protocols for Controlling Inter-Organizational Datagram Flow”, Dec. 1998, Computer Science Department, University of Southern California and Digital Equipment Corporation.
- Faupel, M., “Java Distribution and Deployment”, Oct. 9, 1997, APM Ltd., United Kingdom.
- Felber, P., “The CORBA Object Group Service: A Service Approach to Object Groups in CORBA”, Thesis, 1998, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland.
- Fish, R., et al., “DRoPS: Kernel Support for Runtime Adaptable Protocols”, Aug. 25-27, 1998, IEEE 24th Euromicro Conference, Sweden.
- Fiuczynski, M., et al., “An Extensible Protocol Architecture for Application-Specific Networking”, 1996, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington.
- Franz, Stefan, “Job and Stream Control in Heterogeneous Hardware and Software Architectures”, Apr. 1998, Technische Universitat, Berlin (2 documents).
- Fraser, T., “DTE Firewalls: Phase Two Measurement and Evaluation Report”, Jul. 22, 1997, Trusted Information Systems, USA.
- Gazis, V., et al., “A Survey of Dynamically Adaptable Protocol Stacks”, first Quarter 2010, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 12, No. 1, 1st Quarter.
- Gokhale, A., et al., “Evaluating the Performance of Demultiplexing Strategies for Real-Time CORBA”, Nov. 1997, GLOBECOM.
- Gokhale, A., et al., “Measuring and Optimizing CORBA Latency and Scalability Over High-Speed Networks”, Apr. 1998, IEEE Transaction on Computers, vol. 47, No. 4; Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS '97) May 27-30, 1997.
- Gokhale, A., et al., “Operating System Support for High-Performance, Real-Time CORBA”, 1996.
- Gokhale, A., et al., “Principles for Optimizing CORBA Internet Inter-ORB Protocol Performance”, Jan. 9, 1998, Proceedings of the HICSS Conference, Hawaii.
- Gong, Li, “Java Security: Present and Near Future”, May/Jun. 1997, IEEE Micro.
- Gong, Li, “New Security Architectural Directions for Java (Extended Abstract)”, Dec. 19, 1996, IEEE.
- Gong, Li, “Secure Java Class Loading”, Nov./Dec. 1998, IEEE Internet.
- Goos, G., et al., “Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Mobile Agents and Security”, 1998, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
- Goralski, W., “Introduction to ATM Networking”, 1995, McGraw-Hill Series on Computer Communications, USA.
- Hamzeh, K., et al., Layer Two Tunneling Protocol “L2TP”, Jan. 1998, PPP Working Group, Internet Draft.
- Harrison, T., et al., “The Design and Performance of a Real-Time CORBA Event Service”, Aug. 8, 1997,Proceedings of the OOPSLA '97 Conference, Atlanta, Georgia in Oct. 1997.
- Huitema, Christian, “IPv6 The New Internet Protocol”, 1997 Prentice Hall, Second Edition.
- Hutchins, J., et al., “Enhanced Internet Firewall Design Using Stateful Filters Final Report”, Aug. 1997, Sandia Report; Sandia National Laboratories.
- IBM, Local Area Network Concepts and Products: Routers and Gateways, May 1996.
- Juniper Networks Press Release, Juniper Networks Announces Junos, First Routing Operating System for High-Growth Internet Backbone Networks, Jul. 1, 1998, Juniper Networks.
- Juniper Networks Press Release, Juniper Networks Ships the Industry's First Internet Backbone Router Delivering Unrivaled Scalability, Control and Performance, Sep. 16, 1998, Juniper Networks.
- Karn, P., et al., “The ESP DES-CBC Transform”, Aug. 1995, Network Working Group, RFC 1829.
- Kelsey, J. et al., “Authenticating Outputs of Computer Software Using a Cryptographic Coprocessor”, Sep. 1996, CARDIS.
- Krieger, D., et al., “The Emergence of Distributed Component Platforms”, Mar. 1998, IEEE.
- Krupczak, B., et al., “Implementing Communication Protocols in Java”, Oct. 1998, IEEE Communications Magazine.
- Krupczak, B., et al., “Implementing Protocols in Java: The Price of Portability”, 1998, IEEE.
- Lawson, Stephen, “Cisco NetFlow Switching Speeds Traffic Routing”, Jul. 7, 1997, Infoworld.
- Li, S., et al., “Active Gateway: A Facility for Video Conferencing Traffic Control”, Feb. 1, 1997, Purdue University; Purdue e-Pubs; Computer Science Technical Reports.
- Magedanz, T., et al., “Intelligent Agents: An Emerging Technology for Next Generation Telecommunications?”, 1996, IEEE.
- Mills, H., et al., “Principles of Information Systems Analysis and Design”, 1986, Academic Press, Inc. (2 documents).
- Mosberger, David, “Scout: A Path-Based Operating System”, Doctoral Dissertation Submitted to the University of Arizona, 1997 (3 documents).
- Muhugusa, M., et al., “ComScript : An Environment for the Implementation of Protocol Stacks and their Dynamic Reconfiguration”, Dec. 1994.
- Nelson, M., et al., The Data Compression Book, 2nd Edition, 1996, M&T Books, A division of MIS Press, Inc.
- NetRanger User's Guide, 1996, WheelGroup Corporation.
- NetScreen Command Line Reference Guide, 2000, P/N 093-0000-001 Rev A, NetScreen Technologies, Inc., USA.
- NetScreen Command Line Reference Guide, 2000, P/N 093-0000-001 NetScreen Technologies, Inc., USA.
- NetScreen Concepts and Examples ScreenOS Reference Guide, 1998-2001, Version 2.5 P/N 093-0039-000 Rev. A, NetScreen Technologies, Inc.
- NetScreen Products Webpage, wysiwyg://body—bottom.3/http://www...een.com/products/products.html 1998-1999, NetScreen Technologies, Inc.
- NetScreen WebUI, Reference Guide, Version 2.5.0 P/N 093-0040-000 Rev. A, 2000-2001, NetScreen Technologies, Inc.
- NetStalker Installation and User's Guide, 1996, Version 1.0.2, Haystack Labs, Inc.
- Niculescu, Dragos, “Survey of Active Network Research”, Jul. 14, 1999, Rutgers University.
- Nortel Northern Telecom, “ISDN Primary Rate User-Network Interface Specification”, Aug. 1998.
- Nygren, Erik, “The Design and Implementation of a High-Performance Active Network Node”, Thesis, Feb. 1998, MIT.
- Osbourne, E., “Morningstar Technologies SecureConnect Dynamic Firewall Filter User's Guide”, Jun. 14, 1995, V. 1.4, Morning Star Technologies, Inc.
- Padovano, Michael, “Networking Applications on UNIX System V Release 4,” 1993 Prentice Hall, USA (2 documents).
- Pfeifer, T., “Automatic Conversion of Communication Media”, 2000, GMD Research Series, Germany.
- Pfeifer, T., “Automatic Conversion of Communication Media”, Thesis, 1999, Technischen Universitat Berlin, Berlin.
- Pfeifer, T., et al., “Applying Quality-of-Service Parametrization for Medium-to-Medium Conversion”, Aug. 25-28, 1996, 8th IEEE Workshop on Local and Metropolitan Area Networks, Potsdam, Germany.
- Pfeifer, T., “Micronet Machines—New Architectural Approaches for Multimedia End-Systems”, 1993 Technical University of Berlin.
- Pfeifer, T., “On the Convergence of Distributed Computing and Telecommunications in the Field of Personal Communications”, 1995, KiVS, Berlin.
- Pfeifer, T., “Speech Synthesis in the Intelligent Personal Communication Support System (IPCSS)”, Nov. 2-3, 1995, 2nd ‘Speak!’ Workshop on Speech Generation in Multimodal Information Systems and Practical Applications.
- Pfeifer, T., et al., “Generic Conversion of Communication Media for Supporting Personal Mobility”, Nov. 25-27, 1996, Proc. of the Third COST 237 Workshop: Multimedia Telecommunications and Applications.
- Pfeifer, T., et al., “Intelligent Handling of Communication Media”, Oct. 29-31, 1997, 6th IEEE Workshop on Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems (FTDCS) Tunis.
- Pfeifer, T., et al., “Resource Selection in Heterogeneous Communication Environments using the Teleservice Descriptor”, Dec. 15-19, 1997, Proceedings from the 4th COST 237 Workshop: From Multimedia Services to Network Services, Lisboa.
- Pfeifer, T., et al., Mobile Guide—Location-Aware Applications from the Lab to the Market, 1998, IDMS '98, LNCS 1483, pp. 15-28.
- Pfeifer, T., et al., “The Active Store providing Quality Enhanced Unified Messaging”, Oct. 20-22, 1998, 5th Conference on computer Communications, AFRICOM-CCDC '98, Tunis.
- Pfeifer, T.,, et al., “A Modular Location-Aware Service and Application Platform”, 1999, Technical University of Berlin.
- Plagemann, T., et al., “Evaluating Crucial Performance Issues of Protocol Configuration in DaCaPo”, 1994, University of Oslo.
- Psounis, Konstantinos, “Active Networks: Applications, Security, Safety, and Architectures”, First Quarter 1999, IEEE Communications Surveys.
- Rabiner, Lawrence, “Applications of Speech Recognition in the Area of Telecommunications”, 1997, IEEE.
- Raman, Suchitra, et al, “A Model, Analysis, and Protocol Framework for Soft State-based Communications”, Department of EECS, University of California, Berkeley.
- Rogaway, Phillip, “Bucket Hashing and its Application to Fast Message Authentication”, Oct. 13, 1997, Department of Computer Science, University of California.
- Schneier, B., et al., “Remote Auditing of Software Outputs Using a Trusted CoProcessor”, 1997, Elsevier Paper Reprint 1999.
- Tennenhouse, D., et al., “From Internet to ActiveNet”, Laboratory of Computer Science, MIT, 1996.
- Tudor, P., “Tutorial MPEG-2 Video Compression”, Dec. 1995, Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal.
- US Copyright Webpage of Copyright Title, “IPv6: the New Internet Protocol”, by Christian Huitema, 1998 Prentice Hall.
- Van der Meer, et al., “An Approach for a 4th Generation Messaging System”, Mar. 21-23, 1999, The Fourth International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems ISADS '99, Tokyo.
- Van der Meer, Sven, “Dynamic Configuration Management of the Equipment in Distributed Communication Environments”, Thesis, Oct. 6, 1996, Berlin (3 documents).
- Van Renesse, R. et al., “Building Adaptive Systems Using Ensemble”, Cornell University Jul. 1997.
- Venkatesan, R., et al., “Threat-Adaptive Security Policy”, 1997, IEEE.
- Wetherall, D., et al., “The Active IP Option”, Sep. 1996, Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGOPS European Workshop, Connemara, Ireland.
- Welch, Terry, “A Technique for High-Performance Data Compression”, 1984, Sperry Research Center, IEEE.
- Zeletin, R. et al., “Applying Location-Aware Computing for Electronic Commerce: Mobile Guide”, Oct. 20-22, 1998, 5th Conference on Computer Communications, AFRICOM-CCDC '98, Tunis.
- Zell, Markus, “Selection of Converter Chains by Means of Quality of Service Analysis”, Thesis, Feb. 12, 1998, Technische Universitat Berlin.
- Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.; C08-0184 JLR; USDC for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division.
- Feb. 4, 2008 Plaintiff's Original Complaint.
- Aug. 26, 2008 Defendant NVIDIA Corporation's Answer to Complaint.
- Aug. 26, 2008 Defendant Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Answer to Complaint.
- Aug. 27, 2008 Defendant Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s Answer to Complaint for Patent Infringement.
- Aug. 27, 2008 RealNetworks, Inc.'s Answer to Implicit Networks, Inc.'s Original Complaint for Patent Infringement, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims.
- Aug. 27, 2008 Intel Corp.'s Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims.
- Aug. 27, 2008 Defendant RMI Corporation's Answer to Plaintiffs Original Complaint.
- Sep. 15, 2008 Plaintiffs Reply to NVIDIA Corporation's Counterclaims.
- Sep. 15, 2008 Plaintiffs Reply to Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Counterclaims.
- Sep. 16, 2008 Plaintiffs Reply to RealNetworks, Inc.'s Counterclaims.
- Sep. 16, 2008 Plaintiffs Reply to Intel Corp.'s Counterclaims.
- Dec. 10, 2008 Order granting Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice re NVIDIA Corporation, Inc.
- Dec. 16, 2008 Defendants AMD, RealNetworks, RMI, and Sun's Motion to Stay Pending the Patent and Trademark Office's Reexamination of the '163 Patent.
- Dec. 29, 2008 Order granting Stipulated Motion for Dismissal without Prejudice of Claims re Sun Microsystems, Inc.
- Jan. 5, 2009 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants AMD, RealNetworks, RMI, and Sun's Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination and Exhibit A.
- Jan. 9, 2009 Reply of Defendants AMD, RealNetworks, RMI, and Sun's Motion to Stay Pending the Patent and Trademark Office's Reexamination of the '163 Patent.
- Feb. 9, 2009 Order Granting Stay Pending the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Reexamination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,629,163.
- Feb. 17, 2009 Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Dismissal of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. with Prejudice.
- May 14, 2009 Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Dismissal of RMI Corporation with Prejudice.
- Oct. 13, 2009 Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Dismissal of Claims Against and Counterclaims by Intel Corporation.
- Oct. 30, 2009 Executed Order for Stipulated Motion for Dismissal of Claims Against and Counterclaims by RealNetworks, Inc.
- Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., C09-5628 HLR; USDC for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
- Nov. 30, 2009 Plaintiffs Original Complaint, Implicit v Microsoft, Case No. 09-5628.
- Jan. 22, 2010 Order Dismissing Case, Implicit v Microsoft, Case No. 09-5628.
- Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., C10-3606 HRL; USDC for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
- Aug. 16, 2010 Plaintiffs Original Complaint, Implicit v Cisco, Case No. 10-3606.
- Nov. 22, 2010 Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Answer and Counterclaims, Implicit v Cisco, Case No. 10-3606.
- Dec. 13, 2010 Plaintiff, Implicit Networks, Inc.'s, Answer to Counterclaims, Implicit v Cisco, Case No. 10-3606.
- Oct. 4, 2011 Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, Implicit v Cisco, Case No. 10-3606.
- Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc., C10-3766 JL; USDC for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
- Aug. 24, 2010 Plaintiffs Original Complaint, Implicit v Citrix, Case No. 10-3766.
- Dec. 1, 2010 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Implicit v Citrix, Case No. 10-3766.
- Jan. 14, 2011 Defendant Citrix Systems, Inc.'s Answer, Defenses and Counter-complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Implicit v Citrix, Case No. 10-3766.
- Feb. 18, 2011 Plaintiff, Implicit Networks, Inc.'s, Answer to Defendants Counterclaims, Implicit v Citrix, Case No. 10-3766.
- May 2, 2011 Order of Dismissal, Implicit v Citrix, Case No. 10-3766.
- Implicit Networks, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Inc., C10-3365 JCS; USDC for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
- Jul. 30, 2010 Plaintiffs Original Complaint, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Oct. 13, 2010 Defendants' Answer and Counter-Complaint, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Nov. 3, 2010 Plaintiff's Answer to Counter-Complaint, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Dec. 10, 2010 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Jan. 14, 2011 Defendants' Answer to 1st Amended Complaint and Counterclaim, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Feb. 18, 2011 Plaintiffs Answer to F5's Amended Counter-Complaint, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Apr. 18, 2011 Defendants' Amended Answer to 1st Amended Complaint and Counter-Complaint, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- May 5, 2011 Plaintiffs Answer to F5's Amended Counter-Complaint, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Jul. 22, 2011 F5 Networks, Inc.'s Invalidity Contentions, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Jul. 22, 2011 F5 Networks, Inc.'s Invalidity Contentions, Exhibit A, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365 (31 documents).
- Jul. 22, 2011 F5 Networks, Inc.'s Invalidity Contentions, Exhibit B, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Oct. 18, 2011 Joint Claim Construction & Pre-Hearing Statement (PR 4-3), Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Oct. 18, 2011 Joint Claim Construction & Pre-Hearing Statement (PR 4-3) Exhibit A, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365 (2 documents).
- Nov. 28, 2011 Plaintiffs Opening Claim Construction Brief, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Nov. 29, 2011 Amended Joint Claim Construction & Pre-Hearing Statement, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Nov. 29, 2011 Amended Joint Claim Construction & Pre-Hearing Statement, Exhibit A, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Dec. 19, 2011 Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants' (F5, HP, Juniper) Responsive Claim Construction Brief (4-5), Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Jan. 27, 2012 Transcript of Proceeding Held on Jan. 17, 2012; Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Jan. 27, 2012 Transcript of Proceeding Held on Jan. 18, 2012; Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Jan. 27, 2012 Transcript of Proceeding Held on Jan. 19, 2012; Implicit v F5, Case No. 10-3365.
- Feb. 29, 2012 Claim Construction Order.
- Aug. 15, 2012 Storer Invalidity Report.
- Sep. 10, 2012 Implicit's Expert Report of Scott M. Nettles.
- Mar. 13, 2013 Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
- Apr. 9, 2013 Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit.
- Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, C10-3746 JCS: USDC for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
- Aug. 23, 2010 Plaintiffs Original Complaint, Implicit v HP, Case No. 10-3746.
- Nov. 23, 2010 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, Implicit v HP, Case No. 10-3746.
- Jan. 14, 2011 Defendant HP's Answer and Counterclaims, Implicit v HP, Case No. 10-3746.
- Feb. 18, 2011 Implicit Networks, Inc.'s Answer to HP Counterclaims, Implicit v HP, Case No. 10-3746.
- May 10, 2011 Plaintiff's Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, Case No. 10-3746.
- Jun. 30, 2011 Defendant HP Company's Invalidity Contentions, Implicit v HP, Case No. 10-3746.
- Jun. 30, 2011 Defendant HP Company's Invalidity Contentions, A1-14, Implicit v HP, Case No. 10-3746.
- Jun. 30, 2011 Defendant HP Company's Invalidity Contentions, B1-21, Implicit v HP, Case No. 10-3746.
- Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, C10-4234 EDL: USDC for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
- Sep. 20, 2010 Plaintiff's Original Complaint, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Nov. 12, 2010 Juniper Network's Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(B)(6): Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Nov. 12, 2010 Juniper Network's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of its Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(B)(6): Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 1, 2010 First Amended Complaint; Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Jan. 18, 2011 Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to 1st Amended Complaint, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Feb. 18, 2011 Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's Counterclaims, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- May 23, 2011 Plaintiffs Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Nov. 15, 2011 Plaintiffs Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claim and Infringement Contentions, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Nov. 28, 2011 Spencer Hosie Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs Opening Claim Construction Brief), Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Nov. 28, 2011 Spencer Hosie Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs Opening Claim Construction Brief Exhibit E, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Nov. 28, 2011 Spencer Hosie Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs Opening Claim Construction Brief Exhibit J, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Nov. 28, 2011 Spencer Hosie Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs Opening Claim Construction Brief Exhibit K, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Nov. 28, 2011 Spencer Hosie Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs Opening Claim Construction Brief Exhibits M-O, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit B, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit F, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit N, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit P, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit Q, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit S., Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit T-1, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit T-2, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit T-3, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit T-4, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit U, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit V, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit W, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit X, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit Y-1, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit Y-2, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit Y-3, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit Y-4, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 12, 2011 Holly Hogan Declaration in Support of Defendants' Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit Z, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 19, 2011 Spencer Hosie Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Reply Claim Construction Brief, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Dec. 19, 2011 Spencer Hosie Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs Reply Claim Construction Brief, Exhibit P, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Jan. 10, 2012 Plaintiff's Jan. 10, 2012 Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Feb. 10, 2012 Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Feb. 10, 2012 Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Exhibit A1, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Feb. 10, 2012 Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Exhibit A2, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Feb. 10, 2012 Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Exhibit A3, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Feb. 10, 2012 Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Exhibit A4, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Feb. 10, 2012 Juniper Networks, Inc.'s Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Exhibit B1, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Feb. 29, 2012 Plaintiff's Feb. 29, 2012 Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Apr. 6, 2012 Plaintiff's Apr. 6, 2012 Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Apr. 9, 2012 Plaintiff's Apr. 9, 2012 Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, Implicit v Juniper, Case No. 10-4234.
- Sep. 11, 2012 Implicit's Expert Report of Scott Nettles.
- Nov. 9, 2012 Juniper's Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Law ISO Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment, on the Issue of Invalidity.
- Nov. 9, 2012 Exhibit 2 to Declaration in support of Juniper's Motion for Summary Judgment—Calvert Expert Report.
- Nov. 9, 2012 Exhibit 3 to Declaration in support of Juniper's Motion for Summary Judgment—Calvert Supplemental Expert Report.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Implicit Opposition to Juniper's and F5 Motion on Invalidity.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Exhibit A to Hosie Declaration—Aug. 27, 2012 Excerpts from David Blaine deposition.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Exhibit B to Hosie Declaration—Oct. 25, 2012 Excerpts from Kenneth Calvert Deposition.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Exhibit C to Hosie Declaration—Aug. 15, 2012 Excerpts from Kenneth Calvert Expert Report.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Exhibit D to Hosie Declaration—U.S. Pat. No. 6,651,099 to Dietz et al.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Exhibit E to Hosie Declaration—Understanding Packet-Based and Flow-Based Forwarding.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Exhibit F to Hosie Declaration—Wikipedia on Soft State.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Exhibit G to Hosie Declaration—Sprint Notes.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Exhibit H to Hosie Declaration—Implicit's Supplemental Response to Juniper's 2nd Set of Interrogatories.
- Nov. 26, 2012 Exhibit I to Hosie Declaration—U.S. Pat. No. 7,650,634 (Zuk).
- Other Implicit Networks, Inc. Prosecution Matters.
- U.S. Appl. No. 11/933,022 Utility Application filed Oct. 31, 2007.
- U.S. Appl. No. 11/933,022 Preliminary Amendment filed Feb. 19, 2008.
- U.S. Appl. No. 11/933,022 Office Action mailed Jun. 24, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 11/933,022 Amendment filed Sep. 24, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 11/933,022 Office Action dated Dec. 11, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 11/933,022 Amendment and Response dated Jan. 29, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 11/933,022 Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 2, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 11/933,022 Issue Notification dated May 4, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Utility Application filed Aug. 6, 2003.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Office Action dated Apr. 7, 2008.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Response to Restriction Requirement dated Aug. 5, 2008.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Office Action dated Oct. 3, 2008.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Response to Office Action dated Apr. 3, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment dated May 4, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Amendment to Office Action Response dated Jun. 4, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment dated Jun. 12, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Amendment to Office Action dated Jul. 10, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Final Rejection Office Action dated Oct. 21, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Amendment after Final Office Action dated Dec. 14, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Advisory Action dated Jan. 11, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment dated Jan. 11, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Supplemental Amendment and Response dated Mar. 13, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Office Action dated May 11, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Amendment and Response dated Sep. 13, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Final Rejection dated Nov. 24, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Notice of Appeal dated May 19, 2011.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Amendment and Request for Continued Examination dated Jul. 19, 2011.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 13, 2011.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 19, 2011.
- U.S. Appl. No. 10/636,314 Issue Notification dated Oct. 19, 2011.
- U.S. Appl. No. 09/474,664 Utility Application filed Dec. 29, 1999.
- U.S. Appl. No. 09/474,664 Office Action dated Sep. 23, 2002.
- U.S. Appl. No. 09/474,664 Amendment and Response dated Feb. 24, 2003.
- U.S. Appl. No. 09/474,664 Notice of Allowance dated May 20, 2003.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Request for Ex Parte Reexamination dated Dec. 15, 2008.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Office Action Granting Reexamination dated Jan. 17, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 First Office Action dated Jul. 7, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 First Office Action Response dated Sep. 1, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Patent Owner Interview Summary dated Oct. 23, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Office Action Final dated Dec. 4,2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Amendment and Response to Office Action dated Dec. 18, 2009.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Amendment and Response to Office Action dated Jan. 4, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Advisory Action dated Jan. 21, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Amendment and Response to Advisory Action dated Feb. 8, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexam Certificate dated Mar. 2, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 90/010,356 Reexamination Certificate Issued dated Jun. 22, 2010.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Inter Partes Reexam Request dated Feb. 13, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Order Granting Reexamination dated Apr. 3, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Office Action dated Apr. 3, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Office Action Response dated Jun. 4, 2012 (including Exhibits 1 & 2) (4 documents).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-1 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (Declaration of Prof. Dr. Bernhard Plattner).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-2 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (Prof. Dr. Bernhard Plattner CV).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-3 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (Listing of Publications to Prof. Dr. Bernhard Plattner updated Feb. 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-4 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012(Office Action Granting Reexamination in 95/000,660 dated May 10, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-5 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (Office Action in 95/000,660 dated May 10, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-6 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (Implicit Networks, Inc. U.S. Pat. No. 6,629,163 Claims Chart).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-7 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (Internet Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification dated Sep. 1991).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-8 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (Atkinson, IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) dated Aug. 1995).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-9 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (Claim Construction Order dated Feb. 29, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-10-1 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (vol. I of Edward Balassanian Deposition Transcript dated May 30, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-10-2 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (vol. II of Edward Balassanian Deposition Transcript dated May 31, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-10-3 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (vol. III of Edward Balassanian Deposition Transcript dated Jun. 7, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-10-4 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (vol. IV of Edward Balassanian Deposition Transcript dated Jun. 8, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Appendix R-11 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2012 (Implicit Networks, Inc.'s Response to Juniper Networks, Inc.'s First Set of Requests for Admission 1-32).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Action Closing Prosecution dated Oct. 1, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Petition to Withdraw and Reissue Action Closing Prosecution dated Nov. 20, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Patent Owner Comments to Action Closing Prosecution dated Dec. 3, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Opposition to Petition dated Dec. 17, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,659 Third Party Comments to Action Closing Prosecution dated Jan. 2, 2013.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Inter Partes Reexam Request dated Mar. 2, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Order Granting Reexamination dated May 10, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Office Action dated May 10, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Response to Office Action dated Jul. 10, 2012 (including Exhibits 1 and 2).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Third Party Comments to Office After Patent Owner's Response dated Aug. 8, 2012 (including Revised Comments).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Declaration of Prof. Dr. Bernhard Plattner).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-1 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Prof. Dr. Bernhard Plattner CV).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-3 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Listing of Publications to Prof. Dr. Bernhard Plattner updated Feb. 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-4 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012(Office Action Granting Reexamination in 95/000,660 dated May 10, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-5 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Office Action in 95/000,660 dated May 10, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-6 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Implicit Networks, Inc. U.S. Pat. No. 6,629,163 Claims Chart).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-7 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Internet Protocol DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification dated Sep. 1991).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-8 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Atkinson, IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) dated Aug. 1995).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-9 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Claim Construction Order dated Feb. 29, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-10 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (vol. I-IV of Edward Balassanian Deposition Transcript dated May 30, 2012).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-11 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Shacham, A., et al, “IP Payload Compression Protocol”, Network Working Group, RFC 3173 Sep. 2001).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-12 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Shacham, A., et al, “IP Payload Compression Protocol”, Network Working Group, RFC 2393 Dec. 1998).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-13 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 ('163 Pfeiffer Claim Chart).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-14 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Ylonen, T., “SSH Transport Layer Protocol”, Network Working Group—Draft Feb. 22, 1999).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-15 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Dommety, G., “Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE”, Network Working Group, RFC 2890 Sep. 2000).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-16 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Monsour, R., et al, “Compression in IP Security” Mar. 1997).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-17 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012 (Friend, R., Internet Working Group RFC 3943 dated Nov. 2004 Transport Layer Security Protocol Compression Using Lempel-Ziv-Stac).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Appendix R-18 to Third Party Comments to Patent Owner's Response to Office Action dated Aug. 8, 2012(Implicit Networks, Inc.'s Response to Juniper Networks, Inc.'s First Set of Requests for Admission 1-32).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Revised—Third Party Comments to Office After Patent Owner's Response dated Nov. 2, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Action Closing Prosecution dated Dec. 21, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Comments to Action Closing Prosecution dated Feb. 21, 2013 (including Dec of Dr. Ng).
- U.S. Appl. No. 95/000,660 Third Party Comments to Action Closing Prosecution dated Mar. 25, 2013.
- PCT/US00/33634—PCT application (WO 01/2077 A2—Jul. 12, 2001).
- PCT/US00/33634—Written Opinion (WO 01/50277 A3—Feb. 14, 2002).
- PCT/US00/33634—International Search Report (Oct. 9, 2001).
- PCT/US00/33634—Response to Official Communication dated Dec. 7, 2001 (Mar. 21, 2002).
- PCT/US00/33634—International Preliminary Examination Report (Apr. 8, 2002).
- PCT/US00/33634—Official Communication (Jan. 24, 2003).
- PCT/US00/33634—Response to Official Communication dated Jan. 24, 2003 (Mar. 12, 2003).
- PCT/US00/33634—Official Communication (May 13, 2004).
- PCT/US00/33634—Response to Summons to Attend Oral Proceeding dated May 13, 2004 (Oct. 9, 2004).
- PCT/US00/33634—Decision to Refuse a European Patent application (Nov. 12, 2004).
- PCT/US00/33634—Minutes of the oral proceedings before the Examining Division (Oct. 12, 2004).
- PCT/US00/33634—Closure of the procedure in respect to Application No. 00984234.5-2212 (Feb. 22, 2005).
- May 3, 2013 Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso Cardenas Regarding Validity of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,877,006; 7,167,864; 7,720,861; and 8,082,268 (6 documents).
- Expert Report of Dr. Alfonso Cardenas Regarding Validity of U.S. Pat. No. 7,167,864 (3 documents).
- “InfoReports User Guide: Version 3.3.1;” Platinum Technology, Publication No. PRO-X-331-UG00-00, printed Apr. 1998; pp. 1-430.
- Non-Final Office Action in Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 issued Aug. 16, 2013, 107 pages.
- Decision on Petition in Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 issued Aug. 19, 2013, 3 pages.
- Response to Non-Final Office Action in Reexamination Control No. 95/000,659 mailed Oct. 2, 2013 including Exhibits A-C, 37 pages.
- Decision on Petition in Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660 issued Jul. 30, 2013, 12 pages.
- Non-Final Office Action in Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,660 issued Aug. 30, 2013, 23 pages.
- RFC: 791. Internet Protocol: DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification, Sep. 1981, prepared for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Information Processing Techniques Office by Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California, 52 pages.
Type: Grant
Filed: Mar 31, 2014
Date of Patent: Feb 23, 2016
Patent Publication Number: 20150009997
Assignee: Implicit, LLC (Seattle, WA)
Inventor: Edward Balassanian (Seattle, WA)
Primary Examiner: Duc Duong
Application Number: 14/230,952
International Classification: H04L 29/06 (20060101); H04L 12/701 (20130101); H04L 29/08 (20060101);