- PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2021-00701 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10–18 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant the Petition and institute an inter partes review. The Board has not made a final determination regarding the patentability of any claim.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would [have] possess[ed] at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering and 3-5 years of professional experience in computer networks, or a master’s or doctorate and 1-2 years of professional experience in computer networks. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa. Such a person would have been familiar with computer networks and would have been aware of design trends relating to authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA). Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13). At this stage, Patent Owner neither challenges Petitioner’s proposal nor proposes its own specific articulation of a level of ordinary skill in the art. Because we find Petitioner’s proposal reasonable, consistent with the level of skill reflected by the prior art, and supported by the testimony of Dr. Goldschlag, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Although Petitioner notes certain constructions that it has proposed in district court, both parties agree that no term requires construction to decide whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Pet. 14 (Petitioner asserting that “[n]o term needs construction in this proceeding”); Prelim. Resp. 3 (“Patent Owner does not contend that any term requires construction for purposes of this Preliminary Response”). Because we also discern no term that requires construction to resolve the issues before us, we do not expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“restricts access to its network for clients that do not conform with the required security policy.” Pet. 37. Specifically, upon determining nonconformance, Herrmann’s policy server 460 “may restrict a session to limited access (e.g., a set of IP addresses) rather than deny access completely.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 78). In addition, Herrmann also teaches the use of EAP during both authentication and authorization, including an express extension “to support policy-based authentication systems.” Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 56, 58; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92–93). Although Herrmann does not expressly describe implementing restricted access in the context of a network of VLANs, Petitioner reasons that such would have been obvious in light of Krantz’s teaching of VLANs, particularly because Krantz specifically assigns a subset of VLANs as an isolated “sandbox” area. Id. at 37–38. Specifically, Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to segregate Herrmann’s sandbox area using at least one separate VLAN to improve network security,” and supports that reasoning with testimony by Dr. Goldschlag. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). Petitioner also provides evidence that VLANs would have been recognized at the time of invention as a well-known technique for segregating network portions having different security needs. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54 (testimony of Dr. Goldschlag); Ex. 1031, Abstr. (IEEE 802.1Q standard)). In addition, Dr. Goldschlag testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Herrmann’s network using VLANs “for improved scalability and network management.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 55. Furthermore, Petitioner identifies language in Krantz to support its contention that Krantz itself motivates the combination by teaching that VLANs were a known alternative to IP filtering for restricting network access. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 32; Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s reasons for combining Herrmann and Krantz, and, on the record before us, we find that reasoning supported by a rational underpinning. We accordingly find that Petitioner makes a sufficient showing at this stage with respect to the “restricting” limitation of independent claims 1 and 13.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,877,786
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.