PTAB

IPR2013-00202

Dell Inc v. NovelPoint Security LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Limiting Computer Access to Peripheral Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’562 patent discloses methods for protecting data on peripheral devices from unauthorized access. The invention describes two main embodiments: one using a physical, user-operable switch to block signaling between a computer and a peripheral, and another using a software-controlled circuit that stores and enforces read-write permissions based on pre-defined "access criteria."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Director - Claims 3-4 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) by Director.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Director (Patent Re. 33,328).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Director, which teaches a write-protection circuit for computer hard disk systems, discloses every element of claims 3 and 4. Director describes a system comprising a computer (central processor 40), peripheral devices (disc drives 22, 24), and a control circuit (controller 20 and write protect device 32) interconnected between the computer and peripherals. The key element, a "user operable switch means," was allegedly met by Director's manual "enable device 1 protection" switch 48. Petitioner asserted that when a user activates this switch, it causes the control circuit to block write instructions from reaching the disc drive, thereby anticipating the claimed security system. Claim 4, which specifies the peripheral is a hard disk drive, was also argued to be anticipated as Director's primary embodiment involves disc drives.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Blair - Claims 3-4, 7-9, 12-14, and 18-19 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) by Blair.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blair (Patent 5,187,352).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Blair, which discloses a microprocessor-controlled computer security system, anticipates both of the ’562 patent's core embodiments.
    • For claims 3-4 (Physical Switch Embodiment): Blair was alleged to teach a security system that blocks access to peripherals by inserting a control circuit (interface circuit 20 and microcontroller 18) between the host computer and the peripheral. The "user operable switch means" was mapped to Blair’s magnetic card reader (12) and magnetic card (14). Petitioner argued that inserting the card causes Blair's control circuit to block the select signal (SEL) from the host computer, preventing it from reaching the peripheral device, thus anticipating the limitations of claims 3 and 4.
    • For claims 7-9, 12-14, 18-19 (Access Criteria Embodiment): Blair was also alleged to anticipate the claims directed to storing and using access criteria. Petitioner mapped Blair's magnetic card (14) to the claimed "programmable memory means" for storing access criteria (encoded data on tracks 40 and 42). Blair’s separate "program switch" (46) was mapped to the user-operable switch for enabling the entry of access criteria. When this switch is activated, an operator can encode the card with permissions. Subsequently, the system uses the card reader (12) to read these criteria and either enable or disable access to peripherals accordingly. This functionality was argued to directly anticipate the method and system limitations of claims 7, 14, and their dependents.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "user operable switch means" (claims 3, 7, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19): Petitioner argued this term must be construed as a "user dependent hardware switch not under software or firmware control." This construction was based on extensive prosecution history, where the patentee repeatedly and emphatically distinguished the invention from prior art software-based switches (Rose and Jones) by stressing that the invention's "KEY distinction" was its use of a "real, hardware type user dependent switch" that is independent of the CPU and cannot be emulated by a virus or hacker.
  • "interposing ... between" / "interconnected between" (claims 3, 7, 14): Petitioner proposed this term should be construed to mean "operationally connected in series with and between." This construction was based on the specification and figures, which illustrate that the control circuitry is physically placed on an intermediate card that intercepts control lines between the computer's bus and the peripheral device's controller card.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 3-4, 7-9, 12-14, and 18-19 of the ’562 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102.