PTAB

IPR2013-00260

Oracle Corp v. CLoudIng IP LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Enabling Computers to Communicate Using Encrypted Network Packets
  • Brief Description: The ’891 patent discloses a method for secure network key management. The challenged claim relates to an embodiment where a firewall administrator provides a temporary password used to encrypt and securely transmit VPN tunnel information, including secret keys, to a user's computer, after which the temporary password is deleted.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Aziz and Stallings - Claim 9 is obvious over Aziz in view of Stallings.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 5,416,842) and Stallings (a 1995 textbook, Network and Internetwork Security).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Aziz taught a fundamental architecture for creating an encrypted tunnel between firewalls. However, Aziz was silent on the specific key distribution method. Stallings, a well-known security textbook, allegedly supplied the missing elements by teaching various techniques for securely distributing keys. Petitioner contended that Stallings disclosed using a previously used, non-permanent key to encrypt and transmit a new session key, which corresponds to the claimed "temporary configuration password" used to send "tunnel record information" (the new key). Stallings also allegedly taught deleting keys after use as part of standard cryptographic hygiene, satisfying the final limitation of claim 9.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the general firewall tunneling system of Aziz with the specific, well-known key distribution techniques from Stallings to improve the overall security of the system. Stallings itself taught that the strength of any cryptographic system rests on its key distribution technique, providing a clear reason to implement its methods in a system like Aziz.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying a standard, widely-taught security protocol (from Stallings) to a known network architecture (from Aziz) to achieve the predictable result of a more secure system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Aziz, Stallings, and Schneier - Claim 9 is obvious over Aziz in view of Stallings and Schneier.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 5,416,842), Stallings (a 1995 textbook), and Schneier (a 1993 textbook, Applied Cryptography).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Aziz and Stallings, adding Schneier to provide a more explicit teaching for the key deletion step. While Stallings implied key deletion, Petitioner argued Schneier was more direct, teaching that "old keys must be destroyed" and that keys in one-time pad systems are destroyed after a single use. This strengthened the assertion that deleting the temporary password was a known and obvious element of secure key management.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to further enhance the security of the Aziz/Stallings system. A POSITA, recognizing the value of the key distribution methods in Stallings, would have also recognized the importance of the explicit key destruction protocols taught by Schneier to prevent compromise and would have incorporated this well-known security practice.
    • Expectation of Success: Adding the explicit key deletion step from Schneier was presented as a simple, predictable improvement to the combined Aziz/Stallings system that a POSITA could implement with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Aziz and Weiss - Claim 9 is obvious over Aziz in view of Weiss.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Aziz (Patent 5,416,842) and Weiss (WO/1986/02644).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground replaced Stallings with Weiss as the secondary reference. Petitioner argued Weiss disclosed a hierarchical key distribution system where temporary keys are generated and then destroyed. Specifically, Weiss taught that randomly generated source numbers, used to create master keys, are destroyed. It also explicitly taught that a "previous master key information is deleted or erased" after being used to transfer new keys. Petitioner contended these deleted keys in Weiss correspond to the claimed "temporary configuration password."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the sophisticated key generation, distribution, and deletion techniques from Weiss into the firewall tunneling framework of Aziz. This would replace the unspecified key management of Aziz with a robust system that enhances security by ensuring keys are temporary and properly destroyed after use.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining the key management system of Weiss with the tunneling protocol of Aziz would have been a predictable integration of known security techniques into a network architecture, with a high likelihood of successfully creating a secure communication channel.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges to claim 9, including combinations of Aziz in view of Kaufman, and Aziz in view of Stallings and Kaufman, which relied on similar arguments about combining known key distribution and management techniques with Aziz's firewall tunneling system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "temporary configuration password": Petitioner argued for a broad construction encompassing any "non-permanent passwords and keys which are used in connection with a configuration process." This construction was critical to their argument, as it allowed them to assert that various types of non-permanent keys described in the prior art (e.g., previously used session keys, one-time pads, or keys in a hierarchical system) met this limitation, even if not explicitly labeled as a "password."
  • "tunnel record information": Petitioner proposed that this term should be interpreted to include "records that comprise encryption information (e.g., a key)." This construction was necessary to map the prior art's teachings of transmitting new encryption keys onto this element of the claim.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claim 9 of the ’891 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.