PTAB

IPR2014-00128

Silver Peak Systems Inc v. Riverbed Technology Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Transaction Accelerator for Client-Server Communications Systems
  • Brief Description: The ’688 patent discloses methods and systems for accelerating data transactions between computer systems, such as clients and servers, over a network link. The technology aims to improve bandwidth utilization by segmenting data payloads based on their content, identifying redundant data segments, replacing those segments with smaller references, and storing the original data in an accessible electronic repository for later reconstruction.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-11 are obvious over Singh in view of RFC 3135 and Admitted Prior Art (APA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Singh (Patent 6,856,651), RFC 3135 (a June 2001 Request for Comments publication), and Admitted Prior Art (APA) from the ’688 patent’s own specification.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of references taught every element of the challenged claims. Singh disclosed the core data compression methodology, including segmenting a data stream based on its content to identify repeated phrases, replacing those phrases with references stored in a dictionary, and sending the compressed stream to improve bandwidth utilization. RFC 3135 described Performance Enhancing Proxies (PEPs) that improve network performance by intercepting and splitting TCP connections to apply optimizations like data compression over a specific link. The APA from the ’688 patent itself acknowledged the known use of proxies to intercept client-server transactions and apply compression or caching to ameliorate limited bandwidth. Petitioner asserted that Singh provided the specific content-aware segmentation and replacement method, while RFC 3135 and APA provided the network architecture (client-server proxies) in which to apply it. For example, for independent claim 1, Singh taught the method of segmentation and replacement, while RFC 3135 and APA taught applying such a method in a client-server network with proxies to accelerate transactions. For independent claim 6, RFC 3135 and APA explicitly taught the use of first-node and second-node proxies to terminate and manage a transport connection, into which Singh's compression method could be integrated.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Singh’s efficient compression system with the network proxy architecture of RFC 3135 and APA. The motivation was to address the well-known problem of improving the performance of network protocols over links with limited bandwidth or high latency. A POSITA would integrate the superior, content-aware compression taught by Singh into the established PEP framework taught by RFC 3135 to achieve more effective network acceleration than was possible with generic compression methods. Applying this known acceleration technique to the client-server transactions described in the APA was presented as a predictable and logical application of the technology.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in making this combination. The integration involved applying a known data compression technique (Singh) within a known network device architecture (RFC 3135 proxies) to solve a known problem. The result—improved data transfer efficiency—was the predictable outcome of combining the functionalities of the prior art references.
    • Key Aspects: A central pillar of Petitioner's argument was that the challenged claims of the ’688 patent were substantially similar to claims in two related, commonly-owned patents (the ’573 and ’134 patents). Petitioner noted that claims in those related patents had already been found obvious over the same combination of Singh, RFC 3135, and APA in pending inter partes reexaminations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner asserted that claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The petition focused on constructions that aligned the claim language with the teachings of the prior art.
  • segmenting the payload ... based on content of the payload: Petitioner argued this should be construed as partitioning the payload into data portions by a process that considers the actual data content, rather than using fixed-length blocks. This construction was crucial for mapping the content-aware, repeating-phrase-detection algorithm of Singh to the claims.
  • accelerating transactions: This preamble term was construed as a method of improving bandwidth utilization, such as through data compression. This broad construction allowed Petitioner to argue that prior art disclosing bandwidth efficiency and data compression met the "acceleration" limitation, even if the term was not explicitly used.
  • proxy: Consistent with RFC 3135 and the APA, this was interpreted as an intermediary device that can intercept, terminate, and forward network connections, such as a PEP. This construction was central to the arguments for system-level claims involving first-node and second-node proxies.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review of claims 1-11 of Patent 8,271,688 and a final determination that these claims are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.