PTAB

IPR2014-00147

ABB Technology Ltd v. Ipco LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Network Gateway and Method for Providing Same
  • Brief Description: The ’516 patent discloses a wireless network system where a server functions as a gateway to a second network (e.g., the Internet). The gateway performs translation services, manages data packets between the networks, and maintains a map of transmission paths within the wireless network to optimize routing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Kahn and Cerf '78 - Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are anticipated by or obvious over Kahn, which incorporates Cerf '78.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (“Advances in Packet Radio Technology,” 1978 IEEE paper) and Cerf '78 (“Issues in Packet-Network Interconnection,” 1978 IEEE paper).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kahn described a multi-hop packet radio network (PRNET) with a central "station" that functions as a server and gateway to an external network like ARPANET. This station/gateway included a radio modem for communicating with the wireless network and a network interface to the second network. Petitioner asserted that Kahn explicitly incorporates the teachings of Cerf '78 for its gateway process. The combined teachings disclosed all elements of independent claim 1, including a digital controller (the station's processor) that passes packets between the networks, maintains a map of network paths, and dynamically reassigns routes based on network conditions to satisfy a "minimum-delay criteria." Cerf '78 was cited for its detailed description of gateway functions, including the translation of packets between different network protocols via encapsulation.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued that Kahn provided an explicit motivation to incorporate Cerf '78's teachings by directly citing it as the basis for the gateway process used to connect its PRNET to the ARPANET. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood this citation as a direct instruction to use the gateway architecture described in Cerf '78 within Kahn's system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as Kahn's system was designed for internetworking, and Cerf '78 provided established, successful strategies for interconnecting dissimilar networks via gateways.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kahn in view of Schwartz - Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Kahn in view of Schwartz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (1978 IEEE paper) and Schwartz (“Telecommunication Networks,” 1987 book).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on the specific path optimization limitations in claim 1. While Kahn taught dynamically reassigning routes to satisfy a "minimum-delay criteria," Petitioner argued Schwartz provided specific, well-known algorithms for achieving this optimization. Schwartz explicitly taught calculating "minimum-hop paths" by treating the cost of each link as 1, which directly corresponded to the claimed limitation of choosing "the path to the gateway through the least possible number of additional clients." Schwartz also taught optimizing for least traffic or fastest paths.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a POSITA seeking to implement or improve the routing functionality in Kahn's PRNET would have naturally turned to a standard textbook like Schwartz. Schwartz described fundamental routing algorithms for packet-switched networks, the very type of network disclosed in Kahn. Kahn's own suggestion of selecting a routing algorithm based on the specific application provided a motivation to incorporate a known, efficient algorithm like the shortest-path method from Schwartz.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a standard routing algorithm (Schwartz) to a known network architecture (Kahn), a routine task for a network engineer at the time.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kahn, Cerf '78, and Spragins - Claims 5, 8, 10, and 12-14 are obvious over Kahn and Cerf '78 in view of Spragins.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (1978 IEEE paper), Cerf '78 (1978 IEEE paper), and Spragins (“Telecommunications Protocols and Design,” 1991 book).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims requiring more specific packet processing, such as adding a header that includes a client address, a data transmission path, and an indicator of data type. Petitioner asserted Spragins taught these features in the context of internetworking gateways. Spragins described encapsulating IP packets with MAC headers that include source/destination addresses and support source routing, satisfying the address and path limitations. Spragins also disclosed the HDLC protocol, where a control field identifies the frame type (e.g., information, supervisory), which Petitioner mapped to the claimed "indicator of the type of data."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the gateway system of Kahn/Cerf '78 would require specific, standardized protocols for formatting and handling packets. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to consult a comprehensive reference like Spragins to find and apply well-known techniques for decapsulation and encapsulation, including the addition of standard header information for addressing, routing, and packet-type identification.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these references involved applying established data-link layer protocols (from Spragins) to a known internetworking gateway architecture (Kahn/Cerf '78), which was a conventional and predictable design choice.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional anticipation and obviousness challenges based on various combinations of the primary references as well as Brownrigg (a 1987 book on packet radio), DDN (a 1985 protocol handbook), Goldstein (a 1992 routing protocol document), and Cerf '74 (an earlier 1974 IEEE paper). These grounds relied on similar arguments and mappings for different claim sets.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "network interface" / "interface": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "any device that allows a server of a wireless network system to communicate, directly or indirectly, with a second network." This broad construction, based on the patent's specification, was important for mapping prior art devices like gateways and routers, which inherently serve this function, to the claimed "interface."
  • "link": Petitioner proposed this term includes "connections between adjacent nodes and an entire path description from client to server." This construction, also based on the specification, was critical for arguments related to creating and optimizing transmission paths, ensuring that prior art teachings on end-to-end route calculation mapped onto the claimed "link."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 as unpatentable.