PTAB

IPR2014-00245

Riverbed Technology Inc v. Silver Peak Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Data Encryption in a Network Memory Architecture for Providing Data Based on Local Accessibility
  • Brief Description: The ’684 patent describes a network memory system designed to alleviate bandwidth bottlenecks on a Wide Area Network (WAN) connecting a central office and a branch office. The system uses "appliances" at each location to intercept data, determine if portions of that data are already stored locally at the destination, and if so, replace the data with a smaller instruction to retrieve it locally, thereby reducing data transmission over the WAN.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 14-16, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McCanne (Application # 2004/0088376).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McCanne disclosed every element of the challenged claims. McCanne teaches a system with client-side and server-side "transaction accelerators" (TAs) that are functionally identical to the ’684 patent's "appliances." These TAs intercept data flowing between a source and destination, examine payloads to identify data "segments," and if a segment is already known to exist at the destination, replace the segment data with a "reference" to reduce network traffic. The source-site TA determines if data exists at the destination, encrypts and stores data, and transmits either a reference (a "retrieve instruction") or the data itself within a "binding" (a "store instruction"). The destination-site TA receives these instructions, stores new data, and uses references to retrieve locally-stored, encrypted data, which it then decrypts. This mapping was applied to system claims (1, 2, 7), method claims (8, 9, 14), and software product claims (15, 16, 21).

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 3, 10, and 17 over McCanne in view of Stein

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McCanne (Application # 2004/0088376) and Stein (Application # 2003/0133568).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted McCanne teaches all limitations of the base claims (1, 8, 15) upon which claims 3, 10, and 17 depend, including the use of an "encryption function." The dependent claims further require the specific use of an "Advanced Encryption Scheme algorithm" (AES). While McCanne teaches generic encryption, Stein explicitly discloses that it was known to use the AES standard for encrypting and decrypting data blocks.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA), when implementing the encryption taught in McCanne, would have been motivated to use a well-known, industry-standard algorithm. Stein shows AES was such a standard. The combination was presented as the predictable application of a known technique (AES) to an existing system (McCanne's) to achieve a known result (secure data encryption).
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing the well-documented AES standard within the McCanne system.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combining McCanne with other prior art to supply specific, well-known encryption techniques. These grounds argued that claims 4, 11, and 18 were obvious over McCanne in view of Rarick (Application # 2004/0086114), which teaches the Data Encryption Standard (DES). Similarly, claims 5, 12, and 19 were argued as obvious over McCanne in view of Anand (Application # 2003/0002664), which teaches the Triple Data Encryption Algorithm (TDEA). Finally, claims 6, 13, and 20 were argued as obvious over McCanne in view of Gleichauf (Application # 2003/0149869), which teaches decrypting data by combining it with a key stream. The motivation for each combination was consistently argued as implementing a known encryption method to achieve predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • network memory: Petitioner argued this term, found in the preamble of all claims, refers to a system with at least two separate locations (e.g., branch and central offices), each with its own local network, interconnected by a communication network like a WAN. This construction is based on the specification's description of the system architecture.
  • appliance: Petitioner proposed this term should be construed as a generic node, system, or device inserted at a site, without limitations beyond those explicitly recited in the claims (e.g., a processor and memory device). This prevents reading in extraneous features not required by the claim language itself.
  • instruction: Petitioner argued this term should mean any message or signal indicating an action for an appliance to perform with data, including using an index for storage or retrieval, as described in the specification.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’684 patent as unpatentable.