PTAB

IPR2014-00527

Ericsson Inc v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: System and Method for Implementing a QoS Aware Wireless Point-to-Multi-Point Transmission System
Brief Description: The ’674 patent describes systems and methods where a base station acts as an interface between a wired network and a wireless network. The base station is configured to receive a data packet protected by a first security protocol from the wired network and apply a second, different security protocol for transmission over the wireless network.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Stadler ("Performance Enhancement for TCP/IP on a Satellite Channel").
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Stadler disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Stadler's system used "Wireless IP Suite Enhancer" (WISE) gateways that function as the claimed "base station," interfacing between wired TCP segments and a wireless satellite link. Petitioner asserted that these gateways receive packets under a first protocol (TCP/IP) from the wired network and convert them to a different Wireless Link Protocol (WLP) for the wireless segment. Stadler explicitly discussed making its WISE system work with IPSec on the wired links, which would be the "first security protocol," while the WLP with its own compression and encryption capabilities serves as the "second security protocol." Petitioner contended this directly mapped to the core limitations of independent claims 1, 13, and 18, with the dependent claims being disclosed through Stadler's teachings on encryption and bidirectional communication.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Rai (Patent 6,414,950).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rai explicitly taught nearly every limitation of the independent claims. Rai disclosed a base station connected between a wired network (backhaul) and a wireless network (airlink) to provide virtual private network (VPN) services. For packets on the wired network, Rai taught using tunneling protocols like XTunnel or L2TP, which function as the "first security protocol." For the wireless link, Rai taught using a MAC layer protocol. Petitioner contended the only element not explicitly stated was that Rai's MAC layer protocol for the wireless LAN followed the 802.11 standard, which includes security features like WEP encryption.
- Motivation to Combine (Implicit): While presented as obviousness, the argument functioned more like an inherency argument. A POSITA would have understood that a MAC layer for a wireless LAN, as described in Rai, would inherently incorporate a security protocol like WEP as part of the prevailing 802.11 standard at the time. This MAC layer protocol is inherently different from the tunneling protocols used on Rai's wired backhaul.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing the known 802.11 standard's security features on the wireless MAC layer described by Rai, as this was a standard and widespread practice.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Forslow (Patent 6,608,832).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Forslow, which described a GPRS network architecture, anticipated the independent claims. Forslow's Base Station Subsystem (BSS) served as the claimed "base station," interfacing a wired GPRS network and a wireless radio network. Petitioner argued that packets on the wired GPRS backbone were protected by a "first security protocol," the GPRS Tunnel Protocol (GTP), which encapsulates packets between support nodes. For the wireless link, Forslow taught using a SubNetwork Dependent Convergence Protocol (SNDCP), which provides functionalities including ciphering, as the "second security protocol." Because GTP and SNDCP are different protocols applied on the wired and wireless segments, respectively, Petitioner contended Forslow taught all limitations of the independent claims.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, arguing that claims 7-9 were obvious over Stadler in view of Davison (Patent 6,496,491) by substituting known tunneling protocols (PPTP, L2F, L2TP) for IPSec. Similarly, Petitioner argued that various dependent claims were obvious over Rai or Forslow in view of Davison, primarily for Davison's teachings that protocols like IPSec, PPTP, L2F, and L2TP were well-known, interchangeable options for providing secure tunneling on wired networks.

security protocol: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a protocol which enables at least one of (a) authentication or (b) confidentiality via (b1) encryption and/or (b2) tunneling when routing a packet through a network." This broad construction was central to arguing that protocols like TCP/IP with IPSec, GPRS Tunneling Protocol, and MAC layer protocols all met the claim limitation.
base station: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "one or more devices which interface with a wireless network and a wired network." This construction allowed Petitioner to map the term onto prior art components like Stadler's "gateways" or Forslow's "Base Station Subsystem (BSS)," which were not single devices but performed the claimed interfacing function.

Priority Date Challenge: A central contention of the petition was that the ’674 patent was not entitled to the July 10, 1998, filing date of its provisional application. Petitioner argued the provisional application failed to provide adequate written description for the key claim limitations, namely a "base station" that processes a packet using a first security protocol on a wired network and applies a second, different protocol on the wireless network. This argument was critical to establishing Stadler, Rai, and Forslow as valid prior art against the challenged claims.

Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’674 patent as unpatentable.