PTAB

IPR2015-00011

Microsoft Corp v. Cellular Communications Equipment LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Control of Terminal Applications in a Network Environment
Brief Description: The ’923 patent relates to a system for controlling the behavior of applications running on a network terminal. The system works by diverting outbound messages generated by an application to a "controlling entity" residing within the terminal for evaluation before the messages are transmitted to the network.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Cheswick (U.S. Statutory Invention Registration H1944).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cheswick disclosed every element of the challenged claims. Cheswick described a client-based firewall using a hardware "electronic dongle" (the controlling entity) that inserted into a "user terminal." A software driver on the terminal acted as the "diverting unit," intercepting all outgoing network messages from applications (e.g., web browsers) and routing them to the dongle. The dongle then analyzed the messages against pre-set "firewall routines" to control whether the application could send the message, thereby controlling the application's behavior based on the message content. For dependent claim 26, Petitioner asserted that a security dongle is an inherently tamper-resistant device. For dependent claim 32, Petitioner noted Cheswick's terminals could include portable computing devices, meeting the "mobile terminal" limitation.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Rigstad (Patent 7,624,434).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Rigstad taught a computer "node" (terminal), such as a laptop, that used a hardware firewall on a PCMCIA card (the controlling entity). A software driver or a driver-and-shim combination on the node served as the "diverting unit," routing all network data from applications to the firewall device. This controlling entity processed the data against various policy rules to control application behavior, such as by terminating a network connection. Petitioner argued Rigstad explicitly disclosed the tamper-resistant nature of its firewall device (claim 26), as the terminal verifies the device's integrity and cannot function without it. Rigstad also expressly stated that the host device could be a mobile terminal like a laptop or PDA, satisfying claim 32.

Prior Art Relied Upon: ZoneAlarm (ZoneAlarm Pro: User's Manual (2002)).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the ZoneAlarm manual described a software-based firewall system that met all claim limitations. In this system, the ZoneAlarm Pro software was the "controlling entity," and the underlying Windows Operating System acted as the "diverting unit" by routing network traffic requests to the ZoneAlarm software for approval. ZoneAlarm controlled application behavior by allowing or denying network access based on user-configured rules and permissions. For claim 26, Petitioner argued that ZoneAlarm's "Program access control" feature, which sandboxes applications and restricts their access to system capabilities unless explicitly granted, constituted a "tamper resistant area of the terminal." For claim 32, the manual was shown to disclose "full protection for mobile computers," meeting the mobile terminal limitation.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted alternative obviousness challenges for claim 26, arguing a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Cheswick's firewall with the explicit tamper-resistance teachings of Pearson (a security dongle), Payne (an embedded hardware firewall), or Rigstad (a tamper-resistant PCMCIA firewall) to enhance security, a known design goal.

"terminal": Petitioner argued this term should be given its broad, ordinary meaning of a generic "computing device." This construction supported applying the prior art, which described firewalls on personal computers, laptops, and nodes, to the claimed "terminal."
"diverting unit": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "software that diverts messages." This interpretation was based on the specification's disclosure of implementing the diverting function via middleware or modifications to a protocol stack and was critical for mapping the software drivers and operating system components of Cheswick, Rigstad, and ZoneAlarm to this claim element.
"controlling entity": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a component that controls the rights and behavior of application programs." This functional definition allowed the hardware dongles (Cheswick), PCMCIA cards (Rigstad), and firewall software (ZoneAlarm) of the prior art to meet the limitation.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 24, 26, and 32 of the ’923 patent as unpatentable.