PTAB

IPR2015-00027

VMware Inc v. Good Technology Software Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Monitoring and Maintaining a Wireless Device
  • Brief Description: The ’386 patent discloses a system for remotely monitoring and maintaining wireless devices over a network. The system uses a rules engine on the wireless device that executes a set of rules received from a server to gather information about the device and take actions based on that information, such as maintaining specific settings.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness and Anticipation by Loveland - Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are anticipated by or obvious over Loveland.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Loveland (Application # 2003/0162555).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Loveland, which was previously considered during prosecution, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Specifically, Petitioner asserted the examiner overlooked or misinterpreted key sections of Loveland. Loveland allegedly teaches a rules engine that can be located on the wireless device itself, which gathers device information (e.g., security status, available networks) and takes action based on a "flexible set of rules" received from a server. Actions disclosed in Loveland include modifying settings (e.g., re-enabling a secure screen saver) and erasing data. Petitioner contended that Loveland also discloses triggering the rules engine repeatedly based on a "monitoring time interval," such as periodic re-evaluation of security conditions or scheduled daily synchronizations.
    • Key Aspects: The core of this argument was that the patent owner incorrectly distinguished Loveland during prosecution by arguing its rules engine was only on the server. Petitioner highlighted express language in Loveland stating the evaluation method "may be performed by either the client... or the server," directly contradicting the patent owner's prior argument and teaching the key feature of a device-side rules engine.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Loveland and Shahbazi PCT - Claims 4-5, 10-16, and 18-24 are obvious over Loveland in view of Shahbazi PCT.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Loveland (Application # 2003/0162555) and Shahbazi PCT (WO 2004/02114).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Loveland's disclosure of a base system for remote device management. Petitioner argued Shahbazi PCT supplied the remaining limitations found in independent claims 10 and 16 and various dependent claims. Specifically, Shahbazi PCT was cited for its teaching of defining security rules in an XML file ("node security profile") and using a server-side "administrator module" (e.g., a "security policy editor") to create, update, and transmit these rules to the wireless device. This combination allegedly rendered claims reciting a "rules definition file" (claim 4), an "administrator module" (claim 10), and a "corporate policy editor" (claim 13) obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Loveland’s device management system with Shahbazi PCT’s use of XML and an administrator module. The motivation was to improve Loveland's system by using a well-known, standardized format (XML) for defining and transmitting rules, which simplifies central administration and distribution.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as implementing an XML-based rule file and a server-side policy editor were standard and predictable techniques for managing device policies at the time.

Ground 3: Obviousness and Anticipation by Shahbazi - Claims 1-16 and 18-24 are anticipated by or obvious over Shahbazi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shahbazi (Patent 8,635,661).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to Loveland, Petitioner argued that Shahbazi alone anticipates or renders obvious nearly all challenged claims. Shahbazi discloses a comprehensive system where a "device security profile" containing rules is transmitted from a server to a wireless device. A "device security program" (the rules engine) on the device interprets the profile to gather information (e.g., installed applications, device location, hardware characteristics) and take actions. Disclosed actions include locking the device, deleting files, and blocking access to servers, which Petitioner mapped to the claim limitations of taking action and maintaining settings. Shahbazi further teaches gathering information based on monitoring intervals, such as upon network connection or application installation, meeting the "repeatedly" limitation.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner presented Shahbazi as a complete, self-contained reference that was not before the examiner during the original prosecution and which disclosed all key aspects of the claimed invention, from the server-side administrator module to the device-side rules engine and periodic monitoring.

Additional Grounds

Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claim 17 is obvious over Loveland, Shahbazi PCT, and an article on XML Digital Signatures, and that claim 17 is also obvious over Shahbazi in view of the same XML Digital Signatures article. These grounds argued it would have been obvious to add a digital signature to the XML-based rules file to ensure its authenticity and integrity.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-24 of the ’386 patent as unpatentable.