PTAB

IPR2015-00215

Google v. MobileStar Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Managing a Virtual Private Network
  • Brief Description: The ’591 patent discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) for managing a virtual private network (VPN). The system uses a combination of well-known GUI elements, including a display of selectable network elements, palettes of sub-elements, properties dialogs, and a configuration “wizard.”

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 are obvious over Schneider in view of O’Reilly.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schneider (Patent 6,105,027) and O’Reilly (a March 1998 book titled Virtual Private Networks).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schneider disclosed a comprehensive GUI for managing VPNs that meets most limitations of the challenged claims, including a display of selectable VPN elements, palettes, and properties dialogs. Schneider’s GUI is used to control access and manage elements like servers and sub-elements like tunnels and authentication methods. Petitioner contended the only element not explicitly disclosed in Schneider was a “wizard that enables the user to configure” VPN elements through a preprogrammed series of dialogs. This specific wizard functionality, Petitioner asserted, was taught by O’Reilly, a handbook on creating and managing VPNs. O’Reilly described using wizards to configure VPN elements such as tunnel groups and VPN connections.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schneider and O’Reilly. Both references are in the field of VPN management. Petitioner argued a POSITA would have recognized that incorporating the known wizard functionality from O’Reilly into Schneider’s GUI was a predictable solution to the common problem of simplifying the user experience for managing complex VPN configurations.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The integration of a standard GUI wizard into a GUI-based management system was a routine task involving the application of known interface components to improve usability, not a complex or unpredictable endeavor.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 are obvious over Kekic in view of O’Reilly.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kekic (Patent 6,272,537) and O’Reilly.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kekic, which was considered during the original prosecution of the ’591 patent, taught a comprehensive graphical network manager with all the claimed GUI features, including a series of GUI panels explicitly called a “wizard.” During prosecution, the applicant distinguished Kekic by arguing its wizard was for general network management, not specifically for configuring VPN elements. Petitioner argued this distinction was immaterial and that O’Reilly supplied the missing context. O’Reilly explicitly taught using wizards as part of several GUIs for VPN management, including for configuring tunnel groups and VPN connections. The combination of Kekic’s GUI framework and O’Reilly’s specific application to VPNs rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued the motivation to combine was straightforward: applying the general-purpose, advanced network management GUI of Kekic to the specific, well-known, and commercially important field of VPNs taught by O’Reilly. The examiner had previously found motivation to combine Kekic with other VPN references. Petitioner contended the same rationale applied to combining Kekic with O’Reilly to enable the system to display and control a VPN, a concept that simply extended Kekic’s existing communication management capabilities.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in adapting Kekic’s network management system for VPNs. This would have been a simple substitution of one type of computer network (a VPN) for the general network taught by Kekic, yielding a predictable result.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 are obvious over Wiegel in view of Ludovici and Win Guidelines.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wiegel (Patent 6,484,261), Ludovici (Patent 6,636,898), and The Windows Interface Guidelines for Software Design (a 1995 book, “Win Guidelines”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Wiegel disclosed a GUI for managing network security policies with many of the claimed features, including a hierarchical display of network elements, palettes, and preprogrammed dialogs. However, Wiegel did not explicitly disclose a VPN context, tunnels, or the use of a formal “wizard.” Ludovici supplied the VPN context, teaching the benefits of managing connections, policies, and tunnels in a VPN via a user interface. Win Guidelines, a standard industry guide for GUI design, taught the use of context-sensitive properties dialogs and wizards to enhance GUI functionality and ease of use by guiding a user through a series of steps to accomplish a complex task.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to create an improved VPN management tool. They would have looked to Ludovici to apply Wiegel's powerful policy management GUI to the specific context of a VPN. Furthermore, to enhance the usability of Wiegel's GUI, a POSITA would have naturally consulted a standard reference like Win Guidelines and incorporated well-known, user-friendly features like wizards and standardized properties dialogs. This would predictably result in a more efficient and intuitive interface for managing a secure VPN.
    • Expectation of Success: This combination involved applying well-known GUI design principles from Win Guidelines to an existing network management GUI (Wiegel) for a specific application (VPNs from Ludovici). This was a predictable implementation that required only ordinary skill in the art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • For the term "a collection of palettes...," Petitioner proposed that the Board adopt, for the purposes of the IPR, the construction previously offered by the Patent Owner in related district court litigation.
  • This proposed construction was: "A display of virtual private network subelements available for each of the plurality of virtual private network elements, the display shown being controlled by user selection of an element."
  • Petitioner argued that by using the Patent Owner's own proposed construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, the prior art still rendered the claims obvious.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 of the ’591 patent as unpatentable.