PTAB

IPR2015-00978

Arista Networks Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Securing a Communications Device Using a Logging Module
  • Brief Description: The ’597 patent discloses a system for securing a communications device using a "logging module" with restricted configurability. The module is designed to monitor the device's configuration, detect any changes, and communicate information about those changes to external network security monitors.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Sheikh - Claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, and 71-73 are anticipated by Sheikh under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheikh (Application # 2002/0078382).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sheikh discloses every element of the challenged claims. Sheikh describes a security software system using "agent transports" installed on host servers (the claimed "communications device") that function as the claimed "logging module." These agents use "sensors" to constantly monitor various subsystems (e.g., firewalls, routers, password files) for configuration changes. Upon detecting a change, the agent transport compiles and transmits the information to a central "master transport" for analysis and archiving. Petitioner contended that hardware elements like a "processor" and "computer readable medium" are inherently disclosed, as Sheikh's software agents are necessarily installed and executed on server hardware.
    • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that Sheikh’s "agent transport" directly corresponds to the ’597 patent’s "logging module," and its monitoring and reporting functions meet all limitations of the independent apparatus (1, 71) and method (39) claims. The argument for dependent claims relied on Sheikh's disclosure of specific sensor types (e.g., router sensors for claim 14's "communications interface") and its system for sending alerts via email or pager (for claim 29's "broadcasting").

Ground 2: Obviousness over Sheikh and Endicott - Claims 84-86 are obvious over Sheikh in view of Endicott under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheikh (Application # 2002/0078382) and Endicott (Patent 5,404,525).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on claim 84, which recites a "first set of instructions" to detect a change and a "second set of instructions" to communicate information about the change. While Sheikh teaches the underlying functionality, Petitioner argued it does not explicitly use the "set of instructions" terminology. Endicott was introduced as teaching the well-known principles of modular and object-oriented programming, including organizing larger programs into smaller, distinct sets of instructions ("objects") for benefits like reusability and easier maintenance.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings. Sheikh itself praises its "modular approach" using separate "sensor" and "eval" executable code blocks. A POSITA, recognizing these benefits, would have been motivated to apply the formal modular programming principles taught by Endicott to Sheikh's system. This would involve logically separating the change-detection functions from the change-communication functions into distinct instruction sets, as claimed.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying well-established software design principles from Endicott to structure the software system of Sheikh was presented as a routine and predictable task for a POSITA, with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Sheikh and Iwayama - Claims 29, 63-64, 73, and 86 are obvious over Sheikh in view of Iwayama under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheikh (Application # 2002/0078382) and Iwayama (European Patent No. 1,033,844).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative argument, contingent on the term "broadcast" being construed narrowly as a one-to-all transmission. Petitioner argued that while Sheikh discloses sending alerts to administrators via email or pager (a one-to-one or one-to-few communication), it may not explicitly teach a one-to-all broadcast. Iwayama was cited for its explicit disclosure of a system that, upon detecting a status change, "transmits a notification to the group of information terminals in a broadcasting manner."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to improve the efficiency and reach of Sheikh's alerting system. Sheikh's goal is to notify relevant parties of security events. A POSITA would have recognized that using a known broadcasting technique, as taught by Iwayama, would be a simple and effective way to ensure that all security monitors or administrators receive critical configuration change alerts simultaneously, rather than relying on individual messages.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating a known broadcasting method for notifications (Iwayama) into an existing system that already generates alerts (Sheikh) was argued to be a straightforward and predictable modification.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an alternative obviousness challenge (Ground 2) against claims 71-73 and 84-86 based on Sheikh alone, arguing that if certain hardware and software elements were not found to be inherent for anticipation, they would have been obvious additions to Sheikh's server-based system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Broadcast": Petitioner proposed a primary construction based on the patentee acting as its own lexicographer, defining the term in the specification as "a transmission to one or more devices." This broader construction supports the anticipation argument in Ground 1. As an alternative, Petitioner acknowledged the term-of-art meaning of a "one-to-all" transmission, which forms the basis for the obviousness argument in Ground 3.
  • "Set of Instructions": Petitioner argued this phrase lacks a common meaning in the art and should be construed in light of the specification to mean "a group of steps implemented on a computer to perform a task." This construction is central to the obviousness argument in Ground 2, which relies on combining Sheikh's functionality with Endicott's teachings on modular code structure.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 14-15, 29, 39-42, 63-64, 71-73, and 84-86 of the ’597 patent as unpatentable.