PTAB

IPR2015-01217

Unified Patents Inc v. OliVistar LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Customizing the Storage and Management of Device Data in a Networked Environment
  • Brief Description: The ’347 patent discloses a system and method for custom data storage. The system comprises monitoring devices, a data repository, and a processor that obtains a data archival profile, determines if incoming device data matches attributes in the profile, compresses the matching data, and selectively stores it.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-12, and 17-20 are anticipated by [Monroe](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-01217/doc/1003) under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Monroe (Application # 2003/0025599).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Monroe discloses every element of the challenged claims. Monroe describes a network-based digital surveillance system that uses monitoring devices (cameras, sensors) to collect data (images, video, sensor signals). This system uses a processor to obtain a user-configurable profile containing parameters like motion detection thresholds or event filters (the claimed "archival profile" with "archival attributes"). Monroe's processor determines whether incoming data meets the profile's criteria, processes the qualifying data into a compressed format, and selectively stores it in a server's memory or storage media (the claimed "data repository"). This mapping was asserted to satisfy all limitations of independent claims 1 and 17.
    • Prior Art Mapping (Dependent Claims): Petitioner further contended that Monroe anticipates the dependent claims. For claim 3, Monroe’s profiles are configurable by a remote user, meeting the "user archival attribute." For claim 4, Monroe’s use of motion detection to trigger data storage meets the "event archival attribute." For claims 8-12 and 18-20, Monroe was argued to disclose compressing data, replicating data across multiple repositories (e.g., server disk and backup tape), allowing a client machine to request and retrieve data based on search parameters, and uncompressing the data for display.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 17, and 20 are obvious over [Mangasarian](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-01217/doc/1004) in view of [Walker](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2015-01217/doc/1005).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mangasarian (Patent 6,708,292) and Walker (Patent 6,975,617).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Mangasarian discloses a protocol analyzer system that meets most limitations of the independent claims. Mangasarian's system uses monitoring devices (network probes) to capture network data packets. It employs a processor that uses filter routines (an "archival profile") based on user-specified criteria like packet type or source (the "archival attributes") to determine which packets to process and selectively store in a data repository (a buffer or host memory). However, Mangasarian does not explicitly teach compressing the captured data before storage. Walker was introduced to supply this missing element, as it teaches a network monitoring system that compresses data packets to reduce the amount of data transferred and stored.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Mangasarian with Walker to improve efficiency. Mangasarian explicitly identified a key problem in the art: the "massive quantity of data captured" creates a "significant obstacle in remote management" and is slow to transport. Walker directly addresses this problem by teaching data compression to reduce the amount of data for transmission and storage. A POSITA would have recognized that applying Walker's well-known compression technique to Mangasarian's system was an obvious solution to the very problem Mangasarian sought to solve.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Both references operate in the same field of network data monitoring, and data compression is a standard, predictable technique for reducing data volume. Applying Walker’s compression to the data packets captured by Mangasarian would have predictably resulted in a more efficient system without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Archival attribute": Petitioner proposed this term means "information included in or characteristics of the data received from the monitoring device." This construction was argued to be supported by the specification, which describes attributes such as motion detection, data type, collection source, and time of collection.
  • "Archival profile": Petitioner proposed this term means "a specified set of data characteristics." This construction was based on the specification’s description of the profile specifying archival parameters and being created by a user to designate which data to archive.