PTAB

IPR2016-00963

Bungie, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Broadcast channel for a computer network
  • Brief Description: The ’634 patent describes a computer network for broadcasting information from one participant to all other participants. The technology specifically claims a network configured as a non-complete, m-regular graph that uses a "flooding" protocol, where each participant forwards received messages to its neighbors to ensure network-wide dissemination.

The challenged claims require the network to have specific topological properties. Each participant (node) must connect to the same number of neighbors (m-regular, where m is at least three). The total number of participants must be at least two greater than m, resulting in a non-complete graph (i.e., not all nodes are directly connected). The network must also be m-connected, meaning at least m nodes must be removed to divide the network. The claims further recite that data is sequentially numbered to allow for out-of-order data to be queued and rearranged.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Lin in view of the general knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lin (Meng-Jang Lin, et al., Gossip versus Deterministic Flooding: Low Message Overhead and High Reliability for Broadcasting on Small Networks, Technical Report No. CS1999-0637 (1999)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lin, a 1999 technical report not considered during prosecution, discloses broadcast techniques for computer networks that render the ’634 patent’s claims obvious. Lin describes implementing broadcast protocols by superimposing a communications graph on network processors. Specifically, Lin teaches using "flooding" over a "Harary graph," which Petitioner asserted is inherently a non-routing table-based system as claimed. Lin's examples of Harary graphs (e.g., H₈,₄) explicitly show networks that are m-regular (4-regular), non-complete (8 nodes > 4+2), and m-connected (4-connected), meeting the core structural limitations of independent claims 1 and 10. Lin also teaches the fundamental flooding protocol where a node forwards a message to its neighbors. While Lin does not explicitly state messages are "sequentially numbered," it discloses that nodes forward a message only the "first time" it is received. Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have found it obvious and routine to use sequence numbers—a well-known technique—to implement this "first time" check and manage out-of-order message delivery.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was not to combine distinct references but to apply the well-understood knowledge of a POSITA to the teachings of Lin. Petitioner asserted a POSITA, seeking to implement the reliable and efficient broadcast system described in Lin, would have been motivated to use standard techniques like sequence numbering to handle message ordering and prevent duplicate processing, which was a known problem in flooding protocols.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing the claimed system based on Lin. Lin itself describes flooding on Harary graphs as a well-known, simple, and reliable technique for broadcasting, demonstrating its feasibility and predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 10, 15, and 18 are anticipated by Lin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lin (Technical Report No. CS1999-0637 (1999)).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the same disclosures in Lin that support the obviousness ground also explicitly or inherently teach every element of independent claim 10 and its dependent claims 15 and 18. Claim 10 recites a "broadcast channel" with peer-to-peer communications. Petitioner mapped this to Lin's disclosure of a superimposed Harary graph where all processors ("nodes") are peers with no specific role, and messages are sent directly between them along the graph's edges. Lin’s Harary graphs were shown to be 4-regular and 4-connected, meeting the limitations of claim 10. Dependent claim 15 (participant is a computer) and claim 18 (participants are peers) were also argued to be directly disclosed, as Lin describes a network of "processors" where "no processor has a specific role to play."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “m-regular”: Petitioner proposed this term means "each node is connected to exactly m other nodes." This construction was central to mapping Lin's disclosure of Harary graphs, which are defined by their regularity, to the claims.
  • “non-complete graph”: Petitioner proposed this means a "graph in which at least two nodes are not connected to each other." This construction is explicitly supported by the claim language itself ("wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a non-complete graph").
  • “m-connected”: Petitioner proposed this means "dividing the network into two or more separate parts would require the removal of at least m nodes." This established a specific, high bar for network connectivity that Petitioner argued Lin’s Harary graphs were known to meet.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner filed this petition concurrently with a motion for joinder to an existing IPR (IPR2015-01964) that had already been instituted on nearly identical grounds against the ’634 patent. Petitioner argued that the present petition was a "practical copy" of the instituted grounds in the earlier proceeding, using the same prior art and expert declaration. Joinder was requested to avoid unnecessary cost, prevent inconsistent results, and advance administrative efficiency, thereby arguing against any potential discretionary denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’634 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 and/or §102.