PTAB

IPR2017-01661

RPX Corporation v. Iridescent Networks, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method of Providing Bandwidth on Demand
  • Brief Description: The ’119 patent is directed to a method for providing bandwidth on demand between originating and terminating end-points. The patent’s asserted novelty is the separation of network functions into two physically separate entities: a "controller" for end-to-end quality assurance and a "portal" for handling packet transmission based on instructions from the controller.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are obvious over Golden in view of Fichou and Lee.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Golden (Patent 6,563,793), Fichou (Application # 2001/0023443), and Lee (Application # 2006/0133300).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Golden taught the core architecture of the ’119 patent, including a method for end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS) using a physically separate controller (an "enterprise control point" or ECP) and portals (switches). Golden's ECP receives connection requests from end-points and reserves bandwidth along the path. To the extent Golden was silent on specific features, Fichou taught determining whether an end-point is authorized for a requested connection by verifying user rights against a database. Lee taught the specific implementation details for controlling network switches using Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS), where a centralized controller sends routing instructions (a Label Forwarding Information Base or LFIB) to switches, which then direct traffic based only on those instructions rather than their own routing tables.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Golden and Fichou because Golden explicitly contemplated its ECP interfacing with a policy server for admission control, and Fichou provided a well-known implementation of such a server that performs user authorization. A POSITA would combine this with Lee because Golden taught using MPLS switches but was silent on the specific implementation; Lee provided a known method to implement centralized MPLS control, which offered the predictable advantage of reducing the processing load on individual network switches.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying known, predictable solutions (user authorization, centralized MPLS control) to a known system architecture (Golden's) to achieve their expected functions.

Ground 2: Claims 10 and 13-15 are obvious over Golden in view of Fichou, Lee, and Har.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Golden (Patent 6,563,793), Fichou (Application # 2001/0023443), Lee (Application # 2006/0133300), and Har (Application # 2003/0219006).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Golden, Fichou, and Lee. The additional reference, Har, was introduced to teach the limitations related to negotiating a video codec to avoid conversion between end-points, as required by claims 10 and 13-15. Har explicitly taught a method where a gateway negotiates between end-points to select a single, common video codec to be used for the entire communication path.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that Golden taught using its QoS system for applications like video conferencing, where transmission latency is a critical concern. It was well-known that multiple codec translations along a path introduce such latency. Therefore, a POSITA implementing Golden’s system for video would have been motivated to incorporate Har’s teaching of negotiating a single end-to-end codec to solve this known problem and improve performance by reducing delay.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded the predictable result of a QoS system capable of reserving end-to-end bandwidth (from Golden) while also minimizing latency for video applications (from Har).

Ground 3: Claim 16 is obvious over Golden in view of Fichou, Lee, and Har, further in view of Pillai.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Golden (Patent 6,563,793), Fichou (Application # 2001/0023443), Lee (Application # 2006/0133300), Har (Application # 2003/0219006), and Pillai (Application # 2003/0133552).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Pillai to the previous combination to address the limitations of claim 16, which recited receiving a notification from a portal that traffic exceeded an authorized limit and then instructing the portal whether to terminate the connection. Pillai taught a system for prepaid billing where a controller (RURCM) monitors network usage. Switches in Pillai notify the controller when usage exceeds a predefined limit, and the controller then decides whether to terminate the connection and instructs the switch accordingly.
    • Motivation to Combine: Golden taught that its ECP performs "billing and resource management" but did not provide implementation details. A POSITA would have been motivated to look to known techniques, such as the prepaid usage monitoring taught by Pillai, to implement this function. Managing network resources by terminating connections that exceed authorized limits was a common and logical aspect of resource management.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining Pillai’s specific resource management techniques with the system of Golden/Fichou/Lee/Har was a predictable integration of known functionalities, leading to a system that could not only establish and manage QoS connections but also enforce usage limits.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed a construction for the term "directing, by the controller, ... [a portal] ... to allocate local port resources of the portal" (claims 1 and 13).
  • Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "at least sending an allocation instruction from the controller to the portal, where the allocation instruction results in the portal allocating physical and/or logical elements of the portal." This construction was important for mapping Golden, where the ECP sends a "bandwidth reservation" instruction that results in a switch (the portal) allocating resources like bandwidth and queue space on a port.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, noting that a concurrent petition was also being filed. It contended that the challenges were not redundant because the petitions relied on different primary prior art references. This petition's primary reference was Golden (a patent), whereas the concurrent petition relied on a different primary reference (a printed publication called QBone), which could be subject to different patentability attacks from the Patent Owner regarding issues like public availability.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 8,036,119 as unpatentable.