PTAB

IPR2017-02165

Cisco Systems Inc v. Nokia Technologies Oy

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Tunnel Management Method, Tunnel Management Apparatus, and Communications System
  • Brief Description: The ’462 patent describes methods and systems for improving tunnel management in packet-switched telecommunication networks. The invention focuses on enhancing failure reporting by including information in a response message that identifies the specific network node causing a tunnel management request to fail, thereby allowing an initiating node to determine the failure's location.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over 3GPP and Åberg - Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-26 are obvious over 3GPP TS 23.401, 3GPP TS 29.274, and Åberg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: 3GPP 23.401 (a March 2008 technical standard), 3GPP 29.274 (a May 2008 technical standard), and Åberg (Patent 6,785,243).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of 3GPP standards discloses the fundamental architecture and processes of the challenged claims. 3GPP 23.401 described the Evolved Packet System (EPS) network architecture, including the Mobility Management Entity (MME), Serving Gateway (S-GW), and Packet Data Network Gateway (PDN-GW). It also detailed the "attach" and "dedicated bearer activation" procedures, which are the "tunnel management" methods of the claims. 3GPP 29.274 specified the messaging protocols for these procedures, including sending a response message with a "cause value" to indicate the reason for a failure. However, Petitioner contended these standards did not explicitly teach including the location of the failed node. Åberg allegedly cured this deficiency by teaching an error reporting method in a mobile telecommunications system where an error message includes both an error type identifier (like the 3GPP "cause value") and a parameter, an "error distance," to identify the node that originated the error report.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the 3GPP standards, as they are explicitly designed to work together to define the EPS network. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Åberg’s teaching to solve a known deficiency in the 3GPP system. The 3GPP response message indicated a failure occurred but not where, making efficient error handling difficult. Åberg addressed the identical problem of pinpointing a failure's location in a similar packet-switched network. Applying Åberg’s known solution to improve the 3GPP framework would have been an obvious design choice to enhance network reliability.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining the references involved applying a known technique (Åberg's error distance) to improve a known system (3GPP). The combination required only adding a simple data field to an existing message structure, a predictable modification.

Ground 2: Obviousness over 3GPP, Åberg, and Vasseur - Claims 6, 12, 16, and 27 are obvious over 3GPP TS 23.401, 3GPP TS 29.274, Åberg, and Vasseur.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: 3GPP 23.401 (a March 2008 technical standard), 3GPP 29.274 (a May 2008 technical standard), Åberg (Patent 6,785,243), and Vasseur (Patent 8,531,976).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 to address dependent claims that added a "selection/replacement" limitation (i.e., selecting a new node to replace the one that caused the failure). Petitioner asserted that the combination of 3GPP and Åberg taught identifying the failed node. The additional reference, Vasseur, taught the subsequent step of taking corrective action. Vasseur disclosed a method for detecting and locating a failure in a tunnel and then recomputing a new tunnel path that excludes the failed node or segment. This directly taught the claimed step of selecting a new, equivalent node to replace a failed one.
    • Motivation to Combine: After implementing the teachings of 3GPP and Åberg to identify a failed node, a POSITA would be motivated to address the logical next problem: how to recover from the failure. Vasseur provided a known solution for tunnel failure recovery in a packet-switched network. A POSITA would combine Vasseur's teaching to ensure continued operation of the EPS network, which is critical for service continuity. The EPS network already included multiple redundant nodes (S-GWs, MMEs, PDN-GWs) for mobility and roaming, making the concept of replacing a failed node with an available one inherent to the system's design.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect this combination to succeed. Applying Vasseur's node replacement strategy to the 3GPP/Åberg system would be a predictable implementation of a known recovery technique in a network architecture designed with redundancy.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the present petition was not redundant with two previously filed IPRs against the ’462 patent (IPR2017-00695 and IPR2017-01518) and should not be discretionarily denied. Petitioner asserted that it was not a party or real party-in-interest in the earlier proceedings, that this petition challenged all 27 claims while the prior petitions challenged fewer, and that the combination of prior art asserted against claim 16 was substantively different from that used in the prior petitions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-27 of the ’462 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.