PTAB

IPR2018-00254

RPX Corp v. Iridescent Networks Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method of Providing Bandwidth on Demand
  • Brief Description: The ’612 patent discloses a method for providing guaranteed bandwidth on demand between endpoints by architecturally separating network functions into a "controller" that manages end-to-end quality assurance and a physically separate "portal" that handles packet transmission based on the controller's instructions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1, 3-9, and 12 over QBone, Surdila, Li, and Pillai

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: QBone (“QBone Bandwidth Broker Architecture”), Surdila (Application # 2002/0181462), Li (WO 2005/101730), and Pillai (Application # 2003/0133552).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the combination of references teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. QBone taught the fundamental architecture of a "bandwidth broker" (BB), analogous to the ’612 patent’s controller, that is physically separate from access routers (portals) to provide end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS). Surdila, which expressly incorporated QBone, taught using Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) to enforce the path determined by the BB, where routers use labels instead of IP addresses for routing. To the extent Surdila did not detail the centralized generation of MPLS labels, Li disclosed a central controller that creates and distributes MPLS label stacks to edge routers. Finally, Pillai taught a separate control element that monitors network resource consumption against authorized limits (e.g., for prepaid services) and can instruct a switch to terminate a connection, mapping to the patent's claims related to usage monitoring and control.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine QBone and Surdila because Surdila expressly incorporated QBone by reference to improve its architectural framework with MPLS for robust path control. A POSITA would look to Li to supply the well-known implementation details for centralized MPLS label generation and distribution not explicitly detailed in Surdila. Similarly, a POSITA would incorporate Pillai’s teachings to add standard and commercially necessary accounting, billing, and consumption-monitoring functions to the QBone/Surdila system.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining these known network functions—QoS management (QBone), MPLS routing (Surdila, Li), and usage-based accounting (Pillai)—was a predictable integration of established technologies to achieve an improved, comprehensive bandwidth-on-demand system.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 2 over QBone, Surdila, Li, and Pillai in view of Tubinis

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: QBone, Surdila, Li, Pillai, and Tubinis (Application # 2003/0014367).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the core combination from Ground 1, adding Tubinis to teach the specific limitations of claim 2. Claim 2 requires that if a connection is allowed to continue after exceeding a limit, the instruction includes a "pre-set time limit." The core art, particularly Pillai, taught terminating a connection when a usage limit is reached. Tubinis addressed prepaid services and taught that when a user's balance is insufficient, instead of immediate termination, the system can provide a "top-up opportunity" that lasts for a specific, elapsed period of time. This "opportunity to top-up" that "has elapsed" directly corresponds to the claimed "pre-set time limit."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tubinis with the prepaid billing system of Pillai to implement a known and commercially desirable feature. Providing a grace period for a user to add funds, rather than abruptly terminating a session, was a known method to improve user experience and would have been an obvious modification to the system.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 11 over QBone, Surdila, Li, and Pillai in view of Requena

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: QBone, Surdila, Li, Pillai, and Requena (Application # 2002/0181495).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Requena to teach the limitations of claim 11, which recites negotiating a video codec to avoid codec conversion between endpoints. While Surdila taught using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) messaging and contemplated agreed-upon codecs, Requena explicitly disclosed the well-known negotiation process. Requena taught that endpoints exchange lists of supported codecs via SIP to agree upon a common codec for the session, thereby eliminating the need for computationally expensive intermediate codec conversions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the SIP-based system of Surdila would be motivated to look to a reference like Requena for the standard, well-known techniques for codec negotiation. The combination would yield the predictable result of increased network efficiency and reduced latency by avoiding codec conversion, a primary goal in QoS systems.

Ground 4: Obviousness of Claims 10 and 13 over QBone, Surdila, Li, and Pillai in view of Chen

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: QBone, Surdila, Li, Pillai, and Chen (Patent 6,487,170).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Chen to address claims 10 (negotiating directly with the terminating endpoint) and 13 (point-to-multipoint connection). While QBone focused on a multi-domain architecture, it contemplated single-domain scenarios. Chen taught a centralized BB in a single-domain architecture where the controller negotiates directly with a terminating endpoint. For claim 13, Chen explicitly taught that BB architectures were known to support multicast (point-to-multipoint) sessions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to consult Chen for implementation details of a single-domain use case of the QBone architecture. Furthermore, extending a point-to-point system to support point-to-multipoint communication was a well-known and desirable feature extension in networking, making the combination with Chen's multicast teachings obvious.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for a construction of the term "directing, by the controller, ... [a portal] ... to allocate local port resources of the portal" (claim 1).
  • Petitioner contended 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 argued as critical to mapping the prior art, where a controller sends configuration parameters or marking functions that cause a router (portal) to reserve or allocate its resources (e.g., bandwidth, queues) for a specific data flow.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-13 of the ’612 patent as unpatentable.