PTAB

IPR2018-00254

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 ’612 patent discloses a method for providing guaranteed bandwidth on demand between network end-points. The purported novelty involves separating network functions into two physically distinct entities: a "controller" for managing end-to-end quality assurance and a "portal" for handling packet transmission based on the controller's instructions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over QBone, Surdila, Li, and Pillai - Claims 1, 3-9, and 12 are obvious over QBone in view of Surdila, Li, and Pillai.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: "QBone Bandwidth Broker Architecture" (QBone), Surdila (Application # 2002/0181462), Li (WO 2005/101730), and Pillai (Application # 2003/0133552).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of references taught every limitation of independent claim 1. QBone was asserted to disclose the fundamental architecture of the ’612 patent: a system providing end-to-end bandwidth assurance using a "bandwidth broker" (BB), which is analogous to the claimed "controller," and an "access router," which is analogous to the claimed "portal." QBone's BB receives requests, authorizes service, and determines a route. Surdila was argued to build on QBone's architecture by teaching the use of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) to route packets based on labels inserted by edge routers, providing a specific mechanism for the routing instructions. To the extent Surdila lacked detail on label generation, Li was asserted to disclose a centralized controller that creates and distributes MPLS label stacks to edge routers. Finally, Pillai was argued to teach a separate control element that monitors resource consumption, receives notifications when usage exceeds an authorized limit, and instructs network elements to terminate connections, mapping to the patent's limitations on monitoring and enforcement.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine QBone and Surdila because Surdila expressly incorporates the QBone architecture by reference to implement end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS) across networks. A POSITA implementing the MPLS system of Surdila would be motivated to look to a reference like Li for specific details on how a centralized controller generates and distributes MPLS labels. Since QBone and Surdila contemplated but did not fully detail accounting and usage monitoring, a POSITA would combine their teachings with Pillai to implement known functions like prepaid billing and consumption-based connection management.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded the predictable result of an enhanced network management system. Combining these known elements—QBone's architecture, Surdila's MPLS routing, Li's label generation, and Pillai's consumption monitoring—would predictably result in a system that provides guaranteed bandwidth with sophisticated routing and billing capabilities.

Ground 2: Obviousness over QBone, Surdila, Li, Pillai, and Tubinis - Claim 2 is obvious over the core combination further in view of Tubinis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The core combination from Ground 1, plus Tubinis (Application # 2003/0014367).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Claim 2 adds the limitation that if a connection is allowed to continue after exceeding a limit, the instruction includes a pre-set time limit. The core combination, particularly with Pillai, taught terminating a session upon reaching a usage threshold. Tubinis was argued to explicitly teach the alternative: when a prepaid balance is insufficient, instead of immediate termination, the system can provide the subscriber a "top-up opportunity" that lasts for a certain amount of time before the session is terminated.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tubinis with the core prior art to add a commercially desirable feature. Pillai taught prepaid billing, and Tubinis provided a known method for handling insufficient balances in such systems by allowing a grace period for the user to add funds, which improves user experience and service continuity. This would have been an obvious modification to the system disclosed by the primary combination.

Ground 3: Obviousness over QBone, Surdila, Li, Pillai, and Requena - Claim 11 is obvious over the core combination further in view of Requena.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: The core combination from Ground 1, plus Requena (Application # 2002/0181495).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Claim 11 adds negotiating a video codec to avoid codec conversion. While Surdila taught using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) messages that include codecs, Petitioner argued it did not explicitly detail the negotiation process. Requena was asserted to provide these details, teaching a negotiation where two endpoints exchange lists of supported codecs to agree upon a common one for use in both directions, thus avoiding the need for conversion.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the SIP-based QoS system of Surdila would have been motivated to use the well-known codec negotiation techniques taught by Requena. Doing so would yield the predictable benefits of reducing computational overhead and latency by eliminating the need for codec conversion within the network.

Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 10 and 13 based on the core combination of QBone, Surdila, Li, and Pillai, further in view of Chen (Patent 6,487,170). Chen was used to teach specific implementations for a single-domain network and point-to-multipoint (multicast) connections, which Petitioner argued were obvious variants of the QBone architecture.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "directing, by the controller, ... [a portal] ... to allocate local port resources of the portal": 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 central to Petitioner's argument that QBone's BB providing "router configuration parameters" and "marking functions" to its access router met this claim limitation, as these instructions directly impact the allocation and use of the router's port resources (e.g., bandwidth, queues).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an IPR for claims 1-13 of the ’612 patent and cancel those claims as unpatentable.