PTAB

IPR2018-00920

Zscaler Inc v. Symantec Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Processing Data Flows
  • Brief Description: The ’696 patent discloses a "virtualized network security system" (VNSS) that moves security processing from a protected network to a virtualized environment. The system inspects incoming data flows, identifies the associated subscriber, and applies subscriber-specific security policies via one or more "flow processing facilities."

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Nortel - Claims 1, 9-13, and 16-19 are obvious over Nortel in view of POSA knowledge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nortel (WO 00/33204).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nortel’s Internet Service Node (ISN) discloses all limitations of the independent claims. Nortel's ISN functions as a "flow processing facility" that uses a plurality of "packet service cards" which, with their processor groups, serve as the claimed "application processing hardware modules." Petitioner contended it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to understand that Nortel's "processing rules" (e.g., for firewalls, anti-spoofing) are "applications." Nortel's use of classifiers within a Content Addressable Memory (CAM) to identify subscriber data constitutes the "subscriber profile," and its "switch fabric" that routes packets to the appropriate service card based on subscriber rules is the "network processing module."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relied on interpreting Nortel's disclosures through the lens of a POSA. The motivation was based on the understanding that functions described by Nortel’s processing rules—such as implementing firewalls, encryption, and traffic steering—were well-known in the art to be performed by application programs. Thus, a POSA would have found it obvious to implement these known security functionalities as applications on Nortel's hardware.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because security application software was commonplace, and Nortel’s disclosure did not suggest its processors were anything other than generic hardware capable of running such applications.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Nortel and Stone - Claims 2-8, 14, and 15 are obvious over Nortel in view of Stone.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nortel (WO 00/33204) and Stone (Patent 5,598,410).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the mapping of Nortel from Ground 1 to address claims requiring parallel data transmission. Petitioner argued that while Nortel shows multiple packet service cards connected to a switch fabric, Stone was introduced for its explicit teaching of a "parallel configuration" of preprocessors to increase system throughput. The combination of Nortel's subscriber-specific processing architecture with Stone's parallel data transmission method renders the parallel processing claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine Stone’s parallel processing with Nortel’s ISN to increase speed and efficiency, a well-known benefit of parallel transmission. Nortel itself disclosed a need for flexible and scalable architectures to serve many subscribers; applying Stone’s technique to increase throughput directly addresses this need. Stone reinforces this motivation by explicitly stating that parallel preprocessors "increase the through put [sic] of protocol data units."
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Nortel’s system was described as flexible and adaptable, providing a POSA with an expectation that it could handle the increased data loads associated with parallel processing. The combination was presented as an obvious design choice to enhance performance.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Alles and Lin - Claims 1, 9-13, and 16-19 are obvious over Alles in view of Lin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Alles (Patent 6,466,976) and Lin (Patent 6,633,563).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative invalidity theory for the same claims as Ground 1. Petitioner argued that Alles disclosed a base Internet Service Node (ISN) substantially identical to Nortel's system. Lin was added to supply the teaching of using a Content Addressable Memory (CAM) with masks to efficiently identify and route packets from multiple subscribers, a detail Petitioner asserted was absent from Alles. The combination of Alles's base system with Lin's improved packet identification and routing via CAM met the claim limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine the references because Lin provides an express motivation. Lin identifies Alles as a related application and describes a nearly identical ISN. Lin then discloses its CAM as a technique to solve processor assignment problems that arise in such a system. Therefore, a POSA would be motivated to apply Lin's known solution to improve the performance of Alles’s similar device.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Because the ISNs in Alles and Lin are substantively identical, a POSA would have reasonably expected that Lin's CAM could be added to Alles's ISN in precisely the same way, yielding a predictable result with a high likelihood of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) for claims 2-8, 14, and 15 based on the combination of Alles, Lin, and Stone, which relied on adding Stone's parallel processing teachings to the system of Alles and Lin.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’696 patent as unpatentable.