PTAB

IPR2018-01554

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Iron Oak Technologies LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Automated Selection of a Communication Path
Brief Description: The ’658 patent discloses a system for automatically selecting a communication path from a plurality of alternate paths available to a mobile device. The selection is based on matching communication attributes specified in a communication request with corresponding attributes of pre-defined, ordered lists of communication paths stored in memory.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Bosack (Patent 5,088,032)
Core Argument:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Bosack, which discloses an apparatus for routing data transmissions among computer networks, anticipates every limitation of claim 1. Bosack’s gateway includes a memory (RAM 126) that stores multiple, ordered lists of communication paths. These lists are associated with different "types of service" (e.g., requirements for high bandwidth or low delay), which Petitioner contended correspond to the claimed "communication attributes." The paths within each list are ordered based on a calculated composite metric. A processor (microprocessor 124) in the gateway receives a data packet (the "request for communication") that specifies a particular "type of service" (the "indicated communication attribute"). The processor then automatically selects the best path from the ordered list associated with that type of service to route the transmission.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that Bosack's "types of service" directly map to the claimed "communication attribute representing a separate priority for communication," as each type of service causes the gateway to prioritize different path characteristics (e.g., bandwidth over delay).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Le Boudec (Patent 6,044,075)
Core Argument:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Le Boudec, which discloses a method and apparatus for determining optimal routes in a communication network, anticipates claim 1. Le Boudec’s apparatus determines and stores in memory (RAM 18) multiple sets of pre-computed optimal routes for different pairs of nodes, which constitute a "plurality of ordered lists of communication paths." These routes are calculated and ordered based on various "additive attributes" (e.g., delay, cost) and "restrictive attributes" (e.g., bandwidth). A processor receives an incoming route request that specifies requirements, such as a minimum bandwidth. In response, the processor consults the stored sets of routes and automatically selects the optimal path that satisfies the request's criteria (e.g., meets the bandwidth requirement with the minimum delay).
- Key Aspects: Petitioner argued that Le Boudec's system explicitly creates and stores multiple, distinct lists of routes for different node pairs and based on different attributes (e.g., separate lists optimized for cost vs. delay), directly teaching the claimed memory storing a "plurality of ordered lists."

Prior Art Relied Upon: Oberlander (Patent 5,509,000)
Core Argument:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Oberlander, which discloses an apparatus for routing information within a communication system based on evaluating attributes, anticipates claim 1. Oberlander’s server (e.g., server 110) includes a database (memory) containing records that map subscribers to prioritized (ordered) lists of communication networks (the "communication paths"). A processor (MPU 220) receives a message (the "request") that includes an "attributes" field specifying requirements like message priority or security. The processor evaluates these attributes using logic functions to select the appropriate prioritized list of networks from the database. It then automatically selects a network from that list to transmit the message, starting with the most favored (highest priority) network first.
- Key Aspects: Petitioner argued that the attributes field in Oberlander's message directly corresponds to the claimed "request indicating a communication attribute," and the database records containing prioritized network lists directly meet the "plurality of ordered lists of communication paths" limitation.

"plurality of ordered lists of communication paths": Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean “multiple lists, each list containing multiple communication paths stored in a specified order.” This construction was argued to be critical for demonstrating that the prior art references, which describe storing data structures like routing tables or database records, meet the claim limitation.
"[the request] indicating [a communication attribute]": Petitioner proposed this phrase be construed to mean “the request including a communication attribute.” This interpretation was asserted to be necessary to map elements like Bosack's "type of service" or the attributes field in an Oberlander message, which are part of the communication itself, to the claim language.

Petitioner argued that the Board should institute review on all three grounds because they are independent, distinctive, and non-redundant. The grounds rely on different primary references that disclose the claimed invention in different ways. Furthermore, Petitioner noted that Bosack is prior art under §102(b), while Le Boudec and Oberlander are prior art under §102(e), which provides a necessary alternative in the event the Patent Owner attempts to "swear behind" the effective dates of the latter two references.

Petitioner requested institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claim 1 of the ’658 patent as unpatentable.