PTAB

IPR2019-00330

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. v. Parity Networks, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Virtual Egress Packet Classification at Ingress
  • Brief Description: The ’352 patent discloses systems and methods for network packet routing that perform both ingress and egress pass/drop determinations at a router’s ingress port. This approach aims to eliminate the need for separate determination capabilities at the egress port, thereby increasing efficiency and reducing complexity and cost.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 17, 18, 22, and 25 are obvious over Kadambi in view of Bechtolsheim.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kadambi (Patent 6,104,696) and Bechtolsheim (Patent 6,377,577).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kadambi taught the core concept of the ’352 patent: a network router/switch that performs egress-related functions at the ingress port to streamline packet processing. Kadambi allegedly disclosed a system with ingress and egress ports where all incoming packet processing, including layer three (L3) lookups to determine the destination, occurs in an ingress submodule. This submodule uses a lookup table (a "rule set") containing header information and egress port identities to make forwarding decisions. Bechtolsheim was asserted to provide a well-known, high-speed hardware implementation for the rule-checking mechanism. Specifically, Bechtolsheim taught using an Access Control List (ACL) stored in Content Addressable Memory (CAM) to compare incoming packet headers against rules to permit or deny access. Petitioner contended that implementing Bechtolsheim’s CAM-based ACL into Kadambi’s architecture would supply all elements of the independent claims. This combination also allegedly rendered dependent claim 6 (reciting a CAM) obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kadambi and Bechtolsheim to improve the performance of a network router. Both references disclose hardware-based solutions for packet routing. A POSITA implementing Kadambi’s architecture, which centralizes processing at the ingress port, would have been motivated to incorporate Bechtolsheim’s high-speed CAM-based ACL processing to create a more efficient and faster system, as hardware solutions were preferred for speed.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because implementing a known hardware-based ACL processor like that in Bechtolsheim into the router architecture of Kadambi would involve routine design choices well within the skill of an ordinary artisan.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 17, 18, 22, and 25 are obvious over Kalapathy in view of Bechtolsheim.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kalapathy (Patent 6,810,037) and Bechtolsheim (Patent 6,377,577).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented a similar argument to Ground 1, substituting Kalapathy as the primary reference. Petitioner asserted that Kalapathy also disclosed the central inventive concept: locating both ingress and egress functionality at the same physical location within a router. Kalapathy taught using Ethernet Port Interface Controllers (EPICs) that contain both ingress and egress submodules, where functions like address resolution and packet parsing occur at ingress. Kalapathy further disclosed using a rules table that includes header combinations and a "destination port" identity, and its flowcharts illustrate comparing packet headers to these rules to determine routing. As in Ground 1, Bechtolsheim was cited to provide the obvious implementation of a high-speed CAM-based ACL for performing the rule-set comparisons, which would be used to supply the "mechanism" of the claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to Ground 1. A POSITA seeking to build a high-performance router based on Kalapathy’s architecture would combine it with Bechtolsheim’s well-known CAM-based ACL processing. This combination would leverage two known hardware-based techniques to achieve a predictable improvement in speed and efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because integrating the standard, high-speed ACL processing taught by Bechtolsheim into the system described by Kalapathy would be a straightforward application of known technologies to achieve a predictable result.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the terms "returning a rule," "returning a rule determination," and "returning a determination of a rule to be applied" are used interchangeably throughout the claims of the ’352 patent. It asserted that a POSITA would understand these phrases to have an identical functional meaning: the rules table inherently returns both a determination of which rule to apply and the result of that rule.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not discretionarily deny institution under either §314(a) or §325(d).
    • Under §314(a): Petitioner contended that denial was inappropriate because this was the first and only petition it had filed against the ’352 patent. It acknowledged a related IPR filed by Juniper Networks (IPR2018-01587) but argued that this petition conserved Board resources by challenging only a subset of claims using the same grounds and evidence, and stated its intent to seek consolidation if instituted.
    • Under §325(d): Petitioner asserted that denial was unwarranted because the prior art references relied upon in the petition (Kadambi, Kalapathy, and Bechtolsheim) were never cited or considered by the examiner during the original prosecution of the ’352 patent. Therefore, the arguments and art presented in the petition were not substantially the same as those previously before the Patent Office.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 17, 18, 22, and 25 of Patent 7,107,352 as unpatentable.