PTAB

IPR2019-00330

Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co v. Parity Networks LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

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 where pass/drop determinations, which are traditionally performed at both ingress and egress ports, are consolidated at the ingress port. This approach purports to increase efficiency and lower costs by obviating the need for separate packet processing capabilities at the egress port.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kadambi and Bechtolsheim - 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 teaches the core concept of the ’352 patent: a network switch (router) that performs all incoming packet processing, including egress port determination, at the ingress submodule. This allows the egress port to forward data without needing an additional table lookup. Petitioner contended that Bechtolsheim discloses a well-known method for implementing the rule set and comparison mechanism using hardware, specifically by processing access control lists (ACLs) in a content-addressable memory (CAM) to increase speed. The combination of Kadambi’s architecture with Bechtolsheim’s efficient hardware implementation for rule matching allegedly renders the claimed invention obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve performance. Both Kadambi and Bechtolsheim address high-performance packet routing using hardware-based solutions. A POSITA would incorporate the faster, hardware-level ACL and CAM-based processing of Bechtolsheim into Kadambi’s ingress-centric system to achieve the predictable result of increased packet processing speed, a primary goal in network design.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that implementing Bechtolsheim’s teachings into Kadambi’s system would involve straightforward and routine design changes well within the knowledge of a skilled artisan, ensuring a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kalapathy and Bechtolsheim - 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: Petitioner argued that Kalapathy discloses the primary inventive concept of the ’352 patent by teaching a switch architecture that performs multiple table lookups simultaneously at the ingress port. This functionality facilitates both initial ingress pass/drop decisions and other routing determinations normally handled at egress, such as egress port identification. According to Petitioner, Kalapathy's system groups ingress and egress pass/drop functions together within the same ingress-side controller. As in Ground 1, Bechtolsheim was cited for its disclosure of using a CAM for high-speed hardware enforcement of ACLs, which Petitioner mapped to the "mechanism" for comparing packet headers to a rule set.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Kalapathy and Bechtolsheim was presented as analogous to that in Ground 1. Both references concern hardware solutions for improving data packet routing performance. A POSITA would be motivated to look to both references for teachings on using packet characteristics for routing decisions and would readily implement Bechtolsheim’s efficient CAM-based rule comparison into Kalapathy’s advanced simultaneous-search architecture to gain predictable performance benefits.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involves implementing known hardware techniques for rule processing into a compatible system architecture, representing a routine design choice.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner contended that the terms "returning a rule," "returning a rule determination," and "returning a determination of a rule to be applied" are used interchangeably in the ’352 patent and carry an identical meaning to a POSITA. Therefore, Petitioner argued that no formal construction of these terms by the Board was necessary.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not discretionarily deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §314 or §325(d). It asserted that under the General Plastic factors, denial was unwarranted because this was Petitioner's first challenge to the ’352 patent. The petition was said to conserve Board resources by aligning with a co-pending IPR filed by Juniper Networks (IPR2018-01587) on the same patent, using the same grounds and prior art, for which Petitioner would seek consolidation. Under §325(d), Petitioner argued denial would be improper because the prior art references (Kadambi, Kalapathy, and Bechtolsheim) were never cited or considered by the examiner during the original prosecution.

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 the ’352 patent as unpatentable.