PTAB

IPR2019-00764

Trend Micro Inc v. Cupp Computing As

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Systems and Methods for Providing Security Services During Power Management Mode
Brief Description: The ’488 patent discloses a "mobile security system" that travels with a mobile device to provide security services when the device is outside a trusted enterprise network. The system is designed to perform these services, such as malware scanning and updates, by waking the mobile device from a low-power or "power management mode."

Prior Art Relied Upon: Joseph (Application # 2010/0218012).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Joseph disclosed all limitations of the independent claims. Joseph taught a laptop computer containing an integrated but distinct "security/diagnostics unit" (SDU) with its own processor. This SDU, which qualifies as the claimed "mobile security system," could detect a "wake event" (e.g., a message from a remote support entity) while the laptop was powered down. In response, the SDU provided a "wake signal" to a power management controller to wake the laptop from its low-power state and then executed security or maintenance instructions (e.g., erasing data, performing diagnostics) on the laptop.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the argument was that Joseph itself rendered the claims obvious by teaching a system where all claimed elements were present and functioned in the same manner as claimed.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have understood that the components described in Joseph would function as disclosed to provide remote security services to a device in a low-power state.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Joseph (Application # 2010/0218012) and Zmudzinski (Application # 2007/0266265).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1, addressing dependent claims that specify the security services performed. While Joseph provided the base system for waking a device to perform general security functions, Zmudzinski explicitly taught implementing specific security services, such as "virus scanning," in a similar context. Zmudzinski disclosed a processing system with multiple logical partitions that could be woken from a "reduced power mode" to perform various functions, including virus scanning.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine Zmudzinski's teaching of virus scanning with Joseph's mobile security system to improve its functionality. Adding a well-known security feature like virus scanning to a security platform was a simple and predictable enhancement to protect against potential harm.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in integrating the known technique of virus scanning into the Joseph system, as it was a compatible and complementary security function.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Gordon (Patent 7,818,803).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Gordon as an alternative primary reference that disclosed all elements of the independent claims. Gordon taught a "wireless security module" embedded in a host device like a laptop, with a processor separate from the laptop's main processor. The module's firmware agent could receive a message from a remote monitoring center (the "wake event"), which would instruct the agent to "wake-up the host" from an inactive or powered-down state. After waking the host, the module would invoke "data protection measures," such as data deletion or software deployment.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This was a single-reference ground, with the Petitioner arguing that Gordon alone taught the claimed invention and therefore rendered it obvious.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Gordon’s system was described as being capable of performing the claimed functions, leading to a predictable outcome for a POSITA.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claims 2-3, 5-6, 11-12, 14-15, and 20 over Gordon in view of Zmudzinski, relying on a similar motivation to add virus scanning capabilities to the base system described in Gordon.

"mobile," "mobile security system," and "mobile security system processor": Petitioner proposed these terms should be construed to mean a system or processor that is "not connected to a network via a wired connection." Petitioner argued the prior art disclosed these limitations under either this construction or the plain and ordinary meaning.
"power management mode": Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's construction from related litigation, defining the term as "a mode where the mobile device conserves power."

Priority Date Entitlement: Petitioner argued that none of the challenged claims were entitled to the filing date of the ’488 patent’s provisional application. It was contended that the non-provisional application added significant new matter, including the description of the "wake" functionality (detecting a wake event and providing a wake signal), which was central to the challenged claims. Therefore, the effective priority date for the claims should be the filing date of the non-provisional application (August 4, 2009), not the provisional application (August 4, 2008).

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 14-15, and 18-20 of the ’488 patent as unpatentable.