PTAB

IPR2023-00606

Cisco Systems Inc v. NetSocket Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: End-to-End Quality of Service (QoS)
  • Brief Description: The ’601 patent discloses a mobile telecommunication system comprising a Core Network (CN) connected to a Radio Access Network (RAN) using Internet Protocol (IP) based transmission. The system uses a Network Resource Manager (NRM) to allocate bandwidth and provide end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Core QoS References - Claims 1-8 are obvious over Patel-225, Schelen-1999, and Schelen-1997

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patel-225 (Patent 7,043,225), Schelen-1999 (an 1999 IEEE article), and Schelen-1997 (a 1997 article by Chapman & Hall).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Patel-225 disclosed the foundational mobile telecommunication system of claim 1, including a CN connected to a RAN using IP-based transmission, a "radio resource manager," and a "bandwidth broker" (the claimed NRM) to provide different classes of QoS. However, Patel-225 allegedly lacked specific implementation details for how its bandwidth broker performs end-to-end admission control. The Schelen references were argued to supply these missing details. Specifically, Schelen-1999 taught using a "resource-map" within a QoS agent (bandwidth broker) to perform "end-to-end path-sensitive admission control," which involves checking resource availability along a path. The Schelen references also disclosed scheduling resources with start and stop times and pre-allocating resources using a "lookahead time" to minimize the risk of over-allocation for future reservations.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because they are analogous arts addressing the same problem of providing QoS and managing resource reservations in IP networks. Petitioner asserted a POSITA implementing the high-level system of Patel-225 would have looked to the detailed teachings of the Schelen references to achieve the desired end-to-end QoS. The combination would have simply applied known admission control techniques from Schelen to the known mobile network architecture of Patel-225 to achieve the predictable result of an operable end-to-end QoS system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because all references describe using bandwidth brokers for admission control in IP networks, including for both immediate and advance reservations. The combination involved applying known functionalities to a similar system to achieve predictable improvements in QoS management.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Measurement-Based Control - Claim 9 is obvious over Patel-225, Schelen-1999, Schelen-1997, and Degermark

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patel-225 (’225 patent), Schelen-1999, Schelen-1997, and Degermark (a 1997 article on predictive service).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 to challenge claim 9, which required that the path-sensitive call admission control be "measurement based." Petitioner argued that the primary combination of Patel-225 and Schelen taught parameter-based admission control. Degermark was introduced to supply the teaching of measurement-based control. Degermark described an end-to-end resource reservation protocol where the admission decision was based on both requested rates for new flows and, critically, on "measured rates for currently active flows."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Degermark with the base combination to improve the system's efficiency. Degermark's measurement-based approach allowed for a more accurate estimation of near-future network load, which in turn would permit more immediate reservations to be admitted without jeopardizing advance reservations. This benefit would have motivated a POSITA to incorporate Degermark’s technique into the path-sensitive admission control system taught by the primary combination.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Degermark’s admission control approach was similar to and complemented the scheduling approach of the primary references. A POSITA would have known how to implement either a centralized or distributed bandwidth broker to perform the required traffic measurements.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Incorporated QoS and IP Architecture References - Claims 1-8 are obvious over Patel-225, Schelen-1999, Schelen-1997, Patel-185, and Patel-624

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Patel-225 (’225 patent), Schelen-1999, Schelen-1997, Patel-185 (Patent 6,865,185), and Patel-624 (Patent 7,068,624).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added two references, Patel-185 and Patel-624, which were expressly incorporated by reference into Patel-225. Petitioner argued that to the extent the primary combination was deemed insufficient, these incorporated references provided explicit disclosures. Patel-185 was cited for its teaching of a wireless system where "end-to-end QoS is assured." Patel-624 was cited for disclosing a wireless network implemented with an "all-Internet protocol (IP) access network" that seamlessly interworks with a "core IP network," clarifying the CN/RAN architecture and IP-based transmission limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was that Patel-225 itself suggested the combination by expressly incorporating Patel-185 and Patel-624 by reference. A POSITA would have naturally looked to these incorporated documents for complementary details. Patel-185 provided further assurance of the goal of end-to-end QoS, and Patel-624 provided a clear blueprint for implementing the CN/RAN architecture using IP-based transmission, consistent with industry standards like W-CDMA that Patel-225 supported.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was highly predictable, as the combination merely involved filling out the details of the Patel-225 system with teachings from references it explicitly incorporated. This would simply allow the system to function as described and support established wireless standards.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations adding Patel-764 (for its teachings on distributed bandwidth brokers) and combining all references against various claims, but relied on similar combination and design choice rationales.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no claim term required express construction for the purposes of the IPR.
  • For clarity, Petitioner noted that a POSITA would have understood the central term "Network Resource Manager (NRM)" to be synonymous with a "bandwidth broker" or "agent," which could be a centralized or distributed entity.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), stating that none of the specific prior art combinations were previously presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, contending that: (1) the co-pending district court litigation was in its very early stages with minimal investment; (2) the court’s trial date was projected to be around the same time as the Board’s Final Written Decision, favoring institution per PTAB guidance; and (3) the merits of the petition were strong.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’601 patent as unpatentable.