PTAB

IPR2023-00607

Cisco Systems Inc v. NetSocket Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method in a packet based communication network
  • Brief Description: The ’698 patent discloses a method for establishing a virtual leased line (VLL) for packet transfer between a source and a destination across different network domains, such as a Differentiated Services (DiffServ) domain and a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) domain, using bandwidth brokers (BBs) to manage the process.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Xiao, Schelen-1, and Gibson - Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are obvious over Xiao in view of Schelen-1 and Gibson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Xiao ("Internet QoS: A Big Picture," an IEEE article published 1999), Schelen-1 ("An Agent-based Architecture for Advance Reservations," an article published 1997), and Gibson (Patent 6,678,264).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Xiao provides the foundational framework, disclosing a communication network with multiple domains (e.g., DiffServ) that provides "premium service" suitable for creating "virtual lease lines" between a source and destination. Xiao teaches using BBs for admission control in these domains. However, Xiao lacks specific implementation details. Gibson supplements Xiao by disclosing an MPLS network with an "admission manager" that corresponds to a BB and performs admission control. Gibson’s administrative server and connection managers correspond to the claimed "intra-domain broker (IDB)" responsible for setting up Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Schelen-1 further provides details on how BBs (termed "reservation agents") can be implemented to control hierarchical routing domains, perform admission control, and store reservation information, fulfilling additional limitations of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to implement Xiao's high-level concept. Xiao explicitly suggests that MPLS can be used with DiffServ. A POSITA would look to references like Gibson for established methods of managing admission control and LSP setup in an MPLS domain. Similarly, a POSITA would consult Schelen-1 for well-known techniques to implement the specific functions of a BB, such as controlling hierarchical domains and managing reservations, which are only broadly described in Xiao. The combination would yield a predictable and more functional system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because all three references operate within the same technical field of network resource management and address interoperable protocols (DiffServ and MPLS). The combination involves applying known BB and MPLS management techniques from Schelen-1 and Gibson to the network architecture of Xiao.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Xiao, Schelen-1, Gibson, and Schelen-2 - Claims 4-8 are obvious over Xiao, Schelen-1, and Gibson in view of Schelen-2.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Xiao, Schelen-1, Gibson, and Schelen-2 ("Resource sharing in advance reservation agents," an article published 1998).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground builds on the combination in Ground 1, adding Schelen-2 to provide specific teachings for limitations in dependent claims 4-8.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Schelen-2 teaches key features for a more advanced BB. For claim 4, which requires the Quality of Service (QoS) to be a specific rate, Schelen-2 discloses parameter-based admission control where each reservation request explicitly contains a "bandwidth to be reserved." For claim 5, which requires the BB to have a "topology map and routing information" for path-sensitive admission control, Schelen-2 teaches a BB that uses a topology map and participates in a link-state routing protocol (e.g., OSPF) to detect routing changes and perform admission control. For claims 6 and 8, which require data structures for storing resource usage and granted requests, Schelen-2 discloses using data structures to manage reservations, maintain information on reserved resources for each link, and store the "reservation state."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having combined Xiao, Schelen-1, and Gibson, would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Schelen-2 to improve the BB's functionality. Schelen-2's teachings on using topology maps and managing advance reservations provide a more robust and efficient method for admission control and resource planning than the base combination. This would reduce the risk of over-allocating resources and allow for better load distribution, which were known goals in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been successful because Schelen-2 provides a compatible and more detailed implementation of the BB functions already present in Schelen-1. Integrating these advanced, known techniques for resource management into the network framework was a matter of routine engineering.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "bandwidth broker": Petitioner proposed that a POSITA would understand a "bandwidth broker" to be an entity in a network domain that manages policies for bandwidth resources. This management includes activities such as maintaining a resource database, providing admission control, configuring the network, and communicating with BBs in neighboring domains to allocate resources across those domains. This construction is based on the patent's own definition and description.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §325(d) Denial: Petitioner argued denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because none of the asserted prior art references were considered by the Examiner during prosecution. While a "Schelen Thesis" was cited, Petitioner contended the specific, relevant teachings from the asserted Schelen-1 and Schelen-2 articles were not before the Examiner.
  • Fintiv Denial: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, asserting that the factors strongly favor institution. The parallel district court litigation is in its very early stages with minimal investment. The projected trial date of August 2024 is around the same time as or after the Board's statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Furthermore, there is currently no overlap of prior art issues between the IPR and the district court case, and the merits of the petition are strong.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’698 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.