PTAB

IPR2025-01303

Cisco Systems Inc v. Dynamic Mesh Networks Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Mesh Network
  • Brief Description: The ’537 patent relates to an adaptive wireless mesh network where an access server provides centralized control. The server sets a network profile that guides mesh access point (MAP) nodes in automatically selecting the correct routing path to a root access point (RAP) node connected to an external network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Rahman in view of Rahman-II - Claims 1-4, 10-15, and 17-18 are obvious over Rahman in view of Rahman-II.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rahman (Application # 2008/0043637) and Rahman-II (Application # 2008/0112363).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rahman discloses the core elements of independent claim 1, including a wireless mesh network with Wi-Fi nodes (mesh APs and a root AP) organized in a tree shape, and an access server (WLAN controller) that defines parent selection criteria (e.g., hop count, signal strength) for establishing routing paths. Rahman further teaches MAPs with two radios automatically connecting to a parent node (another MAP or the root AP). Rahman-II teaches provisioning mesh APs with "access point profiles" containing network parameters and policies.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Rahman-II’s use of access point profiles with Rahman’s network to improve the parent selection process. Rahman’s controller provides a list of potential parents, but Rahman-II’s profiles would ensure that each mesh AP has the most up-to-date policies and parameters for making a selection, especially during a link failure or parent loss event, thereby improving network convergence and stability.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because both references are directed at improving 802.11-compliant, LWAPP- and AWPP-compatible mesh networks. Both describe Cisco-compatible systems, making the integration of Rahman-II's profile-based provisioning into Rahman's network architecture a predictable and straightforward enhancement.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Rahman/Rahman-II in view of Rahman-III - Claims 5-9 and 19 are obvious over the combination of Rahman and Rahman-II in view of Rahman-III.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rahman (Application # 2008/0043637), Rahman-II (Application # 2008/0112363), and Rahman-III (Patent 7,653,011).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Rahman/Rahman-II combination for the base network architecture. The challenged dependent claims add limitations requiring the selection of a parent node based on a comparison of latency or throughput values, including selecting a node with a lower latency or higher throughput value. While the base combination teaches using metrics like hop count and data rate, Rahman-III specifically discloses detailed path cost calculation and tie-breaker policies for situations where "equal cost paths emerge."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Rahman-III’s specific path cost calculation and tie-breaking policies into the Rahman/Rahman-II network. The base combination does not explicitly address how a mesh AP should choose between two potential parent nodes that offer paths of similar overall quality. Rahman-III solves this known problem by providing a method to distinguish between such paths by weighting radio parameters and selecting the link with the least path cost or highest-quality radio parameters.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected as all three references are directed to 802.11-compliant mesh networks, share a common inventor, and address the common goal of optimizing path selection. Applying Rahman-III’s well-defined path-cost logic was argued to be a predictable way to enhance the robustness of the parent-selection process in the base system.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Rahman/Rahman-II in view of Goel - Claims 1 and 16 are obvious over the combination of Rahman and Rahman-II in view of Goel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rahman (Application # 2008/0043637), Rahman-II (Application # 2008/0112363), and Goel (Patent 8,665,841).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenges claim 16, which requires routing multiple data types (e.g., voice, video) and prioritizing one over another. The Rahman/Rahman-II combination teaches a network capable of handling such traffic but does not explicitly teach prioritizing routes based on data type. Goel discloses a "route metric" that considers the type of data being transmitted, allowing the network to prioritize minimizing latency for voice data or maximizing bandwidth for video data.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to integrate Goel’s data-type-aware routing metric into the Rahman/Rahman-II network to improve Quality of Service (QoS). As mesh networks are used for diverse applications, optimizing routing based on the specific requirements of the traffic (e.g., voice vs. video) is a known and desirable enhancement. Goel provides a known technique to solve this well-understood problem.
    • Expectation of Success: All references describe 802.11-compliant mesh networks. Petitioner contended that including Goel's data type information within Rahman's existing "RRM Neighbor Reports" would be a predictable application of a known network optimization technique to a compatible system, with a high likelihood of success.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Effective Priority Date: A central contention of the petition is that the ’537 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority dates of 2002, 2003, or 2005. Petitioner argued that an intermediate application in the priority chain (which issued as the ’316 patent) failed to "contain a specific reference" to the earliest-filed applications, as required by 35 U.S.C. §120. This break in the priority chain allegedly limits the ’537 patent to an effective priority date of no earlier than January 29, 2010. This later date makes Rahman, Rahman-II, Rahman-III, and Goel, all published or filed before 2010, valid prior art references.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’537 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.