Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT MANAGEMENT LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-1934
`U.S. Patent No. 8,799,468
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`The ’468 Patent ................................................................................................ 2 
`  Overview of the ’468 Patent .................................................................. 2 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 3 
` 
`Proper Understanding of Claims ........................................................... 3 
`1. 
`“Service Provider Network” ....................................................... 4 
`2. 
`“Controller Instructions” ............................................................. 8 
`3. 
`“Gateway Unit” ......................................................................... 11 
`4. 
`“Generate [controller instructions]” .......................................... 12 
`III.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS .............................. 15 
`  Ground 1 - Freund ............................................................................... 15 
`1. 
`Overview of Freund .................................................................. 15 
`2. 
`Claim 1 is Not Obvious ............................................................. 18 
`3. 
`Claim 2 is Not Obvious ............................................................. 24 
`4. 
`Claim 9 is Not Obvious ............................................................. 28 
`5. 
`Claim 19 is Not Obvious ........................................................... 29 
`6. 
`Claim 23 is Not Obvious ........................................................... 31 
`7. 
`Claim 24 is Not Obvious ........................................................... 32 
`8. 
`Claims 3-5, 11, 13, 25-27, 33 are Not Obvious ........................ 32 
`Ground 2 - Spusta ................................................................................ 32 
`1. 
`Overview of Spusta ................................................................... 33 
`2. 
`Claim 1 is Not Obvious ............................................................. 35 
`3. 
`Claim 23 is Not Obvious ........................................................... 44 
`4. 
`Claims 2-3, 11, 13, 24-25, 32, 34 are Not Obvious .................. 44 
`IV.  THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED AS REDUNDANT ..................... 45 
`Freund and Spusta are Each Redundant to the Art Cited During
` 
`Prosecution of the ’468 Patent ............................................................ 45 
`The Board Should Exercise its Discretion and Deny the Petition ...... 63 
`Petitioner’s Use of Freund and Spusta Violates the Prohibition
`Against Horizontal Redundancy ......................................................... 65 
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
` i
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`INTER PARTES REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
`V. 
` ....................................................................................................................... 67 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 68 
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
` ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`AmkorTech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00242, Paper No. 37, (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2013) ............................. 67
`Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc.,
`IPR2016-1450, Paper 10, (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) ..................................... 62
`Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Techs. Inc.,
`IPR2013-00057, Paper No. 21, (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2013) ............................ 66
`Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01443, Paper 13, (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2017) .................................... 64
`Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC,
`IPR2017-0777, Paper 7, (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2017) ....................................... 62
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ..................................................................................... 4
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 4
`In re Smith Int'l, Inc.
`(Fed. Cir. Sep. 26, 2017) ................................................................................. 3
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-0003, Paper 7, (P.T.A.B. October 25, 2012) ............................... 65
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370, 377 (1996) .............................................................................. 67
`McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co.,
`169 U.S. 606 (1898)....................................................................................... 68
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
` iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017) ................................................................................... 68
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00075, Paper No. 8, (P.T.A.B. May 3, 2013) ................................ 67
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-1571, Paper 10, (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016) ..................................... 62
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .................................................................................................... 63
`35 U.S.C. §316(a)(11) .............................................................................................. 64
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................... 62
`35 U.S.C. §326(b) .................................................................................................... 66
`37 C.F.R. §1.104(c)(2) ............................................................................................. 46
`37 C.F.R. §42.1(b) ................................................................................................... 66
`37 C.F.R. §42.108(c) ................................................................................................ 15
`MPEP §706.02 ......................................................................................................... 46
`MPEP §706.07 ......................................................................................................... 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
` iv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`PATENT OWNER EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`
`2001
`2002
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`2006
`2007
`
`2008
`
`Declaration of Joel R. Williams
`U.S. Patent No. 6,516,416 to Gregg, et al (“Gregg”)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2001/0051996 to Cooper, at al
`(“Cooper”)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0169865 to Tarnoff
`(“Tarnoff”)
`RFC 1918 – Address Allocation for Private Internets
`RFC 2131 – Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
`IPTABLES – Administration tool for IPv4 packet filtering and
`NAT
`RFC 2616 – Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
` v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner, Multimedia Content Management LLC (“MCM”), submits this
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,799,468 (the “’468 Patent”) challenging Claims 1-
`
`5, 9, 11-13, 19, 23-27, 32-34 for obviousness.1
`
`The Petition should be denied because Petitioner fails to meet its threshold
`
`burden of proving that there is a reasonable likelihood that even one challenged
`
`claim is unpatentable. Specifically, the Petition fails to show that even one
`
`challenged claim would have been obvious in view of the asserted references when
`
`the claimed subject matter is taken as a whole at the time the application was filed.
`
`The Petition should also be denied in its entirety because the Petition relies on
`
`grounds that should be denied review providentially because the two cited references
`
`(Freund and Spusta) are redundant over prior art previously considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution, and Freund and Spusta are redundant with each other.
`
`
`1 When the IPR Petition was filed, the Patent Owner was Catonian IP
`
`Management, LLC.
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`II. THE ’468 PATENT
` Overview of the ’468 Patent
`The ’468 Patent describes a system and method for managing and regulating
`
`access from a local subscriber site to content available for distribution from a remote
`
`service provider network. (EX1001, Abstract). The subscriber site includes one or
`
`more subscriber terminals and communications gateways (“CGs”). (EX1001, 3:37-
`
`40). The system further includes Internet Control Points (“ICPs”) (located remote
`
`from the subscriber site), which generate and issue instructions to the CGs.
`
`(EX1001, 3:46-48; 5:25-29). These instructions control the operation of the CGs.
`
`The ’468 Patent identifies several control operations and associated controller
`
`instructions the ICPs may send to the CGs (e.g., “Active and Inactive CG Processing
`
`Control,” “Conditional Denial,” and “Packet Inspection,” etc.) (EX1001, 7:34-8:32).
`
`By having the ICP remote from the CG in conjunction with the CG being tamper-
`
`proof by the user and under the exclusive control of the ICP, the system and method
`
`of the ’468 Patent regulates access by the subscriber to content available from the
`
`subscriber network in a secure manner. The claimed system allows a service
`
`provider network to protect the digital rights associated with the content and prevent
`
`a user from unauthorized alteration of the operation of the CG, which is under the
`
`control of the remote ICP. (EX2001, ¶45).
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) with respect to the ’468
`
`Patent would have possessed the education, experience and training commensurate
`
`with a person with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science.
`
`A POSITA with respect to the ’468 Patent would have knowledge of access controls,
`
`network protocols and communications, including TCP/IP-based standards,
`
`software design, distributed systems, and network equipment configuration.
`
`(EX2001, ¶¶43-44).
`
`
`Proper Understanding of Claims
`While Petitioner acknowledges that the challenged claims "should be
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation ('BRI') in view of
`
`the specification," Petitioner mistakenly applies a broadest unreasonable
`
`interpretation to multiple elements recited in each of the challenged claims. (Pet, p.
`
`13) (emphasis added).
`
`The BRI standard must not be distorted or stretched to Petitioner's advantage
`
`to mean the broadest possible interpretation. See In re Smith Int'l, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sep.
`
`26, 2017) ("broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification … is not
`
`simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is an
`
`interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventors describe their
`
`invention in the specification"; emphasis added).
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`Patent Owner requests that the Board adopt the BRI consistent with what and
`
`how the inventor describes his invention in the specification as a whole as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure.
`
`See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016).
`
`1.
`
`“Service Provider Network”
`
`A POSITA would understand this term to mean “a network that is operated or
`
`controlled by a service provider to provide regulated access to content delivery
`
`services for subscribers. The service provider network does not include subscriber
`
`equipment or a subscriber network.” (EX2001, ¶¶47-57).
`
`The ’468 Patent relates “to regulation of access to a [service provider]
`
`network…to distribut[e] content efficiently while protecting the digital rights
`
`associated with the content.” (EX1001, 1:17-20).2 The “service provider network”
`
`is operated or controlled by a service provider, such as a cable television provider.
`
`(EX1001, 1:35-38). The service provider delivers content to subscriber terminals,
`
`which are located at a subscriber’s premises. (EX1001, 1:38-39). The subscriber’s
`
`
`2 The preamble of Claim 1 recites: “A system for regulating access to a service
`
`provider network, the system comprising:”
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`premises may include subscriber PCs networked together with other computers on a
`
`local area network (LAN). (EX1001, Fig. 1, 3:55-58). Additional network elements
`
`may be located between the “service provider network” and the subscriber’s
`
`premises to aid in the distribution of content. (EX1001, 1:33-35).
`
`Fig. 1, reproduced below with annotations, illustrates separation between
`
`devices at a subscriber’s premises (subscriber terminals and communication
`
`gateways connected via a LAN) and the “service provider network” (e.g., SPA
`
`Network Elements 54).3
`
`
`3 SPA in an abbreviation for Service Preference Architecture and describes the
`
`components of the “service provider network.” (EX2001, ¶¶49-51; EX1001,
`
`3:34-36, 3:54-58).
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`
`
`
`(EX1001, Fig. 1) (Annotated).
`
`
`
`Fig. 1 also illustrates that the “service provider network” 54 is distinct from
`
`Non-SPA Network Elements 55. Collectively, the “service provider network” and
`
`Non-SPA Network Elements comprise the Internet/Metro Area Network.4 Thus, the
`
`“service provider network” is not the entire public Internet and only includes those
`
`network elements operated or controlled by the service provider. Further, the service
`
`
`4 The “service provider network” can also include an Internet Control Point – not
`
`shown in Fig. 1. (EX1001, 3:43-46).
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`provider network does not include the subscriber equipment (e.g., subscriber PC)
`
`nor the subscriber LAN located at the subscriber’s premises. (EX2001, ¶51-56).
`
`During prosecution, Patentee amended the claims to clarify that the “network”
`
`recited in Claim 1 is the “service provider network” as opposed to being any
`
`network, such as the subscriber’s local area network or the entire public Internet.
`
`(EX1003, p. 124)5
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would understand that the “service provider
`
`network” is a network operated or controlled by a service provider, which provides
`
`regulated access to content delivery services to subscribers.
`
`A POSITA would also understand that the “service provider network” does
`
`not include any subscriber network components (e.g., servers, computers, LANs,
`
`printers, etc.) located at the subscriber’s premises. A POSITA would also
`
`understand that the “service provider network” is not the entire public Internet.
`
`(EX2001, ¶55).
`
`
`5 Specifically, the preamble of Claim 1 was amended as follows: “1. (Currently
`
`Amended) A system for regulating access to a service provider network, the
`
`system comprising…”. (The underscore identifies additions to the claim).
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`Petitioner proposes the meaning of “service provider network” as “a network
`
`over which content is delivered.” Petitioner’s proposed construction is incorrect
`
`because it renders the term “service provider” and the Patentee’s amendment
`
`(“network” to “service provider network”) meaningless. In addition, the proposed
`
`construction would incorrectly encompass both subscriber equipment at the
`
`subscriber’s premises (e.g., the subscriber LAN) and the entire public Internet. A
`
`POSITA would readily recognize that a service provider does not include their
`
`subscribers and a service provider network does not include subscriber devices (e.g.,
`
`the subscriber’s LAN) at the subscriber’s premises. (EX2001, ¶56).
`
`2.
`
`“Controller Instructions”
`
`A POSITA would understand this term to have its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`However, a POSITA would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“controller instruction” to exclude merely a uniform resource locator (URL) or an
`
`IP address. (EX2001, ¶¶58-69).
`
`Petitioner proposes the meaning of “controller instructions” is “information
`
`that is sent by the controller that is used to direct the actions of a network unit,” and
`
`would include simple data elements such as a URL or an IP address alone. (Pet. pp.
`
`14-16). Petitioner’s proposed meaning is overly broad and reduces the meaning of
`
`“controller instructions” to “any data.”
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`In the art of computer networks, an instruction describes a command to be
`
`performed. A URL is a computer address for a network resource, such as a web
`
`page, and an IP address is an address for a device on a TCP/IP network. An address,
`
`either in URL or IP form, is not a command and does not describe an operation to
`
`be performed. Therefore, a URL or IP address cannot be a “controller instruction”
`
`that describes an operation to be performed by the gateway unit. (EX2001, ¶60).
`
`The ’468 Patent describes multiple examples of controller instructions that are
`
`performed by the gateway units (e.g., the “Active and Inactive CG Processing
`
`Control,” the “Conditional Denial,” and the “First Portal” operations). (EX2001,
`
`¶¶61-64; EX1001, 7:34-8:18, 11:22-43).
`
`ICP 50 works in conjunction with CGs 58 and SPA-controlled network
`elements 54 by generating instructions which are transmitted over
`network 52 to CGs 58 and SPA-controlled network elements 54, where
`the instructions are executed.
`(EX1001, 5:19-23) (emphasis added).
`
`While several of these controller instructions require a URL or IP address, the
`
`URLs and IP addresses are only parameters for the instructions – the URLs and IP
`
`addresses alone are not controller instructions. (EX2001, ¶¶62-64).
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`For example, with respect to the “Conditional Denial” operation, a gateway
`
`unit receives a controller instruction commanding the gateway unit to substitute a
`
`requested ‘pirate’ URL address with another URL address.6
`
`In implementing the denial, CG 58 [the gateway unit] deletes the
`‘pirate’ URL or IP address and substitutes the URL or IP address of a
`site that offers licensed copyrighted materials for legal, authorized sale.
`(EX1001, 8:3-6) (emphasis added).
`In order to carry out the conditional denial instruction, the gateway unit is
`
`informed of a first URL (or IP address), the second URL (or IP address), and the
`
`operation to be performed (i.e., substitute the second URL for the first URL). In this
`
`example, the operation, or instruction, being performed is a substitution. The
`
`parameters to the instruction are the first and second URLs. While this controller
`
`instruction requires URLs (or IP Addresses) as parameters, the URLs (or IP
`
`addresses) do not describe the operation to be performed. Hence, a POSITA would
`
`understand URLs are not controller instructions that describe an operation to be
`
`performed by the gateway unit. Thus, a POSITA would understand the meaning of
`
`
`6 A ‘pirate’ URL is described as a URL that is known to contain unlicensed
`
`copyrighted material. (EX1001, 8:2-3).
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`“controller instructions” to exclude merely a standalone uniform resource locator
`
`(URL) or IP address.
`
`3.
`
` “Gateway Unit”
`
`A POSITA would understand the meaning of “gateway unit” as recited in the
`
`claims and described in the specification to exclude a device in which the subscriber
`
`(e.g., an end user) has access to the device’s hardware or software.7 (EX2001, ¶¶70-
`
`73).
`
`The ’468 Patent describes the needs and requirements of service providers to
`
`protect the digital rights of content providers. (EX1001, 1:52-2:2). In order to
`
`protect the digital rights of content providers, the gateway units described in the ’468
`
`Patent are tamper-proof, such that subscribers cannot access the device’s hardware
`
`or software.
`
`The [gateway units] cannot be tampered with by subscribers. [The
`gateway units] are specifically designed to permit no subscriber-
`
`
`7 Petitioner’s proposed construction of “gateway unit” as “a network component
`
`that regulates access to a network” is impermissibly broad and deliberately
`
`ignores the teaching in the specification of what a “gateway unit” is. (EX2001,
`
`¶¶70-72).
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`initiated programming and no access to the [gateway unit’s] hardware
`or software.8
`(EX1001, 3:62-65) (emphasis added). (See also EX1001, 4:6-48) (explaining
`
`tamper-proof provisions to ensure digital rights).
`
`The tamper-proof aspect of the gateway unit is central to an understanding of
`
`the gateway unit term within the context of the recited claims. Therefore, a POSITA
`
`would understand the meaning of “gateway unit” to exclude a device in which the
`
`subscriber has access to the device’s hardware or software.
`
`4.
`
`“Generate [controller instructions]”
`
`A POSITA would understand the meaning of “generate,” in the context of the
`
`recited claims, to exclude operations in which the controller instructions are only
`
`transmitted or are relayed (i.e., received and then transmitted) by a device. (EX2001,
`
`¶¶74-83). Petitioner proposes “generate” means “to produce.” (Pet., p. 26, FN2).
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is incomplete and leaves open the possibility that
`
`“transmitting controller instructions” from the controller node to the gateway unit
`
`
`8 The specification refers to Communications Gateways 58 as CGs. The claimed
`
`gateway units correspond to the CGs. For ease of reading, CG was replaced with
`
`gateway unit in this quote.
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`would qualify as “generating controller instructions.” Such a view is incorrect and
`
`inconsistent with the disclosure of the ’468 Patent.
`
`In support of its proposed construction, Petitioner provided the following
`
`dictionary definition for generate:
`
`
`
`(EX 1007).
`
`Common with each of these definitions of “generate,” and missing from
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction, is the notion that the generated item did not exist
`
`prior to being generated. (EX2001, ¶¶78-80) (e.g., “bring into being”). Consistent
`
`with these definitions, what is required for a proper understanding of generate with
`
`respect to the ’468 Patent is that at the time when the processor generates controller
`
`instructions, the controller instructions did not previously exist.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “generate” is overly broad and would
`
`incorrectly encompass the operation of the controller node receiving an existing
`
`controller instruction from another source (e.g., a human administrator or another
`
`network device) and then transmitting the received controller instruction to the
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`gateway unit. Transmitting or retransmitting an existing “controller instruction” is
`
`not “generating” as understood by a POSITA. (EX2001, ¶81).
`
`Additionally, a plain reading of Claim 1 excludes the operation of
`
`“transmitting” (i.e., producing) controller instructions from the meaning of
`
`generating. Claim 1 recites, in part,
`
`a first processor configured to generate controller instructions, and
`a first network interface configured to transmit the controller
`instructions over the service provider network to a plurality of gateway
`units…
`(EX1001, 18:34-38) (emphasis added)
`
`The recited two-step operation in which the controller node separately
`
`“generates” controller instructions and then subsequently “transmits” the generated
`
`controller instructions to the gateway unit distinguishes the operation of
`
`“generating” from “transmitting.” Based on the separately recited operations of
`
`“generate” and then “transmit,” a POSITA would understand “generate” must mean
`
`something different than simply “transmit” (what Petitioner calls “produce”).
`
`(EX2001, ¶82).
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would understand the meaning of “generate” to
`
`exclude operations in which the controller instructions are only transmitted or
`
`relayed by a device.
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`III. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS
`Petitioner has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to the relief it
`
`requests. 37 C.F.R. §42.108(c). Because IPR2017-1934 only presents theories of
`
`obviousness, Petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that at least one of
`
`the challenged patent claims would have been obvious to a POSITA most pertinent
`
`to the claimed subject matter as a whole at the time the application was filed in view
`
`of the art cited in the Petition. Petitioner fails to meet this burden. The Petition
`
`should, therefore, be denied.9
`
` Ground 1 - Freund
`Ground 1 of the Petition asserts Freund renders claims 1-5, 9, 12, 19, 23-27,
`
`and 33 obvious.
`
`1. Overview of Freund
`
`Petitioner represents the following figure as depicting the overall architecture
`
`of the Freund system.
`
`
`9 While certain deficiencies in the Petition are addressed here, Patent Owner
`
`reserves the right to address other deficiencies of the Petition in a full Response
`
`if an inter partes review is instituted.
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`
`
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 3A) (As annotated from EX1003, p. 37). The Freund system is
`
`comprised of a local area network (LAN) 320 that is separated from the Internet 340
`
`by a firewall 330. Connected within the LAN (320) are a series of client computers
`
`(310) and a supervisor (323). Being directly connected to the client computers (310)
`
`via the LAN (320), the supervisor (323) does not communicate with the client
`
`computers (310) over the Internet (340). The client computers (310), supervisor
`
`(323), LAN (320), firewall (330) are each located at the client’s premises.
`
`The supervisor manages access to the Internet by “maintain[ing] access rules
`
`for the client-based filtering and verify[ing] the existence and proper operation of
`
`the client-based filter application.” (EX1004, Abstract). The rules themselves are
`
`established by a human administrator of the system by utilizing an access
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`management application. (EX1004, 12:66-13:2) (“The access management
`
`application is employed by the LAN administrator, workgroup administrator, and/or
`
`LAN user to maintain a database of the access rules for the workstations being
`
`administrated.”)
`
`In particular, Freund discloses a “rule wizard interface” that allows a system
`
`administrator to configure and establish rules for the system.
`
`2. Rule wizard interface
`The system allows user (e.g., administrator) configuration of rules
`which govern use of the protocols monitored by the system. For
`instance, an administrator can establish a rule based on a particular
`application, such as a rule presenting (sic) Internet access by a real
`audio player application (ra32.exe). Rules can also be established on
`the basis of including and/or excluding access to particular Internet
`sites. For instance, an administrator can establish a rule allowing
`users to only access a limited number of approved sites. On the other
`hand, the administrator can set a rule blocking user access to particular
`sites (e.g., pornographic sites). Rules can also be set which are time-
`based in nature. For instance, an administrator can establish a rule
`setting a time limit (e.g., 30 minutes) for how long a user can access the
`Internet each day.
`(EX1004, 23:65-24:13) (emphasis added).
`
`Further, Freund does not indicate on which computer the “rule wizard” is run.
`
`For example, the user creates rules at any computer in the network and then transfer
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`the rules to the supervisor node. The rules would then be downloaded to client
`
`computers. Accordingly, in this scenario, the supervisor’s role is simply relaying
`
`the user created rules to the client computers.
`
`The client computers disclosed in Freund are standard personal computers or
`
`workstations, which include applications such as Netscape Navigator or Microsoft
`
`Internet Explorer as well as a multitude of other applications. (EX1004, 14:54-59,
`
`15:13-18). As described in Freund, a user of a personal computer is able to install
`
`or remove software, access data stored on the personal computer, and access
`
`hardware, such as the hard drive on the computer.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 is Not Obvious
`
`Freund fails to render Claim 1 obvious for at least the following reasons.
`
`a)
`
`Freund Does Not Disclose “a Processor Configured to
`Generate Controller Instructions”
`
`A POSITA would understand the meaning of “generate,” in the context of the
`
`recited claims, to exclude operations in which the controller instructions are only
`
`transmitted or relayed by a device. See supra Section (II)(C)(4). Freund fails to
`
`disclose a processor generating controller instructions. (EX2001, ¶¶93-109). In
`
`Freund, the alleged controller instructions (the rules) are manually established
`
`(i.e., “generated”) by a human administrator. See supra Section (III)(A)(1). After
`
`the human administrator establishes the rules, the alleged controller node (the
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-01934
`Patent No. 8,799,468
`supervisor) simply stores and transmits the rules to the client computers. Storing
`
`rules and transmitting rules is not generating rules. (EX2001, ¶¶75-82).
`
`Petitioner asserts that Freund discloses three ways in which the rules are
`
`generated:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“For example, Freund discloses that rules are ‘administrator-specified
`rules’ and
`that
`the ‘system allows user (e.g., administrator)
`configuration of rules which govern use of the protocols monitored by
`the system.” (Pet., p. 26).
`
`“Also, it is the ‘central supervisor application that maintains the access
`rules. The maintenance of the rules, and in particular the configuration
`of the rules, constitutes ‘generating’ the rules whenever they are
`produced or updated.” (Pet., p. 26). (internal references omitted).
`
`“Furthermore, Freund discloses that the centralized supervisor
`application ‘provides the filter application with the rules [i.e.,
`instructions] for the specific user or workstation.” (EX1001, p. 26). “By
`‘providing’ these rules, those rules are therefore produced or
`‘generated’ (i.e., from memory or storage.)” (Pet., p. 26).
`
`None of the above three “ways” constitutes “generating” controller