Filed: October 11, 2019
`
`Doug G. Muehlhauser (Reg. No. 42,018)
`William H. Shreve (Reg. No. 35,678)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.:
`(949) 760-0404
`Fax:
`(949) 760-9502
`E-mail: BoxNomadix@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Doug G. Muehlhauser (Reg. No. 42,018)
`William H. Shreve (Reg. No. 35,678)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.:
`(949) 760-0404
`Fax:
`(949) 760-9502
`E-mail: BoxNomadix@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE PARTIES ................................................................................................ 3
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’917 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`
`A. Applications Incorporated By Reference In The
`Specification .......................................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Sample embodiments described in the specification ............................ 5
`
`Claims 1 and 11 ..................................................................................... 7
`
`IV. PRELIMINARY CLAIM-CONSTRUCTION REMARKS ........................... 9
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER’S ASSERTED GROUNDS ................................................... 10
`
`VI. PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW INSTITUTION IS
`WARRANTED ON ANY GROUND ........................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Petitioner Fails To Carry Its Burden On Grounds 1 And 2 ................ 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Trudeau and Whyte are not prior art to claims 1
`and 11 of the ’917 patent .......................................................... 11
`
`The ’060 application discloses receiving a request
`to access the network [limitations 1.A/11.A] ........................... 12
`
`The ’060 application discloses whether a source
`should be directed to a login page [limitations
`1.B/11.B] ................................................................................... 16
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`The ’060 application discloses comparing the
`source IP address with profiles of authorized
`source devices [limitations 1.C/11/C] ....................................... 17
`
`The ’060 application discloses determining
`whether the destination IP address is included in a
`plurality of destination addresses [limitations
`1.D/11.D] .................................................................................. 21
`
`The ’060 application discloses the combination of
`limitations 1.C/11.C and 1.D/11.D ........................................... 25
`
`The ’060 application discloses authorizing network
`access [limitations 1.E and 11.E] .............................................. 27
`
`The ’060 application discloses authenticating
`credentials provided from the source device via the
`login page and authorizing the source device
`access to the network [limitations 1.F/1.G] .............................. 28
`
`Claims 1 and 11 are supported by the ’060
`application ................................................................................. 28
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Carry Its Burden On Ground 3 ............................. 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner fails to make its threshold showing of a
`motivation to combine Fuh and the NIST
`publication ................................................................................. 29
`
`The combination of Fuh and NIST fails to disclose
`the handling of when a “source IP address is not
`included in a profile” as recited in the claims ........................... 31
`
`VII. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION ....................................... 39
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No.
`
`A.
`
`The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion Under § 314(a)
`To Deny The Petition .......................................................................... 39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner tactically delayed filing this petition by
`more than two and a half years after Patent Owner
`brought suit ............................................................................... 39
`
`As a result of Petitioner’s delay, the Lawsuit is
`now in its final stages, and the parties will go to
`trial on the same theories long before the Board
`issues a final written decision ................................................... 41
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 46
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 29
`Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc.,
`883 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 20
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 21, 25
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals v. Bayer Intellectual Prop. GmbH,
`IPR2018-01143, slip op. (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) ............................................ 45, 46
`
`NetApp Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC
`IPR2017-01195, slip op. (PTAB Oct. 12, 2017) .......................................... 45, 46
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, slip op. (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ........................................passim
`Nomadix, Inc. v. Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd.,
`Case No. 2:16-CV-08033-AB-FFM ................................................................... 40
`Nomadix, Inc. v. Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd.,
`Case No. 16-cv-08033 .................................................................................passim
`Nomadix, Inc. v. Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd.,
`No. CV16-08033 AB (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 28, 2016) .......................................... 3
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 29
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................ 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................... 11
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(cont’d)
`
`Page No(s).
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011).......................................................................... 42
`M.P.E.P. § 2143.01 ............................................................................................ 31, 38
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Nomadix’s Complaint for Breach of Contract
`
`[Redacted] Guest-Tek’s Answer and Counterclaims
`
`Case Scheduling Order
`
`Claim Construction Order
`
`Guest-Tek’s Supplemental Response to Nomadix’s Interrogatory
`No. 6
`
`Declaration of Stuart G. Stubblebine, Ph.D.
`
`Stuart G. Stubblebine Consultant Curriculum Vitae
`
`Hague Certificate of Service of Complaint
`
`Stipulation to Reset Guest-Tek’s Deadline to Respond to Complaint
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner challenges the two independent claims, Claims 1 and 11, in Patent
`
`Owner’s U.S. Patent No. 8,606,917 (the “’917 patent”). The Board should deny
`
`the petition because Petitioner fails to carry its burden of establishing a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on either of the two challenged claims.
`
`Petitioner presents three Grounds, all three of which are premised on
`
`obviousness combinations under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The first two Grounds rely
`
`upon references that are not prior art to the ’917 patent’s priority applications.
`
`Petitioner, however, alleges that two limitations in both challenged claims lack
`
`support in the priority applications. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, support for
`
`both limitations is expressly and specifically provided in the priority applications.
`
`Thus, Petitioner’s Grounds 1 and 2 fail because Petitioner’s references do not
`
`qualify as prior art to claims 1 and 11 of the ’917 patent.
`
`Petitioner’s Ground 3 relies upon a combination of references that Petitioner
`
`has failed to show would have been combined for any purpose. Indeed, such a
`
`combination would completely contravene the purpose of Petitioner’s primary
`
`reference. Moreover, even assuming such references were ever combined, their
`
`combination does not disclose the inventions in claims 1 and 11 of the ’917 patent.
`
`Petitioner’s incompatible combination of references in Ground 3 amounts to
`
`improper hindsight reconstruction using the claims of the ’917 patent as a guide.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`Because Petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden on this record, the Board should
`
`deny this Petition.
`
`The Board should exercise its discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution
`
`for another reason. In a related lawsuit, Patent Owner seeks royalties under a
`
`patent license agreement that granted Petitioner a license to the ’917 patent.
`
`Despite contending before the Board and District Court that the lawsuit is an
`
`assertion of patents, Petitioner has taken advantage of the fact that the lawsuit is
`
`not an action for patent infringement, filing several petitions after the one-year
`
`deadline that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) would otherwise impose. Additionally,
`
`Petitioner’s tactical delay in filing the petition means that trial in the lawsuit on the
`
`same theories as presented in this petition will occur long before the Board issues a
`
`final written decision, wasting the Board’s resources. Thus, discretionary denial is
`
`warranted under the present circumstances.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`II. THE PARTIES
`Founded by National Medal of Science recipient Dr. Leonard Kleinrock and
`
`his colleague Dr. Joel Short, Patent Owner Nomadix is a pioneer and leader in the
`
`worldwide market for Internet access gateways. Network operators across the
`
`globe rely on Nomadix’s gateway devices every day to manage over 5 million
`
`Internet connections, everywhere from landmark hotels like The Jefferson in
`
`Washington, D.C., to the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre in Australia, to
`
`sporting venues like those for the FIFA World Cup.
`
`Nomadix sued Petitioner Guest Tek Interactive Entertainment in 2009 for
`
`patent infringement. The parties settled in 2010, entering into a license agreement.
`
`Petitioner chose to license Nomadix patents so that it could incorporate Nomadix’s
`
`patented technology into its competing gateways. But Petitioner also chose to
`
`largely stop paying royalties under the license agreement. To recover millions of
`
`dollars in royalties owed, Nomadix sued Petitioner for breach of the license
`
`agreement in October 2016. Nomadix, Inc. v. Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment
`
`Ltd., No. CV16-08033 AB (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 28, 2016).
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’917 PATENT
`A. Applications Incorporated By Reference In The Specification
`The ’917 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/659,851. Ex.
`
`1001 at cover page. The ’917 patent claims priority to and incorporates by
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`reference
`
`the following applications: 13/566,904, 12/685,585, 11/427,143,
`
`09/693,060, 09/458,602, 09/458,569, 60/161,189, 60/161,182, 60/161,181,
`
`60/161,139, 60/161,093, 60/160,973, 60/160,890, and 60/111,497. Id. at 1:8-51.
`
`The relationship between the ’851 application and the ’060 application is
`
`illustrated below:
`
`09/693,060
`Appl. No.:
`10/20/2000
`Filed:
` continuation
`Appl. No.:
`11/427,143
`Filed:
`6/28/2006
` continuation
`Appl. No.:
`12/685,585
`Filed:
`1/11/2010
` continuation
`Appl. No.:
`13/566,904
`Filed:
`8/3/2012
` continuation
`Appl. No.:
`13/659,851
`Filed:
`10/24/2012
`
`
`U.S. Patent Application 09/693,060 was filed on October 20, 2000.
`
`Ex. 1003 at 1. Like the ’917 patent, the ’060 application claims priority to and
`
`incorporates by reference the following applications: 09/458,569, 60/161,189,
`
`60/161,182, 60/161,181, 60/161,139, 60/161,093, 60/160,973 and 60/160,890. Id.
`
`at 9.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`B.
`
`Sample embodiments described in the specification
`Both the ’917 patent and the ’060 application describe several embodiments
`
`of systems and methods for authentication and authorization. For example,
`
`Figure 1 of the ’060 application depicts an example of an AAA server 30 that
`
`performs authentication of sources via an attribute associated with the source:
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 at 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`Figure 2 of the ’060 application depicts a flow chart of the operation of an
`
`AAA server 30 that performs authentication of sources via an attribute associated
`
`with the source:
`
`Id. at 8. As illustrated in Figure 2, block 210 authenticates a source based on an
`
`attribute associated with the source, and block 220 determines authorization based
`
`on 1) an attribute associated with the source; 2) destination; or 3) content. The
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`’060 application also specifies certain attributes that are used for authorization,
`
`such as the source IP address and destination IP address. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 at 24
`
`(ll. 26-31), 25 (ll. 1-20) and 25-26 (line 22 on page 25, through line 2 on page 26).
`
`C. Claims 1 and 11
`Petitioner challenges independent claims 1 and 11 of the ’917 patent. Claim
`
`1 is reproduced below, with numbering of limitations as provided by Petitioner.
`
`1. A method for granting access to a computer network, comprising:
`
`[1.A] receiving at an access controller a request to access the network from a
`source computer, the request including a transmission control protocol
`(TCP) connection request having a source IP address and a destination IP
`address;
`[1.B] determining by the access controller whether the source computer must
`login to access the network, including:
`[1.C] comparing the source IP address with profiles of authorized
`source devices, each profile including an IP address, wherein if the
`source IP address is included in a profile of an authorized source
`device, the source device is granted access without further
`authorization, and
`[1.D] if the source IP address is not included in a profile associated
`with an authorized source device, then determining whether the
`destination IP address is included in a plurality of destination IP
`addresses associated with the access controller, wherein if the
`destination IP address is included in the plurality of destination IP
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`addresses, the source device is granted access without further
`authorization, and
`[1.E] if the destination IP address is not included in the plurality of
`destination IP addresses, then the access controller determines the
`source device must be authorized to access the network and
`provides the source device with a login page;
`[1.F] using the access controller to authenticate credentials provided from
`the source device via the login page; and
`[1.G] authorizing the source device access to the network if the provided
`credentials are authenticated.
`
`
`Claim 11 is reproduced below.
`
`11. A system for providing network access to a source device comprising:
`
`[11.A] an access controller configured to receive a request to access the
`network from the source device, the request including a transmission
`control protocol (TCP) connection request having a source IP address and
`a destination IP address,
`[11.B] the access controller further configured to redirect the source device
`to a login page if it is determined that authentication is required prior to
`network access being granted, the authentication based on
`[11.C] comparing the source IP address with profiles of authorized source
`devices, each profile including an IP address, wherein if the source IP
`address is included in a profile of an authorized source device, the source
`device is granted access without further authorization, and
`[11.D] if the source IP address is not included in a profile associated with an
`authorized device, then determining whether the destination IP address is
`included in a plurality of destination IP addresses associated with the
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`access controller, wherein if the destination IP address is included in the
`plurality of destination IP addresses, the source device is granted access
`without further authorization, and
`[11.E] if the destination IP address is not included in the plurality of
`destination IP addresses, then the access controller authorizes network
`access to the computing device after authenticating user credentials
`received from the source device via the login page have been
`authenticated.
`IV. PRELIMINARY CLAIM-CONSTRUCTION REMARKS
`Petitioner urges the Board to adopt a particular construction for “profile” in
`
`claims 1 and 11. Pet. at 18. However, after Petitioner filed this Petition, the district
`
`court in the Litigation construed “profiles” to mean “a collection of attributes with
`
`[a] source device[s].” Ex. 2004 at 23. Patent Owner’s arguments in this
`
`Preliminary Response do not depend on the construction of “profile.”
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`V. PETITIONER’S ASSERTED GROUNDS
`Petitioner presents three grounds for inter partes review based on the
`
`following four references:
`
`1005
`
`Exhibit No. Reference
`1004
`U.S. Patent No. 8,046,578
`David Whyte et al., DNS-based
`Detection of Scanning Worms in an
`Enterprise Network, Proceedings
`of the 12th Annual Network and
`Distributed System Security
`Symposium, San Diego, USA
`(Feb. 3-4, 2005)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,463,474
`John Wack et al., Keeping Your
`Site Comfortably Secure: An
`Introduction to Internet Firewalls,
`NIST Special Publication 800-10
`(Dec. 1994)
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`Shorthand Name
`Trudeau
`
`Whyte
`
`Fuh
`
`NIST
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1 and 11 are obvious based on these three
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground References
`1
`Trudeau in view of Whyte
`Trudeau in view of Whyte and
`further in view of Fuh
`Fuh in view of NIST
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims Challenged
`1 and 11
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1 and 11
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1 and 11
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`VI. PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW INSTITUTION IS WARRANTED ON
`ANY GROUND
`
`A. Legal Standard
`The statutory threshold that must be met to institute an IPR reads as follows:
`
`(a) THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (emphasis added); accord 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Carry Its Burden On Grounds 1 And 2
`1.
`Trudeau and Whyte are not prior art to claims 1 and 11 of the
`’917 patent
`Grounds 1 and 2 involve two common references: Trudeau and Whyte. In
`
`Ground 1, Petitioner argues obviousness based on the combination of Trudeau and
`
`Whyte, while in Ground 2 Petitioner relies on combining Trudeau with Whyte and
`
`Fuh. Petitioner relies on April 14, 2005 as the filing date of Trudeau, and January
`
`14, 2006 as the publication date for Whyte.
`
`The priority applications for the ’917 predate Trudeau and Whyte, so
`
`Petitioner is left to argue that two limitations of Claims 1 and 11 (and the
`
`combination of those limitations) are not entitled to priority. See Pet. at 11-18.
`
`The two identified limitations relate to 1) comparing a source IP address of a
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`request (limitation 1.C/11.C) and 2) determining whether a destination IP address
`
`of a request is included in a plurality of destination IP addresses (limitation
`
`1.D/11.D). Id.
`
`However, as set forth below, those limitations, as well as all other limitations
`
`of claims 1 and 11, are disclosed in the ’060 application. Petitioner does not
`
`dispute that a continuous claim of priority exists from the ’917 patent to the ’060
`
`application. Moreover, Petitioner does not dispute that the ’060 application was
`
`properly incorporated by reference in its entirety by the ’917 patent. Thus, claims
`
`1 and 11 have a priority date at least as early as October 20, 2000, the filing date of
`
`the ’060 application. Accordingly, Trudeau and Whyte are not prior art to the’917
`
`patent.
`
`2.
`
`The ’060 application discloses receiving a request to access the
`network [limitations 1.A/11.A]
`Petitioner does not dispute that ‘060 application supports the preambles of
`
`claims 1 and 11, and limitations 1.A and 11.A of those claims. Those claim
`
`elements are clearly described in the ’060 application.
`
`For example, Figure 2 of the ’060 application is a flow chart that
`
`corresponds to the “method for granting access to a computer network,” and the
`
`“system for providing network access to a source device,” as set forth in the
`
`preambles of Claims 1 and 11.
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003 at 8.
`
`Additionally, Block 200 in Figure 2 above discloses receiving a request from
`
`a source computer, and block 210 discloses authenticating a “source based on [an]
`
`attribute associated with the source.” Id. The ’060 application also discloses the
`
`following:
`
`a source computer requests (block 200) access to a network,
`destination, service, or the like. Upon receiving a packet transmitted
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`to the AAA server 30, the AAA server 30 examines the packet to
`determine the identity of the source (block 210). The attributes
`transmitted via the packet are temporarily stored in the source profile
`database so that the data can be examined for use in determining
`authorization rights of the source. The attributes contained in the
`packet can include network information, source IP address, source
`port, link layer information, source MAC address, VLAN tag, circuit
`ID, destination IP address, destination port, protocol type, packet
`type, and the like. After this information is identified and stored,
`access requested from a source is matched against the authorization of
`that source (block 230).”
`Id. at 25-26 (page 25, line 22 through page 26, line 2).
`
`Similarly, the ’060 application discloses that “the authorization capability of
`
`the system and method of the present invention can be based upon the other
`
`information contained in the data transmission, such as a destination port, Internet
`
`address, TCP port, network, or similar destination address.” Id. at page 12, ll. 18-
`
`21.
`
`Further, both the ’917 patent and the ’060 application claim priority to and
`
`incorporate by reference U.S. Patent Application No. 60/160,890 (“’890
`
`provisional”) filed on October 22, 1999. Ex. 1021. The ’890 provisional discloses
`
`that “the user/subscriber computer 14' does not require any specific client-side
`
`software for accessing the enterprise networks 20', 20", but only requires a suitable
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`communication protocol for communicating with the gateway device 12, such as
`
`TCP/IP.” Id. at 13, ll. 6-9.
`
`The ’890 provisional also includes a User Guide for a Nomadix Universal
`
`Subscriber Gateway with a glossary that explains, among other things, the
`
`following terms:
`
`Internet Protocol: The global standard used to regulate data transmissions
`between computers and the Internet. Data is broken up into packets
`which are then sent over the network. By using IP addressing, Internet
`Protocol ensures that the data reaches its destination, even though
`different packets may pass through different networks to get to the
`same location. See also, Internet and IP Address. Id. at 153.
`
`
`IP Address: The numeric address of a device, in the format used on the
`Internet. The actual numeric value takes the form of a 32-bit binary
`number broken up into four 8-bit groups, with each group separated
`by a period (for example, 198.43.7.85). To make it easier for the user,
`the IP address is mapped to a meaningful domain name. IP addresses
`can be static (permanent) or dynamic (assigned each time you
`connect). See also, Domain Name, Dynamic IP Address, Internet
`Protocol, and Static IP Address. Id.
`
`
`TCP: (Transmission Control Protocol) Manages data into small packets and
`ensures that the data is transmitted correctly over a network. If an
`error is detected, the data is transmitted again in its original form. See
`also TCP/IP. Id. at 158.
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`TCP/IP: (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) A suite of
`protocols that regulates data communications for the Internet. See
`also, Internet Protocol, Protocol, and TCP. Id.
`Thus, the ’060 application discloses “receiving at an access controller a
`
`request to access the network from a source computer, the request including a
`
`transmission control protocol (TCP) connection request having a source IP address
`
`and a destination IP address” as in limitation 1.A, and “an access controller
`
`configured to receive a request to access the network from the source device, the
`
`request including a transmission control protocol (TCP) connection request having
`
`a source IP address and a destination IP address” as in limitation 11.A. See also
`
`Ex. 2006 (Stubblebine Decl.) ¶¶ 30-32.
`
`3.
`
`The ’060 application discloses whether a source should be
`directed to a login page [limitations 1.B/11.B]
`Petitioner does not dispute that the ’060 application discloses limitations
`
`1.B/11.B. Indeed, for example, Figure 2 of the ’060 application and its
`
`corresponding description at page 26, lines 10-12 of the ’060 application, show
`
`that “the source may be redirected to a portal page, as described in the Redirecting
`
`Application, prior to being allowed access to the requested network.” Ex. 1003 at
`
`8, 26; see also id. at 22, ll. 1-3 (“According to another aspect of the invention,
`
`where the source cannot be identified, the source may be directed to a login page in
`
`order to gather additional information to identify the source.”); id at 26, ll. 23-26.
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`Accordingly, the ’060 application discloses “determining by the access
`
`controller whether the source computer must login to access the network”
`
`(limitation 1.B), and “the access controller further configured to redirect the source
`
`device to a login page if it is determined that authentication is required prior to
`
`network access being granted” (limitation 11.B).
`
`4.
`
`The ’060 application discloses comparing the source IP address
`with profiles of authorized source devices [limitations 1.C/11/C]
`Petitioner incorrectly argues that the “prior applications nowhere disclose
`
`limitations 1.C and 11.C.” Pet. at 13. Limitations 1.C and 11.C recite “comparing
`
`the source IP address with profiles of authorized source devices, each profile
`
`including an IP address, wherein if the source IP address is included in a profile of
`
`an authorized source device, the source device is granted access without further
`
`authorization.”
`
`The ’060 application discloses those limitations. For example, the text of
`
`block 210 in Figure 2 of the ’060 application recites “authenticates source based on
`
`attribute associated with the source.” Ex. 1003 at 8. The corresponding
`
`description explains the following:
`
`Upon receiving a packet transmitted to the AAA server 30, the AAA server
`30 examines the packet to determine the identity of the source (block 210).
`The attributes transmitted via the packet are temporarily stored in the
`source profile database so that the data can be examined for use in
`determining authorization rights of the source. The attributes contained in
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`the packet can include network information, source IP address, source port,
`link layer information, source MAC address, VLAN tag, circuit ID,
`destination IP address, destination port, protocol type, packet type, and the
`like. After this information is identified and stored, access requested from a
`source is matched against the authorization of that source (block 230).”
`Id. at 25-26 (page 25, line 22 through page 26, line 2) (emphasis added).
`
`This quoted disclosure makes clear that 1) attributes may be used to
`
`determine authorization rights of a source, and 2) a list of such attributes
`
`specifically includes the packet “source IP address.” Id.
`
`The ’060 application also describes the following:
`
` The method includes receiving at the gateway device a request
`from the source computer for access to the network, identifying an
`attribute associated with the source based upon a packet
`transmitted from the source computer and received by the
`gateway device, and accessing a source profile corresponding to
`the source and stored in a source profile database, wherein the
`source profile is accessed based upon the attribute, and wherein
`the source profile database is located external to the gateway
`device and in communication with the gateway device. The
`method also includes determining the access rights of the source
`based upon the source profile, wherein access rights define the
`rights of the source to access the network. Id. at 13, ll. 5-13.
`
`
`
` determining the access rights of the source based upon the source
`profile, wherein the access rights define the rights of the source to
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`access a requested network destination. According to another
`aspect of the invention, the method includes assigning a location
`identifier to the location from which requests for access to the
`network are transmitted, and the location identifier is the
`attribute associated with the source. Id. at 13, ll. 15-20.
`
`
`
` The system includes a gateway device for receiving a request from
`the source for access to the network, and a source profile database
`in communication with the gateway device and located external to
`the gateway device, wherein the source profile database stores
`access information identifiable by an attribute associated with
`the source, and wherein the attribute is identified based upon a
`data packet transmitted from the source computer and received
`by the gateway device. Id. at 14, ll. 5-11.
`
`
`
` Upon a source’s attempt to access a network via the gateway
`device 12, the AAA server 30 attempts to authenticate the source
`by comparing stored source profiles in the source profile
`database with the attributes received from the gateway device 12
`or source to determine the source identity. Id. at 21, ll. 3-6.
`
`
`Additionally, the ’890 provisional incorporated by reference by the ’060
`
`application describes the process of manually entering “a subscriber profile into the
`
`database,” including entering an IP address. Ex. 1021 at 103. Each of these
`
`examples relates to comparing attributes from a source with source profiles in a
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01191
`Patent 8,606,917
`
`source profile database. See Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 33-34. As explained above, the list of
`
`attributes described in the ’060 application specifically recites “source IP address.”
`
`Petitioner’s argument that there is no mention of comparing source IP addresses
`
`against source profiles has no basis in the record. Pet. at 14.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc. is
`
`inapposite. Pet. at 14. In that case, the specification failed to identify “the ‘solder
`
`reflow process’ as a means of connecting solder pads to a circuit board.” Knowles
`
`Elecs. LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., 883 F.3d 1358, 1361, 1365-1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`(cited in Pet. at 14). The PTAB determined that “the present [s]pecification merely
`
`discloses a genus—solder pads that are capable of being connected to a board. But
`
`the [s]pecification fails completely to disclose the newly claimed species of such
`
`pads—pads tha
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
