`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOVEREIGN PEAK VENTURES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent 8,045,531 B2
`Issue Date: Oct. 25, 2011
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NEGOTIATION OF WLAN ENTITY
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2023-01261
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 8,045,531
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 and 37 C.F.R. §§42.1-.80, 42.100-.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 
`
`Grounds for Standing ...........................................................................................................2 
`
`III. 
`
`Reasons for the Requested Relief ........................................................................................2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`Summary of the ’531 Patent ................................................................................... 2 
`
`Prosecution History ................................................................................................. 6 
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 7 
`
`Priority of the Challenged Claims ........................................................................... 9 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................................... 9 
`
`State of the Art ...................................................................................................... 10 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`802.11........................................................................................................ 10 
`
`Centralized Management of WLANs ....................................................... 10 
`
`CAPWAP .................................................................................................. 11 
`
`LWAPP ..................................................................................................... 13 
`
`IV. 
`
`Identification of Challenges ...............................................................................................13 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................................ 13 
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ......................................................................... 13 
`
`Prior Art Basis....................................................................................................... 14 
`
`V. 
`
`Identification of How the Challenged Claims are Unpatentable .......................................15 
`
`A. 
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, and 13 are Anticipated by Calhoun ................................. 15 
`
`1. 
`
`Calhoun (EX-1005) ................................................................................... 15 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Analogous Art ................................................................................15 
`
`Overview of Calhoun .....................................................................15 
`
`2. 
`
`Detailed Application to the Challenged Claims ........................................ 16 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`Claim 1 ...........................................................................................16 
`
`Claim 7 ...........................................................................................34 
`
`Claim 13 .........................................................................................40 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 7, and 13 are Obvious over Calhoun in View of
`CAPWAP and LWAPP and the Knowledge of a POSA ...................................... 41 
`
`1. 
`
`CAPWAP .................................................................................................. 41 
`
`a. 
`
`Analogous Art ................................................................................41 
`
`2. 
`
`LWAPP ..................................................................................................... 42 
`
`a. 
`
`Analogous Art ................................................................................42 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Motivation to Combine Calhoun with CAPWAP and LWAPP ............... 43 
`
`Detailed Application to the Challenged Claims ........................................ 45 
`
`a. 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Claim 1 ...........................................................................................45 
`
`Claim 7 ...........................................................................................60 
`
`Claim 13 .........................................................................................65 
`
`VI. 
`
`The Board Should Not Exercise its Discretion to Deny Institution ...................................66 
`
`VII.  Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. §42.8 ........................................................................69 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ......................................... 69 
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................................... 69 
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................................. 70 
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................................... 71 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................7
`
`Sovereign Peak Ventures, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., 2:23-cv-00009
`(E.D. Tex.) ...............................................................................................................................69
`
`Sovereign Peak Ventures, LLC v. TP-Link Corp. Ltd., 6:22-cv-01273 (W.D. Tex.) .....................70
`
`Regulatory Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019 .....................................................................................66
`
`HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, IPR2020-01084, Paper 13 (Jan. 14, 2021) ............................68
`
`PEAG LLC v. Varta Microbattery GMBH, IPR2020-01214, Paper 8 (Jan. 6, 2021) ....................68
`
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) ........................................................................ 67-68
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (Dec. 1, 2020).......................67
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ...........................................................................................................................1, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 .......................................................................................................24, 29, 57, 63
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8 ..............................................................................................................................69
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ....................................................................................................................69
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................................................................................................69
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ....................................................................................................................70
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ....................................................................................................................70
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a)........................................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.106(a)........................................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.108 ............................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent 8,045,531 (“’531 Patent”)
`Prosecution History of the ’531 Patent
`[Omitted]
`[Omitted]
`U.S. Patent No. 7,508,801 to Calhoun, et al. (“Calhoun”)
`Light Weight Access Point Protocol (LWAPP), P. Calhoun, et al.,
`Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) of the Internet Society, June
`28, 2003 (“LWAPP”)
`P. Calhoun and J. Aaaron, “LWAPP brings harmony to WLANs,”
`Network World, December 1, 2003, available at:
`https://www.networkworld.com/article/2328757/lwapp-brings-
`harmony-to-wlans.html (last accessed July 31, 2023)
`Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP),
`Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) of the Internet Society,
`October 2, 2003 (“CAPWAP”)
`IETF 802.11-1999
`[Omitted]
`IETF RFC 5412
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Negus
`Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Sovereign Peak
`Ventures, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Case No.
`2:23-cv-00009 (E.D. Tex.), served on Feb. 28, 2023
`Amended Docket Control Order, Sovereign Peak Ventures, LLC v.
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00009 (E.D.
`Tex.), filed on April 13, 2023
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis with respect to Inter Partes
`Review
`Declaration of Alexa Morris
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for Inter
`
`Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,045,531 (“’531 Patent”) (EX-1001).
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that Claims 1, 7, and 13 (“Challenged Claims”) of
`
`the ’531 Patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of the prior art
`
`discussed herein. The Challenged Claims are directed to apparatus and methods for
`
`separating between control nodes (“CNs”) and wireless access points (“WAPs”) the
`
`functions to be performed by a wireless local area network (“WLAN”). During
`
`prosecution, the Applicant argued that the alleged novelty over the prior art
`
`identified by the examiner was the WAPs and CNs having complementary
`
`functionality, some of which the other did not have; as compared to that heavyweight
`
`WAPs that have “complete functionality.” This allegedly distinguishing feature,
`
`however, was well known in the prior art. In fact, one such prior art reference, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,508,801 (“Calhoun”) that was directed to lightweight APs to be used
`
`with CNs in a WLAN, anticipated this and every other limitation of the Challenged
`
`Claims. Likewise, the named inventors of Calhoun contributed to contemporaneous
`
`papers and standard setting submissions that added further detail to the elements of
`
`Calhoun and that render the Challenged Claims obvious. Accordingly, this Petition,
`
`which relies on Calhoun and the related non-patent literature, demonstrates by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`will prevail with respect to at least one of these claims and it is respectfully requested
`
`that the Board institute an IPR, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.108.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’531 Patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting this review. 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a). This
`
`Petition is filed under 37 C.F.R. §42.106(a).
`
`III. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`As explained here and in the Declaration of Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Kevin
`
`Negus (EX-1012), the systems/methods claimed in the ’531 Patent were obvious
`
`over the prior art to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`A.
`Summary of the ’531 Patent
`The ’531 Patent relates to “split architecture” WLANs, where various network
`
`functions are divided between one or more central CNs and several WAPs. EX-
`
`1001, 1:20-25, 7. In split architecture systems, certain “control aspects” of the
`
`WLAN are centralized in one or more CNs while other aspects of the WLAN are
`
`performed by the WAPs. Figure 1 illustrates this split architecture and shows a CN
`
`connected to two WAPs, which themselves serve various mobile terminals:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The ’531 Patent admits that “many WLAN equipment manufacturers” had
`
`introduced split architecture systems and that “[t]here are currently some efforts to
`
`provide standardized means” for managing them, such as by the Control and
`
`Provisioning of Wireless Access Points working group created by the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (“IETF”). EX-1001, 1:20-34.
`
`The ’531 Patent states that earlier efforts did “not consider the problems of
`
`accommodating WAPs with dissimilar functional capabilities within a single
`
`WLAN” and that “WLAN entities from various vendors are incapable of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`interoperation in a single WLAN and are also incapable of operation in a dynamic
`
`topology WLAN.” EX-1001, 1:34-37, 1:64-67. The ’531 Patent describes an
`
`apparatus/method for negotiations between CNs and WAPs of a WLAN, “based on
`
`policies that allow for accommodating static and dynamic differences among the
`
`WLAN entities” and “provide[s] a method and policy for negotiations between
`
`WLAN entities for the purpose of determining selected subsets of functional, load,
`
`or other components to be processed by each of said WLAN entities so as to
`
`accommodate variations in system design, processing load or network topology.”
`
`EX-1001, 3:13-32.
`
`The ’531 Patent references Figure 1 to explain its purported invention. The
`
`different “functional components” of each “WLAN entity” (e.g., the CN and WAPs)
`
`are represented by “functional component codes” (‘a,’ ‘b,’ and ‘c’). EX-1001, 7:9-
`
`26. These functional codes are logical representations of functional components of
`
`the WLAN, and “may include encryption, decryption, medium access control
`
`protocol data unit (MAC PDU) processing, authentication, association, [...], etc.”
`
`EX-1001, 7:9-16. Figure 1 shows WAP 107 with only a subset of the functional
`
`components of WAP 105, demonstrating that because the “WAPs may be from
`
`different manufacturers or of different implementations, they may incorporate
`
`among them varying degrees of WLAN functional components.” EX-1001, 7:38-50;
`
`Ex. 1012 ¶XX.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’531 Patent purports to solve the problem of WAPs with different
`
`functional capabilities by offering methods for dividing functions between WAPs
`
`and CNs. EX-1001, 5:49-51, 9:4-8. The ’531 Patent describes these negotiations in
`
`Figure 2:
`
`Figure 2 describes three “phases” of interaction between the WAPs and the
`
`CNs. First, in a “discovery” phase, a WAP discovers an available CN. EX-1001,
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`8:44-51. Second, in an “association phase” the WAP associates with a chosen CN in
`
`a process that “may include mutual authentication, exchanges of security
`
`information and the establishment of communication protocols for further
`
`exchanges.” EX-1001, 8:62-67. Third, in a “negotiation phase” the CN obtains
`
`information about the “functional capabilities” of the associated WAP and
`
`“determines an initial division of WLAN functionality” between the CN and the
`
`WAP. EX-1001, 9:10-9:22. The CN can obtain information about a WAP’s
`
`functional capabilities by the WAP sending a message containing capability
`
`information or by the CN “infer[ring]” the capabilities based on the WAP’s ability
`
`to process a data unit sent by the CN. EX-1001, 11:24-27.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`Application No. 10/591,184, which became the ’531 Patent, was filed on May
`
`14, 2007. EX-1001, (22), (86). Originally filed claim 1 referred to “negotiation
`
`means” and required that the WAPs and CNs be “capable” of providing a subset of
`
`complete functionality” in the WLAN. Ex. 1002, at 79; Ex. 1012 ¶XX. The
`
`Examiner rejected claim 1 as anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2003/0035464 (“Dehner”).
`
`EX-1002, pp.304-311. Claim 1 was amended to its issued form by replacing
`
`“capable of processing a subset of complete functionality” with “for processing a
`
`subset of complete functionality,” replacing “negotiation means” with “negotiation
`
`unit,” and making some additional conforming edits, such as removing the reference
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`to a CN providing “same or different complementary functionality.” EX-1002,
`
`p.324. The Applicant argued that Dehner’s WAPs (called “NAPs”) all “have the
`
`same and complete functionality,” which was different from claim 1, which
`
`“presume[s] that each WAP has a different set of functional components.” EX-1002,
`
`p.335.
`
` The Applicant argued Dehner did not disclose a CN providing
`
`“complementary functionality” to a WAP because “complementary functionality”
`
`necessarily meant “providing functionality to a WAP which the WAP does not
`
`have.” EX-1002, p.336 (emphasis in original). Dehner did not disclose this
`
`limitation because its “NAPs” had the “same and complete functionality.” EX-1002,
`
`p.335.
`
`The Examiner withdrew the rejections based on Applicant’s arguments (EX-
`
`1002, p.373) and the claims issued.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`For this IPR, Petitioner proposes that each claim term of the Challenged
`
`Claims be given “their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a POSA
`
`at the time of the claimed invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312,
`
`1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Petitioner contends that no specific construction of any claim
`
`term is required because the prior art relied on in this Petition meets each of the claim
`
`terms under any reasonable construction. EX-1012 ¶96. However, if the Patent
`
`Owner (“PO”) argues and the Board determines that certain limitations should be
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`construed as means-plus-function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6,
`
`Petitioner proposes that the Board adopt the below structures for these limitations:
`
`Limitation
`“negotiation unit for the
`single or plurality of
`WAPs ...” (claim 1)
`
`“discovering unit ...”
`(claim 7)
`
`“a secure connection
`negotiating unit ...”
`(claim 7)
`
`Structure
`Steps 205, 207, 209, 211,
`213, 215, 219 and 221 in
`Figure 2 and the
`applicable text in 8:62-
`10:53 of the ’531 Patent
`Step 201 in Figure 2 and
`the applicable text in
`8:43-51 of the ’531
`Patent
`Steps 205, 207, 209, 211,
`213, 215, 219 and 221 in
`Figure 2 and the
`applicable text in 8:62-
`10:53 of the ’531 Patent
`
`Function
`“dynamically negotiate
`with the control node for
`a secure connection and
`function split
`arrangement”
`“discovering an available
`CN within a specified
`domain”
`
`“negotiating a secure
`connection with a CN
`that may provide the
`complementary
`functionality desired by
`the WAP”
`“establishes a secure
`connection with the CN
`that provides the
`complementary
`functionality”
`
`For these terms, Petitioner has identified the closest disclosed structure in the ’531
`
`Patent that relates to the recited function, but by doing so, Petitioner does not intend
`
`to, and does not, waive any argument that the structure for performing the claimed
`
`functions is not sufficiently disclosed in the ’531 Patent.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`Priority of the Challenged Claims
`The PCT application that led to the ’531 Patent was filed March 1, 2005. EX-
`
`1001, (22). In related District Court litigation, PO has asserted that the ’531 Patent
`
`is entitled to a priority date of at least as early as March 2, 2004. For this Petition,
`
`Petitioner relies on references that are prior art as of the earlier March 2, 2004
`
`priority date alleged by PO.
`
`E.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A POSA would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`or a related field and at least two years of professional experience in wireless
`
`communications. Ex-1012, ¶25. Alternatively, a POSA would have had a more
`
`advanced degree, such as a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or an
`
`equivalent field, combined with at least one year of work experience in wireless
`
`communication. Id.
`
`A POSA would also have been familiar with wireless communications
`
`network and equipment, and would have had a working knowledge of the applicable
`
`standards-based protocols and architectures for common wireless networks at the
`
`time, and an understanding of the components and subsystems within available
`
`wireless communication equipment. Ex-1012, ¶24. The level of skill in the art is
`
`further demonstrated by the references cited herein, including the asserted art and
`
`the background references discussed in §IV.F below. Regardless of tense used,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner’s analysis is from the perspective of a POSA as of the time of the
`
`purported invention.
`
`F.
`State of the Art
`This section describes the state of the art, general knowledge, skill, common
`
`sense, and creativity possessed by a POSA as of March, 2004, and explains the
`
`conventional purposes, methods, and components in the art, informing the
`
`motivations and reasonable expectations of success.
`
`1.
`802.11
`The IEEE 802.11 WLAN standard (“802.11-1999”) was published in August,
`
`1999. EX-1009, p.iii; EX-1008, p.7. 802.11-1999 describes “a medium access
`
`control[] and a physical layer[] specification for wireless connectivity for fixed,
`
`portable, and moving stations within a local area.” EX-1009, §§1.1, 1.2. The main
`
`addressable unit in 802.11 is a “station” or “STA,” and 802.11 also describes the
`
`functionality of a specific device, called an “access point” or “AP.” EX-1009,
`
`§§5.2.1.1, 5.2.2; EX-1008, p.7. Each STA “associates” with only one AP at a time.
`
`EX-1009, §5.4.2.2. Multiple APs may be connected together to make an “extended
`
`service set” (EX-1008, pp.7-8) knowns as a WLAN.
`
`2.
`Centralized Management of WLANs
`Traditional WLANs functioned on a “stand-alone basis” using “fat” APs,
`
`which contained “all wireless processing capabilities.” EX-1007. However, by
`
`2003, “centralized security and management of [WLANs] was a rapidly growing
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`trend.” EX-1007. One problem with the fat AP architecture was that it would not
`
`let “different vendors’ equipment interoperate.” Id. This led to the development of
`
`“lightweight” APs that used WLAN CNs “to create and enforce policies across many
`
`streamlined, or lightweight” APs. Id. An advantage of having lightweight APs
`
`paired with CNs was that it simplified the hardware in light APs, and turned the APs
`
`into “essentially remote radio frequency interfaces that no longer house all the
`
`mandatory wireless remote processing capabilities and are controlled by the access
`
`controller.” Id.
`
`The IETF proposed a new working group to create a new WLAN architecture,
`
`with this working group called “Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
`
`(CAPWAP-WG).” Id.; EX-1008, p.1. In 2003, CAPWAP-WG was considering a
`
`draft standard called “Lightweight Access Point Protocol (LWAPP),” which was
`
`proposed to “provide consistent behavior across WLAN devices, ensure multi-
`
`vendor WLAN compatibility, protect WLAN hardware investments, [] create a
`
`foundation
`
`for delivering advanced WLAN
`
`functionality
`
`in enterprise
`
`environments[,] simplify WLAN deployment and management, and build large-
`
`scale wireless networks.” EX-1007.
`
`3.
`CAPWAP
`CAPWAP was created because there was “overwhelming support in the
`
`market for a new WLAN architecture.” EX-1008, p.9. CAPWAP’s architecture,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`“moves much of the functions that would reside in a traditional [AP] to a centralized
`
`access router (AR).” Id. CAPWAP’s architecture, also called “Split AP,” put “real-
`
`time components of the 802.11 protocol in the [AP], while access control
`
`components of the 802.11 protocol terminate in the [AR].” Id., pp.9-10.
`
`A benefit of CAPWAP’s architecture included “ease of use” because a WLAN
`
`was “centrally manag[ed]” as a system instead of a series of discrete components,
`
`making “management and control of the WLAN easier.” Id., p.9. Terminating
`
`management messages in the AR also provided for enhanced mobility without
`
`needed special client software. Id. Further, having a centralized AR manage RF
`
`links enabled “efficient load balancing” across multiple APs making the wireless
`
`network more efficient. Id., pp.9-10. CAPWAP explicitly references using the
`
`“LWAPP protocol” with the CAPWAP architecture. Id., p.10.
`
`CAPWAP discloses four possible network topologies where APs and ARs are
`
`linked: (1) “ARCH0,” where a “classic AP” has “a self-contained controller” and
`
`communicates with other APs, (2) “ARCH1,” where APs “defer all WLAN
`
`functions other than real-time services” that creates a “vertical (real-time frontend
`
`AP and aggregated backend AC) functional distribution,” (3) “ARCH3,” where APs
`
`“shift some normally real-time functions as well to the backend,” with benefits such
`
`as extending “over-the-air[] protection,” and (4) “ARCH4,” where the AR becomes
`
`a “single ‘AP-switch’” and treats all connected APs as smart antennae. Id., p.10.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`CAPWAP Figure 1 shows the “basic outline of communications architecture
`
`between AP & [AR].” Id., p.12.
`
`4.
`LWAPP
`LWAPP is “a protocol allowing a router or switch to interoperably control and
`
`manage a collection of wireless [APs].” EX-1006, p.2. LWAPP’s “goal is to
`
`provide consistent behavior across WLAN devices, ensure multivendor WLAN
`
`interoperability, protect WLAN hardware investments, and create a foundation for
`
`delivering advanced WLAN functionality in enterprise environments.” EX-1007.
`
`Further, LWAPP governs how APs and ARs communicate with each other, and
`
`defines activities including WAP “discovery and authentication,” “access point
`
`information exchange, configuration[,] and software control,” and “communications
`
`control and management between access point and wireless system devices.” Id.
`
`LWAPP centralizes “traffic handling, authentication, encryption[,] and policy
`
`enforcement (quality of service and security) capabilities within the access
`
`controller, improving the effectiveness of WLAN management.” Id.
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
`A. Challenged Claims
`Claims 1, 7, and 13 of the ’531 Patent are challenged in this Petition.
`
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`The Challenges are set forth in detail below and summarized as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ground Claim(s)
`1
`1, 7, 13
`2
`1, 7, 13
`
`Basis Reference
`§102
`Calhoun
`§103
`Calhoun in view of CAPWAP and
`LWAPP (referred to as
`“Calhoun/CAPWAP/LWAPP”) in
`view of the knowledge of a POSA
`
`C.
`Prior Art Basis
`U.S. Patent No. 7,508,801 (“Calhoun”) titled “Light-weight Access Point
`
`Protocol” was filed on March 21, 2003 and issued March 24, 2009. EX-1005, (10),
`
`(22), (45), (54), (75). Calhoun is prior art to the ’531 Patent under at least §102(e).
`
`Light Weight Access Point Protocol (LWAPP) by P. Calhoun, B. O’Hara, S.
`
`Kelly, and R. Suri (“LWAPP”) was published as a draft by the Internet Engineering
`
`Task Force (IETF) of the Internet Society on June 28, 2003. Ex-1006, 1. LWAPP
`
`is publicly available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/pdf/draft-calhoun-seamoby-
`
`lwapp-03, and was publicly accessible to a member of the interested public as of at
`
`least July 3, 2003. EX-1016, ¶¶1-10. LWAPP is prior art to the ’531 Patent under
`
`at least §102(a)-(b).
`
`Architecture for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
`
`(CAPWAP) (“CAPWAP”) was published by the IETF on October 20, 2003. EX-
`
`1008,
`
`1.
`
`
`
`CAPWAP
`
`is
`
`publicly
`
`available
`
`at:
`
`https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/pdf/draft-mani-capwap-arch-00, and was publicly
`
`available to a member of the interested public as of at least October 22, 2003. EX-
`
`1016, ¶¶1-9, 11. CAPWAP is prior art to the ’531 Patent under at least §102(a)-(b).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, and 13 are Anticipated by Calhoun
`1.
`Calhoun (EX-1005)
`a.
`Analogous Art
`Calhoun relates to methods and systems for “facilitating the deployment and
`
`configuration of managed access points in a wireless network system” including
`
`system architectures in which “a central control element manages and controls one
`
`[or] more access elements.” EX-1005, 1:17-20, 2:1-10. EX-1012, ¶¶102-114.
`
`Calhoun is analogous art, is in the same field of endeavor, and is reasonably pertinent
`
`to the problem addressed by the ’531 Patent because Calhoun’s solution includes “a
`
`central control element” that “provides processing to dynamically configure a
`
`wireless Local Area Network,” including “functionality directed to initialization and
`
`configuration of managed access elements.” EX-1005, 3:46-49, 4:31-37; EX-1012,
`
`¶115.
`
`b. Overview of Calhoun
`Calhoun explains that “known WLAN solutions use distributed access points
`
`to act as bridges between the wired infrastructure and the wireless clients.” Id., 1:45-
`
`47. This “distributed architecture create[d] many problems affecting network
`
`management, mobility, and performance” because APs “act in their own self–
`
`interest and are not aware of the actions taken by surrounding access points” and
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`because APs handle mobility “as a local event, which significantly increases
`
`latency.” Id., 1:58-67.
`
`Calhoun discloses a new “system architecture” where a “central control
`
`element manages and controls one or more access elements,” so that the “access
`
`elements perform real-time communication functions,” while the “central control
`
`element manages the connection between the access element and one or more
`
`wireless client devices.” Id., 2:1-10. Calhoun further discloses “systems facilitating
`
`deployment and configuration of managed access points in wireless network
`
`systems,”
`
`including “light-weight management protocols
`
`that reduce
`
`the
`
`management footprint” of managed APs. Id., 2:24-39.
`
`2.
`
`Detailed Application to the Challenged Claims
`a.
`Claim 1
`[1pre] A system for providing service in a wireless local area network
`comprising:
`If the preamble is limiting, Calhoun discloses it expressly or inherently.
`
`Calhoun discloses a system “facilitating the deployment of managed access points
`
`in a wireless network system,” with Figure 1 disclosing a WLAN 10 that includes
`
`“access elements 12-15 for wireless communication with remote client elements 16,
`
`18, 20, 22 and central control elements for controlling and managing the wireless
`
`connections between the access elements 12-15 and the remote client elements.”
`
`EX-1005, 1:17-20, 3:10-18, Fig. 1 (annotated below); EX-1012, ¶¶267-268.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`[1a] a single or plurality of wireless access points (WAP) for processing a subset
`of complete functionality defined for the wireless local area network;
`Calhoun discloses this limitation explicitly or inherently. Calhoun’s wireless
`
`LAN includes “access elements 12-15 for wireless communication with remote
`
`client elements”. EX-1005, 3:13-15. These “access elements perform real-time
`
`communication functions, such as data transfer and acknowledgements” but without
`
`“manag[ing] the connection between the access element and one or more wireless
`
`client devices.” EX-1005, 2:6-10, 2:65-3:1; EX-1012, ¶279. A POSA would
`
`understand that these “access elements” are “managed access points.” EX-1012,
`
`¶278; EX-1005, 1:17-20, 2:26-32.
`
`These access elements “are coupled via communication means using a
`
`wireless local area network (Wlan) protocol (e.g., IEEE 802.11a or 802.11b, etc.) to
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`the client remote elements 16, 18, 20, 22.” EX-1005, 3:27-30. These access
`
`elements do not “perform link layer management functions, such as authentication
`
`and association” for “the wireless LAN management messages passed on from the
`
`client remote elements,” but instead “provide immediate acknowledgement of the
`
`communication of those messages without conventional processing thereof.” EX-
`
`1005, 3:43-46, 3:51-58; EX-1012, ¶280.
`
`Thus, a POSA would understand that Calhoun discloses one or more WAPs,
`
`such as the “managed access points” or “access elements.” These access elements
`
`are “for processing a subset of the complete functionality defined for the wireless
`
`local area network,” such as “operating in 802.11 wireless networks” but not other
`
`network functionality, e.g., “link layer management functions, such as authen