`
`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 8,270,384 B2
`Issue Date: September 18, 2012
`
`Title: WIRELESS POINT THAT PROVIDES FUNCTIONS FOR A WIRELESS
`LOCAL AREA NETWORK TO BE SEPARATED BETWEEN THE WIRELESS
`POINT AND ONE OR MORE CONTROL NODES, AND METHOD FOR
`PROVIDING SERVICE IN A WIRELESS LOCAL AREA NETWORK HAVING
`FUNCTIONS SEPARATED BETWEEN A WIRELESS POINT AND ONE OR
`MORE CONTROL NODES
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2023-01262
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT 8,270,384
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 2 
`III.  Reasons for the Requested Relief .................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Summary of the ’384 Patent .................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 6 
`C. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7 
`D. 
`Priority of the Challenged Claims ......................................................... 8 
`E. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 8 
`F. 
`State of the Art ...................................................................................... 9 
`1. 
`802.11 .......................................................................................... 9 
`2. 
`Centralized Management of WLANs ....................................... 10 
`3. 
`CAPWAP .................................................................................. 11 
`4. 
`LWAPP ..................................................................................... 13 
`Identification of Challenges ........................................................................... 13 
`A. 
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 13 
`B. 
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ....................................................... 13 
`C. 
`Prior Art Basis ..................................................................................... 14 
`Identification of How the Challenged Claims are Unpatentable ................... 15 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1-6 are Anticipated by Calhoun ............................. 15 
`1. 
`Calhoun (EX-1005) ................................................................... 15 
`2. 
`Detailed Application to the Challenged Claims ....................... 16 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`B.  Ground II: Claims 1-6 are Obvious over
`Calhoun/CAPWAP/LWAPP in view of a POSA’s Skill and
`Knowledge ........................................................................................... 37 
`1. 
`CAPWAP .................................................................................. 37 
`2. 
`LWAPP ..................................................................................... 38 
`3.  Motivation to Combine Calhoun with CAPWAP and
`LWAPP ..................................................................................... 38 
`Detailed Application to the Challenged Claims ....................... 41 
`4. 
`VI.  The Board Should Not Exercise its Discretion to Deny Institution .............. 62 
`A. 
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution Under Fintiv ........................ 62 
`B. 
`This Petition Presents Arguments Not Before the Examiner .............. 65 
`VII.  Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. §42.8 .................................................... 67 
`A. 
`Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................ 67 
`B. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................... 67 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................ 68 
`D. 
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................. 68 
`VIII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 69 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.) ...............................................................................................................................67
`
`Regulatory Cases
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-L Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-
`01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) .......................................................................................... 65-66
`
`HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, IPR2020-01084, Paper 13 (Jan. 14, 2021) ............................64
`
`PEAG LLC v. Varta Microbattery GMBH, IPR2020-01214, Paper 8 (Jan. 6, 2021) ....................63
`
`Puma N. Am., Inc. v. Nike, Inc., IPR2019-01058, Paper 10, 19 (Oct. 31, 2019) ...........................67
`
`Sand Revolution II LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (June 16, 2020) ........................................................................ 63-64
`
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (Dec. 1, 2020).......................63
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ...........................................................................................................................1, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 ................................................................................................................. Passim
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8 ..............................................................................................................................67
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) .....................................................................................................................67
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) .....................................................................................................................67
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) .....................................................................................................................68
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) .....................................................................................................................68
`
`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 8,270,384 (“’384 Patent”)
`Prosecution History of the ’384 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,045,531 (“’531 Patent”)
`Prosecution History of the ’531 Patent
`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. Aaron, “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”)
`IEEE 802.11-1999
`[Omitted]
`RFC 5412, Lightweight Access Point Protocol, P. Calhoun et al,
`(February 2010)
`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. 8,270,384 (“’384 Patent”) (EX-1001).
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that Claims 1-6 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’384
`
`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 CNs sending information about their functions to the AP in the
`
`form of “discovery response messages including information of functions offered by
`
`the associated control node of said one or more control nodes.” 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 and 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 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 ’384 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 has been filed less than one year after the date on which the Petitioner or a
`
`privy of the Petitioner was served with a Complaint alleging infringement of ’384
`
`Patent. This Petition is filed under 37 C.F.R. §42.106(a).
`
`III. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`As explained in this Petition and the Declaration of Petitioner’s Expert, Dr.
`
`Kevin Negus (EX-1012), the apparatus and methods claimed in the ’384 Patent were
`
`anticipated and obvious in view of the prior art to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSA”) at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`Summary of the ’384 Patent
`The ’384 Patent relates to the field of “split architecture” WLANs in which
`
`the various functions of the network are divided between one or more central CNs
`
`and several WAPs. EX-1001, 1:20-25, 1:38-41. In split architecture systems,
`
`certain “control aspects” of the WLAN are centralized in CNs while WAPs perform
`
`other aspects of the WLAN. The ’384 Patent illustrates this split architecture in
`
`Figure 1, which depicts a CN
`
`connected to two WAPs. The ’384
`
`Patent acknowledges that, as of its
`
`filing, “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 operating under the umbrella of the Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”).
`
`EX-1001, 1:36-53.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`According to the ’384 Patent, earlier efforts did “not consider the problems of
`
`accommodating WAPs with dissimilar functional capabilities within a single
`
`WLAN.” EX-1001, 1:50-53. The purported result is “WLAN entities from various
`
`vendors are incapable of interoperation in a single WLAN and are also incapable of
`
`operation in a dynamic topology WLAN.” EX-1001, 2:13-16. Accordingly, the
`
`’384 Patent purports to provide an apparatus/method “for negotiations between
`
`controlling nodes (CNs) and wireless access points (WAPs) of a WLAN based on
`
`policies that allow for accommodating static and dynamic differences among the
`
`WLAN entities” and to “provide 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, 3:30-41.
`
`The ’384 Patent explains its purported invention by reference to the traditional
`
`split architecture system displayed in Fig. 1 (shown above). 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, 7:21-35.
`
`These functional codes are “logical[] represent[ations]” of “functional components”
`
`of the WLAN, and “may include encryption, decryption, medium access control
`
`protocol data unit (MAC PDU) processing, authentication, association, […], etc.”
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`EX-1001, 7:26-31. Figure 1, depicting a WAP with a subset of the functional
`
`components of a second WAP, demonstrates 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, 7:53-
`
`65.
`
`The ’384 Patent purports to solve the problem of WAPs with different
`
`functional capabilities by offering methods for dividing functions between WAPs
`
`and CNs. EX-1001, 5:48-51, 9:16-24. The ’384 Patent describes these negotiations
`
`with reference to Figure 2, which reflects three “phases” of interaction between the
`
`WAPs and the CNs. First, in the
`
`“discovery” phase,
`
`a WAP
`
`discovers an available CN. EX-
`
`1001, 8:64-67. Second, in the
`
`“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.”
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`EX-1001, 9:14-16. Third, in the “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, 9:20-
`
`24. According to the ’384 Patent, 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, 11:41-44.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`Application No. 13/235,912, which became the ’384 Patent, was filed on
`
`September 19, 2011, and claimed priority to Application No. 10/591,184 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,045,531, EX-1003). EX-1002, 7. The Examiner rejected the claims
`
`over Architecture for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
`
`(CAPWAP) (“O’Hara”), published February 8, 2004. EX-1002, pp. 243-247. The
`
`Applicant argued in response that O’Hara does not disclose that the discovered CNs
`
`called access routers or “ARs” send information about their functions to the AP
`
`during the AR discovery and thus does not disclose “discovery response messages
`
`including information of functions offered by the associated control node of said one
`
`or more control nodes.” EX-1002, pp.260-267. After an Examiner interview, the
`
`Applicant rewrote claim 1 to incorporate the additional limitation of dependent claim
`
`2, “a negotiation unit configured to exchange information about the functions to be
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`separated between said selected one control node and said wireless point.” EX-1002,
`
`pp. 272-276, 281. 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 ¶103. However, if the Patent
`
`Owner (“PO”) argues and the Board determines that certain limitations should be
`
`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
`“discovery unit
`configured to [send]”
`
`“a selecting unit
`configured to [select]”
`
`
`
`
`
`Structure
`Step 201 in Figure 2 and
`the applicable text in
`8:59-67 of the ’384
`Patent
`Step 203 in Figure 2 and
`the applicable text in 9:1-
`11 of the ’384 Patent
`
`Function
`“send a discovery request
`message to said one or
`more control nodes”
`
`“select one control node
`of said one or more
`control nodes based on
`one or more discovery
`response messages sent
`to said wireless point
`from said one or more
`control nodes in response
`to said discovery request
`message,”
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Limitation
`“session establishing unit
`configured to [establish]”
`
`“negotiation unit
`configured to
`[exchange]”
`
`Function
`“establish a secure
`session with said selected
`one control node”
`
`“exchange information
`about the functions to be
`separated between said
`selected one control node
`and said wireless point”
`
`Structure
`Step 203 in Figure 2 and
`the applicable text in
`9:11-16 of the ’384
`Patent
`Steps 205, 207, 209, 211,
`213, 215, 219, and 221 in
`Figure 2 and the
`applicable text in 9:17-
`11:3 of the ‘384 Patent
`
`
`For these terms, Petitioner has identified the closest disclosed structure in the ’384
`
`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
`
`function of each term is not sufficiently disclosed in the ’384 Patent.
`
`D.
`Priority of the Challenged Claims
`The ’384 Patent was filed September 19, 2011. EX-1001, (22). In related
`
`District Court litigation, PO has asserted that the ’384 Patent is entitled to a priority
`
`date of at least as early as March 2, 2004. For purposes of this Petition, Petitioner
`
`relies on prior art as of the March 2, 2004, priority date alleged by the PO.
`
`E.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A POSA pertinent to the ’384 Patent 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
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`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,
`
`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, including general knowledge, skill,
`
`common sense, and creativity possessed by a POSA as of March, 2004. It 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,
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`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” known as a WLAN. EX-1008, pp.7-8.
`
`2.
`Centralized Management of WLANs
`Traditional WLANs functioned on a “stand-alone basis” using “fat” APs,
`
`which contained “all wireless processing capabilities.” EX-1007. By 2003,
`
`“centralized security and management of [WLANs] was a rapidly growing trend.”
`
`EX-1007. One purported 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 “a WLAN device such as a switch, appliance, or router
`
`. . . to create and enforce policies across many streamlined, or lightweight” APs. Id.
`
`An advantage of having lightweight APs paired with dedicated appliances (called
`
`“access controllers” or “AP controllers”) 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`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,
`
`“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
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`Figure 1 shows the “basic outline of communications architecture between AP &
`
`[AR].” Id., p.12.
`
`CAPWAP further explains that the services that “MUST” be in a lightweight
`
`AP are “those that are directly related to the real-time aspects of the 802.11 MAC
`
`and those related to the radio nature of an 802.11 AP.” Conversely, functions that
`
`may be moved to an AR are “those dealing with the management and control aspects
`
`of an 802.11 AP.” Id., pp.14-15.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 “access point device 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 1-6 of the ’384 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
`1-6
`2
`1-6
`
`Basis Reference
`§102
`Calhoun
`§103
`Calhoun/CAPWAP/LWAPP (referred to
`as “Calhoun/CAPWAP/LWAPP”) in
`view of a POSA’s knowledge
`
`
`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 ’384 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 ’384 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 2, 2003. EX-
`
`1008,
`
`1.
`
`
`
`CAPWAP
`
`is
`
`publicly
`
`available
`
`at:
`
`https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/pdf/draft-mani-capwap-arch-00, and was publicly
`
`accessible to members of the interested public as of October 22, 2003. EX-1016,
`
`¶¶1-9, 11. CAPWAP is prior art to the ’384 Patent under at least §102(a)-(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-6 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, ¶122. Calhoun
`
`is analogous art, is in the same field of endeavor, and is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problem addressed by the ’384 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,
`
`¶122.
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`APs handle mobility “as a local event, which significantly increases latency.” Id.,
`
`1:58-67.
`
`Calhoun discloses a “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 wireless point that provides for functions for a wireless local area
`network to be separated between said wireless point and one or more control
`nodes, said wireless point comprising:
`If the preamble is limiting, Calhoun discloses it explicitly or inherently.
`
`Calhoun discloses an apparatuses that facilitates the deployment of managed access
`
`points in a wireless network system, with Figure 1 disclosing WLAN 10 that
`
`includes “managed access points” in the form of “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
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`elements 12-15 and the remote client elements.” EX-1005, 1:17-20, 3:10-18, Fig. 1
`
`(annotated below); EX-1012, ¶274. In Calhoun’s architecture, a “central control
`
`element” manages one or more “access elements” such that the “access elements
`
`perform
`
`real-time communication
`
`functions, such as data
`
`transfer and
`
`acknowledgements, while the central control element manages the connection
`
`between the access element and one or more wireless client devices.” EX-1005, 2:6-
`
`10, 2:65-3:1; EX-1012, ¶275.
`
`These access elements communicate using an IEEE 802.11 WLAN protocol to
`
`remote clients 16, 18, etc. EX-1005, 3:27-30. The access elements do not perform
`
`all communication functions, e.g., they do not “perform link layer management
`
`functions, such as authentication and association.” EX-1005, 3:43-46, 3:51-58; EX-
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`1012, ¶276. Calhoun further explains that “the division of functionality between the
`
`access elements and the central control elements can be shifted,” including that
`
`“access elements can bridge network traffic associated with the remote client
`
`elements directly, while transmitting management packets to the central control
`
`element,” including when “operating in 802.11 wireless networks.” EX-1005, 9:1-
`
`2, 9:7-11; EX-1012, ¶277.
`
`A POSA would understand that Calhoun discloses a WLAN with one or more
`
`CNs (Calhoun’s “central control elements”), and a wireless point (Calhoun’s
`
`“managed access points” or “access elements”) that “provides for functions for a
`
`wireless local area network to be separated between said wireless point and more or
`
`more control nodes (such as when the “access elements perform real-time
`
`communication functions” while the “central control element manages the
`
`