Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: November8, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`DAEDALUSBLUE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`ARTHUR M.PESLAK,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DenyingInstitution of Inter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: November8, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`DAEDALUSBLUE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`ARTHUR M.PESLAK,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DenyingInstitution of Inter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes
`review of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,381,209 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’209 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Daedalus Blue, LLC (“Patent Owner’’) filed
`
`a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). In accordance with
`
`Board authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to the Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 9) and Patent Ownerfiled a Sur-Reply (Paper 10).
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when“the
`
`information presented in the petition . .. and any response .
`
`.
`
`. showsthat
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`
`to at least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Uponconsideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
`evidence of record, we declineto institute review of the challenged claims of
`
`the ’209 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that related district court litigations are Daedalus
`
`Blue, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:20-cv-01152 (W.D.Tex.) (“the district
`
`court case”) and Daedalus Blue, LLC v. Oracle Corp. et al., No. 6:20-cv-
`
`00428 (W.D. Tex.) (terminated). Pet. 4; Paper 4,2.
`
`B. The ’209 Patent
`
`The ’209 patent relates to “virtual machine migration with filtered
`network connectivity which includes enforcing network security and routing
`at a hypervisorlayer at which a virtual machinepartition is executed and
`which is independent of guest operating systems.” Ex. 1001, 1:11—-15. The
`’209 patent describesthat “in order to perform maintenance onorprovide a
`fail-over for a processor device or machine, it is desirable to move or
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`migrate a virtual machine (VM) from one processor machineor device to
`
`another.” Jd. at 2:27~-30. The ’209 patent seeks to address shortcomings of
`
`conventional approaches for VM migration (id. at 4:31-40), which include
`
`“a complex update scheme to update the ACLs[access control lists] in the
`
`real switches andthefilters in the firewalls,” and “very little network
`
`security” (id. at 3:6—11).
`
`Figure 4, reproduced below,illustrates an embodimentfor “securing a
`
`filtered network, including enforcing network security and routing at a
`
`hypervisor layer.” Jd. at 8:31-34.
`
`copy network security and routing for the virtual machine to —_ 401
`the hypervisorlayer
`
`400
`
`
`migrating the virtual machine trom a first hardware device to a 402
`a second hardware device
`
`updating
`pdating
`
`routing controls for the virtual machine at the
`Bea
`i
`hypervisor level
`
`.
`
`403
`
`
`
`updating traffic filters for the virtual machine at the
`hypervisorlevel (e.g., by setting hypervisor firewalls ta
`
`
`permit networktraffic for the virtual machine to access the
`
`second hardware device)
`
`
`
`advertising (c.g., by said second hardware device) the
`migration of said virtual machine fromthe first hardware
`
`device to the second hardware device
`
`404
`
`407
`
`406 \
`
`rowing network traMc for Ute
`virtual machine to the sccond
`hardware device based on ihe
`routing controls
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`granting to the virtual machine on
`said second hardware device based
`on the traffic fillers (e.g.. ACLS).
`
`FIGURE 4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`Figure 4 shows a method, beginning with step 401, which “copies
`
`network security and routing for the virtual machine to the hypervisor
`
`layer.” Id. at 8:37-39. Then, the method “migrates the virtual machine from
`
`a first hardware device to a second hardware device”in step 402, “updates
`
`routing controls for the virtual machine at the hypervisor level”in step 403,
`“updatestraffic filters for the virtual machineat the hypervisorlevel”in
`step 404,“and advertises the migration ofthe virtual machine from thefirst
`hardware device to the second hardware device”in step 405. Jd. at 8:39-46.
`
`In steps 406 and 407, networktraffic for the virtual machineis routed to the
`
`second hardware device based on the routing controls and access is granted
`
`to the virtual machine on the second hardware device based onthetraffic
`
`filters. Id. at 8:47-51.
`
`The ’209 patent describes that by copying security and routing to the
`
`hypervisor layer, “the user will see no difference in operation.” Id. at 9:25—
`28. For example,“the first and second device .
`.
`. would eachact the same,
`
`and preferably, would each have the same internet protocol (IP) address.”
`Id. at 9:29-31. Moreover, because “the hypervisor layer providestraffic
`
`filtering and routing updating,”“the real switches do not need to be updated
`
`at the first and second hardware devices.” Jd. at 9:39-42.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1—8 of the ’209 patent. Claim 1 is
`independent, and claims 2-8 depend therefrom. Claim 1 is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`1. A computer implemented method of controlling network
`security of a virtual machine,
`the method comprising
`enforcing network security and routing at a hypervisor layer
`via dynamic updating of routing controls initiated by a
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`migration of said virtual machine from a first device to a
`second device.
`
`Ex, 1001, 15:39-43.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1-8 are unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds(Pet. 7):!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C §
`
`10300
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dhawan’, Clark‘
`Dhawan, Clark,
`Ware
`Dhawan,Clark,
`
`
`
`
`' Although Petitioner adds the general knowledge of a person ofordinary
`skill in the art to the express statement of each alleged ground of
`unpatentability (Pet. 7, 36, 45, 55), that is not necessary. Obviousnessis
`determined from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. We
`leave out the express inclusion of the general knowledge of one with
`ordinary skill.
`? The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’209 patent wasfiled on
`January 3, 2007. Ex. 1001, code (22). Because the filing date is before the
`effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, werefer to the pre-AIA
`version of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`3U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2007/0079307 A1, published Apr. 5, 2007
`(Ex. 1005, “Dhawan”).
`4 “Five Migration of Virtual Machines” (Ex. 1006, “Clark”). Petitioner
`asserts a publication date of May 3, 2005, and a public accessibility date of
`February 28, 2006. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1009).
`> “Isolation of Shared Network Resources in XenoServers” (Ex. 1007,
`“Warfield”). Petitioner asserts a publication date of November 2002, and a
`public accessibility date of December 2002. Pet. 7-10 (citing Exs. 1024—
`1045).
`6U.S. Patent No. 8,107,370 B2,filed Apr. 6, 2005, issued Jan. 31, 2012
`(Ex. 1008, “Chandika”).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`U. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In this inter partes review, claims are construed using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claims inacivil
`
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). The claim
`
`construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.
`
`See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc).
`
`“enforcing... at a hypervisorlayer via
`dynamic updating ofrouting controls”
`
`Claim 1 recites “enforcing network security and routing at a
`
`hypervisor layer via dynamic updating of routing controls.” Ex. 1001,
`
`15:40-42. Patent Ownerarguesthatin the district court case, Petitioner
`
`proposes construing this phrase to mean “upon migration, automatically
`changing the routing controls at a hypervisor layer to rout networktraffic for
`
`the virtual machine to the second device.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing
`
`Ex. 2010, 4). Although Patent Ownerarguesthat it does not agree with the
`
`proposed construction or propose its own construction (id. at 15-16), Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments regarding whytheprior art fails to meet the phrase are
`
`based on a construction that the phrase requires “dynamic updating of
`
`routing controls at the hypervisor layer.” Id. at 30-39. We understand
`
`Petitioner also to construe the phrase to require “dynamic updating of
`
`routing controls at the hypervisor layer.” Pet. 38; Ex. 1003 {J 130, 132.
`
`The parties’ proposed construction is consistent with the Specification of the
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`°209 patent. Ex. 1001, 5:8—16, 5:24—25, 5:59-60, 6:11—15, 8:41-42, 9:39-
`
`40, 9:58-62, 10:40-42, Fig. 4 step 403. Thus, for purposes of this Decision
`
`weagree with the parties’ construction that “enforcing network security and
`
`routing at a hypervisor layer via dynamic updating of routing controls”
`
`requires “dynamic updating of routing controls at the hypervisorlayer.”
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any
`
`other claim terms. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed
`
`that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs.
`
`in the context of an inter partes review).
`
`B. Principles ofLaw
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousnessis resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and contentofthe priorart;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the priorart;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art;? and (4) whenin evidence, objective
`
`7 Relying on the testimony of Dr. Markus Jakobsson,Petitioner offers an
`assessmentasto the level of ordinary skill in the art and the knowledge of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’209 patent. Pet. 21-25
`(citing Ex. 1003 JJ 51, 56-75). For example, Dr. Jakobssonstates that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`indicia of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
`
`(1966).
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 3, and 6 over Dhawan, and Clark
`
`Petitioner contends claims 1, 3, and 6 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dhawan and Clark. Pet. 36-45. In
`
`support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr. Markus
`
`Jakobsson. Jd. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Dhawan
`
`Dhawan“relates in general to the field of information handling
`
`systems and, more specifically, to the flexible and secure transfer of packets
`
`by carrier virtual machines.” Ex. 1005 § 2. Dhawan describes that “virtual
`
`machine migration is generally implemented on physical servers that share a
`
`common poolof data storage resources.” Jd. J 11. ““Whena virtual machine
`
`migrates to other nodesa virtual volume manager, working in concert with
`
`virtual machine manager, can provide the necessary routing and redirection
`
`functionality to transport data stored in VSDs[Virtual Storage Devices]
`
`across SAN and LAN fabrics.” Jd. Dhawan recognizes a need, however,
`
`“for an improved way of securely managing data and processesacross
`
`physical hosts.” Jd. { 16.
`
`degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent degree
`and at least three years of work experience in the field of cloud computing,
`virtual machines, computer networks and systems, and/or a similar field.”
`Ex. 1003 951. Patent Owner does not propose an alternative assessment.
`See Prelim. Resp. 14. To the extent necessary, and for purposesof this
`Decision, we accept the assessmentoffered by Petitioneras it is consistent
`with the ’209 patent and the assertedpriorart.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below,illustrates an embodimentof an
`
`information handling system. Jd. | 35.
`
`information
`System>
`
`100
`
`142
`
`\ "134“NetworkAltached Storage. 1'
`\
`1
`\
`'\
`!
`!t
`
`
`
`Carer
`140
`
` Manager
`Virtual
`f
`.
`
`
`
`Machine
`Information
`
`Handling
`
`Systems
`
`
`
`
`4146 Virtual Machine
`Monitor
`Carrier
`
`
`
`120 Virtual Machine
`i
`Guest Operating
`System
`
`
`
`
`130
`
`Storage Area
`Network
`4132
`
`108
`
`
`
`
`aN
`
`etwork
`Storage
`Interface
`
`Application
`122
`
`Secure
`
`FIGURE 1
`
`Figure 1 showsthat information handling system 100 includesvirtual
`
`machine monitor 116 residing in system memory 112 and supporting a guest
`operating system 118. Jd. Virtual machine monitor 116 implements carrier
`virtual machine 120, which can interact with application 122 and secure data
`
`124. Id. Virtual machine carrier manager 142 manages virtual machine
`
`packets and implements routing and policy management for the virtual
`
`machines. Id.
`
`Figure 4, reproduced below,illustrates a TCP/IP network for
`
`implementing carrier virtual machines. Jd. { 41.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`
`Carrier Virtual
`
`400 Machine Network
`
`3368 Application
`
`
`322 Application
`
`426 Carrier Virtual Machine
`Payload 429
`
`432 VM
`
`436 Data
`
`
`
`tO
`
`sth
`
`/ Implementation
`
`
`
`438 Virtual Machine
`
`
`Payload 429
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TTTa
`
`314 Physical
`
`
`
`
`Router
`
`
`
`2328 Physical
`
`326 Network
`
`330 Network Access Protocol 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Network
`
`
`128
`Figure 4
`
`Figure 4 showshost 302 connected to host 304 through network 128. Id.
`
`Application 322 on host 302 includes carrier virtual machine 426, which
`
`contains “virtual machine autorun scripts 428, and a payload 429 that
`
`includes operating systems 430, other virtual machines 432, applications
`
`434, and data 436.” Id. 942. “[C]arrier virtual machine 426 is migrated
`
`from participating physical host 302 using a multi-layer communications
`protocolstack .. . through network 128 to router 306.” Jd. 43. Thereafter,
`carrier virtual machine 426 completes its migration to host 304 as virtual
`
`machine 438, and “carrier virtual machine 426 on participating physical
`
`host ‘1’ 302 can be destroyed(if required by security policies).” Jd.
`
`Figure 5a, reproduced below,illustrates a carrier virtual machine.
`
`/d.
`
`1 46.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`Carrier
`Virtual Machine
`
`500
`
`124 Secure Data
`
`122 Application
`
`120 Carrier Virtual
`—= Machine
`
`[Autorun
`Scripts 428
`
`504 VM Packet Management
`
`116 Virtual Machine Monitor
`
`506 Predetermined Routing Table
`
`508 Routing and Policy Wrapper
`
`Figure 5a showscarrier virtual machine 120 associated with VM packet
`management 504 and predetermined routing table 506. Jd. VM packet
`management 504 includes “security mechanismssuch as accesscontrollists
`(ACLs),usagepolicies, directory roles, etc.” Id. | 47. “[P]redetermined
`routing table 506 managesoriginating and terminating network address” and
`“can translate between physical network addresses and virtual network
`
`addresses.” Jd. 948. Further, “virtual machine monitor 116 can interact
`with routing and policy wrapper 508 to access information contained by
`predeterminedrouting table 506 and/or VM packet management504 to
`facilitate the secure transfer of data across a network environment.” Jd. 50.
`
`2. Clark
`
`Clark relates to “[ml]igrating operating system instances acrossdistinct
`physical hosts.” Ex. 1006, 1. In particular, Clark is “concerned with the
`migration oflive, in-service OS instances on fast ne[t]works with only tens
`
`1]
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`of milliseconds of downtime.” Jd. at 2. Clark describes a process that
`
`begins “with an active VM on physical host 4.” Jd. at 4. “A request is
`
`issued to migrate an OS from host A to host B,” and “all pages are
`
`transferred from A to B.” Jd. The OSis suspendedat host A, and its
`
`networktraffic is redirected to host B. Id. After commitmentofthe
`
`migration transaction, “host A may now discard the original VM,and host B
`
`becomesthe primary host.” /d. “Post-migration code runsto reattach
`
`device drivers to the new machine and advertise moved IP addresses.” Id.
`
`3. Discussion
`
`Claim 1 recites “enforcing network security and routing at a
`
`hypervisor layer via dynamic updating of routing controls initiated by a
`migration of said virtual machine from a first device to a second device.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:40-43. Petitioner contends “Dhawandisclosesthis limitation
`
`or at least renders it obvious when combined with Clark.” Pet. 36. First,
`
`Petitioner argues that “Dhawanteaches a migration of a virtual machine
`
`from a first device to a second device.” Jd. at 36—38 (citing Ex. 1005 {fj 17,
`
`20, 43).
`
`Second, Petitioner argues that the virtual machine migration “initiates
`
`dynamic updating of routing controls,” because “the routing controls that
`once directed traffic to the virtual machine atthefirst physical host must be
`
`updated to routethattraffic to the virtual machine’s new physical location
`on the second host.” Jd. at 37 (citing Ex. 1003 § 135; Ex. 1005 { 20).
`
`Petitioner further argues that “routing table 506—which ‘manages
`originating and terminating network addresses’—maps betweenthe virtual
`network addresses and their new corresponding physical network
`
`addresses.” Jd. at 37-38 (citing Ex. 1005 J 48). Petitioner contends that
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`Dhawan’s virtual machine monitor (hypervisor) “interact[s]
`with routing and policy wrapper 508 to access information
`contained by predeterminedrouting table 506.. . to facilitate
`the secure transfer of data across a network environment.” /d.,
`[0050] (e., dynamically updating routing controls at the
`hypervisor layer).
`
`Id. at 38. As explained above, we agree with the parties’ construction that
`
`“enforcing network security and routing at a hypervisor layer via dynamic
`
`updating of routing controls” requires “updating of routing controls at the
`
`hypervisor layer.” Patent Owner argues, and weagree, that Petitionerfails
`
`to show how “‘interact{ing] with’ or ‘accessing’ information is[]
`
`‘updating,’ .. . of routing controls’ ‘at a hypervisor layer.’” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 34. In particular, Dr. Jakobssontestifies, in a conclusory manner,that
`
`Dhawan’s “hypervisor [virtual machine monitor] updates the migrated
`
`virtual machine’s routing controls.” Ex. 1003 4 132; id. ¢ 130.
`
`Dr. Jakobsson furthertestifies, however, that “the virtual machine migration
`
`initiates updating routing table 506,” not updating of routing controls at the
`
`hypervisor layer (virtual machine monitor). Jd. J 135 (citing Ex. 1003 4 48);
`
`id. J 136 (“a POSITA would have understood that when a virtual machine’s
`physical address changes dueto a physical migration, the routing table must
`be updated to reflect that change if the migrated virtual machine is to
`
`.
`
`continue receiving networktraffic.”). Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently
`
`howthe virtual machine monitor (“hypervisor”) interacting with the routing
`
`and policy wrapper 508 to access information contained by routing table 506
`
`results in “dynamic updating of routing controls at the hypervisor layer” as
`
`asserted. Pet. 38; Ex. 1003 4§ 135-136.
`
`Petitioner argues that to the extent Dhawan doesnot teach
`
`dynamically updating the routing controls, Clark teachesthis limitation. Pet.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`38. Specifically, Petitioner contends Clark teaches a virtual machine
`
`migration that a person ofordinary skill in the art would have understood as
`
`initiating an advertisement that “causes the routing controls to dynamically
`
`update.” Id. at 38-39 (citing Ex. 1003 JJ 138-139; Ex. 1006, 4). Petitioner
`
`further contends that using ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) to advertise
`
`reconfigures peers to send packets to the new physical address. Jd. at 39
`
`(Ex. 1006, 4). Petitioner asserts that the reconfigurations are dynamic
`because they occur continuously with each advertisement consistent with a
`routing protocol. Jd. Petitioner then contendsthat “Clark’s hypervisor
`
`layer, i.e., virtual machine monitor, facilitates the dynamic routing updates.”
`
`Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1006, 2, 7). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have modified Dhawan’s methodin view of Clark “to
`
`dynamically update routing controls by advertising the virtual machine
`
`migration”to “ensure[] that the virtual machine’s datatraffic is routed to the
`
`correct location post-migration.” Jd. at 39-40 (citing Ex. 1003 ff 141-142).
`
`Although Petitioner points out that Clark’s virtual machine monitor
`
`“facilitates the dynamic routing updates,” it appears to us that Petitioneris
`
`not relying on Clark’s virtual machine monitor to meet the claimed
`
`hypervisor layer, but rather is proposing to include using Clark’s ARP.
`Id. at 38-40; Ex. 1003 Jf 141-144. In any event, to the extent Petitioneris
`
`relying on Clark’s virtual machine monitor as the claimed hypervisor, we
`agree with Patent Owner(Prelim. Resp. 37-38)that Petitioner hasfailed to
`show that Clark’s virtual machine monitor (hypervisor) facilitating dynamic
`
`routing updates is the same as updating routing controls at the hypervisor
`
`layer.
`
`Each of claims 3 and 6 dependsdirectly from independent claim 1.
`
`For claims 3 and6, Petitioner does not present arguments or evidencethat
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s contentions identified above with
`
`regard to claim 1. Pet. 41-45. Forall of the above reasons, weare not
`
`persuadedthat Petitioner has established a reasonablelikelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge that claims 1, 3, and 6 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dhawanand Clark.®
`
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 2, 4, and 5 over Dhawan, Clark, and
`Warfield
`
`Petitioner contends claims 2, 4, and 5 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dhawan, Clark, and Warfield. Pet. 45-
`
`55.
`
`1. Warfield
`
`Warfield relates to “virtualizing network resources so that they may
`
`be shared acrossa set of isolated virtual machines (VMs).” Ex. 1007, 2. In
`
`particular, Warfield “describes the design approach that has been taken for
`
`the first public release of the XenoServers hypervisor, Xen.” Id. at 4.
`“Individual virtual machines may have one or morevirtual interfaces, each
`
`of which appears as a point-to-point Ethernet link to an IP router.” Jd.
`
`Xen’s network system “consists of a virtual firewall router, which is a rule-
`
`based packetclassification/forwarding engine (based on the Linux
`
`netfilter/IPTables code) responsible for simple, fast packet handling.” Jd.
`
`Warfield’s described “approach presents a model in which VMsappear as
`
`isolated as they would be were they separate physical machines on a shared
`
`switching element.” Jd. at 5.
`
`8 Because wefind Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s remaining arguments.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Eachof claims 2, 4, and 5 dependseither directly or indirectly from
`
`independent claim 1. For claims2, 4, and 5, Petitioner does not present
`
`arguments or evidence that remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s
`
`contentions identified above with regard to claim 1. Pet. 45-55.
`
`Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded
`
`that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevail in its challenge that claims 2, 4, and 5 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dhawan, Clark, and Warfield.
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 7 and 8 over Dhawan, Clark, Chandika,
`and the Knowledge ofa Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner contends claims 7 and 8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Dhawan,Clark, and Chandika. Pet. 55-61.
`
`1. Chandika
`
`Chandika describes “systems and methods for interconnecting a
`
`restricted device and a network,”andin particular, “a device for accessing
`
`the network [that] has various input ports, with each port having an
`
`associated parameter whose valueis either restricted or unrestricted.”
`
`Ex. 1008, 1:55-60. In an embodiment, an access device has packet detectors
`
`220 that include content addressable memory (CAM)222. Id. at 4:33-36.
`
`The device can extract fields from the header of each received packet for
`
`packet detectors 220 to examine. Jd. at 4:37-41. If extractedfields are
`
`found via a lookup in CAM 222, “then the packet matchesa restricted
`pattern and thus the packet is restricted.” Jd. at 4:42-45. CAM 222can be
`“configured to hold access parameters based on access control lists (ACLs),”
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`which “allow dynamic configuration of the set of restricted patterns that are
`
`to be detected.” Jd. at 4:51—-55.
`
`2. Discussion
`
`Each of claims 7 and 8 dependseitherdirectly or indirectly from
`
`independent claim 1. For claims7 and 8, Petitioner does not present
`
`arguments or evidence that remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s
`
`contentions identified above with regard to claim 1. Pet. 55-61.
`
`Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded
`
`that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`prevailin its challenge that claims 7 and 8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Dhawan,Clark, and Chandika.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
`
`a reasonablelikelihood that it would prevail in showing that any of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’209 patent are unpatentable.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly,it is:
`
`ORDEREDthatthe Petition is denied asto all challenged claims, and
`
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00832
`Patent 8,381,209 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Donald Daybell
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`D2bptabdocket@orrick.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lauren Robinson
`Brenda Entzminger
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`lrobinson@bdiplaw.com
`bentzminger@bdiplaw.com
`
`
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
