`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
`
`