`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Panasonic Avionics Corp.,
`Petitioner
`
`vs.
`
`Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`———————
`
`IPR2019-00043
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................................. 5
`
`I.  Mandatory Notices ............................................................................................. 6 
`
`A.  Real Party-in-Interest ................................................................................. 6 
`
`B.  Related Matters .......................................................................................... 7 
`
`C.  Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ............................. 10 
`
`II.  Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 10 
`
`III.  Requested Relief .............................................................................................. 11 
`
`IV.  Reasons for the Requested Relief .................................................................... 11 
`
`A.  Summary of the ’459 Patent .................................................................... 11 
`
`B.  Priority Date ............................................................................................ 13 
`
`C.  Prosecution History ................................................................................. 13 
`
`V.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 14 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`“redirection server” ................................................................................. 14 
`
`“one or more of the user side… and the network side…” ...................... 15 
`
`VI.  Statutory Grounds for Challenges ................................................................... 16 
`
`VII.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 17 
`
`VIII. Identification of How the Claims are Unpatentable ........................................ 18 
`
`A.  Claims 91-99, 108-120, and 122-125 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Abraham in view of Malkin and Telia .................................. 18 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Summary of Abraham ..................................................................... 18 
`
`Summary of Malkin ........................................................................ 20 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`3.  Reasons to Combine ........................................................................ 22 
`
`4. 
`
`Summary of Telia ............................................................................ 25 
`
`5.  Reasons to Combine ........................................................................ 26 
`
`6.  Claim 91 .......................................................................................... 28 
`
`7.  Claim 92 .......................................................................................... 51 
`
`8.  Claim 93 .......................................................................................... 52 
`
`9.  Claim 94 .......................................................................................... 53 
`
`10.  Claim 95 .......................................................................................... 55 
`
`11.  Claim 96 .......................................................................................... 57 
`
`12.  Claim 97 .......................................................................................... 58 
`
`13.  Claim 98 .......................................................................................... 60 
`
`14.  Claim 99 .......................................................................................... 63 
`
`15.  Claim 108 ........................................................................................ 64 
`
`16.  Claim 109 ........................................................................................ 67 
`
`17.  Claim 110 ........................................................................................ 70 
`
`18.  Claim 111 ........................................................................................ 72 
`
`19.  Claim 112 ........................................................................................ 73 
`
`20.  Claim 113 ........................................................................................ 73 
`
`21.  Claim 114 ........................................................................................ 74 
`
`22.  Claim 115 ........................................................................................ 74 
`
`23.  Claim 116 ........................................................................................ 74 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`24.  Claim 117 ........................................................................................ 75 
`
`25.  Claim 118 ........................................................................................ 75 
`
`26.  Claim 119 ........................................................................................ 76 
`
`27.  Claim 120 ........................................................................................ 76 
`
`28.  Claim 122 ........................................................................................ 77 
`
`29.  Claim 123 ........................................................................................ 77 
`
`30.  Claim 124 ........................................................................................ 78 
`
`31.  Claim 125 ........................................................................................ 78 
`
`IX.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 80 
`
`X.  Certificate of Word Count ............................................................................... 81 
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 82 
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`October 9, 2018
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE46,459 to Ikudome et al. (“the ’459 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Prosecution File History of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bill Lin under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Bill Lin
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,983,270 to Abraham et al. (“Abraham”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,247,054 to Malkin (“Malkin”)
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`European Patent No. EP0762707A2 to Telia (“Telia”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,779,118
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Prosecution File History of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/009,301
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Prosecution File History of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/011,485
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Prosecution File History of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/012,149
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Prosecution File History of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/012,342
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Prosecution File History of Ex Parte Reexam control no. 90/012,378
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Prosecution File History of Inter Partes Reexam control no.
`95/002,035
`
`Comer, D., INTERNETWORKING WITH TCP/IP (Prentice Hall, 3rd ed.
`1995) (selected pages)
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,824 to He (“He”)
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
` James E. Gaskin, CORPORATE POLITICS AND THE INTERNET (Prentice
`Hall 1997) (selected pages)
`Declaration of Dr. Ingrid Hsieh-Yee
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The Petitioner is Panasonic Avionics Corp. (“Panasonic” or “Petitioner”).
`
`Panasonic is a subsidiary of Panasonic Corporation of North America, which in
`
`turn is a subsidiary of Panasonic Holding (Netherlands) B.V., which is a subsidiary
`
`of Panasonic Corporation, all of which are real parties-in-interest.
`
`The Federal Circuit has stated that “[d]etermining whether a non-party is a
`
`‘real party in interest’” requires “an eye toward determining whether the non-party
`
`is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the
`
`petitioner.” Applications in Internet Time v. RPX Corp., no. 2017-1698, slip op. at
`
`26 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018). Panasonic has a vendor-customer relationship with
`
`multiple companies that have been sued for alleged infringement of the targeted
`
`patent. These companies may benefit from the institution of the requested
`
`proceeding and the cancellation of the patent claims. While the court left open
`
`whether the “relationship” and “beneficiary” factors, standing alone, mandate
`
`naming a non-party as a real-party-in-interest, to ensure compliance with the
`
`Federal Circuit’s guidance in Applications in Internet Time v. RPX Corp., out of an
`
`abundance of caution, and without conceding that these customers are properly
`
`considered real parties in interest, the following companies are identified as real
`
`parties-in-interest:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
` Aerovias de Mexico, SA de CV;
`
` Grupo Aeromexico SAB de CV;
`
` Société Air France a/k/a Air France;
`
` Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. a/k/a KLM Royal Dutch
`
`Airlines;
`
` Air France-KLM SA;
`
` United Airlines, Inc.;
`
` United Continental Holdings, Inc.;
`
` American Airlines, Inc.;
`
` American Airlines Group, Inc.;
`
` WestJet Airlines Ltd.;
`
` WestJet Operations Corp.;
`
` WestJet, an Alberta Partnership
`
` Southwest Airlines Company;
`
` Emirates; and
`
` The Emirates Group.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`Petitioner, U.S. Patent No. RE46,459 (“the ’459 Patent”) is involved in the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`following litigations:
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Panasonic Avionics Corp., No.
`
`8:18-cv-00662 (C.D. Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., No. 2:18-cv-
`
`00862 (D. Nev.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Golden Nugget, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-
`
`00864 (D. Nev.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., No. 2:18-
`
`cv-865 (D. Nev.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. MGM Resorts Int’l, No. 2:18-cv-
`
`00867 (D. Nev.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Wynn Resorts, Ltd., No. 2:18-cv-
`
`00868 (D. Nev.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Deep Blue Commc’ns, LLC, No.
`
`1:18-cv-02441 (E.D.N.Y.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. DCI-Design Commc’ns LLC, No.
`
`2:18-cv-02444 (E.D.N.Y.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Aerovias de Mexico, SA de CV, No.
`
`2:18-cv-03335 (C.D. Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Air Canada, No. 2:18-cv-03337
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`(C.D. Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Société Air France a/k/a Air France
`
`and Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. a/k/a KLM Royal Dutch
`
`Airlines, No. 2:18-cv-03341 (C.D. Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Alaska Air Group, Inc., No. 2:18-
`
`cv-03345 (C.D. Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-
`
`03348 (C.D. Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 2:18-
`
`cv-03349 (C.D. Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. British Airways, PLC, No. 2:18-cv-
`
`03352 (C.D. Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Emirates, No. 2:18-cv-03353 (C.D.
`
`Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-
`
`03354 (C.D. Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Gogo Inc., No. 8:18-cv-00654 (C.D.
`
`Cal.);
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. WestJet Airlines Ltd. and WestJet
`
`Operations Corp., No. 8:18-cv-00657 (C.D. Cal.); and
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
` Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLC v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 8:18-
`
`cv-00660 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`John R. Emerson
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Adam C. Fowles
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`214-651-5533
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`972-739-8649
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 57,456
`
`214-651-5328
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`Russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 44,098
`
`972-739-8674
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`
`adam.fowles.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 65,005
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’459 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting review challenging
`
`the claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`III. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board institute an inter partes review trial for claims
`
`91-99, 108-120, and 122-125 of the ’459 Patent and find these claims unpatentable.
`
`IV. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`As explained below and in the declaration of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Bill
`
`Lin, the subject matter claimed in the ’459 Patent would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) and is therefore unpatentable. This
`
`Petition and Dr. Lin’s declaration identify each element in the prior art and explain
`
`why the claims would have been obvious to a POSITA before the earliest possible
`
`priority date. Accordingly, the challenged claims should be cancelled.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’459 Patent
`
`The ’459 Patent describes “[a] data redirection system” for “dynamically
`
`redirecting and filtering Internet traffic.” Ex. 1001, Abstract; 1:20-22. The system
`
`contemplates “dynamically changing rules” for “redirection, blocking, or allowing,
`
`of specific data traffic for specific users, as a function of database entries and the
`
`user’s activity.” Id., 3:7-11; Ex. 1003, ¶ 26.
`
`The system includes dial-up network server, authentication and accounting
`
`server, database, and redirection server, shown in Fig. 2. Ex. 1001, 4:1-3.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 2.
`
`
`
` A personal computer 100 connects to the Internet via modem or a “local
`
`area network (LAN)” using a “dynamically assign[ed]” or “permanently assigned”
`
`IP address. Ex. 1001, 4:5-7, 4:12-16. The ’459 Patent acknowledges that “dynamic
`
`IP address assignment [is] well known in the art.” Ex. 1001, 4:17-18; Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`27-28.
`
`When a user at the computer 100 connects, the authentication and
`
`accounting server sends to the redirection server “filter and redirection
`
`information… for that user ID” and the IP address. Ex. 1001, 4:19-32. The
`
`“redirection information” is a “rule set” that the redirection server implements for
`
`the IP address. Id., 5:1-8. The “[r]ule sets… are unique for each user ID, or a group
`
`of user ID’s” and “specify elements or conditions about the user’s session.” Id.,
`
`4:53-60, 5:5-12; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 29-30.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`The ’459 Patent teaches changing a user’s access “by editing the user’s
`
`database record and commanding the Auto-Navi component of the authentication
`
`accounting server 204 to transmit the user’s new rule set and current IP address to
`
`the redirection server 208.” Ex. 1001, 5:30-35; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 31-34.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The ’459 Patent is a reissue of U.S. 6,779,118, which claimed the benefit of
`
`provisional application 60/084,014 filed on May 4, 1998. Ex. 1001, p. 1. The prior
`
`art relied upon predates the provisional application. Therefore, a detailed priority-
`
`date analysis is unnecessary.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) filed the reissue application that led to the ’459 Patent
`
`after all of the claims of the surrendered patent were cancelled in a series of
`
`reexaminations. See Ex. 1001, p. 1; Ex. 1002, pp. 124, 481-82; Ex. 1014, p. 17.
`
`In a Preliminary Amendment, PO argued that claim 91 was amended “to
`
`more clearly claim that (1) the redirection server modifies the rule set, and (2) the
`
`redirection server modifies the rule set while the rule set is correlated to the
`
`temporarily assigned network address.” Ex. 1002, p. 496. PO argued that this
`
`“obviates the broader than intended interpretation of the claims” by the Patent
`
`Office during the prior reexamination proceedings. Id. The amended claims were
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`later renumbered and allowed. Id., pp. 162-63 & 119.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The Board ordinarily applies the broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`
`Lee, 579 U.S. ___, slip op. at 17 (2016). But claims expiring before the Board’s
`
`final decision are typically construed in accordance with Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Under this
`
`standard, the claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meanings as
`
`understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-
`
`19.
`
`Because the ’459 Patent will expire during the requested inter partes review
`
`proceeding, a Phillips construction is appropriate. The constructions proposed
`
`below, however, are consistent with both standards.
`
`A.
`
` “redirection server”
`
`The challenged claims all require a “redirection server.” The independent
`
`claims recite that a redirection server is “programmed with a user’s rule set” and
`
`“configured to automatically modify at least a portion of the rule set while the rule
`
`set is correlated to the temporarily assigned network address.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`16:37-49; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 40-42.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`In the ’459 Patent’s specification, the redirection server implements “the rule
`
`set for the IP address,” and blocks, allows, or redirects the packets based on the
`
`rule set. Ex. 1001, 5:5-12. The redirection server “may be implemented to control
`
`(block, allow and redirect) any type of service.” Id., 8:24-26; Ex. 1003, ¶ 43. Based
`
`on these descriptions, the Board previously construed “redirection server” as
`
`“requir[ing] some sort of redirection functionality.” Ex. 1009, pp. 354-355. The
`
`Board also noted that “blocking and allowing are ‘further’ functions of the
`
`redirection server….” Ex. 1009, p. 355.
`
`Consistent with the specification, “redirection server” refers to a server that
`
`is operable to control packets by blocking, allowing, and redirecting. Accordingly,
`
`a POSITA would have understood that the term “redirection server” includes a
`
`server operable to control network access by applying the following actions: block,
`
`allow, and redirect. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 44-45.
`
`B.
`
`“one or more of the user side… and the network side…”
`
`Claim 99 recites “the redirection server modifies the rule set in response to
`
`instructions received by one or more of the user side of the redirection server and
`
`the network side of the redirection server.” Claim 120 recites a similar limitation.
`
`In some instances, the Federal Circuit has ruled that it is appropriate to
`
`construe phrasing such as “at least one of A and B” to mean “at least one of A and
`
`at least one of B.” See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`885-86 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`But applying that interpretation here would conflict with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning of “one or more of the user side… and the network side” as
`
`recited in claims 99 and 120. For example, the ’459 specification refers to
`
`receiving “signals from the Internet 110 side of redirection server 208… used to
`
`modify rule sets” as “another embodiment.” Ex. 1001, 8:3-4. Furthermore, the
`
`specification does not describe any embodiment in which instructions to modify a
`
`rule set are received from multiple sides of the redirection server. Accordingly, the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of the term “one or more of the user side… and
`
`the network side…” is “the user side or the network side.”
`
`VI. STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGES
`
`Claims 91-99, 108-120, and 122-125 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`over U.S. 5,983,270 to Abraham (Ex. 1005) in view of U.S. 6,247,054 to Malkin
`
`(Ex. 1006), further in view of European Patent No. EP0762707A2 to Telia (Ex.
`
`1007).
`
`The ’459 patent is a reissue of U.S. 6,779,118, which was filed on April 21,
`
`1999. Ex. 1001, p. 1. Accordingly, the ’459 patent is treated as a pre-AIA patent.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 100(i)(2); Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`§ 3(n)(1)(A), 125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011).1 Abraham was filed on April 2, 1997 and
`
`claims priority to provisional application 60/040,424, filed on March 11, 1997;
`
`both dates are before the ’459 Patent’s earliest claimed priority date (May 4, 1998).
`
`Thus, Abraham is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Malkin was filed on March 24, 1997, which is before the ’459 Patent’s
`
`earliest claimed priority date. Thus, Malkin is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Telia published on March 12, 1997, which is more than one year before the
`
`’459 Patent’s earliest claimed priority date. Thus, Telia is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b).
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, the
`
`POSITA is someone knowledgeable of and familiar with network security and
`
`access controls, such as firewall configuration and operation, redirection,2 rule-
`
`
`1 The reissue applicant requested treatment as a post-AIA application. See Ex.
`
`1002, pp. 164-65 (requesting AIA treatment). The cited prior art qualifies under
`
`post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (for Telia) and § 102(a)(2) (for Abraham and
`
`Malkin).
`
`2 The ’459 Patent admits that redirection was known in the art. Ex. 1001, 1:47-2:11
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`based packet control, and common networking protocols such as IP, TCP, HTTP,
`
`Telnet, and DHCP. Ex. 1003, ¶ 37; see Ex. 1001, 4:16-18, 8:24-29. That person
`
`would have (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical and/or Computer Engineering,
`
`Computer Science, or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately three years of
`
`experience working in hardware and/or software design and development related to
`
`network security and access controls. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 35-39. Lack of work experience
`
`can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Id.
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Claims 91-99, 108-120, and 122-125 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Abraham in view of Malkin and Telia
`1.
`
`Summary of Abraham
`
`Abraham teaches “managing the communication of data packets” including
`
`“monitoring, logging and blocking” data packets. Ex. 1005, 1:13-17. A “network
`
`server 50” manages IP packets “between the LAN 44 and the Internet 40.” Id.,
`
`6:24-27. This allows “specific rules for the users of the computers connected to the
`
`LAN 44” to be set and changed. Id., 6:27-31; Ex. 1003, ¶ 49.
`
` Figure 2 below illustrates the network server 50 between the LAN 44 and
`
`the Internet 40:
`
`
`(discussing “current redirection technology” (2:7)).
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`Ex. 1005, FIG. 2 (annotated).
`
`
`
`The network server 50 “stores a network management program 80” that
`
`includes a “database 72,” a “filter executive 76,” and a “filter engine 78.” Id., 6:22-
`
`7:3. The database 72 “store[s] information about each user of the LAN 44 and the
`
`policies set for each user.” Id., 7:22-41. The filter executive 76 optimizes the
`
`policies in the database 72 “into a set of rules for each user, and provides the
`
`optimized rules to the filter engine 78.” Id., 7:51-58. The filter engine 78 receives
`
`the optimized rules, updates its rules (i.e., adds, deletes, or replaces rules), and
`
`filters IP packets accordingly. Id., 7:59-67, 43:27-32; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 50-52.
`
`As users log into and out of computers on the LAN 44, the network server
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`maps the users “to the client[] computers connected to the LAN 44 currently being
`
`utilized by those users.” Ex. 1005, 8:1-6. The mapping includes “the user’s login
`
`name” and “Internet protocol (IP) address.” Ex. 1005, 8:8-11. The filter engine 78
`
`receives the mapping (along with user rule sets) so that as “a user logs into and out
`
`of the LAN 44, the filter engine 78 begins or ceases to filter IP packets passing
`
`through to network server 50 for the user.” Id., 8:19-25; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 53-54.
`
`Abraham’s rules can change dynamically during operation, including based
`
`on updated information in database 72. See Ex. 1005, 41:44-52, 43:23-31. The
`
`filter engine 78 “uses the constantly updated rules to filter any IP packets passing
`
`through the network server 50.” Id., 43:33-34; see also id., FIGs. 18, 19, 20; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶¶ 55-56.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Malkin
`
`Like Abraham, Malkin uses “filtering” to deny access to a user “attempting
`
`to exceed their allowed service level.” Ex. 1006, 1:22-25. Malkin explains that a
`
`network server will “typically discard[]” a disallowed packet, leaving the user
`
`“uninformed as to why they are unable to connect or receive their requested
`
`service.” Ex. 1006, 1:25-30.
`
`Malkin describes an improvement by “redirecting packets using
`
`encapsulation” so that the user can receive “a reply to the internet service request
`
`which specifies why the service request was denied.” Ex. 1006, 1:38-55. Malkin
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`uses redirection to provide “a more informative message explaining why”
`
`requested service is denied. Id., 2:12-15. As shown in Fig. 1 below, a Network
`
`Access Server (NAS) redirects the packets. Id., FIG. 1; Ex. 1003, ¶ 57.
`
`Network Access Server 
`(NAS) performing packet 
`redirection 
`
`Ex. 1006, FIG. 1 (annotated); see Ex. 1003, ¶ 95.
`
`The NAS “detect[s] when a service request exceeds a computer operator’s
`
`subscription,” and then “redirect[s] the subscriber’s request (in the form of a
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`packet)” to server 14.3 Id., 2:22-27. Server 14 then “respond[s] to the packet by
`
`generating and sending an appropriate application level reply message to the
`
`subscriber indicating why the request has been denied.” Id., 2:27-30; Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`58-61.
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`It would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Malkin with Abraham
`
`to produce the obvious, beneficial, and predictable results of supplying details
`
`about how to return an explanation to the requesting user about why the network
`
`server filtered the user’s packets. Ex. 1003, ¶ 62.
`
`Abraham describes, for packets blocked by the network server, sending
`
`“violation message[s]” to the requesting client computer. Ex. 1005, 13:62-65.
`
`Although Abraham discusses a “notification thread” used to “alert users when their
`
`request to access a site has been denied” (id., 40:9-12), Abraham does not provide
`
`details about the contents of the message or how it is delivered. Ex. 1003, ¶ 63.
`
`
`3 Malkin calls server 14 a “redirection server,” but Malkin ascribes different
`
`functionality to its “redirection server 14” than the ’459 Patent requires of the
`
`claimed “redirection server.” Malkin’s Network Access Server performs packet
`
`redirection like the claimed “redirection server.” To minimize confusion, this
`
`Petition refers to Malkin’s other device as “server 14.”
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`Malkin provides these details. Specifically, Malkin explains how to obtain
`
`and deliver a message for a denied request with redirection using a network access
`
`server (“NAS”) that redirects rejected requests for service to another server, which
`
`then sends a denial explanation. Ex. 1006, 2:25-30. A POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to apply Malkin’s teachings to Abraham because Malkin teaches in
`
`detail how to deliver access-denial messages that Abraham contemplates but does
`
`not fully describe. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 64-65.
`
`Malkin also describes a “spoofing” technique that provides a message to the
`
`user that appears to come from the expected destination address (i.e., the
`
`destination to which access is denied) instead of the redirected location. Ex. 1006,
`
`2:51-56, 2:66-3:6. Thus, a POSITA would have been further motivated to apply
`
`Malkin’s spoofing technique to allow Abraham’s client computer to receive the
`
`explanation packet with the source address matching the destination address of the
`
`original packet. Ex. 1003, ¶ 66.
`
`A POSITA would have recognized benefits from this combination, including
`
`providing users “with a more informative message” about why a request is denied.
`
`Ex. 1006, 2:12-15. Moreover, Abraham’s “notification thread” relies upon “current
`
`mapping information” to generate a message. Ex. 1005, 49:46-60. If there is not a
`
`current mapping, then “a notification message cannot be sent.” Id., 49:54-56.
`
`Because Malkin’s redirection technique does not depend on mapping information,
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`it would enable Abraham to send its notification message even when no mapping
`
`information is found. Ex. 1003, ¶ 67.
`
`Further, Malkin’s teachings about the return of an appropriate application-
`
`level message provide a pathway in Abraham to notify the user, regardless of what
`
`kind of network-access request a user had made (e.g., HTTP, telnet, FTP, etc.). See
`
`Ex. 1006, 1:14-17, 2:27-36. Since the notification is delivered to the user’s
`
`application on Abraham’s client computer, it removes any need for specialty client
`
`software to facilitate message delivery. Thus, it notably reduces the need to
`
`configure Abraham’s client computer. Ex. 1003, ¶ 68.
`
`The combination would have been nothing more than the combination of
`
`known elements (Abraham’s network server that filters packets with user-specific
`
`rules, and Malkin’s redirection technique for delivering an access-denied message)
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., Abraham’s system
`
`providing a user whose network request is denied with a suitable error message).
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 69.
`
`Any modifications involved in the Abraham-Malkin combination involve
`
`programming skills that are within the capabilities of a POSITA. Ex. 1003, ¶ 70.
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Malkin with Abraham
`
`with an expectation of success. Ex. 1003, ¶ 70. The combination is the use of
`
`known prior-art elements to yield the predictable and beneficial result of
`
`24
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE46,459
`
`explaining to a user why the user’s network request was denied. Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 70-
`
`71.
`
`Additional reasons to combine are provided in the detailed claim analysis
`
`below.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of Telia
`
`Like Abraham and Malkin, Telia describes using a filter to control users’
`
`access to a network, such as the Internet. Ex. 1007, 1:5-10. The filter is controlled
`
`by an authorization server that “controls the access to the IP-network.” Id. The
`
`filter “allows the calling user initially access only to the server where the access
`
`check takes place.” Id., 2:47-53. After checking the user’s access, the authorization
`
`server “transmits a … message to the filter about t