Docket No. 2016-1519, -1520, -1528 (IPR2014-00682 and IPR2014-00801)
PROST, WALLACH, CHEN
March 27, 2017
Brief Summary: Board determination that the claims did not “require the ‘data collection and processing center’ to directly analyze some data that enters the network” and were therefore invalid for obviousness affirmed.
Summary: IV appealed Board determinations that certain claims of US 6,715,084 driected to systems and methods for “broad scope” network-intrusion detection (as compared to detection in a single computer) were unpatentable. Commerce cross-appealed Board determination rejecting their challenge that ‘084 claim 33 was unpatentable but this was dismissed as it was one of the claims found to be unpatentable. In IPR ‘682 the Board concluded the claims would have been obvious in view of two prior art references (Porras and Cheswick). Porras was found to “describe a hierarchical system of ‘surveillance monitors’ (or ‘modules’), one at the enterprise level, others at individual gateways.” The Board found that under the broadest reasonable construction (Cuozzo, US 2016) the claims did not “require the ‘data collection and processing center’ to directly analyze some data that enters the network” and were thus disclosed by Porras. The FC panel explained that it reviewed the construction de novo “because there was no factual evidence introduced that is pertinent to the construction” (Teva, US 2015; D’Agostino, FC 2016). It agreed with the Board’s claim construction “in light of the specification and prosecution history”. IV argued the cited part of the specification “describes an unclaimed embodiment” but the FC panel found “no basis for treating [that] passage as unclaimed except for [IV’s] prior conclusion that the orindary meaning of the claim language simply cannot include the described arrangement” which was not accepted by the court. The FC panel also disagreed with IV’s arguments that “detecting an anomaly” limitation cannot include indirect analysis because the specification distinguishes between “detecting” and “classifying” anomalies. The prosecution history was found to “suggest that the claimed systems differed from the prior art because they were limited to broad-scope detection, i.e., collecting data from multiple hosts, not because the claimed systems were limited to direct analysis of raw data.” Thus, the Board’s construction was affirmed. And since IV did “not argue that Porras fails to disclose the required claim elements under the Board’s construction”, the FC panel affirmed the obviousness decision of IPR ‘682. This left “no live issue” in IPR ‘081 and it was therefore dismissed (Synopsys, FC 2016). In IPR ‘801, the Board found claims 26, 28 and 30-32 but not claim 33 to be anticipated by “Aucsmith” but this was not addressed in this opinion.