Arista Networks Inc.v.Cisco Systems, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2015

09108071 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7
571-272-7822 Entered: October 22, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
____________

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Arista Networks, Inc., filed a Petition for inter partes
review of claims 1, 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,377,577 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’577 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent
Owner, Cisco Systems, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
2
(“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by
statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration
of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information
presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1, 2, 5, 7–
10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 of the ’577 patent and, therefore, deny the
Petition for inter partes review..
A. Related Matters
The parties state that the ’577 patent is the subject of Cisco Systems,
Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-05343-JSW (N.D. Cal.), filed
December 5, 2014, and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-945 (Network Devices,
Related Software and Components Thereof (II)), filed December 19, 2014).
Pet. 1; Paper 5 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice). The ’577 patent is also
the subject of IPR2015-00973. Petitioner has also filed petitions requesting
inter partes review of other patents owned by Patent Owner: IPR2015-
00974 (U.S. 7,224,668), IPR2015-00975 (U.S. Patent No. 8,051,211),
IPR2015-00976 (U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853), IPR2015-00978 (U.S. Patent
No. 7,340,597), and IPR2015-01050 (U.S. Patent No. 7,023,853).
B. The ’577 Patent
The ’577 patent is titled, “Access Control List Processing in
Hardware,” and relates generally to a method for performing access control
list processing in hardware using an associative memory. Ex. 1001,
Abstract. Data packets transmitted between network devices can be
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
3
restricted using a technique known as “‘access control.’” Id. at 1:6–7. One
access control technique is to use access control lists or “ACLs” to
determine whether to permit or deny transmission of a packet to a particular
destination. Id. at 1:13–15 (“[T]he ACL describes which selected source
devices are permitted (and which denied) to send packets to which selected
destination devices.”).
The Specification provides an example of a known ACL format,
where each ACL includes “access control specifiers.” Id. at 1:17. These
specifiers contain information to match with incoming packets, and then
based on a match, specify a particular access result (e.g., whether
transmission of a packet is “specifically permitted or specifically denied”).
Id. at 1:16–27. Figure 1 of the ’577 patent is reproduced below.

IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
4
Figure 1 is a block diagram of a system for performing access control in
accordance with the ’577 patent. As shown in Figure 1, packet 130 arrives
at one of the system’s packet interfaces 101. Id. at 3:30–31. Routing
element 110 then selects one or more of the output interfaces to which the
packet should be forwarded. Id. at 3:32–36. Prior to forwarding, access
control element 120 determines whether to allow transmission of the packet.
Id. at 3:36–40. Figure 2 of the ’577 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 2 is a block diagram of an access control element which contains
access control patterns. When packet 130 arrives at access control element
120, a packet label 200 is created based on information derived from packet
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
5
header 133 of packet 130. Id. at 4:1–4. The packet label goes to access
control memory 210, which attempts to match information from the packet
label to access control specifiers in memory 211. Id. at 4:34–47.
To perform this matching process, packet label 200 is compared to
label match mask 212 and label match pattern 213 of each access control
specifier 211. Id. If a match is found with a particular access control
pattern, priority encoder 200 selects the corresponding access control
specifier 211 with the highest priority and provides an indicator of that
access control specifier 211 to output port 202. Id. at 4:47–56. The indicator
specifies an access control result, which specifies if the packet should be
transmitted. Id. at 4:57–65.
C. Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 of the challenged claims of the ’577 patent is independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, including the steps of
maintaining a set of access control patterns in at least one
associative memory;
receiving a packet label responsive to a packet, said packet
label being sufficient to perform access control processing for said
packet;
matching matchable information, said matchable information
being responsive to said packet label, with said set of access control
patterns in parallel, and generating a set of matches in response
thereto, each said match having priority information associated
therewith;
selecting at least one of said matches in response to said priority
information, and generating an access result in response to said at
least one selected match; and
making a routing-decision in response to said access result.

IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
6
D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and
28–31 of the ’577 patent are unpatentable based on the following specific
grounds (Pet. 10–45):
References Basis Challenged Claim(s)
Feldmeier
1
35 U.S.C. § 102
1, 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16,
28, 29
Feldmeier and Hendel
2
18–22, 25
Feldmeier

and Muller
3
35 U.S.C. § 103 22, 28, 29, 31
Feldmeier, Muller, and
knowledge of one of
ordinary skill
35 U.S.C. § 103 30
Feldmeier, Muller, and
Elliot
4

35 U.S.C. § 103 25
II. DISCUSSION
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir.
2015). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are

1
U.S. Patent No. 5,920,886, filed March 14, 1997, issued July 6, 1999 (Ex.
1005, “Feldmeier”).
2
U.S. Patent No. 6,081,522, filed June 30, 1997, issued June 27, 2000 (Ex.
1007, “Hendel”).
3
U.S. Patent No. 5,938,736, filed June 30, 1997, issued Aug. 17, 1999 (Ex.
1008, “Muller”).
4
U.S. Patent No. 5,867,495, filed Nov. 18, 1996, issued Feb. 2, 1999 (Ex.
1019, “Elliot”).
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
7
presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from
its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “access control,”
“associative memory,” “packet label,” “responsive,” and “megapacket.” Pet.
6–9. We determine that the terms “associative memory,” “packet label,”
“responsive,” and “megapacket” do not require express construction for
purposes of our Decision.
As to the term “access control,” Petitioner asserts that “[a] person of
skill in the art would have understood ‘access control’ to encompass
restrictions or modifications of the transmission of a packet.” Pet. 6.
Petitioner relies on the following passage from the Specification:
[T]he invention can be used to augment or override routing
decisions otherwise made by the router, using the access control
element 120. In addition to specifying the packet 130 is to be
dropped or forwarded to the higher-level processor, the access
control element 120 can alter the output interface, which was
selected by the routing element 110, to another selected output
interface. The invention can thus be used to implement QOS
(quality of service), and other administrative policies.

Ex. 1001, 6:9–18.
Patent Owner asserts “the plain and ordinary meaning of
‘access control’ is ‘restriction of packets from being transmitted from
selected source devices to selected destination devices.’” Prelim.
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
8
Resp. 10. Patent Owner relies on the following passage from the
Specification (id.):
In a computer network for transmitting information, messages
can be restricted from being transmitted from selected source
devices to selected destination devices. In known computer
networks, this form of restriction is known as “access control”
and is performed by routers, which route messages (in the form
of individual packets of information) from source devices to
destination devices.

Ex. 1001, 1:4–10. Patent Owner also cites certain dictionary
definitions. Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner states that “modifying”
transmission is “nowhere in the record.” Id. Nonetheless, Patent
Owner does not explain why the embodiment cited by the Petitioner
above is not relevant to construing the claims.
Because the embodiment cited by Petitioner suggests that
access control may be used to change the destination address of a
packet, we apply a broader definition than proposed by Patent Owner.
We find the broadest reasonable construction of “access control” to
include restrictions or modifications on the intended destination
address to which a packet is to be transmitted.
Patent Owner also asserts that the terms “access result” and
“access control specifiers” should be limited to permit or deny
decisions about packets based on essentially the same argument as
above. Prelim Resp. 11–12, 14–15. Petitioner does not provide a
construction for those terms. We decline to limit those terms as
Patent Owner requests for the same reasons stated above.
We find that no other claim terms need to be explicitly defined.
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
9
B. Asserted Anticipation by Feldmeier
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 28, and 29 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Feldmeier. Pet. 14–
33. Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. H. Johnathan Chao. Ex. 1003.
1. Feldmeier (Ex. 1005)
Feldmeier describes techniques for a networking device to perform
hierarchical address translation and filtering. Ex. 1005, 1:7–10. Feldmeier
specifically describes using a content addressable memory (“CAM”) to aid
in hierarchical address translation (i.e., routing packets to the correct
network based on the hierarchical organization of network addresses). Id. at
5:32–35, 13:19–21. When a packet is received, Feldmeier describes
reviewing the packet header information and performing a lookup against
the information stored in the CAM. Id. at Fig.14, 13:24–27. Based on
performing a lookup, a decision is made about whether to pass the packet
forward, or to discard it. Id. Feldmeier also describes how to choose
between multiple matches using the relative priority of the various matched
entries in the CAM. Id. 11:10–12.
2. Analysis
Petitioner contends that Feldmeier discloses all the limitations of
independent claim 1 and of dependent claims 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 28, and 29.
As to claim 1, Petitioner asserts Feldmeier discloses maintaining access
control patterns in an associative memory including receiving a packet label,
matching information from the packet label with the access control patterns
to generate a match with an associated priority, then generating a result
based on a selected match and making a routing decision in response to that
result. Pet. 14–21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–69).
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
10
Claim 1 recites determining forwarding permission for the packet,
“matching matchable information . . . with said set of access control patterns
in parallel, and generating a set of matches in response thereto” and
“generating an access result in response to said at least one selected match”
Ex. 1001, 7:39–47. Petitioner asserts Feldmeier discloses these limitations
because “Feldmeier [discloses] searching the CAM for the address that was
extracted from the packet . . . and Feldmeier states that the ‘comparand’ in
the search is ‘the address that is being searched for in the CAM.’ Pet. 18
(citing Ex. 1005, 10:64–66.). In other words, Petitioner asserts the address
matching is the claimed “matching.” Petitioner further asserts Feldmeier
discloses that a packet will either be discarded or routed on to a destination
depending on the information received following the CAM lookup. Ex.
1005, 13:24–27 (“Demultiplexer 1430 routes the packet received from input
packet queue 1410 to either output packet queue 1450 or to discard line 1460
depending on the signal received from network address lookup 1440.”); see
also id. at Fig.14.
Patent Owner argues Feldmeier does not disclose “generating an
access result in response to said at least one selected match.” Prelim. Resp.
21–25. Although we did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of
“access control,” Patent Owner nevertheless makes a salient argument.
Patent Owner asserts “the ‘address of the matching entry,’ [of Feldmeier] at
most, provides a destination for Feldmeier’s system to forward the packet
(i.e., an ordinary packet forwarding or routing decision that does not include
the step of access control).” Id. at 22. Patent Owner continues, stating “[i]n
fact, where a matching address entry is found, the packet is forwarded; there
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
11
is no disclosure to generate any access result to restrict access to the
destination identified in the table.” Id.
We note that Feldmeier discloses that “[a]ddress filtering is a process
similar to address translation, except that rather than retrieving the data
associated with an address, the process simply determines whether the
address exists in a table of addresses.” Ex. 1005, 1:19–22. Feldmeier
further discloses that “[t]he term address translation, as used herein, includes
both address translation and address filtering operations.” Id. at 1:22–24.
Also, as cited by Petitioner, “Demultiplexer 1430 routes the packet . . . to
either output packet queue 1450 or to discard line 1460 depending on the
signal received from network address lookup 1440.” Id. at 13:24–27.
Finally, “[n]etwork address lookup 1440 is an apparatus for performing
hierarchical address translation[s] according to an embodiment of the
invention.” Id. at 13:19–22. These passages suggest that a translation that
yields no match (filtering) results in the packet being sent to the discard line.
In contrast, the Specification supports that a successful match leading
to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12,
27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things,
“determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 24
(“Feldmeier never discloses that its firewall device makes a decision to
permit or deny a packet based on a matching entry in the network address
lookup.”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown that, even
under our broad construction of access control, an affirmative match in
Feldmeier can result in a modification or a denial of packet forwarding, as
required by claim 1.
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
12
For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown
sufficiently that Feldmeier discloses all of the limitations of independent
claim 1. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable
likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that independent claim 1,
or claims 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 28, and 29 that depend therefrom, are
anticipated by Feldmeier.
C. Asserted Obviousness Grounds
Petitioner argues that: dependent claims 18–22, 25 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Feldmeier and Hendel; dependent claims 22,
28, 29, and 31 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Feldmeier
and Muller; dependent claim 30 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Feldmeier, Muller, and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill; and
dependent claim 25 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Feldmeier, Muller, and Elliot. As discussed above, Petitioner has not shown
sufficiently that Feldmeier discloses “generating an access result in response
to said at least one selected match,” as is required by independent claim 1.
Additionally, for these grounds, Petitioner does not rely on Hendel, Muller,
Elliot, or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill to teach or suggest this
limitation or otherwise cure the deficiency in Feldmeier. Thus, upon review
of Petitioner’s analysis and supporting evidence and Patent Owner’s analysis
and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated
that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the
ground that claims 1, 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 are
unpatentable.
IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
13
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
presented does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
would prevail at trial with respect to at least one claim of the ’577 patent,
based on any grounds presented in the Petition. On this record, we deny the
Petition for inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 7–10, 12–16, 18–22, 25,
and 28–31.
ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that that the Petition is DENIED as to all challenged
claims, and no trial is instituted.

IPR2015-01049
Patent 6,377,577 B1
14

PETITIONER:
Walter Renner
Kevin E. Greene
David Goren
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
IPR40963-0004IP1@fr.com
axf@fr.com

PATENT OWNER:
Lori A. Gordon
Robert G. Sterne
Jon E. Wright
Byron L. Pickard
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
bpickard-PTAB@skgf.com