US 6832249

I'll search for the specific patent number and check for any CAFC 2026 activity.

Let me run additional targeted searches for the patent and any 2026 appellate activity.

Let me check for any 2026 appellate or district court activity involving this patent.

US Patent 6,832,249 — Summary

Sourcing note: Direct queries against USPTO full‑text/PatentCenter and for a Federal Circuit 2026 docket entry returned no results for this number. The most authoritative source available to me is the full patent text you supplied (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6832249](/patent/US6832249)/en), which I treat as controlling. Where I could not verify something, I say so rather than infer it.

Front matter (from the authoritative text)

Assignment chain of record (as listed): assigned to Enron Broadband Services, Inc. (2001-08-07) → Intellectual Ventures Patent Holdings III, LLC (2003-07-22) → Corps of Discovery Patent Holding LLC (2005) → Rateze Remote MGMT. L.L.C. (2015) → Intellectual Ventures Assets 135 LLC (2019) → CommWorks Solutions, LLC (2020) → Unwired Solutions, Inc. / Unwired Broadband, Inc. (2020–2022). Note the Google Patents header lists "Intellectual Ventures Patent Holdings III LLC" as the original assignee while the assignment log shows the first recorded assignment to Enron Broadband Services, Inc.; I flag this discrepancy rather than reconcile it.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A method for providing broadband communications over a multi-layered network having a plurality of Open System Interconnection (OSI) Reference Model layers functioning therein includes monitoring at least one OSI reference model layer functioning in the multi-layered network. A quality of service event is determined whether to have occurred in the multi-layered network. The quality of service event is determined to have occurred at a layer N in the OSI reference model. Network provisioning is changed at a layer less than N in response to the quality of service event, and a signal is provided when the network provisioning at the layer less than N has been changed. A system for providing broadband communications includes a multi-layered network, a network monitor, and a network controller…"

Overview of the independent claims (plain language)

The text I was given is truncated at the end of the description, so I do not have the verbatim full claim set. Based on the "Summary of the Invention" and Abstract, the patent presents at least two independent claim families:

1. Method claim — A method for providing broadband communications over a multi‑layered network that has multiple OSI Reference Model layers running in it. Steps: (a) monitor at least one OSI layer in the network; (b) determine that a "quality of service event" has occurred; (c) determine that the QoS event occurred at a layer N of the OSI model; (d) change network provisioning at a layer lower than N in response; and (e) signal/indicate that the provisioning change at the sub‑N layer is complete.

   In plain terms: something goes wrong (or an application announces a need) at one layer of the stack, and the system fixes it by re‑provisioning at a lower layer — e.g., a Layer 3 (routing) QoS problem is resolved by changing Layer 2/Layer 1 resources (adding STM‑1 lines, rebalancing fiber/ATM circuits, adding a virtual circuit, or using MPLS to steer traffic at Layer 2).

2. System claim — A system comprising (i) a multi‑layered network with OSI layers, (ii) a network monitor that monitors an OSI layer, determines a QoS event occurred, and determines the event occurred at layer N, and (iii) a network controller that responds to the event by changing provisioning at a layer lower than N.

   Caveat: the Abstract literally states that "the network monitor is adapted to respond … by changing the network provisioning," whereas the Summary and the detailed description attribute the response to the network controller. I read this as an apparent drafting inconsistency in the Abstract; I am not correcting it, merely noting it.

The specification's key architectural element is a resource database that catalogs communication resources (routers, ATM switches, fiber lines, application programs, etc.) by their OSI layer and maintains cross‑layer relationships, so the monitor can identify layer N and the controller can reprovision lower layers. Implementation examples include a Sun Netra T1 server running Solaris, SNMP/RMON monitoring, and the InterAgent® messaging software of U.S. Pat. No. 5,634,010 (incorporated by reference).

Federal Circuit / 2026 docket check

• I found no CAFC 2026 docket entry, opinion, or briefing specifically identifying US 6,832,249. Searches on the number combined with "Federal Circuit," "appeal," and "2026" returned nothing on point.
• What I did find (via litigation-tracking summaries, not primary court records) is district‑court enforcement of this patent by CommWorks Solutions, LLC in W.D. Tex. against Marvell, NXP, and Vyve Broadband, several of which were dismissed without any merits ruling. I could not locate any resulting 2026 appellate activity, and one target search returned no results. Because the patent's adjusted expiration is 2023‑05‑07, any 2026 appellate involvement would necessarily concern past damages/validity rather than ongoing infringement.

Confidence/uncertainty: Front‑matter items, the abstract, and the claim overview above are grounded in the authoritative full text supplied and are reliable. The absence of a CAFC 2026 docket entry is a negative finding based on limited searches — treat it as "not found," not as proof that no such appeal exists. I also could not retrieve a primary USPTO PatentCenter page or the complete verbatim claim set, so the per‑claim wording (including the exact number of independent claims) is reconstructed from the Summary/Abstract and should be verified against the issued claims before being relied on.

I'll research litigation involving US 6832249. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the specific dockets listed and identify defendants.

I have substantial data. Let me verify the remaining dockets and confirm which cases specifically assert the '249 patent.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 6,832,249

Important framing / caveats first. U.S. 6,832,249 ("the '249 patent") has been asserted almost exclusively by CommWorks Solutions, LLC, an acquired-patents NPE. Two things complicate any list:

1. The Google Patents page for the '249 patent displays a "Family has litigation" list of ~18 dockets. That list is family-wide, not '249-specific — several of those suits assert sibling patents (e.g., US 7,027,465; US RE44,904E; US 7,760,664; US 7,177,285; US 7,911,979; US 6,891,807; US 7,463,596) rather than, or in addition to, the '249 patent.
2. I could not retrieve a full PACER record for every docket within my search budget. Below I distinguish (A) cases I could affirmatively tie to the '249 patent from (B) family-listed dockets I could not independently confirm assert '249.

Ownership note (relevant to who may sue): the '249 patent (App. 09/860,801, filed 2001-05-18, priority 2000-05-19, granted 2004-12-14) passed Enron Broadband Services → Intellectual Ventures Patent Holdings III → Corps of Discovery Patent Holding → Rateze Remote MGMT → IV Assets 135 → CommWorks Solutions, LLC (2020-01-03), with a license/corrective assignment to Unwired Solutions, Inc. / Unwired Broadband, Inc. (2020-11-05, corrected 2021-02-04). Google Patents currently lists Unwired Broadband Inc as current assignee. The patent is shown as Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration 2023-05-07).

A. Cases affirmatively involving the '249 patent

B. Family-listed dockets I could NOT independently confirm as asserting the '249 patent

These appear on the Google Patents "family litigation" list but I could not verify the '249 patent was pleaded, so treat them as unconfirmed:

• CommWorks v. Mediacom Communications Corp., S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-07529, filed Sept 14, 2020.
• E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00158 (lead consolidated case for the May-2020 wave), 2:20-cv-00160.
• W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00368, 6:22-cv-01268.
• E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00510, 2:25-cv-00716, 2:26-cv-00088.
• W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00395, 7:26-cv-00043.
• D. Del. 1:21-cv-01323.
• C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-02998 — complaint text indicates CommWorks Solutions v. Broadcom (accused Broadcom SoCs); asserted patents not confirmed as including '249.
• Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation," family 22762567.

Bottom line

• Yes, litigation is known — the '249 patent was asserted in at least ~7 identified actions, all by CommWorks Solutions, LLC, roughly 2020–2025.
• No case reached a merits adjudication of infringement, validity, or claim construction. Every resolved case ended by dismissal (with or without prejudice) or a consent judgment; several others remain pending.
• I found no CAFC appeal involving the '249 patent in these results.

If you need this certified (e.g., for an FTO or damages opinion), the primary sources to pull are PACER for each docket above and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database page at https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6832249, plus the Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist). I'd flag that the E.D. Tex. 2025/2026 dockets and the Broadcom case need docket-level confirmation before you rely on them as '249-specific.

I'll verify the canonical "no PTAB activity" finding with targeted searches before writing this up.

Two more targeted checks to make sure I'm not missing a proceeding indexed under a different party name.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file against US 6,832,249 — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM, and no derivation proceeding. That is the canonical answer from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) and it is confirmed by my independent web searches, which surfaced no petition, institution decision, FWD, or appeal naming this patent. Breakdown by status is therefore undefined: 0 active, 0 invalidated, 0 sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials.

Defensive posture: the patent is entirely untested at the PTAB. It is neither "hardened by surviving IPRs" nor "gutted by canceled claims" — it is a blank slate, and every claim the patent owner asserts is a claim no petitioner has ever challenged at the Board. (Contrast with the framing in the prompt's template: neither of those two stock postures applies here.)

Per-proceeding detail

Not applicable — no proceeding numbers exist to report, and I will not invent them. What follows is the corroboration, the near-misses that a careless search will misattribute to this patent, and the adjacent PTAB activity that matters strategically.

Corroboration of the negative finding

• ODP structured data (canonical): no AIA trial proceedings indexed against 6832249.
• Web searches for the bare number plus "IPR," "PTAB," "petition," "CBM," "Unified Broadband," "CommWorks," and "Unwired Broadband" returned no petition or Board decision against the '249 patent.
• Caveat on completeness: this is a negative finding based on limited searching, not proof of non-existence. Two specific risks to the negative finding:
  1. Indexing lag. The '249 patent's asserted claims have only recently been re-asserted in new 2025–2026 complaints (see below). If a petition was filed in mid-2026, the ODP ingest may not have caught it at the time of this analysis.
  2. Toolchain disruption. The USPTO decommissioned the legacy keyless PTAB API on 2026-01-06 and moved to a key-gated ODP API (per the API vendor documentation surfaced in search), so any pipeline still pointed at the old endpoint could return a silent zero. The ODP block in this prompt is the best available source, but a manual query at PTAB E2E is the right belt-and-suspenders check.

False positives to disregard (do not attribute to this patent)

Adjacent proceeding worth knowing about (sibling patent, same owner)

IPR2021-01297 — Unified Patents, LLC v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC (US 8,923,846)

• Type: IPR
• Filed: 2021-07-30
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims unpatentable
• Panel: APJs Jennifer Meyer Chagnon, Kevin C. Trock, John R. Kenny
• Instituted: 2022-02-14 (all challenged claims)
• FWD: 2023-02-13 — claims 1–6, 9–13, 16–20 unpatentable on § 103 grounds
• Defensive value for this patent: indirect but real. It shows Unified Patents targeted the CommWorks/IP Investments portfolio and won. That Unified has not (so far as I can find) challenged 6832249 is a data point — either the art is weaker, the patent's imminent expiration reduced the deterrent value, or the portfolio priority was elsewhere.

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status of 6832249: every claim is UNTESTED. There are no canceled claims and no sustained claims, because no claim has ever been before the Board. Two things follow. First, a patent owner/plaintiff cannot claim the patent is "hardened" by PTAB survival, and a defendant cannot point to any canceled claim to knock out a demand letter. Second, the ordinary estoppel posture of a serial IPR defendant does not exist here: no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone with respect to this patent, because no one has been a petitioner.

Which claims actually matter. The claim set is large (numbered at least into the 40s). The independent claims I can confirm from the published text are the method claims 11 and 31 and the system claim 38, with 39–47 depending variously from 38. In current enforcement, the patent owner is asserting the system claims — specifically claims 38 and 46 — against optical-line/chipset products. The CommWorks complaint against Broadcom (C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-02998) alleges infringement of "at least claims 38 and 46 of the '249 patent" and maps claim 38's elements ("multi-layered network having a plurality of OSI reference model layers … network monitor … quality of service event occurred at layer N … network controller … changing the network provisioning at a layer less than N"). A defendant facing a letter should therefore expect the theory to be built on claim 38 as the independent anchor, with dependents (e.g., 46, proactive monitoring) as fallbacks. Note that I am working from secondary reproductions of the claim text; confirm the exact issued wording of 38 and 46 against the USPTO face copy before relying on it.

Estoppel landscape. Because there is no petitioner, there is no estoppel. Every § 102/§ 103 ground based on patents and printed publications is still available to any defendant filing an IPR today. Nothing in the file narrows the universe of art.

Pattern signals. (a) Same petitioner, multiple IPRs? No — no petitioner has filed against this patent at all. (b) Defensive aggregator? Yes, in the same portfolio. Unified Patents is the proven adverse party to this patent owner; it killed the sibling '846 patent. It has targeted the CommWorks/IP Investments portfolio but, as far as I can find, not this patent. (c) Aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner? I found no evidence the patent owner here has ever been a party to a PTAB trial on this patent, so there is no appeal pattern to report. (d) Campaign context: the patent is being asserted in a broad, multi-front campaign since 2020 — the Google Patents litigation block lists roughly eighteen district-court cases across W.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., D. Del., S.D.N.Y., and C.D. Cal., including 2025–2026 filings against EarthLink, Broadcom, and others (EarthLink docket, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00716). A patent asserted this widely but never IPR'd is unusual and is the central strategic puzzle for any current defendant.

One structural point that cuts against filing. The patent's legal status is Expired – Lifetime, adjusted expiration 2023-05-07. That means no injunction risk and damages exposure limited to the pre-expiration limitation period. It also means (i) claim construction at the Board would apply Phillips, and (ii) the Board's practice has generally been to permit IPR of expired patents for the purpose of eliminating residual damages exposure — but I would verify that against a current Board decision rather than rely on my recollection, because I have not retrieved a specific authority here.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not rely on this prompt's zero alone. Query PTAB E2E directly (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) by patent number 6832249, and separately by patent owner name ("CommWorks Solutions," "Unwired Broadband," "Unwired Solutions," "Intellectual Ventures Assets 135"). The ODP API key migration on 2026-01-06 is a live risk of a silent zero, and E2E is the primary record.
2. Confirm the § 315(b) window. Because new complaints issued in 2025 (e.g., EarthLink served on/about 2025-07-15; Broadcom complaint in C.D. Cal.), any defendant served on that date faces a one-year IPR bar expiring on or about 2026-07-15. If a petition exists, it was likely filed on or before that date and may simply not be indexed yet. Check for a § 315(b)-driven filing now.
3. No PTAB activity means no free ride on someone else's work. Absent a petition, there is no FWD to cite and no estoppel to leverage. A defendant must build its own § 102/§ 103 case from scratch or rely on district-court invalidity, where § 101 and § 112 grounds remain unavailable at the Board.
4. Coordinate on the sibling precedent. The successful IPR against US 8,923,846 (IPR2021-01297) establishes that Unified Patents and the Board will take on CommWorks-owned patents in this space. If no one has yet petitioned on 6832249, evaluate whether the art used there (or the same prior-art families around OSI-layer QoS provisioning circa 1998–2000) is adaptable to claim 38 — noting the claims here are system claims and will require a different mapping than the '846 method claims.
5. If you find a proceeding I did not, the priority order for review is: the institution decision (grounds actually reached, § 325(d) and Fintiv-type discretionary issues), then the FWD at claim granularity, then any CAFC appeal docket. Quote the FWD's disposition verbatim per claim.

Bottom line: as of 2026-09-13, on the record available to me, US 6,832,249 has never been through an AIA trial. Treat it as an untested patent carrying live asserted claims (38 and 46) rather than a validated or a cancelled one — and treat the absence of any IPR as the signal to investigate, given how widely the patent has been asserted since 2020.

I'll research the assignment record and chain-of-title details before writing. Let me run several searches.

I hit my tool-call ceiling while trying to pull the records directly from the USPTO Assignment Center. Here is the reconstruction with an explicit evidence-grade caveat up front.

Record-integrity caveat (read first)

The assignment records for US 6,832,249 exist — the Google Patents legal-events log reproduced in the authoritative full text lists twelve post-filing ownership events. However, I was unable to retrieve the primary USPTO Assignment Center records (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov is a JavaScript application that my search tooling would not render), so for most entries I do not have:

• per-entry reel/frame numbers, or
• the correspondent of record (the recording attorney/firm).

I will not invent them. Three reel/frame pairs are recoverable because later corrective recordings cite them verbatim in the authoritative text, and I flag those inline:

Verification entry points: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "6832249") and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (same underlying records), plus Google Patents' legal-events tab at https://patents.google.com/patent/US6832249/en.

Inventors

The 2001-08-07 recorded assignment names all three individually as assignors ("Assignors: YEAGER, SCOTT, CISCON, LARRY, REYNOLDS, STEVEN") to Enron Broadband Services, Inc., which establishes the employment/obligation relationship at filing. Residences are Houston-area, consistent with Enron's Houston headquarters.

Unusual patterns observed:

1. The original assignee collapsed within months of filing. The application was filed 2001-05-18; Enron Corp. filed Chapter 11 on 2001-12-02, roughly 6.5 months later. Within ~19 months the inventors' employer's patent estate was on the block. This is the classic precursor signature to a portfolio fire-sale (see signal 6 below).
2. A fourth rights-holder appears in the chain. The 2003 assignment to IV runs from three assignors — Enron Broadband Services, Inc., Enron Warpspeed Services, Inc., and Modulus Technologies, Inc. Modulus is not an Enron-named entity, so at least one inventor apparently had an outside obligation or co-ownership interest. I could not verify Modulus's relationship to any specific inventor, so I am flagging this as a lead, not a finding. It is corroborated only indirectly: the specification incorporates U.S. Pat. No. 5,634,010, which it describes as the InterAgent® communication messaging software used to implement the network controller/monitor.
3. Criminal-proceeding overlay (flagged, low confidence on specifics). My recollection is that F. Scott Yeager was a named defendant in the government's Enron Broadband prosecution (the broadband unit's media/"video-on-demand" fraud case) and that his conviction was later vacated. I did not verify this in the present session and it is not load-bearing for the ownership analysis — treat it as context to confirm from primary court records if you need it.

Original assignee

Enron Broadband Services, Inc. (Houston, TX) — a subsidiary of Enron Corp. Two documentary flags:

• Google Patents' header lists Intellectual Ventures Patent Holdings III LLC as "Original Assignee," while the assignment log shows the first recorded assignment running to Enron Broadband Services. This is the same discrepancy flagged in the earlier patent-summary section. The most likely explanation is that the application was assigned to IV on 2003-07-22, ~17 months before the 2004-12-14 grant, so IV was the assignee of record when the patent printed. Either way, Enron Broadband Services was the applicant-side owner at filing, and IV was the owner at issue.
• Primary line of business: broadband transport and bandwidth trading — fiber capacity, "Enron Intelligent Network"-style bandwidth intermediation, and streaming/media delivery over long-haul fiber. The specification's own prior-art narrative (congestion, peering/MAE bottlenecks, "commercially expedient routing") reads as a direct critique of the carrier/ISP status quo Enron was trying to sell around, which is consistent with the entity's business.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear. The disclosure describes a control system (network controller + network monitor + resource database, Sun Netra T1/Solaris, SNMP/RMON, InterAgent messaging) rather than a product SKU. Enron Broadband marketed network services; I could not confirm a commercial deployment of the claimed cross-layer provisioning control.
• Current status: defunct. Enron Corp. filed Chapter 11 on 2001-12-02; Enron Broadband Services was wound down and its assets sold, including this patent estate. Enron Warpspeed Services, Inc. and Enron North America Corp. also appear as assignors in the same era. Enron's reorganization plan became effective in 2004 (the shell continued as Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. and was liquidated).

Assignment timeline

Chronological, from the authoritative legal-events log. Where reel/frame or correspondent is unavailable I say so rather than guess.

1. 2001-08-07 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved; correspondent not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment (assignment of interest)
• Assignor: Larry Ciscon; Steven Reynolds; Scott Yeager (individually)
• Assignee: Enron Broadband Services, Inc.
• Correspondent: unavailable
• Context: initial inventor → employer assignment, recorded ~3 months after the 2001-05-18 filing.

2. 2002-02-28 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved; correspondent not retrieved

• Conveyance: Security Agreement
• Assignor: Enron Broadband Services, Inc.
• Assignee: JPMorgan Chase Bank
• Correspondent: unavailable
• Context: securitization — the patent pledged as collateral to a secured lender. Recorded ~3 months after Enron's Chapter 11 filing, i.e., inside the bankruptcy window.

3. 2003-07-22 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved; correspondent not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignors: Enron Broadband Services, Inc.; Enron Warpspeed Services, Inc.; Modulus Technologies, Inc.
• Assignee: Intellectual Ventures Patent Holdings III, LLC
• Correspondent: unavailable
• Context: bankruptcy fire-sale — the three-assignor structure is what you see when an estate and its co-owners convey a consolidated portfolio in one instrument.

4. 2005-02-25 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Change of Name ("CHANGE OF NAME (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
• Assignor: Intellectual Ventures Patent Holdings III, LLC
• Assignee: Corps of Discovery Patent Holding LLC
• Context: internal reorg / change of name only — no consideration, no change in beneficial owner. Note this is why the sibling continuation US 8,423,630 (filed 2004-11-01) prints with "Corps of Discovery Patent Holding LLC (Bellevue, WA)" as assignee.

5. 2005-05-11 (recorded) — Reel 015991 / Frame 0670 (per the 2005-05-16 corrective reference)

• Conveyance: Release of Security Interest in Patents
• Assignors: Enron Broadband Services, Inc.; Enron Corp.; Enron North America Corp.
• Assignee: JP Morgan Chase Bank
• Correspondent: unavailable
• Context: release of the 2002 security interest, clearing title after the estate's asset sales — the closing step of the fire-sale.

6. 2005-05-16 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (to correct the document execution date to 2005-05-09; previously recorded at Reel 015991/Frame 0670)
• Assignor/Assignee: same as entry 5
• Context: administrative correction — first appearance of corrective-recording churn in this chain.

7. 2015-12-09 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Merger ("MERGER (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
• Assignor: Corps of Discovery Patent Holding LLC
• Assignee: Rateze Remote MGMT. L.L.C.
• Correspondent: unavailable
• Context: internal restructuring — rateze is a non-operating holding vehicle; no product or consideration indicated. Ten-year dormancy between entries 6 and 7 is consistent with a patent sitting parked in an aggregation portfolio.

8. 2019-11-01 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Rateze Remote MGMT. L.L.C.
• Assignee: Intellectual Ventures Assets 135 LLC
• Correspondent: unavailable
• Context: defensive-to-offensive repackaging — part of IV's 2019 divestiture wave, in which thousands of assets were parceled into numbered "IV Assets" vehicles.

9. 2020-01-03 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Intellectual Ventures Assets 135 LLC
• Assignee: CommWorks Solutions, LLC
• Correspondent: unavailable
• Context: transfer-to-asserter. ~2 months after entry 8, and ~4.8 months before the first '249 infringement suit (E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00159, filed 2020-05-27 per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database).

10. 2020-11-05 (recorded) — Reel 054443 / Frame 0958

• Conveyance: License
• Assignor: CommWorks Solutions, LLC
• Assignee: Unwired Solutions, Inc.
• Correspondent: unavailable
• Context: license, not a title transfer — but see entry 12, which re-characterizes it.

11. 2021-02-04 (recorded) — Reel 056981 / Frame 0631

• Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (to correct the assignee name previously recorded at Reel 054443/Frame 0958; "hereby confirms the license")
• Assignor: CommWorks Solutions, LLC
• Assignee: Unwired Broadband, Inc. (name corrected from Unwired Solutions, Inc.)
• Context: administrative correction of the licensee's legal name — and the source of the "current assignee = Unwired Broadband, Inc." display on Google Patents, even though this instrument is styled a license.

12. 2022-02-16 (recorded) — Reel/frame not retrieved

• Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (to correct the nature of conveyance previously recorded at Reel 056981/Frame 0631; "hereby confirms the assignment")
• Assignor: CommWorks Solutions, LLC
• Assignee: Unwired Broadband, Inc.
• Context: administrative correction with substantive effect — the instrument is now characterized as an assignment, not a license. Net effect, on the face of the record, is that title (or at least a transfer styled as title) moved from the asserter to Unwired Broadband, Inc.

Open question / contradiction to resolve: CommWorks Solutions continued to sue on the '249 patent after 2022 (e.g., W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00835 against Extreme Networks; 6:23-cv-00147 against Vyve; 7:25-cv-00354 against Marvell). If entry 12 truly conveyed title away, CommWorks was asserting as an exclusive licensee or with a license-back. Either the "assignment" in entry 12 is narrower than its label, or a back-license exists that is not reflected in the legal-events log. I also could not verify whether "Unwired Broadband, Inc." (the Google-listed current assignee) is the Fresno, California fixed-wireless ISP of that name or an unrelated holding entity — that distinction determines whether the chain terminates at an operating company or at another shell. Pull the Reel 054443/0958 and 056981/0631 images to settle both points.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6832249
    2001 : Filed by Ciscon Reynolds Yeager
         : Assigned to Enron Broadband Services
    2002 : JPMorgan security agreement recorded
    2003 : Enron bankruptcy sale to IV Holdings III
    2005 : Name change to Corps of Discovery
         : JPMorgan security interest released
    2015 : Merger into Rateze Remote MGMT
    2019 : Transferred to IV Assets 135
    2020 : Assigned to CommWorks Solutions
         : CommWorks sued Consolidated Communications
         : License recorded to Unwired Solutions
    2021 : Corrective recorded to Unwired Broadband
         : Altice filed DJ action in Delaware
         : Unified filed ex parte reexamination
    2022 : Corrective recharacterized as assignment
    2023 : Patent reached adjusted expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
The 2020-01-03 assignment moved the patent from Intellectual Ventures Assets 135 LLC to CommWorks Solutions, LLC. CommWorks is identified by name as an NPE: Unified Patents describes it as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC," a Georgia monetization firm (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/tag/IPinvestments). RPX reporting ties the Georgia LLC family — CommWorks, CDN Innovations, DigiMedia Tech, 21st Century Garage — to the IV divestiture of thousands of assets (https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[950472](/patent/950472)/). Also in-chain: Corps of Discovery Patent Holding LLC (Bellevue, WA) and Rateze Remote MGMT. L.L.C., both non-operating. Caveat: I could not obtain the assignee addresses of record, so the registered-agent/address tell is unverified — the "no products" element is supported by the litigation posture, not by a corporate filing I retrieved.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.

• Intellectual Ventures is on the enumerated list, and it held title from 2003-07-22 until the 2019/2020 divestiture.
• CommWorks Solutions, LLC is the plaintiff on the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for this patent (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6832249), categorized under "1 Acquired patents," and is flagged as an NPE by Unified Patents.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (could not verify).
This is precisely the field the assignment brief asks me to capture, and it is the field I could not obtain. No correspondent names are available for any entry. What I can say from the record structure is that three separate corrective/license recordings at the tip of the chain (2020-11-05, 2021-02-04, 2022-02-16) were filed by someone whose identity I could not retrieve. Pull each recording image and compare the "Correspondent" block — if one attorney appears on the CommWorks license/corrective series and on the 2019-11-01 IV Assets 135 recording, that is the finding this signal is designed to detect; on the present record I cannot make the call.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT (moderate).
The densely packed link is 2019-11-01 → 2020-01-03, i.e., two transfers in ~2 months (Rateze → IV Assets 135 → CommWorks). At the tail, three recordings land in a 16-month window (2020-11-05, 2021-02-04, 2022-02-16), two of which are corrections — including one that changes the nature of conveyance. The "same correspondent address / common principals" prong is unverified because I lack the correspondent field.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT (strong).
Assignment to CommWorks recorded 2020-01-03; the first '249 infringement suit (CommWorks v. Consolidated Communications Holdings, E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00159) filed 2020-05-27. That is ~4.8 months — inside the six-month window. The chain was assembled immediately before assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — PRESENT (strong).
Entry 3 (2003-07-22) conveys the patent from Enron Broadband Services, Inc. / Enron Warpspeed Services, Inc. / Modulus Technologies, Inc. to Intellectual Ventures Patent Holdings III, LLC — after Enron Corp.'s Chapter 11 filing of 2001-12-02. The secured-lender bookends confirm the distressed-sale character: a Security Agreement to JPMorgan Chase recorded 2002-02-28 (entry 2) and a Release of Security Interest recorded 2005-05-11 at Reel 015991/Frame 0670 (entry 5), released only after the IV conveyance closed.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR / present as alleged only.
The Enron→IV leg was a bankruptcy sale, not privateering. However, in the September 2021 Delaware declaratory-judgment actions, Altice USA alleged that IV retained a security interest and a backend share of licensing revenue from the portfolios run through IP Investments Group entities, and that Brainbox Innovations, LLC drove "a broader, coordinated patent assertion campaign" executed through CommWorks and its sister LLCs (Altice USA, Inc. v. CommWorks Solutions, LLC, D. Del. 1:21-cv-01323; reported at https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/09/22/patent-filings-roundup-trio-actions-accuse-ip-investments-coordinated-campaign-intellectual-ventures-backend-judge-albright-cancels-one-141-wsou-asserted-patents-new-magnetar-entity-s/). That is a pleading allegation, not an adjudicated finding — I flag it as such and do not treat it as established.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network. The opposite happened: Unified Patents attacked this patent, filing an ex parte reexamination on 2021-11-22, which the USPTO granted on 2021-12-23, finding substantial new questions of patentability (https://unifiedpatents.squarespace.com/insights/2021/11/24/another-commworks-solutions-patent-challenged). Note also that the patent reached its adjusted expiration on 2023-05-07, so any post-2023 assertion concerns past damages only.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Three strong signals converge on the same record. First, the patent left its operating-company owner through the Enron bankruptcy fire-sale (assignment recorded 2003-07-22, three assignors including Enron Broadband Services → Intellectual Ventures Patent Holdings III), with secured-lender bookends at the JPMorgan security agreement (recorded 2002-02-28) and its release at Reel 015991/Frame 0670 (recorded 2005-05-11). Second, after a decade parked inside IV vehicles (Corps of Discovery name change 2005-02-25; Rateze Remote MGMT merger 2015-12-09), the patent was pushed to an asserter: IV Assets 135 LLC → CommWorks Solutions, LLC, recorded 2020-01-03, with CommWorks identified by Unified Patents as "an NPE and subsidiary of IP Investments Group LLC" and listed as the asserter on Stanford's NPE database for this patent. Third, that transfer landed ~4.8 months before the first suit (E.D. Tex. 2:20-cv-00159, filed 2020-05-27), satisfying the pre-litigation-transfer test.

Two residual items would sharpen this — and both require the primary recording images rather than secondary indexes: the correspondent-of-record field is blank across every entry in my data, so the "repeat attorney across the chain" signal is unresolved; and the 2022-02-16 corrective re-characterizing the CommWorks→Unwired recording as an assignment rather than a license leaves the tail of the chain genuinely ambiguous, given that CommWorks kept suing through 2025.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent number 6832249) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — pull frames at Reel 015991/0670, 054443/0958, and 056981/0631 first, since those three are the only frames I can name with confidence from the authoritative text.

Negative findings to carry forward: no record of any assignment to a defensive aggregator, and no CAFC appeal located in this session (consistent with the earlier litigation section).

I'll search for the patent's cited prior art references.

Answer: USPTO / prior-art citation retrieval for US 6,832,249

Bottom line first (please read)

I was unable to retrieve the front-page "References Cited" (U.S. Patent Documents) list for US 6,832,249 from the sources available to me in this session. The authoritative full text you supplied is truncated in the Description and does not include the front-page citation table ("References Cited" / "Patent Citations"). Accordingly, I cannot give you a verified, per-reference citation list, and I will not fabricate one. Below I give you (1) what I can confirm, (2) what I searched and why it failed, and (3) the analytical framework and the exact primary-source page you need to complete the task.

This is a negative finding based on limited searches, not proof the citation list doesn't exist. The citation list certainly exists — it's on the printed patent front page — I simply could not surface it.

1. What I can confirm from the authoritative text

Critical §102 point about US 5,634,010: Because it is expressly incorporated by reference into the '249 specification, its disclosure is treated as part of the '249 patent's own specification. A document incorporated by reference into a patent is generally not available as §102 prior art against the claims of that same patent — it is the same disclosure. So 5,634,010 is analytically relevant as support/background/written-description evidence and as a §112 anchor, but it is not a reference that "anticipates" the '249 claims under §102. Treating it as an anticipatory reference for claims 1/11/31/34/38 would be an error. Its exact issue date and title I could not verify within budget (the 5,634,xxx numbering range implies a 1997 issue — verify before citing).

Result: On the strict record available to me, there are zero front-page prior-art references I can cite to you with verification. The task as posed ("look at each patent citation for 6832249") cannot be completed truthfully from my current sources.

2. What I searched (and the failure mode)

• Queries aimed at Google Patents' rendered "Patent Citations" table for US6832249B2 returned only description/figure content — the citation table did not render in the returned payload.
• Google Patents "Family Cites Families" (e.g., the page for US 8,423,630 B2) returned only family relationships (e.g., "2001-05-18 US09/860,801 → US6832249B2"), not the '249 front-page citations.
• Forward citations I did see are cited-BY, i.e., not prior art to the '249 patent: e.g., US 9,380,008 B2 ("Method and apparatus for high-speed processing of structured application messages in a network device") lists US 6,832,249 B2 as cited art. Do not mistake these for §102 references.
• One search returned a false positive with a matching number but a different subject: OSTI ID 6832249 ("Carbon/oxygen well logging method and apparatus," Schlumberger) — not the patent. I flag it so it is not confused with US 6,832,249.
• No primary USPTO PatentCenter / Patent Public Search page rendered in my results (consistent with the earlier section's noting this).

3. What the record does establish that bears on §102 scope

Even without the citation list, the previously generated sections plus the claims surfaced in this session constrain the §102 analysis, and one point is worth correcting/refining:

• Independent claims are more numerous than "two families." The claim text visible via SumoBrain shows a method claim 11 (with dependents 12–37) and a system claim 38 (dependents 39–44), plus an earlier method claim and claim 31/34 (MPLS) and claim 35 (resource-database classification). So expect at least independent claims 1, 11, 31, and 38. This refines (does not contradict) the earlier "at least two independent claim families" statement.
• Drafting-inconsistency resolution: The earlier "Patent summary" flagged that the Abstract attributes the provisioning response to the network monitor while the Summary/Description attribute it to the network controller. The claim text from SumoBrain resolves it in favor of the network controller ("a network controller coupled to the multi-layered network and the network monitor, wherein the network controller is adapted to …"). Treat the Abstract's wording as the outlier.
• §102 time frame: Given priority 2000-05-19 (provisional 60/205,529) and filing 2001-05-18, anticipation art must predate the relevant §102 date. Pre-AIA §102(a)/(b)/(e) applies to this 2001 filing; art counts only if dated before 2000-05-19 (or 2001-05-18 under §102(e) for certain U.S. filings).
• What any §102 reference would have to disclose to anticipate claims 1/11/38: (a) a multi-layered network with OSI layers; (b) monitoring at least one OSI layer; (c) determining a quality of service event occurred; (d) determining the event occurred at layer N; and (e) changing network provisioning at a layer less than N and signaling completion. For claims 35/39, the reference would additionally need the resource database / OSI classification scheme maintaining cross-layer relationships. The narrow, specific requirement (remediation at a lower layer than where the event is detected, with a signaling step) is the discriminating limitation — that is where you should focus the anticipation/obviousness analysis once you have the actual reference list.

4. To complete this task correctly, pull these primary sources

1. USPTO Patent Public Search (the actual USPTO database): https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/ → search 6832249 → open the front page ("References Cited" block). Direct PDF: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/6832249.
2. USPTO PatentCenter (full application file, including the IDS/Foreign references actually considered): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ → application 09/860,801.
3. Google Patents front page (renders "Patent Citations" and "Cited By" tables): https://patents.google.com/patent/US6832249B2/en.
4. FreePatentsOnline (prints "Patent References Cited" and "Referenced by" in plain text): https://www.freepatentsonline.com/6832249.html.
5. Patent document images (front page image): https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/…/US6832249.pdf (locate via the Google Patents "Download PDF" link).

Once you have that list, the deliverable you asked for is a table with, per reference: full citation | publication/filing date | 1–3 sentence description | potentially anticipated claim(s) under §102, applying the discriminating-limitation framework in §3 above.

Confidence statement

• High confidence: The abstract, claim structure (independent claims ~1/11/31/38), priority date, and the US 5,634,010 incorporation-by-reference are grounded in the authoritative text and the claim text surfaced this session.
• Explicitly not known / not verified: The identity, dates, and count of the front-page prior-art references cited on US 6,832,249. I did not retrieve them and decline to invent them. Any §102 mapping to specific claims must wait on the front-page citation list from the sources in §4.
• Contradiction flagged: The one contradiction found (Abstract vs. Description on who changes provisioning) is resolved above in favor of the network controller. No contradiction with the previously generated litigation/ownership sections was found.

I'll start by trying to retrieve the prior-art/citation record for this patent, since the supplied full text does not include a "Prior Art" or "References Cited" section.

Let me pull the full claim set and try to locate the patent's front-page references.

Let me try Justia and other full-text sources that include the front-page reference lists.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 6,832,249 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Date of this analysis: April 26, 2026 (note: the previously generated sections in this record are timestamped 2026‑09‑13, and my system clock reads 2026‑09‑13. I flag the inconsistency rather than silently reconcile it; it does not affect the substance below.)

1. Sourcing problem to state up front: there is no "Prior Art section" in the supplied page

You asked me to "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." The authoritative full text supplied for US 6,832,249 does not contain a Prior Art / References Cited section. Google Patents normally renders "References Cited," "Cited By," and "Similar Documents" tables; the fetched text jumps from the bibliographic/assignment/litigation block straight to Classifications, Definitions, Abstract, and Description. The description is also truncated mid‑sentence ("…according to where the communication resources fit in the").

What the page does give me as prior-art signal is limited to:

I will not invent examiner-cited reference numbers. Any patent number I produced from memory for the "References Cited" list would be unverifiable against the supplied record and would violate your no-fabrication rule. So the § 103 analysis below is built from (a) the authoritative patent text, (b) the admitted-prior-art admissions inside that text, and (c) well-known contemporaneous art/standards, each flagged with a confidence level. Section 8 tells you exactly what to pull to make this certifiable.

Also flagged — a cross‑reference contradiction that now resolves. The earlier summary noted that the Abstract says "the network monitor is adapted to respond … by changing the network provisioning," while the Summary/Description attribute the response to the network controller. The recovered claim 38 text confirms the controller reading: "a network controller coupled to the multi-layered network and the network monitor, wherein the network controller is adapted to…". So the Abstract's attribution is the drafting outlier; claim 38 is the better guide.

2. Claim architecture, refined from claim text recovered in search

The prior section reconstructed the claims from the Summary/Abstract and warned it could not cite verbatim claim language. Partial verbatim claim text is now available (sumobrain mirror, https://www.sumobrain.com/patents/us/Globally-accessible-computer-network-based/6832249.html), which refines — and does not contradict — that reconstruction:

• Independent method claim 11: monitoring at least one OSI layer → determining a QoS event occurred → determining it occurred at layer N → "responding to the quality of service event in the multi-layered network by changing network provisioning at a layer less than N" → "signaling that the network provisioning at the layer less than N has been changed."
• Dependent claims 23–25: QoS event = excessive latency, packet loss, jitter. 26: a "group of communication resources are no longer operating." 27–28: the event occurs at layer [truncated — likely 3 and 7]. 29–30: proactive / reactive monitoring.
• Claim 31 (method, MPLS family): resolving the QoS event using MPLS; 32 balancing traffic; 33 "routing time sensitive data through the shortest possible path"; 36 determining the event location and using MPLS to route traffic away from it.
• Claims 34–35 (resource‑database family): "segmenting the multi‑layered network into communication resources; and organizing the communication resources into a classification scheme based on the functionality of the communication resources and the OSI reference model, wherein the classification scheme maintains the relationships between the communication resources and the OSI reference model"; 35 adds that the scheme is stored in a resource database and that monitoring includes "looping through the resource database to re‑access the classification scheme."
• Independent system claim 38: network + network monitor (monitor; determine event; determine layer N) + network controller (respond). 39 resource database; 40 monitor signals the DB when additional resources come online; 41 layer [truncated].

Residual uncertainty (flag): claims 1–10 and 13–22 were not recovered. A separate independent claim (likely claim 1) may exist. Therefore every conclusion below attaches to claims 11, 31/34/35, 38–41; it should not be extended to claims 1–10/13–22 until the printed claims are verified. This is a real gap, not a formality — a broader claim 1 could be an easier or harder § 103 target.

Legal frame: priority 2000‑05‑19 (provisional 60/205,529); actual filing 2001‑05‑18. This is pre‑AIA § 103(a). The § 102(a)/(e)/§ 103 window is art publicly available before 2000‑05‑19; the § 102(b) window is art published before 2000‑05‑18. Practically, the entire mid‑2000 corpus is in play. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP § 2143. A POSITA: B.S. in EE/CS plus ~3–5 years in carrier/ISP network engineering with working knowledge of OSI layering, SNMP/RMON, SONET/ATM transport, and IP routing/policy.

3. The invention reduced to its inventive core

Stripped of implementation detail, the asserted novelty is one architectural idea: the system locates a QoS/fault event at OSI layer N using a resource database that maps each resource to its layer and preserves cross‑layer relationships, then remedies the condition by re‑provisioning a lower layer (< N) — adding STM‑1 lines (FIGS. 5B–5C), activating a third ATM virtual circuit (FIG. 6D), rebalancing load, or steering with MPLS (layer 2 remediation of a layer 3 event). Independent claim 38 is the same idea in apparatus form.

Two things follow immediately. First, the OSI model, the QoS metrics (error seconds, unavailable seconds, packet loss, latency, jitter, throughput), and the remediation tools (fibre/ADM, ATM PVCs/SVCs, MPLS labels, router queues) are all treated in the specification as existing, off-the-shelf technology — the inventors' contribution is the cross‑layer decision logic, not any component. Second, the specification admits the problem that supplies the motivation: "no single OSI reference layer can resolve all of the quality of service and economic issues associated with delivering deterministic applications such as streaming media content" and "[n]o consistent policy exists to ensure quality of service." Under KSR, an admitted, recognized problem in the field is itself a design incentive.

4. Art landscape, element by element (with confidence flags)

5. Combinations that render the claims obvious, and the motivation to combine

Combination A — Cross‑layer QoS management over a layered-inventory database

[U.S. 5,634,010 (InterAgent)] + [SNMP/RMON network management] + [OSI reference model + layer‑indexed resource inventory] + [policy‑based QoS provisioning (COPS/IntServ/DiffServ)]

• Coverage: claim 11 (monitor a layer; detect QoS event; determine layer N; change provisioning at < N; signal completion), claims 29–30 (proactive/reactive), claims 34–35 (segment/organize into a classification scheme holding layer relationships, stored in a resource DB, looped re‑access), claims 38–41 (system).
• Why combine (motivation, articulated): '010 supplies the mechanism for a central manager to interrogate and command heterogeneous, multi‑vendor network devices — the exact controller/monitor architecture the '249 specification adopts. SNMP/RMON supplies the layer‑by‑layer monitoring the claims recite. Because the claimed remedy is "changing network provisioning" — a generic term the specification itself defines as "any change in the configuration, operation, characteristics, properties, etc. of communication resources" (including merely "changing the priority on a queue in an IP router") — a policy‑based QoS system (COPS/IntServ/DiffServ) that reconfigures queues, classes, or capacity in response to a detected condition already reads on the element. The stated motivation is supplied by the '249 patent's own background admission that no single OSI layer can solve end‑to‑end QoS and that no consistent policy existed. KSR permits precisely this: a recognized design need plus predictable, familiar mechanisms.

Combination B — Multi‑layer protection & restoration (the strongest core‑claim attack)

[Higher‑layer performance/fault detection] + [lower‑layer re‑provisioning / restoration — SONET APS, ATM PNNI dynamic re‑route, IP‑over‑optical / optical internetworking]

• Coverage: the heart of claim 11 and claim 38 — detect a degradation attributed to one layer, remedy it by changing provisioning at a lower layer.
• Why combine: this was the architectural orthodoxy of 1999–2000 "IP over optics": an IP/MPLS (layer 3) or service (layer 7) degradation is remedied by reconfiguring the transport beneath it (layer 1/2 capacity, protection path, wavelength). The layering relationship the patent makes the pivot of its claims — FIGS. 5A↔5B and 6A↔6B, where the layer‑3 view is "transparent" to the layer‑1/2 plant — is not an invention but a definitional property of OSI layering; a POSITA viewing a network at two layers already knows the lower layer is the lever. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) (combination is not rendered non‑obvious because each reference is directed to a different aspect, so long as the combined teachings suggest the claimed result).

Combination C — MPLS traffic engineering claims

[Combination A or B] + [MPLS traffic engineering / constraint‑based routing]

• Coverage: claims 31, 32, 33, 36 — resolving a QoS event with MPLS; balancing load; sending time‑sensitive data on the shortest path; routing away from the event location.
• Why combine: the specification describes MPLS in purely conventional terms ("setting up a specific path for a given sequence of packets, which may be identified by a label inserted in each packet"; routers forwarding "based on its label"; MPLS "typically allows for packets to be forwarded at the layer 2 (switching) level rather than at layer 3") — i.e., it concedes the technique. Every remediation the claims attach to MPLS (load balancing, shortest‑path routing, diversion from a problem node) is a canonical MPLS traffic‑engineering function. Applying a known technique to a known problem, in the same field, with predictable results, is the paradigm case under MPEP § 2143 examples (c) and (d).

Combination D — "Resource added/removed is itself a QoS event" claims

[Conventional network inventory/asset & fault management] + [Combination A]

• Coverage: claim 26 (group of resources no longer operating); the spec's addition/deletion‑of‑resources passages.
• Why combine: detecting that a device, circuit, or card has appeared or disappeared is the ordinary function of SNMP/RMON polling and CMIP/TL1 inventory synchronization. Re‑classifying and re‑provisioning after a topology change is routine change management. The claim essentially recasts a maintenance work‑flow as a "quality of service event."

Combination E — Routine optimization (the swarm of dependent claims)

Claims 23–25 (latency / packet loss / jitter as triggers), 27–28 (event at layer 3 or layer 7), 32–33 (balance load / shortest path) are each a single, well‑known network metric or remedy, and the specification expressly says the thresholds are arbitrary and implementation‑dependent ("the network monitor 308 may defme any arbitrary threshold value"). Under KSR, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity," and where a claim recites nothing more than a selection among known options in a known field, § 103 forecloses it. These dependent claims are individually very weak.

6. Where the obviousness theory is strong, and where it is vulnerable

Strong:

1. The patent's own background admits the problem (cross‑layer QoS impossibility, no consistent policy) and its own specification admits the components (SNMP/RMON "standard industry techniques"; SONET error‑second definitions; COPS as "priority ranking commands"; MPLS mechanics). Admitted prior art can be a § 103 primary reference base.
2. The claims' operative language is outcome‑level and open‑ended: "changing network provisioning" is defined so broadly in the spec (queue priority changes, path changes, MPLS tunnel changes — "any change in the configuration, operation, characteristics, properties") that almost any orchestrated reconfiguration of an existing monitored network falls within it. Broad functional claiming is an obviousness magnet.
3. No secondary-consideration evidence is apparent on the face of the record: no unexpected results, no industry skepticism, no licensing‑driven nexus identified. The family's continuation practice (10/978,953 → US 8,423,630, granted 2013; 13/781,130 → US 8,812,665) is evidence of scope‑chasing, not of non‑obviousness.

Vulnerable / rebuttals a patentee would raise:

1. No single reference, on the record supplied, discloses the complete ordered sequence — monitor a layer → determine the event occurred at layer N → determine layer N via a resource database → re‑provision strictly at a layer less than N → signal completion — as an integrated closed loop. A challenger must prove the combination, not merely the parts. Note that the '630 continuation's claim language ("changing provisioning … at a layer that is different from the layer … associated with the first of the plurality of communication resources") shows the family treating the cross‑layer linkage as the point of novelty — the same linkage a challenger must dispose of.
2. Hindsight risk. The specification's layered figures make the combination look inevitable after reading the patent. Petitioners must supply an articulated reason with a rational underpinning (In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) tied to the 2000 state of the art, not to the patent's own roadmap.
3. The "signal that provisioning has been changed" step (claim 11) and the resource‑database cross‑layer relationship maintenance (claims 34–35) are the two limitations least clearly met by generic SNMP/COPS policy systems; a petitioner should target a reference that maintains an explicit layer‑indexed inventory with cross‑layer links (telephony provisioning/CMIP or optical‑element management systems are the best candidates).
4. No claim construction exists. Per the prior section, every CommWorks case resolved by dismissal with or without prejudice or consent judgment, and no Markman ruling issued, so the scope of "a layer less than N" and "network provisioning" is untested. Any opinion here is on the face of the claims.

7. Additional observation (not § 103, but relevant to case posture)

Because the patent expired 2023‑05‑07 (adjusted expiration; Google Patents status "Expired – Lifetime"), the realistic § 103 vehicles are (i) an IPR (available for expired patents; limited to §§ 102/103 on patents and printed publications) and (ii) a district‑court validity defense directed to past damages. That matters strategically: the strongest art set is patents + printed publications (the '010 patent; SNMP/RMON RFCs; MPLS/COPS/IntServ/DiffServ documents as printed publications), which is exactly the set an IPR can reach. It also means system‑prior‑art and public‑use theories are off the table in the IPR forum.

8. What I could not verify — and what to pull to certify this

9. Bottom line

On the record available — the authoritative patent text, its admitted prior art, and well‑established contemporaneous network art — claims 11 and 38 of US 6,832,249 are vulnerable to § 103, principally via a combination of (i) the incorporated U.S. 5,634,010 plus admitted SNMP/RMON monitoring and a layer‑indexed network inventory, with (ii) known lower‑layer restoration/re‑provisioning techniques (SONET/ATM/fibre capacity, load rebalancing) and MPLS traffic engineering, motivated by the patent's own admitted unmet need for end‑to‑end QoS across independent OSI layers. The numerous dependent claims (metrics, layer identities, proactive/reactive monitoring, load balancing, shortest path) are individually weak KSR-style routine‑optimization targets. The strongest patentee rebuttal is that no reference of record discloses the complete closed loop — layer‑N event identification via a cross‑layer resource database → strictly sub‑N re‑provisioning → completion signaling — as an integrated whole; defeating that requires (a) the real References Cited list, and (b) a reference that expressly maintains cross‑layer resource relationships, neither of which is present in the text supplied to me.

Confidence: High on the legal framework, claim architecture, and the specification's admitted‑prior‑art content (all grounded in the authoritative text and recovered claim language). Medium on the specific standards citations (RFC numbers/dates). No confidence asserted on any examiner‑cited reference number, because the page's Prior Art/References Cited section was not supplied and I will not fabricate one.