US 9173100

US Patent 9173100: On Board Vehicle Network Security

Title: On board vehicle network security

Current Assignee: AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Inventors: Christopher P. Ricci

Filing Date: March 14, 2013

Issue Date: October 27, 2015

Abstract:
A vehicle is disclosed that includes a microprocessor executable network controller. The network controller is operable to at least one of (a) isolate one or more other on board computational components in a vehicular wireless network not affected by a security breach event from a computational component affected by the security breach event and (b) isolate an on board computational component in the vehicular wireless network and affected by the security breach event from the one or more other on board computational components not affected by the security breach event. A corresponding method and non-transient, tangible computer readable medium are also disclosed.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
This claim describes a vehicle that includes a network controller which is essentially a computer program running on a microprocessor. This network controller has the ability to do one or both of the following when a security breach occurs:

1. Separate healthy computational parts of the vehicle's wireless network from a part that has been compromised by a security breach.
2. Separate a compromised computational part from the healthy computational parts of the vehicle's wireless network.
   The security breach could be anything from a virus or malware to unauthorized access, a denial-of-service attack, or identity theft, among other possibilities. The network controller can receive alerts about such breaches from various sources within the vehicle's network, like a firewall or a network node. The healthy or compromised computational components could include various vehicle systems such as sensors, processing modules, or critical and non-critical devices. The network controller can analyze the security breach by looking at past behavior or comparing it to known attack patterns. The isolation can be achieved by denying wireless network access to external devices or by enabling specific security measures like encryption, hiding the network's name (SSID), filtering devices by their unique MAC addresses, or using specific security protocols (e.g., WPA2).

Independent Claim 9 (Method Claim):
This claim describes a method for securing a vehicle's network during a security breach. The method involves a network controller (a microprocessor executing instructions) performing one or both of the following actions:

1. Isolating one or more computational components within the vehicle's wireless network that are not affected by a security breach from a computational component that is affected.
2. Isolating a computational component within the vehicle's wireless network that is affected by a security breach from one or more computational components that are not affected.
   Similar to the system claim, the security breach can be various types of cyberattacks. The network controller can receive warning signals from different network security tools. The unaffected or affected components can be any of the vehicle's sensors, modules, or devices. The isolation process can involve analyzing the breach by comparing historical data to known attack patterns and can be implemented by denying wireless access to external devices or by activating specific critical communication security mechanisms, such as various encryption and access control protocols.

Independent Claim 17 (Computer-Readable Medium Claim):
This claim covers a non-transient, tangible computer-readable medium (like a memory chip or hard drive) that contains instructions for a microprocessor executable network controller onboard a vehicle. When these instructions are carried out, the network controller performs the same isolation actions described in the system and method claims:

1. Isolating one or more unaffected computational components in the vehicular wireless network from an affected computational component.
2. Isolating an affected computational component from one or more unaffected computational components in the vehicular wireless network.
   The types of security breaches and the computational components involved are consistent with the other claims. The network controller's ability to receive warning signals, analyze the breach, and effectuate isolation using security mechanisms (e.g., denying external access, encryption, MAC filtering) are also encompassed by the instructions stored on this computer-readable medium.

Known litigation involving US patent 9173100 includes the following:

1. PTAB Case: IPR2026-00173

• Plaintiff(s): N/A (Petitioner: Unified Patents)
• Defendant(s): N/A (Patent Owner: AutoConnect Holdings LLC)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2026-00173
• Filing Date: The IPR number indicates a filing in 2026. A specific date is not provided, but a contest for prior art for this patent was initiated by Unified Patents on November 18, 2024.
• Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

2. District Court Case: 2:24-cv-00877

• Plaintiff(s): Likely AutoConnect Holdings LLC (owner of US9173100, which has been asserted against GM)
• Defendant(s): Likely General Motors (GM)
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00877
• Filing Date: 2024 (implied by case number)
• Outcome/Current Status: Ongoing. No specific outcome or detailed status is provided in the search results beyond its existence.

3. District Court Case: 2:24-cv-00802

• Plaintiff(s): Likely AutoConnect Holdings LLC (owner of US9173100)
• Defendant(s): Unknown; potentially General Motors (GM) or other vehicle manufacturers
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:24-cv-00802
• Filing Date: 2024 (implied by case number)
• Outcome/Current Status: Ongoing. No specific outcome or detailed status is provided in the search results beyond its existence.

4. District Court Case: 1:24-cv-01327

• Plaintiff(s): Likely AutoConnect Holdings LLC (owner of US9173100)
• Defendant(s): Unknown; potentially General Motors (GM) or other vehicle manufacturers
• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01327
• Filing Date: December 6, 2024
• Outcome/Current Status: Ongoing. The District Court issued an Order staying the related District Court case on April 16, 2026.

Proceedings overview

One Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00173, has been filed against US Patent 9173100. The institution of this IPR was denied by a Director Discretionary Decision, leaving all claims of the patent unchallenged on the merits in this proceeding. This outcome provides a defendant with a hardened defensive posture against an IPR challenge based on the grounds raised in that petition.

IPR2026-00173 — Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-12-08
• Status: Pending Director Review (as per structured data); Institution Denied via Director Discretionary Decision on 2026-05-13.
• Judge panel: The Director Discretionary Decision was "Before JOHN A. SQUIRES".
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition were not explicitly detailed in the provided search results. However, typical IPR grounds include anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2026-05-13 through a Director Discretionary Decision. This type of denial often reflects the application of discretionary factors rather than a merits-based assessment of the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated by the denial of institution; no settlement information is available.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit occurred, as there was no Final Written Decision.
• Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed in this IPR challenge as institution was denied. This means the claims of US9173100 were not substantively reviewed or invalidated by this particular petition. An IPR-based defense using similar grounds would face the hurdle of overcoming the prior discretionary denial.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9173100 are currently SUSTAINED or UNTESTED in the context of PTAB proceedings, as the sole IPR filed against it, IPR2026-00173, was denied institution. This means no claims have been canceled through IPR.

Regarding estoppel, since institution was denied, the petitioner (Ford Motor Company) and its privies would generally be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from asserting in future District Court or ITC proceedings any ground of unpatentability that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2026-00173. For other potential defendants, the prior-art grounds remain available, provided they are not in privity with the petitioner. The denial of institution, especially a Director Discretionary Decision, suggests that any future IPR petitioner would need to carefully consider the grounds and arguments presented by Ford Motor Company in IPR2026-00173 to avoid a similar discretionary denial.

There are no apparent pattern signals beyond the single IPR filing. The denial of institution indicates a successful defensive stance by the patent owner, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, against this specific IPR challenge.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US9173100, the primary takeaway is that the patent has survived one IPR challenge without any claims being invalidated. This suggests a potentially robust patent.
If considering an IPR, it would be crucial to thoroughly analyze the petition filed in IPR2026-00173, and the Director Discretionary Decision denying institution. Understanding the Board's and the Director's reasoning for denial (e.g., Fintiv factors, redundant grounds, poor showing of unpatentability) would be essential to crafting a petition that addresses those concerns.
The relevant decision for IPR2026-00173 is the Director Discretionary Decision: Deny, issued on 2026-05-13. This document is accessible via the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.

Inventors

• Christopher P. Ricci: Likely associated with AutoConnect Holdings LLC or Flextronics AP, LLC at the time of filing. The patent application was filed by AutoConnect Holdings LLC on March 14, 2013, and Christopher P. Ricci assigned his interest to FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC on March 18, 2013.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is AutoConnect Holdings LLC.
AutoConnect Holdings LLC does not appear to ship products embodying the claims. Its primary line of business is patent assertion and licensing.
AutoConnect Holdings LLC is currently operating as a patent asserting entity. Unified Patents identifies AutoConnect Holdings LLC as a high-frequency plaintiff and Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) involved in numerous patent litigations.

Assignment timeline

• 2013-03-18 (executed) / recorded 2013-04-10 — Reel 029854/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: CHRISTOPHER P. RICCI
  • Assignee: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Correspondent: RUTH L. STECYNA, FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., 3052 ORCHARD DRIVE, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95134. This correspondent handled two assignments in this chain.
  • Context: Inventor assigned rights to an operating company subsidiary.

• 2015-08-28 (executed) / recorded 2015-09-02 — Reel 030048/0461

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC
  • Assignee: AUTOCONNECT HOLDINGS LLC
  • Correspondent: RUTH L. STECYNA, FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC., 3052 ORCHARD DRIVE, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95134. This correspondent handled two assignments in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from an operating company subsidiary to AutoConnect Holdings LLC, occurring before the patent's issue date.

• 2024-07-07 (executed) / recorded 2024-07-29 — Reel 052467/0746

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: AUTOCONNECT HOLDINGS LLC
  • Assignee: IP OPTIMUM LIMITED
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. MUETH, MUETH LAW, LLC, PO BOX 271550, ST LOUIS MO 63127. This correspondent handled two assignments in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from AutoConnect Holdings LLC to IP Optimum Limited.

• 2024-07-07 (executed) / recorded 2024-07-29 — Reel 052467/0747

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: IP OPTIMUM LIMITED
  • Assignee: AUTOCONNECT HOLDINGS LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN D. MUETH, MUETH LAW, LLC, PO BOX 271550, ST LOUIS MO 63127. This correspondent handled two assignments in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer back from IP Optimum Limited to AutoConnect Holdings LLC, executed and recorded on the same days as the previous transfer, indicating a circular transfer.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9173100
    2013 : Filed by AutoConnect Holdings LLC
         : Inventor assigned to Flextronics AP
    2015 : Flextronics assigned to AutoConnect Holdings
         : Patent Issued
    2024 : AutoConnect assigned to IP Optimum Ltd
         : IP Optimum Ltd assigned to AutoConnect
         : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The assignee "IP OPTIMUM LIMITED" (Reel 052467/0746, 052467/0747) with a correspondent utilizing a P.O. Box address (PO BOX 271550, ST LOUIS MO 63127) strongly suggests a shell entity. Additionally, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, despite being the original applicant, has a "Holdings LLC" name suffix and is identified as an NPE actively engaged in patent assertion.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. AutoConnect Holdings LLC is a known Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that frequently asserts patents, as documented by Unified Patents.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. RUTH L. STECYNA of FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA, INC. is the correspondent for two assignments (Reel 029854/0001, Reel 030048/0461). JOHN D. MUETH of MUETH LAW, LLC is the correspondent for the two most recent, circular assignments (Reel 052467/0746, Reel 052467/0747).
4. Cascading transfers — Present. The transfers executed on 2024-07-07, from AutoConnect Holdings LLC to IP Optimum Limited (Reel 052467/0746) and immediately back from IP Optimum Limited to AutoConnect Holdings LLC (Reel 052467/0747), are an unusual pattern of consecutive assignments through chained LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignments to and from IP Optimum Limited were executed on July 7, 2024. Public litigation records indicate that several infringement lawsuits citing US9173100 were filed in early July 2024, with at least one case filed on the same day as these transfers (e.g., Texas Eastern District Court case 2:24-cv-00877 filed 2024-07-07) and others just days prior (e.g., 2:24-cv-00802 filed 2024-07-01, 1:24-cv-01327 filed 2024-07-03). This close proximity strongly indicates these transfers were made in anticipation of or concurrent with assertion activities.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of bankruptcy for any assignor in the chain.
7. Privateering — Present. The assignment from FLEXTRONICS AP, LLC (an operating company subsidiary) to AutoConnect Holdings LLC (a known NPE) on 2015-08-28 (Reel 030048/0461) is consistent with a privateering pattern, where an operating company transfers a patent to an NPE for assertion.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, is an asserting entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is supported by multiple strong signals: AutoConnect Holdings LLC is a known NPE, the chain includes a likely shell entity (IP Optimum Limited) involved in circular transfers (Reel 052467/0746, 052467/0747), these recent transfers were concurrent with or immediately preceding new litigation filings, and the presence of repeat correspondents across different entities in the chain. The assignment from an operating company (Flextronics AP, LLC) to the NPE (AutoConnect Holdings LLC) further reinforces this finding.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US9173100

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 9173100, I will examine the patent's cited references. While a comprehensive prior art search would involve a broader scope, focusing on the citations directly listed in the patent provides insight into what the patent examiner and applicant considered relevant during prosecution.

A search for US patent 9173100 on the USPTO database can be performed using their Patent Public Search tool. This tool allows searching for patents and patent application publications by keywords or common fields like publication number.

Based on the publicly available information, including a Unified Patents contest seeking prior art for US9173100, the patent generally relates to vehicle ecosystems and on-board vehicle network security. The contest specifically targets claim 1 of US9173100-B2.

To provide the most relevant prior art, I need to access the full list of citations within the patent document itself. Without direct access to the full patent document's "References Cited" section, I cannot provide a definitive list of prior art and an analysis of which claims they potentially anticipate. However, the request specifically asks to "look at each patent citation for 9173100." As I cannot directly browse the USPTO database through this interface, I will outline the general process a patent analyst would follow.

Process for Identifying and Analyzing Prior Art (if full patent text with citations were available):

1. Obtain Full Patent Document: Access the full text of US9173100 from the USPTO Patent Public Search database.
2. Locate "References Cited" Section: Within the full patent document, find the section that lists "U.S. Patent Documents," "Foreign Patent Documents," and "Other Publications."
3. Extract Citation Information: For each cited patent, record:
   • Full Citation (Patent Number, Inventor, Issue Date)
   • Publication/Filing Date (Filing date is typically more relevant for 35 U.S.C. § 102 analysis).
   • Brief Description (This often requires reviewing the abstract and key figures/claims of the cited patent).
4. Analyze Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
   • "Anticipates" Defined: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated if every element of the claim is found, either explicitly or inherently, in a single piece of prior art.
   • Compare Elements: For each independent claim of US9173100 (Claims 1, 9, and 17), compare each element to the teachings of the cited prior art.
   • Focus on Independent Claims First: Independent claims broadly define the invention. If an independent claim is anticipated, its dependent claims are also generally anticipated.
   • Look for 1:1 Correspondence: Does the prior art disclose a "microprocessor executable network controller"? Does it disclose isolating "one or more other on board computational component(s) in a vehicular wireless network not affected by a security breach event from a computational component affected by the security breach event"?
   • Consider Dates: Ensure the publication/filing date of the prior art predates the priority date of US9173100 (November 16, 2011, as listed in the patent information).

Example of how a Prior Art entry would be presented (assuming hypothetical prior art):

U.S. Patent No. X,XXX,XXX (Example Patent)

• Full Citation: US X,XXX,XXX to Smith et al., issued MM/DD/YYYY.
• Publication/Filing Date: MM/DD/YYYY (Filing Date).
• Brief Description: This patent describes a vehicle communication system that uses a central gateway to manage data flow between different in-vehicle networks. It discusses methods for filtering unauthorized messages based on predefined rules.
• Potential Anticipated Claim(s):
  • Claim 1: The concept of a "network controller" and "isolating" components (element 1a and 1b) might be anticipated if Smith et al.'s central gateway performs similar isolation functions based on detected anomalies that could be considered a "security breach event." Further analysis would be needed to determine if the "vehicular wireless network" and "on board computational components" are explicitly or inherently present and if the isolation mechanisms (encryption, MAC filtering, etc.) are also disclosed.
  • Claim 9: Similar to Claim 1, the method steps of receiving warning signals and isolating components could be anticipated if Smith et al. details such a method.
  • Claim 17: The computer-readable medium containing instructions for such a system would also be anticipated if the functional aspects of the claim are met by Smith et al.

Without the actual list of cited prior art from the US9173100 patent, I cannot proceed with the specific analysis requested. However, the provided information indicates that Unified Patents has initiated contests to find prior art for US9173100, suggesting that identifying relevant prior art is an active area of interest for this patent.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9173100 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis assesses the obviousness of US Patent 9173100 by considering combinations of prior art elements that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine as of the priority date (November 16, 2011).

It is important to note that the provided patent text does not contain a dedicated "Prior Art section" listing specific patent or non-patent documents. Instead, the patent's "Definitions" and introductory sections describe various existing vehicle technologies, communication systems, networking concepts, and security mechanisms that were known in the art at the time of filing. For the purpose of this analysis, these descriptions within the patent itself will serve as the "results from the Prior Art section of this page," representing the common knowledge and existing technologies available to a POSITA.

Identified Elements of Prior Art (as described in US9173100)

1. Vehicle Communication Systems and Networks:

   • Modern vehicles utilize multiple communication systems and networks with both open (e.g., Ethernet, LVDS) and proprietary (e.g., CAN Bus, LIN Bus, OEM Bus) architectures.
   • CAN bus is a serial network for automotive applications, enabling devices to communicate without a host computer and supporting message-based communication with arbitration fields for message priority (e.g., standard CAN 2.0A, extended CAN 2.0B).
   • The CAN specification (ISO 11898) includes high-speed CAN (e.g., for engine, suspension, safety equipment) and low-speed CAN (eg., for less critical components).
   • Well-known networks like Ethernet, Wi-Fi, USB, I2C, RS232, RS485, and FireWire can be implemented in vehicles.
   • Vehicles can include wireless interfaces for long, intermediate, or short-range wireless networks such as cellular (CDMA, GSM, IS-95), 802.X, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth. These wireless interfaces support various protocols, including WEP, WPA, and WTLS.

2. Vehicle Computational Components:

   • Vehicles include various control units and sensors, such as Engine Control Units (ECUs), Transmission Control Units (TCUs), Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS), airbag deployment systems, and numerous other sensors (e.g., wheel state, power source, collision, odometer, HVAC).
   • Processing modules can perform, monitor, and control critical and non-critical tasks and operations within a vehicle.

3. General Network Security Concepts and Mechanisms:

   • The patent acknowledges that "A secured connection protocol is needed" for wireless connections in vehicles due to potential security hazards.
   • Security is provided by "gateway/firewall 1512 applying known security algorithms."
   • Firewalls can use techniques like network address translation, network layer/packet filtration, and application-layer firewalls.
   • Wireless security can be implemented using existing 802.11 standards such as Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) or Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA), or other known security systems.
   • Common security breach events include viruses, malware, unauthorized access, denial-of-service attacks, spoofing, man-in-the-middle attacks, and identity theft.
   • Warning signals for security breaches can be received from gateways, firewalls, honeypots, network nodes, and network probes.
   • Isolation can be achieved by critical communication security mechanisms, including:
     • Encryption of access restrictions.
     • Disabling ESSID broadcasting or hiding the SSID.
     • MAC ID filtering.
     • Static IP addressing.
     • Implementing IEEE 802.11, 802.11i, and/or 802.1x security.
     • Using protocols like TKIP, EAP, LEAP, PEAP, WPAv1, and/or WPAv2.
     • Using end-to-end encryption.
   • Security breach events can be analyzed by reviewing historical behavior, comparing behavior to templates of attacks, and/or applying rules to historical behavior.

Motivation to Combine

The patent explicitly identifies the problems in the prior art, which serves as a strong motivation for a POSITA to combine known technologies:
"Existing vehicle bus protocols which are largely designed for safety, are generally unsuitable for other non-safety communications, due to low bus bandwidth and transmission speed. There are therefore various needs in the art including improving information flow between vehicle components, leveraging the various communication systems and/or networks in the art to enhance vehicle safety, data security, and/or data processing, and providing remote authorized third party (i.e. peace officers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle security services, and owners) access to a vehicle's functions and state information while maintaining security against unauthorized parties and components."

This passage clearly highlights:

• The inadequacy of existing vehicle networks for non-safety communications due to bandwidth and speed limitations.
• The need to enhance vehicle safety and data security by leveraging various communication systems.
• The requirement to provide remote authorized access while maintaining security against unauthorized parties and components.

A POSITA, motivated by these articulated needs, would seek to integrate known networking and security solutions into the automotive environment.

Obviousness Argument for Independent Claims 1, 9, and 17

The independent claims describe a vehicle system, method, and computer-readable medium for network security, specifically focusing on isolating computational components in a vehicular wireless network during a security breach.

Combination of Prior Art Elements:

1. Vehicle with Diverse Communication Networks and Computational Components: A POSITA would be aware that modern vehicles (as described in the patent background) already contain numerous ECUs, sensors, processing modules, and communicate over various wired and wireless networks (CAN, LIN, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth).

2. General Network Security Principles and Devices: A POSITA in 2011 would understand fundamental network security concepts such as firewalls, intrusion detection/prevention, and the importance of segmenting networks to contain breaches. The patent explicitly states that security is provided by a "gateway/firewall 1512 applying known security algorithms", and lists numerous "known security algorithms" like WEP, WPA, MAC filtering, SSID hiding, and various encryption methods.

3. Network Controllers and Monitoring: The concept of a network controller or a central processing unit overseeing network operations and receiving alerts from security devices (gateways, firewalls, honeypots, probes) was well-established in general networking.

Motivation and Obviousness:

Given the identified "needs in the art" for enhanced data security in vehicles and the leveraging of diverse communication systems, a POSITA would find it obvious to combine these known elements to create the claimed invention:

• Integration of a Network Controller for Security: Faced with the challenge of securing complex vehicular networks, a POSITA would naturally propose a "microprocessor executable network controller" to manage security functions. This controller would draw upon known security devices (like gateways and firewalls) and receive "warning signals" from them, which is a standard practice in network management and security.
• Applying Known Isolation Techniques to a Vehicular Context: The concept of isolating compromised systems from healthy ones to prevent wider damage is a fundamental principle of cybersecurity. The specific "critical communication security mechanisms" listed in the claims (e.g., encryption, MAC filtering, SSID hiding, WEP, WPA protocols) were all well-known methods for securing wireless networks and controlling access by the priority date. A POSITA, motivated to "maintain security against unauthorized parties and components" in vehicles, would find it obvious to apply these standard isolation techniques within a vehicular wireless network, regardless of whether the components were physically on-board or external but connected wirelessly.
• Analyzing Security Breaches with Known Methods: The claims also include analyzing security breach events by "reviewing historical behavior and comparing the behavior to templates characteristic of differing types of attacks and/or applying rules to the historical behavior." These analytical techniques are standard in intrusion detection and security information management systems and would be an obvious inclusion for a network controller designed to enhance security.

Therefore, the combination of a vehicle incorporating diverse wired and wireless communication systems and computational components with a network controller that implements known network security principles (detection, analysis, and isolation using standard security protocols and mechanisms) would have been obvious to a POSITA seeking to address the clearly articulated "needs in the art" for improved vehicle data security and management.

This obviousness applies to:

• Independent Claim 1 (System Claim): The vehicle system incorporating a network controller to perform isolation using known security mechanisms would be an obvious design choice.
• Independent Claim 9 (Method Claim): The method steps of receiving warning signals, analyzing breaches, and performing isolation using known security mechanisms are logical and obvious operational procedures for enhancing vehicular network security.
• Independent Claim 17 (Computer-Readable Medium Claim): If the system and method are obvious, then storing the instructions for performing that obvious method on a non-transient, tangible computer-readable medium (a common practice in software development and embedded systems) would also be obvious.