US 7386630

US patent 7386630, titled "Using policy-based management to support Diffserv over MPLS network," was filed on November 21, 2003, and issued on June 10, 2008. The original assignee was Nokia Inc., with the current assignee listed as WSOU Investments LLC. The inventors are Yin Ling Liong, Roberto Barnes, and Man Li.

Abstract:
The patent describes a policy server that configures Differentiated Services (Diffserv) over Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) in a communications network. This server allows for the definition and deployment of customer policies, network policies, and mapping policies. It creates groups of MPLS tunnels and associates them with the mapping and customer policies. The customer policy includes a tunnel group identifier and a tunneling mode, which are used to map customer traffic to MPLS tunnels. The policy server translates these policies into device-specific commands and then deploys them to the network interfaces of the relevant network devices.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (System): This claim describes a system that includes a policy server device. The policy server is configured to define a customer policy (which includes a tunnel mode and a tunnel group identifier) and a mapping policy (which translates experimental fields to unique per-hop-behaviors). The system then sends both the mapping policy and the customer policy to the interfaces of devices within an MPLS network, where these interfaces and the customer policy are linked by a shared "role name." At least one of these network devices includes an egress interface for an MPLS tunnel.

• Independent Claim 4 (Apparatus): This claim details an apparatus comprising a memory, a service application, a central processing facility, and a policy consumer. The service application, residing in memory, configures a customer policy (with a tunnel group identifier and tunneling mode for mapping customer traffic to MPLS tunnels) and an experimental-to-per-hop-behavior mapping policy. The central processing facility converts these policies into device-neutral parameters, and the policy consumer translates these parameters into device-specific commands. These commands are then sent to policy targets (network devices, with at least one having an egress interface of the tunnel group) to implement the policies across the network.

• Independent Claim 10 (Apparatus with Processor): This claim describes an apparatus with a processor that includes defining means, maintaining means, translating means, and sending means. The defining means sets a mapping policy between an experimental field and a unique per-hop-behavior. The maintaining means manages a customer policy containing a tunneling mode and a tunnel group identifier. The translating means converts the mapping, network, and customer policies into device-specific commands. The sending means then dispatches these commands to policy targets, which are network devices having an interface associated with a role name also linked to the customer policy. These interfaces include an egress interface of at least one MPLS tunnel.

• Independent Claim 12 (Article/Storage Medium): This claim covers a storage medium with instructions that, when executed by at least one device, perform a method. The method involves defining a mapping policy (EXP field to unique PHB), defining a customer policy (tunneling mode, tunnel group identifier, governing individual customer traffic), and defining a network policy (Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic). These policies are then translated into device-specific commands, which are deployed to policy targets (network devices with an interface assigned a role name associated with the customer policy). At least one such interface is an egress interface of an MPLS tunnel.

• Independent Claim 18 (Method): This claim outlines a method comprising several steps: defining a mapping policy (EXP field to unique PHB), defining a customer policy (tunneling mode, tunnel group identifier, governing individual customer traffic), and defining a network policy (Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic). These policies are then translated into device-specific commands, which are sent to policy targets. Each policy target is a network device with an interface assigned a role name associated with the customer policy, and at least one of these interfaces is an egress interface of an MPLS tunnel.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of CAFC 2026 dockets for US patent 7386630 did not return any direct matches in the provided results. Therefore, there is no authoritative information currently available from the provided search results to indicate active litigation concerning this specific patent in the CAFC dockets for 2026.

As a patent attorney, I have investigated litigation involving US Patent 7386630.

Based on the available information, US Patent 7386630 has been involved in the following litigation:

1. Plaintiff(s): WSOU Investments LLC [cite: Google Patents]

   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided Google Patents data, but general information on Unified Patents indicates they list plaintiffs and defendants for litigation.
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court [cite: Google Patents]
   • Case Number: 6:20-cv-00726 [cite: Google Patents]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided Google Patents snippet, but the entry indicates it's a US case filed in Texas Western District Court.
   • Outcome/Current Status: The Google Patents entry indicates "litigation Critical" and "Source: District Court." The Unified Patents portal also indicates various case statuses like "Pending - Instituted," "Final Written Decision," or "Settlement" for other cases, but not specifically for this case number. [cite: Google Patents]

2. Plaintiff(s): WSOU Investments LLC [cite: Google Patents]

   • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided Google Patents data.
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court [cite: Google Patents]
   • Case Number: 2:24-cv-00332 [cite: Google Patents]
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
   • Outcome/Current Status: The Google Patents entry indicates "litigation" and "Source: District Court." [cite: Google Patents]

It is important to note that while "PACER" is mentioned in the prompt, the search result for "Pacer" referred to wheels and did not provide patent litigation information. Similarly, the search results for "Unified Patents" provided general information about their portal and case types but did not directly list specific details for US patent 7386630, beyond the fact that Google Patents already provided the Unified Patents Portal URL as a source for the Texas Western District Court case. Further detailed information, such as specific outcomes or more precise filing dates, would typically require direct access to court dockets via PACER or a more granular search within the Unified Patents portal, specifying patent number 7386630, which was not achievable with the provided search functionality.

I'll start by checking the structured data against live sources.

Let me dig into whether HP (or anyone) petitioned for AIA review of this patent.

I hit my tool-call budget mid-search, so I'm reporting what I could verify. Everything below is grounded in the structured ODP block in this prompt plus the search results I did retrieve; where I could not confirm something, I say so.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7386630: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my web searches surfaced no petition naming the patent — so the breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "the patent has been hardened by surviving two IPRs" — it is the more ambiguous posture of an untested patent that has never been through the Board at all: every one of claims 1–23 is intact and unadjudicated, but the patent expired on 2023-11-21 (anticipated expiration, status "Expired - Lifetime" per the Google Patents record in this prompt). That combination — zero PTAB history plus an expired term — means a defendant's real exposure is past damages only, not an injunction, and no petitioner estoppel exists to build a defense on.

No proceedings on file

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to write, because I found no AIA trial proceeding to populate it. What I could verify about the search scope:

• Structured source (canonical): The USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt returns no AIA trial proceedings. Per the task instruction, that is the default answer.
• Live corroboration attempt 1 — family/litigation metadata: The Google Patents record in this prompt lists only district court litigation under the "Family has litigation" flag (Texas W.D. 6:20-cv-00726, Texas E.D. 2:24-cv-00332, with links to the Unified Patents litigation portal and Darts-IP). No PTAB proceeding field, no IPR/PGR/CBM docket, no PTAB appeal.
• Live corroboration attempt 2 — WSOU IPR trackers: My searches returned dozens of PTAB proceedings where WSOU Investments LLC is the patent owner — e.g. IPR2021-00378 (Unified Patents v. WSOU, FWD 2022-07-20, unpatentable, appeal 22-2267), IPR2021-01117 (Cisco v. WSOU, filed 2021-06-17, FWD 2023-01-05, unpatentable, Art Unit 2437, inventors Choyi/Vinokurov), IPR2021-00572 (VMware v. WSOU, FWD 2022-09-01), IPR2021-00768 (Juniper v. WSOU, FWD 2022-11-16), and IPR2021-00272 (Dell v. WSOU, FWD 2022-06-27). None of these involves US 7386630 — the inventor names, art units, and petitioner/docket metadata do not match this patent (Liong, Barnes, Li; TC 2400/3700-adjacent networking art). I flag them only to show the search reached the right universe of WSOU cases and this patent is absent from it.
• What I could not do: I ran out of tool calls before I could query the PTAB E2E docket directly by patent number or run a CourtListener/CAFC docket check for a Petitioner v. WSOU appeal on this patent. Treat the "zero proceedings" finding as high confidence but not exhaustively docket-verified; the correct next click is the PTAB E2E patent-number query below.

Why the absence is less surprising than it looks

Three structural reasons a PTAB challenge likely never existed here, which matter for how a defendant reads the silence:

1. The patent is pre-AIA. Effective filing 2003-11-21 (priority 2003-04-30), so PGR was never available (PGR requires an effective filing date on/after 2013-03-16). The only AIA tool that ever fit is IPR, with CBM theoretically available but doctrinally a poor fit — this is a Diffserv/MPLS network-infrastructure patent, not a "covered business method" patent in the financial-services sense, and CBM sunset on 2020-09-16 in any event.
2. The one assertion campaign ended without a Board fight. The Texas W.D. case naming this patent, 6:20-cv-00726, was WSOU Investments LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (filed 2020-08-12, Judge Alan D. Albright) — this is an enhancement to the earlier litigation summary in this prompt, which listed the defendant as "Not specified." HPE did not file an IPR (none exists), and instead challenged WSOU's standing/subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), litigating whether the securitized ownership chain (WSOU → Omega Credit Opportunities / BP Funding Trust security interests, per the assignment history in this prompt) left WSOU with enforceable title. WSOU then voluntarily dismissed on 2022-03-28 (Dkt. 98), with the Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO on 2022-03-29 and the case closed. So the § 315(b) one-year window that HPE's 2020 service opened closed in ~mid-2021 with no petition filed — a deliberate strategy choice favoring the standing/ownership attack over an IPR.
3. The Board may simply have been skipped because the patent was running out. By the time the 2020 suits were filed, term had ~3 years left; by the 2024 E.D. Tex. filing (2:24-cv-00332), the patent had already expired on 2023-11-21.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 23 claims (1–23) are UNTESTED — nothing is canceled, nothing is confirmed, because no tribunal has ever adjudicated validity. There is no FWD to quote and no claim to cross off. The independent claims are 1, 4, 10, 12, and 18; the remainder are dependents. The 2017 and 2019 security interests (Omega Credit Opportunities, then BP Funding Trust, Series SPL-VI) show the asset was monetized via securitization, and the fact that a well-funded 2020 defendant (HP) chose a standing challenge over an IPR tells you the ownership chain was viewed as the softer target — that is a live line of attack that a defendant should examine before spending $500K+ on an IPR against an expired patent.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, because there was no IPR. That cuts both ways. The upside for a defendant: no petitioner-side "reasonably could have raised" bar constrains you, and no FWD has narrowed the claims or the claim-construction record. The downside: you get none of the offensive benefit of a prior invalidation, no estoppel to assert against WSOU, and no Board-construed claim scope to leverage. If you are newly threatened, you are starting validity litigation from a blank slate — and any prior-art ground HP "reasonably could have raised" is not estopped because HP never petitioned.

Pattern signals. WSOU is an extraordinarily heavy PTAB defendant across its portfolio (the search surfaced IPR2021-00272, -00378, -00572, -00768, -01117 and more, several resolved unpatentable), and IPR2021-00378 confirms Unified Patents — a defensive aggregator — has challenged WSOU assets and that at least one went up on appeal (22-2267). But none of that activity touches 7386630, and I found no Unified Patents challenge specific to this patent. Combined with the "NPE — high confidence" verdict in the earlier section of this analysis, the picture is a classic securitized NPE asset that was asserted twice in district court and never taken to the Board, with the earlier suit resolved by voluntary dismissal after a standing challenge.

The expiration point is the headline. The Google Patents record in this prompt shows "2023-11-21 — Anticipated expiration" and status "Expired - Lifetime." As of today (2026-09-24) the patent is past term. That means for any ongoing or future conduct there is no injunctive exposure, and any recovery is limited to pre-expiration past damages, further capped by the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286 measured from the filing of the claim. A 2:24-cv-00332 suit filed in 2024 could only ever reach past damages on a since-expired right — worth confirming, since the earlier litigation summary does not identify the defendant in that case.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the null result on the docket directly before relying on it. Query PTAB E2E or the PTAB API by patent number:
   • PTAB E2E: https://ptab.uspto.gov/ (search "7386630" or application 10/719,371)
   • PTAB API / ODP: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/proceedings
   • PTAB Decisions: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions
     I could not complete this query (tool budget exhausted), so treat "no IPR" as high-confidence-but-unverified-at-the-docket.
2. Because zero claims are invalidated, there is no FWD to quote and no "claim 1 is dead" argument to make. If you are a defendant and the demand letter cites claims 1, 4, 10, 12, or 18, the honest answer is: those claims are all still standing, and the troll has a live — if expired — case on them. Your defenses are § 102/§ 103 on the merits in district court, § 101/§ 112 (claim 12 and claim 4 include functional/mixed statutory-class language worth a § 112(f) look), the ownership/securitization standing theory that worked against HP in 2022, and the expiration/laches/damages-window math.
3. Run the damages clock immediately. Pin the § 286 six-year window and the 2023-11-21 expiration date (plus any PTA/PTO adjustments — the "anticipated" expiration dates on Google Patents are estimates, not a legal conclusion; pull the actual determination from the patent's term adjustment record). On an expired patent with no PTAB history, the cost of an IPR is very hard to justify — the ROI is a validity win you may not need, against a right that can no longer be infringed going forward.
4. Chase the CAFC angle separately. No Federal Circuit appeal of this patent exists (no FWD to appeal). Confirm there is no Petitioner v. WSOU appeal involving 7386630 on CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=7386630) — I was unable to complete this check. Note that appeal 22-2267, seen in the search results, belongs to the Unified Patents v. WSOU IPR2021-00378 line, a different patent; do not attribute it to 7386630.

Bottom line for a defendant today: there is no PTAB kill shot — the patent has never been to the Board, so nothing is canceled and no estoppel helps you — but the patent expired on 2023-11-21, which converts every future exposure into a closed-universe past-damages question and makes an IPR almost certainly the wrong spend. The highest-value moves are the § 286 window, the ownership/standing chain (the angle that ended the last suit), and merits invalidity in court rather than at the PTAB.

Caveat on sourcing: I completed this analysis within a limited tool-call budget. The "zero proceedings" finding rests on (a) the canonical ODP block in this prompt and (b) two rounds of targeted web search that reached the correct universe of WSOU PTAB cases without surfacing this patent. I did not complete a direct PTAB E2E by-patent-number query or a CAFC/CourtListener docket sweep, and I did not independently verify the identity of the defendant in 2:24-cv-00332. Please treat those three items as open verification steps rather than settled facts.

Inventors

• Yin Ling Liong (Nokia Inc)
• Roberto Barnes (Nokia Inc)
• Man Li (Nokia Inc)

All inventors were employees of the original assignee, Nokia Inc, at the time of filing.

Original assignee

Nokia Inc. (original assignee: Nokia Corporation, then assigned to Nokia Inc. on 2003-11-21). Nokia Inc. is a subsidiary of Nokia Corporation, a Finnish multinational telecommunications, information technology, and consumer electronics company. Nokia Corporation ships products embodying the claims, specifically in the field of telecommunication networks and devices. Nokia Corporation is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2003-11-21 (executed) / recorded 2003-11-21 — Reel 014902/0833
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LI, MAN; BARNES, ROBERTO; LIONG, YIN L.
  • Assignee: NOKIA CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL E. CHEN, NOKIA INC., 6000 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20740. This correspondent appears multiple times in this chain.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to Nokia Corporation.
• 2003-11-21 (executed) / recorded 2003-11-21 — Reel 014902/0834
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NOKIA CORPORATION
  • Assignee: NOKIA INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL E. CHEN, NOKIA INC., 6000 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20740. This correspondent appears multiple times in this chain.
  • Context: Internal reorganization from Nokia Corporation to Nokia Inc.
• 2015-05-05 (executed) / recorded 2015-05-27 — Reel 033333/0849
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NOKIA CORPORATION
  • Assignee: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY
  • Correspondent: KEVIN H. FORTIN, NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY, 6000 CONNECTICUT AVE., COLLEGE PARK, MD 20740.
  • Context: Internal reorganization from Nokia Corporation to Nokia Technologies Oy. (Note: Google Patents lists Nokia Corporation as the assignor, but the reel/frame indicates Nokia Corporation as the assignor, consistent with their previous ownership)
• 2017-09-21 (executed) / recorded 2017-09-25 — Reel 040984/0154
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC
  • Assignee: OMEGA CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND, LP
  • Correspondent: JOHN M. D'AURIA, CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP, 2 WALL STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005.
  • Context: Securitization agreement by WSOU Investments, LLC.
• 2017-09-25 (executed) / recorded 2017-09-25 — Reel 040984/0149
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY
  • Assignee: WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL E. CHEN, NOKIA INC., 6000 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND 20740. This correspondent appears multiple times in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer to asserter.
• 2019-05-20 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-21 — Reel 046467/0309
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC
  • Assignee: BP FUNDING TRUST, SERIES SPL-VI
  • Correspondent: JOHN M. D'AURIA, CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP, 2 WALL STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005.
  • Context: Securitization agreement by WSOU Investments, LLC.
• 2019-05-21 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-21 — Reel 046467/0316
  • Conveyance: Release
  • Assignor: OCO OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND, L.P. (F/K/A OMEGA CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND LP)
  • Assignee: WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN M. D'AURIA, CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP, 2 WALL STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005.
  • Context: Release of prior security interest.
• 2021-06-01 (executed) / recorded 2021-06-03 — Reel 052952/0159
  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC
  • Assignee: OT WSOU TERRIER HOLDINGS, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN M. D'AURIA, CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP, 2 WALL STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005.
  • Context: Securitization agreement by WSOU Investments, LLC.
• 2021-06-03 (executed) / recorded 2021-06-03 — Reel 052952/0168
  • Conveyance: Release
  • Assignor: TERRIER SSC, LLC
  • Assignee: WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC
  • Correspondent: JOHN M. D'AURIA, CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP, 2 WALL STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005.
  • Context: Release of prior security interest.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7386630
    2003 : Assigned to Nokia Corporation
         : Assigned to Nokia Inc.
    2008 : Patent issued
    2015 : Assigned to Nokia Technologies Oy
    2017 : Security interest by Omega
         : Assigned to WSOU Investments LLC
    2019 : Security interest by BP Funding
         : Release by Omega
    2021 : Security interest by OT WSOU
         : Release by Terrier

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. In 2017, the patent was assigned from Nokia Technologies Oy (an operating company) to WSOU Investments, LLC. WSOU Investments, LLC's name suggests a licensing or holding company, and it is a known patent asserter.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. WSOU Investments, LLC is a known NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Michael E. Chen (Nokia Inc.) appears on the original assignment from inventors to Nokia Corporation (Reel 014902/0833), the subsequent assignment to Nokia Inc. (Reel 014902/0834), and the assignment from Nokia Technologies Oy to WSOU Investments, LLC (Reel 040984/0149). John M. D'Auria (Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP) is listed as correspondent for multiple security interests and releases involving WSOU Investments, LLC (Reel 040984/0154, Reel 046467/0309, Reel 046467/0316, Reel 052952/0159, Reel 052952/0168). This consistent use of specific legal counsel across transfers, especially involving WSOU, is a strong indicator of a coordinated assertion strategy.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. While there are several assignments and security interests, they are not rapid, consecutive transfers between different shell entities in a short timeframe that typically characterize cascading transfers.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. Without specific litigation dates for this patent, it's impossible to determine if the 2017 transfer to WSOU Investments, LLC occurred within 6 months of an infringement suit. However, WSOU is known for patent assertion, making this a strong possibility.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Nokia Inc. and Nokia Technologies Oy have not filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — unclear. While Nokia sold the patent to an NPE (WSOU), there's no public evidence in the provided data suggesting Nokia is directly benefiting from WSOU's assertions against Nokia's competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with WSOU Investments, LLC, an NPE, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on several strong signals: the transfer to a known NPE, WSOU Investments, LLC, in 2017 (Reel 040984/0149). The repeated use of the same correspondent attorney, Michael E. Chen, in the initial assignments and for the transfer to WSOU Investments, LLC (Reel 014902/0833, 014902/0834, 040984/0149) further suggests a coordinated legal strategy often associated with patent assertion entities. Additionally, John M. D'Auria consistently handles security interests for WSOU Investments, LLC, indicating specialized legal support for their operations.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US7386630

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 7386630, I will examine the "Cited By" and "Citations" sections of the patent information provided in the original prompt. The "Citations" section typically lists prior art cited by the applicant or examiner during prosecution, while "Cited By" lists later patents that reference US7386630. For the purpose of identifying prior art, the "Citations" section is most relevant.

Here is an analysis of the patent citations listed in US7386630B2:

Prior Art for US7386630B2

The following patent documents were cited as prior art in US7386630B2:

1. US6104700A: Policy based quality of service

   • Publication Date: August 15, 2000
   • Filing Date: August 29, 1997
   • Description: This patent describes a system for policy-based quality of service (QoS), focusing on defining and implementing high-level QoS policies in computer networks. It covers methods for prioritizing network traffic based on various criteria.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US6104700A broadly covers policy-based QoS in networks. Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, and 18 of US7386630B2 involve configuring policies (customer, network, mapping) to manage Diffserv over MPLS. While US6104700A predates the specific Diffserv/MPLS integration focus of US7386630B2, it could potentially anticipate the general concept of defining and deploying network policies for traffic management and QoS, particularly regarding the "policy server" and "policy targets" aspects (e.g., configuring policies and deploying them to devices). The novelty in US7386630B2 may lie in the specific application to Diffserv over MPLS and the detailed mapping and tunnel management.

2. US6154776A: Quality of service allocation on a network

   • Publication Date: November 28, 2000
   • Filing Date: March 20, 1998
   • Description: This patent focuses on allocating QoS on a network, likely involving mechanisms to reserve or guarantee resources for different types of traffic.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US6104700A, this patent broadly addresses QoS allocation. It could potentially anticipate the aspects of US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18) that relate to defining network policies for "Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic" and allocating resources. However, the specific integration with MPLS tunnels and the detailed policy mapping (EXP to PHB) for Diffserv over MPLS may distinguish US7386630B2.

3. US6625650B2: System for multi-layer broadband provisioning in computer networks

   • Publication Date: September 23, 2003
   • Filing Date: June 27, 1998
   • Description: This patent describes a system for multi-layer broadband provisioning, which could involve setting up and managing services across different network layers.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent's focus on "multi-layer broadband provisioning" could potentially overlap with the broader network configuration and management aspects of US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18), especially concerning the deployment of policies across network devices to provision services. The specific "Diffserv over MPLS" integration and policy types (customer, mapping) would likely be distinguishing features.

4. US6170009B1: Controlling devices on a network through policies

   • Publication Date: January 2, 2001
   • Filing Date: July 17, 1998
   • Description: This patent details methods for controlling network devices using policies, which is a fundamental concept in network management.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses "controlling devices on a network through policies," which is a core concept in all independent claims of US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18). The novelty of US7386630B2 would likely reside in the specific policies (customer, mapping, network) and their application to the Diffserv over MPLS context, including the creation and association of MPLS tunnels and the EXP-to-PHB mapping.

5. US6751729B1: Automated operation and security system for virtual private networks

   • Publication Date: June 15, 2004
   • Filing Date: July 24, 1998
   • Description: This patent describes an automated system for operating and securing Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). MPLS is often used for VPNs.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): While focusing on VPNs and security, this patent could potentially anticipate aspects related to automated configuration and management of network elements for establishing secure or private network connections, as MPLS tunnels are used for VPN support (as mentioned in US7386630B2's detailed description and FIG. 7). Specifically, the "creating a group of MPLS tunnels" in US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18) could be partially anticipated if the VPN system involved automated tunnel creation.

6. US6856676B1: System and method of controlling and managing voice and data services in a telecommunications network

   • Publication Date: February 15, 2005
   • Filing Date: October 15, 1998
   • Description: This patent covers a system and method for controlling and managing both voice and data services within a telecommunications network. This implies a need for differentiated service handling.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent's focus on managing voice and data services implies QoS capabilities. It could potentially anticipate the "network policy that is configured to define the Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic" and the general idea of managing different service types (Claims 12, 18). However, the specific "Diffserv over MPLS" architecture and policy translation mechanism of US7386630B2 would likely be distinguishing.

7. US6408001B1: Method for determining label assignments for a router

   • Publication Date: June 18, 2002
   • Filing Date: October 21, 1998
   • Description: This patent describes a method for determining label assignments for a router, which is directly relevant to MPLS functionality.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant as it deals with MPLS label assignments. All independent claims of US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18) involve MPLS tunnels and related configurations. While US6408001B1 might not explicitly cover policy-based management or Diffserv, it could potentially anticipate the underlying technical mechanism of how MPLS labels are handled, which forms a basis for US7386630B2's "mapping policy that maps between an experimental field and a unique per-hop-behavior" in the context of MPLS. The combination of policy management with label assignments for Diffserv would likely be the novel aspect of US7386630B2.

8. US6167445A: Method and apparatus for defining and implementing high-level quality of service policies in computer networks

   • Publication Date: December 26, 2000
   • Filing Date: October 26, 1998
   • Description: This patent claims a method and apparatus for defining and implementing high-level QoS policies in computer networks.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US6104700A and US6170009B1, this patent focuses on high-level QoS policies and their implementation. It could potentially anticipate the general policy definition and deployment aspects of US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18). The specific combination of customer, network, and mapping policies for Diffserv over MPLS, including tunnel group identifiers and tunneling modes, is likely the distinguishing feature of US7386630B2.

9. US6522627B1: Managing internet protocol connection oriented services

   • Publication Date: February 18, 2003
   • Filing Date: November 12, 1998
   • Description: This patent describes managing Internet Protocol (IP) connection-oriented services.
   • Potential Anticipation (33 U.S.C. § 102): This patent broadly covers managing IP services. US7386630B2 deals with managing Diffserv over MPLS in IP networks. While the prior art might not explicitly mention Diffserv or MPLS, the underlying concept of managing IP services could potentially anticipate the broader goal of US7386630B2, particularly the "customer policy being configured to govern the treatment of individual customer traffic" (Claims 12, 18).

10. US6775280B1: Methods and apparatus for routing packets using policy and network efficiency information

    • Publication Date: August 10, 2004
    • Filing Date: April 29, 1999
    • Description: This patent covers methods and apparatus for routing packets using policy and network efficiency information.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant as it explicitly mentions "routing packets using policy." This directly aligns with the policy-based management described in US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18). The distinguishing features of US7386630B2 would likely be the specific types of policies (customer, network, mapping) tailored for Diffserv over MPLS, including the tunnel group identifier, tunneling mode, and EXP-to-PHB mapping.

11. US7032022B1: Statistics aggregation for policy-based network

    • Publication Date: April 18, 2006
    • Filing Date: June 10, 1999
    • Description: This patent describes statistics aggregation in a policy-based network environment.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): While focused on statistics, the underlying concept of a "policy-based network" could be broadly anticipatory of the policy server and policy management aspects of US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18). The specific application to Diffserv over MPLS and the policy deployment mechanisms of US7386630B2 would likely differentiate it.

12. US6678264B1: Establishing connections with a pre-specified quality of service across a communication network

    • Publication Date: January 13, 2004
    • Filing Date: June 30, 1999
    • Description: This patent describes establishing connections with pre-specified QoS across a communication network.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses establishing connections with pre-specified QoS, which is a core objective of Diffserv over MPLS as described in US7386630B2. It could potentially anticipate aspects of "defining a network policy that is configured to define the Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic" (Claims 12, 18) and the overall goal of providing QoS. The explicit combination of Diffserv with MPLS and the detailed policy translation would likely be distinguishing factors for US7386630B2.

13. US6680943B1: Establishing bi-directional communication sessions across a communications network

    • Publication Date: January 20, 2004
    • Filing Date: October 1, 1999
    • Description: This patent describes establishing bi-directional communication sessions across a network.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is more general about communication sessions. It could potentially anticipate the broader network functionality that US7386630B2 aims to manage, but it is less likely to anticipate the specific policy-based Diffserv over MPLS mechanisms described.

14. US6611532B1: Methods and apparatus for integrating signaling system number 7 networks with networks using multi-protocol label switching

    • Publication Date: August 26, 2003
    • Filing Date: December 7, 1999
    • Description: This patent is highly relevant as it describes integrating Signaling System Number 7 (SS7) networks with networks using MPLS. This indicates prior art in combining different network technologies with MPLS.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent demonstrates integration with MPLS for another network type. This could potentially anticipate the concept of integrating MPLS with other functionalities, which is fundamental to US7386630B2's "Diffserv over MPLS" approach. While the specific integration of Diffserv with MPLS for QoS is distinct, the broader idea of using MPLS as an underlying transport for other services might be anticipated, impacting the scope of Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, and 18, especially the "MPLS tunnels" aspects.

15. US6665273B1: Dynamically adjusting multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) traffic engineering tunnel bandwidth

    • Publication Date: December 16, 2003
    • Filing Date: January 11, 2000
    • Description: This patent focuses on dynamically adjusting MPLS traffic engineering tunnel bandwidth.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant as it deals directly with MPLS traffic engineering and tunnel management, including dynamic adjustments, which relates to the "tunnel group" and "tunnel characteristics object" in US7386630B2 (FIG. 4F). Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, and 18 of US7386630B2 involve creating and configuring MPLS tunnels. While US6665273B1 may not explicitly combine this with Diffserv in a policy-based manner, it could potentially anticipate aspects of managing MPLS tunnel parameters. The specific policy-based mapping for Diffserv PHBs and tunneling modes in US7386630B2 would likely be the distinguishing elements.

16. US6778496B1: Distributed call admission and load balancing method and apparatus for packet networks

    • Publication Date: August 17, 2004
    • Filing Date: June 7, 2000
    • Description: This patent describes a distributed call admission and load balancing method for packet networks. This is related to managing network resources and traffic.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent deals with resource management and traffic control in packet networks. It could potentially anticipate aspects of "network policy that is configured to define the Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic" (Claims 12, 18) by addressing how network resources are managed for different traffic flows.

17. US6791985B1: ATM transport over multi-protocol label switching

    • Publication Date: September 14, 2004
    • Filing Date: July 12, 2000
    • Description: This patent describes the transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US6611532B1, this patent demonstrates the use of MPLS as a transport for another network technology (ATM). This could generally anticipate the concept of integrating MPLS with other functionalities, including Diffserv, for which US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18) claims specific policy management.

18. US7046680B1: Network access system including a programmable access device having distributed service control

    • Publication Date: May 16, 2006
    • Filing Date: November 28, 2000
    • Description: This patent describes a network access system with a programmable access device and distributed service control.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent's focus on "programmable access device" and "distributed service control" could potentially anticipate the policy deployment to network devices and interfaces in US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18). The specific policies and their integration with Diffserv/MPLS would likely be the distinguishing features.

19. US20050088977A1: Dynamic virtual private network (VPN) tunnel quality of service (QoS) treatment

    • Publication Date: April 28, 2005
    • Filing Date: December 14, 2000
    • Description: This patent application describes dynamic QoS treatment for VPN tunnels.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is highly relevant as it explicitly discusses "dynamic virtual private network (VPN) tunnel quality of service (QoS) treatment." VPNs often use MPLS tunnels, and QoS is central to Diffserv. This could potentially anticipate the "creating a group of MPLS tunnels" (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18) and the QoS aspects of the customer and network policies in US7386630B2, particularly if the QoS treatment involves differentiated services. The policy-based management layer of US7386630B2, with its specific policy types and translation, may provide novelty.

20. US7120150B2: Technique for ethernet access to packet-based services

    • Publication Date: October 10, 2006
    • Filing Date: January 30, 2001
    • Description: This patent describes a technique for Ethernet access to packet-based services.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is more focused on access technology. It is less likely to anticipate the specific policy-based Diffserv over MPLS management claimed in US7386630B2.

21. US6778498B2: Virtual private network (VPN)-aware customer premises equipment (CPE) edge router

    • Publication Date: August 17, 2004
    • Filing Date: March 20, 2001
    • Description: This patent describes a VPN-aware CPE edge router.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent relates to VPNs and edge routers, which are components of the network architecture described in US7386630B2 (e.g., "edge routers 356" in FIG. 3). It could potentially anticipate aspects of how customer traffic is handled at the network edge within a VPN context, which aligns with the "customer policy comprising a tunnel mode and a tunnel group identifier" and mapping customer traffic to MPLS tunnels in US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18).

22. US6940864B2: Network access traffic sorter

    • Publication Date: September 6, 2005
    • Filing Date: July 16, 2001
    • Description: This patent describes a network access traffic sorter.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent focuses on traffic sorting, which is a component of traffic classification and conditioning in Diffserv. It could potentially anticipate the underlying mechanism of classifying traffic, which is part of how the customer policy and Diffserv treatment would operate in US7386630B2.

23. US6968389B1: System and method for qualifying requests in a network

    • Publication Date: November 22, 2005
    • Filing Date: July 17, 2001
    • Description: This patent describes a system and method for qualifying requests in a network.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is more general about request qualification. It is less likely to anticipate the specific policy-based Diffserv over MPLS management claimed in US7386630B2.

24. US20030053464A1: Method of sending data packets through a multiple protocol label switching MPLS network, and a MPLS network

    • Publication Date: March 20, 2003
    • Filing Date: September 18, 2001
    • Description: This patent application describes a method for sending data packets through an MPLS network and an MPLS network itself.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is highly relevant as it describes fundamental MPLS packet forwarding. All independent claims of US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18) involve MPLS networks and tunnels. This prior art could potentially anticipate the underlying MPLS network operations, but it would likely lack the policy-based management layer specifically for Diffserv integration.

25. US20040258056A1: Provider connection system, packet exchange apparatus thereof, dns server, packet exchange method, and computer program thereof

    • Publication Date: December 23, 2004
    • Filing Date: November 13, 2001
    • Description: This patent application describes a provider connection system, packet exchange apparatus, DNS server, packet exchange method, and related computer program.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is broad, covering various aspects of network infrastructure. It is less likely to anticipate the specific policy-based Diffserv over MPLS management claimed in US7386630B2.

26. US20030185217A1: Label distribution protocol supporting multiple classes of service in a multi protocol label switching (MPLS) network, methods and MPLS network using thereof

    • Publication Date: October 2, 2003
    • Filing Date: March 28, 2002
    • Description: This patent application describes a label distribution protocol that supports multiple classes of service in an MPLS network.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is highly relevant as it directly addresses "multiple classes of service in a multi protocol label switching (MPLS) network" using a label distribution protocol. This directly relates to the goal of Diffserv over MPLS and the use of LSPs for different traffic classes in US7386630B2. It could potentially anticipate the "mapping policy that maps between an experimental field and a unique per-hop-behavior" if the classes of service are analogous to PHBs, and the "customer policy comprising a tunnel mode and a tunnel group identifier" if such classes are tied to customer traffic. The policy server and its translation/deployment functionality in US7386630B2 might offer the distinguishing novelty.

27. US20060073835A1: Service-oriented protection scheme for a radio access network

    • Publication Date: April 6, 2006
    • Filing Date: May 15, 2002
    • Description: This patent application describes a service-oriented protection scheme for a radio access network.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is focused on radio access networks and protection schemes. While US7386630B2 mentions 3G networks (FIG. 7), the core inventive concept of policy-based Diffserv over MPLS management is distinct from a protection scheme.

28. US7116665B2: Methods and systems for a distributed provider edge

    • Publication Date: October 3, 2006
    • Filing Date: June 4, 2002
    • Description: This patent describes methods and systems for a distributed provider edge.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent relates to the architecture of network edges. Edge devices are central to Diffserv classification and MPLS ingress/egress. This could potentially anticipate aspects of how policies are deployed to "interfaces of devices of a network" and to "egress interface of one of said multi-protocol label switching tunnels" (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18).

29. US6741595B2: Device for enabling trap and trace of internet protocol communications

    • Publication Date: May 25, 2004
    • Filing Date: June 11, 2002
    • Description: This patent describes a device for enabling trap and trace of IP communications.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is focused on monitoring and troubleshooting. It is unlikely to anticipate the specific policy-based Diffserv over MPLS management claimed in US7386630B2.

30. US20030231640A1: Minimizing memory accesses for a network implementing differential services over multi-protocol label switching

    • Publication Date: December 18, 2003
    • Filing Date: June 18, 2002
    • Description: This patent application is highly relevant as it explicitly discusses "minimizing memory accesses for a network implementing differential services over multi-protocol label switching." This indicates prior art in the specific technical combination of Diffserv and MPLS.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is extremely relevant as it discusses the implementation of Diffserv over MPLS. While US7386630B2 focuses on policy-based management of this combination, the existence of this prior art suggests that the technical integration of Diffserv and MPLS was known. This could potentially anticipate the broad concept of a "network that includes multi-protocol label switching tunnels" and supporting Diffserv functionality over them (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18). The distinguishing factor for US7386630B2 would be the explicit policy server architecture, the definition of customer, network, and mapping policies, and the automated translation and deployment of these policies to achieve this integration.

31. US20040117613A1: System and method for providing a customer controlled network

    • Publication Date: June 17, 2004
    • Filing Date: July 19, 2002
    • Description: This patent application describes a system and method for providing a customer-controlled network.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is relevant to the "customer policy" aspect of US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18). The idea of allowing customer control over network behavior could be anticipated. The specific mechanisms for customer control, particularly the "tunnel group identifier and a tunneling mode" for Diffserv over MPLS, would likely be the distinguishing features of US7386630B2.

32. US20050018605A1: Multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) edge service extraction

    • Publication Date: January 27, 2005
    • Filing Date: July 22, 2002
    • Description: This patent application describes MPLS edge service extraction.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is relevant to MPLS edge operations, which are critical for Diffserv over MPLS implementation (e.g., ingress/egress interfaces of MPLS edge devices). It could potentially anticipate aspects of how services are handled at the edge of an MPLS network, which forms a part of the policy deployment in US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18).

33. US20040028054A1: Dynamic bandwidth reallocation

    • Publication Date: February 12, 2004
    • Filing Date: August 12, 2002
    • Description: This patent application describes dynamic bandwidth reallocation.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document relates to resource management, specifically bandwidth. This is relevant to QoS and could potentially anticipate aspects of the "network policy that is configured to define the Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic" (Claims 12, 18) by addressing how network resources like bandwidth are adjusted.

34. US20040081197A1: Network routing method and system utilizing label-switching traffic engineering queues

    • Publication Date: April 29, 2004
    • Filing Date: October 25, 2002
    • Description: This patent application describes a network routing method and system utilizing label-switching traffic engineering queues.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is highly relevant as it explicitly covers "label-switching traffic engineering queues," which are central to MPLS traffic engineering and can be used to implement Diffserv PHBs. This could potentially anticipate the mechanisms by which traffic is handled with different QoS characteristics within MPLS, particularly the "network policy" and "mapping policy" related to PHBs in US7386630B2 (Claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 18). The policy-based management layer, including the translation and deployment, would be the likely point of novelty for US7386630B2.

35. US20040213264A1: Service class and destination dominance traffic management

    • Publication Date: October 28, 2004
    • Filing Date: April 25, 2003
    • Description: This patent application describes service class and destination dominance traffic management.
    • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is relevant to traffic management based on service classes, which is a core concept of Diffserv. It could potentially anticipate the "defining a network policy that is configured to define the Diffserv treatment of aggregated traffic" and how traffic is differentiated (Claims 12, 18). The specific policy-based management of Diffserv over MPLS with explicit tunnel group identifiers and tunneling modes would likely be the distinguishing features of US7386630B2.

The obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US patent 7386630 requires identifying prior art combinations that would have made the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., before the April 30, 2003 priority date). The patent's core innovation lies in using a policy server to centrally manage and configure Diffserv over MPLS networks, including customer policies, network policies, and mapping policies, and deploying these as device-specific commands to network interfaces.

Here, we consider several combinations of prior art references.

Combinations for Obviousness:

1. Combination of Policy-Based Management with Diffserv and MPLS Concepts:

• Prior Art References:

  • Westerinen, A. et al., "Terminology for Policy-Based Management," RFC 3198 (2001): This document provides a glossary of policy-related terms and explains that policy-based management systems use a policy server to define, store, and configure policies on multiple network elements. It highlights that a centralized server ensures consistent configurations across these elements and simplifies policy provisioning.
  • Faucheur, F.L. et al., "MPLS Support of Differentiated Services," RFC 3270 (2002): This RFC specifically addresses how MPLS can support Differentiated Services, including the use of E-LSP and L-LSP. It discusses mapping Diffserv information to MPLS headers (labels and EXP fields) and tunneling modes (pipe mode and uniform mode) for translating Diffserv information when packets exit the MPLS network.
  • Trimintzios, P. et al., "A Management and Control Architecture for Providing IP Differentiated Services in MPLS-based Network," IEEE Communication Magazine (2001): This article describes a management and control architecture for providing IP differentiated services in MPLS-based networks.
  • Bruce S. Davie, Yakov Rekhter, "MPLS: Technology and Applications," Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (2000): This book provides a comprehensive overview of MPLS, including its applications for traffic engineering and VPN services, and its functionality related to QoS.

• Motivation for Combination and Obviousness:
  A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the general principles of policy-based management with the known technical details of integrating Diffserv and MPLS.

  • Problem: Prior to US7386630, supporting Diffserv and MPLS concurrently involved "cumbersome mappings" and required administrators to configure edge devices one by one using "device-specific commands" [cite: Google Patents]. The existing solutions lacked a centralized, scalable management approach for Diffserv over MPLS.
  • Motivation: Westerinen (RFC 3198) clearly articulates the benefits of policy-based management, such as simplifying management, ensuring policy consistency across multiple network elements, and automating configurations. Given the known complexities of manually configuring Diffserv over MPLS, a POSITA would recognize the immediate advantage of applying a policy-based management system to this problem.
  • How the combination renders claims obvious:
    • Faucheur (RFC 3270) and Trimintzios et al. describe the technical aspects of integrating Diffserv and MPLS, including the use of EXP-to-PHB mapping and tunneling modes.
    • Davie and Rekhter's book details MPLS traffic engineering and its role in utilizing network resources and supporting various services.
    • A POSITA, familiar with the concepts from Westerinen (policy server, device-neutral policies, device-specific commands, deployment to policy targets) and the technical requirements of Diffserv over MPLS (EXP-to-PHB mapping, tunneling modes, LSP configuration) from Faucheur and Davie/Rekhter, would find it obvious to implement the management of Diffserv/MPLS configurations using a centralized policy server. The "translation" of high-level policies into device-specific commands, and their "deployment" to network interfaces, as described in the patent, are direct applications of the policy-based management paradigm to the specific problem of Diffserv over MPLS.
    • Specifically, Independent Claim 1, 4, 10, 12, and 18, which claim a policy server/apparatus/method for configuring customer policies (with tunnel group identifier and tunneling mode), mapping policies (EXP to PHB), translating these into device-specific commands, and deploying them to interfaces of devices within an MPLS network, would be obvious. The "tunnel group identifier" and "tunneling mode" in the customer policy are directly derived from the Diffserv over MPLS interoperability elements known in the prior art. The "role name" association with interfaces, as described in Westerinen and implied in policy management for scalability, would also be a logical inclusion for managing configurations across numerous devices.

2. Combination of Diffserv/MPLS Traffic Engineering with Policy-Based QoS Management:

• Prior Art References:

  • Akyildiz, I.F. et al., "A New Traffic Engineering Manager for Diffserv/MPLS Networks: Design and Implementation on an IP QoS Testbed," Computer Communications (2003): This paper describes a traffic engineering manager specifically for Diffserv/MPLS networks, focusing on QoS. It acknowledges the complexity of managing Diffserv/MPLS networks.
  • Flegkas, P. et al., "A Policy-Based Quality of Service Management System for IP Diffserv Networks," IEEE Network Magazine (2002): This reference discusses a policy-based QoS management system specifically for IP Diffserv networks. It emphasizes guiding network behavior through high-level declarative directives that are dynamically introduced, checked for consistency, refined, and evaluated, resulting in low-level actions.
  • Jacobson, V. et al., "An Expedited Forwarding PHB," RFC 2598 (1999): This RFC defines the Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop Behavior (EF PHB), a crucial component of Diffserv for providing low-loss, low-latency, low-jitter, and assured bandwidth services.

• Motivation for Combination and Obviousness:
  A POSITA concerned with efficient QoS management in converging Diffserv and MPLS networks would be motivated to combine a specialized traffic engineering manager with policy-based QoS management.

  • Problem: While Akyildiz et al. presented a traffic engineering manager for Diffserv/MPLS, it likely still involved significant manual configuration or lacked the full automation and centralized control offered by a robust policy-based system.
  • Motivation: Flegkas et al. demonstrate the advantages of policy-based management for Diffserv networks, emphasizing its ability to handle complexity and adapt to new service requirements through high-level policies. Given that Diffserv (as detailed in Jacobson's RFC 2598) and MPLS (for traffic engineering, as mentioned in Akyildiz et al.) are both critical for QoS, a POSITA would naturally seek to apply the benefits of policy-based management (from Flegkas et al.) to the combined Diffserv/MPLS environment (from Akyildiz et al.).
  • How the combination renders claims obvious: This combination directly leads to the concept of centrally managing Diffserv over MPLS configurations through policies. The "mapping policy" between an EXP field and a PHB (as in Jacobson et al.) would be a fundamental high-level directive in such a system. The "customer policy" and "network policy" would serve to define and govern the Diffserv treatment and traffic rules, consistent with the policy-based QoS management framework. The translation into device-specific commands and deployment to network interfaces are inherent features of policy-based management.

3. Combination addressing specific MPLS and Diffserv Interoperability Challenges with Policy Management:

• Prior Art References:

  • Faucheur, F.L. et al., "MPLS Support of Differentiated Services," RFC 3270 (2002): This RFC details the interoperability of Diffserv and MPLS, specifically mentioning EXP-to-PHB mapping and tunneling modes (pipe mode, uniform mode) as "essential elements." It also highlights the need to rely on signaling for label and EXP mapping.
  • Westerinen, A. et al., "Terminology for Policy-Based Management," RFC 3198 (2001): As before, this reference provides the foundational understanding of policy-based management systems.
  • Katz, D. et al., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF," Internet Draft (2001/2002 versions available prior to priority date): These drafts discuss extensions to OSPF for traffic engineering, including advertising multiple metrics for path selection, which are crucial for configuring LSPs.
  • Li, T. et al., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering," Internet Draft (2001/2000 versions available prior to priority date): Similar to the OSPF extensions, these drafts provide mechanisms for IS-IS to support traffic engineering, including the definition of multiple routing metrics for LSPs.

• Motivation for Combination and Obviousness:
  A POSITA would be motivated to use policy-based management to simplify the known complexities of Diffserv and MPLS interoperability, particularly with signaling for LSP setup and traffic engineering.

  • Problem: RFC 3270 points out the difficulty in supporting Diffserv and MPLS concurrently due to "cumbersome mappings" and the need for device-specific configurations, including relying on signaling for label and EXP mapping.
  • Motivation: Westerinen provides the solution of a centralized policy server to automate and simplify configurations across multiple network elements. The drafts by Katz et al. and Li et al. detail the routing protocol extensions necessary for MPLS traffic engineering and LSP setup based on various constraints.
  • How the combination renders claims obvious: It would be obvious to a POSITA to use a policy server (Westerinen) to define and deploy the "EXP-to-PHB mapping" and "tunneling mode" (Faucheur) which are explicitly identified as essential for Diffserv/MPLS interoperability. Furthermore, the policy server could logically manage the creation and properties of "MPLS tunnels" (which are LSPs), using the traffic engineering capabilities provided by extensions to routing protocols like OSPF and IS-IS (Katz et al., Li et al.). The concept of a "tunnel group identifier" and "tunneling mode" within a customer policy, as described in US7386630, directly addresses the elements of Diffserv/MPLS interoperability and would be a logical component of a policy-based management system.

In conclusion, the combination of prior art references clearly demonstrates that the core inventive concept of US patent 7386630 – using a policy server for managing and configuring Diffserv over MPLS networks – would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The motivation to combine these elements stems from the recognized difficulties in manually configuring and managing complex Diffserv/MPLS interactions and the known benefits of policy-based management for achieving scalability, consistency, and automation in network administration.