Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 1 of 21
`Case 5:18—md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 1 of 21
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 2 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005088
`
`OK TO ENTER:
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`2618-0011
`
`2166
`
`Attorney Docket:
`Group Art Unit:
`Examiner: PHAM, Khanh P.
`Confirmation No.:
`3082
`
`In re PATENT APPLICATION OF:
`David A. FARBER etal.
`Application Serial No.: 11/017,650
`Application Filing Date: 12/22/2004
`Title: Content Delivery Network and
`Associated Methods and Mechanisms
`RESPONSE TO FINAL OFFICE ACTION
`
`Date:
`
`February 14, 2010
`
`via EFS-Web
`Hon. Commissionerof Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Responsive to the Final Office Action of 08/17/09, please amend this
`application as follows:
`Amendments to the claims begin on page2.
`Remarks begin on page 11.
`
`A Petition for Extension of Timeis being filed herewith along with the
`required fee.
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 3 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005093
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`IN THE CLAIMS
`Please amend the claims as follows:
`
`1. (Currently amended) A content delivery method comprising:
`causing a plurality offiles to be distributed across a plurality of computers,
`wherein at least some of the plurality of computers comprise a peer-to-peer
`
`network;
`responsive to a requestfor a file, the request including at least a name for
`the file, the name having been determined,at least in part, using a given function
`of the data that comprises the contents ofthe file, selectively causing a copy of the
`file to be provided from a given oneofthe plurality of computers, wherein a copy
`of the file is not provided without authorization; and
`
`2.
`
`wherein the request for the file is resolved based, at least in part, on a
`measure of availability of at least one of the computers.
`in a system in whicha plurality of
`(Currently amended) A method,
`files are distributed across a plurality of computers, wherein at least some of the
`plurality of computers comprise a peer-to-peer network, the method comprising:
`obtaining a name for file, the name having been determinedat least in part
`as a given function of the data that comprises the contents ofthe file, wherein the
`contents of the particular file may represent a digital message, a digital image, a
`video signal or an audio signal; and
`including at least the name,
`responsive to a requestfor the file, the request
`selectively providing a copy ofthe file from a given one of the computers, wherein
`a copy of the requested file is not provided without authorization, and wherein the
`request for the file is resolved based,at least in part, on a measure of availability
`of at least one computer having a copy ofthe requested file.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 4 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005094
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`3.
`
`(Currently amended) A method comprising:
`distributing a set of files from a first computer across a network of
`from the first computer, wherein at least some of the computers
`computers distinct
`
`comprise a peer-to-peer network;
`for at least one file in the set of files, applying [[an MD5]] a message digest
`function to the contents ofthe at least one file to obtain a True Name forthe at
`least one file;
`including at
`in response to a requestfor the at least one file, the request
`least the True Name ofthe particular file, selectively causing a copy of the
`file to be provided from a given one of the computers, wherein a copy of
`particular
`the file is not provided without authorization, and wherein the request for the at
`least one file is resolved based,at least in part, on a measure of availability ofat
`least one of the computers.
`
`4.
`
`(Currently amended) A content delivery method comprising:
`distributing a plurality of files across a network of computers, wherein at
`least some of the computers comprise a peer-to-peer network;
`for a particular file, determining a True Name using at least a given
`function of the data, wherein the data used by the function to determine the name
`comprises the contents ofthe particular file;
`obtaining a requestfor the particular file, the request
`True Name ofthe particular file; and
`responsive to the request, selectively causing the particular file to be
`provided from one of the servers of the network of computers, wherein a copy of
`the file is not provided without authorization, and
`
`including at least the
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 5 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005095
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`wherein the request for the file is resolved based, at least in part, on a
`measure of availability of at least one of the computers having a copy of the file.
`
`5.
`
`(Currently amended) A content delivery method, comprising:
`distributing a set of files across a network of servers, wherein at least some
`of the servers comprise a peer-to-peer network;
`for a particular file representing a digital image, or a video signal or an
`audio signal or a software product, the file having a contextual name specifying at
`least one location in the network at which the file may be located, determining
`another name forthe particular file, the other name including a True Name for the
`file which was determined using a message digest function of some data, where
`the some data used by the given function comprises the contents of the particular
`
`file;
`
`obtaining a request for the particular file, the request including at least the
`True Name ofthe particular file; and
`responsive to the request, selectively providing the particular file from one
`of the servers of the network of servers, said providing being basedat least in part
`on the True Name of the particular file, and wherein a copyof the file is not
`provided without authorization, and wherein the requestfor the file is resolved
`based, at least in part, on a measure of availability of at least one of the servers
`having a copy of the requested file.
`
`6.
`
`(Currently amended) A method comprising:
`applying [[an MD5]] a message digest function to the contents of an imege
`file containing data representing a digital image, or a video signal or an audio
`signal or a software product to obtain a True Name for the file;
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 6 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005096
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`distributing copies of the image file from a first server across a network of
`servers distinct from the first server, wherein at least some of the servers comprise
`
`a peer-to-peer network;
`obtaining a request for the image file, the request including at least the True
`Name ofthe file; and
`responsive to the request, selectively causing a copy of the smage file to be
`provided from one ofthe servers of the network of servers, wherein a copy of the
`file is not provided without authorization, and
`wherein the request for the file is resolved based, at least in part, on a
`measure of availability of at least one of the servers having a copyof the file.
`
`7.
`
`(Currently amended) A method asin any one of claims 1, 2,3, 4, 5,
`and 6 wherein the measure of availability for a computer is based onat least one of
`
`the measurements selected from:
`
` é@measurementefbandwidthtethecomputer:
`(6}——a measurement of a cost of a connection to the computer, and
`(b) a measurement of reliability of a connection to the computer.
`
`8.
`
`(Canceled)
`
`9.
`
`(Currently amended) A method comprising:
`distributing a set of files from a first computer across a network of
`computers, wherein at least some of the computers comprise a peer-to-peer
`
`network;
`
`in response to a requestfor a file, wherein the request for the file includesat
`least a name determined asa function of the contents ofthe file, selectively
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 7 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005097
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`causing the file to be provided from a given one of the computers in the network,
`wherein a copy ofthe file is not provided without authorization, and
`wherein the request for the file is resolved based, at least in part, on a
`measure of availability of at least one of the computers in the network, and
`wherein the measure of availability for a computer is based,at least in part, on at
`least one of the measurements selected from:
`
`bandwidth
`
`(a)
`(5) a measurement of a cost of a connection to the computer, and
`¢e) (b) a measurementofreliability of a connection to the computer.
`
`(Original) A method as in claim 9 wherein the request forthe file is
`10.
`resolved based,at least in part, on a measure of availability of at least one of the
`computers in the network that is supposed to have a copyof the file.
`
`11.
`
`(Canceled)
`
`12.
`
`(Canceled)
`
`A method as in claim 9 wherein the network of
`13.
`(Original)
`computers are distinct from the first computer.
`
`14.
`
`(Previously presented) A method as in claim 2, further comprising:
`maintaining accounting information relating to files in the system; and
`using the accounting information asa basis for charges based on an identity
`ofthe files.
`
`15.
`
`(Previously presented) A method as in claim 9, further comprising:
`
`aneasurementof
`te-the-computer:
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 8 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005098
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`maintaining accounting information relating to at least some of said files;
`
`and
`
`using the accounting information asa basis for a system in which charges
`are based on an identity of the files.
`
`16.
`
`(Original) A method as in claim 15 , wherein the maintaining of
`accounting information includesat least some of activities selected from:
`tracking which files have been stored on a computer; and
`(a)
`tracking which files have been transmitted from a computer.
`
`(b)
`
`17.
`
`(Currently amended) A method comprising:
`causing a set of files to be distributed from a first computer across a
`network of computers distinct from the first computer, wherein at least some of the
`
`computers comprise a peer-to-peer network;
`maintaining accounting information relating to at least some of said files;
`
`and
`
`in response to a requestfor a file, the request for the file includes at least a
`name determined as a function of the contents ofthe file, selectively causing the
`file to be provided from a given one of the computers, wherein a copy ofthe file is
`not provided without authorization, and
`wherein the request for the file is resolved based, at least in part, on a
`measure of availability of at least one of the computers that is supposed to have a
`copy ofthe file, and wherein the measure of availability for a computer is based, at
`least in part, on at least one of the measurements selected from:
`
`bandwidth
`
`tothe
`
`(a)
`
`a measurement of a cost of a connection to the computer, and
`¢e) (b) a measurement of reliability of a connection to the computer.
`
`computer:
`aomeasurement-of
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 9 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005099
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`18.
`
`(Original) A method as in claim 17, further comprising:
`using the accounting information asa basis for a system in which charges
`are based on an identity of the data files.
`
`19.
`
`(Original) A method as in claim 18, wherein the maintaining of
`accounting information includesat least some of activities selected from:
`tracking which files have been stored on a computer; and
`(a)
`tracking which files have been transmitted from a computer.
`
`(b)
`
`20.
`
`(Currently amended) A method, operable in a data processing
`
`system,
`
`comprising:
`distributing a set of files from a first computer across a network of
`(A)
`from the first computer, wherein at least some of the computers
`computers distinct
`
`comprise a peer-to-peer network;
`maintaining accounting information relating to files in the system,
`(B)
`wherein the maintaining of accounting information includesat least some of
`activities selected from:
`tracking which files have been stored on a computer; and
`tracking which files have been transmitted from a computer;
`
`(b1)
`
`(b2)
`
`and
`
`in response to a requestfor a file, wherein the request forthe file
`(C)
`includes at least a name determined as a function of the contentsofthe file,
`selectively causing the file to be provided from a given one of the computers in the
`network, wherein a copy ofthe file is not provided without authorization, and
`wherein the request for the file is resolved based, at least in part, on a
`measure of availability of at least one of the computers in the network that is
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 10 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005100
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`supposed to have a copy ofthe file, and wherein the measure of availability for a
`computer is based,at least in part, on at least one of the measurements selected
`
`bandwidth
`
`(cl)
`¢e2) a measurement ofa cost of a connection to the computer, and
`(c2) a measurement of reliability of a connection to the
`
`from:
`
`computer.
`
`A method as in claim 20, wherein some of the
`21. (Original)
`computers communicate with each other using a TCP/IP communication protocol.
`
`22. (Original) A method as in any one of claims 1-6 or claim 9 or claim 17
`or claim 20, wherein a copy of the requested file is not provided to unlicensed
`parties or to unauthorized parties.
`
`23. (Currently amended) A method asin any oneof claims | to 6 or 9,
`
`bactl
`
`‘gine:
`
`notalewine wherein an unauthorized eruntcensed-copy ofa file is not
`allowed to be provided from one of the computers.
`
`24.
`
`(Previously presented) A method asin any one of claims | and 2 to
`6, wherein said methodis operable in a data processing system, the method further
`
`comprising:
`
`maintaining accounting information relating to data files in the system; and
`using the accounting information for charges based on an identity of the
`data files.
`
`+othe-computer:
`ameasurement-of
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 11 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005101
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`25. (NEW) The method of claim 23 wherein an unlicensed copyofa file is
`not allowed to be provided from one of the computers.
`
`26. (NEW) The method asin any one of claims 7, 9, 17, and 20 wherein the
`measure of availability of a computer is based at least in part on a measurement of
`bandwidth to the computer.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 12 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005102
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`REMARKS
`Reconsideration and allowance ofthis application are respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`By this Amendment, claims 8 and 12 have been canceled, and claims1, 2,
`3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 17 and 20, 22, and 23 have been amended. New claims 25 and 26
`
`has been added.
`The subject matter of canceled claim 8 (that at least some ofthe plurality of
`computers comprise a peer-to-peer network)has been incorporated into claim 1
`(from whichit depended); and the subject matter of canceled claim 12 has been
`
`authorization
`
`incorporated into independent claim 9 (from which it depended). Similarly, each
`of the other independent claims has been amendedto recite that at least some of
`the computers (or servers) form a peer-to-peer network.
`The independent claims are also amendedto recite that a requested file is
`selectively provided (or caused to be provided), wherein a copy of the requested
`file is not provided without authorization. Support for this amendment is found in
`the application as filed, e.g., “... refusing to provide accessto a file without
`...”
`Claim 22 has been amendedto recite that “a copy of the requested file is
`not provided to unlicensed parties.” New claim 25 includes subject matter that
`was removed from claim 23 by this amendment (“an unlicensed-copy of a file is
`not allowed to be provided from one of the computers”).
`Claim 23 is amendedto clarify that “an unauthorized copyof a file not
`allowed to be provided from one of the computers.”
`No new matter has been addedby any of these amendments.
`Upon entry of this amendment, claims 1-7, 9-10 and 13-26 will be pending
`in this application.
`
`-ll-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 13 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005103
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION & TERMINAL DISCLAIMER
`The Examiner rejected claims 1-23 on the groundsof nonstatutory
`obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 47 of US
`Patent No. 6,415,280.
`Applicant has previously submitted a Terminal Disclaimer with respect to
`U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280.
`The Office disapproved of the terminal disclaimer filed 05/19/2009
`“because ... only 50% interest is claimed.” Applicant respectfully submits that the
`earlier-filed terminal disclaimer was proper and should have been accepted by the
`
`Office.
`
`As explained in the MPEP, “[a] terminal disclaimer is a statement filed by
`an owner(in whole or in part) of a patent or a patent to be granted ....” MPEP
`804.02 § V. REQUIREMENTS OF A TERMINAL DISCLAIMER, with emphasis
`
`added.
`
`The requirements for a terminal disclaimer are set forth in 37 CFR 1.321.
`Id. A terminal disclaimer filed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) need not be
`signed by an entity claiming a 100% interest in the patent or the application. To
`the contrary, Rule 1.321 specifically contemplates a terminal disclaimer by an
`assignee of record of an undivided part interest (see 37 CFR § 1.321(c)(1), and
`In any case, 37 CFR § 1.321 specifically states that “An
`§ 1.321 (b)(1)(Gi)).
`applicant or assignee may disclaim or dedicate to the public ... any terminal part
`of the term, of a patent to be granted.” The rule does not require that the
`disclaimer be by an applicant or assignee claiming the entire interest in the patent.
`In this case the undersigned, representing the Kinetech,Inc., the ownerof a
`fifty percent undivided interest in the present application and in U.S. Patent No.
`6,415,280, signed the Terminal Disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR
`§ 1.321(c)(1), and § 1.321(b)(1)(iv).
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 14 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005104
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`Accordingly, approval ofthe earlier filed Terminal Disclaimer and
`withdrawal of this double patenting rejection are respectfully requested.
`Applicant notes that the filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate this
`nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not to be construed as an admission of
`the propriety of the rejection. Quad Environmental Technologies Corp. v. Union
`Sanitary District, 946 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“filing of a terminal disclaimer
`simply serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double patenting,
`and raises neither a presumption nor estoppel on the merits of the rejection.”).
`
`THE PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
`
`Claims 1-10, 12-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
`unpatentable over Gardner et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,583,995, hereinafter “Gardner”)
`in view of Hellman (U.S. Pat. No. 4,658,093, hereinafter “Hellman”). The
`grounds for this rejection are respectfully traversed.
`The claims have been amended(as discussed above)to clarify various
`features, notably:
`Requested files are selectively provided (or caused to be provided),
`wherein copies of files are not provided without authorization. For
`example, a computer may have an unauthorized copyof a file, in
`which caseit should not provide a copy ofthat file to another. Or, as
`
`1.
`
`another example, a requesting party may not be authorized to request
`or obtain a file, in which case no copy should be provided to that
`party. Or, as another example, a computer may havean authorized
`copy ofa file but may not be authorized to provide that copy to
`in which case no copy should be provided. See, e.g.,
`others,
`Application as filed {00327 to 00333.
`(These examples are not
`intended to limit the scope of the claims in any way.)
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 15 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005105
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`2.
`
`environment.
`
`The computers over which the files are distributed (and from which
`the files are to be obtained) comprise a peer-to-peer network.
`Neither Gardner nor Hellman teach or in any way suggest selectively
`providing (or causing to be provided) files, where copies of files are not provided
`without authorization. And neither Gardner nor Hellman teach or in any way
`suggest operating in a peer-to-peer
`Gardner provides requested data unless “not enough bandwidth is
`available ...” Gardner, col. 14, line 67 to col. 15, line 1, and Fig. 7, step $704..
`But nothing in Gardner teaches or in any way suggests selectively denying a
`request fora file based on any authorization (per each independent claim) or based
`on whetheror not the requesting party is licensed (per claim 22). Nor does
`Gardner teach or in any way suggest(as per claim 23) that “an unauthorized copy
`of a file is not allowed to be provided from one of the computers.” Nor does
`Gardner teach or in any way suggest(as per claim 25) that an unlicensed copy of a
`file is not allowed to be provided from one of the computers.
`As per claims 22 and 23, the Examiner states (Final Office Action of
`08/17/2009 at pg. 15):
`... Gardner and Hellman teach the method of claims 1-6
`discussed above. Hellman also teaches "a copy of the requested file is
`not provided to unlicensed parties or to unauthorized parties” at Col. 10
`... Hellman also teaches “not allowing an unauthorized or
`lines 15-30.
`unlicensed copyofa file to be provided from one of the computers” at
`
`Col. 10 lines 15-30.
`
`respectfully disagrees. Hellman does not teach or in any way
`Applicant
`suggest denying a file to anyone. As noted, in Hellman the user already has the
`In Hellman the user
`file and is merely requesting authorization to use that file.
`gets the software file from some other location ( “user at base unit 12 obtains
`
`software package 17 by purchasing it at a store, over telephone line, or in some
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 16 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005106
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`similar manner.” Hellman, col. 5, lines 51-53.) and then asks for an code that will
`authorize use of the software.
`The portion of Hellman cited by the Examiner(col. 10, lines 15-30
`reproduced here below) has nothing to do with providing copies offiles to users.
`FIG. 7 depicts an implementation of the crypto-
`15 graphic check unit 34, Signals representing K, N, R, and
`H are applied as inputs to a cryptographic function
`generator 38 which generates a check value C as an
`output signal. Signals C and A are input to a comparator
`39. If each bit of C matches the corresponding bit of A
`20 then the comparator 39 and the cryptographic check
`unit 34 generate a signal which indicates that A is to be
`considered a proper authorization and that the update
`unit 36 is to add N authorized uses to the software pack-
`age with hash value H. If even one bit of C differs from
`the corresponding bit of A then A is not considered to
`be
`proper authorization.
`In FIG. 7, the cryptographic fenction generator 38
`whichis part of the base unit 12 is functionally identical
`with the cryptographic function 23 which is part of the
`30 authorization and billmg unit 13. FIG. 4 therefore de-
`picts an implementation of the cryptographic function
`38.
`Hellman, col. 10, lines 15-30.
`
`25
`
`This cited portion of Hellman relates to verifying the authorization signal A,
`to determine whether or notit is valid and therefore whetheror not the useris
`authorized to use the software which he already has. Note that the cited portion
`describes operation of the cryptographic check unit 34 which is part of the base
`
`unit 12.
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 17 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005107
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`ye Pe
`
`CRYPTOGRAPHIC
`eeuncrion
`
`c
`
`q
`
`39
`
`COMPARATOR
`
`&
`TO 36
`SOFTWARE NAME
`
`Ta
`
`FIG._.7
`Hellman hasto deal with the possibility of improper (e.g., fake)
`authorization signals. To try to ensure that the received authorization signalis
`in the cryptographic check unit 34 (in base unit 12), comparator 39
`proper,
`compares the received authorization signal A to a locally-generated signal C. If
`the two signals (A and C) match then the use of the already-present
`software
`package is authorized, otherwise not.
`Hellman differs fundamentally in operation from the presently claimed
`In Hellman there is no control of distribution offiles. Anyone can get
`invention.
`a file (e.g., software), and then a system of authorization codesis used to control
`(and allow) use of those files. This meansthat the users’ systems have to enforce
`authorization. The presently claimed invention, on the other hand, tries to prevent
`In Hellman the useris given the file
`distribution without authorization.
`unconditionally and then uses special hardware to enforcerestrictions on that file’s
`In the presently claimed invention a requested file is not provided without
`
`use.
`
`authorization.
`
`The Examinerrelies on Hellman to show that a software name can be
`determined by applying a hash function to the contents ofa file. Applicant
`incorporates the remarks/arguments from the Response of May 19, 2009.
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 18 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005108
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner states (Final Office
`Action of 08/17/2009 at pgs. 16-17) that he:
`did not relied on Hellman for the step of "requesting a data item’,
`... Gardner...
`instead pointed to Gardnerfor the teaching of this step.
`but
`teaches a step of requesting a data item using conventional method such
`as conventional identifier of the data item. The different between Gardner
`and the claimed invention is that Gardner does not use a
`content-derived
`name for the data item.
`The examiner then relied on Hellman for the teaching of using
`content-derived name for a data item. Hellman teaches at Col. 6 line 30-
`60 that “software package 21 is applied to an input signal to one-way
`hash function generator 22 to produce an output signal H. This output
`signal H is used as an “abbreviation” or name for describing the software
`package 21". Hellman also discuss the advantage of using the content-
`derived file name over conventional file identifier. Thus, it would have
`been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art to modify Gardner's system
`as suggested by Hellman, and the combination of Gardner and Hellman
`anticipate the claimed invention.
`
`Hellman usesthe hash of the software package for two purposes— as part of
`an authorization of use code and for verification of the authorization.
`First, the hash is used to generate the authorization code. When Hellman’s
`authorization and billing unit 13 receives a request for software use from a
`particular base unit 12, the authorization and billing unit 13 generates an
`authorization signal A based on three values, namely: N, R and H (see, e.g.,
`2, and col. 6, line 16 to col. 7, line 2), where H is the output of the hash of the
`software package 21 generated at the authorization and billing unit 13 by one way
`hash function 22. When the base unit 12 receives the authorization signal A from
`the authorization and billing unit 13, then it can use the software 17 for the number
`of times authorized.
`Hellman also describes “operation of the base unit 12 during verification of
`an authorization A to use a software package an additional number oftimes.” Jd.
`at col. 9, lines 15 et seg. During this verification, the base unit 12 repeats the
`process that was usedby the authorization and billing unit 13 to generate the
`
`fig.
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 19 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005109
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`obtained.
`
`In this regard, during verification of the authorization,
`authorization signal A.
`base unit 12 performs the same one way hash onits copy of the software 17 that
`the authorization and billing unit 13 performed on the software package 21.
`(This
`process can be seenin Fig. 6, described at col. 9, lines 16 et seg., where crypto
`check unit 34 compares the received authorization signal A with a locally-
`generated version of the same signal.)
`But Hellman does not teach or in any way suggest using the hash of the
`software package as a name by which the software package can be requested or
`In Hellman, the request from the base unit does not include a name
`derived from the contents of the software package by the hash function. The
`request from the authorization unit includes a “SOFTWARE NAME, SERIAL
`NUMBER, N,R, and BILLING INFORMATION. SOFTWARE NAMEis the
`name of the software package to be used.” Hellmanat col. 5, line 59 to col. 6,
`2. The hash of the software name is both generated and usedis by the
`authorization unit — after it has received the user’s request — and it is used to
`generate the authorization signal. The hash of the software name is used and by
`the base unit to verify the received authorization signal. But Hellman makes no
`mention or suggestion of using the hash ofthe software itself to obtain the
`software package in the first place.
`
`the
`
`line
`
`further respectfully submits that the teachings of Hellman would
`Applicant
`not be applicable to a peer-to-peer network. Regardless of whether or not Hellman
`discloses a client-to-server networking model, one skilled in the art would not
`relationships in Hellman. Such adjusting would
`have adjusted the client-to-server
`change the roles of the authorization and base units and would cause Hellman to
`fail. The authorization/billing and the licensing distribution of Hellman operates
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 20 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005110
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`necessarily in a server environment, and cannot be exchanged for any computer
`running under client
`
`environment.
`
`Claim 7 depends from claims 1-6, and is therefore patentable for at least the
`In addition, Gardner does not teach or in any way suggest
`reasons given above.
`using as a measure of availability of a computer either (a) a measurement ofa cost
`of a connection to the computer; or (b) a measurement of reliability of a
`connection to the computer.
`Forat least these additional reasons, claims 7, 9, 17 and 20 are further
`patentable over Gardnerin view of Hellman.
`New claim 26 recites that the measure of availability of a computer is based
`at least in part on a measurement of bandwidth to the computer. While Gardner
`makes use of bandwidth on the various servers in his system, but not on bandwidth
`to any ofthe servers.
`
`In view of the above, withdrawal ofthis rejection under §103 is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`RELATED APPLICATIONS
`
`The Examineris again remindedof related applications, and the Examiner’s
`attention is drawnto activity in the following related applications:
`Final Office Action mailed 09/30/2009 in U.S. Appln. No. 11/724,232.
`Office Action mailed 12/22/2009 in U.S. ApplIn. No. 10/742,972
`Final Office Action mailed 01/12/2010 in U.S. Appln. No. 11/980,679
`Final Office Action mailed 01/29/2010 in U.S. Reexam Control No.
`90/010,260
`
`Asthese patent applications are stored electronically at the PTO, no copies
`If the Examiner requires copies of any of these
`are being provided herewith.
`
`-19-
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 406-4 Filed 04/12/19 Page 21 of 21
`
`PERSONALWEB005111
`
`In re Application of: FARBER, David
`Application S.N.:
`11/017,650
`Response after Final
`
`herein,
`
`information regarding any of the documents cited
`applications or any additional
`the Examineris respectfully requested to contact the undersignedat the
`number provided.
`In addition,in the final office action in Appln. No. 11/980,679 the
`Examiner cited U.S. Patent No. 5,630,067 to K