`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_________
`
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`
`6,757,717 B1
`
`September 16, 1999
`
`June 29, 2004
`
`Leonid Goldstein
`
`SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA ACCESS
`
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Patent No.:
`
`Filed:
`
`Issued:
`
`Inventor:
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`Listing of Claims ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ................................... 2
`II.
`III. SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE PATENTABLE OVER THE GROUNDS OF
`PATENTABILITY UNDER REVIEW ..................................................................... 2
`A. Proposed Substitute Claim 35 is Patentable. .................................................... 4
`B. Proposed Substitute Claim 36 is Patentable. .................................................... 7
`C. Proposed Substitute Claim 37 is Patentable. ................................................... 8
`D. Proposed Substitute Claim 38 is Patentable. ................................................... 9
`E. Proposed Substitute Claim 39 is Patentable. .................................................... 9
`F. Proposed Substitute Claim 40 is Patentable. .................................................. 11
`G. Proposed Substitute Claim 41 is Patentable. ................................................. 13
`VI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`This Motion to Amend is submitted in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §42.121.
`
`
`
`To the extent one or more of Original Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, and 22-23 of U.S.
`
`Patent 6,757,717 (“the ‘717 Patent”) are found unpatentable, Proxyconn, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) requests that the Original Claims be cancelled and the
`
`corresponding one or more Substitute Claims be entered.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.121(a), Patent Owner has conferred with the
`
`Board and been granted permission to file this Motion to Amend. DOC No. 33
`
`
`
`Additionally, upon confirmation of the patentability of the Original Claims,
`
`the Patent Owner requests entry of Substitute Claims 35-42 in addition to the
`
`original claims, because such claims are necessary to further define the invention.
`
`I.
`
`LISTING OF CLAIMS
`
`Proposed Substitute Claims 35-42 are included herein. Each of the
`
`substitute claims presented in this motion is based on an original claim from the
`
`‘717 Patent. Consistent with 37 C.F.R. §42.121(a)(3), the Motion includes only
`
`one substitute claim for each claim to be replaced. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.121(a)(2), the amendments herein do not seek to enlarge the scope of the
`
`claims of the ‘717 Patent or to introduce new subject matter.
`
`
`
`Appendix A includes the amendments to the claims.1 Amendments to the
`
`
`1 The Proposed Substitute Claims are attached as Appendix A. Illumina, Inc. v.
`The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, IPR2012-00006,
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Original Claim are illustrated over the original claim to be replaced, with additions
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`underlined and deletions struck-through or bracketed.
`
`II.
`
`SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
`
`The Substitute Claims are supported by the original disclosure of the ‘717
`
`Patent, including the exemplary citations included below. The ‘717 Patent claims
`
`priority to Israeli Application Ser. No. 126292 filed September 18, 1998 (Ex.
`
`2004), for which parallel citation are provided.
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 35 is based on and supported by original Claim 1. The
`
`substitute claim 35 adds: said receiver/computer configured to initiate a request
`
`data from the sender/computer, disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at, e.g., 7:65-67 and
`
`8:37-39; (Ex. 2004 at 15:3-4, 16:6-8) said sender/computer configured to transmit
`
`a digital digest representative of the requested data in response to the request,
`
`disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at, e.g., 7:52-67 and Fig. 5; (Ex. 2004 at 14:19-15:4,
`
`Fig. 5) and the data includes a range of octets in a file, disclosed in the ‘717 Patent
`
`at, e.g., 2:5-8 (Ex. 2004 at 3:1-3).
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 36 is supported by original Claims 1 and 3. Substitute
`
`claim 36 adds: sender/computer includes means for creating digital digests on data
`
`stored in said permanent storage memory, disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at, e.g.,
`
`Paper 33 at 5 (“The amendment, which is to be a listing of substitute claims, is to
`be filed as either an appendix to the motion or as an exhibit so that it will not count
`towards the page limits set for the motions to amend.”).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`7:29-32 and Fig. 4; (Ex. 2004 at 13:26-14:2 and Fig. 4) the receiver/computer
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`includes means for storing said digital digest created by the sender/computer in its
`
`permanent storage memory, disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at, e.g., 3:37-39; (Ex.
`
`2004 at 6:4-6) and the data includes at least a range of octets in a file, disclosed in
`
`the ‘717 Patent at, e.g., 2:5-8; (Ex. 2004 at 3:1-3).
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 37 is supported by Original Claim 6. Substitute claim 37
`
`adds: a digital digest received from one of the at least two other computers through
`
`the packet-switched network, disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at, e.g., 9:12-31, Fig. 12;
`
`(Ex. 2004 at 17:12-18:2, Fig. 12) and the data includes a plurality of octet ranges in
`
`a file or files, disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at, e.g., 2:5-9; (Ex. 2004 at 3:1-3).
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 38 is supported by claim 10. Substitute claim adds: said
`
`receiver/computer configured to search for said digital digest received from the
`
`sender/computer, in response to receiving the digital digest, disclosed in the ‘717
`
`Patent at, e.g., 7:52-67 and Figs. 5 and 7; (Ex. 2004 at 14:19-15:4 and Figs. 5 and
`
`7) and the data includes at least a range of octets in a file, disclosed in the ‘717
`
`Patent at, e.g., 2:5-9; (Ex. 2004 at 3:1-3).
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 39 is supported by claim 11. Substitute claim 11 adds:
`
`receiving a request for said data from the receiver/computer, disclosed in the ‘717
`
`Patent at, e.g., 7:65-67 and 8:37-39; (Ex. 2004 at 15:3-4, 16:6-8) and in response to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`the request for data, transmitting the digital digest, disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at,
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`e.g., 2:26-28, 7:52-67, and Fig. 5; (Ex. 2004 at 3:17-18, 14:19-15:4 and Fig. 5).
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 40 is supported by original claim 22. The substitute claim
`
`40 adds: sending a request for data, disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at, e.g., 7:65-67
`
`and 8:37-39; (Ex. 2004 at 15:3-4, 16:6-8) searching for each received digital digest
`
`representing data, disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at, e.g., 7:55-57 and Figs. 5 and 7;
`
`(Ex. 2004 at 14:21-23 and Figs. 5 and 7) and creating a digital digest for data
`
`received from the sender/computer and stored in said network cache memory,
`
`disclosed in the ‘717 Patent at, e.g., 7:32-34, 9:44-46; (Ex. 2004 at 14:3-4, 18:12-
`
`13).
`
`
`
`Substitute claim 41 is supported by claims 22 and 23. Substitute claim 41 is
`
`presented to conform claim 23 to the amendments of base claim 22.
`
`SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE PATENTABLE OVER THE GROUNDS OF PATENTABILITY UNDER
`
`REVIEW
`A. Proposed Substitute Claim 35 is Patentable.
`Substitute Claim 35 recites said receiver/computer configured to initiate a
`
`
`
`request data from the sender/computer, said sender/computer configured to
`
`transmit a digital digest representative of the requested data in response to the
`
`request, and the data includes a range of octets in a file.
`
`Perlman merely discloses a designated router, which transmits an identifier
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`to a plurality of “other” routers. Specifically, the designated router periodically
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`broadcasts an identifier to the other router, causing other routers to compare the
`
`identifier to an identifier of its contents. There is no request from the other routers
`
`that causes the designated router to respond. As a result, Perlman does not disclose
`
`a receiver/computer, which is configured to initiate a request for data and which
`
`includes means for comparison between digital digests, or a sender/computer
`
`configured to send a digital digest in response to the request. Lacking these claim
`
`elements, Perlman cannot anticipate Substitute Claim 35.
`
`
`
`Yohe discloses a remote client 12 that initiates a READ operation to
`
`determine if the requested data is in cache. If the data is in cache, the remote client
`
`12 sends a signature of the data. Thus, there is no receiver/computer configured to
`
`initiate a request for data, and a sender/computer configured to send a digital
`
`digest in response to the request. Lacking these claim elements, Yohe cannot
`
`anticipate Substitute Claim 35. Further, the combination of Perlman and Yohe
`
`includes the addition of the permanent memory to Perlman, and the addition of
`
`bundling multiple signatures to Yohe. Neither modification suggested by the
`
`Petitioner, and under consideration by the Board, remedies the shortcomings of
`
`Perlman or Yohe explained above. Further, any modification of Perlman or Yohe
`
`to render obvious substitute claim 35 would change the principle operation of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`disclosed system, render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and is the
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`product of impermissible hindsight. Lacking these claim elements, the
`
`combination of Perlman and Yohe cannot render obvious Substitute Claim 35.
`
`
`
`Santos discloses two intermediate computers that intercept traffic through a
`
`network, i.e., the input and output traffic shown in Fig. 3 of Santos. Neither the
`
`compressor nor decompressor is configured to initiate a request for data from a
`
`sender/computer. Instead, the request is initiated elsewhere (either “input” or
`
`“output”) and merely passed-through as network traffic. Neither the compressor
`
`nor the decompressor is configured to transmit a digital digest in response to the
`
`request. Instead, the compressor sends a fingerprint for a payload in response to
`
`receiving the payload at “input,” as shown in Fig. 3 of Santos. Lacking these claim
`
`elements, Santos cannot anticipate Substitute Claim 35.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Substitute Claim 35 recites structures operative on data that
`
`includes a range of octets in a file. None of the references disclose the recited
`
`means for creating a digital digest on a range of octets in a file. In contrast,
`
`Perlman merely discloses generating an identifier on an entire LSP database; Yohe
`
`merely discloses generating a signature on directories; and Santos merely discloses
`
`computing a fingerprint on network packets, being passed between a compressor
`
`and a decompressor, specially installed into the network, without regard to the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`origin of the packets. Lacking this additional element, Perlman, Yohe and Santos
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`fail to anticipate and/or render obvious Substitute Claim 35.
`
` Proposed Substitute Claim 36 is Patentable.
`
`B.
`Substitute claim 36 requires a sender/computer including means for creating
`
`
`
`digital digests on data stored in said permanent storage memory, the
`
`receiver/computer includes means for storing said digital digest created by the
`
`sender/computer in its permanent storage memory, and the data includes at least a
`
`range of octets in a file.
`
`
`
`As discussed in Section II.C of Patent Owner’s Response, Perlman fails to
`
`disclose permanent storage memory, creating digital digests on data stored in
`
`permanent storage memory, or storing a digital digest in permanent storage
`
`memory. Lacking these claim elements, Perlman cannot anticipate Substitute
`
`Claim 36. Yohe discloses permanent storage devices 34 and 80, but lacks a
`
`receiver/computer having means for storing a digital digest in either permanent
`
`storage devices 34 and 80. See also Section II.D of Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Lacking these claim elements, Yohe also cannot anticipate Substitute Claim 36.
`
`
`
`The combination of Perlman and Yohe includes the mere addition of
`
`permanent storage memory to Perlman, and the addition of bundling multiple
`
`signatures to Yohe. Neither modification suggested by the Petitioner, and under
`
`consideration by the Board, remedies the shortcomings of Perlman or Yohe
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`explained above. Patent Owner further incorporates the arguments discussed in
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`Section II.C and II.D of Patent Owner’s Response. Lacking elements, the
`
`combination of Perlman and Yohe cannot render obvious Substitute Claim 36.
`
`
`
`As explained in Patent Owner’s Response, Santos discloses that signatures
`
`are lost during power cycle or restart, causing significant rejection for illegal
`
`fingerprints at restart. See Ex. 1004 at §3.3. Consequently, Santos does not
`
`disclose creating a digital digest based on data in permanent storage memory or
`
`storing a digital digest in its permanent storage memory. Lacking these claim
`
`elements, Santos cannot anticipate Substitute Claim 36.
`
`
`
`As explained above, the cited references do not disclose the recited system
`
`structured to operate on at least a range of octets in a file. Lacking this additional
`
`element, Perlman, Yohe and Santos fail to anticipate and/or render obvious
`
`Substitute Claim 36.
`
` Proposed Substitute Claim 37 is Patentable.
`
`C.
`Substitute claim 37 requires structure to operate a data including a plurality
`
`of octet ranges in a file or files. DRP discloses content identifier based on
`
`information objects, Yohe merely discloses generating a signature on directories;
`
`and Mattis merely discloses providing object keys for network resources or other
`
`discrete elements of information and in general directed to locating objects within
`
`a single computer, not to a network communication. Lacking this additional
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`element, DRP, Yohe and Mattis fail to anticipate and/or render obvious Substitute
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`Claim 37.
`
`D. Proposed Substitute Claim 38 is Patentable.
`Substitute claim 38 requires said receiver/computer configured to search for
`
`a digital digest received from the sender/computer, in response to receiving the
`
`digital digest and the data includes at least a range of octets in a file.
`
` Perlman discloses comparing a calculated database identifier and a received
`
`database identifier, where the identifier either matches or does not. Perlman lacks
`
`searching for a database identifier. Lacking this element, Perlman cannot
`
`anticipate Substitute Claim 38. See Section II.C of Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Likewise, as the remote client computer 12, the network file cacher 42 retrieves the
`
`one directory signature and compares it to the received directory signature from the
`
`cache verifying computer. The remote client 12 is not configured to search for a
`
`digital digest, and thus, Yohe cannot anticipate Substitute Claim 38. See Section
`
`II.D of Patent Owner’s Response. As explained above, the cited references do not
`
`disclose the recited system structured to operate on at least a range of octets in a
`
`file. Lacking this additional element, Perlman, Yohe and Santos cannot anticipate
`
`and/or render obvious Substitute Claim 38.
`
`E. Proposed Substitute Claim 39 is Patentable.
`Substitute Claim 39 requires creating a digital digest on data, receiving a
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`request for said data from the receiver/computer, and in response to the request for
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`data, transmitting the digital digest of the data from the sender/computer to the
`
`receiver/computer.
`
`
`
`In contrast, DRP merely discloses a client downloading an index, which is
`
`representative of a file structure. The index consists of content identifier for
`
`individual pieces of content. Based on the index, the “client” then requests
`
`specific content from a server, which provides the actual requested content in
`
`response—and not a digital digest representative of that content. As such, DRP
`
`lacks the step of receiving a request for data, and in response to the request for
`
`data, transmitting a digital digest for the data. See Section II.F of Patent Owner’s
`
`Response. Lacking these elements, DRP cannot anticipate Substitute Claim 39.
`
`
`
`The combination of DRP and Mattis consists of the “specific MD5-digest
`
`based cache file system” of Mattis included in the DRP caching client and server.
`
`The addition of Mattis’ system to the client and server of DRP, however, would
`
`not remedy the shortcomings of DRP. Specifically, applying the system of Mattis
`
`to the client and server of DRP would not change the behavior of the “client” in
`
`downloading an index and subsequently downloading files that it needs. There is
`
`no request from the client and no reaction by the server in response to the client.
`
`As such, the resulting modification of DRP would still lack a sender/computer that
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`receives a request for data from a receiver/computer, and in response, transmits a
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`digital digest for the data requested to the receiver/computer. Lacking these
`
`elements, DRP and Mattis cannot render obvious Substitute Claim 39.
`
` Proposed Substitute Claim 40 is Patentable.
`
`F.
`Substitute Claim 40 requires sending a request for data, searching for each
`
`
`
`received digital digest in said network cache memory, and creating a digital digest
`
`for data received from the sender/computer and stored in said network cache
`
`memory.
`
`
`
`Perlman discloses a method of synchronizing a link state packet database.
`
`The method is initiated by designated router by periodically broadcasting an
`
`identifier. As explained above in, the identifier is sent by the designated router, but
`
`is not sent in response to any request from the other routers, nor do any of the other
`
`routers send a request for data. Further, Perlman includes only one digital digest,
`
`and retrieves it for comparison. Thus, Perlman lacks searching for each received
`
`digital digest. Lacking this claimed element, Perlman cannot anticipate Substitute
`
`Claim 40.
`
`
`
`Yohe discloses a READ operation, in which the remote client 12 initially
`
`sends a signature to the cache verifying computer 14, not a request for data. The
`
`cache verifying computer 14 sends back a “good” or “bad” response. EX1005 at
`
`6:27-27. In a DIRECTORY REQUEST operation, the remote client 12 sends a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`request for the signature of the directory, not the directory itself, to the cache
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`verifying computer 14 in order to verify its directory. The cache verifying
`
`computer 14 returns a directory signature, and the remote client 12 compares the
`
`directory signature to its one directory signature in memory. Thus, the remote
`
`client 12 does not search for the directory signature as required by Substitute
`
`Claim 40. Thus, neither the remote client 12 nor the cache verifying computer 14
`
`sends a request for data and searches for a received signature.
`
`
`
`Likewise, the combination of Perlman and Yohe, as submitted by the
`
`Petitioner and under review by the Board, is insufficient to suggest the subject
`
`matter of substitute claim 40. Neither Perlman nor Yohe suggest sending a request,
`
`and then receiving a message containing a digital digest for the requested data.
`
`Each of Perlman and Yohe are initiated by sending of the signature, not a request
`
`for data. The combination of Perlman and Yohe therefore fails to render proposed
`
`substitute claim 40 obvious.
`
`
`
`Santos discloses two intermediate computers that intercept traffic through
`
`along network, i.e., the input and output traffic shown in Fig. 3 of Santos. Neither
`
`the compressor nor decompressor sends a request for data from a
`
`sender/computer. The request is initiated elsewhere (either “input” or “output”)
`
`and merely passed-through as compressor/decompressor. Lacking this claim
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`element, Santos cannot anticipate Substitute Claim 40.
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
` Proposed Substitute Claim 41 is Patentable.
`
`G.
`Substitute Claim 41 is amended to conform to the amendments presented in
`
`
`
`connection with Substitute Claim 40, from which is depends. Substitute Claim 41
`
`is patentable for the same reasons as Substitute Claim 40.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board grant this
`
`Motion to Amend.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 21, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Matthew L. Cutler /
`MATTHEW L. CUTLER
`BRYAN K. WHEELOCK
`DOUGLAS A. ROBINSON
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
`7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 400
`Clayton, MO 63105
`Telephone: (314) 726-7500
`Facsimile: (314) 726-7501
`mcutler@hdp.com
`bwheelock@hdp.com
`drobinson@hdp.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner,
`Proxyconn, Inc.
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(4)
`
`
`It is hereby certified that on this 21st day of May, 2013, a copy of the
`
`foregoing document was served via Federal Express upon the following:
`
`John D. Vandenberg
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`Stephen J. Joncus
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center
`Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204-2988
`Tel.: (503) 595-5300
`Fax: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner, Microsoft Corporation
`
`
`/Matthew L. Cutler /
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A – SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS
`
`(Proposed Substitute for original claim 1) A system for data access in
`35.
`a packet-switched network, comprising: a sender/computer including an operating
`unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory and a processor and a remote
`receiver/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage
`memory and a processor, said sender/computer and said receiver/computer
`communicating through said network;
`
`said receiver/computer configured to initiate a request for data from the
`sender/computer, said sender/computer further including means for creating digital
`digests on data, said sender/computer configured to transmit a digital digest
`representative of the requested data, in response to the request;
`
`said receiver/computer further including a network cache memory and
`means for creating digital digests on data in said network cache memory; and
`
`said receiver/computer including means for comparison between digital
`digests, and wherein the data includes a range of octets in a file.
`
`(Proposed Substitute for original claim 3) The system as claimed in
`36.
`
`claim 1, A system for data access in a packet-switched network, comprising a
`sender/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage
`memory and a processor; and a remote receiver/computer including an operating
`unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory and a processor; said
`sender/computer and said receiver/computer configured to communicate with one
`another through said network; said sender/computer includes means for creating
`digital digests on data stored in said permanent storage memory, and said
`receiver/computer including a network cache memory, means for creating digital
`digests on data in said network cache memory, and means for comparing between
`digital digests created by the sender/computer and receiver/computer; wherein said
`receiver/computer further includes means for storing said created at least one of the
`digital digests created by the sender/computer in its first or permanent storage
`memory; wherein the data includes at least a range of octets in a file.
`
`
`37.
`
`(Proposed Substitute for original claim 6) A system for data access in
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`a packet-switched network, comprising:
`a gateway including an operating unit, a memory and a processor connected
`to said packet-switched network in such a way that network packets sent between
`at least two other computers pass through it;
`a caching computer connected to said gateway through a fast local network,
`wherein said caching computer includes an operating unit, a first memory, a
`permanent storage memory and a processor; said caching computer further
`including a network cache memory in its permanent storage memory, means for
`calculating a digital digest on data and means for comparison between a digital
`digest on data in its network cache memory and a digital digest received from said
`packet-switched network through said gateway, wherein said data includes a
`plurality of octet ranges in a file or files.
`
`(Proposed Substitute for original claim 10) A system for data access
`38.
`in a packet-switched network, comprising:
`a sender/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a permanent
`storage memory and a processor and a remote receiver/computer including an
`operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory and a processor, said
`sender/computer and said receiver/computer communicating through a network;
`said sender/computer further including means for creating digital digests on
`data, and
`said receiver/computer further including a network cache memory, means
`for storing [[a]] at least one of said digital digest received from said network in its
`permanent storage memory, and said receiver/computer configured to search for a
`digital digest received from the sender/computer, in response to receiving the
`digital digest, means for comparison between digital digests; wherein said data
`includes at least a range of octets in a file.
`
`(Proposed Substitute for original claim 11) A method performed by a
`39.
`sender/computer in a packet-switched network for increasing data access, said
`sender/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage
`memory and a processor and said sender/computer being operative to transmit data
`to a receiver/computer, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026, IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`creating a digital digest on data; [[and]]
`receiving a request for said data from the receiver/computer;
`in response to the request for data, transmitting said [[a]] digital digest of
`said data from said sender/computer to said receiver/computer;
`receiving a response signal from said receiver/computer at said
`sender/computer, said response signal containing a positive, partial or negative
`indication signal for said digital digest, and
`if a negative indication signal is received, transmitting said data from said
`sender/computer to said receiver/computer.
`
`(Proposed Substitute for original claim 22) A method for increased
`40.
`data access performed by a receiver/computer in a packet-switched network, said
`receiver/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage
`memory, a processor and a network cache memory, said method comprising the
`steps of:
`sending a request for data;
`receiving a message containing a digital digest for the requested data from
`said network;
`searching for each received digital digest data with the same digital digest in
`said network cache memory,
`if data having the same digital digest as the digital digest received is not
`uncovered, forming a negative indication signal and transmitting the negative
`indication signal [[it]] back through said network; and
`creating a digital digest for data received from the sender/computer and
`stored in said network cache memory.
`
`(Proposed Substitute for original claim 23) The method as claimed in
`41.
`
`claim 22, claim 40, wherein searching in said network cache memory includes
`further comprising searching in predetermined locations in said permanent storage
`memory for data with a digital digest substantially identical to the searched one of
`the digital digests received from said network.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`