`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of 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 RESPONSE
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Patent No.:
`
`Filed:
`
`Issued :
`
`Inventor:
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2
`I.
`A. Anticipation by Perlman of claims 1, 3 and 22-24 .......................................... 2
`B. Anticipation by Yohe of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 22 and 23 ................................. 2
`C. Obviousness over the combination of Perlman and Yohe of claims 1, 3, 10
`and 22-24. ........................................................................................................ 3
`D. Anticipation by Santos of claims 1, 3 and 22-23 ............................................. 3
`E. Anticipation by DRP of claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14. ................................... 4
`F. Obviousness over the combination of Mattis and DRP of original claims 6,
`7, 9, 11, 12 and 14. ........................................................................................... 4
`II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 5
`A. Art Cited in The Petitions ................................................................................ 5
`1.
`Perlman ....................................................................................................... 5
`2. Yohe ............................................................................................................ 7
`3.
`Santos .......................................................................................................... 8
`4. DRP ............................................................................................................ 9
`5. Mattis ........................................................................................................ 10
`B. Construction of Claim Terms ........................................................................ 11
`1. Data Access .............................................................................................. 11
`2.
`Permanent Storage Memory ..................................................................... 12
`3.
`Sender/Computer and Receiver/Computer ............................................... 12
`C. Perlman does not Anticipate Original Claims 1, 3 and 22-24 ....................... 17
`1. Original Claim 1 and 3 ............................................................................. 17
`2. Original Claims 22-24 .............................................................................. 19
`D. Yohe Does Not Anticipate Original Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 22 and 23 ........... 21
`1. Original Claims 1, 3 and 10 ...................................................................... 21
`2. Original Claims 6 and 7 ............................................................................ 24
`3. Original Claims 22 and 23 ........................................................................ 27
`E. Perlman and Yohe do not make the Invention Claimed in Original Claims 1,
`3, 10 and 22-24 Obvious. ............................................................................... 27
`1.
`Perlman is not Analogous Art to the ‘717 Patent, and therefore cannot
`render Obvious Original Claims 1, 3, 1, and 22-24 .......................................... 28
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`The Proposed Combination of Perlman and Yohe is Improper, and
`2.
`therefore cannot render Obvious Original Claims 1, 3, 10 and 22-24 .............. 31
`F. Santos does not Anticipate Original Claims 1, 3, 22 and 23 ......................... 32
`1. Original Claims 1, 3, 22 and 23 ................................................................ 32
`G. DRP does not Anticipate Original Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 .................. 36
`1. Original Claims 6, 7 and 9 ........................................................................ 36
`2. Original Claim 7 ....................................................................................... 38
`3. Original Claim 9 ....................................................................................... 39
`4. Original Claims 11, 12 and 14 .................................................................. 39
`5. Original Claim 14 ..................................................................................... 40
`H. Mattis and DRP do not make Original Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14
`Obvious. ......................................................................................................... 41
`1.
`The Proposed Combination of Mattis and DRP is not supported by
`Sufficient Motivation ......................................................................................... 41
`2. Original Claims 6, 7 and 9 ........................................................................ 42
`3. Original Claims 11, 12 and 14 .................................................................. 43
`4. Original Claim 14 ..................................................................................... 44
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`Petitioner did not submit statements of material facts in its petitions for inter
`
`
`
`partes review. Accordingly, no response is due pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.23(a),
`
`and no facts are admitted.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ‘717 Patent is directed to data access, and specifically, methods,
`
`systems, and apparatuses for increasing the speed of data accessing in
`
`communication networks. EX1001 at 1:13-15. “Data access” is obtaining data
`
`from a remote server (a sender/computer) on a network in response to a request
`
`from a client (a receiver/computer).
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) has granted review of
`
`the‘717 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`A. ANTICIPATION BY PERLMAN OF CLAIMS 1, 3 AND 22-24
`Patent Owner responds that Perlman is directed to data synchronization,
`
`
`
`rather than data access. See Sections II.C.1.a and II.C.2.a, infra. Perlman lacks
`
`permanent storage memory. See Section II.C.1.b, infra. Perlman further lacks the
`
`step of searching for data having the same digital digest, as required by claims 22-
`
`24. See Section II.C.2.b, infra. Thus, Perlman cannot anticipate challenged claims
`
`1, 3, 22-24.
`
`B. ANTICIPATION BY YOHE OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 22 AND 23
`Patent Owner responds that Yohe lacks a sender/computer, as required by
`
`Original Claims 1, 3, and 10. See Section II.D.1.a, infra. Yohe lacks a
`
`sender/computer having permanent storage memory and means for creating a
`
`digital digest on data, as required by Original Claims 1, 3 and 10. See Section
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`II.D.1.a, infra. Yohe further lacks the means for creating digital digests on data,
`
`as required by Original Claims 1, 3, and 10. See Section II.D.1.b, infra. Yohe
`
`lacks a caching computer having permanent storage memory, as required by
`
`Original Claims 6-7. See Section II.D.2.a, infra. Yohe further lacks the step of
`
`searching for data having the same digital digest, as required by Original Claims
`
`22-23. See Section II.D.3.a, infra.
`
`C. OBVIOUSNESS OVER THE COMBINATION OF PERLMAN AND YOHE OF
`CLAIMS 1, 3, 10 AND 22-24.
`
`Patent Owner responds that Perlman is not analogous prior art and is not
`
`properly combined with Yohe. See Sections II.E.1 and II.E.2, infra. The
`
`combination lacks adequate reason to include permanent storage memory in the
`
`system of Perlman. See Section II.E.2.a, infra. The combination to incorporate the
`
`“message bundling” of Perlman into the system of Yohe fails to remedy the
`
`shortcomings of Yohe. See Section II.E.2.b, infra.
`
`D. ANTICIPATION BY SANTOS OF CLAIMS 1, 3 AND 22-23
`Patent Owner responds that Santos lacks sender/computer and
`
`receiver/computer as required by Original Claims 1, 3 and 22-23. See Section
`
`II.F.1.a, infra. Santos lacks a means for creating a digital digest on data in the
`
`network cache memory, as required by Original Claims 1 and 3. See Section
`
`II.F.1.b, infra.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`E. ANTICIPATION BY DRP OF CLAIMS 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, AND 14.
`Patent Owner responds that DRP lacks a caching computer having a
`
`permanent storage memory and a means for comparison, as required by Original
`
`Claims 6, 7 and 9. See Section II.G.1.a, infra. DRP lacks a caching computer
`
`havinga means for calculating a digital digest. See Section II.G.1.b, infra. DRP
`
`lacks the step of receiving a response signal from said receiver/computer at said
`
`sender/computer, as required by Original Claims 11, 12 and 14. See Section
`
`II.G.4.a, infra.
`
`F. OBVIOUSNESS OVER THE COMBINATION OF MATTIS AND DRP OF
`ORIGINAL CLAIMS 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 AND 14.
`
`It would not be obvious to combine Mattis and DRP in the manner
`
`suggested, because the stated reason for the combination is the ‘717 Patent’s
`
`solution. See Sections II.H.1 and II.H.2, infra. Further, the combination lacks a
`
`caching computer with means for comparison between digital digests, as required
`
`by Original Claims 6, 7 and 9. See Section II.H.3.a, infra. The combination lacks
`
`the steps of: receiving a response signal from said receiver/computer at said
`
`sender/computer and transmitting data in response to a negative signal, as required
`
`by Original Claims 11, 12 and 14. See Section II.H.4.a, infra.
`
`In view of the above and the arguments presented below, the Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests that the challenged Original Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14,
`
`22, 23 and 24 of the ‘717 Patent be found patentable over the Grounds for
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`unpatentability found in the Board’s Decisions of December 21, 2012 and January
`
`11, 2013.
`
`Concurrently with this filing, the Patent Owner is filing a separate,
`
`conditional Motion to Amend under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12. The Motion presents
`
`proposed substitute claims should the Board determine any of the original claims
`
`are not patentable.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. ART CITED IN THE PETITIONS
`1. Perlman
`Perlman discloses a computer network for efficient synchronization of
`
`information across the network. EX1002 at 1:6-8. As shown in Fig. 2 of Perlman,
`
`reproduced below, the network includes multiple routers (R1-6), including a
`
`designated router and other routers. Each router constructs a link state packet
`
`(LSP) containing information needed to generate a complete map of the computer
`
`network.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR201
`
`
`
`2-00026 andd IPR2013-000109
`U.S.
`
`Patent 6,7577,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 22 of Perlmman
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe designaated routerr generates a databasee identifierr for its LSSP and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`periodiccally broaddcasts the iidentifier too all the otther routerss – not to aany one rouuter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in particcular. Thee identifier is broadcaast, based oon a time innterval, annd not baseed on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`any requuest for daata from anny router. AAs such, PPerlman disscloses connsistent andd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`constannt use of neetwork banndwidth forr broadcastting databaase identifiiers to all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`routers based on aa schedule rather thann a request t from otheer routers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`content and compares the coomputed iddentifier to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the receivved identifiier. The roouter
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identifierss in memorry. EX10002 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UUpon receippt of the iddentifier, eaach router
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`computes
`
`
`
`an identifiier based oon its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`does noot search foor one idenntifier amonng several
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`one anoth
`7:55-633. If the iddentifiers cconform to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`her, only thhe receivedd identifier
`
`is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stored. 77:66-8:1. Otherwise, the routerr may requuest the CSSNP to resoolve any
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differennces.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`2-00026 andd IPR2013-000109
`U.S.
`
`Patent 6,7577,717
`
`
`EEach node oor router of Perlman includes aa central prrocessing uunit (CPU)
` and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR201
`
`
`
`a memoory unit 2044, which iss composedd of randomm access mmemory (RRAM), i.e.,, a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`volatile, non-permmanent memmory. EX1003 at 5:443-48.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Yohohe
`
`
`
`
`
`es a ork includeThe netwoYYohe describes a file--oriented ddistributed nnetwork. T
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`remote client commputer 12, wwhich commmunicatess with a filee server coomputer 188
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`throughh a communnication seerver 16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A cache vverifying coomputer 144 is also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discloseed as a separate, distiinct compuuter, whichh is connec
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ted to the ffile server
`
`
`
`computer 18 throuugh a LANN 20. Whille Yohe disscloses thaat the cachee verifyingg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comput
`
`
`
`
`er 14 may be combinned with thhe communnication se
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rver 16 (EXX1001 at
`
`
`
`5:34-399), there is no similar disclosuree that the c
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ache verifyfying compputer 14 shoould
`
`
`
`or even could be ccombined wwith the fille server coomputer 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`
`
`FIG. 2 of Yohe
`e
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`WWhile permmanent memmories 34 aand 80 are
`
`
`
`IPR201
`
`
`
`2-00026 andd IPR2013-000109
`U.S.
`
`Patent 6,7577,717
`
`
`
`associatedd with the rremote clieent
`
`
`
`none of thhe operatioons related
`
`
`
`to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12 and tthe file serrver compuuter 18, resspectively,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generatiing or commparing siggnatures aree describedd with refeerence to mmemories 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`and 80, or data stoored in succh memoriees. Memorry 34 of thhe remote cclient 12, fofor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`examplee, is only rreferred to as storing “hit ratios
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`” for succeessful veriffication of f
`
`
`
`
`
`data in ccache memmory.
`
`
`
`3. Sanntos
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ry-based ces a memorme that usession schemSSantos desccribes a link compres
`
`
`
`ache
`
`
`
`to detecct and remoove redunddancy at the packet leevel. The iimplementtation of thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`scheme includes aa compresssor and a d
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ecompresssor insertedd in a netwwork, i.e.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gatewayys or other intermediate devicess. The commpressor inntercepts innput trafficc,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`identifiees a fingerpprint for thhe data payyload of thee traffic, iff possible,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and transmmits
`
`moves
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the finggerprint. Inn turn, the ddecompresssor receivves the finggerprint, re
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compression, and transmits iit as outpuut traffic, ass it was recceived by tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compressor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIG. 3 of Santoos
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`The compressor generates fingerprints on data being transferred through the
`
`network, not on data stored in any volatile or non-volatile memory. Likewise, the
`
`decompressor generates a fingerprint for data transferred from the compressor, not
`
`on data stored in any volatile or non-volatile memory. Only after the fingerprint is
`
`generated, the decompressor stores the data indexed by the fingerprint in its
`
`volatile, RAM memory.
`
`
`
`Santos does not disclose permanent storage memory. In fact, Santos
`
`discloses that the “fingerprints” and “data payloads” are stored in RAM, such that
`
`the fingerprints and associated data payloads are lost during reset, e.g., as a power
`
`cycle or restart. See EX1003 at §3.3.
`
`4. DRP
`DRP discloses a protocol that uses a content identifier as uniquely
`
`identifying a piece of data or content. The content identifiers are compiled into an
`
`index, which is representative of a hierarchical structure of files, such as an HTML
`
`page. The index is stored at the HTTP server. If a client wants to view the HTML
`
`page, the client retrieves or downloads the index, and then automatically
`
`downloads the files that are specified in the index.
`
`DRP teaches that the index must be valid in order to receive the expected
`
`HTML webpage. The index includes an expiration timer indicative of whether or
`
`not the index is valid. The client checks for expiration of its index and only then
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`retrieves a new index if its version of the index is expired. As such, DRP teaches
`
`the unsatisfactory expiration time method, which is distinguished in the
`
`Background of the ‘717 Patent, 1:28-34.
`
`Once the initial download is completed, the client can update the HTML
`
`page by downloading a new version of the index, and comparing it against the
`
`previous version of the index. Simply stated, the client uses the index as
`
`verification that it has the valid files to construct the HTML page. If the
`
`verification fails, the client downloads only the file or files that are different. The
`
`client does not transmit any signal containing positive, partial or negative
`
`indication. The server, in turn, does not respond to any signal from the client.
`
`
`
`5. Mattis
`Mattis discloses a proxy server 30 that indexes and stores content according
`
`to name keys and content keys. By storing the content according to these keys, the
`
`proxy is able to avoid storing the same content more than one time. In operation,
`
`when a client requests a file by name, the proxy 30 responds by generating a name
`
`key based on the name of the object contained in the request. The name key is
`
`then used to locate the object key, and finally, the object key is used to locate the
`
`file or object itself and returned. There is no disclosure, however, of proxy
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`receiving object keys from the client, or any other computer in the network
`
`described in Mattis.
`
`Simply put, Mattis is directed to storing and locating content in a single
`
`computer, and is unrelated to network communication using name keys or object
`
`keys.
`
`B. CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS
`1. Data Access
`“Data Access” as used in the claims means obtaining data (as construed) on
`
`
`
`a remote computer on a network, in response to a request from a client. EX1001 at
`
`1:18-26 and 7:65-67. See EX 2002, 13.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR201
`
`
`
`2-00026 andd IPR2013-000109
`U.S.
`
`Patent 6,7577,717
`
`
`
`2. Perrmanent Sttorage Meemory
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Permanentt Storage MMemory” aas used in tthe claims
`
`
`
`
`
`means nonn-volatile ((i.e.,
`
`
`
`perman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ent) memoory that alloows readinng and writting of dataa (i.e., storrage). Thiss is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the meaaning of peermanent sttorage memmory to onne of ordinnary skill inn the art. SSee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX20022, 21. The ‘717 Patennt gives exxamples off Permanennt Storage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Memory:
`
`
`
`
`
`EX10011 at 7:38-440. Yohe, rrelied uponn in the Pettition, givees a similarr definitionn:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX10033 at 3:5-7. These aree memoriess that not oonly are noon-volatile,, but can bee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`used forr storage of data. Thhis is in conntrast to peermanent mmemories ssuch as reaad-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only meemory (ROOM), whichh are non-vvolatile, (i.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e., permannent or perssistent), annd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`can onlyy be used ffor retrievaal, not storaage.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Sennder/Compputer and RReceiver/CComputer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SSeveral chaallenged claaims of thee ‘717 Pateent recite aa sender/coomputer annd a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receiverr/computerr. In its deecision to innstitute thee present reeview, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Board
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construeed sender/ccomputer aand receiveer/computeer as “a commputer thaat sends or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receivess data” andd that the sender/commputer can iinclude muultiple devvices and thhat it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`encomppasses interrmediate ddevices. Deecision, p.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9. This coonstructionn, howeverr, is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`inconsistent with the ‘717 Patent, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`the claim terms, and should be revised to exclude separate intermediate computers
`
`such as gateways, proxies, routers, and caching computers.
`
`The ‘717 Patent introduces the terms “sender” and “receiver” in the
`
`Background, which explains that the “client (receiver) 4” caches data received
`
`through the network and a “remote server (sender) 8” sends data over the network.
`
`EX1001 at 1:19-25; see also Fig. 1.
`
`The ‘717 Patent continues to use these terms consistently in the Summary
`
`and Detailed Description of the Invention. Specifically, in the Summary of the
`
`Invention, the sender/computer, when necessary, sends data through the network to
`
`the receiver/computer, in response to a request from the receiver/computer for the
`
`data. The ‘717 Patent describes a limitation of the data transmitted from the
`
`sender/computer to the receiver/computer, by determining if the receiver/computer
`
`already has the data to be sent. In particular, if the receiver/computer already has
`
`the data, the receiver/computer uses the data without waiting for it to be sent from
`
`the sender/computer through the network. As shown in Fig. 4, the
`
`sender/computer is at one END of the data transaction, and the receiver/computer
`
`is at the other END of the data transaction, thereby avoiding data transactions that
`
`affect the entire network between the two computers.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR201
`
`
`
`2-00026 andd IPR2013-000109
`U.S.
`
`Patent 6,7577,717
`
`
`WWith refereence to onee exemplaryy embodimment, the ‘7717 Patentt indicates
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sender/ccomputer iis the sourcce of the daata requestted, and thhe receiver
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requestoor/user of tthe data, sttating:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX10011 at 2:26-31.
`
`
`
`is the
`
`
`
`
`
`FFurthermorre, the ‘7177 Patent disscloses gatteway commputers, whhich are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`illustratted and desscribed as sseparate annd distinct
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from the ssender or thhe receiverr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See, e.gg., EX1001 at 1:25-277, 2:14-15,, 2:43-57, 33:12-26, 8::57-9:22, FFigs. 2, 11,, 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and 13, etc. For eexample, thhe Summarry of the Innvention allso includees a definittion
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the ggateway commputer, whhich is “neetwork proxxies and roouters.” EXX1001 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2:14-155. The gateeway is an intermediaate computter betweeen the sendder (or sourrce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the ddata) and thhe receiver (or intendded recipiennt/user of tthe data) a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s shown inn
`
`
`
`Fig. 11::
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR201
`
`
`
`2-00026 andd IPR2013-000109
`U.S.
`
`Patent 6,7577,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe gatewaay is conneected to thee packet-swwitched nettwork “in ssuch a wayy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that netwwork packkets sent beetween at leeast two coomputers [[i.e., the seender/compputer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`intermediate compputer systeem is discloosed as “opperationallly interpos
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`44-47. Fuurthermore,, the
`
`
`
`
`
`ed betweenn a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the receiver/computer] ppass througgh it.” EXX1001 at 2:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sender/ccomputer aand a receiiver/compuuter so thatt data packkets sent beetween saidd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sender/ccomputer aand said reeceiver/commputer are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`delivered
`
`
`
`through saaid computter
`
`
`
`system.” EX10011 at 4:42-466. Unlike the senderr/computerr and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receiverr/computerr, the gatewway is not intended too be eitherr a source oof the data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be sent, or the reciipient or u
`
`
`
`
`
`ser of the ddata to be ssent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FFollowing tthe descripption, the cllaims of thhe ‘717 Pattent requiree a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sender/ccomputer aand/or a receiver/commputer (e.gg., claims 11, 10, 11 annd 22) and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`separateely require a gatewayy between ttwo other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`computerss (e.g., claimm 6).
`
`
`
`to
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Consistent with thhe doctrinee of claim ddifferentiattion, differrent claimss terms meaan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`different things. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc) (“Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding
`
`the meaning of particular claim terms.”), see also Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc., 424
`
`F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“When different words or phrases are used in
`
`separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed.”); Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v.
`
`Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119-20, 72 USPQ2d 1001
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) (Courts presume that different words and phrases within a claim
`
`and among claims in the same patent have a different meaning.) To the extent the
`
`construction in the Decision indicates that a sender/computer or receiver/computer
`
`includes a gateway, router, proxy, or other separate computer, it is inconsistent
`
`with the usage in the specification and claims of the ‘717 Patent, and should be
`
`revised.
`
`In view of the above, and the entire content of the ‘717 Patent, the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “sender/computer” is a computer that has and sends
`
`data, and the broadest reasonable interpretation “receiver/computer” is a computer
`
`that receives and uses data. Neither the sender/computer nor the receiver/computer
`
`includes separate intermediary computers, such as gateways, proxies, routers, and
`
`caching computers.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`PERLMAN DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ORIGINAL CLAIMS 1, 3 AND 22-24
`
`C.
`
`The Board has granted review to determine if Original Claims 1, 3 and 22-
`
`24 are anticipated by Perlman under 35 U.S.C. §102. They are not.
`
`1. Original Claim 1 and 3
`a) Perlman is not a Data Access System, and therefore cannot
`Anticipate Original Claims 1 and 3
`
`
`
`Original Claims 1 and 3 of the ‘717 Patent is directed to a system for “data
`
`access”. In contrast, Perlman discloses a mechanism for synchronizing
`
`information over a network. See EX 2002, 16-18C. Rather than providing data to
`
`a node when requested as claimed in Original Claim 1, Perlman discloses a system
`
`that synchronizes all nodes, without a request. Perlman is not a system for data
`
`access, but a synchronization system, and thus Perlman cannot anticipate the
`
`invention of Original Claims 1 and 3.
`
`In Perlman, a sender node periodically broadcasts a database identifier to
`
`receiving nodes on the network, and if the database at a node is out of date, the
`
`database is sent to the node so that all of the nodes are synchronized. Perlman uses
`
`bandwidth both to broadcast the database identifier, and to transmit the database
`
`even when it is not requested. Perlman expressly teaches that it minimizes the use
`
`of computational resources (EX1003 at 4:63-15:2), at the expense of bandwidth.
`
`The point of the invention of Original Claims 1 and 3 of the ‘717 Patent is to
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`
`2-00026 andd IPR2013-000109
`U.S.
`
`Patent 6,7577,717
`
`
`
`providee data accesss by minimmizing thee use of banndwidth, aat the cost oof computaation
`
`IPR201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`resourcees. EX10001 at 1:64-65.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PPerlman is nnot the samme as the s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ystem claiimed in Orriginal Claiims 1 and 33, it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`operatess differentlly and achiieves a difffferent resuult. Perlmaan does nott anticipatee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Originaal Claims 1 and 3.
`
`
`
`mory, and orage Memmanent Stoclude Permdoes not incb) PPerlman d
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`therefore ccannot Antticipate Orriginal Claaims 1 and
`
`
`
`OOriginal Claims 1 andd 3 require “permaneent storage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memory.”” Perlman
`
`
`
`does noot have permmanent stoorage memmory. The oonly memoory that Peerlman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mentionns is a memmory unit 2204 compoosed of nonn-persistennt random aaccess memmory
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(RAM):
`
`
`
`
`o Section I48, see alson) at 5:46-4EX10011 (Perlman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.B.2, suprra. RAM iis not
`
`
`
`
`
`permanent storagee memory. Not only does Perlmman not haave permannent storagge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memoryy, there woould be no reason forr Perlman tto have perrmanent stoorage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memoryy, as admittted by Petitioner in iits fist Petittion (“…roouters typi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cally are
`
`
`
`rebooted only rareely, so it’s cache natuurally was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` RAM.”).
`in volatile
`
`See also
`
`
`
`EX20022, 20-22.
`
`
`
`LLacking a cclaim element, Perlmman cannot
`
`
`
`
`
`anticipate
`
`
`
`nd 3. Original CClaims 1 an
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`
`2. Original Claims 22-24
`a) Perlman is not a Data Access Method, and therefore cannot
`Anticipate Original Claims 22-24
`
`Original Claims 22-24 of the ‘717 Patent are directed to a method of data
`
`access, while Perlman is directed to a method of data synchronization. Rather than
`
`providing data to a node when requested as claimed in Original Claims 22-24,
`
`Perlman discloses a method that synchronizes all nodes, without a request.
`
`Perlman is not a method for data access, but a method for synchronization, and
`
`thus Perlman cannot anticipate the invention of Original Claims 22-24. See
`
`EX2002, ¶16-18.
`
`In Perlman, a sender node periodically broadcasts a database identifier to
`
`receiving nodes on the network, and if the database at a node is out of date, the
`
`database is sent to the node so that all of the nodes are synchronized. Perlman uses
`
`bandwidth both to broadcast the database identifier, and to transmit the database
`
`even when it is not needed. Perlman expressly teaches that it minimizes the use of
`
`computational resources (EX1003 at 4:63-15:2), at the expense of bandwidth. The
`
`point of the invention of Original Claims 22-24 of the ‘717 Patent is to minimize
`
`the use of bandwidth, at the cost of computation resources. EX1001 at 1:64-65.
`
` Perlman is not the same as the method claimed in Original Claims 22-24, it
`
`operates differently and achieves a different result. Perlman does not anticipate
`
`Original Claims 22-24.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`b) Perlman Does Not Disclose Searching for Data with the Same
`Digital Digests, and therefore cannot Anticipate Original Claims
`22-24
`
`
`
`Original Claims 22-24 require “searching for data with the same digital
`
`digest in said network cache memory.” Perlman does not employ searching. See
`
`EX 2002, 14. There is only one database identifier stored in Perlman, and there is
`
`no need to search. The stored identifier is simply compared to the identifier
`
`received from the designated router. In contrast, Original Claims 22-24 require
`
`searching for a file with a corresponding digital digest. This difference is a result
`
`of the difference between what Original Claims 22-24 accomplishes: file access
`
`and what Perlman is trying to accomplish: synchronization.
`
`
`
`Because Perlman does not disclose searching for data with the same digital
`
`digest, Perlman cannot anticipate Original Claims 22-24.
`
`c) Perlman Does Not Disclose Searching Predetermined Locations
`of the Permanent Storage Memory, and therefore cannot
`Anticipate Original Claim 23
`
`Original Claim 23 requires searching in “predetermined locations” in the
`
`permanent storage memory. Perlman discloses a simple comparison, not
`
`searching. Furthermore, Perlman does not even have permanent storage memory,
`
`let alone searching permanent storage memory. See Sections II.C.1.b. and
`
`II.C.2.b., supra. EX 2002, ¶23. Lacking any disclosure of permanent memory or
`
`searching, Perlman cannot show searching predetermined locations in permanent
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`U.S. Patent 6,757,717
`storage memory. Lacking claimed elements of Original Claim 23, Perlman cannot
`
`anticipate Original Claim 23.
`
`D. YOHE DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ORIGINAL CLAIMS 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 22 AND
`231
`The Board has granted review to determine if Original Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10,
`
`22 and 23 are anticipated by Yohe under 35 U.S.C. §102, even though Yohe was
`
`considered during the original prosecution of the ‘717 Patent. They are not.
`
`1. Original Claims 1, 3 and 10
`a) Yohe Does Not Disclose a Sender/Computer having Permanent
`Storage Memory and Means for Creating Digital Digest on Data,
`and therefore cannot Anticipate Original Claims 1, 3 and 10
`
`Original Claims 1, 3 and 10 require a sender/computer including a
`
`permanent storage memory and means for creating a digital digest on data. Yohe