Filed on behalf of Microsoft Corporation
`
`By: John D. Vandenberg (Reg. No. 31,312)
`
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`Stephen J. Joncus (Reg. No. 44,809)
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00026 (TLG)
`Case IPR2013-00109 (TLG)
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S CORRECTED RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`By: John D. Vandenberg (Reg. No. 31,312)
`
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`Stephen J. Joncus (Reg. No. 44,809)
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00026 (TLG)
`Case IPR2013-00109 (TLG)
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S CORRECTED RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`DR. KONCHITSKY IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD ....................... 1
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 2
`
`III. ANTICIPATION ............................................................................................. 5
`
`IV. OBVIOUSNESS ............................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`DR. KONCHITSKY IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD
`
`Dr. Konchitsky’s declaration (Ex. 2002) is inadmissible because he is not an
`
`expert in the pertinent art. His complete CV (Ex. 1022)—what he posts on his
`
`website (Ex. 1023 (“Conway Decl.”))—shows this, partly by its listing of his areas
`
`of professed expertise. But, someone deleted that listing from the edited CV (Ex.
`
`2003) Patent Owner submitted. His lack of expertise was exposed on cross exami-
`
`nation. (Ex. 1024 (“Konchitsky TR”)). Dr. Long, an undisputed expert, has re-
`
`viewed that testimony and the multiple CVs. He explains that Dr. Konchitsky has
`
`not worked or published in this field and does not know what is common
`
`knowledge to any expert in this field. (Ex. 1025 (“3rd Long Decl.”)). Cf. Ex parte
`
`Shaw, Appeal 2012-001553, 2012 WL 1562632, at *8 (BPAI Apr. 20, 2012).
`
`Even if admissible, his declaration deserves no weight. It does not define
`
`the “person of ordinary skill in the art in 1998” whose perspective he supposedly
`
`considered (id., ¶ 12), or show that he understands that perspective. It is concluso-
`
`ry and full of errors. It inflates a certificate he received into “a post-graduate de-
`
`gree.” (Compare Konchitsky Decl., ¶ 3 with Konchitsky TR 147:20-149:14). It
`
`mischaracterizes the edited CV as “a true and accurate copy of my CV.” (Konchit-
`
`sky Decl., ¶ 10). His explanations for the edited CV do not withstand scrutiny.
`
`(Compare Konchitsky TR 141:18-145:21 with Conway Decl.).
`
`1
`
`
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Data access: BRI = data acquisition. “Data access” does not require a re-
`
`ceiver to request the data. Claim 11 recites a method “for increasing data access”
`
`that is performed by a sender. This claim allegedly corresponds to Figs. 8-10,
`
`which show the sender initiating the transaction. The specification says that “this
`
`transaction may also begin with the receiver/computer sending a request to the
`
`sender/computer” (IPR2012-00026, Ex. 1002 (“’717”), 8:37-39) (emphasis added),
`
`the “may” designating such receiver initiation as optional. The specification ex-
`
`cerpts (id., 1:18-26, 7:65-67) cited by Patent Owner (Corrected Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (“POR”)) do not even mention “data access” let alone define it narrowly
`
`as Patent Owner urges. Dr. Konchitsky conceded that a sender may “push” the ac-
`
`cessed data to the receiver without request from the receiver. (Konchitsky TR
`
`36:11-39:17, 69:21-24, 71:8-22).
`
`Permanent storage memory: BRI = non-volatile memory that allows reading
`
`of data and writing of data at least once. The patent does not restrict this memory
`
`to only devices allowing multiple writes. Dr. Konchitsky agreed that WORM
`
`(write-once read-many) is non-volatile “storage.” (Konchitsky TR 88:7-89:12).
`
`Sender/computer; Receiver/computer: BRI = a computer that sends or re-
`
`ceives data, respectively. A sender/computer can include multiple devices and can
`
`be an intermediary. The Board should maintain its construction. (IPR2012-00026,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Paper 17; IPR2013-00109, Paper 14). The specification does not say that “a send-
`
`er” is limited to a single machine, or that “a sender” must be the source of the data.
`
`It does not even describe an example of a sender as being a single machine or be-
`
`ing the source of the data. Nor does it describe a sender creating any data (other
`
`than digests) or having a Web server program or other program that creates data.
`
`The same is true on the receiver side. The specification does not say that the re-
`
`ceiver is limited to a single machine, or that the receiver must use the data. Again,
`
`the patent does not even describe an exemplary receiver as being a single machine
`
`or a user of the data. The patent does not disclose the receiver having a Web
`
`browser or other application program that could use the data. In this patent, a
`
`“sender” is whatever sends data and a “receiver” is whatever receives data. (See
`
`also Ex. 1026 (“Long TR”)1 109:5-24, 204:14-205:4 (the sender of claims 1 and 3
`
`could be a router); Konchitsky TR 75:7-76:18, 79:7-23).
`
`Patent Owner’s description of Yohe (IPR2012-00026, Ex. 1005 (“Yohe”))
`
`bolsters this construction that neither a sender nor receiver is limited to a single
`
`machine. Patent Owner concedes that “Yohe expressly disclosed a permanent
`
`storage device as part of other components, e.g., file server computer 18 and re-
`
`mote client computer 12.” (POR, p. 23; see Konchitsky TR 116:17-19 (permanent
`
`
`1 The parties have agreed to Microsoft filing this transcript without the witness’s
`signature or errata sheet.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`storage is “a separate entity” from Yohe’s client)). But, Yohe depicts those storage
`
`devices as residing outside of those computers (Yohe, Fig. 2) and describes those
`
`storage devices as “operatively connected” to those computers (id., 1:54-57, 4:60-
`
`63, 5:22-24). So, Patent Owner concedes that a receiver/sender may encompass
`
`physically separated but operatively connected entities.
`
`Search: BRI = Check for. A “search” does not require checking multiple
`
`digest values for a match. The patent equates “search” with “check for.” What the
`
`specification calls “searches its network cache memory 48 for data with the same
`
`digest” (’717, 7:56-57), Fig. 5 refers to as “check for digest in cache.” Although
`
`Patent Owner does not request a particular construction, it seems to assume a nar-
`
`row construction of “search” lacking any support in the specification or claims. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner implies that “search” requires more than one digest-to-
`
`digest comparison operation (POR, pp. 20, 27)—but nothing in the patent so de-
`
`fines “search.” (See Konchitsky TR 54:4-12 (’717 patent does not require as part
`
`of the search looking at multiple digest values stored at receiver), 67:7-12).
`
`Not only does the ’717 patent not require the specific type of search Patent
`
`Owner assumes, it does not even describe such a search. The patent discloses no
`
`particular search algorithm or mechanism at all—beyond comparing two digest
`
`values for a match. (Cf. Konchitsky TR 41:23-43:7). Further, a search in this pa-
`
`tent need not compare multiple digest pairs. A search for a matching digest is per-
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`formed only in connection with a single particular data object stored at the receiver
`
`(and which the system to verify is not obsolete (’717, 1:18-55)). Therefore, all
`
`that’s needed to search for a matching digest is to compare a single pair of digest
`
`values for that data object—one received from the network and the other being a
`
`digest of the receiver’s copy of that object. Dr. Konchitsky so testified. (Konchit-
`
`sky TR 62:24-63:8, 67:7-12).
`
`Two other computers: BRI = any two computers other than the gateway.
`
`Claim 6 recites that its “gateway” is connected to the network such that network
`
`packets “sent between at least two other computers pass through it.” Although Pa-
`
`tent Owner does not request a construction of this claim language, it assumes a nar-
`
`row construction unsupported by the specification and claims: two computers oth-
`
`er than the caching computer. (POR, pp. 25, 36-37). Nothing in the claims or
`
`specification justifies such a revision of the plain wording of the claim. “Other”
`
`here plainly means other than the gateway not other than the caching computer.
`
`This claim language appears in claim 6 before any mention of the caching comput-
`
`er. Nothing in the claim language or specification precludes one of the two “other
`
`computers” being that caching computer.
`
`III. ANTICIPATION
`
`Claims 1, 3 and 10: (Yohe) Patent Owner’s first attempted distinction over
`
`Yohe rests on its incorrect construction of “sender/computer.” Patent Owner does
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`not deny that Yohe’s operatively connected caching computer and file server to-
`
`gether qualify as “a sender/computer,” under the Board’s construction of “send-
`
`er/computer.” (POR, pp. 21-22, 32; see also Long TR 143:4-146:17).
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s second attempted distinction of these claims
`
`over Yohe (POR, pp. 23-24), a “directory” in Yohe is “data” as construed by the
`
`Board. As Dr. Konchitsky testified on cross-examination, Yohe’s “directory” in-
`
`cludes one or more “files” as its sub-objects (Yohe, 13:53-57) and thus includes a
`
`plurality of ranges of octets (bytes) in one or more files (see Konchitsky TR 119:9-
`
`121:19)—which qualifies as “data.” (See also Yohe, 16:6-7, 11-12). Yohe treats
`
`its directories as a form of file. Both the client’s “file system” and the file server’s
`
`“file system” read and write Yohe’s directories and directory sub-objects. (Yohe,
`
`7:9-14, Fig. 15; see Konchitsky TR 120:2-7, 123:20-124:3, 125:20-24). (In Unix,
`
`a “directory” is a type of file. (Konchitsky TR 119:9-11)). Yohe’s claims refer to
`
`“data of the directory.” (Yohe, 16:20-21; see Konchitsky TR 121:11-19).
`
`(Perlman – claims 1 and 3 only) Patent Owner’s first attempted distinction
`
`rests on its incorrect construction of “data access.” (POR, pp. 17-18). Its second
`
`attempted distinction over Perlman (id., p. 18) rests, in part, on its incorrect con-
`
`struction of “permanent storage memory.” Perlman discloses that its system ap-
`
`plies to “any type of distributed system requiring efficient synchronization of the
`
`contents of databases stored on nodes of a computer network.” (IPR2012-00026,
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Ex. 1003 (“Perlman”), 8:57-60). This “any type” encompasses, for example, a sys-
`
`tem like Yohe that stores the cached database contents and digests on permanent
`
`memory disk. Dr. Long so testified on his cross and redirect examination (Long
`
`TR, 174:8-176:1, 180:6-181:3, 205:14-207:2 (Perlman discloses the entirety of
`
`’717 claim one and also storing cache in permanent storage memory), 208:8-
`
`209:13).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Perlman is not even pertinent prior art, because
`
`Perlman supposedly has no interest in decreasing bandwidth usage. (POR, pp. 17-
`
`19, 28-31; Konchitsky Decl., ¶¶ 18-19). Patent Owner is wrong. Perlman dis-
`
`closes that a prior technique “consumes significant bandwidth” (Perlman, 3:47-49)
`
`and expressly declares as its very first object of invention “to reduce the bandwidth
`
`consumed by transmission of database summary information packets over a com-
`
`puter network.” (Id., 3:56-57). Perlman makes this same bandwidth-usage reduc-
`
`tion point repeatedly (id. at 4:18-20, 7:52-55), yet Patent Owner and Dr. Konchit-
`
`sky represent to the Board that Perlman intentionally increases bandwidth usage.
`
`(See Konchitsky TR 133:16-138:3). Ironically, Perlman uses the word “band-
`
`width” five times; the ’717 patent, not once.
`
`(Santos – claims 1 and 3 only) Patent Owner’s first alleged distinction
`
`(POR, pp. 32-34) is based in part on its incorrect construction of “receiv-
`
`er/computer.” Santos implements the receiver as a general-purpose Pentium II
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`300MHz PC in which the data packets are processed by a user-level program, lo-
`
`cated on an Ethernet LAN (IPR2012-00026, Ex. 1004 (“Santos”) § 3.4). The com-
`
`puter’s user-level program necessarily “uses” the data. Also, Santos Fig. 7 shows
`
`end-to-end use.
`
`Patent Owner’s second attempted distinction between these claims and San-
`
`tos (POR, p. 34) also fails. Santos’s decompressor module has the ability to create
`
`digests (MD5 hashes, H(X)) on data (X) and that same data (X) is stored in its
`
`network cache. (Santos § 3, ¶ 1). (See id., § 2, ¶ 1, § 2.4, ¶¶ 1-2, § 3, ¶ 4, § 3.1.2,
`
`¶ 1, § 3.2.1, ¶ 2, § 3.4, ¶¶ 1-3, Figs. 4-5 (“H(X) found”). These claims do not re-
`
`quire that the receiver first read the data from the cache and then and only then cal-
`
`culate a digest on it.
`
`Claims 6, 7 and 9: (DRP) Each DRP client and each DRP server qualifies
`
`as the caching computer of these claims, while each DRP proxy cache server quali-
`
`fies as these claims’ gateway. Each DRP client and each DRP server: (1) main-
`
`tains a cache on its permanent storage disk (client: IPR2013-00109, Ex. 1003
`
`(“DRP”), 5:30-33, 7:2-8; server: id., 4:40-42, 5:22-28, 5:34-6:20, 8:25-34, 10:45-
`
`11:2), (2) stores MD5 digests in that cache (client: id., 5:30-33, 7:2-8; server: id.,
`
`4:40-41, 5:22-28), (3) compares digest values received over the network to digests
`
`of data stored in its cache (client: id., 5:30-33, 6:38-7:8, 7:42-45, 8:7-23, 11:5-6;
`
`server: id., 7:31-32, 34-35, 8:25-27), and (4) calculates MD5 digests on cached da-
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`ta (client: id., 3:24-27, 5:26-28, 7:42-45, 8:25-27, 8:36, 9:30-31, 10:45-11:6; serv-
`
`er: id., 3:24-27, 5:26-28, 6:35, 8:25-27, 9:30-31, 10:45-11:2). Patent Owner’s at-
`
`tempted distinctions over DRP rest entirely on its incorrect construction of “two
`
`other computers”—under which it refuses to consider either the caching DRP cli-
`
`ent or the caching DRP server to be a caching computer. (POR, pp. 36-39).
`
`(Yohe) Yohe’s caching computer and file server is these claims’ “caching
`
`computer” (Yohe, 5:14-28, 5:59-65, 6:17-55, 7:19-8:4, 13:30-14:17, claims 1, 6, 8)
`
`and Yohe’s communication server 16 is their “gateway” (id., 4:46-57, 5:11-14, Fig.
`
`2). Patent Owner’s attempted distinctions rest entirely on its incorrect construc-
`
`tions of “sender/computer” and “two other computers.” (POR, pp. 24-26, 32).
`
`Claims 11, 12 and 14: (DRP) Patent Owner argues that a DRP client does
`
`not send a DRP server a response and a DRP server does not send data in reply to
`
`such a response from the client. (POR, pp. 39-40, 43-44). Patent Owner is wrong.
`
`In response to receiving MD5 digests from the DRP server in an index file (DRP,
`
`5:22-32), the DRP client (if it does not find that digest in its cache) responds to the
`
`server with a request for data (either a GET request (id., 6:44, 7:20-28) or a differ-
`
`ential GET request (id., 8:11-13)). (Konchitsky TR 91:18-94:7, 98:5-11, 108:11-
`
`109:18). In reply to that request from the client, the DRP server looks for (DRP,
`
`7:31-32, 34-35) and responds with the requested data or differential data (id., 5:22-
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`23, 7:33-34, 7:37-39, 8:29-31, 9:22-32). The DRP server, of course, controls its
`
`search, response and other operations.
`
`As for claim 14 (POR, pp. 40, 44-45), a DRP server sends an index file to a
`
`DRP client including MD5 digest content identifiers of each of the data objects that
`
`the index describes. (DRP, 4:37-5:19, 7:20-29). The DRP client responds to that
`
`transmission with a request for only those data objects it needs, i.e., with a separate
`
`indication signal for each file identified in the index file. (Id., 6:40-7:1).
`
`Claims 22, 23, 24: (Perlman) Patent Owner’s first attempted distinction
`
`(POR, p. 19) rests on its incorrect construction of “data access,” and its second al-
`
`leged distinction (id., p. 20) rests, in part, on its incorrect construction of “search.”
`
`Patent Owner says that “there is only one database identifier stored in Perlman, and
`
`there is no need to search.” (Id.) That is wrong. It ignores Perlman’s disclosure of
`
`receivers seeking matches for multiple fragment identifiers. (Perlman, Fig. 7,
`
`8:36-42). Those multiple identifiers must be found before they can be compared.
`
`As for claim 23 (POR, pp. 20-21), Perlman’s receiver performs multiple
`
`searches in particular predetermined fields of its cache, i.e., “examine and compare
`
`the contents of these fixed length fields” (Perlman, 7:48-52), in response to a mes-
`
`sage containing “a” “digital digest,” first for the high-level identifier and then for
`
`low-level identifiers sent in the same message. (Id., 8:7-42, 8:52-92, claim 18).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`(Yohe – claims 22 and 23 only) Patent Owner’s attempted distinction over
`
`Yohe rests entirely on its incorrect construction of “search.” (POR, pp. 27, 32).
`
`Nothing in the ’717 patent disclaims the type of single-comparison search per-
`
`formed by the directory signature comparator on Yohe’s client as it checks for a
`
`digest value of its cached version of a directory matching the server’s digest value
`
`for that directory. (Yohe, 2:41-61, 5:1-3, 8:9-11, 8:13-21, 13:34-35, Fig. 15,
`
`claims 1, 8).
`
`(Santos – claims 22 and 23 only) As discussed supra at 7-8, Santos disclos-
`
`es a receiver. As for claim 23, Santos looks in at least two predetermined loca-
`
`tions: it looks at H(X) and then, to identify any collisions, it looks at the stored
`
`payload associated with that H(X) and compares that to the argument payload.
`
`(Santos § 3.2.1, ¶ 5, § 3.2.2, ¶ 3, § 3.4, ¶¶ 1, 3, Figs. 4-5). Santos’s general-
`
`purpose PentiumII PC necessarily has a ROM and a hard disk storing, e.g., its
`
`Linux operating system and “compressor” and “decompressor” code. (Santos § 2.5,
`
`¶ 2). The implementation’s 128MB RAM is substantially smaller than the 200MB
`
`cache available for each direction of network traffic, implying that some cache re-
`
`sides in non-volatile storage. (See id., § 3.1, ¶ 1).
`
`IV. OBVIOUSNESS
`
`Patent Owner mostly ignores the prima facie showing of obviousness made
`
`by Petitioner and Dr. Long. It offers no admissible evidence of non-obviousness,
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`and no evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness. It does not dispute Peti-
`
`tioner’s definition of the field of the alleged invention, or the level of skill in the
`
`art, or that the patent’s skeletal disclosure constitutes an admission that a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art already knew of equipment and techniques for im-
`
`plementing the ideas described.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 10, 22, 23 and 24: (Yohe + Perlman) Petitioner has shown
`
`multiple objective motivations for a person of skill in the art in 1998-99 to com-
`
`bine Yohe and Perlman in the claimed manner. First, each reference addresses the
`
`same problem addressed in the ’717 patent: validating a locally cached copy of
`
`dynamic data previously sent over the network to avoid an unnecessary redundant
`
`transmission of that same data. (IPR2012-00026, Ex. 1007 (“1st Long Decl.”), 9:8-
`
`10:5). Second, each proposes the same solution: a sender transmits an MD5 or
`
`CRC digest of the data to the receiver, the receiver compares that received digest to
`
`its own digest for that data object and, if there is no match, the receiver requests
`
`the data object from the sender. (Id., 10:6-13). Third, each teaches a common ex-
`
`emplary application for their common solution: network routers. (Id., 10:14-20).
`
`Fourth, Perlman expressly discloses (and claims) that its solution applies broadly
`
`to any network nodes needing such synchronization between their database con-
`
`tents—which a person of skill in the art would have understood included Yohe’s
`
`system and other systems with permanent-memory cache. (Id., 11:1-7). Finally,
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`there is nothing incompatible about these references. (Id., 11:8-12; see also Long
`
`TR 93:2-29, 130:15-132:18, 140:1-142:15, 183:3-21, 205:14-207:2). Whether a
`
`designer chooses persistent or non-persistent memory for cache depends on the ap-
`
`plication, e.g., whether speed of retrieval or longevity of data is most useful.
`
`(Long TR 69:6-20, 72:10-73:21, 95:16-96:24, 105:2-18, 154:1-155:12, 173:8-
`
`175:16, 181:10-22, 202:15-204:13). Patent Owner offers no admissible evidence
`
`refuting these objective factors, or Dr. Long’s expert analysis.
`
`Dr. Long further explains concrete reasons why the skilled designer combin-
`
`ing these references would have used permanent storage memory for the cache (as
`
`taught by Yohe), for at least some applications, and would have used Perlman’s
`
`multiple-digests-per-message feature. (1st Long Decl., 12:4-15:9; see also Long
`
`TR, 174:8-176:9, 179:8-180:24, 181:4-22). Patent Owner again offers no admissi-
`
`ble evidence refuting these explanations.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that Perlman is non-analogous (POR, pp. 28-31)
`
`rests on its incorrect construction of “data access” and its refusal to acknowledge
`
`Perlman’s repeated statements that her solution reduces bandwidth usage. (See su-
`
`pra at 2 and 6-7).
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that Perlman’s router embodiment would not store
`
`its cache in permanent memory (POR, p. 31), disregards Perlman’s express exten-
`
`sion of its solution to any database nodes requiring synchronization, including
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`those Perlman claims that go beyond the router embodiments. (See supra at 7).
`
`Ignoring the very portion of a reference’s disclosure on which a prima facie obvi-
`
`ousness showing rests, cannot refute that showing.
`
`Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14: (DRP + Mattis) Patent Owner does not re-
`
`fute, and barely addresses, Petitioner’s and Dr. Long’s explanation of concrete rea-
`
`sons motivating a person of skill in the art to use Mattis’s cache-store techniques
`
`with DRP clients and servers including proxy servers. (IPR2013-00109, Ex. 1013
`
`(“2nd Long Decl”), 10:2-15:4). For example, it is undisputed that Mattis expressly
`
`acknowledges that clients may request a particular object by identifying the ob-
`
`ject’s MD5 digest (IPR2013-00109, Ex. 1004 (“Mattis”), 9:65–10:4) and that an
`
`HTTP DRP client would do just that. Patent Owner argues that both DRP and
`
`Mattis operate just fine as is so there is no need to modify them. (POR, p. 42). But
`
`that misses the point: “Mattis and HTTP DRP fully operate together without
`
`changing either.” (2nd Long Decl., 14:16-17).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Mattis is “not [directed to] reduction of redundan-
`
`cy in network data transmission.” (POR, p. 41). Patent Owner is wrong. Mattis
`
`repeatedly states its goal is to reduce network transmissions: “reducing Internet
`
`server traffic” (Mattis, 1:65), “minimize server download time” (id., 22:27-28) and
`
`“minimizing server network traffic” (id., 22:30-31; see also id. at 4:38-39, 22:37-
`
`38, 43-44). In part Mattis reduces bandwidth usage in the same manner as DRP:
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`“The cache is alias free, so that multiple objects or object variants, with different
`
`names, but with the same content identical object content, will have the object con-
`
`tent cached only once, shared among the different names.” (Id., 37:67-38:3).
`
`When these complementary references are combined, clients, forward and
`
`reverse web proxies, and origin web servers, are equipped to calculate, store and
`
`compare MD5-digest content identifiers, as described in Mattis. (2nd Long Decl.,
`
`15:5-16:10). And, they also use those same MD5-digest content identifiers in
`
`HTTP DRP GET requests, differential GET requests, and replies thereto, as de-
`
`scribed in HTTP DRP. (Id.) This natural combination of these complementary
`
`references provides all of the functionality recited in these six challenged claims
`
`and renders them unpatentable for obviousness.
`
`Patent Owner argues that DRP’s caching proxy server does not compare
`
`MD5 digests. (POR, pp. 42-43). Patent Owner is wrong. DRP proxy servers per-
`
`form such digest comparisons to avoid redundant downloads from a DRP server of
`
`content already cached at the proxy server. (DRP, 9:38-10:2). For example, the
`
`proxy server compares the MD5 digests received from a client in a differential
`
`GET request to digests of data objects stored in its cache to determine if it has both
`
`versions of the requested object. (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Dated: August 21, 2013
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/John D. Vandenberg/
`John D. Vandenberg
`Registration No. 31,312
`Stephen J. Joncus
`Registration No. 44,809
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026; IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Certificate of Service in Compliance With 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`The undersigned certifies that a complete copy of Microsoft Corporation’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Corrected Response was served on the attorneys of record
`
`for Patent Owner in this proceeding:
`
`
`
`MATTHEW L. CUTLER
`BRYAN K. WHEELOCK
`DOUGLAS A. ROBINSON
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
`7700 BONHOMME, SUITE 400
`ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
`
`
`via EXPRESS MAIL, on August 21, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /John D. Vandenberg/
`John D. Vandenberg
`Reg. No. 31,312
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
