Case1:02-cv~11430-RWZ Document51
`
`Filed 07/25/2003 Pagetof15
`
`‘
`
`CABLE & WIRELESS INTERNET
`SERVICES, INC. (fomcfly hows: as
`DIGITAL ISLAND, INC),
`
`unmzo STATES Drs'mcr count '
`FOR THE DISTRICT OFMASSN’WW
`”t
`,«W'I‘;
`§ CM) Actrqtt‘Ni‘ H430 RWZ
`5
`§
`Judge Rye W label
`9
`§
`§
`
`and
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`§§
`
`§§
`
`9§§§§§
`
`KINETBCIL ENG,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CWIS’ OPENING MARKMAN BRIEF CONSTRUING TI'H‘I TERMS
`AT ISSUE IN 9.; [ATEN'I‘ N0. 6,415,180
`
`Pursuant to the om: ofthis Com, plaintiffCabIe a: Wireless Intcrnet Sex-vim, Inc.
`
`(“CWIS”) submits this claim construction brief, construing the seven terms at issue in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,415,280 (“thc '280 patent"), The terms are damfiles, data identifier. given
`
`fimcrian, comprises, cached versions ofdatafiles, hash, and value.
`
`' Tam TECHNOLOGY 03mm CLAIMS AT 13st ,
`The claims of the ‘280 ptatcm at issue in this case are directed at various methods for
`
`using a data Identifier to ensure that a frail, lather than state, data file is served by the cache
`
`. server of a Content Delivery Network (“CDN").'
`
` '
`
`'Iheclat'mntiuuein thiacasa acclaim: 9.18 1220.21.23.24 25. 35. 36 37. 38nd” oftbc ‘280 patent.
`The alums gencmuy refer to the method ducrflwd ”min a: a “comm! delivery method" um involvw “WW'
`data am. See Declaration 9/77». Walker (“mum Dec]. '0, Tub A: ‘280 parent.
`
`‘6
`E3
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`200%
`
`NETAPP—PA-OO3374
`
`

`

`Ema -M
`
`Case 1:02-0v-11430RWZ
`
`Document 51
`
`Filed 07/25/2003
`
`Page 2 of 15
`
`The ‘280 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 5,978,701 (“‘791 patent"), which
`
`was the subject ofs previous trial before Your Horror. The claims at issue in the ‘79l trial were
`
`directed broadly to identifying a data item throughout an entire data processing system using an
`
`"identifier depending on and being determined using all of the data in the data item and only the
`
`detain the data item” Declaration'of‘Tinwtlry Walker (“Walker Decl."), Tab B: ‘79l patent,
`
`claims 30. 31, 33 and 41.2 The claims at issue in this case aredifi‘ereut. They are directed to
`
`serving flesh data files from a CDN cache server, not identifying data items throughout an entire
`
`data processing system} The claims in this case describe using “data Identlfiers" to ensure that
`
`the cached data files are fresh, where the “data identifiers" are determined using at least the
`contents of the data file.
`
`in everyday terms, suppose that the Washington Post website is maintained on an origin
`
`server in Boston, you are at a computer terminal in Cambridge, there is a lstebrealdng news
`
`story in Washington, D.C., and you wont to see the fiont~page, lead picture from the Post “s
`
`website. You send a request from your computer in Cunbridge to get the Post '3 front—page, lead
`
`picture if the data file that includes that lead picture is on a cache server in Boston. your
`
`computer's brovvser can retrieve the data more quickly from the nearby'cnche server, rather than
`
`having to send the reqirest all the way to the Post ‘3 origin server in Northern Virginia. This
`
`quicker retrieval, however, is dependent upon the cache server in Boston having a data file that
`
`contains the current flout-page lead picture. and not the lead picture firm 4 hours ago. The ‘280
`
`' The claims stissue in the '791 vial werveleims 30,31,329 and“, sad each claim requiredsn'identifier
`dependingonendbelngdetcrminedueingsllofthedminthedetaitemmdoniythedminthedataitem."
`’ The petentee. in response to a request from the Examiner to explain the claimed invention. described the '280
`patent as involving a “content delivery method“ that uses “cached versions" of data files. Walker Deal, Tub C:
`Amendment, 8/22/01, at p. 46.
`-
`»
`
`NETAPP-PA-OO3375
`
`

`

`Case 1:02vcv-11430-RWZ Document 51
`
`Filed 07/25/2003
`
`Page 3 of 15
`
`. patent is directed to using data identifier: to ensure that the data file sewed by the cache server is
`
`fresh. and contains the current picture that exists on the Post's origin server.
`
`In a CDN system, data is typically stored in data files on the origin server, and a copy of
`the data files may be stored on a cache server. Declaration ofRobert Dewar (“Dewar Deck"),
`1? 20. Ordinarily, a data file is identified using a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") that
`
`typically includes a pattmeme. For exsrnple, the Washington Post fi‘ontvpage lead picture may be
`identified as “http://media.washingtonpostcomlwp-stv/photonwmepme/hpfiZS-O3bjpg." The
`'280 patent explains that when data is simply identified by s URL, any change to the data on the
`
`origin server may not be reflected on the CDN cache server. To ensure that the cache dam is
`
`flesh, the CDN system typically uses a costly “synchronization" process. The ‘280 patent
`
`describes this "synchronization" process:
`
`Before using a cached item, a cache client must either reload the cached item,
`‘be informed of changes to the cached item, or confirm that the master item
`corresponding to the cached item has not changed. In other words, a cache
`client must synchronize its data items with those on the cache server. This
`synchronization may involve reloading data items onto the cache client. The
`need to keep the cache synchronized or reload it adds significant overhead to
`existing caching mechanisms.
`
`Walker Decl., Tab A: 2:63—3z4.’ The claims at issue in the ‘280 patent use a data identifier to
`
`avoid this costly “synchronization”, process.
`
`The ‘280 patent explains that when ‘ data if‘fiitfiéi‘ “is being used to cache dais items,
`
`the problems of maintaining cache consistency are avoided." 37:24~26; 3:58-60.’ The
`
`
`
`‘ Throughout this brief, the ‘280 parent ’5 refined to by columnists: line numflers. The '280 patent is attached as
`Exhibit A to the Walker Declaration.
`.
`'
`
`’ For example, the ‘280 patent explains the data identifier, in the context of. key, as follows:
`Towmsscechewdtofill it fromiuswvwwhylsrequiredwidentiftrtlmdats
`item desired. Ordinarily. theheyh I name orcddreu Iiotlris case, it wouldhcthc.
`,
`pathoame of. file]. lithe data associated with such a key is charged, tbe‘client's cache
`
`3
`
`NETAPP—PA—003376
`
`

`

`Case 1:02-cv~11430—RWZ Document 51
`
`Filed 07t25t2003 Pagedofts
`
`consistency problems are avoided because the data tdcnttflcr is dctctmined using at least the
`
`contents ofthe data file. As a molt, when the underlying data changes (La, the Post's lead
`
`picture changes) a new data file is created on the origin server and a new data identifier is
`
`determined using at least the contents of that new data file. According to the “280 patent, the
`
`data tdentlfier is created using a "givon‘ function ofthe data," and the ”data used by the given
`
`fimeu‘on comprises the contents ofthc particular data file.” 4t :1 M 4, 4133952, 42.1043,
`
`The '280 patent further explain; that the data identifier is a "substantially unique"
`
`identifia for a data file 6:8-9. The ‘280 patent does not require absolute uniqtiencss ofthe data
`
`identifier, but only “sufficient uniqueness" for the application. 13:49-50. The ‘280 patent
`
`recognizes that, in the context of a CDN cache, the actual number of cached data files “form a
`
`very sparse subset om! possible inputs." 13:740. Accordingly. the likelihood ofa data
`tdemtller collision (Let, the same data identifier for difiemtt data files) in the context ofa CDN
`
`is exhumely remote. 13:19—29. Given this small subset ofeacbed data files, the ‘280 patent
`
`recognizes that “lower probabilities of uniqueness may be acceptable." 13:31-33.
`
`The ‘280 patent also contemplates combining the data identifier with other information to
`
`provide an additional level of uniqueness, if necessary. According to the ‘280 patent, the data
`
`identifier may “use tagged, typed, categorized or classified data items and use a combination of
`
`both the [data identifier] and the tag, type, category or class's of the data item as an identifier."
`
`
`
`becomes inconsistent; when the each: client trim to that name, it will retrieve the wrong
`
`|
`‘
`
`t
`
`By using an mboclirnent ofthe present invention, the who key uniqoely
`.
`identities the data it moment». When the data associated with a name changes, the key
`ttselfchangea. Thai. when a each: client wiahes to accee: the modified data associated
`withugivenolenammtwittuieanewkeyldteTmeNamcoftbenewfilelmthutlun
`the key to the old file content: in its cache.
`37:27.44.
`
`NETAPP—PA—003377
`
`

`

`Case 1:02-cv-11430-RWZ Document 51
`
`Filed 07/25/2003
`
`Page 5 of 15
`
`1314244. The patent explaios that these “tags provide rm additional level of uniqueness."
`
`l3250—5 1.
`
`THE TERMS AT ISSUE
`
`The seven terms at issue in this case are: (1) datafiles; (2) data identt/ler; {3) given
`
`flmt’fl'tm; (4) comprises; (5) cached versions; (6) hash; and (7) value. The terms appear
`
`repeatedly in the 13 separate claims that CWIS ESSQXESJJIQ Claims 9 end 35 are illustrative. 1hr:
`text of Claim 9 provides as follows (with the terms at issue in italicized red):
`
`9.
`
`In a system in which a set of data/tier are distributed across a
`network of sewers some of the data/Ne: being cached from a
`source server distinct from the servers in the network a content
`delivery method comprising:
`
`determining a data identifier for a particular datufitu on the source
`server, the data identifier being determined using a given/anchor: of
`the data, wherein said data used by the g/venfunctton to determine
`the data identifier comprises the contents ofthe particular datafile;
`and
`‘
`responsive to a request for the particular datafIe the request
`including at least the data Identifier ot‘ the particular data file
`causing acopy of the particular datafile to be provided from a
`given one of the sewers of the network of servers.
`
`The text of Claim 35 provides as follows (with the terms at issue in italicized red):
`
`35.
`
`A content delivery method, comprising;
`
`distributing a set ordain/Hes across a network of servers, at least
`some of the dataftles being arched versions ofdatafiles from
`another server, said other server heing distinct from the network of
`5ch etc;
`
`dctennining a data Identifier for a particular data/lie, the data
`Identifier including a hash of the contents 'of the particular data/He;
`and
`
`in response to a request for the particular data He, the request
`including at least the data identifier of the particular data/lie,
`providing the particular datafie from a given one of the servers of
`the network of servers
`
`NETAPP—PA~OO3378
`
`

`

`Case 1:02-CV-11430aRWZ Document 51
`
`Filed [Tl/2512003 ' Page 6 of 15
`
`ems, consistmt with controlling Federal aim: law, explains below that each or the
`
`tenns at issue in this case is defined accotding to it: plain meaning, consistent with the intrinsic
`
`record ofthe patent specification, claims and file history, the dictionary definition and the
`undetstanding of one skilled in the tot.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`l.
`
`CLAIM TERMS ARE CONSTRUEll CONSISTENT WITH THEIR PLAIN
`MEANING, THE INTRINSIC EVIDENCE AND UNDERSTANDING OF ONE
`SKILLED IN THE ART.
`
`Claim commotion begins with the words of the claim. Vlfl‘onics 'Corp. v. Conceptronic.
`
`1m, 90 F.3d 1576, 1532 (M Cir. 1996).“ “The analytical focus must begin and remain
`
`contend on the language ofthc claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose
`
`to use to pmloularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee regaxds
`
`as his invention.” Texas Digital systems Inc. v. Telegenhr, Inc, 308 F.3d 1193, 1201-92 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002).
`
`When construing the claims, courts begin with an examination of the intrinsic evidence,
`
`ta, the claims, the other portions of the specification, and the prosecution history. Aldrin, Inc. v.
`
`Symantec Com, 3| 8 Md 1363, l369 (Fed. Cit. 2003). Additionally, dictionary definitions may
`be consulted in establishing a claim tenn’s ordinary meaning. 1d. A patentee may choose to be
`his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning. as long as
`
`the special definition ofthe term is clearly stated in the patent specification. Invemeu Medical
`
`Switzerland Gmbh' v. Princeton Biomedirech Corp, 309 F.3d 1365, 137lv72 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
`citing Virrontcs Corp, 90 F36 at l582.
`
`° The Fedenl Clmutt, in Intellectual Property Development. Inc. v. UA~Calwana Cab/MRI" of Watchmen Inc.
`2003 WL 21688043 at 4 (Fed, Cir, July 21, 2003). mend)! confirmed the claim construction Analysis ”outdated in
`WW.
`
`NETAPP—PA~003379
`
`

`

`Cese1102cv-11430«RWZ Document 51
`
`filed 07/25/2003
`
`Page W15
`
`The terms used in the claims beer a "heavy presumption" that they mean what they say
`
`and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the
`
`relevant at Texas Digital. 368 F.3d at 1202. Court: may also review exeinsic evidence. always
`
`to assist them in comprehmding the technology in accouiauce with the understanding ofskilled
`
`artisans and as necessary for actual claim construction. Id. Extrinsic evidence may never be
`
`relied upon, however, to very or contradict the clear meaning cfteans in the claims. Id.
`
`In accord with these legal principles, CWIS provides its construction of the seven claim
`
`terms at issue in this case.
`
`i
`
`[1.
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISPUTED TERMS.
`
`‘
`
`A.
`
`Data File.
`
`The term detefile means “a namedsequence ofbits.”
`
`The ‘280 patent refers to a datafile as being a “named data item" (5:45.50) and refers to
`
`a “data item" as a ‘fsequence ofbits" (1:53-54). Accordingly, a data/lie. as that tennis used in
`
`the claims at issue, means a named sequence of bits.
`
`'
`
`The ‘280 patent provides futther context. A data item is “the contents oft: tile,” t:54.
`Specific examples include “a pmtion of a file, a page in memory, an object in an object—oriented
`
`program, a digital message, a digital scanned image, a part of a video or audio signal, or any
`
`other entity which can be represented by a sequence of bits." 1:54.58. Supplying the data item
`
`with u name cream a data file. According to the ‘280 patent: “[A] file is a named data item
`which is either a data file (which may be simple or compound) or a directory file.” 5:47.50. The
`
`term meme," as used in the ’280 patent, simply means an alphanumeric identifier for data that
`
`typically uses a location or address to identify the data. 1:22r27.
`
`7The term dalafile or data/flee nppem inelaim 9, l3, 19. 20, EL 23. 2A. 25. and 35 ofthe “280 petent.
`
`NETAPP-PA-OOBSBO
`
`

`

`Case 1:02-cv-11430-RWZ Document 51
`
`Ftted 07l25/2003
`
`Page Solis
`
`The dictionary definition of the term “file," as used in the eontext of eomputem and the
`lotmiet, is consistent with this eonstmctiom The Random House Webster's Computer 6:
`
`Internet Dictionary (3d'ed. 1999) defines “file" as “a collection of data or information that has a
`
`name." Walker Deal, Tab D: p. 21 1. Similarly, the Memo}? Computer chtlanaiy (4th ed.
`
`l999) defines "file" as “a complete, named set of information, such as n piognun, a set of data
`
`used by a program, or a user-created document.” Id. at Tab E: p. 183.
`
`This construction of the two datafile is also consistent with the understanding of one
`
`skilled in the art Dewar Decl.. M 9-10.
`
`‘
`
`B.
`
`Data Identifier.
`
`The tend data Identifier means "a substantially unique identifier for a data file that is
`
`determined using at least the contents of the data file."
`
`The term :2an Identifier. as used In the ‘280 patent, refers to “the substantially unique
`
`data identifier for a puzticular data item." 6:7-9, The ‘280 patent contains a lengthy description
`
`about what it means to be "substantially unique," The patent explains that it is impossible to
`
`have a truly “unique" identifier because, in some Gimme“, the number of possible data files
`
`may be larger than the number ofpossible identifiers, creating the possibility of a “colliding set"
`ofdata files.
`
`Indeed, the '280 patent reeogtizes that absolute uniqueness cannot be achieved so long as
`there are more theoretical data files than data Identifiers. Ifthe contents ofa data file can be up
`to 1,000 bits to length, but the data identifier out only be mobile in length, a mathematical
`
`possibility exlSts that the some data identifier may identify different data files. The ‘230 patent
`
`reeognizw that it is theoretically "impossible to define a function having a unique outputfor
`
`
`‘ The term dam tdeniifiereppeats in claims 9, 18, l9, 23, 24, 25. and 35 ofthe ‘280 patent.
`
`NETAPP—PA—003381
`
`

`

`Case 1‘02—cv-1t430—RWZ Document 51
`
`Filed 07/25/2003
`
`Page 9 of 15
`
`mh' possible input when the number of elements in the range of the function is smaller than the
`
`number ofelements in its domain" 13:40.
`
`For this reason, the '280 patent requires only that the data identifier be ”substantially
`
`unique." The ‘280 patent enptains that substantial uniqomeas is sufficient because “the actual
`
`data items that will be encountered in the opertttion of any system embodying this invention form
`
`a vety sparse subset of all the possible inputs." 13:7- I 0‘ The ‘280 patent further explains ‘
`
`"lower probabilities ofmziqueneas may be acceptable, depending on the types of applications and
`
`mechanisms used” (13:3l.33), and that in some embodiments it is acceptable to have “difi'enent
`
`degrees ofum'queness" 033365). The patent simply requires “softieient uniqueness" for the
`
`application. 13:49-50.
`
`In addition, the ‘280 patent tequim that the data identifier be determined using at least
`
`the contents ofthe data file: “the data identifier determined using a given function ofthe data,
`
`when said data used by the given function comprises the contents afthe pattcular dataflie. "
`
`41:1 l~14 (mphnsis supplied).D The ‘280 invention is dimoted to using a data identifier that, in a
`paxticular applicationtchangeo when the contents of a data file change. A data Identifier that is
`determined using at least the contents ofthe data file has this quality. Whenever the contents of
`
`the data file change. a new data identifier is created using the contents of the new. changed data
`
`file. As described in the ‘230 patent, thie ensures that "problems of maintaining cache
`
`consistency are avoided." 3:60-6l , 37:25-26.
`
`It is important to note that the data Identifier at issue here is not the saute as the
`
`"substantially unique identifier" at issue in the ‘79! trial. The cinims at issue in the ‘79! trial all
`required “damning a substantially tmique identifier for the data item, the identifier depending
`
`
`’ Similarly. the Abwnot of the ‘280 patent explains that the data identifier is "determined using a given function of
`the data comprising the particular data file."
`
`NETAPP-PA—003382
`
`

`

`Caset:O2-cv-11430—RWZ Document 51
`
`Flled 07/25/2003 Pageto OH?)
`
`on and heing deterrm’ned using all ofthe data in the data item and only the data in the data item."
`WalkerDecL, Tab B: “791 patent, claims 30. 3!. 33 and 41. Thus. the claims at issue in the "IN
`
`case required that the “substantially unique identifier” depend on and be determined using only
`
`the data in the data item. The claims at issue in this case have no such requirement.
`
`instead, the only requirement of the ciaims at issue in this case is that the data used to
`
`determine the data identifier include the contents of the data file: “the data identifier determined
`
`using a given function of the data, wherein said data used by the given function comprises the
`
`contents of the particular data file." Walker Deal. Tab A: ’280 Patent, at 4|:l l-14; 4lz49—52;
`
`‘ 4210-13. The data tdentVier in this case is not limited to only Lhecontents of the data file.
`
`Indeed, the ‘280 patent explains that the data identifier may also be “a combination of
`
`both the True Name and the tag, type, category or class ofthe data item." Id. at l3:42~44.'° The
`
`patent explains that this tag provides additional uniqueness:”
`
`I
`
`[0)ther preferred embodiments use tagged, typed, categorized or classified '
`data items and use a combination of both the True Name and the tag. type,
`category or class ofme data item as an identifier.,...hi such a system, a lower
`degree of Two Name uniqueness is acceptable over the entire universeot‘ data
`items, as long as sufficient uniqueness is provided per category ofdata items.
`
`Id at 13:39~50.. The description of an embodiment using a data Identifier with a tag to provide
`
`additionai ‘unenecs" confirms that for purposes of the ‘280 patent, there is no requirement
`
`that the data identifier be determined using only the contents of the data file.
`
`This construction of the term data Identifier, as a substantially unique identifier that is
`
`determined using at least the contents ofthe data file, is consistent with the understandingot one
`
`skilled in the an; Dewar Dec/u 'i 11- l 3.
`
`w The ‘280 patent um the tonne True Name and data £42»:in interchangeably. Id. at 6:7-9.
`” Akunai'a expert. Eugene Spafford, recognized that that language of the "NI potent specification (which is
`identical to the '230 patent upeeificatiou) loosely defines "identifier" to include other information that could he
`Idded to the True Name. Walker Deci, Tab 0: Spaflbrd Declaration EWOI. 148.
`
`i...M v. - .—....M...
`
`H)
`
`NETAPP—PA—003383
`
`

`

`Case t:02-cv-1t430~RWZ Document 51
`
`\ Filed 07/25I2003
`
`Page 11 of 15
`
`c.
`
`Given Function.
`
`The term giwnfwtctian means “a specified algorithm whose input comprises the contents
`
`of a data tile.”
`
`The '280 patent equates afimcn'on with an algorithm: “These functions (or
`
`algorithms)...." 12:64. By given, the ‘280 patent simply means that the function specified must
`
`be used consistently: “the same function must be employed on a system-wide basis." l3:l.3.
`
`Accordingly, a given fimetton is a specified algorithm.
`
`The dictionary definition is in accord. The Microsoft Computer Dictionary (4th ed.
`
`1999) defines “ftmction” as “the action carried out by a program or routine.“ Walker Decl., Tab
`
`E: p. 199. ’3 The Webster": ll New College Dictionary (1995) defines the term “given" as
`
`"specified." Id. atTab H: p. 473.
`
`The claims at issue in this case add that the input for this specified algorithm is comprised
`
`of theoontents of a data file. According to the claims, “data used by the given function
`comprises the contents ofthe partieulardata tile." 4|:13—l4,4l:51—52, 41:6667, 421243. This
`
`is consistent with the patentee’s own explanation of the invention, that the input to the fimcu'oh
`
`be comprised of the data item. which is the contents of the data filer “the data identities: being
`
`determined using a given function of the data comprising the particular data item." Walker
`
`Decl., Tab C: Amendment, 8/2210), at p. 46.
`
`This proposed construction, that the givenfunction is a specified algorithm whose input
`
`comprises the contents of the data file, is also consistent with the understanding of one skilled in
`
`the art. Dewar Deck '91 l4-l6.
`
`u The termgiven/iancrian appear: inelainu 9, l8, t9,20,2l, 23. 24.25.38rtnd 39.
`
`ll
`
`N ETAPP—PA—OO3384
`
`

`

`Case1102-cv-11430.RW2 Documentst
`
`Filed 07/25/2003
`
`Page 12 ol_15
`
`D.
`
`Comprised.
`
`The teen comprises means “includes, but not limited to." ” '
`
`The term comprise: is a tum of art used in claim language that means that the named
`
`elements are esswtiai, but that othet elements may he added and still form a eemtmet within the
`scope ofthe claim. Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechstlllarton Rm:el,1ric., 314 F.3d l3l3, 1344-45 (Fed.
`
`Cir, 2003). The Federal Circuit recmtly adde the term "comprise" in Artisan} and
`
`continued that it means including, but not limited to. The court explained that “a claim reciting
`‘a widget comprising A and B,’ for example, would be infringed by any widget containing A and
`8, no matter that C. D. or B might be preeent" Id. at 1345. Similarly, the Manual of Patent
`
`Examination Procedure § 21 l 1.03 (8th ed. 200]) explains that the term “comprising" is
`
`synonymous with “including," end that use of the tenn "comprising" in a patent claim does not
`
`exclude additional elements or method steps,
`‘
`As used in the claims at issue in this case, the given function comprises the contents of
`
`the data file, meaning the function includes. but in not :1le limited to, the contents of the
`
`data file.
`
`E.
`
`Cached Versions of Data Filei.
`
`The phrase cached version; ofdatafiles simply means “data files on a calcite server."u
`
`As explained above, in a CDN system. data files reside on the origin server and copies of
`those date files may reside on the cache server. The ‘280 patent describes a niche server as a
`
`server where copiw of data file; are stored. 2:62. CWIS’ expert, Robert Dewar, further explaim
`
`
`
`” The Mawafi Computer Dictionary (4th ed ”99) defined ”alstm'tluu " u "a finite sequence ot'ltepe for solving
`a logical or mathematical problem or perfotmina a task" Walker Deal. Tab E: p. 19.
`“ m termemnprises upmincleim 9, ta, :9, 23, 24 and 25,
`n The term cachedlvmiom Ippean inclaims l9. 23‘ 24 and 35,
`
`.
`
`”nut—"w...”
`
`12
`
`NETAPP—PA~003385
`
`

`

`Case 1'02-cv-11430RW2' Document 51
`
`Filed 07/25/2003 PagetSottS
`
`‘ the way in which cache servers work, including how the cache servers store. retrieve and serve
`
`data files. Dewar. Decl.. 1 20.
`
`m phrase, cached versions ofdatofiler, is a dwcriptive phrase that is given its plain,
`
`ordinary meaning - the data files on a cache eervet.
`
`‘ This construction is consistent with the understanding of one skilled in the art Dewar
`Dec]. at W 19-20.,
`
`F.
`
`Bosh.
`
`The term hath means “a number generated from input data that is substantially smaller
`than the data itself."
`
`A hash is the name given to the value computed by a “hash ftmetion.” According tovthe
`
`Random House Computer and Internet Dictionary (3d ed l 999) “a hash Value (or simply hash) is
`
`a number generated {font a string of text. The hush is substantially mallet than the text itself
`- and is generated in such a way that it is extremelv unlikely that some other text will produce the
`
`same hash value." Walker Deal, Tab D: p. 250. A formal definition of a hash function may be
`
`found in the Telecom Glossary 2000 (NuedcanNafionel Standard Tl .523-2001): “A
`mathematical fitnction that maps values from a large (or very large) domain into a smaller range,
`
`and that reduces a potentially long message into a ‘mmagc digest.” Id. at Tab 1. The term
`
`“domain” refers to the possible inputs, which in this case would be the contents of the data file in
`
`question Dewar Dec!., “l 22.
`
`'lhe “range" is the result of the function. which, in the context of
`
`the claims, is a smell string that is combined with othet' data to form the date identifier. 1d.
`
`. The term has}: appears only in three ofthe claims 'at issue (35, 36 and 37) and in all three '
`claims the term is used consistent with its plain meaning in computer science. The ‘280 patent
`
`adds, in general, that a data block ofexbitrary length is reduced to “a relatively small, fixed size
`
`13
`
`NETAPP-PA-OO3386
`
`

`

`Casetzoz—CMMSO—RWZ Documentfit
`
`Filed 07/25/2003
`
`Page14of15
`
`identifier" that is ‘Wirtually guaranteed to represent the data block." Walker Deal, Tab A: [2:39~ '
`
`42.
`
`A
`
`.
`
`' This plain, ordinary computer sm'enoe meaning ofthe term has]: is consistent with the
`
`understanding ofone skilled in the an. Dewar Dec!” 11 21-22.
`G.
`Value.
`
`.
`
`The term value, as used in claims 38 and 39. simply means "the output of a given
`function"
`
`Both claims 38 and 39 refer to ”the value determined by the‘givcn fianction." The tum
`
`value in this context has a plain, ordinary meaning as the result produced by the given function1
`
`which is properly referred to as the output of the given function.
`
`The dictionmy definition of the tom: value, when used in this mathematical sense, is
`
`oonsisltmt. Webster '3 ”New College Dictlanary (I995) defines the term value, in the context of
`
`mathematim, as a “calculated numerical quantity." Walker Deal, Tab Hz p. l219.
`
`This plain. ordinary meaning is of the tuna volue is also consistent with the
`
`understanding of one skilled in the an. Dewar Deal, 1” 23~24.
`
`l4
`
`NETAPP—PA—OO3387
`
`

`

`Case1:02~cv-11430~RM DocumentSt
`
`Filed 07/25/2003
`
`Page150l15
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Cable a Wireless Internet Services, Inc. respectfully
`
`requests that the Court oonstruo the team at issue in this case consistent with the definitions set
`
`forth above.
`
`Dated; July 25, 2003
`
`Rospoctfiuly submitted,
`
`CABLE 8‘6 WIRELESS INTERNET
`SERVICES, INC.
`
`By its Attorneys,
`
`6\'\’\ L (—Q.
`Daniel P. Tight: (BBO 556583)
`Scott MoConchie (BBQ 634l27)
`Gn'mingcr, ’fighe & Muffct', LLP
`176 Federal St.
`Boston, Massachusetts 021 10
`(617) 542-9900
`
`Michael J. Bettinge; (pm [me vice)
`Timothy P. Walker (pro hac vice)
`Preston Gates Ellis LLP
`55 Second St., Suite 1700
`San Francisco, California 94105
`(415) 882-8002
`
`1mm camrv mm it TRUi cow 6;
`mt. move oocumem was some
`um I»: manna 0; «zoom: ma
`mu ovum mm at mama cm:
`
`7W»: WW4
`
`15
`
`NETAPP—PA-OO3388
`
`