throbber
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
`
`____________
`
`
`Patent 6,757,717 B1
`
`____________
`
`SECOND PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`CLAIMS 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,757,717
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4
`
`’717 PATENT (EX. 1002) ............................................................................... 5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. CHALLENGED CLAIMS AND THEIR
`BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS ................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Of Challenged Claims .......................................................... 6
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretations ..................................................... 8
`
`IV. PROPOSED UNPATENTABILITY GROUND NO. 1
`(HTTP DRP ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 AND 14) ................. 13
`
`V.
`
`PROPOSED UNPATENTABILITY GROUND NO. 2
`(MATTIS ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 6, 7, AND 9) ...................................... 16
`
`VI. PROPOSED UNPATENTABILITY GROUND NO. 3
`(YOHE ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 6 AND 7) ............................................... 17
`
`VII. PROPOSED GROUND FOR UNPATENTABILITY NO. 4
`(ALL CLAIMS OBVIOUS OVER MATTIS AND HTTP DRP) ................ 18
`
`A. Obviousness: Level Of Skill In The Art ............................................ 19
`
`B. Obviousness: Arguable Differences From Some Claims .................. 21
`
`C. Obviousness: Objective Indicia .......................................................... 22
`
`D. Obviousness: Reasons To Combine Mattis and HTTP DRP ............. 23
`
`E.
`
`This Combination Of HTTP DRP And Mattis Teaches Each
`Combination Claimed in Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 ...................... 26
`
`VIII. PROPOSED GROUND FOR UNPATENTABILITY NO. 5
`(CLAIMS 6, 7, AND 9 OBVIOUS OVER HTTP DRP,
`MATTIS, YOHE AND ADMITTED ART) ................................................. 27
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`In re Epstein,
`32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ....................................................................... 20, 26
`
`In re Fox,
`471 F.2d 1405 (CCPA 1973) ......................................................................... 20, 26
`
`In re Tiffin,
`448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971) .................................................................................. 22
`
`In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc.,
`752 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 23
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. ............................................................................................. 1
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`Fee: In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15, 42.103, please charge the fee
`
`for Inter Partes Review of $27,200.00 to Deposit Account 02-4550.
`
`Identification of Challenge: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq., Petitioner
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) requests inter partes review of claims 6, 7, 9,
`
`11, 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717, issued to Proxyconn Inc. Sections I-
`
`VIII infra and Appendix A (Ex. 1001) provide the required statement of the precise
`
`relief requested for each claim challenged, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`Standing: Microsoft certifies that this patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that Microsoft is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes
`
`review challenging these claims on the grounds identified in this petition. Although
`
`Microsoft was served more than one year ago with a complaint asserting
`
`infringement of this patent, the normal statutory one-year bar under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(b) does not apply here because (1) the Board has already instituted an inter
`
`partes review trial on this patent on a timely first petition filed by Microsoft (Case
`
`No. IPR2012-00026), (2) Microsoft accompanies this second petition with a
`
`motion for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), and (3) Proxyconn, the patent owner
`
`of record, has consented to such joinder (Ex. 1012).
`
`Real-Party-in-Interest: Microsoft is the sole real-party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters: Proxyconn is asserting the ’717 patent against Microsoft
`
`and three Microsoft customers (Dell, HP and Acer) in a suit first filed November 3,
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`2011, now styled, Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al., Case No. SA
`
`CV11-1681 DOC (JPRx) [consolidated with Case Nos. SA CV11-1682 DOC
`
`(JPRx), SA CV11-1683 DOC (JPRx), and SA CV11-1684 DOC (JPRx)], pending
`
`in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“the ’717
`
`Concurrent Litigation”). On September 18, 2012, Microsoft filed a Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review requesting review of claims 1, 3, 10-12, 14 and 22-24 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,757,717, now styled, Microsoft Corporation v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case
`
`No. IPR2012-00026 (TLG).
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel; Service Information:
`
`John D. Vandenberg (Lead Counsel, PTO Reg. No. 31312)
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`Direct: 503-273-2338
`Stephen J. Joncus (Back-up Counsel, PTO Reg. No. 44,809)
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`Direct: 503-473-0910
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Tel.: 503-595-5300
`Fax: 503-595-5301
`
`Exhibits: An accompanying Appendix and List of Exhibits submits
`
`petitioner’s Exhibits 1001 –1014 in support of this petition, including the
`
`following:
`
`Ex. 1001: Appendix A (which is a part of this Petition), claim chart
`
`mapping the claims to prior art references HTTP DRP, Mattis and Yohe.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`Ex. 1002: The ’717 patent with Certificate of Correction.
`
`Ex. 1003: HTTP DRP: Arthur van Hoff, John Giannandrea, Mark Hapner,
`
`Steve Carter, and Milo Medin, “The HTTP Distribution and Replication Protocol,”
`
`W3C Note, http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-drp-19970825.html, August 1997
`
`(“HTTP DRP”). HTTP DRP is Section 102(b) prior art.
`
`Ex. 1004: Mattis: Peter Mattis et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,292,880, “Alias-
`
`Free Content-Indexed Object Cache,” issued Sept. 18, 2001 on application filed
`
`Apr. 15, 1998 (“’880” or “Mattis”). Mattis is Section 102(e) prior art. (Its Apr.
`
`15, 1998, application is Ex. 1005, which shows that its content on which this
`
`petition relies was filed with the Patent Office on that date.)
`
`Ex. 1006: Yohe: Thomas Patrick Yohe et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,835,943,
`
`“Apparatus and Method for Increased Data Access in a Network File Oriented
`
`Caching System,” issued Nov. 10, 1998 on an application filed July 3, 1997
`
`(“’943” or “Yohe”). Yohe is Section 102(a) and Section 102(e) prior art. (Its July
`
`3, 1997, application is Ex. 1007, which shows that its specification and claims
`
`were issued as originally filed.)
`
`Ex. 1008: Tim Berners-Lee, “W3C Staff Note on HTTP Distribution and
`
`Replication Protocol Submission,”
`
`http://www.w3.org/Submission/1997/10/Comment.html, Aug. 28, 1997.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`Ex. 1009: Tim Berners-Lee, “Acknowledged Submissions to W3C,”
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/19980213220701/http:/www13.w3.org/Submission/,
`
`Feb. 12, 1998.
`
`Ex. 1010: Michael A. Goulde, “Network Caching Guide Optimizing Web
`
`Content Delivery”, Patricia Seybold Group for Inktomi Corp., Mar. 1999.
`
`Ex. 1011: Simon Spero, “HTTP-NG Architectural Overview,”
`
`http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/http-ng-arch.html, 1995.
`
`Ex. 1012: Joint Stipulation Requesting Stay of Case Pending Inter Partes
`
`Review, dated Nov. 2, 2012.
`
`Ex. 1013: Expert declaration of Professor Darrell D. E. Long.
`
`Ex. 1014: Supporting declaration of Sean-Michael Riley.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Microsoft requests the Board to institute inter partes review on each of the
`
`following claims and unpatentability grounds:
`
`1. HTTP DRP anticipates claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14, under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102.
`
`2. Mattis anticipates claims 6, 7 and 9.
`
`3. Yohe anticipates claims 6 and 7.
`
`4. Mattis and HTTP DRP render obvious claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14,
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`5. HTTP DRP and Mattis and Yohe and Admitted Art render obvious
`
`claims 6, 7, and 9.
`
`This petition includes its 22-page Appendix A (Ex. 1001) which maps each
`
`challenged claim to Mattis, HTTP DRP and/or Yohe with specific column/page
`
`and line citations. For each ground, the petition demonstrates at least a reasonable
`
`likelihood that each challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
`The ’717 patent describes an algorithm for reducing the amount of redundant
`
`data transmitted over a network. The algorithm checks for identity between two
`
`sets of data by comparing respective digital fingerprints of that data (e.g., MD5
`
`digests)—similar to checking two human fingerprints to determine if they were
`
`taken from the same person. As explained below and in Ex. 1001, the references
`
`already described that algorithm.
`
`II.
`
`’717 PATENT (EX. 1002)
`
`Summary of the Invention: The patent describes its basic idea as follows:
`
`If a sender/computer in a network is required to send data to another
`receiver/computer, and the receiver/computer has data with the same
`digital digest as that of the data to be sent, it can be assumed with
`sufficient probability for most practical applications that the
`receiver/computer has data which is exactly the same as the data to be
`sent. Then, the receiver/computer can use the data immediately
`without its actual transfer through the network. In the present
`invention, this idea is used in a variety of ways. (’717, 2:17-25).
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`The term “digital digest” is discussed below; but it includes a (prior art) 128-
`
`bit MD5 digest.
`
`Admitted Art: The ’717 patent depicts in “Fig. 1 (PRIOR ART)” and “Fig.
`
`2 (PRIOR ART),” and describes at 1:18-60, prior art techniques for caching data
`
`received over a network for later reuse.
`
`Cited Art: Neither Mattis nor HTTP DRP were cited in the original
`
`prosecution. Yohe was cited but not relied on or discussed.
`
`III. CHALLENGED CLAIMS AND THEIR
`BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS
`A.
`
`Summary Of Challenged Claims
`
`This petition challenges two independent claims, the first being claim 6:
`
`6. A system for data access in a packet-switched network,
`comprising:
`
`a gateway including an operating unit, a memory and a
`processor connected to said packet-switched network in such a
`way that network packets sent between at least two other
`computers pass through it;
`
`a caching computer connected to said gateway through a fast
`
`local network, wherein said caching computer includes an
`operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory and a
`processor;
`
`said caching computer further including a network cache
`memory in its permanent storage memory, means for a calculating
`digital digest and means for comparison between a digital digest on
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`data in its network cache memory and a digital digest received
`from said packet-switched network through said gateway.
`(’717, claim 6 (as corrected)).
`
`Claim 6 recites a caching computer having a network cache memory in its
`
`permanent storage, which caching computer has a means for calculating a “digital
`
`digest” and a means for comparing a digital digest received over the network, via a
`
`gateway, to a digital digest on data in its network cache memory. Both HTTP DRP
`
`and Mattis disclose such a caching computer and system.
`
`The second challenged independent claim is claim 11:
`
`11. A method performed by a sender/computer in a packet-
`switched network for increasing data access, said sender/computer
`including an operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage
`memory and a processor and said sender/computer being operative
`to transmit data to a receiver/computer, the method comprising the
`steps of:
`creating and transmitting a digital digest of said data from said
`sender/computer to said receiver/computer;
`receiving a response signal from said receiver/computer at said
`sender/computer, said response signal containing a positive, partial
`or negative indication signal for said digital digest, and
`if a negative indication signal is received, transmitting said data
`from said sender/computer to said receiver/computer.
`
`Claim 11 recites a sender computer computing a digital digest on data and
`
`sending that digital digest to a receiver computer. The sender then receives a
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`negative, positive or partial response signal and, if the response is negative, the
`
`sender sends the data to the receiver. HTTP DRP discloses the exact same method.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretations
`
`B.
`Petitioner below proposes the broadest reasonable interpretation of certain
`
`claim language, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in 1998-99, in
`
`light of the specification (“BRI”). (Nothing herein addresses the correct claim
`
`construction in a judicial litigation context.) Otherwise, the claim language should
`
`be given its plain meaning. Where Petitioner proposes a construction different
`
`than that of the Board in its Decision on Request for Inter Partes Review, IPR2012-
`
`00026, Paper 17, dated December 21, 2012 (“Decision”) this petition demonstrates
`
`unpatentability under each construction. Where Petitioner proposes that claim
`
`language has no patentable weight, this petition demonstrates unpatentability even
`
`if the language has weight.
`
` “a caching computer” (claims 6, 7 and 9): any computer(s) (and
`
`connected storage devices) capable of caching or otherwise storing data for later
`
`retrieval. The “a” caching computer is not limited to a single machine.
`
`“operating unit” (all claims): The Decision gives this term its plain
`
`meaning. (Decision, 14-15). The patent does not explain “operating unit.” As
`
`indefiniteness is not an option here, Petitioner proposes that the BRI of this term
`
`encompasses anything found in a computer that is used in its operation.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`“network cache memory in its permanent storage memory” (claims 6, 7
`
`and 9): The Decision gives “network cache memory” its plain meaning.
`
`(Decision, 15). Petitioner proposes this BRI: a logical part of memory or storage
`
`[which has been reserved for storing only copies of data received from the
`
`network]. The bracketed portion is part of this limitation but has no patentable
`
`weight when comparing the claim against the prior art. The intended source of
`
`data to be stored does not change the structure or capability of the memory. It is a
`
`mere intended use with no structural significance.
`
`“data” (all claims): The Decision construes this as “a file or range of octets
`
`in a file, a range of frames in a video stream or RAM-based range of octets, a
`
`transport level network packet, or the like.” Col. 2, ll. 5-8.” (Decision, 12).
`
`“digital digest” / “digital digest on data” (claims 6, 7 and 9): The
`
`Decision construes “digital digest” as follows:
`
`“a fixed-size binary value calculated from arbitrary-size binary
`data in such a way that it depends only on the contents of the data
`and the low probability that two different data or objects have the
`same digital digest.” Col. 2, ll. 9-13. The patent further defines the
`term “digital digest” as referring to the known MD5 algorithm, but
`states that other algorithms may be used. For example, a digital
`digest may be calculated according to the CRC algorithm, or by
`applying the CRC algorithm to different subsets or different
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`recordings of data, or by consecutively applying CRC and MD5.
`Col. 6, ll. 24-36.” (Decision, 13).
`
`Petitioner applies this interpretation herein, without waiving its position in
`
`its first petition that the patent contradicts itself by asserting that its “digital digest”
`
`has a similarity check property, i.e., that two digital digests being “substantially
`
`similar” indicates that their underlying data also is substantially similar (e.g., ’717,
`
`4:46-51, 4:65-67, 8:28-31, 8:34-37, 14:10-12)—something neither an MD5 nor
`
`CRC value (nor any other digital fingerprint identified in the patent) has.
`
`“means for calculating a digital digest” (claims 6, 7 and 9): In view of the
`
`Decision’s discussion of a similar term (“means for creating a digital digest”)
`
`(Decision, 15), and as unpatentability under Section 112 is not an option here,
`
`Petitioner proposes that this means-plus-function element encompasses any device
`
`capable of calculating a “digital digest” on data.
`
`“means for comparison between a digital digest on data in its network
`
`cache memory and a digital digest received from said packet-switched
`
`network through said gateway” (claims 6, 7 and 9): The Decision construed
`
`similar language (“means for comparison between digital digests”) “as any general
`
`purpose computer.” (Decision, 15-16). As unpatentability under Section 112 is
`
`not an option here, Petitioner accepts this same interpretation for purposes of this
`
`second petition.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`“means for storing said calculated digital digest in said permanent
`
`storage memory” (claim 9): The Decision construed similar language (“means
`
`for storing said created digital digest in its first or permanent memory”),
`
`apparently, as “any general purpose computer.” (Decision, 16). As unpatentability
`
`under Section 112 is not an option here, Petitioner accepts this same interpretation
`
`for purposes of this second petition.
`
`“a gateway including . . . connected to said packet-switched network in
`
`such a way that network packets sent between at least two other computers
`
`pass through it”; [a caching computer] “connected to said gateway through a
`
`fast local network” (claims 6, 7 and 9): A “gateway” includes network proxies
`
`and routers. (’717, 2:14-15 (“The term ‘gateway’ as used herein also includes
`
`network proxies and routers.”)) Per dependent claim 8 (“said caching computer is
`
`integrally formed with said gateway”), the caching computer and gateway may be
`
`(but need not be) integrally formed. Thus, the gateway and caching computer may
`
`be the same single unit, such that the memory, operating unit and processor of the
`
`caching computer is also the memory, operating unit and processor of the gateway.
`
`The “fast local network” includes an Ethernet connection (’717, 8:63), but also
`
`includes an internal computer bus when the caching computer and gateway are
`
`integrally formed (i.e., the same unit).
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`“negative indication signal” (claims 11, 12, 14): any indication (e.g., “the
`
`absence of a signal”) treated as a request that a sender send the data to a receiver.
`
`(See ’717, 8:1-10). The Decision accepted that a negative signal may be the
`
`absence of a signal. (Decision, 14).
`
`“positive, partial or negative indication signal” (claims 11, 12, 14): The
`
`Decision construed these claims as requiring the issuance of all three alternative
`
`signals as required. (Decision, 14). Petitioner disagrees for the reasons stated in
`
`its pending motion for rehearing in IPR2012-00026. Nevertheless, this petition
`
`applies the Decision’s interpretation. A “partial” indication signal’s BRI is any
`
`indication treated as a request that a sender send to the receiver a “difference”
`
`between two data items. (’717, Fig. 9). A “positive” indication signal is any
`
`indication treated as not requesting either the data or a difference. (Id.)
`
`“a sender/computer”; “a receiver/computer” (claims 11, 12, 14): The
`
`Decision stated “We construe these terms as a computer that sends or receives
`
`data, respectively. We agree with Petitioner that a sender/computer can include
`
`multiple devices and that it encompasses intermediaries.” (Decision, 14).
`
`“receiving a response signal from said receiver/computer … containing
`
`a positive, partial or negative indication signal for said digital digest” (claims
`
`11, 12, 14): plain meaning, but “positive, partial” has no patentable weight, as
`
`explained in the first petition, but not accepted in the Decision.
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`“if a negative indication signal is received, transmitting said data from
`
`said sender/computer to said receiver/computer” (claims 11, 12, 14): plain
`
`meaning, but no patentable weight, as explained in the first petition, but not
`
`accepted in the Decision. (Decision, 23-24).
`
`“when a plurality of data objects is to be sent, a digital digest is sent for
`
`each of said data objects and a response signal is sent containing a separate
`
`indication signal for each of said data objects” (claim 14): plain meaning, but
`
`no patentable weight, as explained in the first petition, but not accepted in the
`
`Decision.
`
`IV. PROPOSED UNPATENTABILITY GROUND NO. 1
`(HTTP DRP ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 AND 14)
`
`Claims 6, 7 and 9: HTTP DRP (Distribution and Replication Protocol) (Ex.
`
`1003) was publicly proposed by industry leaders, including Sun Microsystems,
`
`Netscape and Novell, in 1997 as a supplement to the standard HTTP web
`
`communication protocol. (See Exs. 1008, 1009). HTTP DRP provides
`
`“functionality that can be deployed anywhere where HTTP is available today” (Ex.
`
`1003, 2:22) and is “compatible with existing HTTP servers and proxies” (id.,
`
`2:21). HTTP DRP therefore applies to standard configurations using forward
`
`proxies (on a client’s local network) and/or reverse proxies (on an origin server’s
`
`local network). (See Ex. 1010, 14 (“user’s corporate LAN”), 16-18, 20-21, 25, 40;
`
`Ex. 1011 (cited by Ex. 1003), 6 (“the proxy server will usually be on the same
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`network as the client”)). As shown, element by element, in the claim chart of Ex.
`
`1001, each HTTP DRP client computer and HTTP server has all the functionality
`
`of the caching computer of claim 6 and its dependent claims 7 and 9.
`
`This supplement to the HTTP communication protocol is based on MD5
`
`digests of files and other web content. (Ex. 1001, 1:3-2:5, 6:9-11, 10:3-7, 11:2-8,
`
`12:3-12). HTTP DRP communications requesting files or sending files identify
`
`those files by their name and by their MD5-digest “content identifier” calculated
`
`on the content of that file. (Id.) Each client computer and each HTTP server
`
`computer stores files in its disk file cache, uses MD5 digests to identify that cached
`
`content, and calculates MD5 digests on content. (Id.) Each client and HTTP
`
`server compares MD5 digests received over the network to MD5 digests it
`
`previously stored in its network cache memory. (Id.) For example, an HTTP DRP
`
`client requests a file by identifying its MD5 digest; the proxy caching server
`
`intercepts that request and compares that received MD5 digest to the MD5 digests
`
`it has cached (along with their associated cached files); and if a match is found the
`
`proxy caching server returns the file to the client without downloading it again
`
`from the origin server. (Id.) If there is no match, the proxy caching server
`
`forwards the request to the origin server which then performs the same HTTP DRP
`
`MD5-digest-comparison operation, and response to the client. (Exs. 1001, 1003,
`
`1013).
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`Claims 11, 12 and 14: As shown, element by element, in the claim chart of
`
`Ex. 1001, this HTTP DRP MD5-digest based communication protocol also
`
`discloses each step recited in claims 11, 12 and 14 of the ’717 patent.
`
`HTTP DRP discloses that client computers receive MD5 digests of network
`
`available files and respond thereto with “negative,” “positive” or “partial”
`
`indications, as those terms are used in these ’717 patent claims. (Ex. 1001, 15:8-
`
`13, 16:10-14, 17:5-18:5, 18:11-19:14, 20:8-14). Specifically, the client receives
`
`from the server an “index file” identifying multiple other files by their MD5 digest
`
`identifiers. (Id.) The client compares the received MD5 digests to those MD5
`
`digests it has stored in its cache file for the files in cache. (Id.) When two MD5
`
`digests match, then the client uses its local copy of the file (constituting a
`
`“positive” indication signal). (Id.) When there is no match, the client sends a GET
`
`request to the HTTP server requesting (by name and MD5-digest identifier) the
`
`underlying file (a “negative” indication signal). (Id.) Either the proxy server or
`
`HTTP server replies to that request by transmitting the requested file having that
`
`MD5-digest identifier. (Id.) In addition, if the digests do not match but the client
`
`has an MD5 digest for another version of the file in question, the client sends a
`
`“differential GET” request (a “partial” indication signal) identifying both MD5
`
`digest values (the one stored at the client and the one received in the new index
`
`file). (Id.) The HTTP server or proxy cache then calculates and transmits to the
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`client the differences between the two versions of the file, upon which the client
`
`reconstructs the updated file. (Exs. 1001, 1003, 1013).
`
`V.
`
`PROPOSED UNPATENTABILITY GROUND NO. 2
`(MATTIS ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 6, 7, AND 9)
`
`Mattis (Exs. 1004, 1005) discloses an MD5-digest based cache file system.
`
`It discloses a web proxy caching computer with a network cache memory in its
`
`permanent storage memory, capable of storing “terabytes of information, and
`
`billions of objects” (Ex. 1004, 37:59-60). As shown, element by element, in Ex.
`
`1001, this prior art MD5-digest based cache file system discloses each element of
`
`claims 6, 7 and 9 of the ’717 patent. (Ex. 1001, 2:6-14, 6:12-7:3, 7:10-12, 10:7-12,
`
`11:9-12, 12:12-13:14).
`
`This caching computer calculates an MD5 digest on each file or other data
`
`object in its network cache memory. (Id.) It also compares a calculated MD5
`
`digest to another MD5 digest. (Id.) Mattis discloses various sources for this
`
`second MD5 digest. (Id.) First, Mattis discloses deriving this second MD5 digest
`
`from a communication received either from a client (e.g., a request for an object
`
`having a certain name) or received from an origin server (e.g., transmitting a new
`
`file to the web proxy caching computer). (Id.) In the former case, the web proxy
`
`cache uses the object name included in the client’s request, to look up in its proxy
`
`cache an MD5 digest value (object key) previously calculated as a file-system
`
`index for an object with the same name. (Id.) In the latter case, the web proxy
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`cache calculates the second MD5 digest from the contents of the newly received
`
`file, and then looks for a duplicate digest value already stored in its cache. (Id.)
`
`But, in addition, Mattis discloses that this second object MD5 digest value, used in
`
`its digest-comparison operation, may be directly received over the network, in a
`
`client’s request for an object. (Id.) (This would be the case, e.g., if the client
`
`implemented the HTTP DRP protocol.)
`
`Whether the second MD5 digest value is obtained from the network
`
`indirectly or directly, as described above, the Mattis caching computer uses its
`
`same digest-comparison operation, described above. (Exs. 1001, 1004, 1013).
`
`VI. PROPOSED UNPATENTABILITY GROUND NO. 3
`(YOHE ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 6 AND 7)
`
`As shown element by element in Ex. 1001, Yohe (Exs. 1006, 1007)
`
`anticipates these claims. (Ex. 1001, 2:14-3:6, 6:6-9, 7:13-14, 10:12-14, 11:13-
`
`12:3, 13:15-14:6, 14:12-14). Yohe’s cache verifying computer and file server
`
`computer, networked together and to communication server 16 (serving as a
`
`gateway) via LAN link 20, is designed to calculate MD5 digests on objects in its
`
`disk storage cache and compare those calculated MD5 digests to MD5 digest
`
`values received over the network, from a client 12, via the gateway. (Exs. 1001,
`
`1006).
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 17
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`VII. PROPOSED GROUND FOR UNPATENTABILITY NO. 4
`(ALL CLAIMS OBVIOUS OVER MATTIS AND HTTP DRP)
`
`As explained by Professor Long (Ex. 1013) and demonstrated in the
`
`incorporated claim chart (Ex. 1001), the combination of the MD5-digest based
`
`HTTP DRP communication protocol with the Mattis MD5-digest based cache file
`
`system is a natural combination. 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. And, they also use those same MD5-digest content identifiers
`
`in HTTP DRP GET requests, differential GET requests, and replies thereto, as
`
`described in HTTP DRP. This natural combination of these complementary
`
`references provides all of the functionality recited in these six challenged claims
`
`and renders them unpatentable for obviousness.
`
`Claims 6, 7 and 9: As described above, the Mattis web proxy caching
`
`computer and gateway, with its MD5-digest based cache file system, calculates
`
`MD5 digests to act as content identifiers, and compares such MD5 identifiers both
`
`to respond to client requests for objects and also to delete redundant copies of
`
`objects in its disk cache. And, Mattis expressly contemplates that some client
`
`object requests will identify the object by its MD5 digest. HTTP DRP discloses
`
`just such object requests identifying the requested object by its MD5 digest
`
`identifier. Therefore, a client equipped with the HTTP DRP protocol connected to
`
`Second Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 18
`
`

`

`FILED VIA PRPS ON: January 11, 2013
`
`a forward proxy caching computer equipped with a Mattis file system and HTTP
`
`DRP protocol discloses the entirety of claims 6, 7 and 9 of the ’717 patent. As
`
`explained below, a

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket