throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re patent of: Hughes
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`§ Petition for Inter Partes Review

`
`§ Attorney Docket No.:

`
`49727.6
`
`Issued: November 13, 2012
`
`§ Customer No.:
`
`27683
`

`
`Title: NETWORK MEMORY
`APPLIANCE FOR
`PROVIDING DATA
`
`§ Real Party in Interest: Riverbed
`§ Technology, Inc.

`
`BASED ON LOCAL
`
`ACCESSIBILITY
`

`

`
`Declaration of Steven W. Landauer
`
`Under 37 C.F.R.
`
`1.68
`
`1, Steven W. Landauer, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Riverbed Technologies,
`
`Inc. in the matter of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No 8,312,226 (“the
`
`’226 Patent”) to Hughes.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My compensation
`
`in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1)
`
`The ’226 Patent, RIV—1001;
`
`(2)
`
`The prosecution history of the ’226 Patent, RIV—1002;
`
`—1~
`
`

`

`(3)
`
`McCanne et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0088376 (“McCanne ‘376”),
`
`RIV— 1003;
`
`(4)
`
`McCanne et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,667,700 (“McCanne '700”), RIV-
`
`l 004; and
`
`(5)
`
`McCanne et al., U.S. Pat. No. 8,069,225 (“McCanne ’225”), RIV-
`
`1005.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1)
`
`The documents listed above,
`
`(2)
`
`The relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness
`
`provided in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and
`
`any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this
`
`declaration, and
`
`(3) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area as
`
`described below.
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`5.
`
`From 2002 to 2007, I was an Associate Professor at DeVry
`
`University, Addison, IL campus. I was responsible for teaching courses in
`
`telecommunications technology. Courses included material relating to WANs,
`
`LANs, switching and transmission systems, wireless networking, network
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`administration, and communications protocols used by various operating systems.
`
`6.
`
`From 1990 to 2002, I was President and CEO of Telcom21 (formerly
`
`Telemax), a telecommunications equipment manufacturer, and consulting and
`
`contract engineering/manufacturing firm. I was responsible for overall
`
`management of the company, including design and development of voice and data
`
`communications equipment, and manufacturing of integrated access multiplexers
`
`for the telecommunications equipment market. The multiplexers were used in the
`
`area of voice and data transmission and connectivity for wide area networks, and
`
`supported compression.
`
`7.
`
`From 1986 to 1990, I was Executive Vice—President of Corporate
`
`Development for the Teltone Corporation and Vice—President of Engineering for
`
`Teltrend Corporation. I was responsible for engineering and product development
`
`of voice and data telecommunications products, including software.
`
`8.
`
`From 1983 to 1986, I founded and served as President for TeleBit,
`
`Inc., a manufacturer of digital transmission products for the telecommunications
`
`industry. I developed a broad product line of T1 Channel Banks, Drop and Insert
`
`Multiplexers, and small Digital Access Cross—Connect systems (DACS). In 1985,
`
`TeleBit was acquired by Telco Systems, where I served as Division President until
`
`1986.
`
`_3—
`
`

`

`9.
`
`From 1980 to 1983, I co—founded and was the Vice President of
`
`Engineering for Westell Technologies. I was responsible for the design and
`
`development of a full line of analog transmission products used by major telephone
`
`companies, as well as a line of voice teleconferencing equipment used by business
`
`end—users.
`
`10.
`
`I received a Master’s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`the University of Illinois — Chicago in March 1972.
`
`11.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the University of Illinois — Chicago in June 1970.
`
`Relevant Legal Standards
`
`12.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ’226 Patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the
`
`prior art. It is my understanding that, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a
`
`reference must teach every element of the claim. Further, it is my understanding
`
`that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. I also understand that
`
`+
`
`

`

`the obviousness analysis takes into account factual inquiries including the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device (method, or product)
`
`in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`Background Of ’226 Patent
`
`14.
`
`The ’226 Patent relates to a relatively large computer system that
`
`includes several networks. The patent gives an example of a centralized server
`
`system that includes a branch office, a central office, and an interconnecting
`
`communication network, such as a wide—area network (WAN). RIV—l00l, col.l,
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`1126-3 1. Data exchanges between computers in the branch office occur locally,
`
`such as over a local—area network (LAN), as do data exchanges between computers
`
`in the central office. RIV—l00l, col.l, l.6l— col.2, 1.4. The patent recognizes that
`
`the WAN connection can be a “bandwidth bottleneck,” and the patent is directed to
`
`providing a solution to this bottleneck. RIV—l00l, col.l, ll.40—47.
`
`15.
`
`The solution proposed by the ’226 patent is to construct a “memory
`
`system” with “appliances” in the branch and central offices, at or near the
`
`connection to the WAN. RIV—l00l, FIG. 3. Fig. 6 of the ’226 patent, reproduced
`
`below illustrates a data request 410 coming from a computer 340 in the branch
`
`office to a server 370 in the central office. The data request passes through a
`
`branch appliance 350, over the WAN, through a central appliance 380, to the
`
`central server 370. As shown in step 630, the central appliance 380 determines if
`
`the data, or a portion of the data, to be provided to the computer 340 is stored
`
`locally at the branch office. If so, the central appliance replaces the portion of data
`
`to be provided with an instruction indicating that the data can be retrieved locally
`
`at the branch office. When the branch appliance receives the communication from
`
`the central appliance 380 over the WAN, it recognizes the instruction and retrieves
`
`the indicated data stored locally at the branch office. The response data, including
`
`the portion recently retrieved, is then provided to the computer 340.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`c°"‘£gTER
`
`DATA REQUEST m
`
`BRANCH
`
`APPLIANCE
`1&0
`
`CENTRAL
`
`APPLIANCE
`1&0
`
`CENTRAL
`
`SERVERS
`319
`
`DATA REQUEST gm
`
`DATA REQUEST mg
`PROCESS DATA
`REQUEST
`GENERATE
`RESPONSE DATA
`RESPONSE DATA 625
`PROCESS RESPONSE DATA TO DETERMINE
`WHETHER PORTION OF RESPONSE DATA IS
`LOCALLY ACCESSIBLE TO BRANCH APP
`IF RESPONSE DATA IS LOCALLY ACCESSIBLE TO
`BRANCH APP‘ GENERATE RETRIEVE INST TO
`RETRIEVE RESPONSE DATA AT INDEX WITHIN A
`DATABASE
`
`635
`
`645
`
`650
`655
`
`RETRIEVE msmucnon §5_g
`PROCESS RETRIEVE INST
`
`RETRIEVE RESPONSE DATA AT INDEX WITHIN
`DATABASE
`FORWARD RESPONSE DATA
`
`RESPONSE DATA 625
`
`RIV-1001, ‘226 Patent, Fig. 6
`
`16.
`
`Claim 1 provides a basic overview of the teachings of the ’226 Patent:
`
`1. A source—site appliance of a network memory, comprising:
`
`a communication interface configured to communicate
`
`with a source—site local area network; and
`
`a processor configured to intercept transmitted data sent
`
`from a source—site computer directed over a wide area network
`
`to a destination—site computer,
`
`to determine whether
`
`the
`
`transmitted data corresponds to locally accessible data of a
`
`destination—site appliance of the network memory coupled to
`
`the destination—site computer via a destination—site local area
`
`network, to generate an instruction based on the determination
`
`in order
`
`that
`
`the
`
`destination—site
`
`appliance obtain the
`
`transmitted data, and to transfer the instruction over the wide
`
`—7—
`
`I’ IV—lOO6
`
`

`

`area network to the destination—site appliance.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`17.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’226
`
`patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. It is my further understanding that claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, unless the inventor, as a lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning
`
`for a term.
`
`18.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the
`
`’226 Patent, as well as its prosecution history.
`
`network memory
`
`19.
`
`The specification of the ’226 patent uses the term network memory
`
`throughout, including in the technical field of the invention (col.l, 11. 16-17) and in
`
`the preamble of all the claims. FIG. 3 of the ‘226 patent, reproduced below, is
`
`identified as an embodiment of a network memory system. The ‘226 patent states:
`
`The network memory system 300 includes a branch office 310, a
`
`central office 320, and a communication network 330. The branch
`
`office 310 includes computers 340, a branch appliance 350, and a
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`router 360. The central office 320 includes central servers 370, a
`
`central appliance 380, and a router 390. RIV—l00l, col.5, ll.20—26.
`
`20.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of network memory in view of
`
`the specification to be a system including two offices/locations, each with its own
`
`local network of computers and data storage, the two offices/locations being
`
`interconnected by a separate communication network. The claims of the ‘226
`
`patent recite additional components for the network memory, such as appliances
`
`(construed below).
`
`appliance
`
`21.
`
`The specification of the ’226 patent uses the term appliance
`
`throughout, to refer to a processing node inserted at a site, such as a branch
`
`appliance or central appliance. (See e.g., FIGS. 8 and 9, respectively.) By itself,
`
`the term appliance is a very generic term, such as a node, system, or device. It is
`
`noted that all of the claims of the ’226 patent are directed to an appliance, and
`
`recite specific elements to be included in the appliance. For example, claim 1
`
`recites a “source—site appliance” including a “communication interface” and a
`
`“processor.”
`
`22.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of appliance in view of the
`
`specification to be simply as a node, system, or device, not requiring any additional
`
`elements except as specifically recited by a claim.
`
`instruction
`
`23.
`
`The specification of the ’226 patent states:
`
`The instruction comprises any message or signal that indicates to
`
`an appliance (e.g.,
`
`the branch appliance 350 and the central
`
`appliance 380) an action to perform with the data. Some examples
`
`of the instruction indicate to the appliance to store the data, to
`
`retrieve the data, and to forward the data to the computer (e.g., the
`
`central servers 370 and the computers 340). The instruction may be
`
`explicit, and implicit based on instructions indicating to store or
`
`retrieve the data. In some embodiments, the instruction indicates
`
`an index within a database for storing and retrieving the data.
`
`RIV—l00l, col.6, 1126-35.
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of instruction as any message or
`
`signal that indicates to an appliance an action to perform with the data, including
`
`assigning or utilizing an index within a database for storing and retrieving data.
`
`—10—
`
`

`

`Challenge #1: Claims 1-12 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102gbg by
`
`McCanne ‘376 gRIV-1003 2.
`
`25.
`
`It is my opinion that McCanne ‘376 anticipates each and every
`
`element of claims 1-12.
`
`26. McCanne ‘376 teaches a device called a “transaction accelerator.”
`
`FIG. 1 of McCanne ‘376 is reproduced below.
`
`Server—side
`
`Transaction
`
`Accelerator
`
`(STA)
`
`Client— side
`Transaction
`
`Accelerator
`
`(CTA)
`
`RIV-1003, McCanne ‘376, FIG. 1
`
`27. On the left side of the figure, there is a first office location, referred to
`
`as “clients”. On the right side of the figure, there is a second office location,
`
`referred to as “servers”. The two offices are separated by a wide area network.
`
`McCanne ‘376 describes inserting a device on either side of the wide area network,
`
`a “transaction accelerator,” or TA (a client—side TA (CTA) and a server—side TA
`
`-1 l—
`
`I’ IV—l0O6
`
`

`

`(STA), for accelerating the flow of data between the two offices.
`
`28. McCanne ‘376 teaches that the transaction accelerators (TAs)
`
`intercept data flowing from a source computer to a destination computer.
`
`Specifically, McCanne ‘376 teaches that each TA includes a processor configured
`
`to intercept transmitted data sent from a source—site computer directed over a wide
`
`area network to a destination—site computer:
`
`Often client—server transactions flow directly between the client
`
`and the server across a packet network, but in some environments
`
`these transactions can be intercepted and forwarded through
`
`transport—level or application—level devices called “proxies”. RIV-
`
`l003, ‘i[ 11 (emphasis added).
`
`29. Once intercepted, McCanne ‘376 teaches determining if a portion of
`
`the data to be transmitted (referred to as a “segment”) corresponds to data already
`
`at the other office, and if so, replaces the data with an instruction (referred to as a
`
`“reference”):
`
`In operation, the CTA's and STA's examine the payloads of their
`
`transactions where warranted and store/cache strings or other
`
`sequences of data ("segments") derived from those payloads using
`
`a unique naming scheme that can be independent of
`
`the
`
`—12~
`
`

`

`transaction. When sending the payload from one TA to another, the
`
`TA may replace the segment data with references to the segment
`
`@. One indication that this replacement should occur is when the
`
`segment data is such that the sender can expect that the receiver
`
`would have that uniguely named segment data, either because it
`
`appeared in an earlier transaction or was sent
`
`through other
`
`processes
`
`to the receiver, however other
`
`indications or no
`
`indication may be used to determine whether or not to replace the
`
`segment data with a reference. RIV—l003, ‘][ 69 (emphasis added).
`
`30.
`
`The following chart specification describes how McCanne ‘376
`
`teaches each and every element of claims 1-12.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`CENTRAL OFFICE
`m
`la‘
`la:
`{:4
`‘
`ll!
`CENTRAL SERVERS
`Slfl
`I
`CENTRAL
`APPLIANCE
`an
`
`4:.‘
`ROUTER
`390
`
`COMMUNICATION
`NETWORK
`1.39
`'
`
`ROUTER
`3.5.0
`
`[l.0] A source—site appliance of a
`network memory, comprising:
`
`[1.0] A source-site appliance of a network memory,
`comprising:
`
`—13—
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The McCanne ’376 teaches a source—site appliance of
`a network memory:
`
`Source—Site Appliance
`V $4‘.
`‘J
`
`,
`
`Network Memory
`
`‘
`
`6
`
`of
`embodiments
`‘In
`transaction acceleration,
`
`having
`network
`a
`for an accelerated
`
`transaction, a client directs a request to a client-
`side transaction handler
`that
`forwards
`the
`
`to a server—side transaction handler,
`request
`which in turn provides
`the request, or a
`representation
`thereof,
`to
`a
`server
`for
`responding to the request. The server sends the
`response to the server—side transaction handler,
`which forwards the response to the client—side
`transaction handler, which in turn provides the
`response
`to
`the
`client. Transactions
`are
`accelerated by the transaction handlers by
`storing
`segments
`of
`data
`used
`in
`the
`transactions
`in persistent
`segment
`storage
`accessible to the server—side transaction handler
`
`and in persistent segment storage accessible to
`the client—side transaction handler. When data
`
`is to be sent between the transaction handlers,
`
`—14—
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`the sending transaction handler compares the
`segments of the data to be sent with segments
`stored in its persistent segment storage and
`replaces segments of data with references to
`entries in its persistent segment storage that
`match or closely match the segments of data to
`be replaced. The data to be sent might be sent
`from a client to a server, from a server to a
`
`client, from a peer to a peer, etc. The receiving
`transaction store then reconstructs the data sent
`
`references with
`by replacing the segment
`corresponding segment data from its persistent
`segment
`storage.” McCanne ’376,
`‘J[ 23
`(emphasis added).
`
`is a block diagram of a networked
`1
`“FIG.
`client—server
`system 10
`according
`to
`embodiments of the present invention, where
`such transactions might occur. As shown there,
`clients 12 are coupled to servers 14 over a
`network
`16,
`via
`client—side
`transaction
`accelerators
`"CTA's"
`20 and server—side
`
`transaction
`
`accelerators
`
`"STA's"
`
`22.”
`
`McCanne ’376, ‘J[ 48 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, the McCanne ’376 teaches a networked
`client—server
`system that
`includes
`a
`server—side
`transaction accelerator
`(STA)
`and
`a
`client—side
`transaction accelerator (CTA).
`In that regard,
`the
`McCanne ’376 discloses that
`the STA accelerates
`
`transactions by storing segments of data used in the
`transactions in a persistent segment storage (PSS).
`Additionally,
`the McCanne ’376 discloses that
`the
`STA compares the segments of data to be sent with
`segments stored in its PSS and replaces segments of
`data with references to entries in its PSS that match or
`
`closely match the segments of data to be replaced.
`
`the STA is a source—cite appliance in a
`Thus,
`networked client—server system thereby McCanne ’376
`
`—15—
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`source-site appliance of a network
`“[a]
`teaches
`memory,” as recited in the claim.
`
`[l.l]
`
`a
`
`communication
`
`interface
`
`configured to communicate with a
`source-site local area network; and
`
`a communication interface configured to
`[1.l]
`communicate with a source-site local area network;
`
`The McCanne ’376 teaches a communication interface
`
`configured to communicate with a source-site local
`area network:
`
`Communication
`
`Interface
`
`Source—Site
`
`Local Area Network
`
`Communication
`
`Interface
`
`Source—Site
`
`Local Area Network
`
`_16_
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`is a block diagram of a networked
`1
`“FIG.
`client—server
`system 10
`according
`to
`embodiments of the present invention, where
`such transactions might occur. As shown there,
`clients 12 are coupled to servers 14 over a
`network
`16,
`via
`client—side
`transaction
`
`accelerators
`
`("CTA's") 20 and server—side
`
`accelerators
`transaction
`McCanne ’376, ‘J[ 48.
`
`("STA's")
`
`22.”
`
`“FIG. 2 is a block diagram of portions of
`system 10, showing a CTA 20, an STA 22 and
`their interconnections in greater detail.
`.
`.
`.
`Server 14 is coupled to a server proxy 40 of
`STA 22, which is shown including elements
`similar
`to those of CTA 20,
`such as a
`
`transaction transformer (TT) 42, an inverse
`transaction transformer (TT1) 44, a persistent
`segment
`store (PSS) 46 and a reference
`resolver
`(RR) 48” McCanne ’376,
`‘][ 61
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`. are
`.
`“In a typical environment, the links 27 .
`fast links, such as local area network (LAN)
`
`.
`
`.” McCanne ’376,
`
`‘][ 55 (emphasis
`
`links .
`added).
`
`“The undotted lines between .
`
`.
`
`. the server and
`
`STA are labeled as "LAN/direct" to indicate
`
`likely higher
`are
`connections
`those
`that
`performance (latency, bandwidth,
`reliability,
`etc.) than the connections between the TA's
`
`labeled "Internet/WAN/etc." Examples of the
`former include LANs, cables, motherboards,
`
`CPU busses, etc.” McCanne ’376,
`
`‘][ 61
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`_
`Source—S1te
`Appliance
`
`Communication
`Interfaces
`
`“FIG. 15 a block diagram of a networked
`system wherein transaction acceleration is
`implemented and the network handles a variety
`of protocols and services. The CTA and STA
`are shown coupled to accelerate CIFS, NFS,
`SMTP IMAP and HTTP transactions. In other
`
`varied
`at
`are
`servers
`the
`arrangements,
`locations and the clients are at varied locations.
`
`In
`
`each
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`transactions
`
`for
`
`the
`
`accelerated protocols pass through the CTA
`and the STA and can be accelerated as
`
`to the
`described above and be transparent
`clients and servers engaging in the transactions.
`In addition to the open protocols illustrated in
`the figure, the CTA's and STA's can accelerate
`transactions for proprietary protocols such as
`Microsoft Exchange.TM., Lotus Notes.TM.,
`etc. As with other variations described herein,
`
`the TA's might be integrated in with the clients
`and servers. For example,
`some
`software
`vendors might include transaction acceleration
`as part of their client—server software suite.”
`McCanne ’376, ‘J[ 145 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, the McCanne ’376 teaches that the STA
`has a communication interface for handling a variety
`of protocols with one or more servers over a local area
`network.
`
`—18—
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`claim.
`
`Thus, the communication interface of the STA (See
`annotated Fig. 15)
`is configured for handling a variety
`of protocols across a local area network thereby,
`McCanne
`’376
`teaches
`that
`the STA has
`“a
`
`communication interface configured to communicate
`with a source—site local area network,” as recited in the
`
`to
`configured
`processor
`a
`[l.2]
`intercept transmitted data sent from a
`source—site computer directed over a
`wide area network to a destination—site
`
`computer,
`
`[1.2] a processor configured to intercept transmitted
`
`data sent from a source-site computer directed over a
`wide area network to a destination-site computer,
`
`
`
`,Source—Site
`
`Jr. Computer
`Wide Area
`Network
`
`
`Destination—Site
`
`Processor
`
`Computer
`
`— l 9-
`
`I ' IV— 1 006
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Destination—Site
`
`Com uter
`p
`
`_
`Wlde Area
`Network
`
`Source-Sjte
`
`Processor
`
`C
`
`t
`Ompu CI
`
`The McCanne ’376 teaches a processor configured to
`intercept
`transmitted data sent
`from a source—site
`computer directed over a wide area network to a
`destination—site computer:
`
`“It should be understood that some or all of the
`
`elements of CTA 20 and/or STA 22 may be
`integrated within CTA 20 or STA 22, such that
`explicit connections between the elements are
`not needed, but a logical coupling would still
`exist. For
`example, CTA 20 might be
`implemented entirely as a single program with
`data memory,
`program memory
`and
`a
`processor, with
`the
`program memory
`containing instructions for implementing the
`client proxy,
`the TT,
`the TT'
`and the RR,
`when such instructions are executed by the
`processor. In such an implementation, the data
`memory could be logically partitioned to hold
`variables needed for the processor execution of
`the instructions, state of the client proxy, TT,
`TT'1 and RR, as well as the contents of the
`PSS. The same could be true of STA 22.”
`
`McCanne ’376, ‘J[ 64 (emphasis added).
`
`—20—
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`“One configuration for easily routing traffic to
`be accelerated is via the use of connection
`
`proxies. Thus, a CTA would serve as a
`connection proxy for the server with which a
`client
`is entering into a transaction and th_e
`STA would serve as a connection proxy for the
`client
`to which the server
`is
`responding.”
`McCanne ’376, ‘il 60 (emphasis added).
`
`“Often client—server transactions flow directly
`between the client and the server across a
`
`in some environments
`packet network, but
`these transactions can be intercepted and
`forwarded
`through
`transport—level
`or
`application—level devices
`called
`‘proxies’.”
`McCanne ’376, ‘J[ 11 (emphasis added).
`
`“A transaction might begin with a client at one
`node making a request for file data directed to
`a server at another node, followed by a delivery
`of a response containing the requested file
`Q.” McCanne ’376,‘J[45.
`
`“For example, where a CTA is coupled to an e-
`mail client and an STA is coupled to an e—mail
`server, an e—mail attachment that many clients
`are requesting via the CTA can be represented
`as a segment after the CTA has obtained the
`contents of the attachment and then each
`
`the
`requests
`client
`a
`time
`subsequent
`attachment, the responding STA will replace
`the attachment with the segment reference and
`the receiving CTA will replace the reference
`with
`the
`stored
`attachment.
`Since
`the
`
`attachment is stored as a segment independent
`of the transaction, the same segment data might
`be found in a file transaction, additional e—mail
`
`transactions or other transactions, and in each
`
`case,
`
`the sender replaces the data with the
`
`—21—
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`segment reference and the receiver replaces the
`segment reference with the segment data.”
`McCanne ’376, ‘J[ 71 (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, the McCanne ’376 teaches that the STA
`can be implemented in a processor. Additionally, the
`McCanne ’376 discloses that that STA serves as a
`
`connection proxy for the client to which the server is
`responding. Furthermore, the McCanne ’376 discloses
`that TAs are “transparent” to the server and client (‘H
`145).
`In light of all of the description and the figures,
`I understand this to mean that
`the TAs intercept
`information flowing therebetween.
`Therefore, the
`McCanne ’376 teaches
`that
`the STA includes a
`
`processor configured to intercept transmitted data sent
`from a server, that is a source—site computer, and is
`directed over a wide area network to a client, that is a
`
`destination—site computer.
`
`Thus,
`
`the McCanne ’376 disclose that
`
`the STA
`
`intercept
`to
`configured
`processor
`“a
`includes
`transmitted data sent
`from a source—site computer
`directed over a wide area network to a destination—site
`
`computer,” as recited in the claim.
`
`[l.3]
`
`to
`
`determine whether
`
`the
`
`[1.3]
`
`to determine whether the transmitted data
`
`transmitted data corresponds to locally
`accessible data of a destination—site
`
`the network memory
`appliance of
`the
`destination—site
`coupled
`to
`computer via a destination—site local
`area network,
`
`data of a
`accessible
`locally
`to
`corresponds
`destination-site appliance of the network memory
`coupled to the destination-site computer via a
`destination-site local area network,
`
`_22_
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`_
`_
`_
`Dest1nat1on—S1te
`Computer
`
`Destination—Site
`Local Area Network
`
`Destination—Site
`Appliance
`
`“[A] client might interact with more than one
`CTA, as illustrated by line 27 in FIG. 1 .
`.
`.”
`McCanne ’376, ‘J[ 50.
`
`“In a typical environment, the links 27 between
`clients and CTA's are fast links such as local
`
`area network {LAN} links .
`
`. .” McCanne ’376,
`
`-23-
`
`' IV— 1006
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`‘J[ 55 (emphasis added).
`
`“The undotted lines between the client and the
`
`CTA .
`
`.
`
`. are labeled as "LAN/direct" to
`
`are likely
`those connections
`indicate that
`bandwidth,
`higher
`performance
`(latency,
`reliability, etc.) than the connections between
`the
`TA's
`labeled
`"Internet/WAN/etc."
`
`Examples of the former include LANs, cables,
`motherboards, CPU busses, etc.” McCanne
`
`’376, ‘][ 68 (emphasis added).
`
`“FIG. 2 is a block diagram of portions of
`system 10, showing a CTA 20, an STA 22 and
`their interconnections in greater detail. While
`only one client and one server are shown, it
`should be understood that the various elements
`
`1 might also be present, even if not
`of FIG.
`shown. For example, CTA 20 might be
`handling transactions
`from more than one
`client
`and STA 22 might be handling
`transactions with more than one server. As
`
`illustrated there in FIG. 2, client 12 is coupled
`to a client proxy 30 of CTA 20. While other
`forms of multiplexing and de—multiplexing
`traffic to and from clients could be used, in this
`
`example, a client proxy is used to receive data
`for CTA 20 from one or more clients and to
`
`send data for the CTA 20 to the one or more
`
`clients. The other elements of CTA 20 shown
`
`in FIG. 2 include a transaction transformer
`
`(TT) 32, an inverse transaction transformer
`(TT1) 34, a persistent segment store (PSS) 36
`and a reference resolver (RR) 38. Server 14 is
`coupled to a server proxy 40 of STA 22, which
`is shown including elements similar to those of
`CTA 20, such as a transaction transformer (TT)
`42, an inverse transaction transformer (TT1)
`44, a persistent segment store (PSS) 46 and a
`reference resolver (RR) 48.” McCanne ’376, ‘][
`61.
`
`—24—
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`“In operation, the CTA's and STA's examine
`the payloads of
`their
`transactions where
`warranted and store/cache strings or other
`sequences of data ("segments") derived from
`those payloads using a unique naming scheme
`that can be independent of the transaction.
`When sending the payload from one TA to
`another, the TA may replace the segment data
`with references to the segment data. One
`indication that this replacement should occur is
`when the segment data is such that the sender
`can expect that the receiver would have that
`uniguely named segment data, either because it
`appeared in an earlier transaction or was sent
`through other processes
`to
`the
`receiver,
`however other indications or no indication may
`be used to determine whether or not to replace
`the segment data with a reference.” McCanne
`’376, ‘][ 69(emphasis added).
`
`“For example, where a CTA is coupled to an e-
`mail client and an STA is coupled to an e—mail
`server, an e—mail attachment that many clients
`are requesting via the CTA can be represented
`as a segment after the CTA has obtained the
`contents of the attachment and then each
`
`the
`requests
`client
`a
`time
`subsequent
`attachment, the responding STA will replace
`the attachment with the segment reference and
`the receiving CTA will replace the reference
`with
`the
`stored
`attachment.
`Since
`the
`
`attachment is stored as a segment independent
`of the transaction, the same segment data might
`be found in a file transaction, additional e—mail
`
`transactions or other transactions, and in each
`
`the sender replaces the data with the
`case,
`segment reference and the receiver replaces the
`segment reference with the segment data.”
`McCanne ’376, ‘J[ 71 (emphasis added).
`
`—25—
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 8,312,226
`
`Claims 1-12 are anticipated by the McCanne ’376
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`each
`the STA segments
`example,
`“For
`transaction payload and replaces segments with
`references. For the segment data the STA
`suspects the CTA has,
`the STA uses the
`references that it knows the CTA has for those
`
`segments.” McCanne ’376,
`added).
`
`‘][ 78 (emphasis
`
`“FIG. 2 is a block diagram of portions of
`system 10, showing a CTA 20, an STA 22 and
`their interconnections in greater detail.
`Server 14 is coupled to a server proxy 4f) ‘of
`STA 22, which is shown including elements
`similar
`to those of CTA 20,
`such as a
`
`transaction transformer (TT) 42, an inverse
`transaction transformer (TT1) 44, a persistent
`segment
`store (PSS) 46 and a reference
`resolver
`(RR) 48.” McCanne ’376,
`‘][ 61
`(emphasis
`added).
`
`“Other

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