`
`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