Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: May 16, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RELOADED GAMES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: May 16, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RELOADED GAMES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Petitioner Reloaded Games, Inc. (“Reloaded Games”) filed a petition
`
`(Paper 3, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of all claims, claims 1-36
`
`(the “challenged claims”), of U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’145 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311. Patent Owner Parallel Networks
`
`LLC (“Parallel Networks”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides:
`
`THRESHOLD—The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Reloaded Games has
`
`shown that, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), there is a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We
`
`institute an inter partes review of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 16-18, 20, 21, 24, and
`
`29-36 of the ’145 patent.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Reloaded Games indicates that Parallel Networks asserted the ’145
`
`patent against it in Parallel Networks LLC v. Reloaded Games, Inc., No.
`
`1:13-cv-00827 (D. Del.). Pet. 59. In its Notice of Appearance, Parallel
`
`Networks identifies Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel Networks LLC, No.
`
`IPR2014-00139, as a matter that would affect or be affected by the decision
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`in this proceeding. Paper 8, 2.
`
`C. The ’145 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’145 patent, titled “Method and System for Dynamic Distributed
`
`Data Caching,” issued March 6, 2007 from application 09/759,406, filed on
`
`January 12, 2001. The ’145 patent provides dynamic distributed data
`
`caching with more efficient use of bandwidth. Ex. 1001, 1:39-41.
`
`Embodiments of the ’145 patent include a method that comprises
`
`providing a cache community having at least one peer and allowing a client
`
`to join the cache community, and a system that comprises logic operable to
`
`provide a cache community with at least one peer and to allow a client to
`
`join the cache community. Id. at 1:42-52, 54-61.
`
`Reproduced below is Figure 6 of the ’145 patent.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts a block diagram illustrating a dynamic caching
`
`system according to one embodiment. Id. at 4:56-58. Community 402
`
`comprises one or more peers 413, and peers 413 further comprise master 410
`
`and member 412. Id. at 17:60-63. Each peer 413 includes dynamic cache
`
`application 428, which provides functionality to support distributed caching
`
`system 10. Id. at 18:1-3. Client 404 comprises a computer also executing
`
`dynamic cache application 428 that is operable to generate join request 452,
`
`which is a data message indicating that client 404 wishes to join a particular
`
`community 402. Id. at 18:66-67, 19:14-15, 21-22. Master 410 is operable to
`
`generate allow message 424 that comprises a data message sent to client 404
`
`to inform client 404 that it is being allowed to join community 402 or that
`
`entry to community 402 is denied. Id. at 18:22-27.
`
`In operation, dynamic cache application 428 of client 404 generates
`
`community request 450, which is a request for a list of communities 402 that
`
`client 404 may attempt to join. Id. at 20:19-23; see also id. at 23:43-46
`
`(describing a method for adding client 404 to community 402), fig. 9.
`
`Community request 450 is communicated to cache server 406. Id. at 20:23-
`
`24; see id. at 23:44-46. After selecting a particular community 402, dynamic
`
`cache application 428 of client 404 generates join request 452, which is
`
`communicated to master 410 of community 402. Id. at 20:41-48; see id. at
`
`23:46-24:9. After receiving join request 452, master 410 determines
`
`whether to allow client 404 to become a member 412 of community 402 by
`
`use of a suitable criterion, such as whether the addition of client 404 would
`
`exceed the maximum number of members 412 for community 402 or
`
`whether the round trip transit time for data between client 404 and present
`
`members 412 is within a certain threshold. Id. at 20:49-58; see also id. at
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`24:65-25:8 (describing a method for allowing client 404 to join community
`
`402), fig. 10. If master 410 determines that client 404 can be a member,
`
`dynamic cache application 428 at master 410 generates allow message 424,
`
`which then joins client 404 to community 402. Id. at 20:64-21:6; see id. at
`
`25:9-10, 17-21. If master 410 determines that client 404 should not join
`
`community 402, then dynamic cache application 428 at master 410 generates
`
`allow message 424 indicating that client 404 has been denied entry to
`
`community 402, or may ignore join request 452 so that client 404 determines
`
`that it has been denied entry. Id. at 21:14-21; see id. at 25:10-16.
`
`Once client 404 is allowed to join community 402, master 410 updates
`
`peer list 426 to include client 404, and communicates the updated peer
`
`list 426 to members 410 to inform them that client 404 has joined
`
`community 402. Id. at 21:7-9; see id. at 25:21-30. Dynamic cache
`
`application 428 then reallocates content 460 to be cached among master 410,
`
`members 412, and client 404. Id. at 21:10-13.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims 1, 15, 29, 32, 35, and 36 are independent. Claims 1 and 29 are
`
`reproduced below.
`
`1. A method for dynamic distributed data caching comprising:
`providing a cache community on a first side of a point of
`presence, the cache community comprising at least one peer, the cache
`community being associated with content obtained from a second side
`of the point of presence, the content being cached by the at least one
`peer;
`
`allowing a client to join the cache community;
`updating a peer list associated with the cache community to
`include the client, the peer list indicating the peers in the cache
`community;
`associating the content with the client based on joinder of the
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`client;
`re-allocating the cache storage of the content among the peers
`in the cache community in response to allowing the client to join the
`community.
`
`29. A method for dynamic distributed data caching comprising:
`communicating a community request to an administration
`module;
`receiving a community list from the administration module in
`response to the community request, the community list including a list
`of communities;
`selecting one of the communities to attempt to join;
`generating a join request to attempt to join the selected one of
`the communities;
`receiving an allow message associated with the selected one of
`the communities;
`receiving a peer list associated with the selected one of the
`communities;
`receiving content allocated for storage in caches of peers in the
`peer list for cache storage re-allocation in response to joining the
`selected one of the communities; and
`providing content for cache storage re-allocation to peers in the
`peer list in response to joining the selected one of the communities.
`
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Reloaded Games relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Tiwana, U.S. Patent No. 7,069,324 B1, issued Jun. 27, 2006 (“Tiwana”) (Ex.
`
`1004); Smith, U.S. Patent No. 6,341,311 B1, issued Jan. 22, 2002 (“Smith”)
`
`(Ex. 1006); and Inohara, U.S. Patent No. 6,256,747 B1, issued Jul. 3, 2001
`
`(“Inohara”) (Ex. 1007).
`
`F. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Reloaded Games contends that the challenged claims of the ’145
`
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 based on the
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`following grounds. Pet. 2.
`
` Reference(s)
`
`Tiwana
`
`Smith
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`Smith and Inohara
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1-28 and 35
`
`1, 8, 9, 11-15, 22, 23, and 25-28
`
`2-4, 6, 7, 10, 16-18, 20, 21, 24,
`and 29-36
`
`Tiwana and Inohara
`
`§ 103
`
`29-36
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America
`
`Invents Act1, the Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
`
`appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There is a “heavy
`
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`However, a “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee
`
`acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Id.
`
`1. CRMSG_REQUESTTOJOIN,”
`“CRMSG_UPDATEPEERLIST,” and “CRMSG_WAKEUP”
`
`Reloaded Games contends that the terms
`
`“CRMSG_REQUESTTOJOIN,” “CRMSG_UPDATEPEERLIST,” and
`
`“CRMSG_WAKEUP,” as recited by claims 3, 6, 17, 20, 30, 31, 33, or 34,
`
`
`1 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`are described as being part of the “Dynamic Reef Protocol (DRP).” Pet. 3
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 27:61-28:17). Reloaded Games notes that during
`
`prosecution, “the Examiner found that a data message conveying each of a
`
`request to join a group, an updated peer list, and a community request”
`
`satisfied these terms. Id. (citing Ex. 1008). Reloaded Games argues that
`
`“the Examiner’s interpretation of these specific message types [is] overly
`
`broad and in violation of the doctrine of claim differentiation.” Id. at 4.
`
`Reloaded Games also argues that “the claims should be limited to the
`
`specifically claimed DRP message types,” but “for the purposes of this
`
`Petition, Petitioner demonstrates that the prior art references discussed
`
`below teach data messages consistent with the original Examiner’s
`
`interpretation.” Id.
`
`Because Reloaded Games provides arguments based on constructions
`
`of “CRMSG_REQUESTTOJOIN,” “CRMSG_UPDATEPEERLIST,” and
`
`“CRMSG_WAKEUP” that are consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation
`
`during prosecution and do not rely on a narrower construction, we do not
`
`need to construe these terms at this stage of the proceeding for the purposes
`
`of this decision.
`
`2. “Allow Message”
`
`Reloaded Games argues that claims 4 and 5 include certain identical
`
`limitations and that claim 5’s recitation “generating an allow message
`
`comprising the peer list updated to include the client” is inconsistent with
`
`claim 4’s recitation “associating the peer list with the allow message.” Pet.
`
`4. However, at this stage of the proceeding, we do not need to construe
`
`these terms for purposes of this decision.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`3. “Means-Plus-Function Limitations” of Claims 35 and 36
`
`Reloaded Games also proposes constructions for each of the means-
`
`plus-function limitations of independent claims 35 and 36. Pet. 4-9.
`
`Claim 35 recites “means for providing a cache community on a first side of a
`
`point of presence, the cache community comprising at least one peer, the
`
`cache community being associated with content obtained from a second side
`
`of the point of presence, the content being cached by the at least one peer.”
`
`Reloaded Games argues that “[t]here is no structure disclosed in the ’145
`
`patent to perform the stated function . . . .” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:4-
`
`10:12, 17:52-18:30, 18:35-63, figs. 1, 6). However, the ’145 patent
`
`describes that dynamic cache application 428 at client 404 can nominate
`
`itself as master 410 and create a new community 402. See Ex. 1001, 24:34-
`
`64. The ’145 patent also describes client 404 as comprising processor 440,
`
`computer readable storage 442, and dynamic cache application 428 and as a
`
`computer executing dynamic cache application 428, which has not yet joined
`
`community 402. Id. at 18:64-67. Thus, Reloaded Games has not persuaded
`
`us that the ’145 patent does not describe structure corresponding to the
`
`“means for providing a cache community on a first side of a point of
`
`presence, the cache community comprising at least one peer, the cache
`
`community being associated with content obtained from a second side of the
`
`point of presence, the content being cached by the at least one peer” of claim
`
`35. For the purposes of this decision, we construe the structure associated
`
`with the aforementioned means-plus-function limitation of claim 35 as one
`
`or more general purpose computers programmed to create a new community.
`
`For the remaining means-plus-function limitations of claims 35 and
`
`36, Reloaded Games asserts structures for the recited functions with citations
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`to the ’145 patent. Pet. 5-9. Parallel Networks responds that the proposed
`
`construction of each of the means limitations recited in claims 35 and 36 is
`
`moot in view of the cited art. Prelim. Resp. 5. In particular, Parallel
`
`Networks argues that “with regard to, for example, claim 29, the cited art . . .
`
`fails to disclose the functions of communicating a community request to an
`
`administrative module or selecting one of a plurality of communities to
`
`attempt to join,” and thus, Parallel Networks argues that “[s]ince the cited art
`
`does not teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the foregoing functions, it
`
`cannot be argued to teach structures for accomplishing such functions as
`
`claimed in claims 35 and 36.” Id. For the purposes of this decision, we are
`
`persuaded that the structures cited by Reloaded Games are the structures that
`
`correspond to the means-plus-function limitations of claims 35 and 36.
`
`Therefore, we construe the structure corresponding to the “means for
`
`allowing a client to join the cache community” to be one or more general
`
`purpose computers programmed to evaluate a join request to determine
`
`whether the client will be allowed to join the cache community based on a
`
`criterion and decide whether the client is allowed to join the cache
`
`community based on the evaluation. Pet. 5. We construe the structure
`
`corresponding to the “means for updating a peer list associated with the
`
`cache community to include the client, the peer list indicating the peers in
`
`the cache community” to be one or more general purpose computers. Id. at
`
`5-6. We construe the structure corresponding to the “means for associating
`
`the content with the client based on joinder of the client” to be one or more
`
`general purpose computers programmed to update an allocation list table to
`
`include the client. Id. at 6. We construe the structure corresponding to the
`
`“means for re-allocating the cache storage of the content among the peers in
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`the cache community in response to allowing the client to join the
`
`community” to be one or more general purpose computers programmed to
`
`renegotiate cache shares among peers in the cache community and update
`
`an allocation list table to reflect which peers cache which content. Id. We
`
`construe the structure corresponding to the “means for communicating a
`
`community request to an administration module” to be an Internet
`
`connection that is always available. Id. at 7. We construe the structure
`
`corresponding to the “means for receiving a community list from the
`
`administration module in response to the community request, the community
`
`list including a list of communities” to be software or hardware associated
`
`with the client operably connected to the Internet for receiving a community
`
`list. Id. We construe the structure corresponding to the “means for selecting
`
`one of the communities to attempt to join” to be one or more general
`
`purpose computers programmed to evaluate various factors associated with
`
`the communities on the community list to determine which community the
`
`client should join. Id. We construe the structure corresponding to the
`
`“means for generating a join request to attempt to join the selected one of the
`
`communities” to be software, hardware, or software and hardware
`
`associated with the client operable to provide a data message over the
`
`Internet, which indicates that the client wishes to join the selected one of the
`
`communities. Id. at 8. We construe the structure corresponding to the
`
`“means for receiving an allow message associated with the selected one of
`
`the communities” to be software, hardware, or software and hardware
`
`associated with the client operable to receive a data message over the
`
`Internet, which indicates to the client that the client is being allowed to join
`
`the selected one of the communities. Id. We construe the structure
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`corresponding to the “means for receiving a peer list associated with the
`
`selected one of the communities” to be software, hardware, or software and
`
`hardware associated with the client operable to receive a data message over
`
`the Internet, which indicates a list of peers in the selected one of the
`
`communities. Id. We construe the structure corresponding to the “means for
`
`receiving content allocated for storage in caches of peers in the peer list for
`
`cache storage re-allocation in response to joining the selected one of the
`
`communities” to be software or hardware associated with each of the peers
`
`in the peer list operable to receive content for storage in cache. Id. at 9.
`
`Last, we construe the structure corresponding to the “means for providing
`
`content for cache storage re-allocation to peers in the peer list in response to
`
`joining the selected one of the communities” to be software, hardware, or
`
`software and hardware associated with each of the peers in the peer list or
`
`an origin server, each operable to provide content for cache storage to peers
`
`in the peer list. Id.
`
`4. “Cache Community” and “Community”
`
`Parallel Networks proposes constructions for “cache community,”
`
`recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 35, and “community,” recited in
`
`independent claims 29, 32, and 36. Prelim. Resp. 4-5. Parallel Networks
`
`contends that “the terms cache community and community should be
`
`construed as ‘a group of peers that cooperate to cache data.’” Id. at 5.
`
`Parallel Networks argues that the Specification of the ’145 patent “describes
`
`a cache community as a ‘group of peers which cooperate to form a
`
`distributed caching system,’” that “the peers of a cache community
`
`‘provide[] functionality to support the distributed caching system,’” and that
`
`“[c]ontent to be cached (‘cache shares’) is negotiated between [peers] within
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`community 100.” Id. at 4-5 (citing Ex. 1001, 15:27-29, 17:63-65, 18:1-3).
`
`Parallel Networks also argues that the ’145 patent “consistently uses the
`
`term cache community and community to denote a group of peers
`
`cooperating to share content cached among community members.” Id. at 5.
`
`There is a “heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366. An inventor may
`
`rebut that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Parallel Networks does not
`
`indicate where the ’145 patent provides a definition for “community” or
`
`“cache community.” The common and ordinary definition of “community”
`
`that we find most apt in the context of the claim and the Specification is
`
`“[s]imilarity or identity” and “[s]haring, participation, and fellowship.” THE
`
`AMERICAN HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (5th ed.
`
`2014).
`
`Thus, for the purposes of this decision, we construe “community” to
`
`mean “similarity or identity” or “sharing, participation, and fellowship.”
`
`Our construction of “community” is consistent with the Specification of the
`
`’145 patent and Parallel Networks’ contentions for its proposed construction.
`
`See Ex. 1001, 15:27-29, 17:63-65, 18:1-3 and Prelim. Resp. 4-5.
`
`5. “Allowing a Client to Join the Cache Community”
`
`Claim 1 recites “allowing a client to join the cache community.”
`
`Independent claim 15 recites “logic . . . operable to . . . allow a client to join
`
`the cache community,” and independent claim 35 recites “means for
`
`allowing a client to join the cache community.” Neither Reloaded Games
`
`nor Parallel Networks proposes construction for “allowing” or “allow.”
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`However, for the purposes of our analysis below, we construe “allowing”
`
`and “allow” as carrying their ordinary and customary meanings. We can
`
`find no express definitions for “allowing” or “allow” in the ’145 patent.
`
`There is a “heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning. CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366. An inventor may rebut
`
`that presumption by providing a definition of the term in the specification
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`at 1480. The common and ordinary definition of “allow” or “allowing” that
`
`we find most apt in the context of the claim and the Specification is “[t]o
`
`permit the presence of.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE
`
`ENGLISH LANGUAGE (5th ed. 2013).
`
`Therefore, for the purposes of this decision, we construe “allow” and
`
`“allowing” as meaning “to permit the presence of.” Our construction of
`
`“allow” and “allowing” is consistent with the Specification of the ’145
`
`patent because it describes that master 410 allows client 404 to join
`
`community 402 based on a suitable criterion and that client 404 may be
`
`denied entry. See Ex. 1001, 20:19-21:30, 23:43-24:64, 23:65-25:16. Thus,
`
`the ’145 patent describes that master 410 permits the presence of client 404
`
`in community 402. Our construction of “allow” and “allowing” is also
`
`consistent with Reloaded Games’ contention in its proposed construction for
`
`“means for allowing a client to join the cache community.” Reloaded
`
`Games contends that the associated structure is “one or more general
`
`purpose computers programmed to: 1) evaluate join request to determine
`
`whether the client will be allowed to join the cache community based on the
`
`criteria described at 20:53-64 and 25:1-8 and 2) decide whether the client is
`
`allowed to join the cache community based on the evaluation.” Pet. 5 (citing
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:11-17:23, 18:4-25, 31-34, 20:49-21:1, 22:3-10, 25:1-10, 19-21,
`
`fig. 10). In other words, Reloaded Games argues that the client joins a cache
`
`community through an evaluation of a join request and a decision based on
`
`that evaluation, which is consistent with our construction of “allow” and
`
`“allowing” as meaning “to permit the presence of.”
`
`6. Remaining Claim Terms
`
`The remaining terms do not need express construction at this stage of
`
`the proceeding.
`
`B. Anticipation by Tiwana
`
`Reloaded Games argues that Tiwana anticipates claims 1-28 and 35.
`
`Pet. 13-25.
`
`1. Tiwana (Ex. 1004)
`
`Tiwana describes methods and an apparatus for intelligently assigning
`
`a portion of a cluster’s traffic to a cache system to minimize overloading the
`
`cache system. Ex. 1004, Abstract
`
`Figure 1 of Tiwana is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Tiwana shows a network diagram illustrating cache
`
`clusters according to an embodiment. Id. at 4:41-42. Client machines 102
`
`communicate with server 110 via router 106. Id. at 5:12-15. Router 106 can
`
`direct certain traffic to cache systems 112a, 112b, 112c, and 112d to “spoof”
`
`server 110, or so that different sets of destination IP addresses are assigned
`
`to different cache systems 112a, 112b, 112c, or 112d. Id. at 5:21-30. Cache
`
`system 112a retrieves objects from destination platform 110 to present to
`
`clients, or retrieves objects which were previously retrieved from destination
`
`platform 110 from its own cache. Id. at 5:48-51. Cache systems 112a, 112b,
`
`112c, and 112d can form a cache cluster or farm 120, and each cache system
`
`can be assigned to handle requests for objects from a particular set of
`
`destination addresses. Id. at 5:63-65 and 6:2-4. Tiwana provides
`
`mechanisms for intelligently assigning buckets, which is generally defined
`
`as 1/256th of the total amount of traffic, to each cache system in a cluster so
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`that the cache system is not immediately overwhelmed by object requests.
`
`Id. at 2:55-58 and 6:4-7.
`
`Referring to its Figure 2, Tiwana describes “bucket assignment
`
`process 200 for a cache system (CS) that is joining a cluster or starting up,”
`
`in accordance with an embodiment. Id. at 6:16-19. Tiwana states that
`
`“[i]nitially, the new CS announces its presence in operation 202 to the other
`
`CS’s and/or router(s) of the cluster.” Id. at 6:19-21. Figure 2 of Tiwana
`
`shows a block 202 labeled “New CS announces presence.” Tiwana also
`
`states that “[i]n response to this announcement, the full bucket allocation for
`
`each CS is determined in operation 204,” and “[w]hen a new CS is
`
`associated with a particular cluster, buckets from existing CS’s are allocated
`
`to the new cache system in a roughly even manner, i.e., about the same
`
`number from each.” Id. at 6:21-22, 33-36. Figure 2 of Tiwana shows a
`
`block 204 labeled “Determine full bucket allocation for each CS.”
`
`In describing a message header for a message to a cache system,
`
`Tiwana states that “[t]he above common header is well described in the co-
`
`pending U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/168,862 (Ex. 1005) for
`
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REDIRECTING NETWORK
`
`TRAFFIC filed Dec. 2, 1999, the entirety of which is incorporated herein by
`
`reference for all purposes.” Id. at 7:64-8:1. Provisional Application
`
`60/168,862 describes “Joining a Service Group” and states that “[a] web-
`
`cache joins, and maintains its membership of, a Service Group by
`
`transmitting a WCCP2_HERE_I_AM packet to each router in the Group at
`
`HERE_I_AM_T (10) second intervals” and that “[a] router responds to a
`
`WCCP2_HERE_I_AM packet with a WCCP2_I_SEE_YOU packet.” Ex.
`
`1005 at 3. Provisional Application 60/168,862 also states “[a] router
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`considers a web-cache member of a Service Group to be useable only after it
`
`has sent the member a WCCP2_I_SEE_YOU and received a
`
`WCCP_HERE_I_AM with a valid ‘Received_ID’ in response.” Id. at 4.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Reloaded Games contends that Tiwana discloses each and every
`
`element of claim 1 in a claim chart with references to the disclosure of
`
`Tiwana and Provisional Application 60/168,862 incorporated by reference in
`
`Tiwana. Pet. 14-18. For example, Reloaded Games argues that “Tiwana
`
`discloses that a router associated with a cache cluster/Service Group receives
`
`a ‘Here I Am’ message (i.e., join request) from a cache system (i.e., client)
`
`wanting to join the cluster, and determines whether to allow the cache
`
`system to join the cluster/Service Group based on whether the router has
`
`received a valid response from the cache system.” Id. at 15-16 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, 6:16-27, 6:33-34, 8:11-12, 12:29-41; Ex. 1005, 3 and 4).
`
`Parallel Networks responds that “Tiwana does not teach ‘allowing a
`
`client to join the cache community,’” because “Tiwana merely states that ‘a
`
`new cache system starts up’ or that ‘a cache system . . . is joining a cluster or
`
`starting-up . . . .’” Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:43-44, 6:16-18).
`
`Parallel Networks argues that “[a]llowing implicitly includes the possibility
`
`of a negative result” and “not merely announcing, recognizing, or
`
`acknowledging.” Id. Parallel Networks also argues “Tiwana is quite simply
`
`not directed to how a cache system becomes a member of a cache
`
`community, whether dynamically, as taught by the ’145 Patent, or
`
`otherwise.” Id. Regarding the provisional application incorporated into
`
`Tiwana, Parallel Networks argues that “an announcement is not allowing”
`
`and “an acknowledgement that the announcement has been seen is not
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`allowing, as there is no permission being given.” Id. at 12 (citing Pet. 16).
`
`Parallel Networks thus argues that “even when the recitations of the ’862
`
`Provisional Application are considered with the recited language of Tiwana,
`
`the combination could not be said to recite or describe allowing a client to
`
`join the cache community.” Id.
`
`Although Tiwana describes adding a cache system to its cache cluster,
`
`as discussed above, Tiwana does not describe that the cache system to be
`
`added is allowed to join the cache cluster. As discussed above, we construe
`
`“allow” and “allowing” as meaning “to permit the presence of.” Reloaded
`
`Games does not indicate where, nor can we find in Tiwana or Provisional
`
`Application 60/168,862, any disclosure, either explicit or implicit, that the
`
`announced presence of a cache system to be added further requires some
`
`permission to join a cluster.
`
`Thus, based on the record before us, Reloaded Games has not shown
`
`that Tiwana describes, expressly or inherently, every element of claim 1 and
`
`claims 2-14, which depend from claim 1. Pet. 18-24. Thus, Reloaded
`
`Games has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail on the ground that claims 1-14 are anticipated by Tiwana.
`
`Independent claim 15 recites a “system for dynamic distributed data
`
`caching comprising: logic encoded on storage and operable to: . . . allow a
`
`client to join the cache community . . . .” Reloaded Games relies on its
`
`arguments for claims 1-14 for asserting that Tiwana anticipates claim 15 and
`
`its dependent claims 16-28. Pet. 24. Thus, based on the record before us
`
`and for the reasons above, Reloaded Games has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the ground that claims 15-28
`
`are anticipated by Tiwana.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145 B2
`
`
`Independent claim 35 recites a “system for dynamic distributed data
`
`caching comprising: . . . means for allowing a client to join the cache
`
`community.” Reloaded Games argues that “[a]s applied to element (b) of
`
`claim 1, Tiwana discloses the function of ‘allowing a client to join the cache
`
`community; and the structure for performing this function is a router
`
`programmed to evaluate whether to allow a client to join a Service Group.”
`
`Pet. 24-25 (citing Ex. 1004, 12:29-51; Ex. 1005, 4). Based on the record
`
`before us and for the reasons above, we are not persuaded that Reloaded
`
`Games has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the
`
`ground that claim 35 is anticipated by Tiwana.
`
`In sum, we are not persuaded that Reloaded Games has demonstrated
`
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the ground that Tiwana
`
`anticipates claims 1-28 and 35.
`
`C. Anticipation by Smith
`
`Reloaded Games argues that Smith anticipates claims 1, 8, 9, 11-15,
`
`22, 23, and 25-28. Pet. 25-34.
`
`1. Smith (Ex. 1006)
`
`Smith describes a method, computer program product, and system for
`
`routing URL data object requests in a proxy server array and involves an
`
`array of multiple proxy servers configured to act together as a single
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
