EXHIBIT 2002
`
`EXHIBIT 2002
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2002
`
`
`
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`|
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`RELOADED GAMES, INC.
`(Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC
`(Patent Owner)
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`Inventors:
`Keith A. Lowery
`Bryan S. Chin
`David A. Consolver
`Gregg A. DeMasters
`
`Filed: January 12, 2001
`
`For: Method and System for
`Dynamic Distributed Data Caching
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL A. THORNTON
`
`60445015_1
`
`
`
`I, Mitchell A. Thornton, declare the following:
`
`1.
`
`I submit this Declaration in connection with my role as a consulting
`
`expert in the matter of the Inter Partes review, Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel
`
`Networks, LLC, IPR2014-00136 (the “IPR”), on behalf of Parallel Networks, LLC.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert by McGuire-Woods LLP (“MGW”)
`
`in the above-captioned matter to provide expert analysis, opinions, and testimony
`
`regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,118,145 (“the ’145 patent”).
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work and travel time associated with
`
`this case at my ordinary rate of $350.00 per hour, plus reimbursement of
`
`reasonable direct expenses. I have no other interest in this action or the parties
`
`thereto and my compensation does not depend on the outcome of this matter.
`
`4.
`
`I was asked by MGW to review and analyze the ‘145 patent, the ‘145
`
`prosecution history, IPR pleadings including the petition and response, and various
`
`prior art identified in the following sections of this declaration.
`
`5.
`
`In forming my opinions set forth in this Declaration, I relied on the
`
`’145 patent and the file history of the ‘145 patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,341,311 issued
`
`to Smith (“Smith”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,256,747 issued to Shigekazu Inohara, et
`
`al. (“Inohara”).
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`1
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`In this Declaration, I have set forth my opinions concerning the
`
`teachings and disclosure of Inohara.
`
`7.
`
`In forming my opinions, I also relied upon my knowledge as person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art obtained through more than 29 years of work in computer
`
`science and engineering.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8. My curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix 1 to this Declaration.
`
`9.
`
`I hold a Ph.D. degree from Southern Methodist University in
`
`Computer Engineering; a Master’s degree from Southern Methodist University in
`
`Computer Science; a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the University
`
`of Texas-Arlington; and a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Oklahoma State University.
`
`10.
`
`I am a Full Professor of Computer Science and Engineering and also
`
`of Electrical Engineering at Southern Methodist University. I additionally hold the
`
`position of Technical Director of the Darwin Deason Institute for Cyber Security
`
`and Principal of the Hardware and Network Security Engineering Program within
`
`the Institute. I have been engaged in a variety of computer architecture and digital
`
`systems research projects funded by both governmental and industrial sponsors.
`
`Furthermore, I have served as an independent professional engineering consultant
`
`offering design and analysis services related to aspects of computer systems
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`2
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`architecture, digital systems design, wireless/wired networked systems and
`
`interfaces, and integrated circuit design. My independent consulting work began in
`
`1993.
`
`11. Before entering academia, I was employed fulltime by E-Systems,
`
`Inc. from 1986 through 1991 in Greenville, Texas (now L3-Communications, Inc.).
`
`I resigned as a full-time employee with the title Senior Electronic Systems
`
`Engineer in 1991 to pursue full-time graduate study. At E-Systems, I was involved
`
`in the design, implementation, test, and evaluation of a number of both ground-
`
`based and airborne computer systems and customized peripherals.
`
`12. During my PhD studies, I was employed both part-time and full-time
`
`at various points in time with the Cyrix Corporation as a Design Engineer. In that
`
`capacity I was a member of the M1 microprocessor design group where my duties
`
`included the design and test of various portions of a new microprocessor including
`
`the bus controller, branch prediction circuitry, cache and memory interfaces, and
`
`others.
`
` The M1 microprocessor
`
`is compatible with
`
`the Intel Pentium
`
`microprocessor but is a completely new and independent design and architecture as
`
`compared to the Intel device.
`
`13.
`
`I am a licensed professional engineer in Texas, Mississippi, and
`
`Arkansas. I am also the proprietor of a registered engineering firm in Texas and
`
`have worked as a professional engineer either independently or as an employee of
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`3
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`another firm for over 23 years.
`
`14.
`
`I am a senior member of both the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronic Engineers) and the ACM (Association of Computing Machinery). I
`
`regularly attend IEEE- and ACM-sponsored events and conferences, present
`
`papers at conferences, publish research results in archival journals, and serve on
`
`conference and symposia Program Committees.
`
`15.
`
`In terms of service to my profession, I have been selected to serve as
`
`chair of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Multiple-Valued
`
`Logic from 2010 to 2011, chair of the IEEE-USA Committee on Licensure and
`
`Registration from 2009 to 2011, chair of the NCEES (National Council of
`
`Examiners for Engineering and Surveying) electrical and computer engineering
`
`licensure examination preparation committee from 2009 to 2011, and numerous
`
`other positions as listed in my curriculum vitae in Exhibit 2.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`16.
`
`It is helpful as background to briefly discuss the purpose of caching as
`
`it existed at the time of the filing of the ‘145 patent. A cache is a dedicated
`
`allocation of memory whose purpose is to store data, computer instructions, or in
`
`general, objects. Caches improve the performance of computer systems and
`
`networks due to the principle of locality. The two types of locality commonly
`
`exploited in caches are referred to as temporal and spatial locality. The principle
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`4
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`of temporal locality states that data or instructions that have been recently accessed
`
`by the computer system are likely to be accessed again. Spatial locality is the
`
`principle that data or instructions recently accessed by a computer indicate that
`
`other data or instructions “nearby” the accessed data are also likely to be accessed.
`
`The use of the term “nearby” in the previous sentence refers to the fact that data
`
`and instructions are located in a memory storage device that uses addresses or
`
`other related referencing schemes for access. Depending upon the storage
`
`technology, the address may be formulated using physical, virtual, track/sector, or
`
`other information. In this case, “nearby” would refer to addresses or file locations
`
`that are close to the same value as those of the previously accessed data. “Nearby”
`
`can also refer to other data that is referenced or pointed to by the accessed data.
`
`One example may be that an accessed webpage contains Uniform Resource
`
`Locators (URLs) or links to other webpages. The linked webpages could be
`
`considered to be “nearby” and hence exhibit spatial locality.
`
`17. Networks incur delay in the transmission of message packets from one
`
`computer system to another. Furthermore, large networks of computer systems are
`
`often configured in a hierarchical manner with one subset of the computer systems
`
`networked with local intra-network connections (LAN) that may define a group of
`
`computer systems connected to other subsets of computers or groups with an inter-
`
`network (WAN) such as the Internet. Each group may include one or more
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`5
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`network servers whose function is to provide a gateway between the intra-network
`
`and the inter-network connecting other intra-networks. Network servers are
`
`specialized computer systems that generally contain dedicated hardware and
`
`software enabling them to receive and transmit packets among the typically high-
`
`bandwidth networks that connect intra-networks. Furthermore, network servers
`
`often contain or utilize a large number of intra-network interfaces that allow for the
`
`computers within the intra-network to have direct connections to the network
`
`server. The specialized hardware and software utilized by network servers is often
`
`specified by the Internet Service Provider (ISP) or other inter-network service
`
`provider and is generally not found in other computer systems within the intra-
`
`network.
`
`18.
`
`Intra-networks or LANs may contain one or more specialized caching
`
`servers whose purpose is to maintain caches of objects requested by computer
`
`systems in the intra-network.
`
` Caching servers are intended to increase
`
`performance since accesses occurring within a LAN are generally more efficient
`
`than those over the WAN. Caching servers must thus contain specialized
`
`functionality such as a cache memory and the policies and protocols that enable
`
`caching functionality. Cache coherency is an issue to ensure that current versions
`
`of objects are present in the caches of the servers within the LAN when multiple
`
`caches are used to form a single virtual cache.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`6
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`19. Although the inter-network (WAN) is usually a high-bandwidth
`
`connection, it also often exhibits significant delay as compared to traffic within the
`
`intra-network (LAN) due to long geographic propagation distances, the fact that
`
`many intermediate network servers are included in a packet’s path, and the fact
`
`that the interface or gateway to the WAN is shared by computer systems within the
`
`LAN, thus sharing the high-bandwidth. When a client process originating from a
`
`client within a first intra-network requests service from a server within a second
`
`intra-network, a delay penalty in accordance with the inter-network transaction
`
`occurs. Because this delay penalty is undesirable, the employment of caching can
`
`be used to improve performance.
`
`20. The use of caching to combat the delay penalty described in the
`
`previous paragraph can be implemented such that a request for content by a server
`
`within a first intra-network from a server located within a second intra-network
`
`causes content to be stored in a cache more accessible to computer systems within
`
`the first intra-network. Such content is then available for subsequent inquiries
`
`predicted to occur because of the foregoing described principles of temporal and
`
`spatial locality. The content can be stored at one or more servers in the first intra-
`
`network itself or in any of the inter-networks that connect the two intra-networks,
`
`each storage location that is closer to the requesting server reducing the speed
`
`penalty incurred by accessing content all the way from the second intra-network.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`7
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`21. Cooperative caching refers to the use of a plurality of caches as a
`
`single virtual cache. A cooperative cache can be formed using a group of caching
`
`modules at individual computer systems. The computer systems may be part of
`
`one or more networks but cooperate in a single architecture to expand the amount
`
`of cached content available to users of the cooperative cache. In addition to the
`
`goal of reducing the delay penalty of object retrieval, the goals of such an
`
`architecture are to increase the likelihood of finding an object within the cache, or
`
`the “hit rate.” Increased hit rates mean that the cache is more often able to respond
`
`to a request with content that is present in the cache. Since object retrieval from a
`
`cache incurs less penalty than object retrieval from an origin or other proxy server,
`
`performance increases in proportion to the hit rate. Another goal of a cooperative
`
`cache is to increase the “reach” of the cache to make it available to additional
`
`requestors of content.
`
`22. Cooperative
`
`caching
`
`architectures
`
`vary
`
`in
`
`structure
`
`and
`
`implementation. A hierarchical cooperative cache utilizes a pre-determined
`
`structure that causes cache access of computer systems participating in the caching
`
`structure to occur in a prescribed sequence to locate cached content. Distributed
`
`cooperative caches can generally be considered to define a large single virtual
`
`cache accessible to a collection of servers, typically using directories of the
`
`location of content cached by the caching structure. Some cooperative caching
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`8
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`architectures, like the architecture of Inohara discussed below, can be considered to
`
`be hybrid combinations of the hierarchical and distributed caching concept.
`
`23. The technology at issue involves the specific structure of such a
`
`cooperative caching scheme among a collection of distributed, networked,
`
`computer systems.
`
`DISCUSSION OF THE CITED ART
`
`24.
`
`I have been advised of the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (the “Board”) to institute inter partes review of the ’145 Patent, and more
`
`particularly, that the Board has decided to institute review of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10,
`
`16-18, 20, 21, 24, and 29-36 of the ’145 patent of the ’145 Patent based on the
`
`alleged grounds that claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 16-18, 20, 21, 24, and 29-36 of the ’145
`
`Patent would have been obvious over Smith and Inohara under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I
`
`have carefully considered both Smith and Inohara and believe that the Petitioner
`
`misunderstands the cache architecture of Inohara, particularly with regard to how
`
`Inohara is described as teaching aspects of the claims of the ‘145 Patent. More
`
`particularly, after reviewing Inohara, I have concluded that Inohara does not teach
`
`the concepts of determining whether to allow a client to enter a cache community,
`
`determining admittance into a cache community, or otherwise denying entrance
`
`into a cache community, and that such teachings would in fact be contrary to the
`
`entire premise of Inohara.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`9
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`I have included a brief discussion of Smith and a more complete
`
`discussion of Inohara below to assist the Board in understanding the cache
`
`architecture of Inohara and to explain my reasons for concluding that Inohara
`
`should not be read as teaching elements of the claims of the ’145 Patent that are
`
`missing in Smith.
`
`SMITH
`
`26. Smith discloses a distributed network caching system consisting of a
`
`“Proxy Server Array” that provides access to stored data objects available over the
`
`Internet. Col. 2, lines 47-51. Smith discusses the caching system with regard to a
`
`hashing algorithm that identifies proxy servers to provide access to the stored data
`
`objects. Abstract of Smith. Smith also discusses how the hashing algorithm
`
`behaves when a proxy server is added to the array. Abstract of Smith.
`
`27. Since the actual invention described by Smith appears to be the
`
`above-mentioned hashing algorithm, Smith provides only a cursory description of
`
`proxy servers being assembled into an array, and generally contemplates that proxy
`
`servers seeking to join the array are automatically admitted without any
`
`determination as to whether to allow the proxy server to join the array or potential
`
`for preventing the proxy server from joining the array. Smith has no discussion of
`
`a decision to allow a proxy server to enter the array, much less any basis for a
`
`determination that could form the basis of any such decision. Unlike Inohara,
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`10
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`which affirmatively discusses a system where there is no need to limit membership
`
`in a cache architecture, Smith remains silent on the topic.
`
`
`
`INOHARA
`
`28. After studying the Inohara reference, I have concluded that Inohara’s
`
`primary premise of design is that membership in a cache architecture should not be
`
`limited, and that Inohara cannot be combined with Smith to teach a determination
`
`of whether a server is to be allowed (or disallowed) entrance into a cache
`
`community. To evaluate the teachings of Inohara, a complete understanding of
`
`Inohara is needed. Inohara addresses the need for a cache system that is suitable
`
`for use with a large network for the world-wide web (the “Internet”). Inohara
`
`discusses problems that need to be solved for a cache system to function for a
`
`network as large as the Internet. Col. 1, lines 7-15. One of such problems
`
`discussed is the heavy administrative burden in configuring the cache system to
`
`establish cooperation between servers of cache content.
`
`The Cache Tree of Inohara
`
`29. To reduce such an administrative burden, Inohara describes a process
`
`to dynamically structure a multi-cast hierarchy that includes many groups of
`
`servers arranged in a tree structure. Col. 4, lines 1-9. Each group of servers has a
`
`leader, which in turn forms a higher-level logical group with other leaders of
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`11
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`groups located at the same logical level. Col. 7, lines 51-56. Thus, each of the
`
`groups located at the same level forms a branch of the high level group. The high
`
`level group has its own leader, which in turn forms a still higher-level logical
`
`group with leaders of other high level groups, each high level group thereby
`
`forming branches of the still higher logical level group. Col. 7, lines 51-56. This
`
`basic tree structure of Inohara 1 is illustrated below in Diagram A, in which leader
`
`A of group A, B, and C forms an upper level group with leader D of group D, E,
`
`and F. Such upper level group in term has its own leader X (which could in turn be
`
`part of a still higher level group with its own leader). In such a manner, a multi-
`
`cast hierarchy can be infinitely extended to create extremely large caching
`
`networks, suitable for use with the Internet as discussed by Inohara. Col. 4, lines
`
`14-22.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`12
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Adding Servers to Inohara
`
`30. The process of how Inohara adds additional cache servers is important
`
`to the creation and expansion of a large caching system, particularly because the
`
`self-organizing nature of such a system is important to addressing the above-
`
`referenced need to reduce the administrative burden incurred when operating
`
`caching systems in large networks.
`
`31.
`
`In Inohara, a request is received from one or more new servers who
`
`wish to join a particular group in the cache hierarchy. In response to the request,
`
`Inohara uses a process for reconstructing the group to account for the increase in
`
`the number of members necessitated by the addition of the one or more new
`
`servers. The process involves comparing the total number of members that would
`
`result from accepting the new servers into the group to a maximum number
`
`(identified as MAX in Inohara). Col. 10, lines 51 – Col. 11, lines 5.
`
`32. While the reason for such a MAX number is not explained in great
`
`detail by Inohara, Inohara does note that the cache hierarchy and its ability to have
`
`individual groups with less than a fixed number is desirable such that
`
`“communication for management does not explode even if the number of servers
`
`becomes large.” Col. 14, lines 27-33. In other words, the reason for imposing a
`
`maximum number of servers in any particular branch of the cache hierarchy is to
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`13
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`limit the communications required from a single server to manage caching between
`
`the servers on any such branch to an acceptable level.
`
`33. For example, if a leader of a particular group had to communicate
`
`with unacceptably large numbers of servers within such a group each time it
`
`received an inquiry or propagated a message to such a group, the overhead for such
`
`communications could overwhelm the leader or a network as a whole. By splitting
`
`the number of servers into several linked sub-groups that communicate with each
`
`other
`
`through group
`
`leaders
`
`in
`
`the
`
`tree structure described above,
`
`the
`
`communications overhead is reduced to an acceptable level. Thus, the benefit of
`
`having the additional volume of content capable of being cached by a large number
`
`of servers can be realized with far fewer communications required by any one
`
`group leader. Col. 14, lines 21-40.
`
`34.
`
`Inohara describes three different scenarios with respect to adding new
`
`servers to a server group. In the first scenario, if adding all of the new servers to
`
`the server group would not cause the group to go above a maximum number, the
`
`new servers are added to the existing server group without further reorganization.
`
`Col. 10, lines 60-66.
`
`35.
`
`In the second scenario, if adding all of the new servers would cause
`
`the group to go above a maximum number, then a second determination of whether
`
`adding even one of the new servers would cause the group to go above the
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`14
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`maximum number. If the answer to the second determination is no, then the first
`
`new server is added to the existing group to form a first sub-group and the
`
`remaining new servers form a second sub-group branching off of the first sub-
`
`group with the first new server as the leader of the second sub-group, such second
`
`sub-group thereby becoming a branch of the now higher level first sub-group. Col.
`
`11, lines 6-17.
`
`36.
`
`In the third scenario, if adding all of the new servers would cause the
`
`group to go above a maximum number, Inohara discusses making a second
`
`determination to see if adding even one of the new servers would cause the group
`
`to go above a maximum number. If even one server would cause the maximum
`
`number of servers to be exceeded, a first higher level sub-group is formed from the
`
`leader of the existing group of servers, the first of the new servers, and a second
`
`member of the existing group of servers. The leader of the existing group is
`
`reassigned to be the leader of the first higher level sub-group. The second member
`
`of the existing group becomes the leader of its own second lower level sub-group
`
`that branches off from the high level sub-group. Similarly, the first of the new
`
`servers becomes the leader of a third sub-group that includes all of the other new
`
`members that requested to join the original group. Thus, as a result of the new
`
`servers requesting to join the original group of servers, the original group is split
`
`into three sub-groups that cooperate to share cached content (one higher level sub-
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`15
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`group and two lower level sub-groups forming branches of the higher level group).
`
`Col. 11, lines 18-37.
`
`37. To aid in the understanding of the above, I have included diagrams of
`
`the organization of servers into hypothetical groups of servers based on the three
`
`different scenarios described above from the disclosure of Inohara. Diagram B
`
`illustrates the organization of servers where the addition of new servers (servers
`
`301 and 301’) requesting to be added to an existing server group (servers 10, 232,
`
`232’, and 232”) in the caching hierarchy of Inohara does not cause the server group
`
`to exceed the maximum number of servers (where it is assumed that MAX=6). As
`
`shown, all of the servers participate in a single group. No sub-grouping is
`
`required.
`
`38. Diagram C illustrates the organization of servers where the addition of
`
`new servers (servers 301, 301’, and 301”) requesting to be added to the existing
`
`server group (servers 10, 232, 232’, and 232”) does cause the server group to
`
`exceed the maximum number of servers (where it is assumed that MAX=6), but
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`16
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`where the addition of at least one of the new servers would not cause the server
`
`group to exceed the maximum number of servers. As shown, server 301 forms a
`
`first sub-group with the original servers of the group and also forms a second lower
`
`level sub-group with servers 301’ and 301”.
`
`39. Diagram D illustrates the situation where the addition of even one of a
`
`number of new servers (servers 301, 301”, and 301”) requesting to be added to the
`
`existing server group (servers 10, 232, 232’, 232”, 232’”, and 232””) causes the
`
`server group to exceed the maximum number of servers (where it is assumed that
`
`MAX=6). As shown, server 301 forms an upper level sub-group with server 10
`
`and server 232. Server 301 also forms a lower level sub-group with server 301’
`
`and 301’’. Server 232 forms another lower level sub-group with servers 232’,
`
`232”, 232’”, and 232””.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`17
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`40.
`
`In all three scenarios, the process described by Inohara results in the
`
`new servers being added to the same caching tree hierarchy and cooperating to
`
`share cached content. As illustrated, in all three scenarios, new joining servers are
`
`placed into the existing group or sub-groups with previously existing members of
`
`the existing server group within a single caching system. For example, server 301
`
`is always in a sub-group (shown with dashed lines in the illustrations above) with
`
`both server 10 and server 232.
`
`
`
`The Teachings of Inohara
`
`41. According to its teachings, Inohara has solved significant problems
`
`associated with a distributed cache suitable for use with an ever-expanding
`
`network such as the Internet that removes the need to limit membership in a cache
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`18
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`system, including: (i) reducing the administrative burden with configuring and
`
`reconfiguring a large distributed cache using the self-organizing arrangement of
`
`groups of servers into a hierarchical tree structure as new servers are added to the
`
`cache system; and (ii) reducing the extent of management communications
`
`involved in managing a large number of servers and cache directories in a large
`
`distributed cache by separating the servers into overlapping and cooperative groups
`
`of servers. Col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 22.
`
`
`
`Inohara Teaches Away From Denying Membership in a Cache System
`
`42.
`
`Inohara cannot be said to teach the concept of denying a server
`
`membership in a cache system. The entire thesis of Inohara is that the architecture
`
`of the cache hierarchy is infinitely scalable, as noted by Inohara, even when used
`
`with the Internet “with an enormous number of machines connected.” Col. 3, lines
`
`29-30. In all cases, a server seeking to join the cache hierarchy of Inohara is
`
`admitted into the tree hierarchy that serves as the cache system of Inohara and is
`
`operable to share content with all other servers in the hierarchy. In all of the
`
`scenarios described in Inohara where servers seek to be added to the hierarchy, all
`
`servers requesting membership in the cache system are admitted, assigned a
`
`position within the caching hierarchy, and cooperate to share cached content with
`
`the cache hierarchy.
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`19
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`43. Even if, for the sake of argument, an individual server group of
`
`Inohara itself could be said to represent a cache system by itself, a position that is
`
`inconsistent with the teachings of Inohara, Inohara does not even teach denying a
`
`server membership in such an individual server group. Instead, Inohara goes to
`
`great lengths to accept a new server or server into the individual server group, so
`
`much so that if including the server in the individual server group would cause it to
`
`become too large, even then Inohara doesn’t deny the server entrance. Instead,
`
`Inohara reorganizes the server group into sub-groups and includes the new server
`
`or servers in one of the sub-groups, the sub-groups being composed of both the
`
`new server or servers as well as the servers that were previously members of the
`
`individual server group. Col. 11, lines 18-37. As noted above, in all cases a new
`
`server is included in a sub-group with a previous member of the individual server
`
`group that such new server requested to join. Even when the cache hierarchy has
`
`to go to the extreme of restructuring the individual server group that received a join
`
`request into the described sub-groups, the new server or servers are always
`
`accepted into the individual server group.
`
`44. The overriding principle of Inohara is inclusion. Such inclusion is
`
`necessary in order to accept a large number of servers without constraint in order
`
`to scale the cache hierarchy a size that is required to service large networks. All of
`
`the goals and issues described in Inohara are means to the ultimate end of
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`20
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`achieving a cache hierarchy that is infinitely scalable. Inohara clearly teaches
`
`away from any concept of permission, determination, or any limiting or denial of
`
`membership. Adding the possibility of denial of servers into the cache hierarchy
`
`of Inohara, based on size or otherwise, would render Inohara inoperable for its
`
`intended purpose of serving as a distributed caching system for the entire Internet
`
`or other large scale networks.
`
`COMBINATION OF SMITH AND INOHARA
`
`45. As should be readily apparent from the foregoing, combining Inohara
`
`with Smith for the purpose of Inohara teaching the concept of determining whether
`
`or not to allow a client to join the proxy-server based cache community of Smith
`
`would both render Inohara inoperable for its intended purpose and be contrary to
`
`the express teachings of Inohara. As discussed above, the express purpose of
`
`Inohara is to provide a cache architecture that is capable of including a large
`
`number of participants so as to be scalable to accommodate extremely large groups
`
`of servers (such as the thousands upon thousands of servers forming the Internet).
`
`The primary purpose or intention of the cache architecture described by Inohara is
`
`to overcome the administrative and management hurdles that impose limitations on
`
`the size of cache architectures. Combining any element of Inohara with Smith in a
`
`manner that results in a determination whereby a server is not allowed to join a
`
`cache community (particularly a determination based on the size of the community
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`21
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`as suggested by the Petitioners), would destroy the ability of Inohara to achieve its
`
`primary purpose, rendering Inohara inoperable for that purpose. In addition to
`
`concerns of operability, there is no question that Inohara teaches away from a
`
`combination of Smith and Inohara to include a determination of allowing a client
`
`to join a cache community (again, particularly based on the size of the cache
`
`community) in order to limit the size of the cache community in Smith.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MITCHELL THORNTON
`
`22
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`
`
`
`
`
`SUMMARY
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Inohara discloses a cache architecture that overcomes the size
`
`limitations on other cache systems through the use of a self-organizing structure of
`
`overlapping groups of servers into a hierarchical tree. The architecture solves
`
`issues with previous cache systems associated with setting up large cache
`
`architectures and managing their operations. Inohara has no teaching of
`
`determining membership in a cache community, either because of size limitations
`
`or otherwise and instead teaches an entirely inclusive process for building out a
`
`cache system using a very large number of servers. Inohara does not teach limiting
`
`membership in a cache comm
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
