`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 1
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1012 Page 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