Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 16
`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 IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 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. 1013 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Petitioner Reloaded Games, Inc. (“Reloaded Games”) filed a Petition (Paper
`
`5, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of all claims, claims 1-27 (the
`
`“challenged claims”), of U.S. Patent No. 7,730,262 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’262
`
`patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311. Patent Owner Parallel Networks LLC
`
`(“Parallel Networks”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 10, “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 are persuaded 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 1-27 of the ’262 patent.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Reloaded Games indicates that Parallel Networks asserted the ’262 patent
`
`against it in Parallel Networks LLC v. Reloaded Games, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00827
`
`(D. Del.). Pet. 58. In its Notice of Appearance, Parallel Networks identifies
`
`Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel Network LLC, No. IPR2014-00136, as a matter
`
`that would affect or be affected by the decision in this proceeding. Paper 8, 2.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`C. The ’262 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’262 patent, titled “Method and System for Dynamic Distributed Data
`
`Caching,” issued June 1, 2010 from application 11/681,544, filed on March 2,
`
`2007, which is a division of application 09/759,406, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,188,145 B2, whose claims are challenged in IPR2014-00136. The ’262 patent
`
`provides dynamic distributed data caching with more efficient use of bandwidth.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:45-46.
`
`Figure 6 of the ’262 patent, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 6 depicts a block diagram illustrating a dynamic caching system
`
`according to one embodiment. Id. at 4:56-57. Community 402 comprises one or
`
`more peers 413, and peers 413 further comprise master 410 and member 412. Id.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`at 17:45-48. Each peer 413 includes dynamic cache application 428, which
`
`provides functionality to support distributed caching system 10. Id. at 17:53-54.
`
`Browser 30 generates request 32 for content 548, and cache portion 500 of
`
`dynamic cache application 428 at member 412A receives request 32. Id. at 22:42-
`
`46. Cache portion 500 determines if requested content 548 is available at member
`
`412A. Id. at 22:46-48. If requested content 548 is available at member 412A, then
`
`cache portion 500 returns requested content 548 to browser 30. Id. at 22:53-56. If
`
`not, cache portion 500 generates location request 550, which is communicated to
`
`cache portion 500 of master 410. Id. at 22:57-60. Cache portion 500 of master
`
`410 examines allocation list 500 to determine which peer 413 would cache the
`
`requested content 548. Id. at 22:60-62. Cache portion 500 of master 410 then
`
`generates location response 554, which is communicated to member 412A. Id. at
`
`22:63-65. After receiving location response 554, cache portion 500 of member
`
`412A forwards request 32 to peer 412B with the requested content 548 in its cache.
`
`Id. at 22:66-23:2. Peer 412B determines whether requested content 548 is
`
`available, and if so, peer 412B returns requested content 548 to cache portion 500
`
`of member 412A. Id. at 23:2-7. If requested content 548 is not available at
`
`member 412B, then member 412B forwards request 32 to origin server 19.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`1. A method for dynamic distributed data caching, comprising:
`generating a content request for requested content at a first peer
`in a cache community;
`determining a second peer associated with the requested
`content, the second peer being associated with the cache community;
`and
`
`retrieving, by the first peer, the requested content from the
`second peer;
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`wherein determining the second peer includes:
`generating, by a cache portion associated with the first peer, a
`location request;
`communicating the location request to a master associated with
`the cache community; and
`receiving a location response from the master, the location
`response indicating the second peer.
`
`
`E. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Reloaded Games relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Chase, U.S. Patent No. 5,944,780, issued Aug. 31, 1999 (“Chase”) (Ex.
`
`1004); Dean Povey and John Harrison, “A Distributed Internet Cache,”
`
`Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computer Science Conference (1997)
`
`(“Povey”) (Ex. 1005); Jussi Kangasharju et al., “Locating Copies of Objects Using
`
`the Domain Name System,” WCW 1999, 4th Web Caching Workshop (1999)
`
`(“Kangasharju”) (Ex. 1006); Smith, U.S. Patent No. 6,341,311 B1, issued Jan. 22,
`
`2002 (“Smith”) (Ex. 1007); and Scharber, U.S. Patent No. 6,542,964 B1, issued
`
`Apr. 1, 2003 (“Scharber”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`F. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Reloaded Games contends that the challenged claims of the ’262 patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 based on the following grounds.
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 102
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-27
`
`1-27
`
`1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-27
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Pet. 2.
`
` Reference(s)
`
`Chase
`
`Kangasharju
`
`Povey
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`Chase and Smith
`
`Chase and Scharber
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`2, 4, 11, 13, 20, and 22
`
`2-4, 11-13, and 20-22
`
`Chase, Smith, and Scharber
`
`§ 103
`
`3, 12, and 21
`
`Povey and Chase
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-27
`
`Kangasharju and Chase
`
`§ 103
`
`1-27
`
`
`
`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 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. “master”
`
`Parallel Networks contends that “master” in claims 1, 10, and 19 should be
`
`construed as “a device that determines membership of a cache community.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 5-6. Reloaded Games does not offer a construction for “master.”
`
`Parallel Networks argues that the Specification of the ’262 patent “states that the
`
`1 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`master is tasked with the determination as to whether a prospective peer ‘is
`
`appropriate to be a member of the cache community,’” “the ‘master 410 receives
`
`join request 452 and determines whether to allow a client 404 to become a member
`
`412 of community 402,’” “[t]he master is ‘operable to generate an allow message
`
`424,’” and “‘[m]aster 410 may use any suitable criteria to determine whether to
`
`allow client 404 to join community 402.’” Id. at 5-6 (quoting Ex. 1001, 18:6-11,
`
`20:31-38, 44-49, 20:62-21:2, 24:49-55).
`
`However, the ’262 patent also describes that community 402 comprises one
`
`or more peers 413 and peers 413 further comprise master 410 and member 412,
`
`which cooperate to form a distributed caching system. Ex. 1001, 17:45-50, 18:34-
`
`38. The ’262 patent further describes that “dynamic caching application 478 at
`
`each peer 413 provides functionality to support the distributed caching system.”
`
`Id. at 17:53-54. The ’262 patent describes that “[m]aster 410 is operable to . . .
`
`maintain a peer list 426” and that “[i]n addition to the functionality provided by the
`
`members 412, master 410 is further responsible for providing administrative
`
`support to community 402.” Id. at 18:6-7, 38-41. Thus, master 410 is described as
`
`not only able to generate allow message 424, as Parallel Networks contends, but
`
`also able to maintain peer list 426 as part of providing administrative support to
`
`community 402. In view of the foregoing, we determine that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification of the ’262 patent for the term
`
`“master” is “a peer that provides administrative support to other peers.”
`
`2. Means-plus-function limitations
`
`Reloaded Games proposes constructions for each of the means-plus-function
`
`limitations of claim 19. Pet. 3-6. Parallel Networks argues that “construction of
`
`such terms is moot, however, in view of the cited art,” because “for example, [for]
`
`claim 1, the cited art fails to disclose claim limitations relating to ‘communicating
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`a location request to a master associated with the cache community’ or ‘receiving a
`
`location response from the master.’” Prelim. Resp. 6. Parallel Networks contends
`
`that similar limitations are present in claim 19 and “[s]ince the cited art does not
`
`teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the foregoing functions, it cannot be argued to
`
`teach structures for accomplishing the functions as required by claim 19.” Id. at 6-
`
`7.
`
`For the purposes of this decision, we agree with Reloaded Games
`
`concerning the structures corresponding to the means-plus-function limitations of
`
`claim 19. Therefore, we construe the structure corresponding to the “means for
`
`generating a content request” to be a web browser or other Hypertext Transport
`
`Protocol (HTTP) client. Pet. 3. We construe the structure corresponding to the
`
`“means for determining a second peer associated with the requested content” to be
`
`one or more general purpose computers of a first peer operably connected to one
`
`or more general purpose computers of a master, with each general purpose
`
`computer being programmed to carry out an algorithm that examines an indication
`
`of which peer could cache the content. Id. at 3-4. We construe the structure
`
`corresponding to the “means for generating, by a cache portion associated with the
`
`first peer, a location request” to be software, hardware, or software and hardware
`
`associated with the first peer operable to provide a data message that indicates a
`
`request for the second peer which would cache content requested by the content
`
`request. Id. at 4-5. We construe the structure corresponding to the “means for
`
`communicating the location request to a master associated with the cache
`
`community” to be an Internet connection that is always available. Id. at 5. We
`
`construe the structure corresponding to “means for receiving a location response
`
`from the master, the location response indicating the second peer” to be software,
`
`hardware, or software and hardware associated with the first peer operable to
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`receive a data message, which indicates a second peer in the community which is
`
`responsible for caching the requested content. Id. at 5-6. Last, we construe the
`
`structure corresponding to “means for retrieving, by the first peer, the requested
`
`content from the second peer” to be software, hardware, or software and hardware
`
`associated with the first peer operable to forward the request for content to the
`
`second peer, receive the requested content from the second peer, and provide the
`
`requested content to the browser for display to a user associated with the first
`
`peer. Id. at 6.
`
`3. Other terms
`
`The parties have not proffered constructions for the remaining terms. We
`
`agree that all other claim terms do not need express construction at this stage of the
`
`proceeding.
`
`B. Anticipation by Chase
`
`Reloaded Games argues that Chase anticipates claims 1, 5-10, 14-19, and
`
`23-27. Pet. 9-21.
`
`1. Chase (Ex. 1004)
`
`Chase describes “a system having the benefits of central caching without the
`
`bottleneck caused by a central cache server.” Ex. 1004, 2:41-43. Reproduced
`
`below is Figure 1 of Chase.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a schematic diagram of a computer system according to an
`
`embodiment. Id. at 3:4-5. Local area network 10 includes server 11 (shown
`
`without a reference designator between directory servers 17) connected by
`
`communication channel 13 to user stations 12. Id. at 5:33-35. Local area network
`
`10 is connected to remote network 14, such as the Internet, which includes remote
`
`servers 15. Id. at 5:37-43. Each user station 12 includes cache 20, which receives
`
`copies of data retrieved by stations 12 from remote server 15. Id. at 5:47-48, 54-
`
`59. If a user of station 12 requests data from remote network 14, cache 20 is
`
`examined to see if the data are already in cache 20. Id. at 5:59-61. If not, before
`
`attempting to retrieve the data from remote network 14, central cache directory 16
`
`of directory server 17 or central cache directory 160 of server 11 is queried. Id. at
`
`5:62-65, 6:4-5. If directory 16 or 160 contains an entry corresponding to the
`
`requested data, requesting station 12 requests the data from station 12 indicated by
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`the directory entry. Id. at 6:21-24. If directory 16 or 160 does not contain an entry
`
`corresponding to the requested data, requesting station 12 is informed and then
`
`requests data from remote network 14. Id. at 6:6-9.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`a. Independent Claims 1, 10, and 19
`
`Reloaded Games contends that Chase discloses each and every element of
`
`independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and submits a supporting claim chart that refers
`
`to the disclosure of Chase, including Figures 1-4. Pet. 9-21.
`
`In particular, Reloaded Games argues that Chase discloses a method for a
`
`dynamic distributed data caching, because it describes a computer network system
`
`where caches at individual systems are available to other stations. Id. at 10 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, Abstr., 2:44-52, 4:33-53, 5:37-43, fig. 1). Reloaded Games further
`
`argues that Chase describes “generating a content request for requested content at a
`
`first peer in a cache community,” because Chase discloses client software, such as
`
`a browser, at one of many stations 12 in a local area network requesting data that
`
`may be satisfied by a local cache. Id. at 11-12 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:64-7:5, fig. 1,
`
`fig. 3, steps 34-35). Reloaded Games also argues that Chase describes
`
`“determining a second peer associated with the requested content, the second peer
`
`being associated with the cache community,” because Figures 3 and 4 of Chase
`
`and their associated description disclose directory server 17 being queried to
`
`determine if it has an entry corresponding to the requested data and test 47 that can
`
`return the address of station 12 that has the requested data to querying station 12.
`
`Id. at 12-14 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:58-7:22, 7:62-8:35; fig. 3, steps 300, 301; fig. 4,
`
`steps 41, 42, 47-48). Reloaded Games further argues that Chase states that “[t]he
`
`querying station 12 can then go and retrieve the object from the station 12” and
`
`thus discloses “retrieving, by the first peer, the requested content from the second
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`peer.” Id. at 14-15 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:19-22, 57-58; 8:35-36; fig. 3, steps 303, 306,
`
`307). Reloaded Games also contends that Chase describes a cache query unit at a
`
`first user station that queries the central cache directory for a location of a cached
`
`data and so discloses “wherein determining the second peer includes: generating,
`
`by a cache portion associated with the first peer, a location request.” Id. at 15
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 2:55-50, 6:58-7:17, fig. 3, step 300). For the limitation
`
`“communicating the location request to a master associated with the cache
`
`community,” Reloaded Games argues that Chase discloses a query message and
`
`directory server 17 is queried to determine if it has an entry corresponding to the
`
`requested data. Id. at 15-16 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:58-7:17, 7:62-8:19, fig. 3, step
`
`300). Finally, for the limitation “receiving a location response from the master, the
`
`location response indicating the second peer,” Reloaded Games argues that Chase
`
`discloses that directory server 11 or 17 returns a “HIT” message to querying station
`
`12 with the address of station 12 that has the requested object. Id. at 16-17 (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 6:58-7:18; 7:62-8:35; fig. 3, step 301; fig. 4, step 48).
`
`For claim 10, which recites a “computer readable storage medium including
`
`code for dynamic distributed data caching, the code operable to” carry out steps
`
`similar to the steps of claim 1, Reloaded Games relies on Chase as applied to
`
`claim 1. Id. at 19. Reloaded Games additionally argues that Chase describes that
`
`“[s]tations 12 and servers 11, 17 are . . . computers . . . which preferably run[]
`
`software processes to implement the present invention.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`6:54-59).
`
`For claim 19, which recites a “system for dynamic distributed data caching
`
`comprising” means-plus-function limitations with functions similar to the steps of
`
`claim 1, Reloaded Games argues that Chase discloses the recited functions and
`
`associated structure. Id. at 19-20. Parallel Networks argues that there is no need to
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`construe the “means,” because the cited art does not disclose the functions of
`
`“communicating a location request to a master associated with the cache
`
`community” or “receiving a location response from the master.” Prelim. Resp. 6-
`
`7.
`
`Reloaded Games argues that Chase discloses the function of “generating a
`
`content request for requested content at a first peer in a cache community” and a
`
`browser performing the function. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:15-16, 3:20-25, 6:64-
`
`67, fig. 3). Reloaded Games also argues that Chase discloses the function of
`
`“determining a second peer associated with the requested content, the second peer
`
`being associated with the cache community” and processor 18 running software
`
`process 30 or 40, server 11, or server 17 performing the function. Id. at 19-20
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 6:54-7:18, 7:64-8:35, figs. 3-4). Reloaded Games further argues
`
`that Chase discloses “retrieving by the first peer, the requested content from the
`
`second peer” and processor 18 running software process 30 performing the
`
`function. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:6-17, 4:27-29, 6:21-24, 6:54-7:57, 8:35-36,
`
`fig. 3). Reloaded Games asserts that Chase discloses “wherein the means for
`
`determining the second peer includes: means for generating, by a cache portion,
`
`associated with the first peer, a location request,” because Chase discloses the
`
`function of “generating, by a cache portion associated with the first peer, a location
`
`request” and processor 18 running software process 30 to perform that function.
`
`Id. at 20-21 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:54-7:18, 7:64-67, figs. 3-4). Reloaded Games also
`
`asserts that Chase discloses “communicating the location request to a master
`
`associated with the cache community” and a local area network connection
`
`performing the function. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1004, 5:33-37). Reloaded Games
`
`further asserts that Chase discloses “receiving a location response from the master,
`
`the location response indicating the second peer” and processor 18 running
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`software process 30 performing the function. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:54-7:18,
`
`8:30-35, figs. 3-4).
`
`Parallel Networks responds that Chase does not disclose a “master” as
`
`recited by independent claims 1, 10, and 19, because the directory server of Chase
`
`is not a device that determines whether to allow station 12 into local area network
`
`12 or to list station 12 in directory server 12. Prelim. Resp. 8-11. However, the
`
`independent claims do not recite that the master allows a peer to join a cache
`
`community, and as discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“master” in view of the Specification of the ’262 patent is not as narrow as Parallel
`
`Networks contends.
`
`Thus, based on the record before us, Reloaded Games reasonably identifies
`
`where Chase describes, expressly or inherently, every element of independent
`
`claims 1, 10, and 19. Pet. 9-17. We are persuaded that Reloaded Games has
`
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the
`
`ground that claims 1, 10, and 19 are anticipated by Chase.
`
`b. Dependent Claims 5-9, 14-18, and 23-27
`
`In addition, Reloaded Games reasonably identifies where Chase describes
`
`elements of dependent claims 5-9, 14-18, and 23-27. Id. at 17-19, 21. In relation
`
`to claim 5, which recites “wherein the cache portion includes a software
`
`application,” Reloaded Games contends Chase describes software processes to
`
`implement its disclosure. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:54-59). For claim 6, which
`
`recites the further step of “forwarding the content response to the second peer,”
`
`Reloaded Games argues that Chase discloses “the request would be routed to the
`
`local station that has cached the data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 4:6-17). Claim 7
`
`recites “wherein the content request includes a hypertext transport protocol
`
`request,” and Reloaded Games argues that Chase describes requested data as
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`transmitted in units of “pages,” which are formatted using Hypertext Transfer
`
`Protocol. Id. 17-18 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:10-19, 3:21-47). In relation to claim 8,
`
`which recites “wherein the content includes a web page,” Reloaded Games argues
`
`Chase describes a user being able to retrieve pages. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`3:21-23, 31-35). For claim 9, which recites “wherein the first and second peers
`
`respectively include a member of the cache community,” Reloaded Games asserts
`
`that Chase discloses stations 12 of local area network 10. Id. at 18-19 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, 3:31-35, 5:33-37). For dependent claims 14-18 and 23-27, Reloaded Games
`
`relies on its arguments for corresponding limitations in claims 5-9. Id. at 19, 21.
`
`We are persuaded that Reloaded Games has demonstrated that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the ground that dependent claims 5-
`
`9, 14-18, and 23-27 are anticipated by Chase.
`
`C. Obviousness over Chase and Scharber
`
`Reloaded Games argues that claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20-22 would have been
`
`obvious over Chase and Scharber. Pet. 50-54. We discuss Chase above.
`
`1. Scharber (Ex. 1008)
`
`Scharber describes a scheme for caching Internet content at one or more
`
`locations. Ex. 1008, 1:7-9. Scharber discloses that “[c]urrently, the primary
`
`method for creating cache hierarchies is through the use of the Internet Cache
`
`Protocol (ICP).” Id. at 4:27-28. Reproduced below is Figure 2 of Scharber.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts an example of a cache hierarchy. Id. at 6:41. Referring to
`
`Figure 2, Scharber describes that “when a cache 30 receives a request for content
`
`from a client 32, the cache 30 first determines whether it has a copy of the
`
`requested content.” Id. at 4:29-32. If cache 30 does not have the requested
`
`content, “cache 30 sends a request to its neighbor cache(s) 34 and then, if
`
`necessary, to its peer cache 36.” Id. at 4:32-36. Scharber further describes that
`
`“[e]ach neighbor cache 34 (i.e., those at the same level of the hierarchy as cache
`
`30) sends a response indicating whether it has the requested information.” Id. at
`
`4:37-39. If none of neighbor caches 34 have the requested information, cache 30
`
`forwards the request to peer cache 36. Id. at 4:46-48. If peer cache 36 does not
`
`have the requested information, peer cache 36 retrieves the content from origin
`
`server 38 and sends it to cache 30. Id. at 4:48-51.
`
`2. Analysis
`
`Claim 2 recites that the second peer retrieves the unavailable requested
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`content from an origin peer server and stores it at the second peer. Reloaded
`
`Games contends that “Chase . . . seeks to reduce network loads through distributed
`
`caching of data at user stations in a network” and “Scharber elaborates on this
`
`concept and teaches that if a peer cache (i.e., indicated user station) does not have
`
`the content requested by another cache (requesting user station), it can obtain it
`
`directly from the origin server, store it locally, and return it to a requesting cache.”
`
`Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 2:44-63, 5:25-29, 6:58-7:27; Ex. 1008, 4:46-51).
`
`Reloaded Games further argues Scharber discloses “retrieving, by the second peer,
`
`the requested content from an origin server when the requested content is
`
`unavailable at the second,” because Scharber describes peer cache 36 retrieving
`
`content from origin server 38 when peer cache 36 does not have the requested
`
`content. Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:48-51). Reloaded Games also argues that
`
`Scharber discloses “storing the requested content at the second peer,” because
`
`Scharber describes that peer cache 36 of Scharber has a copy responsive to the
`
`requested content but that copy may be stale. Id. at 52-53 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:48-
`
`50). Thus, Reloaded Games argues that, because the copy responsive to the
`
`requested content is stale, the copy has been stored.
`
`Regarding claim 3, which recites “wherein the requested content is
`
`unavailable when the requested content has been expired,” Reloaded Games argues
`
`Scharber discloses that peer cache 36 responds to a request by retrieving the
`
`content from origin server 38 if the cached copy is stale. Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1008,
`
`4:48-51). For claim 4, which recites “wherein the requested content is unavailable
`
`when the requested content is not stored at the second peer,” Reloaded Games
`
`argues Scharber discloses that peer cache 36 retrieves content from origin server
`
`38 if it does not have a cached copy. Id. at 53-54 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:37-42, 48-
`
`51). Reloaded Games relies on its arguments for claims 2-4 in its assertions that
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`Chase and Scharber disclose similar limitations recited by claims 11-13 and 20-22.
`
`Id. at 54.
`
`Reloaded Games further contends that a “person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have recognized that the distributed caching scheme described in Chase
`
`for requesting and obtaining data could have been combined with Scharber for
`
`actions to be taken if the peer cache does not have the requested content.” Id. at
`
`51. Reloaded Games cites a Declaration by Mr. Peter B. Danzig as support that “a
`
`skilled artisan would have recognized that such a modification would similarly
`
`reduce the amount of time it takes to obtain content and also decrease traffic.” Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 16).
`
`In response, Parallel Networks argues that Chase and Scharber fail to
`
`disclose multiple elements of the claims, such as a “master” that is responsible for
`
`determining membership of a cache community. Prelim. Resp. 26-30. Neither
`
`claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20-22 nor the independent claims from which these claims
`
`depend require that the recited “master” allows a peer to join a cache community,
`
`and as discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “master” in view
`
`of the Specification of the ’262 patent is broader than that implicit in Parallel
`
`Networks’ argument.
`
`Chase discloses that if station 12 requests data and central cache directory 16
`
`or 160 does not have an entry corresponding to the requested data, the requesting
`
`station 12 requests data from remote network 14. Ex. 1004, 5:59-65, 6:4-9.
`
`Scharber discloses that peer cache 36 retrieves content from origin server 38, stores
`
`the retrieved content, and sends the content to the requesting cache 30. Ex. 1008,
`
`4:48-51. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that Reloaded Games
`
`reasonably contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have achieved
`
`the claimed invention by modifying Chase in view of Scharber for actions to be
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`taken if a requesting station 12 does not have the requested content.
`
`Reloaded Games has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`it would prevail on the ground that claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20-22 of the ’262 patent
`
`would have been obvious over Chase and Scharber.
`
`D. Remaining Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`In addition to the grounds of unpatentability discussed above, Reloaded
`
`Games alleges other grounds with respect to the challenged claims. Upon review
`
`of those grounds, we determine that they are redundant in light of the grounds on
`
`which we institute inter partes review of the same claims. For example,
`
`Petitioner’s arguments that Kangasharju and Povey anticipate claims 1, 10, and 19
`
`do not explain how these references better disclose any claim elements than Chase.
`
`Similarly, Petitioner’s arguments do not explain why Chase combined with either
`
`Smith, Povey, or Kangasharju would be better than the combination of Chase and
`
`Scharber. We do not authorize an inter partes review on these redundant grounds.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Reloaded Games has
`
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on the
`
`grounds that Chase anticipates claims 1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-27, and that Chase
`
`and Scharber render obvious claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20-22 of the ’262 patent. The
`
`Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is granted with respect to the alleged
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ex. 1013 Page 19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00139
`Patent 7,730,262 B2
`
`
`ground, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, that Chase anticipates claims 1, 5-10, 14-19, and
`
`23-27 of the ’262 patent, and to the alleged ground, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, that
`
`claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20-22 of the ’262 patent would have been obvious over
`
`Chase and Scharber;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`
`partes review of the ’262 patent is instituted hereby commencing on the entry date
`
`of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is
`
`hereby given of the institution of a trial; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the other grounds presented in Reloaded
`
`Games’ Petition are denie