`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________
`RELOADED GAMES, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00950
`Patent 7,188,145
` ____________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,188,145
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................ 2
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(A) ...................................... 2
`B. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) AND RELIEF
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................................. 2
`1. The Grounds For Challenge ............................................................................ 3
`2. Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ........................................ 3
`3. Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................... 4
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ‘145 PATENT ............................................................... 5
`A. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF THE ‘145 PATENT ........................... 5
`B. SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ‘145 PATENT ........................... 6
`IV. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED
`CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................................................................... 8
`A. SMITH IN VIEW OF INOHARA RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, 23 AND
`25-28 OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ............................................................... 8
`V. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ............................ 33
`A. REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST AND RELATED MATTERS .......................................... 33
`B. LEAD AND BACK-UP COUNSEL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)(3) ............................ 34
`C. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 35
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Reloaded Games, Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests an Inter Partes Review
`(“IPR”) of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 25-28 (collectively, the
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145 (“the ’145 Patent”) issued on March
`6, 2007 to Keith A. Lowery, et al. (“Applicants”). Exhibit 1001, ‘145 Patent.
`On November 11, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review
`requesting review of claims 1-36 of the ‘145 Patent. Exhibit 1011, Reloaded Games, Inc.
`v. Parallel Networks LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00136 (KLD), Paper 4 [IPR Petition]. In
`the Board’s Decision on Institution it was ordered that the November 11, 2013 petition
`was granted with respect to challenges to claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 16-18, 20, 21, 24 and 29-36
`based on the combination of Inohara and Smith. Ex. 1012, Case No. IPR2014-00136,
`Paper 15 [Institution Decision].
`This petition challenges independent claim 1, from which previously instituted
`claims 2, 4 and 10 depend, and dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11- 14. This petition also
`challenges claim 15, from which previously instituted claims 16, 18 and 24 depend.
`Finally, this petition challenges dependent claims 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25-28.
`All of the claims challenged in the present petition are rendered obvious by
`Inohara in view of Smith. Petitioner below provides a detailed comparison of the
`claimed subject matter in view of the combination of Inohara and Smith. Claims 1, 4, 5,
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`8, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 25-28 are unpatentable in view of the combination of
`Inohara and Smith.
`II. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`Each requirement for IPR of the ‘145 Patent is satisfied under §42.104.
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘145 Patent is available for inter partes review and that
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging
`these claims on the grounds identified in this petition. Although Petitioner was served
`more than one year ago with a complaint asserting infringement of this patent, the normal
`statutory one-year bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not apply here because (1) the
`Board has already instituted an inter partes review trial on this patent on a timely first
`petition filed by Reloaded (Ex. 1011, Case No. IPR2014-00136, Paper 4 [IPR Petition]),
`and (2) Petitioner accompanies this second petition with a motion for joinder under 35
`U.S.C. § 315(c).
`B.
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief
`Requested
`In view of the prior art, evidence, and claims charts, claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, 19,
`22, 23 and 25-28 of the ‘145 Patent are unpatentable and should be cancelled. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(1).
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`The Grounds For Challenge
`1.
`Based on the prior art references identified below, IPR of the Challenged Claims
`should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`Proposed Statutory Rejections for the ‘145 Patent
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 25-28 are obvious under
`§ 103(a) over Smith in view of Inohara.
`
`Exhibit No.
`1006 and
`1007
`
`
`
`Section IV identifies where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in the
`prior art patents. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The exhibit numbers of the supporting
`evidence relied upon to support the challenges are provided above and the relevance of
`the evidence to the challenges raised are provided in Section IV. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(5). Exhibits 1001 – 10131 are also attached.
`Claim Construction Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`a) Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the Claims
`A claim subject to IPR receives the “broadest reasonable construction in light of
`the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For purposes
`of IPR only, Petitioner submits that all terms of the ‘145 Patent claims should be given
`
`2.
`
`
`1 Certain exhibit numbers are intentionally left blank so that the exhibit numbers
`correspond between this petition and IPR2014-000136.
`2 By applying the Board’s claim constructions in this Petition, Petitioners are not ceding
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`i)
`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`their ordinary and customary meaning that the term would have to one of ordinary skill in
`the art2, subject to the following constructions:
`Relevant Terms Interpreted by the Board in the Institution Decision
`The Board has already rendered certain constructions with respect to the ‘145
`Patent. Relevant to the present petition are the following constructions:3
`• “allowing” and “allow” were construed as meaning “to permit the presence
`of.” Ex. 1012, Case No. IPR2014-00136, Paper 15 at 13-15 [Institution
`Decision].
`• “cache community” and “community” were construed to mean “similarity
`or identity” or “sharing, participation, and fellowship.” Ex. 1012, Case No.
`IPR2014-00136, Paper 15 at 12-13 [Institution Decision].
`Level of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`3.
`
`
`2 By applying the Board’s claim constructions in this Petition, Petitioners are not ceding
`the accuracy of or waiving the right to challenge such constructions. Further, application
`of this claim construction analysis is not a concession by Petitioners as to the proper
`scope of any claim term in any litigation. These assumptions are not a waiver of any
`argument in any litigation that claim terms are indefinite or otherwise invalid.
`
`3 The Board also construed additional terms, but those constructions are not relevant in
`
`this Petition.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘145 Patent would have
`a B.S. in computer science or related engineering discipline or equivalent experience and
`at least two years in networking or equivalent experience or education. The person would
`also have some knowledge of networking of computers, distributed systems, data
`caching, and implementation of distributed networks in computer systems. See, Ex.
`1002, Danzig Declaration at ¶ 9.
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ‘145 PATENT
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ‘145 Patent
`The ‘145 Patent describes a method and system for caching data, for example, in a
`community network. Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patent at 1:39-45, Fig. 3. The method of the ‘145
`Patent is based on the presence of a cache community having one or more peers that
`cache content. Id. at Abstract. The method allows clients to join the community upon
`request, after which a peer list is updated to include the client and content is associated
`with the client. Id. at 23:43-24:33, 25:17-30. In response to the joinder of a new client, the
`cache storage of the peers in the community is re-allocated. Id. at 25:23-25.
`In another embodiment of the method, a request is made to an administration
`module for a list of communities. Id. at 23:43-46. In response, the client selects a
`community and generates a request in an attempt to join the selected community. Id. at
`23:48-24:9. If successful, an allow message and peer list associated with the community
`are received by the client. Id. at 24:65-25:21. Based on the addition, each peer receives
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`content for cache storage re-allocation and each peer and/or origin server provides
`content for cache storage re-allocation. Id. at claim 29. The systems described by the ‘145
`Patent relate to logic encoded on storage and operable to implement the methods
`described above, or other “means for” performing the methods. See e.g., claims 15-36.
`B.
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ‘145 Patent
`The ‘145 Patent was filed as U.S. Ser. No. 09/759,406 (“the ‘406 Application”) on
`January 12, 2001 with 105 initial claims. See Ex. 1008, ‘145 File History at As-Filed
`Application. On August 5, 2004, the Examiner indicated that Applicants had verbally
`selected Group One in response to a restriction requirement made over the phone and
`also rejected all of the elected claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as anticipated by U.S.
`Patent No. 6,330,605 to Christensen, et al. Id. at 3-7. In response, Applicants amended
`their claims to include limitations relating to the location of a cache community relative
`to a “point of presence.” Id. at November 5, 2004 Office Action Response, p. 2. The PTO
`issued a final rejection of all claims on March 1, 2005 as being anticipated by Christensen
`and/or obvious over Christensen in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,785,704 to McCanne. Id. at
`March 1, 2005 Office Action, pp. 2-7.
`After Applicants requested continued examination on April 29, 2005 to garner
`consideration of an amendment after final, the PTO again rejected all claims, this time
`finding three independent claims anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,864,854 to Boyle and
`the remaining claims obvious over Boyle in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,477,150 to
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`Maggenti et al. On September 7, 2005, Applicants attempted to argue over the rejection
`without amending the claims and the PTO issued a final rejection on the same grounds on
`November 25, 2005.
`Applicants again requested continued examination after submitting an amendment
`after final that was not entered as it would involve further search. In their RCE,
`Applicants amended the independent claims to include limitations relating to “allocating
`the first content portion and second content portion among the peers in the cache
`community in response to allowing the client to join the community.” Id. at February 26,
`2006 Response, pp. 2, 5, 12, 13.
`On May 16, 2006, the PTO issued another rejection of three independent claims
`under §102(b) as anticipated by Boyle, of additional claims as anticipated by Maggenti
`under §102(e) and the remaining claims as obvious over Boyle in view of Maggenti. On
`August 16, 2006, among other amendments, Applicants amended all claims to include a
`limitation generally relating to re-allocation of cache storage among the peers. Id. at
`August 16, 2006 Response, at claim 1.
`On October 24, 2006, the USPTO mailed a Notice of Allowance and the patent
`issued on March 6, 2007 with 36 claims. The Notice of Allowance noted the following
`reason for allowance:
`The prior art of record does not disclose, teach, or suggest neither singly nor
`in combination the claimed limitation of “re-allocating the cache storage of
`the content among the peers in the cache community, in response to
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`allowing the client to join the community” as recited in claims 1, 16, 101
`and similarly recited in claims 95, 98 and 105.
`Id. at October 24, 2006 Notice of Allowance.
`IV. THERE
`IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`Distributed caching systems were prevalent well before January 12, 2001. The
`following prior art references disclose each limitation of the Challenged Claims. As such,
`the Challenged Claims are unpatentable. Included in the claim charts below are
`exemplary citations to the prior art references.
`A.
`Smith in view of Inohara Renders Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22,
`23 and 25-28 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`By way of background, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted
`an IPR on the ‘145 patent using the same combination of references proposed here –
`Smith in view of Inohara. While the PTAB did not make an express finding that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Smith in view of Inohara
`because claim 1 was not challenged on those grounds, it instituted trial on claims 2-4,
`6, 7 and 10, all of which directly or indirectly depend from claim 1. Similarly, instituted
`claims 16-18, 20, 21, and 24 depend directly or indirectly from claim 15. Thus, the
`PTAB has already indirectly found that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is
`invalid as all of its limitations are expressly included in claim 2. Similar logic applies
`to claim 15 and the prior institution of dependent claim 16. In addition to this implicit
`finding that claims 1 and 15 are unpatentable, there is also a reasonable likelihood that
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`the remaining claims are unpatentable over Smith in view of Inohara as described
`below and in the Institution Decision in IPR2014-00136.
`Smith was not cited or considered during prosecution and discloses a distributed
`data caching scheme utilizing an array of proxy servers. Ex. 1006, Smith at 1:5-15; Fig.
`2. Smith also teaches sharing array membership information between proxy servers in
`the array so that all proxy servers know where object data resides. Id. at 4:31-36. A
`membership list is updated upon allowing the addition or removal of members to the
`array. Id. at 4:67-5:6, 18:49-53. When a proxy server is added or removed, all of the
`remaining proxy servers will be assigned fewer or additional data objects to store in
`their local cache. Id. at 12:50-62.
`Like Smith and the ‘145 Patent, Inohara describes a distributed caching
`infrastructure and recognizes that rapid growth of internet usage has created increased
`response times for users. Ex. 1007, Inohara at Abstract, 3:4-15; Ex. 1006, Smith at 2:18-
`24. As with Smith, Inohara allows for the addition of servers to form a group of servers
`(i.e., community) that make up the large-scale cache. Id. at 9:16-10:36. Inohara expressly
`discloses permitting the presence of or “allowing” a server to join a community. Id.; see
`also Ex. 1012, Case No. IPR2014-00136, Paper 15 [Institution Decision] at 30 (“As for
`Parallel Networks’ argument that Inohara does not disclose allowing a client to join a
`community, we are not persuaded in view of our construction of “allow” or “allowing” to
`mean “to permit the presence of,” for example, a client. If the sum of the number of old
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`members and new members in Inohara is smaller than MAX, Inohara would permit the
`presence of the server requesting to join.”); see also Ex. 1007, Inohara at 8:25-27 (“A
`group update message 320 is a message sent (in a usual case, from a leader) to a server
`permitted to participate in a group.”)(Emphasis added). Inhoara’s disclosure of
`determining whether to permit the presence of a client in a community based on whether
`the sum of the old and new members is smaller than a maximum number (“MAX”) is
`expressly contemplated by the ‘145 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patent at 20:53-55
`compared to Ex. 1007, Inohara at 10:38-11:3. Inohara further recognizes that the benefits
`of caching will reduce response time for users. Ex. 1007, Inohara at Abstract, 3:48-58.
`To solve this problem, Inohara suggests a distributed server environment in which servers
`can join groups and share the contents of their caches through the exchange of a cache
`directory. Id. at 1:8-15, 4:23-32, 9:16-10:36. Specifically, a server may request a list of
`other server groups and select a specific server group to join. Id.
`Smith similarly seeks to reduce levels of traffic on the Internet through a
`distributed caching scheme. Ex. 1006, Smith at Abstract. Smith discloses allowing a
`client to join a community, receiving a peer list associated with the community, and re-
`allocating content based on joinder of the client. See e.g., id. at 12:42-62. Smith also
`discloses updating a proxy server array membership list upon the addition of a new array
`and communicating that list to other arrays in the group. Id. at 16:61-17:18, 18:49-19:4.
`Smith specifically states: “many different implementations may be envisioned by those
`
`
`
` 10
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`skilled in at the art that will allow a proxy server to be added to the proxy server array.”
`Id. at 18:51-53. Inohara discloses one such implementation and teaches that it would be
`useful to allow cache servers the ability to search for and join cache groups so as to
`increase the effectiveness of the caching scheme. Ex. 1007, Inohara at 3:48-58. A person
`having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the distributed caching
`scheme described in Smith could have been combined with Inohara to include the
`function of allowing proxy servers the ability to search for and join arrays.
`Upon reading the disclosure of Inohara, a skilled artisan would have recognized
`that such a modification would increase the effectiveness and performance of the system
`described in Smith due to the resulting large-scale cache that extends over a plurality of
`servers. Ex. 1002, Danzig Declaration, at ¶ 17. A skilled artisan would have also
`appreciated that this improvement to Smith could be achieved simply by adding the
`functionality of allowing proxy servers to request a listing of arrays and join an array
`through submitting a request to join.
`Claims 4 and 5 of the ‘145 Patent each recite “generating an allow message” and
`the generated “allow message” of claim 5 is a different message from the generated
`“allow message” of claim 4. Consistent with the ‘145 Patent, a message including an
`updated list of servers in the group constitutes “an allow message comprising an updated
`peer list.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patetn at 25:18-29, Fig. 10. Smith specifically teaches
`that, upon allowing a server to join an array, it would be useful to update a proxy array
`
`
`
` 11
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`membership list to include the newly-added server. Ex. 1006, Smith at 17:9-18, 17:53-65,
`18:49-19:4. Further, Smith describes that it would be useful to communicate the updated
`proxy array membership list to other servers in the array. Id. Inohara discloses that, upon
`permitting a server to join the group, the group leader updates the “group table” to
`include the newly added server and transmits the “group table” to the new server. Ex.
`1007, Inohara at 10:60-66, 10:19-30. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have recognized that the Inohara process of updating the list of servers that are part of the
`group as part of the process of permitting a server to join the group could have been
`readily combined with Smith. Indeed, this combination would have furthered Smith’s
`stated purpose of maintaining up to date information about where to find requested
`information. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, Smith at 4:31-36, 4:66-5:6.
`The above modifications would have yielded predictable results without requiring
`undue experimentation. As is evident from the descriptions above, Smith and Inohara are
`in the same field of endeavor as the ‘145 Patent and are each analogous to the ‘145
`Patent. See Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patent at 1:11-20. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, 23
`and 25-28 should be canceled under § 103(a) as being obvious over Smith in view of
`Inohara.
`
`Claim 1
`1. A method for dynamic
`distributed data caching
`comprising:
`
`Obvious over Smith (Ex. 1006) in view of Inohara (Ex.
`1007)
`Smith discloses a method of utilizing multiple proxy servers
`to make up a dynamic distributed cache for URL data
`objects.
`
`
`
` 12
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`“[T]he present invention involves an array of multiple
`proxy servers configured together to act as a single
`distributed cache of information identified through the
`use of Uniform Resource Locators (“URL”).” Ex. 1006,
`Smith at 1:8-12; also 4:59-61, 13:11-16, 7:56-64, 9:59-
`67, Figs. 2 and 5.
`term “array membership
`the
`“As used herein,
`information” refers to information regarding all the
`servers making up an array of servers that can be
`configured into a distributed cache.” Id. at 7:19-22.
`“When changes are made to the proxy server array
`membership, the URL data object assignments among
`the array members may also change.” Id. at 12:41-43.
`
`Inohara similarly discloses a method of caching information
`stored throughout a group of servers.
`“The present invention relates to a computer processing
`system, particularly to a system managing method in
`structuring a system in which a plurality of computers
`connected by a network distribute, share and change
`information (or an information processing system), and
`more particularly to a distributed server managing
`method which is suitable for world-wide web (WWW)
`and a distributed information processing system which
`uses such a method.” Ex. 1007, Inohara at Abstract.
`Smith discloses an array of proxy servers (i.e., peers)
`configured together to act as a distributed cache (i.e., cache
`community comprising at least one peer). Id. at 1:8-12.
`Smith discloses the array being on one side of an ISP (i.e.,
`point of presence) and that content is obtained over the
`Internet (i.e., from a second side of the point of presence)
`and placed into the local cache of the appropriate proxy
`server.
`“FIG. 2 is a logical diagram illustrating how an array of
`proxy servers may be logically configured to be a single
`distributed cache having a greater capacity.” Id. at 5:58-
`60, Fig. 2.
`
`[1(a)] 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;
`
`
`
` 13
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`“One benefit [of having a proxy server acting as a cache
`for URL data objects] is that for cached items, the total
`access time for a user is generally reduced since the
`connection between the client 20 and the proxy server 21
`is typically over a Local Area Network (“LAN”) rather
`than having to access the data object over the Internet or
`other Wide Area Network (“WAN”).” 2:19-24; also at
`2:24-40, 9:32-44, 20:34-56.
`“Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the invention
`as explained using URL data objects accessed over the
`Internet will apply to many other environments having a
`distributed store of data objects.” Id. at 7:15-18; also at
`7:5-15.
`“If lateral access is active as determined at step 110,
`indicating that the proxy server is operating as part of a
`distributed cache in a proxy server array such as that
`shown in FIG. 5, the request is analyzed to determine
`whether it was made from another member of the proxy
`server array …. If so, then the proxy server receiving the
`request is the correct proxy server but simply does not
`have the desired URL data object in the local cache as
`previously determined at step 104. In such a case, the
`desired URL data object must be accessed over the
`Internet at step 114 and placed in to the local cache at
`step 116. At that point, the URL data object may be
`returned at step 118 to the client in an appropriate
`response before processing ends at step 108.” Id. at
`11:41-57; also at Fig. 6, step 114, Figs. 4, 14.
`
`Inohara similarly discloses a group of servers (i.e., peers)
`configured together to act as a distributed cache (i.e., cache
`community). Ex. 1007, Inohara at 3:48-50 (“The solution
`of the first and second problems will result in the realization
`of a large-scale cache which extends over a plurality of
`servers.”); also 1:7-15. Inohara discloses the server group
`being on one side of an ISP (i.e., point of presence) and that
`content is obtained over the Internet (i.e., obtained from a
`second side of the point of presence) and placed into the
`local cache of the appropriate server. Id. at 5:33-54, 6:3-9,
`
`
`
` 14
`
`

`

`[1(b)] allowing a client to
`join the cache community;
`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`Fig. 1.
`Smith discloses allowing a proxy server (i.e., client) to join
`the proxy server array (i.e., cache community).
`“Referring now to FIG. 11, the steps taken in order to add
`a proxy server to the proxy server array are shown.
`Again, many different
`implementations may be
`envisioned by those skilled in at the art that will allow a
`proxy server to be added to the proxy server array.
`After beginning at step 194, a new proxy server is
`designated as being added to the array at step 196.” Id. at
`18:49-55; also 6:49-50, 17:9-18, Fig. 11.
`Inohara specifically teaches permitting the presence of a
`client (i.e. allowing a client to join) the cache community.
`Specifically, Inohara discloses that the group “leader”
`receives a group participation message (i.e., join request)
`and determines whether to permit the presence of a server
`in the group based on whether the group has reached a
`maximum number of members.
`
`“A group participation message 300 is a message issued
`by a server which wants to newly participate in a group.
`This message is used for both the case where one server
`wants to participate in the group and the case where a
`plurality of servers want to participate in (or change) the
`group. The group participation message 300 has new
`server ID's 301, 301′, . . . stored therein. They are the ID's
`of servers which want to newly participate in the group.”
`Ex. 1007 at 8:1-8.
`“A group update message 320 is a message sent (in a
`usual case, from a leader) to a server permitted to
`participate in the group.” Id. at 8:25-27 (emphasis
`added).
`“In step 412, a group participation message 300 is
`transmitted to the most proximate server in a group of
`servers stored in the server status table (for example, a
`server having the maximum value as the value of division
`of throughput 222 by latency 223).” Id. at 10:13-17.
`
`
`
` 15
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`“Next, a processing in the case where the group
`participation request message 300 is received will be
`described using FIG. 5.
`When the server 10 receives a group participation
`message 300, the server 10 judges whether or not the
`server 10 itself is a leader (step 501). More particularly,
`the server 10 is a leader if leader server ID 231 of a group
`table 110 is “idle” or is stored with the server ID of the
`server 10 itself. … On the other hand, if the judgement in
`step 501 is Y (505), the server 10 determines how should
`a group be constructed in accordance with a change in the
`number of members in the group. First, the number of
`members having presently participated in the group (or
`the number of server ID's 232, 232′, . . . in the group
`table 110) is examined and is taken as the “number of old
`members”. And, the number of servers included in the
`group participation message 300 (or the number of new
`server ID's 301, 301′, . . . ) is taken as the “number of new
`members”. In step 506, the judgement is made of
`whether or not the sum of the number of old members
`and the number of new members is smaller than MAX
`mentioned earlier. If this judgement is Y (507), new
`server ID's 301, 301′, . . . included in the group
`participation message 300 are added to server ID's 232,
`232′, . . . of the group table 110 (step 508). In step 509,
`the server ID of the server 10 is stored into new leader
`server ID of a group update message 320 and this
`message is transmitted as a response to a group of servers
`corresponding to new server ID's 301, 301′, . . . of the
`group participation message 300.” Id. at 10:38-11:3; see ;
`also at Fig. 5, steps 501, 503, 505, 506; Fig. 4, step 412.
`
`“The external server 13, 13′, 13″, . . . , the client 11 or the
`server 10, 10′, 10″, . . . may be realized by not a computer
`but the combination of a computer and software. In
`particular, the present invention may be embodied
`without applying any change to a computer itself but by a
`program (or process) which operates on the computer.”
`Id. at 5:64-6:2.
`
`
`
` 16
`
`

`

`[1(c)] updating a peer list
`associated with the cache
`community to include the
`client,
`the
`peer
`list
`indicating the peers in the
`cache community;
`
`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`Smith discloses use of an array membership list (i.e., peer
`list) that contains an identification of each array member,
`such as each member’s IP address. The membership list is
`updated based on the addition of a new member (i.e.,
`client). As shown in Figures 9A and 9B below, proxy
`servers 168, 172, and 176 (i.e., peers) all have array
`membership lists 170, 174 and 178 respectively. See Ex.
`1006, Smith at Figs. 9A, 9B.
`term “array membership
`“As used herein,
`the
`information” refers to information regarding all the
`servers making up an array of servers that can be
`configured into a distributed cache. … Note that such
`array membership information may be incorporated into
`a file or data structure that may be shared or updated
`between the different array members, such as an array
`membership list. Array membership information would
`necessarily include some form of identification of each
`array member that can be used to access that member,
`such as server name or IP address.” Id. at 7:19-32; also
`4:31-36, 4:66-5:6.
`“In FIG. 9B, a third proxy server 176 with an array
`membership list 178 has been added to the proxy server
`array 166 according to the steps shown in FIG. 11 as will
`be shown in more detail hereafter. Once the third proxy
`server 176 has been added to the proxy server array
`166, array membership
`information will be
`communicated between first proxy server 168, second
`proxy server 172, and third proxy server 176 such that
`the corresponding array membership lists reflect the
`addition of the third proxy server 176 as will be
`explained later in connection with the steps shown in the
`flow chart of FIG. 10.” Id. at 17:9-18.
`“Referring now to FIG. 11, the steps taken in order to add
`a proxy server to the proxy server array are shown. …
`After beginning at step 194, a new proxy server is
`designated as being added to the array at step 196. In
`order to make this proxy server avail[a]ble to other
`members of the array and enabled clients, the new proxy
`
`
`
` 17
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00950
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`server is given access or indication of at least one existing
`array member at step 198 so that the new proxy server
`can request an array membership list from that existing
`