IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`In re patent of: Farber et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310
`
`Issued: September 21, 2010
`
`Title: CONTROLLING ACCESS TO
`DATA IN A DATA
`PROCESSING SYSTEM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 47015.136
`
`Customer No.:
`
`Real Parties
`in Interest: Rackspace US, Inc. and
`Rackspace Hosting, Inc.
`
`116298
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MELVIN RAY MERCER
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 1 of 111
`
`
`
`
`In re patent of: Farber et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310
`
`Issued: September 21, 2010
`
`Title: CONTROLLING ACCESS TO
`DATA IN A DATA
`PROCESSING SYSTEM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 47015.136
`
`Customer No.:
`
`Real Parties
`in Interest: Rackspace US, Inc. and
`Rackspace Hosting, Inc.
`
`116298
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MELVIN RAY MERCER
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 1 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MELVIN RAY MERCER
`
`I, Melvin Ray Mercer, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this Declaration at the request of Petitioner, Rackspace
`
`US, Inc., in connection with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,802,310 to Farber and Lachman, entitled “CONTROLLING ACCESS TO
`
`DATA IN A DATA PROCESSING SYSTEM” (“the ‘310 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I have been informed that
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) and Level 3 Communications,
`
`LLC (“Level 3”) each purport to own 50% of the ‘310 patent. I have no financial
`
`interest in PersonalWeb or Level 3, and I have had no contact with either company.
`
`I similarly have no financial interest in the ‘310 patent, and have had no contact
`
`with the named inventors of the ‘310 patent: David A. Farber and Ronald D.
`
`Lachman.
`
`4.
`
`In the preparation of this Declaration, I have studied:
`
`a. the ‘310 patent (RACK-1001);
`
`2
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 2 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`b. the prosecution history of the ‘310 patent (RACK-1002), including
`
`U.S. Application No.: 11/980,687, filed October 31, 2007;
`
`c. the various U.S. Applications to which the ‘310 patent purports to
`
`claim priority, namely, U.S. Application No.: 08/425,160, filed
`
`April 11, 1995 (RACK-1015), U.S. Application No.: 09/283,160,
`
`filed April 1, 1999 (RACK-1016), U.S. Application No.:
`
`09/987,723, filed November 15, 2001 (RACK-1018), U.S.
`
`Application No.: 10/742,972, filed December 23, 2003 (RACK-
`
`1019), U.S. Application No.: 11/017,650, filed December 22, 2004
`
`(RACK-1020), U.S. Application No.: 11/724,232, filed March 15,
`
`2007 (RACK-1024);
`
`d. U.S. Patent No. 5,649,196, entitled “System and Method for
`
`Distributed Storage Management on Networked Computer
`
`Systems Using Binary Object Identifiers,” granted on U.S.
`
`Application No.: 08/555,376, filed Nov. 9, 1995 as a continuation
`
`of application 08/085,596, filed July 1, 1993 (“Woodhill,” RACK-
`
`1003);
`
`e. U.S. Patent No. 4,845,715, entitled “Method for Maintaining Data
`
`Processing System Securing,” granted on U.S. Application No.:
`
`07/065,169, filed June 17, 1987 (“Francisco,” RACK-1004);
`
`3
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 3 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`f. PCT International Publication WO 96/32685, naming KINTECH,
`
`INC. as Applicant, dated October 17, 1996 (the “WO 96/32685
`
`publication,” RACK-1005);
`
`g. U.S. Patent No. 7,289,643, entitled “Method, Apparatus and
`
`Programs for Generating and Utilizing Content Signatures,”
`
`granted on U.S. Application No.: 10/027,783, filed December 19,
`
`2001 (“Brunk,” RACK-1006);
`
`h. Albert Langer, “Re: dl/describe (File descriptions),” article
`
`<1991Aug7.225159.786@newshost.anu.edu.au> in Usenet
`
`newsgroups “alt.sources.d” and “comp.archives.admin” (August 7,
`
`1991) (“Langer,” RACK-1007); and
`
`i. Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review, IPR2013-00082
`
`(RACK-1008);
`
`I. My Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`5. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is attached as Appendix A to this Report. A short synopsis of that material
`
`follows.
`
`6.
`
`I have more than 45 years of dual industrial and academic experience
`
`in Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering. I received a B.S. in
`
`4
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 4 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`Electrical Engineering from Texas Tech University in 1968. From 1968 to 1973, I
`
`was a Research/Development Engineer at General Telephone and Electronics
`
`Sylvania in Mountain View, California, and I received an M.S. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Stanford University in 1971. During this period, I programmed
`
`minicomputer systems (predecessors to personal computers, smartphones, and
`
`modern servers) in machine language, assembly language and various higher-level
`
`languages. I wrote simple Operating Systems, and most of the applications
`
`involved real-time processing as a significant aspect of the systems design.
`
`7.
`
`From 1973 to 1977, I was a Member of Technical Staff at Hewlett-
`
`Packard's Santa Clara Division and subsequently at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
`
`in Palo Alto, California. During this time, I continued to develop application
`
`programs - mostly in the area of real-time data acquisition and control of systems.
`
`In addition to designing the software associated with these systems, I also designed
`
`interface hardware to interact with the software of the computers and accomplish
`
`various tasks. Some of the applications I developed involved a significant number
`
`of data files associated with (to my knowledge) the first full scale study of the
`
`impact of environmental factors on the degradation of liquid crystal materials –
`
`such as those used in electronic clocks and watches.
`
`8.
`
`From 1977 to 1980, I was a Lecturer in the Division of Mathematics,
`
`Statistics, and Computer Science at the University of Texas at San Antonio. As the
`
`5
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 5 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`director of a laboratory for teaching students to program and build hardware
`
`interfaces with computers, I purchased, built, and operated some of the earliest
`
`personal computers. I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas at Austin in 1980.
`
`9.
`
`From 1980 to 1983, I was a Member of Technical Staff at Bell
`
`Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. My work involved the programming of
`
`computers and the hardware design of components for communication systems.
`
`Among other things, I was part of a three-person team that designed, tested, and
`
`directed the manufacture of an integrated circuit that was a key component in a
`
`digital telephone modem. This work involved significant amounts of data – mostly
`
`produced on a Cray machine with issues of version control, data access etc. I also
`
`was involved with telephone switching system engineers, who at that time were
`
`developing the 5ESS Telephone Switch. Such telephone systems have very
`
`sophisticated data handling constraints with, for example the classes of service and
`
`charges to customers for those services.
`
`10.
`
`In 1983, I was appointed Assistant Professor of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1987, I was
`
`promoted to Associate Professor and Professor in 1991. During this period I
`
`taught Computer Engineering courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, and
`
`6
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 6 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`I directed the research of graduate students. I consulted with (and my research was
`
`funded by) numerous industrial organizations (including AT&T).
`
`11.
`
`In 1995, I was appointed Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, Leader of the Computer Engineering Group, and Holder of the
`
`Computer Engineering Chair at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.
`
`My teaching, my research, my technical publications, and my supervision of
`
`graduate students during this period included the areas of the design and
`
`implementation of digital hardware and software systems, and my administrative
`
`duties - including the growth and enhancement of the Computer Engineering
`
`Group - directly involved Internet-based communication and control issues. As
`
`with my work at The University of Texas at Austin during this period, I taught
`
`courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, I directed the research of graduate
`
`students, and I consulted and did research with numerous organizations on topics
`
`related to the issues in this case. For example I oversaw the collection of data in an
`
`experiment to compare the relative efficient of testing methods for integrated
`
`circuits. Multiple companies were involved, and significant data protection was
`
`required to properly manage information proprietary to the various manufacturers.
`
`12.
`
`In September 2005, I retired from my teaching position, and the
`
`Regents of the Texas A&M University System appointed me as Professor Emeritus
`
`of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Texas A&M University.
`
`7
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 7 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`13. Since 1984, I have been an independent consultant and provided
`
`private consultation and advice in Electrical and Computer Engineering to
`
`numerous entities including IBM Corp., Rockwell International, Motorola
`
`Semiconductor, AT&T, Inc. and SigmaTel. Part of my consulting work at
`
`Rockwell International was directly related to the design of telephone modems.
`
`14.
`
`In 1994, my wife and I formed a company called Conference
`
`Management Services. It organizes technical conferences around the world, and it
`
`was one of the earliest companies to utilize on line databases as the basis for all
`
`organizing activities (including paper submission, review, and scheduling,
`
`conference registration, event scheduling and planning, support for exhibits, and
`
`hotel registration). I, with the help of undergraduate and graduate students in
`
`Computer Engineering, designed and implemented the early versions of this
`
`system. Numerous entities (technical contributors, submission reviewers,
`
`administrative personnel, hotels, conference centers, etc., provided and acquired
`
`information specific to their part of the conference activities. This information was
`
`carefully controlled and compartmentalized as required by our system. The
`
`interval of time when I was involved in these activities included the priority date
`
`for the patents at issue in this case. Today, Conference Management Services
`
`continues to provide such database / electronic file system enabled activities.
`
`8
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 8 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`I first served as an expert witness at the request of the Office of the
`
`State Attorney General of Texas in 1984. The case was about long distance
`
`telephone service. Since that time, I have been hired by numerous law firms to
`
`provide them and their clients with expert consultation and expert testimony - often
`
`in the areas of patent infringement litigation related to Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering.
`
`16.
`
`I was actively involved in numerous professional organizations
`
`including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE"), and I was
`
`recognized as an IEEE Fellow in 1994. I was the Program Chairman for the 1989
`
`International Test Conference, which is an IEEE-sponsored annual conference with
`
`(at that time) more than one thousand attendees and over one hundred presented
`
`papers. I won the Best Paper Award at the 1982 International Test Conference.
`
`17.
`
`I also won a Best Paper Award at the 1991 Design Automation
`
`Conference, an annual conference with (at that time) more than ten thousand
`
`attendees and five hundred submitted papers, many of which related to the design
`
`of integrated circuit based systems. The subject of that award-winning paper
`
`involved trade-offs between power consumption and processing speed in integrated
`
`circuits.
`
`18.
`
`I also won a Best Paper Award at the 1999 VLSI Test Symposium. I
`
`am the inventor of two United States patents that relate to the design of integrated
`
`9
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 9 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`circuits. I was selected as a National Science Foundation Presidential Young
`
`Investigator in 1986. That award included $ 500,000 in research funding and the
`
`document commemorating that award was signed by the President of the United
`
`States.
`
`19. Based upon these and other technical activities, I am familiar with the
`
`knowledge and capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the areas of distributed
`
`information systems and associated access controls. Specifically, my work with
`
`students -- undergraduates as well as Masters and Ph.D. candidates, with
`
`colleagues in academia, with engineers practicing in industry, with customers of
`
`Conference Management Services, and with lawyers and technical experts in the
`
`Computer Engineering area allowed me to become personally familiar with the
`
`level of skill of individuals and the general state of this art. Specifically, my
`
`experience (1) in the industry, (2) with undergraduate and post-graduate students,
`
`(3) with colleagues from academia, and (4) with engineers practicing in the
`
`industry allowed me to become personally familiar with the level of skill of
`
`individuals and the general state of the art. Unless otherwise stated, my testimony
`
`below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the computer network and
`
`software fields during the time period around the priority date for the patents-in-
`
`suit.
`
`10
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 10 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the fields of electrical and computer engineering in the 1990-2006
`
`timeframe. Specifically, my experience (1) in the industry, (2) with undergraduate
`
`and post-graduate students, (3) with colleagues from academia, and (4) with
`
`engineers practicing in the industry allowed me to become personally familiar with
`
`the level of skill of individuals and the general state of the art. Unless otherwise
`
`stated, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`computer network and software fields during the 1990-1995 time period.
`
`II. My Understanding of the Relevant Legal Standards
`
`21.
`
` I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ‘310 patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the
`
`prior art.
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102, a reference must teach every element of the claim.
`
`B. Obviouness
`
`23. Further, it is my understanding that a claimed invention is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and
`
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
`
`11
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 11 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`
`which the subject matter pertains. I also understand that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`24.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device (method, or product)
`
`in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`C. Written Description
`
`25.
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether
`
`sufficient written description exists in various priority documents such that person
`
`12
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 12 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would find that the inventors had possession of the
`
`subject matter claimed in certain claims of the ‘310 patent. It is my understanding
`
`that, for an earlier filed application to provide adequate disclosure to support a
`
`claim of priority, the earlier filed application must disclose the later claimed
`
`subject matter in accordance with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, first paragraph. Specifically, it is my understanding that the Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the test for determining compliance
`
`with the written description requirement is whether the disclosure on the earlier
`
`filed application reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
`
`possession, at that earlier time, of the claimed subject matter. Put another way, one
`
`skilled in the art, reading the original disclosure, must immediately discern the
`
`limitation at issue in the claims. I understand that the question is not whether one
`
`skilled in the art might have been able to produce the later claimed invention by
`
`building upon the teachings of the earlier application and, indeed, a description that
`
`merely renders obvious the later claimed invention is not sufficient to establish
`
`priority.
`
`III. Subject Matter of the ‘310 patent
`
`26.
`
`I have reviewed and understand the specification, claims, and
`
`drawings (RACK-1001) and the file history (RACK-1002) of U.S. Patent
`
`7,802,310 (“the ‘310 patent”). I have also reviewed and understand the
`
`13
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 13 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`specification, claims, and drawings of the applications to which the ‘310 patent
`
`claims priority, including the U.S. Application 08/425,160 (RACK-1015, the
`
`“‘5160 application”), which granted as U.S. Patent 5,978,791. Unless otherwise
`
`noted, references in this section to description of the ‘310 patent also apply to the
`
`‘5160 application.
`
`27. The ‘310 patent describes data storage systems that use “substantially
`
`unique identifiers” to identify data items. The “substantially unique identifiers” (or
`
`“True Names”) are based all the data in a data item and only the data in the data
`
`item. (See RACK-1001, 3:50-58, 31:38-48.)
`
`28. According to the ‘310 patent, prior art systems identified data items
`
`based on their location or address within the data processing system. (RACK-
`
`1001, 1:53-58.) For example, files were often identified by their context or
`
`“pathname,” i.e., information specifying a path through the computer directories to
`
`the particular file (e.g., C:\MyDocuments\classes\EE350\lecture1.ppt). (See
`
`RACK-1001, 1:65-2:5.) The ‘310 patent contends that all prior art systems
`
`operated in this manner, stating that “[i]n all of the prior data processing systems[,]
`
`the names or identifiers provided to identify data items … are always defined
`
`relative to a specific context,” and “there is no direct relationship between the data
`
`names and the data item.” (RACK-1001, 2:26–31, 2:39-40 (emphasis added).)
`
`14
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 14 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`29. According to the ‘310 patent, this prior art practice of identifying a
`
`data item by its context or pathname had certain shortcomings. For example, with
`
`pathname identification, the same data name may refer to different data items, or
`
`conversely, two different data names may refer to the same data item. (RACK-
`
`1001, 2:39-43.) Moreover, because there is no correlation between the contents of
`
`a data item and its pathname, there is no a priori way to confirm that the data item
`
`is in fact the one named by the pathname. (RACK-1001, 2:44-47.)
`
`30. The ‘310 patent purports to address these shortcomings. (RACK-
`
`1001, 3:30-44.) It suggests that “it is therefore desirable to have a mechanism …
`
`to determine a common and substantially unique identifier for a data item, using
`
`only the data in the data item and not relying on any sort of context.” (RACK-
`
`1001, 3:30-35.) Moreover, “[i]t is further desirable to determine whether two
`
`instances of a data item are in fact the same data item, and to perform various other
`
`systems' functions and applications on data items without relying on any context
`
`information or properties of the data item.” (RACK-1001, 3:39-44.)
`
`31. To do so, the ‘310 patent describes substantially unique identifiers
`
`that “depend[] on all of the data in the data item and only on the data in the data
`
`item.” (RACK-1001, 1:44-48; see also 3:50-55.) The ‘310 patent uses the terms
`
`“True Name” and “data identifier” to refer to the substantially unique identifier for
`
`a particular data item (RACK-1001, 6:20-22) and explains that a True Name is
`
`15
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 15 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`computed using a message digest function (see RACK-1001, 12:21-46). Preferred
`
`embodiments use either of the MD5 or SHA message digest functions to calculate
`
`a substantially unique identifier from the contents of the data item. (RACK-1001,
`
`12:21-48.)
`
`32. The ‘310 patent calls these context- or location-independent, content-
`
`based identifiers “True Names”–a phrase “coined by the inventors.” (See RACK-
`
`10xB2, U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280, Prosecution History, Response (Aug. 22, 2001)
`
`at 22.) Specifically, the ‘310 patent itself indicates that it is the “True Name of a
`
`file [that] can be used to identify a file by contents, to confirm that a file matches
`
`its original contents, or to compare two files. (RACK-1001, 14:50-54). Based on
`
`my review of the ‘310 patent, True Name is the only content-based (or content-
`
`dependent) name (or identifier) described in the ‘310 patent.
`
`33.
`
`In the preferred embodiments, the substantially unique identifiers or
`
`True Names are used to “augment” standard file management functions of an
`
`existing operating system. (See RACK-1001, 6:25-32.) For example, a local
`
`directory extensions (LDE) table is indexed by a pathname or contextual name of a
`
`file and also includes True Names for most files. (See RACK-1001, 8:27-34.) A
`
`True File registry (TFR) lists True Names, and stores “location, dependency, and
`
`migration information about True Files.” (See RACK-1001, 8:35-37, 8:41-43.)
`
`True Files are identified in the True File registry by their True Names, and can be
`
`16
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 16 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`looked up in the registry by their True Names. (See RACK-1001, 8:38-40, 23:3-4.)
`
`This look-up provides, for each True Name, a list of the locations, such as file
`
`servers, where the corresponding file is stored. (See RACK-1001, 32:62–64; see
`
`also 15:35-37.) For licensable data items (e.g., files), a license table records the
`
`identity each system that is authorized to have a copy of the data item (or file)
`
`together with its associated True Name. (See RACK-1001, 11:33-44; 31:17-23.)
`
`34. The ‘310 patent posits a “Track for Licensing Purposes” mechanism
`
`that purports to ensure that licensed files are not used by unauthorized parties. (See
`
`RACK-1001, 31:3-32.) Individual records of a license table record a relationship
`
`between a licensable data item (identified by its True Name) and the user that is
`
`licensed to have access to it. (See RACK-1001, 11:19-31.) The ‘310 patent
`
`describes a license validation or audit process by which content of a given user
`
`processor may be remotely determined, using the Locate True File mechanism (see
`
`RACK-1001, 22:61-23:34), and checked against the license table to confirm that
`
`the user processor does not have a copy of a file whose True Name appears in the
`
`license table but for which the user processor is not authorized. (See RACK-1001,
`
`31:13-32.) If the user processor is found to have a file that it is not authorized to
`
`have, the user processor and True Name are recorded in a license violation table.
`
`(See RACK-1001, 31:30-32.)
`
`17
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 17 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`35. Although the ‘310 patent indicates that active enforcement of valid
`
`licenses could be provided by refusing to provide access to a file without
`
`authorization (see RACK-1001, 31:9-12), I was unable to find any specific
`
`description of a mechanism to do so. Based on my review of the ‘310 patent, the
`
`license table is the only disclosed association between a content-based (or content-
`
`dependent) name (or identifier) and authorization information.
`
`IV. Claims of the ‘310 patent
`
`36.
`
`I understand that claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16-19, 24, 29, 32, 70, 81,
`
`82 and 86 of the ‘310 patent are being challenged in the above-referenced petition
`
`for inter partes review. For ease of reference, the notations introduced in the
`
`following chart will be used herein when referring to particular portions of claims
`
`1, 2, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16-19, 24, 29, 32, 70, 81, 82 and 86 of the ‘310 patent:
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[1a]
`
`[1b]
`
`Claim 1
`
`A computer-implemented method in a system which includes a
`network of computers, the method implemented at least in part by
`hardware comprising at least one processor, the method comprising the
`steps:
`
`(a) at a first computer, obtaining a content-based name for a particular
`data item from a second computer distinct from the first computer, the
`content-based name being based at least in part on a function of at least
`some of the data which comprise the contents of the particular data
`item, wherein the function comprises a message digest function or a
`hash function, and wherein two identical data items will have the same
`content-based name; and
`
`18
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 18 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`[1c]
`
`(b) by hardware in combination with software, a processor at said first
`computer ascertaining whether or not the content-based name for the
`particular data item corresponds to an entry in a database comprising a
`plurality of identifiers; and
`
`[1d]
`
`(c) based at least in part on said ascertaining in (b), determining
`whether or not access to the particular data item is authorized.
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[2]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[5]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[6]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[7]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`Claim 2
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 further comprising:
`(d) based at least in part on said determining in (c), causing access to
`the particular data item to be denied when it is determined that access
`to the particular data item is not authorized.
`
`Claim 5
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 wherein said database comprises a table
`or a list comprising said plurality of identifiers.
`
`Claim 6
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the plurality of identifiers in
`the database are identifiers of licensed content items, and wherein the
`identifier of each licensed content item is based at least in part on the
`function of at least some of the data comprising the licensed content
`item.
`
`Claim 7
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 further comprising:
`(d) collecting information regarding the particular data item.
`
`Claim 8
`
`[8]
`
`A method as recited in claim 7, wherein the information collected
`
`19
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 19 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[10]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[11]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[12]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[14]
`
`includes at least one of: (a) information about which data items have
`been stored on a computer; (b) information about the content of the
`particular data item, (c) information about an owner of the particular
`data item, (d) information about a type of particular data item, (e)
`information about a contextual name of the particular data item, (f)
`information about whether the particular data item was copied; (g) the
`content-based name of the particular data item; (h) information about
`an identity of a requestor; (i) a timestamp; (j) information about
`whether the particular data item was created; and (k) information about
`whether the particular data item was read.
`
`Claim 10
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 further comprising:
`(d) tracking identities of data items.
`
`Claim 11
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the content-based name of the
`particular data item is based, at least in part, on a function of all of the
`data which comprise the contents of the particular data item.
`
`Claim 12
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the message digest function or
`hash function is selected from the functions: MD4, MD5, and SHA.
`
`Claim 14
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 wherein the particular data item is
`selected from the group comprising: a file, a portion of a file, a page in
`memory, a digital message, a portion of a digital message, a digital
`image, a portion of a digital image, a video signal, a portion of a video
`signal, an audio signal, a portion of an audio signal, a software
`product, and a portion of a software product.
`
`20
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 20 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[16]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[17]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[18]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[19]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[24a]
`
`[24b]
`
`Claim 16
`
`A method as recited in claim 1 further comprising:
`(d) authorizing access to the particular data item when it is not
`determined that the data item is unauthorized.
`
`Claim 17
`
`A method as recited in claim 16 wherein the authorized access permits
`copying of the particular data item to or from at least one of the
`computers in said network of computers.
`
`Claim 18
`
`A method as recited in claim 16 wherein the content-based name of the
`particular data item is received at the first computer and wherein, if it
`is not determined that said particular data item is unauthorized, access
`to the data item is permitted from at least one of a plurality of
`computers distinct from the first computer.
`
`Claim 19
`
`A method as recited in claim 16 wherein, if it is not determined that
`access to said particular data item is unauthorized, access to the data
`item is permitted from more than one of a plurality of computers in the
`network of computers.
`
`Claim 24
`
`A computer-implemented method implemented at least in part by
`hardware comprising one or more processors, the method comprising:
`
`(a) using a processor, receiving at a first computer from a second
`computer, a request regarding a particular data item, said request
`including at least a content-dependent name for the particular data
`item, the content-dependent name being based, at least in part, on at
`
`21
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 21 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`least a function of the data in the particular data item, wherein the data
`used by the function to determine the content-dependent name
`comprises at least some of the contents of the particular data item,
`wherein the function that was used comprises a message digest
`function or a hash function, and wherein two identical data items will
`have the same content-dependent name; and
`
`(b) in response to said request:
`(i) causing the content-dependent name of the particular data item
`to be compared to a plurality of values;
`
`(ii) hardware in combination with software determining whether or
`not access to the particular data item is unauthorized based on
`whether the content-dependent name of the particular data item
`corresponds to at least one of said plurality of values, and
`(iii) based on said determining in step (ii), not allowing the
`particular data item to be provided to or accessed by the second
`computer if it is determined that access to the particular data item is
`not authorized.
`
`Claim 29
`
`The method of claim 24 wherein the data used by the function to
`determine the content-dependent name of the particular data item
`comprises only the contents of the particular data item.
`
`Claim 32
`
`The method of claim 24 wherein the data used by the function to
`determine the content-dependent name of the particular data item
`comprises of all of the contents of the particular data item.
`
`Claim 70
`
`A computer-implemented method operable in a system which includes
`a network of computers, the system implemented at least in part by
`hardware including at least one processor, the method comprising the
`
`[24c]
`
`[24d]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[29]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[32]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[70a]
`
`22
`
`GOOG-1009-Page 22 of 111
`
`
`
`
`
`steps of:
`
`[70b]
`
`[70c]
`
`[70d]
`
`Claim
`Portion
`
`[81a]
`
`[81b]
`
`in response to a request at a first computer, from another computer,
`said request comprising at least a content-based identifier for a
`particular data item, the content-based identifier for the particular data
`item being based at least in part on a given function of at least some
`data which comprise the contents of the particular data item, wherein
`the given function comprises a message digest or a hash function, and
`wherein two identical data items will have the
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
