ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0119
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Reexam Control No.:
`
`901008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`Examiner:
`
`Confirmation No.:
`
`Patentees:
`
`U.S. Patent No.:
`
`Issued:
`
`Title:
`
`November 27, 2006
`
`3993
`
`Mary Steelman
`
`3417
`
`Keith Lowery, et al.
`
`6,415,335
`
`July 2, 2002
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING
`
`DYNAMIC WEB PAGE GENERATION REQUESTS
`
`Mail Stop: Appeal Brief- Patents
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Appeal Brief
`Appellants have appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the
`
`"Board") from the decision of the Examiner mailed March 30, 2009 (the "Final Office
`
`Action’.’) in the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceeding. Appellants filed a
`
`Notice of Appeal on June 30, 2009, with the statutory fee of $540.00. Appellants respectfully
`
`submit this Appeal Brief with the statutory fee of $540.00.
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045144
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 1
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`2
`
`Real Par~ in Interest
`This patent is currently owned by Parallel Networks, LLC, as indicated by an
`
`Assignment from epicRealm Licensing, LP, recorded on September 10, 2007, in the
`
`Assignment Records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) at Reel
`
`019795, Frame 0968 (five pages). EpicRealm Licensing, LLC, the party named in certain of
`
`the lawsuits identified in the next section of this Appeal Brief, assigned the patent to
`
`epicRealm Licensing, LP, as indicated by a conveyance in a merger agreement recorded on
`
`September 10, 2007, in the Assignment Records of the PTO at Reel 019795, Frame 0962 (six
`
`pages).
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045145
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 2
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`A’VI’ORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`3
`
`I.
`
`Litigation
`
`Statement of Related Cases
`
`Appellants hereby inform the Board that U.S. Patent No. 6,415,335 is or has been
`
`involved in the following litigation matters:
`
`1. epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc, et al., 2:05CV00163 (E.D.
`
`Tex.).
`
`2. Oracle Corporation, et al v. epicRealm Licensing LP, 1:06CV00414 (D. Del.).
`
`3. Quinstreet Inc. v. Parallel Networks, LP, I:06CV00495 (D. Del.).
`
`4. epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Franklin Covey Co., et al, 2:05CV00356 (E.D.
`
`5. epicR.ealm Licensing, LP. v. Various, Inc., 2:07CV00030 (E.D: Tex.).
`
`6. Parallel Networks, LLC v. Priceline.Com, Inc., et al., 2:08CV00045 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`7. Parallel Networks, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al., 2:07CV00562 (E.D. Tex.).
`8. epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Speedera Networks, Inc, 2:05CV00150 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`9. epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. The Macerich Company, 5:07CV00181 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`10. Parallel Networks, LLC v. Microsoft, 2009CV00172 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`A jury verdict in the epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc.
`
`(Friendfinder) litigation matter found claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,335 valid and
`
`infringed.
`
`II.
`
`PTO Appeals
`
`Additionally, Appellants hereby inform the Board that concurrently with this Appeal
`
`Brief, Appellants are filing a Notice of Appeal in the merged Reexamination of Control Nos.
`
`90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584, which is a reexamination of the patent from which this
`
`ease is a divisional.
`
`DAL01:1095810.1
`
`PN-00045146
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 3
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`4
`
`Status of Claims
`
`Claims 1-29 are subject to reexamination and Claims 1-29 are rejected. Claims 30-
`
`184 have previously been added and stand rejected. Thus, Claims 1-184 are pending in this
`
`Application and stand rejected pursuant to the Final Office Action. All pending claims are
`
`shown in Appendix A, along with an indication of the status of those claims. Claims 1-184
`
`are presented for Appeal.
`
`1.
`
`The Examiner objects to inconsistent terms within independent claims or
`
`between an independent claim and its dependent claims.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Examiner objects to the term "drives a format" in Claims 100 and 114.
`
`The Examiner objects to the term "pursuant to" in Claims 41-42, 82, 132, 151-
`
`152, and 171-172.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 33, 53, 73, 123, 143, 162 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’web requests’ ide,ntified by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 54-58, 67, 74-78, 87, 144-148, 157, 164-168, 177, and 184 stand
`
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term
`
`’Web Server’ identified by the Examiner.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 61- 62, 67, 81-82, 151, 157, 171-172, 177, and 184 s~and rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’Web
`
`page’ identified by the Examiner.
`
`7.
`
`Cla’tms 93-97, 99, 102-103, 107-111, 113, and 116-117 stand rejected under
`
`35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’the step’
`
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 181-184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as
`
`being incomplete for omitting essential steps.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 82-86, 88-90, 119, 172-176, and 178-180 stand rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’appropriate page
`
`server’ identified by the Examiner.
`
`10. Claims 49, 69, 89, 139, 159, and 179 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112,
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’relative busyness’ identified
`
`by the Examiner.
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045147
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 4
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`5
`
`11. Claims 30, 120, and 181-184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 3112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the terms ’informed selection’ and ’more
`
`efficiently’ identified by the Examiner.
`
`12. Claims 46, 66, 86, 136, and 156 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 3112, second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’least busy one’ identified by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`13. Claims 44, 64, 84, 134, 154, and 174 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112,
`
`second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’said page server’ identified by
`
`the Examiner.
`
`14. Claims 48, 68, 88, 138, 158, and 178 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 3112,
`
`~econd paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’capable of servicing the
`
`request’ identified by the Examiner.
`
`15. Claims 183 and 184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
`
`as being indefinite with respect to the term ’any other type of data repository’ identified by
`
`the Examiner.
`
`16. Claims 37-38, 57-58, 77-78, 127-128, 147-148, and 167-168 stand rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter not described in the
`
`specification.
`
`17. Claims 1-12, 15-26, 29, 40, 42, 47, 60, 62, 67, 80, 82, 87, 91-102, 105-116,
`
`119, 130, 132, 137, 150, 152, 157, 170, 172, 177, and 181-184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Christian Derler’s "The World-Wide Web Gateway to Hyper-
`
`G: Using a Counectionless Protocol to Access Session-Oriented Services," Institut fur
`
`Informationsverarbeitung und Comutergestitze neue Medien, pp. 1-104, March 1995.
`
`("Derler").
`
`18. Claims I-6, 8-12, 15-20, 22-26, 29, 40, 43, 47, 60, 63, 67, 80, 83, 87, 91-96,
`
`98-102, 105-110, 112-116, 119, 130, 133, 137, 150, 153, 157, 170, 173, 177, and 181-184
`
`stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being anticipated by Carl Lagoze, et al.’s "Dienst:
`
`Implementation reference Manual," pp. 1-69, May 5, 1995 ("Dienst").
`
`19. Claims 6-7, 20-21, 96-97, and 110-111 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Dienst in view of Derler.
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045148
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 5
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`6
`
`20. Claims 2, 16, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being
`
`anticipated by John Gaffney’s "Illustra’s Web DataBlade Module, An Illustra Technical
`
`Paper," SIGMOD Record, Vol. 25, No. 1, March 1996 ("Illustra").
`
`21. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-20, 22-25, 29, 91-96, 98-101, 105-110, 112-115, 119,
`
`and 181-184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being anticipated by Alexander
`
`Clausnitzer, et al.’s "A WWW Interface to the OMNIS/Myriad Literature. Retrieval Engine,"
`
`1995 ("Clausnitzer").
`
`22. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 15-18, 20, 22-24,. 29, 91-94, 96, 98-101, 105-108, 110,
`
`112-115, 119, and 181-184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by
`
`U.S. Patent 6,249,291 issued to Popp, et al. ("Popp").
`
`23. Claims 1-11, 15-25, 29, 91-101, 105-115, 119, and 181-184 stand rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 5,701,451 issued to Rogers, et al.
`
`("Rogers").
`
`24. Claims 13-14, 27-28, 103~-104, and 117-118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) as being unpat~ntable over Dienst in view of U.S. Patent 5,682,468 issued to
`
`Fortenbery, et al. ("Fortenbery").
`
`25. Claims 13-14, 27-28, 103-104, and 117-118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103(a) as being unpatentable over Derler in view of Fortenbery.
`
`26. Claims 30-34, 39, 41, 43-46, 48-50, 51-54, 59, 61, 63-66, 68-70, 71-74, 79,
`
`81, 83-86, 88-90, 120-124, 129, 131, 133-136, 138-140, 141-144, 149, 151, 153-156, 158-
`
`160, 161-166, 169, 171, 173-176, and 178-180 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Derler in view of U.S. Patent 5,459,837 issued "to Caceavale
`
`("Caccavale").
`27. Claims 35-38, 55-58, 75-78, 125-128, 145-148, and 165-168 stand rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Derler in view of Popp.
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045149
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 6
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATi ORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`7
`
`Status of Ami~ndments
`
`All amendments submitted by Appellants have been entered by the Examiner prior to
`
`the mailing of the Final Office Action.
`
`Appellants mailed a Response to Ex Parte Reexamination Final Office Action on
`
`April 30, 2009, (the "First Final Response"), which included a number of amendments to the
`
`claims suggested by the Examiner and Conferees in an in-person interview on April 20, 2009.
`
`The Examiner and Conferees stated that further consideration would be given to those
`
`amendments. However, the Examiner refused to enter the amendments of the First Final
`
`Response, as indicated in an Advisory Action mailed May 28, 2009 (the "First Advisory
`
`Action").
`
`Appellants mailed a Second Response to Ex Parte Reexamination Final Office Action
`
`on June 19, 2009, (the "Second Final Response"), which included a number of amendments
`
`to the claims. Entry of these amendments would greatly reduce the issues for consideration
`
`by the Board by obviating a number of objectiuns and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`Because the Examiner had not entered the Second Final Response as of the deadline
`
`for filing a petition to request entry, Appellants filed a Non-Fee Petition Under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1.181 for Entry of Amendments Submitted After Final Rejection in an Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination Proceeding on June 30,. 2009 (the "First Petition for Entry"), two months
`
`prior to the due date for this Appeal Brief, requesting entry of the amendments in the Second
`
`Final Response. Per applicable regulations and rules, this petition was to be reviewed by the
`
`Technology Center Director for the Reexaminations (the "TC Director"). Appellants filed
`
`the Notice of Appeal for the present Appeal this same day.
`
`The Examiner refused to enter the amendments in the Second Final Response, as
`
`indicated in an Advisory Action mailed July 1, 2009 (the "Second Advisory Action"). The
`
`Examiner alleged that the amendments would require further consideration and/or a new
`
`search, pointing to the same amendments suggested by the Examiner and Conferees in the in-
`
`person interview on April 20, 2009.
`
`Since Appellants had not received a decision on the First Petition for Entry,
`
`Appellants filed a Petition for Extension of Time on August 7, 2009, requesting a one-month
`
`extension of time for filing this Appeal Brief. Given the uncertain status of the claims and
`
`Appellants’ continuing desire to reduce issues for Appeal, Appellants believed the one-month
`
`extension was appropriate.
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045150
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 7
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0119
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`
`On August 12, 2009, the TC Director denied Appellants’ request for a one-month
`
`extension of time.
`
`On August 13, 2009, the TC Director dismissed Appellants’ First Petition for Entry.
`
`This was not a Final Office Decision.
`
`In light of the dismissal of the First Petition for Entry and Appellants’ desire to reduce
`
`issues for Appeal by, at a minimum, obviating the objections and a number of the rejections
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Appellants filed a number of Amendments after Notice of Appeal to
`
`attempt to address solely issues which the Examiner did not indicate would require further
`
`consideration and/or a new search. Appellants requested an interview with the Examiner to
`
`address certain of these amendments, hoping to reduce issues for Appeal, but the Examiner
`
`indicated that she had been instructed by her Supervisor not to grant the interview.
`
`Furthermore, on August 23, 2009, Appellants filed an Emergency Petition Under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 1.181(a)(3) Requesting that the Director of the USPTO Exercise his Supervisory
`
`Authority and Overturn the Decision of the Technical Center Director of Central
`
`Reexamination Unit 3999 dated August 13, 2009 (the "Emergency Petition for Entry").
`
`Concurrently with the Emergency Petition for Entry, Appellants file another Petition for
`
`Extension of Time, again requesting a one-month extension to allow the Director time to
`
`review the Emergency Petition for Entry, which could reduce issues for Appeal. According
`
`to the transaction history on PAIR, it appears this Petition for Extension of Time was denied
`
`on August 28, 2009, but no decision has been posted to the image file wrapper portion of
`
`PAIR as of today’s date. Thus, Appellants file the Appeal Brief today.
`
`As of the date of filing this Appeal Brief, Appellants have not received a decision on
`
`the Emergency Petition for Entry to the Director of the USPTO. Appellants also have not
`
`received a decision from the Examiner regarding whether any of the Amendments after
`
`Notice of Appeal to attempt to address solely issues which the Examiner did not indicate
`
`would require further consideration and/or a new search.
`
`Therefore, none of the amendments presented after final have been entered as of the
`
`filing of this Appeal Brief.
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045151
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 8
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`9
`
`Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
`
`The present invention relates to a method and apparatus for creating and managing
`
`custom Web sites. In certain embodiments, a computer-implemented method for managing a
`
`dynamic Web page generation request to a Web server, the computer-implemented method
`
`comprising the steps of routing a request from a Web server to a page server, the page server
`
`receiving the request and releasing the Web server to process other requests. The routing step
`
`further includes the steps of intercepting the request at the Web server and routing the request
`
`to the page server. Routing a request to a page server includes selecting which page server
`
`should process the request based on dynamic information maintained about page servers.
`
`The computer-implemented method further comprises the steps of processing the request, the
`
`processing being performed by the page server while the Web server concurrently processes
`
`the other requests, and dynamically generating a Web page in response to the request, the
`
`Web page including data dynamically retrieved from one or more data sources.
`
`FIG. I illustrates a typical computer system 100 in which portions of the present
`
`invention may operate. Embodiments of the present invention are implemented as a software
`
`module, which may be executed on a computer system such as computer system 100 in a
`
`conventional manner. The application software of the preferred embodiment is stored on data
`
`storage medittm 108 and subsequently loaded into and executed within computer system 100.
`
`Once initiated, the software of the preferred embodiment operates in the manner described
`
`below.
`
`FIG. 2 illustrates a typical prior art Web server environment. Web client 200 can
`
`make URL requests to Web server 201 or Web server 202. Web servers 201 and 202 include
`
`Web server executables, 201(E) and 202(E) respectively, which perform the processing of
`
`Web client requests. Each Web server may have a number of Web pages 201(1)-(n) and
`
`202(1)-(n). Depending on the URL specified by Web client 200, the request may be routed
`
`by either Web server executable 201(E) to Web page 201 (1), for example, or from Web
`
`server executable 202(E) to Web page 202 (1). Web client 200 can continue making URL
`
`requests to retrieve other Web pages. Web client 200 can als6 use hyperlinks within each
`
`Web page to "jump" to other Web pages or to other locations within the same Web page.
`
`FIG. 3 illustrates this prior art Web server environment in the form of a flow diagram.
`
`In processing block 300, the Web client makes a URL request. This URL request is
`
`examined by the Web browser to determine the appropriate Web server to which to route the
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045152
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 9
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`10
`
`request in processing block 302. In processing block 304 the request is then transmitted from
`
`the Web browser to the appropriate Web server, and in processing block 306 the Web server
`
`executable examines the URL to determine whether it is a HTML document or a CGI
`
`application. If the request is for an HTML document 308, then the Web server executable
`
`locates the document in processing block 310. The document is then transmitted back
`
`through the requesting Web browser for formatting and display in processing block 312.
`
`If the URL request is for a CGI application 314, however, the Web server executable
`
`locates the CGI application in processing block 316. The CGI application then executes and
`
`outputs HTML output in processing block 318 and finally, the HTML output is transmitted
`
`back to requesting Web browser for formatting and display in processing block 320.
`
`This prior art Web server environment does not, however, provide any mechanism for
`
`managing the Web requests or the Web sites. As Web sites grow, and as the number of Web
`
`clients and requests increase,.Web site management becomes a crucial need.
`
`For example, a large Web site may receive thousands of requests or "hits" in a single
`
`day. Current Web servers process each of these requests on a single machine, namely the
`Web server machine. Although these machines may be rurming "multi-threaded" operating
`
`systems that allow transactions to be processed by .independent "threads," all the threads are
`
`nevertheless on a single machine, sharing a processor. As such, the Web executable thread
`
`may hand off a request to a processing thread, but both threads will still have to be handled
`
`by the processor on the Web server machine. When numerous requests are being
`
`simultaneously processed by multiple threads on a single machine, the Web server can slow
`
`down significantly and become highly inefficient. The claimed invention addresses this need
`
`by utilizing a partitioned architecture to facilitate the creation and management of custom
`
`Web sites and servers.
`
`FIG. 4 illustrates one embodiment of the presently claimed invention. Web client 200
`
`issues a URL request that is processed to determine proper routing. In this embodiment, the
`
`request is routed to Web server 201. Instead of Web server executable 201(E) processing the
`
`URL request, however, Interceptor 400 intercepts the request and routes it to Dispatcher 402.
`
`In one embodiment, Interceptor 400 resides on the Web server machine as an extension to
`
`Web server 201. This embodiment is appropriate for Web servers such as NetsiteTM from
`
`Netscape that support such extensions. A number of public domain Web servers, such as
`
`NCSATM from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of
`
`DAL01:1095810.1
`
`PN-00045153
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 10
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`11
`
`Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, however, do not provide support for this type of extension.
`
`Thus, in an alternate embodiment, Interceptor 400 is an independent module, connected via
`
`an "intermediate program" to Web server 201. This intermediate program can be a simple
`
`CGI application program that connects Interceptor 400 to Web server 201. Alternate
`
`intermediate programs that perform the same functionality can also be implemented.
`
`In one embodiment of the invention, Dispatcher 402 resides on a different machine
`
`than Web server 201. This embodiment overcomes the limitation described above, in prior
`
`art Web servers, ~vherein all processing is performed by the processor on a single machine.
`
`By routing the request to Dispatcher 402 residing on a different machine than the Web server
`
`executable 201(E), the request can then be processed by a different processor than the Web
`
`server executable 201(E). Web server executable 201(E) is thus free to continue servicing
`
`client requests on Web server 201 while the request is processed "off-line," at the machine on
`
`which Dispatcher 402 resides.
`
`Dispatcher 402 can, however, also reside on the same machine as the Web server.
`
`The Web site administrator has the option of configuring Dispatcher 402 on the same
`
`machine as Web server 201, taking into account a variety of factors pertinent to a particular
`
`Web site, such as the size of the Web site, the number of Web pages and the number of hits at
`
`the Web site. Although this embodiment will not enjoy the advantage described above,
`
`namely off-loading the processing of Web requests from the Web server machine, the
`
`embodiment does allow flexibility for a small Web site to grow. For example, a small Web
`
`site administrator can use a single machine for both Dispatcher 402 and Web server 201
`
`initially, and then off-load Dispatcher 402 onto a separate machine as the Web site grows.
`
`The Web site can thus take advantage of other features of the present invention regardless of
`
`whether the site has separate machines configured as Web servers and dispatchers.
`
`Dispatcher 402 receives the intercepted request and then dispatches the request to one
`
`of a number of Page servers 404 (1)-(n). For example, if Page server 404 (1) receives the
`
`dispatched request, it processes the request and retrieves the data from an appropriate data
`
`source, such as data source 406, data source 408, or data source 410. Data sources, as used in
`
`the present application, include databases, spreadsheets, files and any other type of data
`
`repository. Page server 404 (1) can retrieve data from more than one data source and
`
`incorporate the data from these multiple data sources in a single Web page.
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045154
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 11
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0 i 19 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 901008,584
`12
`
`In one embodiment, each Page server 404(1)-(n) resides on a separate machine on the
`
`network to distribute the processing of the request. Dispatcher 402 maintains a variety of
`
`information regarding each Page server on the network, and dispatches requests based on this
`
`information. For example, Dispatcher 402 retains dynamic information regarding the data
`
`sources that any given Page server can access. Dispatcher 402 thus examines a particular
`
`request and determines which Page servers can service the URL request. Dispatcher 402 then
`
`hands off the request to the appropriate Page server.
`
`For example, if the URL request requires financial data from data source 408,
`
`dispatcher 402 will first examine an information list. Dispatcher 402 may determine that
`
`Page server 404(3), for example, has access to the requisite data in data source 408.
`
`Dispatcher 402 will thus route the URL request to Page server 404(3). This "connection
`
`caching" functionality is described in more detail below under the heading "Performance."
`
`Alternately, Dispatcher 402 also has the ability to determine whether a particular Page server
`
`already has the necessary data cached in the Page server’s page cache (described in more
`
`detail below under the heading "Performance"). Dispatcher 402 may thus determine that
`
`Page server 404(1) and 404(2) are both logged into Data source 408, but that Page server
`
`404(2) has the financial information already cached in Page server 404(2)’s page cache. In
`
`this ease, Dispatcher 402 will route the URL request to Page server 404(2) to more efficiently
`
`process the request.
`
`Finally, Dispatcher 402 may determine that a number or all Page servers 404(1)-(n)
`
`are logged into Data source 408. In this scenario, Dispatcher 402 can examine the number of
`
`requests that each Page server is servicing and route the request to the least busy page server.
`
`This "load balancing" capability can significantly increase performance at a busy Web site
`
`and is discussed in more detail below under the heading "Scalability."
`
`If, for example, Page server 404(2), receives the request, Page server 404(2) will
`
`process the request. While Page server 404(2) is processing the request, Web server
`
`executable 201(E) can concurrently process other Web client requests. This partitioned
`
`architecture thus allows both Page server 404(2) and Web server executable 201(E) to
`
`simultaneously process different requests, thus increasing the efficiency of the Web site.
`
`Page server 404(2) dynamically generates a Web page in response to the Web client request,
`
`and the dynamic Web page is then either transmitted back to requesting Web client 200 or
`
`stored on a machine that is accessible to Web server 201, for later retrieval.
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045155
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 12
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`13
`
`One embodiment of the present invention also provides a Web page designer with
`
`HTML extensions, or "dyna" tags. These dyna tags provide customized HTML functionality
`
`to a Web page designer, to allow the designer to build customized HTML templates that
`
`specify the source and placement of retrieved data. For example, in one embodiment, a
`
`"dynatext" HTML extension tag specifies a data source and a column name to allow the
`
`HTML template to identify the data source to log into and the column name from which to
`
`retrieve data. Alternatively, "dyna-anchor" tags allow the designer to build hyperlink queries
`
`while "dynablock" tags provide the designer with the ability to iterate through blocks of data.
`
`Page servers use these HTML templates to create dynamic Web pages. Then, as described
`
`above, these dynamic Web pages are either transmitted back to requesting Web client 200 or
`
`stored on a machine that is accessible to Web server 201, for later retrieval.
`
`The present invention provides numerous advantages over prior art Web servers,
`
`including advantages in the areas of performance, security, extensibility, and scalability.
`
`Performance
`
`One embodiment of the claimed invention utilizes connection caching and page
`
`caching to improve performance. Each Page server can be configured to maintain a cache of
`
`connections to numerous data sources. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, Page server
`
`404(I) can retrieve data from data source 406, data source 408 or data source 410. Page
`
`server 404(1) can maintain connection cache 412(1), containing connections to each of data
`
`source 406, data source 408 and data source 410, thus eliminating connect times from the
`
`Page servers to those data sources.
`
`Additionally, another embodiment of the present invention supports the caching of
`
`finished Web pages, to optimize the performance of the data source being utilized. This
`
`"page caching" feature, illustrated in FIG. 4 as Page cache 414, allows the Web site
`
`administrator to optimize the performance of data sources by caching Web pages that are
`
`repeatedly accessed. Once the Web page is cached, subsequent requests or "hits" will utilize
`
`the cached Web page rather than re-accessing the data source. This can radically hnprove the
`
`performance of the data source.
`
`Security
`
`The present invention allows the Web site administrator to utilize multiple levels of
`
`security to manage the Web site. In one embodiment, the Page server can utilize all standard
`
`encryption and site security features provided by the Web server. In another embodiment, the
`
`DAL01:I095810.1
`
`PN-00045156
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2036, pg. 13
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`14
`
`Page server can be configured to bypass connection caches 412(1)-(n), described above, for a
`
`particular data source and to require entry of a user-supplied identification and password for
`
`the particular data source the user is trying to access.
`
`Additionally, another embodiment of the presently claimed invention requires no real-
`
`time access of data sources. The Web page caching ability, described above, enables
`
`additional security for those sites that want to publish non-interactive content from internal
`
`information systems, but do not want real-time Intemet accessibility to those internal
`
`information systems. In this instance, the Page server can act as a "replication and staging
`
`agent" and create Web pages in batches, rather than in real-time. These "replicated" Web
`
`pages are then "staged" for acc