ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`67274 U.S. PTO
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,342,90/008,562,90/008,574
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`Reexam Controls No.:
`90/008,342,90/008,562, 901008,574
`Filing date:^
`November 27,2006
`Group Art Unit:
`3992
`Examiner:
`Mary Steelman
`Confirmation No.:
`2076
`Patentees:
`Keith Lowery, et al.
`U.S. Patent No.:
`5,894,554
`Issued:
`April 13, 1999
`Title:
`SYSTEM FOR MANAGING DYNAMIC WEB PAGE
`GENERATION REQUESTS BY INTERCEPTEVG
`REQUEST AT WEB SERVER AND ROUTING TO
`PAGE SERVER THEREBY RELEASING WEB
`SERVER TO PROCESS OTHER REQUESTS
`
`Mail Stop: Appeal Brief - Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 13-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Appeal Brief
`Appellants have appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the
`"Board") from the decision of the Examiner mailed April 29, 2009, (the "Final Office
`Action") in the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceeding. Appellants filed a
`Notice of Appeal on August 31, 2009, with the statutory fee of $540.00. Appellants
`respectfully submit this Appeal Brief with authorization to apply the statutory fee of $540.00
`to Appellants' Deposit Account.
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 1
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,342,90/008,562,90/008,574
`
`Real Party 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).
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 2
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,342,90/008,562, 901008,574
`
`3
`
`Statement of Related Cases
`
`I.
`
`Litigation
`Appellants hereby inform the Board that U.S. Patent No. 5,894,554 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.).
`
`Tex.).
`
`2. Oracle Corporation, et a1 v. epicRealm Licensing LP, 1:06CV00414 (D. Del.).
`3. Quinstreet Inc. v. Parallel Networks, LP, 1:06CV00495 (D. Del.).
`4. epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Franklin Covey Co., et al, 2:05CV00356 (E.D.
`
`5. epicRealm 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.).
`
`11.
`
`PTO Appeals
`Additionally, Appellants hereby inform the Board that the merged Reexamination of
`Control Nos. 90/008,343,90/008,568,90/008,584, which is a reexamination of the patent that
`is a divisional of this case, is on Appeal to the Board. An Appeal Brief has been filed in the
`divisional case.
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 3
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,342,90/008,562, 901008,574
`
`4
`
`Status of Claims
`Claims 1-1 1 are subject to reexamination and Claims 1-1 1 are rejected. Claims 12-
`281 have previously been added and stand rejected. Thus, Claims 1-281 are pending in this
`Application and stand rejected pursuant to the Final Ofice Action. All pending claims are
`shown in Appendix A, along with an indication of the status of those claims. Claims 1-281
`
`are presented for ~ ~ ~ e a 1 . l In particular, the claims stand objected tolrejected as follows.
`1.
`The Examiner objects to Claim 127 for being dependent on Claim 127.
`2.
`The Examiner objects to the term "pursuant to" in Claims 21-22, 5 1-52, 81 -82,
`111-112, 130-131, 150-151, 170-171, 190-191,210-211,230-231,250-251, and 270-271.~
`3.
`The Examiner objects to the term "consists of freeing at least some resources"
`in Claims 16,46,76, 106, 125, 145, 165, 185,205,225,245, and 265.
`Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`4.
`indefinite with respect to the term "any page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`5.
`indefinite with respect to the term "information used to select said page server" identified by
`the Examiner.
`Claims 28-29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph,
`6.
`as being indefinite with respect to the terms "said dispatcher" and "the plurality of page
`servers" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`7.
`indefinite with respect to the term "the selected page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`8.
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`9.
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`10.
`indefinite with respect to the terms "the selected page server" and "said page server"
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`' Appellants will be cancelling Claim 281 by amendment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 5 41.33(b)(l) without prejudice
`or disclaimer. Thus, Appellants do not address substantively the rejections of Claim 281.
`2 Appellants believe a typographical error occurred in the objection beginning after 271 at which the objection
`reads "82, 132, 151, 152, 171, 172." These claims either have already been identified earlier in the objection or
`do not include the term "pursuant to."
`If Appellants' understanding is incorrect, notice of such would be
`appreciated.
`
`DALOI: 1095945.1
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 4
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`
`11.
`
`Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`12.
`indefinite with respect to the terms "the selected page server" and "said page server"
`identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`13.
`indefinite with respect to the term "the page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 131 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`14.
`indefinite with respect to the term "information used to select said page server" identified by
`the Examiner.
`Claim 21 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 1 12, second paragraph, as being
`15.
`indefinite with respect to the term "information used to select said page server" identified by
`
`- the Examiner.
`
`16.
`Claims 29, 59, 89, 119, 138, 158, 178, 198, 218, 238, 258; and 278 stand
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term
`"relative busyness" identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 31, 39, 41, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. $ 112, second
`17.
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the terms "informed selection" and "more
`efficiently" identified by the Examiner.
`18.
`Claims26,56,86,116,135,155,175,195,215,235,255,and275stand
`rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term
`"least busy one" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 52 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`19.
`indefinite with respect to the terms "wherein information used to select said page server" and
`"said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 53 and 55-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph,
`20.
`as being indefinite with respect to the term "said page sewer" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 54 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`21.
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identifiedby the Examiner.
`22.
`Claims 58, 88, 118, 137, 157, 177, 197, 217, 237, 257, and 277 stand rejected
`under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 5
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342, 901008,562,901008,574
`
`6
`
`"examining information regarding which of the plurality of page servers are capable of
`servicing the request" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 59 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`23.
`indefinite with respect to the term "information" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 61 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`24.
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 69 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`25.
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 70 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`26.
`indefinite with respect to the term "a dispatcher" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 71 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`27.
`indefinite with respect to the term "said selected page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 79 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`28.
`indefinite with respect to the term "the page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 91, 99, and 101 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second
`29.
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the "wherein" clauses and the term "any other
`type of data repository" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 91 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`30.
`indefinite with respect to the term "which page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 94 and 97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as
`31.
`being indefinite with respect to the term "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. $ 112, second paragraph, as being
`32.
`indefinite with respect to the terms "said page server" and "about page servers" identified by
`the Examiner.
`
`Claims 99, 101-112, 120-124, 126-127, 129-131, 135, 137-144, 146-147, 149-
`33.
`151, 158-167, 169-170, 175, 177-1 87, 186, 190-191, 195, 197-199, 201-204, 206-208, 210-
`21 1, 215, 217-224, 226-231, 235, 237-244, 246-251, 255, 257-264, 266-268, 270-271, 275,
`and 277-281 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite with
`respect to the terms that are repeated a second time and lack the preceding term "said"
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 6
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,342,90/008,562,90/008,574
`
`7
`
`Claim 100 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`34.
`indefinite with respect to the term "said dispatcher receiving . . . to said selected page server"
`identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 101 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`35.
`indefinite with respect to the terms "said page server" identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 151 and 171 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 3 112, second paragraph,
`36.
`as being indefinite with respect to the term "wherein information used to select" identified by
`the Examiner.
`Claim 155 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 3 112, second paragraph, as being
`37.
`indefinite with respect to the term "said page server . . . of a plurality of page servers"
`identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 158-159 and 177-178 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second
`38.
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term "operable to examine information"
`identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 183 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`39.
`indefinite with respect to the term "wherein determining that a page server should process the
`request includes determining that Web requests should be processed by a page server"
`identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 195 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph, as being
`40.
`indefinite with respect to the term "wherein said page server is least busy of a plurality of
`page servers" identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 124-127 and 140 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second
`41.
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term "said Web server" identified by the
`Examiner.
`Claims 145-14, 156, and 160 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second
`42.
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the terms "said Web server" or "the Web
`server" identified by the ~xaminer.'
`Claims 164-167, 176, and 180 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 3 112, second
`43.
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the terms "said Web server" or "the Web
`server" identified by the Examiner.
`
`Appellants assume the Examiner intended to identify Claims 145-147. If this is incorrect, notice of such
`would be appreciated.
`
`DALOI: 1095945.1
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 7
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`
`112,
`Claims 99, 184-187, 196, and 200 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`44.
`second paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the terms "Web server" identified by the
`Examiner.
`45.
`
`Claims 31,39, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, second paragraph,
`as being incomplete for omitting essential steps.
`46.
`Claims 58, 88, 118, 137, 157, 177, 197, 217, 237, 257, and 277 stand rejected
`under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, first paragraph, as being based on a disclosure which is not enabling.
`47.
`Claims 17-1 8, 47-48, 77-78, 107-108, 126-127, 146-147, 166-167, 186-187,
`206-207, 226-227, 246-247, and 266-267 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5 112, first
`paragraph, as containing subject matter which not described in the Specification.
`48.
`Claim 281 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
`containing subject matter which not described in the Specification.
`49.
`Claims 58, 88, 118, 137, 157, 177, 197, 217,237, 257, and 277 stand rejected
`under 35 U.S.C. 101.
`50.
`Claims 58, 88, 118, 137, 157, 177, 197, 217, 237, 257, and 277 stand rejected
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 5 101.
`51.
`Claims 1-11, 15, 20, 22, 27, 31-41, 45, 50, 52, 57, 61-71, 75, 80, 82, 87, 91-
`101, 105, 110, 112, 117, 124, 129, 131, 136, 140, 144, 149, 151, 156, 160, 164, 169, 171,
`176, 180, 184, 189, 191, 196, 200, 204, 209, 21 1, 216, 220, 224, 229, 231, 236, 240, 244,
`249, 251, 256, 260, 264, 269, 271, 276, and 280 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
`Connectionless
`Protocol
`to Access
`Session-Oriented
`Services,"
`Insitut
`fur
`Informationsverarbeitung und Comutergestitze neue Medien, pp. 1-104, March 1995.
`("Derler").
`Claims 1-4, 7-1 1, 20, 23, 31-34, 37-41, 50, 53, 61-64, 67-71, 80, 83, 91, 97-
`52.
`101, 110,113, 129, 132,149,152,169, 172, 189,192,209,212,229,232,249,252,269,
`and
`272 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being anticipated by Carl Lagoze, et al.3
`"Dienst: Implementation reference Manual," pp. 1-69, May 5, 1995 ("Dienst").
`53.
`Claims 5-6, 35-36,65-66, and 95-96 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
`being unpatentable over Dienst in view of Derler.
`54.
`Claims (group 1) 12-14, 19, 2 1-26, 28-30, (group 2) 42-44, 49, 5 1-56, 58-60,
`(group 3) 72-74,79, 81-86, 88-90, (group 4) 102-104, 109, 11 1-1 16, 11 8-120, (group 5) 121-
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 8
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342, 901008,562,901008,574
`
`9
`
`123, 128, 130-135, 137-139, (group 6) 141-143, 148, 150-155, 157-159, (group 7) 161-163,
`168, 170-175, 177-179, (group 8) 181-183, 188, 190-195, 197-199, (group 9) 201-203, 208,
`210-215, 217-219, (group 10) 221-223, 228, 230-235, 237-239, (group 11) 241-243, 248,
`250-255, 257-259, (group 12) 261-263, 268, 270-275, and 277-279 stand rejected under 35
`U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Derler in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,459,837 to
`Caccavale ("Caccavale").
`Claims 16-18, 46-48, 76-78, 106-108, 125-127, 145-147, 165-167, 185-187,
`55.
`205-207, 225-227, 245-247, and 265-267 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Derler in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,291 to Popp, et al. ("Popp").
`Claims 1-11,31-41, 61-71, and 91-101 standrejectedunder 35 U.S.C. 5102(e)
`56.
`as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,701,45 1 to Rogers, et al. ("Rogers").
`Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 31-33,35,37-41,61-63,65,67-71,91-93,95,
`57.
`stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Popp.
`58.
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5102(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").
`59.
`Claims 1-5 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 5102(a) as being
`anticipated by Alexander Clausnitzer, et al.'s "A WWW Interface to the OMNISMyriad
`Literature Retrieval Engine," 1995 ("Clausnitzer").
`
`and 97-101
`
`DALO I : 1095945.1
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 9
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`901008,342,901008,562, 901008,574
`
`10
`
`Status of Amendments
`Appellants mailed a Response to Ex Parte Reexamination Final Offlce Action on
`
`April 30, 2009, (the "Response to Final"), which were made to obviate rejections under 35
`U.S.C. 5 112 and many of which adopted suggestions made by the Examiner. The language
`that is the subject of these rejections was introduced in the Response to Non-Final Office
`Action mailed March 25, 2009. On or about April 13,2009, prior to the mailing of the Final
`Office Action, Appellants called the Examiner and requested an interview to include the
`Examiner, Patent Owner's legal representatives, and one of the inventors to discuss a variety
`of issues, including the rejections of the claims made in the Non-Final Office Action and the
`amendments presented in response to the Non-Final Office Action. In the same call, Patent
`Owner requested an in-person interview with respect to a divisional of the present
`reexamination application, counterpart Reexam Control No. 901008,343. An interview date
`for Reexam Control No. 901008,343 was set for April 20,2009, presumably because it was in
`an after final state, but the Examiner stated that she would not be ready to interview the
`present reexamination application on that date.
`The interview for counterpart Reexam Control No. 901008,343 occurred on April 20,
`2009. During the interview, the Examiner again stated that she was not ready to discuss the
`present reexamination application. While preparing for a response due April 30, 2009 for
`Reexam Control No. 901008,343 for consideration by the Examiner and before incorporating
`similar language for presentation in the present reexamination application prior to issuance of
`a final office action, the Examiner issued a ninety-nine page Final Office Action on April 29,
`2009 in the present reexamination. Patent Owner could not understand how the Examiner
`I
`stated that she would not be ready to interview the present reexamination yet issue a ninety-
`nine page Final Office Action just nine days later. Further, no reason was provided by the
`Examiner as to why an interview in the present reexamination application could not be
`scheduled prior to issuance of the Final Office Action. It appears that the Examiner took
`efforts to expedite the issuance of a final office action, thus thwarting Patent Owner's ability
`to present claim amendments as a matter of right prior to issuance of a final office action.
`Patent Owner was not given an opportunity to interview the present reexamination
`application or submit any additional amendments that would be considered based on what
`could have been learned in an interview for the present reexamination application or what
`was learned in the interview of counterpart Reexam Control No. 901008,343 prior to a final
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 10
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,342,90/008,562,90/008,574
`
`11
`
`oflice action. The result is that Patent Owner was prematurely placed in an after-final
`position before clear issues were developed between Patent Owner and the Examiner and
`without giving Patent Owner a full and fair hearing.
`Appellants filed the Response to Final, which included a number of amendments
`attempting to obviate the 112 rejections presented for the first time in the Final Office Action.
`The Examiner refused to enter these amendments, alleging that the amendments would
`require further consideration and/or a new search. See Advisory Action. Appellants have
`filed a Non-Fee Petition Under 37 C.F.R. 5 1.181 for Entry of Amendments Submitted After
`Final Rejection in an Ex Parte Reexamination Proceeding on August 23, 2009 (the "Petition
`for Entry"), over two months prior to the due date for this Appeal Brief, requesting entry of
`the amendments in the Response to Final. Per applicable regulations and rules, this petition
`was to be reviewed by the Technology Center Director for the Reexaminations (the "TC
`Director"). However, to date, Appellants have not received a decision on the Petition for
`Entry. Appellants subsequently filed the Notice of Appeal for the present Appeal.
`In light of 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. 5 112 (and in light of not
`receiving a decision on the Petition for Entry), 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. As of the date of filing this Appeal
`Brief, Appellants 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 hrther consideration and/or a new search. These
`amendments were submitted shortly before filing of this Appeal Brief, so Appellants are not
`surprised that the Examiner has not had an opportunity to reconsider entry of the
`amendments. In any event, Appellants are hopeful that the Examiner will enter some or all of
`these amendments to reduce issues on Appeal and thereby advance prosecution.
`Therefore, none of the amendments presented after final have been entered as of the
`filing of this Appeal Brief. Additionally, Appellants note that they will be cancelling Claim
`281 by amendment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 5 41.33(b) (1) without prejudice or disclaimer.
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 11
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`
`Surnrnaw of Claimed Subieet 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, comprises 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. 1 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 medium 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 (I), 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 also 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
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 12
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,342,90/008,562,90/008,574
`
`13
`
`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 3 18 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 running "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
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 13
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`066241.0125
`
`PATENT REEXAMINATION
`90/008,342,90/008,562,90/008,574
`
`14
`
`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, wherein 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.
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2056, pg. 14
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Network