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.:
`Filing Date:
`Group Art Unit:
`Examiner:
`Confirmation No.:
`Patentees:
`U.S. Patent No.:
`Issued:
`Title:
`
`90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`November 27, 2006
`3993
`Mary Steelman
`3417
`Keith Lower!, et al.
`6,415,335
`July 2, 2002
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING
`DYNAMIC WEB PAGE GENERATION REQUESTS
`
`A2q2q: Mail Stop "Ex Parte Reexam"
`Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`Response to Ex Parte Reexamination Final Office Action
`
`The Patent Owner submits this Response and Amendments to the Final Office Action
`mailed March 6, 2012 in the above-identified Ex Parte Reexamination.
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173973
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 1
`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
`
`2
`
`IN THE CLAIMS
`
`1. (Canceled).
`
`2. (Canceled).
`
`3. (Canceled)
`
`4. (Canceled).
`
`5. (Canceled).
`
`6. (Canceled).
`
`7. (Canceled).
`
`8. (Canceled).
`
`9. (Canceled).
`
`10. (Canceled).
`
`I 1. (Canceled).
`
`12. (Canceled).
`
`13. (Canceled).
`
`14. (Canceled).
`
`15. (Canceled).
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`’ , ,I~, ~ I’’’ I
`....
`
`6
`
`~ ,, ,’ ~ ~
`
`, ~ , ,
`
`2
`
`’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
`
`PN-00173974
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 2
`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
`3
`
`16. (Canceled).
`
`17. (Canceled).
`
`18. (Canceled).
`
`19. (Canceled).
`
`20. (Canceled).
`
`21. (Canceled).
`
`22. (Canceled).
`
`23. (Canceled).
`
`24. (Canceled).
`
`25. (Canceled).
`
`26. (Canceled).
`
`27. (Canceled).
`
`28. (Canceled).
`
`29. (Canceled).
`
`30. (Canceled).
`
`31. (Canceled).
`
`DAL01:1197205,1
`
`PN-00173975
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, 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
`
`32. (Canceled).
`
`33. (Canceled)
`
`34. (Canceled).
`
`35. (Canceled).
`
`36. (Canceled).
`
`37. (Canceled).
`
`38. (Canceled).
`
`39. (Canceled).
`
`40. (Canceled).
`
`41. (Canceled).
`
`42. (Canceled).
`
`43. (Canceled).
`
`44. (Canceled).
`
`45. (Canceled).
`
`46. (Canceled).
`
`47. (Canceled).
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173976
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, 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
`
`48. (Canceled).
`
`49. (Canceled).
`
`50. (Canceled).
`
`51. (Canceled).
`
`52. (Canceled).
`
`53. (Canceled).
`
`54. (Canceled).
`
`55. (Canceled).
`
`56. (Canceled).
`
`57. (Canceled).
`
`58. (Canceled).
`
`59. (Canceled).
`
`60. (Canceled).
`
`61. (Canceled).
`
`62. (Canceled).
`
`63. (Canceled)
`
`DAL01 : 1197205.1
`
`PN-00173977
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 5
`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
`
`64. (Canceled).
`
`65. (Canceled).
`
`66, (Canceled).
`
`67. (Canceled).
`
`68. (Canceled).
`
`69. (Canceled).
`
`70. (Canceled).
`
`71. (Canceled).
`
`72. (Canceled).
`
`73. (Canceled).
`
`74. (Canceled).
`
`75. (Canceled).
`
`76. (Canceled).
`
`77. (Canceled).
`
`78. (Canceled).
`
`79. (Canceled).
`
`DAL01 : 1197205.1
`
`PN-00173978
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 6
`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
`7
`
`80. (Canceled).
`
`81. (Canceled).
`
`82. (Canceled).
`
`83. (Canceled).
`
`84. (Canceled).
`
`85. (Canceled).
`
`86. (Canceled).
`
`87. (Canceled).
`
`88. (Canceled).
`
`89. (Canceled).
`
`90. (Canceled).
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173979
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 7
`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
`8
`
`91. A computer-implemented method for managing a dynamic Web page generation
`request to a Web server, said computer-implemented method comprising the steps of:
`routing a request from a Web server to a selected one of a pluraliW of page servers
`that can each process the request, said selected pa~e server receiving said request and
`releasing said Web server to process other requests wherein said routing step further includes
`the steps of:
`
`intercepting said request at said Web server; and
`selectin~ said selected page server from among said plurality of page servers
`
`that can each process said request based on dynamic information maintained for each of said
`plurality of page servers; and
`routing said request to said selected page server;
`processing said request, said processin~ being performed by said selected page server
`while said Web server concurrently processes said other requests; and
`dynamically generating a Web page at said selected page sewer in response to said
`request, said Web page including data d¥onrnleally retrieved from one or more data sources.
`
`92. (Canceled).
`
`93. The computer-implemented method in claim 91, wherein said step of processing
`said request includes a step of identifying said one or more data sources from which to
`retrieve said data.
`
`94. The computer-implemented method in claim 91, wherein said step of dynamically
`generating said Web page includes a step of dynamically retrieving said data from said one or
`more data sources.
`
`95. The computer-implemented method in claim 91, wherein said step of processing
`said request includes a step of said selected page server maintaining a connection cache to
`said one or more data sources.
`
`DAL01 : 1197205.1
`
`PN-00173980
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, 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
`
`96. The computer-implemented method in claim 91, wherein said step of processing
`said request includes a step of logging into said one or more data sources.
`
`97. The computer-implemented method in claim 91, wherein said step of dynamically
`generating said Web page includes a step of maintaining a page cache containing said Web
`oa~e.
`
`98. The computer-implemented method in claim 91, wherein said selected pa~e
`server includes tag-based text templates for configuring said Web page.
`
`99. The computer-implemented method in claim 98, wherein said step of processing
`said request further includes a step of inserting said-dynamically retrieved data from said one
`or more data sources into said tag-based text templates.
`
`100. The computer-implemented method in claim 98, wherein at least one of said tag-
`based text templates drives a format of the data dvnamicailv retrieved from said one or more
`data sources in response to said request.
`
`101. The computer-implemented method in claim 98, wherein said tag-based text
`templates include HTML templates.
`
`102. The computer-implemented method in claim 91, wherein said step of processing
`said request further includes a step of dynamically updating data at said one or more data
`sources.
`
`103. The computer-implemented method in claim 91, wherein said step of processing
`said request further includes a step of processing an object handling extension.
`
`104. The computer-implemented method in claim 103, wherein said obieet handling
`extension is an OLE extension.
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173981
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, 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
`
`105. A computer-implemented method comprising the steps of:
`transferring a request from an HTTP-eompliant device to a selected one of a plurality
`
`of page servers that can each process the request, said selected page server receiving said
`request and releasing said HTTP-compliant device to process other requests wherein said
`transferring step further includes the steps of:
`intercepting said request at said HTTP-compliant device; and
`selecting said selected page server from among said plurality of page servers
`
`that can each process said request based on dynamic information maintained for each of said
`pluraiity of pa~e servers: and
`transferring said request to said selected page server;
`
`processing said request, said processing being performed by said selected page server
`while said HTTP-eompliant device concurrently processes said other requests; and
`dynamically generating a page at said selected page server in response to said request,
`said page including data dvnnmlcally retrieved from one or more data sources.
`
`106..(Canceled).
`
`107. The computer-implemented method in claim 105, wherein said step of
`processing said request includes a step of identifying said one or more data sources from
`which to retrieve said data.
`
`108. The computer-lmplemented method in claim 105, wherein said step of
`dynamically generating said page includes a step of dynamically retrieving said data from
`said one or more data sources.
`
`109. The computer-implemented method in claim 105, wherein said step of
`processing said request includes a step of said selected page server maintaining a connection
`cache to said one or more data sources.
`
`110. The computer-implemented method in claim 105, wherein said step of
`processing said request includes a step of loggin? into said one or more data sources.
`
`DAL01 : 1197205.1
`
`PN-00173982
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, 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
`
`111. The computer-implemented method in claim 105, wherein said step of
`dyn~mleally generating said page includes a step of maintaining a page cache containing said
`
`112. The computer-implemented method in claim 105, wherein said page server
`includes tag-based text templates for configuring said page.
`
`113. The computer-implemented method in claim 112, wherein said step of
`processing said request further includes a step of inserting said dynamically retrieved data
`from said one or more data sources into said tag-based text templates.
`
`114. The computer-implemented method in claim 112, wherein at least one of said
`tag-based text templates drives a format of the data dvnamicailv retrieved from said one or
`more data sources in response to said request.
`
`115. The computer-implemented method in claim 112, wherein said tag-based text
`templates include HTML templates.
`
`116. The computer-implemented method in claim 105, wherein said step of
`processing said request further includes a step of dynamically updating data at said one or
`more data sources.
`
`117. The computer-implemented method in claim 105, wherein said step of
`processing said request further includes a step of processing an obieet handling extension.
`
`118. The computer-implemented method in claim 117, wherein said object handling
`extension is an OLE extension.
`
`119. Canceled).
`
`120. Canceled).
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173983
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 11
`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
`12
`
`121. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, wherein intercepting said
`request consists of determining that a page server should process the request.
`
`122. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, wherein intercepting said
`request includes determining that a page server should process the request.
`
`123. The computer-implemented method of Claim 122, wherein said determining
`step includes determining that requests should be processed by a page server.
`
`124 The computer-implemented method of Claim 123, wherein said determining step
`includes determinin g that other requests should be processed by said Web server.
`
`125. The computer-lmplemented method of Claim 91, wherein releasing said Web
`server consists of freeing at least some resources of said Web server.
`
`126. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, wherein releasing said Web
`server includes freeing at least some resources of said Web server.
`
`127..(Canceled).
`
`128..(Canceled).
`
`129. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, wherein the selected page
`server comprises application software and operating system software.
`
`130. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, wherein routing said request is
`based at least in part on a uniform resource locator associated with the request.
`
`131. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, further comprising:
`retaining dynamic information regarding data sources that any page server can access
`to generate the Web page relative to the request.
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173984
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, 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
`
`132. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, wherein information used to
`select said selected page server includes whether a Web page relative to said request is
`cached at said selected page server.
`
`133. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, further comprising:
`receiving dynnmlcally updated information concerning said selected page server.
`
`134. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, further comprising:
`examining a load on each of said plurality of page servers;
`senclinE said request to said selected page server based on said examination.
`
`135. (Canceled).
`
`136. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, wherein said selected page
`server is a least busy one of said plurality of page servers.
`
`137. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, further comprising:
`receiving said generated Web page at said Web server;
`providing said generated Web page from said Web server to a source of said request.
`
`138. (Canceled).
`
`139. The computer-implemented method of Claim 91, wherein selecting said selected
`page server includes exarnlnln~ information regarding the relative busyness of each of said
`plurality of page servers and selecting said selected page server based on said examination.
`
`140. (Canceled).
`
`141. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, wherein intercepting said
`request consists of determinlng that a page server should process the request.
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173985
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, 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
`
`142. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, wherein intercepting said
`request includes determining that a page server should process the request.
`
`143. The computer-implemented method of Claim 142 wherein said determining step
`includes determining that requests should be processed by a page server.
`
`144. The computer-implemented method of Claim 143, wherein said determinin~
`step includes determining that other requests should be processed by said HTTP-compliant
`device.
`
`145. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, wherein releasing said
`HTTP-compliant device consists of freeing at least some resources of said HTTP-compliant
`device.
`
`146. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, wherein releasing said
`HTTP-eompliant device includes freeing at least some resources of said HTTP-compliant
`device.
`
`147..(Canceled).
`
`148..(Canceled).
`
`149. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, wherein said selected page
`server comprises application software and operating system software.
`
`150. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, wherein transferring said
`request is based at least in part on a uniform resource locator associated with the request.
`
`151. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, further comprising:
`retaining dynamic information regarding data sources that any page server can access
`
`to generate the page relative to the request.
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173986
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 14
`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
`15
`
`152. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, wherein information used to
`select said selected page server includes whether a page pursuant to said request is cached at
`said page server.
`
`153. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, further comprising:
`receiving dynamically updated information concerning said selected page server.
`
`154. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, further comprising:
`examining a load on each of said plurality of page servers;
`sending said request to said selected page server based on said examination.
`
`155..(Canceled).
`
`156. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, wherein said selected page
`server is a least busy one of said plurality of page servers.
`
`157. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, further comprising:
`receiving said generated page at said HTTP-compliant device;
`providing said generated page from said HTTP-compliant device to a source of said
`recluest.
`
`158..(Canceled).
`
`159. The computer-implemented method of Claim 105, wherein selecting said
`selected page server includes examining information regarding the relative busyness of each
`of said plurality of page servers and selecting said selected page server based on said
`examination.
`
`160. (Canceled).
`
`161. (Canceled).
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173987
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 15
`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
`16
`
`162. (Canceled).
`
`163. (Canceled)
`
`164. (Canceled).
`
`165. (Canceled).
`
`166. (Canceled).
`
`167. (Canceled).
`
`168. (Canceled).
`
`1692 (Canceled).
`
`170. (Canceled).
`
`171. (Canceled).
`
`172. (Canceled).
`
`173. (Canceled).
`
`174. (Canceled).
`
`175. (Canceled).
`
`176. (Canceled).
`
`177. (Canceled).
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173988
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 16
`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
`17
`
`178. (Canceled).
`
`179. (Canceled).
`
`180. (Canceled).
`
`181. (Canceled).
`
`182. (Canceled).
`
`183. (Canceled).
`
`184. (Canceled).
`
`Claims 1-90, 92, 106, 119, 120, 127, 128, 135, 138, 140, 147, 148, 155, 158, and 160-
`184 have been canceled as indicated above without prejudice or disclaimer.
`
`DALD 1:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173989
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 17
`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
`18
`
`PRIOR AND CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS
`Patent Owner hereby informs the United States Patent and Trademark Office that U.S.
`Patent 5,894,554 is involved in the following litigation matters:
`epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc, et al., 2:05CV00163
`
`.
`
`(E.D. Tex.).
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`Tex.).
`
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Tex.).
`
`Tex.).
`
`Tex.).
`
`Oracle Corporation, et al v. epicRealm Licensing LP, 1:06CV00414 (D. Del.).
`Quinstreet Inc. v. Parallel Networks, LP, 1:06CV00495 (D. Del.).
`epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Franklin Covey Co., et al, 2:05CV00356 (E.D.
`
`epicRealm Licensing, LP. v. Various, Inc., 2:07CV00030 (E.D. Tex.).
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. Priceline.Com, Inc., et al., 2:08CV00045 (E.D.
`
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al., 2:07CV00562 (E.D. Tex.).
`epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. Speedera Networks, Ine, 2:05CV00150 (E.D.
`
`epicRealm Licensing, LLC v. The Macerieh Company, 5:07CV00181 (E.D.
`
`10.
`
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 2:09CV00172 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`DAL01:I I97205.1
`
`PN-00173990
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 18
`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
`19
`
`STATUS OF CLAIMS
`As required by 37 C.F.R. §1.530(e), Patent Owner hereby provides the status of
`claims as of the date of this response. Claims 1-29 are subject to reexamination and Claims
`1-29 are rejected. Claims 30-184 have previously been added and are rejected. Therefore,
`Claims 1-184 are currently pending.
`
`Non-Prior Art Reiections
`Claims 37, 38, 57, 58, 77, 78, 127, 128, 147, 148, 167, and 168 stand rejected under
`35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter not described in the
`specification.
`Claims 30, 120, 181, and 183 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph,
`as being indefinite with respect to the term ’more efficiently’ identified by the Examiner.
`
`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.
`Claims 45, 65, 85, 135, 155, and 175 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’sending’ identified by the Examiner.
`
`Claims 48, 68, 88, 138, 158, and 178 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’can service’ identified by the
`Examiner.
`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 business’ identified by the
`Examiner.
`Claims 50, 70, 90, 140, 160, and 180 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’operational’ identified by the
`Examiner.
`Claims 184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being
`indefinite with respect to the term ’HTTP-compliant device’ identified by the Examiner.
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173991
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 19
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`Aq’TORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90/008,568, 90/008,584
`20
`
`Prior Art Reiections
`Claims 1-12, 15-26, 29, 40, 42, 60, 62, 80, 82, 91-102, 105-116, 130, 132, 150, 152,
`181-183 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 Cormectionless Protocol to Access
`Session-Oriented Services," Institut fur Informationsverarbeitung und Comutergestitze neue
`Medien, pp. 1-104, March 1995. (the Derler thesis).
`Claims 1-6, 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 181-183 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 (the Dienst manual).
`Claims 7, 21, 97, and 111 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`unpatentable over the Dienst manual in view of the Derler thesis.
`Claims 13, 14, 27, 28, 103, 104, 117, and 118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`as being unpatentable over the Derler thesis in view of U.S. Patent 5,682,468 issued to
`Fortenbery, et ai.
`Claims 13, 14, 27, 28, 103, 104, 117, and 118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`as being unpatentable over the Dienst manual in view of U.S. Patent 5,682,468 issued to
`Fortenbery, et ai.
`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, and 184
`stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over the Derler thesis in view
`of U.S. Patent 5,459,837 issued to Caccavale.
`Claims 30-34, 39, 41-46, 48-50, 51-54, 59, 61-66, 68-70, 71-74, 79, 81-86, 88-90,
`120-124, 129, 131-136, 138-140, 141-144, 149, 151-156, 158-160, 161-164, 169, 171-176,
`178-180, and 184 stand rejeeted under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over the
`Dienst manual in view of U.S. Patent 5,459,837 issued to Caecavaie.
`Claims 35-38, 55-58, 75-78, 125-128, and 145-148 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) as being unpatentable over the Derler thesis in view of U.S. Patent 6,249,291 issued
`to Popp, et al.
`Claims 35-38, 55-58, 75-78, 125-128, 145-148, and 165-168 stand rejected trader 35
`U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over the Dienst manual in view of U.S. Patent
`6,249,291 issued to Popp, et ai.
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173992
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 20
`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
`21
`
`INTERVIEW SUMMARY
`Patent Owner attended an Interview with USPTO personnel on April 10, 2012. Patent
`Owner was represented by Charles Fish, Brad Williams, Terry Fokas, Kevin Meek, and Ryan
`Loveless. The USPTO Examining Panel was represented by Examiner Mary Steelman, and
`Supervisory Primary Examiners Deborah Jones and Alex Kosowski. Patent Owner agrees
`with the substance of the Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary issued April 17, 2012.
`In the Interview, Patent Owner discussed the patentability of Independent Claims 91 and 105
`over the Derler thesis and the Dienst manual. In particular, Patent Owner discussed the
`feature of Independent Claims 91 and 105 that states "... selecting said selected page server
`from among said plurality of page servers that can each process said request based on
`dynamic information maintained for each of said plurality of page servers..." Patent Owner
`illustrated how the Derler thesis is limited to sending a request to a particular slave process
`and that no other slave process in the Derler thesis could process the request. Patent Owner
`also illustrated how the Dienst manual only discloses that one Dienst server holds a requested
`document. After deliberation, the USPTO Examining Panel concurred with these distinctions
`and indicated that Independent Claims 91 and 105 would be allowed.
`Language for certain dependent claims was also discussed to address 35 U.S.C. §112
`rejections. Amendments to Claims 134 and 139 (depending from Independent Claim 91) and
`Claims 154 and 159 (depending from Independent Claim 105) were agreed upon to overcome
`the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections. Claims 92, 127, 128, 135, 138, and 140 (depending from
`Independent Claim 91) and Claims 106, 147, 148, 155, 158, and 160 (depending from
`Independent Claim 105) were agreed to be canceled as well as the other pending claims 1-90
`and 161-184.
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173993
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 21
`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
`22
`
`REMARKS
`Claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent 6,415,335, issued to Lowery, et al. are subject to
`reexamination. Patent Owner has carefully reviewed the Final Office Action in the Ex Parte
`Reexamination issued March 6, 2012. Claims 30-184 have previously been added. In order
`to advance prosecution of this Ex Parte Reexamination, Claims 1-90, 92, 106, 119, 120, 127,
`128, 135, 138, 140, 147, 148, 155, 158, and 160-184 have been canceled as indicated above
`without prejudice or disclaimer. Patent Owner respectfully submits that Claims 91, 93-105,
`107-118, 121-126, 129-134, 136, 137, 139, 141-146, 149-154, 156, 157, and 159 are in
`condition for allowance. Patent Owner respectfully requests reconsideration and favorable
`action in this case.
`
`Claim Interpretations
`The Examiner provides several interpretations of certain claim terms in the Final
`Action. The Patent Owner does not necessarily agree with the Examiner’s various
`interpretations of the claim language. For example, the Examiner’s interpretation of the terms
`’Web Server’ and ’releasing’ are confined to algorithms or processes and not hardware
`resources as interpreted by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. For the convenience
`of the Examiner, attached herewith is a decision of the Court of Appeals of the Federal
`Circuit addressing this example.
`
`Non-Prior Art reieetions
`Claims 37, 38, 57, 58, 77, 78, 127, 128, 147, 148, 167, and 168 stand rejected under
`35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter not described in the
`specification. Claims 37, 38, 57, 58, 77, 78, 127, 128, 147, 148, 167, and 168 have been
`canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.
`Claims 30, 120, 181, and 183 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph,
`as being indefinite with respect to the term ’more efficiently’ identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 30, 120, 181, and 183 have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.
`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. Claims 44, 64, 84, and 174 have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.
`Claims 134 and 154 have been amended to address the term ’said page server’ by showing
`
`DAL01:1197205.1
`
`PN-00173994
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 22
`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
`23
`
`that the load is examined for each of said plurality of page servers as agreed to by the USPTO
`Examining Panel in the Interview of April 10, 2012.
`Claims 45, 65, 85, 135, 155, and 175 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’sending’ identified by the Examiner.
`Claims 45, 65, 85, 135, 155, and 175 have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.
`Claims 48, 68, 88, 138, 158, and 178 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’can service’ identified by the
`Examiner. Claims 48, 68, 88, 138, 158, and 178 have been canceled without prejudice or
`disclaimer.
`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 business’ identified by the
`Examiner. Claims 49, 69, 89, and 179 have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.
`Claims 139 and 159 have been amended to address the term ’relative busyness’ by showing
`that the relative busyness of each of said plurality of servers is examined as agreed to by the
`IUSPTO Examining Panel in the Interview of April 10, 2012.
`Claims 50, 70, 90, 140, 160, and 180 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`paragraph, as being indefinite with respect to the term ’operational’ identified by the
`Examiner. Claims 50, 70, 90, 140, 160, and 180 have been canceled without prejudice or
`disclaimer.
`Claims 184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being
`indefinite with respect to the term ’HTTP-compliant device’ identified by the Examiner.
`Claim 184 has been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.
`
`DAL01:! 197205.1
`
`PN-00173995
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2058, pg. 23
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. PATENT REEXAMINATION
`066241.0119 90/008,343, 90