UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LICENSING, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00483
`Patent No. 5,894,554
`
`Case IPR2015-00485
`Patent No. 6,415,335
`________________________
`
`
`Declaration of Mark Jones Regarding
`U.S. Patent No. 5,894,554 and U.S. Patent No. 6,415,335
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 1
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`1.1
`Personal Background ...............................................................................................1
`1.2 My Investigation Regarding the Validity of the Patents-in-
`Suit ...........................................................................................................................4
`
`2.3
`2.4
`
`Legal Standards Applied in This Report ..............................................................................5
`2.1
`Burden of Proving Invalidity ...................................................................................7
`2.2
`Prior Art ...................................................................................................................7
`2.2.1 Anticipation..................................................................................................9
`2.2.2 Obviousness ...............................................................................................10
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..........................................................................10
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................11
`2.4.1 “request” ....................................................................................................12
`2.4.2 “Web page” ................................................................................................12
`2.4.3 “Dynamic Web page” ................................................................................12
`2.4.4 “Web server” ..............................................................................................13
`2.4.5 “page server” ..............................................................................................13
`2.4.6 “intercepting said request at said Web server” ..........................................13
`2.4.7 “dispatching”..............................................................................................14
`2.4.8 “dispatcher” ................................................................................................14
`to process other
`2.4.9 “releasing said Web server
`requests” .....................................................................................................14
`2.4.10 “concurrently processes” ...........................................................................15
`2.4.11 “routing” ....................................................................................................15
`2.4.12 “dynamically generating” ..........................................................................15
`2.4.13 “custom HTML extension templates” .......................................................16
`2.4.14 “connection cache” ....................................................................................16
`2.4.15 “application software” ...............................................................................16
`
`The Patents-in-Suit.............................................................................................................17
`3.1
`Priority Date of the Patents-in-Suit ........................................................................17
`3.2
`The Inventions of the Patents-in-Suit ....................................................................17
`
`PRIOR ART ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION .............................................................21
`4.1
`SWEB 95 ...............................................................................................................21
`4.2
`The Leaf Reference ................................................................................................26
`4.3
`The Bradley Reference ..........................................................................................29
`4.4
`Claims 12-49 of the ‘554 Patent Are Patentable ....................................................31
`4.4.1 SWEB 95 is a Multiple (Not Single) Request
`System ........................................................................................................31
`the
`4.4.2 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose “Routing”
`Request from the Web Server to the Page Server ......................................36
`4.4.3 SWEB 95 Does Not Base Its Selection of a Page
`Server on Dynamic Information Maintained for the
`Page Servers ...............................................................................................37
`
`i
`
`
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 2
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`4.5
`
`4.4.4 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose the Page Server
`“Releasing Said Web Server to Process Other
`Requests” ...................................................................................................37
`4.4.5 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose the Step of “Said
`Selected Page Server Maintaining a Connection
`Cache to Said One or More Data Sources” ................................................38
`4.4.6 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose the Step of “Logging
`Into Said One or More Data Sources” (Claim 16) .....................................40
`the Step of
`4.4.7 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose
`“Maintaining a Page Cache Containing Said Web
`Page” (Claim 17) or Performing Selection Based on
`“Whether a Web Page Relative to Said Request is
`Cached at Said Selected Page Server” (Claims 29,
`43) ..............................................................................................................40
`4.4.8 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose Always Determining
`That a Page Server Should Process the Request ........................................42
`4.4.9 Claims 33 and 47 Are Not Obvious Based on
`SWEB 95 ...................................................................................................43
`4.4.10 SWEB 95 Does Not Render Obvious “Custom
`HTML Extension Templates” (Claims 18, 19) ..........................................44
`4.4.11 SWEB 95 Does Not Render Obvious “Storing the
`Dynamically Generated Web Page
`for Later
`Retrieval by the Web Server” (Claim 49) ..................................................46
`Claims 30-85 of the ‘335 Patent Are Patentable ....................................................46
`4.5.1 SWEB 95 is a Multiple (Not Single) Request
`System ........................................................................................................46
`4.5.2 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose “Routing” or
`“Transferring” the Request from to the Page Server .................................50
`4.5.3 SWEB 95 Does Not Base Its Selection of a Page
`Server on Dynamic Information Maintained for the
`Page Servers ...............................................................................................52
`4.5.4 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose the Page Server
`“Releasing Said Web Server to Process Other
`Requests” ...................................................................................................52
`4.5.5 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose the Step of “Said
`Selected Page Server Maintaining a Connection
`Cache to Said One or More Data Sources” ................................................53
`4.5.6 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose the Step of “Logging
`Into Said One or More Data Sources” .......................................................55
`the Step of
`4.5.7 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose
`“Maintaining a Page Cache Containing Said Web
`Page” or Performing Selection Based on “Whether
`a Web Page Relative to Said Request is Cached at
`Said Selected Page Server” ........................................................................55
`4.5.8 SWEB 95 Does Not Disclose Always Determining
`That a Page Server Should Process the Request ........................................58
`
`ii
`
`
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 3
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`4.5.9 Claims 69 and 84 Are Not Obvious Based on
`SWEB 95 ...................................................................................................58
`4.5.10 SWEB 95 Does Not Render Obvious “Tag-based
`Text Templates” or an “Object Handling Extension” ................................60
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 4
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`1. Introduction
`1.
`I have been retained by Patent Owner Parallel Networks Licensing,
`
`LLC (“Parallel”) and its counsel, McKool Smith P.C., as a technical expert in this
`
`proceeding. I have been asked to address the issue of the patentability of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 5,894,554 (the “‘554 patent”) and 6,415,335 (the “‘335 patent”) and
`
`various issues concerning the scope and content of prior art at the time of the
`
`invention of these patents.
`
`1.1 Personal Background
`2.
`I am a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Virginia
`
`Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia. I graduated summa cum laude from Clemson
`
`University in 1986 with a B.S. in Computer Science and a minor in Computer
`
`Engineering, while holding a National Merit Scholarship and the R. F. Poole
`
`Scholarship. I then graduated from Duke University in 1990 with a PhD in
`
`Computer Science, while holding the Von Neumann Fellowship.
`
`3.
`
`Upon graduation, I joined the Department of Energy at its Argonne
`
`National Laboratory facility. My responsibilities there included the design and use
`
`of software for computers with hundreds of processing elements. This software
`
`was designed for compatibility with new parallel computer architectures as they
`
`became available, as well as with other large software components being written in
`
`
`
`1
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 5
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`the Department of Energy. While with the Department of Energy, I received the
`
`IEEE Gordon Bell Prize.
`
`4.
`
`In 1994, I joined the Computer Science faculty at the University of
`
`Tennessee. My teaching responsibilities included computer architecture and
`
`computer networking. My research interests included the design and use of
`
`software that used the collective power of large groups of workstations. While at
`
`the University of Tennessee, I received a CAREER Award from the National
`
`Science Foundation.
`
`5.
`
`In 1997, I joined the Electrical and Computer Engineering faculty at
`
`Virginia Tech. My teaching responsibilities have included the design of embedded
`
`systems, computer organization, computer architecture, a variety of programming
`
`courses, and parallel computing. I have been cited multiple times on the College of
`
`Engineering’s Dean’s List for teaching.
`
`6.
`
`In addition to the activities, education, and professional experience
`
`listed above, I have been involved in research projects that contribute to my
`
`expertise relating to this proceeding and matters discussed in this declaration.
`
`While at Virginia Tech, I have been a primary or co-investigator on government
`
`and industrial research grants and contracts in excess of five million dollars.
`
`7.
`
`The majority of the research contracts undertaken in the laboratory
`
`have involved collaboration and coordination with other groups to build a larger
`
`
`
`2
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 6
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`system. My responsibilities under the SLAAC project (a collaborative effort
`
`funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency involving the
`
`University of Southern California, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos
`
`National Laboratory, Brigham Young University, UCLA, Lockheed-Martin, and
`
`the Navy) included the development of a software system for monitoring,
`
`configuring, and controlling a networked collection of computers hosting
`
`specialized computer hardware. As part of the DSN project (a collaborative effort
`
`funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency involving UCLA and
`
`USC), I was responsible for designing algorithms and software for controlling and
`
`monitoring a large network of autonomous computer sensor nodes. This software
`
`was integrated with software from several other teams around the country for a set
`
`of field demonstrations over a three-year period.
`
`8.
`
`In the TEAMDEC project for the Air Force Research Laboratory, I
`
`led an effort to design and construct a collaborative, Internet-based decision
`
`making system. This Java-based system provided a geographically diverse team
`
`with Internet-based tools to enable collaborative decision-making. On the server
`
`side, the system architecture made extensive use of database technology. This work
`
`was awarded first prize at the 2002 AOL/CIT Research Day.
`
`9.
`
`Other projects have involved the close coupling of computer hardware
`
`and software, including the writing of device drivers and simple operating systems,
`
`
`
`3
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 7
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`the design of hardware circuits, the design of new system architectures,
`
`architectures for secure computing, the modification of complex operating systems,
`
`and software for mediating between complex software packages.
`
`10. A detailed record of my professional qualifications is set forth in
`
`Exhibit 2093, which is my curriculum vitae, including a list of publications,
`
`awards, research grants, and professional activities. My curriculum vitae also lists
`
`the depositions, hearings, and trial at which I have testified. I am being
`
`compensated $450 per hour for my time spent working in connection with this
`
`case. My compensation is in no way related to the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`1.2 My Investigation Regarding the Validity of the Patents-in-Suit
`11. This declaration provides my opinions in rebuttal to the allegations of
`
`invalidity and obviousness of the claims of the ‘554 patent and the ‘335 patent as
`
`set forth in Microsoft’s Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the ‘554 patent and the
`
`‘335 patent and the Decisions instituting Inter Partes Review. In connection with
`
`my review of Microsoft’s Petitions and the Decisions I have also reviewed
`
`declarations from Michael Mitzenmacher relating to the ‘554 patent and the ‘335
`
`patent. I will refer to Dr. Mitzenmacher’s declarations as the “Mitzenmacher ‘554
`
`Declaration” and “Mitzenmacher ‘335 Declaration.” Each is substantively similar,
`
`and I may refer collectively to these declarations as the “Mitzenmacher
`
`
`
`4
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 8
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`Declaration.” My silence as to any portion of the Mitzenmacher Declaration does
`
`not indicate that I agree with the opinions expressed therein.
`
`12. To address the opinions and argument set forth in the Microsoft
`
`Petitions and the Decisions, I studied and considered a variety of facts and
`
`evidence, including at least the following sources: the Patents-in-Suit and their
`
`prosecution and reexamination histories; the cited prior art references and systems
`
`identified, publically available information about the asserted prior art references
`
`and systems, technical documents regarding the asserted prior art references and
`
`systems; the various claim construction orders; exhibits in this proceeding, and
`
`other material referenced in this declaration. Naturally, my review of these
`
`materials was informed by my education, my experience in and knowledge of
`
`industry, and my employment as an engineering professor.
`
`2. Legal Standards Applied in This Report
`13.
`I am informed that the following legal principles apply to the subject
`
`matter of this rebuttal expert report.
`
`14. The patent claims describe the invention made by the inventors and
`
`describe what the patent owner owns and what the owner may prevent others from
`
`doing. Claims may describe products, such as machines or chemical compounds,
`
`or processes for making or using a product. Claims are usually divided into parts
`
`or steps called limitations or elements. For example, a claim that covers the
`
`
`
`5
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 9
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`invention of a table may recite the tabletop, four legs, and the glue that secures the
`
`legs to the tabletop. The tabletop, the legs, and the glue in that claim would each be
`
`a separate limitation or element of the claim.
`
`15. There are two types of claims: independent claims and dependent
`
`claims. An independent claim sets forth all the requirements that must be met in
`
`order to be covered by that claim. Thus, it is not necessary to look at any other
`
`claim to determine what an independent claim covers. A dependent claim does not
`
`itself recite all of the requirements of the claim, but refers to another claim for
`
`some of its requirements. In this way, the claim depends on another claim. The law
`
`considers a dependent claim to incorporate all of the requirements of the claims to
`
`which it refers. The dependent claim then adds its own additional requirements. To
`
`determine what a dependent claim covers, it is necessary to look at both the
`
`dependent claim and any other claims to which it refers.
`
`16.
`
`In that case, the dependent claims incorporate the limitations of the
`
`independent claim upon which they depend and, if a reference fails to disclose any
`
`of the limitations of an independent claim, the claims which depend on that claim
`
`cannot be made invalid by that reference. As a result, any of the references at issue
`
`in this proceeding that fail to disclose all of the limitations of an independent claim
`
`necessarily also fail to disclose all of the limitations of claims which depend on
`
`that claim.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 10
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`2.1 Burden of Proving Invalidity
`17.
`It is my further understanding that Microsoft has the burden of
`
`proving invalidity through facts supported by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`
`understand that a “preponderance of the evidence” means evidence sufficient to
`
`prove that a fact is more likely true that it is not. As explained in the remainder of
`
`this declaration, it is my opinion that Microsoft has failed to meet that level of
`
`proof in alleging that the claims of the ‘554 patent and the ‘335 patent are invalid.
`
`18.
`
`I note that the primary reference relied upon by Microsoft has already
`
`been before the United States Patent & Trademark Office. In addition, other
`
`references relied upon by Microsoft have also been considered by the United States
`
`Patent & Trademark Office including the Leaf, Dias, and Popp references.
`
`2.2 Prior Art
`19.
`It is my understanding that prior art may include items that were
`
`publicly known or used or offered for sale, publications, or patents that disclose the
`
`claimed invention or elements of the claimed invention. To be prior art, the item
`
`or reference must have been made, known, used, published, or patented either
`
`before the invention was made or more than one year before the filing date of the
`
`patent application.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a patentee can antedate or “swear behind” a
`
`reference by establishing a priority date of the invention before the effective date
`
`
`
`7
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 11
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`of the reference. It is my understanding that the priority date of an invention
`
`embodied within a patent is determined from the date of reduction to practice or
`
`the date of conception coupled with reasonable diligence in reducing the invention
`
`to practice. I understand that conception is the formation in the mind of the
`
`inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention,
`
`as it is to be applied in practice. I further understand that reduction to practice
`
`occurs either as of the filing of the patent application or when the invention was
`
`actually made and was shown to work for its intended purpose. It is my
`
`understanding
`
`that reasonable diligence means
`
`that
`
`the
`
`inventor worked
`
`continuously on reducing the invention to practice, without significant interruption
`
`and accomplished in a reasonably prompt manner, considered in light of all the
`
`surrounding circumstances.
`
`21.
`
`In this declaration, I may use the phrase “prior art.” My use of this
`
`phrase should not be interpreted as a concession by me that the item(s) described
`
`qualify as prior art under the patent laws.1 I merely use this phrase to address the
`
`items labeled as “prior art” by Microsoft.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 See 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`
`
`8
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 12
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`2.2.1 Anticipation
`22.
`It is my further understanding that a patent claim may be invalid if the
`
`accused infringer proves by clear and convincing evidence that the claim is
`
`anticipated. To prove anticipation, I understand that the accused infringer must
`
`show that all of the requirements of that claim were disclosed, either expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art printed publication or patent. I also understand that
`
`inherent anticipation requires proof that the missing descriptive material is
`
`necessarily present, not merely probably or possibly present, in the prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I also understand that for a reference to be anticipatory, the reference
`
`must contain an enabling disclosure. I understand that merely a naming or
`
`description of the subject matter is insufficient if it cannot be produced without
`
`undue experimentation. I also understand that a reference contains an enabling
`
`disclosure if the public was in possession of the claimed invention before the
`
`invention date. Such possession is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could
`
`have combined the publication’s description of the invention with his or her
`
`knowledge to make the claimed invention. I understand that a reference that could
`
`have been modified to practice a claimed invention, but does not practice the
`
`claimed invention without modification, cannot anticipate the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`9
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 13
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`2.2.2 Obviousness
`24.
`In determining whether a patent is obvious in light of prior art, it is
`
`my understanding that a number of secondary considerations may be taken into
`
`account to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the patented
`
`subject matter. These secondary considerations include commercial success, long
`
`felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, prior art teaching away from the claimed
`
`invention, industry acknowledgement, invention contrary to accepted wisdom,
`
`skepticism of experts, praise, licensing and royalty payments, copying by others,
`
`and near simultaneous invention by two or more equally talented inventors
`
`working independently. I understand that in assessing obviousness, one needs to
`
`be mindful of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and cautious of arguments
`
`reliant upon after-the-fact reasoning in the obviousness inquiry. It is also my
`
`understanding that a party seeking to invalidate a patent on the basis of
`
`obviousness must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
`
`prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan
`
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
`
`2.3 Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`25.
`I understand that a person having ordinary skill in the art may be
`
`defined by factors such as: (a) the levels of education and experience of the
`
`
`
`10
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 14
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`inventor and other persons actively involved in the field; (b) the types of problems
`
`encountered in the field; (c) prior art solutions to those problems; (d) rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; and (e) the sophistication of the technology. In my
`
`opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art in the August 1995 timeframe would have
`
`had: a Bachelor’s of Science degree in computer science, or equivalent, with three
`
`to five years of technical experience in software implementation, or equivalent.
`
`The Mitzenmacher Declarations describe the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`slightly lower than mine. See, e.g., Exhibit 1007 at ¶ 162.
`
`2.4 Claim Construction
`26.
`It is my understanding the part of this proceeding is the construction
`
`of the terms of the ‘554 patent and ‘335 patent claims. It is also my understanding
`
`that given the dates on which the ‘554 patent and the ‘335 patent will expire and
`
`the expected timing of the Board’s Final Decision in this proceeding that the
`
`Phillips standard for claim construction will be applied instead of the so-called
`
`“Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” standard.
`
`27.
`
`I reviewed the patents, prosecution histories, and reexamination
`
`histories along with the opinions of District Courts that have issued claim
`
`construction orders construing various terms of the ‘554 patent and the ‘335 patent.
`
`I have also reviewed the Mitzenmacher Declarations, Microsoft’s Petitions, and the
`
`Decisions. Based on the foregoing review and other analysis described below, I
`
`
`
`11
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 15
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`believe the following constructions are appropriate under the Phillips standard for
`
`the following terms.
`
`2.4.1 “request”
`28. The claim term “request” appears in each independent claim of the
`
`‘335 and ‘554 patent. “Request” should be construed to mean “a message that asks
`
`for a Web page.” See Ex. 1035 at 9-11. Each Court to consider the construction of
`
`“request” defined it to mean “a message that asks for a Web page.” Id.; Ex. 1027;
`
`Ex. 1032. In the pending litigation between Patent Owner and Petitioner, the
`
`parties agreed to this construction. Ex. 2103 at 6.
`
`2.4.2 “Web page”
`29.
`“Web page” should be construed to mean “Web content on the World
`
`Wide Web, displayable by a Web browser.” See Ex. 1035 at 6-9. This is the
`
`construction entered by the District Court in the pending litigation between Patent
`
`Owner and Microsoft. Ex. 2104 at 1-2. This construction is consistent with prior
`
`District Court constructions of the term. Ex. 1035 at 6-9; Ex. 1027; Ex. 1032; see
`
`also Ex. 1007 at 76.
`
`2.4.3 “Dynamic Web page”
`30.
`“Dynamic Web page” should be construed to mean “a Web page that
`
`is created in response to a request.” In the pending litigation between Patent
`
`Owner and Petitioner, the parties agreed to this construction. Ex. 2103 at 6. This
`
`
`
`12
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 16
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`construction is consistent with prior District Court constructions of the term. See
`
`Ex. 1035; Ex. 1027; Ex. 1032; see also Ex. 1007 at 77.
`
`2.4.4 “Web server”
`31.
`“Web server” should be construed to mean “software, or a machine
`
`having software, that receives Web page requests and returns Web pages in
`
`response to the requests.” See Ex. 1035 at 14-16. This is the construction entered
`
`by the District Court in the pending litigation between Patent Owner and
`
`Microsoft. Ex. 2104 at 2. This construction is consistent with prior District Court
`
`constructions of the term. Ex. 1035 at 14-16; Ex. 1027; Ex. 1032; see also Ex.
`
`1007 at 75.
`
`2.4.5 “page server”
`32.
`“Page server” should be construed to mean “page-generating software
`
`that generates a dynamic Web page.” See Ex. 1035 at 12-14. In the pending
`
`litigation between Patent Owner and Petitioner, the parties agreed to this
`
`construction. Ex. 2103 at 6. This construction is consistent with prior District
`
`Court constructions of the term. Ex. 1035 at 14; Ex. 1027; Ex. 1032; see also Ex.
`
`1007 at 75.
`
`2.4.6 “intercepting said request at said Web server”
`33.
`“Intercepting said request at said Web server” should be construed to
`
`mean “diverting the handling of said request before the request is processed by the
`
`Web server.” See Ex. 1027 at 2. In the pending litigation between Patent Owner
`13
`
`
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 17
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`and Petitioner, the parties agreed to this construction. Ex. 2103 at 6. This
`
`construction is consistent with prior District Court constructions of the term. Ex.
`
`1035 at 25; Ex. 1027; Ex. 1032 at 21-29; see also Ex. 1007 at 75.
`
`2.4.7 “dispatching”
`34.
`“Dispatching” should be construed to mean “analyzing a request to
`
`make an informed selection of which page server should process the request based
`
`on a variety of information regarding each page server (either dynamic information
`
`or dynamic and static information).” See Ex. 1027 at 2-3. This construction is
`
`consistent with prior District Court constructions of the term. See Id.; Ex. 1032 at
`
`14-18; see also Ex. 1007 at 75.
`
`2.4.8 “dispatcher”
`35.
`“Dispatcher” should be construed to mean “software for determining
`
`which page server should be used to process a dynamic Web page generation
`
`request.” See Ex. 1027 at 2. This construction is consistent with prior District
`
`Court constructions of the term. Id.; Ex. 1032 at 12-18; see also Ex. 1007 at 76.
`
`2.4.9 “releasing said Web server to process other requests”
`36.
`“Releasing said Web server to process other requests” should be
`
`construed to mean “freeing said Web server to process other requests.” See Ex.
`
`1027 at 1-2. This is the construction entered by the District Court in the pending
`
`litigation between Patent Owner and Microsoft. Ex. 2104 at 2. This construction is
`
`
`
`14
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 18
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`consistent with prior District Court constructions of the term. Ex. 1027; Ex. 1032
`
`at 32-35; Ex. 1035 at 27-29; see also Ex. 1007 at 76.
`
`2.4.10 “concurrently processes”
`37. The phrase “concurrently processes” is used in the claims in the
`
`following context: “said processing being performed by said page server while said
`
`Web server concurrently processes said other requests.” See ’554 patent at Claims
`
`12, 20, 46, 48. The phrase “said processing being performed by said page server
`
`while said Web server concurrently processes said other requests” should be
`
`construed to mean “said processing being performed by said page server while said
`
`Web server processes said other requests at the same time, either interleaved or in
`
`parallel See Ex. 1032 at 6-9; Ex. 1035 at 18-20; see also Exhibit 1007 at 64-66.
`
`2.4.11 “routing”
`38.
`“Routing” should be construed to mean “sending from one component
`
`or machine along a path to another component or machine, wherein components
`
`may be software or hardware.” See Ex. 1032 at 36-39. This construction is
`
`consistent with prior District Court constructions of the term. Id.; see also Exhibit
`
`1007 at 77.
`
`2.4.12 “dynamically generating”
`39.
`“Dynamically generating” should be construed to mean “producing in
`
`response to a dynamic page generation request.” See Ex. 1032 at 18-19. This
`
`
`
`15
`
`PN EXHIBIT 2091, pg. 19
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC
`IPR2015-00483 & IPR2015-00485
`
`

`
`construction is consistent with prior District Court constructions of the term. Id.;
`
`see also Exhibit 1007 at 77.
`
`2.4.13 “custom HTML extension templates”
`40. As proposed by Petitioner, “custom HTML extension templates”
`
`should be construed under Phillips to mean “HTML templates that are customized
`
`by an extension to HTML.” Ex. 1007 at 77-78.
`
`2.4.14 “connection cache”
`41.
`“Connection cache” should