Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 399
`
`Filed 12/04/08
`
`Page
`
`of
`
`Page ID
`
`13066
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION and
`ORACLE U.S.A INC
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLP
`
`Defendant
`
`Civ No 06-414-SLR
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`At Wilmington this 4th day of December 2008 having heard oral argument on
`
`and having reviewed the papers submitted in connection with the parties proposed
`
`claim construction
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the disputed claim language of the patents in suit1 as
`
`identified by the above referenced parties shall be construed consistent with the tenets
`
`of claim construction set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit in Phillips
`
`AWH Corp 415 F.3d 1303 Fed Cir 2005 as follows
`
`page server
`
`receiving said request and releasing said Web server to
`
`process other requests Freeing the Web server to process other requests
`
`Although the parties asked the court to construe only the word releasing great
`
`mischief comes of construing words in
`
`vacuum as opposed to construing words
`
`1The patents in suit are U.S Patent Nos 5894554 the 554 patent and
`6415335 the 335 patent
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1027, p. 1
`
`
`
`Document 399
`
`Filed 12/04/08
`
`Page
`
`of
`
`Page ID
`
`13066
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION and
`ORACLE U.S.A INC
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLP
`
`Defendant
`
`Civ No 06-414-SLR
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`At Wilmington this 4th day of December 2008 having heard oral argument on
`
`and having reviewed the papers submitted in connection with the parties proposed
`
`claim construction
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the disputed claim language of the patents in suit1 as
`
`identified by the above referenced parties shall be construed consistent with the tenets
`
`of claim construction set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit in Phillips
`
`AWH Corp 415 F.3d 1303 Fed Cir 2005 as follows
`
`page server
`
`receiving said request and releasing said Web server to
`
`process other requests Freeing the Web server to process other requests
`
`Although the parties asked the court to construe only the word releasing great
`
`mischief comes of construing words in
`
`vacuum as opposed to construing words
`
`1The patents in suit are U.S Patent Nos 5894554 the 554 patent and
`6415335 the 335 patent
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1027, p. 1
`
`
`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 399
`
`Filed 12/04/08
`
`Page
`
`of
`
`Page ID
`
`13067
`
`within the context of the surrounding language The word releasing in the above
`
`phrase has
`
`specific purpose that is to allow the Web server to process other
`
`requests Consequently the page server does not release the Web server unless the
`
`Web server is free to process other requests This construction is consistent with the
`
`specification
`
`col
`
`Il 20-32 col
`
`II 48-60 col
`
`II 919.2
`
`said request at said
`
`server
`
`device
`
`computer systemi Diverting the handling of said request before the request
`
`is processed by the
`
`server
`
`device
`
`computer system
`
`This construction is supported by the specficafion col
`
`II 55-60 col
`
`II 26-34
`
`The idea of receiving contained in other limitations need not be included within the
`
`scope of the intercepting limitation
`
`said request
`
`form said Web server to
`
`dispatcher Software for
`
`determining which page server should be used to process
`
`dynamic web page
`
`generation request Although the specification arguably describes the preferred
`
`embodiment as being
`
`separate executable software program see e.g figure
`
`col
`
`II 8-36 the preferred embodiment of the invention is implemented as
`
`software
`
`module which may be executed on
`
`computer system..
`
`Col
`
`II 55-57
`
`said request
`
`to said page server Analyzing
`
`request
`
`to
`
`2Plaintiffs competing construction adopted by the Texas court adds
`limitation
`receiving said request and said
`that plaintiffs cannot even describe
`page server
`page server performing an act separate from merely receiving the request to free
`the Web server to process other requests Without an explanation of what the page
`server has to do to release other than to receive Oracles proposed construction is
`simply confusing and adds unnecessary complexity to the phrase which is self-evident
`when read in context
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1027, p. 2
`
`
`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 399
`
`Filed 12/04/08
`
`Page
`
`of
`
`Page ID
`
`13068
`
`make an informed selection of which page server should process the request based on
`
`variety of information both static and dynamic and sending the request
`
`to the
`
`selected page server This construction is supported by the specification col
`
`II 51-
`
`59 col
`
`II 1-19 col
`
`II 10-25 32-39 fig
`
`as well as by the prosecution history
`
`D.l 201 ex
`
`at EP1C000266
`
`HTTP-compliant device
`
`device running software that implements the
`
`communication protocol known as HyperText Transport Protocol HTTP See col
`
`II 14-38
`
`Web server Software or machine having software that receives Web
`
`page requests and returns Web pages in response to the requests The only
`
`disagreement among the parties is whether this limitation is limited to HTIP-compliant
`
`server software Defendant argues that the claim language is not so limited plaintiffs
`
`argue that because the only software identified is the HTTP-compliant
`
`software the
`
`construction should be so limited Because this is
`
`software patent
`
`the court
`
`concludes that the broader
`
`interpretation is the more appropriate To put the point
`
`differently if this were mechanical device patent and there truly was only one
`
`embodiment of the device described in the specification of said patent arguably the
`
`broader language of the claims should be limited to that one device Given the mutable
`
`nature of the technology underlying the instant patent however the court declines to
`
`impose the restriction requested by plaintiffs
`
`Page server Page-generating software that generates
`
`dynamic Web
`
`page Consistent with the dispatcher limitation this software is not
`
`limited to running
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1027, p. 3
`
`
`
`Case 106-cv-00414-SLR
`
`Document 399
`
`Filed 12/04/08
`
`Page
`
`of
`
`Page ID
`
`13069
`
`on
`
`processor separate from that of the Web server as plaintiffs argue
`
`Web page Web content displayable through Web browser
`
`Request
`
`message that asks for Web page Consistent with the Web
`limited to Web pages specified by URL
`
`server limitation this software is not
`
`10 Means for generating
`
`request
`
`112 16 corresponding function
`
`generating said request Structure
`
`processor of
`
`computer
`
`that
`
`is or has Web
`
`client running Web browser or equivalents thereof
`
`II Means for receiving
`
`request from said first computer
`
`112
`
`function
`
`receiving said request
`
`from said first computer Structure
`
`processor of
`
`computer that
`
`is or has Web server running Web server executables or equivalents
`
`thereof
`
`12 Page server processing means
`
`112 16 function processing dynamic
`
`Web page generation requests Structure
`
`processor of
`
`computer
`
`that runs
`
`software for generating dynamic Web pages or equivalents thereof
`
`United State
`
`istrict Judge
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1027, p. 4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
