`
`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