9..
`
`http://www.openp2p.com/lpt/...
`
`01/29/2002 --page 3
`
`speed connection and act as a proxy for users on slower links. In so doing it conserves the user's
`bandwidth and situates slower hosts at the edge of the network. Via a Reflector, a network of
`users can use Gnutella with far less aggregate bandwidth than would otherwise be required. Most
`Reflectors are run on behalf of a particular user population and not publicly advertised, although
`a handful of public-access ones are available at any given time.
`
`November and December saw the introduction of two significant new Gnutella applications.
`
`First, Lime Wire LLC introduced LimeWire, then Free Peers Inc. released BearShare. Both
`
`programs apply connection-preferencing rules that decide whether a given connection will be
`maintained. One common example: connections to unresponsive hosts are dropped. The
`consistent repeated application of this simple rule to a series of connections will tend to drive
`slower hosts to have fewer connections and sit at the edge of the network, a bit like a poor
`conversationalist might find himself marginalized at a party.
`
`Coincident with these developments and the uptake in adoption of these applications, Clip2 has
`seen a steady increase in the number of responsive hosts active ‘at any given time on the network,
`rising from a typical figure of 500 in October to more than 1500 in early January 2001. The
`quantity of search results has increased as well. According to Clip2 estimates, the number of
`Gnutella users per day has risen from 10,000 to 30,000 in November to between 20,000 and
`50,000 in January.
`
`Download Failure
`
`Download failure looms as one of the most serious problems according to many. Although
`attractive search results may come back, they are useless if the associated files cannot be
`downloaded. Quantitative study of the problem is complicated since users have preferences in
`the files they download and upload. Since all files are not equal, there is much room for
`inaccuracy in the results of any test that assumes otherwise. Nonetheless, there is a
`preponderance of perception that downloads fail too often, particularly relative to other peer-to-
`peer file-sharing systems.
`
`Spurred by an A_ugu_s_t_,2,Q_Q_Q__pap_er_ by Eytan Adar and Bernardo Huberrnan of Xerox PARC, there
`is belief that "freeloading" - users downloading much more than they upload - is a major source
`of the download failure problem, although the critical ratio of supply and demand is anyone's
`guess. The response to commentator Clay Shirky's counterpoint that "bandwidth over time is
`__i_n_f1__n_i__t_e_'f_ is that the server bandwidth available to users who want to download a file right now is
`too finite.
`
`Developers are taking two major actions:
`
`1.
`
`removing as much friction as possible from the upload process, such as defaulting a user's
`upload directory to be his download directory; and
`2. blocking uploads to users who are not themselves uploading.
`
`Web sites such as Gnute and Gnutella.it allow users to search and download from the Gnutella
`
`network without providing a direct means of contributing files back into the network. Seizing on
`this asymmetry, recent versions of Limewire and BearShare have taken the offensive of denying
`download requests from Web site users. Instead of the file, the user finds a suggestion to
`download LimeWire or BearShare. The next step in this evolution may be to prioritize download
`requests even among users of these applications based on how much they have uploaded or made
`available for upload. The situation begins to resemble the model of Mojo Nation, in which
`downloading has a cost that is payable by providing resources back into the community. An
`alternative approach that might potentially be effective would be to not advertise a file -- not
`respond to a query for it -— so long as there is no bandwidth available to serve the file.
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1165 of 1442
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1165 of 1442
`
`

`
`4.
`
`http://www.openp2p.corn/lpt/...
`
`O1/29/2002--page 4
`
`"Busy signals" are not the only possible cause for download failure. Hosts may be unreachable
`due to firewalls or intervening network address translation devices, applications may be buggy or
`incompatible, hosts may go offline or change their content between the point of advertising a file
`and the point of receiving a download request, and so on. A mechanism that enabled hosts to
`verify each other's ability to upload any file would address some of these issues.
`
`What Next?
`
`"What next?" is a fitting conclusion, for it is a problem that looms over Gnutella's future. Non-
`compliant implementations, connectivity, a lack of search results, download failure - these are all
`nuts-and—bolts problems with Gnutella. Sorting them out is necessary for Gnutella to meet
`commonly held basic expectations of it as a usable, public, decentralized file-sharing system.
`What happens when these core issues are sufficiently resolved?
`
`The answer is that users spur developers to push on to new features. But which features? The
`trouble of "What's next?" is the contentious issue of agreeing on what problems need to be
`solved. Some aspire to see Gnutella be more scalable or more secure. Some want the system to
`be more anonymous, some want it to be less. Some hope it becomes a more generalized
`distributed search medium and grow beyond its file-sharing origins. Some imagine other
`applications riding upon it, even commerce. It seems there is no end to the expectations.
`
`Unfortunately, Gnutella has a history of aborted, failed or poorly supported attempts to unite
`developers; the analogy of herding cats has rarely been so apt. One of the most notable efforts --
`Gnutella Next Generation -- never significantly advanced beyond the proposal stage. Media
`reports have confused a spin-off effort known as gPulp as a Gnutella organization, but as the
`principal behind it has recently stated, "We are nota working group on Gnutella."
`
`As of this writing, then, there is no clear leader in terms of a working group or other form of
`organization. There is, however, one arbiter of innovations: the market. Gnutella developers who
`have experimented with "improvements" that run counter to, outsid, or in between the lines of
`the de facto protocol have been kept in check by the fact that their applications must be able to
`communicate with those produced by other developers.
`
`
`__l_a wanted to place more infonnation in
`When the developer of an application known as
`fications called‘ for, he made sure he did it
`search-response messages than existing protocol sp
`in a way that could still be passed on by the original Gnutella application, which was dominant
`in terms of user base at the time. Some other applications regarded Gnotella's search responses as
`noncompliant and dropped or otherwise "mishandled" the messages. The ability of Gnotella
`users to respond to queries was impaired, but the degree of impainnent depended on the
`popularity of applications that regarded Gnotella as noncompliant. This story is being repeated
`with BearShare, which has recently released a version that also places extra information in
`search responses.
`
`Will this market-driven pattern continue, so that Gnutella evolves in a competitive, Darwinian,
`decentralized and bottom-up manner? Or will it "grow up" and follow the trajectory of many
`other protocols, evolving through top—down committee processes? Only time will tell.
`
`Kelly Truelove is thefounder and CE0 of C1ip2, where he has led the company's efforts on P2P
`systems, distributed search, and Gnutella. He is a speaker at the upcoming
`
`
`
`Related Articles:
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1166 of 1442
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1166 of 1442
`
`

`
`2
`
`http://www.openp2p.com/lpt/.._
`In Praise of Freeloaders
`
`01/29/2002 --page 5
`
`E_2_E Di.r.e;_:_1_r.:.r3I.
`
`Moio Nation Responds
`
`..C.>p9.r.1:..S...<2ur9e..R9ur1¢1ta£2.|s:.;..Er§e..Bis1.in.9.9n..§ny1e.lla.. "3
`
`..C.3.n.u.t.eJ.|.a..anQ..Eceen§1._Re93:55:01.Irug..Igghnglggicel.!nr19y§:i9n
`
`r-
`
`e
`
`R
`
`it
`
`Discuss this article in the O'Reii|y Network General Forum.
`
`Return to the P2P Devcenter.
`
`oreiIIynet.com Copyright © 2000 O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1167 of 1442
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1167 of 1442
`
`

`
`Pl’
`
` fableco
`
` By Pamt-ia A. Murphy,
`
`Manager Emerging Vedmology and Standards.
`Rockwell Automation Conval Sydems
`
`
`
`As today's source/destination~based networks cannot offer the required functionality or accommodate
`increased traffic, system capabilities and productivity improvements are restricted Consequently, a new
`network model - one that provides more functionality, makes more eflicient use of bandwidth, and
`increases information flow, all while reducing traffic on the wire - is needed.
`In a discussion of what is needed in the new network model regarding diagnostics, explicit and I/O
`messaging and throughput, the producer/consumer network model is revealed as the only model avail-
`able today that can meet the control environments demanding requirements and allow for future migra-
`tion. The paper concludes with a discussion of the benefits of the producer/consumer network model,
`including Mu/ticast and two one-way l/0 trigger mechanisms: change-of-state and cyclic I/0 produc-
`tion.
`
`INI'RODUC'I1ON
`
`
`
`f there's one thing we've all learned over the past
`decade, it's that users are demanding more from
`their control systems. and consequently, from the
`networks that tie the system together. Users want bet-
`ter diagnostics available over the network. less down-
`time, and reduced installation and maintenance costs.
`At
`the same time,
`they are demanding improved
`throughput.
`With increased functionality comes more traffic and
`data on the wire.
`Today's networks, which are
`source/destination based, cannot offer the required
`functionality and accommodate increased traffic, thus
`restricting
`system capabilities
`and productivity
`improvements.
`Increased demands on networks have forced the evo-
`
`- one that provides
`lution of a new network model
`more functionality, makes more efficient use of band-
`width, and increases information flow, all while reduc-
`ing traffic on the wire.
`Unlonunately, much of the discussion to date about
`networks has focused on baud rates, protocol efficien-
`cy, and physical characteristics fie. type of wire used).
`In reality, it's more complex than that Available diag-
`nostics, messaging types and throughput must all be
`considered when evaluating a network
`The most important factor affecting these capabilities
`in the control environment is the network model
`
`The source/destination model used for the past two
`decades can no longer meet todays network needs.
`The only model available today that can meet these
`demanding requirements and allows for future migra-
`tion is the producerlconsumer network model. Here's
`why:
`
`DIAGNOSTICS
`
`Networks provide a convenient way to retrieve diag-
`nostics from devices.
`Device-specific information,
`
`such as detection of a photoelectric sensors low mar-
`gin due to a dirty lens can be communicated over the
`network to the control system during run time. The net-
`work delivers the diagnostic to the system operator
`interface, alerting plant personnel to the problem. The
`lens can be cleaned at a convenient time before there
`
`is a glitch in the process. Trouble-shooting a device,
`reading its fault codes, updating data logs -- all while
`not impacting the remote I/O control data exchange
`among other nodes --
`is a must
`
`LIOIT AND I/O MESSAGING
`
`Explicit messages, used for device configuration and
`diagnostics, are extremely flexible, with the data field
`carrying protocol information and instructions for ser-
`vice performance. For example. a message would be
`able to write new presets to five timers in a controller,
`or to execute a self-test Explicit messages are used
`for uploading and downing programs, modifying
`device configurations, and data logging trending and
`diagnostic functions. Nodes must interpret each mes-
`sage, perform the requested task, and generate
`responses. These types of messages are highly vari-
`able in both size and frequency.
`I/O messages on the other hand are implicit in nature.
`The data field contains no protocol information. only
`real-time llO control data. The meaning of the data
`has been predefined and processing time in the node
`is minimized. An example of an I/0 message is a con-
`troller sending output data to an |lO block. and the V0
`block responding with its input data. Such messages
`are low overhead, short vary frequently and require
`high performance.
`In the past. manufacturers have had separate networks
`to deal with the very different requirements of these two
`messaging types A network used for U0 control can-
`not tolerate the variability introduced by explicit mes-
`saging. Allen-Bradleys blue-hose duo, DH+/RIO and
`Siemens‘ Profibus FMSI Profibus DP are examples of
`
`425
`
`copyright 2000 by Dedicated Systems Magazine - 2000 Q1 (Imp://www.dedicc9ed-synems.¢om)
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1168 of 1442
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1168 of 1442
`
`

`
`
`
`this situation
`
`Todays users are demanding both functions on the
`same wire. And today's smarter devices need the
`functionality provided by both messaging types
`Yesterday's source/destination networks cannot deal
`with these modern demands
`
`THROUGHPUT
`
`Ultimately it's the throughput required by the applica-
`tion that determines what type of network model is
`required. Throughput is the rate at which input data
`from devices can be delivered to all nodes that need it
`
`and the resulting output data (decisions) can be deliv-
`ered to all the devices that need it. Nodes include sen-
`
`cally limited to that function alone to obtain the neces-
`sary repeatability and throughput for control.
`Peer-to-peer networking goes beyond master/slave,
`providing considerably more flexibility. But as a result
`most networks that support peer-to-peer use explicit
`messaging.
`
`PC-based programming _and configuration of con-
`trollers uses explicit peer-to-peer messaging.
`PC-
`based MMI also use explicit peer-topeer messaging.
`As additional MMI units are added. the network load
`increases dramatically as each unit typically will read
`all the same variables out of each controller as does
`the prior units so an operator can get the same alarms,
`trends and graphics from multiple locations
`
`
`
`Figure 1.
`
`interfaces, controllers, data loggers.
`sors, operator
`alarm monitors, actuators, etc.
`It
`is determined by
`baud rate, protocol efficiency, and most important of all,
`the network model, or delivery method. Let's briefly dis-
`cuss each
`
`Baud rate is raw speed It's unfortunate that this is
`often the most used measure of performance because
`it's the most misleading. Not only that. but with todays
`new networks,
`it's the least
`important of the three
`throughput factors.
`Protocol efficiency - data bytes (the payload) versus
`the total bytes in the packet ~ typically expressed as a
`percent,
`is a measure of the network protocol over-
`head. While important, it is not nearly as significant as
`the data delivery and exchange method (network
`model) used.
`If a particular information exchange
`takes two or more packets on the wire as compared to
`one, the fact the one protocol has 25 percent greater
`efficiency becomes meaningless.
`
`To keep nodes from dominating the wire, most peer-
`to-peer networks use some sort of token rotation algo-
`rithm. While these algorithms have been enhanced
`over the years to be more "fair. the basic flexibility that
`makes it attractive makes its use for peer-to-peer inter-
`locking
`between
`controllers
`very
`problematic.
`Response times vary considerably for any given mes-
`sage, depending on load and on how ‘far away” one
`is from the token holder when there is a need to speak
`Frequently low-end electronic operator interface (EOI)
`units will be found on I/0 networks, basically replacing
`simple push button, pilot
`light and meters. But as
`each EOI device is added, an additional load of typi-
`cally the same data new node with a different destina-
`tion address is added to the network While variability
`isn't a factor because of the fixed nature of such loads,
`the increase in data load slows response time for all
`nodes, including the real I/0.
`it's not just E0l that's
`causing excess network loading. As I/O devices get
`
`
`
`Figure 2.
`
`Network model. Every control vendor has its own
`favorite networks whether it be Data Highway Plus,
`Remote l/O, Profibus FMS, Profrbus DP. lnterbus-S, ASI,
`Modbus Plus GeniusLan or Lonworks. All these net-
`working options have the same thing in common
`They follow the legacy source/destination network
`model. A typical packet is shown below.
`the
`In master/slave implementations of this model,
`source field is usually not present. as the master is the
`only source and all responses from slaves are for the
`master. This master/slave polling is inherently a one-
`to-one data exchange.
`It
`is typically used for
`the
`exchange of real time control data (I/O messaging).
`When used for I/O exchange. such networks are typi-
`
`smarter. the extra diagnostic and configuration data
`can absorb considerable bandwidth.
`
`Whether master/slave or peer-to-peer, destination-ori-
`ented networks waste considerable bandwidth send-
`
`ing the same data set to multiple nodes. Trying to do
`coordinated control like sending a new setpoint to dif-
`ferent drives in a synchronized manner is very difficult
`as data anives at each drive at a different time.
`
`The now network paradigm: mo pro-
`ducer/oonsumor network model
`
`To manage the growing need for data, smarter devices
`and better control, new networks that simply increase
`the baud rate or number of nodes only postpones the
`
`Copyright 2000 by Dedicated Systems Magazine - 2000 01 (Mfp://wwwfledlcnfed-sp!elns.comI
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1169 of 1442
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1169 of 1442
`
`

`
`
`
`4.....~.*.
`
`
`
`inevitable. What is needed is a whole new network
`
`model
`issues.
`
`that
`
`is designed to manage today's control
`
`That new model is producer/consumer. with produc-
`er/consumer networks, messages are identified by
`content
`If a node needs data, it will “accept” that iden-
`tifier and consume it
`
`Multicast Because data is identified by its content; if
`a node needs that data. multiple nodes can consume
`the same data at the same time from a single produc-
`er. Nodes may be synchronized more precisely while
`achieving more efficient bandwidth usage. The source
`of data has to produce the information only once.
`Additional EOI and MMI can be added without
`
`increasing network traffic, since they can consume
`these same messages. And nodes can produce more
`than one data set, each using a unique identifier.
`Multicast is inherently impossible with sourceldestina-
`tion networks, although attempts have been made.
`Some have added a third field for a group destination
`and then reserved node numbers for group destina-
`tion. Others allow a node to cany more than one node
`number. But these are all band-aid approaches. des-
`perately trying to extend the exhausted legacy
`sourceldestination model.
`
`Producer/consumer also allows for two new powerful
`I/O triggers, in addition to traditional polling. Polling is
`born out of the sourceldestination model, and is inher-
`ently a two message bi-directional transaction (origina-
`tor sends output data, and receiving node responds
`with input data). This transaction is repeated as rapid-
`ly as possible to minimize latency from when an input
`occurs and is delivered to the controller. Most polling
`cycles are filled with the same outputs and inputs,
`wasting bandwidth.
`With the producer/consumer model, two more efficient
`and eflective one-way I/O trigger mechanisms are
`available: change-of-state and cyclic l/O production.
`Change-of-state (event-based) data production
`Nodes produce data only when that data changes.
`There is no ‘network polling cycle delay,‘ and, as a
`result. the data is delivered to all consumers when it
`changes. A background heanbeat is produced cycli-
`cally so that consumers can tell
`if a device hasn't
`changed from one that is no longer online. Change-
`of-state can dramatically reduce network traffic and the
`load-on typically needed to repeatedly receive, process
`and generate the same data.
`Cyclic (time-based) data production. Cyclic data
`production involves nodes producing data at a user-
`configured rate. Data is updated at a rate appropriate
`to the node and the application Data can be sampled
`and produced by sensors at precise intervals for better
`PID control. Controllers can collect a stock of data for
`
`operator interfaces and produce it a couple times a
`second, plenty fast for human consumption; thereby
`preserving bandwidth for nodes with rapidly changing
`I/O.
`
`Both peer-to-peer and controller-to-device exchanges
`can be handled more efficiently with cyclic and
`change-of-state data production of producer/con-
`
`sumer networks. Operator interface needs can be lay-
`ered on top of I/O traffic with minimal increases to net-
`work load.
`
`At the same time, producer/consumer networks can
`accommodate the flexible explicit messaging, point-to-
`point needs for device configuration and program-
`ming. Certain identifiers are typically specified for such
`traffic and nodes know they contain destination and
`other protocol information These identifiers, coupled
`with the network access method, combine to insure
`that explicit messages, with their assorted larger over-
`head are much lower priority on the network than the
`l/O messages. Large uploads and downloads adjust-
`ments to configurations parameters, and diagnostic
`activities by users with their S/W tools are relegated to
`background traffic, fitted between the higher priority I/O
`messages.
`No need for users to run both an I/O network and
`explicit message network through the plant And no
`need for vendors to put an I/O pen and an explicit
`message network port on devices.
`Is it any wonder
`that the newest open control networks - DeviceNet.
`Contro|Net. and FOUNDATION Fieldbus ~- are all
`based on the producer/consumer model?
`Will the source/destination model «is-
`appear?
`Source/destination is a “hand me down‘ from the com-
`
`puter and data processing industry. While limited,
`source/destination systems are still well-suited for a
`variety of applications which do not require complex
`coordination and sharing of data. The flexibility and
`eificiency of the producer/consumer network model
`will allow for the expanded functionality demanded by
`today's applications and is well suited for tomorrow's
`smarter devices.
`in this day in age where users are
`demanding more (functionality, diagnostics) with less
`(one wire, not two), both users and vendors need a
`control networking strategy that works smaner — and,
`consequently, a network model that works smaner and
`accomodates the future
`
`Patricia A. Murphy is manager for Emerging
`Technology and Standards at Rockwell Automation
`Control Systems.
`Murphy's responsibilities include:
`~
`Integrating advanced technology into Rockwell
`Automation Control System's Communications
`Business
`
`Coordinating advanced technology projects.
`Participating in industry consortia such as
`Fieldbus Foundation, ODVA and ControlNet
`lntemational
`
`Leading business standards activity and partici-
`pating in international standards committees as
`appropriate.
`Murphy has many years of marketing and product
`management experience in technology driven indus-
`tries including automation, with Rockwell Automation
`Control Systems, and telecommunications, with
`Ericsson and GE.
`
`28‘
`
`Copyright 2000 by Dedicated Systems Magazine - 2000 01 (Mop://vr\vw.dedica|ed-£ysOemu.¢om}
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1170 of 1442
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1170 of 1442
`
`

`
`Colvvop
`
`,
`
`g;’)f E
`'24-, ‘27 (
`0Rl®lNALt§A§l%gi§
` §‘ Attorney Docket No. 0300«t,3;GO2UE§" > .3
`
`~‘ 1‘
`
`'
`
`
`
`
`IN RE APPLlCATlON or=:
`
`4,
`
`ART UNIT No. 2744
`
`FRED B. HOLT AND V|RGlL E. BOURASSA
`
`Appuczmou No.: 09/629,570
`FILED: Jun 31, 2000
`
`‘
`
`,
`
`FoR: JOINING A BROADCAST CHANNEL
`
`
`RECEWED
`JUN 2 7 2002
`
`Technology gamer M9
`
`Sunrgggllemelrntall llnnlforrmmatfiorm lD)fiscll0sunrre Statement Witllnfinn Three Months oil‘
`Aprgflficmtfionn IF‘l'1lli'1nng orr Ifilelforre IF‘firrst Action — 37 (CFR ]1.97gM
`'
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`1.
`
`Timing of Submission
`
`This information disclosure is being filed within three months of the filing date of this
`application or date of entry into the national stage of an international application or
`before the mailing date of a first Office action on the merits, whichever occurs last
`[37 CFR 1.97(b)].
`The references listed on the enclosed Foml PTO/SB/08A
`(modified) may be material to the examination of this application; the Examiner is
`requested to make them of record in the application.
`
`2.
`
`Cited Information
`
`E
`
`Copies of the following references are enclosed:
`
`8
`
`1:]
`E]
`
`All cited references
`
`References marked by asterisks
`The following:
`
`[:1
`
`Copies of the following references can be found in parent application Ser. No.
`
`lj
`El
`C1
`
`All cited references
`References marked by asterisks
`The following:
`
`[1
`
`The following references are not in English. For each such reference, the
`undersigned has enclosed (i) a translation of the reference; (ii) a copy of a
`communication from a foreign patent office or
`lntemational Searching
`Authority citing the reference, (iii) a copy of a reference which appears to be
`an English-language counterpart, or (iv) an English-language abstract for the
`reference prepared by a third party. Applicant has not verified that the
`
`[/Supplemental IDS-NO 0-A - JAN2002.DOC]
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1171 of 1442
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1171 of 1442
`
`

`
`oaieiNALLV F‘
`
`_,»_;
`
`\'
`
`is an
`third-party abstract
`translation, English-language counterpart or
`accurate representation of
`the teachings of the non-English reference,
`though, and reserves the right to demonstrate othenlvise.
`
`I]
`El
`I3
`
`All cited references
`References marked by ampersands
`The following:
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Effect of Information Disclosure Statement 37 CFR 1.97 h
`
`
`This lnforrnation Disclosure Statement is not to be construed as a representation
`that:
`(i) a search has been made;
`(ii) additional
`information material
`to the
`examination of this application does not exist; (iii) the information, protocols, results
`and the like reported by third parties are accurate or enabling; or (iv) the cited
`infonnation is, or is considered to be, material to patentability.
`In addition, applicant
`does not admit that any enclosed item of
`information constitutes prior art to the
`subject invention and specifically reserves the right to demonstrate that any such
`reference is not prior art.
`
`4.
`
`Fee Payment
`
`No fees are believed due. However, should the Commissioner determine that fees
`are due in order for this lnforrnation Disclosure Statement to be considered,
`the
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge such fees to Deposit Account No. 50-
`0665.
`
`5.
`
`Patent Term Adjustment (37 CFR 1.704(d))
`
`E
`
`The undersigned states that each item of information submitted herewith was
`cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart
`application and that this communication was not received by any individual
`designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) more than thirty days prior to the filing of
`this statement. 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(d).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Perkins Coie LLP
`
`\
`
`aun'ce J. Pirio
`
`o
`
`Registration No. 33,273
`
`Date:
`
`X
`
`i
`
`I S I 1 L
`
`C0lI'lI'eSlQ0lil1d<BIIIlCe Adldliress:
`Customer No. 25096
`
`Perkins Coie LLP
`
`P.O. Box 1247
`
`Seattle, Washington 981 1 1-1247
`Phone: (206) 583-8888
`
`[/Supplemental IDS-NO O-A - JAN2002.DOC]
`
`2
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1172 of 1442
`
`IPR2016-00726 -ACTIVISION, EA, TAKE-TWO, 2K, ROCKSTAR,
`Ex. 1102, p. 1172 of 1442
`
`

`
`_is
`
`RELIABLE BROADCAST IN MOBILE VVIRELIESS NETWORKS‘
`
`S. Alagar and S. Venkatesan
`Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas
`Richardson. TX 75083
`
`J. R. Cleveland
`
`C3 Systems Division, Electrospace Systems, Inc., A Chrysler Company
`Richardson, TX 75081
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`This paper presents prrelirnirtaryresults of our research on
`wireless networking that supports reliable communications
`between nomadic hosts engaged in distributed computing and
`collaborative confaertcing. Our network model consists of a
`set of low-power, radio frequency (RB transceivers which
`. move relative to each other across an irregular terrain subject
`to RIF propagation impairments. The low transmitter power
`defines a radio coverage which limits the probability of
`imercspt and the rnnnba of neighbors but optimizes frequency
`reuse. The combination of low power and propagation
`environment produces a network characterized by stochastic
`link failures. The rapidity of these failures and perturbations
`to the network topology defeats the use of routing policies
`timed on maintaining routing tables or determining least cost
`paths. With these conditions as the background, our work
`addresses the need to provide reliable information exchange,
`mitigate bottlenecks, avoid excessive traffic, and offer scalable
`services without the benefit of static base station or fixed
`
`backbone support. Meaing such challenges demands a robust,
`flexible information transport system that delivers all required
`information for diverse operational scenarios. The approach
`emphasizes the importance of achieving guaranteed delivery
`across a network of limited size operating in a hostile
`environment rather than obtaining a high throughput per unit
`area, typical of commercial enterprises.
`
`The basic premise of the protocol is that host mobility and
`terrain prevents a priori knowledge of any host location and
`optimum path. Message broadcasting, or flood routing,
`provides the means for reliable delivery of infomiation in the
`presence of uncertain connectivity and node locations.
`Knowledge of the network results, instead, from a measure of
`transmitted and received message traffic. Central to the
`protocol is the provision for each mobile host to retain a
`HISTORY of messages broadcast to and received from its
`neighbor(s). A host which receives a message broadcasts an
`
`acknowledgment to the sender, updates its local HISTORY, and
`then retransmits the message if it is not a duplicate message.
`Duplimted messages are discarded. If a sending host does not
`receive an acknowledgmem from a neighbor within a certain
`time. it timeouts and resends the message. If a host does not
`receive an wtnowlalgrnent aha’ sevaal retries, it assumes that
`the link disconnection is not u-ansient and stops sending the
`message. When a host detects a new neighbor, a handshake
`procedure results in the exchange of active messages not
`common to the respective HISTORY of each host. Once the
`handshake procedure terminates, the conrentsof the HISTORY
`for each host are
`Thus. using handshake procedures,
`mobile hosts receive messages that
`they did not receive
`previously due to link dlsconnections.
`ldle hosts will
`periodically broadcast a sounding message to maintain their
`network presence.
`«
`-
`'
`
`lIN'11'R0lDlUC'll‘ION. Winning the information war with
`1.
`complete and up-to-date intelligence is vital to the entire
`spectrum of possible operational
`requirements, whether
`engaged in war or corporate strategic planning. Military
`commanders engaged in rapid force projection, as well as
`public safety officers, medical staff, and corporate managers,
`demand accurate information regardless of location or
`situation. Each requires a clear and accurate picture of a
`changing situation to reach well-informed decisions and
`successful conclusion. Information must flow throughout the
`network toward the users at each level of the management
`hierarchy whether at the sustaining base or at the forward most
`part of the mission
`staff must have the capability
`to acquire or send accurate infomration that defines their space
`and situation. The information transport network must extend
`reliable voice. data. video. and imagery transmissions to
`nomadic users at any location. The availability of assured
`communications directly relates to mission success through
`computing, confa-encing, and synchronized tasking while fixed
`or on-the—rnove.
`invariably, this critical information is re