UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00261
`U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717 B1
`Issued: June 29, 2004
`Application No. 09/398,007
`Filed: September 16, 1999
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA ACCESS
`
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIM
`NOS. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, AND 27 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,757,717
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
`FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel And
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4)) ........................... 3
`
`D.
`
`Fee For Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)) ............................ 3
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e)) ....................................................... 3
`
`Grounds For Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................... 3
`
`G.
`
`Identification Of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ............................ 5
`
`II.
`
`PRIOR ART ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`The Five Prior Art References Disclosed Both Claimed Ideas ............. 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Each Reference Qualifies As Prior Art ................................................. 7
`
`Prior Art’s Disclosures .......................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Art Recognized The
`Redundant Data Problem And Its Causes ................................... 9
`
`The Art Disclosed Common
`Mathematical Solutions To This Problem ................................11
`
`DRP (Ex. 1005) Discloses Checking By Fingerprint
`To Address All Three Data-Redundancy Scenarios .................13
`
`4. Mattis (Ex. 1006) Discloses
`Implementation Details For Storing,
`Verifying And Searching For Data By Its Fingerprint .............15
`
`5. Williams (Ex. 1002) Discloses Sending Fingerprints
`For Desired And Overlapping Data In The Same Message .....17
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`D.
`
`Background Art ...................................................................................21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Admitted Art .............................................................................21
`
`Santos (Ex. 1004) ......................................................................23
`
`Perlman (Ex. 1003) ...................................................................24
`
`III.
`
`’717 PATENT’S ALLEGED INVENTION .................................................25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Specification .................................................................................25
`
`Claims 15-17 And 19-21 Are Directed To Searching
`Or Verifying By Fingerprint To Reduce Data Redundancies .............28
`
`Claims 25-27 Are Directed To Searching
`By Fingerprint To Reduce Data Redundancies ...................................29
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................29
`
`V. GROUND 1: DRP (EX. 1005) ANTICIPATES CLAIM 16 ........................30
`
`VI. GROUNDS 2-4 (OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 15, 17, 19-21, 25-27) ......31
`
`A. Admissions Regarding Level Of Skill In The Art ..............................31
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claim 15 Was Obvious Over DRP (Ex. 1005) In View Of
`Williams (Ex. 1002) ............................................................................33
`
`Ground 3: Claims 17, 19 And 20 Were Obvious Over DRP (Ex.
`1005) In View Of Mattis (Ex. 1006) ...................................................36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 17’s Preamble .................................................................36
`
`Claim 17’s First Step
`(“creating and transmitting digital digests …”) ........................39
`
`Claim 17’s Second Step
`(“receiving a response signal ….”) ...........................................41
`
`Claim 17’s Conditional Third Step
`(“transmitting a signal constituting the difference …”) ...........43
`
`Claim 19 (“creates said digital digest …”) ...............................44
`
`Claim 20 (“digital digest is obtained …”) ................................44
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 21 And 25-27
`Were Obvious Over DRP (Ex. 1005)
`In View Of Mattis (Ex. 1006) And Williams (Ex. 1002) ...................46
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`The “Method” Of Claim 21 Was Obvious................................46
`
`The “Methods” Of Claims 25-27 Were Obvious .....................48
`
`Claim 25’s Preamble .................................................................48
`
`Claim 25’s First Step (“receiving a message …”) ....................50
`
`Claim 25’s Second Step
`(“searching in predetermined locations …”) ............................53
`
`Claim 25’s Third Step
`(“searching in predetermined locations …”) ............................56
`
`Claim 25’s Conditional Fourth Step
`(“forming a partial indication signal …”) .................................57
`
`Claim 26 (“searching the network cache …”) ..........................57
`
`Claim 27 (“searching said network cache …”) ........................59
`
`E.
`
`These Combinations Of DRP,
`Mattis, And Williams Were Obvious ..................................................59
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Same Problem ...........................................................................60
`
`Same Solution ...........................................................................61
`
`Same Application ......................................................................61
`
`4. Mattis (Ex. 1006) Contemplates DRP-Type Requests .............62
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`No Teaching Away ...................................................................62
`
`Summary ...................................................................................62
`
`F.
`
`No Objective Indicia Of Non-Obviousness ........................................63
`
`VII. THE SKELETAL ’717 SPECIFICATION ...................................................63
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................63
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Atl. Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards,
`IPR2015-00826, Paper 12, 2015 WL 5159438 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2015) .................. 4
`
`In re Epstein,
`32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ....................................................................... 33, 63
`
`In re Fox,
`471 F.2d 1405 (CCPA 1973) ......................................................................... 33, 63
`
`In re Freeman,
`30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..........................................................................7, 31
`
`In re Tiffin,
`448 F.2d 791 (CCPA 1971) ..................................................................................63
`
`In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc.,
`752 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................63
`
`Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH & KG,
`IPR2012-00004, Paper 18, 2013 WL 5947694 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2013) .................. 4
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC,
`IPR2015-483, Paper 10, 2015 WL 4760578 (PTAB July 15, 2015) ..................... 5
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................30
`
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................59
`
`Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
`702 F.3d 640 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................. 6, 7, 8, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................33
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ......................................................................................................4, 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rules
`
`37 CFR 42.73 ............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e)
`
`EX. NO:
`
`EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`Leonid Goldstein, U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717, “System and Method
`for Data Access,” issued Jun. 29, 2004, with Certificate of Correction,
`issued Aug. 14, 2012. (“’717 Patent”)
`
`Ross Neil Williams, WO 96/25801, “Method For Partitioning A
`Block of Data Into Subblocks And For Storing And Communicating
`Such Subblocks,” published Aug. 22, 1996. (“Williams”)
`
`Radia J. Perlman et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,742,820, “Mechanism for
`Efficiently Synchronizing Information Over a Network,” issued Apr.
`21, 1998. (“Perlman”)
`
`Jonathan Santos et al., “USENIX, Increasing Effective Link
`Bandwidth by Suppressing Replicated Date,” Proceedings of the
`USENIX Annual Technical Conference (NO 98) New Orleans,
`Louisiana, June 1998. (“Santos”)
`
`Arthur van Hoff, John Giannandrea, Mark Hapner, Steve Carter, and
`Milo Medin, “The HTTP Distribution and Replication Protocol,”
`W3C Note, http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-drp-19970825.html, Aug.
`1997. (“DRP”)
`
`1006
`
`Peter Mattis et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,292,880, “Alias-Free Content-
`Indexed Object Cache,” issued Sept. 18, 2001. (“Mattis”)
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Peter Mattis et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 09/060,886, “System
`and Method for Generating Other Publications,” deposited Apr. 15,
`1998.
`
`Final Written Decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Cases
`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109, issued Feb. 19, 2014
`
`Decision on Remand in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Cases
`IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109, issued Dec. 9, 2015.
`
`vi
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`1010 Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case No. 14-1542, Slip Op. (Fed.
`Cir. June 16, 2015).
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Ex parte Smith, No. 2009-014595 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2010).
`
`Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, Case No.
`SA CVII-1681 DOC (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.) (Jan. 22, 2013).
`
`Federal District Court for the Central District of California, Report to
`Patent Office On the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding
`a Patent or Trademark (case terminated following stipulation to
`dismiss) (Jan. 23, 2013).
`
`Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Staff Note on HTTP Distribution and
`Replication Protocol Submission, Aug. 28, 1997 (available at
`http://www.w3.org/Submission/1997/10/Comment.html).
`
`Marimba et al., Joint Submission Request to the World Wide Web
`Consortium for the HTTP Distribution and Replication Protocol,
`dated August 20, 1997 (available at
`https://www.w3.org/Submission/1997/10/).
`
`Tim Berners-Lee, Acknowledged Submissions to W3C, dated Feb.
`12, 1998 (as captured by the Internet Archive on February 13, 1998)
`(available at
`http://web.archive.org/web/19980213220701/http:/www13.w3.org/Su
`bmission/).
`
`1017
`
`Infoworld Article on DRP (Sept. 1, 1997).
`
`1018
`
`Network World on DRP (Sept. 1, 1997, Vol. 14, No. 38).
`
`1019
`
`Hoschka & Connolly, W3C Workshop on Push Technology, dated
`Sept. 12, 1997 (as captured by the Internet Archive on February 13,
`1998) (available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/19980213183443/http:/www13.w3.org/A
`rchitecture/9709_Workshop/).
`
`vii
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`Martin Abadi, Krishna Bharat, Johannes Marais, U.S. Patent No.
`6,141,760 “Alias-Free Content-Indexed Object Cache,” issued Oct.
`31, 2000.
`
`Excerpts from Exhibit B to Complaint in Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft
`Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-01102 DOC (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.),
`filed June 14, 2016.
`
`1022
`
`Declaration of Darrell D.E. Long, signed and dated November 8,
`2016.
`
`1023
`
`Declaration of Marla Beier, signed and dated November 14, 2016.
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
`FOR A PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party-in-interest of
`
`this petition
`
`is Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft”), located at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`On November 3, 2011, Patent Owner Proxyconn asserted the challenged
`
`patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717 (“the ’717 patent,” Ex. 1001) against Microsoft
`
`and some of its customers (Acer America Corporation, Dell Inc., and Hewlett-
`
`Packard Company) in Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al., Case No.
`
`8:11-cv-1681 DOC (JPRx) (C.D. Cal) (consolidated with Case Nos. 8:11-cv-1682,
`
`8:11-cv-1683, 8:11-cv-1684 and 8:11-cv-12-889) (collectively “the ’717 Prior
`
`Litigation”). In 2013, Proxyconn stipulated to dismiss the ’717 Prior Litigation
`
`“without prejudice . . . pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii),” leading to
`
`termination of the case on January 22, 2013. (Exs. 1012-13 (emphasis added).) No
`
`claim challenged in this Petition was identified in the ’717 Prior Litigation as being
`
`asserted.
`
`On September 18, 2012, Microsoft filed a first Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review requesting review of claims 1, 3, 10-12, 14 and 22-24 of the ’717 patent
`
`(IPR2012-00026). On January 11, 2013, Microsoft filed a second Petition for Inter
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 1
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Partes Review requesting review of claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 of the ’717 patent
`
`(IPR2013-00109) along with a Motion for Joinder with IPR2012-00026, which was
`
`granted.
`
`On February 19, 2014, the Board entered an original final written decision
`
`(IPR2012-00026, Paper 73) finding Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 22-23 to be
`
`unpatentable. Claim 24 was determined to be patentable (over references Yohe and
`
`Perlman). That decision was appealed, and remanded. The Board entered a Decision
`
`On Remand (IPR2012-00026, Paper 80), again finding Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-12, 14,
`
`22-23 to be unpatentable. Patent Owner did not appeal that decision. The Patent
`
`Office has not yet formally cancelled the claims determined to be unpatentable.
`
`On June 14, 2016, Proxyconn filed its second suit asserting the ’717 patent
`
`against Microsoft and the same three Microsoft customers (Acer America
`
`Corporation, Dell Inc., and Hewlett-Packard Company), now styled Proxyconn Inc.
`
`v. Microsoft Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-01102 DOC (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.),
`
`pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (“the ’717
`
`Concurrent Litigation”). The ’717 Concurrent Litigation asserts Claim 24, which is
`
`not challenged in this Petition, as well as Claims 15-17, 20 and 25-26, which were
`
`not asserted in the ’717 Prior Litigation.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel
`And Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4))
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`John D. Vandenberg
`
`Andrew M. Mason
`
`USPTO Reg. No. 31312
`
`USPTO Reg. No. 64034
`
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`
`(503) 595-5300
`
`(503) 595-5300
`
`Service on Microsoft may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Klarquist
`
`Sparkman, LLP, 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600, Portland, OR 97204. The fax
`
`number for lead and back-up counsel is (503) 595-5301. Microsoft consents to
`
`service via email at the above email addresses.
`
`D.
`
`Fee For Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a))
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a), 42.103, please charge the fee for
`
`Inter Partes Review of $23,000.00 to Deposit Account 02-4550.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit List (37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e))
`
`The evidence relied upon in this petition is listed in the List of Exhibits, above,
`
`and filed concurrently with this petition as Microsoft’s Exhibits 1001–1023.
`
`F. Grounds For Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Microsoft certifies that this patent is available for inter partes review and that
`
`Microsoft is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging these claims on the grounds identified in this petition. Microsoft also
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`certifies this petition for inter partes review is filed within one year of the date of
`
`service of the complaint alleging infringement that could implicate the bar of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Microsoft was served on June 21, 2016 in the ’717 Concurrent
`
`Litigation alleging infringement of the ’717 Patent. Because the date of this petition
`
`is not more than one year from date of service of the complaint in the ’717
`
`Concurrent Litigation, this petition complies with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Service of the complaint in the ’717 Prior Litigation in 2011 does not change
`
`the analysis. “When considering the statutory bar under § 315(b), the Board has
`
`consistently held that dismissal without prejudice of a party from district-court
`
`litigation nullifies the effect of service on that party of the underlying complaint.”
`
`Atl. Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, IPR2015-00826, Paper 12 at 12-13,
`
`2015 WL 5159438, at *7 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2015) (collecting cases). When Patent
`
`Owner Proxyconn stipulated to dismiss without prejudice the ’717 Prior Litigation
`
`in 2013, it “nullifie[d] the effect of service” in 2011 on Microsoft and its customers
`
`for purposes of § 315(b). See id.; see also Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH & KG,
`
`IPR2012-00004, Paper 18 at 15, 2013 WL 5947694, at *7 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2013)
`
`(“The Federal Circuit has consistently interpreted the effect of such dismissals as
`
`leaving the parties as though the action had never been brought.”).
`
`The result is no different when the dismissal without prejudice is based on an
`
`agreement between the parties to the district court litigation; it “does not change the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`fact that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, from the point of view of the courts,
`
`renders the prior action a nullity.” Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel Networks Licensing,
`
`LLC, IPR2015-483, Paper 10 at 13, 2015 WL 4760578, at *7 (PTAB July 15, 2015).
`
`“If parties to a settlement agreement wish to prevent filing of inter partes review
`
`petitions following the dismissal of their District Court actions, they may do so by
`
`including explicit prohibitions on such filings.” Id. at 14 (finding no bar under §
`
`315(b) based on prior district court action dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
`
`agreement “dated after the enactment of the America Invents Act”). Here, there is
`
`no prohibition on the filing of inter partes review petitions in any agreement between
`
`Patent Owner Proxyconn and Microsoft, or any other party to either the ’717 Prior
`
`Litigation or the ’717 Concurrent Litigation.
`
`Hence, for purposes of § 315(b), only service of the complaint in the ’717
`
`Concurrent Litigation in June 2016 is relevant, making this Petition timely.
`
`G.
`
`Identification Of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq., Microsoft requests inter partes review
`
`of claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, and 27 of the ’717 patent (Ex. 1001), issued
`
`to Proxyconn Inc. Sections I.G-VI infra provide the required statement of the precise
`
`relief requested for each claim challenged, per 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). Specifically,
`
`Microsoft requests Inter Partes Review and a determination of unpatentability on
`
`the following four grounds. Each ground also is based in part on issue preclusion
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`and administrative estoppel arising from the Board’s original Final Written Decision
`
`(OFWD) and its Remand Final Written Decision (RFWD):
`
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Ground 1 DRP (Ex. 1005)
`
`Ground 2 DRP and Williams (Ex. 1002)
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`16
`
`15
`
`Ground 3 DRP and Mattis (Ex. 1006)
`
`§ 103
`
`17, 19, 20
`
`Ground 4 DRP and Mattis and Williams
`
`§ 103
`
`21, 25-27
`
`Each of these four unpatentability grounds also relies on the three above-
`
`identified references (Exs. 1002, 1005, 1006) and the following background art as
`
`evidence of the knowledge, motivations and skills of persons of skill in the art: the
`
`Admitted Art, Santos (Ex. 1004), and Perlman (Ex. 1003).
`
`For each ground, the petition demonstrates at least a reasonable likelihood that
`
`each challenged claim is unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`A. The Five Prior Art References Disclosed Both Claimed Ideas
`
`Each of DRP, Mattis, Williams, Santos, and Perlman (Exs. 1002-1006)
`
`discloses the same idea central to each challenged patent claim, namely sending data
`
`fingerprints to represent desired data for a receiver to use to check whether it already
`
`possesses matching data. At least three of these prior art references (DRP, Williams
`
`and Perlman) also discloses the related idea, recited in some of the challenged
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 6
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`claims, of using received data fingerprints to check for possessed data overlapping
`
`the desired data.
`
`B.
`
`Each Reference Qualifies As Prior Art
`
`Each reference qualifies as a prior art patent or publication. The ’717 patent’s
`
`only U.S. filing date is September 16, 1999, making publications prior to September
`
`16, 1998, prior art under Section 102(b), and patents having a U.S. filing date before
`
`September 16, 1999, presumptively prior art under Section 102(e).
`
`In IPR2012-00026, involving the same challenged patent and these same
`
`parties, the Patent Owner did not challenge the implied finding that each of DRP,
`
`Mattis, Santos, and Perlman qualifies as prior art to this patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1009
`
`at 13. Patent Owner now is estopped from challenging that these four references
`
`qualify as prior art. See 37 CFR 42.73(a) (“A judgment except in the case of a
`
`termination, disposes of all issues that were, or by motion reasonably could have
`
`been, raised and decided.”); In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
`
`(collateral estoppel may bar litigation of an issue “if: (1) the issue is identical to one
`
`decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3)
`
`resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4)
`
`plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action”).
`
`Whether each of these four references qualifies as prior art was necessarily decided
`
`and should be accorded preclusive effect. See Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 7
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Enterprises, Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 645 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“An issue that was necessarily
`
`implicit in a larger determination is given issue preclusive effect.”). The other
`
`elements of issue preclusion are easily established because the issue is identical;
`
`resolution of whether DRP, Mattis, Santos, and Perlman each qualified as prior art
`
`was essential to the final decision finding claims of the ’717 patent to be
`
`unpatentable in view of these references; and Patent Owner had a full and fair
`
`opportunity to litigate the issue.
`
`PCT publication WO 96/25801 (Williams) (Ex. 1002) published August 22,
`
`1996, and thus qualifies as 102(b) prior art.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,742,820 (Perlman) (Ex. 1003) issued April 21, 1998, and thus
`
`qualifies as Sec. 102(b) prior art.
`
`Santos (Ex. 1004) was originally published in the Proceedings of the
`
`USENIX Annual Technical Conference (NO 98) New Orleans, Louisiana, June
`
`1998, and thus qualifies as Sec. 102(b) prior art.
`
`DRP (Ex. 1005) was published August 26, 1997, as a World Wide Web
`
`Consortium (W3C) note (see Ex. 1005 at 1), and thus qualifies as Sec. 102(b) prior
`
`art. Even if issue preclusion and administrative estoppel did not apply, Microsoft
`
`submits substantial evidence establishing DRP as publication prior art under Sec.
`
`102(b). (Exs. 1014–20.) Microsoft submits September 1997 trade magazines writing
`
`about DRP (Ex. 1017 at 3; Ex. 1018 at 3.) DRP also was discussed at the W3C
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 8
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`“push” workshop in Boston on September 8-9, 1997, which had over 70 attendees.
`
`(Ex. 1019.) And DRP was cited before the critical date in additional publications.
`
`(Ex. 1020 at 1 (cited references states, “Hoff et al.; The HTTP Distribution and
`
`Replication Protocol; located @ www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-drp-19970825.html;
`
`downloaded Oct. 1997.”).
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,292,880 (Mattis) (Ex. 1006) issued from a U.S. application
`
`filed April 15, 1998 (Ex. 1007) that contains the content on which this petition relies.
`
`Thus, Mattis presumptively qualifies as Sec. 102(e)(2) prior art.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Art’s Disclosures
`
`1.
`
`The Art Recognized The
`Redundant Data Problem And Its Causes
`
`As Web and other Internet traffic exploded in the late 1990s, so did their
`
`demands on data networks and storage devices for transmitting and storing that
`
`traffic. One problem exacerbating these increasing demands was that much of the
`
`data being transmitted and stored was redundant. For various reasons, computers
`
`already possessing certain data would request transmission of that same data over
`
`the network and store the received redundant copy. In the late 1990s, the art
`
`recognized three common scenarios causing such redundant-data requests.
`
`(Ex. 1022 ¶ 19.)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 9
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Same Content Different Name: First, much network data has the same content
`
`(e.g., this petition) but a different name (e.g., “Petition717” vs. “717Petition”). The
`
`same image may be stored at different Web sites with different file names, for
`
`example. (Ex. 1022 ¶ 19.) Therefore, a local computer relying only on file names
`
`might request transmission of file Y despite already possessing file X with the exact
`
`same content, thus causing a redundant data transmission over the network. “[T]here
`
`may be great similarities between versions of different files. For example, if a file is
`
`renamed, the ‘new’ file will be identical to the ‘old’ file.” (Ex. 1002, 57:2-4.)
`
`Same Name Different Content: Second, much network data has the same
`
`name (Petition717Draft) but with different content (different drafts). The content of
`
`a document may be updated without changing the document’s name, for example.
`
`Knowing this, a local computer already having file “Petition717Draft” may request
`
`re-transmission of that file over the network, in case that file has been updated at its
`
`source after retrieval of the local copy. But often the file has not been updated and
`
`its retransmission is a redundant data transmission over the network. (Ex. 1022 ¶ 19.)
`
`Overlapping Content: Third, much network data overlaps other data. For
`
`example, a local computer may have a directory D including files X and Y but a
`
`remote computer with the master updated version of that directory D includes not
`
`only the same files X and Y (with unchanged content) but also new file Z. If the
`
`local computer simply requests the entire updated directory D, then two of the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 10
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`transmitted files will be redundant data transmissions. (Ex. 1022 ¶ 19.) More
`
`generally, computers often organize data in a hierarchy, and a local computer may
`
`have some but not all portions of the hierarchy. (See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at 2:23-30
`
`(discussing “hierarchical set of files” and noting that “changes are usually restricted
`
`to only a subset of the data”); Ex. 1002 at 57:1-8 (discussing “comparing the hashes
`
`of all the files in the old and new versions of a file system”).)
`
`2.
`
`The Art Disclosed Common
`Mathematical Solutions To This Problem
`
`Before the ’717 patent critical date, multiple artisans had tackled these
`
`common scenarios leading to redundant network data transmission, using essentially
`
`the same mathematical functions and algorithms. The above-described “same name
`
`different content” and “same content different name” scenarios meant that the name
`
`of a data item is an unreliable indicator of its contents. Artisans were quite familiar,
`
`however, with a known reliable (in some environments) indicator of a data item’s
`
`content, namely some mathematical “fingerprint” values calculated from that data
`
`item’s content. (Ex. 1022 ¶ 21.) And artisans realized they could resolve much of
`
`the redundant data problem by using such data fingerprints to represent data when a
`
`computer desiring certain data content checks to see if it already has that data. (Ex.
`
`1022 ¶ 20.) Each of DRP, Mattis, Williams, Perlman, and Santos discloses this idea.
`
`(Id.)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 11
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Artisans had available several standard data fingerprint calculation functions,
`
`including MD5 and CRC-128. (See Ex. 1002 at 34:30–35:17 and 35:24-30; see also
`
`Ex. 1022 ¶ 21.) These functions calculated from the entire content of a data item a
`
`relatively small value called a “data fingerprint” (or “content identifier” or “message
`
`digest” or “hashed value,” among other names) to represent that data item. (Ex. 1022
`
`¶¶ 20-21.)
`
`These data fingerprints were known to have the useful mathematical property
`
`that two different data items were highly unlikely1 (assuming no malicious effort) to
`
`have the same fingerprint. (Ex. 1002 at 35:3-5 and 35:24-29; Ex. 1022 ¶ 21.) In other
`
`words, if two data items have the same data fingerprint, it is highly likely that one
`
`data item is an exact copy of the other. Knowing this, the artisans of these five
`
`references proposed that instead of the source of data simply transmitting over a
`
`network large data items to receivers to ensure they have the most current copy, the
`
`sender instead transmit small data fingerprints to the receiver. (E.g., Ex. 1005 at 3:24
`
`(“[G]enerate a content identifier for a piece of content.”); see also Ex. 1022 ¶ 20.)
`
`This remedied the three redundancy scenarios identified above. (E.g., Ex. 1002 at
`
`57:3-5 (“[I]f a file is renamed, the ‘new’ file will be identical to the ‘old’ file. Such
`
`redundancy can be catered for by comparing the hashes of all the files in the old and
`
`
`1 For these background discussion purposes, Microsoft does not here precisely
`define “highly unlikely.”
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717
`
`Page 12
`
`

`
`IPR2017-00261
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`new versions of a file system.”) and 38:1-3 (“[H]ashes provide an extremely efficient
`
`way to compare subblocks without requiring the direct comparison of the content of
`
`the subblocks themselves.”)).
`
`For example, a requester of network data that stores and searches for data by
`
`its fingerprint can find matching data content even if its exact copy of that data has
`
`a different name. This is because the fingerprint is calculated from the contents of
`
`the data item not its name. (E.g., Ex. 1006 at Abstract (“Since duplicate objects that
`
`have different names will hash to the same content key, the cache can detect
`
`duplicate objects even though they have different names, and store only one copy of
`
`the object.”).)
`
`In sum, it was well-re