wvntVu PROPKIELAKY
`
`ee
`
`INVENTION DISCLOSURE
`
`Page 1 of [7
`
`This form Is to be used for disclosure to The Boeing Company of Inventions, discoveries,
`improvements or Innovations, whetheror not considered patentable.
`See abovefor instructions.
`
`TITLE OF INVENTION (Descriptive and Concise)
`
`INVENTOR NAME(FIRST, ML, LAST)
`
`[3
`
`SOCIALSECURITYNO.
`
`Fie
`
`SOCIALSECURITYNO. a:SOCIA|
`
`-
`
`URITYNO.
`
`MANAGER'S NAME
`
`PHONE
`
`STATE OF DEVELOPMENT(See Remarks On Back)
`DATE BUILT DATE SATISFACTORILY TESTED|| PROTOTYPE
`
`
`
`
`|_| PROVEN ANALYTICALLY 14 INPRODUCTION1A9Gonre9/3(44 2/6/94
`
`3, RELATED INVENTION DISCLOSURE NOS: DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
`
`DESIGN COMPLETE
`
`
`
`
`
`PRODUCT/PROGRAM
`
`POTENTIAL CUSTOMER(S)
`IN ADDITION TO BOEING
`
`DISCLOSED TO;
`
`CUSTOMER
`
`APPLICATION OF THE INVENTION
`PRODUCTION RELEASEE.G, PRR NO.
`
`DISCLOSURE OF INVENTION OUTSIDE BOEING
`
`PUBLICATION NAME
`
`DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
`WHAT BOEING ACCOUNT OR WORK ORDER WERE YOU CHARGING TO WHEN YOU MADETHIS INVENTION?
`ACCOUNT OR WORK ORDER NO. FOR EACH INVENTOR(16-DIGIT CHARGELINE)1)
`2)
`3)
`
`4)
`
`CHECK AS APPLICABLE:
`
`DATE(S)
`4/3/49
`12/9/99
`
`VOLUMENO.
`
`[] THIS INVENTION WAS CONCEIVED OR FIRST BUILT AND TESTED IN THE COURSE OF WORK UNDERA U.S, GOVERNMENT CONTRACT,
`CONTRACT NO. OROTHERIDENTIFICATION.
`[THis INVENTION WAS NEITHER CONCEIVED NOR FIRST BUILT AND TESTEDIN THE COURSE OF WORK UNDER A U.S, GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.
`| THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL PARTIES MAY HAVE RIGHTS TO THIS INVENTION:
`__/ V f “A
`tela
`
`DISCLOSURE NO.
`
`DATE RECEIVED
`
`DISCLOSURE ASSIGNED TO:
`
`PE
`
`Ip
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 1
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 1
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`SWAN: SMALL—-WORLD WIDE AREA NETWORKING
`
`Introduction
`
`in collaborative workflow, and to
`The need has been increasing in large software projects,
`facilitate enterprise-wide-engineering,
`for an effective means to allow scalable and reliable
`sharing of information across multiple processes. For example,
`has proven valuable in allowing collaborative design reviews
`to take place at geographically distant sites, such as between Everett, WA, and St. Louis, MO. To
`enhance the value of J and enable additional world-wide electronic collaboration
`applications, programmers need a software mechanism allowing dozens, hundreds, or perhaps
`thousands of participating computer processes to simultaneously share information easily,
`quickly, and reliably across the world.
`
`Problem Solved By This Invention
`SWAN provides general world—wide
`(“wide—area”) peer-to-peer communications among
`computer processes, It achieves this with high reliability and low latency, scaling from a single
`process to thousands ofparticipating processes. The system is completely distributed among the
`participants, which may join, depart, or even fail, at any time and in any order.
`system
`The
`implementation doesn’t
`require
`special hardware, or
`the
`intervention of
`administrators. All computers can participate, without requiring root access, daemons, kernel
`modifications, or the addition of “well-known” port numbers.
`Though openly accessible, SWAN does have rudimentary security. Joining a session is restricted
`to those processes sharing the SWAN code base and awareofthe correct channel designation.
`
`Background
`There are four categories of computer network communication systems that might be applied to
`the problem of wide-area simultaneous sharing of information for the purpose of collaborative
`processing. These are:
`|) point-to-point networking protocols, 2) client-server middleware, 3)
`multicast networking protocols, and 4) peer-to—peer middleware.
`
`Point-To-Point Networking Protocols
`to allow direct one— or two-way
`A number of point-to-point networking protocols exist
`communication between two computer processes. Examples include UNIX pipes, TCP/IP, UDP,
`IBM’s SNA, and Xerox’ XNS. Of these, only TCP/IP and UDP are universally available for
`communication between computers connectedvia the Internet or on the Boeing Intranet.
`Using point-to—point connections directly does not scale easily as the numberofparticipating
`processes grows. A process is limited in the number of such connections that can be made
`(roughly 60), and managing even a single connection is a complex task for programmers.
`Coordinating a communication session involving even a modest number of connections
`exacerbates the program complexity enormously. Forall of these reasons, direct use of a point-
` THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOODBY
`SalWL "Reber » Aberkr/ ila,5"
`3)33 é Ls
`WITNESS_SIGNATURE
`PRINT |
`PHONE
`NE
`RIN
`:
`WETNESS SICNA TU
`ORGN #
`DATE
`
`
`
`
`12/29/44
`
`DATE
`230.94
`
`
`
`1
`
`Po Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 2
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 2
`
`PATENT STARE)
`
`.
`
`M/S
`
`

`

`is not a feasible mechanism for sharing information across a
`to-point networking protocol
`medium- to large-scale collaboration across a wide-area network.
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`Client-Server Middleware
`
`To alleviate the complexity of programmingdirectly at the network protocol level, client-server
`middleware is available to provide an easier programming abstraction.
`In client-server
`middleware, a numberof“client” processesfind orinstantiate a single “server” process, forming a
`direct network connection between them. The client may then request services from the server,
`which often is given central authority over a resource, such as a database. Examples include
`database servers, remote procedure calls (RPC), and CORBA.
`The client-server paradigm provided by this middleware, while providing a mechanism for
`sequenced resource sharing, is not feasible for collaborative information sharing. One client may
`be able to convey information directly to the server, but the other clients are unaware that the
`server has new information, forcing them to poll the server for possible new information. This
`creates a performance bottleneck as the number of participants increases, adds unduelatency in
`disseminating the information, and wastes processing time as client processes continue to check
`for new information.
`
`Someclient-server middleware packages, such as CORBA, allow clients to register “callbacks,”
`functions to be invoked when an event occurs. While this facility may make collaborative
`information sharing less onerous, for medium- to large-scale applications the single serveris still
`a performancebottleneck.
`Furthermore, thereliability of a collaborative application relying on a single serveris poor, as loss
`of the serveror difficulty in its instantiation completely destroys the integrity of the collaborative
`session.
`
`Multicast Networking Protocols
`Multicast networking protocols allow selective broadcast of messages to multiple recipients. It
`retains the complexity of direct network communication mentioned above, but is a natural choice
`for collaborative sharing. Currently, multicast is available for UDP messages, but virtually all
`UDP multicast traffic is limited to a single local—area networkor, at most, a small set of connected
`local-area networks. UDP multicast,
`in its current
`implementation, could easily swamp the
`Internet otherwise, as it would have to saturate the Internet with each messageto find all possible
`participants.
`Several wide-area multicast networking protocols have been proposed, and some, such as IP
`Multicast, are in limited commercial and/or research deployment. These solutions require special
`router hardware and/or software to achieve data sharing without overwhelmingthe participating
`networks, Even if a standard solution were selected today,
`it would take years, or possibly
`decades, before the entire Internet infrastructure could be completely retrofitted with the new
`technology.
`in an attempt to conserve bandwidth, are not
`Additionally, the solutions proposed in this area,
`constructed with reliability as a concern. By using minimum spanning trees among the routers
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOODBY
`M/S
`Lore| y
`ros
`PHONE
`DATE
`ORGN#
`“ECUMES Robet A, Abeboe|iPHONE
`DATE
`ORGN M/S
`
`
`G24
`DATE
`INVENTORSIGNATURB2 JY
`EN el(SLY
`23 Dee99DATE
`Z2
`
`
`aie feSSSSee
`
`
`DISCLOSURE NO, (ASSIGNED BY PATENT STAFF)
`
`
`NAT
`
`Pp Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 3
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 3
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 199Y 2:21 pm
`
`involved, any routerfailure can partition the collaborative session.
`
`Peer~To—Peer Middleware
`
`Peer—to—peer middleware provides the programmer with a software library that is intended to
`provide an easy—to—use abstraction, such as “publish—and—subscribe” or “shared objects,” for
`immediately sharing information among a set of collaborating processes. Hidden from the
`programmeris how the actual communication takes place.
`The underlying communication infrastructure may make use of a multicast network protocol, or a
`graph of point-to-point network protocols, or a combination of the two. The infrastructure in
`commercial use today, in products such as IBM’s Sametime, Data Connection’s DC-Share, and
`Microsoft’s NetMeeting,
`is
`the T.120 Internet standard. That used in the current TeleFly
`infrastructure is called the RPC Herald. Both have the user (not the programmer), assemble a
`point-to-point graph of connections. For this reason, and others, neitheris suitable for the needs
`of medium-to large-scale collaboration.
`
`T.120 Internet Standard
`
`Figure 1. T.120 connection tree.
`
`An example of a T.120 communicationsession is depicted in Figure 1. When first connecting to a
`session on a given host computer, a proxy process (depicted in gray and blackin the figure), called
`an MCU, is instantiated by a daemonprocess(a resident process thatlistens for such requests, not
`depicted). This MCU formsa direct connection to the MCU of another host designated by the
`application user, or is designated as the root ofthe session (the black dot). The requesting process
`
`THE FOREGOINGWAS IEXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOOD BY
`
`M/S
`ORGN#
`DATE
`PHONE
`WITNESSGina!ae
`&
`betAbeer A+PHONE
`DATE
`
`2/71/99
`
`
`
`
`ORGN#_
`
`M/S
`
`DATE
`lb De Ff
`DATE
`
`Po Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 4
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 4
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`and all additional processes on the host wishing to join the session forma direct connection to the
`MCU processonthat host. To share information, a process sends a messageto its MCU, which is
`sent up the tree of MCUs to the root, then down the tree of MCUs and disseminated among their
`attached processes.
`This schemefails to solve the problem of medium-to large-scale collaboration for a numberof
`reasons. First, the responsibility of determining the topology of the connection graph is foisted off
`on the application users, which, in addition to being a nuisanceto the users, is not likely to result
`in an efficient structure for performance. The most common kind of connection schemeseen in
`practice is for all host MCUsto connect directly to the root MCU.
`Second, the MCUs are performance, reliability, and scalability bottlenecks. All messages must be
`serialized through each MCU to apotentially large numberofprocesses on the host. Loss of an
`MCU not only removesall of the processes on the host, but also prunes the subtree attachedto it
`from the session. Furthermore, given operating system limitations, each MCU can accommodate,
`at most, about 60 client processes.
`Third, the need to coordinate all messages through the root MCU not only makes that process a
`performancebottleneck, and a single point of failure for the session, but also causes the speed of
`communication to be limited by the slowest host and/or communication link in the tree, For
`example, NetMeeting’s performanceis reported to be intolerable with about 20 participants.
`Finally, the T.120 daemon must beinstalled on each host participating in a session. This requires
`additional administration and maintenance, and limits the set of hosts that can join in a session. It
`also requires an additional ‘‘well-known” port number, which must be coordinated globally
`
`among all computers on the Internet.
`
`
`~
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOODBY
`r
`4
`SS-RIGNA?
`c
`PRINT
`PHONE
`DATE
`ORGN @
`M/S
`WI "ea
`MP bet the. Ta
`PRINT
`PHONE
`ORGN#
`DATE
`M/S
`WITNESS SIGNA
`
`
`Iz/2 2/49
`
`INVANFORS NATURE
`DATE LA.
`p
`
`
`DATE
`
`DATE
`
`? o
`
`i
`
`be
`
`~
`
`PATENT STAFF)
`
`=
`
`eX
`
`Fs
`
`Po Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 5
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 5
`
`

`

`Invention Description
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`Channel:
`Count:
`Valence:
`Connectivity:
`Diameter:
`
`s\
`PSKAE
`SAN
`iF
`
`TRL
`L or
`5
`As
`YAYNd
`ROYA cH ANS
`SEK TNS
`ATS A Ae
`AOAPI TNA
`a
`]
`W/IPKTANY Py
`mA
`ohWO
`SPARC
`KAZ)
`Isr
`e
`:
`CM
`Ley}
`t >A
`G
`
`¢
`oe Oy va
`Sees
`ey
`LUE
`KZ iP
`>
`7
`CSLORI xt
`i A
`AS
`PV
`SIN Bf
`¥h
`as
`ANY Dis
`SSMAES
`aaRAS
`SS S
`LX
`ay
`
`4
`
`1
`
`BSAYes
`
`end
`
`
`
`AiLY»FATSVib7
`
`SWANis a communications library that allows any number of computer processes to share
`information across a wide-area network using generally available point-to—point network
`communicationprotocols. The SWAN solution supports peer-to-peer middleware by weaving
`together a fabric of point-to-point TCP/IP connections into a 4—regular graph with high
`connectivity and minimal latency (see Figure 2). It avoids synchronizationdifficulties by making
`use of the “small—world effect,” namely, using only local knowledge to achieve global properties
`ofeffectiveness.
`
`innovations are made in SWAN to support easy, quick, and reliable large-scale
`Several
`information sharing
`around the
`globe. By
`using
`existing
`Internet
`protocols in non—invasive ways,
`
`
`
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOOD BY
`M/S
` ORGN#
`DATE
`PHONE
`ae PRINT
`WITNES,
`Ribet MAberien | Ea ~/:>
`ke
`WITNESS
`SIGNATURE
`INT
`HONE
`
`SIGN. ORGN#=M/SPR DATE
`
`
`
`
`
`fee
`
`Ma
`
`
`
`
`
`). (ASSIGNED BY PATENT STAFF)
`
`
`
`AG rofee
`
`
`
`
`TORAIGNATURE
`
`DATE
`
`
`
`6
`
`Po Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 6
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 6
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`
`
`
`
`WITNE
`
`SIGNAT
`
`THE FOREGOING WASEXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOODBY
`PRINT
`PHONE
`
`DATE
`
`ORGN #
`
`M/S
`
`M/S
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 7
`
`PUWNC=KdetAbele! i +PHONE
`DATE
`ORGN#
`és
`(2/23/99
`“
`Z
`
`DATE
`
`NEORSIGNAL,
`
`Ade
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 7
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 8
`
`M/S
`ORGN#
`DATE
`oT Cr, PRINT
`fi
`v
`KobatA Aci. x --:;
`aaa"
`2
`ORGN#
`M/S
`
`mPKISORIe
`
`WEEE
`
`DATE
`
`DATE
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 8
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDE
`OOD BY
`
`3
`
`~
`
`A\
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 9
`
`ayy
`>
`S
`ORGN #.M/S
`12 24/94
`
`A Kebet M, Abelan! <iPHONE
`
`ORGN#
`
`M/S
`
`ee
`PATENT STAFF)
`
`DATE
`
`DATE...
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 9
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`WITNESS
`
`SIGNATURE
`
`e
`
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOODBY
`PRINT
`PHONE
`
`DATE
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 10
`
`PRINT PHONE DATENOC. TYRE ORGN#=M/S
`
`
`
`
`=
`Rdlet Arete EE ./:-
`PHONE
`ORGN#
`DATE
`M/S
`yy 12/24/44
`
`DATE
`zd
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 10
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOODBY
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December23, 1999 2:2) pm
`
` THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOOD BY
`eeeh. RE
`PRINT
`PHONE
`DATE
`ORGN #
`M/S
`< CVA
`CBee Avebore’ EE 1-/03/85Pe
`PHONE
`5
`AAS
`sea TRG
`DATE
`
`
` DATE.
`
`Ahr)
`at—
`whlLe z
`23 Dee 7F
`|
`DATE
`f
`RSIG
`KA ATURE
`INYE!
`DATE
`DISCLOSUREN
`AS MENTED BY PATENT STAFF)
`
`ORGN#
`
`M/S
`
`Pe Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 11
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 11
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pin
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 12
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 12
`
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TOAND
`a ) PRINa
`J.
`f “A
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 13
`
`MIS
` ORGN#
`DATE
`PHONE
`a :
`DATE
`ORGN#
`M/S
`ye
`
`DATE
`
`> 3
`
`Y PATENT STAFF)
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 13
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:2]
`
`meEsgal PRINT
`!
`meres seICeRER TURK
`
`= FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND U
`
`RSTOODBY
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 14
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 14
`
`ORGN #
`
`M/S
`
`DATE
`QEwe FF
`DATE
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`DATE
`
`ORGN#
`
`M/S
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 15
`
`Lobe Abend! LE-—
`oe
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23 1999 2:21 pm
`
`ER
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOODBY
`PRINT
`PHONE
`
`DATE
`
`ORGN#
`
`M/S
`
`PHONE
`
`DATE
`
`RGN H
`
`M/S
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 15
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 16
`
`Aetoett M, Abacke (| (me 12./2sk¢
`DATE
`2/73/49
`DATE
`“
`j
`I I
`.
`SN"
`el
`DATE
`ArleAn OEYBD DATE
`
`BOEING PROPRII VARY
`
`December 23, 199y 2:21 pm
`
`
`
`iLe FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOODBY
`PRINT
`PHONE
`
`DATE
`
`ORGN#
`
`M/S
`
`PHONE
`
`ORGN #
`
`M/S
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 16
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 17
`
`Bidkn a; ia
`
`BOLING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:2) pm
`
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOODBY
`INT
`PHC
`
`DATE
`
`ORGN #
`
`M/S
`
`be
`
`PHONE
`
`ORGN
`
`#
`
`M/S
`
`DATE
`2/204
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 17
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 18
`
`WITNESSOUGd
`DATE
`ORGN#
`M/S
`Bnet Avery, lt|PHONE
`
`2
`
`ORGN#
`
`M/S
`
`DISCLQSURE NO. (ASSIGNED BY PATENT STAFF)
`
`DATE
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 18
`
`BOLING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 25,
`
`1Y9y 2:21 pm
`
`FOREGOING¥
`
`é
`
`fe
`
`

`

`BOLING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`WITNESS SIGNATURE
`
`
`"HE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDERSTOOD BY
`NT
`PHONE
`
`ORGN #
`
`M/S
`
`DATE
`
`| an —=3h(iir
`-
`1:
`PHONE
`DATE
`
`
`
`DATE
`1
`
`
`D2L2-V39
`
`ZF Nec 7DATE
`
`ORGN#
`
`M/S
`
`(Z
`
`“ae
`
`DATE
`
`PO Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 19
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 19
`
`