uVI—H‘u FNUI‘HICIAHY
`
`INVENTION DISCLOSURE
`”IF/”5'
`This form is to be used for disclosure to The Boeing Company of Inventions, discoveries,
`improvements or innovations, whether or not considered patentabie.
`See above for Instructions.
`
`pageI mfi
`
`TITLE OF INVENTION (DescrIpIIva and Concise)
`
`INVENTOR NAME (FIRST. M.I.. LAST)
`
`4
`
`'
`I
`,
`o I’
`-
`SOCIAL SECURITY NO‘ ‘ SOCIA - ’ URITY NO.
`SOCIAL SECURITY NO.
`SOCIAL SECURITY NOT
`_ — _ On...
`96'NO EE-- MA‘LEW’ ‘ MA'LSTOP
`— 4 k
`
`PHONE
`
`PHONE
`
`
`
`PHONE
`
`MANAGER'S NAME
`
`MANAGER'S NAME
`
`'
`PHONE
`STATE OF DEVELOPMENT (See Remarks On Back)
`
`CONT
`
`3/
`T EMPLOYEE
`- OTHER (SPECIFY)
`.
`-
`
`1.
`
`a DESIGN COMPLETE
`
`DATE BUILT
`
`DATE SATISFACTORILY TESTED - PROTOTYPE
`TflG/W
`,
`z IN PRODUCTION
`APPLICATION OF THE INVENTION
`PRODUCTION RELEASE EG. PRR NO.
`
`]
`
`I
`
`{S\ (’29
`
`DATE
`
`DISCLOSURE OF INVENTION OUTSIDE BOEING
`
`PRODUCT/PROGRAM
`
`POTENTIAL CUSTOMER(S)
`IN ADDITION TO BOEING
`
`PUBLICATION NAME
`
`DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
`WHAT BOEING ACCOUNT OR WORK ORDER WERE YOU CHARGING TO WHEN YOU MADE THIS INVENTION?
`ACCOUNT OR WORK ORDER No. FOR EACH INVENTOR(16-DIGIT CHARGELINE) 1)
`
`4)
`
`2)—————— sI
`CHECK AS APPLICABLE:
`
`DATEIS)
`
`4/3/44
`I L ”WW
`
`VOLUME N0.
`
`D THIS INVENTION WAS CONCEIVED OR FIRST BUILT AND TESTED IN THE COURSE OF WORK UNDER A US. GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.
`CONTRACT No, OR OTHER IDENTIFICATION ________________________________,____,
`
`Q’ms INVENTION WAS NEITHER CONCEIVED NOR FIRST BUILT AND TESTED IN THE COURSE OF WORK UNDER A us, GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.
`D THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL PARTIES MAY HAVE RIGHTS TO THIS INVENTION:
`[El 2
`——-—-—,
`3. RELATED INVENTION DISCLOSURE NOS:
`
`DISCLOSURE NO.
`
`DATE RECEIVED
`
`DISCLOSURE ASSIGNED TO:
`
`PE
`
`'9
`
`DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 1
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 1
`
`

`

`SWAN: SMALL—WORLD WIDE AREA NETWORKING
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`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- 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
`
`(“wide—area") peer—to—peer communications among
`SWAN provides general world—wide
`computer processes. It achieves this with high reliability and low latency, scaling from a single
`process to thousands of participating processes. The system is completely distributed among the
`participants, which may join, depart, or even fail, at any time and in any order.
`
`system
`intervention of
`the
`special hardware, or
`require
`implementation doesn‘t
`The
`administrators. All computers can participate, without requiring root access, daemons, kernel
`modifications, or the addition of“well—knoxvn” port numbers.
`
`Though openly accessible, SWAN does have rudimentary security. Joining a session is restricted
`to those processes sharing the SWAN code base and aware of the 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:
`l) 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 connected via the Internet or on the Boeing Intranet.
`
`Using point—to—point connections directly does not scale easily as the number of participating
`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. For all of these reasons, direct use of a point—
` ‘llll-l HHU'I(; ()INU \\ \Sli \l' |AlNliID '10 AN ) UNDERSI‘OOD BY
`
`éK grtc@ em 44 mgr/MM— '3Wt
`WlTNl
`JNAIU
`l'RlNl
`PHONF W
`. "
`'
`l)/\"7.l|
`()RGN it
`M/S
`
`”/2 W—l)/\’fli
`7' .3 DecqqDA‘l'li
`
`
`
`Is)
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 2
`— Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 2
`
`

`

`is not a feasible mechanism for sharing information across a
`to—point networking protocol
`medium— to large—scale collaboration across a wideaarea network.
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23. l999 2:2l pm
`
`Client—Server Middleware
`
`To alleviate the complexity of programming directly at the network protocol level, client—server
`middleware is available to provide an easier programming abstraction.
`In client—server
`middleware, a number of “client” processes find or instantiate 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 (RFC). 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 undue latency in
`disseminating the information, and wastes processing time as client processes continue to check
`for new information.
`
`Some client~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 server is still
`a performance bottleneck.
`
`Furthermore, the reliability of a collaborative application relying on a single server is poor, as loss
`of the server or 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 network or, 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 message to 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 overwhelming the 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 EXPLAlNEIYI‘O (\Nl) UNDERS ()0!) In
`
`WI‘I'NL‘SS ‘ (NAT )1:
`wt
`PHONE
`DA'I'I:
`()RGN II
`M/S
`.. QC
`(«.2 4a.» a. .4 WM— ww—
`‘UH
`l’HONE
`DA'I'IE
`()RGN II
`M/S
`
`
`, 7/sz—
` ./
`DA'l'lE
`DA‘l'li
`
`rrL r "‘ulLStGNAILJ
`i ,
`
`lifl Jig 9"/
`7‘3 l)" 99
`
`
`DATE
`“DSSCLO Ull 13 N0. (ASSIGNED BY l‘A'l‘liN'l' S'I‘AFl’)
`.. \_
`
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 3
`— Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 3
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23. 199‘) 2:2l pm
`
`involved, any router failure can partition the collaborative session.
`
`Peer—To—Peer Middleware
`
`Pecr—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
`programmer is 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 RFC Herald. Both have the user (not the programmer), assemble a
`pointwto—point graph of connections. For this reason, and others, neither is 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 communication session is depicted in Figure 1. When first connecting to a
`session on a given host computer, a proxy process (depicted in gray and black in the figure), called
`an MCU, is instantiated by a daemon process (a resident process that listens for such requests, not
`depicted). This MCU forms a direct connection to the MCU of another host designated by the
`application user, or is designated as the root of the session (the black dot). The requesting process
`
`THE FOREGOING WAS I'IXPLAINED TO A ND UNDERSTOOD BY
`
`r
`
`M/S
`()RGN ll
`DA'l‘l-Z
`PHONE
`WITNESS SWPRINT
`x?
`«Av/MIALx/Lmt _ wa—
`" 7 ' ‘
`"
`PHONE
`DATE
`OR ‘
`II
`M/S
`
`
`
`_ 2/71/47
`
`INVT '
`IN N'I'ORS ‘NA'I‘URIL
`
`
`
`
`
`‘, BY PATIENT STAFF)
`
`
`
`
`DA'ILF.
`Z." D7 9?DATE
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 4
`— Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 4
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, l999 2:2l pm
`
`and all additional processes on the host wishing to join the session form a direct connection to the
`MCU process on that host. To share information, a process sends a message to 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 scheme fails to solve the problem of medium— to large—scale collaboration for a number of
`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 nuisance to the users, is not likely to result
`in an efficient structure for performance. The most common kind of connection scheme seen in
`practice is for all host MCUs to connect directly to the root MCU.
`
`Second, the MCUs are performance, reliability, and scalability bottlenecks. All messages must be
`serialized through each MCU to a potentially large number of processes on the host. Loss of an
`MCU not only removes all of the processes on the host, but also prunes the subtree attached to 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
`performance bottleneck, 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 performance is reported to be intolerable with about 20 participants.
`
`Finally, the T. 120 daemon must be installed 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 EXI’LAINED TO AND UNDERSTOOD BY
`M/S
`Wl'l’NfilGN/V
`l-I
`l’RlN'l
`PHONE
`DATE
`()RGN H
`« MM — wa—
`Wl'l'NliSS S‘K'NA'
`f
`l’RlN'l'
`PHONE
`l)/\'l‘l{
`()RGN It
`M/S
`‘
`
`
`DA'l'li
`
`
`
`
`DA'I'Ii
`
`l’A'l'lZN'l'S'l'Al-‘H
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 5
`— Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 5
`
`

`

`Invention Description
`
`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23. I999 2:2l pm
`
`Channel:
`Count:
`Valence:
`Connectivity:
`6
`Diameter:
`- .wawm. We”) ;
`
`Q
`
`..
`
`‘1
`
`I
`~
`..
`'
`v
`‘ 3 l ‘ ‘b '14
`:‘Dv/
`Pia :’
`»
`i} 1‘
`..« ., .i
`
`Figure 2. A SWAN session with 100 participants.
`
`.
`3
`
`:25
`
`A
`
`lI
`
`.55
`‘III
`‘1
`
`7
`
`I4‘i'-h11‘
`
`SWAN is 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
`communication protocols. 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 synchronization difficulties by making
`use of the "small—world effect,” namely, using only local knowledge to achieve global properties
`of effectiveness.
`
`innovations are made in SWAN to support easy, quick, and reliable large—scale
`Several
`information sharin around the
`lobe. B usin existin Internet
`rotocols in non—invasive wa s,
`
`
`
`THE l-‘OREGOIN ; WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UNDER. TOOD liY
`
`M/S
`()RGNN
`[)A'l’l-Z
`PHONE
`PRINT
`A)
`WNW??? A'ljtli
`4»
`- mam Mama”!— ”443/4?—
`7 ‘5 Si N "
`'
`PU T
`PHONE
`DATE
`ORGN ll
`M/S
`
`
`'/' /
`
`
`TOE KIN/\‘I'URIE
`lN "
`
`) (AS. [GNIED BY l’A'l‘l-ZNT S'l'Al’l")
`
`
`
`W
`
`DATIE
`
`
`
`‘
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 6
`— Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 6
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23. 1999 2:2l pm
`
`
`
`
`
`‘irHl I()R|i(i()1N(. WAS 15 \'l’lAINE l) l0 ANI) UNDE RSTOOI) HY
`
`M/S
`
`
`
`()RGN I!
`DATE
`PHONl
`PRINI
`SIGN\Lat
`w11'1N
`£> @341”. MW _ w—l’HONIi
`
`DATE
`
`ORGN ll
`
`M/S
`
`.'
`
`1".
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 7
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 7
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23. I999 2:21 pm
`
`—
`
`
`TIIIC FOREGOING WAS ICXI‘LA
`I‘ll) 'I‘() AND UNDI
`()OI) BY
`
`/ ,
`L
`
`M/S
`()RGN N
`I)/\'I'l{
`I’HON
`M I’RINT
`.
`m Lem. Aka/L4 ,V/ _ mm—
`,
`.
`PHONE
`DATE
`ORCN H
`M/S
`
`,.
`
`:
`
`
`
`Wl'l'NEggF‘gtfi/
`7
`I
`
`..
`
`: I
`
`x
`
`DISC!
`
`S RI.’ N0 (ASSIGNED IIY PA'I'ISN'I'STAFI‘)
`
`DA'I'I".
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 8
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 8
`
`

`

`BOEING l'ROl’RlE'l‘ARY
`
`December 2.5, WW All pm
`
`THE PURE (2 ()IN(. WAS}; ,\l’l-€,\IN! ]) F0 \NI) UNDERSTOOI) In
`PRIN]
`PHONE
`
`DA ll
`
`()RGN It
`
`M/S
`
`()RGN N
`
`M/S
`
`WITNESS
`
`NAT
`
`Q
`
`
`
`W/‘C‘Qrd’fl’h 49.1mm _—PHONE
`
`F.
`
`[)ATF,
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 9
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 9
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`m /2/21/qr,
`
`DA'liF.
`$7pu‘ 5?
`'1
`
`
`
`THE FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINED TO AND UN ' STOOD HY
`M/S
`()RGNfl
`DATE
`PRINT
`fll‘.
`WITNI:S‘@‘IGN ’l'
`PHONE
`W max/WWW _ (1/6/44—PHONE
`.._
`DATE
`ORGN H
`M/S
`
`‘
`WW PATENT STAFF)
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 10
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 10
`
`

`

`BOEING I’RUI’RHC'I‘ARY
`
`December 2.5, 199‘) 2:21 pm
`
`
`
`
`THI‘I FOREGOING WAS EXPLAINICI) TO AND UNDERS’I‘OOI) MY
`
`M/S
`{)RGN H
`DA'HZ
`PHONE
`PRINT
`I
`W’I’I‘NfiGNAT {
`haw 4, ”MW; fi [pm/«w_
`J C {/L
`,.,
`mo ;
`.
`.
`H
`M/S
`ORGN t4
`DATE
`
` l)!\'_l'|:
`[)A'H".
`[
`IT.
`,
`//\‘1‘URV!‘;~
`IN li
`«fl,
`1/”
`é/gb/‘Zi’glw /‘
`Z3 D«-??
`[)1 (.l O LREJN
`‘ " \.
`
`.0 BY I’/\'1‘FN'I'S'|;\I'1’)
`
`DA'I‘I'T
`
`!
`
`I
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 11
`— Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 11
`
`

`

`UUIELINU l'RI)!’RIIC'1‘;\KV
`
`[)I‘g'clnlw 25. mm R! m
`
`H“ mum 0m; \\ \é‘I- \‘iI \l. I I) II? III» "
`mu:
`I'HHHI
`
`‘IIyIiwI‘s'x'
`
`
`
`_, M 41...,” F
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 12
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 20 0, p. 12
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23‘ I999 2:2l
`
`’ FOREGOING WAS Ile‘LAlNlil) TO AND U
`
`RSTOOI) BY
`
`WITNESW@ PRINT
`L
`
`,.
`
`.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`.
`
`..
`
`..
`
`.
`
`.,
`
`M/S
`ORGNfi
`mm:
`PHONE
`, — lb 1-14?—
`PHONE
`_
`DATE
`()RGN fl
`NUS
`
`4 A»
`W PA'I'EN’I' STAFF)
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 13
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 13
`
`

`

`BOEING PROPRIETARY
`
`December 23, [999 2:21 pm
`
`
`
`DATE
`23/)“ ‘77
`lM'l'l-I
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 14
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 14
`
`FOREGOING WAS BXPLAINI‘ZI) TO AND UNDERSTOOD BY
`IN"
`PHONE
`DATE
`()RGN H
`M/S
`x Magadmx - —I’HUNI: H; ()RGN N M/S
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`BOEING I’ROI’RIIC'I'ARY
`
`December 23' 1999 2:21 )m
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-——_—~.___—_ _ . -
`l‘HE FOREGOING WAS IEXI‘LAINED 'I‘() AND UNDF QTOOD UY
`PRINT
`PHONE
`DATE
`ORGN H
`M/S
`flaw-«M7. WW — mm—PHONE DA'I'IE R "N H M/S
`h w_.
`' / :33 Dec 97DATE
`
`'
`
`DATE
`
`\
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 15
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 15
`
`

`

`BOEING i’RUJ’RHi'lARY
`
`Ueccmhc: 2.4. lwy ALA; pm
`
`
`
`
`'lHl-I F()RF(GOING “AS E Xl’lAINIC ]) IO AND UNDE RSIOOD BY
`"'RINI
`I’HONI
`DA'lli
`()RGN N
`M/S
`4WMw — MW—PHONE
`I)\|l7
`()RGN If
`M/S
`2//7 5/ M
`
`MH WhigI I
`'
`DA’I'IS
`
`11/42/94:;33— « 4_____?2L>Ji
`DAT):
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 16
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 16
`
`

`

`
`
`DISC)
`
`[SURE NI)
`
`I.-\§SI(ENJED HY J’A'! I'N‘l’S'l'AI-JJ
`
`BOEING I’R()l’Rlli'l‘/\RY
`
`Deecmhu 2}, 1999 2:21 pm
`
`. FOREGOING WAS Iin'IuHNEI) TO AND UNI)!" STOOI) lW
`IN)
`H'H
`DATE
`()RGN fl
`M/S
`M W, «m ~21 _ WM—
`'
`'
`PHONE
`DATE
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 17
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 17
`
`

`

`130mm; mwvuuc'rmw
`
`'
`
`Ucecmhcru n»; M: 3m
`
`
`
`"l-ORFG ()ING WASF‘U’Lz INIC D10 AND UNI)
`WHN!S.
`
`I‘OOIHH
`.
`
`|)A [I
`
`& ,4.
`
`()RGN II
`M/S
`—ORGN N
`MIS
`
`DATIZ
`
`NATURE-I
`
`"
`
`'
`
`‘
`
`f
`
`‘
`
`"
`
`_
`
`l)l.\'(fl.(5|l1|\‘i-_N() {ASSIGNED HY l’/\'l‘l‘N'£’.\"!V\!5l.‘
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 18
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 18
`
`

`

`BOILING l’ROl’klliL'l‘AKY
`
`Duecnmer L5. 19%) ZZZ! pm
`
`
`
`WITNESSS ' ATU :
`
`é
`
`'
`
`'
`
`-
`
`'
`
`,
`
`
`“ "OREGOING WAS EXPLAINEI) TO AND UNDERSTOOD BY
`NT
`PHONE
`
`ORGNN
`
`M/S
`
`DATE
`
`M4. AMM _ ww—
`
`PHONE
`
`DATE
`
`ORGN fl
`
`M/S
`
`
`
`DISCLO.
`
`l9
`
`Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - Ex. 2010, p. 19
`— Patent Owner Acceleration Bay, LLC - EX. 2010, p. 19
`
`