UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`Case IPR2017-00348
`
`
`Patent 8,750,155
`
`______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`______________
`Case IPR2017-00348
`
`
`Patent 8,750,155
`
`______________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ................................................ 3
`II. MATERIAL CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 12
`III. OVERVIEW AND LEGAL STANDARDS .............................................. 13
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE
`RELEVANT TIME FRAME .............................................................................. 14
`V. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..................................... 15
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 15
`VII. RELATED IPR2016-01011 .................................................................... 17
`VIII. OPINIONS ABOUT THE ’155 PATENT .............................................. 17
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Kevin Almeroth, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`
`1.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`I have been retained by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, on behalf of Limelight
`
`Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”), as an expert in the above-captioned proceeding. I
`
`have been asked to render an opinion regarding the validity of claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`(“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 (“the ’155 Patent”; Ex. 1001).
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $600.00 per hour for my study and testimony
`
`in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this matter. My compensation is not
`
`contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`
`2.
`
`I submit this declaration based on my personal knowledge and in support of
`
`Limelight’s preliminary
`
`response
`
`(“Preliminary Response”)
`
`to Akamai
`
`Technology, Inc.’s (“Akamai’s”) inter partes review petition (“Petition”) regarding
`
`the ’155 Patent.
`
` My name is Kevin C. Almeroth. I am currently a Professor in the
`3.
`
`Department of Computer Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara. I
`
`also hold an appointment and am a founding member of the Computer Engineering
`
`(CE) Program. I am a founding member of the Media Arts and Technology
`
`(MAT) Program, and the Technology Management Program (TMP). I also served
`
`as the Associate Director of the Center for Information Technology and Society
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`(CITS) from 1999 to 2012. I have been a faculty member at UCSB since July
`
`1997.
`
`
`4.
`
`I hold three degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology: (1) a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Information and Computer Science (with minors in
`
`Economics, Technical Communication, and American Literature) earned in June,
`
`1992; (2) a Master of Science degree in Computer Science (with specialization in
`
`Networking and Systems) earned in June, 1994; and (3) a Doctor of Philosophy
`
`(Ph.D.) degree in Computer Science (Dissertation Title: Networking and System
`
`Support for the Efficient, Scalable Delivery of Services in Interactive Multimedia
`
`System, minor in Telecommunications Public Policy) earned in June, 1997.
`
`
`5.
`
`One of the major themes of my research has been the delivery of multimedia
`
`content and data between computing devices and users. In my research I have
`
`looked at large-scale content delivery systems and the use of servers located in a
`
`variety of geographic locations to provide scalable delivery to hundreds, even
`
`thousands, of users simultaneously. I have also looked at smaller-scale content
`
`delivery systems in which content, including interactive communication like voice
`
`and video data, is exchanged between computers and portable computing devices.
`
`As a broad theme, my work has examined how to exchange content more
`
`efficiently across computer networks, including the devices that switch and route
`
`data traffic. More specific topics include the scalable delivery of content to many
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`users, mobile computing, satellite networking, delivering content to mobile
`
`devices, and network support for data delivery in wireless and sensor networks.
`
`
`6.
`
`Beginning in 1992, at the time I started graduate school, the initial focus of
`
`my research was the provision of interactive functions (e.g., VCR-style functions
`
`like pause, rewind, and fast-forward) for near video-on-demand systems in cable
`
`systems, in particular, how to aggregate requests for movies at a cable head-end
`
`and then how to satisfy a multitude of requests using one audio/video stream to
`
`broadcast to multiple receivers simultaneously. Continued evolution of this
`
`research has resulted in the development of new techniques to scalably deliver on-
`
`demand content, including audio, video, web documents, and other types of data,
`
`through the Internet and over other types of networks, including over cable
`
`systems, broadband telephone lines, and satellite links.
`
`
`7.
`
`An important component of my research from the very beginning has been
`
`investigating the challenges of communicating multimedia content between
`
`computers and across networks. Although the early Internet was used mostly for
`
`text-based non-real time applications, the interest in sharing multimedia content
`
`quickly developed. Multimedia-based applications ranged from downloading
`
`content to a device to streaming multimedia content to be instantly used. One of
`
`the challenges was that multimedia content is typically larger than text only
`
`content, but there are also opportunities to use different delivery techniques since
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`multimedia content is more resilient to errors. I have worked on a variety of
`
`research problems and used a number of systems that were developed to deliver
`
`multimedia content to users.
`
`
`8.
`
`In 1994, I began to research issues associated with the development and
`
`deployment of a one-to-many communication facility (called “multicast”) in the
`
`Internet (first deployed as the Multicast Backbone, a virtual overlay network
`
`supporting one-to-many communication). Some of my more recent research
`
`endeavors have looked at how to use the scalability offered by multicast to provide
`
`streaming media support for complex applications like distance learning,
`
`distributed
`
`collaboration,
`
`distributed
`
`games,
`
`and
`
`large-scale wireless
`
`communication. Multicast has also been used as the delivery mechanism in
`
`systems that perform local filtering (i.e., sending the same content to a large
`
`number of users and allowing them to filter locally content in which they are not
`
`interested).
`
`
`9.
`
`Starting in 1997, I worked on a project to integrate the streaming media
`
`capabilities of the Internet together with the interactivity of the web. I developed a
`
`project called the Interactive Multimedia Jukebox (IMJ). Users would visit a web
`
`page and select content to view. The content would then be scheduled on one of a
`
`number of channels, including delivery to students in Georgia Tech dorms
`
`delivered via the campus cable plant. The content of each channel was delivered
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`using multicast communication.
`
`
`10.
`
`In the IMJ, the number of channels varied depending on the capabilities of
`
`the server including the available bandwidth of its connection to the Internet. If
`
`one of the channels was idle, the requesting user would be able to watch their
`
`selection immediately. If all channels were streaming previously selected content,
`
`the user’s selection would be queued on the channel with the shortest wait time. In
`
`the meantime, the user would see what content was currently playing on other
`
`channels, and because of the use of multicast, would be able to join one of the
`
`existing channels and watch the content at the point it was currently being
`
`transmitted.
`
` The IMJ service combined the interactivity of the web with the streaming
`11.
`
`capabilities of the Internet to create a jukebox-like service. It supported true
`
`Video-on-Demand when capacity allowed, but scaled to any number of users based
`
`on queuing requested programs. As part of the project, we obtained permission
`
`from Turner Broadcasting to transmit cartoons and other short-subject content. We
`
`also attempted to connect the IMJ into the Georgia Tech campus cable television
`
`network so that students in their dorms could use the web to request content and
`
`then view that content on one of the campus’s public access channels.
`
` More recently, I have also studied issues concerning how users choose
`12.
`
`content, especially when considering the price of that content. My research has
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`examined how dynamic content pricing can be used to control system load. By
`
`raising prices when systems start to become overloaded (i.e., when all available
`
`resources are fully utilized) and reducing prices when system capacity is readily
`
`available, users’ capacity to pay as well as their willingness can be used as factors
`
`in stabilizing the response time of a system. This capability is particularly useful
`
`in systems where content is downloaded or streamed on-demand to users.
`
` As a parallel research theme, starting in 1997, I began researching issues
`13.
`
`related to wireless devices and sensors. In particular, I was interested in showing
`
`how to provide greater communication capability to “lightweight devices,” i.e.,
`
`small form-factor, resource-constrained (e.g., CPU, memory, networking, and
`
`power) devices. Starting by at least 2004, I researched techniques to wirelessly
`
`disseminate information, for example advertisements, between users using ad hoc
`
`networks. In the system, called Coupons, an incentive scheme is used to
`
`encourage users to relay information, including advertisements, to other nearby
`
`users.
`
` Starting in 1998, I published several papers on my work to develop a
`14.
`
`flexible, lightweight, battery-aware network protocol stack. The lightweight
`
`protocols we envisioned were similar in nature to protocols like Universal Plug and
`
`Play (UPnP) and Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA).
`
` From this initial work, I have made wireless networking—including ad hoc,
`15.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`mesh networks and wireless devices—one of the major themes of my research.
`
`One topic includes developing applications for mobile devices, for example, virally
`
`exchanging and
`
`tracking “coupons”
`
`through “opportunistic contact” (i.e.,
`
`communication with other devices coming into communication range with a user).
`
`Other topics include building network communication among a set of mobile
`
`devices unaided by any other kind of network infrastructure. Yet another theme is
`
`monitoring wireless networks, in particular different variants of IEEE 802.11
`
`compliant networks, to (1) understand the operation of the various protocols used
`
`in real-world deployments, (2) use these measurements to characterize use of the
`
`networks and identify protocol limitations and weaknesses, and (3) propose and
`
`evaluate solutions to these problems.
`
` Protecting networks, including their operation and content, has been an
`16.
`
`underlying theme of my research almost since the beginning. Starting in 2000, I
`
`have also been involved in several projects that specifically address security,
`
`network protection, and firewalls. After significant background work, a team on
`
`which I was a member successfully submitted a $4.3M grant proposal to the Army
`
`Research Office (ARO) at the Department of Defense to propose and develop a
`
`high-speed intrusion detection system. Once the grant was awarded, we spent
`
`several years developing and meeting the milestones of the project. I have also
`
`used firewalls in developing techniques for the classroom to ensure that students
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`are not distracted by online content.
`
` As an important component of my research program, I have been involved in
`17.
`
`the development of academic research into available technology in the market
`
`place. One aspect of this work is my involvement in the Internet Engineering Task
`
`Force (IETF) including many content delivery-related working groups like the
`
`Audio Video Transport (AVT) group, the MBone Deployment (MBONED) group,
`
`Source Specific Multicast (SSM) group, the Inter-Domain Multicast Routing
`
`(IDMR) group, the Reliable Multicast Transport (RMT) group, the Protocol
`
`Independent Multicast (PIM) group, etc. I have also served as a member of the
`
`Multicast Directorate (MADDOGS), which oversaw the standardization of all
`
`things related to multicast in the IETF. Finally, I was the Chair of the Internet2
`
`Multicast Working Group for seven years.
`
`
`18.
`
`I am an author or co-author of approximately 200 technical papers,
`
`published software systems, IETF Internet Drafts and IETF Request for Comments
`
`(RFCs). A list of these papers is included in my CV.
`
` My involvement in the research community extends to leadership positions
`19.
`
`for several journals and conferences. I am the co-chair of the Steering Committee
`
`for the ACM Network and System Support for Digital Audio and Video
`
`(NOSSDAV) workshop and on the Steering Committees for the International
`
`Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), ACM Sigcomm Workshop on
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Challenged Networks (CHANTS), and IEEE Global Internet (GI) Symposium. I
`
`have served or am serving on the editorial boards of IEEE/ACM Transactions on
`
`Networking, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, IEEE Transactions on
`
`Networks and System Management, IEEE Network, ACM Computers in
`
`Entertainment, AACE Journal of Interactive Learning Research (JILR), and ACM
`
`Computer Communications Review.
`
` Furthermore, in the courses I teach, the class spends significant time
`20.
`
`covering all aspects of the Internet including each of the layers of the Open System
`
`Interconnect (OSI) protocol stack commonly used in the Internet. These layers
`
`include the physical and data link layers and their handling of signal modulation,
`
`error control, and data transmission. I also teach DOCSIS, DSL, and other
`
`standardized protocols for communicating across a variety of physical media
`
`including cable systems, telephone lines, wireless, and high-speed Local Area
`
`Networks (LANs). I teach the configuration and operation of switches, routers,
`
`and gateways including routing and forwarding and the numerous respective
`
`protocols as they are standardized and used throughout the Internet. Topics
`
`include a wide variety of standardized Internet protocols at the Network Layer
`
`(Layer 3), Transport Layer (Layer 4), and above.
`
`
`21.
`
`In addition, I co-founded a technology company called Santa Barbara Labs
`
`that was working under a sub-contract from the U.S. Air Force to develop very
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`accurate emulation systems for the military’s next generation internetwork. Santa
`
`Barbara Labs’ focus was in developing an emulation platform to test the
`
`performance characteristics of the network architecture in the variety of
`
`environments in which it was expected to operate, and in particular, for network
`
`services including IPv6, multicast, Quality of Service (QoS), satellite-based
`
`communication, and security. Applications for this emulation program included
`
`communication of a variety of multimedia-based services.
`
`
`22.
`
`In addition to having co-founded a technology company myself, I have
`
`worked for, consulted with, and collaborated with companies such as IBM, Hitachi
`
`Telecom, Digital Fountain, RealNetworks, Intel Research, Cisco Systems, and
`
`Lockheed Martin.
`
`
`23.
`
`I am a Member of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) and a
`
`Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
`
` Additional information regarding my qualifications is set forth in my current
`24.
`
`curriculum vitae, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2002.
`
`II. MATERIAL CONSIDERED
`
` The analysis provided in this Declaration is based on my education as well
`25.
`
`as my experience in the field. In addition to relying upon my knowledge based on
`
`written materials and other information that was known prior to March 26, 2009,
`
`which I have been told is the earliest possible priority date for the ’155 Patent, I
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`have considered the exhibits to the Petition (Exs. 1001-1011) and the materials
`
`listed in Exhibit 2003.
`
`III. OVERVIEW AND LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`
`26.
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions regarding the validity of claims of the
`
`’155 Patent in light of several prior art patents and publications.
`
`
`27.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged
`
`invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed
`
`invention pertains (a “POSITA”). This is sometimes described as “obviousness.”
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between
`
`the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`
`28.
`
` I understand that a petitioner in an inter partes review bears the burden for
`
`showing the obviousness of the claimed invention. I further understand that this
`
`burden may not be met by mere conclusory statements and instead must be
`
`supported by specific reasoning and record evidence.
`
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of the claimed subject matter. (E.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`(2007) and other cases.) Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
`
`functions; applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable
`
`results; choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led a POSITA to modify the prior art or combine prior
`
`art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. I also understand that a POSITA
`
`is a person of ordinary ingenuity and creativity, not an automaton.
`
`IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT FIELD AND THE RELEVANT
`TIME FRAME
`
`
`30.
`
`I have carefully reviewed the specification, drawings, and claims of the ’155
`
`Patent (Ex. 1001), as well as Exhibits 1002-1011 of the Petition and the materials
`
`listed in Exhibit 2003.
`
` Based on my review of these materials, I believe that the relevant field for
`31.
`
`purposes of the ’155 Patent is the control of connection protocols used to deliver
`
`content from an information processing system, such as a content delivery network
`
`(“CDN”). (Ex. 1001 at 1:16-20.) I have been informed that the relevant timeframe
`
`is prior to March 26, 2009.
`
` As described above and in my C.V., I have extensive experience in the
`32.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`relevant technical field, including experience relating to content delivery using a
`
`CDN. Based on my experience and expertise in this field, I have an understanding
`
`of the relevant field in the relevant timeframe.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
` To assess the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’155 Patent, I have
`33.
`
`considered the type of problems encountered in the art, the prior solutions to those
`
`problems found in prior art references, the rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made, the sophistication of the technology, the level of education of active workers
`
`in the field, and my own experience working with those of skill in the art at the
`
`time of inventions. In my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’155
`
`Patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer
`
`Engineering, or the equivalent, and several years of experience in the field of
`
`distributed systems, name services, or Internet content delivery.
`
`
`34.
`
`I have reviewed the level of ordinary skill in the art identified by Dr.
`
`Bhattacharjee in his declaration (Exhibit 1002 at ¶48). I find Dr. Bhattacharjee’s
`
`definition to be generally consistent with my definition, and in any event, if I were
`
`to apply his definition in my analysis, it would not change any of my opinions or
`
`conclusions.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a claim subject to inter partes review must be given its
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`broadest reasonable construction that is consistent with the specification of the
`
`patent, which is different from the standard that applies in litigation.
`
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the meaning of a claim term is a meaning that the term
`
`would have to a POSITA at the time of the invention. I also understand that I am
`
`to consider a claim term in the context of the entire patent, including the
`
`specification in determining the meaning to a POSITA.
`
`
`37.
`
`I note that, on page 32 of the Petition, Petitioner listed the following terms
`
`and constructions from the Markman Order issued in the District Court Lawsuit:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`
`“a request for content” (claim 1)
`
`Plain meaning
`
`“a request” (claim 13)
`
`“using information from the request”
`(claim 1)
`
`“based on the request” (claim 13)
`
`“parameters relate / relating to
`utilization of available processing or
`memory capabilities of part or all of a
`system supporting the first connection”
`(claims 1 and 13)
`
`“parameters relate / relating to
`utilization of available processing or
`memory capabilities of part or all of a
`system supporting the first connection,
`but not those relate / relating to link
`capacity or the size or type of content”
`
`“the data source is configured to
`monitor a first connection for a
`
`“the data source is configured to
`monitor a first connection for one or
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`request” (claim 13)
`
`more requests”
`
`
`38.
`
`I further note that Petitioner stated:
`
`“Akamai does not disagree with the Court’s constructions and submits
`that the challenged claims would have been obvious over the prior art
`under the Court’s constructions or under the broadest reasonable
`interpretations (to the extent that they differ from the Court’s
`constructions).” (Petition at 33.)
`
`For the purposes of this Declaration, I do not dispute the above constructions.
`
`VII. RELATED IPR2016-01011
`
`
`39.
`
`In addition to the present IPR, I have been retained as an expert by
`
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP, on behalf of Limelight in related IPR2016-01011, which
`
`relates to U.S. Patent No. 7,715,324 (“the ’324 patent”). I understand that the ’155
`
`patent and the ’324 patent are related patent family members. I will refer to related
`
`IPR2016-01011 herein as “the Related IPR.”
`
`VIII. OPINIONS ABOUT THE ’155 PATENT
`
`
`40.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim can be found unpatentable as
`
`obvious where the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art in the relevant field. I understand that an obviousness analysis involves a
`
`consideration of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`between the claimed inventions and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinent art; and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`
`41.
`
`I understand that the Petition lists one ground for unpatentability:
`
`“Claims 1, 8, and 13 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) over Devanneaux, Chu, and Haverstock.” (Petition at 35.)
`
`
`42.
`
`I understand that Petitioner’s arguments for using Chu’s plug-in architecture
`
`in Devanneaux’s operating system are generally because both Devanneaux and
`
`Chu are in the same technical field and teach performing TCP connection
`
`optimization. (Petition at 25.) Petitioner also argues that Devanneaux has a kernel
`
`and Chu has a network stack. (Petition at 25-26.) Based on these basic
`
`similarities, Petitioner simply concludes a motivation would have existed. I
`
`disagree because, as set forth in more detail below, combining Chu with
`
`Devanneaux would not yield predictable results, would be beyond the skill of a
`
`POSITA, and the combination would disrupt normal edge server operations.
`
` Devanneaux relates to content-delivery networks (“CDN”), which are
`43.
`
`uncontrolled, highly unpredictable server-based networks configured to deliver
`
`internet content to end-users. (Ex. 1003 at ¶¶6-7.) For example, Devanneaux
`
`states:
`
`“As such, the capability and flexibility of the supporting Internet
`infrastructure for the Web site becomes mission-critical. In particular,
`the infrastructure must provide good performance for all end user
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`consumers, regardless of their location. The site must scale to
`handle high traffic load during peak usage periods. It must
`remain available 24x7, regardless of conditions on the Internet.
`When performance, reliability, or scalability problems do occur, Web
`site adoption and usage can be negatively impacted, resulting in
`greater costs, decreased revenue, and customer satisfaction issues.
`
`It is known in the prior art to off-load Web site content for delivery by
`a third party distributed computer system. One such distributed
`computer system is a ‘content delivery network’ or ‘CDN’ that is
`operated and managed by a service provider.” (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶6-7.)
`
`Thus, servers in a CDN must be capable of “provid[ing] good performance”
`
`regardless of the end user consumer’s location and regardless of the network traffic
`
`patterns, which may include spikes in network traffic or prolonged periods of high
`
`traffic during peak usage periods. (Id.) Accordingly, Devanneaux teaches that
`
`CDN traffic patterns are unpredictable and uncontrolled. Such a teaching is
`
`consistent with what a POSITA would have understood about one of the principle
`
`motivations for using a CDN: flash crowds. Flash crowds are large unanticipated
`
`spikes in requests, sometimes caused by external events of widespread interest.
`
`Such events create significant spikes in demand and are not predictable. Another
`
`patent from Akamai, U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703, highlights this unpredictability
`
`while describing the motivation for using a CDN as an alternative to a content
`
`provider using their own resources:
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`“Although mirroring and related load-balancing solutions do allow a
`Content Provider to distribute load across a collection of servers, the
`aggregate capacity of the servers must be sufficient to handle peak
`demands. This means that the Provider must purchase and maintain a
`level of resources commensurate with the anticipated peak load
`instead of the true average load. Given the highly variable and
`unpredictable nature of the Internet, such solutions are expensive and
`highly wasteful of resources.” (Ex. 2007 at 15:16-25.)
`
` Thus, CDN customers use a CDN to “provide good performance” to end
`44.
`
`users regardless of the network traffic patterns, which may include spikes in
`
`network traffic or prolonged periods of high traffic during peak usage periods.
`
`(Id.; see also ¶52, below.) CDNs use edge servers, such as the one provided in
`
`Devanneaux, to support the high volume of requests that generally accompany
`
`these high traffic periods and to otherwise improve the speed of delivery of
`
`content. (See Ex. 1003 at Abstract; ¶6.) Thus, edge servers are used to reduce
`
`latency when responding to content requests.
`
` At the other end of the spectrum is Chu, which focuses on a plug-in TCP
`45.
`
`architecture for end-user computer workstations or PCs, as opposed to content
`
`servers. Indeed, Chu uses the word “server” only six times and only in paragraphs
`
`54, 69, and 70. Of these, paragraphs 69 & 70 are instructive:
`
`“The plug-in approach also enables employing an aggressive,
`special-purpose technique in a controlled network environment. For
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`instance, a server in a data center with a well-controlled traffic
`pattern or well-tuned queuing model might deploy a non-compliant
`congestion control technique that allows packets to be sent without
`slow-start or any bandwidth throttling. This technique could be
`useful, for example, to eliminate the overhead of congestion control
`for connections that transfer data between two servers on a
`dedicated network link, or to expedite connections that exchange
`cluster membership heartbeat messages within the data center.
`Previously, such service variation either was not possible, or would
`require multiple servers.
`
`Finally, per-connection tuning can also be used to deploy and test
`experimental TCP behaviors on a limit set of TCP connections on a
`production server without exposing other, normal operations on the
`server to the riskier new behavior.” (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶69-70 (emphasis
`added).)
`
`Chu’s “well-controlled” network requirements for servers employing its “special-
`
`purpose technique” are in stark contrast to the CDN edge servers of Devanneaux
`
`which reside on the Internet because, as discussed above, the edge servers may be
`
`subject to a variety of network traffic patterns, including “spikes in network traffic
`
`or prolonged periods of high traffic during peak usage periods.” (Id.) In addition,
`
`the explanation in paragraph 70 shows that Chu’s architecture may result in “riskier
`
`new behavior.” Chu’s recognition that production servers needed to be protected
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`from “riskier new behavior” is completely at odds with the argument that
`
`combining Chu and Devanneaux would yield “predictable results.”
`
` Chu discloses a plug-in architecture for a network stack in an operating
`46.
`
`system, which includes changing the TCP behavior of a network connection. (Ex.
`
`1004 at Abstract at ¶¶0038-39.) Figure 3 of Chu, reproduced below, “presents a
`
`flow chart illustrating the process of changing the TCP behavior of a network
`
`connection.” (Ex. 1004 at ¶67.)
`
` Specifically, when the Chu system “determines or is notified of a need for
`47.
`
`changing the TCP behavior of a network connection (step 302)[,] the system
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`disables a relevant portion of the network stack in order to put the network
`
`connection into a quiescent state (step 304).” (Id. at ¶67.) “Then, the system
`
`changes the function pointer for the function associated with the TCP behavior to
`
`point to a new function with the desired behavior (step 306). Finally, the system
`
`re-enables the corresponding portion of the network stack to return the network
`
`connection to an active state (step 308).” (Id.)
`
` For the reasons set forth below, this mechanism is not suitable for the edge
`48.
`
`servers of Devanneaux because it would disrupt normal edge server operations and
`
`ultimately undermine the primary reason for using a CDN: improving the
`
`performance of web sites for end users.
`
` As described above in ¶¶43-44, above, Devanneaux relates to content-
`49.
`
`delivery networks (“CDN”), which are uncontrolled, highly unpredictable server-
`
`based networks configured to deliver internet content to end-users. (Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶¶6-7.) The edge servers of a CDN are used to support the high volume of requests
`
`that generally accompany high traffic periods and to otherwise improve the speed
`
`of delivery of content. (See Ex. 1003 at Abstract; ¶6.) Thus, edge servers are used
`
`to reduce latency when responding to content requests. Accordingly, a POSITA
`
`would not modify an edge server in a way that would increase latency or otherwise
`
`reduce the performance, particularly during high load and high traffic periods.
`
` As described above in ¶46, the mechanism of Chu relied on by Petitioner
`50.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`includes Chu suspending and subsequently re-enabling a connection. Chu notes
`
`that since suspending and subsequently re-enabling a connection “occurs quickly
`
`enough, and the system typically has capacity to buffer packets, there is effectively
`
`no interruption of network service.” (Ex. 1004 at ¶67 (emphasis added).)
`
`However,
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
