UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`AKAMAI
`EXHIBIT 1007
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`AKAMAI
`EXHIBIT 1007
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (“Pet.,”
`Paper 2) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review
`of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,715,324 B2 (“the ’324 patent,” Ex. 1001), filed November 24,
`2009.1 The Petition is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Mark E. Crovella
`(“Crovella Declaration,” Ex. 1002). Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.,” Paper 6). The
`Preliminary Response is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Kevin C.
`Almeroth (“Almeroth Declaration,” Ex. 2001).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review
`of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. The Board has not made a final
`determination of the patentability of any claim.
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner notes the ’324 patent is involved in co-pending litigation
`captioned Limelight Networks, Inc. v. XO Communications, LLC, No. 3:15-
`cv-00720 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2015) (“District Court Lawsuit,” Ex. 1003
`(Complaint in District Court Lawsuit)). Pet. 66. Petitioner also advises us
`
`
`1 The cover page of the ’324 patent alleges it is a “[c]ontinuation of
`application No. 12/572,981, filed on Oct. 2, 2009, which is a continuation-
`in-part of application No. PCT/US2009/038361, filed on Mar. 26, 2009.”
`Ex. 1001 at [63]. Patentee claims the benefit of the March 26, 2009, filing
`date of Australian application 200920183. Id. at [30]. Petitioner appears to
`rely on the November 24, 2009, filing date as the effective filing date. See
`Pet. 2. Patent Owner does not assert a position at this time.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`that the District Court Lawsuit also involves U.S. Patent No. 8,683,002 B2
`(“the ’002 patent”) filed January 2, 2013. Id. Petitioner filed a petition for
`inter partes review of the ’002 patent, Akamai Technologies, Inc. v.
`Limelight Networks, Inc., IPR2016-01001. Id.
`B. The ’324 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’324 patent discloses a system using a standard protocol to enable
`two or more nodes of a network to interoperate. Ex. 1001, 2:10–11. “The
`protocol attributes specified in the standard protocol are conditionally
`adapted to the circumstances, use, and/or operating conditions of the
`interoperation of the nodes.” Id. at 2:11–14. Generally, the ’324 patent
`describes different embodiments of a system for delivery of content
`(described below) or conducting transactions over a network. Id. at 2:20–21,
`2:51–52.
`In one embodiment, the ’324 patent modifies the performance of a
`transport layer protocol in response to a request for content. Ex. 1001, 3:13–
`15. A “content distribution server includes a modified TCP protocol stack
`which adjusts timing, pacing, and buffer allocation associated with a
`connection in response to requests from an application-layer data source.”
`Id. at 3:27–30. Figure 1 of the ’324 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of the content delivery system. Id. at 4:55–56.
`End users 108-1, -2, and through -n use their respective clients 102 to
`download and view content objects from global Internet 104 from one or
`more servers of content delivery system 110. Id. at 5:37–44. The invention
`of the ’324 patent is not restricted to specific communication pairs and
`“could communicate between any pair of nodes on a network, including
`between pairs of clients or between pairs of servers, and yet other
`embodiments could communicate among more than two nodes, such as in a
`broadcast or multicast implementation.” Id. at 5:44–50.
`Another embodiment of the invention is illustrated in Figure 2A,
`which is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2A is a block diagram of a content download pair that sends content
`from server 206 to client 102. Ex. 1001, 4:57–59. In this embodiment,
`the ’324 patent describes “interoperation of two nodes 102, 206 on the
`Internet communicating using TCP, one node being a client 102 that
`requests information, such as web page content, multimedia, or software
`downloads, and the second node being a server 206 that provides
`information in response to a request.” Id. at 5:54–59. “[S]erver 206
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`conditionally adapts the attributes of the TCP protocol for each TCP
`connection established by a client 102.” Id. at 6:12–14.
`[T]he protocol attribute selector 212 of the server 206 compares
`the alphanumeric URL string provided by the client 102 in its
`information request to a table 220 containing partial or whole
`URLs and identifies the most specific match from left to right
`that it can find in the table 220.
`
`Id. at 8:16–21. An exemplary “Table Mapping to TCP attribute sets” (id. at
`15:15–25), is reproduced below.
`
`
`The table depicted is “a simplified table, the sole Table shows mappings
`from whole and/or partial URLs into TCP attribute sets comprising specific
`protocols attributes (identified as “attr1”, “attr2”, “attr3”, etc.) to be used and
`the appropriate value or setting for that use of that attribute.” Id. at 15:6–11.
`The simplified table (“example”) also illustrates that a “host name may be
`sufficient for a matching entry.” Id. at 15:34–35.
`In general, each content request includes information about a source
`address of the end user computer and an identifier corresponding to the
`requested content. Ex. 1001, 18:45–48. From this starting point, server 206
`can obtain additional information to modify the transport layer parameters of
`the TCP connection. Id. at 18:33–35.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is an independent method claim and
`claim 6 is an independent system claim. Claims 2, 4, and 5 depend from
`claim 1 and claims 7, 8, 10, and 11 depend from claim 6. Claims 1 and 6 are
`reproduced below:
`1. A network connection method for delivering content,
`the network connection method comprising:
`
`receiving a first request for content from a network at a
`server;
`
`analyzing the first request for content to determine first
`attributes, wherein analyzing the first request comprises
`comparing a first uniform resource indicator (URI) with an
`alphanumeric string to correlate the first URI with the first
`attributes;
`
`configuring a first connection for serving the content
`between the server and a first node;
`
`configuring a protocol of the first connection according to
`the first attributes, wherein the protocol that is configured is a
`transport layer protocol;
`
`receiving a second request for content from the network at
`the serving;
`
`analyzing the second request for content to determine
`second attributes;
`
`configuring a second connection for serving the content
`between the server and a second node; and
`
`configuring the protocol of the second connection
`according to the second attributes, wherein the first attributes
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`
`affect operation of the protocol differently than the second
`attributes affect operation of the protocol.
`
`Ex. 1001, 23:14–37.
`
`
`6. A system for managing delivery of content over a
`network, the system comprising:
`
`
`protocol handler managing a first connection and a second
`connection over the network using a protocol, wherein:
`
`
`the protocol operates at an transport layer,
`
`the protocol handler is configured to use first
`attributes for the first connection, and
`
`the protocol handler is configured to use second
`attributes for the second connection;
`
`a store holding a plurality of attributes; and
`
` protocol attribute selector, configured to:
`
`receive first information relating to a first request
`for content wherein the first information is derived
`from a first uniform resource indicator (URI)
`associated with the first request for content,
`
`query the store for first attributes corresponding to
`the first information,
`
`the protocol handler with
`program
`attributes for the first connection,
`
`receive second information relating to a second
`request for content,
`
`query the store for second attributes corresponding
`to the second information, and
`
`the first
`
`7
`
` a
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`
`
`program the protocol handler with the second attributes for
`the second connection.
`
`Id. at 24:3–26.
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of
`the ’324 patent as unpatentable on the following grounds. Pet. 13–14,
`22–66.
`
`References
`Devanneaux2 and Chu3
`Devanneaux, Chu, and RFC
`7934
`
`
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103(a) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11
`§ 103(a) 4 and 10
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In inter partes review, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification in which they appear. Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and
`customary meaning. See Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1061–
`62 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of
`
`
`2 US 2007/0156845 A1, Thomas P. Devanneaux et al., published July 5,
`2007 (“Devanneaux,” Ex. 1004).
`3 US 2007/0226375 A1, Hsiao-Keng J. Chu et al., published September 27,
`2007 (“Chu,” Ex. 1007).
`4 Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California,
`Transmission Control Protocol: DARPA Internet Program Protocol
`Specification, RFC 793 (September 1981) (“RFC 793,” Ex. 1005).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is
`inconsistent with the specification and prosecution history.”) (internal
`citation omitted); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`special definition or other consideration, “limitations are not to be read into
`the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`(Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Petitioner identifies one term, “Uniform Resource Indicator” or
`“URI,” for construction. Pet. 9–12. Patent Owner argues URI requires
`construction, as does “protocol attribute selector.” Prelim. Resp. 4–12. At
`this stage of the proceeding, we have not identified any other terms requiring
`construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only those terms which are in controversy need to be
`construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).5 Our
`review of the issues presented and the arguments of the parties show the
`following terms require construction.
`1. “uniform resource indicator (URI)” (claims 1 and 6)
`Claim 1 recites, in part, “wherein analyzing the first request comprises
`comparing a first uniform resource indicator (URI) with an alphanumeric
`string to correlate the first URI with the first attributes.” Claim 6 includes
`similar language, including “wherein the first information is derived from a
`
`
`5 Patent Owner argues the references do not show “protocol attribute
`selector.” Prelim. Resp. 17–19. At this time, Patent Owner does not argue
`the asserted prior art does not disclose any other claim term.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`first uniform resource indicator (URI) associated with the first request for
`content.”
`At this stage of the proceeding, none of Patent Owner’s arguments for
`patentability rely on the construction of “uniform resource indicator (URI).”
`As noted above, both parties identify the term as one needing construction.
`Further, as explained below, there is a dispute as to whether “uniform
`resource indicator (URI)” is the same as “Uniform Resource Identifier
`(URI). Under these circumstances, construction of the term at this time is
`deemed appropriate.
`Petitioner proposes that “uniform resource indicator” means
`“information in a request’s Uniform Request Locator (‘URL’), such as all or
`part of a URL.” Pet. 9, 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 36). Petitioner notes that the
`’324 patent specification uses “URI” to refer to a “Uniform Resource
`Identifier.” Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:22). Citing to the Crovella
`Declaration, Petitioner argues “Uniform Resource Identifier” is a term of art.
`Id. at 9 (citing RFC6 3986 § 3; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37) (emphasis added).
`However, Petitioner notes that the claims of the ’324 patent use “URI”
`to mean “uniform resource indicator.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:7)
`(emphasis added). Petitioner concludes Patent Owner acted as its own
`lexicographer in “crafting this new term,” defining the term under
`consideration by examples in the specification. Id. at 10. Petitioner
`specifically references a simplified table example (depicted above in
`section I.B. of this Decision) that “shows mappings from whole and/or
`partial URLs into TCP attribute sets comprising specific protocols attributes
`
`
`6 “RFC” is an industry publication known as “Internet Requests for
`Comment.” See Pet. 9.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`(identified as ‘attr1’, ‘attr2’, ‘attr3’, etc.) to be used and the appropriate
`value or setting for that use of that attribute.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1001,
`15:6–11). Based on the foregoing, Petitioner argues “the ’324 patent
`describes matching all or part of a request[ed] URL, such as a ‘host name
`alone’ (Ex. 1001, 15:37), to entries in a table to identify the TCP attributes
`that are to be applied to a TCP network connection underlying that request.”
`Id. at 11–12.
`Patent Owner argues “‘URI’ was commonly used in industry at the
`time of the ’324 Patent, and means ‘a sequence of characters that identifies a
`requested resource, such as all or part of a URL.’” Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 37–43). Patent Owner argues the term URI in the ’324 patent is
`used consistently with the common industry usage and, based on the
`Almeroth Declaration, “the terms Uniform Resource Indicator and Uniform
`Resource Identifier are used interchangeably by computer scientists and are
`understood to have the same meaning.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 38;
`Symposium, Microsoft Visual C# 2008 Comprehensive: An Introduction to
`Object-Oriented Programming, 4, Course Technology (2010)7 (“Microsoft
`Visual C,” Ex. 2004)). Patent Owner also contends Petitioner’s citation to
`RFC 3986 supports Patent Owner’s construction, stating “[a] Uniform
`Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters that
`identifies an abstract or physical resource.” Id. at 5 (citing Ex. 1006, 1).
`Patent Owner cites “Examples” from RFC 3986 showing URIs can take
`
`
`7 The Microsoft Visual C excerpt of record does not include a page 4 cited
`by Patent Owner. Page 3 of Exhibit 2004 does state “[a] Uniform Resource
`Indicator is also known as a Uniform Resource Identifier” and a “Uri object
`is a Uniform Resource Indicator, which defines an object on your computer,
`network, or the Internet.”
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`many forms, like “a URL, an email address, a phone number, or otherwise.”
`Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1006, 5; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–41). Patent Owner concludes
`Petitioner’s proposal requiring the information in to be part of a URL is too
`limiting. Id. at 6–7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–41).
`Our construction starts with the claim language itself. Looking to
`claim 1, the pertinent language is “comparing a first uniform resource
`indicator (URI) with an alphanumeric string to correlate the first URI with
`the first attributes.” Thus, according to the claim language, an alphanumeric
`string of the first URI is correlated with the first attributes.
`Turning to the specification, the relevant step of claim 1 is described
`in simplified table 220 of the ’324 patent cited by Petitioner. Ex. 1001,
`15:6–11, 15:15–25; see also id. at 16:15–25 (describing the table and
`process with reference to Figure 4). The only mention of “uniform resource
`indicator” apart from the claims is in reference to Figure 4, where the
`specification states “[t]he depicted portion of the process begins in block 416
`where a uniform resource indicator (URI) is requested by the client 102.”
`Ex. 1001, 16:6–8; see also Pet. 9–10 (citing the preceding relating to
`“uniform resource indicator”).
`Patent Owner argues that “Uniform Resource Identifier” is used
`“interchangeably” with “uniform resource indicator” in the specification.
`Prelim. Resp. 4. “Uniform Resource Identifier” (“URI”) is specifically
`mentioned in the specification along with Uniform Resource Locators
`(URLs) and Uniform Resource Names (URNs). Ex. 1001, 7:20–22. As
`noted above, outside the claims, the ’324 patent includes one mention of
`“uniform resource indicator (URI).” Id. at 16:7; see Pet. 9–10. There is no
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`description in the specification that the terms have the same meaning, or
`how they might be related.
`There is no relevant prosecution history argued by either party.
`Petitioner alleges “[n]o substantive actions issued during prosecution.” See
`Pet. 8.
`Both parties cite to extrinsic evidence that “Uniform Resource
`Identifier” has a meaning understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`See Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 5–7. As discussed above, the specification does
`not support the argument that “uniform resource indicator” is the same as the
`term of art, “Uniform Resource Identifier.” The Almeroth Declaration does
`not provide anything beyond citing to Microsoft Visual C and contending
`the terms “are understood to have the same meaning.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 38. The
`other stated basis in the Almeroth Declaration for the opinion is that the
`specification mentions “Uniform Resource Identifiers” and the claims recite
`“uniform resource indicators.” Id. Conversely, the Crovella Declaration,
`based on a reading of the ’324 patent, includes testimony that the acronym
`“‘URI’ [is used] in two distinct ways” and the ’324 patent distinguishes
`“Uniform Resource Identifier” from “uniform resource indicator.” Ex. 1002
`¶ 36. Where the preliminary response includes testimonial evidence, “a
`genuine issue of material fact created by such testimonial evidence will be
`viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of
`deciding whether to institute an inter partes review.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`A genuine issue of material fact is raised as to whether “Uniform Resource
`Identifier” and “uniform resource indicator” would be understood to be the
`same. Thus, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c), for purposes of this decision, we
`credit the Crovella Declaration.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`
`Regardless of the extrinsic evidence, what would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art is irrelevant where it contradicts the express
`requirement of the claims and the description in the specification. See
`Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 239 F.3d 1305, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`The ’324 patent uses both “Uniform Resource Identifier” and “uniform
`resource indicator.” At this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded
`that the person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the claims and
`specification, would understand “Uniform Resource Identifier” to be the
`same as “uniform resource indicator.”
`The dispute centers on Patent Owner’s assertion that Petitioner’s
`construction, which requires the information be a URL or part of a URL, is
`too limiting. Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 40–41). As Petitioner
`argues, Table 220 includes only URLs, or parts of URLs, mapped to TCP
`attributes. Ex. 1001, 15:2–11; see also id. at 15:15–25 (simplified table
`illustrated above in section I.B.). The specification discusses “uniform
`resource indicator” referencing Figure 4 and the same Table 220. See id. at
`16:4–23, Figs. 2A, 2B.
`The parties agree that URI at least includes information in an URL.
`Pet. 9, 12; Prelim. Resp. 4. Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation
`consistent with the specification, we preliminarily determine that the
`information contained in a “uniform resource indicator” is disclosed in the
`specification at least in the context of a URL or part of a URL. Thus, on this
`record and at this stage of this proceeding, “uniform resource indicator”
`includes information in a request’s Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”),
`such as, among other things, all or part of a URL.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`
`2. “protocol attribute selector” (claims 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11)
`Independent claim 6 recites, in part, “a protocol attribute selector,”
`configured to:
`[R]eceive first information relating to a first request for
`content . . . ,
`query the store for first attributes corresponding to the first
`information,
`program the protocol handler with the first attributes for
`the first connection,
`receive second information relating to a second request
`for content,
`query the store for second attributes corresponding to
`the second information.
`As noted above, Petitioner does not offer a construction for the term.
`The parties initially agreed to a construction in the District Court
`Lawsuit. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement in the District Court Lawsuit, A-2 (“Joint Statement,” Ex. 2005)).
`Patent Owner proposes that this originally agreed to Joint Statement
`construction of “protocol attribute selector” as “a software process that can
`analyze each request to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver
`requested content,” should be applied in this inter partes review proceeding.
`Prelim. Resp. 8, 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 44–48). In the District Court
`Lawsuit, Petitioner subsequently withdrew its agreement by filing a motion
`for supplemental briefing on the term in the District Court, which was
`granted. See Ex. 2007. Supplemental briefing on the term was to be
`complete by August 12, 2016. Id. at 1. Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response was filed August 19, 2016.
`Patent Owner argues that the construction it proposes in the
`Preliminary Response is supported by the specification of the ’324 patent.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`Patent Owner cites to the description of “protocol attribute selector” where it
`is explained that “[t]he URI is evaluated by the protocol attribute selector
`212 to find a match to something in the table 220.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 16:9–18). Patent Owner focuses on -language in the cited portion
`stating that “[t]his process is performed on each URI such that each
`connection or socket can be independently controlled, if desired.” Id. Patent
`Owner contends there is no disclosure that the “protocol attribute selector”
`analyzes anything less than “each request,” as Patent Owner proposes. Id. at
`8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:19–24, 18:14–19, 21:9–14, 22:8–11; Ex. 2001
`¶ 46).
`The claim language itself makes clear that “each request” is analyzed
`in reciting “receive first information relating to a first request” and “receive
`second information relating to a second request.” Indeed, the limitations
`recited in the claim and set forth above define what the “protocol attribute
`selector” is “configured to” do. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
`“protocol attribute selector” requires any additional construction beyond
`what is recited in the claim itself. Thus, on this record and at this stage of
`the proceeding, we determine “protocol attribute selector” does not require
`express construction.
`B. Obviousness Analysis
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if 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 to which said
`subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`The parties’ positions on the level of ordinary skill in the art are very
`similar. Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill would have been “an
`individual having a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or Computer
`Engineering, or equivalent experience, and one to two years of experience in
`the field of computer networking and/or distributed systems, particularly as
`those systems relate to connection optimization.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 17. Patent
`Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill differs in the addition of “several
`years of experience” (rather than “one or two years”) and “name services, or
`Internet content delivery” to the scope of experience. Ex. 2001 ¶ 33. Based
`on this record, we agree with the expert testimony produced by both parties
`on the issue of the level of ordinary skill, and adopt Petitioner’s proposal for
`purposes of this Decision.
`C. Obviousness over Devanneaux and Chu
`Petitioner alleges claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 would have been
`obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art over Devanneaux and Chu.
`Pet. 14, 22–35, 38–61, 64–66. Petitioner cites the Crovella Declaration in
`support of its positions. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–35, 39. Patent Owner denies
`the challenged claims would have been obvious over the combination of
`references. Prelim. Resp. 12–19. Patent Owner supports its arguments with
`the Almeroth Declaration. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 49–57.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`
`1. Devanneaux (Ex. 1004)
`Devanneaux describes a content “content delivery network” or “CDN
`edge server [is] configured to provide one or more extended content delivery
`features on a domain-specific, customer-specific basis, preferably using
`configuration files that are distributed to the edge servers using a
`configuration system.” Ex. 1004, Abstract, ¶ 7 (“‘content delivery network’
`or ‘CDN’”). Figure 3 of Devanneaux is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 shows the CDN where a customer has off-loaded all or some of its
`content delivery requirements to the CDN service provider. Ex. 1004 ¶ 19.
`The “CDN customer operates a site at the origin server 316.” Id. “An
`Internet-accessible client 300 (e.g., an end user client machine having a
`browser and media player) has been directed by CDN authoritative DNS
`mechanism 302 to a nearby edge server 304.” Id. “[T]he configuration
`system provides edge server content control metadata via links 318, which
`themselves may include other infrastructure (servers, and the like).” Id.
`¶ 20.
`
`The CDN edge server is configured to “provide one or more extended
`content delivery features.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. When an edge server
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`management process receives a request for content, it searches an index file
`for a match and, if there is no match, the edge server process rejects the
`request. Id. “If there is a match, the edge server process loads metadata
`from the configuration file to determine how it will handle the request.” Id.
`For example, the metadata for the hostname may indicate a cache in a cache
`hierarchy, control of the connection, and how the content is delivered. Id.
`2. Chu (Ex. 1007)
`Chu describes a “plug-in architecture for a network stack in an
`operating system” where the functions may be “dynamically changed in
`order to change the TCP behavior” of the network environment. Ex. 1007
`¶ 8. For example, “Per-Connection TCP Congestion Control,” “allows TCP
`behavior to be changed at the system level, each network connection may
`encounter different conditions based on the destination or other factors, so a
`more ideal solution allows multiple techniques to be applied simultaneously
`on the computer system.” Id. ¶¶ 52–53.
`3. Claim 1–Petitioner’s Allegations
`The preamble of method claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “[a]
`network connection method for delivering content.”8 Devanneaux teaches a
`“content delivery network” (CDN) that includes an edge server configured
`to provide a connection between a customer origin server, and an Internet
`accessible client having a browser and a media player. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 21,
`Fig. 3. Petitioner cites to these disclosures to show the preamble of claim 1.
`Pet. 22–23.
`
`
`8 At this stage of the proceeding, we need not address whether or not the
`preamble is limiting.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`
`The first recited step of claim 1 is “receiving a first request for content
`from a network at a server.” Devanneaux teaches an edge server
`management process that receives a request for content. Ex. 1004 ¶ 21.
`Petitioner relies on the preceding disclosure to show the first limitation.
`Pet. 23–24.
`Claim 1’s second step recites “analyzing the first request for content
`to determine first attributes, wherein analyzing the first request comprises
`comparing a first uniform resource indicator (URI) with an alphanumeric
`string to correlate the first URI with the first attributes.”
`Devanneaux teaches searching
`an index file for a match on a customer hostname associated with
`the request. If there is no match, the edge server process rejects
`the request. If there is a match, the edge server process loads
`metadata from the configuration file to determine how it will
`handle the request.
`
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. This disclosure is cited for the claimed “analyzing the first
`request.” Pet. 24. We construed “uniform resource indicator (URI)” to
`include information in a request’s Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”), such
`as, among other things, all or part of a URL. See II.A.1, supra. Petitioner
`cites to Devanneaux’s teaching of searching “an index file for a match on a
`customer hostname associated with the request” as meeting the request. Pet.
`24–26 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 21).9
`
`
`9 Petitioner cites paragraph 2 of Devanneaux in its summary of its showing
`at page 25. The citation should be to paragraph 21, which is the citation
`used in Petitioner’s claim chart at pages 24 and 25. The error is an obvious
`typographical error and di minimus.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01011
`Patent 7,715,324 B2
`
`
`Petitioner’s argument is based in part on a disclosure in the ’324
`patent that describes “matching all or part of a request URL, such as a ‘host
`name alone’ (Ex. 1001, 15:37), to entries in a table to identify the TCP
`attributes that are to be applied to a TCP network connection underlying that
`request.” Pet. 11–12, 24. We understand the showing to be that it is known,
`as disclosed in the ’324 patent as noted above, that a hostname is part of a
`URL. Accordingly, analyzing a hostname meets our construction of
`“uniform resource indicator (URI).”
`As to that portion of the second step requiring a correlation between
`“the first URI with the first attributes,” Devanneaux further discloses loading
`“metadata from the configuration file to determine how it will handle the
`request.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. Petitioner a
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
