Exhibit B: Non-Invalidity Contentions with Respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,715,324 (324 Patent) Responding to Akamai’s
`Contentions with Respect to U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0156845 (“Devanneaux”), U.S. Patent Publication No.
`2007/0226375 (“Chu”) and/or RFC793 (Akamai Invalidity Contentions Ex. B)
`
`
`
`
`This chart is prepared without the benefit of the Court’s claim constructions. Claim construction briefing is complete,
`however, and Limelight addresses each claim construction issue based upon both parties’ claim construction positions in this chart.
`Limelight reserves its right to supplement or amend these contentions to the extent that the Court adopts a claim construction that is
`different from what either party has proposed in its respective claim construction briefs. Moreover, Akamai’s invalidity contentions
`fail to address any issues of claim construction or apply the alleged prior art to the claim limitations as Akamai or as Limelight
`proposes that they should be construed. Limelight has been prejudiced by being forced to respond to invalidity contentions that fail to
`apply each party’s proposed constructions. Accordingly, Akamai’s invalidity contentions are legally deficient and Limelight reserves
`all rights including to preclude and/or strike any attempt by Akamai to later seek to apply the alleged prior art to the claims as properly
`construed, whether through supplemental contentions, expert opinion, or any other means.
`
`The following claim terms are the subject of claim construction disputes between the Parties: “Uniform Resource Indicator”
`(Claims 1, 6). The parties have also agreed on the construction of “protocol attribute selector” (Claim 6) as “a software process that
`can analyze each request to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver requested content.”
`
`
`Limelight’s proposed construction for “Uniform Resource Indicator” is: “a sequence of characters that identifies a requested
`resource, such as all or part of a URL.” Defendants’ proposed construction for “Uniform Resource Indicator” is: “information in a
`request’s Uniform Resource Locator (‘URL’), such as all or part of a URL.”
`
`In lieu of submitting a proper invalidity chart Defendants submitted Akamai’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of the 324
`Patent as their Preliminary Invalidity Contentions for the 324 Patent with no further explanation or analysis. The Petition does not
`evaluate the claim limitations under the constructions proposed by the Parties in this case. Rather, the Petition necessarily evaluates
`the claim limitations under the “broadest reasonable construction” as required for an Inter Partes Review proceeding. Not only is the
`“broadest reasonable construction” not defined in this Petition it is also not the construction that should be applied in district court.
`
`
`Further, Akamai’s invalidity contentions are deficient under Judge Gibney’s Pretrial Order, which requires Akamai to “serve
`on plaintiff a list of all prior art on which it relies and a complete and detailed explanation of what it alleges the prior art shows and
`
`1
`
`AKAMAI
`EXHIBIT 1011
`
`

`
`
`
`how that prior art invalidates the claims asserted by plaintiff.” D.I. 55 at 4. Akamai’s contentions fail to do this on a limitation-by-
`limitation basis within its charted contentions. Instead, Akamai’s claim chart frequently quotes certain passages from the asserted prior
`art without explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis. Among those issues that Akamai does not explain within the context of its
`claim chart are: what Akamai alleges the prior art shows; why Akamai alleges the quoted text discloses a claim limitation (whether
`construed or not); and why disclosures from one prior art reference would be allegedly combinable with disclosures from another prior
`art reference on a limitation-by-limitation basis. Accordingly, Akamai’s contentions are deficient under the law as well as failing to
`comply with Judge Gibney’s Pretrial Order. Limelight has been prejudiced by being forced to respond to Akamai’s deficient invalidity
`contentions, which fail to comply with Judge Gibney’s Pretrial Order and do not offer any substantive contention or explanation on
`matters that are Akamai’s burden to prove. Limelight accordingly reserves all rights including to preclude and/or strike any attempt by
`Akamai to later seek to remedy these deficiencies, whether that be through supplemental contentions, expert opinion, or any other
`means.
`
`Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the 324 Patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in light of U.S. Patent
`Publication No. 2007/0156845 (“Devanneaux”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0226375 (“Chu”) and/or RFC793, as outlined in the
`chart below.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Pre
`
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`Claim Language
`Claim 1 is included here for reference as to asserted dependent Claim 5, which includes the
`1. A network
`limitations of Claim 1.
`connection
`
`method for
`Akamai’s contention as to this claim is deficient in that it fails to provide the required explanation
`delivering
`on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior art discloses
`content, the
`or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`network
`
`connection
`
`1 Claims 1, 2, and 4 are not presently asserted. As noted, Limelight addresses Claim 1 here because its limitations are included in
`asserted dependent Claim 5. However, although Claims 2 and 4 are addressed in Akamai’s IPR petition, on which it relies for its
`Invalidity Contentions, because those claims are not asserted here, Limelight does not separately address them here. To the extent that
`those claims remain in dispute in the present matter in any way then Limelight reserves its right to address them at an appropriate
`time. In any event, however, Claims 2 and 4 are not invalid for at least the reasons explained herein with respect to Claim 1.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`method
`comprising:
`
`
`1.1
`
`1.2
`
`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;
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting the limitations of claim 1 does not meet them, because, among
`other reasons, Devanneaux, either alone or in combination with Chu or RFC793, does not disclose a
`network connection method for delivering content that includes at least limitations 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6,
`1.7, and 1.8. Therefore the cited prior art references do not render obvious Claim 1.
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`Akamai makes no attempt to apply either party’s claim construction to the alleged prior art and
`therefore, Akamai’s contention is deficient. Further, the evidence Akamai cites as meeting this
`limitation does not meet it including under either party’s construction of “uniform resource
`indicator.” Further, Devanneaux does not disclose comparing a URI to an alphanumeric string.
`Devanneaux discloses “searching an index file for a match on a customer hostname associated with a
`request,” but never discloses that the association is determined through parsing a URI, or comparing
`parts of a URI to an alphanumeric string. Devanneaux ¶ 21. Nor does Devanneaux disclose using
`information from a URI to determine attributes for a protocol connection. Instead, Devanneaux
`discloses only that matched customer configurations can include custom settings for TCP
`connections. Devanneaux ¶¶ 83-87. Nor does Devanneaux disclose analyzing information associated
`with a request other than the first received request for a connection to provide for a one-time
`configuration, whereas the claim requires analyzing successive requests on the same or different
`supported connections. Devanneaux discloses only setting TCP attributes once per connection, on a
`“customer-specific, domain-specific” basis, but not a request-by-request basis. Devanneux does not
`disclose doing so for each request. Devanneaux ¶¶ 83,86,87.
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`1.3
`
`configuring a
`first connection
`for serving the
`content between
`the server and a
`first node;
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`“If desired, prefetching can be combined with other edge server features, such as path optimization, TCP
`connection optimization, content compression optimizations, and the like.
`To enable edge server-to-edge server (or other client-server) TCP optimizations, the following metadata
`can be set in the configuration file, once again on a customer-specific, domain-specific, basis.”
`Devanneaux ¶¶ 83, 86-87 (emphasis added).
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation does not meet it. As Akamai concedes,
`Devanneaux does not disclose configuring a connection such as a TCP connection for serving the
`requested content to a requesting user. Further, Devanneaux discloses no example of setting an
`“edge-to-user” TCP configuration, but instead discloses only examples edge server to edge server
`adjustment of parameters where both devices are under the control of a CDN service provider.
`
`“Thus, the following metadata illustrates how to adjust the TCP settings used for edge server-to-edge
`server communication. The first setting is for the edge-to-child direction, and it adjusts the initial
`congestion window. The initial congestion window is also adjusted for the edge-to-parent direction so that
`the child advertises an appropriately large window and can use that larger window for POST transactions:”
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Devanneaux ¶ 87.
`
`Nor would one of ordinary skill in the art be motivated to combine the disclosure of Chu with that of
`Devenneaux, for any of the reasons identified by Akamai. A desire to “enhance the operation of the
`CDN edge server” does not provide a motivation to combine the specific disclosed elements of these
`references – one of which primarily concerns metadata configurations for prefetching, and the other
`of which concerns dynamically modifying a TCP stack to adapt to changing conditions. Devanneaux
`discloses only setting TCP attributes once per connection, on a “customer-specific, domain-specific”
`basis. Devanneaux ¶ 86. Devanneaux does not disclose adapting TCP attributes based on requests
`received throughout the duration of a connection. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have no
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`1.4
`
`configuring a
`protocol of the
`first connection
`according to the
`first attributes,
`wherein the
`protocol that is
`configured is a
`transport layer
`protocol;
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`motivation to combine these references.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation does not meet it. While Devanneaux discloses
`configuring a transport layer protocol, Devanneaux does not disclose doing so according to “first
`attributes” determined by comparing a URI to an alphanumeric string, for the reasons described in
`1.2.
`
`Further, Devanneaux discloses no example of setting an “edge-to-user” TCP configuration, but
`instead discloses only examples edge server to edge server adjustment of parameters where both
`devices are under the control of a CDN service provider.
`
`“Thus, the following metadata illustrates how to adjust the TCP settings used for edge server-to-edge
`server communication. The first setting is for the edge-to-child direction, and it adjusts the initial
`congestion window. The initial congestion window is also adjusted for the edge-to-parent direction so that
`the child advertises an appropriately large window and can use that larger window for POST transactions:”
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`
`1.5
`
`1.6
`
`1.7
`
`1.8
`
`receiving a
`second request
`for content from
`the network at
`the server;
`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
`
`
`Devanneaux ¶ 87.
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`
`
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation does not meet it, for the reasons described in
`1.2.
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation does not meet it, for the reasons described in
`1.3.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation does not meet it. While Devanneaux discloses
`configuring a transport layer protocol, Devanneaux does not disclose doing so according to “first
`attributes” and “second attributes” determined by comparing a URI to an alphanumeric string, for
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`connection
`according to the
`second attributes,
`wherein the first
`attributes affect
`operation of the
`protocol
`differently than
`the second
`attributes affect
`operation of the
`protocol.
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`
`the reasons described in 1.2.
`
`Further, Devanneaux discloses no example of setting an “edge-to-user” TCP configuration, but
`instead discloses only examples edge server to edge server adjustment of parameters where both
`devices are under the control of a CDN service provider.
`
`“Thus, the following metadata illustrates how to adjust the TCP settings used for edge server-to-edge
`server communication. The first setting is for the edge-to-child direction, and it adjusts the initial
`congestion window. The initial congestion window is also adjusted for the edge-to-parent direction so that
`the child advertises an appropriately large window and can use that larger window for POST transactions:”
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`5.
`
`Pre
`
`The network
`connection
`method for
`delivering
`content as recited
`in claim 1,
`wherein the
`content in the
`first-listed
`analyzing
`limitation is
`different from the
`content in the
`second-listed
`analyzing
`limitation.
`6. A system for
`managing
`delivery of
`content over a
`network, the
`system
`comprising:
`
`
`
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`
`
`Devanneaux ¶ 87.
`
`Nor does Chu disclose this element. Nor would the repetition of steps not disclosed in Devanneux or
`Chu have been obvious to one skilled in the art, for the reasons described above.
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this claim does not meet it, for the reasons described as to
`Claim 1.
`Further, Akamai’s evidence does not disclose this limitation requiring that the requested content in
`the first “analyzing” limitation is different than the requested content in the second “analyzing”
`limitation. Nor does Chu. Chu discloses adapting a TCP protocol stack, but not in connection with
`a request.
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this claim is deficient in that it fails to provide the required explanation
`on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior art discloses
`or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting the limitations of claim 6 does not meet them, because, among
`other reasons, Devanneaux, either alone or in combination with Chu or RFC793, does not disclose a
`system for managing delivery of content over a network that includes at least limitations 6.1, 6.2, 6.4,
`6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9. Therefore the cited prior art references do not render obvious Claim 6.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`6.1
`
`protocol handler
`managing a first
`connection and a
`second
`connection over
`the network
`using a protocol,
`wherein:
`
`6.2
`
`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
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`As Akamai concedes, Devanneaux does not disclose a protocol handler that manages first and
`second connections. Devanneaux discloses only metadata for use in configuring a TCP connection,
`and an “operating system kernel.” Devanneaux ¶ 29.
`
`Nor would one of ordinary skill in the art be motivated to combine the disclosure of Chu with that of
`Devenneaux, for any of the reasons identified by Akamai. A desire to “enhance the operation of the
`CDN edge server” does not provide a motivation to combine the specific disclosed elements of these
`references – one of which primarily concerns metadata configurations for prefetching, and the other
`of which concerns dynamically modifying a TCP stack to adapt to changing conditions. Devanneaux
`discloses only setting TCP attributes once per connection, on a “customer-specific, domain-specific”
`basis. Devanneaux ¶ 86. Devanneaux does not disclose adapting TCP attributes based on requests
`received throughout the duration of a connection. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have no
`motivation to combine these references.
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation does not meet it, for the reasons identified as to
`Claim 6.1. Devanneaux does not disclose a protocol handler, and further does not disclose the same
`protocol handler configured to use one set of attributes for one connection, and a different set of
`attributes for a different connection. Devenneaux instead discloses that a server may adopt a
`specific TCP configuration for a given connection. Devanneaux ¶¶83, 86-87. Nor would one of
`ordinary skill in the art be motivated to combine the disclosure of Chu with that of Devenneaux, for
`any of the reasons identified by Akamai. A desire to “enhance the operation of the CDN edge
`server” does not provide a motivation to combine the specific disclosed elements of these references –
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`second attributes
`for the second
`connection;
`
`6.3
`
`6.4
`
`a store holding a
`plurality of
`attributes; and
`a protocol
`attribute selector,
`configured to:
`
`6.5
`
`receive first
`information
`relating to a first
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`one of which primarily concerns metadata configurations for prefetching, and the other of which
`concerns dynamically modifying a TCP stack to adapt to changing conditions. Devanneaux discloses
`only setting TCP attributes once per connection, on a “customer-specific, domain-specific” basis.
`Devanneaux ¶ 86. Devanneaux does not disclose adapting TCP attributes based on requests received
`throughout the duration of a connection. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have no motivation
`to combine these references.
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`Akamai makes no attempt to apply the agreed claim construction to the alleged prior art and
`therefore, Akamai’s contention is deficient. The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation
`does not meet it. Akamai has agreed that “protocol attribute selector” should be construed as “a
`software process that can analyze each request to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver
`requested content.” Devanneaux does not disclose the claimed “protocol attribute selector,” because
`it does not disclose analyzing each request to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver
`requested content according to the steps listed below it, including limitations 6.5-6.9.
`
`Devanneaux discloses only setting TCP attributes once per connection, on a “customer-specific,
`domain-specific” basis. Devanneux does not disclose doing so for each request. Devanneaux ¶ 86.
`Nor does Devanneaux disclose analyzing a request for content. Devanneaux discloses “searching an
`index file for a match on a customer hostname associated with a request,” but does not disclose that
`the association is determined through analysis of a request. Devanneaux ¶ 21.
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`request for
`content wherein
`the first
`information is
`derived from a
`first uniform
`resource
`indicator (URI)
`associated with
`the first request
`for content,
`
`6.6
`
`query the store
`for first attributes
`corresponding to
`the first
`information,
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`
`
`Akamai makes no attempt to apply either party’s claim construction to the alleged prior art and
`therefore, Akamai’s contention is deficient. Further, the evidence Akamai cites as meeting this
`limitation does not meet it including under either party’s construction of “uniform resource
`indicator” or the agreed construction of “protocol attribute selector.” Akamai has agreed that
`“protocol attribute selector” should be construed as “a software process that can analyze each
`request to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver requested content.” Devanneaux does not
`disclose the claimed “protocol attribute selector,” because it does not disclose analyzing each request
`to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver requested content according to the steps listed
`below it, including this limitation.
`
`Devanneaux discloses only setting TCP attributes once per connection, on a “customer-specific,
`domain-specific” basis. Devanneux does not disclose doing so for each request. Devanneaux ¶ 84.
`Nor does Devanneaux disclose analyzing a request for content. Devanneaux discloses “searching an
`index file for a match on a customer hostname associated with a request,” but does not disclose that
`the association is derived from a URI. Devanneaux ¶ 21.
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`Akamai makes no attempt to apply the agreed claim construction to the alleged prior art and
`therefore, Akamai’s contention is deficient. The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation
`does not meet it. Akamai has agreed that “protocol attribute selector” should be construed as “a
`software process that can analyze each request to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver
`requested content.” Devanneaux does not disclose the claimed “protocol attribute selector,” because
`it does not disclose analyzing each request to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver
`requested content according to the steps listed below it, including this limitation. Devanneaux
`discloses only setting TCP attributes once per connection, on a “customer-specific, domain-specific”
`basis. Devanneux does not disclose doing so for each request. Devanneaux ¶ 84.
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`6.7
`
`Claim Language
`program the
`protocol handler
`with the first
`attributes for the
`first connection,
`
`
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`Akamai makes no attempt to apply the agreed claim construction to the alleged prior art and
`therefore, Akamai’s contention is deficient. The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation
`does not meet it. Akamai has agreed that “protocol attribute selector” should be construed as “a
`software process that can analyze each request to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver
`requested content.” Devanneaux does not disclose the claimed “protocol attribute selector,” because
`it does not disclose analyzing each request to select protocol attributes to be used to deliver
`requested content according to the steps listed below it, including this limitation. Devanneaux
`discloses only setting TCP attributes once per connection, on a “customer-specific, domain-specific”
`basis. Devanneux does not disclose doing so for each request. Devanneaux ¶ 84. Nor, as Akamai
`concedes, does Devanneaux disclose programming a protocol handler.
`
`Further, Devanneaux discloses no example of setting an “edge-to-user” TCP configuration, but
`instead discloses only examples edge server to edge server adjustment of parameters where both
`devices are under the control of a CDN service provider.
`
`“Thus, the following metadata illustrates how to adjust the TCP settings used for edge server-to-edge
`server communication. The first setting is for the edge-to-child direction, and it adjusts the initial
`congestion window. The initial congestion window is also adjusted for the edge-to-parent direction so that
`the child advertises an appropriately large window and can use that larger window for POST transactions:”
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Devanneaux ¶ 87.
`
`Chu also does not disclose the claimed “protocol attribute selector” that “can analyze each request to
`select protocol attributes to be used to deliver requested content” and “program the protocol
`handler with the first attributes for the first connection” accordingly. Chu does not disclose a
`protocol attribute selector that analyzes requests and programs a protocol handler accordingly.
`
`In any event, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art be motivated to combine the disclosure of
`Chu with that of Devenneaux to meet this limitation, for any of the reasons identified by Akamai. A
`desire to “enhance the operation of the CDN edge server” does not provide a motivation to combine
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`Claim Language
`
`6.8
`
`6.9
`
`7.
`
`receive second
`information
`relating to a
`second request
`for content,
`
`query the store
`for second
`attributes for the
`second
`connection, and
`program the
`protocol handler
`with the second
`attributes for the
`second
`connection
`The system for
`managing
`delivery of
`content over the
`network as
`recited in claim
`6, wherein the
`
`
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`the specific disclosed elements of these references – one of which primarily concerns metadata
`configurations for prefetching, and the other of which concerns dynamically modifying a TCP stack
`to adapt to changing conditions. Devanneaux discloses only setting TCP attributes once per
`connection, on a “customer-specific, domain-specific” basis. Devanneaux ¶ 84. Devanneaux does
`not disclose adapting TCP attributes based on requests received throughout the duration of a
`connection. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have no motivation to combine these references.
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation does not meet it, for the reasons described as to
`6.5.
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this limitation does not meet it, for the reasons described as to
`6.6.
`
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this claim does not meet it, for the reasons described as to
`Claim 6.
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`Response to Akamai’s Contention
`
`Akamai’s contention as to this limitation is deficient in that it fails to provide the required
`explanation on a limitation-by-limitation basis within its charted contentions what the alleged prior
`art discloses or how or why the cited evidence from the alleged prior art meets the claim limitation.
`
`The evidence Akamai cites as meeting this claim does not meet it, for the reasons described as to
`Claim 6.
`Further, Devanneaux discloses no example of setting an “edge-to-user” TCP configuration, but
`instead discloses only examples edge server to edge server adjustment of parameters where both
`devices are under the control of a CDN service provider.
`
`“Thus, the following metadata illustrates how to adjust the TCP settings used for edge server-to-edge
`server communication. The first setting is for the edge-to-child direction, and it adjusts the initial
`congestion window. The initial congestion window is also adjusted for the edge-to-parent direction so that
`the child advertises an appropriately large window and can use that larger window for POST transactions:”
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Claim Language
`protocol is
`transmission
`control protocol
`(TCP).
`The system for
`managing
`delivery of
`content over the
`network as
`r