U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DOCKET NO.: 0108369-00230US3
`Filed on behalf of Akamai Technologies, Inc.
`By: Grant K. Rowan, Reg. No. 41,278
`Peter Dichiara, Reg. No. 38,005
`Daniel V. Williams, Reg. No. 45,221
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email:
`Grant.Rowan@wilmerhale.com
`Peter.Dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`Daniel.Williams@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,750,155
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1, 8, and 13
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 4 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 4 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 5 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 5 
`III.  CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 6 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 6 
`A. 
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 6 
`B. 
`Ground for Challenge ............................................................................ 7 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’155 PATENT ............................................................ 7 
`A. 
`Background Technology ....................................................................... 7 
`B. 
`Alleged Invention of the ’155 Patent .................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 14 
`D. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 15 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 15 
`A.  Devanneaux ......................................................................................... 15 
`B. 
`Overview of Chu ................................................................................. 22 
`C.  Motivation to Combine Devanneaux and Chu .................................... 24 
`D.  Haverstock ........................................................................................... 30 
`E.  Motivation to Combine Devanneaux and Haverstock ........................ 30 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 32 
`A.  District Court Constructions ................................................................ 32 
`B. 
`Data Source Construction .................................................................... 33 
`VIII.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 35 
`IX.  SPECIFIC GROUND FOR PETITION ........................................................ 35 
`A. 
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 35 
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Dependent Claim 8 .............................................................................. 57 
`B. 
`Independent Claim 13 ......................................................................... 61 
`C. 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 69 
`
`X. 
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Akamai Technologies, Inc. requests Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 8, and
`
`13 of USP 8,750,155 (“’155 patent”) (Ex. 1001) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19
`
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’155 patent claims a purportedly novel system that allegedly optimizes
`
`the characteristics or “attributes” of a communication connection between an
`
`Internet server and an end user computer when the server delivers “content” (e.g.,
`
`web pages, data, and streaming video) to the end user computer over the
`
`connection. But in fact, the claimed technique merely duplicates a well-known
`
`method—called “TCP connection optimization”—disclosed by Thomas
`
`Devanneaux in a patent application filed nearly three years before the ’155 patent’s
`
`alleged priority date. USPN 2007/0156845 (“Devanneaux”)(Ex. 1003), ¶0023
`
`(“TCP connection optimization involves adjusting one or more TCP settings….”).
`
`As the ‘155 patent explains, at the time of the patent, protocols existed to
`
`allow devices, such as servers and end user computers, to communicate with each
`
`other over the Internet. “TCP” (or “Transmission Control Protocol”) was at the
`
`time (and remains today) one such widely-adopted standard protocol. Ex. 1001-
`
`’155, 1:38-44. Using TCP, an end user computer first establishes a connection –
`
`referred to as a TCP connection—with a server over the Internet. Id.; see also id.,
`
`16:62-63. Once the TCP connection is established, the end user computer can send
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`a request for particular content (e.g., a web page) over the connection to the server.
`
`Id., 17:2-4. The server can then send the requested content to the end user. Id.,
`
`17:10-18; see also id.4:43-51, Abstract.
`
`The TCP protocol includes settings—referred to as “attributes”—that affect
`
`the way in which messages are sent over a connection. These include settings such
`
`as the size of messages to be sent, the timing at which messages are sent, and the
`
`pace at which messages are sent. Id., 1:45-58, 17:19-34. As the patent explains, it
`
`was known that these settings could be adjusted depending on a range of factors
`
`including, for instance, the amount of congestion on the network. Id., 1:45-54. As
`
`the patent also explains, it was known that these settings could be customized for
`
`particular circumstances. Id.
`
`The ‘155 patent claims as its purported invention particular techniques for
`
`modifying these protocol settings. Specifically, the ’155 patent describes a system
`
`that adjusts, or “conditionally adapts,” the initial settings of the protocol attributes
`
`for a connection based on two types of information. First, the system adjusts the
`
`settings based on information in a request for content that the server receives over
`
`the connection. Id., 5:4-6, 6:33-36. For example, the server adjusts the TCP
`
`attributes based on a “hostname” (e.g., fastnet.com) that is contained in the request
`
`and that identifies the domain (and the server) where the requested content is
`
`stored. Id., 13:54-14:36 (explaining that “the host name alone [in a request] may
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`be sufficient” for the server to select an appropriate set of “TCP attribute sets … to
`
`be used and the appropriate value or setting for that use of that attribute.”) Second,
`
`the system adjusts the settings based on one or more parameters “relating to
`
`utilization of available processing or memory capabilities of part or all of [the]
`
`system supporting the [TCP] connection. Ex. 1001-’155, claims 1, 13.
`
`But long before the ’155 patent’s March 26, 2009 priority date, Devanneaux
`
`had already developed and used the same techniques for adjusting TCP attributes.
`
`Specifically, Devanneaux disclosed adjusting the settings for a connection based
`
`on a “hostname” in a request for content from an end user computer. As
`
`Devanneaux explains, when a server “receives a request for content, it searches an
`
`index file for a match on a customer hostname associated with 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. 1003-Devanneaux, ¶0021. The
`
`loaded “metadata may control how a given edge server” performs “TCP
`
`connection optimization [which] involves adjusting one or more TCP settings” for
`
`a connection. Id., ¶0021, ¶0023.
`
`Devanneaux also disclosed modifying TCP attribute values based on a “CPU
`
`utilization percentage” parameter. Ex. 1003-Devanneaux, ¶0079, ¶0083, ¶0023.
`
`As noted above, “[i]f there is a match” on a hostname in the request, Devanneaux’s
`
`“edge server management process loads metadata … to determine how it will
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`handle the request….” Ex. 1003-Devanneaux, ¶0021. Devanneaux explains “that
`
`there are many metadata tags for use in tuning the configuration” (id., ¶0039), and
`
`one of these metadata tags is a “baseline tag [that] is used to temporarily stop
`
`prefetching if a given edge server CPU utilization percent is above [a] threshold.”
`
`Id., ¶0079. While Devanneaux primarily discusses using the “CPU utilization
`
`percentage” parameter in the context of “prefetching,” the reference explains that
`
`this parameter can also be used for TCP connection optimization. Id., ¶0023
`
`(“Although the remainder of this description focuses primarily on the content
`
`prefetching capability, …. this function can be combined readily with other edge
`
`server functions … includ[ing]… TCP connection optimizations….”). ¶0083.
`
`Claims 1, 8, and 13 of the ‘155 patent are therefore invalid.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai” or “Petitioner”) is the real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight” or “Patent Owner”) has asserted the
`
`’155 patent against Akamai in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. XO Communications,
`
`No. 3:15cv720-JAG (E.D. Va.)(“District Court Lawsuit”). This proceeding may
`
`be affected by a decision in this instant proceeding.
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`On May 13, 2016, Akamai filed an inter partes review petition challenging
`
`the validity of 1, 2, 4-8, 10, and 11 of USP 7,715,324 (“’324 patent”)(Ex. 1006).
`
`Both the ’324 patent and the ’155 patent are continuation applications of USAN
`
`12/572,981 and share essentially the same specification. On November 4, 2016,
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted an inter partes review
`
`(Case IPR2016-01011)(“’324 IPR”) of all of the challenged claims of the ’324
`
`patent. Ex. 1007-Decision on Institution (IPR2016-01011) (“’324 Institution
`
`Decision”), 2.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel:
`
`Grant K. Rowan (Registration No. 41,278)
`
`Backup Counsel: Peter Dichiara (Registration No. 38,005)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Daniel V. Williams (Registration No. 45,221)
`
`David H. Judson (Registration No. 30,467)
`
`Michael J. Summersgill (pro hac vice to be requested)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`E-mail:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`grant.rowan@wilmerhale.com
`
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`
`daniel.williams@wilmerhale.com
`
`mail@davidjudson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr, LLP
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Telephone: 202-663-6000
`
`
`
`Fax: 202-663-6363
`
`Electronic service on lead and back up counsel is approved and preferred.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1, 8, and 13 of the ’155 patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art:
`
`1.
`
`USPN 2007/0156845 (“Devanneaux”)(Ex. 1003), which published on
`
`July 5, 2007, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`2. USPN 2007/0226375 (“Chu”)(Ex. 1004), which published on
`
`September 27, 2007, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`3.
`
`USP 6,192,415 (“Haverstock”)(Ex. 1005), which issued on February
`
`20, 2001, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B. Ground for Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1, 8, and 13 of the ’155 patent as
`
`being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This Petition, supported by the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee (“Decl.”)(Ex. 1002) filed herewith,
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to cancellation of at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’155 PATENT
`The ’155 patent issued from USAN 13/595,904 (filed on August 27, 2012)
`
`and ultimately claims priority to PCT Application No. PCT/US2009/038361 (filed
`
`on March 26, 2009). Ex. 1001-’155, cover page.
`
`A. Background Technology
`The ’155 patent relates to a “content delivery system” that delivers “content”
`
`from an Internet server to an end user computer. Ex. 1001-’155, 4:26-45. Content
`
`may include “HTML, [web]page objects, streaming media, software downloads,
`
`and the like.” Ex. 1003-Devanneaux, ¶0008; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶51.
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’155 patent (below) shows “a block diagram of an embodiment
`
`of an Internet content delivery system 100.” Ex. 1001-’155, 4:26-27.
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`“In FIG. 1, a number of end users 108 respectively use their end user system or
`
`client [e.g., end user computer] 102 to download and view content objects from the
`
`global Internet 104. The content delivery system 110 has one or more [content]
`
`servers that … provide content to the clients [i.e., end user computers] 102.” Id.,
`
`4:29-36; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶52.
`
`In order to retrieve content from the server, an “end user computer 102 can
`
`establish a TCP [i.e., Transmission Control Protocol] connection with content
`
`server….” Ex. 1001-’155, 16:62-63. TCP is a “widely adopted standard protocol
`
`on the Internet …, which today enables almost every device on the Internet to
`
`interoperate with almost every other device. TCP operates at the connection layer
`
`and enables nodes [such as the end user computer] to interoperate with other nodes
`
`[such as the content server] by establishing communications connections.” Id.,
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`1:38-44. “Once the [TCP] connection is established, the end user [computer 102]
`
`can send a content request over the connection” to request content from the server.
`
`Id., 17:12-14; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶53.
`
`The TCP “protocol[] … employ[s] the use of attributes, such as configurable
`
`parameters and selectable algorithms, to permit the protocol to operate effectively
`
`in various situations. For example, TCP controls message size, the rate at which
`
`messages are exchanged, and factors related to network congestion through the use
`
`of attributes, including both by the use of parameters … and by the use of
`
`algorithms….” Ex. 1001-’155, 1:45-54. As the patent explains, it was known that
`
`these settings could be adjusted depending on a range of factors including, for
`
`instance, the amount of congestion on the network. Id. As the patent also
`
`explains, it was known that these settings could be customized for particular
`
`circumstances. Id. Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶54.
`
`B. Alleged Invention of the ’155 Patent
`The alleged invention of the ’155 patent adjusts, or “conditionally adapts,”
`
`the initial settings for the TCP attributes based on information in a request for
`
`content so that the attributes are allegedly optimized to deliver content from the
`
`server to the end user computer 102. Namely, “[i]n the primary embodiment, the
`
`server 206 conditionally adapts the attributes of the TCP protocol for each TCP
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`connection established by a client [i.e., end user computer] 102.” Ex. 1001-’155,
`
`5:4-6; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶55.
`
`More specifically, “the server 206 bases the conditional adaptation of the
`
`attributes of the TCP protocol on [an] alphanumeric URL string provided by the
`
`client 102 in its … request [for content].” Ex. 1001-’155, 6:33-36. “[A]n example
`
`URL referencing content that can be served by the … server 206 … might look
`
`like: http://customer1.webserving.com/folderB/ directory/logo.gif .” ’155 patent,
`
`12:43-47; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶56.
`
`As shown in Fig. 2A (below), the server 206 includes a protocol attribute
`
`selector 212, a TCP handler 214, and a table 220 to conditionally adapt the TCP
`
`attributes of the connection based on the URL in the request.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“[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 [the] table 220
`
`containing partial or whole URLs and identifies the most specific match … it can
`
`find in the table 220.” Ex. 1001-’155, 7:8-13. Namely, “[the] client 102
`
`requesting [an] object … send[s] an HTTP message [i.e., a request] using an HTTP
`
`method called “GET” to the server 206….” Id., 12:48-50. “The server 206
`
`compares the alphanumeric URL string provided by the client 102 in the GET
`
`request to the table 220 and identifies the most specific match from left to right that
`
`it can find in the table 220….” Id., 13:61-65; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶57.
`
`As shown in the table at column 14:5-15 (below), the server 206 compares a
`
`“hostname” in the URL with alphanumeric strings in the table to correlate the URL
`
`with the settings for various TCP attributes.
`
`
`The “[t]able shows mappings from whole and/or partial URLs into TCP attribute
`
`sets comprising specific [TCP] protocols attributes (identified as ‘attr1’, ‘attr2’,
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`‘attr3’, etc.) to be used and the appropriate value or setting for that use of that
`
`attribute.” Ex. 1001-’155, 13:65-14:3. For example, “[t]he URL …,
`
`‘http://customer1.webserving.com/folderB/ directory/logo.gif,’ would be matched
`
`against the second line-entry in the table [highlighted in yellow]. The TCP
`
`protocol attribute set (group of TCP protocol attributes) to be used for the TCP
`
`connection that services, or responds to, this HTTP GET message from this client
`
`102 would be ‘attr1=no, attr2=1, attr4=high’ [also highlighted in yellow] and the
`
`TCP protocol attributes for this TCP connection would be set accordingly. This …
`
`example also illustrates that … the host name alone may be sufficient [for a
`
`matching entry], such as in the case of the entry ‘fastnet.com’1 [highlighted in
`
`green].” Id., 14:16-29; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶58.
`
`“In other embodiments [the] server [206] … bases the conditional adaptation
`
`of the attributes of the TCP protocol … on [parameters, such as] recent
`
`measurements of performance or utilization of a server, group of servers, or server
`
`
`1 The table Mapping at column 14:5-15 contains an error. The hostname
`
`“fastnet.com” (highlighted in green above) should be on a different line than the
`
`URL (highlighted in yellow above). Compare table in related ’324 patent. Ex.
`
`1006-’324, 15:14-25.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`component(s) such as memory, processor, disk, bus, intersystem interface, and/or
`
`network interface.” Ex. 1001-’155, 6:57-67; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶59.
`
`To set the TCP protocol attributes for the TCP connection, the server 206
`
`uses the TCP handler 214 shown in Fig. 2A. Ex. 1001-’155, 12:60-13:20. “[A] set
`
`sockets statement can be used to communicate [the] conditionally adapted TCP
`
`protocol attributes … to the TCP handler 214, which can be a modified TCP
`
`software stack that accepts and implements changes to the TCP protocol attributes
`
`on a per-connection or per-request basis.” Id., 13:9-14; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶60.
`
`When the attributes are changed on a “per-connection” or “connection-by-
`
`connection” basis, the TCP handler 214 in “the server 206 conditionally adapts the
`
`attributes of the TCP protocol for each TCP connection established by a client
`
`102.” Ex. 1001-’155, 12:60-62. These changes to the TCP attributes can be made
`
`for each connection based on the first request sent by the end user computer 102
`
`over the TCP connection. Id., Fig. 4, 14:62-15:13 (“Referring to Fig. 4, an
`
`embodiment of a process for potentially modifying protocol attributes on a
`
`connection-by-connection basis is shown.”). When the attributes are changed on a
`
`“per-request” or “request-by-request” basis, the TCP handler 214 implements
`
`changes to the TCP attributes for multiple requests sent over the same TCP
`
`connection. Id., 19:55-20:8 (explaining adjusting TCP attributes on a connection-
`
`by-connection or request-by-request basis), 12:60-13:20; Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶61.
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`This Petition challenges claims 1, 8, and 13 of the ’155 patent.
`
`Representative claim 1 relates to “[a] method for managing delivery of content in a
`
`system comprising a server and an end user computer….” Ex. 1001-’155, claim 1.
`
`The method “establish[es] a first connection at the server for communicating with
`
`the end user computer” and “receiv[es] a request for content from the end user
`
`computer over the first connection.” Id. “[T]he request include[s] a universal
`
`resource locator (URL).” Id. The method “determin[es] one or more parameters
`
`relating … to utilization of available processing or memory capabilities of part or
`
`all of a system supporting the first connection” and “determin[es] one or more first
`
`values of attributes based on the URL and the one or more parameters.” Id. The
`
`method further “modif[ies] second values of attributes for the first connection at a
`
`transport layer to result in the determined one or more first values,” and chang[es],
`
`on a connection-specific basis, a connection protocol stack operator based upon the
`
`modified values of the attributes.” Id. Finally, the method “send[s] the requested
`
`content from the server to the end user computer such that the transport layer
`
`manages delivery of the content in accordance with the modified second values of
`
`the attributes.”
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Prosecution History
`
`D.
`The ’155 patent issued on June 10, 2014, from USAN 13/595,904 (filed on
`
`August 27, 2012). The ’904 application is a continuation of USAN 12/572,981
`
`(filed on October 2, 2009), which is a continuation-in-part of International
`
`Application No. PCT/US2009/038361 (filed on March 26, 2009). None of the
`
`prior art relied on in this Petition was considered during the prosecution of the ’155
`
`patent. Ex. 1001-’155, cover page.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`The claimed invention of the ’155 patent—adjusting values of TCP
`
`attributes on at least a connection-by-connection basis based on information (i.e., a
`
`URL) in a request for content and based on a parameter relating to utilization of
`
`available processing capabilities—was well-known in the prior art as of the
`
`patent’s alleged March 26, 2009 priority date.
`
`A. Devanneaux
`Devanneaux was filed on December 29, 2006, and published on July 5,
`
`2007—more than one year before the priority date of the ’155 patent. Therefore, it
`
`is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As described in detail below, Devanneaux
`
`discloses precisely the same solution as the ’155 patent—adjusting values of TCP
`
`attributes on at least a connection-by-connection basis based on information in a
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`request for content from an end user computer and based on the utilization of
`
`available processing capabilities. Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶65.
`
`Devanneaux “relates generally to content delivery in distributed networks.”
`
`Ex. 1003-Devanneaux, ¶0004. “Typically, ‘content delivery’ means the storage,
`
`caching, or transmission of content, streaming media and applications on behalf of
`
`content providers.” Id., ¶0007; see also ¶0008 (noting that “delivery of content”
`
`includes delivery of “HTML, embedded page objects, streaming media, software
`
`downloads, and the like….”). As of Devenneaux’s filing date, “[i]t [was] 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’….” Id., ¶0007. Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶66.
`
`Fig. 1 of Devanneaux (below) “illustrate[s] a known CDN infrastructure for
`
`managing content delivery …. In this example, computer system 100 is configured
`
`as a CDN ….” Ex. 1003-Devanneaux, ¶0008.
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`“The CDN is assumed to have a set of machines 102a-n distributed around the
`
`Internet, [and t]ypically, most of the machines are servers located near the edge of
`
`the Internet, i.e., at or adjacent end user access networks.” Id. “Third party
`
`content sites, such as Web site 106, offload delivery of content … to the distributed
`
`computer system 100 and, in particular, to ‘edge’ servers [102].” Id. “End users
`
`that desire such content may be directed to the distributed computer system to
`
`obtain that content more reliably and efficiently.” Id. Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶67.
`
`Fig. 3 below shows “a portion of the CDN of FIG. 1….” Ex. 1003-
`
`Devanneaux, ¶0016.
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`When an end user (using the Internet-accessible client 300) sends a request to
`
`receive content, that request typically is directed to an edge server 304 of the CDN.
`
`Id., ¶0019. Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶68.
`
`One aspect of Devanneaux’s system relates to “how the edge server should
`
`deliver the content to the requesting end user browser….” Ex. 1003-Devanneaux,
`
`¶0021. More specifically, “a given CDN edge server is configured to provide one
`
`or more extended content delivery features. To this end, the CDN edge servers …
`
`provide these delivery features on a customer-specific, customer domain-specific
`
`[basis], preferably using XML-based configuration files that are distributed to the
`
`edge servers….” Id. Ex. 1002-Decl., ¶69.
`
`“[W]hen an edge server management process receives a request for content
`
`[from an end user], it searches an index file for a match on a customer hostname
`
`associated with the request…. If there is a match, the edge server process loads
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`metadata from [its] configuration file to determine how it will handle the request....
`
`[M]etadata may control how a given edge server establishes and maintains
`
`connections with one or more other edge servers or other machines, or how the
`
`edge server should deliver the content to the requesting end user browser…. In
`
`any event, a set of content handling directives are set forth in the XML
`
`configuration file for a given customer domain and used to control the edge server
`
`to provide these advanced functions.” Id., ¶0021. Ex. 1002-Decl., ¶70.
`
`“[T]hese [advanced] functions include … TCP connection optimization
`
`[which] involves adjusting one or more TCP settings (e.g., congestion window
`
`size, retransmit timeout, packet reordering, and the like)….” Ex. 1003-
`
`Devanneaux, ¶0023; see also id., ¶0083). In other words, during TCP connection
`
`optimization, one or more TCP parameters for a connection between the edge
`
`server and an end user can be adjusted. Id., ¶0086, ¶0087. Specifically, “the
`
`controls for changing the TCP settings are in a separator[, which has] two listable
`
`nodes….” Id., ¶0086. “Preferably, the structure of these nodes is the same. They
`
`each contain … a parameter (the name of the [TCP] parameter to be set), a
`
`direction (to define which connection this setting will control), and a value (the
`
`value to set for the parameter). The [TCP] parameter may be one of: cwnd_init
`
`(initial congestion window), cwnd_ssinc (slow start increase), cwnd_cainc
`
`(congestion avoidance rate), cwr_dec (congestion reduction rate), and many others.
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The direction defines which connection this setting will control. The possible
`
`values [for the connection direction include] edge-to-user [i.e., a connection
`
`between the edge server and the end user]….” Id., ¶0086. Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶71.
`
`Devanneaux also adjusts TCP settings based on “CPU utilization
`
`percentage” of the edge server. Specifically, as noted above, if there is a match on
`
`a hostname in a request for content, Devanneaux’s “edge server management
`
`process loads metadata … to determine how it will handle the request….” Ex.
`
`1003-Devanneaux, ¶0021. Devanneaux further explains “that there are many
`
`metadata tags for use in tuning the configuration” (id., ¶0039) and that one of these
`
`metadata tags is a “baseline tag [that] is used to temporarily stop prefetching if a
`
`given edge server CPU utilization percent is above [a] threshold” Id., ¶0079.
`
`While Devanneaux initially discloses using the “CPU utilization percentage”
`
`parameter in the context of “prefetching,” the reference explains that this parameter
`
`can be used for TCP connection optimization. Id., ¶0083 (“If desired, prefetching
`
`can be combined with other edge server features, such as … TCP connection
`
`optimization….”), ¶0023 (“Although the remainder of this description focuses
`
`primarily on the content prefetching capability, …. this function can be combined
`
`readily with other edge server functions … includ[ing]… TCP connection
`
`optimizations….”). Ex. 1002-Decl., ¶72.
`
`20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Fig. 2 below shows the structure of one of Devanneaux’s edge servers. Ex.
`
`1003-Devanneaux, ¶0009 (“As illustrated in FIG. 2, a given machine 200
`
`comprises ….”), ¶0008 (“[M]ost of the machines are servers located near the edge
`
`of the Internet”).
`
`
`The “machine 200 comprises commodity hardware (e.g., an Intel Pentium
`
`processor) 202 running an operating system kernel … 204 that supports one or
`
`more applications 206a-n. To facilitate content delivery services, for example,
`
`given machines typically run a set of applications, such as an HTTP Web proxy
`
`207, a name server 208, a local monitoring process 210, a distributed data
`
`collection process 212, and the like.” Id., ¶0009. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) would understand that the operating system 204 in Fig. 2 is
`
`typically where a TCP protocol stack is implemented which stores modified TCP
`
`settings for controlling the delivery of content to the end user. Ex. 1002-Decl. ¶73.
`
`21
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155 - Claims 1, 8, and 13
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B. Overview of Chu
`Chu was filed on March 23, 2006—more than three years before the ’155
`
`patent’s alleged March 26, 2009 priority date—and published on September 27,
`
`2007—more than one year before the priority date. Therefore, it is prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Chu teaches a specific example of a TCP protocol stack (e.g., network stack
`
`with a TCP layer) that could be integrated into an operating system