UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`Akamai Technologies, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`____________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00348
`____________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. SAMRAT BHATTACHARJEE ON BEHALF OF
`PETITIONER
`
`AKAMAI
`EXHIBIT 1002
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Legal Principles ............................................................................................... 5 
`A.  Anticipation ........................................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7 
`C. 
`Indefiniteness ....................................................................................... 10 
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 11 
`A.  District Court Constructions ................................................................ 11 
`B. 
`Data Source Construction .................................................................... 12 
`III.  Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art ................................................................ 14 
`IV.  Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... 14 
`V.  Overview of the ’155 patent .......................................................................... 14 
`A. 
`Background Technology ..................................................................... 15 
`B. 
`Alleged Invention of the ’155 Patent .................................................. 17 
`C. 
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 21 
`D. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 22 
`VI.  Overview of the Prior Art .............................................................................. 22 
`A.  Devanneaux ......................................................................................... 23 
`B. 
`Overview of Chu ................................................................................. 29 
`C.  Motivation to Combine Devanneaux and Chu .................................... 31 
`D.  Haverstock ........................................................................................... 37 
`E.  Motivation to Combine Devanneaux and Haverstock ........................ 37 
`VII.  INVALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..................................... 39 
`A. 
`Independent Claim 1 ........................................................................... 39 
`B. 
`Dependent Claim 8 .............................................................................. 61 
`C. 
`Independent Claim 13 ......................................................................... 65 
`VIII.  Availability for Cross-Examination .............................................................. 74 
`IX.  Right to Supplement ...................................................................................... 74 
`
`i
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`I, Samrat Bhattacharjee, declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Samrat Bhattacharjee.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`2.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Computer Science in 1999 from the Georgia
`
`Institute of Technology. In 1994, I received a B.S. degree summa cum laude in
`
`Mathematics and in Computer Science from Georgia College and State University.
`
`I was a Teaching Assistant at the Georgia Institute of Technology from 1994 to
`
`1995 and an Instructor in 1998.
`
`3.
`
`From 1999 through 2005, I was an Assistant Professor at the
`
`University of Maryland, College Park, in the Department of Computer Science,
`
`and then an Associate Professor with tenure from 2005 through 2009. In 2006, I
`
`was a Visiting Professor at the Max Planck Institüt für Software Systems,
`
`Saarbrücken, Germany. In 2007, I was a Visiting Researcher at AT&T Labs,
`
`Florham Park, New Jersey.
`
`4.
`
`Since 2009, I have been a tenured Professor at the University of
`
`Maryland. My teaching and research have focused on computer networking
`
`including all aspects of the technologies pertaining to the patents-in-suit. My early
`
`work as a graduate student on anycasting was a pre-cursor to CDNs; I’ve worked
`
`extensively on in-network caching, media streaming, content delivery, and
`
`protocol optimization and security.
`
`1
`
`3
`
`

`
`5.
`
`I have served as a reviewer for ACM/IEEE Transactions on
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`Networking, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Computer
`
`Communications Journal (Special Issue on Network Security), ACM Transactions
`
`on Computer Systems, Performance Evaluation Journal, Computer
`
`Communications Review, European Transactions on Telecommunications, IEEE
`
`Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, and ACM Transactions on
`
`Internet Technology.
`
`6.
`
`I am the author of numerous publications in the field of computer
`
`networking, including journal articles, book chapters, publications in proceedings,
`
`technical reports, and invited papers.
`
`7.
`
`I have been active in a number of professional organizations and
`
`conferences. I have served with the NSF Workshop on Network Testbeds, the
`
`NSF Networking Research Panel, the Department of Education High Performance
`
`Networking Panel, and as an Evaluator for the Intel Science Talent Search.
`
`8.
`
`I have received several honors and awards. These include: the Alfred
`
`P. Sloan Jr. Fellowship; the Best Paper Award, 14th Annual IEEE International
`
`Conference on High Performance Computing (HiPC) (with Vijay Gopalakrishnan,
`
`Ruggero Morselli, Peter J. Keleher, and Aravind Srinivasan); the Best Paper
`
`Award, 7th IEEE/ACM Conference on Grid Computing (with Jiksoo Kim,
`
`Byomsuk Nam, Peter Keleher, Michael Marsh, and Alan Sussman); and the NSF
`
`2
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`CAREER Award. I also received Teaching Excellence Awards in 2004, 2008, and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`2012.
`
`9.
`
`I am the co-director of a new joint Ph.D. program in Computer
`
`Science between the University of Maryland and the Max Planck Society in
`
`Germany.
`
`10.
`
`I am the co-inventor of four patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,181,623
`
`(entitled “Scalable Wide-Area Upload System and Method”); U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,940,850 (entitled “Method for Encoding Frame Data”); U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,397,284 (entitled “Detection of Distributed Denial of Service Attacks in
`
`Autonomous System Domains”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,554,941 (entitled “Systems
`
`and Methods for Distributing Video on Demand”)
`
`11. Additional details of my technical education, work experience,
`
`publications, and awards and honors are contained in my curriculum vitae. A copy
`
`of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed the specification, claims and file history of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,750,155. (“’155 patent”)(Ex. 1001). The ’155 patent issued from
`
`USAN 13/595,904 (filed on August 27, 2012) and claims priority to PCT
`
`Application No. PCT/US2009/038361 (filed on March 26, 2009). (Id. at cover
`
`page).
`
`3
`
`5
`
`

`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed the file history for the inter partes review of U.S. Pat.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`No. 7,715,324, having review number IPR2016-01011, through the November 4,
`
`2016 Decision on Institution.
`
`14.
`
`I have reviewed the following patents in preparing this declaration:
`
`(cid:120) USPN 2007/0156845 (“Devanneaux”)(Ex. 1003)
`
`(cid:120) USPN 2007/0226375 (“Chu”)(Ex. 1004)
`
`(cid:120) USP 6,192,415 (“Haverstock”)(Ex. 1005)
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the above patents and any other publication cited in
`
`this declaration.
`
`16.
`
` I have considered certain issues from the perspective of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as described below at the time the ’155 patent application
`
`was filed. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’155 patent
`
`would have found claims 1, 8 and 13 of the ’155 patent invalid.
`
`17.
`
`I have been retained by the Petitioner as an expert in the field of
`
`computer networking, including in-network caching, media streaming, content
`
`delivery, and protocol optimization and security. I have also been retained as an
`
`expert in the same field for the following District Court Lawsuit: Limelight
`
`Networks, Inc. v. XO Communications, LLC et al ., 3:15-cv-720-JAG (E.D. Va.).
`
`18.
`
`I am working as an independent consultant in this matter and am
`
`being compensated at my normal consulting rate of $600 per hour for my time.
`
`4
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the substance of my
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`19.
`
`I have no financial interest in the Petitioner. I similarly have no
`
`financial interest in the ’155 patent, and have had no contact with the named
`
`inventor of the ’155 patent.
`
`I.
`
`Legal Principles
`20.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this report I have been
`
`informed by Akamai’s counsel about certain legal principles that are relevant to
`
`my analysis and opinions. I have applied those legal principles in arriving at my
`
`conclusions expressed in this report.
`
`A. Anticipation
`21.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`invalid if it is anticipated by prior art. I have been informed that anticipation
`
`requires that each limitation of the claim at issue is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference or that the claimed invention was
`
`previously known or embodied in a single prior art device or practice.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a claim limitation is inherent in the prior art
`
`if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claim
`
`limitation.
`
`5
`
`7
`
`

`
`23.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, for prior art purposes, the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`disclosures of the patents and publications incorporated by reference into another
`
`patent or publication are treated as part of the incorporating reference.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed and understand that under section 102(a) of the
`
`pre-AIA Patent Act, a patent claim is anticipated if, before the date of the claimed
`
`invention, the claimed invention was: (1) known or used by others in this country;
`
`(2) patented in the United States or a foreign country; or (3) described in a printed
`
`publication in the United States or a foreign country.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed and understand that under section 102(b) of the
`
`pre-AIA Patent Act, a patent claim is also anticipated if, more than one year before
`
`the filing date of the patent application for the claimed invention in the United
`
`States, the claimed invention was: (1) patented in the United States or a foreign
`
`country; (2) described in a printed publication in the United States or a foreign
`
`country; (3) in public use in the United States; or (4) on sale in the United States.
`
`26.
`
`I further understand that an invention is considered to be “on sale”
`
`under this provision if a product that was sold or offered for sale inherently
`
`possessed each of the limitations of the claims, regardless of whether the parties to
`
`the sale or offer for sale recognized that the product possessed the claimed
`
`characteristics.
`
`6
`
`8
`
`

`
`27.
`
`I have been informed and understand that under section 102(e) of the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`pre-AIA Patent Act, a claimed invention is anticipated if the claimed invention was
`
`described in a U.S. patent or a published U.S. patent application filed by another
`
`before the date of the claimed invention.
`
`B. Obviousness
`28.
`I have been informed and understand that a patent is invalid as
`
`obvious 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.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed and understand that in analyzing the question of
`
`obviousness, it is improper to use hindsight reconstruction, and that one should not
`
`use the patent as a road map for selecting and combining items of prior art. I am
`
`informed and understand that the relevant question is what a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood at the time the invention was made.
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed and understand that in analyzing obviousness,
`
`one must determine: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) what differences,
`
`if any, exist between the invention of the claims of the patent and the prior art; and
`
`(3) what the level of ordinary skill in the art was at the time the invention was
`
`made.
`
`7
`
`9
`
`

`
`31.
`
`I have been further informed and understand that in determining the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`differences between the invention covered by the patent claims and the prior art,
`
`one should not look at the individual differences in isolation, but rather consider
`
`the claimed invention as a whole and determine whether or not it would have been
`
`obvious in light of all of the prior art.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed and understand that in deciding whether to
`
`combine what is described in various items of prior art, the relevant question is
`
`whether the prior art combination would have been obvious to a person with
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I have been further informed
`
`that it can be important to identify a teaching, suggestion or motivation (in either
`
`the prior art or the knowledge of persons skilled in the art) that would have
`
`prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in
`
`the way the claimed invention does.
`
`33.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results. I have been further informed that when a patent
`
`simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
`
`known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`8
`
`10
`
`

`
`34.
`
`I have been further informed and understand that a patent composed
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
`
`elements was independently known in the prior art. I am informed and understand
`
`that while one must look with care at a patent application that claims as an
`
`innovation the combination of known devices according to their established
`
`functions, it is important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed
`
`new invention does.
`
`35.
`
`I have been informed and understand that when the prior art teaches
`
`away from combining certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of
`
`combining them is more likely to be non-obvious.
`
`36.
`
`I have been further informed and understand that evidence of
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness also must be considered and that
`
`those considerations include: (1) whether or not the invention proceeded in a
`
`direction contrary to accepted wisdom in the field; (2) whether or not there was a
`
`long felt but unresolved need in the art that was satisfied by the invention; (3)
`
`whether or not others had tried but failed to make the invention; (4) whether or not
`
`others copied the invention; (5) whether or not the invention achieved any
`
`unexpected results; (6) whether or not the invention was praised by others; (7)
`
`whether or not others have taken licenses to use the invention; (8) whether or not
`
`9
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`experts or those skilled in the art at the making of the invention expressed surprise
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`or disbelief regarding the invention; (9) whether or not products incorporating the
`
`invention have achieved commercial success; and (10) whether or not others
`
`having ordinary skill in the field of the invention independently made the claimed
`
`invention at about the same time the inventor made the invention.
`
`37.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that any assertion of the
`
`above indicia must be accompanied by a nexus between the claimed invention and
`
`the evidence offered; otherwise the evidence does not actually tend to show that
`
`the invention was non-obvious. Further, I understand that, even where evidence of
`
`non-obviousness exists, it may not be compelling enough to overcome a strong
`
`showing of obviousness in light of the prior art.
`
`C.
`38.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`I have been informed and understand that, for a patent to be valid, it
`
`must particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. I have been
`
`informed and understand that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims—
`
`read in light of the specification delineating the patent and the prosecution
`
`history—fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the
`
`scope of the invention.
`
`10
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`II. Claim Construction
`39.
`In this declaration I discuss specific interpretations that I applied for
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`certain claim terms. Petitioner’s counsel informed me that under a broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard, a claim term may be the same or broader than
`
`under the specific interpretations applied here, but cannot be narrower. Except as
`
`noted for the claim terms below, I have applied the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard to the claim terms. My conclusions that the challenged
`
`claims are invalid would remain the same if the claim terms below are given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`A. District Court Constructions
`40.
`I understand that, in the related District Court Lawsuit, the Court
`
`construed the following terms:
`
`Claim Term
`“a request for content” (claim 1)
`“a request” (claim 13)
`“using information from the request”
`(claim 1)
`“based on the request” (claim 13)
`“parameters relate / relating to
`utilization of available processing or
`memory capabilities of part or all of a
`system supporting the first connection”
`(claims 1 and 13)
`
`“the data source is configured to
`
`Construction
`Plain meaning
`
`“parameters relate / relating to
`utilization of available processing or
`memory capabilities of part or all of a
`system supporting the first connection,
`but not those relate / relating to link
`capacity or the size or type of content”
`“the data source is configured to
`
`11
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`monitor a first connection for a request”
`(claim 13)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`monitor a first connection for one or
`more requests”
`
`41. Ex. 1010-Markman Order, 4. For the purpose of this inter partes
`
`review proceeding, I understand that Akamai does not disagree with the Court’s
`
`constructions and submits that the challenged claims would have been obvious
`
`over the prior art under the Court’s constructions or under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretations (to the extent that they differ from the Court’s constructions).
`
`B. Data Source Construction
`42.
`I understand that, in the District Court, Limelight argued that the
`
`Court’s construction of “the data source” requires the capability of monitoring each
`
`of multiple requests over a connection and does not cover monitoring only one
`
`request over a connection. Narrowly interpreting claim 13 in this manner is
`
`improper.
`
`43. First, as noted above, the Court’s construction of “the data source” is
`
`“monitor[ing] a first connection for one or more requests.” While the construction
`
`is broad enough to cover a data source that monitors a connection for multiple
`
`requests, it covers a data source that monitors for only one request on a connection.
`
`44. Second, claim 13 does not mention multiple requests, or monitoring
`
`for multiple requests over a single connection. Thus, based on the plain language
`
`of the claim, and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “data source” is not
`
`12
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`required to be capable of monitoring for multiple requests and covers monitoring a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`connection for a single request.
`
`45. Third, the ’155 patent specification specifically discloses
`
`embodiments that modify the attributes on a “connection-by-connection” basis
`
`(i.e., based on only the first request of a connection). Ex. 1001-’155 patent, 12:60-
`
`13:20, 13:9-14, 14:62-15:13, 19:55-20:8. In fact, the patent explains that in the
`
`“primary embodiment,” the attributes can be modified on either a “per-connection
`
`or per request basis.” Id., 13:9-15. Narrowly construing the data source to exclude
`
`monitoring a connection for only one request (i.e., on a per-connection basis)
`
`would exclude several disclosed embodiments, including the “primary
`
`embodiment,” which I understand is improper.
`
`46. Fourth, I understand that, in the related ’324 IPR, the PTAB rejected
`
`the same substantive argument. Limelight argued that claim 6 of the ’324 patent
`
`(which shares the essentially the same disclosure as the ’155 patent) is patentable
`
`over Devanneaux because “Petitioner’s argument does not show that Devanneaux
`
`analyzes ‘each request,’ as required by the claim.” Ex. 1008-’324 POPR, 17. I
`
`understand that the PTAB, however, “did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction” that the’324 patent requires analyzing “each request” over a
`
`connection. Ex. 1007-’324 Institution Decision, 33.
`
`13
`
`15
`
`

`
`47. Finally, I understand that Limelight’s argument is inconsistent with
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`its own statements regarding its alleged invention. I understand that, in its First
`
`Amended Complaint (February 16, 2016) (“FAC”) in the District Court Lawsuit,
`
`Limelight asserted that the “the Limelight solution” in the ’155 patent was to
`
`optimize TCP connections on a “connection-by connection basis.” Ex. 1009-FAC,
`
`¶ 25, ¶29 (alleging that Akamai’s system infringes the ’155 patent because it uses
`
`“TCP optimizations” that “can be set connection by connection.”).
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`48.
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention would have had would have had 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 Internet content delivery.
`
`IV. Summary of Opinions
`49.
`It is my opinion that claims 1, 8, and 13 would have been obvious
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Devanneaux, Chu, and Haverstock.
`
`V. Overview of the ’155 patent
`50. 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.
`
`14
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`A. Background Technology
`51. 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.
`
`52. 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.
`
`
`“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.”
`
`15
`
`17
`
`

`
`53.
`
`In order to retrieve content from the server, an “end user computer
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`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., 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.
`
`54. 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.
`
`16
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`B. Alleged Invention of the ’155 Patent
`55. 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
`
`connection established by a client [i.e., end user computer] 102.” Ex. 1001-’155.
`
`56. 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.
`
`57. 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.
`
`17
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`“[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.
`
`58. 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.
`
`18
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`The “[t]able shows mappings from whole and/or partial URLs into TCP attribute
`
`sets comprising specific [TCP] protocols attributes (identified as ‘attr1’, ‘attr2’,
`
`‘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
`
`19
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`matching entry], such as in the case of the entry ‘fastnet.com’1 [highlighted in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`green].” Id., 14:16-29.
`
`59.
`
`“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
`
`component(s) such as memory, processor, disk, bus, intersystem interface, and/or
`
`network interface.” Ex. 1001-’155, 6:57-67.
`
`60. 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.
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`20
`
`22
`
`

`
`61. When the attributes are changed on a “per-connection” or
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`
`
`“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.
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`62.
`In my opinion, challenged claims 1, 8, and 13 of the ’155 patent are
`
`invalid. 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
`
`21
`
`23
`
`

`
`
`or more parameters relating … to utilization of available processing or memory
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,750,155
`Claims 1, 8, and 13
`
`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 o