Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 73
`Entered: February 19, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 73
`Entered: February 19, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Introduction
`
`On September 18, 2012, Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), filed a
`petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 for inter partes review of claims 1, 3,
`10–12, 14, and 22–24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717 (“the ’717 Patent”).
`IPR2012-00026, Paper 6 (“the ’026 Petition”). We granted the ’026 Petition
`as to certain challenges to the patentability of claims 1, 3, 10, and 22–24,
`and denied the ’026 Petition as to all challenges to the patentability of claims
`11, 12, and 14 on December 21, 2012. IPR2012-00026, Paper 17 (“the ’026
`Decision”).
`Soon afterward, on January 11, 2013, Microsoft filed a second
`petition for inter partes review, this time challenging the patentability of
`claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 of the ’717 Patent. IPR2013-00109, Paper 1
`(“the ’109 Petition”). Microsoft concurrently filed a motion to join
`IPR2013-00109 with IPR2012-00026. IPR2013-00109, Paper 7. We
`granted the ’109 Petition as to certain challenges to patentability of claims 6,
`7, 9, 11, 12, and 14 of the ’717 Patent. IPR2013-00109, Paper 14 (“the ’109
`Decision”). We also granted Microsoft’s motion for joinder and joined
`IPR2013-00109 with IPR2012-00026. IPR2013-00109, Paper 15.
`After institution and joinder of both trials, Proxyconn, Inc.
`(“Proxyconn”) filed its Corrected Patent Owner’s Response (“Resp.”).
`Paper 45.1 Proxyconn also filed Patent Owner’s Corrected Motion to
`Amend (“Mot. Amend”) in which Proxyconn moved to substitute claims 35–
`
`1 This reference to “Paper” and all other references to “Paper” from this
`point forward in this Final Written Decision are to papers filed in the joined
`proceeding, which is captioned as IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`41 for claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 22, and 23, respectively, if the Board were to
`cancel any of those challenged claims as unpatentable. Paper 44.2 This
`Final Written Decision addresses challenges to the patentability of claims 1,
`3, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, and 22–24. Because claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 22, and 23 are
`found unpatentable, this Decision also addresses the patentability of
`proposed substitute claims 35–41.
`
`B. The ’717 Patent
`
`The ʼ717 Patent describes a system for data access in a packet
`switched network. Ex. 1002, Abstract. The system has a sender/computer
`including an operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory,
`and a processor. The system also has a remote receiver/computer including
`an operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory, and a
`processor. The sender/computer and receiver/computer communicate
`through the network. Id. The sender/computer further includes a device for
`calculating digital digests on data; the receiver/computer further includes a
`network cache memory and a device for calculating digital digests on data in
`the network cache memory; and the receiver/computer and/or the
`sender/computer includes a device for comparison between digital digests.
`Id.
`
`As described in the ’026 Petition, the ʼ717 Patent provides a way to
`reduce the amount of redundant data transmitted over a network. ’026
`Petition, 4. The processes described in the ’717 Patent check for the identity
`
`2 Proxyconn filed Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.121 on May 21, 2013. Paper 37. In an Order entered June 20, 2013,
`Proxyconn was granted permission to file its Corrected Motion to Amend to
`address typographical errors and file corrected exhibits. Paper 43.
`Proxyconn filed its Corrected Motion to Amend later that same day.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`between two sets of data by comparing respective digital fingerprints of that
`data. Id. As described in the Summary of the Invention:
`If a sender/computer in the network is required to send
`data to another receiver/computer, and the receiver/computer
`has data with the same digital digest as that of the data to be
`sent, it can be assumed with sufficient probability for most
`practical applications that the receiver/computer has data which
`is exactly the same as the data being sent. Then, the
`receiver/computer can use the data immediately without its
`actual transfer through the network. In the present invention,
`this idea is used in a variety of ways.
`
`Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 16-24.
`The patent discloses several embodiments. In one, a sender/computer
`required to send data to a receiver/computer initially sends a digital digest of
`the data. If the receiver/computer already has data with the same digital
`digest, it uses this data as if it were actually transmitted from the
`sender/computer. Id. at col. 2, ll. 26-31. This embodiment is illustrated in
`Figures 5-7. Figure 5 is reproduced below:
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Casees IPR20122-00026 annd IPR2013-00109
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patennt 6,757,717
`
`g the illustratingesentation imatic repreFigure 55 is a schem
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interaction between a sender//computer
`
`
`and a receeiver/compputer
`
`
`
`
`
`accordinng to the teeachings off one emboodiment of f the ʼ717
`
`
`
`Patent. IId. at col. 55, ll. 49-511.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In this emmbodimennt, the receiver/compuuter receivves a digitaal digest
`
`
`
`
`
`fromm a sender/ccomputer aand searchhes its netwwork cache
`
`memory ffor data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`withh the same digest. If tthe receiveer/computeer finds succh data, it uuses that
`
`
`
`
`data as if the data were reeceived froom the sen
`
`
`der/compuuter and isssues a
`
`
`
`
`
`posittive indicaation signall to the sennder/compuuter. Othe
`nds a
`rwise it sen
`
`
`negaative indicaation signaal to the sennder/compputer. Id. aat col. 7, ll.
` 51–60.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`can bbe sent toggether withh the princiipal digest.. If the recceiver/commputer
`
`
`
`
`
`cannnot find datta having tthe principaal digest, iit searches
`
`for data wwith one of
`
`
`
`
`the aauxiliary diigests. If ssuch data is found, thhe sender/ccomputer iss required
`
`
`
`
`In anothher embodimment, auxiiliary digitaal digests ffor other ddata objectss
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Casees IPR20122-00026 annd IPR2013-00109
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patennt 6,757,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to seend only thhe differencce betweenn the requeested data oobject and
`the data
`
`
`
`
`object correspoonding to tthe auxiliarry digest. IId. at col. 22, ll. 31-377. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exprression in the Specificcation “diffference beetween the
`
`first data oor data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`object and the second datta or data oobject” meeans any biit sequencee that
`bit
`
`
`
`
`enabbles the resstoration off the first ddata, given
`
`the secondd data, the
` Id. at
`
`
`
`sequuence, and the methodd employed in calcullating the ddifference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 2, ll. 38–422. This emmbodimentt is illustratted in Figuures 8-10.
`
`
`reprooduced bellow:
`
`Figure 8 iss
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 88 is a schemmatic repreesentation iillustratingg the
`
`
`
`interaction between a sender//computer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accordinng to the teeachings off another emmbodimennt of the
`
`
`
`invention. Id. at cool. 5, ll. 599-61.
`
`and a receeiver/compputer
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`In this embodiment the sender/computer sends the principal and
`auxiliary (e.g., of a previous version of the data requested) digests to the
`receiver/computer. Upon receiving a message with these digital digests
`from the sender/computer, the receiver/computer searches its network cache
`memory for data having the same principal digest. If such data is found, the
`receiver/computer uses the data as if the data were received from the
`sender/computer and issues a positive indication signal to the
`sender/computer. Otherwise, the receiver/computer searches its network
`cache memory for data with the auxiliary digests. If it finds data with a
`digital digest substantially equal to one of the auxiliary digests, it issues a
`partial indication signal to the sender/computer, along with a reference to the
`digest. Otherwise it issues a negative indication signal to the
`sender/computer. Id. at col. 8, ll. 11-39.
`
`C. Exemplary Claims
`
`Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, and 22 are the independent claims among the
`challenged claims of the ’717 Patent. Claims 1, 6, and 10 are directed to
`systems, and claims 11 and 22 are directed to methods. The independent
`challenged claims, which are illustrative of the claims at issue in this inter
`partes review, recite:
`1. A system for data access in a packet-switched
`network, comprising:
`
`a sender/computer including an operating unit, a first
`memory, a permanent storage memory and a processor and a
`remote receiver/computer including an operating unit, a first
`memory, a permanent storage memory and a processor, said
`sender/computer and said receiver/computer communicating
`through said network;
`
`7
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`said sender/computer further including means for
`creating digital digests on data;
`
`said receiver/computer further including a network cache
`memory and means for creating digital digests on data in said
`network cache memory; and
`
`said receiver/computer including means for comparison
`between digital digests.
`
`6. A system for data access in a packet-switched
`network, comprising:
`
`a gateway including an operating unit, a memory and a
`processor connected to said packet-switched network in such a
`way that network packets sent between at least two other
`computers pass through it;
`
`a caching computer connected to said gateway through a
`fast local network, wherein said caching computer includes an
`operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory
`and a processor;
`
`said caching computer further including a network cache
`memory in its permanent storage memory, means for
`calculating a digital digest and means for comparison between a
`digital digest on data in its network cache memory and a digital
`digest received from said packet-switched network through said
`gateway.
`
`10. A system for data access in a packet-switched
`network, comprising:
`
`a sender/computer including an operating unit, a first
`memory, a permanent storage memory and a processor and a
`remote receiver/computer including an operating unit, a first
`memory, a permanent storage memory and a processor, said
`sender/computer and said receiver/computer communicating
`through a network;
`
`said sender/computer further including means for
`creating digital digests on data, and
`
`8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`said receiver/computer further including a network cache
`memory, means for storing a digital digest received from said
`network in its permanent storage memory and means for
`comparison between digital digests.
`
`11. A method performed by a sender/computer in a
`packet-switched network for increasing data access, said
`sender/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a
`permanent storage memory and a processor and said
`sender/computer being operative to transmit data to a
`receiver/computer, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`creating and transmitting a digital digest of said data
`from said sender/computer to said receiver/computer;
`
`receiving a response signal from said receiver/computer
`at said sender/computer, said response signal containing a
`positive, partial or negative indication signal for said digital
`digest, and
`
`if a negative indication signal is received, transmitting
`said data from said sender/computer to said receiver/computer.
`
`22. A method for increased data access performed by a
`receiver/computer in a packet-switched network, said
`receiver/computer including an operating unit, a first memory, a
`permanent storage memory, a processor and a network cache
`memory, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving a message containing a digital digest from said
`network;
`
`searching for data with the same digital digest in said
`network cache memory,
`
`if data having the same digital digest as the digital digest
`received is not uncovered, forming a negative indication signal
`and transmitting it back through said network; and
`
`creating a digital digest for data received from said
`network cache memory.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Ex. 1002, col. 10, l. 31 to col. 12, l. 45.
`
`D. Remaining Challenges to the Patentability of Claims
`
`We instituted this inter partes review in connection with the following
`challenges to the patentability of claims in the ’717 Patent:3
`1. Anticipation by Perlman: claims 1, 3, and 22-24;
`2. Anticipation by Yohe: claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 22, and 23;
`3. Anticipation by Santos: claims 1, 3, 10, 22, and 23;
`4. Anticipation by DRP: claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 14;
`5. Obviousness over the combination of Perlman and Yohe: claims 1, 3,
`10, and 22-24; and
`6. Obviousness over the combination of Mattis and DRP: claims 6, 7, 9,
`11, 12, and 14.
`’026 Decision 25–26; ’109 Decision 20.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`We interpret patent claim language in an inter partes review by
`ascribing to that language its broadest reasonable meaning in light of the
`specification of the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial
`
`
`3 The challenges to patentability are based upon five prior art references: US
`5,742,820, issued Apr. 21, 1998 (Ex. 1003) (“Perlman”); US 5,835,943,
`issued Nov. 10, 1998 (Ex. 1005) (“Yohe”); Santos and Wetherall,
`INCREASING EFFECTIVE LINK BANDWIDTH BY SUPPRESSING REPLICATED
`DATA (June 1998) (Ex. 1004 ) (“Santos”); THE HTTP DISTRIBUTION AND
`REPLICATION PROTOCOL, W3C Note (August 25, 1997), retrieved from
`http://www.www3.org/TR/NOTE-drp-19970825 (IPR2013-00109,
`Ex. 1003) (“DRP”); US 6,292,880 B1, issued Sep. 18, 2001 (IPR2013-
`00109, Ex. 1004) (“Mattis”).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). We also
`interpret claim language according to its ordinary and customary meaning to
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`We expressly interpret below only those claim terms that require
`analysis to resolve arguments related to the patentability of the challenged
`claims. Except as otherwise stated, we interpret the remaining claim terms
`as set forth in the ’026 Decision and the ’109 Decision.
`
`1. Data Access
`
`Each contested claim recites “data access.” Ex. 1002, col. 10, l. 31
`(claims 1, 3), col. 10, l. 64 (claims 6, 7, and 9), col. 11, l. 20 (claim 10),
`col. 11, l. 35 (claims 11, 12, and 14), col. 12, l. 30 (claims 22–24).
`Proxyconn urges that “data access” means “obtaining data . . . on a remote
`computer on a network, in response to a request from a client.” Resp. 11
`(citing Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 18–26; id. at col. 7, ll. 65–67). In support,
`Proxyconn cites portions of the Specification of the ’717 Patent that describe
`exemplary data transmission sessions in which a network client “requests”
`data from a server. The first cited portion describes such interactions
`between a client and server as “prior art.” Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 18–26. The
`second cited portion states: “This transaction begins with a
`receiver/computer sending a request to the sender/computer.” Id. at col. 7,
`ll. 65–67. The phrase “[t]his transaction” refers to the interaction between
`the receiver/computer and the sender computer depicted in Figures 5–7 of
`the ’717 Patent. Id. at col. 7, ll. 51–67.
`By contrast, Microsoft contends that “data access” means “data
`acquisition.” Microsoft Corporation’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Corrected
`
`11
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Response (“MS Reply”), 2 (Paper 46). Microsoft dismisses the portions of
`the Specification that Proxyconn cites as neither mentioning “data access”
`nor narrowly defining “data access.” Id. Microsoft argues that other
`portions of the Specification imply that the step of the receiver/computer
`requesting data is merely optional. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 8:37–39).
`Proxyconn’s expert, Dr. Konchitsky, testified that the Specification
`describes scenarios in which a sender transmits data to a receiver without a
`request from the receiver. See Ex. 1024, 69:1–24, 71:8–22 (describing the
`data communication method illustrated in Figure 8 of the ’717 Patent).
`Microsoft also points out that claim 32, which is not challenged, explicitly
`recites a method in which a client sends a request for data to a server. Paper
`72, Final Hearing Transcript 10:9-12, 79:22–80:9 (“Tr.”).
`Both parties’ interpretations of “data access” are too narrow. Neither
`the challenged claims nor the Specification expressly limits “data access” to
`require a “request from the client” as proposed by Proxyconn. The claims
`merely recite “data access.” Even though the Specification describes
`examples in which the client requests data from a server, the Specification
`does not require that the client request data in all described embodiments of
`the claimed systems and methods. For example, the Specification expressly
`describes an embodiment in which “a sender/computer required to send data
`to a receiver/computer . . . initially sends a digital digest of the data.”
`Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 26–28. “[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims
`from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
`1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321(Fed. Cir. 1989)). We decline to
`do so here.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Microsoft’s position is similarly unsupported by the claims
`themselves or the Specification. None of the challenged independent claims
`affirmatively recites that the receiver/computer acquires data from the
`sender/computer. Microsoft cites no portion of the Specification, and we
`find no support for the proposition that the Specification equates “data
`access” with “data acquisition.”
`We determine that the plain meaning of “data access” is clear.
`Independent challenged claims 1, 6, 10, 11, and 22 recite “access” as a noun
`modified by “data.” Ex. 1002, col. 10, l. 31 (claims 1, 3), col. 10, l. 64
`(claims 6, 7, and 9), col. 11, l. 20 (claim 10), col. 11, l. 35 (claims 11, 12,
`and 14), col. 12, l. 30 (claims 22–24). “Access” plainly means the “freedom
`or ability to obtain or make use of.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE
`DICTIONARY 6 (10th ed. 1999). We conclude, therefore, that the claimed
`systems and methods recite “data access” to refer to the freedom or ability to
`obtain or use data. Although obtaining or acquiring data requires access to
`that data, access to the data need not involve acquisition of that data.
`
`2. Permanent Storage Memory
`
`Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 22–24 recite “permanent storage
`memory.” Ex. 1002, col. 10, l. 31 – col. 13, l. 8. Proxyconn argues that
`“permanent storage memory” means non-volatile memory that can be used
`for writing and reading data and does not refer to read-only memory
`(“ROM”). Resp. 12. The Specification states “an example of a permanent
`storage memory may be a disk drive, a flash RAM or a bubble memory.”
`Ex. 1002, col. 7, ll. 38–40. In support of its proffered definition of
`“permanent storage memory,” Proxyconn also cites Yohe’s statement that
`“‘[p]ermanent storage memory,’ as used herein, includes but is not limited
`
`13
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`to, disk drive, flash RAM or bubble memory, for example.” Resp. 12
`(quoting Ex. 1005, col. 3, ll. 5–7).
`Microsoft counters that “permanent storage memory” is not restricted
`to non-volatile memory that permits multiple write operations, but may also
`include storage that is write-once, read-many (“WORM”) memory. MS
`Reply 2. Microsoft contends that a CD optical storage disc, a type of non-
`volatile WORM memory, would constitute permanent storage memory. See
`id. (citing Ex. 1024, 88:7–89:12). Thus, the dispute centers on whether
`“permanent storage memory” encompasses ROM and other types of WORM
`types of non-volatile memory.
`The testimony of both experts persuades us that a skilled artisan
`would interpret “permanent storage memory” to cover non-volatile memory
`that supports multiple write operations. Dr. Long equated the “permanent
`storage” described in the ’717 Patent with a “disk” or “flash” memory.
`Ex. 1026, 97:15–98:10. Dr. Konchitsky testified that a skilled artisan would
`have considered “permanent storage memory,” which enables writing or
`storing of information, to differ from “permanent memory,” which can only
`be read after being written one time “in factory.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 21. The ability
`to write data many times to permanent storage memory is consistent with the
`way that “permanent storage memory” is used in the context of at least claim
`6. Claim 6 recites a “caching computer further including a network cache
`memory in its permanent storage memory.” The presence of cache memory,
`which is likely to be written many times, in the “permanent storage
`memory” implies a capability to write data many times to the claimed
`“permanent storage memory.” Because claim terms are normally used
`consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim may
`
`14
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore, we interpret
`“permanent storage memory” to mean any non-volatile memory that
`supports multiple write operations.
`
`3. Sender/Computer and Receiver/Computer
`
`Challenged claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 22–24 recite either a
`“sender/computer” or “receiver/computer” or both. Ex. 1002, col. 10, l. 31 –
`col. 13, l. 8. Previously, we interpreted “sender/computer” to mean a
`computer that sends data and “receiver/computer” to mean a computer that
`receives data. ’026 Decision 14. We also concluded that each of these
`respective computers can encompass multiple devices including
`intermediaries. Id.
`Proxyconn argues that our interpretation is “inconsistent with the ’717
`Patent, is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, and
`should be revised to exclude separate intermediate computers such as
`gateways, proxies, routers, and caching computers.” Resp. 13. Proxyconn
`contends that the Specification consistently refers to the sender and receiver
`computers as separate devices.
`Microsoft contends that we correctly interpreted the computers to
`encompass multiple devices including intermediate devices. The
`Specification represents the receiver and sender computers (46, 42
`respectively) in decidedly schematic form, as shown in Figures 4, 11, and
`14, reproduced below.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Casees IPR20122-00026 annd IPR2013-00109
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patennt 6,757,717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14, reprodduced fromm top to botttom abovee,
`
`Figures 4, 11, and
`
`
`
`
`
`schemattically illusstrate the claimed recceiver/commputer and
`
`
`
`
`
`sender/ccomputer inn various nnetwork coonfigurationns as
`
`
`functionnal block diiagrams.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`Figure 4 illustrates receiver/computer 46 as a collection of functionally
`defined subsystems 48, 52, and 54, which are described as follows: “[T]he
`receiver/computer has calculating means 52 for calculating a digital digest
`on data stored in its network cache memory 48. The receiver/computer also
`has comparison means 54 for comparing between such a calculated digital
`digest and a digital digest received from the network.” Ex. 1002, col. 7,
`ll. 32–37.
`The Specification appears to have one instance in which a computer is
`described as being separate from or integral with another computer. The
`Specification implies that gateway 60 and caching computer 62 may be
`separate devices, but only by noting that “gateway computer 60 may be
`integrally formed with the caching computer.” Ex. 1002, col. 9, ll. 6–8. The
`Specification, along with the above figures, conveys to a skilled artisan that
`the described computers, including the receiver/computer and the
`sender/computer, may or may not be located in separate housings.
`Accordingly, Proxyconn has not persuaded us to modify the original
`interpretation of “receiver/computer” and “sender/computer.”
`
`4. Gateway . . . Between at Least Two Other Computers
`
`Independent claims 6 recites a “gateway . . . connected to said packet-
`switched network in such a way that network packets sent between at least
`two other computers pass through it.” Ex. 1002, col. 10, l. 66 – col. 11, l. 2.
`Claims 7 and 9, which depend upon claim 6, also include the “gateway” and
`“two other computers.” Id. at col. 11, ll. 13–20. Proxyconn asserts that
`“two other computers” refers to “the sender/computer and the
`receiver/computer.” Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 2, ll. 44–47). The cited
`portion of the Specification, however, merely recites verbatim the language
`
`17
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`of claim 6 relating to the gateway and two other computers. Therefore, the
`cited portion has not been shown to support Proxyconn’s contention.
`Microsoft contends that no such limitation exists on the “two other
`computers” and that these computers may be any two other computers
`connected on the network to the gateway. See ’109 Petition 13–14,
`Appendix A 5–6.
`We agree with Microsoft. Claim 6 plainly and unambiguously recites
`“two other computers” as a limitation on the manner in which the “gateway”
`is “connected to said packet switched network.” That is, the gateway is
`connected to the network so that “network packets sent between at least two
`other computers pass through it [i.e., the gateway].” Applying the broadest
`reasonable interpretation, we conclude that claim 6 does not limit which
`computers may constitute the “two other computers” between which the
`gateway is connected.
`
`5. Means for comparison between digital digests
`a. Claims 1 and 3
`
`Claim 1 recites “means for comparison between digital digests.”
`Resolution of the parties’ arguments relating to whether Yohe anticipates
`claims 1, 3, and 10 requires that we interpret “digital digests” as recited in
`the comparison means. We interpret “digital digests” by reading claim 1 in
`its entirety. Claim 1 recites that both the sender and receiver include “means
`for creating digital digests on data.” We conclude that the “digital digests”
`recited in the means for comparison refers to the “digital digests on data”
`that are recited earlier in claim 1 in the “means for creating.”
`
`18
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`b. Claim 10
`
`Claim 10, like claim 1, recites that the receiver includes “means for
`comparison between digital digests.” Also like claim 1, claim 10 recites that
`the sender includes a “means for creating digital digests on data.” By
`contrast to claim 1, claim 10 does not recite a “means for creating” in the
`receiver. Ex. 1002, col. 11, ll. 20–33. Instead, the receiver includes a
`“means for storing a digital digest received from said network.” Id. at
`col. 11, ll. 31–32 (emphasis added). The reference to “a digital digest”
`rather than “the digital digest on data” in the storing means implies that the
`receiver can store any type of digital digest received from the network.
`Therefore, the “digests” that are compared in the “means for
`comparison” recited in claim 10 need not be the two digests on data created
`by the sender and receiver. Instead, the “means for comparison between
`digital digests” recited in claim 10 refers to structure that can compare any
`digital digest received from the network with any other digital digest.
`
`6. Searching for Data with the Same Digital Digest
`
`Claims 22–24 recite a step of “searching for data with the same digital
`digest.” Proxyconn argues that the “searching” step requires the capability
`to identify particular data “with the same digital digest” from among a set of
`data that potentially contains multiple items. See Resp. 6, 20–21 (attempting
`to distinguish claims 22–24 from Perlman), 27–28 (attempting to distinguish
`claims 22 and 23 from Yohe), 35–36 (attempting to distinguish claim 23
`from Santos). Microsoft contends that the ’717 Patent equates “search” with
`“check for” and that the Specification never describes any “search” method
`other than “comparing two digest values for a match.” MS Reply 4.
`Microsoft asserts that the recited step of “searching for data with the same
`
`19
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`digital digest,” merely requires comparing a digest for a data object received
`from the network with a digest of the receiver’s copy of that data object. Id.
`at 5.
`
`The Specification never expressly defines “search.” Nonetheless, the
`plain meaning of “search” is: “to look into or over carefully or thoroughly in
`an effort to find or discover something.” MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE
`DICTIONARY 1053 (10th ed. 1999). Two dictionaries in the relevant field of
`computing technology define “search” as it would be understood by a skilled
`artisan as follows:
`1. “To scan one or more data elements of a set in order to find elements
`that have a certain property,” IBM DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING 600
`(10th ed. 1993); and
`2. “(information processing). To examine a set of items for those that
`have a desired property,” IEEE STANDARD DICTIONARY OF
`ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS TERMS 808 (3d ed. 1984).
`These dictionary definitions reflect that a skilled artisan would have
`understood “search” to involve analyzing a set of items to identify one
`particular item from among a set of items. A “set” refers to “a number of
`things of the same kind that belong or are used together,” MERRIAM
`WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1071 (10th ed. 1999), or “[a] finite or
`infinite number of objects of any kind, of entities, or of concepts that have a
`given property or properties in common,” IBM DICTIONARY OF
`COMPUTING 618 (10th ed. 1993). While a set can contain one item, a
`“search” for a desired member of a “set” requires a capability to examine
`more than one item to identify a particular item within that set. Therefore,
`we conclude that “searching for data with the same digital digest in said
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Casees IPR20122-00026 annd IPR2013-00109
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patennt 6,757,717
`
`r data a particularo identify arequires ann ability to
`
`
`
`
`netwwork cache
`
`memory”
`
`
`
`
`object with thee same digiital digest ffrom a set
`data
`
`of potentiaally many
`obje
`
`
`
`cts stored iin the netwwork cachee memory.
`
`
`
`B. The PPrior Art
`
`1.
` Perlman
`
`n across a nformationzation of inrelates to Perlmann generally synchroniz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1, ll. 6–8. 1003, col. 1work. Ex. 1compputer netw
`
`Perlman’ss Figure 2
` to which
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(reprroduced beelow) is a bblock diagrram of twoo computerr networks
`6, and a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`multtiple nodess, which include routeers R1–R66, source noodes S1–S
`
`
`
`
`destiination nodde D, are cconnected.
`
`
`
`
`Perlmann’s Figure 22 is a blockk diagram
`
`of two commputer
`
`
`
`
`
`networkks to whichh multiple nnodes are cconnected.
`
`Perlmman states that the “nnodes are ttypically geeneral-purprpose compputers” andd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that “[e]ach noode typicallly comprisses a . . . mmemory uniit 204” whiich may
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2012-00026 and IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`include “storage locations typically composed of random access memory
`(RAM) devices.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 40–47.
`Packetized data is transmitted across the network with each packet
`having the address of its final destination and the address of the next node to
`which it will travel along the route to the final destination. Id. at col. 5, l. 65
`– col. 6., l. 1. The final destination address remains constant, but the “next
`destination” address changes as the packet moves from node to node in the
`network. Id. at col. 6, ll. 1–4. Upon arrival of a packet to a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
