UNITED STATES i’ATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND Al’HEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Patent of PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Cases:
`
`IPR2012~00026, IPR2013-00109
`
`Patent No.:
`
`6,757,717 Bl
`
`Filed:
`
`September 16, 1999
`
`Issued :
`
`June 29, 2004
`
`Inventor:
`
`Leonid Goldstein
`
`Title:
`
`SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA ACCESS
`
`Docket No.:
`
`16502400002
`
`DECLARATION OF ALON KONCHITSKY
`
`Proxyc'onn, Inc.
`Exhibit NO. 2002
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND Al’HEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Patent of PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Cases:
`
`IPR2012~00026, IPR2013-00109
`
`Patent No.:
`
`6,757,717 Bl
`
`Filed:
`
`September 16, 1999
`
`Issued :
`
`June 29, 2004
`
`Inventor:
`
`Leonid Goldstein
`
`Title:
`
`SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DATA ACCESS
`
`Docket No.:
`
`16502400002
`
`DECLARATION OF ALON KONCHITSKY
`
`Proxyc'onn, Inc.
`Exhibit NO. 2002
`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS.
`
`1.
`
`I am a Technology Consultant at AlonKon LLC, an 1? Consulting
`
`Service.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Proxyconn Corporation to opine in
`
`this matter. I make this statement based upon facts and matters within my own
`
`knowledge or on information provided to me by others. All such facts and matters
`
`are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
`
`3.
`
`I hold a BA. in computer science from the Academic College of Tel
`
`Aviv University, a P.E. in electrical engineering from the Tel Aviv Institute of
`
`Technology, and a PhD. in electrical engineering from Bournemouth University.
`
`I
`
`also hold a postgraduate degree in CDMA engineering from the University of
`
`California at San Diego and have conducted research in affiliation with Stanford
`
`University.
`
`4.
`
`From 1997 to 2001, i worked as a Software Engineer, at Intel which
`
`acquired DSP Communications, Inc. (“DSPC”) in 1998.
`
`5.
`
`From 2001 to 2004, l was employed by Nokia , which at that time was
`
`the largest cell phone manufacturer in the world. I began my career at Nokia as a
`
`system design and integration engineer responsible for all layers and aspects of
`
`software stack integration.
`
`1 later became a system architect and in that capacity
`
`prepared system design specifications. This work was done in connection with a
`
`
`
`Stanford University~affiliated project.
`
`6.
`
`From. 2004 to 2006, I worked for IP Valuations LLC, where my
`
`practice focused on evaluation of patents.
`
`7.
`
`In 2006 I founded Noise Free Wireless, Inc, which was a software
`
`provider to the telecommunications industries.
`
`8.
`
`I am currently an intellectual property and technology consultant for
`
`AlonKon LLC.
`
`9.
`
`I hold 30 granted and published patents, most of which are directly
`
`related to the telecommunications space.
`
`10. Appended to this Declaration is a true and accurate copy of my CV.
`
`11.
`
`COMPENSATION
`
`11.
`
`I am being compensated by counsel for Proxyconn Inc. at my usual
`
`compensation rate of $350/hour for consulting and $500/hour for testimony in
`
`deposition or trial. I have no financial interest in the outcome of the related
`
`litigation or this proceeding.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF MY STUDY AND CONCLUSIONS
`
`12.
`
`I have read US. Patent No. 6,757,717 (the “’7 17 Patent”). The ‘717
`
`Patent concerns technology within my areas of expertise. I have considered the
`
`
`
`patent’s disclosures from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`1998.
`
`13.
`
`The ‘7 17 Patent relates to data access. As described in the
`
`Background (col. 1, lines 8-26) the problem addressed is a client computer
`
`requesting data from a remote computer.
`
`14.
`
`i have also read the following references cited in the Decisions of the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituting Inter Partes Review of the ‘7 1 7 Patent,
`
`and considered them from the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in 1998.
`
`Perlrnan et 31., US. Patent No. 5,742,820, “Mechanism for
`
`Efficiently Synchronizing Information Over a Network,” (Perlman).
`
`Yohe et al., US. Patent No. 5,835,943, “Apparatus and Method for
`
`Increased Data Access in a Network File Oriented Caching System,”
`
`(Yohe).
`
`Santos et ai., “USENIX, Increasing Effective Link Bandwidth by
`
`Suppressing Replicated Date,” Proceedings of the USENIX Annual
`
`Technicai Conference (NO 98) New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1998
`
`(“Santos”).
`
`
`
`Hoff et al., “The HTTP Distribution and Replication Protocol,”
`
`W3C Note, http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTEndrp—l9970825.html, August
`
`1997. (“DRP”).
`
`Mattis et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,292,880, “Alias—Free Content-indexed
`
`Object Cache,” (“Mattis”).
`
`1V. OPINIONS ABOUT PERLMAN
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed Perlman with respect to Original Claims 1, 3, and 22«-
`
`24. In my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the art in the 1988 time frame
`
`would have understood Perlman to relate to database synchronization, rather than
`
`data access between sender and receiver.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion Perlman solves a different problem than the system of
`
`‘71 7 Patent claims 1 and 3 or the method of claims 22~24, because Perlman
`
`invoives database synchronization by keeping all computers up to date. Where the
`
`‘7i 7 Patent provides a data access response to request-for—information at a
`
`receiver—computer.
`
`17.
`
`In Perlman, the receiver computer should always have an
`
`identical/synchronized content as the sender/computer, and thus there is no need to
`
`check with the sender computer. In contrast, in the system claimed in claims 1 and
`
`3 and with the method claimed in claims 22-24, a request is sent and digital digests
`
`
`
`are used to determine whether the receiver computer has the file, or whether it
`
`needs to be provided by the sender/computer.
`
`18.
`
`In my opinion the differences between Perlman and the system of
`
`claims 1 and 3 or the method of claims 22—24 are highlighted by the fact that
`
`Perlman is focused on saving computational resources, which was a critical
`
`consideration back in 1998. For exampie, at column 3, lines 55-5 8. In contrast to
`
`the ‘71 7 patent, where speed was of the essence, and the object was on minimizing
`
`use of bandwidth, for example as stated in C01. 1., lines 64—56 of the ‘717 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`The subject matters of Peiman and the ‘7 17 Patent are different. In
`
`fact, my opinion is that Periman would not be considered by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as a patent that does not try to improve data access speed. A person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art trying to improve speed by reducing bandwidth usage
`
`would not consider a synchronization system viabie. The reason being is, that he or
`
`she would immediately appreciate that Perlman is “wasting” bandwidth to keep
`
`nodes synchronized, even when there is no need.
`
`20.
`
`In my opinion, Perlman does not specifically teach a permanent
`
`storage memory, and thus does not meet this requirement of Original Claims 1 and
`
`3.
`
`21.
`
`A person of ordinary skili in the art in the 1998 time frame would
`
`categorize “permanent storage memory” different than “permanent memory”.
`
`
`
`Both of them generally called non~volatile', or permanent, which allows for the
`
`writing of information, or storing information, as opposed to permanent memories
`
`such as ROM, which can only be read. I don’t think that ROM is permanent
`
`storage memory. It is “Read Only memory” that the manufacture can “burn”
`
`information in factory, and the user can Only Read it.
`
`22.
`
`I do not find any direct disclosure of a permanent storage memory in
`
`Pe‘rlman, nor do I believe that a permanent storage memory would necessarily be
`
`included in Perlman. In my opinion the system of Perlman could be implemented
`
`and would function as described without any permanent storage memory, so I do
`
`not believe one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Perlrnan included
`
`necessarily permanent storage.
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, Perlrnan does not disclose the step of searching for
`
`data with the same digital digest in the network cache memory as required by
`
`Original Claims 22-24. In Perlman the receiving routers receive an identifier and
`
`each simply compares the received identifier with its existing identifier. The
`
`receiving routers are not searching for data files using the identifier as the key, or
`
`among multiple identifiers.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`OPINIONS ABOUT YOHE
`
`24.
`
`In my opinion, Yohe does not disclose a sender/computer having both
`
`permanent storage memory and means for creating digital digests on data, and
`
`therefore is not the same as Original Claims 1, 3 and 10.
`
`25.
`
`I understand Yohe to disclose a file server computer 18, which
`
`includes a permanent storage device 80, but the file server computer 18 does not
`
`have means for creating a digital digest on data.
`
`26.
`
`I further understand that Yohe discloses a cache verifying computer
`
`14 that includes signature generators 56 and 57, but these are part of the cache
`
`verifying computer 14 and not part of the fiie server computer 18, and it is
`
`improper, given how Yohe is described to operate, to consider these signature
`
`generators as part of the file server computer.
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, the cache verifying computer is a dedicated system.
`
`One skilled in the art would define this computer as a Real Time Computer. This
`
`computer cannot be considered to be a sender/computer because it lacks a
`
`permanent storage memory. The cache verifying computer could be implemented
`
`and would function as described without permanent storage memory, so I do not
`
`believe one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the cache verifying
`
`computer included necessarily a permanent storage memory.
`
`
`
`28.
`
`For these reasons, in my opinion, neither the fiie server 18 or the
`
`cache verifying computer 14 meet the requirement of a sender/computer having
`
`both permanent storage memory and means for creating digitai digests on data, and
`
`therefore Yohe is not the same as Original Claims 1, 3 and i0.
`
`29. Yohe does, however, disclose permanent storage devices.
`
`in
`
`particular, the file server computer inciudes PSD 80, and remote client i2 includes
`
`PSI) 34. No permanent storage memory, however, is disciosed in cache verifying
`
`computer 14, and cannot be necessarily included.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion Yohe also does not disclose means for creating a digital
`
`digest on data, and therefore is not the same as Original Claims 22 and 23.
`
`31. Yohe discloses creating directory digests, not creating data digests.
`
`Directories are not data (as i understand that this term has been defined in the
`
`Decisions initiating this case). Furthermore, Yohe distinguishes between files and
`
`directories, describing different functions that are performed on files verses
`
`functions that are performed on directories.
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, the creation of a digest of a directory is not the same as
`
`the creation of a digest on data, the latter not being disclosed anywhere in Yohe.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, Yohe does not disclose a caching computer having
`
`permanent storage memory (as that term would be understood by a person of
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art, see above), and therefore Yohe is different from Original
`
`Ciairns 6 and 7.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that Yohe discloses a cache verifying computer 14,
`
`which includes signature generators 56 and 57, but it iacks permanent storage
`
`memory.
`
`I also understand that a separate component, the file server 18 includes a
`
`permanent storage device 80, but this permanent storage device is not part of the
`
`cache verifying computer 14.
`
`35.
`
`It would be improper to consider the fiie server 18 to be part of cache
`
`verifying computer because that is not how Yohe functions, but furthermore if the
`
`file server 18 were part of the cache verifying computer 14, then the cache
`
`verifying computer would no ionger be between two other computers, as required
`
`by claims 6 and 7.
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion Yohe is not as flexible as Petitioner argues. In its first
`
`Petition, Petitioner tries to make the cache verifying computer 14 part of the file
`
`server 18. In its second Petition, Petitioner tries to make the file server 18 part of
`
`the cache verifying computer 14. In my opinion the need for this inconsistency of
`
`position simply highlights the significant differences between Yohe and the ‘717
`
`Patent.
`
`10
`
`
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, Yohe does not disclose searching for data having the
`
`same digital digest, and therefore Yohe is not the same as Original Claims 22 and
`
`23.
`
`38.
`
`I understand Yohe to disclose a remote client computer 14, which
`
`includes a directory signature comparator 56. This directory signature comparator
`
`56 does not search for a digital digest in order to find a corresponding file. Instead,
`
`the directory signature comparator 56 retrieves the a single directory signature and
`
`compares the retrieved directory signature with the directory signature received
`
`from the cache verifying computer 14.
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion Yohe does not teach searching for a file by searching
`
`for a digitai signature to which that file corresponds.
`
`Vi. OPINIONS ABOUT PERLMAN AND YOHLE
`
`40.
`
`For the reasons I stated above in paragraph 10, in my opinion a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art looking to improve data access would not have
`
`considered Perlrnan to be reievant because Periman is solving a problem of
`
`keeping data synchronized, rather than speeding the response to a specific request.
`
`Furthermore, synchronization would increase the bandwidth that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would want if the plan was to speed access by reducing
`
`bandwidth.
`
`ll
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Even if a person or ordinary skili in the art were to combine Perlman
`
`and Yohe, I find that the combination would still lack the same elements that the
`
`Perlman and Yohe suggest. These references are accomplishing different things
`
`and if between then the lack an element from the claims of the ‘717 patent, the
`
`only reason to add that element would be the disclosure of the ‘7 l7 patent, which
`
`would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this art.
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion nothing in Yohe would make it obvious to add
`
`permanent storage memory to Perlrnan. Perlman functioned just fine for its
`
`purpose — synchronizing the content of databases stored in a network. As I have
`
`stated previously, Perlman does not disclose permanent storage memory as part of
`
`the Perlman router. In fact, the first Petition states that “routers typically are
`
`rebooted only rarely, so it’s cache naturally was in volatile memory “RAM”,
`
`therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn’t see a benefit to adding
`
`permanent storage memory.
`
`43.
`
`Even if a person or ordinary skill were to combine Periman and Yohe,
`
`by adding the bundling of multiple signatures from Perlman to the Yohe system
`
`and method, this combination would still lack (a) a sender/computer having
`
`permanent storage memory and means for creating digital digest on data and (b) a
`
`search for data with the same digital digest.
`
`12
`
`
`
`44.
`
`As I explained above, neither Perlman nor Yohe has a
`
`sender/computer having permanent storage memory and means for creating digital
`
`digest on data.
`
`45.
`
`As I explained above neither Perlman nor Yohe has searching for data
`
`with the same digital digest.
`
`46.
`
`There is nothing to teach or suggesting adding these elements to the
`
`combination of Perlman and Yohe, so in my opinion the subject matter of the ‘717
`
`Patent would not be obvious from Perlrnan and Yohe.
`
`VII. OPINIONS ABOUT SANTOS
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, Santos does not disclose a receiver/computer, and
`
`therefore is different from Original Claims 1, 3, 22, and 23.
`
`48.
`
`I understand Santos discloses a compressor and a decompressor
`
`computers. Those are intermediate computers. In the context of the ‘717 Patent,
`
`intermediate computers are distinguishable from sender and receiver computers. A
`
`person or ordinary skill in the art would not understand the compressor and
`
`decompressor of Santos to be a receiver computer. The ‘717 patent repeatedly
`
`distinguishes between the sender and receiver computers on the one hand, and to
`
`the intermediate computers on the other hand.
`
`13
`
`
`
`49.
`
`in my opinion, Santos does not disclose creating a digitai digest on
`
`data that is in the network cache memory, and therefore is different from claims 1
`
`and 3.
`
`50.
`
`In my opinion Santos does not disclose searching in predetermined
`
`locations in permanent storage memory, and therefore Santos is different from
`
`Original Claim 22.
`
`51.
`
`I understand Santos to disclose that the fingerprints are not stored in
`
`permanent storage memory. Santos states that upon reset, such as through a power
`
`cycle or restart, the fingerprints H(x) and associated data is iost. EX1003 at §3.3.
`
`This indicates to me, as it would to any person of ordinary skiil in the art that the
`
`fingerprints are not stored in permanent storage memory, and thus Santos could not
`
`logically teach searching permanent storage memory for fingerprints.
`
`VIII. OPINIONS ABOUT DRP
`
`52.
`
`DRP discloses a protocol, rather than a system , and to the extent that
`
`any structure is disclosed it does not meet the requirements of the claims of the
`
`‘717 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`In my opinion DRP does not disclose a caching computer having a
`
`permanent storage memory and means for comparison, and therefore DRP is
`
`different from Original Claims 6, 7, and 9.
`
`i4
`
`
`
`54.
`
`In my opinion it would also be improper to considerthe client as part
`
`of the caching computer, because the caching computer is only a caching computer
`
`when it is an intermediary between to other computers.
`
`55.
`
`I understand DRP to disclose the generation of content identifiers at
`
`the server, not at the HTTP proxy. As discussed above, parts of the server cannot
`
`simultaneously be part of both the server and the caching computer. These are
`
`separate entities in terms of the language of the ‘717 Patent, and if the server is part
`
`of the caching computer, then the caching computer is no longer connected to two
`
`other computers.
`
`56.
`
`DRP does not disclose a caching computer including means for
`
`calculating a digital digest on data in permanent storage memory, and therefore is
`
`different from Original Claim 7.
`
`57.
`
`As I explained above, I understand that the caching computer in DRP,
`
`would be classified by one skilled in the art as a real time computer, does not
`
`include permanent storage memory, and therefore the caching computer in DRP
`
`cannot calculate a digital digest on a file in permanent storage memory that it does
`
`not have.
`
`58.
`
`DRP does not disclose a caching computer including means for
`
`storing the digital digest in permanent storage memory, and therefore is different
`
`from Original Claim 9.
`
`15
`
`
`
`59.
`
`As I explained above, I understand that the caching computer in DRP
`
`does not include permanent storage memory, and therefore the caching computer
`
`in DRP cannot store the digital digest in permanent storage memory that it does not
`
`have.
`
`60.
`
`DRP does not disclose receiving a response signal, and therefore is
`
`different from Original Claims 11, 12 and 14.
`
`61.
`
`I understand that in DRP the receiver/computer manages the
`
`downloading of the files.
`
`I do not understand the receiver computer to send any
`
`response signal to the sender/computer, nor do I understand that the
`
`sender/computer takes any action upon receipt of a response signal.
`
`IX. OPINIONS ABOUT MATTIS
`
`62.
`
`In my opinion, Mattis is not analogous prior art to the ‘7 17 Patent,
`
`and therefore cannot render any of the claims of the ‘7 17 Patent.
`
`63.
`
`I understand Mattis to disclose a scheme for storing data Without
`
`duplication. In my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the art would not find
`
`Mattis relevant or helpful to the problem of accessing data from a sender/computer.
`
`64.
`
`In my opinion the problem of efficient storage of files is different
`
`from the problem of redundant downloads. For example, there would be no would
`
`be no increase in redundant network data transmission if a different storage method
`
`was used.
`
`16
`
`
`
`65. While Mattis uses a some form of file digests, this alone is not a
`
`reason to even consider it, except in hindsight.
`
`66.
`
`In my opinion, there is no reason why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would attempt combine Mattis’ storage system and method with DRP’s file
`
`accessing system and method. The only similarity to me is the use of the same
`
`MDS digesting, which as I indicated is not a reason to even consider it, except in
`
`hindsight.
`
`67.
`
`In my opinion any combination of DRP and Mattis iacks a caching
`
`computer having a means for comparison, as required by claims 6, 7, and 9.
`
`68.
`
`In my opinion the combination of DRP and Mattis would not include
`
`the step of Receiving a Response Signal from the receiver/computer, and therefore
`
`does not meet ail the requirements of Original Ciairns Ii, 12 and 14.
`
`69.
`
`As i explained above, it is my understanding of DRP that receiver in
`
`DRP simply downloads the files it needs, based on its comparison of multiple
`
`indexes. The server is unaware the ciient has received the index, does not receive
`
`any signal responsive to a particular content identifier, and does not transmit
`
`anything to the client. There is nothing in Mattis that would cause a person of
`
`ordinary skiil in the art to change this.
`
`*****$*$********$**$$*
`
`l7
`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on the 21 st day of May, 2013.
`
`6% ‘EOMQYJ
`
`4M0,“
`
`lam CAF-L’stey
`
`Aion Konchitsky
`
`18
`
`
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
