`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-01319
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 B2
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER'S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2021-01319
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Procedural History ................................................................................. 2
`B.
`The '794 Patent ...................................................................................... 3
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................. 14
`A.
`Inter Partes Review............................................................................. 14
`B.
`Anticipation ......................................................................................... 14
`C.
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 14
`D.
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 18
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY
`CHALLENGED CLAIM IS UNPATENTABLE ......................................... 20
`A.
`Petitioner's Alleged Invalidity Grounds .............................................. 20
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 21
`C.
`Claim Construction.............................................................................. 21
`1.
`"receiving a set of network objects in response to a
`first request to a server from a client" ....................................... 21
`D. All Challenged Claims Are Valid Over Medin and Seltzer ................ 22
`1.
`Overview of Medin ................................................................... 22
`2.
`Overview of Seltzer .................................................................. 31
`3.
`Overview of Markatos .............................................................. 32
`4.
`Ground 1 – Independent Claims 1 and 9 .................................. 34
`a) Medin Fails to Disclose Limitation [b] .......................... 35
`b)
`A POSITA Would Not Find It Obvious to
`Combine Medin With Seltzer Such That a
`Combination of These References Would
`Disclose Limitation [d] ................................................... 44
`Ground 1 – Dependent Claims 3-8, 11-16 ................................ 48
`
`2.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`3.
`
`Ground 2 – Independent Claim 17 ............................................ 49
`a) Medin Fails to Disclose Limitation [b] .......................... 49
`b) Markatos Fails to Disclose Limitation [c] ...................... 49
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 58
`V.
`VI. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(D) ......................... 60
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`464 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................18
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ..............................................................................15
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................14
`
`Gechter v. Davidson,
`116 F.3d 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................18
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City et al.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ..................................................................................................18
`
`In re Dembiczak,
`175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..............................................................................16
`
`In re Gartside,
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..................................................................... 15, 16
`
`In re Kubin,
`561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................16
`
`In re Lee,
`277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................15
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................16
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ....................................................................................... 15, 45
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods. Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................16
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................19
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`353 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..............................................................................18
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`347 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................19
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................17
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp. et al.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Scripps Clinic & Res. Found. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................14
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 16, 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ........................................................................................ 1, 14, 59
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 to Malcolm (the "'794 Patent")
`
`Prosecution File History for the '794 Patent ("File Hist.")
`
`Declaration of Henry H. Houh ("Houh Decl.")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,370,571 to Medin ("Medin")
`
`1005 Margo Seltzer, An Implementation of a Log-Structured File System
`for UNIX, Proceedings of the 1993 Winter USENIX (Jan. 25-29,
`1993) ("Seltzer")
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Evangelos P. Markatos, Main memory caching of Web document,
`Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 28, issues 7-11,
`pp. 893-905 (May 1996) ("Markatos")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,167,438 to Yates et al. ("Yates")
`
`S. Ghandeharizadeh, D. Ierardi, D. H. Kim, and R. Zimmermann,
`Placement of Data in Multi-Zone Disk Drives, Second International
`Baltic Workshop on Databases and Information Systems, Tallinn,
`Estonia, 12-14 June 1996 ("Ghandeharizadeh")
`
`Excerpts from IBM Dictionary of Computing (McGraw-Hill,
`10th Ed. 1993) ("IBM Dictionary")
`
`Alan Jay Smith, Cache memories, ACM Computing Surveys,
`Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 473-530, September 1982 ("Smith")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,065,058 to Hailpern et al. ("Hailpern")
`
`A. Luotonen and K. Altis, World-Wide Web Proxies, Computer
`Networks and ISDN Systems, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 147-154
`(November 1994) ("Luotonen")
`
`D. Neal, The Harvest Object Cache in New Zealand, Computer
`Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 28, pp. 1415-1430 (May 1996)
`("Neal")
`
`Anawat Chankhunthod, Peter B. Danzig, Chuck Neerdaels, Michael
`F. Schwartz, and Kurt J. Worrell, A Hierarchical Internet Object
`Cache, Proceedings of USENIX 1996 Annual Technical Conference,
`pp. 153-164 (January 1996) ("Chankhunthod")
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`T. Johnson and D. Shasha, 2Q: A Low Overhead High Performance
`Buffer Management Replacement Algorithm, Proceedings of the
`20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases,
`(VLDB '94), Santiago de Chile, Chile (September 12-15, 1994)
`("Johnson")
`
`Robert Van Renesse, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, and Annita Wilschut,
`The Design of a High-Performance File Server, Proceedings of the
`9th International Conference on Distributed Computer Systems,
`Newport Beach, CA, pp. 22-27 (June 1989) ("Bullet")
`
`1017 Marshall K. McKusick, William N. Joy, Samuel J. Leffler, and
`Robert S. Fabry, A Fast File System for UNIX, ACM Transactions on
`Computer Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 181-197 (August 1984)
`("McKusick")
`
`1018 Mendel Rosenblum and John K. Ousterhout, The Design and
`Implementation of a Log-Structured File System, ACM Transactions
`on Computer Systems, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 26-52 (February 1992)
`("Rosenblum")
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`James O. Dyal, Michael K. Draughn, Performance Aspects of Disk
`Space Management, Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Winter
`Simulation, Vol. 1, pp. 69-77 (January 1981) ("Dyal")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,023,659 to Seilhamer et al. ("Seilhamer")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,864,852 to Luotonen ("Luotonen '852")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,780 to Chase et al. ("Chase")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,255,211 to Redmond et al. ("Redmond")
`
`Excerpts from Peter Dyson, Dictionary of Networking (SYBEX,
`2nd Ed. 1995) ("Dictionary of Networking")
`
`Excerpts from Computer Dictionary (Microsoft Press, 3rd Ed. 1997)
`("Microsoft Dictionary")
`
`Silvano Maffeis, Design and Implementation of a Configurable
`Mixed-Media File System, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems
`Review (Oct. 1994) ("Maffeis")
`
`vii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`D. Raggett, A review of the HTML + document format, Computer
`Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 35-145, November
`1994 ("Raggett")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,758,165 to Shuff et al. ("Shuff")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,819,251 to Kremer et al. ("Kremer")
`
`Excerpt from Brad Hansen, The Dictionary of Multimedia Terms &
`Acronyms (Franklin, Beedle & Associates, 1997) ("Multimedia
`Dictionary")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,852,717 to Bhide et al. ("Bhide")
`
`Declaration of Margo Seltzer ("Seltzer Decl.")
`
`Declaration of Shahram Ghandeharizadeh ("Ghandeharizadeh Decl.")
`
`Declaration of Gordon Macpherson ("Macpherson Decl.")
`
`Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D. ("Hall-Ellis Decl.")
`
`Transcript of Board Conference Call on Nov. 22, 2021
`
`Order, SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-115
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2020)
`
`1038 Memorandum Order, Arbor Global Strategies LLC v. Samsung Elecs.
`Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:19-cv-333 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2021)
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re: Netflix, Inc., Case No. 22-110
`(Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2021)
`
`Calendar of Judge Rodney Gilstrap for April 18, 2022
`
`LexMachina, Federal District Court Patent Case Summary (2017-
`2022) for Judge Rodney Gilstrap
`
`Second Amended Docket Control Order, CA, Inc., et al. v. Netflix,
`Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-80 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 23, 2021)
`
`1600 PTAB & Beyond, "How reliable are trial dates relied on by the
`PTAB in the Fintiv analysis?", Andrew T. Dufresne, et al., Oct. 29,
`2021 (https://www.1600ptab.com/2021/10/how-reliable-are-trial-
`dates-relied-on-by-the-ptab-in-the-fintiv-analysis/)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`The New York Times, Texas Coronavirus Map and Case Count,
`January 9, 2022 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/texas-
`covid-cases.html)
`
`Defendant's Stipulation Regarding Invalidity Contentions, CA, Inc.,
`et al. v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-80 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022)
`
`November 10, 2021 Docket Report from CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix,
`Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`November 10, 2021 Docket Report from Netflix, Inc., v. CA, Inc. et
`al., No. 3:21-cv-03649 (N.D. Cal. 2021)
`
`Amended Docket Control Order, CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2021), ECF No. 107
`
`Invalidity Contentions, CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-
`00080 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2021) with Exhibits 794-7a, 794-7b,
`794-7c, 794-9, and 794-12
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart, CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2021), ECF No. 118
`
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief, CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2021), ECF No. 112
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/048,986 (the "'986
`Application")
`
`Excerpts from Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 14th ed., Telecom
`Books (Oct. 1998) ("Newton's 1998")
`
`Excerpts from Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 11th ed., Flatiron
`Publishing, Inc. (July 1996) ("Newton's 1996")
`
`Excerpts from Newton's Telecom Dictionary, 12th ed., Flatiron
`Publishing, Inc. (Feb. 1997) ("Newton's 1997")
`
`January 15, 2022 Docket Report from In re: Netflix, Inc., No. 22-110
`(Fed. Cir.)
`
`January 15, 2022 Docket Report from CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order, CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2021), ECF No. 164
`
`ix
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`Order Denying Motion to Stay, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T
`Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00577 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2018),
`ECF No. 255
`
`Order Denying Defendants' Re-Urged Motion to Stay Pending Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,500, Oyster Optics, LLC v.
`Infinera Corp., No. 2:19-cv-00257 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2020), ECF
`No. 87
`
`2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung
`Display Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00152 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2020),
`ECF No. 133
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`April 20, 2020 Standing Order Regarding Pretrial Procedures in Civil
`Cases Assigned to Chief District Judge Rodney Gilstrap During the
`Present COVID-19 Pandemic, United States District Court for the
`Eastern District of Texas (https://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/
`default/files/judgeFiles/COVID19%20Standing%20Order.pdf)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Karthikeyan Sundaresan ("Sundaresan Decl.")
`
`Transcript of April 19, 2022 Deposition of Dr. Henry Houh
`("Houh Dep.")
`
`2020 Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press (1997), 302
`
`3001
`
`Electronic Message to Board re: Notification Regarding Mandamus
`Petition Outcome
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`Patent Owner CA, Inc. ("CA," "Patent Owner," or "PO") hereby respectfully
`
`submits this Response ("Response") to the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`No. IPR2021-01319 (the "Petition") challenging the patentability of certain claims
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794 B2 (the "'794 Patent"). This filing is timely under the
`
`Board's April 18, 2022 Order on Conduct of the Proceeding Amending Scheduling
`
`Order (Paper 21).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Netflix, Inc. ("Petitioner") has not proven that any of Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16,
`
`and 17 of the '794 Patent (the "Challenged Claims") are unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), for several
`
`independent and distinct reasons.
`
`First, the Petition fails to demonstrate that Medin discloses a cache engine
`
`having a cache memory including mass storage, which is required by every
`
`independent Challenged Claim. Further, the Petition fails to show that Seltzer and
`
`Markatos remedy this failing. Moreover, the Petition fails to show that Medin and
`
`Seltzer could be combined to teach minimizing a time required for retrieving
`
`network objects from said mass storage or otherwise optimizing the storage and/or
`
`retrieval of network objects, as Claims 1 and 9 require. Similarly, the Petition fails
`
`to show that the combination of Medin and Markatos discloses maintaining network
`
`objects independently of a file system for mass storage, as Claim 17 requires.
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`Finally, the Petition fails to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`("POSITA") would find it obvious to combine the references as proposed by
`
`Petitioner to arrive at the limitations of any Challenged Claim.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`CA and Avago Technologies International Sales PTE. Limited ("Avago")
`
`filed a lawsuit against Petitioner for infringement of the '794 Patent and four other
`
`patents on March 9, 2021. See CA, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00080
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2021) (the "Texas Litigation") (EX-2001, Dkt. 1). Petitioner filed this
`
`Petition (Paper 2) on July 30, 2021. In its Preliminary Response (Paper 7), PO
`
`argued that the Board should dismiss the Petition under its Fintiv discretion.
`
`Petitioner, in response, filed a request to file a reply brief on the Fintiv issue, in light
`
`of its filing of a writ of mandamus with the Federal Circuit, seeking transfer of the
`
`Texas Litigation.
`
`The Board held a conference call with the parties on November 22, 2021 and
`
`issued an Order on Conduct of the Proceeding (Paper 8) on November 24, 2021,
`
`authorizing briefing on the Fintiv issues. The Order specified that Petitioner's Reply
`
`would be due one week after the Federal Circuit's mandamus decision, and in no
`
`case later than January 10, 2022. On January 10, 2022, having not yet received any
`
`order on the mandamus petition, Petitioner filed its Reply (Paper 10). On
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`January 15, 2022, PO filed its Sur-Reply (Paper 12). After the Federal Circuit
`
`granted Petitioner's mandamus petition on January 19, 2022, the parties emailed a
`
`joint notification to the Board (EX-3001), agreeing that PO's Fintiv arguments had
`
`been negated.
`
`On February 9, 2022, the Board issued its Decision Granting Institution of
`
`Inter Partes Review ("Institution Order" or "ID") (Paper 15), and Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 16), setting a deadline of May 11, 2022 for PO's Response to the Petition
`
`(DUE DATE 1). On April 18, 2022, the Board issued another Order on Conduct of
`
`the Proceeding Amending Scheduling Order (Paper 21). This new Order amended
`
`certain of the due dates in the original Scheduling Order (Paper 16), including
`
`amending DUE DATE 1 to May 20, 2022.
`
`The '794 Patent has not been previously asserted in any related lawsuits.
`
`B.
`
`The '794 Patent
`
`The '794 Patent is titled, "Network Object Cache Engine." EX-1001, code
`
`(54). The '794 Patent is directed to a cache engine that is used to cache network
`
`objects, including "data, such as HTML pages, text, graphics, photographs, audio,
`
`video; programs, such as Java or ActiveX applets or applications; or other types of
`
`network objects, such as push protocol objects," as well as "frames of streaming
`
`audio or streaming video information." Id., 6:30-35; EX-2018, ¶ 23. The cache
`
`engine "determines directly when and where to store those objects in a memory (such
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`as RAM) and mass storage (such as one or more disk drives), so as to optimally write
`
`those objects to mass storage and later read them from mass storage, without having
`
`to maintain them persistently." EX-1001, code (57). EX-2018, ¶ 23.
`
`The background of the '794 Patent describes prior solutions to the issue of
`
`avoiding excess network traffic and delay when transmitting data between servers
`
`and clients. EX-1001, 1:9-57; EX-2018, ¶ 24. Some of these solutions include
`
`proxy servers, which suffer several inefficiencies, as a result of their nature as
`
`general-purpose servers:
`
`One known method [of network caching] is to provide a device (such
`
`as a general purpose processor operating under software control) which
`
`acts as a proxy, receiving requests for information from one or more
`
`clients, obtaining that information from one or more servers, and
`
`transmitting that information to the clients in place of the servers.
`
`When the proxy has previously obtained the information from one or
`
`more servers, it can deliver that information to the client without having
`
`to repeat the request to the server. While this method achieves the goal
`
`of reducing traffic in the network and load on the server, it has the
`
`drawback that significant overhead is required by the local
`
`operating system and the local file system or file server of the proxy.
`
`This adds to the expense of operating the network and slows down the
`
`communication path between the server and the client.
`
`There are several sources of delay, caused primarily by the proxy's
`
`surrendering control of its storage to its local operating system and
`
`local file system: (a) the proxy is unable to organize the information
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`from the server in its mass storage for most rapid access; and (b) the
`
`proxy is unable to delete old network objects received from the servers
`
`and store new network objects received from the servers in a manner
`
`which optimizes access to mass storage. In addition to the added
`
`expense and delay, the proxy's surrendering control of its storage
`
`restricts functionality of the proxy's use of its storage: (a) it is difficult
`
`or impossible to add to or subtract from storage allocated to the proxy
`
`while the proxy is operating; and (b) the proxy and its local file system
`
`cannot recover from loss of any part of its storage without using an
`
`expensive redundant storage technique, such as a RAID storage system.
`
`EX-1001, 1:26-57 (emphasis added); EX-2018, ¶ 24. In light of these issues, the
`
`'794 Patent identifies a need for a "method and system for caching information
`
`transmitted using, a computer network, which is not subject to additional delay or
`
`restricted functionality from having to use a local operating system and local file
`
`system or file server." EX-1001, 1:58-62 (emphasis added); EX-2018, ¶ 24.
`
`The '794 Patent provides such a solution with a cache engine. EX-2018, ¶ 25.
`
`The patent explains that the cache engine has a cache, which "is not a file storage
`
`system," as a typical server would be expected to use. EX-1001, 4:15.
`
`Moreover, the cache engine 100 operates exclusively to perform the
`
`operation of caching the network objects 114. There is no separate
`
`"operating system," no user, and there are no user application programs
`
`which execute independently on the processor 101. Within the memory
`
`103, there are no separate memory spaces for "user" and "operating
`
`system."
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`Id., 4:33-39; EX-2018, ¶ 25. This cache engine, dedicated to caching network
`
`objects, is highly optimized for performance in cache storage and retrieval. EX-
`
`2018, ¶ 25. Such optimization eliminates many, if not all, of the performance
`
`bottlenecks associated with the prior art proxy servers described in the background.
`
`Id.
`
`One important optimization is the use of a cache that includes both volatile
`
`memory (e.g., RAM) and mass storage (e.g., disk drives). Figures 1 and 2 of the
`
`'794 Patent illustrate this arrangement:
`
`EX-1001, FIG. 1 (excerpted and annotated); EX-2018, ¶ 26.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`
`
`EX-1001, FIG. 2 (annotated); EX-2018, ¶ 26. In both these examples, and in every
`
`embodiment disclosed in the '794 Patent, the cache 102 is described as comprising
`
`both a memory 103 and a mass storage 104. EX-2018, ¶ 26. For example, the
`
`'794 Patent teaches, "[t]he cache 102 includes the program and data memory 103 and
`
`a mass storage 104. In a preferred embodiment, the mass storage 104 includes a
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`plurality of disk drives such as magnetic disk drives, but may alternatively include
`
`optical or magneto-optical disk drives." EX-1001, 3:30-34; EX-2018, ¶ 26.
`
`As the '794 Patent notes further, "[i]n a preferred embodiment, the cache
`
`engine 100 uses the memory 103 as a cache for those network objects 114
`
`maintained using the mass storage 104, while using the combined memory 103 and
`
`mass storage 104 as the cache 102 for those network objects 114 available on the
`
`network 110." EX-1001, 4:9-14; see also id., 8:9-13 ("A subset of the blocks 200
`
`are maintained in the memory 103, so as to use the memory 103 as a cache for the
`
`mass storage 104 (just as the memory 103 and the mass storage 104 collectively act
`
`as the cache 102 for network objects 114)."), 9:66-10:3 ("In a preferred embodiment,
`
`the cache engine 100 uses the memory 103 and the mass storage 104 (preferably a
`
`plurality of magnetic disk drives) to cache the network objects 114 so as to maintain
`
`in the cache 102 those network objects 114 most likely to be required by the client
`
`device 111."), 10:17-24 ("The cache engine 100 maintains the cache 102 using the
`
`memory 103 and the mass storage 104 so that whether the object 210 is in the
`
`cache 102, and if in the cache 102, whether the object 210 is in the memory 103 or
`
`on the mass storage 104 is transparent to the client device 111 (except possibly for
`
`different time delays in retrieving the object 210 from the memory 103 or from the
`
`mass storage 104)."); EX-2018, ¶ 27. Thus, the '794 Patent teaches exclusively that
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`the cache comprises both main memory (e.g., RAM) and mass storage (e.g., disk
`
`drives). EX-2018, ¶ 27.
`
`A key component of this combined cache technique, which optimizes storage
`
`and retrieval of network objects from the cache (and, in particular, the mass storage),
`
`is the use of mass storage as part of the cache while maintaining objects in the cache
`
`independently of a file system for the mass storage. Id., ¶ 28. For example, as noted
`
`above, the '794 Patent teaches that existing proxy servers have "several sources of
`
`delay, caused primarily by the proxy's surrendering control of its storage to its local
`
`operating system and local file system." EX-1001, 1:42-44; EX-2018, ¶ 28. Among
`
`these sources of delay, the '794 Patent teaches, are "(a) the proxy is unable to
`
`organize the information from the server in its mass storage for most rapid access;
`
`and (b) the proxy is unable to delete old network objects received from the servers
`
`and store new network objects received from the servers in a manner which
`
`optimizes access to mass storage." EX-1001, 1:44-49 (emphasis added); EX-2018,
`
`¶ 28.
`
`Thus, the '794 Patent teaches, "it would be desirable to provide a method and
`
`system for caching information . . . which is not subject to additional delay or
`
`restricted functionality from having to use a local operating system and local file
`
`system or file server." EX-1001,1:58-62; EX-2018, ¶ 29. The invention of the
`
`'794 Patent solves this problem with "a cache engine coupled to the network [that]
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`provides a cache of transmitted objects, which it stores in memory and mass
`
`storage by taking direct control of when and where to store those objects in
`
`mass storage." EX-1001, 1:64-67; EX-2018, ¶ 29. More specifically, the
`
`'794 Patent teaches, the invention provides this "direct control" in two related ways.
`
`First, "[i]n the invention, a cache engine determines directly when and where
`
`to store those objects in a memory (such as RAM) and mass storage (such as one or
`
`more disk drives), so as to optimally write those objects to mass storage and later
`
`read them from mass storage, without having to maintain them persistently." EX-
`
`1001, 2:8-13 (emphasis added); see also id., 9:66-10:3 ("In a preferred embodiment,
`
`the cache engine 100 uses the memory 103 and the mass storage 104 (preferably a
`
`plurality of magnetic disk drives) to cache the network objects 114 so as to maintain
`
`in the cache 102 those network objects 114 most likely to be required by the client
`
`device 111."); EX-2018, ¶ 30.
`
`Second, and relatedly, the '794 Patent teaches that the cache engine has direct
`
`control over storage because the cache 102 operates independently of a file system
`
`(for either the memory or the mass storage), unlike prior systems:
`
`The cache 102 differs from a file system also in that the client
`
`device 111 has no control over storage of the network objects 114 in
`
`the cache 102, including (1) the name space at the cache 102 for storage
`
`of the network objects 114, (2) the ability to name or rename the
`
`network objects 114, (3) whether the network objects 114 are removed
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`from the cache 102 at any time, and (4) whether the network objects
`
`114 are even stored in the cache 102 at all.
`
`EX-1001, 9:58-65; see also id., 4:15 ("The cache 102 is not a file storage
`
`system . . . .); EX-2018, ¶ 31.
`
`Independent Challenged Claim 1 is illustrative:
`
`1. A method, including steps of:
`
`[a] receiving a set of network objects in response to a first request to a
`
`server from a client; and
`
`[b] maintaining said network objects in a cache memory in a cache
`
`engine, said cache engine connected via a network to the server
`
`and the client, said cache memory including mass storage;
`
`[c] wherein said step of maintaining includes steps of recording said
`
`network objects in said cache memory and retrieving said
`
`network objects from said cache memory,
`
`[d] so as to substantially minimizes a time required for retrieving said
`
`network objects from said mass storage.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`EX-1001, 17:5-17.1 As recited, the method of Claim 1 "maintain[s] said network
`
`objects in a cache memory in a cache engine . . . said cache memory including mass
`
`storage," and operates in a way that "substantially minimizes a time required for
`
`retrieving said network objects from said mass storage." Id., EX-2018, ¶ 32. Thus,
`
`Claim 1 recites a cache engine having "cache memory" that includes mass storage,
`
`as well as optimization ("minimiz[ing] a time required for retrieving network objects
`
`from the mass storage"). Id.
`
`Independent Challenged Claim 9 is similar, except that limitation 9[d]
`
`identifies multiple types of cache optimization of which the claimed cache engine is
`
`capable:
`
`[1] maximizing a rate at which said network objects can be written to
`
`said mass storage,
`
`[2] maximizing a rate at which said network objects can be erased from
`
`said mass storage,
`
`[3] maximizing a rate at which said network objects can be retrieved
`
`from said mass storage, or
`
`
`1 For clarity, this Response employs Petitioner's labeling of the claim limitations
`
`shown in brackets above.
`
`12
`
`

`

`[4] minimizing a time required for retrieving said network objects from
`
`IPR2021-01319
`
`said mass storage.
`
`EX-1001, 17:49-56; EX-2018, ¶ 33.
`
`Independent Challenged Claim 17 recites,
`
`17. A method, including steps of:
`
`[a] receiving a set of network objects in response to a first request to a
`
`server from a client; and
`
`[b] maintaining said network objects in a cache memory in a cache
`
`engine, said cache engine connected via a network to the server
`
`and the client, said cache memory including mass storage;
`
`[c] wherein said step of maintaining is performed independently of a
`
`file system for said mass storage.
`
`EX-1001, 18:10-18; EX-2018, ¶ 34.
`
`Independent Challenged Claim 17 is again similar in scope to Claim 1, except
`
`Claim 17 recites an enabling technology of an optimization technique, "wherein . . .
`
`maintaining is performed independently of a file system for said mass storage." EX-
`
`1001, 8:17-18; EX-2018, ¶ 35. This claim in particular highlights one difference
`
`between a cache engine and typical proxy servers – that the cache operates
`
`independently of any file system, which a typical server uses to store files on mass
`
`storage. EX-2018, ¶ 35.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01319
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`"In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to
`
`prove 'unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,' 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and
`
`that burden never shifts to the patentee." Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l
`
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`B. Anticipation
`
`"To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged as is
`
`recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference." ZTE Corp. v.
`
`ContentGuard Holdings Inc., IPR2013-00134, Paper 12 at 24 (PTAB June 19,
`
`2013). "[To ant