Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper13
`Entered: January 09, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NETFLIX,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv
`
`CA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NATHANA. ENGELS,and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314,37 CFR. $ 42.4
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper13
`Entered: January 09, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NETFLIX,INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv
`
`CA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NATHANA. ENGELS,and
`JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314,37 CFR. $ 42.4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Netflix, Inc. filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”’) requesting
`
`inter partes review of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,794
`
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’794 patent”). Patent Owner CA,Inc.filed a Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 7 (““Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may notbeinstituted
`
`unless the information presented in the Petition and any responsethereto
`
`shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon
`
`consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we determine
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood ofprevailing in
`
`establishing unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’794 patent.
`
`Accordingly, we institute inter partes review.
`
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies Netflix, Inc. and Netflix Streaming Services, Inc.
`
`as the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 65. Patent Owneridentifies CA,Inc. as
`
`the real party-in-interest. Paper5, 1.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`The parties state that the ’794 patent is the subject of CA, Inc.v.
`Netflix, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex.)! and Ne#flix, Inc. v. CA, Inc.,
`
`' After the parties’ briefing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit ordered the Eastern District of Texas to transfer this case to the
`Northern District of California. In re Netflix, Inc., No. 2022-110,slip op.,
`2022 WL 167470 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2022). Consequently, we need not
`address Patent Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under the Fintiv
`factors (see Prelim. Resp. 21-35; Prelim. Sur-Reply 2-5), which were
`premised on the Eastern District of Texas’s trial schedule, which no longer
`applies. See Ex. 3001 (parties’ agreement that Fintiv arguments are moot).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`3:21-cv-03649 (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 65; Paper 5, 1. Patent Owneralso identifies
`
`Esoft, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 1:06-cv-02192 (D. Colo.) as a related
`
`matter. Paper5, 1.
`
`C. The ’794 Patent
`
`Titled “Network Object Cache Engine,” the ’794 patent describes a
`
`cache engine used to cache network objects such as HTML pages,text,
`
`graphics, and frames of streaming audio or video. Ex. 1001, 6:30—35, codes
`
`(54), (57). The ’794 patent states that the cache engine is in communication
`
`with a plurality of client devices and server devices via a network such that
`
`the cache engine receives protocol messages from client devices requesting
`
`network objects from the server devices. Ex. 1001, 3:3:4-19, 43-45. In
`
`response to the messages, the cache engine obtains the network objects from
`
`the server devices and transmits the network objects to the requesting client
`
`devices. Ex. 1001, 3:46—51. The cache engine preserves the network
`
`objects in its cache and reuses relevant network objects from its cache to
`
`respond to requests from otherclient devices. Ex. 1001, 4:1-4.
`
`The ’794 patent states that the cache engine includes a processorthat
`
`maybe a general-purpose processor operating under software control.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:20-29. The cache enginealso includes a cache which includes
`
`program and data memory and a massstorage, such as a plurality of disk
`
`drives. Ex. 1001, 3:30-41.
`
`The ’794 patentstates that the cacheis not a file storage system and
`network objects and other data maintained in the cacheare transient, except
`for a small numberof system objects required for operation. Ex. 1001,
`
`4:15-24. The ’794 patent also states that the cache engine operates
`
`exclusively to perform the operation of caching the network objects and has
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`)
`
`no separate operating system, no user, and no application programs.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:34-38.
`
`D.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1, reproducedbelow,isillustrative of the challenged claims.
`
`1. A method,includingstepsof:
`
`receiving a set of network objects in responseto a first request to
`a server from a client; and
`
`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 memoryincluding massstorage;
`
`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,
`
`so as to substantially minimizes a time required for retrieving
`said network objects from said massstorage.
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 would have been
`
`unpatentable on the following grounds:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §
`1, 3-9, 11-16
`
`
`
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Medin,? Seltzer’
`Medin, Markatos*
`
`
`
`
`* Based on the June 8, 1998 filing date of the ’794 patent, we apply the pre-
`AIA version of § 103.
`3U.S. Patent No. 6,370,571 B1, issued Apr. 9, 2002 (Ex. 1004).
`4 MargoSeltzer, An Implementation ofa Log-Structured File System for
`UNIX, Proceedings of the 1993 Winter USENIX (Jan. 25—29, 1993)
`(Ex. 1005).
`> Evangelos P. Markatos, Main Memory Caching of Web Documents,
`Computer Networks and ISDN Systems,vol. 28, issues 7-11, pp. 893-905
`(May 1996) (Ex. 1006).
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Il. ANALYSIS -
`
`In determining the level of skill in the art, we consider the type of
`
`problems encounteredinthe art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the
`
`rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the
`
`technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom
`
`Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`Petitioner contends a person ofordinary skill in theart at the time of
`the invention would have been a person with a “bachelor’sdegree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, mathematics, or a similar field
`
`with at least two years of experience with computer networksand data
`
`storage, or a person with a master’s degree in electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, mathematics, or a similar field with a specialization
`
`in computer networking.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003 { 26). Petitioner also
`
`states that a person of ordinary skill would have had knowledge ofa list of
`
`topics, including the operation of networks, certain communication
`
`protocols, and caches. Pet. 24—25 (citing Ex. 1003 § 27).
`
`- Patent Ownerdoesnot address the level of skill in the art in its
`
`Preliminary Response. Forthe purposes of this Decision, we apply the level
`
`of ordinary skill advanced by Petitioner in terms of education and
`
`experience, but at this stage, we do not further addressthe lists of topics
`purportedly within the knowledgeofa person ofordinary skill.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`Weconstrue claims using the principles set forth in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) andrelated cases.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under that precedent, the words of a claim
`
`are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” whichis the
`
`meaning the term would haveto a person ofordinary skill at the time ofthe
`
`invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification.
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13.
`
`I.
`
`“receiving a set ofnetwork objects in responseto afirst request to
`a serverfrom a client”
`
`Petitioner contends the claim language “receiving a set of network
`
`objects in responseto a first request to a server from a client” would have
`
`been understood by a person ofordinary skill to be a step that must be
`
`performedat the cache engine. Pet. 25. Further, Petitioner states that the
`
`limitation should be construed to mean “receiving a set of network objectsat
`
`the cache engine in responseto a first request to a server from a client.”
`
`Pet. 25-26. Accordingto Petitioner, claims 20, 28, 39, and 47 require a
`
`cache engine that performs an equivalent receiving step, and Petitioner
`
`additionally cites certain dependent claims and one passageofthe
`
`Specification as support for its argument. Pet. 26-27 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:26—
`
`35, 3:42-51, 5:61-67, claims 2-6, 10-14).
`
`Patent Ownerdisagrees with Petitioner’s proposed construction and
`
`contends the “receiving” limitation should be givenits plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. Prelim. Resp. 34. Patent Owneralso states that the construction
`
`of “receiving” is immaterial to the arguments in the Preliminary Response,
`
`and Patent Owner does not further address the meaningofthe limitation.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 34.
`
`Atthis stage, we determineit is unnecessary to expressly interpret the
`
`receiving step for the purposesofinstitution.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`2.
`
`“cache engine”’
`
`Wenote that neither party appears to have askedthe district court to
`
`construe “cache engine.” See Ex. 2013. Here, though, Patent Owner
`
`contends “cache engine” should be construed to mean “‘a special-purpose
`
`device for caching network objects and optimized for storing andretrieving
`
`cached network objects.” Prelim. Resp. 34-35. According to Patent Owner,
`
`the challenged claims, the ’794 patent’s Specification, and the prosecution
`
`history distinguish a cache engine from an ordinary server and support
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 34—39 (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:9-67, 2:6—-18, 4:15, 4:3440, 12:36-39, 17:12-17, 18:17-18);
`
`see Prelim. Resp. 38 (arguing the cache serveris “not just a server that
`
`happensto store files using a stock operating system andfile system”).
`
`Patent Owneralso contends relevant extrinsic evidence supportsits
`construction. Prelim. Resp. 39-41 (citing Ex. 2008 (defining “cache engine”
`in 1998 version of Newton’s Telecom Dictionary)).
`
`Petitioner does not provide an express construction of “cache engine.”
`
`According to Patent Owner, however, Petitioner’s comparisons of Medin to
`
`the challenged claims implicitly construe “cache engine”to include a proxy
`
`computer. Prelim. Resp. 34, 37-38, 42-45.
`
`Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the cited portions of the
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence,at this stage, we apply the claim’s plain
`
`language. First, neither party contends “‘cache engine” is ambiguous; in fact,
`
`notwithstanding Patent Owner’s proposed construction, Patent Owner
`
`contends “cache engine”has a plain and ordinary meaning (Prelim. Resp. 40
`
`(arguing “the ’794 Patent at least partially defined the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of the term ‘cache engine””’)). See also Pet. 37-38 (citing Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`q 136 (describing a person of ordinary skill’s understanding of “cache
`
`engine”)); Ex. 1003 F¥ 32-35, 69-71, 136 (“A POSITA would have
`
`understood that the regional and local servers of Medin are ‘cache engines’
`
`because the regional and local servers are comprised of hardware(e.g., a
`
`processor, memory, massstorage) and software to perform the function of
`
`caching networkobjects.”).
`
`Mostnotable of the portions of the Specification cited by the parties
`
`(Pet. 38; Prelim. Resp. 6, 35), the Specification states that “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” (Ex. 1001, 4:34-40). Petitioner quotes part of that passage
`
`without substantively addressing it. Pet. 38 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:34-35).
`
`Patent Ownerreads that passage and otherportions of the Specification to
`
`suggest that a cache engineis not an ordinary, generic server (Prelim.
`
`Resp. 35), but Patent Owner does not appear to argue that the quoted portion
`of the Specification limits the claimed “cache engine.” Notably, Patent
`
`Ownerdoesnot directly argue that the claimed “cache engine” operates
`
`“exclusively” for caching network objects, and Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`interpretation does not appearto track that or other language in the
`
`Specification. See Prelim. Resp. 39 (citing Ex. 1002, 382-84, 390)
`
`(describing the prosecution history as reflecting that “the applicant amended
`the independent claimsto recite specifically that a cache engine performs
`
`network object maintenance operations”).
`
`Wealso note that Patent Owner’s proposed language, “special-
`
`purpose device for caching network objects and optimized for storing and
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`retrieving cached networkobjects,” seems potentially less clear than the
`
`claim languageitself. For example, Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`
`would raise questions regarding the scope and meaning of“special-purpose
`
`device” and what it meansfor a device to be “optimized”for storing and
`
`retrieving cached network objects. In particular, it is not clear at this stage
`
`that Patent Owner’s proposed language would exclude a generic server
`
`providing caching operations, particularly given the Specification’s repeated
`
`reference to embodiments of a cache engine implementedusing “general
`
`purpose processors and storage devices.” Ex. 1001, 2:61-63; accord
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:20-29; cf Ex. 1001, 1:26-29 (describing known methodsthat
`
`use a general-purpose processor operating under software control to act as a
`
`proxy).
`
`Wedetermineit is unnecessary to construe “cache engine” beyond the
`
`claim language for the purposesofinstitution, but we encouragethe parties
`
`to clarify their positions in future briefing.
`
`3.
`
`“minimiz[es/ing]” and “maximizing”
`
`Wenote that the district court determined the claims’ uses of
`
`“minimiz[es/ing]” and “maximizing”are indefinite. Ex. 2013, 21-30.
`
`Petitioner states that “[w]hile the boundsof ‘substantially mimimiz[ing]’ are
`
`not clear, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understoodthat
`
`the exemplary optimization techniques discussed in the ’794 patentfall
`
`within the scope of the claims.” Pet. 45. Patent Owner doesnotdirectly
`
`address the terms orthe district court’s determination. In future briefing, the
`
`parties are encouraged to address the terms, whether the termsare indefinite,
`
`and if so, whether the Board canstill render a decision regarding
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`patentability. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 318-319
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`C. Summary ofPrior Art References
`
`1. Medin
`
`Titled “System and Method for Delivering High-Performance Online
`
`Multimedia Services,” Medin discloses a system and method for delivering
`
`online multimedia services using a distributed network architecture and
`
`processes for replicating and caching frequently accessed multimedia
`
`content. Ex. 1004, 2:18-24, code (54). Medin’s network architecture
`
`couples a high-speed backbone to multiple network access points of the
`
`Internet, to a network operation center, to a back office system, and to
`
`multiple regional data centers. Ex. 1004, 2:26—29. Each regional data
`
`center couples to several modified head-ends, which in turn couple to
`
`neighborhood nodes, which in turn couple to end user systems. Ex. 1004,
`
`2:29-33.
`
`Medinstates that frequently accessed content is cached within and
`
`replicated amongthe regional data centers. Ex. 1004, 2:54—-55. “This
`reducestraffic redundancy since an end-user’s request for data that has been
`
`so replicated or cached may befulfilled by the ‘nearest’ (most closely
`
`coupled) [regional data center].” Ex. 1004, 2:55—58. Frequently accessed
`
`content is also cached within the modified head-ends to further reduce
`
`redundanttraffic. Ex. 1004, 3:1-4.
`D. Ground 1: Obviousness Based on Medin andSeltzer
`
`The Petition includesa limitation-by-limitation comparison of Medin
`and Seltzer to claims 1, 3—9, and 11-16, and Petitioner contends a person of
`ordinary skill “would have been motivated to combine Medin’s teachings of
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`servers that cache content requested overthe Internet, with Seltzer’s
`
`teachings of methods to optimize the recording andretrieval of data”
`
`(Pet. 27) for a numberof reasons. See Pet. 27-48.
`
`Respondingto Petitioner’s arguments, Patent Owner contends Medin
`
`does not teach the “cache engine”recited in each challenged claim. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 41-45. Patent Owneralso contends that Seltzer does not teach a cache
`
`engine, and that Seltzer’s goals are “incompatible with the cache engine of
`
`the ’794 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 45-48.
`
`1. Claim 1
`
`Motivation to combine Medin andSeltzer
`
`Petitioner contends a person ofordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to combine Medin’s teachings of servers that cache content
`
`requested overthe Internet with Seltzer’s teachings of methods to optimize
`
`the recording andretrieval of data. Pet. 27-30. According to Petitioner,
`
`Medin teaches storing copies of frequently accessed multimedia content on
`
`UNIX-basedlocal and regional servers to improve response times, and
`
`Seltzer teaches techniques for optimizing write and retrieval times on UNIX-
`
`based computers. Pet. 28-29. Amongotherthings, Petitioner contends a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have understood Seltzer to provide an express
`
`suggestion to improve the storage techniques of Medin, that combining the
`
`references would have been a combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methodsto yield predictable results, and that a person of ordinary
`
`skill would have expected success in combining the teachings of Medin and
`
`Seltzer. Pet. 28-30 (citing Ex. 1003 ¥ 114, 115, 118-121).
`
`Patent OwnercontendsSeltzer has nothing to do with network
`caching and that Seltzer’s goals are not relevant to a cache engine. Pet. 46—
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`47. At this stage, however, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Seltzer’s
`
`goals and incompatibility amount to attorney argument.
`
`“A method, including steps of:
`
`receiving a set ofnetwork objects in response to a first request
`to a serverfrom a client; and”
`
`Petitioner contends Medinsatisfies this limitation with its teachings of
`
`caching servers that receive multimedia content in responseto a first request
`
`from an enduserto an Internet server. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 4 125). At
`
`this stage, Patent Ownerdoes not address Petitioner’s showingforthis
`
`limitation.
`
`“maintaining said network objects in a cache memory ina
`cache engine, said cache engine connected via a network to
`the server and theclient, said cache memory including mass
`storage”
`
`Petitioner contends Medin’s regional and local servers teach or
`
`suggest the claimed “cache engines.” Pet. 36, 37~38. According to
`
`Petitioner, Medin teaches that network objects (e.g., multimedia content) are
`
`stored on a disk array of regional servers and on a cache storage device of
`
`the local servers. Pet. 37-39 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:21-25, 2:54-58, 3:14,
`
`5:56—59, 6:36-44, 9:12-31, 11:23-26, 11:55-60, Figs. 3-6, 11; Ex. 1003
`
`q{ 138-42). Petitioner also contends Medin’s regional and local servers are
`
`part of a private network that connects end users and content servers.
`
`Pet. 39-40.
`
`Patent Ownercriticizes the Petition and Petitioner’s declaration for
`
`failing to address the meaning of “cache engine” andthe intrinsic evidence
`
`cited by Patent Owner. Prelim. Resp. 42-43. Patent Owneralso contends
`
`that Medin discloses “at most, a conventional proxy server” that does not
`
`satisfy Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “cache engine.” Prelim.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`Resp. 42. According to Patent Owner, Medin’s regional servers are “typical
`
`multi-purpose servers” with typical server hardware running a general
`
`operating system that governs more than just caching operations, including
`
`server applications that have nothing to do with caching network objects.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 44-45 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:62—8:2). Patent Owneralso
`
`contends that Medin merelystates that its local servers “employ typical
`
`server hardware, have a general operating system, operate in pairs, and
`
`perform proxy and caching functions,” without further detail. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 45 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:43-56).
`
`Asnoted above,at this stage we do not expressly interpret “cache
`
`engine,” and weinstead apply the plain language of the claims. For the
`
`purpose ofinstitution, we determine Petitioner has sufficiently shownthat
`
`Medinsatisfies this limitation with its teachings of local and regional servers
`
`that cache frequently accessed information or content and that are connected
`
`via a network to content server and end users.
`
`“wherein said step ofmaintaining includes steps ofrecording
`said network objects in said cache memory andretrieving said
`network objects from said cache memory,”
`
`Petitioner contends Medinsatisfies this limitation becauseits local
`
`and regional servers store requested network objects and later retrieve and
`serve those objects from the servers’ cache memory. Pet. 41-44 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 11:53-55, 11:65-67, Fig. 11; Ex. 1003 9] 146-149). Petitioner
`
`also cites Seltzer for its teaching of recording and retrieving objects. Pet. 43
`
`(citing Ex. 1005 p. 307, 309, 311, 315-16, 320).
`
`At this stage, Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s showing for
`
`this limitation.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`“so as to substantially minimizes a time requiredfor retrieving
`said networkobjects from said mass storage.”
`
`Petitioner contends the combination of Medin and Seltzer teach this
`
`limitation with Seltzer teaching techniques for optimizing the writing and
`
`retrieval of objects to minimize retrieval times. Pet. 45-48. As noted above,
`
`the district court determined “minimizes”is indefinite (Ex. 2013, 30), but
`
`Petitioner contends a person ofordinary skill “would have understood the
`
`exemplary optimization techniques discussed in the ’794 patent fall within
`
`the scope of the claims”(Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:36-39; Ex. 1003
`
`q 153)).
`
`At this stage, Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s showing for
`
`this limitation.
`
`2. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1
`
`Based onthe current record, we determinePetitioner has made a
`
`sufficient showing for each element of claim 1 for the purposes of
`
`institution. Accordingly, Petitioner has establishedthatit is likely to prevail
`
`in showing that claim | is unpatentable in view of the combined teachings of
`
`MedinandSeltzer.
`
`3. Claims 3-9, 11-16
`
`Petitioner presents a claim-by-claim,limitation-by-limitation
`
`comparison of each of claims 3—9 and 11-16 to the teachings of Medin and
`
`Seltzer. Pet. 31-57. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence largely track those
`
`addressed above regarding claim 1, and at this stage, Patent Owner does not
`
`specifically address Petitioner’s arguments regarding these claims.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`E. Ground 2: Obviousness Based on Medin and Markatos
`
`1. Claim 17
`
`Independent claim 17 includes a receiving step and a maintaining step
`
`similar to claim 1, and additionally recites “wherein said step of maintaining
`
`is performed independently ofa file system for said mass storage.” For most
`
`of clam 17, Petitioner cites its comparison of Medin to similar elements in
`
`claim 1, and Petitioner cites Markatos for the “wherein” element of claim 17
`
`quoted above. Pet. 62-64. Accordingto Petitioner, Markatos teaches
`
`improving webservers by “keeping the most frequently accessed documents
`
`in the server’s main memory, thus avoiding disk accesses as much as
`
`possible,” rather than maintaining all content on disks. Pet. 63 (quoting Ex.
`
`1006, 894).
`
`Petitioner contendsa person ofordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to combine Markatos’s teachings of main memory caching of web
`
`documents with Medin’s teachings of cache servers that store web
`
`documents for several reasons. Pet. 58. According to Petitioner, a person of
`ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Medin and Markatos
`because the references share the same overall goal of improving speed and
`
`efficiency of responding to requests for content over the internet. Pet. 59.
`
`Petitioner also contends Markatosis specifically directed to improving
`
`servers such as those taught by Medin, and Petitioner contends a person of
`
`ordinary skill would have expected success in combining the references’
`
`teachings. Pet. 59-61.
`
`Patent Owner contends Markatosdoesnot teach the “wherein” clause
`
`of claim 17. According to Patent Owner, Markatos teaches using a main
`
`memory (RAM)to cache certain documents, but Patent Ownerargues“[t]he
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`conventionalstorage of ‘hot’ objects in a RAM cache, without more, does
`
`not teach maintaining an entire cache (including both RAM and mass
`
`storage) independently ofa file system.” Prelim. Resp. 48.
`
`At this stage, Patent Owner’s argument does not appear
`
`commensurate with the plain language of claim 17, in that claim 17 does not
`
`recite “maintaining an entire cache (including both RAM and massstorage)
`
`independently” of a file system. Claim 17 recites that the cache memory
`
`includes mass storage andthat the step of maintaining is performed
`
`independently of a file system for said mass storage, but the ’794 patent
`
`recognizes a distinction between the cache’s memory and massstorage. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:62—67 (noting the distinction between storing objects in
`
`memory and massstorage), 2:8-13 (same). At this stage, we do not
`
`expressly construe claim 17, but we encouragethe parties to address the
`
`scope of claim 17 in future briefings.
`
`Il. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasonsset forth above, we determinethat Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respectto at
`
`least one claim of the ’794 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes
`
`review asto all challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing,it is hereby:
`
`ORDEREDthat pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is instituted as to claims 1, 3—9, and 11-17 of the °794 patent on all
`
`groundsasserted in the Petition; and
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is given of the institution ofa trial, which
`
`commenceson the entry date of this Decision.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01319
`Patent 7,103,794 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`HarperBatts
`Jeffrey Liang
`Chris Ponder
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`hbatts@sheppardmullin.com
`jliang@sheppardmullin.com
`cponder@sheppardmullin.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Daniel Young
`Chad King
`ADSEROIP LLC d/b/a SWANSON & BRATSCHUN LLC
`dyoung@adseroip.com
`chad@adseroip.com
`
`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
