Reloadedv.Parallel Networks, LLC

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2015

11681544 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 32
571-272-7822 Entered: May 14, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
RELOADED GAMES, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2
_______________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Reloaded Games, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected Petition
(Paper 5, “Pet.”) on November 20, 2013 requesting institution of an inter
partes review of claims 1–27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,730,262 B2 (“the
’262 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19. Parallel Networks LLC
(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 10. Based on these
submissions, we instituted inter partes review of claims 1–27. Paper 16
(“Dec. on Inst.”).
After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 23,
“PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24, “Reply”). Petitioner
proffered the Declaration of Dr. Peter B. Danzig (Ex. 1002, “Danzig
Declaration”) with its Petition. Patent Owner does not rely upon any expert
testimony, and no deposition transcript was filed for Dr. Danzig. No
motions were filed by the parties.
A combined oral hearing in this proceeding and Case IPR2014-00136
was held on February 23, 2015, and a transcript of the hearing is included in
the record (Paper 31, “Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For
the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–27 of the ’262 patent are
unpatentable.
A. The ’262 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’262 patent is titled “Method and System for Dynamic
Distributed Data Caching” and issued June 1, 2010. The ’262 patent issued
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

3

from application 11/681,544, filed on March 2, 2007. Application
11/681,544 is a division of application 09/759,406, now U.S. Patent No.
7,188,145 B2, whose claims are challenged in Case IPR2014-00136.
Figure 6 of the ’262 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 6 depicts a block diagram illustrating a dynamic caching
system according to one embodiment. Ex. 1001, 4:56–57. Community 402
comprises one or more peers 413, and peers 413 further comprise master 410
and member 412. Id. at 17:45–48. Each peer 413 includes dynamic cache
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

4

application 428, which provides functionality to support distributed caching
system 10. Id. at 17:53–54.
Reproduced below is Figure 8.

Figure 8 shows a flow diagram illustrating a method for retrieving and
caching content within a cache community according to an embodiment. Id.
at 4:62–64, 22:41–42. Browser 30 generates request 32 for content 548, and
cache portion 500 of dynamic cache application 428 at member 412A
receives request 32. Id. at 22:42–46. Cache portion 500 determines if
requested content 548 is available at member 412A. Id. at 22:46–48. If
requested content 548 is available at member 412A, then cache portion 500
returns requested content 548 to browser 30. Id. at 22:53–56. If not, cache
portion 500 generates location request 550, which is communicated to cache
portion 500 of master 410. Id. at 22:57–60. Cache portion 500 of master
410 examines allocation list 510 to determine which peer 413 would cache
the requested content 548. Id. at 22:60–62. After determining, for example,
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

5

that member 412B has requested content 548, cache portion 500 of master
410 then generates location response 554, which is communicated to
member 412A. Id. at 22:63–23:2. After receiving location response 554,
cache portion 500 of member 412A forwards request 32 to peer 412B for the
requested content 548 in its cache. Id. at 22:66–23:2. Peer 412B determines
whether requested content 548 is available, and if so, peer 412B returns
requested content 548 to cache portion 500 of member 412A. Id. at 23:2–7.
If requested content 548 is not available at member 412B, then
member 412B forwards request 32 to origin server 19.
B. Illustrative Claim
The ’262 patent has 27 claims, all of which are being challenged in
this proceeding. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is a method
claim; claim 10 is a computer readable storage medium claim; and claim 19
is a system claim. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A method for dynamic distributed data
caching, comprising:
generating a content request for requested
content at a first peer in a cache community;
determining a second peer associated with the
requested content, the second peer being associated
with the cache community; and
retrieving, by the first peer, the requested
content from the second peer;
wherein determining the second peer includes:
generating, by a cache portion associated with
the first peer, a location request;
communicating the location request to a master
associated with the cache community; and
receiving a location response from the master,
the location response indicating the second peer.
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

6

C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted the instant inter partes review on the following grounds
of unpatentability.
Reference[s] Basis Claims challenged
Chase1 §102 1, 5–10, 14–19, and 23–27
Chase and Scharber2 §103 2–4, 11–13, and 20–22

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re Cuozzo Speed
Tech., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1279–83 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There is a “heavy
presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002);
In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A
patentee may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as his own
lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification with
“reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations
are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

1 U.S. Patent No. 5,944,780, iss. Aug. 31, 1999 (Ex. 1004).
2 U.S. Patent No. 6,542,964 B1, iss. Apr. 1, 2003 (Ex. 1008).
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

7

1. Previously Interpreted Terms
In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of
the ’262 patent as follows:
Term Interpretation
“master” “a peer that provides administrative support to other peers”
“means for generating a content
request”
Function: “generating a content request”

Structure: “a web browser or other
Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP)
client”
“means for determining a
second peer associated with the
requested content”
Function: “determining a second peer
associated with the requested content”

Structure: “one or more general purpose
computers of a first peer operably
connected to one or more general purpose
computers of a master, with each general
purpose computer being programmed to
carry out an algorithm that examines an
indication of which peer could cache the
content”
“means for generating, by a
cache portion associated with
the first peer, a location
request”
Function: “generating, by a cache portion
associated with the first peer, a location
request”

Structure: “software, hardware, or
software and hardware associated with the
first peer operable to provide a data
message that indicates a request for the
second peer which would cache content
requested by the content request”
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

8

Term Interpretation
“means for communicating the
location request to a master
associated with the cache
community”
Function: “communicating the location
request to a master associated with the
cache community”

Structure: “an Internet connection that is
always available”
“means for receiving a location
response from the master, the
location response indicating the
second peer”
Function: “receiving a location response
from the master, the location response
indicating the second peer”

Structure: “software, hardware, or
software and hardware associated with the
first peer operable to receive a data
message, which indicates a second peer in
the community which is responsible for
caching the requested content”

“means for retrieving, by the
first peer, the requested content
from the second peer”
Function: “retrieving, by the first peer, the
requested content from the second peer”

Structure: “software, hardware, or
software and hardware associated with the
first peer operable to forward the request
for content to the second peer, receive the
requested content from the second peer,
and provide the requested content to the
browser for display to a user associated
with the first peer”

See Dec. on Inst. 6–9.
2. “Master”
Patent Owner’s sole challenge to our constructions is our
interpretation of “master.” PO Resp. 3–15.
In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued that “master”
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

9

should be construed as “a device that determines membership of a cache
community.” Prelim. Resp. 5. We determined that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “master” in view of the Specification of the ’262 patent is
“a peer that provides administrative support to other peers.” Dec. on Inst. 7
(citing Ex. 1001, 17:45–50, 53–54, 18:6–7, 34–41).
In its Response, Patent Owner disagrees with our construction of
“master” and argues that “master” should be construed as “a peer that
determines whether to allow a client to join the cache community.”
PO Resp. 3, 15. Patent Owner argues that there is “considerable support in
the specification for the master’s role in determining whether to admit (and
thus also whether to deny) a client membership in the cache community.”
Id. at 3. Patent Owner asserts that “almost every mention in the
specification of the master relates to its role of controlling admission to the
cache community.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner also states that “administrative
tasks are also described as being within the purview of the master, but
clearly the proper functioning of the cache community and its ability to
dynamically adjust to changes in the cache community are dependent on the
master’s ability to control admission.” Id. Patent Owner argues that none of
the embodiments described in the Specification is “inconsistent with the
master functioning in this role” and the Specification does not “describe a
different way of allowing or denying clients admission to the cache
community.” Id. at 5. By referring sequentially to each of the Figures of the
’262 patent and its associated description, Patent Owner argues where the
Specification describes or does not describe the “master.” Id. at 5–14.
In particular, Patent Owner cites the Specification for stating that a
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

10

“master node comprises a cache module 26 on a particular client 12 which is
responsible for supervising the addition and departure of clients from
community 100.” PO Resp. 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:32–35). Patent Owner
argues that the “Specification with reference to Figure 6 includes much
discussion about the role of the master 410 as the peer 413 that determines
admittance or denial of clients to the community 402.” Id. at 9 (citing
Ex. 1001, 20:22–21:10). Patent Owner also argues that determining where
requested content 460 is located and generating location response 554 is a
“role of the master” that “is administrative in nature, and while important to
ensuring sharing of cached content, is not the master’s primary role of
determining whether to allow a client to join the cache community.” Id. at
10–11 (citing Ex. 1001, 22:58–60, 63–65, Fig. 8). Patent Owner, however,
argues that “the Specification details a specific role for the master in
determining whether to admit clients to the community 402.” Id. at 12–13
(citing Ex. 1001, 24:45–25:7, Fig. 10).
Patent Owner, thus, asserts that “the disclosure of the master’s role at
determining whether to allow clients to join the cache community is
prevalent throughout the ’262 Patent” and “makes clear that this is the
master’s primary role” because “[t]his role is described in more detail than
any other,” “[n]o other role of the master is described in as much detail,” and
is “critical to the dynamic (i.e., changing) nature of the cache community.”
PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, Figs. 6, 9, 10). Patent Owner also argues that
“[w]hile certain other tasks are attributed to the master, these are more
properly characterized as ‘administrative support’ tasks and do not rise to the
level of the master’s primary role, which is to determine whether clients are
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

11

allowed to join the cache community.” Id. at 15.
Patent Owner also asserts that “the task of providing administrative
support to other peers was not meant to be a ‘catch all’ category for the
various tasks accomplished by the master, which is implied by the
construction adopted in the Board’s Decision” because the “Specification,
after listing several tasks attributable to the master . . . states that ‘master 410
is further responsible for providing administrative support to community
402.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 18:6–11, 40–41). Patent Owner argues
that the “Specification clearly contemplates an administrative support role
independent of the other tasks that were enumerated,” and that “the amount
of control that the master exercises in determining admission of clients to the
cache community is not indicative of mere administrative support.” Id.
Petitioner replies that the “claims of the ’262 patent expressly recite
what functions a ‘master’ must be capable of performing” and “[i]mporting
the PO’s proposed limitation into the construction of ‘master’ would be
wholly improper under any standard of claim construction.” Reply 3 (citing
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
Petitioner argues that “PO’s narrow construction of ‘master’ . . . excludes an
expressly described embodiment,” “PO’s construction is in direct conflict
with the only embodiment in the ’262 patent specification relating to the
subject matter,” and the “master’s purported ‘primary role’ is of no
relevance to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.” Id. at 4.
Petitioner also argues that “[i]t is wholly untenable to suggest . . . that an
embodiment expressly described in the specification . . . is not within the
broadest reasonable interpretation.” Id. at 5 (citing Verizon Servs. Corp. v.
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

12

Vonage Holdings Corp., 530 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Although the Specification of the ’262 patent describes the master as
determining whether to allow a client to join a cache community, such
descriptions are in the context of one embodiment. Ex. 1001, 13:13–35 (“in
one embodiment, community 100 may be formed by dynamically seeking
out other active instances of cache module 26. . . . Each community 100
includes a master node . . . A master node . . . is responsible for supervising
the addition and departure of clients from community 100.”), 17:37–18:9
(“FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating a dynamic caching system 400
comprising one embodiment of system 10. System 400 comprises a cache
community 402 . . . Community 402 comprises one or more peers 413 . . .
Peers 413 further comprise a master 410 and a member 413 . . . Master 410
is operable to generate an allow message 424 . . . Allow message 424
comprises a data message sent to client 404 to inform client 404 that client
404 is being allowed to join community 402.”). Also, claims 1, 10, and 19
do not require explicitly that the “master” determine whether to allow a
client to join a cache community. These claims, instead, require
communicating a location request to a master associated with the cache
community and receiving a location response from the master. See Tr.
33:10–19. We decline to import into the claims a limitation based on
specific embodiments in the Specification. See, e.g., SuperGuide Corp. v.
DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] particular
embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a
claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). In
particular, we decline to read the exemplary disclosure of adding or allowing
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

13

a client to community 100 or community 402 into the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term “master.” See, e.g., SuperGuide Corp., 358
F.3d at 875 (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).
Patent Owner also acknowledges that neither the Specification of the
’262 patent nor its prosecution history provides a definition of “master” with
“reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” See Tr. 32:9–19. We
also do not find a clear, deliberate, and precise definition of “master” in our
review of the Specification of the ’262 patent. In the absence of such a
definition, construing “master” as “a peer that determines whether to allow a
client to join the cache community” would be reading limitations from the
Specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.3d at 1184. The
various portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner to support the
proposed claim construction of master as a peer that determines whether to
allow a client to join the cache community does not persuade us to modify
our construction of “master” to include this additional feature that is not
recited by the claims.
Patent Owner also cites a dictionary definition of the term “master”
and argues that the definition “includes an element of control” to support its
contention that “the primary task of the master is to control which clients are
permitted to join the cache community.” PO Resp. 4 (citing AMERICAN
HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1077 (4th ed., 2000)).
However, we are not persuaded that the asserted element of control must
refer to the master’s determination whether to allow a client to join the cache
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

14

community, instead of communicating a location request to a master and
receiving a location response from the master, as required by the claims.
Furthermore, Patent Owner argues that “[p]roviding administrative
support to other peers or the cache community is not indicative of control.”
PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner describes the master’s various other tasks as
administrative in nature and not the master’s primary role or lacking some
level of control. See id. at 10–11 (citing Ex. 1001, 22:58–60, 63–65), 13–14
(citing Ex. 1001, 25:8–10, 16–17, 28–31, 34–35, 38–39, 46–48).
Distinguishing between the primary role and administrative tasks does not
preclude the master from having control in carrying out these other tasks
described by Patent Owner, such as generating a location response, sending
a member status request, updating a peer list, sending an update peer list
message, and selecting a new master, as described by the Specification of
the ’262 patent. Moreover, Patent Owner’s distinction on the level of
control that the master has in its other tasks does not advance its argument
that “master” must be interpreted as determining whether to allow a client to
join a cache community. See id. Thus, Patent Owner’s cited dictionary
definition does not persuade us to modify our construction of “master.”
Patent Owner’s further arguments that construing “master” without a
connotation of control would read it out of the claims does not persuade us
to modify our construction of “master.” The claims require communicating
a location request to a master and receiving a location response from the
master. Thus, the claims identify a role for the master, and our construction
of “master” does not affect its claimed role such that “master” is read out of
the claims. Also, as described above, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

15

the master’s asserted primary role and administrative tasks do not persuade
us that the element of control is present only in the master’s asserted primary
role of determining whether a client is allowed to join a cache community,
and not in its claimed role.
Patent Owner’s arguments that the “ability to dynamically adjust to
changes in the cache community are dependent on the master’s ability to
control admission” and the master’s allowing a client to join the cache
community is “critical to the dynamic (i.e., changing) nature of the cache
community,” also do not persuade us to change our construction of “master.”
See PO Resp. 4, 14. Patent Owner describes other tasks performed by the
master. See id. at 6–15. Based on our review of the Specification of the
’262 patent, we find that these descriptions indicate that these other tasks of
the master also contribute to the dynamic nature of the cache community.
See, e.g. PO Resp. 13–14 (addressing the departure or removal of members
and selecting a new master) (citing Ex. 1001, 25:8–10, 28–31, 34–35, 46–
48).
Based on our review of the Specification of the ’262 patent, we are
not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the master’s determination
of whether to admit a client “is not simply one of many ‘administrative
support’ tasks” and that providing administrative support to other peers was
not meant to be a “catch all” category for various tasks accomplished by the
master. See PO Resp. 3–4, 15. Based on our review of the Specification of
the ’262 patent, we also do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the
’262 patent “clearly contemplates an administrative support role independent
of the other tasks that were enumerated.” See id.
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

16

Column 18, lines 34–41 of the ’262 patent states that:
Community 402 is comprised of a master 410 and zero or more
members 412. Members 412 and master 410 operate to support
the caching of content within community 402. More
specifically, both master 410 and members 402 provide for a
distributed caching system within community 402. In addition
to the functionality provided by members 412, master 410 is
further responsible for providing administrative support to
community 402.

Thus, the ’262 patent describes that both master 410 and members 412
provide a distributed caching system within community 402, but that master
410 is distinguishable from members 412 in that master 410 provides
administrative support to community 402 comprised of itself and members
412. The ’262 patent does not further distinguish providing administrative
support from allowing a client into the cache community. Even in view of
the earlier description of master 410 generating allow message 424 (Ex.
1001, 18:6–11), the ’262 patent does not distinguish unambiguously
admitting a client into the cache community from providing administrative
support to the cache community such that our construction of “master” must
be narrowed, as argued by Patent Owner.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, Patent Owner’s arguments do
not persuade us to modify our construction of “master.” Thus, based on our
findings from the Specification of the ’262 patent as described above and on
the complete record before us, we determine that the broadest reasonable
construction of “master” in view of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art is “a peer that provides
administrative support to other peers.”
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

17

B. Asserted Ground under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Petitioner argues that Chase anticipates claims 1, 5–10, 14–19, and
23–27. Pet. 9–21.
1. Chase (Ex. 1004)
Chase describes “a system having the benefits of central caching
without the bottleneck caused by a central cache server.” Ex. 1004, 2:41–
43. Reproduced below is Figure 1 of Chase.

Figure 1 depicts a schematic diagram of a computer system according
to an embodiment. Id. at 3:4–5. Local area network 10 includes server 11
(shown without a reference designator between directory servers 17)
connected by communication channel 13 to user stations 12. Id. at 5:33–35.
Local area network 10 is connected to remote network 14, such as the
Internet, which includes remote servers 15. Id. at 5:37–43. Each user
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

18

station 12 includes cache 20, which receives copies of data retrieved by
stations 12 from remote server 15. Id. at 5:47–48, 54–59. If a user of
station 12 requests data from remote network 14, cache 20 is examined to
see if the data are already in cache 20. Id. at 5:59–61. If not, before
attempting to retrieve the data from remote network 14, central cache
directory 16 of directory server 17 or central cache directory 160 of
server 11 is queried. Id. at 5:62–65, 6:4–5. If directory 16 or 160 contains
an entry corresponding to the requested data, requesting station 12 requests
the data from station 12 indicated by the directory entry. Id. at 6:21–24. If
directory 16 or 160 does not contain an entry corresponding to the requested
data, requesting station 12 is informed and then requests data from remote
network 14. Id. at 6:6–9.
2. Analysis
a. Claims 1 and 5–9
Petitioner argues that Chase discloses a method for a dynamic
distributed data caching, because it describes a computer network system
where caches at individual systems are available to other stations. Pet. 10
(citing Ex. 1004, Abstract, 2:44–52, 4:33–53, 5:37–43, Fig. 1). Petitioner
further argues that Chase describes “generating a content request for
requested content at a first peer in a cache community,” because Chase
discloses client software, such as a browser, at one of many stations 12 in a
local area network requesting data that may be satisfied by a local cache. Id.
at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:64–7:5, Figs. 1, 3 (steps 34–35)). Petitioner
also argues that Chase describes “determining a second peer associated with
the requested content, the second peer being associated with the cache
community,” because Figures 3 and 4 of Chase and their associated
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

19

description disclose directory server 17 being queried to determine if it has
an entry corresponding to the requested data, and test 47 that can return the
address of station 12 that has the requested data to querying station 12. Id. at
12–14 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:58–7:22, 7:62–8:35, Fig. 3 (steps 300, 301), Fig. 4
(steps 41, 42, 47–48)). Petitioner further argues that Chase states that “[t]he
querying station 12 can then go and retrieve the object from the station 12”
and, thus, discloses “retrieving, by the first peer, the requested content from
the second peer.” Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1004, 7:19–22, 57–58, 8:35–36,
Fig. 3 (steps 303, 306, 307)). Petitioner also contends that Chase describes a
cache query unit at a first user station that queries the central cache directory
for a location of a cached data, and so discloses “wherein determining the
second peer includes: generating, by a cache portion associated with the first
peer, a location request.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:55–50, 6:58–7:17,
Fig. 3 (step 300)). For the limitation “communicating the location request to
a master associated with the cache community,” Petitioner argues that Chase
discloses a query message and directory server 17 is queried to determine if
it has an entry corresponding to the requested data. Id. at 15–16 (citing
Ex. 1004, 6:58–7:17, 7:62–8:19, Fig. 3 (step 300)). Finally, for the
limitation “receiving a location response from the master, the location
response indicating the second peer,” Petitioner argues that Chase discloses
that directory server 11 or 17 returns a “HIT” message to querying station 12
with the address of station 12 that has the requested object. Id. at 16–17
(citing Ex. 1004, 6:58–7:18, 7:62–8:35, Fig. 3 (step 301), Fig. 4 (step 48)).
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the cache portion includes a
software application,” and Petitioner contends Chase describes software
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

20

processes to implement its disclosure. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:54–59).
For dependent claim 6, which recites the further step of “forwarding the
content response to the second peer,” Petitioner argues that Chase discloses
“the request would be routed to the local station that has cached the data.”
Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 4:6–17). Dependent claim 7 recites “wherein the
content request includes a hypertext transport protocol request,” and
Petitioner argues that Chase describes requested data as transmitted in units
of “pages,” which are formatted using Hypertext Transfer Protocol. Id. at
17–18 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:10–19, 3:21–47). In relation to dependent claim 8,
which recites “wherein the content includes a web page,” Petitioner argues
Chase describes a user being able to retrieve pages. Id. at 18 (citing
Ex. 1004, 3:21–23, 31–35). For dependent claim 9, which recites “wherein
the first and second peers respectively include a member of the cache
community,” Petitioner asserts that Chase discloses stations 12 of local area
network 10. Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:31–35, 5:33–37).
Asserting that a “master” is a peer that determines whether to allow a
client to join the cache community, Patent Owner responds that “Chase does
not describe the use of a master that determines whether a client is allowed
to join a cache community.” PO Resp. 16. Patent Owner argues that “there
is no determination in Chase of whether to allow a station into local area
network 10 or to list a station in directory server 17.” Id. at 17. In
particular, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s asserted “master,” directory
server 17 of Chase, “is merely a server that houses a directory.” Id. at 16
(citing Pet. 15; Ex. 1004, 5:62–65). Patent Owner also argues that “all
stations 12 are added to directory server 17 as soon as they establish
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

21

communication with the network.” Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:63–66,
6:59–67, 7:67–8:9). On the foregoing bases, Patent Owner, thus, concludes
that “Chase cannot be read to disclose the elements of claim 1, including
‘communicating the location request to a master associated with the cache
community; and receiving a location response from the master, the location
response indicating the second peer.” Id. at 17–18. Patent Owner states that
Chase “fails to anticipate claims 5–9 for at least the same reasons that Chase
fails to anticipate claim 1.” Id. at 18.
In view of our construction of “master,” Patent Owner’s argument that
Chase does not describe a master that determines whether a client is allowed
to join a cache community is not persuasive. Therefore, we are persuaded,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 5–9 are anticipated by
Chase.
b. Claims 10 and 14–18
For independent claim 10, which recites a “computer readable storage
medium including code for dynamic distributed data caching, the code
operable to” carry out steps similar to the steps of claim 1, Petitioner relies
on Chase as applied to claim 1. Pet. 19. Petitioner additionally argues that
Chase describes that “[s]tations 12 and servers 11, 17 are . . . computers . . .
which preferably run[] software processes to implement the present
invention.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 6:54–59). For dependent claims 14–18,
Petitioner relies on its arguments for corresponding limitations in claims 5–
9. Id.
Patent Owner argues that “Chase does not disclose ‘code . . . operable
to . . . communicate the location request to a master associated with the
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

22

cache community; and receive a location response from the master’. . . [f]or
at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.” PO Resp. 18.
Patent Owner, thus, concludes that “Chase fails to anticipate claims 14–18
for at least the same reasons that Chase fails to anticipate claim 10.” Id.
As discussed above for claims 1 and 5–9, Patent Owner’s arguments
based on its construction of “master” are not persuasive. Thus, we are
persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 10 and 14–18 are
anticipated by Chase.
c. Claims 19 and 23–27
Independent claim 19 recites a “system for dynamic distributed data
caching comprising” means-plus-function limitations with functions similar
to the steps of claim 1. Petitioner argues that Chase discloses each of the
functions and corresponding structures. Pet. 19–21 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:15–
16, 3:20–25, 4:6–17, 4:27–29, 5:33–37, 6:21–24, 6:54–7:57, 7:64–8:36,
Figs. 3–4); see also Dec. on Inst. 12–15 (analyzing Petitioner’s arguments
regarding claims 19, 23–27). For dependent claims 23–27, Petitioner relies
on its arguments for corresponding limitations in claims 5–9. Pet. 21.
Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions that Chase
describes the majority of the limitations of claims 19 and 23–27. Instead,
Patent Owner’s arguments focus on whether Chase describes a “master.”
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that the “directory server 17 of Chase to
which Petitioner refers, however, is not a master for at least the reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1,” and “therefore does not anticipate
claim 19.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner concludes that “Chase therefore
fails to anticipate claims 23–27 for at least the same reasons that Chase fails
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

23

to anticipate claim 19.” Id.
For the reasons discussed for claims 1 and 5–9, we are persuaded, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 19 and 23–27 are anticipated by
Chase.
C. Asserted Ground under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Petitioner argues that claims 2–4, 11–13, and 20–22 would have been
obvious over Chase and Scharber. Pet. 50–54. We discuss Chase above.
1. Scharber (Ex. 1008)
Scharber describes a scheme for caching Internet content at one or
more locations. Ex. 1008, 1:7–9. Reproduced below is Figure 2 of
Scharber.

Figure 2 depicts an example of a cache hierarchy. Id. at 6:41.
Referring to Figure 2, Scharber describes that “when a cache 30 receives a
request for content from a client 32, the cache 30 first determines whether it
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

24

has a copy of the requested content.” Id. at 4:29–32. If cache 30 does not
have the requested content, “cache 30 sends a request to its neighbor
cache(s) 34 and then, if necessary, to its peer cache 36.” Id. at 4:32–36.
Scharber further describes that “[e]ach neighbor cache 34 (i.e., those at the
same level of the hierarchy as cache 30) sends a response indicating whether
it has the requested information.” Id. at 4:37–39. If none of neighbor caches
34 have the requested information, cache 30 forwards the request to peer
cache 36. Id. at 4:46–48. If peer cache 36 does not have the requested
information, peer cache 36 retrieves the content from origin server 38 and
sends it to cache 30. Id. at 4:48–51.
2. Analysis
a. Claims 2–4
Claim 2 recites the “method of claim 1, further comprising:
retrieving, by the second peer, the requested content from an origin server
when the requested content is unavailable at the second peer; and storing the
requested content at the second peer.”
Petitioner contends that “Chase . . . seeks to reduce network loads
through distributed caching of data at user stations in a network,” and
“Scharber elaborates on this concept and teaches that if a peer cache (i.e.,
indicated user station) does not have the content requested by another cache
(requesting user station), it can obtain it directly from the origin server, store
it locally, and return it to a requesting cache.” Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1004,
Abstract, 2:44–63, 5:25–29, 6:58–7:27; Ex. 1008, 4:46–51). In particular,
Petitioner argues Scharber teaches or suggests the retrieving step of claim 2,
because Scharber describes peer cache 36 retrieving content from origin
server 38 when peer cache 36 does not have the requested content. Id. at 52
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

25

(citing Ex. 1008, 4:48–51). Petitioner also argues that Scharber teaches or
suggests the storing step, because Scharber describes that peer cache 36 has
a copy responsive to the requested content but that copy may be stale, and
because the copy responsive to the requested content is stale, the copy has
been stored. Id. at 52–53 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:48–50).
Regarding claim 3, which recites “wherein the requested content is
unavailable when the requested content has been expired,” Petitioner argues
Scharber discloses that peer cache 36 responds to a request by retrieving the
content from origin server 38 if the cached copy is stale. Pet. 53 (citing
Ex. 1008, 4:48–51). For claim 4, which recites “wherein the requested
content is unavailable when the requested content is not stored at the second
peer,” Petitioner argues Scharber discloses that peer cache 36 retrieves
content from origin server 38 if it does not have a cached copy. Id. at 53–54
(citing Ex. 1008, 4:37–42, 48–51).
Petitioner further contends that a “person having ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that the distributed caching scheme described in
Chase for requesting and obtaining data could have been combined with
Scharber for actions to be taken if the peer cache does not have the requested
content.” Pet. 51. Petitioner cites the Danzig Declaration as support that “a
skilled artisan would have recognized that such a modification would
similarly reduce the amount of time it takes to obtain content and also
decrease traffic.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 12, 16).
Patent Owner argues that Chase and Scharber fail to disclose
“communicating the location request to a master associated with the cache
community” and “receiving a location response from the master, the location
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

26

response indicating the second peer,” as recited by claim 1. PO Resp. 20.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “Scharber also fails to disclose a
master as recited by claim 1” because “there is no discussion of a master that
is responsible for determining whether a client may join a cache
community,” and the query optimizer of Scharber “is not described as being
a master that is responsible for determining whether to admit clients into the
group of cache servers.” Id. at 19–20.
In view of our construction of “master,” the reasons discussed above
for claim 1, and because Petitioner relies on Chase for disclosing the recited
master of claim 1, Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive.
Patent Owner also argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chase and Scharber in
the manner recited by claim 2 . . . because the proposed combination is both
unnecessary and would negatively impact the performance of Chase.”
PO Resp. 25. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that “Chase has no need to
consult a second peer device (i.e., a local station 12) that is already known
before-hand not to have the available requested content,” and “Chase knows
that the second peer device does not have the requested content available.”
Id. at 26–27. Patent Owner, thus, argues that “there is no need to artificially
insert the second peer device for the purpose of retrieving content requested
by a first peer device,” and “no need or benefit is achieved for combining . .
. Chase with . . . Scharber, . . . when Chase teaches that it is already known
that the second peer does not have the requested content” and “would result
in a decline in the performance of the resulting cache system.” Id.
Petitioner replies that Chase expressly teaches that “content
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

27

previously identified with another station may no longer be available” and
“expressly contemplates that another station may not have the content that
the directory said it possessed.” Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:21–31).
Petitioner argues that Chase teaches or suggests “informing the first peer
device that it no longer has the requested content, whereupon the first device
retrieves the content itself.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:41–53). Petitioner
also argues that Scharber teaches or suggests the alternative of “having the
second peer device retrieve and return the requested content to the first peer
device if the second peer device no longer has the content or the content is
stale.” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 4:46–51). Petitioner further argues that
modification of Chase with Scharber is desirable “in order to reduce delay in
obtaining content.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13, 16).
Patent Owner does not provide evidence to support its attorney
argument that the combination of Chase and Scharber would result in a
decline in performance. For example, Chase and Scharber do not indicate
whether performance would decline if peer cache 36 of Scharber
(Petitioner’s asserted second peer) obtains content from origin server 38
rather than station 12 of Chase (Petitioner’s asserted first peer), as argued by
Patent Owner. However, Petitioner provides reasoning and evidence for its
position by citing the Danzig Declaration. Pet. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶
12, 16). The Danzig Declaration opines that the skilled artisan would have
been motivated to combine Chase and Scharber to decrease latency. Ex.
1002 ¶ 16. Thus, on the complete record before us, we are not persuaded
by Patent Owner’s argument that the combination of Chase and Scharber is
unnecessary and negatively impacts performance.
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

28

In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that claims 2–4 are unpatentable over Chase and Scharber.
b. Claims 11–13 and 20–22
Petitioner relies on its arguments for claims 2–4 in its assertions that
Chase and Scharber disclose similar limitations recited by claims 11–13 and
20–22. Pet. 54.
Patent Owner argues that Chase and Scharber do not teach or suggest
a master or “code . . . operable to . . . communicate the location request to a
master associated with the cache community . . . or to . . . receive a location
response from the master, the location response indicating the second peer,”
as recited by independent claim 10 for the reasons asserted for claim 1.
PO Resp. 22–23. Patent Owner also argues that claims 11–13 “depend from
claim 10” and “are not rendered obvious under § 103(a) over Chase in view
of Scharber for at least the same reasons as their independent base claim.”
Id. at 23.
Patent Owner also argues that Chase and Scharber fail to teach or
suggest at least “a system for dynamic distributed data caching comprising:
. . . means for determining a second peer, . . . wherein the means for
determining the second peer includes: . . . means for communicating the
location request to a master associated with the cache community; and
means for receiving a location response from the master, the location
response indicating the second peer,” as recited by independent claim 19 for
the reasons asserted for claim 1. PO Resp. 23. Patent Owner further argues
that claims 20–22 “depend from claim 19” and “are therefore not obvious
under § 103(a) over Chase in view of Scharber for at least the same reasons
IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

29

as their independent base claim.” Id. at 23–24.
For the reasons discussed above addressing claims 2–4, Patent
Owner’s arguments are not persuasive. Thus, we are persuaded, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claims 11–13 and 20–22 are
unpatentable over Chase and Scharber.

III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, claims 1, 5–10, 14–19, and 23–27 of the ’262 patent
are anticipated by Chase and that, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 2–4, 11–13,
and 20–22 of the ’262 patent are unpatentable over Chase and Scharber.

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 1–27 of the ’262 patent have been shown to be
unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2014-00139
Patent 7,730,262 B2

30

PETITIONER:
Eric A. Buresh
Mark C. Lang
ERISE IP, P.A.
eric.buresh@eriseip.com
mark.lang@eriseip.com

PATENT OWNER:
Darren W. Collins
Robert C. Hilton
Aaron J. Pickell
McGUIRE WOODS, LLP
dwcollins@mcguirewoods.com
rhilton@mcguirewoods.com
apickell@mcguirewoods.com