PTAB

IPR2015-00486

Microsoft Corp v. Parallel Networks Licensing LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Managing Dynamic Web Page Generation Requests
  • Brief Description: The ’335 patent describes methods and systems for managing web server workload by using a partitioned architecture. A primary web server intercepts incoming requests for web pages and routes them to one of a plurality of backend "page servers" for processing, thereby freeing the primary web server to handle other requests.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over SWEB 95 - Claims 30 and 43 are anticipated by, or in the alternative obvious over, SWEB 95.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Andresen et al., SWEB: Towards A Scalable World Wide Web Server On Multicomputers (“SWEB 95”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that SWEB 95, a 1995 paper describing a scalable web server architecture, disclosed every limitation of independent claims 30 and 43. SWEB 95 described a system with multiple server nodes that receive web page requests. A "distributed scheduler" on each node intercepts the request and determines the optimal server to process it based on dynamic load information exchanged between the schedulers. The request is then redirected to the selected server (a "page server") for processing, which can include dynamically generating content via CGI scripts. This redirection frees the initial server (the "Web server") to process other requests, thereby satisfying the "releasing" limitation. SWEB 95's servers are HTTP-compliant, and its load-balancing technique inherently uses dynamic information (CPU loads, transfer times) to select a server, mapping directly to the core limitations of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As an alternative to anticipation, Petitioner argued that to the extent any minor element was not explicitly disclosed, a POSITA would have found it obvious to incorporate it. For example, implementing request routing to free up server resources was a well-known load-balancing technique. SWEB 95's express goal was to achieve scalable performance and efficient resource use, which would have motivated a POSITA to implement any missing features of the claims as a matter of routine optimization.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the arguments relied on combining known web server and load-balancing techniques for their intended and predictable purposes.

Ground 2: Obviousness over SWEB 95 in view of Leaf - Claims 32, 33, 36-40, 45, 46, 49-53, 69, and 84 are obvious over SWEB 95 in view of Leaf.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: SWEB 95 and Leaf (Patent 5,754,772).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground combined the scalable server architecture of SWEB 95 with the dynamic data handling and content generation teachings of Leaf to address various dependent claims. Petitioner argued Leaf disclosed key missing features, such as dynamically retrieving data from backend data sources (claim 32), maintaining a "connection cache" for persistent database connections (claim 33), and using "tag-based text templates" like HTML to format the retrieved data into a web page (claims 36, 39). Leaf's "Transaction Gateway Client" was described as transforming data from backend systems into an HTML document, directly teaching the limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine SWEB 95 and Leaf to build a more robust and commercially relevant scalable web server. Both references addressed the problem of efficiently accessing and delivering data over the web. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Leaf’s sophisticated, database-driven content generation techniques on the scalable, load-balanced server platform of SWEB 95 to create a high-performance system for data-intensive applications, such as e-commerce, which was a topic of growing importance in the mid-1990s.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination involved applying known data retrieval and templating techniques (Leaf) to a known scalable server architecture (SWEB 95), leading to the predictable result of an efficient, dynamic, and scalable web application.

Ground 3: Obviousness over SWEB 95 in view of Bradley - Claims 35, 48, 65, and 80 are obvious over SWEB 95 in view of Bradley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: SWEB 95 and Bradley (Web-based Access to an Online Atlas of Anatomy, 1995).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring the use of caching. Petitioner asserted that Bradley taught maintaining a "page cache" containing dynamically generated web page content (claims 35 and 48). Bradley described a system that used CGI programs to convert image files on the fly and then cached the resulting files to avoid repeating the costly conversion process. The petition argued this directly taught the claimed caching functionality. For claims 65 and 80, which require using cache status as part of the server selection criteria, Bradley’s teachings would make it obvious to consider whether a page was already cached to reduce computational load, a key metric SWEB 95 already used for server selection.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The primary motivation was to improve performance. A POSITA implementing the SWEB 95 system, which handles dynamic CGI requests, would have recognized that caching the output of these computationally expensive operations, as taught by Bradley, was a standard and effective optimization strategy. Caching was a well-known technique for reducing server load and improving response times.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected to successfully integrate Bradley's caching logic into the SWEB 95 architecture, as it was a straightforward application of a known performance enhancement technique to a system designed for high performance.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 41, 42, 54, and 55 based on combining SWEB 95 with Maltby (Patent 6,202,100), which taught using Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) as an "object handling extension" for transferring data objects between networked computers.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "releasing said [Web server] to process other requests": Petitioner argued this term should be interpreted broadly as freeing the web server’s hardware resources (e.g., CPU cycles, memory) for other uses. This construction is critical because it allows the redirection of a request in a load-balancing scheme like SWEB 95 to satisfy the limitation, even if the server is not entirely idle.
  • "intercepting said request": Petitioner contended this means to stop or interrupt the handling of a request at the web server before it is fully processed. This construction supports the argument that SWEB 95's scheduler, which receives a request and immediately decides whether to process it locally or redirect it, performs the claimed "intercepting" step.
  • "routing": Petitioner proposed that "routing" should encompass passing a request from one software portion to another on the same machine, not just between different machines. This supports mapping SWEB 95's architecture to the claims, as its components could reside on the same or different machines.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 30, 32, 33, 35-43, 45, 46, 48-55, 65, 69, 80, and 84 of the ’335 patent as unpatentable.