Blumofe, Robert D. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2019004399 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/164,102 06/20/2011 Robert D. Blumofe AKAM-185 1173
26579 7590 12/02/2020
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
ATTN: Carol Nicolora/Patent Docket
145 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142
EXAMINER
LOUIE, OSCAR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
canicolo@akamai.com
jmatt@akamai.com
mail@davidjudson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT D. BLUMOFE, VINAY KANITKAR,
DANE S. WALTHER, and CHARLES E. GERO
____________________

Appeal 2019-004399
Application 13/164,1021
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1−6 and 8−16.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is an apparatus and method for extending
content delivery network (CDN) functionality into a network, such as a
mobile network, in which it is not practical or possible to provide Internet-

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-004399
Application 13/164,102

2
based managed CDN services. Spec. 1. A determination is made whether a
request for content concerns content of a first type or a second type, the first
type being content that is adapted to be delivered over a CDN. Spec. 3. If the
content is of the first type, and is located in the cache, and is not stale, an
Extender in the network uses the information channel to obtain a cache
handling directive from the CDN. Id. That directive is then applied and the
content is served. Id. If the content is of the second type, the Extender
transparently caches and serves the content in response to the request, using
a cache handling directive received from other than the CDN. Spec. 3.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. Apparatus, comprising:
a hardware processor;
a cache;
computer memory holding computer program instructions that upon
execution by the hardware processor cause the apparatus to perform
steps comprising:
receiving a request for content;
in response to the request for content:
(i) determining whether the content is of a first type or a second
type, the first type being content that is adapted to be delivered over a
content delivery network (CDN) distinct from the apparatus, the
second type being distinct from the first type;
(ii) when the content is of a first type and is located in the cache
and is not stale, communicating with the CDN to receive a cache
handling directive from the CDN, said communication being
synchronous to the request for content, and applying the cache
handling directive received from the CDN and serving the content in
accordance therewith; and
(iii) when the content is of the second type, transparently
caching and
serving the content.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Appeal 2019-004399
Application 13/164,102

3
Name Reference Date
Zehavi et al. US 2011/0219109 Al Sept. 8, 2011
Panzer et al. US 2008/0320225 Al Dec. 25, 2008
Drako et al. US 2010/0005146 Al Jan. 7, 2010
Nanda et al. US 2009/0217362 Al Aug. 27, 2009
Stavrakos et al. US 2006/0271559 Al Nov. 30, 2006
Yasrebi et al. US 2009/0156171 Al June 18, 2009

Claims 1−4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi and Panzer. Final Act. 4.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Zehavi, Panzer, and Drako. Final Act. 11.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Zehavi, Panzer, and Nanda. Final Act. 12.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Zehavi, Panzer, and Stavrakos. Final Act. 13.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zehavi, Panzer, and Yasrebi. Final Act. 14.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Jan. 4, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 17,
2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 22, 2019) for their
respective details.
ISSUE
Does the combination of Zehavi and Panzer teach or suggest that, in
response to a request for content, when the content is of a first type and is
located in the cache and is not stale, communicating with the CDN to
receive a cache handling directive from the CDN, said communication being
synchronous to the request for content?
Appeal 2019-004399
Application 13/164,102

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1−4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 16
Independent claim 1 recites that in response to a request for content,
“when the content is of a first type and is located in the cache and is not
stale, communicating with the CDN to receive a cache handling directive
from the CDN, said communication being synchronous to the request for
content.” Independent claim 12 recites an analogous limitation.
The Examiner finds that Zehavi teaches determining, in response to a
request for content, whether the content is of a first type, is located in the
cache, and is not stale. Final Act. 5; Zehavi Fig. 2. The Examiner admits that
Zehavi does not teach “communicating with the CDN to receive a cache
handling directive.” Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds that Panzer supplies this missing teaching by
“sending validation headers (i.e. cache handling directives) in response to
user requests (i.e. synchronously to user requests) that directs caching to
update or discard content in the caching server (i.e. apply directives).” Final
Act. 6; Panzer ¶ 8.
Panzer teaches that a validation header “allows a computerized
determination to be made as to whether the version of the web page is a
current version of the web page.” Panzer ¶ 8. Panzer further teaches
“receiving from the shared caching server, in response to a user request for
the web page, a validation request that includes information about a user
making the user request and information from the validation header from the
cached version of the web page.” Id.
Appellant argues that Panzer does not teach the limitation at issue. “At
most, Panzer merely teaches a caching server 140 that communicates with
Appeal 2019-004399
Application 13/164,102

5
an origin server 150 when the requested content is stale.” Appeal Br. 11.
Figures 2A and 2B of Panzer depict embodiments of web page formats
served to different user types (respectively, a reader and an owner). Panzer ¶
38. Both formats include one or more control headers 210a, 210b that
include a “max-age” header to determine how long the cached object is to be
considered “fresh.” Panzer ¶ 39. Panzer teaches that the “max-age” header is
to be set to zero, meaning that there is no length of time for which the web
page can be guaranteed to be valid (i.e., “fresh”). Id. Appellant thus argues
that Panzer does not teach “communicating with the CDN” when the content
is located in the cache and is not stale, because the content is by default
considered to be stale. Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that the claimed operation of
“communicating with the CDN to receive a cache handling directive from
the CDN” is dependent on the conditions in the first part of the claim
limitation, i.e. that the content is “of a first type,” is “located in the cache,”
and “is not stale.” Appeal Br. 15. We further agree with Appellant that
interpreting the claim such that one reference (Zehavi) only teaches the
condition of “when the content is of a first type and is located in the cache
and is not stale,” and such that another reference (Panzer) only teaches
“communicating with the CDN to receive a cache handling directive,”
impermissibly changes the meaning of the claim. Id.
Because we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s proposed
combination impermissibly divides the components of the argued limitation
in a way that changes the meaning of the claim, we find that the Examiner
has erred in setting forth the prima facie obviousness of independent claims
1 and 12. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent
Appeal 2019-004399
Application 13/164,102

6
claims 1 and 12, or the rejection of claims 2−4, 6, 9, 10, 15, and 16
dependent therefrom, over Zehavi and Panzer.
Claims 5, 8, 11, 13, and 14
As noted supra, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
1 and 12 over Zehavi and Panzer. The Examiner does not cite evidence that
Drako, Nanda, Stavrakos, or Yasrebi overcome the deficiencies we have
noted in Zehavi and Panzer.
Therefore, for the reasons expressed supra with respect to claims 1
and 12, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 over Zehavi,
Panzer, and Drako. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8
over Zehavi, Panzer, and Nanda. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 11 over Zehavi, Panzer, and Stavrakos. Last, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 14 over Zehavi, Panzer, and Yasrebi.

CONCLUSION
The combination of Zehavi and Panzer does not teach or suggest, in
response to a request for content, when the content is of a first type and is
located in the cache and is not stale, communicating with the CDN to
receive a cache handling directive from the CDN, said communication being
synchronous to the request for content.
Appeal 2019-004399
Application 13/164,102

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1−4, 6, 9, 10,
12, 15, 16
103 Zehavi, Panzer 1−4, 6, 9, 10,
12, 15, 16
5 103 Zehavi, Panzer,
Drako
5
8 103 Zehavi, Panzer,
Nanda
8
11 103 Zehavi, Panzer,
Stavrakos
11
13, 14 103 Zehavi, Panzer,
Yasrebi
13, 14
Overall
Outcome

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1−6 and 8−16 is reversed.

REVERSED