Source: http://www.google.com.tw/patents/US7949779
Timestamp: 2013-06-18 05:19:57
Document Index: 684743625

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 99', 'Art. 94', 'Application No. 2', 'Application No. 2', 'Application No. 2', 'Application No. 2', 'Application No. 2', 'Application No. 99']

�M�Q US7949779 - Controlling subscriber information rates in a content delivery network - Google �M�Q�j�M �Ϥ� �a�� Play YouTube �s�D Gmail ���ݵw�� ��h »�i���M�Q�j�M | �������� | �n�J�i���M�Q�j�M�M�QA plurality of content providers provide multiple resources to multiple clients. At least some of said resources are to be served to clients from a shared content delivery network (CDN) formed by a plurality of repeater servers. Each content provider provides at least some resources via one or more content...http://www.google.com.tw/patents/US7949779?utm_source=gb-gplus-share�M�Q US7949779 - Controlling subscriber information rates in a content delivery network���}��US7949779 B2�X���������v�ӽЮѽs��11/980,689�o�G���2011�~5��24���ӽФ��2007�~10��31�� �u���v���1998�~2��10����L���}�M�Q��US8060613, US8296396, US20080215735, US20080215750, US20080215755���}��11980689, 980689, US 7949779 B2, US 7949779B2, US-B2-7949779, US7949779 B2, US7949779B2�o��HJames A. Balter, David A. Farber, Richard E. Greer, Andrew D. Swart��M�Q�v�HLevel 3 Communications, Llc�M�Q�ޥ� (107), �D�M�Q�ޥ� (376), �Q�H�U�M�Q�ޥ� (17), ���� (47) �~���s��: ���M�Q�ӼЧ�, ���M�Q�ӼЧ��M�Q����T��, �ڬw�M�Q��Controlling subscriber information rates in a content delivery networkUS 7949779 B2�K�n A plurality of content providers provide multiple resources to multiple clients. At least some of said resources are to be served to clients from a shared content delivery network (CDN) formed by a plurality of repeater servers. Each content provider provides at least some resources via one or more content sources associated with that content provider. Amounts of data transmitted by the CDN on behalf of each of the plurality of content providers are monitored. Based at least in part on said monitoring, requests for resources are selectively delivered at a lower transmission rate. The lower transmission rate is achieved by generating pauses or delays in the transmission.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS This application is a continuation of and claims priority from co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/441,253, filed May 26, 2006, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/065,412, filed Feb. 23, 2005, pending, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/612,598, filed Jul. 7, 2000, abandoned, which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/021,506, filed Feb. 10, 1998, patented as U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,598, the entire contents of each of which are hereby fully incorporated herein by reference. This application is a continuation of and claims priority from co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/065,412, filed Feb. 23, 2005, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/612,598, filed Jul. 7, 2000, abandoned, which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/021,506, filed Feb. 10, 1998, patented as U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,598. This application is also a continuation of and claims priority from the following co-pending U.S. patent applications, the entire contents of each of which are hereby fully incorporated herein by reference: application Ser. No. 11/806,147, titled ��Delivering resources to clients in a distributed computing environment,�� filed May 30, 2007; application Ser. No. 11/806,152, titled ��Method of generating a web page,�� filed May 30, 2007; application Ser. No. 11/806,153, titled ��Shared content delivery infrastructure,�� filed May 30, 2007; and application Ser. No. 11/806,154, titled ��Shared content delivery infrastructure with rendezvous based on load balancing and network condition,�� filed May 30, 2007.
The rapid growth in popularity of the Internet has imposed a heavy traffic burden on the entire network. Solutions to problems of demand (e.g., better accessibility and faster communication links) only increase the strain on the supply. Internet Web sites (referred to here as ��publishers��) must handle ever-increasing bandwidth needs, accommodate dynamic changes in load, and improve performance for distant browsing clients, especially those overseas. The adoption of content-rich applications, such as live audio and video, has further exacerbated the problem.
To address basic bandwidth growth needs, a Web publisher typically subscribes to additional bandwidth from an Internet service provider (ISP), whether in the form of larger or additional ��pipes�� or channels from the ISP to the publisher's premises, or in the form of large bandwidth commitments in an ISP's remote hosting server collection. These increments are not always as fine-grained as the publisher needs, and quite often lead times can cause the publisher's Web site capacity to lag behind demand.
Load balancers use a variety of techniques to route the request to the appropriate server. Most of those load-balancing techniques require that each server be an exact replica of the primary Web site. Load balancers do not take into account the ��network distance�� between the client and candidate mirror servers.
Assuming that client protocols cannot easily change, there are two major problems in the deployment of replicated resources. The first is how to select which copy of the resource to use. That is, when a request for a resource is made to a single server, how should the choice of a replica of the server (or of that data) be made. We call this problem the ��rendezvous problem��. There are a number of ways to get clients to rendezvous at distant mirror servers. These technologies, like load balancers, must route a request to an appropriate server, but unlike load balancers, they take network performance and topology into account in making the determination.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION This invention provides a way for servers in a computer network to off-load their processing of requests for selected resources by determining a different server (a ��repeater��) to process those requests. The selection of the repeater can be made dynamically, based on information about possible repeaters.
Accordingly, in one aspect, this invention is a method of processing resource requests in a computer network. First a client makes a request for a particular resource from an origin server, the request including a resource identifier for the particular resource, the resource identifier sometimes including an indication of the origin server. Requests arriving at the origin server do not always include an indication of the origin server; since they are sent to the origin server, they do not need to name it. A mechanism referred to as a reflector, co-located with the origin server, intercepts the request from the client to the origin server and decides whether to reflect the request or to handle it locally. If the reflector decides to handle the request locally, it forwards it to the origin server, otherwise it selects a ��best�� repeater to process the request. If the request is reflected, the client is provided with a modified resource identifier designating the repeater.
The selection by the reflector of an appropriate repeater to handle the request can be done in a number of ways. In the preferred embodiment, it is done by first pre-partitioning the network into ��cost groups�� and then determining which cost group the client is in. Next, from a plurality of repeaters in the network, a set of repeaters is selected, the members of the set having a low cost relative to the cost group which the client is in. In order to determine the lowest cost, a table is maintained and regularly updated to define the cost between each group and each repeater. Then one member of the set is selected, preferably randomly, as the best repeater.
Resource rewriting must be performed by reflectors. It may also be performed by repeaters, in the situation where repeaters ��peer�� with one another and make copies of resources which include rewritten resource identifiers that designate a repeater.
In a preferred embodiment, the network is the Internet and the resource identifier is a uniform resource locator (URL) for designating resources on the Internet, and the modified resource identifier is a URL designating the repeater and indicating the origin server (as described in step B3 below), and the modified resource identifier is provided to the client using a REDIRECT message. Note, only when the reflector is ��reflecting�� a request is the modified resource identifier provided using a REDIRECT message.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESENTLY PREFERRED EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS Overview FIG. 1 shows a portion of a network environment 100 according to the present invention, wherein a mechanism (reflector 108, described in detail below) at a server (herein origin server 102) maintains and keeps track of a number of partially replicated servers or repeaters 104 a, 104 b, and 104 c. Each repeater 104 a, 104 b, and 104 c replicates some or all of the information available on the origin server 102 as well as information available on other origin servers in the network 100. Reflector 108 is connected to a particular repeater known as its ��contact�� repeater (��Repeater B�� 104 b in the system depicted in FIG. 1). Preferably each reflector maintains a connection with a single repeater known as its contact, and each repeater maintains a connection with a special repeater known as its master repeater (e.g., repeater 104 m for repeaters 104 a, 104 b and 104 c in FIG. 1).
Resources originating at the origin server 102 may be static or dynamic. That is, the resources may be fixed or they may be created by the origin server 102 specifically in response to a request. Note that the terms ��static�� and ��dynamic�� are relative, since a static resource may change at some regular, albeit long, interval.
The reflector 108 is a mechanism, preferably a software program, that intercepts requests that would normally be sent directly to the origin server 102. While shown in the drawings as separate components, the reflector 108 and the origin server 102 are typically co-located, e.g., on a particular system such as data server 112. (As discussed below, the reflector 108 may even be a ��plug in�� module that becomes part of the origin server 102.
Uniform Resource Locators Each location in a computer network has an address which can generally be specified as a series of names or numbers. In order to access information, an address for that information must be known. For example, on the World Wide Web (��the Web��) which is a subset of the Internet, the manner in which information address locations are provided has been standardized into Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). URLs specify the location of resources (information, data files, etc.) on the network.
URLs generally have the following form (defined in detail in T. Berners-Lee et al, Uniform Resource Locators (URL), Network Working Group, Request for Comments: 1738, Category: Standards Track, December 1994, located at ��http://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1738.txt��, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference):
where ��scheme�� can be a symbol such as ��file�� (for a file on the local system), ��ftp�� (for a file on an anonymous FTP file server), ��http�� (for a file on a file on a Web server), and ��telnet�� (for a connection to a Telnet-based service). Other schemes, can also be used and new schemes are added every now and then. The port number is optional, the system substituting a default port number (depending on the scheme) if none is provided. The ��host�� field maps to a particular network address for a particular computer. The ��url-path�� is relative to the computer specified in the ��host�� field. A url-path is typically, but not necessarily, the pathname of a file in a web server directory.
For example, the following is a URL identifying a file ��F�� in the path ��A/B/C�� on a computer at ��www.uspto.gov��:
In order to access the file ��F�� (the resource) specified by the above URL, a program (e.g., a browser) running on a user's computer (i.e., a client computer) would have to first locate the computer (i.e., a server computer) specified by the host name. I.e., the program would have to locate the server ��www.uspto.gov��. To do this, it would access a Domain Name Server (DNS), providing the DNS with the host name (��www.uspto.gov��). The DNS acts as a kind of centralized directory for resolving addresses from names. If the DNS determines that there is a (remote server) computer corresponding to the name ��www.uspto.gov��, it will provide the program with an actual computer network address for that server computer. On the Internet this is called an Internet Protocol (or IP) address and it has the form ��123.345.456.678��. The program on the user's (client) computer would then use the actual address to access the remote (server) computer.
The program opens a connection to the HTTP server (Web server) on the remote computer ��www.uspto.gov�� and uses the connection to send a request message to the remote computer (using the HTTP scheme). The message is typically an HTTP GET request which includes the url-path of the requested resource, ��A/B/C/F��. The HTTP server receives the request and uses it to access the resource specified by the url-path ��A/B/C/F��. The server returns the resource over the same connection. Thus, conventionally HTTP client requests for Web resources at an origin server 102 are processed as follows (see FIG. 2) (This is a description of the process when no reflector 108 is installed.):
A1. A browser (e.g., Netscape's Navigator) at the client receives a resource identifier (i.e., a URL) from a user. A2. The browser extracts the host (origin server) name from the resource identifier, and uses a domain name server (DNS) to look up the network (IP) address of the corresponding server. The browser also extracts a port number, if one is present, or uses a default port number (the default port number for http requests is 80). A3. The browser uses the server's network address and port number to establish a connection between the client 106 and the host or origin server 102. A4. The client 106 then sends a (GET) request over the connection identifying the requested resource. A5. The origin server 102 receives the request and A6. locates or composes the corresponding resource. A7. The origin server 102 then sends back to the client 106 a reply containing the requested resource (or some form of error indicator if the resource is unavailable). The reply is sent to the client over the same connection as that on which the request was received from the client. A8. The client 106 receives the reply from the origin server 102. There are many variations of this basic model. For example, in one variation, instead of providing the client with the resource, the origin server can tell the client to re-request the resource by another name. To do so, in A7 the server 102 sends back to the client 106 a reply called a ��REDIRECT�� which contains a new URL indicating the other name. The client 106 then repeats the entire sequence, normally without any user intervention, this time requesting the resource identified by the new URL.
upon receipt of a request, B1 The reflector 108 analyzes the request to determine whether or not to reflect the request. To do this, first the reflector determines whether the sender (client 106) is a browser or a repeater. Requests issued by repeaters must be served locally by the origin server 102. This determination can be made by looking up the network (IP) address of the sender in a list of known repeater network (IP) addresses. Alternatively, this determination could be made by attaching information to a request to indicate that the request is from a specific repeater, or repeaters can request resources from a special port other than the one used for ordinary clients. B2 If the request is not from a repeater, the reflector looks up the requested resource in a table (called the ��rule base��) to determine whether the resource requested is ��repeatable��. Based on this determination, the reflector either reflects the request (B3, described below) or serves the request locally (B4, described below).
The rule base is a list of regular expressions and associated attributes. (Regular expressions are well-known in the field of computer science. A small bibliography of their use is found in Aho, et al., ��Compilers, Principles, techniques and tools��, Addison-Wesley, 1986, pp. 157-158.) The resource identifier (URL) for a given request is looked up in the rule base by matching it sequentially with each regular expression. The first match identifies the attributes for the resource, namely repeatable or local. If there is no match in the rule base, a default attribute is used. Each reflector has its own rule base, which is manually configured by the reflector operator. B3. To reflect a request, (to serve a request locally go to B4), as shown in FIG. 4, the reflector determines (B3-1) the best repeater to reflect the request to, as described in detail below. The reflector then creates (B3-2) a new resource identifier (URL) (using the requested URL and the best repeater) that identifies the same resource at the selected repeater.
It is necessary that the reflection step create a single URL containing the URL of the original resource, as well as the identity of the selected repeater. A special form of URL is created to provide this information. This is done by creating a new URL as follows: D1. Given a repeater name, scheme, origin server name and path, create a new URL. If the scheme is ��http��, the preferred embodiment uses the following format:
http://<repeater>/<server>/<path> If the form used is other than ��http��, the preferred embodiment uses the following format:
The reflector then sends (B3-3) a REDIRECT reply containing this new URL to the requesting client. The HTTP REDIRECT command allows the reflector to send the browser a single URL to retry the request. B4. To serve a request locally, the request is sent by the reflector to (��forwarded to��) the origin server 102. In this mode, the reflector acts as a reverse proxy server. The origin server 102 processes the request in the normal manner (A5-A7). The reflector then obtains the origin server's reply to the request which it inspects to determine if the requested resource is an HTML document, i.e., whether the requested resource is one which itself contains resource identifiers. B5. If the resource is an HTML document then the reflector rewrites the HTML document by modifying resource identifiers (URLs) within it, as described below. The resource, possibly as modified by rewriting, is then returned in a reply to the requesting client 106.
It is possible to avoid the need for placing both the repeater name and the server name in the URL. Instead, a ��family�� of names may be created for a given origin server, each name identifying one of the repeaters used by that server.
The name ��wr1.example.com�� would be an alias for repeater 1, which might also be known by other names such as ��wr1.anotherExample.com�� and ��wr1.example.edu��.
If the repeater can determine by which name it was addressed, it can use this information (along with a table that associates repeater alias names with origin server names) to determine which origin server is being addressed. For instance, if repeater 1 is addressed as wr1.example.com, then the origin server is ��www.example.com��; if it is addressed as ��wr1.anotherExample.com��, then the origin server is ��www.anotherExample.com��.
1. Each alias can be associated with a different IP address. Unfortunately, this solution does not scale well, as IP addresses are currently scarce, and the number of IP addresses required grows as the product of origin servers and repeaters. 2. The repeater can attempt to determine the alias name used by inspecting the ��host:�� tag in the HTTP header of the request. Unfortunately, some old browsers still in use do not attach the ��host:�� tag to a request. Reflectors would need to identify such browsers (the browser identity is a part of each request) and avoid this form of reflection. How a Repeater Handles a Request When a browser receives a REDIRECT response (as produced in B3), it reissues a request for the resource using the new resource identifier (URL) (A1-A5). Because the new identifier refers to a repeater instead of the origin server, the browser now sends a request for the resource to the repeater which processes a request as follows, with reference to FIG. 5:
C1. First the repeater analyzes the request to determine the network address of the requesting client and the path of the resource requested. Included in the path is an origin server name (as described above with reference to B3). C2. The repeater uses an internal table to verify that the origin server belongs to a known ��subscriber��. A subscriber is an entity (e.g., a company) that publishes resources (e.g., files) via one or more origin servers. When the entity subscribes, it is permitted to utilize the repeater network. The subscriber tables described below include the information that is used to link reflectors to subscribers.
If a resource is not cached locally, the cache can query its ��peer caches�� to see if one of them contains the resource, before or at the same time as requesting the resource from the reflector/origin server. If a peer cache responds positively in a limited period of time (preferably a small fraction of a second), the resource will be retrieved from the peer cache. C4. The repeater then constructs a reply including the requested resource (which was retrieved from the cache or from the origin server) and sends that reply to the requesting client. C5. Details about the transaction, such as the associated reflector, the current time, the address of the requester, the URL requested, and the type of response generated, are written to a local log file at the repeater. Note that the bottom row of FIG. 2 refers to an origin server, or a reflector, or a repeater, depending on what the URL in step A1 identifies.
The Link Cost Table is a two dimensional matrix which specifies the current cost between each repeater and each group. Initially, the link cost between a repeater and a group is defined as the ��normalized link cost�� between the repeater and the group, as defined below. Over time, the table will be updated with measurements which more accurately reflect the relative cost of transmitting a file between the repeater and a member of the group. The format of the Link Cost Table is <Group ID><Group ID><link cost>, where the Group ID's are given as AS numbers.
current-load=B��current RRPT+(1−B)��current BSPTmax-load=B��max RRPT+(1−B)��max BSPT
The term Group is used here to refers to an IP ��address group��.
The NetMap procedure first processes input files to create an internal database called the Group Registry. These input files describe groups, the IP addresses within groups, and links between groups, and come a variety of sources, including publicly available Internet Routing Registry (IRR) databases, BGP router tables, and probe services that are located at various points around the Internet and use publicly available tools (such as ��traceroute��) to sample data paths. Once this processing is complete, the Group Registry contains essential information used for further processing, namely (1) the identity of each group, (2) the set of IP addresses in a given group, (3) the presence of links between groups indicating paths over which information may travel, and (4) the cost of sending data over a given link.
Calculate Repeater Group Link Costs The NetMap procedure calculates a ��link cost�� for transmission of data between each Repeater Group and each Group in the Group Registry. This overall link cost is defined as the minimum cost of any path between the two groups, where the cost of a path is equal to the sum of the costs of the individual links in the path. The link cost algorithm presented below is essentially the same as algorithm #562 from ACM journal Transactions on Mathematical Software: ��Shortest Path From a Specific Node to All Other Nodes in a Network�� by U. Pape, ACM TOMS 6 (1980) pp. 450-455, http://www.netlib.org/toms/562.
Create an empty list L�� of neighbors of members of the list L. For each Group G in the list L:
Let cost refer to the sum of the link cost between T and G, and the link cost between G and N. The cost between T and G was determined in the previous pass of the algorithm; the link cost between G and N is from the Group Registry. If cost is less than the link cost between T and N: Set the link cost between T and N to cost. Add N to L�� if it is not already on it. Set L to L��. Calculate Cost Sets A Cost Set is a set of Groups that are equivalent with respect to Best Repeater Selection. That is, given the information available, the same repeater would be selected for any of them.
The ��cost profile�� of a Group G is defined herein as the set of costs between G and each Repeater. Two cost profiles are said to be equivalent if the values in one profile differ from the corresponding values in the other profile by a constant amount.
F1. A BASE directive is added at the beginning of the HTML resource, or modified where necessary. Normally, a browser interprets relative URLs as being relative to the default base address, namely, the URL of the HTML resource (page) in which they are encountered. The BASE address added specifies the resource at the reflector which originally served the resource. This means that unprocessed relative URLs (such as those generated by Javascript™ programs) will be interpreted as relative to the reflector. Without this BASE address, browsers would combine relative addresses with repeater names to create URLs which were not in the form required by repeaters (as described above in step D1). F2. The rewriter identifies directives, such as embedded images and anchors, containing URLs. If the rewriter is running in a reflector, it must parse the HTML file to identify these directives. If it is running in a repeater, the rewriter may have access to pre-computed information that identifies the location of each URL (placed in the HTML file in step F4). F3. For each URL encountered in the resource to be re-written, the rewriter must determine whether the URL is repeatable (as in steps B1-B2). If the URL is not repeatable, it is not modified. On the other hand, if the URL is repeatable, it is modified to refer to the selected repeater. F4. After all URLs have been identified and modified, if the resource is being served to a repeater, a table is appended at the beginning of the resource that identifies the location and content of each URL encountered in the resource. (This step is an optimization which eliminates the need for parsing HTML resources at the repeater.) F5. Once all changes have been identified, a new length is computed for the resource (page). The length is inserted in the HTTP header prior to serving the resource. An extension of HTML, known as XML, is currently being developed. The process of rewriting URLs will be similar for XML, with some differences in the mechanism that parses the resource and identifies embedded URLs.
where <scheme> is a supported protocol name such as ��ftp��. This URL format is an alternative to the form shown in B3.
The reflector processes requests during this time, but is not ��enabled�� (allowed to reflect requests) until all of its tables are current.
A resource change causes the reflector to send an ��invalidate�� message to its contact repeater, which forwards the message to the master repeater. The invalidate message contains a list of resource identifiers (or regular expressions identifying patterns of resource identifiers) that have changed. (Regular expressions are used to invalidate a directory or an entire server.) The repeater network uses a two-phase commit process to ensure that all repeaters correctly invalidate a given resource.
The master broadcasts a ��phase 1�� invalidation request to all repeaters indicating the resources and regular expressions describing sets of resources to be invalidated.
When all repeaters have acknowledged invalidation (or timed out) the repeater broadcasts a ��phase 2�� invalidation request to all repeaters. This causes the repeaters to remove the corresponding resource identifiers and regular expressions from the list of resource identifiers pending invalidation.
In another embodiment, the invalidation request will be extended to allow a ��server push��. In such requests, after phase 2 of the invalidation process has completed, the repeater receiving the invalidation request will immediately request a new copy of the invalidated resource to place in its cache.
Logs and Log Processing Web server activity logs are fundamental to monitoring the activity in a Web site. This invention creates ��merged logs�� that combine the activity at reflectors with the activity at repeaters, so that a single activity log appears at the origin server showing all Web resource requests made on behalf of that site at any repeater.
Activity logs are optionally extended with information important to the repeater network, if the reflector is configured to do so by the reflector operator. In particular, an ��extended status code�� indicates information about each request, such as:
(The activities marked with ��*�� represent intermediate states of a request and do not normally appear in a final activity log.)
1. provides a means of pricing repeater service; 2. provides a means for estimating and reserving capacity at repeaters; 3. provides a means for preventing clients of a busy site from limiting access to other sites. For each subscriber, a ��threshold aggregate information rate�� (TAIR) is configured and maintained at the master repeater. This threshold is not necessarily the committed rate, it may be a multiple of committed rate, based on a pricing policy.
Each repeater measures the information rate component of each reflector for which it serves resources, periodically (typically about once a minute), by recording the number of bytes transmitted on behalf of that reflector each time a request is delivered. The table thus created is sent to the master repeater once per period. The master repeater combines the tables from each repeater, summing the measured information of each reflector over all repeaters that serve resources for that reflector, to determine the ��measured aggregate information rate�� (MAIR) for each reflector.
��src=overload��.
The fine-grained mechanism is a form of data ��rate shaping��. It extends the mechanism that copies resource data to a connection when a reply is being sent to a client. When an output channel is established at the time a request is received, the repeater identifies which subscriber the channel is operating for, in C2, and records the subscriber in a data field associated with the channel. Each time a ��write�� operation is about to be made to the channel, the Metered Output Stream first inspects the current values of the MAIR and TAIR, calculated above, for the given subscriber. If the MAIR is larger than the TAIR, then the mechanism pauses briefly before performing the write operation. The length of the pause is proportional to the amount the MAIR exceeds the TAIR. The pause ensures that tasks sending other resources to other clients, perhaps on behalf of other subscribers, will have an opportunity to send their data.
If a master fails, a ��succession�� process ensures that another repeater will take over the role of master, and the network as a whole will remain operational. If a master fails, or a connection to a master fails through a network problem, any repeater attempting to communicate with the master will detect the failure, either through an indication from TCP/IP, or by timing out from a regular ��heartbeat�� message it sends to the master.
When any repeater is disconnected from its master, it immediately tries to reconnect to a series of potential masters based on a configurable file called its ��succession list��.
The repeater tries each system on the list in succession until it successfully connects to a master. If in this process, it comes to its own name, it takes on the role of master, and accepts connections from other repeaters. If a repeater which is not at the top of the list becomes the master, it is called the ��temporary master��.
In a preferred embodiment, a proxy cache is used to implement C3. The proxy cache is dedicated for use only by one or more repeaters. Each repeater requiring a resource from the proxy cache constructs a proxy request from the inbound resource request. A normal HTTP GET request to a server contains only the pathname part of the URL�Xthe scheme and server name are implicit. (In an HTTP GET request to a repeater, the pathname part of the URL includes the name of the origin server on behalf of which the request is being made, as described above.) However, a proxy agent GET request takes an entire URL. Therefore, the repeater must construct a proxy request containing the entire URL from the path portion of the URL it receives. Specifically, if the incoming request takes the form:
GET <scheme>://<origin server>/<path> Cache Control HTTP replies contain directives called cache control directives, which are used to indicate to a cache whether the attached resource may be cached and if so, when it should expire. A Web site administrator configures the Web site to attach appropriate directives. Often, the administrator will not know how long a page will be fresh, and must define a short expiration time to try to prevent caches from serving stale data. In many cases, a Web site operator will indicate a short expiration time only in order to receive the requests (or hits) that would otherwise be masked by the presence of a cache. This is known in the industry as ��cache-busting��. Although some cache operators may consider cache-busting to be impolite, advertisers who rely on this information may consider it imperative.
When a reflector serves a resource to a repeater in B4, it replaces all cache directives by modified directives that are ignored by the repeater proxy cache. It does this by prefixing a distinctive string such as ��wr-�� to the beginning of the HTTP tag. Thus, ��expires�� becomes ��wr-expires��, and ��cache-control�� becomes ��wr-cache-control��. This prevents the proxy cache itself from honoring the directives. When a repeater serves a resource in C4, and the requesting client is not another repeater, it searches for HTTP tags beginning with ��wr-�� and removes the ��wr-��. This allows the clients retrieving the resource to honor the directives.
Resource Revalidation There are several cases where a resource may be cached so long as the origin server is consulted each time it is served. In one case, the request for the resource is attached to a so-called ��cookie��. The origin server must be presented with the cookie to record the request and determine whether the cached resource may be served or not. In another case, the request for the resource is attached to an authentication header (which identifies the requester with a user id and password). Each new request for the resource must be tested at the origin server to assure that the requester is authorized to access the resource.
The HTTP 1.1 specification defines a reply header titled ��Must-Revalidate�� which allows an origin server to instruct a proxy cache to ��revalidate�� a resource each time a request is received. Normally, this mechanism is used to determine whether a resource is still fresh. In the present invention, Must-Revalidate makes it possible to ask an origin server to validate a request that is otherwise served from a repeater.
Typically a cache uses the least-recently-used (LRU) algorithm to determine which resources to eliminate; more sophisticated caches use other algorithms. A cache may also support several threshold values�Xfor instance, a lower threshold which, when reached, causes a low priority background process to remove items from the cache, and a higher threshold which, when reached, prevents resources from being cached until sufficient free disk space has been reclaimed.
The original threshold T is still supported. If the sum of reserved segments for each subscriber is smaller than the total space reserved in the cache, the remaining area is ��common�� and subject to competition among subscribers.
Note, this mechanism might be implemented by modifying the existing proxy cache discussed above, or it might also be implemented without modifying the proxy cache�Xif the proxy cache at least makes it possible for an external program to obtain a list of resources in the cache, and to remove a given resource from the cache.
The process that assembles a ��page�� from a text resource and possibly one or more image resources is performed by the Web browser, directed by HTML. However, it is not possible using HTML to cause a browser to assemble a page using text or directives from a separate resource. Therefore, custom resources often necessarily contain large amounts of static text that would otherwise be repeatable.
To resolve this potential inefficiency, repeaters recognize a special directive called a ��repeater side include��. This directive makes it possible for the repeater to assemble a custom resource, using a combination of repeatable and local resources. In this way, the static text can be made repeatable, and only the special directive need be served locally by the reflector.
�M�Q�ޥ� �ޥΪ��M�Q�ӽФ���o�G��� �ӽЪ��M�Q�W��US44955701982�~1��7��1985�~1��22��Hitachi, Ltd.Processing request allocator for assignment of loads in a distributed processing systemUS45919831984�~7��9��1986�~5��27��Teknowledge, Inc.Hierarchical knowledge systemUS45947041984�~11��16��1986�~6��10��Compagnie Industrielle Des Telecommunications Cit-AlcatelSpare subscriber terminal device in a digital concentratorUS47260171985�~5��21��1988�~2��16��Fla.Multidrop data concentrator communication networkUS48036411987�~11��25��1989�~2��7��Tecknowledge, Inc.Basic expert system toolUS48397981985�~11��6��1989�~6��13��Hitachi, Ltd.Method and apparatus for controlling job transfer between computer systemsUS48477841987�~7��13��1989�~7��11��Teknowledge, Inc.Knowledge based tutorUS49204321988�~1��12��1990�~4��24��Eggers; Derek C.System for random access to an audio video data library with independent selection and display at each of a plurality of remote locationsUS49224171986�~10��24��1990�~5��1��American Telephone And Telegraph CompanyMethod and apparatus for data hashing using selection from a table of random numbers in combination with folding and bit manipulation of the selected random numbersUS49439321987�~4��15��1990�~7��24��Cimflex Teknowledge CorporationArchitecture for composing computational modules uniformly across diverse developmental frameworksUS49491871988�~12��16��1990�~8��14��Cohen; Jason M.Video communications system having a remotely controlled central source of video and audio dataUS49492481988�~7��15��1990�~8��14��Caro; Marshall A.System for shared remote access of multiple application programs executing in one or more computersUS50292321989�~1��12��1991�~7��2��Cycle-Sat., Inc.Satellite communications networkUS51307921990�~2��1��1992�~7��14��Usa Video Inc.Store and forward video systemUS51329921991�~1��7��1992�~7��21��Browne; H. LeeAudio and video transmission and receiving systemUS51367161990�~3��8��1992�~8��4��Digital Equipment CorporationSession control in network for digital data processing system which supports multiple transfer protocolsUS51724131990�~12��20��1992�~12��15��SasktelSecure hierarchial video delivery system and methodUS51915731990�~9��18��1993�~3��2��Hair; Arthur R.Method for transmitting a desired digital video or audio signalUS52532751992�~4��2��1993�~10��12��H. Lee BrowneAudio and video transmission and receiving systemUS52533411991�~4��11��1993�~10��12��Berinson; NeilRemote query communication systemUS52874991991�~5��16��1994�~2��15��Bell Communications Research, Inc.Methods and apparatus for information storage and retrieval utilizing a method of hashing and different collision avoidance schemes depending upon clustering in the hash tableUS52875371992�~9��21��1994�~2��15��Data General CorporationDistributed processing system having plural computers each using identical retaining information to identify another computer for executing a received commandUS52915541992�~8��19��1994�~3��1��Tv Answer, Inc.Shared-price custom video rentals via interactive TVUS53414771993�~8��6��1994�~8��23��Digital Equipment CorporationBroker for computer network server selectionUS53715321992�~5��15��1994�~12��6��Bell Communications Research, Inc.Communications architecture and method for distributing information servicesUS54103431993�~4��2��1995�~4��25��Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc.Video-on-demand services using public switched telephone networkUS54144551993�~7��7��1995�~5��9��Digital Equipment CorporationSegmented video on demand systemUS54423891992�~12��28��1995�~8��15��At&T Corp.Program server for interactive television systemUS54423901993�~7��7��1995�~8��15��Digital Equipment CorporationVideo on demand with memory accessing and or like functionsUS54427491993�~7��9��1995�~8��15��Sun Microsystems, Inc.Network video server system receiving requests from clients for specific formatted data through a default channel and establishing communication through separate control and data channelsUS54716221995�~4��20��1995�~11��28��Paralogic, Inc.Run-time system having nodes for identifying parallel tasks in a logic program and searching for available nodes to execute the parallel tasksUS54756151993�~12��23��1995�~12��12��U S West Advanced Technologies, Inc.Method and system for sizing interactive video delivery systemsUS55087321993�~3��22��1996�~4��16��International Business Machines CorporationData server, control server and gateway architecture system and method for broadcasting digital video on demandUS55155111994�~6��6��1996�~5��7��International Business Machines CorporationHybrid digital/analog multimedia hub with dynamically allocated/released channels for video processing and distributionUS55194351994�~9��1��1996�~5��21��Micropolis CorporationMulti-user, on-demand video storage and retrieval system including video signature computation for preventing excessive instantaneous server data rateUS55220701995�~5��23��1996�~5��28��Fujitsu LimitedComputer resource distributing method and system for distributing a multiplicity of processes to a plurality of computers connected in a networkUS55282811993�~7��30��1996�~6��18��Bell Atlantic Network ServicesMethod and system for accessing multimedia data over public switched telephone networkUS55396211995�~6��23��1996�~7��23��Elonex Technologies, Inc.Network communication unit with client and resource node array double layer ICs on printed board with connectors on housingUS55420871993�~10��15��1996�~7��30��Hewlett-Packard CompanyLinear hashing for distributed recordsUS55443131994�~5��11��1996�~8��6��International Business Machines CorporationBaton passing optimization scheme for load balancing/configuration planning in a video-on-demand computer systemUS55443271994�~7��26��1996�~8��6��International Business Machines CorporationLoad balancing in video-on-demand servers by allocating buffer to streams with successively larger buffer requirements until the buffer requirements of a stream can not be satisfiedUS55505771994�~5��19��1996�~8��27��Alcatel N.V.Video on demand network, including a central video server and distributed video servers with random access read/write memoriesUS55508631993�~10��8��1996�~8��27��H. Lee BrowneAudio and video transmission and receiving systemUS55509821993�~6��24��1996�~8��27��Starlight NetworksVideo application serverUS55573171995�~5��22��1996�~9��17��Nec CorporationVideo-on-demand system with program relocation centerUS55726431995�~10��19��1996�~11��5��Judson; David H.Web browser with dynamic display of information objects during linkingUS55902881995�~3��13��1996�~12��31��Restaurant Technology, Inc.Distributed data processing system and method utilizing peripheral device polling and layered communication softwareUS55926111995�~3��14��1997�~1��7��Network Integrity, Inc.Stand-in computer serverUS55949101993�~11��26��1997�~1��14��Ibm Corp.Interactive computer network and method of operationUS56030261994�~12��7��1997�~2��11��Xerox CorporationApplication-specific conflict resolution for weakly consistent replicated databasesUS56196481994�~11��30��1997�~4��8��Lucent Technologies Inc.Message filtering techniquesUS56236561994�~12��15��1997�~4��22��Lucent Technologies Inc.Script-based data communication system and method utilizing state memoryUS56257811995�~10��31��1997�~4��29��International Business Machines CorporationItinerary list for interfacesUS56278291995�~6��6��1997�~5��6��Altmaier; Paulette R.Method for reducing unnecessary traffic over a computer networkUS56300671996�~6��4��1997�~5��13��International Business Machines CorporationSystem for the management of multiple time-critical data streamsUS56339991995�~12��18��1997�~5��27��Nonstop Networks LimitedWorkstation-implemented data storage re-routing for server fault-tolerance on computer networksUS56340061995�~10��11��1997�~5��27��International Business Machines CorporationSystem and method for ensuring QOS in a token ring network utilizing an access regulator at each node for allocating frame size for plural transmitting applications based upon negotiated information and priority in the networkUS56384431994�~11��23��1997�~6��10��Xerox CorporationSystem for controlling the distribution and use of composite digital worksUS56447141995�~4��10��1997�~7��1��Elonex Plc, Ltd.Video collection and distribution system with interested item notification and download on demandUS56466761995�~5��30��1997�~7��8��International Business Machines CorporationScalable interactive multimedia server system for providing on demand dataUS56491861995�~8��7��1997�~7��15��Silicon Graphics IncorporatedSystem and method for a computer-based dynamic information clipping serviceUS56597291996�~2��1��1997�~8��19��Sun Microsystems, Inc.Method and system for implementing hypertext scroll attributesUS56663621995�~7��25��1997�~9��9��3Com CorporationMethod and apparatus for asynchronous PPP and synchronous PPP conversionUS56712791995�~11��13��1997�~9��23��Netscape Communications CorporationElectronic commerce using a secure courier systemUS56757341996�~2��27��1997�~10��7��Parsec Sight/Sound, Inc.System for transmitting desired digital video or audio signalsUS56825121995�~6��30��1997�~10��28��Intel CorporationUse of deferred bus access for address translation in a shared memory clustered computer systemUS56995131995�~3��31��1997�~12��16��Motorola, Inc.Method for secure network access via message interceptUS57087801995�~6��7��1998�~1��13��Open Market, Inc.Internet server access control and monitoring systemsUS57129791995�~9��20��1998�~1��27��Infonautics CorporationMethod and apparatus for attaching navigational history information to universal resource locator links on a world wide web pageUS57154531996�~5��31��1998�~2��3��International Business Machines CorporationWeb server mechanism for processing function calls for dynamic data queries in a web pageUS57219141995�~9��14��1998�~2��24��Mci CorporationSystem and method for hierarchical data distributionUS57348311996�~4��26��1998�~3��31��Sun Microsystems, Inc.System for configuring and remotely administering a unix computer over a networkUS57404231995�~12��28��1998�~4��14��Csg Systems, Inc.System and method for accessing distributed data on a plurality of databasesUS57427621995�~5��19��1998�~4��21��Telogy Networks, Inc.Network management gatewayUS57519611996�~1��31��1998�~5��12��Bell Communications Research, Inc.Integrated internet system for translating logical addresses of internet documents to physical addresses using integrated service control pointUS57615071996�~3��5��1998�~6��2��International Business Machines CorporationClient/server architecture supporting concurrent servers within a server with a transaction manager providing server/connection decouplingUS57616631997�~5��15��1998�~6��2��International Business Machines CorporationMethod for distributed task fulfillment of web browser requestsUS57649061995�~11��7��1998�~6��9��Netword LlcUniversal electronic resource denotation, request and delivery systemUS57746601996�~8��5��1998�~6��30��Resonate, Inc.World-wide-web server with delayed resource-binding for resource-based load balancing on a distributed resource multi-node networkUS57746681995�~6��7��1998�~6��30��Microsoft CorporationSystem for on-line service in which gateway computer uses service map which includes loading condition of servers broadcasted by application servers for load balancingUS57779881996�~4��17��1998�~7��7��Bell Communications Research, Inc.System and method for equalizing delay in a dynamic packet switching networkUS57779891995�~12��19��1998�~7��7��International Business Machines CorporationTCP/IP host name resolution for machines on several domainsUS57781871996�~5��9��1998�~7��7��Netcast Communications Corp.Multicasting method and apparatusUS57840581996�~5��28��1998�~7��21��Sun Microsystems, Inc.User-controllable persistent browser display pagesUS57942531996�~7��12��1998�~8��11��Microsoft CorporationTime based expiration of data objects in a store and forward replication enterpriseUS57969521997�~3��21��1998�~8��18��Dot Com Development, Inc.Method and apparatus for tracking client interaction with a network resource and creating client profiles and resource databaseUS57991411995�~6��9��1998�~8��25��Qualix Group, Inc.Real-time data protection system and methodUS58021061996�~12��6��1998�~9��1��Packeteer, Inc.Method for rapid data rate detection in a packet communication environment without data rate supervisionUS58022911995�~3��30��1998�~9��1��Sun Microsystems, Inc.System and method to control and administer distributed object servers using first class distributed objectsUS58127691995�~9��20��1998�~9��22��Infonautics CorporationMethod and apparatus for redirecting a user to a new location on the world wide web using relative universal resource locatorsUS58156641996�~3��19��1998�~9��29��Fujitsu LimitedAddress reporting device and method for detecting authorized and unauthorized addresses in a network environmentUS5819092 *1997�~10��6��1998�~10��6��Vermeer Technologies, Inc.Online service development tool with fee setting capabilitiesUS58260311996�~6��10��1998�~10��20��Sun Microsystems, Inc.Method and system for prioritized downloading of embedded web objectsUS58288471996�~4��19��1998�~10��27��Storage Technology CorporationDynamic server switching for maximum server availability and load balancingUS58325061996�~3��29��1998�~11��3��Intel CorporationDirectory for network serversUS58325141996�~6��26��1998�~11��3��Microsoft CorporationSystem and method for discovery based data recovery in a store and forward replication processUS58357181996�~4��10��1998�~11��10��At&T CorpURL rewriting pseudo proxy serverUS58389061994�~10��17��1998�~11��17��The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaDistributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia documentUS58453031996�~10��2��1998�~12��1��Netpodium, Inc.Document processing using frame-based templates with hierarchical taggingUS58569741996�~2��13��1999�~1��5��Novell, Inc.Internetwork address mapping gatewayUS6085193 *1997�~9��29��2000�~7��4��International Business Machines CorporationMethod and system for dynamically prefetching information via a server hierarchyUS6181690 *1997�~7��18��2001�~1��30��At&T Corp.Toll-free internet serviceUS6222856 *1997�~8��28��2001�~4��24��Murali R. KrishnanAdaptive bandwidth throttling for individual virtual services supported on a network serverUS6243760 *1997�~6��24��2001�~6��5��Vistar Telecommunications Inc.Information dissemination system with central and distributed cachesUS6452925 *2000�~6��26��2002�~9��17��Verizon Services Corp.Universal access multimedia data networkUS6779031 *1999�~7��28��2004�~8��17��Level 3 Communications, Inc.Network architecture with event loggingUS6944676 *2000�~11��13��2005�~9��13��Transcore Link Logistics Corp.Information dissemination system and method with central and distributed caches* �Ѽf�d�H��ޥ��D�M�Q�ޥ��ѦҤ��m1"Cisco DistributedDirector," Cisco Systems, Inc., White Paper, cited in Expert Report of Kevin Almeroth with date of 1996 (month unknown). [9 pages].2"Cisco Takes Global Route", PC Week News, (Feb. 17, 1997), p. 23.3"Exporting Web Server Final Report," http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/Labs/Lccn/projects/spring97/project4/final-report.html, Spring 1997 (downloaded Jul. 7, 2007).4"Global IP/PX Service Should Keep Network Delays Down", Infoworld, (Jan. 20, 1997), 1 page.5"Local Area Network Server Replacement Procedure", IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 38, No. 1, (Jan. 1995), 235-236.6"Patent Abstracts of Japan, Electronic Mail Multiplexing System and Communication Control Method in the System" (Appln. No. JP19930162529), (Jun. 30, 1993) (Pub. No. JP 7066829).7"Patent Abstracts of Japan, Method and Device for Repeating and Converting Information", (Appln. No. JP19960328583) (Pub. No. JP10171727), Jun. 26, 1998.8"Exporting Web Server Final Report," http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/Labs/Lccn/projects/spring97/project4/final�Xreport.html, Spring 1997 (downloaded Jul. 7, 2007).9"Memorandum in Support of Level 3's Motion in Limine to Preclude Limelight Witnesses from Referring to Prosecution History in Rendering Non-Infringement Opinions," filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (MSD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., Jan. 15, 2009 [7 pgs.].10"Memorandum in Support of Limelight's Motion in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Testimony From Level 3's Experts Not Disclosed in Their Expert Reports Regarding The Disclosures of the Patents-In-Suit," filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (MSD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., Dec. 4, 2008 [6 pgs.].11"Opinion and Order," (Markman�Xclaim construction Order), U.S. Dist. Judge Mark S. Davis, Dec. 10, 2008 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), in US District Court, Norfolk, VA. [51 pgs.].12Adler, R. M., "Distributed Coordination Models for Client/Server Computing," Computer 28, 4 (Apr. 1995), 14-22.13Akamai Tech., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Svs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 68 USPQ2d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2003) [Sep. 15, 2003].14Almeroth, K., et al. "Scalable Delivery of Web Pages Using Cyclic Best-Effort (UDP) Multicast", IEEE Infocom, San Francisco, California, USA, Jun. 1998.15Almeroth, K., Exhibit A to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008, [31 pages].16Almeroth, K., Exhibit B to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008 [131 pages].17Almeroth, K., Exhibit C to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008 [157 pages].18Almeroth, K., Exhibit D to Expert Report of Dr Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008 [128 pages].19Almeroth, K., Exhibit E Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008 [286 pages].20Almeroth, K., Exhibit F to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008 [221 pages].21Almeroth, K., Exhibit G to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct, E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008 [369 pages].22Almeroth, K., Exhibit H to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008 [59 pages].23Almeroth, K., Exhibit I to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008 [95 pages].24Almeroth, K., Exhibit J to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008, [105 pages].25Almeroth, K., Exhibit K-1 to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008, [152 pages].26Almeroth, K., Exhibit K-2 to Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008 [25 pages].27Almeroth, K., Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., dated Jul. 25, 2008. [64 pages and Exhibits A-J, K1, K2].28Amended Answer of Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc., Exhibit 1 to Defendant Limelight Network Inc.'s Combined Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and to Compel Related Interrogatory Responses, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, Sep. 9, 2008 [18 pgs].29Andresen et al., "SWEB: Towards a Scalable World Wide Web Server on Multicomputers", Proc. IPPS, (Apr. 15, 1996), 850-856.30Andresen, D., et al., Multiprocessor scheduling with client resources to improve the response time of WWW applications, Proc. 11th Int'l Conf. on Supercomputing (Austria, Jul. 1997). ICS '97. ACM Press, NY, NY, 92-99.31Answer of Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc. in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.) Feb. 1, 2008 [14 pgs.].32Answering Report of Scott Bradner Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 26 (a)(2)(B) Concerning the Validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,054,935 and 6,654,807, in Civil Action No. 2:07CV589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 25, 2008 [83 pgs.].33Awerbuch, B. et al., Distributed Paging for General Networks. In Proc. of the 7th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 574-583, Jan. 1996.34Baentsch, M, et al. "Enhancing the Web's Infrastructure: From Caching to Replication." IEEE Internet Computing, 1(2): Mar. 18-27, 1997.35Baentsch, M., et al., "Introducing Application-Level Replication and Naming into Today's Web," Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 28, num. 7-11, pp. 921-930, May 1996.36Basturk, E., et al., "Using network layer anycast for load distribution in the Internet," Tech. Rep., IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, 1997 (21 pgs.).37Berners-Lee et al., RFC 1738-Uniform Resource Locators, Dec. 1994.38Berners-Lee et al., RFC 1738�XUniform Resource Locators, Dec. 1994.39Berners-Lee, T. & Connolly, D., "Hypertext Markup Language-2.0," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1866, Nov. 1995.40Berners-Lee, T. & Connolly, D., "Hypertext Markup Language�X2.0," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1866, Nov. 1995.41Berners-Lee, T., et al., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol-HTTP/1.0," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet Draft, draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-00.ps, Mar. 1995.42Berners-Lee, T., et al., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol-HTTP/1.0," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1945, May 1996.43Berners-Lee, T., et al., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol�XHTTP/1.0," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet Draft, draft-ietf-http-v10-spec-00.ps, Mar. 1995.44Berners-Lee, T., et al., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol�XHTTP/1.0," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1945, May 1996.45Berners-Lee, T.. "Resource Identifiers in WWW: A Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and Addresses of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide Web," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1630, Jun. 1994.46Bestavros, A. Demand-based document dissemination to reduce traffic and balance load in distributed information systems. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Parallel and Distributed Processing, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 1995.47Bestavros, A., "Speculative Data Dissermination and Service to Reduce Server Load, Network Traffic and Service Time in Distributed Information Systems", in Proc. ICDE '96: The 1996 Intl Conf. on Data Engineering, (Mar. 1996), 4 pages.48Bestavros, et al., "Server-Initiated Document Dissemination for the WWW," IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 19(3): Sep. 3-11, 1996.49Bhattacharjee et al., "Application-layer anycasting," in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM '97, 1997.50Braun, H., et al., "Web traffic characterization: an assessment of the impact of caching documents from NCSA's web server," Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 28, 1-2 (Dec. 1995), 37-51.51Brisco, T. P. RFC 1794: DNS support for load balancing, Apr. 1995.52Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1195, Dec. 1990.53Carter et al., "Dynamic server selection using bandwidth probing in wide-area networks," Tech. Rep. BU-CS-96-007, Comp. Sci. Dept., Boston University, Mar. 1996.54Carter et al., Server selection using dynamic path characterization in Wide-Area Networks, IEEE INFOCOM '97, 1997 (pp. 1014-1021).55Carter, J. Lawrence et al., "Universal Classes of Hash Functions", Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 18, No. 2, (Apr. 1979), 143-154.56Chandra, R. et al., "BGP Communities Attribute," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1997, Aug. 1996.57Chankhunthod, A. et al., "A Hierarchical Internet Object Cache", Proc. of the 1996 USENIX Technical Conf., Jan. 1996, pp. 153-163.58Chen, E., et al., "An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1998, Aug. 1996.59Cisco Systems Inc., Cisco Distributed Director, pp. 1-15, http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/distdir/dd-wp.htm, 1997.60Cisco Systems Inc., Cisco Distributed Director, pp. 1-15, http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/distdir/dd�Xwp.htm, 1997.61Cisco Systems, Inc., "Cache Director System", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/cache/cdsov.htm, (1997), 1-5.62Cisco Systems, Inc., "Cache Director Systems Technology Overview", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/cache/cds-ds.htm, (1997), 1-3.63Cisco Systems, Inc., "Cisco Cache Engine", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/cache/index.html.64Cisco Systems, Inc., "Cisco Introduces Web Cache Product for Scaling the Internet", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/146/1947.html, (1996), 1-2.65Cisco Systems, Inc., "Cisco Systems Ships Cisco LocalDirector to Meet Demands of High-Volume Web Traffic," 1996, pp. 1-2, http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/146/323.html.66Cisco Systems, Inc., "Excite Chooses Cisco Local Director to Support its Growing Service", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/146/1857.html, (1997), 1-2.67Cisco Systems, Inc., "How to Cost-Effectively Scale Web Servers", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/784//5.html, (1996), 1-5.68Cisco Systems, Inc., "Local Director", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/lodir/index.html, 2 pages.69Cisco Systems, Inc., "Local Director", pp. 1-3.70Cisco Systems, Inc., "Scaling the Internet News Service", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/lodir/news wp.htm, (1997), 1-11.71Cisco Systems, Inc., "Scaling the World Wide Web", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/lodir/swww wp.html, (1996), 1-7.72Cisco Systems, Inc., "Cache Director Systems Technology Overview", http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/cache/cds�Xds.htm, (1997), 1-3.73Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco DistributedDirector 2500 Series Installation and Configuration Guide, pp. xix-xxii; 1-1 to 1-12; 6-1 to 6-18; 7-1 to 7-18; 8-1 to 8-24, pub. date unknown, downloaded Apr. 2007: http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/iaabu/distrdir/dd2501/.74Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco DistributedDirector 4700-M Installation and Configuration Guide, pp. xix-xxii; 1-1 to 1-14; 7-1 to 7-18, 8-1 to 8-20; pub. date unknown, [downloaded Apr. 2007 from http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/iaabu/distrdir/dd4700m/].75Cisco Systems, Inc., http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/disttdir/dd wp.htm, (1997), 1-4.76Cisco Systems, Inc., http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/lodir/lodir ds.htm, (1997), 1-4.77Claim construction Opinion and Order in Civil Action No. 2:07:cv589, Dec. 10, 2008 [51 pages].78Claims of European Patent No. 1 143 337 B allowed/maintained in oral proceedings, Apr. 24, 2008 [7 pages].79Cohen, J., et al., "Cache Array Routing Protocol v1.1", Sep. 29, 1997; http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-vinod-carp-v1-01.txt (Last-Modified: Wed, Oct. 1, 1997).80Colajanni, M. and Yu, P. S. 1997. Adaptive TTL schemes for load balancing of distributed Web servers. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. 25, 2 (Sep. 1997), 36-42.81Colajanni, M., et al., "Scheduling Algorithms for Distributed Web Servers," International Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Baltimore, Maryland, USA, May 1997.82Combined Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, U.S. Ct. Appeals for Federal Circuit, Level 3 Communications LLC vs. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2009-1480, Jun. 4, 2010 [22 pgs.].83Communication (1 page) and European Search Report for Application No. EP 00 12 8346 (3 pages), (Mailed Aug. 24, 2001).84Communication dated Apr. 27, 2010 from European Patent Office re Opposition to European Patent application No. (99906680.6-2211) Patent No. 1 053 524 B [1 pg.].85Communication from European Patent Office dated Feb. 8, 2007 regarding opposition to European Patent No. 1 143 337 B [11 pages].86Communication from European Patent Office dated May 30, 2008 in patent application EP 99906680 (12 pages).87Communications from European Patent Office in European Patent Application No. 99 906 680.6: Minutes of Oral Hearing of Nov. 20, 2008, including auxiliary requests; and Invitation under Art. 94(3) and Rule 71(1) EPC (dated Dec. 11, 2008) to amended dependent claims. [32 pgs.].88Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief, filed Dec. 17, 2007 in Civil Action No. 2:07CV589.89Cormen, T. H., et al., "Introduction to Algorithms", The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (1994), 219-243, 991-993.90Crovella et al., Dynamic server selection in the Internet, 3rd IEEE Workshop on the Arch. and Implementation of High Performance Computer Sys. '95, pp. 158-162, Aug. 1995.91Danzig, P. B., et al., "An analysis of wide-area name server traffic: a study of the Internet Domain Name System," Conf. Proc. Communications Architectures & Protocols (Aug. 1992). D. Oran, Ed. SIGCOMM '92. ACM Press, New York, NY, 281-292.92De Bra, P.M.E., et al., "Information Retrieval in the World Wide Web: Making Client-Based Searching Feasible", Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, NL, North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, vol. 27, No. 2, ISSN: 0169-7552, (Nov. 1, 1994), 183-192.93Declaration Kevin C. Almeroth in Support of Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of All Patents-In-Suit, filed Aug. 28, 2008 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) [39 pgs.].94Deering, S. E., et al, "Multicast routing in datagram internetworks and extended LANs," ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 8, 2 (May 1990), 85-110.95Defendant Limelight Network Inc.'s Combined Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and to Compel Related Interrogatory Responses, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, Sep. 9, 2008 [4 pgs].96Defendant Limelight Network Inc.'s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Its Combined Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and to Compel Related Interrogatory Responses (Public Version), in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, Sep. 9, 2008 [18 pgs.].97Defendant Limelight Network Inc.'s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Combined Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and to Compel Related Interrogatory Responses, (Public Version, redacted) filed Sep. 9, 2008, in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-RGD-FBS.98Defendant Limelight Network Inc.'s Rebuttal Brief in Support of Its Combined Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and Compel Related Interrogatory Responses (Public version), filed Oct. 7, 2008 in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-RGD-FBS.99Defendant Limelight Network Inc.'s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories (Redacted), Apr. 21, 2008, in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-WDK-FBS [46 pgs.].100Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Claim Construction Brief for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,654,807; 7,054,935 and 6,473,405, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, Jun. 27, 2008, with Exhibits 1-24 [333 pgs.].101Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Claim Construction Brief for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,654,807; 7,054,935; and 6,473,405, filed in Civil Action No. 2:07CV589 (RGD-FBS), Jun. 27, 2008 [38 pgs.].102Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.S Claim Construction Brief for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,654,807; 7,054,935; and 6,473,405, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Jun. 27, 2008 [38 pgs. + exhibits].103Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of all Patents-In-Suit, [Redacted] for Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS), Aug. 28, 2008.104Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of All Patents-In-Suit, filed Oct. 1, 2008 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (JBF-FBS) [21 pgs.].105Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'S Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of All Patents-In-Suit, in Civil File No. 2:07CV589 (E.D. Va.), Oct. 1, 2008 [21 pgs.].106Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories (No. 2-4, 12-13, and 19) [Redacted], May 16, 2008, in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-WDK-FBS [70 pgs.].107Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-11, 13-14, 17 and 19-20, [redacted] Feb. 9, 2008, in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-RGD-FBS [101 pgs.].108Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 154, email [4 pgs.].109Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 155, document titled "WebRepeater™ Functional Requirements," Dave Farber, Sandpiper Software Consulting, LLC, Jun. 18, 1996. [20 pgs.].110Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 156 doc. titled "Project Status Meeting Reports," Aug. 4, 1997 [3 pgs.].111Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 157, parts of U.S. Appl. No. 09/021,506 from PTO [68 pgs.].112Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 158, documents from PTO file for U.S. Appl. No. 09/612,598 [59 pgs.].113Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 159, email from Dave Farber sent Mar. 14, 1997 [12 pgs.].114Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 160, email from "Andrew" sent Jan. 15, 1997 [3 pgs.].115Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 161, email from "Will", sent Oct. 17, 1997 [24 pgs.].116Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 162, email from Rick Greer sent Jan. 20, 1999 [7 pgs.].117Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 163, email from "Andrew" sent Jul. 22, 1996 [2 pgs.].118Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 164, European Patent No. 1 143 337 (WO 99/40514) [64 pgs.].119Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 165, European Patent Specification No. 1 143 337 [31 pgs.].120Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 166, email from Will Crowder sent Aug. 24, 1997 [1 pg.].121Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 167, email from Chris Newton sent Oct. 26, 2000 [7 pgs.].122Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 168, document titled "Sandpiper Raises $6.6 Million to Boost Content Distribution for Web Publishers," May 19, 1998 [2 pgs.].123Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 169 document titled "Sandpiper Launches Footprint Distribution Service to Improve Web Site Performance; Cost-Effective Service Manages Content Delivery for Web Publishers," Sep. 28, 1998 [3 pgs.].124Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 170 document titled "Sandpiper Completes New Executive Management Team; Sandpiper Poised for Growth with Strong Executive Team," Sep. 28, 1998 [2 pgs.].125Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 171 document titled "Sandpiper Addresses Web Content Management Problems At Herring on Hollywood;�XNew Technology Company Offers Solutions to Entertainment Industry's Internet Woes," Sep. 28, 19.126Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 205, doc. titled "Leapfrog Project Overview," Andrew Swart, Aug. 29, 1996 [2 pgs.].127Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 206, doc. titled "Leapfrog Management Meeting Agenda," Oct. 1, 1996 [1 pg.].128Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 207, letter from Andrew D. Swart, Sandpiper Networks to Jean-Claude Asscher, Feb. 25, 1997 [2 pgs.].129Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 209, email from David A. Farber sent Apr. 19, 1999 [5 pgs.].130Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 210, email from Andrew Swart sent Apr. 24, 1999 [2 pgs.].131Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 211, email from Will Crowder sent May 6, 1999 [10 pgs.].132Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 212, email from Rick Greer sent Sep. 20, 1999 [11 pgs.].133Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 213, email from Mike Warren sent Feb. 25, 2000 [3 pgs.].134Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 216, email from "Andrew" sent Nov. 30, 1999 [7 pgs.].135Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 219, email from "Andrew" sent Sep. 24, 1996 [3 pgs.].136Deposition of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Exhibit 220, document titled "Statement of Opposition, European Patent No. 1 143 337 B", Apr. 23, 2004 [41 pgs.].137Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 10, email from David A. Farber, Jan. 11, 1999 [4 pgs.].138Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 11, U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,598 [23 pgs.].139Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 12, email from David A. Farber, Jan. 18, 1999.140Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 13, email from Will Crowder, Feb. 17, 1999.141Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 155 document titled "WebRepeater™ Functional Requirements," Dave Farber, Sandpiper Software Consulting, LLC, Jun. 18, 1996.142Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 16 email from Will Crowder, May 6, 1999.143Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 166, email from Will Crowder, Aug. 24, 1997.144Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 19, email from David A. Farber, May 12, 1999.145Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 2, email from Dave Farber dated Oct. 15, 1997 [2 pgs.].146Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 22, document titled "Patent Claim: Resource Request Redirector," Dave Farber, Sandpiper Software Consulting, LLC, Draft 3, May 24, 1996.147Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 226, email from Peggy Balesteri, Aug. 7, 2008.148Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 227, email from Dave Farber, May 29, 1996.149Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 228, email from "Dave" dated Jul. 12, 1996.150Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 229, email from "Andrew" dated Jul. 22, 1996.151Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 230, email from "Dave" dated Jul. 10, 1996.152Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 231, document titled "Patent Claim: Network Reflector/Repeater," Dave Farber, Sandpiper Software Consulting, LLC, Draft 5, Jul. 2, 1996.153Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 232, document titled "WebRepeater Features Comparison", Sandpiper Software Consulting, Sep. 17, 1996.154Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 233, email from "Hussain" sent Sep. 19, 1998.155Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 234, email from "Scott" sent May 30, 1998.156Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 235, email from "Andrew" sent Feb. 12, 1999.157Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 236, email from David A. Farber sent Apr. 19, 1999.158Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 237, email from David A. Farber sent May 12, 1999.159Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 238, email from David A. Farber sent May 6, 1999 [1 pg.].160Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 239, document titled "Footprint DNS Server Mini-Specification," Will Crowder, Apr. 23, 1999.161Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 240, email from "David" sent Jun. 4, 1999.162Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 241, email from David A. Farber sent Dec. 6, 1999.163Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 242, email from Chris Newton, sent Oct. 26, 2000.164Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 243, email from "Andrew" sent Jul. 24, 2000.165Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 244, email from Andrew Swart sent Nov. 12, 1999.166Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 245, email from Andrew Swart sent Aug. 23, 2002.167Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 246, email from "Jim" sent Dec. 16, 1999.168Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 247, email from "Jim" sent Nov. 17, 1999.169Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 248, email from "Jim" sent Nov. 17, 1999.170Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 249, email from Will Crowder sent Dec. 21, 1998.171Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 250, email from Chris Newton sent Feb. 15, 2000.172Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 5, U.S. Pat. No. 6,654,807 [28 pgs.].173Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 6, U.S. Pat. No. 7,054,935 [14 pgs.].174Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 7, email from David A. Farber, Dec. 21, 1998 [2 pgs.].175Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 8, email from David A. Farber, Jan. 11, 1999 [1 pg.].176Deposition of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 9, email from Jim Balter, Apr. 19, 1999 [4 pgs.].177Deposition of James A. Balter in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Deposition Exhibit 1, Subpoena in Civil Case [10 pgs.].178Deposition of James A. Balter in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Deposition Exhibit 2, email from Dave Farber dated Oct. 15, 1997 [2 pgs.].179Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 10, email from David A. Farber dated Jan. 11, 1999 [4 pgs.].180Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 11, U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,598 [23 pgs.].181Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 12, email from David A. Farber dated Jan. 18, 1999 [ 4 pgs.].182Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 13, email from Will Crowder dated Feb. 17, 1999 [9 pgs.].183Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 14, email from Jim Balter dated Sep. 8, 2000 [3 pgs].184Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 15, email from Will Crowder dated May 12, 1999 [2 pgs.].185Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 16, email from Will Crowder dated May 6, 1999 [2 pgs.].186Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 17, email from Will Crowder dated Apr. 22, 1999 [9 pgs.].187Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 18, email from Jim Balter dated Apr. 22, 1999 [1 pg.].188Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 19, email from David A. Farber dated May 12, 1999 [1 pg.].189Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 20, email from If-tech©sandpiper.com dated Nov. 25, 1997 [3 pgs.].190Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 21, document titled "Patent Claim: HTTP Redirector" Draft 2, May 20, 1996, Dave Farber, Sandpiper Software Consulting, LLC [11 pgs.].191Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 22, document titled "Patent Claim: Resource Request Redirector," Dave Farber, Sandpiper Software Consulting, LLC, Draft 3, May 24, 1996 [17 pgs.].192Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 23, document titled "Patent Claim: Network Reflector/Repeater," Dave Farber, Sandpiper Software Consulting, LLC, Draft 5, Jul. 2, 1996 [21 pgs.].193Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 24, document titled "Software Design Specification: Advanced Rewrite Tool," J. Balter, Dec. 3, 1999, Sandpiper Networks, Inc.194Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 3, email from Andrew Swart dated Apr. 1, 1998 [1 pg.].195Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 4, email from Rick [Richard] Greer dated Dec. 14, 1998 [6 pgs].196Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 5, U.S. Patent No. 6,654,807 [28 pgs.].197Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 7, email from David A. Farber dated Dec. 21, 1998 [2 pg.].198Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 8, email from David A. Farber dated Jan. 11, 1999 [1 pg.].199Deposition of James A. Balter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 9, email from Jim [James] Balter dated Apr. 19, 1999 [4 pgs.].200Deposition of James A. Salter, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Aug. 8, 2008, Depo. Exhibit 6, U.S. Patent No. 7,054,935 [24 pgs.].201Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 11, U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,598 [23 pgs.].202Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 12, email from David A. Farber sent Jan. 18, 1999 [4 pgs.].203Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 195, document titled "Web Repeater" (Interactive Systems Corporation), Sandpiper Software, Nov. 23, 1996, [80 pgs].204Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 196, Subpoena in Civil Case 2:07cv589 RGD/FBS (E.D. Va.), Jun. 19, 2008 [10 pgs.].205Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 197, email from Rick Greer sent Feb. 18, 1999 [3 pgs.].206Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 198, email from Rick Greer sent Jan. 20, 1999 [7 pgs.].207Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 199, email from Rick@sandpiper.com sent Oct. 9, 1998.208Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 200 email from Rick@sandpiper.com sent Oct. 2, 1998 [2 pgs.].209Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 201, email from Will Crowder sent Dec. 21, 1998 [2 pgs.].210Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 202, email from rick@digisle.com sent Nov. 20, 2000 [2 pgs.].211Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 203, mail from David A. Farber sent Nov. 3, 1999 [1 pg.].212Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 4, email from Rick Greer sent Dec. 14, 1998 [6 pgs.].213Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 5, U.S. Pat. No. 6,654,807 [28 pgs.].214Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 6, U.S. Pat. No. 7,054,935 [24 pgs.].215Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 7, email from David A. Farber sent Dec. 21, 1998 [2 pgs.].216Deposition of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Depo. Exhibit 8, email from David A. Farber sent Jan. 11, 1999 [4 pgs.].217Deposition Transcript of Andrew D. Swart, Aug. 21, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.) [redacted, 98 pgs.].218Deposition Transcript of Andrew D. Swart, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.) [redacted, 78 pgs.].219Deposition transcript of David A. Farber, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.) [87 pgs.].220Deposition Transcript of James A. Balter, Aug. 8, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.) [69 pgs.].221Deposition transcript of Richard E. Greer, Sep. 3, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) (E.D. Va.) [79 pgs.].222Devine, R., "Design and Implementation of DDH: A Distributed Dynamic Hashing Algorithm", in Proc. 4th Int'l Conf. on Foundations of Data Organizations and Algorithms, (1993), 101-114.223Doi, K. "Super Proxy Script�XHow to make distributed proxy servers by URL hashing," Sharp Corp., http://naragw.sharp.co.jp/sps/, dates unknown (1996-2000), download Jul. 7, 2007.224Eriksson, H., "MBONE: The Multicast Backbone," Communications of the ACM, vol. 37, No. 8, p. 54-60, Aug. 1994.225European Patent Office (EPO), European Search Report mailed Aug. 19, 2010 in European Appln. No. 08005349.9 [10 pgs.].226Exhibit 56 to Deposition of Maurice Andrew Collins in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), "Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Deposition of Andrew Collins," Aug. 29, 2008 [28 pgs.].227Exhibit 57 to Deposition of Maurice Andrew Collins in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), Document titled "Detour: Informed Internet Routing and Transport," Savage, et al., IEEE Micro, vol. 19, issue 1, pp. 50-59, Jan./Feb. 1999 [10 pgs.].228Exhibit 58 to Deposition of Maurice Andrew Collins in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), document titled Internet Archive Wayback Machine, sample search Sep. 9, 2008 [1 pg.].229Exhibit 59 to Deposition of Maurice Andrew Collins in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), Document titled "Detour," deponent Collins, Sep. 9, 2008, [1 pg.].230Exhibit 65 to Deposition of Kevin F. Delgadillo, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), Document titled Subpoena in a Civil Case [12 pgs.].231Exhibit 66 to Deposition of Kevin F. Delgadillo, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), Document titled, "Cisco DistributedDirector," [9 pgs.].232Exhibit 67 to Deposition of Kevin F. Delgadillo, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), Document titled, "Electronic Publishing Form," dated Nov. 27, 1996 [5 pgs.].233Exhibit 68 to Deposition of Kevin F. Delgadillo, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), Email from Kevin Delgadillo, dated Jul. 19, 1996 [1 pg.].234Exhibit 69 to Deposition of Kevin F. Delgadillo, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS), Document titled, "Cisco Advantage: Leveraging Intranet and Internet Productivity." [9 pgs.].235Exhibit A to Level 3 Communications, LLC's Objections and Responses to Limelight Networks. Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories, Apr. 21, 2008, in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-WDK-FBBS [68 pgs.].236Exhibit A to Reply and Supplemental Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth to the Answering Report of Scott Bradner, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.) Sep. 5, 2008 [14 pgs.].237Exhibit B to Level 3 Communications, LLC's Objections and Responses to Limelight Networks. Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories, Apr. 21, 2008, in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-WDK-FBS [20 pgs.].238Exhibit B to Reply and Supplemental Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth to the Answering Report of Scott Bradner, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.) Sep. 5, 2008 [12 pgs.].239Exhibit C to Reply and Supplemental Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth to the Answering Report of Scott Bradner, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.) Sep. 5, 2008 [12 pgs.].240Exhibit D to Reply and Supplemental Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth to the Answering Report of Scott Bradner, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.) Sep. 5, 2008 [13 pgs.].241Exhibits A-G of Plaintiff Level 3 Communications, LLC's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Combined Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and to Compel Related Interrogatory Responses, Sep. 30, 2008, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, (Exhibit A [7 pgs.], B [5 pgs.], C [47 pgs.], D [45 pgs.], E [7 pgs.], F [8 pgs.], G [5 pgs.]).242Exhibits A-V filed in support of Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of All Patents-In-Suit, Aug. 28, 2008 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (JBF-FBS) [277 pgs.].243Feeley, M., et al., "Implementing Global Memory Management in a Workstation Cluster", in Proc. 15th ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles, (1995), 201-212.244Fielding, R., et al., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol-HTTP/1.1," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet Draft, draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-00.txt, Nov. 1995.245Fielding, R., et al., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol-HTTP/1.1," Internet Engineering Task Force(IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 2068, Jan. 1997.246Fielding, R., et al., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol�XHTTP/1.1," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Internet Draft, draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-00.txt, Nov. 1995.247Fielding, R., et al., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol�XHTTP/1.1," Internet Engineering Task Force(IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 2068, Jan. 1997.248Floyd, S., et al., "A Reliable Multicast Framework for Light-Weight Sessions and Application Level Framing", in Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM '95, 342-356, Aug. 1995.249Fox, A., "A Framework for Separating Server Scalability and Availability from Internet Application Functionality," PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1998.250Fox, A.; et al,, "Cluster-based scalable network services", Proc. 16th ACM Symp. on Operating Systems Principles (Saint Malo, France, Oct. 5-8, 1997). W. M. Waite, Ed. SOSP '97. ACM Press, New York, NY, 78-91.251Fredman, M., et al., "Storing a Sparse Table with 0(1) Worst Case Access Time", J. ACM, vol. 31, No. 3, (Jul. 1984), 538-544.252Gadde, S., et al., "Reduce, reuse, recycle: An approach to building large internet caches," in Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS), Apr. 1997.253Goldszmidt, et al., "Load Distribution for Scalable Web Servers: Summer Olympics 1996�XA Case Study," in Proc. 8th IFIP/IEEE Int'l Workshop on Distributed Systems: Operations and Management, Sydney, Australia, Oct. 1997.254Grigni, M., et al., "Tight Bounds on Minimum Broadcasts Networks", SIAM J. Disc. Math. 4 (1991), 207-222.255Gulbrandsen, A., et al., "A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", Network Working Group, RFC 2052, Oct. 1996.256Guyton et al., "Locating nearby copies of replicated Internet servers," Proc. ACM SIGCOMM '95, pp. 288-298, 1995.257Gwertzman, J., et al., "The Case for Geographical Push-Caching", Proc. Workshop on Hot OS '95, (May 4, 1995), 51-55.258Gwertzman, J., et al., "World-Wide Web Cache Consistency", Proc. 1996 USENIX Tech. Conf., pp. 141-151, San Diego, CA, Jan. 1996.259Interlocutory Decision in Opposition proceedings for EPO Appln. No. 00 128 346.4�X2211, Patent No. 1143337, Sep. 22, 2008.260International Search Report dated Jun. 8, 1999 for PCT/US99/01477.261Jeffrey et al., Proxy-Sharing Proxy Servers, IEEE, pp. 116-119, 1996.262Joint Statement Regarding Claim Construction with Exhibit "The '807 and '935 Footprint Patents," in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.), filed Jul. 9, 2008 [27 pgs.].263Jury Verdict Form in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (MSD-FBS), Jan. 23, 2009 [3 pgs.].264Karger, D., et al., "Consistent Hashing and Random Trees: Distributed Caching Protocols for Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide Web", in Proc. 29th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing, (May 1997), 654-663.265Korkea-aho, M. (1995). Scalability in Distributed Multimedia Systems, Technical report TKO-B128, Helsinki University of Technology.266Kwan et al., NCSA's World Wide Web Server: Design and Performance, IEEE, pp. 68-74, Nov. 1995.267Letter from Chris Hirsz dated April 22, 2010 to European Patent Office forwarding Statement of Opposition to European Patent No. 1 053 524 B in the name of Level 3 CDN International, Inc. filed in European Patent Office by Akamai Technologies, Inc., Apr. 22, 2004 [2 pgs.].268Level 3 Communications Supplemental Exhibit A in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (JBF-FBS) [69 pgs.].269Level 3 Communications, LLC's Confidential Version of Its Opposition Brief to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of All Patents-In-Suit, Sep. 17, 2008, filed in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (JBF-FBS) [33 pgs.].270Level 3 Communications, LLC's Non-Confidential Version of its Opposition Brief to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of all Patents-In-Suit [Redacted], in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (JFB-FBS), Sep. 17, 2008.271Level 3 Communications, LLC's Objections and Answers to Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Sixth Set of Interrogatories, Feb. 9, 2008, in civil action No. 2:07-cv00589-WFK-FBS [9 pgs.].272Level 3 Communications, LLC's Objections and Answers to Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Third Set of Interrogatories, [redacted], Aug. 18, 2008, in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-WDK-FBS [10 pgs].273Level 3 Communications, LLC's Objections and Responses to Limelight Networks. Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories, [redacted] Apr. 21, 2008, in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-WDK-FBS [28 pgs].274Level 3 Communications, LLC's Second Supplemental Response to Limelight Networks, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (No. 15), Nov. 2, 2008 in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-RGD-FBS [9 pgs.].275Level 3 Communications, LLC's Second Supplemental Response to Limelight Networks, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (No. 4) [Redacted], Nov. 3, 2008 in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-RGD-FBS [8 pgs.].276Level 3 Communications, LLC's Supplemental Responses to Limelight Networks, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (No. 10) [Redacted], Jun. 11, 2008 in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-RGD-FBS [6 pgs.].277Level 3 Communications, LLC's Supplemental Responses to Limelight Networks, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (No. 4), in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-RGD-FBS, in U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., Sep. 3, 2008 [8 pgs.].278Level 3 Communications, LLC's Supplemental Responses to Limelight Networks, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 14 and 15) [Redacted], May 30, 2008 in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-RGD-FBS [10 pgs.].279Level 3 Markman Presentation Powerpoint, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, Jul. 9, 2008 [16 pgs.].280Level 3's Memorandum of Law in Reply to Limelight's Claim Construction Brief for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,654,807; 7,054,935; and 6,473,405, in Civil Action No. 2:07CV589, Jul. 3, 2008 [84 pgs.].281Level 3's Memorandum of Law in Reply to Limelight's Claim Construction Brief, in Civil File No. 2:07CV589, Jul. 3, 2008.282Level 3'S Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial Pursuant to Rules 50(B) and 59(A), in Civil File No. 2:07CV589 (E.D. Va.), Feb. 9, 2009 [3 pgs.].283Level 3'S Reply in Further Support of its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial Pursuant to Rules 50(B) and 59(A), Mar. 12, 2009, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (MSD-FBS) (E.D. Va.) [22 pgs.].284Limelight Claim Construction Hearing Presentation, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, Jul. 14, 2008 [123 pgs.].285Limelight Networks Inc.'s Response to the Report of Professor Ellen W. Zegura, Sep. 5, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) [5 pgs.].286Limelight'S Opposition to Level 3'S Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial Pursuant to Rules 50(B) and 59(A), Mar. 2, 2009, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (MSD-FBS) (E.D. Va.) [31 pgs.].287Litwin, W., et al., "LH*-A Scalable, Distributed Data Structure", ACM Trans. on Database Systems, vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 480-525, 1996.288Luotonen et al., World-Wide Web Proxies, CERN, Apr. 1994 (modified May 24, 1994).289Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2 Carrying Additional Information," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1388, Jan. 1993.290Malpani, R., et al., "Making World Wide Web Caching Servers Cooperate", in Proc. 4th Int'l. World Wide Web Conf. (Dec. 1995), 10 pages (downloaded from http://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/59/ on Jul. 7, 2007).291Memorandum of Law in Support of Level 3's Proposed Claim Constructions in Case No. 2:07cv589 RDG FBS, (E.D. Va.) Jun. 14, 2008 [32 pgs. + exhibits].292Memorandum of Law in Support of Level 3's Proposed Claim Constructions, from Case No. 2:07cv589 RDG FBS, Jun. 13, 2008.293Memorandum on Markman terms to: Judge Robert G. Doumar, Counsel for Level 3 Communications, Counsel for Limelight from: Court appointed technical expert, Professor Ellen W. Zegura Re: Definition of terms, in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-MSD-FBS, Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Aug. 2008).294Minutes of Oral Proceedings Appln. No. 00 128 346.4�X2211, Patent No. 1143337, Sep. 22, 2008.295Mockapetris et al., "Development of the Domain Name System," Proc. SIGCOMM '88 Computer Communications Review, vol. 18, No. 4, Aug. 1988.296Mockapetris, P., RFC 1034: Domain Names�XConcepts and Facilities, Nov. 1987.297Mockapetris, P., RFC 1035: Domain Names�XImplementation and Specification, Nov. 1987.298Mourad et al., "Scalable Web Server Architectures," iscc, 2nd IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC '97), 1997, pp. 12-16.299Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1583, Mar. 1994.300Naor, Moni, et al., "The Load, Capacity and Availability of Quorum Systems", in Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, (Nov. 1994), 214-225.301Nisan, N. 1990. Pseudorandom generators for space-bounded computations. In Proc. 22nd Annual ACM Symp. on theory of Computing (Baltimore, MD, U.S., May 13-17, 1990). H. Ortiz, Ed. Stoc '90. ACM Press, New York, NY, 204-212.302Notice of Abandonment from Canadian Intellectual Property Office for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,320,261 [1 pg.].303Notice of Opposition to a European Patent filed against European Patent No. 1 143 337 B, by Akamai Technologies, Inc., Apr. 23, 2004 [5 pages].304Office Action (Notice of Reasons for Rejection) in Japanese Patent Appln. No. 2007-212908, Mar. 30, 2010, JPO [3 pgs.] with summary English translation [3 pgs.].305Office Action dated Sep. 24, 2007 from Canadian Intellectual Property Office for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,320,261 [5 pgs.].306Office Action dated Sep. 28, 2006 from Canadian Intellectual Property Office for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,320,261 [4 pgs.].307Oguchi et al., A Study of Caching Proxy Mechanisms Realized on Wide Area Distributed Networks, High Performance Distributed Computing, 5th Int'l Symposium, pp. 443-449, 1996.308Opening Brief of Appellant Level 3 Communications, LLC, U.S. Ct. Appeals for Federal Circuit, Level 3 Communications LLC vs. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2009-1480, Oct. 5, 2009 [106 pgs.].309Opinion and Order from U.S. District Judge Mark. S. Davis in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, denying Defendant LimeLight Networks Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, Norfolk, VA, Dec. 29, 2008.310Opinion and Order from U.S. District Judge Mark. S. Davis in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, ruling on Level 3 Communications, LLC's post-trial motions, Norfolk, VA, Jun. 23, 2009 [26 pgs.].311Order denying Appellant's Petition for Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, U.S. Ct. Appeals for Federal Circuit, Level 3 Communications LLC vs. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2009-1480, Jun. 29, 2010 [2 pgs.].312Order from Judge Doumar in civil action No. 2:07-cv-00589-MSD-FBS, Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc. instructing Court-Appointed Expert, Professor Ellen W. Zegura Re: Definition of claim terms, Jul. 25, 2008, [2 pgs.].313Owner's Response of Apr. 10, 2007 to summons to attend oral proceedings dated Feb. 8, 2007 in Opposition Procedure of European Patent No. 1 143 337 B, including auxiliary requests 1 and 2 and attachment discussing claim features [26 pages].314Owner's Response of Mar. 20, 2008 to summons to attend oral proceedings dated Jan. 24, 2008 in Opposition Procedure of European Patent No. 1 143 337 B, including auxiliary requests 3 to 7 [21 pages].315Palmer, M., et al., "Fido: A Cache that Learns to Fetch", in Proc. the 17th Int'l Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, (Sep. 1991), 255-264.316Panigrahy, R., "Relieving Hot Spots on the World Wide Web", Master's thesis, MIT EECS, Jun. 1997, pp. 1-66.317Parris C., et al, "A Dynamic Connection Management Scheme for Guaranteed Performance Services in Packet-Switching Integrated Services Networks," UC Berkeley Computer Science Division Tech. Report TR-93-005, 1993.318Parris C., et al, "The Dynamic Management of Guaranteed Performance Connections in Packet Switched Integrated Service Networks," UC Berkeley Computer Science Division and International Computer Science Institute Tech. Report CSD-94-859, 1994.319Partridge, C., et al., "Host Anycasting Service," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1546, Nov. 1993.320Peleg D., et al., "The Availability of Quorum Systems," Tech. Rep. CS93-17, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 1993.321Peleg, D., et al., "The Availability of Quorum Systems", Information and Computation, 123, (1995), 210-223.322Petri S., et al., "Load Balancing and Fault Tolerance in Workstation Clusters. Migrating Groups of Communicating Processes.", Operating Systems Review, vol. 29, No. 4, Oct. 1995, pp. 25-36.323Plaintiff Level 3 Communications, LLC's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'s Combined Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and to Compel Related Interrogatory Responses, Sep. 30, 2008, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589, [31 pages].324Plaintiff Level 3 Communications, LLC'S Response to Defendant Limelight Networks, Inc.'S Response to Report of Professor Ellen Zegura, Sep. 9, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (WDK-FBS) [5 pgs.].325Plaxton, G. C., et al., "Fast Fault-Tolerant Concurrent Access to Shared Objects", in Proc. 37th IEEE Symp. of Foundations of Computer Science, (1996), 570-579.326Postel, RFC 1591�XDomain Name System Structure and Delegation, Mar. 1994.327Povey, D. et al., "A distributed internet cache," in Proc. of the 20th Australasian Computer Science Conf., Feb. 1997.328Pultar, Giray; "USENIX, Automatically Selecting a Close Mirror Based on Network Topology," Proceedings of the Twelfth Systems Administration Conference; Boston, Massachusetts, Dec. 1998, p. 159-166.329Rabin, M. O., 1989, "Efficient dispersal of information for security, load balancing, and fault tolerance," J. ACM 36, 2 (Apr. 1989), 335-348.330Ravi, R., "Rapid Rumor Ramification: Approximating the Minimum Broadcast Time", in Proceedings of teh 35th IEEE Symposium on Foundation of Computer Science, (Nov. 1994), 202-213.331Reinstatement and Response, filed Apr. 24, 2009 in Canadian Intellectual Property Office for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,320,261 [18 pgs.].332Rekhter Y., et al., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1771, Mar. 1995.333Rekhter Y., et al., "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol in the Internet," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1772, Mar. 1995.334Reply and Supplemental Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth to the Answering Report of Scott Bradner, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.) Sep. 5, 2008 [62 pgs.].335Reply Brief of Appellant Level 3 Communications, LLC, U.S. Ct. Appeals for Federal Circuit, Level 3 Communications LLC vs. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2009-1480, Feb. 2, 2010 [41 pgs.].336Reply of Dec. 21, 2004 of the Patent Proprietor to the Notice of Opposition of European Patent No, 1 143 337 B, Responsive to the Notice of Opposition of Akamai Technologies, Inc. dated Apr. 23, 2004 [11 pages].337Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark, dated Dec. 28, 2007, in connection with Civil Action No. 2:07CV589 filed Dec. 17, 2007.338Response Brief of Defendant-Appellee Limelight Networks, Inc., U.S. Ct. Appeals for Federal Circuit, Level 3 Communications LLC vs. Limelight Networks, Inc., 2009-1480, Jan. 19, 2010 [72 pgs.].339Response to Office Action, filed Mar. 28, 2007 in Canadian Intellectual Property Office for Canadian Patent Application No. 2,320,261 [24 pgs.].340Response to Summons of May 30, 2008 filed in European Patent Office for European Application No. 99 906 680.6 on Oct. 20, 2008.341Ross, K.W., "Hash-Routing for Collections of Shared Web Caches", IEEE Network Magazine, 11, 7:37-44, Nov.-Dec. 1997.342Rule 7.1 Financial Interest Disclosure Statement filed Dec. 17, 2007 in Civil Action No. 2:07CV589.343Schemers, R., "Ibnamed�XA load balancing name server written in Perl," 1995 LISA IX�XSep. 17-22, 1995�XMonterey, CA.344Schmidt, J., et al., "Chernoff-Hoeffding Bounds for Applications with Limited Independence", in Proc. 4th ACM-SIAM Symp. On Discrete Algorithms, (1993), 331-340.345Schuba, Christoph; "Addressing Weaknesses in the Domain Name System Protocol," Coast Laboratory, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University; West Layfayette, IN; Aug. 1993, p. 1-87.346Second Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Kevin C. Almeroth Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.) Dec. 24, 2008 [9 pgs.].347Smith, "What can Archives offer the World Wide Web?", Technical Report 11, University of Kent, Computing Laboratory, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK, 1994.348Statement of Opposition to European Patent No. 1 053 524 B in the name of Level 3 CDN International, Inc. filed in European Patent Office by Akamai Technologies, Inc., Apr. 22, 2004 [40 pgs.].349Statement of Opposition to European Patent No. 1 143 337 B, filed by Akamai Technologies, Inc. Apr. 23, 2004 [43 pages].350Supplemental Answering Report of Scott Bradner Pursuant to Fed. R. CIV. 26(a)(2)(B) Concerning the Validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,654,807 Civil Action No. 2:07CV589 (RGD-FBS (E.D. Va.) Dec. 10, 2008 [28 pgs.].351Tarjan, Robert E., et al., "Storing a Sparse Table", Commun.ACM, 22, 11, (Nov. 1979), 606-611.352Thaler, D. G. and Ravishankar, C. V. 1998. Using name-based mappings to increase hit rates. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 6, 1 (Feb. 1998), 1-14.353Topolcic, C., "Experimental Internet Stream Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1190, Oct. 1990.354Touch, J. et al., "The X-Bone,". Third Global Internet Mini-Conference at Globecom '98. Sydney, Australia, Nov. 1998, pp. 59-68 (pp. 44-52 of the mini-conference).355Traina, P., "BGP-4 Protocol Analysis," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1774, Mar. 1995.356Traina, P., "Experience with the BGP-4 protocol," Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comments (RFC) 1773, Mar. 1995.357Transcript of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Kevin F. Delgadillo, Tuesday, Sep. 9, 2008 in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 [39 pages].358Transcript of Deposition of Kevin C. Almeroth, Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (RGD-FBS) (E.D. Va.), Sep. 11, 2008 (redacted) [98 pgs.].359Transcript of Deposition of Maurice Andrew Collins, Sep. 9, 2008 in Civil Action No. 2:07CV589 [136 pgs.].360Transcript of Federal Circuit Oral Argument, Level 3 Communications LLC vs. Limelight, Monday, May 3, 2010 [14 pgs.].361Transcript of Oral Argument, U.S. Ct. Appeals for Federal Circuit, Level 3 Communications LLC vs. Limelight, Monday, May 3, 2010 [14 pgs.].362Transcript of Proceedings (Motion for Summary Judgment), in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 in U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Va., Norfolk, Va., Dec. 18, 2008, [145 pgs.].363Transcript of Proceedings for Jury Trial, Norfolk, VA, Jan. 7 to 23, 2009, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (E.D. Va.) [1052 pgs.].364Transcript of Proceedings for Markman Follow-up Hearing, Norfolk, VA, Oct. 23, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (E.D. Va.) [58 pgs.].365Transcript of Proceedings for Markman Hearing, Norfolk, VA, Jul. 14, 2008, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (E.D. Va.) [69 pgs.].366Transcript of Proceedings, Hearing before Hon. Mark S. Davis, U.S. District Judge, in Civil Action No. 2:07cv589 (E.D. Va.), Oct. 23, 2008 [62 pgs.].367U.S. Ct. Appeals for Fed. Circuit, 2009-1490, Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Judgment Affirmed, Fed. Cir. R. 36, May 5, 2010 [2 pgs.].368U.S. P.T.O. Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/980,684, May 19, 2009.369Vitter, J. S., et al., "Optimal Prefetching via Data Compression," Proc. 32nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Oct. 1991).370Vixie, Paul; "Name Server Operations Guide for BIND," Internet Software Consortium; La Honda, CA; p. SMM:10-2�XSMM:10-30 (undated, 1996).371Wegman, Mark, et al., "New Hash Functions and Their Use in Authentication and Set Equality", Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 22, (Jun. 1981), 265-279.372Wessels, D. et al., RFC 2187, "Application of Internet Cache Protocol (ICP), Version 2", Sep. 1997, Memo; Internet RFC/STD/FYI/BCP Archives; Network Working Group.373Wessels, Intelligent Caching for World-Wide Web Objects, Masters Thesis, University of Colorado, 1995.374Written Submissions in Opposition to European Patent No. 1 143 337 B, by Akamai Technologies, Inc., Apr. 5, 2007 [5 pages].375Yao, A. C. 1981. Should Tables Be Sorted?. J. ACM 28, 3 (Jul. 1981), 615-628.376Yokohashi, Takao, System Architectonic Solaris2.x, 26th, UNIX USER, Japan, Softbank Corp., Jan. 1, 1998, vol. 7, No. 1, p. 89-96.�Q�H�U�M�Q�ޥ� �ޥΥ��M�Q�ӽФ���o�G��� �ӽЪ��M�Q�W��US8060613 *2007�~10��31��2011�~11��15��Level 3 Communications, LlcResource invalidation in a content delivery networkUS8281035 *2006�~5��26��2012�~10��2��Level 3 Communications, LlcOptimized network resource locationUS8291046 *2007�~5��30��2012�~10��16��Level 3 Communications, LlcShared content delivery infrastructure with rendezvous based on load balancing and network conditionsUS8296396 *2007�~10��31��2012�~10��23��Level 3 Communications, LlcDelivering resources to clients in a distributed computing environment with rendezvous based on load balancing and network conditionsUS8346937 *2010�~11��30��2013�~1��1��Amazon Technologies, Inc.Content managementUS8352614 *2010�~11��30��2013�~1��8��Amazon Technologies, Inc.Content managementUS8402137 *2008�~8��8��2013�~3��19��Amazon Technologies, Inc.Content managementUS20050198334 *2005�~2��23��2005�~9��8��Balter James A.Optimized network resource locationUS20060218265 *2006�~5��26��2006�~9��28��Savvis Communications CorporationOptimized network resource locationUS20070233706 *2007�~5��30��2007�~10��4��Level 3 Communications, LlcShared content delivery infrastructure with rendezvous based on load balancing and network conditionsUS20070233846 *2007�~5��30��2007�~10��4��Level 3 Communications, LlcDelivering resources to clients in a distributed computing environmentUS20080215755 *2007�~10��31��2008�~9��4��Level 3 Communications, LlcDelivering resources to clients in a distributed computing environment with rendezvous based on load balancing and network conditionsUS20090248858 *2008�~8��8��2009�~10��1��Marshall Bradley EContent managementUS20100250655 *2010�~3��22��2010�~9��30��Thomson LicensingMethods for delivering and receiving interactive multimediaUS20110072110 *2010�~11��30��2011�~3��24��Marshall Bradley EContent managementUS20110078240 *2010�~11��30��2011�~3��31��Marshall Bradley EContent managementUS20110219120 *2011�~5��16��2011�~9��8��Level 3 Communications, LlcTransparent Redirection Of Resource Requests* �Ѽf�d�H��ޥ����� ���M�Q������709/234, 709/224��ڱM�Q������G06F17/30, G06F15/16, G06F15/173, H04L29/12, H04L29/06, G06F9/50, H04L29/08 �X�@����G06F9/505, H04L29/08162, H04L2029/06054, H04L29/08711, H04L29/12066, H04L29/08909, H04L29/08171, H04L29/08234, H04L29/0854, H04L29/08738, H04L29/08819, H04L29/08216, H04L61/1511, H04L29/0818, H04L29/06, H04L29/08243, G06F17/30899, H04L29/08747, H04L29/08189, H04L29/08144 �ڬw������H04L29/08N27S4, G06F17/30W9, H04L29/08N27X9, H04L29/08N27E, H04L29/08N9A, H04L29/12A2A1, H04L29/08N9R, H04L29/08N27A, H04L29/08N27D, G06F9/50A6L, H04L29/06, H04L29/08N9A1B, H04L29/08N9A1J, H04L29/08N9A1C, H04L29/08N9A3, H04L29/08N9A1A, H04L29/08N9A1G, H04L61/15A1������l�Ϥ�Google ���� - Sitemap - USPTO �j�q�U�� - ���p�v�F�� - �A�ȱ�� - ���� Google �M�Q - �N���^�X��ƬO�Ѭ��ӷ~�M�Q��Ʈw (IFI CLAIMS Patent Services) ����©2012 Google