Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`Paper No. _______
`
`Apple Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VirnetX, Inc. and Science Application International Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,502,135
`Issued: Dec. 31, 2002
`Filed: Feb. 15, 2000
`Inventors: Edmund C. Munger, et al
`Title: Agile Network Protocol For Secure Communications With Assured System
`Availability
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2013-00348
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW .......................................................................... 1
`A. Certification the ’135 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner .............. 1
`B.
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a)) ................................................ 3
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b)) ................................................. 3
`1. Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ................................................. 3
`2. Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2)) ..................................................... 3
`3. Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel ....................................... 4
`4. Service Information (§42.8(b)(4)) .................................................... 5
`D. Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a)) .......................................... 5
`II.
`(§ 42.104(B)) ................................................................................................... 5
`III. RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED
`PATENT ......................................................................................................... 6
`A. Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’135
`patent ....................................................................................................... 6
`B.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art......................................................... 7
`C. Construction of Terms Used in the Claims ............................................ 8
`1. Virtual Private Network (VPN) (Claims 1, 10, 13, 18) ................... 8
`2. Virtual Private Link (Claim 13) ..................................................... 12
`3. Domain Name (Claims 1, 10, 13, 18) ............................................ 12
`4. Domain Name Service (Claims 1, 10, 13, 18) ............................... 12
`5. DNS Server (Claims 18, 2 and 8) .................................................. 13
`6. DNS Proxy Server (Claims 10, 8) .................................................. 13
`7. Web Site (Claims 1, 10, 18) ........................................................... 14
`8. Secure Web Site/Target Web Site (Claims 1, 8, 10, 18) ............... 14
`9. Secure Web Computer (Claim 10) ................................................. 14
`10. Target Computer (Claims 1, 10, 18) ............................................. 15
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMS BEING CHALLENGED
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`11. IP Address Hopping Scheme (Claim 6) ........................................ 15
`IV. PRECISE REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ............................... 15
`A. Claims 1-10, 12-15 and 18 Are Anticipated By U.S. Patent No.
`6,496,867 to Beser et al. (Beser). ......................................................... 15
`1. Beser Anticipates Claim 1 .............................................................. 16
`2. Beser Anticipates Claim 10 ............................................................ 18
`3. Beser Anticipates Claim 13 ............................................................ 21
`4. Beser Anticipates Claim 18 ............................................................ 23
`5. Beser Anticipates Claim 2 .............................................................. 26
`6. Beser Anticipates Claim 3 .............................................................. 26
`7. Beser Anticipates Claims 4 and 12 ................................................ 27
`8. Beser Anticipates Claim 5 .............................................................. 28
`9. Beser Anticipates Claims 6 and 14 ................................................ 28
`10. Beser Anticipates Claim 7 ............................................................ 29
`11. Beser Anticipates Claim 8 ............................................................ 30
`12. Beser Anticipates Claim 9 ............................................................ 30
`13. Beser Anticipates Claim 15 .......................................................... 31
`B. Beser Considered with RFC 2401 Renders Obvious Claims 1-
`10, 12-15, and 18 .................................................................................. 31
`1. Claims 1, 10, 13 and 18 Would Have Been Obvious .................... 34
`2. Dependent Claims 2-9, 12, 14 and 15 ............................................ 36
`3. Dependent Claims 6 and 14 ........................................................... 36
`C. Beser in View of Blum Renders Obvious Claims 3, 5, 8, 10,
`12, and 18.............................................................................................. 38
`1. Claim 10, and Claims 3 and 8 Would Have Been Obvious ........... 39
`2. Claim 18 and Claim 5 Would Have Been Obvious ....................... 42
`3. Dependent Claim 12 ....................................................................... 44
`D. Beser in View of RFC 2401, and Further in View of Blum
`Renders Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, and 18 Obvious ........................................ 45
`E. Beser in view of Aventail Renders Claims 18 and 5 Obvious ............. 45
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`Beser in view of RFC 2401 and Aventail Renders Claims 18
`
`Beser in view of Hoke and Aventail Renders Claims 18 and 5
`
`F. Beser in view of Hoke Renders Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18
`Obvious ................................................................................................. 47
`1. Claims 1, 10, 13, and 18 Would Have Been Obvious ................... 47
`2. Claims 9 and 12 Would Have Been Obvious ................................ 48
`3. Claim 13 Would Have Been Obvious ............................................ 50
`4. Dependent Claims 2-8, and 14-15 .................................................. 52
`G. Beser in view of Hoke and Blum Renders Claims 10, 18, 3, 5,
`8, and 12 Obvious ................................................................................. 52
`H. Beser in view of RFC 2401 and Hoke Renders Claims 13, 9,
`and 12 Obvious ..................................................................................... 53
`I.
`and 5 Obvious ....................................................................................... 53
`J.
`Obvious ................................................................................................. 54
`K. Beser in view of RFC 2401, Hoke, Blum, and Aventail
`Renders Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 Obvious ...................................... 55
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 55
`
`
`
`Attachment A. Proof of Service of the Petition
`
`Attachment B. List of Evidence and Exhibits Relied Upon in Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`I.
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`A. Certification the ’135 Patent May Be Contested by Petitioner
`Petitioner certifies it is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 (the ’135 patent) (Ex. 1001). Neither
`
`Petitioner, nor any party in privity with Petitioner, has filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of any claim of the ’135 patent. The ’135 patent has not
`
`been the subject of a prior inter partes review by Petitioner or a privy of Petitioner.
`
`Petitioner also certifies this petition for inter partes review is filed within
`
`one year of the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of a patent.
`
`Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’135 patent on
`
`December 31, 2012, which led to Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00855-LED in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. Ex. 1050. Because the date of this petition is less than
`
`one year from December 31, 2012, this petition complies with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Petitioner notes it was previously served with a complaint asserting
`
`infringement of the ’135 patent in August of 2010, which led to Civil Action No:
`
`6:10-cv-417. During that action, the District Court established an additional civil
`
`action, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00211-LED, on February 26, 2013 (also pending
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas). The August 2010 complaint does not foreclose
`
`the present petition, as Patent Owner served a new complaint on Petitioner
`
`asserting infringement of the ’135 patent in December of 2012.
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`Petitioner submits this conclusion is compelled by the plain language of
`
`§ 315(b). Notably, § 315(b) does not specify a one-year deadline that runs from
`
`the date of the first complaint served on a petitioner. Rather, it states “[a]n inter
`
`partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed
`
`more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or
`
`privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`patent.” Thus, a petition filed within 1 year of the date any complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the patent is served on a petitioner is timely under the plain
`
`statutory language of § 315(b). This is also the only reading of § 315(b) consistent
`
`with the statutory design. Congress designed the IPR authority to be option to
`
`contest validity of a patent concurrently with district court proceedings involving
`
`the same patent. A timely filed IPR proceeding in any action a patent owner elects
`
`to commence is perfectly consistent with this statutory design.
`
`Reading § 315(b) in this manner also is the only way to effectively foreclose
`
`gaming of the system by a Patent Owner. Indeed, if § 315(b) were read to
`
`foreclose IPR proceedings in a second, independent action for infringement a
`
`patent owner elected to commence, it would unfairly foreclose use of the IPR
`
`system. For example, a patent owner could assert irrelevant claims in a first action,
`
`wait a year, and then assert different claims in a new action that do present risks to
`
`a third party. In this scenario, the patent owner would foreclose legitimate use of
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`an IPR to contest validity of the patent claims asserted in the second action based
`
`on the third party’s reasonable business decision to not dispute validity of
`
`irrelevant claims in the first action. Rather than attempting to decipher which
`
`scenarios would be improper, the Board should follow the plain meaning of
`
`§ 315(b), and find a petition timely if it is filed within 1 year of the date any
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the patent is served on a Petitioner.
`
`Finally, reading §315(b) to foreclose this petition based on the August 2010
`
`complaint would be particularly unjust in this case. The 1-year period following
`
`service of the August 2010 complaint expired before it was possible to submit an
`
`IPR petition – petitions could only be filed on or after September 16, 2012.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (§ 42.15(a))
`
`B.
`The Director is authorized to charge the fee specified by 37 CFR § 42.15(a)
`
`to Deposit Account No. 18-1260.
`
`C. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8(b))
`1.
`Real Party in Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`The real party of interest of this petition pursuant to § 42.8(b)(1) is Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) located at One Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.
`
`2. Other Proceedings (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`The ’135 patent is the subject of a number of civil actions including: (i) Civ.
`
`Act. No. 6:13-cv-00211-LED (E.D. Tex.), filed February 26, 2013; (ii) Civ. Act.
`
`No. 6:12-cv-00855-LED (E.D. Tex.), filed November 6, 2012; (iii) Civ. Act. No.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`6:10-cv-00417-LED (E.D. Tex.), filed August 11, 2010 (the “2010 litigation”); (iv)
`
`Civ. Act. No. 6:11-cv-00018-LED (E.D. Tex), (iv) Civ. Act. No. 6:13-cv-00351-
`
`LED (E.D. Tex), filed April 22, 2013; (v) Civ. Act. No. 6:10-cv-00094 (E.D. Tex);
`
`and (vi) Civ. Act. No. 6:07-cv-00080 (E.D. Tex). Actions (i) to (iii) name
`
`Petitioner as a defendant.
`
`The ’135 patent is also the subject of merged inter partes reexamination nos.
`
`95/001,679 and 95/001,682. Petitioner is the real party of interest in the ’682
`
`proceeding. In the merged proceedings, the Office recently issued a Non-Final
`
`Action rejecting all 18 claims of the ’135 patent, including rejections based on Ex.
`
`1007 (Aventail), Ex. 1008 (BinGO), and Ex. 1009 (Beser), as well as on other prior
`
`art references. Petitioner recognizes it may be appropriate for the Panel to merge,
`
`join or take other steps to manage these concurrent proceedings. The ’135 patent
`
`also was the subject of reexamination no. 95/001,269, which is concluded.
`
`Finally the ’135 patent is the subject of IPR petition No. 2013-00349, being
`
`filed concurrently with the present Petition.
`
`3.
`
`Designation of Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`jkushan@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8914
`
`Backup Lead Counsel
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`(202) 736-8492
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`Service Information (§42.8(b)(4))
`
`4.
`Service on Petitioner may be made by mail or hand delivery to: Sidley
`
`Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. The fax number for
`
`lead and backup counsel is (202) 736-8711.
`
`D.
`Proof of Service (§§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a))
`Proof of service of this petition is provided in Attachment A.
`
`II.
`
`Identification of Claims Being Challenged (§ 42.104(b))
`Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 of the ’135 patent are unpatentable as being
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) & (e), and/or for being obvious over the prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically:
`
`(i)
`
`Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 are anticipated under § 102(e) by U.S.
`Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser et al. (Beser) (Ex. 1009);
`
`(ii) Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser
`(Ex. 1009) in view of RFC 2401 (Ex. 1010);
`
`(iii) Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser
`(Ex. 1009) in view of Blum (Ex. 1011);
`
`(iv) Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser
`(Ex. 1009) in view of RFC 2401 (Ex. 1010) and Blum (Ex. 1011);
`
` (v) Claims 18 and 5 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser (Ex. 1009)
`in view of RFC 2401 (Ex. 1010) and Aventail (Ex. 1007);
`
`(vi) Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser
`(Ex. 1009) in view of Hoke (Ex. 1012);
`
`(vii) Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser
`(Ex. 1009) in view of Hoke (Ex. 1012) and Blum (Ex. 1011);
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`(viii) Claims 9, 12, and 13 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser (Ex.
`1009) in view of RFC 2401 (Ex. 1010) and Hoke (Ex. 1012);
`
` (ix) Claims 5 and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser (Ex. 1009)
`in view of Hoke (Ex. 1012) and Aventail (Ex. 1007);
`
`(x) Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 are obvious under § 103 based on Beser
`(Ex. 1009) in view of RFC 2401 (Ex. 1010), Hoke (Ex. 1012), Blum
`(Ex. 1011), and Aventail (Ex. 1007);
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of the contested claims, the evidence relied
`
`upon, and the precise reasons why the claims are unpatentable are provided in
`
`§ IV, below. The evidence relied upon in this petition is listed in Attachment B.
`
`III. Relevant Information Concerning the Contested Patent
`A. Effective Filing Date and Prosecution History of the ’135 patent
`The ’135 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 09/504,783, filed
`
`February 15, 2000. The ’783 application is a continuation-in-part of U.S.
`
`Application No. 09/429,653, filed on October 29, 1999. The ’783 and ’653
`
`applications each claim priority to Provisional Application Nos. 60/106,261, filed
`
`October 30, 1998 and 60/137,704, filed June 7, 1998.
`
`Claims 1, 10, 13 and 18 are the independent claims. Claims 1, 10 and 18
`
`rely on information first presented in the ’783 CIP application. For example, claim
`
`1 specifies “generating from the client computer a Domain Name Service (DNS)
`
`request …” and subsequent steps involving that DNS request, while claim 10
`
`specifies “[a] system … comprising … a DNS proxy server…” No application
`
`filed prior to the ’783 application even uses the term “domain name service” much
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`less describes methods or systems that use DNS requests or DNS proxy servers to
`
`establish virtual private networks. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶54-61. Claim 13 likewise relies
`
`on information first presented in the disclosure of the ’783 application. For
`
`example, it specifies “…receiving from one of the plurality of client computers a
`
`request to establish a connection…” and “…authenticating, with reference to one
`
`of the plurality of authentication tables, that the request received in step (1) is
`
`from an authorized client.” Neither step is described in any application filed
`
`before the ’783 application. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶54-61. Accordingly, the effective filing
`
`date of claims 1-10, 12-15 and 18 is no earlier than February 15, 2000. Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶61. In the inter partes reexamination proceedings involving the ’135 patent,
`
`Patent Owner did not dispute that the effective filing date of the ’135 patent was no
`
`earlier than February 15, 2000.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`B.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’135 patent would
`
`have been someone with a good working knowledge of networking protocols,
`
`including those employing security techniques, as well as computer systems that
`
`support these protocols and techniques. The person also would be very familiar
`
`with Internet standards related to communications and security, and with a variety
`
`of client-server systems and technologies. The person would have gained this
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`knowledge either through education and training, several years of practical
`
`working experience, or through a combination of these. Ex. 1003 at ¶68.
`
`C. Construction of Terms Used in the Claims
`In this proceeding, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification. 37 CFR 42.100(b). The broadest
`
`reasonable construction should encompass subject matter Patent Owner contends
`
`infringes the claims, and constructions Patent Owner has advanced in litigation.
`
`Also, if Patent Owner contends terms in the claims should be read to have a special
`
`meaning in this proceeding, those contentions should be disregarded unless Patent
`
`Owner presents amendments to the claims compliant with 35 U.S.C. § 112 that
`
`conform the claim language to such contentions. See 77 Fed .Reg. 48764 at II.B.6
`
`(August 14, 2012). Cf., In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Petitioner consequently has identified subject matter that falls within the scope of
`
`the claims read in their broadest reasonable construction, which Petitioner submits
`
`is sufficient for the purposes of this proceeding.
`
`1.
`Virtual Private Network (VPN) (Claims 1, 10, 13, 18)
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “virtual private network” or
`
`“VPN.” Ex. 1003 at ¶194. Two issues are raised by Patent Owner’s contentions
`
`in litigation involving the ’135 patent regarding this term.
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`First, Patent Owner has contended a VPN requires the network traffic sent
`
`over the VPN to be encrypted. See Ex. 1046 at 3-8 (a VPN is “a network of
`
`computers which privately communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on
`
`insecure communication paths between the computers.”); Ex. 1003 at ¶193. The
`
`District Court in the 2010 litigation held a VPN is “a network of computers which
`
`privately and directly communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on
`
`insecure paths between the computers where the communication is both secure
`
`and anonymous.” Ex. 1043 at 8. The broadest reasonable construction of VPN,
`
`however, would not require the network traffic to be encrypted. For example, the
`
`’135 patent states “Data security is usually tackled using some form of data
`
`encryption” (Ex. 1001 at 1:38-39) and refers to a technique that does not use
`
`encryption to protect the anonymity of the VPN. Ex. 1001 at 2:25-36; see also Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶¶193-198. The ’135 patent also shows a particular type of VPN – one
`
`using “TARP” routers – that does use encryption (Ex. 1001 at 2:66-3:29) but
`
`indicates this scheme is not mandatory in the DNS-based VPN schemes it claims.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 38:2-5 (“The VPN is preferably implemented using the IP
`
`address “hopping” features of the basic invention described above…”). The ’135
`
`disclosure also does not show any explicit encryption steps for DNS-related VPN
`
`schemes. See Ex. 1001 at 37:17-40:13. In February of 2000, it was understood a
`
`VPN could be established without encryption; namely, by using “obfuscation” or
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`hiding techniques to ensure the security and anonymity of the network traffic over
`
`the public network. See Ex. 1003 at ¶¶193-198.
`
`Second, Patent Owner disputed in concurrent litigation that the claims
`
`require computers in a VPN to “directly communicate with each other.” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1046 at 1-3. In the August 2010 litigation, the Court found that Patent Owner
`
`had disclaimed from the literal scope of the ’135 claims VPNs that do not involve
`
`“direct communications” between the involved computers. Ex. 1043 at 6; see also
`
`Ex. 1046 at 6-9; Ex. 1048 at 5-7. The Court specifically relied on Patent Owner’s
`
`representations to the Office during the ’269 reexamination proceeding involving
`
`the ’135 patent to make this determination – it found that Patent Owner had
`
`asserted the ’135 claims were not anticipated by the Aventail systems because
`
`“computers connected according to Aventail do not communicate directly with
`
`each other.” The Court also observed that “…routers, firewalls, and similar
`
`servers that participate in typical network communication do not impede ‘direct’
`
`communication between a client and target computer.” Ex. 1043 at 8 (FN2).
`
`The Court thus determined that a portion of the literal scope of the ’135
`
`patent claims has been disclaimed (i.e., that portion covering VPNs in which
`
`computers do not “directly” communicate). The logical consequence of that
`
`determination is that the claims in their broadest reasonable construction still
`
`encompass this disclaimed subject matter. Patent Owner’s prosecution disclaimer
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`– which is plainly effective in a district court proceeding to limit the claims
`
`because the claims cannot be amended in that proceeding – should not be given
`
`weight in this proceeding under the broadest reasonable construction standard.
`
`See, e.g., M.P.E.P. § 2111; id. at § 2111.01(I) (“Although claims of issued patents
`
`are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other
`
`claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during
`
`examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as
`
`their terms reasonably allow”). Instead, in this proceeding, Patent Owner must
`
`amend the claims to exclude subject matter it has disclaimed. The broadest
`
`reasonable construction of “VPN” thus encompasses “a network of computers
`
`which privately communicate – directly or otherwise – with each other on insecure
`
`paths between the computers where the communication is both secure and
`
`anonymous, where the data transferred may or may not be encrypted.”
`
`This also demonstrates that the literal scope of the claims (disregarding
`
`Patent Owner’s disclaimer) encompass what the Office found to be described in
`
`Aventail (Ex. 1007). Aventail also describes VPNs in which computers
`
`communicate “directly” pursuant to the Court’s construction. See § IV.A.1,
`
`below.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`2.
`Virtual Private Link (Claim 13)
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “virtual private link.” Patent
`
`Owner has asserted a “virtual private link” is “a communication link that permits
`
`computers to privately communicate with each other by encrypting traffic on
`
`insecure communication paths between the computers.” Ex. 1043 at 8. The Court,
`
`however, found this term means the same thing as a VPN. Ex. 1043 at 8-9 (“the
`
`Court construes ‘virtual private link’ as ‘a virtual private network as previously
`
`defined.’”). Consequently, Petitioner submits the same construction should be
`
`used for “virtual private link” as is used for “virtual private network.”
`
`Domain Name (Claims 1, 10, 13, 18)
`
`3.
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “domain name.” Patent Owner
`
`has asserted a “domain name” means “a name corresponding to an IP address.”
`
`Ex. 1046 at 14-15. The broadest reasonable construction of this “domain name”
`
`should include Patent Owner’s proposed definition.
`
`4.
`Domain Name Service (Claims 1, 10, 13, 18)
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “domain name service.” Patent
`
`Owner has asserted a “domain name service” is “a lookup service that returns an IP
`
`address for a requested domain name.” Ex. 1046 at 13-14. A domain name
`
`service performs domain name resolution according to Internet standards, namely,
`
`RFC 1034 (Ex. 1016) and RFC 1035 (Ex. 1017). Ex. 1003 at ¶¶116-117. Under
`
`these standards, an IP address will not always be returned – an error also may be
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`returned. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶116-125. The broadest reasonable construction of
`
`“domain name service” thus includes “a lookup service that will return an IP
`
`address or an error code in response to a domain name resolution request.”
`
`5.
`DNS Server (Claims 18, 2 and 8)
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “DNS Server.” The ’135 patent
`
`indicates that when this term is used, it is being used generally as a “server” that
`
`returns an IP address in response to a request containing a domain name. See Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶210-216. As noted in § 4, a domain name service also may return an
`
`error. The broadest reasonable construction of “DNS server” thus includes “a
`
`computer or computer-based process that will return an IP address or an error code
`
`in response to a domain name resolution request.”
`
`6.
`DNS Proxy Server (Claims 10, 8)
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “DNS proxy server.” It does
`
`discuss features of a “DNS Proxy Server.” For example, it explains a DNS proxy
`
`server may distribute its functions across multiple computers and processes. See
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶219 (citing to Ex. 1001 at 38:23-53). Patent Owner also has asserted
`
`a “DNS proxy server” is “a computer or program that responds to a domain name
`
`inquiry in place of a DNS.” Ex. 1046 at 16-17. The broadest reasonable
`
`construction of a “DNS Proxy Server” thus includes “one or more computers or
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`processes that individually or collectively respond to a domain name inquiry in
`
`place of a DNS server.”
`
`7. Web Site (Claims 1, 10, 18)
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “web site.” Patent Owner asserted
`
`a “web site” means “a computer associated with a domain name and that can
`
`communicate in a network.” Ex. 1046 at 21-22. The broadest reasonable
`
`construction of “web site” should include Patent Owner’s construction.
`
`8.
`Secure Web Site/Target Web Site (Claims 1, 8, 10, 18)
`The ’135 patent does not define the terms “secure web site” or “secure
`
`target web site.” Patent Owner has asserted a “secure web site” means “a
`
`computer associated with a domain name and that can communicate in a virtual
`
`private network.” Ex. 1046 at 21-22. Patent Owner proposed a similar definition
`
`for a “secure target web site”; namely, “a target computer associated with a domain
`
`name and that can communicate in a virtual private network.” Ex. 1046 at 21-22.
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of these terms should include Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed constructions for each term.
`
`Secure Web Computer (Claim 10)
`
`9.
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “secure web computer.” Patent
`
`Owner has asserted that a “secure web computer” means “a computer that requires
`
`authorization for access and that can communicate in a virtual private network.”
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`Ex. 1046 at 22-24. The broadest reasonable construction of “secure web
`
`computer” should include the Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`10. Target Computer (Claims 1, 10, 18)
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “target computer.” Patent Owner
`
`has asserted this term can mean “a computer with which the client computer seeks
`
`to communicate.” Ex. 1046 at 24-25. The broadest reasonable construction of this
`
`term should include Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`IP Address Hopping Scheme (Claim 6)
`
`11.
`The ’135 patent does not define the term “IP address hopping scheme.” It
`
`does refer to a variety of schemes that route traffic through intermediary network
`
`devices according to a pre-defined scheme as “IP hopping schemes.” See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:30-64, 14:59-16:15. These schemes use a wide variety of routing
`
`concepts and strategies. The broadest reasonable construction of “IP address
`
`hopping scheme” thus encompasses any type of scheme that routes IP traffic from
`
`a client to the destination through intermediary devices.
`
`IV. Precise Reasons for Relief Requested
`A. Claims 1-10, 12-15 and 18 Are Anticipated By U.S. Patent No.
`6,496,867 to Beser et al. (Beser).
`
`Beser has an effective filing date of August 27, 1999, and is prior art under
`
`at least under §102(e). A concise summary of the systems and processes described
`
`in Beser is provided at ¶¶299-613 of Ex. 1003.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`Beser Anticipates Claim 1
`
`1.
`Beser describes processes that automatically and transparently establish an
`
`IP tunneling association between two end devices with the aid of a first and second
`
`network device and a trusted-third-party network device on a public network. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶¶299-304. In the Beser schemes, an originating end device is on a local
`
`network that is connected to the public network via a first network device. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶¶304-305, 314-320. Similarly, the terminating end device is on a
`
`different local network that is connected to the public network by a second network
`
`device. Id. Beser shows that the trusted-third-party network device may be a DNS
`
`server. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶306, 320-324. Beser also teaches that IP traffic sent over the
`
`public network in an IP tunneling association ordinarily is encrypted. See Ex. 1003
`
`at ¶¶311-313, 358-365. Beser therefore shows “[a] method for transparently
`
`creating a virtual private network (VPN) between a client computer and a target
`
`computer.” Ex. 1003 at ¶¶425-430; see generally Ex. 1003 at ¶¶170-185.
`
`In the Beser schemes, an originating device sends a request containing a
`
`domain name associated with a terminating device to the first network device. Ex.
`
`1003 at ¶¶330-334. The first network device then forwards the request to the
`
`trusted-third-party network device. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶330, 335. Beser thus describes a
`
`process that includes a step of “generating from the client computer a Domain