`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Group Art Unit: Central
`Reexamination Unit
`
`
`Examiner:
`
`Confirmation No.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 15, 2000
`
`December 31, 2002
`
`
`In re Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`Filed:
`
`Issued:
`
`Inventors: Munger et al.
`
`For: AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR
`SECURE COMMUNICATIONS
`WITH ASSURED SYSTEM
`AVAILABILITY
`
` )
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 311
`
`
`ATTN: Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir,
`
`Presented herewith is a request for inter partes reexamination of United States Patent No.
`
`6,502,135 (the ’135 patent), entitled “Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications with
`Assured System Availability.” The inventors of the ’135 patent are Edmund Colby Munger,
`Douglas Charles Schmidt, Robert Dunham Short, Victor Larson and Michael Williamson. The
`present assignee of the ’135 patent is VirnetX Corporation, as recorded at Reel 018757, Frame
`0326. A list of all exhibits submitted with this reexamination request is provided in the
`accompanying transmittal letter for this request for inter partes reexamination.
`
`
`
`
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2010
`Apple v. Virnetx
`Case IPR2013-00349
`
`1
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A REQUEST FOR INTER PARTES
`REEXAMINATION ..............................................................................................................................................8
`A. THE ’135 PATENT IS ELIGIBLE TO BE THE SUBJECT OF AN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION .............................8
`B. CLAIMS OF THE ’135 PATENT FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED .....................................................8
`C. FEE FOR REEXAMINATION .................................................................................................................................8
`D. CITATION AND COPIES OF PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS THAT ESTABLISH A SUBSTANTIAL NEW
`QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY ..........................................................................................................................8
`E. COPY OF THE PATENT FOR WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED ................................................................8
`F. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY REQUESTER ON THE PATENT OWNER ..................................................................8
`G. REAL PARTY OF INTEREST OF THE REQUESTER .................................................................................................9
`H. CERTIFICATION THAT REQUESTER IS NOT ESTOPPED FROM REQUESTING REEXAMINATION ............................9
`II. STATEMENT IDENTIFYING EACH SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY
`RAISED BY THE CITED PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS ...................................................10
`A. EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF CLAIMS 1-18 OF THE ’135 PATENT .....................................................................10
`B. PRIOR ART STATUS OF CITED PATENTS AND PUBLICATIONS UPON WHICH REEXAMINATION IS REQUESTED 11
`2. Exhibit X1 – Aventail Connect v3.1/2.6 Administrator’s Guide (“Aventail Connect v3.1”) ................. 11
`3. Exhibit X2 – Aventail Connect v3.01/2.51 Administrator’s Guide (“Aventail Connect v3.01”) ........... 11
`4. Exhibit X3 – Aventail AutoSOCKS v2.1 Administrator’s Guide (“Aventail AutoSOCKS”) ................ 12
`5. Exhibit X4 - Reed et al., “Proxies for Anonymous Routing,” 12th Annual Computer Security
`Applications Conference, San Diego, CA (December 9-13, 1996)(“Reed”) .......................................... 12
`6. Exhibit X5 - Wang, Broadband Forum TR-025: Core Network Architecture Recommendations
`For Access to Legacy Data Networks over ADSL, Issue 1.0 (September 1999) (“Wang”) ................... 12
`7. Exhibit X6 – U.S. Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser et al. (“Beser”) .......................................................... 13
`8. Exhibit X7 - Kent, “Security Architecture for IP,” RFC 2401 (November 1998) (“Kent”) ................... 13
`9. Exhibit X8 – U.S. Patent No. 6,182,141 to Blum et al., (“Blum”) ......................................................... 13
`10. Exhibit X9 - BinGO! User’s Guide incorporating by reference BinGO! Extended Feature
`Reference (collectively, “BinGO”). ........................................................................................................ 13
`11. Exhibit X10 – U.S. Patent No. 4,885,778 to Weiss (“Weiss”) ............................................................... 14
`12. Exhibit X11 – U.S. Patent No. 6,615,357 to Boden (“Boden”) .............................................................. 14
`C. OTHER PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS CITED TO DEMONSTRATE KNOWLEDGE IN THE
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION ................................................................................................................................14
`1. Exhibit Y1 – Aventail Extranet Server v3.0 Administrator’s Guide (“Aventail Extranet Server
`v3.0”) ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
`2. Exhibit Y2 - Goldschlag et al., “Hiding Routing Information,” Workshop on Information Hiding,
`Cambridge, UK (May 1996)(“Goldschlag”) ........................................................................................... 15
`3. Exhibit Y3 - U.S. Patent No. 5,950,519 to Stockwell et al. (“Stockwell”) ............................................. 15
`4. Exhibit Y4 – Ferguson, P. and Huston, G., “What Is a VPN”, The Internet Protocol Journal, Vol
`1., No. 1 (June 1998) (“Ferguson”) ......................................................................................................... 15
`5. Exhibit Y5 – Mockapetris, P., RFC 1034, “Domain Names – Concepts and Facilities,” November
`1987 (“RFC1034”) .................................................................................................................................. 15
`6. Exhibit Y6 - Mockapetris, P., RFC 1035, “Domain Names - Implementation And Specification,”
`November 1987 (“RFC1035”) ................................................................................................................ 15
`7. Exhibit Y7 – Braden, R., RFC 1123, “Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and
`Support,” October 1989 (“RFC1123”) .................................................................................................... 15
`8. Exhibit Y8 – RFC 2068, Fielding, R., et al, RFC 2068, “Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
`HTTP/1.1,” January 1997 (“RFC2068”) ................................................................................................. 16
`9. Exhibit Y9 – Leech, M., et al., RFC 1928, “Socks Protocol Version 5,” March 1996 (“RFC1928”) .... 16
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`10. Exhibit Y10 – Socolofsky, T. et al., RFC 1180, “A TCP/IP Tutorial,” January 1991 ............................ 16
`11. Exhibit Y11- Simpson, W., editor, RFC 1661, “The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP),” July 1994 .......... 16
`12. Exhibit Y12- Meyer, G., RFC 1968, “The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP),” June 1996 ......... 16
`13. Exhibit Y13 - Kummert, H., RFC 2420, “The PPP Triple-DES Encryption Protocol (3DESE),”
`September, 1998 ...................................................................................................................................... 16
`14. Exhibit Y14 - Townsley, W.M., et al., RFC 2661, “Layer Two Tunneling Protocol ‘L2TP’,”
`August 1999 ............................................................................................................................................ 16
`15. Exhibit Y15 - Pall, G.S.,RFC2118, “Microsoft Point-To-Point Encryption (MPPE) Protocol,”
`March 1997. ............................................................................................................................................ 16
`16. Exhibit Y16 - Gross, G., et al., RFC 2364, “PPP Over AAL5,” July 1998 ............................................ 17
`17. Exhibit Y17 – Srisuresh, P., RFC2663, “IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and
`Considerations,” August 1999 ................................................................................................................. 17
`18. Exhibit Y18 - Heinanen, J., RFC 1483, “Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer
`5,” July 1993. .......................................................................................................................................... 17
`D. SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTIONS OF PATENTABILITY .......................................................................................18
`1. Claims 1-10, 12-14 and 18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Aventail Connect v3.1 .......... 18
`2. Claims 1-10, 12-14 and 18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Aventail Connect v3.01 ........ 19
`3. Claims 1-10, 12-13 and 18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Aventail AutoSOCKS .......... 19
`2. Claim 11 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C §103 by Aventail Connect v3.1 in
`view of Reed ............................................................................................................................................ 20
`3. Claim 11 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C §103 by Aventail Connect v3.01 in
`view of Reed ............................................................................................................................................ 20
`4. Claims 11, 14 and 15 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C §103 by Aventail
`AutoSOCKS in view of Reed .................................................................................................................. 21
`5. Claim 16 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Aventail Connect v3.1
`taken in view of Boden ............................................................................................................................ 21
`6. Claim 16 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Aventail Connect v3.01
`taken in view of Boden ............................................................................................................................ 22
`7. Claim 16 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Aventail AutoSOCKS
`taken in view Reed, and taken further in view of Boden ........................................................................ 23
`8. Claim 17 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Aventail Connect v3.1
`taken in view of Weiss ............................................................................................................................ 23
`9. Claim 17 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Aventail Connect v3.01
`taken in view of Weiss ............................................................................................................................ 24
`10. Claim 17 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Aventail AutoSOCKS
`taken in view of Weiss ............................................................................................................................ 25
`11. Claims 1-10, 12-13 and 18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Wang ..................................... 25
`12. Claims 3 and 8 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Wang in view
`of Aventail Connect v3.01 ...................................................................................................................... 26
`13. Claims 3 and 8 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Wang in view
`of Aventail AutoSOCKS ......................................................................................................................... 27
`14. Claims 11, 14 and 15 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Wang in
`view of Reed ............................................................................................................................................ 27
`15. Claim 16 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in based on Wang in view of
`Reed, taken further in view of Boden ..................................................................................................... 28
`16. Claim 17 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Wang in view of
`Weiss ....................................................................................................................................................... 29
`17. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-13 and 18 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by
`Beser taken in view of Kent .................................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`18. Claims 3, 5, 8. 9 and 18 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Beser in
`view of Kent, taken further in view of Blum .......................................................................................... 30
`19. Claims 3, 5, 8, 9 and 18 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Beser
`in view of Kent, taken further in view of Aventail AutoSOCKS ........................................................... 31
`20. Claim 11 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by Beser taken in view of
`Kent, and taken further in view of Reed ................................................................................................. 32
`21. Claims 1-10, 12-15 and 18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by BinGO ................................... 32
`22. Claim 11 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by BinGO in view of Reed ........ 33
`23. Claim 16 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on BinGO in view of
`Boden ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
`24. Claim 17 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on BinGO in view of
`Weiss ....................................................................................................................................................... 34
`III. PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING TERMS IN CLAIMS 1-18 OF THE
`’135 PATENT .......................................................................................................................................................35
`A. CLAIM TERMS SHOULD BE GIVEN THEIR BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION IN EVALUATING THIS
`REEXAMINATION REQUEST .............................................................................................................................35
`“VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK” ......................................................................................................................35
`B.
`“TRANSPARENTLY CREATING A VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK” .....................................................................35
`C.
`D. “DOMAIN NAME SERVICE” (DNS) ..................................................................................................................36
`E.
`“DNS PROXY SERVER” ....................................................................................................................................36
`F.
`“WEB SITE” AND “SECURE WEB SITE” ...........................................................................................................36
`IV. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF MANNER OF APPLYING AVENTAIL CONNECT V3.1,
`AVENTAIL CONNECT V3.01 AND AVENTAIL AUTOSOCKS TO CLAIMS 1-18 AND PROPOSED
`REJECTIONS BASED ON SNQ NOS. 1-12 .....................................................................................................38
`A. SNQ NO. 1: CLAIMS 1-10 AND 12 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 USC § 102(A) AS BEING ANTICIPATED BY
`AVENTAIL CONNECT V3.1 ...............................................................................................................................38
`a. Claim 1 .............................................................................................................................................39
`b. Claim 2 .............................................................................................................................................44
`c. Claim 3 .............................................................................................................................................45
`d. Claim 4 .............................................................................................................................................45
`e. Claim 5 .............................................................................................................................................48
`f. Claim 6 .............................................................................................................................................49
`g. Claim 7 .............................................................................................................................................50
`h. Claim 8 .............................................................................................................................................51
`i. Claim 9 .............................................................................................................................................52
`j. Claim 10 ...........................................................................................................................................52
`k. Claim 12 ...........................................................................................................................................55
`l. Claim 13 ...........................................................................................................................................55
`m. Claim 14 ...........................................................................................................................................56
`n. Claim 15 ...........................................................................................................................................57
`o. Claim 18 ...........................................................................................................................................57
`B. SNQ NO. 2: CLAIMS 1-10 AND 12 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 USC § 102(B) AS BEING ANTICIPATED BY
`AVENTAIL CONNECT V3.01 .............................................................................................................................59
`a. Claim 1 .............................................................................................................................................59
`b. Claim 2 .............................................................................................................................................64
`c. Claim 3 .............................................................................................................................................66
`d. Claim 4 .............................................................................................................................................66
`e. Claim 5 .............................................................................................................................................68
`f. Claim 6 .............................................................................................................................................69
`g. Claim 7 .............................................................................................................................................70
`h. Claim 8 .............................................................................................................................................71
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`i. Claim 9 .............................................................................................................................................73
`j. Claim 10 ...........................................................................................................................................73
`k. Claim 12 ...........................................................................................................................................75
`l. Claim 13 ...........................................................................................................................................76
`m. Claim 14 ...........................................................................................................................................77
`n. Claim 15 ...........................................................................................................................................78
`o. Claim 18 ...........................................................................................................................................78
`C. SNQ NO. 3: CLAIMS 1-10 AND 12 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(B) AS BEING ANTICIPATED
`BY AVENTAIL AUTOSOCKS ...........................................................................................................................79
`a. Claim 1 .............................................................................................................................................80
`b. Claim 2 .............................................................................................................................................85
`c. Claim 3 .............................................................................................................................................86
`d. Claim 4 .............................................................................................................................................86
`e. Claim 5 .............................................................................................................................................89
`f. Claim 6 .............................................................................................................................................89
`g. Claim 7 .............................................................................................................................................90
`h. Claim 8 .............................................................................................................................................91
`i. Claim 9 .............................................................................................................................................92
`j. Claim 10 ...........................................................................................................................................93
`k. Claim 12 ...........................................................................................................................................95
`l. Claim 13 ...........................................................................................................................................96
`m. Claim 18 ...........................................................................................................................................97
`D. SNQ NOS. 4-12: CLAIMS 11, 14-17 ARE OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON AVENTAIL CONNECT
`V3.1, AVENTAIL CONNECT V3.01 OR AVENTAIL AUTOSOCKS CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF REED, WEISS AND
`BODEN. ............................................................................................................................................................98
`1. Relevant Teachings of the Primary References ...................................................................................... 98
`a. Aventail Connect v3.1 ......................................................................................................................98
`b. Aventail Connect v3.01 ....................................................................................................................99
`c. Aventail AutoSOCKS ....................................................................................................................101
`2. Relevant Teachings of the Secondary References ................................................................................ 102
`a. Relevant Teachings of Reed ..........................................................................................................102
`b. Relevant Teachings of Weiss .........................................................................................................105
`c. Relevant Teachings of Boden ........................................................................................................106
`3. SNQ No. 4: Claim 11 Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based
`on Aventail Connect v3.1 in View of Reed .......................................................................................... 107
`4. SNQ No. 5: Claim 11 Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Based
`on Aventail Connect v3.01 in View of Reed ........................................................................................ 109
`5. SNQ No. 6: Claims 11, 14 and 15 Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the
`Art Based on Aventail AutoSOCKS in View of Reed .......................................................................... 111
`a. Claim 11 .........................................................................................................................................112
`b. Claims 14 and 15 ............................................................................................................................113
`6. SNQ No. 7: Claim 16 Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 based on Aventail Connect v3.1 in view of Boden ..................................................................... 113
`7. SNQ No. 8: Claim 16 Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 based on Aventail Connect v3.01 in view of Boden ................................................................... 114
`8. SNQ No. 9: Claim 16 Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 based on Aventail AutoSOCKS in view of Reed, taken Further in View of Boden ................... 115
`9. SNQ No. 10: Claim 17 Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 based on Aventail Connect v3.1 in view of Weiss ...................................................................... 116
`10. SNQ No. 11: Claim 17 Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 based on Aventail Connect v3.01 in view of Weiss .................................................................... 117
`11. SNQ No. 12: Claim 17 Would Have Been Obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 based on Aventail AutoSOCKS in view of Weiss ...................................................................... 118
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`V. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF MANNER OF APPLYING WANG TO CLAIMS 1-18 AND
`PROPOSED REJECTIONS BASED ON SNQ NOS. 13-18 ..........................................................................119
`A. SNQ NO. 13: CLAIMS 1-10, 12-13 AND 18 ARE ANTICIPATED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(A) BY WANG ..........119
`1. Claim 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 120
`2. Claim 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 125
`3. Claim 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 127
`4. Claim 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 128
`5. Claim 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 129
`6. Claim 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 130
`7. Claim 7 .................................................................................................................................................. 131
`8. Claim 8 .................................................................................................................................................. 132
`9. Claim 9 .................................................................................................................................................. 133
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................................................................................ 134
`11. Claim 12 ................................................................................................................................................ 138
`12. Claim 13 ................................................................................................................................................ 139
`13. Claim 18 ................................................................................................................................................ 142
`B. SNQ NOS. 14-15: CLAIMS 3 AND 8 WOULD HAVE BEEN RENDERED OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED
`ON WANG IN VIEW OF AVENTAIL CONNECT V3.01 ........................................................................................143
`1. Relevant Teachings of the Primary and Secondary References ............................................................ 143
`2. SNQ No. 14: Claims 3 and 8 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
`Wang in view of Aventail Connect v3.01 ............................................................................................. 143
`3. SNQ No. 15: Claims 3 and 8 would have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
`Wang in view of Aventail AutoSOCKS ............................................................................................... 144
`C. SNQ NO. 16: CLAIMS 11, 14 AND 15 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS BASED ON WANG IN VIEW OF REED .....145
`1. Relevant Teachings of the Primary and Secondary References ............................................................ 145
`2. Claims 11, 14 and 15 ............................................................................................................................. 145
`D. SNQ NO. 17: CLAIM 16 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON WANG IN VIEW OF
`REED, AND TAKEN FURTHER IN VIEW OF BODEN ...........................................................................................147
`1. Relevant Teachings of the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary References ............................................. 147
`2. Claim 16 ................................................................................................................................................ 147
`E. SNQ NO. 18: CLAIM 17 WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON WANG IN VIEW OF
`WEISS ............................................................................................................................................................148
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF MANNER OF APPLYING BESER AND KENT TO CLAIMS 1-12
`AND 18 AND PROPOSED REJECTIONS BASED ON SNQ NOS. 19-22 ..................................................150
`A. RELEVANT TEACHINGS OF THE PRIMARY REFERENCE (BESER) ....................................................................150
`B. RELEVANT TEACHINGS OF THE SECONDARY REFERENCE (KENT – RFC 2401) ............................................154
`C. RELEVANT TEACHINGS OF THE TERTIARY REFERENCES ...............................................................................159
`1. Reed ....................................................................................................................................................... 159
`2. Blum ...................................................................................................................................................... 159
`3. Aventail Connect v3.01 ......................................................................................................................... 161