Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`RPX Corporation
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VirnetX, Inc. and Science Application International Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,502,135
`Issued: Dec. 31, 2002
`Filed: Nov. 29, 1999
`Inventors: Edmund C. Munger, et al
`Title: Agile Network Protocol For Secure Communications With Assured System
`Availability
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-00172
`__________________________________________________________________
`Declaration of Michael Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`i
`
`Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration ofMichael Fratto Regarding US. Patent No. 6,502, I 35
`
`1, Michael Fratto, do hereby declare and state, that all statements made herein of
`
`my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief
`
`are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`Code.
`
` Dated: November20,2013 WA
`
`Mike Fratto
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner RPX — EX. 1003
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`A. Engagement ............................................................................................ 1
`B. Background and Qualifications .............................................................. 1
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony ....................................................... 4
`D.
`Information Considered .......................................................................... 5
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ...................................... 6
`A. Anticipation ............................................................................................ 7
`B. Obviousness ............................................................................................ 8
`III. THE ’135 PATENT .....................................................................................14
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ’135 Patent ............................................... 14
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’135 Patent ................................................. 17
`C. The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................... 18
`D. Overview of the Claims of the ’135 Patent .......................................... 19
`E. Description of the Background Technology Relevant to the
`’135 Patent ............................................................................................ 19
`1. The Open Internet ..........................................................................19
`2. Domain Names and the Domain Name System (DNS) .................21
`a. The DNS System ..................................................................... 22
`b. Domain Names and URIs ........................................................ 24
`c. Domain Name Resolution........................................................ 26
`3. Encryption, Tunnels, and Data Security ........................................32
`a. Encryption ................................................................................ 33
`b. Authentication .......................................................................... 35
`c. IPSec – RFC 2401 ................................................................... 38
`d. Tunneling ................................................................................. 40
`4. VPNs ..............................................................................................43
`IV. GENERAL ISSUES RELATED TO MY PATENTABILITY
`ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................49
`A. The Claims of the ’135 Patent I Am Addressing in this Report .......... 49
`
`
`
`Page iii Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`Interpretation of Certain Claim Terms ................................................. 54
`1. Virtual Private Network (VPN) .....................................................55
`2. Virtual Private Link ........................................................................58
`3. Domain Name ................................................................................59
`4. Domain Name Service ...................................................................59
`5. DNS Server ....................................................................................60
`6. DNS Proxy Server ..........................................................................63
`7. Web Site .........................................................................................66
`8. Secure Web Site / Secure Target Web Site ....................................66
`9. Secure Web Computer ...................................................................68
`10. Target Computer ...........................................................................69
`11. Between a Client Computer and [target computer/secure web
`computer] ......................................................................................70
`Prior Art References ............................................................................. 71
`1. Exhibit 1007 – Aventail Connect v3.01/2.51 Administrator’s
`Guide (“Aventail”) ........................................................................72
`2. Exhibit 1008 - BinGO! User’s Guide incorporating by reference
`BinGO! Extended Feature Reference (collectively, “BinGO”). ..73
`3. Request for Comment (RFC) Publications ....................................75
`4. Exhibit 1014 – Reed et al., IEEE J. Sel. Areas Comm., 16(4): 482-
`494 (May 1998) (“Reed I”) ...........................................................77
`5. Exhibit 1015 - Reed et al., “Proxies for Anonymous Routing,” 12th
`CA (December 9-13, 1996) (“Reed II”) .......................................78
`6. Exhibit 1022 – Aventail Connect v3.1/2.6 Administrator’s Guide
`(“Aventail Connect v3.1”) ............................................................80
`7. Exhibit 1021 – Aventail AutoSOCKS v2.1 Administrator’s Guide
`(“Aventail AutoSOCKS”).............................................................81
`8. Exhibit 1024 – Ferguson, P. and Huston, G., “What Is a VPN”,
`(“Ferguson”) .................................................................................81
`
`Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, San Diego,
`
`The Internet Protocol Journal, Vol 1., No. 2 (Sept. 1998)
`
`Page iv Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 1-10, 12-15 AND 18 OF
`
`THE ’135 PATENT .....................................................................................82
`A. Overview of Beser ................................................................................ 82
`B. Overview of RFC 2401 ...................................................................... 109
`C. Overview of Hoke .............................................................................. 123
`D. Overview of Blum .............................................................................. 130
`E. Overview of Aventail ......................................................................... 134
`F. Beser Anticipates and/or Renders Obvious Claims 1-10, 12-15
`and 18 of the ’135 Patent .................................................................... 139
`1. Claim 1 .........................................................................................139
`2. Claim 2 .........................................................................................145
`3. Claim 3 .........................................................................................145
`4. Claim 4 .........................................................................................147
`5. Claim 5 .........................................................................................148
`6. Claim 6 .........................................................................................152
`7. Claim 7 .........................................................................................153
`8. Claim 8 .........................................................................................154
`9. Claim 9 .........................................................................................157
`10. Claim 10 ......................................................................................158
`11. Claim 12 ......................................................................................165
`12. Claim 13 ......................................................................................166
`13. Claim 14 ......................................................................................172
`14. Claim 15 ......................................................................................174
`15. Claim 18 ......................................................................................174
`VI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................184
`VII. APPENDIX A .............................................................................................185
`
`
`
`
`
`Page v Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`Appendix A:
`
`
`List of Materials Considered
`
`
`Page vi Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Micheal Fratto Regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`I have been retained by counsel for RPX Inc. as an expert witness in
`1.
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my opinion about
`
`the state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 (“the
`
`’135 patent”) and on the patentability of claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 of the ’135
`
`patent, which I do in this report. I previously submitted a written report in an inter
`
`partes review of the ’135 patent on behalf of Apple Inc. The case numbers of
`
`those proceedings are IPR2013-00348 and IPR2013-00349. All the sections of my
`
`report below are substantively the same as the corresponding sections of my report
`
`in the IPR2013-00348 proceeding.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`B.
`2. My Curriculum Vitae is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1007.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science Degree from Syracuse University in
`
`2001 in Information Science and Technology.
`
`4.
`
`I began working in the field of computer science in 1987. Between
`
`1987 and 1992, I was a consultant where I wrote software that would connect
`
`remote offices and collect/process data for input into other programs.
`
`5.
`
`Between 1994 and 1997, I was a freelance editor for Network
`
`Computing, where I covered remote access and telecommunications products and
`
`
`
`Page 1 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`technologies. I held this position while earning my B.S. in Information Science
`
`and Technology from Syracuse University.
`
`6.
`
`Between June 1997 and June of 2004, I was a permanent employee of
`
`Network Computing, starting as an Associate Technology Editor and rising to
`
`Senior Technology Editor. In these capacities, I focused on network security
`
`solutions and products, which was a rapidly evolving field at that time. I have
`
`subsequently held a number of other positions with Network Computing, as well as
`
`affiliated publications. For example, from July 2004 to April 2006, I served as
`
`Editor of Secure Enterprise Magazine – which focused on security solutions
`
`specific to enterprise systems. After April 2006, I returned to Network Computing,
`
`where I served in a progression of senior positions, ultimately serving as Editor of
`
`Network Computing between August 2009 and October of 2012.
`
`7.
`
`I am presently a Senior Analyst with Current Analysis. In this respect
`
`I manage the Enterprise Networking practice within the business and technology
`
`and software group. I also provide competitive analysis on trends and changes in
`
`the enterprise networking markets as well as consult with network equipment
`
`vendors on product messaging, marketing, and outreach.
`
`8.
`
`I presently serve as an adjunct faculty member of School of
`
`Information Studies at Syracuse University.
`
`
`
`Page 2 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`9.
`
`I have been studying, evaluating, testing and describing networking,
`
`networking security and related technologies for more than 15 years. Since well
`
`before 1999, I have had an extensive background and experience in network
`
`systems, software and related technologies, with a particular focus on network
`
`security.
`
`10.
`
`I also have extensive hands-on experience with wide range of
`
`networking and networking security products developed and sold in the 1993 to
`
`2002 time frame. This came from my various positions with Network Computing,
`
`where I reviewed, tested and described these products in a technical publication
`
`devoted to this field. I also wrote articles about network infrastructure, data center,
`
`and network access control items that were published by Network Computing. I
`
`also am very familiar with Internet standards governing networking and security,
`
`which I discuss below.
`
`11. A substantial amount of my extensive experience with networking and
`
`security systems used in the late 1990s came from my work in reviewing these
`
`products for Network Computing. When I performed a typical review of a new
`
`product, I would first define a “problem set” the product was designed to address.
`
`I would interview IT administrators and executives and speak with the developers
`
`of the product. I also would study the standards relevant to the product or its
`
`implementation, and would evaluate the technical documentation accompanying
`
`
`
`Page 3 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`the product. I would then create a set of comparative measures to assess the
`
`ability of the product to execute. I would then test the product under a variety of
`
`situations designed to evaluate these comparative measures. To do this, I would
`
`set up a test network, verify its operation, conduct the tests, and ensure the results
`
`were accurate. I would also often compare the product to other products in the
`
`same class or category.
`
`12.
`
`In the 1997 to 2000 time frame, I was particularly focused on remote
`
`access products including modems, ISDN, and virtual private networking products,
`
`technologies, and standards as well as network and host-based firewalls.
`
`13.
`
`I am the author of several books and publications devoted to secure
`
`networking technologies. I also have taught a number of courses on systems and
`
`technologies used in networking security, particularly focused on Internet security
`
`solutions. These books and courses are listed on my C.V. (Ex. 1004).
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`I am being compensated at a rate of $250 per hour for my study and
`14.
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`15.
`
`I have never testified in Federal District Court.
`
`
`
`Page 4 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`16.
`
`I have provided declarations that were submitted in inter partes
`
`reexamination proceedings involving the ’135 patent and other patents owned by
`
`Patent Owner. These proceedings include Control No. 95/001,682, 95/001,679 and
`
`95/001,269, as well as Inter Partes Review Nos. IPR2013-00348, IPR2013-00349,
`
`IPR2013-00354, IPR2013-00393, IPR2013-00394, IPR2013-00397, and IPR2013-
`
`00398.
`
`Information Considered
`
`D.
`17. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in Appendix A.
`
`18.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions — including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`19. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`
`
`Page 5 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`20.
`
`claims of the ’135 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that
`
`counsel has explained to me.
`
`21. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`22.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`23.
`
`I understand in this proceeding RPX has the burden of proving the
`
`’135 patent is anticipated by or obvious from the prior art by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the evidence” is evidence
`
`sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`
`
`Page 6 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`25.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below
`
`compares the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the
`
`claims.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`A. Anticipation
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`27.
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`28.
`
`I have applied these standards in my evaluation of whether claims 1-
`
`10, 12-15, and 18 of the ’135 patent would have been anticipated by the prior art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`
`of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was
`
`filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed
`
`publication will be prior art if it was publicly available before that date.
`
`
`
`Page 7 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`30.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`
`claim limitations that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still
`
`be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior
`
`art. For example, an indication that a prior art reference that a particular process
`
`complies with a published standard would indicate that the process must inherently
`
`perform certain steps or use certain data structures that are necessary to comply
`
`with the published standard.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`32.
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`
`
`
`Page 8 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18 of the ’135 patent would have
`
`been considered obvious In February of 2000.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
`• The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`• The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`• The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`• Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`36.
`
` In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`
`
`Page 9 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`37.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the
`
`field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by
`
`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`38.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`39.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`
`
`Page 10 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc. where the Court rejected the previous requirement of a “teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements of prior art for purposes of
`
`an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding obviousness. It is my
`
`
`
`Page 11 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that would have been known
`
`to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or derived from the nature
`
`of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have
`
`been combined.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
`
`same problem. I understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by
`
`common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches
`
`that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being
`
`described in a reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it
`
`multiple times, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`In February of 2000 and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the
`
`prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need to be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent. Further,
`
`the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards
`
`solving the same problem.
`
`44.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`
`
`Page 12 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`more prior art references discourages or leads away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made.
`
`45.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`46.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical
`
`grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a
`
`particular combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was obvious to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`
`
`Page 13 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`III. THE ’135 PATENT
`A. Effective Filing Date of the ’135 Patent
`I understand the ’135 patent issued from U.S. Application No.
`47.
`
`09/504,783, filed February 15, 2000.
`
`48.
`
`I understand 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 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to Provisional Application
`
`Nos. 60/106,261, filed October 30, 1998 and 60/137,704, filed June 7, 1998.
`
`49.
`
`I understand a “continuation-in-part” application is a patent
`
`application that is related to an earlier filed patent application, but which adds to,
`
`changes or deletes information relative to what was in the previous application.
`
`50.
`
`I understand that a “continuation-in-part” application may describe an
`
`invention that is not described in the earlier application, and that this may result in
`
`a patent claim being evaluated using the filing date of the continuation-in-part
`
`application, rather than the earlier related application.
`
`51.
`
`I understand that claims 1, 10, 13 and 18 of the ’135 patent are
`
`independent claims. I also understand that claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, claims
`
`11 and 12 depend from claim 10, and claims 14-17 depend from claim 13.
`
`
`
`Page 14 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`52.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim incorporates all of the
`
`requirements of the independent claim from which it depends. So, in the case of
`
`the ’135 patent, claims 2-9, 11-12 and 14-17 cannot enjoy an effective filing date
`
`earlier than that of claims 1, 10 and 13, respectively, from which they depend.
`
`53. Claims 1, 10 and 18 of the ’135 patent rely on information found only
`
`in the disclosure of the ’783 application, and which is not found in any prior
`
`application to which the ’135 patent claims “benefit” or “priority.” I understand
`
`that the terms “benefit” and “priority” are legal terms referring to claims made
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 120 or 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), respectively.
`
`54. For example, claim 1 of the ’135 patent specifies “generating from the
`
`client computer a Domain Name Service (DNS) request that requests an IP address
`
`corresponding to a domain name associated with the target computer” and
`
`subsequent steps involving the DNS request.
`
`55. Similarly, claim 10 makes reference to DNS requests (e.g., “A system
`
`… comprising … a DNS proxy server…”).
`
`56. There is no mention of DNS systems or requests in any of the
`
`applications to which the ’135 patent claims benefit or priority prior that were filed
`
`prior to the’783 application. In fact, the ’783 application is the first application
`
`that mentions the phrase “domain name service.”
`
`
`
`Page 15 Petitioner RPX – Ex. 1003
`
`

`

`
`
`57. Because none of the ’653, ’261 application or ’704 applications
`
`describes or even mentions use in any manner of DNS requests or proxy servers –
`
`much less using them in a particular way to establish virtual private networks –
`
`these earlier filed applications to which the ’135 patent claims benefit or priority
`
`therefore do describe the subject matter defined by at least claims 1, 10 and 18 of
`
`the ’135 patent.
`
`58.
`
`I also found nothing in the ’653, ’261 and ’704 applications that
`
`suggests using a D