PATENT
`
`Customer No. 22,852
`
`Attorney Docket No. 117980002
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Inter Panes Reexaminations of:
`
`Edmund Colby Munger et al.
`
`US. Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`Issued: February 10, 2009
`
`For: ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECURE
`COMMUNICATION LINK BASED ON A
`
`DOMAIN NAME SERVICE (DNS) REQUEST
`
`VVVVVVVVVVV
`
`Control Nos.: 95/001,714; 95/001,697
`
`Groul’ A" uni“ 3992
`
`Examiner: Michael J. Yigdall
`
`confirmation NOS' 3428’ 2161
`
`Mail Stop Inter Parles Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Commissioner:
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`
`OFFICE ACTION OF APRIL 20: 2012
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 1
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 1 1798.0002
`Control Nos: 95/001,714; 95/001,697
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................................... I
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Background .......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of the ’ l 51 Patent .................................................................................... 2
`
`Applicable Legal Standards for Anticipation .......................................................... 3
`
`Applicable Legal Standards for Obviousness .......................................................... 3
`
`The Rejections Are Improper and Should Be Withdrawn ................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Certain References Have Not Been Shown to Be Prior Art .................................... 4
`
`The Rejection of Claims 1-16 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Based on
`Aventail v3.01 Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 1) ....................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Overview of Aventail v3. ()1 ......................................................................... 6
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................................... 7
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Aventail v3.01 Fails to Disclose "Determining Whether the
`lntercepted DNS Request Corresponds to a Secure Server” ........... 7
`
`A vcntail v3.01 Fails to Disclose “When the lntercepted
`DNS Request Corresponds to the Secure Server,
`Automatically Initiating an Encrypted Channel Between the
`Client and the Secure Server” .......................................................... 9
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 ..................................................................... 1 1
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8, and 14 .................................................................. 12
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 15 .................................................................. l 3
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 10, and 16 ................................................................ 14
`
`Dependent Claims 5 and 1 l ....................................................................... 15
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ....................................................................... 15
`
`C.
`
`The Rejection of Claims 1-16 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Based on
`AutoSOCKS Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 2) ........................................................ 17
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 2
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 2
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. I 1798.0002
`Control Nos.: 95/001 ,714; 95/001,697
`
`The Rejection of Claims 1-16 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) Based on BinGO
`Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 3) ............................................................................. I7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`The BinGO User’s Guide Has Not Been Shown to Expressly
`Incorporate BinGO EFR ............................................................................ 17
`
`Overview of BinGO ................................................................................... 18
`
`The Office Action and the Apple Request Rely on Two Alternative
`Embodiments ofBinGO ............................................................................. 19
`
`Independent Claim I .................................................................................. 21
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`BinGO Fails to Disclose “Determining Whether the
`lntercepted DNS Request Corresponds to a Secure Server” ......... 21
`
`BinGO Fails to Disclose “When the lntercepted DNS
`Request Corresponds to a Secure Server, Automatically
`Initiating an Encrypted Channel Between the Client and the
`Secure Server” ............................................................................... 24
`
`Independent Claims 7 and I3 ..................................................................... 29
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8, and I4 .................................................................. 30
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 15 .................................................................. 31
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 10, and I6 ................................................................ 32
`
`Dependent Claims 5 and I l ....................................................................... 32
`
`10.
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ....................................................................... 33
`
`The Rejection ofClaims I, 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Based on Beser in View of Kent Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 4) ........................ 35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview ofBeser ..................................................................................... 35
`
`Beser Cannot Be Combined with Kent ...................................................... 36
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................................. 38
`
`a.
`
`The Combination of Beser and Kent Fails to Disclose "a
`
`Domain Name Server (DNS) Proxy Module that Intercepts
`DNS Requests Sent by a Client” .................................................... 38
`
`b.
`
`The Combination of Beser and Kent Fails to Disclose
`
`"Detennining Whether the lntercepted DNS Request
`Corresponds to a Secure Server” ................................................... 39
`
`-ii-
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 3
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 1 1798,0002
`Control Nos: 95/001,714; 95/001,697
`
`c.
`
`The Combination of Beser and Kent Fails to Disclose
`
`“When the lntercepted DNS Request Does Not Correspond
`to a Secure Server, Forwarding the DNS Request to a DNS
`Function that Returns an IP Address of a Nonsecure
`
`Computer” ...................................................................................... 41
`
`d.
`
`The Combination of Beyer and Kent Fails to Disclose
`
`“When the lntercepted DNS Request Corresponds to a
`Secure Server, Automatically Initiating an Encrypted
`Channel Between the Client and the Secure Server” ..................... 42
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 .....................................................................43
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8, and 14 .................................................................. 44
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 10, and 16 ................................................................ 45
`
`Dependent Claims 5 and 1 1 .......................................................................47
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ....................................................................... 48
`
`The Rejections Based on Kiuchz' Should Be Withdrawn ....................................... 49
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Kiuchi .................................................................................... 50
`
`The Rejection ofClaims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-16 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) Based on Kiuchi Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 7) ....................... 51
`
`a.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ...................................................................... 51
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`(iii)
`
`Kiuchi Fails to Disclose “a Domain Name Server
`(DNS) Proxy Module that Intercepts DNS Requests
`Sent by a Client” ................................................................ 51
`
`Kiuchi Fails to Disclose “Determining Whether the
`lntercepted DNS Request Corresponds to a Secure
`Server” ............................................................................... 52
`
`Kiuchi Fails to Disclose “Automatically Initiating
`an Encrypted Channel Between the Client and the
`Secure Server” ................................................................... 53
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 ......................................................... 54
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 15 ...................................................... 55
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ........................................................... 56
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 14, and 16 ...................................... 58
`
`—iii-
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 4
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. I 1798.0002
`Control Nos.: 95/001,714; 95/001,697
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Rejection ofClaims 5 and 11 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based
`on Kiuchi in View of Martin Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 8) .................. 58
`
`The Rejection of Claims 1—4, 6-10, and 12-16 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) Based on Kiuchi in View of Edwards Should Be
`Withdrawn (Issue 14) ................................................................................. 59
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`6.
`
`f.
`
`Overview of Edwards .................................................................... 59
`
`Independent Claim 1 ...................................................................... 59
`
`(i)
`
`The Combination of Kiuchi and Edwards Fails to
`Disclose or Suggest “a Domain Name Server (DNS)
`Proxy Module that Intercepts DNS Requests Sent
`by a Client” ........................................................................ 60
`
`(ii)
`
`The Combination of Kiuchi and Edwards Fails to
`
`Disclose or Suggest “Determining Whether the
`Intercepted DNS Request Corresponds to a Secure
`Server” ............................................................................... 61
`
`(iii)
`
`The Combination of Kiuchi and Edwards Fails to
`
`Disclose or Suggest “Automatically Initiating an
`Encrypted Channel Between the Client and the
`Secure Server” ................................................................... 62
`
`Independent Claims 7 and I3 ......................................................... 62
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 15 ...................................................... 63
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ........................................................... 65
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, I4, and 16 ...................................... 65
`
`5.
`
`The Rejection of Claims 5 and 1 1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based
`on Kiuchi in View of Edwards and Martin Should Be Withdrawn
`
`(Issue 15) .................................................................................................... 66
`
`G.
`
`The Rejections Based on Wcsinger Should Be Withdrawn ................................... 66
`
`1.
`
`The Rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12—16 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(e) Based on Wesinger Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 9) ................... 66
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Overview of Wesinger ................................................................... 66
`
`Independent Claim 1 ...................................................................... 67
`
`-iv-
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 5
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 1 17980002
`Control Nos.: 95/001 ,714; 95/001 ,697
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`(iii)
`
`Wesinger Does Not Disclose "Determining Whether
`the Intercepted DNS Request Corresponds to a
`Secure Server” ................................................................... 67
`
`Wesinger Fails to Disclose “When the Intercepted
`DNS Request Does Not Correspond to a Secure
`Server, Forwarding the DNS Request to a DNS
`Function that Returns an IP Address of a Nonsecure
`
`Computer” .......................................................................... 73
`
`Wesinger Fails to Disclose or Suggest “When the
`Intercepted DNS Request Corresponds to a Secure
`Server, Automatically Initiating an Encrypted
`Channel Between the Client and the Secure Server” ......... 78
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 ......................................................... 80
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8, and 14 ...................................................... 80
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`The Request’s Analysis of Claims 2, 8, and 14 ls
`Inconsistent with lts Analysis of Independent
`Claims 1, 7, and 13 ............................................................ 81
`
`Wesinger Does Not Disclose “Sending a Request to
`the Secure Server to Establish an Encrypted
`Channel When the Client ls Authorized to Access
`the Secure Server” .............................................................. 82
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 15 ...................................................... 83
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ........................................................... 84
`
`Remaining Dependent Claims 4, 10, and 16 .................................. 84
`
`The Rejection of Claims 5 and 1 1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based
`on Wesinger in View of Martin Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 9) .............. 85
`
`The Rejection ofClaims 1-4, 6—10, and 12-16 Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) Based on Wesinger in View of Edwards Should Be
`Withdrawn (Issue 16) ................................................................................. 85
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................................. 85
`
`a.
`
`The Combination of Wesingcr and Edwards Fails to
`Disclose or Suggest “Determining Whether the Intercepted
`DNS Request Corresponds to a Secure Server” ............................ 85
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 6
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 1 17980002
`Control Nos.: 95/001 ,714; 95/001 ,697
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Combination of Wesinger and Edwards Fails to
`Disclose or Suggest "When the lntercepted DNS Request
`Does Not Correspond to a Secure Server, Forwarding the
`DNS Request to a DNS Function that Returns an IP
`Address of a Nonsecure Computer” .............................................. 87
`
`The Combination of Wesinger and Edwards Fails to
`Disclose or Suggest “When the lntercepted DNS Request
`Corresponds to a Secure Server, Automatically Initiating an
`Encrypted Channel Between the Client and the Secure
`Server” ........................................................................................... 88
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Independent Claims 7 and I3 ..................................................................... 90
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8, and 14 .................................................................. 91
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 15 .................................................................. 91
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ....................................................................... 93
`
`Remaining Dependent Claims 4, 10, and 16 .............................................. 94
`
`The Rejection ofClaims 5 and 11 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based
`on Wesinger in View of Edwards and Martin Should Be
`Withdrawn (Issue 17) ................................................................................. 94
`
`The Rejection ofClaims I, 7, and 13 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Based on
`Blum Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 11) ................................................................. 95
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Blum ...................................................................................... 95
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................................. 96
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Blum Fails to Disclose “Determining Whether the
`lntercepted DNS Request Corresponds to a Secure Server” ......... 96
`
`Blum Fails to Disclose or Suggest “When the lntercepted
`DNS Request Does Not Correspond to a Secure Server,
`Forwarding the DNS Request to a DNS Function that
`Returns an IP Address of a Nonsecure Computer” ........................ 98
`
`Blum Fails to Disclose or Suggest “When the lntercepted
`DNS Request Corresponds to a Secure Server,
`Automatically Initiating an Encrypted Channel Between the
`Client and the Secure Server” ........................................................ 99
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claims 7 and I3 ................................................................... 101
`
`-vi-
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 7
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 7
`
`

`

`l.
`
`The Rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-16 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Based on Aziz in View of Edwards Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 12) ................ 102
`
`Attorney Docket No. 1 1798.0002
`Control Nos.: 95/001 ,714; 95/001,697
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Overview ofAziz ...................................................................................... 102
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................................ 103
`
`a.
`
`The Combination of Aziz and Edwards Fails to Disclose or
`
`. Storing a Domain
`.
`Suggest a “Data Processing Device .
`Name Server (DNS) Proxy Module” that Performs All of
`the Recited Features ..................................................................... 103
`
`b.
`
`The Combination of Aziz and Edwards Fails to Disclose or
`
`Suggest “a Domain Name Server (DNS) Proxy Module that
`Intercepts DNS Requests Sent by a Client” ................................. 105
`
`c.
`
`The Combination ofAziz and Edwards Fails to Disclose or
`
`Suggest “Determining Whether the Intercepted DNS
`Request Corresponds to a Secure Server” ................................... 106
`
`d.
`
`The Combination ofAziz and Edwards Fails to Disclose or
`
`Suggest "When the Intercepted DNS Request Corresponds
`to a Secure Server, Automatically Initiating an Encrypted
`Channel Between the Client and the Secure Server” ................... 109
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 ................................................................... 1 10
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8, and 14 ................................................................ 1 11
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 15 ................................................................ 1 12
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 ..................................................................... 1 14
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 10, and 16 .............................................................. 1 15
`
`J.
`
`The Rejection of Claims 5 and 11 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Aziz
`in View of Edwards and Martin Should Be Withdrawn (Issue 13) ..................... 1 15
`
`K.
`
`Secondary Considerations Demonstrate Nonobviousness ................................... 1 16
`
`1V.
`
`Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 119
`
`-vii-
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 8
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. l 1798.0002
`Control Nos.: 95/001 ,714; 95/001,697
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`VimetX lnc. (“VimetX”),
`
`the owner of US. Patent No. 7,490,151 (“the ’151 patent”),
`
`provides the following remarks in response to the Office Action mailed April 20, 2012,
`
`in the
`
`above-identified reexamination proceedings. The US Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”)
`
`issued this combined Office Action after issuing a Decision mailed March 15, 2012, merging the
`
`reexamination proceedings in control nos. 95/001,7l4 and 95/001,697, granted in response to a
`
`Request for Reexamination filed by Apple Inc. on July 25, 2011 (“Apple Request”), and a Request
`
`for Reexamination filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. on December 13, 2011 (“Cisco Request”).
`
`The patent at issue in this merged reexamination, the ’151 patent,
`
`is part of a family of
`
`patents ("Munger patent family”) that stems from US. provisional application nos. 60/106,261
`
`(“the ’26] application”), filed on October 30, 1998, and 60/ 137,704 ("the ’704 application”), filed on
`
`June 7, 1999. The ’151 patent is a divisional of US. application no. 09/504,783 (now US. Patent
`
`No. 6,502,135, “the ’135 patent”). The ’135 patent is a continuation-in-part of US. application no.
`
`09/429,643 (now US. Patent No. 7,010,604, “the ’604 patent”), which claims priority to the ’261 and
`
`’704 applications.
`
`The Munger patent family discloses numerous inventions relating to secure communications.
`
`Patents in this family have been subject to several reexamination proceedings and district court
`
`actions.
`
`For instance,
`
`three other patents from the family were asserted in an action against
`
`Microsoft Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas.1 The jury found the asserted claims willfully
`
`infringed and not
`
`invalid, and awarded VimetX over one hundred million dollars in damages.
`
`(Ex. A-l at 2.) Microsoft also sought reexamination of two of the patents, but all claims were
`
`confirmed during those proceedings.
`
`(See control nos. 95/001,269 and 95/001,270.) And just
`
`recently, the Office denied a request for reexamination of one of the patents in the Munger patent
`
`family. (Order in control no. 95/001,792.)
`
`Given that the validity of the patents in the Munger patent family has now been tested
`
`multiple times, and for the other reasons set forth below, including that the asserted references do not
`
`disclose or suggest
`
`the combination of features recited in the claims, Patent Owner requests
`
`reconsideration and withdrawal of all the rejections in the Office Action and confirmation of the
`
`patentability of all of the claims of the ’ l 51 patent.
`
`' One of these patents, US. Patent No. 6,839,759, was asserted initially but was dropped
`from this case before trial.
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 9
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 11798.0002
`Control Nos: 95/001,714; 95/001,697
`
`This Response is supported by a Declaration of Angelos D. Keromytis, PhD. ("Keromytis
`
`Decl.”) and by a Declaration of Dr. Robert Dunham Short 111 (“Short Decl.”).
`
`11.
`
`Background
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the ’15] Patent
`
`file ’151 patent discloses embodiments relating to automatically initiating encrypted
`
`channels and/or automatically creating secure channels between devices connected to a network.
`
`(Keromytis Decl.
`
`11 15.) For example, one such embodiment may establish encrypted channels
`
`between a client and a secure server when a domain name server (DNS) proxy module intercepts a
`
`DNS request sent by the client and determines that the DNS request corresponds to a secure server.
`
`(’151 patent 37:50-38:21; Keromytis Dec1.11 15.)
`
`W
`___L.___.1
`m
`m
`
`P
`m
`M 5m:
`
`9
`m m
`
`(N8
`2639 m
`I
`
`'-“ROXV
`
`we
`
`01mm»!
`
`Em:_—.] [.5135 I
`
`mm
`m mass
`
`m
`
`FIG. 26
`
`m
`SEOJRE1m
`at:
`
`m
`
`
`We“mm
`an
`
`an
`
`As shown in Figures 26 and 27 of the ’ 151 patent, reproduced above, a DNS proxy 2610 may
`
`intercept a DNS request from client 2601.
`
`(’151 patent 37:60-61; Keromytis Dec]. 1116.) The DNS
`
`proxy 2610 determines whether the DNS request corresponds to a secure target site 2604, such as a
`
`secure server.
`
`(’151 patent 37:61-62; Keromytis Decl. 11 16.) 1f the DNS request corresponds to a
`
`secure site, the DNS proxy 2610 may, in certain embodiments, determine whether the client 2601 is
`
`authorized to access the site.
`
`(’151 patent 37:62-66; Keromytis Decl. 11 16.)
`
`If so, the DNS proxy
`
`2610 may automatically initiate an encrypted channel between the client 2601 and the secure target
`
`site 2604. (’151 patent 37:62-38:11; Keromytis Decl. 11 16.)
`
`If, on the other hand, the intercepted DNS request does not correspond to a secure target site
`
`2604, DNS proxy server 2610 may forward the request to a conventional DNS server 2609, which
`
`may return the IP address of an unsecure target site 2611.
`
`(’151 patent 38:36-43; Keromytis Decl.
`
`-2-
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 10
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 1 1798.0002
`Control Nos.: 95/001,714; 95/001,697
`
`‘t 17.)
`
`The claims of the ’1 51 patent are directed to some of these embodiments. Claims 1, 7, and
`
`13 are independent claims. Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, claims 8-12 depend from claim 7, and
`
`claims 14-16 depend from claim 13. As explained below, none of the references relied upon by the
`
`Office Action, either individually or in combination, discloses or suggests the combination of
`
`features recited in these claims.
`
`B.
`
`Applicable Legal Standards for Anticipation
`
`To support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element of each claim at issue
`
`must be found in that single reference. See M.P.E.P. §213l.
`
`“The identical invention must be
`
`shown in as complete detail as is contained in the .
`
`.
`
`. claim.” Id. (quoting Richardson v. Suzuki
`
`Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1126, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Further, “[t]he elements must be arranged as
`
`required by the claim .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.”
`
`Id. (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus,
`
`"unless a reference discloses within the four comers of the document not only all of the limitations
`
`claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim,
`
`it .
`
`.
`
`. cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc, 545 F.3d 1359,
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Moreover, “[t]he requirement that the prior an elements themselves be
`
`‘arranged as in the claim’ means that claims cannot be ‘treated .
`
`.
`
`. as mere catalogs of separate parts,
`
`in disregard of the pan-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their
`
`meaning.m leerasense, Inc. v. Beclon, Dickinson & Ca, 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(quoting Linc/emann Maschinenfizbrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick (30., 730 F .2d 1452, 1459
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1984)).
`
`C.
`
`Applicable Legal Standards for Obviousness
`
`Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries that include, inter alia,
`
`determining the scope and content of the prior art and ascertaining the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and prior art. See M.P.E.P. § 2141(11).
`
`In order to establish a prima facie case of
`
`Obviousness, the Examiner must “inc1ude[] findings of fact concerning the state of the art and the
`39
`
`teachings of the references....
`
`Id. Moreover, "[o]nce the findings of fact are articulated,
`
`[the Examiner] must provide an explanation to support an Obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C.
`
`[§] 103.” Id.
`
`The reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious must be clearly articulated
`
`and cannot be premised on conclusory statements. M.P.E.P. § 2142.
`
`In addition, the references
`
`relied on must be enabling, id. at § 2145, and “[t]he mere fact that references can be combined or
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 11
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. l 1798.0002
`Control Nos.: 95/001,714; 95/001,697
`
`modified does not render the resultant combination obvious unless the results would have been
`
`predictable to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art” at
`
`the time the invention was made,
`
`id. at
`
`§ 2143.01(lll) (internal citation omitted). “All words in a claim must be considered in judging the
`
`patentability of that claim against the prior art.” Id. at § 2143.03 (internal citation omitted). Also,
`
`“[i]n determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question under 35 U.S.C.
`
`[§] 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed
`
`invention as a whole would have been obvious.” Id. at § 2141 02(1) (internal citations omitted).
`
`III.
`
`The Rejections Are Improper and Should Be Withdrawn
`
`A.
`
`Certain References Have Not Been Shown to Be Prior Art
`
`As a preliminary matter,
`
`the Requests and the Office Action rely on the following five
`
`references without showing that these references have been published:
`
`1. Aventail Connect v3.01/2.51 Administrator’s Guide (“Aventail v3.01”) (submitted by
`
`Apple as Exhibit X2);
`
`2. Aventail AutoSOCKS v2.1 Administrator’s Guide ("AutoSOCKS’) (submitted by
`
`Apple as Exhibit X3);
`
`3. S. Kent, “Security Architecture for IP,” RFC 2401 (“Kent”) (submitted by Apple as
`
`Exhibit X6);
`
`4. BinGO! User’s Guide ("BinGO”) (submitted by Apple as Exhibit X7); and
`
`5. D.M. Martin, "A Framework for Local Anonymity in the lntemct” (“Martin”)
`
`(submitted by Cisco as Exhibit D-6).
`
`Because the Office and the Request have not shown that any of the above-listed references are
`
`printed publications,
`
`the rejections of the claims in view of these references (specifically,
`
`the
`
`rejections corresponding to Issues 1-4, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 17) are improper and should be withdrawn.2
`
`(See CA at 6-32.)
`
`Since this reexamination was initiated before the America lnvents Act’s reexamination
`
`provisions took effect, reexamination of the ’151 patent is limited to situations where a substantial
`
`new question of patentability has been shown “based on patents or printed publications.” M.P.E.P.
`
`§ 2247. The statutory phrase “printed publication” has been interpreted to mean that the alleged prior
`
`art reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art.
`
`In re Cronyn,
`
`2 VimetX filed petitions on November 7, 2011, and November 9, 2011, raising this issue
`regarding BinGO and Martin, respectively. Cisco and Apple filed petitions in opposition. The
`Office denied VimetX’s petitions and dismissed Cisco’s and Apple’s petitions as being moot.
`(See
`Decisions mailed Dec. 1, 201 1.)
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 12
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. l 1798.0002
`Control Nos: 95/001,714; 95/001,697
`
`890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc, 848 F .2d
`
`1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
`
`The party asserting the prior art bears the burden of establishing a date of publication. See
`
`Care/la v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding that a mailer did not qualify
`
`as prior art because there was no evidence as to when the mailer was received by any of the
`
`addressees); see also M.P.E.P. §§ 716.01(c), 2128; In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1981)
`
`("[T]he one who wishes to characterize the information, in whatever form it may be, as a ‘printed
`
`publication’ .
`
`.
`
`. should produce saflieient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been
`
`available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus
`
`most
`
`likely to avail
`
`themselves of its contents”) (emphasis added). Here,
`
`the Office and the
`
`Requesters bear the burden of establishing a prima facie case of unpatentability. This includes,
`
`among other things, demonstrating that the references relied upon are proper prior art. See In re
`
`Hall, 781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`But Cisco, Apple, and the Office have not shown that the Kent, BinGO, or Martin references
`
`were publicly available or that they are printed publications. Cisco’s Request baldly asserts, without
`
`any evidence, that Martin is a printed publication.
`
`(See Cisco Req. at 15-16.) Apple’s Request also
`
`asserts, without any evidence, that Kent and BinGO are printed publications.
`
`(See Apple Req. at
`
`l l-12.) But Martin, submitted by Cisco as Exhibit D-6, and Kent and BinGO, submitted by Apple as
`
`Exhibits X6 and X7, contain no indication whatsoever that they were published or even publicly
`
`available before the effective filing date of the ’151 patent. These assertions by the Requesters,
`
`therefore, are nothing more than attorney argument and are not evidence that those references are
`
`printed publications.
`
`Apple also has not shown that Aventail v3.0] or AutoSOCKS were publicly available or that
`
`they are printed publications. Apple submitted uncorroborated declarations of Hopen, Fratto, and
`
`Chester (“the Declarants”) to support its allegation that A ventail v3.0] and AutoSOCKS are prior art,
`
`but
`
`the Deelarants fail
`
`to provide any evidence to corroborate that
`
`these documents were
`
`disseminated and publicly available before the effective filing date of the ’151 patent. For example,
`
`Mr. Chester states that one or more of Aventail v3.0] and AutoSOCKS were distributed with
`
`deployments of Aventail products to more than 65,000 people. But if that many copies were
`
`distributed, why has Apple not offered any documentation of such distribution? Also, Mr. Hopen has
`
`testified that (1) although Aventail,
`
`Inc. had email, he does not have any email evidencing
`
`distribution of A ventail v3.0] and AutoSOCKS; (2) he does not have evidence that Aventail v3.0] and
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 13
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1056, p. 13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 11798.0002
`Control Nos.: 95/001,714; 95/001,697
`
`AutoSOCKS were available for download on the Internet in the relevant time period; and (3) he does
`
`not have evidence that Aventail v3.0] and AutoSOCKS were published in a journal.
`
`(Ex. A-4, Apr.
`
`11, 2012, Hopen Dep. Tr. 5521-7, 119:11-23, 189:1-191:6.) Thus, despite the number of alleged
`
`distributions of Aventa