IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re patent of Munger et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`Filed: September 30, 2002
`
`Issued: February 10, 2009
`
`Title: Establishment of a Secure
`
`Communication Link Based On
`
`a Domain Name Service (DNS) Request
`
`Merged Control Nos.: 95/001,714
`95/001,697
`
`Group Art Unit: 3992
`
`Examiner: Michael J. Yigdall
`
`Confirmation No.: 3428
`
`Real Party in Interest:
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`00000“-l'0'>0O'>C0¢f4O'J0O'>f0JD0J0O'3€0'><0ObO>
`
`COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTY RE UESTER
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 1.947
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. Cover Page
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. Cover Page
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`I.
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER ARGUMENTS ............................................................... ..1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`A.
`
`Response to Patent Owner’s Argument That Certain References Are Not Prior
`
`Art ............................................................................................................................ .. 1
`
`B.
`
`The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Based on Kiuchi Were Proper ................... ,. 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Kiuchi .............................................................................................................. .. 5
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-16 (ISSUE #7) ......................................................... .. 5
`
`Claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Kiuchi in View of
`
`Martin (ISSUE #8) ........................................................................................ .. 10
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Kiuchi
`
`in View of Edwards (ISSUE #14) .................................................................. .. 10
`
`5.
`
`Claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Kiuchi in View of
`
`Edwards and Martin (ISSUE #15) ................................................................ .. 13
`
`C.
`
`The Rejections Based on Wesinger Were Proper .................................................. .. 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-16 based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (ISSUE #9) ........ .. 14
`
`Claims 5 and 11 based on 35 U.S.C. § l02(e) over Wesinger in View of
`
`Martin (ISSUE #10) ...................................................................................... .. 24
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-16 based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wesinger in
`
`view of Edwards (ISSUE #16) ...................................................................... .. 24
`
`D.
`
`The Rejections Based on Blum Were Proper (ISSUE #11) ................................... .. 28
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Overview of Blum ......................................................................................... .. 28
`
`Independent Claim 1 ..................................................................................... .. 28
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 ........................................................................ .. 31
`
`E.
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Aziz in View
`
`of Edwards (ISSUE #12) ....................................................................................... .. 31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Aziz ............................................................................................................... .. 31
`
`Independent Claim 1 ..................................................................................... .. 31
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 ........................................................................ .. 36
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8 and 14 ...................................................................... .. 37
`
`11
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p.
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. ii
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9 and 15 ...................................................................... .. 37
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 .......................................................................... .. 37
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 10 and 16 .................................................................... .. 38
`
`F.
`
`Claims 5 and 11 based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Aziz in View of Edwards and
`
`Martin (ISSUE #13) ............................................................................................... .. 38
`
`G.
`
`The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Based on Aventail Were Proper
`
`(ISSUE #1) ............................................................................................................. .. 38
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Aventail ......................................................................................................... .. 39
`
`Independent Claim 1 ..................................................................................... .. 39
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 ........................................................................ .. 43
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8 and 14 ...................................................................... .. 43
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9 and 15 ...................................................................... .. 44
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 10 and 16 .................................................................... .. 45
`
`Dependent Claims 5 and 1 1 .......................................................................... .. 45
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 .......................................................................... .. 46
`
`H.
`
`The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Based on AutoSOCKS Were Proper
`
`(ISSUE #2) ............................................................................................................. .. 47
`
`I.
`
`The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Based on BinGO Were Proper (ISSUE
`
`#3) .......................................................................................................................... .. 47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`The BinGO User’s Guide Incorporates the BinGO EFR .............................. .. 47
`
`The BinGO User’s Guide .............................................................................. .. 48
`
`Response to Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding “Two Alternative
`
`Embodiments” ............................................................................................... .. 48
`
`Independent Claim 1 ..................................................................................... .. 48
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 ........................................................................ .. 52
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8 and 14 ...................................................................... .. 52
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9 and 15 ...................................................................... .. 53
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 10 and 16 .................................................................... .. 54
`
`Dependent Claims 5 and 11 .......................................................................... .. 54
`
`10. Dependent Claims 6 and 12 .......................................................................... .. 55
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p.
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. iii
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`J.
`
`The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Based on Beser in View of Kent Were
`
`Proper (ISSUE #4) ................................................................................................. .. 55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Beser in View of Kent ................................................................................... .. 55
`
`Beser and Kent Were Properly Combined .................................................... .. 55
`
`Independent Claim 1 ..................................................................................... .. 55
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13 ........................................................................ .. 57
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 8 and 14 ...................................................................... .. 58
`
`Dependent Claims 4, 10 and 16 .................................................................... .. 58
`
`Dependent Claims 5 and 1 1 .......................................................................... .. 58
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12 .......................................................................... .. 59
`
`K.
`
`Response to Patent Owner’s Argument That Secondary Considerations
`
`Demonstrate Non-Obviousness ............................................................................. .. 59
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Non-Adopted Rejections (ISSUES #4, #5, #6) ................................................................ ..61
`
`Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... ..6l
`
`iv
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. iv
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. iv
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`The present comments by third party requester Cisco Systems are accompanied by the
`
`following reference materials that, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.943, are excluded from the page limit
`
`restrictions.
`
`Exhibit F ':
`
`Bradner, “The Internet Standards Process — Revision 3,” Request for Comments
`
`2026, Internet Engineering Task Force (Oct. 1996).
`
`Exhibit G:
`
`Burnside & Keromytis, “Accelerating Application—Level Security Protocols,”
`
`The 11th IEEE International Conference on Networks, 2003, pp. 313-318.
`
`Exhibit H:
`
`Copy of catalog listing from Boston University Digital Common website, listing
`
`the Martin reference with an issue date of February 21, 1998.
`
`Exhibit 1:
`
`Copy of Technical Reports Archive listing from Boston University Computer
`
`Science Department which includes a link to the Martin paper. The link to the
`
`Martin paper was archived at archive.org on January 22, 1998 and retrieved by
`
`the Wayback Machine.
`
`Exhibit J:
`
`Boston University Computer Science Department Technical Reports
`
`Instructions, available at: http://wvvw.cs.bu.edu/techreports/INSTRUCTIONS.
`
`Exhibit K:
`
`U. Moller, “Implementation eines Anonymisierungsverfahrens fiir WWW-
`
`Zugriffe,” Diplomarbeit, Universitat Hamburg (July 16, 1999), citing to Martin
`
`at page 77.
`
`Exhibit L:
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart for US 7490151, VirnetX v. Cisco, No. 6:10-cv-
`
`00417, Docket No. 194 (Dec. 21, 2011) (selected pages).
`
`' Exhibits A-E are part of the originally filed Request for Reexamination.
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. v
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. v
`
`

`

`COMMENTS
`
`On July 20, 2012, the Patent Owner filed the Patent Owner’s Response to Office Action
`
`(“Response”) for the Office Action mailed April 20, 2012 (“the April 20th Office Action”) in
`
`connection with the above-identified inter parles reexamination proceeding, which was initiated
`
`by the Request for Inter Partes Reexamination filed August 16, 2011 (“the Cisco Request”) and
`
`merged with the Request for Inter Partes Reexamination filed July 25, 2011 (“the Apple
`
`Request”).
`
`It is respectfully requested, for the reasons identified below, that the Examiner:
`
`(i)
`
`maintain his rejection of, and issue an action closing prosecution for, the original
`
`claims 1-16, and
`
`(ii)
`
`deem the arguments advanced by the Patent Owner in the Response to be
`
`erroneous, improper, and/or unpersuasive.
`
`In the context of this inter partes reexamination, the standard provided in MPEP § 2111
`
`for claim interpretation during patent examination is applied.
`
`Requester’s comments respond to the Patent Owner’s arguments on an issue-by—issue
`
`basis, starting with the rejections originally posed in the Cisco Request, and then addressing the
`
`rejections originally posed in the Apple Request.
`
`I.
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER ARGUMENTS
`
`First, Patent Owner tries to raise a series of procedural issues to avoid the Examiner’s
`
`rejections by arguing that published and cited references are not printed publications. Patent
`
`Owner’s argument is merely an attempt to avoid the substantive teachings of the prior art.
`
`Second, Patent Owner raises improper and incorrect arguments that, in many instances,
`
`mischaracterize the prior art and improperly introduce new limitations into the claims. These
`
`arguments are unpersuasive and fail to overcome the Examiner’s rejections.
`
`A.
`
`Response to Patent Owner’s Argument That Certain References Are Not Prior Art
`
`Patent Owner argues, on pages 4-6, that the Office Action relies on five references
`
`“without showing that these references have been published.” Patent Owner argues that (i) the
`
`Examiner did not indicate that the Patent Office investigated whether these references qualified
`
`as printed publications, and (ii) the Examiner improperly relied upon copyright dates to establish
`
`that a reference was known or used by others. Patent Owner’s argument is without merit.
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 1
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 1
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`The Examiner’s rejection was proper because these references are printed publications.
`99 C‘
`
`A reference is a “printed publication
`
`upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been
`
`disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” In re Wyer,
`
`655 F.2d 221, 210 USPQ 790 (CCPA 1981). “An electronic publication, including an on-line
`
`database or Internet publication, is considered to be a ‘printed publication’ within the meaning of
`
`35 U.S.C. l02(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the
`
`art to which the document relates.” MPEP §2128.
`
`The Requester provides the following additional reference materials to show that the
`
`Examiner’s determination that the cited references are printed publications was correct:
`
`1.
`
`Aventail Connect V3.01/2.51 Administrator’s Guide (“Aventail V3.01”) and
`
`Aventail AutoSOCKS V2.1 Administration & Users’ Guide v2.1 (“AutoSOCKS”)
`
`Aventail V3.01 is the administrator’s guide to the Aventail Connect software and
`
`AutoSOCKS is the administrator’s guide for the Aventail AutoSOCKS software. For each of
`
`these references, the Examiner was able to rely upon (i) the document itself containing a date of
`
`publication (the copyright date), (ii) the declaration of a former Aventail employee stating when
`
`copies of Aventail V3.01 and AutoSOCKS were distributed to customers (Apple Request, Exhibit
`
`E1, Declaration of Christopher Hopen, W7-9), (iii) the declaration of the editor of Network
`
`World stating when he received copies of Aventail V3.01 and AutoSOCKS (Apple Request,
`
`Exhibit E2, Declaration of Michael Fratto, W6-7), and (iv) the declaration of an employee at
`
`IBM stating when he received copies of Aventail V3.01 and AutoSOCKS and when he
`
`distributed copies Aventail 3.01 and AutoSOCKS to customers AutoSOCKS (Apple Request,
`
`Exhibit E3, Declaration of James Chester, 11111 1-18).
`
`Yet, despite the evidence from these parties establishing when they distributed and
`
`received copies of Aventail V3.01 and AutoSOCKS, Patent Owner argues, on page 5, that the
`
`Examiner should have provided more evidence of publication. The Examiner is not required to
`
`move mountains and find every last piece of evidence to establish publication — all that is
`
`required is a “satisfactory showing” that the document was made available. Ample evidence has
`
`been provided to satisfactorily show that Aventail V3.01 and AutoSOCKS were each a “printed
`
`publication.” The Examiner’s reliance on Aventail 3.01 and AutoSOCKS is proper.
`
`2.
`
`Kent et al., “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol” (“Kent”)
`
`2
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 2
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 2
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`The Kent reference was made available to the public in November 1998 in electronic
`
`form as an Internet Draft promulgated by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Patent
`
`Owner’s argument that Kent is not a printed publication is without merit.
`
`First, the Kent reference is self-dated as being available as of “November 1998” and
`
`unambiguously states on Page 1 that “Distribution of this document is unlimited.” Accordingly,
`
`the Kent reference itself indicates that it was a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Second, Kent is an early Internet Draft by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).2
`
`The IETF promulgates Internet Drafts and “requests discussion and suggestions for
`
`improvements?” The IETF’s process for how the IETF publishes Internet Drafts is contained in
`
`“The Internet Standards Process — Revision 3” (“IETF Process Description”), which is attached
`
`as Exhibit F. The IETF Process Description states that Internet Drafts, such as Kent, are freely
`
`and widely distributed to interested individuals:
`
`2.2 Internet-Drafts
`
`During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
`document are made available for informal review and comment by
`placing them in the IETF's "Internet—Drafts" directory, which is
`replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving
`working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating
`the process of review and revision.
`
`Accordingly, the Kent reference, an Internet Draft, was created by its authors and then
`
`made “readily available to a wide audience” by replicating the Internet Draft across “a number of
`
`Internet hosts.”
`
`Third, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Keromytis, has repeatedly cited to Kent in his own
`
`peer-reviewed papers. As just one example, in “Accelerating Application-Level Security
`
`Protocols,” Dr. Keromytis cited to Kent with a specific date of “Nov. 1998” (the same date listed
`
`on the first page of Kent). Dr. Keromytis’ paper even included an annotation that Kent was
`
`available “[Online]” and even provided a URL link to Kent.
`
`2 See Kent at 1 (“This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working documents of
`the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). .
`. .”).
`3 See Kent at l.
`4 Exhibit F, RFC 2026 at 8 (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 3
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 3
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`Thus, since (i) the Kent reference itself provides a publication date of November 1998,
`
`(ii) the IETF has a policy of making Internet Drafts (such as the Kent reference) readily available
`
`to a wide audience by replicating the Internet Draft across a number of Internet hosts, and (iii)
`
`Patent Owner’s own expert’s papers relied upon an online copy of Kent and included a URL link
`
`to Kent, there is ample evidence showing that the Kent reference was disseminated and made
`
`available to persons interested and skilled in the subject matter in November 1998. Therefore,
`
`the Kent reference is a printed publication.
`
`3.
`
`Martin, D.M., “A Framework for Local Anonymity in the Internet” (“Martin”)
`
`The Martin paper was published on-line by the Boston University Computer Science
`
`Department prior to the critical date of the ’l5l patent. First, the Martin paper itself is
`
`unambiguously dated on its face, “2lS‘ February 1998.” Exhibit M provides a copy of the listing
`
`for the Martin paper as cataloged at Boston University, dated “1998-02-21.” Exhibit N provides
`
`a copy of website http: //www. cs . bu . edu/t.ec.hreports archived by Archive.org and available
`
`through the Wayback Machine.5 The Wayback Machine establishes that the Martin paper was
`
`cataloged in the Boston University Technical Reports Archive and available to the public via the
`
`Internet even earlier than the February 21, 1998 date.
`
`Second, Exhibit 0 is a German thesis,6 unambiguously dated 1999, that cites the Martin
`
`paper at page 77. Because this 1999 publication itself was published before the critical date of
`
`the ’151 patent, and specifically cites to the contents of the Martin paper, it too establishes that
`
`the Martin paper was publicly disseminated prior to the critical date. Thus, since the Martin
`
`paper was (i) cataloged by Boston University; (ii) publicly available via Boston University’s
`
`website; and (iii) actually used and cited by persons of ordinary skill in the art prior to the critical
`
`date, there is ample evidence showing that the Martin paper was disseminated and made
`
`available to persons interested and skilled in the subject matter in February 1998. Therefore, the
`
`Martin paper reference is a printed publication.
`
`5 The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has recognized retrievals from archive.org as
`reliable evidence in establishing the date of a printed publication. See, Appeal 2007-0987 in
`application 09/810,992, dated May 24, 2007.
`6 U. Moller, “Implementation eines Anonymisierungsverfahrens fur WWW-Zugriffe,”
`Diplomarbeit, Universitéit Hamburg (July 16, 1999).
`
`4
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 4
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 4
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`Therefore, each of the references relied upon by the Examiner to reject claims 1-16 of the
`
`‘151 patent were disseminated and made available to persons of ordinary skill in the art. The
`
`Examiner relied upon printed publications and the Examiner’s rejections were proper.
`
`B.
`
`The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Based on Kiuchi Were Proper
`
`1.
`
`Kiuchi
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Kiuchi.
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-16 (ISSUE #7)
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`(i)
`
`Kiuchi Discloses “a Domain Name Server (DNS) Proxy Module that
`Intercepts DNS Requests Sent by a Client”
`
`The Examiner correctly determined that Kiuchi discloses “a domain name server (DNS)
`
`proxy module that intercepts DNS requests sent by a client,” because Kiuchi discloses:
`
`0 The client-side proxy is a DNS proxy module that causes a host name to be
`
`converted into an IP address: “A client-side proxy asks the C-HTTP name server
`
`whether it can communicate with the host specified in a given URL.
`
`If the
`
`connection is permitted, the C-HTTP name server sends the IP address
`
`of the
`
`server-side proxy.
`
`If the client-side proxy receives an error status, then it
`
`performs DNS lookup, behaving like an ordinary HTTP/1.0 proxy.” (Kiuchi, pg.
`
`65)
`
`0 When a client sends a connection request, the client-side proxy intercepts the
`
`request: “When one of these resource names with a connection ID, for example,
`
`‘http://server.in.current.connection/sample.html=@=6zaDfldfcZLj8V!i’ in Figure
`
`(b), is selected and requested by an end-user, the client-side proxy takes off the
`
`connection ID and forwards the stripped, the original resource name to the server
`
`in its request.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65)
`
`Accordingly, Kiuchi teaches a client-side proxy that (i) receives the name of a host in a
`
`URL; (ii) forwards the name of the host to the C-HTTP name server; (iii) receives either an IP
`
`address for the host name or an error status; and (iv) if the client-side receives an error status,
`
`then the client-side proxy performs a DNS lookup, behaving like an ordinary HTTP/1.0 proxy.
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 5
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 5
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`Thus, Kiuchi discloses “a domain name server (DNS) proxy module that intercepts DNS requests
`
`sent by a client.”
`
`First, on pages 51-52, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi “expressly teaches that C-HTTP
`
`does not involve DNS.” Patent Owner cites to Kiuchi where “in a C-HTTP-based network,
`
`instead of DNS, a C-HTTP-based secure, encrypted name and certification service is used.”
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is incorrect. Kiuchi expressly teaches that the client-side proxy
`
`module intercepts the name of the host and forwards it to the C-HTTP server, but “if the client-
`
`side proxy receives an error status, then it performs DNS lookup, behaving like an ordinary
`
`HTTP/ 1.0 proxy.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65). Accordingly, Kiuchi clearly and unequivocally states that
`
`the client-side proxy “performs DNS lookup, behaving like an ordinary HTTP/1.0 proxy.” Thus,
`
`Kiuchi teaches “a domain name server (DNS) proxy module that intercepts DNS requests sent by
`
`a client.”
`
`Second, on page 52, Patent Owner cross-references to an Office Action in control no.
`
`95/001,679. However, the Patent Owner failed to inform the Examiner that the Patent Office, in
`
`pending related cases, has repeatedly found that Kiuchi teaches domain name servers and domain
`
`name services:
`
`0
`
`In control no. 95/001,856, the Patent Office found that Kiuchi teaches “a domain name
`
`service configured for connection a to communication network” (Control No.
`
`95/001,856, Office Action mailed March 5, 2012, pg. 17);
`
`0
`
`In control no. 95/001,851, the Patent Office found that Kiuchi teaches “a domain name
`
`service configured for connection a to communication network” (Control No.
`
`95/001,856, Office Action mailed March 1, 2012, pg. 17); and
`
`0
`
`In control no. 95/001,746, the Patent Office found that “Kiuchi’s C-HTTP name server
`
`performs domain name services.” (Control No. 95/001,746, Action Closing Prosecution
`
`mailed June 18, pg. 21).
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner has provided no definition, claim interpretation, or substantive
`
`analysis to differentiate the recited “DNS request” from the “domain name service” and
`
`“performs DNS lookup, behaving like an ordinary HTTP/1.0 proxy” teachings of Kiuchi.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner only makes general allegations that the claims define a patentable
`
`invention, without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 6
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 6
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`distinguishes them over the references. Such general allegations are not permitted, and do not
`
`overcome the Examiner’s rejection. (MPEP § 2666).
`
`(ii)
`
`Kiuchi Discloses “Determining Whether the Intercepted DNS Request
`Corresponds to a Secure Server”
`
`The Examiner correctly determined that Kiuchi discloses “determining whether the
`
`intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server,” because Kiuchi discloses:
`
`0 The client—side proxy sends information in the DNS request to the C-HTTP
`
`server: “A client-side proxy asks the C-HTTP name server whether it can
`
`communicate with the host specified in a given URL.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`0 The client-side proxy receives information about whether the client-side proxy is
`
`authorized to make the connection specified in the DNS request: “If the name
`
`server confirms that the query is legitimate, it examines whether the requested
`
`server-side proxy
`
`is permitted to accept the connection of the client-side
`
`proxy.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`Accordingly, Kiuchi discloses that (i) the client-side proxy requests that the C-HTTP
`
`name server inform the client-side proxy if the DNS request corresponds to a secure server; and
`
`(ii) the target server must be part of the closed network and must be authorized to accept the
`
`connection from the client—side proxy. Thus, Kiuchi teaches (i) a secure server (e.g., a server
`
`that is part of a closed network and that is authorized to accept a connection from the client-side
`
`proxy), and (ii) that the client-side proxy determines if the DNS request corresponds to a secure
`
`server by sending a request to the C-HTTP name server and receiving a response. Accordingly,
`
`Kiuchi discloses “determining whether the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure
`
`server.”
`
`Patent Owner argues, on page 52-53, that the Examiner is mixing and matching
`
`components of Kiuchi. Patent Owner argues that the C-HTTP name server performs the
`
`“determining” step and that Kiuchi’s client-side proxy does not perform this step. Patent
`
`Owner’s argument does not take into account the actual language of the claim.
`
`The claim recites “determining whether the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a
`
`secure server.” Specifically, the claim does not recite the manner in which the “determining” is
`
`performed, and certainly does not recite “determining, by means other than sending a request to
`
`another computer, ...” In Kiuchi, the client-side proxy performs its “determining” step by
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 7
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 7
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`sending a request to the C-HTTP name server and awaiting a response. Patent Owner’s
`
`argument incorrectly focuses on the C-HTTP name server (which receives the request), rather
`
`than the actual method and process used by the client-side proxy of Kiuchi to perform the
`
`“determining.”
`
`Accordingly, because Kiuchi’s client-side proxy performs the determining by sending a
`
`request to the C-HTTP name server and receiving a response, Kiuchi discloses “determining
`
`whether the intercepted DNS request corresponds to a secure server” as recited in the claim.
`(iii) Kiuchi Discloses “Automatically Initiating an Encrypted Channel
`Between the Client and the Secure Server”
`
`Patent Owner argues, on pages 53-54, that “Kiuchi is silent on whether any ‘automatic
`
`initiating’ occurs at all.” Patent Owner continues, “Kiuchi’s C-HTTP system might indeed
`
`require user interaction during the connection establishment.”
`
`Once more, Patent Owner falls to take into account the full teachings of Kiuchi. Kiuchi
`
`is not silent about automatic initiating, and for Patent Owner to say that Kiuchi “might indeed
`
`require user interaction” is misleading and disingenuous. Kiuchi expressly teaches that the
`
`secure C-HTTP communication happens without any end-user involvement7:
`
`
`
`(Kiuchi, pg. 68)
`
`Clearly, Kiuchi teaches that the C-HTTP communications do not require the end-users to
`
`provide interaction – Kiuchi even teaches that the end-users are unaware that it is occurring.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are incorrect and wholly inaccurate of the teachings of Kiuchi.
`b.
`
`Independent Claims 7 and 13
`
`First, Patent Owner argues that claim 7 recites features similar to those described for
`
`claim 1, but makes no additional arguments beyond cross-referencing to the arguments of claim
`
`1. For the reasons set forth above, Kiuchi teaches all of the limitations of claim 7.
`
`
`7 “Automatically initiating an encrypted channel” has been defined by the Patent Owner to mean
`“initiating the encrypted channel without involvement of a user.” See Ex. L.
`
`8
`
`Petitioner RPX Corporation - Ex. 1065, p. 8
`
`

`

`Comments By Third Party Requester
`
`Reexamination Control Nos.: 95/001,714 & 95/001,697
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that claim 13 recites features similar to those described for
`
`claim 1, but makes no additional arguments beyond cross-referencing to the arguments of claim
`
`1. For the same reasons set forth above, Kiuchi teaches all of the limitations of claim 13.
`
`c.
`
`Dependent Claims 3, 9 and 15
`
`On pages 55-56 of the Response, Patent Owner argues about the patentability of “when
`
`the client is not authorized to access the secure server, returning a host unknown error message
`
`to the client.”
`
`Kiuchi discloses (i) the client-side proxy receives a host name from the client (Kiuchi, pg.
`
`65); (ii) the client-side proxy asks the C-HTTP name server if it can communicate with the server
`
`that corresponds to the host name (Kiuchi, pg. 65); (iii) if the client is not authorized to
`
`communicate with the secure server (i.e., the host name did, in fact, to a secure server, but the
`
`client was not permitted), then an error status is sent to the client-side proxy (Kiuchi, pg. 65), (iv)
`
`when the client-side proxy receives the error status, the client-side proxy performs an ordinary
`
`DNS lookup (behaving like an ordinary HTTP/1.0 proxy) — using the host name that
`
`corresponded to a secure server (Kiuchi, pg. 65). The ordinary DNS lookup, behaving like an
`
`ordinary HTTP/1.0 proxy, would return a host unknown error messages, because the original
`
`hostname sent is a nonstandard domain name (e.g., it was a host name that the C-HTTP server
`
`would recognize).
`
`d.
`
`Dependent Claims 6 and 12
`
`Kiuchi discloses “wherein automatically initiating the encrypted channel between the
`
`client and the secure server avoids sending a true IP address of the secure server to the client,”
`
`because Kiuchi discloses that “it is impossible to know the IP address of a server-side p