`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box I450
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`wwusplngov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED TNVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/001,788
`
`10/18/2011
`
`Victor Larson
`
`0775800146
`
`5823
`
`.
`EXAMINER
`Mcmmnwmamm _
`600 13th Street, NW
`FOSTER, ROLANDG
`Washington, DC 20005-3096
`ART UNIT
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`09/26/20 I 2
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 1
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 1
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P 0.80x1450
`Alexan dria, VA 2231 3.1450
`Wusp‘rogw
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`717 NORTH HARWOOD
`SUITE 3400
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NUMBER 95/001 788.
`
`PATENT NUMBER LARSON ETAL..
`
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER 3900.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office in’ the above-identified reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this ~
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`-
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be
`directed to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses
`given at the end of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`PTOL-2070 (Rev.07-04)
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 2
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 2
`
`

`

`
`ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`
`
`95/001,788
`Examiner
`
`LARSON ET AL.‘
`Art Unit
`
`ROLAND FOSTER
`
`3992
`
`
`
`
`(37 CFR 1.949)
`
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
` Responsive to the communication(s) filed by:
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner on 29 March 2012
`
`
`Third Party(ies) on 25 June 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent owner may once file a submission under 37 CFR 1.951(a) within _2_ month(s) from the mailing date of this
`Office action. Where a submission is filed, third party requester may file responsive comments under 37 CFR
`1.951 (b) within 30-days (not extendable- 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(2)) from the dateof service of the initial
`
`submission on the requester. Appeal cannot be taken from this action. Appeal can only be taken from a
`Right of Appeal Notice under 37 CFR 1.953.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`
`
`PART I. THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`
`
`1. [I Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892
`2. El Information Disclosure Citation, PTO/SB/08
`3.[:I
`
`
`
`PART II. SUMMARY OF ACTION:
`
`
`
`1a. IX] Claims 1-60 are subject to reexamination.
`
`1b. E] Claims
`
`are not subject to reexamination.
`
`2. El Claims
`
`have been canceled.
`
`3. El Claims
`
`4. D Claims
`
`
`
`are confirmed. [Unamended patent claims]
`
`are patentable. [Amended or new claims]
`
`IX] Claims lfl are rejected.
`5.
`
`[:1 Claims
`are objected to.
`6.
`E] are not acceptable.
`[:1 are acceptable
`I:] The drawings filed on
`7.
`8 E] The drawing correction request filed on
`is:
`E] approved. E] disapproved.
`9
`[:1 Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has:
`E] been received.
`[:1 not been received.
`El been filed in Application/Control No __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10. D Other
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2065 (08/06)
`
`Paper No. 20120904
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 3
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 3
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`"
`
`Page 2
`
`ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`This Office action addresses claims 1—60 of United States Patent No. 7,418,504 B2 (the
`
`"Larson" patent), for reexamination was granted in the Order Granting Inter Partes
`
`Reexamination (hereafter the "Order"), mailed December 29, 2011.
`
`A non-final Office action accompanying said Order was also mailed December 29,2011
`
`rejecting all original claims 1-60 of the Larson patent (the "non-final Office action").
`
`The patent owner responded by filing arguments and associated evidence on March 29,
`
`2012 (the "Response").
`
`The third party requester responded by filing Comments to the Patent Owner's Response
`
`on June 25, 2012 (the "Comments"). In the Comments, the third party requester responded to the
`
`patent owner's arguments.
`
`The examiner has carefully considered the arguments and evidence provided in both the
`
`patent owner's Response and in the third party requester's Comments. Based on consideration of
`
`the entire record, the third party requester's arguments and evidence are deemed more persuasive.
`
`See the "Response to Arguments" section for further explanation. All prior rejections are
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 4
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 4
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`maintained. Accordingly, this Office action is made an “Action Closing Prosecution.” See 37
`
`CFR 1.949,'MPEP 2671.02. See also the “conclusion” section to this Office action.
`
`;
`
`Prior Art Rejections
`
`2.A.
`
`Issues Raised in the Request
`
`A total of ten references, in certain combinations, have been asserted in the Request as
`
`providing teachings relevant to the claims of the Larson patent.
`
`Solana, E. et al., “Flexible Internet Secure Transactions Based on Collaborative
`Domains,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1361, at 37-51 (1997), attached to
`the Request as Exhibit X1 (“Solana”).
`
`US. Patent No. 6,557,037 to Provino, attached to the Request as Exhibit X2 (“Provino”).
`
`US. Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser, attached to the Request as Exhibit X3 (“Beser”).
`
`Atkinson, R., IETF RFC 2230, “Key Exchange Delegation Record for the DNS,”
`November 1997, attached to the Request as Exhibit X4 (“RFC 2230”).
`
`'
`
`Eastlake, D. et al., IETF RFC 2538, “Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System
`(DNS),” March 1999, attached to the Request as Exhibit X5 (“RFC 2538”).
`
`Kent, S. et al., IETF RFC 2401 , “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,”
`November 1998, attached to the Request as Exhibit X6 (“RFC 2401”).
`
`Eastlake, D. et al., IETF RFC 2064, “Domain Name System Security Extensions,”
`January 1997, attached to the Request as Exhibit X7 (“RFC 2065”).
`
`Postel, J. et al., IETF RFC 920, “Domain Requirements,” October 1984, attached to the
`Request as Exhibit X8 (“RFC 920”).
`
`Guttman, E. et al., IETF RFC 2504, “Users’ Security Handbook,” February 1999,
`attached to the Request as Exhibit X9 (“RFC 2504”).
`
`-
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex.1068, p. 5
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 5
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Reed, M. et a1., “Proxies for Anonymous Routing,” 12Lh Annual Computer Security
`Applications Conference, Sand Diego, CA (December 9-13, 1996), attached to the .
`Request as Exhibit X10 (“Reed”).
`
`, The third party requester also cited six prior art patents and printed publications to
`
`demonstrate the knowledge in the field of the invention.
`
`Goldschlag et a1., “Hiding Routing Information,” Workshop on Information Hiding,
`Cambridge, UK, May 1996, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y1 (“Goldschlag”).
`
`Mockapetris, P., RFC 1035, “Domain Names — Implementation and Specification,”
`November 1987, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y2 (“RFC 1035”).
`
`Braken, R., RFC 1123, “Requirements for Internet Hosts —— Application and Support,”
`October 1989, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y3 (“RFC 1123”).
`
`Atkinson, R., RFC 1825, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” August 1995,
`attached to the Request as Exhibit Y4 (“RFC 1825”).
`
`Housley, R. et a1., RFC 2459, “Internet X509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
`CRL profile,” January 1999, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y5 (”RFC 2459”).
`
`Mockapetris, P., RFC 1034, “Domain Names — Concepts and Facilities,” November
`» 1987, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y4 (“RFC 1034”).
`
`2.B.
`
`Summary Regarding Those Proposed Rejections Adopted by the Examiner
`
`The rejections identified in Issues 1-35 are adopted because the stated combinations
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`claims 1-60 in the Larson patent, as explained in said Order.
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 6
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 6
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`2.C.
`
`Entitlement to the Benefit of an Earlier Filing Date
`
`Some of the references cited are intervening art. MPEP 2617. Requestor asserts that the
`
`instant claims are not entitled to the earliest filing date of October 30, 1998, the filing date of the
`
`oldest parent, provisional application. The examiner agrees. US. Patent No. 7,010,604, which
`
`issued from parent application 09/429,643, and which was filed Oct. 29, 1999, fails to explicitly
`
`recite nor imply the phrase “domain name service” present in all independent claims in the‘
`
`Larson patent for which reexamination is now sought. Indeed, the 7,010,604 patent does not
`
`appear to even be directed to services similar to domain name lookup. The patent thus fails to
`
`neither provide written description support nor enable the subject matter recited in claims 1760 of
`
`the Larson patent. Accordingly, the Larson patent is not entitled to the benefit of the 7,010,604
`
`patent filing date. The effective filing date for claims 1-60 is no earlier than the filing date of the
`
`US. Patent No. 6,502,135, which issued from parent application 09/504,783.
`
`2.D. Rejections Based upon Solana (Issues 1-8)
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC. 102 that form the
`
`basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or
`on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 14-60 are rejected under 35 USC. 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Solana.
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 7
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 7
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) 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 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.
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in View of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Solana as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in View of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 32 and 56 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in View of
`
`Beser.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2504.
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 8
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2504, and further in view of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Solana as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of RFC 2504,
`
`and further in View of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 32 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in View of
`
`RFC 2504, and further in View of Beser.
`
`Incomoration by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 14-116 of the
`
`Request and Exhibits C1 and C2 (claim charts), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`2.E.
`
`Rejections Based upon Provino (Issues 9-20)
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
`
`basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(e) the invention was described in (I) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed
`in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for
`patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 9
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 9
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this
`subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United
`States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 USC. 102(6) as being anticipated
`
`by Provino.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Provino as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in View of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in View
`0
`
`of Beser.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in View of RFC 2230.
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 10
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 10
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2230, and further in View of RFC 920.
`
`_ Claims 10—13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Provino as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further View of RFC 2230, and
`
`further in View of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in View
`
`of RFC 2230, and further in view of Beser.
`
`Claims” 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in View of RFC 2504.
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2504, and further in View of RFC 920.
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 11
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 11
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Provino as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further view of RFC 2504, and
`
`further in view of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view
`
`of RFC 2504, and further in view of Beser.
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 1 17-223 of the
`
`Request and Exhibits C3, C4 and C5 (claim charts), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`2.F.
`
`Rejections Based upon Beser (Issues 21-24)
`
`Claim Rejections -— 35 USC § 102
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
`
`Beser.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Beser as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 920. .
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 12
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 12
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beser as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of RFC 2401.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beser as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further View of RFC 2401, and
`
`further in view of Reed.
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 224-275 of the
`
`Request and Exhibit C6 (claim chart), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`2.G. Rejections Based upon RFC 2230 (Issues 25-29)
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`RFC 2230.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over RFC 2230 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in View of RFC 920.
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 13
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 13
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC
`
`2230 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of RFC
`
`2401.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC 2230
`
`as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further view of RFC 2401,
`
`and further in View of Reed.
`
`Claims 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`RFC 2230 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in View of
`
`RFC 2230, and further in View of Beser.
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 276-321 ,of the
`
`Request and Exhibit C7 (claim chart), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`2.H. Rejections Based upon RFC 2538 (Issues 30-35)
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in
`this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-22, 24-46, 48-52 and 57-60 are rejected under 35 USC. 102(a) as
`
`being anticipated by RFC 2538.
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 14
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 14
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 3, 4, 24, 25, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over RFC 2538 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in
`
`view of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC
`
`2538 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in View of RFC
`
`2401.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC 2538
`
`as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further view of RFC 2401,
`
`and further in View of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over RFC 2538 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in
`
`View of Beser.
`
`Claims 5, 23 and 47 are rejected under 35 USC. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC
`
`2538 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of RFC
`
`2065.
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 15
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 15
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 322-364 of the
`
`Request and Exhibit C8 (claim chart), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`_3_.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.1.
`
`Prior Art Publication
`
`The patent owner’s arguments and associated (Response, pp. 5-9) have been carefully
`
`considered, but the requester’s evidence demonstrates that Solana, Reed, and the RFC(s) were-
`
`printed publications available as prior art. Regarding Solana, Exhibit C to the Comments
`
`provides evidence that Solana was formally published in a treatise called “Lecture Notes in
`
`Computer Science” (LCNS) by Springer-Verlag in 1998. The declarant also attested to these
`
`facts. See the Declaration of Michael Allyn Fratto Under 37 CPR. 1.132, Fratto Declaration, .
`
`filed with the Comments (the “Fratto Declaration”), paragraph 11. See also the Comments, p. 3.
`
`Regarding Reed, the same declarant presents evidence, such as the Association of Computing
`
`Machinery (ACM) website reporting the citation of Reed no later than December of 1996. 'Fratto
`
`Declaration, paragraphs 12-15. Regarding the RFC(s), these publications are among the most
`
`authoritative publications for Internet systems and protocols. The examiner agrees with the
`
`requester that “RFC documents are published and disseminated to the relevant public by the
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) pursuant to a transparent and well-known process:
`
`Under these well-known procedures, RFCs are self-authenticating printed publications — each
`
`contain verifiable information documenting the date of its public distribution.” Comments, pp. 3
`
`& 4. Moreover:
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 16
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 16
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`'
`
`Page 15
`
`Thus, the RFC documents cited in the Request and in the Office action would each have been
`published during the month and year that is listed in the heading of the RFC in accordance with
`IETF BCP 9. Each of these RFCs also w0uld have been publicly distributed by the IETF and
`announced via their mailing list during the month and year listed in the heading of the RFC, and
`thus would have been publicly available without restriction as of the date noted on the document.
`
`Fratto Declaration, paragraph 24. See also paragraphs 16-23.
`
`The various RFC(s) identified in the Response, p. 8 are thus printed publications
`
`available as prior art during the month and year listed in the heading of the subject RFC.
`
`3.2.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`Claim 1, which is representative, broadly recites (emphasis added):
`
`A system for providing a domain name service for establishing a secure
`communication link, the system comprising:
`
`,a domain name service system configured to be connected to a communication network, to store
`a plurality of domain names and corresponding network addresses, to receive a query for a
`network address, and to comprise an indication that the domain name service system supports
`establishing a secure communication link.
`
`Thus, claim 1 recites a domain name service (“DNS”) “system” and not a particular
`
`computer device or structural configuration, such as a single secure DNS server. Such an
`
`interpretation is consistent with the specification of the patent under reexamination, see, e. g., col.
`
`40, 11. 35-48, where the DNS system is implemented using gatekeeper 2603, DNS proxy 2610
`and DNS server 2609. As the requester correctly notes, this means the “DNS system according
`
`to the claims can be distributed across multiple computer systems. . ..” Fratto Declaration, June
`
`25, 2012, paragraph 30. Thus, the DNS system is reasonably interpreted as comprising a single
`
`device or multiple devices.
`
`Petitioner Apple - EX. 1068, p. 17
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 17
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`.
`
`Page 16
`'
`
`The patent owner characterizes the invention as a special and separate DNS device that
`
`traps DNS queries, determines whether the query is from a “special type of user,” and then
`
`actively assists in the creation of a virtual private network ("VPN") link. The Declaration of
`
`Angelos D. Keromytis, Ph.D., filed with the Response (the “Keromytis”), paragraphs 17-19.
`
`Regarding whether the DNS device is a separate device, as discussed above, the claims
`
`do not recite a particular special DNS device, much less a device physically separate from a
`
`conventional DNS server, which is also consistent with the specification of the patent under
`
`reexamination. Indeed in one embodiment, the patent owner states "It will be appreciated that
`
`the functions of DNS proxy 2610 and DNS server 2609 can be combined into a single server for
`
`convenience." Col. 40, 11. 43-45, emphasis added.
`
`In View of the above, the claimed DNS “system” is interpreted reasonably broad
`
`consistent with the specification to comprise a single device (e. g. , a DNS server) or various
`
`combinations of multiple devices (e.g., a DNS server and other DNS devices) (e.g., a DNS.
`
`server, a DNS proxy) (e. g., a DNS server, a DNS proxy, and other DNS devices). The patent
`
`owner in their Response has not pointed to any language and arguments clearly disclaiming the
`
`embodiments discussed above that support this interpretation.
`
`Regarding whether the DNS system determines the query is from a special user and then
`
`actively assists in the establishment of a VPN, the patent owner asserts the special DNS server
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 18
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001 ,788
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`2602 (Fig. 26) in the patent under reexamination differs from a conventional DNS server in that
`
`“DNS proxy 2610 [part of DNS server 2602]... determines whether the computer 2601 is
`authorized to access the site” and, if so, "transmits a message to gatekeeper 2603 to facilitate the
`
`creation of a VPN link between computer 2601 and secure target site 2604”. Keromytis
`
`Declaration, paragraph 18. “DNS proxy 2610 then responds to the computer’s 2601 DNS
`
`request with an address received from the gatekeeper 2604.” Id. That is, rather than
`
`conventionally returning a public key to the initiator (e.g., computer 2601) so that the target and
`
`the initiator can establish a VPN, the special DNS server authenticates the request, then relies
`
`upon the services of a gatekeeper to receive an address (e. g., a “hopblock” address, col. Col. 40,
`
`11. 15-25) that the DNS server then provides to the initiator so that the initiator and target can
`
`establish a VPN. See also the Keromytis Declaration, paragraph 19.
`
`The claims however do not recite a DNS “server” (as previously discussed) much less a
`
`DNS server that authenticates a user and relies upon the services of a gatekeeper, which is also
`
`consistent with the specification. Indeed in one embodiment, the patent owner states the DNS
`
`server (SDNS 3319) is queried "in the clear” (without using a VPN link) and without
`
`
`authenticating the user. Col. 51, 11. 48-61. The server then replies without the use of a
`
`gatekeeper 3314 “in the clear” so that the initiator and the target can establish a VPN. Id.
`
`In view of the above, the claimed DNS system is interpreted reasonably broad consistent
`
`with the specification has _rgt requiring a DNS server capable of authenticating the user and n_ot
`
`requiring the services of a gatekeeper to aid in the establishment of a VPN. The patent owner in
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 19
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 19
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`'
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`their Response has not pointed to any language and arguments clearly disclaiming the
`
`embodiments discussed above that support this interpretation.
`
`The district court in related litigation interpreted “indication” as having no special
`
`meaning-in View of the specification of the patent under reexamination and indeed the
`
`specification does not use this term specifically. Thus, the term may be construed broadly to
`
`mean a visible message or signal to a user that the DNS system supports establishing a secure
`
`communication link. Markman Order, Ex. A. to the Comments, pp. 27 & 28.
`
`Finally, the recited phrase “and to” means the “indication” is not explicitly tied to the
`
`“query for a network address” in any way other than that they are both part of a “system for
`
`providing a domain name service.” Thus, the claims encompass a DNS system conventionally
`
`queried for a network address, where an unrelated “indication” of secure communication support
`
`is provided. That is, the claimed “indication” need not relate to the claimed “query” because the
`
`claim imposes no such requirement. The patent under reexamination not surprisingly discloses
`
`such a scenario. In "Scenario #3”, the DNS system is conventionally queried for a network
`
`address based on a uniform resource locator (URL) in order to establish an unsecured
`
`connection. Col. 41, 11. 41-49. In Scenario #1,” a subsequent, different request would result in
`
`an indication of secure communication (establishment of a VPN). Col. 41 , 11. 23—32. The patent
`
`under reexamination also discloses an embodiment where the “indication” is only indirectly
`
`related to the original DNS query. A non-secure connection using a conventional DNS query is
`
`established either using the embodiment of "Scenario # 3" discussed above (col. 41 , 11. 41-49) or
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 20
`
`Petitioner Apple - Ex. 1068, p. 20
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`
`Page 19
`
`‘ Art Unit: 3992
`
`that described for a non-"special user" (col. 39, 11. 46-50). Subsequently, for said unsecured
`
`connection, an “indication” of secure communication support (URL for a secure domain name
`
`service) is provided in response to a query for a secure URL (i.e., not a “query for network
`
`address) based on an unsecured domain name. Col. 50, 11. 37-45.
`
`3.3.
`
`The Solana Prior Art
`
`3.3.A.
`
`Solana Teaches a “Domain Name Service System Configured to. ..Store Domain
`Names and Corresponding Network Addresses.”
`
`The patent owner asserts Solana fails to teach a domain name server system configured to
`
`store a plurality of domain names and corresponding network addresses. First, it is argued,
`
`“Solana merely discloses that the DS stores “naming information and. . .certificates that securely
`
`bind domains to their public keys.” Response, p. 12. See also the Keromytis Declaration,
`
`paragraph 24. The examiner does not agree. Solana teaches a “Directory Service (DS) holding
`
`naming information....As mentioned, existing naming infrastructures (DNS-sec, X509) might be
`
`used for this purpose." P.43. Solana cites to RFC 2065 as an example of said DNS-sec
`
`(reference 16). RFC 206