Page 1 of 3
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2029
`Apple v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2014-00237
`
`

`
`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`tunnels. See Beser at col. 1, l. 54 to col. 2, l. 18. Beser also points out the importance of
`assuring the secure and private nature of IP tunnels between the first and second network
`devices. See, e.g., Id. at col. 2, ll. 36-40 (“It is therefore desirable to establish a tunneling
`association that hides the identity of the originating and terminating ends of the tunneling
`association from the other users of a public network. Hiding the identities may prevent a hacker
`from intercepting all media flow between the ends.”); col. 12, ll. 13-19 (‘‘In this manner, the
`identities of the originating 24 and terminating 26 telephony devices are inside the payload fields
`84 of the IP 58 packets and may be hidden from hackers on the public network. The negotiation
`may occur through the trusted-third-party network device 30 to further ensure the anonymity of
`the telephony devices (24, 26).”) Beser further explains other than situations where it would be
`impractical, VPNs and encryption of IP traffic in IP tunnels using the IPsec protocol should be
`used. See id. at col. 1, l. 54 to col. 2, l. 18.
`
`% describes use of IPSec to establish VPNs including by IP tunneling. See, e. g., Kent
`at 8 (“A tunnel mode SA is essentially an SA applied to an IP tunnel.”) The IPSec protocol calls
`for encryption of all IP traffic being sent between nodes of the VPN network — the protocol is
`designed to automatically encrypt traffic being sent between nodes.
`
`Kent also teaches that the encryption and tunneling mechanisms of IPSec work
`automatically. In particular, in the IPsec protocol, outbound and inbound IP packets are
`examined and afforded the specified protection based on the IP and transport layer header
`information (e.g., the outbound packet is analyzed and encrypted according to a specified
`method). This occurs automatically according to policies that have been established for the
`connection. See generally id. at 13 (describing handling of inbound and outbound IPsec traffic);
`Id. at 29-34 (describing the protocols for handling outbound and inbound IP packets).
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have relied on m to modify the design of
`Beser to incorporate IPsec to encrypt all traffic being sent in IP tunnels between a first and
`second network device in the IP tunneling procedures being described in Beser, rather than to
`encrypt only the traffic used to establish the IP tunnel. Accordingly, Beser in view of%
`would have rendered obvious claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 2 depends from claim l, and specifies that steps (2) and (3) of claim l are
`performed at a DNS server separate from the client computer.
`
`Beser expressly describes processes and systems where the DNS server (the trusted third
`party network device) is separate from the client computer (the first network device that
`generates the request). In particular, Beser explains that the trusted-third-party network device
`can be a domain name server, and that this device is a distinct network device from the first
`network device. See, e.g., Beser at Figures 1 and 4; at col. 2, ll. 50-56 (“The method includes
`receiving a request to initiate the tunneling association on a first network device. The first
`network device is associated with the originating end of the tunneling association, and the
`request includes a unique identifier for the terminating end of the tunneling association. A
`trusted-third-party network device is informed of the request on a public network.”); and col. ll,
`ll. 33-35 (“In one exemplary preferred embodiment, the trusted-third-party network device is a
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`166
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`
`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`VIII. CONCLUSIONS
`
`Based on the explanations provided herein, Requester believes that substantial new
`questions of patentability have been established for each of claims l-l 8 of the ’ l35 patent.
`Requester accordingly submits that an inter partes reexamination should be established, and
`claims l-l8 of the ’l35 patent should be rejected on each of the grounds specified above that
`establishes a substantial new question of patentability.
`
`Requester authorizes the Director to charge any fees not already provided with this
`request that are determined to be required to Deposit Account No. l8-1260.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Jeffrey P. Kushan /
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Registration No. 43,401
`
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`
`1501 K Street, N.W
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`Date:
`
`July l0, 20ll
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`223
`
`Page 3 of 3