IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent of: Larson et al.
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,921,211 Attorney Docket No.: 38868-0007IP1
`Issue Date:
`April 5, 2011
`Appl. Serial No.: 11/840,560
`Filing Date:
`August 17, 2007
`Title:
`AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS
`
`USING SECURE DOMAIN NAMES
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,921,211
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`4. 
`
`3. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ........................................... 1 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................ 1 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................................... 1 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................. 2 
`D.  Service Information .............................................................................................. 2 
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................ 3 
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .......................................... 3 
`A.  Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................ 3 
`B.  Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested .......................... 3 
`C.  Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3) .......................................... 5 
`1. 
`Domain Name (Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-41, 43-47, and 50-60) ... 6 
`2. 
`Domain Name Service System (Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-41, 43-
`47, and 50-60) ........................................................................................... 6 
`Indicate/Indicating (Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-41, 43-47, and 50-60)
` ................................................................................................................... 7 
`Secure Communication Link (Claims 1, 16-17, 20-23, 26-27, 31-32, 35-
`36, 47, 51, and 60) .................................................................................... 8 
`Transparently (Claims 27 and 51) ............................................................. 9 
`5. 
`Between [A] and [B] (Claims 16, 27, 33, 40, 51, and 57) .......................... 9 
`6. 
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘211 PATENT ........................................................................... 10 
`A.  Brief Description ................................................................................................. 10 
`B.  Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’211 Patent .................................... 10 
`C.  The Effective Priority Date of the Claims of the ‘211 Patent .............................. 12 
`MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR WHICH AN
`IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘211 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ..................... 13 
`A. 
`[GROUND 1] – Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-31, 33-41,
`43-47, 50-55, and 57-60 .................................................................................... 13 
`1. 
`Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 1 ....................................................................... 23 
`2. 
`Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 36 ..................................................................... 27 
`3. 
`Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 60 ..................................................................... 29 
`4. 
`Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 2 and 37 ......................................................... 30 
`5. 
`Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 6 ....................................................................... 31 
`6. 
`Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 14 and 38 ....................................................... 31 
`7. 
`Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 15 and 39 ....................................................... 32 
`8. 
`Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 16 and 40 ....................................................... 33 
`
`i
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 17 and 41 ....................................................... 38 
`9. 
`10.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 19 and 43 ....................................................... 40 
`11.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 20 and 44 ....................................................... 41 
`12.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 21 and 45 ....................................................... 42 
`13.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 22 and 46 ....................................................... 42 
`14.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 23 and 47 ....................................................... 43 
`15.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 26 and 50 ....................................................... 43 
`16.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 27, 33, 51, and 57 .......................................... 44 
`17.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 28 and 52 ....................................................... 45 
`18.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 29 and 53 ....................................................... 45 
`19.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 30 and 54 ....................................................... 46 
`20.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 31 and 55 ....................................................... 48 
`21.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 34 and 58 ....................................................... 49 
`22.  Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 35 and 59 ....................................................... 50 
`[GROUND 2] – Kiuchi In View of RFC 1034 Renders Obvious Claims 20, 21, 35,
`44, 45, and 59 .................................................................................................... 51 
`[GROUND 3] – Kiuchi In View of Lindblad Renders Obvious Claims 32 and 56
` ........................................................................................................................... 52 
`[GROUND 4] – Kiuchi In View of RFC 2660 Renders Obvious Claims 16, 27, 33,
`40, 51, and 57 .................................................................................................... 55 
`REDUNDACY ............................................................................................................ 58 
`VI. 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 58 
`
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`D. 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`MSFT-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211 to Larson et al. (“the ‘211 patent”)
`
`MSFT-1002
`
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ‘211 Patent (“the Prose-
`cution History”)
`
`MSFT-1003
`
`(Reserved)
`
`MSFT-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Roch Guerin
`
`MSFT-1005
`
`(Reserved)
`
`MSFT-1006
`
`(Reserved)
`
`MSFT-1007
`
`(Reserved)
`
`MSFT-1008
`
`(Reserved)
`
`MSFT-1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,225,993 to Lindblad et al. (“Lindblad”)
`
`MSFT-1010
`
`MSFT-1011
`
`MSFT-1012
`
`MSFT-1013
`
`MSFT-1014
`
`MSFT-1015
`
`Mockapetris, P., RFC 1034, “Domain Names – Concepts and Facili-
`ties,” November 1987
`
`Postel, J., et al., RFC 1591, “Domain Name System Structure and
`Delegation,” March 1994
`
`Rescorla, E., et al., RFC 2660, draft 01, “The Secure HyperText Trans-
`fer Protocol,” February 1996
`
`VirnetX’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
`Systems, Inc., et al., 6:10-CV-417 (11/4/11) (EDTX)
`
`VirnetX’s Reply Claim Construction Brief in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys-
`tems, Inc., et al., 6:10-CV-417 (12/19/11) (EDTX)
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order in VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
`Inc., et al., 6:10-CV-417 (4/25/12) (EDTX)
`
`iii
`
`

`
`MSFT-1016
`
`MSFT-1017
`
`MSFT-1018
`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`Action Closing Prosecution (nonfinal) in Inter Partes Reexamination,
`Control No. 95/001,789, September 26, 2012 (USPTO)
`
`
`Final Office Action in Inter Partes Reexamination – Right of Appeal
`Notice, Control No. 95/001,856, June 25, 2013 (USPTO)
`
`
`
`
`Takahiro Kiuchi and Shigekoto Kaihara, “C-HTTP – The Development
`of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network on the Internet,” published
`by IEEE in the Proceedings of SNDSS 1996
`
`MSFT-1019
`
`IPR2013-00397, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`MSFT-1020
`
`IPR2013-00398, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`MSFT-1021
`
`Declaration of Dr. Roch Guerin re the ‘211 Patent and Kiuchi
`
`MSFT-1022 to MSFT-1040 (Reserved)
`
`MSFT-1041
`
`Bradner, S., RFC 2026, “The Internet Standards Process – Revision
`3,” October 1996
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner” or “Microsoft”) petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-
`
`41, 43-47, and 50-60 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211 (“the ‘211 pa-
`
`tent”). As explained in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Microsoft will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims.
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable based on teachings set forth in at least the
`
`references presented in this petition. Microsoft respectfully submits that an IPR should be
`
`instituted, and that the Challenged Claims should be canceled as unpatentable.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Microsoft Corporation, is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ‘211 patent is the subject of a number of civil actions including: (i) Civ. Act. No.
`
`6:13-cv-00211-LED (E.D. Tex.), filed February 26, 2013; (ii) Civ. Act. No. 6:12-cv-00855-
`
`LED (E.D. Tex.), filed November 6, 2012; (iii) Civ. Act. No. 6:10-cv-00417-LED (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed August 11, 2010; (iv) Civ. Act. No. 6:11-cv-00018-LED (E.D. Tex), (iv) Civ. Act. No.
`
`6:13-cv-00351-LED (E.D. Tex), filed April 22, 2013 (“the 2013 VirnetX litigation”); (v) Civ.
`
`Act. No. 6:13-mc-00037 (E.D. Tex); and (vi) Civ. Act. No. 9:13-mc-80769 (E.D. Fld).
`
`The ‘‘211 patent is also the subject of two inter partes reexamination nos.
`
`95/001,789 and 95/001,856. On June 25, 2013, the Office issued a Right of Appeal Notice
`
`1
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`in the ‘789 proceeding, maintaining rejections of all 60 claims in the ‘211 patent. Ex. 1016 at
`
`3, 7-15. Similarly, on June 25, 2013, the Office issued a Right of Appeal Notice in the ‘856
`
`proceeding maintaining rejections of all 60 claims (with the exception of claim 11) in the ‘211
`
`patent. Ex. 1017 at 3, 6. In particular, the Office has rejected each of Challenged Claims as
`
`being obvious based on Ex. 1018 (Kiuchi). Ex. 1017 at 17-18.
`
`The ‘211 patent is the subject of two petitions for inter partes review filed by RPX
`
`Corporation, which have been designated as IPR2014-00174 and IPR2014-00175. The
`
`‘211 patent was also the subject of petitions for inter partes review filed by New Bay Capital,
`
`LLC, which was designated as IPR2013-00378 and subsequently dismissed, and by Apple,
`
`Inc., which were designated as IPR2013-00397 and IPR2013-00398 and not instituted.
`
`Concurrently with this petition, the Petitioner is filing two other petitions for inter
`
`partes review of the ‘211 patent, identified as attorney docket numbers 38868-0007IP2 and
`
`38868-0007IP3.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`C.
`Microsoft provides the following designation of counsel.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 202-783-2331
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL
`Kevin E. Greene, Reg. No. 46,031
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-626-6376
`F: 202-783-2331
`
`2
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`Please address all correspondence and service to counsel at the address provided
`
`in Section I(C). Microsoft also consents to electronic service by email at IPR38868-
`
`0007IP1@fr.com.
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Microsoft authorizes the Patent and Trademark Office to charge Deposit Account No.
`
`06-1050 for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition and further authorizes pay-
`
`ment for any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`III.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Microsoft certifies that the ‘211 Patent is eligible for IPR. The present petition is be-
`
`ing filed within one year of service of a complaint against Microsoft in the 2013 VirnetX liti-
`
`gation.1 Microsoft is not barred or estopped from requesting this review challenging the
`
`Challenged Claims on the below-identified grounds.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`B.
`Microsoft requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth in the
`
`table shown below, and requests that each of the Challenged Claims be found unpatenta-
`
`ble. An explanation of how these claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds iden-
`
`tified below is provided in the form of a detailed description that indicates where each ele-
`
`ment can be found in the cited prior art, and the relevance of that prior art. Additional ex-
`
`
`1The complaint in the 2013 VirnetX litigation was served on April 23, 2013.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`planation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in Exhibit MSFT-1021, the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Roch Guerin (“Guerin Declaration”), referenced throughout this Petition.
`
`Ground
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`‘211 Patent Claims
`1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-
`31, 33-41, 43-47, 50-55,
`57-60
`20, 21, 35, 44, 45, 59
`
`Ground 3
`
`32, 56
`
`Ground 4
`
`16, 27, 33, 40, 51, 57
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Anticipated under § 102 by Kiuchi
`
`Obvious under § 103 based on Kiuchi in view
`of RFC 1034
`Obvious under § 103 based on Kiuchi in view
`of Lindblad
`Obvious under § 103 based on Kiuchi in view
`of RFC 2660, draft 01
`
`The ‘211 patent issued from a string of applications allegedly dating back to an origi-
`
`nal application filed on October 30, 1998. However, as outlined in section IV.C, the effective
`
`filing date for the embodiments recited by Challenged Claims of the ‘211 patent is no earlier
`
`than February 15, 2000.
`
`Kiuchi qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Specifically, Kiuchi (Ex. 1018)
`
`is a printed publication that was presented at the 1996 Symposium on Network and Distrib-
`
`uted Systems Security (SNDSS) on February 22 & 23, 1996, and published by IEEE in the
`
`Proceedings of SNDSS 1996. Ex. 1018.
`
`RFC 1034 qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Specifically, RFC 1034
`
`(Ex. 1010) was published in November 1987 by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
`
`Ex. 1010.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`Lindblad qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Specifically, Lindblad (Ex.
`
`1009) is a patent that was filed on April 22, 1996 and issued May 1, 2001. Ex. 1009.
`
`Therefore, Lindblad is a patent that issued on an application that was filed before any of the
`
`applications to which the ‘211 patent claims priority.
`
`RFC 2660 qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(b). Specifically, draft 01 of
`
`RFC 2660 (Ex. 1012) was published in February 1996 by the Internet Engineering Task
`
`Force (IETF). RFC 2660 was publically distributed no later than February 1996. Ex. 1012.
`
`Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3)
`C.
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.” 2 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For purposes of
`
`this proceeding only, Microsoft submits constructions for the following terms. All remaining
`
`terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`
`
`
`2 Because the standards of claim interpretation applied in litigation differ from PTO proceed-
`
`ings, any interpretation of claim terms in this IPR is not binding upon Microsoft in any litiga-
`
`tion related to the subject patent. See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`Additionally, Microsoft does not acquiesce to Patent Owner’s or the district court’s (or any-
`
`one else’s) constructions, and otherwise reserves all of its rights to argue, contest, and/or
`
`appeal the constructions.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`1. Domain Name (Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-41, 43-47, and
`50-60)
`The Patent Owner has asserted to the PTAB that a “domain name” means “a name
`
`corresponding to a network address.” See Ex. 1019 at 31-32; Ex. 1020 at 28-29. In view of
`
`the Patent Owner’s assertion, it is reasonable, for purposes of this proceeding in which the
`
`broadest reasonable construction standard applies, to consider the term “domain name” as
`
`encompassing “a name corresponding to a network address.”
`
`2. Domain Name Service System (Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-
`41, 43-47, and 50-60)
`The Patent Owner has asserted to the PTAB and in litigation that no construction of
`
`“domain name service system” was necessary. Ex. 1013 at 24-25; Ex. 1018 at 37-39; Ex.
`
`1020 at 34-36. According to the Patent Owner, the claims themselves define the character-
`
`istics of the domain name service system. Id. In view of the Patent Owner’s assertions, it is
`
`reasonable, for purposes of this proceeding in which the broadest reasonable construction
`
`standard applies, to consider the term “domain name service system” as encompassing any
`
`system with the characteristics described by the claims.
`
`In general, under a broadest reasonable construction standard, a “system” can in-
`
`clude one or more discrete computers or devices. Ex. 1021 at 15. This is consistent with
`
`the ‘211 patent’s specification at col. 40, lines 35-48. This section describes a domain
`
`name service system that includes a modified DNS server 2602 and a gatekeeper server
`
`2603, which is shown as being separate from the modified DNS server. Ex. 1001 at col. 40,
`
`6
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`lines 35-48 and fig. 26. Moreover, this sections states that “although element 2602 [(the
`
`modified DNS server)] is shown as combining the functions of two servers [(the DNS proxy
`
`2610 and DNS server 2609)], the two servers can be made to operate independently.” Ex.
`
`1001 at col. 40, lines 46-48.
`
`Also, the Examiner in the ’789 and ‘856 reexamination proceedings concluded that
`
`the broadest reasonable construction of a system encompasses a single or multiple devic-
`
`es. Ex. 1016 at 17, Ex. 1017 at 23 (a “DNS system is reasonably interpreted as comprising
`
`a single device or multiple devices.”).
`
`Accordingly, it is reasonable, for purposes of this proceeding in which the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard applies, to consider the term “domain name service sys-
`
`tem” as encompassing any system with the characteristics specified by the claims, where
`
`the system may include one or more devices or computers.
`
`3. Indicate/Indicating (Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-41, 43-47,
`and 50-60)
`The Patent Owner has asserted to the PTAB that no construction of “indicate” or “in-
`
`dicating” is necessary. Ex. 1019 at 44-46; Ex. 1020 at 41-43. Similarly, in litigation for the
`
`‘211 patent, the Patent Owner asserted no construction of “indicate” or “indicating” was
`
`necessary, and the Court also declined to construe the term. Ex. 1013 at 31; Ex. 1015 at 28.
`
`In light of this, we consider the previous reexamination proceedings. In the ’789 and ‘856
`
`reexamination proceedings, the Examiner found that, under the broadest reasonable con-
`
`struction, the term encompassed:
`
`7
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`the ability of the user to communicate using a secure link after boot-
`
`up.” If the user attempts to establish a secure communication link using a
`
`DNS system after booting and is able to do so, then the user has been pro-
`
`vided a broadly recited and discernible “indication” that the DNS in some
`
`manner supports establishing a communication link.
`
`Ex. 1017 at 24 (emphasis original).
`
`The Examiner also found that, under the broadest reasonable construction, the term
`
`encompassed:
`
` “a visible message or signal to a user that the DNS system supports
`
`establishing a secure communication link
`
`Ex. 1016 at 20; Ex. 1017 at 25 (emphasis original).
`
`The Examiner further concluded that, under the broadest reasonable construction,
`
`“[n]either the specification nor the claim language provides a basis for limiting 'indicating' to
`
`a visual indicator.” Ex. 1017 at 26.
`
`The broadest reasonable construction of “indicate” or “indicating” should thus en-
`
`compass a visible or non-visible message or signal that the DNS system supports establish-
`
`ing a secure communication link, including the establishment of the secure communication
`
`link itself.
`
`4. Secure Communication Link (Claims 1, 16-17, 20-23, 26-27, 31-
`32, 35-36, 47, 51, and 60)
`The Patent Owner has asserted to the PTAB that “secure communication link”
`
`8
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`should mean a “direct communication link that provides data security through encryption.”
`
`Ex. 1018 at 40-43; Ex. 1020 at 37-40. In view of the Patent Owner’s assertions, it is rea-
`
`sonable, for purposes of this proceeding in which the broadest reasonable construction
`
`standard applies, to consider the term “secure communication link” as encompassing a “di-
`
`rect communication link that provides data security through encryption.”
`
`5. Transparently (Claims 27 and 51)
`The Patent Owner has asserted to the PTAB that “transparently” means that “the us-
`
`er need not be involved in creating the [secure communication link]/[secure link].” Ex. 1019
`
`at 46-47; Ex. 1020 at 43-44. In view of the Patent Owner’s assertions, it is reasonable, for
`
`purposes of this proceeding in which the broadest reasonable construction standard ap-
`
`plies, to consider the term “transparently” as encompassing “the user need not be involved
`
`in creating the [secure communication link]/[secure link].”
`
`6. Between [A] and [B] (Claims 16, 27, 33, 40, 51, and 57)
`In prior litigation on the ‘211 patent, the Patent Owner argued against the Defend-
`
`ant’s construction that “between” should mean “extend from one endpoint to the other,” and
`
`instead stated that “between” should only apply to the “public communication paths.” Ex.
`
`1014 at 11. Under the Patent Owner’s contentions, a secure communication link is “be-
`
`tween” two endpoints where encryption is used on the public communication paths between
`
`the two endpoints, regardless of whether the encryption extends completely from the first
`
`endpoint to the second endpoint. Id. In view of the Patent Owner’s assertions, it is reason-
`
`9
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`able, for purposes of this proceeding in which the broadest reasonable construction stand-
`
`ard applies, to consider a secure communication link “between [A] and [B]” to encompass a
`
`secure communication link on the public communication paths between the two endpoints,
`
`regardless of whether that secure communication link fully extends from the first endpoint to
`
`the second endpoint.
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘211 PATENT
`A.
`Brief Description
`Generally, the ‘211 patent purportedly provides a domain name service for establish-
`
`ing a secure communication link. Ex. 1001 at Abstract, Col. 3, line 10. In particular, the ‘211
`
`patent generally describes a domain name service system configured: (1) to be connected
`
`to a communication network, (2) to store a plurality of domain names and corresponding
`
`network addresses, (3) to receive a query for a network address, and (4) indicate in re-
`
`sponse to the query whether the domain name service system supports establishing a se-
`
`cure communication link. Ex. 1001 at Col. 55, lines 38-46.
`
`The ‘211 patent includes 60 claims, of which claims 1, 36, and 60 are independent.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History of the ’211 Patent
`B.
`U.S. 7,921,211 issued on April 5, 2011 from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/840,560
`
`(“the ‘560 application”), which was filed on August 17, 2007 with 3 claims as a continuation
`
`of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/714,849 (“the ’849 application”), now U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,418,504. See Ex. 1002 at 1005-1017, 1098.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`In a first Office action dated March 19, 2010, the Examiner rejected claims 1-3 under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as well as on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-
`
`type double patenting over the ‘504 patent, and also under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being antic-
`
`ipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,864,666 (Shrader). See Ex. 1002 at 522-528. In response, the
`
`Applicants cancelled claim 1-3 and added new claims 4-63, stating that “[p]ending claims 4-
`
`63 are similar to claims 1-59 of the ‘504 Patent, except that they have been modified to add
`
`the limitation in independent claim 4 (and similar limitations to claims 39 and 63) that there
`
`is an indication in response to a query whether the domain name service system supports
`
`establishing a secure communication link.” See Ex. 1002 at 192-205. Further, in response to
`
`the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the Applicants
`
`stated that “[t]he source of the query message can be from any source in communication
`
`with the system for providing a domain name service.” Ex. 1002 at 202. In a second (Final)
`
`Office action dated October 21, 2010, the Examiner maintained the non-statutory obvious-
`
`ness-type double-patenting rejection of claims 4-63 over the ‘504 patent. See Ex. 1002 at
`
`64-70.
`
`In response, the Applicants filed a Terminal Disclaimer with respect to the ‘504 pa-
`
`tent on December 22, 2010. See Ex. 1002 at 44-61.
`
`The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowance with the following statement of rea-
`
`sons for allowance:
`
`The prior arts of record do not teach or a domain name service system
`
`11
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`configured and arranged 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 indicate in response to the que-
`
`ry whether the domain name service system supports establishing a secure
`
`communication link.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 23-27.
`
`The Applicants paid the issue fee, and the ‘211 patent issued on April 5, 2011. Ex.
`
`1002 at 15, 18.
`
`The Effective Priority Date of the Claims of the ‘211 Patent
`C.
`The ’211 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 11/840,560, filed August 17, 2007.
`
`The ‘560 application is a continuation of application 10/714,849, filed November 18, 2003,
`
`which is a continuation of application 09/558,210, filed on April 26, 2000, which is a continu-
`
`ation-in-part of application 09/504,783, filed on February 15, 2000, which is a continuation-
`
`in-part of U.S. Application No. 09/429,643, filed on October 29, 1999. The ‘849, ’210, ’783
`
`and ’643 applications each attempt to claim priority to Provisional Application Nos.
`
`60/137,704, filed June 7, 1999 and 60/106,261, filed October 30, 1998.
`
`Claims 1, 36 and 60 of the ’211 patent are independent claims. Claims 2-35 depend
`
`directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claims 37-59 depend directly or indirectly from claim
`
`36. Accordingly, claims 2-35 and 37-59 cannot enjoy an effective filing date earlier than that
`
`of claims 1 and 36, respectively, from which they depend (i.e., no earlier than February 15,
`
`12
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`2000).
`
`Claims 1, 36 and 60 of the ’211 patent rely on information not found in the disclosure
`
`of any application filed prior to the ’783 application on February 15, 2000. For example,
`
`claims 1 and 60 of the ’211 patent require “a domain name service for establishing a se-
`
`cure communication link.” Claims 1, 36, and 60 likewise recite “a domain name service
`
`system.” No application filed prior to the ’783 application mentions the phrase “domain
`
`name service,” much less provides a written description of systems or processes corre-
`
`sponding to the ’211 patent claims. The effective filing date of the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’211 patent thus is not earlier than February 15, 2000.
`
`V.
`
`MANNER OF APPLYING CITED PRIOR ART TO EVERY CLAIM FOR
`WHICH AN IPR IS REQUESTED, THUS ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘211 PATENT IS UN-
`PATENTABLE
`This request shows how the primary references above, alone or in combination with
`
`other references, disclose the limitations of the Challenged Claims, thereby demonstrating
`
`the Challenged Claims of the '211 patent are unpatentable. As detailed below, this request
`
`shows a reasonable likelihood that the Requester will prevail with respect to the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ‘211 patent.
`
` [GROUND 1] – Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-
`A.
`31, 33-41, 43-47, 50-55, and 57-60
`Kiuchi is a printed publication presented at the 1996 Symposium on Network and
`
`Distributed Systems Security (SNDSS) on February 22 & 23, 1996, and published by IEEE
`
`13
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`in the Proceedings of SNDSS 1996. See Ex. 1018. Kiuchi is prior art to the ‘211 patent at
`
`least under § 102(b), regardless of which effective filing date in the priority chain is applied
`
`to the claims.
`
`Overview of Kiuchi
`
`Kiuchi describes a system and a protocol called “C-HTTP” that “provides se-
`
`cure HTTP communication mechanisms within a closed group of institutions on the
`
`Internet, where each member is protected by its own firewall.” Ex. 1018 at p. 64, ab-
`
`stract; see Ex. 1021 at ¶ 16. As an example, Kiuchi describes that for “hospitals and
`
`related institutions,” there is a need for “[s]ecure transfer of patient information” be-
`
`tween hospitals, and that “medical information has to be shared among some hospi-
`
`tals, but it should not be made available to other sites.” Ex. 1018 at p. 64, § 5; see Ex.
`
`1021 at ¶ 16. Kiuchi describes that the C-HTTP protocol allows members of different
`
`institutions to communicate using “secure HTTP communication mechanisms” by
`
`way of intermediate proxies that are associated with each institution. Ex. 1018 at p.
`
`64, Abstract; see Ex. 1021 at ¶ 16. The following Diagram 1 illustrates relevant parts
`
`within the C-HTTP system described by Kiuchi, and will be used to describe the C-
`
`HTTP system. See Ex. 1021 at ¶ 16.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`(Diagram 1)
`
`
`
`In particular, Kiuchi describes a process by which a client-side proxy, in one
`
`institution, establishes a secure C-HTTP connection with a server-side proxy, in an-
`
`other institution, using the C-HTTP protocol over the Internet. See Ex. 1018 at p. 64,
`
`§ 2.1; p. 69, § 5; see also Ex. 1021 at ¶ 17. The C-HTTP connection uses encryption
`
`to provide a secure connection. Ex. 1018 at p. 64 §§ 2.1, 2.2; see Ex. 1021 at ¶ 17.
`
`Through the secure C-HTTP connection, a user agent associated with the client-side
`
`proxy may request information stored on one or more origin servers associated with
`
`the server-side proxy. See id. In order to establish a C-HTTP connection, Kiuchi
`
`teaches discrete steps that are described in the following block diagram. See Ex.
`
`1018 at pp. 65-66, § 2.3; see also, Ex. 1021 at ¶ 17, Diagram 2, where each step is
`
`numbered to indicate a temporal sequence of the steps taught by Kiuchi. Ex.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`(Diagram 2)
`
`
`
`In Kiuchi, the user agent can display HTML documents to an end-user. See
`
`Ex. 1018 at p. 65, § 2.3; see also Ex. 1021 at ¶ 18. Through interaction with the user
`
`agent, the end user may, for example, select a hyperlink URL included within an
`
`HTML document. See id. Kiuchi provides an example of the selected URL:
`