IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Inter Partes Reexamination of:
`
`Victor Larson et al.
`
`US. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`Issued: April 5, 2011
`
`For: AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR SECURE
`COMMUNICATIONS USING SECURE
`DOMAIN NAMES
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Control No.: 95/001,789
`
`Group Art Unit: 3992
`
`Examiner: Roland Foster
`
`Confirmation No.: 6053
`
`VVVVVVVVVVV
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`
`OFFICE ACTION OF JANUARY 18: 2012
`
`Page 1 of 73
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2043
`Microsoft v. VirnetX
`Trial |PR2014-00616
`
`Page 1 of 73
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2043
`Microsoft v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2014-00616
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Applicable Legal Standards ......................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Law of Anticipation ................................................................................. 2
`
`The Law of Obviousness ................................................................................. 2
`
`The Law of Inherency ..................................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Background of the ’211 Patent ..................................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`CLAIMS 1-60 ARE PATENTABLE ....................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`The Rejections Based on Solana and/0r Reed Are Improper Because Neither
`Reference Has Been Shown to Be Prior Art (Grounds 1-8, 11, 15, 19, 24, 28,
`and 33) ......................................................................................................................... 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A Reference Is a “Printed Publication” Only When the Requisite
`Showing Is Made ............................................................................................. 6
`
`Requester Failed to Satisfy Its Duty to Disclose Any Evidence of
`Publication and Is Presumed to Have None .................................................... 7
`
`Requester’s Bare Contention of Publication Is Inadequate ............................. 7
`
`The Rejections Based on the RFC Documents (Grounds 2, 5-8, 10, 13-20, and
`22-35) Are Improper Because the RFC Documents Have Not Been Shown to
`Be Prior Art .................................................................................................................. 8
`
`Independent Claims 1, 36, and 60 Are Patentable over the Cited Art Applied
`in the Rejections of These Claims (Grounds 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, and 30) ............ 10
`
`1.
`
`1, 36, and 60 Are Patentable over Solana
`Independent Claims
`(Ground 1) ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Overview of Solana .......................................................................... 10
`
`Solana Does Not Disclose the Elements of Independent Claim
`1 ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`Solana Does Not Disclose “a Domain Name Service
`System Configured and Arranged t0 .
`.
`. Store a
`Plurality of Domain Names
`and Corresponding
`Network Addresses” ............................................................. 1 1
`
`Solana Does Not Disclose “a Domain Name Service
`System Configured and Arranged t0 .
`.
`. Receive a
`Query for a Network Address” ............................................. 13
`
`Solana Does Not Teach “a Domain Name Service
`System Configured and Arranged to .
`.
`. Indicate in
`Response to the Query [for a Network Address]
`Whether the Domain Name Service System Supports
`Establishing a Secure Communication Link” ....................... 15
`
`Page 2 of 73
`
`_ii_
`
`Page 2 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`c)
`
`Solana Does Not Disclose the Elements of Independent
`Claims 36 and 60 .............................................................................. 17
`
`Independent Claims 1, 36, and 60 Are Patentable over Solana in View
`of RFC 2504 (Ground 5) ............................................................................... 17
`
`Independent Claims 1, 36, and 60 Are Patentable over Provino
`(Ground 9) ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Overview of Provino ......................................................................... 19
`
`Provino Does Not Disclose Each and Every Element of
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................................... 20
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`Provino Does Not Disclose a Domain Name Service
`System Configured and Arranged to Indicate Whether
`the Domain Name
`Service
`System Supports
`Establishing a Secure Communication Link ........................ 20
`
`Provino Does Not Disclose “a Domain Name Service
`System Configured and Arranged to .
`.
`. Indicate in
`Response to the Query [for a Network Address]
`Whether the Domain Name Service System Supports
`Establishing Secure Communication Link” ......................... 22
`
`(3)
`
`Provino Discloses a Conventional Domain Name
`Service System Distinguished by the ’211 Patent ................ 24
`
`c)
`
`Provino Does Not Disclose Each and Every Element of
`Independent Claims 36 and 60 .......................................................... 25
`
`Independent Claims 1, 36, and 60 Are Patentable over Provino in
`View of RFC 2230 (Ground 13) .................................................................... 25
`
`Independent Claims 1, 36, and 60 Are Patentable over Provino in
`View of RFC 2504 (Ground 17) .................................................................... 26
`
`Independent Claims 1, 36, and 60 Are Patentable over Beser (Ground
`21) .................................................................................................................. 27
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Overview of Beser ............................................................................ 27
`
`Beser Does Not Disclose “a Domain Name Service System
`Configured and Arranged .
`.
`. to Indicate in Response to the
`Query Whether the Domain Name Service System Supports
`Establishing a Secure Communication Link” ................................... 28
`
`Independent Claims 1, 36, and 60 Are Patentable over RFC 2230
`(Ground 25) ................................................................................................... 30
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Overview of RFC 2230 ..................................................................... 30
`
`RFC 2230 Does Not Disclose Each and Every Element of
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................................... 31
`
`(1)
`
`A KX Resource Record Does Not Indicate Whether
`the Domain Name
`Service
`System Supports
`Establishing a Secure Communication Link ........................ 32
`
`Page 3 of 73
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 3 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`The Alleged Establishment and Use of an IPsec
`Security Association Is Not an Indication Whether the
`Domain Name Service System Supports Establishing
`a Secure Communication Link ............................................. 33
`
`RFC 2230 Does Not Disclose “a Domain Name
`Service System Configured and Arranged to .
`.
`.
`Indicate in Response to the Query [for a Network
`Address] Whether the Domain Name Service System
`Supports Establishing a Secure Communication Link” ....... 34
`
`(4)
`
`RFC 2230 Discloses a Conventional Domain Name
`Service System Distinguished by the ’211 Patent ................ 35
`
`c)
`
`RFC 2230 Does Not Disclose Each and Every Element of
`Independent Claims 36 and 60 .......................................................... 36
`
`8.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 36, and 60 Are Patentable over RFC 2538
`(Ground 30) ................................................................................................... 36
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Overview of RFC 2538 ..................................................................... 36
`
`RFC 2538 Does Not Disclose Each and Every Element of
`Independent Claim 1 ......................................................................... 37
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`RFC 2538 Does Not Disclose a Domain Name
`Service System Configured and Arranged to Indicate
`Whether the Domain Name Service System Supports
`Establishing a Secure Communication Link ........................ 37
`
`RFC 2538 Does Not Disclose “a Domain Name
`Service System Configured and Arranged to Indicate
`in Response to the Query [for a Network Address]
`Whether the Domain Name Service System Supports
`Establishing a Secure Communication Link” ....................... 38
`
`(3)
`
`RFC 2538 Discloses a Conventional Domain Name
`Service System Distinguished by the ’211 Patent ................ 39
`
`c)
`
`RFC 2538 Does Not Disclose Each and Every Element of
`Independent Claims 36 and 60 .......................................................... 40
`
`D.
`
`Dependent Claims 2-35 and 37-59 Are Patentable over the Cited References
`(Grounds 1-35) ........................................................................................................... 40
`
`E.
`
`Dependent Claims 5, 23, and 47 Are Patentable over the Cited References ............. 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Rejections Based on Solana (Grounds 1, 2, 5, and 6) ................................... 41
`
`Rejections Based on Provino (Grounds 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18) ............... 41
`
`F.
`
`Dependent Claims 8 and 9 Are Patentable over the Cited References ...................... 42
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Rejections Based on Solana (Grounds 1 and 5) ............................................ 42
`
`Rejections Based on Provino (Grounds 9, 13, and 17) ................................. 43
`
`Rejections Based on Beser (Ground 23) ....................................................... 44
`
`Page 4 of 73
`
`' iV '
`
`Page 4 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2230 (Ground 27) ................................................ 45
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2538 (Ground 32) ................................................ 45
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Dependent Claim 10 Is Patentable over the Cited References (Grounds 3, 7,
`11, 15, 19, 24, 28, and 33) ......................................................................................... 46
`
`Dependent Claim 12 Is Patentable over the Cited References (Grounds 3, 7,
`11, 15, 19, 24, 28, and 33) ......................................................................................... 47
`
`Dependent Claims 16, 17, 27, 33, 40, 41, 51, and 57 Are Patentable over the
`Cited References ........................................................................................................ 48
`
`1.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4.
`
`5
`
`Rejections Based on Solana (Grounds 1 and 5) ............................................ 49
`
`Rejections Based on Provino (Grounds 9, 13, and 17) ................................. 50
`
`Rejections Based on Beser (Ground 21) ....................................................... 51
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2230 (Ground 25) ................................................ 51
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2538 (Ground 30) ................................................ 52
`
`J.
`
`Dependent Claims 18 and 42 Are Patentable over the Cited References .................. 52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Rejections Based on Solana (Grounds 1 and 5) ............................................ 53
`
`Rejections Based on Beser (Ground 21) ....................................................... 53
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2230 (Ground 25) ................................................ 54
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2538 (Ground 30) ................................................ 55
`
`K.
`
`Dependent Claims 24 and 48 Are Patentable over the Cited References .................. 55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Rejections Based on Solana (Grounds 1, 2, 5, and 6) ................................... 56
`
`Rejections Based on Provino (Grounds 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18) ............... 56
`
`Rejections Based on Beser (Grounds 21 and 22) .......................................... 58
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2230 (Grounds 25 and 26) ................................... 59
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2538 (Grounds 30 and 31) ................................... 60
`
`L.
`
`Dependent Claims 26 and 50 Are Patentable over the Cited References .................. 61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Rejections Based on Solana (Grounds 1 and 5) ............................................ 61
`
`Rejections Based on Provino (Grounds 9, 13, and 17) ................................. 62
`
`Rejections Based on Beser (Ground 21) ....................................................... 63
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2230 (Ground 25) ................................................ 63
`
`Rejections Based on RFC 2538 (Ground 30) ................................................ 64
`
`A Prima Facie Case of Obviousness Has Not Been Established .............................. 64
`
`Secondary Considerations Demonstrate NonobViousness ......................................... 65
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`Ill.
`
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 68
`
`Page 5 of 73
`
`_ V _
`
`Page 5 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`VirnetX Inc. (“Patent Owner”), the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211 (“the ’211 patent”),
`
`hereby responds to the Office Action (“Office Action” or “OA”) and Order granting reexamination
`
`(“Order”) mailed on January 18, 2012, in the above-identified reexamination proceeding, which was
`
`initiated by Third-Party Requester, Apple Inc. (“Requester”), on October 18, 2011 (“the Request” or
`
`“Req.”). Patent Owner is grateful for the one-month extension of time to respond, extending the time
`
`for reply to April 18, 2012. The Examiner adopted all thirty-five issues the Requester identified.
`
`The patent at issue in this reexamination, the ’211 patent, is part of a family of patents
`
`(“Munger patent family”) that stems from U.S. provisional application nos. 60/106,261 (“the ’261
`
`application”), filed on October 30, 1998, and 60/ 137,704 (“the ’704 application”), filed on June 7,
`
`1999. The ’211 patent is a continuation of U.S. application no. 10/714,849, filed November 18,
`
`2003, (now U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504, “the ’504 patent”). The ’504 patent is a continuation of U.S.
`
`application no. 09/558,210 (“the ’210 application”), filed April 26, 2000, (now abandoned), which is
`
`a continuation-in-part of U.S. application no. 09/504,783 (now U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135, “the ’135
`
`patent”). The ’135 patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application no. 09/429,643 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,010,604, “the ’604 patent”), which claims priority to the ’261 and ’704 applications.
`
`The Munger patent family discloses numerous inventions relating to secure communications.
`
`Patents in this family have been subject to several reexamination proceedings and district court
`
`actions.
`
`For instance,
`
`three other patents from the family were asserted in an action against
`
`Microsoft Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas.1 The jury found the asserted claims willfully
`
`infringed and not invalid and awarded VimetX over one hundred million dollars in damages. (Ex. A-
`
`1 at 2.) Microsoft also sought reexamination of two of the patents, but all claims were confirmed
`
`during those proceedings.
`
`(See control nos. 95/001,269 and 95/001,270.) And just recently, the
`
`Office denied a request for reexamination of one of the patents in the Munger patent family.
`
`(Order
`
`in control no. 95/001,792.)
`
`Given that the validity of the patents in the Munger patent family has now been tested
`
`multiple times, and for the other reasons set forth below, including that the asserted references do not
`
`disclose or suggest
`
`the combination of features recited in the claims, Patent Owner requests
`
`1 One of these patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,839,759, was asserted initially but was dropped
`from this case before trial.
`
`Page6of73
`
`'1'
`
`Page 6 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`reconsideration and withdrawal of all the rejections in the Office Action and confirmation of the
`
`patentability of all of the claims of the ’211 patent.
`
`Patent Owner’s statements below are supported, where indicated, by an expert Declaration of
`
`Angelos D. Keromytis, Ph.D. (“Keromytis Decl.”) and a Declaration of Dr. Robert Dunham Short 111
`
`(“Short Decl.”).
`
`A.
`
`Applicable Legal Standards
`
`1.
`
`The Law of Anticipation
`
`“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
`99
`
`either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union
`
`Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`99
`
`“The identical
`
`invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the .
`
`.
`
`. claim. Richardson v.
`
`Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Although
`
`identity of terminology is not required, the elements must be arranged as required by the claim. In re
`
`Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, “unless a reference discloses within
`
`the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations
`
`arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it .
`
`.
`
`. cannot anticipate under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`2.
`
`The Law of Obviousness
`
`A claim can only be rejected as being obvious if the differences between it 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.” See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (1994); Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co., 383 US. 1, 13-14 (1966). The ultimate determination of whether an invention is obvious
`
`is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual inquiries including:
`
`(1) the scope and content of the
`
`prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art; and (4) objective evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. See
`
`Graham, 383 US. at 17-18; Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 877, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d
`
`1123, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`A statement that modifications of the prior art to meet the claimed invention would have been
`
`“well within the ordinary skill of the art at the time the claimed invention was made” because the
`
`references relied upon teach that all aspects of the claimed invention were individually known in the
`
`art, is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness without some objective reason to
`
`combine the teachings of the references. M.P.E.P.
`
`§ 2143.01 (citing Ex parte Levengood,
`
`28 U.S.P.Q.2d 1300 (B.P.A.I. 1993)).
`
`“[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere
`
`Page7of73
`
`'2'
`
`Page 7 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`conclusory statements;
`
`instead,
`
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550
`
`US. 398, 418, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`Further, even in view of KSR, it is not permissible to simply “pick and choose” elements of
`
`the prior art to arrive at the claimed subject matter. There must be some basis or rationale suggesting
`
`the modification and a reasonable expectation of success. M.P.E.P. § 2143.02
`
`3.
`
`The Law of Inherency
`
`The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in
`
`the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. M.P.E.P. § 2112. The fact that a certain
`
`result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the
`
`inherency of that result or characteristic.
`
`Id. To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must
`
`make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the
`
`reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Background of the ’211 Patent
`
`The ’211 patent discloses several embodiments of a domain name service (“DNS”) system
`
`for establishing a secure communication link,
`
`such as a virtual private network (“VPN”)
`
`communication link, between devices connected to a network.
`
`In one such embodiment, a novel,
`
`specialized DNS server receives a traditional DNS request, and the DNS server automatically
`
`facilitates the establishment of a secure communication link between a target node and a user.
`
`(Keromytis Decl. 1116;
`
`’211 patent 39:30-35.) This specialized DNS server is different from a
`
`conventional DNS server known at
`
`the time of the invention for at
`
`least the reason that the
`
`specialized DNS server supports the establishment of a secure communication link beyond merely a
`
`requested IP address or public key. (Keromytis Decl. 1] 16.)
`
`For example, in the exemplars of FIGS. 26 and 27 of the ’211 patent, reproduced below, a
`
`DNS server 2602 including a DNS proxy 2610 supports establishing a VPN link between a computer
`
`2601 and a secure target site 2604. (’211 patent 39:47-41 :43; Keromytis Decl. 1] l7.)
`
`Page80f73
`
`'3'
`
`Page 8 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`
`
`295::
`
`F1628
`
`1:18.217
`
`In one embodiment, the DNS server 2602 receives a DNS request for a target site from computer
`
`2601.
`
`(’211 patent 40:32-35; Keromytis Decl. 1] 18.) The DNS proxy 2610 determines whether the
`
`target site is a secure site.
`
`(’211 patent 39:57-59, 40:32-40; Keromytis Decl. 1] 18.) If access to a
`
`secure site has been requested, the DNS proxy 2610 determines whether the computer 2601 is
`
`authorized to access the site.
`
`(’211 patent 40:40-42; Keromytis Decl. 1] 18.) If so, the DNS proxy
`
`2610 transmits a message to gatekeeper 2603 to facilitate the creation of a VPN link between
`
`computer 2601 and secure target site 2604.
`
`(’211 patent 39:63-66.) The DNS proxy 2610 then
`
`responds to the computer’s 2601 DNS request with an address received from the gatekeeper 2604.
`
`(Id. at 40:3-7; Keromytis Decl. 1] 18.) A secure VPN link is then established between the computer
`
`2601 and the secure target site 2604.
`
`(’211 patent 40:55-58; Keromytis Decl. 1] 18.) As shown in
`
`this example, the specialized DNS server supports creating a secure communication link and does
`
`more than a conventional DNS server at the time of the invention. (Keromytis Decl. 1] 18.)
`
`The ’211 patent highlights this distinction between the specialized DNS server disclosed in
`
`its specification and a conventional DNS scheme, which merely returns a requested IP address or
`
`public key:
`
`Conventional Domain Name Servers (DNSs) provide a look-up function that
`returns the IP address of a requested computer or host. For example, when a
`computer user types in the web name “Yahoo.com,” the user’s web browser
`transmits a request to a DNS, which converts the name into a four-part IP
`address that is returned to the user's browser .
`.
`.
`.
`
`Page90f73
`
`'4'
`
`Page 9 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`One conventional scheme that provides secure virtual private networks over
`the Internet provides the DNS server with the public keys of the machines
`that the DNS server has the addresses for. This allows hosts to retrieve
`
`automatically the public keys of a host that the host is to communicate with
`so that the host can set up a VPN without having the user enter the public key
`of the destination host. One implementation of this standard is presently
`being developed as part of the FreeS/WAN project (RFC 2535).
`
`The conventional scheme suffers from certain drawbacks. For example, any
`user can perform a DNS request. Moreover, DNS requests resolve to the
`same value for all users.
`
`According to certain aspects of the invention, a specialized DNS server traps
`DNS requests and, if the request is from a special type of user (e.g., one for
`which secure communication services are defined), the server does not return
`the true IP address of the target node, but instead automatically sets up a
`virtual private network between the target node and the user.
`
`(’211 patent 38:58-39:35; Keromytis Decl. 1] 19.) Compared with a conventional DNS known at the
`
`time of the filing date of the ’211 patent, the specialized DNS disclosed in the ’211 patent supports
`
`establishing a secure communication link. (Keromytis Decl. 1] 19.) The claims of the ’211 patent are
`
`also directed to a domain name service for establishing a secure communication link.
`
`(See, e. g., ’211
`
`patent 55:38-46, 57:38-46, 59:9-60:8; Keromytis Decl. 1] 19.) Moreover, certain claims are directed
`
`to a domain name service system configured and arranged to indicate in response to a query for a
`
`network address whether
`
`the domain name service system supports establishing a secure
`
`communication link.
`
`(See, e.g., ’211 patent 55:38-46; Keromytis Decl. 1] 19; see also ’211 patent
`
`57:38-46, 59:9-60:8.)
`
`II.
`
`CLAIMS 1-60 ARE PATENTABLE
`
`A.
`
`The Rejections Based on Solana and/or Reed Are Improper Because Neither
`Reference Has Been Shown to Be Prior Art (Grounds 1-8, 11, 15, 19, 24, 28, and
`33)
`
`As a threshold matter, the Request and the Office Action rely on the following two references
`
`without showing that these references have been published:
`
`1. E. Solana et al., “Flexible Internet Secure Transactions Based on Collaborative Domains,”
`
`Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1361, at 37-51 (“Solana”) (Req. Ex. X1); and
`
`2. M. Reed et al., “Proxies for Anonymous Routing,” 12th Annual Computer Security
`
`Applications Conference, San Diego, CA (“Reed”) (Req. Ex. X10).
`
`Neither reference is a patent.
`
`The only support for these references being prior art printed
`
`publications is a bald assertion in the Request, adopted by the Office Action, that the references were
`
`Page100f73
`
`'5'
`
`Page 10 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`publicly distributed prior to the effective date of the ’211 patent. This attorney argument does not
`
`establish these references as prior art for at least the following reasons.
`
`1.
`
`A Reference Is a “Printed Publication” Only When the Requisite
`Showing Is Made
`
`99
`
`Solana and Reed are prior art only if they are “printed publications.
`
`The statutory phrase
`
`“printed publication” means that the alleged reference must have been sufficiently accessible to the
`
`public interested in the art. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting Constant v.
`
`Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). M.P.E.P. § 2128 provides in
`
`part:
`
`A reference is a “printed publication” only “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 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (quoting I.C.E. Corp. v. Armco Steel Corp,
`250 F. Supp. 738, 743, 148 USPQ 537, 540 (SDNY 1966)).
`
`Thus, a showing of dissemination and public accessibility are the keys to the legal
`
`determination of whether a document was “published.” The record is devoid of any showing that
`
`Solana and Reed were disseminated or otherwise publicly available at the time asserted by the
`
`Requester. Rather,
`
`the Request baldly asserts that “Solana is a printed publication that was
`
`distributed to the public without restriction no later than 1997.” (Req. at 11.) Similarly, the Request
`
`asserts that “Reed is a printed publication that was distributed publicly without restriction no later
`
`than December 13, 1996 .
`
`.
`
`. .” (Id. at 12.)
`
`Solana contains no publication date on the document. The face of the document identifies
`
`only that the authors are affiliated with the University of Geneva. There is no indication on the
`
`document that it was published on the date asserted by the Requester.
`
`Reed identifies the 12th Annual Security Applications Conference, San Diego, CA, and a
`
`date of December 9-13, 1996, but there is no evidence that the document was actually “published”
`
`within those dates, nor that the document was “otherwise available to the extent that persons
`
`interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable diligence, could
`
`locate it” at the time.
`
`Page11of73
`
`'6'
`
`Page 11 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`2.
`
`Requester Failed to Satisfy Its Duty to Disclose Any Evidence of
`Publication and Is Presumed to Have None
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18, the Requester was required to produce any evidence proving
`
`Solana or Reed were publicly distributed without restriction at the time asserted by the Requester.2
`
`Yet, it produced none. The logical conclusion is that no such evidence exists. Should the Requester
`
`subsequently attempt to introduce any evidence that Solana or Reed is prior art at the time asserted
`
`by the Requester, then the remedies provided by 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(c) should be exercised—absent a
`
`showing that the evidence was not available to the Requester at the time the Request was filed—to
`
`strike the paper attempting to submit that evidence, 37 CPR. § ll.l8(c)(l), or to terminate this
`
`proceeding entirely, 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(c)(5)).
`
`3.
`
`Requester’s Bare Contention of Publication Is Inadequate
`
`As stated above, the Requester’s sole basis for relying on Solana and Reed as prior art is a
`
`bald assertion that they were printed publications distributed before the critical date. These bald
`
`assertions are nothing more than attorney argument, which is not evidence. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d
`
`221, 227 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (“[T]he one who wishes to characterize the information, in whatever form
`
`it may be, as a ‘printed publication’ .
`
`.
`
`. should produce sujficient proof of its dissemination or that it
`
`has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document
`
`relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents .
`
`.
`
`. .” (emphasis added)).
`
`The M.P.E.P. expressly recognizes that attorney argument
`
`is not evidence: M.P.E.P.
`
`§ 716.01(c) (“The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record.” (citing In re
`
`Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 U.S.P.Q. 716, 718 (C.C.P.A. 1965))). Although M.P.E.P. §
`
`716.01(c) focuses on certain types of evidence typically used to rebut rejections, it is not exclusive to
`
`those types of evidence. Moreover,
`
`the broader notion of M.P.E.P. § 716.01(c) that attorney
`
`argument cannot replace real evidence is a well founded, common-sense position permeating the
`
`Office rules.
`
`Because the record is devoid of evidence that Solana and Reed were printed publications on
`
`the dates asserted, each rejection based, in whole or in part, on either reference is fatally defective.
`
`2 37 CPR. § ll.l8(b)(2)(iii) requires that all “factual contentions have evidentiary support
`or, if specifically s0 identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity
`for further investigation or discovery .
`.
`. .” (emphasis added). The Requester’s factual contentions
`regarding the public distribution of Solana and Reed do not state that those contentions are likely to
`have evidentiary support.
`
`Page12 of73
`
`'7'
`
`Page 12 of 73
`
`

`

`Control No. 95/001,789
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that all such rejections (specifically Grounds 1-8, 11, 15, 19, 24,
`
`28, and 33) be withdrawn. Without admitting that Solana and Reed are publications as of the dates
`
`asserted by the Requester, Patent Owner will assume, arguendo, that the references are publications
`
`as of the asserted dates for the purposes of this response.
`
`B.
`
`The Rejections Based on the RFC Documents (Grounds 2, 5-8, 10, 13-20, and 22-
`35) Are Improper Because the RFC Documents Have Not Been Shown to Be
`Prior Art
`
`Similarly, the Request and the Office Action rely on several RFC documents (collectively
`
`referred to in this section as “the RFC documents”) without showing that these references have been
`
`published:
`
`1. RFC 2230, “Key Exchange Delegation Record for the DNS” (“RFC 2230”) (Req.
`
`Ex. X4);
`
`2. RFC 2538, “Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS)” (“RFC
`
`2538”) (Req. Ex. X5);
`
`3. RFC 2401, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol” (“RFC 2401”) (Req.
`
`EX. X6);
`
`4. RFC 2065, “Domain Name System Security Extensions” (“RFC 2065”) (Req. EX.
`
`X7);
`
`5. RFC 920, “Domain Requirements” (“RFC 920”) (Req. Ex. X8);
`
`6. RFC 2504, “Users’ Security Handbook” (“RFC 2504”) (Req. Ex. X9);
`
`7. RFC 1035, “Domain Names—Implementation and Specification” (“RFC 1035”)
`
`(Req. Ex. Y2);
`
`8. RFC 1123, “Requirements for Internet Hosts—Applications and Support” (“RFC
`
`1123”) (Req. EX. Y3);
`
`9. RFC 1825, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol” (“RFC 1825”) (Req.
`
`Ex. Y4);
`
`10. RFC 24