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.: 38868-0007IP3
`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. 38868-0007IP3
`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 .............................................................................................. 3 
`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] – Provino Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-28, 33-41,
`43-47, 50-52, and 57-60 .................................................................................... 13 
`1. 
`Provino Anticipates Claims 1 ................................................................... 25 
`2. 
`Provino Anticipates Claims 36 ................................................................. 29 
`3. 
`Provino Anticipates Claims 60 ................................................................. 31 
`4. 
`Provino Anticipates Claims 2 and 37 ....................................................... 33 
`5. 
`Provino Anticipates Claim 6 ..................................................................... 34 
`6. 
`Provino Anticipates Claims 14 and 38 ..................................................... 34 
`7. 
`Provino Anticipates Claims 15 and 39 ..................................................... 35 
`8. 
`Provino Anticipates Claims 16 and 40 ..................................................... 35 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`Provino Anticipates Claims 17 and 41 ..................................................... 38 
`9. 
`10.  Provino Anticipates Claims 19 and 43 ..................................................... 41 
`11.  Provino Anticipates Claims 20 and 44 ..................................................... 41 
`12.  Provino Anticipates Claims 21 and 45 ..................................................... 42 
`13.  Provino Anticipates Claims 22 and 46 ..................................................... 42 
`14.  Provino Anticipates Claims 23 and 47 ..................................................... 43 
`15.  Provino Anticipates Claims 26 and 50 ..................................................... 44 
`16.  Provino Anticipates Claims 27, 33, 51, and 57 ........................................ 45 
`17.  Provino Anticipates Claims 28 and 52 ..................................................... 46 
`18.  Provino Anticipates Claims 29 and 53 ..................................................... 46 
`19.  Provino Anticipates Claims 30 and 54 ..................................................... 47 
`20.  Provino Anticipates Claims 31 and 55 ..................................................... 48 
`21.  Provino Anticipates Claims 32 and 56 ..................................................... 48 
`22.  Provino Anticipates Claims 34 and 58 ..................................................... 49 
`23.  Provino Anticipates Claims 35 and 59 ..................................................... 49 
`[GROUND 2] – Provino In View of RFC 1034 Renders Obvious Claims 20, 21,
`35, 44, 45, and 59 .............................................................................................. 50 
`[GROUND 3] – Provino In View of Kosiur Renders Obvious Claims 29-32 and
`53-56 .................................................................................................................. 52 
`[GROUND 4] – Provino In View of RFC 2660 Renders Obvious Claims 16, 27,
`33, 40, 51, and 57 .............................................................................................. 55 
`REDUNDACY ............................................................................................................ 57 
`VI. 
`VII.  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 58 
`
`
`C. 
`
`B. 
`
`D. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,557,037 to Provino (“Provino”)
`
`MSFT-1009
`
`(Reserved)
`
`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
`
`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`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)
`
`
`
`
`MSFT-1018
`
`(Reserved)
`
`MSFT-1019
`
`IPR2013-00397, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`MSFT-1020
`
`IPR2013-00398, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`MSFT-1021
`
`(Reserved)
`
`MSFT-1022
`
`(Reserved)
`
`MSFT-1023
`
`Declaration of Dr. Roch Guerin re the ‘211 Patent and Provino
`
`MSFT-1024
`
`Dave Kosiur, Building and Managing Virtual Private Networks (1998)
`(“Kosiur”)
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`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)
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`A.
`Petitioner, Microsoft Corporation, is the real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`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 September 26, 2012, the Office issued an Action Closing
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`Prosecution in the ‘789 proceeding, maintaining rejections of all 60 claims in the ‘211 patent,
`
`including rejections based on a prior art reference relied upon in this Petition. Ex. 1016 at 3,
`
`10. In particular, the Office has rejected each of claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-41, 43-47,
`
`and 50-60 as being anticipated by Ex. 1008 (Provino). Id. 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.
`
`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 38868-0007IP1 and
`
`38868-007IP2.
`
`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
`
`
`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. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`Service Information
`D.
`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-
`
`0007IP3@fr.com.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES – 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`II.
`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
`
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`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-
`
`
`1The complaint in the 2013 VirnetX litigation was served on April 23, 2013.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`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-
`
`planation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in Exhibit MSFT-1023, 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-
`41, 43-47, and 50-60
`20, 21, 35, 44, 45, 59
`
`Ground 3
`
`29-32, 53-56
`
`Ground 4
`
`16, 27, 33, 40, 51 and 57
`
`Basis for Rejection
`Anticipated under § 102 by Provino
`
`Obvious under § 103 based on Provino in
`view of RFC 1034
`Obvious under § 103 based on Provino in
`view of Kosiur
`Obvious under § 103 based on Provino 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 claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-41, 43-47, and
`
`50-60 of the ‘211 patent is no earlier than February 15, 2000.
`
`Provino qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(e). Specifically, Provino (Ex.
`
`1008) is a patent that was filed on May 29, 1998 and issued April 29, 2003. Ex. 1008.
`
`Therefore, Provino is a patent that issued on an application that was filed before the ‘211
`
`Patent's earliest effective date of February 15, 2000.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`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.
`
`Kosiur qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(b). Specifically, Kosiur (Ex. 1024)
`
`was published at the latest on September 1, 1998, and therefore qualifies as prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C § 102(b). Ex. 1024.
`
`RFC 2660 qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C § 102(b). Specifically, draft 01 of
`
`RFC 2660 (Ex. 1012) was published in August 1999 by the Internet Engineering Task Force
`
`(IETF). RFC 2660 was publically distributed no later than August 1999. 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
`
`
`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. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`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 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. 1019 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. 1023 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`2603, which is shown as being separate from the modified DNS server. Ex. 1001 at col. 40,
`
`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-
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`struction, the term encompassed:
`
`... 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)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`The Patent Owner has asserted to the PTAB that “secure communication link”
`
`should mean a “direct communication link that provides data security through encryption.”
`
`Ex. 1019 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`endpoint to the second endpoint. Id. In view of the Patent Owner’s assertions, it is reason-
`
`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.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`7,418,504. See Ex. 1002 at 1005-1017, 1098.
`
` In a first Office action dated March 19, 2010, the Examiner rejected claims 1-3 un-
`
`der 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as well as on the ground of non-statutory obvious-
`
`ness-type double patenting over the ‘504 patent, and also under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated 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 modi-
`
`fied 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 com-
`
`munication 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 obviousness-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:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`The prior arts of record do not teach or a domain name service system
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`of claims 1 and 36, respectively, from which they depend (i.e., no earlier than February 15,
`
`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 claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23,
`
`26-41, 43-47, and 50-60 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 invalidating
`
`claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-41, 43-47, and 50-60 of the '211 patent. As detailed below,
`
`this request shows a reasonable likelihood that the Requester will prevail with respect to
`
`claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-41, 43-47, and 50-60 of the ‘211 patent.
`
` [GROUND 1] – Provino Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23,
`A.
`26-28, 33-41, 43-47, 50-52, and 57-60
`Provino has an effective filing date of May 29, 1998, and is prior art under at least
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`§102(e).
`
`During the ‘789 reexamination proceedings, the Examiner concluded that the ‘211
`
`claims do not include any features that patentably distinguish the ‘211 patent claims from
`
`Provino. Ex. 1016 at 27. The Examiner noted that “[t]he biggest structural difference be-
`
`tween the [the ‘211 patent] and Provino teachings discussed above is that, in [the ‘211 pa-
`
`tent], the DNS proxy (server) 2610 forwards the message to gatekeeper 2603 while, in
`
`Provino, the DNS server 17 provides a network address that the initiator uses to contact
`
`firewall 30. However, whether the DNS request is forwarded or redirected is an unclaimed
`
`feature not necessary for an understanding of the claims.” Id. This continues to be the case
`
`and, as described below, Provino anticipates claims 1, 2, 6, 14-17, 19-23, 26-28, 33-41, 43-
`
`47, 50-52, and 57-60 of the ‘211 patent.
`
`Overview of Provino
`
`Provino describes “systems and methods for easing communications between
`
`devices connected to public networks such as the Internet and devices connected to
`
`private networks.” Ex. 1008 at 1:14-16; see Ex. 1023 at ¶ 16. In particular, Provino
`
`describes a system that facilitates communications between a client device 12(m)
`
`connected to ISP 11 and a server 31(s) located within virtual private network (VPN)
`
`15. See Ex. 1008 at 9:32 to 10:33; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 16. An example of the architecture
`
`of Provino’s system is illustrated in Figure 1 of Provino.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`
`
`
`For a device 12(m) external to VPN 15 to communicate with a server 31(s) within
`
`VPN 15, Provino describes a two phase process for establishing communications. See Ex.
`
`1008 at 12:1-2; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 17. During the first phase described by Provino, the device
`
`12(m) establishes a secure tunnel with VPN 15, via firewall 30, and identifies a VPN name
`
`server 32 inside VPN 15. Ex. 1008 at 9:61-65, 10:58-64; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 17. In particular,
`
`during the first phase, the client device 12(m) obtains an address for the firewall 30 from
`
`standard ISP name server 17 by initiating a request for the address and establishes a se-
`
`cure tunnel with firewall 30 by exchanging encryption/decryption information. Ex. 1008 at
`
`12:20-24; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 17. During the second phase, the client device 12(m) uses the se-
`
`cure tunnel to send encrypted message packets to VPN 15, via firewall 30. Ex. 1008 at
`
`12:8-16; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 17. In particular, during the second phase, the client device 12(m)
`
`communicates with VPN name server 32 to obtain addresses for servers (e.g., server 31(s))
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 38868-0007IP3
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211
`inside the VPN 15, and then uses those addresses to send