throbber
Page 1 of 18
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2006
`Apple v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR 2015-00811
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patents and Trademark Office
`P.O.Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 223l 3-l450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`~ DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, RC.
`
`\
`
`Date:
`
`1425 K STREET N.W.
`SUITE 800
`
`WASHINGTON, DC. 20005
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 95001270
`
`-
`
`PATENT NO. : 7188180
`
`‘
`
`TECHNOLOGY CENTER : 3999
`
`ART UNIT : 3992
`
`‘ MAELED
`
`_
`
`DEC 0 3 2010
`
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified Reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no
`responsive submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed
`to the Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end
`of the communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`l’TOL-2070(Rev.O7-04)
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`

`

`Control No.
`
`95/001,270
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`7188180
`Art Unit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`ANDREW L. NALVEN
`
`3992
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Right of Appeal Notice
`(37.CFR 1.953)
`
`
`
` Responsive to the communication(s) filed by:
`
`
`Patent Owner on
`
`Third Party(ies) on
`
` Patent owner and/or third party requester(s) may file a notice of appeal with respect to any adverse decision
`
`
`with payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 41 .20(b)(1) within one-month or thirty-days (whichever is
`longer). See MPEP 2671. In addition, a party may file a notice of cross appeal and pay the 37 CFR
`
`41 .20(b)(1) fee within fourteen days of service of an opposing party's timely filed notice of appeal. See
`MPEP 2672.
`
`
` All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central-
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`
`If no party timely files a notice of appeal, prosecution on the merits of this reexamination proceeding will be
`concluded, and the Director of the USPTO will proceed to issue and publish a certificate under 37 CFR 1.997 in
`
`
`accordance with this Office action.
`
`
`
`C] will not be entered*
`The proposed amendment filed
`E] will be entered
`
`3.
`4.
`
`F°9°NF”.U‘
`
` *Reasons for non-entry are given in the body of this notice.
`
`
`1a. XI Claims 1 4 10 12-15 17 20 26 28—31 33 and 35 are subject to reexamination.
`
`1b. X Claims 2 3 5-9 11 16 18 19 21-25 27 32 34 and 36-41 are not subject to reexamination.
`
`
`
`2. El Claims _ have been cancelled.
`
`
`Claims 1 4 10 12-15 17 20 26 28-31 33 and 35 are confirmed. [Unamended patent claims].
`
`
`
`[:1 Claims _ are patentable. [Amended or new claims].
`'
`
`
`D Claims _ are rejected.
`[3 Claims _ are objected to.
`
`
`
`C] are not acceptable.
`I] are acceptable.
`E] The drawings filed on
`
`
`
`
`[:1 The drawing correction request filed on
`is [:1 approved. I:] disapproved.
`
`
`
`|:I Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f). The certified copy
`
`
`has:
`El been received.
`[:I not been received.
`
`
`10. [:1 Other
`-
`
`
` Attachments
`
`
`1. E] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892
`2.
`[:1 Information Disclosure Citation, PTO/SB/08
`
`
`
`3.1:]
`
`
`I:l been filed in Application/Control No.
`
`
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2066 (08-06)
`
`Page 3 0f 18
`
`Right of Appeal Notice (37 CFR 1.953)
`
`Part of Paper No. 20101130
`
`‘
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,270
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`RIGHT OF APPEAL NOTICE
`
`The following action addresses claims 1, 4, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 26, 28-31, 33, and 35 of
`
`US Patent No. 7,188,180 ("the '180 patent").
`
`An Action Closing Prosecution was issued on June 16, 2010.
`
`No response to the Action Closing Prosecution was received.
`
`Status of Claims
`
`Original Claims 1, 4, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 26, 28-31, 33, and 35 are confirmed.
`
`Rejections Proposed by Requestor — Previously Adopted, Now Not Adopted
`
`1.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 17, 26, 28, 30, 31, and 33 be rejected under
`
`35 US C 102(a) as being anticipated by Aventail. This proposed rejection was adopted in the first
`
`Office action mailed on 1/ 19/2010. However, upon consideration of the remarks submitted by
`
`‘ Patent Owner, this proposed rejection is hereby withdrawn and not adopted for the following
`
`reasons.
`
`2.
`
`Patent owner argues that the rejection of claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 17, 26, 28, 30, 31, and 33
`
`as anticipated by Aventail should be withdrawn because Aventail is not prior art to the ’180
`
`patent. Specifically, Patent Owner argued that the request and the 1/19/2010 office action did
`
`not show that Aventail was published prior to the priority date of the ‘ 180 patent. The request
`
`asserts that Aventail was published between 1996 and 1999. This assertion was based on the
`
`document’s copyright date. The request did not set forth any further evidence of the date of
`
`publication.
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number:v95/001,270
`
`.
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`3.
`
`A search was conducted to determine the publication date of the Aventail reference.
`
`However, no evidence was found that established the publication date. Accordingly, Aventail
`
`cannot be relied upon as prior art to the '180 patent and all rejections based upon Aventail are
`
`hereby withdrawn and not adopted.
`
`4.
`
`Further, Patent Owner argues that the ‘ 180 patent clearly distinguishes the claimed
`
`"secure domain name" from a domain name that happens to correspond to a secure computer.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent distinguishes
`
`the claimed “secure domain name.” For example, the ‘ 180 patent explains that a secure domain
`
`name is a non-standard domain name and that querying a convention domain name server using
`
`a secure domain name will result in a return message indicating that the URL is unknown ( ‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35). Similarly, Patent Owner argues that the ‘180 patent clearly
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service” from a conventional domain name
`
`service that can resolve domain names of computers that are used to establish secure -
`
`connections. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service.” For example, the ‘ 180 patent explains
`
`that a secure domain name service can resolve addresses for a secure domain name whereas a
`
`conventional domain name service cannot resolve addresses for a secure domain name (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35).
`
`5.
`
`Aventail does not teach the claimed “secure domain name” or “secure domain name
`
`service" as defined by the ’180 patent. Aventail teaches the use of a DNS server and the creation '
`
`of a secure tunnel to a secure remote site. However, Aventail does not teach the claimed secure
`
`domain name or secure domain name service as defined by the '180 patent as being a part of a
`
`Page 5 0f 18
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001 ,270
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`non-conventional domain name system. For this additional reason the proposed rejection is not
`
`adopted.
`
`6.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 1, 4, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 26, 28-31, 33,,and 35 be rejected
`
`under 35 USC 103(a) as being rendered obvious-by the combination of VPN Overview in view
`
`of RFC 1035. This proposed rejection was adopted in the first Office action mailed on
`
`l/ 19/2010. However, upon consideration of the remarks submitted by Patent Owner, this
`
`5 proposed rejection is hereby withdrawn and not adopted for the following reasons.
`
`7.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the ‘ 180 patent clearly distinguishes the claimed "secure
`
`domain name" from a domain name that happens to correspond to a secure computer. Patent
`
`Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent distinguishes the
`
`claimed “secure domain name.” For example, the ‘180 patent explains that a secure domain
`
`name is a non-standard domain name and that querying a convention domain name server using
`
`a secure domain name will result in a return message indicating that the URL is unknown ( ‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35). Similarly, Patent Owner argues that the ‘180 patent clearly
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service” from a conventional domain name
`
`service that can resolve domain names of computers that are used to establish secure
`
`connections. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the ‘180 patent
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service.” For example, the ‘ 180 patent explains
`
`that a secure domain name service can resolve addresses for a secure domain name whereas a
`
`conventional domain name service cannot resolve addresses for a secure domain name (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35).
`
`Page 6 0f 18
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001 ,270
`
`.
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`8.
`
`VPN Overview and RFC 1035 do not teach the claimed “secure domain name” or “secure
`
`domain name service" as defined by the '180 patent. RFC 1035 describes the framework for a
`
`conventional domain name system (RFC 1035, Page 3), but does not disclose an implementation
`
`including a secure domain name service and secure domain names as claimed by the ‘180 patent.
`
`Similarly, VPN Overview provides an overview of virtual private networks including their basic
`
`requirements. However, neither RFC 1035 or VPN Overview teach the claimed secure domain
`
`name or secure domain name service as defined by the '180 patent as being a part of a non-
`
`conventional domain name system. Accordingly, the proposed rejection is not adopted.
`
`\/
`
`9.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 1, 10, 12-15, 17, 26, 28-31, and 33 be rejected under 35
`
`USC 102(a) as being anticipated by Kaufman. This proposed rejection was adopted in the first
`
`Office action mailed on 1/ 19/2010. However, upon consideration of the remarks submitted by '
`
`Patent Owner, this proposed rejection is hereby withdrawn and not adopted for the following
`
`reasons.
`
`I
`
`10.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the ‘ 180 patent clearly distinguishes the claimed "secure
`
`domain name" from a domain name that happens to correspond to a secure computer. Patent
`
`Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent distinguishes the
`
`claimed “secure domain name.” For example, the ‘180 patent explains that a secure domain
`
`name is a non-standard domain name and that querying a convention domain name server using
`
`a secure domain name will result in a return message indicating that the URL is unknown ( ‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35). Similarly, Patent Owner argues that the ‘180 patent clearly
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service” from a conventional domain name
`
`Page 7 0f 18
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,270
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`service that can resolve domain names of computers that are used to establish secure
`
`connections. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service.” For example, the ‘180 patent explains
`
`that a secure domain name service can resolve addresses for a secure domain name whereas a
`
`conventional domain name service cannot resolve addresses for a secure domain name (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35).
`
`11.
`
`Kaufman does not teach the claimed “secure domain name” or “secure domain name
`
`service" as defined by the '180 patent. Kaufman describes the implementation of virtual private
`
`networks and IPsec security, but does not disclose an implementation including a secure domain
`
`name service and secure domain names as claimed by the .‘180 patent. Kaufman does not teach
`
`the claimed secure domain name or secure domain name service as defined by the '180 patent as
`
`being a part of a non-conventional domain name system. Accordingly, the proposed rejection is
`
`not adopted.
`
`12.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 1, 4, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 26, 28-31, 33, and 35 be rejected
`
`under 35 USC 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Kaufman in view of
`
`Galvin. This proposed rejection was adopted in the first Office action mailed on 1/19/2010.
`
`However, upon consideration of the remarks submitted by Patent Owner, this proposed rejection
`is hereby withdrawn and not adopted for the following reasons.
`
`13.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the ‘180 patent clearly distinguishes the claimed "secure
`
`domain name" from a domain name that happens to correspond to a secure computer. Patent
`
`Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent distinguishes the
`
`Page 8 0f 18
`
`‘
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,270
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`claimed “secure domain name.” For example, the ‘180 patent explains that a secure domain
`
`name is a non-standard domain name and that querying a convention domain name server using
`
`a secure domain name will result in a return message indicating that the URL is unknown (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35). Similarly, Patent Owner argues that the ‘180 patent clearly
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service” from a conventional domain name
`
`service that can resolve domain names of computers that are used to establish secure
`
`connections. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service.” For example, the ‘180 patent explains
`
`that a secure domain name service can resolve addresses for a secure domain name whereas a
`
`conventional domain name service cannot resolve addresses for a secure domain name (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35).
`
`14.
`
`Kaufman and Galvin do not teach the claimed “secure domain name” or “secure domain
`
`name service" as defined by the '180 patent. Kaufman describes the implementation of virtual .
`
`private networks and IPsec security, but does not disclose an implementation including a secure
`
`1 domain name service and secure domain names as claimed by the ‘180 patent. Galvin describes
`
`a domain name service that uses public keys to prove the integrity of a domain name service
`
`record (Galvin, Page 1). However, this type of domain name service is a conventional type of
`
`domain name service that is different from the claimed secure domain name service because it
`
`still relies on conventional domain names and does not provide security for secure domains.
`
`Instead, it seeks to prove the authenticity of a domain name service record to prove to a client
`
`that that the record was not forged. Kaufman and Galvin do not teach the claimed secure domain
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001 ,270
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`name or secure domain name service as defined by the '180 patent as being a part of a non-
`
`conventional domain name system. Accordingly, the proposed rejection is not adopted.
`
`1
`
`15.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 1, 4, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 26, 28—31, 33, and 35 be rejected
`
`under 35 USC 102(a) as being anticipated by Gauntlet. This proposed rejection was adopted in
`
`the first Office action mailed on 1/ 19/2010. However, upon consideration of the'remarks
`
`submitted by Patent Owner, this proposed rejection is hereby withdrawn and not adopted for the
`
`following reasons.
`
`16.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the “180 patent clearly distinguishes the claimed "secure
`
`domain name" from a domain name that happens to correspond to a secure computer. Patent
`
`Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent distinguishes the
`
`claimed “secure domain name.” For example, the ‘ 180 patent explains that a secure domain
`
`name is a non-standard domain name and that querying a convention domain name server using
`
`a secure domain name will result in a return message indicating that the URL is unknown ( ‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35). Similarly, Patent Owner argues that the ‘ 180 patent clearly
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service” from a conventional domain name
`
`service that can resolve domain names of computers that are used to establish secure
`
`connections. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service.” For example, the ‘ 180 patent explains
`
`that a secure domain name service can resolve addresses for a secure domain name whereas a
`
`conventional domain name service cannot resolve addresses for a secure domain name (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35).
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001 ,270
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`V
`
`Page 9
`
`17.
`
`Gauntlet does not teach the claimed “secure domain name” or “secure domain name
`
`service" as defined by the '180 patent. Gauntlet describes the implementation of a software
`
`based firewall system that provides for tunneling where the addresses of the secure tunneling
`
`servers must be advertised, but does not disclose an implementation including a secure domain
`
`. name service and secure domain names as claimed by the ‘ 180 patent. Gauntlet does not teach
`
`the claimed secure domain name or secure domain name service as defined by the '180 patent as
`
`being a part of a non-conventional domain name system. Accordingly, the proposed rejection is
`
`not adopted.
`
`18.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 1, 4, 10, 12-15, 17, 26, 28-31, 33, and 35 be rejected
`
`under 35 USC 103(a) as being rendered obvious by the combination of Hands-On in view of
`
`Installing'NT. This proposed rejection was adopted in the first Office action mailed on
`
`1/19/2010. However, upon consideration of the remarks submitted by Patent Owner, this
`
`proposed rejection is hereby withdrawn and not adopted for the following reasons.
`
`19.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the ‘ 180 patent clearly distinguishes the claimed "secure
`
`domain name" from a domain name that happens to correspond to a secure computer. Patent.
`
`Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '18(1 patent distinguishes the.
`
`claimed “secure domain name.” For example, the ‘ 180 patent explains that a secure domain
`
`name is a non-standard domain name and that querying a convention domain name server using
`
`a secure domain name will result in a return message indicating that the URL is unknown '( ‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35). Similarly, Patent Owner argues that the ‘180 patent clearly
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service” from a conventional domain name
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/ControlNumber: 95/001,270
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`'
`
`Page 10
`
`service that can resolve domain names of computers that are used to establish secure
`
`connections. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service.” For example, the ‘180 patent explains
`
`that a secure domain name service can resolve addresses for a secure domain name whereas a
`
`conventional domain name service cannot resolve addresses for a secure domain name (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35).
`
`20.
`
`Hands-On and Installing NT do not teach the claimed “secure domain name” or “secure
`
`domain name service" as defined by the ’180 patent. Hands-On describes the implementation of
`
`secure communications using PPTP tunneling protocols and describes the use of a conventional
`
`DNS system, but does not disclose an implementation including a secure domain name service
`
`and secure domain names as claimed by the ‘180 patent. Installing NT describes the use of a
`
`PPTP server to set up a secure connection, but does not describe the use of a secure domain
`
`name service using a secure domain name. Hands-On and Installing NT do not teach the
`
`claimed secure domain name or secure domain name service as defined by the '180 patent as
`
`being a part of a non-conventional domain name system. Accordingly, the proposed rejection is
`
`not adopted.
`
`21.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 1, 10, 12-15, 17, 26, 28-31, and 33 be rejected under 35
`
`USC 102(a) as being anticipated by Microsoft VPN. This proposed rejection was adopted in the
`
`first Office action mailed on 1/19/2010. However, upon consideration of the remarks submitted
`
`by Patent Owner, this proposed rejection is hereby withdrawn and not adopted for the following
`
`reasons .
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,270
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`l
`
`22.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the ‘180 patent clearly distinguishes the claimed "secure
`
`domain name" from a domain name that happens to correspond to a secure computer. Patent
`
`Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent distinguishes the
`
`claimed “secure domain name.” For example, the ‘180 patent explains that a secure domain
`
`name is a non-standard domain name and that querying a convention domain name server using
`
`a secure domain name will result in a return message indicating that the URL is unknown (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35). Similarly, Patent Owner argues that the ‘1’80 patent clearly
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service” from a conventional domain name
`
`service that can resolve domain names of computers that are used to establish secure
`
`connections. Patent Owner’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner agrees that the '180 patent
`
`distinguishes the claimed “secure domain name service.” For example, the ‘180 patent explains
`
`that a secure domain name service can resolve addresses for a secure domain name whereas a
`
`conventional domain name service cannot resolve addresses for a secure domain name (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35).
`
`23.
`
`Microsoft VPN does not teach the claimed “secure domain name” or “secure domain
`
`name service" as defined by the '180 patent. Microsoft VPN describes the implementation of a
`
`virtual private network to allow a remote client to gain 'access to a corporate network using a
`
`PPTP tunnel through a VPN server, but does not disclose an implementation including a secure
`
`domain name service and secure domain names as claimed by the ‘ 180 patent. Microsoft VPN
`
`does not teach the claimed secure domain name or secure domain name service as defined by the
`
`'180 patent as being a part of a non-conventional domain name system. Accordingly, the
`
`proposed rejection is not adopted.
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,270
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Rejections Proposed by Requestor - Previously Not Adopted That Remain Not Adopted
`
`24.
`
`The non-final action mailed on January 19, 2010 is hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`25.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 4, 13, 15, 20, 29, 31, and 35 be rejected under 35 USC
`
`102(a) as being anticipated by Aventail. This proposed rejection Was not adopted for the reasons
`
`set forth on Pages 12-15 of the January 19, 2010 non-final office action.
`
`26.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 4, 20, and 35 be rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being
`
`rendered obvious by the combination of VPN Overview in View of RFC 1035. This proposed
`
`rejection was not adopted for the reasons set forth on Pages 16-17 of the January 19, 2010 non-
`
`final office action.
`
`27.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 4, 20, and 35 be rejected under 35 USC 102(a) as being
`
`anticipated by Kaufman. This proposed rejection was not adopted for the reasons set forth on
`
`Pages 20-21 of the January 19, 2010 non-final office action.
`
`28.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 4, 20, and 35 be rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being
`
`rendered obvious by the combination of Kaufman in view of Galvin. This proposed rejection
`
`was not adopted for the reasons set forth on Pages 22-23 of the January 19, 2010 non-final office
`
`action.
`
`29.
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 4, 20, and 35 be rejected under 35 USC 102(a) as being
`
`anticipated by Gauntlet. This proposed rejection was not adopted for the reasons set forth on
`
`Page 24 of the January 19, 2010 non-final office action.
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001 ,270
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Requestor proposed that claims 4, 20, and 35 be rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being
`
`1 3
`
`0.
`
`rendered obvious by the combination of Hands-On in view of Installing NT. This proposed
`
`rejection was not adopted for the reasons set forth on Pages 25-26 of the January 19, 2010 non-
`
`'
`
`final office action.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PATENTABILITY AND/OR CONFIRMATION
`
`The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation
`
`of the claims found patentable in this reexamination proceeding:
`
`Claims 1, 4, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 26, 28-31, 33, and 35 are confirmed as patentable for the
`
`following reasons. The cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed features of a "secure
`
`domain name" and a "secure domain name service.” Instead, the cited prior art teaches the use of
`
`a conventional domain name system and conventional domain names where some of the domain
`
`names correspond to a host that requires authentication. The ‘ 180 patent distinguishes the
`
`claimed secure domain names and secure domain name service from a conventional domain
`
`name service by explaining that a secure domain name is a non-standard domain name and that
`
`querying a convention domain name server using a secure domain name will result in a return
`
`message indicating that the URL is unknown (‘180 patent, column 51 lines 25-35) and that a
`
`secure domain name service can resolve addresses for a secure domain name whereas a
`
`conventional domain name service cannot resolve addresses for a secure domain name (‘180
`
`patent, column 51 lines 25-35). Accordingly, the cited prior art fails to anticipate or render
`
`obvious claims 1, 4, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 26, 28-31, 33, and 35.
`
`a
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,270
`
`Page 14
`
`Art-Unit: 3992
`
`Any comments considered necessary by the PATENT OWNER regarding the above
`
`statement must be submitted promptly to avoid processing delays. Such submission by the
`
`patent owner should be labeled: “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Patentability and/or
`
`Confirmation” and will be placed in the reexamination file.
`
`This is a RIGHT OF APPEAL NOTICE (RAN); see MPEP § 2673.02 and § 2674. The ‘
`
`decision in this Office action as to the patentability or unpatentability of any original patent
`
`claim, any proposed amended claim and any new claim in this proceeding is a FINAL
`
`DECISION.
`
`No amendment can be made in response to the Right of Appeal Notice‘ in an inter partes
`
`reexamination. 37 CFR 1.953(0). Further, no affidavit or other evidence can be submitted in an
`
`inter partes reexamination proceeding after the right of appeal notice, except as provided in 37
`
`CFR 1.981 or as permitted by 37 CFR 41.77(b)(1). 37 CFR 1.116(f).
`
`Each party has a thirty-day or one-month time period, whichever is longer, to file a
`notice of appeal. The patent owner may appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
`with respect to any decision adverse to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or
`new claim of the patent by filing a notice of appeal and paying the fee set fort-h in 37 CFR
`41 .20(b)(1). The third party requester may appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and
`Interferences with respect to any decision favorable to the patentability of any original or
`proposed amended or new claim of the patent by filing a notice of appeal and paying the fee set
`forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1).
`
`In addition, a patent owner who has not filed a notice of appeal may file a notice of cross
`
`appeal within fourteen days of service of a third party requester’s timely filed notice of appeal
`
`and pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 41 .20(b)(1). A third party requester who has not filed a
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001 ,270
`
`,
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`notice of appeal may file a notice of cross appeal within fourteen days of service of a patent
`
`owner’s timely filed notice of appeal and pay the fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b)(l).
`
`Any appeal in this proceeding must identify the claim(s) appealed, and must be signed by
`
`the patent owner (for a patent owner appeal) or the third party requester (for a third party
`
`requester appeal), or their duly authorized attorney or agent.
`
`Any party that does not file a timely notice of appeal or a timely notice of cross appeal
`
`will lose the right to appeal from any decision adverse to that party, but will not lose the right to
`
`file a respondent brief and fee where it is appropriate for that party to do so. If no party files a
`
`timely appeal, the reexamination prosecution will be terminated, and the Director will proceed to
`
`issue and publish a certificate under 37 CFR 1.997 in accordance with this Office action.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be
`directed:

`
`By Mail to: Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Commissioner of Patents
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to:
`
`(571) 273-9900
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By hand:
`
`‘
`
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany St.
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/001,270
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`_
`
`Page 16
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to the Central Reexamination
`Unit at telephone number (571)272-7705.
`‘
`
`Signed:
`
`/Andrew Nalven/
`
`Andrew Nalven
`CRU Examiner
`
`GAU 3992
`
`(571) 272-3839
`
`Conferee: ES K
`
`Conferee:M
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket