EN TE-{E UN {TEE} S'l‘A'E‘ES E’A'}‘ElN’E‘ AND 'l‘E§Ai)E]‘l/t’liAl§l§I GFFICE
`
`in re Applicatioii Qf:
`
`L2tl'SOl”1 at al.
`
`Application Serial No.1
`
`l l/6”/'9,4l6
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Title:
`
`Examiner:
`
`Art Unit:
`
`Cnnflirrn alien No;
`
`February 27, 2907
`
`ME'7l‘HOD FOR ESTABLISHING SECURE COl\/llMUNlCA’l'lON
`
`LINEQ BlEI.'l"WE3EN Ci) l\/iil’U'l'ERE§
`
`(ll?
`
`‘v’iR'l'UAl,
`
`E’Rl‘v’A'l‘lZ.
`
`NETWORK
`
`Liin, Krisna
`
`2453
`
`33528
`
`Atty. Docket N0;
`
`O77580~G{}l5 (VRNl<l—l Cl’2D\i’CON)
`
`Mail Stop Ameiidnient
`Ceininissinncx fer Patents
`
`R0. Box l4:3(3
`
`Alexandria, VA 223l3~l45{}
`
`RESPGNSE ANE) RE {I}: ST FCSR RECONS E§3El?;A’l"‘i0Ni
`
`The Applicants 1‘€:Sp0I1(lS tn the nnnmfinai Office Action inailed. D€:C()1’11lJf31" 7, 2619 (“the
`
`Office Actinn”) as tbllows:
`
`R€;‘¥lI§§:§§‘l{S, beginning on page 2 efthis paper.
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`“1"
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2012
`Apple v. VirnetX
`Trial IPRZO15-00870
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2012
`Apple v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-00870
`
`

`
`1]/679,4} -1‘;
`Seria‘
`Response to De<:en1‘oei' 7. 2()1() Ofticre Acti-;)n
`
`Reniarks
`
`Applicants appreciate the E.X£itItifd,t)1"S exaniitiatioii of the subject appii.cation. Clairns 2—
`
`33 are currently pending. No ciaitns have been amended or canceiied.
`
`In the Office Action, the Examiner has rejected Ciainis 2-30 under 35 U.S.C. § i()2{‘o), as
`
`being anticipated by Aventaii Connect v 3.1/v2.6 Adininistrator’s Guide (“Aventaii’”').
`
`Applicants i'espeetfuiiy traverse the outstanding rejection and requests teeoiisideration of
`
`the subject appiication in light of the foiiowing rernarhis.
`
`Pntentabiiizfga zma’er 35' Uni-".C. § N22
`
`The Examiner has rejected Claims 2-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 1026?), as being anticipated by
`
`Aventaii. These rejections are respectfully traversed. and recoitsideration and withdrawal of
`
`these rej ections are respectfuiiy requested.
`
`independent ciaitn 2 recites the foiievving:
`
`A method of using a first device to coinrnunicate with a second device having a
`secure name, the rnethod comprising:
`from the first device, sending a message to a secure name service, the
`message requesting a netwoii: address associated with the secure name of the
`second device;
`
`at the first device. receiving a message containing the 11f3t‘W01‘i{ address
`associated with the secure name of the second device; and
`
`freni the first device, seiiding a message to the H€'tVv’0,'(',i-t address associated
`with the secure name of the second. device using a secure communication link.
`
`(ernphasis added).
`
`a pteliniinary tnatter. Aventaii has not been shown to he prior art to ail peiidiiig ciairns
`
`in the present application, inciuding ciaitn 2. In fact, Aventaii is not print art. The present
`
`application ciainis priority to US. Patent Nos. 6,502’.,i 35 (hereinafter “the ’ 13-5 patent”) and
`
`7,188,180 (_hereinaftei* “the “I80 patent”). The “I35 and ’180 Patents were subject to inter partes
`
`reexamination proeeedin.gs, Conttoi Nos. 95/’(3€}i,269 (i1(§1'i?i,Ila.'iDtT61' “the 31329 Reexan'i”) and
`
`Page2of10
`
`-2-
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`

`
`l 1/679,4} -1‘;
`Serial
`Response to l)e<:en1‘oer 7, 2()l() Olllcre Action
`
`95/{}()l,27t) (liereinaftei' “the ‘Z70 Reexanr”), respectively (collectively “ReeXarns“”).
`
`in both
`
`Reexains, the USPTO deterniined that “Aventail cannot be relied upon as prior art to the
`
`[patents].” See Reexarnination Control No. 95/(l(3l.,269., Action Closing Prosecution, June l6,
`
`2610, p. 3 (Exhibit A); Reexamination Control No. 95/ll(ll,27i), Action Closing Prosecuttion,
`
`lune l6, Ztlltl, p. 3 (Exhibit B). This sound determination was based on the fact that no evidence
`
`was found to establish Aventail”s publication date.
`
`lndeed, Aventail °s identification ofa copyright date range of l996> - l999 is not
`
`ectuivalent to a publication date. The distinction between a publication date and a copyright date
`
`is critical. To establish a date of publication, the reference must be shown to have “been
`
`disseminated or otlierwise inade available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`slxilled in the subject matter or art, exercising reasonable dililgence, can locate it.” In re Wvre,
`
`655 F.2d 221 (C.C.l’.A. l98l}. Aventail, on its face, provides “<;C> l996—l999 AV’€f1liEill
`
`Corporation.” The copyright date does not meet this standard. Unlike a publication date, a
`
`copyi*ight date nierely establishes “the date that the document was created or pi*inted.”
`
`Ztiilgraeve, lite. V. Sriizrzntecr £70231)”, 27l F. Supp. 2d 964, 975 (Ell). Mich. 2093).
`
`liven presuming the author of the docurnent accurately represen ted the date the document
`
`was created, a creation date alone
`
`not evidence of any sort of publication or dissemination.
`
`Without niorefi this bald assertion of the creation of the docuinent does not meet the. “publication”
`
`standard required for a, document to be relied upon as prior art.
`
`Further‘ exacerbating niatters is the tiling date of the ’ l35 Patent: February l5, 2000.
`
`Suppose the relied upon sections of the Aventail reference were created on December 31, l9i99,
`
`and the copyright date l"f,111§.)f3 were accordingly amended to read “l996~l999.’” Under these
`
`eilrcurnstanees, it possible that the docurnent, although created, was not made publicly
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`

`
`l 1/679,4l -1‘;
`Serial
`Response to l)e<:en1‘-oer 7, 2()l() Ofliee Action
`
`available until after the filing date of the ’ l35 Pateiit, six Weeli:s after creation. And, under these
`
`circurnstances, Aventail clearly would not be eligible to be relied upon as prior art to the ’l3:l
`
`Patent
`
`As an aside, the Appliearit notes that the present assignee (V'iniet.X inc.) and its
`
`prosecution counsel have been accused of inequitable conduct during the Q69 Reexain in a
`
`litigation proceeding, ll/'z‘rnerXIm?. V. Crisco AS31916:/as, Ind. et ai., United States District Court for
`
`the Eastern District ol’Texas, Tyler Division, Case No. 6: l (l~ev—4l7. Exhibits GE.
`
`lo its
`
`Original Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclairns to the \«’ii‘iiet;?<’s {lriginal Cornplaint,
`
`the Defendant Apple lnc. (“Apple”) alleges that evidence of AVentail’s publication
`
`early as
`
`June l999 was presented in a different trial involving Microsoft Corporation. Exhibit C at fil 23
`
`(p. l4); Apple fu1'll'lf.’.l” alleges that “‘v’irnetX was aware that the Alventail re’ erence rriay have
`
`been published at least as early as lune l999.” lixliibit C at “H 23.
`
`l)el°enolaiits Aastra
`
`Technologies Liniitecl and Aastra USA lnc. (“Aastra”) ha re rnade sirnilar allegations in their
`
`responsive pleadings. Exhibit D at 86 (p. l9); Exliibit E at fil 86 (p. l9).
`
`To the contrary, the applicants are unaware of evidence establishing Aventail’s
`
`publication date, and specifically are unaware of the lane ll}??? publication date alleged by Apple
`
`and Aastra in their pleadings. The trial transcript from the Microsoft trial does not discuss
`
`anything about a publication date for the Aventail refereiiee_ Exhibit F. While the trial transcript
`
`references the Aventail product“, it does not mention anything about a publication date See eg.
`
`lixliibit l7—2, pp. ll2, lilo; Exhibit l3~3, pp. llfi, ll9—2i); lixxlribit l7—ll) pp. Ill -4t}; Exhibit l?’-l l,
`
`pp. 2l—32, l 2.(l—l5{l. The deposition of Gary 'l'ornlinson (former employee of Aventaili} taken
`
`during discovery prior to the l\/lieiosoft trial is iiiconclusive, at best. Exhibit H at pp. 33-36.
`
`Thus, although an allegation of lmmvletlge has been rnade by a third party, the applicants, the
`
`Page4 of 10
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`

`
`l 1/679,4} -1‘;
`Seria‘
`Response to l)ecern‘oei' 7, 2()1() Ofiice Acti-;)n
`
`assignee and applicants’ prosecution counsel have not had and do not have such knowledge. To
`
`be sure, the Applicants wiil notify the USPTO iniinediateiy if it becomes aware of eVide.nce of
`
`Aventai E ’ s publication date.
`
`Assuniing arguendo, that Aventaii is prior art to the present application, it is not
`
`understood to disclose the features of claim 2., particularly with respect to at least the features of
`
`“a secure ceniniunication link," “a secure nanie service,” and a “secure naine.”
`
`Aventaii ’s disclosure was Sttl’}'1l’}'1Etl‘”i zed in the Declaration of Professor Jason Nieh in
`
`support of the ‘Z76 Reexarn. Reexarnination Control No. 9:3./0G1,,2l7G, De(:Im"azir_m ojL’a,s0i/2
`
`/‘fieiz, Ph.D., E’:/1/‘st/zcznzto
`
`7 C.F.R. § L132, April 19, 20E 0, fifil 14
`
`29 {Exhibit G) (hereinafter
`
`“Nieh Declf’). The Nieh Decl. is cited herein to characterize the cited refereiices and their
`
`deticiencies.
`
`AV6I1t8.li discloses a systein and architecture for transmitting data between two
`
`computers using the SOCKS protocol. Nieh Decl. at it l4. The systeni routes certain, predefined
`
`network trattic from a WinSocl: (Windows sockets) application to an extranet (SOCKS) server}
`
`possibly through successive servers. Aventaii at 7; Nieh Deci. at it 14. Upon receipt ot‘the
`
`network trafiic, the SGCEQS server then transmits the networl: traffic to the lnternet or external
`
`network. Aventail at 7; Nieh Dec}. at ‘E 14. AVentaii’s disclosure is limited to connections
`
`created at the socket layer of the network architecture. Nieh Decl. at ‘J l4.
`
`in operation, a con'iponent of the Avehtaii Connect software described in the reference
`
`residues between WinSoci<: and the cnndeiiyihg 'l”CP./1P stack. See Aventaii at 9;, Nieh Decl. at ‘El
`
`15. Tiie Aventail Connect software intercepts all connection requests from the user, and
`
`deterniines whether each 1'Cqll,CSi1'I”lEliChf3S local, preset criteria for redirection to a SOCKS server.
`
`See Aventail at it}; Nieh Deel. at ‘J l5. if edirectioh is appropriate, then Aventail Connect
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`

`
`l 1/679,4} -1‘;
`Seria‘
`Response to Decen1‘oer 7. 2()l() Ofllce Action
`
`creates a false DNS entry to return to the requesting application. See Aventail at l2; Nieh Decl.
`
`at fit lo. Aventail discloses that Aventail Connect then forwards the destination hostnaine to the
`
`extranet SUCK server over a SOCKS connection. See Atveiitail at l2;
`
`Deel. at ‘El lo. The
`
`SOCKS server perforins the hostnarne resolution. Aventail at l2; Nieh Decl. at “fit l7. Once the
`
`hostnarne is resolved, the user can transrnit data over a SOCKS connection to the SOCKS server.
`
`Nieh Decl. at “J l7. The SOCKS server, then, separately relays that trahsniitted data to the target.
`
`Nieh Deel. at ‘El l7.
`
`Aventail fails to disclose “a secure name service” and a “secure naine.” Aventail
`
`discloses con rentional domain name services and dornain narnes. Indeed, in reexainination of
`
`the ‘lSG Patent, the Fatent Office found that Aventail discloses a conventional “DNS server and
`
`the creation ofa secure tunnel to a secure remote site.” Reexamination. Control No. 95./lllll ,270,
`
`Action Closing Prosecution, June l6, 20] (3., Eiixhihit E3, at ‘W 6-7. Aventail does not disclose a
`
`non-conventional system. Id.
`
`in contrast to Aventail, paragraphs {(3318}
`
`[0329] of the present
`
`application distinguish the clainied invention from conventional systeins.
`
`genezi‘zz:.’Zv, Nieh
`
`Dec. atfi] l0—l3.
`
`Aventail also does not teach the claimed secure coniinnnicatioii linl<:. First, Averitail has
`
`not been shown to cleinonstrate that computers connected via the Aventail system are able to
`
`connriunica.te with each other as though they were on the
`
`network. Id. at fit I35. Aventail
`
`discloses establishing point—to—point SOCKS connections between. a client computer and a
`
`SOCKS server.
`
`is’. The SOCKS server then relays data received to the intended target.
`
`id.
`
`Aventail does not disclose a secure cornniunieation link, where data can he addressed to a target,
`
`regardless of the location ofthe target, See, generaiiy, 2155... fit‘? 24-27.
`
`Page6 of 10
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`

`
`1]/679,4} -1‘;
`Serial
`Respnnse tn De<:em‘nei' 7, 2()1() Ofiicre Acti-an
`
`Second, according tn 1- Ventaii, Aventaii C0nnect’s fundamental operation is
`
`iiiecinpattibte. with users transmitting data that are sensitive to network inferniation. Id. at fi[ 28.
`
`As stated ebeve, Aventaii discinses that Aventait CQ1'111€(‘..i,0’p61'at€S between the ‘Wri,1’1S0'Ci( and
`
`TC?/ES’ Eayers, as depicted on page 9:
`
`
`
`
`
`.....
`.................. ..
`'§z:3rn:1.seet
`
`i
`
`:...........................
`
`AV’611tEtii at 9; zd, Because Aventail discloses t'i1i~3.'tPxVf3t13‘.a.‘ii COF1t1f3C'E.0p€1”Ett€S between these
`
`iayers, it can intercept DNS requests. Nieii Dec}. at “H 28. Aventail diseinses that Aventtiii
`
`Connect intercepts certain DNS requests and returns a false DNS response to the user if the
`
`requested hnstnarne rnatehes at hestnanie on at usendetined list. Id. Aeecrdingiy, Aventaii
`
`discloses that the user will receive false tietwcrk i,'(},'i‘Otl‘”1'1’31a,'£',,i(_‘.411 fmrr1AVentaii Ccnneet for" these
`
`hestnames.
`
`Ia’.
`
`if the client ceinputer hopes to traiisfer to the target date that is sensitive te
`
`netwnris: inferniatinn, ./éxventaii Ceiniecfis faisifieatinn Of the netwnrk infcrniatinn would prevent
`
`the cerrect transfer of data. Id. Aventatii has net been shewn tn disclose a. secure ceninninieatinn
`
`iinisr.
`
`Page? of 10
`
`Page 7 of 10
`
`

`
`l 1/679,4l -1‘;
`Seria‘
`Response to D€(f€.‘H1i[‘)6i'
`
`7, 2()l() Ofliee Acti-an
`
`Thircl, Aventail has not been shewn te disclose a secure ceniniunicatien link because
`
`cempnters eonnectetl aecerdiiig to Aventail do not eornrrinnicate directly with each other. Id. at
`
`293 Aventail discloses a system where a client mi a public network transmits data to a SGCKS
`
`server via a singular, point—tn—peint S{)Cl<.E§ connection at the sncltiet layer (if the netvverl<
`
`architecture.
`
`152’. The SOCKS server then relays that data to a target computer on a private
`
`network on which the SOCKS server also resides.
`
`11:1’. All coinmuniea.tions between the client
`
`and target step and start at the intei'h'iediate SGCKS server.
`
`Ice’. The elienlt cannot open a
`
`cnnnection with the target itself. "l‘liei‘et"ei'e, one Sl§.lll6eCl in the art wonltl not have censidered the
`
`client and target to be virtually on the same private netwerl~:. Id.
`
`lnstead, t e client computer
`
`and target computer at e deliberately separated by the. intermediate SOCKS server. M. For these
`
`reasens, Aventtail net erily fails to disclose the clairried secure eoh'iinuiiica.tioii little.
`
`Fer all these reasnns, Applicaiit respectfully submits that Aventail (lees net disclose the
`
`elements ef independent claim 2. Applicant respectfttlly submits that claim 2 is in conditien fer
`
`allovvance. Reconsi<le.ratien and withdrawal efthe rejection of iiidependeiit claim 2 is
`
`respeetl”nlly requested
`
`independent claims 24, 26, and 28-30 recite one or more el‘“a secure naine,” “a secure
`
`name service,” or “a secure communication little” Fer the reasens stated above, Applicant
`
`respectfiilly submits that clairns 24,, 26, and 2839 are in condition for allowance.
`
`Reeonsideratioii and withdrawal of the rej ectieii of independent claim '2 is i‘espeetl’ully requested
`
`The other claims cwrreiitly under consideration in the application are dependent fi‘Ol'1’1
`
`their respective inclepencleiit claims disctisseti above and therefore are believed to he allewahle
`
`over the applied references for at least the reasons provided above for their respective
`
`ll'i£if3pf.’.i“,‘t(lf.’.l'1l. elairns. Because each dependent claim is f.lf3f.31’,'(lf}fCl.'iO detiiie an additional
`
`iiect of
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`Page 8 of 10
`
`

`
`ll/679,4l -1‘;
`Serial
`Response tn De<:en1‘nei' 7, 2()l() Ofllce Acti-;)n
`
`the invention, the individual consicleraticn cf each on its awn nierits is respectfully requested.
`
`Reconsideration and witln.lrawa.l of the rejections of the dependent claims are respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`The absence efa reply to a specific rejectinn, issue, in cninrnent does not signify
`
`agreement with or cencession cf that rejection, issue, or ccnnnent.
`
`in addition, because the
`
`argtnnents niarle abeve inay not be exhaustive, there may be other reasons for patentability of
`
`any er all claims that have not been expressed.
`
`linially, nothing in this paper should be censtrued
`
`as an intent tn enneede, er an actual cencessicn nl‘, any issue with regard tn any claim, er any
`
`cited art, except as specifically stated in this paper, and the amendment or cancellation of any
`
`elaint does net necessarily signify concession ofttn};)a.tei1tability Dfllltj. claim prior te its
`
`anienclnient or cancellatien.
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`Page 9 of 10
`
`

`
`1]/679,4l -1‘;
`Serial
`Respnnse tn De<:en1bei' 7, 2()l() Officre Acti-;)n
`
`€:I{)N{:3 L US EGN
`
`ln ll,gl1t()f'lll© Amendments and Rene
`
`herein, the Alflpllcalli subnuts th at the pending
`
`claims, claims 2—3l), are in ennditinn fol‘ allewaliee a.nnl respectfully requests a netlee to this
`
`effect. Should. the Examinel‘ have any questions, please call the undersigned at the phene
`
`number listed. belew.
`
`T0 the extent necessary, E1 petltien fez" an extension ef time (3 menths) under? 37 C.F.R.. §
`
`L136 is hereby made. Please charge any sllertage in fees due in cennectlen with the filing ef
`
`this paper, including extensien of time "ees, to Deposit Account Sfil l33 and please Credit any
`
`excess fees to such deposit aceeunt.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`l\/RED l3Rl\«fl0TT WELL
`
` lT3»'lERY LL?
`
`.«"Tei;w H, Kusmer/'
`
`._..fl
`
`Toby H. Kusmer
`Registration No. 26,418
`28 State Street
`Besten, MA 023 09‘
`Pllene: 6>l7—535~4065
`
`Facsimile: 6l7—535—380G
`
`Date: June 7, Zilll
`
`If-MWUS 28866337-l.O’7’7530.00l 5
`
`Date:
`
`.lune '7, 2011
`
`Please reeegnize our Cestemer Ne. 2.363% as
`em’ eerrespemienee address.
`
`Page10of10
`
`_j()_
`
`Page 10 of 10