throbber
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

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