throbber
Q,‘_ g UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OEEICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CONHVIERCE
`United States Patent and '1'1'ade111a1'k Office
`Address: COMNHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P 0. Bo). 1450
`Alexalizhia, V' vlnia 22313-1450
`www nsplo g
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRIVIATION NO.
`
`95/001,679
`
`07/08/2011
`
`4361492
`
`9786
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOVV, GARRETT & DUNNER
`LLI)
`901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
`WASHINGTON» Dc 200014413
`
`PJ_<‘ll§ARl, BLHLAD
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`09/15/2015
`
`DL£LlVl_'RY )/101.11.’
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2060
`Mangrove v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-01046
`
`Page 1 of 38
`
`

`
`Transmittal of Communication to
`
`
`
`Third Party Requester
`.
`.
`
`Control No.
`
`95/001,679
`E
`'
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`6502135
`A t U "I
`
`B. JAMES PEIKARI
`
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`Ij (THIRD PARTY REQUESTER‘S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS) 3'
`
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`IP Section
`
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`in the above-identified reexamination prceeding. 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 interpartes 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.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2070 (Rev. 07-04)
`
`Page 2 of 38
`
`Paper No. 20150904
`
`Page 2 of 38
`
`

`
`Right of Appeal Notice
`
`95/001,679
`
`6502135
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`‘3’
`
`
`
`B. JAMES PEIKARI
`
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`Responsive to the communication(s) filed by:
`
`Patent Owner on 03 June 2015
`
`Third Party(ies) on 02 July, 2015
`
`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.
`
`The proposed amendment filed
`
`|:I will be entered
`
`I:I will not be entered*
`
`*Reasons for non-entry are given in the body of this notice.
`
`1a. IX] Claims 1-9 and 13-18 are subject to reexamination.
`1b. IX] Claims 1 are not subject to reexamination.
`2. El Claims j have been cancelled.
`
`$°.°°.\‘.°7.0":'>.°°
`
`|:I Claims j are confirmed. [Unamended patent claims].
`I:I Claims j are patentable. [Amended or new claims].
`IX] Claims 1-9 and 13-18 are rejected.
`|:I Claims j are objected to.
`I:I are not acceptable.
`I:I are acceptable.
`|:I The drawings filed on
`|:I The drawing correction request filed on
`is I:| approved. I:| disapproved.
`I:I Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f). The certified copy
`has:
`
`I:I been received.
`10. El Other
`
`Attachments
`
`I:I not been received.
`
`I:I been filed in Application/Control No.
`
`1. El Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892
`2. El Information Disclosure Citation, PTO/SB/08
`3.I:I
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2066 (08-06)
`
`Page 3 of 38
`
`Right of Appeal Notice (37 CFR 1.953)
`
`Part of Paper No. 20150904
`
`Page 3 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`1 .
`
`This is an interpartes reexamination of U.S. Patent Number 6,502,135 (the '135
`
`patent), issued December 31, 2002.
`
`Claims 1-9 and 13-18 are subject to reexamination.
`
`2.
`
`The following is a brief summary of the prosecution to date in this merged
`
`Prosecution Summary
`
`reexamination proceeding:
`
`On July 8, 2011, a request for interpartes reexamination of claims 1-18 of
`
`the '135 patent, assigned control no. 95/001,679 (“the '679 proceeding”),
`
`was filed by a third party requester (“requester” or “the '679 requester”).
`
`On October 3, 2011, the USPTO mailed a decision granting interpartes
`
`reexamination and ordering the reexamination of claims 1-18 in the '679
`
`proceeding.
`
`On February 15, 2012, the USPTO mailed a non-final Office action in the
`
`'679 proceeding. Claims 1-18 were rejected.
`
`On May 15, 2012, patent owner filed a response to the February 15, 2012
`
`Office action. No claims were amended or canceled.
`
`On June 14, 2012, in the '679 proceeding, requester filed comments.
`
`Page 4 of 38
`
`Page 4 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`On March 11, 2013, the USPTO mailed a non—final Office action. Claims
`
`1-18 were rejected.
`
`On June 11, 2013, patent owner filed a response to the March 11, 2013
`
`Office action. No claims were amended or canceled.
`
`On July 9, 2013, requester filed comments.
`
`On January 10, 2014, the USPTO mailed an action closing prosecution
`
`(ACP), which will be treated as a second non-final Office action. Claims 1-
`
`18 were rejected.
`
`On March 10, 2014, patent owner filed a response to the January 10,
`
`2014 Office action.
`
`On April 9, 2014, requester filed comments.
`
`On April 3, 2015, the USPTO mailed an action closing prosecution (ACP).
`
`Claims 10-12 were withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-9 and 13-18
`
`were rejected.
`
`On June 3, 2015, patent owner filed a response to the ACP.
`
`On July 2, 2015, requester filed comments.
`
`Page 5 of 38
`
`Page 5 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`3.
`
`The references discussed herein are as follows:
`
`References
`
`(1)
`
`Takahiro Kiuchi and Shigekoto Kaihara, “C—HTTP — The Development of a
`
`Secure, Closed HTTP—based Network on the Internet,” published in the Proceedings of
`
`SNDSS 1996 (“Kiuchi”).
`
`(2)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,898,830 to Wesinger (“Wesinger”).
`
`(3)
`
`Eduardo Solana and Jergen Harms, “Flexible Internet Secure
`
`Transactions Based on Collaborative Domains”, Security Protocols Workshop 1997, pp.
`
`37-51 (“Solana”).
`
`(4)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,119,234 to Aziz (“Aziz”).
`
`(5)
`
`David M. Martin, “A Framework for Local Anonymity in the Internet,’’
`
`Technical Report. Boston University, Boston, MA, USA (Feb 21, 1998) (“Martin”).
`
`(6)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,764,231 to Karr et al. (“Karr”).
`
`(7)
`
`D.E. Denning and G.M. Sacco, “Time—stamps in Key Distribution
`
`Protocols,” Communications of the ACM, Vol.24, n.8, pp. 533-536 (1981) (“Denning”).
`
`(8)
`
`C.|. Dalton and J.F. Griffin, “Applying Military Grade Security to the
`
`Internet,’’ Proceedings of the Joint European Networking Conference (May 12-15, 1997)
`
`(“Dalton”).
`
`(9)
`
`Steven M. Bellovin and Michael Merritt, “Encrypted Key Exchange:
`
`Password-Based Protocols Secure Against Dictionary Attacks,” 1992 IEEE Symposium
`
`on Security and Privacy (1992) (“Bellovin”).
`
`Page 6 of 38
`
`Page 6 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Claim Rejections — Relevant Statutes
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on
`sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed
`in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for
`patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an
`international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351 (a) shall have the effects for purposes of
`this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the
`United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Summary of Proposed Rejections and Status
`
`6.
`
`The following rejections were proposed by the request filed July 8, 2011 in the
`
`'679 proceeding. References to claims 10-12 have been withdrawn.
`
`o
`
`Issue 1: Claims 1-4, 7, 13, 14 and 17 are alleged to be anticipated by
`
`Kiuchi under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 13, 14 and 17 is adopted.
`
`o
`
`Issue 2: Claims 5, 8 and 18 are alleged to be obvious over Kiuchi in view
`
`of Dalton under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Page 7 of 38
`
`Page 7 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 5, 8 and 18 is adopted.
`
`Issue 3: Claim 9 is alleged to be obvious over Kiuchi in view of Bellovin
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 9 is .
`
`Issue 4: Claim 6 is alleged to be obvious over Kiuchi in view of Martin
`
`under 35 U.S.C.§103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 6 is .
`
`Issue 5: Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13 and 18 are alleged to be anticipated by
`
`Wesinger under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 13 and 18 is adopted.
`
`Issue 6: Claim 6 is alleged to be obvious over Wesinger in view of Martin
`
`under 35 U.S.C.§103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 6 is adopted.
`
`Issue 7: Claims 13-15 are alleged to be anticipated by Solana under 35
`
`U.S.C.§102(b).
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 13-15 is adopted.
`
`Issue 8: Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 18 are alleged to be obvious over Solana in
`
`view of Kiuchi under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1-5, 7-8 and 18 is adopted.
`
`Issue 9: Claims 5, 8 and 18 are alleged to be obvious over Solana in view
`
`of Kiuchi, and further in view of Dalton under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 5, 8 and 18 is adopted.
`
`Page 8 of 38
`
`Page 8 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue 10: Claim 9 is alleged to be obvious over Solana in view of Kiuchi,
`
`further in view of Dalton, further in view of Bellovin under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 9 is adopted.
`
`Issue 11: Claim 6 is alleged to be obvious over Solana, in view of Kiuchi,
`
`and further in view of Martin under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 6 is adopted.
`
`Issue 12: Claim 16 is alleged to be obvious over Solana in view of Karr
`
`under 35 U.S.C.§103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 16 is .
`
`Issue 13: Claim 17 is alleged to be obvious over Solana in view of
`
`Denning under 35 U.S.C.§103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 17 is .
`
`Issue 14: Claims 1-5, 7 and 18 are alleged to be anticipated by Aziz under
`
`35 U.S.C.§102(e).
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 1-5, 7 and 18 is .
`
`Issue 15: Claim 13 is alleged to be obvious over Aziz in view of Kiuchi
`
`under 35 U.S.C.§103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 13 is adopted.
`
`Issue 16: Claim 6 is alleged to be obvious over Aziz in view of Martin
`
`under 35 U.S.C.§103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 6 is adopted.
`
`Page 9 of 38
`
`Page 9 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`o
`
`Issue 17: Claim 9 is alleged to be obvious over Aziz in view of Bellovin
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claim 9 is adopted.
`
`o
`
`Issue 18: Claims 5 and 8 are alleged to be obvious over Aziz in view of
`
`Dalton under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`The proposed rejection of claims 5 and 8 is adopted.
`
`Claim Rejections — Detailed Explanation
`
`Issue 1
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 13, 14 and 17 are alleged to be anticipated by Kiuchi under 35 U. S. C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102jb) as being anticipated by
`
`Kiuchi. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is adopted. See
`
`pages 9 and 10 and Exhibit E-1 of the request, which are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`Although the C-HTTP name server of Kiuchi appears to teach away from the
`
`claimed DNS: ‘‘In a C-HTTP-based network, instead of DNS, a C-HTTP-based secure,
`
`encrypted name and certification service is used” (Kiuchi, Abstract) and “The DNS
`
`name service is not used for hostname resolution as the original secure name service,
`
`including certification, is used for the C-HTTP-based network” (Kiuchi, pg. 64), the C-
`
`HTTP name server of Kiuchi does in fact teach the same functionality of a service that
`
`Page 10 of 38
`
`Page 10 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`returns an IP address for a requested domain name: (a) The client-side proxy sends the
`
`C—HTTP name server “the host specified in a given URL” (Kiuchi, pg. 65) and (b) In
`
`response, the C—HTTP name server “sends the IP address.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`8.
`
`Claims 13, 14 and 17 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
`
`by Kiuchi. The proposed rejection of claims 13, 14 and 17 is adopted. See pages 9
`
`and 10 and Exhibit E-1 of the request, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`The Kiuchi reference must be read carefully. Although Kiuchi does not use the
`
`exact language of the claims (e.g., “C-HTTP” instead of “VPN”), the request maps the
`
`language used by Kiuchi to the language of the claims and describes how every feature
`
`of 13, 14 and 17 is taught by Kiuchi.
`
`Issue 2
`
`Claims 5, 8 and 18 are alleged to be obvious over Kiuchi in view of Dalton under
`
`35 u.s.c. § 103.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 5, 8 and 18 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
`
`Kiuchi in view of Dalton. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is
`
`adopted. See pages 9, 10 and 18 and Exhibit E-1 of the request, which are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`Page 11 of38
`
`Page 11 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Although the C-HTTP name server of Kiuchi appears to teach away from the
`
`claimed DNS: ‘‘In a C-HTTP-based network, instead of DNS, a C-HTTP-based secure,
`
`encrypted name and certification service is used” (Kiuchi, Abstract) and “The DNS
`
`name service is not used for hostname resolution as the original secure name service,
`
`including certification, is used for the C-HTTP-based network” (Kiuchi, pg. 64), the C-
`
`HTTP name server of Kiuchi does in fact teach the same functionality of a service that
`
`returns an IP address for a requested domain name: (a) The client-side proxy sends the
`
`C-HTTP name server “the host specified in a given URL” (Kiuchi, pg. 65) and (b) In
`
`response, the C-HTTP name server “sends the IP address.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`Issue 3
`
`Claim 9 is alleged to be obvious over Kiuchi in view of Be/Iovin under 35 U. S. C. §
`
`1 03.
`
`10.
`
`Claim 9 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Kiuchi in view of
`
`Bellovin. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is adopted. See
`
`pages 9, 10 and 18 and Exhibit E-1 of the request, which are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`Although the C-HTTP name server of Kiuchi appears to teach away from the
`
`claimed DNS: ‘‘In a C-HTTP-based network, instead of DNS, a C-HTTP-based secure,
`
`encrypted name and certification service is used” (Kiuchi, Abstract) and “The DNS
`
`name service is not used for hostname resolution as the original secure name service,
`
`Page 12 of 38
`
`Page 12 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`including certification, is used for the C-HTTP-based network” (Kiuchi, pg. 64), the C-
`
`HTTP name server of Kiuchi does in fact teach the same functionality of a service that
`
`returns an IP address for a requested domain name: (a) The client-side proxy sends the
`
`C—HTTP name server “the host specified in a given URL” (Kiuchi, pg. 65) and (b) In
`
`response, the C—HTTP name server “sends the IP address.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`Issue 4
`
`Claim 6 is alleged to be obvious over Kiuchi in view of Martin under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`1 03.
`
`11.
`
`Claim 6 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Kiuchi in view of
`
`Martin. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is adopted. See
`
`pages 9, 10 and 17 and Exhibit E-1 of the request, which are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`Although the C—HTTP name server of Kiuchi appears to teach away from the
`
`claimed DNS: ‘‘In a C-HTTP-based network, instead of DNS, a C-HTTP-based secure,
`
`encrypted name and certification service is used” (Kiuchi, Abstract) and “The DNS
`
`name service is not used for hostname resolution as the original secure name service,
`
`including certification, is used for the C-HTTP-based network” (Kiuchi, pg. 64), the C-
`
`HTTP name server of Kiuchi does in fact teach the same functionality of a service that
`
`returns an IP address for a requested domain name: (a) The client-side proxy sends the
`
`Page 13 of38
`
`Page 13 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`C—HTTP name server “the host specified in a given URL” (Kiuchi, pg. 65) and (b) In
`
`response, the C—HTTP name server “sends the IP address.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`Issue 5
`
`Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13 and 18 are alleged to be anticipated by Wesinger under 35 U. S. C. §
`
`102(e).
`
`12.
`
`Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13 and 18 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
`
`anticipated by Wesinger. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is
`
`adopted. See pages 10-12 and Exhibit E-2 of the request, which are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`Issue 6
`
`Claim 6 is alleged to be obvious over Wesinger in view of Martin under 35 U. S. C. § 103.
`
`13.
`
`Claim 6 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wesinger
`
`in view of Martin. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is
`
`adopted. See pages 10-12 and 17 and Exhibit E-2 of the request, which are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`Issue 7
`
`Claims 13- 15 are alleged to be anticipated by Solana under 35 U. S. C. § 102(b).
`
`Page 14 of 38
`
`Page 14 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`14.
`
`Claims 13-15 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
`
`Solana. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is adopted. See
`
`pages 12-15 and Exhibit E-3 of the request, which are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`Issue 8
`
`Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 18 are alleged to be obvious over Solana in view of Kiuchi
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`15.
`
`Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 18 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
`
`Solana in view of Kiuchi. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is
`
`adopted. See pages 9, 10 and 12-15 and Exhibit E-3 of the request, which are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`Although the C-HTTP name server of Kiuchi appears to teach away from the
`
`claimed DNS: ‘‘In a C-HTTP-based network, instead of DNS, a C-HTTP-based secure,
`
`encrypted name and certification service is used” (Kiuchi, Abstract) and “The DNS
`
`name service is not used for hostname resolution as the original secure name service,
`
`including certification, is used for the C-HTTP-based network” (Kiuchi, pg. 64), the C-
`
`HTTP name server of Kiuchi does in fact teach the same functionality of a service that
`
`returns an IP address for a requested domain name: (a) The client-side proxy sends the
`
`C-HTTP name server “the host specified in a given URL” (Kiuchi, pg. 65) and (b) In
`
`response, the C-HTTP name server “sends the IP address.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`Page 15 of38
`
`Page 15 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue 9
`
`Claims 5, 8 and 18 are alleged to be obvious over Solana in view of Kiuchi, and
`
`further in view of Dalton under 35 U. S. C. § 103.
`
`16.
`
`Claims 5, 8 and 18 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
`
`Solana in view of Kiuchi and further in view of Dalton. The proposed rejection of this
`
`claim set forth in the request is adopted. See pages 9, 10, 12-15 and 18 and Exhibit E-
`
`3 of the request, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`Although the C-HTTP name server of Kiuchi appears to teach away from the
`
`claimed DNS: ‘‘In a C-HTTP-based network, instead of DNS, a C-HTTP-based secure,
`
`encrypted name and certification service is used” (Kiuchi, Abstract) and “The DNS
`
`name service is not used for hostname resolution as the original secure name service,
`
`including certification, is used for the C-HTTP-based network” (Kiuchi, pg. 64), the C-
`
`HTTP name server of Kiuchi does in fact teach the same functionality of a service that
`
`returns an IP address for a requested domain name: (a) The client-side proxy sends the
`
`C-HTTP name server “the host specified in a given URL” (Kiuchi, pg. 65) and (b) In
`
`response, the C-HTTP name server “sends the IP address.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`Issue 10
`
`Claim 9 is alleged to be obvious over Solana in view of Kiuchi, further in view of Dalton,
`
`further in view of Be//ovin under 35 U. S. 0. § 103.
`
`Page 16 of 38
`
`Page 16 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`17.
`
`Claim 9 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Solana in view
`
`of Kiuchi and further in view of Dalton and Bellovin. The proposed rejection of this claim
`
`set forth in the request is adopted. See pages 9, 10, 12-15 and 18 and Exhibit E-3 of
`
`the request, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`Although the C-HTTP name server of Kiuchi appears to teach away from the
`
`claimed DNS: ‘‘In a C-HTTP-based network, instead of DNS, a C-HTTP-based secure,
`
`encrypted name and certification service is used” (Kiuchi, Abstract) and “The DNS
`
`name service is not used for hostname resolution as the original secure name service,
`
`including certification, is used for the C-HTTP-based network” (Kiuchi, pg. 64), the C-
`
`HTTP name server of Kiuchi does in fact teach the same functionality of a service that
`
`returns an IP address for a requested domain name: (a) The client-side proxy sends the
`
`C-HTTP name server “the host specified in a given URL” (Kiuchi, pg. 65) and (b) In
`
`response, the C-HTTP name server “sends the IP address.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`Issue 11
`
`Claim 6 is alleged to be obvious over Solana, in view of Kiuchi, and further in
`
`view of Martin under 35 U. S. C. § 103.
`
`18.
`
`Claim 6 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Solana in view
`
`of Kiuchi and further in view of Martin. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in
`
`Page 17 of 38
`
`Page 17 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`the request is adopted. See pages 9, 10, 12-15 and 17 and Exhibit E-3 of the request,
`
`which are hereby incorporated by reference.
`
`Although the C-HTTP name server of Kiuchi appears to teach away from the
`
`claimed DNS: ‘‘In a C-HTTP-based network, instead of DNS, a C-HTTP-based secure,
`
`encrypted name and certification service is used” (Kiuchi, Abstract) and “The DNS
`
`name service is not used for hostname resolution as the original secure name service,
`
`including certification, is used for the C-HTTP-based network” (Kiuchi, pg. 64), the C-
`
`HTTP name server of Kiuchi does in fact teach the same functionality of a service that
`
`returns an IP address for a requested domain name: (a) The client-side proxy sends the
`
`C-HTTP name server “the host specified in a given URL” (Kiuchi, pg. 65) and (b) In
`
`response, the C-HTTP name server “sends the IP address.” (Kiuchi, pg. 65).
`
`Issue 12
`
`Claim 16 is alleged to be obvious over Solana in view of Karr under 35 U. S. C. §
`
`103.
`
`19.
`
`Claim 16 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Solana in
`
`view of Karr. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is adopted.
`
`See pages 12-15 and 18 and Exhibit E-3 of the request, which are hereby incorporated
`
`by reference.
`
`Page 18 of 38
`
`Page 18 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue 13
`
`Claim 17 is alleged to be obvious over Solana in view of Denning under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`20.
`
`Claim 17 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Solana in
`
`view of Denning. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is
`
`adopted. See pages 12-15 and 18 and Exhibit E-3 of the request, which are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`Issue 14
`
`Claims 1 -5, 7 and 18 are alleged to be anticipated by Aziz under 35 U. S. C. §
`
`102(e).
`
`21.
`
`Claims 1-5, 7 and 18 are reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
`
`by Aziz. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is adopted. See
`
`pages 15 and 16 and Exhibit E-4 of the request, which are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`In addition to the citations provided in the request, note also the discussion of a “secure
`
`DNS” in Aziz, column 5, line 61, to column 6, line 22.
`
`Page 19 of 38
`
`Page 19 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue 15
`
`Claim 13 is alleged to be obvious over Aziz in view of Kiuchi under 35 U. S. C. §
`
`1 03.
`
`22.
`
`Claim 13 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz in
`
`view of Kiuchi. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is adopted.
`
`See pages 9, 10, 15 and 16 and Exhibit E-4 of the request, which are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`Issue 16
`
`Claim 6 is alleged to be obvious over Aziz in view of Martin under 35 U. S. C. §
`
`103.
`
`23.
`
`Claim 6 is reiected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz in
`
`view of Martin. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is adopted.
`
`See pages 9, 10 and 17 and Exhibit E-4 of the request, which are hereby incorporated
`
`by reference.
`
`Issue 17
`
`Claim 9 is alleged to be obvious over Aziz in view of Bellovin under 35 U. S. C. §
`
`103.
`
`Page 20 of 38
`
`Page 20 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 19
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`24.
`
`Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aziz in
`
`view of Bellovin. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is
`
`adopted. See pages 9, 10 and 18 and Exhibit E-4 of the request, which are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`Issue 18
`
`Claims 5 and 8 are alleged to be obvious over Aziz in view of Dalton under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`25.
`
`Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Aziz in view of Dalton. The proposed rejection of this claim set forth in the request is
`
`adopted. See pages 9, 10 and 18 and Exhibit E-4 of the request, which are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`Examiner’s Statement of Reasons for Patentability/Confirmation
`
`26.
`
`None of the claims subject to reexamination have been confirmed at this time.
`
`Page 21 of 38
`
`Page 21 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 20
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Response to Submissions by Patent Owner and Requestor
`
`The following is responsive to the arguments presented by patent owner on June
`
`3, 2015 and to the comments filed by requester on July 2, 2015. This response also
`
`relies on comments filed by requester on April 9, 2014.
`
`It is hereby noted: wherever the examiner states that arguments presented on
`
`certain pages of either patent owner’s response or requester’s comments are
`
`convincing and "incorporated herein by reference”, such incorporation by reference
`
`expressly excludes (1) any documents or exhibits (for example, court decisions,
`
`declarations, PTAB decisions, dictionaries, etc. that might be presented by patent owner
`
`or requester) that are not included in the respective grounds of rejection for each of the
`
`Issues presented above, unless explicitly stated by the examiner, (2) any reference to or
`
`arguments directed to claims 10, 11 or 12, and (3) any reference to any other
`
`reexamination proceeding than the '679 proceeding.
`
`On June 3, 2015, patent owner filed a response to the April 3, 2015 ACP. No
`
`claims were amended or canceled. Also submitted were court papers.
`
`On July 2, 2015, requester filed comments.
`
`Each of these has been carefully considered by the examiner.
`
`Page 22 of 38
`
`Page 22 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 21
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Issue 1
`
`27.
`
`Patent owner’s comments directed to Issue 1 appear on pages 1-13 of the
`
`response filed June 3, 2015.
`
`The examiner notes that a client computer is any computer that through network
`
`connections (including buses and proxy devices) accesses services or data made
`
`available by a target computer, which is commonly called a server.
`
`Thus, patent owner’s attempts to distinguish a “client computer” from a "client-
`
`side proxy” or to limit Kuichi's "client computer" to a "user's computer" are unconvincing.
`
`The examiner notes that Kiuchi does not use the claimed terminology “client
`
`computer” or “server computer”. However, Kiuchi does, in fact, teach the claimed client
`
`computer and server computer. Use of the same terminology is not required; In re
`
`Bond, 910 F.2d 831,832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`Given that the proxy (e.g., a computer) serves the client—side, this proxy is a
`
`computer for a client or "a client computer" as broadly as recited.
`
`Also, the specification of the '135 patent does not define or limit the "client
`
`computer" (e.g. client 801, client 901, etc.) so as to exclude the client-side proxy in
`
`Kiuchi. Likewise, the specification of the '135 patent does not define or limit the "server
`
`computer" so as to exclude the server-side proxy in Kiuchi. Thus, the '135 patent
`
`Page 23 of 38
`
`Page 23 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 22
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`disclosure does not exclude a proxy as a part of client computer or a server computer
`
`and does not define either a client computer or a server computer to exclude a proxy.
`
`In response to patent owner’s arguments, the requester presents arguments on
`
`pages 2-7 of the comments filed July 2, 2015. These arguments are fully responsive to
`
`each of the arguments presented by patent owner. These arguments are convincing
`
`and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`The rejections in Issue 1 are maintained.
`
`Issue 2
`
`28.
`
`Patent owner’s comments directed to Issue 2 appear on pages 13 and 14 of the
`
`response filed June 3, 2015.
`
`Patent owner contends that the proposed combination of Kiuchi and Dalton
`
`would not work, arguing that Kiuchi teaches away from an open-access system and
`
`instead teaches a closed network.
`
`The examiner notes that the Kiuchi network is not a physically closed network.
`
`The Kiuchi system is actually implemented on the internet. Kiuchi states, ‘‘In this paper,
`
`we discuss the design and implementation of a closed HTTP (Hypenext Transfer
`
`Protocol)-based network (C-HTTP) which can be built on the lntemet” (see Kiuchi, page
`
`64). Thus, Kiuchi is built on an open platform (the internet) and achieves a "closed"
`
`network by implementing security protocols.
`
`Page 24 of 38
`
`Page 24 of 38
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,679
`
`Page 23
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Regarding the discussion of claim 8, the examiner notes that it was Kiuchi (and
`
`not Dalton) that was cited to teach passing the request to a DNS server.
`
`In response to patent owner’s assertions, the requester presents arguments on
`
`pages 8 and 9 of the comments filed Ju

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