Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`Application Number:
`
`90010416
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Point-to-Point Internet Protocol
`
`Customer Number:
`
`42624
`
`Filer:
`
`Michael Raymond Casey
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`27-NOV-2009
`
`17—FEB—2009
`
`Time Stamp:
`
`16:58:34
`
`Application Type:
`
`Reexam (Third Party)
`
`Payment information:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`File Listing:
`
`Document
`Number
`
`Document Description
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Message Digest
`556594
`
`Information:
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_O2_Web_Security.pdf 4LJU744233B9d33di9dL258iJe7r_-34ddS|J64[8
`iafid
`
`Warnings:
`
`Page 1 of 55
`
`Verizon Exhibit 1023
`
`

`
`2
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_03_ALONCOHEN.pdfT no
`‘34578c7fd6d923478abb785d3£‘ac17761d
`82901.1
`
`6
`
`580490
`
`NPL Documents
`
`228810
`
`be6d/L58709bIb99e535798eI2/l6de67d832
`4J0f0
`
`146074
`
`99bfoaaU491359(|aabb4e9a5b5d1e5U184e
`(113580
`
`NPL D
`
`t
`ocumen s
`
`Exhibit_O6_WebPhoneKi||erAp
`ppdf
`
`4848fdfI8P7h0fi07 3nd §Pfri70838(7f§a4h5
`dcd38
`
`456394
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit,O7,Voca|ChatHistory.
`pdf
`
`1FZ972379L1II1I97726d6I)I)fl.17LL11dLL18L103
`767
`
`556244
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_08_|nternetTe|ephony
`PO_|.Year.pdf
`
`c6f517edf4328aba54c24f7335a(1aeca3d8
`52L5
`
`373169
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_09_Durand_PressRe|ea
`Sepdf
`
`159588
`(adcdd5dd535c29b0f01 81001 bdc3f5f909Z
`6a5rJ
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_10_Computer_Te|epho
`ny.pdf
`
`/5983133033334 I ()9aedb1 2bd4C5('| obedclx
`88635
`
`67848
`
`NPL Documents
`
`533615
`Exhibit_11_NetSpeak_S—1A.pdf (I519038515799365915I')fl96Rfl7§9rI-I7flPh
`d3dIb7
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`
`Information:
`
`Information:
`
`Page 2 of 55
`
`

`
`11
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_12_Motoro|a_PressRe|e
`ase.pdf
`
`5bc5574cb711r:71cZZ36|)a7fc0266926:8d
`162811
`
`no
`
`3
`
`143729
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_13_Motoro|a2.pdf
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_14_NetSpeak_10K.pdf
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_15_Net2Phone_8—K.pd
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_16_MC|.pdf
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_17_NetSpeak_CS.pdf
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_18_How_c|o_|.pc|f
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_19_Penny.pdf
`
`404162
`
`3dadaf9I 67027313711 ab/I 265b6c264a02/1:3
`a89ba
`
`144246
`
`I |(f8d3|)| Iba//( Iaba |19dU/41ee|ba5e)
`6338
`
`170814
`
`362841
`
`0d897704787d9I249e4403Z4IL12d62e452|J
`7rf7h
`
`1107085
`
`3Zc9865c418IaI)280e3d93dcb9a48bf543c
`33343
`
`2719628
`
`6d1 ba9f2-I83119110187/l8db64Sa9r::88c3|)d
`26694
`
`3498198
`
`41 fb.5ZU2(9eCf9a1 e5((eCd93:/dbbiejlce
`7bc
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_20_704_a nd_fa mi|y_re
`Sultspdf
`
`7h 1 hih Keri ¥87§7fiRffl7iI'7fI I IiP§afl1ri8979f
`72d8
`
`531202
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Information:
`
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Information:
`
`Information:
`
`Page 3 of 55
`
`

`
`20
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_21_NetB|OS_Reference
`SWithi704_pdf
`
`b48(9c979c6ad1Cff00d337072b8cC2c2C84
`48LL
`
`no
`
`2
`
`111308
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Information:
`
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`Warnings:
`Information:
`
`NPL Documents
`
`_
`_
`ExhlbIt_22_NetB|OS_Reference
`Spdf
`
`425223
`
`3b870b9(|b80b92a5b18003d9083/l8732fd
`145i6f
`
`NPL Documents
`
`Exhibit_23_Dynamic_|P_Addre
`sses.pdf
`
`(I(lbda9/b/48S(48a4Uac518b/1d5b1)9~U
`bbc/I75
`
`371495
`
`Rule 130,131 or 132 Affidavits
`
`A
`_
`ExhIbIt_01_Ketan_704_Dec|ara
`.
`tIon.pdf
`
`7412403
`
`a04dfi4f1 5 §79(§fifIF8h93(=773fif(0h 1 hPh ‘
`ebbe
`
`Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After
`NOn_Fina| Reject
`
`20091127_cover.pdf
`
`d1UU5d75l-.'5r_'7344r_'3e11Jl1l3L3d1Jdd(91.)1t'L3
`rtI7tI(
`
`20091I27_c|aims.pdf
`
`f0626d-I8I‘22b75defce91195442a91b1813e
`L987
`
`468863
`
`_
`_
`Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made In
`an Amendment
`
`20091 127_remarks.pcIf
`
`0fcbc1H1f/I95288d3/I5cfc97fa80d5f33cd0
`9b4
`
`7153482
`
`Reexam Certificate of Service
`
`20091127_COS.pdf
`
`63994
`
`4091188:/a5a4Ube3Cd1ed $o3d1i2'| 569ILIC
`3c3b9
`
`Page 4 of 55
`
`

`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`Ifa new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date ofthe application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`Ifa timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/E0/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`Ifa new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/R0/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`
`Page 5 of 55
`
`

`
`Exhibit 1
`
`Page 6 of 55
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re PATENT APPLICATION OF:
`
`Attorney Docket:
`
`2655-0188
`
`Net2Phone, Inc. (Patent No. 6,108,704)
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`3992
`
`Control No.:
`
`90/010,416
`
`Examiner: KOSOWSKI, Alexander
`
`Issue Date: August 22, 2000
`Title: POINT-TO-POINT INTERNET
`PROTOCOL
`
`Confirmation No.2
`
`1061
`
`DECLARATION OF KETAN MAYER—PATEL UNDER 37 CPR. 1.132
`
`Hon. Commissioner of Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert witness by Net2Phone, Inc., the assignee of
`
`the patent presently undergoing re-examination (i.c., U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 (hereinafter “the
`
`‘704 patent”)).
`
`2.
`
`I am an expert in the field of networking protocols including networking protocols
`
`supporting multimedia streams including digital audio data. See Curriculum Vitae attached as
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`3.
`
`I received Bachelors of Arts degrees in Computer Science and Economics in 1992, a
`
`Masters of Science in 1997 from the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science and a Ph.D. in 1999 from the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science, all from the University of California, Berkeley.
`
`4.
`
`I received the National Science Foundation CAREER Award in 2003 while an Assistant
`
`Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
`
`5.
`
`I have had extensive experience in both industry and academia as it relates to the
`
`technical fields relevant here. For example, I have been a programmer, a visiting researcher, and
`
`an Assistant and Associate professor.
`
`Page 7 of 55
`
`

`
`Re-Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
`
`6.
`
`I am a co-author of numerous articles that have appeared in a number of refereed
`
`publications and proceedings.
`
`7.
`
`Governmental agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval
`
`Research, have provided funding for my research.
`
`II. RETENTION AND COMPENSATION
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained to offer an expert opinion on the prior art relevant to the ‘704 patent
`
`(and other patents currently under re—examinati0n) and the validity of the claims undergoing re-
`
`examination.
`
`9.
`
`My work on this case is being billed at a rate of $400 per hour, with reimbursement for
`
`actual expenses. My compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of the case.
`
`IIIIIIIIIIII iiITBAsis*oi~‘MY oi>11<I1oN"AN13 MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`10.
`
`In preparation for this report, I have considered and relied on data or other documents
`
`identified in this report. For example, I have reviewed the Office Action dated August 27, 2009
`
`as well as the Request for Re—examination that was filed for the ‘704 patent including the
`
`Exhibits to the Request for Re-examination.
`
`I have also reviewed the file history of the ‘704
`
`patent.
`
`11.
`
`I have familiarized myself with the state of the art at the time the ‘704 patent was filed by
`
`reviewin both atent and non— atent references from rior to the filin date of the a
`g
`P
`P
`P
`8
`P13
`
`lication
`
`that became the ‘704 patent.
`
`12.
`
`My opinions are also based upon my education, training, research, knowledge, and
`
`experience in this technical field.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF MY OPINIONS
`
`13.
`
`Based on my prior experience in the field of computer systems and networking, including
`
`network communication protocols, and based on my review of the documents relating to the
`
`2
`
`Page 8 of 55
`
`

`
`Re—Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer—Patel under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
`
`pending re-examination procccding, I have developed an understanding of the ‘704 patent and
`
`the claimed inventions.
`
`14.
`
`I have been asked to compare the claims of the ‘704 patent to the references applied in
`
`the outstanding Office Action. The results of my comparison are provided below.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the assignee’s response includes the following amendments to the
`
`claims:
`
`10. (Canceled)
`
`l 1. (Amended) In a computer system, a method for establishing a point—to—
`
`point communication link from a caller process to a callee process over a
`
`computer network, the caller process having a user interface and being operatively
`
`connectable to the callee process and a server over the computer network, the
`
`rmethodicomzprising the steps of?
`
`A. providing a user interface element representing a first communication
`
`line;
`
`and
`
`B. providing a user interface element representing a first callee process;
`
`C. establishing a point-to-point communication link from the caller
`
`process to the first callee process, in response to a user associating the element
`
`representing the first callee process with the element representing the first
`
`communication line, |The method of claim 10] wherein step C further comprises
`
`the steps of:
`
`c.1 querying the server as to the on—line status of the first callee [process]
`
`process; and
`
`c.2 receiving a network protocol address of the first callee process over the
`
`computer network from the server.
`
`Page 9 of 55
`
`

`
`Re—Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control N 0.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
`
`12. (Amended) The method of claim [10] Q further comprising the step
`
`D. providing an element representing a second communication line.
`
`14. (Amended) The method of claim [10] 1_l_ further comprising the steps
`
`D. providing a user interface element representing a second callee process;
`
`of:
`
`of:
`
`and
`
`E. establishing a conference point-to-point communication link between
`
`the caller process and the first and second callee process, in response to the user
`
`associating the element representing the second callee process with the element
`
`representing the first communication line.
`
`15T(Ame1ided) The method of claim [10] Q further comprising the step
`
`of:
`
`F. removing the second callee process from the conference point-to-point
`
`communication link in response to the user disassoeiating the element
`
`representing the second callee process from the element representing the first
`
`communication line.
`
`16. (Amended) The method of claim [10] Q further comprising the steps
`
`of:
`
`D. providing a user interface element representing a communication line
`
`having a temporarily disabled status; and
`
`E. temporarily disabling a point-to-point communication link between the
`
`caller process and the first callee process, in response to the user associating the
`
`element representing the first callee process with the element representing the
`
`communication line having a temporarily disabled status.
`
`4
`
`Page 10 of 55
`
`

`
`Re-Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel under 37 CPR. 1.132
`
`19. (Amended) The method of claim [10] ll wherein the caller process
`
`further comprises a visual display and the user interface comprises a graphic user
`
`interface.
`
`21 . (Canceled)
`
`22. (Amended) A computer program product for use with a computer
`
`system comprising:
`
`a computer usable medium having program code embodied in the medium
`
`for establishing a point—to—point communication link from a caller process to a
`
`callee process over a computer network, the caller process having a user interface
`
`and being operativelyconnectable to the callee process and a server over the
`
`computer network, the medium further comprising:
`
`program code for generating an element representing a first
`
`communication line‘
`
`program code for generating an element representing a first callee process;
`
`program code, responsive to a user associating the element representing
`
`the first callee process with the element representing the first communication line,
`
`for establishing a point-to-point communication link from the caller process to the
`
`first callee process, [The computer program product of claim 21] wherein the
`
`program code for establishing a point—to—point communication link further
`
`comprises:
`
`program code for querying the server as to the on-line status of the first
`
`callee process; and
`
`program code for receiving a network protocol address of the first callee
`
`process over the computer network from the server.
`
`5
`
`Page 11 of 55
`
`

`
`Re-Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
`
`23. (Amended) A computer program product of claim [21] 2_2 further
`
`comprising:
`
`program code for generating an element representing a second
`
`communication line.
`
`25. (Amended) The computer program product of claim [21] Q further
`
`comprising:
`
`program code for generating an element representing a second callee
`
`process; and
`
`program code means, responsive to the user associating the element
`
`representing the second callee process with the element representing the first
`
`communication line, for establishing a conference communication link between
`
`the caller process and the first and second callee process.
`
`27. (Amended) The computer program product of claim [21] 2_2 further
`
`comprising:
`
`program code for generating an element representing a communication
`
`line having a temporarily disabled status; and
`
`program code, responsive association of the element representing the first
`
`callee process with the element representing the communication line having a
`
`temporarily disabled status, for temporarily disabling the point-to—point
`
`communication link between the caller process and the first callee process.
`
`30. (Amended) A computer program product of claim [21] 2_2 wherein the
`
`computer system further comprises a visual display and the user interface
`
`comprises a graphic user interface.
`
`Page 12 of 55
`
`

`
`Re—Examination of Patent N0. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`
`February 24, 2009
`Filed:
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel under 37 CPR. 1.132
`
`16.
`
`In general, it is my opinion that all of the pending claims undergoing re-examination (i.e.,
`
`claims 1-7, 11-20 and 22-44) are patentable over the applied references for at least the reasons
`
`set forth below.
`
`The rejection of the claims over NetBlOS, either alone or in combination with at least one other
`
`reference
`
`17.
`
`Claims 43 and 44 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Protocols
`
`for X/Open PC Interworking SMB, Version 2, The Open Group (1992) (hereinafter “NetBlOS”).
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) when an examiner believes
`
`that each and every limitation of the claim is taught by the applied reference.
`
`19.
`
`Pending claims 1-7, 11-20 and 22-42 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious ovefNetBIOS in coiiibination with at least one other reference.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) means that an examiner believes
`
`that although no single reference includes all of the claimed limitations, nonetheless the
`
`combination of references made by the examiner would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
`
`The Rejection of Claims 43 and 44 over NetBIOS
`
`21.
`
`Claim 43 recites “a. program code configured to access a directory database, the database
`
`having a network protocol address for a selected plurality of processes having on-line status with
`
`respect to the computer network, the network protocol address of each respective process
`
`forwarded to the database following connection to the computer network.” This limitation is not
`
`taught by the NetBIOS reference as NetBlOS does not provide dynamic addressing or on-line
`
`status.
`
`22.
`
`In rejecting claim 43, the Office Action adopts the positions of the third-party requester
`
`and states “See claim mapping chart in Exhibit M, pages 36-40, incorporated by reference.”
`
`7
`
`Page 13 of 55
`
`

`
`Re-Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel under 37 CFR. 1.132
`
`With respect to this limitation (a), the claim mapping does not show that NetBIOS teaches “the
`
`network protocol address of each respective process forwarded to the database following
`
`connection to the computer network.” In fact, the Office Action appears to have agreed (e.g.,
`
`with respect to claim 1) that the NetBIOS reference does not teach that the processes receive
`
`network protocol addresses “following connection to the computer network.” The Office Action
`
`did this by rejecting the requester’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and instead adopting
`
`“claim chart mapping utilizing alternative 103 rejections” —- rejections that rely on RFC 1531 to
`
`teach dynamic addressing.
`
`23.
`
`Even assuming that the Office Action intended the rejection to be a rejection under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 by combining NetBIOS with RFC 1531, the rejection would still not show that the
`
`claims were unpatentable. When alleging that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`combined NetBIOS with RFC 1531, the Office Action states “it would have been obvious
`
`to
`
`utilize the limitations taught by RFC 1531 in the invention taught by NetBIOS ...since this
`
`would allow for automatic reuse of an address
`
`and since examiner notes the use of dynamic
`
`IP address assignment in a TCP/IP network are old and well known
`
`and are useful to
`
`eliminate the burdensome task of manually assigning IP addresses for all networked computers.”
`
`24.
`
`I do not agree with the conclusion drawn by the Office Action on the combinability of
`
`NetBIOS and RFC 1531. The Office Action speculates, with hindsight, as to why a person of
`
`ordinary skill might want to combine the two references, but does not acknowledge the problems
`
`that would arise in doing so, and does not provide any prior art that would indicate how the
`
`problems that dynamic addressing would bring into a NetBIOS type system could be resolved by
`
`those of ordinary skill at the time the patent was filed. In the context of point—to—point
`
`communication, widespread use of dynamically assigned addresses does not solve NetBIOS’s
`
`problems, it creates further problems.
`
`25.
`
`Dynamically assigned addresses were known, and the patent in re—examination
`
`specifically states in that regard, “Due to the dynamic nature of temporary IP addresses of some
`
`devices accessing the Internet, point—to—point communications in realtime of Voice and video
`
`8
`
`Page 14 of 55
`
`

`
`Re—Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer—Patel under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
`
`have been generally difficult to attain.” Col. 1, lines 53-56. However, the Office Action has not
`
`shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed combination of
`
`dynamically assigned addresses with NetBIOS.
`
`26.
`
`Section 15.1.7 of the NetBIOS reference (entitled “Consistency of the NBNS Data Base”)
`
`recognizes that the association between a node, a registered name and an IP address is tenuous,
`
`even in an environment that uses static IP addresses. “Even in a properly running NetBIOS
`
`scope the NBNS and its community of end-nodes may occasionally lose synchronization with
`
`respect to the true state of name registrations.” To minimize the impact of this problem, the
`
`reference states, “Various approaches have been incorporated into the NetBIOS—over—TCP
`
`protocols” which it then proceeds to describe.
`
`27.
`
`However, by incorporating DHCP and adopting dynamic address allocation as used by
`
`Internet access providers, the synchronization problem would become more disruptive, not less.
`
`Dynamic addressing would have introduced a new uncertainty to the relationships among the
`
`NBNS and its community of end-nodes and a new set of obstacles to NetBIOS synchronization
`
`that are not addressed by the NetBIOS reference. Consider the case of a node that is turned-off
`
`and then subsequently turned back on, or a node that has simply lost its Internet connection for
`
`some technical reason or whose DHCP lease has expired and then re-established a
`
`connection. In a dynamic addressing environment, such a node would most likely obtain a new
`
`IP address when it was turned back on that was different than the one it had when it registered its
`
`name. This change could lead to any number of node-name-IP address synchronization
`
`problems for the disclosed NetBIOS protocols.
`
`28.
`
`For example, because the NBNS does not know the node’s new address, the NBNS
`
`would be unable to send to the node a Name Release Request or a Name Conflict Demand or
`
`request that the node send it a Name Status Request. Because communication from the node
`
`would be originating at a new address that was not recognized by the NBNS, a node’s response
`
`to a Name Query Request (assuming it somehow knew that its name had been challenged,
`
`perhaps from before it lost network connectivity) would not be recognized. A node would also
`
`9
`
`Page 15 of 55
`
`

`
`Re—Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
`
`be unable to confirm its association with registered names by sending Name Refresh Request
`
`packets to the NBNS.
`
`If a session between two NetBIOS applications were cut-off, re-
`
`establishing the communication would be especially difficult where the ability ofa Called entity
`
`to obtain both its associated name and its associated IP address were in doubt. As a result, the
`
`Office Action has not demonstrated that a solution to the problems created by exposure of
`
`NetBIOS to DHCP and dynamic addressing has been addressed by any of the applied
`
`references.‘
`
`29.
`
`The Office Action also has not identified anything in the cited art that suggests how a
`
`person of ordinary skill is to go about the redesign of NetBIOS and the solving of obstacles to
`
`NetBIOS operation that are created by Internet access; problems that were recognized and left as
`
`warnings unresolved in the NetBIOS reference.2
`
`30.
`
`In view of the foregoing, claim 43 is patentable over NetBIOS alone or over NetBIOS in
`
`combination with RFC 1531:
`
`31.
`
`NetBIOS and RFC 1531 also do not teach “a. program code configured to access a
`
`directory database. . .having a network protocol address for a selected plurality of processes
`
`having on-line status with respect to the computer network.” While NetBIOS uses name
`
`entries with “active” statuses as part of its name management process, an analysis of how that
`
`“active” status is used shows that “an active name” is not synonymous with an “on-line status
`
`with respect to the computer network.” An active name simply refers to a name that has been
`
`1 Besides dynamic addressing, Internet access would pose other challenges to a NetBIOS system. For example,
`because NetBIOS was designed for use on local area networks with small numbers of computers, trust among the
`network participants is assumed. That assumption cannot be transferred to a global Internet made up of unknown,
`and sometimes malevolent, entities. An implementation of NetBIOS on the public Internet would necessitate non-
`trivial adaptations to ensure that its services perform correctly and return accurate information. There is no
`discussion of security issues in the cited references. See Exhibit 2, from
`h_ttp;[m(w3tu/y¢m,1N3schools.cony_S_ite/_s_ite__segurity.asp which instructs Microsoft Windows users whose computers access
`the lnternet to disable NetBIOS over TCP/1P in order to solve their security problems.
`2 The cited references go out of their way to avoid describing how a NetBIOS protocol might work in inter-
`connected network environments that that are less complex than the Internet and that predate DHCP. See Section
`4.6 (“The proposed standard recognizes the need for NetBIOS operation across a set of networks interconnected by
`network (IP) level relays (gateways) However, the standard assumes that this form of operation will be less
`frequent than on the local MAC bridged-LAN.“)
`
`l 0
`
`Page 16 of 55
`
`

`
`Re—Exarnination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
`
`registered and that has not yet been de—registered, independent of whether the associated
`
`computer is or is not on-line. As shown on page 447 (and reproduced below), the Node_Name
`
`entries stored with respect to a NetBIOS Name Server contain a series of fields including the
`
`“ACT” field.
`
`L41
`
`9-4
`
`N
`
`tn
`
`.:«
`
`gm
`
`m
`
`N1
`
`an
`
`r..I
`
`5.‘
`
`pk
`
`Ln
`
`W9.:
`M«A
`f0::
`
` ~e
`«; The KARE
`K1it it:
`
`
`
`
`
`than
`
`tires
`{2}
`11;; zévzleteci.
`
`§¥>§§§§f§‘£E3§
`?%fi
`
`SE6‘?
`
`QRE
`
`’§'E:”:
`
`:3
`
`S
`
`5:.
`
`3
`
`13;.’-3
`
`?wc:%.i.m:~ Name ';¥“:a“
`wet
`Essa «am:
`$25»
`If one {3}
`Caniiiictict
`E“‘l;.a<g;.
`E'lC«‘€I§E¥
`fig in <:{:»'1T.£1i2:*':.
`§a etggigézuz-x Flag.
`}’§
`1:: 213% p:::>z:»::s..-3 of b
`t.‘vfiTt€~.};‘
`E35535
`fifi : B .
`£53
`£3
`zzczscée
`1% a {Vi
`‘.3 2 f:-;z:~:=3<3:s":::¥
`Qzougx §25Ei$!E" §"1e§{.3.
`if
`RE t;%~3::
`-15%...
`
`9
`
`
`
`frat:
`
`fxatuxe ism:
`
`22;: 3;
`
`raw.“-:.§3t.;Ef,:|.§3I
`
`if zerc:
`
`{*3}
`
`them
`
`is:
`
`«:2
`
`?5§‘~IE€.§§1i’ Zifitfiiflfi
`
`§1§l’Ia'Y‘.-“.~
`
`32.
`
`The ACT field is a single bit field (in hit 5) that signifies an “Active Name Flag. All
`
`entries have thisflag set to one (1).” (Emphasis added.) If all name entries have this flag set to
`
`one (1), then the NetBIOS name server cannot be using the Active Name Flag as a means of
`
`separately tracking whether the entity that owns the name is “active,” let alone what its “on-line
`
`status” might be.
`
`1 1
`
`Page 17 of 55
`
`

`
`Re-Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.2 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer—Patel under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
`
`33.
`
`The NetBIOS reference also does not teach that the active status of a name in the
`
`NetBIOS server is an indication of the active status of the owner of that name. To the contrary,
`
`when information about whether the owner of a name is “active” may be relevant, for example
`
`when a new entity seeks to register a name that has already been registered in the NetBIOS name
`
`server, the NetBIOS reference describes an elaborate set of interactions used to test whether the
`
`existing owner of the registered name is active or inactive. It does not rely on the fact that the
`
`name is active in the NetBIOS name server (See Section 15.2.2.2 and 15.2.2.3 entitled “Existing
`
`Name and Owner is Inactive”).
`
`34.
`
`The NetBIOS reference also does not teach that an acquired IP address can be reasonably
`
`relied upon by a requesting end—node to confirm the “on-line status” of an end—node associated
`
`with a sought name. The NetBIOS reference describes at least two different scenarios where a
`
`second end—node sends a rejection response to the first end—node notwithstanding the fact that a
`
`second end—node is connected to the computer network and active with respect to the sought
`
`name. See Section 16.1.1 (“There exists a NetBIOS LISTEN compatible with the incoming call,
`
`but there are inadequate resources to permit establishment of a session. . .The called name does,
`
`in fact, exist on the called node, but there is no pending NetBIOS LISTEN compatible with the
`
`incoming call”). No distinction is made in the reference between the rejection response in these
`
`cases and the rejection response in cases where the called name does not exist on the called end-
`
`node. See also section 16.1.1 which state “In all but the first case, a rejection response is sent
`
`back over the TCP connection to the caller.”
`
`35.
`
`Thus, the limitation “program code configured to access a directory database, the
`
`database having a network protocol address for a selected plurality of processes having on—line
`
`status with respect to the computer network, the network protocol address of each respective
`
`process forwarded to the database following connection to the computer network” of claim 43 is
`
`not taught by the NetBIOS reference alone or in combination with RFC 1531, and I believe that
`
`the patentability of claim 43 should be confirmed.
`
`Page 18 of 55
`
`

`
`Re-Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.2 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer-Patel under 37 C.F.R. 1.132
`
`36.
`
`Claim 44 recites ‘following connection ofthe first process to the computer network
`
`forwarding to the address server a network protocol address at which the first process is
`
`connected to the computer network.” As was discussed above with respect to the recitation of
`
`“the network protocol address of each respective process forwarded to the database following
`
`connection to the computer network” in claim 43, NetBIOS does not teach the claimed dynamic
`
`address assignment. Moreover, it would not have been obvious to combine NetBIOS and RFC
`
`1531 for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 43.
`
`37.
`
`Claim 44 also recites “querying the address server as to whether the second process is
`
`connected to the computer network.” As was discussed above with respect to the recitation of
`
`“processes having on—line status with respect to the computer network” in claim 43, NetBIOS
`
`does not teach that an active name in NetBIOS is synonymous with “whether the second process
`
`is connected to the computer network.” An active name simply refers to a name that has been
`
`registered and that has not yet been de-registered, independent of whether the associated
`
`computer is or is not connected to the computer network. Thus, claim 44 is patentable over both
`
`NetBIOS alone and the combination of NetBIOS and RFC 1531.
`
`Claims 1-7 and 32-42
`
`38.
`
`Claim 1 recites “program code for transmitting to the server a network protocol address
`
`received by the first process following connection to the computer network.” Claim 1 further
`
`recites “program code for receiving a network protocol address of the second process from the
`
`server, when the second process is connected to the computer network.” As was discussed
`
`above with respect to the recitation of “the network protocol address of each respective process
`
`forwarded to the database following connection to the computer network” in claim 43, NetBIOS
`
`does not teach this dynamic address assignment. Further, it would not have been obvious to
`
`combine NetBIOS and RFC 1531 for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 43.
`
`39.
`
`Claim 1 also recites “program code for transmitting, to the server, a query as to whether
`
`the secondprocess is connected to the computer network.” As was discussed above with
`0
`13
`
`Page 19 of 55
`
`

`
`Re-Examination of Patent No. 6,131,121
`Control No.: 90/010,424
`Filed:
`February 24, 2009
`Declaration of Ketan Mayer—Patel under 37 C.F.R. l.l32
`
`respect to the recitation of “processes having on—line status with respect to the computer
`
`networ ” in claim 43, NetBIOS does not teach that an active name in NetBIOS is synonymous
`
`with “Whether the second process is connected to the computer network.” An active name
`
`simply refers to a name that has been registered and that has not yet been de—registered,
`
`independent of whether the associated computer is or is not connected to the computer network.
`
`Thus, claim 1 patentable over the combination ofNetB1OS and RFC 1531.
`
`40.
`
`Claim 2 recites “each network protocol address stored in the memory following
`
`connection ofa respective process to the computer network.” As was discussed above with
`
`respect to the recitation of “the network protocol address of each respective process forwarded to
`
`the database following connection to the computer network” in cla