IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No. 077580-0089
`
`In the Reexamination of:
`
`Edmand Munger, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,502,135
`Filed: February 15, 2000
`Issued: December 31, 2002
`
`For: AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL
`FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS
`WITH ASSURED SYSTEM
`AVAILABILITY
`
`Reexamination Proceeding
`Control No.: 95/001,269
`Filed: December 8, 2009
`
`€\/\/%/%’%€€%%%€€\/\/
`
`Examiner:
`Andrew L. Nalven
`
`Group Art Unit: 3992
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION IN REEXAMINATION
`
`Mail Stop INTER PARTES REEXAM
`Central Reexamination Unit
`
`Office of Patent Legal Administration
`United. States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`The Patent Owner hereby responds to the Office Action dated January 15, 2010 (“the
`
`Office Action”) in the above-identified Reexamination of U.S. Patent Number 6,502,135 (“the
`
`‘135 Patent”) having a period of response set to expire on April 15, 2010,
`
`in view of the
`
`extension of time granted on February 25, 2010.
`
`Remarks being on page 2 of this response; and
`
`Listing of the claims appears in Appendix A.
`
`WDC99 1227392.9.o775so.oos9
`Page 1 0H7
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2011
`
`Apple V. VirnetX
`IPR2016-O03 32
`
`Page 1 of 17
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2011
`Apple v. VirnetX
`IPR2016-00332
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-10, 12, and 18 are under reexamination, with claims 1, 10, and 18 being
`
`independent. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, and 12 stand rejected. Claims 2 and 5 were found not to be
`
`anticipated by the documents cited in the Replacement Request for Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`of Patent (“Request”). Therefore, Patent Owner respectfully requests confirmation of claims 2
`and S at this time.
`
`Claim 18 has been added. Support for claim 18 may be found, for example,
`
`in the
`
`originally issued claims of the ‘I35 Patent at column 47, lines 20-35 and column 47, lines 47-52.
`
`Specifically, claim 18 corresponds to the combination of claims 2 and 5. No new matter has
`been introduced.
`
`Because claim 9 depends fi'om claim 5, which was found not to be anticipated or
`
`otherwise rejected by the cited documents in the Request, it is not understood how claim 9 stands
`
`rejected. Nevertheless, the Patent Owner addresses the rejection as provided below.
`
`1.
`
`Patent 0wner’s Response to the Rejection
`
`A.
`
`Applicable Standard for Rejection Under 35 U.S.'C. § 102(a)
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, and 12 ofthe ‘I35 Patent stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l02(a) as
`
`being anticipated by Aventail Connect v3.1/V2.6 Administrator’s Guide (“Aventail”). That
`
`statutory provision provides that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless - (a) the invention
`
`was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in
`
`this or a foreign country, before the invention thereofby the applicant for patent .
`
`. . .”
`
`With respect to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the MPEP states that “[a] claim is
`
`anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” See MPEP § 2131, citing Verdegaal Bros.
`
`v. Union Oil Col. of Califomia, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The
`
`above-stated rejection, however, fails to meet this standard for the following reasons.
`
`B.
`
`Aventail has not been shown to be prior art under § 102(a)
`
`The Office Action and the Request both fail to demonstrate the actual publication date of
`
`Aventail necessary to establish a primafacie showing that Aventail is prior art. Both the Office
`
`WDC99 l827392~9.077580.0089
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`Page 2 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`Action and the Request assert that Aventail was published between 1996 and 1999 without any
`
`stated support. Request at 5; Office Action at 2. The Patent Owner can only presume that this
`
`assertion arises fi'om the copyright date range printed on the face of the reference. See Aventail
`
`at i. This copyright date range is Q, however, the publication date of Aventail.
`
`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 otherwise made
`
`available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art,
`
`exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.”
`
`In re Wyre, 655 F.2d 221 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
`
`Aventail, on its face, provides “© 1996-1999 Aventail Corporation.” The copyright date does
`
`not meet this standard. Unlike a publication date, a copjgight date merely establishes “the date
`
`that the document was created or printed.” Hilgraeve, Inc. v. éjzmantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d
`
`964, 975 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
`
`Presuming the author of the document accurately represented the date the document was
`
`created, this creation date is not evidence of any sort of publication or dissemination. Without
`
`more, this bald assertion of the creation of the document does not meet the “publication"
`
`standard required for a document to be relied upon as prior art.
`
`Further exacerbating matters is the filing date of the ‘I35 Patent: February 15, 2000.
`
`Suppose the relied upon sections of the Aventail reference were created on December 31, 1999,
`
`and the copyright date range accordingly amended to read “1 996-1999.” Under these
`
`circumstances,
`
`it
`
`is possible that
`
`the document, although created, was not made publicly
`
`available until after the filing date of the ‘135 Patent, six weeks after creation. Under these
`
`circumstances, Aventail clearly would not be eligible to be relied upon as prior art to the ‘135
`Patent.
`
`The party asserting the prior art bears the burden of establishing a date of publication.
`
`See Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding that a mailer did not
`
`qualify as prior art because there was no evidence as to when the mailer was received by any of
`
`the addresses). Yet, neither the Office Action nor the Request even attempt to show that
`
`Aventail was disseminated or made publicly available.
`
`Thus, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Office Action has failed to establish
`
`that Aventail is prior art to the rejected claims. Accordingly, the Patent Owner respectfully
`
`WDC99 1827392-9.077580.0089
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`Page 3 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`requests that the § 102(a) rejection over Aventail be withdrawn, and the rejected claims 1 and 10,
`
`as well as claims 3, 4, 6-9 and 12 depending thereupon, be confirmed.
`
`C.
`
`The Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, and 12 Under 35 U.S.C. § l02(a)
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, and 12 of the ‘135 Patent stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l02(a) as
`
`being anticipated by Aventail. The rejection was based on the reasons given by the Request on
`
`pages 11-17 and Exhibit A and based on additional reasons presented in the Office Action on
`
`pages 4-9. Assuming Aventail qualifies as prior art, the Patent Owner respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection for the following reasons.
`
`1. Aventail has not been shown to teach a virtual private network 1“VPN”[
`
`a) Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 recites a method of transparently creating a 1113 between a client computer and
`
`a target computer. As described below, Aventail fails to teach, either explicitly or inherently, at
`
`least this feature of the claimed invention. The Patent Owner's statements below are supported
`
`by an expert Declaration of Jason Nieh, Ph.D. pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.1.32 (“Nieh Decl.”)
`submitted herewith.
`
`Aventail discloses a system and architecture for transmitting data between two computers
`
`using the SOCKS protocol. Nieh Decl. at 1[ 11. The system routes certain, predefined network
`
`traffic from a WinSock (Windows sockets) application to an extranet (SOCKS) server, possibly
`
`through successive servers. Aventail at 7; Nieh Decl. at 11 11. Upon receipt of the network
`
`traffic, the SOCKS server then transmits the network trafiic to the Internet or external network.
`
`Aventail at 7; Nieh Decl at 1[ 11. Aventail’s disclosure is limited to connections created at the
`
`socket layer of the network architecture. Nieh Decl. at 1[ 11.
`
`In operation, a component of the Aventail Connect software described in the reference
`
`resides between WinSock and the underlying TCP/IP stack. See Aventail at 9; Nieh Decl. at 1]
`
`12. The Aventail Connect soltware intercepts all connection requests fiom the user, and
`
`determines whether each request matches local,’ preset criteria for redirection to a SOCKS server.
`
`See Aventail at 10; Nieh Decl. at 1] 12.
`
`If redirection is appropriate, then Aventail Connect
`
`creates a false DNS entry to return to the requesting application. See Aventail at 12; Nieh Decl.
`
`at 1} 13. Aventail discloses that Aventail Connect then forwards the destination hostname to the
`
`WDC99 1827392-9.077580.0089
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`Page 4 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`extranet SOCK server over a SOCKS connection. See Aventail at 12; Nieh Decl. at 11 13. The
`
`SOCKS server perfomis the hostname resolution. Aventail at 12; Nieh Decl. at ‘II 14. Once the
`
`hostname is resolved, the user can transmit data over a SOCKS connection to the SOCKS sewer.
`
`Nieh Decl. at 1[ 14. The SOCKS server, then, separately relays that transmitted data to the target.
`Nieh Decl. at 1[ 14.
`
`The Request also cites to a “Proxy Chaining” and a “MultiProxy” mode disclosed in
`
`Aventail. Request at 12; Aventail at 68-73.
`
`In the “Proxy Chaining” mode, Aventail indicates
`
`that a user can communicate with a target via a number of proxies such that each proxy server
`
`acts as a client to the next downstream proxy server. Aventail at 68; Nieh Decl. at 1} 16. As
`
`shown below, in this mode, the user does not communicate directly with the proxy servers other
`
`than the one immediately downstream flrom it. Aventail at 68, 72; Nieh Decl. at 11 16.
`
`_ PROXY
`
`Sersanl
`
`3 user so :-em-srz.
`
`
`
`‘
`
`,
`'{:§a;ee*=toilEiigrafilet:
`
`ciao:
`
`_
`{'out'nom:$§ »
`
`Aventail at 72.
`
`In the “MultiProxy” mode, Aventail indicates that the user, via Aventail
`
`Connect, authenticates with each successive proxy server directly. Aventail at 68; Nieh Decl. at
`
`1] 17. Regardless ofthe number ofservers or proxies between the client and target, at least one is
`
`required and the operation of Aventail Connect does not materially differ between the methods.
`Nieh Decl. at 1] 18.
`
`Aventail has not been shown to disclose the VPN claimed in Claim 1 of the ‘135 Patent
`
`for at least three reasons. Nieh Decl. at 1] 19. First, Aventail has not been shown to demonstrate
`
`that computers connected via the Aventail system are able to corrurrunicate with each other as
`
`though they were on the same network.
`
`Id. at 1] 20. Aventail discloses establishing point-to-
`
`WDC99 1827392-9.077580.0089
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`Page 5 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`point SOCKS connections between a client computer and a SOCKS server.
`
`Id. The SOCKS
`
`server then relays data received to the intended target.
`
`Id. Aventail does not disclose a VPN,
`
`where data can be addressed to one or more different computers across the network, regardless of
`
`the location of the computer. Id.
`
`For example, suppose two computers, A and B, reside on a public network.
`
`Id. at 1[ 21.
`
`Further, suppose two computers, X and Y, reside on a private network.
`
`Id. If A establishes a
`
`VPN connection with X and Y’s network to address data to X, and B separately establishes a
`
`VPN connection with X and Y’s network to address data to Y, then A would nevertheless be able
`
`to address data to B, X, and Y without additional set up. Id. This is true because A, B, X, and Y
`
`would all be a part of the same VPN. Id.
`
`In contrast, suppose, according to Aventail, which only discloses communications at the
`
`socket layer, A establishes a SOCKS connection with a SOCKS server for relaying data to X,
`
`and B separately establishes a SOCKS connection with the SOCKS server for relaying data to Y.
`
`Id. at 11 22.
`
`In this situation, not only would A be unable to address data to Y without
`
`establishing a separate SOCKS connection (i.e. a VPN according to the Office Action), but A
`
`would be unable to address data to B over a secure connection. Id. This is one example of how
`
`the cited portions of Aventail fail to disclose a VPN. Id.
`
`Second,
`
`according to Aventail, Aventail Connect’s
`
`fundamental operation is
`
`incompatible with users transmitting data that is sensitive to network information. Id. at 1[ 23.
`
`As stated above, Aventail discloses that Aventail Connect operates between the WinSock and
`
`TCP/IP layers, as depicted on page 9:
`
`WDC99 1827392-9.077$80.0089
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`Page 6 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`Mme-awn ‘1t.'rw' uppiicgwéogn
`(uses. anti‘-er ‘Mrt:‘ss_:t-.k 1 .1, «er
`.
`V\.fl:\Su¢:f_e 2)
`
`
` Aventail -Connect
`
`(Layirruu tzetizicu r-mutant;
`
`
`
`Mu'|i!pl_s LSP~a can
`has hagulegt an we
`ixvssf
`
`Phyas-xtd network
`
`Aventail at 9; id. Because Aventail discloses that Aventail Connect operates between these
`
`layers,
`
`it can intercept DNS requests. Nieh Dec. at 1[ 24. Aventail discloses that Aventail
`
`Connect intercepts certain DNS requests, and returns a false DNS response to the user if the
`
`Id. Accordingly, Aventail
`requested hostname matches a hostname on a user—defmed list.
`discloses that the user will receive false network information from Aventail Connect for these
`
`hostnames.
`
`Id.
`
`If the client computer hopes to transfer to the target data that is sensitive to
`
`network information, Aventail Connect’s falsification of the network information would prevent
`
`the correct transfer of data. Id. at 11 25. Thus, Aventail has not been shown to disclose a VPN.
`Id.
`
`Third, Aventail has not been shown to disclose a VPN because computers connected
`
`according to Aventail do not communicate directly with each other.
`
`Id. at 11 26. Aventail
`
`discloses a system where a client on a public network transmits data to a SOCKS server via a
`
`singular, point—to-point SOCKS connection at the socket layer of the network architecture.
`
`Id.
`
`The SOCKS server then relays that data to a target computer on a private network on which the
`
`SOCKS server also resides.
`
`Id. All communications between the client and target stop and start
`
`at the intermediate SOCKS server. Id. The client carmot open a connection with the target itself.
`
`Therefore, one skilled in the art would not have considered the client and target to be virtually on
`
`the same private network. Id.
`
`Instead, the client computer and target computer are deliberately
`
`separated by the intermediate SOCKS server. Id.
`
`WDC99 1827392-9.0‘I7580.0089
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`Page 7 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`For the reasons stated above, Aventail has not been shown to teach or disclose the
`
`“virtual private network” recited in claim 1.
`
`Id. at 1[ 27. Accordingly, the Patent Owner
`
`respectfiilly requests that claim 1, as well as rejected claims 3, 4, and 6-9 dependent thereupon,
`be confirmed.
`
`b) Claim 10
`
`Independent claim 10 recites “a X1111 between the client computer and the secure target
`
`computer.” (emphasis added).
`
`Id. at 11 28 For at least the reasons stated in Section I.C.1.a.,
`
`above, Aventail similarly has not been shown to teach the invention recited in claim 10.
`
`Id.
`
`Accordingly, the Patent Owner respectfiilly requests that claim 10, as well as rejected claim 12
`
`dependent thereupon, be confirmed.
`
`2. Aventail has not been shown to teach a DNS grog server as in claim 10
`
`Claim 10 also recites a “DNS proxy server” that 1) “returns the IP address for the
`requested domain name if it is determined that access to a non—secure web site has been
`
`
`
`regueste ” and that 2) also “generates a request to create the VPN. .
`
`. if it is determined that
`
`access to a secure web site has been reguested.” (emphasis added).
`
`Id. at 1[ 30. The Office
`
`Action and Request allege that Aventail Connect is the claimed DNS proxy server. Id. at 1[ 31.
`
`Aventail discloses that Aventail Connect intercepts all DNS requests.
`
`Id. at 1] 32.
`
`“If the
`
`hostname matches a local domain string or does not match a redirection rule, Aventail Connect
`
`passes the name resolution query through to the TCP/IP stack on the local workstation. The
`
`TCP/IP stack performs the lookup as if Aventail Connect were not running.” Aventail at 11;
`
`Nieh Decl. at 1[ 32. Thus, Aventail discloses that Aventail Connect does not return the IP address
`
`if the DNS request requests the address for a non-secure web site.
`
`Id. As such, Aventail
`
`Connect is not taught by Aventail to correspond to the DNS proxy server recited in claim 10. Id.
`
`For at least this additional reason, the Patent Owner respectfiilly requests that claim 10,
`
`along with rejected claim 12 that depends thereupon, be confirmed. Id. at 11 33.
`
`WDC99 1827392-9.077580.0089
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`Page 8 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`II.
`
`New Claims
`
`New claim 18 corresponds to the combination of claims 2 and 5, which were found not to
`
`be anticipated or otherwise rejected by the cited documents in the Request. Therefore, the Patent
`
`Owner respectfiilly requests consideration and allowance of claim 18 at this time.
`
`III.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10,
`
`and 12 should be withdrawn. Reconsideration and prompt confirmation of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10,
`
`and 12 are respectfixlly requested. Consideration and allowance of claim 18 is also respectfiilly
`
`requested.
`
`Please charge our Deposit Account No. 501133 any fees or credit any overcharges
`
`relating to this Response.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`/Toby H. Kusmer/
`Toby H. Kusmer, P.C., Reg. No. 26,418
`Matthew E. Leno, Reg. No. 41,149
`Hasan M. Rashid, Reg. No. 62,390
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`Please recognize our Customer No. 23630
`as our correspondence address.
`
`28 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109-1775
`Telephone: (617) 535-4000
`Facsimile: (617)535-3800
`tkusmer@mwe.com
`Date: April 15, 2010
`
`WDC99 1827392-9.0‘I7S80.0089
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`Page 9 of 17
`
`

`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Listing of Claims:
`
`This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in this application:
`
`1.
`
`(Original) A method of transparently creating a virtual private network (VPN)
`
`between a client computer and a target computer, comprising the steps of:
`
`(1) generating from the client computer a Domain Name Service (DNS) request that
`
`requests an IP address corresponding to a domain name associated with the target computer;
`
`(2) determining whether the DNS request transmitted in step (1) is requesting access to a
`
`secure web site; and
`
`(3) in response to determining that the DNS request in step (2) is requesting access to a
`
`secure target web site, automatically initiating the VPN between the client computer and the
`
`target computer.
`
`2.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein steps (2) and (3) are performed at a DNS
`
`server separate from the client computer.
`
`3.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of: (4) in response to
`
`determining that the DNS request in step (2) is not requesting access to a secure target web site,
`
`resolving the IP address for the domain name and returning the IP address to the client computer.
`
`4.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein step (3) comprises the step of, prior to
`
`automatically initiating the VPN between the client computer and the target computer,
`
`determining whether the client computer is authorized to establish a VPN with the target
`
`computer and, if not so authorized, returning an error from the DNS request.
`
`WDC99 1827392-9.0‘77580.0089
`
`Page 10 of17
`
`Page 10 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`5.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein step (3) comprises the step of, prior to
`
`automatically initiating the VPN between the client computer and the target computer,
`
`determining whether the client computer is authorized to resolve addresses of non secure target
`
`computers and, if not so authorized, returning an error from the DNS request.
`
`6. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein step (3) comprises the step of establishing
`
`the VPN by creating an IP address hopping scheme between the client computer and the target
`
`computer.
`
`7.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein step (3) comprises the step of using a
`
`gatekeeper computer that allocates VPN resources for communicating between the client
`
`computer and the target computer.
`
`8.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein step (2) is performed in a DNS proxy
`
`server that passes through the request to a DNS server if it is determined in step (3) that access is
`
`not being requested to a secure target web site.
`
`9. (Original) The method of claim 5, wherein step (3) comprises the step of transmitting
`
`a message to the client computer to determine whether the client computer is authorized to
`
`establish the VPN target computer.
`
`woc99 1s27392.9.o77sso.oos9
`
`1 l
`
`Page 11 of17
`
`Page 11 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`10.
`
`(Original) A system that transparently creates a virtual private network (VPN)
`
`between a client computer and a secure target computer, comprising:
`
`a DNS proxy server that receives a request from the client computer to look up an IP
`
`address for a domain name, wherein the DNS proxy server returns the IP address for the
`
`requested domain name if it
`
`is determined that access to a non-secure web site has been
`
`requested, and wherein the DNS proxy server generates a request to create the VPN between the
`
`client computer and the secure target computer if it is determined that access to a secure web site
`
`has been requested; and
`
`a gatekeeper computer that allocates resources for the VPN between the client computer
`
`and the secure web computer
`
`in response to the request by the DNS proxy server.
`
`11.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the gatekeeper computer creates the
`
`VPN by establishing an IP address hopping regime that is used to pseudorandomly change IP
`
`addresses in packets transmitted between the client computer and the secure target computer.
`
`12.
`
`(Original) The system of claim 10, wherein the gatekeeper computer determines
`
`whether the client computer has sufficient security privileges to create the VPN and, if the client
`
`computer lacks sufficient security privileges, rejecting the request to create the VPN.
`
`13.
`
`(Original) A method of establishing communication between one of a plurality of
`
`client computers and a central computer that maintains a plurality of authentication tables each
`
`corresponding to one of the client computers, the method comprising the steps of.
`
`WDC99 1827392-9.077580.0089
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of17
`
`Page 12 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`(1) in the central computer, receiving from one of the plurality of client computers a
`
`request to establish a connection;
`
`(2) authenticating, with reference to one of the plurality of authentication tables, that the
`
`request received in step (1) is from an authorized client;
`
`(3) responsive to a determination that the request is from an authorized client, allocating
`
`resources to establish a virtual private link between the client and a second computer; and
`
`(4) communicating between the authorized client and the second computer using the
`
`virtual private link.
`
`14.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 13, wherein step (4) comprises the step of
`
`communicating according toua scheme by which at least one field in a series of data packets is
`
`periodically changed according to a known sequence.
`
`15.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 14, wherein step (4) comprises the step of
`
`comparing an Internet Protocol (IP) address in a header of each data packet to a table of valid IP
`
`addresses maintained in a table in the second computer.
`
`16.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 15, wherein step (4) comprises the step of
`
`comparing the IP address in the header of each data packet to a moving window of valid IP
`
`addresses, and rejecting data packets having IP addresses that do not fall within the moving
`
`window.
`
`17.
`
`(Original) The method of claim 13, wherein step (2) comprises the step of using a
`
`woc99 1s27392.9.o77sso.oos9
`
`1 3
`
`Page 13 of17
`
`Page 13 of 17
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,269
`
`checkpoint data structure that maintains synchronization of a periodically changing parameter
`
`known by the central conmuter and the client computer to authenticate the client.
`
`18. (flew) A method of transparently creating a virtual private network (_\[Pfl) between
`
`a client computer and a target computer, comprising the steps of:
`
`1
`
`eneratin from the client co
`
`uter a Domain Name Service DNS re uest that
`
`reguests an IP address corresponding to a domain name associated with the target
`
`co
`
`uter‘
`
`(2) determining whether the DNS rguest transmitted in step (1) is reguesting access to a
`
`secure web site; and
`
`13) in response to detemiining that the DNS rmuest in step (2) is requesting access to a
`
`secure target web site, automatically initiating the VPN between the client computer and
`
`the target computer, wherein:
`
`st
`
`s 2 and 3 are erformed at a DNS server se arate from the client com uter and
`
`step (3) comprises the step of, prior to automatically initiating the VPN between the
`
`client computer and the target cogguter, determining whether the client computer is
`
`authorized to resolve addresses of non secure target computers and, if not so authorized,
`
`returning an error from the DNS rmest.
`
`WDC99 !827392-9.077580.0089
`
`1 4
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`Page 14 of 17
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Attorney Docket No. 077580-0089
`
`In the Reexamination of:
`Edmund Munger, et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 6,502,135
`Filed: February 15, 2000
`Issued: December 31, 2002
`
`For: AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL
`FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS
`WITH ASSURED SYSTEM
`AVAILABILITY
`
`Reexamination Proceeding
`Control No.: 95/001,269
`Filed: December 8, 2009
`
`\r\1\/u/xxx/\/\/sauagasrx/est
`
`Examiner:
`Andrew L. Nalven
`
`Group Art Unit: 3992
`
`QERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the Response to Office Action in Reexamination, filed with
`United States Patent and Trademark Office on April 15, 2010, was served this 15th day of April. 2010 on
`Requester by causing a true copy of same to be deposited as first-class mail for delivery to:
`
`William N. Hughet
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`1425 K Street N.W.
`Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`Respectfully submitted.
`McDERMO'I'I‘ WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`[1 oby fl. Kusnierl
`Toby H. Kusmer, P.C., Reg. No. 26,418
`Matthew E. Leno, Reg. No. 41,149
`Hasan M. Rashid, Reg. No. 62,390
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Please rwognize our Customer No. 23630 as
`our correspondence address.
`
`28 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109-1775
`Telephone: (617) 535-4000
`Facsimile: (617)535-3800
`tkusmer@mwe.com.
`mleno@mwe.com
`hrashid@mwe.com
`Date: April 15, 2010
`BSI99 l647928—l.0Tl580.0089
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`Page 15 of 17
`
`

`
`
`
`T—B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`
`
`ASSURED SYSTEM AVAILABILITY
`
`AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS WITH
`
`
`
` BI
`
`
`a P
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ayment information:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`Document
`Number
`
`Documem Descfipfion
`
`File Size(Bytes)l
`Message Digest
`
`Pages
`Multi
`Part I.zip (if appl.)
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 16 of17
`
`Page 16 of 17
`
`

`
`Multipart DescriptionIPDF files in .zip description
`
`Document Description
`
`Response after non-final action-owner timely
`
`Applicant Argumentslkemarks Made In an Amendment
`
`Information:
`
`Reexam Certificate of Service
`
`Resp_Cert.pdf
`
`5c9IS99ae7G203t5¢b96!:ealcNId713 «
`3.177
`
`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`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.
`
`Ne
`
`i
`
`tio s
`
`d
`
`U.S.C. 111
`
`If a 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 of the application.
`'
`
`flggional Stage gf an International Application under 35 Q.§._C_. 37]
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage ofan international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCTlDOIEOl903 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.
`
`Receiv n Offi
`a
`P
`ew Intern tional A licati n iled with t e
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 1 1 and MPEP 1 810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/ROI1 05) 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 17 of17
`
`Page 17 of 17