throbber
Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VirnetX, Inc. and Science Application International Corp.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 8,868,705
`Issued: October 21, 2014
`Filed: September 13, 2012
`Inventors: Victor Larson, et al.
`Title: AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS
`USING SECURE DOMAIN NAMES
`
`Patent No. 8,850,009
`Issued: September 30, 2014
`Filed: June 6, 2013
`Inventors: Victor Larson, et al.
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD EMPLOYING AN AGILE NETWORK
`PROTOCOL FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS USING SECURE DOMAIN
`NAMES
`Inter Partes Review Nos. IPR2015-00810, IPR2015-00811, IPR2015-00812 and
`IPR2015-00813
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERTO TAMASSIA REGARDING U.S. PATENT
`NOS. 8,868,705 AND 8,850,009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2015
`Apple v. VirnetX
`IPR2016-00332
`
`Page 1 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 1
`
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 1
`
`Compensation and Prior Testimony ...................................................... 3
`
`Information Considered ......................................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ...................................... 4
`
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 7
`
`III. THE ‘705 AND ‘009 PATENTS ................................................................. 12
`
`A.
`
`Effective Filing Dates .......................................................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1. Effective Filing Date of the ’705 Patent .......................................13
`
`2. Effective Filing Date of the ’009 Patent .......................................15
`
`Overview of The ‘705 and ‘009 Patents ............................................. 17
`
`The Prosecution History of The ‘705 and ‘009 Patents ...................... 20
`
`1. The ‘705 Patent .............................................................................20
`
`2. The ‘009 Patent .............................................................................21
`
`D.
`
`Construction of Terms Used in the ’705 and ’009 Patent Claims ...... 22
`
`1. Background on the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ...............22
`
`2. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Terms of the ’705
`Patent .............................................................................................24
`
`a) “intercepting . . . a request” ....................................................24
`
`b) “domain name” .......................................................................25
`
`c) “secure domain name” ............................................................26
`
`d) “provisioning information” ....................................................27
`
`e) “modulated transmission link” / “unmodulated transmission
`link” ........................................................................................29
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 2 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`f) “phone” ...................................................................................31
`
`3. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Terms of the ’009
`Patent .............................................................................................32
`
`a) “domain name service (DNS) request” ..................................32
`
`b) “interception of the DNS request” .........................................33
`
`c) “encrypted communication link” ...........................................33
`
`d) “provisioning information” ....................................................35
`
`e) “secure communications service” ..........................................35
`
`f) “indication” .............................................................................36
`
`g) “virtual private network communication link” ......................38
`
`h) “domain name” .......................................................................39
`
`i) “modulation” ..........................................................................40
`
`E.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 40
`
`IV. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................. 41
`
`A.
`
`COMPUTER NETWORKS ................................................................ 41
`
`j) The OSI Model .......................................................................41
`
`k) The Internet ............................................................................44
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) ......................................................... 45
`
`DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM (DNS) ................................................... 47
`
`D. NETWORK ENCRYPTION............................................................... 50
`
`1. Symmetric Encryption – DES & AES ..........................................51
`
`2. Asymmetric Key Encryption – Public/Private Keys ....................52
`
`3. Key Exchange ...............................................................................53
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE PRIOR ART.............................................. 56
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibits 1009-1011 – The Aventail References ................................. 56
`
`Exhibit 1007 – U.S. Patent 6,496,867 to Beser and Borella ............... 57
`
`Request for Comment (RFC) Publications ......................................... 58
`
`Exhibit 1008 – RFC 2401 .................................................................... 60
`
`Exhibit 1013 – RFC 2543 .................................................................... 60
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 3 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................................... 61
`
`A. Aventail ............................................................................................... 61
`
`1. Overview of Aventail Extranet Center .........................................63
`
`2. Aventail Connect ...........................................................................66
`
`3. Aventail Extranet Server ...............................................................67
`
`4. Aventail Extranet VPN .................................................................71
`
`5. Types of Communication Supported by Aventail ........................76
`
`6. Physical Implementation of the Networks Used by Aventail .......77
`
`7. Security and Encryption in Aventail .............................................78
`
`a) SOCKS v5 ..............................................................................79
`
`b) Authentication Modules .........................................................81
`
`8. Aventail Extranet Center – Operation ...........................................84
`
`a) Step 1 – DNS Query Interception ..........................................90
`
`b) Step 2 – Connection Interception and Setup ..........................98
`
`c) Step 3 – Encrypted Channel Communications .....................106
`
`9. MultiProxy ..................................................................................107
`
`10. Secure Extranet Explorer ............................................................111
`
`11. Domains Names of Hosts on the Private Networks
`Protected by an Aventail Extranet Server ...................................114
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser ................................................... 115
`
`1. Overview of Beser .......................................................................115
`
`2. Basic Components .......................................................................119
`
`d) Originating and Terminating End Devices...........................120
`
`e) First and Second Network Devices ......................................122
`
`f) Trusted-Third-Party Network Device ..................................125
`
`3. IP Tunnel .....................................................................................128
`
`4. Establishing an IP Tunnel ...........................................................129
`
`g) Request Containing A Unique Identifier ..............................130
`
`h) Negotiation of Private IP Addresses ....................................137
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 4 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`C.
`
`RFC 2401, the IPsec Protocol ........................................................... 141
`
`1. Overview of RFC 2401 ...............................................................141
`
`2. Implementing Aventail Using the RFC 2401 Protocol ...............151
`
`3. Incorporating RFC 2401 into the Beser System .........................158
`
`D. U.S. Patent No. 5,237,566 to Brand (Ex. 1012) ................................ 165
`
`1. Overview of Brand ......................................................................165
`
`2. Combination of Aventail and Brand ...........................................166
`
`3. Combination of Beser and Brand ................................................168
`
`E.
`
`RFC 2543, the Session Initiation Protocol ........................................ 169
`
`1. Overview of RFC 2543 ...............................................................169
`
`2. Combining Aventail with RFC 2543 ..........................................170
`
`F.
`
`Additional Prior Art Combinations ................................................... 171
`
`1. Incorporating Beser with RFC 2401 with Brand ........................171
`
`2. Combining Aventail, RFC 2401, and RFC 2543 ........................172
`
`3. Combining Aventail, RFC 2401, and Brand ...............................173
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 5 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Apple Inc. as an expert witness in
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide an opinion
`
`regarding the state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,868,705 (“the ‘705 Patent”) (Exhibit 1001) and 8,850,009 (“the ‘009 Patent”)
`
`(Exhibit 1003). I have been asked to provide a description of various references
`
`that I understand are prior art to these patents and to provide a discussion of the
`
`meaning of certain words and phrases in the claims of these patents.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`I am the Plastech Professor of Computer Science at Brown University.
`
`My research interests include computer security, applied cryptography, analysis,
`
`design, and implementation of algorithms, graph drawing and computational
`
`geometry. I have published six textbooks and more than 240 peer-reviewed
`
`research articles in the above areas. I have given more than 70 invited lectures
`
`worldwide. I am a fellow of ACM, AAAS, and IEEE. I have received a Technical
`
`Achievement Award from the IEEE Computer. I am listed among the 360 most
`
`cited computer science authors worldwide by Thomson Scientific, Institute for
`
`Scientific Information (ISI). My research has been funded by ARO, DARPA,
`
`NATO, NSF, and several industrial sponsors (including Google, Microsoft,
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 6 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`NetApp, and Sun Microsystems). I received my Ph.D. degree in electrical and
`
`computer engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in
`
`1988.
`
`3.
`
`I have extensive research and educational experience in computer and
`
`network security. I have developed and taught graduate and undergraduate
`
`computer security courses at Brown. I have coauthored a widely adopted textbook
`
`on computer security that includes two chapters (over one hundred pages) on
`
`network security, covering topics such as network layers, TCP/IP, DNS, firewalls,
`
`tunneling, and IPsec, wireless networks, and virtual private networks.
`
`4. My research spans a broad range of topics in security and privacy,
`
`including cryptographic foundations, access control, authentication, data security
`
`and privacy, network security, email and web security, database security,
`
`application security, cloud computing security, and the visualization of security.
`
`Also, I have been an early developer of distributed systems that provide client-
`
`server applications over the internet.
`
`5.
`
`I am often invited by the National Science Foundation to evaluate
`
`grant proposals on computer and network security. I am also regularly asked by my
`
`university and by peer institutions to give an opinion on the research in computer
`
`and network security by faculty candidates considered for hiring, tenure and
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 7 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`promotion. Finally, I am routinely serving in the program committees of highly
`
`selective international conferences in computer and network security.
`
`6. My CV is included as an appendix to this report.
`
`C. Compensation and Prior Testimony
`
`7.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $500 per hour for my work in this
`
`matter. I am being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses associated
`
`with my work in this investigation. My compensation is not contingent on the
`
`outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`8. Within the last five years, I have testified by deposition in the matter
`
`of Dustan et al. v. comScore, Inc., a software privacy case where I served as an
`
`expert witness for comScore, Inc.,
`
`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`9. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in Appendix A.
`
`10.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions — including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 8 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`11. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing,
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`12. Certain basic legal principles have been explained to me by counsel
`
`for Apple. Below, I have recorded these legal standards as they were explained to
`
`me.
`
`13. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`14.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`15.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Apple has the burden of proving
`
`that the claims of the ‘705 and ‘009 Patents are anticipated by or obvious from the
`
`prior art by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 9 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it
`
`is not.
`
`16. As I discuss further in the claim construction section below, I
`
`understand that the claims of the ‘705 and ‘009 Patents must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction consistent with the patent specification.
`
`However, I also understand that it is possible that the ‘705 Patent will expire before
`
`the Board in these proceedings issues a final decision, in which case I understand
`
`that it is possible the Board may apply the Phillips standard of claim construction
`
`in that final decision. For this reason, I provide my understanding of that claim
`
`construction standard below. I understand that the claims, after being construed,
`
`are then to be compared to the information in the prior art.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the two legal standards is
`
`set forth below.
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 10 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that the “prior art” includes patents and printed
`
`publications that existed before the earliest filing date (the “effective filing date”)
`
`of the claim in the patent. I also understand that a patent will be prior art if it was
`
`filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, while a printed
`
`publication will be prior art if it was publicly available before that date.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`
`claim limitations that are not expressly described in a prior art reference may still
`
`be there if they are “inherent” to the thing or process being described in the prior
`
`art. For example, an indication in a prior art reference that a particular process
`
`complies with a published standard would indicate that the process must inherently
`
`perform certain steps or use certain data structures that are necessary to comply
`
`with the published standard.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that if a reference incorporates other documents by
`
`reference, the incorporating reference and the incorporated reference(s) should be
`
`treated as a single prior art reference for purposes of analyzing anticipation.
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 11 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`23.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to consider evidence other than the
`
`information in a particular prior art document to determine if a feature is
`
`necessarily present in or inherently described by that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`26. 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.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 12 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
` The scope and content of the prior art;
`
` The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
` The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
` Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`29.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`30.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by those in the field; the taking
`
`of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that any of this
`
`evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than being
`
`associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 13 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`
`31.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`art.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yielded unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 14 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), where the Court rejected the previous
`
`requirement of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements
`
`of prior art for purposes of an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding
`
`obviousness. It is my understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that
`
`would have been known to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or
`
`derived from the nature of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why
`
`references would have been combined.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 15 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`same problem. I understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by
`
`common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches
`
`that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being
`
`described in a reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it
`
`multiple times, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`as of the effective filing date and can provide a reason for combining the elements
`
`of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does not need
`
`to be directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the patent.
`
`Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed
`
`towards solving the same problem.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or leads away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made).
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 16 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`38.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`39.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical
`
`grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a
`
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a
`
`particular combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was obvious to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`III. THE ‘705 AND ‘009 PATENTS
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 17 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`A. Effective Filing Dates
`
`1.
`
`Effective Filing Date of the ’705 Patent
`
`40.
`
`I have been informed that the ’705 Patent issued from U.S.
`
`Application No. 13/615,557, which was filed on September 13, 2012. I have
`
`further been informed that the ’557 application is a continuation of Application No.
`
`13/049,552 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,572,247), which is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 11/840,560 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,921,211), which is a
`
`continuation of Application No. 10/714,849 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504),
`
`which is a continuation of Application No. 09/558,210, filed April 26, 2000, and
`
`now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. of 09/504,783,
`
`filed on February 15, 2000 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135), which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of Application No. 09/429,643, filed on October 29, 1999
`
`(issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,010,604). The ’210, ’783 and ’643 applications also
`
`claim priority to 60/106,261, filed October 30, 1998 and 60/137,704, filed June 7,
`
`1998.
`
`41. Based on my review of these applications, I believe the two
`
`independent claims of the ‘705 patent (claims 1 and 21) rely on information that
`
`was first included in the ’783 application. I therefore understand that the priority
`
`date for these claims is the date that application was filed, namely: February 15,
`
`2000. Because all of the other claims in the patent are dependent claims that rely
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 18 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`on claims 1 and 21, and because I have been informed that a patent claim cannot
`
`claim an earlier priority date than a claim from which that claim “depends,” it is
`
`my understanding that the priority date for all of the claims of the ‘705 patent is
`
`February 15, 2000.
`
`42. For example, I note that claim 1 of the ’705 patent requires
`
`“intercepting … a request to look up an Internet Protocol (IP) address
`
`corresponding to a domain name,” while claim 21 specifies “[a] system …
`
`including … a server configuration arranged to: intercept … a request to look up
`
`an Internet Protocol (IP) address corresponding to a domain name … .” Based on
`
`my review of the documents, no application filed prior to the ’783 application
`
`mentions the term “domain name” or otherwise provides a description of the
`
`techniques that appear in the ’705 patent claims.
`
`43.
`
`I also have been informed (and reviewed documents that show that) in
`
`proceedings involving related patents (the ’135, ’504, ’151, ’211, ’274 and ’697
`
`patents), the Patent Owner has not disputed that claims including the words
`
`“domain name” have an effective filing date of at least February 15, 2000. See,
`
`e.g., Patent Owner Preliminary Oppositions in IPR2013-00348, -00349, -00354, -
`
`00375 to -00378, -00393, -00394, -00397, and -00398, as well as IPR2014-00237,
`
`-00238, -00403, -00404, and -00610; see also Inter Partes Reexamination Nos.
`
`95/001,682, 95/001,679, 95/001,697, 95/001,714, 95/001,788, and 95/001,789.
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1005
`
`Page 19 of 183
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,868,705 and 8,850,009
`
`44. Thus, the effective filing date of the ’705 patent claims is not earlier
`
`than February 15, 2000.

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