UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and '11-aiunark Ofliec
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.C|.Box 1450
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`www.usp1.0.gav
`
`APPLICA'I'l0N NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTCIR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION ND.
`
`95IO0l.78B
`
`1DI1BI20l1
`
`Victor I_.m-son
`
`077580-0146
`
`5823
`
` AMINm
`I5r27.r2u4
`7590
`2:352
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER T_j_j._.:
`LLP
`FOSTER, ROLAND G
`901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
`
`3992
`
`Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`!
`
`MAIL DATE
`05/27/2014
`
`I
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`PAPER
`
`PT0Lr9oA (Rev. mm)
`
`EXHIBIT 1003
`
`Black Swamp IP, LLC V. VirnetX, Inc
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504
`
`

`
`.
`
`.
`
`..
`
`IN .
`
`P
`
`U (1
`
`R
`
`'
`
`'
`
`95.l'00_1,788
`
`LARSQN ET AL.
`
`ROLAND FOSTER
`
`3992
`
`
`
`Requester
`
`— The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`%(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS) —:|
`
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`2001 Floss Avenue, Suite 3600
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`in the above-identified reexamination prceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this communication,
`the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file written comments within a
`period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's response. This 30-day time period is
`statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot be extended. See also 37 CFFI 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no responsive
`submission by any ex pane third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2070 (Rev. 07-04)
`
`Paper No. 20140520
`
`

`
`Control No.
`
`951001 ,7BB
`Examiner
`
`ROLAND FOSTER
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`LARSON ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`— The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. -
`
`Responsive to the cornmunication(s) filed by:
`
`Patent Owner on 16 December 2012
`
`
`Right of Appeal Notice
`(37 CFR 1.953)
`
`
`
`
`
`Third Party(ies) on 23 January, 2013
`
`
`
`Patent owner and/or third party requester(s) may file a notice of appeal with respect to any adverse decision
`with payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 41 .20(b)( 1) within one-month or thirty-days (whichever is
`longer). See MPEP 2671. In addition, a party may file a notice of cross appeal and pay the 37 CFR
`41 .20(b)(1) fee within fourteen days of service of an opposing party's timely filed notice of appeal. See
`MPEP 2672.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` [I will be entered
`
`The proposed amendment filed __
` *Reasons for non-entry are given in the body of this notice.
`
`
`1a. IZI Claims 1-60 are subject to reexamination.
`1b. I] Claims __ are not subject to reexamination.
`2. [I Claims __ have been cancelled.
`3. El Claims _ are confirmed. [Unamended patent claims].
`4. I] Claims _ are patentable. [Amended or new claims].
`5. El Claims @ are rejected.
`6. E] Claims _ are objected to.
`E] are not acceptable.
`7. [I The drawings filed on _ I:I are acceptable.
`8. CI The drawing correction request filed on __ is El approved.
`[:1 disapproved.
`9. El acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f). The certified copy
`[I been received.
`l:I not been received.
`I:I been filed in Application/Control No. _
`10.I:I Other 1
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`If no party timely files a notice of appeal, prosecution on the merits of this reexamination proceeding will be
`concluded, and the Director of the USPTO will proceed to issue and publish a certificate under 37 CFR 1.997 in
`accordance with this Office action.
`
`I] will not be entered*
`
`as:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attachments
`1.
`|:l Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892
`2. El Information Disclosure Citation, PTOISB/08
`3. I:|__
`
`U_S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2066 cos-cs)
`
`Right or Appeal Notice (31 cr=n 1.953)
`
`Part of Paper No. 20140520
`
`

`
`ApplicationIControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RIGHT OF APPEAL NOTICE
`
`L
`
`Introduction
`
`This Office action addresses claims 1-60 of United States Patent No. 7,418,504 B2 (the
`
`"Larson" patent), for which reexamination was granted in the Order Granting Inter Partes
`
`Reexamination (hereafter the "Order"), mailed December 29, 2011 in response to a Request for
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination, filed October 18, 2011 (the "Request").
`
`An Action Closing Prosecution ("ACP") mailed September 26, 2012 rejected all original
`
`claims 1-60 of the Larson patent.
`
`The patent owner responded by filing arguments and associated evidence on December
`
`26, 2012 (the "Response").
`
`The third party requester responded by filing Comments on the Patent Owner's Response
`
`on January 23, 2013 (the "Comments").
`
`The patent owner also filed a supplemental declaration of Angelos D. Keromytis, Ph.D
`
`on December 26, 2012 (the "Supplemental Keromytis Declaration"), which is entered into the
`
`record and considered in this Office action in accordance with the Petition Decision mailed
`
`February 27, 2014. As indicated in the prior Right of Appeal Notice (page 3), the Examiner
`
`previously reviewed the Supplemental Keromytis Declaration. Because this Declaration is now
`
`

`
`App1icationlControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`of record, the Examiner's prior review of the Supplemental Keromytis Declaration is made
`
`explicit in this Office action.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The examiner has fully considered the arguments and evidence of record provided in the
`
`patent owner's Response, the third party requester's Comments, and the Supplemental Keromytis
`
`Declaration. Based on consideration of the entire record, the third party requester's arguments
`
`and evidence are deemed more persuasive. See the "Response to Arguments" section for further
`
`explanation. All prior rejections are maintained. Accordingly, this Office action is made a Right
`
`of Appeal Notice, which is a final Office action. See MPEP § 2673.01, .02. See also the
`
`“conclusion” section to this Office action.
`
`Submissions after the Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)
`
`Said Response, Comments and Supplemental Keromytis Declaration (which was
`
`previously reviewed) were submitted after the ACP, all of which have been entered for the
`
`reasons discussed above.
`
`

`
`App1icationlContr01 Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`A
`
`2.A.
`
`Final Decisions
`
`Final Decisions Regarding Patentability — Right of Appeal
`
`37 CFR § 1.953 states regarding the Examiner’s Right of Appeal Notice in an interpartes
`
`reexamination:
`
`(C) The Right of Appeal Notice shall be u final action, which comprises a final rejection setting
`forth each ground of rejection and for final decision favorable to patentability including each
`determination not to make a proposed rejection, an identification of the status of each claim, and
`the reasons for decisions favorable to patentability and for the grounds of rejection for each
`claim....
`
`35 U.S.C. 315, in turn, states regarding an appeal from an inter partes reexamination:
`
`(a) PATENT OWNER. — The patent owner involved in an inter partes reexamination
`proceeding under this chapter —
`(1)
`may appeal under the provisions of section l34...with respect to any decision
`adverse to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of
`the patent; and
`may be a party to any appeal taken by a third-party requester under subsection
`(b)-
`(b) THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER. — A third-party requester —
`(1)
`may appeal under the provisions of section 134...with respect to any final
`decision favorable to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or
`new claim of the patent....
`
`(2)
`
`2.13.
`
`Final Decision Favorable to Patentability
`(Determinations NOT to Adopt the Proposed Rejections)
`
`There are no final decisions favorable to patentability.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`2C.
`
`Final Decision Unfavorable to Patentability
`(Determinations to Adopt the Proposed Rejections)
`
`A total of ten references, in certain combinations, have been asserted in the Request as
`
`providing teachings relevant to the claims of the Larson patent.
`
`Solana, E. et al., “Flexible Internet Secure Transactions Based on Collaborative
`Domains,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1361, at 37-5] (1997), attached to
`the Request as Exhibit X1 (“Solana”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,557,037 to Provino, attached to the Request as Exhibit X2 (“Provino”).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser, attached to the Request as Exhibit X3 (“Beser”).
`
`Atkinson, R., IETF RFC 2230, “Key Exchange Delegation Record for the DNS,”
`November 1997, attached to the Request as Exhibit X4 (“RFC 2230”).
`
`Eastlake, D. et al., IETF RFC 2538, “Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System
`(DNS),” March 1999, attached to the Request as Exhibit X5 (“RFC 2538”).
`
`Kent, S. et al., IETF RFC 2401, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,”
`November 1998, attached to the Request as Exhibit X6 (“RFC 2401”).
`
`Eastlake, D. et al., IETF RFC 2064, “Domain Name System Security Extensions,”
`January 1997, attached to the Request as Exhibit X7 (“RFC 2065”).
`
`Postel, J. eta1., IETF RFC 920, “Domain Requirements,” October 1984, attached to the
`Request as Exhibit X8 (“RFC 920").
`
`Guttman, E. et al., IETF RFC 2504, “Users’ Security Handbook,” February 1999,
`attached to the Request as Exhibit X9 (“RFC 2504”).
`
`Reed, M. et al., “Proxies for Anonymous Routing,” 12"“ Annual Computer Security
`Applications Conference, Sand Diego, CA (December 9-13, 1996), attached to the
`Request as Exhibit X10 (“Reed”).
`
`The third party requester also cited six prior art patents and printed publications to
`
`demonstrate the knowledge in the field of the invention.
`
`

`
`ApplicationlControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Goldschlag et al., “Hiding Routing Information,” Workshop on Information Hiding,
`Cambridge, UK, May 1996, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y1 (“Goldschlag”).
`
`Mockapetris, P., RFC 1035, “Domain Names — Implementation and Specification,”
`November 1987, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y2 (“RFC l035”).
`
`Braken, R., RFC 1123, “Requirements for Internet Hosts — Application and Support,”
`October 1989, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y3 (“RFC 1123”).
`
`Atkinson, R., RFC 1825, “Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol,” August 1995,
`attached to the Request as Exhibit Y4 (“RFC 1825").
`
`Housley, R. et al., RFC 2459, “Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
`CRL profile,” January 1999, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y5 (”RFC 2459”).
`
`Mockapetris, P., RFC 1034, “Domain Names — Concepts and Facilities,” November
`1987, attached to the Request as Exhibit Y4 (“RFC 1034'’).
`
`2D.
`
`Summary Regarding Those Proposed Rejections Adopted by the Examiner
`
`The rejections identified in Issues 1-35 are adopted because the stated combinations
`
`establish a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail with respect to at least one of the
`
`claims 1-60 in the Larson patent, as explained in said Order.
`
`2.E.
`
`Entitlement to the Benefit of an Earlier Filing Date
`
`Some of the references cited are intervening art. MPEP 2617. Requestor asserts that the
`
`instant claims are not entitled to the earliest filing date of October 30, 1998, the filing date of the
`
`oldest parent, provisional application. The examiner agrees. U.S. Patent No. 7,010,604, which
`
`issued from parent application 09/429,643, and which was filed Oct. 29, 1999, fails to explicitly
`
`recite nor imply the phrase “domain name service” present in all independent claims in the
`
`

`
`ApplicationIControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`Larson patent for which reexamination is now sought. Indeed, the 7,010,604 patent does not
`
`appear to even be directed to services similar to domain name lookup. The patent thus neither
`
`provides written description support nor enables the subject matter recited in claims 1-60 of the
`
`Larson patent. Accordingly, the Larson patent is not entitled to the benefit of the 7,010,604
`
`patent filing date. The effective filing date for claims 1-60 is no earlier than the filing date of the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135, which issued from parent application 09/504,783.
`
`2.F.
`
`Rejections Based upon Solana (Issues 1-8)
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or
`on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l02(b) as being
`
`anticipated by Solana.
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. lO3(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained through 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.
`
`

`
`ApplicationIControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 3'7, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. lO3(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable over Solana as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 32 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of
`
`Beser.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. lO3(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2504.
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 3'7, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2504, and further in view of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable over Solana as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of RFC 2504,
`
`and further in view of Reed.
`
`

`
`ApplicationlControl Number: 95/001 ,"/'88
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`Claims '7, 32 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of
`
`RFC 2504, and further in view of Beser.
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 14-116 of the
`
`Request and Exhibits Cl and C2 (claim charts), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`2.G. Rejections Based upon Provino (Issues 9-20)
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC § 102
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed
`in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) apatent granted on an application for
`patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an
`international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this
`subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United
`States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated
`
`by Provino.
`
`

`
`App1icationlControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 3'7, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Provino as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Solana as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view
`
`of Beser.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2230.
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2230, and further in View of RFC 920.
`
`

`
`ApplicationlControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 1 1
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable over Provino as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further view of RFC 2230, and
`
`further in view of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view
`
`of RFC 2230, and further in view of Beser.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2504.
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 2504, and further in view of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable over Provino as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further view of RFC 2504, and
`
`further in view of Reed.
`
`

`
`ApplicationIControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`Claims 7, 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Provino as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view
`
`of RFC 2504, and further in view of Beser.
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 117-223 of the
`
`Request and Exhibits C3, C4 and C5 (claim charts), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`2.H. Rejections Based upon Beser (Issues 21-24)
`
`Claim Rejections -35 USC § 102
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by
`
`Beser.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Beser as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in View of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Beser as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of RFC 2401.
`
`

`
`ApplicationlControl Number: 95I001,788
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beser as
`
`applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further view of RFC 2401, and
`
`further in view of Reed.
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 224-275 of the
`
`Request and Exhibit C6 (claim chart), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`2.].
`
`Rejections Based upon RFC 2230 (Issues 25-29)
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 14-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l02(b) as being anticipated by
`
`RFC 2230.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 2-5, 24, 25, 37, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over RFC 2230 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and
`
`further in view of RFC 920.
`
`Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC
`
`2230 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of RFC
`
`2401.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. lO3(a) as being unpatentable over RFC 2230
`
`as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further view of RFC 2401,
`
`and further in view of Reed.
`
`Claims 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over
`
`RFC 2230 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of
`
`RFC 2230, and further in view of Beser.
`
`Incorporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 276-321 of the
`
`Request and Exhibit C7 (claim chart), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`2.J.
`
`Rejections Based upon RFC 2538 (Issues 30-35)
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in
`this or a foieign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 14-22, 24-46, 48-52 and 57-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l02(a) as
`
`being anticipated by RFC 2538.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`Claims 3, 4, 24, 25, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over RFC 2538 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in
`
`view of RFC 920.
`
`

`
`ApplicationlControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC
`
`2538 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of RFC
`
`2401.
`
`Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC 2538
`
`as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further view of RFC 2401,
`
`and further in view of Reed.
`
`Claims 7, 29-32 and 53-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. l03(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over RFC 2538 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in
`
`view of Beser.
`
`Claims 5, 23 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over RFC
`
`2538 as applied to the respective, parent claims above (if applicable), and further in view of RFC
`
`2065.
`
`Incogporation by Reference
`
`Thus, the third party requester proposed rejection of claims 1-60 on pages 322—364 of the
`
`Request and Exhibit C8 (claim chart), are adopted and incorporated by reference.
`
`

`
`ApplicationIControl Number: 95/001,788
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`;
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Page 16
`
`The examiner has considered the arguments and evidence of record provided in both the
`
`patent owner's Response, in the third party requester's Comments, and in the Supplemental
`
`Keromytis Declaration. Based on consideration of the entire record, the third party requester's
`
`arguments and evidence are deemed more persuasive.
`
`The patent owner appears to have presented new arguments in the Response while
`
`dropping other arguments first presented in response to the ACP. The reader of this RAN is
`
`requested to consult the prosecution history, including the ACP, if “older” arguments are again
`
`presented in the patent owner's Brief, should one be filed.
`
`3.1.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`Claim 1, which is representative, broadly recites (emphasis added):
`
`A system for providing a domain name service for establishing a secure
`communication link, the system comprising:
`
`a domain name service system configured to be connected to a communication network, to store
`a plurality of domain names and corresponding network addresses, to receive a query for a
`network address, and to comprise an indication that the domain name service system
`supports establishing a secure communication link.
`
`Thus, claim 1 recites a domain name service (“DNS”) “system” and not a particular
`
`computer device or structural configuration, such as a single secure DNS server. Such an
`
`interpretation is consistent with the specification of the patent under reexamination, see, e.g., col.
`
`40, 11. 35-48, where the DNS system is implemented using gatekeeper 2603, DNS proxy 2610
`
`

`
`ApplicationIControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`and DNS server 2609. The examiner agrees with the requester, who notes the “DNS system
`
`according to the claims can be distributed across multiple computer systems. . . .” Fratto
`
`Declaration, June 25, 2012, paragraph 30. Thus, the DNS system is reasonably interpreted as
`
`comprising a single device or multiple devices.
`
`The patent owner characterizes the invention as a special and separate DNS device that
`
`traps DNS queries, determines whether the query is from a “special type of user,” and then
`
`actively assists in the creation of a virtual private network ("VPN") link. See the original
`
`Declaration of Angelos D. Keromytis, Ph.D., filed on March 29, 2012 (the original “Keromytis”
`
`declaration), 11 17-19.
`
`Regarding whether the DNS device(s) are a separate device, as discussed above, the
`
`claims do not recite a particular special DNS device, much less a device physically separate from
`
`a conventional DNS server, which is also consistent with the specification of the patent under
`
`reexamination. Indeed in one embodiment, the patent owner states "It will be appreciated that
`
`the functions of DNS proxy 2610 and DNS server 2609 can be combined into a single server for
`
`convenience." (Col. 40, 11. 43-45) (emphasis added).
`
`In view of the above, the claimed DNS “system” is interpreted reasonably broad
`
`consistent with the specification to comprise a single device (e.g., a DNS server) or various
`
`combinations of multiple devices (e.g., a DNS server and other DNS devices) (e.g., a DNS
`
`server, a DNS proxy) (e.g., a DNS server, a DNS proxy, and other DNS devices).
`
`

`
`ApplicationlContro1 Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`Regarding whether the DNS system determines the query is from a special user and then
`
`actively assists in the establishment of a VPN, the patent owner asserts the special DNS server
`
`2602 (Fig. 26) in the patent under reexamination differs from a conventional DNS server in that
`
`“DNS proxy 2610 [part of DNS server 2602]. .. determines whether the computer 2601 is
`
`authorized to access the site” and, if so, "transmits a message to gatekeeper 2603 to facilitate the
`
`creation of a VPN link between computer 2601 and secure target site 2604”. Original Keromytis
`
`Declaration, paragraph 18. “DNS proxy 2610 then responds to the computer’s 260] DNS
`
`request with an address received from the gatekeeper 2604.” Id. That is, rather than
`
`conventionally returning a public key to the initiator (e.g., computer 260]) so that the target and
`
`the initiator can establish a VPN, the special DNS server authenticates the request, then relies
`
`upon the services of a gatekeeper to receive an address (e.g., a “hopblock” address, col. Col. 40,
`
`11. 15-25) that the DNS server then provides to the initiator so that the initiator and target can
`
`establish a VPN. See also the original Keromytis Declaration, ‘ll 19.
`
`The claims however do not recite a DNS “server” (as previously discussed) much less a
`
`DNS server that authenticates a user and relies upon the services of a gatekeeper, which is also
`
`consistent with the specification.
`
`Indeed in one embodiment, the patent owner states the DNS
`
`server (SDNS 3319) is queried “in the clear” (without using a VPN link) and without
`
`authenticating the user. Col. 51, 11. 48-61. The server then replies flag the use of a
`
`gatekeeper 3314 “in the clear” so that the initiator and the target can establish a VPN. Id.
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 19
`
`In view of the above, the claimed DNS system is interpreted reasonably broad consistent
`
`with the specification has n_ot requiring a DNS server capable of authenticating the user and n_or‘.
`
`requiring the services of a gatekeeper to aid in the establishment of a VPN.
`
`The district court in related litigation interpreted “indication” as having no special
`
`meaning in view of the specification of the patent under reexamination and indeed the
`
`specification does not use this term specifically. Thus, the term may be construed broadly to
`
`mean a visible message or signal to a user that the DNS system supports establishing a secure
`
`communication link. Markman Claim Construction Order, April 25, 2012, p. 27, Virtnetx Inc. v.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 6: 10-CV-417, District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Attached as Ex. A. to the Comments on the Action Closing Prosecution, filed September 20,
`
`2012.
`
`Moreover, the Larson patent under reexamination states:
`
`Preferably, a user enables a secure communication link using a single click of a mouse, or a
`corresponding minimal input from another input device such as a keystroke entered on a
`keyboard or a click entered through a trackball. Alternatively, the secure link is automatically
`established as a default setting at boot-up of the computer (i.e., no click).
`
`Col. 49, 11. 6-12.
`
`Thus, the “specification envisions alternative methods of activating a secure
`
`communication link other than clicking a hyperlink, which is necessarily visible...Neither the
`
`specification nor the claim language provides a basis for limiting ‘indicating’ to a visual
`
`

`
`ApplicationlControl Number: 95/001,788
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 20
`
`indicator." (Markman at 27).
`
`Indeed, the Larson patent discloses an embodiment (quoted
`
`above), where the secure link is "automatically established as a default setting at boot-up of the
`
`computer...." (Col. 49, 11. 6-12). In such an embodiment, it would be reasonable to interpret the
`
`“indication” (that the DNS among other systems associated with the computer supports
`
`establishing a secure communication link) to read on the ability of the user to communicate using
`
`a secure link after boot-up. If the user attempts to establish a secure communication link using a
`
`DNS system after booting and is able to do so, then the user has been provided a broadly recited
`
`and discernible "indication" that the DNS in some manner supports establishing a
`
`communication link.
`
`Finally, the recited phrase “and to” means the “indication” is not explicitly tied to the
`
`“query for a network address” in any way other than that they are both part of a “system for
`
`providing a domain name service.” Thus, the claims encompass a DNS system conventionally
`
`queried for a network address, where an unrelated “indication” of secure communication support
`
`is provided. That is, the claimed “indication” need not relate to the claimed “query” because the
`
`claim imposes no such requirement. The patent under reexamination not surprisingly discloses
`
`such a scenario. In "Scenario #3”, the DNS system is conventionally queried for a network
`
`address based on a uniform resource locator (URL) in order to establish an unsecured
`
`connection. Col. 41, 11. 41-49. In Scenario #1,” a subfluent, different request would result in
`
`an indication of secure communication (establishment of a VPN). Col. 41, 11. 23-32. The patent
`
`under reexamination also discloses an embodiment where the “indication” is only indirectly
`
`related to the original DNS query. A non—secure connection using a conventional DNS query i