IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 7,418,504
`
`In re Patent of: Larson et al.
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 213.7001-00000
`
`Issue Date: August 26, 2008
`
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/714,849
`
`Filing Date: November 18, 2003
`
`Title: AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR SECURE COMMUNICATIONS
`USING SECURE DOMAIN NAMES
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P .0. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,418,504
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 213. 7001-00000
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`
`§ 42.8(a)(l ) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`2
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(l) ..............................
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`........................................
`
`2
`
`
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b )(3) .................... 4
`
`. . .. ..........
`.............. .......... ............ ....................
`D. Service Information
`
`. . . ... .. .. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`II. FEE PAYMENT - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ......................................................... 4
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §
`4
`42.104 . ...........................................................................................................
`
`
`
`
`
`4 A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..............................
`
`
`B. Identification
`
`5 ....................... of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`5 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.IOO(b) ...................................
`
`........... .. 6
`1. Meaning of Term "Domain Name Service System."
`
`.......
`
`............. ..... .....................
`2. Meaning of Term "Indication"
`
`...............
`
`7
`
`
`
`3. Meaning of Term "Secure Communication Link."
`
`...........
`
`.......... 10
`
`4. Meaning of Term "Transparently."
`
`...............................
`
`.............. 12
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE '504 PATENT . . . ............... .....................
`
`...........
`
`....... 13
`
`
`
`A. Disclosure of the '504 Patent.
`
`...........................................
`
`..........
`
`.......... 13
`
`B. Effective Filing Date of the '504 Patent..
`
`......................
`
`........
`
`. . . . .
`
`.......... 13
`
`V. A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE '504
`PATENT FOR WHICH INTER PARTES REVIEW IS REQUESTED IS
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 213.7001-00000
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504
`
`
`
`
`
`UNP A TENT ABLE ...................................................................................... 14
`
`33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 57, A. Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27,
`
`
`
`
`and 60 (including independent claims I, 36, and 60) based on Kiuchi
`(Ground 1 ) .
`............ 14
`
`...........................................
`
`....................................
`
`1. Discussion of Kiuchi
`
`. . .................................................................
`
`15
`
`
`
`2. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim I ..............................
`
`...........................
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`24 3. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 36 .......................................................
`
`
`
`
`
`25 4. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 60 .......................................................
`
`
`
`................... 27 5. Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 2 and 37 .........................
`
`
`
`
`
`.................... 28 6. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 5 .....................................
`
`
`
`
`
`28 7. Kiuchi Anticipates Claim 6 .........................................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29 8. Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 15 and 39 ..........................................
`
`
`
`
`
`30 9. Kiuchi Anticipates Claims 16 and 40 ..........................................
`
`
`10. Kiuchi Anticipates
`
`Claims 27, 33, 51, and 57 ............................. 31
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ...........................
`
`.......................................
`
`.........................
`
`33
`
`11
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 213.7001-00000
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................... l, 5, 14, 15
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 14
`35 U.S.C. 102 ...........................................
`15
`
`...............................................................
`
`Rules
`MPEP § 706.02 Part V .............................................
`
`.... ... ..... .......................
`
`........ .... 15
`
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42. lOO(b) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) .............................................................................................. 32
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(l) ............................................................................................... 1
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(l) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b )(2) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 213.7001-00000
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504.
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Institution Decision dated October 15, 2014 in IPR2014-00612,
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00613, and IPR2014-00614 requested by Microsoft
`
`
`Corp. ("Microsoft Institution Decision").
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Right of Appeal Notice in Inter Partes Reexam. 95/001,788.
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`Right of Appeal Notice in Inter Partes Reexam. 95/001,851.
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`Takahiro Kiuchi and Shigekoto Kaihara, "C-HTTP - The
`
`
`of a Secure, Closed HTTP-based Network on the
`Development
`
`
`
`Internet," published by IEEE in the Proceedings of SNDSS
`1996 ("Kiuchi").
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Preliminary Response in IPR2013-00393.
`
`Exhibit I 007
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Preliminary Response in IPR2013-00394.
`
`Exhibit I 008
`
`Selected Portions of Webster's Third New International
`
`
`
`Dictionary ( 1971 ).
`
`lV
`
`

`
`
`
`The present Petition for Inter Partes Review is directed to claims 1, 2, 5, 6,
`
`
`
`
`
`15, 16, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 57, and 60 (including independent claims 1, 36,
`
`
`
`
`
`and 60) of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504 ('"504 patent") (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`
`
`For the below-discussed reasons, Petitioner requests that the Board find
`
`
`
`unpatentable (and thereby cancel) claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40,
`
`
`
`51, 57, and 60 of the '504 patent under 3 5 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Kiuchi (Ex.
`
`
`
`1005). The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § I 02(b) based on Kiuchi (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`presented herein is substantially similar to that of Ground 1 presented in IPR2014-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`00614. IPR2014-00614 was requested by Microsoft Corp., and was instituted by
`
`
`
`
`
`the Board with respect to Ground 1 thereof in an Institution Decision dated
`
`
`
`
`
`October 15, 2014 ("Microsoft Institution Decision") attached as Ex. 1002.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00614 was subsequently terminated by the Board due to settlement of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`In instituting IPR2014-00614, the Board found there was a reasonable
`
`
`
`likelihood that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 57, and 60 are
`
`
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Kiuchi. For similar reasons,
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests that the present Petition for Inter Partes Review likewise be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`instituted by the Board.
`
`

`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(a)(l).
`
`
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(l).
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Black Swamp IP, LLC, is the real party-in-interest. Black
`
`
`
`Swamp IP, LLC is a member-run LLC. The members are Stoneledge Trust and
`
`
`
`
`
`Rockwood Trust. David B. Colon is the sole trustee of the Stoneledge Trust, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John W. McMahon is the sole trustee of the Rockwood Trust.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b )(2).
`
`
`
`The '504 patent is the subject of a number of civil actions including:
`
`
`
`
`
`(i) Civ. Act. No. 6:13-cv-00211 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`
`(ii) Civ. Act. No. 6: 12-cv-00855 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`
`
`
`(iii) Civ. Act. No. 6:10-cv-00417 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`
`(iv) Civ. Act. No. 6: l l -cv-00018 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`
`(v) Civ. Act. No. 6: l 3-cv-00351 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`
`
`(vi) Civ. Act. No. 6: l 3-mc-00037 (E.D. Tex.); and
`
`
`
`(vii) Civ. Act. No. 9:13-mc-80769 (E.D. Fld).
`
`
`
`
`
`The '504 patent is also the subject of two inter partes reexamination nos.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`95/001,788 ('788 reexamination) and 95/001,851 ('851 reexamination). On May
`
`27, 2014, a Right of Appeal Notice (Ex. 1003) was issued in the '788
`
`
`
`reexamination in which claims 1-60 of the '504 patent stand rejected. On February
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`26, 2015, a Right of Appeal Notice (Ex. 1004) was issued in the '851
`
`
`
`reexamination in which claims 1-10, 12-35, and 60 of the '504 patent stand
`
`
`
`rejected. Both the '788 and '851 reexaminations are in the briefing stages of
`
`
`
`
`
`appeals to the Board.
`
`
`
`The '504 patent is also the subject of the following petitions for inter partes
`
`review:
`
`
`
`(1) IPR2013-00377 by Petitioner New Bay Capital, LLC­
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`terminated prior to institution;
`
`
`
`(2) IPR2013-00393 and IPR2013-00394 by Petitioner Apple
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc. -not instituted;
`
`
`
`(3) IPR2014-0017 6 and IPR2014-00177 by Petitioner
`
`RPX
`
`Corp. - not instituted;
`
`
`
`( 4) IPR2014-00612 by Petitioner Microsoft Corp. -not
`
`
`
`instituted;
`
`
`
`( 5) IPR2014-00613 and IPR2014-00614 by Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. -instituted and settled;
`
`
`
`(6) IPR2015-00188 and IPR2015-00189 by Apple Inc. -not
`
`instituted.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel:
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Thomas H. Martin
`
`USPTO Registration No. 34,383
`Telephone Number: (330) 877-0700
`MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
`1557 Lake O'Pines Street,
`NE
`
`Hartville, Ohio 44632
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Wesley C. Meinerding
`
`US PTO Registration No. 57 ,925
`Telephone Number: (330) 877-0700
`MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
`1557 Lake O'Pines Street,
`NE
`
`Hartville, Ohio 44632
`
`D. Service Information.
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence and service to counsel at the address
`
`
`
`provided in Section I(C). Black Swamp IP, LLC agrees to service by email at
`
`
`
`tmartin@martinferraro.com and docketing@martinferraro.com.
`
`II. FEE PAYMENT-37 C.F.R. § 42.103.
`
`
`
`The USPTO is authorized to charge the credit card associated with the credit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`card payment form submitted herewith for the fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for
`
`
`
`
`
`this Petition.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 3 7 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104.
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`certifies that the '504 patent is eligible for inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner also certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting
`inter partes
`
`
`
`review challenging the above-identified claims of the '504 patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`B. Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner requests that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51,
`
`
`
`57, and 60 be found unpatentable (and thereby cancelled) in view of Ground 1 of
`
`
`
`where
`rejection presented below. At the very least, Ground 1 clearly articulates
`
`
`
`
`
`each and every element of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 57,
`
`and 60 is found in the cited references.
`
`Ground of
`Claims of '504 Patent Rejection
`Re_jection
`
`1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27,
`Ground 1 33,36,37,39,40,51,
`
`57, and 60
`
`§ 102 rejection based on Kiuchi.
`
`
`
`As discussed below, the effective filing date of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27,
`
`
`
`33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 57, and 60 of the '504 patent is not earlier than February 15,
`
`
`
`2000.
`
`Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b ). Kiuchi (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`qualifies as a printed publication due to its presentation at the 1996 Symposium on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Network and Distributed System Security (SNDSS) on February 22 & 23, 1996,
`
`
`
`and its publication by IEEE in the Proceedings of SNDSS 1996.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.lOO(b).
`
`According to 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 OO(b ), a claim subject to inter partes review is
`
`
`
`given its "broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`submits the following below, Petitioner patent in which it appears." As discussed
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`constructions for the following terms. Furthermore, Petitioner submits that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`remaining terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`1. Meaning of Term "Domain Name Service System."
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner has repeatedly asserted to the Board that no construction
`
`of the claim term "domain name service system" is required. (Ex. 1006 at pages
`
`33-35, and Ex. 1007 at pages 29-31.) According to the Patent Owner, the claims
`
`
`
`themselves define the characteristics of the domain name service system. (Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`1006 at page 33, and Ex. 1007 at page 29.) Thus, it is reasonable, in view of
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's position, to consider the claim term "domain name service
`
`system" to encompass any system with the features of the claims.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, from a reading of the '504 patent, it is clear that the word
`
`
`
`"system" (in the claim term "domain name service system") means one or more
`
`
`
`discrete computers or devices. To illustrate, column 40, lines 35-48, of the '504
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent (Ex. 1001) describes a domain name service system including a modified
`
`
`
`
`
`DNS server 2602 and a gatekeeper server 2603. According to the '504 patent,
`
`
`
`"[g]atekeeper 2603 can be implemented on a separate computer (as shown in FIG.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26) or as a function within modified DNS server 2602." ('504 patent (Ex. 1001) at
`
`
`
`column 40, lines 35-37.) Furthermore, according to the '504 patent, "although
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`element 2602 is shown as combining the functions of two servers, the two servers
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`can be made to operate independently." ('504 patent (Ex. 1001) at column 40,
`
`lines 45-47.)
`
`
`
`Also, in the '788 and '851 reexaminations, the Examiner agreed that the
`
`
`
`broadest reasonable construction of a system in the context of the '504 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`encompasses a single or multiple devices. According to the Examiner, a "DNS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system is reasonably interpreted as comprising a single device or multiple
`
`
`
`devices." (Ex. l 003 at page 17, and Ex. I 004 at page 20.)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner submits that the claim term "domain name service
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system" encompasses any system with the features of the claims, where the system
`
`
`
`may include one or more computers or devices.
`
`2. Meaning of Term "Indication"
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner has repeatedly asserted to the Board that no construction
`
`
`
`of "indication" is required. (Ex. I 006 at pages 39-42, and Ex. 1007 at pages 35-
`
`
`
`
`
`38.) Petitioner disagrees.
`
`
`
`Petitioner notes that column 49, lines 6-12, of the '504 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`indicates that "[p]referrably, 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
`
`as a
`trackball," and "[a]ltematively, the secure link is automatically established
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`default setting at boot-up of the computer (i.e., no click)." Thus, in addition to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`disclosing
`
`enabling a secure communication link via "a single click of a mouse,"
`
`
`
`the '504 patent discloses that the secure communication link can be "automatically
`
`
`
`
`
`established as a default setting at boot-up of the computer."
`
`
`
`From this disclosure, the Examiner in the '788 and '851 reexaminations
`
`
`
`found that "[i]f 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 discemable 'indication' that the DNS in some manner supports
`
`
`
`
`establishing
`
`a communication link." (Ex. 1003 at page 20, and Ex 1004 at page 23)
`
`
`
`Furthermore, from this disclosure, the Examiner found that "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." (Ex. 1003 at page
`
`
`
`20, and Ex. 1004 at page 23.)
`
`
`
`Given this disclosure of the '504 patent, the Examiner indicated that the
`
`
`
`
`
`broadly to mean a visible message or claim term "indication" "may be construed
`
`
`
`
`
`signal to a user that the DNS system supports establishing a secure communication
`
`
`
`link," and indicated that "[n]either the specification nor the claim language provides
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a basis for limiting 'indicating' to a visual indicator." (Ex. 1003 at pages 19-20,
`
`
`
`
`
`and Ex. 1004 at pages 22-23.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`As such, Petitioner submits that the claim term "indication" means a visible
`
`
`
`
`
`or non-visible message or signal that the DNS system supports establishing a secure
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communication link, including the establishment of the secure communication link
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`itself. This construction of the claim term "indication" is identical to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construction promulgated by the Petitioner of IPR2014-00614.
`
`
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that the Board previously construed the claim term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"indication" in IPR2014-00614. In doing so, the Board, by citing to Webster's
`
`
`
`Dictionary (1971), indicated
`Third New International
`that "[t]he term 'indication'
`
`
`
`ordinarily means 'the action of indicating' or 'something (as a signal, sign,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`suggestion) that serves to indicate."' (Microsoft Institution Decision (Ex. 1002) at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`page 12; Ex. 1008.) Furthermore, the Board indicated that the "[t]he term
`
`
`
`
`
`'indicate' ordinarily means 'to point out or point to or toward with more or less
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exactness' or 'to show the probable presence or existence or nature or course of."'
`
`
`
`
`
`(Microsoft Institution Decision (Ex. 1002) at page 12; Ex. 1008.) According to the
`
`
`
`
`
`with the ordinary Board, "the Specification [of the '504 patent] is not inconsistent
`
`
`
`
`
`(Microsoft Institution in IPR2014-00614. meaning or Petitioner's construction"
`
`
`
`
`
`Decision (Ex. 1002) at page 12.)
`
`
`
`The Board then concluded that "for purposes of this Decision, the term
`
`
`
`
`
`'indication' broadly, but reasonably, means 'something that shows the probable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`presence or existence or nature of," and "[i]n accordance with this construction, in
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`context of claim 1, an indication that a secure communication link is in operation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`constitutes an indication that the system supports establishing a secure
`
`
`
`communication link." (Microsoft Institution Decision (Ex. 1002) at pages 12-13.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is requested that the meaning ascribed by Petitioner to the claim term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"indication" be adopted by the Board in the present Petition for Inter Partes
`
`
`
`
`
`Review. Nevertheless, Petitioner submits that the claims are still unpatentable,
`
`in
`even if the Board adopts the meaning assigned to the claim term "indication"
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00614. That is, the claims are unpatentable under Petitioner's ascribed
`
`
`
`
`
`meaning or the Board's assigned meaning from IPR2014-00614.
`
`3. Meaning of Term "Secure Communication Link."
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner has repeatedly asserted to the Board that the claim term
`
`
`
`
`
`"secure communication link" should mean a "direct communication link that
`
`
`
`provides data security through encryption." (Ex. 1006 at pages 35-39, and Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`1007 at pages 31-35.) Petitioner disagrees. The claim term "secure
`
`
`
`
`
`communication link" does not require a direct communication link or encryption.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that the Board previously construed the claim term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"secure communication link" in IPR2014-00614. The Board in IPR2014-00614
`
`
`
`
`
`indicated that the claim term "secure communication link" means "a transmission
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`path that restricts access to data, addresses, or other information on the path,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generally using obfuscation methods to hide information on the path, including, but
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`not limited to, one or more of authentication, encryption, or address hopping."
`
`
`
`(Microsoft Institution Decision (Ex. 1002) at page 11.) Petitioner agrees with the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`meaning assigned to the claim term "secure communication link" in IPR2014-
`
`
`
`00614.
`
`
`
`In assigning meaning to the claim term "secure communication link," the
`
`
`
`
`
`and we decline to impart" an Board indicated that "the record does not support,
`
`
`
`
`
`implied requirement for a "direct" communication link. (Microsoft Institution
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Decision (Ex. 1002) at pages 7-8.) Petitioner agrees -the '504 patent does support
`
`
`
`a requirement of a "direct" communication link in construing the claim term
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"secure communication link."
`
`
`
`Furthermore, in assigning meaning to the claim term "secure communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for link," the Board indicated that the '504 patent does not support a requirement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`use of encryption in construing the claim term "secure communication link.
`
`
`
`(Microsoft Institution Decision (Ex. 1002) at page 10.) Petitioner also agrees.
`
`
`
`
`
`The '504 patent indicates that "[ d]ata security is usually tackled using some
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`form of data encryption." ('504 patent (Ex. 1001) at column 1, lines 55-56
`
`
`
`
`
`(emphasis added).) As such, the '504 patent implies that the "security" may
`
`
`
`
`
`include, but does not require, encryption. The '504 provides a specific example that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`employs "unencrypted message packets," while using "different levels of
`
`
`
`
`
`authentication," and, under some circumstances, "a keyed hopping sequence."
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`('504 patent (Ex. 1001) at column 54, lines 40-67.) Furthermore, the '504 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`also describes "various embodiments" that form "secure communication" by
`
`
`
`
`
`"'hopping' different addresses using one or more algorithms and one or more
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`moving windows that track a range of valid addresses to validate received packets,"
`
`
`
`and using this hopping technique on "[p Jackets transmitted according to one or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`more of the inventive principles will be generally referred to as 'secure' packets or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`'secure communications."' ('504 patent (Ex. 1001) at column 21, lines 46-55.)
`
`
`
`
`
`Because of this disclosure from the '504 patent, the Board indicated that
`
`
`
`
`
`"given the different examples and general descriptions that encompass a wide
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`variety of techniques, the '504 [patent] describes different levels of security by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`using different methods to obtain different security levels, rendering the term
`
`
`
`'secure' relative." (Microsoft Institution Decision (Ex. 1002) at page 10.) Thus,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Board concluded that the claim term "secure communication link" does not
`
`
`
`require encryption.
`
`4. Meaning of Term "Transparently."
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner has repeatedly asserted to the Board that the claim term
`
`
`
`"transparently" means that "the user need not be involved in creating the [secure
`
`
`
`
`
`communication link]/[secure link]." Petitioner agrees. (Exhibit I 006 at pages 42-
`
`
`
`
`
`43, and Ex. 1007 at pages 38-39.)
`
`12
`
`

`
`IV. SUMMARYOF THE'504PATENT.
`
`
`
`A. Disclosure of the '504 Patent.
`
`
`
`Generally, the '504 patent discloses a domain name service system for
`
`
`
`
`
`establishing a secure communication link. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract, and column 3,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`line 14.) The domain name service system of the '504 patent described therein is
`
`
`
`configured: (1) to be connected to a communication network, (2) to store a plurality
`
`
`
`
`
`of domain names and corresponding network addresses, (3) to receive a query for a
`
`
`
`
`
`network address, and ( 4) to comprise an indication that the domain name service
`
`
`
`
`
`system supports establishing a secure communication link. (Ex. 1001 at column
`
`
`
`55, lines 49-56.)
`
`
`
`B. Effective Filing Date of the '504 Patent.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,418,504 issued on August 26, 2008 based on U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`Application No. 101714,849 ("'849 application"). The '849 application was filed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on November 18, 2003 as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/558,210
`
`
`
`
`
`("'210 application"). The '210 application was filed on April 26, 2000 as a
`
`
`
`
`
`('"783 continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/504,783
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`application"), now U.S. Patent No. 6,502, 135. The '783 application was filed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 15, 2000 as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`
`09/429,643
`
`
`
`('"643 application"), now U.S. Patent No. 7,010,604. The '643
`
`
`
`application was filed on October 29, 1999. Each of the '849, '210, '783, and '643
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`applications claim priority to Provisional Application Nos. 60/106,261 (filed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`October 30, 1998) and 60/137,704 (filed June 7, 1999).
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, the earliest potential priority date of the '504 patent is October
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30, 1998. Kiuchi is prior art even with respect to the earliest potential priority date
`
`
`
`
`
`of the '504 patent. Kiuchi is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) with
`
`
`
`
`
`respect to the earliest potential priority date of the '504 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`It is noted, however, that independent claims 1, 36, and 60 of the '504 patent
`
`
`
`are not entitled to the earliest potential priority date. Independent claims 1 and 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the '504 patent recite "a domain name service for establishing a secure
`
`
`
`communication link." Furthermore, independent claims 1, 36, and 60 recite "a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`domain name service system." None of the applications filed prior to the '783
`
`
`
`
`
`application mention the phrase "domain name service," and these applications do
`
`
`
`
`
`not provide corresponding written description therefor. Thus, the earliest effective
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`filing date of independent claims 1, 36, and 60 of the '504 patent is the filing date
`
`
`
`of the '783 application, i.e., February 15, 2000.
`
`V. A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD AT LEAST ONE CLAIM OF THE
`'504 PATENT FOR WHICH INTER PARTES REVIEW IS
`REQUESTED IS UNPATENTABLE.
`
`A. Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 51,
`
`
`
`57, and 60 (including independent claims 1, 36, and 60) based on
`Kiuchi (Ground 1).
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Kiuchi
`
`
`
`
`
`was presented at the 1996 Symposium on Network and Distributed System Security
`
`
`
`
`
`(SNDSS) on February 22 & 23, 1996, and published by IEEE in the Proceedings
`of
`
`
`
`under § 102(b) based SNDSS 1996. Kiuchi is therefore prior art to the '504 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`on even the earliest potential priority date of the '504 patent, i.e., October 30,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1998.
`
`
`
`According to MPEP § 706.02 Part V, "for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102,
`
`
`
`
`
`the [prior art] reference must teach every aspect of the claimed invention either
`
`
`
`
`
`explicitly or impliedly." For the reasons discussed below, it is abundantly clear
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that Kiuchi discloses each and every recitation of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 15, 16, 27, 33,
`
`
`
`
`
`36, 37, 39, 40, 51, 57, and 60. As such, the claims are clearly anticipated by
`
`Kiuchi.
`
`
`
`1. Discussion of Kiuchi.
`
`
`
`Kiuchi discloses a closed HTTP-based network ("C-HTTP") for a closed
`
`
`
`by its own firewall. member is protected group of institutions, in which each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) at page 64, Abstract.) The system disclosed in Kiuchi includes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`various security features to establish a C-HTTP connection (i.e., a secure
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communication link) between at least a client-side proxy and a server-side proxy.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Kiuchi (Ex. I 005) at page 64, Section 2.2.)
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`To illustrate, Kiuchi describes that for "hospitals and related institutions," a
`
`
`
`between hospitals, of patient information" need exists for "[s]ecure transfer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and that "medical information has to be shared among some hospitals, but it
`
`
`
`to other sites." (Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) at page 64,
`should not be made available
`
`Section 1.) According to Kiuchi, the C-HTTP protocol
`allows members of the
`
`
`
`closed group of institutions to communicate with one another via proxies. (Kiuchi
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1005) at page 64, Abstract.) In particular, communication is made possible
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with a client-side proxy (for one institution), a server-side proxy (for another
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`institution), and a C-HTTP name server. (Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) at pages 64, Section
`
`
`
`2.1.) In doing so, encryption is used to facilitate a secure connection, i.e., the C­
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTTP name server provides both client-side and server-side proxies with each
`
`
`
`
`
`peer's public key and Nonce values for both request and response. (Kiuchi (Ex.
`
`1005) at pages 64 and 65, Section 2.2.)
`
`Using the secure C-HITP connection, an end user via a user agent
`
`
`
`associated with the client-side proxy may request infonnation stored on one
`
`
`
`
`
`or more origin servers associated with the server-side proxy. (Kiuchi (Ex.
`
`
`
`1005) at page 65, Section 2.3(1 ).) In doing so, an HTML document can be
`
`
`
`displayed by the user agent, and a hyperlink URL in the HTML document can be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selected by the end user. (Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) at page 65, Section 2.3(1).) The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`following is an example of the format of a selected hyperlink URL:
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`"http://server.in.current.connection/sample.html=@=6zdDfldfcZLj8V!i."
`
`
`
`
`
`In the selected hyperlink URL, the hostname is "server.in.current.connection," the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`resource being requested is "sample.html," and the connection ID is
`
`
`
`"6zdDfldfcZLj8V!i". (Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) at page 65, Section 2.3(1).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Generally, the system of Kiuchi initially performs (assuming no C-HTTP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`connection yet exists) in the following manner: (a) the user agent sends a request
`
`
`
`
`
`for a selected URL to the client-side proxy (Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) at page 65, Section
`
`
`
`
`
`2.3(1)), (b) the client-side proxy asks and the C-HTTP name server determines
`
`
`
`
`
`whether it can communicate with a host (and a server-side proxy associated
`
`
`
`
`
`therewith) using the hostname specified in the selected URL (Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`page 65, Section 2.3(1)-(2)), and (c) if the C-HTTP determines that the query is
`
`
`
`
`
`legitimate and the server-side proxy is registered, the C-HTTP server sends the IP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`address and public key of the server-side proxy (as well as both request and
`
`
`
`response Nonce values) to the client-side proxy, and, if the C-HTTP indicates that
`
`
`
`
`
`connection is not permitted, the C-HTTP server sends error indication to the client­
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`side proxy, and the client-side proxy performs a DNS lookup by behaving like an
`
`ordinary HTTP/1.0 proxy (Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) at page 65, Section 2.3(2)). In this
`
`
`
`context, it is noted that "[b ]oth the request to and response from the C-HTTP name
`
`
`
`
`
`server are encrypted and certified, using asymmetric key encryption and digital
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`signature technology." (Kiuchi (Ex. I 005) at page 65, Section 2.3(2).)
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`Thereafter, with the IP address and public key of the server-side proxy, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`client-side proxy can send the request to the server-side proxy for a C-HTTP
`
`
`
`
`
`connection "which is encrypted using the server-side proxy's public key and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`contains the client-side proxy's IP address, hostname, request Nonce value and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`symmetric data exchange key for request encryption." (Kiuchi (Ex. 1005) at page
`
`
`
`65, Section 2.3(3).) The server-side proxy then asks the C-HTTP name server to
`
`
`
`
`
`proxy
`perform a lookup of client-side proxy information -"[ w ]hen a server-side
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accepts a request for connection from a client-side proxy, it asks the C-HTTP
`
`
`
`
`
`name server whether the client-side proxy is an appropriate member of the closed
`
`
`
`
`
`network." (K