`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 40 and 40
`March 3, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`VIRNETX, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`- - - - - - -
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`Technology Center 2400
`
`
`
`Oral Hearing Held on Monday, February 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Before: MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`
`STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, February
`
`9, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JEFFREY P. KUSHAN, ESQ.
`
`THOMAS A. BROUGHAN, III, ESQ.
`
`SCOTT M. BORDER, ESQ.
`
`Sidley Austin LLP
`
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`202-736-8000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOSEPH E. PALYS, ESQ.
`
`NAVEEN MODI, ESQ.
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`202-551-1700
`
`JASON E. STACH, ESQ.
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
` Garrett & Dunner LLP
`
`3500 Suntrust Plaza
`
`303 Peachtree Street, NE
`
`Atlanta, Georgia 30308
`
`404-653-6400
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(2:00 p. m.)
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: You ma y be s eated. Welco me ,
`
`ever yone , to the i nter par tes reviews, I PR2014 -00237 and
`
`00238.
`
`Before we begin t oday, do the parti es have an y
`
`questions or concerns that we ne ed to address? Let' s start with
`
`Petitioner?
`
`MR. KUS HAN: No, we a re fine a nd read y to
`
`proceed.
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: Patent Owner , an y questi ons or
`
`co mments before we begin toda y?
`
`MR. PALYS: No , Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: Thank you. Give me one
`
`mo ment here and then we will be re ad y.
`
`All right. Welco me , ever yone, to today's hea ring.
`
`We have a co mbined hearing between the 00237 cas e and the
`
`00238 cases. Tod a y we scheduled one hour for each side, with
`
`the Petitioner beg inning, followed b y the Patent Owner, and
`
`then both parties are able to r eserv e ti me for what n or mall y
`
`would be rebuttal , but toda y we wi ll call it closing argu ments.
`
`It is my understa nding that we hav e no questions
`
`fro m counsel bef ore we begin toda y, so we will begi n with the
`
`question: Would each side like to r eserve ti me for cl osing
`
`argu ments, starti ng with Petitioner?
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`MR. KUS HAN: Yes, Your Honor. I will rese rve
`
`app roxi matel y 20 minutes for closing, or whatever t he balance
`
`would be.
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: Oka y. 40 min utes and then
`
`you will have 20 minutes r e maining.
`
`MR. KUS HAN: Yes.
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: And Patent Owner?
`
`MR. PALYS: Ye s, Your Honor. We will r eserve
`
`10 mi nutes.
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: Thank you. Oka y. With that,
`
`Petitioner, a re yo u read y? Go ahea d.
`
`MR. KUS HAN: I was a little bit u nclear. Are the y
`
`entitled to a rebut tal after our --
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: We a re calling it closing
`
`argu ments.
`
`MR. KUS HAN: Closin g argu ment s?
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: Yes. B asically what I would
`
`like to have toda y is have the last word b y the Paten t Owner ,
`
`so the y will be given that ti me. Sh ould they bring u p
`
`so mething you ob ject to, and need to object to , I a m sure you
`
`will let us know.
`
`MR. KUS HAN: Oka y. Thank you ver y much .
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: And I was wo ndering, do you
`
`b y an y chance ha ve de monstratives for the Panel?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`MR. KUS HAN: Yes, Your Honor. M a y I
`
`approach?
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: Yes, please. And I think I see
`
`Patent Owner has de mon stratives a lso. I f so, could we have a
`
`copy?
`
`All right. P etitioner, when you a re read y, would
`
`you please begin.
`
`MR. KUS HAN: Thank you ver y much , Your
`
`Honors. As you noted, there are t wo proceedings a nd 237 and
`
`238 are the ter mi nus of each .
`
`The 23 7 proce eding is based on the Bese r r efer ence
`
`as a pri ma r y refe r ence and the 238 proceeding is based on the
`
`Wesinger r eferen ce, which is Exhi bit 1010 -- I' m so rr y, 1008.
`
`Can you go to slide 4, ple ase. The first thing I
`
`would like to do i s walk through th e clai ms because it is
`
`i mportant to se e what the clai m la nguage is. And o nce you
`
`have seen the clai m language and a ppreciate how broad the
`
`clai m language is , it be co mes a little bit easier to na vigate
`
`how the clai ms re ad on the prior ar t.
`
`There are thre e el e ments of e ach cl ai m, thr ee steps.
`
`The cl ai ms ar e ca st first in the for m of a method cla i m, cl ai m
`
`1. Ther e is a pa r allel clai m. Go t o slide 5. This is the s yste m
`
`clai m which is a parallel clai m to t he method clai m.
`
`Go back to 4 for a minute. In each of these
`
`e mbodi ments you have three operat ive steps. The fir st step is
`
`
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`an intercepting step. The second s tep is the deter mi ning step.
`
`And the third ste p is an initiating step. That's the t hree things
`
`I a m going to cover in sequence .
`
`Go to slide 6 . Th e intercepting ste p is prett y
`
`straightforward. It sa ys: " Intercep ting, fro m the firs t network
`
`device, a request to look up an IP a ddress of the seco nd
`
`network device b ased on a do main na me associated with the
`
`second network d evice."
`
`So what you h ave is an action word , interc epting,
`
`and then a desc ription of what is b eing intercepted. It is a
`
`request. What is in the request? A do main na me . The
`
`e manation of that request is fro m t he first net work d evice.
`
`Go to slide 7 , ple ase. You found c orrec tl y that
`
`based on the wa y the language of t he clai m reads and how the
`
`description is found in the specific ation, intercepting is si mpl y
`
`receiving a reque st pertaining to a first entit y at ano ther
`
`entity.
`
`So in the instance of the patent, the destination
`
`specified in the r equest would be t he destination you would be
`
`inquiring about. And if that reque st is received b y a co mputer
`
`other than that de stination, you have satisfied the int ercepting
`
`step.
`
`If you go to slide 19, please . The next ele ment of
`
`the clai m is the d eter mining step. And what this sa ys is that it
`
`is "deter mining, i n response to the request, whether t he second
`
`
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`network device is available for a se cure co mmunicati ons
`
`service." And, again, this is a ver y broadl y -c ast phr ase,
`
`deter mining, be ca use it doesn't give you an y details as to how
`
`you must per for m the deter mining step. It just asks how does
`
`the network devic e, se cond network device, is that se cond
`
`network device a vailable for secur e co mmunications?
`
`So if we look in t he patent, going t o slide 25, and I
`
`want to dire ct yo u to the botto m passage here . In t he patent
`
`itself there is an exa mple of ho w you perfor m the de ter mining
`
`step, and it is fair l y straightfor war d. It sa ys: "If ac cess to a
`
`secure site has be en requested (as deter mined , for e xa mple , b y
`
`a do main na me ex tension, or b y re f erence to an inter nal table
`
`of such sites), DNS prox y dete r mi nes whether the u ser has
`
`sufficient security privileges to ac cess the site."
`
`So one wa y that t he patent tells yo u that you can
`
`perfor m the de ter mining step is to have the inco ming request
`
`and the destination in it checked ag ainst the table tha t that
`
`device has been maintaining to se e if the destination device is
`
`on the table.
`
`That's a f airl y str aightforward wa y of dete r mining
`
`whether that dev ice is available fo r secure co mmuni cations.
`
`The other exa mpl e it gives there is a do main na me
`
`extension, so an a ttribute of the r equest co ming in is looked at
`
`to deter mine if the destination is a vailable for secur e
`
`co mmunications.
`
`
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`Slide 20, please . So you reach the conclusion I
`
`think supported by that passage an d b y other exa mpl es in the
`
`specification that you can me et the deter mining step a couple
`
`of different wa ys .
`
`One is whether the device, you know, checking
`
`whether the reque sted destination is l isted with a public
`
`Internet address a nd, if so , allocati ng a private address for the
`
`second network d evice, or b y so me other indication of the
`
`relative per mission level or se curity privileges of the
`
`requester.
`
`Now, these are ex a mples that you f ound fro m the
`
`specification to be exa mples that might fit within the meaning
`
`of deter mining, a nd we believe those deter minations, those
`
`points you mad e are supported b y the disclosure.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Is there an yth ing in the spec
`
`that sa ys that you have to conta ct t he second device to
`
`deter mine if it is available? Is the re an y exa mple li ke that?
`
`MR. KUS HAN: No, I think what we sa w in the
`
`spec was that ther e is more of a rec ord kept of the de stination.
`
`That table exa mpl e is one that I cited.
`
`The other exa mp l e we se e mentioned so mewhat
`
`frequentl y is the designation of the destination, such as an
`
`SCOM or a speci al na me for the d o main na me you ma y be
`
`going to. But we didn't see a quer ying exercise and certainl y
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`didn't see so mething which would suggest that has to be the
`
`wa y you per for m the deter mining step.
`
`If you go to slide 28, please . The last action
`
`perfor med b y the method is initiating the secure
`
`co mmunication li nk between the fi rst network devic e and the
`
`second network d evice based on a deter mination th a t the
`
`second network d evice is available .
`
`This doesn't re ally add an ything in to the
`
`require ments of what might be tested for that initiation step.
`
`It basicall y takes the result of the d eter mining step a nd sa ys, if
`
`that is positive, then initiate the se cure co mmunicati on.
`
`In fact , ther e is n ot much of a dispute about this
`
`last clause. The one dispute is wh at is a secure
`
`co mmunication li nk and, rathe r, in particular, wheth er it
`
`requires encr yption.
`
`And our vie w is t hat it does not be cause, and if you
`
`can go to slide 29 -- actuall y go ba ck to 28, pleas e. Let me tr y
`
`again. Wher e is our clai m 2? Tha nk you ver y mu ch. Slide
`
`33. Clai m 2 , which is dependent fr o m clai m 1 , adds the
`
`require ment of en cr yption of the da ta being centered with a
`
`secure co mmuni c ation link.
`
`And that tells us prett y clearl y that the require ment
`
`for encr yption is not in the parent clai m, clai m 1 . And so
`
`when we look at clai m 1 with a we ll -established doctrine of
`
`clai m diffe rentiation, and under th e broadest r easonable
`
`
`
`9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`constructi on, we don't think that the ter m secure
`
`co mmunication li nk requires encr yption because it is now
`
`called out specifi call y as an additional require ment in clai m 2.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Are there an y exceptions
`
`here, excuse me , to the doctrine that ma y appl y?
`
`MR. KUS HAN: The doctrine of cl ai m
`
`differentiation?
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Right.
`
`MR. KUS HAN: So in this instance your clai m 2 is
`
`further li miting the nature of the s ecure co mmunica tions that
`
`the data is being t rans mitted and re quiring the data be
`
`encr ypted. So th at suggests that in the parent clai m, the
`
`parent clause doe sn't carr y that req uire ment.
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: I believe my colleague
`
`understands the doctrine of clai m d ifferentiation. What I
`
`believe he is getti ng at is that it is a weak presu mpti on at be st,
`
`and that there are other f actors that ma y be taken int o account.
`
`Are there an y other f actors present which would
`
`lead a wa y f ro m th e e mplo yment of the doctrine of clai m
`
`differentiation?
`
`MR. KUS HAN: No, I think the wa y that the patent
`
`generall y t alks ab out the techniques it is describing for
`
`providing secure co mmunications doesn't li mit it to an
`
`encr yption -based method.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`There are obfusca tion techniques that are described
`
`in the patent that don't require enc r yption, that involve hiding
`
`the destination or the origination of the address bet ween the
`
`points of a co mmunication path.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: For exa mple , I mean , the
`
`clai m sa ys that th e audio data and t he video data, one of the m
`
`must be encr ypte d. I mean, is ther e an ything else in the clai m
`
`that cou ld be encr ypted that is broa der than clai m 1?
`
`MR. KUS HAN: The wa y we re ad the clai m
`
`language, it is pr ett y broad . And when we go back to the
`
`specification we didn't find exa mp les that co mpelle d the
`
`conclusion that there must be enc r yption because they provide
`
`other exa mples of secure co mmunic ation links that don't use
`
`encr yption.
`
`And it's i mportan t to appreciate , th ere is not a
`
`passage in the pat ent that gives a d efinition for a se c ure
`
`co mmunication li nk. There is no o vert definition of the ter m.
`
`So you don't have a resource like t hat to go to to eq uate and
`
`give attributes to the meaning of th e ter m. Wh at you have a re
`
`exa mples .
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Are there other known wa ys
`
`to secure the data other than the three that we listed in the
`
`definition?
`
`MR. KUS HAN: I think, actuall y, your
`
`construction is a prett y fair construction. And that' s, I think,
`
`
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`on slide 29. You found that the sec ure co mmunication link is
`
`a trans mission path that restricts a ccess to data addr esses and
`
`other infor mation on the path.
`
`And then you point to the use of o bfuscation
`
`methods, which c an include authentication, encr yption or
`
`address hopping. And I would only add to that it could ma ybe
`
`be a co mbination of those three exa mples to make that secure
`
`co mmunication p ath, but it a lso envisions the possibility that
`
`only one of the m might be used in a particular instance.
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: Assu ming for the sake of
`
`argu ment that sec ure co mmunications does require e ncr yption
`
`in clai m 1. Does that alter our anal ysis on patentability?
`
`MR. KUS HAN: No, Your Honor. We have
`
`addressed the issue of kind of the narrowest e mbodiment as
`
`well in our briefi ng where there is encr yption used.
`
`So if you c an go t o slide 3, let me move into the
`
`first grounds, whi ch is Bese r, and I would like to wa lk through
`
`Beser so we see what is on the tab le.
`
`This is figure 1 f r o m Beser , which is Exhibit 1009.
`
`And what you see on that figure 1 i s a sche me which has an
`
`originating device nu mbe r 24, and a ter minating dev ice
`
`nu mber 26. Those ar e on private network s.
`
`There is a first and second network device, which
`
`are 14 and 16 res pectively. Those will have a public IP
`
`address. And also on the public network, acc essible through
`
`
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`the public networ k is the trusted th ird -part y network device
`
`nu mber 30.
`
`And in th is Bese r sche me you have an origination
`
`of a request starti ng with ite m 24 . It gets intercepte d at t wo
`
`points in this path. That request will first get inter cepted b y
`
`the first net work device 14, and then it will subsequently be
`
`intercepted b y the second device, the trusted third -pa rt y
`
`network device n u mber 30.
`
`The ite ms 24 and 26 are able to be reached through
`
`the public networ k addresses of ite ms 14 and 16, res pectively.
`
`And that's done b y an association that the trusted third -part y
`
`network device es tablishes. So the trusted third -party net work
`
`device is going to associate the public IP addresses o f these
`
`ter minal devices with their respect ive edge routers o r devices
`
`14 and 16.
`
`Go to slide 8 , ple ase. In the proce ss that Beser
`
`follows, the requ est w ill include a n identifier, a uni que
`
`identifier. Actually go back to slide 3 for one seco nd.
`
`And just on the ri ght passage here, on the passage
`
`of text, this is Ex hibit 1009, just in the beginning, c olu mn 246
`
`to 67, there is an overview of the p rocess an d it spea ks of this
`
`unique identifier. And the unique identifier in the Beser
`
`sche me is of the t er minating device 26.
`
`So now go to slide 8, please. As I said, that
`
`process that flows has two interce ption events. One is b y the
`
`
`
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`first network devi ce 14 a nd the sec ond one is b y the trusted
`
`third -part y net work device nu mber 30.
`
`And in this seque nce the fi rst inter ception event
`
`occurs when the d evice 14 re ads a special datagra m t hat sa ys
`
`route this over to the trusted third -part y net work de vice 30.
`
`Go to slide 15, pl ease. The s econd aspect of this
`
`is, that I wanted t o bring up, is that the unique identifier, the
`
`ter minating devic e, as I mentioned before, is going to use and
`
`associate a public IP address of tha t ter minating device with a
`
`private internal I P address of that device.
`
`Between the t wo events, two ite ms of data , is how
`
`it can a chieve the routing with the traffic to it. And so what
`
`happens is that the trusted third -pa rt y net work devic e will
`
`associate the priv ate -- the public I P addresses of t h ese
`
`ter minating devic es with the unique identifiers of those
`
`ter minating devic es.
`
`So you can i magi ne a table being maintained in a
`
`co mputer , a trust ed third -part y net work device 30, which will
`
`have a unique I P address -- or unique identifier cor r elated to
`
`the IP address, the public IP addre ss, through which it can be
`
`reached.
`
`And when a reque st co mes in with t he unique
`
`identifier, that tr usted third -part y network device will look up
`
`the unique identifier in this associa tion, perhaps a da tabase or
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`a tab le, find a public IP address an d then begin a ne gotiation
`
`between that edge router 16 and the originating edge router 14.
`
`And betwe en that process of negotiation it then
`
`enables the two devices to have the public IP and the private
`
`IP addresses of th e de vices at the e nd of a secure
`
`co mmunication li nk.
`
`If you go to slide 21, this is an exa mple that Bese r
`
`gives of one of the t ypes of databas es that can maint ain a
`
`director y. And it is using in this e xa mple what the y call E.164
`
`nu mbers, which i s a 10 -digit telep hone nu mber .
`
`And what you see being described here is the
`
`10-digit telephone nu mbe r is being associated with the public
`
`IP address of the edge router throu gh which that nu mber can
`
`be reached .
`
`Now, I' m going t o switch over to t he ELM O for a
`
`minute, because one of the things that is ver y i mport ant to
`
`appreciate about Beser is that Bese r gives a nu mbe r of
`
`different exa mple s of unique identifiers, one of whic h is the
`
`telephone nu mber of the destination device. Another exa mple
`
`is a do main na me .
`
`And if we go to Exhibit 1009 at col u mn 10. Well ,
`
`so technology is f ailing me , so wha t I will do is just read this
`
`rather than to tr y to make it i mposs ible to read there. I ' m
`
`reading fro m column 10, lines, abo ut 38 through 41. And it
`
`sa ys: In another exe mpl ar y pref err ed e mbodi ment of the
`
`
`
`15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`present invention, the unique identifier is an y of the dialup
`
`nu mber , an electr onic mail address , or a do main na me.
`
`And then as you proceed down thr ough that
`
`description, at co lu mn 10, through the end of the col u mn, you
`
`see exa mples bei ng used of a do main na me instead of a
`
`telephone nu mber and so me of the benefits that ma y provide,
`
`such as you can tr ack a do main na me so mewhat more readil y if
`
`a user is moving, the y a re moving s ites or whatever, and their
`
`na me will re ma in con stant, but their phone nu mbe r ma y
`
`change.
`
`And so it is sa yin g this sche me obviously can be
`
`i mple mented usin g a telephone nu mber or it can be
`
`i mple mented usin g a do main na me . And the other thing to
`
`recognize is that the trusted third -part y net work de vice itself
`
`also can make the do main na me ser ver.
`
`And that's anothe r thing that Beser teaches us , and
`
`that's at colu mn 1 1, lines 26 to 44, where Beser is explaining
`
`that the trusted third -part y network device c an have the
`
`capability of do main na me se rvice re solution to i mple ment its
`
`sche me .
`
`And so that satisf ies, again, the det er mining step
`
`that we have been talking about, where a do main na me in the
`
`request is going to be intercepted, evaluated b y the t rusted
`
`third -part y net work device against the table of associated
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`entries, and then route the traf fic a nd conduct that negotiation
`
`to set up the tunnel.
`
`If you go to slide 16, please . So t he last step of
`
`the clai ms is the i nitiation step. And that basicall y sa ys
`
`initiate a secure t unnel between th e two dev ices, the first and
`
`second devices. And Bese r does t his as I have desc ribed.
`
`There is a negotiation process that occurs whe re
`
`the private IP add resses of the ter minating ends of that IP
`
`tunnel will be sen t to the other net work devices. And then the
`
`internal, those ed ge routers, those network devices, the first
`
`and second netwo rk devices 14 and 16 will have a ta ble of
`
`entries with the public IP address a nd the private I P address,
`
`which it c an then use to route the t r affic.
`
`So the device 14, for exa mple , will have a table
`
`that has the I P ad dress of device 16 along with the private IP
`
`address at the t er minating device 2 6. And that allows it to
`
`route that traf fic directl y to the de stination and set up the
`
`secure I P tunnel.
`
`Now, go to 34. B eser explains that its sche me
`
`could be used to r oute a variet y o f t ypes of data. An d it gives
`
`so me exa mples, t he VoI P, multi me dia, Web - TV. These ar e all
`
`t ypes of exa mples which show that the t ype of data c an refle ct
`
`or e mbod y video or audio data.
`
`And that's the las t clause of the cla i m. It is a
`
`wherein clause th at's added to the clai ms which specifies that
`
`
`
`17
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`the data that's going to be sent over that tunnel will i nclude
`
`audio or video data.
`
`The point I would like to make abo ut this is that
`
`there is no volu me or rat e of distri bution or other kind of
`
`require ments about the nature of t hat audio or vide o data. And
`
`the clai m just sa ys that the data ha s to be audio or video. It
`
`doesn't have to be strea med . It doesn't have to be de livered in
`
`certain qualit y. I t just sp ecifies what the data is .
`
`So based on the r un -through, we se e that, in Bese r,
`
`a co mplete mapping of ever y ele me nt of the cl ai m, a nd we
`
`believe Beser doe s anticipate clai ms 1 and 16 along with the
`
`other clai ms that have been r ecited.
`
`The last thing I wo uld flag on -- go to 45, ple ase - -
`
`Beser also meets the VP N li mitatio n of the dependen t clai m 3 ,
`
`which requires , a s you found, that the secure co mmu nication
`
`link at least trave rse at so me point a public network.
`
`Now, the differ ence of opinion that we hav e with
`
`Patent Owner is e mbodied and r esolved in the obviousness
`
`question, which i s does the Bese r s che me r equire or teach
`
`awa y or is agnostic about use of en cr yption in setting up these
`
`IP tunnels? And we obviousl y disa gree with Patent Owne r's
`
`suggestion that Beser tea ches a wa y fro m use of encr yption in
`
`IP tunnels.
`
`If you go to 36. Wh at Bese r te ach es is that
`
`encr yption is the nor m in IP tunnels that it's describi ng. And
`
`
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`most notable her e is that B eser poi nts directl y to IP Sec, which
`
`is the secondar y r e ference we have cited, R FC 2401.
`
`And the I PSec is a protocol that governs
`
`para meters you might use to i mple ment a se cure IP tunnel.
`
`And within the IP Sec protocol itsel f is a lot of information
`
`telling the person of skill how to a djust or adapt the sche m e to
`
`incorporate encr yption over an IP t unnel.
`
`And most i mporta ntly what it tells us is that -- and
`
`this is straight out of B eser -- Bese r is telling us that IPS ec is
`
`the wa y to go with setting up IP tu nnels. And what that means
`
`is that you are going to t ypicall y a nd ordinarily encr ypt data .
`
`But what Beser fl ags is a pr actical concern over a
`
`ver y li mited setting, which is strea ming data flows such as
`
`multi media or Voice -over-Internet - Protocol data flo ws.
`
`And what this is sa ying is this is a practical
`
`challenge. It is not so mething whi ch makes the sche me not
`
`work. It is sa yin g this could be an issue whe re you might lose
`
`packets if you ar e trans mitting this high volume of d ata and
`
`your equip ment is n't up to the sc ale it needs to be .
`
`And what that te l ls us in the la w o f teaching a wa y
`
`is that this is not a teaching a wa y r eference . This is n't sa ying
`
`that this co mbina tion is inoperative or won't work. It is
`
`telling you this is a pr actical challe nge that you migh t have to
`
`address if you att e mpt to do th is.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`And what is nota ble about this is that the re cord is
`
`prett y clear that t he challenges pre sented b y integrat ing
`
`encr yption in the Beser sche me are no minal.
`
`Our expert explai ned that you could solve this
`
`proble m b y using, for exa mple, higher qualit y or higher
`
`powered equip me nt. This is basica lly a volu me of data being
`
`trans mitted over t he network issue.
`
`If you go to 39.
`
`JUDGE TI ER NEY: Please just br iefl y address
`
`your expert , though. Is he one of ordinar y skill in t he art?
`
`MR. KUS HAN: Yes, we believe h e is. He has
`
`been working in t he field for more than 15 yea rs with hands -on
`
`experience. He has had relevant tr aining across the spectru m
`
`of technology tha t we see in these patents.
`
`He was the editor of Net work Wo rld for man y
`
`years where he a c t ually would take and deplo y these t ypes of
`
`equip ment, and te st the m, put the m in test settings a nd
`
`me asure their cap abilities. He is i nti matel y f a milia r with the
`
`technology.
`
`And I think so me of the challenges we have heard
`
`about hi m you c a n easil y resol ve b y looking to see what
`
`opinions he has e xpressed that have been shown to b e
`
`inaccurate. None .
`
`You look at the deposition transcript of Mr . Fratto,
`
`not one question was posed to hi m about an y of his t echnical
`
`
`
`20
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`opinions, which, if there was so me i mp act of his lac k of
`
`training or bias or an ything else , would have been re vealed in
`
`the for m o f inacc urate testi mon y, which we have not seen.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Could you ad dress the second
`
`question then on your slide 36, the second sentence,
`
`accu mulating the pack ets see ms to be another argu ment Patent
`
`Owne r is making about teaching awa y? Go ahead .
`
`MR. KUS HAN: Yeah, no, so what our expert
`
`looked at, and if you go back to 36, this is basicall y a
`
`practical challeng e i mple mentation, sa ying that my e dge
`
`router, for e xa mp le, c an't proc ess a ll of the encr ypti on of all
`
`of the packets tha t are being sent o ut in order to avoid
`
`disruption via lost packets.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: No, no, I me a n the part about
`
`the hacker. I mea n, the whole point of B eser is to pr eclude
`
`so meone fro m gai ning, figuring out what a source is.
`
`So it see ms like t his sentence is sa ying, if the y a re
`
`all co ming fro m t he sa me source a nd you ac cu mulat e the m
`
`there, that , throu gh the securit y, t hat that would so rt of de feat
`
`what B eser is doing here.
`
`MR. KUS HAN : Well, so one of the great strengths
`
`of the Bes er sche me is that it conc eals the ter minati ng and
`
`originating sites or addresses of the tunnel. B y usin g the
`
`trusted third -party net work device it is able to set u p that
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00237 and IPR2014-00238
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,697
`
`
`tunneling association by concealin g the infor mation that would
`
`be used to locate those ends of the tunnel.
`
`And the other thing that Beser does do is teach us
`
`that you c an use e ncr yption, parti