throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34
`571-272-7822
` Date: August 24, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Apple Inc. filed a Petition (Paper 1) (“Pet.”) seeking an inter partes
`review of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 12–15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 28–31, 33, 35, and 37 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’180 patent”) pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On September 3, 2014, the Board instituted an inter
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`partes review of claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 12–15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 28–31, 33, 35, and
`37 (Paper 10) (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`Subsequent to institution, VirnetX (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 19) (“PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply
`(Paper 23) (“Pet. Reply”). An Oral Hearing was conducted on June 2, 2015.
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 12–15, 17, 20, 22,
`26, 28–31, 33, 35, and 37 of the ’180 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`The ’180 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`A.
`The ’180 patent describes methods for communicating over the
`Internet. Ex. 1001, 9:49–50.
`
`
`Illustrative Claim
`B.
`Claim 1 of the ’180 patent is reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for accessing a secure computer network
`address, comprising steps of:
`receiving a secure domain name;
`sending a query message to a secure domain name
`service, the query message requesting from the secure domain
`name service a secure computer network address corresponding
`to the secure domain name;
`receiving from the secure domain name service a
`response message containing the secure computer network
`address corresponding to the secure domain name; and
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`
`
`
`the secure
`to
`sending an access request message
`computer network address using a virtual private network
`communication link.
`
`C.
`
`Cited Prior Art
`June 6, 2000
`June 12, 2012
`
`(Ex. 1008)
`(Ex. 1010)
`
`Tavs
`Bhatti
`
`
`US 6,073,175
`US 8,200,837 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`Takahiro Kiuchi and Shigekoto Kaihara, “C-HTTP – The Development of a
`Secure, Closed HTTP-Based Network on the Internet,” PROCEEDINGS OF
`SNDSS (1996) (Ex. 1004 – “Kiuchi”).
`
`
`D.
`
`Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`
`References
`
`Kiuchi
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1, 4, 10, 12–15, 17, 20,
`26, 28–31, 33, and 35
`1, 4, 10, 12–15, 17, 20,
`26, 28–31, 33, and 35
`6, 22, and 37
`
`Kiuchi and Bhatti
`
`Kiuchi and Tavs (alone or
`in combination with Bhatti)
`
`
`
`Claim Interpretation
`E.
`Virtual Private Network (VPN) Communication Link
`We previously determined that, under a broad but reasonable
`construction, one of skill in the art would have understood the term “virtual
`private network communication link,” in light of the Specification, to
`include “a transmission path between two devices that restricts access to
`data, addresses, or other information on the path, generally using obfuscation
`methods to hide information on the path, including, but not limited to, one or
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`more of authentication, encryption, or address hopping.” Dec. on Inst. 6–7. 1
`Patent Owner disputes this interpretation and argues that the term “virtual
`private network communication link” must be “a communication path
`between computers in a virtual private network” (PO Resp. 8), “requir[es]
`computers within a VPN to communicate directly” (PO Resp. 10), and
`requires a “network of computers,” which, according to Patent Owner must
`be “more than a ‘path between two devices.’” PO Resp. 14.
`We decline to modify our previous construction of this term in the
`manner suggested by Patent Owner because such a modification is
`immaterial in this proceeding for reasons set forth below. See Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claim
`terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the case).
`
`
`
`Secure Computer Network Address
`We previously construed the term “secure computer network
`address,” broadly but reasonably, and in light of the Specification to mean
`“an address that requires authorization for access.” Patent Owner does not
`agree with this construction and argues that one of skill in the art would have
`broadly but reasonably understood the term “secure computer network
`address,” in light of the Specification, to require the secure computer
`network address to be “associated with a computer capable of virtual private
`network communications.” PO Resp. 16.
`
`1 Our construction is consistent with the broadest, reasonable construction in
`Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,792. See Cisco Systems,
`Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc., Appeal 2014-000491, slip. op. at 4–8 (PTAB Apr. 1,
`2014) (Decision on Appeal) (involving U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180).
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that a “secure computer network address” must be “associated
`with a computer capable of virtual private network communications”
`because a claim recites “sending an access request message to the secure
`computer network address using a virtual private network communication
`link.” PO Resp. 16. We agree with Patent Owner that claim 1, for example,
`recites “sending an access request message to the secure computer network
`address using a virtual private network communication link.” However,
`Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why an explicitly recited claim
`limitation must be incorporated into the construction of an associated claim
`term. Indeed, if one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`all secure computer network addresses must be associated with a computer
`capable of VPN communications and that any computer network address
`that is associated with computers that are incapable of VPN communications
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art not to be a “secure
`computer network address” (even if authorization for access is required),
`then any such recited claim limitation would be superfluous.
`Patent Owner also argues that “VirnetX’s proposed construction has
`been agreed to by its litigation adversaries and has been adopted by a district
`court.” PO Resp. 17. Even if Patent Owner’s proposed construction “has
`been agreed to by” parties in litigation and the district court, Patent Owner
`does not assert or demonstrate persuasively that one of ordinary skill in the
`art would have broadly but reasonably construed the term “secure computer
`network address” in light of the Specification to require association with a
`computer capable of virtual private network communications.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`
`In any event, Patent Owner does not appear to contend that the cited
`references fail to disclose a secure computer network address that is
`associated with a computer capable of VPN communications and, therefore,
`does not demonstrate sufficiently that the construction of “secure computer
`network address” will bear on the outcome of the issues in this inter partes
`review. We decline to modify our construction of this term.
`
`Secure Domain Name
`We previously construed the term “secure domain name,” broadly but
`reasonably, and in light of the Specification to mean “a name that
`corresponds to a secure computer network address.” Patent Owner does not
`agree with this construction and argues that one of skill in the art would have
`broadly but reasonably understood the term “secure domain name,” in light
`of the Specification, to require “a non-standard domain name that
`corresponds to a secure computer network address and cannot be resolved by
`a conventional domain name service (DNS).” PO Resp. 19. In support of
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term, Patent Owner states that
`the Specification “takes pains to explain” the difference between a “secure
`domain name” and a “name that corresponds to a secure computer network
`address.” PO Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 1023, 802 (citing Ex. 1001, 51:18–32)).
`The cited portions of the Specification disclose an example of
`“replac[ing] the top-level domain name . . . with a secure top-level domain
`name.” Ex. 1001, 51:19–21. Patent Owner does not demonstrate that the
`Specification also discloses that a secure domain name must be “non-
`standard” and must be incapable of being resolved by a conventional domain
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`name service. For at least this reason, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction of the term.
`We also adopt and incorporate by reference our analysis of this
`construction in the companion case. See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., Case
`IPR2014-00481, slip. op. at 13–14 (PTAB 8/24/15) (also discussing
`prosecution history).
`Thus, we decline to modify our construction of this term.
`
`Secure Domain Name Service
`Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have broadly
`but reasonably understood the term “secure domain name service,” in light
`of the Specification, to require “recogniz[ing] that a query message is
`requesting a secure computer address.” PO Resp. 20.
`Claim 1, for example, recites sending a query message to “a secure
`domain name service” requesting a secure computer network address and
`receiving “a response message containing the secure computer network
`address.” Patent Owner does not demonstrate sufficiently that claim 1
`otherwise requires that the “secure domain name service” “recognizes that
`the query message is requesting a secure computer address.” “[T]he claims
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular
`claim terms” and “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim
`can be highly instructive.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). At least based on the context of the claim, we cannot agree
`with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that “recogniz[ing]” is required by claim 1 in the absence of a
`recitation suggesting this alleged requirement.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`
`We also look to the Specification in construing claim terms under a
`broad but reasonable standard because “the person of ordinary skill in the art
`is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular
`claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire
`patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (citing
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir.
`1998)). Patent Owner does not indicate that the Specification discloses that
`“recogniz[ing]” is required by a secure domain service in either sending a
`query message to the secure domain service or receiving a response message
`from the secure domain name service. Nor do we identify such a disclosure
`in the Specification. Hence, further based on the context of the
`Specification, we cannot agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill
`in the art would have understood that a “secure domain name service” must
`have any specific recognition capabilities in the absence of such a disclosure
`in the Specification of this alleged requirement.
`Patent Owner argues that “VirnetX has disclaimed secure domain
`services that do not perform this recognition” and that “[a] district court later
`relied on VirnetX’s statements.” PO Resp. 20–21. However, Patent Owner
`does not indicate that the district court determined how one of ordinary skill
`in the art would have construed the term “secure domain name service”
`broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification and that, under this broad
`but reasonable construction, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that the “secure domain name service” to require
`“recogniz[ing].”
`Patent Owner argues that, during a reexamination proceeding, Patent
`Owner allegedly proposed various examples of possible functionality of a
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`secure domain name service. For example, Patent Owner argues that in the
`reexamination proceeding, Patent Owner allegedly stated that a secure
`domain name service “may allow an entity to register . . . names” and “may
`. . . support the establishment of a VPN communication link.” PO Resp. 21.
`However, Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively that these
`possible functions of a secure domain service (i.e., that a secure domain
`service “may” register names or support a VPN link) support the contention
`that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a secure
`domain service requires “recogniz[ing].”
`We also adopt and incorporate by reference our analysis of this
`construction in the companion case. See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., Case
`IPR2014-00481, slip. op. at 14–26 (PTAB 8/24/15). For at least the above
`reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term
`“secure domain name service.”
`
`Client Computer
`Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have understood
`that a “client computer” must be a “user’s computer.” PO Resp. 22. Claim
`15 recites a client computer that performs the method of claim 1.
`Patent Owner argues that a “client computer” must be a “user’s
`computer” but does not specify a difference between a “client computer” and
`a “user’s computer.” Instead, Patent Owner merely states that the
`Specification discloses a “user’s computer 2601.” PO Resp. 22 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 40:53–56). We note that the Specification illustrates a component
`“2601” but does not appear to disclose that component “2601” is a “user
`computer.” Spec. Fig. 26. Indeed, the Specification does not appear to
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`disclose any specific name for component “2601” at all. Even if the
`Specification explicitly disclosed that component “2601” as illustrated in
`Figure 26 of the Specification is a “user’s computer,” Patent Owner does not
`explain sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`understood that a “client computer,” as recited in claim 15 must be a “user’s
`computer,” or how such a “user’s computer” would differ from a “client
`computer.” PO Resp. 22.
`Patent Owner also argues that the Specification discloses a “computer
`3301” that “is manned by a user.” PO Resp. 22–23. We note that the
`Specification discloses that element “3301” is a “client computer” (see, e.g.,
`Ex. 1001, 50:2). Patent Owner does not indicate if the Specification refers
`to element “3301” as a “user’s computer” as well, and, if so, how calling
`element “3301” a “user’s computer” (as opposed to a “client computer”)
`would result in a difference in element “3301,” what this supposed
`difference would be, and how this supposed difference would modify the
`broad but reasonable construction of the term “client computer,” as recited
`in claim 15.
`Patent Owner also argues that the Specification discloses a “user’s
`computer 2501.” PO Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 39:53–55, 40:36–38). The
`Specification discloses a “user’s computer 2501” that “includes a client
`application 2504.” Ex. 1001, 39:53–54. The Specification also discloses
`that the “user’s computer 2601 includes a conventional client (e.g., a web
`browser).” Ex. 1001, 40:36–38. Hence, as Patent Owner points out, the
`Specification discloses an example of a component referred to as “user’s
`computer” (i.e., element 2601) that includes “a client application” and the
`“client application” may be, in one example, a “web browser.” Patent
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`Owner does not assert or demonstrate persuasively that the Specification
`also discloses that the “user’s computer 2601” is a “client computer,” as
`recited in claim 15. Nor does Patent Owner demonstrate sufficiently how
`one of ordinary skill in the art, based on this disclosure of a “user’s
`computer,” would broadly but reasonably construe the term “client
`computer,” as recited in claim 15 to be required to be a “user’s computer.”
`The ’180 patent Specification employs the term “user’s computer” in
`a “conventional scheme . . . shown in FIG 25. A user’s computer 2501
`includes a client application 2504 (for example a web browser) . . . .”
`Ex. 1001, 39:53–55. Although Patent Owner refers to this “conventional”
`computer as “another embodiment,” the ’180 patent Specification disparages
`the “conventional architecture” that employs a user’s computer, because it is
`not secure enough. See id. at 39:63–40:5; PO Resp. 21. In general, the ’180
`patent Specification states that “[t]he present invention” involves a “client
`computer” with a “client application” that “communicates with a server.”
`See Ex. 1001, 7:43–50. This description of “[t]he present invention” does
`not mention, let alone require, a “user’s computer.”
`Therefore, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, the ’180 patent
`Specification does not repeatedly treat a “client computer” and a “user’s
`computer” as the same. The broadest reasonable construction of a client
`computer is a computer associated with a client.
`We also adopt and incorporate by reference our analysis of this
`construction in the companion case. See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., Case
`IPR2014-00481, slip. op. at 26–27 (PTAB 8/24/15) (also discussing
`prosecution history).
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`
`For at least the above reasons, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction of the term “client computer” as a “user’s computer.”
`Instead, we construe the term “client computer,” broadly but reasonably, to
`include a computer associated with a client.
`
`Access Request Message
`As Patent Owner explains, the construction of this term “do[es] not
`appear to be relevant to the parties’ disputes.” PO Resp. 25.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Kiuchi
`For at least the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has
`demonstrated that claims 1, 4, 10, 13–15, 17, 20, 26, 29–31, 33, and 35 are
`anticipated by Kiuchi under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`Petitioner explains that Kiuchi discloses that a client-side proxy “asks
`the C-HTTP name server whether it can communicate with the host
`specified in a given URL” and, in response, receiving “the IP address” of the
`(requested) server-side proxy (i.e., sends a “query message” requesting “a
`secure computer network address” and receives a “response message” that
`contains the requested address that corresponds to the server-side proxy).
`Pet. 24–25 (emphasis omitted). As Petitioner also explains, Kiuchi discloses
`the client-side proxy “forwards HTTP/1.0 requests” to the requested server-
`side proxy after the connection is established. Pet. 25.
`Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses a “host address as the
`‘secure computer network address’ to which the secure domain name
`corresponds” but that the response message of Kiuchi contains a “secure
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`computer network address” of “the server-side proxy” (and not the “host”).
`PO Resp. 32 (emphasis omitted). In other words, Patent Owner argues that,
`in contrast to claim 1, which requires sending a query message requesting an
`address and receiving a response message containing the address requested
`in the query message, Kiuchi discloses sending a query message requesting
`an address of “the host” but receiving a response message containing an
`address of “the server-side proxy,” rather than “the host.” Based on this
`presumption that “the host” of Kiuchi differs from the “server-side proxy” of
`Kiuchi, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose the claimed
`invention and also that “the Board has exceeded its statutory authority by
`instituting in part on rationales that were not before it.” PO Resp. 30.
`However, Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently a difference between
`“the host” and the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi.
`Kiuchi discloses that a client-side proxy “asks the C-HTTP name
`server whether it can communicate with the host” and that, in response, the
`C-HTTP name server examines “the requested server-side proxy” and
`responds by sending the IP address of the server-side proxy. Ex. 1004, 65
`(emphasis added). In other words, Kiuchi discloses that “the host” that is
`requested is the requested “server-side proxy.”
`Patent Owner argues that “Kiuchi explains that the origin server is the
`host.” PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 1004, 65, § 2.3(1)–(2)). We have examined
`the cited portions of Kiuchi but do not agree with Patent Owner that Kiuchi
`discloses that “the origin server is the host.” Instead, as previously
`discussed, Kiuchi explicitly discloses that “the host” is the server-side proxy.
`In fact, Kiuchi does not appear to disclose or otherwise refer to the “origin
`server” in the cited portion of the reference at all.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses that “the C-HTTP name
`server is provided with this URL . . . [and] responds not with the host/origin
`server’s network address . . . but with the IP address of the server-side
`proxy.” PO Resp. 36. We agree with Patent Owner that Kiuchi discloses
`the C-HTTP name server providing the IP address of the server-side proxy.
`For reasons previously discussed, Patent Owner has not demonstrated
`sufficiently a difference between receiving from the C-HTTP name server a
`response message containing the IP address corresponding to the server-side
`proxy and receiving from the secure domain name service a response
`message containing the secure computer network address corresponding to
`the secure domain name, as recited in claim 1, for example.
`Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose an access request
`message. PO Resp. 36. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi
`discloses an “HTTP/1.0 request” but that Kiuchi fails to disclose “sending
`the HTTP/1.0 message to the alleged secure computer network address.” PO
`Resp. 39. Claim 1 recites “sending an access request message to the secure
`computer network address.” Patent Owner does not demonstrate that claim
`1 also recites “sending an HTTP/1.0 request to the secure computer network
`address” or that the “access request message” is an “HTTP/1.0 request.” For
`at least this reason, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`Even if claim 1 recited “sending an HTTP/1.0 request to the secure
`computer network address,” as Patent Owner contends could have been
`recited in claim 1, we disagree with Patent Owner that Kiuchi fails to
`disclose this proposed feature. For example, Kiuchi discloses “sending . . .
`requests to the server-side proxy” in which “a client-side proxy forwards
`HTTP/1.0 requests” to the server-side proxy. Ex. 1004, 66. Patent Owner
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`does not demonstrate persuasively a material difference between the client-
`side proxy “sending” a request to a server-side proxy and a client-side proxy
`“forwarding” a request to a server-side proxy. In both cases, a request is
`transmitted from the client-side proxy to the server-side proxy.
`Patent Owner argues that the “HTTP/1.0 message” of Kiuchi is not
`the same as the claimed “access request message” because, according to
`Patent Owner, the “HTTP/1.0 message” of Kiuchi “seeks an HTML resource
`from the origin/host server” but “does not seek any ‘communication,
`information, or services’ with the server-side proxy.” PO Resp. 39. As
`previously discussed, Kiuchi discloses a client-side proxy “[s]ending C-
`HTTP request to the server-side proxy” in which the “client-side proxy
`forwards the HTTP/1.0 request” to the server-side proxy for communication
`and exchange of services between devices. Ex. 1004, 66. For example,
`Kiuchi discloses one example in which “patient information” is
`“transfer[red]” “among hospitals and related institutions.” Ex. 1004, 64.
`Patent Owner does not indicate sufficiently how Kiuchi’s request for
`communication between network devices for communication or information
`(e.g., patient information) exchange, for example, differs from a device
`seeking “any communication, information, or services.” Hence, to the
`extent that claim 1 requires seeking “any communication, information, or
`services,” we disagree with Patent Owner that Kiuchi fails to disclose this
`feature.
`Patent Owner also argues that the “HTTP/1.0 message” of Kiuchi is
`not the same as the claimed “access request message” because, according to
`Patent Owner, the “HTTP/1.0 message” of Kiuchi “is not sent using a
`Virtual private network communication link.” PO Resp. 40 (bolding
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`omitted). Patent Owner also argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose sending a
`request “using a virtual private network communication link” because
`“Kiuchi’s C-HTTP system lacks the ‘network’ aspect of a VPN.” PO Resp.
`41. Hence, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose a “network.”
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument.
`For example, Kiuchi discloses one embodiment of the use of a C-
`HTTP name server (and client-side and server-side proxies) in “networks
`among hospitals and related institutions.” Ex 1004, 64. At least in view of
`this explicit disclosure of “networks,” we are not persuaded by Patent Owner
`that Kiuchi fails to disclose a “network.”
`Patent Owner also argues that “any message from the client-side
`proxy [of Kiuchi] is not sent using a VPN communication link” because
`“Kiuchi fails to disclose direct communications.” PO Resp. 43. Hence,
`Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose a “direct communication.”
`Claim 1, for example, recites sending an access request to the secure
`network address using a virtual private network communication link. Claim
`1 does not recite sending an access request message over a “direct
`communication.” At least for this reason, we are therefore not persuaded by
`Patent Owner’s argument.
`To the extent that Patent Owner argues that a “direct communication”
`is recited implicitly in claim 1, for example, we disagree with Patent Owner
`at least because even if a “direct communication” is required, Kiuchi
`discloses this feature. As discussed above, Kiuchi discloses a client-side
`proxy (i.e., first network device) “[s]ending C-HTTP requests to the server-
`side proxy” in which the client-side proxy “forwards HTTP/1.0 requests” to
`the server-side proxy. Ex. 1004, 66. Kiuchi also discloses that “[a] client-
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`side proxy and server-side proxy communicate with each other using a
`secure, encrypted protocol.” Ex. 1004, 64. Kiuchi does not disclose that the
`communication between the client-side proxy and the server-side proxy is
`not a “direct communication” and Patent Owner does not explain adequately
`how the communication between the client-side proxy and the server-side
`proxy of Kiuchi differs from a “direct communication,” as Patent Owner
`contends is recited implicitly in claim 1.
`Regarding claims 13, 15, 29, and 31, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi
`fails to disclose a client computer. PO Resp. 48. Claim 13 recites sending
`the access request message at the client computer and claim 15 recites that
`the method is performed by a client computer. In particular, Patent Owner
`argues that “evidence showed that the user agent containing a web browser
`behind the client-side proxy was the true client [computer] in Kiuchi.” PO
`Resp. 49. Hence, Patent Owner argues that while Kiuchi discloses a “user
`agent” and a “client-side proxy,” the “user agent” of Kiuchi corresponds to
`the claimed “client computer” and the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi
`supposedly does not. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments at
`least because Patent Owner does not demonstrate sufficiently a difference
`between Kiuchi’s “client-side proxy” and the claimed “client computer.”
`For example, while Patent Owner argues that there is “evidence” that shows
`allegedly that the “user agent” of Kiuchi corresponds to the claimed “client
`computer,” the alleged “evidence” is not before us and does not appear to be
`part of the record. In addition, Patent Owner does not indicate that there was
`also “evidence” (and what such “evidence” would be) that shows that the
`“client-side proxy” of Kiuchi cannot be equated with the claimed “client
`computer” and any reasons in support of such a theory. We do not
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`independently identify any reasons why the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi
`cannot be equated with the claimed “client computer.”
`Patent Owner argues that the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi cannot be
`equated with the claimed “client computer” because, according to Patent
`Owner, “there was evidence that the ‘client’ of Kiuchi is actually a web
`browser, a component that is distinguishable from the client-side proxy.”
`PO Resp. 49 (quoting VirnetX v. Cisco Sys., 767 F.3d at 1324). Even if
`Patent Owner is correct that a “client” of Kiuchi is a “web browser,” Patent
`Owner does not demonstrate sufficiently a meaningful difference between
`the claimed “client computer” and the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi. For
`example, although Patent Owner argues that the Federal Circuit commented
`on the term “client,” Patent Owner does not assert that the Federal Circuit
`also commented on the term “client computer” and the relevance of any such
`potential comments to the issue as to whether the “client-side proxy” of
`Kiuchi does or does not encompass the claimed “client computer.” We do
`not independently identify any comments by the Federal Circuit pertaining
`to the claimed “client computer.”
`Patent Owner argues that “Kiuchi describes the system in a way that
`differentiates its proxies from its user agent computers.” PO Resp. 50. In
`other words, Patent Owner argues that the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi
`somehow differs from the “user agent” of Kiuchi. The issue before us is
`whether the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi encompasses the claimed “client
`computer,” and not whether the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi is or is not the
`same as the “user agent” of Kiuchi. Thus, even if Patent Owner’s contention
`is correct that the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi is different from the “user
`agent” of Kiuchi, Patent Owner does not assert or demonstrate adequately a
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00482
`Patent 7,188,180 B2
`
`difference between the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi and the claimed “client
`computer.” Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive.
`Patent Owner also argues that if the “client-side proxy” of Kiuchi is
`equated with the claimed “client computer,” then Kiuchi’s system “collapses
`. . . into a system of the type Kiuchi criticizes, where an end-user has an
`opportunity to obtain the institution’s public key.” PO Resp. 50. First, we
`disagree with Patent Owner that equating Kiuchi’s “client-side proxy” with
`the claimed “client computer,” has any bearing on any potential or alleged
`criticisms that may or may not be disclosed by Kiuchi. We note that
`although Patent Owner’s proposes an alleged “criticism” in Kiuchi of
`“obtain[ing] the institution’s public key,” claim 13, for example, does not
`recite preventing or enabling a user from obtaining an institution’s public
`key. Indeed, claim 13 does not recite a “public key” at all.
`Considering the claim limitations that are recited by the claims,
`Kiuchi does not disclose that utilizing the “client-side proxy” to send a query
`message, receive a response message, or send an access request message, as
`recited in claim 15 (which depends from claim 1), for example, would result
`in any particular “criticism” of the Kiuchi system. In fact, as previously
`discussed, Kiuchi appears to disclose the “client-side proxy” performing
`each of these claim features.
`Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket