Serial No. 13/336,958
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-25 are pending in the application, of which Claims 1 and 14 are the independent
`
`claims. By this amendment, only dependent claims 23 and 24 are amended. In the Office Action
`
`mailed July 25, 2012 (“Office Action”), claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`based on US. Patent No. 5,898,830 (“Wesz’nger”). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection
`
`and request reconsideration of the same in view of the following remarks.
`
`Applicants'Summaty 211d Clarification ofthe August 23, 2012 and
`
`October 11, 2012 Interviews
`
`Applicants appreciate the courtesies extended to Applicants’ undersigned representative
`
`at the personal interview conducted in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August
`
`23, 2012 (“first interview”), as well as to Applicants’ undersigned representative and inventor Dr.
`
`Robert Short III at the personal interview on October 11, 2012 (“second interview”). The
`
`Examiner mailed Interview Summaries on August 30, 2012 and October 18, 2012, summarizing
`
`certain aspects of the interviews. Applicants thank the Examiner for the Interview Summaries,
`
`and submit the following comments to address and clarify the Examiner’s summary of those
`
`discussions.
`
`In the first interview, Applicants’ undersigned representative provided an overview of the
`
`claimed subject matter and discussed patentable distinctions of the claimed subject matter over
`
`the asserted reference, Wesz'nger.
`
`However, no agreement was reached regarding the
`
`allowability of the claims.
`
`During the second interview, Applicants’ representative and Dr. Short provided an
`
`overview of the claimed subject matter. Additionally, the Examiner, Applicants’ representative,
`
`and Dr. Short discussed distinctions of the claimed subject matter over firewall systems such as
`
`Wesz’nger’s.
`
`The Examiner suggested that an exemplary feature discussed by Applicants’
`
`representative and Dr. Short while providing the overview — interception of a request to look up
`
`a network address of a network device and a determination whether the network device is
`
`available for a secure communications service — was distinguishable over the prior art. As such,
`
`the Examiner suggested that Applicants amend the claims accordingly.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 751
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 751
`
`

`

`Serial No. 13/336,958
`
`However, in the second Interview Summary, the Examiner summarized the discussions
`
`of such allowable features as the “gist of the invention.” Although Applicants agree that
`
`“interception of a request to look up a network address of a network device and a determination
`
`whether the network device is available for a secure communications service” is one feature that
`
`distinguishes the disclosed subject matter from the cited art, Applicants disagree with the second
`
`Interview Summary to the extent that it suggests that the above mentioned “intercepting” feature
`
`is the only novel and nonobvious aspect of Applicants’ disclosed and/or claimed embodiments.
`
`Indeed, as discussed during the interview and described below, Applicants’ disclosed and
`
`claimed embodiments include other novel and nonobvious aspects of the claimed subject matter.
`
`Other novel and unobvious aspects of the claimed subject include features that are found in the
`
`currently pending claims and in the claims presented prior to this Amendment. Thus, while
`
`Applicants appreciate the Examiner’s suggestion to expedite allowance of this application,
`
`Applicants decline to amend the claims because they already patentably distinguish from
`
`Wesz'nger and other cited prior art, for at least the reasons below.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 US. C. § 103
`
`Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wesz'nger. As explained below,
`
`because Wesz'nger does not disclose or suggest each and every limitation of claims 1-25,
`
`Applicants request that the rejection be withdrawn and the claims be allowed.
`
`
`To support an obviousness rejection, “all of the claim limitations must be taught or
`
`suggested by the prior art applied and that all words in a claim must be considered in judging the
`
`patentability of that claim against the prior art.” Ex Parte Karl Burgess, Appeal 2008-2820,
`
`2009 WL 291172 (B.P.A.I. 2009), at *3 (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984-85 (CCPA 1974),
`
`In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970)) (emphases added). A rejection based on
`
`obviousness “cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
`
`articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
`
`the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (citing In re Kahn,
`
`441 F.3d at 988). Here, the Office Action fails to demonstrate that each and every limitation of
`
`claims 1-25 are disclosed or suggested by Wesz’nger.
`
`Wesz'nger discloses a firewall that is configured as two or more sets of virtual hosts, with
`
`DNS mappings between the virtual hosts and respective remote hosts to be accessed through
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 752
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 752
`
`

`

`Serial No. 13/336,958
`
`network interfaces of the firewall.
`
`(Wesinger Abstract.) These virtual hosts and DNS mappings
`
`enable transparent communications through the firewall.
`
`The firewall “selectively allows
`
`‘acceptable’ computer transmissions to pass through it and disallows other non-acceptable
`
`computer transmissions.” (Id. at 1:8-12.) In Wesz’nger, “[w]hen a connection request is received,
`
`the firewall spawns a process, or execution thread, to create a virtual host VHn to handle that
`
`connection request.” (Id. at 15:9-12.) “Each virtual host has a separate configuration sub-file
`
`(sub-database) Cl, C2, etc., that may be derived from a master configuration file, or database,
`
`510. The configuration sub-files are text files that may be used to enable or disable different
`
`functions for each virtual host, specify which connections and types of traffic will be allowed
`
`and which will be denied, etc.” (Id. at 14:46-52.) “Also as part of the configuration file of each
`
`virtual host, an access rules database is provided governing access to and through the virtual host,
`
`i.e., which connections will be allowed and which connections will be denied.” (Id. at 15:24-28.)
`
`The process in Wesz’nger uses the access rules database to “allow only a connection from a
`
`specified secure client.” (Id. at 10:14-16.)
`
`Wesz’nger also discusses processing of DNS requests:
`
`When client C tries to initiate a connection to host D using the name of D, DNS
`operates in the usual manner to propagate a name request to successive levels of
`the network until D is found. The DNS server for D returns the network address
`
`of D to a virtual host on the firewall 155. The virtual host returns its network
`
`address to the virtual host on the firewall 157 from which it received the lookup
`request, and so on, until a virtual host on the firewall 105 returns its network
`address (instead of the network address of D) to the client C.
`
`(Id. at 9:16-24.)
`
`Accordingly, when client C uses a name of D in a DNS request, C gets back an address
`
`for a virtual host of firewall 105, which faces C.
`
`(See id. at Fig. 1).
`
`Wesz’nger describes processes and components different than the embodiments recited in
`
`claims 1-25. For instance, independent claim 1 is representative and recites:
`
`A network device, comprising:
`
`a storage device storing an application program for a secure communications
`service; and
`
`at least one processor configured to execute the application program for the secure
`communications service so as to enable the network device to:
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 753
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 753
`
`

`

`Serial No. 13/336,958
`
`send a request to look up a network address of a second network device
`based on an identifier associated with the second network device;
`
`receive an indication that the second network device is available for the
`
`the indication including the requested
`secure communications service,
`network address of the
`second network device
`and provisioning
`information for a secure communication link;
`
`connect to the second network device over the secure communication link,
`using the received network address of the second network device and the
`provisioning information for the secure communication link; and
`
`communicate at least one of video data and audio data with the second
`
`network device using the secure communications service via the secure
`communication link.
`
`Wesz’nger does not disclose,
`
`for example, receiving “an indication that
`
`the second
`
`network device is available for the secure communications service, the indication including the
`
`requested network address of the second network device and provisioning information for a
`
`secure communication li
`
`,” as recited in claim 1. Nor does Wesz’nger disclose the ability to
`
`“connect to the second network device over the secure communication link, using the received
`
`network address of the second network device and the provisioning information for the secure
`
`communication li
`
`” and “communicate .
`
`.
`
`. with the second network device using the secure
`
`communications service via the secure communication li
`
`,” as recited in claim 1. For these
`
`reasons alone, the rejection of claim 1 in view of Wesinger is improper and should be withdrawn.
`
`For example, nothing in Wesz’nger, including at the cited portions, teaches or suggests at
`
`least the feature of enabling a network device to “receive .
`
`.
`
`. an indication that the second
`
`network device is available for the secure communications service,” as recited by claim 1. The
`
`virtual hosts and DNS mappings of Wesz’nger enable transparent communications through the
`
`firewall, but provide no such indication that the second network device is available for a secure
`
`communications service.
`
`Wesinger briefly states that encryption may be used in combination with its firewalls, but
`
`does not describe those firewalls as providing any indication that a second device is available for
`
`the secure communications service.
`
`(See Wesz’nger at 4:39-42; 12:22-28.)
`
`In fact, Wesz’nger
`
`explains that “[o]nce a connection has been allowed, the virtual host process invokes code that
`
`performs .
`
`.
`
`. channel processing (encryption. . .).” (Id. at l7:l-7.) Invoking code for encryption
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 754
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 754
`
`

`

`Serial No. 13/336,958
`
`or the like after a connection has already been established does not teach or suggest enabling a
`
`network device to receive an indication that the second network device is available for the secure
`
`communications service. Wesz'nger invokes the code that performs channel processing and
`
`encryption without returning any indication that the second device is available for a secure
`
`communications service.
`
`The Office Action points to a portion of Wesz'nger that describes a piece of software
`
`checking whether the host “requesting the connection”1 has a DNS entry in a database.
`
`(CA at 3
`
`(citing Wesz'nger at 16:57-17:5).) However, following that check, Wesinger does not enable the
`
`device requesting the connection to receive an indication that the second network device is
`
`available for a secure communications service. Thus,
`
`that passage of Wesz'nger, does not
`
`demonstrate the claimed features. (See Wesinger at 16:57-67.)
`
`Moreover, Wesinger merely describes returning a network address of a virtual host. (Id.
`
`at 9: 15-25.) Wesz’nger makes it clear that the network address is returned alone, and not with any
`3,
`“indication” or “provisioning information. Consequently, Wesz'nger, does not teach or suggest
`
`“receiving .
`
`.
`
`. provisioning information for a secure communication link” (emphasis added), as
`
`recited by claim 1.
`
`Indeed, in Wesz'nger, after a connection request is received and allowed, the
`
`virtual host invokes code that performs channel processing (including encryption) but does not
`
`return any provisioning information for a secure communication link.
`
`(Id. at 17:1-7.) Aside
`
`from the address, nothing else is returned to the requesting device in Wesz’nger.
`
`For the above reasons, Wesz'nger does not support the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a). Accordingly, the rejection should be withdrawn, and the claim should be allowed.
`
`Independent claim 14, though of different scope from independent claim 1, recites similar
`
`features to those discussed above in connection with claim 1. Thus, for at least reasons similar to
`
`those provided above for independent claim 1, Wesz'nger does not teach or suggest each and
`
`every limitation of independent claim 14. Consequently, for the same reasons set forth above for
`
`claim 1, Wesz'nger does not support the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, the
`
`rejection should be withdrawn and the claim should be allowed.
`
`1 Wesinger defines a “remote host” as the “host requesting the connection” for the purpose of the cited paragraphs.
`(Wesinger at 16:49.)
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 755
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 755
`
`

`

`Serial No. 13/336,958
`
`Claims 2-13, depend from claim 1. Claims 15-25 depend from claim 14. Thus, for at
`
`least the same reasons set forth above in connection with claims 1 and 14, dependent claims 2-13
`
`and 15-25 are allowable over the cited prior art. Additionally, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-25
`
`are allowable for the additional reason that each of the claims recite additional features not
`
`disclosed or suggested by the cited prior art. Accordingly, Applicants request the timely
`
`allowance of these claims.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that all of the pending claims, claims 1-25, are allowable
`
`over the cited prior art. Applicants respectfully invite the Examiner to contact the undersigned
`
`attorney to promptly address any questions or issues regarding the allowability of the pending
`
`claims.
`
`Applicants’ remarks in support of patentability of one claim should not be imputed to any
`
`other claim, even if similar terminology is used. Any absence of a reply to a specific rejection,
`
`issue, or comment does not signify agreement with or concession of that rejection,
`
`issue, or
`
`comment.
`
`In addition, because Applicants’ remarks are not intended to be exhaustive, as there
`
`may be other reasons for patentability of any or all claims that have not been expressed. Finally,
`
`nothing in this response should be construed as intent to concede any issue with regard to any
`
`claim, and the amendment or cancellation of any claim does not necessarily signify concession
`
`of unpatentability of the claim prior to its amendment or cancellation.
`
`To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
`
`hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
`
`ll
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 756
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 756
`
`

`

`Serial No. 13/336,958
`
`including extension of time fees to Deposit Account 502203 and please credit any excess fees to
`
`such deposit account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`
`Date: October 25 2012
`/Toby H. Kusmer/
`Toby H. Kusmer, P.C., Reg. No. 26,418
`Customer No. 23630
`
`28 State Street
`
`Boston, MA 02109-1775
`Telephone: (617) 535-4065
`Facsimile : (617)535-3800
`E-mail:
`tkusmer@mwe.com
`
`Kenneth C. Cheney, Reg. No. 61,841
`4 Park Plaza
`
`Suite 1700
`
`Irvine, California 92614-25 59
`
`Telephone: (949) 757-7111
`Facsimile: (949) 851-9348
`E-mail: kcheney@mwe.com
`
`DMiUS 39449563—1.077580.0152
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 757
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 757
`
`

`

`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`International Application Number: —
`
`
`
`“fle°fmve"“°"‘
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD EMPLOYING AN AGILE NETWORK PROTOCOL FOR
`SBlRECOMMUNKAflONSUSNGSHMREDOMNNNAMES
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Application Type:
`
`Utillty under 35 USC111(a)
`
`Payment information:
`
`File Listing:
`
`Document
`Number
`
`Document Descri
`
`tion
`
`P
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Message Digest
`123529
`
`Pages
`Multi
`Part /.zip (if appl.)
`
`
`
`Amend ment/Req. Reconsideration-After
`Non-Final Reject
`
`ReplyB.pdf
`
`33871746cb5d3f30e127953db281d1b6f66
`aadff
`
`Information:
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 758
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 758
`
`

`

`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO ofthe indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`123529
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111
`lfa new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)—(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`lfa timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`the application.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`lfa new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and ofthe International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 759
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 759
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`13/336,958
`
`12/23/2011
`
`Victor Larson
`
`77580—152(VRNK—1CP3CNFT2)
`
`1832
`
`23630
`7590
`12/07/2012
`Mcnemonwummery —
`The McDermott Building
`LIM, KRISNA
`500 North Capitol Street, NW.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2453
`
`
`
`
`
` NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/07/2012
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket @ mwe.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 760
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 760
`
`

`

`
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`13/336,958
`
`Examiner
`KRISNA LIM
`
`LARSON ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`2453
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`In no event however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 25 October 2012.
`
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)I:| This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:l An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-25 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:l Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Zl Claim(s)_125 Is/are rejected.
`
`8)I:l Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`9)I:l Claim((s)
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway
`program at a participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`htt
`:/'/www.us to. OV/‘ateI'ItS/II'III events/eeh/Index.‘s or send an inquiry to PPeredback usntot 0v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)|:| The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)I:l accepted or b)I:l objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:l Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)I:l AII
`
`b)I:l Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.I:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _
`
`3.I:l Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) X Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`4) D Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 09-12)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20121130
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 761
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 761
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/336,958
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2453
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-25 are still pending for examination.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 § U.S.C. 103 (a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed
`or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was
`made.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under
`
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`99°F)?“
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Wesinger [U.S. Patent No. 5,898,830].
`
`4.
`
`Wesinger disclosed the invention substantially as claimed. Taking claims 1, 9,
`
`10, 11-14 and 22-25 as exemplary claims, the reference discloses a network device
`
`(i.e., see Internet 120 of Fig. 1 connecting with other network devices), comprising:
`
`a storage device storing an application program for a secure communication service
`
`((i.e., see col. 8 (lines 65) to col. 9 (line 2), col. 16 (line 57) to col. 17 (line 5), col. 12
`
`(lines 23-27)); and
`
`at least one processor configured to execute the application program for the
`
`secure communication service so as to enable the network device to:
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 762
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 762
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/336,958
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2453
`
`send a request to look up a network address of a second network device (Le.
`
`a host D) based on an identifier associated with the second network device (i.e.
`
`Wesinger disclosed at col. 8 (line 25) to col. 9 (line 25)
`
`"
`
`DNS is a system that
`
`translates host name address to IP address and IP address to host name
`
`stored in
`
`DNS tables When client C tries to initiates a connection to host D
`
`The DNS server
`
`for D returns the network address D
`
`from which it receives the look up request ...’).
`
`receive an indication that the second network device is available for the secure
`
`communications service, the indication including the requested network address of the
`
`second network device and provisioning information for a secure communication link
`
`(i.e., Wesinger at col. 12 (lines 23-27) disclosed
`
`combining encryption capabilities
`
`allows for the creation of virtual private networks-networks in which two
`
`remote machine communicate securely and at col. 8 (line 25) to col. 9 (line 25)
`
`Wesinger disclosed "
`
`DNS is a
`
`system that translates host name address to IP
`
`address and IP address to host name
`
`stored in DNS tables When client C tries to
`
`initiates a connection to host D
`
`The DNS server for D returns the network address D
`
`from which it receives the look up request ...”);
`
`connect to the second network device, using the received network address of
`
`the second network device and the provisioning information for the secure
`
`communication link (i.e., Wesinger at col. 12 (lines 23-27) disclosed
`
`combining
`
`encryption capabilities
`
`allows for the creation of virtual private networks-
`
`networks in which two remote machine communicate securely
`
`and at col. 8
`
`(line 25) to col. 9 (line 25) Wesinger disclosed "
`
`DNS is a system that translates
`
`host name address to IP address and IP address to host name
`
`stored in DNS tables
`
`When client C tries to initiates a connection to host D
`
`The DNS server for D
`
`returns the network address D
`
`from which it receives the look up request ...”);
`
`communicate with the second network device using the secure
`
`communications service via the virtual private network communication link
`
`(i.e., Wesinger at col. 12 (lines 23-27) disclosed
`
`combining encryption capabilities
`
`allows for the creation of virtual private networks-networks in which two
`
`remote machine communicate securely ...");
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 763
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 763
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/336,958
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2453
`
`initiating a secure communication link between the first network device and the
`
`second network device based on a determination that the second network device is
`
`available for the secure communications service (i.e., Wesinger at col. 12 (lines 23-27)
`
`disclosed
`
`combining encryption capabilities
`
`allows for the creation of virtual
`
`private networks-networks in which two remote machine communicate securely
`
`and Wesinger disclosed at col. 8 (line 25) to col. 9 (line 25)
`
`"
`
`DNS is a system
`
`that translates host name address to IP address and IP address to host name
`
`stored
`
`in DNS tables When client C tries to initiates a connection to host D
`
`The DNS
`
`server for D returns the network address D
`
`from which it receives the look up
`
`request ...”);
`
`wherein the secure communication link is a virtual private network
`
`communication link and supports data packets (i.e., Wesinger at col. 12 (lines 23-27)
`
`disclosed
`
`combining encryption capabilities
`
`allows for the creation of virtual
`
`private networks-networks in which two remote machine communicate securely
`
`...");
`
`wherein the data is encrypted over the secure communication link (i.e.,
`
`Wesinger at col. 12 (lines 23-27) disclosed
`
`combining encryption capabilities
`
`allows for the creation of virtual private networks-networks in which two remote
`
`machine communicate securely ...");
`
`wherein the identifier associated with the second network device is a domain
`
`name (i.e., see DNS of Fig. 1, cols. 8 and 9); and
`
`wherein the determining of the second network device is available for a secure
`
`communications service is a function of a domain name look up (i.e. Wesinger disclosed
`
`at col. 8 (line 25) to col. 9 (line 25)
`
`"
`
`DNS is a
`
`system that translates host name
`
`address to IP address and IP address to host name
`
`stored in DNS tables When
`
`client C tries to initiates a connection to host D
`
`The DNS server for D returns the
`
`network address D
`
`from which it receives the look up request ...’).
`
`5.
`
`As to claims 2-8, and 15-21, those features (i.e., video data, audio data, video
`
`conference, messaging service, e-mail telephone service using modulation based on
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 764
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 764
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/336,958
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2453
`
`FDM, TDM, or CDMA, mobile device, a notebook computer, etc.) are well known the art
`
`at the time the invention was made and they are not patentably distinguishable features.
`
`6.
`
`While Wesinger disclosed, at col. 9 (lines 16-25) the feature of "when a client C
`
`tries to initiate a connection to host D using the name D
`
`The DNS server for D returns
`
`the network address of D to a virtual host of the firewall 155. The virtual host returns its
`
`network address to the virtual host on the firewall 157 from which it received the
`
`lookup_ reguest, and so on, until a virtual host on the firewall 105 returns its network
`
`address (instead of the network address of D) to the client C", at col. 12 (lines 23-27)
`
`Wesinger further disclosed
`
`combining encryption capabilities
`
`allows for the
`
`creation of virtual private networks-networks in which two remote machine
`
`communicate securely and at col. 8 (line 25) to col. 9 (line 25) Wesinger further
`
`disclosed "
`
`DNS is a
`
`system that translates host name address to IP address and
`
`IP address to host name
`
`stored in DNS tables When client C tries to initiates a
`
`connection to host D
`
`The DNS server for D returns the network address D
`
`from
`
`which it receives the look up request ...’), Wesinger did not mention as exactly as the
`
`claimed language of "an indication that the second network device is available for the
`
`secure communication service, the indication including the reguested network address
`
`of the second network device and providing information for a virtual private network
`
`communication link".
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`obviously recognize that Wesinger's passage above and the claimed language are
`
`obviously the same and the difference is how they are written which is obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`7.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 10/25/2012 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive. In the remark, applicants argued that:
`
`a) Wesinger does not disclose receiving "an indication that the second network
`
`device is available for the secure communications service, the indication including the
`
`reguested network address of the second network device and provisioning information
`
`for a secure communication link.
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 765
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Exhibit 1004, p. 765
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/336,958
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2453
`
`b) Wesinger does not disclose the ability to "connect to the second network
`
`device over the secure communication link, using the received network address of the
`
`second network device and the provisioning information for the secure communication
`
`link".
`
`c) Wesinger does not disclose "communicate
`
`with the second network device
`
`using the secure communications service via the secure communication link."
`
`8.
`
`As to paragraphs 7 a) to 7 c), Examin