Apple Inc.v.VirnetX Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2015

11839987 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 42
571-272-7822 Date: July 29, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

APPLE INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

VIRNETX INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2014-00404
1

Patent 7,987,274 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

Microsoft Corp. filed a Petition (Paper 2) (“Pet.”) seeking an inter
partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No.

1
As discussed below, IPR2014-00484 has been joined with IPR2014-00404.
This Final Written Decision applies to the joined case.
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

2
7,987,274 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’274 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–
319. On July 31, 2014, the Board instituted an inter partes review of claims
1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 (Paper 13) (“Dec. on Inst.”).
Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (IPR2014-00484, Paper 1)
seeking an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18
of the ’274 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On September 15,
2014, the Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12,
15, and 17 (IPR2014-00484) and joined IPR2014-00484 with IPR2014-
00404 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (IPR2014-00484, Paper 11 – Dec. on
Inst.). On April 16, 2015, the present proceeding was terminated with
respect to Microsoft Corporation only. Paper 38.
Subsequent to institution, VirnetX Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
Patent Owner Response (Paper 26) (“PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a
Reply (Paper 34) (“Pet. Reply”). An Oral Hearing was conducted on April
28, 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 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 of
the ’274 patent are unpatentable.

A. The ’274 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’274 patent describes methods for communicating over the
Internet. Ex. 1001, 9:38–39.

IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

3
B. Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 of the ’274 patent is reproduced below:

1. A method of accessing a secure network address,
comprising:
sending a query message from a first network device to a
secure domain service, the query message requesting from the
secure domain service a secure network address for a second
network device;
receiving at the first network device a response message
from the secure domain name service containing the secure
network address for the second network device; and
sending an access request message from the first network
device to the secure network address using a virtual private
network communication link.

C. Cited Prior Art
Lindblad US 6,225,993 B1 May 1, 2001 (Ex. 1009)
Bhatti US 8,200,837 B1 June 12, 2012 (Ex. 1010)

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 Basis Claims Challenged
Kiuchi § 102 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and
17
Kiuchi and Lindblad § 103 5
Kiuchi and Bhatti § 103 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and
17
Kiuchi, Bhatti, and
Lindblad
§ 103 5

IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

4
E. Claim Interpretation
Virtual Private Network (VPN) Communication Link
We previously determined that, under a broadest 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
more of authentication, encryption, or address hopping.” Dec. on Inst. 7.
2

Patent Owner disputes this interpretation and argues that the term “virtual
private network communication link” 1) must be “a communication path
between computers in a virtual private network” (PO Resp. 6), 2) “requir[es]
computers within a VPN to communicate directly” (PO Resp. 9), and 3)
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).

2
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 grandparent patent to the ’274 patent,
U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180).
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

5
Secure Domain (Name) Service
Patent Owner argues that one of skill in the art would have 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. 16. Petitioner proposes that a secure domain (name)
service (SDNS) should be construed as “[a] service that can resolve secure
computer network addresses for a secure domain name for which a
conventional domain name service [(“DNS”)] cannot resolve addresses.”
See Pet. 13; PO Resp. 15 (discussing Petitioner’s proposed construction).
Claim 1, for example, recites sending a query message to “a secure
domain service” requesting a secure network address and receiving “a
response message from the secure domain name service containing the
secure network address.” Claim 1 does not recite “recogniz[ing] 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 of this alleged requirement.
Based on the context of the claim, the Specification, and the
prosecution history, claim 1 does not require “recogniz[ing]” as argued by
Patent Owner. The Specification describes an “SDNS 313” that “contains a
cross-reference database of secure domain names and corresponding secure
network addresses. That is, for each secure domain name, SDNS 3313
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

6
stores a computer network address corresponding to the secure domain
name.” Ex. 1001, 47:15–18. This disclosure comes closest to aligning with
the claim term, “secure domain service” (i.e., an SDNS as set forth in the
disclosure). Patent Owner does not point the panel to a disclosure in the
Specification that clearly supports the requirement of an SDNS to
“recognize that the query message is requesting a secure computer address.”
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 “recogniz[ing]” is required by claim 1 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. 16–17. However, Patent Owner
does not indicate that the district court determined, under a broadest
reasonable standard, how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
construed the term “secure domain service” in light of the Specification and
that, under this broadest reasonable construction, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood the “secure domain service” to require
“recogniz[ing].” Indeed, based on the record before us, it appears the district
court did not construe the term “secure domain service” at all, much less
under a broadest reasonable standard.
Patent Owner argues that, during a reexamination proceeding of a
different (but related) matter (Inter Partes Reexamination Control No.
95/001,270), Patent Owner allegedly proposed various examples of possible
functionality of a secure domain name service. For example, Patent Owner
argues that in the reexamination proceeding for U.S. Patent No. 7,188,180,
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

7
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. 17–18. 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].”
For at least the above reasons, and to the extent it is material, we
adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of the term “secure domain
service.”
3

Tunnel Packeting
Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the term “tunnel packeting” to mean “forming a packet to be
transmitted that contains data structured in one protocol format within the
format of another protocol.” PO Resp. 19. However, Patent Owner does not
demonstrate sufficiently that the construction of “tunnel packeting” will bear
on the outcome of the issues in this inter partes review. Hence, we decline
to modify our construction of this term.

Client Computer

3
We adopt and incorporate by reference our analysis of this construction in
the companion case. See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX Inc., Case IPR2014-00403,
slip. op. at 8–20 (PTAB July 29, 2015) (also discussing prosecution history).
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

8
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. 21. Claim
15 recites a client computer that is connected to a communication network.
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.” 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 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.” Id. at 21.
Patent Owner also argues that the Specification discloses a “computer
3301” that “is manned by a user.” Id. We note that the Specification
discloses that element “3301” is a “client computer” (see, e.g., Spec. 45:19).
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 broadest reasonable
construction of the term “client computer,” as recited in claim 15.
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

9
Also, the ’274 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, 38:61–63. Although Patent Owner refers to this
“conventional” computer as “another embodiment,” the ’274 patent
Specification disparages the “conventional architecture” that employs a
user’s computer, because it is not secure enough. See Ex. 1001, 39:4–13. In
general, the ’274 patent Specification states that “[t]he present invention”
involves a “client computer” with a “client application” that “communicates
with a server.” See Ex. 1001, 7:40–44. This description of “[t]he present
invention” does not mention, let alone require, a “user’s computer.”
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,” under a broadest reasonable
standard, 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. 24.

Secure Network Address
As Patent Owner explains, the construction of this term “do[es] not
appear to be relevant to the parties’ disputes.” PO Resp. 24.

IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

10
II. ANALYSIS
A. Kiuchi
For at least the following reasons, we find that Petitioner has
demonstrated that claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 are anticipated by
Kiuchi under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Patent Owner argues that this proceeding should be terminated
because “the Board relies on the host server’s IP address and the host server,
meaning Kiuchi’s origin server, respectively.” PO Resp. 29. Under 35
U.S.C. § 314(d), “the determination . . . whether to institute an inter partes
review . . . shall be final and nonappealable.” See In re Cuozzo Speed
Technologies, LLC, 778F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, even if
we relied on “Kiuchi’s origin server,” we disagree with Patent Owner that
such an alleged reliance would indicate that “the proceeding should be
terminated.” In any event, we disagree with Patent Owner that we relied
upon “Kiuchi’s origin server” as explained in more detail below. Because
Patent Owner’s argument ostensibly in support of terminating the
proceeding is based on Patent Owner’s erroneous interpretation, Patent
Owner has provided insufficient reasons to terminate the present proceeding.
Petitioner explains that Kiuchi discloses a client-side proxy (i.e., “first
network device”) that sends a request to a C-HTTP name server (i.e., a
“secure domain service”) for a secure network address for a server-side
proxy (i.e., “second network device”). See, e.g., Pet. 28. In other words,
Petitioner equates the “second network device,” as recited in claim 1, with
the “server-side proxy” of Kiuchi.
Patent Owner contends that Kiuchi discloses that the first network
device (or client-side proxy) requests a secure network address for the
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

11
“origin server” of Kiuchi and not the server-side proxy of Kiuchi, the server-
side proxy being equated with the recited “second network device.” PO
Resp. 32–34. We disagree with Patent Owner.
Claim 1 recites sending a message from a first network device for an
address for a second network device and, in response, receiving at the first
network device the address for the second network device. 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.” In response to the request from
the client-side proxy, the client-side proxy (i.e., “first network device”)
receives “the IP address and public key of the server-side proxy.” Ex. 1004,
65. In other words, Kiuchi discloses a first network device (or a client-side
proxy) sending a message to the C-HTTP name server (or secure domain
service) to request a secure network address (e.g., an “IP address and public
key”) for a second network device (i.e., server-side proxy) and then, in
response, receiving at the client-side proxy the requested secure network
address for the second network device (i.e., “the IP address and public key
of the server-side proxy”). Patent Owner does not demonstrate persuasively
a difference between Kiuchi and the claimed invention.
Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses that the client-side proxy
sends a request for a network address for the “origin server” but not for the
server-side proxy. However, Kiuchi discloses that in response to the request
to communicate with “the host,” the name server examines “the requested
server-side proxy” and returns “the IP address . . . of the server-side proxy.”
Ex. 1004, 65 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

12
contention, “the host” of Kiuchi corresponds to the “server-side proxy” (or
second network device, as recited in claim 1).
Patent Owner also argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose an access
request message, as recited in claim 1. In particular, Patent Owner argues
that Kiuchi discloses a “user agent” sending a query message for a secure
domain service, rather than a “first network device” (i.e., a client-side proxy
of Kiuchi) sending a request to a secure domain service. PO Resp. 36 (citing
Ex. 2041 ¶ 42 (“Declaration of Fabian Monrose, Ph.D.” or “Monrose Dec.”).
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Dr. Monrose testifies
that Kiuchi discloses an “HTTP/1.0 message [that] is sent ‘from the user
agent’ and reaches neither the host/origin server nor the server-side proxy.”
Ex. 2041 ¶ 42. However, as previously discussed, Kiuchi discloses a step of
“sending . . . requests to the server-side proxy” in which “a client-side proxy
forwards HTTP/1.0 requests from the user agent” to the server-side proxy.
Ex. 1004, 66. Neither Patent Owner nor Patent Owner’s declarant (Dr.
Monrose) explains sufficiently how an “HTTP/1.0 request” that is
“forwarded” by a client-side proxy to a server-side proxy fails to reach the
server-side proxy in Kiuchi or that the forwarded request in Kiuchi is
somehow diverted prior to reaching the server-side proxy and does not arrive
at its intended destination.
Patent Owner also argues that Kiuchi discloses that the client-side
proxy “dispatches a new C-HTTP request” but Kiuchi fails to disclose that
the client-side proxy sends “an HTTP/1.0 request.” PO Resp. 37. First, we
note that claim 1 recites “sending an access request message.” Claim 1 does
not recite or otherwise require “sending an HTTP/1.0 request.” For at least
this reason, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Also, as
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

13
previously discussed, 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 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 Kiuchi discloses an “HTTP/1.0 request” that
“is not an access request message [as recited in claim 1] at least because it
does not seek any ‘communication, information, or services’ with the server-
side proxy.” PO Resp. 38 (citing Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 44, 46). Kiuchi discloses a
client-side proxy “[s]ending C-HTTP request to the server-side proxy” in
which the “client-side proxy forward 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. PO Resp. 38.
Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose sending an
“HTTP/1.0 message” using a “virtual private network communication link.”
PO Resp. 39. In particular, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi discloses
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

14
sending a message from a client-side proxy to a server-side proxy, which,
according to Patent Owner, is “a point-to-point connection, not a network as
claimed.” PO Resp. 39–40. Patent Owner also argues that Kiuchi fails to
disclose sending a request “using a virtual private network communication
link” because “the request [of Kiuchi] lacks the ‘network’ aspect of a VPN
communication link and further because [Kiuchi merely discloses] a point-
to-point message [instead of] a VPN communication link.” PO Resp. 42–43
(citing Ex. 2041 ¶ 52). 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 argues that Kiuchi discloses sending an HTTP/1.0
request but that “the request must pass through both the client-side and
server-side proxies to reach the origin server.” PO Resp. 41 (citing Ex. 2041
¶ 51). According to Patent Owner, this indicates that “Kiuchi fails to
disclose direct communications to any host server and any message from the
client-side proxy . . . is not sent using a VPN communication link.” PO
Resp. 41–42. Hence, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose a
“direct communication.”
Claim 1, for example, recites sending an access request from a first
network device to a secure network address using a virtual private network
communication link. Claim 1 does not recite sending an access request
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

15
message over a “direct communication.” 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. 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-side proxy and server-
side proxy communicate with each other using a secure, encrypted protocol
(C-HTTP).” 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
implicitly recited in claim 1.
4

Regarding claim 15, Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose
a “client computer,” in which “client computer,” as recited in claim 15, is
construed to mean a “user’s computer.” PO Resp. 44–45. In other words,
Patent Owner argues that Kiuchi fails to disclose a “user’s computer.”

4
The Federal Circuit determined that “Kiuchi’s client-side and server-side
proxies terminate the connection, process information, and create a new
connection – actions that are not ‘direct’ within the meaning of the asserted
claims.” VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir.
2014). Hence, the Federal Circuit determined that a client-side proxy did
not form a “direct communication” with an origin server. However, the
Federal Circuit did not determine whether or not the client-side proxy forms
a “direct communication” with a server-side proxy.
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

16
Claim 15 recites that “a client computer [is] connected to a communication
network.” As previously discussed and in view of the apparent lack of
distinction between a “client” and a “user,” based on Patent Owner’s
arguments, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have construed, under a broadest reasonable standard, the
term “client computer,” in light of the Specification, to mean “user’s
computer.”
We also disagree with Patent Owner that Kiuchi fails to disclose a
“client computer,” or a computer associated with a client. As previously
discussed, Kiuchi discloses a “client-side proxy” that is associated with a
“client.” Hence, Kiuchi discloses a “client computer.”
In addition, assuming one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that a “client computer” must include specific reference to a
“user,” as Patent Owner appears to contend, Kiuchi discloses this feature.
Kiuchi discloses, for example, a “user agent” and “communication between
a client-side proxy and user agent.” Ex. 1004, 65. In other words, the “user
agent” of Kiuchi is connected to (i.e., in communication with) a
communication network (which includes a client-side proxy). Patent Owner
does not demonstrate persuasively a difference between the “user agent” of
Kiuchi (that is connected to a communication network) and the “client
computer” that is also “connected to a communication network,” as recited
in claim 15.

B. Kiuchi and Bhatti/Lindblad
Regarding claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17, Patent Owner argues
that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

17
combined the teachings of Kiuchi and Bhatti because Kiuchi discloses an
“origin server” that, according to Patent Owner, corresponds to the “second
network device,” as recited in claim 1, for example. PO Resp. 47–49. Even
if the “origin server” of Kiuchi would somehow render the combination of
Kiuchi and Bhatti improper, we need not consider Patent Owner’s argument
further because, as previously discussed, Petitioner relies on the “server-side
proxy” and not the “origin server” of Kiuchi as the recited second network
device.
Patent Owner also argues that Bhatti fails to disclose “using a virtual
private network communication link.” PO Resp. 50. However, as discussed
above, we agree with Petitioner that Kiuchi discloses this feature.
No additional issues with respect to Bhatti or the Lindblad reference
are identified. PO Resp. 50–51.

ORDER
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
Kiuchi or unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kiuchi and Bhatti and
that claim 5 is unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Kiuchi and Lindblad or the combination of Kiuchi, Lindblad, and Bhatti.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17 of the ’274 patent
have been shown to be unpatentable.
This is a final decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements
of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
IPR2014-00404
Patent 7,987,274 B2

18

PETITIONER:

Jeffrey P. Kushan
Joseph A. Micallef
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
jkushan@sidley.com
jmicallef@sidley.com

PATENT OWNER:

Joseph E. Palys
Naveen Modi
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
josephpalys@paulhastings.com
naveenmodi@paulhastings.com

Jason E. Stach
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
jason.stach@finnegan.com