Ex Parte 7921211 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2016

95001789 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/001,789 10/18/2011 7921211 41484-80150 6053
22852 7590 12/08/2016
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
FOSTER, ROLAND G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

APPLE INC.,
Requester,

v.

VIRNETX INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

2
In papers filed October 12, 2016, VirnetX Inc. (“Patent Owner”) and
Apple, Inc. (“Requester”) each requests a rehearing responsive to the
September 12, 2016 Decision on Appeal (“Decision”).
Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
Claims 5, 23, and 47
Patent Owner argues that “the Board . . . entered a new ground of
rejection but did not indicate as much.” Request for Rehearing, filed
October 12, 2016 (“PO Req. Reh’g.”) 2.
Patent Owner previously argued that Provino1 discloses “authorizing”
a query but fails to disclose “authenticating” a query, as recited in claim 5,
arguing that the term “authorizing” (which Patent Owner asserted to mean
“that the user has permission to access”) is distinct from the term
“authenticating” (which Patent Owner asserted to mean “verify[ing] the
identity of a user”). See e.g., Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief, filed August 25,
2014 (“PO App. Br.”) 40.
The Examiner previously stated that the Specification failed to
provide “a particular meaning” of the disputed terms and disagreed with
Patent Owner’s position that “one of ordinary skill in the art of Internet
communications” would understand the disputed terms to “precisely differ.”
The Examiner also noted that “[e]ven assuming the owner’s definitions to be
true, Provino’s authorization ‘verifies that the identity of the user has
permission to access requested resources,’ and thus authenticates the user
(‘verifies the identity of a user’).” Right of Appeal Notice, dated May 23,
2014 (“RAN”) 44. In other words, the Examiner found an insubstantial

1 US 6,557,037 B1, issued April 29, 2003 (“Provino”).
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

3
distinction between the terms “authorizing” and “authenticating,” even
assuming Patent Owner’s proposed definitions of the terms were to be
adopted, because, at least, “verif[ying] that the identity of a user” results in
determining that “the user has permission to access.”
In the Decision, we agreed with the Examiner and reiterated the
Examiner’s position that, even assuming that Patent Owner’s proposed
definitions of the terms were to be adopted, a system that determines
“permission to access” would also “verify the individual’s ‘identity’.”
Decision 16.
Patent Owner now argues that our position regarding the distinction
between the terms “authenticate” and “authorize” is a “new finding” because
the “rationale” articulated in the Decision supposedly “is substantially
different from that advanced by the Examiner” and that “the Board does not
align with any arguments offered by the Examiner (RAN at 44).” PO Req.
Reh’g. 4.
We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertions. As indicated above, the
Examiner found that Patent Owner’s proposed definitions of the terms
“authenticate” and “authorize” were not mutually exclusive. We agreed
with and essentially reiterated the Examiner’s position. Hence, our rationale
with respect to this issue was not “substantially different” from that of the
Examiner’s. On the contrary, our rationale was, in fact, identical to that of
the Examiner’s.
Patent Owner also argues that “the Board made an entirely new
finding stating that the query to name server 17 is authenticated instead of
the query to name server 32” and that “[t]o support its reasoning, the Board
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

4
cites to a portion of Provino (8:43-51, 8:55-56) that was never relied upon
by Requester or Examiner. (Id.; RAN at 44-45).” PO Req. Reh’g. 5.
Requester initially argued that Provino discloses the disputed feature
of claim 5. Request for Inter Partes Reexamination Under 35 U.S.C. § 311,
filed October 18, 2011 (“Orig. Req.”) 124. In particular, Requester
indicated that Provino discloses “device 12(m) . . . generates a message
packet for transfer . . . to the firewall 30” and that “[i]f the device 12(m) is
authorized to access” a server, then “firewall 30 may provide the device
12(m) with” information to be used in establishing a communication. Orig.
Req. 124 (citing Provino 9:46–60, 9:56 – 10:12).
The Examiner determined that “Provino . . . teaches that name server
17 receives [a] DNS request (query by domain name) from device 12(m)
(initiator) and responds by providing the corresponding Internet address”
and that “[t]he firewall 30 is also part of the [claimed] DNS system.” RAN
39 (citing Provino 7:36–41; 9:46–57; 10:63–67; 12:37–61; 14:1–38). The
Examiner further stated that “each query is part of the same sequence that
results in establishment of the secure connection” and that “Provino teaches
that . . . firewall 30 . . . authorizes device 12(m).” RAN 45 (citing Provino
9:17–27, 56–67; 12:56–59; 13:8–15). In other words, the Examiner
determined that Provino discloses a “DNS system” (that includes, at least,
name server 17 and firewall 30) and that at least a part of the “DNS system”
of Provino is disclosed as authenticating the query.
Patent Owner argued that the “name server 17” of Provino (like the
“VPN name server 32” of Provino, according to Patent Owner) “is a
conventional DNS server of the type disclaimed in the ’211 patent.” PO
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

5
App. Br. 39. We understood Patent Owner’s argument to be that the “name
server 17” of Provino is not disclosed as authenticating the query because
“name server 17” “is a conventional DNS server of the type disclaimed in
the ’211 patent.” Id. In response to this presumed argument, we explained
in the Decision that “Provino discloses a query for a network address (to
name server 17) that is authenticated.” Decision 17. We also explained that
we were not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument regarding the
unclaimed feature of “non-conventional.” Decision 6–11.
Patent Owner now argues that our explanation of “name server 17” of
Provino constitutes “an entirely new finding.” PO Req. Reh’g. 5. As a point
of clarification, we agree with the Examiner and Requester that “firewall 30”
(as part of a “DNS system”) authenticates the query at least for reasons set
forth by the Examiner and Requester. Our explanation regarding “name
server 17” and any findings in that regard merely elaborated on the
Examiner’s previous finding that the “DNS system” of Provino included, at
least, both “firewall 30” and “name server 17” and Patent Owner’s argument
pertaining to the “conventionality/non-conventionality” of “name server 17”
of Provino. RAN 39. To the extent that we misapprehended Patent Owner’s
argument such that Patent Owner, in fact, never argued that Provino’s “name
server 17” authenticates (or does not authenticate) the query (and, therefore,
concedes that “name server 17” authenticates the query), we withdraw our
statements regarding “name server 17” in this regard, such an argument
never having been made by Patent Owner and, therefore, the issue being
considered to have been waived as never having been raised.
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

6
Claims 24 and 48
Requester previously argued that Provino discloses the features
recited in claims 24 and 48. See, e.g., Orig. Req. 129, 141. The Examiner
agreed with Requester “based on arguments addressed above [regarding a
different reference, Solana].” RAN 49. Specifically, the Examiner stated
that
[i]f it is now the patent owner’s position that the functional
relationship between domain name and the DNS provides the
indication rather than the name itself, then the claim permits the
domain name, via the functions of domain name lookup and the
resulting provision of a certificate, to provide an indication that
the DNS supports establishing a secure communication link. As
discussed, [Provino] teaches such a system.

RAN 35.
In response, Patent Owner argued that “the Examiner must give the
features of claims 24 and 48 their full patentable weight because claims 24
and 48 describe a functional relationship between the ‘at least one of the
plurality of domain names’ and the ‘domain name service system.’” PO
App. Br. 42. Notably, however, the Examiner explains that Provino, similar
to Solana as earlier explained, discloses the disputed claim features even if
“patent owner’s position that the functional relationship” is correct (i.e., the
features of the disputed claims are given their full patentable weight). See
RAN 35, 49. Therefore, because Patent Owner is merely arguing that the
Examiner must give claim terms patentable weight, the Examiner’s finding
pertaining to claims 24 and 48 with claim terms given patentable weight
renders Patent Owner’s argument moot.
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

7
In the Decision, we stated that “[w]e are not persuaded by Patent
Owner’s argument that Provino fails to disclose a ‘plurality of domain
names’” and proceeded to explain how Provino discloses this feature.
Decision 19. In fact, in the Appeal Brief, Patent Owner only argued that the
Examiner should give all claim terms patentable weight but never argued
that Provino fails to disclose a plurality of domain names as we previously
stated in the Decision. As stated above, Patent Owner’s argument was
rendered moot by the Examiner’s analysis of claims 24 and 48, the Examiner
having given patentable weight to each claim limitation. Nor does our
explanation change the thrust of the rejection for claims 24 and 48 given that
we also gave each limitation patentable weight.
Therefore, we grant Patent Owner’s request only to the extent that we
withdraw our discussion as to whether or not Provino discloses a plurality of
domain names as this argument was not presented in Patent Owner’s brief
and is therefore waived by Patent Owner. However, we deny Patent
Owner’s request for rehearing with respect to making any changes
concerning the disposition of the claims.
With respect to Patent Owner’s actual argument regarding claims 24
and 48 (i.e., that “the Examiner must give the features of claims 24 and 48
their full patentable weight” (PO App. Br. 42)), we agree with Patent Owner.
However, as the Examiner stated in the Right of Appeal Notice (reproduced
above), even if a “functional relationship” exists (i.e., all features are given
“their full patentable weight,” as Patent Owner argues), Provino still
discloses the recited claim limitations. We agree with the Examiner for
reasons of record at least because, according to Patent Owner, the
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

8
Examiner’s finding was not challenged by Patent Owner. See also Orig.
Req. 129, 141.
Requester’s Request for Rehearing
Requester argues that we misapprehended or overlooked arguments
presented by Patent Owner regarding secondary considerations.
Respondent’s Request for Rehearing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79 (“3PR
Req. Reh’g.”) 2. We agree with Requester that we overlooked Patent
Owner’s arguments regarding secondary considerations but we also agree
with Patent Owner that Requester’s request for rehearing is improper at least
because, as Patent Owner states, a proper request for rehearing must not
contain “arguments not raised in the briefs.” 37 C.F.R. §41.79(b)(1). See
Patent Owner’s Response to Requester’s Request for Rehearing, filed
November 14, 2016 1–3. Therefore, Requester’s Request for Rehearing is
denied.
In any event, for the sake of completeness, we supplement our
previous Decision as follows:
Secondary Considerations
Patent Owner argues it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of any of the cited
references because there was a “long-felt need, failure of others, skepticism,
commercial success, and praise and acceptance by others in the field.” PO
App. Br. 68.
Long Felt Need
Patent Owner argues that “[p]rior to the claimed inventions . . . it was
widely recognized that providing secure remote access to a LAN or WAN
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

9
was extremely difficult for IT support desks” and that the claimed invention
“combine[s] both the ease of use and the security aspects of a [VPN],
without sacrificing one or the other . . . by providing a domain name service
. . . for establishing a secure communication link.” PO App. Br. 68 (citing
Declaration of Dr. Robert Dunham Short III, dated March 29, 2012 (“Short
Decl.”) ¶¶ 8, 9, 11, PO App. Br, Evidence App’x, Ex. B–4 1–2).
Patent Owner alleges only one claim feature for which those of skill in
the art supposedly had a long felt need. That alleged feature is supposedly
providing secure communications. This feature is recited in claim 1. The
Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Provino. Secondary
considerations are inapplicable with respect to a finding of anticipation.
In any event, even assuming that secondary considerations are
somehow relevant to patentability of claim 1 (that recites secure
communications) and based on the evidence of record, we are not persuaded
by Patent Owner’s argument that “it was widely recognized that providing
secure remote access . . . was extremely difficult.” Id. Rather, Patent
Owner’s evidence indicates that “[r]emote access . . . [is] insecure and
unreliable” but that “[y]ou can solve the security problem using client-to-
LAN virtual private network (VPN) technology.” PO App. Br., Evidence
App’x, Ex. B–4 at 1, cited in Short Decl. ¶ 8. Hence, rather than being
“extremely difficult” to provide secure remote access, as Patent Owner
alleges, Patent Owner’s declarant (Dr. Short) points out that, in fact, it was
known in the art that any security problems associated with remote access
could be solved. Hence, solutions were known in the art that provided
secure remote access. On this record, however, Patent Owner fails to
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

10
demonstrate with specific and credible evidence that such solutions were
“extremely difficult” to implement (see e.g., PO App. Br., Evidence App’x,
Ex. B–4 at 1) prior to the filing of the ’211 patent.
Also, Patent Owner argues that there was a long felt need to combine
both the ease of use and the security aspects of a VPN by automatically
initiating an encrypted channel between a client and a secure server. PO
App. Br. 68. As discussed above, Provino predates the filing of the ’211
patent and also discloses this feature. Patent Owner does not explain how
the claimed invention satisfies this alleged “long felt need” of providing
secure remote access when Provino, at least, already provided for secure
remote access.
Patent Owner also argues that “the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (‘DARPA’) funded various research programs to further the
science and technology of information assurance and survivability” and that
“SAIC . . . also spent significant resources [of its own] on their development
[of “cutting edge technology”].” PO App. Br. 69. Patent Owner does not
explain sufficiently how the amount of resources spent by either “DARPA”
or “SAIC” for various research programs to further “information assurance
and survivability” or “cutting edge technology” demonstrates a long felt
need for the claimed invention. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
argument.
Failure of Others
Patent Owner argues that “‘Dynamic Coalitions,’ was specifically
created to address the ability of the Department of Defense to quickly and
easily set up secure communications over the Internet” but that “none of [the
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

11
organizations operating under “Dynamic Coalitions”] came up with a
solution . . . that was even close to providing the ease of use of the solutions
provided in the claimed inventions of the ’211 patent” and that Dynamic
Coalitions “did not develop a solution that allowed a user to . . . enable
secure communications.” PO App. Br. 70 (citing Short Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5, 10, 11,
PO App. Br., Evidence App’x, Ex. B–4 at 1–2, Ex. B–3 at 1–4).
The sole feature that Patent Owner alleges was supposedly
unattainable by “Defense Coalitions” is setting up secure communications.
This feature is recited in claim 1. The Examiner rejects claim 1 as
anticipated by Provino. Secondary considerations are inapplicable with
respect to a finding of anticipation.
In any event, even assuming that secondary considerations are
somehow relevant in this matter, we are cautioned by the Federal Circuit
that, with respect to secondary considerations alleged by Patent Owner in
response to a prima facie showing of obviousness, “the obviousness inquiry
centers on whether ‘the claimed invention as a whole’ would have been
obvious.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(citation omitted). Looking at the “claimed invention as a whole” (and, as
noted above, ignoring the fact secondary considerations are not applicable to
findings of anticipation), we note that claim 1, for example, recites a system
for providing a domain name service for establishing a secure
communication link, the system comprising a domain name service system
configured to be connected to a communication network, to store a plurality
of domain names and corresponding network addresses, to receive a query
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

12
for a network address, and to comprise an indication that the domain name
service system supports establishing a secure communication link.
Again, assuming that secondary considerations are somehow relevant
to a claim held to be anticipated over a prior art reference (i.e., Provino), as
previously discussed in the record, Provino discloses these features, either
taken separately or as a “whole.” Patent Owner does not indicate a portion
of the “whole” of the claimed invention that Provino supposedly does not
disclose. Not having identified sufficiently a part of the “whole” of the
claimed invention that Provino does not disclose, we conclude that Provino,
taken individually, discloses the “whole” of the claimed invention.
Therefore, Patent Owner fails to show a nexus to its evidence of secondary
considerations.
While Patent Owner argues that DARPA-sponsored entities were
supposedly unable to provide “a solution that allowed a user to easily and
conveniently enable secure communications” (PO App. Br. 70 (citing Short
Decl. ¶ 5; PO App. Br., Evidence App’x, Ex. B–3 at 1–4)), Patent Owner
does not demonstrate persuasively and with credible evidence that Provino,
for example, was also unable to provide such a “solution.” As previously
discussed, Provino succeeded in providing such solutions.
Skepticism
Patent Owner argues that “a DARPA program manager informed one
of the co[-]inventors that technology disclosed in the ’211 patent would
never be adopted” and that “IT offices of many large companies and
institutions expressed skepticism that secure connections could ever be
enabled easily by regular computer users” because secure connections
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

13
“could only be achieved through difficult-to-provision VPNs and . . . easy-
to-set-up connections could not be secure.” PO App. Br. 70 (citing Short
Decl. ¶¶ 13, 15). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
Patent Owner alleges only one claim feature for which at least one
skilled artisan supposedly expressed skepticism. That alleged feature is
supposedly providing a “secure connection” for use by “computer users.”
This feature is recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds claim 1 to be
anticipated by Provino. Secondary considerations are inapplicable with
respect to a finding of anticipation.
In any event, even assuming that secondary considerations are
somehow relevant to a claim found to be anticipated by a prior art reference,
we are directed by the Federal Circuit to consider the “claimed invention as
a whole,” when considering secondary considerations raised in response to a
prima facie showing of unpatentability. Patent Owner does not indicate that
the DARPA program manager in question informed the co-inventor that
technology claimed in the ’211 patent would never be adopted.
Further, even assuming that the manager’s comment concerns the
claimed invention, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument
because citing one person’s opinion as to whether the claimed invention
would be adopted does not constitute general skepticism in the industry. For
example, Patent Owner does not list any credible publications on this point
or indicate that any studies were performed over a statistically significant
proportion of those skilled in the art that would indicate that there was, in
fact, a general feeling of skepticism in the field that secure communications
could be accomplished.
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

14
In any event, we note that not only does the record show that Provino
already solved the problem of providing secure remote access, as previously
discussed, but that Patent Owner’s evidence also indicates that the problem
of providing secure remote access was already solved. See, e.g., PO App.
Br., Evidence App’x, Ex. B–4 at 1, cited in Short Decl. ¶ 8 (“But fear not:
You can solve the security problem”). It is unlikely that those of skill in the
art would have been skeptical that secure remote access, for example, could
be achieved, given the fact that secure remote access was already being
accomplished by ordinarily skilled artisans.
Commercial Success
Patent Owner argues that “the claimed inventions have experienced
commercial success, with multiple companies licensing the technology.” PO
App. Br. 70. Patent Owner does not allege any specific feature of the
claimed invention from which the alleged commercial success was
supposedly achieved. To the extent that Patent Owner argues that providing
secure communications (also the alleged “long felt need,” source of industry
“skepticism,” and the sole feature that others in the industry attempted but
nevertheless faced “failure,” according to Patent Owner) is the alleged
source of the supposed “commercial success,” that feature is recited in claim
1. The Examiner finds claim 1 to be anticipated by Provino. Secondary
considerations are inapplicable with respect to anticipation of a claimed
invention.
In any event, even assuming that secondary considerations are
somehow relevant with respect to anticipation, Patent Owner does not
provide any data regarding market share or revenue from sales of any
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

15
products alleged to be encompassed by the claimed invention. Rather,
Patent Owner argues commercial success based solely on the alleged fact
that various business entities entered into licenses with Patent Owner. Id.
Even assuming that the cited business entities entered into licenses with
Patent Owner, this allegation alone would be insufficient to demonstrate
commercial success at least because Patent Owner provides insufficient
evidence suggesting that the reason any of the business entities entered into
licenses with Patent Owner was due to the merits of any claim at issue here,
as opposed to any number of other reasons (e.g., expediency, advertising, or
avoiding a lawsuit).
Even assuming that the cited business entities entered into licensing
for the sole reason that Patent Owner’s claimed invention was a
“commercial success,” we are still not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
argument. To the extent that “commercial success,” as well as a nexus
between the assumed “commercial success” to the claimed invention is
“presumed” based on the mere allegation (without evidence) that
“commercial success” exists (and also assuming that there is, in fact, a
specific product and that the specific product is the invention disclosed and
claimed in the patent, neither of which has been sufficiently demonstrated or
asserted by Patent Owner),2 we are still not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
arguments. As noted above, in discussing secondary considerations, Patent

2 See WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(citations omitted) (concluding that “there is a presumption of nexus for
objective considerations when the patentee shows that the asserted objective
evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘is the invention
disclosed and claimed in the patent.’”)
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

16
Owner generally alludes to providing secure communications. To the extent
Patent Owner argues that providing secure communications is the presumed
nexus that ties the secondary consideration factors to the claimed invention,
we note that Provino discloses this feature, and there can be no nexus when
the alleged secondary consideration factors stem from what was known in
the prior art. Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
As previously stated and in accordance with instructions from the
Federal Circuit, we consider the “claimed invention as a whole” when
determining whether Patent Owner has provided a sufficient nexus between
the alleged secondary considerations (e.g., commercial success) and the
claimed invention (“as a whole”) to overcome the prima facie showing of
obviousness (as noted above, however, the Examiner rejects claim 1 as
anticipated by Provino, a fact that is being ignored temporarily for the sake
of discussion). As previously discussed above and based on the evidence of
record, Provino discloses each of the parts of the claimed invention and,
therefore, also discloses the “whole” claimed invention. Therefore, when
considering the “claimed invention as a whole,” we still conclude that Patent
Owner has not provided a sufficient showing of nexus between the alleged
secondary considerations and the “claimed invention as a whole” to
overcome the Examiner’s finding.
Praise in the Industry
Patent Owner argues that “[t]hose in the industry have . . . praised the
inventions . . . by investing in the technology or licensing it.” PO App. Br.
71. However, as previously discussed, Patent Owner does not demonstrate
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

17
sufficiently any specific reason for any alleged investment and licensing
activity on the part of business entities. Therefore, no specific reason is
provided regarding any alleged praise of the claimed invention.
As previously discussed, Patent Owner provides insufficient evidence
to conclude that any licensing (or investing for that matter) activity was
performed for any particular purpose or was related to any specific claim at
issue in this proceeding. Nor does Patent Owner demonstrate sufficiently a
nexus between the alleged praise and the “claimed invention as a whole.”
Based on the evidence of record, we can only conclude that there is an
allegation that licenses were entered into and investments were made
without any showing as to the motivation behind these alleged activities.
This is insufficient to conclude that these alleged activities constitute an
expression of “praise” for the “claimed invention as a whole” (or because of
“commercial success”).
In any event, to the extent that Patent Owner alleges that those of skill
in the art “praised” the claim feature of providing secure communications
(and, hence, providing secure communications is the basis of the alleged
“praise”), that feature is recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds claim 1 to
be anticipated by Provino. Secondary considerations are inapplicable with
respect to anticipation of the claimed invention.
In summary, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument
related to secondary considerations.
We have considered each Request for Rehearing of Patent Owner and
Requester, respectively, but find them unpersuasive as to error in the
Decision to affirm the previously affirmed Examiner’s rejections.
Appeal 2016-004466
Reexamination Control 95/001,789
Patent 7,921,211 B2

18
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).

DENIED

Patent Owner:

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20001-4413

Third-Party Requester:

Sidley Austin LLP
2021 Mckinney Avenue
Suite 2000
Dallas, TX 75201

ELD