latest Patent Office non-final action on the 759 patent (Application
95/001,746) dated June 18, 2012 rejected 24 patent claims and confirmed claims
2, 11, 15, 17, 26, and 30. Yes claims 15 and 30 were really confirmed
and if any of our IV posters (those who seem to have doubts about virtually everything)
want to debate this based on technical facts I will be happy to engage. This
Patent Office decision also gives us an insight into their current thinking
that I believe has significant impact on other patents currently in
reexamination as discussed below.
Links and Virtual Private Network (VPN).
24 patent claims that were rejected were primarily based on prior art
references such as Kiuchi and combinations of Kiuchi and other references. Here
are some of the major points made by the Patent Office in rejecting the claims:
teaches a method for establishing a secure communications link (Virtual Private
Network) between a first computer and a second computer over the internet (a)
without a user entering any cryptographic information and (b) establishing the
link based on the enabled mode of communication. (759 Office Action pages
regard to claim 3 and 4 Kiuchi teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein
the VPN is based on inserting into at least one data packet at least one data
value representing a level of security service. Note: This is important because the Kiuchi and Kent references used
to reject the patent claims are (in my opinion) based solely on an incorrect interpretation
of the wording in the claim and not on the actual technical approach. The Kiuchi
and Kent inserts into data packets are implemented in software (Kiuchi) and a
database (Kent) and do not add security to the VPN. These inserts do not
achieve the same security levels achieved by the VirnetX where “the secure
communication link is a virtual private network communication link over the
computer network in which one or more data values that vary according to a
pseudo-random sequence are inserted into each data packet.” So the problem is
that the wording in the claim unfortunately does not correctly describe what is
actually happening. I think the company can easily address the issue and have
four more claims validated (3, 4, 18, and 19).
Secure Domain Name
of the patent claims related to secure domain name service were validated (2, 15,
26, and 30) and this is very significant in my opinion. Here are the
conclusions stated in the 759 reexam for the secure DNS in claims 15 and 30:
Kiuchi fails to teach
the features of claims 15 and 30 of the 759 patent, including “the second
computer comprises the secure domain name service”, … the server-side proxy
(relied on in the rejection and the second computer) does not perform any name
service function. “Accordingly the rejection of claims 15 and 30 is withdrawn.”
(759 Office Action pages 21 and 32).
Kent fails to teach
the features of claims 15 and 30 including, “the second computer comprises a
secure domain name service.” … “Kent does not teach that the second computer
comprises a secure domain name service or even a standard domain name service.”
“Accordingly the rejection of claims 15 and 30 is withdrawn.” (759 Office
Action pages 43 and 81).
Aziz II does not
disclose a host or tunneling server or secure domain name service. “Accordingly the
rejection of claims 15 and 30 is withdrawn.” (759 Office Action page 80).
Claim 15 “ The method of according to claim
1, wherein the secure communications link is through a secure portal connected
to the computer network, and wherein the second computer comprises a secure
domain name service.”
Claim 30 “ The computer-readable storage
medium according to claim 16, wherein the secure communications link is through
a secure portal connected to the computer network, and wherein the second
computer comprises a secure domain name service.”
prior art that has been rejected so far in reexaminations involving the secure
domain name service includes:
the 180 patent – Lendenmann, Kiuchi, Solana, and Martin
the 211 patent – Lendenmann, Aziz, Pfaffenberger, and Kiuchi
the 759 patent – Kiuchi, Kent and Aziz
181 patent was granted with all of these and more listed as references.
is doing very well in the validation of patent claims involving the secure
domain name service. All in my humble opinion.
regards to all,