The 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.

Secure Communications Links and Virtual Private Network (VPN).

The 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:

1.   Kiuchi 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 15/16).

2.   With 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 Service

All 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:

1.   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).

2.   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).

3.   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.”

The prior art that has been rejected so far in reexaminations involving the secure domain name service includes:

1.   In the 180 patent – Lendenmann, Kiuchi, Solana, and Martin

2.   In the 211 patent – Lendenmann, Aziz, Pfaffenberger, and Kiuchi

3.   In the 759 patent – Kiuchi, Kent and Aziz

4.   The 181 patent was granted with all of these and more listed as references.

VirnetX is doing very well in the validation of patent claims involving the secure domain name service. All in my humble opinion.

Best regards to all,

Don