PTAB

IPR2014-00140

RPX Corp v. MacroSolve Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Agile Network Protocol for Secure Communications with Assured System Availability
  • Brief Description: The ’697 patent describes a method for establishing a secure communication link between two computers over a network. The method involves a client computer sending a domain name service (DNS) request to a DNS server, which then returns an IP address that enables the transparent creation of a secure virtual private network (VPN) connection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kikinis and Larson - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Kikinis in view of Larson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kikinis (Patent 5,511,122), Larson (Patent 6,226,678).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kikinis disclosed all elements of the challenged claims except for initiating the secure communication link via a DNS request. Kikinis taught a system for transparently creating secure communication channels between computers using cryptographic keys. Larson was cited to remedy this deficiency, as it explicitly taught using a DNS server to retrieve an IP address for a target device, which is then used to establish a communication link. Petitioner contended that combining Kikinis’s secure channel with Larson’s DNS-based address resolution directly yields the invention of independent claim 1. Dependent claims were argued to be obvious as they recited conventional networking features also taught by the combination.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve the efficiency and practicality of Kikinis’s system. At the time, DNS was the standard, well-established method for resolving human-readable domain names into machine-usable IP addresses. A POSITA seeking to implement Kikinis’s secure communication system would have naturally and obviously used the standard DNS mechanism taught by Larson to locate the target computer before establishing the secure link.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a standard address lookup protocol (Larson) with a secure communication protocol (Kikinis) was a straightforward integration of known networking technologies. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because it involved using each component for its intended, well-understood purpose.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kikinis, Larson, and RFC 1035 - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Kikinis in view of Larson and RFC 1035.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kikinis (Patent 5,511,122), Larson (Patent 6,226,678), and RFC 1035 (a 1987 Request for Comments document defining DNS standards).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground reinforced the arguments made in Ground 1. Petitioner introduced RFC 1035 as foundational prior art that described the standard structure and function of the Domain Name System. It was used to demonstrate that the DNS functionalities described in Larson were not novel but were instead part of a universally known and implemented internet standard. Petitioner argued that RFC 1035 provided the background knowledge a POSITA would possess, confirming that the DNS query/response mechanism for IP address retrieval was a basic building block of network communication.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was the same as in Ground 1, with the added rationale that a POSITA implementing Larson’s DNS-based solution would inevitably consult or rely upon the teachings of the fundamental DNS standard, RFC 1035. The combination was presented as an application of a standard protocol (DNS as defined by RFC 1035 and taught in Larson) to a known problem (establishing a secure connection, as taught in Kikinis).

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kikinis and Chellis - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Kikinis in view of Chellis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kikinis (Patent 5,511,122), Chellis (Patent 6,205,432).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented Chellis as an alternative to Larson for teaching the missing DNS element. Chellis disclosed a method for transparently redirecting network communications using a directory server that functions like a DNS server to resolve a name to a specific IP address and port number. Petitioner argued that replacing the connection initiation method in Kikinis with the directory-based method from Chellis would result in the claimed invention. Chellis’s system provided the necessary IP address to a client, which could then be used to establish the secure connection taught by Kikinis.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kikinis and Chellis to enhance the management and flexibility of secure connections. Chellis taught a centralized directory approach for managing network endpoints, which was a known technique for improving scalability. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply this known directory technique to Kikinis’s secure communication system to create a more robust and manageable network architecture.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "domain name service system": Petitioner argued this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, encompassing any system that resolves a name to a network address, consistent with the broad definition in the specification. This construction would allow prior art references like Larson and Chellis, which describe DNS or DNS-like directory services, to meet the claim limitation.
  • "transparently creating a secure communication link": Petitioner contended this phrase meant that the secure link is established automatically without requiring manual user intervention (e.g., entering passwords or IP addresses) after an initial action (e.g., clicking a link). This interpretation was argued to be consistent with the specification and broad enough to read on the automated processes described in the prior art combinations.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of the ’697 patent as unpatentable.