"In the Mangrove Partners appeal, this Court has now found the Board’s construction erroneous:
The statements VirnetX made during reexamination constitute disclaimer. VirnetX described a system in which a client computer communicates with an intermediate server via a singular, point-to-point connection. That intermediate server then relays the data to a target computer on the same private network on which the server resides. VirnetX state that because the computers “do not communicate directly with each other” and “t[h]e client cannot open a connection with the target itself,” the computers are not on the same VPN. J.A. 6228. This clearly and unmistakably states that a “VPN between the client computer and the target computer” requires direct communication between the client and target computers."
Here is the reply brief for VHC's [unasserted] 6,839,759 patent.