       NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.


  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                ______________________

                   VIRNETX INC.,
                      Appellant

                           v.

                    APPLE, INC.,
                       Appellee
                ______________________

                      2016-1480
                ______________________

    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,949.
                  ______________________

              Decided: December 9, 2016
               ______________________

    IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV, Paul Hastings LLP, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by
NAVEEN MODI, JOSEPH PALYS, DANIELLE RUTH ACKER
SUSANJ, DANIEL ZEILBERGER.

   JOHN C. O'QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by NATHAN S.
MAMMEN; JEFFREY PAUL KUSHAN, Sidley Austin LLP,
Washington, DC.
                ______________________
2                                 VIRNETX INC.   v. APPLE, INC.



Before O’MALLEY, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
    This appeal concerns the validity of VirnetX Inc.’s
(“VirnetX”) U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 (“the ’181 patent”),
disclosing technology for establishing secure communica-
tion over networks. Apple Inc. (“Apple”) challenged all
claims of the ’181 patent in a request for inter partes
reexamination, Control No. 95/001,949. The Patent and
Trademark Office granted reexamination and rejected all
29 claims as unpatentable. On appeal, the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirmed. Specifically,
the Board’s final decision found claims 1–12, 14, 15, and
17– 29 anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser
(“Beser”), claims 1, 2, 7–9, 12–17, 19–21, and 24–29
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 to Mattaway
(“Mattaway”), and claims 1–15, 18–23, and 28–29 antici-
pated by U.S. Patent No. 6,557,037 to Provino (“Provino”).
VirnetX now appeals to this court.
    After full review of the record and careful considera-
tion, we find no error in the Board’s claim constructions or
findings with respect to the Mattaway and Provino refer-
ences, which together cover all claims of the ’181 patent.
We do not, therefore, need to reach the merits of the
Board’s decision with respect to Beser.
                       AFFIRMED
