Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 60
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 60
`
`EXHIBIT 13
`EXHIBIT 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 2 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SYMANTEC CORP.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01894
`Patent 6,154,844
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 3 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ‘844 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A. Overview ............................................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 4
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“means for receiving a Downloadable” (claim 43) ............................... 5
`
`“means for generating a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable”
`(claim 43) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`C.
`
`“means for linking” (claim 43) .............................................................. 8
`
`IV. SPECIFIC REASONS WHY THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT
`INVALIDATE THE CLAIMS, AND WHY INTER PARTES
`REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED ............................................... 11
`
`A. Ground 1: Dan Does Not Render the Challenged Claims
`Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.......................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`“[means for] generating [by the inspector] a first
`Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious
`code in the received Downloadable” (claims 1, 15, 41,
`and 43) ....................................................................................... 12
`
`(a) Access Control Lists Are Not DSP ................................... 13
`
`(b) Dan’s ACL Does Not Identify Suspicious Code in
`the Received Downloadable .............................................. 14
`
`(c) Dan’s Certification Agency Does Not Generate a
`Downloadable Security Profile ......................................... 16
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 4 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`(d) Dan’s ACL Enforcer Does not Generate a
`Downloadable Security Profile ......................................... 17
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`Using a Rule Set to Generate a Downloadable Security
`Profile (claim 15) ...................................................................... 19
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`[means for] linking the first Downloadable security
`profile to the Downloadable before a web server makes
`the Downloadable available to web clients” (claims 1, 15,
`41, and 43) ................................................................................. 20
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`“wherein the Downloadable includes a JavaScriptTM
`script” (claim 7) ........................................................................ 20
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`“wherein the first Downloadable security profile includes
`a list of operations deemed suspicious by the inspector”
`(claim 11) .................................................................................. 21
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Dan Discloses
`“wherein the first rule set includes a list of suspicious
`operations” (claim 16) ............................................................... 21
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`B. Ground 2: Apperson in view of Ji and Further in view of Cline
`Does not Render the Challenged Claims Obvious Under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................... 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Cline is not Analogous Art ....................................................... 24
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Combination of Apperson, Ji, and
`Cline is a Product of Impermissible Hindsight Bias ................. 27
`
`(a) Petitioner Provides Insufficient Motivation to
`Modify Apperson with Ji .................................................. 28
`
`(b) Petitioner Provides Insufficient Motivation to
`Modify Apperson with Cline ............................................ 31
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses “[means for] generating [by the
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 5 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`inspector] a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable”
`(claims 1, 15, 41, and 43) .......................................................... 32
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses “a content inspection engine for
`using the first rule set to generate a DSP” (claim 15) ............... 34
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses [means for] linking the first
`Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable
`before a web server makes the Downloadable available to
`web clients” (claims 1, 15, 41, and 43) ..................................... 36
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses “wherein the first
`Downloadable security profile includes a list of
`operations deemed suspicious by the inspector” (claim
`11) ............................................................................................. 37
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Apperson in view
`of Ji and Cline Discloses “wherein the first rule set
`includes a list of suspicious operations” (claim 16) ................. 38
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`C. Ground 3: Anand in View of Cline Does not Render the
`Challenged Claims Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ..................... 38
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Cline is not Analogous Art ....................................................... 39
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “[means for] receiving [by an inspector]
`a Downloadable” (claims 1, 41, and 43) ................................... 39
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “[means for] generating [by the
`inspector] a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable”
`(claims 1, 15, 41, and 43) .......................................................... 40
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “a content inspection engine for using
`the first rule set to generate a DSP” (claim 15) ........................ 43
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 6 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses [means for] linking the first
`Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable
`before a web server makes the Downloadable available to
`web clients” (claims 1, 15, 41, and 43) ..................................... 43
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “wherein the Downloadable includes a
`JavaScriptTM script” (claim 7) ................................................. 43
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “wherein the first Downloadable security
`profile includes a list of operations deemed suspicious by
`the inspector” (claim 11) ........................................................... 44
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Anand in view of
`Cline Discloses “wherein the first rule set includes a list
`of suspicious operations” (claim 16) ........................................ 45
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS FAIL AS A
`MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONDUCT A
`COMPLETE OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS ................................................. 45
`
`VI. THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE CUMULATIVE ................................. 48
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 49
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 7 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 45
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00276, Paper 43 (PTAB Nov. 10, 2014) ....................................... 15, 21
`
`In re Baxter Int’l,
`678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 7, 10
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 25
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 8, 10
`
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ...................................................................... 26, 27
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 47, 48
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended–Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 47
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 29
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi,
`181 F.3d 865 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................... 15, 21
`
`GoerTek, Inc. v. Knowles Elecs., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00523, Paper 26 (PTAB May 30, 2014) ............................................. 48
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 45
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 8 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014) ............................................... 30
`
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 25, 27
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ....................................................................17, 18, 27, 29, 31
`
`Leo Pharmaceutical v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 46, 47, 48
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Cisco Tech., Inc.,
`IPR 2013-00328, Paper 13 (PTAB Nov. 29, 2013) ............................................ 31
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 46
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 46, 47
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Teresa Stanek Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 47
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 45
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 13, 15
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Conos Techs., LLC,
`CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) ............................................. 2
`
`United States v. Adams,
`383 U.S. 39 (1966) .............................................................................................. 29
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 9 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................... 11, 12, 22, 25, 38, 46
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c) ......................................................................................... 42, 44
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) .................................................................................... 42, 44
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(4) .................................................................................. 42, 44
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ................................................................................................. 31
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 34
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 .................................................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 10 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On September 11, 2015, Symantec Corp. (“Petitioner”) submitted a Petition
`
`to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (Ex. 1001,
`
`“the ‘844 Patent”), challenging claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43. Finjan, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) requests that the Board not institute inter partes review because
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`
`showing unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the grounds asserted in
`
`its Petition, as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`The ‘844 Patent generally discloses systems and methods for attaching a
`
`Downloadable security profile to a Downloadable. ‘844 Patent at Title. Each of
`
`the challenged independent claims requires generating a Downloadable security
`
`profile that identifies suspicious code in the Downloadable and linking the
`
`Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web server makes the
`
`Downloadable available to web clients. See id. at claims 1, 15, 41, and 43.
`
`The various references cited in Grounds 1–3 of the Petition do not disclose
`
`this approach to protect against malware because each fails to generate a first
`
`Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the received
`
`Downloadable, as recited in each of the challenged independent claims.
`
`Petitioner’s references are directed towards content providers that author and
`
`provide software to their customers. In particular, these references provide content
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 11 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`providers with techniques to certify their software to their customers, namely by
`
`providing a description of the resources their software will require when executed
`
`These content providers include such descriptions together with the software they
`
`deliver to their customers. This allows each recipient to individually evaluate
`
`whether this software may potentially cause errors for their computers. In contrast,
`
`no content provider would want to certify that they are providing suspicious code,
`
`such as code corresponding to viruses or malware.
`
`Rather, the approach taken in the three primary references is for a code
`
`developer or manufacturer to provide their code with a certified accounting of all
`
`of the resources that code will request when run on the client system. Dan’s ACL,
`
`Apperson’s privilege request code, and Anand’s requested domain all fit this
`
`description and completely fail to identify suspicious code in the Downloadable.
`
`Each of the Petitioner’s proposed Grounds is substantively and procedurally
`
`deficient for the additional reasons discussed in detail below.
`
`Although there are a variety of reasons why the ‘844 Patent is valid over
`
`Petitioner’s asserted prior art references, this Preliminary Response focuses on
`
`only limited reasons why inter partes review should not be instituted. See
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Conos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 10
`
`(PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (“[N]othing may be gleaned from the Patent Owner’s
`
`challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for any particular
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 12 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`reason.”). In view of IPR2015-01545, Paper No. 9, Patent Owner specifically
`
`reserves its right to dispute that Symantec has correctly named all real-parties-in-
`
`interest in the event that sufficient factual bases supporting such a challenge
`
`surface during the pendency of this proceeding. The deficiencies of the Petition
`
`noted herein, however, are sufficient for the Board to find that Petitioner has not
`
`met its burden to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in
`
`showing unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.
`
`II. THE ‘844 PATENT
`A. Overview
`Patent Owner’s ‘844 Patent claims the benefit of a number of patents and
`
`patent applications, including U.S. Patent Application Nos. 08/964,388 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,092,194 (Ex. 1003, “the ‘194 Patent”) and 08/790,097 (now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,167,520 (Ex. 1004, “the ‘520 Patent”), and U.S. Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/030,639 (Ex. 1002, “the ‘639 Application”). ‘844 Patent at
`
`1:7–18. Each of these applications are incorporated by reference into the ‘844
`
`Patent. Id.
`
`The ‘844 Patent generally relates to the use of an inspector to receive
`
`Downloadables and generate a profile that identifies suspicious (i.e., hostile or
`
`potentially hostile) operations that may be attempted by that Downloadable. ‘844
`
`Patent at Abstract. To generate this profile, known as a Downloadable security
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 13 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`profile (“DSP”), the ‘844 Patent provides a content inspector that identifies
`
`suspicious code, such as suspicious operations, in a Downloadable and links the
`
`DSP to that Downloadable before a web server makes it available to web clients.
`
`Id. The content inspector can use a set of rules, which may include a list of
`
`operations deemed suspicious, to generate the DSP. Id. This list of suspicious
`
`operations can be used to generate a DSP indicating the different suspicious
`
`operations present in the code of the downloadable. Id. at 2:65–3:2.
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges seven claims of the ‘844 Patent, namely independent
`
`claims 1, 15, 41, and 43, and dependent claims 7, 11, and 16. Claim 1 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`receiving by an inspector a Downloadable;
`
`generating by the inspector a first Downloadable security
`profile that identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable;
`and
`linking by the inspector the first Downloadable security profile
`
`to the Downloadable before a web server makes the Downloadable
`available to web clients.
`
`‘844 Patent at 11:13–20. Claim 7 recites “wherein the Downloadable includes a
`
`JavaScriptTM script.” Id. at 11:34–35. Claim 11 recites “wherein the first
`
`Downloadable security profile includes a list of operations deemed suspicious by
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 14 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`the inspector.” Id. at 11:44–46. Claim 41 recites a computer-readable storage
`
`medium strong program code for causing a data processing system on an inspector
`
`to perform the steps of the method of claim 1. Id. at 14:9–18. Claim 43 recites an
`
`inspector system comprising means for performing the functions recited in
`
`independent claim 1. Claim 15 recites:
`
`15. An inspector system comprising:
`
`memory storing a first rule set; and
`
`a first content inspection engine for using the first rule set to
`generate a first Downloadable security profile
`that
`identifies
`suspicious code in a Downloadable, and for linking the first
`Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web
`server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.
`
`Id. at 11:62–12:2. Claim 16 recites “wherein the first rule set includes a list of
`
`suspicious operations.” Id. at 12:3–4.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“means for receiving a Downloadable” (claim 43)
`Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that this claim limitation should be
`
`construed as a means-plus-function claim limitation, that the function
`
`corresponding to the limitation is “receiving a Downloadable,” and that the
`
`structure corresponding to this function is a “Downloadable file interceptor.” See
`
`Petition at 14–15. The court in Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., adopted Patent Owner’s
`
`construction for this term, finding it was supported by the specification. Ex. 2002
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 15 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`at 12 (Sophos Claim Construction Order) (finding that “the structure for ‘means for
`
`receiving a Downloadable’ is unambiguous: the Downloadable file interceptor”).
`
`B.
`
`“means for generating a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable” (claim
`43)
`
`Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that this claim limitation should be
`
`construed as a means-plus-function claim limitation and that the function
`
`corresponding to the limitation is “generating a first Downloadable security profile
`
`that identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable.” See Petition at 15–
`
`16. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposal for the structure
`
`corresponding to the function—namely, “a processor programmed to perform the
`
`algorithm disclosed at col. 5, lines 42–45 and col. 9, lines 20–42 of the ‘194
`
`patent.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner submits that the structure corresponding to this function
`
`should be the “content inspection engine” because the ‘844 Patent specification
`
`repeatedly states a “content inspection engine” performs the function of
`
`“generating a first Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in
`
`the received Downloadable.” Specifically, the ‘844 Patent specification provides
`
`that: “a content inspection engine [] uses a set of rules to generate a Downloadable
`
`security profile corresponding to a Downloadable.” ‘844 Patent at Abstract
`
`(emphasis added); see also id. at 2:39–42 (“The system may also include a content
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 16 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`inspection engine for generating a Downloadable security profile for the
`
`Downloadable if the first Downloadable security profile is not trustworthy.”)
`
`(emphasis added); id. at 7:62–63 (“a local content inspection engine 525 generates
`
`a DSP [Downloadable security profile]”) (emphasis added). In addition, the
`
`“Downloadable security profile” identifies suspicious code in the received
`
`Downloadable because the Downloadable security profile “preferably includes a
`
`list of all potentially hostile or suspicious computer operations that may be
`
`attempted by the Downloadable, and may also include the respective arguments of
`
`these operations.” Id. at 4:4-7 (emphasis added). Therefore, the content inspection
`
`engine would generate the downloadable security profile, and the downloadable
`
`security profile would identify suspicious code in the received downloadable.
`
`Thus, there is no need to look further when the specification of the patent clearly
`
`provides a corresponding structure to carry out the function.
`
`Furthermore, the court in Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., adopted Patent
`
`Owner’s construction for this term, finding it was supported by the specification.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 16 (Sophos Claim Construction Order) (“As above, the fact that the
`
`patent clearly designates the ‘content inspection engine’ as the corresponding
`
`structure defeats Sophos’s alternative construction.”). There is no reason depart
`
`from this construction. In re Baxter Int’l, 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 17 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`(“[E]ven with a more lenient standard of proof, the PTO ideally should not arrive
`
`at a different conclusion.”).
`
`Petitioner attempts to limit the corresponding structure for this term to far
`
`less than what is disclosed in the ‘844 Patent. First, the sections of specification
`
`that Petitioner relies on are from the related ‘194 Patent, not the ‘844 Patent, which
`
`Petitioner ignores entirely. Second, the ‘844 Patent provides structure
`
`embodiments (described above) that are broader than the sections cited by
`
`Petitioner. Therefore, Petitioner’s structure is incorrect, because the correct
`
`structure must encompass all corresponding structures disclosed in the
`
`specification that perform the recited function. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St.
`
`Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`Because Patent Owner’s construction is consistent with the intrinsic record,
`
`it should be adopted. See, e.g., ‘844 Patent, Abstract; 2:39-41; 4:4-7; 7:62-63; see
`
`also 4:35-58; 8:17-36; 9:19-10:24; Figs. 1-7.
`
`“means for linking” (claim 43)
`
`C.
`Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that this claim limitation should be
`
`construed as a means-plus-function claim limitation and that the function
`
`corresponding to the limitation is “linking the first Downloadable security profile
`
`to the Downloadable before a web server makes the Downloadable available to
`
`web clients.” See Petition at 16–17. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 18 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`proposal for the structure corresponding to the function—namely, “a processor
`
`programmed to perform the algorithm of steps 630 and 645 disclosed at Fig. 6, col.
`
`8, lines 65-67, col. 6, lines 13-24, and col. 5, lines 3-13.” Id.
`
`The ‘844 Patent specification discloses that the corresponding structure for
`
`“linking the first Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web
`
`server makes the Downloadable available to web clients” is the “content inspection
`
`engine.” Specifically, the ‘844 Patent provides that “[t]he first content inspection
`
`engine may link to the Downloadable … [and] [a]dditional content inspection
`
`engines may generate and link additional Downloadable security profiles to the
`
`Downloadable.” ‘844 Patent at Abstract (emphasis added). The ‘844 Patent
`
`further discloses at that “[t]he inspector 125 includes a content inspection engine
`
`160 … for attaching the [Downloadable security profile] to the Downloadable.”
`
`Id. at 3:66–4:4 (emphasis added). It further describes that “[t]he content inspection
`
`engine 160 in step 630 attaches the DSP [Downloadable security profile] 215 …to
`
`the [] Downloadable 150.” Id. at 8:65–67 (emphasis added).
`
`As described in specification, the term “linking” “indicate[s] an association
`
`between the Downloadable 205 and the [Downloadable security profile] 215.” Id.
`
`at 6:20–21. In addition, the “Downloadable security profile” is linked to the
`
`Downloadable prior to being transmitted to the client computer by inspector. See
`
`id. at 5:3-5 (“The inspector 125 then transmits the signed inspected Downloadable
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 19 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`195 to the web server 185 for addition to web page data 190 and web page
`
`deployment.”) (emphasis added). Therefore, the content inspection engine would
`
`link the downloadable security profile to the downloadable prior to making it
`
`available to the web client via the web server and inspector. ‘844 Patent at Fig. 6;
`
`3:21–23; see also id. at 5:3–6 (“The inspector 125 then transmits the signed
`
`inspected Downloadable 195 to the web server 185 for addition to web page data
`
`190 and web page deployment.”) (emphasis added). Thus, there is sufficient
`
`description in the ‘844 Patent specification to disclose the structure.
`
`As with the previous terms, the Court in Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., adopted
`
`Finjan’s construction, finding it was supported by the specification. Ex. 2002 at 16
`
`(Sophos Claim Construction Order) (“As above, the fact that the patent clearly
`
`designates the ‘content inspection engine’ as the corresponding structure defeats
`
`Sophos’s alternative construction.”). Thus, this term should be construed
`
`consistently in this case. In re Baxter Int’l, 678 F.3d at 1365 (“[E]ven with a more
`
`lenient standard of proof, the PTO ideally should not arrive at a different
`
`conclusion.”). Petitioner unreasonably limits the structure and fails to encompass
`
`all corresponding structures disclosed in the specification. Cardiac Pacemakers,
`
`296 F.3d at 1119. For such reasons, the Court should adopt Patent Owner’s
`
`construction.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 20 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`IV. SPECIFIC REASONS WHY THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT
`INVALIDATE THE CLAIMS, AND WHY INTER PARTES REVIEW
`SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED
`
`The proposed grounds rely on five references.
`
`Ground 1 proposes that Dan et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,825,877 (Ex. 1006,
`
`“Dan”) renders claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43 obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a).
`
`Ground 2 proposes that Apperson et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,978,484 (Ex.
`
`1007, “Apperson”) in view of Ji et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,623,600 (Ex. 1009, “Ji”)
`
`and further in view of Cline, U.S. Patent No. 5,313,616 (Ex. 1008, “Cline”) renders
`
`claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 3 proposes that A Flexible Security Model for Using Internet
`
`Content, Anand et al., IEEE Computer Society Sixteenth Symposium on Reliable
`
`Distributed Systems, October 1997 (Ex. 1010, “Anand”) in view of Cline renders
`
`claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`However, none of these references, individually or in combination, disclose
`
`at least the claimed features of receiving by an inspector a Downloadable,
`
`generating by the inspector a first Downloadable security profile that identifies
`
`suspicious code in the received Downloadable, and linking by the inspector the
`
`first Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web server
`
`makes the Downloadable available to web clients.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-14 Filed 08/20/18 Page 21 of 60
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-01894 (U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`A. Ground 1: Dan Does Not Render the Challenged Claims