Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 69
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 69
`
`EXHIBIT 16
`EXHIBIT 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 2 of 69
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SOPHOS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00907
`
`Patent 7,613,926
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I. 
`II. 
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 3 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 
`THE ‘926 PATENT............................................................................... 3 
`A.
`  Overview .......................................................................................... 3 
`  Challenged Claims ........................................................................... 5 
`B.
`  Prosecution History .......................................................................... 6 
`C.
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................. 7 
`A.
`  “database” (Claims 15, 18, 19, and 22) ............................................ 7 
`  “Downloadable” (Claims 15, 18, 19, and 22) .................................. 8 
`B.
`  “Downloadable security profile data” (Claims 15 and 22) ............ 11 
`C.
`  “representation of the retrieved Downloadable security profile
`D.
`data” (Claims 15 and 22) ................................................................ 14 
`  “receiver,” “Downloadable identifier,” “database manager,”
`and “transmitter coupled with said receiver” (claim 22) ............... 15 
`IV.  THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................................ 16 
`A.
`  Ji (Ex. 1004) .................................................................................. 16 
`  Knuth (Ex. 1025) ............................................................................ 17 
`B.
`  Hruska (Ex. 1027) .......................................................................... 17 
`C.
`  Mueller (Ex. 1005) ......................................................................... 18 
`D.
`SPECIFIC REASONS WHY THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT
`INVALIDATE THE CLAIMS, AND WHY INTER PARTES
`REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED .................................... 18 
`A.
`  GROUND ONE: Ji in view of Knuth and Hruska do not render the
`Challenged Claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................... 20 
`1. 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Ji, Knuth and Hruska
`disclose the Claimed Hashing Feature. .......................... 21 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Ji, Knuth, and Hruska
`Disclose the Claimed Retrieving Feature. ...................... 25 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Ji, Knuth and Hruska
`Disclose the Claimed Security Profile Feature. .............. 28 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Ji, Knuth and Hruska
`Disclose the Claimed Transmitting Feature. .................. 32 
`
`E.
`
`V. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`B.
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`5. 
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 4 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`The Petition Fails to Show that Ji, Knuth and Hruska
`Disclose the Claimed Program Script Feature ............... 34 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Ji, Knuth and Hruska
`Disclose the Claimed Suspicious Computer Operations
`Feature ............................................................................ 35 
`The Petition Provides Inadequate Motivation to
`Combine the Ji, Knuth, and Hruska References ............. 36 
`  GROUND TWO: Mueller in view of Knuth and Hruska do not
`render the Challenged Claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 ..... 40 
`1. 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Mueller, Ji, Knuth, and
`Hruska Disclose the Claimed Hashing Feature .............. 40 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Mueller, Ji, Knuth, and
`Hruska Disclose the Claimed Retrieving Feature .......... 43 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Mueller, Ji, Knuth, and
`Hruska Disclose the Claimed Security Profile Feature .. 44 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Mueller, Ji, Knuth, and
`Hruska Disclose the Claimed Transmitting Feature ....... 46 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Mueller, Ji, Knuth and
`Hruska, Disclose the Claimed Program Script Feature .. 49 
`The Petition Fails to Show that Mueller, Ji, Knuth and
`Hruska Disclose the Claimed Suspicious Computer
`Operations Feature .......................................................... 50 
`The Petition Provides Inadequate Motivation to Combine
`the Mueller, Ji, Knuth, and Hruska References .............. 52 
`VI.  PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS FAIL AS A
`MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONDUCT A
`COMPLETE OBVIOUSNESS ANALSYIS ...................................... 54 
`VII.  THE PETITION IMPERMISSIBLY PRESENTS ARGUMENTS
`INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ............................................... 57 
`VIII.  THE PROPOSED GROUNDS ARE CUMULATIVE ....................... 58 
`IX.  THE PRIORITY DATE FOR THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS IS
`NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD ....................................... 59 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 60 
`
`X. 
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 5 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 54
`
`In re Baxter Int’l,
`678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 55, 57
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended–Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 56
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 54
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 11
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 36, 39, 54
`
`Leo Pharmaceutical v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 39, 55, 57
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`Nos. 2014-1542, 2014-1543, 2015 WL 3747257 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................ 8, 10
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 55
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 6 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 55, 56
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Teresa Stanek Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 56
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................................ 38
`
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974) .................................... 19, 27, 36, 51
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 54
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................... 8, 12
`
`Unigene Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 52
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) .................................................... 19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................... 18, 20, 40, 60
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2) .............................................................................................. 58
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 57
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5) ............................................................................. 18, 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ............................................................................................. 3, 19
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 7 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On March 19, 2015, Sophos Inc. (“Petitioner”) submitted a Petition to
`
`institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (“the ‘926
`
`Patent”) challenging claims 15, 18, 19, and 22 of the ’926 Patent. Finjan Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) submits that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood
`
`of unpatentability over the challenged claims.
`
`The challenged claims require, inter alia, “performing a hashing function on
`
`the incoming Downloadable to compute an incoming Downloadable ID” and
`
`“retrieving security profile data for the incoming Downloadable from a database of
`
`Downloadable security profiles indexed according to Downloadable IDs, based on
`
`the incoming Downloadable ID, the security profile data including a list of
`
`suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the Downloadable.” The
`
`Downloadable ID is stored in a database as a reference to a Downloadable Security
`
`Profile (“DSP”) that includes a list of suspicious operations the Downloadable may
`
`perform. A representation of the DSP can be sent to another device, which need
`
`not scan the Downloadable because the DSP already lists the malicious operations
`
`the Downloadable may perform. During prosecution, the PTO determined that the
`
`Ji reference, which is relied upon in this Petition, does not disclose this approach to
`
`protect against malware. (Ex. 1002 at 223–24 (listing the Examiner’s Reasons for
`
`Allowance)).
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 8 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`This Petition now asserts that Finjan’s patented approach would have been
`
`obvious in 1997. In particular, the Petition attempts to cure Ji’s deficiencies by
`
`combining Ji with three additional prior art references: Hruska, Knuth and
`
`Mueller. Nevertheless, none of the references cited in the Petition teach, suggest,
`
`or otherwise render obvious the challenged claims. For example, nothing cited in
`
`Ji, Hruska, Knuth or Mueller, individually or in combination, discloses the claimed
`
`features of performing a hashing function on a Downloadable to compute the ID of
`
`that Downloadable, retrieving security profile data from a database, or security
`
`profile data that includes a list of suspicious computer operations that may be
`
`attempted by the Downloadable.
`
`Compounding these deficiencies, Petitioner does not explain how each of the
`
`cited portions correspond the limitation for which it is cited. Continuing with the
`
`claimed hashing limitation, the Petition merely alleges that "Knuth and Hruska
`
`discloses using a hash function to index entries in a database…" Petition at 33.
`
`But that is not what the claims require, and the Petition never explains how hashing
`
`to “index entries” relates to the claimed feature of hashing incoming
`
`Downloadables to compute their IDs. Hand waving arguments of this type pervade
`
`the Petition and are fatal to Petitioner’s request to institute inter partes review of
`
`the ‘926 patent. See IPR2013-00474, Paper 16 at 13 (“PIA merely summarizes
`
`the references and cites broad passages of them as corresponding to claim 1’s
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 9 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`limitations, but does not explain how the cited portions correspond to the limitation
`
`for which they are cited.”).
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on unsupported statements in Dr. Sauer’s Declaration
`
`must also be rejected because 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) states that, “[e]xpert testimony
`
`that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is
`
`entitled to little or no weight.” Petitioner’s pervasive tactic of simply repeating an
`
`argument word-for-word from the Petition in the declaration “does not give that
`
`argument enhanced probative value.” Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks
`
`Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 at 14–15.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should not institute inter partes review because the
`
`Petition fails to make the requisite threshold showings.
`
`II. THE ‘926 PATENT
` Overview
`A.
`Patent Owner’s ’926 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patents Nos. 7,058,822
`
`(Ex. 1010), 6,804,780 (Ex. 1012), 6,092,194 (Ex. 1013), and 6,480,962 (Ex. 1014),
`
`with an earliest claimed priority date of November 6, 1997. (Ex. 1001 at 1:8–32).
`
`The ‘926 Patent incorporates each of these patents by reference.
`
`The systems and methods of the ’926 patent protect personal computers
`
`(PCs) and other network accessible devices from “harmful, undesirable, suspicious
`
`or other ‘malicious’ operations that might otherwise be effectuated by remotely
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 10 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`operable code.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:27–31). The protection paradigm involves hashing
`
`an incoming Downloadable to derive an identifier, referred to as a Downloadable
`
`ID, which is used to reference security profile data for the incoming Downloadable
`
`in a database indexed according to Downloadable IDs. (Ex. 1012 at 9:65–10:5;
`
`4:64–5:3).
`
`The Downloadable Security Profile (“DSP”) data for each Downloadable
`
`includes a “list of all potentially hostile or suspicious computer operations that may
`
`be attempted by each known Downloadable.” (Id. at 4:42–45). DSP data for a
`
`Downloadable is therefore derived from that Downloadable, unlike security
`
`policies, for example, which include policies specific to particular users and
`
`generic policies that determine whether to allow or block an incoming
`
`Downloadable. (Id. at 4:27–37).
`
`The Downloadable and representation of the DSP data are sent to a
`
`destination computer. (Ex. 1001 at 22:1–4.) Because any previously generated
`
`profiles can be efficiently retrieved in this manner, the invention allows accurate
`
`security decisions to be made without the need to generate profiles for all incoming
`
`Downloadables, nor is there a need for the Downloadable to be scanned by the
`
`device for malicious operations since the DSP already lists malicious operations.
`
`(See Ex. 1001 at 10:44–50).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 11 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`
`B.
`
` Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges four claims of the ’926 Patent, namely independent
`
`method claim 15 and its dependent claims 18 and 19, and independent system
`
`claim 22. Claim 15 is reproduced below:
`
`15. A computer-based method, comprising the steps of:
`receiving an incoming Downloadable;
`performing a hashing function on the incoming Downloadable
`to compute an incoming Downloadable ID;
`retrieving security profile data for the incoming Downloadable
`from a database of Downloadable security profiles indexed according
`to Downloadable IDs, based on the incoming Downloadable ID, the
`security profile data including a list of suspicious computer operations
`that may be attempted by the Downloadable; and
`transmitting the incoming Downloadable and a representation
`of the retrieved Downloadable security profile data to a destination
`computer, via a transport protocol transmission.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 21:58–22:4). Claim 18 recites “wherein the Downloadable includes
`
`program script,” and claim 19 recites “wherein suspicious computer operations
`
`include calls made to an operating system, a file system, a network system, and to
`
`memory. (Id. at 22:9–13). System claim 22 recites the components “receiver,”
`
`“Downloadable identifier,” “database manager,” and “transmitter” performing the
`
`functions recited in claim 15. (Id. at 22:20–35).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 12 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`
`Petitioner falsely asserts “according to the examiner, the ‘hashing’ limitation
`
`is the only point of novelty in the Challenged Claims and the only distinction
`
`between those claims and Ji.” Petition at 7. Yet, a close examination of the
`
`Examiner’s reasons for allowance states otherwise:
`
`The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for
`5.
`allowance:
`It was not found to be taught in the prior art of receiving an
`incoming downloadable, performing a hashing function on the
`incoming downloadable to generate a downloadable ID. Security
`profile data is retrieved for the incoming downloadable from a
`database of downloadable security profiles indexed according to
`downloadable IDs based on the incoming downloadable ID, the
`security profile data includes a list of suspicious operations that may
`be attempted by the downloadable. The representation of the
`retrieved downloadable security profile data is appended to the
`incoming downloadable to generate an appended downloadable and
`the appended downloadable is transmitted to a destination computer.
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 223–24 (emphasis added)). Here, contrary to the Petitioner’s
`
`assertion, the Examiner’s reason for allowance indicates that the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole is not taught in the prior art, including a number of additional
`
`limitations beyond the hashing limitation on the Downloadable to compute a
`
`Downloadable ID.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 13 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Finjan requests the Board to reject Petitioner’s claim constructions as they
`
`are inconsistent with the disclosure of the 926 Patent and the law.
`
`A.
`
`“database” (Claims 15, 18, 19, and 22)
`
`
`Patent Owner submits that the proper construction of “database” is “a
`
`collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve
`
`one or more applications.” This construction stays true to the claim language and
`
`most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention as well as the
`
`well-accepted definition of the term. (Ex. 2001, IBM Dictionary of Computing
`
`definition of “database”). In fact, the district court in the concurrent litigation with
`
`Petitioner indicated that Patent Owner’s construction follows the context of the
`
`patent and the well-understood accepted definition for database: “[b]ecause
`
`Finjan’s definition appears to reflect both the context of the patent as well as a
`
`well-accepted definition of the term.” (Ex. 1033, Sophos Claim Construction Order
`
`at 6–7). Importantly, the Federal Circuit explained: “even with a more lenient
`
`standard of proof, the PTO ideally should not arrive at a different conclusion.” In
`
`re Baxter Int’l, 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Petitioner alleges that Patent Owner’s definition is “too narrow to be the
`
`BRI” because the specification describes “comparing a database to a reference
`
`list.” Petition at 25 (citing Ex. 1001 at 16:51–55). To the contrary, the portion of
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 14 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`the specification relied upon differentiates a referencing list from a database by
`
`referring to them separately. Ex. 1001 at 16:51–55 (stating that a “referencing list,
`
`database or other storage structure(s)…” can be used to implement a protection
`
`scheme). The district court in the concurrent litigation has also rejected equating a
`
`database with a file:
`
`The fact that a database is listed along with more simple files does not
`mean that the database includes or is equated with these types of
`files. In fact, one could argue that this list serves to further
`differentiate a database from simpler files.
`
`(Ex. 1033 at 5)(emphasis added). As the Federal Circuit has recently stated in an
`
`opinion Patent Owner, Proxyconn’s, cross-appeal challenging the Board’s use of
`
`the BRI standard of claim construction in an IPR, “[a] construction that is
`
`‘unreasonably broad’ and which does not ‘reasonably reflect the plain language
`
`and disclosure’ will not pass muster.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Nos.
`
`2014-1542, 2014-1543, 2015 WL 3747257, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(citing In re
`
`Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
`
`Because there is no support for Petitioner’s broader construction of
`
`“database” in the ’926 patent, the PTAB should adopt Patent Owner’s construction
`
`as following the ’926 patent, adopted well-understood definition, and the law.
`
`B.
`
`“Downloadable” (Claims 15, 18, 19, and 22)
`
`
`The proper construction of the term “Downloadable” in the context of the
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 15 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`’926 patent is “an executable application program which is downloaded from a
`
`source computer and run on the destination computer.” This is the exact definition
`
`provided in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780 (Ex. 1012) and 6,092,194 (Ex. 1013),
`
`which the ’926 patent is a continuation of, claims priority to, and incorporates by
`
`reference. (Ex. 1001 at 1:17–27; Ex. 1012 at 1:50–53; Ex. 1013 at 1:44–46). In
`
`fact, Petitioner (Sophos) already agreed to this definition in the concurrent
`
`litigation with Patent Owner (Finjan). (Ex. 1033, Sophos Claim Construction
`
`Order; Ex. 2002 at 1, Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-1197-WHO (N.D.
`
`Cal.), Dkt. No. 54, Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement).
`
`Petitioner’s proposed definition for “Downloadable” as “information
`
`received over a network that can include executable code (e.g. Java applets,
`
`JavaScript and Visual Basic scripts, ActiveX controls, Visual Basic, and other add-
`
`ins)” is improper. The Petition’s proposed construction must fail because it does
`
`not give a proper meaning to the term “Downloadable.” By virtue of including the
`
`phrase “can include,” any information received over a network could potentially
`
`qualify as a Downloadable under Petitioner’s proposed construction. This is not
`
`how “Downloadable” is defined, used, and described in reference to the ’962
`
`patent as “an executable application program which is downloaded from a source
`
`computer and run on the destination computer.” (Ex. 1012 at 1:50–53; Ex. 1013 at
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 16 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`1:44–46). See Microsoft Corp. at 3 (holding that unreasonably broad constructions
`
`that do not reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure are improper).
`
`Petitioner cites to the ‘926 Patent at 2:46–51, which discloses determining
`
`whether received information includes executable code (and is a ‘Downloadable’),
`
`in an attempt to support its proposed construction of the term Downloadable as any
`
`“information received over a network that can include executable code.” (Petition
`
`at 25). This citation simply does not support such a definition. That is, while
`
`information received that includes executable code is considered a Downloadable,
`
`it cannot be inferred that a Downloadable is any information received over a
`
`network that can include executable code. Furthermore, Petitioner’s citation to the
`
`‘926 Patent at 2:35–40 is unavailing to support its proposed construction as that
`
`section does not define the term Downloadable, but rather discloses examples of
`
`Downloadables: “Java™ applets, ActiveX™ controls, JavaScript™/Visual Basic
`
`scripts, ActiveX™ controls, JavaScript™/Visual Basic scripts, add-ins, etc., among
`
`others.” (Ex. 1001 at 2:35–40).
`
`Neither the intrinsic nor extrinsic evidence, therefore, suggests a
`
`construction of “Downloadable” different from how the patentee itself defined it in
`
`the specification. Accordingly, the Board should adopt Patent Owner’s
`
`construction for “Downloadable” because it is consistent with the intrinsic
`
`evidence, including the definition and contextual support provided in the ’926
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 17 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`Patent, and Petitioner has previously stipulated to this definition.
`
`C.
`
`“Downloadable security profile data” (Claims 15 and 22)
`
`
`When read within the context of the claims, there is no need to construe the
`
`phrase “Downloadable security profile data.” See, e.g., Interactive Gift Express,
`
`Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“If the claim
`
`language is clear on its face, then our consideration of the rest of the intrinsic
`
`evidence is restricted to determining if a deviation from the clear language of the
`
`claims is specified.”). The proper construction for “Downloadable” is “an
`
`executable application program which is downloaded from a source computer and
`
`run on the destination computer.” The remaining part of the term “security profile
`
`data” should follow the plain language given to it in claims 15 and 22.
`
`The term “Downloadable security profile data” appears in all of the
`
`challenged claims with its scope clearly set forth in the claims. For example, in the
`
`challenged independent claims 15 and 22, the claims show that (1) Downloadable
`
`security profiles are retrieved from a database of Downloadable security profiles
`
`indexed according to Downloadable IDs; (2) Downloadable security profile data
`
`includes “a list of suspicious computer operations that may be attempted to the
`
`Downloadable”; and (3) a representation of the retrieved Downloadable security
`
`profile data is transmitted to a destination computer via a transport protocol
`
`transmission. The security profile data as defined in the claims includes “a list of
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 18 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`suspicious computer operations that may be attempted to the Downloadable.”
`
`Petitioner argues that “Downloadable security profile data” should mean
`
`“security information relating to the Downloadable” in order to encompass various
`
`“types of data useful in connection with security functions for the Downloadable
`
`under the BRI.” (Petition at 26). But Petitioner’s construction and rationale is too
`
`broad as the types of security information that can be remotely related to the
`
`Downloadable are undefined. Indeed, the Federal Circuit dictates that BRI does
`
`not allow claims to be interpreted “to embrace anything remotely related to the
`
`claimed invention.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010)(reversing the Patent Office for its unreasonably broad claim interpretation
`
`that read the "material for finishing the top surface of the floor" limitation on an
`
`intermediate layer in the prior art product). Rather, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with “the specification and teachings
`
`in the underlying patent.” Id.
`
`Here, the Petitioner's broad interpretation is at odds with the teachings of the
`
`‘926 Patent. For example, the specification shows that the “Downloadable
`
`security profile data” is at least derived from the Downloadable. For example, the
`
`‘194 Patent, which is incorporated by reference by the ‘926 Patent, describes
`
`deriving (e.g. via code scanner, content inspection, decomposing, parsing)
`
`“Downloadable security profile data” (aka DSP data) from the Downloadable. See,
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 19 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
`e.g., Ex. 1013 at 6:5-10;8:41-54; Fig. 6A at 628). The fact that “Downloadable
`
`security profile data” includes data derived from the Downloadable is also shown
`
`in Petitioner’s citations which demonstrate that the detected operations may be
`
`attempted by the incoming Downloadable. Petition at 26 citing (Ex. 1001 at
`
`20:67–21:3 and 21:14–22 (“a list of suspicious computer operations that may be
`
`attempted by the Downloadable”). Petitioner’s citations which do not mention
`
`“security profile data” are inapposite and can be ignored. Thus, Petitioner’s broad
`
`construction is not consistent with the intrinsic record.
`
`The real motivation for Petitioner’s proposed construction is to broaden the
`
`claimed “security profile” enough to encompass prior art security policies, as
`
`disclosed in the Ji reference. But such an interpretation cannot be “consistent with
`
`the specification and teachings in the underlying patent” as every disclosure of the
`
`claimed “Downloadable security profile” (aka DSP data) shows that DSP data are
`
`not security policies. See, e.g., Ex. 1013 at 6:15-19; 8:24-28; Fig. 3 (differentiating
`
`“DSP data” from “security policies” by referring to them separately). As such, the
`
`Board should reject Petitioner’s proposed construction and follow the plain claim
`
`language requirement for “security profile data” as information that is derived from
`
`the Downloadable, including “a list of suspicious computer operations that may be
`
`attempted to the Downloadable” as the claims explicitly require.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-17 Filed 08/20/18 Page 20 of 69
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2015-00907 (U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926)
` “representation of the retrieved Downloadable security profile
`data” (Claims 15 and 22)
`
`D.
`
`
`
`This term needs no construction and the plain and ordinary meaning within
`
`the context of the claims should apply. Claims 15 and 22 recite, inter alia,
`
`“transmitting the incoming Downloadable and a representation of the retrieved
`
`Downloadable security profile data to a destination computer, via a transport
`
`protocol transmission.” (Ex. 1001 at 22:1–4). In the claims, “representation”
`
`clearly refers to the representation of the “retrieved Downloadable security profile
`
`data.” Following the claim language, the representation of the retrieved
`
`Downloadable security profile data includes “a list of suspicious computer
`
`operations that may be attempted to the Downloadable” that is transmitted to a
`
`destination computer via a transport protocol transmission.
`
`Petitioner argues “representation of the retrieved Downloadable security
`
`profile data” should mean “infor