`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALFONSO CIOFFI, MEGAN ELIZABETH ROZMAN,
`MELANIE ANN ROZMAN, AND MORGAN LEE ROZMAN,
`Patent Owners.
`____________
`
`Cases CBM2017-00009, CBM2017-00016
`Patent RE43,529
`
`Cases CBM2017-00010, CBM2017-00015
`Patent RE43,528
`
`Cases CBM2017-00011, CBM2017-00014
`Patent RE43,500
`____________
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2001
`
`DECLARATION OF H.E. DUNSMORE IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT ............................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY AND SCOPE OF OPINIONS.................................................... 1
`
`III. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................ 3
`
`IV. COMPENSATION .......................................................................................... 5
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 6
`
`VI. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW .............................................................. 6
`
`VII. FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES ........................................................................... 7
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Priority Date .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 8
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................10
`
`VIII. CHALLENGED PATENTS .......................................................................... 11
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Problems of the Prior Art ....................................................................12
`
`Example Embodiments .......................................................................15
`
`c.
`
`Claimed Solutions ...............................................................................20
`
`IX. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CHALLENGED
`
`PATENTS AS A WHOLE SOLVES A TECHNICAL PROBLEM USING
`
`A TECHNICAL SOLUTION ........................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`Page i
`
`
`
`I, H.E. Dunsmore, do hereby state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Alfonso Cioffi, Megan Rozman, Melanie
`
`Rozman, and Morgan Rozman (collectively, “Patent Owner”) through its counsel
`
`to serve as an expert in covered business method (“CBM”) review proceedings
`
`CBM2017-00009, CBM2017-00010, CBM2017-00011, CBM2017-00014,
`
`CBM2017-00015, and CBM2017-00016 (collectively, “Pending CBMs”), each of
`
`which have a pending petition filed by Google, Inc (“Petitioner”).
`
`2. My assignment was to provide an explanation of the various patents
`
`challenged in the Pending CBMs and to provide my opinion whether the claimed
`
`subject matter of the patents individually as a whole solves a technical problem
`
`using a technical solution.
`
`3.
`
`I have not been asked to provide and have not provided any opinion
`
`regarding validity of any claim challenged by the Pending CBMs. I understand
`
`that, if the Pending CBMs are instituted, I may provide such an opinion at a later
`
`date, and therefore, I reserve the right to offer any opinion, and any supporting
`
`evidence, regarding validity of any and all claims challenged by the Pending
`
`CBMs.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY AND SCOPE OF OPINIONS
`4.
`
`I understand the following are the claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`RE43,500 (“the ’500 Patent”), RE43,528 (“the ’528 Patent”), and RE43,529 (“the
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`’529 Patent”) (collectively, the “Challenged Patents”) challenged by the Pending
`
`CBMs:
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`CBM Proceedings
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`The ’500 Patent
`
`CBM2017-00011
`
`Claims 21-24, 30-32, 39, 41-
`
`CBM2017-00014
`
`43, 66, and 70
`
`The ’528 Patent
`
`CBM2017-00010
`
`Claims 1, 5, 8, 21-24, 30, 44,
`
`CBM2017-00015
`
`64, and 67
`
`The ’529 Patent
`
`CBM2017-00009
`
`Claims 21-23, 25, 26, 30, 36-
`
`CBM2017-00016
`
`38, 40-42, 45, and 49
`
`
`
`5.
`
`It is my opinion that the claimed subject matter of each claim of the
`
`Challenged Patents as a whole solves a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution.
`
`6.
`
`This declaration provides explanation why the claimed subject matter
`
`of the Challenged Patents as a whole solves a technical problem using a technical
`
`solution.
`
`7.
`
`This declaration, in addition to my education and experience in the
`
`field, form the basis of my opinion. Citations to documents, exhibits, and
`
`references in this declaration are exemplary, and I expect to rely on the entirety of
`
`these documents and references cited, even if only certain excerpts are cited
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`explicitly in my declaration, since my opinions are based on these references,
`
`documents, and exhibits in their entirety. All of the information I am providing
`
`should be considered together; that is, information from the main body of this
`
`declaration may be relevant to my exhibits, information from one exhibit may be
`
`relevant to another exhibit, and information from my exhibits may be relevant to
`
`the declaration’s main body included herein. I also base my opinions on my
`
`knowledge, experience, and training in the fields of technology related to these
`
`exhibits and products.
`
`8.
`
`Further, citation to one or more patents for support of an aspect or
`
`premise described herein may be exemplary and should not be construed as the
`
`only support in the one or more patents for the aspect or premise or that the aspect
`
`or premise is limited by the cited support.
`
`9.
`
`This summary of opinions is not intended to be limiting, as this
`
`declaration may contain additional or supplemental opinions or explanations.
`
`III. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS
`10.
`
`I am an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Purdue
`
`University in West Lafayette, Indiana. I have been working in the computer
`
`industry for more than thirty years. I received a B.S. in Mathematics and Physics
`
`from the University of Tennessee in Knoxville in 1968 with a concentration in
`
`Computer Science. In 1970, I received an M.S. degree in Computer Science
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`granted by the University of Tennessee. In 1978, I received a Ph.D. in Computer
`
`Science from the University of Maryland and then became a Computer Science
`
`Professor at Purdue University where I have been on the faculty for thirty-eight
`
`years. During this time, I have worked as a consultant to several organizations, co-
`
`authored books on the Internet, the World-Wide Web, and software engineering,
`
`and have written numerous technical papers. My most recent work and teaching
`
`experience concerns software engineering.
`
`11. My curriculum vita is attached to this declaration as Attachment A. A
`
`list of my previous testimony experience in the past four years and a list of my
`
`publications in the past 10 years are attached to this declaration as Attachment B.
`
`12.
`
`I created the original Purdue University Software Engineering class
`
`(CS 30700) for junior and senior-level students in 1985. I taught it for the first
`
`several years of its existence, and have taught this course from time to time
`
`through the years since then, including every semester from January, 2010. For
`
`about 25 years, I have taught the first course for Computer Science majors.
`
`Thousands of students (over 100 per year) have graduated from Purdue University
`
`who have been trained by me in software engineering principles and who have
`
`created software for numerous organizations in the private and governmental
`
`sectors. In 2001, the Indiana Information Technology Association (INITA)
`
`selected me as an Outstanding Indiana Information Technology Educator.
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`13. Throughout my career, I have trained and consulted with numerous
`
`software engineers at many different companies. The companies involved have
`
`included IBM, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Delco Electronics, Raytheon, Northrop
`
`Grumman, and ITT. I have typically taught them software engineering processes,
`
`programming languages, and techniques for efficient software development.
`
`14.
`
`I have consulted with and trained professional software engineers at:
`
`Delco Electronics, Kokomo, Indiana; IBM, Menlo Park, California; IBM, San
`
`Jose, California; IBM, Boca Raton, Florida; IBM, Cary, North Carolina; IBM,
`
`Atlanta, Georgia; IBM, Rye Brook, New York; AT&T Bell Laboratories,
`
`Columbus, Ohio; and AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Illinois. From 2008-
`
`2011 I taught a course in software engineering and consulted with professional
`
`software engineers via video conferencing at Raytheon locations in Marlboro,
`
`Massachusetts, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, Largo, Florida, McKinney, Texas, and
`
`Fullerton, California.
`
`IV. COMPENSATION
`15.
`
`I have been retained by the Patent Owner through its counsel to
`
`provide my expert opinions in these Pending CBMs. My compensation is $400 per
`
`hour. My compensation for work on this matter is in no way dependent upon my
`
`conclusions or based on the outcome of the pending CMBs. I reserve the right to
`
`add, modify, expand, and supplement the positions I set forth in this declaration
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`based on any information that I receive or review after the submission of this
`
`declaration.
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`16.
`
`I have considered U.S. Patent No. 7,484,247, the ’500 Patent, the ’528
`
`Patent, and the ’529 Patent. I have also considered information provided to me and
`
`related to the education and experience of the inventors, to specific constructions
`
`of claim terms, and to any other aspect as cited herein. I have further considered
`
`my education, knowledge, training, and experience.
`
`VI. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`17.
`
`I am not an attorney; however, I have been advised of certain legal
`
`principles as they relate to patent law. I have applied these legal principles in my
`
`analysis and preparation of this declaration.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a patent should be read, understood, and analyzed
`
`from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, or stated differently, at the time of the priority date.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in deciding the level of ordinary skill, all evidence
`
`must be considered, including:
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`(iii)
`
`the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`the sophistication of the technology.
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a CBM review cannot be instituted if the challenged
`
`patent is not a “covered business method patent.” I understand that the definition of
`
`“covered business method patent” excludes patents for technological inventions.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that when determining whether a patent is for a
`
`technological invention, one factor to be considered is whether the claimed subject
`
`matter as a whole solves a technical problem using a technical solution.
`
`VII. FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Priority Date
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Challenged Patents
`
`claim priority to U.S. Patent No. 7,484,247 (“the ’247 Patent), which was filed on
`
`August 7, 2004. Therefore, I have been informed and understand that the
`
`Challenged Patents are entitled to a latest priority date of August 7, 2004.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the Challenged Patents may
`
`be entitled to an earlier priority based on an earlier reduction to practice by the
`
`inventors; however, for the purposes of my explanation and opinions herein, I rely
`
`on August 7, 2004 as the priority date of the Challenged Patents. Unless stated or
`
`clearly inferred, my opinions expressed herein are in reference to the timeframe of
`
`August 7, 2004. I reserve the right to modify my explanation and opinions herein
`
`based on an earlier priority date.
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`24. Through my education, experience and training, in academia and
`
`industry, and my analysis of the Challenged Patents, I am familiar with the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the Challenged Patents in the
`
`August 2004 timeframe.
`
`25.
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the field as of the August
`
`2004 timeframe, I considered the following:
`
`26. The educational level of the inventors. My understanding is that the
`
`inventors’ education is as follows: Alfonso Cioffi received a bachelor of science in
`
`electrical engineering in 1980 from Manhattan College, summa cum laude, and a
`
`master of science in electrical engineering in 1982 from Polytechnic Institute of
`
`New York. From 1980 to 1996, Mr. Cioffi worked as an engineer in power
`
`electronics for Bell Laboratories and AT&T Microelectronics. From 1997 to 2001,
`
`Mr. Cioffi worked as an engineer in power electronics for Marconi
`
`Communications. Al Rozman received a bachelor of science in electrical
`
`engineering in 1982 from Lehigh University and a Master of Science in electrical
`
`engineering from the State University of New York in 1989. From 1982 to 1989
`
`Mr. Rozman worked as an engineer in power electronics for General Electric.
`
`From 1989 to 2001, Mr. Rozman worked as an engineer in power electronics for
`
`Bell Laboratories and Lucent Technologies. From 2001 to 2003, Mr. Rozman
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`worked as a power engineer for Chiaro Networks, and from 2003 to 2008 Mr.
`
`Rozman worked as an engineer for ColdWatt, Inc.
`
`27. The type of problems encountered in the art. The computer science
`
`of resisting malware generally involves many different strategies and choices in
`
`design. There are numerous ways to protect computers from malware downloaded
`
`from the Internet.
`
`28. The rapidity with which innovations are made. Based upon my
`
`observations over the past 30 years, major innovations in the network security field
`
`occur about every 3-5 years.
`
`29. The sophistication of the technology. Network security is a
`
`continuing cycle between security developers and those who work to defeat it. As
`
`soon as an innovation is made that provides adequate security, malware developers
`
`work nonstop to find a way to defeat this protection. They usually succeed. This
`
`sends security developers back to the task of trying to create an additional level of
`
`security. Workers in the field generally have some undergraduate training,
`
`although not necessarily a bachelor’s degree in computer science. Many would
`
`have acquired a portion of their knowledge through hands-on experience.
`
`30. Based on these factors, it is my conclusion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in August 2004 would have been a person with a Bachelor’s degree
`
`in Computer Science, or a closely related field such as electrical engineering that
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`requires the study of Computer Science, and at least two years of experience in the
`
`Computer Science industry or the equivalent experience and education obtained
`
`working in the Computer Science industry.
`
`31.
`
`I rely on this level of ordinary skill in the art when reading,
`
`understanding, and analyzing the Challenged Patents. Unless stated or clearly
`
`inferred, my opinions expressed herein are based on this level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art. I reserve the right to modify my explanation and opinions herein based on a
`
`different level of ordinary skill in the art being determined.
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`32.
`
`I have been asked to apply the given constructions to the identified
`
`claim terms below; otherwise, I have been asked to construe the claims according
`
`to the broadest reasonable interpretation—i.e., by giving claim terms their broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification as the terms would be
`
`interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`“web browser process”
`
`process that can access data on websites with, or
`
`without, assistance of another web browser process
`
`“first memory space”
`
`“memory space distinct from a second memory space”
`
`“second memory space” “memory space distinct from a first memory space”
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`“second protected
`
`“protected memory space distinct from a first memory
`
`memory space”
`
`space”
`
`“the second electronic
`
`“the second electronic data processor is configured
`
`data processor is
`
`such that it is incapable of automatically accessing the
`
`operating in a protected
`
`first memory space”
`
`mode”
`
`
`
`33.
`
`I have applied the given constructions and construed other terms
`
`according to the broadest reasonable interpretation when analyzing the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`VIII. CHALLENGED PATENTS
`34. As noted above, the Challenged Patents claim priority to the ’247
`
`Patent, which I have been informed was submitted as Exhibit 1003 in each of the
`
`Pending CBMs by the Petitioner. All of the Challenged Patents and the ’247 Patent
`
`have a substantially identical specification and drawings, except that the ’529
`
`Patent also includes a section entitled “TERM DESCRIPTION.” For ease, I refer
`
`to the specification and drawings of the ’247 Patent when discussing the
`
`Challenged Patents collectively.
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`35. The Challenged Patents describe various architectural embodiments in
`
`hardware and software using multiple web browser processes with a specific
`
`process to execute potentially malicious code and limit the impact of malware on
`
`computer systems. The second web browser process executes code from the
`
`Internet and, in doing so, may launch malware. However, because the second web
`
`browser process is prevented from writing outside its designated memory space,
`
`the malware is limited to the second web browser process. When the user closes
`
`the second web browser process, the malware is eliminated.
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Problems of the Prior Art
`
`36. As described in the ’247 Patent, the open interconnection architecture
`
`of, for example, the Internet has allowed for unwanted incursions into computers’
`
`processing and memory space by malware. See, e.g., ’247 Patent (Ex. 1003) at
`
`3:36-39. At the time of the invention, some computer architectures typically
`
`allowed programs to interact with and/or alter other programs and data files,
`
`including critical operating system files. See, e.g., id. at 3:39-47. This allowed such
`
`computers in an open interconnection architecture to be vulnerable to malware.
`
`See, e.g., id. Malware could be a nuisance that interfered with the smooth operation
`
`of the computer system and/or could lead to theft of confidential information on
`
`the computer system, degradation of the performance of the computer system, or
`
`complete collapse of the computer system functionality. See, e.g., id. at 3:56-62.
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`37. Computers use an operating system that defines instructions that
`
`provide an interface for programs to different resources, such as memory and
`
`processors. See, e.g., id. at 4:26-30. Many operating systems have multi-tasking
`
`capability that allow multiple programs to run simultaneously while sharing
`
`resources. See, e.g., id. at 4:30-49. By allowing programs to share resources,
`
`malware can be given access to these resources, which may have a detrimental
`
`result, such as by the malware deleting or overwriting files or dominating
`
`processing time. See, e.g., id. at 4:50-59.
`
`38. Some potential solutions to the malware problem were based on the
`
`architecture of the operating system. These included rings-of-protection, paging,
`
`and segmentation, which sought to prevent malware infiltrations from occurring
`
`and to ensure isolation between programs. See, e.g., id. at 4:66-5:11. These
`
`solutions were complex, which provided more options for malware to bypass the
`
`security measures and to hack or corrupt programs. See, e.g., id. at 5:11-17.
`
`39. Other solutions were software-based. These included blockers,
`
`sweepers, and firewalls. See, e.g., id. at 5:51-62. These solutions were limited
`
`because they can only detect malware that had already been identified. See, e.g., id.
`
`at 5:62-65. New, non-identified malware could easily bypass these software-based
`
`solutions. See, e.g., id. at 6:19-24. Hence, developers of these solutions had to
`
`constantly keep the software up-to-date and users had to constantly download and
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`install the updates to keep computer systems protected. See, e.g., id. at 6:19-24,
`
`6:32-42. While developers and users did this, malware developers would develop
`
`new malware, which led to unending escalation. See, e.g., id. at 6:19-24. Further,
`
`the software countermeasures would detect and filter unwanted intrusions in real
`
`time, or scan the computer system either at the direction of a user or as a scheduled
`
`event. See, e.g., id. at 6:10-14. A comprehensive scan, detect, and elimination of
`
`the malware from desired incoming data streams would significantly slow or
`
`preclude the interactive nature of many applications. See, e.g., id. at 6:15-19.
`
`40. Some solutions were network/hardware-based. These solutions
`
`included routers and firewalls. See, e.g., id. at 5:53-54. These solutions were
`
`typically based on packet filtering, which is limited because the rules determining
`
`which packets to accept and which packets to reject could contain subjective
`
`decisions based on trusted, known sites or known applications. See, e.g., id. at
`
`5:66-6:9.
`
`41. The basic flaw in these solutions is that all incoming executable data
`
`files must be resident in the computer’s main process to perform their desired
`
`function. See, e.g., id. at 5:24-44. Once resident in that process, access may be
`
`gained to memory and other basic computer system elements. See, e.g., id. at 6:26-
`
`29. Malware exploits this key architectural flaw to infiltrate and compromise
`
`computer systems. See, e.g., id. at 6:29-31.
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`42. Even further, many of these solutions simply would have security
`
`holes that could be exploited by malware. See, e.g., id. at 6:43-55. Keeping
`
`updated with patches to correct security holes can be cumbersome.
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Example Embodiments
`
`43. For context of what is claimed by the Challenged Patents, I provide a
`
`brief overview of some example embodiments described in the ’247 Patent. I will
`
`refer to Figures 6 and 9, although the description relating to other figures also
`
`applies.
`
`44. Figure 9 (reproduced below) shows a computer system 100. See, e.g.,
`
`id. at 16:6-8. The computer system 100 may represent, for example, a portable
`
`computer, such as a notebook computer, or any data processing system, a personal
`
`digital assistant (PDA), a communication device such as a cell phone, or device
`
`that is capable of being connected to a network of one or more computers. See,
`
`e.g., id. at 9:32-37.
`
`45. The computer system 100 comprises a video processor 970, a
`
`processor 960, a memory data storage area 950, and a network interface 190. See,
`
`e.g., id. at 16:8-10, Figs. 1, 9. The processor 960 comprises multiple processor
`
`cores, illustrated by a first processor 920 and a second processor 940. See, e.g., id.
`
`at 16:10-18. The memory data storage area 950 may further comprise a first
`
`memory data storage area 910 and a second memory data storage area 930. See,
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`e.g., id. at 16:18-19. The memory areas 910 and 930 may comprise separate,
`
`isolated memory zones within a common physical memory space, such as separate
`
`partitions within the same hard drive, for example. See, e.g., id. at 16:19-21, 44-47.
`
`The first processor 920 is communicatively coupled to both memory data storage
`
`areas 910 and 930, see, e.g., id. at 10:55-58, Figs. 1, 9, and the second processor
`
`940 is communicatively coupled to the second memory data storage area 930, see,
`
`e.g., id. at 10:34-37, Figs. 1, 9. The second processor 940 may be configured to be
`
`incapable of initiating access to the first memory data storage area 910. See, e.g.,
`
`id. at 16:34-43, 10:38-64.
`
`46. The second processor 940 is communicatively coupled to the network
`
`interface device 190, which is connected to a network (e.g., the Internet) of one or
`
`more computer devices 195. See, e.g., id. at 10:14-31, Fig. 9. A common operating
`
`system may control the combination of the first processor 920 and the first memory
`
`data storage area 910 and the combination of the second processor 940 and the
`
`second memory data storage area 930. See, e.g., id. at 11:54-56.
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`
`
`47. The functions carried out by the processors 920 and 940 may
`
`comprise separate, secure logical processes executing on the same physical
`
`
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`
`
`processor. See, e.g., id. at 16:22-24. For example, a first logical process may
`
`comprise executing instructions necessary to carry out the functions of an
`
`operating system, or the first logical process may comprise executing instructions
`
`necessary to carry out the functions of a first computer program. A second logical
`
`process may comprise executing instructions necessary to carry out the functions
`
`of a web browser program, or may comprise executing instructions necessary to
`
`carry out the functions of an instant messenger program, for example. See, e.g., id.
`
`at 16:24-31.
`
`48. The computer system 100 would be capable of disallowing a secure
`
`logical process access to certain memory spaces, and/or disallowing a secure
`
`logical process from initiating access to another logical process. See, e.g., id. at
`
`16:34-39. For example, the functions carried out by the second processor 940 may
`
`comprise a secure logical process, which may be configured to be unable to
`
`automatically initiate access to either the first memory data storage area 910 or
`
`another logical process performing the functions of the first processor 920. See,
`
`e.g., id. at 16:39-43.
`
`49.
`
`In Figure 6, an exemplary process flow 600 allows an interactive
`
`network process to be carried out on the computer system 100. See, e.g., id. at
`
`14:28-31. A user initiates an interactive network process via the second processor
`
`940 (step 610). See, e.g., id. at 14:31-33, Figs. 1, 9. For example, the user can open
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`
`
`a first process, and the first processor 920 operating the first process can cause a
`
`second process on the second processor 940 to be initiated. See, e.g., id. at 10:66-
`
`11:6, Fig. 2 (steps 210, 220). The second processor 940 receives interactive
`
`network process status data from a network connection, e.g., the network interface
`
`190 (step 620). See, e.g., id. at 14:33-34, Figs. 1, 9. The second processor 940
`
`informs the first processor 920 that interactive network process status data is
`
`available (step 630). See, e.g., id. at 14:34-36, Figs. 1, 9. The first processor 920
`
`retrieves interactive network process status data from the second processor 940 and
`
`uses the status data to update the interactive network process and update video
`
`display, e.g., through the video processor 970 (step 640). See, e.g., id. at 14:36-39,
`
`Figs. 1, 9. The first processor 920 then passes the updated interactive network
`
`process status data to the second processor 940 (step 650). See, e.g., id. at 14:39-
`
`40, Figs. 1, 9. The second processor 940 then sends the updated interactive
`
`network process status data to the network 195 via network interface 190 (step
`
`660). See, e.g., id. at 14:40-42, Figs. 1, 9. The exemplary process 600, or a process
`
`functionally equivalent, is carried out continuously as long as the interactive
`
`process is running. See, e.g., id. at 14:42-45, Figs. 1, 9.
`
`50. By using exemplary process 600 (or an equivalent), the computer
`
`system 100 is capable of actively deciding what data to download and use, and
`
`what data to discard or scan for malware. See, e.g., id. at 14:46-49, Figs. 1, 9. The
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`
`
`status data is buffered prior to loading it onto the combination of the first processor
`
`920 and first memory data storage area 910. See, e.g., id. at 14:49-50, Figs. 1, 9.
`
`The combination of the first processor 920 and first memory data storage area 910
`
`may be advantageously configured to only accept status information in the proper
`
`format, thereby minimizing the chance that a malware practitioner could
`
`deceptively load malware onto the combination of the first processor 920 and first
`
`memory data storage area 910. See, e.g., id. at 14:50-54, Figs. 1, 9.
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Claimed Solutions
`
`51. Attachment C submitted with this declaration and incorporated
`
`herein includes charts of the independent claims challenged in the Pending CBMs.
`
`Except for the preambles, similar features of the claims are along the same rows of
`
`the charts for easier understanding of similar features common between the claims.
`
`These charts are not intended to imply that similar features have a same scope or
`
`meaning—in many instances, such features have different scopes and/or meanings.
`
`52. The ’500 Patent. The’500 Patent generally claims a portable
`
`computing and communication device capable of executing instructions using a
`
`common operating system and using a wireless connection to exchange data across
`
`a network. The portable computing and communications device has “intelligent
`
`cellular telephone capability” (“ICTC”). The claims of the ’500 Patent include
`
`systems, methods, and software products. Consistent with the overall invention, the
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`
`
`claims describe the architecture for a system to provide the second web browser
`
`process with access to a second memory space, and limit the second web browser
`
`process so that malware executing on the second web browser process cannot
`
`corrupt files stored in a computer’s first memory space.
`
`53. The ’528 Patent. The ’528 Patent also generally claims an
`
`architecture for a system to provide the second web browser process with access to
`
`a second memory space, and limit the second web browser process so that malware
`
`executing on the second web browser process cannot corrupt files stored in a
`
`computer’s first memory space. The ’528 Patent claims systems and methods for
`
`operating a portable computer where files stored in a computer’s first memory
`
`space are protected from malware downloaded and executing in the second web
`
`browser process. Embodiments of the ’528 Patent includes single processor and
`
`multi-core processor embodiments.
`
`54. The ’529 Patent. The ’529 Patent is directed towards methods for
`
`generating website content on portable computing devices with a first and second
`
`web browser process, and blocking malware on the second web browser process
`
`from corrupting files in the first memory space. Like the ’528 Patent, the ’529
`
`Patent has embodiments that allow for the invention to be carried out on a single
`
`processor as well as a multi-core processor.
`
`Ex. 2001 – Dunsmore Declaration
`
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`
`
`55. Generally, each of the Challenged Claims recites a first web browser
`
`process (e.g., in Figure 6, process of first processor (e.g., first processor 920 in
`
`Figure 9)) and a second [protected] web browser process (e.g., in Figure 6, process
`
`of second processor (e.g., second processor 940 in Figure 9)) that are executed or
`
`opened. In some claims, the first web browser process can initialize the second
`
`web browser process (e.g., step 220 in Figure 2, see also 11:4-6). The first web
`
`browser process can access a first memory space (e.g., first memory data storage
`
`area 910, see also Fig. 9, 10:55-54) that contains data and/or a system file (or
`
`critical file) (e.g., see 9:52-55). The second web browser process can access a
`
`second [protected] memory space (distinct from the first memory space, according
`
`to the above construction) (e.g., second memory data storage area 930, see also
`
`Fig. 9, 10:34-35). Most claims recite that data can be passed from the first web
`
`bro
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
