Trials@uspto. gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: September 10, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WHITSERVE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1024-0001
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On April15, 2013, Google, Inc. ("Google") filed a Petition For Inter Partes
`
`Review of claims 1-9 and 11-15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,981,007 (Ex. 1001, "the '007
`
`patent"). Paper 2, "Pet." The owner of the '007 patent, Whitserve LLC
`
`("Whitserve") filed a Patent Owner's Preliminary Response on July 18, 2013.
`
`Paper 10, "Prelim. Resp." With its preliminary response, Whitserve provided
`
`evidence it has filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 11-15 pursuant to 37 C.P.R.
`
`§ 1.321(a). I d. at 1; Ex. 2001. We have jurisdiction over remaining claims 1-9
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the petition, we determine that the information
`
`presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Google would
`
`prevail with respect to claims 1-9 of the '007 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35
`
`U.S. C. § 314, we authorize an inter partes review to be instituted as to claims 1-9.
`
`A. The '007 Patent
`
`The '007 patent is directed to system for backing up data stored on a central
`
`computer over the Internet to a local client computer. Ex. 1001, Abstract. In
`
`particular, the '007 patent "relates to outsourced, Internet-based data processing
`2
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1 024-0002
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`and more particularly to safeguarding customer/client data when a business
`
`outsources data processing to third party Internet-based systems." !d. at 1:14-17.
`
`The system comprises a client computer and a central data processing system,
`
`connected by an Internet communications link. Id. at 2:45-47. Using the Inten1et
`
`link, the client computer can execute software on the central computer for storing,
`
`displaying, updating, and deleting data. Id. at 2:50-54. Significantly, the system
`
`also has the ability to transmit a copy of the data on the central computer to the
`
`local computer for backup, and can later restore any lost data from the local
`
`computer back to the central computer. I d. at 2:53-56.
`
`B. Exemplary Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 4, and 7 are independent, while claims 2
`
`and 3 depend from claim 1, claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 4, and claims 8 and
`
`9 depend from claim 7. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claimed subject matter of the
`
`'007 patent and is reproduced as follows:
`
`1.
`
`A system for onsite backup of internet-based data comprising:
`a central computer;
`a client computer;
`a communications link between said central computer and the
`Internet;
`a communications link between said client computer and the
`Internet;
`at least one database containing a plurality of data records
`accessible by said central computer, each data record containing a
`client identification number;
`
`3
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1 024-0003
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`software executing on said central computer for receiving a data
`backup request from said client computer;
`software executing on said central computer for transmitting
`said data backup to said client computer for onsite backup of internet(cid:173)
`based data on said client computer.
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Google relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Guck
`Schrader
`
`U.S. Patent 5,848,415
`U.S. Patent 5,903,881
`
`Dec. 8, 1998
`May 11, 1999
`
`(Ex. 1006)
`(Ex. 1007)
`
`Wells Fargo website ("WF Site"), wellsfargo.com, Internet Archive Wayback
`Machine (Jan. 19, 1998) (Ex. 1003)
`Patricia B. Seybold, CUSTOMERS.COM: HOW TO CREATE A PROFITABLE BUSINESS
`STRATEGY FOR THE INTERNET AND BEYOND (Oct. 30, 1998) (Ex. 1004)
`
`Google asserts that the WF Site is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b ),
`
`Seybold and Schrader are prior art under 35 U.S. C. § 102(a), and Guck is prior art
`
`under 35 U.S. C. § 102(e). Pet. 7-8. Whitserve does not contest the prior art status
`
`of any reference at this stage of the proceedings. Prelim. Resp. 10 n.4.
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Google asserts the following grounds 1 of unpatentability:
`
`Claims 1-9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`1.
`the combined disclosures of WF Site, Seybold, and Guck; and
`
`1 Google's petition also asserts that claim 11 is unpatentable under 35 U.S. C.
`§ 102(a) as anticipated by Schrader. Pet. 8. In view ofWhitserve's disclaimer of
`claims 11-15, this ground is moot.
`
`4
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1 024-0004
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`Claims 1-9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`2.
`the combined disclosures of Schrader and Guck.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, "[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears." 37 C.P.R.§ 42.100(b). Stated differently, we construe claim terms
`
`using "the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as
`
`they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account
`
`whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded
`
`by the written description contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris,
`
`127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We presume that claim terms have their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that
`
`the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.") (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). However, a patentee may rebut this presumption by
`
`acting as his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the
`
`specification with "reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." In re
`
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Google proffers interpretations for eight claim terms: 1) communications
`
`link; 2) client identification number; 3) data backup; 4) data backup request; 5)
`
`internet-based data; 6) retrieving said data backup; 7) storing said data backup in
`
`a location accessible to said client computer; and 8) software executing on said
`5
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1 024-0005
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`central computer for generating a data backup request. Pet. 8-9. Whitserve only
`
`submits a proposed interpretation for the claim term internet-based data. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 3-9. We consider the proposed constructions below, taking into account the
`
`plain meaning of the terms and their usage in the specification.
`
`1. Internet-Based Data
`
`Google contends that Internet-based data means "data that is accessible,
`
`stored, modified, or processed via the Internet." Pet. 9. As support for this
`
`construction, Google cites to the declaration of its expert William S. Finkelstein,
`
`who states that it is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification. Ex. 1009 ,-r,-r 29-31. Mr. Finkelstein notes that in the appeal of a
`
`district court litigation involving the '007 patent the Federal Circuit discussed the
`
`construction a reasonable jury would have given Internet-based data, but he asserts
`
`that under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard our construction need not
`
`be the same as the Federal Circuit's. Id. ,-r 30 (citing Whitserve LLC v. Computer
`
`Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Ex. 1008).
`
`Whitserve counters that Google's proffered construction is too broad and
`
`ignores the Federal Circuit's construction that Internet-based data "requires the
`
`ability to modify centrally stored data from across the Internet, rather than simply
`
`sending it across the Internet." Prelim. Resp. 3 (citing Whitserve, 694 F.3d at 24
`
`(Ex. 1008 at 20)). Whitserve cites to the specification of the '007 patent for
`
`support, noting that "[m]odifying data over the Internet is a distinction between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art as described in the specification." Prelim.
`
`Resp. 7. Prior art systems, as depicted in Figure 2 of the patent, typically back up
`
`6
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1 024-0006
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`data that is created, modified, and stored on a client computer to a central computer
`
`over the Internet. Id. (citing Ex. 1001 Fig. 2). The invention of the '007 patent, by
`
`contrast, backs up data from a central processing server over the Internet to a client
`
`computer. I d. (citing Ex. 1001 Fig. 1 ).
`
`Other than in the Abstract, the '007 patent does not use the phrase "Internet(cid:173)
`
`based data." Rather, the patent frequently refers to "Internet-based data
`
`processing." See, e.g., Ex. 1001 Title, 1:14-5, 1:65-66,2:7-8. The close
`
`association of the terms leads to the conclusion that Internet-based data is
`
`therefore data that has undergone "Internet-based data processing," i.e.,
`
`modification while stored on a central server accessible over the Internet.
`
`This interpretation is supported by various other portions of the
`
`specification, which emphasize that the backup function of the invention is to
`
`protect data that is being stored on a central server for processing. Ex. 1001, 1 :65-
`
`67 ("What is desired, therefore, is an Internet-based data processing system which
`
`safeguards data providing an incentive for companies to outsource their data
`
`processing"); id. at 1:39-41 ("One difficulty companies face when considering
`
`whether to outsource data-processing to third party, Internet-based systems is the
`
`safeguarding of their and their clients' data."). Throughout the specification, the
`
`emphasis is on protecting data that is being processed at a remote location
`
`accessible over the Internet. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
`
`Internet-based data must take this emphasis into consideration.
`
`Upon review of the '007 specification, we agree with Whitserve that
`
`Google's proffered construction is inconsistent with the specification. Under
`
`Google's construction, data that merely is accessed- but not processed- via the
`
`7
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1 024-0007
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`Internet would fall within the scope of the claims. The '007 specification
`
`distinguishes and disparages such embodiments as prior art (Ex. 1001, 1:48-55;
`
`Figs. 2 and 3), whereas the embodiments described as being part of the invention
`
`(Id. at 2:44-62; Figs. 1 and 4) include the ability to modify data via the Internet.
`
`See In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(broadest reasonable interpretation excluded prior art embodiments disparaged in
`
`specification). We, therefore, interpret Internet-based data to mean "data that is
`
`capable of being modified via the Internet."
`
`2. Remaining Terms
`
`Google has proffered constructions for several other claim terms, but
`
`Whitserve does not dispute at this stage of the proceedings whether these
`
`limitations are met by the prior art. Thus, we decline to provide express
`
`constructions of these remaining terms at this time.
`
`B. Obviousness Over Combination of WF Site, Seybold, and Guck
`
`Google asserts that claims 1-9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`having been obvious over the combined disclosures of WF Site, Seybold, and
`
`Guck. Pet. 10-29. In support of this asserted ground ofunpatentability, Google
`
`provides explanations as to how each claim limitation is met by the combined
`
`references, and cites to the declaration of Mr. Finkelstein, who provides a detailed
`
`claim chart applying the disclosures to the challenged claims. Id.; Ex. 1009 ,-r 55.
`
`Upon review of Google's analysis and supporting evidence, we determine that
`
`Google has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`
`8
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1 024-0008
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`with respect to claims 1-9 on the ground that these claims would have been
`
`obvious over the combined disclosures of WF Site, Seybold, and Guck.
`
`Whitserve argues that the combined references fail to teach Internet-based
`
`data, therefore, Google fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-9
`
`would have been obvious. Prelim. Resp. 13-15, 17. Whitserve does not argue that
`
`any other claim term is absent from the cited art, or that the combinations of
`
`references set forth by Google are improper. I d. at 10 n.4.
`
`1. The WF Site
`
`The WF Site is a printed archive of the website wellsfargo. com as it existed
`
`on January 19, 1998. Ex. 1003. The reference details an online banking website
`
`and sets forth various features of the service. I d. Among the services offered is
`
`one identified as "Online Banking," which includes features such as "Transfer
`
`funds between your Wells Fargo accounts" and an optional "Online Bill Payment
`
`Service." Id. at 15. The Online Bill Payment Service is described as permitting
`
`customers to schedule payments to merchants and individuals in advance. Id. at
`
`16. The WF Site also describes the ability to "[d]ownload your account
`
`information into your personal finance software or spreadsheet." Id. at 18.
`
`Whitserve argues that the WF Site does not disclose the ability to modify
`
`data over the Internet, focusing on the WF Site's description of a user's ability to
`
`reconcile accounts and transactions by downloading them to a client computer.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 13-14. According to Whitserve, the WF Site "only allows a user
`
`access to their fixed cleared transaction data for use by a local program." Id. at 14.
`
`We disagree. Whitserve's argument ignores the fact that the WF Site also
`
`9
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1 024-0009
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`discloses the ability to transfer funds and pay bills over the Internet, each of which
`
`necessarily would modify the account data (e.g., the funds balance) stored on the
`
`central computer. For this reason, on the present record, we conclude that the WF
`
`Site discloses Internet-based data.
`
`2. Guck
`
`Guck discloses a computer-implemented system for modifying the format of
`
`content residing on a central computer in response to requests from users.
`
`Ex. 1006, 4:34-44. After receiving a request from a user for a document, the
`
`central server can "dynamically modify its characteristics to accommodate
`
`formatting requirements requested by the [u]ser." Id. Figure 1 ofGuck discloses
`
`that a network such as the Internet ( 40) resides between the server (50) and the
`
`client users (10, 20, 30, 33). Id. Fig 1.
`
`Whitserve contends that "Guck simply does not disclose 'internet-based
`
`data,"' but provides no evidence to support this argument. Prelim. Resp. 15.
`
`Whitserve is incorrect, as the software of Guck modifies centrally-stored data in
`
`response to user requests sent over the Internet. On this record, we conclude that
`
`Guck teaches "data that is capable of being modified via the Internet" and,
`
`therefore, satisfies the limitation Internet-based data.
`
`C. Obviousness Over Combination of Schrader and Guck
`
`Google also contends that claims 1-9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`as having been obvious over the combined disclosures of Schrader and Guck.
`
`Pet. 3 7-57. Google again provides explanations as to how each claim limitation is
`
`10
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1024-0010
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`taught by the combined references, and cites to the declaration of Mr. Finkelstein,
`
`who provides a detailed claim chart applying the disclosures to the challenged
`
`claims. Id.; Ex. 1009 ,-r 68. Upon review ofGoogle's analysis and supporting
`
`evidence, we determine that Google has demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to claims 1-9 on the ground that these
`
`claims would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Schrader and
`
`Guck.
`
`Again, Whitserve's sole argument for patentability is that neither Schrader
`
`nor Guck discloses Internet-based data. Prelim. Resp. 11-13, 15-17. As discussed
`
`supra, contrary to Whitserve's contention, Guck describes data that may be
`
`modified or reformatted via the Internet. In addition, Schrader also teaches
`
`Internet-based data.
`
`Schrader is directed to a system and software for online banking "that
`
`integrates end-user checkbook activities directly with bank statement transactions."
`
`Ex. 1007, 1:7-11. The software executes on a user's client computer which is
`
`coupled over a network to a central computer of a financial institution. I d. at 7:61-
`
`64. The user may enter transaction instructions, such as bill payments or fund
`
`transfers, into the client software, after which the instructions are sent to the central
`
`computer. I d. at 9:58-60. The central computer receives the instructions and
`
`"performs the necessary actions to process each of the transaction instructions [] in
`
`the received file, updating the user's account(s) as needed." Id. at 18:58-63.
`
`Whitserve argues that Schrader does not disclose Internet-based data, as it
`
`"only allows a user access to their fixed cleared transaction data." Prelim. Resp.
`
`13. We conclude, in light of the preceding paragraph, that this is incorrect.
`11
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1024-0011
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`Schrader's software gives users the ability to modify their centrally-stored
`
`financial data over the Internet, for example, by instructing the financial institution
`
`to pay a bill out of the user's funds. The data of Schrader is, therefore, Internet(cid:173)
`
`based data as required in claims 1-9 _2
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the forgoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in the
`
`petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Google would prevail
`
`with respect to claims 1-9 of the '007 patent.
`
`At this stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination
`
`as to the patentability of any challenged claim.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`
`hereby instituted as to Claims 1-9 of the '007 patent for the following grounds:
`
`2 Whitserve also argues that the Federal Circuit "found claims 1-9 of the '007
`Patent valid over Schrader," and urges us to do the same. Prelim. Resp. 13. This
`mischaracterizes the Federal Circuit's holding. First, district and appellate courts
`do not hold patents "valid," but rather may find them "not invalid." She/core, Inc.
`v. Durham Indus., Inc., 745 F.2d 621, 627 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("A patent is not held
`valid for all purposes but, rather, not invalid on the record before the court.").
`Second, the Federal Circuit's holding in Whitserve was that the defendant there had
`failed to "point[] to facts necessary for us to conclude that no reasonable jury could
`have found the[] '007 Patent's claims to be nonobvious." 694 F.3d 25 (Ex. 1008
`at 21). The basis of the Federal Circuit's decision on Schrader was a failure of
`proof, not a decision on the merits.
`
`12
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1024-0012
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`1. Claims 1-9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
`combined disclosures of WF Site, Seybold, and Guck; and
`
`2. Claims 1-9 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
`combined disclosures of Schrader and Guck.
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and 37 C.P.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial commencing on
`
`the entry date of this decision; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board is
`
`scheduled for 3:00PM Eastern Time on October 1, 2013; the parties are directed
`to the Office Trial Practice Guide3 for guidance in preparing for the initial
`
`conference call, and should come prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the
`
`Scheduling Order entered herewith and any motions the parties anticipate filing
`
`during the trial.
`
`3 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765-66 (Aug. 14,
`2012).
`
`13
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1024-0013
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00249
`Patent No. 6,981,007
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`PhilliiJ Phill>in
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Andy .Ehmke .iiJr@hayneslJoone. com
`PhilliiJ.PhillJin.iiJr@hayneslJoone.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`GeneS. Winter
`Michael J. Kosma
`Ste}Jhen F.W. Ball Jr.
`ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS LLC
`gwinter@ssjr .com
`mkosma@ssjr .com
`sl>all@ssjr.com
`}Jatent@ssjr.com
`
`14
`
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1024-0014
`
`

`

`Browser Answers
`
`http://web.archive.orglweb/ 19980 119022058/hnp://wellsfargo.com/per/s ...
`
`..... _____ _
`
`7 captures
`19 Jan 91! - 17 Aug 00
`
`11 p://'weUsfargo.comlper/serviceslbrowserlqanda/
`
`Go
`
`DEC
`
`DEC
`
`1997
`
`1999
`
`WELLS FARGO
`
`Personal Finance
`
`SIGN
`ON
`
`HOM~ MENU
`
`Q: What is a browse r nnd wba t does it do?
`
`A: A browser is what enables you to visit Web sites and view 'Neb pages on your computer screen. Just as a word processor is the software yo u use to write
`letters and papers with your computer. a browser is the software youLJSe to surf the Web.
`
`In essence. a browser simplifies all the computer jumble that goes into sear hingfor and viewing Web pages. So. for example. when you type
`"hnp://wellsfargo.com", yow· browser luKierstands what thi s means. aJKI knows how to instruct your computer to li tKithat Internet site. Try typing the same
`thing on your word processor; your computer certainly won't take you to the Wells Fargo home page.
`
`Once you get to a site, your browser knows how to turn the programming instructions se nt over the Internet into a meaningf\tl Web page. If your browser didn't
`lmderstand this code. yo u couldn't read this material and view the accompanying graphics. like the Wells Fargo logo at the top of this screen.
`
`Q : What m:1kes one browse r more sec ure than a no the r?
`
`A: Browsers offer varying degrees of security. particularly in regard to encryption:
`
`• Some browsers allow you to encrypt information, so that the information is scrambled as it passes over the Jnternet.
`
`• Some browsers otTer more secure forms of encryption than other browsers do.
`
`• Even the same version of a browser can con-e with different levels of encryption. Netscape avigator 3.0. fo r example, con-es with either 40-bit
`encryption or the 1110re st:eure 128-bi t encryption.
`
`These issues are of critical importance to Wells Fargo. and we evaluate browsers to ensure they meet our requiren-ents for Online Banking. Our security
`tandards are among the most strict of any company conducting business on the World Wide Web.
`
`Q: In some browsers, how do I know if my bank ing sessio n is encl)'ptcd?
`
`A: You can determine what sort of encryption is being used on a given \.\.eb page by looking for the fol lowing icons in the lower portion of your browser:
`
`!=I B=r=ow=se=:r:__-,------,----~Secure I Unsee ure
`1"=•1 I.E~
`INetscape Navigator 1.1 X or later
`i:-IN.,...e_ts_c_ap_e_c-=-o-,-m-,-uru""'·-ca-to_r_4.,....-::-0----~ Ia"
`IMicrosofl.lnternet Explorer (any version) ~~,_N_o_i-co_n_ 1
`Note Netscape di splays the icon on the lower left corner of the browser. Microsof'l dt splays the icon on the lower right comer of the browser. ln add ition.
`Netscape Conu11W1icator 4.0 displays the icon in the navigation toolb<tr.
`
`While Netscape a vi gator 1.1 X distinguishes its browser using 128-bit encryption with an icon with 2 keys D. Nctscape ConUTIWlicator 4.0 and Microsoft
`
`Internet Explorer do not distinguish between40-bit and 128-bit encryption on the browser screett
`
`However. with etscape Commmlicator 4.0. you can click on the icon to determine what level of encryption is being used for a particular Web page.
`
`On \\~bTY, you need to press the "INFO" button on the keyboard (select the "Options" button and then select "INFO" on the small remote). If a" Security
`Details" button is displayed, the page is secure. Select Ulis button for n"Klre information.
`
`Al l acceptable browsers do provide detail ed information on security leve.ls in "Properties" or "Docurnent lnfonnation" from the browser's menu bar. See you
`browser's help or dOC lU1lentation for more information.
`
`Q : I wa nt to lr.mk online. What security ca pabilities must my browse r have?
`
`A: With n"KlSt browsers you can get to Wells Fargo's hon-e page and view informational pages. Wells Fargo's stringent security standards take etlect when you
`try to apply for a product. view your acCOlmt information. or do some other banking-related activity that requires high levels of sec urity.
`
`Wells Fargo deternlines whether the browser you're using is approved for Online Banking. Among ~lC many security feamres we look for when evaluating
`browsers. the foll owing are particularly important:
`
`• Encryption
`Browsers play a vi tal role in encryption. so V.~lls Fargo tests browsers to nnke sure they provide the high levels of encryption required fur Online
`Banking. To view balances, transfer fi.mds or conduct other Online Banking services, a browser with 40-bit (international-grade) encryption is
`acceptable, but to pay bills through the Internet. % \I s Fargo requires the browser to make use of a superior grade of encryption. called 128-bit
`
`1 of3
`
`GOOG-1 003 (Pg 1}
`
`10/ ll /201211:12AM
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1024-0015
`
`

`

`Browser Answers
`
`http://web.archive.orglweb/ 19980 119022058/hnp://wellsfargo.com/per/s ...
`
`7 c:~ptures
`19 Jan 98- t7 Aug 00
`
`Go
`
`DEC
`
`DEC
`
`1997
`
`1999
`
`.
`one can use your browser or computer to find information about you and your accmmts.
`
`~
`
`~
`
`Q : Why do es We lls Fargo have hvo security Sh1ndards, one for Bill Pay and a nothe r for all ot her banking activities?
`
`A: Wells Fargo employs two secw·ity standards. becaLtSe Bill Pay requires higher levels of encryption than other banking services. With Bill Pay, your
`instructions result in money leaving yo ur accmmts at Wells Fargo. For that reason-- and because with Bill Pay you also provide detai led informltion about
`your creditors. such as your account ntunbers --we require you to use a higher grade of encryption.
`
`(-Jere's how you can remember what you can/should LISe:
`
`Encryption re quired for Bill Pay
`Called S-only or 128-bit encryption it's one oftl1e higl ~est forms of encryption avai lable for commercial LISe over tiJe Internet. Tl1e encryption is so powerful
`that tiJe U.S. government lists it as a federa l munitions -- and tl1at n1eafiS this level of encryption can only be tiSed by citizens and pern1anent residents oftl1e
`United States and citizens of Canada. and it can only be downloaded to locatiofiS in the nited States or Canada.
`
`Encryption that ca n be used for all O nline Banking Services, exce pt Bill Pay
`Called international or 40-bit encryption Sufficient lor all account activities (trariSferring f\mdS. '~ewing balances. applying for accoLmts. changing password.
`etc.) except tiJe Bill Pay service. Can be downloaded to any location in the world.
`
`You may already have the encryption yo u need. and we can help ou figure it out.
`
`Q: What's the diffe rence between 128-bit a nd 40-bit e ncry ption?
`
`A: The dillcrence between these two types of encryption is 011e of capability. Domestic-grade encryption is exponentially rmre powerful t113n
`international-grade encryption. Think of it tllis way:
`
`40-bit ( i.rttcr!llltiQ'Ill l-gr.lllc) eocry ption 01eans tbere are 240 po. sible keys that could li t into the lock rl'<'t holds yo\lr account information b\ll orlly one that
`works for each Online Banking session. So tl~ere are many bi II ions (if you were to write the ntnnber down, it wot~d be a l followed by 12 zeroes) of possible
`keys that could potentially get to your account information-- but only one tl1at works each time you bank online.
`
`128- bit (US-only) encryption means there are 2 12
`g if you were to write the mm1ber down. it would be 3.4 with 38 zeroes after it) possible keys tl13t cot~d fi t
`into the lock tl1at holds your account inforn1ation_ but only one tl13t works for each Online Banking session. So a hacker attempting to get to your account
`inforn13tion would need to use a computer with e:~.1JOnentia ll y more processing power than for 40-bit encryption to fi nd the correct key. TI1e encryption is so
`powerful that the U.S. governnlentlists this encryption as a federalmunitioriS -- and that n-.eafiS browsers that offer it can only be LtSed by citizens and
`tates and citizens of Canada. and it can only be downloaded to locatiofiS in tiJe United
`tates or Canada.
`permanent res idents oftl1e United
`
`Find out more about encrypti on.
`
`Q : Ca n I use a be ta browser to ba nk oolinc?
`
`A: Wells Fargo tests new browsers to ensure tl~ey operate appropriately in regard to functiona li ty and security. Even if a beta browser meets our security
`standards. software updates can LUlknowingly change aspects of how a progr&m operates in regard to security. Occasior13lly. after we've evaluated beta
`browser· a•Jd confim-.ed they n-.eet OLif standards. we'll ' (•pport them [(lr Online Ra nking. However. whentl13t hrowser is releused as a fim1 l ver i !L Well
`Fargo supports beta versions for only three weeks after the fir1al version's release date.
`Find out which beta browsers Well s Faruo supports.
`
`Q: Ho1 can I max imize the security of my browser?
`
`A: If you use the Microsoft® Internet Explorer browser. find out how you can maxinlize your browser's security. If you LISe the Netscape a vi gator TM
`browser. lind out how your can maximi ze your browser's security.
`
`T here arc seve rn I steps yo u ca n ta ke to utilize the built-in security feat ures of the Microsoft lntcrnct Explore r browse r.
`
`First, we reconm-cnd tll<1t yo ur tmke sure tl13t your browser's safety level is se t to "High". Tllis selection ensures thm Internet Explorer will only download
`signed or certified code to your computer. To do tl1is, select "View" from the menu bar on top of your browser and then select "Options". When tl1e "Options"
`screen opens. you will see a seri es of tabs al the top. Select the "Security" tab. Then. select tiJe "Safety Level" button near the bott.om of that screen. TI:re screen
`tlJ<ll OperiS will allow you to set your security level to hi gh.
`
`Second. you can take advantage of the features that alert you when an ActiveX control, a type of program which can be downloaded from the Internet, is about
`to be downloaded onto your computer. It's a good idea to find out about the pub! is her or Web site by cl ick.ing on tiJe information provided on the security
`certiticates presented before yo u download an ActiveX program. When presented with certificates from unknown Web si tes or publishers. exercise caution.
`
`Most certificates give you tl-.e option to nirn offfunire certification notices. Do not select tl1is option i fyou wish to careful ly monitor the source of the
`programs which you download onto your computer.
`
`2 of3
`
`GOOG-1 003 (Pg 2)
`
`10/ ll /201211:12AM
`Verizon Wireless
`Exhibit 1024-0016
`
`

`

`Browser Answers
`
`http://web.archive.orglweb/19980 119022058/hnp://wellsfargo.com/per/s ...
`
`Go
`
`DEC
`
`DEC
`
`1997
`
`1999
`
`2. disable ActiveX controls and plug-ins
`3. not run Acti eX scripts
`4. disable Java programs
`
`To make any of these se lections. uncheck the boxes at the bottom of the ''Security" tab within the "Options" menu of your Lnternet Explorer browser.
`
`If you use elscape av iga tor, here a re the steps you can take to maximize your browse r's securi ty.
`
`First. if you use the etscape a vi gator browser to download programs fi·omthe Internet. you should know that Netscape will only accept an Acti veX control
`(a type of program which is downloaded from the Lnternet and runs on your computer) if you ch