Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`Filing Date: June 14, 2010
`Issue Date: March 20, 2012
`
`Title: System and Method for Inspecting
`Dynamically Generated Executable Code
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-01979
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................................ 2 
`A. 
`Real Party-ln-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................. 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ...................................................... 3 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................... 3 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................................... 3 
`E. 
`Power of Attorney .................................................................................................. 4 
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................................... 4 
`III. 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.104 AND 42.108 ........................................................................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .............................................. 4 
`B. 
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Statement of
`Precise Relief Requested ........................................................................................ 4 
`Status of the Cited References as Prior Art ........................................................... 5 
`Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(c) ................................................................................................................ 6 
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ’154 PATENT ........... 6 
`SUMMARY OF THE ’154 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION HISTORY .......... 8 
`A. 
`Brief Description of the ’154 Patent ...................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Priority Date of the Petitioned Claims ................................................................... 9 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ................................... 9 
`A. 
`Legal Overview ...................................................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`Construction of “first function” (All Petitioned Claims) ....................................... 9 
`C. 
`Construction of “second function” (All Petitioned Claims) ................................ 10 
`D. 
`Construction of “transmitter” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8) ............................................ 11 
`E. 
`Construction of “receiver” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8) ................................................. 12 
`VIII.  PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART & STATE OF THE
`ART ................................................................................................................................. 13 
`THE PETITIONED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR
`ART ................................................................................................................................. 13 
`A. 
`Overview of Khazan ............................................................................................ 14 
`B. 
`Overview of Sirer ................................................................................................. 16 
`C. 
`Overview of Ben-Natan ....................................................................................... 17 
`-i-
`
`
`V. 
`VI. 
`
`IX. 
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`X. 
`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Khazan, Sirer, and Ben-Natan Are All Analogous Art ........................................ 18 
`D. 
`CLAIMS 1-8, 10, AND 11 OF THE ’154 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ......... 18 
`Ground 1 – Claims 1 - 5 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over
`A. 
`Khazan in View of Sirer ...................................................................................... 18 
`1. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 19 
`a. 
`Claim 1 preamble 1[a] ................................................................. 19 
`b. 
`Claim element 1[b] ...................................................................... 19 
`c. 
`Claim element 1[c] ....................................................................... 19 
`d. 
`Claim element 1[d] ...................................................................... 20 
`e. 
`Claim element 1[e] ....................................................................... 27 
`f. 
`Claim element 1[f] ....................................................................... 29 
`g. 
`Claim element 1[g] ...................................................................... 30 
`h. 
`Claim element 1[h] ...................................................................... 34 
`i. 
`Claim element 1[i] ....................................................................... 36 
`j. 
`Claim element 1[j] ....................................................................... 37 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 39 
`a. 
`Claim element 2[a] ....................................................................... 39 
`b. 
`Claim element 2[b] ...................................................................... 40 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 41 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 41 
`a. 
`Claim 4 preamble 4[a] ................................................................. 42 
`b. 
`Claim element 4[b] ...................................................................... 42 
`c. 
`Claim element 4[c] ....................................................................... 42 
`d. 
`Claim element 4[d] ...................................................................... 43 
`e. 
`Claim element 4[e] ....................................................................... 43 
`f. 
`Claim element 4[f] ....................................................................... 43 
`g. 
`Claim element 4[g] ...................................................................... 44 
`h. 
`Claim element 4[h] ...................................................................... 44 
`i. 
`Claim element 4[i] ....................................................................... 44 
`j. 
`Claim element 4[j] ....................................................................... 45 
`k. 
`Claim element 4[k] ...................................................................... 45 
`
`3. 
`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`B. 
`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`2. 
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 45 
`5. 
`Ground 2 – Claims 6 – 8, 10, and 11 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a) Over Khazan in View Sirer and further in view of Ben-Natan ................ 46 
`1. 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 46 
`a. 
`Claim 6 preamble 6[a] ................................................................. 46 
`b. 
`Claim element 6[b] ...................................................................... 46 
`c. 
`Claim element 6[c] ....................................................................... 46 
`d. 
`Claim element 6[d] ...................................................................... 47 
`e. 
`Claim element 6[e] ....................................................................... 47 
`f. 
`Claim element 6[f] ....................................................................... 47 
`g. 
`Claim element 6[g] ...................................................................... 51 
`h. 
`Claim element 6[h] ...................................................................... 51 
`i. 
`Claim element 6[i] ....................................................................... 52 
`j. 
`Claim element 6[j] ....................................................................... 53 
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 54 
`a. 
`Claim preamble 7[a] .................................................................... 54 
`b. 
`Claim element 7[b] ...................................................................... 54 
`c. 
`Claim element 7[c] ....................................................................... 55 
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 55 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................... 55 
`a. 
`Claim 10 preamble 10[a] ............................................................. 56 
`b. 
`Claim element 10[b] .................................................................... 56 
`c. 
`Claim element 10[c] ..................................................................... 56 
`d. 
`Claim element 10[d] .................................................................... 56 
`e. 
`Claim element 10[e] ..................................................................... 57 
`f. 
`Claim element 10[f] ..................................................................... 57 
`g. 
`Claim element 10[g] .................................................................... 57 
`h. 
`Claim element 10[h] .................................................................... 58 
`i. 
`Claim element 10[i] ..................................................................... 58 
`j. 
`Claim element 10[j] ..................................................................... 59 
`k. 
`Claim element 10[k] .................................................................... 59 
`
`3. 
`4. 
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 59 
`5. 
`No Secondary Considerations .............................................................................. 60 
`C. 
`XI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (“the ’154 patent”)
`1002 Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`1003 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0108562 (“Khazan”)
`Emin Gün Sirer, et al., “Design and Implementation of a Distributed
`1004
`Virtual Machine for Networked Computers” (Dec. 5, 1999) (“Sirer”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,437,362 (“Ben-Natan”)
`1006 File History of United States Patent No. 8,141,154
`1007 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`1008 Declaration of Emin Gün Sirer
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,983,348 (“Ji”)
`1010 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0005889 (“Albrecht”)
`Ajay Chander, et al., “Mobile Code Security by Java Bytecode
`1011
`Instrumentation” (June 12-14, 2001) (“Chander”)
`Galen Hunt, et al., “Detours: Binary Interception of Win32 Functions”
`1012
`(July 1999) (“Hunt”)
`1013 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Ed. (2002)
`3Com, “3C90x and 3C90xB NICs Technical Reference” (Aug. 1998)
`1014
`David E. Evans, “Policy-Directed Code Safety” (Oct. 19, 1999)
`1015
`(“Evans”)
`David K. Gifford, “Weighted Voting for Replicated Data” (1979)
`(“Gifford”)
`Andrew D. Birrell, et al., “Grapevine: An Exercise in Distributed
`Computing” (Apr. 1982) (“Birrell”)
`Jennifer G. Steiner, et al., “Kerberos: An Authentication Service for
`1018
`Open Network Systems” (Jan. 12, 1988) (“Steiner”)
`1019 F-Secure Anti-Virus for Firewalls 6.20
`Jeff A. McConnell, “Content Vectoring Protocol with Checkpoint and
`1020
`Interscan Viruswall” (Mar. 4, 2002) (“McConnell”)
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 7,207,065 (“Chess”)
`1022 Sun Microsystems, “Sun ONE Portal Server 3.0 Rewriter Configuration
`
`-v-
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`

`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`Description of Document
`and Management Guide” (Sept. 13, 2002)
`Algis Rudys & Dan S. Wallach, “Enforcing Java Run-Time Properties
`1023
`Using Bytecode Rewriting” (2002) (“Rudys”)
`1024 U.S. Patent No. 6,324,685 (“Balassanian”)
`John Lewis, et al., “Java Software Solutions, Foundations of Program
`1025
`Design” (1998) (“Lewis”)
`Larry L. Peterson, et al., “Computer Networks, A Systems Approach”
`(“Peterson”)
`Waldemar Horwat, “JavaScript 2.0: Evolving a Language for Evolving
`Systems” (2001) (“Horwat”)
`Daniel A. Reed, et al., “Scalable Performance Analysis: The Pablo
`1028
`Performance Analysis Environment” (1993) (“Reed”)
`1029 Que Corporation, “C Programming Guide 2nd Edition” (1985)
`1030 Herbert Schildt, “C++ from the Ground Up” (1994) (“Schildt”)
`1031 Virus Bulletin (Nov. 1991)
`1032 Dmitry O. Gryaznov, “Scanners of the Year 2000: Heuristics” (Sept.
`1995)
`1033 R. Srinivasan, Request for Comments: 1831, ROC: Remote Procedure
`Call Protocol Specification, Version 2, (August 1995)
`1034 Dan Raywood, Press Release - M86 Security completes acquisition of
`Finjan (Nov. 3, 2009)
`1035 Gerard Le Lann, “Distributed Systems – Towards a Formal Approach,”
`Information Processing (1977)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-8, 10, and 11
`
`(“the Petitioned Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (Ex. 1001) (“the ’154
`
`patent”).
`
`The ’154 patent
`
`is directed generally at computer security. More
`
`specifically, the ’154 patent is directed at inspecting the input to functions in
`
`software for potentially malicious behavior and protecting the computer running
`
`the software if the input is unsafe. A function is a component of a software
`
`program where the function accepts input when the program “calls” the function to
`
`perform some task. For example, a function call to retrieve bank account
`
`information from a database may be innocuous if the input variable specifies a
`
`single user’s account number, but potentially malicious if the variable requests
`
`information for all accounts. The ’154 patent specification asserts that the novelty
`
`of the claimed invention lies in distributing the dynamic (run-time) inspection of
`
`the input variables to a remote computer. (Ex. 1001 (’154 patent) at 4:15-26.)
`
`Doing so is the only way, according to Patentee, to protect against dynamically-
`
`generated malicious content in the input variables. (Id.)
`
`Viruses and other attacks on computers and data were well known by the
`
`filing of the ‘154 patent in 2005, and the security community had already
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`developed a multitude of ways to protect against viruses and other malicious
`
`attacks. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 35.) Specifically, utilizing dynamic variables as function
`
`inputs was a known weakness for hackers and their viruses to exploit. (Id. at ¶¶ 36-
`
`39.) The security community had been developing protections against that
`
`weakness for years by 2005. (Id.) The concept of distributing security system
`
`components was also not new. (Id. at ¶¶ 54-56.) Many references, including those
`
`cited here, taught distributed security systems as well as dynamic (run-time)
`
`security. (See Ex. 1003-1005, 1009-1011.)
`
`The ’154 Patent was granted without consideration of a wide body of
`
`analogous prior art. For example, Khazan discloses a system for instrumenting and
`
`performing run-time analysis of code, including reviewing input variables of
`
`functions, to protect against malicious applications. Khazan largely teaches
`
`performing those functions on a single client computer. And Sirer teaches how and
`
`why to distribute those same security functions (instrumentation and run-time
`
`analysis) from the client to a separate server as recited in the petitioned claims.
`
`Khazan and Sirer establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to each of the Petitioned Claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-ln-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’154 patent has been asserted in Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.,
`
`No. 3-14-cv-04908 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec, No. 3-14-cv-02998 (N.D.
`
`Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., No. 5-14-cv-01353 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc.
`
`v. Websense, Inc., No. 5-13-cv-04398 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No.
`
`3-14-cv-01197 (N.D. Cal.); and Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 3-13-cv-05808
`
`(N.D. Cal.). Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “Finjan”) filed suit on November 4,
`
`2014, and Palo Alto Networks was served with process on November 7, 2014.
`
`Petitioner is also filing petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,058,822; 7,418,731; 7,613,926; 7,647,633; 8,677,494; and 8,225,408. Petition
`
`IPR2015-01547 is also pending for the ’154 patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`LEAD
`COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP
`COUNSEL
`
`Orion Armon (Reg. No. 65,421)
`Cooley LLP ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (720) 566-4119 Fax: (720) 566-4099 oarmon@cooley.com
`Christopher Max Colice (Reg. No. 65,634) / mcolice@cooley.com
`Jennifer Volk (Reg. No. 62,305) / jvolkfortier@cooley.com
`Brian Eutermoser (Reg. No. 64,058) / beutermoser@cooley.com
`Cooley LLP ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (617) 937-2362 Fax: (617) 937-2400 mcolice@cooley.com
`zPaloAltoNetworksIPR@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`The Petition is being served by Federal Express overnight delivery to the
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`’154 patent Owner’s attorneys of record, Dawn-Marie Bey, Bey & Cotropia PLLC.
`
`Palo Alto Networks consents to service by e-mail at the addresses provided above.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`E.
`Filed concurrently with this petition per 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`This Petition requests review of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of the ’154 patent
`
`and is accompanied by a payment of $23,000. 37 C.F.R. § 42.15. No excess claims
`
`fees are required. This Petition meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104
`AND 42.108
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’154 patent is eligible for IPR and further
`
`certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting this IPR.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of the ’154 patent and
`
`requests that each claim be found unpatentable. The prior art cited includes:
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2005/0108562 to Khazan, et al. (“Khazan”);
`
`Emin Gün Sirer, et al., Design and Implementation of a Distributed
`
`Virtual Machine for Networked Computers, 33 ACM SIGOPS
`
`Operating Systems Review 202, (Dec. 5, 1999) (“Sirer”); and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,437,362 to Ben-Natan (“Ben-Natan”).
`
`An explanation why each claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds
`
`identified below is provided in § X. Additional support for each ground of
`
`rejection is set forth in the Declaration of Aviel Rubin (Ex. 1002) (“Rubin Decl.”),
`
`an expert in the field.
`
`Ground ’154 patent
`Claims
`1 - 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`6 - 8, 10, and
`11
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`Obvious over Khazan in view of Sirer under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a).
`Obvious over Khazan in view of Sirer and further in
`view of Ben-Natan under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`C.
`The cited prior art references qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pre-
`
`Status of the Cited References as Prior Art
`
`AIA), because each was filed, published, and/or issued in the United States prior to
`
`December 12, 2005, the priority date of the ’154 Patent. (See § VI.B, below.)
`
`Khazan is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because it published on May
`
`19, 2005, prior to the earliest priority date of the ’154 Patent.
`
`Sirer is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published in
`
`December 1999, more than one year prior to the earliest priority date of the ’154
`
`Patent. The article’s author and citations to the article in prior-art patents confirm
`
`the publication date. (See Ex. 1008; Ex. 1024 at 2.)
`
`Ben-Natan is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`November 26, 2003, prior to the earliest priority date of the ’154 patent, and issued
`
`on October 14, 2008.
`
`D. Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(c)
`Inter partes review of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 should be instituted because
`
`this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to each of the claims challenged. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ’154 PATENT
`To protect against viruses and other malicious code (typically developed by
`
`hackers), downloaded code can be checked before it is executed at a gateway or
`
`proxy server for potentially dangerous functions (“static analysis”). (Ex. 1001 at
`
`FIG. 1; 1:43-53, 2:31-45, 2:54-4:26.) Static analysis was well-known at least as
`
`early as 1999. (Id.; Ex. 1004 at 4.) Because the run-time values of variables that are
`
`input to functions are unknown during static analysis, a common technique to
`
`check potentially dangerous functions is to “wrap” the function (original function)
`
`with a wrapper function (substitute function). (Ex. 1001 at 4:9-14, 4:55-60; Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶¶ 40-53; Ex. 1009 at 4:66-5:8, 5:47-6:36; Ex. 1011 at 4.) The process of
`
`generating a wrapper function is often called “instrumentation.” (Ex. 1003 at
`
`[0073]; Ex. 1009 at 4:66-5:8, 5:47-6:36; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 40-53.) The wrapper
`
`function is a substitute function that is executed in lieu of the original function at
`
`run-time. (Id.) The wrapper function is responsible for checking run-time values in
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`the code (dynamic analysis), such as function inputs, to ensure they do not result in
`
`malicious behavior. (Id. at ¶ 48.) If no malicious behavior is detected, the wrapper
`
`function can call the original function with the original inputs and the program
`
`proceeds without issue. If malicious behavior is detected, the wrapper function can
`
`warn the user with an error message, stop execution of the content, or modify the
`
`variables or code in some way so that the malicious code is not allowed to execute.
`
`(Id.) As discussed in the ’154 patent, dynamic analysis was also known prior to the
`
`’154 patent’s earliest priority date. (Ex. 1001 at FIG. 1, 1:54-64, 2:17-4:26.)
`
`At least by the late 1990’s, distributing system components to network
`
`servers was also well-known. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 54-56; Ex. 1004 at Abstract.) More
`
`specifically, distributing static analysis, instrumentation, and/or dynamic analysis
`
`to a network server was known. (Ex. 1004 at 4.) The advantages to having a
`
`network server perform security functions were also understood. First, it was
`
`known that network servers have more processing power than client computers,
`
`enabling the server to apply security policies more quickly. By distributing the
`
`static and dynamic analysis of the program to a network server, the client computer
`
`has less to process while the powerful network server handles the job. (Id.) Second,
`
`distributing security to a centralized server allows easy administration of a
`
`common security profile across many client computers. (Id.) Third, checking the
`
`potentially malicious code on a separate computer from the one being protected
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`adds additional security via physical isolation. (Id. at Abstract; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 89.)
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’154 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION HISTORY
`A. Brief Description of the ’154 Patent
`The ’154 patent is directed at computer security. More specifically, the ’154
`
`patent is directed at inspecting function call input variables for potentially
`
`malicious behavior and subsequently protecting the computer running the program
`
`if the input variable is deemed unsafe. (See Ex. 1001 at Abstract and Claims.)
`
`Each independent claim recites a system or software program that executes a
`
`wrapper or substitute function that inspects the input to an original function to
`
`determine if executing the original function with the input violates a security
`
`policy. As discussed above, wrapper functions that analyze run-time values were
`
`well known at the time of filing. According to the ’154 Patentee, known wrapper
`
`functions suffered from the problem that the run-time analysis was performed on
`
`the client computer. (Ex. 1001 at 4:15-26.) The shortcoming was that client-
`
`executed run-time analysis is accessible to the hacker community for reverse
`
`engineering which results in further exploitation. (Id. at 4:15-24.) According to the
`
`Patentee, the ’154 patent resolved that issue by distributing the run-time security
`
`analysis to a remote, less accessible computer. (Id. at 4:65-5:3.)
`
`However, distributing dynamic analysis to a network server was already
`
`known. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 72-75; Ex. 1004 at 4-6.) The background of the ’154
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`specification admits that the remaining elements of the claims were known in the
`
`art at the time of filing. (Ex. 1001 at 4:9-13; See Ex. 1009 at 4:66-5:8, 5:47-6:36.)
`
`Therefore, the ’154 patent is invalid as obvious in light of the prior art.
`
`Priority Date of the Petitioned Claims
`
`B.
`The earliest priority date identified on the face of the ’154 patent by virtue of
`
`its Certificate of Correction is December 12, 2005.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`A. Legal Overview
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”1 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Specific terms that require claim construction are discussed below.
`
`B. Construction of “first function” (All Petitioned Claims)
`
`The BRI of “first function” is “substitute function.” The claim language
`
`provides nothing more than that the “first function” is a function that can accept
`
`one or more inputs (i.e., parameters or variables), as most functions do. As such,
`
`any function that accepts at least one input/variable meets the claim limitation. The
`
`claims also recite that the input is inspected when the first function is invoked.
`
`Though the specification does not use “first function” in any helpful
`
`1 Interpretations of the claims in this IPR are not binding on Petitioner in litigation.
`
`In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`description, the patent explains that software “content” is intercepted and the
`
`“original function calls” are replaced with “substitute function calls” to allow the
`
`client computer to pass function inputs to the remote computer to perform security
`
`checks. (Ex. 1001 at 4:55-60.) The ’154 patent specification also provides an
`
`example:
`
`“Function(input)”
`
`is modified
`
`to
`
`call
`
`a
`
`corresponding
`
`“Substitute_function (input,*).” (Ex. 1001 at 9:19-24.) This example confirms that
`
`the “first function” is the substitute function, because the system analyzes the “first
`
`function” which would have to be modified in order to include the analysis. (Claim
`
`1.) Moreover, the ’154 explains that “the call to Function() has been replaced with
`
`a call to Substitute [f]unction()” and that “the input intended for the original
`
`function is also passed to the substitute function, along with the possible additional
`
`input denoted by ‘*’.” (Ex. 1001 at 9:25-28.) A POSA would recognize that the
`
`“substitute function” in the ’154 specification is well known as a wrapper function
`
`because the substitute calls the original function. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 56.)
`
`While the ’154 Patentee failed to use the term “first function” in the
`
`specification, the claims recite that the “first function” invocation transmits the
`
`input for inspection, just as the substitute function of the specification does. Given
`
`the matching disclosure in the specification to the functionality recited in the
`
`claims, the BRI of “first function” is “substitute function.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 58, 28.)
`
`C. Construction of “second function” (All Petitioned Claims)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`
`The BRI of “second function” is “original function.” As discussed above
`
`with respect to construction of “first function,” the specification explains that the
`
`content is intercepted and the “original function calls” are replaced with “substitute
`
`function calls” to allow the client computer to pass function inputs to the remote
`
`computer for performing security checks. (Ex. 1001 at 4:55-60.) The ’154
`
`specification also states that the original function is invoked only if it is safe. (Id. at
`
`5:23-25.) The POSA would recognize that the “original function” described in the
`
`specification is a function that is wrapped by a wrapper function. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶
`
`61, 28.) Given the matching disclosure in the specification to the functionality
`
`recited in the claims, the BRI of “second function” is “original function.”
`
`To summarize, the “original function” is the “second function” while the
`
`“substitute function” is the “first function” (commonly called a wrapper function).
`
`D. Construction of “transmitter” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8)
`The BRI of “transmitter” is “a circuit or electronic device designed to send
`
`electrically encoded data to another location.” That definition, from the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary, is consistent with the specification as well as the
`
`understanding of the POSA. (Ex. 1013 at 5; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 28.) The claims recite “a
`
`transmitter for transmitting [the input to the] / [the input variable to a] security
`
`computer.” (Ex. 1001 at Claims 1, 6.) As described in the specification, client
`
`transmitter 250 transmits the input to the remote computer for security analysis
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`across communication channel 230.) (Id. at 8:56-9:2, FIG. 2.) The specification
`
`does not provide any additional detail about the transmitter—only its function is
`
`disclosed. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 105.) In late 2005 it was well-known to persons of
`
`ordinary skill that computers were equipped with network interface cards and
`
`associated software that enabled the transmission and receipt of data between
`
`computers using standard communication protocols. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 105.) A POSA
`
`would understand that a generic functional component described as a “transmitter”
`
`would be a circuit or electronic device designed to send electrically encoded data
`
`to another computer. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Therefore, the BRI of “transmitter” is “circuit or
`
`electronic device designed to send electrically encoded data to another location.”
`
`E. Construction of “receiver” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8)
`The BRI of “receiver” is “a circuit or electronic device designed to accept
`
`data from an external communication system.” That definition, derived from the
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary definition of “receive”, comports with the
`
`specification as well as the understanding of the POSA. (Ex. 1013 at 4; Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶ 28.) The claims recite “a receiver for receiving [an indicator] / [the modified
`
`input variable] from the security computer.” (Ex. 1001 at Claims 1, 6.) As
`
`described in the specification, client receive