Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`December 20, 2016
`December 20, 2016
`
`· · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`· · · · · · · · _______________________________
`
`· · · · · · BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`· · · · · · · · ·______________________________
`
`· · ·PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`
`· · · · · · · · ·Petitioner· · · · · ·CASE NO.
`
`· · ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·IPR2016-0151
`
`· · ·FINJAN, INC.
`
`· · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner
`
`· · ·__________________________/
`
`· · ·
`
` · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF AVIEL RUBIN, PH.D.
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·VOLUME II
`
`· · · · · · · · · · TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 10:03 A.M.
`
`· · · · · · · · · · 903 DULANEY VALLEY ROAD
`
`· · · · · · · · · · · TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204
`
`· · · · · · ·
`
` · ·REPORTED BY:· R. Dwayne Harrison
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(415) 362-4346
`(415) 362-4346
`
`·YVer1f
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2043, p. 1
`
`

`
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`December 20, 2016
`December 20, 2016
`
`·1· ·APPEARANCES:
`
`·2
`
`Page 44
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXHIBITS
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · · ·AVIEL RUBIN, Ph.D.
`
`Page 46
`
`·3· · · · ON BEHALF OF THE PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.:
`
`·3· · · · · Palo Alto Networks, Inc. vs. Finjan, Inc.
`
`·4· · · · SHOUVIK BISWAS, ESQUIRE
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · Tuesday, December 20, 2016
`
`·5· · · · · ·Morrison|Foerster
`
`·5· ·Exhibit No.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Marked
`
`·6· · · · · ·1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 400
`
`·6· ·Exhibit 1· · ·Declaration of Dr. Aviel D.
`
`·7· · · · · ·McLean, Virginia 22102
`
`·7· · · · · · · · ·Rubin In Support of Petitioner's
`
`·8· · · · · ·Telephone:· 703-760-7774
`
`·8· · · · · · · · ·Reply to Patent Owner Response· · · 48
`
`·9· · · · · ·Email:· Sbiswas@mofo.com
`
`·9· ·Exhibit 2· · ·Patent Owner Response· · · · · · · ·54
`
`10
`
`10· ·Exhibit 3· · ·Patent Application 2007/0113282· · ·57
`
`11· · · · ON BEHALF OF FINJAN, INC.:
`
`11· ·Exhibit 4· · ·U.S. Patent Number 8,141,154· · · · 59
`
`12· · · · MICHAEL LEE, ESQUIRE
`
`12· ·Exhibit 5· · ·Declaration of Dr. Aviel D. Rubin
`
`13· · · · · ·Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`
`13· · · · · · · · ·In Support of Petition For Inter
`
`14· · · · · ·990 Marsh Road
`
`14· · · · · · · · ·Partes Review· · · · · · · · · · · ·59
`
`15· · · · · ·Menlo Park, California 94025-1949
`
`15· ·Exhibit 6· · ·Petition For Inter Partes Review
`
`16· · · · · ·Telephone:· 650.752.1716
`
`16· · · · · · · · ·of U.S. Patent Number 8,141,154· · 116
`
`17· · · · · ·Email:· Mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25· ·ALSO PRESENT:· CONWAY BARKER, VIDEOGRAPHER
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX TO EXAMINATION
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·WITNESS: AVIEL RUBIN, Ph.D.
`
`Page 45
`
`·4· ·Examination By:· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page
`
`·5· ·Mr. Lee· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 48
`
`·6
`
`·7
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 47
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·PROCEEDINGS
`·2· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Stand by, please.· We
`·3· ·are now on the record in the matter of Palto Alto
`·4· ·Networks Incorporated vs. Finjan Incorporated before
`·5· ·the United States Patent and Trademark Office.· The
`·6· ·location of this deposition is Sheraton North
`·7· ·Baltimore, 903 Dulaney Valley Road, Towson, Maryland.
`·8· ·Today's date is December 20th, 2016 and the time is
`·9· ·approximately 10:03.· This is the video deposition of
`10· ·Dr. Rubin.
`11· · · · · · · ·Would counsel please introduce yourselves
`12· ·and state who you represent?
`13· · · · · · · ·MR. LEE:· Michael Lee from Kramer Levin
`14· ·representing Finjan.
`15· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Shouvik Biswas from Morrison &
`16· ·Foerster representing Palto Alto Networks.
`17· · · · · · · ·THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· My name is Conway Barker
`18· ·representing Gore Brothers Reporting and
`19· ·Video-conferencing, 20 South Charles Street, Baltimore,
`20· ·Maryland.· The court reporter is Dwayne Harrison.
`21· · · · · · · ·Would you please swear in the witness and
`22· ·we can proceed?
`23· ·Whereupon,
`24· · · · · · · · · ·AVIEL D. RUBIN, Ph.D.,
`25· ·called as a witness, having been first duly sworn to
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(415) 362-4346
`(415) 362-4346
`
`44 to 47 YVer1f
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2043, p. 2
`
`

`
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`December 20, 2016
`December 20, 2016
`
`Page 48
`·1· ·tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
`·2· ·truth, was examined and testified as follows:
`·3· · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION BY MR. LEE:
`·4· · · · Q· · · Please state your full name and address for
`·5· ·the record?
`·6· · · · A· · · Aviel Rubin, 3 Thornhaugh,
`·7· ·T-H-O-R-N-H-A-U-G-H, Court, Pikesville, Maryland 21208.
`·8· · · · Q· · · Do you understand why you are here today?
`·9· · · · A· · · Yes.
`10· · · · Q· · · Why are you here today?
`11· · · · A· · · I'm here to give deposition testimony.
`12· · · · Q· · · Is it regarding IPR2016-00151?
`13· · · · A· · · Yes.
`14· · · · · · · ·(Rubin Exhibit 1 was marked for purposes of
`15· ·identification.)
`16· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Exhibit 1.
`17· ·BY MR. LEE:
`18· · · · Q· · · You've been handed an exhibit marked as
`19· ·Exhibit Number 1.· Exhibit Number 1 is entitled
`20· ·Declaration of Dr. Aviel D. Rubin In Support of
`21· ·Petitioner's Reply to Patent Owner Response.· It has
`22· ·the case number IPR2016-00151.
`23· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize Exhibit Number 1?
`24· · · · A· · · Yes, I do.
`25· · · · Q· · · What is Exhibit Number 1?
`
`Page 50
`·1· · · · A· · · I don't remember.· Maybe about a year ago.
`·2· ·There was -- when the petition was first filed, I
`·3· ·believe I wrote a declaration.
`·4· · · · Q· · · You're talking about a previous declaration
`·5· ·for this case, correct?
`·6· · · · A· · · Yes.
`·7· · · · Q· · · So those two declarations contain all the
`·8· ·opinions you had in this proceeding, correct?
`·9· · · · A· · · I believe so.
`10· · · · Q· · · Do you have another opinion that's not in
`11· ·your declaration?
`12· · · · A· · · No.
`13· · · · Q· · · As you sit here on December 20th, 2016, is
`14· ·there anything that you're aware of concerning the
`15· ·bases of your opinions that's not in Exhibit Number 1?
`16· · · · A· · · No.
`17· · · · Q· · · This is your second declaration for this
`18· ·proceeding, correct?
`19· · · · A· · · I think so.
`20· · · · Q· · · Why did you draft a second declaration for
`21· ·this proceeding?
`22· · · · A· · · There was a patent owner response that
`23· ·contained Finjan's arguments and, in response to that,
`24· ·the Petitioner filed another response to that and I was
`25· ·asked to provide my opinions on that response and so I
`
`Page 49
`
`·1· · · · A· · · It's my declaration.
`·2· · · · Q· · · Is it your signature on page 14?
`·3· · · · A· · · Yes.
`·4· · · · Q· · · And you signed it your declaration on
`·5· ·December 6, 2016, correct?
`·6· · · · A· · · Yes.
`·7· · · · Q· · · Was it your understanding that as of
`·8· ·December 6th, 2016 you were supposed to put all the
`·9· ·opinions that you had in this case?
`10· · · · A· · · I'm sorry?
`11· · · · Q· · · Was it your understanding that as of
`12· ·December 6, 2016 you are supposed to put all the
`13· ·opinions you had in this case?
`14· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`15· · · · A· · · You mean into my declaration?
`16· · · · Q· · · Correct.
`17· · · · A· · · I had other opinions in the case in an
`18· ·earlier declaration, but all of my new opinions since
`19· ·then went into this.
`20· · · · Q· · · So it is your -- it's true that as of
`21· ·2006 -- 2016 you put in all of the opinions you had in
`22· ·this case into your declaration, correct?
`23· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`24· · · · A· · · Into both of my declarations.
`25· · · · Q· · · When was the previous declaration?
`
`Page 51
`
`·1· ·provided those here.
`·2· · · · Q· · · Can I direct you to paragraph 1, the last
`·3· ·sentence in paragraph 1 where you state:· "This
`·4· ·supplemental declaration addresses positions and
`·5· ·testimony raised by Patent Owner Finjan and its Patent
`·6· ·Owner Response."
`·7· · · · · · · ·Do you see that?
`·8· · · · A· · · Yes.
`·9· · · · Q· · · What do you mean by positions?
`10· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`11· · · · Q· · · Which positions from patent owner are you
`12· ·referring to?
`13· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`14· · · · A· · · Do you have Finjan's response for me to
`15· ·look at?
`16· · · · Q· · · Which positions does your declaration
`17· ·respond to?
`18· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection.· Vague and
`19· ·ambiguous.
`20· · · · A· · · I would want to go through that document
`21· ·and show you.· I don't -- haven't memorized them.
`22· · · · Q· · · So your declaration does not identify which
`23· ·positions your declaration addresses, correct?
`24· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`25· · · · A· · · I think that, if you read my declaration,
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(415) 362-4346
`(415) 362-4346
`
`48 to 51 YVer1f
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2043, p. 3
`
`

`
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`December 20, 2016
`December 20, 2016
`
`Page 52
`·1· ·it would be clear which positions of Finjan's that I'm
`·2· ·responding to.
`·3· · · · Q· · · Isn't it true your declaration only
`·4· ·identifies two positions from patent owner's response,
`·5· ·paragraph 16 and paragraph 26?
`·6· · · · A· · · I'm not comfortable saying that.· I would
`·7· ·need to get the patent owner response and go through
`·8· ·the whole thing and then go through my declaration and
`·9· ·match up the point that I make in my declaration with
`10· ·the patent owner response to answer that.
`11· · · · Q· · · So sitting here today, can you tell me what
`12· ·other positions -- where else in your declaration do
`13· ·you identify positions other than paragraph 16 and
`14· ·paragraph 26?
`15· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`16· · · · A· · · I believe that the entire declaration is
`17· ·responsive to various positions and I think, as I start
`18· ·looking through it, for example, section 3, Roman
`19· ·numeral III, talks about one of ordinary skill in the
`20· ·art knowing that hooks scripts would include a call to
`21· ·a first function, I believe.
`22· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry, what?
`23· · · · A· · · Include a call to a first function is
`24· ·responsive to the patent owner's position that that's
`25· ·not the case and the whole document, the way that I
`
`Page 54
`·1· ·that?· You're declaration is only 15 pages, correct?
`·2· · · · A· · · Right.
`·3· · · · Q· · · Or 14 pages.· So how many positions from
`·4· ·patent owner's response are you responding to?
`·5· · · · A· · · What I would do is I would take the patent
`·6· ·owner response and I would take each paragraph in my
`·7· ·declaration and find what it was responding to to fill
`·8· ·in such a table.
`·9· · · · · · · ·(Rubin Exhibit 2 was marked for purposes of
`10· ·identification.)
`11· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Exhibit 2.
`12· ·BY MR. LEE:
`13· · · · Q· · · You've been handed an exhibit marked as
`14· ·Exhibit Number 2.· Exhibit Number 2 is from case number
`15· ·IPR2016-00151 and it's titled Patent Owner Response.
`16· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize Exhibit Number 2?
`17· · · · A· · · Yes.
`18· · · · Q· · · Can you tell me -- what does section 3 of
`19· ·your declaration respond to in Patent Owner Response?
`20· · · · A· · · Page 20 of the patent owner response --
`21· ·well, on page 17 there's a summary paragraph that sets
`22· ·up the next few sections.· In part, I was responding to
`23· ·that.· But the details are provided in -- on page 20 in
`24· ·section 2 where the section is titled "petitioner has
`25· ·not identified a call to a first function in Ross" and
`
`Page 53
`·1· ·wrote it was to look at positions in the patent owner
`·2· ·response that I disagreed with and to give kind of
`·3· ·elaborations on the positions that I had before about
`·4· ·that that are responsive to what the patent owner said.
`·5· · · · · · · ·So I can't say that it's limited to those
`·6· ·two paragraphs.· I think the whole thing is a response.
`·7· · · · Q· · · So it's your position that patent owner's
`·8· ·response takes the position that scripts could not
`·9· ·include a call to a first function, correct?
`10· · · · A· · · I need to look at that to refresh my
`11· ·memory.· But, off memory, I believe that a patent owner
`12· ·was making the claim that there was no call to a first
`13· ·function.
`14· · · · Q· · · No call to a first function in -- it could
`15· ·be included in a hook script, right?
`16· · · · A· · · In Ross.
`17· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· In Ross?
`18· · · · A· · · R-O-S-S.
`19· · · · Q· · · Are there any other positions that you're
`20· ·going to provide at this point?
`21· · · · A· · · Again, I think that everything in my
`22· ·declaration is responsive to the positions.· If you
`23· ·want a table of which paragraph corresponds to which
`24· ·position, then I have to take the time to create that.
`25· · · · Q· · · How much time would you need to create
`
`Page 55
`·1· ·that section is being responded to by my section 3
`·2· ·where I explained that hook script could include a call
`·3· ·to a first function.
`·4· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Could include?
`·5· · · · A· · · Could include a call to a first function.
`·6· · · · Q· · · What do you mean could include a call to a
`·7· ·first function?
`·8· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, vague.
`·9· · · · A· · · If you take the pseudocode in figure 4 of
`10· ·Ross, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`11· ·skill in the art that that code could be written as my
`12· ·pseudocode which I include in there which calls the
`13· ·hook function in the code itself.· So it includes a
`14· ·call to a first function.
`15· · · · Q· · · Looking at section IV of your declaration
`16· ·where you say "based on the teachings of Ross, a person
`17· ·of ordinary skill in the arts would have known that the
`18· ·HTTP content and the hook scripts could be received
`19· ·over the same network."
`20· · · · · · · ·Which section of the patent order response
`21· ·are you responding to?
`22· · · · A· · · There's a section in the patent owner
`23· ·response on page 25 titled 4:· "Ross does not teach or
`24· ·suggest receiving content over a single network, the
`25· ·content including a call to a first function" and that
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(415) 362-4346
`(415) 362-4346
`
`52 to 55 YVer1f
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2043, p. 4
`
`

`
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`December 20, 2016
`December 20, 2016
`
`Page 56
`·1· ·section attempts to argue that the HTTP content and the
`·2· ·hook content are coming from different networks and I
`·3· ·respond to that in my section 4.
`·4· · · · Q· · · In section V, which section are you
`·5· ·responding to?
`·6· · · · · · · ·Just so it's clear for the record, section
`·7· ·V is entitled "based on the teachings of Ross a person
`·8· ·of ordinary skill in the art would have known to invoke
`·9· ·an original function with its original input if a
`10· ·security computer found an original function to be
`11· ·safe."
`12· · · · A· · · This is in response to page 38 of the
`13· ·patent owner response C, section C, where it says "Ross
`14· ·does not disclose a receiver for receiving an indicator
`15· ·from the security computer whether it is safe to invoke
`16· ·the second function with the input."
`17· · · · Q· · · Is section VI your declaration responding
`18· ·to the same paragraph -- I mean, same section as well
`19· ·on page 38 of the patent response?
`20· · · · A· · · I wasn't finished with section V.· It's
`21· ·also responding to B on page 35 where it says "Ross
`22· ·does not disclose for invoking a second function with
`23· ·the input."
`24· · · · Q· · · Fair to say that section VI of your
`25· ·declaration is responding to section C of the patent
`
`Page 58
`·1· · · · Q· · · Exhibit Number 3 is the Ross reference,
`·2· ·correct?
`·3· · · · A· · · That's right.
`·4· · · · Q· · · I direct your attention to figure 6 of
`·5· ·Ross.
`·6· · · · A· · · Okay.
`·7· · · · Q· · · Do you see that box labeled script
`·8· ·processing engine 618?
`·9· · · · A· · · Yes.
`10· · · · Q· · · It's your opinion that script processing
`11· ·engine 618 is the recited content processor, correct?
`12· · · · A· · · It's the script processing engine.
`13· · · · Q· · · Yes.· Is the script processing engine the
`14· ·recited content processor, in your opinion?
`15· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`16· · · · A· · · This is a dataflow diagram and that is
`17· ·showing part of the content processing.
`18· · · · Q· · · So script processing engine 618 alone does
`19· ·not meet the recited content processor, right?
`20· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`21· · · · A· · · Are you talking about content processor
`22· ·from the asserted patent claims?
`23· · · · Q· · · Correct.
`24· · · · A· · · Oh, I thought you were talking about
`25· ·something in Ross which I didn't see called by those
`
`Page 57
`
`·1· ·order response at page 38?
`·2· · · · A· · · I need to look at it more carefully, but I
`·3· ·think section V might be responding to B and section
`·4· ·VI responding to C.· But, in general, they're dealing
`·5· ·with related issues.
`·6· · · · Q· · · And is it fair to say that section VII of
`·7· ·your declaration is responding to section D of page 40
`·8· ·of patent order response?
`·9· · · · A· · · Yes.
`10· · · · Q· · · It's your opinion that Ross discloses a
`11· ·content processor, correct?
`12· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· I'm sorry, a what?
`13· · · · · · · ·MR. LEE:· A content processor.
`14· · · · A· · · For questions about Ross, would it be
`15· ·possible for me to get a copy of Ross?
`16· · · · Q· · · Sure.
`17· · · · · · · ·(Rubin Exhibit 3 was marked for purposes of
`18· ·identification.)
`19· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Exhibit 3.
`20· ·BY MR. LEE:
`21· · · · Q· · · You've been handed an exhibit marked as
`22· ·Exhibit Number 3.· Exhibit Number 3 is by Ross.· It is
`23· ·patent application 2007/0113282.
`24· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize Exhibit Number 3?
`25· · · · A· · · Yes.
`
`Page 59
`
`·1· ·words.
`·2· · · · · · · ·So would it be possible for me to take a
`·3· ·look at the '154 patent claims?
`·4· · · · Q· · · Sure.
`·5· · · · · · · ·(Rubin Exhibit 4 was marked for purposes of
`·6· ·identification.)
`·7· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Exhibit 4.
`·8· ·BY MR. LEE:
`·9· · · · Q· · · You've been handed an exhibit marked as
`10· ·Exhibit 4.· Exhibit Number 4 is entitled U.S. Patent
`11· ·Number 8,141,154.
`12· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize Exhibit Number 4 as the
`13· ·'154 patent?
`14· · · · A· · · Yes.
`15· · · · Q· · · Let me ask the question again.
`16· · · · · · · ·Is it your opinion that Ross's script
`17· ·processing engine 618 is the recited content processor?
`18· · · · A· · · Do you have my original declaration?
`19· · · · · · · ·[Witness reviews.]
`20· · · · Q· · · Yes.
`21· · · · · · · ·(Rubin Exhibit 5 was marked for purposes of
`22· ·identification.)
`23· · · · · · · ·THE REPORTER:· Exhibit 5.
`24· ·BY MR. LEE:
`25· · · · Q· · · You've been handed Exhibit Number 5.
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(415) 362-4346
`(415) 362-4346
`
`56 to 59 YVer1f
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2043, p. 5
`
`

`
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`December 20, 2016
`December 20, 2016
`
`Page 60
`·1· ·Exhibit 5 is entitled Declaration of Dr. Aviel D. Rubin
`·2· ·In Support of Petition For Inter Partes Review.
`·3· · · · · · · ·Do you recognize Exhibit Number 5 as your
`·4· ·original declaration?
`·5· · · · A· · · Yes.
`·6· · · · Q· · · Let me ask the question once again.
`·7· · · · · · · ·Is it your opinion that Ross's script
`·8· ·processing engine 618 is the recited content processor?
`·9· · · · A· · · Yes.
`10· · · · Q· · · You see that the '154 patent claim 1
`11· ·requires a content processing for processing content
`12· ·received over a network, correct?
`13· · · · A· · · I do.
`14· · · · Q· · · What exactly meets the recited processing
`15· ·functionality in Ross?
`16· · · · A· · · Well, on its very face, the script
`17· ·processing engine says that it's a script processing
`18· ·engine.· So it does processing.
`19· · · · Q· · · Script processing meets the processing
`20· ·functionality in claim 1 of the '154 patent, correct?
`21· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`22· · · · A· · · Well, you asked me what meets, you know,
`23· ·the processing requirements.· How do I know that a
`24· ·content processor, in this case the script processing
`25· ·engine, does processing of the content?· And I said by
`
`Page 62
`·1· · · · · · · ·So that embodiment, the script processing
`·2· ·engine is running as an application that's a part,
`·3· ·that's an operational part of the web browser.
`·4· · · · Q· · · Can I refer you to figure 6 again?
`·5· · · · A· · · Yes.
`·6· · · · Q· · · Doesn't figure 6 label script processing
`·7· ·engine with parentheses web browser?
`·8· · · · A· · · Right.· So that would be, for example, a
`·9· ·browser with a plug-in attached to it.· If we're
`10· ·viewing the script processing engine as just the web
`11· ·browser, then it would, in fact, interpret the Java
`12· ·script.· But as the alternate embodiment suggests, if
`13· ·it was a plug-in, then it may do some pre-processing on
`14· ·the script which would then be run in the original web
`15· ·browser before it was -- you know, the plug-in was
`16· ·added.
`17· · · · Q· · · So just to be clear, figure 6 shows that
`18· ·the script processing engine 618 is a web browser, in
`19· ·your opinion, correct?
`20· · · · A· · · I believe if you look at the example in
`21· ·figure 6 and the accompanying text that describes the
`22· ·components of figure 6, it's describing at least two
`23· ·embodiments, one where the script processing engine is
`24· ·the web browser and one where it's a web browser with
`25· ·an additional plug-in or application.
`
`Page 61
`·1· ·its name, I said on the face of it.· So I'm not saying
`·2· ·it's the only indication, but it seems like the easiest
`·3· ·one is it's called a script processing engine.· So
`·4· ·it -- in it's name it says that it does processing.
`·5· · · · Q· · · What does Ross mean by script processing?
`·6· · · · A· · · It's saying that it handles the Java
`·7· ·script.· So it interprets it.· I think that's good
`·8· ·enough.
`·9· · · · Q· · · Can you elaborate what you mean by
`10· ·interprets Java script?
`11· · · · A· · · It runs it.· It also -- so, actually, the
`12· ·Java script could run in the browser.· What the script
`13· ·processing engine does is combines the scripts that --
`14· ·the hook scripts that have been generated with the
`15· ·original Java script to create the actual script that
`16· ·will run in the browser.
`17· · · · Q· · · The script processing engine 618 combines a
`18· ·hook script and an original script together; is that
`19· ·correct?
`20· · · · A· · · Well, there are -- it looks like there are
`21· ·alternative embodiments described in Ross.· So notice
`22· ·on paragraph 35 it says "alternatively, script
`23· ·processing engine 618 may be included as an operational
`24· ·portion of a web browser which may be implemented as an
`25· ·application running on a computer such as a processor."
`
`Page 63
`·1· · · · Q· · · Does figure 6 show this additional plug-in
`·2· ·application?
`·3· · · · A· · · It doesn't show it in the web browser.· It
`·4· ·shows that there can be a browser plug-in that's a
`·5· ·script injector 604.
`·6· · · · Q· · · Script injector 604 is not part of the
`·7· ·script processing engine, is it?
`·8· · · · A· · · In figure 6, those functionalities are
`·9· ·separated into 604 and 618.· But in the alternative
`10· ·embodiment described in the text, the plug-in is
`11· ·attached to the web browser and it's part of the script
`12· ·processing engine.
`13· · · · Q· · · Do you see the claim language recited in
`14· ·claim 1 that requires content received over a network?
`15· · · · A· · · Yes.
`16· · · · Q· · · What exactly is the recited content
`17· ·received over a network in Ross, that's processed in
`18· ·Ross?
`19· · · · A· · · It's web content such as HTTP data which
`20· ·has been -- whose scripts have been hooked, so
`21· ·modified.
`22· · · · Q· · · So just to be clear, the hook script alone
`23· ·is not the content received over the network, correct?
`24· · · · A· · · Well --
`25· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, vague.
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(415) 362-4346
`(415) 362-4346
`
`60 to 63 YVer1f
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2043, p. 6
`
`

`
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`December 20, 2016
`December 20, 2016
`
`Page 64
`
`·1· · · · A· · · -- I would --
`·2· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, vague.
`·3· · · · A· · · I would say that that's another read that's
`·4· ·valid as well.
`·5· · · · Q· · · Do you see on figure 6 there's a box
`·6· ·labeled data HTTP content 602?
`·7· · · · A· · · Yes.
`·8· · · · Q· · · Is HTTP content 602 the recited content
`·9· ·received over a network?
`10· · · · A· · · In this figure, the box 602 is not hooked
`11· ·and not protected.· It's the content as sent by an
`12· ·original server and so that's not content that meets
`13· ·the claim limitation.
`14· · · · Q· · · I direct your attention to paragraph --
`15· ·strike that.
`16· · · · · · · ·Do you see how the claim 1 requires content
`17· ·received over a network?
`18· · · · A· · · Yes.
`19· · · · Q· · · What exactly is the recited network in
`20· ·Ross?
`21· · · · A· · · So there's a network described in paragraph
`22· ·26 of Ross that describes that the hook's generator may
`23· ·create a generic hook script offline for archiving or
`24· ·reading into remote client through a network.· So
`25· ·that's an example in Ross of the content being received
`
`Page 66
`·1· · · · Q· · · So networks 210 and 208 are recited
`·2· ·network, correct?
`·3· · · · A· · · Well, that's part of it.· So that --
`·4· ·basically, I gave three examples.· There was the one
`·5· ·where the scripts are stored offline for later reading
`·6· ·and that would all be on an internal network and then
`·7· ·there was an example of another client device which is
`·8· ·not shown.· So I'm not talking out of the figure now,
`·9· ·I'm just talking out of the spec and then the last one
`10· ·was the gateway example which would be 208 and 210.
`11· · · · Q· · · The only networks I heard named were
`12· ·networks 208 and 210.
`13· · · · · · · ·If there is some other name of a network,
`14· ·can you point to where Ross describes?
`15· · · · A· · · Yes.· So what I need to show is that Ross
`16· ·teaches or suggests a network and when -- to one of
`17· ·ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`18· ·and where Ross talks about, in the middle of paragraph
`19· ·26, storing hook scripts offline and reading them
`20· ·through a network that is teaching or suggesting to one
`21· ·of ordinary skill in the art that there is a network
`22· ·and that the content which has been hooked is received
`23· ·over a network.
`24· · · · · · · ·The same goes for the third device,
`25· ·implementation or embodiment that's described at the
`
`Page 65
`
`·1· ·over a network.
`·2· · · · Q· · · Are you talking about network 208?
`·3· · · · A· · · Yes.· It also talks in -- I wasn't
`·4· ·finished.
`·5· · · · Q· · · Go ahead.
`·6· · · · A· · · Toward the bottom of the column it talks
`·7· ·about "some portion or all of detection engine may be
`·8· ·moved onto another platform termed a third device and
`·9· ·may be implemented as another client device not shown."
`10· ·It's not in the figure.· "And auxillary device
`11· ·operationally connected to client 202 not shown and/or
`12· ·a network device that intercepts messages up to and
`13· ·including all traffic between connection networks
`14· ·208 and 210.· In one example, the script injection and
`15· ·generation could be accomplished by a third device."
`16· · · · · · · ·So this is talking about having a device
`17· ·that could act as a gateway, for example, that would
`18· ·perform the hooking of functions and then those would
`19· ·be sent to the client with the browser on it which, at
`20· ·that point, would be content as per the 154 patent.
`21· · · · Q· · · In your network device example, the content
`22· ·received over a network are networks 208 and 210,
`23· ·correct?
`24· · · · · · · ·Is that where you quoted from?
`25· · · · A· · · Right.
`
`Page 67
`·1· ·bottom of that column.· That would teach one skilled in
`·2· ·the art that there is a network and that the content is
`·3· ·coming from the third device to the browser.
`·4· · · · · · · ·So those two examples teach or suggest one
`·5· ·network.· It's also my understanding that when a patent
`·6· ·claim says a network, it's referring to one or more
`·7· ·networks.· So if we believe that networks 208 and 218
`·8· ·or separate networks, which I actually would dispute,
`·9· ·then that still satisfies the claim.
`10· · · · Q· · · So for your third device embodiment it's --
`11· ·the content is received over two networks, networks
`12· ·208 and 210, correct?
`13· · · · A· · · No.· There are two different -- you're
`14· ·confusing two different embodiments.· I have three
`15· ·total.· There's the storing offline for later use,
`16· ·there's the third device and then there's the gateway
`17· ·and the third device would all be inside of the
`18· ·internal network.
`19· · · · Q· · · So for the third device embodiment, that's
`20· ·using network 208, correct?
`21· · · · A· · · I'm not using any specific network here. I
`22· ·think it teaches or suggests that the client site has
`23· ·browsers and it has a third device on that network
`24· ·which is not pictured in the figure, but is described
`25· ·in the specification and that is on the same network as
`
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT
`(415) 362-4346
`(415) 362-4346
`
`64 to 67 YVer1f
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2043, p. 7
`
`

`
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`Aviel Rubin, Ph.D. Volume II
`December 20, 2016
`December 20, 2016
`
`Page 68
`
`·1· ·the clients.
`·2· · · · Q· · · So is it your opinion that the third device
`·3· ·does not use network 208?
`·4· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`·5· · · · A· · · That mapping works.· If you want to
`·6· ·consider network 208 from figure 2 as an internal
`·7· ·network, then you could say that it's network 208.· But
`·8· ·I think the patent teaches or suggests a network in
`·9· ·that it's not tying this particular embodiment to the
`10· ·figure because it says not shown in a couple of places.
`11· ·So it's clearly describing something beyond what's in
`12· ·the figure.
`13· · · · Q· · · For the third device embodiment, that uses
`14· ·networks 208 and network 210, correct?
`15· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection.· Asked and
`16· ·answered.
`17· · · · A· · · Let me get my nomenclature straight because
`18· ·I think there's a disconnect in our conversation.· I'm
`19· ·talking about three embodiments.· I'm calling them the
`20· ·offline, the third device, and the gateway and I think
`21· ·your question is now about the gateway, but you said
`22· ·third device.· I want to make sure we're -- that I'm
`23· ·answering your question.
`24· · · · Q· · · Sure.· I didn't say a third device, I said
`25· ·network device or device -- I should be clear.· Let me
`
`Page 70
`
`·1· · · · · · · ·Do you understand that?
`·2· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection, form.
`·3· · · · A· · · Which embodiment are you talking about?
`·4· · · · Q· · · This is -- you described an embodiment
`·5· ·which you called a gateway environment -- embodiment.
`·6· · · · · · · ·The gateway embodiment is regarding network
`·7· ·device embodiment in Ross, correct?
`·8· · · · A· · · Right.
`·9· · · · Q· · · And in the network device embodiment in
`10· ·Ross, the network device receives content over networks
`11· ·208 and 210; is that correct?
`12· · · · A· · · In that particular example that's discussed
`13· ·here with relation to figure 2, that's true.· But I
`14· ·would also say that to one of ordinary skill in the
`15· ·art, those would also be viewed as one network.
`16· · · · Q· · · So, in your opinion, network 208 and
`17· ·network 210 is one network, correct?
`18· · · · A· · · They can be.· They're both on the internet
`19· ·which is one network.
`20· · · · Q· · · And Ross -- does Ross describe
`21· ·communication network 208 and 210 as one network?
`22· · · · A· · · Ross teaches that -- to one of ordinary
`23· ·skill in the art, Ross would teach that this could be
`24· ·one network, that it would be on the internet.
`25· · · · Q· · · So, in your opinion, Ross discloses that
`
`Page 69
`
`·1· ·start over.· Strike that.
`·2· · · · · · · ·The Ross describes a network device,
`·3· ·correct?
`·4· · · · A· · · Yes.
`·5· · · · Q· · · And in the network device embodiment, the
`·6· ·content received over a network is networks 208 and
`·7· ·network 210, correct?
`·8· · · · · · · ·MR. BISWAS:· Objection to form.
`·9· · · · A· · · So now I understand what you're saying.· So
`10· ·the only confusion was I was calling it gateway which
`11· ·is was a word I made