UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00159
`Patent 8,677,494
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
` 
`
`II.
` 
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`THE ‘494 PATENT ......................................................................................... 5 
`
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................... 5 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 7 
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 9 
`
`
`
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 III.
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`“Downloadable security profile data” (all claims) ................................ 9 
`
`“database” (claims all claims) ............................................................. 12 
`
`“Downloadable” (all claims) ............................................................... 12 
`
`IV.
`
`  SPECIFIC REASONS WHY THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT
`INVALIDATE THE CLAIMS, AND WHY INTER PARTES
`REVIEW SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED ............................................... 12 
`
`A.
`
`  Grounds 1–4 Should be Rejected Because Touboul is not Prior
`Art ........................................................................................................ 14 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`Finjan Properly Claims Priority to the ‘194 Patent Under
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ................................................................................... 14 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`The ‘494 Patent and its Ancestral Applications Contain
`Specific References to the Earlier Filed Applications .............. 15 
`
`The Amendments Made During Reexamination of the
`‘822 Patent Are Retroactive ...................................................... 19 
`
`Each Application in the Priority Chain Satisfies the
`Written Description Requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 .............. 20
`
`a.
`
`Claimset 1 is Entitled to a Priority Date of
`November 6, 1997 .......................................................... 21
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding the Priority
`Dates for Claim Sets 2 and 3 are Deficient as a
`Matter of Law ................................................................. 22 
`
`Claims 2 and 11 are Entitled to a Priority Date of
`November 6, 1997 .......................................................... 24 
`
`Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 are Entitled to a Priority
`Date of November 6, 1997 ............................................. 25 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`Grounds 5 and 6: Swimmer and Swimmer in view of Martin Do
`Not Render Claims 1–6 and 10–15 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) ................................................................................................ 26 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Swimmer
`Discloses “[a receiver for] receiving an incoming
`Downloadable” (claims 1 and 10)............................................. 27 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Swimmer
`Discloses “[a Downloadable scanner coupled with said
`receiver, for] deriving security profile data for the
`Downloadable, including a list of suspicious computer
`operations that may be attempted by the Downloadable”
`(claims 1 and 10) ....................................................................... 31 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Swimmer
`Discloses “[a database manager coupled with said
`Downloadable scanner, for] storing the Downloadable
`security profile data in a database” (claims 1 and 10) .............. 34 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Swimmer
`Discloses “storing a date & time when the Downloadable
`security profile data was derived [by said Downloadable
`scanner], in the database” (claims 2 and 11) ............................ 38 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Demonstrated that Swimmer
`Discloses “wherein suspicious computer operations
`include calls made to an operating system, a file system,
`a network system, and to memory” (claims 6 and 15) ............. 39 
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`V.
`
` 
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS FAIL AS A
`MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONDUCT A
`COMPLETE OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS ................................................. 40 
`
`VI.
`
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 42 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc., v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 41
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................. 4, 32, 38
`
`Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Monosol RX, LLC,
`Case No. IPR2013-00315 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2013) ......................................... 19
`
`Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, SA,
`129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 38
`
`Finjan, Inc., v. Sophos, Inc.,
`Case No. 14-cv-01197-WHO, Dkt. No. 73 ........................................................ 44
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 41
`
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 30
`
`In re Kaslow,
`707 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............................................................. 20, 23, 24
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 10
`
`In re Wilson,
`424 F.2d 1382 (C.C.P.A. 1970) .................................................................... 33, 36
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 9
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 41
`
`Ledergerber Med. Innovations, LLC v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.,
`736 F.Supp.2d 1172 (N.D. Ill. 2010) .................................................................. 20
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Medtronic Corevalve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp.,
`741 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 15
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 34
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding Inc.,
`230 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 20
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 41
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................. 12, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 13, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................. 14, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78(e) ............................................................................................. 17, 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ................................................................................................... 45
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ........................................................................................... 23, 39
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ...................................................................................... 23, 33
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .............................................................................. 33, 35, 39
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ........................................................................................... 1, 14
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks, Inc., (“Petitioner”) submitted a
`
`Petition to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (“the
`
`‘494 Patent”), challenging claims 1–18. Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`requests that the Board not institute inter partes review because Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`
`unpatentability of any of the challenged claims on the grounds asserted in its
`
`Petition, as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`The ’494 Patent is and has been the subject of several other challenges
`
`before the Board, including Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-01022,
`
`in which institution of trial was denied (Institution Denied Sept. 24, 2015, Request
`
`for Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 2016). The ‘494 Patent is also the subject of two
`
`pending cases: Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-01897, a case
`
`that is substantially similar to Grounds 1–4 of the instant Petition in terms of the art
`
`cited and the arguments made; and Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No.
`
`IPR2015-01893, a case that asserts substantially similar art and arguments to
`
`Grounds 5 and 6 of the instant Petition. Finjan has filed Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Responses in the latter two cases, which await institution decisions, and requests
`
`that the Board use its discretion to reject the instant Petition under 35 U.S.C.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`§ 325(d) for recycling substantially the same art and arguments previously
`
`submitted to the USPTO.
`
`The ‘494 Patent generally discloses systems and methods for protecting user
`
`computers from the suspicious operations that may be attempted by
`
`Downloadables. The claims require, inter alia, “receiving an incoming
`
`Downloadable,” “deriving security profile data for the Downloadable” and “storing
`
`the Downloadable security profile data in a database.” Ex. 1001 at 19–25. The
`
`Downloadable security profile (“DSP”) data that is generated and stored in the
`
`database also must include “a list of suspicious computer operations that may be
`
`attempted by the Downloadable.” Id.
`
`With regard to Grounds 1–4, Petitioner’s arguments fail because the ‘494
`
`Patent is entitled to a priority date that predates the alleged prior art. Specifically,
`
`the ‘494 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,092,194 (Ex. 1013, the “‘194
`
`Patent”) which predates the primary alleged prior art reference, namely Int’l
`
`Publication No. WO 1998/0023683 (Ex. 1026, “Touboul”). That priority claim is
`
`fatal to Grounds 1–4 raised in the Petition because each of these grounds rely on
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Touboul. Accordingly, the Board should not institute inter partes review on
`
`Grounds 1–4 because the Petition fails to make the requisite threshold showings.1
`
`Petitioner’s Grounds 5 and 6 also fail because they do not disclose the
`
`approach to protecting against malware disclosed and claimed in the ‘494 Patent.
`
`In particular, the alleged prior art does not derive security profile data for a
`
`Downloadable, a list of suspicious computer operations, or store Downloadable
`
`security profile data in a database. In contrast, the main reference cited in the
`
`Petition is generally directed to creating an audit trail of a program’s activity,
`
`Morton Swimmer, Dynamic Detection and Classification of Computer Viruses
`
`Using General Behavior Patterns (Ex. 1006, “Swimmer”) regardless of whether or
`
`not any one of the activities or calls is suspicious. Thus, none of the references
`
`cited in Grounds 5 and 6 disclose deriving security profile data for a
`
`Downloadable, let alone DSP data that includes a list of suspicious computer
`
`operations that may be attempted by the Downloadable.
`
`Additionally, Swimmer fails to disclose storing Downloadable security
`
`profile data in a database. Despite being a different limitation, Petitioner relies on
`
`the same log file generation discussed above (aka Swimmer’s audit trail) for the
`
`1 As discussed below, Petitioner’s arguments were in fact rendered moot on
`
`February 16, 2016 with the issuance of a Reexamination Certificate for a related
`
`patent that is discussed at length in the Petition.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`alleged disclosure of “storing Downloadable security profile data in a database.”
`
`As a result, Petitioner gives no effect to the “storing of the Downloadable security
`
`profile data in a database” language contrary to the law. See Bicon, Inc. v.
`
`Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting claims must be
`
`“interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.”)(citation
`
`omitted). Notably, the Board and the District Court have already rejected
`
`Petitioner’s technical arguments on numerous occasions in holding that an audit
`
`trail or a log file is not a database. See, e.g., Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-
`
`01022, Paper 7 at 9–10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 24, 2015) (rejecting a previous petition that
`
`relied upon interpreting log files as databases)); see also Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan,
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00907, Paper 8 at 8–10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 24, 2015) (institution
`
`denied); see also Ex. 2001, Finjan, Inc., v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01197-
`
`WHO, Dkt. No. 73, Claim Construction Order at 5, n.1 (holding that databases are
`
`not log files). Because the Petition has failed to make a threshold showing that the
`
`cited prior art teaches at least the claimed list of suspicious operations and the
`
`claimed database, the Board should decline to institute inter partes review.
`
`Although there are a variety of reasons why the ‘494 Patent is valid over
`
`Petitioner’s asserted prior art references, this Preliminary Response focuses on
`
`only limited reasons why inter partes review should not be instituted. See
`
`Travelocity.com L.P. v. Conos Techs., LLC, CBM2014-00082, Paper 12 at 10
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014) (“[N]othing may be gleaned from the Patent Owner’s
`
`challenge or failure to challenge the grounds of unpatentability for any particular
`
`reason.”).2 The deficiencies of the Petition noted herein, however, are sufficient
`
`for the Board to find that Petitioner has not met its burden to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing unpatentability of any of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
` THE ‘494 PATENT
`II.
`A. Overview
`
`Patent Owner’s ‘494 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patents Nos. 8,079,086
`
`(Ex. 2002 “the ‘086 Patent”), 7,613,926 (Ex. 2003, “the ‘926 Patent”), 7,058,822
`
`(Ex. 1016, “the ‘822 Patent”), 6,804,780 (Ex. 2004, “the ‘780 Patent”), 6,092,194
`
`(Ex. 1013, “the ‘194 Patent”), 6,480,962 (Ex. 2005, “the ‘962 Patent”), and
`
`6,167,520 (Ex. 2006, “the ‘520 Patent”). Ex. 1001 at 1:7–55. The ‘494 also
`
`claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 60/205,591 (Ex. 1073, “the
`
`‘591 Application”) and 60/030,639 (Ex. 1027, “the ‘639 Application”). Id. The
`
`earliest priority date claimed on the face of the ‘494 Patent is the filing date ‘639
`
`2 Patent Owner specifically reserves its right to dispute that Palo Alto Networks,
`
`Inc., has correctly named all real-parties-in-interest in the event that sufficient
`
`factual bases supporting such a challenge surface during the pendency of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Application, November 8, 1996. Id. As demonstrated below, the ‘494 Patent is
`
`entitled, at least, to a priority date of November 6, 1997, which corresponds to the
`
`filing date of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/964,388, which matured into the ‘194
`
`Patent.
`
`The systems and methods of the ‘494 Patent protect personal computers
`
`(PCs) and other network accessible devices from “suspicious or other ‘malicious’
`
`operations.” ‘494 Patent at 2:51–56. The protection paradigm involves deriving
`
`security profile data for an incoming Downloadable. Id. at 21:21; ‘194 Patent at
`
`5:38–45; 9:20–22. The Downloadable security profile (“DSP”) data for each
`
`Downloadable includes a “list of all potentially hostile or suspicious computer
`
`operations that may be attempted by a specific Downloadable.” ‘194 Patent at
`
`5:45–48. Security policies, which include policies specific to particular users and
`
`generic policies, can be compared with the DSP data for an incoming
`
`Downloadable to determine whether to allow or block the incoming
`
`Downloadable. Id. at 4:18–24.
`
`The ‘494 Patent describes that the derived DSP data can be stored in a
`
`database. ‘494 Patent at 21:24–25; ‘194 Patent at 4:14–18; id. at 9:52–55.
`
`Because DSP data stored in this manner, it can be efficiently retrieved when a
`
`known Downloadable is encountered and security decisions can be made without
`
`the need to generate profiles for all incoming Downloadables. See ‘194 Patent at
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`5:38–41. As shown in FIG. 3, for example, DSP Data 310 can be stored in and
`
`retrieved from Security Database 240:
`
`See, e.g., id., 5:38–41 (retrieving DSP data from the security database); see also id.
`
`
`
`at 6:9–12 (storing DSP data in the security database).
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–18 of the ‘494 Patent of which claims 1 and
`
`10 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`
`1. A computer-based method, comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving an incoming Downloadable;
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`deriving security profile data for the Downloadable, including a
`
`list of suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the
`Downloadable; and
`
`storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 21:19–25. System claim 10 further recites the components “receiver,”
`
`“Downloadable scanner,” and “database manager.”
`
`Claims 2 and 11, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, recite
`
`“storing a date & time when the Downloadable security profile data was derived,
`
`in the database.”
`
`Claims 3 and 12, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, recite
`
`“wherein the Downloadable includes an applet.”
`
`Claims 4 and 13, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, recite
`
`“wherein the Downloadable includes an active control.”
`
`Claims 5 and 14, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, recite
`
`“wherein the Downloadable include program script.”
`
`Claims 6 and 15, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, recite
`
`“wherein suspicious computer operations include calls made to an operating
`
`system, a file system, a network system, and to memory.”
`
` Claims 7 and 16, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, recite
`
`“wherein the Downloadable security profile data includes a URL from where the
`
`Downloadable originated.”
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Claims 8 and 17, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, recite
`
`“wherein the Downloadable security profile data includes a digital certificate.”
`
`Claims 9 and 18, which depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, recite
`
`“wherein said deriving Downloadable security profile data comprises
`
`disassembling the incoming Downloadable.”
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ‘494 Patent issued March 18, 2014, from U.S. Patent Application Serial
`
`No. 13/290,708, filed November 7, 2011.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`III.
`A.
`“Downloadable security profile data” (all claims)
`
`When read within the context of the claims, there is no need to construe the
`
`phrase “Downloadable security profile data.” See, e.g., Interactive Gift Express,
`
`Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“If the claim
`
`language is clear on its face, then our consideration of the rest of the intrinsic
`
`evidence is restricted to determining if a deviation from the clear language of the
`
`claims is specified.”). As noted below, the proper construction for
`
`“Downloadable” is “an executable application program which is downloaded from
`
`a source computer and run on the destination computer.” The remaining part of the
`
`term “security profile data” should follow the plain language given to it in claims 1
`
`and 10.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`The term “Downloadable security profile data” appears in all of the
`
`challenged claims with its scope clearly set forth in the claims. For example, in the
`
`challenged independent claims 1 and 10, the claims show that (1) Downloadable
`
`security profiles are derived for the Downloadable; (2) Downloadable security
`
`profile data includes “a list of suspicious computer operations that may be
`
`attempted to the Downloadable”; and (3) Downloadable security profile data is
`
`stored in a database. As such, there is no need to further define “Downloadable
`
`security profile data” as Petitioner suggests.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that “Downloadable security profile data” means
`
`“information related to whether executing a downloadable is a security risk”
`
`should be rejected because it reads out claim limitations. Petition at 19. For
`
`example, Petitioner’s interpretation improperly reads the “security profile”
`
`limitation out of the claim and replaces it with the vaguely worded “information
`
`related to.” Petitioner’s position is contrary to the law which dictates that BRI
`
`does not allow claims to be vaguely interpreted “to embrace anything remotely
`
`related to the claimed invention.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259–
`
`60 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(reversing the Patent Office for its unreasonably broad claim
`
`interpretation that read the “material for finishing the top surface of the floor”
`
`limitation on an intermediate layer in the prior art product). Rather, the claims
`
`must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with “the
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`specification and teachings in the underlying patent.” Id. Indeed, the Board, in
`
`considering this term for the related ‘926 Patent, has already found a similar
`
`proposed construction “to be overly broad, substantially circular, and generally
`
`unhelpful.” Decision Denying Institution, Sophos, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-
`
`00907, Paper 8 at 12 (rejection Petitioner’s proposal that the term Downloadable
`
`security profile data should mean “security information relating to the
`
`Downloadable.”).
`
`Furthermore, the Petitioner's construction is at odds with the teachings of the
`
`‘494 Patent. Petitioner ignores the specification which describes that the
`
`“Downloadable security profile data” is at least derived from the Downloadable.
`
`For example, the ‘194 Patent, which is incorporated by reference into the ‘494
`
`Patent, describes deriving (e.g. via code scanner, content inspection, decomposing,
`
`parsing) “Downloadable security profile data” (aka DSP data) from the
`
`Downloadable. See, e.g., Ex. 1013 at 6:5-10; 8:41-54; Fig. 6A at 628. Although
`
`Petitioner argues for a different construction, Petitioner concedes that the
`
`“Downloadable security profile data” includes data derived from the
`
`Downloadable in its Petition. Petition at 20 citing Ex. 1013 at 4:33–37 (“the list of
`
`all potentially hostile or suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by
`
`each known Downloadable”). Thus, Petitioner’s construction which does not
`
`specifically state the information is derived from the Downloadable is inconsistent
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`with the intrinsic record. As such, the Board should reject Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction and follow the plain claim language requirement for “security profile
`
`data.”
`
`B.
`
`“database” (claims all claims)
`
`For the purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not
`
`challenge that the term “database” should be construed as “a collection of
`
`interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more
`
`applications.” See Petition at 21.
`
`C.
`
`“Downloadable” (all claims)
`
`For the purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not
`
`challenge that the term “Downloadable” should be construed as “an executable
`
`application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the
`
`destination computer.” See Petition at 23.
`
`IV.
`
` SPECIFIC REASONS WHY THE CITED REFERENCES DO NOT
`INVALIDATE THE CLAIMS, AND WHY INTER PARTES REVIEW
`SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED
`
`The Petition set forth six Grounds which rely on four references. These
`
`Grounds are summarized below:
`
`Ground 1 proposes that Touboul anticipates claims 1, 3–6, 9, 10, 12–15, and
`
`18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Ground 2 proposes that Touboul or Touboul in light of Swimmer et al.,
`
`Dynamic Detection and Classification of Computer Viruses Using General
`
`Behaviour Patterns (Ex. 1005, “Swimmer”) renders obvious claims 2 and 11 under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 3 proposes that Touboul or Touboul in light of Ji U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,983,348 (Ex. 1010, “Ji”) renders obvious claims 7 and 16 under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 4 proposes that Touboul renders obvious claims 8 and 17 under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 5 proposes that Swimmer renders obvious claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, and
`
`15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 6 proposes that Swimmer in light of Martin et al., Blocking Java
`
`Applets at the Firewall, Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Network and
`
`Distributed System Security (“Martin”) renders obvious claims 3–5 and 12–14
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`As detailed below, Touboul is not prior art to the ‘494 Patent, and none of
`
`the other references, individually or in combination, disclose at least the claimed
`
`features of “deriving security profile data for [a] Downloadable, including a list of
`
`suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the Downloadable” or
`
`“storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database.” Accordingly, each
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`proposed Ground should be rejected as Petitioner has not established a reasonable
`
`likelihood that at least one of claims 1–18 of the ‘494 Patent is invalid. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.108(c).
`
`A.
`
` Grounds 1–4 Should be Rejected Because Touboul is not Prior
`Art
`Inter partes review should not be instituted at least because Grounds 1–4
`
`rely upon Touboul, which is not prior art to the ‘494 Patent. The ‘494 Patent is
`
`entitled to claim priority at least to the filing date of the ‘194 Patent, which is
`
`November 6, 1997. Touboul, which published on May 22, 1998, does not qualify
`
`as prior art to the ‘494 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as alleged in the Petition.
`
`See Petition at 6. Patent Owner addresses Petitioner’s challenges to the priority
`
`dates of claims 2 and 11 (styled claimset 2 in the Petition) and claims 7, 8, 16, and
`
`16 (styled claimset 3 in the Petition ) below in §§ IV.B.3.c and IV.B.3.d, infra. See
`
`Petition at 14–15.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Finjan Properly Claims Priority to the ‘194 Patent Under
`35 U.S.C. § 120
`
`Finjan properly claims a priority date of November 6, 1997 for the ‘494
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120. Under this statute, there are four requirements for
`
`an application to obtain the benefit of an earlier filing date of a previously filed
`
`application: (1) the invention in the application must be disclosed in the original
`
`application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112; (2) the application must be filed while the
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`previously filed application is still pending; (3) there must be a common inventor
`
`between both applications; and (4) there must be a specific reference to the earlier
`
`filed application. There is no dispute that the ‘494 Patent, and each application in
`
`the priority chain, satisfy the first,3 second, and third requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 120. Petitioner’s challenge to the fourth requirement is wholly inadequate and
`
`rendered moot on February 16, 2016, with the issuance of a Reexamination
`
`Certificate for a related patent.
`
`1.
`
`The ‘494 Patent and its Ancestral Applications Contain
`Specific References to the Earlier Filed Applications
`
`In each application within the priority chain of the ‘494 patent, Patent Owner
`
`has presented a specific reference to all earlier filed applications in the chain to the
`
`‘194 patent as required under 35 U.S.C. § 120. See Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
`
`v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that 35
`
`U.S.C. § 120 requires each application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior
`
`applications); see also Medtronic Corevalve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp.,
`
`741 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that a specific reference requires
`
`identification of a priority reference and a recitation of the family relationship
`
`between the references). In each case, the USPTO has officially acknowledged
`
`
`3 Petitioner does challenge the priority date of claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 16, and 17 for
`
`lacking written description support.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2016-00159 (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`Patent Owner’s priority claims had has, indeed, recognized the complete priority
`
`chain from the ‘194 patent to the ‘494 patent.
`
`The ‘494 Patent Claims Priority to the ‘194 Patent
`
`On its face, the ‘494 Patent claims priority back to the ‘194 Patent, and
`
`includes a specific reference to each application in the priority chain, including the
`
`‘086 Patent, the ‘926 Patent, the ‘822 Patent, the ‘780 Patent, and the ‘194 Patent.
`
`See ‘494 Patent at 1:7–55. This priority claim was recognized by the USPTO as
`
`shown, for example, o