UNITED STA TES P A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTl\但~NT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COl\品1ISSIONERFOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria， Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATIONNO
`
`FILINGDATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. I CONFIRMATION NO
`
`90/013，017
`
`10/0712013
`
`7058822
`
`FINREXM0006
`
`6388
`
`12/30/2015
`7590
`115222
`Bey & Cotropia PLLC (Finjan Inc.)
`Dawn-Marie Bey
`213 Bayly Court
`Richmond， V A 23229
`
`EXAMINER
`
`BASEHOAR， ADAM L
`
`ARTUNIT
`
`PAPERNUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAILDATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/30/2015
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply， if any， is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTl\但~NT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COl\品1ISSIONERFOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria， Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATIONNO
`
`FILINGDATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. I CONFIRMATION NO
`
`90/013，017
`
`10/0712013
`
`7058822
`
`FINREXM0006
`
`6388
`
`12/30/2015
`7590
`115222
`Bey & Cotropia PLLC (Finjan Inc.)
`Dawn-Marie Bey
`213 Bayly Court
`Richmond， V A 23229
`
`EXAMINER
`
`BASEHOAR， ADAM L
`
`ARTUNIT
`
`PAPERNUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAILDATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`12/30/2015
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply， if any， is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Expαrte FINJAN， INC.
`Appellant
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`Technology Center 3900
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU， JEREMY J. CURCURI， and
`IRVIN E. BRANCH， Administrαtive Pαtent Judges.
`
`Opinion for the board filed by Administrαtive Pαtent Judge CURCURI.
`
`Opinion dissenting-in-part filed by Administrαtive Pαtent Judge BRANCH.
`
`CURCURI， Administrαtive Pαtent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`Patent 7，058，822 B2 (Edery et al.) is under reexamination. Appellant
`appeals under 35 U.S.C. SS 134(b) and 306丘omthe Examiner's rejection of
`claims 1-8， 16ー27，and 36-40. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under
`35 U.S.C. SS 134(b) and 306， and we heard oral argument in the appeal on
`
`November 3，2015.
`
`Claims 4-6， 8， 16ー27，37，and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`。102(e)as anticipated by Ji (5，983，348; issued Nov. 9. 1999). Ans.3-17.
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 103(a) as obvious over Ji. Pinal
`
`Act. 9-10.
`Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 103(a) as obvious over Ji
`
`and Liu (6，058，482; issued May 2， 2000). Ans. 17-22.
`Claims 4-8， 16ー27，37，and 40 are r吋ectedunder 35 U.S.C. S 103(a)
`
`as obvious over Ji and Liu. Ans. 22-27.
`Claims 4-8， 16ー27，37，and 40 are r吋ectedunder 35 U.S.C. S 103(a)
`as obvious over Ji and Golan (5，974，549; issued Oct. 26， 1999). Ans.27-33.
`Claims 36， 38， and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 305 as enlarging
`
`the scope ofthe claims. Pinal Act. 19-20.
`
`We affirm-in-part.
`
`STATEMENT OP THE CASE
`
`Appe11ant' s invention relates to“protecting network -connectable
`
`devices 丘omundesirable downloadable operation." Edery， col. 1， 11. 28-29.
`
`Claim 4 is i11ustrative:
`
`4. A processor-based method， comprising:
`
`receiving downloadable-information;
`
`determining whether the downloadable-information
`includes executable code; and
`
`causing mobile protection code to be communicated to at
`least one information-destination of the downloadable-
`information， ifthe downloadable-information is determined to
`include executable code，
`
`wherein the causing mobile protection code to be
`communicated comprises forming a sandboxed package
`including the mobile protection code and the downloadable-
`
`2
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`information， and causing the sandboxed package to be
`communicated to the at least one information-destination.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`THE ANTIC1PATION REJECTION OF CLA1MS 4-6， 8，16ー27，37，AND 40 BY J1
`
`The Examiner finds Ji discloses a111imitations of claim 4. Ans.3-5.
`
`The Examiner finds “[b]y disclosing that applets are scanned while non-
`
`applets are not scanned， Ji at least implicitly discloses the step of
`
`determining whether the downloadable-information includes executable
`
`code." Ans. 3 (citing Ji， co1. 3， 11. 23-25; co1. 4， 1. 66---c01. 5， 1. 4). The
`
`Examiner finds Ji's JAR file corresponds to the recited sandboxed package.
`
`Ans.4-5 (citing Ji， co1. 6， 11. 38--42; co1. 7， 11. 13-28; co1. 8， 11. 4-10).
`
`Appe11ant presents the fo11owing principal arguments:
`
`i.
`
`Ji does not disclose the recited (claim 4)“determining whether
`
`the downloadable-information includes executable code" because “Ji then
`
`scans only Qownloaded applet~ to look for malicious applet instructions; not
`
`to determine ifthe downloaded applet contains executable code." App. Br.
`
`16;seeαlso App. Br. 17 (“[T]here are numerous ways that Ji can distinguish
`
`downloaded applets丘omnon-applets without determining whether the
`
`downloadable-information includes executable code. For example， Ji could
`
`simply search for applet tags. A file with an applet tag is not a
`
`determination that the file contains executable code.").
`
`[O]ne of ski11 in the art would understand that an applet tag is
`not a determination that the file contains executable code
`because an applet tag does not mean executable code exists
`within the Downloadable， nor does the lack of an applet tag
`mean that executable code does not exist within the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`Downloadable. Furthermore， Ji only operates on applets and
`does not scan non-applets.
`
`Declaration of Dr. N enad Medvidovic可22;seeαlsoid. at可可 23-24.
`
`ii. Ji's JAR file containing the instrumented applet and monitoring
`
`package does not disclose the recited (claim 4)“sandboxed package." See
`
`App. Br. 19-20; Declaration ofDr. Nenad Medvidovic可27.
`
`In response， the Examiner further explains
`
`It is not relevant to patentability whether Ji“passivelyassumes"
`or skeptically analyzes; the claim broadly requires determining.
`Since Ji' s system takes a first action for downloadable-
`information including executable code (i.e.， scanning Java
`applets assumed to be executable code) and takes a different
`action for other downloadable-information (i.e.， not scanning
`non-applet downloadable information)， Ji's system“determines
`whether the downloadable-information includes executable
`code".
`
`Ans.37-38.
`
`In response， the Examiner further explains Ji's JAR file corresponds
`
`to the recited sandboxed package. See Ans. 40-43.
`
`Appellant has shown e汀 orin the Examiner's finding that Ji discloses
`
`the recited (claim 4)“determining whether the downloadable-information
`
`includes executable code."
`
`Ji (col. 3， ll. 23-25) discloses:“At this point the applets are statically
`
`scanned at the server by the scanner looking for particular instructions which
`
`may be problematic in a security context." Ji (col. 4， l. 66-col. 5， l. 4)
`
`discloses:
`
`Upon receipt of a particular Java applet， the HTTP proxy server
`32， which is software running on server machine 20 and which
`has associated scanner software 26， then scans the applet and
`
`4
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`instruments it using an instrumenter 28 which is part of the
`scanner software 26. (Downloaded non-applets are not
`scanned.)
`
`In order to disclose determining whether the downloadable-
`
`information includes executable code， Ji must disclose distinguishing
`
`between two altemative possibilities: executable code is included in the
`
`downloadable-information， and executable code is not included in the
`
`downloadable-information.
`
`To the extent Ji's scanner does detect applets (for example， via applet
`
`tags)， Ji does determine some cases where executable code is included in the
`
`downloadable-information (the applet tag reasonably indicates the existence
`
`of executable applet code). Nonetheless， we agree with Appe11ant that the
`
`lack of an applet tag does not determine that executable code is not included
`
`in the downloadable-information. See Declaration ofDr. Nenad Medvidovic
`
`可22.Thus， at best， Ji determines， in some cases， when executable code is
`
`included in the downloadable-information， but does not adequately
`
`determine when executable code is not included in the downloadable
`
`information. Therefore， Ji does not disclose the recited determining.
`
`Appe11ant has also shown e汀 orin the Examiner's finding that Ji
`
`discloses the recited (claim 4)“forming a sandboxed package including the
`
`mobile protection code and the downloadable-information." The e汀 orm
`
`this finding hinges on the meaning of the term“sandbox."
`
`Ji (co1. 6， 11. 38--42) discloses:“The pre and post filter and monitoring
`
`package security policy functions[] are combined with the instrumented
`
`applet code in a single JAR (Java archive) file format at the server 32， and
`
`downloaded to the web browser 22 in client machine 14." Ji (co1. 7， 11. 13
`
`5
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`28) discloses prefetching dependency class files and instrumenting them
`
`once. Ji (co1. 8，11.4-10) discloses creating a new JAR 仙 台omthe
`
`instrumented class files and the monitoring package， and transfer thereof to
`
`the client machine.
`
`Appe11ant's Specification discloses:“The sandboxed package can
`
`also include a corresponding Downloadable and can provide for initiating
`
`the Downloadable in a protective 'sandbox'." Edery， co1. 3， 11. 15-18.
`
`Appe11ant's Specification discloses:“An MPC and applicable policies can
`
`also， for example， precede each executable， such that each executable wi11 be
`
`separately sandboxed in the same or a different manner according to
`
`MPC/policy configuration (see above) upon inflation and insta11ation."
`
`Edery， co1. 13， 11. 62---66.
`
`The term“sandbox" may be defined in the computer context as:
`
`n. 1. Java Virtual Machine security area for downloaded
`(remote or untrusted) applets， an area in which such applets are
`confined and prevented丘omaccessing system resources.
`Confinement to the sandbox prevents downloaded applets丘om
`ca町 yingout potentia11y dangerous operations， maliciously or
`otherwise. They have to“play" inside the sandbox， and any
`attempt to“escape" is thwarted by the Java Security Manager.
`
`MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 463 (5th ed. 2002).
`
`Thus， we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`“sandbox" requires an area in which executable code is initiated， confined，
`
`and prevented 丘omaccessing system resources. This interpretation is both
`
`consistent with Appe11ant's Specification and with a plain meaning ofthe
`
`term in the computer context. Thus， the recited (claim 4)“forming a
`
`sandboxed package including the mobile protection code and the
`
`6
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`downloadable-information" requires the downloadable-information to be
`
`inside an area in which executable code is initiated， confined， and prevented
`
`丘omaccessing system resources.
`
`Ji's JAR file does include the instrumented class files and the
`
`monitoring package. See Ji， col. 8，11.4-10. However， Ji's JAR file is an
`
`archive file and not a sandboxed package because the JAR file does not
`
`cause Ji's applet to be inside an area， in which the applet's executable code
`
`is initiated， confined， and prevented丘omaccessing system resources. With
`
`regard to Ji' s instrumentation， Ji instruments instructions. See Ji， Abstract.
`
`Thus， although Ji may have pαrticulαr instructions that are instrumented， the
`
`instrumentation is also not a sandboxed package because the instrumentation
`
`also does not cause Ji 'sα~plet to be inside an area in which the applet's
`
`executable code is initiated， confined， and prevented丘omaccessing system
`
`resources. Therefore， Ji does not disclose the recited forming a sandboxed
`
`package.
`
`We， therefore， do not sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claim 4， or
`
`of claims 5， 6， and 8， which depend丘omclaim 4.
`
`Similarly， we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
`
`independent claim 16， which recites“wherein the causing is accomplished
`
`by forming a sandboxed package including the mobile protection code and
`
`the downloadable-information， and causing the sandboxed package to be
`
`delivered to the downloadable-information destination，" or of claims 17-27，
`
`which depend丘omclaim 16.
`
`Similarly， we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
`
`independent claim 37， which recites "determining whether the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`downloadable-information includes executable code，" and further recites
`
`“forming a sandbox package including the MPC and the downloadable-
`
`information. "
`
`Similarly， we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
`
`independent claim 40， which recites“determining by a content inspection
`
`engine associated with the server whether the downloadable-information
`
`includes executable code，" and further recites“forming by a packaging
`
`engine a sandboxed package including the mobile protection code and the
`
`downloadable-information."
`
`THE OBV10USNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 7 OVER J1
`
`The Examiner finds Ji teaches a111imitations of claim 7. Pinal Act. 9
`
`10. Claim 7 depends丘omclaim 4. Thus， we do not sustain the Examiner's
`
`rejection of claim 7 for reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4.
`
`THE OBV10USNESS REJECTION OF CLA1MS 1-3 OVER J1 AND L1U
`
`The Examiner finds Ji and Liu teach a111imitations of claims 1-3.
`
`Ans. 17-22; seeαlso Ans. 46-55. The Examiner finds Liu's detecting applet
`
`tags discloses the recited (claim 1)“determining whether the downloadable-
`
`information includes executable code." Ans. 19-20 (citing Liu， col. 3， 11. 7
`
`18; col. 4， l. 62ー∞l.5， l. 6; col. 6， 11. 19-57).
`
`Appe11ant presents the fo11owing principal arguments:
`
`i.
`
`Liu does not teach the recited (claim 1)“determining whether
`
`the downloadable-information includes executable code" because Liu
`
`generates web pages with modified class names. See App. Br. 22-27.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`ii. There is no motivation to combine Ji and Liu to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention. See App. Br. 27-29.
`
`Appe11ant has shown e汀 orin the Examiner's finding that Liu
`
`discloses the recited (claim 1)“determining whether the downloadable-
`
`information includes executable code."
`
`Our analysis ofLiu is similar to our analysis of Ji. To the extent Liu
`
`does detect applet tags， the lack of an applet tag does not determine that
`
`executable code is not included in the downloadable-information. Thus， at
`
`best， Liu determines， in some cases， when executable code is included in the
`
`downloadable-information， but does not adequately determine when
`
`executable code is not included in the downloadable information. Therefore，
`
`Liu does not disclose the recited determining whether the downloadable-
`
`information includes executable code.
`
`We， therefore， do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1， or
`
`of claims 2 and 3， which depend丘omclaim 1.
`
`THE OBV10USNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4-8， 16-ー27，37，AND 40
`
`OVER J1 AND L1U
`
`The Examiner finds Ji and Liu teach a111imitations of claims 4-8， 16-
`
`27， 37， and 40. Ans. 22-27; seeαlso Ans. 55-57. The Examiner finds Liu's
`
`Java architecture including the Java sandbox discloses the recited sandboxed
`
`package. Ans. 22-23 (citing Liu， col. 2， 11. 19--41).
`
`Appe11ant presents the fo11owing principal arguments:
`
`i.
`
`Ji does not disclose the recited (claim 4)“determining whether
`
`the downloadable-information includes executable code." App. Br. 31.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`ii. Liu does not disclose the recited (claim 4)“forming a
`
`sandboxed package including the mobile protection code and the
`
`downloadable-information" because Liu's Java sandbox is part ofthe JVM
`
`within the client browser. See App. Br. 31-32; seeαlso Declaration of Dr.
`
`N enad Medvidovic可39.
`
`iii. There is no motivation to combine Ji and Liu to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention. See App. Br. 32. Appe11ant has shown e汀 orin the
`
`Examiner's finding that Ji teaches the recited (claim 4)“determining
`
`whether the downloadable-information includes executable code" for
`
`reasons given above when addressing the anticipation rejection based on Ji.
`
`Appe11ant has also show e汀 orin the Examiner' s finding that Liu
`
`teaches the recited (claim 4)“forming a sandboxed package including the
`
`mobile protection code and the downloadable-information." Liu (col. 2， 11.
`
`19--41) discloses the Java sandbox and Java bytecode verifier.
`
`For reasons given above when addressing the anticipation rejection
`
`based on Ji， the recited (claim 4)“forming a sandboxed package including
`
`the mobile protection code and the downloadable-information" requires the
`
`downloadable-information to be inside an area in which executable code is
`
`initiated， confined， and prevented丘omaccessing system resources.
`
`Liu's Java sandbox is part ofthe JVM within the client browser.
`
`Further， Liu's Java sandbox is an area in which executable code is initiated，
`
`confined， and prevented丘omaccessing system resources. However， Liu's
`
`Java sandbox is not formed as a package including the downloadable-
`
`information because the Java sandbox is part of the JVM within the client
`
`ハリ
`11
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`browser. See Liu， col. 2， 11. 19--41. Therefore， Liu does not disclose the
`
`recited forming a sandboxed package.
`
`We， therefore， do not sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claim 4， or
`
`of claims 5， 6， and 8， which depend丘omclaim 4.
`
`Similarly， we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
`
`independent claim 16， which recites“wherein the causing is accomplished
`
`by forming a sandboxed package including the mobile protection code and
`
`the downloadable-information， and causing the sandboxed package to be
`
`delivered to the downloadable-information destination，" or of claims 17-27，
`
`which depend丘omclaim 16.
`
`Similarly， we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
`
`independent claim 37， which recites "determining whether the
`
`downloadable-information includes executable code，" and further recites
`
`“forming a sandbox package including the MPC and the downloadable-
`
`information. "
`
`Similarly， we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
`
`independent claim 40， which recites“determining by a content inspection
`
`engine associated with the server whether the downloadable-information
`
`includes executable code，" and further recites“forming by a packaging
`
`engine a sandboxed package including the mobile protection code and the
`
`downloadable-information."
`
`11
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`THE OBV10USNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4-8， 16-ー27，37，AND 40
`
`OVER J1 AND GOLAN
`
`The Examiner finds Ji and Golan teach a111imitations of claims 4-8，
`
`16ー27，37， and 40. Ans. 27-33; seeαlso Ans. 57-59. The Examiner finds
`
`Golan's security monitor discloses the recited (claim 4)“determining
`
`whether the downloadable-information includes executable code." Ans.27
`
`(citing Golan， col. 4， 11.51---61). The Examiner finds Golan's security
`
`monitor' s secure sandbox discloses the recited sandboxed package. Ans. 28
`
`(citing Golan， col. 4， l. 62-∞l. 5， l. 14).
`
`Appe11ant presents the fo11owing principal arguments:
`
`i.
`
`Golan does not disclose the recited (claim 4)“determining
`
`whether the downloadable-information includes executable code" because
`
`Golan monitors the behavior of already downloaded and executing code to
`
`intercept and redirect API ca11s. App. Br. 35-36.
`
`11. “Golan's security monitor is also not a sandboxed package
`
`because the claimed package is structured so that the mobile protection code
`
`is executed prior to executing the downloadable， as illustrated in elements
`
`340 -343 ofFIGS. 3 and 4 ofthe present specification." App. Br. 36.
`
`iii. There is no motivation to combine Ji and Golan to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention. See App. Br. 36ー37.Appe11ant has shown e汀 orin the
`
`Examiner's finding that Golan teaches the recited (claim 4)“determining
`
`whether the downloadable-information includes executable code."
`
`Our analysis of Golan is similar to our analysis of Ji and Liu. Golan
`
`(col. 4， 11. 58---61) discloses:“The security monitor detects when a
`
`downloaded software component attempts to commit an action that breaches
`
`12
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`security and functions to halt the component' s execution and issue a waming
`
`to the user." To the extent Golan does detect actions that breach security;
`
`the lack of such an action does not determine that executable code is not
`
`included in the downloadable-information. Thus， at best， Golan determines，
`
`in some cases， when executable code is included in the downloadable-
`
`information， but does not adequately determine when executable code is not
`
`included in the downloadable information. Therefore， Golan does not
`
`disclose the recited determining whether the downloadable-information
`
`includes executable code.
`
`Appellant has also shown e汀 orin the Examiner' s finding that Golan
`
`teaches the recited (claim 4)“forming a sandboxed package including the
`
`mobile protection code and the downloadable-information." Golan (col. 4， l.
`
`62ー∞l.5， l. 14) discloses the secure sandbox and security monitor， with the
`
`security monitor filtering the API.
`
`For reasons given above when addressing the anticipation rejection
`
`based on Ji， the recited (claim 4)“forming a sandboxed package including
`
`the mobile protection code and the downloadable-information" requires the
`
`downloadable-information to be inside an area in which executable code is
`
`initiated， confined， and prevented丘omaccessing system resources.
`
`Golan' s sandbox is an area in which executable code is initiated，
`
`confined， and prevented from accessing system resources. However，
`
`Golan's sandbox is not formed as a package including the downloadable-
`
`information. See Golan， Fig. 1. Therefore， Golan does not disclose the
`
`recited forming a sandboxed package.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`We， therefore， do not sustain the Examiner' s rejection of claim 4， or
`
`of claims 5， 6， and 8， which depend丘omclaim 4.
`
`Similarly， we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
`
`independent claim 16， which recites“wherein the causing is accomplished
`
`by forming a sandboxed package including the mobile protection code and
`
`the downloadable-information， and causing the sandboxed package to be
`
`delivered to the downloadable-information destination，" or of claims 17-27，
`
`which depend丘omclaim 16.
`
`Similarly， we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
`
`independent claim 37， which recites "determining whether the
`
`downloadable-information includes executable code，" and further recites
`
`“forming a sandbox package including the MPC and the downloadable-
`
`information. "
`
`Similarly， we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
`
`independent claim 40， which recites“determining by a content inspection
`
`engine associated with the server whether the downloadable-information
`
`includes executable code，" and further recites“forming by a packaging
`
`engine a sandboxed package including the mobile protection code and the
`
`downloadable-information."
`
`THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 36， 38， AND 39 AS
`
`ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF THE CLAIMS
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 36， 38， and 39 as enlarging the scope of
`
`the claims. Pinal Act. 19-20.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`Appellant does not present any arguments regarding this rejection.
`
`See App. Br. 39--43; Reply Br. 24.
`
`We， therefore， sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 36， 38， and
`
`39.
`
`The Examiner' s decision r吋ectingclaims 1-8， 16ー27，37，and 40 is
`
`DECISION
`
`reversed.
`
`The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 36， 38， and 39 is affirmed.
`
`Extensions of time for taking any subsequent action in connection
`with this appeal are govemed by 37 C.F.R. S 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R.
`
`。41.50(t).
`
`AFFIRMED-IN-P AR T
`
`ACP
`
`15
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Expαrte FINJAN， INC.
`Appellant
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`Technology Center 3900
`
`Before STEPHEN C. SIU， JEREMY J. CURCURI， and
`IRVIN E. BRANCH， Administrαtive Pαtent Judges.
`
`BRANCH， Administrαtive Pαtent Judge， dissenting-in-part.
`
`1 agree with andjoin the majority's decision that the Examiner's
`
`rejection of claims 36， 38， and 39 should be affirmed. 1 also agree with the
`
`majority's ultimate decision that the Examiner's 吋 ectionof claims 4-8， 16-
`
`27， 37， and 40 should be reversed， although 1 do not fully agree with the
`
`majority's reasoning. Specifically， as 1 explain hereinafter， 1 do not agree
`
`with the majority's reasoning with respect to the “determining whether"
`
`limitation of certain claims at issue. While 1 otherwise agree with the
`
`majority's reasoning because ofthe“sandbox" limitations， our disagreement
`
`over“determining whether" compels me to dissent as to the majority's
`
`decision that the Examiner' s rejection of claims 1-3 must be reversed. 1
`
`
`
`Appea12015-006304
`Reexamination Control 90/013，017
`Patent 7，058，822 B2
`
`would， instead， affirm the Examiner's decision that claims 1-3 are obvious
`
`over Ji and Liu.
`
`The majority finds that“[i]n order to disclose determining whether the
`
`downloadable-information includes executable code， Ji must disclose
`
`distinguishing between two altemative possibilities: executable code is
`
`included in the downloadable-information， and executable code is not
`
`included in the downloadable-information." 1 disagree. Instead， for either
`
`obviousness or anticipation with respect to the limitation at issue， a prior art
`
`reference “determin[ing] some cases where executable code is included in
`
`the downloadable-information，" as the majority finds to be the case， is
`
`sufficient for “determine whether" downloadable-information includes
`
`executable code.
`
`Accordingly， 1 respectfully dissent-in-part.
`
`Appellant:
`
`Bey & Cotropia PLLC (Fi吋anInc.)
`Dawn-Marie Bey
`213 Bayly Court
`Richmond VA 23229
`
`Third-party requestor:
`
`Ryan W. Cobb， DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street
`Suite 1700
`San Diego， CA 92101
`
`17
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
