UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________________
`
`Symantec Corp.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`Filing Date: June 14, 2010
`Issue Date: March 20, 2012
`
`
`
`Title: System and Method for Inspecting
`Dynamically Generated Executable Code
`
`_________________________________
`
`IPR2016-00919
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`
`Description of Document
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (“the ’154 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0108562 (“Khazan”)
`Emin Gün Sirer, et al., “Design and Implementation of a Distributed
`Virtual Machine for Networked Computers” (Dec. 5, 1999) (“Sirer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,437,362 (“Ben-Natan”)
`File History of United States Patent No. 8,141,154
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`Declaration of Emin Gün Sirer
`U.S. Patent No. 5,983,348 (“Ji”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0005889 (“Albrecht”)
`Ajay Chander, et al., “Mobile Code Security by Java Bytecode
`Instrumentation” (June 12-14, 2001) (“Chander”)
`Galen Hunt, et al., “Detours: Binary Interception of Win32
`Functions” (July 1999) (“Hunt”)
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Ed. (2002)
`3Com, “3C90x and 3C90xB NICs Technical Reference” (Aug. 1998)
`David E. Evans, “Policy-Directed Code Safety” (Oct. 19, 1999)
`(“Evans”)
`David K. Gifford, “Weighted Voting for Replicated Data” (1979)
`(“Gifford”)
`Andrew D. Birrell, et al., “Grapevine: An Exercise in Distributed
`Computing” (Apr. 1982) (“Birrell”)
`Jennifer G. Steiner, et al., “Kerberos: An Authentication Service for
`Open Network Systems” (Jan. 12, 1988) (“Steiner”)
`F-Secure Anti-Virus for Firewalls 6.20
`Jeff A. McConnell, “Content Vectoring Protocol with Checkpoint and
`Interscan Viruswall” (Mar. 4, 2002) (“McConnell”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,207,065 (“Chess”)
`Sun Microsystems, “Sun ONE Portal Server 3.0 Rewriter
`Configuration and Management Guide” (Sept. 13, 2002)
`Algis Rudys & Dan S. Wallach, “Enforcing Java Run-Time
`Properties Using Bytecode Rewriting” (2002) (“Rudys”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,685 (“Balassanian”)
`John Lewis, et al., “Java Software Solutions, Foundations of Program
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`Design” (1998) (“Lewis”)
`Larry L. Peterson, et al., “Computer Networks, A Systems Approach”
`(“Peterson”)
`Waldemar Horwat, “JavaScript 2.0: Evolving a Language for
`Evolving Systems” (2001) (“Horwat”)
`Daniel A. Reed, et al., “Scalable Performance Analysis: The Pablo
`Performance Analysis Environment” (1993) (“Reed”)
`Que Corporation, “C Programming Guide 2nd Edition” (1985)
`Herbert Schildt, “C++ from the Ground Up” (1994) (“Schildt”)
`Virus Bulletin (Nov. 1991)
`Dmitry O. Gryaznov, “Scanners of the Year 2000: Heuristics” (Sept.
`1995)
`R. Srinivasan, Request for Comments: 1831, ROC: Remote
`Procedure Call Protocol Specification, Version 2, (August 1995)
`Dan Raywood, Press Release - M86 Security completes acquisition of
`Finjan (Nov. 3, 2009)
`Gerard Le Lann, “Distributed Systems – Towards a Formal
`Approach,” Information Processing (1977)
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ........................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Real Party-ln-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................ 1
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 2
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3
`
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................. 3
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................... 3
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.104 AND 42.108 ........................................................................ 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................. 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................. 4
`
`Status of the Cited References as Prior Art ........................................... 4
`
`Threshold Requirement for Inter partes Review Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ................................................................................. 5
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ’154
`PATENT .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’154 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description of the ’154 Patent ..................................................... 7
`
`Priority Date of the Petitioned Claims .................................................. 8
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Legal Overview ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Construction of “first function” (All Petitioned Claims) ...................... 9
`
`Construction of “second function” (All Petitioned Claims) ............... 10
`
`Construction of “transmitter” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8) ........................... 11
`
`Construction of “receiver” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8) ................................ 11
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`VIII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART & STATE
`OF THE ART ................................................................................................ 12
`
`IX. THE PETITIONED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER THE
`PRIOR ART ................................................................................................... 13
`
`A. Overview of Khazan ............................................................................ 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Overview of Sirer ................................................................................ 15
`
`Overview of Ben-Natan ...................................................................... 16
`
`D. Khazan, Sirer, and Ben-Natan Are All Analogous Art ....................... 17
`
`X.
`
`CLAIMS 1-8, 10, AND 11 OF THE ’154 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ........................................................................................ 18
`
`A. Ground 1 – Claims 1 - 5 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Over Khazan in View of Sirer ............................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 18
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Claim 1 preamble 1[a] .................................................... 18
`
`Claim element 1[b] ......................................................... 18
`
`Claim element 1[c] ......................................................... 19
`
`Claim element 1[d] ......................................................... 19
`
`(1)
`
`It would be obvious to combine Khazan and
`Sirer ...................................................................... 21
`
`Claim element 1[e] ......................................................... 27
`
`Claim element 1[f] .......................................................... 28
`
`Claim element 1[g] ......................................................... 29
`
`Claim element 1[h] ......................................................... 34
`
`Claim element 1[i] .......................................................... 36
`
`Claim element 1[j] .......................................................... 36
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 39
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Claim element 2[a] ......................................................... 39
`
`Claim element 2[b] ......................................................... 40
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 41
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 41
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`Claim 4 preamble 4[a] .................................................... 42
`
`Claim element 4[b] ......................................................... 42
`
`Claim element 4[c] ......................................................... 42
`
`Claim element 4[d] ......................................................... 43
`
`Claim element 4[e] ......................................................... 43
`
`Claim element 4[f] .......................................................... 43
`
`Claim element 4[g] ......................................................... 43
`
`Claim element 4[h] ......................................................... 44
`
`Claim element 4[i] .......................................................... 44
`
`Claim element 4[j] .......................................................... 45
`
`Claim element 4[k] ......................................................... 45
`
`5.
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 45
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2 – Claims 6 – 8, 10, and 11 Are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Khazan in View Sirer and further in view
`of Ben- Natan ...................................................................................... 46
`
`1.
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 46
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`Claim 6 preamble 6[a] .................................................... 46
`
`Claim element 6[b] ......................................................... 46
`
`Claim element 6[c] ......................................................... 46
`
`Claim element 6[d] ......................................................... 47
`
`Claim element 6[e] ......................................................... 47
`
`Claim element 6[f] .......................................................... 47
`
`(1)
`
`It would be obvious to the POSA to combine
`Khazan, Sirer, and Ben-Natan .............................. 49
`
`Claim element 6[g] ......................................................... 51
`
`Claim element 6[h] ......................................................... 51
`
`Claim element 6[i] .......................................................... 51
`
`(1)
`
`It would be obvious to the POSA to combine
`Khazan, Sirer, and Ben-Natan .............................. 52
`
`j.
`
`Claim element 6[j] .......................................................... 53
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`2.
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 54
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Claim preamble 7[a] ....................................................... 54
`
`Claim element 7[b] ......................................................... 54
`
`Claim element 7[c] ......................................................... 55
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 55
`
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 56
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`Claim 10 preamble 10[a] ................................................ 56
`
`Claim element 10[b] ....................................................... 56
`
`Claim element 10[c] ....................................................... 56
`
`Claim element 10[d] ....................................................... 56
`
`Claim element 10[e] ....................................................... 57
`
`Claim element 10[f] ........................................................ 57
`
`Claim element 10[g] ....................................................... 57
`
`Claim element 10[h] ....................................................... 58
`
`Claim element 10[i] ........................................................ 58
`
`Claim element 10[j] ........................................................ 59
`
`Claim element 10[k] ....................................................... 59
`
`5.
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 59
`
`C.
`
`No Secondary Considerations ............................................................. 60
`
`XI. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Symantec Corp. (“Petitioner” or “Symantec”) petitions for inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-8, 10,
`
`and 11 (“the Petitioned Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (Ex. 1001) (“the
`
`’154 patent”). As explained in the concurrently filed Motion for Joinder (Paper 3),
`
`Petitioner seeks to join as a party to IPR2015-01979, filed by Palo Alto Networks,
`
`a proceeding instituted against the same patent on the basis of the same prior art.
`
`Symantec presents patentability challenges that are identical to those presented by
`
`Palo Alto Networks in IPR2015-01979.
`
`The ’154 Patent was granted without consideration of a wide body of
`
`analogous prior art. For example, Khazan discloses a system for instrumenting and
`
`performing run-time analysis of code, including reviewing input variables of
`
`functions, to protect against malicious applications. Khazan largely teaches
`
`performing those functions on a single client computer. And Sirer teaches how
`
`and why to distribute those same security functions (instrumentation and run-time
`
`analysis) from the client to a separate server as recited in the petitioned claims.
`
`Khazan and Sirer establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to each of the Petitioned Claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`
`A. Real Party-ln-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Symantec Corp. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The ’154 patent has been asserted in Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec, No. 3-14-cv-
`
`02998 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 3-14-cv-04908
`
`(N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., No. 5-14-cv-01353 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan,
`
`Inc. v. Websense, Inc., No. 5-13-cv-04398 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`
`No. 3-14-cv-01197 (N.D. Cal.); and Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 3-13-cv-
`
`05808 (N.D. Cal.). The ’154 patent was or is involved in the following inter partes
`
`review proceedings: IPR2015-01979; IPR2016-00151; and IPR2015-01547.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Nathaniel A. Hamstra (Reg.No. 65,680)
`
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel.: (312)705-7400 (general)
`Tel: (312)705-7417 (direct)
`Fax: (312)705-7401
`nathanhamstra@quinnemanuel.com
`David Nelson (Pro hac vice admission
`to be requested)
`davenelson@quinnemanuel.com
`Tel: (312)705-7465(direct)
`
`Kenneth K. Suh (Pro hac vice
`admission to be requested)
`kennethsuh@quinnemanuel.com
`Tel: (312)705-7454 (direct)
`
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel.: (312)705-7400 (general)
`Fax: (312)705-7401
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`The Petition is being served by Federal Express overnight delivery to the
`
`’154 patent Owner’s attorneys of record, Dawn-Marie Bey, Bey & Cotropia PLLC.
`
`The petition is also being served by Federal Express overnight delivery to counsel
`
`of record for Petitioner and Patent Owner in IPR2015-01979. Symantec consents
`
`to service by e-mail at the addresses provided above.
`
`E.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`Filed concurrently with this petition per 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`This Petition requests review of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of the ’154 patent
`
`and is accompanied by a payment of $23,000. 37 C.F.R. § 42.15. No excess
`
`claims fees are required. This Petition meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(1).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.104 AND 42.108
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’154 patent is eligible for IPR and further
`
`certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting this IPR. While Petitioner
`
`was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’154 patent more than
`
`one year before the date this petition is filed, the time limitation of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(b) “shall not apply to a request for joinder under” 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`Because this petition is accompanied by a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3), it complies
`
`with 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). See, e.g., Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 4-5 (granting joinder beyond the one-year window).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of the ’154 patent and
`
`requests that each claim be found unpatentable. The prior art cited includes:
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2005/0108562 to Khazan, et al. (“Khazan”);
`
`Emin Gün Sirer, et al., Design and Implementation of a Distributed
`
`Virtual Machine for Networked Computers, 33 ACM SIGOPS
`
`Operating Systems Review 202, (Dec. 5, 1999) (“Sirer”); and
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,437,362 to Ben-Natan (“Ben-Natan”).
`
`An explanation why each claim is unpatentable under the statutory grounds
`
`identified below is provided in § X. Additional support for each ground of
`
`rejection is set forth in the Declaration of Aviel Rubin (Ex. 1002) (“Rubin Decl.”),
`
`an expert in the field.
`
`Ground
`1.
`
`’154 patent Claims
`1 - 5
`
`2.
`
`6 - 8, 10, and 11
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Obvious over Khazan in view of Sirer
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`Obvious over Khazan in view of Sirer and
`further in view of Ben-Natan under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`C.
`
`Status of the Cited References as Prior Art
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`The cited prior art references qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (pre-
`
`AIA), because each was filed, published, and/or issued in the United States prior to
`
`December 12, 2005, the priority date of the ’154 Patent. (See § VI.B, below.)
`
`Khazan is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because it published on May
`
`19, 2005, prior to the earliest priority date of the ’154 Patent.
`
`Sirer is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published in
`
`December 1999, more than one year prior to the earliest priority date of the ’154
`
`Patent. The article’s author and citations to the article in prior-art patents confirm
`
`the publication date. (See Ex. 1008; Ex. 1024 at 2.)
`
`Ben-Natan is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on
`
`November 26, 2003, prior to the earliest priority date of the ’154 patent, and issued
`
`on October 14, 2008.
`
`D. Threshold Requirement for Inter partes Review Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(c)
`
`Inter partes review of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 should be instituted because
`
`this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with
`
`respect to each of the claims challenged. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ’154
`PATENT
`
`To protect against viruses and other malicious code (typically developed by
`
`hackers), downloaded code can be checked before it is executed at a gateway or
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`proxy server for potentially dangerous functions (“static analysis”). (Ex. 1001 at
`
`FIG. 1; 1:43-53, 2:31-45, 2:54-4:26.) Static analysis was well-known at least as
`
`early as 1999. (Id.; Ex. 1004 at 4.) Because the run-time values of variables that
`
`are input to functions are unknown during static analysis, a common technique to
`
`check potentially dangerous functions is to “wrap” the function (original function)
`
`with a wrapper function (substitute function). (Ex. 1001 at 4:9-14, 4:55-60;
`
`Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 40-53; Ex. 1009 at 4:66-5:8, 5:47-6:36; Ex. 1011 at 4.) The process
`
`of generating a wrapper function is often called “instrumentation.” (Ex. 1003 at
`
`[0073]; Ex. 1009 at 4:66-5:8, 5:47-6:36; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 40-53.) The wrapper
`
`function is a substitute function that is executed in lieu of the original function at
`
`run-time. (Id.) The wrapper function is responsible for checking run-time values in
`
`the code (dynamic analysis), such as function inputs, to ensure they do not result in
`
`malicious behavior. (Id. at ¶ 48.) If no malicious behavior is detected, the wrapper
`
`function can call the original function with the original inputs and the program
`
`proceeds without issue. If malicious behavior is detected, the wrapper function can
`
`warn the user with an error message, stop execution of the content, or modify the
`
`variables or code in some way so that the malicious code is not allowed to execute.
`
`(Id.) As discussed in the ’154 patent, dynamic analysis was also known prior to the
`
`’154 patent’s earliest priority date. (Ex. 1001 at FIG. 1, 1:54-64, 2:17-4:26.)
`
`At least by the late 1990’s, distributing system components to network
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`servers was also well-known. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 54-56; Ex. 1004 at Abstract.) More
`
`specifically, distributing static analysis, instrumentation, and/or dynamic analysis
`
`to a network server was known. (Ex. 1004 at 4.) The advantages to having a
`
`network server perform security functions were also understood. First, it was
`
`known that network servers have more processing power than client computers,
`
`enabling the server to apply security policies more quickly. By distributing the
`
`static and dynamic analysis of the program to a network server, the client computer
`
`has less to process while the powerful network server handles the job. (Id.)
`
`Second, distributing security to a centralized server allows easy administration of a
`
`adds additional security via physical isolation. (Id. at Abstract; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 89.)
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’154 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`
`A. Brief Description of the ’154 Patent
`
`The ’154 patent is directed at computer security. More specifically, the ’154
`
`patent is directed at inspecting function call input variables for potentially
`
`malicious behavior and subsequently protecting the computer running the program
`
`if the input variable is deemed unsafe. (See Ex. 1001 at Abstract and Claims.)
`
`Each independent claim recites a system or software program that executes a
`
`wrapper or substitute function that inspects the input to an original function to
`
`determine if executing the original function with the input violates a security
`
`policy. As discussed above, wrapper functions that analyze run-time values were
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`well known at the time of filing. According to the ’154 Patentee, known wrapper
`
`functions suffered from the problem that the run-time analysis was performed on
`
`the client computer. (Ex. 1001 at 4:15-26.) The shortcoming was that client-
`
`executed run-time analysis is accessible to the hacker community for reverse
`
`engineering which results in further exploitation. (Id. at 4:15-24.) According to the
`
`Patentee, the ’154 patent resolved that issue by distributing the run-time security
`
`analysis to a remote, less accessible computer. (Id. at 4:65-5:3.)
`
`However, distributing dynamic analysis to a network server was already
`
`known. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 72-75; Ex. 1004 at 4-6.) The background of the ‘154
`
`specification admits that the remaining elements of the claims were known in the
`
`art at the time of filing. (Ex. 1001 at 4:9-13; See Ex. 1009 at 4:66-5:8, 5:47-6:36.)
`
`Therefore, the ’154 patent is invalid as obvious in light of the prior art.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date of the Petitioned Claims
`
`The earliest priority date identified on the face of the ’154 patent by virtue of
`
`its Certificate of Correction is December 12, 2005.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`A. Legal Overview
`
`A claim subject to IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the specification of the patent in which it appears.”1 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`1 Interpretations of the claims in this IPR are not binding on Petitioner in
`litigation. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`Specific terms that require claim construction are discussed below.
`
`B. Construction of “first function” (All Petitioned Claims)
`
`The BRI of “first function” is “substitute function.” The claim language
`
`provides nothing more than that the “first function” is a function that can accept
`
`one or more inputs (i.e., parameters or variables), as most functions do. As such,
`
`any function that accepts at least one input/variable meets the claim limitation.
`
`The claims also recite that the input is inspected when the first function is invoked.
`
`Though the specification does not use “first function” in any helpful
`
`description, the patent explains that software “content” is intercepted and the
`
`“original function calls” are replaced with “substitute function calls” to allow the
`
`client computer to pass function inputs to the remote computer to perform security
`
`checks. (Ex. 1001 at 4:55-60.) The ’154 patent specification also provides an
`
`example: “Function (input)” is modified to call a corresponding
`
`“Substitute_function (input,*).” (Ex. 1001 at 9:19-24.) This example confirms that
`
`the “first function” is the substitute function, because the system analyzes the “first
`
`function” which would have to be modified in order to include the analysis. (Claim
`
`1.) Moreover, the ’154 explains that “the call to Function() has been replaced with
`
`a call to Substitute [f]unction()” and that “the input intended for the original
`
`function is also passed to the substitute function, along with the possible additional
`
`input denoted by ‘*’.” (Ex. 1001 at 9:25-28.) A POSA would recognize that the
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`“substitute function” in the ’154 specification is well known as a wrapper function
`
`because the substitute calls the original function. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 56.)
`
`While the ’154 Patentee failed to use the term “first function” in the
`
`specification, the claims recite that the “first function” invocation transmits the
`
`input for inspection, just as the substitute function of the specification does. Given
`
`the matching disclosure in the specification to the functionality recited in the
`
`claims, the BRI of “first function” is “substitute function.” (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 58, 28.)
`
`C. Construction of “second function” (All Petitioned Claims)
`
`The BRI of “second function” is “original function.” As discussed above
`
`with respect to construction of “first function,” the specification explains that the
`
`content is intercepted and the “original function calls” are replaced with “substitute
`
`function calls” to allow the client computer to pass function inputs to the remote
`
`computer for performing security checks. (Ex. 1001 at 4:55-60.) The ’154
`
`specification also states that the original function is invoked only if it is safe. (Id. at
`
`5:23-25.) The POSA would recognize that the “original function” described in the
`
`specification is a function that is wrapped by a wrapper function. (Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶¶ 61, 28.) Given the matching disclosure in the specification to the functionality
`
`recited in the claims, the BRI of “second function” is “original function.”
`
`To summarize, the “original function” is the “second function” while the
`
`“substitute function” is the “first function” (commonly called a wrapper function).
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`D. Construction of “transmitter” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8)
`
`The BRI of “transmitter” is “a circuit or electronic device designed to send
`
`electrically encoded data to another location.” That definition, from the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary, is consistent with the specification as well as the
`
`understanding of the POSA. (Ex. 1013 at 5; Ex. 1002 at ¶ 28.) The claims recite “a
`
`transmitter for transmitting [the input to the] / [the input variable to a] security
`
`computer.” (Ex. 1001 at Claims 1, 6.) As described in the specification, client
`
`transmitter 250 transmits the input to the remote computer for security analysis
`
`across communication channel 230.) (Id. at 8:56-9:2, FIG. 2.) The specification
`
`does not provide any additional detail about the transmitter—only its function is
`
`disclosed. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 105.) In late 2005 it was well-known to persons of
`
`ordinary skill that computers were equipped with network interface cards and
`
`associated software that enabled the transmission and receipt of data between
`
`computers using standard communication protocols. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 105.) A POSA
`
`would understand that a generic functional component described as a “transmitter”
`
`would be a circuit or electronic device designed to send electrically encoded data
`
`to another computer. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Therefore, the BRI of “transmitter” is “circuit or
`
`electronic device designed to send electrically encoded data to another location.”
`
`E. Construction of “receiver” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8)
`
`The BRI of “receiver” is “a circuit or electronic device designed to accept
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`data from an external communication system.” That definition, derived from the
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary definition of “receive”, comports with the
`
`specification as well as the understanding of the POSA. (Ex. 1013 at 4; Ex. 1002 at
`
`¶ 28.) The claims recite “a receiver for receiving [an indicator] / [the modified
`
`input variable] from the security computer.” (Ex. 1001 at Claims 1, 6.) As
`
`described in the specification, client receiver 245 receives the modified input or the
`
`indicator from the remote computer across communication channel 230. (Id. at
`
`8:56-9:2, FIG. 2.) The specification does not describe the receiver beyond reciting
`
`its functionality. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 105.) The POSA would have understood that
`
`virtually all computers were equipped with network interface cards that enabled the
`
`receipt of electronic data over a network. (Id.) Based on the POSA’s
`
`understanding as well as the description in the specification, the POSA would
`
`understand that a receiver was a circuit or electronic device designed to accept data
`
`from an external system. (Id. at ¶ 28.) Therefore, the BRI of “receiver” is “a
`
`circuit or electronic device designed to accept data from an external
`
`communication system.”
`
`VIII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART & STATE OF
`THE ART
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) is presumed to be aware
`
`of the relevant prior art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a
`
`person of ordinary creativity. With respect to the subject matter of the ’154 patent,
`
`03869-00010/7857789.1
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00919
`Paper No. 1
`
`the POSA would have (1) a Bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in computer
`
`science (or a related academic field) and (2) three to four years of additional
`
`experience in the field of computer security or (3) equivalent work experience in
`
`lieu of (1) and (2). (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 19-23.)
`
`IX. THE PETITIONED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER THE
`PRIOR ART
`
`As detailed in § X below, all limitations of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of the ’154
`
`patent are unpatentable.