Filed on behalf of Petitioner
`By:
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Kevin E. Paganini
`Bryan Cave LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PROOFPOINT, INC. AND
`ARMORIZE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.100 et seq.
`
`

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

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Construction of “transmitter” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8) ...........................11
`
`Construction of “receiver” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8)................................12
`
`VIII. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART & STATE OF THE ART .........13
`
`IX. THE PETITIONED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR ART ........13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Overview of Khazan............................................................................14
`
`Overview of Sirer ................................................................................16
`
`Overview of Ben-Natan ......................................................................17
`
`Khazan, Sirer, and Ben-Natan Are All Analogous Art.......................18
`
`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......................................................................................19
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Claim 1 preamble 1[a] ....................................................19
`
`Claim element 1[b] .........................................................19
`
`Claim element 1[c] .........................................................19
`
`Claim element 1[d] .........................................................20
`
`Claim element 1[e] .........................................................27
`
`Claim element 1[f]..........................................................29
`
`Claim element 1[g] .........................................................30
`
`Claim element 1[h] .........................................................34
`
`Claim element 1[i]..........................................................36
`
`Claim element 1[j]..........................................................36
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2......................................................................................39
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Claim element 2[a] .........................................................39
`
`Claim element 2[b] .........................................................40
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 3......................................................................................40
`
`Claim 4......................................................................................41
`
`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]..........................................................44
`
`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.
`
`Claim 6 preamble 6[a] ....................................................46
`
`Claim element 6[b] .........................................................46
`
`Claim element 6[c] .........................................................46
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Claim element 6[d] .........................................................47
`
`Claim element 6[e] .........................................................47
`
`Claim element 6[f]..........................................................47
`
`Claim element 6[g] .........................................................51
`
`Claim element 6[h] .........................................................51
`
`Claim element 6[i]..........................................................51
`
`Claim element 6[j]..........................................................53
`
`2.
`
`Claim 7......................................................................................54
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Claim preamble 7[a] .......................................................54
`
`Claim element 7[b] .........................................................54
`
`Claim element 7[c] .........................................................54
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 8......................................................................................55
`
`Claim 10....................................................................................55
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`Claim 10 preamble 10[a] ................................................55
`
`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]........................................................58
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`k.
`
`Claim element 10[k] .......................................................59
`
`5.
`
`Claim 11....................................................................................59
`
`C.
`
`No Secondary Considerations .............................................................60
`
`XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................60
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit
`Description of Document
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (“the ‘154 patent”)
`1002 Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`1003 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0108562 (“Khazan”)
`Emin Gün Sirer, et al., “Design and Implementation of a Distributed Vir-
`1004
`tual Machine for Networked Computers” (Dec. 5, 1999) (“Sirer”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,437,362 (“Ben-Natan”)
`1006
`File History of United States Patent No. 8,141,154
`1007
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Aviel Rubin
`1008 Declaration of Emin Gün Sirer
`1009 U.S. Patent No. 5,983,348 (“Ji”)
`1010 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0005889 (“Albrecht”)
`1011 Ajay Chander, et al., “Mobile Code Security by Java Bytecode Instru-
`mentation” (June 12-14, 2001) (“Chander”)
`1012 Galen Hunt, et al., “Detours: Binary Interception of Win32 Functions”
`(July 1999) (“Hunt”)
`1013 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Ed. (2002)
`1014
`3Com, “3C90x and 3C90xB NICs Technical Reference” (Aug. 1998)
`1015 David E. Evans, “Policy-Directed Code Safety” (Oct. 19, 1999) (“Ev-
`ans”)
`1016 David K. Gifford, “Weighted Voting for Replicated Data” (1979)
`(“Gifford”)
`1017 Andrew D. Birrell, et al., “Grapevine: An Exercise in Distributed Com-
`puting” (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”)
`1021 U.S. Patent No. 7,207,065 (“Chess”)
`1022
`Sun Microsystems, “Sun ONE Portal Server 3.0 Rewriter Configuration
`and Management Guide” (Sept. 13, 2002)
`1023 Algis Rudys & Dan S. Wallach, “Enforcing Java Run-Time Properties
`Using Bytecode Rewriting” (2002) (“Rudys”)
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1018
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`List of Exhibits
`
`1026
`
`1024 U.S. Patent No. 6,324,685 (“Balassanian”)
`John Lewis, et al., “Java Software Solutions, Foundations of Program
`1025
`Design” (1998) (“Lewis”)
`Larry L. Peterson, et al., “Computer Networks, A Systems Approach”
`(“Peterson”)
`1027 Waldemar Horwat, “JavaScript 2.0: Evolving a Language for Evolving
`Systems” (2001) (“Horwat”)
`1028 Daniel A. Reed, et al., “Scalable Performance Analysis: The Pablo Per-
`formance Analysis Environment” (1993) (“Reed”)
`1029 Que Corporation, “C Programming Guide 2nd Edition” (1985)
`1030 Herbert Schildt, “C++ from the Ground Up” (1994) (“Schildt”)
`1031 Virus Bulletin (Nov. 1991)
`1032 Dmitry O. Gryaznov, “Scanners of the Year 2000: Heuristics” (Sept.
`1995)
`R. Srinivasan, Request for Comments: 1831, ROC: Remote Procedure
`Call Protocol Specification, Version 2, (August 1995)
`1034 Dan Raywood, Press Release - M86 Security completes acquisition of
`Finjan (Nov. 3, 2009)
`1035 Gerard Le Lann, “Distributed Systems – Towards a Formal Approach,”
`Information Processing (1977)
`1036 Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis as filed in IPR2015-01547
`1037
`CV of Sylvia Hall-Ellis as filed in IPR2015-01547
`1038 ACM Digital Library Portal database as filed in IPR2015-01547
`1039 MARC record OCLC record number 875003574 as filed in IPR2015-
`01547
`Emin Gün Sirer, et al., “Design and Implementation of a Distributed Vir-
`tual Machine for Networked Computers” (Dec. 5, 1999) (“Sirer”) as filed
`in IPR2015-01547
`
`1033
`
`1040
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) petitions for
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of
`
`claims 1-8, 10, and 11 (“the Petitioned Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (Ex.
`
`1001) (“the ‘154 patent”) based on the substantively identical grounds as instituted
`
`for the pending IPR2015-01979 proceeding. For the exact same reasons previous-
`
`ly considered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), Petitioner re-
`
`spectfully seeks to join IPR2015-01979. This Petition asserts substantively identi-
`
`cal arguments in connection with the grounds already instituted in IPR2015-01979;
`
`it does not add to or alter any argument that has already been considered by the
`
`Board, and this Petition does not seek to expand the grounds of unpatentability that
`
`the Board has already instituted. As explained below, there exists a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating unpatentability of at least
`
`one challenged claim. Because this Petition is filed along with a Motion for Join-
`
`der within one month of the institution of IPR2015-01979, it is timely and proper
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b).
`
`The ‘154 Patent was granted without consideration of a wide body of analo-
`
`gous prior art. For example, Khazan discloses a system for instrumenting and per-
`
`forming run-time analysis of code, including reviewing input variables of func-
`
`tions, to protect against malicious applications. Khazan largely teaches performing
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`those functions on a single client computer. And Sirer teaches how and why to dis-
`
`tribute 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 - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-ln-Interest - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner certifies that Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. are
`
`the real parties-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`B.
`The ‘154 patent has been asserted in Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 3-
`
`13-cv-05808 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 3-14-cv-
`
`04908 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec, No. 3-14-cv-02998 (N.D. Cal.); Fin-
`
`jan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., No. 5-14-cv-01353 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Web-
`
`sense, Inc., No. 5-13-cv-04398 (N.D. Cal.); and Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 3-
`
`14-cv-01197 (N.D. Cal.). Other than IPR2015-01979, the ‘154 patent has also
`
`been subject
`
`to inter partes review in IPR2015-01547, IPR2016-00151, and
`
`IPR2016-00919. IPR2015-01547 was not instituted. IPR2016-00151 was institut-
`
`ed on April 20, 2016 and IPR2016-00919 remains pending.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner appoints Joseph J. Richetti (Reg. No. 47,024) of Bryan Cave LLP
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`as lead counsel and Kevin Paganini (Reg. No. 66,286) of Bryan Cave LLP as back-
`
`up counsel.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information - 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via
`
`hand-delivery to Bryan Cave LLP, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
`
`10104. Petitioner consents to service by email at joe.richetti@bryancave.com,
`
`kevin.paganini@bryancave.com,
`
`IPR2016-00937@bryancave.com and PTAB-
`
`NY@bryancave.com.
`
`The Petition and Exhibits are being served by Federal Express overnight de-
`
`livery 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 in IPR2015-01979.
`
`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 - 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104 AND
`42.108
`
`A.
`
`Grounds for Standing - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘154 Patent is available for IPR and that Petition-
`
`er is not barred or estopped from challenging the patent claims on the grounds in
`
`this Petition because this Petition is filed within one month of institution of
`
`IPR2015-01979 along with a Motion for Joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.122(b).
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Statement
`of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of the ‘154 Patent claims 1-8, 10, and 11 based on
`
`the substantively identical grounds as instituted for the pending IPR2015-01979
`
`proceeding, and requests that the Board cancel those claims as 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 Operat-
`
`ing 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 rejec-
`
`tion is set forth in the Declaration of Aviel Rubin (Ex. 1002) (“Rubin Decl.”), an
`
`expert in the field.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`Ground ‘154 patent
`Claims
`1-5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`6-8, 10, and
`11
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`Obvious over Khazan in view of Sirer under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a).
`Obvious over Khazan in view of Sirer and further in
`view of Ben-Natan under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`C.
`
`Status of the Cited References as Prior Art
`
`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 was presented at the ACM’s Symposium on Operating Systems Princi-
`
`ples in December 1999 and was available to the public for purchase from ACM for
`
`five dollars. See, Sirer, p. 1. The article’s author confirms publication of Sirer prior
`
`to December 12, 2005. (See Ex. 1008). Further, a declaration by Dr. Sylvia Hall-
`
`Ellis, which was filed in IPR2015-01547 (provided as Ex. 1036), together with cer-
`
`tain evidence discussed therein (provided as Exs. 1038, 1039, 1040, and 1037), al-
`
`so demonstrates that Sirer was available to the public as of February 7, 2000.
`
`Moreover, citations to Sirer in prior-art patents is additional evidence of Sirer’s
`
`public availability before December 12, 2005. (Ex. 1024 at 2.) Accordingly, Sirer
`
`is a printed publication that was publicly available more than one year before the
`
`December 12, 2005 earliest priority date for the ‘154 patent and, therefore, Sirer is
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`prior art to the ‘154 patent under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Ben-Natan is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on No-
`
`vember 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 re-
`
`spect to each of the claims challenged. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ‘154 PATENT
`
`To protect against viruses and other malicious code (typically developed by
`
`hackers), downloaded code can be checked before it is executed at a gateway or
`
`proxy server for potentially dangerous functions (“static analysis”). (Ex. 1001 at
`
`FIG. 1; 1:43-53, 2:31-45, 2:54-4:26.) Static analysis was well-known at least as
`
`early as 1999. (Id.; Ex. 1004 at 4.) Because the run-time values of variables that are
`
`input to functions are unknown during static analysis, a common technique to
`
`check potentially dangerous functions is to “wrap” the function (original function)
`
`with a wrapper function (substitute function). (Ex. 1001 at 4:9-14, 4:55-60; Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶¶ 40-53; Ex. 1009 at 4:66-5:8, 5:47-6:36; Ex. 1011 at 4.) The process of
`
`generating a wrapper function is often called “instrumentation.” (Ex. 1003 at
`
`[0073]; Ex. 1009 at 4:66-5:8, 5:47-6:36; Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 40-53.) The wrapper func-
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`tion 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 serv-
`
`ers was also well-known. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 54-56; Ex. 1004 at Abstract.) More spe-
`
`cifically, 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 dy-
`
`namic 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, distrib-
`
`uting security to a centralized server allows easy administration of a common secu-
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`rity profile across many client computers. (Id.) Third, checking the potentially ma-
`
`licious code on a separate computer from the one being protected 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 mali-
`
`cious 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 de-
`
`termine if executing the original function with the input violates a security policy.
`
`As discussed above, wrapper functions that analyze run-time values were well
`
`known at the time of filing. According to the ‘154 Patentee, known wrapper func-
`
`tions 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.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`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 speci-
`
`fication 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.) There-
`
`fore, 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). Spe-
`
`cific 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 pro-
`
`vides 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
`
`1 Interpretations of the claims in this IPR are not binding on Petitioner in litigation.
`
`In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`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 descrip-
`
`tion, 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 ex-
`
`ample: “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 Sub-
`
`stitute [f]unction()” and that “the input intended for the original function is also
`
`passed to the substitute function, along with the possible additional input denoted
`
`by ‘*’.” (Ex. 1001 at 9:25-28.) A POSA would recognize that the “substitute func-
`
`tion” 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 specifi-
`
`cation, 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,
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`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 specifi-
`
`cation 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 speci-
`
`fication is a function that is wrapped by a wrapper function. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 61,
`
`28.) Given the matching disclosure in the specification to the functionality recited
`
`in the claims, the BRI of “second function” is “original function.”
`
`To summarize, the “original function” is the “second function” while the
`
`“substitute function” is the “first function” (commonly called a wrapper function).
`
`D.
`
`Construction of “transmitter” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8)
`
`The BRI of “transmitter” is “a circuit or electronic device designed to send
`
`electrically encoded data to another location.” That definition, from the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary, is consistent with the specification as well as the understand-
`
`ing 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.”
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`(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 communica-
`
`tion 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 communi-
`
`cation protocols. (Ex. 1002 at ¶ 105.) A POSA would understand that a generic
`
`functional component described as a “transmitter” would be a circuit or electronic
`
`device designed to send electrically encoded data to another computer. (Id. at ¶
`
`28.) Therefore, the BRI of “transmitter” is “circuit or electronic device designed to
`
`send electrically encoded data to another location.”
`
`E.
`
`Construction of “receiver” (Claims 1-3 and 6-8)
`
`The BRI of “receiver” is “a circuit or electronic device designed to accept
`
`data from an external communication system.” That definition, derived from the
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary definition of “receive”, comports with the specifi-
`
`cation 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 vari-
`
`able] 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
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`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 de-
`
`scription 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 per-
`
`son of ordinary creativity. With respect to the subject matter of the ‘154 patent, 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 §