Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`Filed on behalf of Symantec Corporation
`By:
`Joseph J. Richetti
`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
`
`SYMANTEC CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) .........................................1
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))................................2
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)).................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ...............................................2
`
`Priority Date of the ‘844 Patent.............................................................3
`
`The Specific Art on Which the Challenge Is Based..............................6
`
`The Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based....................8
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘844 PATENT ............................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Specification...................................................................................8
`
`The Challenged Claims .......................................................................11
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL..................................................................13
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Means for Receiving”........................................................................14
`
`“Means for Generating” ......................................................................15
`
`“Means for Linking” ...........................................................................16
`
`VII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY........................................................17
`
`A.
`
`Ground 1: Dan Renders Obvious Claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and
`43 .........................................................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`Dan renders obvious independent claims 1, 15, 41, and 43 .....19
`
`a. Dan teaches a method (1[Pre]); an inspector system
`(15[Pre], 43[Pre]); and a computer-readable storage
`medium (41[Pre])..............................................................19
`
`b. Dan teaches a [means for] receiving [by an inspector]
`a Downloadable (1[A], 41[A], 43[A])..............................20
`
`i
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`c. Dan teaches a [means for] generating [by the
`inspector] a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in a Downloadable (1[C],
`41[C], 43[C]) ....................................................................22
`
`d. Dan teaches a memory storing a rule set (15[B]); and a
`content inspection engine for using the rule set to
`generate a DSP that identifies suspicious code in a
`Downloadable (15[C])......................................................25
`
`e. Dan teaches [a first content inspection engine/means
`for] linking [by the inspector] the first DSP to the
`Downloadable before a web server makes the
`Downloadable available to web clients (1[D], 15[D],
`41[D], 43[D])....................................................................26
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Dan renders obvious dependent claim 7...................................28
`
`Dan renders obvious dependent claim 11.................................28
`
`Dan renders obvious dependent claim 16.................................29
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: Apperson in view of Ji and further in view of Cline
`Renders Obvious Claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43.........................30
`
`1.
`
`Apperson in view of Ji and Cline renders obvious
`independent claims 1, 15, 41, and 43........................................31
`
`a. Apperson in view of Ji and Cline teaches a method
`(1[Pre]); an inspector system (15[Pre], 43[Pre]); and a
`computer-readable storage medium (41[Pre])..................31
`
`b. Apperson in view of Ji and Cline teaches receiving a
`Downloadable (1[A], 41[A], 43[A]).................................32
`
`c. Apperson in view of Ji and Cline teaches [a means for]
`generating [by the inspector] a DSP that identifies
`suspicious code in a Downloadable (1[C], 41[C],
`43[C])................................................................................36
`
`d. Apperson in view of Ji and Cline teaches memory
`storing a rule set (15[B]); and a content inspection
`
`ii
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`engine for using the first rule set to generate a DSP
`(15[C]) ..............................................................................41
`
`e. Apperson in view of Ji and Cline teaches linking the
`DSP to the Downloadable before a web server makes
`it available to web clients (1[D], 15[D], 41[D], 43[D]) ..43
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Apperson in view of Ji and Cline renders obvious claim 7 ......45
`
`Apperson in view of Ji and Cline renders obvious claim 11 ....45
`
`Apperson in view of Ji and Cline renders obvious claim 16 ....46
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: Anand in view of Cline Renders Obvious Claims 1, 7,
`11, 15, 16, 41, and 43 ..........................................................................47
`
`1.
`
`Anand in view of Cline renders obvious independent claims
`1, 15, 41, and 43........................................................................48
`
`a. Anand in view of Cline teaches a method (1[Pre]); an
`inspector system (15[Pre], 43[Pre]); and a computer-
`readable storage medium on an inspector (41[Pre]).........48
`
`b. Anand in view of Cline teaches a [means for]
`receiving [by an inspector] a Downloadable (1[A],
`15[A], 41[A], 43[A]) ........................................................50
`
`c. Anand in view of Cline teaches a generating a DSP
`that identifies suspicious code in a Downloadable
`(1[C], 41[C], 43[C])..........................................................52
`
`d. Anand in view of Cline teaches a memory storing a
`rule set (15[B]); and a content inspection engine for
`using the rule set to generate a DSP (15[C]) ....................55
`
`e. Anand in view of Cline teaches linking the DSP to the
`Downloadable before a web server makes the
`Downloadable available to web clients (1[D], 15[D],
`41[D], 43[D])....................................................................56
`
`Anand in view of Cline renders obvious dependent claim 7....58
`
`Anand in view of Cline renders obvious dependent claim 11..59
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`iii
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`4.
`
`Anand in view of Cline renders obvious dependent claim 16..59
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................60
`
`iv
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed, Cir. 2004) .....................................................................14
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................13
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02998-RS (N.D. CA)..........................................................1
`
`Holmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................4
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................4
`
`Ledergerber Med. Innovations, LLC v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.,
`736 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (N.D. Ill. 2010).............................................................5
`
`Nintendo of America Inc., et al. v. iLife Technologies, IPR2015-00106, paper 12,
`16 (PTAB April 29, 2015)...............................................................................6
`
`Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00323 (PTAB Jun. 4, 2013) .........................................................5, 6
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .....................................................................15
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102......................................................................................................2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) .....................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .....................................................................................................7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .................................................................................................6, 7
`
`v
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103..................................................................................................2, 3, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119(e) .....................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) .......................................................................................14, 15, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120..........................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a).....................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .........................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ..............................................................................................14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).................................................................................................2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................2
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2182 ................................................................................................passim
`
`vi
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 to Touboul et al.
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/030,639 filed on
`November 8, 1996 (“the ‘639 provisional”)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 08/964,388 filed on November 6,
`1997 (“the ‘194 patent”)
`U.S. Patent Application No. 08/790,097 filed on January 29,
`1997 (“the ‘520 patent”)
`Excerpts from the ‘844 Patent Prosecution History
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,877 to Asit Dan et al. (“Dan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,978,484 to Norman Apperson et al. (“Ap-
`person”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,313,616 to David C. Cline et al. (“Cline”)
`U.S. Patent Application 5,623,600 to Shuang Ji et al. (“Ji”)
`A Flexible Security Model for Using Internet Content, by
`Rangachari Anand et al., IEEE Computer Society Sixteenth
`Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, October 1997
`(“Anand”)
`Declaration by Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis
`Xplore Digital Library Database printout (Anand)
`MARC record OCLC record number 757671713 (Anand)
`Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement, Dkt. No.
`68, Case No. 3:14cv2998
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt.
`No. 72, Case No. 3:14cv2998
`Declaration of Jack Davidson in Support of Petition
`Curriculum Vitae of Jack Davidson
`U.S. Patent No. 5,892,904 to Atkinson et al. (“Atkinson”)
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit No.
`Symantec 1001
`Symantec 1002
`
`Symantec 1003
`
`Symantec 1004
`
`Symantec 1005
`Symantec 1006
`Symantec 1007
`
`Symantec 1008
`Symantec 1009
`Symantec 1010
`
`Symantec 1011
`Symantec 1012
`Symantec 1013
`Symantec 1014
`Symantec 1015
`
`Symantec 1016
`
`Symantec 1017
`Symantec 1018
`Symantec 1019
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`Exhibit No.
`Symantec 1020
`
`Symantec 1021
`
`Description
`Scott and Davidson, “Safe Virtual Execution Using Software
`Dynamic Translation”, 2002
`Efficient Software-Based Fault Isolation, by Robert Wahbe et
`al., ACM SIGOPS (Special Interest Group on Operating Sys-
`tems) Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Decem-
`ber 1993
`
`viii
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`Symantec Corporation (“Petitioner” or “Symantec”) petitions the United
`
`States Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) to institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,154,844 to Touboul et al. (“the ‘844 patent”). According to PTO records, the
`
`‘844 patent is assigned to Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan” or “Patent Owner”). A copy of the
`
`‘844 patent is provided as Symantec Exhibit 1001.
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: The real party-in-interest of Petitioner is Sy-
`
`mantec Corporation.
`
`RELATED MATTERS: The ‘844 patent is currently involved in the follow-
`
`ing proceeding: Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-02998-RS (N.D.
`
`CA). Concurrent with the instant petition, Petitioner is filing petitions requesting
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent Nos.: 7,613,926 and 8,677,494, which are also
`
`involved in the foregoing proceeding. Petitioner previously filed petitions request-
`
`ing inter partes review of five other patents involved in the foregoing proceeding,
`
`namely: U.S. Patent Nos.: 8,141,154; 8,015,182; 7,930,299; 7,757,289; and
`
`7,756,996, all of which are pending before the PTO.
`
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Reg. No. 47,024
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`
`Backup Counsel
`Daniel A. Crowe
`Reg. No. 39,644
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-1092
`Fax:
`(212) 541-4630
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`One Metropolitan Square
`211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
`St. Louis, MO 63102
`General Tel: (314) 259-2000
`Fax:
`(314) 259-2020
`dacrowe@bryancave.com
`
`SERVICE INFORMATION: Service information for lead and back-up coun-
`
`sel is provided in the designation of lead and back-up counsel, above. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service by email at the email addresses provided above.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`The undersigned and Symantec certify that the ‘844 patent is available for
`
`inter partes review and Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an in-
`
`ter partes review of the challenged claims of the ‘844 patent. Petitioner has not
`
`filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ‘844 patent, and no
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the ‘844 patent was served on Petitioner more
`
`than a year before the date of this Petition. The ‘844 patent issued more than nine
`
`months prior to the date of this Petition.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner requests an Order cancelling the challenged claims as unpatenta-
`
`ble under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103.
`
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43
`
`of the ‘844 patent.
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`B. Priority Date of the ‘844 Patent
`
`The ‘844 patent issued from U.S. Application No. 08/995,648 filed on De-
`
`cember 22, 1997. Given that the ‘844 patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the
`
`provisions of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 apply.
`
`The ‘844 patent appears to claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Applica-
`
`tion No. 60/030,639 filed on November 8, 1996 (“the ‘639 provisional,” provided
`
`as Ex. 1002). ‘844 patent, title page, col. 1:5-19. Column 1 of the specification
`
`also refers to two other earlier applications, namely: U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`08/964,388 filed on November 6, 1997 (“the ‘194 patent,” provided as Ex. 1003)
`
`and U.S. Patent Application No. 08/790,097 filed on January 29, 1997 (“the ‘520
`
`patent,” provided as Ex. 1004). The challenged claims, however, are not entitled
`
`to earlier priority based on any of these earlier applications.
`
`First, the ‘639 provisional is the only application listed on the title page of
`
`‘844 patent. Likewise, column 1 of the specification includes a direct claim of
`
`benefit to the ‘639 provisional. ‘844 patent, col. 1:5-19. Significantly, however,
`
`the ‘639 provisional was filed more than one year before the December 22, 1997
`
`filing date of the ‘844 patent. Accordingly, the ‘639 provisional expired prior to
`
`the filing of the ‘844 patent and, therefore, this priority claim is improper.
`
`Second, although the specification refers to the ‘194 and ‘520 patents, the
`
`‘844 patent does not claim priority to either of these two patents. As explained
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`above, neither of these patents are listed on the title page of the ‘844 patent. Like-
`
`wise, the specification does not indicate that it is claiming the benefit of the ‘194 or
`
`‘520 patents. Moreover, in 2003, more than two years after the ‘844 patent issued,
`
`Patent Owner submitted a Petition to Amend the Priority Claims of the ‘844 patent
`
`(provided as Ex. 1005, p. 1). In particular, Patent Owner requested that the title
`
`page and column 1 be amended to remove the references to the ‘639 provisional
`
`and add references to and claim priority to the ‘194 and ‘520 patents. Id. Patent
`
`Owner’s petition was never ruled upon by the PTO. In fact, the ‘844 patent was
`
`filed in 1997 and, therefore, this petition was improper. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.78(a)
`
`(stating that such petitions are only available for applications filed on or after No-
`
`vember 29, 2000). Thus, as acknowledged by Patent Owner, the ‘844 patent does
`
`not include a proper priority claim to these earlier applications.
`
`Third, even assuming for the sake of argument that the ‘844 patent did in-
`
`clude a priority claim to the ‘194 and ‘520 patents and the ‘639 provisional, the
`
`challenged claims would still not be entitled to the benefit of earlier priority based
`
`on any of these applications. The Federal Circuit has made clear that, in order to
`
`be entitled to such earlier priority, each application in a priority chain must include
`
`sufficient written description support to satisfy the requirements of Section 112.
`
`Holmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351, 1357-1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Hyatt v. Boone, 146
`
`F.3d 1348, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) and 120.
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`Here, each of the challenged claims in the ‘844 patent require “linking the
`
`first Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before the Downloadable
`
`is made available to web clients by a web server.” Importantly, this claimed “link-
`
`ing” feature is not described whatsoever in any of the three earlier applications.
`
`Davidson Decl., ¶ 3. In particular, all three of these earlier applications lack any of
`
`the relevant disclosure in the ‘844 patent that appears to correspond to this “link-
`
`ing” feature. Id., ¶ 3; ‘844 patent, col. 6:13-24; see also Ledergerber Med. Innova-
`
`tions, LLC v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 736 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1179 (N.D. Ill.
`
`2010) (explaining that the material disclosed in the base patent corresponding to
`
`the claim feature is the material that must be disclosed in the earlier applications).
`
`This is not surprising given that the specifications of the ‘194 and ‘520 patents and
`
`‘639 provisional are entirely different from the ‘844 patent. See, e.g., Polaris
`
`Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., IPR2013-00323, Paper 9, 29 (PTAB Jun. 4,
`
`2013) (explaining that there is no presumption of earlier priority where the specifi-
`
`cations of the earlier applications are not the same). Thus, these earlier applica-
`
`tions lack the continued disclosure required for a proper priority claim.
`
`Accordingly, for at least these reasons, the challenged claims are not entitled
`
`to earlier priority based on any of these three earlier applications and, therefore, the
`
`effective filing date and earliest possible priority date of these challenged claims is
`
`the filing date of the ‘844 patent, i.e., December 22, 1997. Importantly, it is Patent
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`Owner who bears the ultimate burden of proving that each of these applications in-
`
`cludes sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. See, e.g.,
`
`Nintendo of America Inc., et al. v. iLife Technologies, IPR2015-00106, paper 12,
`
`16 (PTAB April 29, 2015) (“Patent Owner must come forward with evidence and
`
`argument—either in its Preliminary Response or, if trial is instituted, in its Re-
`
`sponse—showing why the challenged claim is supported by the written description
`
`of the priority application.”); Polaris Wireless, IPR2013-00323, Paper 9, 29.
`
`C. The Specific Art on Which the Challenge Is Based
`
`Each of the references cited in this Petition is prior art to the ‘844 patent,
`
`which has an effective filing date and earliest possible priority date of December
`
`22, 1997. The cited references are as follows
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,825,877 to Asit Dan et al. (“Dan,” provided as Ex.
`
`1006) issued on October 20, 1998. Dan was filed on June 11, 1996, which is be-
`
`fore the December 22, 1997 effective filing date for the ‘844 patent. Accordingly,
`
`Dan is prior art to the ‘844 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,978,484 to Norman Apperson et al. (“Apperson,”
`
`provided as Ex. 1007) issued on November 2, 1999. Apperson was filed on April
`
`25, 1996, which is before the December 22, 1997 effective filing date for the ‘844
`
`patent. Accordingly, Apperson is prior art to the ‘844 patent under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,313,616 to David C. Cline et al. (“Cline,” provided
`
`as Ex. 1008) issued on May 17, 1994, which is more than one year before the De-
`
`cember 22, 1996 earliest possible priority date for the ‘844 patent. Accordingly,
`
`Cline is prior art to the ‘844 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent Application 5,623,600 to Shuang Ji et al. (“Ji,” provided
`
`as Ex. 1009) issued on April 22, 1997. Ji was filed on September 26, 1995, which
`
`is before the December 22, 1997 effective filing date for the ‘844 patent. Accord-
`
`ingly, Ji is prior art to the ‘844 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).1
`
`5.
`
`A Flexible Security Model for Using Internet Content, by Rangachari
`
`Anand et al., IEEE Computer Society Sixteenth Symposium on Reliable Distribut-
`
`ed Systems, October 1997 (“Anand,” provided as Ex. 1010). Anand was presented
`
`at the IEEE Computer Society Sixteenth Symposium on Reliable Distributed Sys-
`
`tems held October 22-24 in Durham, NC. Moreover, a declaration by Dr. Sylvia
`
`Hall-Ellis (provided as Exs. 1011 and 1012), together with certain evidence dis-
`
`cussed therein (Exs. 1013 and 1014), demonstrates that Anand was available to the
`
`public as of November 20, 1997. Ex. 1011 at ¶ 15-17. Thus, Anand is a printed
`
`publication that was publicly available before the December 22, 1997 earliest pos-
`
`sible priority date of the ‘844 patent. Accordingly, Anand is prior art to the ‘844
`
`1 Moreover, Dan, Apperson, Cline and Ji each predate the filing date of the ‘639
`
`provisional.
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`D. The Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenge Is Based
`
`The Petition identifies the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Ground 1: Dan renders obvious claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43 under § 103.
`
`Ground 2: Apperson in view Ji and further in view of Cline renders obvious
`
`claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43 under § 103.
`
`Ground 3: Anand in view of Cline renders obvious claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41,
`
`and 43 under § 103.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘844 PATENT
`
`A. The Specification
`
`The ‘844 patent generally relates to the protection of computers from poten-
`
`tially hostile or suspicious application programs delivered over a network, which
`
`are referred to as “Downloadables.” ‘844 patent, Abstract, col. 1:23-59, col. 2:61-
`
`3:7. According to the ‘844 patent a “Downloadable is an executable application
`
`program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination
`
`computer.” ‘844 patent, col. 1:44-47. Some examples of Downloadables de-
`
`scribed in the specification include: distributed components, Java applets, JavaS-
`
`cript, ActiveX controls, and VisualBasic scripts. ‘844 patent, col. 1:49-65, Ab-
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`stract; see also Davidson Decl., ¶ 38-39, 75.2
`
`The ‘844 patent explains that a developer may develop or obtain an “unin-
`
`spected Downloadable” and provide it to an “inspector” for “hostility inspection.”
`
`‘844 patent, col. 3:53-4:2, col. 2:20-21, col. 8:47-48, FIGS. 1, 2. The inspector in-
`
`cludes a “content inspector engine 160 for examining a received Downloadable…
`
`for generating a Downloadable Security Profile (DSP) based on a rules base… and
`
`for attaching the DSP to the Downloadable.” Id., col. 3:65-4:4, col. 2:49-53, FIG.
`
`4. A Downloadable Security Profile (DSP), “preferably includes a list of all poten-
`
`tially hostile or suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the
`
`Downloadable.” Id., col. 4:4-6, col. 5:19-23, col. 8:49-58. Operations that may be
`
`deemed suspicious include: file operations (e.g., read, write), network operation
`
`(e.g., send, receive), registry operations (e.g., read, write), operating system opera-
`
`tions (e.g., thread or window calls), and “[r]esource usage thresholds: memory
`
`CPU, graphics, etc.” Id., col. 4:20-34; Davidson Decl., ¶ 76-77, 69-71.
`
`The ‘844 patent also explains that the DSP may be generated using a “rules
`
`base,” which “may include a list of operations and code patterns deemed suspi-
`
`cious, known hostile Downloadables, known viruses, etc.” ‘844 patent, col. 4:17-
`
`19, col. 8:51-58, col. 2:3-8. For example, this may involve “searching the Down-
`
`2 The Declaration of Dr. Jack Davidson is provided as Ex. 1017. Citations to Dr.
`
`Davidson’s Declaration are provided in the form: “Davidson Decl., ¶ #.”
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 18
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`loadable code for any pattern, which is undesirable or suggests that the code was
`
`written by a hacker.” ‘844 patent, col. 4:7-10. In other words, the DSP includes
`
`certain types of computer operations that have been identified (i.e., deemed poten-
`
`tially hostile) based on the rules. ‘844 patent, col. 8:58-60 (“if an operation in the
`
`Downloadable 205 matches one of the suspicious operations or violates one of the
`
`rules, then the operation is listed in the DSP 215.”); see also Davidson Decl., ¶ 78.
`
`After generating the DSP, “[t]he content inspection engine links the [DSP]
`
`to the Downloadable.” ‘844 patent, Abstract, col. 2:5-7. The ‘844 patent explains
`
`that “[t]he term ‘linking’ herein will be used to indicate an association between the
`
`Downloadable 205 and the DSP 215 (including using a pointer from the Down-
`
`loadable 195 to the DSP 215, attaching the DSP 215 to the Downloadable 205,
`
`etc.).” ‘844 patent, col. 6:13-24; id., col. 6:13-17 (one skilled in the art will recog-
`
`nize that the DSP can be linked to the Downloadable using other techniques.), col.
`
`8:65-67, col. 2:5-7, FIGS. 1, 2, 6; see also Davidson Decl., ¶ 79-80. 49-50.
`
`The ‘844 patent further explains that the “signed inspected Downloadable”
`
`may then be transmitted or provided “to the web server 185 for addition to web
`
`page data 190 and web page deployment.” ‘844 patent, col. 5:3-6, col. 9:11-16.
`
`For example, in response to a web client requesting the Downloadable, the web
`
`server may transmit the Downloadable to the client (e.g., via a network gateway).
`
`‘844 patent, col. 5:8-13, col. 9:16-18. As explained in the specification, “although
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 19
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`the developer 120, inspector 125, and web server 185 are being described as dis-
`
`tinct sites, one skilled in the art will recognize that these elements may be part of
`
`an integral site.” ‘844 patent, col. 3:47-52. The “signed inspected Downloadable”
`
`can be further inspected and verified by the network gateway and/or client and
`
`compared against local security policies, where it can be blocked or passed on.
`
`‘844 patent, col. 5:23-33, 8:6-16, col. 10:2-23; see also Davidson Decl., ¶ 81-82.
`
`Significantly, the ‘844 patent does not purport to disclose any new or im-
`
`proved mechanisms for receiving a Downloadable or generating a Downloadable
`
`security profile. Davidson Decl., ¶ 83. Likewise, the named inventors acknowl-
`
`edged that the techniques for deriving a list of suspicious operations in a Down-
`
`loadable (i.e., a DSP) were conventional at the time of the ‘844 patent. See, e.g.,
`
`‘639 provisional, p. 19, l. 16-20; ‘194 patent, col. 5:42-45; see also Davidson
`
`Decl., ¶ 84, 54-58. Thus, the alleged patentability of the challenged claims hinges
`
`on the fact that the DSP is “linked” to the Downloadable “before a web server
`
`makes the Downloadable available to web clients.” ‘844 patent, col. 2:61-3:7;
`
`‘844 Prosecution History, Amendment, May 16, 2000, p. 2, 5 (provided as Ex.
`
`1005, p. 4). This “linking” feature is not only simple and straightforward, but was
`
`also well-known before the ‘844 patent. Davidson Decl., ¶ 85, 48-50.
`
`B. The Challenged Claims
`
`The text of the four challenged independent claims (1, 15, 41 and 43) is re-
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 20
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`produced in the chart below. For ease of reference, labels have been assigned to
`
`each limitation, such as 1[P] which refers to the preamble of claim 1 and 43[D]
`
`which refers to the final element of claim 43. Other than the claim format (i.e.,
`
`system, method and computer-readable storage medium) and small variations in
`
`the claim language, independent claims 1, 15, 41, and 43 recite substantially simi-
`
`lar limitations. The only meaningful difference is that claim 15, which is directed
`
`to a system, further requires a “memory storing a first rule set,” which is used to
`
`generate the Downloadable security profile. Accordingly, where applicable,
`
`claims 1, 15, 41, and 43 are discussed together in the Petition.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 15
`
`Claim 41
`
`Claim 43
`
`[Pre] A method com-
`prising:
`
`An inspector sys-
`tem comprising:
`
`[A]
`
`[B]
`
`[C]
`
`receiving by an
`inspector a
`Downloadable;
`
`generating by the
`inspector a first
`Downloadable
`security profile
`that identifies
`
`memory storing
`a first rule set;
`and
`a first content in-
`spection engine
`for using the first
`rule set to gener-
`ate a first Down-
`
`12
`
`A computer-
`readable storage
`medium storing
`program code for
`causing a data
`processing sys-
`tem on an in-
`spector to per-
`form the steps of:
`receiving a
`Downloadable;
`
`An inspector sys-
`tem comprising:
`
`means for receiv-
`ing a Down-
`loadable;
`
`generating a first
`Downloadable
`security profile
`that identifies
`suspicious code
`
`means for gener-
`ating a first
`Downloadable
`security profile
`that identifies
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - Ex. 2012, p. 21
`
`

`

`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`[D]
`
`suspicious code
`in the received
`Downloadable;
`and
`
`linking by the
`inspector the first
`Downloadable
`security profile
`to the Down-
`loadable before a
`web server
`makes the
`Downloadable
`available to web
`clients.
`
`loadable security
`profile that iden-
`tifies suspicious
`code in a Down-
`loadable, and
`for linking the
`first Down-
`loadable security
`profile to the
`Downloadable
`before a web
`server makes the
`Downloadable
`available to web
`clients.
`
`in the received
`Downloadable;
`and
`
`linking the first
`Downloadable
`security profile
`to the Down-
`loadable before a
`web server
`makes the
`Downloadable
`available to web
`clients.
`
`suspicious code
`in the received
`Downloadable;
`and
`
`means for link-
`ing the first
`Downloadable
`security profile
`to the Down-
`loadable before a
`web server
`makes the
`Downloadable
`available to web
`clients.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY