`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00391
`Patent 7,647,633
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST .................................................................... i 
`
`I.
` 
`
`II.
` 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Facts ................................................................................................................. 2 
`
`A.
`
`  Overview of ‘633 Patent ....................................................................... 2 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`Overview of Hanson .............................................................................. 4 
`
`
`
`  Claims at Issue ................................................................................................. 8 III.
`
`IV.
`
`  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 8 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`“downloadable-information” (all challenged claims) ......................... 10 
`
`“information re-communicator” and “information monitor”
`(claims 2, 3, and 14) ............................................................................ 11 
`
`Petitioner Did Not Provide A Proper Obviousness Analysis ........................ 15 
`
`  Petitioner Has Waived Rebuttal to Arguments Presented in the
`Preliminary Response .................................................................................... 17 
`
`V.
`
` 
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`  The Board Should Accord Dr. Clark’s Declaration No Weight.................... 20 VII.
`
`
`
`  The Challenged Claims Are Patentable ......................................................... 22 VIII.
`
`A.
`
`  Hanson in View of Hypponen Fails to Render Obvious Claims
`1–4, 8, and 11-14 ................................................................................. 22 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Hanson in View of Hypponen Does Not Disclose
`“receiving[…] downloadable-information” .............................. 22 
`
`Hanson in View of Hypponen Does Not Disclose an
`“information re-communicator,” an “information
`monitor,” or “means for receiving downloadable-
`information” .............................................................................. 25 
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`Hanson Does Not Render Claim 14 Invalid as Unpatentable or
`Anticipated .......................................................................................... 26 
`
`1. 
`
`Hanson Does Not Disclose “causing mobile protection
`code to be executed by the mobile code executor at a
`downloadable-information destination such that one or
`more operations of the executable code at the destination,
`if attempted, will be processed by the mobile protection
`code” ......................................................................................... 26 
`
`a.  Petitioner’s Argument That Hanson Does Not
`Disclose Modifying the Executable Code is
`Conclusory and Unsubstantiated .............................. 26 
`
`b.  Hanson is Not Enabled ............................................. 29 
`
`c.  To the Extent That Hanson is Comprehensible,
`it Teaches Modifying the Executable Code ............. 30 
`
`2. 
`
`Hanson Does Not Disclose “providing a system, wherein
`the system comprises distinct software modules, and
`wherein the distinct software modules comprise an
`information re-communicator and a mobile code
`executor” ................................................................................... 34 
`
`IX.
`
`  Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 36 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`Commercial Success and Licensing .................................................... 39 
`
`Industry Praise ..................................................................................... 45 
`
`Long Felt Need and Recognition of a Problem ................................... 45 
`
`X.
`
` 
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 46 
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 22
`
`Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm'n,
`725 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB
`892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 30
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended–Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................. 38, 45, 46
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 40
`
`GrafTech Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. Laird Techs., Inc.,
`652 Fed. Appx. 973 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 39
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 17, 36
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Kinetic Techs., Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Decision Denying Institution, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B.
`Sept. 23, 2014) .................................................................................................... 27
`
`In re Kumar,
`418 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 30
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 37, 38, 39
`
`Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc.,
`976 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 44
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 37
`
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.,
`707 F.2d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 46
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01974, Final Written Decision, Paper 49 (P.T.A.B. Mar.
`16, 2017) ............................................................................................................. 26
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 37, 38
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Rea,
`731 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 36
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 10
`
`to SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .................................................................................... 1, 22
`
`Trivascular, Inc., v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 18, 19
`
`TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00257, Decision on Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing,
`Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014) .................................................................... 16
`
`Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc., v. Emerachem Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2014-01558, Final Written Decision, Paper 59 (P.T.A.B. Jan.
`22, 2016) ............................................................................................................. 16
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 26
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(ii) .............................................................................................. 47
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) .......................................................................................... 17, 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 47
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ........................................................................................... 21, 28
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) ................................................................................................ 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ............................................................................................. 18, 19
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 at 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................... 8
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2001 Decision on Appeal, Ex Parte FINJAN, INC., Appeal 2016-
`004279, Reexamination Control No. 90/013,016, dated June 29,
`2016.
`
`Exhibit-2002 Final Written Decision, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case No. IPR2015-01974, Paper 49, filed March 16, 2017.
`
`Exhibit-2003 Decision – Partial Institution of Inter Partes Review – Palo Alto
`Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. IPR2015-01974, Paper 7,
`filed March 29, 2016.
`
`Exhibit-2004 U.S. Patent No. 5,983,348 (“Ji”).
`
`Exhibit-2005 Eva Chen “Poison Java” IEEE Spectrum (1999).
`
`Exhibit-2006
`
`Insik Shin, et al., “Java Bytecode Modification and Applet
`Security” (1998).
`
`Exhibit-2007 Declaration of James Hannah in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response, Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00391.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic.
`
`Exhibit-2008
`
`Exhibit-2009 JavaTM 2: The Complete Reference, Third Ed., 1999 (excerpts).
`
`Exhibit-2010 Just Java, 1996 (excerpts).
`
`Exhibit-2011 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Paul Clark.
`
`Exhibit-2012 Declaration of Phil Hartstein.
`(PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL)
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2013 Finjan Holdings, Inc. Form 8-K, dated September 24, 2014.
`
`Exhibit-2014 Finjan Holdings, Inc. Form 8-K, dated April 7, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2015 Finjan Holdings, Inc. Form 8-K, dated May 14, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2016 Finjan Holdings, Inc. Form 8-K, dated November 15, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2017 Finjan Holdings, Inc. Form 8-K, dated December 30, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2018 Finjan Holdings, Inc. Form 8-K, dated May 20, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2019 Finjan Holdings, Inc. Form 8-K, dated March 15, 2018
`
`Exhibit-2020 Gartner report – Magic Quadrant for Secure Email Gateways,
`dated July 2, 2013
`
`Exhibit-2021 Gartner report – Magic Quadrant for Secure Email Gateways,
`dated June 29, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2022 Gartner report – Magic Quadrant for Endpoint Protection
`Platforms, dated January 24, 2018
`
`Exhibit-2023  Proofpoint, Inc. Form 10-K, for fiscal year ended December 31,
`2014
`
`Exhibit-2024 Proofpoint, Inc. Form 10-K, for fiscal year ended December 31,
`2015
`
`Exhibit-2025 Press Release – Proofpoint Announces Fourth Quarter and Full
`Year 2015 Financial Results, dated January 28, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2026 Proposed Protective Order
`
`Exhibit-2027 RESERVED
`
`Exhibit-2028 RESERVED
`
`Exhibit-2029 RESERVED
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2030 Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04398 (N.D. Cal.),
`Appendix B (‘633 Patent Claim Chart) to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions,
`dated February 28, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2031 Websense, Inc. brochure - Triton APX (2015)
`
`Exhibit-2032 RESERVED
`
`Exhibit-2033 RESERVED
`
`Exhibit-2034 RESERVED
`
`Exhibit-2035 Websense, Inc. Revenue and Financial Data, available at
`http://www.hoovers.com/company-
`information/cs/revenuefinancial.websense_inc.89ee9262879a5b6
`5.html
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`On December 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc., (“Petitioner” or “Cisco”) filed
`
`a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–4, 8, and 11–14 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,647,633 (Ex. 1001, the “‘633 Patent”). Despite finding that Petitioner did not
`
`raise a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to claims 1–4, 8, or 11–13, the
`
`Board nevertheless instituted trial on all challenged claims pursuant to SAS Inst.,
`
`Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018). Patent Owner, Finjan, Inc., (“Patent
`
`Owner” or “Finjan”) respectfully submits that Petitioner’s proposed grounds fail
`
`because it has no evidence to supports its positions and its arguments are contrary
`
`to the plain language of the claims of the challenged claims..
`
`Petitioner lacks evidence to support its assertion that “Hanson describes and
`
`POSA would have understood that the security program is attached (tagged) to the
`
`data packets (executable code) as a separate object that does not modify the data
`
`packets (executable code).” See Ex. 1003 (“Clark Decl.”) at 64, n.5. In fact,
`
`Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Medvidovic shows that even granting Dr. Clark’s
`
`baseless suppositions regarding what a POSITA would understand Hanson to
`
`teach, that POSITA would still understand Hanson’s technique to involve
`
`modifying the executable code.
`
`Additionally given Hanson’s architecture, which utilizes a revers proxy
`
`server to protect servers that respond to access requests, Petitioner’s grounds fail
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`because Hanson does not disclose receiving downloadable-information or the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`claimed information re-communicator. A further result of Hanson’s disclosed
`
`architecture is that Hanson fails disclose providing a system including an
`
`information re-communicator and a mobile code executor.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, and those that follow, the patentability of claims
`
`1–4, 8, and 11–14 should be affirmed.
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTS
`
`A.
`
` Overview of ‘633 Patent
`
`The ’633 Patent claims priority to a number of patents and patent
`
`applications, including U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/205,591 and
`
`U.S. Patents Nos.7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”), 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”),
`
`6,092,194 (Ex. 1013, “the ‘194 Patent”), 6,480,962 (“the ‘962 Patent”), and
`
`6,167,520 with an earliest claimed priority date of January 29, 1997. See ‘633
`
`Patent at 1:7-25.
`
`The ‘633 Patent describes systems and methods for protecting against
`
`malicious executable code. ‘633 Patent at Abstract. In particular, for the
`
`challenged claims, the ‘633 Patent describes a network “re-communicator” that
`
`receives downloadable-information that includes executable code (i.e., is a
`
`“Downloadable”). Id. at 2:39–44. The re-communicator causes mobile protection
`
`code (“MPC”) and the downloadable-information with executable code to be
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`transferred to the destination, without modifying the executable code. Id. at 2:66–
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`3:4, 4:11-16, 10:39-45.
`
`As noted in the Background of the Invention Section, the invention disclosed
`
`and claimed in the ‘633 Patent distinguishes itself over the prior art because the
`
`prior art modifies executable code while the ‘633 Patent does not modify
`
`executable code:
`
`To make matters worse, certain classes of viruses are not well
`recognized or understood, let alone protected against. It is observed by
`this inventor, for example, that Downloadable information comprising
`program code can include distributable components (e.g. Java™
`applets and JavaScript scripts, ActiveX™ controls, Visual Basic, add-
`ins and/or others). It can also include, for example, application
`programs, Trojan horses, multiple compressed programs such as zip
`or meta files, among others. U.S. Pat. No. 5,983,348 to Shuang,
`however, teaches a protection system for protecting against only
`distributable components
`including “Java applets or ActiveX
`controls”, and further does so using resource intensive and high
`bandwidth static Downloadable content and operational analysis, and
`modification of the Downloadable component; Shuang further fails to
`detect or protect against additional program code included within a
`tested Downloadable.
`
`Id. at 1:58–2:6.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`B.
`
` Overview of Hanson
`
`Hanson discloses a “Reverse Proxy Server.” Ex. 1004 (“Hanson”) at Title.
`
`“Proxy servers act as relay stations between an internal network and the Internet
`
`for communication requests initiated inside the company’s network….” Id. at 4.
`
`Proxy servers trust all internal computers. Id. But because “[c]omputers on the
`
`Internet at large cannot be trusted without elaborate authentication and
`
`encryption… [t]his poses a major problem to companies on the Internet which,
`
`selectively, want to share internal company resources on the Internet.” Id.; Ex.
`
`2008 (“Medvidovic Decl.”), ¶ 57.
`
`Hanson’s proposed solution to this problem was to provide a reverse proxy
`
`server “for securely accessing servers over an internetwork.” Id. at 5. As Dr.
`
`Clark stated in his deposition, “[a] proxy performs operations on behalf of a
`
`requester, and generally one thinks of proxy servers as servicing clients, but when
`
`they service servers or used access servers, then generally you refer to that as a
`
`reverse proxy.” Ex. 2011 (“Clark Tr.”) at 48:22–49:4. Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 58.
`
`The architecture of Hanson’s reverse proxy server, also referred to as a
`
`bastion server, is illustrated in FIG. 2, reproduced below:
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`Hanson at 18; see also Clark Tr. at 11:1–4 (Q. And what is a bastion host designed
`
`to do? A. Protect and enforce the security policy of the domain.”). Medvidovic
`
`
`
`Decl., ¶ 59.
`
`FIG. 2 illustrates a network that includes client 15, firewall 22, which
`
`protects servers 20, and bastion server 18. Hanson at 6. In order for the client to
`
`request resources from servers 20, “the client receives the server name from the
`
`company under confidence prior to execution of any transactions.” Id. at 7. The
`
`client supplies that server name to a DNS server, which “returns the directly
`
`referenced IP address.” Id. The client then sends a data packet, including the
`
`server name, to the IP address, which is actually the IP address for the bastion. Id.
`
`at 8. The bastion then “determines whether a match exists between the server
`
`name and an internal address located in [its] internal address file.” Id. If there is
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`no match, the data packet is discarded, but if there is a match, “the received packet
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`is checked against rules contained within [a] rules file.” Id. If the data packet
`
`passes the rule checks, it is delivered to the server. Id. This procedure is
`
`illustrated in FIG. 4.
`
`Hanson at 20; Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 60.
`
`Once the connection is established, the server can send a reply to the client’s
`
`
`
`request:
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`
`
`Hanson at 21; Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 61.
`
`Hanson is therefore concerned with protecting servers from requests for
`
`resources issued by computers on the Internet. This technique stands in stark
`
`contrast to the ‘633 Patent, which discusses computers or re-communicators that
`
`analyze downloadable-information and use mobile protection code to protect
`
`computers “from undesirable or otherwise malicious operations of…
`
`‘Downloadables’ or ‘mobile code.’” Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 62 (quoting ‘633 Patent
`
`at Abstract).
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

` CLAIMS AT ISSUE
`III.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`This inter partes review proceeding involves claims 1–4, 8, and 11–14 of the
`
`‘633 Patent, of which claims 1, 8, 13, and 14 are independent. Claim 14 is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`14. A computer program product, comprising a computer usable
`medium having a computer readable program code therein, the
`computer readable program code adapted to be executed for computer
`security, the method comprising:
`
`providing a system, wherein the system comprises distinct
`
`software modules, and wherein the distinct software modules
`comprise an information re-communicator and a mobile code
`executor;
`
`receiving, at the information re-communicator, downloadable-
`
`information including executable code; and
`
`causing mobile protection code to be executed by the mobile
`
`code executor at a downloadable-information destination such that
`one or more operations of the executable code at the destination, if
`attempted, will be processed by the mobile protection code.
`
`IV.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review proceeding, claims are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756 at 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012); see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`793 F.3d 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We conclude that Congress implicitly
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA.”).
`
`In its Institution Decision, the Board construed a number of claim terms as
`
`shown below:
`
`Term
`
`Construction (structure for means-plus-function claims)
`
`means for receiving
`downloadable-
`information
`means for
`determining whether
`the downloadable-
`information includes
`executable code
`means for causing
`mobile code to be
`communicated to at
`least one
`information-
`destination of the
`downloadable-
`information, if the
`downloadable-
`information is
`determined to
`include executable
`code
`
`“determining
`whether the
`downloadable-
`information includes
`executable code”
`“executable code”
`
`re-communicating device, such as a server or firewall
`
`Protection engine (Fig 3) in a re-communicating device,
`such as a server or firewall; or
`
`Detection engine (Fig. 4) within a protection engine in a
`recommunicating device, such as a server or firewall ”
`Protection engine (Fig 3) in a re-communicating device,
`such as a server or firewall; or
`
`Transfer engine (Fig. 4) within the protection engine in a
`re-communicating device, such as a server or firewall
`
`“distinguishing between two alternative possibilities:
`executable code is included in the downloadable-
`information, and executable code is not included in the
`downloadable-information”
`
`“the executable code whose operations are processed by the
`mobile protection code at the destination is the same as the
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`executable code received, i.e., it undergoes no
`modification”
`
`See Institution Decision at 9–10. Because the Board has made its decision
`
`regarding the claim construction positions, Patent Owner applies these
`
`constructions herein without waiving any rights. SAS Institute, Inc. v.
`
`Complementsoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that an
`
`agency may not change theories in midstream without giving reasonable notice of
`
`the change and the opportunity to present argument under the new theory)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`A.
`
`
`
`“downloadable-information” (all challenged claims)
`
`The term “downloadable-information” means “information which is
`
`downloaded from a source computer which may or may not include executable
`
`code.” See Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 45.
`
`As Petitioner notes, “[a] Downloadable is an executable application
`
`program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination
`
`computer.” Petition at 9 n.1 (citing Ex. 1007, p. 3, ll. 20-21). The ‘633 Patent
`
`further notes that a Downloadable is downloadable-information “found to include
`
`executable code”:
`
`Thus, for convenience, received information will also be referred to as
`a “potential-Downloadable”, and received information found to
`include executable code will be referred to as a “Downloadable” or
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`equivalently as a “detected-Downloadable” (regardless of whether the
`executable code
`includes one or more application programs,
`distributable “components” such as Java, ActiveX, add-in, etc.).
`
`‘633 Patent at 9:18-24; Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 46.
`
`This proposed construction is also fully consistent with the definition that
`
`Dr. Clark provided for this term during his deposition:
`
`Q. So how do you interpret the term “downloadable information”?
`
`A. As it says in paragraph 32 and as we discussed earlier, it explains
`that downloadable
`information
`includes data
`that can be
`downloaded and that may or may not include executable code.
`
`Q. What does the term “download” mean?
`
`A. Generally to retrieve something from a server.
`
`Clark Tr. at 44:20–45:6 (emphasis added); Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 47.
`
`Thus, according to Petitioner’s expert and Dr. Medvidovic, downloadable-
`
`information should be considered “information which is downloaded from a source
`
`computer which may or may not include executable code.”
`
`B.
`
`
`
`“information re-communicator” and “information monitor”
`(claims 2, 3, and 14)
`
`The term “information re-communicator” means “a computing device that
`
`receives downloadable-information from an external network and then sends it on
`
`to its destination.” Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 48.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`Aside from the correction that an information re-communicator in the case
`
`of the ‘633 Patent receives downloadable-information, this is the definition that
`
`Dr. Clark provided for this term during his deposition:
`
`Q. And how does the '633 Patent solve this problem?
`
`A. It describes a system which uses their terminology of a
`recommunicator to attach a mobile protection code module to the code
`if it's executable so that it can be safely run at a destination.
`
`Q. What does the term "recommunicator" mean in the context of the
`'633 Patent?
`
`MR. McPHERSON: Object to form of the question to the extent it
`calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`BY THE WITNESS:
`
`A. I understand from reading the patent that the recommunicator
`receives the downloadable from the external network and then sends
`it on to its destination.
`
`Clark Tr. at 13:3–19 (emphasis added).
`
`Dr. Clark’s definition is consistent with the way that the term “re-
`
`communicator” is used in the ‘633 Patent. For example, as described with respect
`
`to FIG. 1a, subsystems 104–106 are separated via external network 101 from
`
`resource servers 102–103. See ‘633 Patent at 5:63–6:26 and FIG. 1a. The resource
`
`servers “might provide one or more resources including web pages, streaming
`
`media, transaction-facilitating information, program updates or other downloadable
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`information….” Id. at 6:2–5. Subsystems 104–106, on the other hand, receive
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`downloadable information through the external network and provide protection
`
`“against potentially harmful or other undesirable (‘malicious’) effects in
`
`conjunction with receiving downloadable information.” Id. at 6:27–33;
`
`Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 49.
`
`Two specific examples of subsystems that receive downloadable information
`
`over an external network include are described with respect to FIGs. 1b and 1c,
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`
`
`These exemplary subsystems each includes re-communicator that receives and is
`
`“capable of transferring or otherwise ‘re-communicating’ downloadable
`
`information” received over an external network to user devices. ‘633 Patent at
`
`6:54–7:43; Medvidovic Decl., ¶¶ 50–51.
`
`The ‘633 Patent also demonstrates that an “information monitor” is “a
`
`component of an information re-communicator that monitors downloadable-
`
`information from an external network.” In particular, the ‘633 Patent states that an
`
`“information monitor” is part of a “protection engine” that “is operable within one
`
`or more network servers, firewalls or other network connectable information re-
`
`communicating devices”:
`
`A protection engine according to an embodiment of the invention is
`operable within one or more network servers, firewalls or other
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`network connectable information re-communicating devices (as are
`referred to herein summarily one or more “servers” or “re-
`communicators”). The protection engine includes an information
`monitor for monitoring information received by the server, and a code
`detection engine for determining whether the received information
`includes executable code.
`
`‘633 Patent at 2:58–66; Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 53.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER DID NOT PROVIDE A PROPER OBVIOUSNESS
`ANALYSIS
`
`On its face, the Petition alleges only obviousness grounds with respect to the
`
`challenged claims:
`
`
`
`Petition at 32. The Petition, however, includes no allegation that Hanson need be
`
`modified by any other reference, or modified using the knowledge of a POSITA, to
`
`reach claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent. See generally Petition at 73–80. This tactic
`
`appears calculated to (1) leave vague the weaknesses of its case and (2) relieve its
`
`burden to demonstrate anticipation. Such tactics are improper in an inter partes
`
`review, and are sufficient grounds for the Board to find that Petitioner has not met
`
`its burden to demonstrate the unpatentability of claim 14:
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2018-00391 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`Whenever a ground based on obviousness is involved, the preferred
`manner of setting out differences is to state “the subject matter of
`claim x differs from the reference in that (1) …, (2) …., and (n) ….”
`Vague statements or hints of differences not only burdens the Board,
`but puts a patent owner at somewhat of a disadvantage with having to
`guess what any differences a petitioner believes may exit [sic].
`Reluctance on the part of counsel to “admit” to and identify a
`difference is hard to understand, given the fact that a difference does
`not mean the subject matter claimed is non-obvious. Dann v.
`Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976) (mere existence of differences
`between the prior art and an invention does not establish the
`invention’s non-obviousness).
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Petitioner’s failure to clearly identify differences is not consistent
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) and 42.104(b)(5), as well as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(3), which require
`identifying
`the grounds “with
`particularity.” The Petition must specify where each element of a
`challenged claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`publications. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2).
`
`Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc., v. Emerachem Holdings, LLC, IPR2014-01558,
`
`Final Written Decision, Paper 59 at 40–41 a