edsymantec

Trials@uspto.
govPaper:58571-272-7822Entered:March15,2017UNITEDSTATESPATENTANDTRADEMARKOFFICEBEFORETHEPATENTTRIALANDAPPEALBOARDSYMANTECCORP.
andBLUECOATSYSTEMSLLC,Petitioner,v.
FINJAN,INC.
,PatentOwner.
CaseIPR2015-018921Patent8,677,494B2BeforeZHENYUYANG,CHARLESJ.
BOUDREAU,andSHEILAF.
McSHANE,AdministrativePatentJudges.
BOUDREAU,AdministrativePatentJudge.
FINALWRITTENDECISION35U.
S.
C.
§318(a)and37C.
F.
R.
§42.
731CaseIPR2016-00890hasbeenjoinedwiththeinstantproceeding.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B22I.
INTRODUCTIONSymantecCorp.
andBlueCoatSystems,Inc.
,nowknownasBlueCoatSystemsLLC,2(collectively,"Petitioner")filedpetitionsrequestinginterpartesreviewofclaims1,2,5,6,10,11,14,and15ofU.
S.
PatentNo.
8,677,494B2(Ex.
1001,"the'494patent").
Paper1("Petition"or"Pet.
");seealsoIPR2016-00890,Paper2.
BasedontheinformationprovidedinthePetition,andinconsiderationofthePreliminaryResponse(Paper7)ofPatentOwner,Finjan,Inc.
,weinstitutedatrialpursuantto35U.
S.
C.
§314(a)withrespecttoclaims1,2,5,6,10,11,14,and15andsubsequentlyjoinedCaseIPR2016-00890withtheinstantcase.
Paper9("DecisiononInstitution"or"Dec.
onInst.
");seealsoPaper30(copyofdecisioninstitutinginterpartesreviewinCaseIPR2016-00890andgrantingmotionforjoinder;alsofiledasIPR2016-00890,Paper8).
Afterinstitution,PatentOwnerfiledaPartialRequestforRehearingPursuantto37C.
F.
R.
§§42.
71(c)and42.
71(d)(Paper13),challengingourdecisiontoinstitutetrial,andweissuedaDecisionDenyingPatentOwner'sRequestforRehearing(Paper21,"RehearingDecision"or"Reh'gDec.
").
Thereafter,PatentOwnerfiledaResponse(Paper27("POResp.
")),andPetitionerfiledaReply(Paper31,"Pet.
Reply").
PetitionerprofferedDeclarationsofSylviaHall-Ellis,Ph.
D.
(Ex.
1006)andJackW.
Davidson,Ph.
D.
(Ex.
1018)withitsPetition;andaReplyDeclarationofDr.
Davidson(Ex.
1027),aSupplementalDeclarationofDr.
Hall-Ellis(Ex.
1037),andDeclarationsofRichardFord,D.
Phil.
(Ex.
1038)andJoseph2SeePaper54,1.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B23Kiegel(Ex.
1041)withitsReply.
PatentOwnerprofferedDeclarationsofNenadMedvidovic,Ph.
D.
(Ex.
2007)andS.
H.
MichaelKim(Ex.
2010)withitsResponse.
Also,depositiontranscriptswerefiledforDr.
Medvidovic(Ex.
1034),Dr.
Hall-Ellis(Ex.
2011),andDr.
Davidson(Ex.
2012).
PatentOwnermovestoexcludecertainofPetitioner'sExhibits,includingeachoftheDeclarationsprofferedwiththeReply.
Paper41.
PetitionerfiledanOpposition(Paper48)tothemotion,andPatentOwnerfiledareply(Paper51).
PatentOwneralsofiledanidentificationofargumentsallegedtoexceedtheproperscopeofPetitioner'sReply(Paper39),towhichPetitionerfiledaresponse(Paper46).
PatentOwnerfurtherfiledaMotionforObservationsonTestimonyofDr.
Davidson(Paper42),andPetitionerfiledaresponsethereto(Paper47).
AnoralhearingwasheldonDecember16,2016;atranscriptofthehearingisincludedintherecord(Paper56,"Tr.
").
Wehavejurisdictionunder35U.
S.
C.
§6.
ThisFinalWrittenDecisionisissuedpursuantto35U.
S.
C.
§318(a)and37C.
F.
R.
§42.
73.
Forthereasonsthatfollow,wedeterminethatPetitionerhasshownbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatclaims1,2,and6ofthe494patentareunpatentable.
Wealsodeny-in-partanddismiss-in-partPatentOwner'sMotiontoExclude.
II.
BACKGROUNDA.
RelatedProceedingsThepartiesidentifysixdistrictcourtactionsinvolvingthe'494patent:Finjan,Inc.
v.
Sophos,Inc.
,No.
3:14-cv-01197(N.
D.
Cal.
2014)("theIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B24Sophoslitigation"),Finjanv.
Websense,Inc.
,No.
14-cv-01353(N.
D.
Cal.
2014),Finjan,Inc.
v.
SymantecCorp.
,No.
3:14-cv-02998(N.
D.
Cal.
2014),Finjan,Inc.
v.
PaloAltoNetworks,Inc.
,No.
3:14-cv-04908(N.
D.
Cal.
2014),Finjan,Inc.
v.
BlueCoatSystems,Inc.
,No.
5:15-cv-03295(N.
D.
Cal.
2015),andFinjan,Inc.
v.
CiscoSystemsInc.
,No.
17-cv-00072(N.
D.
Cal.
2017).
Pet.
1;Paper6,1;POResp.
57;Paper54,1.
The'494patentisalsothesubjectofaninterpartesreviewinPaloAltoNetworks,Inc.
v.
Finjan,Inc.
,CaseIPR2016-00159,towhichBlueCoatSystems,Inc.
v.
Finjan,Inc.
,CaseIPR2016-01174,hasbeenjoined;andwasthesubjectofdeniedpetitionsforinterpartesreviewinSophosInc.
v.
Finjan,Inc.
,CaseIPR2015-01022,SymantecCorp.
v.
Finjan,Inc.
,CaseIPR2015-01897,andBlueCoatSystems,Inc.
v.
Finjan,Inc.
,CaseIPR2016-01443.
B.
The'494PatentThe'494patent,entitled"MaliciousMobileCodeRuntimeMonitoringSystemandMethods,"issuedMarch18,2014,fromU.
S.
PatentApplicationNo.
13/290,708("the'708application"),filedNovember7,2011.
Ex.
1001,[21],[22],[45],[54].
Onitsface,the'494patentpurportstoclaimpriorityfromnineearlierapplications:(1)U.
S.
ProvisionalApplicationNo.
60/030,639("the'639provisional"),filedNovember8,1996;(2)U.
S.
PatentApplicationNo.
08/790,097,filedJanuary29,1997,andissuedasU.
S.
PatentNo.
6,167,520("the'520patent");(3)U.
S.
PatentApplicationNo.
08/964,388("the'388application"),filedNovember6,1997,andissuedasU.
S.
PatentNo.
6,092,194(Ex.
1013,"the'194patent");(4)U.
S.
PatentApplicationNo.
09/539,667,filedMarch30,2000,andissuedasU.
S.
PatentNo.
6,804,780(Ex.
2028,"the'780patent");IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B25(5)U.
S.
PatentApplicationNo.
09/551,302,filedApril18,2000;(6)U.
S.
ProvisionalPatentApplicationNo.
60/205,591,filedMay17,2000;(7)U.
S.
PatentApplicationNo.
09/861,229,filedMay17,2001;(8)U.
S.
PatentApplicationNo.
11/370,114("the'114application"),filedMarch7,2006;and(9)U.
S.
PatentApplicationNo.
12/471,942,filedMay26,2009.
Ex.
1001,[63].
InourDecisiononInstitutioninCaseIPR2016-00159,wedeterminedontherecordthenbeforeusinthatcasethatthe'494patentisnotentitledtoanearlierprioritydatethantheNovember6,1997,filingdateofthe'388application,duetothefailureoftheintermediate'114applicationtoincludepriorityclaimseithertothe'639provisionalortothe'097application.
SeeIPR2016-00159,slipop.
at10–13(PTABMay13,2016)(Paper8).
Thatdeterminationdoesnotaffectanyofourconclusionsinthiscase.
The'494patentdescribesprotectionsystemsandmethods"capableofprotectingapersonalcomputer('PC')orotherpersistentlyorevenintermittentlynetworkaccessibledevicesorprocessesfromharmful,undesirable,suspiciousorother'malicious'operationsthatmightotherwisebeeffectuatedbyremotelyoperablecode.
"Ex.
1001,2:51–56.
"Remotelyoperablecodethatisprotectableagainstcaninclude,"forexample,"downloadableapplicationprograms,Trojanhorsesandprogramcodegroupings,aswellassoftware'components',suchasJavaapplets,ActiveXcontrols,JavaScript/VisualBasicscripts,add-ins,etc.
,amongothers.
"Id.
at2:59–64.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B26C.
IllustrativeChallengedClaimsOfthechallengedclaims,claims1and10areindependent.
Thoseclaimsareillustrativeandarereproducedbelow:1.
Acomputer-basedmethod,comprisingthestepsof:receivinganincomingDownloadable;derivingsecurityprofiledatafortheDownloadable,includingalistofsuspiciouscomputeroperationsthatmaybeattemptedbytheDownloadable;andstoringtheDownloadablesecurityprofiledatainadatabase.
10.
AsystemformanagingDownloadables,comprising:areceiverforreceivinganincomingDownloadable;aDownloadablescannercoupledwithsaidreceiver,forderivingsecurityprofiledatafortheDownloadable,includingalistofsuspiciouscomputeroperationsthatmaybeattemptedbytheDownloadable;andadatabasemanagercoupledwithsaidDownloadablescanner,forstoringtheDownloadablesecurityprofiledatainadatabase.
Ex.
1001,21:19–25,22:7–16.
Eachofchallengedclaims2,5,and6dependsdirectlyfromclaim1;andeachofchallengedclaims11,14,and15dependsdirectlyfromclaim10.
Id.
at21:26–28,21:33–37,22:17–20,22:26–30.
D.
InstitutedGroundofUnpatentabilityThePetitionassertedfivegroundsofunpatentability.
Pet.
5.
Weinstitutedtrialinthiscaseonlyontheassertedgroundthatclaims1,2,5,6,10,11,14,and15ofthe'494patentareunpatentableunder35U.
S.
C.
§103overMortonSwimmeretal.
,DynamicDetectionandClassificationofIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B27ComputerVirusesUsingGeneralBehaviourPatterns,VirusBull.
Conf.
75(Sept.
1995)(Ex.
1005,"Swimmer").
Dec.
onInst.
34.
III.
ANALYSISA.
ClaimConstructionThe'494patentexpirednolaterthanJanuary29,2017.
SeePaper55,1(PatentOwnerrepresentingthatJanuary29,2017,wastheexpirationdateofthe'494patentandthatPetitionerdoesnotdisputethatdate).
Inaninterpartesreview,weconstrueclaimsofanexpiredpatentaccordingtothestandardappliedbythedistrictcourts.
SeeInreRambusInc.
,694F.
3d42,46(Fed.
Cir.
2012).
Specifically,becausetheexpiredclaimsofapatentarenotsubjecttoamendment,weapplytheprinciplessetforthinPhillipsv.
AWHCorp.
,415F.
3d1303,1312–17(Fed.
Cir.
2005)(enbanc).
Underthatstandard,thewordsofaclaimaregenerallygiventheirordinaryandcustomarymeaning,whichisthemeaningthetermwouldhavetoapersonofordinaryskillatthetimeoftheinvention,inthecontextoftheentirepatentincludingthespecification.
SeePhillips,415F.
3dat1312–13.
Onlythosetermsincontroversyneedtobeconstrued,andonlytotheextentnecessarytoresolvethecontroversy.
SeeVividTechs.
,Inc.
v.
Am.
Sci.
&Eng'g,Inc.
,200F.
3d795,803(Fed.
Cir.
1999).
ForpurposesofthisDecision,weaddressthreeclaimtermsandphrases,eachofwhichisrecitedinbothindependentclaims1and10:(1)"listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations";(2)"database";and(3)"storingtheDownloadablesecurityprofiledatainadatabase.
"IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B281.
"listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations"Neitherpartyidentified"listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations"asrequiringconstructionpriortoinstitution,andwedidnotprovideanexpressconstructionofthatphraseintheDecisiononInstitution.
IntheDecisiononInstitution,wewerepersuaded,however,byPetitioner'scontentionsthattheDOSfunctionscorrespondingtothe"functionnumbers"includedinSwimmer'saudittrailincludethesametypesofoperationsreferredtobyapplicationsrelatedtothe'494patentasexamplesof"suspiciousoperations,"includingthefourspecifictypesofoperationsthatarerecitedas"suspiciouscomputeroperations"inchallengeddependentclaims6and15.
Dec.
onInst.
22(citingPet.
17–18,21–22).
InthePatentOwnerResponse,PatentOwnercontends"[a]'listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations'isproperlyconstruedas'alistofcomputeroperationsdeemedsuspicious'"(POResp.
10).
AccordingtoPatentOwner,"[t]he'494Patentrequiresthisconstruction,specificallythattheoperationsaredeemedtobesuspicious.
"Id.
"Forexample,"PatentOwnercontends,"the'194Patent,whichisincorporatedbyreferenceintothe'494Patent,explainshowgeneratingthe'listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations'firstrequiresthatadeterminationbemadeastowhethertheoperationstobelistedaresuspicious.
"Id.
(citingEx.
1013,9:20–42,Fig.
7;Ex.
200747–48,65).
PatentOwnerfurthercontendsthatPetitioner'sargumentthatDOSfunctionnumbersidentifiedbySwimmercorrespondtothesametypesofoperationsidentifiedinonerelatedapplication(i.
e.
,the'639provisional,Ex.
1002)isbothfactuallyincorrect,inthatthecitedportionofthe'639provisional"relatesto'fundamentalcomputeroperations,'not"suspiciouscomputeroperations[']"(Id.
at10–11(citingEx.
1002,18:9–13)),andIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B29contrarytothelaw,in"relyingonknowledgegleanedfromthe'494Patentitself—namelytheinsighttodeemsomesubsetof'callsmadetoanoperatingsystem,afilesystem,anetworksystem,andtomemory'assuspiciousinderivingalistofthesuspiciouscomputeroperationsthatmaybeattemptedbyaDownloadable"(id.
at11).
Regardingthefirstpoint,PatentOwnerpointsoutthatcertaindisclosureinthe'194patent"actuallyrelatesto'suspiciouscomputeroperations,'"providing"AnExampleListofOperationsDeemedPotentiallyHostile.
"Id.
(citingEx.
1013,5:50–54;quotingEx.
1013,5:58–6:4(emphasisaddedbyPatentOwner)).
PatentOwnercontendsthis"mean[s]thatthereisnoaprioriunderstandingofwhatconstitutesa'suspiciouscomputeroperation,'"but"[r]ather,somesubsetofallpossiblecomputeroperationsmustfirstbedeemedsuspiciousinordertoderivealistofsuspiciouscomputeroperationsforaDownloadable.
"Id.
(citingEx.
1013,5:58–6:4,9:20–42,Fig.
7).
Regardingthesecondpoint,PatentOwnerargues,"inassessingobviousnessPetitionermayconsider'onlyknowledgewhichwaswithinthelevelofordinaryskillintheartatthetimetheclaimedinventionwasmade,'butmaynotconsidertheclaimedinventionitself.
"Id.
at11–12(quotingInreMcLaughlin,443F.
2d1392,1395(CCPA1971)).
Finally,PatentOwnercontends"theBoardappearstohavemisunderstoodhowdependentclaims6and15limitclaims1and10,respectively,"as"claims6and15donotequateall'callsmadetoanoperatingsystem,afilesystem,anetworksystem,andtomemory'withsuspiciouscomputeroperationsId.
at12(citingDec.
onInst.
22).
Rather,PatentOwnercontends,"apersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldunderstandtheseclaimstorequirethatcertain'callsmadetoanoperatingsystem,afileIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B210system,anetworksystem,andtomemory'beamongthosecomputeroperationsthathavebeendeemed'suspicious.
'"Id.
(citingEx.
200769,97).
Petitionerrepliesthatthephrase"listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations"shouldbegivenitsplainandordinarymeaningconsistentwiththespecificationofthe'494patent,which,Petitionerasserts,is"alistincludingoneormoretypesofcomputeroperationsthatcouldbeusedbytheDownloadableinapotentiallyhostileorundesirablemanner(e.
g.
,operatingsystem,filesystem,ormemoryoperations).
"Pet.
Reply5(citingEx.
1013,3:17–21,5:58–6:4).
Petitionercontendsthatthe'194patent,incorporatedbyreferenceinthe'494patent,"explainsthatexamplesof'suspicious'operationsincludefilesystemoperations(e.
g.
,readingandwritingfiles),OS[operatingsystem]operations,andregistry,network,andmemoryoperations"(id.
(citingEx.
1013,5:57–6:4)),and"[i]nturn,thesystemdetermineswhetheranoperationinaDownloadableis'suspicious'simplybydetermining'whether[it]isoneoftheoperationsidentifiedinthelistdescribedabove'(i.
e.
,at[Ex.
1013,]5:57–6:4)"(id.
(quotingEx.
1013,9:20–42)).
PetitioneralsoreliesonthetestimonyofDr.
Davidsonasexplainingthatapersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldhaveappreciatedthatthesewerethetypesofcomputeroperationsusedbyvirusestodoharm.
Id.
at5–6(citingEx.
101875–81,97–100).
AccordingtoPetitioner,PatentOwner'sconstruction,which"merelyrearrangestheclaimlanguageandinsertstheword'deemed,'"isbothunhelpfulandunreasonablynarrowbecauseitreadsanadditional"deeming"stepintotheclaims.
Id.
at6.
PetitionercontendsPatentOwner'spositionthatsuchastepisrequiredis"directlycontradictedbythe'194patent,"which,Petitionercontends,IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B211"makesclearthatanoperationis'suspicious'merelybecauseitisatypeofoperationthatcouldbeusedinapotentiallyhostilemanner(e.
g.
,filesystemoperations)"by"stat[ing]that[Downloadablesecurityprofile("DSP")]datamayinclude'alistofalloperationsintheDownloadablecodewhichcouldeverbedeemedpotentiallyhostile.
'"Id.
at7(quotingEx.
1013,5:51–59(emphasisaddedbyPetitioner)).
Inotherwords,Petitionercontends,"atthetimeanoperationisincludedinthelist,therehasbeennodeterminationyetofwhetherthatparticularoperationisactuallybeingusedinapotentiallyhostileor'suspicious'manner.
"Id.
(citingEx.
101891–96).
WeagreewithPetitionerthatPatentOwner'sproposedconstructionisunhelpfultoanunderstandingofthescopeofthechallengedclaimsinsofarasit"merelyrearrangestheclaimlanguageandinsertstheword'deemed'"(Pet.
Reply6).
Morehelpfulistheportionofthe'194patentcitedbyPetitionerthatexplainsthatDSPdatamayinclude"alistofalloperationsintheDownloadablecodewhichcouldeverbedeemedpotentiallyhostile.
"Ex.
1013,5:51–53(emphasisadded)).
Theinclusionofthephraseology"alloperations.
.
.
whichcouldeverbedeemedpotentiallyhostile"inthatpassagerendersitmoreobjective,and"potentiallyhostile"capturesourunderstandingofthemeaningof"suspicious"inthecontextoftheclaimsinlightoftheintrinsicandextrinsicevidenceofrecord.
Indeed,column9,lines20–42,ofthe'194patent,citedbyPatentOwnerinsupportofitsassertionthat"generatingthe'listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations'firstrequiresthatadeterminationbemadeastowhethertheoperationstobelistedaresuspicious"(seePOResp.
10),directlylinkstheterm"suspicious"with"thelistdescribedabovewithreferencetoFIG.
3"—i.
e.
,the"listofallIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B212operationsintheDownloadablecodewhichcouldeverbedeemedpotentiallyhostile.
"Becausewedeterminethatcolumn5,line50,tocolumn6,line4,ofthe'194patent,incorporatedbyreferenceintothe'494patent(seeEx.
1001,1:35–38),providesthemostprobativeevidenceontherecordbeforeusastothemeaningof"listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations"asrecitedinthechallengedclaims,weconcludethatphraseisproperlyconstruedasa"listofalloperationsthatcouldeverbedeemedpotentiallyhostile,"non-limitingexamplesofwhichincludesfileoperations;networkoperations;registryoperations;operatingsystemsoperations;resourceusagethresholdoperations,memoryoperations,CPUoperations,andgraphicsoperations.
Ex.
1013,5:50–6:4.
Notwithstandingourconclusionregardingtheproperconstructionof"listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations,"however,aswediscussingreaterdetail,infraSectionIII.
B.
4.
a.
iii,ourultimateconclusionsinthisproceedingdonotturnonouradoptionofthisconstruction,PatentOwner'sproposedconstruction,orPetitioner'sproposedconstruction.
2.
"database"IntheDecisiononInstitution,inviewofcompetingconstructionsadvancedinthePetitionandthePreliminaryResponse,weconstruedtheterm"database"as"acollectionofinterrelateddataorganizedaccordingtoadatabaseschematoserveoneormoreapplications.
"Dec.
onInst.
7–11.
Asweexplained,weagreedwithPatentOwnerthatthatconstruction,whichwaspreviouslyarticulatedbythedistrictcourtintheSophoslitigationandappliedbytheBoardinpriorproceedings,representedthebroadestreasonableinterpretationinlightoftheclaimlanguageandthespecificationIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B213ofthe'494patent.
Id.
at10;seeEx.
2002,7(Finjan,Inc.
v.
Sophos,Inc.
,No.
14-cv-01197(N.
D.
Cal.
2014),ClaimConstructionOrderat7);Ex.
2003,8–10(Sophos,Inc.
v.
Finjan,Inc.
,CaseIPR2015-00907,slipop.
at8–10(Paper8)(concerningrelatedU.
S.
PatentNo.
7,613,926));Ex.
2004,9–10(Sophos,Inc.
v.
Finjan,Inc.
,CaseIPR2015-01022,slipop.
at9–10(Paper7)(concerningthe'494patent)).
NeitherPetitionernorPatentOwnerchallengesthatconstruction,perse,post-institution.
PatentOwnercontends,however,that"[t]hepracticalimportofthisconstructionexcludeslogfilesfrombeingdatabases.
"POResp.
7(emphasisadded).
Insupportofitscontention,PatentOwnerassertsthatthedistrictcourtexplainedintheclaimconstructionorderintheSophoslitigationthat"theterm'database'isnotbroadenoughtoincludealogfile.
"Id.
(quotingEx.
2002,7).
AccordingtoPatentOwner,thedistrictcourt"baseditsreasoningoftheintrinsicrecordwhichdemonstratesthatdatabasesandlogfilesareseparateanddistinctentities.
"Id.
"Forexample,"PatentOwneralleges,"thespecificationdesignatesthedatabasethatstoresDSPwithbox'SecurityDatabase240'whileaneventlogisdesignatedwithbox'EventLog245,'"and"[t]he'494Patentfurtherdescribeshowdatabasesandlogfilesfunctiondifferentlybydescribinghowloggingresultsinaneventlogisanactionthatisdistinctfromstoringinasecuritydatabase.
"Id.
at7–8(reproducingEx.
1013,Fig.
2;citingEx.
1013,7:2–6);seealsoid.
at8(reproducingandreferringtoEx.
1013,Fig.
3,asallegedlyillustratingthat"[t]hisloggingfunctionalityisdistinctfromstoringinadatabase,whichallowsDSPtobeefficientlyretrievedfromthedatabase,asshownbythebidirectionalarrowbetweentheDSPdata310storedwithinSecurityDatabase240andCodeScanner325ascomparedtoIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B214thearrowfromlogicalengine333torecord-keepingengine335toeventlog245"),9("Thedatastoragedevice230storesasecuritydatabase240,whichincludessecurityinformationfordeterminingwhetherareceivedDownloadableistobedeemedsuspicious.
"(quotingEx.
1013,3:47–50)).
PatentOwnerconcludes,"[b]ecausetheDistrictCourt'sholdingisbasedonsoundreasoning,itshouldgenerallybefollowedintheseproceedings.
"Id.
at9.
Petitioner"maintain[s]thisisnotthebroadestreasonableinterpretationof'database,'butadopt[s]theBoard'sconstructionsolelyforpurposesofthisIPR.
"Pet.
Reply2n.
2.
PetitioneradditionallytakesissuewithPatentOwner'sassertion,amongothers,thatthedatabasecannotbealogfile.
Id.
at2–5.
WenotethatdespitePatentOwner'sassertionsregardingwhat"thespecificationdesignates"andwhat"the'494Patentfurtherdescribes"(seePOResp.
7–8),thecitationsandfiguresreproducedbyPatentOwnerinsupportofthoseassertionsarenotfromthe'494patent,butinsteadarefromtheancestral'194patent.
Althoughthe'494patentincorporatesbyreferencethe'194patent,amongotherpatentsandapplications(seesupraSectionII.
B),the'494patentincludesdifferentversionsofthecitedfiguresanddifferentdescriptionsthereof.
Further,despitePatentOwner'sbookendingofthosefigures,citations,andquotationsfromthe'194patentwithargumentsregardingthedistrictcourt'sclaimconstructionorderintheSophoslitigation,wefindthatthatorderdidnotrefertothe'194patent.
SeeEx.
2002.
Nonetheless,weagreethatthedistrictcourtfoundthattheparties'disagreementintheSophoslitigation"center[ed]onwhether'database'IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B215includes'simplefilessuchasalogfile,'"where,"[a]ccordingtoFinjan,alogfileisunstructuredcollectionofdataonacomputer,"andexplainedthat"database"shouldbeconstrued,inpart,"becausethepartiesdisputethecategorizationof'logfile'asa'database.
'"Id.
at4.
Thecourtfound,basedonreferencestoa"database"inthe'494patentitself,that"adatabaseisusedasaninformationsourcethatservesprotectionengineswhentheyinspectDownloadables.
"Id.
at5–6.
Thecourtalsofoundthattherelated'780patent"reflectsthesameunderstandingofdatabaseinitsreferencetoa'securitydatabase,'"andseparately"referstoan'eventlog,'statingthatit'includesdeterminationresultsforeachDownloadableexaminedandruntimeindicationsoftheinternalnetworksecuritysystem.
"Id.
at6(quotingEx.
2028,3:62–64).
Thecourtconcluded:Thepatent'slanguageandcontextsupportsFinjan'sdefinitionofadatabase.
Thespecificationsillustratethata"database"servesapplications,acharacteristicthatisnotincludedinSophos'sdefinition.
ThefactthatadatabaseassistsapplicationsalsounderminesSophos'sargumentthatalogfileisadatabase,becausealogfileismoreproperlyunderstoodasapassiverecord,insteadofastoragedevicethatinteractswithanapplication.
The'780patentalsodifferentiatesbetweenlogfilesand"databases"byreferringtothemseparately.
Inaddition,Finjan'sexpert,NenadMedvidovic,statesthatapersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldunderstand"database"tomean"acollectionofinterrelateddataorganizedaccordingtoadatabaseschematoserveoneormoreapplications.
"[Dr.
]Medvidovicfurtherstatesthat"[a]personwouldunderstandasimplelogfileisnotadatabasebecauseitisnotstructuredlikeadatabase.
.
.
Adatabase,ontheotherhand,isastructuredsoftwarecomponentthatallowsuserandothersoftwarecomponentstostoreandretrievedatainanefficientmanner.
Dr.
]Medvidovic'sdefinitionappearsreasonablewhencomparedtothelanguageofthepatentandthedefinitionsfromcomputingdictionariessuchastheIBMDictionaryofIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B216ComputingandtheIEEEStandardDictionaryofElectricalandElectronicsTerms.
.
.
.
.
IampersuadedbyFinjan'sassertionthat"[t]heclaimlanguageoftheassertedpatentsallrelatetothestorageofdatawithinthedatabaseinthecontextofthesecurityprofileorthedownloadablesecurityprofile.
Thesystemactivelyusesthesesecurityprofilestodetectmalwareandmanagethesystem,notjustforarchivalstorage.
"Therefore,Ifindthatalogfiledoesnotqualifyasadatabaseinthecontextofthispatent.
BecauseFinjan'sdefinitionappearstoreflectboththecontextofthepatentaswellasawell-accepteddefinitionoftheterm,IadoptFinjan'sconstructionof"database.
"Id.
at6–7(internalcitationsomitted).
Althoughourconstructionoftheterm"database"intheDecisiononInstitutionwasrenderedunderthe"broadestreasonableinterpretation"standardapplicabletounexpiredpatents(see37C.
F.
R.
§42.
100(b)),weconclude,inviewoftheparties'argumentsandcitedevidence,andhavingconsideredthedistrictcourt'sexplanationsetforthintheclaimconstructionorderintheSophoslitigation,thatthereisnoreasontomodifyourconstructionof"database"setforthintheDecisiononInstitution,whichmirrorsthedistrictcourt'sexpressconstruction.
Accordingly,weagainconstrue"database"as"acollectionofinterrelateddataorganizedaccordingtoadatabaseschematoserveoneormoreapplications.
"Totheextentthatconstructionwouldexcludealogfileconsistingofan"unstructuredcollectionofdataonacomputer,"weagreeforthereasonsarticulatedbythedistrictcourtthatsuchasimple,unstructuredlogfilewouldnotbeadatabase.
SeeEx.
2002,4–7.
However,wedonotagreewithPatentOwner'ssuggestionthatthisconstructionnecessarilyexcludesalllogfilesfrombeingdatabases.
SeeinfraSectionIII.
B.
4.
a.
iv.
Inparticular,wecreditIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B217Dr.
Davidson'sdepositiontestimonythattheword"log"referstothekindofdatathatisstoredinafile,nottothefile'sformatororganization,andthatalogfilecan,therefore,beconsideredadatabase"ifit'sorganizedinafashion.
.
.
foradatabase,whichit'saninterrelatedcollectionofdataorganizedaccordingtotheschemeofservingoneormoreapplications.
"Ex.
2041,50:8–51:1;seealsoid.
at52:2–10("Q.
Soalogfilewouldbeconsideredadatabase,correctA.
Again,itdependsonhowit'sorganizedwhetheritwouldbeconsideredadatabase.
I]t'snotlikeit'soneortheother.
Itcouldbeboth.
").
Incontrast,weunderstandthedistrictcourt'sstatedexclusionof"logfiles"fromtheconstructionof"database"tohavebeenbasedonafundamentallydifferentinterpretationof"logfile"thanDr.
Davidson's,informedbyPatentOwner'srepresentationinthedistrictcourtlitigationthatalogfileisan"unstructuredcollectionofdata.
"SeeEx.
2002,4:20–21.
InviewofthecleardisconnectionbetweenDr.
Davidson'sandthedistrictcourt'sinterpretationsoftheterm"logfile,"wedisagreewithPatentOwner'scontentionsthat"[t]hepracticalimport"ofourconstructionistoexcludelogfilesfrombeingdatabases(seePOResp.
7)andthatDr.
Davidson's"admission"thatSwimmer'saudittrailisadatabase"isdecisive"(id.
at9).
3.
"storingtheDownloadablesecurityprofiledatainadatabase"Neitherpartyidentified"storingtheDownloadablesecurityprofiledatainadatabase"asrequiringconstructionpriortoinstitution,andwedidnotprovideanexpressconstructionofthatphraseintheDecisiononInstitution.
InthePatentOwnerResponse,PatentOwnercontendsthatthephrase"storingtheDownloadablesecurityprofiledatainadatabase"isproperlyconstruedas"placingthederivedDSPdataintothedatabase.
"POIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B218Resp.
13.
Moreparticularly,accordingtoPatentOwner,apersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldunderstandtheterm"storing"tomean"toplaceinstorage"(id.
at13(citingEx.
200771;Ex.
2027(IBMDictionaryofComputing,10thEd.
),653)),andthatunderstandingis"alsoreflectedbyhowthespecification3describesstoringinadatabase,namelybyplacingDSPdata310intoSecurityDatabase240"(id.
(citingEx.
1013,Fig.
3)).
"Incontrast,"PatentOwnerspeculates,Petitioner"equatesstoringtoconverting.
"Id.
at14.
AccordingtoPatentOwner,thisisnecessarilythecase"because'storing'isanactionthatisneverusedindescribingSwimmer'saudittrail.
"Id.
PatentOwnercontendsthat"reading'storing'sobroadlythatitincludes'converting'iscompletelyatoddswiththeunderstandingofoneofskillintheartatthetimeanddoesnotreasonablyreflectthedisclosureofthe'494Patent.
"Id.
at15.
PatentOwneralsocontendsthatconstructionofthisphraseis"necessaryinordertoavoidPetitioner'sconflationofclaimterms.
"Id.
Inparticular,PatentOwnerasserts,"PetitionerseekstomapSwimmer'sgenerationofanaudittrailtoboththeclaimed'derivingDSPdata'and'storingtheDSPdatainadatabase'"(id.
(citingPet.
16–20;Dec.
onInst.
16,23)),therebyimproperlyreadingthe"storing.
.
.
inadatabase"limitationoutoftheclaim(id.
at15–16).
AccordingtoPatentOwner,"theunequivocaldisclosureinthe'494PatentandPetitioner'smisleadingattempttoconflateclaimterms"requirethatPatentOwner'sconstructionbeadopted"tomakeclearthat'derivingDSPdata'isseparatefrom'storingtheDSPdatainadatabase,'andthatthe3Aswithitsreferencesto"thespecification"inconnectionwiththeterm"database,"PatentOwner'sreferenceto"thespecification"hereisnottothe'494patentitself,butinsteadtotherelated'194patent.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B219DSPdataisonlyplacedinthedatabaseuponderivationoftheprofile,includingthelistofsuspiciouscomputeroperations.
"Id.
at16.
Petitionerrepliesthatthephraseneedsnofurtherconstructionandshouldbegivenitsplainandordinarymeaning,namely,"thattheDSPdataisstoredinadatabase.
"Pet.
Reply7.
Petitionercontendsthat"[t]heterm'storing'isextremelywell-knowninthecontextofcomputersystems,"andthatthereisnodisputethatthe'494patentusesthattermconsistentwithitsordinarymeaning.
Id.
at7–8(citingEx.
10188–9;Ex.
1034(MedvidovicDepositionTranscript),97:4–9).
AccordingtoPetitioner,PatentOwner'sconstruction,which"doesnothingmorethanreplacetheclaimterm'storing'withtheword'placing'.
.
.
is,atbest,unnecessary,andinfact,createsambiguityastowhat'placing'data'into'adatabasemeans.
"Id.
(citingEx.
1034,98:6–99:8).
ContrarytoPatentOwner'sarguments,Petitionerfurthercontends,itdidnotequatestoringwith"converting"orrelyonSwimmer'sdiscussionofconvertingfilesasthebasisforteachingtheclaimed'storing'step.
"Id.
at8.
Lastly,PetitionercontendsthatPatentOwner'sargumentthatDSPdataisonlyplacedinthedatabaseuponderivationofthesecurityprofileisincorrecttotheextentthatPatentOwnerisarguingthatthe"entire"securityprofilemustbederivedbeforeplacinganyoftheDSPdataintothedatabase.
Id.
at8–9(citingPOResp.
15–16,46–47).
WeagreewithPetitionerthatexpressconstructionofthisphraseisunnecessary.
TheclaimlanguagealreadymakesclearthatDSPdatamustbestoredinadatabase,andPatentOwner'sproposedreplacementof"storing"with"placing"doesnotaddanyfurtherclaritytothealreadyclearclaimlanguage.
WealsoagreewithPetitionerthat,althoughthe"deriving"andIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B220"storing"stepsofclaim1areseparatesteps,theclaimsdonotrequirethatthe"entire"securityprofilemustbederivedbeforeplacinganyoftheDSPdataintothedatabase.
SeePet.
Reply9.
AsPetitionerpointsout,"[t]heclaimsexpresslyrecitederivingandstoringDSPdata–notderivingandstoringtheentiresecurityprofilefortheDownloadable.
"Id.
B.
ObviousnessoverSwimmerWehavereviewedthePetition,PatentOwnerResponse,andPetitioner'sReply,aswellastherelevantevidencediscussedtherein.
Forthereasonsthatfollow,wedeterminethatPetitionerhasshownbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatclaims1,2,and6ofthe'494patentareunpatentableunder35U.
S.
C.
§103(a)overSwimmer.
1.
PrinciplesofLawApatentclaimisunpatentableunder35U.
S.
C.
§103(a)ifthedifferencesbetweentheclaimedsubjectmatterandthepriorartare"suchthatthesubjectmatterasawholewouldhavebeenobviousatthetimetheinventionwasmadetoapersonhavingordinaryskillinthearttowhichsaidsubjectmatterpertains.
"KSRInt'lCo.
v.
TeleflexInc.
,550U.
S.
398,406(2007).
Thequestionofobviousnessisresolvedonthebasisofunderlyingfactualdeterminations,including(1)thescopeandcontentofthepriorart;(2)anydifferencesbetweentheclaimedsubjectmatterandthepriorart;(3)thelevelofskillintheart;and(4)objectiveevidenceofnonobviousness,i.
e.
,secondaryconsiderationssuchascommercialsuccess,longfeltbutunsolvedneeds,andfailureofothers.
Grahamv.
JohnDeereCo.
,383U.
S.
1,17–18(1966).
Toprevailinaninterpartesreview,apetitionermustprovetheunpatentabilityofthechallengedclaimsbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B22135U.
S.
C.
§316(e);37C.
F.
R.
§42.
1(d).
"[T]hepetitionerhastheburdenfromtheonsettoshowwithparticularitywhythepatentitchallengesisunpatentable.
"HarmonicInc.
v.
AvidTech.
,Inc.
,815F.
3d1356,1363(Fed.
Cir.
2016)(citing35U.
S.
C.
§312(a)(3)(requiringinterpartesreviewpetitionstoidentify"withparticularity.
.
.
theevidencethatsupportsthegroundsforthechallengetoeachclaim")).
TheburdenofpersuasionnevershiftstoPatentOwner.
SeeDynamicDrinkware,LLCv.
Nat'lGraphics,Inc.
,800F.
3d1375,1378(Fed.
Cir.
2015)(discussingtheburdenofproofininterpartesreview).
Furthermore,Petitionercannotsatisfyitsburdenofprovingobviousnessbyemploying"mereconclusorystatements.
"InreMagnumOilToolsInt'l,Ltd.
,829F.
3d1364,1380(Fed.
Cir.
2016).
Weanalyzetheinstitutedgroundofunpatentabilityinaccordancewiththeabove-statedprinciples.
2.
LevelofOrdinarySkillintheArtIndeterminingwhetheraninventionwouldhavebeenobviousatthetimeitwasmade,35U.
S.
C.
§103requiresustoresolvethelevelofordinaryskillinthepertinentartatthetimeoftheinvention.
Graham,383U.
S.
at17.
"Theimportanceofresolvingthelevelofordinaryskillintheartliesinthenecessityofmaintainingobjectivityintheobviousnessinquiry.
"RykoMfg.
Co.
v.
Nu-Star,Inc.
,950F.
2d714,718(Fed.
Cir.
1991).
Thepersonofordinaryskillintheartisahypotheticalpersonwhoispresumedtohaveknowntherelevantartatthetimeoftheinvention.
InreGPAC,Inc.
,57F.
3d1573,1579(Fed.
Cir.
1995).
Factorsthatmaybeconsideredindeterminingthelevelofordinaryskillintheartinclude,butarenotlimitedto,thetypesofproblemsencounteredintheart,thesophisticationofthetechnology,andeducationallevelofactiveworkersinIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B222thefield.
Id.
Inagivencase,oneormorefactorsmaypredominate.
Id.
Generally,itiseasiertoestablishobviousnessunderahigherlevelofordinaryskillintheart.
InnoventionToys,LLCv.
MGAEntm't,Inc.
,637F.
3d1314,1323(Fed.
Cir.
2011)("Alesssophisticatedlevelofskillgenerallyfavorsadeterminationofnonobviousness.
.
.
whileahigherlevelofskillfavorsthereverse.
").
Petitioner'sdeclarant,Dr.
Davidson,opinesthatapersonofordinaryskillintheartatthetimeofthe'494patentwouldhavehadamaster'sdegreeincomputerscience,computerengineering,orasimilarfield,oraBachelor'sdegreeincomputerscience,computerengineering,orasimilarfield,withapproximatelytwoyearsofindustryexperiencerelatingtocomputersecurity.
Ex.
101830.
AccordingtoDr.
Davidson,"[a]dditionalgraduateeducationmightsubstituteforexperience,whilesignificantexperienceinthefieldofcomputerprogrammingandmaliciouscodemightsubstituteforformaleducation.
"Id.
PatentOwner'sdeclarant,Dr.
Medvidovic,opinesthatthepersonofordinaryskillintheartinthefieldofthe'494patentwouldbesomeonewithabachelor'sdegreeincomputerscienceorarelatedfieldand"either(1)twoormoreyearsofindustryexperienceand/or(2)anadvanceddegreeincomputerscienceorrelatedfield.
"Ex.
200737.
Nonetheless,Dr.
MedvidovicacknowledgesDr.
Davidson'sopinionastotherelevantlevelofskillandfurtheropinesthattheopinionsstatedinhisdeclarationwouldbethesameifrenderedfromtheperspectiveofthepersonofordinaryskillintheartsetforthbyDr.
Davidson.
Id.
39–40(citingEx.
101830).
Wedeterminethatthedifferencesinthedeclarants'assertionsarenegligibleandthatbothassessmentsareconsistentwiththe'494patentandIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B223thereferencedpriorart.
Forthepurposesoftheanalysisbelow,weadoptDr.
Medvidovic'sassessment.
3.
ScopeandContentofthePriorArt–OverviewofSwimmerSwimmerisgenerallydirectedtoasystem,referredtoasthe"VirusIntrusionDetectionExpertSystem"("VIDES"),thatisdescribedas"aprototypeforanautomaticanalysissystemforcomputerviruses.
"Ex.
1005,1,2.
InSwimmer'sprototype,anemulatorisusedtomonitorthesystemactivityofavirtualcomputer,butSwimmeralsostatesthat"VIDEScouldconceivablybeusedoutsidetheviruslabtodetectvirusesinarealenvironment"andthat"[o]nepossibilityistouseitasatypeoffirewallforprogramsenteringaprotectednetwork.
"Id.
at1,13.
Ingeneral,Swimmerdisclosesthatsetsofrulesareusedtodetectvirusesandextractdetailsoftheirbehavior.
Id.
at1–7.
Swimmerprovidesamodelofvirusattackstrategyanddisclosesthatvirus-specificrulescanbegeneratedandtranslatedintoarule-basedlanguage("RUles-baSedSequenceEvaluationLanguage,"or"RUSSEL").
Id.
at4–7.
Forexample,basedonassumptionsaboutthebehaviorofdiskoperatingsystem(DOS)viruses,Swimmeridentifiestwopossibleinfectionstrategies:(1)writingtothebeginningofafile(BOF)withoutapreviousreadtothesamelocation,and(2)readingtoBOFfollowedbyawritingtoBOF,withorwithoutinterveningreadsandwrites.
Id.
at5–6.
SwimmerdisclosesthatVIDEScollectssystemactivitydataandcreatesasetofauditrecordshavingaspecifiedformatforanalysisbyatoolreferredtoas"AdvancedSecurityaudittrailAnalysisonuniX"("ASAX").
Id.
at1,9.
ASAXisdescribedasanexpertsystemthatanalyzesthedataproducedbytheVIDESemulator,usingRUSSELtoidentifythevirusIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B224attack.
Id.
at1,4,10–13.
SwimmeralsodisclosesthatASAXprovidesafilterthatreducesthenumberofauditrecordstoonlyrelevant,higher-levelrecords.
Id.
at6–7.
Inparticular,a"firstASAXsystemreadstherawaudittrail,convertsitintogenericdata,andpipesitsoutputasa[NormalizedAuditDataFormat]NADFfileforfurtherprocessing,"and"[u]singASAXasafilterallows[for]reduc[tionin]thecomplexityofmaintainingthesystemwhilenotsacrificinganypower.
"Id.
at7,12.
Theauditrecordsidentify,amongotherthings,DOSfunctionsrequestedbytheanalyzedprogram,theregister/memoryvaluesusedincallstotheDOSfunctions,andregister/memoryvaluesreturnedbythefunctioncalls.
Id.
at1,7,9.
SwimmerexplainsthatVIDESeachauditrecordhastheformat,wherecodesegmentistheaddressinmemoryoftheexecutableimageoftheprogram;functionnumberisthenumberoftheDOSfunctionrequestedbytheprogram;arg(.
.
.
)isalistofregister/memoryvaluesusedinthecalltoaDOSfunction;ret(.
.
.
)isalistofregister/memoryvaluesasreturnedbythefunctioncall;RecTypeisthetypeoftherecord;andStartTimeandEndTimearethetimestampofactionstartandend,respectively.
Id.
at9.
AnexampleofanexcerptfromanaudittrailisprovidedinFigure3ofSwimmer,reproducedbelow.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B225Figure3,above,isdescribedbySwimmerasanexcerptfromanaudittrailfortheViennavirus,providedasahuman-readablerepresentationofabinaryNADFfileandomittingcertainfields(apparently,StartTimeandEndTime)forclarityandbrevity.
Id.
at9–10.
Onitsface,Swimmerincludesthefollowingheader:"VIRUSBULLETINCONFERENCE,SEPTEMBER1995.
"Ex.
1005,1;seealsoid.
at3,5,7,9,11,13(includingthesameheader).
AlongwiththePetition,PetitionerintroducedadeclarationofDr.
SylviaHall-Ellis,DirectorofGrantsandResourceDevelopmentfortheColoradoCommunityCollegeSystemandAdjunctProfessorintheSchoolofInformationatSanJoseStateUniversity,testifyingthatExhibit1005isatrueandcorrectcopyofSwimmer,whichappearedintheProceedingsoftheFifthVirusBulletinInternationalConference("VirusBulletinProceedings");thatatrueandcorrectcopyoftheVirusBulletinProceedingsispresentedasExhibit1010;andthatatrueandcorrectcopyoftheMachineReadableCataloging(MARC)recordfortheVirusBulletinProceedings,obtainedfromtheOnlineComputerLibraryCenter(OCLC)ConnexiondatabasewitharecordIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B226numbercreatedonDecember1,1995,byacatalogerattheUniversityofWashingtonLibrary,ispresentedasExhibit1011.
Ex.
100618,19.
Dr.
Hall-EllisadditionallytestifiesastobackgroundinformationregardingthesignificanceofMARCandOCLCrecords,andopinesthat"[i]nviewoftheforegoing,theVirusBulleting[sic]Proceedings,includingSwimmer,wouldhavebeenaccessibletothepublicasofDecember1,1995.
"Id.
at6–12,20.
4.
Discussion–DifferencesBetweentheClaimedSubjectMatterandthePriorArta.
Claim1PetitionerassertsinthePetitionthatSwimmerteachesorsuggestsallofthelimitationsofeachofthechallengedclaims.
Pet.
12–25.
Withrespecttoclaim1,Petitionercontends,first,thatSwimmerdisclosesa"computer-basedmethod,"asrecitedinthepreambleofclaim1.
Id.
at13–14.
Inparticular,Petitionercontends,"SwimmerexplainsthatitsVIDESsystemisusedtodetectvirusesinapplicationprogramsandprogramcodebymonitoringandanalyzingthefunctionsandoperationstheseprogramsattempttoinvoke.
"Id.
at14(citingEx.
1005,7;Ex.
101889).
"Theseapplicationprogramscaninclude'programsenteringaprotectednetwork'(i.
e.
,executablecodebeingdownloadedoveranetwork).
"Id.
(citingEx.
1005,13).
Second,accordingtoPetitioner,becauseSwimmer"explainsthattheVIDESsystemcanbeusedinanetworkedenvironmentaspartofafirewallforaprotectednetwork,"SwimmerexplicitlydisclosesthatanincomingDownloadableisreceivedoveranetwork,asrecitedinclaim1.
Id.
at15–16(citingEx.
1005,13;Ex.
101892–93(explainingthatfirewallsareIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B227securitydevicesorsoftwarelocatedbetweenanoutsidenetwork,suchastheInternet,andaninternalnetwork,suchasanintranetthatconnectsclientcomputers)).
Third,Petitionercontends,"Swimmerdiscloses.
.
.
derivingsecurityprofiledatafortheDownloadable,includingalistofsuspiciouscomputeroperationsthatmaybeattemptedbytheDownloadable,"asrecitedinclaim1.
Id.
at16(boldfaceomitted).
Inparticular,Petitioneralleges,togeneratesystemactivitydata,Swimmer'semulator"acceptstheentireinstructionsetofaprocessorasinput,andinterpretsthebinarycodeastheoriginalprocessorwould.
"Id.
at16–17(quotingEx.
1005,8).
Petitionerpointsout,Swimmer'saudittrailincludesafieldentitled"functionnumber"thatidentifiesandlistsnumberscorrespondingtoDOSfunctionsrequestedbyananalyzedprogram.
Pet.
17.
Petitionerprovidesevidencethatsuchfunctionnumberswereknowninthepriorarttocorrespondto,amongotherfunctions,thesamefourtypesofoperationsthatarerecitedas"suspiciouscomputeroperations"inchallengeddependentclaims6and15.
Id.
at17–18,21–22(citingEx.
1018117–120(citingRayDuncan,AdvancedMS-DOS272–82(MicrosoftPress1986)("Duncan")(Ex.
1020,3–13))).
Moreparticularly,withreferencetotheauditrecordformatandillustrativeaudittrailpresentedbySwimmer(Ex.
1005,9,Fig.
3),Petitionercontends:Swimmerexplainsthatauditrecordsgeneratedbytheauditsystemincludeafield,called"functionnumber,"whichisthe"numberoftheDOSfunctionrequestedbytheprogram.
"[Ex.
1005,]9.
AsexplainedbyDr.
Davidson,inDOS,functionnumbersareassignedto"INT21h"functions,whichincludevarioustypesofsystemoperations.
[Id.
at]7("Primarily,interrupt0x21isused");[Ex.
1018]100.
Forexample,functionnumbers0,49,76areprogramterminationoperations.
Functionnumbers15arefileoperations(open,close).
Functions72-74,IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B228and88arememoryoperations.
Functionnumbers68,94,and95arenetworkoperations.
[Id.
at]101.
Significantly,theseoperationsidentifiedbySwimmer'sauditsystemaretheverysametypesofoperationsreferredtobytheapplicationsrelatedtothe'494patentasexamplesof"suspiciousoperations.
"[Ex.
1002,18:9-13](DSPdata"includesthefundamentalcomputeroperations,"inaDownloadablesuchas"filemanagementoperations,systemmanagementoperations,memorymanagementoperationsandCPUallocationoperations.
").
Thus,Swimmerdisclosesderivingsecurityprofiledata(e.
g.
,auditrecords)thatincludesalistofsuspiciousoperationsthattheDownloadablemayattempttoinvoke(e.
g.
,INT21hsystemfunctions).
[Ex.
1018]102.
Pet.
17–18.
Lastly,PetitionerarguesthatSwimmerdisclosesthattheauditrecords(i.
e.
,Downloadablesecurityprofiledata)arestoredinadatabase,asrecitedinclaim1.
Id.
at18–19.
Petitionercontends,inparticular,thatFigure3ofSwimmershowsthat"theauditrecordincludesalistofsuspiciousoperationsidentifiedbytheauditsystemthatareorganizedaccordingtoaclearlydefinedstructurewithvariousfields(i.
e.
,anorganizedcollectionofdatathatisorganizedbasedonaparticularschema).
"Id.
at19.
Moreover,Petitionercontends,"totheextentPatentOwnerarguesthattheclaimed'database'must'serveoneormoreapplications,'Swimmer.
.
.
disclosesthattheauditrecordsstoredinthedatabaseareusedbyotherprocesses.
"Id.
at19–20.
"Forexample,thedatabaseisusedbyanexpertsystem(e.
g.
,application)toanalyzeprogrambehaviorusingvirusbehaviorrules.
"Id.
at20(citingEx.
1005,1,2).
Basedontherecorddevelopedattrial,wearepersuadedthatPetitionerexplainssufficientlyhowSwimmerteachesorsuggestseachlimitationofclaim1toestablishbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethattheIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B229subjectmatterofclaim1wouldhavebeenobviousoverSwimmer.
PatentOwner'sargumentstothecontrary,addressedbelow,donotpersuadeusotherwise.
i.
PublicAccessibilityofSwimmerAsaninitialmatter,PatentOwnercontendsthatPetitionerhasfailedtoshowthatSwimmerwaspubliclyaccessiblepriortothecriticaldate.
POResp.
1.
PatentOwnerarguesthatDr.
Hall-Ellistestifiedinadepositionthatshehadnofirst-handknowledgeastothepublicavailabilityofSwimmerorthecreationoftheMARCrecordforSwimmer;thatshefirstlearnedofSwimmerinAugust2015;thatshedidnotattendtheVirusBulletinconferencewhereSwimmerwasallegedlymadeavailable;andthattheallegeddateSwimmerwascatalogedbytheUniversityofWashingtondoesnotrepresentthatSwimmerwasactuallydistributedattheVirusBulletinconferencein1995.
Id.
at17–18(citingEx.
2011(Hall-Ellisdepositiontranscript),39:4–8,40:2–14,44:19–25,50:17–51:3,59:19–61:9,63:21–25).
PatentOwneralsoarguesSwimmeritselfmakesclearthatitwasnotpubliclyaccessible,pointingtoastatementatthebottomofthefirstpageofSwimmerthat"Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformwithoutthepriorwrittenpermissionofthepublishers.
"Id.
at16–17(citingEx.
1005,1).
PetitionerrepliesthattheevidenceclearlydemonstratesthatSwimmerwasavailableanddisseminatedtotherelevantpublicinSeptember1995andpublishedandmadeavailablethroughthelibrarysystembyatleastDecember1995,bothofwhicharewellbeforetheNovember6,1996,earliest-possibleprioritydateofthe'494patent.
Pet.
Reply23.
PetitionercontendsthatSwimmerbearsacopyrightdateof1995andstatesthatitwasIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B230publishedinSeptember1995;thattheVirusBulletinProceedingsshowsthatSwimmerwasavailableanddisseminatedataconferenceinBostononSeptember20–22,1995;andthatDr.
Hall-Ellis'sdeclarationestablishesthataMARCrecordcorrespondingtotheVirusBulletinProceedingswascreatedbytheUniversityofWashingtonLibrariesonDecember1,1995,affirmingthatSwimmerwouldhavebeenpubliclyavailableatthattime.
Id.
at23–24(citing,e.
g.
,Ex.
1005,1;Ex.
100618–20;Ex.
1010,12;Ex.
1011).
PetitionercontendsDr.
Hall-Ellis"testifiedatlength"inherdepositionaboutherextensiveexperiencewithlibrarycatalogingandshelvingpractices,bothgenerallyandspecificallywithrespecttoSwimmer,andthatneitherfirst-handknowledgeofthedistributionofSwimmerattheVirusBulletinconferencenorphysicalpresenceatthecreationoftheMARCrecordinDecember1995isrequiredtoprovepublicaccessibility.
Id.
at24(citingEx.
2011,17–20,25–28,37–45,56,59,63).
Petitioneradditionallyprovides(1)asupplementaldeclarationofDr.
Hall-Ellis,providing,interalia,additionalexplanationofthereliabilityandsignificanceoftheMARCrecordrelieduponinherfirstdeclaration(Ex.
10378–22);(2)adeclarationofDr.
RichardFord,statingthathewasanexecutiveeditoratVirusBulletinin1995;thathepersonallyattendedtheVirusBulletinconferenceinBostoninSeptember1995,atwhichSwimmerwaspresented;andthathereceiveduponcheckingintotheconference—andstillpossesses—abinderoftheconferenceproceedings(Ex.
1040),includingacopyofSwimmer(Ex.
1039,7–20)identicaltoExhibit1005(Ex.
10382,6–14);and(3)adeclarationofJosephKiegel,statingthathehasworkedattheUniversityofWashingtonLibraryformorethan30yearsandhaspersonalknowledgeofitscatalogingandshelvingIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B231practicesinthe1995timeframe;thatacopyoftheProceedingsoftheFifthInternationalVirusBulletinConference(Ex.
1026),includingtheSwimmerreference(id.
at106–119),isheldandmaintainedbytheUniversityofWashingtonEngineeringLibraryandbearsadatestampofDecember9,1995;thattheEngineeringLibrary'sstandardpracticeinthe1995timeframewastodatestampallmaterialsuponreceipt,afterwhichtheywereshelvedwithinafewdays;andthattheVirusBulletinproceedingswouldhavebeenontheshelfandavailabletothepublicinDecember1995(Ex.
10411–8).
WeagreewithPetitionerthattheevidenceproducedattrialsufficientlydemonstratesthatSwimmerwasdisseminatedtoattendeesuponcheck-inatTheFifthInternationalVirusBulletinConference,heldinBostononSeptember20–22,1995.
Moreover,evendisregardingPetitioner'sReplyevidence,wecreditDr.
Hall-Ellis'stestimonyinherinitialdeclarationassufficienttoestablish,atminimum,thatSwimmerwaspubliclyavailablenolaterthanDecember1995(Ex.
10063,6–12,18–20).
BecausewecreditDr.
Hall-Ellis'stestimonyregardingthereliabilityofMARCrecordsandtheproceduresthatsheemployedinformulatingheropinioninthiscase,weagreewithPetitioner(seePet.
Reply24)thatneitherfirst-handknowledgeofthedistributionofSwimmerattheVirusBulletinconferencenorphysicalpresenceatthecreationoftheMARCrecordinDecember1995isrequiredtoprovepublicaccessibilityasofDecember1995.
Moreover,wedonotfindSwimmer'sinclusionofastandardcopyrightnoticepurportingtorestrictreproduction,storage,andtransmissionsufficienttosupportPatentOwner'spositioninlightoftheevidencedocumentingthatSwimmerwascatalogedbyandavailablethroughtheUniversityofWashingtonLibrariesasofDecember1995.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B232ii.
SwimmerDoesNotTeachAwayfromtheClaimedSubjectMatterPatentOwnernextcontendsthatSwimmerteachesawayfromtheinventionclaimedinthe'494patent.
POResp.
19.
PatentOwnerpointstostatementsinSwimmerthat"[e]veryfilehastobeprocessed"andthat"therearenoshortcuts,"andcontendsthat,fromthosestatements,"oneofskillintheartwouldnotbemotivatedtocreateasystemthatinvolvedsystemsthatwereabletoshortcuttheprocessingofDownloadables,suchasthesystemclaimedinthe'494Patent.
"Id.
(citingEx.
1005,1;Ex.
200753).
PatentOwneralsocontendsthatSwimmerteachesthatdatabase-basedsystemscanbeeasilycircumventedandarenotefficient,and,therefore,teachesawayfromtheuseofdatabasesolutions.
Id.
at19–20(citingEx.
1005,Abstract,3,7,13;Ex.
2007107).
Asexplainedinmoredetailbelow,wearepersuadedthatSwimmerteachesorsuggestsallelementsofclaims1,2,and6,includingstoringDownloadablesecurityprofiledatainadatabase.
Moreover,wedonotunderstandSwimmer'sstatementsregardingeveryfileneedingtobe"processed"andtherebeing"noshortcuts"toteachawayfromanyoftherecitedelementsofclaims1,2,or6,giventhegeneralizednatureofitsstatementsconcerningvirusdetection.
Ex.
1005,1.
iii.
SwimmerTeachesa"ListofSuspiciousComputerOperations"PatentOwnernextcontends"Swimmerdoesnotdisclose'alistofsuspiciouscomputeroperationsthatmatbeattemptedbytheDownloadable,'becauseSwimmerneverdeemsanyoperationsassuspicious.
"POResp.
22.
PatentOwnerargues,"[i]nthe'494Patent,thederived'listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations'cannotbecreatedwithoutIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B233theadditionalstepofdeemingcertainoperationsassuspicious,"and"[i]nfact,thespecificationofthe'494Patent[4]demonstratesthatderivingalistofsuspiciouscomputeroperationsinvolvesanaffirmativedeterminationthatanoperationaddedtothelistissuspicious.
"Id.
at22–23(citingEx.
1013,9:20–42;Ex.
200784).
Incontrast,PatentOwnercontends,"Swimmer'saudittraildoesnotdeemanyoperationsassuspicious.
Atmost,Swimmer'saudittrailhasa'functionnumber'attributetodesignatestandardDOSfunctionnumberslogged.
"Id.
at23.
PatentOwnercontendsthattheDOSfunctionnumberslistedinSwimmer'saudittrailarenotalistofsuspiciouscomputeroperations.
Id.
PatentOwnerpointsoutthatDuncan,citedbyPetitioner,explainsthat"MS-DOSfunctions.
.
.
arewellstandardizedandavailableonanyMS-DOSsystem.
"Id.
at24(quotingEx.
1020,5).
CitingDr.
Medvidovic'stestimonyreferringtoDuncan,PatentOwnerfurthercontends"itwouldbenonsensicaltounderstandabookpublishedbyMicrosoftthatteachesprogrammershowtoutilizeMS-DOSsystemfunctionstoteachthatMicrosoft'sstandardsystemfunctionsaresuspiciouscomputeroperations.
"Id.
(citingEx.
1020,5;Ex.
200792).
PatentOwnerfurthercontendsthat"nocomputeroperationsareapriorisuspicious"andthat"Petitionermisstatesthedisclosuresofancestralapplications,namelythe'639Provisionalandthe'194Patent,toimplythatall'fundamentalcomputeroperations'are'suspicious'bydefinition.
"Id.
at25.
Inreply,Petitionerarguesthat"[a]lthoughSwimmerdoesnotusetheword'suspicious'theseDOSfunctionsarethefundamentaloperationsthatprovideaccesstocorecomponentsofthecomputer,suchasthefile4Onceagain,althoughreferringto"thespecificationofthe'494Patent,"PatentOwnerinsteadcitesthe'194patent.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B234system,OS,andmemory,"and"aPOSITAwouldhavereadilyunderstoodthattheseDOSfunctionswerebeingrecordedbySwimmer'sVIDESsystembecausetheyarethetypeofoperationsthatcanbeusedbyvirusestocauseharm(i.
e.
,suspiciouscomputeroperations).
"Pet.
Reply10(citingEx.
1018101,153;Ex.
102782–90).
Further,Petitionercontends,PatentOwner'sassertionsthat"Swimmer'saudittraildoesnotdeemanyoperationssuspicious"andthat"theremustbealistdesignatingonlythesuspiciousoperations"are"premisedentirelyon[PatentOwner's]unreasonablynarrowclaiminterpretationsandrehashedargumentsthattheBoardpreviouslyrejected.
"Id.
at10–11(citingPOResp.
22–25,28).
However,Petitionerfurthercontends,SwimmerteachesthisclaimlimitationevenunderPatentOwner'sproposedconstruction.
Id.
at11–12.
Inparticular,Petitionercontends:[T]he'494patentmakesclearthatdeterminingwhetheracomputeroperationis"suspicious"simplyinvolvesdeterminingwhetheritisacertaintypeofoperation(e.
g.
,afilesystemoperation).
Significantly,Swimmerteachesthisexacttechnique.
Swimmer'sauditsystemonlygeneratesauditrecordsforcertaintypesofcomputeroperations,e.
g.
,DOSfunctions,thattheDownloadableattemptstoinvoke.
AsFinjan'sexpertacknowledged,inadditiontothesetypesofsystemfunctions(e.
g.
,theDOSfunctionsrecordedbySwimmer)programsinvokemanyothertypesofoperationsduringtheirexecution,suchasarithmeticoperations,internalfunctions,andjumpoperations.
[Ex.
1034(Medvidovicdepositiontranscript)],126:19–127:22;[Ex.
1029(MicrosoftComputerDictionary,3rdEdition)],10(defining"operation");[Ex.
102765–74].
Thus,Swimmer'saudittrailisnotjustalistingofeveryoperationexecutedbytheDownloadable;rather,itonlyincludescertainoperations,e.
g.
,DOSsystemfunctionsthatneedtobefurtheranalyzedbySwimmer'svirusdetectionsystem(i.
e.
,suspiciousoperations).
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B235Id.
RegardingPatentOwner'scontentionthatitwouldbe"nonsensical"tobelieveMicrosoftintendedstandardsystemfunctionstobesuspiciouscomputeroperations(POResp.
24),Petitionerarguesthat"[w]hilethisispresumablytrue,itdoesnotchangethefactthatthesearepreciselythetypeofcomputeroperationsusedbyvirusesandothermaliciousprograms.
"Pet.
Reply12.
AsPetitionerpointsout,PatentOwner'sargumentispremisedonitsproposedconstructionof"alistofsuspiciouscomputeroperations"as"alistofcomputeroperationsdeemedsuspicious"(POResp.
10(emphasisadded)),whichwerejectedinsectionIII.
A.
1,supra.
Nonetheless,wearepersuadedbyPetitioner'sargumentsandevidencethatSwimmerdisclosesderiving"securityprofiledataincludingalistofsuspiciouscomputeroperations"evenunderPatentOwner'sproposedconstruction.
WeagreewithPetitionerthatSwimmerteachesgenerationofauditrecordsfor"INT21h"(or"interrupt0x21")DOSsystemfunctions(Ex.
1005,7,9),whichwefindincludethetypesofoperationsthatSwimmeridentifiestobeinvolvedinvirusinfectionstrategies—e.
g.
,fileoperationssuchasopening,writing,reading,andclosingfiles,aswellasfilteringofauditresultsforfurtherprocessing(seeid.
at4–8,Fig.
2;Ex.
1020).
AlthoughSwimmerdoesnotusethewords"deemed"or"suspicious,"weunderstandSwimmertohavedeemedthosefunctionssuspiciousinthesamebroadmannerpermittedbythe'194patentthatisincorporatedbyreferenceintothe'494patent.
Inparticular,the'194patentstates,initsdescriptionofFigure3thereof:Thecodescanner325maygeneratetheDSPdata310asalistofalloperationsintheDownloadablecodewhichcouldeverbeIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B236deemedpotentiallyhostileandalistofallfilestobeaccessedbytheDownloadablecode.
.
.
.
AnExampleListofOperationsDeemedPotentiallyHostileFileoperations:READafile,WRITEafile;Networkoperations:LISTENonasocket,CONNECTtoasocket,SENDdata,RECEIVEdata,VIEWINTRANET;Registryoperations:READaregistryitem,WRITEaregistryitem;Operatingsystemoperations:EXITWINDOWS,EXITBROWSER,STARTPROCESS/THREAD,KILLAPROCESS/THREAD,CHANGEPROCESS/THREADPRIORITY,DYNAMICALLYLOADACLASS/LIBRARY,etc.
;andResourceusagethresholds;memory,CPU,graphics,etc.
Ex.
1013,5:50–6:4.
Further,asexplainedinSectionIII.
A.
1,supra,column9,lines20–29,ofthe'194patent,citedbyPatentOwnerinsupportofitscontentionthatthemethodofclaim1requiresapreliminary"deeming"step,expresslyconnectsthedeterminationaswhetheraresolvedcommandis"suspicious"with,forexample,"whetherthecommandisoneoftheoperationsidentifiedinthelistdescribedabovewithreferencetoFIG.
3.
"Inrelyingonthedisclosureofthe'194patent,wearenotusingknowledgegleanedfromthechallengedpatent—e.
g.
,"theinsighttodeemsomesubsetof'callsmadetoanoperatingsystem,afilesystem,anetworksystem,andtomemory'assuspicious"(seePOResp.
11)—toproveobviousness,butweinsteadlooktothatdisclosureinregardtothemeaningoftheterm"suspicious"inthe'494patentthatdemonstratesSwimmerhadthesameunderstanding,evenifnotinipsisverbis,priortothe'494patent'searliestclaimedprioritydate.
AsPatentOwneracknowledges(POResp.
27),weexplainedintheDecisiononInstitutionthatwedonotunderstandtherecitedstepofIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B237"derivingsecurityprofiledatafortheDownloadable,includingalistofsuspiciouscomputeroperationsthatmaybeattemptedbytheDownloadable"torequiretherecitedlisttoconsistonlyofsuspiciouscomputeroperations.
Dec.
onInst.
22.
PatentOwnercontendsthat"althoughthederivedDSPdatadoesnotneedtoincludeonlyalistofsuspiciouscomputeroperations,theremustbeatleastaderivedlistofsuspiciouscomputeroperationsincludedintheDSP,[and]Swimmerdoesnotdisclosesuchalist.
"POResp.
28.
Wedisagree.
ThisisnotakintoPatentOwner'sanalogythat"ifaskedtoprovidealistofpeoplewhowillbeinvitedtoaparty,acopyofthemostrecentcensuswouldnotservethepurpose,evenifeverypersonwhowastobeinvitedtothepartywasalsoincludedinthecensus.
"Id.
Rather,inviewofthe'194patent'sbroadpronouncementthatDSPdatamaybegenerated"asalistofalloperationsintheDownloadablecodewhichcouldeverbedeemedpotentiallyhostile"(Ex.
1013,5:50–53(emphasisadded))—which,forreasonsexplainedabove,wedetermineprovidesthebestindicationastowhattheclaimphrase"listofsuspiciouscomputeroperations"meansinthecontextofclaim1—amoreaptanalogywouldbe"ifaskedtoprovidealistofallpeoplewhocouldeverpotentiallybeinvitedtoaparty,"forwhich,wefind,acopyofthemostrecentcensusmaywellservethepurpose.
5InourRehearingDecision,westatedthat"[w]eunderstandSwimmer's'activitydata,'which,ascitedbyPetitioner,areeachcontained5WealsodonotunderstandSwimmertoregisterallcallstoDOSfunctions.
Swimmerexplainsthat"[t]heveryfirstimplementationofanauditingsystem.
.
.
registeredallcallstoDOSfunctions,"butthatthatimplementation"didnotrunreliably,andcouldbesubvertedbytunnellingviruses"and"wassoonscrapped.
"Ex.
1005,7.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B238withinanauditrecord,tobe'Downloadablesecurityprofiledata,'intheparlanceofclaims1and10ofthe'494patent.
"Reh'gDec.
6.
Apparentlyreferringtothatstatement,PatentOwnercontendsthat"[t]heBoard'spositionthatsystemactivitydatawithinasingleauditrecordmeetstheDSPlimitationdoesnotwithstandscrutiny,"because"an'auditrecord'is'asetofattributesrelatedtoasingleeventintheactivitydata,"and"eachauditrecordcanonlyincludeasingleMS-DOSfunctionnumber,notalistofcomputeroperations.
"POResp.
28–29.
WeagreewithPatentOwnerthateachauditrecordinSwimmerincludesonlyafunctionnumbercorrespondingtoasinglecomputeroperation,ratherthanalistofcomputeroperations,butdisagreethatwefoundotherwiseintheRehearingDecision.
Totheextenttheabovequotedstatementissubjecttootherinterpretation,weclarifythatweunderstandSwimmer'sactivitydata(plural)tobeDownloadablesecurityprofiledata,andthattheindividualelementsofthoseactivitydataarestoredinauditrecords.
iv.
SwimmerTeaches"Storing"SecurityProfileDataina"Database"PatentOwnercontendsthat"PetitionernevermappedanyportionofSwimmertotheadoptedconstructionof'database,'"andthat"Petitioner'smappingofanaudittrailtoadatabaseiscontrarytotheteachingofSwimmer.
"POResp.
32.
AccordingtoPatentOwner,"Swimmerspecificallyusestheterm'database'initsdisclosure,andexplainshowtheyshouldnotbeused.
"Id.
(citingEx.
1005,3).
Moreover,accordingtoPatentOwner,"Swimmer'stechniquedoesnotinvolveplacingthederivedDSPdataintoadatabase.
Atmost,Swimmerusestheterms'convert'and'conversion'todescribetheactionsassociatedwithitsaudittrail,"but"oneIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B239ofskillintheartrecognizedthat'converting'isanactionthatisdifferentfromstoring.
"Id.
at34–35(citingEx.
1005,7,12;Ex.
2007109,111).
PatentOwnerfurthercontendsSwimmer'saudittrailisnotadatabasebecauseitisalogfile.
Id.
at35–43.
Moreparticularly,accordingtoPatentOwner,Petitioner'sdeclarantDr.
DavidsonadmittedthatSwimmer'saudittrailisalogfile,andthepracticalimportoftheBoard'sadoptionofPatentOwner'sconstructionisthat"database"isnotbroadenoughtoincludealogfile.
Id.
at35–37.
Further,"Swimmer'saudittrailcannotbeconsidereda'flat-filedatabase'asurgedbyPetitioner,"bothbecause"thePetitionandDr.
Davidson'sdeclarationarebothdevoidofanyexplanationofwhataflat-filedatabaseisorwhyaPOSITAwouldconsiderSwimmer'saudittrailtobe"one,andalsobecause"Swimmer's'audittrail'.
.
.
doesnotcontainadatabaseschema.
"Id.
at37–38(citingPet.
19;Ex.
2007121,140;Ex.
2024(MicrosoftComputerDictionary,3rdEdition),199(defining"flat-filedatabase").
"InadditiontoSwimmer'saudittrailnotbeingorganizedaccordingtoa'databaseschema,'"PatentOwnercontends,"theaudittrailhasallofthehallmarksofatraditionallogfile,"includingbeing"providedinagenericformat,"being"asequentialfileinwhichrecordsaresequentiallyappended,"andhaving"individualauditrecords[that].
.
.
simplysharethesameformatratherthanbeinggovernedbyadatabaseschema.
"Id.
at39–40(citingEx.
2007119–121).
PatentOwnerfurthercontendsthatthe'494Patentitselfdistinguishesbetweenlogfilesforeventloggingandtheclaimeddatabase,andapersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldunderstandthatthe'494patentdistinguishesbetweentheminbothformandfunction.
Id.
at40(citingEx.
2007126,128).
Finally,PatentOwnercontendsthatoneofskillintheartwouldnotbemotivatedtoIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B240substituteSwimmer'slogfilewithadatabase,becauseSwimmerteachesagainstdatabase-basedsystems,explicitlyteachestheuseof"files,"not"databases,"andsubstitutionofSwimmer'saudittrailforadatabasewouldnotimproveperformanceinSwimmer'ssystem.
Id.
at43–46(citingEx.
1005,3,10,12,13;Ex.
200753,60,107,114–128,137–139,148).
PetitionerrepliesthatSwimmerdoesnotteachawayfromusingdatabases,butinfactteachesstoringauditrecordsinadatabase.
Pet.
Reply14.
First,accordingtoPetitioner,thebackgroundportionsofSwimmerPatentOwnercitesasteachingawayfromuseofdatabasessimplyproviderecognitionthatcertainprior-artpattern-matchingvirus-detectiontechniquesthatuseddatabasesof"virusidentificationinformation"maynotbeeffectiveforalltypesofviruses,anddonotcriticizetheuseofdatabasesgenerally.
Id.
AstoPatentOwner'sargumentthatSwimmerdoesnot"store"auditrecords,Petitionercontends:"Nothingcouldbefurtherfromthetruth.
AsFinjanacknowledges,Swimmerclearlyteachesthatitsauditrecordsare'produced'bytheemulatorandthenplacedintoalargesequentialfile.
"Id.
at14–15(citingPOResp.
14;Ex.
1005,10,12,Fig.
3;Ex.
1029,7(defining"file"as"abasicunitofstorage");Ex.
200771,107).
Indeed,accordingtoPetitioner,"itwouldbetechnicallyimpossibleforSwimmer'ssystemtogeneratealistofauditrecords,puttheminafile,andthenaccessandanalyzetheserecordswithoutplacingtheminanyformofstorage.
"Id.
at15(citingEx.
102720).
PetitionerfurthercontendsSwimmerteachesstoringtheaudittrailinadatabase,despitePatentOwner'sarguments(1)thatDr.
DavidsonadmittedthatSwimmer'saudittrailisa"logfile,"(2)thatSwimmer'saudittrailisa"flatfile"butnotaIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B241"flatfiledatabase,"and(3)thatSwimmer'saudittraildoesnothavea"databaseschema.
"Id.
at15–17(citingPOResp.
36–39).
Havingconsideredthefulltrialrecord,wearepersuadedthatSwimmerteachesstoringsecurityprofiledataina"database,"asthattermisproperlyconstruedas"acollectionofinterrelateddataorganizedaccordingtoadatabaseschematoserveoneormoreapplications.
"SeesupraSectionIII.
A.
3.
Inparticular,thefileincludesauditrecordsrelatingcodesegmentswithfunctionnumberscorrespondingtotheDOSfunctionstheyinvoke;thememory/registervalues,ifany,usedinthecallstothosefunctions;thereturnvalues,ifany,returnedbythosefunctions;andthecorrespondingactionstartandendtimes—thus,"acollectionofinterrelateddata.
"SeeEx.
1005,9,Fig.
3.
Thosedataareorganizedaccordingtoadatabaseschema,namely,thecomma-delimitedformat".
.
),retanalogoustotheUNIXpassworddatabase/etc/passwdcitedbyPetitioner,havingthecolon-delimitedrecordschema"name:passwd:uid:gid:info:home:shell.
"Id.
;Pet.
19("[T]heauditrecordincludesalistofsuspiciousoperationsidentifiedbytheauditsystemthatareorganizedaccordingtoaclearlydefinedstructurewithvariousfields(i.
e.
,anorganizedcollectionofdatathatisorganizedbasedonaparticularschema).
");Pet.
Reply16–17;Ex.
1018107;Ex.
102728;Ex.
1031,6.
Finally,SwimmerdisclosesthattheaudittraildataareprovidedasanNADFfile"forfurtherprocessing"—i.
e.
,toserveanapplication.
Ex.
1005,7,12–13;seePet.
19–20("Swimmer.
.
.
disclosesthattheauditrecordsstoredinthedatabaseareusedbyotherprocesses.
Forexample,thedatabaseisusedbyanexpertsystem(e.
g.
,application)toanalyzeprogrambehaviorusingvirusbehaviorrules.
");IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B242Ex.
1018109.
Although,asPatentOwnerrepeatedlypointsout(seePOResp.
20,44–45(citingEx.
1005,13;Ex.
2007107,125)),Swimmerstatesthat"therule-basedlanguageRUSSELallowseachrecordtobeprocessedonlyonce"(Ex.
1005,13),wedonotunderstandthatstatementtosuggestthattheaudittraildataarenotstored.
Tothecontrary,weagreewithPetitionerthatSwimmer'suseoftheterm"file"andthedisclosureof"furtherprocessing"requirethatthedatabestored,andnotmerely"converted,"asPatentOwnercontends.
SeePOResp.
34–35;Pet.
Reply14–15.
PatentOwneralsocontendsthattheentiresecurityprofilemustbederivedbeforeanyoftheDSPdatacanbestored.
POResp.
46–47.
AsexplainedinSectionIII.
A.
3,supra,weagreewithPetitionerthattheclaimsdonotrequirethatthe"entire"securityprofilemustbederivedbeforeplacinganyoftheDSPdataintothedatabase.
SeePet.
Reply9,17.
Insummary,wearepersuaded,fortheforegoingreasons,thatPetitionerhascarrieditsburdentodemonstratethatalllimitationsofclaim1aretaughtorsuggestedbySwimmer.
b.
Claim2Claim2dependsfromclaim1andfurtherrecites"storingadate&timewhentheDownloadablesecurityprofiledatawasderived,inthedatabase.
"Ex.
1001,21:26–28.
InsupportofitscontentionthatSwimmerrendersclaim2unpatentable,PetitionerpointstoSwimmer'sdisclosurethateachauditrecordentryincludes"StartTime"and"EndTime"fieldsthatindicatewhentheauditrecordwasgeneratedbytheemulatorand/orauditsystem.
Pet.
20–21(citingEx.
1005,9,10,Fig.
3;Ex.
1018115–116).
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B243PatentOwnerdoesnotprovideanyseparateargumentwithrespecttoclaim2inthePatentOwnerResponse.
WehaveconsideredtheevidencecitedinthePetitionandarepersuaded,forthereasonspresentedbyPetitioner,thatPetitionerhascarrieditsburdentodemonstratethat"storingadate&timewhentheDownloadablesecurityprofiledatawasderived,inthedatabase"istaughtbySwimmer.
c.
Claim5Claim5dependsfromclaim1andfurtherrecitesthattheDownloadable"includesprogramscript.
"Ex.
1001,21:33–34.
InsupportofitscontentionthatSwimmerrendersclaim5unpatentable,PetitionerpointstoSwimmer'sdisclosurethatVIDEScanbeusedtoderivesecurityprofiledataforapplicationprogramsandcode,includingprogramsreceivedatafirewall,andarguesthat"[a]lthoughSwimmerdoesnotexplicitlystatethattheDownloadablesthatarereceivedandanalyzedinclude'programscripts,'thiswouldhavebeenobvious"toapersonofordinaryskillintheart.
Pet.
22(citingEx.
1005,Abst.
,13;Ex.
1018121–122).
Petitioneralsopointsoutthatthe'494patentadmitsthatvariouskindsofprogramscripts,includingscriptsreceivedoveranetwork,werewell-knownanddisclosedinthepriorart.
Id.
(citingEx.
1001,2:22–27).
Thus,Petitionercontends,forapersonofordinaryskillintheart,"thiswouldhavemerelyinvolvedapplyingthesametechniquestoanotherwell-knownformofexecutablecode(e.
g.
,receivingprogramscriptsatafirewallandusingtheemulatortoidentifyandrecordsuspiciousoperationsinthescript),"andapersonofordinaryskillintheart"wouldhavebeenmotivatedtodosoforanumberofreasons,includingtoimprovetheeffectivenessofthevirusIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B244detectionsystemtaughtbySwimmerbyenablingusewithawiderrangeofDownloadables.
"Id.
at23(citingEx.
1018124–125).
InresponsetoPetitioner'scontentions,PatentOwnercontendsSwimmer'ssystemcannotprocessprogramscript.
POResp.
52.
RelyingonthetestimonyofDr.
MedvidovicandanMS-DOSProgrammer'sReferencebook(Ex.
2031),PatentOwnerargues"Swimmer'ssystemistiedtotheMS-DOSoperatingsystemtoperformtheemulationofaMSDOSprogramandlogDOSfunctionnumbers,"and"MS-DOSonlyrecognizestwoprogramtypes:.
COMand.
EXE,notprogramscript,suchasJavaScript.
"Id.
(citingEx.
2007168;Ex.
2031,10).
Further,accordingtoPatentOwner,"Swimmerreliesonthe8086emulatorandcanonlyemulateMS-DOSprogramsthathavebeencompiledintobinarycode,"whereas"[i]ncontrastJavaScript,isnotcompiledbutratherremainstextuallycodedinahuman-readableformatwhenincludedalongwithwebpage.
"Id.
at52–53(citingEx.
2007167;Ex.
2024,269(defining"JavaScript");Ex.
2025(OxfordDictionaryofComputing,4thEdition),40(defining"binarycode")).
"[D]uetothesefundamentaldifferencesinstructureandfunction(e.
g.
froma8086emulatortiedtoMS-DOSoperatingsystemandMS-DOSprogramsasopposedtoprogramscript,suchasJavaScript,thatrunsinabrowserthatistypicallyindependentoftheoperatingsystem),"PatentOwnerargues,"Petitioner'ssuggestedmodificationisnotsufficienttorendertheclaimsprimafacieobvious.
"Id.
at53.
PetitionerarguesinitsReplythatSwimmer'sVIDESsystemcanemulatescripts.
Pet.
Reply19.
Specifically,relyingonDr.
Davidson'stestimony,Petitionercontendsthat"anemulatorcandirectlyruncompiledscripts,"andthat,"whileabinaryexecutableinterpreter(e.
g.
,ashell)isIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B245neededtoindirectlyruntextualscripts,""Swimmer'semulatorcanexecuteandinteractwithaninterpreterthroughMS-DOSINT21Hfunctionstogenerateanaudittrail,forthescript.
.
.
justlikeanyotherexecutable.
"Pet.
Reply19(citingEx.
1027103–111;Ex.
2012,114:15–118:15).
Havingconsideredthefulltrialrecord,wearenotpersuadedthatclaim5isunpatentableoverSwimmer.
Inparticular,althoughwecreditDr.
Davidson'stestimonythatprogramscriptswere"well-knownbythetimeofthe'494patent,"thatprogramscriptswereoftenincludedinfilesandmessagestransmittedthroughfirewalls,andthatapersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldhavebeenmotivatedtoreceiveandderivesecurityprofiledataforprogramscripts(Ex.
1018122–124),wearenotpersuadedthatsuchapersonofordinaryskillwouldhaveunderstoodSwimmertoteachorsuggestthattheVIDESsystemcouldbeusedtodoso,particularlytotheextentthatitwouldbenecessarytointerposea"scriptinterpreter"betweenthescriptandtheemulatorinSwimmer'ssystem(seeEx.
1027104–111).
AlthoughwenotethatDr.
Davidsonalsotestifiesthat"incertaincasesascriptcanbecompiledintoabinaryexecutableprogram"andthat"[i]nthiscase,suchacompiledscriptcouldexecutedirectlyusinganemulatorsuchasSwimmer's"(id.
104),neitherPetitionernorDr.
Davidsonprovidesanyexamplesofsuchscriptsoranyevidencethatsuchscriptswereknownbeforetheearliestprioritydateofthe'494patent.
We,accordingly,findhistestimonyinthatregardunpersuasive.
See37C.
F.
R.
§42.
65(a)("Experttestimonythatdoesnotdisclosetheunderlyingfactsordataonwhichtheopinionisbasedisentitledtolittleornoweight.
").
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B246d.
Claim6Claim6dependsfromclaim1andfurtherrecitesthatthesuspiciouscomputeroperations"includecallsmadetoanoperatingsystem,afilesystem,anetworksystem,andtomemory.
"Ex.
1001,21:35–37.
InsupportofitscontentionthatSwimmerrendersclaim6unpatentable,Petitionerarguesthat"Swimmerdisclosesthattheemulatorand/orauditsystemidentifiesandrecordsDOSsystemcalls(i.
e.
,suspiciousoperations)thataDownloadableattemptstoinvoke.
"Pet.
21(citingEx.
1005,Fig.
3).
CitingDr.
Davidson'stestimonythatdifferentfunctionnumbersareassignedtothedifferenttypesofsystemcalls,includingfunctionnumbersforfilesystemoperations,networksystemoperations,andmemoryoperations,Petitionercontendsapersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldhaveconsideredallofthesystemcallstobe"operatingsystemoperations.
"Id.
Petitioneradditionallycontendsthatcertainotherfunctionnumberscorrespondtooperatingsystemoperationsforterminatingaprogram,which,Petitionerpointsout,isanexampleofanoperatingsystemoperationexplicitlydiscussedinthe'194patent.
Id.
at21–22(citingEx.
1005,Fig.
3;Ex.
1018119–120;Ex.
3001,5:66–6:3).
PatentOwnerdoesnotprovideanyseparateargumentwithrespecttoclaim6inthePatentOwnerResponse.
WehaveconsideredtheevidencecitedinthePetitionandarepersuaded,forthereasonspresentedbyPetitioner,thatPetitionerhascarrieditsburdentodemonstratethatSwimmerteachesthattherecitedsuspiciouscomputeroperations"includecallsmadetoanoperatingsystem,afilesystem,anetworksystem,andtomemory.
"IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B247e.
Claims10,11,14,and15AsreproducedinSectionII.
C,supra,claim10isanindependentclaimdirectedtoasystemcomprisinga"receiver,"a"Downloadablescannercoupledwithsaidreceiver,"anda"databasemanagercoupledwithsaidDownloadablescanner,"forcarryingoutthe"receiving,""deriving,"and"storing"steps,respectively,recitedinindependentmethodclaim1.
Insupportofitscontentionthatclaim10isunpatentableoverSwimmer,PetitionercontendsthatSwimmerdisclosesa"systemformanagingDownloadables,"asrecitedinthepreambleofclaim10.
Id.
at13–14.
Inparticular,Petitionercontends,"SwimmerexplainsthatitsVIDESsystemisusedtodetectvirusesinapplicationprogramsandprogramcodebymonitoringandanalyzingthefunctionsandoperationstheseprogramsattempttoinvoke.
"Id.
at14(citingEx.
1005,7;Ex.
101889).
"Theseapplicationprogramscaninclude'programsenteringaprotectednetwork'(i.
e.
,executablecodebeingdownloadedoveranetwork).
"Id.
(citingEx.
1005,13).
RelyingonthetestimonyofDr.
Davidson,Petitionerfurthercontendsthat,"inorderforVIDEStobeusedatafirewallfor'programsenteringaprotectednetwork'(i.
e.
,receiveandanalyzeincomingDownloadables),a[personofordinaryskillintheart]wouldhaveunderstoodthatthesystemnecessarilyincludeda'receiver'(i.
e.
,networkingcomponents)forreceivingtheseDownloadables.
"Id.
at16(citingEx.
101894).
Petitioner,accordingly,assertsthat"SwimmeralsodisclosesthattheVIDESsystemincludesa'receiver'forreceivingtheDownloadable,"asrecitedinclaim10.
Id.
Petitioneralsoargues,inthealternative,thatthisfeaturewouldhavebeenobviousbasedontheteachingsinSwimmer.
Id.
at23–24.
InIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B248particular,accordingtoPetitioner,itwouldhavebeenobviousthatSwimmer'sVIDES"couldbeusedatanetworkdevice,suchasagatewayor[filetransferprotocol("FTP")]orWebserverinordertointerceptincomingDownloadablesandanalyzethembeforetheyaresenttoadestinationcomputer,"and"[o]neofordinaryskillintheartwouldhavebeenmotivatedtodosoforanumberofreasons,suchastoimprovetheefficiencywhencheckingincomingDownloadables.
"Id.
at23–24.
Petitionercontendsthat,"[f]oroneofordinaryskillintheart,thiswouldhaveinvolvednothingmorethancombiningwell-knownpriorartelements(i.
e.
,agatewaywithSwimmer'sVIDESsystem)accordingtowell-knownsoftwareprogrammingtechniquesinordertoyieldapredictableresult(i.
e.
,agatewayscannerthatreceivesDownloadablesandanalyzestheirbehavior).
"Id.
at24(citingEx.
101895).
PetitionerfurthercontendsSwimmerdisclosesthatDownloadablesecurityprofiledataisderivedbya"Downloadablescanner(e.
g.
,anemulatorand/orauditsystem).
"Id.
at18(citingEx.
1005,8(statingthattheemulatoris"aprogramwhichacceptstheentireinstructionsetofaprocessorasinput,andinterpretsthebinarycodeastheoriginalprocessorwould");Ex.
1018103–105(explainingthatidentificationandrecordationofDOSfunctioncallnumbersinSwimmerdeterminesandidentifiessuspiciousoperationsinthesamemannerasthecodescannerdescribedinthe'194patent)).
PetitionercontendsthattheDownloadablescanneralsoiscoupledtothereceiver(e.
g.
,thenetworkcomponentsatthefirewall),asrecitedinclaim10.
Pet.
18.
Lastly,Petitionerarguesthat"Swimmeralsodisclosesa'databasemanager'(e.
g.
,theauditsystemoraportionthereof),whichstorestheIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B249securityprofiledata(e.
g.
,auditrecords)inthedatabase,"and"[a]dditionally,thisdatabasemanageriscoupledtotheDownloadablescanner(e.
g.
,emulator).
"Id.
at20(citingEx.
1018110).
Forexample,Petitionercontends,"bothcomponentsarelocatedonthesamecomputersystem(e.
g.
,afirewall)andwouldbestoredtogetherinmemory(e.
g.
,RAM).
"Id.
(citingEx.
1013,3:23–46,Fig.
3;Ex.
1018110).
Petitioneralsoargues,inthealternative,that"theclaimed[databasemanagerfor]storingtheDSPdatainadatabasewouldhavebeenobviousbasedontheteachingsinSwimmer.
"Id.
at24–25(alterationinoriginal).
Inparticular,accordingtoPetitioner,"itwouldhavebeenobvioustooneofordinaryskillintheartthatthesecurityprofiledatainSwimmercouldhavebeenstoredinanysuitableformatorstructure,suchasarelationaldatabase.
"Id.
(citingEx.
1018111).
"Oneofordinaryskillintheartwouldhavebeenmotivatedtousesuchadatabaseforanumberofreasons,"Petitionercontends,including"toimprovetheorganization,efficiencyandspeedwhenstoringandretrievingthisdata.
"Id.
at25(citingEx.
1018111).
"Additionally,oneofordinaryskillintheartwouldhavealsofounditobvioustouseadatabasemanagerwiththesetypesofdatabases.
"Id.
(citingEx.
1018112–113).
Inresponse,PatentOwnersubmitsthatSwimmerdoesnotdiscloseorsuggesteitherthe"Downloadablescanner"orthe"databasemanager"recitedinclaim10.
POResp.
29–30,48–52.
Regardingthefirstofthoseelements,PatentOwnerpointsoutthatDr.
Davidson"admittedthattheSwimmersystemdoesnotuseascanneratall,"andfurthercontendsthat"Swimmer.
.
.
actuallyteachesagainsttheuseofscannersbyreasoningthattheyareeasilycircumvented.
"Id.
at29(citingEx.
1005,3;Ex.
2012,IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B250153:19–154:6).
Astothe"databasemanager,"PatentOwnercontendsthatthePetition"strugglestoidentifytheclaimed'databasemanager'inSwimmer"and"vaguelystatesthatSwimmer's'auditsystemoraportionthereof'istheclaimed'databasemanager.
'"Id.
at48(citingPet.
20;Ex.
1018110).
PatentOwnerfurthercontends,"[a]personskilledintheartatthetimewouldunderstandtheterm'databasemanager'tomean'aprogramorprogramsthatcontroladatabasesothattheinformationitcontainscanbestored,retrieved,updatedandsorted,"whichdefinition"isconsistentwithDr.
Davidson'sparentheticaldefinitionoftheterm,'acomponentthatmanagesandcontrolsthestorageandretrievalofdatainthedatabase,'"but"Swimmerdoesnothave[such]'aprogramorprograms.
.
.
.
'"Id.
(citingEx.
1018110).
"Atmost,"PatentOwnercontends,"Swimmercites[Mou95],whichdescribes'aconverterprogramiscalledaformatadaptor'which'convert[s]anativefiletoNADFformat,'"but"convertingisnotstoring,"and"[c]onvertingisalsonotthesave[sic]asretrievingsuchstoredinformationfromadatabase.
"Id.
at48–49(citingEx.
1005,12(citing[Mou95]);Ex.
2032([Mou95]),1).
NorwouldithavebeenobviousforSwimmer'sauditsystemtoincludeadatabasemanager,PatentOwnercontends.
Id.
at49.
AccordingtoPatentOwner,althoughPetitionercitesDr.
Davidson"toarguethatitwouldhavebeenobvioustousearelationaldatabaseforstoringDSP,""thePetitionfailstoarticulatesufficientreasoningastowhyapersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldhaveincorporatedadatabasemanagerwithinthesystemdefinedbySwimmer.
"Id.
at50.
RelyingonDr.
Medvidovic'stestimony,PatentOwnerassertsthere"weremanysuitableformatsandstructuresthatexistedatthetime(e.
g.
aplain-file,flat-filedatabase,IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B251relationaldatabase,rawdisk,excelspreadsheet,etc.
),[and]thereisnoreasontopickarelationaldatabasestoringsecurityprofiledataformultipleDownloadablesoutofmanyotheravailableoptions.
"Id.
(citingEx.
2007163).
"Infact,Swimmerstatesthat[the]'canonical'akaNADFformattedaudittraildisclosedbySwimmerworkedwellfortheirintendedpurpose,and.
.
.
thefactthattherearemanyavailableoptionsdoesnotmeanthatitwouldhavebeenobvioustomodifySwimmertoinclude'adatabasemanagerId.
at50–51.
"Furthermore,oneofskillintheartwouldalsounderstandthatanyattempttopossiblyadaptSwimmertouseadatabasemanagerasopposedsequentialfiledependentpipelineprocessing.
.
.
wouldrequiresubstantialreconstructionandredesignoftheelementsshowninSwimmeraswellasachangeinthebasicprincipleunderwhichtheSwimmer'ssequentialfiledependentpipelineprocessingwasdesignedtooperate.
"Id.
at51.
InitsReply,PetitionerarguesthatSwimmerdoesnot"teach[]against"theuseofscanners,andthatthebackgroundportionofSwimmercitedbyPatentOwnerisreferringto"anentirelydifferenttypeof'scanner'thantheonedescribedandclaimedinthe'494patent(whichistaughtbySwimmer'sauditsystemand/oremulator).
"Pet.
Reply13(citingEx.
101844–47;Ex.
102747–52;Ex.
2012,49:20–53:5).
WeagreewithPatentOwnerthatSwimmerdoesnotteachorsuggesteitherthe"Downloadablescanner"orthe"databasemanager"recitedinclaim10.
SeePOResp.
29–30,48–52.
First,althoughwecreditDr.
Davidson'stestimonyandagreewithPetitionerthatSwimmerdoesnotteachagainsttheuseofscannersperse(seePet.
Reply13;Ex.
102747–52),Petitioner'sargumentsandcitedIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B252evidencedonotpersuadeusthatSwimmer's"auditsystemand/oremulator"teachthe"Downloadablescanner"ofclaim10.
Indeed,asPatentOwnerpointsout,Dr.
DavidsontestifiedathisdepositioninthiscasethatSwimmer'ssystemdoesnotusea"scanner":QSoSwimmerdoesn'tuseascanner,rightANo.
Imean,whatheisgoingtodoisgeneratethisaudittrailandthenuseatooltolookatitanddeterminewhetherwehaveseensuspiciousoperations.
Heisnotgoingtouseascanner.
Oritcouldbeusedinconjunctionwithascanner,buthistechniquewouldnotbeconsideredscanninginthenormalanti-viruscommunitysense.
Ex.
2012,153:19–154:7.
DespitePetitioner'sargumentsthattheterm"scanner"isuseddifferentlyinSwimmerthaninthe'494patent(Pet.
Reply13),wedonotunderstandDr.
Davidson'stestimonyquotedabovetobelimitedtotheformer.
Further,althoughDr.
DavidsoninthecitedtestimonyleftopenthepossibilitythatSwimmer'ssystem"couldbeusedinconjunctionwithascanner,"wedonotfindanypersuasiveevidenceinthetrialrecordthatascannermerely"usedinconjunctionwith"Swimmer'ssystemwouldhavebeen"coupledwith[the]receiver"thatPetitionerallegestobeinherentorobvioustoincludeinSwimmerforreceivinganincomingDownloadable,letalonethatsuchscannerwouldalsoservetherecitedfunctionof"derivingsecurityprofiledatafortheDownloadable,includingalistofsuspiciousoperationsthatmaybeattemptedbytheDownloadable"inSwimmer'ssystem.
Second,althoughwefindthatSwimmer'sNADFfilefallswithinthescopeoftheterm"database"asthattermisproperlyconstrued(seesupraSectionsIII.
A.
2,III.
B.
4.
a.
iv),wedonotfindanyteachingorsuggestioninIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B253Swimmerofa"relational"database,andwearenotpersuadedbyPetitioner'sevidencethatitwouldhavebeenobvioustousearelationaldatabaseinplaceofSwimmer'sNADFfile,letaloneadditionallytouseadatabasemanagerwiththeresultingsystem.
WearepersuadedbyPatentOwner'sargumentthat"Petitioner'ssuggestedredesignwouldchangetheprinciple[of]operationoftheSwimmersystem"(POResp.
51),particularlybecauseneitherPetitionernorDr.
DavidsonexplainspersuasivelyhowadatabasemanagercouldbeneficiallybeusedbySwimmerwithoutreplacingSwimmer'sNADFfilewitharelationaldatabase,orwhyapersonofordinaryskillintheartwouldhavehadreasontodosointheabsenceofthebenefitofhindsightbasedontheteachingsofthe'494patentitself.
Accordingly,Petitionerhasnotshownbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthesubjectmatterofclaim10—orofclaims11,14,and15,whichdependtherefrom—wouldhavebeenobviousoverSwimmer.
5.
SecondaryConsiderationsa.
PraiseandCommercialSuccessPatentOwnercontendsthatitspatentedinventionshavereceived"muchpraiseandcommercialsuccess,"andthattheevidencethereofissufficienttoovercomePetitioner'sobviousnesschallenge.
POResp.
53–54.
AccordingtoPatentOwner,"[t]hecommercialsuccessofthepatentedinventions.
.
.
isevidencedthrough[PatentOwner's]successfullicensingprogramandthecommercialsuccessoftheproductscoveredunderthoselicenses,whichdirectlyrelatetothe'494Patent.
"Id.
at54.
PatentOwnerfurthercontendsitslicenseeshavetoutedthebenefitsoftheinventionsdisclosedinthe'494patentandobtainedsignificantsalesasaresultofproductsthatpracticetherecitationsofthechallengedclaims.
PatentOwnerIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B254assertsthatvariouslicenseeshavepaidmillionsofdollarsfortherighttouseitspatentedtechnology.
Id.
at54–55(citingEx.
20104–10;Exs.
2017–2022).
PatentOwneralsocontendsthatafterthe'494patentissued,"severallicenseesenteredintolicensesagreements,whichincludedalicensetothe'494Patent,toavoidlitigationandtoobtainalicensetocontinuetomake,use,offertosell,andsellproductsthatembodiedtheinventionsdisclosedinthe'494Patent.
"Id.
at55.
"Morespecifically,"PatentOwnercontends,it"hasenteredintoseverallicensesagreements,whichincludedalicensetothe'494Patent,includingagreementswithF-Secure,Avast,anotherconfidentiallicensee,ProofpointandWebsense,allmajorplayersthatoperateinthesamespaceasPetitioner.
"Id.
(citingEx.
20105–11;Exs.
2015,2016).
AccordingtoPatentOwner,WebsenseandProofpointsettledduringthecourseoflitigation,andthelicenseesenteredintolicensessotheycouldcontinuesellingtheirproductsafterreceivingnoticefromPatentOwnerthattheirproductsinfringedthe'494Patent.
Id.
at55–56(citingEx.
20108–9).
PatentOwnerfurtherprovidesactualorestimatedrevenuedataforAvast,F-Secure,Websense,andProofpoint,andcontendsthat"[t]hefactthatvariouscompanieshavetakenalicensetothe'494patentispowerfulevidenceofnon-obviousness"andthat"apresumptionexiststhatthecommercialsuccessof[its]licensees[']productsisduetothepatentedinventionofthe'494Patent.
"Id.
at56–60.
Consequently,PatentOwnerconcludes,thefactthatlicenseesenteredintoalicenseagreement,whichincludedalicensetothe'494Patent,toavoidlitigationandtocontinueconductingbusiness,includingsellingandofferingforsaleproductsthatencompassthepatentedtechnologylicensedfromFinjanshowsthatthereisanexusbetweentheselicenseIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B255agreementsandtheclaimsofthe'494Patent,andthatthe'494Patentisnotobvious.
Id.
at60.
InitsReply,PetitionerassertsthatPatentOwnerhasfailedtomeetthethresholdrequirementthattherebea"nexus"betweenthemeritsoftheclaimedinventionandthesecondaryconsiderationsevidencebeingreliedupon.
Pet.
Reply20.
Moreparticularly,despitePatentOwner'sassertionofanexusbetweenitslicenseagreementsandclaimsofthe'494patent,PetitionercontendsthatPatentOwneroffersonlyconclusorystatementsthatitslicenseeshave"paidmillionsofdollarsfortherighttouseFinjan'spatentedtechnology.
"Id.
(quotingPOResp.
54–55).
AccordingtoPetitioner,"[t]hereisnothingthatlinksthese'millionsofdollars'tothe'494patent,letalonethechallengedclaims,versusthedozensofotherpatentsownedby[PatentOwner],"and"[i]ndeed,theevidencesuggeststhatoppositeconclusion.
"Id.
(citingEx.
20105(acknowledgingthatthe'494patentdidnotissueuntilMarch2010)).
Petitionerfurthercontendsthatthereisnoevidencetoshowwhatportion,ifany,oftheportfoliolicensestakenbythecompaniesidentifiedbyPatentOwnerisattributabletothe'494patent.
Id.
at20–21.
Andinfact,Petitionercontends,"theallegedrelevanceoftheselicensesisquestionable,atbest,giventhatFinjanreliedontheexactsamelicenses(andverysimilararguments)whenassertingsecondaryconsiderationsforanunrelatedpatentcoveringentirelydifferentsubjectmatter.
"Id.
at21(citingPaloAltoNetworks,Inc.
v.
Finjan,Inc.
,CaseIPR2015-01979,Paper22,58–64).
PetitioneralsopointstoPatentOwner'sadmissionsthattwoofthelicenses"wereenteredtoavoidlitigation"andthatitdidnotevenassertthe'494patentagainstanotherlicensee,asfurtherIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B256demonstratingthatthelicenseswerenotenteredintobecauseofthemeritsoftheclaims.
Id.
(citingPOResp.
55,58).
WhereasPatentOwnerprovidesrevenuesandidentifiesproductsofthefiveidentifiedlicensees,Petitionerpointsoutthatthereisnoevidenceindicatingwhatportionofthoserevenues,ifany,isattributabletothe'494patent,letalonetotheclaimedfeaturesofthe'494patentasopposedmerely"utiliz[ing]theinventionsdisclosedin"or"us[ing]thetechnologyofthe'494patent.
"Id.
at21–22(citingPOResp.
56–57(emphasisaddedbyPetitioner)).
Petitionerargues"[i]tiswellsettledthatthenexusmustbeshowntotheclaimfeatures–notsimplyanythinginthepatentspecification.
"Id.
at21.
WeagreewithPetitionerthatPatentOwner'sevidencefailstodemonstrateanexusbetweenitslicenseagreementsandclaimedinventionsofthe'494patent.
Inparticular,PatentOwnerfailstoshowthatitslicensingprogramwassuccessfulbecauseofthemeritsofclaims1,2,and6ofthe'494patent,asopposedto,forexample,otherofthenumerouspatentsinPatentOwner'slicensedportfolio,businessdecisionstoavoidlitigation,priorbusinessrelationships,orforothereconomicreasons.
Tobeaccordedsubstantialweight,theremustbeanexusbetweentheclaimedinventionandtheevidenceofsecondaryconsiderations.
InreGPACInc.
,57F.
3d1573,1580(Fed.
Cir.
1995).
Nexusisalegallyandfactuallysufficientconnectionbetweentheobjectiveevidenceandtheclaimedinvention,suchthattheobjectiveevidenceshouldbeconsideredindeterminingnonobviousness.
DemacoCorp.
v.
F.
vonLangsdorffLicensingLtd.
,851F.
2d1387,1392(Fed.
Cir.
1988).
TheburdenofshowingthatthereisanexuslieswiththePatentOwner.
SeePaulsen,30F.
3dat1482.
Although"thereisapresumptionofnexusforobjectiveconsiderationswhenthepatenteeshowsIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B257thattheassertedobjectiveevidenceistiedtoaspecificproductandthatproduct'istheinventiondisclosedandclaimedinthepatent'"(WBIP,LLCv.
KohlerCo.
,829F.
3d1317,1339(quotingJ.
T.
Eaton&Co.
v.
Atl.
Paste&GlueCo.
,106F.
3d1563,1571(Fed.
Cir.
1997)),PatentOwnercarriestheburdenofdemonstratingthatthe"thing.
.
.
thatiscommerciallysuccessfulistheinventiondisclosedandclaimedinthepatent"(Demaco,851F.
2dat1392).
Moreover,"[w]henthethingthatiscommerciallysuccessfulisnotcoextensivewiththepatentedinvention—forexample,ifthepatentedinventionisonlyacomponentofacommerciallysuccessfulmachineorprocess—thepatenteemustshowprimafaciealegallysufficientrelationshipbetweenthatwhichispatentedandthatwhichissold.
"Id.
PatentOwnerhasnotmadesuchashowinginthiscase.
Additionally,weagreewithPetitionerthatPatentOwner'srelianceonthesamelicensesandsimilarargumentswhenassertingsecondaryconsiderationsforanunrelatedpatentcoveringentirelydifferentsubjectmatterinCaseIPR2015-01979castsdoubtontheexistenceofanysuchrelationshipinthiscase.
Intheabsenceofanestablishednexuswiththeclaimedinvention,secondaryconsiderationfactorsarenotentitledtomuch,ifany,weightandgenerallyhavenobearingonthelegalissueofobviousness.
SeeInreVamcoMach.
&Tool,Inc.
,752F.
2d1564,1577(Fed.
Cir.
1985).
b.
OtherSecondaryConsiderationsEvidencePatentOwneradditionallycontendsthata"long-feltbutunmetneedforaninventionsupportsthenon-obviousnessoftheinventionsdisclosedinthe'494PatentbecausetherewasunmetneedforanetworkbasedsystemthatgeneratedDSPandstoreditinadatabase,suchasthatdisclosedinthe'494Patent.
"POResp.
60(citingEx.
2007176–177).
AccordingtoIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B258PatentOwner,"suchlong-feltneedwasalsonotmetatthetimeofthe'494PatentapplicationbecauseifithadthenSwimmerwouldnothavethoughtadatabasesystemwasimpractical.
"Id.
Further,PatentOwnercontendsits"abilitytoteachanetworkbasedsystemthatstoredDSPinadatabaseisindicativeof[PatentOwner's]recognitionoftheproblemand[its]abilitytosolvethatproblem.
"Id.
at61.
PatentOwnerfurthercontendsthat,"[b]asedonSwimmer,skepticismexistedregardingtheabilitytomodifyelementsofVIDES-knownatthetimetobeusefulforevaluatingcomputerviruses.
"POResp.
61(citingEx.
2007178).
AccordingtoPatentOwner,"[t]heabilitytoactuallycreateanetworkbasedsystemthatderivedDSPandstoreditinadatabaseyieldedunexpectedresultsbecauseSwimmerdidnotbelievethatsuchasystemwaspractical,"and"[t]hefactthattheinventionsdisclosedinthe'494[patent]overcamethatskepticismandresultedinunexpectedresultofthepatentedinventionsupportsthenon-obviousnessofinventions.
"Id.
PatentOwnercontends"Swimmerteachesthatadesireexistedforpracticalsystemsthatwerenotcurrentlyavailable,"and"[a]ssuch,Swimmerteachesthatothershadfailedtobuildafeasiblesystem,demonstratingthenon-obviousnessofthe'494Patent.
"Id.
at62.
Lastly,PatentOwnercontends"[a]sdiscussedabove,Swimmerexplicitlyteachesawayfromthepatentedinventionofthe'494Patent.
"Id.
InitsReply,Petitionersubmitsthattheseadditionalarguments"sufferfromsimilardeficiencies"asPatentOwner'scommercialsuccessarguments,including"acompletelackofnexus,"andare"basedonnothingmorethan.
.
.
conclusory,circularstatementsabouttheSwimmerreference,i.
e.
,theIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B259verypriorartthat[PatentOwner]isattemptingtoovercomewithitsallegedsecondaryconsiderations.
"Pet.
Reply22–23.
WeagreewithPetitionerthattheseadditionalargumentsalsoareunpersuasive,particularlybecausetheyarebasedlargelyonassumptionsregardingSwimmerwithwhichwedisagree.
ForthereasonsstatedinSectionIII.
A.
4.
a.
iv,supra,forexample,wedonotunderstandSwimmertohave"thoughtadatabasesystemwasimpractical,"but,onthecontrary,weconcludethatSwimmertaughtstorageofDSPdatainadatabase.
Further,assetforthinSectionIII.
B.
4.
a,supra,wearenotpersuadedbyPatentOwner'scontentionsthatSwimmerteachesawayfromtheinventionofthe'494patent,butweinsteadconcludethatSwimmerteachesorsuggestsallelementsofclaims1,2,and6.
WedeterminethatourconclusionsdirectlyunderminethepremisesofPatentOwner'sargumentsinthisregard.
6.
ConclusionsPatentOwner'sweakevidenceofsecondaryconsiderationsinthiscasedoesnotovercomePetitioner'sstrongevidenceregardingtheteachingsofSwimmerwithrespecttothesubjectmatterofclaims1,2,and6ofthe'494patent.
Accordingly,fortheforegoingreasons,weconcludethatPetitionerhasshownbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthesubjectmatterofclaims1,2,and6ofthe'494patentwouldhavebeenobvioustoapersonofordinaryskillintheartatthetimeoftheinventionoverSwimmerandthatthoseclaimsare,therefore,unpatentable.
Wealsoconclude,however,thatPetitionerhasnotshownbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatclaims5,10,11,14,and15areunpatentableoverSwimmer.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B260C.
PatentOwner'sIdentificationofArgumentsAllegedlyExceedingProperScopeofPetitioner'sReplyAsauthorizedbyanOrderdatedOctober26,2016(Paper37),PatentOwnerfiledan"IdentificationofArgumentsExceedingtheProperScopeofReply"(Paper39),identifying,bypageandlinenumbers,twenty-oneportionsofPetitioner'sReply,aswellascertainexhibitssubmittedwiththeReply,thatitallegesexceedtheproperscopeofreply.
Petitionerfiledaresponse(Paper46),inwhichitidentifies,foreachportionoftheReplyandexhibitidentifiedbyPatentOwner,citationstothePetitionwhereitallegesthecorrespondingargumentspreviouslyappeared,citationstothematerialcontainedinthePatentOwnerResponsethatitallegestriggeredorcausedittoincludethechallengedmaterialintheReply,orboth.
Wehaveconsideredtheparties'respectivesubmissionsinrenderingthisFinalWrittenDecision,andhaveaccordedPetitioner'sReplyappropriateweightinviewofPatentOwner'sidentifications.
D.
MotiontoExcludePatentOwnerfiledaMotiontoExcludewithrespecttoExhibits1005,1006,1010,1018,1026,1027,1030–1032,1036–1043.
Paper41("Mot.
Excl.
").
PetitionerfiledanOppositiontoPatentOwner'sMotion(Paper48,"Opp.
Mot.
Excl.
")),andPatentOwnerfiledaReplytoPetitioner'sOpposition,additionallyseekingtoExcludeExhibits1044–1048(Paper51,"ReplyMot.
Excl.
").
Ininterpartesreviewproceedings,documentsareadmittedintoevidencesubjecttoanopposingpartyassertingobjectionstotheevidenceandmovingtoexcludetheevidence.
37C.
F.
R.
§42.
64.
Asmovant,PatentIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B261Ownerhastheburdenofshowingthatanobjected-toexhibitisnotadmissible.
37C.
F.
R.
§42.
20(c).
Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theMotiontoExcludeisdenied-in-partanddismissed-in-part.
1.
Exhibits1005and1010PatentOwnerseekstoexcludeSwimmer(Ex.
1005),aswellastheVirusBulletinProceedings(Ex.
1010)totheextenttheBoardreliesonit,onthebasesthatitisunauthenticated,hearsay,andirrelevant.
Mot.
Excl.
10–14,10n.
3.
AccordingtoPatentOwner,PetitionerfailedtoauthenticateSwimmerasadocumentthatwaspubliclyavailablein1995,offeringnoevidenceofthepublicationdateofSwimmerbeyondtheHall-EllisDeclaration(Ex.
1006),whichPatentOwnercontendsisitselfinadmissible,andthedatesonthefaceofthedocumentitself.
Id.
at10.
PatentOwnercontendsthatneithertheSeptember1995conferencedatenorthe1995copyrightdateonSwimmerissufficienttoauthenticateSwimmerortoestablishthedateSwimmerwasavailabletothepublic(id.
at11),andthatthosedatesareadmissiblehearsay(id.
at12–13).
PatentOwnerfurthercontendsthat,becausePetitionerfailstoestablishSwimmerwasavailableaspriorart,itshouldbeexcludedasirrelevantandbecausePetitioner'srelianceonitwouldbeunfairlyprejudicialtoPatentOwner.
Id.
at13–14.
PetitionerrespondsthatPatentOwnerpreviouslywaiveditsrighttoobjecttotheadmissibilityofSwimmeraspriorartunder35U.
S.
C.
§102(a),andthattheevidencepresentedbyPetitionerclearlyestablishestheauthenticityandadmissibilityofSwimmer.
Opp.
Mot.
Excl.
1.
Insupportofthefirstargument,PetitionercontendsthatitsetforthinthePetitionthatSwimmerispriorartunderboth35U.
S.
C.
§102(b),basedonitsIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B262disseminationattheSeptember20–22,1995,VirusBulletinconference,andunder35U.
S.
C.
§102(a),basedonitsbeingmadeavailabletothegeneralpublicthroughthelibrarysystembyDecember1995.
Id.
at2.
PetitionerarguesthatPatentOwnerobjectedonlytoSwimmer'srelevanceandadmissibilityunder35U.
S.
C.
§102(b)initsInitialObjections(Paper11),and,therefore,waivedanyobjectiontotheadmissibilityofSwimmerunder35U.
S.
C.
§102(a).
Id.
at2–3.
Regardingthesecondargument,PetitionerfurtherrespondsthatDr.
Hall-Ellis'sdeclarationsestablishthatSwimmerwaspubliclyaccessibleinDecember1995(id.
at3–6),andthatPatentOwner's"evidentiary"challengestoSwimmer'srelevanceandadmissibilityactuallyboildowntopublicaccessibility,whichisasubstantive,ratherthanevidentiary,issue(id.
at6–11).
InitsReplytoPetitioner'sOpposition,PatentOwnercontendsthatPetitioner"[n]arrowly[r]epresents"itsobjectionsandthat"PatentOwnerspecificallyreferencesobjectionsrelatingtotheSwimmer'salleged'publicaccessibilityasaprintedpublication'"initsInitialObjections.
ReplyMot.
Excl.
3(citingPaper11,2).
AsexplainedinSectionIII.
B.
4.
a.
i,supra,wearepersuadedbyDr.
Hall-Ellis'stestimonythatSwimmerwaspubliclyavailableatleastasearlyasDecember1995andis,accordingly,priorartatleastunder35U.
S.
C.
§102(a),6aswellasthatExhibit1005representsanauthentic6AsfurthermentionedinSectionII.
B,supra,wedeterminedinourDecisiononInstitutioninCaseIPR2016-00159thatthe'494patentisnotentitledtoanyearlierprioritydatethantheNovember6,1997,filingdateofthe'388application,basedontherecordthenbeforeusinthatcase.
SeeIPR2016-00159,slipop.
at10–13(PTABMay13,2016)(Paper8).
BecausethatdateismorethanoneyearafterDecember31,1995,Swimmerwouldalsobepriorartunder35U.
S.
C.
§102(b)basedontheDecember1995publicationdate.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B263copyofSwimmerandExhibit1010representsanauthenticcopyoftheVirusBulletinProceedingswithinthemeaningofFederalRuleofEvidence901.
Further,FederalRuleofEvidence401providesthatevidenceisrelevantif"ithasanytendencytomakeafactmoreorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence"and"thefactisofconsequenceindeterminingtheaction.
"BoththeFederalCircuitandtheBoardhaverecognizedthatthereisa"lowthresholdforrelevancy.
"See,e.
g.
,OddzOnProds.
,Inc.
v.
JustToys,Inc.
,122F.
3d1396,1407(Fed.
Cir.
1997);LairdTechs.
,Inc.
v.
GrafTechInt'lHoldings,Inc.
,CaseIPR2014-00025,slipop.
at44(PTABMar.
25,2015)(Paper45).
ThereisnoquestiononthisrecordthatSwimmerisrelevanttothepatentabilityofthechallengedclaimsinthiscase.
Accordingly,wedenyPatentOwner'sMotiontoExcludeastoExhibits1005and1010.
2.
Exhibits1006,1018,1026,1027,1030–1032,and1036–1043PatentOwnerseekstoexcludetheDeclarationofDr.
Hall-Ellis(Ex.
1006)andtheDeclarationsofDr.
Davidson(Ex.
1018;Ex.
1027)onthebasisthattheopinionscontainedthereinare"conclusory"and"unreliable.
"Mot.
Excl.
5–10.
PatentOwneralsoseekstoexcludeDr.
Davidson'sReplyDeclaration(Ex.
1027),Dr.
Hall-Ellis'sSupplementalDeclaration(Ex.
1037),theDeclarationsofDr.
Ford(Ex.
1038)andMr.
Kiegel(Ex.
1041),andcertainexhibitscitedinthosedeclarations(Exs.
1026,1030–1032,1036,1039,1040),asbelatedandconstitutingimproperreplyevidence.
Mot.
Excl.
1–5.
PatentOwnerspecificallypointstoparagraphs18,19,27,28,33,39,40,46,63,and98ofExhibit1027andExhibits1030,1032,and1042as"impropernewevidencebelatedlyintroducedinaReply.
"Id.
at3.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B264PatentOwner'sargumentsconcerningExhibits1006and1018concerntheweightthatweshouldaccordtothoseexhibits,ratherthantheiradmissibility,andarenotthepropersubjectofamotiontoexclude.
SeeOpp.
Mot.
Excl.
11–12&n.
7.
AsexplainedinLairdTechnologiesInc.
v.
GrafTechInternationalHoldings,Inc.
,CaseIPR2014-00025(PTABMar.
25,2015)(Paper45),"[a]motiontoexclude.
.
.
isnotanappropriatemechanismforchallengingthesufficiencyofevidenceortheproperweightthatshouldbeaffordedanargument.
"CaseIPR2014-00025,slipop.
at42(Paper45).
Moreover,"[o]urgeneralapproachforconsideringchallengestotheadmissibilityofevidencewasoutlinedinCorningInc.
v.
DSMIPAssetsB.
V.
,CaseIPR2013-00053,slipop.
at19(PTABMay1,2014),"whichstatedthat,"similartoadistrictcourtinabenchtrial,theBoard,sittingasanon-jurytribunalwithadministrativeexpertise,iswell-positionedtodetermineandassignappropriateweighttoevidencepresented.
"Id.
(citingDonnellyGarmentCo.
v.
NLRB,123F.
2d215,224(8thCir.
1941)("OnewhoiscapableofrulingaccuratelyupontheadmissibilityofevidenceisequallycapableofsiftingitaccuratelyafterithasbeenreceivedAccordingly,wedenyPatentOwner'sMotiontoExcludeasitrelatestoeachofthoseexhibits.
PatentOwner'sargumentswithregardtotheremainingchallengedexhibitsrelatetothetimelinessofPetitioner'scitationtothem,and,assuch,alsoconcerntheweightthatweshouldaccordtothem,ratherthantheiradmissibility.
Notablyinthatregard,wedonotrelyinthisDecisiononanyofparagraphs18,19,27,33,39,40,46,63,and98ofExhibit1027oronExhibits1030,1032,and1042thatthatPatentOwnerhasidentifiedasincluding"impropernewevidence.
"SeeMot.
Excl.
3–4.
Further,becauseIPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B265wecreditDr.
Hall-Ellis'stestimonyinherinitialdeclarationassufficienttoestablish,atminimum,thatSwimmerwaspubliclyavailablenolaterthanDecember1995(Ex.
10063,6–12,18–20),weneednotrelyonExhibits1026and1037–1041.
Accordingly,wedismissasmootPatentOwner'sMotiontoExcludeasitrelatestothecitedparagraphsofExhibit1027andtoExhibits1026,1030,1032,and1037–1042.
AsreferencedinSectionIII.
B.
4.
a.
iv,supra,wecreditDr.
Davidson'stestimonyatparagraph28ofExhibit1027(citingExhibit1031,6)asrespondingtoPatentOwner'scontentionthatSwimmerdoesnotcontaina"databaseschema.
"SeePOResp.
38.
BecausewefindthattestimonymerelyreinforcesDr.
Davidson'stestimonysubmittedwiththePetition(see,e.
g.
,Ex.
1018107–108)andthestatementinthePetitionthatSwimmer'sauditrecordsare"organizedbasedonaparticularschema"(Pet.
19),anddoesnotchangethetheoryonwhichinterpartesreviewwasgranted,wedisagreewithPatentOwner'sassertionthatreliancethereonisimproper(seeMot.
Excl.
4).
Accordingly,wedenyPatentOwner'sMotiontoExcludeasitrelatestoparagraph28ofExhibit1027,Exhibit1031,andExhibit1043(MARCrecordcorrespondingtoExhibit1031).
3.
Exhibits1044–1048InitsReplytoPetitioner'sOpposition,PatentOwnerarguesforthefirsttimethatExhibits1044–1048alsoshouldbeexcluded.
ReplyMot.
Excl.
4–5.
BecausewedonotrelyonthoseexhibitsinthisDecision,wealsodismissasmootPatentOwner'sMotiontoExcludeasitrelatestothoseexhibits.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B2664.
ConclusionFortheforegoingreasons,PatentOwner'sMotiontoExcludeisdenied-in-part,astoExhibits1005,1006,1018,1027(28),1031,and1043,anddismissed-in-part,astoExhibits1026,1027(18,19,27,33,39,40,46,63,98),1030,1032,1036–1042,and1044–1048.
E.
MotionforObservationsPatentOwnerfiledaMotionforObservationsregardingDr.
Davidson'scross-examination.
Paper42("Obs.
").
Petitioner,inturn,filedaResponsetoPatentOwner'sObservations.
Paper47("Obs.
Resp.
").
TotheextentPatentOwner'sMotionforObservationspertainstotestimonypurportedlyimpactingDr.
Davidson'scredibility,wehaveconsideredPatentOwner'sobservationsandPetitioner'sResponseinrenderingthisFinalWrittenDecision,andaccordedDr.
Davidson'stestimonyappropriateweightinviewofPatentOwner'sobservations.
SeeObs.
1–8;Obs.
Resp.
1–11.
IV.
CONCLUSIONBasedontheevidenceandarguments,Petitionerhasdemonstratedbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatclaims1,2,and6ofthe'494patentareunpatentableunder35U.
S.
C.
§103(a)overSwimmer.
Petitionerhasnotdemonstratedthatclaims5,10,11,14,and15areunpatentableoverSwimmer.
V.
ORDERAccordingly,itisORDEREDthatclaims1,2,and6ofthe'494patenthavebeenshowntobeunpatentable;IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B267FURTHERORDEREDthatclaims5,10,11,14,and15ofthe'494patenthavenotbeenshowntobeunpatentable;FURTHERORDEREDthatPatentOwner'sMotiontoExcludeEvidenceisdenied-in-partanddismissed-in-part;andFURTHERORDEREDthat,becausethisisafinalwrittendecision,partiestotheproceedingseekingjudicialreviewofthedecisionmustcomplywiththenoticeandservicerequirementsof37C.
F.
R.
§90.
2.
IPR2015-01892Patent8,677,494B268ForPETITIONER:JosephJ.
RichettiDanielA.
CroweAlexanderWaldenBRYANCAVELLPjoe.
richetti@bryancave.
comdacrowe@bryancave.
comalexander.
walden@bryancave.
comMichaelT.
RosatoAndrewS.
BrownWILSONSONSINIGOODRICH&ROSATImrosato@wsgr.
comasbrown@wsgr.
comForPATENTOWNER:JamesHannahJeffreyH.
PriceMichaelLeeShannonHedvatKRAMERLEVINNAFTALIS&FRANKELLLPjhannah@kramerlevin.
comjprice@kramerlevin.
commhlee@kramerlevin.
comshedvat@kramerlevin.
comMichaelKimFINJAN,INC.
mkim@finjan.
com