Opinion ID: 3155486
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Reissue Patents

Text: The four patents-at-issue are reissue patents originating from a patent issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,484,247 (the “’247 patent”) on January 27, 2009. That patent, entitled “System and Method For Protecting A Computer System From Malicious Software,” was directed to a way of protecting a computer from malware by segregating the suspected malware and directing it to execute and reveal itself in a safe, isolated part of the computer. In March CIOFFI v. GOOGLE, INC. 3 2010, thirteen months after the ’247 patent issued, Cioffi surrendered the patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 251 and sought reissue claims. The resulting four reissue patentsat-issue have the same abstract and, along with the ’247 patent, share substantially identical specifications. The patents-at-issue describe computer processes, separated either logically or physically (using separate processors), into first and second browser processes. Potential malware downloaded from the Internet is directed to execute within the second browser process, but is not allowed to execute outside of the second browser process. Thus, the potential malware is insulated from and cannot damage any other aspect of the computer’s systems, including memory space accessible by the first browser process. Figure 1 of the ’528 patent (shown below) illustrates one preferred embodiment, involving two physically separate processors: (1) a first web browser process executed within first processor 120 with access to important files stored in first memory space 110, and (2) a second web browser process executed within second processor 140 with access to its own expendable memory space 130. Untrusted content downloaded from the Internet is executed in the second web browser process running in 140, where it cannot damage important files stored in first memory space 110. 4 CIOFFI v. GOOGLE, INC. ’528 patent fig. 1. During prosecution, the examiner initially rejected all of the claims of the applications that ultimately issued as the ’500, ’528, and ’529 patents (“the ’500, ’528, and ’529 patent applications”) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0002673 (“Narin”). J.A. 212-14. The examiner determined that Narin taught a method of operating a computer system with a first logical process capable of accessing data in a first memory space and a second logical process capable of accessing data in a second memory space. Id. The examiner found that the second logical process of Narin hosts non-secure software objects, and the data residing in the first memory space is protected from corruption by malware downloaded from the network and operating as part of the second logical process. Id. Cioffi responded with the argument that “Narin teaches away from the closed process [corresponding to the first browser process] being a browser process.” J.A. 256. In other words, Cioffi argued that Narin is distinguishable from the claimed invention because Narin does not allow a browser program to be a part of the secure application, which Cioffi describes as a “first browser process.” On November 14, 2011, the examiner issued a Final Rejection Office Action maintaining its rejection of all the claims of the ’500, ’528, and ’529 patent applications. The, the examiner stated that: Despite the Applicant’s arguments that the claimed browser is a web browser, the specifica- tion . . . describe[s] the first logical process as being a video game and ‘including but not [being] limited to a word processor,’ respectively. According to the Applicant’s specification, the claimed first logical process or first browser process could include a web browser, such as Internet Explorer CIOFFI v. GOOGLE, INC. 5 or Netscape; a video game; or a word processor. At the very least, the prior art’s disclosure reads on the Applicant’s video game and word processor interpretations of browser. . . . It is noted that features upon which applicant relies, such as the first browser process accessing Internet sites and/or data, are not recited in the rejected claims. Id. at 285-6 (¶¶6-8). In response, Cioffi amended all of the pending claims of the ’500, ’528, and ’529 patent applications to narrow the first and second “browser process” to the first and second “web browser process.” J.A. 798-810. Cioffi also added a limitation, “capable of accessing data of a website via the network,” to the first web browser process. J.A. 314. Cioffi then explained, “Narin fails to disclose . . . a first web browser process capable of accessing data of a website via a network of one or more computers (e.g., the internet).” J.A. 332. The examiner allowed the claims.