[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
We will hear argument next in number 151286, AIP acquisition against level three communications.

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
Mr. Eng, is that correct?

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
Have I pronounced your name correctly?

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
Yes, your honor.

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
My name is Chi Eng.

[00:00:40] Speaker 00:
My first time here, so forgive me if I make some

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
obvious errors.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
Some of us haven't been here that long either, so we're still naked.

[00:00:50] Speaker 00:
So here I am representing AIP.

[00:00:57] Speaker 00:
So let me tell you that this is an appeal from a final decision in the IPR proceeding in the PAN office.

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
I think there is one central issue here.

[00:01:09] Speaker 00:
And that is whether there is substantial evidence supporting the board's conclusion of obviousness.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
And the answer is no, because the board relied on the conclusory opinion of an expert as its core factual finding.

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
And I think that is the issue that we need to decide here.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
And... And am I understanding or remembering correctly that the heart of this is you had

[00:01:39] Speaker 01:
an ATM-based system.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
In one piece of prior art, you had, at least in, was it Iwami?

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
Iwami, yeah.

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
A local area network that, inside that local area network, used an IP protocol.

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
And the experts said by, was it 1996, is that the priority?

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
They said by 1996, at the time of the invention.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
Time of the invention.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
IP protocol use was one of a small number of well-known communication protocols for transit components of networks, and so one would have thought about using it.

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
Yes, that is what he said, and if you look at the

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
expert report and that is paragraph 227 and paragraph 229 and in the appendix that's 8700 and 8701.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
So to answer your question you have to look back at the record evidence to see whether that is supported and that is exactly what I'm trying to do in the brief to see what the evidence

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
in the record was.

[00:03:03] Speaker 00:
So at that time, you know, you have the Weinstein 4G reference, you have Cameral that shows the ATM network, which is a packet switch network for transiting using a virtual circuit communicating voice between PSTNs.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
And when you say virtual circuit, just explain to me, is that actually

[00:03:31] Speaker 01:
sending packets out of order across different paths and reassembling, or is that the opposite of that?

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
Your honor, a virtual circuit means what they're trying to do is to form a circuit, almost like a phone line, but it's virtual.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
As opposed to PSTN network, which you have a hardwire, a line, a circuit.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
So what makes it a virtual circuit?

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
Is the actual path of all of the packets the same?

[00:04:03] Speaker 00:
What ATM does is that inside its framework, it first says, hey, someone's calling.

[00:04:11] Speaker 00:
And let's try to make a connection through a number of hubs or networks.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
And to do that, I have to reserve the resources for the phone call.

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
say hey you know I don't have one wire you know continuously going from one caller to the call party so what you have is going through a number of switches

[00:04:36] Speaker 00:
ATM calls them switches and say, hey, switch.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
Will it be the same sequence of hops for everything on that call in an ATM?

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
Once the circuit is reserved, then it's going to be staying constant for that call, for the duration of the call.

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
And all the packets are delivered in order.

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
That is correct.

[00:05:00] Speaker 00:
And that will be, you know, stay on for the duration of the call.

[00:05:06] Speaker 03:
And, but given, given these two references, the teachings of camera and Iwami, why isn't it correct to say that the basic substitution of one protocol for another within a relatively finite universe of different choices was just a matter of choice motivated by a desire to

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
provide the benefit of a simpler system, a simpler network where all the calls can interact with each other.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
Your honor, the record evidence does not really show a finite number of simple solutions or solutions that the ordinary artisan can latch onto and say, hey, I can do it this way, that way, or that way.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
There were at that time a handful of different

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
different networks, everybody was looking for a way to find a network that would provide sort of optimal exchange of data, whether it's digitized voice or otherwise.

[00:06:17] Speaker 03:
That was the big rage back then, still is.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
And doesn't that give credibility to the board's analysis here?

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I think one has to look at the time period as you refer to.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
During that time period there is the Weinstein 4G system in record evidence and what they did there using an experimental ST protocol.

[00:06:49] Speaker 00:
An ST protocol is a reservation protocol.

[00:06:54] Speaker 00:
It would form a virtual circuit across a packet switch network.

[00:06:59] Speaker 03:
But Awami showed a network with using IP protocols.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
The experimental OneSync 4G system does not use IP to carry the voice.

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
Awami does not disclose the use of an IP protocol?

[00:07:17] Speaker 00:
OK, so I'm just talking about the universe of so-called finite number of solutions.

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
So that's one solution one can latch onto, and that's the ST.

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
Um, so now you talk about Iwami.

[00:07:32] Speaker 00:
Iwami itself, network environment is a local area network.

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
So what, why does that make it make a difference?

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
I mean, I didn't see anything in the discussion.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
Um, I think I haven't, don't remember anything that said, um, uh, lands are, um, distance limited, but there's nothing about these claims that, um,

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
that are not distance limited.

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
And I also didn't see anything that suggested

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
when you have in Iwami and its land, a cul-de-sac, I think, is that your... Yes, that's my characterization.

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
Right, so what was it that would not have been either possible or obvious to put a second road into the cul-de-sac and make it no longer a cul-de-sac, but now, you know, a circle with two... That's the question.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in the record evidence that says, hey, you can modify the local area network

[00:08:35] Speaker 00:
this way.

[00:08:36] Speaker 01:
Right, but if we have a, or I guess the board has a record in which there's a piece of fire art that says you can use non-circuit reserving, that you call a datagram, delivery systems using an IP protocol

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
and an expert says it would have been obvious for somebody in the other system to use the same thing, doesn't?

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
It seems to me, I guess, tell me what's wrong with the conclusion that the board is entitled to credit that in the absence of some reason to say, wouldn't work, bad idea, something like that.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
During that time period, the local area network uses what's called the shared media to communicate.

[00:09:35] Speaker 00:
What it means is that you have one table and all the terminals are connected to that.

[00:09:44] Speaker 00:
And that's what Iwami's local area network is at that time.

[00:09:48] Speaker 00:
So they're set up in a series?

[00:09:52] Speaker 00:
Not in series, it's one wire and everybody latches.

[00:09:56] Speaker 00:
It's like a bus.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
A bus, okay.

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
It's a bus.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
And all the terminals are connected to it.

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
So everybody can actually theoretically listen to everyone.

[00:10:07] Speaker 00:
And because of that environment, all the data packets can collide.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
That's why the distance limitation.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
So given that technology, what an ordinary artisan would say, hey,

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
I can run this cable across the United States and hook up all the telephones on it and somehow I'm going to put internet protocol on it.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
That internet protocol is datagram and it works.

[00:10:41] Speaker 00:
And I don't think that's what the expert is saying.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
There was only one statement here, one statement there.

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
And I'm trying to say and to try to construct

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
the mindset of what the honorary artisan would be like, given this technology.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
You know, you make a point in your briefs and you just made the point here about, well, there's a difference between the local area network.

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
It's just limited.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
It wouldn't extend to a wide area network.

[00:11:13] Speaker 03:
But there's nothing in the claim that talks about local or wide area.

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
Nothing in the claim that talks about how big the network is.

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
Let me put it another way.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
I think you probably would agree that claim one would read on a system implemented on a local area network.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I think you're correct that the claim itself has no distance limitation or the type of network.

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
It does say internet and internet protocol.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
Question really is, when you do an obviousness analysis, you look at motivation combined, and also the combinability, reasonable expectation of success, of combining references.

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
So by looking at these prior arts, the Iwami, the question is whether an ordinary artisan could combine a local area network or modify it

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
common sense or not, and make it into a transit network, and where's the evidence for that?

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
And that's all I'm trying to address.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
So, you know, the fundamental difference is that internet protocol is a datagram protocol.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
And datagram means all the packets are going all over the place, and somehow it can be put back together.

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
And that's the understanding at that time period.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
People understand telephones, circuit switch, there's a line.

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
Except in the land world, they also understand this.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
Yet in the land world, there's also a line that's connected.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
But the internet protocol is different in that all the packets can go all over the place.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
And how is it obvious at that time to put the voice back together in a continuous stream?

[00:13:13] Speaker 00:
And that's the problem that has to be recognized.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
I don't think the evidence record shows that recognition.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
And your written description doesn't teach somebody how to do that.

[00:13:26] Speaker 01:
It assumes maybe even makes express reference to how that is known in the art, the reconstitution in a proper sequence.

[00:13:37] Speaker 00:
The specification of the HM9 pattern does not go into how and the advantages of using the internet.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
for the voice that is correct.

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
Why do you think the three judges in the PTAB didn't understand this argument of yours?

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
I'm trying to understand what the board is thinking.

[00:14:06] Speaker 00:
I personally did not argue in front of the board below.

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
It appears to me.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
I don't want to put words in the board's mouth.

[00:14:21] Speaker 00:
If you rely on something that's conclusory, that seems to be some kind of hindsight analysis, and if you're not disciplined enough to look at the evidence and try to construct what was, at that time period, an ordinary artisan would be looking at, there's always the danger of looking at

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
what you understand now and that is what is well known now and have that thinking looking at the problem back in 1990.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
Look, the internet was formed from the NSFnet in 1990.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
ARPANET was the network that was formed earlier than that and that was the commission in 1990.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
So

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
1990 was the ST protocol and they're trying to form a virtual circuit protocol, trying to make internet into a virtual circuit network.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
And at that time the internet community said, which way are we going?

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
So there's a lot of turmoil really.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
It's not that well known during that time period.

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
What was the internet?

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
What is it?

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
Where is it going to be?

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
All they understood was that they're common standards to govern the Internet, because it's a galactic network.

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
Okay, Mr. Hang, you've gone over your time.

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
Two minutes, two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
Okay, I'll reserve that time for my rebuttal.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
Mr. Wright.

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
Good morning and may it please the court, John Wright on behalf of the Petitioner and Appellee here, Level 3 Communications.

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
So AIP has not argued any misapplication of the law in this case.

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
It seeks review of facts directed to the combinability of Cameral and Iwami based on technical arguments that largely it did not present to the board below during the trial phase.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
I thought that the principle contention they have here is that there is a failure of evidence to meet your burden of establishing invalidity for obviousness by preponderance of the evidence.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
And the failure of evidence is the absence of any basis for the conclusory assertion

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
that somebody thinking about transit between two voice networks would borrow the LAN internet protocol option.

[00:17:22] Speaker 01:
And it's a failure of evidence problem.

[00:17:25] Speaker 04:
So there is substantial evidence supporting the board's conclusion that by 1996, one of ordinary skill in the art would have turned to

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
internet protocol as the vehicle for transmitting voice data over a data network.

[00:17:46] Speaker 01:
And that... Over a data network that was connecting voice networks on each end.

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
Obviously internet protocol was being used for transit in data networks.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
That's not the question.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:18:04] Speaker 01:
Use for voice.

[00:18:05] Speaker 04:
Use for voice.

[00:18:06] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:18:07] Speaker 04:
Right, over a data network.

[00:18:11] Speaker 04:
You're correct that the claim doesn't exclude that data network being a LAMP.

[00:18:18] Speaker 04:
So turning to the substantial evidence supporting that, the board.

[00:18:22] Speaker 01:
Can I just ask this?

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry for the interruption, but assume with me hypothetically that I think that the claim construction of internet protocol

[00:18:37] Speaker 01:
while not expressly referring to, um, datagram structure implicitly does.

[00:18:46] Speaker 01:
I want to know what aspect of your argument, um, would remain or maybe all of it, but how does that affect it?

[00:18:55] Speaker 01:
Because, um, cause I'm not sure you're right about saying that the board at the institution stage when construing the claim and rejecting

[00:19:07] Speaker 01:
the insertion of a datagram limitation was actually excluding the possibility that that was already implicit.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
So with respect to the datagram versus virtual circuit argument, I don't think it's material to the board's ultimate finding.

[00:19:30] Speaker 04:
There were two ways that you could modify cameral.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
and the board in its decision recognized that.

[00:19:41] Speaker 04:
You could have a wholesale swap out of the network and instead of having an ATM network there, you could put in an internet network or with the two pieces of art that we have, you could put in the LAN because the claims don't exclude having a LAN between two public switch telephones.

[00:20:03] Speaker 04:
But the second way that you can make the combination

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
is by running IP, a voice data that's been converted to IP protocol over the existing ATM network.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
And in fact, that's what one of the primary benefits of going towards the internet protocol was that's what it was used for.

[00:20:31] Speaker 04:
It was designed to allow you to use the internet protocol

[00:20:36] Speaker 04:
And it was at a level of abstraction where it didn't care what the underlying circuit was.

[00:20:44] Speaker 04:
So the second way that you would modify CamRoll is to take the voice data, convert it to an internet protocol, and then run it right over CamRoll's ATM network.

[00:20:58] Speaker 04:
And that's not excluded by the claims either.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
And in fact, is that the?

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
How does that differ from, was it AAO5 or something?

[00:21:13] Speaker 04:
Right, so the principle thrust of AIP's arguments to the board was that, well, you would never run IP over cameral because cameral is directed to reducing lag, and if you ran IP over cameral, well, that would increase lag.

[00:21:32] Speaker 04:
That was really the primary thrust of AIP's argument to the board.

[00:21:36] Speaker 04:
In our reply to that, we noted that Dr. Weinstein, AIP's expert noted that in his declaration that AAL-5, which is ATM adaptation layer five, was available in 1996 to specifically to run or to help run IP

[00:22:04] Speaker 04:
formatted data over an ATM network.

[00:22:09] Speaker 01:
So... I guess I forgive the confusion.

[00:22:14] Speaker 01:
Why does that not make this into an anticipation case if that is what is meant in the claims by an internet protocol?

[00:22:25] Speaker 04:
Well, it's not anticipation because

[00:22:29] Speaker 04:
Camrol doesn't talk about internet protocol at all.

[00:22:32] Speaker 04:
It's strictly focused on an improvement to ATM for carrying voice.

[00:22:38] Speaker 04:
And Iwami, which has a public switch telephone network converting to IP, sending it over a LAN to a generic.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
That's what I think we're not communicating well, because I'm not, I'm trying to understand what the AAL-5

[00:22:57] Speaker 01:
is in relation to the claims requirement of the internet protocol?

[00:23:02] Speaker 04:
Okay, so AAL5 is an adaptation layer.

[00:23:10] Speaker 04:
If you look at the OSI stack, AAL5 would be an adaptation layer that allows you to take data that's been formed.

[00:23:23] Speaker 04:
So because ATM uses fixed data,

[00:23:26] Speaker 04:
length packets, and because IP has variable length packets, what AAL5 does is it takes a variable length packet, chops it up into fixed length packets, and at the very, this is an IP formatted, IP formatted voice data, for instance, and then at the tail end of the last packet,

[00:23:55] Speaker 04:
puts in information that lets the converter know this is the last packet.

[00:24:03] Speaker 04:
So with AAL5, in the ATM network, you could take a voice data that has been converted to internet protocol, which is in the claims, and then you can transmit that over an ATM network.

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
So back in 1996, people were looking for, there was a recognition, and this is in the Peterson reference, at the tail end of the Joint Appendix.

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
By 1996, and both experts agreed on this, and the board recognized this, IP is the direction that everybody was going for global data communication, including voice.

[00:24:52] Speaker 04:
And the whole AAL-5 argument is that even at that time, people were looking for ways for an ATM network to help it to run IP over an ATM network.

[00:25:04] Speaker 04:
And that's what AAL-5 was for.

[00:25:07] Speaker 04:
So I think we have to step back and look at the very broad scope of the claims here and what the board found of the substantial evidence sitting behind the board's decision.

[00:25:19] Speaker 04:
There is no dispute as to what the references teach.

[00:25:23] Speaker 04:
And the only thing that the board found that the only thing missing from CAMERL is that the second protocol is an internet protocol.

[00:25:35] Speaker 04:
That's it.

[00:25:36] Speaker 04:
And the board found that the only, that Iwami filled that gap by showing that internet protocol was used as a vehicle to transmit voice data over a network.

[00:25:49] Speaker 04:
And that, in fact, the only thing that Awami is lacking is the second conversion back to a telecommunications protocol.

[00:26:02] Speaker 04:
With those undisputed facts and the broad scope of the claim, and the fact that the claim isn't, Machinsky didn't invent a way to do this.

[00:26:15] Speaker 04:
He claimed the concept.

[00:26:16] Speaker 04:
And throughout Machinsky's patent,

[00:26:19] Speaker 04:
explicitly, expressly, over and over, relies on conventional servers, conventional data networks, conventional converters, and by 1996, the obvious choice for transmitting, the board found that the obvious choice for transmitting voice data over a data network would have been IP at that point.

[00:26:45] Speaker 02:
I take it your fundamental argument is that

[00:26:49] Speaker 02:
There's no legal issues involved.

[00:26:51] Speaker 02:
This is a factual dispute between you and the other party.

[00:26:57] Speaker 02:
And that the question is not, for us at least, is not who's factually correct.

[00:27:07] Speaker 02:
I take it your argument is the question is, was there substantial evidence in the record to support the way the board came out?

[00:27:16] Speaker 02:
Is that your thinking?

[00:27:18] Speaker 02:
Precisely.

[00:27:19] Speaker 02:
And the question, as I understand it from Mr. Eng is, what would someone in 1996 of the proper skill in this art have done with that information?

[00:27:34] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:27:35] Speaker 04:
That's correct.

[00:27:35] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:27:37] Speaker 02:
How do we differentiate guessing about what someone in 1996 of ordinary skill in this art would do from hindsight, looking back

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
from the year 2015?

[00:27:53] Speaker 04:
Well, there's no need to guess.

[00:27:55] Speaker 04:
The board relied on both of the experts here.

[00:28:01] Speaker 04:
Dr. Jones was Level 3's expert, and Dr. Weinstein was AIP's expert.

[00:28:07] Speaker 04:
And both of those experts agreed that by 1996, the internet was coming to prominence.

[00:28:14] Speaker 04:
And the board relied on those statements properly from the experts.

[00:28:20] Speaker 04:
AIP had the opportunity to depose Dr. Jones, noticed his deposition, and then chose not to depose him in the end.

[00:28:30] Speaker 04:
There's also documentary evidence supporting the board's decision, and perhaps the best documentary evidence is the Peterson reference, which is at the very end of the joint appendix.

[00:28:42] Speaker 04:
It's on A1543.

[00:28:47] Speaker 04:
a textbook that AIP entered into the record to show the state of the art at the time.

[00:28:53] Speaker 04:
And there, the Peterson reference says that we have presented IP as the only protocol for global internetworking.

[00:29:04] Speaker 04:
And then that page goes on to say that, well, there are proponents for ATM, and they say that ATM is the way to go, the virtual circuit,

[00:29:17] Speaker 04:
fixed length packets.

[00:29:20] Speaker 04:
But then it goes on to say that, well, there are people that are proponents of IP.

[00:29:26] Speaker 04:
And they see ATM as just another technology over which you can run IP.

[00:29:30] Speaker 04:
I'm reading from Peterson right now.

[00:29:33] Speaker 04:
Where on that page?

[00:29:35] Speaker 04:
I am on 1543, if you come down, probably about just above halfway.

[00:29:43] Speaker 04:
They see ATM, this is the proponents of IP, they see ATM as just another technology over which you can run IP.

[00:29:50] Speaker 04:
After all, IP has been run over every other technology that has come along, so why should ATM be any different?

[00:29:56] Speaker 04:
And then it goes on to acknowledge that there are challenges for both IP and ATM.

[00:30:04] Speaker 04:
And this was a state of the art at the time.

[00:30:06] Speaker 04:
And the original application here didn't refer to the internet.

[00:30:11] Speaker 04:
It's not until a continuation in part, an added material in the 1996 application where they bring in IP.

[00:30:19] Speaker 04:
And there they rely simply on conventional, they say that the data converters are known and they tell you in the Machinsky patent where to buy the data converters.

[00:30:30] Speaker 04:
The networks were known.

[00:30:31] Speaker 04:
It says in the Machinsky patent that the IP protocol was known.

[00:30:35] Speaker 04:
I can point you to any of these points in the patent.

[00:30:38] Speaker 04:
That is the direction that the industry was headed.

[00:30:40] Speaker 04:
And the only thing that Maszynski is claiming is the broad concept, not how to do it, but the broad concept of saying, well, use IP as your protocol.

[00:30:54] Speaker 04:
Doesn't even tell you how to do it.

[00:30:55] Speaker 04:
And that's not inventive.

[00:30:57] Speaker 04:
And there's substantial, again, just to return to this point, Judge Player, that the board relied on the experts, the board relied on Peterson, and there's substantial evidence supporting

[00:31:08] Speaker 04:
the board's ultimate conclusion that the obvious choice by 1996 for transmitting voice data over a data network would have been IP.

[00:31:21] Speaker 03:
You're saying claim one is just directed to an abstract idea that doesn't claim something more?

[00:31:28] Speaker 03:
The point of novelty surely... Parking to 101 again?

[00:31:35] Speaker 04:
Certainly wasn't at issue, but I see I have, I think, 32 seconds left.

[00:31:43] Speaker 04:
Absent further questions, I'll yield the remainder of my time.

[00:31:47] Speaker 04:
No further questions.

[00:31:50] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:31:57] Speaker 02:
Troublemaker.

[00:32:00] Speaker 00:
Your honor?

[00:32:01] Speaker 00:
A couple of minutes, please.

[00:32:02] Speaker 00:
Two minutes.

[00:32:03] Speaker 00:
Two points.

[00:32:05] Speaker 02:
Do I summarize the case that they're making correctly, that this is a question of fact that you all are arguing over?

[00:32:15] Speaker 00:
Like I said, the issue is about whether there's substantial evidence.

[00:32:19] Speaker 02:
And our job is to determine whether there's substantial evidence in the record to support the board's conclusion, even if we disagree with it.

[00:32:29] Speaker 00:
Well, I think the law, the federal circuit has said in some cases that the court does not look for alternative reasoning to support a board's decision.

[00:32:42] Speaker 00:
If the reasoning is somewhat clear, you would uphold that decision.

[00:32:49] Speaker 00:
So that's that.

[00:32:52] Speaker 00:
So two points I would like to make is that there's no evidence in the record that says,

[00:32:58] Speaker 00:
Cameron teaches a generic packet switch network.

[00:33:02] Speaker 00:
It was an argument from an attorney.

[00:33:05] Speaker 00:
And such that in this generic network, you can substitute local area network, ATM, whatever other packets switch networks, no evidence.

[00:33:18] Speaker 00:
So what would an ordinary artisan do with an IP and Cameron's ATM?

[00:33:24] Speaker 00:
Well, AAL5 is one, but that's an ATM protocol.

[00:33:28] Speaker 00:
under the board's clean construction of internet protocol, lowercase i and lowercase p, it excludes ATM protocol.

[00:33:36] Speaker 00:
So you don't read, you know, that combination would be outside of the scope of internet protocol.

[00:33:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:33:44] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:33:45] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:33:45] Speaker 01:
Both parties, case is submitted.