[00:00:01] Speaker 06: Okay. [00:00:04] Speaker 06: Next case before the board, Chalfie versus Google. [00:00:12] Speaker 06: Case number 15-1-1-9-4, appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. [00:00:50] Speaker 06: I miss benefit. [00:00:52] Speaker 06: You want also 5 minutes for rattle. [00:00:58] Speaker 06: Well that went before. [00:01:00] Speaker 06: Okay, you may begin. [00:01:13] Speaker 00: They report on her and I don't have a lot of job in the state. [00:01:19] Speaker 00: The first thing I'd like to do is go straight to the district court's claim construction order. [00:01:24] Speaker 00: It is at A18 of the appendix. [00:01:28] Speaker 00: Because I want to get out right away what we think is an acceptable construction of the term web browser process. [00:01:37] Speaker 00: And what's shown at A18 is the court's announced definition that a web browser process is a process that can access data on websites. [00:01:46] Speaker 06: Can you speak up a little? [00:01:47] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:01:47] Speaker 00: So what's shown there is the court's definition that a web browser process is a process that can access data on websites. [00:01:59] Speaker 00: That definition as a practical matter is acceptable to us. [00:02:04] Speaker 05: What does access data mean, though? [00:02:07] Speaker 05: Because I think, as I read the record in this case, what I come away from is that there's a certain disconnect among the parties as to what accessing means. [00:02:16] Speaker 05: The notion that I think the district court was trying to capture by the castle to the claim construction, if you will, is saying that it has to be capable of [00:02:28] Speaker 05: actually going out and grabbing the information from the web is different from what I understand you to be saying when you use the term access. [00:02:40] Speaker 05: Can you help me with that? [00:02:42] Speaker 05: You understand the question? [00:02:43] Speaker 00: I do understand the question. [00:02:44] Speaker 00: How we view access is in the context of Mr. Chiaffi's invention. [00:02:51] Speaker 00: and also in the context of the Narin reference, which was cited as the basis for rejecting the claims initially. [00:03:00] Speaker 00: And access, the reason the examiner raised Narin as an initial rejection was because Chiaffi's first browser process could not, it wasn't stated whether it could access [00:03:18] Speaker 00: data on websites. [00:03:20] Speaker 00: So when you compare that to Naran, Naran had the secure process that is very explicit in Naran that can never be exposed to website data. [00:03:32] Speaker 00: It's closed. [00:03:34] Speaker 00: All website data download and execution is carried out by [00:03:39] Speaker 00: the unsecure process, and so the secure process is maintained. [00:03:43] Speaker 00: What we told the examiner was that, fine, it's not explicit, we will add the additional requirement, we will spell out in the claims that the first browser process must be capable of accessing website data. [00:04:00] Speaker 05: But when you use the term access and when you use the term web browser for that matter in the patent, you do not need a process that goes out and plucks data from the web. [00:04:17] Speaker 05: your, at least with respect to one of your two browsers, you're saying, as I understand it, that it accesses data on websites if it sits at home and receives data that a different browser actually goes and plucks off the web. [00:04:36] Speaker 05: And that first browser, the second browser, then takes that data and transfers it to the first browser, the one that does not actually go onto the web. [00:04:45] Speaker 05: That's your position, right? [00:04:47] Speaker 05: I mean, I'm using lay terms, but the problem is that these terms like access tend to be somewhat amorphous and I'm struggling to see exactly what you're saying the difference is between Naran and let's say the accused device here. [00:05:06] Speaker 00: Well, I think that the best place to look is how we use the term access in claims. [00:05:13] Speaker 00: And I think the best example of that is claims [00:05:16] Speaker 00: 36-39 of the 529 patent. [00:05:19] Speaker 00: It's cited in our papers. [00:05:21] Speaker 00: It's at a 147. [00:05:25] Speaker 00: And what the claims say there for, let's take the independent claim of 36. [00:05:32] Speaker 00: It says, verbatim, that the first browser process and the second browser process must be capable of accessing website content. [00:05:44] Speaker 00: It's stated right there in the claims. [00:05:46] Speaker 00: When you take the step down and you look at the very next claim, the next dependent claim, what does it say? [00:05:53] Speaker 00: It says the first browser process must have direct access to the network interface. [00:06:02] Speaker 00: So now the claim is calling out what we mean by direct access. [00:06:05] Speaker 00: What we mean by direct access is direct access to the network and not through the second browser process. [00:06:11] Speaker 00: You go to the very next claim, Your Honor, you go to claim [00:06:15] Speaker 00: 38. [00:06:15] Speaker 06: I take it that the reason this is important is that the allegedly infringing device doesn't have direct access? [00:06:23] Speaker 00: Correct. [00:06:24] Speaker 00: The second browser process of the device does not have direct access. [00:06:30] Speaker 00: Only indirect access. [00:06:31] Speaker 06: Only indirect access. [00:06:33] Speaker 06: And so your point, as I understand it, is that at least some of your independent claims you believe would cover [00:06:43] Speaker 06: all indirect access. [00:06:45] Speaker 00: Absolutely. [00:06:46] Speaker 00: Cover both, but not require both. [00:06:49] Speaker 06: Right. [00:06:50] Speaker 06: Because you have dependent claims that require direct access. [00:06:55] Speaker 00: Absolutely. [00:06:56] Speaker 00: That is exactly our point in our argument as to the direct and the indirect. [00:07:01] Speaker 05: So what did you do? [00:07:04] Speaker 05: What was the effect of adding the term web to the reference to the browser? [00:07:11] Speaker 05: I'm glad you asked. [00:07:15] Speaker 05: I always wonder if that's actually a candid statement. [00:07:18] Speaker 00: No, it's something I've given a lot of thought to. [00:07:21] Speaker 00: Because it is where all the action is. [00:07:25] Speaker 00: all about prosecution history disclaimer, what were the disclaiming statements, what was the amendment that represents the disclaimer, right? [00:07:33] Speaker 00: And first you go to what are the disclaiming statements and then what was the subsequent amendment in response to those statements. [00:07:40] Speaker 00: The subsequent amendment was the term WEB, okay? [00:07:44] Speaker 00: So what does WEB mean? [00:07:45] Speaker 00: We have a very simple explanation for why WEB was added. [00:07:49] Speaker 00: When you go to Google's brief, the entire prosecution history disclaimer argument is on page 32 of their brief, and they cite to one statement by the examiner as the disclaimer. [00:08:03] Speaker 00: Well, that statement is at 703 and 704 of the prosecution history. [00:08:08] Speaker 00: It's two paragraphs, it's paragraphs six and seven. [00:08:11] Speaker 00: You read those two paragraphs and you will see what the examiner says is, he says, hey, your first web browser process discloses in the specification three possible embodiments. [00:08:26] Speaker 00: It discloses a web browser process embodiment, a video game embodiment, and a word processor embodiment. [00:08:33] Speaker 00: And I read Nehrin to at least meet the latter two, the video game and the word processor. [00:08:40] Speaker 00: So why do the applicants add web? [00:08:43] Speaker 00: Quite simply to say, fine, word processors out, video games out, we're going to narrow it to the disclosed embodiment of web browser process in the specification. [00:08:57] Speaker 00: That's all that term means, Your Honor. [00:08:59] Speaker 00: That's the simplest and most plausible explanation for the ad. [00:09:04] Speaker 00: How they want you to read the edition of Web is Web equals surrender of indirect access. [00:09:14] Speaker 00: That takes three steps to get there. [00:09:17] Speaker 00: You've got to back up a little bit and say, so how did that become surrender? [00:09:24] Speaker 00: First, let me summarize our argument. [00:09:26] Speaker 02: What was the relationship between adding the word web and the Neuron? [00:09:31] Speaker 00: Right, so let me summarize, exactly, so let me tie that up. [00:09:35] Speaker 00: To summarize Google's disclaimer argument, the first part of their argument is this. [00:09:43] Speaker 00: Neuron discloses an indirect access embodiment. [00:09:48] Speaker 00: You have to start with that assumption. [00:09:50] Speaker 00: Step two, the examiner's statements I just referenced. [00:09:55] Speaker 00: The examiner says, hey, your claims have these three embodiments. [00:09:58] Speaker 00: What the examiner's really saying is, hey, Naran discloses this indirect embodiment. [00:10:04] Speaker 00: You need to amend your claims in response to that indirect embodiment. [00:10:08] Speaker 00: Google's third argument. [00:10:10] Speaker 00: to the applicant at the term web to respond directly to the examiner's statement that you need to amend because of this supposed indirect embodiment. [00:10:26] Speaker 00: It's wrong on all three steps. [00:10:28] Speaker 00: It's wrong at the very beginning because NARIN does not allow indirect access. [00:10:34] Speaker 00: It's just not allowed by the reference. [00:10:37] Speaker 00: The first process is secure and will never be permitted. [00:10:40] Speaker 06: What's the date of Narin? [00:10:42] Speaker 00: Oh, it's 2000 or 2001, Your Honor. [00:10:45] Speaker 00: It predates by a couple of years. [00:10:51] Speaker 00: So just look at Narin right at the beginning. [00:10:53] Speaker 00: Narin does not have an indirect disclosure. [00:10:56] Speaker 00: So that's the first problem with your argument. [00:10:58] Speaker 00: The second problem is the examiner's statement. [00:11:01] Speaker 00: As I just said, the examiner doesn't say anything about Narin's indirect embodiment, and that's why you have to amend your claims. [00:11:08] Speaker 00: And then you finally get to the actual amendment of web. [00:11:13] Speaker 00: Our point is that there is no connection. [00:11:16] Speaker 02: What is it in Naran that was cured by the addition of the word web? [00:11:23] Speaker 00: Nothing in Naran was cured by the addition of web. [00:11:27] Speaker 00: Naran was cured when we added the language to the first browser process that says the first browser process shall have the capability of accessing [00:11:39] Speaker 00: website content, website data. [00:11:42] Speaker 00: That was added in direct response to the examiner's rejection under NARIN. [00:11:48] Speaker 06: Because in NARIN, video game couldn't access website data. [00:11:51] Speaker 00: Precisely. [00:11:52] Speaker 00: Or word processor. [00:11:54] Speaker 00: Precisely. [00:11:56] Speaker 00: So there's just no connection between the examiner's stated rejection and the subsequent amendment, the add of the term web, [00:12:06] Speaker 00: Naren didn't require us to surrender indirect access because Naren didn't contain indirect access. [00:12:15] Speaker 00: Backing up, we're talking all about prosecution history, but there are three steps here to claims instruction. [00:12:23] Speaker 00: There's looking at the claims, which I already talked about. [00:12:25] Speaker 00: There's looking at the specification. [00:12:27] Speaker 00: I think you can go to Figure 1 as any of these certain patents. [00:12:31] Speaker 00: you will see very clearly in Figure 1 all the bi-directional arrows between the first process and the second process. [00:12:37] Speaker 00: Both processes can access directly and indirectly. [00:12:41] Speaker 00: That's probably the best place to see what we're talking about, how a first process can go directly to the internet or it can go indirectly through the other process. [00:12:51] Speaker 06: You're into your rebuttal if you want to say that. [00:12:53] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:12:53] Speaker 00: I'll say the rest of the rebuttal. [00:13:06] Speaker 01: Good morning, may it please the court. [00:13:07] Speaker 01: Stephanie Scaff on behalf of Appellee Google Inc. [00:13:11] Speaker 01: I'm going to start directly with the question Judge Bryson asked about access. [00:13:15] Speaker 01: And what the appellant has told the court is that you start, one place to look is these three claims, 36 through 39, and that there is a claim differentiation argument that makes clear the distinction between direct and indirect access. [00:13:33] Speaker 01: I submit to this court that the issue of direct and indirect is really a red herring here. [00:13:38] Speaker 01: The district court did not find and did not distribute claims to require direct access. [00:13:44] Speaker 01: In fact, the district court specifically said it wasn't going to use that word. [00:13:48] Speaker 01: And there's a reason for that. [00:13:50] Speaker 06: Well, what the district court said is that you don't have to have direct access, but you have to be capable of direct access. [00:13:58] Speaker 06: So that was, for your purposes, that was just as good as requiring direct access. [00:14:02] Speaker 01: Let me clarify the distinction I'm making. [00:14:05] Speaker 01: If you look at these claims, what claims 36 through 39 are talking about are the first web browser process and the second web browser process being configured to access website content via the network. [00:14:18] Speaker 01: That's the independent claim. [00:14:19] Speaker 01: And then the dependent claims talk about being configured to directly exchange data with a network interface device. [00:14:26] Speaker 01: The concern, and if you look at the underlying transcript, the back and forth of the court, the concern was if you use the word direct, you're really applying no intervening hardware structure. [00:14:36] Speaker 01: This original invention, the original 247 patent, was really a hardware invention. [00:14:41] Speaker 01: It morphed over time to these reissue patents, which are software-based processes, but there are still hardware pieces within the specification. [00:14:53] Speaker 01: And the concern is you use direct and you might be thinking you couldn't have a network interface device in between, you couldn't have an amplifier, a multiplexer, something else, some other component in between. [00:15:03] Speaker 01: So let's not use the word direct. [00:15:05] Speaker 01: Let's talk about the functionality itself. [00:15:08] Speaker 01: What does a web browser process, how does the process have to function? [00:15:14] Speaker 01: And that's the construction that the court gave. [00:15:16] Speaker 01: So the court gave a construction to web browser process set case, meaning to the functionality. [00:15:23] Speaker 01: That's what's before this court. [00:15:25] Speaker 01: What is the meaning of the addition of the word web to the existing browser process language? [00:15:33] Speaker 01: Web gave the meaning that is clear from the prosecution history. [00:15:40] Speaker 01: This is an unusual case. [00:15:42] Speaker 01: Web browser process does not appear anywhere in the specification. [00:15:46] Speaker 01: It is a term that was coined as part of the prosecution. [00:15:50] Speaker 01: So that's where we look. [00:15:53] Speaker 01: This is not a disavowal or a disclaimer analysis. [00:15:56] Speaker 01: This is a claim construction, a straightforward claim construction analysis. [00:15:59] Speaker 01: We're looking at what is the content of the intrinsic record with respect to web browser process. [00:16:05] Speaker 06: But if you go through all of the back and forth with Examiner, I mean, I think your friend on the other side will [00:16:15] Speaker 06: in his comments that you take a few words out of context and don't give us the whole history. [00:16:22] Speaker 06: But the whole history of the back and forth shows that there was no concern about direct or indirect access. [00:16:28] Speaker 06: And certainly, as of then, there was not even an issue that a video game or a word processor could access the net. [00:16:37] Speaker 06: And so the point was whether or not [00:16:39] Speaker 06: You can differentiate Naren solely on the basis that there was some form of accessibility. [00:16:46] Speaker 01: Right. [00:16:46] Speaker 01: So I think that's exactly right. [00:16:49] Speaker 01: I think the accessibility issue is what's at issue. [00:16:52] Speaker 01: In other words, do you access the internet? [00:16:55] Speaker 01: And if you look at what the examiner said, in paragraph five, throughout his arguments, the applicant makes reference that the first browser process is a web process. [00:17:06] Speaker 01: and then the examiner goes on. [00:17:09] Speaker 01: It is noted that the features upon which the applicant relies, that the claimed browsers, or actually web browsers, and so this is referring to both the first and the second browser, not just the first, are not recited in the rejected claim. [00:17:23] Speaker 01: And then later on, [00:17:26] Speaker 01: the examiner goes on to express the concern about the video game. [00:17:30] Speaker 01: But why is there a concern about the video game? [00:17:32] Speaker 01: Because the video games are described within the specification as interactive programs that render content. [00:17:41] Speaker 01: And that's what the secure application in Naren did. [00:17:43] Speaker 01: And in fact, that's what the renderer in the accused device does. [00:17:47] Speaker 01: So the question is, what makes that different? [00:17:50] Speaker 01: And I would point the court to [00:17:52] Speaker 01: a couple of places within the discussion by the applicants themselves in their argument, including on page 8258 of the record, where the applicant argues that the secure application uses a non-secure software object to perform an action or provider service that is not directly implemented within application 312. [00:18:15] Speaker 01: And this is the paragraph it goes forward and describes the example. [00:18:19] Speaker 01: where application 312 may provide some type of web browsing capability to its user, but how does it do that? [00:18:26] Speaker 01: This is what it says. [00:18:28] Speaker 01: But rather than performing the actual web browsing functions itself, application 312 may call upon a general purpose browsing program to perform the web browsing. [00:18:40] Speaker 05: So what it's saying is... I'm sorry, where exactly on 258 are you reading that? [00:18:45] Speaker 01: 258, this is the first paragraph on 258. [00:18:47] Speaker 05: Oh, actually the top paragraph. [00:18:51] Speaker 01: So basically the description of Noren is very similar to what we see in the Qube device and this is the basis for understanding what a web browsing process is. [00:19:03] Speaker 01: What does the web browsing process do in Noren? [00:19:06] Speaker 01: Why do you add the web browsing process language? [00:19:10] Speaker 01: The puffs argued when you asked the question, what does web do? [00:19:19] Speaker 01: They said, well, it just eliminates the video and the word processing program. [00:19:23] Speaker 01: That's what it does. [00:19:25] Speaker 06: what what the content of that part of the picture because what you just read from it marked as confidential and so i haven't heard of a waiver of confidentiality with respect to this uh... i mean march of confidential in the appendix is there a a reason that i'm not i think that they just have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to have to [00:19:53] Speaker 01: She's an examiner. [00:19:54] Speaker 05: Yeah, it's highlighted here, which normally... Oh, I see. [00:19:58] Speaker 01: Yes, this was highlighted. [00:20:00] Speaker 05: Somebody highlighted it. [00:20:02] Speaker 05: Yeah. [00:20:02] Speaker 05: Made it hard to read. [00:20:03] Speaker 01: Right. [00:20:08] Speaker 01: You know, I could go on and point the court to further areas in this argument that provide similar kind of recitation of this difference in the rent. [00:20:18] Speaker 01: This is the focus of the argument. [00:20:21] Speaker 01: The focus of the argument is that the browsing program and not the secure rendering application is what is doing the accessing the retrieval of the web pages. [00:20:30] Speaker 01: That is the distinction that argument makes. [00:20:34] Speaker 06: So why does that have to be done directly? [00:20:37] Speaker 01: Well, because that's exactly what they're distinguishing in Narendra. [00:20:41] Speaker 01: In other words, Narendra is not directly implemented within the secure application. [00:20:45] Speaker 06: And they're not saying it's not directly implemented. [00:20:48] Speaker 06: They're just saying it can't do it at all. [00:20:53] Speaker 06: In other words, its application can't do it at all. [00:20:55] Speaker 06: There may be some other way that it can eventually get something, but it's not a question of it doing it. [00:21:01] Speaker 01: It's actually silent on that point is what it is. [00:21:03] Speaker 01: And the language that's used is actually that exact language directly implemented. [00:21:09] Speaker 01: So it's not directly implemented is what it says at the top of A258. [00:21:15] Speaker 01: I think it's incorrect for the appellant to assert that Naren doesn't allow for some type of, it's just silent on that point. [00:21:25] Speaker 01: And that's not the distinction that the applicant made to the office at all. [00:21:31] Speaker 01: There's no discussion of a pass through, anything like that. [00:21:34] Speaker 06: But you're asking us to find a clear disclaimer here. [00:21:37] Speaker 01: No, actually we're just asking you to do a straightforward claim construction analysis. [00:21:41] Speaker 01: What does the intrinsic record at say about the term web browser process? [00:21:45] Speaker 01: the only place where that term comes up is in the prosecution history. [00:21:52] Speaker 01: It doesn't exist in this prosecution. [00:21:54] Speaker 01: It wasn't part of the original invention. [00:21:56] Speaker 01: I mean, this is a unique case because we're here on a claim construction for four reissue patents that came out of an original patent that looked very, very different. [00:22:05] Speaker 01: That issue, whether the difference is significant from a legal standpoint, wasn't yet before the court because claim construction came first. [00:22:13] Speaker 01: But that's the job of this court today, is to do the claim construction in light of whatever intrinsic evidence exists with respect to this term. [00:22:21] Speaker 05: Let me circle back to the question that I think I started with your opposing counsel on. [00:22:27] Speaker 05: In your view, [00:22:29] Speaker 05: Can something be a web browser if it has access to data that is obtained from the web, even though the alleged browser itself doesn't actually have, I had to avoid using the word direct, even though it does not perform the task of downloading the material from the web? [00:22:59] Speaker 01: No. [00:22:59] Speaker 01: So, in web browsing, the access is really you open up the TCP socket, right? [00:23:05] Speaker 01: You access the web. [00:23:06] Speaker 01: That's what you're doing when you're doing the web. [00:23:10] Speaker 01: And you can do that with different hardware components, right? [00:23:12] Speaker 01: You send the packet in different ways. [00:23:14] Speaker 01: Maybe you do it directly through a network access device. [00:23:16] Speaker 01: Maybe you go through several other hardware components. [00:23:19] Speaker 01: But the software component, the opening up of the TCP socket, is the accessing part, the content of the code of the process. [00:23:26] Speaker 01: It has to be there to do web browsing. [00:23:28] Speaker 01: If you don't do that, you're not browsing the web. [00:23:31] Speaker 01: You're not accessing data on the internet. [00:23:36] Speaker 02: General, your fundamental position is there is no meaning to web browser generally that we're talking about. [00:23:44] Speaker 02: You're talking about this specific content of this particular insertion in the context of the prosecution history with no specification or written description to help us. [00:24:00] Speaker 01: I think that would be fair to say, Your Honor. [00:24:02] Speaker 02: this term web browser process there's no evidence in the record at all and it's not translatable to any other context according to you it's simply the way it turned out in this case is that what you're saying? [00:24:17] Speaker 01: the concept for the term in this case is based really on the limited intrinsic record that is in the prosecution history do you want to say anything about or is the issue still with us on what a critical file is? [00:24:32] Speaker 01: I'm happy to address that. [00:24:34] Speaker 01: The critical file dispute is really a little bit more straightforward, I think. [00:24:39] Speaker 01: I think both sides have agreed that there is no dispute that it is indefinite if it includes critical user files. [00:24:47] Speaker 01: So the question is whether it should have been construed to include critical user files as well as critical system files. [00:24:55] Speaker 01: And I think what the district court's decision [00:25:01] Speaker 01: What the district court found is that the term critical user files was used multiple times in both the specification and the prosecution history. [00:25:11] Speaker 01: That those were not just passing references. [00:25:13] Speaker 01: In fact, they were references to the actual object that they had mentioned being to one of the objects being to protect critical user files. [00:25:21] Speaker 01: and that under the circumstances that this was a subjective term without a standard set forth for measuring the scope of it. [00:25:30] Speaker 05: But your expert equated critical file with system files and critical systems files. [00:25:41] Speaker 05: Why isn't that the answer? [00:25:45] Speaker 05: You're stuck with that. [00:25:49] Speaker 05: What is your explanation for that that's consistent with your theory of this case? [00:25:53] Speaker 01: I think what that testimony was is that if you looked without reference to the specification, in other words, if you were just saying what would you initially think of something called a critical file, that an expert might think a critical file was a system file. [00:26:09] Speaker 01: They might think of it as that more limited way. [00:26:12] Speaker 01: But clearly within the specification, [00:26:14] Speaker 01: the inventors defined it in a broader way. [00:26:18] Speaker 01: They defined it because of the purpose of their invention, they defined it to include critical user files. [00:26:24] Speaker 01: Remember, the purpose of this invention was a malware protection invention. [00:26:28] Speaker 01: They wanted to protect certain things from malware. [00:26:31] Speaker 01: One of the things you want to protect is things that are critical to the user. [00:26:36] Speaker 01: Unfortunately, that's a subjective determination and there's no standard given in the specification for how you would decide that. [00:26:45] Speaker 06: okay. [00:26:48] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:26:49] Speaker 06: All right. [00:26:56] Speaker 00: Quickly to Judge Plater's questions about there's nothing in the specification about what a wet razzle process may be and therefore we're trying to construe it out of thin air and going straight to the prosecution history. [00:27:11] Speaker 00: I would direct you to column 17 of the 529 patent which is at A145 of the appendix. [00:27:19] Speaker 00: And if you start at line 10 and go down to roughly line 25, what you have there is a discussion of what logical process. [00:27:29] Speaker 02: 145 of the appendix, what line? [00:27:32] Speaker 00: 145 of the appendix, column 17, starting at line 10. [00:27:37] Speaker 00: Okay. [00:27:40] Speaker 00: What's described there, Your Honors, is [00:27:44] Speaker 00: What is a logical process? [00:27:47] Speaker 00: Well what's described there is a logical process is simply a set of instructions for executing various functions of any number of programs. [00:27:58] Speaker 00: And then in this section it refers to different types of programs with processing programs, web browser programs, operating systems. [00:28:07] Speaker 00: So the point is that a logical process is a set of instructions. [00:28:11] Speaker 00: that can carry out various functions. [00:28:14] Speaker 00: When the applicants were required to amend, we went through this whole discussion about, you know, they started with the term browser process, yet the examiner was saying, well, your browser process appears broader in this specification. [00:28:29] Speaker 00: It appears to be word processing programs. [00:28:32] Speaker 00: Well, you add web, [00:28:35] Speaker 00: to logical processes. [00:28:37] Speaker 00: All they are doing there is saying, fine, it's not every logical process. [00:28:42] Speaker 00: It's a web browser process, but it's still a set of instructions for executing functions of a web browser program. [00:28:50] Speaker 00: Now, I think it's just resting here asking the question about whether [00:28:54] Speaker 00: Each process needs to do everything. [00:28:57] Speaker 00: I would direct you to claims 1 through 20 of the 528 patent because those claims show the two processes working together to render a common display. [00:29:12] Speaker 00: The point there is that [00:29:14] Speaker 00: When the web browser processes are working together, the idea is that they don't need to do everything. [00:29:21] Speaker 00: Both of them need to do everything in order to render the common display. [00:29:24] Speaker 00: And what's key is just look at the claims. [00:29:27] Speaker 00: The claims say what each process has to do. [00:29:30] Speaker 00: The first process has to be capable of opening the second process. [00:29:34] Speaker 00: The first process has to be capable of accessing the web. [00:29:36] Speaker 00: The first process has to be capable of reading and writing into the first memory space and the second memory space. [00:29:42] Speaker 00: The second web browser process has to be capable of rendering the website data. [00:29:47] Speaker 00: It has to be capable of communicating with the first browser process. [00:29:51] Speaker 05: But it need not be capable, indeed should not be capable of accessing the web. [00:29:59] Speaker 00: It need not be capable of accessing the web directly. [00:30:03] Speaker 00: It needs to be capable of accessing the web one way or another, but it need not be capable of doing it directly. [00:30:11] Speaker 05: When you say accessing the web, in the context that we have here with respect to the second web browser process, you're really saying just receive data from the first web browser, right? [00:30:23] Speaker 05: No, I'm saying... What is it doing that constitutes web browsing if all it's doing is getting [00:30:30] Speaker 05: data from the first web browser. [00:30:35] Speaker 00: In the indirect embodiment? [00:30:37] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:30:37] Speaker 00: So the indirect embodiment, all the indirect embodiment requires is that the web browser process has some reliance on the other process in terms of receiving the website data. [00:30:52] Speaker 05: The whole key is... So anything [00:30:56] Speaker 05: in the entire instrument that receives data that originated from the web is a web browser? [00:31:04] Speaker 05: No, no. [00:31:05] Speaker 05: Well, what is it that makes the second web browser in the indirect mode a web browser that [00:31:13] Speaker 05: doesn't make the printer a web browser. [00:31:16] Speaker 00: Great question, because it's carrying out the function of a web browsing program, which includes rendering the website data, which includes passing data to the first browser process, which in certain bodies includes [00:31:32] Speaker 00: gaining direct access to the data itself. [00:31:35] Speaker 00: So in the claims, the browser process, whether it's the first or the second, has very specific requirements. [00:31:42] Speaker 00: It's not in the abstract here that you have to read web browser process. [00:31:47] Speaker 00: in the context of the claims as a whole. [00:31:50] Speaker 00: And when you do that, you see there are very specific requirements for both. [00:31:54] Speaker 00: It's not just a web browser process can be anything, as long as it receives website data. [00:31:59] Speaker 02: But this goes back to Judge Bryson's opening debate about what do you mean by access. [00:32:07] Speaker 02: The second browser in indirect mode doesn't have access, does it? [00:32:14] Speaker 00: It absolutely has access. [00:32:16] Speaker 00: It is being provided the data. [00:32:19] Speaker 02: It cannot independently go on to the web. [00:32:23] Speaker 00: Without assistance, it cannot independently go on to the web and download. [00:32:28] Speaker 00: It is relying on the other process to at least download that data so it can be executed in the second process. [00:32:34] Speaker 02: So it only has access to the first. [00:32:37] Speaker 00: In the indirect embodiment. [00:32:39] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:32:40] Speaker 00: And not to the web. [00:32:42] Speaker 00: in the indirect embodiment. [00:32:43] Speaker 00: It does have access, but only through the first.