[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
The next case for argument this morning is 15-1213 in-ray round table technology.

[00:00:39] Speaker 03:
In-ray rotatable technology, sorry.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
Mr. Fahmy?

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
Please proceed.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
Good morning and may it please the Court.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
The Board's final written decision in this inter-party's review should be reversed because it fails to address the requirement of rotating the window about a rotation point as specifically required by the claims.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
Rather than evaluating the claim subject matter as a whole,

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
that is rotating the window about the rotation point, the board parsed the claim and addressed only elements of rotating the window and determining the rotation point, never considering the totality of the claim that required rotation of the window about that rotation point.

[00:01:46] Speaker 03:
It's kind of hard for me to grasp arguments that deal with

[00:01:51] Speaker 03:
what they considered an individual or not.

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
So what do you want to point to in the board's opinion that you think was error?

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
Let me direct your attention, Your Honor, to page 26 of the board's opinion, and this is also page A26 of the Joint Appendix.

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
About the middle of the page, the board says,

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
Similarly, it is immaterial whether Martinez discloses rotating a window relative to a reference plane as Caps is asserted as disclosing rotating objects relative to a reference plane.

[00:02:30] Speaker 01:
Now this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the language of the claim.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
If we look at claim nine.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
Can I just ask, I mean, I'm going to assume that that sentence was just flat out wrong.

[00:02:44] Speaker 02:
I don't even know what it means to rotate something.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
about a reference relative to a reference plane.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
But everything else in the opinion seems to be describing which is the piece of prior art with the kind of picture of a crank.

[00:03:01] Speaker ?:
Caps.

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
Caps.

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
So, I mean, right.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
So on page 24, right, there's a figure four from caps.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
How is that not rotating something about a reference point?

[00:03:13] Speaker 02:
And then the question is,

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
an object or a window, you get that from the other.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
Let me answer that in two ways, Your Honor.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
First, I don't think it's necessarily just a flat-out mistake the board was making, because elsewhere in the opinion when they address the motion to amend, which is not the subject of the appeal, the board characterizes caps as describing rotation relative to a display.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
And that's not wrong.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
In fact, that's right out of the field of the invention, column one, line five of caps.

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
That is what CAPS is about.

[00:03:47] Speaker 01:
And that display defines a plane.

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
So when they say CAPS discloses rotating objects relative to a reference plane on page 26, they're not wrong.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
I don't think that's just a flat out mistake.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
I see.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
So this reference plane business is kind of the whole frame of the screen and you're rotating the object with the frame staying fixed and calling that rotating relative to the plane.

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
Exactly.

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
It is the plane defined by the screen.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
Martinez, by the way, gives an excellent example of what rotation with respect to a plane is in figure three, your honor.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
They actually show movement of the laptop computer in two axes relative to the plane.

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
But let me address the other part of your question is, okay, the board made an error that, you know, they confused a couple things and they made an error on page 26.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
And CAPS, yes, CAPS shows a crank and what happens is you've got an object on the display and you grab the crank tool out of some virtual toolbox that is represented on the display and you take your stylus and you turn your stylus on the display and that causes the crank to move and that causes the object and in CAPS it's an arrow on the display.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
That causes the object to move.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
Let's assume.

[00:05:11] Speaker 02:
About a point.

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
I think what capsule is the center of gravity, right?

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
It's about the axle, which I think we all agree is a point.

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
So why isn't that combinable with Martinez, which talks about windows?

[00:05:24] Speaker 01:
Well, frankly, Your Honor, the petitioner's declarant told us the answer to that question in the record.

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
I asked the petitioner's declarant, this is Dr. Turnbull, what it is that a person of ordinary skill in the art in this field would know.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
that that person is a person with limited experience, about two years of actual software development experience.

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
And that two years of experience would be to make use of known toolkits and other development libraries that are available to programmers of about that general experience.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
And so when he was asked

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
Well, is the Martinez solution for rotating windows part of that general toolkit of the person of ordinary skill in the art?

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
He says, yes.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
And is the CAPS solution about rotating objects also part of the toolkit?

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
Yes, it is.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
But when I asked, well, would the person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to adopt a solution for rotating windows as required in the claim,

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
wouldn't they just use the Martinez approach?

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
And Dr. Turnbull said yes, that is what they would use.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
So the idea of the person of ordinary skill who knows these prior techniques, somehow abandoning the Martinez approach and applying the CAPS approach, which deals not with windows, but with other graphical objects and requires developing other icons on the screen, the idea that somehow those would be combined, as the board suggests, is just not supported by the average.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
own declarant indicated that no, you're seeking to rotate windows.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
Look to Martinez, it provides the solution.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
The person of organized skill with this couple years of experience, that is the solution they would adopt when they're faced with this issue.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
Now the board also made some other mistakes with respect to a couple of the dependent claims, so I'd like to just touch on those briefly if I might.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
The first is claim 11.

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
On claim 11,

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
depends from nine and further specifies that the rotation of the window about the rotation point is by what are known as predetermined increments.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
So even if you find that somehow the board addressed rotation of the window about the rotation point.

[00:07:46] Speaker 02:
Why aren't landscape and portrait predetermined increments?

[00:07:50] Speaker 02:
And there's two of them.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
It's not very imaginative, but nevertheless the claim doesn't require much.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
I agree, a claim doesn't require much and your point about portrait and landscape is well taken because that's what's reported in Martinez and also reported in the background of the 978 patent.

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
But those are orientations of a display, not a window.

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
They are the actual physical rotation of the display from one

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
perspective, portrait, let's say, to the other, landscape, let's say.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
And if you look at Martinez, the drawings in Martinez, the figure five embodiment shows, for example, the kind of rotation you're describing.

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
Now this is reproduced in the board's written decision as well.

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
This is at page 823.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
It's at the bottom of page 823.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
You see in 5A, we're in a

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
landscape mode and then 5B and 5C were in portrait modes.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
Well, the windows don't actually rotate.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
What Martinez says in explaining those illustrations is that the windows stay level with respect to the original reference plane.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
So the board is simply mistaken when it concludes that that's rotation of the window.

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
It's not.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
The window remains level.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
All that's happened is the display has moved from one position to the other.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
What do you mean by level?

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
What Martina says is that the original illustration 5A defines a horizontal plane.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
So the plane that the laptop computer is resting in, let's say.

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
The keyboard portion?

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
Yes, the keyboard portion.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
And so then the display gets rotated with respect to that plane that's defined by the keyboard portion.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
But notice the windows themselves retain the same orientation with respect to that original keyboard orientation.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
They don't rotate.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
There is some rotation shown in the other embodiment, the figure six embodiment, which is above.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
So the same orientation with respect to the table that this computer is sitting on either in the normal position or on edge?

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
Precisely.

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
Now the figure 6 embodiment does show some rotation, but you see here what's happening is that the window on the display of the laptop computer retains the same orientation as it had originally in 6A

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
with respect to the edges of that display.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
But the contents of the window, the XYZ, they remain level with respect to, again, that original keyboard plane.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
However, this is not rotation about a defined rotation point.

[00:11:01] Speaker 01:
Martinez explains this is rotation about a reference plane.

[00:11:07] Speaker 01:
So even if you were to consider

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
portrait and landscape, which are orientations of a display, not a window, but even if you consider those predefined, you still don't get the limitations of claim 11.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
Finally, claim 12 is somewhat similar.

[00:11:26] Speaker 01:
Claim 12 requires toggling from one to another.

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
One predetermined or preselected is the language of claim 12.

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
Preselect location to another.

[00:11:37] Speaker 01:
The board defined this as switching.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
between those two orientations, and that's probably a fair characterization.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
For the same reasons that you don't find the preselected orientations with respect to claim 11, you don't find the toggling with respect to claim 12.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
In fact, Martinez explicitly indicated, and Dr. Turnbull, the petitioner, has declared agreed, the user is free to turn to any orientation that he or she wants.

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
Unless there's other questions, I would reserve the balance of the time.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:12:22] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
The 978 patent claims rotating a computer display window about a determined rotation point.

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
The board found that CAPS teaches rotating a computer displayed object about a user determined rotation point.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
that Martinez teaches rotating a window and that one of skill in the art would have included the windows of Martinez within the rotation process of caps to arrive at the claimed invention.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
Substantial evidence supports these findings.

[00:12:57] Speaker 00:
I'd like to start first with the argument that council started with that the board fails to find that the prior art teaches the limitation about a rotation point.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
The board, in fact, found at A25 that what CAPS taught was rotating this object, the arrow on figure four, using the crank iron icon, rotating that about a user-determined, quote, center of rotation, which is nothing more than a rotation point.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
Council tries to, Rotatable tries to undermine this clear finding of the board by pointing to what I believe is a misstatement by the board, and this is at A26, where the board says it was immaterial that Martinez discloses rotating a window relative to a reference plane, as Caps asserted, for disclosing rotating objects relative to a reference plane.

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
It's clear the board meant around a center of rotation, because that's exactly what the board had found at A25.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
And it's in fact exactly what CAPS teaches.

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
It teaches that you would have a number of gravity points associated with the object, and you would use that crank icon to rotate an object.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
And rotation of a two-dimensional object on a computer display is necessarily turning it about a point or a center.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
Moreover, Rotatable has admitted that CAPS

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
discusses selection of a rotation point, and this is at the oral argument before the board at A424 in the record.

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
It has never disputed that Caps teaches rotation of the object.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
Thus, Caps must necessarily teach rotation of the object in Figure 4 about a rotation point.

[00:14:40] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you, do you read the testimony of Mr. Turnbull that Mr. Fahmy

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
referred to, I'm pretty sure that he was referring to an exchange at A1388 practically at the end of the JA to mean that he was suggesting that you wouldn't, that a skilled artisan would not have turned to CAPS to figure out how to do this.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
That's not how I read Dr. Turnbull's testimony.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
I think

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
He was asked if he recalled earlier about the technique that was described in Martinez would be a technique known to one of ordinary skill in the art.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
And that starts at 1387.

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
And the answer was, yes, I think you asked me about this before.

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
It was someone with skill in the art at the time knew about the sensor data and would have good skills in order to know the teaching of Martinez.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
And the question was, so you would employ the technique described in Martinez in order to solve the problem that they were faced with, similar to the problem of Martinez.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
So it's not clear when he says, yes, that he's referring to, well, if one of Skill and the Art just wanted to rotate a window, they would be locked into the Martinez approach of shifting the computer or the mouse.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
I think he was suggesting that if you had a problem and you wanted to

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
rotate a window when you were shifting your computer, you would use the same technique.

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
But not that one of skill in the art who wanted to rotate a window would be stuck with that technique and would never look to caps, which then teaches that using a user determined rotation point and give a user a more interaction with the interface in order to rotate the window.

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
I don't think that that is what the testimony

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
I think that's what the testimony of Dr. Turnbull is.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
In fact, at A1386, the question was that Caps was concerned with solving a different problem than the problem that Martina was trying to solve.

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
And that's one of the arguments, rotatable arguments, is that these two references are solving different problems.

[00:17:07] Speaker 00:
And Dr. Turnbull said, I think it's the same problem.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
It just may be a more specific instance of it.

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
And the board found that one of ordinary skill would have combined martinis with caps and vice versa.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
And that one of skill in the art, admittedly having these two references and these techniques in their toolbox would have, there would have, there'd been no reason for that skill artist then to exclude the windows of martinis from the rotation process of caps.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
And that's what arrived at the claimed invention.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
So turning now, Rotatable's second argument regarding claims 11 and 12 appears to be more broader that Martinez does not teach rotating a window at all.

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
And this is an argument that Rotatable made before the board for the independent claim nine and argued that it was because the entire display rotated.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
And the board rejected this for a number of reasons.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
Figure five is the laptop.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
It has the icons on it and a number of windows.

[00:18:18] Speaker 00:
And when the user rotates the laptop either direction 90 degrees relative to the table, the reference plane.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
Each window on that display relative to the computer.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
So the board found that that was rotation of a window.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
The board also relied on figure six.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
In Figure 6, there's a rotation, and then the XYZ in the window stays level relative to the reference plane.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
And the window stays with the computer.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
And Rotatable argued that that showed rotation of an object within the window.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
And the board agreed, but said, Martinez expressly states that this same process can be applied to other objects, such as a window, like Window 600 in Figure 6.

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
In fact, Martinez expressly states that its process, that its teaching is a process for rotating windows.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
And so this is an A610, column five, starting at line 40.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
And it's referring to the flow chart that's in figure eight.

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
And it's a process for rotating windows.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
So when the computer device is tilted relative to the reference plane.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
the window stays level relative to that reference plane, but it is a rotation of the window relative to the computer device.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
And in fact, rotatable in its opening brief expressly states that the Martinez teaches rotating a window.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
It says at the blue brief at page 19 that the Martinez approach of quote unquote rotating windows would be a solution within the toolkit of a person of ordinary skill.

[00:20:08] Speaker 00:
There's no other questions about whether the Martinez teaches rotating a window or the Pryor Art teaches about a rotation point.

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
The board's decision on both of those points was supported by substantial evidence that the Pryor Art together teaches rotating a window about a rotation point.

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
Quickly turning to claims 11 and 12,

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
challenge these two claims separately from Representative Claim 9.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
The board found that Martinez teaches both limitations of rotating a window by predetermined increments and toggling the window between two preselected orientations by teaching this 90 degree rotation between landscape and portrait mode and that prior art systems were in fact limited to these predetermined increment or these two orientations.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
and that one of skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art that you could toggle between this landscape and portrait mode.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
According to the board's decision that the claims of the 978 patent would have been obvious over Martinez and Caps is supported by substantial evidence and the decision should be affirmed.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
If there's no more questions, I'll yield the remainder of my time.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:21:35] Speaker 01:
Your honors, the director's mistaken when she indicates the nature of the board's finding with respect to CAPS.

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
And I would invite your attention to page 43 of the board's decision.

[00:21:50] Speaker 01:
And this is page A43 of the appendix.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
The director suggested that the board had found CAPS teaches rotation

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
with respect to a reference point.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
However, at page A43, the board is clear that says, we have found that, this is at the top of the page, we have found that CAPS discloses rotating objects relative to the screen.

[00:22:17] Speaker 01:
And as I indicated in response to Judge Taranto's question earlier, I don't think that was a mistake because if we look at CAPS itself,

[00:22:31] Speaker 01:
and I'm referring to column one, this is at page A625 of the appendix.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
The background of the invention right at the beginning of column one indicates that the CAPS invention relates generally to manipulating images on a computer screen.

[00:22:51] Speaker 01:
So I think the board was correct in its characterization of CAPS about rotating objects relative to the screen.

[00:23:02] Speaker 01:
Next, the director in her remarks commented on the testimony of Dr. Turnbull in deposition.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
I would suggest that the deposition testimony reflects something different.

[00:23:24] Speaker 01:
Dr. Turnbull was asked specifically about applying the Martinez solution to rotation of windows, not devices.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
And he indicated that yes, it was a solution that is rotation with respect to the reference planes that would be adopted when seeking to rotate windows.

[00:23:45] Speaker 01:
And finally, the discussion about figure eight in Martinez relating to the actual algorithm that is employed.

[00:23:59] Speaker 01:
I think that's a worthwhile thing to consider

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
That algorithm has a couple of important parts.

[00:24:09] Speaker 01:
One is step 806, which considers whether windows are to be rotated.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
And if so, the algorithm proceeds to step 808, where system coordinates are updated to reflect the tilt degree, and then step 810, where the windows are redrawn to reflect that tilt.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
Dr. Turnbull, again, as noted in our papers,

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
said that that is a reflection of the windows being redrawn with respect to the reference plane, not with respect to the rotation point.

[00:24:43] Speaker 01:
So everything suggests that the solution that would have been arrived at, considering Martinez and Capps, is a solution that would have been rotation with respect to a reference plane and not a rotation point, as required by the claims.

[00:25:02] Speaker 01:
and that's the reason why the board's decision should be reversed.

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
Thank you.