[00:00:00] Speaker 00: the destruction of the same clause means that... Can I ask you a question before we get into the merits of this second case dispute? [00:00:08] Speaker 00: If we were to affirm the Board in the first case, does that render this case moot in light of the Fresenius case and other decisions of this Court? [00:00:18] Speaker 02: Does it render it moot? [00:00:19] Speaker 02: I believe it does. [00:00:21] Speaker 02: I believe it does. [00:00:22] Speaker 02: Okay, thank you. [00:00:27] Speaker 02: It's a Means Plus Function Clause, right? [00:00:29] Speaker 02: So the question is, do we have an algorithm? [00:00:31] Speaker 00: Well, it's the same patent. [00:00:32] Speaker 02: And it's the same clause. [00:00:33] Speaker 00: And if the board says that the patent is invalid, then the patent goes away, and it doesn't matter what's going on in the district court, I take it. [00:00:42] Speaker 02: Right. [00:00:42] Speaker 02: Those are the only claims that were pending. [00:00:44] Speaker 02: So that's correct. [00:00:45] Speaker 02: So it's construction of the Means Plus Function Clause, the means for detecting. [00:00:48] Speaker 02: It's the only one. [00:00:49] Speaker 02: There was a function, and there was corresponding structure. [00:00:52] Speaker 02: It's a specific algorithm. [00:00:53] Speaker 02: And the question is whether that algorithm is sufficiently disclosed. [00:00:57] Speaker 02: We had a two-slip algorithm of setting the specific criteria of a mobile origination transaction and a predefined trigger for certain transactions with an MSID or dial-digit trigger, depending on which claim we're talking about. [00:01:10] Speaker 02: And the court found that there was a setting of the criteria and that there was a comparing of the criteria to the monitored data, but it said it wasn't a sufficient algorithm. [00:01:20] Speaker 03: Yeah, basically the district court said that the structure that you point to is nothing but a restatement function. [00:01:27] Speaker 02: Right, and we disagree with that because the function itself doesn't say anything about setting criteria and it doesn't say anything about comparing with the monitored data. [00:01:39] Speaker 02: detailed examples in our patent that tells you exactly what GSM standards to look for for the mobile origination transaction and the termination transaction. [00:01:47] Speaker 02: It tells you exactly what data to look for for the trigger. [00:01:50] Speaker 02: So very specific examples. [00:01:53] Speaker 02: And it's more than just restating the function, because there's nothing in the function itself about this setting and this comparing. [00:02:01] Speaker 02: And if we look at this where it's case law, we found two-step algorithms more than sufficient. [00:02:06] Speaker 02: And I think my opponent's didn't even address that. [00:02:09] Speaker 02: Of course a two-scope algorithm can be sufficient. [00:02:13] Speaker 03: That's not really the question. [00:02:14] Speaker 03: The question is whether the algorithm here does anything more than restate the function. [00:02:19] Speaker 02: And it does because it's telling you to look for specific criteria and compare that to the monitor data. [00:02:26] Speaker 02: And if you do and you find a match, [00:02:28] Speaker 02: then you accomplish the function. [00:02:30] Speaker 02: The question, do we need more structure to accomplish that function? [00:02:32] Speaker 02: Do we need additional steps? [00:02:34] Speaker 02: Well, that would run afoul of requiring additional structure. [00:02:36] Speaker 02: We don't need any additional structure to accomplish this function. [00:02:40] Speaker 02: In the iBermuth case, it said user input data compared to saved data is an algorithm. [00:02:47] Speaker 02: It's very similar to what we have here. [00:02:50] Speaker 02: If we look at the all boys, it said [00:02:53] Speaker 02: It was a means for outputting. [00:02:54] Speaker 02: It said receiving the data and outputting the data with sufficient algorithm. [00:02:58] Speaker 02: So this is a sufficient algorithm to perform the actual function that we have. [00:03:02] Speaker 02: And their main argument on appeal was to change the claim around. [00:03:06] Speaker 02: And they're trying to broaden out the function so that our structure is insufficient. [00:03:11] Speaker 02: They're making all kinds of new claim construction arguments here on appeal. [00:03:15] Speaker 02: So our algorithm performs the function. [00:03:18] Speaker 02: It falls within the case law. [00:03:20] Speaker 02: It's not one of these cases where [00:03:23] Speaker 02: like Aristocat or ergo licensing where you had a control means in the patent-safe control device and there was nothing else disclosed. [00:03:31] Speaker 02: Or it said it's tough to want a skill in the art to figure out how to implement this in software. [00:03:37] Speaker 02: We don't have that situation here. [00:03:39] Speaker 02: If we talk mobile origination, we tell you exactly what transactions to look for. [00:03:43] Speaker 02: We cite to the GSM standard. [00:03:45] Speaker 02: We tell you which data fields to look for within those standards and therefore it's very specific. [00:03:52] Speaker 02: it accomplishes a function. [00:03:54] Speaker 02: And to add additional things, I think Polaris has said, well, we need to harvest data, or we need to select the particular triggers. [00:04:04] Speaker 02: Well, that's not part of the function. [00:04:05] Speaker 00: The function is... Do you think it's fair to say that this algorithm is equivalent in a general sort of way to one that would say select a feature and then determine if that feature is present [00:04:24] Speaker 02: No, I don't think it's about selecting a feature. [00:04:26] Speaker 02: I think it's about setting the criteria. [00:04:28] Speaker 00: Well, it isn't setting the criteria, selecting a feature. [00:04:31] Speaker 00: In other words, you're establishing what it is you're looking for. [00:04:37] Speaker 00: And then the second step is you'll look for it. [00:04:40] Speaker 00: And if you find it, you've detected it. [00:04:42] Speaker 02: Isn't that what you're saying? [00:04:43] Speaker 02: That's what we're doing, yes. [00:04:44] Speaker 00: I tell you what's troubling me is that it seems to me that your algorithm that you've proposed [00:04:52] Speaker 00: is very broad and it may be that you have enough structure in the specification to establish some kind of algorithm, but I'm just wondering whether this algorithm isn't so broad that it just goes way beyond the structure that you've described and therefore would capture embodiments that are outside of the structure that you've described [00:05:18] Speaker 00: in the specification, which would be contrary to 112F. [00:05:24] Speaker 00: That's my concern. [00:05:25] Speaker 00: Right. [00:05:25] Speaker 02: I understand your concern. [00:05:27] Speaker 02: And so we gave a lot of many different examples within the mobile origination. [00:05:32] Speaker 03: I don't see how that helps you, because the definition of structure that you proposed didn't select an example. [00:05:40] Speaker 03: It selected a very broad description. [00:05:43] Speaker 03: And you're saying, well, there are examples that come within that description. [00:05:47] Speaker 03: I don't see how the examples help you. [00:05:49] Speaker 03: when you've asked for such a broad definition of the algorithm? [00:05:53] Speaker 02: Well, I think it's broad enough to support that. [00:05:57] Speaker 02: I think the disclosure is broad enough to support the algorithm, because we say on column 13, line 1 through 5, we give the general concept that your preset rules and the preset rules then gives you sufficient examples so that you know. [00:06:08] Speaker 02: This isn't a case where we're trying to claim other transactions. [00:06:12] Speaker 03: Specific examples are not definitional. [00:06:15] Speaker 03: I mean, this is not a written description [00:06:17] Speaker 03: problem, the question is, what's the structure that corresponds to the function here? [00:06:26] Speaker 03: And you can't say, well, we propose such and such an algorithm, and then there are other examples that fall within that algorithm. [00:06:35] Speaker 03: The fact that there may be other examples that fall within the algorithm doesn't give any more definition to the algorithm that solves your problem. [00:06:45] Speaker 02: Well, in the joint claim construction, we set out all those 143, I think it is. [00:06:50] Speaker 02: We set out all those examples cited, specific line numbers, and those are the examples that support this algorithm. [00:06:58] Speaker 03: Well, help me, I don't understand what the examples have to do with it. [00:07:01] Speaker 03: Well, they're the... If you come up with an algorithm which is so broad that it covers those examples and other examples not listed there, [00:07:11] Speaker 03: Then there's not a correspondence that's required. [00:07:14] Speaker 02: Well, in the Harris case, there was a computational means, and there were formulas disclosed in the patent. [00:07:20] Speaker 02: And the court said, I believe in that case, that you weren't limited to the exact formulas, that it was sufficient disclosure, that it was broad enough to cover the algorithm in that case. [00:07:31] Speaker 02: And you didn't have to rely on the very exact formula, because it would disclose sufficiently the one skill in the art. [00:07:37] Speaker 02: This is the algorithm. [00:07:39] Speaker 03: So I think we're within... I don't think you're really responding to my question. [00:07:43] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:07:44] Speaker 03: The question is not whether there are examples that fall within your definition of structure, but whether your definition of structure is so broad that it encompasses and merely restates the function. [00:07:59] Speaker 02: I don't think it's so broad that it's covering things that we didn't disclose. [00:08:01] Speaker 02: I think we disclosed it broad enough. [00:08:03] Speaker 02: The examples in context with the general disclosure [00:08:06] Speaker 02: with the filter at column 13, lines 1 through 5, was broad enough to support this algorithm, saying, look at preset rules, and then compare that to the monitor data to find a match. [00:08:18] Speaker 02: It could do many examples. [00:08:19] Speaker 02: So for these particular transactions, we've given... I don't understand that. [00:08:23] Speaker 03: I don't understand how the fact that you can have examples which fall within the algorithm makes the algorithm sufficient structure. [00:08:33] Speaker 02: We've disclosed a broad algorithm that says, preset rules [00:08:36] Speaker 02: And the preset rules, you compare to the monitor data. [00:08:41] Speaker 02: Now that's a very broad algorithm because it doesn't tell you exactly what the preset rules are. [00:08:44] Speaker 02: Then we go and say, okay, here's a mobile origination. [00:08:47] Speaker 02: You can go for mobile origination as the preset rules. [00:08:51] Speaker 02: And then it gives you further examples to support that. [00:08:56] Speaker 02: And so that's the basis for the setting. [00:08:59] Speaker 00: We're not trying to claim... You're not suggesting that you're limited. [00:09:01] Speaker 00: to the examples in terms of this breadth of the claim, I take it. [00:09:05] Speaker 02: We'd be happy to be limited to the examples that we cite in the joint claim construction statement. [00:09:10] Speaker 03: But that's not the way you argued it. [00:09:13] Speaker 03: You didn't say you were limited to the examples. [00:09:15] Speaker 03: You said, here's a broad algorithm, and we want all of this. [00:09:19] Speaker 02: I don't really think it's a... I disagree that it's a broad algorithm. [00:09:22] Speaker 02: I think it's supported by the disclosure. [00:09:23] Speaker 02: You yourself characterized it as a broad algorithm a moment ago. [00:09:28] Speaker 02: I said the broad algorithm, they said preset rules of a filter. [00:09:32] Speaker 02: That's talking about just in general in the patent. [00:09:35] Speaker 02: That's not talking to this specific claim with this specific algorithm in respect to this. [00:09:39] Speaker 02: It narrows it and then says with mobile origination and mobile termination and with the MSID and dialed digits, it gives you very narrow algorithms in respect to those. [00:09:49] Speaker 02: We're not trying to go outside of mobile origination or termination. [00:09:52] Speaker 02: We're not trying to [00:09:53] Speaker 02: claim other ways of finding the mobile origination or termination interactions other than what we disclose. [00:09:58] Speaker 02: Look for the indication of them and compare it to the monitored data. [00:10:03] Speaker 02: So we're not trying to go outside of what we've disclosed in the patent. [00:10:11] Speaker 03: Okay, anything further? [00:10:12] Speaker 03: That's it, Your Honor. [00:10:21] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:10:28] Speaker 01: Morning, Your Honor. [00:10:29] Speaker 01: Vincent McGeary for Polaris Wireless. [00:10:33] Speaker 01: I was intended to address a couple of subjects. [00:10:36] Speaker 01: One of them, the first one, was going to be, what's the actual question here? [00:10:39] Speaker 01: I think that was adequately addressed in the previous argument. [00:10:43] Speaker 01: The question is not how many steps constitutes an algorithm. [00:10:47] Speaker 01: It's the sufficiency of the algorithm. [00:10:49] Speaker 01: I also wanted to sort of amplify the point that had come out regarding the examples in the patent. [00:10:57] Speaker 01: The examples do nothing to say about whether or not the algorithm is sufficient. [00:11:03] Speaker 01: In fact, we think the number of examples that are encompassed and brought out in the brief actually cuts against their argument that the algorithm is limiting in any way. [00:11:13] Speaker 01: What it actually demonstrates is that the algorithm is unlimited. [00:11:17] Speaker 01: It doesn't place any scope on the claims. [00:11:20] Speaker 01: It's the same thing that was bothering the district court. [00:11:24] Speaker 01: And I think that if we examine the [00:11:27] Speaker 01: language of the algorithm itself, it states, you know, Proclaim 113, setting one or more indicia of a mobile origination or mobile termination transaction. [00:11:38] Speaker 00: Well, it does have those limitations to it. [00:11:40] Speaker 01: Right. [00:11:41] Speaker 01: Well, let's think about what the limitation actually is. [00:11:44] Speaker 01: One or more indicia. [00:11:45] Speaker 01: It can be any number of indicia. [00:11:47] Speaker 01: And indicia itself is an empty word. [00:11:49] Speaker 01: Right. [00:11:49] Speaker 01: But they nonetheless have to be indicia of [00:11:52] Speaker 01: a mobile origination or a mobile termination transaction. [00:11:54] Speaker 01: But nothing comes prepackaged as an indicia of a mobile origination or a mobile termination transaction. [00:12:01] Speaker 01: What counts as an indicia of that is something that needs to be programmed into a computer. [00:12:05] Speaker 01: If anything, that's what their example showed, and also what Dr. Gottesman's declaration showed. [00:12:11] Speaker 01: Dr. Gottesman, in his declaration in paragraphs 66 and 67, and that's A1089, [00:12:19] Speaker 01: That declaration was submitted to the district court. [00:12:23] Speaker 01: Ostensibly, it seemed like, on enablement type of question, Dr. Gottesman didn't opine as to how the proposed algorithm might limit a person of ordinance. [00:12:34] Speaker 00: Returning to the question that I was really interested in getting your response on, you could say that, as the district court did, that if this algorithm said, for example, setting one or more [00:12:49] Speaker 00: criteria or triggers or whatever you want to say. [00:12:55] Speaker 00: And detecting by comparing those triggers involving the monitored data with the trigger that you're using as a test, that that would be the equivalent of just detecting. [00:13:15] Speaker 00: setting a criterion and then looking for whether that criterion is satisfied, as the district court said, it's pretty close to detecting. [00:13:24] Speaker 00: That's pretty much the way a computer would do any detection. [00:13:27] Speaker 00: But this is more limited in that it focuses, at least to some extent, on those two types of signals, right? [00:13:34] Speaker 00: So it is not as broad as the algorithm I just described. [00:13:39] Speaker 01: I think that it is because mobile origination or mobile termination transaction isn't one type of signal. [00:13:45] Speaker 01: As you heard earlier, a mobile origination transaction is a transaction that occurs when a mobile places a call. [00:13:52] Speaker 01: It doesn't come prepackaged as one type of signal with one type of data fields. [00:13:57] Speaker 00: In fact... But there are other types of signals that you would say that is not a mobile initiation signal, right? [00:14:04] Speaker 01: Well, you would only say it once you actually looked at it and did some thinking and made and developed an algorithm to tell a computer how to determine what counts as mobile origination and what counts as [00:14:15] Speaker 01: mobile termination. [00:14:16] Speaker 01: In other words, once you are saying one or more indicia and saying detecting one or more indicia, it ends up being the same thing. [00:14:24] Speaker 01: It's a human being. [00:14:25] Speaker 01: That's what Dr. Gottesman said. [00:14:26] Speaker 01: A human being has to define what's going to count as the indicia. [00:14:30] Speaker 01: So you end up with a complete tautology between setting and detecting. [00:14:35] Speaker 01: That's why setting doesn't add anything to detecting. [00:14:39] Speaker 01: And so, you know, and then when you couple with the proposed algorithm that it's one or more by definition or more makes it unbounded. [00:14:47] Speaker 01: It's how many can you think about in terms of what will count as an indicia? [00:14:52] Speaker 01: They crafted an algorithm that was really intended to capture every possible way of doing it. [00:14:58] Speaker 01: And by doing that, they created an algorithm that places no bounds on the algorithm. [00:15:04] Speaker 01: which is why Dr. Gottesman's declaration only talks about enablement, what a person of ordinary skill in the art could do or could program and some of the possibilities that would exist there instead of coming in and telling you, here's how this is limited and why it places a limitation on the claim. [00:15:21] Speaker 01: It's an unbounded claim. [00:15:22] Speaker 01: It doesn't tell you how to get anywhere. [00:15:25] Speaker 01: It just says, set indicia and then find those indicia and then under these broad categories of mobile origination and mobile termination. [00:15:33] Speaker 00: Do they need to have [00:15:34] Speaker 00: that broad an algorithm in order for their patent to read on your devices? [00:15:44] Speaker 01: Well, certainly from our perspective, they could have made that as broad as the universe, and it would not have hit our devices. [00:15:51] Speaker 01: But certainly, there was a strategic choice that was made. [00:15:55] Speaker 00: Let me ask the question the other way. [00:15:57] Speaker 00: Of course, we don't know, because this case has not gotten far enough to know exactly where [00:16:04] Speaker 00: the devices are and so forth, or at least it isn't before us. [00:16:09] Speaker 00: But if they had limited themselves and described an algorithm that specifically limited themselves to the examples, would that algorithm, more limited algorithm, have read on your devices as you see it? [00:16:26] Speaker 00: And if not, why? [00:16:28] Speaker 01: We believe it would not have read on our devices because our devices, the other aspects of the claim require, have elements that our devices do not have. [00:16:38] Speaker 01: So whether or not they limited it to a particular example, our non-infringement contentions would have remained. [00:16:45] Speaker 00: Nevertheless... Based on other limitations in the claim? [00:16:48] Speaker 01: Based on other limitations. [00:16:51] Speaker 01: I can't speak to it off of the question that you're posing right now. [00:16:55] Speaker 00: I'm sorry about that. [00:16:58] Speaker 00: I was just wondering whether we're arguing. [00:17:00] Speaker 00: In other words, my concern is, as I expressed to your opposing counsel, is that they have an algorithm which looks very broad. [00:17:10] Speaker 00: They have disclosure in the specification that looks more specific. [00:17:15] Speaker 00: If you trim the algorithm back to the specifics of the disclosure, [00:17:20] Speaker 00: Does that rescue the validity of the claims? [00:17:25] Speaker 01: My answer would be no, certainly for the reasons that were set forth in the IPR. [00:17:30] Speaker 01: But additionally, if you look at the example. [00:17:32] Speaker 01: No, no, no. [00:17:33] Speaker 01: But that's on a different issue. [00:17:34] Speaker 00: The IPR, as a matter of fact, ruled against you on this issue. [00:17:37] Speaker 01: So that doesn't help you. [00:17:39] Speaker 01: Right. [00:17:40] Speaker 01: So in terms of the examples that they have in their brief, it just identifies certain transactions [00:17:50] Speaker 01: that are mobile origination transactions, and it goes and identifies certain fields that are in there. [00:17:55] Speaker 01: But it never says how to take those transactions and those fields and remove them and find a match. [00:18:02] Speaker 01: Some of those fields appear both in mobile origination and mobile termination transactions. [00:18:07] Speaker 01: So to take it one step further, we had said in our brief that just because you're applying a preset filter or doing matching doesn't tell you how to get there. [00:18:18] Speaker 01: the filtering could have multiple steps. [00:18:20] Speaker 01: It's the arrangement of those rules that would get you there that becomes the algorithm. [00:18:25] Speaker 01: So, you know, it reminds me of doing searches in some of these search engines which have a lot of operators, ands and ors and nots, and you can sort of craft a search that narrows yourself down. [00:18:36] Speaker 01: It's the sequence of the filtering that is being set up to get you where you want to go that counts as the algorithm. [00:18:43] Speaker 01: That's the step by step. [00:18:45] Speaker 01: So in their examples, where they give examples of data that might be indicators, they still need to disclose how to get from one place to the other. [00:18:54] Speaker 01: The problem with their specification is it's very heavy on enablement, but it's not heavy on algorithmic structure because I believe these claims were added much later in the prosecution history. [00:19:08] Speaker 01: And I would have to check that, so maybe I shouldn't have said it. [00:19:10] Speaker 01: But the point I'm trying to make here is [00:19:12] Speaker 01: The structure is very heavy on enablement and examples, but what we need when you're doing a broad means plus function claim is a one-to-one correspondence between an algorithm and the function you are trying to get to. [00:19:25] Speaker 01: Their function is very, very broad. [00:19:27] Speaker 01: It's detecting not only mobile origination or mobile termination transactions. [00:19:31] Speaker 01: Remember, the function that the court found was detecting at least one of, at least one [00:19:38] Speaker 01: One network transaction including one of a mobile origination or mobile termination transaction. [00:19:45] Speaker 00: But presumably you would be making exactly the same argument if they took out the at least and they took out the indicium, right? [00:19:54] Speaker 00: You would still think it was too broad. [00:19:56] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:19:57] Speaker 01: So that's just window dressing really. [00:20:00] Speaker 01: Well, the question was whether or not an example could save the claim, and I don't think that it could, because what needs to save the claim is an algorithm that will operate on a broad number of transactions, not just mobile origination or mobile termination. [00:20:14] Speaker 01: And they don't have that. [00:20:15] Speaker 01: They show you how to detect a mobile origination, actually don't even show you how. [00:20:19] Speaker 01: They give you enough, as Dr. Gottesman said, that a person of ordinary skill [00:20:24] Speaker 01: could, with ordinary skill, write a computer algorithm to make those detections. [00:20:28] Speaker 01: They never attempted to identify algorithmic structure that would support these means plus function elements. [00:20:35] Speaker 01: Basically, what we have is a challenge to the specification, and then, in the context of litigation, going back and mining the specification to see if it can be supported. [00:20:45] Speaker 01: It wasn't forethought on part of the patent draftsman to draw up a one-to-one correspondence of algorithmic structure. [00:20:52] Speaker 00: Now, in your brief, [00:20:54] Speaker 00: You did not address several of the cases that they specifically and heavily rely on, which is a tactical choice on your part. [00:21:02] Speaker 00: But it always leaves a question in the court's mind as to whether you had an answer. [00:21:08] Speaker 00: Can you tell us if you do have an answer, for example, as to why, say, the University of Pittsburgh case is not pertinent here to support the appellant's position? [00:21:19] Speaker 01: Yeah, so I read the University of Pittsburgh case to be a case that said- Did you decide that those cases just weren't even worth attention? [00:21:25] Speaker 00: They were so far off? [00:21:26] Speaker 01: That is correct. [00:21:27] Speaker 01: I mean, you will see that in our brief, and the only case that we really discussed at length, other than setting forth what's not disputed about the law here in terms of how to deal with means plus function claim elements, was Ibermuth. [00:21:38] Speaker 00: It seemed like- Which happens to be the case that's in your favor. [00:21:41] Speaker 00: As opposed to the ones that are against you. [00:21:43] Speaker 01: There are other cases that we could do a string site to and say that's in our favor where the result was in our favor. [00:21:50] Speaker 01: The point is that these are fact specific. [00:21:52] Speaker 00: These are not... What is it about... I mean, Pittsburgh strikes me as carrying the... Being a representative of a minimalist approach to what's required in an algorithm. [00:22:07] Speaker 00: Why is it... And it's pretty close. [00:22:09] Speaker 00: to this algorithm. [00:22:10] Speaker 00: Actually, if you look at the algorithm that was involved in Pittsburgh, why is it distinguishable? [00:22:14] Speaker 00: With specific attention to the algorithm used in Pittsburgh. [00:22:17] Speaker 01: Yeah, so I'm going to have to confess that I read their citation to Pittsburgh as being limited to this argument that a two-step algorithm is enough. [00:22:26] Speaker 01: I didn't concentrate in my preparation much on what the actual algorithm was there. [00:22:32] Speaker 01: I really concentrated more on [00:22:33] Speaker 01: on Typhoon Touch text, which is, to me, was the case that they were really relying upon with respect to why they had a sufficient algorithm rather than just this one step, two step. [00:22:45] Speaker 01: Typhoon Touch, I concentrated on more. [00:22:48] Speaker 01: I'm not as prepared to address University of Pittsburgh on the level of the algorithm, and I apologize for that. [00:22:56] Speaker 01: I read that as dealing with one or two steps more so than [00:23:01] Speaker 01: being heavily relied upon for the sufficiency of the algorithm. [00:23:04] Speaker 01: But All Voice and Typhoon Touchtex are what I prepared for with respect to this argument on that question. [00:23:12] Speaker 00: They led their argument on this issue with University of Pittsburgh. [00:23:17] Speaker 00: It is a non-prep. [00:23:19] Speaker 00: It is a non-prep, that's for sure. [00:23:21] Speaker 00: And there was a dissent. [00:23:23] Speaker 00: But it's there. [00:23:27] Speaker 01: But in any event, the distinguishing factor in these is that [00:23:31] Speaker 01: All of those cases, Typhoon Touch and All Voice, which were the other two they relied upon, did have structure in it. [00:23:38] Speaker 01: All Voice had the Windows operating system, which is what the court relied upon as the structure that could perform the operations. [00:23:46] Speaker 01: And Typhoon TouchTex had a TouchTex input device and a library of responses that it would then take the response that was on a particular area of the screen and compare it to the [00:24:01] Speaker 01: what was in the library. [00:24:03] Speaker 01: So there was a specific structure there. [00:24:05] Speaker 01: I'll note that University of Pittsburgh is an unpublished opinion, and the other two cases which are published are easily distinguishable, and IBRAM is being much closer. [00:24:16] Speaker 00: Okay. [00:24:18] Speaker 03: Thank you, Mr. Miller. [00:24:26] Speaker 02: Just a couple quick points, Your Honors. [00:24:30] Speaker 02: The third non-imprisonment position was based on the means for initiating clause, not the means for detecting clause. [00:24:34] Speaker 02: It was a direct, indirect argument that I think by the way, it claimed construction. [00:24:38] Speaker 02: So it wasn't on the means for detecting. [00:24:40] Speaker 02: He refers to Dr. Gozman's declaration. [00:24:44] Speaker 02: Dr. Gozman's declaration said, given the algorithm, I can program a computer. [00:24:49] Speaker 02: I think that's right in keeping with this court's precedent for [00:24:53] Speaker 02: 112.6 is he's not adding to the disclosure. [00:24:56] Speaker 02: He's giving the algorithms. [00:24:57] Speaker 02: I think there's two lines of cases you can't add to the disclosure, but you don't have to disclose source code for your 112.6. [00:25:05] Speaker 02: And the Ibermuth case actually said that inputting data and matching it is a computer algorithm. [00:25:18] Speaker 02: And so that's very similar to what we have. [00:25:20] Speaker 02: And I think the University of Pittsburgh case is very close, although an unpublished opinion with the dissent is very close to ours, because it said detecting and it said identifying and tracking. [00:25:30] Speaker 02: And I think our algorithm is actually even a little more specific than theirs. [00:25:33] Speaker 02: Unless you have more questions, that's all I have, Your Honor. [00:25:36] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:25:36] Speaker 03: Thank you, Mr. Menon. [00:25:37] Speaker 03: I thank both counsel. [00:25:39] Speaker 03: The case is submitted.