[00:00:00] Speaker 00: The case is 2016-1054, Blue Spike versus Google. [00:00:44] Speaker 00: Mr. Anderson, please proceed. [00:01:03] Speaker 04: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:01:08] Speaker 04: I'd like to reserve four minutes of rebuttal time. [00:01:14] Speaker 04: So may it please the court, as you know, my name is Kirk Anderson. [00:01:17] Speaker 04: I represent the appellant in this case, Blue Spike LLC. [00:01:23] Speaker 04: In this case, this is a case of patent eligibility under Section 101 that the Northern District of California granted, excuse me, the Northern District of California granted the appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing [00:01:42] Speaker 04: and holding that the patents and suit are invalid as being abstract and patent-ineligible. [00:01:48] Speaker 04: Blue Spike appealed and now Blue Spike asks the court to reverse and remand that decision. [00:01:54] Speaker 04: There are three main issues that I plan on reaching today, discussing today, and those are that Prom 1 of the Mayo-Alice test... Let me ask you a question. [00:02:05] Speaker 04: Sure, Your Honor. [00:02:06] Speaker 01: How did the claimed inventions reduce signals to [00:02:10] Speaker 01: technological content or detail about how to implement them. [00:02:16] Speaker 01: I'm sorry, how did they reduce? [00:02:17] Speaker 01: How did they reduce signals about human perceptions? [00:02:23] Speaker 01: The claim inventions reduce signals to abstract so human perceptions are retained. [00:02:29] Speaker 01: How do they do that in technological content or detail? [00:02:37] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor, so... You have what you call a [00:02:40] Speaker 01: a verbal algorithm. [00:02:42] Speaker 01: Right. [00:02:44] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor, I believe that is, the answer to your question is on Appendix 69, which is part of the, which is the 175 patent, and specifically listed there on, in Column 4, Lines 18 through 32, in Column... I'm sorry, what page? [00:03:06] Speaker 04: 69, that's Appendix 69, Your Honor. [00:03:10] Speaker 03: This is the front page of the 175. [00:03:14] Speaker 04: I apologize, Your Honor. [00:03:18] Speaker 04: Columns 10 through 12 are probably what you're looking for. [00:03:22] Speaker 04: And you'll notice there, Your Honors, that there are a number of specific algorithms that are mentioned by the patents in SUIT. [00:03:32] Speaker 04: It mentions linear predictive coding, Z-transform analysis, root mean square, [00:03:38] Speaker 04: frequency-weighted RMS, signal-to-peak, and spectral transforms, all of which are designed to identify these perceptual characteristics in a signal. [00:03:49] Speaker 04: And so the patent, yes, has an exemplary algorithm that spans multiple columns describing how the invention is implemented in general. [00:04:00] Speaker 04: And to your question, those are the specific algorithms on which it relies to find the perceptual [00:04:07] Speaker 04: characteristics of a given signal. [00:04:12] Speaker 04: And so, your audience, that is a good point to start at because the patent in suit then does describe a very specific improvement over the prior art and does describe a very specific way of comparing digital signals. [00:04:30] Speaker 04: These digital signals are data-reduced. [00:04:32] Speaker 04: They are based on perceptual characteristics. [00:04:35] Speaker 04: and they use an abstract or a representation to represent the original signal itself. [00:04:46] Speaker 04: We're not talking about this general use of computer technology here to compare signals. [00:04:55] Speaker 04: These are improvements, for example, over, say, comparing two files on a one-to-one basis, looking at them and finding out what is different. [00:05:05] Speaker 04: rather they are they are teaching the use of this separate representation that is very specifically defined. [00:05:15] Speaker 04: And that is an improvement over what computers could inherently do in the first place, which is very important. [00:05:23] Speaker 04: It's what this court described in Enfish as an improvement in the computer's capabilities. [00:05:32] Speaker 01: I just don't derive that from [00:05:35] Speaker 01: For example, column 11 in its description of cognitive identification. [00:05:41] Speaker 01: And it has words in it. [00:05:48] Speaker 01: But as a novel feature to the present invention, additional class may be subject to humanly perceptible observation. [00:05:56] Speaker 01: But then really what you do is you say, OK, for example, a three-second burst of a song. [00:06:02] Speaker 01: But it doesn't say how. [00:06:06] Speaker 04: You're saying, Your Honor, that it doesn't say how to produce the abstract using perceptual characteristics? [00:06:12] Speaker 01: It doesn't tell me what the invention is. [00:06:15] Speaker 04: So, Your Honor, the invention, if you look at Column 8, [00:06:32] Speaker 04: So beginning there on line 14, we have the first element is the reference database. [00:06:37] Speaker 04: So now I'm pointing out the general, the exemplary algorithm. [00:06:41] Speaker 04: So we have a reference database. [00:06:42] Speaker 04: The second element is that object locator. [00:06:46] Speaker 04: It finds the part of the digital signal that will be assessed. [00:06:51] Speaker 04: The third element is that feature selector, and that's what you pointed out. [00:06:54] Speaker 04: That's what you're focusing on. [00:06:56] Speaker 04: And then as I was describing in columns 10 and 11, [00:07:00] Speaker 04: the patent describes a number of algorithms that can be used to find those perceptual characteristics. [00:07:07] Speaker 04: And what's important here is that although those algorithms can be used to find perceptual characteristics, what is inventive here is that they are used in this novel way of finding perceptual characteristics within this digital signal [00:07:26] Speaker 04: extracting those, putting those into a separate representation, the digital abstract, and then using that for comparison. [00:07:34] Speaker 04: And Your Honor, I believe it does. [00:07:36] Speaker 04: The mere fact that it lists these algorithms that can be used to find the perceptual characteristics is enough for one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to rely on those and implement those in creating the abstract. [00:07:54] Speaker 03: background, just tell me if this is completely irrelevant. [00:07:56] Speaker 03: The priority date here post-dates the creation, probably even marketing and patenting of MP3 compression, is that right? [00:08:08] Speaker 04: I believe that's right, Your Honor. [00:08:10] Speaker 03: Which, at least if I'm recalling right, is a form of compressing [00:08:20] Speaker 03: That is, data-reduced representations so that you can get a lot more into the same amount of memory and basically the listener won't care about the difference, preserving perceptual characteristics. [00:08:34] Speaker 04: You're right, Your Honor. [00:08:35] Speaker 04: And I believe the patent actually describes this type of compression. [00:08:38] Speaker 04: So compression was certainly already in the prior art. [00:08:45] Speaker 04: But there are many differences between the MP3 and the digital abstract. [00:08:50] Speaker 03: Why would that not be an example of something that satisfies the claim language? [00:09:00] Speaker 04: I believe, Your Honor, because mere compression is looking in mathematical ways to represent a big file in a smaller manner just generally. [00:09:14] Speaker 03: Right, but the reason I picked MP3 is that the point was to compress and do it so that you, let's use a claim phrase here, preserve or retain perceptual characteristics. [00:09:25] Speaker 03: That's kind of the whole point. [00:09:26] Speaker 03: You don't want it to sound like a different song. [00:09:30] Speaker 04: That's right, Your Honor. [00:09:32] Speaker 04: What's important here though, as the patent describes, is that you're reducing it to the point where you're trying to find the smallest [00:09:39] Speaker 04: the smallest way of representing that original file. [00:09:43] Speaker 03: This actually speaks to... Do we have a claim here that talks about the smallest way? [00:09:49] Speaker 03: I thought that the abstract [00:09:52] Speaker 03: There's an accepted claim construction that just borrowed maybe from another case saying a data reduced representation that retains a perceptual relationship. [00:10:04] Speaker 03: It doesn't have to be the smallest, the best. [00:10:07] Speaker 04: I'm pulling from the specification that says that the intent is to reduce to ideally maybe even one bit that would represent the differences, but that's not a part of the actual [00:10:22] Speaker 03: claim construction on the term for abstract but isn't that what we have to focus on that is we have even if and I don't know this whether this true or not even if in the specs on the somewhere there was a very specific way of compressing that was [00:10:45] Speaker 03: let's say, novel, not obvious, not conventional, all the things that it shouldn't be in order to try to get a patent on it. [00:10:52] Speaker 03: If that's not in the claims, then that's not going to do you any good. [00:10:56] Speaker 04: Your Honor, I believe it still at least gives us a... Well, let me say this as well. [00:11:04] Speaker 04: I want to answer your other question about the MP3, but quickly just to speak to that. [00:11:11] Speaker 04: That's another issue that Blue Spike brought up here, is that because this was [00:11:15] Speaker 04: a motion granted on the pleadings that the Northern District of California didn't have the opportunity to go through and do the claim construction. [00:11:24] Speaker 03: And so, yes, it was borrowed from the other courts, but it... And did you ask the court to address the 101 on the basis of that claim construction? [00:11:36] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:11:37] Speaker 04: It was, at the very least, Your Honor, yes. [00:11:40] Speaker 04: But Blue Spike still believes that that was prejudicial to Blue Spike because that was an undeveloped record, that the court didn't have the benefit of having come to those conclusions itself. [00:11:54] Speaker 04: But I'd like to answer your question at least briefly on the MP3. [00:11:58] Speaker 04: So the MP3, when it is compressed, again, it retains the perceptual characteristics, but it is not created based on those perceptual characteristics. [00:12:08] Speaker 04: It is merely reduced in size, whereas what we're talking about here is the patents in suit are actually locating perceptual characteristics and creating a representation based on that. [00:12:27] Speaker 03: It's not clear to me that the claim construction that retains perceptual characteristics builds in a purpose criterion for the way in which the abstract is being created as opposed to the result of the abstract still having something about the perceptual characteristics. [00:12:53] Speaker 03: And not even all of them, just some of them perhaps. [00:12:56] Speaker 04: At the very least, Your Honor, I think it is built in, in the sense that what most of these claims are talking about is comparison between abstracts. [00:13:05] Speaker 04: And so what you have, if you have two MP3s or if you have an MP3 and you're comparing it to the original signal, it's not developed in such a way that allows you to have a greater ability to compare the two, if that makes sense. [00:13:21] Speaker 04: The purpose of the invention is to create an abstract [00:13:24] Speaker 04: that's the smaller representation that facilitates a greater ability to compare. [00:13:30] Speaker 04: And so if you were comparing an MP3 to another MP3, you'd be comparing it one-to-one. [00:13:34] Speaker 04: If you were comparing an MP3 to the original file, I'm not sure how you'd compare that. [00:13:40] Speaker 04: At least I'm not sure how a computer would compare that. [00:13:43] Speaker 04: So that actually illustrates, I believe, [00:13:46] Speaker 04: one of the novelties of this invention, that it's looking at how can we train a computer to do what maybe a human could do, but that a computer is not innately designed to do. [00:13:57] Speaker 01: One of your arguments at page seven of your blueprint is you say the resulting signal extract is non-invertible, meaning that it, I'm quoting, cannot be used to recreate the original digital signal. [00:14:13] Speaker 01: Was that argued below? [00:14:15] Speaker 01: Because I didn't find it in the record. [00:14:17] Speaker 04: Your Honor, you know, I don't believe that it was. [00:14:19] Speaker 04: And I noted that in Appellee's brief as well. [00:14:25] Speaker 04: It is something that comes from the specification. [00:14:29] Speaker 04: My answer to that would be, it would be something that, given claim construction in the Northern District of California, that Blue Spike would have raised. [00:14:38] Speaker 04: but because it was imported from the Eastern District of Texas, it was not specifically in the claim construction of the term abstract. [00:14:46] Speaker 00: You're well into your rebuttal time. [00:14:47] Speaker 00: Would you like to save the remaining time? [00:14:49] Speaker 00: I would, Your Honor. [00:14:49] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:14:50] Speaker 00: Very good. [00:14:50] Speaker 00: Mr. Burda, please proceed. [00:14:59] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:15:01] Speaker 02: May I please record? [00:15:02] Speaker 02: The question, I think there are harder one-on-one questions and then there are easier one-on-one questions. [00:15:08] Speaker 02: Here I don't, I think this is well on one side of the boundary that has been established especially by a lot of this court's recent decisions on what is the difference between something that is an abstract idea and something that is a specific computer improvement. [00:15:22] Speaker 02: The issue here is when you go to the exemplary claim that the district court looked at which is claim one of the 472 patent, all that it says [00:15:32] Speaker 02: Is it you have a signal? [00:15:33] Speaker 03: Is it agreed, by the way, by everybody that the case stands or falls on that exemplary claim, or is that disputed? [00:15:40] Speaker 02: It is not agreed, Your Honor, and the district court went through all of the elements of all of the claims on that basis. [00:15:50] Speaker 02: And I guess when I used the word exemplary, I probably should have used the word sample. [00:15:54] Speaker 02: But if you go to the appellant papers, they only address one or two elements on a couple of claims. [00:16:00] Speaker 02: So by and large, [00:16:02] Speaker 02: having not addressed or pointed out particularly any basis on which additional claims add something inventive, this Court has said before in certain cases that you can then assume it to be representative and indeed the Court can make the decision that it is representative regardless of whether the parties agree. [00:16:17] Speaker 02: But going back to it, what I will say is the sample claim, the 472 Claim 1, [00:16:23] Speaker 02: It matches what most of the other claims claim, which is the idea of an abstract. [00:16:28] Speaker 02: And in the claim itself, it says that the abstract has to retain perceptual qualities. [00:16:33] Speaker 02: And then it says, using a processor, and then you store it in a database, and then you do another abstract on another signal, and you compare. [00:16:41] Speaker 03: And so when you look at what... And there's no further specification of how the comparison is done, just compare? [00:16:49] Speaker 02: You use a comparing device. [00:16:50] Speaker 02: Other than that, there's no specification, certainly not in the claims, [00:16:53] Speaker 02: and also not in the specification itself, if one were to go to the specification to find a further limitation. [00:16:59] Speaker 02: And so, too, with the issue of what is the abstract is, what it says is create one, and the claim claims the result of the creation of an abstract, which is the result being something that retains a perceptual quality, which the specification confirms is something that is humanly perceptible. [00:17:16] Speaker 02: And the Texas claim construction the plaintiff asked for the court to adopt finds to be [00:17:22] Speaker 02: Perceptible means perceived by a human. [00:17:24] Speaker 02: And so restating the claim in full is you pull out an abstract, something intrinsic to the work, that is what a human would perceive from the work, but on a computer with a processor. [00:17:37] Speaker 00: Yeah, but that's a really, really important difference. [00:17:40] Speaker 00: I didn't understand in your brief when you were going on and on about humans' perceptibility. [00:17:47] Speaker 00: This isn't a case where you're just taking something a human can do and stick it on a computer. [00:17:52] Speaker 00: This is a case with algorithms, precise and different varied algorithms on how to extrapolate from a digital file characteristics that a human would perceive. [00:18:02] Speaker 00: The fact that ultimately at the end of the day, a human perceives it doesn't work worth this into either a mental process on the one hand, or some sort of, oh, this is just a human could do this in their head. [00:18:12] Speaker 00: It just happens to be done on a computer here. [00:18:15] Speaker 00: This is the very technical manner of trying to reduce a file into [00:18:22] Speaker 00: an abstract which will retain humanly perceptible qualities. [00:18:27] Speaker 00: That is very technical. [00:18:29] Speaker 00: And so I really didn't understand in your brief when you kept focusing on the human perceptibility as though this encapsulated a mental process, as though the computer were an irrelevant, insignificant post-solution addition to this problem. [00:18:43] Speaker 00: I don't understand at all that argument as you made it. [00:18:47] Speaker 00: So maybe you can explain it. [00:18:48] Speaker 02: I hope so. [00:18:50] Speaker 02: I think the point there [00:18:52] Speaker 02: is not, well, the question to be asked is, is something an abstract idea? [00:18:58] Speaker 02: And when you look at whether something is an abstract idea, you go to what the claim is claiming. [00:19:02] Speaker 02: And what the claim claims is to extract something from the work that is human perceptible. [00:19:10] Speaker 02: And it's not, by its terms, that sounds like an abstract idea because it says it is doing on a computer what a human would do. [00:19:17] Speaker 02: It may well be wildly complicated, the actual implementation of how one does it. [00:19:23] Speaker 02: But what this court's recent decisions have made clear is what's key in Enfish and all these other cases is that the claim actually lays out the specifics of how you do it. [00:19:33] Speaker 02: And that when you do not have the specifics of how one is supposed to abstract something from a work and retain human perception, that you then are laying claim to the entire idea [00:19:44] Speaker 02: without something concrete within the specification that limits it to something less than the abstract idea. [00:19:48] Speaker 00: Well doesn't the specification here give you the concrete things in column 10 or does it not? [00:19:54] Speaker 00: That's what your opposing counsel pointed us to and I think it would be fair to say using a computer to abstract [00:20:02] Speaker 00: perceptual qualities of a reference into the abstract, and then it would be reasonable for us to look at the specification to understand the technological manner in which that is achieved. [00:20:14] Speaker 00: The technological manner doesn't have to be laid out in detail in the specific, in the claim itself, does it? [00:20:19] Speaker 02: I mean, why would it? [00:20:22] Speaker 00: For example, if the technological manner is to employ, for example, a root mean square algorithm, why would utilizing [00:20:31] Speaker 00: abstract, retain a perceptual relationship to the reference signal by utilizing a root mean square algorithm. [00:20:37] Speaker 00: I mean, what would that add to the claim that would suddenly take it? [00:20:41] Speaker 00: If your argument is correct, I don't see how these very technical and detailed manner of achieving, potentially achieving the claimed result, if these were incorporated into the claim, I don't think I understand how your argument would work. [00:20:59] Speaker 02: So the issue in the specification is what the specification lays out. [00:21:06] Speaker 02: With some level of detail, it's not a method to accomplish the result, but many, many, many conventional things that exist that result in something that is smaller than the signal itself that retains something you may be perceptible from the signal. [00:21:24] Speaker 02: So read fairly, the specification says you can use [00:21:29] Speaker 02: and this is in column four, you can use MP3, you can use JPEG, you can use MPEG. [00:21:34] Speaker 02: There's many, many conventional tools that exist that have the effect of the end result being some perceptual relationship to the original. [00:21:44] Speaker 02: Our invention is you use those, you use root mean square, you use a spectral transform, you use anything you want as long as you get to the result. [00:21:52] Speaker 02: of something that is perceptual that you can then call an abstract. [00:21:56] Speaker 00: So if we were to bring this back to Alice, your argument would be they don't articulate any means of achieving this claimed result other than conventional means of achieving it and therefore there is no technological innovation addition. [00:22:14] Speaker 00: I'm focusing on step two of Alice. [00:22:17] Speaker 00: Is that how I would understand your argument? [00:22:19] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor, in the sense that there's two issues. [00:22:22] Speaker 02: The first is what is the claim claiming? [00:22:27] Speaker 02: And this is where I want to sort of draw a distinction between something like enablement and something like a 101. [00:22:33] Speaker 02: Are these claims enabled? [00:22:34] Speaker 02: I don't know. [00:22:35] Speaker 02: As you point out, there's just a lot of stuff in the specification about all sorts of different ways in which one could do something. [00:22:40] Speaker 02: But the key is that the claims are not limited to any one of those ways. [00:22:45] Speaker 02: And all of the ways that are described in the specification are by reference to existing technology of others. [00:22:50] Speaker 02: And so there's two issues as to why this is abstract and then unlimited, because there's nothing to point to in the claim that makes it narrower than just the general idea. [00:23:02] Speaker 02: And I believe that's the point of Alice is that when there's not a way, a specific way to do something, or it's not limited to something that you can then draw a distinction from in the prior art, that what you're just collating claim to is the abstract idea. [00:23:14] Speaker 02: And so when you go through the limitations of the claim itself, there is nothing else defined in that claim to make it narrower than the idea. [00:23:22] Speaker 00: But that's still element one? [00:23:25] Speaker 00: Well, yeah, except first prong of Alice. [00:23:29] Speaker 00: I mean, I guess I was trying to get your focus on the second prong of Alice. [00:23:34] Speaker 02: Right. [00:23:34] Speaker 02: But I think that the second prong of Alice, at least in my understanding, is to go to the rest of the claim and see if there's anything else there [00:23:43] Speaker 02: other than the bare claim to the abstract idea and when you say when you look at the claim language it says it's a processor and it says it uses a database and those have been I believe fairly accepted to be [00:23:55] Speaker 02: not anything other than conventional computer tools used in their ordinary capacity. [00:23:59] Speaker 00: I think the problem is you're fighting me on a view of Alice that you don't need in order to win your case and that I don't agree with. [00:24:07] Speaker 00: So I'm just going to lay it out very clearly for you so you can back away and still potentially win. [00:24:13] Speaker 00: So I guess the problem I have with what you're saying is you're suggesting that the perceptual relationship portion of the claim is no longer relevant when you get to step two of Alice. [00:24:25] Speaker 00: And I don't see how that's true if the specification had in fact disclosed a novel or non-obvious manner of synthesizing the perceptual characteristics. [00:24:38] Speaker 00: And so you're fighting a battle you don't need to win in order to win the case, I think, and may not ever win with me. [00:24:45] Speaker 00: It's not the way I view Alice. [00:24:46] Speaker 02: Fair enough, Your Honor. [00:24:48] Speaker 02: And I think I misunderstood. [00:24:49] Speaker 02: So I think there's two issues. [00:24:51] Speaker 02: is what is there in the claim, and then the further point is even if one were to look at the specification, if there was something laid out that was a specific issue, does that add something inventive to the claim itself? [00:25:01] Speaker 02: And I agree with you that on that basis when you go back to the specification, there is nothing in the specification other than an extensive listing of various prior art standard conventional tools that it calls standard conventional compression tools. [00:25:16] Speaker 02: and says use them for the purpose that they were intended to accomplish our invention. [00:25:20] Speaker 02: And so if you look at it from that perspective, still nothing in the specification by its own terms adds something inventive to the claimed invention. [00:25:31] Speaker 02: I absolutely agree with that. [00:25:32] Speaker 00: So all the stuff that he pointed us to in claim 10, to summarize what I think your argument is, I mean in column 10 spanning column 11 of the patent, [00:25:41] Speaker 00: may be various algorithms that would allow one to create the abstract that would retain perceptive characteristics, but all of those algorithms are conventional. [00:25:52] Speaker 00: And there's nothing in this patent that has described a non-conventional technological advance that's added to this claim. [00:26:01] Speaker 01: And the non-conventional technological advance would be to say, this is how you do it. [00:26:10] Speaker 01: And if that's not what I was trying to say to your Postal Counsel, isn't there? [00:26:15] Speaker 02: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:26:16] Speaker 02: I think it lays out a bunch of conventional options and says any of them would work. [00:26:20] Speaker 02: I think by its terms in Column 7 where it says that the analogy can be made clear if it's understood that there are a large number of approaches to compression and then goes on to say just use the ones that retain human perceptibility. [00:26:33] Speaker 02: And that that's the point is it claims [00:26:39] Speaker 02: not to fight your honor on this, but I think it's the two points. [00:26:43] Speaker 02: One is there's nothing in the specification that one can point to that is new. [00:26:46] Speaker 02: And two, there is nothing, and this is my understanding of this court's decisions in cases like Enfish, in cases that find something to be patentable, like MCRO, that you've got to it, that one thing that would be helpful is if you go to the claim itself, the claim actually limits itself to a particular way to accomplish the result. [00:27:05] Speaker 02: And I agree, if one were to go to the specification to import away, [00:27:08] Speaker 02: there's still nothing to be imported that is anything other than there's a lot of conventional tools out there, some of them retain human perception, use those. [00:27:16] Speaker 02: So there's nothing inventive that is required or limited by the claims, and there's nothing inventive that is set forth in the specification that's anything other than use the prior art for its intended purpose. [00:27:27] Speaker 00: I understand. [00:27:27] Speaker 00: Your argument? [00:27:28] Speaker 00: Do you have anything extra that you want to add? [00:27:31] Speaker 00: Anything else further? [00:27:32] Speaker 02: No, no. [00:27:33] Speaker 00: Okay, Mr. Burda, thank you very much. [00:27:34] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:27:35] Speaker 00: You have a little bit of rebuttal time. [00:27:40] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:27:42] Speaker 04: I'd like to just address this point that Your Honor just brought up and point the court to the new, to the Bascom Global VAT&T case that said that the case here, in that case, an inventive concept can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces. [00:28:03] Speaker 04: So I don't think that it's problematic that the patents ensue [00:28:09] Speaker 04: list all of these various ways of accomplishing the creation of the abstract. [00:28:15] Speaker 04: It is the arrangement of those and the other pieces within the claim that creates the novelty here and the actual invention. [00:28:25] Speaker 04: So if anything, the patent listing, more methods of producing that abstract only strengthens it [00:28:35] Speaker 04: Quickly, too, I'll just quickly speak to preemption. [00:28:38] Speaker 04: We are not talking about comparing one thing to another. [00:28:41] Speaker 04: We are talking about creating this data representation that is, remember, an improvement on the prior art of watermarks, table of contents, index, or other kinds of markers that could identify what a digital signal is. [00:29:00] Speaker 01: Thank you, everyone. [00:29:02] Speaker 01: Please, go ahead. [00:29:02] Speaker 01: Mr. Anderson, I just want to say one thing. [00:29:04] Speaker 01: I use these briefs and the whole exercise as a teaching tool for my clerks as well. [00:29:11] Speaker 01: And without addressing the merits in the slightest, I want you to know that I wrote across the front of the brief, excellent brief, so that the clerks would take a look at it just for how it was done. [00:29:21] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:29:21] Speaker 01: It was a really good job. [00:29:23] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:29:24] Speaker 00: I thank both counsel for their arguments.