[00:00:00] Speaker 01: 9 data treasury versus sir [00:00:32] Speaker 01: Mr. Chin, please proceed. [00:00:42] Speaker 00: May it please the court? [00:00:47] Speaker 00: May it please the court, Your Honors? [00:00:49] Speaker 00: The issues I want to talk about today is why the board got it wrong with respect to its determination that the Campbell patent anticipates the data treasury patents. [00:00:59] Speaker 00: And there are two primary reasons. [00:01:02] Speaker 00: The court had the wrong construction, came down with the wrong construction for the term subsystem identification information. [00:01:10] Speaker 00: And the second main reason is the Campbell patent does not disclose subsystem identification information. [00:01:17] Speaker 00: Now going back to the first point. [00:01:19] Speaker 04: Mr. Chi, let me do a little housekeeping here. [00:01:21] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:01:22] Speaker 04: In your reply brief at 20, you say it has come to the attention [00:01:31] Speaker 04: of the data treasury that there were errors and you gave us this chart which I referenced previously. [00:01:42] Speaker 04: And then along the same line, you say in your reply brief at four, and this is where I want to direct your attention, data treasury noted the following to the board. [00:01:57] Speaker 04: One of the first and most obvious [00:02:00] Speaker 04: and more obvious examples of such inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in the petition. [00:02:05] Speaker 04: The number of errors in Campbell occurs on page 21 of the petition in the guise of a claim chart entitled Exemplary Campbell Disclosures. [00:02:17] Speaker 04: Although the statement directly above it declares without support that Campbell teaches each and every one of the limitations of claim one, none of the limitations of claim one is compared in the chart. [00:02:30] Speaker 04: And you then referenced me to JA3199. [00:02:36] Speaker 04: So turn to JA3199, please. [00:02:52] Speaker 00: You're in the five-serve joint appendix, Your Honor? [00:02:56] Speaker 04: I don't have 3199 in mind. [00:02:58] Speaker 04: That's funny. [00:02:58] Speaker 04: Neither do I. [00:03:00] Speaker 04: That's my point. [00:03:01] Speaker 01: Apologies. [00:03:02] Speaker 01: And part of why it's so troubling is because they argue you waived this issue. [00:03:09] Speaker 01: And you say, oh, we didn't waive it. [00:03:11] Speaker 01: We raised it. [00:03:12] Speaker 01: Just look at JA3199. [00:03:15] Speaker 01: But we don't have a JA3199. [00:03:16] Speaker 01: You didn't even present it to us. [00:03:18] Speaker 01: So their main argument is that you waived one of the issues. [00:03:22] Speaker 01: And you tell us you didn't waive it. [00:03:24] Speaker 01: It can be located on a page in the appendix that you didn't provide to us. [00:03:28] Speaker 01: What do we do with that? [00:03:30] Speaker 00: Our sincere apologies to the extent that they did. [00:03:32] Speaker 04: Well, that's not a question of apologies. [00:03:33] Speaker 04: It's a question of how on earth can we possibly say anything other than you waived it? [00:03:40] Speaker 00: I recognize the issue. [00:03:41] Speaker 00: I'm not going to make any excuses for it. [00:03:45] Speaker 00: It is what it is in terms of omissions in the joint appendix to the extent that we've recognized them as part of preparing for this hearing. [00:03:52] Speaker 01: Would you like to supplement it? [00:03:53] Speaker 01: to the court within 24 hours? [00:03:55] Speaker 01: We would like to, if permitted. [00:03:56] Speaker 01: Yeah. [00:03:57] Speaker 01: If possible, you can serve it to the court within 24 hours. [00:04:02] Speaker 01: I mean, it's a single page, 3199, whatever that page was meant to be. [00:04:07] Speaker 01: Before you, I guess since you're in California, how about I give you till Friday, close of business Friday, before you submit it, confer with them that they agree that, yes, this is the same page, and then submit it to us. [00:04:21] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:04:22] Speaker 00: My understanding is just that a lot of things happen in the course of putting it together and they're in various mix ups. [00:04:28] Speaker 00: That's my understanding as to what occurred. [00:04:30] Speaker 00: But it is what it is in terms of, and certainly our apologies to the extent that there's any omissions in the joint appendix. [00:04:38] Speaker 00: Going back to the issue as to how the court got it wrong with respect to construction of the term subsystem identification information. [00:04:45] Speaker 00: What the court did was, excuse me, what the board did was to apply something beyond the [00:04:53] Speaker 00: broadest reasonable interpretation. [00:04:55] Speaker 00: It went with what I believe you would characterize as the broadest possible interpretation, but going beyond what's in the disclosures. [00:05:03] Speaker 00: And what do I mean by that? [00:05:04] Speaker 01: Why is it unreasonable? [00:05:06] Speaker 01: Why is the interpretation they gave unreasonable? [00:05:09] Speaker 00: They're unreasonable because if you look at the claims where subsystem identification information is described, it's almost always coupled with paper transaction data. [00:05:19] Speaker 00: And it's almost always coupled [00:05:21] Speaker 00: with the remote data access subsystem. [00:05:23] Speaker 00: So that's already a sign to a person of skill in the art that these items start at the remote data access subsystem. [00:05:31] Speaker 03: Now, as a reminder, of course, the... So you're saying that the patent exclusively uses the term subsystem with the remote computer? [00:05:44] Speaker 03: I'm not quite clear. [00:05:45] Speaker 03: Your patent. [00:05:46] Speaker 03: I mean, we're trying to understand what the term subsystem identification information means. [00:05:50] Speaker 03: And so really what we're trying to figure out is what does subsystem mean in that case. [00:05:55] Speaker 03: And I thought the patent was discussing the different computers, whether it's remote, intermediate, or central, as different subsystems. [00:06:05] Speaker 00: That's right. [00:06:07] Speaker 03: So that's why I'm skeptical that you can say that when the term subsystem is used in the claim, it can only refer to one specific type of computer. [00:06:19] Speaker 03: when the patent itself is conceiving of using the term subsystem in all these other contexts? [00:06:27] Speaker 00: In combination with the claims, how the term subsystem identification appears. [00:06:32] Speaker 00: For example, if you look at claim, column 10 of the 988 patent, that's on... Did you make a claim construction argument to the board? [00:06:46] Speaker 03: Did you make a claim construction argument to the board that [00:06:49] Speaker 03: subsystem identification information, as that term is used in the claims, must refer exclusively just to identification information relating to the remote computer. [00:07:02] Speaker 03: Where did you make that argument below? [00:07:05] Speaker 00: The court's final written decision, as I recall, does cite to the fact that the patent owner data treasure did in fact seek a construction of information that identifies the [00:07:17] Speaker 00: remote data access subsystem or subsystem that is part of the remote data access subsystem. [00:07:23] Speaker 03: But is it in the patent owner response or the patent owner preliminary response? [00:07:27] Speaker 01: Let me help you out. [00:07:28] Speaker 01: Look at 4608 of your patent owner response to answer Judge Chen's question. [00:07:37] Speaker 01: Here, you want to see 4608? [00:07:38] Speaker 01: Yeah, we do. [00:07:38] Speaker 01: You can read the highlighted part. [00:07:39] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:07:40] Speaker 01: Because I already ran down this waiver issue. [00:07:48] Speaker 00: 4608, Your Honor. [00:08:13] Speaker 00: Your Honor, is that the right number, 4608? [00:08:18] Speaker 01: Yeah, but you know what? [00:08:18] Speaker 01: I just realized that response is in the other appendix in the other case. [00:08:24] Speaker 01: So it's all right. [00:08:25] Speaker 03: I'm sorry. [00:08:28] Speaker 03: Just go ahead with your argument. [00:08:30] Speaker 01: For all the kids out there, these four cases are all related to each other but have different appendices. [00:08:35] Speaker 01: So there's a little confusion going on because all the cases are related. [00:08:40] Speaker 01: And so what I think would answer Judge Chen's question is found in a different appendix. [00:08:46] Speaker 00: Going back to the 998 patent in column 10, if one looks at line 61 through 67, you have the disclosure that you can have various forms of identification information. [00:09:01] Speaker 00: That's specifically on line 64. [00:09:06] Speaker 00: And so what follows, so you've got this genus of identification information, and then you have various species of that. [00:09:12] Speaker 00: Transaction amount, the customer, comma, [00:09:15] Speaker 00: the DAT200. [00:09:16] Speaker 00: And it's undisputed that the DAT200 is remote data access subsystem. [00:09:20] Speaker 00: You also have the transaction date, the transaction tax, the credit card number, et cetera. [00:09:25] Speaker 01: OK, suppose I disagree with you on claim construction. [00:09:28] Speaker 01: You have an additional anticipation argument that relates to whether or not Campbell, in particular, discloses one or more remote data access subsystems for capturing and sending paper transaction. [00:09:40] Speaker 01: As I understand your argument, [00:09:42] Speaker 01: Is your argument that Campbell doesn't disclose that, or is your argument that the board failed to make a fact finding that Campbell, in fact, discloses that? [00:09:51] Speaker 01: Or both? [00:09:55] Speaker 00: Our view is that, first of all, Campbell, the board basically misconstrued what Campbell was in terms of what the system is. [00:10:04] Speaker 01: And my misunderstanding, I thought this was an independent argument that even if you lost on claim construction, [00:10:11] Speaker 01: that you were nonetheless presenting an argument that the board's opinion failed to identify anywhere in Campbell where this limitation is, in fact, disclosed, regardless of how it's construed. [00:10:22] Speaker 00: Well, with respect to the board's construction, information that identifies a subsystem, that is wrong, because that is- I don't understand what you're saying right now. [00:10:31] Speaker 01: Are you disputing the claim construction again, or are you focusing on answering my question, which is, is your argument to this court [00:10:39] Speaker 01: that the board failed to identify in Campbell this limitation, or is your argument to this court that Campbell doesn't in fact disclose this limitation? [00:10:48] Speaker 01: I'm trying to understand what your argument is. [00:10:51] Speaker 00: It's that when the court said, excuse me, when the board said that the identity of the sending bank is the SSID, is the subsystem identification information, that is not the identity of the subsystem. [00:11:08] Speaker 00: What that is, [00:11:09] Speaker 00: is a name, is a label given to the entity that owns, for example, Wells Fargo. [00:11:18] Speaker 00: That is what the board effectively has said. [00:11:21] Speaker 00: The name of a bank is the same thing as a subsystem identification information. [00:11:28] Speaker 00: What we're saying is that's not correct. [00:11:31] Speaker 00: You have to go to what is the name of the subsystem. [00:11:34] Speaker 00: You can't conflate the two. [00:11:36] Speaker 00: And what the board did is conflate the two. [00:11:40] Speaker 01: You're presenting, quite frankly, a very confusing argument right now. [00:11:43] Speaker 01: I guess I thought that my question was really simple. [00:11:46] Speaker 01: Is your argument that the board failed to identify this issue? [00:11:51] Speaker 01: Maybe I'll just drop it and let you move on. [00:11:58] Speaker 04: How do you deal with Jack Henry? [00:12:02] Speaker 04: In what respect, Your Honor? [00:12:07] Speaker 04: In data treasury contends, PTAT, quote, improperly determined that Campbell discloses an encryption of the bank's identity, the PTAT has perceived SSID, close quote, which is where you were for the last 10 minutes or so. [00:12:29] Speaker 04: In S1052, we can look [00:12:36] Speaker 04: substantially the same argument. [00:12:38] Speaker 04: And in Jack Henry, we determined the substantial evidence in support of the PTAFS finding that Campbell discloses encryption of the SSID. [00:12:56] Speaker 00: You're nodding. [00:12:57] Speaker 00: Excuse me. [00:12:57] Speaker 00: I'm not quite grasping the exact question. [00:12:59] Speaker 00: I wasn't sure if you were reading it. [00:13:02] Speaker 04: I asked the exact question was, quote, how do you deal with Jack Henry? [00:13:06] Speaker 04: Close quote. [00:13:09] Speaker 00: That they don't disclose encrypted SSID? [00:13:14] Speaker 00: We've got Campbell and Blackwell. [00:13:16] Speaker 00: And Blackwell is implicated in Jack Henry. [00:13:20] Speaker 00: That's why I wasn't clear about it, Your Honor. [00:13:24] Speaker 04: I guess that's your answer. [00:13:27] Speaker 00: Apologies, I'm just trying to understand what the precise... Geez, the precise question was, how do you deal with Jack Henry, close quote. [00:13:40] Speaker 04: If your answer is, I don't know, I don't understand it, that's fine. [00:13:45] Speaker 00: With respect to Campbell, is that... Yes. [00:13:48] Speaker 00: Okay, with respect to the encrypted subsystem identification issue. [00:13:52] Speaker 00: That's what I said. [00:13:54] Speaker 00: It's not disclosed in Campbell. [00:13:57] Speaker 00: It deals with other information, and it doesn't go to subsystem identification information. [00:14:03] Speaker 00: The information, the data that Campbell transmits is just the identity of the sending bank. [00:14:09] Speaker 00: That is not the identity of a subsystem. [00:14:14] Speaker 00: That's the problem. [00:14:17] Speaker 00: That is basically what's missing. [00:14:19] Speaker 00: The board has conflated it to you. [00:14:21] Speaker 00: The board has said, if you've got [00:14:24] Speaker 00: Name of a bank, that's the same thing as the name of a subsystem, but they are not the same. [00:14:30] Speaker 00: For example, in my house, the Chin household, you have a Wi-Fi network that has a different name. [00:14:38] Speaker 00: One is a subsystem, the internal Wi-Fi network, but then the name of the household is different. [00:14:44] Speaker 00: What the board has basically said is you can have the name of the household be the identity of the subsystem. [00:14:52] Speaker 00: And those are different things. [00:14:52] Speaker 01: Mr. Chin, you're well into your rebuttal time. [00:14:55] Speaker 01: Do you want to save the remainder? [00:14:57] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:14:58] Speaker 01: OK. [00:14:59] Speaker 01: We'll hear from opposing counsel. [00:15:00] Speaker 01: How do I say your name? [00:15:02] Speaker 01: Rudman. [00:15:03] Speaker 01: Rudman. [00:15:03] Speaker 01: OK, very good. [00:15:05] Speaker 01: Mr. Rudman, please proceed. [00:15:08] Speaker 02: May it please the court? [00:15:13] Speaker 02: It's an honor to be here today at UCLA arguing this case. [00:15:18] Speaker 02: I'm going to address any, obviously, any questions that the panel, you know, we can leave those alone. [00:15:25] Speaker 02: I think that will just be distracting. [00:15:27] Speaker 02: Any questions that the panel may have, but I'd like to specifically start with what is the definition of SSID and how the board properly construed the term and why Campbell [00:15:40] Speaker 02: anticipates the challenge. [00:15:44] Speaker 01: You're saying they properly construed the term? [00:15:46] Speaker 01: Do you need to win on that in order to prevail? [00:15:48] Speaker 01: That they got it right? [00:15:49] Speaker 01: That they properly construed it? [00:15:53] Speaker 02: If there's a different construction, I think Campbell anticipates, regardless of how the board construed the claim law. [00:16:00] Speaker 01: Yeah, but don't you only need to prove that it's within the broadest reasonable construction possible? [00:16:04] Speaker 01: I mean, you don't need to prove that it's the proper construction, right? [00:16:07] Speaker 01: Well, that's absolutely right, Your Honor. [00:16:08] Speaker 02: The standard is broadest reasonable construction. [00:16:10] Speaker 01: So even if I were to disagree with you about whether it's the proper construction, [00:16:13] Speaker 01: Because I do think it's possible for reasonable minds to differ on that point here. [00:16:18] Speaker 01: If I do think, though, it's within the umbrella of the broadest reasonable construction, then you still win. [00:16:24] Speaker 02: That's absolutely right, Your Honor. [00:16:26] Speaker 01: I just didn't want you to take on a burden that seemed to be harder for you to win than what was necessary. [00:16:30] Speaker 02: I appreciate that. [00:16:31] Speaker 02: And when I said proper, I was actually referring to what the standard is, which is the broadest reasonable interpretation under quota. [00:16:37] Speaker 02: So I apologize if there was some confusion on that point. [00:16:41] Speaker 02: Below, we believe that the data treasury appellant did indeed waive this issue. [00:16:47] Speaker 02: They told the board that they would abide by the board's decision of whatever claim construction was. [00:16:53] Speaker 02: Although they did refer to a district court construction, they provided the board with absolutely no argument as to why that construction would have been the appropriate construction. [00:17:02] Speaker 02: And that's what the board properly found. [00:17:04] Speaker 02: But setting that aside, if we go through the standard [00:17:09] Speaker 02: claim construction, looking at broadest reasonable interpretation. [00:17:13] Speaker 02: And we start with the claims themselves under Phillips. [00:17:17] Speaker 02: And if we look at subsystem identification information, subsystem, as Judge Chanton, you pointed out, is used throughout both patents, the 988 and the 137 patents, to refer to remote, to intermediate, and central. [00:17:32] Speaker 02: It constantly refers to [00:17:34] Speaker 02: three locations, and also there can be other intermediate and central and remote locations. [00:17:38] Speaker 02: It's not restricted in any manner whatsoever to remote. [00:17:42] Speaker 02: And even if it were, Campbell would still anticipate, which I'll get to in a moment. [00:17:46] Speaker 02: It was added, subsystem identification information was added during the prosecution of the application. [00:17:52] Speaker 02: If you look to the specification, it's completely devoid of subsystem identification information. [00:17:57] Speaker 02: It's nowhere in the four corners of either patent unless you get to the claims. [00:18:01] Speaker 02: And the claims are immensely instructive. [00:18:04] Speaker 02: approximately 50 times, 49 or 50 times in the 200 or so claims. [00:18:12] Speaker 02: They'll start with a preamble, the patents do, where it says subsystem identification information, remote subsystem, intermediate subsystem, central subsystem. [00:18:22] Speaker 02: And when you get down into the body of the claim, they switch subsystem with location. [00:18:26] Speaker 02: And location is used repeatedly. [00:18:28] Speaker 02: It's actually used in 71 claims to identify a location. [00:18:32] Speaker 02: It's not referring to a specific [00:18:34] Speaker 02: my new piece of equipment somewhere in the process, it's referring to the location and there's a reason behind it. [00:18:42] Speaker 02: If we take a look at claim 88 in the 988 patent, if we're looking, is actually very instructive because it actually modifies in the preamble subsystem identification information with the word remote. [00:18:55] Speaker 02: Why would they add remote if it was already included within that definition, remote remote, it would be redundant [00:19:03] Speaker 02: And they qualify it for a reason. [00:19:04] Speaker 02: They qualify it because subsystem includes locations, all three locations. [00:19:10] Speaker 02: So moving on from that, if you take a look at what the entire reason behind the 988137 patents, it's to convey information and to conduct transactions. [00:19:23] Speaker 02: Both patents specifically call out banking transactions. [00:19:27] Speaker 02: And all of us have written checks before. [00:19:30] Speaker 02: When you write a check, [00:19:31] Speaker 02: to somebody and they deposit it in the bank of first deposit, which would be the remote subsystem or the sending institution, that check is deposited. [00:19:41] Speaker 02: And when they send it to a second institution, whether you call it intermediate or you call it a clearing house or a note, it doesn't matter. [00:19:48] Speaker 02: When you send it, they're not going to have any idea where to send the payment to if you just tell them, hey, it's a piece of equipment with a particular identification. [00:19:58] Speaker 02: The entire idea behind [00:20:00] Speaker 02: sending checks back and forth under the federal reserve system so you know where to send the payments back and forth to. [00:20:06] Speaker 02: And it's actually covered in the federal regulations that was referenced by Dr. Knox and also by the board, but at 12 CFR appendix D part 229, you're required on the endorsement to add the bank routing number and the name and location so you know where [00:20:29] Speaker 02: the information where the payments need to go to. [00:20:31] Speaker 02: And that's both ways. [00:20:33] Speaker 02: The 988 and 137 patents aren't restricted to sending information one way. [00:20:38] Speaker 02: It's got to go both ways. [00:20:40] Speaker 02: Checks are dishonored. [00:20:41] Speaker 02: There may be errors in checks. [00:20:44] Speaker 02: And that information has to go back and forth. [00:20:46] Speaker 02: So the sending institution, the intermediate institution, the central institution, all of those have to be able to send it back and forth. [00:20:54] Speaker 02: And of course, you're going to encrypt it. [00:20:55] Speaker 02: And I'll get to encryption in just a moment. [00:21:01] Speaker 02: So the positions, one of the arguments that were made is, well, the patent teaches that a 988 says, well, customer information and transaction amount and date and other information can be SSID. [00:21:14] Speaker 02: We're dealing with the broadest reasonable interpretation. [00:21:16] Speaker 02: Any of those could be SSID if a bank wanted to use it. [00:21:19] Speaker 02: It makes no sense. [00:21:21] Speaker 02: It needs to be the location. [00:21:22] Speaker 02: And it can't be restricted to remote. [00:21:25] Speaker 02: So I'm going to move on to the issue of whether [00:21:29] Speaker 02: Campbell teaches the encryption of SSID. [00:21:33] Speaker 02: It plainly teaches the exact, we believe it anticipates, because it teaches the exact same system where you have a payer bank, you have an intermediate institution, which is the node, such as the Federal Reserve or another clearinghouse, which would be the intermediate institution. [00:21:49] Speaker 02: And then you have a central, which would be the bank of first deposit or reverse order. [00:21:54] Speaker 01: Why don't you address the point that they make? [00:21:56] Speaker 01: about whether or not Campbell discloses the one or more remote data access subsystems for capturing and sending paper transaction data, that element, and in particular they argue that the board used your expert's testimony to fill in the gap. [00:22:13] Speaker 01: This is anticipation, it's not obviousness. [00:22:19] Speaker 01: Give me your argument. [00:22:20] Speaker 01: Is your argument either or both of the following? [00:22:23] Speaker 01: Is your argument that Campbell does, in fact, disclose that and the board made a specific fact finding to that effect? [00:22:30] Speaker 01: Or is your argument that Campbell doesn't have to disclose it and somehow anticipation is nonetheless satisfied by your expert's testimony? [00:22:37] Speaker 01: Explain your argument on this point to me. [00:22:40] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:22:40] Speaker 02: I believe the board absolutely found that Campbell expressly teaches using a remote data access subsystem, which is remote location. [00:22:49] Speaker 02: which would typically be your bank of first deposit or that bank where the check is deposited. [00:22:55] Speaker 02: I believe the board expressly found that. [00:22:57] Speaker 02: And I think it's also inherent and expressed within the 550 Campbell reference itself where it talks about the same structure, the identical structure that's claimed in the 988. [00:23:10] Speaker 02: They use different terms. [00:23:12] Speaker 02: They use remote instead of sending. [00:23:14] Speaker 02: They use intermediate instead of node and they use central instead of the payer bank But it's the exact same system of using three different locations and the one or more. [00:23:27] Speaker 02: We only have to show one but the 550 reference itself indicates repeatedly that you can have more than one remote you can have more than one central dotted lines in figure [00:23:41] Speaker 02: Dated lines 24 and 26 in Figure 1 expressly show those are referred to as one or more central offices. [00:23:48] Speaker 02: They precisely meet the limitations of the claims of the 988 and 137 paths. [00:23:57] Speaker 01: And with respect to encryption, Your Honors, the 551- So there's just one little legal point in your brief. [00:24:07] Speaker 01: Again, it's interestingly citing the blue Calypso case. [00:24:10] Speaker 01: It seems to be a popular one in your camp. [00:24:14] Speaker 01: But it talks about how a reference to anticipate doesn't actually have to spell out all the claim limitations. [00:24:24] Speaker 01: It's close enough if one of skill and the art would be able to envision the limitations based on the reference. [00:24:30] Speaker 01: That seems to me to be more than inherency if [00:24:35] Speaker 01: Does blue calypso, in your view, stand for an expansion of the inherency doctrine to something? [00:24:44] Speaker 01: I mean, inherency means necessarily present. [00:24:48] Speaker 01: The idea that one of Schiller could merely envision something based on reading the specification, at least the way you seem to utilize it, [00:24:57] Speaker 01: briefly, in your red brief, would seem to me to be an expansion of the anticipation law. [00:25:04] Speaker 01: Is it your view that blue CLEPSO stands for such an expansion? [00:25:07] Speaker 02: I believe blue CLEPSO stands for inherency. [00:25:09] Speaker 02: And the way you first articulated it, Your Honor, and it's not an expansion of the inherency argument, but a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the 5505 and the Campbell reference would understand and appreciate that that element or that stuff is inherent. [00:25:26] Speaker 02: within the process than its inherency. [00:25:30] Speaker 03: Maybe I'm not recalling Blue Calypso correctly, but I thought what was going on there with the anticipating reference was that it disclosed multiple embodiments. [00:25:39] Speaker 03: And then at the end of the patent, it said something like, one of Werner's, Gill and the Art could and would, if it wanted to, combine these embodiments in whatever combinations it wants to. [00:25:54] Speaker 03: And then the blue calypso opinion said substantial evidence supports the board's finding that that teaching in blue calypso ultimately is an anticipating disclosure of a combination of two of the disclosed embodiments in blue calypso. [00:26:13] Speaker 03: So I think what you appear to be arguing here, which is an inherency argument, feels a little bit different than what actually happened on the ground with the facts of blue calypso. [00:26:25] Speaker 02: Oh, and we're not necessarily relying purely on inherency. [00:26:28] Speaker 02: My recollection is similar to yours, Judge Chen, with respect to what Blue Calypso stands for. [00:26:33] Speaker 02: We are not combining different embodiments in Campbell in order to anticipate. [00:26:39] Speaker 02: But all of the limitations, we believe, are present for all of the challenge claims taught by the Campbell reference. [00:26:49] Speaker 02: With respect to, and I don't remember the exact argument, on inherency that we're [00:26:55] Speaker 02: we're referring to, if I knew the element that we were talking about, I could address it more specifically with respect to Campbell. [00:27:04] Speaker 03: I'd have to go back and look at our brief of where we cited a little clip, so to... At least for some of these claims, does Campbell disclose the credit card data and the Internet transaction data limitations? [00:27:15] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:27:16] Speaker 02: That's very helpful, what we're talking about. [00:27:17] Speaker 02: Absolutely. [00:27:18] Speaker 02: The words credit card do not appear in the four corners of Campbell. [00:27:22] Speaker 02: And we believe that the board likely found that it was inherent. [00:27:27] Speaker 02: The important thing here is... How is it inherent? [00:27:33] Speaker 02: I believe the credit cards were waived by data treasury. [00:27:37] Speaker 02: They didn't argue it below. [00:27:38] Speaker 02: But would credit cards be inherent within the four corners of Campbell that you could use other types of financial transactions? [00:27:45] Speaker 01: What's the difference now between your version of inherency and obviousness? [00:27:49] Speaker 02: I think it probably is more of an obviousness. [00:27:51] Speaker 02: I'll concede that, Your Honor. [00:27:52] Speaker 02: OK. [00:27:54] Speaker 01: Well done. [00:27:55] Speaker 01: You people take note of that. [00:27:56] Speaker 01: That was really well done. [00:27:58] Speaker 01: Lots of credibility. [00:28:00] Speaker 02: And with respect to, while we're talking about the, well, let me, can I move on back to encryption if it would be helpful to the court? [00:28:08] Speaker 01: You have two minutes left. [00:28:09] Speaker 01: You can spend them however you'd like. [00:28:12] Speaker 02: So let me, if it would be helpful to the court, let me address encryption quickly. [00:28:16] Speaker 02: At column five, lines 55 to 60, [00:28:20] Speaker 02: repeatedly throughout the patent, both there and also in claim 15 and also in column 6, lines 35 through 38. [00:28:28] Speaker 02: The Campbell reference explicitly talks about encrypting information and specifically sending information, sending institution, receiving institution, and the disposition of the check in the TCP IP protocol information. [00:28:45] Speaker 02: But you don't even need to get there. [00:28:47] Speaker 02: Because what Campbell teaches is that you scan both sides of a check, which has all of us know what's on the front of a check. [00:28:54] Speaker 02: It has the routing number. [00:28:55] Speaker 02: It has the account number. [00:28:56] Speaker 02: It has the payor information. [00:28:58] Speaker 02: It has the bank name on it. [00:29:00] Speaker 02: And then the endorsement, which is required by the federal regulation that I pointed out before, requires that you also have on the back the name of the payee bank. [00:29:08] Speaker 02: That's the sending institution. [00:29:10] Speaker 02: The routing number. [00:29:11] Speaker 02: And it's known that most people [00:29:14] Speaker 02: typically put their account number on the back, too, when they deposit the checks. [00:29:17] Speaker 02: All that information goes on the back. [00:29:19] Speaker 02: And when it reaches the other end of its dishonor, there's another endorsement where that bank, the receiving bank, puts their information. [00:29:26] Speaker 02: So all that information is put on it. [00:29:28] Speaker 02: And there's an admission in the record, which is appropriate, that Campbell identifies and encrypts the name of the sending bank, that it's scanned on both sides of the checker, scanned. [00:29:39] Speaker 02: And this is in the Joint Appendix at 3231. [00:29:43] Speaker 02: where data treasury appellate provides persons of ordinary skill and the art would interpret Campbell as encrypting images that may include the bank name. [00:29:52] Speaker 02: That's SSID. [00:29:53] Speaker 02: It's encrypted. [00:29:54] Speaker 02: We don't even have to get to TCPIP information, even though Campbell teaches in both manners encrypting SSID and sending it back and forth in what is a very basic, well-understood process and manner. [00:30:08] Speaker 02: And we believe it clearly anticipates the challenge claims. [00:30:13] Speaker 01: OK, Mr. Rudman, thank you for your argument. [00:30:15] Speaker 01: Mr. Chin will restore two minutes of rebuttal time. [00:30:18] Speaker 01: Oh, there you go. [00:30:20] Speaker 01: Two minutes. [00:30:21] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:30:23] Speaker 00: Your Honor, fundamentally, we have to talk about what Campbell is and is not. [00:30:27] Speaker 00: Campbell is a one-tier system. [00:30:30] Speaker 00: It is only what one sees within, in figure one, the public switch telephone network tent. [00:30:39] Speaker 00: It does not include the sending bank that we see in figure one. [00:30:43] Speaker 00: the system does not include 16th receiving bank in figure one. [00:30:47] Speaker 00: From looking at figure one, one might think so. [00:30:49] Speaker 00: But if you look at the claims, the independent claim one, it doesn't include the sending bank. [00:30:53] Speaker 00: It does include the receiving bank. [00:30:55] Speaker 00: All it includes are things that are within PSTN 10. [00:30:59] Speaker 00: And you see what's inside PSTN 10 in figure two. [00:31:02] Speaker 00: There's various subcomponents in there. [00:31:04] Speaker 00: So the system of Campbell is limited only to what's inside PSTN 10. [00:31:12] Speaker 00: The board says, well, the name of the sending bank is the same thing as information about a subsystem. [00:31:18] Speaker 00: One has to ask, what is the subsystem? [00:31:21] Speaker 00: The subsystem of what? [00:31:22] Speaker 00: Is it a subsystem of Campbell? [00:31:23] Speaker 00: It can't be, because the sending bank is not part of the system. [00:31:27] Speaker 00: How can it be a subsystem? [00:31:29] Speaker 00: That is a fundamental problem with the board's application of that construction. [00:31:34] Speaker 00: It reached beyond what the claims and specification allow in terms of disclosing what Campbell is. [00:31:41] Speaker 00: If one looks at the specification, the discussion of Figure 1 tells you that the system is basically only PSTN 10. [00:31:51] Speaker 00: There's no reference in the specification of saying that the sending bank and the receiving bank are part of the Campbell system. [00:31:59] Speaker 00: So you have this problem where the court has defined subsystem identification information as information that identifies a subsystem. [00:32:10] Speaker 00: The name of a sending bank, first of all, is just the name of the entity. [00:32:14] Speaker 00: But even if one thinks that it might be a subsystem, it's outside the system. [00:32:19] Speaker 00: So it can't be a subsystem. [00:32:21] Speaker 00: That's a fundamental problem with how the board approached it. [00:32:27] Speaker 01: Thank you, Mr. Chin. [00:32:28] Speaker 01: The case is taken under submission.