[00:00:00] Speaker 00: We're ready. [00:00:00] Speaker 00: We'll proceed to the next case, 15-2091, micrographics against Google and others. [00:00:07] Speaker 00: Mr. Wilson. [00:00:08] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:09] Speaker 01: Continuing with the A54 and 732 patents in the 2091 and 2092 appeals, I'd like to first raise what I think is the most fundamental issue in this appeal, and that is the board's failure to credit [00:00:23] Speaker 01: Micrographic submission of the source code evidence and arguments based on the source code evidence. [00:00:28] Speaker 04: So let me start. [00:00:29] Speaker 04: Before we get there, help me with the certificate of correction and the change in the language. [00:00:34] Speaker 04: I tried to find out what the certificate of correction was all about, but apparently you can't access it online. [00:00:42] Speaker 04: What was the ground for the certificate of correction? [00:00:46] Speaker 01: So the certificate of correction is actually contained in your appendix. [00:00:51] Speaker 03: But the ground for it, I think, was the question. [00:00:53] Speaker 03: Why? [00:00:54] Speaker 01: Why was the certificate of correction? [00:00:56] Speaker 03: Yeah, I mean, was it just that they didn't use the correct version and you didn't notice for 10 years or something? [00:01:00] Speaker 01: I believe, and I'd have to look back at the file history to confirm this, that amendments were made that didn't get entered in the resulting, in the claims that actually issued. [00:01:10] Speaker 00: I think it's accepted that there was a mistake made. [00:01:14] Speaker 00: But to respond to the defense, that it didn't matter as far as the issues of the substance is concerned is, I think, what we need to focus on. [00:01:27] Speaker 01: So the claims of the 854 patent that are at issue are actually narrower than any of the claims of the 732 patent that were at issue. [00:01:36] Speaker 01: That being said, the board did find that each of the various limitations that made the difference were present in Pesci, the VRML manual. [00:01:44] Speaker 01: So I don't think we can point you to a specific harm as a result of that mistake, other than the general observation that the board was somewhat careless in its analysis, which I think pervades the issues that I'm about to raise. [00:01:59] Speaker 01: OK. [00:02:00] Speaker 01: So back to the issue of the fundamental problem with the board's opinion is that micrographics, [00:02:11] Speaker 01: started going back to the construction of interactive vector object. [00:02:13] Speaker 01: The board construed interactive vector object to be a computer software object that includes at least a mathematical description of a graphical image and a definition so that the graphical image responds to events. [00:02:28] Speaker 01: That much was proposed by the petitioners. [00:02:30] Speaker 01: It was adopted by the board. [00:02:31] Speaker 01: It was not disputed by micro graphics. [00:02:33] Speaker 01: That's petitioners' own construction. [00:02:35] Speaker 01: What was disputed is what is the significance of computer software objects. [00:02:39] Speaker 01: So the board made additional claim construction holdings on computer software objects, said that a computer software object is a variable comprising both routines and data that is treated as a discrete entity. [00:02:53] Speaker 01: The board also observed that computer software object is implemented in a programming language and that one computer software object can contain another computer software object, which brings us to [00:03:03] Speaker 01: the evidence before the board in light of PESHU. [00:03:06] Speaker 01: The petitioners submitted PESHU, a virtual reality modeling language book that describes VRML documents and nodes and all that which the court is by now familiar with. [00:03:17] Speaker 01: The face of the book shows that it contains a CD full of source code that describes a parser which shows how the VRML documents were converted into computer software objects. [00:03:29] Speaker 01: And that was before the board, right? [00:03:32] Speaker 01: The petitioners did not enter that evidence. [00:03:35] Speaker 01: They submitted the Pesci manual, but they did not submit the CD. [00:03:39] Speaker 01: Micrographics did submit the CD. [00:03:41] Speaker 01: OK, so the board had it in front of them. [00:03:44] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:03:45] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:03:46] Speaker 01: So we didn't actually submit the whole CD. [00:03:48] Speaker 01: We submitted excerpts of the code from the CD. [00:03:51] Speaker 01: The problem is the board recognized that an interactive vector object has to be a computer software object, and then its findings [00:04:00] Speaker 01: only consider the VRML manual, the nodes described in VRML documents. [00:04:06] Speaker 01: It never looks at the computer software objects. [00:04:09] Speaker 01: Well, you don't know that they didn't look at it, right? [00:04:11] Speaker 01: They don't say anything about it. [00:04:13] Speaker 01: It was a substantial portion of our argument. [00:04:15] Speaker 01: And the problem, the reason we know they couldn't have looked at it is because the board hinged its entire anticipation, based on Pesci, on the fact that a VRML node [00:04:27] Speaker 01: WWW anchor, which the board found was an interactive vector object, actually contains in a VRML document a sphere node. [00:04:35] Speaker 01: It said that means there's one node that has a mathematical description of a graphical image and a definition that allows it to respond to events. [00:04:43] Speaker 01: But the problem is that's not a computer software object. [00:04:47] Speaker 01: What's written in that VRML document is not a computer software object. [00:04:50] Speaker 01: The computer software objects that result, which are described in the source code, the board did not look at. [00:04:56] Speaker 04: That evidence clearly establishes... I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you're saying. [00:05:01] Speaker 04: If the anchor, the WWW anchor, you say incorporates the shape, but that the shape is sort of a child and that it doesn't become part of the WWW anchor, right? [00:05:17] Speaker 01: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:05:19] Speaker 04: So you're saying that the source code supports that, right? [00:05:24] Speaker 01: What I'm saying is the source code is the only evidence for what computer software objects are created as a result of VRML. [00:05:32] Speaker 01: The source code shows the actual computer software objects that get created. [00:05:35] Speaker 04: But I guess what I'm wondering is what does it show that's not apparent already? [00:05:40] Speaker 01: What it shows is that there is an object that's created from www anchor. [00:05:45] Speaker 01: It's called qv www anchor. [00:05:47] Speaker 01: It is a separate object entirely from the object that's created from the sphere node, which is qv sphere. [00:05:54] Speaker 01: Even though the sphere node is shown within www anchor in the text, the VRML text, when the computer software objects are created, they are entirely separate. [00:06:04] Speaker 01: The sphere is not within www anchor. [00:06:08] Speaker 01: And that's the point that we raised. [00:06:09] Speaker 01: That was the subject of our expert testimony. [00:06:13] Speaker 01: It was the subject of much of our argument in opposition to the board's anticipation findings. [00:06:17] Speaker 04: Well, they rejected that, right? [00:06:18] Speaker 04: And your complaint is they didn't discuss the source code when they rejected it. [00:06:23] Speaker 01: The only finding we have is anticipation. [00:06:26] Speaker 01: They never mention the arguments. [00:06:27] Speaker 01: They never mention the evidence. [00:06:29] Speaker 01: They certainly never state that they're rejecting that evidence. [00:06:32] Speaker 01: No, but they concluded that the sphere was part of the www anchor, right? [00:06:38] Speaker 01: They did based on the way it was phrased in the VRML document. [00:06:43] Speaker 01: They made a finding. [00:06:44] Speaker 01: But our point is that finding is not supported by substantial evidence because the only evidence in the record of what computer software objects are created is the source code. [00:06:53] Speaker 01: There's the nodes, admittedly, Pesci calls them objects, but he doesn't call them computer software objects. [00:07:01] Speaker 01: The board says that a computer software object is implemented in a programming language. [00:07:06] Speaker 01: The RML is not a programming language. [00:07:08] Speaker 01: The board says you have to have both routines and data in this computer software object. [00:07:13] Speaker 01: There are no routines in www.anchor. [00:07:16] Speaker 01: There are no routines in sphere. [00:07:18] Speaker 01: You have to look at the source code to see that. [00:07:20] Speaker 01: You have to look at the computer software objects. [00:07:22] Speaker 01: The board didn't do that. [00:07:24] Speaker 01: It made no findings in regard to that evidence. [00:07:26] Speaker 01: And that evidence conclusively establishes that the objects that are created, the computer software objects, are not, one is not contained within the other. [00:07:35] Speaker 01: There is not an interactive vector object that comprises those two characteristics. [00:07:40] Speaker 01: And if I may, raise a couple of additional points. [00:07:45] Speaker 01: There's also the issue of the limitation, which affects some of the claims in 854 and 732, the location of the vector object. [00:07:52] Speaker 01: This was another instance of the board giving an incomplete analysis. [00:07:57] Speaker 01: The petitioners cited the transform, no. [00:08:00] Speaker 03: Can you make your argument about the property issue? [00:08:05] Speaker 03: You make three issues, and that one affects a very large number of the claims, because it affects most of the independent claims of the 855. [00:08:14] Speaker 01: Okay, so property defining or pre-defining a command. [00:08:18] Speaker 03: Exactly. [00:08:19] Speaker 03: And do I understand your argument to be that the identified property that is identified by the board and by the challengers is the field that simply gives the URL. [00:08:34] Speaker 03: That doesn't tell you to do anything. [00:08:36] Speaker 03: You need something else that tells you what to do with that information so it can't be [00:08:40] Speaker 03: the, what is it, commanding? [00:08:42] Speaker 01: It's not a command, right? [00:08:43] Speaker 01: It's not a property defining a command. [00:08:45] Speaker 01: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:08:46] Speaker 01: You've restated the argument perfectly. [00:08:48] Speaker 01: The issue is the petitioners asserted originally that WWW anchor was the property defining a command. [00:08:56] Speaker 01: Now they have said in their briefing that they didn't say that, but it's right there in the board's opinion. [00:09:00] Speaker 01: The board actually says they said it. [00:09:02] Speaker 01: And the board acknowledges that there's some conflict between its [00:09:06] Speaker 01: the petitioner's observation or assertion that www anchor is the property defining command and the board was forced to use the name field because it found that www anchor is the interactive vector object. [00:09:19] Speaker 01: The property defining command has to be within the interactive vector object so it had to look at something else. [00:09:24] Speaker 01: What we're saying is the property has to define a command. [00:09:30] Speaker 01: The URL that's in the name field is just data. [00:09:33] Speaker 01: It's not a command. [00:09:36] Speaker 01: So the command would be jump to or go to this hyperlink. [00:09:40] Speaker 01: The board says that's okay because look at status line in the specification of the A54 path. [00:09:46] Speaker 01: Status line is the same thing, it's just data, but it's not. [00:09:48] Speaker 01: Status line is a command as well. [00:09:50] Speaker 01: Status line tells the software to put text, which is data, into the status line. [00:09:56] Speaker 01: It's a command just like jump and just like all the other commands that are in the specification. [00:10:01] Speaker 01: The board simply found [00:10:03] Speaker 01: that the name field is a property defining command, it's not. [00:10:08] Speaker 01: It's just not. [00:10:08] Speaker 03: There's no- And can I just, I guess I'm going to understand, if we were to agree with that point, the property point, would we simply outright reverse on anticipation of all the claims that are- That's correct, Your Honor. [00:10:23] Speaker 03: It would be a reversal, because there's- Not on everything, but on quite a large number of the 854 claims. [00:10:28] Speaker 01: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:10:30] Speaker 01: And so if I may jump back to the location of the vector object for just a minute. [00:10:36] Speaker 01: The location of the vector object is a similar issue. [00:10:39] Speaker 01: The petitioner cite the transform node. [00:10:42] Speaker 01: We deposed their expert. [00:10:43] Speaker 01: Their expert says, we put the transform node in front of him. [00:10:47] Speaker 01: He says, there's nothing in this example that has location data. [00:10:51] Speaker 01: And then the board made the finding anyway, but then not crediting LASTER because it couldn't. [00:10:57] Speaker 01: So it made the finding anyway that the transform node is somehow in part location data. [00:11:03] Speaker 01: The problem is the board based its reasoning on its earlier reasoning on interactive vector object, but the issue is there's no showing in the evidence that the board was looking at that the transform node is contained in www.anchor, the only interactive vector object that the board found. [00:11:21] Speaker 01: If it's not, then the board has no basis for its finding that there's an interactive vector object that comprises location data. [00:11:28] Speaker 01: The only example it gives, transform is outside of www.anchor. [00:11:33] Speaker 01: Even if it were to find an example with transform inside, transform, as Pesce says, the transform only affects nodes that follow. [00:11:41] Speaker 01: So it can affect the node that it's within, it can only affect nodes that follow. [00:11:45] Speaker 01: Again, the point here is the board's finding of a location of a vector object is not supported by substantial objects. [00:11:52] Speaker 01: And I'll reserve the rest of my time. [00:11:53] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:12:02] Speaker 00: Mr. Allen. [00:12:05] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:12:07] Speaker 02: And again, David Almalin on behalf of Appellees, Google, and Samsung. [00:12:13] Speaker 02: I plan to address the issues subject, of course, to Your Honor's questions or preference to go in a different order about the prosecution question asked by Judge Dyke regarding the certificate of correction, the issue regarding the Pesci CD, the property limitation, [00:12:31] Speaker 02: and then the location limitation. [00:12:33] Speaker 03: So can you skip the certificate of correction and talk about [00:12:39] Speaker 03: what significance, if any, the source code might have had. [00:12:46] Speaker 03: One way I'm understanding Mr. Wilson's argument that I may be misunderstanding it is that you don't have the required computer software object until you look and see what the software does, not what a description is, and that object [00:13:04] Speaker 03: is actually doesn't meet the requirement. [00:13:07] Speaker 03: And so you can't tell it from the verbal description. [00:13:12] Speaker 03: You have to see what the source code says, or something like that. [00:13:16] Speaker 02: The board found, and it's supported by significant substantial evidence that I will describe, that the verbal objects in the verbal code on the server [00:13:27] Speaker 02: is what discloses all of the elements of the interactive vector object, including the computer software object part of it. [00:13:35] Speaker 02: The fact that that code subsequently gets transmitted, parsed, compiled into C++ objects that may be structurally, syntactically, and semantically different from what the verbal code does doesn't matter. [00:13:50] Speaker 02: The anticipation case presented by petitioners... [00:13:54] Speaker 02: It's a second step on which the board and the petitioners are not reading interactive vector object. [00:14:01] Speaker 02: I'd like to direct your honor's attention and specifically Judge Toronto to answer your question to a part of the board's decision on A-16. [00:14:18] Speaker 02: A16 identifies a figure, 11.1, which talks about the structure of peshi. [00:14:27] Speaker 02: And then it says at the end of the paragraph, quote, after the document has been received by the VRML browser, it is parsed. [00:14:36] Speaker 02: Then a renderer uses the parsed description to create visible representations of the object described in the verbal document and displays them. [00:14:47] Speaker 02: The objects in the verbal document are known as nodes," end quote. [00:14:53] Speaker 02: The argument that the board never considered Pesce code is simply wrong. [00:14:57] Speaker 02: There was significant briefing on it. [00:14:59] Speaker 02: The board asked questions about it, an oral argument. [00:15:01] Speaker 03: The board simply found that... Let me just say, I'm not focusing on whether they considered it. [00:15:08] Speaker 03: I'm focusing on why, if at all, it would or would not matter. [00:15:13] Speaker 02: The reason it wouldn't matter is because the claims say it doesn't matter. [00:15:17] Speaker 02: Preamble of the claims talks about data that is operable to be downloaded. [00:15:24] Speaker 02: That data, whatever happens afterwards, the focus is, what is the server-side data say? [00:15:30] Speaker 02: Here, the server-side data is peshy. [00:15:33] Speaker 02: That's what's operable to be downloaded. [00:15:35] Speaker 02: The fact it subsequently gets downloaded and turned into something else is not what is anticipatory. [00:15:41] Speaker 02: The anticipation case is based on the vermal code. [00:15:46] Speaker 02: And the patent is very, very clear about this in addition to the preamble. [00:15:49] Speaker 02: Specifically, I'd like to direct your honor's attention to the patent's description of the server-side or operable code, which is on A69 at column 4, line 50 to 57. [00:16:10] Speaker 02: This describes that the vector graphics [00:16:12] Speaker 02: file may be embedded in the network accessible file. [00:16:17] Speaker 02: The network accessible file, of course, can be an HTML. [00:16:22] Speaker 02: Hypertext markup language. [00:16:25] Speaker 02: The patent's preferred embodiment uses a markup language on the server side, and that's where it says our vector objects are. [00:16:34] Speaker 02: Vermil, virtual reality markup language, describes a server side [00:16:40] Speaker 02: application which describes where the objects are. [00:16:43] Speaker 02: Both peshy and the patent are not talking about the post-downloaded, post-parse, post-compiled code. [00:16:52] Speaker 02: They're talking about the server-side code in a markup language. [00:16:59] Speaker 02: Can you address the property point? [00:17:00] Speaker 02: Yes, your honor. [00:17:04] Speaker 03: Let me begin by saying that the... Did I capture what I take your argument to be? [00:17:10] Speaker 03: That you identify the name field as the property. [00:17:14] Speaker 03: The name field contains data. [00:17:16] Speaker 03: It doesn't contain a command. [00:17:18] Speaker 03: Full stop. [00:17:19] Speaker 03: It can't satisfy the claim limitation. [00:17:23] Speaker 02: That's inaccurate, Your Honor, respectfully based on what the claim language says. [00:17:27] Speaker 02: And it's important here that the patent owner is not appealing the claim construction. [00:17:31] Speaker 02: It's appealing the application of a substantial evidence standard. [00:17:35] Speaker 02: The reason why that's important is if you look at the court's claim construction, and specifically this is on page A14 through 15, they say that, quote, the BRI of that limitation is a characteristic describing an interaction [00:17:53] Speaker 02: to be carried out by computer software in response to a user action. [00:17:58] Speaker 02: Then the court further gave an example of the status line, which is on figure four, of the patent. [00:18:05] Speaker 02: And Mr. Wilson says that the status line actually does contain an instruction, not just data. [00:18:10] Speaker 02: It doesn't. [00:18:11] Speaker 02: It contains a characteristic that gets subsequently turned into a command. [00:18:15] Speaker 02: It identifies a command. [00:18:17] Speaker 02: The claim language say a property defining a command, not that the property has the command. [00:18:24] Speaker 02: I think the clearest articulation of this, Your Honor, is if I could point you to a part of the specification which is on column 11, line 63. [00:18:46] Speaker 02: And pardon me, three or four sentences of reading, but I think this will make this clear. [00:18:51] Speaker 04: Quote. [00:18:52] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, where were you again? [00:18:54] Speaker 02: It is column 11 of the 854 patent, line 63. [00:18:58] Speaker 04: Okay, thank you. [00:19:02] Speaker 02: And this is in the context of describing figure 7, which illustrates the processing events for vector objects on the client system. [00:19:11] Speaker 02: Quote. [00:19:11] Speaker 02: If the event occurred within the active area of the vector object, [00:19:15] Speaker 02: the yes branch of the decisional step 262 leads to the step 264. [00:19:22] Speaker 02: At step 264, the vector graphic extension may get the properties of the vector object. [00:19:28] Speaker 02: Proceeding to step 266, it may be determined if the properties define a command for the event. [00:19:38] Speaker 02: If no command is defined for the event, the no branch of decisional step [00:19:44] Speaker 02: leads to the end of the process. [00:19:47] Speaker 02: If the properties define a command for the event, the yes decisional branch leads step 266 to step 268, and at 268, the vector graphic extension may perform the command defined for the event. [00:20:02] Speaker 02: Step 268 leads to the end of the process. [00:20:06] Speaker 02: You look to see if there has a property. [00:20:08] Speaker 02: If it has a property, then you look to see what the command is. [00:20:12] Speaker 02: Then the command gets [00:20:14] Speaker 02: executed by the extension. [00:20:18] Speaker 02: The property doesn't have the command. [00:20:21] Speaker 02: The property is something that identifies a command as the board determined in its claim construction, which is not being appealed. [00:20:28] Speaker 03: Just a simple-minded matter, a URL is an address. [00:20:31] Speaker 03: It doesn't define a command. [00:20:34] Speaker 03: It doesn't tell you anything about what to do with the URL. [00:20:37] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:20:38] Speaker 02: The URL is, so we're talking about a www anchor node vector object. [00:20:44] Speaker 03: And inside that, the name field, is that what it's called? [00:20:48] Speaker 03: The name field. [00:20:49] Speaker 03: And it just contains a URL, is that right? [00:20:51] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:20:52] Speaker 02: But the fact it's a WWW anchor node means that it's going to be executed to jump to that URL. [00:20:59] Speaker 02: So the focus being on the name field is in the context of an overall object which defines its behavior. [00:21:05] Speaker 02: But the point of the board's claim construction, which isn't being appealed, [00:21:09] Speaker 02: is that all you need is a characteristic that lead to the execution of a command later. [00:21:14] Speaker 03: I don't think that's what the claim construction said about something that would lead to or could lead or whatever. [00:21:21] Speaker 03: It's actually associated with a command to be performed in response to an event. [00:21:27] Speaker 02: So I'd like to direct your honor's attention to A14 through 15 of the board's decision in which it construed this limitation. [00:21:39] Speaker 02: Quote, we further determined that the property may be specified by a single value that describes a command, e.g. [00:21:48] Speaker 02: the status line, and need not provide all of the instructions to execute the command, e.g. [00:21:54] Speaker 02: to display the text. [00:21:56] Speaker 02: This is not being appealed. [00:21:57] Speaker 03: We're not appealing a claim construct. [00:21:59] Speaker 03: So maybe it has a pointer to a command, but I feel that simply says, here's data, doesn't. [00:22:05] Speaker 02: In the context of a vernal www anchor object, it does. [00:22:11] Speaker 02: Because the field is within that object. [00:22:13] Speaker 02: And the type of the object, the fact it's a www anchor node, means it has the behavior. [00:22:18] Speaker 03: But isn't it under the claim language, the command actually, or the name of a command, or a pointer to a command, or some identifier of a command, have to be in the field itself, not be in some other part of your www anchor? [00:22:33] Speaker 02: So the interactive vector object contains a property. [00:22:36] Speaker 02: That property identifies a command or defines a command. [00:22:41] Speaker 02: That's the claim language. [00:22:42] Speaker 02: It doesn't require the code. [00:22:44] Speaker 02: And you say the property is the name field. [00:22:47] Speaker 02: The property is the name field in the context of a www anchor node. [00:22:52] Speaker 04: It's not just a... It's not just the name field. [00:22:55] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:22:55] Speaker 02: It's not... You can't look at that in isolation because it's not. [00:22:58] Speaker 02: It's in an object. [00:22:59] Speaker 02: The object type defines its behavior, and the behavior in the context of the field means jump to that URL. [00:23:06] Speaker 03: So why can't you say that the object type satisfies this claim limitation? [00:23:16] Speaker 03: Because then it would be... It can't be inside itself or something? [00:23:20] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor, the object type is an example of what the board found in the context of being a characteristic which describes... But the name field isn't the object type. [00:23:35] Speaker 02: I apologize, Your Honor? [00:23:36] Speaker 02: The name field is not the object type, is it? [00:23:39] Speaker 02: No, the type in Pesci is... So the object in Pesci has a type and then it has a field. [00:23:45] Speaker 02: And the type defines its behavior, the field defines its data. [00:23:49] Speaker 03: Those sentences, don't those sentences put together mean that the field can't be the property that defines the command? [00:23:56] Speaker 03: It's the type that's defining the command. [00:23:58] Speaker 02: There is nothing in the claims that require you to only look at one particular part of the object. [00:24:03] Speaker 02: You look at the overall object. [00:24:05] Speaker 04: It's an interactive vector object containing these various... Well, then the answer is you're relying on the type as well as the name field. [00:24:11] Speaker 03: Correct, Your Honor. [00:24:12] Speaker 03: Did you do that before the board? [00:24:13] Speaker 03: I thought you said very specifically the name field is the property. [00:24:17] Speaker 02: So if you look at what the board did, and it did this on pages 22 through 23, it addresses this exact inconsistency that was articulated by the patent owner. [00:24:29] Speaker 02: And it did in the context of saying that [00:24:32] Speaker 02: If you look at the field of the WW anchor node, it specifies the URL and it discloses the property because if a user clicks on it, the user goes to that URL. [00:24:44] Speaker 02: In other words, the board was looking at the field in the context of an object, but importantly, and this is really important, the board was looking at the consequence of doing all of that. [00:24:54] Speaker 02: The board was looking at as a structural or functional limitation that says, if you do all these things, then you meet the claim, because that's what the patent describes. [00:25:03] Speaker 02: An interactive vector object that when you click on it, you go someplace else. [00:25:06] Speaker 02: Pesci has a vector object. [00:25:08] Speaker 02: When you click on it, you go someplace else. [00:25:11] Speaker 02: What the patent owner is trying to do here, and in the location, and in its other arguments, is to myopically look at individual parts of the vector object, which ignores the syntax of Pesci. [00:25:23] Speaker 02: Pesci uses separator nodes and other group nodes to combine objects together to achieve the effect. [00:25:32] Speaker 02: That structure, that function, that result is entirely what the patent contemplates, and that's why Pesci anticipates it. [00:25:44] Speaker 04: What about the location issue? [00:25:48] Speaker 04: That seems to me a bit troubling in the sense that the [00:25:53] Speaker 04: Locator is not within what you've defined as the vector object, which is WWW anchor. [00:26:03] Speaker 02: Two responses to that, Your Honor. [00:26:05] Speaker 02: The first of which is what the board cited is not the limited argument that the WWW anchor has to have within it the location. [00:26:16] Speaker 02: That's not how Pesci works. [00:26:18] Speaker 02: Specifically, I'll direct Your Honor's attention to [00:26:21] Speaker 02: A24 of the board's decision. [00:26:23] Speaker 02: And it has a sentence here that clarifies its argument on this point. [00:26:33] Speaker 02: Quote, the transform node changes the position, orientation, size, and center of any nodes that follow it in a group. [00:26:45] Speaker 02: The board was using the group, which includes the separator node, to refer to [00:26:50] Speaker 02: what is contained within that structure. [00:26:53] Speaker 02: The board also cited on that page 949, which is a part of the Pesce code. [00:27:00] Speaker 02: This code demonstrates that when you have a separator node that has a transfer node within it, after the transfer node, you have an object node like a sphere node. [00:27:10] Speaker 02: The transfer node would change the location of that object. [00:27:14] Speaker 02: It's the separator node that groups them together to have that effect. [00:27:18] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, I'm not following this. [00:27:23] Speaker 04: You agree that the WW anchor is the vector object, right? [00:27:32] Speaker 02: The vector object itself would be the sphere because it defines a shape. [00:27:37] Speaker 02: The interactive vector object would be WW anchor plus the shape. [00:27:43] Speaker 04: Okay, so. [00:27:44] Speaker 02: And then the context, I apologize your honor, but in the context of the location, then it would be the separator node that contains all three of those. [00:27:54] Speaker 04: But the problem is the separator node is not the interactive vector object. [00:28:00] Speaker 02: It is in the context of the code cited by the board because the separator node combines the transform, the sphere, and the WW anchor all to have an effect. [00:28:10] Speaker 02: Patent owner is essentially arguing that, no, don't look at the Pesci code. [00:28:14] Speaker 04: Look at these small little things called... So the board made a mistake by saying that interactive vector object is the WWW anchor because it's really the separator. [00:28:23] Speaker 02: And you can write Pesci where the WWW anchor node includes the shape node. [00:28:29] Speaker 02: There is expert testimony on that. [00:28:30] Speaker 02: That's one way to do it. [00:28:32] Speaker 02: The way that happened to be cited in Pesce is where you cite the transfer node before the WW anchor node, which includes the shape node, which is another way in Pesce to do it. [00:28:42] Speaker 02: There are different syntactical ways to achieve the same effect. [00:28:46] Speaker 04: And it's that if... What is the answer to my question is that the board made a mistake in saying WW anchor is the interactive vector. [00:28:54] Speaker 02: The board did not make a mistake. [00:28:55] Speaker 02: The board cited to the separator node and then it applied that in the context of what the overall code of Pesci articulates. [00:29:02] Speaker 04: Where does it say that the separator node is the interactive vector object? [00:29:07] Speaker 02: It does. [00:29:07] Speaker 02: So, Your Honor, in the sentence that I read, which... I'm sorry. [00:29:12] Speaker 02: It doesn't. [00:29:13] Speaker 02: The next paragraph contains the following sentence. [00:29:16] Speaker 02: Which page are we on? [00:29:18] Speaker 02: Sure. [00:29:19] Speaker 04: It is A24. [00:29:20] Speaker 02: So earlier I read the sentence about [00:29:23] Speaker 02: what the transform node changes. [00:29:26] Speaker 02: Here, the court said, quote, as described in Pesci, instructions executed by code depend on other code. [00:29:35] Speaker 02: Any nodes within a group node all adopt the group node's frame of reference. [00:29:41] Speaker 02: The separator node, at its essence, tells us when and where the frame of reference exists. [00:29:48] Speaker 02: The board then uses that and then identifies that based on the Pesci code [00:29:54] Speaker 02: That's what's disclosed. [00:29:56] Speaker 02: The court used the separator node, which is one way to do it in Pesci. [00:30:00] Speaker 02: An expert describes a different way. [00:30:02] Speaker 02: Just use a WW anchor node. [00:30:04] Speaker 02: Either way, the result is the same. [00:30:06] Speaker 02: You determine the location because you have a WW anchor node, [00:30:10] Speaker 02: a transfer node, and then a sphere node, and you have those structures so that they work together. [00:30:16] Speaker 02: The idea that that particular syntax doesn't fall within the scope of the claims is such a narrow reading that is not supported by the court's claim construction, which is not being appealed, and which is fully supported by the substantial evidence. [00:30:30] Speaker 00: Any more questions? [00:30:32] Speaker 00: No questions? [00:30:32] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:30:33] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:30:49] Speaker 01: Your Honor, if I could just briefly hit the points that were covered by Council for Petitioners. [00:30:56] Speaker 01: First of all, going back to the original issue that I addressed, the interactive vector object. [00:31:03] Speaker 01: And the argument that the petitioners made before the board and they're making here is that the claims require that the interactive vector object be operable to be downloaded. [00:31:12] Speaker 01: And so you don't have to look at the source code. [00:31:15] Speaker 01: You can just look at the VRML documents. [00:31:17] Speaker 01: The problem that they've got is that the VRML documents are just a markup language. [00:31:23] Speaker 01: They are not a programming language. [00:31:25] Speaker 01: They do not describe computer software objects. [00:31:28] Speaker 01: The computer software objects are described by the source code. [00:31:31] Speaker 01: It's true that the VRML document is what is downloaded, but the computer software objects that result from that downloading are described in the source code, not in the VRML documents. [00:31:41] Speaker 01: There is no evidence in the, I'm sorry, let me strike that. [00:31:47] Speaker 01: There is no evidence of computer software objects in the VRML documents themselves. [00:31:52] Speaker 01: Those are just nodes. [00:31:54] Speaker 01: They're not computer software objects. [00:31:56] Speaker 01: The only evidence of computer software objects is in the source code. [00:32:01] Speaker 01: So let me address the property defining a command. [00:32:06] Speaker 01: I think, Judge Toronto, you've hit right on the appropriate issue, and that is the [00:32:17] Speaker 04: Property defining command has to actually refer to... But even if the property defining command is not in the name field, it's still in the interactive vector object, which tells you to click on the address to go there, right? [00:32:32] Speaker 01: If it's not in the name field, it is the www anchor node itself. [00:32:37] Speaker 01: That is what it is. [00:32:38] Speaker 03: In fact, in the very past... And what would be problematic about that? [00:32:42] Speaker 01: The board said that's the interactive vector object. [00:32:45] Speaker 03: What under the text of the claim would be problematic about that? [00:32:48] Speaker 01: Well, it can't be at the same time the interactive vector object and contain itself effectively. [00:32:57] Speaker 03: Where's the claim language that you're relying on to say that the one thing has to actually contain the other? [00:33:04] Speaker 01: So the board's construction [00:33:08] Speaker 01: is at the bottom of Appendix Page 14. [00:33:11] Speaker 04: Yeah, but just looking at the claim language, it says an interactive vector object comprising, and then it says a property defining a command. [00:33:20] Speaker 04: So if the interactive vector object is www anchor, that does tell you to go to the name field and click on the address. [00:33:29] Speaker 04: So you go there, right? [00:33:32] Speaker 01: So the www anchor is, in fact, the command. [00:33:36] Speaker 01: I agree, Your Honor. [00:33:38] Speaker 01: If it's the command, then there has to be something that contains it, something that comprises it, because that's all it is. [00:33:44] Speaker 01: It's just a, literally, www anchor is just a hyperlink. [00:33:48] Speaker 01: It just provides hyperlink functionality. [00:33:50] Speaker 01: It is not, as I described earlier, if you look at the actual computer software objects, that's what it provides, and that's it. [00:33:58] Speaker 01: It doesn't contain a sphere. [00:34:00] Speaker 01: It just provides the hyperlink functionality. [00:34:03] Speaker 01: That's it. [00:34:03] Speaker 01: The board pointed this out, and it's, [00:34:09] Speaker 01: In its analysis, it actually, it says that quite clearly. [00:34:16] Speaker 01: More importantly, the petitioners. [00:34:17] Speaker 03: Can you quote what follows? [00:34:20] Speaker 03: You said it says, I mean, this may be make or break, so it's really important to get this right. [00:34:27] Speaker 01: So I'm sorry, quote what follows. [00:34:29] Speaker 03: You said the board, I thought you said the board made it clear that the interactive vector object can't be its own property. [00:34:36] Speaker 01: Where? [00:34:37] Speaker 01: No, I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:34:38] Speaker 01: What I'm saying is the board made it clear that the petitioners asserted that the WWW anchor interactive vector object order, I'm sorry, the WWW anchor node was the property defining command. [00:34:51] Speaker 01: That's on page 22. [00:34:52] Speaker 01: They go on to say basically what we're saying is not necessarily in material conflict with that because we're identifying the name field. [00:35:03] Speaker 01: the petitioners in front of this court have disclaimed that position. [00:35:08] Speaker 04: They came back and said... Well, they say the name field's not enough, but that the command is contained in the interactive vector object. [00:35:16] Speaker 01: But they said more than that. [00:35:17] Speaker 01: They said no one is taking the position that www.anchor is the property defining command. [00:35:23] Speaker 01: They said that in their brief to this court. [00:35:26] Speaker 03: This was on 46 to 47, neither Appellees nor the board have identified WWW anchor group note as meeting the property limitation. [00:35:34] Speaker 01: Exactly, your honor. [00:35:35] Speaker 01: So they can't get up here now and say, yes, we are. [00:35:38] Speaker 04: Yeah, but so what's wrong with treating the WWW anchor as containing the property? [00:35:46] Speaker 04: Because. [00:35:47] Speaker 04: I mean, it's just, I mean, isn't this simple? [00:35:50] Speaker 04: that within the interactive vector object is a command that tells you, if you click on the URL, it takes you to the address. [00:35:58] Speaker 04: Is that really in dispute? [00:36:00] Speaker 01: It is, Your Honor, because www.anchor is the hyperlink. [00:36:03] Speaker 01: It is the command. [00:36:05] Speaker 01: It has a field that describes where it's taking you. [00:36:08] Speaker 04: So what? [00:36:10] Speaker 04: Why does that make it not within the claim limitations? [00:36:15] Speaker 01: Because you have to have an object that contains that property defining a command and a mathematical description of a graphical image. [00:36:24] Speaker 01: So now you'd have to go to something higher, like the separator node, which the board never rendered any finding on. [00:36:31] Speaker 01: The board never said that's an interactive vector object. [00:36:34] Speaker 01: The problem across the board here is that the board's looking at VRML [00:36:38] Speaker 01: text documents and not looking at the computer software objects that result. [00:36:42] Speaker 01: That's why you have all these syntactic problems when you look at the syntax of VRML and it's hard to figure out what's included within what or how one thing like the transform node affects something else. [00:36:52] Speaker 01: They're looking in the wrong place. [00:36:55] Speaker 01: The proper place to look for computer software objects is in the programming language C++ code that we submitted and the board ignored. [00:37:02] Speaker 01: Thank you, Ron. [00:37:03] Speaker 00: Any more questions? [00:37:05] Speaker 00: Any more questions? [00:37:07] Speaker 00: Okay. [00:37:07] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:37:07] Speaker 00: Thank you both. [00:37:08] Speaker 00: The case is taken under submission.