[00:00:00] Speaker 04: Let's see is counsel here for the personal audio case? [00:00:15] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:00:15] Speaker 04: Please come forward. [00:00:45] Speaker 04: We'll see. [00:00:48] Speaker 04: I thought I'd see what they said. [00:00:51] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:00:51] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:00:52] Speaker 04: The next argued case is number 16, 1123, personal IOLLC against Electronic Frontier Foundation. [00:01:00] Speaker 04: Mr. Pitcock. [00:01:02] Speaker 01: Thank you, your honor. [00:01:03] Speaker 01: May it please the court. [00:01:06] Speaker 01: This case involves a patent that in 1996 described a new [00:01:13] Speaker 01: apparatus for distributing content over the internet that allowed a compilation file to capture both old episodes in the series as well as new episodes as they became available. [00:01:30] Speaker 00: I think we need to talk about the waiver issues because I have to say people always argue waiver, but these are pretty strong waiver arguments. [00:01:42] Speaker 00: Help me out here. [00:01:43] Speaker 00: Where did you raise these issues with respect to these claim constructions with the board? [00:01:50] Speaker 01: Certainly, Your Honor. [00:01:52] Speaker 01: There are a number of places where, and I'll take them in turn, if you look at episodes in a series, [00:02:35] Speaker 01: I apologize, your honor. [00:02:37] Speaker 01: I pulled the wrong one. [00:02:45] Speaker 01: Throughout the argument at the IPR, we distinguished and talked about things like the Twilight Zone episode, because there are two primary components [00:03:03] Speaker 01: to the issue of the construction of series of episodes. [00:03:08] Speaker 01: One is whether they can all come out at the same time, despite the plain claim language. [00:03:14] Speaker 01: And the other is how related do they have to be? [00:03:18] Speaker 01: And we repeatedly distinguished Compton and Patrick CBC on the grounds that all of the segments both came out at the same time at a given file. [00:03:30] Speaker 01: and we distinguish them because none of the segments had anything in common. [00:03:36] Speaker 01: And in particular in our reply brief, we go through the various citations in the appendix. [00:03:53] Speaker 01: I apologize, Mike. [00:03:54] Speaker 03: Your point is that you were arguing for a claim construction indirectly by the manner in which you were distinguishing prior art. [00:04:03] Speaker 03: Well, I think the question that Judge O'Malley was asking was if you could point in a record to where you had offered a claim construction that was rejected by the board. [00:04:14] Speaker 03: Maybe I didn't hear her correctly. [00:04:16] Speaker 01: Certainly. [00:04:17] Speaker 01: So, Your Honor, the Board did not construe a series of episodes in its opinion. [00:04:24] Speaker 01: We had proposed two differing constructions for it. [00:04:29] Speaker 00: You said that episodes and series of episodes were one and the same. [00:04:34] Speaker 00: And you said the Board's constructions weren't really relevant to your arguments. [00:04:37] Speaker 00: Didn't you say both of those things? [00:04:39] Speaker 01: No. [00:04:39] Speaker 01: What we said was that the claim language [00:04:44] Speaker 01: is very specific. [00:04:47] Speaker 01: And if you simply look at those words in isolation from the remainder of the claim, you might come to a broader meaning of episode. [00:04:59] Speaker 01: But the claim language in claim 31 makes it very clear that episodes in the series have to come out from time to time as new episodes in the series become available. [00:05:10] Speaker 01: It describes the compilation file as including new media files, which are the episodes themselves, which come out as they become available. [00:05:20] Speaker 01: And it describes attribute data that has to come out and describe the currently available episodes, plural, in the series as it becomes available. [00:05:31] Speaker 00: Can you just point to me where and show me in the appendix where you made the argument that this separated in time. [00:05:39] Speaker 00: is an aspect of the series of episodes. [00:05:43] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:05:47] Speaker 01: So if you look at A683, which is during the argument in front of the EFF, and it was raised several times earlier in, I'm sorry, [00:06:06] Speaker 01: If you look at A683 in the appendix, we specifically state, and it's looking at the Compton reference, it's not updated as new episodes become available. [00:06:24] Speaker 01: Instead, each new episode is represented by a different table contents page at a different URL. [00:06:31] Speaker 01: And we argued it both in terms of the compilation file, [00:06:35] Speaker 01: and the series of episodes. [00:06:38] Speaker 01: And we also at the oral hearing, if you look at A767, we specifically say in response to questions by Judge Sneddon, I apologize if I'm mispronouncing his name, [00:07:05] Speaker 01: Then you have to go back and ask another thing about the theme, Judge Ward. [00:07:09] Speaker 01: You were asking about theme. [00:07:10] Speaker 01: You can ask yourself a question. [00:07:12] Speaker 01: Does it matter in which order you watch the news program in? [00:07:15] Speaker 01: If you watch The Vegetable First, is that better than watching Jupiter? [00:07:18] Speaker 01: If it doesn't matter, then it's probably not an episode in a series of episodes. [00:07:23] Speaker 01: There's no relationship to the order that they are in. [00:07:25] Speaker 01: And that's where he's specifically arguing. [00:07:30] Speaker 01: And if you look at the next page, he goes on to argue, you can watch them out of order if you like, to your honor. [00:07:35] Speaker 01: But there's a given order to episodes. [00:07:38] Speaker 01: Typically, for example, if you jump in at House of Cards, which is a common Netflix program, at episode 12, you have no idea what's going on. [00:07:47] Speaker 01: Thematically, you have completely lost the thread. [00:07:51] Speaker 01: That's because a series of episodes, especially in light of this claim language, has an order. [00:07:58] Speaker 01: It has to come out from time to time as new episodes in the series become available. [00:08:04] Speaker 01: And he goes on to argue about the Twilight Zone, because the second part of the argument is, even if they're coming out over time, are they thematically related? [00:08:14] Speaker 01: It's not episodes in a series if you're talking about two different television programs. [00:08:20] Speaker 01: And so for that reason, all of these arguments were raised below in terms of why there was no substantial evidence for this prior art [00:08:33] Speaker 01: anticipating or rendering obvious the claims. [00:08:38] Speaker 01: And there are particular arguments on waiver. [00:08:41] Speaker 01: I mean, you probably also have to step back and ask if they don't have standing to raise these arguments, then are they even in the record at this point? [00:08:54] Speaker 01: In other words, if they don't have standing to raise these arguments, [00:08:58] Speaker 01: have these arguments on waiver themselves been waived by failure of any part? [00:09:03] Speaker 04: Assume the standing. [00:09:04] Speaker 04: And if need be, we'll take that up separately. [00:09:06] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:09:07] Speaker 04: But for your argument on the merits, let's assume they are standing. [00:09:11] Speaker 01: Certainly. [00:09:12] Speaker 01: And we go through this in our reply brief on page 20. [00:09:15] Speaker 01: And we also disputed compilation file specifically. [00:09:22] Speaker 01: First in the response, if you want to look at A663 and 64, [00:09:35] Speaker 01: We, and this is with respect, particularly to Patrick CBC, but we describe how nothing in the disclosure suggests storing an updated version of a compilation file at a storage location determined by a predetermined URL. [00:09:50] Speaker 01: In fact, when the petitioner here first filed their petition, they conceded that this Compton CNN reference didn't anticipate [00:10:03] Speaker 01: Because instead of updating a compilation file, it created a new file every day. [00:10:15] Speaker 01: And you can find that in the petition at A560, which is probably why it wasn't more extensively discussed then. [00:10:25] Speaker 01: When they raised it later, [00:10:32] Speaker 01: And I'm sorry, just to go back, if you look at A560, it says, thus Internet CNN newsroom described all the elements of claim 31 except an updated compilation file. [00:10:44] Speaker 01: Instead, the designers chose to create a new compilation file each day. [00:10:49] Speaker 01: They conceded that this was a difference in the prior art from claim 31, but we nevertheless argued it also when we got to the oral argument. [00:10:59] Speaker 01: If you look at, for example, [00:11:09] Speaker 01: specifically at A760 and 761, Judge Anderson asked directly, do you have a dispute at this time with the construction we gave to compilation file? [00:11:31] Speaker 01: Personal audio responded, yes. [00:11:35] Speaker 01: Here, with either the CNN or CBC references, there is no compilation file. [00:11:41] Speaker 01: Each day is a brand new date in the CNN News. [00:11:44] Speaker 01: And each day on the radio for the Quirk series, which was part of the Patrick CBC reference, an hour show broken in the segments, it's the same show. [00:11:52] Speaker 01: They contain segment information, Your Honor, and they also lack any compilation. [00:11:57] Speaker 01: These arguments were raised below. [00:11:59] Speaker 01: They might have been phrased a little differently. [00:12:02] Speaker 01: They might not have had the same clarity, but I do not believe they were waived. [00:12:08] Speaker 01: These were all raised both, in some cases, both by the petitioner and the respondent. [00:12:13] Speaker 01: And they were certainly addressed at oral argument as being differences from the prior ARC. [00:12:18] Speaker 01: And I believe that those differences result in the board's decision not being supported by substantial evidence. [00:12:29] Speaker 01: Whether you look at it as a claim construction issue or whether you simply look at whether the prior art meets the plain meaning of this claim language. [00:12:40] Speaker 00: So, but in the CNN Compton, there are, when you say it's a new day, but each day is added to the compilation file, correct? [00:12:50] Speaker 01: No, Your Honor, that is incorrect. [00:12:53] Speaker 01: Every day, a bunch of segments from that day's newscast at the same time [00:12:59] Speaker 01: are made available at a single link. [00:13:02] Speaker 01: That link, that information is never updated. [00:13:05] Speaker 01: It's never changed. [00:13:07] Speaker 01: And then the next day for that day's newscast, a different series of little segments is made available. [00:13:16] Speaker 01: That's undisputed how Compton and Patrick CBC work. [00:13:20] Speaker 01: But the old segments remain available. [00:13:23] Speaker 01: Not at the same URL. [00:13:25] Speaker 01: They're not at the same file, Your Honor. [00:13:27] Speaker 01: And that's the big difference is they just, every day, a new URL with new content. [00:13:34] Speaker 01: They never add the new episodes and the old episodes together in the same file. [00:13:41] Speaker 01: That's never done with Compton CNN or Patrick CBC. [00:13:47] Speaker 01: And they're fundamentally different because what they describe is what we stated in our specification [00:13:54] Speaker 01: was in the prior art, which is making new content available at a different location. [00:14:02] Speaker 01: That had been done. [00:14:04] Speaker 01: That had been done not only by CNN, not only by Incompton, but it had been done by others, which we described in our specification. [00:14:15] Speaker 01: This was something new. [00:14:16] Speaker 01: The newness of it was keep going to the same location and continue to get the same thematic content [00:14:24] Speaker 01: in an updated file. [00:14:26] Speaker 01: And that's why the obviousness decision is incorrect as well. [00:14:31] Speaker 01: And it was also argued below, which is that it is not obvious to change searching a site for content that's thematically related and having a file where that content is updated to the file by the system. [00:14:51] Speaker 01: Those are two different things. [00:14:53] Speaker 01: And there's no dispute that CNN and Patrick CBC operated in this different manner, which is why when they first filed their petition, they didn't even claim that CNN and Compton anticipated the claim 31 of our patent. [00:15:14] Speaker 01: So I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:15:16] Speaker 04: Well, I was going to interrupt you since we're about exhausted your time. [00:15:21] Speaker 04: Can you sit tight until your rebuttal and we'll save your rebuttal? [00:15:26] Speaker 01: Absolutely. [00:15:27] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:15:28] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:15:28] Speaker 04: Let's hear from the other side. [00:15:30] Speaker 04: Let's hear from Mr. Brown. [00:15:41] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:15:42] Speaker 02: May it please the Court. [00:15:44] Speaker 02: The Board correctly found that personal audio's claims were [00:15:48] Speaker 02: unpatentable based on the CNN and CBC references. [00:15:52] Speaker 02: The arguments that we're hearing now are very different from the arguments that the board resolved below. [00:15:59] Speaker 02: And fundamentally, we believe the reason the arguments are different is that personal audio's expert admitted below that we were correct on the arguments that they were making below. [00:16:10] Speaker 02: And in particular, the argument that we've just heard here was focused on the idea that there was no waiver [00:16:17] Speaker 02: claim construction arguments about episodes and series of episodes because an argument was made below about whether or not this compilation file was updated. [00:16:27] Speaker 02: Well, their expert conceded below that the compilation file that's disclosed in the reference was updated, and the board so found. [00:16:34] Speaker 02: And so what we have here is a pivot, an attempt to recast this argument, which they lost below because their expert admitted [00:16:42] Speaker 02: that the file was updated to turn it into a claim construction argument about a series of episodes that was not made below. [00:16:51] Speaker 02: Putting that aside and turning to the merits of the argument that we're hearing now about the temporal limitation in episodes and series of episodes, I want to make three points. [00:17:01] Speaker 02: I want to make a point about the claim language, about the specification, and I want to make a point about the examples that their counsel used below in arguing to the board. [00:17:10] Speaker 02: I'm going to start with that. [00:17:12] Speaker 02: They use two examples in arguing below to the board about what was and wasn't an episode. [00:17:19] Speaker 02: They said that the House of Cards Netflix show was an example of something that is episodes. [00:17:27] Speaker 02: But the House of Cards Netflix show is inconsistent with the position they're taking here today about episodes being issued over time. [00:17:34] Speaker 02: Because House of Cards, like all Netflix produced content, a season is released altogether at the same time. [00:17:41] Speaker 02: So all the episodes of season one of House of Cards wouldn't fit the definition or the argument that they're urging here today that require episodes that issue over time at different times. [00:17:55] Speaker 00: We're getting a little far afield though. [00:17:56] Speaker 00: Isn't really the question is whether or not a single segment can be an episode? [00:18:01] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:18:02] Speaker 02: That's absolutely right. [00:18:03] Speaker 00: So that, in other words, a segment of a show could constitute an episode under your view. [00:18:11] Speaker 00: and under the board's view? [00:18:16] Speaker 02: Certainly. [00:18:16] Speaker 02: The CNN reference describes an educational newscast. [00:18:22] Speaker 02: It's 15 minutes long. [00:18:24] Speaker 02: And it typically was broken into three to five news stories. [00:18:28] Speaker 02: And those segments were each several minutes long. [00:18:31] Speaker 02: And those segments were found by the board to be episodes. [00:18:34] Speaker 02: And you're correct. [00:18:35] Speaker 02: That is, in fact, the issue. [00:18:39] Speaker 00: And isn't that what the [00:18:40] Speaker 00: patent says repeatedly referring to the word segments? [00:18:44] Speaker 02: Correct, Your Honor. [00:18:45] Speaker 02: The patent describes what you can think of as tracks on a CD as segments, distinct chunks of content that can be played back or skipped. [00:18:56] Speaker 02: The patent explains that those segments, when they are organized into a series, can be referred to as episodes. [00:19:04] Speaker 02: And it gives examples of the kinds of things that can be organized in this serial way. [00:19:09] Speaker 02: One of the examples it gives is news stories. [00:19:13] Speaker 02: And it explains that the purpose of organizing things into a series of episodes is so that when you've, this is the patent I'm talking about here, when you've selected one of them, that indicates an interest in the complete series and you may then automatically get the complete series. [00:19:29] Speaker 02: Or you can select the entire series to get the episodes within a series. [00:19:34] Speaker 02: So the patent uses as examples of episodic content [00:19:38] Speaker 02: news stories on a particular topic. [00:19:41] Speaker 02: It uses the example of news stories about America's cup races. [00:19:45] Speaker 02: It uses the example of world news, local news, et cetera. [00:19:49] Speaker 02: And so the patent itself describes the type of segments that we see in the prior art as episodes. [00:20:00] Speaker 00: And I can give you the... What about your friend's argument that the compilation file isn't updated with [00:20:07] Speaker 00: prior segments. [00:20:08] Speaker 00: It's only updated within a range of that same day's segments, and then it disappears. [00:20:16] Speaker 02: It doesn't disappear, but it's true that the particular file for a particular day contains only that day's segments. [00:20:26] Speaker 02: So the way the prior reference worked is there was the broadcast of the show, which was automatically recorded. [00:20:33] Speaker 02: There was also [00:20:34] Speaker 02: they captured a file which described the contents of that, that CNN put out by email. [00:20:39] Speaker 02: And there was a program which automatically parsed the file and connected to the video, and it automatically, every day, produced a file called contents.html. [00:20:50] Speaker 02: That same file was produced every day, and it was updated every day to contain the New Day's episodes, the New Day's news segments, the New Day's news stories. [00:21:02] Speaker 02: That was located at a different [00:21:04] Speaker 02: URL every day. [00:21:06] Speaker 03: So if you look at figure one... Updated even though the content could be entirely different. [00:21:13] Speaker 02: The content... Correct, Your Honor. [00:21:14] Speaker 03: It was... Your day one show, if you had five segments on CNN, the day two you could have five segments on five entirely different topics. [00:21:23] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:21:24] Speaker 03: And that's exactly how... That would still be updated. [00:21:26] Speaker 02: Correct, Your Honor. [00:21:27] Speaker 02: That's what we argue below. [00:21:29] Speaker 02: That's what the board found. [00:21:31] Speaker 02: And that's what their expert conceded, was that that file was updated every day. [00:21:35] Speaker 03: The argument he's making here this morning is to the contrary, isn't it? [00:21:42] Speaker 02: We presented in the initial IPR finding arguments which I believe we presented both arguments. [00:21:50] Speaker 02: The argument that if this was not considered to be updating, it was nonetheless obvious. [00:21:58] Speaker 02: And I believe the part that he quoted was the argument we were making below that this was obvious even if [00:22:04] Speaker 02: creating a new file each day was not considered to be an updated version. [00:22:08] Speaker 03: You were saying that you believe that your adversary's expert conceded below that what you were talking about example would be updating, just replacing yesterday's program with today's program. [00:22:22] Speaker 03: But what I heard your adversary argue when he stood up here this morning was to say, no, no, the content has to be related. [00:22:28] Speaker 03: In order to be updated, it has to be related to one another. [00:22:33] Speaker 03: Updating would only be if you updated the stories that you told about yesterday. [00:22:39] Speaker 03: Is that what you heard him to be saying when he was? [00:22:42] Speaker 02: It's not what I heard, but I'll address the argument nonetheless, Your Honor. [00:22:45] Speaker 02: The reason that would be true here is because it is the new version of the CNN newsroom show. [00:22:54] Speaker 02: So it's the same show that's being broadcast daily. [00:22:58] Speaker 02: And you have day one, day two, day three, day four being [00:23:03] Speaker 02: create where a table of contents file, which is the compilation file in question, where that's being put onto the internet. [00:23:10] Speaker 02: If you look at the claim language, I can explain, I think this is important, because the claim language describes two things. [00:23:17] Speaker 02: It describes when this compilation file is updated, and it describes what is within the compilation file. [00:23:24] Speaker 02: And the argument that they have made here in this appeal about the series of episodes and past episodes [00:23:31] Speaker 02: addresses the language in the claim that describes when the compilation file is updated. [00:23:37] Speaker 02: And in particular, the claim says, from time to time, as new episodes represented in said series of episodes become available, storing an updated version of a compilation file. [00:23:50] Speaker 02: That's exactly what the CNN reference does. [00:23:53] Speaker 02: From time to time, as new episodes in said series of episodes become available, every day when the CNN broadcast occurs, [00:24:01] Speaker 02: storing an updated version of a compilation file, creating an updated contents.html table of contents that contains the links and the descriptions to the segments of that show. [00:24:13] Speaker 02: There's a second requirement. [00:24:15] Speaker 02: The second requirement is about the content of the compilation file. [00:24:18] Speaker 02: It says, updated just means different. [00:24:22] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:24:23] Speaker 02: And that's what the board found. [00:24:29] Speaker 02: As I understand it, Your Honor, there's no requirement that the same story, the same... Because what's updated is the version of the compilation file, not the episode itself. [00:24:46] Speaker 03: But the compilation file contains what was the subject of yesterday's broadcast. [00:24:53] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:24:54] Speaker 02: The compilation file is... [00:24:55] Speaker 02: So that was where I was going with the claim language. [00:24:58] Speaker 02: The claim says that the updated version of the compilation file must contain data describing currently available episodes in said series of episodes. [00:25:09] Speaker 02: So the claim doesn't say that there need to be past episodes in the compilation file. [00:25:13] Speaker 02: It says there need to be currently available episodes. [00:25:16] Speaker 02: That's exactly what the prior art does. [00:25:19] Speaker 02: Turning out of the specification, there's a reason that that's what the claim says. [00:25:23] Speaker 02: The specification in the preferred embodiment, what it describes, is a procedure for choosing content to provide to an audio player. [00:25:32] Speaker 02: The compilation file is the mechanism that identifies the content that's to be provided to this audio player. [00:25:39] Speaker 02: And crucially, at column seven of the patent, at lines 10 to 19, the patent explains that this compilation file is for the upcoming session [00:25:52] Speaker 02: It's for what the person is going to listen to next. [00:25:58] Speaker 02: It's not being used as a library. [00:26:01] Speaker 02: There's a separate feature. [00:26:02] Speaker 02: If you look at the figures, you can see there's a library of all of the program segments that might be available to be distributed. [00:26:09] Speaker 02: That is not what the compilation file is. [00:26:12] Speaker 02: It's not intended to be the comprehensive listing of everything that has happened in the past. [00:26:16] Speaker 02: It's intended to be what you're going to get in the future. [00:26:20] Speaker 02: And if you look at column 19, [00:26:24] Speaker 02: Lines? [00:26:24] Speaker 02: 65. [00:26:27] Speaker 02: I'm sorry. [00:26:35] Speaker 02: Let me just get it out of my notes, sir. [00:26:37] Speaker 02: It's at the bottom of column 19, Your Honor. [00:26:42] Speaker 02: Starting at line 60, it describes something called a usage log. [00:26:47] Speaker 02: And it explains, in particular, that the usage log can be used [00:26:51] Speaker 02: to ensure that the subscriber has an opportunity to hear episodes that may have been skipped. [00:26:58] Speaker 02: In other words, when you read the remainder of this, what it's explaining is you have downloaded one compilation file, say you had episode two on that and episode three. [00:27:06] Speaker 02: If you've already listened to episodes two and three, the updated version of the compilation file isn't going to include episodes two and three because you've already listened to them. [00:27:15] Speaker 02: It would include episodes four, et cetera. [00:27:17] Speaker 02: However, if you didn't listen to them, if you skipped them, [00:27:20] Speaker 02: That's the circumstance where the updated compilation file might include the past episode. [00:27:24] Speaker 02: So in the preferred embodiment, there's a good reason why the claim... The preferred embodiment provides a good reason for the claim to be written the way that it is. [00:27:33] Speaker 02: It has a component of when the file is updated, and it has a component of the claim language that describes what the compilation file contains. [00:27:45] Speaker 02: And the part of the claim language that describes what the compilation file must contain says it only needs to contain currently available episodes, which is completely consistent with the preferred embodiment. [00:28:00] Speaker 02: I want to point out one more point about segments. [00:28:04] Speaker 02: In particular, I want to point to [00:28:16] Speaker 02: I believe it's in column 39 of the patent. [00:28:21] Speaker 02: It starts at line 36. [00:28:24] Speaker 02: Here it explains that the invention supports the construction of serialized groups of program segments in which the sequential episode segments may be downloaded one at a time or separately. [00:28:37] Speaker 02: At that portion of the specification, the patentee is expressly equating [00:28:47] Speaker 02: serialized groups of program segments with sequential episode segments. [00:28:52] Speaker 02: So they're clearly saying that these program segments are episodes. [00:28:57] Speaker 02: That was cited by the board but not discussed. [00:29:01] Speaker 02: The segment that the board cited and discussed is the segment in column 19 where they explain, the patent states, a given program segment may represent an episode in a series which is selected as a group by a subscriber. [00:29:15] Speaker 02: So fundamentally, Your Honors, the prior art describes exactly what the claim requires. [00:29:25] Speaker 02: From time to time, as new episodes, as new shows become available, an updated contents.html file is created. [00:29:35] Speaker 02: That compilation file squarely meets the requirement of describing the currently available episodes. [00:29:48] Speaker 02: With that, unless any of your honors have questions. [00:29:51] Speaker 04: Any more questions? [00:29:52] Speaker 02: Would you like me to address the standing issue in any way? [00:29:55] Speaker 04: Thank you, Mr. Brown. [00:29:56] Speaker 04: Mr. Pitcock, you have your rebuttal time. [00:30:06] Speaker 01: Yes, your honor. [00:30:08] Speaker 01: So if you look at [00:30:11] Speaker 01: The portion that council was citing of the specification, which is on appendix page 60 and it's at column 20, starting at about line three, it describes what news stories could be considered a serialized episode. [00:30:33] Speaker 01: And they involve the same topic, America's Cup yacht races in this instance, and [00:30:41] Speaker 01: There's a chronology. [00:30:42] Speaker 01: It evolves over time. [00:30:45] Speaker 01: The prior art here had each day would have a series of segments that had nothing to do with one another. [00:30:54] Speaker 01: There was no order to it. [00:30:58] Speaker 01: You could read them in any order and they had nothing to do with one another. [00:31:01] Speaker 01: And then the next day you'd get a bunch of new segments because the program was too big to just fit on one URL. [00:31:11] Speaker 01: And those wouldn't have anything to do with the day before. [00:31:15] Speaker 01: There's nothing serialized, and there's nothing topical about any of this prior art. [00:31:23] Speaker 01: And that's why the jury that looked at the same prior art decided that it did not anticipate nor render obvious the claim 31 of this patent. [00:31:37] Speaker 01: And that's because the plain language requires [00:31:40] Speaker 01: compilation file with multiple episodes in a series that have something to do with one another and that is never present in the system. [00:31:51] Speaker 01: The only way you ever get in CNN any topics put together is if you search for them essentially with a keyword search and look them up and when you do [00:32:06] Speaker 01: There's no mechanism for giving you new content on that same topic, which was the point of this patent. [00:32:17] Speaker 01: It was to allow you to select something that you were interested in and then to continue to get serialized episodes on the same topic at a single file. [00:32:30] Speaker 01: You didn't have to go searching around. [00:32:31] Speaker 01: You didn't have to go looking for it. [00:32:34] Speaker 01: You didn't have to do all the things that were known in the art. [00:32:38] Speaker 01: Instead, a single file would be updated with multiple episodes in the said series, not a completely new series, which is how opposing counsel is reading these claims. [00:32:52] Speaker 01: The claims say, if you want to look at appendix 75, column 50, line 58 approximately, [00:33:03] Speaker 01: The attribute data in this compilation file has to describe currently available episode in said series of episodes, meaning the same series of episodes, the same related topic. [00:33:16] Speaker 01: And it's a compilation file because it's taking what was there before, and it's adding the new stuff. [00:33:25] Speaker 01: It's not creating a new file. [00:33:30] Speaker 01: creating out of whole cloth something that wasn't there before at a different URL, it's updating a file that was already at a URL with topics that the listener or viewer was interested in and adding those new serialized content to the same file. [00:33:52] Speaker 01: And that's what's described in the patent. [00:33:56] Speaker 01: over and over again, even in the parts that he's trying to cite to, was that you were allowed to select a topic and perhaps the Netflix series wasn't the best example to give. [00:34:10] Speaker 01: He was not giving it in terms of anything having to do with timing. [00:34:15] Speaker 01: He was giving it in terms of having to be the same topic. [00:34:20] Speaker 01: You can't just say, if you look at the CNN newscast and you look at the example, you have articles on Jupiter's moons and garden vegetables and they have nothing to do with one another. [00:34:33] Speaker 01: And if you go to the next URL the next day, they won't have anything to do with the stories that you found at the URL before. [00:34:44] Speaker 01: They're not a serialized sequence. [00:34:46] Speaker 01: It's not episodic. [00:34:48] Speaker 01: This issue was in front of a jury. [00:34:51] Speaker 01: They already decided that CNN and Compton didn't anticipate or render these claims obvious. [00:34:58] Speaker 01: And the board's decision at most is summary. [00:35:01] Speaker 01: They give no rationale for modifying this very different system to the claims of the patent. [00:35:09] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:35:11] Speaker 04: Thank you, Mr. Pickhoff. [00:35:11] Speaker 04: Mr. Brown, the case is taken under submission.