[00:00:00] Speaker 02: Judge Lurie would be proud. [00:00:04] Speaker 00: I was thinking of him. [00:00:16] Speaker 00: In those circumstances, I always say to myself, what would Judge Lurie say? [00:00:37] Speaker 00: You have to bank for these soul traps. [00:01:12] Speaker 00: Council, is it Mr. Padmanabhan? [00:01:14] Speaker 04: Padmanabhan, yes, your honor. [00:01:27] Speaker 04: May it please the court. [00:01:28] Speaker 04: Your honors, this court should reverse the PTAP decision that claims 1 to 6 of the 945 patent is not unpatternable. [00:01:38] Speaker 04: The primary finding of the PTAP [00:01:42] Speaker 04: was that figure two is limited to micker reading in the back office. [00:01:48] Speaker 04: That finding was the basis for its conclusion that element A of claim one and corresponding elements that relate to micker capture at the point of sale was not disclosed. [00:02:02] Speaker 04: And it was also the basis for finding that element C of claim one, which relates to the timing of when [00:02:11] Speaker 04: you receive and scan a physical check to make a digital image is done vis-a-vis the crediting or after crediting the merchant's account. [00:02:20] Speaker 00: Let me ask you a question about the characterization of Figure 2 in 945. [00:02:27] Speaker 00: In your petition for a CBM review, page 78 of the Joint Appendix, you say, a digital image is optional. [00:02:39] Speaker 00: And figure two discloses that it can be made before the merchant's account is credited. [00:02:45] Speaker 00: That's at JA 78. [00:02:48] Speaker 00: Later on in the petition at 118, you say figure two shows that optionally a digital image of a check can be scanned. [00:02:58] Speaker 00: In the PTAS final written decision, page 25 of the joint appendix, it says, according to Bancor, figure two discloses that [00:03:07] Speaker 00: merchant's account can be credited without imaging the check at all, though imaging the check is optional. [00:03:16] Speaker 00: In your blue brief on 21, you say that you attempt to clarify that Bancor never argued that back office conversion does not require an image for the check. [00:03:29] Speaker 00: And in your blue brief at 41, 42, you say Bancor [00:03:36] Speaker 00: quote, never argued that element four of figure two shows that it is optional whether the merchant makes an image scan of the check, but only that it is optional whether the merchant sends the image to the third party payment processor. [00:03:51] Speaker 00: It looks like those are discrepancies to me. [00:03:53] Speaker 04: Your Honor, they're not discrepancies. [00:03:55] Speaker 04: And let me explain in the context of the petition and the other portions you've read. [00:04:02] Speaker 04: If you read it in context, [00:04:05] Speaker 04: The distinction between the two is we were never arguing, whether we were in our full about it, we were never arguing that under back office conversion rules, you do not have to make an image of the check. [00:04:16] Speaker 04: What we were trying to be clear about, and I think those sentences in context do this, is in terms of ACH processing, which is what is in figure two, where it says in box four, the image is optional, it is true that for ACH processing, [00:04:33] Speaker 04: What you need is just the micker information that's read. [00:04:38] Speaker 04: You do not need the image. [00:04:40] Speaker 04: And so when we were making that point, it might have been inaudible, but we've never argued that under Bach rules, that an image itself does not need to be made. [00:04:51] Speaker 04: And so to the extent that the PTAB or they've argued about this mischaracterization, none of it is relevant to element C of this claim. [00:05:03] Speaker 04: In other words, making that image has never been the issue. [00:05:07] Speaker 04: The issue on the timing really is when are you submitting that micro information so that you can process through the ACH network so that you can see if the timing step, in other words, when you're making the actual image of the check is after the crediting to the merchant. [00:05:25] Speaker 04: And so in our petition and throughout our briefing, we've tried to be clear about that, but we've never [00:05:31] Speaker 04: We've never articulated actually that under Bach rules an image did not have to be made. [00:05:37] Speaker 04: And let me step back just one second and explain. [00:05:40] Speaker 04: The fundamental difference between us and the PTAB really is there's a difference in this art and in the patents between reading the Micker information and scanning the check. [00:05:54] Speaker 04: If you look at the record in the prior art, [00:05:59] Speaker 04: When you read the micker information, what that means is running the check through a reader so that it reads the magnetic information at the bottom of the check. [00:06:06] Speaker 04: That is then used for ACH processing, as in figure one with POP. [00:06:11] Speaker 04: It could be used in ACH processing, as in figure two with POP, as their expert testified at appendix page 502, 503. [00:06:22] Speaker 04: That can be used and has historically been used for check validation separately [00:06:29] Speaker 04: In this art, there is scanning of the actual physical check to make an image. [00:06:34] Speaker 04: As it says in the background of the patent, that involves actually just using a scanner and creating a digital image. [00:06:42] Speaker 04: That image has been used in Check 21 to make substitute checks. [00:06:46] Speaker 04: It is also in Figure 1 as an option that you can have an image of the check. [00:06:51] Speaker 03: Didn't the PTEM here, because you specifically relied on Figure 2 in your petition, they limited their review to Figure 2, and they didn't consider Figure 1, right? [00:07:02] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor, and really the only reason we're bringing up Figure 1, the combination we're relying on is Figure 2 with Randall. [00:07:13] Speaker 04: When you're looking at figure two, the way you can analyze figure two to understand what's being disclosed in figure two, as your case law provides, is to give context based on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand. [00:07:24] Speaker 04: That person would understand pop, which is in figure one. [00:07:28] Speaker 04: That person would understand Bach rules, which the patentee admits is prior art. [00:07:34] Speaker 04: So when you look at those figures, you see that in figure one, it tells you exactly where the micker information is read, [00:07:41] Speaker 04: and if you decide to make an image where it's done, at the point of sale. [00:07:45] Speaker 03: In figure two. [00:07:46] Speaker 03: But it's not, you said if you decide to make an image, right? [00:07:50] Speaker 03: If you decide to make an image. [00:07:51] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:07:52] Speaker 03: So it's not inherent, it's not. [00:07:54] Speaker 04: Oh, and I'm not arguing it is at all. [00:07:56] Speaker 04: And so in figure two, what it tells you is, for the merchant, it's back office conversion, and it tells you the steps you have to do under back office conversion. [00:08:05] Speaker 04: So under Randall, under your case in Randall, a person of ordinary skill comes to that, [00:08:10] Speaker 04: knowing certain rules about back office conversion. [00:08:14] Speaker 04: They know you have to read the micker information and that's separate from reading the scanned image. [00:08:19] Speaker 04: The mistake the patent office makes is in concluding that figure two limits it to micker reading in the back office, every sentence the patent office analyzes to support that deals only with scanning the image. [00:08:36] Speaker 04: It does not deal with micker reading. [00:08:38] Speaker 04: So if you look at appendix page 20, [00:08:41] Speaker 04: where they quote Mr. Cefici, that sentence only deals with scanning, scanning the images. [00:08:47] Speaker 04: If you look at appendix page 21, again, they quote Mr. Cefici's testimony. [00:08:53] Speaker 04: Again, that goes to figure two, but again, to scanning the paper checks. [00:08:57] Speaker 04: If you look at appendix page 23, where they quote the patent, they say the nine, four or five patents says that in traditional Bach process, merchants scan their checks in the back office. [00:09:10] Speaker 04: If you look at that sentence at the bottom of column two, the very next sentence at the top of column three says, it's a scanner that creates that image. [00:09:19] Speaker 04: It is then stored with the micker information. [00:09:24] Speaker 04: There's nothing in any of the evidence that the PTAB relies upon that a person would find, a reasonable person or any person would find adequate to support where the micker read is done. [00:09:36] Speaker 04: It's true that the patent discloses specifics about where the scan of the image is done in the back office. [00:09:43] Speaker 04: But for the patent office to improperly limit figure two to where the micker read is done at the back office, there is no basis for it. [00:09:53] Speaker 04: And the evidence that they've cited to doesn't support it. [00:09:56] Speaker 04: In fact, the evidence that they did not address would support it. [00:10:01] Speaker 04: For instance, it's clear from the patent [00:10:06] Speaker 04: the back office conversion, a set of rules. [00:10:09] Speaker 04: Their expert, Mr. Soffici, at page, appendix page 387, made clear that, in his direct testimony, made clear that in back office conversion rules, the micro read does not have to happen concurrently with the image scan. [00:10:27] Speaker 04: So what does that mean? [00:10:29] Speaker 04: If the patent discloses that the scanning of the image has to happen in the back office, [00:10:34] Speaker 04: a person of ordinary skill in the art, knowing exactly what Mr. Safice said about the Bach rules, knows the micker read does not have to happen at the same time as the image scan of the check. [00:10:46] Speaker 04: Similarly, when we deposed Mr. Safice on this point, he said under the rules, and this is at appendix page 395, he agreed that under Bach, under the plain Bach rules, the micker read can happen at the point of sale. [00:11:02] Speaker 04: The Patent Office ignored all of it, and the evidence the Patent Office relies on exclusively is on scanning the physical check to make an image, whereas the claim language we're talking about has to do with reading the MICR information from the check for ACH processing. [00:11:22] Speaker 04: And so those are two different things. [00:11:24] Speaker 04: And nothing that the Patent Office has relied upon would be not even sufficient evidence, just not relevant evidence to decide where micro reading happens. [00:11:35] Speaker 02: I know this isn't in this case before us, but did you make a 101 argument in your petition? [00:11:40] Speaker 02: We did, Your Honor. [00:11:41] Speaker 02: Did the Patent Office explain why it wasn't instituting on 101? [00:11:45] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:11:47] Speaker 04: I mean, if I remember correctly, [00:11:48] Speaker 04: It was because they said there were enough steps done by some of the other people involved in the method for why they didn't think it was, they thought it was patent eligible subject matter, effectively. [00:12:01] Speaker 02: Thanks. [00:12:01] Speaker 02: I was just curious. [00:12:03] Speaker 03: What do you mean, there were enough steps performed by? [00:12:06] Speaker 04: I'm sorry. [00:12:06] Speaker 04: So when we argued that this was a 101 problem under Alice, the Patent Office didn't grant on that issue. [00:12:14] Speaker 04: If I remember correctly, the main reason was [00:12:17] Speaker 04: They believed there were other patents in this area, and that there were enough participants. [00:12:22] Speaker 04: There was the scanner. [00:12:23] Speaker 04: There was the other pieces of equipment that were involved, the scanning for the image, the micker reading for the micker reader, and part of the robot. [00:12:31] Speaker 02: Even though those are all very conventional elements. [00:12:33] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:12:35] Speaker 04: We agree, Your Honor. [00:12:36] Speaker 04: But the patent office did not grant on that issue. [00:12:40] Speaker 04: Otherwise, that was our focus of our petition. [00:12:43] Speaker 04: the first round of our petition. [00:12:45] Speaker 00: You're into your rebuttal time, just so you know. [00:12:56] Speaker 01: So I get to be the last thing between court and lunch. [00:13:02] Speaker 01: Well, other than the rebuttal time, yeah. [00:13:04] Speaker 00: Fair enough, fair enough. [00:13:05] Speaker 01: There are three more minutes. [00:13:06] Speaker 00: I'm going out and washing my hair. [00:13:10] Speaker 01: You were looking forward to that one. [00:13:14] Speaker 01: The board made a factual finding here, made a couple of key factual findings that are what's before the court. [00:13:20] Speaker 01: The first one has to do with step A of claim one of our patent. [00:13:23] Speaker 01: And the factual finding was that figure two did not disclose what claim one of our patent, step A, refers to about data captured at the merchant's point of purchase. [00:13:37] Speaker 01: And the board for that finding cited the petition, cited figure two, [00:13:44] Speaker 01: cited discussion in the patent about Figure 2, cited expert testimony on that very point, and reached and explained its conclusion. [00:13:53] Speaker 01: This is dispositive of the case because that's sort of a finding. [00:13:58] Speaker 01: What does the prior art teach? [00:14:01] Speaker 01: And what are the differences between the claims and the prior art are factual findings that are reviewed for substantial evidence. [00:14:09] Speaker 01: And the substantial evidence is what I just mentioned. [00:14:13] Speaker 01: If you look at figure two, you've got this box right in the middle of it. [00:14:16] Speaker 03: Do you agree that figure one discloses step A of claim one? [00:14:23] Speaker 01: Figure one discloses capturing data at the merchant's point of purchase. [00:14:26] Speaker 01: Yeah, that's part of the presentation that we made to the board. [00:14:30] Speaker 01: And that's actually the perfect jumping off point, because one of the points we made to the board that the board cites in its decision is the difference between figure one and figure two. [00:14:42] Speaker 01: that in the middle of figure two, you have this box that shows the key amount, Reed, Meeker, and scanned image. [00:14:50] Speaker 01: And there's a similar box in figure one. [00:14:53] Speaker 01: And in figure one, it says point of sale. [00:14:56] Speaker 01: And in figure two, it doesn't say point of sale. [00:14:59] Speaker 01: It says back office conversion. [00:15:01] Speaker 01: So that difference seemed significant in evaluating what does figure two disclose. [00:15:09] Speaker 01: The US bank's position, of course, now is no, no. [00:15:11] Speaker 01: The fact that it says back office conversion doesn't mean that that's where it takes place. [00:15:17] Speaker 01: It just means that those are the three things that need to happen. [00:15:21] Speaker 01: US Bank makes that argument in its brief starting at page 35, says it again in its reply brief, page 14. [00:15:31] Speaker 01: And the core of its argument you'll find at page 37 of US Bank's brief, where it's criticizing the board's decision. [00:15:40] Speaker 01: and saying that that decision was not supported by substantial evidence. [00:15:45] Speaker 01: And here's what US Bank tells this court. [00:15:48] Speaker 01: This finding is not supported by substantial evidence because figure two does not show a system for converting a check in the merchant's back office. [00:15:59] Speaker 01: It shows an implementation of back office conversion. [00:16:03] Speaker 01: Close quote. [00:16:04] Speaker 01: That's on US Bank's brief at page 37. [00:16:08] Speaker 01: especially from the perspective of this court reviewing whether there's substantial evidence for the board's decision, is that the patent's description of figure two is exactly the opposite of what US Bank is telling the court. [00:16:22] Speaker 01: US Bank says figure two does not show a system for converting a check in the merchant's back office. [00:16:27] Speaker 01: But when you look at column five, lines one, starting at line one of the 945 patent, it says figure two shows a prior art system. [00:16:38] Speaker 01: for converting a check in the merchant's back office. [00:16:43] Speaker 01: Uses the exact same words that US Bank has used, but just says them in the opposite way. [00:16:50] Speaker 01: And you also can find this very similar language at column four of our patent, just on the appendix page 50, lines 27 through 29, where the patent says, figure two is a schematic representation [00:17:07] Speaker 01: of a prior art method of converting a check in the back office. [00:17:13] Speaker 01: So US Bank has pointed to these three things that it says need to happen, key amount, read maker, and scanned image. [00:17:22] Speaker 01: And US Bank is telling you that figure two doesn't say where those tasks are performed. [00:17:30] Speaker 01: But the two places in the patent that tell you what figure two is do tell you where they're performed. [00:17:38] Speaker 01: They're performed in the back office. [00:17:40] Speaker 01: The board cited column five, starting at line one, at page 19 of its decision. [00:17:49] Speaker 01: It quoted the exact words that US Bank is now contradicting in its brief to this court. [00:17:57] Speaker 01: The board didn't happen to cite column four, lines 27 through 29, but they provide for virtually the same thing. [00:18:05] Speaker 01: It's not exactly the same thing. [00:18:06] Speaker 01: They just don't use the word merchants. [00:18:07] Speaker 01: They say back office. [00:18:11] Speaker 01: In addition to this substantial evidence from Figure 2 itself and our patent's description of Figure 2, the board also relied on the testimony of the expert Bill Cefisi. [00:18:24] Speaker 01: And you've heard talk in US Bank's brief and some this morning about that. [00:18:30] Speaker 01: US Bank comes to this court. [00:18:32] Speaker 01: and says on page 11 of its reply in the fourth bullet point, patent owner's expert's testimony was not that figure two performs micker and image capture in the back office. [00:18:48] Speaker 01: It's on page 11 of U.S. [00:18:49] Speaker 01: Bank's reply in the fourth bullet. [00:18:52] Speaker 01: That's just flat out wrong. [00:18:55] Speaker 01: When you look at Mr. Safisi's testimony, you find that that is exactly what he said, first at [00:19:02] Speaker 01: Appendix page 514 in paragraph 32 of his direct testimony Mr.. Sufisi says it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that figure 2 teaches and then in part D in the back office a check image scanning device is used to read the front and back of each check creating an image of both the front and back and captures the micker law that page appendix page 526 is [00:19:31] Speaker 01: Safisi paragraph 46, he says, a person of ordinary skill would see that figure two performs micker and image capture in the back office, not at the point of purchase. [00:19:44] Speaker 01: So the very thing that US Bank tells you on page 11 of its reply that the expert didn't say, he says very clearly multiple times. [00:19:54] Speaker 01: This is also part of the substantial evidence that supports the board's decision about what figure two discloses. [00:20:02] Speaker 01: US Bank has made the argument, and it mentioned it again this morning, attempting to encourage this court to draw a big distinction between the word scanning and the word reading, and wants the court to believe that the word scanning refers only to capturing an image, and that reading is the only way to talk about capturing the micker information. [00:20:24] Speaker 01: Of course, as we've just seen, the word capture gets used as well. [00:20:29] Speaker 01: There's not some magic to the word scanning or the word reading. [00:20:34] Speaker 01: But even between scanning and reading, the U.S. [00:20:38] Speaker 01: bank brief itself at page 44 talks about scanning micker information twice. [00:20:44] Speaker 01: The Randall reference upon which they rely talks about scanning micker information in the two places we note in our brief at appendix pages 316 and 324. [00:20:56] Speaker 01: It also happens to do it [00:20:58] Speaker 01: at appendix pages 321 and 323, speaking of scanning Micker information. [00:21:04] Speaker 01: And then even in the 945 patent, and this isn't in our brief, but in the 945 patent in Figure 4, in the element toward the top right of Figure 4, 109, it says, Micker is scanned and associated with a mount. [00:21:24] Speaker 01: So this distinction that [00:21:27] Speaker 01: Council is urging just doesn't exist in either the patent or the prior art or US Bank's own brief. [00:21:38] Speaker 01: US Bank, perhaps to try to get around this challenge of all this substantial evidence that the board had in front of it to make its decision, also argues, makes an argument in its brief in this court. [00:21:52] Speaker 01: In fact, on page one, when it's stating the issues, it says, [00:21:56] Speaker 01: The first issue before this court is whether the board's failure to conduct a proper analysis as required under Randall Manufacturing versus Ray requires reversing. [00:22:08] Speaker 01: The first thing to note is that there may be a sub-issue there, which is can a party come into this court and ask your honors to reverse the board for failing to apply a case that U.S. [00:22:21] Speaker 01: Bank never mentioned to the board. [00:22:24] Speaker 01: In its 77 pages of petition, and its 18 pages of reply, and in all the oral argument at the trial final hearing, nothing was said about the Randall Manufacturing versus Wray case. [00:22:36] Speaker 01: As to the substance of the Randall Manufacturing versus Wray case, it doesn't do what US Bank hopes to persuade this court to do, which is to try to look elsewhere at unasserted prior art like figure one, or like what [00:22:52] Speaker 01: might happen under a different type of check processing system and use those unasserted references in order to decide what figure two discloses. [00:23:02] Speaker 01: That's not what the Randall Manufacturing versus Ray case did at all. [00:23:06] Speaker 01: The Randall Manufacturing versus Ray case took a decision from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that allowed some claims relating to partition walls and found that that board [00:23:21] Speaker 01: had failed to take into account what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, what the state of the art was at the time of the invention, when making the decision about whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to combine the references. [00:23:38] Speaker 01: That's at page 1362 of the Randall manufacturing case. [00:23:42] Speaker 01: Then on page 1363, this court holds or says that the significance of these unasserted references [00:23:50] Speaker 01: did not depend upon any attempt to change the combination. [00:23:54] Speaker 01: In other words, the question there was, can you look at what a person of ordinary skill knows, as opposed to just looking at the asserted references themselves, and evaluate whether the person of ordinary skill would have wanted to combine the references. [00:24:11] Speaker 01: And it should be no surprise that this court reached the conclusion that yes, under KSR, you can look at what a person of ordinary skill knows, [00:24:18] Speaker 01: in deciding whether to combine the references. [00:24:20] Speaker 01: The difference is, and this is the critical difference, in the Randall Manufacturing versus Ray case, all of the elements that were being challenged in the claim at issue were found in the asserted references. [00:24:33] Speaker 01: There was one called Aquino and one called Gibbs. [00:24:35] Speaker 01: Aquino lacked a certain feature that Gibbs had, and the question is whether you can put them together. [00:24:41] Speaker 01: That's not the question here, especially as to step A, [00:24:47] Speaker 01: There's only one reference that's being asserted. [00:24:49] Speaker 01: There's no combination of references that US Bank is asserting against our patents step A. It's only figure two. [00:24:57] Speaker 01: The Randall reference doesn't factor in here. [00:25:00] Speaker 01: So if US Bank were to prevail on this view, it would change obviousness law into something unrecognizable, because you'd have a board that's asking itself the question, does reference A teach element X? [00:25:15] Speaker 01: And U.S. [00:25:16] Speaker 01: Bank would have the board ask itself, well, can I find element X in some other background reference? [00:25:23] Speaker 01: That's not what random manufacturing says. [00:25:25] Speaker 01: That's not what any precedent from this court has said. [00:25:29] Speaker 01: The other question that U.S. [00:25:30] Speaker 01: Bank urges the court to ask is, would it have been legal to find element X or to practice element X within the context of figure two? [00:25:41] Speaker 01: They're invoking [00:25:43] Speaker 01: What they say is evidence of the back office conversion regulations. [00:25:48] Speaker 01: The question is not whether it would have been legal to do it. [00:25:52] Speaker 01: The fact that, in fact, if we had invented something that was illegal to do, it wouldn't be very useful. [00:25:57] Speaker 01: That doesn't tell you what figure two itself discloses about where the capture of micker data is done. [00:26:08] Speaker 01: The last point on that is the discussion [00:26:13] Speaker 01: U.S. [00:26:13] Speaker 01: Bank's brief and this morning emphasizes testimony that the expert gave, Mr. Sofisi. [00:26:19] Speaker 01: And when you peel that back, it becomes quite an example of hindsight bias. [00:26:25] Speaker 01: So the argument that you've heard, it's at page 32 of U.S. [00:26:28] Speaker 01: Bank's brief, that Mr. Sofisi's testimony, that the rules didn't require you to do back-micker capture in the back office. [00:26:38] Speaker 01: Mr. Sofisi's testimony on this point was not simply his own unsupported opinion, [00:26:42] Speaker 01: For this fact, Mr. Sofisi quotes from a report by Sellent, a well-respected research and consulting firm. [00:26:47] Speaker 01: This is at appendix pages 503 and 504. [00:26:53] Speaker 01: That's the Sofisi testimony they're citing. [00:26:55] Speaker 01: When you go to appendix pages 503 and 504 and see what Mr. Sofisi is actually citing from Sellent, he's citing Sellent's discussion of Solyutrans, my client's invention. [00:27:09] Speaker 01: And in that discussion on page 504 of the appendix, the report refers to this model first introduced by Salyutran and says that this approach may be hard to beat, which turns out to be true. [00:27:21] Speaker 01: But the very evidence that US Bank is urging this court to use to invalidate our patent is evidence that's invoking the fact that Salyutran came up with this first. [00:27:33] Speaker 01: It wasn't from the face of the report. [00:27:38] Speaker 01: something that a person of ordinary skill would already have known. [00:27:42] Speaker 01: As to step C, and I see my time is coming to a close, the mischaracterization of figure two that was the subject of a colloquy at the beginning of the argument is not just in artful stating on occasion or two. [00:27:59] Speaker 01: As we lay out in our brief, it was over and over and over. [00:28:03] Speaker 01: And it was not only an egregious mischaracterization, [00:28:06] Speaker 01: It was a relevant one because it was the core of their position on combining the references and on this reordering argument that they made. [00:28:15] Speaker 01: That was a fair basis on which the board made a decision to reject the U.S. [00:28:20] Speaker 01: bank's position as to succeed. [00:28:38] Speaker 04: Your Honor, I'm going to start with Randall, just because the legal error is, in Randall, this court made clear that when the board is looking at the prior art, they have to look at it through the context of a person of ordinary skill in the art. [00:28:53] Speaker 04: And what they specifically point to and they say is, you have to look at the background knowledge possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. [00:29:01] Speaker 04: And in this case, when you're looking at figure two, and you see the words back office conversion, [00:29:07] Speaker 04: The patent itself tells you at the bottom of column two, which is your appendix 49, that back-office conversion is a set of rules that have been passed. [00:29:16] Speaker 04: They even quote the term back-office conversion just as it is in column two. [00:29:21] Speaker 04: And what that provides is a set of rules that you know apply to this. [00:29:25] Speaker 04: And one of those rules is what Mr. Sofici testified to, which is you can read the MIQRA information at the point of sale. [00:29:34] Speaker 04: And it also tells you that the reading of the micker information and scanning of the image don't have to happen concurrently. [00:29:41] Speaker 04: That is knowledge. [00:29:42] Speaker 04: That is context that provides for reading figure two. [00:29:45] Speaker 04: If you look at the evidence that they and the patent office simply fail to do that, the patent office never recognizes that POP allows for micker reading to happen at the point of sale. [00:29:54] Speaker 04: Patent office never recognizes the fact that the BOK rules, the back office conversion rules themselves, allow for the micker reading to happen at the point of sale. [00:30:03] Speaker 04: or in the back office. [00:30:05] Speaker 04: The evidence that they rely on from Mr. Safice, if you look at it, for example, on column 46, where he, I mean, I'm sorry, on page four, paragraph 46, which is appendix page 526, he's quoting from the patent. [00:30:20] Speaker 04: And every sentence they quote from the patent, I gave you the two, three pages from the board opinion, but every sentence they quote, whenever he's analyzing and he's quoting from the patent, each of those sentences only go to scan. [00:30:31] Speaker 04: they never go to the location of where the micker is read. [00:30:35] Speaker 04: And the importance of that is the claim and limitation we're all looking at is element A, which talks about micker reading. [00:30:42] Speaker 04: It is not talking about scanning the check. [00:30:44] Speaker 04: And the only time they combine, the only sentence with regard to figure two where they combine the two, which is in paragraph 46, Mr. Sofici quotes. [00:30:56] Speaker 04: He has part of a sentence where he says, which merchants scan their checks in a back office typically at the end of the day. [00:31:01] Speaker 04: The scanners capture an image of the check and store the image with the MICKR data from the check. [00:31:09] Speaker 04: So the scanners capture the image of the check, they store it with MICKR data. [00:31:13] Speaker 04: There's nothing in this patent about figure two where they say where the MICKR data has to be actually captured. [00:31:21] Speaker 04: And the way figure two is set up, because it says back office conversion, that doesn't say the location is in the back office. [00:31:29] Speaker 04: The patent itself tells you at the bottom of figure two [00:31:31] Speaker 04: Quote, back office conversion is this set of rules that NACHA passed. [00:31:35] Speaker 04: So using Randall and what's in the patent, the only real interpretation of figure two is to say figure two discloses both capturing micker information at the point of sale or in the back office. [00:31:52] Speaker 04: The evidence that the patent office explicitly relies on in its order [00:31:56] Speaker 04: just does not support its conclusion that back office can, for a micker reading, it must happen in the back office. [00:32:05] Speaker 04: I think with that, I'll stop. [00:32:08] Speaker 00: Thank you, Counsel. [00:32:08] Speaker 00: The matters will stand submitted.