[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
We have five cases on the calendar this morning, two related statute cases, a case from the Board of Contract Appeals, a government employee case, and the last, which has been submitted on the briefs, is jointly from district court and the Court of Federal Claims.

[00:00:25] Speaker 04:
First case is

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
Somewhat misnamed, since it's the first case, not the ultimate, is Ultimate Pointer versus Nintendo 2015-12-97, Mr. Rogers.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
Okay, please report.

[00:01:06] Speaker 00:
My name is Charles Rogers from the law firm of Connelly Rose and I have here with me today my colleague Tom Warden from the Connelly Rose law firm.

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
Have you propounded a construction for image sensor anywhere?

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:01:23] Speaker 00:
Something at page 53, is that it?

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure about the page number, but for my notes, we have ordinary meaning, and we propose the ordinary meaning as a sensing device able to capture an image.

[00:01:44] Speaker 00:
And the site to that in the joint appendix is 98.

[00:02:11] Speaker 04:
Why isn't the handheld device pointing device direct pointing advice since the specification clearly suggests that?

[00:02:24] Speaker 04:
And in fact, the title of the pattern is direct pointing.

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
The reason why is, you know, there's a question as to whether or not

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
I mean, we know where direct pointing comes from.

[00:02:40] Speaker 00:
It comes from the specification.

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
It's imported from the specification into the claims.

[00:02:44] Speaker 00:
So it's really a question of whether this is improper importing of limitations from the specification or just a proper reading of the claims in light of the specification.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
And the claim construction rules that we use to determine which side of the line it is, is lexicography, when a claim term is explicitly defined in the spec.

[00:03:06] Speaker 00:
and disavow or disclaimer.

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
And this is not a situation of lexicography because handheld device.

[00:03:11] Speaker 00:
That's not correct.

[00:03:12] Speaker 05:
I mean, under Phillips, specification is always relevant.

[00:03:16] Speaker 05:
And you look to the specification to see whether it implicitly defines the term.

[00:03:22] Speaker 05:
And there's a pretty good argument here that the specification suggests that direct pointing is the way to go and that indirect is disfavored.

[00:03:36] Speaker 00:
Well, the argument from Nintendo is not lexicography because handheld device is not defined.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
No, it doesn't have to be lexicography.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
It's a disavowal argument.

[00:03:51] Speaker 00:
It's a disclaimer.

[00:03:52] Speaker 05:
No, it doesn't need to be either one of those.

[00:03:54] Speaker 05:
It doesn't have to be either one of those under Phillips.

[00:03:57] Speaker 05:
It can be you look to the specification under all circumstances to see what the term means.

[00:04:04] Speaker 05:
And you look at the specification here, and there's an implicit definition of the term by favoring direct pointing.

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
And how I would characterize that is like the court did, the district court, is the gist of the invention or the invention as a whole

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
And the way I look at it is you look to where it came from.

[00:04:28] Speaker 00:
And you look in the spec, there is discussions of direct pointing, indirect pointing, and mixed direct and indirect.

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
They're put into categories.

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
Indirect is described as less natural, less accurate, and slower in 729.

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
It's criticized.

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
like you said, and so is direct pointing criticized.

[00:04:58] Speaker 00:
And so what we should do is look to specifically what the criticism is of the indirect pointing.

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
Is it indirect pointing itself, or is it a particular aspect of indirect pointing?

[00:05:11] Speaker 00:
And what you're referring to is at column two of the patent, lines 33 to 37, and where it says that

[00:05:24] Speaker 00:
direct pointing is less natural to the human operators of such systems.

[00:05:28] Speaker 00:
You look at the preceding sentence, it says, give some reasons, and it says, and hence, less natural to the human operators of such system.

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
Well, what's the reason?

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
Why is it less natural?

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
And what it says starting at line 33, it says, and this is criticism of the group of prior patents that are classified as indirect pointing, and the criticism is,

[00:05:53] Speaker 00:
that there is no information on the actual position or presentation displayed with respect to the system, causing the resulting pointing action to be inherently indirect and hence less natural.

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
And so you look at that criticism and you say, does that result in us reading the claim to require direct pointing?

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
And the answer is no.

[00:06:15] Speaker 00:
What it requires is that you read the claims to have this requirement.

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
to have information on the actual position of the presentation display.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
And that's in the claims, not at the handheld device.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
It's in the claims, for example, claim five is one example where in the preamble it says the calibration points are provided in a predetermined relationship to the image.

[00:06:41] Speaker 00:
So this criticism of indirect pointing makes its way into the claims, not where the handheld device is.

[00:06:48] Speaker 00:
So that's why

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
direct pointing shouldn't be read into the handheld device.

[00:06:54] Speaker 00:
And we have enough requirements in the claim to coincide with this criticism of indirect pointing.

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
That's how the inventor handled it.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
The inventor classified objects into prior art into direct pointing, indirect pointing, and mix.

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
And they knew what those claims were.

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
They specifically defined them.

[00:07:14] Speaker 00:
And there's a reason they didn't use those claims then in the claims, specifically didn't use them.

[00:07:20] Speaker 00:
So you shouldn't read those in, especially when you have not only direct pointing and indirect pointing, you have mixed.

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
So there's this gray area, and mixed, direct, and indirect.

[00:07:32] Speaker 00:
And then you have the issue of, once you define something as direct pointing, how direct does it have to be?

[00:07:37] Speaker 04:
If we don't agree with you on that, and there's judgment of non-affringement because these things doesn't use direct pointing, then do the other plane constructions matter?

[00:07:51] Speaker 00:
The image sensor claim construction matters.

[00:07:54] Speaker 04:
Non-infringement is non-infringement.

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
Well, I'm sorry.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
I misunderstood you.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
I thought you meant to say if you read direct pointing into the claims, don't reverse that claim construction.

[00:08:07] Speaker 00:
There's still a question of whether or not the device infringes under that interpretation.

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
So of course, if you find that there's no infringement, if you find that the claim construction requires direct pointing,

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
and that there's no infringement because of that, then no, you don't reach the other issues.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
But our position is, and so let's go with the assumption that the claim construction is not corrected to remove direct pointing.

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
Let's say you find that direct pointing is required in the claims.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
Then the question is, what's direct pointing?

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
And even if direct pointing is required, there's still infringement because the we

[00:08:47] Speaker 00:
remote is still a direct pointing device.

[00:08:50] Speaker 00:
If you look at... It's directly pointing at something else.

[00:08:56] Speaker 00:
When a user uses the Wii remote, they point at the screen.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
They point at the object on the screen that they're trying to control.

[00:09:07] Speaker 04:
One might say you have direct pointing.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry?

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
One might say that you would just direct point.

[00:09:12] Speaker 00:
And I was pointing in between judges.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
Not to be rude to point directly at a person.

[00:09:18] Speaker 00:
But yes, that is direct pointing.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
And these motions that I'm using is what my children do when they play the Wii.

[00:09:27] Speaker 00:
They point at the screen.

[00:09:29] Speaker 00:
They point at what they're trying to control on the screen.

[00:09:30] Speaker 00:
And that's direct pointing.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
If you look at the district court's summary judgment ruling, there is enough fact findings in the summary judgment order where they find no infringement.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
there's enough fact findings in there to find that there is infringement.

[00:09:49] Speaker 00:
If you look at the court's ruling, the Washington's court's ruling, it's A37 in the joint appendix.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
The court starts out by describing the configuration of the Wii system when it's configured according to the instructions, according to the user manuals, where you put the sensor bar directly above or below the TV screen and you tell

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
the Wii system, the user tells the system where the sensor bar is located.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
So you know there's this direct relationship between the display and the sensor bar and the calibration points.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
And it says, the court says, if the sensor bar is placed directly above or below the screen as directed in the operations manual, the remote will pick up the LED lights when it is aimed at the screen and the approximate intersection of the physical point of aim with the screen, giving the user the impression of direct pointing.

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
That's direct pointing.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
But then there's a criticism.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
It says, but the weeds not collect or generate the data that would be necessary to accurately place a cursor on the screen.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
So what the court is saying is, well, you have direct pointing, but it's not close enough.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
Is it direct pointing if the sensor bar is off to one side?

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
If the sensor bar is off to one side, what you're doing is you're taking the accused device and you're configuring it in a manner that is contrary to the instructions.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
Does it work?

[00:11:14] Speaker 00:
Does it work if you put it to the side?

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
It uses triangulation, right?

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
You're changing the relationship of the calibration points contrary to the user manual, to the way the device is intended to be constructed.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
So it's really not a relevant issue in the case.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
You're pointing, because the device operates by using the direct relationship

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
between the calibration points and the display, if you change that relationship, it changes how it works.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
But for a district court to give enough findings to find infringement and to say, well, if we configure the product contrary to the way it's supposed to be used, contrary to the way the manufacturer tells it to be used, and therefore it doesn't infringe, first of all, that's not the way the analysis should be done in the first place.

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
But just because

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
it infringes when you configure it in one manner doesn't mean that it never infringes.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
It still infringes in the manner that it's designed to be constructed.

[00:12:21] Speaker 04:
And if you look further... You're into your rebuttal time, Mr. Rogers.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
You can continue or you can save it.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
The only thing I wanted to point out was that if you take a look at what issues are remaining in the case, I wanted to make sure that you understood that if you do

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
go through the direct pointing in the image sensor and correct them, or at least find that there's genuine issues of material fact, even under the claim constructions, that the other claim instruction issue is data of the calibration points.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
That's briefed at pages 39 through 42 of our brief.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
Data of the calibration points actually is in the 729 patent as well.

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
That's why I wanted to point it out, that it's still an issue in the case.

[00:13:08] Speaker 00:
It's- Would you dismiss the claims on the 321?

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
On the 321.

[00:13:13] Speaker 00:
But this data, the calibration points, is in the 729 patent as well.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
And it would be an important issue.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
If there is a remand, it would be an important issue.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
And we ask that you exercise your discretion to correct that claim construction as well.

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
And I'll reserve the rest of my time for a vote.

[00:13:28] Speaker 04:
We're going to do that for you, Mr. Rogers.

[00:13:29] Speaker 04:
Mr. Widen, is it?

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
And on the point that Mr. Rogers was just talking about, the suggestion that there were genuine issues... Are those direct points or indirect points?

[00:13:50] Speaker 03:
We think there's no direct point here.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
We need your authority, it's not your point.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
But we don't believe that there are genuine issues of material fact, and it's important to recognize that the description of the operation of the WEE system that's contained in the summary judgment order was not contested by Altman Pointer in their briefs.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
They did not identify anything said by

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
the district court describing the operation of the wheat that they say is erroneous.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
And so there just isn't anything that the district court based the summary judgment on that would create a genuine issue of material fact.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
And on the definition of direct pointing, we believe that there's both an implicit definition of handheld device and handheld pointing device to include direct pointing and definition by disavowal, disavowal by disparagement.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
There's no purpose to the invention of this patent other than direct pointing.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
It is the entire reason for its existence.

[00:14:48] Speaker 03:
Without direct pointing, there's just nothing that one would do with the invention of this patent.

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
And then, of course, if you look at the specification, direct pointing permeates the specification.

[00:15:00] Speaker 03:
It's in the title.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
It's in the summary.

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
It's in every embodiment.

[00:15:05] Speaker 03:
It's in all of the figures.

[00:15:06] Speaker 03:
And then, of course, if you look at what's described in

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
the prior art discussion, there is complete and thorough disparagement of embodiments of any kind of prior art that does not include direct pointing.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
There's also disparagement of the kind of features that are contained in the WII system.

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
So if you look at really column two, Phoenix 301, there's a description of prior art

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
pointing devices that show indirect pointing.

[00:15:41] Speaker 03:
And within that description, there are lots of different things, but one of the things that's described as indirect pointing that doesn't have the advantages of the invention is the WEEE system.

[00:15:51] Speaker 03:
The specification talks about patents showing pointing devices that are measured with respect to some coordinate system.

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
That's line 26 in column 2.

[00:15:59] Speaker 03:
And then it talks about coordinate systems that have several different approaches, including infrared devices.

[00:16:06] Speaker 03:
And that's how the WII system works.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
There are invisible infrared lights in this sensor bar.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
It's the bar that's sensed by the WII remote.

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
And so that's the kind of coordinate system that the prior discussion is talking about.

[00:16:22] Speaker 03:
And then the specification says that those coordinate systems may be positioned close to the display.

[00:16:28] Speaker 03:
So the sensor bar can be above or below.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
When it's below, it can be a range of distances if the

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
screen is here, it can be here or some place in front of it, but it's positioned relatively close.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
And then the specification describes all of those prior art items, including the Wii system, as inherently indirect.

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
It doesn't call out the Wii system by name, but it certainly describes exactly the kind of system.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
And so we think that there are all the reasons why you should pay attention to the specification and say that this is a

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
indirect pointing system that is not covered by the claims.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
We think that Judge Davis's interpretation of the meaning of direct pointing is correct.

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
And we don't think that there is anything that is undisputed about the operation of the wheeze system that there is anything that is disputed.

[00:17:20] Speaker 03:
There's nothing that's disputed about the operation of the wheeze system that would give rise to a genuine issue of material fact.

[00:17:25] Speaker 03:
And on top of that, we believe that you can find and agree that there is no infringement merely by looking at the image.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
looking at what is the image sensed by the image sensor.

[00:17:38] Speaker 03:
The reason for that is that Ultimate Pointer wants to interpret the claims in such a way that the image sensed is one that the Wii system simply cannot sense.

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
It's one that is a different image from the image that's referred to throughout the claims.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
Now, there's no dispute.

[00:17:56] Speaker 03:
Ultimate Pointer hasn't disputed that the Wii remote is incapable of sensing the computer-generated image.

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
got this infrared filter in the front so that the sensor inside the Wii Remote is completely incapable of sensing visual light, which is what's in the computer generated image.

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
And then you look at every claim that's asserted in the 729 patent, and they are claims that are either method claims or apparatus claims.

[00:18:22] Speaker 03:
The apparatus claims are an apparatus for controlling a feature on a computer generated image.

[00:18:29] Speaker 03:
And the method claims are a method for controlling a feature on a computer-generated image.

[00:18:34] Speaker 03:
And the rest of the claim talks about the image.

[00:18:36] Speaker 03:
In some instances, the image is expressly the computer-generated image.

[00:18:41] Speaker 03:
In some instances, it's said image.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
But Ultimate Pointer wants to say that a system that can't see the computer-generated image and can't gather data regarding that computer-generated image is nevertheless a system that has an image sensor within the terms of this patent.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
And that's just not a reasonable reading of the claims of this patent.

[00:19:02] Speaker 03:
It's something that we believe that Judge Lasnik and the Western District of Washington properly recognized.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
So for all of those reasons, we think that there is just simply no infringement, no direct pointing, no image that is properly sensed by the image sensor.

[00:19:18] Speaker 03:
And you don't have to reach any other claim construction issues.

[00:19:26] Speaker 03:
Would you like me to address any other points?

[00:19:28] Speaker 04:
if you have another point to raise.

[00:19:30] Speaker 04:
No one ever gets penalized by giving up his time.

[00:19:34] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor.

[00:19:35] Speaker 03:
If there are no other points, I believe that non-infringement would resolve the issues.

[00:19:39] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:19:39] Speaker 05:
What do you mean by that?

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
Does that mean that... It would resolve the infringement issues, Your Honor.

[00:19:46] Speaker 05:
But there's the indefiniteness.

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
Yes, there is the indefiniteness, the IPXL issue, and I'd be happy to address that.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
We believe that

[00:19:54] Speaker 03:
Judge Lasnik was completely correct in his interpretation of the claims as mixing both a method step into an apparatus claim.

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
And he did that by following some pretty good precedent from this court, the Rembrandt case, which had a very similar kind of language transmitting frames.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
And in the Rembrandt case, this court agreed that if there was that kind of language,

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
requirement of an action transmitting frames in a apparatus claim, then it's indefinite under IPXL.

[00:20:32] Speaker 03:
Here we had a generating data step.

[00:20:34] Speaker 03:
Now, there's a tiny difference between the Rembrandt case.

[00:20:37] Speaker 04:
But that's not generating as a method.

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
This is an apparatus claim.

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, it is an apparatus claim.

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
And isn't the microprocessor enhancement case relevant here?

[00:20:51] Speaker 03:
Well, it is relevant, but it provides a distinction.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
Now, the microprocessor enhancement case said that if it's clear that the action step is merely a capability of performing the action, then it's not an IPXL problem.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
There is no indefiniteness.

[00:21:11] Speaker 03:
There is no explanation in microprocessor enhancement for... Why isn't that true here?

[00:21:15] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, because we believe that the microprocessor enhancement case was based on the fact that it was a means plus function clause.

[00:21:22] Speaker 03:
that they were section 112 paragraph F clauses.

[00:21:24] Speaker 05:
And the... I don't think the microprocessor says that.

[00:21:28] Speaker 03:
I mean... There's no explanation in the language of the case, Your Honor, for why it's clearly a... Well, it says it's a capability.

[00:21:36] Speaker 03:
It says it's clearly a capability.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
You're right.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
And there's no explanation.

[00:21:38] Speaker 03:
We think the reason, most likely, is because it's a means plus function clause.

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
And so it's a further limitation on a means plus function clause.

[00:21:48] Speaker 03:
That's a hard read of the microprocessor thing.

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, it's the way that I can reconcile microprocessor enhancement with Rembrandt.

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
It's the only way you can reconcile.

[00:21:58] Speaker 03:
It's the way that I can reconcile microprocessor enhancement with Rembrandt.

[00:22:01] Speaker 03:
And I think the two cases should be reconciled.

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
And that's the best way to do it.

[00:22:05] Speaker 03:
I mean, the language in Rembrandt very closely matches the language here.

[00:22:10] Speaker 03:
If we say that microprocessor enhancement goes in the opposite direction, then I guess it would be up to this court to resolve that difference.

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
But the two cases can be reconciled.

[00:22:20] Speaker 03:
by the fact that microprocessor enhancement was a means plus function clause.

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
And here there is obviously no means plus function clause.

[00:22:26] Speaker 03:
There's no four kind of language.

[00:22:28] Speaker 03:
There's no capability kind of language.

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
So we think the district court was correct.

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. Rodger.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:38] Speaker 04:
Mr. Rodgers has two and a half minutes for a bottle of time.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:22:44] Speaker 00:
Two points I want to discuss briefly.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
The image sensed in the IPXL.

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
The arguments I'm hearing are related to the court's finding that the image sensor, the image in it does not include the LED lights from the Wii sensor bar.

[00:23:07] Speaker 00:
And to look to see whether or not that's the case, you look in the claims and the specification and look at the purpose of the image sensor.

[00:23:15] Speaker 00:
And in the claims, claim five is an example.

[00:23:18] Speaker 00:
It talks about the purpose of the image sensor to be generating data at the calibration points.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
So it is talking about points, points of light, like an LED from the Wii sensor bar.

[00:23:27] Speaker 00:
And then another example in the specification is figure 18 in the corresponding description in the spec, where it talks about calibration points and light spots.

[00:23:37] Speaker 00:
So it's not just an image, like a picture of an object that you see on a screen.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
It also includes points of

[00:23:43] Speaker 00:
points of light and specifically calibration points.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
The IPXL issue... The calibration points are the corners of the image, are they not?

[00:23:54] Speaker 00:
They are described in the spec to be either the corner of the image or they're also described when they list through some prior art and examples of calibration points.

[00:24:05] Speaker 00:
They do include points outside the image off to the side of the screen and that is precisely what's done

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
with the Wii sensor bar because, yes, they're outside the display, but the system knows the relationship, the direct relationship between the display and the sensor bar.

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
And so there's no difference between having a calibration point that's within the screen versus having something that's adjacent to the screen.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
Where does the patent show that they're not related to the calibration directly related to the image?

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
The calibration points?

[00:24:41] Speaker 00:
the patent shows that the calibration points are directly related to the image.

[00:24:47] Speaker 00:
And that's what's recited, for example, in the preamble of Claim 5.

[00:24:52] Speaker 00:
And so that's what we have in the Wii, where you have the sensor bar above or below, directly adjacent to the display.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
And the computer, the console, knows the relationship.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
And so it's the same thing as having a calibration point on the screen itself on the display.

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
versus adjacent to it when you know what the relationship is.

[00:25:14] Speaker 05:
Before you sit down, just a comment on your confidentiality markings, which seem to me to be quite improper.

[00:25:20] Speaker 05:
You are marking as confidential in your public user manuals for the week.

[00:25:26] Speaker 05:
I cannot understand how that could possibly be confidential.

[00:25:31] Speaker 00:
I agree.

[00:25:32] Speaker 00:
These were designations made by the Nintendo.

[00:25:39] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:25:40] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

[00:25:41] Speaker 04:
We'll take the case on advisement.