[00:00:47] Speaker 03: You're a brave man. [00:00:48] Speaker 03: I always instruct the clerks not to put water anywhere near me. [00:01:00] Speaker 03: Unwired Planet versus Google, Mr. Orenz. [00:01:14] Speaker 05: May it please the court. [00:01:16] Speaker 05: The district court erred in this case by diminishing the full scope of Unwired Planet's foundational inventions. [00:01:23] Speaker 05: Each of Unwired Planet's patent inventions should enjoy the 20-year protection supplied by our patent system, regardless of changes in technology used to implement them. [00:01:33] Speaker 05: In this case, the district court consistently erred by reading specific implementation features into the claims that overly narrowed them. [00:01:42] Speaker 05: I'd like to start our discussion with the 240 patent [00:01:46] Speaker 05: and highlight those errors. [00:01:49] Speaker 05: The first term that I would like to talk about is proxy server. [00:01:53] Speaker 05: And the court introduced two errors into the construction there. [00:01:56] Speaker 05: One is that the proxy server must map and translate. [00:02:00] Speaker 05: And the second is that there has to be communication between two networks that could otherwise not communicate. [00:02:06] Speaker 04: You have a lot of claim constructions here. [00:02:08] Speaker 04: Can I move you on to one that concerns me? [00:02:12] Speaker 04: The 016 patent and the whole long thing [00:02:16] Speaker 04: about processing things to represent a graphical representation. [00:02:22] Speaker 04: Can you address that one? [00:02:23] Speaker 05: Yes, Your Honor. [00:02:25] Speaker 05: I refer to that one as the marker information term because that's really where the dispute is. [00:02:30] Speaker 05: And the issue there is whether that marker information has to be graphical. [00:02:35] Speaker 05: And the patent clearly says it doesn't. [00:02:38] Speaker 05: If we look at the 016 patent specifically, and I could point you to APPX 142, [00:02:46] Speaker 05: Column 10, lines 13 through 19. [00:02:51] Speaker 05: Sorry, say that again. [00:02:53] Speaker 05: Sure. [00:02:53] Speaker 05: It's APPX 142, column 10, lines 13 through 19. [00:03:04] Speaker 05: What the patent says is the marker information includes information sufficient to define a graphical representation of the mobile resource location. [00:03:14] Speaker 04: What does that mean? [00:03:16] Speaker 05: Defining a graphical representation, it simply has to provide the information such that you could draw a crosshair or a dot, but it doesn't have to be the crosshair or the dot. [00:03:29] Speaker 04: So a latitude and longitude could be... So does that, is what you're saying the processing at the network location at the server node doesn't have to actually send the information of the graphical representation, but [00:03:42] Speaker 04: It sends information sufficient for the mobile unit to provide a graphical representation? [00:03:47] Speaker 05: The server does not have to provide the graphical piece as it sends it down. [00:03:54] Speaker 05: It can send the information that could allow the mobile device. [00:03:58] Speaker 04: But the mobile device, I mean, there has to be a graphical representation here somewhere, right? [00:04:02] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor, there does. [00:04:04] Speaker 04: But your construction doesn't have any reference to that. [00:04:07] Speaker 04: I mean, I see your point. [00:04:10] Speaker 04: that the district courts may have required. [00:04:13] Speaker 04: Frankly, I have a hard time reading the district court's construction to mean anything. [00:04:17] Speaker 04: But to the extent it means that the server has to actually provide code or something to be sent up to provide a graphical representation, that doesn't seem consistent. [00:04:28] Speaker 04: But yours omits the words graphical representation altogether. [00:04:33] Speaker 05: Well, what our construction says is it permits rendering. [00:04:37] Speaker 05: And that's what has to happen either at the server or at the mobile device. [00:04:41] Speaker 02: What do you mean by permits rendering? [00:04:43] Speaker 05: It just has to allow there to be a drawing made. [00:04:47] Speaker 05: So the marker information could be simply coordinates, latitude and longitude, but it could be more. [00:04:52] Speaker 05: It could be an instruction from the server with that marker information that says draw these dots or draw these crosshairs. [00:05:00] Speaker 05: on the mobile device. [00:05:02] Speaker 02: But the mobile device ultimately has to put together some sort of bitmap and has to display a graphical image. [00:05:08] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:05:09] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:05:10] Speaker 04: Don't disagree with that. [00:05:10] Speaker 04: So why doesn't your construction say permits rendering of a graphical representation? [00:05:16] Speaker 04: Is there anything wrong with that? [00:05:18] Speaker 05: That would be a proper construction. [00:05:21] Speaker 04: It just doesn't have to... The information it says... You're saying that permits rendering implies a graphical representation, but I'm a little worried that [00:05:30] Speaker 04: that maybe it doesn't and that you're trying to read graphical representation out. [00:05:35] Speaker 05: We're definitely not trying to read graphical representation out. [00:05:37] Speaker 05: It just has to allow the phone to do that. [00:05:40] Speaker 04: So if we inserted the words graphical representation into that and said permits rendering of a graphical representation on the client node, you'd be okay with that? [00:05:50] Speaker 04: That would be a proper construction, your honor. [00:05:54] Speaker 05: Unless there's other questions on the 0 and 6, I'd like to talk about the proxy server in the [00:05:59] Speaker 05: So the district court introduced two errors into the proxy server term and that is that there must be mapping and translation and that the two networks could not otherwise communicate. [00:06:16] Speaker 05: And if we read the specification in the 240 patent, we just see that that's not required. [00:06:22] Speaker 05: There is no disclaimer. [00:06:24] Speaker 05: There is no disavowal. [00:06:26] Speaker 05: There is no lexicography that causes either one of those two limitations. [00:06:30] Speaker 05: They're not in the claims. [00:06:31] Speaker 05: They're not in the specification as a requirement. [00:06:33] Speaker 05: They're in a preferred embodiment. [00:06:35] Speaker 02: I have a question for you. [00:06:37] Speaker 02: So the proxy server in the 240 patent, as it's described, [00:06:41] Speaker 02: It seems to say over and over again that its job is to translate. [00:06:46] Speaker 02: And I understand your point about advancing technologies, particularly with respect to this patent. [00:06:51] Speaker 02: But the fact that it says over and over that the proxy server's job is to translate, why is it that the district court erred when there doesn't seem to be any express language saying the proxy server wouldn't perform that fine? [00:07:05] Speaker 05: I think I can... Well, number one is that the language that you're referring to is all within the description of one preferred embodiment, the mapping and translation point. [00:07:14] Speaker 05: It uses the word generally in that portion of the patent, which I'm sure your honors are familiar with. [00:07:19] Speaker 05: But if we were to look at figure 5A, APPX 171, I think that'll directly... Well, you say generally, but then you say hence, one of the functions is two. [00:07:29] Speaker 05: Right, because in that embodiment, it can do that, but it doesn't have to. [00:07:33] Speaker 05: And I can illustrate that for you in figure 5a. [00:07:36] Speaker 05: So if we look at figure 5a, we see the devices that are there. [00:07:41] Speaker 05: And this figure is used to describe multiple embodiments. [00:07:46] Speaker 05: If we look at 502, one of those embodiments says that that provisioning entity could be a mobile device. [00:07:52] Speaker 05: So in that circumstance, that provisioning entity, we would select UDP, and that would be the protocol between the fleet server. [00:07:59] Speaker 05: There are disclosures in the patent that also say that the fleet server and the proxy server can be directly connected or they can be in the same box. [00:08:06] Speaker 05: So if that was the case, we would have direct communication between those two. [00:08:11] Speaker 05: And then if we went to the mobile station on the other side, we'd have UDP. [00:08:14] Speaker 05: And so if you took that embodiment, you have UDP on one side, UDP on the other side, direct communication between the servers. [00:08:21] Speaker 05: You do not need two protocols. [00:08:22] Speaker 05: You don't have them there. [00:08:23] Speaker 05: You have one. [00:08:24] Speaker 05: You don't need mapping and translation. [00:08:26] Speaker 05: You can practice the invention in that embodiment that is expressly described there in figure 5A. [00:08:31] Speaker 04: And the patent makes clear that... Is there a discussion of this drawing somewhere in the specification? [00:08:36] Speaker 04: There is. [00:08:36] Speaker 05: It describes... I will tell you it does not describe it that way in the way I've just done it. [00:08:42] Speaker 05: But the fact of the matter is there is discussion about the protocols between the provisioning entity and the fleet server. [00:08:49] Speaker 05: There is discussion about the direct communication between the proxy server and the fleet server, and there is discussion about using UDP to communicate with the mobile stations and that UDP isn't the only protocol that's necessary. [00:09:02] Speaker 02: Does that mean that the following, along with Judge Wallach's point, does that mean that the proxy server has to be capable of performing the translation functions? [00:09:15] Speaker 05: Well, I believe that it is one of the [00:09:18] Speaker 05: functions that the proxy server can perform if it's claimed, but it's not necessary. [00:09:24] Speaker 05: The description of the proxy server says it does traditional server processing, and it can also do mapping and translation. [00:09:30] Speaker 05: I think it would depend on how you did your embodiment. [00:09:33] Speaker 05: If you needed mapping and translation, then the proxy server would need to do that. [00:09:36] Speaker 05: If you have an embodiment that doesn't have two protocols, you don't need mapping and [00:09:42] Speaker 02: I think the district court got a little hung up on the idea of what does it do if it doesn't do mapping and translation. [00:09:48] Speaker 02: So what's your response to that? [00:09:49] Speaker 05: Right. [00:09:50] Speaker 05: What the proxy server does is it links the LAN net and the air net. [00:09:53] Speaker 05: It is a link in the communication. [00:09:55] Speaker 05: It's the server that sits on the edge of the two networks and sends the information that it gets from the complete server to the mobile stations. [00:10:03] Speaker 05: And Google makes the point in their brief that if that's only the case, then you could read the proxy server completely out of the patent. [00:10:10] Speaker 05: The patent actually contemplates the fleet server and the proxy server being in the same box, so the idea that it's not doing anything, it's the functionality that causes the sending of the information that the proxy server does. [00:10:23] Speaker 01: What's your view on the word proxy, and how does that factor into it, if at all? [00:10:30] Speaker 05: Essentially, the proxy server is acting on behalf of the two different networks that it's working with, and that's what a proxy does. [00:10:38] Speaker 05: gave you my proxy, you could go vote for me. [00:10:41] Speaker 05: And that's essentially what the proxy server does in this circumstance. [00:10:44] Speaker 05: For the landnet, it sends the fleet data out to the mobile devices. [00:10:50] Speaker 05: For the airnet, it authorizes the accounts and discusses and communicates with those mobile devices. [00:10:55] Speaker 05: So those are the things that the proxy server does that are described in the patent but are not limited to mapping and translation or two different protocols that could not otherwise communicate. [00:11:06] Speaker 05: If I could move on to user... Can I have one more question for you? [00:11:10] Speaker 02: Yes, ma'am. [00:11:10] Speaker 02: On the 760 patent, you talk about a proxy there. [00:11:13] Speaker 02: I realize it's not the 24O, but in that one, there's some discussion of protecting the identities of mobile devices, but you don't see that at all in the 24O patent. [00:11:23] Speaker 02: So I'm just, you know, thinking about, again, going back to the idea that is the 240 patent, is the proxy really just for translation? [00:11:31] Speaker 02: If you meant it for protecting identities, for example, wouldn't that be in the specification? [00:11:36] Speaker 05: Well, the main point there is the 760 and the 240 patents are not related patents. [00:11:41] Speaker 05: They have different inventors. [00:11:42] Speaker 05: They were filed much later. [00:11:44] Speaker 05: The 760, I believe, was filed much later in time, I believe, 2001 or 2002. [00:11:49] Speaker 05: I really don't think you look to the 760 to figure out what proxy server means in this patent with respect to the specification that we have here. [00:11:59] Speaker 03: Just so you know, you're into your time. [00:12:01] Speaker 05: I think I'll reserve. [00:12:02] Speaker 00: Good morning. [00:12:09] Speaker 00: Gregory Stone for Google. [00:12:10] Speaker 00: Mr. Stone? [00:12:11] Speaker 00: There are three patents at issue, and each patent has a claim term that is dispositive of all of the allegations of infringement as to that patent. [00:12:19] Speaker 00: Those three terms are reduced image, proxy server, and server note. [00:12:24] Speaker 00: Let me turn first, if I might, to the proxy server, which the court had some questions about, and try to address that first. [00:12:31] Speaker 00: The proxy server clearly means something more than a server. [00:12:34] Speaker 00: That's why the word proxy is used. [00:12:37] Speaker 00: And the specification at A179, column 8, lines 46 through 48 tells us that a proxy server performs not only the traditional server processing, [00:12:48] Speaker 00: but also serves to provide protocol conversion processing from one communication protocol to another. [00:12:57] Speaker 00: That's point one. [00:12:57] Speaker 00: Point two is the language of the claim says this proxy server enables communications. [00:13:03] Speaker 04: Wait, wait, wait. [00:13:03] Speaker 04: Back up to that. [00:13:04] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:13:04] Speaker 04: So you're on, make sure I'm in the right place. [00:13:08] Speaker 04: 179, column 8, line 46. [00:13:11] Speaker 04: Is that where you are? [00:13:13] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:13:14] Speaker 04: But doesn't it follow up, I say, according to the present embodiment? [00:13:18] Speaker 04: I mean, I get that there are definitions up here where the proxy server certainly requires translation and mapping, but does it always require translation and mapping is the question. [00:13:30] Speaker 00: Yes, and it does because when you look at the language you're pointing to, I think that's the embodiment. [00:13:37] Speaker 00: They then go on to talk about a mapper, but they tell us before that what the proxy server actually does. [00:13:44] Speaker 00: It has to be different than a server. [00:13:46] Speaker 00: functions that a proxy server performs in this instance. [00:13:49] Speaker 00: And there are different kinds of proxy servers, as I think Judge Stoll's question revealed. [00:13:55] Speaker 00: But I think in this instance, the specification tells us what kind of proxy server it is. [00:14:00] Speaker 00: It also is one that enables communication between two networks. [00:14:05] Speaker 00: The plain meaning of enables is to make possible something you couldn't otherwise do. [00:14:10] Speaker 00: So the use of the word enables also adds sort of confirmation that the court's [00:14:16] Speaker 00: construction here is correct, that you have two communication protocols that cannot otherwise communicate. [00:14:22] Speaker 00: And so it needs to be enabled through the proxy server. [00:14:25] Speaker 04: And finally... Well, aren't there ways it can enable communication without translation or mapping? [00:14:31] Speaker 04: No, I think as... Can it do other things in addition to translation and mapping? [00:14:35] Speaker 00: Professor Jaffay described in his declaration that the terms translation and mapping really describe the universe of the types of things that you would do to enable [00:14:46] Speaker 00: two networks that otherwise can't communicate to communicate. [00:14:49] Speaker 04: Well, but you're putting in the two networks that can't otherwise communicate. [00:14:54] Speaker 04: But if you have two networks that can communicate, can't there still be a proxy server that performs other functions? [00:15:00] Speaker 00: You could have a proxy server that performs other functions. [00:15:03] Speaker 00: Yes, that would be a different kind of proxy server. [00:15:05] Speaker 04: That enables communications. [00:15:06] Speaker 00: No, it would not be one that would enable communications. [00:15:09] Speaker 00: I think here, and he talks about address translation or mapping. [00:15:13] Speaker 00: That's one of the things Professor Jaffay talks about. [00:15:15] Speaker 00: As one of the ways you would translate or map that would be another use of the proxy server that would fit within the court's construction. [00:15:22] Speaker 00: But I think a completely different proxy server that doesn't enable communications between two networks that can't communicate would not fit within the construction. [00:15:31] Speaker 00: And the specification tells us. [00:15:33] Speaker 04: I'm not by any means an expert in this, but can't you use proxy servers for anonymity purposes or for security purposes? [00:15:41] Speaker 00: Yes, you can. [00:15:42] Speaker 04: Why isn't that enabling communication? [00:15:45] Speaker 00: That would be for firewall purposes. [00:15:47] Speaker 00: I don't think that enables the communication. [00:15:49] Speaker 00: That enables security. [00:15:52] Speaker 00: indication of the record that a person of ordinary skill and the art would understand that to be enabling communication. [00:15:57] Speaker 02: What about depending claim of sex? [00:15:59] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:15:59] Speaker 02: Which talks about the proxy server comprising an account manager to manage a plurality of user accounts, push fleet data to certain accounts, and then also there's a description in the patent that the proxy server works with the fleet server to make sure that there's authentication so that the communication could occur. [00:16:19] Speaker 02: Why isn't that enabling communication? [00:16:22] Speaker 00: I don't think that. [00:16:23] Speaker 00: I think that is enabling the authentication, not enabling the communication. [00:16:26] Speaker 02: But the authentication enables the communication. [00:16:28] Speaker 00: And we know that that authentication occurs in part through the account manager, which is also shown in the figures as a separate box, which is sometimes part of the proxy server. [00:16:38] Speaker 00: So there's a separate function. [00:16:40] Speaker 00: The account manager function is a separate function included as part of the proxy server, but not the use of the proxy server that is at issue here as construed by the court, which is, [00:16:51] Speaker 00: The one other point I want to make is they also tell us that the proxy server is sometimes referred to as a network gateway server. [00:16:59] Speaker 00: And the network gateway server, as Professor Giuffe explained in his declaration, citing to a federal glossary of terms used in networks, and that's at A2509 is where he cites it, and the glossary is A2695, is a server that connects different network [00:17:20] Speaker 00: protocol technologies by performing the required protocol conversions. [00:17:25] Speaker 00: And that's exactly how it's used here. [00:17:27] Speaker 00: So we have three instances in the specification. [00:17:31] Speaker 00: The description of how this differs from a traditional server, the fact that it needs to enable communications, and the reference that it is sometimes referred to as a network gateway server. [00:17:41] Speaker 00: All three are consistent with the court's construction. [00:17:45] Speaker 00: That here, as shown in Figure 5 is a good example, [00:17:48] Speaker 00: It shows that there are different protocols on the one side and on the other side. [00:17:53] Speaker 00: And those different protocols need to be enabled, communication between them, which is the role of the proxy server. [00:18:00] Speaker 00: Because there we have an HTTPS messages showing between the proxy server and the fleet server. [00:18:08] Speaker 00: Let me turn. [00:18:09] Speaker 02: Oh. [00:18:09] Speaker 02: I was going to say, do you want to talk about the server node? [00:18:12] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:18:12] Speaker 00: Let me talk about the server node. [00:18:14] Speaker 00: So the server node is also a dispositive claim with respect to the 016 patent. [00:18:20] Speaker 00: The court there, and I think the parties agree that the standard of review here is whether or not the court's construction was clearly erroneous. [00:18:28] Speaker 00: The court in that instance. [00:18:30] Speaker 02: Why is that? [00:18:31] Speaker 02: Because I think the extrinsic evidence that was relied on was a dictionary definition. [00:18:38] Speaker 02: that said I think it limited it to one computer. [00:18:42] Speaker 02: But I thought the district court here didn't limit the construction to one computer. [00:18:47] Speaker 02: It said it could be one or more, each of which have to perform the claim functions. [00:18:51] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:18:52] Speaker 00: I think the district court had the reason that here the standard is clearly erroneous is first and foremost because [00:18:59] Speaker 00: parties on both sides of the case agree that that's the appropriate standard. [00:19:02] Speaker 02: If it's a legal question, the parties can't agree to what the correct law is. [00:19:05] Speaker 02: That's, I think, something that the court determines. [00:19:08] Speaker 00: And beyond that, there was, in addition to the dictionary definition, which the court considered, there was testimony from the inventor, which was cited both by Google and by Unwired, to support their respective positions on this. [00:19:19] Speaker 00: So the question was, there were two-fold questions. [00:19:22] Speaker 00: What is a server node? [00:19:24] Speaker 00: And it was the court determined. [00:19:25] Speaker 00: It is, as the inventor testified, [00:19:28] Speaker 00: a point in the network, an intersection or crossing point. [00:19:31] Speaker 00: And then the court said, but you could have multiple of those. [00:19:35] Speaker 00: So you could have a computer here that is a server node. [00:19:37] Speaker 00: You could have another computer here that is a server node. [00:19:40] Speaker 00: But looking to the dictionary definition, which was disputed by the inventor's testimony, the court said each computer needs to perform all of the functions required by the claim. [00:19:51] Speaker 00: And the difference is the inventor had said, [00:19:53] Speaker 00: each of the computers doesn't need necessarily to perform all of those functions. [00:19:59] Speaker 00: So the evidentiary conflict was between whether each computer needed to perform or did not need to perform all of the functions. [00:20:07] Speaker 00: The district court resolved that in favor of the position Google had put forth, which was that each computer needs to perform all of those functions. [00:20:15] Speaker 00: Hence the court's [00:20:17] Speaker 02: You said something interesting. [00:20:20] Speaker 02: You said that the district court relied on the computer dictionary to say that each computer must perform a function. [00:20:27] Speaker 02: Where is that? [00:20:27] Speaker 02: Because I thought the court was relying on that one member versus Google case for that point. [00:20:33] Speaker 00: No, I think what the court had before was the dictionary. [00:20:36] Speaker 00: What language are you relying on? [00:20:37] Speaker 00: The court does not reference the dictionary in her construction. [00:20:41] Speaker 00: So she has the evidentiary record before, which she resolved and said she resolved on the basis. [00:20:47] Speaker 00: She said she made her determination on the basis of all of the extrinsic evidence, which was in conflict. [00:20:52] Speaker 00: And as you know, she rejected the specific instruction of each party and developed her own construction. [00:20:59] Speaker 00: In that construction, what she says is each computer needs to perform all of the functions. [00:21:04] Speaker 00: That's consistent with the dictionary. [00:21:06] Speaker 02: How do I know what factual finding she made? [00:21:09] Speaker 02: in support of the extrinsic evidence. [00:21:11] Speaker 02: How do I know what that is? [00:21:12] Speaker 00: I think in this instance, as we sometimes saw reference to Intiva, that the factual finding is itself the construction. [00:21:19] Speaker 00: The construction itself reveals the factual findings without any subsidiary findings behind it. [00:21:24] Speaker 02: The dictionary definition here says one computer and the construction is one more. [00:21:29] Speaker 00: And the construction is one or more because I think what she was looking at was also the evidence that this server node could be [00:21:36] Speaker 00: distributed in the sense or could be dispersed in the sense that you could have multiple of those in the network but each given one consistent with the claim language which starts with a server node and then thereafter in the claim says said server node, the server node indicating that each of the separate functions will be performed by the server node that you first started with indicating all the functions need to be performed by each computer [00:22:05] Speaker 00: But the use of the word a server node at the outset of the claim is consistent with the court's construction that you could have multiple of these computers, each of which could perform those functions. [00:22:19] Speaker 00: Let me turn, if I might, to the holding of invalidity with respect to two of the claims. [00:22:27] Speaker 04: Can you just briefly, because I [00:22:30] Speaker 04: I want to go back to that graphical representation thing. [00:22:34] Speaker 04: I mean, it may not be all that dispositive, but your friend agreed to add that term to their proposed construction. [00:22:49] Speaker 04: Can you just address that? [00:22:50] Speaker 04: I mean, is their proposed construction with the addition of graphical representation good enough for you? [00:22:57] Speaker 04: What's the difference between the two? [00:22:59] Speaker 00: I think the difference is whether you say it's sufficient to render or it permits rendering. [00:23:04] Speaker 00: What permits rendering says is we're not going to prohibit you from rendering it, but all of the work can be done on the mobile device. [00:23:11] Speaker 00: At the time these patents were filed for, mobile devices couldn't do that kind of work. [00:23:15] Speaker 04: So do you think that this claim language suggests that the server has to provide the actual rendering? [00:23:24] Speaker 00: The server has to provide the information [00:23:26] Speaker 00: that is then sufficient to render. [00:23:27] Speaker 00: So it sends the bitmap, in one example, it sends exactly what the graphical representation would be. [00:23:33] Speaker 00: It tells you, we're going to have you place an X, we're going to have you place a circle, we're going to have you place a cursor, whatever. [00:23:39] Speaker 00: That graphical information is what has to be provided by the server to the mobile device, yes. [00:23:45] Speaker 00: And I think that's where the language of permitting it is not consistent with what was claimed to be the invention. [00:23:52] Speaker 00: The invention claimed that we'll send that graphical information [00:23:55] Speaker 00: so that it's sufficient, all that the mobile device has to do is then display the information that has been sent to it, which is overlaid on a map. [00:24:03] Speaker 03: You started your argument saying three key constructions. [00:24:06] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:24:06] Speaker 03: And you did proxy server and node. [00:24:08] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:24:08] Speaker 03: What was your third one? [00:24:09] Speaker 00: OK, the other one is reduced image, your honor. [00:24:11] Speaker 00: And let me do reduced image. [00:24:13] Speaker 00: That, I think, is easy. [00:24:17] Speaker 00: I think the plain language of reduced image is you take an image and you make it smaller. [00:24:22] Speaker 00: You don't make it smaller by only putting up a portion of the image or cutting part of it away. [00:24:28] Speaker 00: It is clear in three places in the patent that all parts of the original image can be recursively viewed. [00:24:35] Speaker 00: If all parts of the original image can be recursively viewed, then the reduced image has to have all parts of the original image in it. [00:24:43] Speaker 00: That's in the abstract. [00:24:45] Speaker 00: That's in the summary of the invention. [00:24:46] Speaker 00: That's in the specification at A 157, column three, lines 18 and 19. [00:24:53] Speaker 00: We understand that the beginning of that hierarchy is the reduced image. [00:24:58] Speaker 00: Every step down then from that, it's going to have more detailed information. [00:25:02] Speaker 00: But you're going to be able to ultimately see all of the original image. [00:25:06] Speaker 00: That's made clear at column 8, lines 49 through 51, which is at A, 159. [00:25:14] Speaker 00: And this is exactly what the inventor's testimony was as well. [00:25:18] Speaker 00: So the inventor said, I didn't mean by reducing it that you could crop it. [00:25:22] Speaker 00: He said, I mean by scaling it down or making it smaller, you retain the entire canvas of the image. [00:25:30] Speaker 00: So I think the court's construction there saying you cannot crop the image is indeed correct. [00:25:37] Speaker 00: And let me finish, if I might, with the invalidity of claims 17 and 31 of the 087 patent, which it was not disputed that the preamble is indefinite. [00:25:49] Speaker 00: The question was, is the preamble limiting? [00:25:52] Speaker 00: I think the answer to that is the preamble was limiting the phrase, the image used, for example, in claim 17. [00:25:59] Speaker 00: The only way you find an antecedent basis for that phrase, the image, is to look at the preamble, which tells us that the image needs to be something that is much larger than the dimension of the screen. [00:26:13] Speaker 00: Without knowing that the image is much larger than the dimension of the screen, you don't really have any expression of what is claimed to be the inventive concept. [00:26:21] Speaker 00: That's now missing. [00:26:22] Speaker 03: You don't know the object upon which the invention acts. [00:26:25] Speaker 00: Exactly. [00:26:26] Speaker 00: So I think Prevarus is on point here. [00:26:29] Speaker 00: I think it's clear that you need that language, and those two claims are invalid for indefiniteness. [00:26:38] Speaker 00: If there's any further questions? [00:26:40] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:26:41] Speaker 00: Thank you very much. [00:26:48] Speaker 05: I want to quickly address a couple of points that my friend made. [00:26:53] Speaker 05: First of all, the proxy server term is not dispositive of the 240 patent. [00:26:57] Speaker 05: Claim 27 is an independent claim in that patent that does not use the term proxy server. [00:27:02] Speaker 05: It uses user account. [00:27:04] Speaker 05: Secondly, Judge Hughes, you had a question about whether the proxy server could do something else other than map and translate. [00:27:11] Speaker 05: The answer is yes. [00:27:12] Speaker 05: It could do encapsulation. [00:27:13] Speaker 05: It could do a number of things. [00:27:14] Speaker 04: What is your response to his walking us through that diagram? [00:27:20] Speaker 04: Through which diagram? [00:27:23] Speaker 04: The only one he talked about. [00:27:27] Speaker 04: Figure 5 something. [00:27:29] Speaker 05: Figure 5? [00:27:32] Speaker 05: Again, that figure, if we look at it, does not require [00:27:37] Speaker 05: First, to get to mapping and translation, you have to have two different protocols. [00:27:40] Speaker 05: And if you look at figure 5a, you can set the preferred embodiment up in a way where there are not two protocols. [00:27:46] Speaker 05: So the... Oh, I'm sorry. [00:27:48] Speaker 05: You're the one that... I did. [00:27:49] Speaker 05: I should have asked him. [00:27:52] Speaker 05: Then... It was convincing to me. [00:27:55] Speaker 05: Sorry. [00:27:58] Speaker 05: One more point is my friend raised the term gateway in Dr. Jaffay. [00:28:03] Speaker 05: The expert referred to gateway a number of times. [00:28:05] Speaker 05: And Google actually proposed gateway in a dictionary definition at the lower court. [00:28:09] Speaker 05: But that same dictionary had the term proxy server in it. [00:28:11] Speaker 05: It didn't have any of this mapping and translation that they want to read in. [00:28:14] Speaker 05: And they abandoned that evidence here at this court. [00:28:18] Speaker 05: I now want to jump to the 087 patent and address the reduced image. [00:28:26] Speaker 05: First and foremost, the reduced image dispute about whether it's uncropped arose at the claim construction hearing [00:28:33] Speaker 05: and was suggested by Google with no anchor in the specification. [00:28:37] Speaker 05: The word uncropped does not show up anywhere. [00:28:41] Speaker 05: And what we're dealing with is not a photocopier like in their brief where you just have a proportional scaling. [00:28:46] Speaker 05: What you have is a digital image that has to be reduced. [00:28:49] Speaker 05: And what you do with that is you get rid of pixels. [00:28:52] Speaker 05: You do that when you scale. [00:28:53] Speaker 05: You do that when you crop. [00:28:54] Speaker 03: But there are two different things. [00:28:57] Speaker 05: They are. [00:28:57] Speaker 05: They are. [00:28:58] Speaker 05: But there is no requirement that, for example, you couldn't [00:29:03] Speaker 05: just crop the first set of pixels all the way around the image and then reduce. [00:29:09] Speaker 05: What we're saying is reduction is okay the way Google says, but it's not the only way. [00:29:13] Speaker 05: One of ordinary skill in their art would understand that they could reduce the image in other ways than simple scaling. [00:29:19] Speaker 04: But you agree that it has to be the whole image just reduced. [00:29:24] Speaker 04: Look, your reduced image can't leave out parts of the actual image. [00:29:29] Speaker 04: Maybe it leaves out parts of the border around the image, but it has to be, like the example's in the thing, the NAFSA United States. [00:29:37] Speaker 04: You can't cut off main. [00:29:41] Speaker 05: You can't cut off them so long as they can all be displayed. [00:29:47] Speaker 05: That's the point. [00:29:47] Speaker 05: There's an embodiment. [00:29:49] Speaker 02: I think what Judge Hughes is saying is your reduced image, while it might crop maybe the border around the United States, it can't crop so much that Mane is removed from the image that is displayed on the mobile device. [00:30:03] Speaker 05: That you can never get back to Mane? [00:30:05] Speaker 02: No. [00:30:06] Speaker 02: But when the reduced image is displayed, you can still see Mane. [00:30:10] Speaker 02: That's what he's asking. [00:30:11] Speaker 05: Well, I don't necessarily agree with that because there is an embodiment in the patent that says you don't necessarily start on the screen with the reduced image. [00:30:18] Speaker 05: You can go to a lower level. [00:30:20] Speaker 05: So long as you can get back to the information. [00:30:24] Speaker 04: But that doesn't mean the reduced image isn't the whole image. [00:30:27] Speaker 04: That just means you don't start with the reduced image. [00:30:31] Speaker 05: The reduced image will be [00:30:34] Speaker 05: the substantive part of the image. [00:30:37] Speaker 05: I agree with that. [00:30:37] Speaker 05: But it's not going to be the exact same image because it has to be transformed because it has to get smaller. [00:30:42] Speaker 02: Does it have to have Maine? [00:30:44] Speaker 02: That's the question. [00:30:45] Speaker 05: You have to be able, if it's the whole map, you have to be able to see the whole United States recursively. [00:30:50] Speaker 05: So yes, it has to have Maine, Your Honor. [00:30:54] Speaker 03: And in addition to the reduction... So in that instance, it's not cropped. [00:31:00] Speaker 05: It could be cropped. [00:31:03] Speaker 05: It's one way to reduce the image to be displayed on the mobile device. [00:31:10] Speaker 02: Is it a situation like when you go and you've got different pictures being made, like a 5x7 picture versus a 4x6 picture, that inherently some parts are going to be cropped when you change from one size display to another, but it doesn't mean that you're not still displaying main, for example? [00:31:26] Speaker 05: I would agree with that, Your Honor. [00:31:28] Speaker 05: The significant portions of the image will be there, but the superfluous area like the white border, and we highlighted that in our brief, is much smaller. [00:31:37] Speaker 02: How is that reflected in your proposed claim construction? [00:31:42] Speaker 02: Because if you're simply saying uncropped, it's really broad. [00:31:47] Speaker 05: Yeah. [00:31:48] Speaker 05: Uncropped is really broad, and it's not required. [00:31:51] Speaker 05: And so that's why we agree on the construction of it. [00:31:55] Speaker 02: I guess what I'm trying to say, how does your claim construction account for the idea that while you can crop, you nonetheless have to be able to see the entire original image? [00:32:08] Speaker 04: Why shouldn't yours say a version of the entire image with smaller dimensions? [00:32:15] Speaker 05: Because the issue is it's not really the entire image because those pixels are going away one way or the other. [00:32:22] Speaker 05: If it's scaled or if it's cropped, for example, [00:32:24] Speaker 05: The patent talks about going from, I believe, 480 to 640. [00:32:27] Speaker 05: That's the original size of the image. [00:32:30] Speaker 05: And it goes to 70 by 60. [00:32:32] Speaker 05: You lose data. [00:32:33] Speaker 05: You lose those pixels regardless if it's scaled or if it's cropped. [00:32:37] Speaker 05: So it's not always the original image. [00:32:40] Speaker 05: And actually, the specification specifically says that the reduced image is transformed. [00:32:44] Speaker 05: And so that image is not the exact same image. [00:32:51] Speaker 05: You just have to have the ability to see the detail of the original image, if that makes sense. [00:32:58] Speaker 03: It does and it doesn't in the sense that cropping actually removes part of the image as opposed to reducing the detail. [00:33:12] Speaker 05: In a digital image, [00:33:13] Speaker 05: when you do the linear interpolation that's described in the patent, you're averaging pixels together. [00:33:19] Speaker 05: So you're losing information from the image. [00:33:23] Speaker 05: And it's the same thing with cropping. [00:33:24] Speaker 05: You're losing those pixels that are no longer displayed. [00:33:27] Speaker 05: And what our position is, is that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you could do either one of those things in total or small degrees to get the reduced image. [00:33:39] Speaker 03: Thank you, Councilman. [00:33:40] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:33:45] Speaker 03: better.