[00:00:02] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
Just remind the audience that you're free to come and go as you please during the argument.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
Please do not talk while you're in the courtroom, even in between cases.

[00:00:23] Speaker 02:
We have four argued cases this morning.

[00:00:26] Speaker 02:
The first of these is number 162140.

[00:00:29] Speaker 02:
Droplets Inc versus Mattel, Mr. Geiser.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:35] Speaker 00:
The Board invalidated two critical claims of Droplets groundbreaking patent on four separate grounds.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
It used scant reasoning or no reasoning, and the Director has not even tried to defend three of those grounds on appeal.

[00:00:47] Speaker 00:
For multiple reasons, the single remaining ground fails as well.

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
As we've explained in our brief, the Board simply misconstrued the critical claims of the Droplet patent.

[00:00:57] Speaker 00:
Under claim two, the invention requires storing on the client computer.

[00:01:01] Speaker 03:
In the blue brief at one, you limit your appeal to claims six and 20.

[00:01:07] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:01:09] Speaker 03:
It appears that your brief primarily focuses on the link and reestablishing limitations found in two and 16.

[00:01:17] Speaker 03:
What unique claim language from claims six and 20 do you rely on?

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, we're focusing on the deficiencies in Claim 2.

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
Claim 6 is a dependent claim that relies on Claim 2.

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
And the board only invoked those four grounds for invalidating Claim 6.

[00:01:37] Speaker 00:
So under this basic APA principles under chainery, the board's decision has to stand or fall on its stated rationale.

[00:01:44] Speaker 00:
And its stated rationale found the critical claims of both Claims 1, 2, and 6 relying on those four grounds and only those four grounds.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
What unique claim language?

[00:01:59] Speaker 03:
You didn't tell me.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
We're not focusing on the claim language in Claim 6, Your Honor.

[00:02:03] Speaker 00:
We're focusing on the claim language in Claim 2.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
Claim 6 is a dependent claim, and so unless the elements of Claim 2 are also obvious, using the references... So are you trying to revive Claims 2 and 16?

[00:02:15] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
We're focusing on Claim 6, and to be very clear about what happened below.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
What's the language?

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, Your Honor?

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
What's the language you're relying on?

[00:02:24] Speaker 02:
What's missing?

[00:02:25] Speaker 02:
A link?

[00:02:26] Speaker 00:
It's both.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
It's a link for reestablishing the communication connection to the host computer.

[00:02:32] Speaker 00:
So it's not a simple URL.

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
It's not a static call to a website.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
Why is it not a simple URL?

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, a simple URL was described in the second column of the patent in the background section.

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
And it was described to explain the prior art and to identify deficiencies in the prior art.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
Is a URL a link?

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
A URL is not a link for purposes of the droplet's pattern.

[00:02:51] Speaker 02:
But in ordinary parlance, it's a link, right?

[00:02:53] Speaker 00:
In some sense, Your Honor, but just last week in Ray Smith International, the court explained that terms don't have their generic meaning.

[00:03:00] Speaker 00:
It'd be one thing if droplets said a link is a generic meaning and that's the definition we're using for this pattern.

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
Suppose we do say that that's the meaning it should have.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
Do you lose?

[00:03:11] Speaker 00:
I don't think so, Your Honor, because it still wouldn't be a link for reestablishing the communication connection.

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
So I think that, again, the use of the word the here is very important.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
It relies back to the antecedent terms in the first claim, where it's not a simple matter of calling back a website, returning to where you once were.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
It's reestablishing a specific communication connection with a specific host computer.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
Help me out here.

[00:03:35] Speaker 03:
Where in the record did you make a claim construction argument regarding link or reestablishment limitation?

[00:03:43] Speaker 03:
Either to the PTAB or indeed in the bloop reef.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
Your honor, it's throughout the PTAB proceedings.

[00:03:51] Speaker 00:
It was the core basis of every submission to the board.

[00:03:55] Speaker 00:
It's why the director has an argued waiver here.

[00:03:58] Speaker 00:
It's clear that the claim construction... What were your offered constructions?

[00:04:02] Speaker 00:
The construction that we use is that a link is an interact.

[00:04:06] Speaker 03:
What were your offered construction in the records?

[00:04:09] Speaker 03:
What was it?

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
Your honor, there wasn't a Markman type proceeding, because this was an inter-party re-examination.

[00:04:15] Speaker 00:
So it's a little different than an IPR, a normal IPR.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
So there was no offered construction, is what you're saying to me.

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
No, there were constructions.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
What was it?

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
Where is it in the record?

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
This was cited in our brief.

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
On rebuttal, I'll find the exact page so you can see it.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
But the critical point is throughout the entire proceeding, it was absolutely clear that the core difference between the examiner and droplets, and then now between the board and droplets, is that a link is an interactive link that has specific functionality that is markedly different than a URL.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
And again, Your Honor, the director does not argue waiver and doesn't... Markedly different how from a URL?

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry?

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
How different?

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
In what way?

[00:04:56] Speaker 00:
It's different in every material way, Your Honor.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
A URL establishes a link to a particular website, right?

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
A URL establishes a link to a website.

[00:05:11] Speaker 00:
But that is not what the interactive link in the Droplets patent does.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
And I think that I'm using that word deliberately.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
What else does it do?

[00:05:17] Speaker 00:
What it does is, this is how the patent works.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:
Maybe if I take a step back, it'll make it clearer for the court.

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
Under the Droplets claims in 1 and 2, which again are the core foundation for claim 6,

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
you first access a content server where you download a link.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
This is embedded program code that then is installed on the client device.

[00:05:35] Speaker 00:
That link then establishes a specific communication connection with an application server.

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
So when you return to that link... How is that not establishing a link?

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
Again, Your Honor, the link is just a static website.

[00:05:45] Speaker 00:
It's like typing in, you know, www.uspto.gov.

[00:05:50] Speaker 00:
It just brings you to the home page of a website.

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
This does far more than that.

[00:05:54] Speaker 04:
But a link is in a location.

[00:05:56] Speaker 04:
It's a function.

[00:05:58] Speaker 04:
It takes you to a location.

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
It takes you to a location, but again, that is what the ordinary parlance in the Windows secret link does.

[00:06:05] Speaker 00:
And this is what we described in column two of our patent in the background section, which we then criticized for being deficient and not accomplishing what the modern online world needs, which is an ability to click an interactive link to go directly to the application server

[00:06:19] Speaker 00:
where you don't have to revisit a web page, you don't have to go back to the home page.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
The functionality is there.

[00:06:24] Speaker 00:
It resumes the past session.

[00:06:26] Speaker 04:
You want us to narrow the interpretation or the construction of reestablishment of a link, but we're looking at giving the most reasonable, broadest interpretation to the board, correct?

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
The standard is the broadest reasonable construction.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
This construction is enormously broad, but it's not at all reasonable.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
Again, in the patent,

[00:06:43] Speaker 02:
The construction that the board needs... It's unreasonable because of what it says in the specification about URLs?

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
What it says in the specification about URLs, what it says throughout... To take out of the equation what this language and the specification, do you agree that the broadest reasonable construction would include a URL?

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
No, I do not, Your Honor.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
You do not?

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
A URL is not sufficient in the language of claims one, two, or six.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
And again, because if you look, a URL is not a language.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
Do I have any trouble getting that out of the language of the claim?

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
I understand your argument about specification, but I don't understand your argument based on the claim language.

[00:07:20] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, it's the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.

[00:07:25] Speaker 00:
You don't just focus myopically on the claim.

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
That's what I asked you.

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
I asked you to put aside the language and specification.

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
On its face, the language of claim two would cover a URL, right?

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
I don't believe so, Your Honor, and if I can explain why.

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
It says, storing on the client computer a link for reestablishing the communication connection.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
A communication connection in the patent.

[00:07:45] Speaker 00:
You can see this in figure three.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
It's an iterative process.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
It's not a single static call.

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
It opens up an open transmission channel so that inputs go back and forth automatically.

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
And if you look at figure three, I think this is very important.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
It explains how, and this is on page, I believe it's, let me try to get it for you.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
It's 673 of the record.

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
Once the connection is initiated, it continues until it's terminated.

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
That is entirely different than static URL calls, and that is what a communication connection is.

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
So a link that just pulls up a webpage is not initiating the type of communication connection.

[00:08:22] Speaker 04:
Apart from your attorney argument, do you have any evidence, any evidential support why a link cannot be a URL?

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I don't think it's an attorney argument any more than any claim construction that relies on the... But it does seem to me that you're making arguments

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
now that you didn't properly or sufficiently tee up before the board, and you're looking to shoehorn those arguments here on appeal.

[00:08:46] Speaker 00:
Oh, I respectfully disagree, Your Honor.

[00:08:49] Speaker 04:
This was the same argument... Well, then point to the evidentiary support.

[00:08:52] Speaker 00:
Well, again, Your Honor, this wasn't a type of claim construction that requires outside expert testimony.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
It simply requires reading the patent and the claims in light of the specification.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
The board's entire support... Well, that's why we're having a problem, because the language of the claim seems to include a URL.

[00:09:08] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, again, I don't think it does because if you clicked on... That's attorney argument.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
Well, it may be, Judge Wallach, but let me see if I can argue and convince you that I'm right.

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
The way it would work if you had a simple URL is you'd click on the home page.

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
It would bring you back to the main site.

[00:09:27] Speaker 00:
It doesn't open a transmission channel.

[00:09:29] Speaker 00:
The actual transmission channel that goes straight to an application server.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
And again, this is directly in the language of Claim2.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
It has to reestablish the communication connection.

[00:09:38] Speaker 00:
That's a connection that was established earlier in claim one.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
It has to retrieve the presentation information and present the application and the content.

[00:09:46] Speaker 00:
Those, again, are antecedent terms that are looking back to the original transmission channel.

[00:09:51] Speaker 02:
It says a link for reestablishing the communication connection to the host computer.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
The URL doesn't do that?

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
It doesn't establish a communication connection to a host computer.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
It's a static call.

[00:10:04] Speaker 00:
It would pull up the main home page, but it doesn't create the type of communication connection.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
Let me ask you this.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
I'm old fashioned.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
I use a modem.

[00:10:15] Speaker 03:
It has interference.

[00:10:16] Speaker 03:
And I drop the website.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
And I click on the URL again.

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
It's just a regular old URL.

[00:10:24] Speaker 03:
And I pull up the website again.

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
Have I reestablished communication?

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
No, you have not, Your Honor.

[00:10:29] Speaker 00:
All you've done is return to the home page of that website.

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
It is fundamentally indistinguishable from having a stranger be the second person to access the website.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
That is not what this patent is about.

[00:10:40] Speaker 00:
And the key of the patent, again, it's setting up these facilities so that you can pick up where you left off.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
So that if you filled out a form, the data can still be there.

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
If you've typed in language on a Word document that's hosted on a cloud, that information can still exist for that specific user.

[00:10:56] Speaker 00:
None of those facilities are present with an ordinary URL

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
that's calling up an ordinary website.

[00:11:01] Speaker 04:
I hear and understand your argument.

[00:11:04] Speaker 04:
You're arguing certain functions that occur with respect to a link.

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
But point me, where in Claim 2 or 16 do we have a term link that has that specific functionality that you're talking about?

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, again, and I'm going to be firm on this because I really do think it's important,

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
It's not just the language in Claim 2.

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
It's read against the backdrop of the specification in the entire patent.

[00:11:28] Speaker 02:
Okay, so I'll read it against the background of the entire patent.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
Claim 7 says specifically what you say is implicitly included in Claim 6.

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I disagree.

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
What Claim 7 says is it involves a certain use of Claim 6 where information is stored on the host computer and the option of restoring the communication connection to the first operating state.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
which is different than restoring it to even where you left off, and it's different than the option of keeping data hosted on the client device.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
And again, the key here is that this is setting up a facility.

[00:12:03] Speaker 04:
And just to be clear, in the written description, there is no definition of link such that it excludes any type of URL or shortcut or hyperlink.

[00:12:15] Speaker 04:
There's no definition.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
Well, there's not a definition.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
And again, the board relied on the definition that Microsoft Secrets use for the purposes of Microsoft Secrets.

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
And again, Microsoft Secrets is not a lexicographer for the 838 patent.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
The question is what the patentee thought these terms meant.

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
And again, I think it's highly unusual to think that the patent... Well, it's more not what the patentee thought.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
It's what the claims read.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
Sure, Your Honor, but what they read is very clear.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
It's referring back to an interactive link, something with functionality, something that is not a URL, as they describe in columns two and three.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
I see I'm eating into my rebuttal time.

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
All right, you can save it.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
Mr. Kelly.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
At the risk of making just a little bit of an argument for opposing counsel, I want to just approach just for a second the distinction between the URL and the link.

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
And the only reason I want to do that is because counsel did make that argument, and that was the sole argument they made to the board.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
And here's the difference, and I'm going to use an analogy.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
If you receive an email, for example, and it has a telephone number in it, the telephone number is basically the address of another phone.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
But that's not a link.

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
But sometimes in modern technology, your email application will actually read your email, detect it's a telephone number, highlight it, underline it.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
That's a link.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
Because if you touch it and you're using a smartphone, it'll actually initiate a communication to that phone and basically reestablish a link if you'd been on the phone earlier.

[00:13:49] Speaker 01:
So the argument that counsel made to the board was that Windows Secrets didn't teach a link in the sense that it was something that you could interact with, but just really taught recording a URL.

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
And the board disposed of that pretty easily because Windows Secrets actually uses the term hyperlink.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
They actually say you drag it down.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
They actually say you can touch on it.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
So I don't think there can be any debate now before this court that Windows Secret doesn't teach a link.

[00:14:12] Speaker 01:
So then it brings us really to the heart of his argument now on appeal that there's two requirements that are present in the claim.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
And one requirement is this open channel requirement.

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
And counsel just referred to figure three of his specification.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
And that's at page 673 of the record.

[00:14:29] Speaker 01:
And if you look at figure three, it indeed looks like something that sets up an open communication.

[00:14:34] Speaker 01:
So you think of a conventional telephone call, because it says you start here, you initiate connection, and there's all these back and forths, and at the end, you terminate the session.

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
But if you actually read the part of the specification that talks about figure three, what it says is there are some embodiments where you can have these open communications.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
And I'm sorry, this is at page 684 of the appendix.

[00:14:56] Speaker 01:
And then it says, in another embodiment, and I'm reading about it line 60, in another embodiment wherein, for example, a firewall or proxy server security platform does not permit continuous open socket communications, a request updates periodically transmitted by the client computer to the application server 40.

[00:15:13] Speaker 01:
In other words, it works the way the internet always works.

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
There's no open communications in the internet.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
It's a packet switch network.

[00:15:21] Speaker 01:
Every communication is one communication to the host, another communication back to the client.

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
Their specification makes clear, even when talking about the figure that counsel just pointed to, that that can be an open communication or it can be a one-by-one communication back and forth.

[00:15:36] Speaker 01:
So I think that pretty much dispenses with that argument.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
The second argument that they make... So can a URL trigger, for example, the opening of an application program?

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, it all depends where you were when you made the link, right?

[00:15:52] Speaker 01:
So let's say, and I'll talk in terms of freeze.

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
So the way freeze works is that a customer potentially who wants to buy software navigates to the software store, if you will, and then they pick a particular piece of software and they can navigate through.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
And at some point, presumably, there's gonna be a link that says, okay, I wanna try out this piece of software.

[00:16:11] Speaker 01:
If they were to hyperlink that particular link and say, okay, I wanna come back and look at this piece of software again, then presumably when they hit the hyperlink again, they're not gonna return to, as he said, USPTO.gov.

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
They're going to return to whatever way deep inside the website they were at when they decided they wanted to get back to that place again.

[00:16:29] Speaker 01:
So in that sense, Your Honor, yes, I think it would reestablish the exact same communication that was established the first time they went to the link.

[00:16:39] Speaker 03:
Your opposing counsel argued, well, the form would still be filled in under his analysis.

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
It seems to me it's been a very long time since I've seen such

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
such software in existence, where when you dropped, you went back and the form was still filled in.

[00:17:03] Speaker 03:
Was that explored at all?

[00:17:04] Speaker 01:
Well, so, Your Honor, what you're referring to is their other argument that when you return to the website, the system returns you to the state that you were in when you were last at the website.

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
And that is what is in Claim 7.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
That is not part of the link.

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
That is the additional functionality provided by Claim 7.

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
And it's not just provided by claim seven, that's how the specification explains their invention works.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
And at page 681 of the record, you see column five of the specification.

[00:17:31] Speaker 01:
And towards the top of that column, around lines five through 15, the specification describes a link and what a link does.

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
And for example, that first full paragraph says, the method includes storing on a client computer an interactive link for selectively reestablishing the second communication connection to the application server.

[00:17:49] Speaker 01:
But if you keep reading and you read down approximately line 40 or so, there's another paragraph that says, in yet another embodiment, the method includes storing the application server information representing a first operating state of the remotely stored application and or information for a particular user.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
And I just read lines 37 through 40.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
So that's the functionality he's referring to.

[00:18:11] Speaker 01:
And it's clearly not part of the link.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
It's not part of the link the way they claimed it.

[00:18:15] Speaker 01:
And it's not part of the link the way they describe it in their application.

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
So those are really their two arguments.

[00:18:23] Speaker 01:
Neither one is tethered to the claim language.

[00:18:25] Speaker 01:
Neither one is tethered to the specification.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
And to be blunt, neither one is tethered to reality.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
Are you waiving the arguments with respect to the board's three other grounds of rejection for claims 6 and 20?

[00:18:40] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, we took a close look at the case and determined that this was the strongest rejection of the claims that they appealed.

[00:18:46] Speaker 01:
And so, following their lead, they narrowed the case quite significantly.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
We narrowed it also.

[00:18:52] Speaker 01:
To be frank, this is a very strong rejection.

[00:18:55] Speaker 01:
If for some reason the court were not to affirm this rejection, I'm not really sure the other rejections would get affirmed because they're no stronger than this rejection.

[00:19:03] Speaker 01:
We're confident that this rejection is strong enough.

[00:19:05] Speaker 04:
We appreciate you limiting the issues that are brought before us.

[00:19:10] Speaker 01:
If there's no further questions, I'll yield the remainder of my time.

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
Mr. Geiser, you've got a little over two minutes here.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court again.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
I think that one important thing that we've heard so far is that nothing that was argued today is actually in the Board's decision.

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
And again, under basic administrative law principles, under Chenery, the Board's decision stands or falls on its stated rationale.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
So if it needed to rely on Claim 7, that doesn't exist and it doesn't work.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
If it needed to rely on arguments about freeze or arguments about some of these other points, that just doesn't rely on Windows defining link, a URL to be a link.

[00:19:51] Speaker 00:
Again, that doesn't work.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
But to go very quickly through some... The problem with that argument is that it also impacts all the questioning with which we began.

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I don't believe so because, again, our arguments were preserved, if that's what Your Honor means.

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
Yes, it's what I mean.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
Yeah, well, if I could refer you to pages 5842 to 5843 of the Joint Appendix and 6260 to 6261, you'll see that the arguments that we're making today were, in fact, presented squarely to the board and the examiner.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
But to go through freeze quickly... Point us to the best evidence in the specification that supports your argument.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I think that I've gone through some of what we did consider to be the best evidence.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
I think if you look at Columns 13... Just tell me what your best shot is.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
Our best shot is if you look at Column 13 and if you look at lines 33 through 41, it describes how information is repeatedly communicated back and forth.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
This gives weight to our reading of Figure 3.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
If you look to Column 17... Give me a line number when you... Sure, it's 33 to 41, Your Honor.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
Column 17.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, column 13.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
I was trying to move on quickly to the next site.

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
This is on 685 of the Joint Appendix.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
What line?

[00:21:15] Speaker 00:
33, Your Honor.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
But if I could just move quickly, though, I think that a key point aside from what I think, again, and our brief set out why we think we're right on a reading of the patent, but I do want to respond to one thing that my friend said.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
which is that FreeSea and Windows combined do not get you where the Droplets application does, and this is why.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
Under Freeze, this is very clear from that case.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
The remote display... So if we adopt the interpretation and give it its most reasonable, broadest interpretation and affirm that, then wouldn't you say that the prior art references will read on this pen?

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
Again, no, Your Honor, because we don't think it reestablishes the communication connection from a prior state.

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
And this is why FREEZE doesn't do that.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
If you look, may I finish the thought, Your Honor?

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
If you look to column nine of FREEZE, this is on page 852, it makes it very clear that the remote display module is downloaded each time FREEZE is accessed.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
You can't bookmark an embedded page within the FREEZE system.

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
each time in order to initiate a communication connection, you have to revisit the website.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
The website has to send something to the host computer, which then initiates the communication connection.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
That is very different than the droplet's functionality.

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
Where were you in column nine?

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
I was at lines 40 to 45, Your Honor.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you.

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Goddard.

[00:22:44] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:22:44] Speaker 00:
Thank both counsel, cases submitted.