[00:00:42] Speaker 01:
The next appeal in this series is number 16, 2437, Hulu, LLC, against CRFD research.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
Let's see, Mr. Ward?

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
I will be arguing issues relating to anticipation.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
Mr. Batts will handle obviousness.

[00:01:05] Speaker 02:
There's really only one issue with respect to anticipation by Bates.

[00:01:10] Speaker 02:
And that's because all the other limitations are clearly met.

[00:01:14] Speaker 02:
The one that's in dispute has to do whether Bates expressly or inherently discloses the transmission of a session history after that session has been discontinued.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
Again, I need to make sure I've got the landscape.

[00:01:32] Speaker 04:
So the U Suite really broadly trying to go after basically every claim in the patent.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
So other than claims 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 23, 25, what difference is there as it relates to all those other claims that you attack?

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
Well, for anticipation, we're only, with respect to Bates, we're only addressing claims 1 to 3, 23, and 24.

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:02:02] Speaker 04:
And Mr. Batts will handle... So I have to ask him what those other claims are about?

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
If you want to ask that right now, obviously we're here for your convenience.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
I'm not going anywhere.

[00:02:14] Speaker 02:
Fair enough, your honor.

[00:02:17] Speaker 02:
So what we'd like to do is focus the attention back where it initiated and where it truly belongs.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
And that is not figure seven of Bates, it's figure eight.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
And if you look at the joint appendix, page 579,

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
We believe that the clearest anticipatory disclosure in Bates as to transmission of a session after that session has been discontinued starts at line 58, column 10, and continues to the top of column 11.

[00:02:56] Speaker 02:
And just to read it into the record, for example, consider a user reading messages posted on a bulletin board

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
in putting data into a web page or performing some other task during a browsing session.

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
Prior to completing the task, the user may be required to terminate a browsing session.

[00:03:24] Speaker 02:
In such an event, the necessary browser information may be collected and transmitted to a remote computer containing another browser program.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
The browser information is then used to reconfigure the browser program of the remote computer and restore the user to where he or she left off during the terminated browsing session.

[00:03:53] Speaker 02:
Thus, in the case of a user reading a message board, the browser displays the message which was being read when the browsing session was terminated.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
In the case of inputting data to a web page, the web page is rendered with the data that was input prior to the termination of the session contained therein.

[00:04:19] Speaker 02:
In effect, the present invention preserves the current status of a browsing session to be resumed at another location.

[00:04:32] Speaker 02:
The express goal of Bates is

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
to be able to resume at a new location in the identical format that you had at the old location.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
And the only way that can really be effectively accomplished is if you transmit... First, the information is already stored in your buffer.

[00:04:59] Speaker 02:
If you disconnect and then transmit, you, by definition, will have the last available

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
page or whatever it may be in the reference, you will not be missing any information.

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
In the institution decision, the board agreed with this.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
And at Appendix 105... Well, the institution is a tentative phase.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
Well, let's talk about the final decision.

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
In the final decision, the board reversed course.

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
This argument regarding column 10 was raised in the petition.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
It's been raised continuously by the appellants.

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
It has never been addressed by CRFD, not once.

[00:05:58] Speaker 02:
Instead, CRFD- The figure eight?

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
Figure eight, correct.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
CRFD has consistently ignored figure eight

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
and pointed instead to Figure 7.

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
But that's not proper, because Figure 7, by definition, it's described as covering what happens at the first computer during the browsing session.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
It's not directed to the transmission, which is the issue of anticipation by Bates.

[00:06:26] Speaker 02:
That's covered in Figure 8.

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
But you've asked about the final decision following

[00:06:36] Speaker 02:
the lead of CRFD, the board reverse course.

[00:06:40] Speaker 02:
And it found at Appendix 16, you'll see there's a quote.

[00:07:01] Speaker 02:
And now, instead of the full

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
section describing figure eight that we've just discussed.

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
This is just a truncated version.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
And based on this truncated version, the board now determines that we are not persuaded that this portion of Bates implies a sequential order for the last two sentences, i.e.

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
that the browsing session is terminated before transmission of the browser information.

[00:07:34] Speaker 02:
That really is not a fair reading of those sentences.

[00:07:38] Speaker 02:
If we're going to be honest, just talk about prior to completing the task, the termination of the session occurs, and then transmission clearly occurs.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
There is a sequence there.

[00:07:50] Speaker 04:
And the sequence- It has to be a really unfair reading in order to not be supported by substantial evidence, right?

[00:07:56] Speaker 04:
Because it's a factual finding.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:08:00] Speaker 02:
And we believe it is.

[00:08:05] Speaker 02:
And again, now instead of relying on Figure 8 at all or even discussing it beyond this short description, the opinion a little further down in that paragraph says, to the contrary, as discussed above, Bates' description of Figure 7 indicates that transmission of browser information occurs during a browsing session.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
But again, our point, Your Honors, is that you don't look to Figure 7

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
to determine when transmission occurs, it's only concerned about the browsing session occurring at the first computer.

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
Figure 8 is where direction should be placed.

[00:08:44] Speaker 02:
And figure 8 clearly shows that Bates anticipates the CRFD patent.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
Okay, you're sharing your time with Mr. Bates.

[00:09:05] Speaker 00:
Morning, Your Honors.

[00:09:05] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court?

[00:09:07] Speaker 00:
The PTAB erred here by failing to conduct any proper obviousness analysis in the ground that was instituted at the institution decision stage.

[00:09:18] Speaker 04:
If we agree with you on obviousness, then the anticipation arguments are irrelevant, right?

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
Or not necessary?

[00:09:24] Speaker 04:
Because there's an overlap in the claims.

[00:09:27] Speaker 00:
I believe you're correct, Your Honor, that all of the claims for anticipation are covered in the obviousness ground.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
but not vice versa.

[00:09:34] Speaker 00:
So the obviousness ground includes numerous claims that aren't at issue in any of the other appeals that we've discussed here today.

[00:09:42] Speaker 00:
And in the obviousness ground, the court failed to actually conduct any sort of obviousness analysis.

[00:09:48] Speaker 00:
It's a one paragraph reference in a decision to say that, well, for the reasons we've already stated with respect to our analysis under anticipation with respect to Bates, we find that the claims are not obvious.

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
And as this court is well aware, the tests for anticipation and obviousness are very different.

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
And if you look at the decision... Do I understand your argument to be that essentially the board, because it found that Bates didn't anticipate and because it only instituted on Bates as it relates to anticipation that it could somehow pull Bates out of its obviousness analysis?

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
I think that's essentially what it did.

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
If you look at the decision on page 21, appendix page 21, and the final written decision in the portion regarding anticipation, it says, based on all the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that Bates discloses, either expressly or inherently transmitting the session history.

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
And then if you go to page 22 in the one paragraph regarding obviousness grounds, the board merely points to, we are not persuaded for the reasons explained above.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
So clearly, the board's looking back and saying, well, since you didn't show that this one claim element, the one claim element to dispute regarding the timing of the transfer or the session history, whether before or after discontinuation, if you didn't show that expressly or inherently in your anticipation section, then you don't have an obviousness claim.

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
And that's just not how the law governing obviousness should work.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
So it failed to consider whether, even if they were correct with respect to what Bates disclosed, that it would still have been obvious to one of skill in the art

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
to do it differently.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
Exactly, Your Honor.

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
So what they did is they failed to look at the teachings of the art that were in the record, as well as the admissions by CRFD.

[00:11:32] Speaker 00:
If you recall in this record, CRFD repeatedly said, and its expert repeatedly said, that it was equally as likely that the transmission occurred either before or after discontinuation.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
So an example of that in Mr. Moha-Potter's deposition at appendix 853, he says, likewise, transmissions that occur when an application or computer is being shut down

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
need not necessarily occur after a session is discontinued.

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
It is equally likely that the transmission is made as part of the shutdown process.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
So CRFD itself acknowledged that this is really a binary decision for one of ordinary skill in the art to be looking at and the teaching as to whether you do it before or after or not after.

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
And the board did not even consider that admission, even though the board adopted that admission in its anticipation portion of the decision.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
It did not even address that admission.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
when looking at obviousness and whether this was obvious.

[00:12:22] Speaker 00:
And it failed to even use common sense here.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
We're talking about whether you do one of two options.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
And as our expert explained in his declaration accompanying the petition, that it was obvious to one of ordinary skill to have it sent after discontinuation because you would want to ensure that the entire session history is being transferred.

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
And the way to ensure that the entire session history was being transferred would be to wait until after discontinuation

[00:12:49] Speaker 00:
to transmit.

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
But if we think the board essentially did an improper obviousness analysis, is that something we could reverse, or do we have to send it back?

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
So I think in our briefing, we cited a few different cases regarding the obviousness reversals, including the building decision on page 28 of our briefing.

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
And beyond that, the answer, I think, is yes, you can.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
But beyond that decision, I would cite to the non-precedential decision of Henry Taylor-Made Golf Company.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
It's a decision from 589 at Fed Appendix 967, and that's a 2014 decision that I believe you were a part of, in which the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the PTO in the Interparties reexamination context, finding that claims were not obvious.

[00:13:41] Speaker 00:
So I think we do have support there, as well as in the statute governing appeals for final written decisions of IPRs, 35 U.S.C.

[00:13:48] Speaker 00:
141, gives a broad right to parties' reviews to appeal any portion of a final written decision that they disagree with.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
You saved a couple of minutes for rebuttal.

[00:14:07] Speaker 01:
Are you ready for rebuttal?

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
Any other questions?

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
Let's hear what Mr. Fahmy has to say.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
My friend began his remarks this morning by saying that the Court really needs to consider the Figure 8 embodiment of Bates and that it's been ignored by not only CRFD, but by the Board.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
Well, it wasn't ignored by the Board.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
In fact,

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
Well, show me where the board addressed it.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
Page 16 of their opinion, and it's the passage that my colleague identified for you.

[00:14:49] Speaker 03:
The board considered the exact passage that they relied upon in their petition and said, it's not convincing.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
These sentences don't imply a sequence.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
And then two pages later, on page 18,

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
They indicated that the argument that was being advanced essentially ignored the ordering that was in the claim and would have a reference anticipate as long as there is some possibility of the required ordering, regardless of what the reference actually discloses.

[00:15:27] Speaker 03:
My friend also criticized both CFRD and the board for spending all their time talking about Figure 7 in Bates.

[00:15:36] Speaker 03:
There's a reason for that, your honor.

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
Figure seven, this is appendix page 573, step 720, transmit browser information.

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
That's where the transmission happens.

[00:15:49] Speaker 03:
That's why we spend time talking about it.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
And figure eight, by the way, is not about transmission because on page 575, where Bates patent describes what the figure is, it says, figure eight depicts a flow diagram

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
for handling a received message containing browser information.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
This is the receiver that's being shown.

[00:16:12] Speaker 04:
It seems to me that the board is conflating what's taught by those two figures in this discussion on page 16.

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor.

[00:16:20] Speaker 03:
I think you're mistaken.

[00:16:21] Speaker 03:
I think they're addressing the text that the petitioner was relying upon and properly reached the conclusion that the fact that a user may be required to terminate a session

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
before completing a test doesn't mean it necessarily happens to be that.

[00:16:37] Speaker 03:
And by the way, if you read it that way, it conflicts with everything that Bates teaches.

[00:16:41] Speaker 04:
So why wouldn't all of this language, putting aside the anticipation, why wouldn't all of this language that the admission that it's at least as likely that the transmission occurs before or after the session and even your expert's admission as to that, why wouldn't that, with respect to obviousness,

[00:17:02] Speaker 04:
be almost determined.

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
Well, because that's not what they argued, Your Honor.

[00:17:07] Speaker 03:
And in fact, their own argument is what's fatal to their obviousness case.

[00:17:13] Speaker 03:
And I would invite your attention to appendix page 227.

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
This is the transcript of the oral hearing.

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
And this is the petitioner complaining about

[00:17:31] Speaker 03:
how we have or we characterize things.

[00:17:36] Speaker 03:
Patent owner refers to a combination of Chan and Bates or Zao and Bates and indicates that those combinations would indicate a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that the session history is transmitted after the session is discontinued.

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
However, we're not relying on the combination of Bates and Chan or Bates and Zao for that element.

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
We are just citing Bates.

[00:18:00] Speaker 03:
And this comports with their own petition.

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
They didn't rely on what a person of ordinary skill would know.

[00:18:06] Speaker 03:
They relied on the text of Bates.

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
But it's not just the text of Bates in the sense of anticipation, but the text of Bates could still indicate things to a person of skill in the arts.

[00:18:20] Speaker 04:
So in other words, a single reference can still be a basis for obviousness, even if it's not a basis for anticipation.

[00:18:28] Speaker 03:
Yes, it can, Your Honor, and they actually advanced that single obviousness argument and the board rejected it at institution.

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
So that was not before the court.

[00:18:37] Speaker 04:
Bates was part of the obviousness institution.

[00:18:40] Speaker 04:
They said it was redundant to allow Bates independently, but that doesn't mean you ignore Bates as an independent reference in the obviousness analysis, because otherwise it wouldn't be redundant.

[00:18:50] Speaker 03:
Yeah, I agree you don't ignore Bates, Your Honor, but the combination being advocated was Bates and Chan or Bates and Zhao

[00:18:58] Speaker 04:
Right, but you have Bates and Chan.

[00:19:00] Speaker 04:
Chan doesn't have to add anything if Bates is enough.

[00:19:03] Speaker 04:
It's still an obviousness combination.

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
If it were enough, right, but it wasn't enough, Your Honor, because the board found that what Bates actually said to the person of ordinary skill in the art was something the opposite of what they were advocating.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
The board had already gone through that entire analysis of Bates.

[00:19:21] Speaker 03:
It didn't have to repeat it verbatim in the decision when it came to obviousness.

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
Even though what it said was at least it says

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
at least as likely, meaning it could go either way.

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
Actually, the board did not say it could go either way.

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
The board said that Bates did not describe that.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
Because Bates didn't say it necessarily had.

[00:19:41] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
But that doesn't mean it also doesn't imply that it could.

[00:19:48] Speaker 04:
The board never said it necessarily said the opposite.

[00:19:52] Speaker 03:
That's true.

[00:19:52] Speaker 03:
The board didn't say it necessarily said the opposite.

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
What the board said was, it teaches you to do it this way.

[00:20:02] Speaker 03:
And that was the rationale that they relied upon.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
Your Honors, I want to also address some of the other arguments that were made by the petitioner in their brief.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
And this concerns the alleged operation of the Windows device

[00:20:26] Speaker 03:
I would just point out that as the board found all of that evidence to the extent that it even should have been considered at the hearing and the board actually went the extra mile and gave the petition of the benefit of the doubt and did consider all of that evidence indicated that it was only directed as to how a system could operate, not how it does operate and there was nothing in the record

[00:20:50] Speaker 03:
that actually supported the idea that this was how the system operated.

[00:20:57] Speaker 03:
And contrary to the contention that the board was somehow changing theories midstream, it was simply the board recognizing that the arguments that had been presented by CFRD and the evidence, which was not available at the institution time, was the more persuasive evidence.

[00:21:22] Speaker 04:
If the claims are canceled by virtue of one or both of the prior appeals, and so that actually addresses the bulk of the first part of the obviousness claim, what do the rest of the claims add in terms of what the patent claims and what any allegedly infringing devices might do?

[00:21:50] Speaker 03:
There was nothing in the record, Your Honor, that would have argued any of those dependencies differently.

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
It was all based upon limitations that were in the independent claims.

[00:22:04] Speaker 04:
However... But there's some later independent claims that I'm trying to figure out.

[00:22:08] Speaker 03:
Yes, 13, for example, is a later independent claim.

[00:22:10] Speaker 03:
Really, though, it came down to the same type of limitation.

[00:22:17] Speaker 03:
Let me see if I can find that for you.

[00:22:22] Speaker 03:
So in 13, for example, Your Honor, it still came down to the limitation for a first device to transmit a session history of said first device to said session transfer module after said session is discontinued.

[00:22:41] Speaker 03:
So all of the analysis and arguments in this particular case with respect to Bates primarily

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
We're focused on that idea.

[00:22:54] Speaker 04:
No, but putting Bates aside, if in fact those other claims are invalid for any reason, do the other claims matter?

[00:23:07] Speaker 03:
You lost me between the two others.

[00:23:09] Speaker 04:
If claims 1, 4 through 6, 23, 25, 8 through 11 are all invalid for any reason, putting aside Bates, what do the other claims add?

[00:23:24] Speaker 03:
What do they add?

[00:23:25] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure they add anything.

[00:23:27] Speaker 04:
Do they practice the invention differently?

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
There are differences, Your Honor.

[00:23:40] Speaker 03:
For example, Claim 13 does not require the resuming step.

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
So they're different.

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
And so I suppose you say they practice the invention differently, but they weren't challenged in the other cases.

[00:24:00] Speaker 03:
And so they really weren't before the board.

[00:24:03] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:24:07] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, no reversal is warranted in this case, contrary to Hulu's complaint before the court that the board ignored some compelling evidence.

[00:24:20] Speaker 03:
It was actually Hulu itself that argued the browser session of Bates was the session that's recited in the challenge claims.

[00:24:29] Speaker 03:
This is at Appendix 61 and confirmed at the oral hearing on Appendix 225 in the transcript.

[00:24:39] Speaker 03:
Further, the Board's decision was based on all the evidence of record, as stated in their decision, page 21, and not merely some limited interpretation.

[00:24:50] Speaker 03:
And the board did not commit any procedural errors.

[00:24:53] Speaker 03:
In fact, when confronted with arguments that had never been raised in the petition, the board went the extra mile and actually considered the impact of those arguments.

[00:25:03] Speaker 03:
This is on page 23, primarily in the footnote that's set forth on that page with regard to the preservation argument.

[00:25:12] Speaker 03:
In short, there's nothing that would compel this court to upset the board's decision in this case.

[00:25:19] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:25:21] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Fahmy.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
Okay, you have three minutes.

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:25:29] Speaker 02:
Just briefly, with respect to Windows, anyone who's used Windows knows that when you click on the shutdown option, that you'll get a screen telling you that Windows is closing down all open applications.

[00:25:42] Speaker 02:
In the timeframe we're talking about, Windows and Internet Explorer were on 92% of all computers.

[00:25:48] Speaker 02:
So when you want

[00:25:50] Speaker 02:
to shut down your computer, or you select that as a user option, as the machine shuts down, the applications, including the browser, are first shut down.

[00:26:05] Speaker 02:
Then housekeeping occurs.

[00:26:07] Speaker 02:
So any information that has already been placed in the buffer would then be sent by the email browser to the second computer.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
That was admitted to by CRFD's expert, Dr. Moa Patra.

[00:26:20] Speaker 02:
And there really isn't any dispute as to that.

[00:26:23] Speaker 02:
We think that most of the client options could be executed either during the session or after the session.

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
But in respect to the shutdown, it's clearly after the session.

[00:26:39] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:26:39] Speaker 01:
Mr. Batts.

[00:26:45] Speaker 00:
So a few points I wanted to make here.

[00:26:48] Speaker 00:
First, on the argument regarding the Bates and Zao or Bates and Chan combinations, I think Judge Malley, I would reiterate that I think you're correct that we're looking only, we're only contending that the only issue here is the step of discontinuation and the timing of the transfer.

[00:27:04] Speaker 00:
And we're not contending that Zao or Chan teach that.

[00:27:07] Speaker 00:
So it's all about the teachings of Bates, whether or not it's Bates and Chan or Bates and Zao for the different grounds that were instituted.

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
It goes back to the teachings of Bates in what one of ordinary skill would understand when looking at Bates, as well as the full evidentiary record regarding obviousness, including CRFD's admission about that it was equally likely.

[00:27:27] Speaker 04:
But the board said you needed to articulate something more as to why you would modify Bates.

[00:27:33] Speaker 00:
And we don't need to modify Bates, because as the board itself acknowledged on, and I wanted to point to that as the next point, so on page 17 of the board's decision on appendix 17,

[00:27:42] Speaker 00:
the board states at the top of that page, further patent owner explains why for each of the three shared events cited by petitioner is at least equally likely that the transmission occurs before discontinuing the session.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
So the board in its anticipation analysis is adopting CRFD's position, which obviously we disagree with on anticipation, but it's adopting the view that it's at least equally likely that Bates teaches one or the other.

[00:28:06] Speaker 00:
So there's no modification that needs to be made to Bates.

[00:28:08] Speaker 00:
One of ordinary skill in looking at me, as explained by Dr. Claypool in his declaration, would understand that there is the option there to send it after discontinuation and would be motivated, and there's a rationale under KSR, to have it occur after discontinuation because you would want to ensure that the entire session history is being transferred, and that would occur by sending it after the discontinuation.

[00:28:31] Speaker 00:
In terms of the rest of the claims, the one point I wanted to make on the rest of the claims, obviously,

[00:28:36] Speaker 00:
Obviously, the obviousness grounds have different claims.

[00:28:40] Speaker 00:
But there's been no disagreement or argument by CRFD regarding any element for any of those claims beyond this step of discontinuation and the timing of discontinuation.

[00:28:50] Speaker 00:
And then I think we heard when Mr. Fafmi was speaking still that there's this conflation between a session and a browsing session in Bates and the patent.

[00:29:00] Speaker 00:
And the board in its decision on claim instruction made clear that a session

[00:29:05] Speaker 00:
can be, you could have five, six, seven sessions within a single browsing session of Bates.

[00:29:10] Speaker 00:
And I'm still hearing that same confusion being argued here today to equate a browsing session with a session.

[00:29:17] Speaker 00:
And while a session can be within a browsing session, you could have five or six or 10 sessions as defined by the court for the 233 patent claim terms within a single browsing session of Bates.

[00:29:29] Speaker 00:
So I wanted to make that clear.

[00:29:31] Speaker 00:
And I know I'm running out of time, so any other questions?

[00:29:34] Speaker 01:
Thank you both.

[00:29:39] Speaker 01:
I thank all three of you.

[00:29:41] Speaker 01:
That concludes the argued cases for this morning.