[00:00:00] Speaker 04: uh... uh... uh... [00:00:30] Speaker 04: Did I pronounce that correctly? [00:00:31] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:00:31] Speaker 04: Loomis. [00:00:32] Speaker 04: Loomis. [00:00:33] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:00:33] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:00:34] Speaker 04: And you reserve in three minutes your time for rebuttal. [00:00:36] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:00:37] Speaker 04: We're ready when you are. [00:00:42] Speaker 03: Make this court. [00:00:43] Speaker 03: Mr. Loomis, help me out here. [00:00:45] Speaker 03: If I click, using this invention, if I click on HTTP [00:00:53] Speaker 03: colon dash dash dash, www.walmart.com, right? [00:01:00] Speaker 03: Do I end up at that same walmart.com, same exact address, but the page is in Spanish, or does the web address change to something else? [00:01:16] Speaker 00: There are different ways that it's been implemented, Your Honor. [00:01:18] Speaker 00: The content should be exactly the same. [00:01:21] Speaker 00: So you should get what you would have gotten at walmart.com in Spanish, whether you do that by going to a page that is now walmart slash, for example, spanish.com, or you'd go through a proxy server or a translation manager that then provides it back to walmart.com to translate and send back to you is not required in the claims. [00:01:44] Speaker 00: So it could go either way. [00:01:49] Speaker 00: Your Honor, [00:01:50] Speaker 00: The invalidity decision of the board is based entirely on a claim construction of the boards of said hyperlink that makes no sense in the overall context of the PAC. [00:02:01] Speaker 01: What if we conclude that when we read prosecution history of the re-examination, we find that TransPerfect, in fact, advanced that claim construction that you just told us makes no sense in the context of the PAC? [00:02:18] Speaker 01: So I guess, to me, I'm wondering, hypothetically, is a patent owner allowed to say a claim means one thing to one part of the agency in one proceeding, and then to another part of the agency in a different proceeding, the patent owner can say the exact opposite of the meaning of that same claim term? [00:02:44] Speaker 01: Do you think they're allowed to do that? [00:02:48] Speaker 00: So allowed as far as a regulation, Your Honor, probably. [00:02:51] Speaker 00: But I wouldn't say that that should be permitted. [00:02:53] Speaker 01: Well, should there be a stop? [00:02:55] Speaker 01: Should there be a stop? [00:02:56] Speaker 01: If a patent owner says the claim means X in a re-examination, and then in another proceeding, a year later, in front of the agency, the patent owner on that same claim term says, that claim term means not X. [00:03:17] Speaker 01: Do you think they should be allowed to do that? [00:03:19] Speaker 00: Only if when they said it was X, the patent office said you're wrong and it means X prime. [00:03:26] Speaker 00: I think there'd be nothing wrong with coming in later and saying it means X prime. [00:03:30] Speaker 00: It's now been adjudicated. [00:03:31] Speaker 01: But what if the examiner says in that first proceeding, you say it means X, I agree. [00:03:39] Speaker 00: I think if there's a meeting of the minds and the patent owner really said X and the examiner understood and actually came back with the same X, then you should hold the patent owner to that construction. [00:03:52] Speaker 00: That is not what happened here. [00:03:53] Speaker 00: Let me be very, very clear. [00:03:54] Speaker 00: That is not what happened in this case. [00:03:56] Speaker 00: But I think that would be a fair outcome. [00:03:58] Speaker 00: Whether there's law or regulation to compel that, I'm not certain. [00:04:03] Speaker 00: But I think that would be a fair way to proceed. [00:04:06] Speaker 00: If I may, I'd like to walk you through why that's not at all what happened here. [00:04:11] Speaker 00: If you go to the file history, and that's really all that's at issue from the patent office. [00:04:15] Speaker 00: I think there's no dispute that there's claim language, that there's specification. [00:04:19] Speaker 00: They argue these two are somehow completely at odds with each other. [00:04:23] Speaker 00: File history is what they focused on. [00:04:25] Speaker 00: And there's page after page after page about the file history. [00:04:29] Speaker 00: But there is no argument, and I think there is a concession, that there is no disavowal, disclaimer, [00:04:35] Speaker 00: or estoppel here. [00:04:37] Speaker 00: So your honor's question is actually not about estoppel. [00:04:40] Speaker 00: It's not an argument that's being advanced by patent office today. [00:04:45] Speaker 00: It's wrong on the merits. [00:04:46] Speaker 00: If you go and you look at what TransPerfect said and its expert, Dr. Nakamovsky, it never said that the patent should be limited to having links that point back to the untranslated content in the translated web page. [00:05:00] Speaker 00: And that's really what this issue, in my mind, distills down to. [00:05:04] Speaker 01: Well, late bricks, the reference, obviously, once you click on the hyperlink in the translated web page, you are going to a different URL than you would have when you clicked on that same hyperlink in the untranslated web page. [00:05:25] Speaker 01: That we can all agree, and that we can also agree that TransPerfect pointed out in distinguishing Lake Ritz over the claim. [00:05:35] Speaker 01: I don't think that's quite right. [00:05:36] Speaker 00: Lake Ritz was a server for a corporate structure. [00:05:41] Speaker 00: Unlike a web system in the way that the O22 Scanlan patent is focused on, where I think it's free ranging, anything you click on, you can get translated through the O22 patent. [00:05:53] Speaker 00: Lackritz is... Can you tell me what I said was wrong? [00:05:57] Speaker 01: Because I'm just recalling the two key paragraphs in the prosecution history that I remember reading. [00:06:04] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:06:05] Speaker 00: What I think, if I heard you correctly, Your Honor, what I think you got wrong was the suggestion that in Lackritz, you would always get the same content that was in the untranslated web page and the translated web page, or in the untranslated document in the translated document. [00:06:23] Speaker 01: Well, my point was that the hyperlink in the translated document would send you to a different URL address than clicking on the hyperlink in the untranslated webpage. [00:06:36] Speaker 00: It may not even go to a URL. [00:06:39] Speaker 00: It's a corporate server. [00:06:40] Speaker 00: It could go to... It could go to a different target. [00:06:43] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:06:44] Speaker 01: Right? [00:06:44] Speaker 01: You're going to a different place. [00:06:46] Speaker 01: You're getting a different document. [00:06:48] Speaker 01: And by target, what it does for this content... And so you're saying [00:06:52] Speaker 01: the prosecution history didn't identify the two different URL addresses? [00:06:56] Speaker 00: It does talk about tags and references, and those could be URLs. [00:06:59] Speaker 00: I'm just saying it doesn't have to be. [00:07:04] Speaker 03: Look at page 22 of your blueprint. [00:07:06] Speaker 03: You have some figures illustrating English and Spanish. [00:07:14] Speaker 03: So if you click on Store Tienda in Spanish, does it always take you to exactly the same site, simply translated into Spanish? [00:07:30] Speaker 00: That's exactly, yes. [00:07:31] Speaker 00: So what you should get is the same list of stores with the same text about the list of stores in Spanish that you would have had in English. [00:07:40] Speaker 00: That's where Lackerts is different. [00:07:41] Speaker 00: What Lackerts teaches is [00:07:44] Speaker 00: you may have country-specific or language-specific content. [00:07:47] Speaker 00: So if you click on a similar page with the Lackritz patent, and you click tiendas or you click stores, you might be sent, here if I click it in English, it might send me to the local Best Buy of the district. [00:07:59] Speaker 00: But if I'm in the Spanish site, for whatever reason, it might send me to Reston or Alexandria or something like that. [00:08:05] Speaker 00: Because the patent talks about [00:08:09] Speaker 00: I want to make sure I get this right. [00:08:11] Speaker 00: If you look at A2245, the Lackert's patent itself, at column 5, lines 27 through 33, talks about allowing a site to be built with, quote, content that is specific to a particular language and country, and later talks about regional specific information that may only be required in a single language. [00:08:33] Speaker 00: Your Honor hits on exactly the distinction that was, and maybe it could have been made more artfully in file history, but the distinction that was being made. [00:08:41] Speaker 00: In the O2-2 patent, you get exactly the same content, albeit translated. [00:08:46] Speaker 00: In Lackritz and in Dunsmore, you might get different content, a different target altogether. [00:08:53] Speaker 01: So what about these two paragraphs at A1449? [00:08:57] Speaker 01: I mean, I know [00:08:59] Speaker 01: You're talking conceptually what you argued, but why don't you just walk us through those two paragraphs in A1449, where it looks to me, TransPerfect is saying, regardless of the usage of a relative or absolute hyperlink, claim one requires that the target of the hyperlink is the same after you translate the web page. [00:09:28] Speaker 01: Yes, sir. [00:09:28] Speaker 01: And then that is unlike LACRITS, because LACRITS shows that the hyperlink changes. [00:09:41] Speaker 01: Right? [00:09:42] Speaker 01: Why? [00:09:42] Speaker 01: Why? [00:09:45] Speaker 01: Because it's not. [00:09:46] Speaker 01: You can see it here. [00:09:48] Speaker 01: Right? [00:09:49] Speaker 01: I mean, one is, I mean, don't make me read the whole thing, but you can see that the www addresses are different. [00:09:57] Speaker 01: for the two hyperlinks. [00:09:59] Speaker 01: So it's not the same hyperlink. [00:10:01] Speaker 01: And that seems to be clearly the point of what this paragraph at A1449 is trying to make about lacquerates versus Claim 1, which, according to TransPerfect, is the same hyperlink, same target. [00:10:17] Speaker 00: So I disagree, Ronner. [00:10:18] Speaker 00: I think the text you're pointing at, if you read it in isolation and you only had that text, we'd have a bigger problem than I think we should have. [00:10:25] Speaker 00: You have to read it in context of the overall discussion of Lapritz and in the file history. [00:10:31] Speaker 01: So can you point me to the pieces of the prosecution history surrounding these two paragraphs that to you help me walk away from my very specific understanding of these two paragraphs? [00:10:45] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:10:46] Speaker 00: Yes, I appreciate the opportunity to do that. [00:10:48] Speaker 00: So if you start actually on page 1448, [00:10:52] Speaker 00: If you look at the top of the page there, you see in the second paragraph, it referring to lacrets as a typical corporate system. [00:11:00] Speaker 00: It operates by placing parallel document trees in corresponding language-specific directories on a web server. [00:11:07] Speaker 00: Now you have pre-selected, pre-translated content going into servers. [00:11:12] Speaker 00: Carry that forward to 1449, where your honor was looking, but look a paragraph above. [00:11:17] Speaker 00: And if you start at the very top of the page on 1449, [00:11:21] Speaker 00: It talks about why the LACRITS approach is, quote, fundamentally at odds with the ability in the O2-2 patent to provide a translation of said further electronic communication simply by following an arbitrary hyperlink. [00:11:35] Speaker 00: That's an important phrase. [00:11:36] Speaker 00: In LACRITS, you follow the hyperlink to the content. [00:11:40] Speaker 00: So you have a bestbuy.com. [00:11:44] Speaker 00: It's got a link to the stores page. [00:11:47] Speaker 00: And now it's translated into TNDS. [00:11:48] Speaker 00: You follow that link. [00:11:50] Speaker 00: Here you have pre-built, pre-translated content in the servers themselves. [00:11:56] Speaker 00: It says right after where I just read that one of skill in the art, reading lacrets, would conclude that the user can obtain translations of further electronic communications only for pages that have been pre-translated with translations stored in specific directories on the server. [00:12:13] Speaker 00: So the structure's different. [00:12:14] Speaker 00: Now you get into the language your honor's referred to. [00:12:17] Speaker 00: Which, again, if you just read it in isolation, I'm not suggesting that the patent office is making it up, that there's not some reason to make the argument. [00:12:24] Speaker 00: But that language in context goes down to the bottom. [00:12:27] Speaker 00: Look at the paragraph after that. [00:12:29] Speaker 00: It says, as a result, now it's after these two paragraphs, which I think are fairly complicated and difficult to follow, it sums it up. [00:12:37] Speaker 00: It says, as a result of using relative URLs instead of absolute URLs in lacrets, [00:12:43] Speaker 00: and a system of parallel directories, one for each target language, so that's Slakritz. [00:12:49] Speaker 00: Hyperlinks in different translations from the same source document will link to different documents, different translations of, and this is the key word, another source document. [00:13:01] Speaker 00: What they're telling you there is that this content is different. [00:13:04] Speaker 00: It's going instead of to a translated version of the same source document, it is going to a different, another source document. [00:13:11] Speaker 01: Right, it's pointing to a different address. [00:13:14] Speaker 00: That's not what that means, Your Honor. [00:13:17] Speaker 04: Can you comment on the last sentence of that paragraph? [00:13:21] Speaker 00: The one I was just reading? [00:13:22] Speaker 04: Yes, it's on 1450, the last paragraph, the last sentence of that thing. [00:13:28] Speaker 00: Lacklitz cannot provide translation of said further electronic communication when said hyperlink is activated, as recited in claim one? [00:13:35] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:13:36] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:13:36] Speaker 00: So I think this is exactly the point I'm making, which is in claim one, what you get is the same content [00:13:43] Speaker 00: translated. [00:13:44] Speaker 00: It says so. [00:13:45] Speaker 00: If you look through the claim, I think it's the seventh limitation, you click on the hyperlink for the further communications, and they come back translated. [00:13:54] Speaker 00: And so what this is telling you, when you put it in the context of the sentence I read, is you're not getting that content translated. [00:14:00] Speaker 00: You could be getting different content translated. [00:14:04] Speaker 00: So you're not going to click the hyperlink and get the same content, albeit translated. [00:14:09] Speaker 00: That's what that sentence means. [00:14:13] Speaker 00: I just want to point out, Your Honors, on 1429-1443, TransPerfect makes very clear in this same document that the patent... 1429, that's kind of the background section of that office action response, right? [00:14:30] Speaker 00: Well, that's what the Patent Office calls it. [00:14:33] Speaker 00: I don't think that's fair. [00:14:35] Speaker 00: It's the very beginning of the brief. [00:14:36] Speaker 00: It's the introduction to the arguments. [00:14:37] Speaker 00: It's an introduction to what TransPerfect's view is of the 022 patent. [00:14:43] Speaker 00: And it says, [00:14:44] Speaker 00: implementation when translation. [00:14:46] Speaker 01: I'm describing an embodiment in the specification, not really discussing the actual claim language itself. [00:14:51] Speaker 01: I don't see A1429 wrestling with hyperlink said hyperlink. [00:14:56] Speaker 01: I see it more describing the one embodiment that's discussing the specification. [00:15:02] Speaker 01: And so I think part of the debate here is to what extent does the claim language match what's going on in the specification. [00:15:13] Speaker 01: What I'm most interested in is those locations in the prosecution history where the patent owner is wrestling with the claim language, like those two paragraphs in A 1449. [00:15:23] Speaker 00: Maybe I can try another page then, Your Honors. [00:15:25] Speaker 00: 1443. [00:15:27] Speaker 00: In this page, the transperfect is wrestling, as you put it, with the Murata reference. [00:15:34] Speaker 00: And the distinguished Murata has not practiced in claim one. [00:15:38] Speaker 00: You can see at the very bottom of the page, it says Murata cannot anticipate claim one. [00:15:41] Speaker 00: So we're absolutely talking about [00:15:43] Speaker 00: what is and is not inside of that claim. [00:15:46] Speaker 00: And it says at the last four lines of the paragraph above that, one of skill in the art reading Murata would conclude that in this embodiment, translation of a further electronic communication is not provided or delivered to the user when a link on a document translated from the source document is activated. [00:16:06] Speaker 00: So now we have a translated link on the source document [00:16:10] Speaker 00: that's not coming back from URATA. [00:16:12] Speaker 00: This is describing how claim one works. [00:16:14] Speaker 00: It's distinguishing it. [00:16:16] Speaker 00: And it's making it clear that in claim one, you have a link on a document that is translated from the source document when it's activated, as opposed to a URATA where that doesn't happen. [00:16:27] Speaker 04: OK, you're out of your timing. [00:16:30] Speaker 04: You kind of used up your rebuttal time, too. [00:16:33] Speaker 04: But we'll restore some time. [00:16:35] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:16:42] Speaker 04: So restore Mr. Lewis two minutes of rebuttal time. [00:16:48] Speaker 02: Mr. Horak. [00:16:50] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:16:51] Speaker 02: May I please report? [00:16:54] Speaker 02: First of all, I'd like to clarify we're not focusing just on the prosecution history. [00:16:58] Speaker 02: We do have a fundamental disconnect between the spec and the claims. [00:17:02] Speaker 02: But I'd like to first address the arguments that were made about the file history. [00:17:06] Speaker 01: Conceptually, do you think that [00:17:08] Speaker 01: estoppel would apply in this kind of situation. [00:17:11] Speaker 01: You didn't say that in your green brief, nor did the board actually say that. [00:17:17] Speaker 01: But I guess I'm asking you, what does the agency think about a situation like this, where in one proceeding, hypothetically, a patent owner is saying something about a claim term that is precisely the opposite of what the patent owner is saying about that same claim term in this proceeding? [00:17:35] Speaker 02: It's certainly not a practice we condone. [00:17:38] Speaker 02: I'm not aware of a particular decision where we have held someone to that. [00:17:42] Speaker 02: I can say the reason the board did not address a stop-all was that the final inter-party's re-examination decision did not issue until March of last year. [00:17:52] Speaker 02: And so we point that out in our brief as context. [00:17:54] Speaker 02: The board pointed out that there were these contrary arguments that were being made in a parallel proceeding. [00:18:00] Speaker 02: And what we pointed out in our brief [00:18:02] Speaker 02: is that the examiner did in fact rely on those specific arguments and came to the conclusion that the claims were valid, patentable, over the prior art asserted in that proceeding. [00:18:14] Speaker 02: And the key to all of this, what the inner parties reexam, I think, is that there is a direct conflict between not only what was told to the board and what was told to the examiner in that proceeding, but also what TransPerfect has said in these proceedings. [00:18:31] Speaker 02: In page 14 of the reply brief, quote, TransPerfect never argued that the 022 patent claims links had to have the same targets in the untranslated and translated pages. [00:18:43] Speaker 02: But if we look at page A1449, which we were looking at just a few minutes ago, they use that specific language about same targets when discussing claim one. [00:18:54] Speaker 02: And that language was referenced by the board on page A17. [00:18:58] Speaker 02: It was quoted by the board. [00:19:00] Speaker 02: And when the examiner determined, made a final determination in the interparties re-exam on page A2054, he again specifically quoted that language from TransPerfect and on A2055 concluded that because TransPerfect had consistently made that argument, that claim construction argument, he would adopt that claim construction even though he noted on 2054 that that was exactly the opposite position that TransPerfect was advancing [00:19:29] Speaker 02: in this proceeding. [00:19:31] Speaker 02: Not only that, but there was another CBM proceeding in which trial was not instituted. [00:19:36] Speaker 02: And the reason it was not instituted, according to the board, was because of this same construction, which was adopted by the board in this case and also in the inter-parties re-exam. [00:19:45] Speaker 02: And it would be fundamentally unfair, we submit, to allow the patent owner to advance these directly contrary positions in parallel proceedings, and at the end of the day, to have a patent that remains issued [00:19:59] Speaker 02: with patentable claims, particularly because when we're talking about claims that could encompass a method of using the same hyperlinks to provide translations of further linked material, there's no description in the specification of how to do that. [00:20:16] Speaker 01: That's part of the other side's argument here. [00:20:20] Speaker 01: Does said hyperlink necessarily mean precisely exactly the same hyperlink that was already recited in the claim because [00:20:29] Speaker 01: the claim language already indicates that there's going to be a translation of the electronic communication. [00:20:37] Speaker 01: And we know the electronic communication, among other things, includes the hyperlink. [00:20:42] Speaker 01: So that suggests there's some kind of translation of the hyperlink that's being called for in the claim. [00:20:49] Speaker 01: So just based on the way the claim is set up, it suggests that maybe [00:20:55] Speaker 01: said hyperlink can't really be the identical hyperlink that's recited earlier in the claim because, at a minimum, the label that's on the webpage has been translated from, say, the word stores to the word tiendas. [00:21:11] Speaker 01: So what's your response to that? [00:21:14] Speaker 02: So a couple of things, Your Honor. [00:21:16] Speaker 02: One, we can see that the label would change, and it would make sense to translate the label that's written in [00:21:22] Speaker 02: pros that the word store could be translated to the word 10. [00:21:25] Speaker 03: Would the underlying length stay the same, taking you to walmart.com and you're looking at exactly the same page simply translated? [00:21:38] Speaker 02: Well, if the URL part of the hyperlink remains identical, then you're going to be directed to the same original page, which in that case would be an untranslated page. [00:21:50] Speaker 02: not a translated page. [00:21:52] Speaker 02: And the label, there's this argument in the briefs about if you're changing the label, are you changing the hyperlink? [00:21:59] Speaker 03: So that was sort of what I was asking your brother in arms. [00:22:03] Speaker 03: And that is, if I click on that Walmart link, does it pop up as a Walmart link, but in Spanish? [00:22:13] Speaker 03: And you're saying no. [00:22:16] Speaker 03: Well, certainly not in the [00:22:20] Speaker 03: I'm not saying tiendas. [00:22:22] Speaker 03: I'm saying click on tiendas and underlining it as a URL. [00:22:27] Speaker 03: Walmart.com. [00:22:28] Speaker 03: And you're saying that pops up in English. [00:22:30] Speaker 03: And he's telling me it pops up in Spanish. [00:22:33] Speaker 02: Well, so the goal of having the translation software would certainly be, in that scenario, to get a translated version. [00:22:39] Speaker 02: And in the 022 patent, [00:22:42] Speaker 02: The only method of doing that that is described is by replacing the URL portion of the hyperlink to point to the translation manager. [00:22:49] Speaker 02: Somehow you have to get to the translation manager because that's the only disclosed functionality for translating. [00:22:55] Speaker 01: I guess you're saying that when you look at the claim language based on a proper construction of said hyperlinks, what necessarily the claim is calling for is for when you activate said hyperlink, [00:23:11] Speaker 01: the address that you are pointing towards is the same address that you're pointing at when you're initially talking about one or more hyperlinks earlier in the claim. [00:23:25] Speaker 02: That's exactly correct. [00:23:26] Speaker 01: And there could be methods of... And if that sounds weird, crazy, and strange, then so be it, because we're stuck here with the undisputed claim construction of hyperlink and said hyperlink according to patent law principles [00:23:41] Speaker 01: has to mean and refer to the earlier hyperlink, whatever that is. [00:23:46] Speaker 02: Right. [00:23:46] Speaker 02: And TransPerfect concedes that said hyperlink does refer back to the original hyperlink. [00:23:52] Speaker 02: But in this case, there could be other methods of translating that content without changing the URL. [00:23:58] Speaker 02: And Dr. Clark, TransPerfect's expert, speculates about a lot of things that perhaps a plug-in application could do. [00:24:05] Speaker 02: But for all the reasons outlined by the board and in our brief, they simply don't describe those. [00:24:09] Speaker 02: But disturbingly, [00:24:10] Speaker 02: their claim construction would encompass those solutions, which is exactly the reason we have the written description requirements to police against that. [00:24:18] Speaker 02: And with regard to the labels versus the URL, we would submit that you could, for example, change the sign over the Holland Tunnel to rename it or to translate that sign into a different language. [00:24:30] Speaker 02: But you still go to the same place. [00:24:33] Speaker 02: A URL is a place on the internet. [00:24:36] Speaker 02: It's a destination. [00:24:38] Speaker 02: And unless you're changing that, [00:24:40] Speaker 02: There's no way that they disclose in the 022 patent that you would get to the translation manager and thus get to a translated version of the web page. [00:24:48] Speaker 01: Do you know if TransPerfect argued below this piece of the claim that talks about translating the electronic communication necessarily requires translating the text of the hyperlink? [00:25:06] Speaker 01: And so that would be a reason why we can't look at the words said hyperlink later on in the claim to be identical to the one or more hyperlinks recited earlier. [00:25:18] Speaker 02: I don't believe they phrased an argument in that particular fashion, Your Honor. [00:25:21] Speaker 01: I know they were making an argument about, well, you have to look at the hyperlink from the user's perspective. [00:25:27] Speaker 01: And if you look at it that way, then it is basically the same hyperlink. [00:25:34] Speaker 02: They certainly made an argument, at least to this court, that there has to be a translation of the hyperlink. [00:25:42] Speaker 02: And they made similar types of arguments, at least, to the board. [00:25:46] Speaker 02: But as we point out in our brief, it's really nonsensical to talk about translating a URL. [00:25:52] Speaker 02: Because again, a URL is a specific destination. [00:25:56] Speaker 02: You can't translate www.cnn.com. [00:26:03] Speaker 02: into some other language and somehow get the Spanish version of that news site. [00:26:07] Speaker 02: It just doesn't work that way, because a URL denotes a particular location on the internet. [00:26:14] Speaker 02: And so the 022 patent, first of all, isn't even directed to translating further links. [00:26:20] Speaker 02: There are only three sentences that are addressed to this at all. [00:26:24] Speaker 02: And I think that's important, because if translating the entire document necessarily required [00:26:29] Speaker 02: some sort of translation of the URL portion of the hyperlink, there would be no need to say, also, by the way, you may replace the URL with the new hyperlink that points to a different destination. [00:26:42] Speaker 02: You would have already addressed that in the context of translating the electronic communication itself. [00:26:48] Speaker 02: And with regard to argument council was making about LACRITS and the file history, I would like to address that in terms of [00:26:56] Speaker 02: having these pre-established directories of pre-translated content. [00:27:02] Speaker 02: That goes to different elements of the claim. [00:27:04] Speaker 02: In claim one, the other elements talk about once you click on said hyperlink, you deliver a translation of a document that was translated when the original document was translated or obtaining a new translation of that. [00:27:17] Speaker 02: It goes to a different term. [00:27:20] Speaker 02: And again, at the end of the day, [00:27:23] Speaker 02: The arguments that were made about said hyperlink at A449 cited by the board and then repeated by the examiner in allowing the claims in the inter-parties re-exam are unequivocal. [00:27:35] Speaker 02: You have to have the same target. [00:27:36] Speaker 02: That's exactly the claim construction the board adopted. [00:27:39] Speaker 02: And for that reason, they found no written subscription support. [00:27:43] Speaker 02: And we believe that's supported by substantial evidence. [00:27:48] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:27:48] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:28:01] Speaker 00: Your Honor, on the plugins argument that you heard from counsel, it's not true to say that the plugins in the patent do not disclose translation. [00:28:13] Speaker 00: And I think that's what was briefed in it. [00:28:14] Speaker 00: I think we heard a little bit about that today. [00:28:16] Speaker 00: If you look at the Scanlan 022 patent at A42 and 43. [00:28:20] Speaker 04: I think you argue that the plugin can maybe possesses a function towards translation. [00:28:29] Speaker 04: But where does the specification support that? [00:28:31] Speaker 00: So at column four, line 61, through column five, line three, and at column six, lines 20 through 30. [00:28:40] Speaker 00: So if you start with the first one, it's a longer passage, but it starts at the bottom of column four, and it's describing what it calls Explorer Bar 11, implemented as an internet browser plug-in, and it gives the functionality of that plug-in, your honor, at the top of column five. [00:28:57] Speaker 00: It refers to [00:28:58] Speaker 00: Part of that functionality is supporting the translation of web pages or text selections by mouse click. [00:29:04] Speaker 01: So for our purposes, with respect to the claim, I think what is being disclosed is translating the electronic communication from, say, English to Spanish. [00:29:17] Speaker 01: Now the next question is really where in this pattern does it describe using the plug-in to [00:29:26] Speaker 01: once the hyperlink on the translated page is activated, it interrupts the pointing to a particular address and then reroutes the user to a different address in order to arrive at a translated further electronic communication. [00:29:47] Speaker 00: So column 6, the honor lines 20 through 30 refers to the plug-in applications and at the bottom of that passage it says that it can [00:29:55] Speaker 00: Let me let you get to it. [00:29:56] Speaker 00: So column six, I'm gonna read from line 27. [00:30:00] Speaker 00: One of the things the plugin does here is, quote, communicate with the translation manager. [00:30:06] Speaker 00: That's the interruption you're talking about. [00:30:07] Speaker 00: Now instead of going to the walmart.com, as Judge Wallace put it, you go to the translation manager, the proxy server that's gonna serve the translated version of walmart.com. [00:30:18] Speaker 00: So you communicate with the translation manager via the internet to request translation in response to a keystroke, [00:30:25] Speaker 00: mouse action, voice command, or other method. [00:30:27] Speaker 00: Now admittedly, that doesn't limit it to the further communications, so the additional links, but nor does it limit it to only the first click. [00:30:35] Speaker 00: And so what you have here is a description of getting to a translation done by the translation manager, which is not done by a clicking of a hyperlink, but instead by a plugin. [00:30:47] Speaker 00: So I think that support is sufficient at a minimum. [00:30:52] Speaker 04: The other argument I would ask to address is that... That's what you just read. [00:30:56] Speaker 04: That would require an additional action, right? [00:30:59] Speaker 04: Like an additional click. [00:31:01] Speaker 04: So translation is not automatic there. [00:31:04] Speaker 00: No, I think this is still the same concept. [00:31:06] Speaker 00: The plugins are shown in the figures, your honor, in the graphics as drop-down menus or buttons on the browser, things like that. [00:31:13] Speaker 00: And the patent's very clear that [00:31:16] Speaker 00: You can pick languages, for example. [00:31:18] Speaker 00: So maybe you click on the dropdown menu, it comes down, and it shows you French, Spanish, German, Italian, Japanese. [00:31:24] Speaker 00: And then you pick the language you want. [00:31:26] Speaker 00: That's still called one click in this patent. [00:31:28] Speaker 00: It still talks about that as the thing that activates the translation being the click on the language that you choose. [00:31:36] Speaker 00: But there is other interaction that's permitted. [00:31:38] Speaker 00: The concept is to reduce interaction overwhelmingly, but not necessarily to get it down really to a single click that does everything. [00:31:45] Speaker 00: And that's where I think there's a real breakdown in the argument, right, is you have an admission from the patent office that the claims, that the specification is about reducing clicks and that the specification is about replacing links, but then the claims somehow are supposed to be about preserving the links. [00:32:05] Speaker 00: It just doesn't make sense in that big picture of the patent. [00:32:08] Speaker 00: If you're going to reduce the number of clicks, the cleanest, simplest way describing the patent is to replace those links. [00:32:15] Speaker 04: I guess I just don't necessarily equate a keystroke with a link, hyperlink. [00:32:21] Speaker 00: Oh, mouse action. [00:32:22] Speaker 00: Any questions? [00:32:23] Speaker 00: No. [00:32:24] Speaker 00: It says mouse action, Your Honor. [00:32:25] Speaker 00: That's what I meant by click. [00:32:26] Speaker 00: All right. [00:32:28] Speaker 00: All right. [00:32:28] Speaker 00: Thank you very much. [00:32:28] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor.