[00:00:02] Speaker 03: OK, the next argued case is number 16, 1179, Paris Holdings, Incorporated, against Sally Maybank and others. [00:00:11] Speaker 03: Mr. Pietro Antonio. [00:00:16] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:18] Speaker 00: May it please the Court, Frank Pietro Antonio and Nathan Cummings on behalf of Paris Holdings. [00:00:25] Speaker 00: In 1997, Paris invented a solution that addressed a specific technological problem [00:00:31] Speaker 00: with regard to combining the internet and the telephone networks. [00:00:34] Speaker 00: That specific technological solution as a consequence not only satisfies the notion that it is not an abstract idea under either McRoe or Enfish, but it is also clearly an inventive, the claims recite an inventive concept that allows it for patent eligibility under either Bascom, either Bascom or DDR. [00:01:02] Speaker 00: Paris invented a system that connects a voice server, a web server, a database server, and a file server. [00:01:09] Speaker 00: And that system cross-connects multiple networks having different protocols. [00:01:14] Speaker 02: So this is your unification theory? [00:01:16] Speaker 00: It's unification along with natural voice commands, Your Honor. [00:01:22] Speaker 02: And I want to get to this debate before we get much farther beyond the start here. [00:01:30] Speaker 02: about whether claim one is really representative or not. [00:01:33] Speaker 02: You say that it is not, because the additional claims, or the 85 other claims, actually get into more detail with respect to this unification theory, correct? [00:01:45] Speaker 02: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:01:46] Speaker 02: So if we concluded that your unification theory was still abstract, then it doesn't matter if the court was wrong about whether claim one was representative, right? [00:01:58] Speaker 00: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:02:00] Speaker 00: If you conclude that the claims are directed only to unification, which we would contend they are not, but if you conclude they are only directed to unification and that is the abstract idea, then the representative claim issue falls away only as to the first part of step one. [00:02:23] Speaker 00: But the issue then becomes, what's the inventive concept that appears in various ones of the claims? [00:02:29] Speaker 00: that actually draws that out. [00:02:30] Speaker 00: And we would say that as a consequence, you'd still need to look at at least claim one of the 120 patent, if not other claims, that bring out those inventive concepts more clearly. [00:02:42] Speaker 02: And specifically the voice recognition technology and how that interacts with the other pieces of the technological claims? [00:02:53] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:02:53] Speaker 00: That's your claim? [00:02:54] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:02:54] Speaker 00: So if we were to take a look in connection with page seven and eight of the blue brief, [00:02:59] Speaker 00: and we look at claim one of the 120 patent, we can see that the voice server actually processes the natural voice commands in a very specific manner so as to then generate these computer generated messages under very specific commands. [00:03:17] Speaker 00: That, tied together with the file server and the web server, along with those commands, then facilitates the communications that we're talking about across the various networks. [00:03:28] Speaker 00: So those tie-ins with regard to the specific natural voice command processing, as well as the connections to the file server and the web server, result in that unification under the control of natural voice commands. [00:03:45] Speaker 02: Now, that voice recognition technology, you're still talking about generic off the shelf. [00:03:55] Speaker 02: voice recognition. [00:03:56] Speaker 00: Well that's what the defendants have alleged but we tried to make clear to the court below that this was not the case and that's in fact the reason why we submitted the declaration by the inventor Alex Kurganov. [00:04:08] Speaker 00: The fact of the matter is that while there was a list of parts in this specification the patent application also incorporated by reference a provisional application that had along with it over 500 pages of code and that code was important as [00:04:24] Speaker 00: Mr. Kurganoff explained in paragraph 18 of his declaration that these were specially adapted boards so as to provide this very connection that we were looking for and that didn't happen before this invention. [00:04:40] Speaker 00: And as a consequence, these elements were in fact not generic whatsoever. [00:04:44] Speaker 00: And there's nothing in the record to show that they were generic other than the assertion by the defendants that they were. [00:04:50] Speaker 00: The source code [00:04:52] Speaker 00: And the source code which underlies the operations and ties all these things together, for instance, an enteres board that's referred to in Mr. Kurganov's declaration, had to be modified so as to operate in an unconventional manner. [00:05:07] Speaker 00: And we were never provided with the opportunity below to show the unconventionality of any of the individual components which actually effect this invention. [00:05:18] Speaker 03: But that would have to be in the specification, would it not, for enablement? [00:05:22] Speaker 00: Well, the source code is considered part of the specification because it was part of that provisional application that was incorporated by reference, Your Honor. [00:05:31] Speaker 03: Yes, for every step and every connection. [00:05:34] Speaker 00: All of the connections. [00:05:35] Speaker 00: And we've, in fact, cited in our footnote on page 12 of the blue brief some excerpts from that source code, some of which were, in fact, cited before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in connection with the [00:05:50] Speaker 00: covered business method petitions that defendants submitted. [00:05:53] Speaker 00: That information indicates, for instance, in footnote 12, we make reference to a code routine for converting a voicemail file from telephony format to a PC web format. [00:06:14] Speaker 00: These operations are all included within the source code that [00:06:20] Speaker 00: Mr. Kurganoff came up with and that we included in the application was originally filed as a provisional application. [00:06:27] Speaker 03: It's in the provisional but not in the final. [00:06:29] Speaker 00: The text of it was not with the papers that were filed in the non-provisional application, but at the very beginning of the non-provisional patent application, all of the materials from the provisional patent application are incorporated by reference into this application. [00:06:47] Speaker 00: So they constitute part of the overall disclosure of this application. [00:06:59] Speaker 00: So I'd like to go back to talk a little bit about our position as it relates to step one with regard to the invention. [00:07:13] Speaker 00: This unification under the control of these natural voice commands [00:07:17] Speaker 00: actually addresses, as I said before, a problem that arose in connection with the arrival of the internet. [00:07:24] Speaker 00: The reality is that as the patent application, I'm sorry, as the specification clearly describes in the background section, to be able to be fully connected into both the telephone network and the internet, it was necessary to have access to multiple different electronic devices operating different protocols. [00:07:43] Speaker 00: What this invention then did provided a network oriented device which sat at the cross connection between the internet and the telephone network which allowed the user then under using natural voice commands to configure that network device to provide full accessibility across all of those protocols with a single access point. [00:08:08] Speaker 00: That's a technological solution. [00:08:11] Speaker 00: This voice server arrangement [00:08:13] Speaker 00: actually solved a problem that arose when the internet came to be. [00:08:17] Speaker 00: This is different than the cases that the defendants have cited, where many of those cases really rely on the notion that there was a problem, a business problem, for instance, that was identified and then put onto the internet or put onto computers, which caused those problems to be solved in that particular environment. [00:08:39] Speaker 00: This is a problem that arose in the environment itself. [00:08:43] Speaker 00: So we see it as more like a McRose situation or an Enfish situation where we're not just using the computer to do something to solve some other problem that existed like a business problem, but instead to solve, yes. [00:09:00] Speaker 02: Where in claim one of the 600 patent, if we are looking at that as representative, so just assume that for a minute, but where is that to describe or are you prepared to say [00:09:12] Speaker 02: OK, maybe claim one doesn't have enough detail to do what you're saying or to accomplish what you're saying, and that you're willing to give up on the 600 patent. [00:09:26] Speaker 02: And what we ought to be looking at is some of the other claims. [00:09:29] Speaker 00: Well, I wouldn't say that we're willing to give up on the 600 patent, but I would say that we recognize that the 600 patent attacks the problem in a different way and with a broader claim scope. [00:09:41] Speaker 00: So the 600 patent claim one refers to a very specific set of features in the voice server, including the text to speech, the speech recognition, and the conferencing functions, thereby defining in that voice server something that's not conventional. [00:10:00] Speaker 00: There's no record to show that there were any such conventional voice servers having that capability. [00:10:06] Speaker 00: And then that tie-in for the purposes of solving the problem [00:10:11] Speaker 00: really arises in the connection of the cluster that includes that voice server with the web server and in the portion of the recitation with regard to the web server where it talks about the ability of the subscriber to access the network, which is the item being claimed, the network, by connecting to the web server via the internet. [00:10:34] Speaker 00: So it's that combination of the web server [00:10:37] Speaker 00: the voice server and the functionality, the specific special functionality of the voice server, which we believe provides that concept with regard to claim one. [00:10:46] Speaker 03: Let me just be sure that I understand the role of the provisional in all of this. [00:10:52] Speaker 03: The provisional is a specific code, but by omitting those details from the final specification, is the intention that the claims are not limited to what's in the provisional? [00:11:08] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor. [00:11:09] Speaker 00: By incorporating by reference, it was never our intention to have the code considered to be omitted from or separate from the overall disclosure. [00:11:19] Speaker 00: The source code by the incorporation by reference would be considered part of the overall disclosure. [00:11:25] Speaker 00: And therefore, to the extent that it played any role in the interpretation of the claims, it would then, if Judge Robinson had reviewed it and thought [00:11:37] Speaker 00: that it somehow limited the claims, it would have created a limitation. [00:11:40] Speaker 03: But we never... But your specification says that each of these steps is standard. [00:11:45] Speaker 00: The specification... I'm sorry, Your Honor. [00:11:47] Speaker 00: The specification does indicate that there are a number of pieces where our inventor was taking those pieces, Intel boards, Solaris pieces of equipment and so forth, but the underlying source code that actually made them work [00:12:06] Speaker 00: actually made them work in an unconventional manner so that those elements did not just operate as if they were pulled off the shelf and assembled together. [00:12:16] Speaker 00: But in fact, they were caused to do things that they had otherwise not been allowed to do before. [00:12:21] Speaker 02: Well, there's a difference between saying prosecution history can be used to help understand what you're discussing in your written description and saying you can use it to actually sort of contradict what's in your written description. [00:12:33] Speaker 02: I mean, if your written description says it's [00:12:35] Speaker 02: that it's off the shelf parts, pieces and parts, the fact that your provisional might have said differently doesn't help you, does it? [00:12:46] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I disagree with the notion that I think you have to really look at the entirety of the disclosure then, right? [00:12:55] Speaker 00: You have to look at what the source code says. [00:12:57] Speaker 00: You have to look at what the specification is. [00:13:00] Speaker 00: There is nowhere in the specification that they say, [00:13:03] Speaker 00: that they operated those elements in a conventional fashion. [00:13:08] Speaker 00: They said that this was composed of those things, but it also said that the inventor had created some software pieces to better integrate these things. [00:13:18] Speaker 00: And for instance, at column five of the patent, beginning at line 49 and down, yes, there is a recitation of various elements. [00:13:30] Speaker 00: However, those are tied together [00:13:32] Speaker 00: by specific algorithms and software, and to understand what that software and what those algorithms were, looking at the source code that was considered part of the overall specification informs us that these are not operating in a conventional manner. [00:13:49] Speaker 00: I'll see you in my rebuttal time. [00:13:50] Speaker 03: Let's hear from the other side. [00:13:52] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:13:59] Speaker 03: Mr. Mawinu. [00:14:00] Speaker 01: Lytle Avenue from Finnegan for the appellees. [00:14:03] Speaker 01: So we heard four specific things from appellant. [00:14:07] Speaker 01: And I'd like to address those four in order. [00:14:10] Speaker 01: The first thing we heard was the very first statement he made was that this technology relates to combining the internet and telephone. [00:14:16] Speaker 01: Well, that's the mere definition of an abstract idea. [00:14:19] Speaker 01: We know that the combination of the internet with other technologies, specifically technology before the internet, and just putting that onto a computer or putting that onto the internet [00:14:29] Speaker 01: is abstract. [00:14:30] Speaker 01: That's the definition of abstract. [00:14:32] Speaker 01: Instead, what the appellant is doing is going to the source code and going to the specification. [00:14:38] Speaker 03: Is he claiming a lot of steps? [00:14:40] Speaker 03: I'm sorry, Your Honor? [00:14:41] Speaker 03: He's claiming a lot of steps. [00:14:43] Speaker 03: Every invention starts with an idea. [00:14:46] Speaker 01: Well, if we look at the claims, the claims pertain to three types of servers, a web server, a voice server, and a database server, using those three servers and having information come in on a telephone and go out on the internet. [00:14:58] Speaker 01: And that's exactly as he described it. [00:15:00] Speaker 01: And that's how the claims describe it. [00:15:02] Speaker 01: The unified note that Judge O'Malley noted, that's not even a recited element. [00:15:07] Speaker 01: That is in the preamble of the claim. [00:15:10] Speaker 01: So the basis of the claim are taking these three servers, which were known and described in the patent as being known. [00:15:17] Speaker 01: In fact, the very definition of the three servers is that the voice server uses a dialogic hardware and software component, all commercial off the shelf. [00:15:27] Speaker 01: the database server uses a Sybase component, commercial off the shelf, and the web server runs on Solaris and Unix using commercial off the shelf technology. [00:15:36] Speaker 01: So everything they cite to in their claims are all commercial off the shelf. [00:15:41] Speaker 01: And what he's trying to do is he's trying to take the specification, specifically this 400 or 500 pages of source code from the provisional application, and somehow import that into the claims. [00:15:53] Speaker 01: We know from Accenture that that's not allowed. [00:15:55] Speaker 01: We look to the claims not to [00:15:56] Speaker 01: to what is claimed, not as to what is described. [00:16:01] Speaker 01: And that's exactly what Judge Robinson did. [00:16:02] Speaker 02: But we understand what's claimed in light of what's described, right? [00:16:06] Speaker 02: I mean, you can't divorce the two. [00:16:09] Speaker 01: You cannot divorce the two, but you have to look and see if the scope of the claim is something that is abstract or not. [00:16:15] Speaker 01: And that's what Judge Robinson did. [00:16:16] Speaker 01: Judge Robinson, in her ruling, she basically concluded at the last sentence. [00:16:21] Speaker 01: She said, the claim solution is not described with enough specificity [00:16:26] Speaker 01: to place meaningful boundaries on the concept. [00:16:30] Speaker 01: So I mean, that's what she did. [00:16:31] Speaker 01: She went through step one and step two of Alice. [00:16:34] Speaker 01: And she said, OK, does it meet step one of Alice? [00:16:36] Speaker 01: Is it abstract? [00:16:37] Speaker 01: And she concluded, yes, it's abstract. [00:16:39] Speaker 01: And she said, OK, well, let me go to step two. [00:16:41] Speaker 01: Is there an inventive concept? [00:16:43] Speaker 01: Is there something special, something additional, significantly more than the abstract idea? [00:16:48] Speaker 01: And it's when she was looking at that that she considered all of the arguments that Appella is making today. [00:16:53] Speaker 01: She considered the unified issue. [00:16:55] Speaker 01: She considered the representation issue, whether or not the one claim that she looked at was representative of the 85 other claims. [00:17:03] Speaker 01: And she found that they were, just like in content extraction, where they looked at 242 claims. [00:17:08] Speaker 01: and found that one claim was representative of those 242 claims. [00:17:12] Speaker 01: So the mere fact that they are looking to try to salvage a claim that Judge Robinson found was not with enough specificity, that shows the abstractness of what is shown here. [00:17:23] Speaker 02: Isn't there a problem that so many of the other claims do have different aspects to them? [00:17:29] Speaker 02: I mean, shouldn't we at least make it and remand for her to consider those other claims? [00:17:33] Speaker 01: Each one of those other aspects that you're mentioning, Judge O'Malley, those were all considered by Judge Robinson in her lower court opinion. [00:17:40] Speaker 01: There's a specific footnote where she goes through those issues in her analysis. [00:17:44] Speaker 01: And she also recites the very issues that the appellant is making today and in the briefing before this court, also that was made before Judge Robinson. [00:17:53] Speaker 01: So Judge Robinson has already considered those issues. [00:17:55] Speaker 01: She considered unified. [00:17:56] Speaker 01: She considered the distinctions between the claims. [00:17:59] Speaker 01: That's already been considered. [00:18:00] Speaker 01: And when you look at those claims, all 86 of those claims, with the representative claim that we looked at specifically, they are truly representative from the abstract idea of merely taking a telephone and sending telephone voice message over the internet as an email. [00:18:18] Speaker 01: That is the reason that Judge Robinson came to the conclusion that it was abstract, because there was no basis to go beyond that abstract idea. [00:18:25] Speaker 01: And I think that you could hear from counsel for repellent [00:18:28] Speaker 01: You could hear as he described the technology, he struggled in order to point you to a specific thing in the claim that took it outside of that abstract idea because he kept going to the specification. [00:18:39] Speaker 01: He kept going to the claim. [00:18:41] Speaker 01: He mentioned that the inventor had had a hardware and software card that integrated these three known elements, these three known web servers. [00:18:49] Speaker 01: Well, none of that is claimed. [00:18:50] Speaker 01: That specific how he integrated, what he did to integrate it, [00:18:55] Speaker 01: We're nothing even close to the step one analysis that we would look at, for example, in Infish. [00:19:01] Speaker 01: In Infish, we had a very new data structure that was created. [00:19:05] Speaker 01: And that data structure is what brought it outside of what was abstract. [00:19:10] Speaker 01: And it made it not abstract because it was a new data structure. [00:19:13] Speaker 01: In McRoe, we had this very specific ruling technology where it was allowed the lip syncing for animated characters. [00:19:21] Speaker 01: Well, this was something that had not ever been [00:19:25] Speaker 01: put down in a claim in that specific manner. [00:19:28] Speaker 01: So you have the ruling technology of Enfish. [00:19:32] Speaker 01: You have the specific data structures of, I'm sorry, the ruling technology of McGrow. [00:19:37] Speaker 01: The ruling technology, let me go back, the data structures of Enfish. [00:19:43] Speaker 01: And then you have Bascom. [00:19:44] Speaker 01: I mean, if we were to look at a case that may be similar to what's here, we look at Bascom. [00:19:49] Speaker 01: And Bascom had much more detail in the claim. [00:19:53] Speaker 01: on what Bascom claimed than what Paris has. [00:19:56] Speaker 01: Paris doesn't have any of the detail that we had in Bascom. [00:19:59] Speaker 01: In Bascom, we had a very specific claim that dealt with a filtering scheme. [00:20:04] Speaker 01: And that filtering scheme was described with great particularity within the claim, not just in the specification, but how the filter worked, the levels of the filtering, and all of the background by that inside of the claim itself, not in the specification. [00:20:19] Speaker 01: And you see you don't have any of that from Paris. [00:20:21] Speaker 01: They cannot point to any of that and you can even hear that in their argument and see it in their briefing. [00:20:27] Speaker 01: Now, one other thing that's important is that they also point to the fact of this fact that they take these three servers and they combine the servers. [00:20:41] Speaker 01: And basically, what Counsel for Appellant says is he says, well, these three servers, they somehow, we combine them in a new way. [00:20:48] Speaker 01: But he doesn't point to any way in which they do that. [00:20:51] Speaker 01: Effectively, what he's doing is he's using what I call and what is described in the intellectual ventures case as the software brain. [00:20:58] Speaker 01: He's saying, well, basically, we take three servers. [00:21:01] Speaker 01: We combine them into what we define as a software brain. [00:21:04] Speaker 01: And that software brain allows these three servers to work together. [00:21:08] Speaker 01: Well, in intellectual ventures, the court made very clear [00:21:11] Speaker 01: that requiring the use of a software brain tasked with tailoring information and providing it to the user provides no additional limitation, claim limitation, no additional limitation beyond applying an abstract idea. [00:21:24] Speaker 01: It is restricted to the use of the internet on a generic computer. [00:21:29] Speaker 01: And that indeed is how the appellant described the technology when he came up and he described it to your honors. [00:21:34] Speaker 01: He said it is combining the internet with the telephone. [00:21:38] Speaker 01: And that's exactly what we have here. [00:21:40] Speaker 01: We have the combination of the abstract idea of the internet with a telephone. [00:21:44] Speaker 01: And that is not claimed in a way. [00:21:46] Speaker 01: That's the issue. [00:21:47] Speaker 01: That is not claimed in a way that would make it non-abstract. [00:21:51] Speaker 01: So I've talked about step one of the two-part Alice test. [00:21:54] Speaker 01: Under step two of the two-part Alice test, it also does not satisfy the requirements of step two. [00:22:00] Speaker 01: There's no inventive concept. [00:22:02] Speaker 01: In fact, if we look at, for example, cyber phone. [00:22:05] Speaker 01: Well, cyber phone is a case that dealt with taking [00:22:08] Speaker 01: technology and having data sent over a telephone. [00:22:12] Speaker 01: Well, that's very similar to what we have here. [00:22:14] Speaker 01: That was found to be not eligible. [00:22:17] Speaker 01: If we look at content extraction, content extraction is taking hard data on paper and converting that into data that can be accessed over a computer. [00:22:28] Speaker 01: Well, here what Paris is doing is they're taking a phone call and they're converting that into data that can be accessed over a computer. [00:22:35] Speaker 01: It's the conversion of data. [00:22:37] Speaker 01: Well, that in content extraction was found to be not eligible. [00:22:41] Speaker 01: In OIP, we have the sending of data over a network and multiple networks. [00:22:49] Speaker 02: But their argument is that those are all pieces and parts. [00:22:52] Speaker 02: And what they're doing here is all of those things. [00:22:55] Speaker 01: Yes, Judge O'Malley. [00:22:58] Speaker 01: They say that they are doing those three things together. [00:23:00] Speaker 01: But if you take three abstract ideas, there has to be something more to make them more than an abstract idea. [00:23:07] Speaker 01: So if you take the telephone transmission of cyber phone, you take the data conversion of content extraction, you take the sending over a network of OIP, if you just listen to those, those are abstract ideas. [00:23:19] Speaker 01: And even if you combine those three abstract ideas, that does not make them non-abstract. [00:23:25] Speaker 03: No, but wouldn't, if you're talking about combining the ideas, aren't we now talking about section 103 and obviousness, not 101? [00:23:35] Speaker 01: Well, I understand, Judge Newman, if you're talking about combining ideas, you're talking about combining concepts and whether those concepts as claimed are eligible. [00:23:47] Speaker 01: And so not whether or not they're anticipated under 102 or obvious under 103, but whether or not they're eligible as stated as an idea. [00:23:55] Speaker 01: And so the problem with the claims that are in the Paris case is that they're not claimed in a way, as Judge Robinson found. [00:24:02] Speaker 01: They're not claimed with enough meaningful limitations [00:24:05] Speaker 01: to make them eligible, to bring them outside of non-eligibility. [00:24:10] Speaker 01: And that was the reason that Judge Robinson found that they were not eligible, because they did not have that something more, that addition. [00:24:18] Speaker 01: And even the combination of these three things that we spoke about, Judge O'Malley, it's not a combination that would be eligible. [00:24:26] Speaker 01: For example, in Ultramershal, the court said, any transformation from the use of computers is merely that. [00:24:33] Speaker 01: what computers do, and it does not change the analysis under Section 101. [00:24:37] Speaker 01: Well, that's exactly what's happening here. [00:24:39] Speaker 01: We merely have telephone data that is converted into data, and then it is sent over a network. [00:24:46] Speaker 01: Those three things do not make it eligible. [00:24:49] Speaker 01: The bottom line of what Paris is trying to do here is they make this analogy in their opening brief, which is pretty interesting. [00:24:57] Speaker 01: They say, well, if you don't allow us to have a claim, if our claims are not patent eligible, [00:25:03] Speaker 01: Then look at the telephone. [00:25:04] Speaker 01: Look at the printing press. [00:25:06] Speaker 01: Look at the cotton gin. [00:25:07] Speaker 01: Look at the robot. [00:25:09] Speaker 01: None of those would have, we would not have had patents for any of those if you don't allow us to have that. [00:25:14] Speaker 01: The problem is, is it all goes back again to the claim. [00:25:17] Speaker 01: In each one of these situations, Alexander Graham Bell, I don't know about Gutenberg, but Eli Whitley and George Duvall with the robot, all of those individuals, when they claim their patents, they claim them in a way that were eligible and that were patentable. [00:25:31] Speaker 01: Here, however, the problem is they did not claim their alleged inventions in a way that was patentable because they were too broad. [00:25:39] Speaker 01: And that type of breadth, the preemption of every type, as Judge O'Malley was referring to, well, what about those three combinations? [00:25:48] Speaker 01: Well, if we take those three combinations, it's so massive. [00:25:51] Speaker 01: It's so large. [00:25:51] Speaker 01: It encompasses so much. [00:25:53] Speaker 01: phone technology over the internet, that preempts the entire field. [00:25:58] Speaker 01: And that's exactly what Alice tells us that we cannot do, is if it's so broad that it preempts everything, then we cannot allow that. [00:26:05] Speaker 01: That was described in DDR. [00:26:07] Speaker 01: It was described in Amdocs, Judge Newman, recently in the opinion that you co-authored, or that you joined in. [00:26:14] Speaker 01: I mean, all of these recent cases have recognized that if you preempt everything, then it cannot be patent eligible. [00:26:20] Speaker 01: And that's what they're doing here. [00:26:23] Speaker 01: If we look at the specification, the specification at column seven, line 13, specifically describes a system that acts as an efficient secretary. [00:26:35] Speaker 01: And so one of the ways that they even describe their own invention is in an abstract way in the specification, which is taking the functionality of having a voice message come in, taking that voice message, converting it into data, [00:26:50] Speaker 01: and then sending that voice message out over the internet. [00:26:52] Speaker 01: That is what they describe as the acts of an efficient secretary. [00:26:56] Speaker 01: Well, just as counsel for repellent said when he walked up here, their technology is the combination of internet and telephone. [00:27:03] Speaker 01: That is the absolute definition of an abstract idea under Alice step one or under Alice step two. [00:27:12] Speaker 03: OK, any more questions or any questions for counsel? [00:27:14] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:27:15] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:27:19] Speaker 03: Mr. Pietrangelo. [00:27:20] Speaker 00: Thank you, Judge Newman. [00:27:22] Speaker 00: Just a few points. [00:27:23] Speaker 00: First, I just want to be clear on what we're using the source code for in the specification. [00:27:28] Speaker 00: Specification under McGraw is appropriate to look at to be able to understand what the claims are directed to. [00:27:35] Speaker 00: What we're saying is the claims are directed to a technological solution. [00:27:39] Speaker 00: Looking at the specification of the source code helps us with that. [00:27:43] Speaker 00: We rely more specifically on the source code [00:27:46] Speaker 00: to rebut the notion that these are generic elements under step two. [00:27:49] Speaker 00: Defendants have just made the bold assertion that these all things were known, that the voice server operated conventionally. [00:27:58] Speaker 00: Judge Robinson accepted that, operated under that assumption, and never actually provided any analysis with regard to an ordered combination, just accepted the notion that they operated in a conventional manner. [00:28:10] Speaker 00: The source code, along with the specification, shows clearly that that's not the case. [00:28:15] Speaker 00: I'd just like to mention the automated secretary issue. [00:28:18] Speaker 00: McRoe actually plays more in our favor. [00:28:21] Speaker 00: And defendant's letter on this, in response to ours, is suggestive of the fact that it's entirely appropriate to automate a process that is tedious, that is time consuming and manual, if you do it in a technological manner. [00:28:36] Speaker 00: And we, in fact, have done that. [00:28:38] Speaker 02: Show me parts of the claims that you think give the most structure. [00:28:42] Speaker 00: So parts of the claims that give the most structure, let me refer to claim 120, claim 1, which is on page 7 and 8 of the blue brief. [00:28:58] Speaker 00: So the first piece is the voice server. [00:29:03] Speaker 00: The second piece is that that voice server operates with a database server that has specific information in it and is responsive [00:29:12] Speaker 00: to voice spoken commands. [00:29:15] Speaker 00: In addition, as the claim continues over to page 8 of the blue brief, we see specifically how that voice server is determined to operate, in particular with regard to the natural voice spoken commands and how those are processed and what the result of that processing is. [00:29:35] Speaker 00: And the result of that processing together with the file server and the web server operate together [00:29:41] Speaker 00: so as to provide the communications that go out, more specifically, the particularized message and notification that gets sent to the user. [00:29:52] Speaker 00: So when we combine the pieces together, it's the web server with a specially operating voice server, in particular, which provide the connections that allow a connection to the telephone network and to the internet, as well as providing the configurability that [00:30:11] Speaker 00: defines where the messages and notifications go over which network. [00:30:16] Speaker 02: But then where, and if all of that's in there, I guess, and this gets into a whole separate question, I guess it's a 112 question, but then where do you describe how that specialized system works in the specification? [00:30:33] Speaker 00: The specialized system is described in connection with the drawing figures, which [00:30:44] Speaker 00: lay out the system in figures one and two, and I believe it's figures four, five, and six, which specifically lay out in more detail the arrangement of the voice servers. [00:31:03] Speaker 00: And then underlying those operations of the voice servers and the email and web servers and their connections is the source code that was incorporated by reference into the specification. [00:31:17] Speaker 03: Okay, any more questions? [00:31:19] Speaker 03: Any more questions? [00:31:21] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:31:23] Speaker 03: Thank you both. [00:31:23] Speaker 03: The case is taken under submission.