[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
2714 Williamson versus Citrix online.

[00:00:29] Speaker 03:
Give them a minute in case people want to file in and out.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
Just wait one sec.

[00:00:37] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:00:48] Speaker 03:
Mr. Williamson, go ahead.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
Good morning and may it please the Court.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
The District Court's order on Defendant Section 101 challenge to the 840 patent

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
I found this was a close case that fell, quote, somewhere between this court's decision and Didier Holden's, which found that claims directed to a problem unique to the internet.

[00:01:09] Speaker 03:
I have to ask, are you related to the guy?

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:01:12] Speaker 02:
Mr. Williamson is in the courtroom, but we are completely unrelated.

[00:01:16] Speaker 03:
I know.

[00:01:16] Speaker 03:
It has no bearing on the outcome of the case.

[00:01:18] Speaker 03:
But we tried to figure it out online.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
We googled both of you.

[00:01:21] Speaker 03:
Couldn't figure it out.

[00:01:23] Speaker 02:
That's a little bit scary, that part of it.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
Well, I will tell you, because of the history of this case, that's become a little bit more relevant, given on the prior appeal from this court.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
The Williamson name has become, I guess, either famous or infamous among people claiming under 112.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
But the district court here found that this case fell in between this court's decision in DDR holdings, which found that claims directed to problems unique to the internet were patent eligible.

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
And two other decisions of this court that came out the other way, based on findings that the claims were directed to simply using the internet to do advertising or budget, essentially, and do financial transactions.

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
And in the years since the district court ruled here, this court has had the opportunity to analyze a much broader variety of claims as to their Section 101 eligibility and rallies.

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
And it has issued a number of opinions that have come out both ways.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
But taken together, we believe make clear that the district court can sign the A40 patent to the wrong side of that line.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
And in fact, the claims of the A40 patent clearly belong in the class of claims that are patentable because they are not abstract.

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
And even if there is an abstract concept in those claims, we don't think there is, clearly the claims themselves are sufficiently inventive to claim passively or subjectively.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
So turning to step one of Alice, the 840 is explicit that there were problems unique to pre-1998 technological solutions, technology-based distributed learning systems.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
And that is clear from column one of the patent.

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
That's page 50 of the appendix.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
A detailed list of the defects in, first, satellite or closed-circuit broadcasts, the so-called studio model, that required the presenter to be in a broadcast studio with very expensive specialized hardware, and then present subject matter to disparate locations, in many cases requiring even the distance participants to go to a separate remote location or multiple locations.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
And that model was obviously inconvenient and it limited any sort of interactivity among the participants.

[00:03:38] Speaker 02:
Now there were improvements based upon the burgeoning personal computer and internet technology back in the 1990s.

[00:03:46] Speaker 02:
But those computer solutions, as of 1998, required specialized software.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
Some of us might remember going to CompUSA.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
There would be racks and racks of boxes with software.

[00:03:57] Speaker 02:
That doesn't exist anymore, of course.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
So to avoid hindsight bias, we have to remember

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
And in order to have a software program, you had to get it in advance.

[00:04:05] Speaker 02:
You had to prepare.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
You had to know that you were going to have a certain type of program and that the presenter in whatever learning you were going to do would have a separate program.

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
And as the patent dictates, that has compatibility problems and it lacks flexibility.

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
The solution is detailed in the claims.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
The 840 patent describes a distributed learning system and a new type of server that solves those problems.

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
It allows the presenter

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
Where does it describe the new server?

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
In Claim17.

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
So where is the new server?

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
Claim17's preamble specifically describes a distributed learning server for controlling presenter and audience member computer systems that are coupled to that server.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
And then it's comprised of a number of steps that the server, its software,

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
that distributes out to the audience from the computer system.

[00:05:01] Speaker 03:
Yeah, but it just has a distributed learning server comprising, and then it has a bunch of software elements.

[00:05:09] Speaker 03:
So I don't understand how that makes it some sort of special piece of machinery.

[00:05:15] Speaker 03:
This seems to me no different than the old-fashioned alipad argument, which, by the way, I was a big fan of, but nonetheless have lost.

[00:05:23] Speaker 03:
which is that new software makes a new computer each time you run it.

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
That seems to be what you're trying to say here.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
You have a new server because you're running different software on it.

[00:05:32] Speaker 03:
That means we're going to call it a distributed learning server.

[00:05:35] Speaker 03:
But it's not actually like a unique piece of hardware, correct?

[00:05:40] Speaker 02:
That is true.

[00:05:41] Speaker 03:
It's a standard server.

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:05:44] Speaker 03:
Just running this particular software.

[00:05:46] Speaker 02:
That is right.

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
What we think transforms that from a standard or conventional server, at least under 101 jurisprudence, is just what distinguished the claims in Bascom.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
And that is that it was well known to use filtering software running at two different places.

[00:06:02] Speaker 02:
But in Bascom, the distinction here that was found to be patentable was that there was an intermediate server, an intermediate filtering

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
function so that content on the internet wasn't filtered dependent upon software running at the client or software running at the host, but rather in an intermediate server.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
And there was no claim there.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
In fact, all parties agreed.

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
There was no new piece of hardware involved.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
But you're not taking the position that servers, that you invented servers that allow

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
So, Bascom seems to me to be different because in Bascom, that filter was novel, the location of it.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
Putting it in a particular place and using it in a particular, using it that way was different than what was done before.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
So, it was a technological improvement, something more beyond the abstract idea.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
Here, your server, that the abstract idea is using the server in a particular environment, the learning environment.

[00:07:06] Speaker 02:
I would disagree with the court.

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
That's one of the new and unconventional ways of doing it.

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
But actually very similar to Bascom, that the evidence is unrebutted, that there had not been a distributed learning server where that software functionality was housed in a remote server.

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
So it actually is the same as the outcome in Bascom.

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
Again, filtering software was known.

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
Distributed learning solutions were known, but the only ones that appear anywhere in the record as having existed before this patent was filed for in 1998, ran those systems on the presenter or the audience or the host or the client.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
And so we believe that one of the two key unconventional ways in which these servers were being used was to have them at a remote distributed location.

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
This is my concern.

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
Let's say distributed shopping.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
So you've got a server and almost all the elements of the claim could be the same except that instead of the environment of learning, it's shopping where there's actual, you know, someone displaying or modeling the clothes or what have you.

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
And it's interactive that way.

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
How is that any different?

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
I mean, it's not a technological advantage in the sense that the servers change or it's different, it's improving the technology in the way that people are at the speed in which images are being sent or something like that.

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
Instead, the technological advantage is the idea of having this more convenient virtual classroom.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
The difference is that the shopping experience is one to one.

[00:08:42] Speaker 02:
And you have to start from the idea that we're already talking about a different type of learning.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
Distance or distributed learning, by definition, is something that cannot happen in a store.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
In your example, that's really just making that store experience easier.

[00:08:57] Speaker 02:
The way I like to put it here, there isn't a bullhorn loud enough or a mountain high enough in the world to do what this invention does.

[00:09:06] Speaker 02:
It's not the sort of pre-existing human activity that you can do without a technology solution because you have multiple participants all at the same time connecting from different places.

[00:09:16] Speaker 02:
That's the difference.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
What all this claim says really is just, you know, if you want to accomplish distributed learning,

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
learning that has gone on in the past, just do it on a computer.

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
That's all it really says.

[00:09:33] Speaker 02:
We disagree, Judge Lynn.

[00:09:35] Speaker 02:
We believe that the claims as read in line with the specification as required in this court's inefficient decision.

[00:09:42] Speaker 02:
Claim something different.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
Focus on claim one and answer Judge Lynn's question with regard to claim one.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
Tell me what in claim one, which you're appealing, isn't consistent with Judge Lynn's question.

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
Sure, it requires a plurality of computer systems coupled to a network.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
And importantly, based upon the claim construction in this case, it requires non-pre-installed code.

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
That is, not existing software programs that the presenter and the audience members already have on that computer.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
But non-pre-installed code, which is the claim construction of providing, to be sent to multiple participants and presenters

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
through this distributed learning server.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
That non-pre-installed code includes specific limitations.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
There has to be a control selection module for the presenter to select the minimum of two data streams that will be sent to the audience members.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
Those have to be displayed simultaneously.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
And then the audience member computer systems.

[00:10:43] Speaker 02:
have to have an additional limitation.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
But all of these things, this is what computers do.

[00:10:51] Speaker 01:
And this is how computers work.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
You want to tie computers together.

[00:10:56] Speaker 01:
You do so under the control of a server.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
And there's code that says do this and do that.

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
So it seems to me that all this claim is trying to say is that, well, here's my idea.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
provide distributed learning using a computer system.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
That's it.

[00:11:19] Speaker 01:
And there is nothing, you know, enfish-like in terms of, well, our distributor does this and this because it's a uniquely designed distributor or server, or our code does something unique

[00:11:36] Speaker 01:
There's nothing unique here.

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
In fact, the specification makes it perfectly clear that this whole system is made up of conventional, well understood, ordinary pieces of computer equipment.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
So that leaves you in a bit of a predicament, I think, in trying to overcome some of our prior decisions on 101.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
Judge Lee, we would disagree for this reason.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
We believe that's what the district court said and got it wrong.

[00:12:03] Speaker 02:
just as this court has said in both Enfish and in Bascom in the recent Amdocs case.

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
Merely because there are conventional hardware components involved in that network does not by itself render the claims not invented.

[00:12:20] Speaker 02:
And in Enfish, all of the claims was admitted related to off-the-shelf standard

[00:12:26] Speaker 02:
servers and software.

[00:12:28] Speaker 02:
And in fact, there, you were talking about something that computers do all the time, and that is render a database, a tabular database.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
Only difference was there was a special way to do that.

[00:12:42] Speaker 02:
There was a claim.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
In fact, it wasn't even the claims.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
In Enfish, the court relied upon a claim construction.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
You're spending all your time trying to show us how

[00:12:52] Speaker 03:
your case is like BASCOM, DDR, and ENFISH.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
I understand why those are the only ones that have come out really that are in favor of patent eligibility.

[00:13:02] Speaker 03:
And there are differences between your case and each one of those.

[00:13:05] Speaker 03:
You may not be willing to admit to it, but there are.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
So the question is, how does your case survive ultramercial?

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
How does your case survive the

[00:13:14] Speaker 03:
There's a very, very small body of precedent that we have created that said certain things are patent eligible even though people thought there's not.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
There's unfortunately a really, really big body of precedent that says lots of stuff that looks like this is not patent eligible.

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
So how do you get around those?

[00:13:30] Speaker 02:
Let me take Ultramershal first.

[00:13:32] Speaker 02:
Ultramershal, which found unpatentable the concept of essentially offering a free viewing of a demo or a television program in exchange for watching a commercial.

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
That's exactly the same as the pre-Alice-human interaction when you go to a store.

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
You get this Coke, if you agree to try this new dip with an advertising there, and if you do that and go through this advertising transaction, here's your free Coke.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
That's Ultra-Marshall.

[00:14:04] Speaker 02:
Here, there's no analog.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
in normal, in human interaction to what these claims claim.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
No, but there was.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
There was, unlike BASCOM, where there was no computer, non-computer analog to what they were doing, your patent lays out in great detail here all of the different analogs that prior art existed that all allowed for distributed learning.

[00:14:25] Speaker 03:
Unlike in BASCOM, there was no non-computer version to do what BASCOM did.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
Here, there are lots of other ways to do this, and they're articulated in the background section of your patent.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
It's just you found a way that's a bit more efficient and a bit more successful at doing so.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
Not that I don't think that should be patent eligible, but under the body of law that I'm stuck living with, I don't see how that separates you from Ultramershal.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
Two points.

[00:14:51] Speaker 02:
With due respect, I would disagree with you as to basking holding.

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
Basking holding was a computerized system for content filtering.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
It was using computers.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
The software was either filtering content at the host computer or the ISP.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
But that's the point.

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
It had no non-computer analog.

[00:15:05] Speaker 03:
You have lots of non-computer analogs.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
I misunderstood the course of comment.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
But that's really turning Alice on his head.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
I mean, Alice is basically... Hey, nobody would like doing that more than me.

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
You show me the path.

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
I understand.

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
But we can do that.

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
We're confident that these claims do do that.

[00:15:22] Speaker 02:
The analog here, and that's again, that's what the district court had a mistake here.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
The issue here was a technology improvement.

[00:15:36] Speaker 02:
I just need to direct the court back to column one of the patent, page 50.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
I mean, there's more than half of a column talking about the complex technologies that had been developed to facilitate distributed learning.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
It talks about the satellite broadcast.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
It talks about specialized software.

[00:15:54] Speaker 03:
Yeah, and you know what?

[00:15:55] Speaker 03:
There used to be an abacus, and then there was a calculator, and now that math can be done on a computer much more efficiently.

[00:16:02] Speaker 03:
still not patent eligible after Alice.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
And that's kind of like exactly what you have here.

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
You're demonstrating the evolution of how human beings did exactly what you're doing now, less efficiently than you've created a mechanism to do.

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
Doesn't mean I don't think it's an invention.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
It just means that under the body of law, I don't see how you fall outside of the umbrella of everything that's been swept in under that Alice decision.

[00:16:25] Speaker 02:
Well, I feel like I'm repeating myself a little bit, but I'll just try and close with this.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
The point is, it is not possible to do the solution that this patent claims in the pre-computer era.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
It's just not possible.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
That's the point.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
This is an improvement on technology that had already come up with a way to link people from thousands of miles away in a real-time interactive situation.

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
Well, let's hear from the other side, and I'll restore some of your rebuttal time.

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
Good morning, John and Anderson for TAPLAs.

[00:17:28] Speaker 04:
When a student walks into a classroom, they can see the classroom.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
They can look around and see what it looks like.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
They can see the teacher.

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
They can hear the teacher.

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
They can see what the teacher is presenting, whether it's a chalkboard or a television.

[00:17:43] Speaker 04:
And the student can see the teacher.

[00:17:45] Speaker 04:
The teacher can see the student.

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
What Williamson has tried to do here is take that abstract idea of having a classroom interaction, a classroom with streams of data showing things in the classroom, and put it online.

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
But they even acknowledged to the last point about not possible to do before, not only are they taking that abstract idea and doing it online, there are already people, if you will, doing that abstract idea on computers.

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
Could you characterize this case?

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
I mean, I had been thinking about it a little bit, about this is a situation where it was maybe even done on computers and with software that you had to give to somebody in a box on the computers and now the internet's created and it's do it on the internet?

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
I think that's exactly right.

[00:18:36] Speaker 04:
It's really do it on the web, I think is what they had in mind.

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
When we look at the district for its claim construction,

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
On the instruction limitation that was referenced about pre-install, this is at 1107 through 1109, what the district court was getting at, we have these statements in the patent that say, we're better because we don't use specialized software.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
And what we're going to use is just a standard web browser.

[00:19:12] Speaker 04:
They say in the patent and the district court cited it on A11-09 of its claim construction.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
We're using Netscape Navigate, Netscape Communicator or Microsoft Internet Explorer is how they're going to receive this information.

[00:19:26] Speaker 04:
And that's the only disclosure of what's being run on these computers that are viewing this.

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
So what the district court was trying to capture with this construction is just the idea that it's not specialized software, it's just a web browser.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
And in fact, similarly for the server, when we look at the patent and where it describes this distributed learning server, at column five of the patent starting around line 34, it's describing this distributed learning server referring to figure three.

[00:20:00] Speaker 04:
Now, of course, figure three itself only shows some black boxes.

[00:20:03] Speaker 04:
It doesn't tell us what the server does.

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
But when we look further down, when it describes what this server is, it says it's simply running an operating system like Microsoft Windows or Sun Solaris, and it's using a standard web server, like Netscape Enterprise Server or the Apache web server.

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
So it really is taking this idea, the abstract idea of a classroom.

[00:20:25] Speaker 04:
and saying, we are better, we are different because we are putting on the web.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
That's all this is under the current cases.

[00:20:31] Speaker 03:
Well, it is better and different, right?

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
It works better.

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
You don't need to buy special software.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
Everybody's got it.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
It is better and different.

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
So doing something on the web does provide the benefits that the web provides.

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
Absolutely true.

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
I mean, computers calculate things faster than my calculator does.

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
They absolutely do.

[00:20:48] Speaker 04:
And what we've learned from the recent body of case law is that

[00:20:52] Speaker 04:
when all you add is saying, do it on the internet, or do it on the web, or do it on a computer, because computers are better and faster, that that is not something substantially more on the Alice, or significantly more on the Alice step 2.

[00:21:07] Speaker 04:
So going back to the claims, and I think the other thing that I want to point out, there was a discussion about the server.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
When you look at claim one, for example, there is no server in that claim.

[00:21:18] Speaker 04:
Claim one says you're providing the instructions to two computers.

[00:21:23] Speaker 04:
It doesn't say what those instructions are.

[00:21:25] Speaker 04:
It doesn't say where they come from.

[00:21:27] Speaker 04:
And in fact, it doesn't even say those instructions have to be executed.

[00:21:31] Speaker 04:
Really, this claim just says you're sending some instructions.

[00:21:33] Speaker 04:
That is exactly what computers have known how to do for at least that case.

[00:21:41] Speaker 04:
And similarly for claim 17, we have a server and we have these modules for doing various things.

[00:21:49] Speaker 04:
But those things that it's doing are the abstract ideas, the abstract idea of saying, let's have a classroom.

[00:21:55] Speaker 04:
Well, what's the classroom going to look like?

[00:21:57] Speaker 04:
We don't know.

[00:21:58] Speaker 04:
And in fact, not only do we not know, we have a situation here where we have the privacy.

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
We had a construction from the district court that required a conformal map.

[00:22:09] Speaker 04:
And the court found in the prior decision that there was actually an explicit definition in the specification for the classroom location.

[00:22:17] Speaker 04:
And Williamson's urging said it does not require a pictorial map.

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
That in fact the classroom only requires this partially virtual space where participants can interact.

[00:22:29] Speaker 04:
So I think we could fairly argue whether having a seeding chart-like pictorial map adds anything substantial to the abstract idea.

[00:22:37] Speaker 04:
But certainly now, with this construction about simply having the virtual space for interaction with no guidance about what it looks like, that is simply the abstract idea of having a classroom.

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
And then with the data stream similarly,

[00:22:52] Speaker 04:
It is simply not the case, when we look back at column one again, where Williamson describes the prior art, there's this talk about having two-way, I mean column one around line 41, two-way video and audio communication between the teacher and a broadcast center and audience members in one or more row of classrooms.

[00:23:13] Speaker 04:
So we see two things from this.

[00:23:15] Speaker 04:
First of all, it's two-way communication, so they can see and hear each other.

[00:23:18] Speaker 04:
So it's going both ways.

[00:23:20] Speaker 04:
And second, we have video and audio.

[00:23:22] Speaker 04:
And the patent says that, at least for claim one, these at least two streams could be video or audio.

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
And even if it's video, even in those private systems, we have video going both ways.

[00:23:37] Speaker 04:
When we look at Alice Step 1, we have simply this abstract idea of providing the classroom where you can see the participation, see the presenter for example, see the whiteboard or chalkboard, or a video they may be showing.

[00:23:52] Speaker 04:
And of course we have the limitation about the presenter can control what they show to the students.

[00:23:57] Speaker 04:
Well the presenter in the real world classroom can of course decide, do I want to show a video today, do I want to use the chalkboard.

[00:24:03] Speaker 04:
And then we get to Alice Step 2.

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
The only thing that this patent even suggests that it provides is this idea of taking this abstract idea and putting it on the web using web browsers and web servers and this core

[00:24:18] Speaker 04:
The case five point is the most similar.

[00:24:21] Speaker 04:
The electric power group case had this idea of data streams in a way that I think is very similar to the data streams here.

[00:24:29] Speaker 04:
And the ENRI TLI communications had a kind of server for transmitting and recording digital images, putting that online.

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
So the same kind of server aspect, both found on-cat and from there.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
Anything else?

[00:24:44] Speaker 04:
Unless the court has any questions.

[00:24:47] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:24:48] Speaker 03:
Or for two minutes of rebuttal time, please.

[00:24:55] Speaker 02:
Let me go right to step two.

[00:24:58] Speaker 02:
Because while most of the time we spent earlier was directed to another Snapdragon concept, even if there was, step two, as applied by this court, especially most recently in the Bassam case,

[00:25:15] Speaker 02:
was addressing a district court decision that found that merely describing the interaction of computer components and software was not enough to add the event of contact.

[00:25:25] Speaker 02:
And this court reversed that because the evidence was that the interaction of those computers was not routine or conventional.

[00:25:34] Speaker 02:
And these claims are very detailed.

[00:25:36] Speaker 02:
And I would ask that the court especially compare this case to electric power and TLI.

[00:25:42] Speaker 02:
Both of which, TLI for example,

[00:25:45] Speaker 02:
is simply a system that added classification information, a date, to a digital photograph that when it was stored would allow it to be stored in a folder with that date.

[00:25:54] Speaker 02:
I've been doing that since, I'm old enough to remember photos before the internet.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
I've been doing that at looking at the date on the back of a photo and putting it in a folder with a particular date.

[00:26:03] Speaker 02:
That is not what happened here.

[00:26:06] Speaker 02:
I believe that to be the case.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
Here we are talking about

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
Even moving beyond step one where, as I said, this is not pre-existing human activity brought to the internet.

[00:26:19] Speaker 02:
Only technology can do distance learning.

[00:26:22] Speaker 02:
But even if you assume that we're talking about an abstract concept, looking at Bascom and looking at this case, they are precisely the same on the inventive concept.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
And distinguishable, we believe clearly distinguishable from electric power group or TLI,

[00:26:37] Speaker 02:
because everything what could be used conventionally in Bascom, but it was being used unconventionally because of the existence on well-known pre-existing internet filtering software in a computer network, but doing it remote from the host and doing it remote from the client.

[00:26:56] Speaker 02:
That's exactly what is happening here.

[00:26:58] Speaker 02:
And we suggest that this pattern, even if you go to step two about this, is clearly pattern

[00:27:03] Speaker 03:
I thank both counsel for their argument.

[00:27:06] Speaker 03:
This case is taken under submission.

[00:27:08] Speaker 03:
Before we move on