[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
We have three cases on the calendar this morning, all patent cases, one from the PTO, two from district courts.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
The first one is Google versus at-home builders liquidating trust.

[00:00:27] Speaker 03:
2016, 2727, and 2729.

[00:00:31] Speaker 03:
Mr. Joseph.

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
Good morning, and may it please the court.

[00:00:40] Speaker 00:
CGI requests naturally were not cached.

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
That's the inventor's testimony in his own words, supported by a wealth of other evidence, all of which is dispositive under the correct legal standard.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
The very simple point is that Engels disclosed a standard CGI request, and such requests were not blocked.

[00:00:57] Speaker 04:
Now, the other way of looking at it is that there are certainly... Mr. Joseph, have you challenged Dr. Amorath's qualifications or conclusions anywhere on the record?

[00:01:09] Speaker 00:
Conclusions, certainly.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
We don't dispute that the experts are qualified.

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
But yeah, you're right.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
They said in their brief that we don't dispute his conclusions.

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
His conclusions include not obviousness.

[00:01:21] Speaker 00:
So we certainly dispute his conclusions throughout the case.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
Now, we have to defer to the board on fact-finding what a reference discloses.

[00:01:33] Speaker 03:
The board said the actual disclosure of angles is inconclusive.

[00:01:39] Speaker 03:
And it also said the essential problem with angles is its lack of disclosure to major hurdle.

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
Well, it is, except for there are three points.

[00:01:50] Speaker 00:
The first is that, as a matter of law,

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
The reference doesn't have to explicitly in an ipsumus verbus kind of way exactly disclose the precise syntax the board wanted.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
Instead, the question is how a person of ordinary skill in the art would construct.

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
So it's not just what's exactly in angles, but it's also what the person of ordinary skill brings to it.

[00:02:09] Speaker 00:
And angles discloses in a number of respects shows that it's a standard request for a CGI script.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
I'd like to cover that in a moment.

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
But then the key point there is that a person of skill in the art, what do they know?

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
They know that as a standard matter,

[00:02:23] Speaker 00:
by default, a request for a CGI script will not be blockable.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
And in terms of that, first of all, this is- What about Dr. Amaroff's testimony, where he said that normally you have to have some sort of heuristics, such as CGI DIN or a question mark, to make it non-blockable?

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
Well, he, in terms of Amaroff's testimony- Unblockable.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:02:51] Speaker 00:
Understood.

[00:02:51] Speaker 00:
There's a double negative that tends to creep in here.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
In terms of Almaraz's testimony, the thing is, he's conclusory on the key issue.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
Because he does primarily argue that Engels doesn't disclose both CJ Bin and Question Mark.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
But then the other thing he points to is a 1996 textbook, which he says shows that requests are not always unblockable or sometimes blockable.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
But then on the key question of, OK, when are they blockable?

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
When are they not blockable?

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
There's no support there.

[00:03:20] Speaker 00:
It ends up on that crucial question, just being conclusory expert testimony.

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
And so that's number one.

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
Number two, though, is even if, well, number two would be, the other way of looking at it is there's only two possibilities.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
Either the CGR request is blockable or it's unblockable.

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
That means we have a genus of two, both of which were well-known and readily understood to those in the ARD.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
So as a matter of this court's case law, therefore,

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
the genus of CGR requests, should disclose both of those two known species.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
That's true.

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
That's basically chemical case law.

[00:03:55] Speaker 00:
Petering.

[00:03:56] Speaker 00:
Yeah, certainly.

[00:03:57] Speaker 00:
And like Eli Lloyd, for example, it certainly came up on that side of things.

[00:04:00] Speaker 00:
But there's no reason that the same principle of law would not also apply here.

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
And here, the cases you look at, like Enrae Gleave is an anticipation case for that proposition.

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
And most recently, the CRFD research, and also KSR, is a matter of obviousness law.

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
And then the third point is that even if CGI bin plus question mark were required, okay, the board acted arbitrarily and capriciously because it found, this was highly disputed by the parties, it found as a matter of fact that Angle's request was a GET request.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
But it then failed to analyze the significance of that point that the parties had so highly disputed.

[00:04:39] Speaker 00:
And the reason that's important is that a person, I don't think there's even any dispute, a person of skill in the art would know

[00:04:43] Speaker 00:
the get request by angles would use a question mark.

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
The reason is that get requests, what they do is as part of their syntax, they use a question mark followed by a query string in order to pass information.

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
And the board found as a fact that angles passed parameters, passed information to the CGI script.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
And that included the board recognized that it passed a content provider member identification,

[00:05:11] Speaker 00:
And figure four of Angle shows it also passes a user identification.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
Now, what does that mean?

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
The whole point of Angle is to provide a custom advertisement.

[00:05:18] Speaker 00:
You have a bunch of websites, a bunch of users, and an advertising computer that provides a custom advertisement to the user when any user reviews any of those websites.

[00:05:27] Speaker 04:
You're relying on Mr. Kent's testimony.

[00:05:30] Speaker 00:
In part, yes.

[00:05:32] Speaker 04:
How is Mr. Kent an expert who meets the PTABS criteria?

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
Well, he had more than two decades of experience of programming

[00:05:40] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
Browsers and other things.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
I mean, the dispute there was, and again, the board found this as a fact, and it didn't.

[00:05:51] Speaker 00:
It found this as a fact, but.

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
I mean, what it says is he hacked around in it, or however you want to use those phrases these days.

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
Well, there's, well, I guess it depends on if they hacked, obviously.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
But they, no, but the point is that.

[00:06:07] Speaker 00:
He wrote some colorful books that they make fun of.

[00:06:10] Speaker 00:
But he also had spent more than two decades programming web browsers, which is the key point.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
And that relevant experience made him qualified.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
But even apart from his testimony,

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
Even apart from his testimony, what's the testimony, getting over to this point, that a person skilled in the art would know that CGI scripts are generally not blockable by cache?

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
Even apart from him.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
First, there's the inventor, Michael Griffiths, testified explicitly that CGI requests naturally were not cached.

[00:06:45] Speaker 00:
The prosecution history explains that that's the default.

[00:06:48] Speaker 00:
Because as you know, the patent refers to a CGI bin as one way of making a request non-blockable.

[00:06:55] Speaker 00:
The prosecution history explains the CGI bin string.

[00:06:57] Speaker 00:
This is page 6908.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
quote, would be not blocked by normal HTTP standard compliant terminals or proxy servers.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
And then the WebNet 96 document on appendix page 1154 further confirms that.

[00:07:13] Speaker 00:
So all of the evidence that talks about what is the standard, what is the default, all says the same thing, which is the standard is not blockable.

[00:07:20] Speaker 02:
What about the 1995 W3C publication?

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
Doesn't that suggest otherwise?

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
It suggests that there's different ways

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
to make it blockable and it suggests the use of the string CGI and question mark, right?

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
Well, the 95 document is the one that talks about remapping the directories.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
But it says zero about whether that would affect blockability or unblockability.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
In other words, you can remap the directories.

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
You can change the names of some things.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
And the document certainly stands for that proposition.

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
But there's no evidence in the record in that document or anywhere else that that affects blockability.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
The only evidence that they, so against all of our evidence as to what the standard default is, the only thing they have on their side is the 96 textbook and their experts then reliance on the 96 textbook.

[00:08:11] Speaker 00:
The thing about the 96 textbook is there are two points on it.

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
First, it discloses a particular CGI script and says that that would be blockable.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
Now, it certainly stands for the proposition, therefore, that sometimes they're blockable, sometimes they're not.

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
Everyone agrees with that.

[00:08:28] Speaker 00:
But it doesn't say what the default is.

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
And it doesn't say, and it especially doesn't address at all what in particular is required.

[00:08:35] Speaker 00:
You know, what would make it the one.

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
Is there a district court action that is stayed?

[00:08:41] Speaker 00:
It is not stayed.

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
It's pending.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
It's pending.

[00:08:44] Speaker 00:
Because there are other claims.

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
So if you don't succeed, and these patents are expired, right?

[00:08:49] Speaker 03:
I believe that's right.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
So if you don't succeed in this appeal, then the district court action proceeds on infringement.

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
Yeah, there's a pending district court action, because there are other claims not implicated here.

[00:09:04] Speaker 00:
So that goes forward anyhow.

[00:09:06] Speaker 00:
But so this is the evidence of what the standard would be, which is therefore how a person would understand it.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
It also bears emphasis that we know angles discloses the standard, because first it discloses the advertisement request referencing a CGI script with no indication otherwise, but then explicitly indicates on its appendix page 107170

[00:09:28] Speaker 00:
two, that it uses a standard web server software system, number one, in 1071.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
And then also on 1070, it says it uses a standard web browser, like Microsoft Explorer or Netscape Navigator, which is why the board found as a fact in appendix page 25, it's a standard web browser.

[00:09:43] Speaker 00:
So a CGI request from a standard web browser to a standard web server, there's no reason a person skilled in the art would think it's anything other than the standard.

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
Also, the whole context of angles makes that necessary, because the point of angles is to provide custom advertising.

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
That's right, it's titled custom advertising.

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
And the only way the advertised computer can return custom advertising is if the request is not blocked.

[00:10:04] Speaker 00:
If the request to the advertising computer for custom advertisement gets blocked by cache, then the cache just returns the same advertisement every time.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
What about secondary considerations?

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
Objective and issue are important, I'd say, in this case, for two reasons.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
The PTAB felt there was evidence of a long felt need.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
And then it said, even though it may be weak on its longevity,

[00:10:26] Speaker 04:
I mean, we're dealing with a rolling target.

[00:10:29] Speaker 04:
This is computer stuff.

[00:10:31] Speaker 04:
15 months can be a real long time.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
If we took 15 months to get out this opinion, you would think it was a long time.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
Well, it depends.

[00:10:41] Speaker 00:
Context matters.

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
Yes, but the point here is, first, the court correctly found it was weak.

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
The PTAB correctly found it was weak.

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
And so just a matter of arbitrary and capricious.

[00:10:51] Speaker 00:
For the board to say, evidence is weak, evidence is weak, evidence is weak, we find it persuasive.

[00:10:56] Speaker 00:
There's a massive gap in logic there, going from weak to persuasive, without even trying to explain how you get from weak to persuasive.

[00:11:04] Speaker 00:
And as a matter of reason decision-making requirements, the board has to not only find the facts and state the conclusion, but give the reasoning in between.

[00:11:11] Speaker 00:
And that's especially important when there's such a jarring disjoint there.

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
But even as to long-felt need, though, the important thing is computers, under cases like NRA and Fresenius, surely cut the other way, or Fresenius, because, yes, it's a fast-moving area.

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
But what that means is that as new problems present themselves, existing methodologies, skill in the art, may well promptly suggest solutions as well.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
In other words, the nature of the new problem may well suggest a solution.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
So when it's fast moving, that's all the more reason to wonder whether it's really inventive genius or innovation or just application of known techniques to a new situation, which is why if there's ever an area where you're going to say that long felt should mean something other than long,

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
we would say would not be this one for that reason under the reasoning of safer genius.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
And there's also some similar language in KSR.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
But the second reason objective indicia are important, apart from the obvious arbitrary and capricious problem with the gap in the reasoning, is that this court has recognized they can be the most important and persuasive evidence.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
And under the board's underlying findings, the only thing that is shown strongly as opposed to in the board's own words, weakly, is contemporaneous invention by others.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
that other people were developing similar solutions at about the same time to the point where the evidence of industry standard that they rely on, the IAB guidelines, gives, in its own words, six different alternatives.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
And the board found as a fact that the claimed invention is only one of them.

[00:12:47] Speaker 00:
So what we see here is the one thing that is not weak that is strong even on the board's findings

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
is that others are vetting about the same thing at the same time, suggesting that it is just the application of ordinary skill using known techniques to address a new problem that recently was invested in.

[00:13:01] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I'm sort of thinking out loud about the hardware flaw, Intel hardware flaw that Google revealed caused a huge scramble to resolve it.

[00:13:14] Speaker 04:
But I guess you'd be hard pressed to say 15 days or 30 days was long felt neat, even though it's vitally important.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
Yes, still not long felt.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
Yeah, I guess that's true.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
Any problem can take a while to work through.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
And so if 15 months is not long felt in other contexts, it's not.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
For long felt, this court was six years in TI, two decades in Rampus.

[00:13:37] Speaker 00:
That is, it's hard to see how long felt's not.

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
But in any event, the board said it was weak, which is our only... Maybe, said maybe weak.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
Well, maybe weak.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
Yes, but the point was, it didn't say it was more than weak.

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
There's no finding that's more than weak.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
And that's the key point for us to rely on.

[00:13:53] Speaker 00:
And then I should save what's left for a bottle.

[00:13:55] Speaker 02:
If this court were to agree that the substantial evidence support the board's finding that Engel doesn't teach or suggest that its CGI script is non-blockable, do we even get to the secondary considerations?

[00:14:10] Speaker 00:
Well, this court has held that a court, or in this case, the board, must always consider

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
objective indicia, because objective indicia can be most important.

[00:14:20] Speaker 02:
But if the prior doesn't teach certain elements in the claim, and the question is whether the board erred in finding that the claims aren't obvious, then why would we review the secondary consideration?

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
Well, our point there is that objective indicia is not just a one-way ratchet, right?

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
So it's true that the cases saying that secondary considerations must always be considered are cases where the private patient case went in favor of going in one direction.

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
But it's not a one-way ratchet.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
And if the evidence of objective indicia

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
strongly suggest lack of invention, then that also ought to be considered as part of the overall obvious legal balancing of the relevant factors under this course of recent cases.

[00:15:00] Speaker 03:
Let's hear from the other side, and we'll give you your three minutes back.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:15:06] Speaker 03:
Mr. Stevens.

[00:15:09] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:15:09] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
Mr. Stevens, Google says on page 31 of its blue brief that standard CGI

[00:15:18] Speaker 04:
bin strings are typically unblockable.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
Do you agree with that?

[00:15:22] Speaker 01:
Absolutely not, Your Honor.

[00:15:24] Speaker 01:
That's where I want you to start.

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
The question, of course, for this court is whether or not the PTAB's decision that that's not the case is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:15:33] Speaker 01:
And I submit that it is.

[00:15:34] Speaker 01:
There are a number of pieces of substantial evidence which the board expressly relied on, one of which was Dr. Almaraz's declaration.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
And of course, Dr. Almaraz's declaration carefully.

[00:15:45] Speaker 01:
Do you think Mr. Kent is an expert?

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
We, of course, dispute whether or not Mr. Kent meets the requirements for a person of ordinary skill in the art.

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
The board found that it was close enough that they weren't going to just discount all of his testimony.

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
But it's clear that in the end, they discounted his testimony in favor of Dr. Almaroth on many key questions.

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
The substantial evidence in addition to Dr. Almaroth's expert report, of course, are the CGI textbook.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
and the W3C publication, both of which show that ordinary CGI requests are not cacheable.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
The CGI textbook shows that because it gives an example and explains that if you use it, it will be cached.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
And the W3C publication shows it because it shows that you don't have to use CGI bin and a question mark in the request itself.

[00:16:41] Speaker 01:
So I submit that that substantial evidence supports the finding that Engels does not disclose an unblockable request.

[00:16:48] Speaker 03:
But what about the idea that Engels discloses a genus of two, which essentially is a disclosure of both?

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
Yes, good question, Your Honor.

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
And I would analogize it to a disclosure of, say, a structural element.

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
So a structural element could be made of metal.

[00:17:06] Speaker 01:
Metal could be magnetic, meaning that you could magnetize it.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
Well, that means structural elements are either magnetized or not.

[00:17:13] Speaker 01:
Does that mean it would be obvious to magnetize a structural element?

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
It doesn't.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
And here, we have a situation where the board found, correctly, and Dr. Kent, or excuse me, Mr. Kent also testified that the CGI bin request cacheability depends on its syntax.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
And there's a wide variety of syntax that can be used.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
Only a small subset of that would be uncachable.

[00:17:36] Speaker 01:
So when you're looking at a reference like angles,

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
which is completely silent on the question of cacheability, and you're looking at a technology in which only a small subset of the available syntaxes are cacheable or, excuse me, are unblockable requests, the board found, correctly, that a person of ordinary skill wouldn't assume that the mere mention of a CGI script is enough to disclose an unblockable request.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
And Judge Stoll, I'd like to address your question about

[00:18:10] Speaker 01:
whether or not this court need reach the objective indicia.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
Because I think if you find that substantial evidence supports the board's conclusion that there is no disclosure of an unblockable request in angles, that's the end of it.

[00:18:23] Speaker 01:
There's no need to address.

[00:18:24] Speaker 03:
In other words, you don't have a reference.

[00:18:26] Speaker 01:
Right, exactly.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
There's no combination that shows all the elements, and therefore no need to reach the objective indicia.

[00:18:35] Speaker 01:
In spite of that, I think this board can affirm the objective indicia findings.

[00:18:40] Speaker 01:
They are supported by substantial evidence.

[00:18:43] Speaker 01:
Unlike what Google says, it's not the case that there was a finding that the objective and issue are weak in their entirety.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
And clearly, there was a finding.

[00:18:52] Speaker 01:
And the evidence shows that the need was actually fairly acute and existed for at least 15 months.

[00:18:58] Speaker 01:
So the Wall Street Journal and New York Times articles show that this was a need that people knew about and cared about.

[00:19:06] Speaker 01:
And it was affecting the industry.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
This was a fast-moving industry.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure that it, I mean, they say it may be weak.

[00:19:13] Speaker 04:
I use that phrase to your opposing counsel as well.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure it is weak.

[00:19:19] Speaker 01:
I agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:19:21] Speaker 01:
For one thing, I think you're looking at multiple independent of indicia here.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
And a number of pieces of evidence can add up to be strong, even if individually they're not as strong.

[00:19:30] Speaker 01:
And I think that's the situation here.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
You've got a number of separate pieces of indicia

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
that each one shows that there was a long-felt need or some industry praise or adoption.

[00:19:43] Speaker 01:
And together, they add up to something fairly strong.

[00:19:46] Speaker 01:
In particular, there's an argument that somehow this was attributable to MatchLogic's PR.

[00:19:52] Speaker 01:
Well, MatchLogic was a small company at the time.

[00:19:54] Speaker 01:
And lots of small companies release press releases.

[00:19:57] Speaker 01:
They're usually not reported in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honors, unless you have other questions, I'll leave it at that.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Stevens.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
Mr. Joseph.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
Just two points.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
One is, in terms of, to explore your question again about the genus of two, at a minimum, it ought to be obvious to pick the one of the two that would work.

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
And again, with angles, the idea is to provide a custom advertisement, which means when you know they're, at a minimum, you know they're unblockable requests.

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
In angles, it's the unblockable request from the user's computer

[00:20:37] Speaker 00:
to the advertising computer that would then enable the advertising computer to run its program and return a custom advertisement, which is the whole point of angles.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
And then the second thing is, in terms of the get request is important as an additional ground, because after the board found as a fact that angles had a get request, it was then, at a minimum, arbitrary and capricious not to go on to consider that, especially since the evidence shows that if angles has a standard get request,

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
It's going to have a question mark, and it's going to have CGPIN in it.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
We know that first because the whole point of a GET request, and I think this is undisputed in the record, is that a GET request uses a question mark, the key syntax, followed by a query string to pass information.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
And the board found as a fact that Ingalls is passing parameters to the advertisement computer so that it could then generate a custom advertisement.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
So if it's a GET request, under the record, there's a question mark there.

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
And the evidence for that is, for example,

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
The CGI programming of the web document, 2196 to 97, and then also the W3C script doc support document itself in appendix page 1567, and the HTTP protocol document in appendix 860.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
The GET request is really important there.

[00:21:50] Speaker 00:
And then you also know that that GET request is going to have CGI bin in it as a standard matter, because the evidence is that the CGI script as a default matter is stored in the CGI bin directory, not surprisingly.

[00:22:03] Speaker 02:
The argument you made about how there's two options and you would want to use the one that is correct and it would work with the references purpose, was that an argument that was made before the PTAB?

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
Maybe not that specifically.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
But obviously, it lit against preserve issues, not supporting arguments.

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
And certainly argued before the PTAB all along that the board found as a fact, for example, that angles pass as parameters to the advertisement computer in order to get a custom response

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
And then, obviously, what does that mean?

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
That means it's got to be non-blockable.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
Because if the request gets blocked, if the request to the advertised computer gets blocked by cache, then cache returns the same advertisement every single time.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
You're not going to get your custom advertisement.

[00:22:48] Speaker 00:
And so with the board finding as a fact that it's a GET request, it's got a question mark in it, and that it's passing parameters, you know for certain there's a question mark, and you know for certain it's got to get through.

[00:23:01] Speaker 00:
Because otherwise, angles just isn't going to work.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
And again, though, with a genus of two, it seems very reasonable to say that both were disclosed.

[00:23:07] Speaker 00:
And certainly, it's an obviousness matter.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
It's not a stretch at all to say that the one that would actually work is disclosed.

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
But regardless of even all of that, it's just arbitrary preaches for the board to resolve the dispute as to whether it's a get request, angles as a get request, but then fail to go on to do the analysis of why that's important, especially since it's the same one.

[00:23:24] Speaker 03:
Council, further argument is blockable.

[00:23:27] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:28] Speaker 03:
We'll take the case under advisement.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.