[00:00:25] Speaker 01:
Next case is Google versus Network One Technologies, 2017-1379.

[00:00:31] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
Ahner.

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
Morning.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:00:47] Speaker 00:
I've reserved three minutes for my rebuttal.

[00:01:04] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:01:05] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
Claim construction is the key issue in this appeal.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
And the board's construction of the term machine-readable instructions is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence and should be reversed.

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
This patent describes how to identify what it calls a work.

[00:01:23] Speaker 00:
An example is an advertisement.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
And to use the identification of that work to look up information used to provide

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
an action to a user.

[00:01:35] Speaker 00:
The example that this specification gives is a user watching an ad might want more information about the product and use its cell phone to request a phone number that is then automatically dialed to the provider of the advertisement.

[00:01:50] Speaker 00:
Did you have a question?

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:01:52] Speaker 00:
That's described in the specification.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
If I could point you to the patent itself, the intrinsic evidence, in column 22,

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
which is at the bottom of Appendix 49.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
I'll start with the when a user at line 61.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
So this is the example that I just gave you.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, which column are you saying?

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
I'm in column 22, the bottom of its page, Appendix 49.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
When a user query is received, the time, channel, and geographic information

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
are used to retrieve the corresponding unique identifier.

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
So that's the system identifying what the ad is and using that unique identifier to access a second database that contains information associated with the identified work.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
And then it gives some examples in the next paragraph.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
There's a second database.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
An entry 1000 in this second database is depicted in figure 10, which shows that associated with the identifier,

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
is the name of the product, product category, several data fields here, manufacturer, website.

[00:03:02] Speaker 00:
That next sentence starting at line two in column 23, many other data fields are also possible.

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
Such additional data fields may include fields that indicate what action should be taken on behalf of the requesting user.

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
And the patent goes on to provide four examples of those data fields and those actions that could be performed for the user, and they include

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
The first one there is simply redirecting a request to an associated website or initiating an e-commerce transaction or providing an associated telephone number that may be automatically dialed if the querying device is a cell phone.

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
So that's the example I just gave you.

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
Two of the examples from that database, those data fields, are recited specifically in dependent claims 16 and 17, which appear on the next page of the patent at appendix 51.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
And they specifically recite a hyperlink to a URL and instructions to dial a telephone number.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
And that's the subject matter that I just read to you from column 23.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
The problem comes at the board's construction of the term machine readable instructions, which appears in those claims, which say that the machine readable instructions comprise a hyperlink or instructions to dial a telephone number.

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
The board, however,

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
construed machine readable instructions to mean code or pseudo code that is executable by a computer processor.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
That construction is so narrow that it does not cover the examples given in claims 16 and 17.

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
And it's inconsistent with the specification.

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure why it doesn't encompass what's in 16 and 17.

[00:04:44] Speaker 03:
And on the assumption that that's identical to what's at the top of column 23, why there's any inconsistency?

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
Well, the inconsistency is actually in the text of 23 itself, which describes those examples as data fields in a database.

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
And so the specification specifically calls those out as examples of just data.

[00:05:04] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say anything about them needing to be limited to code or pseudocode.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
And likewise, the instruction to dial a telephone number in 17, the hyperlink to a URL, there's nothing that indicates those have to be code or pseudocode.

[00:05:20] Speaker 00:
And that is why the board's construction is inconsistent with the claims and the intrinsic evidence.

[00:05:28] Speaker 04:
Is it possible to package code or pseudocode that's executable by a computer processor with data, with text?

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
So I think that's one of the primary arguments from the other side, is that the hyperlink or the telephone number is something that rides along with other stuff that is the code itself.

[00:05:48] Speaker 00:
But that's inconsistent with column 23, which describes those things simply as data fields.

[00:05:53] Speaker 00:
And it doesn't just say a URL or a phone number is a data field.

[00:05:58] Speaker 00:
It says things like redirecting a request to an associated website.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
That's exactly what a hyperlink does.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
Or providing an associated telephone number that may be automatically dialed.

[00:06:09] Speaker 00:
So it's not simply limiting.

[00:06:11] Speaker 00:
It lists other data fields.

[00:06:12] Speaker 00:
But the specification is not limiting those things to just data.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
that is along with something else.

[00:06:20] Speaker 04:
I know this is a dangerous thing to do, but if you were to just look at the word machine readable instruction outside the context of the specification, I already said that is a dangerous thing to do, but this construction code or pseudocode that is executed by a computer processor, that would seem like the ordinary instant reaction definition you would have for such a term.

[00:06:47] Speaker 04:
Is that fair to say?

[00:06:49] Speaker 00:
I think there's evidence in the record that would support that as one of maybe many different ways to express machine readable instructions.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
And to that sort of outside of the patent.

[00:06:58] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:06:58] Speaker 04:
We wouldn't think data fields, for example, would be machine readable instructions.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
Again, divorced from the specification.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
If you were divorced from the specification, they've pointed to evidence in the record and other patents that use machine readable instructions as something that is code or pseudo code that has to be executed.

[00:07:15] Speaker 00:
They've argued that that is a term of art, and therefore we're stuck with it here.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
And the problem is that that's not what this patent is about.

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
Machine readable instructions, how to generate machine readable instructions, code, pseudo code, none of that appears in this patent.

[00:07:30] Speaker 00:
What this patent is really about is all the different ways you could use to identify the advertisement.

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
So it's got columns and columns about different ways

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
Whether you look at the ad and you pull out feature vectors and compare them to a database of feature vectors, or you see, as in the example I read, when the ad was broadcast or where.

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
That's really what the patent is about.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
And so here, when machine readable instructions appears only in the claims and only in these couple of places, we have to make sure that whatever the broadest reasonable interpretation is, is broad enough to cover what's here.

[00:08:05] Speaker 00:
And to your question, Judge Toronto, about why those things couldn't be code or pseudo code.

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
Why would we have to make sure that that's broad enough to cover what's in the spec when the spec doesn't use that term?

[00:08:20] Speaker 00:
It doesn't use the term machine readable instructions.

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
The claims, though, those two claims that I pointed to describe specific actions that are machine readable instructions.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
Right, but they're dependent on, I guess, all of the claims say, we may have other

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
not the claims.

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
The patent owner may say, we may have a variety of claims.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
I don't even know if there are.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
In fact, I guess I do know that there's a family of patents, because there was an earlier still pending litigated case, right?

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
On other related patents, yes.

[00:08:55] Speaker 03:
And I haven't looked at those.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
Why aren't they entitled to say, this particular continuation application, or maybe this particular patent, we're going to take all the stuff we did about identifying works and then associating things, and we're going to now limit this to machine-readable instructions for using all of that.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
So these eight lines in the spec, when divorced from machine-readable instructions, may not be covered by these claims.

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
So what?

[00:09:25] Speaker 00:
Well, but the claims do say that machine readable instructions comprise two of those examples.

[00:09:30] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
But the claim language is quite easily understood as referring to machine readable instructions either.

[00:09:38] Speaker 03:
I mean, for two reasons, which I think are the two reasons that were given in the red brief.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
One, they may actually be machine readable instructions.

[00:09:48] Speaker 03:
The instruction dial the phone number or the instruction go to this URL.

[00:09:53] Speaker 03:
And in any event, all the claims, what is it 16 and 17 and the 30 series counterpart, all they say is you have to include that stuff.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
That doesn't mean that those have to be the machine readable instructions.

[00:10:07] Speaker 00:
I think the tiebreaker here is the fact that we're under the broadest reasonable construction and that the claims use the word, the dependent claims use the word comprise.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
And so it could be either.

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
It could be either those are a part

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
As Judge Chen suggested before, those are a ride along with some other code that's there, although that's not supported anywhere in the specification.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
Or it could be that those are examples of the machine readable instructions, in which case there's nothing in the record to suggest that a hyperlink is code or pseudo code.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
It's machine readable.

[00:10:39] Speaker 00:
It's readable by a machine.

[00:10:40] Speaker 00:
What it is is it maps usually an icon or a word.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
You've seen them maybe in an email or a document.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
It's kind of blue or purple.

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
It's underlined.

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
And when you hover over it with your mouse,

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
It turns into a hand so you can click it.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
And then you're moved to that location, whether it's a website or a place in the document.

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
The difference, though, is when the hyperlink is sent, it's not the hyperlink.

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
It's actually the browser software on the user's computer that executes that.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
Just like in the record, that's an example that's extra record.

[00:11:10] Speaker 00:
But in the record, there's an example given by Network One's expert of an email.

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:
And he says that an email is just data.

[00:11:17] Speaker 00:
It's not code or pseudocode.

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
And that's because when it's sent,

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
On the user's computer, your email outlook program, or whatever email program you use, is what actually runs and displays the email.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
It's the same thing as a hyperlink.

[00:11:30] Speaker 00:
When it's sent, it's not the hyperlink that has the code in it.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
Hyperlinks aren't code.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
What it is is the browser on the user's computer.

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
So even setting aside, which I don't think you can do properly, but even if you want to set aside that those two examples appear in the specification and are described as data fields,

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
The terms themselves in the claims, the instruction to dial a telephone number, the example in the specification says send the phone number.

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
When the cell phone gets it, the cell phone is what's dialing the phone number.

[00:11:58] Speaker 00:
It's not some code that's sent along with the phone number.

[00:12:01] Speaker 00:
And that's consistent with what's described in the specification, that those things, because it's the broadest reasonable interpretation, they have to be examples.

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
They might be parts too, but they have to be examples of machine readable instructions.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
And neither of those things is.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
And it's confirmed when you look back at the specification.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
It also demonstrates why the prior art discloses the machine-readable instructions.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
And that was the position that Google took in the petition, was that whatever the construction is of machine-readable instructions, just like in the references we used, all three of them, Ferris, Goldstein, and Filia, they all parallel almost exactly the examples here in the specification in particular

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
for the hyperlink and the telephone instructions, those references give much more detail about how to redirect an advertising URL to a manufacturer or how to send a telephone number to get the telephone interface by the user to dial that phone directly.

[00:13:03] Speaker 00:
And so the scope of the claims needs to be broad enough to cover what's in the claims themselves, the intrinsic evidence, and because the boards

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
construction contradicts the intrinsic evidence, it should be reversed.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
I'll save the remainder of my time unless you have other questions.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
Please, we'll save it for you, Ms.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
Honor.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you, sir.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
Mr. Jacobson.

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
This appeal turns on the board's construction of the claim language machine-readable instruction.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
Google does not seriously dispute on appeal that below, the board made factual findings that this is a term of art.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
Google's own expert agreed that is true.

[00:13:55] Speaker 02:
And to one of ordinary skill, it means code or pseudocode executable by a computer.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:14:01] Speaker 04:
Now we're trying to understand it in the context of this patent.

[00:14:04] Speaker 04:
And nowhere else in the patent does it actually use the magic words machine-readable instructions

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
Nor is there any embodiment that seems to suggest how machine readable instructions would be introduced into any of the embodiments to somehow carry out whatever the goals of the invention are.

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
So could you, I guess, somehow translate for me what the machine readable instructions are actually doing, since they're nowhere referenced in the spec?

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
I mean, as Ms.

[00:14:36] Speaker 04:
Arner pointed out, there's

[00:14:38] Speaker 04:
embodiments talking about data, right?

[00:14:41] Speaker 04:
Data getting sent over.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
But where is the machine readable instructions popping up in the spec?

[00:14:48] Speaker 02:
Let me show you an example, Your Honor.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
And in the context of that example, I'll explain what the machine readable instructions are doing and how those are different from just the data fields that the patent describes stored in this database.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
It's going to be in the specification in column seven.

[00:15:07] Speaker 02:
That's on appendix page 42.

[00:15:09] Speaker 02:
The relevant part starts at line 49.

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
And what is described is the URL associated with the Ford tourist car together with the instruction to translate the query into the associated URL.

[00:15:30] Speaker 02:
What this is saying is you have here a URL.

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
That's just data.

[00:15:34] Speaker 02:
That's just a website, www.ford.com.

[00:15:37] Speaker 02:
But that's not all you have.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
You also have an instruction to a computer to take that URL and translate it into a website.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
That's what the claim language requires.

[00:15:47] Speaker 02:
You generate and then provide to the user device that instruction, not just the data field.

[00:15:54] Speaker 04:
Isn't that inherent any time you send a URL link over?

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
There's a difference between a URL and a hyperlink to a URL.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
That's why the claims recite hyperlink to a URL.

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
OK, well, hyperlink.

[00:16:08] Speaker 04:
Anytime you send a hyperlink, you're sending these kinds of instructions?

[00:16:12] Speaker 02:
In most cases I'm aware of, if you do actually generate and send a hyperlink, that would be machine-readable instructions, your honor.

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
I agree.

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
But that's not what Google's asserted prior are taught.

[00:16:22] Speaker 02:
Google's asserted prior are taught.

[00:16:23] Speaker 04:
No, I understand your technical arguments for why Google's arguments fail, but I'm just trying to now understand what is really being accomplished by machine-readable instructions.

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
And I guess from this

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
reference in the spec, you're saying it's really nothing more than the instructions that come along with any old hyperlink.

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, instructions that come with a hyperlink would be an example of machine-readable instructions, but that does accomplish something important that tells the computer using HTML tags to take... You didn't invent the idea of sending along these instructions so that the URL can all of a sudden be clickable to access the website.

[00:17:06] Speaker 04:
Or a phone number.

[00:17:07] Speaker 02:
We did not invent the concept of a hyperlink or a phone number.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
What is inventive about these claims is it does this in a way that's different from the prior art.

[00:17:15] Speaker 02:
In the prior art, what you would do if you wanted to use a hyperlink is you would just send the URL from the computer system to your user device.

[00:17:23] Speaker 02:
And all the instructions, all the software you needed to turn that into a hyperlink, that would be resident on the device.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
That's what Google's Filia reference did.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
These claims claim something innovative by reversing that.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
Now we're actually generating the instructions for the hyperlink at a remote computer and sending that along to the user device.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
That was counterintuitive, because now the message you're sending is more complicated.

[00:17:48] Speaker 02:
It involves at least some code or pseudocode.

[00:17:51] Speaker 02:
And it has to work together with everything that's already on the device.

[00:17:55] Speaker 04:
When you're just sending... I guess I'm lost.

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
What is new about, instead of sending the URL, you're sending a link with the URL?

[00:18:05] Speaker 02:
What's new, Your Honor, is instead of sending just the URL, instead of sending just www.google.com, you're sending the actual HTML code to create a hyperlink.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
And so that would be an anchor tag, which is the a symbol, the variable href, which tells you what the URL is going to link to, the text, and a closing anchor tag.

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
So you're sending a little bit of code or pseudocode, machine-readable instructions, instead of just sending the data and relying on the instructions already being resident on the device.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
That's one inventive aspect of these claims.

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
I guess you're saying Ferris doesn't teach this.

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
So Ferris just has data.

[00:18:43] Speaker 04:
Do you want to buy this?

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
And then you get to press a button on the remote control.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
Ferris just sends an advertisement text, for example, buy this power drill and a price.

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
And all the software that's needed to take that and do something with it, all the instructions, is already present on the Ferris device.

[00:19:01] Speaker 02:
That's why, to attempt to prevail below, your honor, Google had to advance an implicit construction that was contrary to the meaning of this term of art.

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
Google had to imply that any time you send data, that's an instruction.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
And that's because all of Google's references, the only thing that the computer system provided to the remote device is just data, no instructions, no code or pseudocode.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
And the problem with that, as the board recognized, is that is directly contrary to what this term, this claimed term, means.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
to one of ordinary skill.

[00:19:33] Speaker 02:
And that was established by the admissions of Google's own expert, who agreed with our expert that when you have machine readable instructions, it's a term of art, and what that tells one of ordinary skill is that we are providing code or pseudocode, not just data.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
That's why it's instructions to a machine.

[00:19:51] Speaker 04:
Would it be a different case if they had added filial to the proposed rejection of claim one?

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
No, your honor.

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
And the reason is that all that is sent in Filia from the Filia remote computer to the Filia user device is just a URL.

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
Nowhere does Filia teach sending the additional code or pseudocode that would make it a hyperlink.

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
It's because Filia did it the old way.

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
You just sent the data and you relied on software on the user computer to have all the instructions you needed to take some action with that data.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
Do all of the pieces of prior art involve

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
some kind of human taken step on the receiving end to carry out the action, or are some of them actions that are carried out without additional human intervention, but the instructions for doing so are already resident on the receiving device, just not sent?

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
There's examples of both, Your Honor.

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
Ferris describes that human action is needed, for example, clicking the buy button.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
In Filia, you've got instructions already present on the user device, which take the URL and take it to a website.

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
In neither case are you doing what the claims require, which is generating and actually providing the machine-readable instructions to the user device.

[00:21:08] Speaker 01:
Mr. Jacobson, when I look at this patent, I see 11 columns of prior off-references.

[00:21:16] Speaker 01:
One cites references to the patent office pursuant to a duty of disclosure.

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
to disclose references pertinent to the patentability of the invention.

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
11 columns of references.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
How can this possibly be non-obvious?

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
Because, Your Honor, the prior art that's disclosed demonstrates how what was done in the prior art is the opposite of what was done in this patent.

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
In these references, for example, Google's reference, what you're doing is sending data, not instructions.

[00:21:46] Speaker 02:
And that actually told one of ordinary scale that it would be

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
counterintuitive to send instructions, because when you're just sending data, it's simple.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
You don't have to worry about the code you're sending working together nicely with the code on the device.

[00:21:59] Speaker 02:
That's why it was done the opposite way in all this prior art.

[00:22:03] Speaker 02:
One inventive aspect of this patent is that it turned that on its head.

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
It did the opposite of what the prior art did.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
And that would have seemed like a bad idea to want a more ordinary scale, because now what you're trying to transmit is more complicated.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
You could have reliability problems, and now you need to be sure that the little code

[00:22:19] Speaker 02:
or pseudocode that you're sending is going to work with all the software on the device.

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
That's harder to do when you are sending code or pseudocode that's separate from the software already present on the device.

[00:22:31] Speaker 01:
Do you think citing 11 columns of 2 or 300 references is consistent with the duty of disclosure?

[00:22:38] Speaker 04:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
What is the standard for the duty of disclosure?

[00:22:43] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I want to- Other than I found a mountain of references, now I'm going to

[00:22:47] Speaker 04:
send them all to the examiner and tell the examiner to get to work.

[00:22:51] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I want to recite it correctly.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
This was not an issue raised on this appeal, but I'll try my best.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
My understanding is that you need to disclose references that are material, and that means references that could actually potentially result in a finding of unpatentability.

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
Here, Google's references cannot, and indeed, the board cannot.

[00:23:10] Speaker 04:
But you, your side, your firm, submitted hundreds and hundreds of references to the examiner.

[00:23:18] Speaker 04:
So I guess whoever signed off on that believed that all of these references, hundreds of references, were material?

[00:23:25] Speaker 02:
I would disagree with that, Your Honor.

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
Your duty is to submit references that have some reasonable possibility of being material.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
And it's wise to submit more references, to disclose more, so the Patent Office can consider more in deciding whether or not to issue your patents.

[00:23:45] Speaker 03:
I don't think either side here has suggested that there's any relationship between this case and the other IPRs that were argued not too long ago.

[00:23:56] Speaker 03:
I don't remember exactly.

[00:23:58] Speaker 03:
Does everybody agree that they're unrelated?

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
I agree, Your Honor.

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
Those involve different claim limitations, and I don't see any overlap between the issues here.

[00:24:09] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, affirming the board's construction of machine-readable instructions

[00:24:13] Speaker 02:
is just positive of this entire appeal.

[00:24:16] Speaker 02:
And the reason is what we just discussed.

[00:24:18] Speaker 02:
All of Google's references did not send code or pseudocode.

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
They sent just data.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
That's why below, Google made no effort to actually try to demonstrate that in any of these references, what you're sending is code or pseudocode, because Google could not.

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
Instead, what Google had to do to try to win is advance a implicit construction that was inconsistent with what this claim term means

[00:24:41] Speaker 02:
one of ordinary skill in the art.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
Did Google make an argument in its petition that even if neither Ferris nor the other prior art actually teaches the sending of code, it would have been an obvious variation to include the quite small amount of code, the HTML tags and whatnot that you were describing that would

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
be sending a hyperlink and therefore come with it?

[00:25:15] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor.

[00:25:15] Speaker 02:
I think Your Honor meant to say, did Google argue that even if Ferris sends only data, it would be obvious to modify that to include the code?

[00:25:22] Speaker 02:
And the answer is no.

[00:25:23] Speaker 02:
Google intended, depended entirely on this implicit instruction that sending data is machine readable instructions.

[00:25:32] Speaker 02:
And so what we're left with is a factual finding, a factual finding supported by more than substantial evidence, the admissions of Google's own expert,

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
accredited testimony of our expert, a number of objective sources, other patents, Google's own patents which use machine-readable instructions to refer to code or pseudocode, and dictionary definitions from well-known dictionaries like the Microsoft Computing Dictionary, which define this as code or pseudocode.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
And there is no conflict with these dependent claims for the two reasons Judge Toronto, you pointed out.

[00:26:04] Speaker 02:
First... I'm just reciting your reasons.

[00:26:07] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:26:08] Speaker 02:
I agree with the reasons we recite.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
First, that a hyperlink is code or pseudo code.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
It's HTML, and Google will not deny that.

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
They can't deny that you can code a hyperlink using HTML tags.

[00:26:18] Speaker 02:
There's also support in the record for that, Your Honor.

[00:26:20] Speaker 02:
Google didn't raise this dispute below, but there is some evidence on it.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
It's in Dr. Kripus's declaration.

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
This is on appendix page 1970.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
This is patent owner's expert.

[00:26:36] Speaker 02:
Here, Dr. Kripus is explaining why in Google's primary reference,

[00:26:40] Speaker 02:
All that's being sent is data, not code or pseudocode.

[00:26:44] Speaker 02:
And what he does in footnote 8 is he contrasts that with something that actually could be code or pseudocode, something that could be machine readable instructions.

[00:26:52] Speaker 02:
And what he says is, Ferris neither expressly states, nor is it inherent, necessarily present in the reference, that a transmitted message is a string that is marked with a tag, such as HTML, to be processed by the program that renders the message.

[00:27:06] Speaker 02:
A string marked with a tag in HTML is exactly what a hyperlink is.

[00:27:11] Speaker 02:
You have tags that instruct the computer to do something with the URL.

[00:27:16] Speaker 02:
That's the code that makes it machine-readable instructions.

[00:27:20] Speaker 04:
So Filia doesn't send a hyperlink?

[00:27:23] Speaker 02:
It does not, your honor.

[00:27:23] Speaker 02:
It just sends a URL, just a URL.

[00:27:26] Speaker 02:
And you can actually see that in Google's petition.

[00:27:29] Speaker 02:
Google actually points to the fact that Filia just sends a URL.

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
This is on Appendix page 123, Google's petition.

[00:27:46] Speaker 02:
Google is quoting from Filia.

[00:27:49] Speaker 02:
The very last sentence, Google quotes a sentence from Filia.

[00:27:53] Speaker 02:
This is what Google points to as purported machine-readable instructions.

[00:27:57] Speaker 02:
And Google quotes, by detecting the data message, very- I'm sorry, where on A123 are you?

[00:28:02] Speaker 02:
We're at the very bottom of the page, Your Honor, the last sentence.

[00:28:06] Speaker 02:
Oh, all right.

[00:28:07] Speaker 02:
It begins by detecting the data message.

[00:28:10] Speaker 02:
And what Google quotes is, by detecting the data message buried in a video signal used to advertise a product, the phone number for the vendor supplying the product may be decoded.

[00:28:22] Speaker 02:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:28:23] Speaker 02:
This is Goldstein.

[00:28:25] Speaker 02:
Yes, it's on appendix 119 is what we're looking for.

[00:28:29] Speaker 02:
And it is the very last sentence that's on the bottom of this page that spills over to the next page.

[00:28:36] Speaker 02:
It says, ARS 308 returns a URL corresponding to advertiser server 312 to PC 302.

[00:28:45] Speaker 02:
What is being sent from this remote computer, the advertiser server, is just a URL.

[00:28:50] Speaker 02:
And that's why Google points to just a URL.

[00:28:53] Speaker 02:
Nowhere does Filia disclose actually providing hyperlink code to the remote device.

[00:29:00] Speaker 02:
And that's because in the fire arch it was considered a better idea just to send the data and let all the instructions remain

[00:29:06] Speaker 02:
resident on the user device Thank you counsel.

[00:29:12] Speaker 01:
Thank you honor.

[00:29:13] Speaker 01:
This honor has a little rebuttal time

[00:29:30] Speaker 00:
I'd like to first address the example that Network 1 gave at Column 7 in the patent as the purported place where the support for the idea that it requires code or pseudocode.

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
In Column 7, which is on Appendix 42, as the Network 1 counsel pointed out around line 50, what is sent is a URL associated with the car that's advertised together with the instruction to translate the query

[00:30:00] Speaker 00:
into the associated URL.

[00:30:03] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say that that has to be code or pseudo code.

[00:30:06] Speaker 00:
Instead, that is the hyperlink.

[00:30:08] Speaker 00:
And the claim says a hyperlink to a URL.

[00:30:12] Speaker 00:
Where the hyperlink activity is described in the specification, it's redirecting a user, again on column 23, redirecting a user to the website.

[00:30:24] Speaker 00:
That is consistent with the argument that machine readable instructions does not have to be code or pseudo code.

[00:30:31] Speaker 00:
That it can be a hyperlink, which is data that can be read by a machine that can cause the action to happen.

[00:30:38] Speaker 00:
And that's what's required in the claim language, in the independent claims.

[00:30:41] Speaker 00:
The machine readable instructions have to be used in performing the actions.

[00:30:46] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say that it has to be the only code that is used.

[00:30:49] Speaker 00:
There can be a browser or a cell phone interface or something like that on the user.

[00:30:54] Speaker 00:
device.

[00:30:55] Speaker 00:
It's paralleled by the telephone claim where in the column 23 it says what happens is providing an associated telephone number that may be automatically dialed if the querying device is a cell phone.

[00:31:10] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say that somehow there's code explaining to the cell phone how to dial a cell phone.

[00:31:15] Speaker 00:
It says that the cell phone number is sent

[00:31:18] Speaker 00:
and that that is what causes the action to be taken.

[00:31:21] Speaker 00:
And all the claims say is.

[00:31:23] Speaker 03:
But that's not what the claim says.

[00:31:24] Speaker 03:
The telephone number claims say.

[00:31:26] Speaker 03:
As an instruction.

[00:31:27] Speaker 03:
Instructions.

[00:31:28] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:31:28] Speaker 00:
And in the specification, that's the only example it gives.

[00:31:31] Speaker 00:
It doesn't describe anywhere in here, despite the argument that it was a groundbreaking invention.

[00:31:36] Speaker 00:
It doesn't describe anything else.

[00:31:37] Speaker 00:
And so without the evidence that would show that it has to be computer code or pseudo code,

[00:31:44] Speaker 00:
The broadest reasonable interpretation standard means that it has to be more than that.

[00:31:47] Speaker 00:
It has to be both because the specification supports an interpretation of both and those two dependent claims do.

[00:31:54] Speaker 03:
Is it possible that the column 23 reference to providing an associated telephone number that may be automatically dialed if the querying device is a cell phone?

[00:32:05] Speaker 03:
Would one expect a cell phone when receiving a phone number to have software on it

[00:32:13] Speaker 03:
like browser software that translates a URL into a hyperlink to have automatic, that sounds a little dangerous.

[00:32:20] Speaker 00:
It's actually exactly what's in Goldstein.

[00:32:22] Speaker 00:
So the reference that we cite that talks about the automatic, it talks about the telephone interface on the user's device receiving the phone number and then calling in response to the ad.

[00:32:32] Speaker 00:
That's exactly what the prior art reference describes, that the cell phone has, or the user, it's a universal remote in Goldstein, that it has a telephone interface on it.

[00:32:42] Speaker 00:
that automatically dials the number.

[00:32:44] Speaker 00:
And actually, to clarify, Filia does describe sending more than simply a URL address.

[00:32:52] Speaker 00:
And if I can point you to that briefly, at appendix 1538, which is cited in our petition, the data exchange in Filia, the redirecting, there's a URL that's sent in several places.

[00:33:08] Speaker 00:
The place that we're pointing to in 1538

[00:33:12] Speaker 00:
And it's shown in figure three if you prefer to look at a figure.

[00:33:15] Speaker 00:
But it's the data path where an advertiser server, and I'm looking at line 14, the advertiser server address URL is obtained from the database.

[00:33:26] Speaker 00:
It and the request for the particular advertiser product information is automatically routed back through the web browser on the user's device.

[00:33:37] Speaker 00:
and then to the advertiser server to retrieve the advertiser product information for the user.

[00:33:42] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:33:43] Speaker 01:
Honor, it may not be machine readable, but it is certainly visible.

[00:33:47] Speaker 01:
Your time is up.

[00:33:48] Speaker 00:
It is.

[00:33:49] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:33:49] Speaker 01:
We'll take the case on the revised one.