[00:00:00] Speaker 03: Her argument is 17-25-24 in Raid Facebook. [00:00:50] Speaker 03: We're ready when you are. [00:00:58] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honours, and may it please the Court. [00:01:01] Speaker 00: I'd like to start by addressing a statement in the Solicitor's Brief, the assertion that Pyridon's algorithm always requires contiguity whenever an image is repositioned. [00:01:16] Speaker 00: And using the undisputed facts about how Peridon's algorithm works, the facts that the board relied on and gave us, I'd like to show that that is, in fact, not a correct characterization of Peridon. [00:01:30] Speaker 00: So the board told us in its opinion, the board said that we should look to figures five and six for Peridon's algorithm that reflows images. [00:01:44] Speaker 00: And the board didn't go as far as the solicitor's statement that peridon always requires continuity whenever an image is repositioned. [00:01:53] Speaker 00: But the board called that an example and said, peridon's algorithms, figures five and six, and this is on appendix six, [00:02:00] Speaker 00: disclosed the set of rules for reflowing items, such as the sequential rearranging. [00:02:04] Speaker 00: And the board said this sequential rearranging meets the limitation of Facebook's claims of a rule requiring image contiguity as defined in the claims. [00:02:17] Speaker 00: So if we look at Figures 5 and 6, and Figure 5, I think it's helpful to have that. [00:02:22] Speaker 00: It's on Appendix 54. [00:02:25] Speaker 00: And the description of Figure 5 is on Appendix 115. [00:02:31] Speaker 00: I'll note that the solicitor, I think there's no disagreement that Figure 5 is, in fact, Puritan's algorithm for reflowing images. [00:02:38] Speaker 00: Both in the board's opinion and in the solicitor's brief, the solicitor points to paragraphs 119, 124, 126. [00:02:46] Speaker 01: You're doing a lot of talking, but it seems like a really easy case. [00:02:50] Speaker 01: I mean, Figures 16 and 17 don't show them contiguously. [00:02:53] Speaker 01: 18 and 19 dues. [00:02:55] Speaker 01: So this is a case where the anticipatory reference doesn't teach the rule, which has to occur all the time. [00:03:01] Speaker 01: I mean, isn't that the whole case? [00:03:02] Speaker 01: It's just over? [00:03:03] Speaker 00: That's my assertion, Your Honor. [00:03:05] Speaker 00: Yes, yeah. [00:03:06] Speaker 01: OK. [00:03:07] Speaker 01: Anything else? [00:03:08] Speaker 00: That's it? [00:03:08] Speaker 03: I actually have one more question. [00:03:12] Speaker 03: And this is just a housekeeping thing. [00:03:14] Speaker 03: There's a quibble at the end of your brief about the solicitor's reference to the 101. [00:03:22] Speaker 03: Are you contemplating here, if we were to agree with your position, it would be a reversal on the anticipation question, and then a remand to the board. [00:03:34] Speaker 03: And the board can do. [00:03:36] Speaker 03: It's not our job to tell them what they can and cannot do in terms of possible other issues like 101. [00:03:43] Speaker 03: You can fight that below. [00:03:44] Speaker 03: But isn't that the way we would proceed? [00:03:48] Speaker 00: From my understanding, there'd be nothing left to remand to the board. [00:03:55] Speaker 00: There's no other issues than anticipation. [00:03:57] Speaker 00: I think the correct approach would be to reverse on anticipation, and then the patent office. [00:04:03] Speaker 01: This is not an ex parte. [00:04:03] Speaker 01: I mean, this is an ex parte. [00:04:05] Speaker 01: This isn't interference or, you know, if there are any details, right? [00:04:11] Speaker 01: This is an ex parte. [00:04:12] Speaker 01: We can't order them to issue a patent. [00:04:13] Speaker 01: We can't order them. [00:04:14] Speaker 01: All we can do is reverse this. [00:04:16] Speaker 01: then what they do thereafter is according to their rules and regulations. [00:04:20] Speaker 00: Understood. [00:04:21] Speaker 00: Yeah, that's the correct approach then. [00:04:23] Speaker 00: Okay. [00:04:23] Speaker 00: Thank you very much. [00:04:30] Speaker 04: May it please the court? [00:04:33] Speaker 04: As you indicated Judge Moore, the issue here is whether the paired in reference, which does [00:04:42] Speaker 04: result in the images being contiguous in the rearranging circumstance meets the language. [00:04:50] Speaker 02: And you think it's always in the rearranging circumstance, that it always does it, notwithstanding the fact that the paradigm doesn't say that. [00:04:58] Speaker 02: It's just because in one example of that embodiment, one example, it shows that it does in fact end up with something that's contiguous. [00:05:08] Speaker 04: Right. [00:05:09] Speaker 04: Well, I think it would always result in something contiguous because the algorithm of paradigm talks about using the, you know, flowing it sequentially. [00:05:20] Speaker 04: So if you have a grid and you have that is filled and you're trying to fill a grid again, you would result in a grid that's still filled. [00:05:29] Speaker 04: And I would also rely on the fact that when we look at their claim language and what [00:05:36] Speaker 04: is actually disclosed about contiguous, it is broad because you talk about the second position being determined based on a rule requiring the image elements to be contiguous such that each available image position between the first image element in the sequence and the last image element is occupied. [00:05:57] Speaker 04: So [00:05:57] Speaker 04: available image position is not defined and could be broad because if you have you know if you're constrained by the grid or the sizes of the images if you want to put something that's two into one that is not an available image position. [00:06:13] Speaker 04: So I think reading their language contiguous is a broad term. [00:06:19] Speaker 02: Is that an argument that was made below? [00:06:21] Speaker 02: I didn't see that in the briefs. [00:06:23] Speaker 04: That is not in the briefs [00:06:26] Speaker 04: I guess the reply brief kind of first brought up the fact that Peridon might not always result in it. [00:06:33] Speaker 04: I thought they argued that. [00:06:35] Speaker 03: I don't think that was the confund to Greg. [00:06:39] Speaker 04: OK, my understanding was that they were arguing that it was not in the case of 16 and 17, but that they had accepted that it was the case of 18. [00:06:48] Speaker 04: So when it became clear to me that their argument was that rearranging would not result in [00:06:57] Speaker 04: contiguousness every time, then I'm presenting to you the fact that the claim language is broad enough to encompass. [00:07:05] Speaker 02: So on page nine of their gray brief, they provide an example. [00:07:08] Speaker 04: Right. [00:07:09] Speaker 04: So I have two responses to the example. [00:07:12] Speaker 04: Sorry, finish your question. [00:07:13] Speaker 04: Go ahead. [00:07:15] Speaker 04: The first response that I would say, I think this meets contiguous under their claim language because it has each available image position is filled. [00:07:26] Speaker 02: And the second response that I have... Because of the definition, your definition of available image position. [00:07:33] Speaker 04: Right. [00:07:34] Speaker 04: And the fact that first and last is also not clearly defined. [00:07:37] Speaker 04: Like, what's the first image? [00:07:38] Speaker 04: What's the last image? [00:07:39] Speaker 04: If you say, you know, 1101 and 1102 are the first and last, you know, you can configure that so that every, you know, space is filled if you look at those diagrams. [00:07:50] Speaker 04: And then the second thing I would say is that their diagram... [00:07:55] Speaker 04: I believe would give you the exact same result because they talk about finding the Leftmost and shortest column and they also talking about constraining the grid so if they're Okay, but we're just looking at their claims. [00:08:09] Speaker 02: Can I ask you something under your new definition of? [00:08:13] Speaker 02: available [00:08:15] Speaker 02: What is it, the language? [00:08:16] Speaker 02: Available grid position? [00:08:18] Speaker 02: Available image position. [00:08:19] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:08:20] Speaker 02: Under your definition, I suppose that you think that even the image shown in Figure 16 would be contiguous. [00:08:27] Speaker 04: I think that the board conceded that their decision did say that they weren't focusing on the 16. [00:08:37] Speaker 04: And I think that might. [00:08:39] Speaker 02: But under your broad definition that you're saying for the first time today, that [00:08:45] Speaker 02: would have to be contiguous as well, even though the board said it's not. [00:08:58] Speaker 02: I don't see how your interpretation can be correct, or at least it's not the one the board adopted. [00:09:03] Speaker 01: It really seems like one of those cases you should have walked back. [00:09:06] Speaker 01: Why didn't you walk it back? [00:09:07] Speaker 01: You've got an alternative. [00:09:08] Speaker 01: I'm looking at you. [00:09:09] Speaker 01: You've got an alternative argument that maybe has some good legs. [00:09:14] Speaker 01: Why didn't you walk it back? [00:09:18] Speaker 04: We felt that the claim language was broad, that the prior art is showing something similar. [00:09:23] Speaker 04: It is also trying to place things sequentially. [00:09:31] Speaker 04: We felt that this decision was defensible. [00:09:33] Speaker 04: So are there any further questions? [00:09:36] Speaker 03: And I assume you agree with the view we expressed about how we need to proceed. [00:09:41] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:09:41] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:09:55] Speaker 00: I'm happy to address any questions the panel has. [00:10:00] Speaker 03: Thank you Your Honor.