[00:00:42] Speaker 03:
We will hear argument next in number 17-1648 in Ray Techsec.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
Mr. Oakes, I should say we will expect to stick to the clock pretty closely at this point.

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
I see that we are not the star attraction here today, so I will continue that.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
Please.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Michael Oakes for the appellant and patent owner, TechSec, Inc.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
This is an appeal from a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board following a request by TechSec for a supplemental examination affirming that the examiner's decision finding the claims of the 433 patent as obvious in view of two combinations.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
The grounds for rejection should be reversed because they are premised on one of the combinations of flawed claim construction

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
They ignore important pieces of evidence in the record.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
They use improper hindsight.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
And they fail to provide substantial evidence of a proper motivation to combine.

[00:01:47] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you that?

[00:01:49] Speaker 03:
The incorrect claim construction is the claim construction of encrypting or encryption.

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:01:55] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:01:55] Speaker 03:
And the government's basic response to that, I think, is the only potentially even the only alleged consequence of that is the inclusion of hashing or not.

[00:02:08] Speaker 03:
And the government doesn't even defend the board's reliance on hashing and says it's independently supported on, what is it, Pond.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
Pond has the actual encryption that's reversible by

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
by decryption, what's wrong with that argument?

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
The problem with that is that's not what the examiner found, and that's not what the board found.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
So both the examiner and the board relied on wave research to teach the encrypting.

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
And it's very clear from both the examiner and the board's decision.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
So the examiner, and I'll point to appendix 22 and 23, the quote here is, the examiner, and this is the board's language now in affirming the examiner,

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
The examiner continues to rely on wave research to teach encrypting and storing an object for subsequent use, but determines the encryption as specifically and recited as taught by the collective teachings.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
So they have not given up that wave research teaches the encrypting step.

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
What they found was that the specific tag-based encryption that they claim was disclosed in

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
is what's supplementing the encryption already taught in Wave.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
So they've not seeded this and proposed these as two separate grounds.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
They said, we're still relying on Wave for teaching encrypting.

[00:03:32] Speaker 01:
But nobody here is supporting the examiner's construction of encrypting anymore.

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
The patent office won't defend that.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
And it's not defensible.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
Hashing is not encryption.

[00:03:42] Speaker 01:
It's not how it's used in the patent.

[00:03:44] Speaker 01:
It's not how the specification claims that to have an encrypted object, you must be able to decrypt it for subsequent use.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
the expert declarations that were submitted confirms.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
Encrypting is a known two-way process.

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
So what about the middle of A24, the board's decision, where it zones in on Pond.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
Pond teaches using a label of a file slash asset for encryption, such a label being prefixed to asset slash file, citing Pond as well as the examiner's answer, and then

[00:04:20] Speaker 04:
Thus, Pond teaches and suggests using a label, such as a descriptive tag as opposed to an empty tag in wave research, to indicate the appropriate encryption scheme for the assets in wave research and to secure sensitive data.

[00:04:34] Speaker 04:
See answer 24-26.

[00:04:36] Speaker 04:
I guess what I'm wondering is why isn't this a clear finding by the board adopting a finding by the examiner that Pond is teaching this

[00:04:47] Speaker 04:
Claim limitation obviously would need to be adjusted for an XML tag, but nevertheless, that Pond is the focus of the claim limitation.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
That would be a new ground for rejection.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
That's not what the examiner applied, and that's not what the board applied.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
The board says expressly, we are continuing to rely upon Wave to teach the encryption.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
What is lacking in Wave is this tag-based encryption scheme.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
So we're going to use Pond to grab the tag-based to apply to the encryption scheme that's in Wave.

[00:05:17] Speaker 04:
Do you dispute that Pond teaches some kind of tag description encryption scheme?

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
It's not tag based, but it does teach an encryption scheme.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
It's a label based encryption scheme.

[00:05:30] Speaker 04:
Do you see a difference between what is a label as

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
contemplated by Pond and what is a tag?

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
There is a difference between a generic label and a specific XML tag.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
So an XML tag is used to define objects, specific objects within an XML document.

[00:05:46] Speaker 04:
OK, so there's a difference between an XML tag and a generic label as Pond uses it.

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
But is a label, I guess, a generic term that could include an XML tag?

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
Don't think so, not the way that's used in Pond.

[00:06:05] Speaker 04:
So Pond is saying, we're going to take a label, we're going to put it over the... Whatever the magic word label is, Pond is teaching to fix that to the beginning of a file and then use it to encrypt and decrypt that file.

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
To encrypt the file, but not to use a tag-based approach.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
So what Pond would do is just encrypt the entire file, but not apply a tag to an object within that file to encrypt at the object level.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
So what Pond is doing is just doing blanket encryption of files.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
This is totally separate from XML, because Pond doesn't mention XML.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
XML is a specific format that uses tags at the object level.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
So you could have a big file, and I could have 1,000 objects in it.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
And I could say, you'll have access to three of the objects.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
And I'm going to put that in the tag.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
And I'm going to specifically put the access control limitation in that.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
And then I'm going to use that tag.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
to set the encryption level for that object.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
And then I could give you permission to three different objects.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
And I could give you permission to five objects.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
Or I could give you permission to all the objects using the information in the tags.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
Pond doesn't do that.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
Pond is a one-size-fits-all approach pre-XML that would just say, I give you all or nothing access to this file.

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
Even though the encryption of the label and the encryption of the file in Pond are described as separate things.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
So that's right.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
So the label could give you access to the entire file, but that's it.

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
It doesn't work.

[00:07:34] Speaker 03:
I'm reading the last line of the abstract.

[00:07:35] Speaker 03:
The label is permanently prefixed to the protected file, but is encrypted and decrypted separately from encryption and decryption of the file.

[00:07:43] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
So you can encrypt or decrypt the file, but this really, we're talking about the object itself that we're trying to protect, not really the label with respect to the 433 file.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
So we know that the examiner here and the board is continuing to rely upon WAVE to teach that encrypting stuff.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
They've made that expressly clear.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
And nobody is defending the claim construction for encryption.

[00:08:07] Speaker 01:
We know that hashing cannot be encryption.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
It's one way.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
It's not reversible.

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
And so as long as that is continuing to be used as the basis for the rejection, if the examiner had said from the beginning, we're doing WAVE for the tags and we're doing PON for the encryption,

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
That would have been a different argument.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
You would have had different arguments and results maybe at the examiner level and the board level.

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
That argument was never presented.

[00:08:33] Speaker 01:
And so that wasn't the basis for the rejection.

[00:08:36] Speaker 01:
And that's not what the PTO was trying to support here.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
They're trying to change the rejection now and say, forget about Wave.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
We didn't mean that that's teaching the rejection.

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
The encrypting step, we're just going to go with PON.

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
That's just not how it worked out.

[00:08:50] Speaker 04:
Well, what if, hypothetically, we

[00:08:54] Speaker 04:
I saw what the examiner was doing was giving alternate theories, where one of the theories did not rely necessarily on the primary reference teaching encryption with a hash function.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
And then really relying on Pond for the teaching about encrypting and decrypting based on the content of a label, and that was sufficient.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
What would your argument be in response to that?

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
I don't think the language would support that, because they make clear the examiner continues to rely on wave research to teach the encrypting.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:09:34] Speaker 04:
That's one thing that the examiner relied on.

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
But maybe the examiner also relied on other things as well, in addition to that.

[00:09:40] Speaker 04:
And the other things that it relied on does create a pathway that's independent of needing wave research to actually disclose that its hash function is

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
He's in encryption.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
If the court were to find that that's the path that the examiner and the board laid out, don't think it's very clear from the record, then I think that they should be remanded for further arguments of the text that can address that argument clearly.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
Because that is not the argument that they thought they were addressing.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
It's not the argument they addressed in their briefs.

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
And it's not the argument that the board said that it was a felony.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
Pond is in suit.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
So is it fair to ask whether Pond teaches encryption?

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
Pond teaches a form of encryption.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
So how do we know it's the new ground?

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
Your main argument seems to be the procedural, technical one, that it was a new ground for rejection.

[00:10:36] Speaker 02:
If pond is in play to provide the prior art for encryption, and you find tagging

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
in WAVE, et cetera, then it'd be a motivation to combine them.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:10:51] Speaker 02:
That's a different argument than the new ground for rejection.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
So how do we know?

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
You clearly, in your gray brief, came back and said, you can't do this to me on Pond.

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
And presumably, the patent office is going to have an answer.

[00:11:08] Speaker 02:
But why is it necessarily a new ground for rejection?

[00:11:11] Speaker 01:
For the reasons, I think, that I just read coming

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
straight out of the board's decision, which is we are continuing to rely on Wave Research to teach the encrypting stuff.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
They're telling you, this is how we're getting to obviousness.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
We're using Wave for tagging.

[00:11:26] Speaker 01:
We're using Wave for encrypting.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
We're using Pond to fill in the missing.

[00:11:30] Speaker 02:
There isn't a harmless error doctrine anywhere here?

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
There's not a harmless error doctrine.

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
The statute states that the patentee is entitled to the patent unless the examiner and the board can show that

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
that this is an obvious combination.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
So it's not harmless.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
I mean, they're entitled to the patent.

[00:11:48] Speaker 01:
They had a valid issued patent.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
They're entitled to maintain that.

[00:11:51] Speaker 01:
And then less, the patent office can meet the standard of showing that it was an obviousness combination here.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
That it's not only based on a proper claim instruction, that it was clearly conveyed to the applicant, and that all the arguments were raised.

[00:12:03] Speaker 04:
I guess your position sounds like the examiner's answer did not include this very new theory that the board ultimately relied on.

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
That's right.

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
Can you point me to the page of the examiner's answer that you're saying, or the pages that represent the examiner's full explication of its conception of rejection?

[00:12:28] Speaker 04:
And then I can see for myself how the examiner didn't rely on this theory that you're saying that the board ultimately used.

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
I don't have that sight handy.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
I can try to get it when I come back up.

[00:12:44] Speaker 01:
I'm focused on the appeal from the board's decision, which is their basis for affirming.

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
So we're appealing from the board's decision.

[00:12:52] Speaker 01:
The board stated the examiner.

[00:12:53] Speaker 04:
You're concluding that the board issued a new grounds of rejection, right?

[00:12:58] Speaker 04:
The board's theory.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
I believe the board stated the same grounds for rejection, which is they're affirming based on the fact that the examiner is continuing to rely on wave research to teach encrypting.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
I think the Patent Office is now trying to recast that as a new ground for rejection, but that's not one that the

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
with the board or the examiner and so forth.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
You have your finger on end of board decision right at the point where they say we're relying on about 22.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
It's on 22, yes.

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
Yeah, so the board says that the whole question is moot, right?

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
So it's not relying on the question of whether WAVE research teaches encryption.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
I think it's confusing, because it says it's moot because we're not solely relying

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
But they're still relying on it.

[00:13:45] Speaker 01:
It's not clear what they're relying on it for.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
They're saying we're not solely relying on wave research anymore.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
And we are into your rebuttal time.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
That's OK.

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
You can use it now or later.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
I'll save it.

[00:14:03] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
Miss Craven.

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
I'd like to start with the examiner's rejection based on Wave and Pond.

[00:14:21] Speaker 00:
In the examiner's answer, this starts at APPX 2293 and then goes on to 95.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
The examiner is, this is the obviousness rejection based on Wave and Pond.

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
And on 2293,

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
at the last paragraph is talking about how wave research, while it sufficiently discloses the storing the encrypted object, it doesn't, the wave research itself does not disclose the encryption as claimed.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
So encryption determined at least in part by the object tag, and that goes on to 2295.

[00:15:03] Speaker 00:
And then this examiner specifically says that based from a continuation application,

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
The previous examiner relied on Pond as sufficiently teaching and rendering obvious the encrypting and storing steps.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
And then the examiner goes on to cite what that previous examiner cited about Pond teaching encryption and using a label that determines the encryption step.

[00:15:31] Speaker 02:
The final statement of the... Well, where does the examiner align himself with this previous examiner on this point?

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
Where does he say, that's me, I'm by the same argument?

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
So why don't we go to APPX 2297.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
So the conclusion, what the examiner is concluding is the obviousness rejection.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
And it's the last paragraph before you get to the bolding of claim two.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
in that last sentence is that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
Where are you on, Sue?

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
2297.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
It's 2297.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
It's the last paragraph before the bolding when they get into claims that it starts across.

[00:16:16] Speaker 02:
Because of the confidential nature?

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
So that sentence, the examiner says, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the file-tagged objects of wave research

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
to utilize and include encryption as taught by Pond.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
And I think to be clear, the examiner's answer was withdrawing a 102 rejection.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
So the appeal brief to the board had arguments about 102 and waive research teaching all the limitations of the claim.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
And the examiner in the answer withdrew the 102 rejection.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
But the board still had those arguments in front of them.

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
address all of the arguments that TechSec made, including whether Way of Reach taught encryption.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
But I think it's clear from the examiner's rejection.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
And there's also parts in the examiner's answer where the examiner is responding to TechSec's argument.

[00:17:17] Speaker 02:
So one of TechSec's... This is not the examiner's brief in this case, right?

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
This is the examiner's answer in this re-exam, yes.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
So from your point of view, this particular document puts the appellant on sufficient notice that he's being told that Pond is being served up to teach encryption.

[00:17:45] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
In the joint appendix, there's also tech sex argument to the board, the appellant's position on the way of research and Pond rejection.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
And where is that in the record?

[00:18:03] Speaker 00:
It's at APPX 1796 going on to 1798.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
What's the thrust of that?

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
Shall I say again?

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
What's the thrust of your point there?

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
The point is that TechSec's argument to the board was that one of the reasons you wouldn't combine way of research and POND is that POND's encryption scheme was too complex.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
And they're not pursuing that argument here, but I think that highlights that

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
that TechSec in their appeal brief to the board understood that Pond was being used for the encryption, not just having a tag that determined the encryption step.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
And so their argument at 1797, the last sentence, it talks about the digital assets themselves are left unmodified.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
And as they are, system resources such as documents stored and update by members of an enterprise would not be more suited to be encrypted according to the complex POND process.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
So SecSec expressly argued to the board that you wouldn't combine POND's encryption scheme with wave research.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
And the board addresses that in... What you're saying is that in the response to the board from the examiner's point of view, that your adversary wasn't trying to

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
argue that Pond did not teach encryption.

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
It had an opportunity, if it wanted to, to make that argument at that point in time.

[00:19:35] Speaker 02:
The combination arguments are ripe.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
I mean, we can argue about those here today.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
So what's your specific response to his claim that this, by the board having hung on to WAVE, which it seems to have done at least in part,

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
to teach encryption, why wouldn't that be viewed as a new ground?

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
Because the board specifically says some of these arguments are moot to the extent that the 102 rejection is now withdrawn.

[00:20:06] Speaker 00:
And though the board does say the examiner continues to rely on encryption, there's nothing wrong with the board relying on two references to teach the encryption scheme.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
The examiner and the board expressly acknowledged that TechSec was correct.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
that WAVE research did not satisfy a 102 rejection because it did not teach encryption based on the object tag determining the encryption scheme.

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
And that's why the examiner in the rejection and the board then relied on PON for teaching that label that encrypts, that determines the encryption scheme.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
And that was the 103 rejection.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
And I think it's hard to believe that TechSec did not have knowledge that that was the

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
examiner's position and relied on PON for the encryption.

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
In turning back, unless there's any further questions on that, I'd just sort of like to back up and talk about the breadth of these claims.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
I mean, TechSec's claims are directed to these broad steps of manipulating data.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
And claim one has these known steps of they're just providing, selecting, encrypting, and then storing

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
data or information.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
The claim then requires that the information be an XML formatted data.

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
But XML was, at the time, a known way to format data.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
And it labeled the data with these tags, XML tags, as to meaning.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
And the board found, based on both wave research and a separate rejection on Hertz, Pond, and Fletcher, that using an encryption scheme

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
Determining that by the tag would have been obvious.

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
So unless there's any other questions, we would ask this court to affirm on either or both of the board's obviousness decisions.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:22:07] Speaker 01:
So I thank my colleague for pointing me to the right pages here in the examiner's decision of 2294.

[00:22:12] Speaker 01:
It's clear here that the examiner is

[00:22:17] Speaker 01:
relying on wave research to teach the encrypting.

[00:22:20] Speaker 01:
So it says the final paragraph.

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
It would, I think, tell me if I'm wrong, be clarifying if instead of you're saying relying, you always focused on relying only.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
Relying only on wave research.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
Because I gather that's sort of the gist.

[00:22:38] Speaker 03:
Nobody disputes that there is some reliance on wave research for encrypting, but not reliance in the sense of

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
with no substitute.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
That's true.

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
My colleague just said, and it says right here in the last paragraph on 2294, wave research sufficiently discloses storing the encrypted object for subsequent use by the intended recipient.

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
It doesn't teach the encrypting determined in part by the object tag.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
And I think my colleague just said the examiner and the board relied on POND to teach the label portion

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
of the encrypting based on the object type, not the encrypting in general.

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
But if we need to go to find a label, we can go look to Pond.

[00:23:24] Speaker 03:
So because Pond, I'm going to ask the question this way, and then you'll tell me why it's a bad question.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
If Pond teaches encrypting a label, does it not follow logically it teaches encrypting?

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
teaches encrypting not the way that's used in the patent, and it's not clear if the examiner or the board would say the encrypting in Pond is the same as the encrypting in the 433 patent.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
If that's the argument, then that argument needs to be hashed out because that's not what they said.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
I don't want to use the word hash.

[00:23:57] Speaker 01:
That's good.

[00:23:59] Speaker 01:
But again, they relied on the hashing.

[00:24:01] Speaker 01:
It's a different argument.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
It's a different rejection than what was presented below.

[00:24:05] Speaker 03:
And what's the nature of the particular kind of encrypting that you think the board found in wave research and really didn't and maybe even couldn't have found?

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
They found in wave research MD5 hashing algorithm, which is what you would do.

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
If you take a giant file, you can compress it.

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
And if I'm overgeneralizing or speaking,

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
get a 27 string character and that will be representative of the contents of that file.

[00:24:34] Speaker 01:
You could then do that to another file and also get a 27 string character.

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
You can compare those two and see if you have identical files.

[00:24:44] Speaker 01:
You can never take that 27 character string and get back to the original document.

[00:24:49] Speaker 01:
It's just a hash number that you use for

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
integrity.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
It has nothing to do with encryption, it's not reversible, so it's a completely different function.

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
It has nothing to do with security.

[00:24:59] Speaker 01:
And this patent is XMLC