[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
May Valena.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
Moment, your honor.

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, there are three separate grounds in which to set aside this decision.

[00:01:35] Speaker 02:
And the first grounds, of course, is we contend that the decisions made by the Patent Office are not in accordance with law.

[00:01:42] Speaker 02:
Second, there's no substantial evidence.

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
And third, the patent office registered the client, as is outlined in my briefs.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
You don't even have to get to the evidentiary issue.

[00:01:53] Speaker 02:
I know evidence is a little hot topic right now.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
But if you turn to, let's say, appendix 113 to 116, you'll find the examiner's initial rejection.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
It consists, ignoring the boilerplate and the header of less than 470 words,

[00:02:11] Speaker 02:
Ipsodix statements.

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
No evidence.

[00:02:17] Speaker 02:
But most important, under step one of the Alice Mayo test, he did not accurately describe the claims under step one.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
And under step two, the examiner failed to address various specific steps and also didn't address the steps as an ordered combination.

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
This alone.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
is enough to set aside.

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
This alone fails to meet a prima facie case of patent ineligibility under the MPEP 2106 Roman numeral 3.

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
That said, the board did nothing more than affirm the examiner, even though the examiner and the board also failed to address the claims as a whole.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
and failed to address certain claims, including the portion about preprocessing claims, putting, let's say, putting AVM values in a database, keeping a current AVM values in a database.

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
Never addressed, and that alone, there's a failure, and this opinion should be set aside.

[00:03:35] Speaker 03:
I just want to have one factual question.

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:03:38] Speaker 03:
My understanding from reading the patent is that the AVM valuation itself, that's not something that was novel or new, right?

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
No, it's not novel or new.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
I contend it's not abstract, but it's not novel or new.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
Now, that being said, Your Honor, when it comes to the evidentiary issue, and here I know is the hot topic,

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
is that starting from the Alice Mayo, Alice Mayo, the Supreme Court always intended this to be a factually intensive analysis.

[00:04:08] Speaker 02:
Mayo, for example, it was a natural phenomenon, but the extra steps were admitted as being well-known, routine, and conventional in the specification of the patent.

[00:04:19] Speaker 02:
And I think on the slip opinion, it's going to be pages 9 or 10 on the slip opinion.

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
And on the slip opinion of Alice, I think it's also about 10 or 11.

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
you'll find that the Supreme Court, to make its assertion that the business method at issue was well-known, routine, and conventional, cited a number of textbooks, some going back to 1896.

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
So in this case, the Supreme Court acknowledges that evidence is necessary.

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
And going to some of the more recent decisions, some of which you took part in, Judge Dole, Berkheimer, Atricks,

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
and acknowledge that evidence is an issue to establish that something really is well-known, routine, and conventional.

[00:05:06] Speaker 03:
So in this case, just for a minute, taking your view that there's factual issues here, wouldn't those things be reviewed for substantial evidence?

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
Pardon?

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
If there were any factual disputes in this case under step two of Alice,

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
They would be reviewed for substantial evidence on appeal from the PTAB, right?

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, again?

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
They would be reviewed for substantial evidence on appeal from the PTAB?

[00:05:35] Speaker 02:
Well, the PTAB never did.

[00:05:37] Speaker 02:
I mean, there was nothing from that.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
Well, I'm just talking about the standard of review that this court hypothetically, if there were factual issues in a one-on-one case that was coming from PTAB,

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
Wouldn't there be a substantial evidence standard of review that would be applied to any of those special questions?

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
Every single one, Your Honor.

[00:05:54] Speaker 02:
There must be substantial evidence.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
I mean, that's reviewing claims as a whole.

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
These are the court's rules.

[00:06:01] Speaker 02:
Substantial evidence, that's part of 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

[00:06:05] Speaker 02:
And plus, just common sense.

[00:06:08] Speaker 02:
If you just look at the examiners' rejection, again, the appendix 113 to 116, or 115,

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
I mean, there's nothing in there but Ipsedixit accusations and Ipsedixit conclusory remarks.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
And he didn't even get to every limitation and didn't even discuss the limitations as a whole.

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
And you will find in the record that neither did the PTAB.

[00:06:38] Speaker 02:
PTAB never discussed the limitations as a whole, not in step one, not in step two.

[00:06:43] Speaker 02:
That alone is enough to set this decision aside.

[00:06:48] Speaker 02:
And when it comes, of course, to me, I think, just as important issue on substantial evidence, I don't even know.

[00:06:58] Speaker 02:
As a patent prosecutor, I've been prosecuting patents now for 19 years.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
I don't even know how to respond to that.

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
I don't even know an attorney who would know how to respond to this.

[00:07:09] Speaker 02:
This stops prosecution because how do you argue evidence when there's no evidence?

[00:07:15] Speaker 02:
How do you argue something, let's say, a failure of an issue of law if the PTAB will not even enforce the issues of law?

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
That's why I'm here, Your Honor.

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
The only thing I'm asking is for this Court to bring some meaningful patent prosecution to 101.

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
That's all.

[00:07:32] Speaker 02:
If I remember right, Judge Hughes, you yourself, last time I was here, about a year and a half, Irvine, actually, you asked the solicitor, is it possible for examiners to bring forth evidence on 101 cases to the extent

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
evidence requirements cross over at the 112, 102, and 103.

[00:07:50] Speaker 02:
And Mr. Kelly said, absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:07:52] Speaker 02:
And I actually agree with that.

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
He's not going to be, they're not going to be doing it by, let's say, citing various cases, or let's say various patents, because sometimes patents are never, are never even brought into actual reduction of practice.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
But there's things like textbooks, there's things like dictionaries.

[00:08:10] Speaker 02:
There's a lot of things an examiner can

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
can look at to establish whether something's well-known, routine, and conventional, or whether something's abstract.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
And in this case, if the examiners sit there and, let's say, even talk, and might have show little things like dictionary of real estate terms.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
And if you go to, we have evidence showing that we had actual reduction of practice going back to 2003.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
And if you sit there and take a look at the relevant dictionary, you'll find that there's nothing

[00:08:43] Speaker 02:
no recitation of AVM in it.

[00:08:46] Speaker 02:
You go to the 2013 version, yes, it does have AVM.

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
But I don't understand the context in which you're arguing.

[00:08:54] Speaker 04:
I thought you just acknowledged, just told that there's no allegation here that AVM wasn't well known.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
Pardon?

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
Is there an allegation?

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
Was there a dispute whether or not AVM was well known?

[00:09:07] Speaker 02:
Yes, there is a dispute, and it's in the record, Your Honor.

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
I say there's no evidence to prove it.

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
and no evidence to support it.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
I mean, there's zero.

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
Or actually, there's one thing, finally, on rehearing.

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
So your contention is that the inventive concept, or what makes it non-abstract, I don't know if we're arguing step one or step two, is AVM?

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:09:31] Speaker 02:
I'm just saying that there's no evidence that even AVM is abstract.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
But we don't have to go there.

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
If I want to talk about what the inventive

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
Let's say the technical advantage in pre-processing and keeping a database of AVMs that's always current, certainly that's never been done.

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
102, 103, if you look at the board's decision, the PTAB's decision, the original decision, they completely dismiss the examiner's assertions.

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
So the inventive concept here is you don't think you need to go to AVM, so you're willing to concede that maybe that was... It's not necessary to come to a correct decision here.

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
So you're saying, what did you just say, that no one had ever done it as quickly or kept it up to date at all?

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor.

[00:10:20] Speaker 02:
What I'm saying here is that if you take a look at the way even, and again,

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
The board actually agreed with me in that AVMs and appraisals are not the same thing.

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
They're not fungible.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
And there's evidence in the record to support that.

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
But that said.

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
This is the first time appraisals has even come into the conversation.

[00:10:37] Speaker 02:
I know that.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
But I'm just saying that I want to make a metaphor here.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
But let's just say, for example, if you have an appraiser.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
And appraisers wait for somebody to come up and ask them to do an appraisal.

[00:10:50] Speaker 02:
And then he does the appraisal.

[00:10:52] Speaker 02:
But let's just say that a same appraiser kept an appraisal, a current appraisal, which means he has to go about every three months for every house he's ever doing.

[00:11:00] Speaker 02:
And so he always has a current appraisal.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
Somebody comes up to him and says, I need an appraisal for this house.

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
Now, for other reasons, it's impossible because he has to do inspections, including internal inspections.

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
But he can give that person an appraisal within a minute.

[00:11:16] Speaker 02:
And in this case,

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
An AVM, at least at the time when I first saw this technology, took about two seconds for an AVM.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
Instead of taking two seconds, we go down to microseconds.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
We can produce from seconds to microseconds to any individual.

[00:11:31] Speaker 04:
Why don't we look at the claim, or at least one of the claims?

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
Why don't we look at 57, right?

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
Is that a good representative of that's an independent claim?

[00:11:40] Speaker 04:
57, I understand it's representative.

[00:11:45] Speaker 04:
Where are we talking about microseconds here?

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
No, ma'am.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor, that's just absolutely inherent.

[00:11:54] Speaker 02:
How could you argue that, look, there's two ways to do it.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
You can pre-process it and store it, or you can produce it at the time it's requested.

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
And if it's produced at the time requested, you're going to take that processing time to perform it

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
rather than just take something out of a database, which is literally these days nothing more than microseconds.

[00:12:15] Speaker 02:
That's not contested.

[00:12:19] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:12:19] Speaker 04:
So you're using general purpose computers here.

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
And so the inventive concept here is doing this in a matter of microsecond?

[00:12:32] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor.

[00:12:33] Speaker 02:
I'm saying that the inventive concept

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
is creating and maintaining a database of AVM values that are always current, and they're pre-processed such that, before anyone ever asks for it, it's available.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
It's the wearing clause that you're relying on, right?

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
The wearing clause in Claim 57, where each AVM value is pre-processed such that an AVM value for the at least one residential property pre-exists.

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
That's really what you're focusing on.

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
Actually, one of two.

[00:13:02] Speaker 02:
Hold on a second, Your Honor.

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
Let's see, there's several also.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
Let's see.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
Such that that AVM value for the at least one residential property pre-exists before the user query of the respective property is performed.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
That's also inventive.

[00:13:19] Speaker 02:
And in this case, you even look at the 102 and 103.

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
The PTAB found that no one had even ever bothered to create or maintain a database of AVM values.

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
Even that had never been done before.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
Whether you want to call it obvious or anticipated, there's no evidence.

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
And the PTAB acknowledged that.

[00:13:40] Speaker 04:
So I'm just trying to understand.

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
So the inventive concept is we're not dealing with ABM.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
So everybody had the ability to get these ABM values.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
And anybody could go in and get an updated value.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
So the inventive concept is the maintenance of updated values?

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
I'd say one of them, yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:59] Speaker 02:
But again, even Mayo-Alice doesn't require that.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
I don't remember anything specifically requiring an inventive concept.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
What's required is something beyond when you have, let's say, you identify something that's abstract.

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
And let's just assert.

[00:14:15] Speaker 02:
And again, I say the only evidence that I think that the PTAB brought up on rehearing, they took one sentence out of context

[00:14:26] Speaker 02:
It didn't address the specification as a whole, but let's even assume that AVMs are abstract and it's undeniable.

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
In that, whether you have something more, and again, sometimes they say something more, sometimes the Supreme Court says something substantially more.

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
It's a little confusing, I understand that.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
But it seems to me, especially in light of Berkheimer and Atricks, is that

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
Something more means that, as an ordered combination, has never been there before.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
Whether you want to call that inventive, yeah, I guess that would be inventive.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
But if you can say that something, the additional limitations as an ordered combination were not well-known, routine, and conventional, which is a higher standard.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
And what is it?

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
Could you just, I mean, I know you've articulated before, but I'm just really missing the point.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
What is the something more that you've created here, keeping it up to date without a query?

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
One of several.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
We create, and again,

[00:15:22] Speaker 02:
If you have a database of AVMs, and again, the whole map display is an example that's put in there, again, for example.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
And again, let's say that you want to create a map, an online map, and you want to get an understanding of the distribution of housing values in a certain neighborhood.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
Let's say there's 1,000 houses.

[00:15:44] Speaker 02:
Now, if you want to do this, let's say, just an AVM online, two seconds per, it's going to take you 15 to 30 minutes to produce the map.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
You have those same, you have those same values pre-processed.

[00:15:56] Speaker 02:
You can get all, all thousand AVMs out, out in, in, into an, into a consumer, literally within milliseconds.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
Not minutes, not hours, milliseconds.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
That's a very distinct advantage, never, never, not even asserted that's ever been seen before.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
The distinct advantage being that you maintain an updated... The advantage is you can get an AVM value far quicker than with previous technology.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
That's one advantage.

[00:16:36] Speaker 02:
And the claim limitations go to that advantage.

[00:16:40] Speaker 04:
But even then... We're into your... We've exhausted your rebuttal.

[00:16:44] Speaker 04:
Why don't we get from the government... Okay, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
The board and the examiner here properly conducted the Alice-based 101 inquiry to conclude that these claims do not recite a patent-eligible invention.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
Under step one, the examiner and the board did exactly what Alice did, what Mayo did, what this court has done since Alice.

[00:17:28] Speaker 04:
What, in your view, is required for the visit?

[00:17:31] Speaker 04:
They're required for the board to do in order to establish or conclude that this was nothing more than conventional routine and well-known.

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
the Step 2 analysis.

[00:17:41] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
So under the Step 2 analysis, what must happen is the board, the examiner, the PTO has to look at the claims, the claim limitations individually, collectively, and decide what are we doing with the abstract idea.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
So here the abstract idea is some combination of the algorithm, which is unto itself abstract, and the algorithm is estimating the value of property, which is a fundamental economic practice.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
So when we look at Claim 57,

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
The board and the examiner has to say, what are we using?

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
How are we implementing the abstract idea?

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
Are we just using generic computer components to execute it as a tool of the abstract idea?

[00:18:21] Speaker 00:
Or are we doing something else where the limitations individually or collectively are improving the computer technology?

[00:18:27] Speaker 04:
So, for example... Well, I think your friend, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think his instruction or his analysis would include the abstract idea.

[00:18:36] Speaker 04:
In other words, was it conventional to apply this generic computer to this idea and keep these values updated so that they're available immediately?

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
Well, it can't be that something substantially more is the abstract idea.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
I mean, it has to be that the other components in a computer-implemented invention, it has to be that the computer implementation is doing something other than just executing the abstract idea.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
So in this particular instance, if the purported advance is this reduction in latency, this reduction in the amount of time that it takes to provide a user when he or she asks for the estimated value to get it, we ask how.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
is the claim providing that benefit.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
And the how here is using computers to do what computers do.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in this claim that identifies anything other than generic computer equipment.

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
His request for rehearing acknowledged that to be the case at Appendix 20.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
He's using generic computers to implement the abstract idea.

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
At Appendix 20.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
Appendix page 743, which is the specification,

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
at paragraphs 20 to 23 say, you can use a personal computer, you can use a phone.

[00:19:55] Speaker 00:
I don't care.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
You can use whatever's out there.

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
And the board discussed this in its rehearing decision, in its rehearing decision at pages 3 to 6.

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
The board said, at the bottom of 5, appellants can see that the claim dimension uses general purpose computers, request 10.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
The next sentence identifies paragraphs 20 and 21 of the specification, which I just

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
that a personal computer can be used at the terminal or the server.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
And there's nothing in this specification.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
What about if they use conventional computers to do something different that they've never used them to do before?

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
Well, so that starts to get into the line between the 102-103 rejection and the 101.

[00:20:37] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
I appreciate that.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
And the law has always recognized that either the absence of a 102 or 103 issue or even the decision that it hadn't been shown

[00:20:47] Speaker 00:
doesn't answer the 101 inquiry.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
The Supreme Court, as early as Deere categorically said, these are different concepts.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
101 and 102 are not answering the same question.

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
They reiterated that in Mayo when the Supreme Court rejected the government's position that, in fact, we should address these issues under 102 and 103, not 101.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
They're doing different lifting.

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
And again, it goes back to the question that we're answering

[00:21:13] Speaker 00:
Was this disclosed in a particular reference, or would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art?

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
We're concerned more fundamentally with, what is the claim doing?

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
And at some level, for example, in Berkheimer, what in the specification has the applicant identified as its inventive concept?

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
That fundamentally is what the Allison query is about.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
It's about figuring out whether this is more than just the abstract idea on a generic computer, but something more.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
So to contrast claims like,

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
in Versata and Alice, which are like the claims here, generic computer implementation of abstract ideas, you have Enfish.

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
And Enfish is a great example.

[00:21:50] Speaker 00:
It was a claim to a database, but not just a generic database.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
That was to a self-referential database that improved the functionality of the computer.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
We don't have an improvement to computer functionality here.

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
What we have is computers doing what they do, run algorithms, store algorithms, update algorithms, display algorithms.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
That's what computers do.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in this claim.

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
What's your position, just to clarify, that this pre-processing is something that computers have done with other data, like in lookup tables and things like that?

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
Well, as my friend said, you sort of have two choices.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
You can either run the algorithm before somebody asks, or you can wait till they ask.

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
Here, he's built into his claim doing the former.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
I'm going to run it before they ask.

[00:22:32] Speaker 00:
And this position is that by using the computer to do what computers do before somebody asks, I reduce the time that it takes for me to provide that data to the user.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
I mean, leaving aside that none of these claims actually have a time component in terms of how, because the claims don't even require, there's no actual user request component in claim 57, for example.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
This is just a system for distributing that comprises generating the AVM, storing the AVM, and then displaying it.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
But there's no actual user request component.

[00:23:06] Speaker 04:
Perhaps that's inherent, but.

[00:23:11] Speaker 00:
But you're right.

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
The limitation is expressly incorporated there.

[00:23:24] Speaker 00:
But then we get back to the point, and the Board made this point in its initial decision.

[00:23:38] Speaker 00:
at Appendix page 34.

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
This is the third full paragraph at the bottom of that page, where they address Vienna's argument that the claims are not abstract and patent-eligible because the combination is unconventional and represents an improvement in technology by creating a faster process.

[00:23:54] Speaker 00:
But the board agreed with the examiner, and this is the point we made in our brief and I'm making now.

[00:24:00] Speaker 00:
This is, quote, claims being performed on a general-purpose computer, and the appellants have not persuasively argued

[00:24:06] Speaker 00:
that the application of a mathematical algorithm to a general computer represents a technological improvement.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
If there is a reduction in latency, it's using computers to do what they do.

[00:24:15] Speaker 00:
And there are multiple decisions from this core, including Versata, which say that simply using computers to do something faster or more efficient does not render your claim something substantially more under step two.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
So if there are no further questions, I'll yield the remainder of my talk.

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I fully recognize that general purpose computers of the use thereof have no impact one way or the other on AliceCorp, on the Alice Mayo test.

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
And indeed, under DDR, Enfish, McRoe, Berkheimer, all those use computers.

[00:24:53] Speaker 02:
I'm not depending on a computer.

[00:24:54] Speaker 02:
I realize computers do very few things, actually.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
In reality, they're sequential instruction machines.

[00:25:02] Speaker 02:
However, what you do with those instructions, and it was acknowledged in Enfish

[00:25:07] Speaker 02:
that software, improvements can be done through software.

[00:25:12] Speaker 02:
And that's exactly what I've done here.

[00:25:13] Speaker 02:
That's exactly what my client has done here.

[00:25:17] Speaker 02:
And I never argued.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
But Infist improved the actual computer database.

[00:25:24] Speaker 01:
It didn't use a computer to run some kind of business method more efficiently.

[00:25:31] Speaker 02:
Well, again, it's still

[00:25:33] Speaker 02:
Whether you call this a business method or a technical improvement.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
Can you point to any case where we've decided that an abstract idea performed on a computer is patent eligible just because the computer makes it more efficient or faster or quicker or even possible?

[00:25:50] Speaker 01:
There are some business methods that weren't possible.

[00:25:52] Speaker 02:
Your honor, I've never made that argument.

[00:25:54] Speaker 02:
Never have I made that argument just because it's running on a computer.

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
My argument comes to the pre-processing and keeping and maintaining a database of current AVM values.

[00:26:05] Speaker 01:
That's what I- It's still just storing, collecting, classifying information.

[00:26:09] Speaker 02:
But it's never been done.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, it's still never been done before.

[00:26:12] Speaker 01:
To say that this is well-known, routine, conventional, and never been done before- You're skipping over the fact that that's the abstract idea.

[00:26:19] Speaker 02:
What is the abstract idea, Your Honor?

[00:26:21] Speaker 01:
Collecting, storing, classifying, displaying information.

[00:26:24] Speaker 01:
Have we ever held- DDR holdings.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
DDR holdings was nothing more than collecting, processing, and displaying.

[00:26:33] Speaker 02:
I guess almost with trading technologies, that was nothing more than rearranging and displaying data.

[00:26:41] Speaker 02:
And when it comes to even McRoe v. Bandai, you're just sitting there taking data, processing data, and displaying it in the form of an animation.

[00:26:51] Speaker 02:
It happens all the time, Your Honor.

[00:26:53] Speaker 01:
And there's no reason.

[00:26:54] Speaker 01:
I don't think your claims are even remotely close to those cases.

[00:26:57] Speaker 02:
Your Honor?

[00:26:58] Speaker 02:
They're different, but you're saying that, but again, you want to talk about prejudicial.

[00:27:04] Speaker 02:
Ward sits there and cites trading technologies as being, let's say, more technologically advanced.

[00:27:12] Speaker 02:
That's just nonsense, Your Honor.

[00:27:14] Speaker 02:
That's just absolutely not.

[00:27:14] Speaker 02:
And how do I sit there and argue facts made in a, actually say assertions of fact made in a request-free hearing?

[00:27:21] Speaker 01:
How is this case different than Merceda, than TLI, than any of these kind of cases

[00:27:26] Speaker 01:
classifying electronic data and the like, and using a computer to do it.

[00:27:33] Speaker 02:
Let's see.

[00:27:34] Speaker 02:
Well, one thing, under step two, we have a technical advantage.

[00:27:40] Speaker 02:
There is an undisputed technical advantage that has nothing to do with just because it's on a computer.

[00:27:46] Speaker 04:
Could you just articulate in one sentence to me what the technological advantage is?

[00:27:51] Speaker 02:
Being able to provide AVMs to a user faster.

[00:27:57] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you something?

[00:27:59] Speaker 03:
I mean, I understand what you're saying.

[00:28:02] Speaker 03:
One of the concerns I have with your case is being able to provide AVMs faster.

[00:28:09] Speaker 03:
I'm having a hard time seeing how your claim is directed to a new way of doing that.

[00:28:16] Speaker 03:
So for example, if you had a different way of pre-processing, or if there's something in your specification that talked about

[00:28:24] Speaker 03:
This is a different way of preprocessing an algorithm.

[00:28:27] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:28:27] Speaker 03:
What do you think the algorithm is?

[00:28:29] Speaker 03:
There's nothing like that in the specifications.

[00:28:31] Speaker 03:
It's a more generic description of preprocessing using a known algorithm.

[00:28:37] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, here's the whole thing.

[00:28:39] Speaker 02:
Not all algorithms do the same thing.

[00:28:42] Speaker 02:
You're not going to sit there and compare one algorithm to another algorithm that do completely different things and say something and just say that we're going to apply the same whatever

[00:28:53] Speaker 02:
advantages or whatever.

[00:28:54] Speaker 02:
They have different advantages.

[00:28:55] Speaker 02:
AVMs do things completely different than the processing that occurred in McCrovey-Bandai.

[00:29:01] Speaker 02:
They used computers, but they didn't rely on computers.

[00:29:04] Speaker 02:
They used, as a matter of fact, a difference.

[00:29:06] Speaker 02:
The sort of difference were these generic rules.

[00:29:08] Speaker 02:
They just had a first rule and a second rule.

[00:29:10] Speaker 02:
And that was it.

[00:29:11] Speaker 02:
One set of rules, second set of rules, in what was well known to be processing for 3D animation.

[00:29:22] Speaker 02:
They didn't even say what the rules were.

[00:29:23] Speaker 02:
They said, oh, there's some rules.

[00:29:25] Speaker 02:
The rules could be do nothing, multiply times 1, add 0, something that does nothing.

[00:29:31] Speaker 03:
In that case, there was evidence that those rules were not conventional.

[00:29:35] Speaker 03:
It wasn't a conventional algorithm that was being used.

[00:29:39] Speaker 02:
Well, there was no evidence.

[00:29:41] Speaker 02:
I think if I remember correctly.

[00:29:43] Speaker 03:
But my question was directed to your specification because

[00:29:47] Speaker 03:
I hear what you're saying, but I don't know that distinguishing that case and talking about how that didn't have any novelty or whatever, I don't think that helps you here.

[00:29:58] Speaker 03:
I think you should focus on your specification.

[00:30:01] Speaker 02:
Well, again, my specification talks about preprocessing data.

[00:30:05] Speaker 02:
And it is inherent.

[00:30:06] Speaker 02:
I don't have to describe every advantage possible within the specification.

[00:30:11] Speaker 02:
But the point is, it's just as inherent.

[00:30:12] Speaker 02:
Just for example, if you're going to process data, you certainly need to collect data at a time.

[00:30:17] Speaker 02:
Some things you can assume are just going to be inherent.

[00:30:20] Speaker 02:
Another thing is you say, OK, if I have something pre-processed and I can store it away, by gosh, when I'm providing it to a user upon request, I don't have to process it.

[00:30:29] Speaker 02:
I can just take it from memory.

[00:30:31] Speaker 02:
I've saved that two seconds of processing.

[00:30:34] Speaker 02:
And again,

[00:30:35] Speaker 02:
There's an amazing study done by Amazon who found that they lost 1% of business for every 100 milliseconds of delay online.

[00:30:45] Speaker 02:
That's why Amazon has the fastest systems out there.

[00:30:48] Speaker 02:
There's so little delay, and they do that to keep business.

[00:30:51] Speaker 02:
So the whole concept of online delay is incredibly important when it comes to services online.

[00:31:02] Speaker 04:
And thank you so much, Your Honor.

[00:31:03] Speaker 04:
You have a wonderful day.