[00:00:31] Speaker 03:
We'll now hear our final argument of the morning.

[00:00:37] Speaker 03:
This is appeal number 17-2076, Vivint Incorporated versus Alarm.com Incorporated.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
Mr. Stern, you've reserved four minutes of rebuttal, is that right?

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
Okay, please begin whenever you're ready.

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
Robert Stern for Patent Owner Vivint.

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Today, I would like to focus on the board's legal and factual mistakes in its finding that the Johnson and Moriah references each disclose the claimed terminal identifier.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
And I direct your attention to page 23 in the appendix in the final written decision.

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
If the law is properly applied in this

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
to this record, there is no evidence that either reference meets the terminal identifier claim limitation, even under the board's unreasonable claim construction.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
And these boards errors call for a reversal in this case.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
So if I may, let me turn first to the Johnson patent.

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
The PTAB flatly misapplied the law of inherency and obviousness in finding that Johnson inherently discloses the terminal identifier.

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
The claims require that the terminal identifier reach the management facility in order for the claimed remote control to take place.

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
And I direct your attention to column 34 of the patent, lines four and five, which is at appendix 116.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
The board found, made a factual determination, and we do not dispute, that Johnson's IP address will sometimes, but only sometimes, reach Johnson's data center.

[00:02:30] Speaker 01:
But the board also found, and ADC's expert admitted, and this is at the appendix at 2215 at paragraph 41, that sometimes the IP address will not reach the data center because the IP address will be behind a gateway server or a NAT router.

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
And this is in the final written decision, this finding is at appendix 27 and 28.

[00:02:57] Speaker 03:
Alarm.com's expert admitted that there are times that Johnson's system, the data center in Johnson will not receive the IP address of the remote terminal?

[00:03:14] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
If there is a NAT router or a gateway server, your honor, it won't read.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
If there is, then it won't.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
Frankly, your honor, the board went through a very elaborate analysis to even come up with the IP address in Johnson.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
But what I'm looking at here today, because of the standard for review, is exactly what is set forth in the final written decision.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
Because that's the benchmark that I'm measuring.

[00:03:45] Speaker 03:
If I understand the board's decision, it read through Johnson.

[00:03:53] Speaker 03:
found that Johnson doesn't disclose anything about an intervening gateway server or NAT router in between the remote terminal and Johnson's data center.

[00:04:07] Speaker 03:
And so it would appear that there's essentially a direct connection over the internet, which would then necessarily mean that the remote terminal's IP address is getting to the data center, and that your side

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
argued well there's going to be times, in fact many instances, where there is going to be a gateway server or NAT router in between.

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
But I guess for me I wonder whether that really fully is a full rebuttal because that would still mean there are some instances, there are still some embodiments of Johnson's system where there is no

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
gateway server.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
There is no NAT router, and so therefore there will be embodiments of employing Johnson's system where the IP address of the remote server, remote terminal, is being transmitted to the data center.

[00:05:06] Speaker 03:
And so I'd like you to respond to that.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
We don't disagree with that analysis, your honor.

[00:05:12] Speaker 03:
So I guess the idea then is if the references system contemplates

[00:05:20] Speaker 03:
a lot of different embodiments, some with a gateway server or NAT router, and then some others with nothing of the kind, then there are, in fact, embodiments captured in Johnson's disclosure that meets this particular claim limitation of an IP address of the remote terminal getting to the data center.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
And under the obviousness law of

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
And I direct your attention to your recent Arendi decision.

[00:05:51] Speaker 01:
We have a missing element here, the terminal identifier.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
And under the law of inherency for obviousness, it must necessarily follow that the terminal ID, the terminal identifier, always reach the management facility as required by the claim in order for the remote control function, which is the central

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
point of the act to occur.

[00:06:15] Speaker 00:
What if some embodiments it always reaches and some embodiments it doesn't always reach?

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
Doesn't the reference then in fact teach an embodiment that does inherently teach that claim limitation?

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
No, that's not what the board found.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
The board misapplied the law of inherency, Your Honor, in obviousness.

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
It said some of the times it reaches it and some of the times it does not.

[00:06:43] Speaker 01:
But under inherency for obviousness, which is, which is according to the Arendy decision and others, when you have a missing element, like we have here, it's a high standard.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
It must necessarily always be present.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
If the claim requires that the terminal identifier always reach the management facility, that's what the claim requires.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
That's why remote control can be achieved in this case.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
So every embodiment disclosed in Johnson must always have an IP address that will reach the data management.

[00:07:17] Speaker 01:
Well, your honor, the embodiment in Johnson as construed by the court, I mean, by the board, there are situations where it will reach and situations where it will not reach because of the presence of these servers.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
You have to be able to identify the terminal

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
that's communicating with the system in order to be certain that the terminal is permitted to control, to provide the remote control of the system.

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
Here in the Johnson reference, we only have certain, according to the board's factual findings, we only have certain situations where that occurs.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
And under the inherency law for obviousness, for a missing element, it's not present.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
So it's a matter of law.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
Our position is, your honor,

[00:08:08] Speaker 01:
that the Johnson reference does not meet the requirements for obviousness inherently.

[00:08:16] Speaker 03:
Quickly turn to the Moriah theory for rejecting these claims.

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
As I understand it, this hinges on the claim construction of terminal identifier to understand the type of terminal that the remote terminal is in order to understand the display capabilities and

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
and communication capabilities so that the data that you send over to the remote terminal is in the right format for that particular terminal.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
And the board looked to claims 16, 29, and 37 to better understand what is a terminal identifier and looked at those claims and concluded that it doesn't necessarily have to be some specific, unique code for a specific terminal, but instead

[00:09:08] Speaker 03:
it's better understood to encompass other things, including just knowing the type of model that the terminal is in order to understand its display and communication capabilities.

[00:09:20] Speaker 03:
What is wrong with the board's understanding of terminal identifier in light of the way claim 16, 29, and 37 describe a terminal identifier?

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, there is no credible evidence

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
to support the board's finding.

[00:09:37] Speaker 01:
There's no credible evidence.

[00:09:39] Speaker 03:
Well, can you talk about claims 16, 29, and 37 then?

[00:09:42] Speaker 03:
Because obviously they relied on it, and one could look at that and see.

[00:09:49] Speaker 03:
One could possibly think that's credible evidence.

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
Well, under our standard of review, our position is there's no credible evidence.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
So let me explain why.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
First of all, the terminal identifier, as pointed out in column eight, lines 34 through 40 in the patent, the terminal identifier is separate from the model name.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
The model name and the model terminal identifier are separately used in the patent.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
And that's also found in figures six and eight of the patent.

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
So they're entirely different things.

[00:10:27] Speaker 01:
If you pointed out correctly, Judge Chen,

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
The model name defines the general characteristics of the device.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
It might be a particular model of a cell phone.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
It might be a particular communications protocol that the cell phone could use, but it doesn't identify that particular device.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
That's the terminal identifier's role.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
One of the concerns I had about your proposed claim construction is that

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
You say a terminal identifier, it's almost as if you're reading the word unique in there.

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
And it has to be a unique terminal identifier.

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
It has to identify this particular one, as opposed to something that might identify say, you know, a subgroup of terminals.

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
And I was wondering, given the existence of claims that do seem to define, dependent claims that seem to define the terminal identifier more broadly,

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
How do you respond to, what is it in the specification that makes you think that it has to be a unique terminal identifier?

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, it follows from the entire thrust of the invention that you want to, you know, the claim requires this remote control capability.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
And in order to be certain, as the claim requires, that your remote control is being effectuated by a actor,

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
using a specific terminal that is permitted to do so, then you need to be able to identify that particular terminal.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, you have no knowledge of whether the particular instructions that you receive at the management facilities are from an authorized terminal.

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
So the whole thrust of this invention was to be able to provide remote control of security systems and the like, and if any

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
terminal that fit this category, let's say all particular models of a cell phone, could make this remote control, then you wouldn't have the kind of remote control capabilities that the patent is directed to.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
Mr. Stern, you're running out of time, but just to give you some information, I'm really stuck on claims 16, 29, and 37, and I've been hoping you

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
would give me a specific answer about those particular claims, the content of those claims, and how they describe and characterize what a terminal identifier is, and why you believe terminal identifier in claim one means something different than what is actually plainly said in claims 16, 29, and 37.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
So the manufacturer's model code that said 27 and 29 and 37,

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
is a species of the terminal identifier.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
It's a manufacturer's model identifier.

[00:13:24] Speaker 01:
That's what it says, manufacturer's model identifier.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
It is a species of the terminal identifier that's in the broader claim.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
Which means if a prior art reference teaches a manufacturer's model identifier, then it anticipates that limitation, does it not?

[00:13:45] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, our position is that it does not teach that.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
In fact, it just teaches a species of a terminal identifier.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
It doesn't teach the model name.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
It doesn't teach the model name.

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
It is a form of identifier.

[00:14:02] Speaker 01:
And in the testimony from their expert, he admitted that there's various types of identifiers that can be present in a cell phone, for example.

[00:14:15] Speaker 01:
Our position is that the manufacturer's terminal identifier, there's no credible evidence that it's the model name as we use it in the patent.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
They're separately shown in the patent and they are for entirely different purposes.

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
I don't want to burn up more time.

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
We'll hear from the other side.

[00:14:43] Speaker 03:
Mr. Stark, is it?

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
Okay, whenever you're ready.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
Good morning, and may it please the Court.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
I think I'll perhaps pick up right with Maria and the proper construction of terminal identifier.

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, the 727 patent teaches that the terminal identifier may be

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
quite broad.

[00:15:13] Speaker 02:
In fact, at column 25, lines 56, 59, the 727 patent says the terminal identifier is not restricted, that it may be a user ID or it may be a home network ID.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
And as the board has pointed out, as your honors have discussed, claims 29 and 37 talk about a situation wherein a set identifier, referring to the terminal identifier,

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
is a manufacturer model identifier of said remote terminal.

[00:15:50] Speaker 03:
What do you think is going on in Figures 6 and 8?

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
Doesn't it appear that the inventors are contemplating that a model name is distinct from the terminal ID?

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
I do think, Your Honor,

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
These are describing an embodiment where the model name can be distinct from the terminal ID, but then of course claims 29 and 37 are expressly claiming that they may be the same.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
They may be one and the same.

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
And it really comes down to how unique does the identifier have to be?

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
How particularly does it have to identify a device?

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
And for purposes of the claims, the terminal identifier is largely used

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
so that the home network management facility can determine what kind of device it's talking to and tailor the display data to go to the device so that it can be appropriately displayed.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
Low-res data goes to a low-resolution device or high-resolution data goes to a high-resolution device, that sort of thing.

[00:16:55] Speaker 02:
So it's perfectly consistent with that aspect of the invention for a manufacturer model identifier or a model name or a model code, as Maria puts it, to be

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
a sufficient identifier for that purpose.

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
There's absolutely nothing in the patent that says that the model, that the terminal identifier must be a unique identifier or must identify a specific device.

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
There's nothing there and indeed Vivint didn't even propose that as their claim construction below and they don't propose it here.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
They're in their briefing attempting to read a limitation like that into

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
the construction of terminal identifier, but it's not there.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
They haven't even sought to put that in.

[00:17:41] Speaker 02:
So with the proper understanding of terminal identifier, a terminal identifier can be, as claims 29 and 37 say, it can be the manufacturer model identifier.

[00:17:53] Speaker 02:
What is a manufacturer model identifier?

[00:17:56] Speaker 02:
All we have to go on is plain language.

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
There isn't a definition of that term in the 727 patent.

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
not for the limitation of it in the 727 patent.

[00:18:07] Speaker 02:
It's just something that identifies a manufacturer's model by plain language.

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
And that's exactly what a model code is in Maria.

[00:18:14] Speaker 02:
And thus, we would respectfully submit the board was exactly right to find that Maria, on its own, discloses a terminal identifier within the meaning of this patent.

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
Can I push back on you a little bit on your reference to column 25, lines 55 to 60?

[00:18:30] Speaker 00:
It says the terminal IDs are added to the various information as identifiers.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
However, it is not restricted to this example.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
The identifier may be a user ID or a home network ID.

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure it's saying that terminal identifiers may be user IDs or home network IDs.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
Instead, it's saying in this example, terminal IDs are the identifiers.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
However, it's not restricted to this.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
The identifier may be the user ID, the home network ID.

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
Do you see what I'm saying?

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure if there's a direct line of equating these two.

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
I do see what you're saying, Your Honor, and I guess I'd have to say it's viewed in that light.

[00:19:11] Speaker 02:
It's a little unclear, perhaps, what this disclosure is saying.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
There are issues throughout this document in that it was translated from Japanese and various corrections were made, and a lot of it, frankly, is unclear.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
But I think one thing that is clear is

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
The terminal identifier is nowhere in this patent limited to be something that is a unique identifier, unique within the whole universe or among all devices.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
There's nothing that says that here at all.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
And quite the contrary.

[00:19:38] Speaker 02:
Again, claims 29 and 37 indicate that it may be the terminal identifier.

[00:19:43] Speaker 02:
It may be simply a manufacturer's model identifier.

[00:19:46] Speaker 02:
And that's sufficient.

[00:19:47] Speaker 02:
That's perfectly sufficient for the functionality claimed.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
How do you respond to Mr. Stern's point that the whole

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
operation, how the invention would work, would necessarily require that these terminal IDs be unique.

[00:20:01] Speaker 02:
There's actually no support.

[00:20:02] Speaker 02:
I noticed the council didn't cite any support in the patent for that.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
Looking at the claim, so for instance, the representative claim, claim one, the terminal transmits a communication to the management facility and includes an identifier, includes a terminal identifier in that.

[00:20:20] Speaker 02:
The management facility uses that to

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
to determine what kind of device it is and to send appropriate data back to that device.

[00:20:27] Speaker 02:
It doesn't need to know exactly which device.

[00:20:30] Speaker 02:
Is it Mr. Stark's device or is it anybody else's device?

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
It doesn't need to know exactly that to do that function.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
The patent also talks about user IDs and passwords, so maybe that's how you

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
The system, the management facility, understands who it's talking to in order to ensure that the person talking to it is the right person to control the in-home devices in some house across the country.

[00:20:56] Speaker 02:
Yes, exactly.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
For the purposes of security, that's perfectly sufficient.

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
The management facility also has an association between a terminal identifier and the identifier of the home server, the server identifier, on the other hand, so it matches

[00:21:12] Speaker 02:
matches up that way, but that, again, doesn't require that the terminal identifier be unique in all the world.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
I suppose your point is also supported by the fact that it's a comprising claim.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
So to the extent there's something else that's like an IP address or home security or user ID, that that would be encompassed with it.

[00:21:34] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:21:34] Speaker 02:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
And the claim doesn't recite security limitations.

[00:21:38] Speaker 02:
It just recites the sort of correspondences that I've been talking about.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
So Moria is completely sufficient by itself to disclose the terminal identifier within the meaning of the 727 patents, just as the board found.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
And that's indeed sufficient to satisfy either Vivint's construction, their proposed construction, or the board's construction, because the model code, as the board found in Moria, is a terminal identifier that identifies a terminal.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
That's essentially Vivint's construction.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
The board didn't even have to get to

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
or enables communication with the Vivint application, with the Vivint patent, excuse me, with the Maria patent, in order to find that the terminal ID limitation was disclosed there.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
Can you talk a little bit about Johnson and how the board seemed to say, well, sometimes Johnson's remote terminal IP address will get to the data center, but sometimes it won't, and that's okay.

[00:22:39] Speaker 03:
and we still have the limitation next.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
Why is that?

[00:22:44] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, I think quite simply, the issue is that the Johnson patent discloses an embodiment.

[00:22:57] Speaker 02:
And really, picking up on Your Honor's questions,

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
All that has to be disclosed in the prior art is an embodiment that satisfies the limitation that we're looking for.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
It doesn't have to be that every embodiment in the prior art patent meets the limitations.

[00:23:14] Speaker 02:
The Johnson patent in figure five shows a laptop and labels it as a web browser and internet connection.

[00:23:25] Speaker 02:
And that's the user's computer in the Johnson invention.

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
Web browser and internet connection, it connects directly via the internet

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
to the data center that's in the Johnson patent.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
And our expert's testimony, Dr. Ryan's testimony, was if you're going to communicate over the internet, that has to be done with internet protocol or IP addresses.

[00:23:44] Speaker 02:
And of course, the IP addresses would identify the source of the communication.

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
And that's an identification.

[00:23:50] Speaker 02:
And the embodiment shown in Johnson shows that communication, IP communication from the user's computer to the data center.

[00:23:59] Speaker 02:
That's going to be identified by an IP address.

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
And it's necessarily so.

[00:24:03] Speaker 02:
You can't do internet communications without IP addresses.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
What Vivint is arguing is while Johnson could have disclosed something else, it could have disclosed using a gateway or a NAT or something like that, but that's a bit like an argument that says, well, if my mother were a bus, she'd have wheels and live in a garage.

[00:24:25] Speaker 02:
Well, it's not a bus.

[00:24:27] Speaker 02:
And the Johnson patent doesn't say anything about gateways or NAT or anything like that.

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
And that's what the board found.

[00:24:34] Speaker 02:
It's not disclosed, it's not described.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
In Johnson, one can't just rewrite Johnson and then say, oh, well, if it were rewritten in a different way, then there would be some issue or some lack of disclosure.

[00:24:45] Speaker 02:
So Johnson perfectly well discloses terminal identifiers being IP addresses.

[00:24:52] Speaker 02:
That's, in fact, what our

[00:24:55] Speaker 02:
expert Dr. Rine testified to, board credited Dr. Rine for substantial evidence for that.

[00:25:00] Speaker 02:
And I will note, by the way, that the examiner, when these claims were presented to the Patent Office originally, the examiner cited Johnson actually to reject the original claims and cited Johnson as disclosing a terminal identifier or as the original translated from Japanese claims set an identifying signal.

[00:25:18] Speaker 02:
The examiner cited Johnson as disclosing exactly that.

[00:25:22] Speaker 02:
IP address is the identifying signal or terminal identifier as it's now called and all the claims, most of the claims were rejected over Johnson on that basis.

[00:25:33] Speaker 02:
The applicant at the time then came back and added the limitations that I mentioned about tailoring the display data to send the right kind of display data to the right kind of remote terminals.

[00:25:43] Speaker 02:
Those limitations were added and the claims were allowed over Johnson with the addition of those limitations, all of which are in Moria.

[00:25:52] Speaker 02:
And that was the basis for the board's obviousness findings here.

[00:25:55] Speaker 02:
So it's well-established.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
We submit that Johnson discloses, inherently discloses, it's well-known in the art, well-known to persons skilled in the art, use of IP addresses, those would be perfectly sufficient terminal identifiers.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
If I may, Your Honor, I would turn briefly to the other basket of issues.

[00:26:19] Speaker 02:
in the appeal, which has to do with first and second control information.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
Here, Vivint, I will note, did not offer any construction below as to these terms, first and second control information, nor did alum.com, in fact.

[00:26:35] Speaker 02:
That was not a disputed issue as to construction.

[00:26:39] Speaker 02:
And Vivint argues here that the board somehow interpreted those claims to mean the same thing, and that somehow is error.

[00:26:46] Speaker 02:
The board actually specifically noted

[00:26:48] Speaker 02:
that first and second control information have different purposes within the claim.

[00:26:57] Speaker 02:
First control information is sent from a user terminal, a remote terminal, to the management facility, and the second control information is sent from the management facility onto the home server.

[00:27:08] Speaker 02:
So two different things per the board's construction.

[00:27:11] Speaker 02:
What Vivint's issue really is, is can the content of those two messages be the same?

[00:27:19] Speaker 02:
that be the same or must it be different.

[00:27:23] Speaker 02:
There's nothing in the patent at all that says that it must be different.

[00:27:27] Speaker 02:
And I just want to briefly point your honors to Passage in the patent.

[00:27:36] Speaker 02:
It's at column 9, lines 36 to 41, which describes... This is what you quote in your red brief.

[00:27:45] Speaker 02:
where it just says the control information is passed on.

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
It's received from the remote terminal and then passed on to the home server.

[00:27:56] Speaker 02:
So that's just copying the content of the first control information to the second control information and passing it on.

[00:28:02] Speaker 02:
That's perfectly fine within the scope of the 727 patent.

[00:28:07] Speaker 02:
And indeed, Johnson does that and more.

[00:28:10] Speaker 02:
It also adds a connect command when it sends information on to the home server

[00:28:15] Speaker 02:
So even if the first and second control information have to have different content, Johnson discloses that as well.

[00:28:23] Speaker 02:
So Johnson perfectly well anticipates that limitation.

[00:28:30] Speaker 02:
Unless there are further questions, Your Honor, so I will conclude there.

[00:28:36] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you.

[00:28:37] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:28:44] Speaker 01:
Two minutes.

[00:28:47] Speaker 01:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:28:48] Speaker 01:
We, we think the terminal identifier is unique, but our argument does not depend on this, regardless of whether it's unique.

[00:28:56] Speaker 01:
It's not a model name because the patent talks about the two things separately.

[00:29:02] Speaker 01:
The terminal has a terminal identifier and a model name.

[00:29:06] Speaker 01:
Second, on Johnson, the board relied on inherency, obviousness, inherency.

[00:29:12] Speaker 01:
That's where we are.

[00:29:13] Speaker 01:
We are reviewing this board's application of the law of inherency.

[00:29:17] Speaker 01:
As we all know, inherency requires that the limitation necessarily must be present in the prior art reference.

[00:29:25] Speaker 01:
We're not rewriting Johnson, your honor.

[00:29:27] Speaker 01:
We're making the point, which the board agreed with, that Johnson is broad enough to encompass the use of NAT routers and servers.

[00:29:36] Speaker 01:
That's all we're arguing.

[00:29:37] Speaker 01:
So with that, I conclude my argument.

[00:29:39] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:29:40] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:29:40] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Stern.

[00:29:41] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.

[00:29:44] Speaker 01:
And that is the end of today's session.