[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Vote 18-2311.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
Attorney Goldenberg?

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
You reserve three minutes of your time for a rebuttal, correct?

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:33] Speaker 04:
Did I pronounce that correctly?

[00:00:34] Speaker 04:
It's N-ray FOTE or FOTE?

[00:00:36] Speaker 03:
It's FOTE.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
FOTE.

[00:00:41] Speaker 04:
Mm-hmm.

[00:00:41] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:00:41] Speaker 04:
You may proceed.

[00:00:43] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:44] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court, Julie Goldenberg on behalf of Mr. Charles T. Foti.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
The Board erred in finding Mr. Foti's claims patent-ineligible because it misunderstood them.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
The claims are not directed to using a single third-party intermediary.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
The claims expressly disclaim the traditional third-party intermediary and instead require different intermediaries.

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
Each... So what if the board had defined the abstract idea as being electronic fund transfer using multiple third parties?

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
Would that have satisfied your understanding of what the abstract idea is that the claims are directed to?

[00:01:23] Speaker 03:
No, because we still believe that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of using multiple third-party intermediaries.

[00:01:31] Speaker 03:
They're directed to using multiple third-party intermediaries in a very specific and concrete way, because the claims tell us exactly what each party does.

[00:01:40] Speaker 03:
The claims tell us that the payment broker does not know who the third party is.

[00:01:43] Speaker 03:
The claims tell us that the funding source does not know the third party's financial information.

[00:01:48] Speaker 03:
The third party does not know who the payer and the broker are.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
And importantly, the payee and the bank do not know.

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
the type of communication they have.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
It's more just that only certain entities are going to know certain information, which seems more abstract, more of an idea than something that's a specific technological solution to a technological problem.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
So I disagree with that.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
And if you look at the claims, which are reproduced on page eight of our brief, as well as in the appendix, you'll see all of the very specific detail.

[00:02:34] Speaker 03:
And that's something that really distinguishes these claims from the claims that issue in ALIS.

[00:02:38] Speaker 03:
If you look at the claims at ALIS, they're short, and they just say, do it.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
They don't tell you how.

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
Whereas in these claims, they tell you exactly how to do it.

[00:02:46] Speaker 03:
They tell you who transmits what.

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
They tell you who has what information when.

[00:02:50] Speaker 03:
And that is the concrete information that

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
that is enough to pass step one master.

[00:02:58] Speaker 03:
This also has an advantage and it's a claimed advantage that breaks the chain of data transmission that occurs in electronic payment systems and thereby provides the claimed enhanced security.

[00:03:09] Speaker 03:
The director says as much in her brief on page 35 saying, and I quote, the payment broker facilitates the third party payment system which provides the benefit of increased data security.

[00:03:23] Speaker 03:
This additional layer of security was not found or used in the conventional environment and helps avoid hacking attacks.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
We already touched on step one of the analysis and the reasons why the board's abstract idea, as defined as a single inter-party intermediary.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
Can I ask you this question?

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
So sometimes we've had cases in which claims are

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
very, very lengthy and nevertheless we've held them to be ultimately ineligible because they amount to a kind of excruciating specification of little steps

[00:04:02] Speaker 00:
that are more or less inevitable in a more general word.

[00:04:08] Speaker 00:
Communicate with somebody.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
And you could say, walk to the desk, pick up the phone, punch this number, this number, this number.

[00:04:14] Speaker 00:
And you could make it extremely long without adding any legally material

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
information.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
Why are the details here, in particularly the very long paragraph, but in the claims, different in kind from that kind of

[00:04:35] Speaker 00:
always possible but ultimately immaterial specificity.

[00:04:39] Speaker 03:
Well one reason is the record demonstrates that these claims are not a fundamental economic practice because they're novel.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
So these claims are different from just saying that the examiner would have been able to find prior art disclosing this if that were the case.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
So the argument is not that the claims are long and therefore they're patent eligible.

[00:04:59] Speaker 03:
It's that they're detailed and specific and they provide specific actions by specific parties

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
And that is enough to transform the abstract idea at step two.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
One of the things I just want to say is that it can't be that just because something is novel and not obvious, it's eligible.

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
Just like the opposite isn't true.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
We don't want to merge the tests, right?

[00:05:20] Speaker 03:
Oh, absolutely.

[00:05:21] Speaker 02:
So what is it that makes it concrete and not just an abstract idea?

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
Well, first, Your Honor, just to be clear, this Court has stated that there is overlap between the two tests – certainly not merger, but overlap.

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
And in these particular claims, let's look at page 8 of our brief, where the claims begin.

[00:05:41] Speaker 03:
And you can see that we have the different parties.

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
And starting at B, it mentions the brokerage server.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
And if you look at Roman numeral number three, it says, receiving an instruction that a payment be made electronically by someone other than the payment broker who's associated with the payee.

[00:06:01] Speaker 03:
But it also tells us the payer gets to select the payment method.

[00:06:05] Speaker 03:
Then if you go to number four, Roman numeral number four,

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
It retrieves the information identifying the payer's selected funding source.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
So the payer doesn't need to do that.

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
If you had your phone, you wouldn't need to retrieve your credit card numbers, which is an added security benefit, especially if you were in a public place or on a public Wi-Fi network.

[00:06:24] Speaker 03:
You go down to number six, Roman number six, to cause the payment to be made electronically to the payee on the funding source's behalf by a third party other than the payment broker.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
So we're again clarifying the different roles of the third party.

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
If you go on to letter C, you'll see similar limitations explaining what the funding source does.

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
In response to instruction from the payment broker, it instructs a third party, other than the payment broker, to make the payment in the third party's name.

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
And here's another key to this claim, thereby preventing divulgation of the payee.

[00:06:56] Speaker 03:
to the payee of the identity of the payer.

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
Now, a lot of claims say, oh, we have wonderful solutions to this problem, but they don't claim the solution.

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
These claims are concrete because they have exact and explicit directions, and they claim the solution.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
And that's enough to pass Alice step one, because the abstract idea should not be distilled down to just being using multiple third-party intermediaries and even.

[00:07:24] Speaker 04:
Would you say that this protecting privacy and security vulnerabilities, that that's done by allocating different responsibilities among different players?

[00:07:37] Speaker 03:
Absolutely.

[00:07:39] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:07:39] Speaker 04:
So it's the fact that you allocate responsibility among different players that make this work.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
And that is the new novel approach.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
So if you have only one

[00:07:54] Speaker 04:
One player protect the identity of the payee?

[00:07:59] Speaker 03:
Not in an electronic payment environment.

[00:08:01] Speaker 04:
And that's why the solution, this claim solution... You have a broker here to begin with, a broker.

[00:08:06] Speaker 04:
Why is it that I can't give, have some money to Judge Toronto and he goes and pays somebody and doesn't tell them where the money came from?

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
So that solution worked fine in the non-electronic environment, and that's the prior art.

[00:08:23] Speaker 04:
And it was... So all you've done, you've added more middle persons.

[00:08:27] Speaker 03:
But adding more middle persons wasn't necessary in the prior art, because the solution... That's all you've done.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
You're allocating responsibilities, and this is why I asked you, and you said yes.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
This pen is about allocating responsibilities among multiple players.

[00:08:44] Speaker 03:
such that each player does not have all the information.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
And that breaks the chain of communication.

[00:08:50] Speaker 04:
And it's a technological solution to a specific technological problem, because the example... Why aren't the claims then directed to privacy and security vulnerabilities by using an intermediary, just one person?

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
Because that would not solve the problem.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
That one person would then have all the information.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
And in an electronic payment environment,

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
When payments are sent, they come with chain of transaction details that are passed on from one entity to the other.

[00:09:20] Speaker 04:
So this claim... So the more play would you add, the more you protect the privacy of the payee?

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
That is the general idea.

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
Now, these claims are directed to one specific way of doing it, which has three intermediary players.

[00:09:37] Speaker 04:
But if you had 20, then it'd even be greater protection, right?

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
And that could be a different claim, or maybe these claims are written broad enough to cover it.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
But it's not an Alice issue.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
It's not a problem of whether or not these claims should still pass.

[00:09:51] Speaker 04:
If you had 20 players or 30, then there'd be a higher level of protection.

[00:09:56] Speaker 03:
There's no doubt that there could be other solutions.

[00:09:58] Speaker 03:
So yes, perhaps it would be, but perhaps it wouldn't be as cost effective.

[00:10:02] Speaker 03:
These claims require three.

[00:10:04] Speaker 03:
And these claims are written to solve the problem, which is enough to make it pass Alice.

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
Now, whether or not somebody could come up with a way of using 20 that would infringe or wouldn't infringe these claims is a separate issue.

[00:10:14] Speaker 03:
But the only issue before the court today is whether the claims pass the Alice analysis, steps one and step two.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
Now, even if this Court were to say the abstract idea is use multiple third-party intermediaries, then the claims – we think it's not for the reasons I've already discussed, but then the claims would pass at step two.

[00:10:36] Speaker 03:
And the reason is because it has the very concrete and specific steps that comprise the inventive concept.

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
Which are?

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
The very steps that I've just explained to you of each

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
each party having access to different information, so the payment broker doesn't know who the third party is, so the funding source doesn't know the third party's financial information, and the payee and its bank don't know the identity of the funding source.

[00:11:01] Speaker 03:
These claims prevent a situation where a payee receives some money and then basically has a chain of transaction information and can go back and take more out of your bank account.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
for example, when you're buying something on the internet or in a mobile payment environment.

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
So they prevent that chain of reaction.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
Your Honors, rather than consider the inventiveness of the claimed restructuring of roles in electronic payment system, the board erred by focusing its analysis at step two on the conventionality of the computer hardware components.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
But Mr. Foti never argued

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
that these portions of the claims constituted the inventive concept.

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
The inclusion of conventional components does not render the inventive concept of the specific roles of third parties any less inventive.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
Here the inventive concept is the non-conventional, non-generic arrangement

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
of the additional third-party intermediaries in their servers and the specific roles they do, which solve a problem rooted in electronic payment world.

[00:12:04] Speaker 04:
So your argument is not that technology is being used in any special way here.

[00:12:10] Speaker 04:
It's just, I gather from what you said, that the technology is being used in its normal usage.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
Our argument is that the individual components are being used in their normal usage.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
When combined, they're being used in a non-conventional way, which is the way that allows the prohibits transmission of all payment information from the payer to the payee.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
And that is the non-generic inventive concept here at step two.

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
Finally, at a minimum, this court should remand to the board in view of Burkheimer.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
In view of that case in the Patent Office.

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
Can I interrupt you?

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
I mean, I understand your position.

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
Why would we, man, don't you have the right to make fact findings?

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
I mean, Berkheimer is a summary judgment case.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
This is a case where the board and the examiner, they get to make fact findings.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
And they're just reviewed for what?

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
Substantial evidence, right?

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
So the appellate court can make fact findings if there's only one reasonable fact finding that should be made.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
But aside from that, if the examiner, Enver Berkheimer, should have provided support for his conclusion that the combination of elements were well understood, routine, and conventional.

[00:13:27] Speaker 02:
Didn't they point to some admissions in the specification itself?

[00:13:31] Speaker 03:
They point to admissions that the individual components were routine and conventional.

[00:13:36] Speaker 03:
But there's nothing in the specification, nor is there any evidentiary record

[00:13:39] Speaker 03:
that the combination was routine and conventional.

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
And that's why this case is similar to the other cases that this court has found to be patent-eligible at step two.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
You're into your rebuttal time.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
Would you like to save it?

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
We can go on if you want.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
I'll just finish this point, which is that that's why it's similar to McRoe and DDR, which were also cases that involved conventional components, but they were arranged in a new way and used in a new way.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
I'll reserve the rest of my time.

[00:14:18] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:14:19] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court?

[00:14:23] Speaker 01:
Let me begin with this whole notion, I think, of this whole multiple third parties, which I want to say, first of all, was never really raised as a multiple third parties argument before the board.

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
But as I understand what they're saying, in the specification, they talk about different things as being third parties.

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
They talk about

[00:14:41] Speaker 01:
the funding source, the brokerage server, the broker, the funding server, various different components.

[00:14:47] Speaker 01:
I think it may be as helpful to start with Figure 3, because that is sort of what sort of lays out how the system works.

[00:14:54] Speaker 01:
Figure 3 is at 35 of the record.

[00:14:58] Speaker 01:
And what we see here, and this is described at 68, 69 of the record in the specification, is at the top there's 320 and 3.

[00:15:10] Speaker 01:
10, which are the payer and payee.

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
And then below at the bottom of the page is basically the funding sources.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
So that's like your bank.

[00:15:21] Speaker 01:
And so for each they're inverted, but it's the payee's real account or funding source.

[00:15:27] Speaker 01:
And then on the right is the payer's funding source.

[00:15:30] Speaker 01:
And then, because it's electronic, there are servers for each of these.

[00:15:34] Speaker 01:
And then there's the payment broker on the right, which is 330.

[00:15:37] Speaker 01:
It's a payment broker server.

[00:15:39] Speaker 01:
And that's controlled by the payer and basically allows the electronic payments to be made between the payer and payee.

[00:15:47] Speaker 01:
So that's, in a general sense, what the invention described is about.

[00:15:52] Speaker 01:
Then there's the particular claimed embodiment.

[00:15:55] Speaker 01:
which is described at 53 to 54 and 91 to 93 of the record.

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
And that adds on, it's not actually pictured here, but it adds on this third party.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
And the whole point of that is to add a third party to protect the payer's information from being

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
divulged to the payee.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
And that is what the board and the examiner were looking at and said that it seems very similar to, analogous to Alice in terms of a third party intermediary.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
Can I just ask, you used the word embodiment.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
I thought that the claims require a certain amount of, I love this word, non divulgation of information.

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
They do, and where they describe that, it's in the context of talking about the third party and having the third party between the payer and payee.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
So if I look at Figure 3, can I get out of Figure 3 this, let's just call it quasi-anonymity or actual anonymity or something, information suppression aspect?

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
That's not in this Figure 3, right?

[00:17:08] Speaker 00:
That's not in this now.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
The payment broker is basically.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
And you said something about an embodiment, I guess, on 54.

[00:17:15] Speaker 00:
But it is in the claim.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
And so I was saying the claim is directed to that particular embodiment, which then has this third party added on, sort of overlaid on top of what you see in Figure 3, is this notion of a third party.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
And that is sort of the meat of the claim that's described at the bottom of page 24, both with respect to the brokerage server, bottom of page 34 up to the top of 25.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
It talks about the third party

[00:17:41] Speaker 01:
making payments to the payee, and then being reimbursed from the payer.

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
And the purpose of that is so that the information, and specifically the real account and the funding source, which is exactly in a third-party intermediary, sort of in the paper world situation, is what, if you were making a payment to Judge Reyna, and then Reyna... Oh, he was making the payment to me.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
Oh, okay.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
He was making a payment to you.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
And you, Judge, stole in the middle.

[00:18:05] Speaker 04:
I lost a bet on the Nets game.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
That would protect you from getting access to his bank information or his account information by having the third party in the middle.

[00:18:14] Speaker 01:
And so that's what's described here in the claim.

[00:18:15] Speaker 01:
It's also described in the context of the funding source server, and that's at the bottom, beginning at 25, beginning about line 23.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
And again, the same thing.

[00:18:25] Speaker 01:
It's a payment with a

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
the third party in the middle, and the purpose is to protect the payer's real account and funding source information.

[00:18:35] Speaker 01:
There are lots of arguments in the briefs about other sorts of potential problems that they're trying to solve.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
None of those are still.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
I just want to hear your response to the argument on the ordered combination.

[00:18:47] Speaker 02:
That is, that the board kind of gave short shrift on step two, whether the ordered combination was conventional or not, or maybe that there wasn't substantial evidence to support its finding that that was conventional.

[00:19:03] Speaker 02:
What is your response?

[00:19:04] Speaker 01:
No, it's not short shrift.

[00:19:06] Speaker 01:
I see very specific findings by the board at page 9 and at page 11 and 12 of the record where they cite two portions of the specification that are admitting that these computer components, the servers, etc., in fact, the payment broker service.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
I think the argument, though, is that

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
On behalf of mr. Foti is that those components are?

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
Individually admitted to be conventional, but there's nothing that admits them in their ordered combination to be conventional I'm just wondering what your response is there could be a response that no there is evidence that it's conventional or there could be the response could be something along the lines of That particular arrangement is brought about by the abstract idea itself.

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
I mean there's a lot of responses I want to make sure that you're focusing on the specific question

[00:19:54] Speaker 01:
Right, and I was going to get to that on page 10 of the record the board looks to the examiner's findings and about that and then again at 11 the bottom of I'm sorry 15 sorry 15 to 16

[00:20:10] Speaker 01:
The board again engages very thoroughly with looking at the ordered combinations.

[00:20:17] Speaker 01:
So at 10, it talks about the examiner and quotes from the examiner that the claims do not require any non-conventional computer network or database or even a non-conventional, non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
but merely call for performance of the claim facilitation of electronic fund transfer, which is like in paragraph three on a set of generic computer components.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
And then again, at page 15 to 16, it analyzes it again on its own.

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
and says there's nothing that's already present when the components are considered separately, when they start to look at them as an ordered combination, and says the claim doesn't, for example, improve the function of the computer, and there's nothing significant anymore, goes on to the next page and describes and discusses the particulars of the components individually as well as an ordered combination.

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
And I just want to briefly point out that the various problems that they are trying to highlight in their briefs about auditability, man-in-the-middle attacks, and hackers are not actually supported in the specification.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
Those are all attorney arguments.

[00:21:30] Speaker 01:
When they talk about auditability and the potential inclusion of chain of transaction details,

[00:21:35] Speaker 01:
They cite to 210 and 211 of the regulatory, which is a response to an office action.

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
The specification doesn't mention auditability.

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
When it talks about audit, it actually talks about the benefits of the system, is that it aids in complying with audit requirements.

[00:21:50] Speaker 00:
There's about five sites there.

[00:21:52] Speaker 00:
Just help me understand something.

[00:21:56] Speaker 00:
Is it the case that in the application process, the applicant

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
is limited on these issues to what's in the spec.

[00:22:15] Speaker 00:
I understood you to be saying these arguments about hacking and whatnot are not in the spec.

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
So I thought, well, do they have to be in the spec?

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
Suppose they were in, and I think you made a reference to a response to an office action.

[00:22:32] Speaker 00:
Isn't that the way you create a record before the examiner?

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
That is arguments that could be made before the examiner, but the examiner engages in understanding the claims in light of the specification.

[00:22:46] Speaker 01:
And here, there is nothing in the specification.

[00:22:48] Speaker 00:
Let me maybe just ask a variant.

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
What is the Berkheimer summary judgment counterpart in the PTO administrative world?

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
on an application, not an adversarial IPR kind of stuff.

[00:23:07] Speaker 00:
It's just on this.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
So you're saying that once there's a premeditated case... Don't you get to... Examiners get to make fact findings.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
Applicants get to put in facts.

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
But they can't change the invention and what the invention is.

[00:23:20] Speaker 01:
The invention is set out in what's described and what's in their claims and what is in the specification.

[00:23:25] Speaker 00:
Did the applicant put in some submission to the examiner that, for example, said, steps we have required in the claim help reduce hacking?

[00:23:40] Speaker 01:
I don't think that would change the nature of the invention in any way if the inventors themselves have not contemplated that.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
But just on the factual point, did the applicant put in something to the examiner that said that?

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
There was attorney argument made.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
There wasn't any sort of declaration, evidentiary declaration.

[00:24:00] Speaker 01:
And the same is true of the men in the middle attacks.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
They cite to their appeal brief and their response to an office action.

[00:24:07] Speaker 01:
And the same with hackers.

[00:24:09] Speaker 01:
In fact, the only discussion of hackers in the specification is with reference to an account reference number that could be used instead of an account number to protect against hackers.

[00:24:17] Speaker 01:
So these points are simply the specification just doesn't bear it out that these are the intention or that there's any special arrangement here in terms of computer components to protect against these kinds of problems.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
If there are no additional questions, I will see the remainder of my time.

[00:24:36] Speaker 01:
I ask that this court affirms the board.

[00:24:39] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:24:39] Speaker 04:
We thank you, Counselor.

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
You have a little under two minutes.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:48] Speaker 03:
Just a few brief points.

[00:24:49] Speaker 03:
First of all, opposing counsel mentioned waiver.

[00:24:52] Speaker 03:
If you look at pages 6 to 7 of our reply brief, we cite many circumstances where we made the exact same argument about the different third parties and what they do and why that's important, both the step one and step two analysis.

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
Second is opposing counsel continued to refer to this invention as involving a third party.

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
I think the Court understands that this invention does not cover a third party.

[00:25:15] Speaker 03:
We amended the claims during prosecution to require multiple third parties, so there could be no argument that these claims cover

[00:25:22] Speaker 03:
a third party, nor could the abstract idea be directed to something that the claims explicitly exclude.

[00:25:28] Speaker 03:
If you look at appendix page 15, there's a line from the examiner regarding the ordered combination where it says, considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of appellant system add nothing that is not already present when the components are considered separately.

[00:25:43] Speaker 03:
That's it.

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
That's the only analysis we have from the board.

[00:25:47] Speaker 03:
I think I said the examiner earlier, the board.

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:
on ordered combination, and that's conclusory.

[00:25:53] Speaker 03:
There's no citation to evidence, and there's no evidence on the record to support that.

[00:25:58] Speaker 03:
And finally, also regarding the ordered combination issue, you don't need to improve the way a computer functions to show that there's something unique in the ordered combination to pass ALICE.

[00:26:11] Speaker 03:
And we've seen that in several of these cases, most recently in Ankara, as well as another case that involved sensors.

[00:26:18] Speaker 03:
the Thales Vision Act to be the United States, where the using traditional sensors in a new way, in a new combination of ways, was indeed enough to pass ALICE.

[00:26:31] Speaker 04:
Thank you.