[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
First is number 18-11-42, Integrated Claim Systems versus Privilege and Zeminity Company, Mr. Ward.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
The first thing I'd like to do is to inform the Court that two months ago, on November 6th, 2018, the Patent Office issued United States Patent Number 10

[00:00:30] Speaker 02:
121201 to Dr. DeRienzo.

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
It's based on the same specification that we have before us in the two patents at issue here.

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
The same art that was relied on by the board was brought to the attention of the examiner.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
What's the significance of that?

[00:00:49] Speaker 02:
The significance, Your Honor, is that there's a conflict at the patent office between whether the inventions disclosed in

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
Dr. De Rienzo's specification are patentable or unpatentable.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
And we believe that the reason there's such a conflict is because the board erred in its interpretation of the term field.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
What difference would that make if your interpretation were adopted?

[00:01:19] Speaker 02:
If our interpretation was adopted, Your Honor, then it's clear that the art that the board relied on is not relevant.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
was uh... because it has absolutely nothing to do with the problem identified by doctor reed de rienzo the problem was solved by his uh... inventions take a step back your honor uh... dr de rienzo took his mother to see the dentist she needed that's not going to help us but she needed oral surgery and couldn't get it right away no no no what i asked you to address

[00:01:53] Speaker 03:
the prior art?

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
What is it about the prior art that's missing under your interpretation?

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
Dr. DiRienzo's invention bridges the gap between personal computers and mainframes.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
Let me try.

[00:02:07] Speaker 00:
What does Boghese lack under your conception of the term field?

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
Because let's just assume for a second I think Boghese discloses your conception of the term field.

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
So why would that be wrong?

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
Boghese, Your Honor,

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
does not mention mainframes anywhere in the spec.

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
It has nothing to do with the problem of mainframes being able to identify and access images.

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
I need help on your understanding of the word field because I don't see anywhere in your proposed construction of field talking about mainframes.

[00:02:45] Speaker 00:
So now you talking about mainframes confuses me.

[00:02:49] Speaker 02:
Well, I think everything has to be in context when you read the specification.

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
It's clear that the goal of Dr. DiRianzo's invention was to bridge this gap because mainframes had a hole in what they were able to interpret and store, and that had to do with images.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
But the fact of the matter is, Your Honor, that insurance companies had already spent millions and millions of dollars on their mainframe computers and on the software to run them.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
each insurance company had its own hardware and software and the goal of Dr. DiRienzo was to make those systems compatible so that one form, his AIC form, could be used with every insurance carrier.

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
Are there any other litigations pending with respect to any other patents your client may have that

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
are based on the specification the same patents are at issue against the same the petitioner in connecticut and there is another patent that has been adjudicated previously by this court in a case in texas that's still pending and the resolution of this matter so if we were to affirm here would all pending litigation cease

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
With respect to this family of patents.

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
Well, there's one additional patent in one of the cases in Texas, I believe, that hasn't been attacked.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
But with respect to the other pending litigations, yes.

[00:04:36] Speaker 02:
And whether that would lead Dr. DiRienzo to determine that it made more sense just to end his litigations, I couldn't answer.

[00:04:46] Speaker 00:
With respect to that one lingering additional patent that would still be enforceable, even if we were to affirm here, would the construction of the term field matter with respect to that one additional lingering patent?

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
I have to admit, Your Honor, that off the top of my head, I'm not sure.

[00:05:11] Speaker 04:
And to follow up on that question, the new patent that was just issued

[00:05:15] Speaker 04:
Obviously we don't know what the claims were, but does the validity of that patent, do you think, depend on the same issues that are presented to us here?

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
Certainly in part, Your Honor, that the validity of the patent was found after Dr. D'Rienzo obviously went out of his way to raise the issues that have been presented to the PTAB before the examiner.

[00:05:48] Speaker 04:
And I assume Borghese and Bajor were before the examiner in that case, and the argument was made that they didn't apply in mainframes?

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
Yes, and didn't apply for other reasons.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
No doubt, but certainly for that reason.

[00:06:05] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
I think that the specification and the claims do support our interpretation of fields.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
And so I would initially like to have

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
direct your attention to Claim 1 of the 129 patent at Appendix 224.

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
And I don't want to belabor the point, but you'll see that the first portion of the claim deals with identifiable fields.

[00:06:40] Speaker 02:
The second portion of the claim deals with GUI fields.

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
And I think any fair reading of that claim would indicate to want to skill in the art that the identifiable fields and the GUI fields are not one in the same.

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
And in fact, it's clear that some of the information from the identifiable fields that are mentioned up front is transferred into the GUI fields.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
And this is discussed in somewhat more detail in column 32, and that's in appendix 218.

[00:07:19] Speaker 02:
And if you look at lines 23, it reads, it will be appreciated that the pack form when displayed on the computer's screen 212 contains boxes.

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
Those boxes are the gooey fields.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
And one of Skoll and the Art would appreciate that that's exactly what a gooey field is.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
It's just a box in which information is entered.

[00:07:45] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, what line are you on?

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
I'm on line 23, column

[00:07:49] Speaker 02:
32.

[00:07:49] Speaker 02:
Yes, okay.

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
The next sentence goes on.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
It then goes on to describe precisely what the identifiable fields are.

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
And you'll note that here the term field is actually in quotes.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
And it's a clear case of the patentee attempting to be his own lexicographer.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
And he identifies that these filled identifiable fields

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
are alphanumeric characters, and more specifically, a delimited alphanumeric character string.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
So a fair reading of what Dr. D'Rienzo has disclosed in his specification clearly distinguishes between different fields.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
It's not fair to limit him to one when that allows an art that really is not pertinent

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
I don't understand how it excludes Borghese, your interpretation.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
It excludes Borghese, again, Your Honor, because when you read in context, the only way to interpret the claims and the field term is that it has to do with the mainframe setting.

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
And that's not Borghese.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
What does that have to do with your construction, the mainframe setting?

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
How is that relevant to your construction?

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
uh... encompassed both the purpose these identifiable fields the group feels that around obviously the identifiable fields uh... disclosed here or something that was different and they were for use interpreting data between the reference he sees friends is there in the same clinton's specification so it's very strange is the whole background invention describes exactly

[00:09:44] Speaker 02:
the context of the invention and why it is specifically directed to the problems encountered in mainframe computing and the lack of translation between mainframes and personal computers.

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
So your contention is that Borghese is not a mainframe context?

[00:10:05] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:10:05] Speaker 02:
And the same with Beezer.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
In fact, I direct your attention to the Appendix 204

[00:10:14] Speaker 03:
So, but if that's the case, what is it in the claim language that says it has to be a mainframe context?

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
Well, that's our position, Your Honor, is that's the only proper interpretation of the identifiable field that it specifically... Because why?

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
Because why?

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
I know that's your position, but because why?

[00:10:35] Speaker 00:
Because that's how it's been... What in the specification column and line channels us and forces and compels us to read

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
field to be field in the context of the mainframe computer only.

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
The description that I previously provided at 2.18 is specifically directed to a mainframe environment.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
Why should that cause us to limit it to that?

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
Because that was the inventor's intent and that was clearly

[00:11:12] Speaker 02:
the problem that he identified and the problem that he attempted to solve.

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
So if you're going to take out the terms from their context, then almost everything's going to be can be broad enough to support unlimited prior art.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
Now, if there was prior art that put this in a mainframe context, that would be a completely different story.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
But Dr. DiRienzo appreciated that that wasn't the case.

[00:11:40] Speaker 04:
And if you look at... And your argument then is that the term identifiable fields as used in this patent is specifically designated for mainframes and only for mainframes.

[00:11:55] Speaker 04:
That's your argument?

[00:11:56] Speaker 04:
I believe that's accurate, Your Honor.

[00:12:00] Speaker 04:
Well, but that is your contention as to the...

[00:12:04] Speaker 04:
the term identifiable fields is designated for and limited to mainframes.

[00:12:11] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
And just to point out, to show that this was the intent, as I said, at 204, column 3, starting at line 34, it reads, scanners are now available that can digitize a dental x-ray

[00:12:32] Speaker 02:
i.e., convert it to a computer file that can be viewed on a monitor.

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
But transforming the medical evidence into digital form is not enough to facilitate electronic processing of claims with attachments.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
One must also take into consideration the existing claims processing infrastructure, i.e., the legacy mainframe.

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
That paragraph describes exactly what Beezer discloses, which is an insurance form dump

[00:13:03] Speaker 02:
where in the mailroom they have set up multiple scanners and they create files on the spot.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
Do you want to say the rest of it?

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
I'll save the rest of my time.

[00:13:14] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
Mr. Goldberg?

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
Morning, Your Honor.

[00:13:42] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court?

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
This is the third time ICS has come to this Court about the term field.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
The first time ICS argued it meant computer software field, and ICS's counsel admitted that they didn't invent fields.

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
That was in the context of patents in the same family as those here, the 093 and the 129 patents.

[00:14:01] Speaker 01:
In response, the Court affirmed the Board's unpatentability findings.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
The second time, ICS changed tactics, arguing that fields means data comprised of label data and content data.

[00:14:11] Speaker 01:
same construction that it's arguing for here.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
Can you just talk about claim one of the 129 patent, which is what your opposing counsel raised, about there's two different usages of the word fields?

[00:14:24] Speaker 00:
And so how are we supposed to think about those two different usages?

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
Does it suggest, does it require us to think of those two usages as being something different from each other?

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
And why is that?

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
Why would it use it in two different ways and yet we should think about it as the exact same field?

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
So although the term field comes up twice in the context of the identifiable field and in the context of the fields of the graphical user interface in both situations

[00:14:58] Speaker 01:
the way that the art applies to the claim to the term field is exactly the same.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
For example, for the identifiable fields, and I point your honors to appendix pages 52 through 59, which is where the board addressed these issues, the board specifically pointed to the arts of Borghese,

[00:15:27] Speaker 01:
This is for the identifiable field, and specifically Orgezi's disclosure.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
And I want to quote here, a number of text fields 110 for entering or viewing name, address, and telephone information.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
That's consistent with the board's construction of fields as entries created for at least alphanumeric data or image data.

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
So that there, the identifiable fields,

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
the fields where information is entered, these are fields in Borghese for entering data.

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
So it's covered right there.

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
And then for the fields of Agui, again, the board pointed to areas of Borghese that disclose this, pointing to the figure six of Borghese, where it actually shows the... Where are you now?

[00:16:22] Speaker 05:
Are you on 52 or 59?

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
So this will be

[00:16:26] Speaker 01:
for the graphical user interface portion, starting at 55 and up through 56.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
You'll see that the board first agrees with Travelers and points to its petition and also the underlying sites to Borghese, including

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
Figure 6 of Borghese and Figure 6 of Borghese, if your honors would like to look at that, at appendix page 409.

[00:17:25] Speaker 01:
We can see here that we have the last name and we have Jones.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
So again, here we have the field and here it's in a GUI.

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
So under both ways of looking at field, whether it's the identifiable field or whether it's a field of a GUI, Borghese discloses both.

[00:17:50] Speaker 00:
So the distinction that... Are you pointing to the exact same thing in

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
Borghese to teach both of those limitations?

[00:17:59] Speaker 01:
Well, the Borghese discussion about Figure 6, which appears on the appendix page 437, actually explains that Figure 6 is

[00:18:23] Speaker 01:
the graphical user interface, and the user interface is what provides the user with access to the assigned or pertinent claim work file.

[00:18:37] Speaker 01:
So although it's the same general discussion, Figure 6 is illustrating the GUI portion, but it's also illustrating the work file behind the GUI portion, which is where the

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
field in the identifiable field sense would be.

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
ICS's council several times indicated that the aspect of the mainframe is what was key.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
That's not anywhere in the claims of the 129 patent.

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
I do want to mention though that both of the references, Borghese and Beiser, do actually disclose

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
mainframe computers.

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
In Orgezi, we can see this at appendix page 443, starting at line 34.

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
From the foregoing, a comprehensive system and method for managing insurance claim processing has been described.

[00:19:42] Speaker 01:
The system includes at least one remote computer, a mainframe computer or server, and a network connecting the computers.

[00:19:52] Speaker 01:
for biser.

[00:20:04] Speaker 01:
We have

[00:20:28] Speaker 01:
This is at, I believe, appendix page 455.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
In column 8, line 10, in making a claim determination and operator at work station 35, may need to have access to a set of rules which are contained within the main frame 70.

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
And it goes on and refers to the main frame 70 throughout the discussion there.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
I'd like to also address a few of the issues that ICS raised in its gray brief.

[00:21:09] Speaker 01:
There is no denial of due process here.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
The board clearly articulated how it construed the term field and how it mapped Borghese to the claims.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
This is nothing like the personal web case cited by ICS where the board did not cite, let alone explain or analyze or adopt a portion of the petition that referred to the relevant

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
passages of the prior art.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
In contrast, in this case, the board discussed claim construction extensively at appendix pages 41 through 48, first determining why ICSS proposed construction wouldn't work, and the main reason being the portion of the 129 patent that ICSS Council directed your owners to

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
about the delimited alphanumeric fields.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
That is only one of the types of fields that is disclosed by the 129 patent.

[00:22:07] Speaker 01:
In addition, the claims themselves actually require fields that contain images, and those are not delimited alphanumeric.

[00:22:16] Speaker 01:
So for that reason alone, the portion of the spec that ICS's council is pointing to is not the governing factor here.

[00:22:25] Speaker 01:
That is the

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
point in the spec upon which ICS premises its entire claim construction argument in order to get to the requirement for label data and content data, so all of that falls when it's recognized that the fields do not have to be delimited alphanumeric character strings.

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
After going through ICS's arguments in detail, the board also set forth its own construction and pointed to

[00:22:54] Speaker 01:
the specification to articulate the specific reasons why that construction was okay.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
The board concluded its claim construction discussion by stating that it was interpreting fields, and I quote, for purposes, end quote, of its decision.

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
The board then went on to apply Borghese, first using that construction and then using ICS's construction.

[00:23:16] Speaker 01:
This is an important point if we look at APX pages 58 and 59.

[00:23:23] Speaker 01:
even applying ICS's construction, the board found that Borghese discloses the fields under that construction.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
So really the whole discussion about whether ICS's construction is appropriate or not does not even need to impact the ultimate outcome of this case given that the board already found even under ICS's construction that ICS loses.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
ICS also

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
complains that the board didn't explicitly state how its interpretation related to the terms that actually appear in the claims, identifiable fields and fields of a GUI.

[00:24:02] Speaker 01:
As I discussed before with you Judge Chen, that is something that the board did through pointing to the different portions of Borgesi in its final written decision.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
I also want to note that the board didn't need to

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
expressly address those types of arguments by ICS, the claim differentiation arguments, because they weren't properly before the board.

[00:24:26] Speaker 01:
They were only raised in ICS as demonstratives.

[00:24:29] Speaker 01:
ICS also questions whether the board's construction is used consistently in the dependent claims of the 129 patent.

[00:24:36] Speaker 01:
ICS focuses its arguments on claim two, so I'll focus on claim two as well.

[00:24:42] Speaker 01:
If you look at appendix pages 61 and 62,

[00:24:45] Speaker 01:
The board clearly uses the same construction for claim two that it uses for claim one because the board refers back to its discussion of claim one in discussing claim two.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
In its last argument about the adequacy of the board's decision, ICS disputes whether the board sufficiently articulated how Borgesi teaches or suggests inputting data into fields.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
ICS's selective quotations of the board's final written decision fail to tell the whole story here.

[00:25:14] Speaker 01:
Not only did the board point to Traveler's arguments for the limitations at issue, but as we've discussed before, it also specifically pointed to Borghese's, quote, Fields 110 for entering or viewing and, quote, certain information.

[00:25:26] Speaker 01:
That's at Appendix Page 53.

[00:25:28] Speaker 01:
In addition, the board pointed to Dr. Clark, that's Traveler's expert's declaration, and his explanation of how such information would be in images as required by the claims.

[00:25:38] Speaker 01:
That's at Appendix Page 54.

[00:25:41] Speaker 01:
Finally, ICS argued that it was improper for the board to treat its definition as open-ended and capable of covering fields that include executable code.

[00:25:50] Speaker 01:
ICS believes its definition is not open-ended because it recites that fields means data comprised of.

[00:25:58] Speaker 01:
Labeled data and content data attributes something special to comprised of.

[00:26:05] Speaker 01:
ICS argues that this court's CIAS case

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
doesn't support open-ended treatment of comprised-of language, but that's just wrong.

[00:26:14] Speaker 01:
The CIAS case clearly articulates how comprised-of means the same thing as comprising and is thus open-ended.

[00:26:20] Speaker 01:
The court points out that comprised-of can be used in other ways outside of the patent context and when the meaning doesn't matter in the context of patents.

[00:26:31] Speaker 01:
So, for example, if it's used to describe an accused product and you're not doing analysis of the specific meaning of the language.

[00:26:39] Speaker 01:
So to sum up, substantial evidence supports the board's claim construction and obvious misfindings.

[00:26:46] Speaker 01:
Not only does this evidence come in the form of patents and the prior references themselves, but it also comes in the form of extensive declarations from Traveler's expert, Dr. Clark, which the board credited throughout its opinions.

[00:26:58] Speaker 01:
In contrast, ICS has nothing but attorney arguments.

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
The board rejected its conclusory four-page declaration by Mr. Gross as unpersuasive.

[00:27:06] Speaker 01:
That's at appendix page 46.

[00:27:09] Speaker 01:
and ICS does not even cite to that declaration to this court.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
Moreover, even if this court was to side with ICS on claim construction, doing so wouldn't change anything, as we previously discussed.

[00:27:20] Speaker 01:
ICS wouldn't be prejudiced, because the board already found that even under ICS's construction, the claims are obvious.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
And if there are no further questions, I'll see the rest of my time.

[00:27:31] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Hallberg.

[00:27:42] Speaker 02:
I know my time is short, so briefly, that comprised case has absolutely no bearing here.

[00:27:49] Speaker 02:
We all know that comprised is a term of patent claim drafting art, typically used in chemical cases.

[00:27:58] Speaker 02:
And to try to give it some sort of meaning in the text of a patent specification just really doesn't make any sense.

[00:28:05] Speaker 02:
More importantly, I just want to emphasize that we feel like the board was led astray here.

[00:28:12] Speaker 02:
It initially thought that no interpretation of fields was necessary.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
It then came around to following the lead of the petitioner.

[00:28:20] Speaker 02:
And the petitioner espounded a one-size-fits-all approach.

[00:28:28] Speaker 02:
A field is a field, whether it's a pop-up in a gooey form or whether it's a very detailed delimited string of alphanumeric characters or whether it's clearly identified as something that

[00:28:42] Speaker 02:
can be used in multiple forms, all of which is disclosed in the specification.

[00:28:49] Speaker 02:
To say that a GUI field is the same as the identifiable fields that's specifically defined is similar to saying that a baseball field is like a magnetic field because they're fields.

[00:29:03] Speaker 02:
One field is not the same as another.

[00:29:06] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:29:13] Speaker 03:
Our next case is