[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
The next case for argument is 22-1980, Sentius versus Apple.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
I think we're ready whenever you are, sir.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
Mr. Seth.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
So the fundamental misjustice at the PTAB level is that you had two prior art references, Van Hoff and Rodkin, that only disclosed putting links in a database there were

[00:00:29] Speaker 00:
basically point-to-point systems where you put the links in the database and then you associated the links with terms in the document and then you retrieved the data from somewhere else and displayed it.

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
The fundamental improvement of the 985 patent was to have the content for display in the database.

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
This was actually a follow-on patent to an earlier patent family, the 720 patent family, which had specific ways of how you identified and displayed the content for display.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
Now, the error of the PTAB

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
could be found on three pages of the final written decisions, page 15, page 40, and page 46.

[00:01:27] Speaker 00:
I'm going to get into that error.

[00:01:30] Speaker 00:
One fundamental error was that the identified content of claims 1, 11, and 20, and the linked content of claims 21 and 36, the court construed them

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
uh... repeat our consumer them exactly the same way and we propose that they should have that same construction and that area you proposed it because the error was that we propose that the that the identified content in the link content is content for display okay right is content for display they did not find it to be content for display and part of the reason that they did that was on the claim differentiation argument

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
with regard to the phrase identified content.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
But the claim differentiation argument wasn't valid because claim one is a process claim, and it's a method of identifying content.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
And the dependent claim that they were relying upon just added displaying the content.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
And they said that

[00:02:45] Speaker 00:
by adding the step of displaying the content, somehow the independent claim won wasn't, the identified content wasn't content for display.

[00:02:54] Speaker 03:
If I remember right, correct me if I'm wrong, the board did not make what I'm just going to call informally a kind of strong form claim differentiation argument or analysis.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
It said, this is one indication of why we don't find for display in claim one.

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
It's not one of those where you look at an independent claim and a dependent claim, and the dependent claim has exactly one change from the original.

[00:03:24] Speaker 03:
And so you say something that you have a direct inference about what's in claim one.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
I thought the board's use of this was softer than that.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
I don't agree with that characterization, Your Honor.

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
And that's because on the final written decision at page 15,

[00:03:43] Speaker 03:
It says that... It's the word suggests that I think I'm remembering in the fifth line down from the bottom, sixth line down from the bottom.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
Suggests that there are examples of identified content that are never displayed.

[00:03:57] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:03:58] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:04:00] Speaker 00:
But that was what was applied to conclude that the identified content was not content for display.

[00:04:13] Speaker 00:
The additional error, it was that on the linked content term of claims 21 and 36, this claim differentiation argument was applied to even those, even though there were no dependent claims off of, well, claim 36 had no dependent claims, claim 21 had dependent claims, but none of them

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
So where did the board do that?

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
Can you tell us what you're checking out on the board's opinion?

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
Is that on the same page of 815?

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, that is on page 40 of the opinion.

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
Just a second.

[00:05:10] Speaker 00:
Yeah, on page 40 of the opinion, as Apple clarified in reply, Apple's argument is that the URL hyperlink and what the hyperlink points to are equivalent to the identified or linked content.

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
And also in concluding that the, well, the conclusion was

[00:05:28] Speaker 00:
that on page 15 is that identified content and linked content have the same construction.

[00:05:33] Speaker 02:
Can I take you back to where you started, which I think is the essence of this, is you're assuming that display is required and the board said no.

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
So why are you right and they wrong?

[00:05:45] Speaker 00:
So the entire patent is directed to content for display and the identification of content for display, which is stored in the database.

[00:05:53] Speaker 00:
And the point that we're making is adding a step to actually display the content doesn't all of a sudden take the content and make it not content for display.

[00:06:05] Speaker 00:
That is the essential point.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
In fact, if anything, the fact that there's a dependent claim that adds the step of displaying the content, if it indicates anything, it indicates that the content that's being identified is content for display.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
And then is being actually, you add the step of displaying it, which is not a step that's included in claim one.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
So in claim one, you're identifying the content for display.

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
And then in the dependent claim, you're actually displaying the content.

[00:06:41] Speaker 00:
That is the fundamental point, because the entire specification isn't about anything other than identifying the content for display and displaying it.

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
And this patent's priority date is 2001?

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:06:59] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
And the fundamental error of both excluding or misconstruing the content as not content for display was a significant error.

[00:07:18] Speaker 00:
because that led to the conclusion that Vanhoff, or a combination of Vanhoff and Rodkin, then invalidated the patent claims.

[00:07:29] Speaker 00:
And both of those references, and this is undisputed in the record, did not have any content for display stored in their databases.

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
You could not combine them and result in having content for display in that database.

[00:07:45] Speaker 00:
There's no disclosure of that whatsoever.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
and yet they found that the patents were invalid because of this claim construction, erroneous claim construction, based on their expressed statement that the fact that there was a dependent claim in which admittedly and clearly added the step of displaying the content somehow made the content not content for display.

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
So that's the fundamental problem in a nutshell.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
And we could not convince the P-Tap of this, hoping we can convince you of this, because it would be an injustice for this patent, which is, by the way, how you get Red Swigley spell check, which you could never do with Van Hoff or Rodkin, and just their links.

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
That's how you get it.

[00:08:44] Speaker 00:
This was the fundamental shift, if you will,

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
on this type of technology where you're linking content to terms in the document.

[00:09:22] Speaker 04:
May it please the court, Alyssa Barnardiani for Apple Inc.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
This court should affirm Sentius's claim construction arguments, impermissibly import onto the independent claims limitations from the dependent claims and the preferred embodiment and the board's finding of obviousness is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
I'll focus on the display limitation, which was the bulk of the presentation just now.

[00:09:50] Speaker 04:
I'd like to start with independent claims 21 and 36, reciting linked content.

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
There's just no claim construction dispute with respect to those claims.

[00:10:00] Speaker 04:
They recite on their face linked content that, quote, is displayed.

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
That's at appendix 617.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
The board recognized that the linked content

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
has to be displayed at appendix 38 to 41, it found that limitation in those claims satisfied.

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
Essentially what Sentius is quibbling over is that the board rooted the display limitation in claims 21 and 36 in the express statement that the content is displayed instead of as in hearing in the word-linked content, but fundamentally it doesn't matter because the board recognized that the claim has

[00:10:41] Speaker 04:
the display limitation present in it and it found it satisfied.

[00:10:45] Speaker 04:
So there's just no claim construction dispute on those claims.

[00:10:48] Speaker 04:
With respect to independent claims 11, sorry, 1, 11, and 20, reciting identified content, there's no basis in the claim language for importing a display limitation.

[00:11:01] Speaker 04:
And Sentius implicitly conceded this to the board.

[00:11:03] Speaker 04:
It doesn't identify anything in those claims to justify the limitation.

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
It jumps immediately to claims

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
37, 41, and 45.

[00:11:13] Speaker 04:
And what it argues is that the fact that content is displayed in the dependent claims means that it must be for display in the independent claims.

[00:11:24] Speaker 04:
And that's just fundamentally not how the relationship between dependent and independent claims works.

[00:11:31] Speaker 04:
They're not steps in a recipe or an instruction manual where for content to be displayed at step 27.

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure I'm going to phrase this quite right.

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
In a way, I think I just heard you make a more rigid framing of

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
the other side's argument comparable to what I heard the other side do with respect to the board's argument.

[00:12:07] Speaker 03:
I don't think Sentius's argument is that

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
is essentially a claim differentiation argument based on the dependent claim 37 saying it is displayed and therefore it must be for display in the independent claim.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
I think his argument

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
is that when you look at the patent as a whole, it's perfectly clear that the identified information has to be for display and that there is no negating of that in the way that he attributes, perhaps over attributes to the board when the board points to 37.

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
So two responses.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
First, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of the argument Sentius is making.

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
And I think it crystallizes in particularly in the reply brief, but also in its papers before the board.

[00:13:06] Speaker 04:
In pages 9 to 11 of the reply brief, I think crystallizes the point, which is that they are explicitly relying on the presence of the display limitation in 37, claims 37, 41, and 45, the fact that content is displayed in those claims.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
to support the notion that they have to be for display.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
And I don't disagree with that, but that's not the same thing as saying, because claim 37 says is displayed, full stop, I've now finished my reasons for the conclusion I'm about to draw, which is that the independent claim must have an implicit for display requirement.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
Well, so I think that's exactly what Sentius is saying at nine to 11.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
But the second point, I think that they are also pointing to the preferred embodiment overall as supporting its claim construction at the preferred embodiment involves content for display.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
Of course, the fact that the preferred embodiment has particular characteristics is not a basis to limit the scope of the claims under cases like GE Lighting and libel Flarsham.

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
But Sentius is also wrong to suggest that the specification doesn't

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
describe any content not for display.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
There's at least two types of content that the board discusses, namely links, particularly pertinent here, and sound files.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
So some of the content discussed in the specification

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
is not for display, but even if that weren't true, it wouldn't matter because the independent claims are not limited.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
And the reference to sound content, do I understand that to depend on the notion that sound is not displayed, that display is visual and sound, which is maybe right, but it's not self-evidently right to me?

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
I think it's a slightly different point.

[00:14:56] Speaker 04:
I think the point is that the sound file is not displayed, that the content is the sound file.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
If you plug a sound file, is that a display of the sound file?

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
So I think that the board's view is that it's not that the file is not displayed, that there's the little box with the little wavy lines that comes up often when you play the sound.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
So what if there's no change to the screen?

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
All there is is suddenly the computer starts making noises.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
Playing the sound.

[00:15:23] Speaker 04:
So I think that that's maybe more of a question for Cynthia as to whether that counts as display, but possibly not if the sound is playing.

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
But the board, as you said, relied on

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
the existence of sound files as evidence that there are files that are linked, that aren't displayed.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
And for that to be evidence, doesn't one need the conclusion that playing a sound file is not displaying

[00:15:51] Speaker 04:
Yes, so that's what the board found in its opinion.

[00:15:54] Speaker 04:
But again, so the argument doesn't depend on the sound file issue.

[00:15:58] Speaker 04:
There's also the question of links.

[00:15:59] Speaker 04:
But again, even if you thought that none of the content in the specification was not for display, those preferred embodiments characteristics do not limit the scope of the independent claims.

[00:16:11] Speaker 04:
And I think it's also important to

[00:16:15] Speaker 04:
Note that Sentius conceded at appendix 442 that independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not display the content.

[00:16:26] Speaker 04:
So at some point in their brief, they

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
claim that the board's claim construction argument or finding has this additional problem that they've kind of short-formed the display limitation and that, in fact, the content in claims 1, 11, and 20 should be understood as being displayed but just not being displayed in response to a user selection.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
So that appears in their opening brief and, again, in their reply brief.

[00:16:51] Speaker 04:
And that flatly contradicts what they told the board at appendix 442 when they said very explicitly that the identified content in claims 1, 11, and 20 is not displayed.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
And what the board found at appendix 15 is that if the content in claims 1, 11, and 20 is not displayed,

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
then there's no basis for importing a for display limitation.

[00:17:14] Speaker 04:
If it isn't displayed, it doesn't need to be for display.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
So that's fundamentally what the board found.

[00:17:21] Speaker 04:
And that construction is correct and this court should affirm.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
If there are no further questions on the other issues in the case, I respectfully ask that the court affirm the judgment of the board.

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
Mr. Seth, you have time.

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
I think that you're correct, Your Honor.

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
Our construction of identified content and also linked content is based on the entirety of the specification.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
And we're not simply relying on language of a dependent claim in making that argument.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
Um, but I also believe that council's argument illustrates a little bit of the additional problem in that the court not only found the identified content was not content for displayed, but also that the linked content, uh, it lumped the two terms together.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
Uh, and that was a distinction with the difference because again, when they conclude at appendix 46,

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
regarding the prior art, interchangeably, interchangeably, that a posita would interchangeably consider a link and the reference that the material is linked to as one and the same.

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
That conclusion relied on the construction that this is not content for display.

[00:19:13] Speaker 00:
Because the only way you could arrive at invalidity in this scenario with these prior art references, Van Hoff and Rodkin, is to say that the links meet the satisfied claim limitations.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
And the claim limitation didn't require content for display.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
Therefore, Van Hoff and Rodkin met it.

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
That's the only way you can conclude that.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
So this is a very important error that was made here.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
And it carried over into even dependent claims 5, 15, 39, and 43, which are expressly directed to content that is not a link.

[00:20:06] Speaker 00:
And for example, reference content, a reference work.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
for example.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
And the PTAB just concludes that links to reference works and reference works, they're one and the same.

[00:20:23] Speaker 00:
They're one and the same.

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
And all of this goes back to the fundamental problem that they just ignore the clear import of the specification as a whole.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
as to what this technology is doing and how it's different from the prior art.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
And it is a significant difference.

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
If you just store links, you don't get your spell check.

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
You just don't.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
You need to be storing the content for display and syndicating it via the data objects

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
which in the real world would be your spellcheck dictionaries or whatever other data objects you're using, but you have the content right there from the database so that you can display it instantaneously.

[00:21:15] Speaker 00:
You just don't get there with Rodkin and Vanhoff.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
You never could.

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
And this is the fundamental injustice that we're here to rectify.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:21:26] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:26] Speaker 02:
We thank both sides, and the case is submitted.