[00:00:02] Speaker 04: The first case for argument this morning is 22-1654, Contour IP Holdings versus GoPro. [00:00:10] Speaker 04: Mr. Cavell? [00:00:12] Speaker 04: Cavell. [00:00:13] Speaker 01: Cavell, please. [00:00:28] Speaker 03: May it please the court. [00:00:29] Speaker 03: Contour invented and claimed an improved video camera, requiring a specific configuration of a camera processor. [00:00:36] Speaker 03: Neither the camera nor the claimed processor are an abstract idea. [00:00:41] Speaker 04: Instead... But did you really improve the camera and do you really need that to establish that the patent is eligible? [00:00:49] Speaker 03: The camera processor is the key to the improvement. [00:00:52] Speaker 03: The configuration of the camera processor is new, was non-conventional, [00:00:58] Speaker 03: and is what teaches how to achieve the result. [00:01:02] Speaker 01: You're not claiming the camera itself, are you? [00:01:04] Speaker 01: The POV? [00:01:06] Speaker 03: It's an improved camera. [00:01:07] Speaker 03: So we're claiming an improved camera. [00:01:09] Speaker 03: The improvements are generated by what the configuration of the camera processor was. [00:01:14] Speaker 01: How do you view the claims? [00:01:16] Speaker 01: Is there a method, a system? [00:01:19] Speaker 03: No, it's a device claim to a camera. [00:01:22] Speaker 04: So can you show us in the claim language what you're saying? [00:01:25] Speaker 04: You've improved the... [00:01:27] Speaker 04: configuration. [00:01:28] Speaker 04: Where is the claim line? [00:01:31] Speaker 03: It starts with a camera processor configured to. [00:01:34] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:01:35] Speaker 03: And it includes the other elements including the wireless connection protocol because that has to work with the camera processor. [00:01:42] Speaker 03: something that had never been done before, but configuring the camera processes to receive the video image data directly or indirectly from the image sensor and then generate from the video image data. [00:01:56] Speaker 04: So what did you invent? [00:01:57] Speaker 04: What is different here in the technology that wasn't in existence? [00:02:01] Speaker 03: Sure. [00:02:02] Speaker 03: Not in existence before was generating in parallel, from the same video image data, two image streams of different quality, and then taking only the low resolution stream and sending that one wirelessly to the handheld device. [00:02:17] Speaker 04: OK, I'm going to be patient with you. [00:02:21] Speaker 04: You didn't invent how to do stuff. [00:02:24] Speaker 04: It seems to me you invented or came up with the idea of how to use [00:02:29] Speaker 04: these existing things and put them together in a way to do something? [00:02:33] Speaker 04: No, you're saying you did more than that. [00:02:35] Speaker 04: Absolutely. [00:02:36] Speaker 04: So point me, what device did you invent? [00:02:39] Speaker 04: Or did you invent the process, the device? [00:02:42] Speaker 04: What? [00:02:43] Speaker 03: Just like in any software claim where the software has a specific routine or configuration to use a general purpose computer, [00:02:53] Speaker 03: And you say in all these cases that if you claim the specific way and not just the result and say do it on a computer, then that's new and that's novel and that's inventive and that passes the abstract idea test. [00:03:06] Speaker 03: In this case, there was a camera processor. [00:03:09] Speaker 03: The camera processor had never before done what is in those claim elements that I just read. [00:03:15] Speaker 03: Generate in parallel from the image data sensor two streams where one stream is lower resolution than the other, and then take only the low resolution stream and send that off to the handheld device. [00:03:28] Speaker 03: That was never done. [00:03:29] Speaker 03: There was never a processor configured to do that. [00:03:32] Speaker 03: And so that is what the inventors came up with and claimed. [00:03:37] Speaker 01: That's a process you just described, correct? [00:03:41] Speaker 03: It uses a process, but it is how you configure the processor to achieve the result. [00:03:49] Speaker 01: I understand that. [00:03:51] Speaker 01: And it seems that your argument is that the claim to advance here is found in the claim that deals with the generation claim. [00:04:00] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:04:00] Speaker 01: And from that, you get two different data flows or streams. [00:04:05] Speaker 01: You get the high resolution and the low resolution. [00:04:07] Speaker 01: Only the low. [00:04:08] Speaker 01: Well, that's a method, isn't it, for a system? [00:04:11] Speaker 01: I mean, you can patent a method. [00:04:14] Speaker 01: There's method claims. [00:04:16] Speaker 03: The claim 11 is the representative claim we agreed to that. [00:04:19] Speaker 03: That is the device claim where the camera processor is configured to do those steps that we just talked about. [00:04:24] Speaker 03: There are also method claims in the patents. [00:04:27] Speaker 04: Where do you tell us how you're configuring? [00:04:30] Speaker 04: Simply, right there in claim 11, where it says... I mean, you're claiming a result, we've configured it to do X, Y, and Z. Do you explain? [00:04:39] Speaker 04: You're claiming that's a technological advance. [00:04:42] Speaker 04: So are you telling us, where does it say how you achieve that? [00:04:47] Speaker 03: The camera processor configured to receive the video image data directly or indirectly from the image. [00:04:54] Speaker 03: That the processor could do before. [00:04:56] Speaker 03: generate from the video image data a first image video data stream and a second image data stream of different resolutions. [00:05:05] Speaker 04: Couldn't it have done that before? [00:05:06] Speaker 03: No. [00:05:07] Speaker 03: There is no evidence in this record. [00:05:09] Speaker 03: While the camera processor could create a high resolution and a low resolution, there was no evidence in the record. [00:05:16] Speaker 03: And there's nothing that's ever been said that they generated it in parallel from the same image data, which was important to this. [00:05:22] Speaker 03: Because if you remember what the invention is trying to solve, [00:05:26] Speaker 03: It says, I've got an action camera, a POV camera, and I'm going to mount it on my helmet. [00:05:31] Speaker 03: And now I can't see it. [00:05:32] Speaker 03: I don't have a viewfinder. [00:05:33] Speaker 03: It's not on a tripod. [00:05:35] Speaker 03: So I need to see, what am I trying to record? [00:05:37] Speaker 03: Am I getting the right shot? [00:05:39] Speaker 04: So where do you tell us how you're, if you're claiming this is inventive, how you're claiming what generating in parallel was inventive? [00:05:48] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:05:48] Speaker 04: And where do you describe to us the technological advance or how that's done? [00:05:54] Speaker 04: Is that in specification? [00:05:55] Speaker 03: It's in the specification, which talks about the many ways you can do this. [00:06:00] Speaker 03: This is not a preemption case where we claim the result. [00:06:03] Speaker 04: I know. [00:06:03] Speaker 04: But a lot of our 101 cases come down to claiming the function of the result. [00:06:08] Speaker 04: And that's a problem. [00:06:09] Speaker 04: So you're claiming, generating it in parallel. [00:06:12] Speaker 04: That seems to be kind of a result thing. [00:06:16] Speaker 04: And I'm asking for how you do that. [00:06:19] Speaker 04: If you're claiming that's inventive, where the patent tells us how you do that? [00:06:24] Speaker 03: The patent tells you in the claim language to generate in parallel, which is part of the claim construction and in part where the court went off a little bit in its articulation of the idea, [00:06:35] Speaker 03: because it left out its own claim construction. [00:06:37] Speaker 03: As cases say, you must include the claim construction if we're post-markman hearing in determining what the claim is directed to. [00:06:44] Speaker 03: But generate from the video image data wherein the second image data stream is higher. [00:06:52] Speaker 03: Both streams have to come from the video image data. [00:06:56] Speaker 03: And what you saw, this problem was attempted to be solved by others, including GoPro, who failed, and then looked at the contour device, copied it, and that's why they were found to infringe. [00:07:06] Speaker 03: And Boland, the art that they cited at the PTAB, those are the only three that were trying to use a camera processor to solve this problem. [00:07:15] Speaker 03: Boland didn't generate from the video image data, and that's where the in parallel comes from. [00:07:21] Speaker 03: Boland generated serially. [00:07:22] Speaker 04: And where is the in parallel language in the claim? [00:07:24] Speaker 03: It's from the PTAB and from the court's claim construction. [00:07:29] Speaker 03: The district court construed the claim generate to mean in parallel from the same image video data. [00:07:40] Speaker 04: Again, is there anything you can point to me in the spec as to how that is done? [00:07:44] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:07:46] Speaker 04: Because in parallel, it doesn't even appear in the claims. [00:07:50] Speaker 04: You're right. [00:07:50] Speaker 04: OK, if it's part of the claim construction. [00:07:53] Speaker 04: But that's just the result you're generating in parallel. [00:07:57] Speaker 03: No, because if you did what Boland did, see, what Boland did was say, how do I get a preview of what's being recorded? [00:08:03] Speaker 03: And Boland took the processor and said, OK, I'm going to configure the processor to record in high resolution and then go back and take a piece in time earlier [00:08:14] Speaker 03: take that snippet, download it to a lower resolution, and then stream that. [00:08:19] Speaker 03: So essentially what you're looking at, as what Bowen called a preview, is a flashback from what you recorded a minute ago, 30 seconds ago, which doesn't work if you're trying to ski and have your camera right. [00:08:31] Speaker 03: So what the inventors here did is say, [00:08:34] Speaker 03: we're going to configure the processor in a different way. [00:08:36] Speaker 03: We're going to take the image data and at the same time in parallel from that same image data we're going to send one high resolution stream to the memory and one low resolution stream wirelessly off so you can see it on your device. [00:08:52] Speaker 04: And are you claiming that's a technological advance or that's just a great idea that you had about how to do something new and different? [00:08:59] Speaker 03: Boland and [00:09:00] Speaker 03: Contour both had the great idea. [00:09:03] Speaker 03: Let's have a wireless preview. [00:09:05] Speaker 03: Both did it very differently with the same camera processor. [00:09:10] Speaker 03: GoPro tried it on the same camera processor and wrote TBD. [00:09:13] Speaker 03: We're not sure if this will work and wasn't able to make it work. [00:09:16] Speaker 03: So it's not just the idea. [00:09:19] Speaker 03: We came up with a specific way to configure the processor. [00:09:22] Speaker 04: And you keep saying it's generate in parallel, but I'm trying to understand what generate in parallel means. [00:09:29] Speaker 04: If you came up with that this is some new technological advance generating in parallel, I want to see what that means. [00:09:40] Speaker 03: from the same image data, rather than many other ways you could do it. [00:09:45] Speaker 03: You could have the data come out of the common processor at a high resolution, and then send that to the record, and send that to the handheld. [00:09:54] Speaker 01: And that would just be one stream. [00:10:01] Speaker 01: The definitive term here is not generate. [00:10:04] Speaker 01: Generate was construed, and it was construed to mean to record in parallel, not to generate in parallel, to record in parallel. [00:10:12] Speaker 01: And what existed before this invention is you could put the camera on top of your helmet and go ski, but you couldn't see what it was recording. [00:10:26] Speaker 01: And what this did, it recorded two streams, one high resolution and one low resolution. [00:10:33] Speaker 01: And the low resolution, you cannot send to your device because of bandwidth and all this other stuff. [00:10:38] Speaker 01: But the low resolution, you can. [00:10:40] Speaker 01: So am I correct that you're claimed advanced? [00:10:45] Speaker 01: is this recording in parallel two video screens and sending the lower formatted video screen. [00:10:54] Speaker 01: That's what goes to the handheld device. [00:10:56] Speaker 01: And that allows you to. [00:10:58] Speaker 01: So now skiers could ski and see themselves while they're skiing, as dangerous as that may be. [00:11:04] Speaker 03: Yeah. [00:11:05] Speaker 03: And the problem with GoPro tried to solve this as well. [00:11:08] Speaker 03: And they tried a different way. [00:11:10] Speaker 03: Let's try and send a picture, one image at a time. [00:11:13] Speaker 03: And they couldn't make it work. [00:11:14] Speaker 03: And they ended up, later you'll see in the record, it says they were very surprised. [00:11:18] Speaker 03: And they said, oh, we should have thought of dual streaming, right? [00:11:22] Speaker 03: Boland came up with his own way. [00:11:24] Speaker 03: But the problem, what we were just talking about, is it doesn't create a real-time preview. [00:11:28] Speaker 03: It creates a preview from 15 seconds ago. [00:11:30] Speaker 03: So if you think, OK, let me see where I am. [00:11:34] Speaker 03: When I got off the chairlift, my camera was right. [00:11:37] Speaker 03: But it jostled when I started to ski. [00:11:39] Speaker 03: Now you don't know it, because you're looking at a flashback. [00:11:41] Speaker 02: I was looking at the patent, and this was sort of triggered by some of the questioning from my colleagues. [00:11:53] Speaker 02: It almost sounds like, and I'm particularly thinking about your colloquy with Judge Raina a moment ago, it almost sounds like this is a method claim. [00:12:02] Speaker 02: And you do have a method claim, claim 22, correct? [00:12:06] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:12:09] Speaker 02: Maybe I should know this from the record, but I don't. [00:12:12] Speaker 02: What is the status of all of the other claims? [00:12:14] Speaker 02: Do they rise or fall on this? [00:12:17] Speaker 03: Yes, because this claim was determined to be representative of the claims. [00:12:21] Speaker 03: But this is the claim that's at issue in this case. [00:12:24] Speaker 03: We argued only one. [00:12:26] Speaker 03: But separately, the method claims could be argued later. [00:12:29] Speaker 03: But this is the device claim. [00:12:30] Speaker 02: So in other words, if this claim were to fail, you're saying you would still have [00:12:37] Speaker 02: viable claim 22, for example? [00:12:41] Speaker 03: I believe that's correct, but I'd have to be sure in the record. [00:12:44] Speaker 03: But we agreed that claim 11 was representative. [00:12:48] Speaker 02: Oh, yeah. [00:12:48] Speaker 02: No, I understand that. [00:12:49] Speaker 02: Because it almost seems like what we've been talking about, the colloquy here, it almost seems like this is a method rather than a device. [00:12:58] Speaker 03: It is, yeah. [00:12:59] Speaker 03: And like in any case where you use some improved computer software to do something, the software may be the key, but it's an improved device. [00:13:11] Speaker 03: The method in itself doesn't achieve anything, because the issue was, how do we make this camera more usable? [00:13:18] Speaker 02: Is Claim 22 in the original filing in the district court? [00:13:25] Speaker 03: I'd have to check. [00:13:27] Speaker 03: I mean, this case went on. [00:13:29] Speaker 03: It's one of the interesting things of this case. [00:13:31] Speaker 03: This case went on for six years. [00:13:33] Speaker 03: Oh, that's right. [00:13:33] Speaker 03: You were up with the board. [00:13:35] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:13:36] Speaker 03: Because twice it was stated at the board. [00:13:37] Speaker 03: We were here on the board, found that GoPro's catalog was not prior art. [00:13:41] Speaker 03: This court said it was prior art, went back to the board. [00:13:43] Speaker 03: The board said, it doesn't matter. [00:13:45] Speaker 03: None of that teaches the claimed camera processor configuration. [00:13:50] Speaker 03: That's here. [00:13:51] Speaker 03: OK. [00:13:51] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:13:52] Speaker 01: Yes, I'm concerned by your response to my initial questions as to what type of claim this is. [00:14:04] Speaker 01: And you said that you weren't claiming the camera. [00:14:09] Speaker 01: And I have a problem with that. [00:14:10] Speaker 01: Because I don't see that you've improved anything with the camera. [00:14:14] Speaker 01: In fact, your camera is a POV device, right? [00:14:20] Speaker 01: Right. [00:14:21] Speaker 01: The field was filled with plenty of POV devices. [00:14:26] Speaker 01: There's all sorts of point of view cameras that were out there. [00:14:31] Speaker 01: I'm going to ask again, are you saying that your invention resulted in an improved camera? [00:14:40] Speaker 03: It did, Your Honor, in doing this method, right? [00:14:44] Speaker 01: But the method is different from the camera. [00:14:47] Speaker 03: I agree. [00:14:47] Speaker 03: And there are method claims and device claims, right? [00:14:50] Speaker 03: And so the camera includes the camera processor. [00:14:55] Speaker 03: Off the shelf, which is what Gotrichides argued, the camera processor couldn't do this and didn't do this. [00:14:59] Speaker 01: But sure, there were other cameras. [00:15:00] Speaker 01: There's other cameras that existed at that point, and it was well known to have a processor within a camera. [00:15:06] Speaker 01: It seems to me that what advanced the technology of POVs in this instance [00:15:16] Speaker 01: is the configuration of the processor. [00:15:18] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:15:19] Speaker 01: And the configuration which resulted in the generation point. [00:15:23] Speaker 03: I totally agree, but as in many patent claims, we didn't claim just a processor, a processor configured to do this, because outside of the camera, the processor might have no use. [00:15:37] Speaker 03: So the claim summed to a camera. [00:15:40] Speaker 01: You're claiming a configured processor. [00:15:42] Speaker 03: Right. [00:15:42] Speaker 03: But I'm not trying to lead you to think we're claiming the lens is invented. [00:15:47] Speaker 03: We're not saying the lens is invented. [00:15:49] Speaker 01: That's what you're telling me. [00:15:50] Speaker 01: When you tell me that you're claiming the camera, [00:15:52] Speaker 01: Right. [00:15:53] Speaker 01: Okay? [00:15:54] Speaker 01: And I didn't see this patent being a patent on an improved camera. [00:16:01] Speaker 01: I saw this being an improvement in how a camera functions in this area of sports and, you know, motion. [00:16:11] Speaker 03: It's fair to say. [00:16:12] Speaker 03: It's just in claiming, right? [00:16:14] Speaker 03: Oftentimes the claim drafter will claim the device with this improved component. [00:16:19] Speaker 03: And that's claim 11. [00:16:21] Speaker 03: And we'll also claim the method of using the improved component. [00:16:25] Speaker 03: And that's claim 22, like you were saying. [00:16:27] Speaker 03: So I can't say it's not a claim to a camera. [00:16:31] Speaker 03: It is. [00:16:31] Speaker 03: That's how it was drafted. [00:16:33] Speaker 03: The invention lies in Contour's improvement to the camera processor in laying out a specific concrete way that you configure it that was never done before. [00:16:44] Speaker 03: And that resulted in what the invention does. [00:16:47] Speaker 04: I do think, just to follow up on Judge Schall's point, part of Judge Arena's problem, I think you may have a problem. [00:16:53] Speaker 04: I don't know if it's undoable. [00:16:54] Speaker 04: But if there's a difference between claim 11 and claim 22, I thought when you agreed that 11 is representative, I think this case and all the claims rise or fall on claim 11. [00:17:08] Speaker 03: I think it may be. [00:17:09] Speaker 03: I think that may be true. [00:17:10] Speaker 03: I just don't want to overstate the record. [00:17:13] Speaker 03: But whether you call claim 11 [00:17:17] Speaker 03: a claim to a camera with a processor program to do an improved method, that's fair. [00:17:25] Speaker 03: That's what claim 11 is. [00:17:27] Speaker 03: And then the other claims may be simply just the method done on the processor that results in the invention. [00:17:35] Speaker 04: All right. [00:17:35] Speaker 04: Well, we're way beyond our time. [00:17:37] Speaker 04: I'll reserve some of these elements here from the other side. [00:17:40] Speaker 04: Thank you very much. [00:17:52] Speaker 00: May I please the court? [00:17:54] Speaker 00: Sean Pak on behalf of GoPro. [00:17:58] Speaker 00: Your Honors, I want to begin with some of the questions that were asked in response to the issue of whether there's any disclosure about this idea of parallel generation of video streams in the patent specification. [00:18:11] Speaker 00: And the answer is no. [00:18:13] Speaker 00: You will not find any written description of how a processor can be configured to generate video streams in parallel. [00:18:22] Speaker 00: Because that's not what these inventors invented. [00:18:25] Speaker 00: What these inventors invented as articulated as an advancement over the prior art throughout the briefing, throughout the oral arguments on summary judgment, is the idea of using the outputs of an image processor to send certain information wirelessly and to receive control signals wirelessly. [00:18:49] Speaker 00: That is what Contour repeatedly argued to Judge Oreck. [00:18:54] Speaker 00: And as Your Honor pointed out, that is a method that is a result of using a camera that had all of the existing conventional components inside of it. [00:19:06] Speaker 00: The problem, if you read the patent, is you have a camera, you're using it, and you have a different device that you want to use in order to preview [00:19:17] Speaker 00: what you're shooting and to be able to control it. [00:19:19] Speaker 00: The idea and functionality of viewing and controlling. [00:19:24] Speaker 01: You acknowledge that the problem that the patent is trying to address is that you have a camera that is intended to be used in action or things of that nature. [00:19:41] Speaker 01: And that that camera, you cannot see what that camera is looking at. [00:19:46] Speaker 01: Whereas if you're holding the camera in front of your face, you can see what you're looking at. [00:19:50] Speaker 01: So put it on top of your head, you can't see anymore. [00:19:54] Speaker 01: And yet, it's pretty nifty to be able to see what you're recording as you're moving along. [00:20:03] Speaker 00: I agree, Your Honor. [00:20:04] Speaker 00: That's what they told Judge Oreck. [00:20:06] Speaker 00: So if you look at, in the blue brief, page 26, [00:20:17] Speaker 00: If your honors recall, there was a motion to dismiss under Alice. [00:20:22] Speaker 00: Judge Oreck denied that motion and said that we'll need a fuller record. [00:20:27] Speaker 00: And in that order on page 26 of the blue, you can see the excerpt. [00:20:33] Speaker 00: Contrary pleads, it came up with an innovative solution. [00:20:37] Speaker 00: The camera would stream a low quality video [00:20:46] Speaker 00: to our smartphone so that the user could watch what was being recorded removed from the camera. [00:20:53] Speaker 00: It would store a high quality video that would be the one ultimately used and it would receive specified control signals and the smartphone so that the user could control the image removed from the camera. [00:21:06] Speaker 00: This is also reflected in the patents. [00:21:10] Speaker 00: Contour states that, notably, the same innovative solution is still reflected in the patents for summary judgment purposes. [00:21:17] Speaker 00: So as articulated below, it had never been the argument that video generation done in parallel by an image processor was the claimed advancement, and nor could Contour have argued it. [00:21:32] Speaker 01: But the image in the claim. [00:21:33] Speaker 01: The image in the claim. [00:21:34] Speaker 00: It is, as construed by Judge Orrick as part of the claim construction, you have the recorded and parallel language that comes from the construction. [00:21:42] Speaker 00: But in the patent description of the alleged invention, and what Cantor argued for the purpose of this motion was not about parallel generation, for one simple fact. [00:21:54] Speaker 01: Let's look at claim 11. [00:21:57] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:22:00] Speaker 01: And down towards the middle, it says, [00:22:07] Speaker 01: data stream where your second image data stream is of higher quality than the first image data stream. [00:22:15] Speaker 01: That's what's being described also here in this paragraph that you read. [00:22:20] Speaker 01: And as I understand the argument here, that's the claimed advance. [00:22:26] Speaker 01: And your problem, I think, is that the claimed advance is actually stated in the claim. [00:22:34] Speaker 01: And most of the time in these 101 cases, we don't have that advantage. [00:22:38] Speaker 01: We're looking around in the specification. [00:22:40] Speaker 01: We're looking everywhere. [00:22:43] Speaker 01: The claims tell us what the claim advances, and it explains the method to us, and all that's in the claim. [00:22:50] Speaker 01: Don't you think that that is something other than an abstract idea? [00:22:54] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor, because what we see in the underlying record is the following. [00:22:59] Speaker 00: On this issue, a parallel only means that you have the ability to output two video streams from the original source data. [00:23:09] Speaker 00: If that's all that means, then we have contour in the record. [00:23:14] Speaker 00: This is appendix 21060, and I'll read this for the record. [00:23:20] Speaker 00: The evidence here not only does not corroborate GoPro's defense, but it proves that image processing for generating two video streams in parallel function of the umbrella chip, which was the prior art that was being discussed, [00:23:34] Speaker 00: was not created by umbrella, by arm. [00:23:37] Speaker 00: And it goes on to say that Contour's inventor was aware of other vendors, including Apple, that provided this dual video streaming functionality. [00:23:46] Speaker 00: So all of the conventional chips. [00:23:49] Speaker 01: Are you making it obvious from the start? [00:23:52] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor. [00:23:52] Speaker 00: What we're saying is that in step one, we're supposed to be looking at what is the advancement of the claimed invention over the prior art. [00:24:02] Speaker 00: What Contour has argued, and what the record shows, is this idea of sending or generating video seams in parallel from the same source data was the prior. [00:24:14] Speaker 00: That was the conventional way things worked with respect to umbrella, arm, and so on. [00:24:19] Speaker 00: So going back to what Judge Oreck found, and that they're not disputing this, is that if you read the patent, the claimed events was not about parallel generation. [00:24:32] Speaker 00: But it was about wirelessly sending one of those outputs, which is a low video stream, to a device. [00:24:40] Speaker 00: That solves the problem that Your Honor was talking about, which is I'm shooting something, and let's say it's mounted on my helmet. [00:24:48] Speaker 00: I have my phone that is not tethered by wire to the helmet. [00:24:52] Speaker 00: How do I get that preview of what I'm shooting? [00:24:56] Speaker 00: I send it wirelessly. [00:24:58] Speaker 00: But as you look at the claims, [00:25:00] Speaker 00: generation and sending are two separate limitations of the claims. [00:25:04] Speaker 01: The problem, as I saw it, as I read through here, the problem that's described in the patent specification is not that you couldn't send data for a video from the camera to the phone. [00:25:26] Speaker 01: But you couldn't do it while you're skiing, or you couldn't do it while you're doing these other sports. [00:25:32] Speaker 01: And the reason is because, and you tell me if I'm headed right on this, but the reason is that the device, the streaming would not support a high resolution video stream. [00:25:50] Speaker 01: And that's what the conventional, [00:25:55] Speaker 01: cameras did at that point in time. [00:25:58] Speaker 01: And what the edition does is said, let's not send a high resolution video stream. [00:26:04] Speaker 01: Let's send a low resolution. [00:26:06] Speaker 01: Let's have two video streams, high and low. [00:26:09] Speaker 01: And it's the low, because it's a lower resolution. [00:26:13] Speaker 01: It's able to be captured by the device. [00:26:16] Speaker 01: Is that correct? [00:26:18] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor, because we can see in this is in the figures 1E of the 954 patent. [00:26:26] Speaker 00: Your honor alluded to this that there were lots of conventional. [00:26:30] Speaker 02: What figure is that, Mr. Parker? [00:26:31] Speaker 00: Figure 1E, your honor. [00:26:33] Speaker 00: 1E. [00:26:34] Speaker 00: This is Appendix 27. [00:26:37] Speaker 00: This is a 954 Appendix 27. [00:26:46] Speaker 00: And so these are emitted pieces of prior art POV cameras that already existed at the time the inventors filed the patent. [00:26:55] Speaker 00: And you can see, for example, in 1C and 1D, both labeled prior art, that the camera, which is the oblong shaped device, is shooting the point of view video. [00:27:09] Speaker 00: But there's a preview screen that's on a separate camcorder. [00:27:15] Speaker 00: And they're tethered. [00:27:16] Speaker 00: So now you have the ability to view what you're shooting on a different device, the camcorder. [00:27:22] Speaker 00: But it goes on in figure 1E. [00:27:25] Speaker 00: to show a different embodiment of an existing prior art system that is described as a goggle with a mounted camera. [00:27:33] Speaker 00: So this would be one that you would be using, Your Honor, when you're skiing. [00:27:36] Speaker 00: And it says that this camera, which is the circle in the middle, sends the video stream through infrared signal, which is a wireless signal at low quality bandwidth. [00:27:50] Speaker 00: So all of this was admitted prior art. [00:27:52] Speaker 00: And we see that as well in contrary cases. [00:27:55] Speaker 04: Well, the problem I'm having with your argument, and I know other judges have observed this in other 101 cases, but I haven't, is that it feels, and Judge Raina said this, this feels like an obviousness case. [00:28:07] Speaker 04: You're saying there are several pieces of prior art [00:28:10] Speaker 04: They didn't invent the prior art that was existing prior art. [00:28:13] Speaker 04: But as Judge Raina said a few minutes ago, this was kind of a nifty idea. [00:28:17] Speaker 04: And I think Judge Oreck agreed this was kind of a nifty idea. [00:28:22] Speaker 04: So why isn't that the quiz intentional? [00:28:25] Speaker 04: Sorry. [00:28:25] Speaker 04: Why isn't that just an obviousness thing? [00:28:28] Speaker 04: Their existing pieces of prior art, they didn't invent them, but was there a motivation to put them together to come up with this nifty idea? [00:28:37] Speaker 04: And if there wasn't, and if it was really a new, different idea of combining pieces of prior art, why isn't that part of an obviousness analogy? [00:28:44] Speaker 00: This is the reason why we went to Charge Point, Your Honor, as part of the analogy-based approach. [00:28:48] Speaker 00: Because in Charge Point, you had the same issue. [00:28:52] Speaker 00: And the same set of arguments, which was you had electric charging vehicles, wouldn't it be a great idea or nifty idea to network them together? [00:29:01] Speaker 00: And the pan owner said, that was not done before. [00:29:04] Speaker 00: And that's not an abstract idea. [00:29:09] Speaker 00: And this court found in ChargePoint that the idea of using a network, whether it's wireless or wired, to have the ability [00:29:21] Speaker 00: to remotely view and control charging stations in itself was an abstract idea, because the claims did not reflect any technological improvement in the networking technology, any type of improvement in the computing devices or the charging stations. [00:29:38] Speaker 00: They provided a generic environment. [00:29:40] Speaker 04: But the abstract idea in charging point, as I recall, was construed as it's just communication over the internet, over the network. [00:29:50] Speaker 04: How do you simplify the abstract idea here to be comparable? [00:29:56] Speaker 00: Because that's what Contour has said, and that's what the claimed investment is if you read the patent. [00:30:03] Speaker 00: What Contour has said repeatedly in the lower court proceedings and what the patent says is you can use generic video processors, generic camera components, but I have this problem, which is what I'm shooting and where I want to look [00:30:18] Speaker 00: for preview purposes, are in two separate locations. [00:30:21] Speaker 00: So the idea of the claimed advancement in this case is just like ChargePoint, where you send video stream information and control information wirelessly. [00:30:32] Speaker 00: But the claims, as Judge Warrick noted, recite no particular way of solving that problem from a networking perspective. [00:30:38] Speaker 00: It does not specify any particular networking protocol. [00:30:42] Speaker 01: or interface problems. [00:30:43] Speaker 01: Here the claim does something different. [00:30:46] Speaker 01: It does divide the video stream into two. [00:30:51] Speaker 01: And it seems to me that this falls right in the ambience of CardioNet. [00:30:59] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor, because the function of dividing the two streams, as I pointed out, and this is in Appendix 21060, [00:31:09] Speaker 00: Image processing for generating two video streams in parallel, one at a low resolution and one for a higher resolution, was all conventional. [00:31:17] Speaker 00: That's what the prior art already provided. [00:31:21] Speaker 00: And furthermore, at appendix 20.0497, the umbrella chip, which everybody agrees was a conventional chip. [00:31:28] Speaker 01: You're slipping back into a 103 analysis. [00:31:31] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor, because what I'm saying is the advancement is not about the generation. [00:31:38] Speaker 00: are the parallel streams, whether it's in low resolution or high resolution. [00:31:43] Speaker 00: The advancement that Contour repeatedly argued in summary judgment was it's the idea of sending video information and control information remotely through any type of wireless network. [00:31:58] Speaker 00: And so for step one, when we look at ChargePoint, when we look at Hawk Technology case, when we look at the U case, [00:32:08] Speaker 00: It's an abstract idea because you're using conventional tools, like a chip that could do parallel processing of video and provide low resolution as well as high resolution output, and sending it wirelessly without specifying any particular improvement to the wireless. [00:32:25] Speaker 01: What about the use of a configured processor? [00:32:28] Speaker 01: I mean, the processor can be conventional. [00:32:32] Speaker 00: Absolutely, but what I think your honor's got to in the earlier questioning is this is not about a particular type of processor configuration that is unique or improved or an advancement of the prior. [00:32:45] Speaker 00: This is about using a method of using conventional tools like the umbrella chip that could produce parallel outputs, one in high resolution, one in low resolution. [00:32:57] Speaker 00: And the umbrella document specifically says the low resolution output, your honor, can be used for [00:33:02] Speaker 00: preview purposes. [00:33:04] Speaker 00: So all of that was conventional. [00:33:06] Speaker 00: What is the advancement that's being claimed here is I'm going to send the video stream wirelessly to a viewing device, which could be a tablet or phone, any kind of general purpose device. [00:33:21] Speaker 00: And I can also receive controls wirelessly. [00:33:25] Speaker 00: That is the abstract idea that's being claimed, because there is no other advancement. [00:33:30] Speaker 00: And just as Judge Shaw, Your Honor, referred to this. [00:33:35] Speaker 02: What is the status of Claim 22? [00:33:37] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:33:38] Speaker 00: That seems a pure method claim. [00:33:40] Speaker 00: That's right, Your Honor. [00:33:41] Speaker 00: What we believe is there were a number of claims that were being asserted. [00:33:44] Speaker 00: At some point, claims were dropped by contrary. [00:33:48] Speaker 00: Our understanding is that for purposes of this appeal, claim is representative of all possible claims that could have been raised in this dispute, which would include the method claims as well. [00:33:58] Speaker 02: So everything rises and falls together. [00:34:01] Speaker 02: So claim 22 stands or falls depending on how this case goes. [00:34:05] Speaker 02: That's right, Your Honor. [00:34:07] Speaker 02: Does this claim 11? [00:34:08] Speaker 02: That's the one that we've been discussing. [00:34:12] Speaker 02: It just seems to me almost to be a method claim. [00:34:15] Speaker 02: I realize that it's a claim to a device, the camera, with these various components. [00:34:20] Speaker 02: But the way it's been discussed, it seems like we're talking about a method. [00:34:25] Speaker 00: That's right, Your Honor. [00:34:25] Speaker 00: And just to analogize to some of the cases that we've been discussing, sometimes the circuit has used the word functional language. [00:34:32] Speaker 00: That if you're describing a result and you're not describing an actual improvement in the underlying hardware or components or even software, [00:34:44] Speaker 00: But what you're saying is, I'm going to use existing conventional components in a generic environment to carry out an abstract idea. [00:34:52] Speaker 00: Here, the abstract idea is wirelessly sending some pieces of information to another site. [00:34:57] Speaker 00: If that's the abstract idea, if you perform that method, I use the umbrella chip. [00:35:02] Speaker 00: I use any network component that exists. [00:35:04] Speaker 00: I get the result that I want, which is I have the ability. [00:35:09] Speaker 01: There's too much attention placed on conventionality at step one, whereas that really belongs to step two. [00:35:19] Speaker 01: Step one is we're looking and analyzing the claims. [00:35:23] Speaker 00: That's right, Your Honor. [00:35:24] Speaker 01: And not everything's surrounded them. [00:35:26] Speaker 00: That's right, Your Honor. [00:35:27] Speaker 01: Now, when I asked your friend on the other side what type of claims these were, he said it was for an apparatus. [00:35:36] Speaker 01: And then he also said that they were claiming a camera. [00:35:40] Speaker 01: And I have problems with that, because I view this as a method. [00:35:45] Speaker 01: Now, look at claim 11. [00:35:46] Speaker 01: It doesn't say it's a method. [00:35:49] Speaker 01: Does it matter? [00:35:49] Speaker 01: Does it matter if they claim this is a method? [00:35:56] Speaker 00: I'm thinking of one of the footnotes in, I think, an opinion your honor wrote where [00:36:02] Speaker 00: You said it's not dispositive whether a claim is written as an apparatus claim or not. [00:36:07] Speaker 00: Exactly. [00:36:07] Speaker 01: You can invent. [00:36:08] Speaker 01: And almost all inventions are using conventional well-known or known techniques. [00:36:15] Speaker 01: Because that's what exists. [00:36:16] Speaker 01: It's just using them in a different manner. [00:36:20] Speaker 00: That's right. [00:36:21] Speaker 00: But the issue, I think, for step one to, and I apologize, Your Honor, because I did talk about conventionality, which I think is more of an issue for step two. [00:36:30] Speaker 00: But for step one, starting with the claim language itself, which what ChargePoint and the other cases tell us, what does step one say about the advancement over the prior part? [00:36:46] Speaker 00: That's really the issue. [00:36:48] Speaker 00: Is it an abstract idea, or is it claiming something? [00:36:51] Speaker 01: The first question under step one is whether the claims are directed to [00:37:00] Speaker 01: Patent ineligible subject matter such as an abstract idea, right? [00:37:06] Speaker 01: And it's the idea so so I think that that's that's the The claims [00:37:23] Speaker 01: is a complete package there. [00:37:25] Speaker 01: Don't we move to step two? [00:37:27] Speaker 01: And then you can argue conventionality, whether they arranged things in such a fashion that they made the entire stream of the well-known art made it nonconventional. [00:37:42] Speaker 00: I agree, Your Honor. [00:37:43] Speaker 00: I think that's what the case law is telling us. [00:37:45] Speaker 00: And the point I'm making is everything that we've heard about this parallel generation is not what Contour argued [00:37:53] Speaker 00: in district court was the abstract or the idea behind the claim language that makes it different than the prior. [00:38:01] Speaker 01: In your view, a simple question, did Contour invent the method to use two data streams and to send the lower resolution data stream to the device? [00:38:18] Speaker 00: No, absolutely not. [00:38:22] Speaker 00: As we saw in the figure 1E. [00:38:25] Speaker 01: They didn't invent it because it existed already? [00:38:28] Speaker 00: It existed already, number one. [00:38:30] Speaker 00: Number two, what they have said throughout, because as your honors noted in the briefing, we had a separate pending summary judgment motion on inequitable conduct and property inventorship that said Ambrella was the company that contributed all the processing technology, including parallel generation and low video streaming. [00:38:50] Speaker 00: What they have said. [00:38:52] Speaker 00: that they invented is wirelessly sending information. [00:38:57] Speaker 01: There are two types of information being claimed, video data and- What if I look at the claims and I disagree with their characterization? [00:39:05] Speaker 00: I think there are two issues, Your Honor. [00:39:08] Speaker 00: One is, I think Your Honors noted this in the Adobe case, the Tepsec case, [00:39:15] Speaker 00: It's important to preserve the record in terms of the appeal. [00:39:19] Speaker 00: And we cannot have parties change the description of what the claimed events is. [00:39:25] Speaker 00: Here, when Judge Oreck looked at the issue of Alice, he did not look at anything related to parallel generation, because Contour made the decision that they wanted to focus on the wireless piece, the remote viewing. [00:39:38] Speaker 00: And that's consistent with the patent specification, because the reasonable description of anything to do with parallel generation [00:39:45] Speaker 00: Or even in the claim language, Your Honor, it doesn't say send only the low resolution video. [00:39:53] Speaker 00: It's a comprising claim. [00:39:54] Speaker 00: And the method claims are similarly phrased as well. [00:39:57] Speaker 00: What they focus on was the wireless sending of information, which takes us back to Chargepoint, Affinity Labs, and all the other cases that we cited, including hot technology. [00:40:10] Speaker 04: Just let me ask you a housekeeping question at the end. [00:40:14] Speaker 04: There's some confidentiality markings. [00:40:16] Speaker 04: Do those still hold? [00:40:17] Speaker 04: You mentioned some of the stuff today. [00:40:19] Speaker 00: Yes, Your Honor. [00:40:20] Speaker 00: They do not hold with respect to anything Your Honors may cite. [00:40:23] Speaker 00: I think when we prepared the appendix, there were some third-party materials that we wanted to preserve in terms of [00:40:28] Speaker 00: confidentiality. [00:40:29] Speaker 00: But everything that we've argued, everything that we've discussed, we don't really require sealing with respect to the lawyer. [00:40:36] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:40:37] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:40:39] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:40:39] Speaker 04: So we've got one more over. [00:40:41] Speaker 04: No, we're done. [00:40:43] Speaker 04: We're going to restore, keep it even, five minutes if you need it. [00:40:53] Speaker 03: OK, if I can quickly address what GoPro's counsel said. [00:40:57] Speaker 03: He was asked directly, did Contor invent the method? [00:41:00] Speaker 03: And he said no. [00:41:01] Speaker 03: GoPro claimed in this case and continues to claim that their CEO, Nick Woodman, invented Claim 11, invented the method that is claimed here. [00:41:10] Speaker 03: So for him to say no is directly contrary to what they're doing. [00:41:12] Speaker 03: Claim 11 isn't a method, right? [00:41:13] Speaker 03: Right. [00:41:14] Speaker 03: But the heart of Claim 11, how it's processed. [00:41:17] Speaker 03: He claims to have invented that, number one. [00:41:20] Speaker 03: Number two, he raised a charge point. [00:41:23] Speaker 01: So you're saying that Claim 11 is a method claim? [00:41:26] Speaker 03: I'm saying, no, I'm not saying that, Your Honor. [00:41:28] Speaker 03: I'm saying claim 11 is drafted, as often claims are, where it is a device, where it has an improved configuration. [00:41:37] Speaker 03: And that results in the camera performing the method, or the camera processor performing the method. [00:41:42] Speaker 01: Let's use the technical term here. [00:41:44] Speaker 01: Is claim 11 an apparatus claim? [00:41:47] Speaker 03: Claim 11 is an apparatus claim. [00:41:49] Speaker 03: The novelty is in how the processor is configured. [00:41:53] Speaker 03: And that is what is not abstract. [00:41:56] Speaker 03: The camera processor configured to do this way is not abstract. [00:42:01] Speaker 03: And I know that you asked, do we look at conventionality at step one? [00:42:05] Speaker 03: But many of the cases do look at conventionality in step one, because they say you must look at what is the claimed advance over the prior art. [00:42:13] Speaker 01: You have forced me to look at claim 11 and to look [00:42:27] Speaker 01: And that's going to be hard. [00:42:29] Speaker 03: But if I invent a new mousetrap, right? [00:42:32] Speaker 03: And what promotes the mousetrap is a new spring that I invent. [00:42:37] Speaker 03: And that spring acts in a certain way because how I've configured it. [00:42:41] Speaker 01: You didn't invent the idea of a mousetrap. [00:42:45] Speaker 01: That's the idea. [00:42:45] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:42:45] Speaker 01: You didn't invent the screen either. [00:42:48] Speaker 03: And we don't claim to have invented the camera or the lens. [00:42:51] Speaker 03: Yes, you do. [00:42:52] Speaker 01: You told me that. [00:42:53] Speaker 03: Right. [00:42:55] Speaker 03: You can't break a claim into elements. [00:42:57] Speaker 03: That's not how we look at it and say, is each element old in the art, right? [00:43:02] Speaker 03: We're not supposed to do that. [00:43:03] Speaker 03: We looked at the claim as a whole. [00:43:05] Speaker 03: The claim as a whole is to a camera with an improved processor configured in this specific way. [00:43:11] Speaker 04: OK. [00:43:12] Speaker 04: Can you just tell me how you think we could possibly just differentiate this case from you and or charge? [00:43:19] Speaker 03: Absolutely. [00:43:20] Speaker 03: In charge point, it said network. [00:43:22] Speaker 03: these devices, it gave no explanation at all of how. [00:43:26] Speaker 03: It gave no description of how it was networked. [00:43:29] Speaker 03: And it didn't say, here's an improved configuration for the network. [00:43:33] Speaker 03: Here, we say, configure the camera processor in this particular way to do these particular things. [00:43:41] Speaker 04: And you're saying you invented the new way of doing it. [00:43:43] Speaker 03: Absolutely. [00:43:45] Speaker 04: And then you. [00:43:49] Speaker 03: Oh, and then you, very different [00:43:52] Speaker 03: case because in you, number one, there was no description of how. [00:43:57] Speaker 03: It said process the image, enhance the image in some way. [00:44:01] Speaker 03: I think that's the language that was used in the case. [00:44:04] Speaker 03: Enhance the image in some way. [00:44:06] Speaker 03: We're not saying create a wireless real-time preview using a camera processor in some way. [00:44:12] Speaker 03: We're saying [00:44:12] Speaker 03: configure the camera processor this specific way, distinct from any way it was ever done before, and that is the invention. [00:44:20] Speaker 03: So that's very different from you. [00:44:21] Speaker 03: Number two in you is that in you both parties admitted this had been done for over a century. [00:44:27] Speaker 03: Enhancing one image with another image had been done for over a century. [00:44:31] Speaker 03: So it was kind of the classic take what was done before and do it on a computer. [00:44:36] Speaker 03: This is a case where no one had ever done it before. [00:44:39] Speaker 03: And it wasn't just said, do it on a computer. [00:44:41] Speaker 03: It was said, do it with these specific steps and these specific configuration. [00:44:46] Speaker 03: So that's the distinction from you. [00:44:48] Speaker 03: It's a completely different case. [00:44:51] Speaker 03: Number one, they pointed to the prior art in the patent. [00:44:56] Speaker 03: And the prior art in the patent is just that. [00:44:59] Speaker 03: It's prior art that did not do it, did not have processors configured this way. [00:45:04] Speaker 03: None of these did parallel generation. [00:45:08] Speaker 03: I think you'll see in Appendix 2.3.515 that GoPro talks about how it was done in the prior art, and it's similar to all these. [00:45:17] Speaker 03: What would typically happen is you'd have a flip out screen, or you'd have a preview on the back of your GoPro. [00:45:23] Speaker 03: And when you press record, the preview screen would shut off. [00:45:26] Speaker 03: So it would redirect the stream. [00:45:28] Speaker 03: You didn't have two streams generated in parallel. [00:45:30] Speaker 03: You had one stream going to the preview, and then that would be shut off, and then you'd have the stream going to the record. [00:45:37] Speaker 03: The big misrepresentation that GoPro has made throughout this, and they made again today, is that this was a conventional processor. [00:45:45] Speaker 03: And that's not the case at all. [00:45:47] Speaker 03: And if you look throughout the red brief, whenever they say that, there are no sites to the evidence. [00:45:52] Speaker 04: Well, what's your site to the specification that you invented? [00:45:57] Speaker 04: You said this is not a conventional processor. [00:46:00] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:46:00] Speaker 03: We claimed it new, and that's why. [00:46:02] Speaker 04: And where is the description? [00:46:04] Speaker 04: Where's the written description for this new processor? [00:46:07] Speaker 03: It's at column 20, I believe. [00:46:09] Speaker 03: And the specification points out multiple ways, including this two streams with low resolution. [00:46:16] Speaker 03: It also points out multiple unclaimed ways, reduced frame rate, fast photo. [00:46:21] Speaker 03: Those are different ways you could have made the preview, could have configured the camera processor, but we didn't. [00:46:26] Speaker 03: We chose to claim one specific way. [00:46:29] Speaker 03: And I would point to Judge Gross. [00:46:30] Speaker 04: So is that 20? [00:46:31] Speaker 04: I didn't want to hear what you didn't claim. [00:46:32] Speaker 04: I wanted to hear what you claimed, and where the written description for that is in the specification. [00:46:38] Speaker 04: So can you point me to anything? [00:46:40] Speaker 03: I will. [00:46:41] Speaker 03: It's at appendix 71, in column 20, where we talk about it precedes that in column 19. [00:46:48] Speaker 03: But in the first full paragraph, starting at about line 7, it talks about alternative implementations of remote view. [00:46:55] Speaker 03: And then it talks about you can have reduced resolution. [00:46:59] Speaker 03: And then it goes on later to say, in which the lower quality file is streamed or played back after the recorded action has taken place. [00:47:07] Speaker 03: So now the playback is what Boland did. [00:47:11] Speaker 03: And this streamed, only the lower resolution, is what we decided to configure the processor to. [00:47:18] Speaker 03: And I would point you to the evidence at page 59 in our blue brief and 60. [00:47:27] Speaker 03: And 59, it wasn't explained because we tried to do the don't go to conventionality, which is what GoPro done. [00:47:33] Speaker 03: GoPro has essentially argued this as an obviousness case because they lost obviousness at the PTAB. [00:47:40] Speaker 03: So they tried to re-resurrect it. [00:47:41] Speaker 04: We are way out of time. [00:47:43] Speaker 04: So you just want to cite us to 59 and 60. [00:47:45] Speaker 03: 59 and 60, particularly appendix 21128 to 19. [00:47:50] Speaker 03: That's Barros, the founder of Contour, who says, no, the dual streaming was our idea. [00:47:55] Speaker 03: We gave it to Umbrella. [00:47:56] Speaker 03: And the one before it, 21103-204, that's O'Donnell. [00:48:01] Speaker 03: That says she gave the use case to them. [00:48:05] Speaker 03: And just one last thing. [00:48:06] Speaker 03: There's an O'Donnell email at. [00:48:10] Speaker 04: You cite that E3. [00:48:11] Speaker 03: Yes, yes, yes. [00:48:12] Speaker 03: There's an O'Donnell email at 20826, where she specifically says, I'm excited about a dual stream mode and GPS. [00:48:23] Speaker 03: Those were both contour ideas. [00:48:25] Speaker 03: And the point that they point out, the umbrella diagram, comes three months after that. [00:48:31] Speaker 03: And it says for contour only. [00:48:32] Speaker 04: You need to. [00:48:33] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:48:34] Speaker 04: Thank you very much. [00:48:35] Speaker 04: Thank both sides in the case you submitted.