[00:00:00] Speaker 03: Apple against MemoryWeb 23, 2361, et cetera. [00:00:15] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:00:16] Speaker 00: May it please the court, Brian Matsui, on behalf of Apple. [00:00:20] Speaker 00: I'd like to start with Apple's 020 patent appeal. [00:00:23] Speaker 00: The board should have addressed Apple's argument for certain dependent claims. [00:00:28] Speaker 00: It found that Apple had proven that the first person view requirement would have been obvious. [00:00:34] Speaker 00: This view is just a computer screen focused on one person, the first person. [00:00:41] Speaker 00: Apple's petition said that the second person view would have been obvious for all the same reasons as the first. [00:00:47] Speaker 00: It's the same screen with the very same elements. [00:00:50] Speaker 00: It's just directed to a different person, the second person. [00:00:54] Speaker 00: The board erred. [00:00:55] Speaker 00: It was wrong when it did not address this issue, which Memory Lab understood completely and responded to in its patented response. [00:01:04] Speaker 03: So on the assumption that we were to agree that what the board said [00:01:12] Speaker 03: we can't untangle what this means is wrong how much more should we say in remanding because then there's a merits the merits of the claims would have to be addressed are there aspects of the board's reasoning that [00:01:33] Speaker 03: Sound like they might like it might be useful for us to address on that point so as not to find ourselves with yet another appeal So I know I don't think that there's anything in the board's reasoning with respect to this second map image issue that the board [00:01:57] Speaker 00: said that the court needs to address. [00:02:00] Speaker 00: The memorandum has raised an alternative ground, a claim construction issue that says that the first map image and the second map image can't be the same. [00:02:11] Speaker 00: The board at appendix 83 just declined to address that issue, so it didn't predispose on that issue or [00:02:21] Speaker 00: or reach some sort of erroneous conclusion. [00:02:23] Speaker 00: If this court were to reach that issue, we would argue that the first map image and the second map image don't need to be visually distinct, that they can be the same button. [00:02:37] Speaker 00: But then this is ultimately would be an issue for remand, because the board never addressed that claim construction issue in the first instance. [00:02:45] Speaker 03: And would an example [00:02:49] Speaker 03: of your merits argument on that claim construction point be something like if the map image is no more local than the city, if the second person lives in the same city as the first, you can use the same map image. [00:03:07] Speaker 00: Could you repeat that question, Your Honor, just so I'm ensured? [00:03:11] Speaker 03: Do I understand your claim construction position is that screen one and screen two for first person, second person can have the same map image? [00:03:21] Speaker 03: That's correct. [00:03:21] Speaker 03: So if the map image that was that the software [00:03:25] Speaker 03: was generating, say, was just at no more localized than the city, as opposed to the block where the person lives or something like that, then if person one and person two both live in Washington, DC, the same map image could appear for them. [00:03:44] Speaker 00: That's correct. [00:03:45] Speaker 00: The same map image could appear. [00:03:47] Speaker 00: The places button that we identified in A3UM, which appears in- Right, but we're talking about a claim construction issue. [00:03:55] Speaker 00: Certainly. [00:03:56] Speaker 00: And so it could be the same. [00:03:58] Speaker 00: I think the best place to look here is at the claim itself. [00:04:04] Speaker 00: And appendix 444, when you look at the claim. [00:04:07] Speaker 03: No, I think I understand your point about the wording being different. [00:04:12] Speaker 03: I'm just trying to have. [00:04:14] Speaker 03: There are a lot of different images and things. [00:04:17] Speaker 03: It's actually quite hard to keep straight about what we're talking about. [00:04:22] Speaker 03: So I'm just trying to understand if the example I gave you, to the extent you understand it, is one intuitively simple way of thinking about why the same map image might be used for person one and person two. [00:04:36] Speaker 00: Certainly. [00:04:37] Speaker 00: Like if it was a map of DC and both people lived in DC and it was the capital, then that would be the same map image. [00:04:44] Speaker 00: but in addition to that they would have different functionality under the combination because in the first person view if you would click on the first map image that would take you to the first location view which would be for the first person and if you click on the map image in the second person view then that would take you to the [00:05:06] Speaker 00: the location view for the second person. [00:05:10] Speaker 00: And so you're talking about different functionality. [00:05:13] Speaker 00: There's nothing in the claim that would require that you can't have these two buttons be not the same, that they have to be visually distinct from each other. [00:05:24] Speaker 00: But again, this claim construction argument just underscores the fact that the board did not address an issue which MemoryWeb understood. [00:05:33] Speaker 00: And MemoryWeb raised this issue [00:05:35] Speaker 00: in response to our petition because it knew that we were referring to the same button in the prior art to be both the first map image and the same map image. [00:05:46] Speaker 00: And so that issue was completely joined by the parties and the board should have addressed that completely. [00:05:53] Speaker 02: Help me understand. [00:05:54] Speaker 02: I just want to question the assumption that Judge Toronto made at the beginning. [00:06:00] Speaker 02: The assumption was that the board did ignore the issues with respect to the 020. [00:06:07] Speaker 02: The board says a lot of words. [00:06:09] Speaker 02: I think it's pages, appendix 82 to 86. [00:06:14] Speaker 02: And I think we're supposed to. [00:06:17] Speaker 02: read what they say with some deference? [00:06:21] Speaker 02: What's the best place you could point me to to say that they really didn't do enough here and they kind of ignored the argument you were really making? [00:06:30] Speaker 00: I think the best place to look in the final decision itself would be the fact that [00:06:37] Speaker 00: And appendix 83, it notes what Memory Web argued, that Memory Web raised this claim construction issue. [00:06:47] Speaker 00: And then the board said, we need not determine whether the recited first and map images can be the same. [00:06:54] Speaker 00: What that shows is that the parties had notice of this issue, that they understood what the petition was arguing, and the board declined to decide this issue that was squarely before it. [00:07:07] Speaker 00: But to go to the record itself, if I may, if we look at appendix 713 to 721, that's where Apple showed that the first person view would have been obvious, and it spent [00:07:21] Speaker 00: eight pages discussing this view. [00:07:25] Speaker 00: And at Appendix 715, in particular, it discussed the map image, the first map image. [00:07:32] Speaker 00: And at the bottom, after identifying on the toolbar and on the inspector pane, the places button would be both map images. [00:07:42] Speaker 00: It says, each of these icons represents maps that a skilled artisan would consider them to be map images. [00:07:51] Speaker 00: When Apple's petition said that the second-person view would have been obvious for all the same reasons as the first-person view, and that it cited back to these very pages in the petition, that is sufficient to show that this claim would have been obvious. [00:08:08] Speaker 00: Because the only difference between the first-person view and the second-person view is just that [00:08:14] Speaker 00: directed to a different person. [00:08:16] Speaker 00: And so when you have a screen and it has different names on it, if you click on one person's name, you get to their view, which has pictures of them, their name, and then this map image, which is a button to take you to a location view. [00:08:28] Speaker 00: And then the same thing would be true for the second person. [00:08:31] Speaker 00: So there was no requirement that Apple needed to go on and explain this anymore, particularly when Memory Web understood this issue completely and engaged with it. [00:08:43] Speaker 03: Can I ask you to turn to the 376? [00:08:45] Speaker 03: Certainly, Your Honor. [00:08:47] Speaker 00: So for the 376 patent, the appeal really boils down to whether Apple's obviousness case needed A3UM to operate in a certain way, in a particular way, whether it needed and depended upon being in the place's view. [00:09:02] Speaker 00: that if you clicked on a photo in the browser. [00:09:05] Speaker 03: So just so you know what I'm thinking about this, it seems to me that you have that, I don't know, is it a paragraph or at least a couple of sentences. [00:09:14] Speaker 03: And the first sentence is absolutely clear. [00:09:16] Speaker 03: It's talking about the place's view. [00:09:17] Speaker 03: And then the second sentence [00:09:19] Speaker 03: In the ordinary course, one would read the next sentence describing a certain selection, I think I don't have it in front of me, as being about the view that we were currently talking about. [00:09:32] Speaker 03: And that's how the board read it. [00:09:34] Speaker 03: And then you eventually, I think, acknowledge, no, no, no, that doesn't occur in the places view. [00:09:43] Speaker 03: That that sentence is really referring to something else, either the split view or some other non-places view. [00:09:50] Speaker 03: I'm having a hard time seeing how it is an abusive discretion for the board presented with that to have read it in what seems to me the quite natural way. [00:10:02] Speaker 03: And therefore, since that doesn't actually work in the place's view, to find missing the [00:10:14] Speaker 03: the explanation which would have required more sentences making clear that there's a different obviousness case. [00:10:23] Speaker 03: That's how I understand it. [00:10:24] Speaker 03: So tell me why that's wrong. [00:10:26] Speaker 00: So that's wrong in two respects. [00:10:29] Speaker 00: And one reason why that's wrong is because even accepting that there was [00:10:34] Speaker 00: a miss that the petition had a mistake in it, which will be my second point as to why there wasn't. [00:10:40] Speaker 00: But even accepting that, that doesn't mean that the obvious case shouldn't be decided because Apple's point now on appeal and it's always been was that [00:10:51] Speaker 00: The petition and the obviousness case didn't need that. [00:10:54] Speaker 03: I'm not sure it's right to say the board didn't decide the obviousness case. [00:11:00] Speaker 03: I read the board to have said the case that I think was made in that paragraph rests on something that is just wrong, namely what the user would do in the place's view. [00:11:13] Speaker 03: There might be another obviousness case, theoretical, but I don't find the other obviousness case made out in the petition. [00:11:20] Speaker 00: Well, so the other obvious case is made out in the petition and I don't mean somewhere in the petition. [00:11:26] Speaker 03: I mean, with very specific reference to this very particular claim. [00:11:32] Speaker 00: I mean, certainly the petition could have been a little bit clearer there in that point. [00:11:37] Speaker 00: But I think that what gets lost in the argument before the board is that the petition went on for several more pages and explained why the claim would have been obvious in a manner in which it didn't depend upon [00:11:53] Speaker 00: the place's view operating in that particular manner. [00:11:57] Speaker 00: And so that's the error that we believe that the board should have dealt with, made and should have dealt with. [00:12:06] Speaker 00: So at appendix 11563, for example, the petition is talking about the reference bullets, which has thumbnail images. [00:12:16] Speaker 00: And then when you click on those thumbnail images, they then open to show larger versions of those photos. [00:12:23] Speaker 00: And so that is the obviousness case that the board never grappled with. [00:12:30] Speaker 00: Now, on the first point, Judge Stronto, when you mentioned the petition itself, it did cite in that paragraph that you referenced. [00:12:39] Speaker 03: Right, it said 251 and 51. [00:12:40] Speaker 03: I get that. [00:12:40] Speaker 00: And it did cite that. [00:12:41] Speaker 00: And so it was not a situation where Apple said in its reply, had to say in its reply, no, we meant to cite something else. [00:12:50] Speaker 00: We meant to cite this different part of. [00:12:53] Speaker 00: A3UM, it cited the correct parts, and then so it naturally expanded in its reply responding to MemoryWeb that, look, we cited the right parts of A3UM where this functionality exists. [00:13:04] Speaker 00: And so that is why the petition was correct, and the board should have considered those reply arguments, but it did not. [00:13:13] Speaker 00: I recognize that I'm in my rebuttal time, and unless the court has additional questions, I'd like to say that there are four other issues or three or something to be discussed, so good choice. [00:13:39] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:13:40] Speaker 01: Dan Schwartz on behalf of Memory Web. [00:13:43] Speaker 01: I'll start with the 020 issue. [00:13:47] Speaker 01: And with respect to, I'd like to take a step back as to what we're really talking about here. [00:13:53] Speaker 01: We're talking about Apple's own petition and its own expert not understanding or explaining how Apple's own [00:14:05] Speaker 01: prior art works. [00:14:07] Speaker 03: Wait, are we talking about 02 of 13 or are we talking about 376? [00:14:11] Speaker 01: So this actually applies to both. [00:14:15] Speaker 01: It more applies, I'll start with the 376 actually and hit the issue of the fact that Dr. Treveen and Apple in the declaration were simply wrong about how its own prior art worked. [00:14:33] Speaker 01: The board absolutely was correct in saying, look, I'm sorry, Your Honor, I got myself... I apologize, Your Honor. [00:14:54] Speaker 01: I'm going to start with the 020 and I got my stuff mixed up. [00:14:58] Speaker 01: I completely apologize. [00:14:59] Speaker 01: I'm sorry. [00:15:01] Speaker 01: Let's start with the O2O and the first person. [00:15:06] Speaker 01: Apple has argued that because MemoryWeb actually engaged on the issue, that we must have understood it, and that therefore, we have. [00:15:17] Speaker 03: But it seems to me that's quite secondary. [00:15:22] Speaker 03: The primary point is this single paragraph that was in the 020 petition about 13. [00:15:28] Speaker 03: I'm just going to call it 13 instead of saying 13 to 16 or 45 to whatever, said what we said about the first person is also true about the second person. [00:15:39] Speaker 03: And they just didn't need to say anymore. [00:15:41] Speaker 03: Why did they need to say anymore? [00:15:44] Speaker 01: Well, first of all, Your Honor, they didn't actually say that. [00:15:47] Speaker 01: When you look at what they actually said about the appendix 747 to 748, what they say is A3 UM discloses providing the same functionality for each face identified by the system, including showing that person in face's view [00:16:11] Speaker 01: displaying their names within A3UM's overall interface. [00:16:15] Speaker 01: Because A3UM discloses or renders obvious these features with respect to the first person in claims 1 and 31. [00:16:23] Speaker 01: A3UM discloses or renders obvious these features with respect to a second person. [00:16:28] Speaker 01: There is no mention of map in there. [00:16:31] Speaker 01: There is no mention of map image. [00:16:33] Speaker 01: And that's exactly what the board said. [00:16:35] Speaker 01: They said, look, even if I were to credit you, Apple, for what you said about first person and second person or the first person view and the second person view, it's only limited to what you said about the picture and the identification of the person. [00:16:52] Speaker 01: There's nothing in your petition. [00:16:54] Speaker 01: There's nothing in the declaration about [00:16:57] Speaker 01: what the second map image is. [00:17:00] Speaker 01: The fact that Memory Web was able to depose their expert and perhaps get some ideas to some theories that he may have not put into his declaration or Apple put into their petition doesn't mean that we should be held to have fully engaged on an issue that they didn't [00:17:21] Speaker 01: Put in their petition the issue that we're having ours is that as a patent owner? [00:17:27] Speaker 01: We would be left with this Hobson's choice right if we only said well They didn't disclose anything regarding second map image and left it at that We would be leaving ourselves at risk of a finding well Maybe someone would have a different view of that, but we think the board got it a hundred percent right when? [00:17:44] Speaker 01: The board found that they had nothing on second map image. [00:17:49] Speaker 02: How is that giving sufficient credit to the first sentence in the paragraph here that you just pointed us to? [00:17:55] Speaker 02: I mean, they expressly are arguing, at least, that the Prior Art A3UM discloses providing the same functionality for each phase. [00:18:07] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:18:08] Speaker 02: Is that really being silent on the second person? [00:18:11] Speaker 01: Absolutely, Your Honor. [00:18:13] Speaker 01: No, no, it's not with respect to the second person. [00:18:15] Speaker 01: It's respect to the second map image. [00:18:18] Speaker 01: So the view that we're talking about has to have three things. [00:18:21] Speaker 01: It has to have a picture of a person, their name, and a map image. [00:18:27] Speaker 01: All they said in this petition is, hey, it's the same functionality when you hit the, in the places view. [00:18:36] Speaker 01: If you hit the first person, you get a view that has, in the A3UM example, they have a picture of a woman named Alice and a picture randomly named Daniel. [00:18:45] Speaker 01: The first person is Alice, and you click on her picture and you get other pictures with her and her name, a little bar at the top. [00:18:53] Speaker 01: So you have the two things. [00:18:57] Speaker 01: the person in the face's view with their name. [00:19:00] Speaker 01: That's it. [00:19:01] Speaker 01: There is no mention of the other thing that has to be in the person view, whether it's the first or second person view, which is that map image. [00:19:10] Speaker 01: So it doesn't say anything about map image. [00:19:13] Speaker 01: And I think the board was very correct to read it that way, because if they wanted to say anything about the second map image, they absolutely could have. [00:19:22] Speaker 01: There was no reason that they couldn't have said that. [00:19:26] Speaker 01: They just elected not to. [00:19:29] Speaker 01: And I don't think that it should be on the patent owner's ledger to have to figure out, or the board's ledger, to figure out what it is that a petitioner is actually arguing. [00:19:43] Speaker 01: The fact that we did address through the deposition of their expert does not mean that we fully engaged on the issue in a way that matches what their petition should have said. [00:19:59] Speaker 03: Do you want to get to your 376 point about Apple not understanding its own user manual? [00:20:07] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:20:07] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:20:10] Speaker 01: Here with the 376, we're also dealing with this issue where Apple did not understand how its own prior art operated or what it disclosed. [00:20:21] Speaker 01: They were wrong. [00:20:22] Speaker 01: And Dr. Durbin admitted he was wrong when he was faced with the prospect of looking at that picture on page 251. [00:20:29] Speaker 01: I was like, oh, that doesn't appear in the place's view. [00:20:32] Speaker 01: That doesn't work. [00:20:33] Speaker 01: And if I had to go look at my declaration, I didn't hit that issue. [00:20:40] Speaker 01: To the extent that Apple argues, and that in and of itself, by the way, Your Honor, kind of ends the issue. [00:20:49] Speaker 01: They don't have any evidence for any of the claims in the 376 without that A3UM correct [00:20:59] Speaker 01: flow of clicks through the system. [00:21:04] Speaker 01: And that's what these patents are all about. [00:21:05] Speaker 01: It's a more easy, efficient way. [00:21:10] Speaker 03: So I'm looking now. [00:21:12] Speaker 03: The crucial paragraph is, I happen to be looking, I guess, at page 153 of the appendix where it's quoted. [00:21:20] Speaker 03: This is the 376 final written decision, locked and indented quote. [00:21:26] Speaker 03: A3UM discloses selecting a pin, et cetera, et cetera. [00:21:32] Speaker 03: And this is citing a places view. [00:21:35] Speaker 03: That's pages 436 and 437. [00:21:38] Speaker 03: And then it says, selecting a thumbnail in the browser then prompts display of the original detail image. [00:21:44] Speaker 03: And now this is a reference to the split view. [00:21:47] Speaker 03: If that sentence had said, [00:21:52] Speaker 03: It would have been obvious to use in the Places view what is true of the browser view, of the browser in the split view, namely, and then continuing on selecting it. [00:22:07] Speaker 03: Would that have been enough for Apple? [00:22:13] Speaker 01: It would have been better. [00:22:14] Speaker 01: I would still say no, Your Honor, because they would have to also show some reason which the petition and declaration are devoid [00:22:21] Speaker 01: of some motivation to actually make that modification. [00:22:25] Speaker 03: And the board, do I remember right, made that point. [00:22:29] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:22:29] Speaker 03: And that's missing from the petition. [00:22:33] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:22:34] Speaker 01: And the board actually went on and addressed the possibilities of these arguments. [00:22:39] Speaker 01: The board at appendix 161 to 164 says, [00:22:50] Speaker 01: Even assuming the petitioner intended to combine the various embodiments of A3UM, as described for the first time in the reply, petitioner's obviousness rationale is still insufficient. [00:23:03] Speaker 01: And then it's been several pages explaining why it would be insufficient. [00:23:06] Speaker 01: So if they had said, for instance, what Your Honor proposed, it still wouldn't have overcome the issues because there was no motivation to make that modification. [00:23:20] Speaker 03: You have a couple of cross appeal issues. [00:23:22] Speaker 03: Yes, I'm going to. [00:23:23] Speaker 03: Three cross appeal issues. [00:23:25] Speaker 01: I'm sorry? [00:23:25] Speaker 01: You have three cross appeal issues. [00:23:27] Speaker 01: Yes, I will hit them as quickly as I can. [00:23:32] Speaker 01: In part, there's an overlapping issue between claims 15 of the 228 patent, as well as claims three and four of the 658 patent. [00:23:46] Speaker 03: You agree that on the 228, only 15 is at issue, and 34 and 812 are the only ones at issue on the 658? [00:23:56] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor. [00:23:57] Speaker 03: Why didn't you say that expressly, at least in your gray brief? [00:24:01] Speaker 03: We spent a lot of time trying to map out [00:24:03] Speaker 03: exactly what's at issue and what the relation is. [00:24:07] Speaker 03: But in the other brief, I mean, the gray brief in the next case, it seems like sort of a minimum standard for just being helpful to keeping straight about what's going on in this interrelated set of cases. [00:24:23] Speaker 01: Your Honor, I don't have a specific recollection as we were preparing the briefs as to whether we had thought about that or not. [00:24:31] Speaker 01: We were trying to make decisions across [00:24:33] Speaker 01: multiple appeals and multiple proceedings. [00:24:36] Speaker 01: I apologize for that. [00:24:38] Speaker 03: Get on to the 020 cross appeal. [00:24:40] Speaker 01: Do you want to start with? [00:24:41] Speaker 01: No, I was just going to say, as soon as Unified came to us last week, we very quickly tried to address that with them to dismiss the... So I apologize for the confusion that they have caused. [00:24:52] Speaker 01: Your Honor, I'm going to start with the claim 15 of the 228 as well, because it also hits the... It also hits claims three and four of the 658. [00:25:04] Speaker 01: And it's really based on this same issue regarding A3UM. [00:25:10] Speaker 01: The board upheld the challenge, notwithstanding on these claims, that the sole basis for, aside from the other limitations, the sole basis for rejecting these claims was due to this same issue. [00:25:28] Speaker 01: regarding how A3UM works in the 376 path. [00:25:43] Speaker 01: I'll point you to our principal brief. [00:25:47] Speaker 01: I'll get to the page in a second. [00:25:48] Speaker 01: We set forth the chart. [00:25:50] Speaker 01: where we have the Apple argument for 376 Claim 1. [00:25:54] Speaker 01: It has essentially the exact same language for the 228 Claim 15. [00:26:01] Speaker 01: It is the exact same issue. [00:26:03] Speaker 01: And when you come to the conclusion that that is wrong in how the prior art actually works, you're left with an argument that is Apple has no evidence on which [00:26:16] Speaker 01: to support its challenge to claims 15 and claims 3 and 4 of the 658. [00:26:24] Speaker 01: That information is at appendix 11559 to 560 and 21908 to 909. [00:26:35] Speaker 01: Those are the two [00:26:38] Speaker 01: the two sections of the 228 and the 376. [00:26:40] Speaker 03: So do I remember right that as to those two points, 228-15 and 658-34, the board said that error by Apple is irrelevant to the outcome because independent of that error, [00:27:05] Speaker 03: the same result is reached. [00:27:06] Speaker 03: In particular, we don't have in these claims, there shall be no interactive map. [00:27:12] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:27:13] Speaker 01: Well, it's true that the claims themselves at issue don't require replacing the map. [00:27:19] Speaker 01: The claims require displaying, clicking on one of the lower images and having a bigger version of it pop up. [00:27:26] Speaker 01: That is all MemoryWeb was relying on to show [00:27:29] Speaker 01: Because A3UM doesn't work in the way of clicking on the lower picture for it to come up in the bigger one, and that doesn't work in A3UM, that's why those challenges to those claims should not have been upheld. [00:27:47] Speaker 01: But it's also why the board failed to understand and just misunderstood what the argument was. [00:27:52] Speaker 01: The board believed that we were making an argument that was, oh, it has to replace the whole interactive map. [00:27:59] Speaker 01: That's not what we were arguing. [00:28:01] Speaker 01: And the board fundamentally misunderstood that. [00:28:07] Speaker 03: in, at least in the set of cases, and I must say I have trouble keeping track, but there seem to be two different, though perhaps related, arguments about this phrase responsive to. [00:28:22] Speaker 03: One of them is that for B to be responsive to an action taken in A, [00:28:30] Speaker 03: No further user actions have to intervene before B arises. [00:28:34] Speaker 03: So what sometimes you've called that it has to be directly responsive. [00:28:39] Speaker 03: The other is that if some required content in B, if some content, particular content, claimed content is required in B, it's not responsive [00:28:55] Speaker 03: to the action taken in A if that content is mere carry forward of something that was in A. So the old, even if it appears in B, doesn't count. [00:29:08] Speaker 03: Which of those issues do we need to decide in this case for which claim, if any? [00:29:14] Speaker 01: So you need to decide the issue of what responsive to means. [00:29:21] Speaker 01: And it's our view in all of the patents the same way. [00:29:25] Speaker 01: And that there is a direct causal effect between the first input and the second input. [00:29:33] Speaker 01: And that it is not enough that if there is a requirement of what happens second, that there be three things on the screen. [00:29:43] Speaker 01: If one of them is there before and after that initial input, because it's there both before and after persistently, it is not [00:29:54] Speaker 01: appearing in that view responsive to the input. [00:30:01] Speaker 03: As I hear what you just said, you simply repeated the two positions that you take. [00:30:07] Speaker 03: My question is, for which of these claims do we have to decide whether you're right about that or right about either the first or the second or both, and which? [00:30:21] Speaker 01: So it is claims [00:30:24] Speaker 01: Give me one second. [00:30:35] Speaker 01: It is on the 020. [00:30:38] Speaker 01: Claims one to five. [00:30:39] Speaker 01: Hold on. [00:30:39] Speaker 01: Are you answering for the first of your two theories or the second? [00:30:44] Speaker 01: Our theory is the direct causal relation. [00:30:50] Speaker 01: It applies to all of them. [00:30:51] Speaker 02: It applies to all. [00:30:52] Speaker 02: But then is it the same list of claims you're giving us that we have to decide the second issue about if there were one of three things on the screen before, and it's also on the second screen it's not responsive to? [00:31:04] Speaker 02: Is it the same list of claims for both? [00:31:08] Speaker 01: Yes, there are some additional arguments regarding claims 8 to 12 of the 658 as they relate to responsive 2. [00:31:16] Speaker 01: I believe my time is going to be up. [00:31:18] Speaker 02: Go ahead and do your list. [00:31:20] Speaker 02: Sorry to interrupt. [00:31:20] Speaker 01: No, but that is in our brief, Your Honor, that we have the additional arguments regarding responsive 2. [00:31:27] Speaker 01: But it's claimed 1 to 5 of the 020, claims 1 to 5, 8 to 12, 17 to 37, 40 to 44, claims 15 of the 228. [00:31:39] Speaker 01: and then claims 8 to 12 of the 658. [00:31:41] Speaker 01: Into my time, I'll reserve a minute or two for review. [00:31:50] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:32:04] Speaker 00: So I'd like to start with the rebuttal point on the 020 patent. [00:32:08] Speaker 00: And just to briefly note that our petition, when it said the second map image claim, the second person view, it does focus on the same functionality and that these features would be the same. [00:32:20] Speaker 00: And then we cited back to the precise points where we discussed the first person view. [00:32:25] Speaker 00: Remember we have notes that we made some additional arguments with respect to some of the elements. [00:32:30] Speaker 00: And that's because those elements [00:32:32] Speaker 00: were a little different. [00:32:33] Speaker 00: They said they had to be associated with the second person rather than the name associated with the second person. [00:32:38] Speaker 00: So we were just making clear that that would be the same thing with respect to the second person. [00:32:44] Speaker 00: I don't think by saying a little bit more, that means that the petition is less clear when it makes the point that it's referring back to the first person view, incites back to those very arguments. [00:32:56] Speaker 00: On the 376 patent, [00:32:59] Speaker 00: We did explain that there was going to be a motivation to combine here, and that's at 11, 5, 6, 4, where we say a skilled arisen would have been motivated to do so. [00:33:16] Speaker 00: And the to do so is when I was talking about bullets before with the button, the thumbnail you would click to improve the user experience. [00:33:23] Speaker 00: such as by reducing the number of steps between selecting a map location and seeing an image at that location. [00:33:30] Speaker 00: And so that was a motivation to combine. [00:33:33] Speaker 00: This is, again, very simple technology where you're just trying to find different views when you're sorting and displaying photos. [00:33:41] Speaker 00: And A3UM is a manual for one commercial product, so it's not a situation where you have [00:33:48] Speaker 00: 50 different commercial products and you're trying to look for a motivation to combine. [00:33:51] Speaker 00: This is one commercial products manual where you would have all these features and functions in one manual. [00:33:59] Speaker 00: And so the board erred in its motivation to combine analysis in addition to not addressing the petition arguments correctly. [00:34:10] Speaker 00: The responsive to point, I think. [00:34:14] Speaker 03: Do you think there's only one? [00:34:17] Speaker 00: So I think that with respect to Apple's, the Apple and memory webs dispute, these appeals right here, there is direct interaction in all the button pushing. [00:34:28] Speaker 00: And so if we look at the O2O patent, the responsive to is just that, is the first person view responsive to? [00:34:36] Speaker 00: The court doesn't need to address any of the other issues in these appeals with respect to that. [00:34:43] Speaker 00: The issue that's at play is whether everything in that first-person view needs to be responsive to. [00:34:52] Speaker 00: And the claim just is not drafted that way. [00:34:55] Speaker 00: The claim is drafted in a way that [00:34:57] Speaker 00: the first-person view needs to be responsive to the input. [00:35:01] Speaker 00: And then that first-person review includes certain requirements. [00:35:06] Speaker 00: And it's an open-ended requirement what the first-person view is. [00:35:10] Speaker 00: So it can include many, many different things. [00:35:13] Speaker 00: And so there's nothing in the claim, there's nothing that supports MemuWeb's argument that everything in the first-person view has to be responsive to the input. [00:35:23] Speaker 00: I think one way to look at it that's perhaps the best [00:35:26] Speaker 00: is the first person view isn't ultimately responsive to the input until all the elements are there. [00:35:33] Speaker 00: And so it may be that one element may already be there, persistently there. [00:35:39] Speaker 00: But then when the other elements appear responsive to that input, then you have the first person view as responsive to the input. [00:35:49] Speaker 00: And that's the claim construction issue that is relevant here with respect to these appeals. [00:35:56] Speaker 00: On the mistake issue that Memory Web is pointing to on the 228 patent and the 658 patent, as the court was engaging with counsel, I think those are some of the main differences, that there are different claim requirements in the 658 and the 228. [00:36:18] Speaker 00: They don't have the requirement that you have to [00:36:23] Speaker 00: displaced the interactive map with the photo that's being opened. [00:36:28] Speaker 00: And so that's a distinct requirement that's not in these claims. [00:36:33] Speaker 00: And because of that, the record is very different in these. [00:36:37] Speaker 00: Now, there may be some sentences here or there that are similar, given these are all closely related patents and closely related art. [00:36:45] Speaker 00: But the records themselves and the arguments that were made [00:36:48] Speaker 00: in the petitions are different. [00:36:50] Speaker 00: And so the board was well within its discretion in these different cases to conclude that what Apple was arguing here was not based upon any sort of statement that when you click on a photo in the browser in the Places view, then it opens up in the viewer displacing that map. [00:37:14] Speaker 00: I also note that with respect to [00:37:17] Speaker 00: The 658 patent, there's an additional reason why Memory Web's argument doesn't work here. [00:37:25] Speaker 00: There were two grounds. [00:37:26] Speaker 00: There were two arguments that were made with respect to claims 324. [00:37:31] Speaker 00: And one of those was an alternative argument, which the board said was the theory that didn't have any sort of [00:37:41] Speaker 00: indication that you would be in the places view and that you would click on a photo in the browser and then it would be replaced in the view in the viewer. [00:37:49] Speaker 00: And that was at appendix 39344 where we made that alternative argument. [00:37:59] Speaker 00: If the court has no other questions, we would ask that the decision on the 020 and the 376 patents for Apple's appeals be vacated and remanded, and that appeals otherwise be affirmed. [00:38:13] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:38:25] Speaker 03: And here you get to talk only about your cross appeal. [00:38:29] Speaker 03: I'm sorry? [00:38:29] Speaker 03: You get to talk only about your cross appeal at this point. [00:38:34] Speaker 03: So no 376, no claim 13, a vote to look. [00:38:49] Speaker 01: With respect. [00:38:52] Speaker 01: With respect to the cross appeal and the responsive to claim construction, because that is part of our cross appeal across each of these patents, I would like to go back to make sure that we're actually set correctly. [00:39:11] Speaker 01: Apple had never proposed a claim construction in the first instance. [00:39:15] Speaker 01: It was only in their reply where they said, as long as responsive to [00:39:22] Speaker 01: allows for some additional user-computer interaction after you do that input. [00:39:31] Speaker 01: The discussion about whether something is static on the screen is how A3UM works. [00:39:38] Speaker 01: And even under their construction, if the board were to actually construe the claim, even consistent with them or with the direct causation, there is no circumstance in which [00:39:50] Speaker 01: any action or activity by the computer or by a user would result in that places button, anything happening to it. [00:40:01] Speaker 01: It was there before, and it was thereafter. [00:40:04] Speaker 01: I've got the timer in front of me to say that I am at the lectern with the timer. [00:40:12] Speaker 01: It wasn't caused by me getting up to walk to the lectern. [00:40:17] Speaker 01: The timer, it wasn't changing until you got up. [00:40:21] Speaker 01: That is true. [00:40:22] Speaker 01: But its existence was here both before and after the input of me getting out of my chair and walking up here. [00:40:31] Speaker 01: That's what the issue is with respect to responsive to and A3UM. [00:40:37] Speaker 01: And Judge Stark, if I misunderstood the question that you asked, I apologize. [00:40:42] Speaker 01: I was focusing on [00:40:44] Speaker 01: responsive to, we have the same arguments with respect to all of the patents in each of the appeals. [00:40:50] Speaker 01: But with respect to A3UM and the Apple appeals, it is limited to that first issue of whether or not something could persistently be there or come afterwards. [00:41:30] Speaker 01: With respect to our cross appeal on the 658, it is the same issue in certain respects as the 376 issue for claims three and four. [00:41:57] Speaker 01: Claims three and four, the same set of the A3UM manual that Apple and Dr. Terveen incorrectly referred to. [00:42:10] Speaker 01: The board, again, looked at Memory Web's response to that and said, oh, simply because the claims don't require the full map image to be replaced in these claims, [00:42:24] Speaker 01: The arguments that we made responding to the petition were unpersuasive. [00:42:31] Speaker 01: That misses the point. [00:42:32] Speaker 01: It actually put the burden on Memory Web to establish that the petition failed rather than recognizing that the petition itself failed for not having any proper evidence on which those claims could be upheld. [00:42:50] Speaker 01: I think I've hit all of the issues in the cross appeal. [00:42:53] Speaker 03: Well, thank you. [00:42:54] Speaker 03: Thanks to all counsel. [00:42:56] Speaker 03: This case is submitted.