[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
We have four RU cases this morning.

[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
The first is number 241190, Express Mobile versus Meta Platforms.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
Mr. Hasham.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
Thank you, and may it please the board.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
I want to address three errors by the board.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
First, the board adopted an incorrect construction of player that included prior art virtual machines.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
ExpressMobile's response brief below proposed that a player facilitates execution of an application on a machine, but is not itself a real or virtual machine.

[00:00:30] Speaker 04:
But you never asked for a construction of player.

[00:00:33] Speaker 04:
You did argue as a factual matter.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
that a player didn't include a virtual machine, but you didn't ask for a claim construction, right?

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
So in our response brief, we argued.

[00:00:44] Speaker 04:
Yes or no?

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
We did ask for a construction.

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
We asked for a construction in our sir reply brief as the board recognized in the hearing.

[00:00:53] Speaker 04:
But not only in the sir reply brief and at the oral argument, right?

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
The board recognized the appendix 80 that we asked for a construction.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
I'm not answering the question.

[00:01:02] Speaker 04:
Only in the sir reply brief and the oral argument, right?

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
Not in the response.

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
We did not ask for a construction expressly in the response brief, no.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
So if Your Honor is asking about the board's waiver issue.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
So our response brief argued the substance of the argument that we present on appeal under Summit Six and entertainer versus Hulu.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
The argument is preserved insofar as the board

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
was focused on the fact that we didn't use the words claim construction in our response brief.

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
That was because of how the dispute evolved.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
There's a parallel district court litigation.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
In the district court, defendants argued that a player executes the application like a virtual machine, whereas we argued that a player facilitates execution.

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
At bottom, this is not a claim construction case, is it?

[00:01:58] Speaker 03:
I mean, we're looking at substantial evidence.

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
So, Your Honor, I believe this is a claim construction case.

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
We think this is a classic O2 micro Homeland House first case where initially the party's dispute was framed in terms of their interpretations of the competing district court constructions.

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
That's what we were doing in our response brief at Appendix 2415.

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
How can there be an O2 micro case when you didn't ask in the response for a claim construction?

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
So O2 micro and homeland housewares in subsequent cases recognize that further construction, PAPST is another one, that further construction can be required.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
So at the outset of this there are competing district court constructions and then the parties recognize that

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
The competing district court constructions don't really resolve the dispute.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
And so at that point, Meadow was actually the one in Appendix 4283 that recognized this was a claim construction dispute.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
What do we do about the standard of review that we applied, the board's determination that your request for construction in the Surrey Ply was untimely?

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
The board's standard of review, so Meta argues that the standard of review is abuse of discretion.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
We don't agree.

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
We believe that the court applies its precedent for waiver cases like entertainer

[00:03:18] Speaker 01:
versus Hulu 660F 943 is an exactly on point case where it became apparent later on that there was, in fact, a claim construction dispute.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
Additionally... But under our precedent with respect to IPRs and PTAP proceedings, don't we apply an abuse of discretion standard to the board's determination of when it is appropriate to raise a claim construction issue?

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
Generally not.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
And I understand there can be a legal error that causes there to be an abuse of discretion.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
But I'm having a hard time why you're not understanding why you wouldn't agree that we need to give discretion to the PTAP's determination that in its proceedings, there's a time at which claim construction is supposed to be provided.

[00:04:08] Speaker 01:
So in general, if there was a situation where we just not had not raised this issue at all, cases like Google have found

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
that you can defer to the board's interpretation of whether there was a waiver.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
But in this particular case, what happened is that if you look at the board's decision at appendix 42, the board

[00:04:28] Speaker 01:
said that we did not propose a construction, because the board did not recognize that there was an O2 microissue, that there were these two competing district court constructions executing the application versus facilitating execution.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
We argued that those are mutually exclusive and that facilitating the execution requires something more than execution, whereas Metta disagreed.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
And so at that point,

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
There was a claim construction dispute, and the board simply misapprehended that.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
Generally, do you think O2 micro applies in a situation like this?

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
The reason why I ask is because I always think of O2 micro as something that is going to make it so it's

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
job of the court, not the job of the jury to interpret claims.

[00:05:15] Speaker 02:
But when you're talking about an IPR and a PTAB case, I'm having a hard time understanding why that applies.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
So this court has applied O2 micro to PTAB cases in Homeland Housewares, but I think it actually points in the other direction.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
Here, the PTAB is both

[00:05:30] Speaker 01:
the interpreter of the law and the fact finder.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
And so where you have, and as the PTAP acknowledged it, Appendix 80, we presented, what the PTAP says in its rehearing decision to Appendix 80 is that we presented the substance of the argument and then says that it addressed it in its final written decision.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
So here, there is no reason where the parties briefed the argument, briefed it in terms of the specification and the intrinsic evidence, which is the only thing that's in dispute.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
There's no factual extrinsic evidence.

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
And then the board says that it actually addressed the arguments and passed upon the arguments.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
There's no reason.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
There's no barrier to this court's review.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
But even under, if this is a substantial evidence review, the board's understanding of the claim must be reasonable.

[00:06:15] Speaker 04:
And here, if the court would please please.

[00:06:17] Speaker 04:
Would you not argue it is a substantial evidence case on this point?

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
Our position is that the board should have construed the claim, but for the

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
court's review, if the court concludes that claim construction isn't warranted, then substantial evidence review applies.

[00:06:39] Speaker 03:
I think your claim construction argument stands on flimsy ground, especially since you're making it your main point this morning.

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
You hardly made it before to the board, and now it's the main point you're pressing before us.

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
I would find that your arguments have been waived in this situation.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
So it may be a good idea to get onto whether the JVM acts as the claim player.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
So the board found.

[00:07:17] Speaker 01:
In this particular case, the issue of whether the claims exclude virtual machines or whether the claims exclude the JVM specifically are indistinguishable.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
They're the same analysis because the patent

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
when it uses the term virtual machine, the JVM is the very thing that the patent is referring to.

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
So the patent uses the term Java over and over again, but the only examples of virtual machines mentioned in the patent at Column 7, lines 27 through 29, are Java virtual machines.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
Java CDC, Java 2 Standard Edition, and MIDP2, which is an embedded version of Java.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
And what the patent says is the player allows, those are incompatible with each other,

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
And the player allows the applications to be compatible with those three incompatible virtual machines.

[00:08:08] Speaker 01:
Also, if the court would look at page 10 of the blue brief figure for B, there is a Java phone.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
You can tell because there's a little Sun Microsystems logo, which is the inventors of Java.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
The Java phone had a JVM on it.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
But if you wrote an application for the Java phone, it wouldn't be compatible on Windows Mobile.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
It wouldn't be compatible on Android.

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
What the invention does is it allows you to, which is why the patentee coined this term player, for something that could make an application compatible with a Java phone, compatible with Android, compatible with iOS.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
And so in fact, the Meta's argument in the board's suggestion that the virtual machine means something different than the JVM.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
In fact, the JVM is exactly what the patentee had in mind when it used the term virtual machine.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
Additionally, the board has this finding in its rehearing decision where the board says what the patent means by virtual machine is a virtual operating system like VMware.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
And in fact, there's no evidence, the board does not cite anything to support either intrinsic evidence or expert testimony.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
This was actually an argument that was raised as attorney argument for the first time

[00:09:27] Speaker 01:
by Meta's counsel at the oral hearing.

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
But a virtual machine in that sense is completely different from what the patent means.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
The patent, again, column 7, lines 27 through 29, is clearly referring to Java virtual machines.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
So the claim construction dispute here is indistinguishable from whether the claim excludes a Java virtual machine.

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
This is not a case where Meta, for example,

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
presented a different kind of virtual machine that has additional capabilities.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
It identified in its petition the very thing that the patentee said was the prior art, and then said the player is an additional different thing that extends and augments the prior art virtual machine.

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
This is like if a patent recites the term smartphone,

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
and then says it's different than a Nokia feature phone.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
And then an IPR petitioner comes in and uses the term feature phone and says that that's a smart phone.

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
Counselor, the evidence here is in the priorities that the JVM, the Java machine, discloses or interprets Java code, right?

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:10:36] Speaker 03:
You agree with that?

[00:10:37] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
And in the 755 patent, the player

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
the player limitation also interprets Java code.

[00:10:51] Speaker 01:
That's one function of the player correct.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
Why is that not substantial evidence of obviousness?

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
player, the claimed player, you could have a scenario where if you look at figure 2B, there's the player and there's the virtual machine.

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
You could have a component that combines those two functionalities.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
But the patent is very clear that in that embodiment, the execution is only one of the functions of the player.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
What the player does is additionally adapts the application

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
to differences between devices that the JVM does not take care of.

[00:11:26] Speaker 01:
The JVM just executes code.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
So if you look at the Java phone on figure 4b, the reason you can't run this Java phone application

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
on Windows or iOS is because Windows and iOS have, for example, different programming APIs for displaying objects on the screen.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
So even though the Java Virtual Machine allows you to adapt to different processors, the Java Virtual Machine does not perform the additional adaptation functions that are described in the player.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
So again, a smartphone also makes phone calls, but a feature phone that only makes phone calls would not be a smartphone, and that's the same thing

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
with the player in JVM here.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
If the court has no more questions, I would like to turn to the limitation of that the player provides instructions for a display of the device.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
If the court would look at Appendix 806, I think it's helpful to see the issue

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
here, again, wasn't raised as a claim construction issue, right?

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
So Your Honor, we're not raising this as a claim construction argument.

[00:12:33] Speaker 04:
The first argument that we have is the- Well, isn't the question whether the instructions can come indirectly from the player through the browser?

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
So the predicate question is whether the board provided any analysis at all.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
Answer my question.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
You may want to talk about something else, but what I want to talk about is whether it can be indirect from the player through the browser.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
Yes, one of the issues that we raise is whether it satisfies the providing limitation for the

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
player the application to provide HTML to the browser and that actually raises two issues.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
One, whether HTML can be instruction.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
Isn't the issue that you're raising whether the player needs to do it directly or whether it can do it through the browser providing the instructions?

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
No, because it's a question.

[00:13:35] Speaker 01:
We don't dispute that the player could indirectly provide something to the browser.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
The question is whether the thing that the player provides is instructions.

[00:13:45] Speaker 01:
So in our response brief,

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
in appendix 2427 through 2428.

[00:13:52] Speaker 01:
So Metta's petition didn't actually ever say that what they're saying now, which is that HTML is the claimed instructions.

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
Metta's petition simply pointed to a picture of the browser and said that display is happening and therefore the limitation is met.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
And so our response was, and this is at 2427, 2428, which is in our response brief, is that in the system of Anderson, Anderson's

[00:14:18] Speaker 01:
virtual machine and Java application are running on a web server, whereas the actual display is drawn by the browser.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
There's no dispute that the virtual machine does not actually talk to the display in the browser.

[00:14:31] Speaker 01:
And so our point in our response brief was that the instructions is what the browser is drawing, is providing to the screen of the device to display the

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
but it is not the HTML that is being sent from

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
the virtual machine or from the application to the browser.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
Now, Meta didn't actually raise this argument that HTML is the instructions.

[00:15:05] Speaker 01:
We'd argue it didn't raise it below at all.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
It raised it for the first time in its appellate briefing.

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
But certainly, the board never relied on it.

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
So under Terry, this court.

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
We're out of time, I'm afraid.

[00:15:17] Speaker 04:
We'll give you two minutes.

[00:15:18] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors, if it may please the court.

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
Am I to take it to mean that I don't need to argue the waiver point?

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
Because I'm happy to go into why LSI.

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
You can argue whatever you want, whatever you think you should.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
I just understood that Judge Raina was saying assume that there's waiver and move on.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
But I just want to make sure the record is clear that for the player term, in order for them to

[00:15:51] Speaker 00:
have a dispute with what the judge did down below, where he found that the proposed construction was untimely.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
Under LSI, they waive any argument unless the challenge to the finding of untimeliness was raised in the opening brief.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
And that's the LSI case, LSI versus regents of Minnesota.

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
A similar thing happened in that case.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
At the end of the day, didn't the board consider

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
the construction argument that was placed before and said that we find that to be without merit.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
They did.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
And in fact, they did do that.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
And then they went on to show what their substantial evidence was to hold that, in fact, that proposed construction itself also had no merit.

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
And if Your Honor's like, I can go through that.

[00:16:41] Speaker 04:
No, it's not substantial evidence on climate construction.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry?

[00:16:44] Speaker 04:
It's not substantial evidence on claim construction.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
No, no, no.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
It's substantial evidence that even if you use their claim construction, the art had met even their proposed construction.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
So I apologize if I was unfair.

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
Do you want to argue claim construction then?

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
Go ahead.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
Why don't you present why it is that the board did not err when it said the claim construction's incorrect.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
So the board did not err when it said that the claim construction was incorrect.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
The argument presented down below was that to be

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
mandated that somehow the definition could not encompass a virtual machine.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
Although even there, they never actually used as a proposal that the virtual machine be excluded.

[00:17:25] Speaker 02:
So they're importing a negative limitation into a client.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
Yes, it was a negative limitation.

[00:17:29] Speaker 00:
It just happened not to offend the exact limitation that they're saying here.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
The negative limitation was that the material not that it be separate from the operating system, the programming language, and the platform.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
During oral argument, they actually

[00:17:45] Speaker 00:
board asked, does that even really get rid of the virtual machine?

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
And they said, well, you can also add that in, too, if you want, and add another negative limitation that says, and also not the virtual machine.

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
None of those things happen.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
But the reason that it's not an appropriate construction, even if it were timely proposed, column 2B is only one embodiment.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
And we make this very clear in our briefs.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
It's not even a preferred embodiment.

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
It's a simple one embodiment.

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
Column 10, lines 57 through 60 mandate that it's only one embodiment.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
We also have column 36, which indicates that those logical blocks that are in the figures are not necessarily meant to be sacrosanct.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
Instead, they can be swapped around.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
You can move some information from one into the other.

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
And so there's no reason to believe that the patentee was saying that

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
any virtual machine had to be separate from any player.

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
Moreover, the board did find that the virtual machine of the patent was not equivalent to the Java virtual machine of the prior art.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
And I think I heard my learned colleague say that there was nothing to support the board's decision there.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
But in fact, the board in its rehearing petition, specifically when commenting on this argument on Appendix 81, said,

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
The JVM is limited to executing Java code, whereas the virtual machine described in the patent and the file history more broadly replicates an operating system.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
They then compare the description of Java from the prior art at exhibit 103, page 35, and the other prior art with the review request made by appellant

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
citing language in the 755 patent.

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
And the review request specifically pointed out column one, where the operating system was equated with the virtual machine.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
So that's what the board was saying.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
You yourself have equated the virtual machine with an operating system.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
So that's something very different from the Java virtual machine, which does nothing more than interpret the materials that come through with it.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
The board went on to explain that in fact a device may run the Microsoft Windows operating system as a virtual machine and then run a JVM on top of that.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
point to substantial evidence to show that the Java virtual machine of the prior art is not the same as the virtual machine in the patent and the specification.

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
So I think that helps establish both why the definition proposed is inappropriate.

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
Column 2 says only one embodiment, so there's no reason to import that limitation into the claim.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
Column 11

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
Line 56 through 57 says, and don't hold me to the logical blocks that I have.

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
And then finally, column five specifically describes what the player does.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
And it describes exactly what the JVM is.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
It's something that receives information, interprets it, and passes it along so that instructions can be executed.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
And so we believe that the board got it right the whole way through, but they also have waived any argument with respect to that.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
With respect to the second argument, and unless your honors have any other questions on that issue, I'll turn to the second argument.

[00:21:16] Speaker 00:
The second argument was somehow now that we never made an argument that HTML were instructions.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
The first thing I'd like to say here, this is an interesting issue because down below at the board, and your honor,

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
actually asked all the right questions, the issue down below was not what is an instruction, what is not an instruction.

[00:21:39] Speaker 00:
The issue down below was simply whether the instructions were provided by the browser or by the player.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
And that's at appendix 54, but also appendix 2428.

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
Now, for the first time on appeal,

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
They're arguing that the instructions are not or cannot be HTML and instead have to be either programming language or commands.

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
First, those arguments are waived because they were never presented to the board at all.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
In the blue brief, we now first see that instructions must be commands and must exclude a web page, and that's in the blue brief at 46 and 54.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
But the board didn't even have that issue in front of it.

[00:22:23] Speaker 00:
If we look at appendix 54,

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
the board was addressing just the issue of what's passing the instructions along.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
And the board acknowledges that it's the HTML which is passed along and that those therefore are the instructions.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
In fact, Appellant did not dispute at that time that those were instructions that were being passed forth.

[00:22:49] Speaker 00:
In fact,

[00:22:58] Speaker 00:
The actual quote is patent owner, this is at the appendix 50-50.

[00:23:06] Speaker 00:
Patent owner argues that the proposed combination fails to teach this limitation because Anderson and Ambrose Haynes

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
teach that a web server provides server-side processing and returns an HTML page to the browser of the client-side device.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
And thus, in the proposed combination, the web browser, not the alleged player, would provide any instructions for the display of the device to present any output values to other displays.

[00:23:35] Speaker 00:
Right there, the patent owner is saying, oh, the HTML

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
page is the thing that's passed to the browser and therefore any instructions for the display are passed to the browser.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
So they're saying the instructions are the HTML.

[00:23:50] Speaker 00:
So there was no reason for petitioner below to ever argue why it was or wasn't an instruction because everyone agreed that HTML were in fact instructions and that's what the board found.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
And this is again at page 54 of the appendix.

[00:24:08] Speaker 00:
So here, again, this is an argument that was waived.

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
But even if it wasn't, the instructions

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
are supplied and the board did find substantial evidence that instructions were supplied and again that's all on page 54 of the appendix where the board points out that the JVM player from Anderson carries out the functions of the Java application resulting in instructions that cause display of the user interface on the web browser.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
Unless your honors have any other questions,

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
I'll cede my time.

[00:24:47] Speaker 00:
I appreciate it.

[00:24:48] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:24:50] Speaker 04:
Mr. Hashem, you have two minutes.

[00:24:56] Speaker 04:
Did you make the HTML argument before the board?

[00:25:00] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:25:02] Speaker 01:
Please turn to Appendix 80.

[00:25:06] Speaker 01:
The argument that we made is the exact opposite of what my colleague says.

[00:25:11] Speaker 01:
And so at Appendix 80.

[00:25:14] Speaker 01:
Appendix 80, which is the board's re-hearing decision.

[00:25:19] Speaker 01:
80?

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
Sorry.

[00:25:21] Speaker 01:
It is appendix.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
Sorry.

[00:25:33] Speaker 01:
Sorry.

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
Oh, no, sorry.

[00:25:43] Speaker 01:
It's Appendix 54.

[00:25:45] Speaker 01:
Is this the final written decision?

[00:25:48] Speaker 01:
That was the same page that the administration counsel was referring to.

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:25:54] Speaker 01:
Which page?

[00:25:55] Speaker 01:
This is Appendix 54.

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
I apologize.

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
This is the fourth final written decision.

[00:25:59] Speaker 02:
54.

[00:26:03] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:26:03] Speaker 01:
The issue of- Where is the show that you made the argument?

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
Say again.

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
So what we explained, so the petition did not say what was the instructions.

[00:26:14] Speaker 01:
And so the issue of what is providing the instructions depends on what you identify as the instructions.

[00:26:20] Speaker 04:
Is it what the browser is providing to- Where did you make the argument that the HTML is not the instructions?

[00:26:27] Speaker 01:
And this is exactly what we say at what's being quoted by the board at Appendix 54.

[00:26:32] Speaker 01:
Where?

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
In the proposed combination, the browser, which is processing the HTML and drawing the display, is what provides any instructions for a display of the device.

[00:26:48] Speaker 04:
That sounds like the indirect argument.

[00:26:50] Speaker 04:
I don't see that that's the HTML argument.

[00:26:53] Speaker 01:
So at appendix, at the cited page.

[00:26:57] Speaker 01:
And also, I think you added some words there.

[00:27:00] Speaker 02:
Did you?

[00:27:01] Speaker 02:
I mean, I'm sorry.

[00:27:02] Speaker 02:
What part of pager you want?

[00:27:03] Speaker 01:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:27:04] Speaker 01:
So it says, patent owner argues that the proposed combination fails to teach this limitation because Anderson Hanes teaches that a web server processes server side HTML and returns an HTML page to the browser.

[00:27:16] Speaker 02:
So you just quoted something.

[00:27:17] Speaker 02:
Where is the quote?

[00:27:18] Speaker 02:
I don't see the exact quote that you just gave in that paragraph.

[00:27:24] Speaker 01:
The paragraph begins at, quote, Anderson and Ambrose Hanes teach that a web server

[00:27:30] Speaker 01:
provides server-side processing and returns an HTML page.

[00:27:33] Speaker 01:
That's a quote from our response brief.

[00:27:35] Speaker 04:
Where does it say that the HTML is not instructions?

[00:27:40] Speaker 01:
Well, because what we're saying is the application web server returns HTML

[00:27:48] Speaker 01:
But the browser is what processes it and provides the instructions.

[00:27:53] Speaker 01:
And so that's the exact argument we're making, which is the HTML is not the instructions.

[00:27:57] Speaker 01:
The instructions is what the browser produces after processing the HTML.

[00:28:03] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:28:03] Speaker 01:
I think we're out of time.

[00:28:05] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:28:05] Speaker 04:
Thank both counsel.

[00:28:06] Speaker 04:
The case is submitted.