[00:00:00] Speaker 04: We will hear argument next in number 241322, Memory Web against SAMHSA. [00:00:16] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:00:16] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:17] Speaker 01: You may please the court. [00:00:18] Speaker 01: Andrew O'Christopher on behalf of the Appellant Memory Web. [00:00:21] Speaker 01: The board's final written decision [00:00:23] Speaker 01: finding claims 1 through 34 of the 823 patent unpatentable as obvious, should be reversed or at least vacated and remanded for two reasons. [00:00:32] Speaker 01: First, the board erred in finding that the prior art meets the location's new requirement under Memory Web's claim construction for responsive to. [00:00:41] Speaker 01: And second, while the court declined to resolve the claim construction dispute for responsive to, this court can construe the term on appeal and by adopting Memory Web's claim construction, reverse the decision. [00:00:52] Speaker 04: And which of the two responsive to constructions is the one that is in dispute here? [00:00:59] Speaker 01: Our claim construction in this case is that responsive to requires a direct cause effect relationship between in this particular limitation. [00:01:07] Speaker 01: The second. [00:01:07] Speaker 04: So this isn't the static material is is not part of responsive. [00:01:13] Speaker 01: That's that's correct. [00:01:14] Speaker 01: It's the direct causation. [00:01:15] Speaker 01: So I'd like to start with the first issue and the board's findings regarding the prior art. [00:01:20] Speaker 01: Is the board correctly recognized? [00:01:21] Speaker 01: This case turns on which view is displayed in response to selecting the Places tab described in POKE. [00:01:29] Speaker 01: And specifically, whether selecting that Places tab can lead directly to the iPhoto browser view, which Samsung mapped as the claimed Locations view. [00:01:38] Speaker 01: On this critical issue, the board did not find that that behavior is expressly disclosed in the prior art. [00:01:45] Speaker 01: The board did not find that that behavior was obvious in view of the prior art. [00:01:49] Speaker 01: Instead, this is on page 75 of the appendix, the board found, based on testimony from Samson's expert to fill in the gaps, the board found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand an eye photo as described by Pogue, that was the primary reference in the petition, and corroborated by Engst, that was the secondary reference, that that transition from selecting the Places tab directly to the Prosser view was present. [00:02:17] Speaker 01: This court's decision, [00:02:18] Speaker 01: in LBT 1 versus Apple, which we've cited in both of our briefs, I think is directly on point and illustrates the board's error. [00:02:26] Speaker 01: In that case, the parties disputed whether the prior art discloses a transition between two different modes. [00:02:33] Speaker 01: There was no expressed disclosure. [00:02:35] Speaker 01: The board, very similar to this case, relied on expert testimony about what a person of skill in the art would understand and found that a skilled artisan would know that that transition was present. [00:02:47] Speaker 01: This court reversed. [00:02:49] Speaker 01: This court found that while neither the board nor the petitioner in that case had expressly invoked the doctrine of inherency, that finding was substantively adopted by finding of inherency. [00:03:02] Speaker 01: And when viewed under the correct lens, the evidence in that case was insufficient, and the court reversed. [00:03:07] Speaker 03: The same here, though, isn't it at least Samsung's contention [00:03:12] Speaker 03: that POGUE does explicitly disclose the limitation at issue. [00:03:19] Speaker 03: They may be wrong about that, but aren't they at minimum contending that? [00:03:22] Speaker 01: Well, Your Honor, they contended that ENX, the secondary reference that was not relied upon in the petition, they contended that reference explicitly discloses the behavior. [00:03:31] Speaker 01: With respect to POGUE, they did not. [00:03:33] Speaker 01: If you look at Dr. Greenspoon's declaration, this is what the board cited in reaching its decision. [00:03:38] Speaker 01: They cite paragraphs 17 and 16 of the second declaration. [00:03:42] Speaker 01: We look at paragraph 17. [00:03:44] Speaker 01: It's actually quoted on page 74 of the appendix in the final written decision. [00:03:49] Speaker 01: There he's describing poke. [00:03:51] Speaker 01: He does not say that this behavior is expressly disclosing poke. [00:03:55] Speaker 01: He uses the word suggests. [00:03:57] Speaker 01: So he's pointing to something that doesn't explicitly disclose the behavior. [00:04:01] Speaker 01: And he's inferring. [00:04:03] Speaker 01: He's saying, well, it suggests that it could work that way. [00:04:05] Speaker 01: But he can't point you to where it's explicitly disclosing poke. [00:04:09] Speaker 01: The same is true in the other paragraph of his declaration that the board relied on, paragraph 16. [00:04:14] Speaker 04: So aren't there, I don't know, several different things, not just two. [00:04:23] Speaker 04: One is a piece of prior art expressly says something. [00:04:28] Speaker 04: Then on the inherency, in the herency world, it doesn't expressly say something, but it's always there, even though it doesn't express it. [00:04:39] Speaker 04: But then there's this middle ground of suggests. [00:04:44] Speaker 04: Why isn't that a basis, A, that it's different from either of the two other things? [00:04:54] Speaker 04: And it is, in fact, a basis for a fact finder to say, this piece of prior art teaches [00:05:06] Speaker 04: teaches or suggests, maybe even suggestion is part of teaching, but it's not necessarily an inherency thing. [00:05:13] Speaker 04: A reader, a skilled artisan, would come away understanding from what has been said that there is this other thing not put into explicit words. [00:05:24] Speaker 04: But that's still not inherency. [00:05:26] Speaker 01: Right, Your Honor, I think you have to look at this as whether it's a 103 and obviousness argument. [00:05:31] Speaker 01: Because I think, to your point, if we're operating under an obviousness analysis for a particular element, perhaps you could rely on what it suggests to a person still in the artist. [00:05:40] Speaker 01: But Samsung never argued obviousness for this limitation in the petition. [00:05:44] Speaker 01: It's pages 349 to 350. [00:05:46] Speaker 04: Certainly, as you know, the word suggest is used in a certain obviousness test. [00:05:52] Speaker 04: But isn't that I guess I'm just trying to understand why it should not be the case or why, if you think so, our precedent prevents it from being the case. [00:06:06] Speaker 04: that a fact finder reading a piece of prior art can determine a skilled artisan would understand the following from that prior art. [00:06:18] Speaker 04: And that's not an inherency point. [00:06:22] Speaker 01: I think if you're going to rely on an expert telling you what a person of skill in the art would understand from a reference, and assuming we're not operating under a 103 analysis, I think you do have to show [00:06:33] Speaker 01: that that behavior, whatever they're saying is understood, is necessarily present. [00:06:38] Speaker 01: That's the LBTIP case versus Apple. [00:06:40] Speaker 01: We think the facts of this case are very, very similar to this case, with the exception, as Judge Stark pointed out, that they at least conceded in that case there was no explicit disclosure. [00:06:50] Speaker 01: But in this case, we don't think that's a valid distinction, because the board didn't find that there's an express disclosure in the prior POE, which was relied upon in the petition. [00:07:00] Speaker 01: And so for those reasons, we think when you look at the board's decision under the proper lens, just like the LBT case, another case, the personal web tech versus Apple case, where it wasn't enough. [00:07:12] Speaker 01: Again, in an obviousness ground and a petition, they were looking at a particular limitation within the obviousness ground and found, look, the fact that it's plausible that the prior art works in a certain way is not sufficient to meet your burden if we're going to look at this under that lens. [00:07:27] Speaker 01: When you look at the decision, [00:07:28] Speaker 01: And that way, based on what the board found, no expressed disclosure, no obviousness, there is not substantial evidence to support the board's conclusion. [00:07:38] Speaker 01: Unless Your Honors have any questions on the first issue, I'd like to turn now to the second issue, which is our claim construction for responsive to. [00:07:45] Speaker 01: Because if you find that the board erred in finding the prior art meets our claim construction, the dispute then comes down to whose construction is correct. [00:07:57] Speaker 01: And this court can construe the term on appeal in the first instance, despite the board's failure to do so, I think for two reasons. [00:08:03] Speaker 01: One, parties agree that you can do so. [00:08:06] Speaker 01: Samsung has asked, and it's brief, that you construe responsive to as an alternative basis for inference. [00:08:12] Speaker 01: And two, the record's been sufficiently developed. [00:08:14] Speaker 01: The parties briefed this issue extensively in the proceedings before the board and submitted expert testimony, and so we think it's ripe for resolution. [00:08:22] Speaker 01: Turning to the merits, and I mentioned this earlier, [00:08:24] Speaker 01: Our claim construction requires a direct cause-effect relationship between the second input within the search filter view and displaying the locations view. [00:08:33] Speaker 01: And I want to address briefly this notion of the intervening inputs, and I want to be clear about this. [00:08:39] Speaker 01: We clarified this in our library. [00:08:41] Speaker 01: There is no negative limitation in our claim construction that prohibits any and all intervening actions or inputs between the claimed input and displaying the view. [00:08:51] Speaker 01: our claim construction requires a direct cause-effect relationship. [00:08:55] Speaker 04: And I think a key- What's the difference between those two things? [00:08:59] Speaker 01: I think there's an example that Samsung's expert testified about that clearly illustrates the difference, if you'll allow me to go through that example. [00:09:07] Speaker 01: So he was asked a hypothetical involving three successively displayed views. [00:09:12] Speaker 01: And he was asked to assume there's a first input in the first view. [00:09:15] Speaker 01: Let's call that the first event. [00:09:17] Speaker 01: There's a second input in the second view. [00:09:18] Speaker 01: It's called the second event. [00:09:20] Speaker 01: And then we'll display the third view. [00:09:21] Speaker 01: That's the third event. [00:09:22] Speaker 01: He said a person of skill and the art would understand, of course, the third event you would say is responsive to the second event. [00:09:28] Speaker 01: Now he says in his deposition, you wouldn't be wrong if you said the third event is responsive to the first event. [00:09:34] Speaker 01: But that's not the usual way that a person of ordinary skill and the art would understand those relationships in this context. [00:09:40] Speaker 01: That's on page 4,887 of the appendix, that deposition testimony. [00:09:46] Speaker 01: And so what he was saying there was that, sure, there may be a but for causation relationship between that first input and that first event and that third event. [00:09:57] Speaker 01: That's not really what we mean by responsive to in the context of these claims. [00:10:01] Speaker 01: So when we say direct causation, the difference is it isn't just an indirect but for I couldn't get there without something in the past. [00:10:09] Speaker 01: I think that's consistent with the overall structure of these claims. [00:10:14] Speaker 01: This is kind of separate from the locations view. [00:10:17] Speaker 01: You have a search filter view. [00:10:19] Speaker 01: You have a first input. [00:10:21] Speaker 01: You get a people view. [00:10:22] Speaker 01: You have another input. [00:10:23] Speaker 01: You get a person view. [00:10:24] Speaker 01: You have another input. [00:10:25] Speaker 01: You get a detail view. [00:10:26] Speaker 01: You, of course, can't get to that detail view unless you've had the first input all the way back in the search filter view. [00:10:32] Speaker 01: But the claim isn't written in a way that says that that's responsive to the first input in the search filter view. [00:10:37] Speaker 01: It's responsive to the immediately preceding input. [00:10:40] Speaker 01: And so that's consistent with our idea that it's direct causation. [00:10:43] Speaker 01: It's not mere but for causation. [00:10:45] Speaker 01: I couldn't get there without some prior input. [00:10:48] Speaker 01: I see I'm into my rebuttal timeless. [00:10:49] Speaker 01: If you don't have any other questions, I'll reserve the remainder. [00:10:52] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:11:15] Speaker 02: May it please the court. [00:11:16] Speaker 02: I'd like to start by just framing the issues a little bit here, because counsel correctly stated that there are two issues in this appeal. [00:11:23] Speaker 02: But I just want to make sure the court understands that there are two independent ways the court can affirm, which is it can either agree with the board's construction from the previous case of responsive due, or it can agree with the board's factual finding that [00:11:45] Speaker 02: there is an explicit disclosure of even a direct relationship in the prior issue in this case. [00:11:54] Speaker 02: And I think the simpler way to resolve this case, assuming you don't reach the issue in the other case, would be to just rest on that factual finding. [00:12:04] Speaker 03: Here the board did not expressly construe responsive to right. [00:12:08] Speaker 03: That's right The board did not did not find it necessary So your first grounds for us to a firm would have us do something the board didn't do but since claim constructions Ultimately a question of law we can do that. [00:12:20] Speaker 03: Is that the point? [00:12:21] Speaker 02: I would call it my second, but yes, that is my I think you said it first time. [00:12:25] Speaker 02: Yes and you know, I think really [00:12:29] Speaker 02: We heard it again in the argument here. [00:12:32] Speaker 02: A lot of the dispute is just about what was being argued and what was being found by the board. [00:12:38] Speaker 02: On page one of the gray brief, the second sentence of the gray brief, in fact, is the board did not find that Pope or angst expressly discloses this limitation. [00:12:52] Speaker 02: But that simply isn't true. [00:12:54] Speaker 02: If we go to appendix 75, which is the same page, [00:12:59] Speaker 02: that counsel from Memory Web pointed the court to. [00:13:04] Speaker 02: It says, the weight of the evidence shows that patent owners' argument that the prior art, in particular POG, does not disclose this limitation is incorrect. [00:13:21] Speaker 02: It goes on to say, based on the evidence of record, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the prior art [00:13:29] Speaker 02: does not default to showing a worldview as patent owner contends, but the selecting the places tab can either directly lead to the locations view or the locations view map. [00:13:48] Speaker 02: That is a factual finding about what the prior art teaches. [00:13:51] Speaker 02: That is not a determination about something being inherent in the prior art. [00:13:55] Speaker 02: And I think it becomes even more clear when you look at the underlying evidence that the board had cited on Appendix 74. [00:14:02] Speaker 02: And I want to focus on two pieces of that in particular, namely there's a citation here to paragraph 16 of Exhibit 1027, which is at Appendix 4044. [00:14:19] Speaker 02: That is in [00:14:25] Speaker 02: in volume three, I believe, not page three, volume three. [00:14:38] Speaker 02: This is Dr. Greenspoon's testimony. [00:14:43] Speaker 02: And he says, angst very clearly discloses that selecting places [00:14:52] Speaker 02: can directly lead to either the map view or the locations view, depending on which of two corresponding buttons was previously selected by the user. [00:15:09] Speaker 02: Again, at Appendix 3634, which is the deposition testimony that the board cites on Appendix 74, [00:15:26] Speaker 02: Dr. Greenspun testifies, and I'm looking at particular cases. [00:15:30] Speaker 04: Does Dr. Greenspun say about Pogue what you just read he said about angst? [00:15:37] Speaker 02: He did not make the same claim that Pogue explicitly discloses it. [00:15:42] Speaker 02: So what happened here is [00:15:48] Speaker 02: I think the petition focused on POGUE and then used ANX to sort of corroborate it, but didn't make the assertion specifically about ANX explicitly disclosing it. [00:15:58] Speaker 02: In the panel in response, memory web attacked POGUE in isolation. [00:16:05] Speaker 02: And then in the reply, Samsung pointed out that even if you accept their arguments about POGUE, ANX explicitly discloses it. [00:16:15] Speaker 00: Mr. Chairman, what's the second part of the Greenspun testimony you cited? [00:16:19] Speaker 00: What appendix page? [00:16:20] Speaker 02: It's at 36, 34, going on to 35. [00:16:26] Speaker 02: And it starts sort of at the bottom of 34, where the answer is, nobody asked me that before, but I think it's actually explicitly disclosed [00:16:44] Speaker 02: in Exhibit 1006, which is ANX, not POE. [00:16:52] Speaker 02: So there was a dispute below about whether this reply argument was proper. [00:16:58] Speaker 02: But the board chose to credit the reply argument. [00:17:01] Speaker 02: And Memory Web has not argued on appeal that that was an abuse of discretion. [00:17:06] Speaker 03: But is the situation that the petition only points to POG and only as explicitly disclosing this limitation? [00:17:16] Speaker 02: I don't think it's quite that sharp. [00:17:20] Speaker 02: I think the petition points to both of them, but in terms of [00:17:25] Speaker 02: In terms of how it framed the issue, it relied primarily on Pope. [00:17:30] Speaker 02: And that doesn't contain an in hoc verba recitation that angst explicitly discloses this. [00:17:38] Speaker 03: There was a suggestion, if I understood it correctly, that you didn't [00:17:42] Speaker 03: argue obviousness or that, which I took to mean maybe that you don't need both POGUE and ANX to get this limitation, that you really were only relying on it's explicitly in at least POGUE. [00:17:57] Speaker 03: I guess you're saying now you don't think you narrowed yourselves in the petition to just POGUE, but why isn't this all calling up the types of problems that your friends on the other side are pointing to? [00:18:10] Speaker 02: Well, I think we start with the fact that this is a Section 103 ground, right? [00:18:14] Speaker 02: I mean, so we're inherently in obviousness land by the very fact that we cited Section 103 as the ground, as the basis for our ground petition. [00:18:25] Speaker 02: And then when you combine that with the language from the petition about what Hogue suggests, clearly that's invoking obviousness. [00:18:34] Speaker 02: And it discusses pogue and angst together, which are both describing the same prior art system. [00:18:41] Speaker 02: So I think it requires a level of rigidity to say that somehow this isn't an obviousness case, that it's just really inconsistent with how obviousness rounds are typically treated, whether from the P tab or elsewhere. [00:19:01] Speaker 03: Let me ask you about a statement in their gray brief at page 10. [00:19:06] Speaker 03: Admittedly, it's got a couple of negatives in it, so I'm not going to miss reading it. [00:19:12] Speaker 03: But they're saying you don't dispute something here towards the bottom of 10. [00:19:16] Speaker 03: And I just want to understand if they're right about that. [00:19:19] Speaker 03: SAMSLINK does not dispute that memory web established that there is at least a plausible interpretation of Pogan angst in which the interface never [00:19:29] Speaker 03: never defaults to the browser view when selecting the Places tab. [00:19:34] Speaker 03: Are they right in what they're saying? [00:19:36] Speaker 03: You don't dispute? [00:19:39] Speaker 03: No, we do dispute that. [00:19:41] Speaker 02: We think that the interface can default to either the browser view or to the location view. [00:19:52] Speaker 02: So I think it could be either. [00:19:54] Speaker 02: It's not correct. [00:19:56] Speaker 03: Is there at least a plausible interpretation of those two prior references that would be contrary to what you think? [00:20:04] Speaker 02: Our view is no. [00:20:06] Speaker 02: Obviously, memory web has a different view, and I don't want to disparage that. [00:20:11] Speaker 03: But they would be wrong to think that you've conceded this, essentially. [00:20:15] Speaker 03: That's right. [00:20:16] Speaker 02: That's correct. [00:20:22] Speaker 02: So we have evidence here where our expert testified that this is very clearly disclosed. [00:20:27] Speaker 02: It's explicitly disclosed in the prior art. [00:20:29] Speaker 02: The board says on Appendix 75, we credit this testimony. [00:20:38] Speaker 02: I don't know how much clearer the board could have been that it was crediting testimony about an explicit disclosure. [00:20:45] Speaker 02: Therefore, finding an explicit disclosure [00:20:49] Speaker 02: and taking us very far away from inherency. [00:20:53] Speaker 02: Although I think to Judge Serrano's point earlier, even if you disagreed with it being explicit in the prior art, there isn't always going to be a middle ground in an obviousness analysis where something is suggested to a person of ordinary skill using their background knowledge and ordinary creativity that is fundamentally still a disclosure [00:21:18] Speaker 02: which is different from an inherent disclosure, which could be something that they wouldn't even necessarily recognize. [00:21:23] Speaker 02: You see the pharmaceutical cases where maybe a compound has an inherent property. [00:21:28] Speaker 02: That can be something that's already inherent in the prior art, even if it would take more than ordinary creativity to recognize it from what's written down the four corners of a reference. [00:21:41] Speaker 02: That's really the limited kind of role that inherency plays in an obviousness analysis. [00:21:48] Speaker 02: It doesn't, it's not this rigid binary where you either have an explicit teaching or you have to go to inherency and there's nothing in between. [00:21:56] Speaker 02: And I just briefly want to address the non-precedential LBT case. [00:22:01] Speaker 02: I think that that case is very distinguishable and has rather extreme facts where the expert admitted that the alleged feature was only maybe in the prior art or presumably [00:22:17] Speaker 02: And that kind of testimony stands in stark contrast to what we have here, where the expert says it's very clearly and explicitly disclosed. [00:22:27] Speaker 02: So just briefly, to turn to the other way the court could resolve the case, responsive to, I think the fight here is really about the plain meaning. [00:22:36] Speaker 02: Because they aren't arguing that there's lexicography or disavowal or anything like that. [00:22:41] Speaker 02: It's just whether the plain meaning of responsive requires this direct connection. [00:22:47] Speaker 02: And I think the answer as a matter of ordinary language is no, it doesn't. [00:22:51] Speaker 02: We could say that the stock market is responsive to consumer sentiment. [00:22:55] Speaker 02: That doesn't mean that sort of consumer sentiment floats out there and directly changes the numbers on the board. [00:23:02] Speaker 02: It means that it affects individual trading decisions, which then have cumulative effects on the stock market. [00:23:09] Speaker 02: Similarly, to use opposing counsel's own example of the Google search page where you have to scroll down, [00:23:16] Speaker 02: I would submit that if you have to click through to page two, those search results on page two are still responsive to the original query because they're all still based on it. [00:23:28] Speaker 02: They're all still having a logical connection, a logical cause and effect connection from what you searched for and what results are being displayed on page two. [00:23:38] Speaker 02: And that's the same kind of thing you see in the prior art here. [00:23:41] Speaker 02: where if you want to get to figure 24 of Okamura from figure 21, yes, you have to click a couple of times, but it's all part of the same user navigation. [00:23:53] Speaker 02: And that, to me, as a matter of ordinary language, is responsive to. [00:23:58] Speaker 02: If there are no other questions, I can see the room. [00:24:16] Speaker 01: Your Honors, I'd like to address three issues in my rebuttal. [00:24:20] Speaker 01: I agree with what counsel said. [00:24:22] Speaker 01: I think the dispute in this case is really about what did the board find in the final written decision. [00:24:28] Speaker 01: And counsel argued that ANC expressly disposes this behavior, and the board credited Samson's argument about that. [00:24:36] Speaker 01: And I don't think the board made that finding in the final written decision. [00:24:40] Speaker 01: Page 75 of the appendix will only mention [00:24:44] Speaker 01: of angst in this finding is that it corroborates POGUE. [00:24:48] Speaker 01: They're not relying on angst in isolation. [00:24:51] Speaker 01: They're not saying here that it's explicit in angst. [00:24:55] Speaker 01: That's consistent with how this was argued in the proceedings below. [00:24:58] Speaker 01: The petition of pages 349 to 350 of the appendix only cited POGUE for the locations view limitation. [00:25:06] Speaker 01: When Samsung came back in its reply and it relied on an express disclosure in Enx, we argued in our sub-reply to the board that it would be improper for Samsung to change which reference it was relying on. [00:25:18] Speaker 01: Now, the board didn't expressly address that argument, but I think here on page 75 in the final written decision, by only relying on Enx as corroboration as opposed to saying that it's expressly disclosed, I think they recognized that what was in the petition was just poked and not Enx. [00:25:35] Speaker 01: And so I think the relevant reference you need to look at to see if there's substantial evidence to support this conclusion is Pope. [00:25:42] Speaker 01: And their expert did not testify that this behavior was expressed in Pope. [00:25:48] Speaker 01: The second issue I want to touch on is that counsel argued that we're in 103 land. [00:25:53] Speaker 01: So everything in the petition is viewed through the lens of 103. [00:25:56] Speaker 01: I don't think that's correct. [00:25:59] Speaker 01: This petition relied on 103 for two reasons. [00:26:01] Speaker 01: One, they needed to combine Pogue and Engst for certain limitations because certain features were not taught in Pogue, so they had to bring in a secondary reference. [00:26:10] Speaker 01: And then if you look at their discussion of the detail view limitation, this is pages 344 to 345 of the appendix in their petition, they have an expressed obviousness argument about modifying the prior art to meet a claim limitation. [00:26:25] Speaker 01: And so Samsung knew how to make obviousness arguments within this ground of unpatentability, [00:26:31] Speaker 01: But just because it was framed as a 103 ground doesn't give them a license to argue every single contention under the lens of 103 once we point out that there isn't an express disclosure as alleged in the petition. [00:26:44] Speaker 03: Didn't the petition, didn't it say suggests for this limitation that POGUE suggests it? [00:26:49] Speaker 01: In the petition, no, they did not say suggest. [00:26:52] Speaker 01: They pointed to the Places tab in POG and said, you click this, and this is the view that you get. [00:26:57] Speaker 03: So where did suggest first come up? [00:26:59] Speaker 03: I guess I'd love to try it. [00:27:00] Speaker 01: In the reply declaration of Samsung's expert, Dr. Greenspun, that was in paragraph 17. [00:27:06] Speaker 01: That's page 40, 45 of the appendix. [00:27:08] Speaker 01: That's the first time that that word came up in this proceeding. [00:27:12] Speaker 01: And then finally, just start to your question. [00:27:14] Speaker 01: The last point I want to hit on, you had asked some questions about other plausible interpretations of these references. [00:27:20] Speaker 01: I think there is another plausible interpretation, and that forecloses a finding that it's inherent. [00:27:25] Speaker 01: So even if we look to X, the reference in which they've argued that it's explicit, and we look at what Dr. Greenspoon cited. [00:27:31] Speaker 01: He cited something on page 1564 of the appendix. [00:27:35] Speaker 01: Specifically, there's text on that page that says, click places in the source pane, and if necessary, click the worldview button in the view control in the toolbox. [00:27:49] Speaker 01: And so from there, they've inferred, well, because it says if necessary, well, you may have to click the world button. [00:27:54] Speaker 01: So that means it must be defaulting at some point to the browser view. [00:27:58] Speaker 01: I think what's more interesting is the text on the next page of the appendix, 1565, which they don't address. [00:28:05] Speaker 01: There, they're describing actually the browser view, the relevant view for the locations view. [00:28:10] Speaker 01: There is no if necessary qualifier there. [00:28:12] Speaker 01: It says to get there, you click places, and then you click the browser button to be able to get there. [00:28:18] Speaker 01: So we think there's at least a plausible interpretation of this prior art. [00:28:22] Speaker 01: It's not necessarily true that it defaults in the way that Samson suggested. [00:28:26] Speaker 01: And because it does not, there is not substantial evidence for the board's conclusion. [00:28:30] Speaker 01: Unless your honors have any other questions, we ask that you reverse or remand the decision. [00:28:34] Speaker 04: Thank you, and thanks to all counsel. [00:28:36] Speaker 04: The case is submitted, and that concludes our business for the day.