[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Well, we've been in law schools all week, so it's kind of odd and disappointing in a way, not to be the law school.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
But many thanks to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and to the District Court for hosting us today.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
First case is 24-1290, Pictometry International versus Nearmap.

[00:00:21] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:00:22] Speaker 02:
Vu, please put on your red.

[00:00:24] Speaker 02:
Please proceed.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
Good morning, and may it please the court.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
I'm Laura Vu on behalf of Pictometry.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
The board determined that claims of the 880 patent are unpatentable, and this appeal relates to errors that impact the board's findings as to the limitation of providing visual access in the independent claims as well as errors in the dependent claims.

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
Today, I'll first address the inconsistencies in the board's decision.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
I'll then turn to the board's APA violations relating to the motivation to combine,

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
and the board's failure to address certain limitations in the dependent claims.

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
And then I'll address claim construction.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
Unless the court prefers a different order, I'll start with the inconsistencies.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
So for context, the board analyzed the providing visual access limitation under the board's construction and pictometry's construction.

[00:01:19] Speaker 02:
And it concluded under either construction result was the same.

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
But there are errors under both construction that require the court to remand the board's decision.

[00:01:30] Speaker 04:
And are we required, though, to resolve the construction dispute?

[00:01:36] Speaker 01:
We think the court should resolve the construction dispute.

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
For one, the construction dispute shows that the decision under the board's construction

[00:01:49] Speaker 01:
should not be affirmed.

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
And the court should remand on dependent claims 3 and 16, regardless of what happens under either of the board's findings.

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
And so because of that issue, the construction would be helpful for the board on remand.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
Now, I guess I'll just address the dispute or the issue with dependent claims 3 and 16 first.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
Here in footnote 6, the board

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
did not address all of the limitations in dependent claims 3 and 16.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
Dependent claims 3 and 16 recite additional limitations of- Well, what was the briefing below?

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
The other side contends that you didn't really raise the kinds of arguments with respect to the additional limitations in claims 3 and 16 below.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
Is that correct?

[00:02:39] Speaker 01:
That's not correct.

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
We raised the dispute on those

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
Arguments was limitations at appendix 293 to 294.

[00:02:48] Speaker 01:
That's the patent owner response, where we did individually address the using latitude and longitude coordinate limitations.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
But did you make an argument that the latitude and longitude are independently important to the patentability analysis?

[00:03:07] Speaker 04:
Can you give us those page numbers again?

[00:03:09] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
Appendix 293 to 294.

[00:03:14] Speaker 01:
Yes, we believe we did make those arguments.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
So 293 to 294, we argue that things 3 and 16 recite additional limitations of using latitude and longitude coordinates.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
And at 294, the combination fails to address the additional details of using latitude and longitude coordinates.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
But it seemed like that was embedded in the larger issue you raised, I think, about whether there needs to be a second step or a second database.

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
It didn't seem like you were saying there was any independent significance to latitude and longitude.

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
Why would that be a misreading of what you argued?

[00:03:59] Speaker 01:
It is an extension of that argument, but it's a different argument because the claims require additional limitations.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
And so if the prior art doesn't even address

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
original limitation in the independent claims, it also doesn't address the additional limitations of using latitude and longitude coordinates.

[00:04:22] Speaker 01:
And so it's just an additional reason why the prior art doesn't meet those additional limitations.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
And so because the board's decision doesn't address those limitations at all, the court should remand for the board to address

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
those additional limitations in the dependent claims.

[00:04:44] Speaker 03:
Can you turn to your argument that is not focused on 3 and 16?

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
So for the inconsistencies in the board's decision, that relates to providing visual access finding under the board's construction.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
And the board's decision at appendix 10 says that claim 16 does not recite

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
database access step and that statement is wrong on its face because claim 16 does recite a database access step and that statement leads to inconsistencies in the board's decision in particular with respect to claim construction and the analysis in footnote 6 where the board is addressing dependent claims 3 and 16 in both those sections

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
In contrast to what the board said at Appendix 10, the board said that the dependent claims do not, sorry, do recite a database access step.

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
And so you have a conflict of how the board is understanding Claim 16.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
Under core photonics, that kind of error requires remanding the board's decision.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
We've had a long week.

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
But is this the argument you're making and the other side says this was just a typo?

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:06:11] Speaker 02:
The reference to 16, the board clearly read in context, meant claim 14.

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
If we accept that argument, does your argument go away?

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
The argument regarding the inconsistencies with regard to the

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
claim construction and the footnote goes away.

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
There's still an inconsistency with how the board treated the dependent claims.

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
Because again, in claim construction, they recognize that claims 3 and 16 provide an additional limitation.

[00:06:43] Speaker 02:
So that's the first argument you were making.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
But now on the second argument, it goes away if we accept the fact that there was a typo between the same 16 versus 14.

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
The inconsistencies go away, but there's still a claim construction issue where there's still an error with the board's claim construction.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
And so the court shouldn't affirm under the board's construction of providing visual access.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
So it resolves the inconsistencies aspect, but it doesn't resolve all the issues in the case.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
And it clearly is a typo, isn't it?

[00:07:20] Speaker 04:
I mean, at 810, the board says they refer to section 2B, which only addressed 14 and not 16.

[00:07:30] Speaker 04:
And they say, in short, as if they're summarizing what they had already said.

[00:07:36] Speaker 04:
And all of that relates to 14 and not 16.

[00:07:39] Speaker 04:
Isn't it clearly a typo?

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
Sorry.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
construction no the reference a type we declined to adopt that construction for the reasons outlined above in section 2b and if you look at 2b that's about 1 in 14 it's not about 16 well so it says we declined to adopt that construction for the reasons outlined above in section 2b which is the board's analysis under claim construction and in that section the board said that claims three that claim three

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
does recite a database access set.

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
So it does mention claim three, and claim 16 recites identical limitations.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
And so there is analysis in section 2B that shows an inconsistency in the board's analysis.

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
If there are no further questions on the inconsistencies, I can turn to the APA issues, the other APA issue in the board's decision.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
This error relates to the board's analysis under pictometry's construction, which requires two image access steps.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
And the board's analysis of the providing visual access limitation under pictometry's construction depends on a motivation to combine the references, because no single reference teaches a second image access step.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
And the board's motivation to combine analysis is insufficient under the APA because it doesn't.

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
What's the closest case you have?

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
Because we see a lot of allegations of APA violations these days.

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
Many of which have to do with the fact that the board

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
but beyond what the other side didn't have a chance to respond to because it wasn't in the petition.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
But this is a little bit of an odd one.

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's two pages.

[00:09:31] Speaker 02:
I guess, what do you think is the closest precedent that had something like this, several paragraphs, in the board opinion, and we concluded that it was an insufficient analysis?

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
That would be nuvasive.

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
In nuvasive, the court expressly said that,

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
Summarizing the party's arguments and rejecting one side's arguments is not sufficient.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
And then also providing a conclusory statement is not sufficient.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
So Nubase is, I think, directly on point and directly deals with this issue and says that the board's analysis in this case would not be enough.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
And you've mapped what the board did in evasive and what the board did here, and you think it's similar enough?

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
The board here only summarized the party's arguments and only rejected pictometry's arguments, and then just provided a single one-line statement with no citation to anything in the record, no citation to any of the party's briefs.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
As the court said in evasive, that kind of analysis is insufficient.

[00:10:50] Speaker 04:
This may not be dispositive, but I'm not sure it's fair to say it's one sentence.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
Isn't all of that last paragraph at 813 under wraps now for combining Kathy and Florence fairly viewed as board analysis?

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
So the first part of that paragraph is just a rejection of pictometry's arguments.

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
So again, Nubasive said that that is not.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
So that sentence doesn't count.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
Under Nubasive.

[00:11:16] Speaker 04:
It does.

[00:11:18] Speaker 04:
We may be quibbling here, but it says, we disagree with patent owner because.

[00:11:21] Speaker 04:
And it does go on to give a reason, doesn't it?

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
Several sentences of reason.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
Those are reasons rejecting pictometry's arguments, which again, under Nubasive,

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
The court said it was not sufficient.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
What the board should have done.

[00:11:38] Speaker 02:
Wait, why is it not?

[00:11:39] Speaker 02:
I mean, that's what you think the board is supposed to do, right?

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
Supposed to analyze the patent owner's arguments and say why it rejects them.

[00:11:48] Speaker 02:
Why is this insufficient?

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
It's not an express adoption of Nearmap's arguments.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
And it doesn't explain why the board

[00:12:00] Speaker 01:
believes there's an independent reason to have a motivation to combine, and there is no citation to the briefs or the record.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
If there are no further questions on the APA issues, I'll quickly turn to claim construction.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
Here the Ford's crane construction is wrong because it is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
Providing visual access does not just mean displaying.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
It means more.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
It means access and display.

[00:12:45] Speaker 01:
And the specification squarely supports this construction.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
The specification includes the concept of displaying by defining the term visually depicting.

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
But the patent did not use the term visually depicting in the claims, which means the claim does not just mean displaying.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
The detailed description also uses the term access once.

[00:13:12] Speaker 01:
And in that part of the specification, it refers to accessing images from the database.

[00:13:20] Speaker 01:
And so those parts of the specification show that providing visual access means you access and display.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
The board only relied on claim differentiation to support their construction, but the board oversimplifies the dependent claims.

[00:13:37] Speaker 03:
The board said that- And you don't think that the claim construction, which given that we're talking about intrinsic evidence, which we can decide de novo, can stand independent of the claim differentiation rationale?

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
That is, if we were to agree with you that the claim differentiation point made by the board was actually not persuasive, that still leaves the question whether the bottom line claim construction was correct.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
And you think that once the claim differentiation rationale is rejected on that assumption, there's nothing left that could support the result.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
In the board's analysis?

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:14:23] Speaker 03:
Oh.

[00:14:23] Speaker 03:
It kind of doesn't matter what the board's analysis is on a pure legal question of claim construction.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
What matters is our analysis when it's only intrinsic evidence.

[00:14:35] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
We think the specification here supports our construction.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
And so even without the claim differentiation argument, the intrinsic evidence supports our construction of access and display.

[00:14:49] Speaker 01:
But just really quickly, because I see I'm running out of time.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
You're pretty much exhausted your rebuttal time.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
So very, very quick.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
So again, the claim differentiation doesn't support the board's construction, because the dependent claims recite additional limitations of using latitude and longitude coordinates to access the database and a second imagery database.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
Will we start two minutes of rebuttal?

[00:15:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
Raymond, good to see you.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
I'm Megan Raymond on behalf of Nearmap.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
I'd like to start with the APA issues, then I'll turn to the Claim 3 and 16 issues that Ms.

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
Bu addressed first.

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
I don't plan to address the typo issue unless Your Honors have questions, and then finally hit on claim construction if there's time remaining.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
With respect to the APA issues,

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
Here, the standard is whether the board's path can reasonably be discerned or sufficiently clear to enable.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
I was going to interrupt you.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
How does this map on to Nubasic?

[00:16:11] Speaker 02:
I mean, do we not have precedent that this court is similar enough here that we ought to apply it?

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
So Nubasic is different because there, the PTAB summarized both parties' arguments and then just said plain one would be obvious.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
And it wasn't clear there that the board adopted any of the petitioner's arguments.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
And in any case, the petitioner itself didn't explain why there was motivation to go by in any case.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
In addition there, there wasn't the same citation to the pages of the petition and the petitioner's reply that there is here.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
And I might also point out the Outdry case, where this

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
court found that the board expressly adopted the petitioner's rationale.

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
And that's because the board said that the petitioner provided a rational underpinning for the arguments.

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
And the board here used the very same language and said the petitioner provided a rational underpinning.

[00:17:11] Speaker 04:
Have we, to your knowledge, ever said that one sentence is a satisfactory path for us to reasonably discern what the board was thinking?

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
I'm not aware of a case that said one sentence is a sufficient path.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
But one, the amount of explanation needs to be commensurate with the complexity of the case.

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
The case up here, the technology isn't complex.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
The arguments aren't complex.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
But I would also say here that it's much more than one sentence of explanation.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
Here, the board starts by saying the petitioner's shown obviousness.

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
The board recites an overview of the petitioner's arguments regarding the motivation to combine an accuracy.

[00:17:50] Speaker 00:
They then turn to addressing and then rejecting and explaining why they reject patent owners' arguments.

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
And in doing that, the board addresses more details of the rationale for petitioners' proposed combination, and then says that they agree with petitioners' rationale even under patent owners' construction.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
That's in Appendix 10.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
Then it goes on, on the next page, and says, for these reasons, and in light of the petitioner's analysis, citing petition pages 27 to 37, which is petition 87 to 97 here, we agree with petitioner.

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
The board then continues its analysis with respect to petitioner's accuracy arguments.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
It again rejects the patent owner's arguments, saying we disagree with the patent owner because, and explaining.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
And it then concludes, given petitioner's accuracy improvement rationale,

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
Dishner has articulated sufficient regioning with rational underpinning to support its assertion that including Florence's movable markers in Kennedy's system would have been obvious, and that's at appendix 13.

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
So here, there's more than sufficient explanation to make it clear that the accuracy rationale was why the board found that a person of skill would have modified Kennedy in lieu of Florence.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
If there are no more questions there, moving on then to the

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
Claim 3 and 16 argument.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
It was spin, right?

[00:19:11] Speaker 02:
We've got a footnote there, right?

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
All we have is the police footnote.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
There is a footnote, but the footnote there goes back and points up and acknowledges the latitude longitude requirement.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
It says, as explained above, the combination and the rationale account for the second image retrieval step.

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
That rationale above includes a discussion on Appendix 10, pointing to, and that's under patent owner's instruction with the two database access steps.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
Points to the discussion on 10, and the petitioner's explanation, saying the petitioner explains why one of skill and art would have retrieved Kennedy's two images in separate steps.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
And that cites Petition 37 explicitly.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
That's Appendix 97.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
Appendix 97 specifically addresses retrieving the second image using GPS coordinates.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
Indeed, in the petition, the petition's own

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
formulation of ground one has two database access steps.

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
And that second database access step is performed by using these GPS coordinates, latitude, longitude.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
It's also worth noting that claims two and 15 aren't appealed here, and they weren't actually argued below.

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
The patent owner had no separate arguments regarding claims two and 15.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
Claims two and 15 have a latitude, longitude requirement with respect to selecting the final location.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
So then what that means is claim 2 already does gather, perform step 1.5 using the latitude longitude requirements.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
So that's not been appealed here.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
That wasn't argued below.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
And indeed, that was waived.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
And maybe it's also worth noting a petition on page 45, which is at appendix 103, claim 3, cited up to claim 2.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
And again, they didn't address claim 2 in the patent owner response or the sub-reply.

[00:21:00] Speaker 00:
unless there are other questions on claim 3 and 16.

[00:21:03] Speaker 00:
I don't plan to address the typo issue unless Your Honors have questions.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
And then with respect to claim construction then, the plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase does not require database access based on the plain meaning of the term itself.

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
With respect to claim differentiation, what is new?

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
What is new is the database access

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
after selection of the final location based on latitude, longitude.

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
Again, the latitude, longitude requirement is in claim two.

[00:21:38] Speaker 00:
What claim three requires is that that selection is based on the database.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
So the PAN owner knew how to say, after step 1.4, access the database using this data that you've now gathered in 1.4.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
It shows not to do that in claim one.

[00:21:56] Speaker 04:
That may have some

[00:21:59] Speaker 04:
at least common sense to it, what you're arguing.

[00:22:01] Speaker 04:
But is that really what the board said at A6?

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
Didn't they sort of apply a strong version of claim differentiation that doesn't really apply neatly here?

[00:22:13] Speaker 04:
Because there are other differences between these dependent claims and the independent claims that the board doesn't seem to acknowledge, at least in this context.

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
I think the difference with respect to that second

[00:22:26] Speaker 00:
Database access step, the second requirement regarding providing visual access.

[00:22:31] Speaker 00:
The only difference between the claims is the database access piece of it, because the latitude longitude piece was already built in.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
And then what claim three adds is, and access of database.

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
It's also maybe worth noting that the Wegener case cited by Pictometry in its brief, to the extent they're suggesting that claim differentiation only applies when the limitation with dependent claim is the only meaningful difference between the claim.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
That case says that claim differentiation is clearly applicable there.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
I think it's also applicable here.

[00:23:15] Speaker 00:
It's maybe not as strong.

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
Not clearly, but applicable.

[00:23:18] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:23:20] Speaker 04:
What do you do with the specification expressly defines providing visual access?

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
Well, sorry.

[00:23:31] Speaker 04:
It expressly defines visually depicting, I think, but not providing visual access.

[00:23:36] Speaker 04:
But your argument seems to equate those two things.

[00:23:38] Speaker 04:
Yeah, one is a defined term.

[00:23:41] Speaker 04:
Isn't that improper under our case law?

[00:23:44] Speaker 00:
I don't think so.

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
I don't think the failure to define

[00:23:50] Speaker 00:
really says whether the term is defined the same or differently than another term.

[00:23:54] Speaker 00:
But I think here, I think there is a little bit of confusion, because it's not clear to me whether Petrometry is saying the providing visual access language of 1.5 is what creates the database access limitation.

[00:24:09] Speaker 00:
That seemed to be perhaps what was being said in the opening brief.

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
I think on the reply brief, what they've said is that providing visual access, those three words

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
does not, is not the portion of claim 1.5 that creates the requirement of a second database access.

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
So if that's the case, then whether there's a similarity or difference between providing visual access and visually depicting doesn't really matter.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
Because in that case, what we're fighting over is the rest of the claim language, which talks about an image that is of a database.

[00:24:47] Speaker 00:
Unless there are other questions, Your Honor, I will cede my time.

[00:24:52] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:24:53] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:24:54] Speaker 02:
Will we still have two minutes of rebuttal?

[00:25:02] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:25:03] Speaker 01:
I just want to address the NURAP raised Appendix 9 to 10 as additional discussion about how the board's analysis satisfies the APA, because

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
That is additional analysis as to the motivation to combine.

[00:25:22] Speaker 01:
But those pages do not address the motivation to combine.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
Those pages address the providing visual access limitation.

[00:25:30] Speaker 01:
And so in that analysis, the board assumes there is a motivation to combine.

[00:25:34] Speaker 01:
It's not independent analysis addressing the motivation to combine.

[00:25:39] Speaker 01:
We're turning to claims two and 15 for a moment.

[00:25:46] Speaker 01:
Those claims do not recite the same limitation in independent claims 3 and 16.

[00:25:54] Speaker 01:
Claims 2 says that the final location is translated to latitude and longitude coordinates.

[00:25:59] Speaker 01:
But claim 2 doesn't say what to do with those latitude and longitude coordinates.

[00:26:04] Speaker 01:
It's not until you get to claim 3 where the claim recites using the latitude and longitude coordinates to access the images from the imagery database.

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
And so that is an additional limitation that

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
is not in claim two or in claim one that the board failed to address.

[00:26:21] Speaker 01:
And it is an additional reason why claim differentiation doesn't apply here, because claims three and 16 are not just directed to accessing images from the database.

[00:26:33] Speaker 01:
And just again, if providing visual access meant only displaying, the claims would have said,

[00:26:44] Speaker 01:
depicting or visually depicting.

[00:26:46] Speaker 01:
But instead, it says providing visual access, which means something different.

[00:26:51] Speaker 01:
And here, providing visual access means you access and display.

[00:26:57] Speaker 01:
In the context of limitation 1.5, which expressly recites an aerial imagery database, you access the aerial imagery database, and then you display.

[00:27:07] Speaker 02:
So thank you.

[00:27:08] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:27:08] Speaker 02:
We thank both sides.

[00:27:09] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted.