[00:00:00] Speaker 06: First is number 232033, ride share displays against Lyft. [00:00:09] Speaker 00: May I please the court? [00:00:11] Speaker 00: RSDI's appeal of the original claims that the PTAB erroneously held unpatentable. [00:00:16] Speaker 00: I want to begin with the PTAB's finding that the Lancet discloses the mobile communication device associated with the driver of the vehicle, which is not supported by substantial evidence. [00:00:27] Speaker 00: Now, if this Court agrees, then it should reverse the PTAB's holding of unpatentability as the claims 1 of the 525 patent, claim 2 of the 199 patent, and claims 1 through 5 of the 417 patent. [00:00:42] Speaker 00: Each of these claims only had, by the PTAB, a basis of unpatentability based on either the Lancet alone or the Lancet with Kemmler. [00:00:50] Speaker 00: And nobody is alleging that Kemmler discloses this limitation because Kemmler is a driverless system. [00:00:57] Speaker 00: So all of the claims require that there is a specific device that is associated with a specific entity. [00:01:04] Speaker 00: And these associations remain constant throughout the system or method that's claimed. [00:01:09] Speaker 00: One requirement is that there is a mobile communication device associated with the driver of the vehicle. [00:01:15] Speaker 00: Now what the PTAB is relying on for this disclosure in the Lancet is just a minor embodiment that's given a total of five lines of disclosure. [00:01:25] Speaker 00: And what it says is as part of the dispatch procedure, the service provider transmits the dispatch information to a mobile computer in taxi car 118. [00:01:36] Speaker 00: And all the mobile computer then does is, quote, manage the two displays of the Lancet by popping that icon up on those two displays. [00:01:44] Speaker 00: And I want to quickly just say that for claim two of the 199 patents, the PTAB actually provides no basis for finding this limitation met in the Lancet. [00:01:54] Speaker 00: All they do is say, we don't agree with patent owners' arguments. [00:01:59] Speaker 00: They run through what they are, say they don't agree, and then they say, we therefore find that this limitation is disclosed. [00:02:06] Speaker 00: So not only is that not substantial evidence, that's no evidence. [00:02:10] Speaker 00: But with regard to claim one of the 525 patents and claims one through five of the 417 patents, what they say in their analysis for these claims is not that the Lancet actually discloses the mobile computer being associated with the driver of the vehicle. [00:02:29] Speaker 00: The mobile computer is in the taxi, so it's associated with the taxi. [00:02:34] Speaker 00: That's right. [00:02:36] Speaker 00: But then they go on to say the driver's in the vehicle, so the driver's associated with the vehicle. [00:02:41] Speaker 06: Isn't the term associated fairly capacious with a little bit of a transitive property? [00:02:48] Speaker 00: Yeah, that's what they're doing. [00:02:49] Speaker 06: They end up doing a transitive property saying... Why is that wrong with a word like associated? [00:02:55] Speaker 00: Right, so it's wrong because, first of all, if we put this in the context of what the Lancet system is, if you look at the figure of the Lancet, and that's Appendix 338, this is a taxi system, right? [00:03:11] Speaker 00: So what's important in this system is the central server of the taxi that's shown in Figure 1. [00:03:18] Speaker 00: And then the rider and the rider's device, that's shown in figure one. [00:03:24] Speaker 00: They're standing there holding their cell phone, because that's how they ordered the taxi. [00:03:30] Speaker 00: And then what's important is the vehicle with its two displays. [00:03:34] Speaker 00: And that's what's shown in the lancet. [00:03:36] Speaker 00: What is not shown anywhere in the lancet is the driver, because the driver isn't important to how this system actually operates. [00:03:44] Speaker 00: And the mobile computer isn't shown at all in figure one, because it's again this blip. [00:03:49] Speaker 00: But it's disclosed like the displays, which are part of the taxi. [00:03:54] Speaker 00: And so it's not a fair reading of the Lancet to say, just because we can say the word associate will allow us to take this out several iterations, that the Lancet fairly is disclosing a mobile computer being associated with the driver. [00:04:09] Speaker 03: The Lancet's mobile computer is [00:04:12] Speaker 03: is connected to a dashboard display, right? [00:04:18] Speaker 03: So information that comes into the mobile computer gets displayed on the dashboard. [00:04:24] Speaker 03: And then the taxi driver obviously can see and interact with the dashboard display in that way. [00:04:32] Speaker 03: And so I guess in that sense there is [00:04:37] Speaker 03: arguably some level of connectedness between the taxi driver and those components, as opposed to, I don't know, the axle of the taxi case. [00:04:50] Speaker 03: That's associated with the driver. [00:04:52] Speaker 03: That's a further stretch. [00:04:54] Speaker 03: But there's something else going on here that might bring the taxi driver closer to that mobile computer. [00:05:02] Speaker 03: through the dashboard display in such a manner that maybe it's not unreasonable to say that, in fact, the mobile computer is associated with the taxi driver. [00:05:13] Speaker 00: So in response to that, Judge Chen, I want to just say the PTAB nor lift has argued, and PTAB hasn't found, that it's the combination of the display and mobile computer that satisfies this limitation. [00:05:25] Speaker 00: They've only said it's the mobile computer. [00:05:28] Speaker 00: But also, neither of these things are associated with the driver. [00:05:31] Speaker 00: The display is disclosed as being a dash mounted display. [00:05:37] Speaker 00: It's part of the vehicle. [00:05:38] Speaker 00: And we know that the [00:05:42] Speaker 00: the specification of the patent set issue, define mobile communication device as being any portable wireless device. [00:05:51] Speaker 00: That dash mounted display is not disclosed as being portable. [00:05:54] Speaker 00: Neither is the mobile computer. [00:05:56] Speaker 00: And so both- Why does Law and Set say mobile? [00:06:00] Speaker 00: I'm sorry? [00:06:00] Speaker 03: Why does Law and Set say mobile, the mobile computer? [00:06:03] Speaker 00: So I think there's a difference between mobile and portable, right? [00:06:06] Speaker 00: Mobile, it's moving because the vehicle's moving. [00:06:09] Speaker 00: Portable denotes that it can be carried. [00:06:14] Speaker 03: Maybe. [00:06:15] Speaker 03: OK. [00:06:15] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:06:16] Speaker 00: OK. [00:06:17] Speaker 00: So for at least these reasons, I'm running out of time here. [00:06:19] Speaker 00: I would say that the PTEB has not shown by substantial evidence that there is this limitation. [00:06:24] Speaker 06: And you will have the six minutes for the two things you will do during that. [00:06:32] Speaker 06: Yes, you're next. [00:06:50] Speaker 02: I think your honor, I may have pleased the court. [00:06:53] Speaker 02: I'll begin with a LaLancet issue, but then I want to move to the cross appeal as well. [00:06:57] Speaker 02: With respect to this LaLancet disclosure. [00:07:01] Speaker 06: Can you speak up a little? [00:07:02] Speaker 02: Sure, louder. [00:07:03] Speaker 02: Yes, happy to do that. [00:07:05] Speaker 02: With respect to this LaLancet issue, I think it's important to note that here the [00:07:11] Speaker 02: Patton Hunter is just challenging the substantial evidence review, the evidence that the board was relying on to make its factual findings. [00:07:18] Speaker 02: If you read the board's opinion, it'll be clear that the board explicitly discredited Patton Hunter's expert testimony. [00:07:24] Speaker 02: They also criticized Patton Hunter for misrepresenting our expert's testimony. [00:07:29] Speaker 02: And they found that La Lancette, as is taught in the actual disclosure of La Lancette itself, [00:07:37] Speaker 02: has a, quote, driver dashboard display connected to this mobile device that's in the car. [00:07:42] Speaker 02: So it's clear that what the car has is a driver computer. [00:07:46] Speaker 02: The board was perfectly entitled to make that factual finding, which it did, for instance, on page 182 of the final decision. [00:07:53] Speaker 06: Was there a request for a further construction of associated or some other term that [00:08:01] Speaker 02: Neither party explicitly asked for any such explicit construction, Your Honor, and the board appear to be applying the plain meaning correctly because associated is a broad term. [00:08:12] Speaker 03: Would you say that the taxi cars muffler is associated with the taxi driver? [00:08:17] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:08:18] Speaker 02: I mean, it wouldn't be necessary here, but yes. [00:08:21] Speaker 02: I mean, it's associated with the driver because the driver is in control of the car. [00:08:25] Speaker 02: Yes, I would. [00:08:27] Speaker 03: But this is obviously much more direct because here there is... Is the gasoline in the gas tank associated with the taxi driver? [00:08:33] Speaker 02: When it's in the gas tank, yes. [00:08:35] Speaker 02: I mean, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be associated with a driver at that point. [00:08:40] Speaker 02: But again, here we have a... literally the reference calls it a driver dashboard display, right? [00:08:45] Speaker 02: It's clear that the driver is interacting with his computer directly, just as he would be interacting directly with the gasoline if you were to pump it into the car at that point. [00:08:53] Speaker 02: I think the answer is yes. [00:08:55] Speaker 02: But just to get back to your question, Judge Tronto, about the claim construction issue, it's also useful to note at page 142 of the record, the board also criticized Patner's argument as being inconsistent with the specification itself, which describes mobile communication devices broadly. [00:09:11] Speaker 02: So to the extent there was any sort of claim interpretation happening there, it would have been with respect to this mobile communication device, which they found was a broad term and could cover the driver display. [00:09:21] Speaker 02: Unless there's any questions about that, I want to turn to the cross appeal on the amended claims. [00:09:26] Speaker 02: I'm also happy to address any other appeal points that the court has questions with, but let's turn to the cross appeal. [00:09:32] Speaker 02: And let me start with the subject matter eligibility issue under section 101. [00:09:37] Speaker 06: I would prefer, at least, if you started with written discretion, which is not quite, but something like a one paragraph issue. [00:09:47] Speaker 02: Um, one paragraph issue, paragraph 30. [00:09:50] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:09:51] Speaker 02: In the, in the specification. [00:09:53] Speaker 06: Um, that's, that's the bottom of column five, top of column six. [00:09:56] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:09:57] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:09:58] Speaker 02: So with respect to the one 12 issue, I mean, our argument is essentially that the board made a mistake either because it found support in paragraph 30 for this claim element that really wasn't there or to the extent that they were correct. [00:10:09] Speaker 02: And what's in paragraph 30 is sufficient to teach this claim element. [00:10:12] Speaker 02: that that same disclosure is in Kimler, the prior art that we were asserting renders this claim invalid. [00:10:17] Speaker 02: So the board's reasoning is just incoherent in our view. [00:10:22] Speaker 02: It's either the case, if they're right that there's enough support there, then the prior art invalidates the claims. [00:10:26] Speaker 02: And if, as we think, they're wrong, but that description is not sufficient, [00:10:30] Speaker 02: then the claims obviously are not supported and should not have been allowed. [00:10:33] Speaker 06: That way of making the point suggests, in my mind, a remand. [00:10:39] Speaker 06: I assume you want more than a remand, and so you really ought to plunk down one way or the other on what you think that paragraph means. [00:10:48] Speaker 02: What, paragraph 30 means? [00:10:49] Speaker 02: Yeah, so I think we are explicit in the brief. [00:10:51] Speaker 02: We don't think paragraph 30 has sufficient support for what's required here because, again, we think in [00:10:58] Speaker 02: The board obviously cited to several other paragraphs, all of which have to do with the signal itself and not the actual indicator. [00:11:03] Speaker 02: Just get to paragraph 30. [00:11:05] Speaker 02: So paragraph 30, there's one sentence in paragraph 30, which is, alternatively, the vehicle identification system may be adapted to allow the driver to enter a command on the driver's mobile communication device so that another code or indicator or other indicator can be generated for the next rider who's going to share the same vehicle. [00:11:22] Speaker 02: That's the entire sentence, I think, that would support purportedly the board's conclusion here. [00:11:27] Speaker 02: But it's useful to note. [00:11:28] Speaker 02: Nothing in that sentence describes this indicator being generated by the central controller as the claim requires. [00:11:34] Speaker 02: And in the yellow brief, RSDI admits that these claims require that this indicator be generated not by the driver's device, but by the controller up in the central controller. [00:11:43] Speaker 03: If the substitute claim 29 requires the indicator to be generated [00:11:48] Speaker 03: by the controller? [00:11:49] Speaker 02: Well, that's what they say in their yellow brief. [00:11:52] Speaker 03: No, I mean, let's just look at the claim together. [00:11:54] Speaker 03: Yeah, yeah. [00:11:55] Speaker 03: What does it say? [00:11:56] Speaker 03: It says, I thought substitute claim 29 said. [00:11:58] Speaker 02: I mean, 29B is degenerating by creating an indicator, an addictive signal, in response to receiving the notification signal. [00:12:10] Speaker 02: And that notification signal itself is received [00:12:18] Speaker 06: by the driver. [00:12:21] Speaker 02: Yeah, so that is correct. [00:12:22] Speaker 06: I thought your principal point was not the one you are now making, but rather that this one sentence, which is the one thing that talks about creating an indicator, does not say, as claims do require, that the indicator be created in the substitute claim after a notification symbol when you're close to the second rider. [00:12:47] Speaker 06: That's what we're talking about. [00:12:49] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:12:50] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:12:50] Speaker 02: To the pickup location, which in this case would be a second. [00:12:52] Speaker 06: And I guess I was taking this sentence with the sentence that came before it as presenting, well, as indicating that as the sentence begins, alternatively, this is an alternative to sending a notification signal at all. [00:13:12] Speaker 02: No, I agree. [00:13:13] Speaker 02: I agree. [00:13:13] Speaker 02: And I think two things. [00:13:15] Speaker 02: I think that's true. [00:13:15] Speaker 02: But also, that sentence itself has nothing to do [00:13:18] Speaker 02: with the presence of the second rider near the vehicle. [00:13:21] Speaker 02: It just says, now I'm going to pick up a second rider, so I'm going to press a button that generates an indicator. [00:13:25] Speaker 03: Right. [00:13:25] Speaker 03: That gets to Judge Torano's point. [00:13:27] Speaker 03: With the alternatively word in there, it sets off two different embodiments. [00:13:33] Speaker 03: Embodiment one, [00:13:35] Speaker 03: When the driver is close to the passenger, send a notification signal to the car, and then the car will generate an indicator signal, just like in all the other environments. [00:13:48] Speaker 03: Alternatively, instead of doing all of that, just have the taxi car generate a code and send that out. [00:13:58] Speaker 03: And so in either alternative, [00:14:02] Speaker 03: one component of the claim is missing, either the notification signal or the generation of indicator at the taxi car. [00:14:12] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:14:13] Speaker 02: I mean, I think we're in complete agreement. [00:14:14] Speaker 02: And that's the argument we made repeatedly to the board that none of these disclosures that the board relies on. [00:14:19] Speaker 03: And what the board's analysis arguably looks like is it removed the word alternatively from this paragraph. [00:14:25] Speaker 03: So you have a notification signal sent from the controller to the car when the car is close to the pickup [00:14:32] Speaker 03: And then after that, continuing on, removing the word alternatively, the system can be adapted so that the driver's phone can generate a code. [00:14:43] Speaker 02: I mean, that is certainly a plausible explanation for what the board did. [00:14:48] Speaker 02: I'm not going to speculate as to what they just ignored the word alternatively. [00:14:52] Speaker 03: Did they do that, or they forgot how they interpreted indicative signal earlier to not necessarily require the generation of a code at the same time? [00:15:00] Speaker 02: Perhaps, yes. [00:15:02] Speaker 02: I mean, I don't know which it is, but either way, as we say, we think the board erred, and there was no 112 support for these codes. [00:15:07] Speaker 03: Why don't you talk about 101? [00:15:08] Speaker 02: I'm happy to talk about 101, unless the court has any other questions. [00:15:11] Speaker 02: So with respect to 101, [00:15:14] Speaker 02: You know, this to us is, these amended claims to us, I think, are just sort of prototypical invalid claims under 101. [00:15:20] Speaker 02: They explicitly recite a mental step performed by a user, which is what the claims are directed to, the mental step of identifying your taxi by matching some indicator on the taxi to some indicator that's associated with the ride on your phone. [00:15:33] Speaker 02: What the board did to overcome, and it seemed that the board was agreeing with us because they did find that there was a judicial exception under the PTO's guidelines. [00:15:41] Speaker 02: But the problem is that the board went on to apply this three-step [00:15:44] Speaker 02: subject matter eligibility test that the PTO applies. [00:15:47] Speaker 06: Why don't you just ignore the guidelines structure, which is confusing, and it's not governing, and just talk about how you think it should be analyzed in terms of our case law. [00:15:58] Speaker 00: Absolutely. [00:15:59] Speaker 06: So it's identifying after a series of communications, a carefully structured series of communications, to solve a problem of trust when somebody's about to get into a stranger's car. [00:16:10] Speaker 02: OK, but even assuming that was- Is that eligible or not? [00:16:13] Speaker 02: I would say no, but I don't even think that's what's going on here. [00:16:16] Speaker 02: I think these are just very common sense recitations of sending signals so that the user can identify their dispatched taxi. [00:16:24] Speaker 02: And those are the prototypical examples of things that are not subject matter eligible under Alice in this court's case law. [00:16:30] Speaker 02: This is not a case like the Deira Holdings or the other cases where there is arguably some technological solution to a technological problem. [00:16:39] Speaker 02: And I know the patent office yesterday. [00:16:42] Speaker 03: This claim has phones. [00:16:44] Speaker 02: well in a display exactly not controller it's not signal it is using mobile computing technology that's existed for a very long time to solve a human problem of allowing you to match a taxi uh... judge andrews in in the district case uh... and we see cycles and it's noted in in his short opinion on this point that it looked at what you're saying all of those things that just itemize the just merely conventional tools to carry out an abstract idea and there's nothing going on this plane that even hints at improving [00:17:14] Speaker 03: computer or networks or anything like that. [00:17:17] Speaker 02: That's right. [00:17:18] Speaker 02: There's no improvement to computing. [00:17:20] Speaker 02: There's no improvement to mobile computing. [00:17:21] Speaker 02: They're using mobile computing devices exactly as mobile computing devices are known to be used. [00:17:25] Speaker 02: They're described that way in the specification. [00:17:27] Speaker 02: There's nothing unconventional to describing the specification. [00:17:30] Speaker 04: If the passenger pre-arranges a car service by calling in saying, I need a car at the airport at 3 p.m. [00:17:37] Speaker 04: on this day and says, my name is Passenger X, and the car drives up and holds a sign that says, I'm here for Passenger X. That's what this is doing, but doing it with phones over a network. [00:17:50] Speaker 02: That's exactly right. [00:17:52] Speaker 02: And that's exactly my point. [00:17:53] Speaker 02: That's what Judge Andrews was saying when he made an analogy to the Seinfeld episode where George [00:17:57] Speaker 02: which steals someone's car at the airport by saying he's the person whose name is on the sign. [00:18:02] Speaker 02: So it's exactly right. [00:18:03] Speaker 06: This is O'Brien. [00:18:04] Speaker 02: Yes, exactly, the O'Brien episode. [00:18:08] Speaker 02: So in any event, yes. [00:18:09] Speaker 02: So step one, I think it's clear there's nothing new there. [00:18:11] Speaker 02: And in step two, there's really nothing in the claims that they're even pointing to, arguably, as meeting the subject matter. [00:18:16] Speaker 04: I mean, it's just using the phones and the capacity of the phones they have to talk to each other. [00:18:20] Speaker 04: But it doesn't even really tell us how the phones do it. [00:18:23] Speaker 04: Are they using GPS? [00:18:24] Speaker 04: Are they using [00:18:25] Speaker 04: some other ways that the phone's identifier. [00:18:28] Speaker 04: It's the idea of using the phones through some kind of networking or electronic signals to show some kind of matching signal. [00:18:40] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:18:41] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:18:41] Speaker 02: Yep. [00:18:42] Speaker 02: That's right. [00:18:43] Speaker 02: Unless the court has any further questions, I'm happy to reserve. [00:18:46] Speaker 02: OK. [00:18:46] Speaker 06: We'll have you rebound the time. [00:18:53] Speaker 06: Miss Dawson, you're next, right? [00:18:56] Speaker 00: I'm sorry? [00:18:56] Speaker 06: You're next, yes? [00:18:57] Speaker 00: I'm last? [00:18:58] Speaker 06: You're next. [00:18:59] Speaker 06: I'm next, yes. [00:19:00] Speaker 03: Yes, OK. [00:19:03] Speaker 03: You're splitting time with PTO? [00:19:05] Speaker 00: Yes, three minutes. [00:19:08] Speaker 00: All right. [00:19:08] Speaker 00: On 101. [00:19:10] Speaker 00: So I guess I'll jump to written description and address what you were talking about with the Lips Council. [00:19:17] Speaker 00: Paragraph 30, what is disclosed, the Patent Office did read to be all one potential embodiment. [00:19:24] Speaker 00: And I understand you're focusing in on the word alternatively, but I think what the Patent Office was doing, and it's supported by substantial evidence within this [00:19:33] Speaker 00: disclosure at paragraph 30. [00:19:35] Speaker 00: And first of all, paragraph 30 is still referencing system 10, which is the main system for just having one rider. [00:19:44] Speaker 00: And so all of those elements would apply here as well. [00:19:46] Speaker 00: But what paragraph 30 says and what the P-type kept saying to lift throughout the briefing is you're only focusing on this one sentence within paragraph 30, but it's the entirety of paragraph 30. [00:19:58] Speaker 00: And the PTAB was reading that as one potential embodiment. [00:20:03] Speaker 00: And what it says is when the first rider gets into the vehicle, it deletes the indicator associated with that rider. [00:20:13] Speaker 00: And then it generates a notification signal or can generate a notification signal for the second driver. [00:20:19] Speaker 00: when they're close to the second driver. [00:20:22] Speaker 00: And then, yes, it says alternatively. [00:20:24] Speaker 06: But that's kind of the big deal. [00:20:28] Speaker 00: Right, right. [00:20:31] Speaker 00: The driver can generate another code. [00:20:34] Speaker 00: But what's happening here, and I think that the PTAB is reading fairly in, is the notification signal is still sent. [00:20:41] Speaker 00: But normally, that notification signal automatically sends the driver's device [00:20:47] Speaker 00: the new indicator and the signal for the indicator. [00:20:50] Speaker 00: But instead, because we have multiple different riders, it allows for a different embodiment where they get the notification signal and they can just enter a command to get the new generated. [00:21:00] Speaker 03: I found a little lost there in your explanation. [00:21:02] Speaker 03: My understanding of this patent is that what the controller is sending to the taxi car is a notification signal, right? [00:21:10] Speaker 03: And then it's [00:21:13] Speaker 03: and then the taxi car generates an indicator signal. [00:21:17] Speaker 03: That's what the claim calls for. [00:21:20] Speaker 00: The mobile computer of the driver. [00:21:24] Speaker 03: And I thought I just heard you say that normally what happens is the controller sends [00:21:30] Speaker 03: not only a notification signal, but also an indicator signal. [00:21:34] Speaker 00: Oh, I'm sorry. [00:21:35] Speaker 03: That's not right. [00:21:36] Speaker 00: No. [00:21:37] Speaker 00: What the PTAB is saying and what the disclosure is is that, and they're relying on these other paragraphs to say this, but it's the notification signal that activates the driver's phone to put up the indicator signal. [00:21:53] Speaker 00: So the notification signal comes, that activates their phone to create the indicator signal and indicator. [00:22:00] Speaker 00: And so instead, in this embodiment, because we have multiple riders, the driver can just enter a command to get that new indicator for the second driver, or second rider, excuse me. [00:22:14] Speaker 03: So I don't understand, what is your view of what work is the word alternatively doing in the middle of the paragraph? [00:22:23] Speaker 00: So the alternatively is in, it's in, normally the, [00:22:29] Speaker 00: the notification signal activates the driver's phone to create the indicator signal. [00:22:36] Speaker 00: The alternatively is, instead of that just popping up, they can enter a command to say, give me that new indicator now for the second rider. [00:22:47] Speaker 03: So therefore, in this alternative, there is no requirement for a notification signal to be sent to the taxi driver's mobile device. [00:22:58] Speaker 00: No, so the notification signal is still sent because that says you're within a predetermined location of now the second driver. [00:23:06] Speaker 00: But the alternatively is instead of because of receipt of the notification generating automatically because it's activated the driver's phone, the indicator, they can enter a command once they receive the notification to get that second signal for the new passenger. [00:23:26] Speaker 03: How is that different from how the system ordinarily works? [00:23:31] Speaker 03: How is what you just described different from how the system ordinarily works? [00:23:39] Speaker 00: Normally, the phone is activated with the receipt of the first notification signal, so it's already activated. [00:23:46] Speaker 00: Now we have a second passenger, so it doesn't need to be activated again. [00:23:51] Speaker 00: They get the notification signal, so they enter a command to get that new indicator. [00:23:56] Speaker 03: It sounds like the taxi cab driver's phone is going to be generating an indicator, indicator, indicator signal in response to receiving a notification signal, in your view. [00:24:14] Speaker 03: And if that's true, then that's really no different than how the system ordinarily works. [00:24:19] Speaker 03: Because the system ordinarily has the taxi cab driver's phone generate an indicator signal in response to receiving a notification signal. [00:24:31] Speaker 03: It's the same thing. [00:24:32] Speaker 03: So again, the alternatively word isn't doing anything. [00:24:37] Speaker 00: Yeah, the alternative is, so normally the notification signal is activating the phone. [00:24:42] Speaker 00: The driver doesn't have to do anything with the first time that that happens. [00:24:47] Speaker 00: It just happens that the now-indicatory signal representing an indicator happens. [00:24:54] Speaker 00: This embodiment is because now we have another rider. [00:24:59] Speaker 00: And so the alternative is now they can enter a command because it's already been activated. [00:25:05] Speaker 03: So if we could just get to 101 really quickly. [00:25:10] Speaker 03: Why isn't this just the abstract idea of [00:25:13] Speaker 03: helping two strangers find each other and just using phones and display in order to do that. [00:25:22] Speaker 00: Yeah, the key, the whole key to this patent is trying to provide security in this, within this network system so that everybody knows that the right person is getting in the right vehicle. [00:25:31] Speaker 00: And that's done in this technological. [00:25:33] Speaker 04: I don't understand that at all. [00:25:35] Speaker 04: What do you mean? [00:25:36] Speaker 04: How does it provide security by the network system? [00:25:39] Speaker 04: All this is doing is letting [00:25:41] Speaker 04: the phones talk to each other and then it sends up a signal so the passenger knows they're getting in the right car. [00:25:47] Speaker 00: So the way that it does it is by first sending that notification signal only at a specific time when the car is close to the rider. [00:25:58] Speaker 00: And only in response to that, at that time, creating the indicator and then displaying it. [00:26:04] Speaker 00: So the indicator is only existing for a very short period of time. [00:26:09] Speaker 04: This sounds no different than holding up a sign with somebody's name on it where they didn't want to give their name a code that they can look at. [00:26:17] Speaker 00: Well, it is different, because it has to be a unique indicator. [00:26:20] Speaker 00: It can't just be their name. [00:26:21] Speaker 03: OK, what about this hypothetical? [00:26:23] Speaker 03: What if the claim were a little different? [00:26:26] Speaker 03: And it was more about a system, again, of a would-be passenger trying to order a car. [00:26:34] Speaker 03: And the system, there's a passenger. [00:26:36] Speaker 03: She's at the airport. [00:26:38] Speaker 03: Her name's Jenny. [00:26:39] Speaker 03: And she calls the dispatcher and says, I'm at the airport. [00:26:42] Speaker 03: I need a car. [00:26:44] Speaker 03: Dispatcher looks on his Big Board map and sees that there is a cab driver within a mile of the airport. [00:26:51] Speaker 03: Calls the cab driver and says, you need to pick up Jenny at the airport. [00:26:57] Speaker 03: And here's her number. [00:26:59] Speaker 03: And then the cab driver [00:27:01] Speaker 03: um... drives to the airport and he's got a whiteboard and it's attached to his window and uh... he writes down jenny's number on the whiteboard and then calls jenny and says I'm coming to get you jenny I've got your number on my whiteboard and your number is eight six seven five three oh nine what I just described is that pang eligible? [00:27:32] Speaker 00: I don't know if that is... It's got phones? [00:27:35] Speaker 03: It's got a whiteboard? [00:27:37] Speaker 03: Or is that just the method of organizing human activity just using, you know, available technology for their normal conventional purposes? [00:27:48] Speaker 00: I don't know if that is, but I know that the present substitute claims are patent eligible because of the fact that the indicator is created [00:27:56] Speaker 00: at the time that it's close to the rider. [00:27:59] Speaker 00: And that's when it's created. [00:28:00] Speaker 03: That's my example. [00:28:01] Speaker 03: The taxi cab driver wrote on the whiteboard her phone number. [00:28:07] Speaker 00: But it's a unique indicator. [00:28:08] Speaker 00: It's disclosed as being a code like 75309. [00:28:11] Speaker 04: It's using the basic capacities of these phones to do what the phones do. [00:28:17] Speaker 04: But the idea for this is so that the passenger can identify that they're getting into the right car. [00:28:24] Speaker 04: That's not an eligible idea. [00:28:26] Speaker 04: And using conventional computer equipment and conventional telephones to accomplish that is not eligible. [00:28:33] Speaker 00: Except for those courts holdings in DDR and Bascom that says that even if it's just. [00:28:39] Speaker 04: Those cases involve improvements to, and something that's specific to the computer environment. [00:28:46] Speaker 04: Everything we're talking about here, this is not to make the phones work better with each other. [00:28:51] Speaker 04: This is to use that technology to enable human interactions. [00:28:57] Speaker 04: So there are different cases. [00:29:01] Speaker 04: So I just want the end point of this is to generate a single for human consumption, right? [00:29:07] Speaker 00: The end point of this is to answer. [00:29:09] Speaker 04: That's a yes or no question. [00:29:11] Speaker 04: The end point is to generate a signal for the passenger to realize that they're getting in the correct path. [00:29:17] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:29:18] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:29:20] Speaker 04: That's not a technological problem. [00:29:23] Speaker 00: But it's a technological solution to it to ensure that there's this two notification or this two signal. [00:29:32] Speaker 04: There's lots of technological improvements to the way things were done before phones and computers that we found ineligible. [00:29:40] Speaker 04: In fact, even things that were physically impossible before computing power that were still just general abstract ideas that were somehow became possible due to computing power [00:29:51] Speaker 04: aren't eligible. [00:29:53] Speaker 04: That sounds a lot like that to me, that you're using some, but this one was possible before using hand-printed cards and phones and calling people. [00:30:04] Speaker 00: Well, I'm not sure that any of these, you know, in a prior art human example that a driver, and even Liv's example of this in their briefs, is that a driver is going to wait to [00:30:15] Speaker 00: to write down a user's name when they get too close to the rider. [00:30:22] Speaker 00: But that's super unsafe and not actually ever happened. [00:30:26] Speaker 00: But it's only saying that because it can't meet this human method of doing it. [00:30:31] Speaker 00: It can't meet the limitations that say we're only generating the first signal when you're at a close proximity to the rider. [00:30:38] Speaker 00: And then the indicator is created only then [00:30:43] Speaker 00: to make sure that we don't have an indicator existing for a long time that could be tampered with so that people could intentionally have somebody get into the wrong vehicle. [00:30:56] Speaker 05: Thank you. [00:30:57] Speaker 05: Thank you. [00:30:58] Speaker 05: We'll hear from the government. [00:31:07] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:31:07] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the courts. [00:31:10] Speaker 01: I want to address this Section 101 issue. [00:31:13] Speaker 01: reason that these claims are eligible under step one of Alice is because they do provide a technological... Under step one? [00:31:21] Speaker 01: Under step one. [00:31:21] Speaker 04: I thought the board found that they weren't eligible under step one and had to get to step two. [00:31:26] Speaker 01: No. [00:31:26] Speaker 04: So the board... Oh, is this your nonsensical step zero, step two way stuff? [00:31:32] Speaker 04: So the board found that they were eligible under step one. [00:31:35] Speaker 04: So much like this... But they refer to it as step two. [00:31:37] Speaker 01: Much like this court's precedent and this court's decisions in section 101. [00:31:43] Speaker 01: What the board did was first look at the claims and determine if any of the limitations recite a judicial exception. [00:31:50] Speaker 01: And here, one of the limitations did. [00:31:52] Speaker 01: One of the limitations recited a method of organizing human activity, as Judge Chen recognized. [00:31:57] Speaker 04: One of the limitations. [00:32:01] Speaker 04: That's correct. [00:32:03] Speaker 01: Not as a whole, because the Supreme Court's precedent and this court's precedent require that... What are they directed to? [00:32:11] Speaker 01: What are they directed to? [00:32:12] Speaker 01: They are directed to a technological. [00:32:15] Speaker 04: No, you can't mount. [00:32:16] Speaker 04: They're just generic things that keep them out of an eligibility problem. [00:32:21] Speaker 04: What specifically are they directed to that's not an abstract idea? [00:32:25] Speaker 01: An improvement to internet-based right-sharp technology. [00:32:29] Speaker 01: That is what they are directed to. [00:32:30] Speaker 04: How? [00:32:31] Speaker 01: How? [00:32:32] Speaker 01: By providing, as my friend indicated, by providing the specific generation. [00:32:37] Speaker 06: I'm sorry, is the internet required here? [00:32:40] Speaker 01: Well, the phone... Just mobile communication devices. [00:32:43] Speaker 01: It's a mobile communication device. [00:32:44] Speaker 06: So the internet is not actually required. [00:32:46] Speaker 01: Well, the way that you are accessing the device is through the internet, right? [00:32:53] Speaker 01: It's kind of like an Uber app. [00:32:55] Speaker 06: Where's that in the claims? [00:32:56] Speaker 06: That's not in the claims. [00:32:57] Speaker 06: It's not in the claim. [00:32:58] Speaker 06: You can do all this by text message. [00:33:00] Speaker 06: It's not in the claim. [00:33:01] Speaker 01: You can do it all by the phone, but the signals are being sent through a controller. [00:33:06] Speaker 01: Right. [00:33:06] Speaker 01: And through a network that network is required some kind of some kind of that's that's some some capability for the. [00:33:15] Speaker 01: the controller and the phones to be generating these notification signals at a predetermined time. [00:33:21] Speaker 03: What's the improvement in the network or the computer or anything that could remotely be regarded as technology? [00:33:27] Speaker 01: So the improvement is not in the individual components? [00:33:31] Speaker 03: No, no. [00:33:32] Speaker 03: Don't tell me what it's not. [00:33:33] Speaker 03: Tell me what it is because I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for somebody to tell it to me. [00:33:38] Speaker 03: So now's your chance. [00:33:40] Speaker 01: The improvement is in providing a more secure rideshare technology service. [00:33:46] Speaker 03: That's the result. [00:33:47] Speaker 03: What's the means? [00:33:49] Speaker 03: What is the technological improved means of accomplishing the result? [00:33:54] Speaker 01: The means of accomplishing the results are these sequence of steps. [00:33:58] Speaker 01: They're very specific steps. [00:33:59] Speaker 03: Which sequence of steps? [00:34:00] Speaker 03: Just reciting the entire claim and then automatically voila? [00:34:03] Speaker 03: We're going to just deem it to be an improved technical means? [00:34:07] Speaker 01: The generation of a notification signal when the driver and the rider are a predetermined distance from each other, the generation of the indicator, and the generation of that code. [00:34:16] Speaker 01: on all of the devices. [00:34:17] Speaker 01: It's generated. [00:34:18] Speaker 06: The airport pickup example. [00:34:20] Speaker 01: So the airport pickup, thank you for reminding me about that hypothetical. [00:34:23] Speaker 01: The airport pickup hypothetical, in that scenario, while the rider may have information regarding which car to get into, the driver has no way to assess that that rider is the rider that they are picking up. [00:34:40] Speaker 01: They're fully trusting the rider to be an honest person. [00:34:43] Speaker 04: You don't need these claims to do that. [00:34:46] Speaker 04: When you call the car service in advance and arrange it, they could also say, in order to make sure our driver knows who you are, you need to print out a sign that has this code on it so the driver can match it. [00:35:03] Speaker 01: But this process provides all of that within your mobile devices. [00:35:06] Speaker 04: This process automates it, right? [00:35:09] Speaker 04: We have never found automating something that can be done with basically pen and paper to be honest. [00:35:16] Speaker 01: But this is a process that provides a unique code. [00:35:20] Speaker 01: In your scenario, the person... That's a unique code too. [00:35:23] Speaker 04: I call up the car service. [00:35:24] Speaker 04: The car service says, [00:35:26] Speaker 04: our driver is going to be there in this kind of car. [00:35:29] Speaker 04: He will hold up a sign with the code on it. [00:35:32] Speaker 04: You need to hold up a sign with another unique code on it. [00:35:35] Speaker 04: Here's the code. [00:35:37] Speaker 01: But this two way identification system is generated through the technology that is through these [00:35:44] Speaker 01: devices that are generating these notification signals and indicator signals, which are then displayed on multiple displays. [00:35:51] Speaker 01: On the mobile devices as well as on the play-doh form. [00:35:53] Speaker 03: What Federal Circuit case is most similar to the facts of this case that found the claims to be patent-eligible? [00:36:00] Speaker 03: And don't say DDR or Bazcom or Conan Clique, KPN. [00:36:06] Speaker 03: I am all too familiar with those three cases, and they don't help. [00:36:10] Speaker 01: So other cases that have held that... Which ones? [00:36:15] Speaker 01: Contour IP holdings, Macro. [00:36:18] Speaker 01: Those types of cases have held that even though the individual components themselves are conventional, overall the specific steps that are followed provide an improvement to the underlying technology. [00:36:29] Speaker 01: In contour IP holdings, there was an improvement to a particular point of view camera. [00:36:34] Speaker 01: that provided specific, it also involved the generation of signals, the generation of video, and then displaying that video on a display. [00:36:43] Speaker 01: Those claims are very similar to the claims that issue here. [00:36:47] Speaker 01: There was an improvement to the underlying technology because of the specific steps that were followed. [00:36:54] Speaker 01: If there are no further questions. [00:37:01] Speaker 02: So Your Honor, just to address CONTOUR. [00:37:04] Speaker 02: CONTOUR solved the problem that was created by the technology in that case, which was a point of view camera that you couldn't see the viewfinder. [00:37:09] Speaker 02: So there was a technological solution that was recited in the claims there. [00:37:13] Speaker 02: Here, there is no technological solution. [00:37:15] Speaker 02: This is just using mobile computing to solve a human problem that has already been practiced for many, many years. [00:37:20] Speaker 02: So unless Laura has any further questions. [00:37:22] Speaker 06: Can you return for a minute to the written description? [00:37:27] Speaker 02: 112. [00:37:29] Speaker 06: question, yes. [00:37:30] Speaker 06: So at least one way that I think I heard the argument being made is that on what is in this context a factual question, even though we're interpreting the patent at issue, the board reasonably interpreted the paragraph to give a meaning to the term alternative [00:37:58] Speaker 06: that starts after the notification signal, not before the notification signal. [00:38:05] Speaker 06: So that the alternative is not to skip a notification signal. [00:38:09] Speaker 06: It is rather that the indicatory signal is [00:38:15] Speaker 06: created at the behest of the driver's action as opposed to automatically, electronically, by the device upon receiving the notification signal. [00:38:30] Speaker 06: Why is that an unreasonable reading of that paragraph? [00:38:36] Speaker 02: So the reason that I think that would not be, first of all, just doesn't parse logically when you read the actual paragraph as a whole, paragraph 30. [00:38:45] Speaker 02: So we think if that was the reading, it is not supported by the actual language of paragraph 30. [00:38:51] Speaker 02: But looking at the text of the actual amended claim, the requirement is that you generate, by creating an indicator, an indicative signal [00:39:01] Speaker 02: representing the indicator in response to receiving the notification signal. [00:39:04] Speaker 02: So what is the notification signal that's still present that this indicator is generated in response to? [00:39:09] Speaker 02: There'd be no room for that anymore in this embodiment because it's the driver pressing a button. [00:39:17] Speaker 02: So that's why I don't see how you can get to that interpretation of what's in paragraph 30 and say that matches up with what claim element 29B now requires in the amendment. [00:39:28] Speaker 06: Thanks to all councillors. [00:39:30] Speaker 06: Case is submitted.