[00:00:38] Speaker 04: OK, we're ready. [00:00:39] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:00:40] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the Court. [00:00:42] Speaker 02: Section 101 of the Patent Act expressly permits the patenting of any new improvement of any machine. [00:00:49] Speaker 02: Charge points claims fall squarely within that provision. [00:00:52] Speaker 02: For example, the plain language of the 131 patent calls for an improved charging station apparatus, a thing with tangible components such as a transceiver, a data control unit, a controller that can receive communications [00:01:07] Speaker 02: as part of a demand response system and modify the application of charge transfer based on those communications. [00:01:15] Speaker 02: This is not the stuff of abstract ideas. [00:01:19] Speaker 02: It's not math, mental processes, or fundamental economic practices. [00:01:23] Speaker 02: It's a new charging station improved by combining specific components that enable communication with utilities about whether to ratchet down or even reverse the flow of power to an electric vehicle. [00:01:35] Speaker 04: So it's about sending and receiving communications over a server. [00:01:40] Speaker 02: It has the capability of doing that, Your Honor. [00:01:42] Speaker 02: But I think the error of the district court was to say it was solely about that and to read the structural limitations out of the claims. [00:01:50] Speaker 02: If you look, for example, at SEMA Connect's non-infringement defendants, and I encourage the court to turn to them. [00:01:58] Speaker 02: They're found at pages 956 to 960 of the appendix. [00:02:02] Speaker 02: You'll see Semiconnect explaining in great detail why the components of its machines do not embody each of the 131 patents and the other patents' technical limitations, the ones I just quoted as well as the other claims. [00:02:17] Speaker 02: For example, quote. [00:02:19] Speaker 04: So what does that prove? [00:02:21] Speaker 02: Well, obviously, there's a factual dispute about infringement. [00:02:24] Speaker 02: But these are not arguments that Semiconnect doesn't do the abstract concept of sending commands over a network. [00:02:32] Speaker 02: They're very nitty-gritty factual responses, and they confirm that the claims claim specifically a configuration of components, specific components and some non-generic components, in a particular way to accomplish the end of giving this electric vehicle charging station intelligence that it didn't have and doing things like demand response and communicating with utilities. [00:02:58] Speaker 01: Suppose there were three different ways to all of them, routine, conventional, and you chose one of those routine conventional ways, and they could easily choose the other and be non-infringing, but that fact that they were not meeting some of the claim elements wouldn't tell you that what's being claimed is on the right side of the line for eligibility. [00:03:27] Speaker 02: Well, I think this court's cases draw a distinction between taking generic devices or components and using them for an abstract end, claiming the use of the generic components for an abstract end, on the one hand, and claiming a new configuration of components on the other. [00:03:45] Speaker 02: If you look, for example, at the Smart Systems case that Semiconect cites, look what the court says there. [00:03:53] Speaker 02: The asserted claims are not directed to a new type of bank card [00:03:57] Speaker 02: churn style, or database. [00:03:59] Speaker 02: Nor do the claims provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. [00:04:04] Speaker 02: Rather, the claims are directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data. [00:04:09] Speaker 02: Second statement, the claims are not directed to a combined order of specific rules that improve any technological processes, but rather invoke computers in the collection and arrangement of data. [00:04:19] Speaker 02: Third statement, they don't argue that its claims are directed to an improvement in computer technology. [00:04:24] Speaker 02: So this case involves [00:04:27] Speaker 02: what's on the other side of that line, a very concrete type of device that's improved. [00:04:34] Speaker 02: And I do think that the non-improvement... What's improved? [00:04:36] Speaker 00: The charging station? [00:04:38] Speaker 02: Correct, Your Honor. [00:04:39] Speaker 02: There are four patents at issue. [00:04:41] Speaker 02: Two of them claim improved charging stations. [00:04:44] Speaker 00: But at the end of the day, all the charging station is doing is turning off and on. [00:04:49] Speaker 02: That's not correct, Your Honor. [00:04:51] Speaker 02: Take, for example, the 131 patent. [00:04:53] Speaker 02: If you look at claim one of the 131 patents, [00:04:56] Speaker 02: This patent claims a controller that can modify the application of charge transfer based on the communications received as part of the demand response system. [00:05:07] Speaker 02: That's a controller that has the capability of reversing the flow of power to the grid. [00:05:11] Speaker 02: That is not a generic component. [00:05:14] Speaker 02: So you have a two-fold inventive concept in the 131 patent and the 967 as well. [00:05:20] Speaker 02: You're adding the ability, the capacity, to carry out utilities demand response commands [00:05:26] Speaker 02: via communication from a remote server. [00:05:29] Speaker 02: And secondly, and this doesn't have anything to do with communication at all. [00:05:33] Speaker 00: But how does it do that? [00:05:34] Speaker 00: I'm sorry? [00:05:35] Speaker 00: How does it do that? [00:05:36] Speaker 00: It does it just by turning the controller off and on. [00:05:40] Speaker 00: No. [00:05:41] Speaker 02: You may be thinking about what the district court said about the 715 patch. [00:05:44] Speaker 00: Well, I think, to me, this permeates almost all of the claims that we're looking at. [00:05:51] Speaker 02: I encourage the court to look very carefully at the distinctions between the claims and the different paths. [00:05:56] Speaker 02: And the 131 patent actually has the capacity to reverse the flow of power, not only to turn the station on and off, but to adjust the level of power and to reverse the flow of power. [00:06:10] Speaker 02: There is absolutely no evidence in this record that that was conventional or even existed in the prior art. [00:06:16] Speaker 02: If you look at what the district court pointed to in the specification on this point. [00:06:20] Speaker 04: So are you making a step two argument with respect to claim 131? [00:06:24] Speaker 02: Well, at step two, there is an inventive concept added in claim one. [00:06:30] Speaker 02: And it's a non-generic component. [00:06:32] Speaker 02: And you see it also in claim eight of the 131. [00:06:35] Speaker 02: Well, I am getting into the district court's error at that point. [00:06:40] Speaker 02: If you'd like, I can turn back to step one first. [00:06:42] Speaker 04: I just heard you mention the fact that there's no evidence that it was conventional routine. [00:06:47] Speaker 04: That's a step two inquiry. [00:06:48] Speaker 02: You're absolutely right. [00:06:49] Speaker 02: And if you look at what the district court [00:06:52] Speaker 02: said on that point, this is at page 63 of the appendix, the district court said that the specification stated that the combination of connecting generic networking equipment to a charging device to carry out a demand response plan already existed and was well-understood routine. [00:07:09] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, I'm looking at appendix 63. [00:07:13] Speaker 02: That's the page 63 of the district court's opinion. [00:07:16] Speaker 02: The specification stated, this is his reading of the specification. [00:07:21] Speaker 02: So that's a demonstrably and facially false reading of the specification. [00:07:27] Speaker 02: The specification talks about some cars having the ability, the technological ability, to reverse the flow of power. [00:07:36] Speaker 02: There's nothing in the specification. [00:07:38] Speaker 02: You look at pages A152 or Appendix 152 and Appendix 154 about electric vehicle charging stations having that capacity. [00:07:47] Speaker 02: What it says is this, vehicle to grid is not widely available. [00:07:51] Speaker 02: There is a need for more widely available demand response and vehicle to grid to assist with peak load leveling. [00:07:57] Speaker 02: For demand response to be implemented effectively, real-time communication of a need for power input into the local electricity grid is required. [00:08:07] Speaker 02: And elsewhere, at page 154, the specification says, column 6, electric vehicles that have the necessary vehicle to grid electronics [00:08:19] Speaker 02: are able to provide power to the local power grid. [00:08:22] Speaker 02: So the most you have in this specification is an acknowledgment that some cars had this capacity, not that charging stations did, and certainly not that it was well-understood routine and conventional. [00:08:34] Speaker 02: So we think that that alone provides a basis under step two to reverse on that basis. [00:08:41] Speaker 02: But let me come back to the non-infringement defenses, because I think they're very revealing at step one. [00:08:46] Speaker 02: If you look at page 957 and 958, for example, [00:08:49] Speaker 02: Page 958, Semiconect says, the accused products do not include a bridge between a local area network and wide area network, and therefore lack a data control unit as required by all asserted claims of the 570, 131, and 715 patents. [00:09:05] Speaker 02: 957, the accused charging station neither receives communication that is, quote, part of a demand response system, nor does it locally, quote, modify application of charge transfer. [00:09:19] Speaker 02: as required by all asserted claims of the 131 and 967 patents. [00:09:24] Speaker 02: The accused products do not practice the following limitations. [00:09:26] Speaker 02: And this is on 958. [00:09:27] Speaker 02: It lists two transceiver limits. [00:09:29] Speaker 04: Can you just explain to me again, because I think I asked about this the first time you referenced this, and Judge Toronto followed up. [00:09:38] Speaker 04: What is the relevance? [00:09:39] Speaker 04: You're telling us what they said. [00:09:40] Speaker 04: We can read that. [00:09:41] Speaker 04: What is the relevance, in your view, of the fact that they said this? [00:09:45] Speaker 02: Where does that get you? [00:09:46] Speaker 02: The relevance is, and you can ask Mr. Whitehurst this, [00:09:49] Speaker 02: If these patents preempted the field in this area, if they claim the generic and abstract concepts of networking in this particular technological context, then there could be no factual dispute. [00:10:02] Speaker 04: So it's on the preemption argument. [00:10:04] Speaker 02: It's on step one, but it's revealing because if you look at the granularity, the nitty-gritty factual aspect of these arguments, these are disputes about specific concrete limitations. [00:10:17] Speaker 02: Now obviously our position [00:10:19] Speaker 02: on these same issues is set forth in the complaint, pages 91 to 108. [00:10:22] Speaker 02: We have a different take. [00:10:23] Speaker 02: But these arguments would not be possible if the patent simply said, we claim the abstract idea of communicating over a network in the context of? [00:10:33] Speaker 04: Well, no claim has ever said that, we assume. [00:10:36] Speaker 04: But I take your OK. [00:10:39] Speaker 04: So it's more of mostly a preemption argument, but otherwise an argument to prove that we're dealing with concrete and tangible things here. [00:10:48] Speaker 04: I'm just trying to understand. [00:10:49] Speaker 02: It goes to both. [00:10:50] Speaker 02: If you look at the type of components we're talking about, a local area network, a wide area network, a data control unit, those are very specific, concrete, tangible components. [00:11:00] Speaker 02: And they're saying, look, we do things in a little different way. [00:11:03] Speaker 02: These are arguments about means, not about, they're not saying this is functional claiming. [00:11:08] Speaker 02: They're drilling right down and saying, we don't configure our system the same way, therefore we don't infringe. [00:11:13] Speaker 02: And that speaks volumes. [00:11:15] Speaker 02: to whether an abstract idea is being claimed in the first place. [00:11:21] Speaker 02: Now, I'm saving into my mobile times. [00:11:23] Speaker 02: OK, why don't we hear from the other side? [00:11:24] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:11:40] Speaker 03: Good afternoon. [00:11:41] Speaker 03: Alan Whitehurst for the Appellee Semiconnect. [00:11:44] Speaker 03: and may it please the court, I'd like to start by going back to the patents themselves to show why these claims were cite generic off-the-shelf components that are being used in an expected manner. [00:11:59] Speaker 03: When you look at the patents themselves, all four of the patents have the same background of the invention. [00:12:06] Speaker 03: These patents were attached to the complaint. [00:12:09] Speaker 03: They were part of the pleadings. [00:12:11] Speaker 03: These patents contained admissions that the district court was entitled to rely upon in ruling on a 12b6 motion to dismiss. [00:12:19] Speaker 03: When you look at the claims in light of the admissions and the specifications themselves, you see that the claims are merely taking a conventional charging station, using off-the-shelf devices to then remotely control it. [00:12:33] Speaker 03: If you turn, for example, to the appendix 136, this is the background of the invention [00:12:39] Speaker 03: from the 715 patent. [00:12:41] Speaker 03: But this background of the invention is the same for all four asserted patents. [00:12:45] Speaker 03: If you look here in column two of the 715 patent, you'll see a discussion that transceivers were known. [00:12:53] Speaker 03: And when we look at the claims, we see that the transceivers are being used in an expected way to transmit and receive. [00:13:00] Speaker 03: And the same is true for the control device and the controller. [00:13:04] Speaker 03: If you turn and look at figures one and three, [00:13:07] Speaker 03: of these pens, which appear, for example, on pages 130 and 142 of the joint appendix. [00:13:15] Speaker 03: You'll see how simple the purported invention is. [00:13:19] Speaker 03: When we talk about the control device, we're talking about something that's so basic as to just turn electricity. [00:13:25] Speaker 00: Your opponent says that the pens improve the charging stations. [00:13:30] Speaker 03: Well, I think my colleague is confusing 102 and 103, because as this court recognized in intellectual adventures versus Symantec, whether there's an improvement or not is not the test for 101. [00:13:42] Speaker 03: But when we look at the claims in light of the admissions of the specification, we keep coming back to the reality that all of this was admitted, known, conventional technology. [00:13:53] Speaker 03: And to the extent there was an improvement at all, it had to be this remotely controlling. [00:13:58] Speaker 03: In fact, that's what ChargePoint admitted at the 12b6 hearing. [00:14:02] Speaker 03: When you look at page 808 of the joint appendix, and you also see this on page 800, you'll see that ChargePoint admitted that to the extent there was an improvement at all, it was this aspect of remotely controlling it. [00:14:17] Speaker 03: And when we look at this court's previous decisions in cases like credit acceptance, smart systems, electric power grid, [00:14:26] Speaker 03: vehicle intelligence. [00:14:28] Speaker 03: All of these cases have said time and time again that remotely controlling something over a network, that's an abstract idea. [00:14:35] Speaker 03: And when we look at more recent federal circuits decisions, such as BSG Tech, we know that once you identify the abstract idea, once you turn to ALICE step two, looking for the inventive concept, that abstract idea itself can't become the inventive concept [00:14:54] Speaker 03: under Alice said to and that's the problem that charge point faces here when you look at the claims in light of the admissions in the specification which the district court was permitted to do that's what uh... we've seen in twelve p six decisions like t l i communications when you rely on the admissions in the specification and put everything in the context that the transceiver was not it was using expected manner the control device the controller for just things that control the transceiver in the control [00:15:24] Speaker 03: Even the demand response, which we've heard a lot of from ChargePoint, when you look at column one of the background of the invention for all four of the assertive patents, we see that demand response is just this old basic concept of reducing power consumption during periods of peak usage. [00:15:43] Speaker 03: What about the reversal of the direction of the flow of electricity? [00:15:46] Speaker 03: That, too, which is referred to in the background of the invention is V2G. [00:15:53] Speaker 03: If we turn, for example, to page 136 of the joint appendix, when you see down at the bottom of the page, you'll see the discussion here of vehicle to grid. [00:16:05] Speaker 03: Bottom of column one. [00:16:07] Speaker 03: Correct, Your Honor. [00:16:09] Speaker 03: I believe it starts in the paragraph around line 57. [00:16:14] Speaker 03: We see at line 61 the discussion of V2G. [00:16:18] Speaker 03: You even see a statement here. [00:16:20] Speaker 03: that V2G is particularly attractive for electric vehicles. [00:16:24] Speaker 03: So it's admitted right here in the background of the invention that demand response, vehicle to grid, low leveling. [00:16:32] Speaker 01: If I remember right, Mr. Johnson stressed the difference between vehicle to the grid and charging station to the grid. [00:16:42] Speaker 03: Well, you see here that [00:16:44] Speaker 03: in the patent itself, it's talking about demand response in vehicle to grid being used in pilot programs. [00:16:52] Speaker 03: If you look there in line 66 and 67, it says V2G is not widely available, it's principally being used in small pilot schemes. [00:17:02] Speaker 03: There's a need for more widely available demand response in V2G to assist with peak load leveling. [00:17:10] Speaker 03: I think it's [00:17:11] Speaker 03: says it speaks for itself that when you say more widely available, it recognizes that it was already available, that it was being used in these pilot schemes. [00:17:21] Speaker 03: So here you have a discussion in the background of the invention, acknowledging that demand responses is old basic concept. [00:17:29] Speaker 03: You have this discussion that load leveling has already been used in the industry. [00:17:37] Speaker 03: and that there's a desire to make it more widely available. [00:17:40] Speaker 03: So here we see in the background of the invention that not only are the transceiver, the control device, and the controller all known generic off-the-shelf devices, but these concepts of demand response and load leveling were also known in the industry. [00:17:59] Speaker 03: So when you take these concepts that you see in the background of the invention, these admissions in the patents themselves, [00:18:06] Speaker 03: and combine them with the statements that ChargePoint made itself at the 12b6 hearing on pages 8808 and 800, you come to the realization that there's no genuine factual dispute. [00:18:20] Speaker 03: You have here claims that are reciting known generic off-the-shelf devices and concepts that are being used in an expected way. [00:18:30] Speaker 03: And when you look for what else could possibly be the improvement [00:18:34] Speaker 03: The only improvement that ChargePoint is pointed to is this concept of remotely controlling as counsel said on page 8808. [00:18:43] Speaker 03: And this court has recognized that it can be particularly useful to look for cases from other claims and other cases that have been held to be abstract. [00:18:58] Speaker 03: My colleague mentioned the smart systems. [00:19:01] Speaker 03: I think the smart systems is incredibly informative [00:19:05] Speaker 03: for the claims that are before the court today. [00:19:07] Speaker 03: The claims here are remarkably similar to the claims that were in smart systems. [00:19:13] Speaker 03: When you look at the claims in smart systems, you see that a processor that was remote to the subway station was checking a bank card in order to control a turnstile in a subway station. [00:19:27] Speaker 03: This processor was controlling access to the subway. [00:19:32] Speaker 03: The decision in Smart Systems commented that the claims were not reciting an improvement to the bank card. [00:19:40] Speaker 03: They were not reciting an improvement to the turnstile, and they were not reciting an improvement to the database. [00:19:49] Speaker 03: And because of that, those claims did not satisfy 101. [00:19:52] Speaker 03: And we see the same thing here. [00:19:55] Speaker 03: When you look at each of the components, either individually or taken as an ordered combination, [00:20:01] Speaker 03: All of them were known and they're all being used in an expected manner. [00:20:08] Speaker 01: Do you have a view about whether, I guess we got a couple of supplemental submissions about last week's PTO proposed guidance. [00:20:20] Speaker 01: I realize they're proposed and they're not binding. [00:20:22] Speaker 01: Do you have a view about whether your position in this case would fall within those, [00:20:29] Speaker 01: within the substance of what is stated in that guidance? [00:20:31] Speaker 03: We don't have a position on that. [00:20:33] Speaker 03: But I think the more important point is that they're not binding on the federal courts. [00:20:39] Speaker 03: These are proposed guidance for patent examiners. [00:20:44] Speaker 03: They're not even final. [00:20:45] Speaker 03: They're open for comment. [00:20:47] Speaker 03: But even at the district court level, ChargePoint itself said that proposed guidance for patent examiners is not binding [00:20:56] Speaker 03: on the district courts, citing those. [00:20:59] Speaker 01: You haven't thought through whether you can say, oh, here's why we would qualify as qualifying in the sense of qualify for eligibility. [00:21:08] Speaker 01: Right. [00:21:08] Speaker 03: I believe one of them was collecting data. [00:21:10] Speaker 03: Although at the district court level, I believe it was framed as remotely controlling. [00:21:15] Speaker 03: But when you're remotely controlling, I think that in that situation, the server that's at play in these claims would still be collecting information. [00:21:25] Speaker 03: As part of that decision, [00:21:26] Speaker 03: to remotely control, whether to turn on or off the power, whether to turn it up or down, would be collecting information over the internet. [00:21:37] Speaker 03: It would be checking to see whether this was. [00:21:39] Speaker 01: Does this admitted prior art discussion at bottom column, one column, two, about vehicle to grid specifically say that even in a pilot form that is available at the charging station, [00:21:55] Speaker 01: If the charging station is set up to reverse the flow. [00:21:59] Speaker 03: That is my understanding because in order for there to be vehicle to grid, there would have to be a vehicle at a charging station that when the vehicle is plugged in. [00:22:08] Speaker 01: This isn't referring to vehicle to grid locations that are not also chargers. [00:22:15] Speaker 03: uh... no your honor and in order for it would be there even couldn't be anything like that it's hot just a lot of wire to the time i think it's a good question and i struggle to think of the any possible reading when i read this the only logical conclusion you can come to is that when you talk about the vehicle to create it you have to be plugging the vehicle back into the grid what how is the vehicle plugged back into grid presumably it's at a charging station [00:22:40] Speaker 03: So once the vehicle is plugged back into the charging station, which is then connected back to the grid, as we would see in figures one and three of the patent, that's how the electricity would flow from the electric vehicle back to the grid, which is what the name states, vehicle to grid. [00:23:00] Speaker 03: And it would be done through a charging station. [00:23:05] Speaker 03: On the preemption point, we all know that preemption [00:23:08] Speaker 03: is a guide. [00:23:10] Speaker 03: It's not dispositive. [00:23:12] Speaker 03: When we look at the situation that's before the court, this is a problem with charge points I'm doing. [00:23:20] Speaker 03: When we look at the pleadings, when we look at the complaint, we see that charge point asserted these patents, made representations to the court that they should be given the plain and ordinary meaning, the full scope of it, [00:23:33] Speaker 03: And in the complaint, they made representations that these claims would read on any network charging stations. [00:23:40] Speaker 03: The district court was entitled to rely upon those claim constructions. [00:23:44] Speaker 03: As we've seen in this court's decisions, the district court did as it's been instructed to, to rely on the non-movements claim constructions. [00:23:53] Speaker 03: And that's what the court did at the district court level. [00:23:58] Speaker 03: I see that I still have time left. [00:24:00] Speaker 04: There's no requirement that you use it. [00:24:02] Speaker 03: And I will gladly yield the remainder of my time, unless the panel has any further questions for me. [00:24:10] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:24:10] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:24:23] Speaker 01: Can I ask you about something, Mr. Johnson? [00:24:24] Speaker 01: At 808, the transcript of the colloquy between you and the court [00:24:31] Speaker 01: I take it that you refer first to not charge the vehicle during periods of high power grid load and to sell power back to the local grid. [00:24:43] Speaker 01: And then it's in the question and answer right after that that you seem to say the only thing that we think is novel here is the remote control. [00:24:50] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, I think is that district court's opinion ultimately reflects. [00:24:54] Speaker 02: You have to look at the claim language, and you have to look at each claim. [00:24:57] Speaker 02: But the question as it was framed to counsel below was something like, are you claiming? [00:25:03] Speaker 02: And in the sense of, are you arguing this? [00:25:07] Speaker 02: And counsel responded by speaking generally about the problem that the patents here seek to solve. [00:25:14] Speaker 02: And I'd like to walk the court through the specific things that are inventive and non-conventional in each of the claims. [00:25:22] Speaker 02: But first, I want to respond to the point about vehicle to grid. [00:25:26] Speaker 02: Because you heard Mr. Whitehurst say that the specification speaks for itself. [00:25:32] Speaker 02: And he said, presumably, the only way you do vehicle to grid is if you go through a charging station. [00:25:40] Speaker 02: You will not find anything to that effect in the specification. [00:25:44] Speaker 02: It is not true. [00:25:44] Speaker 02: And it's certainly not supported by this record. [00:25:48] Speaker 02: And so I think that passage in the specification speaks for itself as well. [00:25:53] Speaker 02: And as the challenger to these patents, [00:25:56] Speaker 02: which are presumed valid, you have to presume, unless there's something in the record that says this is conventional, that it's not. [00:26:04] Speaker 02: So I want to address that point first, but speaking now specifically to the claim language and what it is that's inventive and not conventional, I'll start with the 131, claim one. [00:26:16] Speaker 02: A controller that reverses the flow of power to the grid is not generic. [00:26:21] Speaker 02: A controller that can manage charge transfer to electric vehicles is not generic. [00:26:25] Speaker 02: That's claim 8 of the 131. [00:26:28] Speaker 02: Under the 967 patent, sending communications to electric vehicle charging stations to modify the flow of power to an electric vehicle. [00:26:35] Speaker 02: That's not generic. [00:26:37] Speaker 02: Under the 715 patent, calls for an electrical coupler to make a connection with an electric vehicle. [00:26:42] Speaker 02: That's not generic. [00:26:44] Speaker 02: The 570 patent calls for a current measuring device [00:26:47] Speaker 02: and a controller configured to operate the control device and to monitor the output. [00:26:52] Speaker 02: That's non-generic. [00:26:53] Speaker 02: You can't adjust or reverse the power level if you can't measure it. [00:26:58] Speaker 02: So there's no evidence that these elements existed in the prior art. [00:27:02] Speaker 02: They're put together in a new configuration in the claims in this case. [00:27:07] Speaker 02: And that's why it's not abstract. [00:27:12] Speaker 02: And that's why it's a valid claim. [00:27:14] Speaker 02: Now turning to the cases, [00:27:16] Speaker 02: I spoke a bit about smart systems in my opening argument. [00:27:20] Speaker 02: I didn't hear any response to the passages where this court's opinion says there's no claim to improved computer technology or to improvement in the technology itself. [00:27:30] Speaker 02: As to the Austin case, the electric power group versus Austin case, the court there said the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools [00:27:42] Speaker 02: but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tool. [00:27:46] Speaker 02: That's at page 1354. [00:27:47] Speaker 02: You see a consistent line in this court's cases between claims to the use of generic vices for abstract ends and claims to improvements in the devices themselves. [00:27:59] Speaker 02: This case involves the latter. [00:28:01] Speaker 02: Next, he referred to remotely controlling something as being an abstract idea. [00:28:08] Speaker 02: And we respectfully would dispute that. [00:28:10] Speaker 02: You can't, unless you're a Jedi, remotely control something with your mind. [00:28:15] Speaker 02: It's not a mathematical equation. [00:28:17] Speaker 02: It's not a fundamental economic practice. [00:28:20] Speaker 02: It's something that requires structural items configured to accomplish that end. [00:28:26] Speaker 01: What about cases of ours that I think exist that talk about controlling access to computer resources? [00:28:39] Speaker 01: Well, I don't think that's... Through all kinds of get information, decrypt this, whatever. [00:28:47] Speaker 02: Typically, even the cases that he's citing involve the abstract idea of collecting data from multiple sources and analyzing it, using computers for things like that. [00:28:58] Speaker 02: None of the cases actually say that remote control is an abstract idea. [00:29:02] Speaker 02: I urge you to look at them carefully. [00:29:03] Speaker 02: None of them hold that. [00:29:06] Speaker 02: So I'm not 100% sure I'm tracking your question. [00:29:09] Speaker 01: Well, I guess what I think I'm hearing you say is that since what's going on here is remote control of, just to simplify, an on-off switch and maybe even a reversal switch, a reversal of direction switch, that that's not abstract. [00:29:27] Speaker 01: And I'm trying to think, well, maybe we haven't had that precise thing before, but what about [00:29:33] Speaker 01: Other ideas, simply because of their familiarity and generality, are abstract, like sets of steps for granting access. [00:29:44] Speaker 01: By granting, I mean something actual physical, right? [00:29:48] Speaker 01: It's not a person at the gate saying, please come in. [00:29:52] Speaker 01: It's something physical in the computer that's saying, now you may have access to the following memory in this server. [00:30:01] Speaker 01: If that can be abstract, why can't this be? [00:30:06] Speaker 02: Well, I think you have to look at each particular type of function on its own to determine whether it's really abstract. [00:30:15] Speaker 02: I mean, to me, the idea of remote control is not abstract because it doesn't fall into the categories that this court and the Supreme Court have said are abstract. [00:30:25] Speaker 02: Analyzing data is something you do in your mind. [00:30:28] Speaker 02: I suppose potentially allowing access [00:30:31] Speaker 02: is that type of thing? [00:30:32] Speaker 02: Well, it can be certainly, to the extent that you're looking at fundamental economic practices, if that's a category of what's abstract, as this court has said, then over time... Just controlling access to a computer resource, with a bunch of steps, the last one of which is a key unlocks a door, a computer door. [00:30:50] Speaker 02: Well, if it's framed in that sort of, at that level of generality, that may be too, but where you are saying, [00:30:57] Speaker 02: You know, we're claiming the key, or we're claiming a device that enables opening of, say, a physical door. [00:31:05] Speaker 01: Right, but I guess what I understood the district court basically to say here is, in part based on the colloquy around 808, but the extensive colloquies and what's in the, I guess, admitted prior art, that everything about the mechanism for [00:31:26] Speaker 01: turning on off or reversing the flow in the charging device was off-the-shelf stuff. [00:31:34] Speaker 01: It may not be the only off-the-shelf stuff. [00:31:37] Speaker 01: You might be able to do it differently, but people have been remotely turning on and off the heat in their home for a long time. [00:31:45] Speaker 02: There's nothing in this record to suggest that adjusting the level of power of a charging station or reversing the flow of power was [00:31:55] Speaker 02: off the shelf. [00:31:56] Speaker 02: The specification shows the opposite, and to the extent you care to look beyond and look at the Haas and Baxter declarations, they show the opposite as well. [00:32:04] Speaker 02: Let me close by saying I think the district court, effectively by focusing on concepts like abstract idea of sending requests and receiving command, effectively wrote the structural limitations out of the claim. [00:32:18] Speaker 02: We think that that stretches Alice beyond the breaking point. [00:32:22] Speaker 02: I've yet to see any case that claims an apparatus, a device, configured in a specific way with at least some new non-conventional components struck down by this court or the Supreme Court under 101. [00:32:34] Speaker 02: We urge the court to reverse. [00:32:35] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:32:35] Speaker 04: We thank both sides of the case. [00:32:37] Speaker 02: This concludes our proceedings.