[00:00:04] Speaker 01:
morning our first case today is two zero one eight dash two two one three google versus oh you're going to test me here clunk clunk how do i say it your client is fine your honor huh phillips is fine phillips okay thank you phillips i can say but do we say conan clique or conan cleage key

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Mr. Krinsky, please proceed.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
May it please the court?

[00:00:38] Speaker 02:
This anticipation case hinges on the meaning of a single claim limitation, the high pass filter.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
There's no dispute in this case that every other claim limitation of the challenged claims is met by the prior Tucker system.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
There's also no dispute about the operation of the Tucker system.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
The dispute hinges on what are the requirements for something to be a high-pass filter.

[00:01:04] Speaker 02:
And notwithstanding a seemingly agreed set of words to describe that operation, the board and Phillips have a fundamental disagreement about that from Google.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
Now, do you think your disagreement is one of claim construction or one of substantial evidence for anticipation?

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
I think it's one of claim construction.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
The reason for that is that there really is no dispute about the accused system.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
This is not a case where a fact finder is asked to figure out how exactly do we meet some particular standard.

[00:01:39] Speaker 01:
OK, the board construed a high pass filter as a device or program sequence that transmits frequencies above a given cutoff frequency and substantially attenuates all others.

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
happened to have once been an electrical engineer, that seems like a very reasonable and sound definition to me.

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
If you said your problem is one of claim construction, what is your problem with that claim construction?

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
The problem with the claim construction is twofold, Your Honor.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
One is that the board, in applying that claim construction, insisted that a

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
looked beyond the inputs and the outputs to the filter, which is what defines the filter, and insisted that in order to qualify as a high-pass filter, a filter needs to work outside of the context of the prior art system.

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
Every single input that the filter in Tucker receives is attenuated in the low band and is transmitted in the upper band.

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
And this requirement that it would work if it were plucked out of that environment and put into some other is a question of claim construction.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
It's a question of what are the requirements for something to be a high pass filter.

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
The other claim construction aspect of this, Your Honor, I'm sorry, Your Honor, I didn't mean to cut you off if you had a question.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
No, it's just that Tucker seems to me to disclose low pass filter, does it not?

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
Tucker discloses a filter that internally includes- Do they actually call it a low-pass filter in Tucker?

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
They do not.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
They don't?

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
They do not.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
The relevant disclosure in Tucker is of a interpolate and reflect step.

[00:03:16] Speaker 02:
The parties are in agreement that the second step of the interpolation is a- Are you talking about the reflector, the reflected portion?

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
Well, it's actually the second half of interpolation and the reflection taken together are a filter.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
If Your Honor looks at Appendix 5141, that's the Figure 2 of Tucker as annotated by our expert witness.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
And everyone agrees that the Box 26 in Tucker consists of an up-simple step, a low-pass filter step, and a reflection step.

[00:03:46] Speaker 02:
The question is whether the low-pass filter step

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
I did.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
The low-pass filter step and the reflection step taken together work as a high-pass filter.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
And that's the fundamental dispute here, is whether something ceases to be a high-pass filter.

[00:03:59] Speaker 03:
Well, I guess what we're trying to understand about Tucker is first you upsample some noise signal, right?

[00:04:08] Speaker 02:
Yeah, a noise signal that's been shaped with the desired high-frequency signals.

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:04:14] Speaker 03:
But you upsample it.

[00:04:16] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:04:19] Speaker 03:
you get rid of the high frequency components from 4 to 8 hertz?

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
Well, the input to this pair of components, the low pass filter and reflection step that we have to look at together, the input to that is a mirrored signal with exactly the same information content in the 0 to 4 band and the 4 to 8 band.

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:04:41] Speaker 03:
But the 4 to 8 band, whatever is

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
in the four to eight band gets wiped out by the low pass filter in processor 26 of Tucker.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
Internally to the filter, that's right.

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
But what comes out of the filter is the desired four to eight signal.

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
But I guess, as I understood the board decision, the board was concerned that the high band components are not being preserved through processor 26.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
components are being preserved and ultimately getting reflected up into the high band, right?

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
Is that an accurate understanding of what's going on in Tucker?

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
I think that's an accurate understanding with the important addition that by the way Tucker is designed, the low band and the high band components are identical.

[00:05:35] Speaker 02:
And the nub of this dispute is whether, in order to meet the definition of high pass filter,

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
transmit connotes that at every internal step, the high band still be in the high band.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
The filters are defined.

[00:05:51] Speaker 03:
Couldn't Tucker be understood as a low pass filter in the sense that what is being preserved are the frequency components in the low band?

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
They're getting transferred into the high band, I understand.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
But the content of the low band

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
is what's ultimately preserved and being outputted by processor 26.

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
No, it isn't, because the low band signal is not being output by processor 26.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
That's the key point here.

[00:06:22] Speaker 02:
The processor 26, after the upsampler... Well, it's getting reflected.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
The content of the low band is getting reflected into the high band.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
That is how the processor works internally.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
What is being outputted is whatever the content was in the low band.

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
It's being outputted in the high band, but it comes from the low band.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
I'm trying to understand how it works.

[00:06:51] Speaker 03:
And if you want to characterize it however you want to characterize it, that's fine.

[00:06:56] Speaker 03:
But I just want to make sure I understand the internal operations of processor 26 and Tucker.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
Certainly.

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
The internal operations of processor 26.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
What did I say that was wrong?

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
about the internal operations of Tucker?

[00:07:09] Speaker 02:
You didn't say anything that was wrong.

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
The one thing though that's important to understand is that mathematically the low band and the high band at the input point of the filter are absolutely identical and so there's no way looking at the output

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
to see was this the content of the low band or was this the content of the high band.

[00:07:28] Speaker 02:
It's exactly the same.

[00:07:29] Speaker 02:
What you have is a filter that takes, following the upsampling step, an input signal that spans 0 to 8 kilohertz.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
It so happens that for every input, no matter what your voice signal is, the 0 to 4 and the 4 to 8 will be mirror images of one another.

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
And what comes out is attenuated from 0 to 4 and present from 4 to 8.

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
And that, by definition, is a high-pass filter.

[00:07:49] Speaker 02:
It has transmitted the high-frequency signal, and it has attenuated the low-frequency signal.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
That meets the literal wording of the claim construction.

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
Do you have any understanding of why Tucker didn't just use a high-pass filter to the upsampled signal?

[00:08:03] Speaker 03:
And instead, it took this really elliptical, circuitous route by electing to use a low-pass filter and then reflecting the content of the low-pass filter into the high band

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
When I agree with you, the result is the same, but it just seems like so much bigger of a waste of time and devices to do it that way.

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
The record doesn't reflect why it was designed that way.

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
The only thing I can point to is that box 32 consists of an upsampler followed by a low pass filter.

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
Because when reconstructing the low band signal, you want it in the lower band.

[00:08:39] Speaker 02:
And it may well be that there was some ability to reuse code or some deficiencies in how the system was designed.

[00:08:46] Speaker 02:
I don't think the operation of low-pass filtering and reflecting versus high-pass filtering in one step is a very material difference when it comes to the computational efficiency.

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's elliptical, but it's not so elliptical as to matter to an engineer designing the system.

[00:09:02] Speaker 02:
It's the best I have for your honor.

[00:09:03] Speaker 02:
I think part of the dispute here, too, is hinges on this word transmit in the definition.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
I mean, I think what the board got hung up on was the notion that the high band signal is being transmitted across the box 26 when internally it is attenuated and then reflected.

[00:09:27] Speaker 02:
But transmit in this art is

[00:09:31] Speaker 02:
just sending.

[00:09:33] Speaker 02:
It's all focused on not on what happens inside the box, not on whether anything is passed through without modification internally, but defined based on the inputs and the outputs.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
And that's why, again, I characterize this as a claim construction dispute.

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
In a way, it's a claim construction dispute about the meaning of the claim construction.

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
But this is in the context of a transmitter and receiver system.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
Transmit in the claims themselves does not mean take a signal, don't do anything to it at all internally, and emit it again.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
It is focused on what is the output, what is emitted at the end of the box.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
both within the intended function in the Tucker device and within the meaning of the claims within the four corners of the claim construction the board adopted.

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
That is defined solely based on what are the inputs, what are the outputs.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
The inputs here are a high frequency signal that's present in the upper and the lower band.

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
The output is a high frequency signal present only in the upper band and attenuated to the lower band.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
That is, by definition, a divisor programming sequence that transmits frequencies above a given cutoff frequency and substantially attenuates all others.

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
That's why we see this as meeting the claim construction within the four corners of how it was

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
articulated but apparently there was a lurking dispute that those words didn't resolve in that the board imported this additional requirement that this filter, if you gave it some signal that wasn't mirror imaged, would still function and there's no basis for that because it never received such a signal.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
This is a single reference anticipation case.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
There's no question of whether this filter could be combined with some other component and still work the same way.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
It is a filter that always receives the high frequency signal in both the upper and lower band, and the goal is to put it only in the high band.

[00:11:32] Speaker 02:
so that you have a nice, clean, essentially blank slate in the 0 to 4 kilohertz range that you can then put together with the 0 to 4 kilohertz low band that the other part of Tucker has reconstructed.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
Am I correct in arguing and understanding that your client did not raise obviousness with regard to this particular portion?

[00:11:51] Speaker 01:
It was purely anticipation.

[00:11:53] Speaker 02:
Yeah, Your Honor, we saw this as an anticipation case in the original petition until this issue bubbled up.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
And once it did, Phillips had every opportunity to and did respond to it.

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
But this exact argument was not in the petition because no one ever saw this as a limitation that was missing.

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
It isn't missing.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
OK, do you want to save the remainder of your time for rebuttal?

[00:12:16] Speaker 02:
Yes, please, Your Honor.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
Let's hear from Mr. Oliver.

[00:12:36] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:12:37] Speaker 04:
May it please the court?

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
What Google proposes here on appeal is a rejection of a comparison of the actual structures, the structure claim, the high-pass filter, and the structures taught in the prior art, the low-pass filter and reflector.

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
Instead, what Google proposes is a results-oriented analysis.

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
Google argues that two different structures should be assumed to be the same if they ultimately get to the same end result.

[00:13:01] Speaker 04:
But this results oriented analysis is improper for several reasons.

[00:13:05] Speaker 04:
First and foremost, this is what audio encoding systems do.

[00:13:09] Speaker 04:
They ultimately get to the same result.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
An audio encoder system will take input sounds such as voice, which is typically in the 0 to 8 kHz range.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
It will digitize it, code it, transmit it.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
And on the receiver side, the decoder will decode it and ultimately recreate the right sounds.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
When we're looking at the Box or Processor 26 in Tucker, we're looking at the ultimate output.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
And Google's argument is, well, the ultimate output is the same.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
Well, of course it's the same.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
It's an audio encoder.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
It should ultimately get the same sound coming out at the end.

[00:13:40] Speaker 04:
What makes one audio encoder different from another audio encoder are the things that happen in between the input and the output, the structures inside the box.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
We open it up, we see what's inside.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
Is it an LPC encoder?

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
Is it a low pass filter?

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
Is it a high pass filter?

[00:13:55] Speaker 04:
That it ultimately gets the same answer is basically saying that the encoder and decoder work.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
But what makes one different from the other are the internal structures.

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
Google asks this core to close.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
So it's basically your argument that I can eat my corn with a fork or a spoon, and in both cases it gets to my mouth, but that doesn't make a fork into a spoon and a spoon into a fork?

[00:14:15] Speaker 04:
More or less, yes.

[00:14:15] Speaker 01:
Do you have much more that you need to say?

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
Probably not, Your Honor.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
You have an embodiment in your specification that uses a low-pass filter in order to accomplish the high-pass filter function.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
In part, yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
So doesn't that kind of open the door to possibly considering the possibility of a low-pass filter satisfying the high-pass filter limitation?

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
Well, the question is the claim construction.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
The claim construction is quite simple for high-pass filter.

[00:14:47] Speaker 04:
It has to do two things.

[00:14:48] Speaker 04:
It has to attenuate the low frequency and transmit or pass through the high frequency.

[00:14:54] Speaker 04:
And what the board found is that there are different ways to do that.

[00:14:58] Speaker 04:
It doesn't have to be a one-step filter.

[00:14:59] Speaker 04:
It can be a multi-step filter.

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
And the embodiment you're referring to, which is shown in Figure 2, does a multi-step filter.

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
In subband encoding, you have to take out the low frequency and take out the high frequency, and you code those two things differently.

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
What's going on in figure two is there's a low-pass filter because we have to take out that low frequency and encode it.

[00:15:17] Speaker 04:
And basically what's happening there is a designer high-pass filter.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
In addition to taking out that low frequency and using it, coding the low frequency, it says, hey, we can just take that, loop it back around, and subtract it out of the full 0 to 8 kilohertz signal.

[00:15:31] Speaker 04:
So what's going on as far as a high-pass filter is that subtractor 2029 or 28.

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
And basically they're saying, what's transmitted is a high frequency and we're subtracting out the low frequency.

[00:15:42] Speaker 04:
So it's still transmitting high, attenuating low.

[00:15:45] Speaker 04:
It happens that it's building a sort of designer high pass filter on the fly rather than using a pre-built one based on the internal.

[00:15:53] Speaker 04:
But even under that situation, it meets the claim construction.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
So regardless of whether a low pass filter or however you're going to function to make your signal, the question is, do you transmit this?

[00:16:05] Speaker 04:
Do you attenuate that?

[00:16:07] Speaker 04:
And that's what's happening in figure two.

[00:16:09] Speaker 04:
In Tucker, you are attenuating the high frequency, and you are converting the low frequency.

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
So the two things that are required are high pass filter are simply missing in Tucker.

[00:16:19] Speaker 04:
Does that answer your question, Hunter?

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:16:24] Speaker 04:
I'm happy to explain more if that's not.

[00:16:27] Speaker 03:
I was just thinking about Judge Moore's analogy.

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
Keep going.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
Judge Chen's trying to wrap his head about the idea of which one is the high pass and which one is the low pass, the spoon or the fork.

[00:16:38] Speaker 01:
Do you have any ideas on that?

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
Maybe your spec discloses a spork.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
Well, I mean, the question really is, it could be anything.

[00:16:50] Speaker 04:
It could be, is there a spark plug in a particular engine?

[00:16:54] Speaker 04:
You know, just because the car works doesn't mean there's a spark plug inside.

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
You have to look inside, take that thing out, and say to a mechanic, is this a spark plug?

[00:17:02] Speaker 04:
If we were to go into Tucker and take out the combination of low pass filter and the reflector and show it to a person where it's killing the art, they'd say, no, that's not a high pass filter, because it's not going to high pass filter the proper information if it's used.

[00:17:15] Speaker 04:
What Google's saying is keep that thing in the box, keep it closed, don't look at it, and look at just what comes out.

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
But if it's a proper audio encoder, what's going to come out

[00:17:23] Speaker 04:
is something the 48 kilohertz range to replicate what was just originally input.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
It's not raised in this case in the petition that this element, the high pass filter and the final element of the claim, is obvious in light of what's disclosed in Tucker.

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
But nonetheless, it seems like it might be, since what's in Tucker is a more complicated way to create something that functions like a high-pass filter, even though it's not a high-pass filter.

[00:17:52] Speaker 01:
So given that high-pass filter is sort of an off-the-shelf product that most electrical engineers would know, and that what's disclosed in Tucker seems to be a slightly more complex version of achieving the same result, why wouldn't it be obvious

[00:18:12] Speaker 04:
First of all, with respect to that, the patent describes what the benefit is over systems like Tucker.

[00:18:18] Speaker 04:
They're trying to obtain a computational benefit.

[00:18:21] Speaker 04:
The inclusion of the high-pass filter is an ultimate result of what they're trying to achieve.

[00:18:26] Speaker 01:
What is the benefit of using a high-pass filter rather than a low-pass filter and a reflector?

[00:18:31] Speaker 01:
Well, what does the patent say?

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
The patent says, and this is in the 27 column 2, says that thanks to the properties of LPC coding, a high-pass filter is sufficient

[00:18:42] Speaker 04:
and it is not necessary to apply downsampling.

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
Since the high-pass filter and the low-pass filter both require little computational capacity, and a downsampler is admitted, the total required computation capacity is reduced.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
So it's cheaper?

[00:18:56] Speaker 04:
It's easier, and I'll explain that a little bit more.

[00:18:59] Speaker 00:
It actually consumes less bandwidth.

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
Is that what's?

[00:19:03] Speaker 04:
It's computational capacity.

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
I don't know.

[00:19:05] Speaker 04:
Probably less bandwidth, but yeah.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
So do you understand why Tucker, this question that was asked of your opposing counsel, why Tucker used this Rube Goldberg-ish or seeming process when it would seem more conventional simply to use the high pass filter?

[00:19:28] Speaker 04:
I agree with counsel, it wasn't really developed in the record, but I'll explain to you my understanding, I'll point to places in the record that will support that.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
Typically, when you're talking about down sampling, what you have is a frequency range, and typically, just to be clear, what's claimed here is a subband encoder, meaning it codes the zero to four and the four to eight differently.

[00:19:47] Speaker 04:
Oftentimes, when you're using down sampling, you have a full zero to four, or zero to eight, or whatever the range is.

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
And you're taking that full zero to eight, and you're compressing it down to zero to four.

[00:19:57] Speaker 04:
Now, on the other side, you upsample.

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
An upsample is basically just stretching out that signal.

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
It's adding in little points in between to get it back up.

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
You're interpolating.

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
You're interpolating, exactly.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
Now, if you have a 0 to 8 kilohertz signal, you compress it to 0 to 4, you stretch it back out, it looks exactly the same.

[00:20:13] Speaker 04:
It's going to look 0 to 8.

[00:20:14] Speaker 04:
And you get what are called ghost images in the next band, because you completely stretch it out.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
The 0 to 8 looks correct, but now there's a mirrored image in the 8 to 16, and then mirrored in 16 to 32.

[00:20:24] Speaker 04:
And that's described in the appendix sets.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
4290.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
In subbanded coding, it's a little bit more complicated because you're only putting into that down sampler a 4 to 8 kHz range.

[00:20:36] Speaker 04:
So when interpolation processes normally work, they're compressing 0 to 8 and then expanding back out 0 to 8.

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
In this system, you're putting in 4 to 8, compressing it to 0 to 4, and then expanding it back out.

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
Now you have a 0 to 8 signal, but that wasn't the original signal.

[00:20:50] Speaker 04:
The original signal was 48.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
You're actually getting a ghost below what you wanted and above what is wanted.

[00:20:56] Speaker 04:
An interpolation process in general is simply expanding and usually using a low pass filter.

[00:21:02] Speaker 04:
In the example I gave, if you're doing a full zero to eight, your low pass filter is going to cut off at eight because your ghosts are above that.

[00:21:09] Speaker 04:
They are eight to 16, 16 to 32.

[00:21:12] Speaker 04:
In this system, if you're using an interpolator, and again, what is disclosed in Tucker is just an interpolator process.

[00:21:18] Speaker 04:
Inside an interpolator, there is up sample low pass filter.

[00:21:22] Speaker 04:
Normally, that low pass filter is just going to cut off the ghost above and leave you what's there.

[00:21:26] Speaker 04:
But if you're to do that here, you're going to have the wrong answer.

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
If you make your cutoff frequency 8, you're going to have a 0 to 8 frequency range when the input was only 4 to 8.

[00:21:35] Speaker 04:
If you do 0 to 4, you're only going to have the low frequency.

[00:21:38] Speaker 03:
So the input really 4 to 8 in this example, I know you're using a noise signal to replace

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
what was in the original input signal.

[00:21:48] Speaker 03:
So you're using a noise signal from zero to four as a stand-in that you ultimately shape and amplify to best approximate what the input signal from four to eight looked like.

[00:22:00] Speaker 04:
What I'm talking about, Your Honor, is the up, the down sampling.

[00:22:02] Speaker 04:
That takes place on the transceiver side.

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
So originally you were down sampling a 48 signal, LPC coding that.

[00:22:10] Speaker 04:
So when I'm talking about you're originally starting with a 4 to 8, I'm talking on the receiver side where the down sampling occurs.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
Down sampling occurs on the receiver.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
Upsampling occurs on the transmitter.

[00:22:22] Speaker 04:
And the upsampling occurs on the receiver side.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
So we're talking about those two things.

[00:22:27] Speaker 04:
You're getting a ghost where normally, if you had a full 0 to 8 kilohertz signal, you wouldn't have a ghost.

[00:22:32] Speaker 04:
You'd have the right signal.

[00:22:33] Speaker 04:
But because you're only doing a band,

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
above zero, you're going to get something that is different.

[00:22:38] Speaker 04:
It has this mirrored image below.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
So if you use a typical interpolator with a low press filter, you're going to get the wrong thing.

[00:22:44] Speaker 04:
And that's why they do it that way.

[00:22:46] Speaker 04:
What the patent says is, let's just get rid of all this.

[00:22:48] Speaker 04:
Let's not even down sample.

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
Let's not even up sample.

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
We can simplify this whole process if we just take out downsampling, upsampling, and the effect of that is you end up with a high-pass filter in that second decoder.

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
Do you think the claim here excludes the use of upsampling and downsampling?

[00:23:05] Speaker 03:
Because I didn't see that in the claim.

[00:23:06] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor, that's not in the claim.

[00:23:08] Speaker 04:
That is sort of the, and I know counsel will get up here and say that we're reading in a limitation of excluding a downsampler, or an upsampler rather.

[00:23:15] Speaker 04:
That's just the context of the broader idea of what the patent was trying to do.

[00:23:19] Speaker 04:
It was trying to simplify the overall process.

[00:23:22] Speaker 04:
It could simplify on one side by doing all these things.

[00:23:25] Speaker 04:
What's claimed is the use of a high-pass filter because as stated in the patent, high-pass filters really don't require much effort.

[00:23:31] Speaker 04:
So if you're taking out basically what's in Tucker and let's even say, you know,

[00:23:37] Speaker 04:
Let's not even talk about the upsampling process.

[00:23:40] Speaker 04:
There's part of an interpolation process, which is low-pass filter and the reflection process.

[00:23:45] Speaker 04:
Ultimately, they're getting rid of all of that.

[00:23:47] Speaker 04:
But even if you look at just part of that, the low-pass filter and reflection, you're basically simplifying what is a problem because you are downsampling and upsampling a band rather than a full 0 to 4, 0 to 8, 0 to 16.

[00:23:58] Speaker 04:
So would it work to do that?

[00:24:02] Speaker 04:
Yes, it would work if you simply replace these things with a high-pass filter.

[00:24:06] Speaker 04:
But obviously, it wasn't appreciated at the time because this was a developing field.

[00:24:10] Speaker 04:
So with respect to that, it was solving what was seen as a problem.

[00:24:14] Speaker 04:
There's no indication in the prior art that this problem was recognized or that someone thought you would go about doing it this way.

[00:24:20] Speaker 04:
I know it's a long-winded answer to why we believe it wouldn't have been honest.

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
No, you've given a very good and very detailed technical explanation.

[00:24:26] Speaker 01:
I appreciate that.

[00:24:26] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:24:28] Speaker 04:
Okay, like you're wrapping up so I'm happy to discuss anything more but since We were looking to end at the spork analogy.

[00:24:35] Speaker 04:
I didn't want to take up too much time if they're not No, no, you've done a great job.

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
Mr. Krinsky you have some rebuttal time

[00:24:51] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:52] Speaker 02:
I want to begin by batting back this notion that somehow we're trying to reject the structure of the claims.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
I mean, this is not a result-driven analysis based on the fact that ultimately the Tucker system creates the correct audio signal.

[00:25:07] Speaker 02:
Fundamentally, the purported innovation here is a particular array of structural components that separately encode, as my friend on the other side explained,

[00:25:17] Speaker 02:
the low band and the high band, the low band using an off-the-shelf narrowband encoder and what is in the claims the first decoder, and then the high band using this sequence of components that includes shaping a noise signal using LPC coefficients.

[00:25:34] Speaker 02:
The idea being that in the high band, which is harder for the human ear to hear if you're encoding voice, that's good enough.

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
The Tucker system does that too, and it does it with all of the same components.

[00:25:44] Speaker 02:
The only question is whether it's not only just one component, it's the right half of box 26 qualifies as a high pass filter.

[00:25:53] Speaker 02:
The high pass filter there, to use Judge Moore's analogy, it's like you have an entire place setting.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
And the question is, is this fish fork, does it qualify as a fork?

[00:26:03] Speaker 02:
And the answer is yes, under the plan.

[00:26:05] Speaker 01:
Well, no, not really, because a low-pass filter.

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
Look, I mean, my analogy was there's a high-pass filter and a low-pass filter, and those are two different things.

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
And there's no doubt your expert described what's in that little dotted line box on the right that you're calling a high-pass filter is actually a low-pass filter plus a reflector.

[00:26:22] Speaker 01:
That doesn't make it a fish fork.

[00:26:26] Speaker 01:
It makes it a low-pass filter.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
But both the definition and the purpose of the high-pass filter is to take an input signal

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
So your response is it functions the same as the spoon or the fork, but it doesn't make it into a fork.

[00:26:41] Speaker 02:
The definition is functional though, Your Honor.

[00:26:43] Speaker 02:
The definition is based on whether it transmits the upper frequency band and whether it attenuates the low frequency band and it does that.

[00:26:51] Speaker 01:
It's a device that does that, right?

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
Well, or a sequence of programming steps.

[00:26:56] Speaker 02:
I mean, these would typically be implemented in software.

[00:26:59] Speaker 02:
And so you have this input data that has the desired signal in the 0 to 4 and 4 to 8 range.

[00:27:06] Speaker 02:
And you have an output signal that has the desired signal only in the 4 to 8 range.

[00:27:09] Speaker 02:
You have high pass filtered that signal.

[00:27:12] Speaker 02:
You have met the literal wording of the claims.

[00:27:14] Speaker 02:
And you have achieved the goal.

[00:27:17] Speaker 02:
It's true that you've achieved the function.

[00:27:19] Speaker 01:
You just turned a noun into a verb.

[00:27:22] Speaker 01:
I mean, forget the forks and the knives and spoons.

[00:27:26] Speaker 01:
You just turned a noun into a verb.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
You turned a device into a function.

[00:27:30] Speaker 02:
It's not just a function.

[00:27:31] Speaker 02:
But again, Your Honor, the definition is based on what the inputs and the outputs are.

[00:27:36] Speaker 01:
You said we high pass filtered it.

[00:27:39] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:27:41] Speaker 02:
And we high pass filtered it with our high pass filter.

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
I mean, I don't know.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
What words do you want me to put in?

[00:27:46] Speaker 01:
Except your expert never called it a high-pass filter.

[00:27:47] Speaker 01:
He said it was a low-pass filter.

[00:27:49] Speaker 02:
That is not correct, Your Honor.

[00:27:50] Speaker 01:
Really, his dotted line box says low-pass filter in the flip.

[00:27:53] Speaker 02:
And it's labeled high-pass filter.

[00:27:55] Speaker 01:
Well, right, he labeled it below that.

[00:27:58] Speaker 01:
Yes, but he said it's a low-pass filter.

[00:28:01] Speaker 02:
But I mean, as Judge Shen pointed out, there are embodiments of high-pass filters that have a low-pass filter as a component.

[00:28:08] Speaker 02:
This is just another one.

[00:28:09] Speaker 02:
The high pass filter here uses low pass filtering internally as the first step.

[00:28:13] Speaker 01:
You see, none of this sounds like claim construction to me.

[00:28:16] Speaker 01:
It all sounds like substantial evidence.

[00:28:18] Speaker 01:
And what does Tucker disclose?

[00:28:20] Speaker 01:
I know you love to be in the claim construction land, because that gets you to a de novo space.

[00:28:24] Speaker 01:
But none of what you're arguing is claim construction.

[00:28:27] Speaker 01:
All of what you're arguing is whether I should construe that little dotted line box from Tucker as meeting the limitations of a high pass filter.

[00:28:36] Speaker 01:
And with respect.

[00:28:37] Speaker 01:
That's substantial evidence.

[00:28:38] Speaker 02:
And with respect, Your Honor, there is no dispute about the dotted line box and its claim construction, because the question is, are you importing some other notion of what a high pass filter really is, or are you applying the functional definition that Phillips itself ultimately proposed?

[00:28:55] Speaker 01:
OK, you're over your time.

[00:28:56] Speaker 01:
We thank both counsel for their argument.

[00:28:58] Speaker 01:
The case is taken under submission.

[00:28:59] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.