[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
The next case for argument is 181834, Google versus Maclelland.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
We're sorry you all had to wait through all that, but it's the luck of the draw as to who goes first in the order.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
Chief Judge Prost, a housekeeping matter before we start.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
I know that in the past, we've been here and confused the court by sitting at the wrong table.

[00:01:09] Speaker 03:
We are appellant and appellee in the following case.

[00:01:12] Speaker 03:
If you, in the interest of time, will stay at this table, unless you'd rather us change.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
No, I think it's fine for you to stay.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
But I appreciate you pointing that out.

[00:01:22] Speaker 01:
And yeah, it's very much in my mind.

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
OK, first case, you're in the right place, right?

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:01:28] Speaker 03:
We're starting in the correct spot.

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
We'll be in the wrong spot for Mr. Meyerquist's argument.

[00:01:32] Speaker 03:
Again, may it please the court?

[00:01:34] Speaker 03:
The main question in this case

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
and I think a little simpler than the one we just heard, is what is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the common and ordinary term traffic jam as it's used in the 783 patent?

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, do that one more time.

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
What is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term traffic jam as it's used in the 783 package?

[00:02:03] Speaker 03:
I thought I heard the word reasonable in there, but maybe I didn't.

[00:02:07] Speaker 03:
If I didn't say it, I certainly meant to.

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
I'm trying not to abbreviate with BRI and that sort of thing, trying to be clear about it.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
But the board said in this case, Your Honors, that the term was entitled to a narrow construction, that it means a sudden unpredictable change of traffic in a segment as compared to regular times, and that it added an IE, individual statistical travel time estimates.

[00:02:34] Speaker 03:
Well, that can't be teased out of the simple and ubiquitous term traffic jam, nor can it be teased out of the language of the claim.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
Well, you want traffic jam to mean any time there's a slowdown.

[00:02:46] Speaker 03:
The ordinary and customary meaning, and that's not only under a Phillips construction, that would be right, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, that's icing on the cake.

[00:02:56] Speaker 02:
Is this something that someone of

[00:03:00] Speaker 02:
ordinary skill in that art would think about, or is this something that we ordinary people can be asked?

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
What do we use as the criteria for determining this?

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
Well, I think, first of all, the court's cases say ordinary and customary meaning unless there is either a disavowal or a specific instance of lexicography, which was alleged here.

[00:03:26] Speaker 02:
There wasn't either of those in the patent.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
And so the only argument that we're really faced with is this argument that context somehow or another answers this question.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
But traffic jam is not a term that requires any special construction, nor was there any testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would say, oh, traffic jam, well, you commoners referred to traffic jam this way, but we scientists refer to it in this other way.

[00:03:52] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:03:52] Speaker 03:
In fact, the prior art that's cited at the beginning of the patent

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
uses the term traffic jam in its ordinary way.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
I understand what you're saying about plain and ordinary meaning.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
We see that in numerous cases.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
The reason I'm not there in this case to be very candid is not just reliance on the specification, although I think that's strong, but even the claim language itself

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
Firstly, it talks about real time traffic jam, it's not just traffic jam in general.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
And then I think the language in the claim, that term appears in the context of certain language, you've got these time factors that you look at.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
I am very sympathetic to the board's reading.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
I don't know.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
Maybe there is an ordinary meaning of traffic jam.

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
Maybe there isn't.

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
But whether there is or isn't, we're talking about this is a claim.

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
This is a GPS stuff.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
This is the context of the claim.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
I think it's a perfectly fair read of not the rest of the stuff, but just the steps in the claim.

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
So Chief Judge Pross, let me make sure that I'm clear about what our position is.

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
We say there's no doubt that the sudden, unexpected, unpredictable change in traffic is within the ordinary meaning of traffic jam.

[00:05:13] Speaker 03:
And by the way, there is an ordinary meaning.

[00:05:15] Speaker 03:
The other side agrees that there's an ordinary meaning.

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
They say so at page five of the red brief.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
But if you have a historical statistical record and you work where we work, you know that between five and six it's impossible to get across H Street because of all the traffic jam.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
That's not a real time, isn't that part of the historical statistical record you have in the computation given the amount of traffic that is generally there every single day at the same time?

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
That may be the case, but what the board did here was to take the ordinary term traffic jam, the term that the patent owner chose to use in its patent and decided to say that this means something not only not inclusive

[00:06:02] Speaker 03:
but very narrow.

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
And so let's look at that language there.

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
The claim language appears in a clause that says computing real-time traffic jam identification at various locations of the individual roads by utilizing the sample vehicles for measuring time delays.

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
What they want to say that that claim language really means is computing sudden unpredictable changes in traffic.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
But reading that language, computing real-time traffic jam identification, means is there a traffic jam there at the present time?

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
And if it's true every day, it's still a traffic jam.

[00:06:38] Speaker 03:
If it's true only on one day, it's a traffic jam.

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
If it's true only because there was an accident or a bottleneck or any number of causes, it's still a traffic jam.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
They chose the broad ubiquitous term, and I think there's another important point to remember here as well.

[00:06:55] Speaker 03:
And that is that in the district court, they have used this construction against us.

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
They've used the broad and ordinary meaning.

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
In their infringement contentions, which are in the appendix, that's a... Is this an ongoing... What is this?

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
Was this IPR filed as part of the...?

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
This IPR was filed in response to district court litigation.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
And there is district court litigation going on here.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
And isn't the district court going to, I mean, are you having a problem there?

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
Is the district court going to come up with a claim construction different than the patent office came up with if we confirm the patent office?

[00:07:28] Speaker 03:
Well, I don't know that they will.

[00:07:29] Speaker 03:
But my point is this, that they are seeking to ensnare us in infringement by treating the claim as the proverbial nose of wax.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
In the district court, they're adopting the broad interpretation.

[00:07:44] Speaker 03:
In an IPR, where we're entitled to the broadest reasonable interpretation, they're asserting a narrow interpretation.

[00:07:50] Speaker 03:
This court's decision in Google versus intellectual ventures, a non-precedential but published decision, says that's not appropriate.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
And in fact, in that case, it remanded for consideration of the infringement contentions because the board had not taken them into account just like they didn't take it into account in this case.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
But I would suggest, Chief Judge Prost, that the very simple outcome of this case ought to follow very much like that that this court followed.

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
about six months ago, maybe fewer than that, in the Google versus Lee case, correct the claim construction, say, no, you were entitled to the broadest ordinary interpretation, broadest reasonable interpretation, and the ordinary meaning of traffic jam.

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
And under that, we said in our opening brief that Owens Corning versus Fastbelt

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
We're entitled to judgment.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
We're entitled to judgment of obviousness.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
In their brief, they offer no argument whatsoever in that light.

[00:08:56] Speaker 03:
And so following both Corning and following the Google versus Lee case, adopt the claim construction that's the broadest reasonable interpretation.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
Corning says, that's the end of the game.

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
That really ought to be the end.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
Yeah, you have to get us to reversing on the claim.

[00:09:13] Speaker 02:
Mr. Piscanias, let me ask you this.

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
If we thought, because we're using common sense, which has suddenly become part of the judicial toolbox, I guess, if we thought that the PTO's interpretation

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
and your interpretation were both reasonable and could be give or take within the range of the broadest reasonable interpretation.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
What should we do?

[00:09:51] Speaker 03:
Ours is broader.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
The rule says broadest.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
We win.

[00:09:57] Speaker 03:
Just like that.

[00:09:58] Speaker 03:
It's just like that.

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
That's the whole point of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is

[00:10:04] Speaker 03:
Let's read this in the broadest reasonable way that might possibly be read in a district court, and then consider it against the prior art that has been cited.

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
Here, you don't even have to do that, because the broadest reasonable interpretation, if you think both of our interpretations are reasonable, ours is broader, we should win.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
Under that construction, they've not offered anything in defense.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
And that ought to be the outcome.

[00:10:28] Speaker 02:
So to uphold the board, we have to conclude that yours is just not quite reasonable enough.

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
I think you'd actually have to conclude that ours is unreasonable.

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
And there's no argument made by the board and no argument made by Maker in this case that our construction is unreasonable.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
If it's within the zone of reasonable, the broader one wins.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
That's what BRI says.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
And Chief Judge Prost, if I could turn back to the source of your concern.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
Uh, there are, uh, at columns two and then column, uh, also, I think columns eight and nine, there are these three kinds of data that are set forth.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
And you'll see if you use the language at column two, uh, it says, obviously, a true real time system.

[00:11:16] Speaker 03:
There's your real time from, from that, uh, real time traffic queue.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
It's A83, column two.

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
No, no, no.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
I have it in front of me.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
I just want to know.

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
Starting at column 36.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
Line 36, excuse me.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
And it says.

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
Are you with me now?

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
Obviously, a true real-time system should collect, store, and make use of the following kinds, plural, of data.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
One, temporary changes.

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
Two, regular predictable changes.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
Three, sudden unpredictable changes.

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
All three of these.

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
In fact, look at the language that follows those three.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
The system in the present invention.

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
There they are defining what their invention is.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
The system in the present invention

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
is built around an idea of collecting and processing information that describes all, not some, all, those changing conditions.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
Now, of course, none of this language is being offered as a definition

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
of the term traffic jam, because there is no lexicography, as Your Honors pointed out.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
There is no disavowal, as Your Honors have pointed out, and as we argued in our brief.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
So let me just understand what you're saying, because I think this seems to track the claim language that we were focusing on earlier.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
But to me, this seems supportive, just like similar languages found at bottom of column 9, top of column 10, where they list these three factors.

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
Doesn't that track what the board did?

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
It tracks what the board did, but only in part.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
What the board did is say that only category three is traffic jam.

[00:12:51] Speaker 03:
Only traffic jams that are caused by sudden unpredictable changes such as traffic accidents, et cetera.

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
Now, here's another important thing to note.

[00:13:01] Speaker 03:
The language in columns two and columns nine and 10 is not exactly the same.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
You'll see that the comment about visiting dignitaries

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
that's in column 2 in category 3 appears in category 1 at columns 9 and 10.

[00:13:20] Speaker 03:
There's not the sort of clear distinction between these categories.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
This is just a useful way that the patentee is saying that you can think about the different causes of traffic impediments.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
Now, they're not using the term traffic jams here, but what's clear is that these are

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
meant to be the collection of causes of what all of us know and talk about as traffic jams.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
That is the broadest reasonable interpretation.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
That is what we're entitled to.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
They don't have an argument on validity in response to that.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
And that ought to be the end of the case.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
And I'll return on rebuttal for any further questions.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
What is your answer to the argument that if their interpretation is broader and still within the range of reasonable, you don't really argue it's unreasonable, do you?

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
It is unreasonable.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
We do argue that throughout our briefs, Your Honor.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
Why is it unreasonable?

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
Because it ignores claim language surrounding it.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
We're not just construing.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
term in the abstract, apart from the surrounding language of the claim, and it's that step as well as surrounding steps, and the language of the specification.

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
In light of the surrounding language, in light of the specification, it would be unreasonable to construe traffic jam, as Google urges.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
Is Mr. Christianes correct that in the corresponding district court proceeding, you're asserting claim construction that's broader?

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
No, he's incorrect.

[00:15:03] Speaker 00:
There has been no claim construction asserted in the district work case.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
It's not inconsistent with what we're doing now.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
It is not spelled out as clearly here.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
But we identify regular times that are found in Google systems, and we identify traffic jams.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
It happens to be identified through a rerouting procedure, which sounds similar to some of their contentions here.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
But it's not that any rerouting procedure would be a traffic jam under the claims of the patent.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
Further, judicial stoppable, which is the only rubric under which this sort of limitation can come in, is inapplicable.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
because there's been no determination in the district court case about any claim construction.

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
The contention has not been discussed by the court.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
As Mr. Crestani has pointed out, it's really hard to map this stuff out.

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
In the claim, in theory, you've got three categories that are laid out in the claim, one of which talks about real-time traffic jam.

[00:16:04] Speaker 01:
And then you've got these two places in the specification that also lay out three categories, right?

[00:16:11] Speaker 01:
Yes, right.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
And then you've got bottom of 9 and 10 that also lays out three factors or categories, right?

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
Is it your view that each 1, 2, 3, they may map on to the 1, 2, 3 in the claims or is there some

[00:16:29] Speaker 01:
He pointed out, which I had noted too, the visiting dignitary seems to be a moving object.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
Well, claims one and two, and that's just between one and two and not to three.

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
Three is distinct from one and two.

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
One and two are regular, predictable.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
changes that can be accounted for in the system and three is sudden unpredictable changes.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
So you think that the map, let's just look at the three factors set out at the bottom of nine, top of ten.

[00:16:58] Speaker 01:
One, two, three.

[00:17:00] Speaker 01:
Is it your view that those are what map on to the factors listed at the end of claim twelve?

[00:17:08] Speaker 00:
So there's two factors listed at the end of claim 12.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
There's regular travel times, and then there's updating of regular travel times.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
Those are both regular times.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
And then the last category in claim 12 is real-time traffic jams.

[00:17:22] Speaker 00:
That corresponds with category three.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
One and two correspond with regular travel times.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
And it's made clear later in the specification, column 10, where it shows the criterion used

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
for when current travel times are used rather than regular travel times.

[00:17:41] Speaker 00:
What line are you on?

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
Line... Column 10, Line 37 to 50 talks about the third category and how that gives truly real-time capabilities and then also separately at Column 12, Lines 29 to 38 talks about when current travel times are to be used over regular travel times.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
bottleneck situations correct your honor is bottleneck defined anyway bottlenecks defined implicitly and discussed in connection with traffic jams it's used they're used together and it's in the abstract there's there's one point where there's an or but it's not distinguished between the two could be exemplary

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
But visiting dignitaries would certainly come under the third factor normally, not under a regular recurring.

[00:18:39] Speaker 01:
I mean, to me, a regular recurring kind of traffic jam, the debate we were having before, is every day between 5 and 6.

[00:18:46] Speaker 01:
You can't move on H Street.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
I understand that, Your Honor.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
But visiting dignitaries can be scheduled.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
I think that's how it's used in the patent.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
And I think this might actually

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
be a cultural difference as between Israel, where the patentee is from, and Washington, D.C., when visiting dignitaries are unpredictable and all over the place?

[00:19:04] Speaker 01:
Okay, fair enough.

[00:19:04] Speaker 01:
I'm not going to go there, yeah.

[00:19:08] Speaker 00:
I would take contention with the statement that there is no testimony, that this is the broadest reasonable interpretation.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
There is.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
Dr. Krzyzanski pointed out that it is unreasonable in the context of the claims and the patents to read traffic jam to encompass

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
any sort of congestion, whether normal or abnormal.

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
They talk about that in their briefs.

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
Google does as recanting what he had said, but he didn't.

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
He said, divorced from any context, you can interpret it that way.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
But in the context of these claims and in this patent, it must be read as an abnormal slowdown as compared to regular times.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
I will also say in the briefing, there's some misunderstanding that the claim language itself

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
I would just say the distinction in the claim language makes clear that computing individual statistical travel time estimates, regular times, is different than computing real-time traffic jam identification by utilizing sample vehicles for measuring time delays.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
Rush hour is already accounted for in the regular times.

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
It would be redundant to conflate these two.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
And it's an important issue.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
It's an important distinction within the patent, both in the claims and in the specification.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
If Your Honor's have no further question on claim construction.

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
I would just move on to, they argue that the proposed combination would render.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
Well I'm not sure Mr. Castaneda's right.

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
It's been a long morning, but I think his argument was began and end of the claim construction, right?

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
The argument here began and ended in claim construction.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
The briefing discusses the application of the claims even under the

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
brought us reasonable construction that the Board adopted.

[00:21:03] Speaker 00:
I can address or not, I don't know if on reply he's going to address, and I would like the opportunity to, Your Honor.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
Well, not if you don't raise it, he's not.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
So why don't we take it on the briefs.

[00:21:25] Speaker 03:
I think I have two points in remittal, Your Honor.

[00:21:27] Speaker 03:
And I'm not going to touch the issue of even under the board's claim construction.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
I think the briefs adequately address that issue.

[00:21:35] Speaker 03:
But we think that the simpler, more straightforward path is simply to give the term traffic jam its broadest reasonable interpretation.

[00:21:43] Speaker 03:
The three categories argument that's made by my friend is just that.

[00:21:48] Speaker 03:
It's an argument.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
it doesn't map in the way that he wants it to map.

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
And if he had intended it, if the patentee had intended it to map onto the three claim limitations that they now say that it maps on, then you would see much more parallelism in the language and you wouldn't have used the term traffic jam

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
the ubiquitous broad and ordinary term to describe what sort of information the real-time system has, nor would you say that all three of these components are required for a truly real-time system to be in place.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
The comment about the visiting dignitaries, I think my friend misspoke at the beginning and said that it wasn't in the third category.

[00:22:31] Speaker 03:
It certainly is in the third category, column two.

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
And finally, the question of real time, it really doesn't add anything to the discussion here.

[00:22:42] Speaker 03:
Real time traffic jam information means that you're getting information about a traffic jam that is happening in real time.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
That is true, and you get that, whether the traffic jam is one that is sudden and unpredictable, or that is ordinary on H Street,

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
or that is in some zone of variability like Pennsylvania Avenue at 5 o'clock in the afternoon where the jam might be slow, it might be medium, it might be fast.

[00:23:10] Speaker 02:
Why would you want to have his system and go through all this stuff when you know going out the 8th Street door every day at the same time is going to be the same mess?

[00:23:25] Speaker 02:
really don't need all this equipment and all this stuff that's in his claims.

[00:23:31] Speaker 03:
I'm tempted Judge Plager to quote Dorothy Parker here and say that there was this was not just this was not terrible this was fancy terrible this was fancy with raisins in it.

[00:23:43] Speaker 03:
I mean, rush hour is always very bad.

[00:23:47] Speaker 03:
Sometimes it's fancy bad.

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
And that's the point of a real-time system, to tell you what is the nature of the traffic jam that you're in.

[00:23:56] Speaker 03:
But I dare say, Your Honor, that when you're stuck in traffic,

[00:24:02] Speaker 03:
even if it's every day, you don't say, oh, gee, I'm here in a sudden and unpredictable stoppage of traffic, but it's not a traffic jam, or I'm here in a non-sudden and very predictable stoppage of traffic, therefore it's not a traffic jam.

[00:24:19] Speaker 03:
You're in a traffic jam on 15th Street or on 8th Street, whether it's happening every day or it's happening in, you know, it's fast on one day, not fast on another, or if it's sudden and unpredictable.

[00:24:31] Speaker 03:
It's a traffic jam all the ways.

[00:24:33] Speaker 03:
I hear you.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
Are we entitled to use our personal experiences, or is that not appropriate?

[00:24:41] Speaker 03:
Well, I think that you bring to judging all of the common sense, as you started this argument with, that you have, and that includes your life's experiences.

[00:24:50] Speaker 03:
But I would add one other thing, and that is that the patent here itself says you need all of this for a truly real-time system.

[00:24:59] Speaker 03:
And they're saying you don't need to have all of this.

[00:25:02] Speaker 03:
You only need to have this one category in order to define, to determine whether there's a traffic jam or not.

[00:25:08] Speaker 03:
This construction that they now want to try to save their patent before the board really guts this patent of much of the efficacy that it was intended to have.

[00:25:18] Speaker 03:
So unless there are further questions, I thank the court for its indulgence, especially after that first argument.

[00:25:24] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
Case is submitted.