[00:00:00] Speaker 04: 18-1-7-1-4, Henry Lilliness. [00:00:50] Speaker 04: I think we're ready whenever you are, sir. [00:00:53] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:00:53] Speaker 02: It's James Lucas for the libelous appellants. [00:00:57] Speaker 02: May it please the court? [00:00:59] Speaker 02: This court should reverse the board's decision finding claim one of the 157 application invalid as obvious over Mitchell and Golden. [00:01:13] Speaker 02: The board's decision and the board's rehearing decision are deeply flawed. [00:01:18] Speaker 02: I'd like to go through three [00:01:20] Speaker 02: central reasons why they're deeply flawed and should be reversed. [00:01:25] Speaker 02: First, the board finds that Mitchell suggests the dual command limitation and the mapping limitation and then says nothing else. [00:01:38] Speaker 02: There's no explanation as to why Mitchell suggests these two limitations. [00:01:46] Speaker 02: What's even more important is this is right after [00:01:49] Speaker 02: the board has found that Mitchell doesn't disclose expressly or inherently those limitations. [00:01:57] Speaker 02: So that's the first. [00:01:59] Speaker 04: Well, can we just turn to the opinion, because at least, I mean, it's in other places too, but at least on page not appendix nine, for example, they don't say, Mitchell, he suggests, blah, blah, blah. [00:02:19] Speaker 04: they go on to explain it with citations to Mitchell and the abstract. [00:02:25] Speaker 04: So I guess. [00:02:28] Speaker 02: Well, my response to that would be, yes, there are citations to Mitchell, but that's it. [00:02:32] Speaker 02: And that's right after they've already cited to Mitchell and said it doesn't disclose that limitation. [00:02:38] Speaker 02: And our position is that's just not enough. [00:02:40] Speaker 02: You can't just cite to the reference. [00:02:45] Speaker 02: You have to provide some type of [00:02:47] Speaker 02: explanation as this court's decision has been very clear as to why that limitation is suggested to one of skill in the art. [00:02:56] Speaker 02: And that becomes really important because if you look back and you look back at the examiner's decisions, the examiner actually found that they were inherently disclosed, which would be, and the board didn't agree with that. [00:03:07] Speaker 04: There was an alternative, right? [00:03:09] Speaker 02: No, actually the examiner twice found that both limitations were inherently disclosed. [00:03:17] Speaker 02: excuse me, inherently disclosed by Mitchell, then provided an alternative regarding Ma. [00:03:23] Speaker 02: But if you look at the board's decision, Ma is not an issue. [00:03:27] Speaker 02: The board found that Ma was just cumulative. [00:03:29] Speaker 02: So what happened here is the board looked at Mitchell after the examiner had found it was inherently disclosed and not supported inherently. [00:03:39] Speaker 02: The disclosure was not inherently [00:03:42] Speaker 02: Disclosure was not supported by the examiner, the necessary, et cetera, all the requirements. [00:03:47] Speaker 02: What the board then did was took that limitation and Mitchell said, no, it's not inherently disclosed. [00:03:53] Speaker 02: So there is no disclosure in the reference. [00:03:56] Speaker 02: It's just suggested. [00:03:57] Speaker 02: And at that point, if you were to affirm this, what you're saying is, well, you don't have to do it for inherency and expressly, but you can just say it's suggested. [00:04:08] Speaker 02: And that's enough, by the way. [00:04:10] Speaker 04: Can I ask you what, just in English? [00:04:12] Speaker 02: Sure. [00:04:13] Speaker 04: Just, again, this is an aside. [00:04:15] Speaker 04: Discuss to me the daylight between your invention and Mitchell. [00:04:19] Speaker 04: Is it, and let me give you something you can tell me if I'm right or wrong, is it just a matter of time, whether or not this comes up exactly at the time, instantaneously, when you press the button? [00:04:29] Speaker 04: or a Mitchell, it's coming up later, more stylized. [00:04:33] Speaker 02: It's actually more than that. [00:04:35] Speaker 02: So this invention dates back to 2001, priority date. [00:04:39] Speaker 02: And what we're talking about in claim one is a smartphone. [00:04:43] Speaker 02: And what it's doing is you have a button that's already been pre-mapped to send, say, a TV to the Fox station. [00:04:53] Speaker 02: At the same time you touch that button on the display, [00:04:57] Speaker 02: it's also providing you because pre-stored that the user is able to do all of this because it's been pre-stored and linked or mapped to the button. [00:05:09] Speaker 04: I get that. [00:05:10] Speaker 04: Mitchell does a whole lot of similar stuff. [00:05:13] Speaker 04: They're just not doing it at the particular time in terms of a pre-mapping. [00:05:18] Speaker 04: There seems almost a little more sophisticated. [00:05:20] Speaker 02: Well, no, just to be clear, it's also [00:05:22] Speaker 02: You show the TV, but you're also getting immediately, like say the website associated with Fox on your phone at the same time. [00:05:31] Speaker 02: I didn't want to miss that. [00:05:33] Speaker 02: And that's because of that pre storage. [00:05:35] Speaker 02: All Mitchell's doing is, let's call it a broadcast signal, but it's not necessarily, I don't know if they're still using broadcast signals back then, but maybe, or digital. [00:05:46] Speaker 02: And what it's doing is it's sending it to [00:05:49] Speaker 02: Sending the the network is setting the signal and there's a trigger and and that trigger only So it's in it's actually in the broadcast. [00:05:59] Speaker 02: It looks not has nothing to do with user interaction pressing buttons pre-storing stuff Nothing that what what happens is if you if you go to channel five on Mitchell if there's a trigger [00:06:12] Speaker 02: It has nothing to do with the user. [00:06:14] Speaker 02: It then allows you, the TV might be able to, or a remote might be able to let you look at some type of website, but you have to press a separate button to do that. [00:06:28] Speaker 02: It gives you that potential option. [00:06:30] Speaker 04: On your application, so the novelty that we're talking about here is that you pre-store information so that when you want it, you press a button and it comes up. [00:06:41] Speaker 04: The way you described it, maybe it's just me. [00:06:45] Speaker 04: Doesn't that seem, I mean, I don't know what prior art, maybe Ma doesn't do it, but it would seem that there would be prior art that would cover that. [00:06:53] Speaker 02: Well, 2001, no, there's not. [00:06:55] Speaker 02: I mean, and to be clear, they've, the board has, and the board has found that Mitchell didn't do it. [00:07:01] Speaker 02: And in essence, by basically throwing out Ma didn't do it because first of all, they don't have any user interaction. [00:07:07] Speaker 02: uh... with respect to what what happens is in mitchell you're not doing anything to potentially get the uh... the website or address or web content it's just the the provider might have something connected with the signal and estimate triggers it so there's no user involvement to get web content well this can't be the novelty no it's the company to be honest is the combination of claim one what what it's doing is it's giving you the the uh... functionality [00:07:35] Speaker 02: being able to use a tablet or a smartphone and having it pre-mapped before you ever get to a certain station to be able to, once you say you want to go to that station, you immediately have the web content on your phone and you show the program on the TV. [00:07:56] Speaker 02: That's the novelty. [00:07:57] Speaker 02: All of that together. [00:07:59] Speaker 02: And that just wasn't done. [00:08:01] Speaker 02: 2001 and so that that's really pressing a button to get the website was known and pressing the button to turn on the TV or get the program was known but combining the two I Would say that is yes, it's the combination of all of that the mapping and the obviously the display on the system to remember that they all these remotes don't even have a with the exception of they have to use golden for even a display on the [00:08:29] Speaker 02: or a smartphone. [00:08:31] Speaker 02: So yes, that was not known. [00:08:33] Speaker 02: And to be clear, just they can't just, I guess the biggest issue I started with with number one was they just say suggest, that's it. [00:08:43] Speaker 02: And they say just by just a couple of limitations, the dual command limitation and the mapping limitation, that's just not enough. [00:08:50] Speaker 02: The second point is relates to a lack of a motivation to combine. [00:08:56] Speaker 02: They don't even find there was a motivation to combine [00:08:59] Speaker 02: Mitchell with goal if there's not in both the Decision the final decision and the re-hearing decision There's never a finding that there was a motivation to combine those two references. [00:09:12] Speaker 01: Okay, you mentioned a moment ago that In your invention you hit the button it both calls up the channel and [00:09:25] Speaker 01: keys in the URL address so that you can access the internet at the same time with one interaction. [00:09:34] Speaker 01: But isn't there an embodiment of Mitchell where URL addresses presumably from earlier iterations are stored in some sort of a cache? [00:09:47] Speaker 01: You don't always have to wait for the TV signal to come and give you a trigger [00:09:55] Speaker 01: with a subsequent URL interaction, you have a cache that can be. [00:10:00] Speaker 02: Right. [00:10:01] Speaker 02: But you only got that because you originally were sent the trigger from the network, let's say, or the presenter. [00:10:10] Speaker 01: Yeah. [00:10:10] Speaker 01: So maybe the first time around, you had to push two buttons. [00:10:14] Speaker 01: But the second time around, it's there. [00:10:16] Speaker 02: No. [00:10:17] Speaker 02: And another distinction is that requires a special dedicated button [00:10:24] Speaker 02: It's not a single button that does all that combined in that second embodiment. [00:10:28] Speaker 02: So I know what you're talking about. [00:10:30] Speaker 02: So that's another distinction. [00:10:31] Speaker 02: But I guess the only way you're going to get there to that cache is if it was originally sent by the broadcaster through a trigger. [00:10:40] Speaker 02: And then you have to first get to that channel just with one button and then press a second button to get to the cache. [00:10:51] Speaker 02: So that is another distinction in that embodiment. [00:10:54] Speaker 02: So anyway, just to finalize, the second argument was there's no motivation to combine. [00:10:59] Speaker 02: You can scan both decisions. [00:11:01] Speaker 03: The board never finds that you... But the examiner had a motivation to combine. [00:11:05] Speaker 03: And when you appealed to the board, you didn't articulate any argument related to motivation to combine, did you? [00:11:13] Speaker 02: I would assume we did. [00:11:16] Speaker 02: I'm not kidding. [00:11:19] Speaker 02: Even if we did not, and I can try to find that, even if we did not, the issue here is that the board switched the decisions. [00:11:29] Speaker 02: So I will look for the finding of that. [00:11:32] Speaker 03: Well, but your argument is they switched from a reference inherently discloses it to a reference suggested. [00:11:37] Speaker 03: But that has nothing to do with motivation to combine the two references. [00:11:40] Speaker 03: The examiner articulated motivation, and I didn't see where you appealed to the board that that was incorrect. [00:11:47] Speaker 03: I don't think that the board is obligated to address issues that weren't raised all the time, but I mean. [00:11:53] Speaker 02: Well, to be clear, the examiner found a motivation to combine based on inherency of Mitchell, Ma, excuse me, Mitchell and or Ma plus Goldman. [00:12:04] Speaker 02: So actually saying that those limitations were inherently disclosed by the references. [00:12:09] Speaker 02: There is a very brief statement about motivation combined. [00:12:12] Speaker 02: I agree with that in the examiner. [00:12:13] Speaker 02: The problem is that doesn't work for the [00:12:16] Speaker 02: for the board because what happened is in the original board's decision, they then changed the holding. [00:12:24] Speaker 02: They now say, we disagree that Mitchell inherently discloses the dual command and mapping limitations. [00:12:31] Speaker 02: We think it just, they just say it suggests it. [00:12:34] Speaker 02: And so at that point, they had to offer, well, first of all, they had to offer a basis for why those references suggest the limitations. [00:12:42] Speaker 02: And then we believe that they also have to [00:12:44] Speaker 02: provide a motivation to combine based on their finding that there's a suggestion in Mitchell. [00:12:52] Speaker 03: Respectfully, I don't agree. [00:12:53] Speaker 03: I don't think that makes any sense. [00:12:55] Speaker 03: I agree with you, a motivation to combine is necessary. [00:12:57] Speaker 03: Whether or not the reference inherently discloses something or suggests it, they're saying you get elements A, B, and Z from this reference. [00:13:04] Speaker 03: Whether it is by virtue of disclosure, inherent disclosure, or suggestion, this reference teaches a skilled artist an A, B, and Z. That's what they're saying. [00:13:12] Speaker 03: And then they're saying this other reference teaches them D and E. And they gave a motivation to combine those two references based on their having taught or suggested. [00:13:23] Speaker 03: And the motivation, as I understand it, is to provide an easy and intuitive way to allow the user to recognize which icon corresponds to which station, which can eliminate guessing. [00:13:31] Speaker 03: I don't see how that motivation wouldn't apply equally, whether there was a suggestion or an inherent teaching or an actual teaching of that element in Mitchell or Ma. [00:13:40] Speaker 03: I don't see a difference. [00:13:42] Speaker 03: I understand your argument as to why there should be an explanation for why Mitchell, for example, suggests dual command. [00:13:50] Speaker 03: I get that. [00:13:50] Speaker 03: There should be an explanation for that. [00:13:52] Speaker 03: But I don't see why they should have to address motivation to combine once they conclude that all the same references still really lead you to the same place for each element. [00:14:01] Speaker 02: I think it's connected, and maybe that's the confusion. [00:14:05] Speaker 02: They need to support why each limitation was suggested now by Mitchell. [00:14:10] Speaker 02: And I believe in doing that, they have to, I think it's part and parcel with saying, based on that suggestion, the support for that, that's why you would combine that with Golden. [00:14:23] Speaker 02: But I see your point on the fact that they're just saying there's a disclosure of the limitations or there's a suggestion. [00:14:32] Speaker 02: The third issue, I think, is that they never really address the claims as a whole. [00:14:36] Speaker 03: You probably need to save some time for rebuttal. [00:14:38] Speaker 03: I don't know if you're paying attention. [00:14:39] Speaker 02: You're well into rebuttal time. [00:14:41] Speaker 02: I will do that. [00:14:42] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:14:54] Speaker 00: May I please look forward? [00:14:56] Speaker 00: I just want to pick up on the motivation and combined issue, because I think this is just a simple [00:15:01] Speaker 00: factual error by appellant that can be easily cleared up. [00:15:04] Speaker 00: In the examiner's final rejection, appendix page 155, the examiner gives a motivation to combine Ma and Mitchell. [00:15:13] Speaker 00: And then that's in the middle of the page. [00:15:14] Speaker 00: And then at the end of the page gives the motivation to combine Golding with the Mitchell-Ma combination. [00:15:24] Speaker 00: The board approvingly cited that page on appendix page 10. [00:15:29] Speaker 00: This was not specifically something challenged before the board. [00:15:34] Speaker 00: So I'm frankly confused as to why there's an allegation that there wasn't any motivation combined given. [00:15:43] Speaker 00: Next. [00:15:46] Speaker 04: Do you know precisely what the board meant when it says at least suggests? [00:15:52] Speaker 04: And there is some citation. [00:15:54] Speaker 04: It's not just a mere conclusory statement. [00:15:56] Speaker 04: But you want to walk us through [00:16:00] Speaker 04: how we're supposed to evaluate that? [00:16:04] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:16:05] Speaker 00: First, with the dual command limitation, I think it's, I will concede it's a little confusing that, because I think the board at the outset of the decision finds that Mitchell teaches the dual command limitation, and that's at the bottom of Appendix Page 7 onto the top of Appendix Page 8. [00:16:24] Speaker 00: We see no error in the examiner's reliance on Mitchell for teaching the command transmissions were cited in claim one. [00:16:31] Speaker 00: And then there's some more explanation citing to the examiner's final rejection. [00:16:38] Speaker 00: And I think that that finding is well supported in the evidence that the dual command limitation is just the idea that you're pressing a button and you're causing both the TV to change a channel and the website to load on your remote. [00:16:52] Speaker 00: Well, Mitchell does exactly that. [00:16:54] Speaker 00: that the only qualm that Appellant has is that there's the intermediate involvement of the set-top box. [00:17:01] Speaker 00: But I don't think that intermediate involvement of the set-top box erases the causation. [00:17:06] Speaker 00: Because in Mitchell, you're pressing a button, you're changing a channel, the set-top box is sending you back a signal saying, load a website, and the website is loaded. [00:17:15] Speaker 00: So your button press is causing both of the commands to take place, regardless of the fact that the set-top box has some intermediate involvement. [00:17:24] Speaker 00: So I don't think we even have to get to this suggests issue I know that the the board decision later on on the dual command limitation Discusses uses the word suggests, but I think at the bottom of appendix page 7 to the top of appendix page 8 You have a clear fine in that well, let's suppose. [00:17:43] Speaker 03: I don't see that as a clear finding Why don't you address the suggestion sure sure well? [00:17:47] Speaker 00: I think for the dual command limitation that the It's just this idea that [00:17:54] Speaker 00: There's this intermediate involvement of the set-top box. [00:17:56] Speaker 03: Where? [00:17:57] Speaker 03: No, I don't want your idea for why it suggests it. [00:18:00] Speaker 03: I want to see where the board articulated a rationale for why it suggests it. [00:18:04] Speaker 03: Tell me what page of the opinion I can find that. [00:18:08] Speaker 00: We're looking at the top of appendix page nine, where the board says Mitchell at least suggests that interacting with the user interface element would not only cause the remote device to request the media with the channel, [00:18:23] Speaker 00: but also that information related to that program. [00:18:26] Speaker 00: And then it's got this numbered sentence, this scenario, the set-top box with number one, number two, number three. [00:18:34] Speaker 00: So I think that's where the board is explaining its rationale for suggestion, where it may not be a direct, there may not be a direct dual command because of the involvement of the set-top box, but the end result is the same. [00:18:53] Speaker 00: you're pressing a button, you're getting two commands to happen. [00:18:57] Speaker 00: So that would certainly suggest the dual command limitation. [00:19:00] Speaker 00: I think that was the board's rationale. [00:19:03] Speaker 00: Moving on to the mapping limitation. [00:19:06] Speaker 03: Where does it say, see, as is often the case, I wish the board was as articulate as you are. [00:19:14] Speaker 03: Because everything you just said sounded really convincing. [00:19:16] Speaker 03: The problem is I don't read that a paragraph the same way. [00:19:19] Speaker 03: That paragraph doesn't say what you just said, which is, [00:19:22] Speaker 03: you press the button and both things ultimately happen. [00:19:25] Speaker 03: That's what is missing for me. [00:19:28] Speaker 03: And what bothers me about it is I don't know what the board mean by suggests. [00:19:33] Speaker 03: I'll tell you, I've never seen a board opinion in my 13 years on the bench that has been written this way. [00:19:39] Speaker 03: I don't know if you see them a lot. [00:19:40] Speaker 03: Do you see them a lot? [00:19:42] Speaker 00: To be honest, I haven't seen one exactly like this. [00:19:44] Speaker 03: No, me neither. [00:19:45] Speaker 03: So I've never seen a board adopt the suggest language. [00:19:48] Speaker 03: So I'm not sure what to make of it. [00:19:50] Speaker 03: But I started trying to think, as a matter of law, what does it mean if a reference discloses something, inherently discloses something, suggests something? [00:19:58] Speaker 03: How should it be treated? [00:19:59] Speaker 03: And I thought, like, this is what suggest means to me. [00:20:02] Speaker 03: I have a disclosure for a five-pronged fork. [00:20:06] Speaker 03: And then there's a sentence in there that said, it might be cheaper and equally good to reduce the number of prongs. [00:20:12] Speaker 03: Did that technically disclose a three-pronged fork? [00:20:14] Speaker 03: No. [00:20:15] Speaker 03: But it certainly suggested that you might want to make a three-pronged fork, maybe even a two-pronged fork. [00:20:19] Speaker 03: That's what suggest means to me. [00:20:22] Speaker 03: The reference points you towards doing something. [00:20:26] Speaker 03: I guess that's kind of, I'm trying to get you to help me understand, since I've never seen an opinion that uses and relies on this suggest thing, and it appears so often in this opinion, it's kind of confusing to me. [00:20:41] Speaker 03: Should the test be like, what does a reference have to do to meet the suggests test? [00:20:47] Speaker 03: Cause it also couldn't find any federal circuit opinion that ever addressed this either. [00:20:52] Speaker 00: So, um, I think this is sort of a variation on what KSR was getting to with a predictable variation so that, uh, if you have a disclosure, uh, and then the clean, it wasn't cancer getting to obviousness. [00:21:10] Speaker 03: I mean, [00:21:10] Speaker 03: Isn't this suggest test not about motivations to combine? [00:21:14] Speaker 03: Isn't this suggest test about whether a reference should be read as teaching something or not? [00:21:20] Speaker 00: Well, I think, I mean, there's precedent saying that obviousness, you're looking at both what a reference discloses and what it suggests. [00:21:27] Speaker 00: So suggests has to be something different than what it discloses. [00:21:33] Speaker 00: So I think that you're looking at, based on what you have in the reference, what [00:21:41] Speaker 00: and combine with the skill and the art, what that would lead to or what that would suggest. [00:21:48] Speaker 03: And I think that this is kind of... Isn't that obviousness? [00:21:50] Speaker 03: I'm trying to understand how what you're saying isn't, for example, when a reference totally fails to point someone somewhere on one element. [00:22:00] Speaker 03: Reference discloses everything but one element, and then you argue, which I've seen the PTO certainly do and we've upheld it, [00:22:06] Speaker 03: that you don't need a second reference that teaches it. [00:22:09] Speaker 03: It's common sense. [00:22:10] Speaker 03: It would have been obvious to do so. [00:22:12] Speaker 03: And that's KSR. [00:22:13] Speaker 03: But you always articulate a reason. [00:22:16] Speaker 03: That's a reason. [00:22:17] Speaker 03: You say, at least common sense, logic, people still in the art were doing this all the time. [00:22:21] Speaker 03: You say something about it. [00:22:23] Speaker 03: And where I'm struggling is that that feels like what the board did here for each of these elements, but without giving me the reason. [00:22:30] Speaker 03: It feels to me like they did less than they would do for obviousness. [00:22:34] Speaker 03: And yet they're relying on this for the disclosure aspects of the obviousness inquiry. [00:22:39] Speaker 03: Does that make any sense? [00:22:40] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:22:41] Speaker 00: And I think I would agree that the way that the board wrote this decision is similar to the idea that you have a reference and it may not be exactly what the claim says, but you could modify it or change it to get to the claim. [00:22:54] Speaker 00: And I think that they're saying it in a different way. [00:22:57] Speaker 00: And I think that if you're looking at the mapping limitation, [00:23:01] Speaker 00: And the mapping limitation is just this idea that before you press the button, you know that that button is going to lead you to a website. [00:23:07] Speaker 00: And so the board found that Mitchell has that, has the concept of mapping disclosed. [00:23:14] Speaker 00: So in Mitchell... So can you point out, are you talking about page, are we now on nine? [00:23:21] Speaker 00: I'm looking at, I mean, this is where the board discusses the mapping limitation. [00:23:25] Speaker 04: I'm trying to figure out where the board sort of explains how Mitchell kind of gets you there. [00:23:30] Speaker 00: And this is appendix page 10, that first full paragraph. [00:23:33] Speaker 00: So the board is looking at the Mitchell's disclosure of caching, which is this idea that before the websites are loaded, they're sent ahead of time to the remote and stored on the remote. [00:23:46] Speaker 00: And then Mitchell discloses that [00:23:50] Speaker 00: in one embodiment when it's time for that website to pop up, a prompt will come up saying, you know, do you want to load this? [00:23:58] Speaker 00: And the user presses a button and the website loads. [00:24:01] Speaker 00: So before the user presses that button in Mitchell, the device knows that it's mapped to a specific website because the website is stored on the device and it knows, you know, user presses that button, I load this website. [00:24:16] Speaker 00: And that's very similar to what's being done in claim one, the concept that before you press a button, there's a correlation or connection between the button press and the loading of the website. [00:24:29] Speaker 00: And so the board cites Mitchell paragraphs 61 and 68, which is where this discussion of caching and having the website load based on a button press on the user is disclosed. [00:24:44] Speaker 00: So there is explanation there of what we're looking to in Mitchell. [00:24:50] Speaker 00: I could see that there's not this further step of a further, more thorough explanation of why the suggestion, why the use of the word suggestion. [00:25:07] Speaker 00: And I think that given the similar- My problem is, [00:25:12] Speaker 03: that I feel like we just leapfrogged from a reference could disclose something, a reference could inherently disclose something, which means it's always true. [00:25:21] Speaker 03: It's kind of a hard thing to do. [00:25:23] Speaker 03: A reference could suggest something, eh. [00:25:26] Speaker 03: That's kind of, I don't see the board having done any of the kinds of stuff that is permissible under KSR to explain to me why it would be obvious. [00:25:36] Speaker 03: I'm not saying it's not. [00:25:38] Speaker 03: I'm just really struggling with the way this opinion is written [00:25:41] Speaker 03: At a minimum, even if this case gets affirmed, can you please, and I'm being deadly serious, go back, send a memo to everybody in the solicitor's office to never allow the board to write opinions like this? [00:25:54] Speaker 03: I mean, because it's just confusing. [00:25:57] Speaker 03: And I think that we're struggling with how to understand this opinion. [00:26:01] Speaker 03: And if we do happen to [00:26:05] Speaker 00: understand it the way you want it to be understood please don't confuse that for thinking it's written well or correctly I understand and I think that you can always look back to their Supreme Court precedent about you know agencies reasoning it may not be necessarily clear but that but the decision you know provides the pathway there I think that minimum I mean we're there with this decision just because of the [00:26:33] Speaker 00: very close similarity between claim one and Mitchell. [00:26:37] Speaker 00: I mean, I think that as you were discussing earlier, I would say that Mitchell is a more sophisticated version of claim one. [00:26:44] Speaker 03: There's almost no difference. [00:26:46] Speaker 03: And yes, I hear what you're saying. [00:26:48] Speaker 00: So I think that while you may find this board decision unclear, I think that at least with this case, and I understand. [00:26:56] Speaker 03: I just don't want this to become a new pattern. [00:26:59] Speaker 00: And I understand. [00:27:00] Speaker 00: And I will surely pass that message on [00:27:02] Speaker 00: to the board that, at least in this case, the path can be seen to how you can get to the result that the board reached. [00:27:10] Speaker 00: Because the dual command is in there in Mitchell. [00:27:15] Speaker 00: The concept of mapping is in there in Mitchell. [00:27:20] Speaker 00: Is it exactly how it's done in claim one? [00:27:23] Speaker 00: Maybe not. [00:27:24] Speaker 00: But you can see how one of ordinary skill, knowing what they would know based on Mitchell, could get you to claim one. [00:27:30] Speaker 00: Because all claim one really is [00:27:33] Speaker 00: You set up a button, you press the button, CNN turns on, CNN.com loads on your tablet, or your remote, and every time that happens. [00:27:42] Speaker 00: It's a preset. [00:27:43] Speaker 00: There's no real intelligence there, no real flexibility like what you have in Mitchell, where Mitchell, you're loading multiple websites per show, you're getting websites based on the context of the program, not just the channel. [00:27:57] Speaker 00: I mean, there's just a lot more features in Mitchell that's just not here in Claymore. [00:28:03] Speaker 00: I guess I would leave you with that. [00:28:04] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:28:04] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:28:14] Speaker 02: I just wanted to touch on the suggestion discussion. [00:28:19] Speaker 02: I mean, I think it's very clear the board's decision on rehearing is insufficient. [00:28:25] Speaker 02: It's flawed. [00:28:26] Speaker 02: It needs to be reversed. [00:28:28] Speaker 02: I think at the very most, I kind of agree maybe it's going to some type of motivation to modify or alter Mitchell. [00:28:35] Speaker 02: Maybe that's what the board is trying to say. [00:28:36] Speaker 02: But if that's the case, then it needs to explain why you would modify Mitchell to arrive at the dual command limitation and to arrive at the mapping limitation. [00:28:48] Speaker 02: And there's no discussion whatsoever of that. [00:28:51] Speaker 02: Really what it is is this is what the claim language is. [00:28:56] Speaker 02: This is what Mitchell discloses. [00:28:58] Speaker 02: It doesn't disclose the claim language, but it suggests it. [00:29:02] Speaker 02: And that's it for both those limitations. [00:29:04] Speaker 02: I think this court's precedent requires a reversal, because even in cases where the court has found that a district court or the board has said common sense would lead you there, even in those cases, they've said you have to provide an explanation as to why that common sense would lead you to the claim limitations and to the intervention as a whole. [00:29:28] Speaker 02: if there's no other questions.