[00:00:01] Speaker 04:
As a preliminary matter, I wanted to let you know that Judge O'Malley is unable to be with us here today.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
And if she was, Judge O'Malley would be sitting in this chair as a presiding judge.

[00:00:13] Speaker 04:
She is attending the arguments via teleconference.

[00:00:17] Speaker 04:
So she is listening to the arguments and will participate that way.

[00:00:21] Speaker 04:
So I'm going to ask everybody to please speak clearly and loudly to make sure that she has the opportunity to understand today's arguments.

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
After arguments, Judge Amali will participate in the deliberations and will assume otherwise all other roles of presiding judge.

[00:00:40] Speaker 04:
I'm just her helper today.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
So with that, let's get to the first case.

[00:00:47] Speaker 04:
We have three cases for argument set for today.

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
The first one is case number 18-1322,

[00:00:56] Speaker 04:
Rosetta Wireless Corporation versus Sampson Electronic Company.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
Mr. Souter, is that correct?

[00:01:04] Speaker 04:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:01:05] Speaker 04:
Okay, you reserved four minutes of time for rebuttal?

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
Okay, Mr. Ferguson, you're going to respond for ten minutes, and then, Counselor Raymond, you have five minutes as cross-appellant.

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
happily okay so you'll go after mission for his son in other words okay okay good let's get started good morning your honors may it please the court like to begin today by addressing

[00:01:54] Speaker 05:
disputed claim language downstream data in claim one of the 511 patent.

[00:02:00] Speaker 05:
And in particular, I would like to propose a framework that I hope may be helpful to the court in approaching that term as it appears in the specification and in the claim.

[00:02:13] Speaker 05:
This framework is this.

[00:02:15] Speaker 05:
In a client-server relationship, data always flows upstream from a client to a server

[00:02:23] Speaker 05:
and downstream from a server to a client.

[00:02:27] Speaker 05:
And once that principle is recognized, the petitioner's claim construction and the prior art on which they rely for their obviousness arguments becomes all the more unreasonable.

[00:02:40] Speaker 05:
I want to unpack that for you.

[00:02:44] Speaker 05:
The WIPs, the Wireless Intelligent Personal Network Server, it's claimed in claim one.

[00:02:50] Speaker 05:
is a server by definition.

[00:02:51] Speaker 05:
You refer to that as a source server, is that right?

[00:02:54] Speaker 05:
The WIPs, your honor, is not the source server.

[00:02:57] Speaker 05:
We refer to the WIPs as the device that receives downstream data as it flows from an external source server down to a remote user who accesses that data through a display device.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
So if the WIPs is not the source server, where is the source server?

[00:03:17] Speaker 05:
The source server, Your Honor, is, as explained, for example, in the, well, throughout the specification in particular, I would draw your attention to Figure 1 in the specification and also Column 6, Line 40 through Line 7, Line 40, I think provides a very clear description of both how they were trying to solve the problem that was at issue and described in the background

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
I'm looking at figure one.

[00:03:43] Speaker 04:
Where is the source server?

[00:03:45] Speaker 05:
The source server, Your Honor, is the server that would be storing and providing the data in the IT network that's at the top of figure one.

[00:03:54] Speaker 04:
The enterprise IT system?

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:03:58] Speaker 03:
I guess an initial concern I have with your argument is that figure one is for a wireless synchronization system.

[00:04:10] Speaker 03:
Your claims are all directed just to the WIPs, which would be Box 30 in Figure 1.

[00:04:17] Speaker 03:
So I don't see any of your claims claiming the overall wireless communications synchronization system shown in all the different components illustrated in Figure 1.

[00:04:29] Speaker 03:
The claim is just reduced down to devoted to, dedicated to, focused on Box 30, the server itself, the WIPs server itself.

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
The trouble I'm having is that you're asking the court to read in some of these other components that are illustrated in Figure 1 for a claim that is for a wireless intelligent personal server, Box 30.

[00:04:58] Speaker 05:
We're not asking that the court read in other elements, Your Honor.

[00:05:01] Speaker 05:
What we're asking is that it give meaning to the term downstream.

[00:05:06] Speaker 05:
in downstream data, which is what the WIPs is claiming.

[00:05:09] Speaker 05:
It's not claiming the receipt of every kind of data.

[00:05:12] Speaker 05:
It's claiming a certain arrangement of components to solve a particular problem.

[00:05:17] Speaker 05:
And part of that is the receipt of downstream data.

[00:05:20] Speaker 05:
And so the question is, well, what does downstream mean as it qualifies data?

[00:05:28] Speaker 05:
And that's why I began this argument by trying to draw your honor's attention to that word and how a person's skill

[00:05:35] Speaker 05:
in the industry ordinarily understand.

[00:05:37] Speaker 05:
I understand that a dictionary definition doesn't resolve the issue, but it is informative.

[00:05:42] Speaker 05:
And it's never been disputed in this case that the WIPs is acting as a server and the display device is acting as a client in a server-client relationship.

[00:05:52] Speaker 05:
And there's ample evidence in the record, which I'll cite in just a moment, that when a client sends data to a server, that's an upstream flow.

[00:06:01] Speaker 05:
And when the server sends data back to the client,

[00:06:04] Speaker 05:
That is a downstream flow.

[00:06:05] Speaker 05:
It's an objective standard.

[00:06:07] Speaker 05:
It doesn't change based on your perspective.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
When the server, the WIPs server, sends data to the client, that's a downstream flow?

[00:06:16] Speaker 03:
Is that what I just heard you say?

[00:06:17] Speaker 05:
In a server-client relationship, there is a downstream flow when data is sent from a server to the client.

[00:06:25] Speaker 05:
There's an upstream flow from the client to the server.

[00:06:28] Speaker 05:
And I'll jump to why I think this is so important.

[00:06:30] Speaker 05:
So the petitioner's argument depends

[00:06:34] Speaker 05:
on a, depends on the display device, also acting as this source server and sending data downstream.

[00:06:43] Speaker 05:
In other words, their argument depends on adopting an interpretation.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
I just want to make sure I'm tracking you as I read the claim language.

[00:06:54] Speaker 03:
The claim language, again, is for a wireless intelligent personal network server comprising, among other things, an RF receiver for receiving downstream data.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
transmitted over a first wireless communications channel.

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
Now, right then and there, the downstream data seems to be flowing to the WITS server, according to the claim.

[00:07:17] Speaker 03:
But I heard, you know, the way you want to argue this case, I'm hearing you say, no, the downstream data is information at the server that's being sent away from the server to the client.

[00:07:31] Speaker 05:
Precisely.

[00:07:32] Speaker 05:
So there are two things that could be going on here.

[00:07:34] Speaker 05:
And this is really my other point.

[00:07:35] Speaker 05:
Well, can we just stick to the claim language?

[00:07:37] Speaker 03:
Because that's what I'm focused on.

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
Exactly.

[00:07:38] Speaker 05:
So the question is, what is downstream referring to?

[00:07:40] Speaker 05:
One option, and this is the petitioner's argument, is downstream there is referring to the data that's flowing into the WIPs.

[00:07:51] Speaker 05:
If that is correct, if that is the right interpretation, it means the parties who drafted this patent used the word downstream exactly the opposite of how it would ordinarily be understood.

[00:08:02] Speaker 03:
And why can't we accept that given that that's the way the claim is written?

[00:08:08] Speaker 03:
That we have a WIPs server.

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
It has an RF receiver.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
And the RF receiver of the WIP server is receiving downstream data.

[00:08:18] Speaker 05:
It is.

[00:08:19] Speaker 05:
But the downstream, what that means, what downstream is getting at is it's getting at the data is coming from another

[00:08:25] Speaker 05:
server and going to the user.

[00:08:27] Speaker 05:
That's why it's downstream.

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
It's going from a server to a client.

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
That's where you come up with a source server, correct?

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
That's why it's downstream.

[00:08:34] Speaker 04:
But the problem is I don't see a source server in the specification.

[00:08:41] Speaker 04:
Point to me in the patent work that describes or provides for a source server.

[00:08:50] Speaker 05:
I would refer, Your Honor, to column 6, line 40, through column 7, line 40, which describes a data flow exactly as... That's a data flow.

[00:09:01] Speaker 04:
I'm talking about a source server, which presumably is sending the data.

[00:09:05] Speaker 05:
It refers to a network, Your Honor.

[00:09:07] Speaker 05:
It refers to a network in figure 1 and also in column 6.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
So there is nothing in the patent that creates a source server.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
Or you can't point to the patent and say,

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
Judge, this is a source server right here.

[00:09:21] Speaker 05:
The word source server doesn't appear in the specification.

[00:09:25] Speaker 05:
That's correct.

[00:09:26] Speaker 05:
But those are your words.

[00:09:27] Speaker 05:
These are the words you use.

[00:09:29] Speaker 05:
Correct.

[00:09:30] Speaker 05:
We are trying to give meaning to the term downstream.

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
So if we find that there's no source server, then you lose your argument on downstream.

[00:09:42] Speaker 05:
Well, the specification does refer repeatedly to an IT network.

[00:09:47] Speaker 04:
That's another issue, the IT network.

[00:09:50] Speaker 04:
But if we find there is no source server, then you lose on your argument on downstream.

[00:09:57] Speaker 05:
Well, I think implied, Your Honor, in the notion of a network as a server, that's how these networks work, there's a server that aggregates the data and then gives it out to clients when they receive it.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
So let's go to a network.

[00:10:11] Speaker 04:
A network presumes more than one computer, wouldn't you say?

[00:10:16] Speaker 05:
I believe that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:10:18] Speaker 04:
Where are there two computers involved in this?

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
Show me in figure one, the two computers.

[00:10:26] Speaker 04:
There's only one.

[00:10:28] Speaker 05:
In figure one, there are, there could be three, and that's how we have interpreted the flow of data downstream from the IT network, which is described in figure one.

[00:10:44] Speaker 05:
That would be a computer.

[00:10:45] Speaker 05:
It's acting as a server.

[00:10:46] Speaker 05:
It's collecting from other clients within that network data, files that you work on that people with an employer work on.

[00:10:53] Speaker 04:
Look at Figure 1 and Item 14.

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
That's a computer.

[00:11:00] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:11:00] Speaker 04:
Is there any other structure or any other element in Figure 1 that looks like 14?

[00:11:11] Speaker 05:
Well, the WIPs is storing that data, and so is the display device is using it.

[00:11:17] Speaker 05:
And so the question is whether the display device can also be that computer that's the source, the IT network, or whether it's something separate from that.

[00:11:29] Speaker 05:
Their argument is that the display device is actually the same thing.

[00:11:33] Speaker 05:
And if you adopt, and this is my point, what I opened with, if you adopt that view, you also have to say,

[00:11:39] Speaker 05:
that the parties intended the word downstream to mean the opposite of how a person of skill in the industry understands that.

[00:11:46] Speaker 05:
And I just want to give your honors, as I'm running out of time, a citation for where you can find that.

[00:11:55] Speaker 05:
So Rosetta's expert addressed this flow of data between client and server in his report.

[00:12:01] Speaker 05:
And where it's in the record is 5306 and 5308.

[00:12:07] Speaker 05:
as well as 53.12 to 13.

[00:12:09] Speaker 05:
And he refers to several industry dictionaries, all of which confirm that data flows downstream from a server to a client, upstream from a client to a server.

[00:12:23] Speaker 05:
And those definitions are at 53.94, 96.99, and 54.01.

[00:12:30] Speaker 05:
And Judge Arbus recognized these industry definitions as well at appendix 84 in his dissent

[00:12:37] Speaker 04:
Okay, you got 14 minutes.

[00:12:41] Speaker 05:
I will reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.

[00:12:44] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
Councillor Ferguson You got ten minutes Thank you your honor and may it please the court Brian Ferguson, and I'll be arguing For Apple.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
Miss Raymond is arguing for Samsung.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
There were two petitions, which is why we're both arguing

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
I'll start with downstream data and start with specifically the claim language, because that's really, we believe, controlling here.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
Do you agree that, ordinarily speaking, when we talk about downstream data, we're talking about data that's going from a server to a client?

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor.

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
I don't believe that that was established.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
And upstream would be going back from the client to the server?

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, when we look at some of these dictionary definitions that were submitted

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
Downstream and upstream are simply meant to refer to data flowing.

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
Downstream is data flowing towards something.

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
Upstream is data flowing away from something.

[00:13:37] Speaker 03:
In the most abstract context, fine.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
But how about the client-server context?

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
Not necessarily.

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
Again, Your Honor, when we look at these specific claims here, these claims are directed towards, as Your Honor pointed out, they're directed towards the device, only the WIPs.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
When Rosetta wanted to claim a system that included more than the WIPs, they knew how to do that.

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
Claim 23 is a perfect example.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
Claim 23 is an independent claim.

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
It is directed towards a communication system.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
Claim 23 is not at issue here.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
That is not one of the challenge claims.

[00:14:20] Speaker 02:
Rosetta clearly knew... Does Claim 23 claim a three-node system?

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
Well, under Rosetta's interpretation it would, but what claim 23 covers is, if we look at figure one, claim 23 covers the telephone.

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
24.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
Exactly.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
So in that case, claim 23, if you drew a box around it, it would cover the WIPs, the display device, and the telephone, which is a system because it's multiple components.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
They did not claim that.

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
in claims one and claims 58.

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
They specifically chose to claim only the device.

[00:15:00] Speaker 00:
And there's probably reasons for doing so.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
There's infringement reasons for everything.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
But when we look at the specification then, claims, the specification very clearly says that figure one is directed towards a wireless synchronization system of which the WIPs is only a part.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
So if we were to begin

[00:15:24] Speaker 00:
to read in limitations from figure one into the claims, we would be converting that device claim of claim one into a system claim.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
And that is not what Rosetta chose to claim.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
When we look at the standard claim construction principles here, first of all, there is no evidence that downstream data is limited

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
to data that only comes from a quote unquote source server, whatever that is.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
Second of all, as Your Honor Judge Ranham said, source server isn't even in the specification.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
That word does not appear anywhere in the specification.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
So it would just be against all claim construction principles to not only read in a limitation from the specification,

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
from an embodiment that's only labeled a exemplary embodiment, and from an embodiment that's directed towards a system, not the device.

[00:16:26] Speaker 00:
But second of all, we'd be reading in something that isn't even in the patent.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
The word source server, as my colleague was not able to point to, it does not appear anywhere in the specification.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
This reading in such a limitation is just strictly contrary to

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
Phillips, where this court said if we begin reading limitations from the specifications into the claims, we would never know where to stop.

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
And that's a good example here, because Rosetta would ask, and the dissent would ask, that when we look at Figure 1, only the WIPs and whatever is at the very top of Figure 1, what I believe Rosetta calls the source server, should be

[00:17:17] Speaker 00:
read into the claim.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
But what about the intervening wireless network management system?

[00:17:22] Speaker 00:
What about the intermediate network 28?

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
What about the first wireless network 20?

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
Why would we choose to read in only the element at the top of Figure 1 and not all those intervening elements?

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
Clearly, the board got this right.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
The board found that Figure 1 was not part and parcel.

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
It was not commensurate with the scope of Claim 1.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
And for that reason,

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
we believe that the board's construction is the correct one.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
Are there any other questions about downstream data?

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
If I may, there's another claim limitation that is at issue here that I'd like to briefly address.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
That is network server.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
Now this is directed towards the WIPs itself, the device.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
In the patent, it's called a wireless intelligent personal server.

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
They added the word network in there, so it's a

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
Could network server mean a server that is serving a network of computers?

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
Not in this case, Your Honor.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
And the reason why is, first of all, as the board correctly found, the IEEE dictionary defines network to be at least two or more interconnected devices.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
So all the claim requires when we look at the common and ordinary meaning of network itself is two devices connected together.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
What Rosetta proposes is a claim construction that specifically excludes the ability of the WIPs to communicate with another device in a point-to-point communications link.

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
The board found that's contrary to the common and ordinary meaning of network based on that dictionary definition.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
under this court's precedent, that finding does deserve deference.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
It's based on extrinsic evidence.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
But second of all, the specification specifically says that the WIPs may communicate with the external display device as if it was acting as a hard drive.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
And the evidence showed, and it was unsputed,

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
Communications between a device and a hard drive, like an external display device and a hard drive, are point-to-point communications links.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
That is in the appendix of 5505 to 5506.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
That quote from the specification is at column 6, lines 25 to 27.

[00:20:02] Speaker 04:
Do you want to address the obviousness determinations

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
Yes, and I'll address Kimora, your honor, which is the first reference that the board found.

[00:20:10] Speaker 00:
Now, if this panel affirms the claim constructions, then Rosetta did not contest that Kimora invalidates all the claims, as obvious, with the exception of claims two and claim 59.

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
However, with respect to claims two and 59, which are dependent claims, those cover a synchronization between

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
one device and the WIPs.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
Apple's expert testified that synchronization was a well-known step that people of ordinary skill and AR clearly understood.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
He testified that there was a motivation to modify Chimera so that it met the synchronization step.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
And he testified with respect to not just his own opinion, but he relied on

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
external pieces of evidence, objective pieces of evidence in the forms of other patents.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
That's at appendix 5060 through 5064.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
The board specifically found that his testimony was persuasive at appendix 36.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
And here on appeal, Rosetta does not cite any evidence to the contrary.

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
So this is plainly a case where the board relied on substantial evidence in the form

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
the expert's unrebutted opinion and under this court's precedent, like Knoll's Electronics, 883 F-3RD 1358, a court will not find the PTAB's decision unsupported by substantial evidence simply because the PTAB chose one conclusion over another possible alternative.

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
That's precisely the case here.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
The other thing I would say, finally, before turning it over to Ms.

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
Raymond, is with respect to

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
Rosetta's position that this should be a reversal if the panel changes the claim construction.

[00:22:06] Speaker 00:
We definitely disagree with respect to Kimura.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
We specifically pointed out that Kimura is a three-node device as well.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
It teaches these three nodes.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
So that was in our brief at page 65.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
It was in Apple's brief also at 13 and 14.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
So at most, if this court were to alter the claim construction

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
We ask that it would remand for further determination on Kimura and not reverse.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court?

[00:22:40] Speaker 01:
I'll be addressing Goggin just very briefly, if I may.

[00:22:42] Speaker 01:
For the reasons articulated in our briefing and by Mr. Ferguson, the Court should affirm claim construction and therefore affirm unpatentability based on Goggin.

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
And certainly, if there's no source server found to be required by the claims, Rosetta loses.

[00:22:57] Speaker 01:
But even if the court has concerns with the claim construction, the board made sufficient factual findings to affirm Goggin, because the board found Goggin disclosed at least three nodes.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
With respect to claim one, Goggin... Did the board really find that?

[00:23:09] Speaker 03:
I mean, I know you argued that.

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
Certainly.

[00:23:11] Speaker 03:
But I don't know if the board actually relied on your alternate argument that even if the claim is directed to a three-node or more system, that Goggin actually also teaches that.

[00:23:26] Speaker 03:
Certainly.

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
We can look at Claim 8, which requires a second external display device.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
We see that in Appendix 57.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
And there the board found this was disclosed, the second external display device was disclosed in Goggin.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
And they pointed there to Claim 7, where they said, petitioner's obviousness showing, this is at Appendix 56, is premised on Goggin's basic teachings that desktop computers and wireless computers can access a Windows CE device, citing Goggin.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
Desktop and wireless computers, plural.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
And the way that claim one was mapped, it was mapped with a source of downstream data coming from a PC.

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
And it was mapped with a display device as a PC.

[00:24:07] Speaker 01:
And the only dispute here is that Rosetta says that the display device and the source server need to be two different things.

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
Now, that's really not captured by their construction.

[00:24:17] Speaker 01:
But even so, looking at this claim eight and claim seven, what we see is that even if the board mapped the same PC

[00:24:25] Speaker 01:
to the source of the downstream data and the display device in claim one, the board's findings for claims seven and eight show that it found Goggin renders obvious a PDA as a display device, that it renders obvious a second PC as a display device.

[00:24:40] Speaker 01:
And therefore, for these claims, the board found disclosure of downstream data coming from a PC to the WIPs, just as in claim one, and a display device that's a second PC or a PDA, i.e.

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
a three-node system.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
And with that, unless there are any other questions, I would just conclude that.

[00:24:59] Speaker 03:
What's your best understanding of why the examiner insisted that the word network be added to the claim during the prosecution?

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
I believe the reason for that was because of the type of data that was being communicated to the WIPs.

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
And there, the data that was being communicated was pen data in the prior art.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
And so network server was added to overcome, I believe, that rejection.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
And that rejection had to do with needing to have a specific type of data that was sent to the WIPs.

[00:25:31] Speaker 01:
I don't think it has, there's no dispute here as to what type of data is sent to the WIPs, so I don't believe that the addition of network server is really apropos to the art that's being presented in this case.

[00:25:44] Speaker 01:
Are there any questions?

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
Well, I just don't understand why the addition of the word network would somehow overcome

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:
a rejection that was based in part on the type of data that was being sent to the WIPs?

[00:25:55] Speaker 01:
I think what they were capturing was that there needs to be file data that's sent to the WIPs.

[00:26:01] Speaker 01:
But the prosecution itself is certainly not clear on this point.

[00:26:06] Speaker 01:
And the word network server obviously doesn't appear in the patent either.

[00:26:10] Speaker 01:
So we sort of need to look at the language.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
We see that the dictionary.

[00:26:18] Speaker 01:
supports the idea that network is communication between two or more computers.

[00:26:23] Speaker 01:
It doesn't require three computers.

[00:26:25] Speaker 01:
The board found and credited that meaning of network.

[00:26:29] Speaker 01:
And I think for that reason, network server is understood to be here to be communication with at least one other computer, which gives you two or more computers.

[00:26:42] Speaker 01:
Regardless, again, we have, based on the claim eight and claim seven findings, and the board's talking about the CE device communicating with other computers, plural.

[00:26:52] Speaker 01:
When we talk about the WIPs, that's where they added the term network server.

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
We therefore have a network server, a WIPs, that's communicating with not just one computer, but we know that it can communicate, it communicates with, and Goggin certainly, more than one other device.

[00:27:11] Speaker 04:
Can we thank you?

[00:27:18] Speaker 04:
Senator, you have four minutes of time left for rebuttal.

[00:27:26] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, briefly I want to return to your question, which is where can you find the specification reference to a source server.

[00:27:34] Speaker 05:
I do want to point the court to references in the specification to source files.

[00:27:41] Speaker 05:
and electronic files.

[00:27:42] Speaker 05:
And the definition of the WIPs is a personal network server.

[00:27:47] Speaker 05:
So the word server is inherent in what the WIPs is.

[00:27:51] Speaker 05:
And it's a personal version of a network server.

[00:27:54] Speaker 05:
It's the personal version, as Rosetta has argued, of the source server that has the source document.

[00:28:02] Speaker 05:
So that is exactly the problem that the WIPs is trying to solve, which is to allow up-to-date versions of files, source files, to flow to a remote

[00:28:11] Speaker 05:
display device.

[00:28:12] Speaker 05:
And I just want to point out source file is on the network.

[00:28:18] Speaker 05:
And this is the personal version that captures those source files.

[00:28:21] Speaker 05:
So there you can get to the source server.

[00:28:26] Speaker 04:
So if we read between the lines of the specification, we can find the source server?

[00:28:32] Speaker 05:
Right.

[00:28:33] Speaker 05:
As I've said, that specific language is not in the specification.

[00:28:36] Speaker 05:
But the question for the court is, what's the most reasonable interpretation?

[00:28:41] Speaker 05:
light of the specification is the court held in Smith empower integrations.

[00:28:46] Speaker 05:
The question is not just, is the interpretation foreclosed by what's in the specification?

[00:28:53] Speaker 05:
Is it actually supported by what's in the specification?

[00:28:56] Speaker 05:
I want to just note that the interpretation that Rosetta has proffered is indisputably supported by the specifications.

[00:29:04] Speaker 05:
It's exactly what's described in Figure 1, and it's exactly what's described in Column 6 and 7.

[00:29:10] Speaker 05:
of the patent.

[00:29:11] Speaker 05:
On the other hand, there actually is no support for the two-note system in there that the petitioners have put forward.

[00:29:18] Speaker 05:
They've construed a possible interpretation of the claim language.

[00:29:23] Speaker 05:
But the inquiry that the court needs to engage in is, what is the interpretation that is actually supported by the specification?

[00:29:31] Speaker 05:
I submit the figure and the detailed description support.

[00:29:35] Speaker 03:
Let me give you a hypothetical.

[00:29:37] Speaker 03:
What if

[00:29:39] Speaker 03:
I have a laptop computer and one of these portable personal servers.

[00:29:44] Speaker 03:
And then I have a file on my laptop, and it gets sent and saved on the portable personal server.

[00:29:54] Speaker 03:
And then my laptop crashes.

[00:29:56] Speaker 03:
And now I need that file, but it's not on my laptop.

[00:30:00] Speaker 03:
And so I access the copy that's stored on the portable personal server.

[00:30:08] Speaker 03:
Why doesn't that example read on this claim?

[00:30:12] Speaker 05:
Because, Your Honor, that's not a downstream data flow.

[00:30:15] Speaker 05:
We're not claiming that.

[00:30:16] Speaker 05:
That's what Kimmer is about.

[00:30:17] Speaker 05:
That's not what the 511 patent is about.

[00:30:20] Speaker 05:
The 511 patent is about the WIPs receiving downstream data.

[00:30:25] Speaker 05:
And this is why I think it's so important that they don't dispute.

[00:30:28] Speaker 05:
They did not dispute this idea that, in general, a person's skill in the industry understands

[00:30:35] Speaker 05:
data flows upstream from a client to a server.

[00:30:37] Speaker 05:
So what the patent is claiming is a specific arrangement that receives downstream data.

[00:30:43] Speaker 03:
You're saying that my example doesn't fit in your claim, but another example in which laptop one that had a file that I sent to the portable personal server and then I have a second laptop and I want to access that file

[00:31:02] Speaker 03:
and I access it from the portable personal server, now because I have two different laptops instead of a single laptop, this example that I'm now describing does read on the claims.

[00:31:17] Speaker 05:
So we'll answer that question this way.

[00:31:22] Speaker 05:
It is not claimed as just articulated because what you have in that scenario, a direct upload from a computer to the WIPs, that's an upstream dataflow.

[00:31:31] Speaker 05:
That's not what the WIPs is claiming.

[00:31:33] Speaker 05:
What it's claiming is a scenario where there's an external computer sending information, trying to get information somewhere else, that somebody else at the remote display lights can't get it because there's no connectivity.

[00:31:45] Speaker 05:
That's the problem the WIPs is trying to solve.

[00:31:47] Speaker 05:
It's trying to facilitate that downstream dataflow.

[00:31:49] Speaker 05:
So if that person initially sent data up into their computer network, and then took their computer home and accessed it, that's a different story.

[00:31:56] Speaker 05:
That is what we're claiming, because that's a downstream data flow from that external network to when they go home and work.

[00:32:02] Speaker 05:
But in the example you gave, they're just uploading it to the WIPs.

[00:32:06] Speaker 05:
That's an upstream data flow.

[00:32:07] Speaker 05:
They're not claiming that.

[00:32:11] Speaker 05:
You want to conclude?

[00:32:12] Speaker 05:
Yeah, I do want to wrap up one, and I just want to tie a knot with Kimra and Gaage, and I will treat them both together this way.

[00:32:23] Speaker 05:
They have specifically talked about Gauguin and Khmer involving a server-client relationship.

[00:32:28] Speaker 05:
They map it on in the server-client way.

[00:32:30] Speaker 05:
And I refer your honors to Samsung's brief at pages 11 and 51.

[00:32:35] Speaker 05:
They talk about Gauguin working in a server-client way.

[00:32:41] Speaker 05:
It's an upstream data flow.

[00:32:44] Speaker 05:
What Gauguin is doing, what Khmer is doing, is just sending data.

[00:32:48] Speaker 05:
It's the same question your honor just asked about.

[00:32:51] Speaker 05:
sending data directly to a server.

[00:32:54] Speaker 05:
That's an upstream data flow.

[00:32:56] Speaker 05:
That's not what this patent is about.

[00:32:57] Speaker 05:
That's why those Kimmer and Goggin don't render this invention obvious.

[00:33:02] Speaker 05:
And it's why their claim construction is wrong.

[00:33:09] Speaker 05:
I'm over my time, Your Honor, so I'm done.

[00:33:11] Speaker 04:
OK, we thank you.