[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Operation versus Yankov.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
You're fired.

[00:00:24] Speaker 01:
Good morning again.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
This case is dealing with the 643 patent.

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
We just got finished talking about the 676 patent.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
But the issues here are very similar in that the petition failed to present the required algorithmic structure of a computer implemented means plus function claim or any structural equivalency analysis.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
In the case of this patent, the board went as far as to reformulate the petition grounds at institution to imagine new grounds.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
The new grounds were nowhere proposed in the petition.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
And this was done despite this court's prohibition and the Supreme Court in SAS from the PTAB.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
They adopted your own construction.

[00:01:13] Speaker 01:
What I'm talking about is the petition grounds, Your Honor.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
So what they said is the.

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
If they adopted your own construction, you must have had notice.

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
There's no issue that we had notice of around construction.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
That's not the issue.

[00:01:28] Speaker 01:
What we're talking about here is the trial grounds.

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
When you come in and say the control means, or excuse me, the reproducing means requires a controller and a synthesizer.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
Sorry.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
You're in the wrong case.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
So this was the case where they came in and they said the

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
the control means requires a CPU.

[00:01:55] Speaker 01:
And here's the CPU in the prior art.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
That was the petition.

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
That's what the board considered.

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
Is your position that if we thought that it were properly instituted, or at least that that's not appealable, that you're not contesting the merits of the decision?

[00:02:14] Speaker 01:
No, we are contesting the merits of the decision as well, Your Honor.

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
would be helpful to hear your view on the merits.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
So ultimately what happened here is at institution the board stated that well we understand this prior art mapping which was only pointing to a CPU as actually pointing to structure even though the petitioner never

[00:02:39] Speaker 01:
pointed to such structure, even agreed that it was necessary.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
So when we're disputing the actual ground, what we said is, well, there's no analogy.

[00:02:52] Speaker 01:
What the board said, and so this is at the institution decision, J177, they said, OK, we've seen the preliminary response come in from Sony.

[00:03:01] Speaker 01:
We've seen that they've argued that the algorithm is column 7, lines 58, through column 8, lines 10, and figure 8.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
We agree with that.

[00:03:09] Speaker 01:
That's the algorithm.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
That's the proper construction.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
And from there, they worked backwards through the petition sites to say, well, the petitioner must have meant this, and they must have been pointing to this for this algorithm.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
But they never did any of that.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
They never explained in the petition, well, what is it that makes the algorithm in these references equivalent to the algorithm in the specification?

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
So the board said, well,

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
If you look at this algorithm, it's judging, it's selecting.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
And then at the end, they said, and there's a step S17 that has to do with tuning.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
And we understand all of that to be in the petition.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
They didn't say where any of this was.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
So Sony was left trying to figure out what this ground actually was.

[00:03:56] Speaker 01:
And then at the end of the trial, the board allowed the petitioner to come in.

[00:04:01] Speaker 01:
And what the petitioner said is, well, I'm going to put

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
my ground in the terms of the board.

[00:04:07] Speaker 01:
So this is what the board said the ground should be.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
So now in my reply, I'm going to provide a new claim chart where now I'm talking about algorithms for the first time.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
Now I'm talking about figure eight for the first time.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
And we objected to that.

[00:04:22] Speaker 01:
We argued that it was improper.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
But when the board found that the algorithm was disclosed in the prior art,

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
used the same definition of the algorithm as you yourself had put in the patent owner response, correct?

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
Well, not exactly.

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
Not exactly.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
Going back to that institution, the JA 177, on the one hand, they say, yes, Sony argues that column 7, lines 58 through column 8, lines 10 is the algorithm, and it's in figure 8.

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
And then underneath, and they sort of characterize what that algorithm would be.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
But they simplified it.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
They said, well,

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
It's judging, it's selecting, and they then pointed to the mapping of the prior art that related to the operation.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
What's the mistake?

[00:05:11] Speaker 00:
It seems to me that if they took your construction of what the algorithm was and then they applied that to the prior art, which I think they did, then you don't have any complaint about what happened here.

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
But you seem to be arguing that they misconstrued the algorithm or construed it differently than you had proposed that it be construed.

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
And what I'm trying to get at is, what's the difference?

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
I appreciate the clarification.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
So what we said and what we argued in the rehearing decision, so after the institution said that they adopted our claim construction, what we said is, what is claimed is a CPU algorithm.

[00:05:53] Speaker 01:
What the board pointed to in the prior art

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
is the user experience.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
In other words, I'm holding down the remote control button.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
I lift my finger off.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
What happens on the television?

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
Nowhere was there any discussion of how the CPU in the prior art operates.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
In other words, how is this processing done?

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
How is the tuning done?

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
Where is the MPEG tuning?

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
Where is the steps in figure 8, S11 through S17?

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
They talk about S11.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
They talk about S17 at institution.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
But they don't identify where any of that was in the prior art.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
So what we've said is, look, the claim is directed to CPU processing.

[00:06:33] Speaker 00:
The function- But if the user does these, you know, is presented with these choices, doesn't that necessarily mean that it's part of the software?

[00:06:43] Speaker 01:
Well, there's an analogous function there for sure in that the remote control operation worked the same way.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
But how the CPU implements that, that's where the structural equivalency- I mean, I don't see that the claim

[00:06:57] Speaker 00:
requires that the CPU implemented in a particular way as long as it performs the algorithm.

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
Well, but the algorithm is not the function of sensing just the button pushing and displaying on the television.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
The algorithm is how the control means controls the tuner to do all of these things.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
That's what's in figure eight, and that's the algorithm that was adopted by the PTAB.

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
You know, it's not just, well, the function is detecting when the finger press is broken and operating.

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
That's the function.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
How that's done, how that's accomplished in the CPU code is what's in that portion of the specification is what's in figure eight.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
And so what the board said at institution is, well, we see this in the prior art and what we said at rehearing is, well, but what you're pointing to is not a CPU algorithm.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
You're pointing to a common functionality.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
Yes, the remote control may operate the same way.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
But how does the CPU perform that processing?

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
That's what's important.

[00:08:04] Speaker 01:
So we got all the way through trial.

[00:08:07] Speaker 01:
And then the petitioner tried to adapt their grounds to the board's, essentially the board's view of the grounds, provided a new claim chart.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
But even still there, it was just pointing to the user experience.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
It wasn't explaining how the CPU was looking up

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
in the steps of Figure 8, I think S12 through S14 talks about certain incremental ways that the tuning is done, and then Step S17 talks about how the MPEG processing is done.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
None of that ever came up, ever, was explained anywhere.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
The whole discussion of S17 was raised for the first time by petitioner at the oral hearing because it occurred to them that at this JA177, which is the institution decision, oh, the board listed S17 as part of the algorithm.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
There's really no discussion of that in the record.

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
They tried to bring it in an oral argument.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
They put up a demonstrative.

[00:08:59] Speaker 01:
They circled in red S-17.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
That was nowhere in the briefing.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
We can't address that unless we're presented with it.

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
And then on appeal, the solicitor says, well, you could discern where the board was going on that because MPEG is discussed in other contexts in other areas for different claim terms.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
As patent owner, we can't be left guessing as to what the ground is, especially at institution where the board simply excused a fatal error and rewrote the trial grounds.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
We need to have that upfront.

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
That's the petitioner's burden.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
It wasn't here.

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
We can't just look at this algorithm and say, well, it's simple.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
Therefore, we don't have to analyze it.

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
And that is what happened here.

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
So just finishing up, I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
But the PTAD cannot rewrite the trial grounds to cover structure that the petitioner affirmatively pointed out in the petition wasn't there.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
They said, this is a CPU period.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
The PTAD cannot allow the petitioner to recast its petition grounds to close a trial.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
It denied us the opportunity to submit evidence on these points when the petitioner was allowed to, as it states, write its ground in the terms of the board

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
And the PTAB cannot sidestep the specific steps of the algorithm by characterizing it as just judging and selecting.

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
And even if all of that could be ignored, which I submit it cannot, step 17 is part of the algorithm adopted by the PTAB.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
It's nowhere discussed in the record.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
And like I say, it came up for the first time in oral hearing.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
And there is no explanation in the solicitor's brief fixing that hole because you just can't

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
fix that hole in the trial ground by creatively pointing to different citations here on appeal.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
So there's no further questions.

[00:11:13] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
May I please the court?

[00:11:16] Speaker 03:
The substance of both the claim construction of the algorithm and how the prior art meets it were all in the initial petition.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
The form might have been, the form didn't call those things an algorithm.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
They didn't say the words, this is the algorithm.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
But what an algorithm is, is just a series of steps.

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
And the petition laid out that series of steps in the exact section

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
of the claim construction part of the petition dealing with this particular limitation.

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
And then it also went through the prior art in the exact section of the petition dealing with this limitation.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
Stepping back for a minute, the algorithm here is a very simple one.

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
It is controlling the, it's a control function.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
So it's controlling the components described in the other limitations

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
so that they only receive the TV signal when the user's finger is lifted from the up-down button.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
So that's a very simple yes-no algorithm telling these things to function or not function when the user's finger is lifted.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
Both of the petition explained, if you look at, I think it's useful to look at the actual petition,

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
So is the idea that if the user instruction tells the user to perform the particular steps, that means that those steps are part of the algorithm and the processor?

[00:12:52] Speaker 03:
I think the petition and the board has it both ways.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
No, but wait, kind of answer my question, okay?

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
What I'm saying is that if the user is instructed to perform particular steps, that in terms of the processor having the algorithm, that indicates that the processor has the algorithm.

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
Oh, so this is sort of the pushing of buttons.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
The claim itself is defined in terms of the pushing.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
The answer is yes.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
The answer is yes.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
The answer is yes.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
So yes, Your Honor, and that makes sense.

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
because the claim itself is defined in terms of the user pushing the buttons.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
Going to the claim language itself, this claim has a series of limitations.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
Most of them were undisputed.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
I'll accept that control means limitation.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
So the claim language itself talks about users pushing buttons.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
So that's how the claim defines what the algorithm is.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
So for example,

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
This limitation incorporates a bunch of other limitations, right?

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
It's the controlling for these other limitations.

[00:14:04] Speaker 03:
So it controls the transmission signal receiving means.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
So that's the limitation 1A, that first limitation.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
to receive a channel, which is what that limitation does, indicated by the channel number being displayed, which is also, in other limitations, 1E and 1C.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
So it's all just controlling these things that exist otherwise.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
To display that channel when the command received by the command receiving means is broken.

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
So what's the command receiving means?

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
That is also another limitation, which is limitation 1B,

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
which is for receiving a command from a channel selection key operated by a user.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
So a channel selection key operated by a user, that's a user pushing the key.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
So that is the way the claim is defined expressly, also the same thing in 1E.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
This is one of the other limitations that's also referenced by this claim, which is another part of the invention, which is that the

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
the numbers of the channel are only displayed as changing and not the channel itself, that's in limitation 1e.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
And that says until the operation of the channel selection key is discontinued by the user.

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
So that's when the user takes the finger off.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
So by defining it in that way, we're looking at the users taking off the finger

[00:15:32] Speaker 03:
that getting sent to the command receiving means, which this limitation references, then because that is sent to the command receiving means, we know that from that limitation, the command receiving means knows, okay, I'm going to change the channel.

[00:15:50] Speaker 03:
And it talks to the other means about doing that.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
So the action of lifting the finger up and off is already described in all the other means on how that

[00:16:01] Speaker 03:
works with the system to tell the system, okay, if the finger is on, then keep going, and if the finger is off, receive the channel.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
Looking at the, I mean I think that there are

[00:16:21] Speaker 03:
My friend here mentioned some of the other steps, and I think it's worth looking at Figure 8 and also at the board's decisions.

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
So the key, the function here, really the function here is just controlling everything, all these other limitations so that they only work when the command is discontinued.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
And then Figure 8 is what my friend referred to, and that corresponds to the portions of this specification

[00:16:49] Speaker 03:
that both the petitioner cited and the board cited in the petition, in the institution decision, in the reply, in the final decision, in the demonstrative.

[00:17:01] Speaker 03:
So these were the same provisions that were throughout the IPR.

[00:17:07] Speaker 03:
And if you look at what's going on, the key step is S16, which is channel key input finished.

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
So that means, are you done?

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
Is the input done?

[00:17:19] Speaker 03:
Are you done pushing the button?

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
And it says no.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
If it's no, then you go back to just tell, is the channel key still being pushed?

[00:17:28] Speaker 03:
And if it is finished, then you go to the channel selection processing with just step S17 to tell the transmission signal receiving means to go ahead and do its thing and receive that channel.

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
I think both the petition and the board viewed the main algorithm as just this yes-no function.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
So it's really not incorporating then the next steps of actually receiving or the next steps of searching for the channel and just displaying it without receiving it.

[00:18:06] Speaker 03:
But both the petition and the board covered those steps as well because what's really going on here is both Rosenberger and Ajima teach this simple algorithm

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
in an analog system, because the same problem existed in analog TVs, that if you held the button to try to go up, there was a delay.

[00:18:25] Speaker 03:
So that would take a long time to scroll through channels.

[00:18:28] Speaker 03:
So they had the same problem in analog systems.

[00:18:30] Speaker 03:
It was not as much of a delay as in a digital system, because you don't have to wait for all the compressed packets to be uncompressed, and for that to be processed.

[00:18:41] Speaker 03:
So that algorithm itself,

[00:18:45] Speaker 03:
is present in each of Rosenberger and of Ijima.

[00:18:51] Speaker 03:
If we want to view it, but both the petition and the board covered the bases that if you want to view it more broadly as actually including those steps and doing, not just going to S17 and saying, do your thing, but also including all the process steps in S17, that that is also taught by the prior art.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
And you get that from Wasilewski,

[00:19:14] Speaker 03:
Because Wasilewski is an MPEG digital decoder.

[00:19:18] Speaker 03:
And these steps of receiving the channel, MPEG is a standard.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
Any decoder that would receive these MPEG streams would include decoding and using the channel tables, including this conditional access table, to be able to

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
to be able to actually receive the program.

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
Otherwise, the MPEG decoder wouldn't work.

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
So Wasilewski, there could be many MPEG decoders that could be used, but Wasilewski is the one that was cited, and Wasilewski teaches all those steps of decoding the MPEG and also confirming the conditional access channel.

[00:19:57] Speaker 03:
And we see that in the petition at, for example,

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
at appendix 86 and appendix 85 where it states the CPU controls the tuner, the demodulation circuit, the error correction circuit, and the like.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
And after the infrared signal is received by the infrared signal receiving unit, the CPU controls the tuner to receive the channels corresponding to the inputted channel number when receiving a signal supply corresponding to the infrared signal from the infrared signal receiving unit.

[00:20:35] Speaker 03:
to change the channel, the tuner demodulates a signal corresponding to a channel number instructed by the CPU to send out to the demodulation circuit.

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
And that's also supported in their expert declaration by Dr. Russ at the portions that they cite, including specifically for the limitation at issue here, the control means limitation.

[00:20:55] Speaker 03:
There's also some general discussion in the declaration as well about MPEG and that Wasilewski is an MPEG decoder, that MPEG is a standard.

[00:21:05] Speaker 03:
that MPEG decoders decode MPEG streams.

[00:21:08] Speaker 03:
That's just what they do.

[00:21:10] Speaker 03:
And also mentioning, for example, the different channels, excuse me, the different tables that are all transmitted as part of the MPEG stream, including the conditional access table.

[00:21:21] Speaker 03:
So there should be other tables that are also transmitted.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
So it discusses, Guasaluzzi discusses that in decoding the MPEG streams, it would decode them and also use the tables.

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
The first time today, and I didn't see this in their briefs, but we can address it.

[00:21:41] Speaker 03:
This is the first time that I've understood Sony to suggest that also the other steps of S12, S14, S15, S13 are included in the algorithm.

[00:22:00] Speaker 03:
I didn't see that anywhere.

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
But the board covered them.

[00:22:04] Speaker 03:
And that makes sense, because they've covered them in both this limitation and other limitations.

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
So that is the set of steps whereby the device searches for either the next channel up or the next channel down, and then only displays the channel number and doesn't display

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
the show itself.

[00:22:31] Speaker 03:
And those steps are what correspond to limitation 1E, which is where the channel number being switched are displayed without displaying a channel selection until the operation of the channel selection key is discontinued by the user.

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
So the board covered all that in 1E, and they didn't have any objection to that, because all these limitations were undisputed.

[00:22:53] Speaker 03:
But the board did also address S12

[00:22:58] Speaker 03:
14 and 15 and 13 when it was discussing Ejima and Rosenberger.

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
Because these are the parts of Ejima and Rosenberger that just say what this is doing is just that the channels are changed up or down while only the number is being displayed.

[00:23:15] Speaker 03:
So that's that set of limitations.

[00:23:17] Speaker 03:
And the board, those were in the petition as well in the petition discussion,

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
And they were also in the board's decision.

[00:23:24] Speaker 03:
I personally didn't see that in any of the briefing, even here, let alone below.

[00:23:28] Speaker 03:
I did see the S-17 at the oral argument below, which is where, well, S-17 was always part of the claim construction.

[00:23:39] Speaker 03:
The question is just whether you view the algorithm as go and perform these steps.

[00:23:47] Speaker 03:
So go to S17 and then tell the decoder to do this function, or whether you view it as then the decoder does all these things.

[00:23:55] Speaker 03:
But either way, it's in the record.

[00:23:56] Speaker 03:
Either way, it's in the petition citations, the expert citations, and in the board's decision.

[00:24:09] Speaker 03:
There's discussion about equivalence

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
I don't understand that exactly because the board has said it's indistinguishable.

[00:24:17] Speaker 03:
The algorithm itself is indistinguishable from the Rosenberger algorithm and the Aegean algorithm.

[00:24:24] Speaker 03:
But the board did use some equivalence analysis.

[00:24:28] Speaker 03:
Indistinguishable is one of the factors of equivalence.

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
But you don't need to reach equivalence if the algorithm is the same.

[00:24:35] Speaker 03:
And we cited the transcript, for example, from the board hearing where Judge Bask said,

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
The algorithm is the same here.

[00:24:42] Speaker 03:
Why do we need to get to equivalence?

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
But either way, the algorithm is disclosed.

[00:24:48] Speaker 03:
It's these three steps.

[00:24:50] Speaker 03:
They're there.

[00:24:51] Speaker 03:
So there's no need to get to any equivalence analysis.

[00:24:53] Speaker 03:
But that whole analysis also would support equivalence as well.

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
Unless the court has any questions.

[00:25:10] Speaker 03:
I've been talking about the board so much.

[00:25:12] Speaker 03:
Unless the court has any questions, I think we would rest on our briefs.

[00:25:35] Speaker 01:
Just to be clear here, the algorithm that the board relied upon was Figure 8 and the description of Figure 8 in the columns that I cited earlier.

[00:25:46] Speaker 01:
That includes the entirety of Figure 8.

[00:25:49] Speaker 01:
What I heard here today is that the key step is S16.

[00:25:51] Speaker 01:
Well, the board never said that.

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
What the board said is they adopted the algorithm described at those columns at which describes Figure 8.

[00:26:00] Speaker 01:
The description of Figure 8 is a flow chart for explaining

[00:26:04] Speaker 01:
a processing to select a channel using the up and down key.

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
This is a CPU algorithm.

[00:26:11] Speaker 01:
So there's a lot of discussion about step S16.

[00:26:14] Speaker 01:
Well, what about the other steps?

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
If you want to say that they're so simple we can ignore them, then you need to say that.

[00:26:20] Speaker 01:
Then you need to make that showing because that's what we have to rebut, especially when none of this was in the petition and this is a creation of the board.

[00:26:29] Speaker 01:
There's also a lot of discussion about MPEG processing.

[00:26:32] Speaker 01:
It's not in the record.

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
There's a discussion of the some of the art was analog, some of the art was digital.

[00:26:38] Speaker 01:
Well, how do you arrive at the algorithm for MPEG processing if you're using teachings from analog references?

[00:26:45] Speaker 01:
We couldn't make that rebuttal because none of this MPEG discussion is in the record.

[00:26:50] Speaker 01:
The board said that this was the algorithm in Figure 8 and they cited to the column that describes the entirety of Figure 8.

[00:26:58] Speaker 01:
You can't just dismiss it and say it's simple.

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
The board did, at oral arguments, say that they're the same, and that's because they confused function and algorithm.

[00:27:08] Speaker 01:
The function of the way it operates with the remote control, we will concede, is the same.

[00:27:13] Speaker 01:
The CPU algorithm, which is in Figure 8, is nowhere compared to any algorithm in the prior art.

[00:27:20] Speaker 01:
And for that reason, this IPR should be reversed.

[00:27:24] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
We thank both sides.