[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
Okay, the next target case is number 19, 1208, Thunder Power New Energy Vehicle Development Company against Bylon North America Corporation.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
Mr. Reed.

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

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
Good morning and may it please the Court.

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
In 2015, Thunder Power debuted a new electric car at the Frankfurt Auto Show with capabilities no one had seen before.

[00:01:02] Speaker 00:
Thunder Power also obtained patents on this vehicle.

[00:01:05] Speaker 00:
and last year sought to protect its innovations by enforcing three of those patents against the car from Byte.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
But instead of protection, ThunderPower received a dismissal telling ThunderPower that it did not invent new and useful improvements to a machine.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
But instead, its new vehicle capabilities were merely abstract ideas and eligible for protection.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
This was, in effect, the fulfillment of the Supreme Court's prediction that if courts do not tread carefully in this area, it will swallow all of patent law.

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
We asked the court to reverse and we asked the court to do so for three reasons.

[00:01:37] Speaker 00:
First, the district court erred in dismissing the case on the 12b6 motion because the amended complaint plausibly alleges that the claims contain inventive concepts.

[00:01:47] Speaker 00:
Starting with the 373 patents, claim one discloses and the amended complaint alleges the inventive concept of a system of position cameras and a custom processor configured to control execution devices through gestures.

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
That's at appendix 176 paragraph 26 of the amended complaint.

[00:02:07] Speaker 00:
Now the amended complaint alleges that this inventor concept improves vehicle technology in three ways.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
First, by helping to reduce driver distraction.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
That's in paragraph 21 of the amended complaint.

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
Also by permitting access to operating signals normally disabled during operation of the vehicle.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
That's in paragraph 22 of the amended complaint.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
And finally, by providing capabilities beyond prior art

[00:02:30] Speaker 00:
That's in paragraph 26.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
Assume for me, here's a kind of distinction that I'm trying to test.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
Assume for me, with me for a minute, that an assertion about an improved property, safety, handleability or something, doesn't itself count.

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
What you need

[00:02:57] Speaker 03:
on this assumption, this is the distinction I'm trying to explore, is an assertion about a new physical arrangement or physical set of steps.

[00:03:10] Speaker 03:
It seems to me that maybe everything said in the declaration and the amended complaint is all about here's why this stuff is beneficial without saying here's new stuff

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
What's the new stuff?

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
The cameras?

[00:03:32] Speaker 00:
The new stuff is the system.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
The stuff I mean, I just want to just, you know, physical things or physical steps.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
And what we have here, Your Honor, is both.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
We have both those benefits you described to go to safety and reduce driver distraction, but we have a novel system and the system includes two specially positioned cameras or one or more specially positioned camera devices attached to a custom processor.

[00:03:58] Speaker 00:
And all that configured to capture gesture controls, physical gestures from driver and passenger and translate those to control of a physical vehicle.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
Well, how about, what if the claim said this?

[00:04:12] Speaker 02:
A vehicle operating system in which the car is able to see

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
gestures made hand gestures by being made by the driver something like this or like this and then the car then interprets those gestures and then acts accordingly turn on the AC turn off the heat turn the radio station on to NPR

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
Would that be an abstract idea or would that be a claim with an inventive concept because now you've come up with this insight of making cars drive more safely with the driver because the driver can just use little hand gestures rather than trying to fiddle with buttons on a dashboard while driving.

[00:05:13] Speaker 02:
Is that an abstract idea, or is that something with an inventive concept?

[00:05:18] Speaker 00:
That would be closer to the line of an abstract idea than what we have here.

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
Whether or not that constitutes an abstract idea, I think it's closer.

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
But that's not what we have here.

[00:05:29] Speaker 00:
Here we do have a claim that's specific in terms of how that's carried out in terms of these.

[00:05:33] Speaker 02:
So what's the stuff in the claim that's beyond what I just recited in my hypothetical?

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
You would start with the camera devices.

[00:05:41] Speaker 00:
specially positioned camera devices are positions such that they can capture gestures from both passenger and driver.

[00:05:49] Speaker 02:
Where does it say specially positioned?

[00:05:54] Speaker 02:
Well, it's implicit in the fact that... Camera devices for capturing

[00:05:58] Speaker 02:
images of gestures of the driver.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
That's the limitation you're referring to, right?

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
Well, that and when it talks about the processor, it talks about how the processor has to be able to receive signals where the gestures are captured simultaneously.

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
So this is where you've got a processor in your claim that is able to interpret the hand gestures.

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:06:22] Speaker 02:
And then the processor is configured somehow, some way, to then execute actions based on those interpreted hand gestures.

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

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
And implicit in that configuration, in terms of being able to receive simultaneous gestures from both the passenger and the driver, is that the camera devices must be positioned in such a way that they can

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
detect and receive those positions.

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
If you're going to do some kind of processing of a video received signal, the camera has to point to where the hands are.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
These claims aren't even limited to hands, right?

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
This is essentially a video version of voice recognition, right?

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
In the sense that it's a non-touch approach to control... Of voice recognition.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
And voice recognition is not... Is not touch either, right?

[00:07:19] Speaker 03:
Not assertedly new.

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
Is video recognition of gestures or anything else by a computer with a processor that recognizes some of them and translates them into action.

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
I assume that that's not new.

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
At that level.

[00:07:43] Speaker 03:
So why is this anything more than do that in a car?

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
Well, again, this is something that has not... Well, it is in a car, it is in a vehicle, and it is addressing problems that are specific to vehicle technology.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
You know, driver distraction is not just a generic problem out there in the world.

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
This is a problem specific to vehicle technology.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
And what's described in the specification on this record is that is novel.

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
Embedding these camera devices

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
in such a way to capture simultaneous gestures from driver and passenger and then translate those to vehicle control.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
That is novel.

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
That's not something that's been seen before.

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
It's not a capability a car has had before.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
So that is an improvement in vehicle technology addressing a problem specific to vehicle technology.

[00:08:26] Speaker 03:
Nothing in... Tell me if this is wrong.

[00:08:28] Speaker 03:
Nothing here in either the claims or the spec says, you know, like Macro, we have a wholly new way of

[00:08:39] Speaker 03:
recognizing and processing certain kinds of signals to do something with it.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
You're taking kind of processing and video and inputs that come from a video transmission, video just meaning that some camera or something is seeing something.

[00:09:04] Speaker 03:
You're taking all of that as background prior art because that's not claimed as an advance.

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
We're just saying it would be a good idea to use this in a car.

[00:09:16] Speaker 00:
What you're saying is that there's a problem, there's a technological problem in terms of driver distraction.

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
How are we going to solve that problem?

[00:09:25] Speaker 00:
And yes, it's using camera devices.

[00:09:27] Speaker 00:
Camera devices are not new.

[00:09:29] Speaker 03:
But embedding camera devices... Including processors behind them that in some interesting way recognize meaning in the visual information coming in.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
That's likely correct.

[00:09:46] Speaker 00:
I would agree with that.

[00:09:47] Speaker 00:
There's some processor behind the camera device, right?

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
That's likely not new.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
But what they're doing is taking that technology by putting it into the vehicle

[00:09:56] Speaker 00:
position those cameras in such a way to capture the simultaneous gestures and then going beyond just the capture of those gestures, but translating those to the control of the vehicle itself is what provides the benefit here, provides the reduced driver distraction and the safety benefit.

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
And that's what didn't exist in the prior, that capability a car had never been able to do before.

[00:10:19] Speaker 00:
And that's what's alleged in the amended complaint that you have, that this is an advanced concept.

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
Not just with respect to the 373, but with respect to the other two patents as well.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
But even if you go beyond the Atrix issue, even if you get to the Alice issue in step one, and step two, there's additional bases for reversing the district court below.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
And in particular, the district court reduced the claim in its formulation of the abstract idea, really to a point of almost non-recognition.

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
The district court said that

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
that the claim ultimately in the 373 patent amounts to little more than a system for collecting information, analyzing and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
That characterization loses all connection to the gestures, to the embedded cameras, to the specially configured processor.

[00:11:08] Speaker 00:
All that's lost in that characterization.

[00:11:11] Speaker 00:
So all of that improvement to the machine has been lost in the abstract idea.

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:
And this is again what the Supreme Court warned against

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
that if you reduce something so far, you lose the heart of what the claim is directed to.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
And the claims of the 373 are directed to this system that's in this car, this improvement technology, not just to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing, and displaying in several of these court's precedents.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
I see that I'm into my rebuttal time, so I will reserve it.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
Yes, we'll hear from the other side.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
Mr. Marow.

[00:11:47] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:11:48] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court.

[00:11:50] Speaker 04:
I'd like to start with the 329724 patents.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
Those are the related patents that essentially involve free-form display input into a vehicle operating system.

[00:12:01] Speaker 04:
Pre-form display is technology that allows you to move images around on digital displays.

[00:12:09] Speaker 04:
And the shared specification starts on this issue

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
by acknowledging that that was something that pre-existed and they were just moving it into the car.

[00:12:17] Speaker 04:
The spec says developments in liquid.

[00:12:19] Speaker 04:
What are you reading from?

[00:12:21] Speaker 04:
Specification column one, lines 24 through 25.

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
Is it 329?

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
329, yes sir.

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
Column one what?

[00:12:28] Speaker 04:
Column one, lines 24 through 25.

[00:12:30] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:12:31] Speaker 04:
It's a shared specification.

[00:12:33] Speaker 04:
Developments in liquid crystal display technology have made free-form display on a dashboard a reality.

[00:12:40] Speaker 04:
So that's what we're talking about.

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
They're talking about a pre-existing technology, free-form display, similar to a picture-in-picture function on your television set where you push a button and a new program pops up in the corner of your screen so you're watching two images at the same time.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
Push another button and it moves back.

[00:12:58] Speaker 04:
They're moving this pre-existing technology into a car.

[00:13:03] Speaker 04:
The patents make clear that only generic components are used.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
There's no new screen technology, as I believe your honors have recognized.

[00:13:12] Speaker 04:
That's acknowledged at column three, lines one through five.

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
The dashboard screen may include any display technology, such as an LCD, crystal LCD, or LED.

[00:13:24] Speaker 04:
The specification also makes clear there's no new processing technology.

[00:13:30] Speaker 04:
You can find that at column eight, line 16 through 21.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
which concludes that any other mechanisms for electronically processing information can be used.

[00:13:42] Speaker 04:
The patents also make clear that there are no bounds, there are no specific instructions regarding how you program these various components to move information around on a screen or switch back and forth.

[00:13:55] Speaker 04:
At columns 6, lines 23 to 24, excuse me, 24 through 29, the configuration

[00:14:02] Speaker 04:
is why you just receive user signals and perform any other operations.

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
The screen displays can move in any direction, they can be separated or clustered on top of one another, they can be switched back and forth after any predetermined time period, and any signal can be used.

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
That's all found in column five.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
May I ask, is it a matter of dispute whether it was old, just in a patent law sense, old, to have a single camera and a single display where the camera captures some gesture, there's a processor that, like OCR, optical character recognition or gesture recognition,

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
Doesn't look up and says this set of pixels or something on the input means the following and now that correlates with an instruction and it's shown on the display.

[00:15:15] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I don't believe there's any dispute that that's not considered new technology.

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
I do know that Thunder has not made any allegations in the original or amended complaint that the use of gesture control or camera devices placed in an automobile by themselves is new.

[00:15:31] Speaker 04:
So that's, and that's... So their argument is only about the split screen and the third screen.

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
On these two, the 329 and 724 patents, I believe so.

[00:15:46] Speaker 04:
That's the free-form display where you're just moving information back and forth.

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
You don't have to use hand gestures.

[00:15:51] Speaker 04:
You can push a button on the screen.

[00:15:54] Speaker 04:
You can rotate a dial.

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
Any type of signal can be used.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
And so as far as I can tell, their argument is that they've improved vehicle technology because they've input this pre-existing technology into a car

[00:16:07] Speaker 04:
which enables a driver, for example, to switch the navigation screen to move in front of the passenger.

[00:16:13] Speaker 04:
So the passenger can then dictate how the navigation works without distracting the driver, and that improves safety.

[00:16:19] Speaker 04:
But I believe that misses the point, and I believe Your Honor was on to this with earlier questions.

[00:16:24] Speaker 04:
In fact, I believe the first question you asked, which is, are we talking about an improvement to the car?

[00:16:31] Speaker 04:
Are we talking about an actual improvement to the technology that's being put into the car?

[00:16:36] Speaker 04:
And here,

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
Arguably, putting this type of a system into a car can improve how a car performs and make it safer.

[00:16:45] Speaker 04:
But there's no legitimate argument that the technology used to make it safer has been improved.

[00:16:52] Speaker 04:
And I think that's where you get into these cases that talk about a field of use.

[00:16:56] Speaker 04:
Taking pre-existing computer technology and putting it into a new field of use does not create

[00:17:04] Speaker 04:
does not make an abstract idea non-abstract or make it unconventional.

[00:17:09] Speaker 04:
I think that's the real distinction that you see in these cases.

[00:17:12] Speaker 04:
There are just numbers of cases that this court has or opinions this court has issued to make it clear that you can't take this pre-existing technology, computer technology and put it into a new field of use or environment and claim there's an improvement in that environment.

[00:17:28] Speaker 04:
It would be akin to dropping Wi-Fi technology into a car, which we know has happened,

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
Of course it makes cars more user friendly, but the Wi-Fi technology itself would have to be improved in order to get a patent on that.

[00:17:42] Speaker 04:
And we just don't have that here.

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
Continuing on, as I look at the decisions from this court, they instruct us in performing the ALICE inquiry to look for analogous precedent that involves similar technologies.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
And I think here we have some really similar decisions

[00:18:04] Speaker 04:
With respect to the 329 and the 724 patents, the interval licensing decision is very similar in that the patents involve the use of an attention manager to control the display of two sets of information on a display screen such that they would not overlap and they would not be distracting from one another like a ticker at the bottom of the screen.

[00:18:26] Speaker 04:
There was no new technology involved in doing that.

[00:18:30] Speaker 04:
The court found that that essentially

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
amounted to collecting, analyzing and displaying two different information sets.

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
There was no new claim technology.

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
No new claim technology.

[00:18:40] Speaker 04:
And I think that's what we have here.

[00:18:43] Speaker 04:
Without disclosing a specific improvement to the way computers or other technologies operate.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
And that's the language I think that gets back to what is being improved.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
The technologies that perform these functions are not being improved in this particular, in these patents.

[00:19:01] Speaker 04:
Moving to ALICE Step 2, the Interval Licensing Court said, you're basically doing this with generic components and you're not teaching us how to do it, which is what we have here as well.

[00:19:14] Speaker 04:
There are no details in the specification or claims that teach somebody how to process, how to configure the processor to move information back and forth on the screen, or how to switch it back after a predetermined amount of time.

[00:19:27] Speaker 01:
So on this theory,

[00:19:30] Speaker 01:
What would have filled the gap?

[00:19:33] Speaker 01:
The code?

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
Algorithms?

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
Or what?

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
Accepting that the concepts appear to be new.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
I think on these patents it's very difficult to get them to patentable subject matter, but I suppose they could have come up with a unique way to reconfigure and move information

[00:19:57] Speaker 04:
to various sections of a screen and actually disclosed how you do that, how you configure the processor to move information around and move it back and forth.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
So what's your theory of what should have been placed in the patent?

[00:20:12] Speaker 04:
I would say more detailed teachings on how you configure the system as a whole to perform these functions.

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
As it stands, it just says, make a signal, the information moves to another panel,

[00:20:26] Speaker 04:
And then it moves back.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
Make another signal and it moves to a third position.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
It doesn't tell us how you make it happen.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
It doesn't tell us... Once you have the concept, one could argue that a skilled programmer could figure that out routinely.

[00:20:41] Speaker 04:
Well, I think at that point your skilled programmer probably could do that.

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
And the patents talk about that.

[00:20:48] Speaker 04:
But then you're getting into kind of preempting a field.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
Because there are no confines within the patent as to what steps you have to follow to perform this process.

[00:20:58] Speaker 04:
It's just do it.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
And so you're getting into a very broad subject matter that I think would cause preemption concerns in this particular field.

[00:21:09] Speaker 01:
That's not unique to this situation as to try and understand, unless you put in the five foot shelf of ones and zeros,

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
where the boundary is in all fairness to all sides.

[00:21:28] Speaker 04:
I think that's correct.

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
I think we need new displays.

[00:21:32] Speaker 04:
Looking for help from you?

[00:21:36] Speaker 04:
I'm not here to help them, but I just feel like that's... It's very difficult with respect to these two patents, the way that they're drafted and with what they claim.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
With respect to the 373 patent, Your Honor, that's the gesture control patent, and that's essentially, it's similar in that they're moving gesture control into a vehicle and claiming that that's patentable.

[00:22:01] Speaker 04:
The patents, again, the 373 patent, excuse me, doesn't teach any new way, and there was some discussion of this when Mr. Reed was presenting, they don't teach any new way of capturing gestures.

[00:22:15] Speaker 04:
or of transferring gestures or transforming gestures into signals so that the operating system can perform signals.

[00:22:28] Speaker 04:
They don't teach any new ways of turning gestures into signals or resolving conflicts between gestures.

[00:22:36] Speaker 04:
So for example, there are no teachings regarding the specific placement of cameras where cameras need to be placed.

[00:22:45] Speaker 04:
to accurately capture gestures and understand that it's a gesture coming from a driver as opposed to a passenger.

[00:22:52] Speaker 04:
The claims don't say anything about specific locations of the camera devices.

[00:22:57] Speaker 04:
Claim one says it's camera devices.

[00:23:00] Speaker 04:
It doesn't have any placement criteria.

[00:23:04] Speaker 04:
The specification makes it clear that any type of camera devices can be used located at any location.

[00:23:09] Speaker 04:
That's at column four, lines 53 through 59.

[00:23:13] Speaker 04:
And they also make it clear that any type of gesture recognition techniques can be used pre-existing.

[00:23:20] Speaker 04:
Column 5, lines 50, 41 through 44.

[00:23:24] Speaker 04:
Various gesture recognition techniques based on captured images.

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
And at column 7, it goes on to say, this may include various types of pattern, anatomical and or motion recognition techniques.

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
Is there something in this spec that says,

[00:23:42] Speaker 03:
that machine gesture recognition is familiar?

[00:23:53] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I don't recall any specific provisions that say that explicitly, but the specification does say that various gesture recognition techniques can be used

[00:24:08] Speaker 04:
Again, at column 5, lines 41 through 44, and 7, lines 15 through 16.

[00:24:14] Speaker 03:
And it doesn't teach anything in this spec about how to do that.

[00:24:18] Speaker 04:
It does not.

[00:24:19] Speaker 03:
There are no new... You said, I think, earlier that there's not been an assertion as to what the advance is here that included new techniques of gesture recognition.

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:24:35] Speaker 03:
There are no allegations.

[00:24:37] Speaker 03:
Did you pause because I was close to saying something false?

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
I'd like to know where I almost misspoke.

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
I don't believe you have.

[00:24:46] Speaker 04:
There are no allegations of any new gesture recognition techniques or camera devices used to capture gestures, for example at night when it might be dark.

[00:24:56] Speaker 01:
But doesn't that reinforce their position that there is an inventive concept in the overall compilation of steps and not in the individual steps and therefore we don't need all of the details of the individual steps as I was inquiring.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
I don't think it does based on this court's precedence because in interval licensing and electric power, which I think is actually closer on this particular patent, the findings were that when you're performing steps that can be formed with generic computer components, you don't have an inventive concept unless you teach the how of how you achieve the new concept that's supposedly inventive.

[00:25:42] Speaker 04:
And here we don't have those details

[00:25:44] Speaker 04:
in the specification or the claims.

[00:25:47] Speaker 04:
And so I think it would be, it's contrary to the holdings and interval licensing and electric power to find that that would be, that could be inventive in this particular case.

[00:26:01] Speaker 04:
I'm looking for a particular quote that I found was relevant here and this is from

[00:26:13] Speaker 04:
the electric power case.

[00:26:20] Speaker 04:
The advanced, the asserted claims purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content then displaying the results and not on any particular assertively inventive technology for performing those functions.

[00:26:34] Speaker 04:
That's at 1353.

[00:26:38] Speaker 04:
And I think that's exactly what we have here.

[00:26:41] Speaker 04:
And I see that I am down to five seconds.

[00:26:43] Speaker 04:
If the court has no further questions, I will rest.

[00:26:48] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:26:48] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Maduro.

[00:27:01] Speaker 00:
Mr. Reed.

[00:27:01] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:27:04] Speaker 00:
With respect to what we just discussed with respect to the 329 and the 724 patents, what the specification teaches us is that this is an improvement to vehicle technology.

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
The technology problem in the prior art is that you had two fixed static displays in conventional vehicle technology.

[00:27:22] Speaker 00:
You had a fixed static display with static features in front of the driver, and if anything else, you had a center console with a fixed static display.

[00:27:30] Speaker 00:
That was the existing technology.

[00:27:32] Speaker 00:
This improved on that technology by taking out those fixed static displays and putting in a new single display, a single dashboard display that has multiple separate and independent information panels and those independent information panels are configured and adapted to switch and duplicate depending on user signals.

[00:27:52] Speaker 00:
That changed how cars operate.

[00:27:55] Speaker 00:
Conventional cars don't do that.

[00:27:56] Speaker 00:
Conventional cars today don't do that.

[00:27:58] Speaker 00:
That changed how vehicles operate.

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
That's a change in their capabilities.

[00:28:03] Speaker 00:
Under FinG, in other cases, that is eligible subject matter.

[00:28:08] Speaker 00:
Now, with respect to how to do it, these claims go beyond just saying, take something generic, or take a pre-existing practice and put it in a car.

[00:28:16] Speaker 00:
You know, the claims go beyond that.

[00:28:18] Speaker 00:
They give a specific mechanism for accomplishing this.

[00:28:21] Speaker 00:
They give an exism of two specially positioned cameras, a system involving the two specially positioned cameras,

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
Custom Processor is configured to translate gestures from driver and passenger, not just one, but simultaneous gestures from driver to passenger, and translate those to vehicle operation control.

[00:28:38] Speaker 00:
And contrary to what my friend said earlier, there is detail as to actually how those gestures are captured.

[00:28:43] Speaker 00:
And that is found in the dependent claims 6 and 7 of the 373 patents, which describes how the gesture, how the processor determines whether or not the passenger or the driver is the one

[00:28:58] Speaker 00:
It's making the particular gesture.

[00:29:00] Speaker 00:
It does that by determining whether or not the gesture that it observes and the rest of the passenger are image continuous.

[00:29:08] Speaker 00:
In other words, whether you can go from the hands to the head or hands to the breast or head to some other body indicator.

[00:29:15] Speaker 00:
And that's what's claimed in six and seven, a different way of capturing those gestures.

[00:29:19] Speaker 00:
And there's no evidence in the record that that was well-known routine or conventional.

[00:29:23] Speaker 00:
So to say that all of this is conventional gesture capture technology, that goes beyond the record we have before us.

[00:29:33] Speaker 00:
And finally, to your last point, Judge Newman, we're not claiming that we invented cameras, we're not claiming that we invented processors, but we are complaining the system, the entirety of the system that we're talking about here.

[00:29:47] Speaker 00:
And this court's precedent is clear that when claiming a system, and in particular a system that involves a processor,

[00:29:53] Speaker 00:
You do not have to provide the programming details.

[00:29:56] Speaker 00:
I mean that precedent goes all the way back to 1992 in the Henry Hayes case.

[00:30:00] Speaker 00:
It says that if you claim a processor and say how that processor is configured and what the functions is configured to process, that is sufficient.

[00:30:11] Speaker 00:
Now that was in the context of section 112, but there's no principal reason why it should be different in the 101 context.

[00:30:16] Speaker 00:
And there's no precedent of which I'm aware that says

[00:30:19] Speaker 00:
You have a different standard when you're talking about eligibility versus invalidity under section 112.

[00:30:24] Speaker 00:
And these claims provide that level of specificity.

[00:30:27] Speaker 00:
They provide at least a level of specificity as to the how as we see in the Thales case, we see in the visual memory case.

[00:30:34] Speaker 00:
Recall the Thales case had an element that was configured to calculate an orientation based on two sensors that were put on these two different features.

[00:30:41] Speaker 01:
But the system has to be enabled no matter what?

[00:30:44] Speaker 00:
Of course it does, Your Honor, and there's no allegation here that this does not enable one of the ordinary skill in the arts to be able to perform the inventions in these paths.

[00:30:52] Speaker 00:
In fact, there's an export declaration in the record that says exactly that.

[00:30:55] Speaker 00:
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to take these claims and perform the inventions that are described.

[00:31:01] Speaker 00:
But what we're talking about specificity and not providing enough how is simply not correct under thallus, under visual memory.

[00:31:07] Speaker 00:
Those are at the same level of specificity.

[00:31:09] Speaker 00:
And these claims, like in those cases, should be held eligible.

[00:31:15] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:31:17] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:31:18] Speaker 01:
Thank you both.

[00:31:19] Speaker 01:
The case is taken under submission.