[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Today is two zero one seven dash two one seven one Uniloft versus Pisces.

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
Mr. Mangrum, please proceed.

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
May it please the court.

[00:00:20] Speaker 03:
The district court misapplied the two-step eligibility analysis reiterated analysis.

[00:00:26] Speaker 03:
I want to just spend a minute

[00:00:27] Speaker 03:
highlighting some points in the briefing.

[00:00:29] Speaker 03:
So under step one of ALIS, the district court erred in reducing the claims to an untethered abstraction that more closely resembles the disparaged prior art than the claim language.

[00:00:41] Speaker 03:
And it's helpful taking a look at the background section of the combined specification at issue.

[00:00:46] Speaker 01:
The patents in sooth both were filed in 95.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
I'm correct they both now expired.

[00:00:53] Speaker 03:
They are both expired.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
and they both were filed mid-year 95, that's correct.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
That date is actually important, Judge Walsh, because Unilock's papers talk about the state of the art as set forth in the background section, but also as set forth in the ENFISH patents, which is a contemporaneous patent, those patents were contemporaneous, also filed mid-year 95.

[00:01:17] Speaker 03:
So that date's important.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
In the red brave at 19, Pisces,

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
I think I'm saying that right, argues Uniloc's, I'm quoting, Uniloc's flexibly enabling description, and they have that in quotes, flexibly enabling, is absent from the language of the claims and specifications of 526-PAT.

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
Where can we find that flexibly enabling language?

[00:01:42] Speaker 03:
Thank you for drawing my attention to that.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
You're welcome.

[00:01:45] Speaker 03:
The flexible language is actually in the, it's in the titles of the patents, it's in the

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
It's shorthand in the patent for the user-controlled nature of the claims.

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
And so when you want to look for the flexible aspects... But my question was, where can we find it in the claims and specification?

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
Yeah, so I'm drawing the court's attention to the user-controlled language in the claim.

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
And so let's look at a specific in claim one, for example.

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
Sign this to a page, please.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
This is in the appendix of 132.

[00:02:18] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
In that, that draws us to the claims themselves.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
Starting at column 12, lines 41 through 46, you have the preamble of claim one.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
And in the preamble it says, a method in a computer system for designing under the control of a user a patient information hierarchy.

[00:02:42] Speaker 03:
So you have at the outset of the claim this thematic

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
uh... invocation of what's happening as a user is controlling the design of the structure of the market for flexibly enabled so that that is the flexible the flexibility comes from enabling a user to do this the specification distinguishes the user control from prior databases that the specification refers to as general purpose databases and rigid patient information databases the distinction the specification mixes the user is not able to go in

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
and control new design for the structure.

[00:03:18] Speaker 03:
And so that's why I'm drawing your attention to the under the control of the user.

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
So the prior art was a database that was programmed by some kind of software designer or the like and couldn't be altered.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
Once it was set, it could not be altered.

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
That's why it was called a rigid patient information database.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
The advancement here is the user can program the database.

[00:03:43] Speaker 03:
Virtually any user.

[00:03:44] Speaker 03:
can go in, regardless of the state of the database, can go in and change it.

[00:03:47] Speaker 03:
And the claim one requires a very specific change.

[00:03:50] Speaker 03:
Claim one requires introducing new fields or parameters.

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
So this is not recording raw data.

[00:03:57] Speaker 03:
This is changing the structure of the database.

[00:03:59] Speaker 03:
And then when you look at step F, which is the last step of claim one, there is a reference to linking.

[00:04:07] Speaker 03:
So what happens is the claim goes through a process of receiving user input.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
It implements that process in step F

[00:04:14] Speaker 03:
as creating a link, and I'm gonna quote from the client language, within the patient information hierarchy.

[00:04:20] Speaker 03:
So that's important.

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
The link, the logic, the model of the linking is within the hierarchy itself.

[00:04:26] Speaker 03:
And the reason why that's important is because it's evocative of some of the analysis set forth in NFISH.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
What is the user doing that couldn't have been done by a software designer?

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
Well, the software designer goes in and sets up a database not to enable

[00:04:43] Speaker 03:
change, but just to enable, the software designer has to go in and envision what exactly what the database needs to be for all purpose, right, for any particular customer.

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
Sure, and this, your invention as a user can customize it.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
Right, and you can imagine... Is there any difference in that activity?

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
I mean, suppose a hospital is running the software and keeps a software designer on staff because it knows it's going to want to adapt this database.

[00:05:13] Speaker 02:
is that software designer doing customization any different than the user doing customization?

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
And the reason we know that is because of the specific process set forth in claim one, for example, or claim four will be another example.

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
This is an ordered process where... Are you saying a software designer on staff couldn't customize it in the same way a user could?

[00:05:33] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
What I'm saying is the claim language requires a

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
receiving input and responding to input.

[00:05:40] Speaker 03:
So it's invocative of an interface described in specification.

[00:05:44] Speaker 03:
The patent provides a way, it's essentially improving the computer system itself by enabling a user to go in, provide simplistic input, and then the software then takes that and does restructuring of the database structure.

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
Let me turn your attention to the 451.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
In the blue brief at 4041, you discuss

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
the formula construction subsystem that includes a three-part algorithm.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
And you say it involves identifying certain values, applying the selected function, and manipulating the single value.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
Are all the possible functions preloaded on the software?

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
Possible functions meaning functions that user can... Identifying certain values, applying the selected function, manipulating the single value.

[00:06:38] Speaker 03:
So the software, when you go to the specification, the software talks about providing... I'm going to right now after you answer my question.

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
So the software provides a user interface.

[00:06:49] Speaker 03:
It's a graphic user interface that has a number of options.

[00:06:54] Speaker 03:
You know, logic less than, greater than, equal to, some multiplication things, and then ways to concatenate text together.

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
So the user, even if they don't know any programming, what they're able to do is at least say, I want the software

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
the formula to operate like this, I can't generate the code to actually set up a formula that creates new data.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
What I can at a minimum do, I want it to do this.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
Then the software then goes in, and the software piece is called the formula construction subsystem.

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
So that's a piece of software that is... Okay, you're not approaching what I want.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
Let me go into specifics.

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
The specification explains that figure four represents a screen diagram that contains

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
a, I'm quoting, manipulator area 430 that contains buttons that the user may use to insert value manipulators.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
That's where you were going, right?

[00:07:49] Speaker 01:
Such as operators and functions into the formula at the insertion point.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
And you refer to the 451 column for line 14 and lines 52 to 54.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
When I turn to figure four manipulator area though, through which a user adds functions to construct a formula, it includes generic mathematical functions such as addition, subtraction, and converting a number into a percentage.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
What portion of those generic mathematical functions is inventive?

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
invent the idea of using addition on a computer.

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
It's the combination of providing an interface that's simplistic enough for virtually any user to at least tell the computer, I want this piece added with this piece, or this time index data, I want, over a portion of time, I want the greatest heart rate over a portion of time.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
So the user uses the interface you're talking about.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
I don't know if you'll know the answer to this, but when did the first programmable calculators come out?

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
on the market well before 95, right?

[00:09:08] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure that's in the record.

[00:09:11] Speaker 03:
I have no idea.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
But if you're asking for calculators that have buttons or calculators that are programmable.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
Programmable calculators.

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
My background was at Texas Instruments.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
From Texas Instruments.

[00:09:25] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:09:25] Speaker 03:
I did work at Texas Instruments for a while, but I don't know the answer to that for sure.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
I was an engineer there for a while.

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
I don't want to create the record, but when I was in high school in the 80s, I'm pretty sure I was using programmable calculators.

[00:09:39] Speaker 03:
I think the important thing to recognize here in the claims is that it's not directed to a programmable calculation.

[00:09:45] Speaker 03:
It's the idea that you get to have an interface that allows users to provide a string of characters or instructions.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
It's essentially an input like a keyboard.

[00:09:58] Speaker 03:
the software goes in and creates the logic necessary, the coding necessary to apply that information.

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
So it takes basic commands and you have a menu of basic commands like add or greater two or things like that and the interface transforms that into code.

[00:10:18] Speaker 03:
Right, and then, yes.

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
And it creates what the claim calls a formula and it's important to recognize

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
In the claim language itself, it says the formula is... The formula is not application of direct input.

[00:10:31] Speaker 03:
It's not.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
The formula is something beyond the input.

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
What portion of the claim language explains how a formula is constructed besides a user constructing the formula themselves?

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
What is the computer contributing to this process besides allowing a user to create a formula and then store it?

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
So let's refer to Claim 10, for example.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
give us a page reference.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
So on appendix 154, there appears claim 10 of the 451 patent.

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
Okay, go ahead.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
And the point I want to point out is there is a

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
There's an input device, that's starting at line 36, coupled to convey the formula construction subsystem from the user, different pieces of input.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
And the input's specific.

[00:11:39] Speaker 03:
So there's three specific pieces of input that we're looking for in the context of this claim.

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
It's not just any input in general.

[00:11:45] Speaker 03:
So there's three pieces of input identified.

[00:11:48] Speaker 03:
After that, after you receive the input, then there's this memory component.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
And it's important here to recognize that the memory

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
couple to the former construction subsystem to store a formula.

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
And then here's the language I want you to focus on is constructed by the formula construction subsystem.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
So the claim language is very specific that you have input that's provided, three pieces of specific input.

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
And after you receive the input, the formula is not done.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
The formula is not the input.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
The formula construction subsystem explicitly set forth in the claim must be the thing, the software that constructs the formula.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
And that's our point.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
How that is done is set forth in the specification.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
The claims don't need to themselves be enabling.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
I should state, though, that this specific claim language appeared in the original application.

[00:12:39] Speaker 03:
This wasn't added by amendment.

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
So these ideas that the formula is constructed by the formula construction subsystem and not the user appeared as claim language in the original specification.

[00:12:52] Speaker 03:
But how that is to be accomplished

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
as far as taking the input and then constructing the formula is set forth.

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
That's an enablement question within the specification.

[00:13:03] Speaker 03:
We don't feel that's a one-on-one question in terms of whether or not the claim recites something more than the alleged abstract idea.

[00:13:09] Speaker 00:
Do you wish to save any of your time for rebuttal?

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
Yes, I'd like to save five minutes.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
Well, you've already used most of that.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
Okay, let me save the remainder of time.

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:13:19] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
Let me just briefly address some of the questions that were raised during the appellant's presentation.

[00:13:33] Speaker 04:
First of all, the preloaded functions are not claimed by the 451 patent.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
And if you look at claim 10, and this is at the appendix page 154, what the steps of the formula construction subsystem that were described are basically the input, I should say.

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
input from the user selecting from a displayed list of time indexed medical value names, a displayed list of time intervals, and a displayed list of functions, all of which come preloaded into the software, none of which are claimed in the patent.

[00:14:08] Speaker 04:
Second, there was a reference to flexibility.

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
I think it's undisputed that in the 526 patent, there is no reference in the claims to flexibility.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
Instead, what Uniloc is arguing is that by having a user control the organization of the data, by just basically inputting the instructions onto a general purpose computer, that will provide more flexibility over the pre-programmed databases that your honor mentioned.

[00:14:36] Speaker 04:
That's just inherent in having anybody input the data structure themselves.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
There was also a reference to the state of the art, and I just want to make one point clear on that.

[00:14:50] Speaker 04:
It is undisputed that the 526 patent and the 451 patent can be performed on any computer, could be performed on any computer system at the time in 1995.

[00:15:02] Speaker 04:
And we know that because the specifications explicitly state that computer system as used throughout the patent means a general purpose computer.

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
Unilock admitted to the district court that the claims could be practiced on any general purpose computer.

[00:15:16] Speaker 04:
That admission is at page 259 of the appendix.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
And it is quoted or cited by the district court at page five of the appendix in its decision.

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
So there's really no dispute that the state of the art allowed the conventional processing steps that are functionally claimed in these patents.

[00:15:35] Speaker 04:
There's also a reference to linking, for example, as perhaps the inventive concept in the 526 patent.

[00:15:41] Speaker 04:
As the district court properly recognized, there is no description in the claims.

[00:15:48] Speaker 04:
or in the specification for how that step is to be accomplished, because the claim's treated as a purely functional limitation that is assumed to be performable on any general purpose computer at the time.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
And that is true for all of the limitations in these claims.

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
And what you're left with is, with respect to the 526 patent, the abstract idea of organizing patient data into a hierarchy, which Uniloc admits there is no claim that the patent's invented,

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
and putting it on a general purpose computer.

[00:16:20] Speaker 04:
And the limitations of the claims in the 526 patent are insufficient under this court's precedent and under the Alice Supreme Court decision to impart an inventive concept because they provide purely functional limitations that can be performed on any general purpose computer.

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
Unilock's argument appears to be that because this was an advance over the prior art, that that is sufficient to impart an inventive concept.

[00:16:46] Speaker 04:
That is not the test.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
Alice makes clear, and this court's precedent confirms, that it is not whether the patent as a whole is an improvement over the prior art.

[00:16:57] Speaker 04:
It's whether if you take the abstract idea out of the claims, whether the other claim limitations are sufficient to impart an inventive concept drawing them out of the realm of an abstract idea.

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
And that is not the case here.

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
This case is also very unlike Enfish in a couple of important ways.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
The first is that ENFISH claimed to invent a first of its kind self-referential logic table that not only improved how databases function, but thereby improved the functioning of computers.

[00:17:33] Speaker 04:
Uniloc admits that these patents do not claim to have invented hierarchical data structures.

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
Instead, what they claim to have invented is the implementation of those structures on a computer to organize medical information.

[00:17:45] Speaker 04:
That's very different from ENFISH.

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
Furthermore, in ENFISH, you had a specific algorithm for how to create that table and how to create that sufferantial table, which you don't have here remotely.

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
And lastly, and I think this is key, the patents do disparage the prior pre-configured databases as being potentially unfit or not perfectly workable for medical practices.

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
However, the 526 patent is primarily focused upon the maintenance of patient information in physical charts.

[00:18:24] Speaker 04:
The patent does disparage the then existing commercially available alternatives to automate patient information, but as the district court properly recognized, that does not recast the patents as a solution to problems rooted in computer technology.

[00:18:40] Speaker 04:
The only thing these patents teach

[00:18:42] Speaker 04:
is take the abstract concept of organizing patient data in a hierarchy in the 526 patent and then implement it on a general purpose computer using routine processing steps like receiving instructions, displaying selected functions, linking them to particular fields of patient information.

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
So there's nothing in the 526 patent other than that abstract idea implemented on a general purpose computer.

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
In the 451 patent, the abstract idea

[00:19:12] Speaker 04:
is using and constructing a formula for medical information.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
And let's focus on one last point, and that is this concept of a formula construction subsystem.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
Unaloc's primary argument on appeal with respect to the 451 patent is that the district court improperly overlooked the formula construction subsystem.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
That is incorrect.

[00:19:36] Speaker 04:
The court did not specifically use those precise words, but it did address Unaloc's argument

[00:19:42] Speaker 04:
that that was sufficient to impart an inventive concept.

[00:19:45] Speaker 04:
And the point that I just want to raise here is that, first of all, the formula construction subsystem is only found in the apparatus claims, seven and 10.

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
And even in those claims, the formula construction subsystem is just generically described as software that can perform the methods described in the earlier patent ineligible method claims, which Alice teaches cannot save the claims by merely recasting them as an apparatus.

[00:20:08] Speaker 04:
And as we've previously discussed,

[00:20:11] Speaker 04:
the formula construction subsystem merely involves the application of preloaded programmed functions, which again the patent does not claim, selected by the user and applied to the medical information and the inputs provided by the user.

[00:20:25] Speaker 04:
Unless Your Honors have any other questions.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
Mr. Mangrum, you have some rebuttal time.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
You misspoke.

[00:20:33] Speaker 01:
You may have any questions.

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
Oh, sorry.

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
You also misspoke.

[00:20:37] Speaker 00:
You can never tell a court lastly

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
and keep going.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
And then say one final point.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
You already made your final point when you said lastly.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
So just be a little cautious of that, because it's like telling a hungry person that there's food coming and they're not giving it to them.

[00:20:56] Speaker 03:
OK, I'd like to address two points they made just now.

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
One is the Uniloc never said that there was a special purpose computer.

[00:21:03] Speaker 03:
We've cited in our briefing to the Aon Corp case where there

[00:21:08] Speaker 03:
when you have software loaded onto a general purpose computer, it in effect becomes a special purpose computer.

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
That's what the specification says.

[00:21:16] Speaker 03:
It distinguishes its invention from general purpose computers because there is new software that facilitates the type of interaction with the computer, user interaction that enables the claims.

[00:21:27] Speaker 03:
And so it is not, you can't look at the specification and come to the conclusion that the specification is nothing more than what was done on general purpose computers because the specification doesn't allow you to.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
And if I draw your honor's attention, the point we're both referencing is the very latter part of the background section of the 526 patent specification.

[00:21:47] Speaker 03:
So again, there's a distinguishment, express distinguishment.

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
The patent expressly distinguishes the general purpose databases from its invention.

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
Second point, when they say this is not like ENFISH, I want to address that.

[00:22:01] Speaker 03:
There are several reasons why this patent is like ENFISH.

[00:22:05] Speaker 03:
When you look at figure four of the patent, of the 526 patent, there is... Can I have your reference, please?

[00:22:12] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
109.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
Yes, thank you, 109.

[00:22:28] Speaker 03:
What you have there is a parameter definition table.

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
And in the parameter definition table,

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
There's a description of how you have self-referential logical models within the table.

[00:22:39] Speaker 03:
So in claim one, it addresses the description, corresponding descriptions with the first row, the top row.

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
In claim one, you create a new parameter, cough, and then you have link to parameters, 10,013 and 10,014.

[00:22:53] Speaker 03:
You know they're linked to parameters because of what's included in column 403.

[00:22:56] Speaker 03:
It says yes.

[00:22:58] Speaker 03:
So that column, 403, provides a definition that is then used self-referentially in column

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
406 to define what that information means.

[00:23:08] Speaker 03:
If you look at Enfish, it's very, very similar.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
Now, Enfish said that there was no user, I recognize I'm out of my time, but my point is I want to draw your Honor's attention to the description and our papers brief us extensively on why that figure proves that there's a correlation with the Enfish analysis that should apply here.

[00:23:28] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank both counsel.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
The case is taken under submission.