[00:00:00] Speaker 03: The next case for argument is 19-1145, Blackberry versus Google. [00:01:20] Speaker 03: I think we're ready when you are. [00:01:22] Speaker 03: Good morning. [00:01:27] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:01:28] Speaker 01: Ching-Lee Fukuda on behalf of Appellant Blackberry. [00:01:30] Speaker 01: May it please the court? [00:01:33] Speaker 01: So we know that obviousness is often susceptible to improper hindsight analysis. [00:01:38] Speaker 01: And that is why the Supreme Court and this court have set out clear precedents to avoid such hindsight analysis. [00:01:44] Speaker 01: The board's decision regarding claim four of the 384 Patent Net issue here [00:01:50] Speaker 01: is a classic example of such hindsight analysis. [00:01:54] Speaker 01: Now, you'll understand from reading the 384 patent that the Blackberry Invention Act issue here in claim four [00:02:03] Speaker 01: is putting a lot of information that's happening. [00:02:06] Speaker 03: Can I just clarify where we are here? [00:02:07] Speaker 03: Because there are quite a number of claims at issue. [00:02:10] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:02:10] Speaker 03: So the main claims, the claim for is the cell phone implementation of CADIS. [00:02:15] Speaker 03: So that's not, a large portion of this is focused on issues other than that, right? [00:02:21] Speaker 03: So you're jumping right to the claim for issue. [00:02:23] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:02:24] Speaker 01: I want to make sure that this focuses on the fact that the error that happened with respect to claim for first. [00:02:31] Speaker 01: What the board did was to rely on certain specific embodiments in Cadiz to find every element of the independent claim one either disclosed or obvious. [00:02:43] Speaker 01: And then went over to claim four and said, the additional element of a cell phone, well, Cadiz discloses a cell phone, and therefore it's all there. [00:02:54] Speaker 01: And that is improper, because what Cadiz does not disclose [00:02:57] Speaker 01: is that the specific implementations that were relied on for claim one can be implemented on a cell phone. [00:03:05] Speaker 01: There is no evidence of that. [00:03:06] Speaker 01: And in fact, Cadiz itself teaches that you wouldn't do it that way if you were at all trying to put these implementations on a handheld device. [00:03:16] Speaker 01: So what happens is the board forgot what was not known 15 years ago in 2004. [00:03:25] Speaker 01: The first iPhone was years away from being on the market. [00:03:28] Speaker 01: Blackberry devices were the very first handheld devices to capture the market. [00:03:33] Speaker 01: And Blackberry then had to solve the problem of cramming this large amount of information from multiple, multiple applications onto a tiny screen on a cell phone. [00:03:42] Speaker 01: So what may seem obvious now was not so 15 years ago. [00:03:47] Speaker 01: What the board did do is to rely solely on the attorney argument and against the evidence to find that the Cadiz reference [00:03:55] Speaker 02: Describes is it your view that the board found that cadiz discloses application on a cell phone or that the board said it would be obvious to Put it on a cell phone based on cadiz I'm trying to understand is your argument that the board incorrectly found it was disclosed expressly in the reference or that It didn't find it was disclosed in the reference, but rather found it would be obvious in light of what was disclosed in the reference What is your take on the board's opinion? [00:04:24] Speaker 01: The board found that Cadiz disclosed cell phone, or putting the implementations on his cell phone. [00:04:32] Speaker 01: And it expressly said so in its order. [00:04:34] Speaker 02: Yeah, but it did. [00:04:35] Speaker 02: It said Cadiz discloses the limitations of claim four. [00:04:38] Speaker 02: And the very next sentence says, and Cadiz claim four would have been obvious over Cadiz. [00:04:42] Speaker 02: So the hard thing for me to reconcile is that feels like two separate decisions on my point. [00:04:49] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:04:50] Speaker 02: So I don't think you just have to overcome whether it discloses it. [00:04:54] Speaker 02: I think you actually have to overcome also whether it's obvious in light of what's disclosed in Cadiz. [00:04:59] Speaker 01: Your Honor, you're right that the ground ultimately against claim four that was adopted by the board was one of obviousness. [00:05:05] Speaker 01: But the obviousness argument was with respect to two elements in claim one. [00:05:10] Speaker 01: So the board had found that every element of claim one was in Cadiz and that the other two were obvious. [00:05:16] Speaker 01: And that was the selectable link element [00:05:19] Speaker 01: as well as the fact that the selectable link can invoke the application. [00:05:25] Speaker 01: Those were the only two arguments in Google's petition about obviousness. [00:05:28] Speaker 01: Google never set forth an obviousness argument with respect to Cadiz's disclosure on a cell phone. [00:05:34] Speaker 01: In fact, consistently throughout the petition, Google argued that Cadiz discloses these implementations on a cell phone. [00:05:42] Speaker 01: And the board, in its final decision, also adopted that. [00:05:46] Speaker 01: And with respect to the analysis of claim four, the board said, [00:05:49] Speaker 01: Obviousness with respect to claim one. [00:05:51] Speaker 01: But Cadiz discloses the cell phone limitation. [00:05:55] Speaker 01: So ultimately, when you put claim one and four together, it's one of obviousness. [00:06:00] Speaker 01: So I think it's important to pick out the fact that the cell phone implementation was on the basis of Cadiz's disclosure, not that it would have been obvious to implement that information on a cell phone. [00:06:14] Speaker 01: There's no argument on motivation. [00:06:17] Speaker 01: to put all those specific elements? [00:06:20] Speaker 02: Well, the motivation is expressed in Cadiz, because Cadiz says various elements may be reduced in size or limited to part of the display. [00:06:28] Speaker 02: It emphasizes that itself. [00:06:30] Speaker 02: So I don't say there's no motivation. [00:06:32] Speaker 02: I don't understand. [00:06:33] Speaker 02: It discloses a number of interfaces. [00:06:37] Speaker 02: In earlier embodiments, it says they could be on well-known devices, including cell phones. [00:06:42] Speaker 02: And later in body months, it doesn't say they can't be on cell phones. [00:06:46] Speaker 02: So I guess I just don't understand what, even if you're right about the idea that it doesn't expressly disclose the person-centric or email-centric interfaces on cell phones themselves, even if it doesn't disclose it, hard for me to imagine anybody reading that wouldn't understand it as at least suggesting it. [00:07:07] Speaker 01: So what Cadiz asked me to disclose is, [00:07:13] Speaker 01: The only thing that it talked about with respect to a handheld device is in figure 6C. [00:07:19] Speaker 01: And if you look at paragraph 63 of Cadiz, it says, the embodiment wherein the entire display is covered is particularly useful where the system and method of the present invention will be used on a device having a relatively small display area. [00:07:39] Speaker 01: such as, for example, a handheld or palm top computing device, a cell phone, and so forth. [00:07:45] Speaker 01: So what Kadiz is teaching is if you're going to take our implementations and put it on something like a cell phone, what happens is what's claimed to be that dynamic bar, that first element that we're talking about here, that dynamic bar takes up the entire display. [00:07:58] Speaker 01: Because the cell phone and the handheld device screen is so small, that dynamic bar takes up the entire display. [00:08:03] Speaker 01: And that's it. [00:08:04] Speaker 01: That's all Kadiz says. [00:08:05] Speaker 01: It doesn't say that now you have any room left [00:08:08] Speaker 01: to expand the dynamic bar into an expanded dynamic bar and be able to access additional information with selectable links in there that would allow you to then invoke the applications. [00:08:20] Speaker 01: And in fact, both sides expert agreed that there are differences in the designs between a desktop and a cell phone that would create problems like this. [00:08:32] Speaker 01: Both sides experts agreed that there'll be differences in processing power, [00:08:37] Speaker 01: in memory, in screen resolution, that may make this. [00:08:40] Speaker 01: You can't just take every disclosure in Cadiz and automatically say, we can put this on a cell phone. [00:08:46] Speaker 01: Because Cadiz says, if you're going to put it on a cell phone, take up the entire display. [00:08:50] Speaker 01: That's all Cadiz says. [00:08:52] Speaker 01: And what Google and the board failed to acknowledge is that, against the weight of the teaching by Cadiz, they said, you know what? [00:09:00] Speaker 01: A person of ordinary skill in the art could have, right? [00:09:05] Speaker 01: That's a key word. [00:09:06] Speaker 01: They didn't say would have. [00:09:07] Speaker 01: They said the POSA could have implemented this on a cell phone. [00:09:12] Speaker 01: Well, there's absolutely no disclosure of that. [00:09:14] Speaker 02: Well, you're spending all your time on this one little narrow claim for issue about cell phone, which, honestly, the best it possibly gets you is a vacate and remand. [00:09:24] Speaker 02: And then, honestly, the board adopts in a clearer fashion exactly the rationale that you don't want them to adopt. [00:09:30] Speaker 02: I mean, that's the end result here. [00:09:31] Speaker 02: I mean, you're not going to win on that one. [00:09:35] Speaker 02: I'm not saying you won't win with us, but you're not ultimately going to walk out victorious on claim four because the Cadiz reference gives enough for the board to readily conclude. [00:09:43] Speaker 02: It's obvious in a clearer way than it already did. [00:09:47] Speaker 02: So why don't you move to your claim construction argument, which I think was sort of the prominent one in your brief. [00:09:53] Speaker 02: I mean, you're just spending so much time on this one narrow little issue that I don't feel like you have a lot of long-term success on. [00:10:00] Speaker 02: Do you want to maybe move to the other issue? [00:10:02] Speaker 01: I will do so in one second. [00:10:05] Speaker 01: But I do think it's important to note that Google's petition does not rely on obviousness for the cell phone limitation. [00:10:10] Speaker 01: And I think that if it goes back to the board, that won't be an argument we pursue, that this is not an obviousness argument with respect to that limitation. [00:10:18] Speaker 01: Moving on to the claim construction issue, so another error that the board committed was with respect to the selectable link that's embedded in the additional dynamic preview information. [00:10:29] Speaker 01: The board ignored a number of things, which led to an error in claim construction. [00:10:36] Speaker 01: It ignored the plain language of the claim, which is that the selectable link must be embedded in the additional dynamic preview information. [00:10:48] Speaker 01: So the board made two errors. [00:10:49] Speaker 01: First, it said the additional dynamic preview information does not all need to be dynamic, that it can include static information. [00:10:58] Speaker 01: But then the board took it even further, became even more erroneous, to say that now the selectable link can be completely static. [00:11:07] Speaker 01: Because the additional preview information does not only need to be dynamic, then the static portion can be the link. [00:11:13] Speaker 01: Now that is completely unsupported by any of the intrinsic evidence. [00:11:16] Speaker 01: The claim language says that the link has to be embedded in that dynamic information. [00:11:20] Speaker 01: The specification makes clear that the dynamic information are counts of emails. [00:11:26] Speaker 01: So for example, [00:11:27] Speaker 01: 50 unread emails, right? [00:11:30] Speaker 01: That 50 is dynamic. [00:11:31] Speaker 01: It changes. [00:11:32] Speaker 01: And that 50 is the link. [00:11:33] Speaker 01: That's selectable. [00:11:35] Speaker 01: And finally, perhaps one of the most grossest error here is that the board completely ignored the Blackberry applicant's statement during the prosecution, which clarified or distinguished over a piece of prior art. [00:11:50] Speaker 01: So the prior art had a static mail icon next to dynamic information. [00:11:56] Speaker 01: And Blackberry told the patent office, this is not our invention. [00:12:01] Speaker 01: Our invention, in fact, it amended the claims, added the embedded language, and said, our invention has the link embedded in the dynamic information. [00:12:10] Speaker 01: And the board disregarded all of those statements, did not find disclaimer, and ultimately led to its erroneous conclusion. [00:12:16] Speaker 02: Do you think the call voicemail link is also entirely dynamic? [00:12:23] Speaker 01: No, Your Honor. [00:12:24] Speaker 02: Which is 610. [00:12:25] Speaker 02: It's number 610, right? [00:12:27] Speaker 01: That's correct. [00:12:28] Speaker 01: The call voicemail link is not a selectable link embedded in dynamic information. [00:12:36] Speaker 02: The specification expressly says that the call voicemail link is exemplary of the type of link, and it never mentions the 50 unread, which is the email one that you're mentioning. [00:12:50] Speaker 02: It never talks about that. [00:12:51] Speaker 02: Yes, it's in the spec, this 50 unread, and it's underlined, so I assume it's a link. [00:12:55] Speaker 02: But when the spec talks about an actual link that meets, I think, the claim requirements, it's talking about call voicemail. [00:13:02] Speaker 02: It's the only one it calls out in the discussion. [00:13:04] Speaker 02: And that's not dynamic. [00:13:06] Speaker 02: So how do you? [00:13:08] Speaker 01: So the specification calls out the call voicemail link as a link. [00:13:12] Speaker 01: The specification does not call that a selectable link embedded in the dynamic information. [00:13:17] Speaker 01: So you may recall during the prosecution that the claims originally started out very broad. [00:13:22] Speaker 01: And all of this additional embedded language was amended to overcome the prior art. [00:13:27] Speaker 01: And that's exactly the prior art I was talking about earlier, where in order to distinguish over a prior art reference that had a static link next to dynamic information, Blackberry added the embedded language to say that here we're narrowing our invention to show that the link must be embedded in dynamic information. [00:13:46] Speaker 01: So the call voicemail link may be a link here. [00:13:49] Speaker 01: But it's a static link, and it is not part of the ultimately narrowed claimed invention in the 3A4 patent. [00:13:55] Speaker 03: You're into your rebuttal time, so why don't we hear from the other side? [00:13:59] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:14:24] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:14:25] Speaker 00: May it please the Court. [00:14:26] Speaker 00: The Board correctly construed the selectable link limitations. [00:14:31] Speaker 00: In any event, even if Blackberry's construction is adopted, the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence. [00:14:37] Speaker 00: Let me explain why. [00:14:39] Speaker 00: So I'd like to start with the claim construction issue. [00:14:42] Speaker 00: So if you look at the plain language of the claim, and I want to remind the Court, we're talking about claim construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard here. [00:14:51] Speaker 00: So if you look at the claim language, [00:14:53] Speaker 00: The claim language broadly recites a selectable link, whether or not it includes dynamic information. [00:15:00] Speaker 00: The claim language does not modify or qualify the selectable link term in any manner that would require it to include dynamic information. [00:15:08] Speaker 02: Similarly, the claim says the additional dynamic preview information comprising a selectable link. [00:15:15] Speaker 02: So isn't that suggestive of the fact that the link has to be dynamic? [00:15:20] Speaker 00: Your Honor, that's certainly the argument to make. [00:15:22] Speaker 00: We respectfully disagree. [00:15:23] Speaker 02: You started by saying nothing in the claim suggests this. [00:15:26] Speaker 02: And I think they've got a strong argument that the claim suggests this. [00:15:29] Speaker 02: They may not prevail, but I think that you're dramatically overstating your case about the plain language of the claim. [00:15:35] Speaker 00: And Your Honor, we can look at the rest of the intrinsic evidence. [00:15:38] Speaker 00: We believe the claim language doesn't support them. [00:15:40] Speaker 00: But as this Court is aware, the claims need to be construed in light of the specifications, especially in light of the standard that we have here. [00:15:47] Speaker 00: So if you look at the specification, I think the specification language that Your Honor, you pointed to, Judge Moore, is fatal to their argument here. [00:15:55] Speaker 00: So let me just go to that language first. [00:15:57] Speaker 00: And that's at A79, column 7, 60 to 66. [00:16:03] Speaker 00: There, in describing figure six, the specification describes preview information as comprising a count 608 and a link 610. [00:16:14] Speaker 00: And what's more important here is that that particular language is what they pointed to during prosecution. [00:16:20] Speaker 00: So if you look at A977, that's part of the prosecution history, they actually pointed to this particular passage in the specification as support [00:16:30] Speaker 00: for the selectable link limitation that they want this court to construe differently today. [00:16:34] Speaker 00: So we think their representations to the patent office during prosecution about [00:16:40] Speaker 00: this language in the specification is fatal here. [00:16:43] Speaker 00: What's more, if you look at other passages in the specification, for example, if you look at A79, column 7, line 52 to 59, that talks about the missed call from NNN, there's no dispute here that missed call from NNN would include both dynamic information and static information. [00:17:02] Speaker 00: And the specification calls that collectively as dynamic preview information. [00:17:07] Speaker 00: So we believe the specification simply does not support their argument. [00:17:11] Speaker 00: And then if you look at figure four, which is the other figure that they again relied on during prosecution, that also does not support their argument. [00:17:19] Speaker 00: Just like the other figures, it discloses static text. [00:17:24] Speaker 00: And what they would agree and we would agree is dynamic information. [00:17:28] Speaker 00: So the fact that if you look at the specification holistically and even the specific passages, the specification clearly describes dynamic preview information as including both static information and dynamic information. [00:17:41] Speaker 00: So the board did get this right. [00:17:43] Speaker 00: Then with respect to the prosecution history, we believe that also supports the board's construction. [00:17:50] Speaker 00: The board looked at the prosecution history, it evaluated both parties' arguments, and disagreed with Blackberry. [00:17:57] Speaker 00: So they like to point to two statements in the prosecution history. [00:18:00] Speaker 00: But if you look at them, for example, at A902, there's nothing in the prosecution history that tells you that the selectable link has to include dynamic information. [00:18:11] Speaker 00: Similarly, they point to at A925, they point to presentation of static icons, for example, in a dynamic bar being different from the dynamic preview information. [00:18:21] Speaker 00: And if you look at that too, again, [00:18:23] Speaker 00: There's nothing there that tells you that the link has to include dynamic information. [00:18:29] Speaker 00: In fact, if you look at claim 13 of the 384 pattern that's at A81, that actually tells you that a link or an icon can be included as part of the dynamic preview information. [00:18:42] Speaker 00: So we think all of these pieces of evidence, the intrinsic evidence, supports the board's construction and the court should affirm that construction, especially in light of their statements about Figure 6. [00:18:54] Speaker 00: So if there are no other questions on the claim construction issue, [00:18:58] Speaker 00: I'd like to turn quickly to the claim for issue. [00:19:00] Speaker 03: I thought you started by saying, even if you don't agree with claim construction, you've got the alternative of substantial evidence. [00:19:08] Speaker 03: So did you finish that point? [00:19:10] Speaker 00: I did not, Your Honor. [00:19:10] Speaker 00: I'm happy to address that. [00:19:12] Speaker 00: And I think it is an important point, which is that the court actually need not reach the claim construction issue here. [00:19:18] Speaker 00: It can simply affirm the board on these substantial evidence issues. [00:19:22] Speaker 00: And with respect to, for example, the person-centric interface, as Your Honor knows, there were multiple reasons why the board found the claims invalid here. [00:19:30] Speaker 00: With respect to the person-centric interface, leaving aside the issue, we believe that argument is waived on appeal. [00:19:36] Speaker 00: Leaving that aside, the board did a very nice job here. [00:19:40] Speaker 00: It looked at all the evidence. [00:19:41] Speaker 00: It considered all the arguments and provided a well-reasoned decision. [00:19:44] Speaker 00: So for example, the board [00:19:47] Speaker 00: looked at Google's arguments and the expert testimony from Google, where it showed why one ordinary skill would have motivation to take the dynamic text in window 825 of Cadiz and turn it into a selectable link. [00:20:01] Speaker 00: That's at A198199 was Google's petition. [00:20:03] Speaker 00: We have supporting evidence from Dr. Olson at A10 to appendix A12. [00:20:10] Speaker 00: Cadiz itself tells you how you would generate links. [00:20:14] Speaker 00: It tells you you can use HTML. [00:20:16] Speaker 00: That said, again, testimony from Dr. Olson, paragraph 86, at appendix 810. [00:20:22] Speaker 00: The board gives reasons why you would have the motivation. [00:20:25] Speaker 00: It said, [00:20:26] Speaker 00: this would provide a better user experience because the amount of visual clutter on the display would have been reduced. [00:20:33] Speaker 00: Again, with supporting testimony from Dr. Olson. [00:20:36] Speaker 00: So when you view the evidence, more than substantial evidence supports the board's finding with respect to the person-centric interface. [00:20:42] Speaker 00: Then with respect to the email-centric interface, Judge Prost, quickly addressing that, that's another independent basis for affirming the board's decision here. [00:20:51] Speaker 00: So if you look at the email-centric interface, what the evidence shows there is that board made factual findings about the reference, Cadiz. [00:20:59] Speaker 00: It said paragraph 72 of Cadiz. [00:21:01] Speaker 00: What it tells you is that there is a limited email functionality that's provided by Cadiz. [00:21:06] Speaker 00: That's a factual finding made by the board based on the evidence it evaluated, and the board found [00:21:12] Speaker 00: based on that, that there would have been motivation, there would have been reasons to modify that interface, the email-centric interface of Cadiz, to provide a fully functioning email software. [00:21:23] Speaker 00: Again, all of that is supported by the testimony that's underlying the board's decision. [00:21:29] Speaker 00: And we believe substantial evidence more than supports the board's decision here. [00:21:34] Speaker 00: So Judge Proce, unless you have any other questions on substantial evidence issues, I can turn to claim for it. [00:21:39] Speaker 00: Judge Moore, did you have a question? [00:21:41] Speaker 00: I know we got cut off. [00:21:43] Speaker 00: Okay, so if we go to claim for Again, we believe substantial evidence supports the board's finding with respect to claim for I think the board again if you look at the board's decision it steps through the evidence and and I think we have to step back for a minute as Judge Moore pointed out if you look at Cadiz Cadiz is directed to a system and process for providing dynamic agree that the board expressly said in its decision that Cadiz discloses the limitations of claim for that [00:22:13] Speaker 02: Thus, Cadiz discloses the cell phone. [00:22:17] Speaker 00: So Your Honor, it certainly made that finding, but it also, this is an obviousness ground. [00:22:21] Speaker 00: And I think Blackberry itself, it complains to the court today that it didn't understand Google's argument to be an obviousness one. [00:22:28] Speaker 02: But if you actually look at the underlying record, and I'll point you to- Show me your petition and where you said that cell phone was claimed for. [00:22:36] Speaker 02: would be obvious in light of Cadiz, even if it's not disclosed therein. [00:22:40] Speaker 02: Show me that in your petition. [00:22:41] Speaker 02: Because what the patent owner argues isn't relevant, what defines the contours of an IPR is your petition. [00:22:47] Speaker 00: Sure, Your Honor. [00:22:49] Speaker 00: So I think if you look at the petition, for example. [00:22:52] Speaker 00: What page? [00:22:54] Speaker 00: Let me get to that page, Your Honor. [00:22:55] Speaker 00: So we can start at. [00:23:11] Speaker 00: So it's A203, Your Honor, is where the Claim 4 is discussed, Appendix 203. [00:23:20] Speaker 00: And actually maybe we can start with, Your Honor, if you go back to Appendix 155. [00:23:40] Speaker 00: So Appendix 155 obviously is the table of contents for the petition. [00:23:44] Speaker 00: That sets forth the ground here. [00:23:47] Speaker 00: This was an obvious ground for claims, all of the claims as you can see. [00:23:50] Speaker 00: So then if you turn to Claim 4, Claim 4 depends from Claim 1, and as Your Honor is aware, we obviously have some obvious dispositions with respect to Claim 4. [00:23:59] Speaker 00: And then when we got to Claim 4 on pages 45 to 46, we basically pointed back to the evidence that we relied on for Claim 1. [00:24:09] Speaker 00: and also all the passages where Cadiz discloses that its invention is suitable for use in a cellular phone. [00:24:18] Speaker 02: And then if you look at their... Just to be clear, so on page 203 to 204, I understand your argument to be Cadiz discloses the cell phone, not that Cadiz renders the cell phone obvious. [00:24:33] Speaker 02: I understand that [00:24:34] Speaker 02: You said obvious is with regard to claim four, but that's because on claim one there are, she's correct, there are two limitations that you recognize are not in fact taught by Cadiz and you call them out and you explain why Cadiz renders those limitations obvious. [00:24:47] Speaker 02: And you do so in a methodical fashion and very [00:24:50] Speaker 02: very well, but with regard to claim four, you don't do that. [00:24:55] Speaker 00: We do not do that, Your Honor, and I don't think it's necessary, it wasn't necessary for us to do that. [00:24:59] Speaker 00: And again, I would just point, I want to just give you one side and then I'll go back to why we believe we win under even the disclosure arguments we made. [00:25:07] Speaker 00: The citation I wanted to give you quickly is, it said A409 and A413, that's their patented response. [00:25:15] Speaker 00: where they understood our argument to be more than just disclosure. [00:25:19] Speaker 00: They said Kadiz does not disclose or render obvious claim for. [00:25:22] Speaker 02: Yes, but that's because of your claim one point. [00:25:24] Speaker 02: I mean, this does not help you. [00:25:25] Speaker 02: You're overstating again. [00:25:28] Speaker 00: Fine, Your Honor. [00:25:29] Speaker 00: I think if we want to focus just on the disclosure arguments that Kadiz discloses, its invention would be suitable for use on a cell phone, we still think this court should affirm. [00:25:41] Speaker 00: And let me explain why. [00:25:42] Speaker 00: So if we go back to Kadiz, the way Kadiz is set up is it starts out in saying, well, its invention is a new system and process for providing dynamic communication access and information awareness in an interactive peripheral display. [00:25:57] Speaker 00: And that's at A1522 paragraph two. [00:25:59] Speaker 00: Then Cadiz repeatedly states that its teachings are suitable for well-known computing devices, including a cell phone. [00:26:08] Speaker 00: It goes on. [00:26:09] Speaker 00: It doesn't stop there. [00:26:10] Speaker 00: It goes on, and it explains the invention with respect to figures one, two, three, four, eight, and five. [00:26:15] Speaker 00: And I think Judge Moore, you had earlier alluded to those figures as describing its invention. [00:26:20] Speaker 00: And again, when it describes those, it talks about a cell phone. [00:26:24] Speaker 00: Then we get to the specific working examples, which are figures 6B, 8A through 8C, and 10. [00:26:32] Speaker 00: It tells us those are merely exemplary screen images that are represented in Kadees. [00:26:39] Speaker 00: And Kadees, again, tells us that you would have been able to use all of the invention on a cell phone. [00:26:49] Speaker 00: And I know they like to point to the testimony from the experts, which says that there are several factors to be considered to put an image that's on a desktop on a cell phone. [00:27:00] Speaker 00: But they omit the testimony from Dr. Olson, where he testified that figure 10, in fact, would have been implemented. [00:27:05] Speaker 00: A person could have implemented that on a cell phone. [00:27:07] Speaker 00: And that's at A4274. [00:27:08] Speaker 02: Yes, but that's what a person could do. [00:27:12] Speaker 02: That isn't what Cadiz discloses. [00:27:14] Speaker 02: You said Cadiz discloses this implementation on a cell phone. [00:27:18] Speaker 02: not whether a person of skill could make it work on a cell phone. [00:27:22] Speaker 00: And, Your Honor, I respectfully believe that it does disclose it. [00:27:26] Speaker 00: And the reason it discloses it, if we can go back to the board. [00:27:29] Speaker 02: So, for example... Because, I mean, what we're concerned about is the person-centric and email-centric interfaces, right? [00:27:35] Speaker 02: I just don't see where they're expressly disclosed as being capable of being applied on a cell phone. [00:27:41] Speaker 00: Sure, Your Honor. [00:27:42] Speaker 00: And I think you have to look at, I think if you go back to look at the board's decision and the way the board explained its decision, I believe it gives us the roadmap that we need to look at here. [00:27:51] Speaker 00: So if you look at A47, the board said, Cadiz repeatedly references the use of the invention generally on cell phones, right? [00:27:59] Speaker 00: And it gives you a bunch of paragraphs. [00:28:00] Speaker 00: There's no dispute that Cadiz does that. [00:28:03] Speaker 00: Then Cadiz also discloses an embodiment that they talked about, figure 6C. [00:28:07] Speaker 00: If you actually look at the description of figure 6C, it tells you that the tickets and the implementation that's in the other interfaces also applies to 6C. [00:28:16] Speaker 00: So it's not as limited as they want to suggest. [00:28:19] Speaker 00: Then the board went on and made a factual finding. [00:28:22] Speaker 00: They said Cadiz does not expressly disclose, but the general disclosures in Cadiz [00:28:28] Speaker 00: We agree with Petitioner that a fair reading of Cadiz in that those later embodiments build on earlier general concepts and that one of ordinary skill would understand that the later embodiments could also be implemented on a cell phone. [00:28:39] Speaker 00: The board didn't stop there, Judge Moore. [00:28:41] Speaker 00: It went on and told you why one of skill would have been able to take a desktop interface and put it on a cell phone. [00:28:47] Speaker 00: Well, Cadiz tells you, you can resize the containers, right, the sidebars. [00:28:51] Speaker 00: You can resize the viewers. [00:28:53] Speaker 00: So it tells you that. [00:28:55] Speaker 00: And I think what's telling here is Blackberry never argues that the interfaces here could not have been displayed on a cell phone. [00:29:02] Speaker 00: We're talking, they're making a mountain out of a molehill. [00:29:05] Speaker 00: This is a simple limitation. [00:29:06] Speaker 02: It would not have been displayed. [00:29:08] Speaker 02: Again, isn't the right test. [00:29:10] Speaker 02: The question isn't whether a skilled artist could read Cadiz and figure out how [00:29:14] Speaker 02: to put it on a cell phone. [00:29:15] Speaker 02: The question is whether Kadiz actually discloses it on a cell phone. [00:29:19] Speaker 00: And, Your Honor, with all due respect, we believe Kadiz does based on the passages that I pointed to. [00:29:25] Speaker 00: If you look at figures one through three, four, and five, again, those are the general descriptions of Kadiz. [00:29:30] Speaker 00: But it talks about when it's talking with the system in a generic fashion. [00:29:33] Speaker 00: It tells you, for example, the person-centric interfaces [00:29:36] Speaker 00: The email centric interfaces would have been implemented in a wide variety of environments, including a cell phone. [00:29:42] Speaker 00: We think that's more than substantial evidence. [00:29:43] Speaker 02: Where does it say that, particularly? [00:29:46] Speaker 00: So, Your Honor, for example, if you look at... One paragraph. [00:29:49] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:29:50] Speaker 00: So if you look at 1526, paragraph 50 of Cadiz. [00:30:09] Speaker 00: So paragraph 50, it's the second sentence, Your Honor. [00:30:13] Speaker 00: It says, examples of well-known computing devices, systems, and environments and or configurations that are suitable for use with the invention include, but are not limited to including a cell phone. [00:30:26] Speaker 00: So that's one example. [00:30:27] Speaker 00: I can give you others, Your Honor, if you like. [00:30:29] Speaker 00: I know, Judge Prost, I'm out of time. [00:30:31] Speaker 00: But I'm happy to give you a couple other examples, Judge Moore, if you like. [00:30:35] Speaker 00: Well, that's fine. [00:30:35] Speaker 00: OK. [00:30:36] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:30:46] Speaker 01: So Judge Moore, I'm going to harp on claim four for just one minute, because it's an important claim. [00:30:51] Speaker 01: You're right that in the board's decision, appendix 47, all in one paragraph, the error is made plain. [00:30:58] Speaker 01: Board starts with saying, we understand petitioner's argument to be that Cadiz discloses use of the person-centric and email-centric interfaces on a cell phone. [00:31:07] Speaker 01: And then the board proceeds to say that Cadiz does not expressly disclose. [00:31:11] Speaker 01: No, they don't say that. [00:31:12] Speaker 01: That's right. [00:31:12] Speaker 01: And then ultimately, they don't say that. [00:31:14] Speaker 02: They don't think Cadiz does not expressly disclose. [00:31:16] Speaker 02: Where do they say that? [00:31:17] Speaker 01: Right there. [00:31:20] Speaker 01: So first sentence's paragraph was the first thing I read. [00:31:22] Speaker 01: Then you skip two sentences. [00:31:24] Speaker 01: And the fourth sentence of the paragraph says, while Cadiz does not expressly disclose, employing a person centric. [00:31:31] Speaker 02: I do see what you're saying. [00:31:34] Speaker 02: But I understand. [00:31:35] Speaker 02: Your problem is that I understand them as saying. [00:31:39] Speaker 02: that throughout in like seven or eight or 10 different paragraphs, this reference says, this invention can be employed on things like a cell phone. [00:31:50] Speaker 02: And then there's a particular embodiment later on, which is of the same ilk of all the ones disclosed as being employable on a cell phone. [00:32:00] Speaker 02: And I understand the board is saying, this disclosure, likewise, [00:32:06] Speaker 02: is that that can be on a cell phone, because they're saying the invention. [00:32:10] Speaker 02: And there's no doubt that the person-centric and email-centric versions later on are part of the invention. [00:32:15] Speaker 02: And they're saying the invention can be on a cell phone. [00:32:18] Speaker 02: So I think what they're saying is in the place where they talk about person-centric and email-centric, they don't mention cell phone. [00:32:24] Speaker 02: But since they mention it in eight different places and say the invention can be put on a cell phone, I think [00:32:30] Speaker 02: I'll be honest. [00:32:30] Speaker 02: I just want to lay my reasoning out for you. [00:32:32] Speaker 02: I think that's the fairest reading of the board's analysis. [00:32:35] Speaker 01: Understood, Your Honor. [00:32:36] Speaker 01: But what Cadiz teaches is that the generic invention can be implemented on a cell phone. [00:32:41] Speaker 01: But then Cadiz gives multiple different implementations. [00:32:45] Speaker 01: And just to note, for claim one, what the board relied on are the implementations in figures 6b, [00:32:52] Speaker 01: 8, A through C, and 10. [00:32:55] Speaker 01: So those specific implementations, there's absolutely no disclosure. [00:32:58] Speaker 01: You could do that on a cell phone. [00:33:00] Speaker 01: And in fact, Cadiz in paragraph 176 teaches that different user interfaces are implemented on different platforms. [00:33:07] Speaker 01: The example that's used at the end of paragraph 176 is that you can even do it via a physical icon, such as, for example, a doll that turns its head to one side when a person or entity which it represents [00:33:19] Speaker 01: is either available or unavailable. [00:33:21] Speaker 01: If you use a physical doll to indicate whether somebody is available or not available, you cannot implement the specific implementations of person-centric and email-centric, disclosing those other figures on a doll. [00:33:34] Speaker 01: So just because Kadiz says you could do this on a number of different platforms does not mean that you can take every single implementation and actually put it on every single platform. [00:33:44] Speaker 01: And if anything, Kadiz says, you need to do it differently, depending on what your implementation is. [00:33:49] Speaker 01: And then Cadiz does not teach you that you can do this person-centric and email-centric on a cell phone. [00:33:57] Speaker 01: I think I'm out of time. [00:33:58] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:34:00] Speaker 03: The case is submitted, and then we move on to the related case.