[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
And perhaps we can start off by telling us what the differences are so that we don't repeat ourselves.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court, Sharon Leon, on behalf of Appellant Blackberry.

[00:00:24] Speaker 00:
So as Your Honor mentioned, these two cases are related.

[00:00:28] Speaker 00:
And so I would like to focus on the two

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
issues that are unique to this case.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
And then I'll also touch on the arguments with respect to the email-centric interface, which wasn't really discussed in the previous argument.

[00:00:42] Speaker 00:
So starting with dependent claims.

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
Is that claim aid?

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
So dependent claims aid and 19 are also issues that are unique to the 1146 proceeding.

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
The email-centric interface argument that I was referring to is with respect to the independent claims.

[00:01:02] Speaker 00:
So I'll start with claims 8 and 19, which require an interface element that identifies a wireless networking function in the expanded dynamic bar.

[00:01:12] Speaker 00:
The board did not provide any explanation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a wireless networking function, which is a system level configuration option, to CADESA's application level person window 825, which we know provides contact availability information, or email window 1020,

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
which provides a list of received email messages.

[00:01:35] Speaker 00:
It makes no sense to include a wireless networking function to either Cadiz's person window or email window.

[00:01:42] Speaker 00:
And there's no motivation for doing so, other than using the 466 patent as a roadmap.

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
The board did make a finding that a user, a person who already is going to the art would have been motivated to modify

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
Cadiz's person window and email window so that a user could turn on and off Cadiz's notifications related to the additional dynamic preview information displayed in the Cadiz's person window and email window.

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
So there are other issues with that finding.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
But even if we take that finding as true, that does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have placed

[00:02:23] Speaker 00:
a notification regarding wireless networking function, which is unrelated to the information in the person window and the email window into those windows.

[00:02:32] Speaker 00:
And there's no evidence to support that.

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
Is your argument predicated on me accepting your view that the quick settings menu operates at the system level as opposed to as a user level, application level?

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
So that is one layer of the argument.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
No, but does your whole argument predicated on me accepting that?

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
Can you prevail on that argument if I don't agree with you that it's limited to the system level?

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
With respect to claims 8 and 19, those claims specifically require this wireless networking function.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
So even if you reject the fact that Seda-Likowski discloses system level configuration options, the wireless network function has no relationship to the information in the person window and the email window.

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
But that's the finding that the board made.

[00:03:23] Speaker 00:
The board said that there would be a motivation to modify the person window and email window only for notifications related to that information.

[00:03:32] Speaker 00:
Wireless networking function, I don't think there's any dispute, is unrelated to the information in those windows.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
But turning to the system level configuration argument, both references

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
suggest that a person with a skill in the art would actually not have been motivated to include wireless networking functions, such as that disclosed in Seda-Likowski in the person window or email window, because both Kadiz and Seda-Likowski put these types of configuration options at the topmost level.

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
So Kadiz discloses that its system level configurations are in its top level sidebar.

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
And similarly, Seda-Likowski

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
discloses that its configurations are placed at the top level task bar.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
Seda-Lakowski calls it a quick settings menu because you can quickly access it from that quick access icon on the top level task bar.

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
By putting it and burying it down into the person and email window, as Google proposes, you're taking away the benefits of being able to quickly access those configuration options.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
So Google allegedly argues,

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
or argues that this modification allows for quickly, efficiently, and conveniently changing the settings.

[00:04:54] Speaker 00:
But all those benefits that Seda-Likowski talks about are done away with by moving the configuration options for the system level down to the person window or email window.

[00:05:12] Speaker 00:
So with respect to dependent claims 7, 9, 18, and 25, it's a similar.

[00:05:18] Speaker 00:
7, 9, 18, and 25 do not require that the specific interface element be a wireless networking function, but they do require that there be an interface element in the expanded bar.

[00:05:30] Speaker 00:
And the board erroneously accepted Google's attorney argument that a person with any skill in the art would have been motivated to include Stelakowski's, quote, special notification in Cadiz's person window or email window to reject Blackberry's argument

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
that Google failed to show why a personal boarding skill would have been motivated to add Cedar Likowski's disclosed system-level quick access settings to Kadiza's application-level person window and or email window.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
Well, the board found they would do it for reasons of safety and or courtesy.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
So are you saying there was no evidentiary support from that?

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
There was no expert testimony to suggest it?

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:06:09] Speaker 00:
Google's expert.

[00:06:11] Speaker 00:
gave a conclusory statement that it would be for safety and courtesy.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
But there was no explanation about why it would provide safety or courtesy, particularly when you're moving those configuration options down into the person window or the email window.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
So now you have overstated something.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
You said, there's no evidence.

[00:06:29] Speaker 02:
And I said, didn't they have an expert who said it?

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
And you said, no.

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
And then you went and you said, it's only attorney argument.

[00:06:36] Speaker 02:
None of that is true.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
They did have an expert, which you've now admitted, that said it.

[00:06:40] Speaker 02:
Now you're just telling me he didn't explain his rationale behind it.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
So both of you need to work on being more precise when you represent things to the court.

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:06:52] Speaker 00:
What I intended to convey was that Google's expert merely states in conclusory fashion

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
Safety and convenience would provide the motivations, but there is no explanation for that.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
Those are just generic motivations particularly when we're moving the elements from the top level bar down to a deeper level into the windows One other note about the special notifications the board is relying on the special notifications, but

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
Whether or not Cedar Likowski has special notifications for particular contacts is irrelevant to what Cedar Likowski discloses in that quick settings menu that Google relies on for its proposed modification.

[00:07:41] Speaker 00:
Because even if there are separate notifications for different contacts, what that quick settings menu does is actually turns on and off those notifications across the board at the system level.

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
So it says that,

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
the notifications may be efficiently switched between on or off, including for special notifications.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
So the efficiency comes from being able to turn all of those on and off at the same time.

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
If there are no other questions, I'll move on to the email-centric interface argument with respect to the independent claims.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
And this is an example of the board accepting attorney argument over the evidence.

[00:08:25] Speaker 00:
And I just want to note for the court, and we noted this in a footnote in our brief, but dependent claims 2, 3, 13, 15, and 23 are impacted by the decision regarding the email-centric interface because the board's decision relies solely on the email-centric interface for those claims.

[00:08:45] Speaker 00:
The board's obvious decision here is based on accepting Google's attorney argument that both of Cadiz's disclosed implementations of the email window

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
include only a subset of the email functionality.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
But that's purely attorney argument.

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
There's no support for this position.

[00:09:03] Speaker 00:
Cadiz itself explains that there are two alternate ways that the email window can be implemented, either provide an email-specific viewer having the desired email functionality or have a viewer that instantiates an instance of the user's email program.

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
And we have expert testimony from both parties

[00:09:22] Speaker 00:
that explain that the second implementation is an implementation of the fully functioning email application.

[00:09:29] Speaker 00:
And that makes sense, because there must be some difference between the two alternatives that are being disclosed by Cadiz.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
And the expert testimony on that is at appendix 4563, paragraph 75, and also appendix 778 to 779, paragraph 94.

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
Now, there's no evidence regarding why a person with a skill in the art would have been motivated to make Google's proposed modification when Cadiz already discloses invoking the full email application off of the sidebar, which would take fewer steps.

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
And the board erred by failing to address Blackberry's argument that Google's proposed modification eliminates all of the benefit and functionality of an email window having just the desired functionality.

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
There's no reason to make that modification when Kadiz says to instead alternatively invoke the full email application from the sidebar.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
If there are no other questions, I'll reserve the rest of my time.

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
Morning, Your Honors, again.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
So Judge Post, I'll start with the question you asked, sort of, what is unique in the 1146 appeal?

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
And it is the Sidelikowsky issues are the unique issues.

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
So that's where I'd like to start.

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
So if we look at the board's findings with respect to Sidelikowsky, we believe they are more than supported by substantial evidence.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
And this court should affirm.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
So if we start with claims 7, 9, 18, and 25, if we look at the board's decision, the board adopted Google's reasoning and found that a person with a skill would have been motivated, would have reason to modify Cadiz's person window 825 and email window 1020 to include an interface

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
for configuration options, such as notifications, power, and radio.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
And if you look at the underlying evidence, there was testimony here.

[00:11:48] Speaker 03:
Tell me about the board.

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
Is this board at 48, 49?

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
Is that the 47 through 7?

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
So, Your Honor, this would be in the board's decision in the 466.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
So appendix, we can start at appendix A49.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
So if you look at starting with page 49, that's where the board addressed the arguments of the party with respect to these claims.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
And again, if you look at Appendix 49, for example, itself, the board explained Google's position here, which was supported by testimony from Dr. Olson, that one-off foreigner skills would have been motivated, would have reason to modify Kadiz's interfaces to apply configuration options, such as the ones in Sadlowski, for reasons of, and this is again, I'm quoting here, that you would have

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
improved convenience and usability of Cadiz's device.

[00:12:55] Speaker 01:
And then on Appendix 50, Your Honor, the board basically says it adopts the petitioner's showing as its own.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
That's right above the patent on its content.

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
How would you have improved convenience?

[00:13:10] Speaker 02:
How?

[00:13:12] Speaker 02:
So Your Honor, the way you would have improved convenience is that you would have... Because it seems to be a lot less convenient to me once you actually do this, because then

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
You're going to require the users to drill all the way down into the personal window or email window to change the wireless network functionality So actually I understand your expert said that but he didn't explain why and to me when I read it, it's the opposite

[00:13:34] Speaker 01:
So your honor, let me explain why, which is that our expert and I think what the finding the board made here was it's not limited to having a setting at the system level, but you would also have a setting at the application level.

[00:13:46] Speaker 01:
So if you look at appendix page 52.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
That's why I started with by asking her that question.

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
Are you limit?

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
Because I think that if you were limited, you'd have a really hard case for me if you were limited to the system level.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, that could be.

[00:13:59] Speaker 01:
But obviously here, the board did make an alternative factual finding.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
And that's on A52.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
So we do believe, and they make a lot of hay about this system level notification versus at the application level.

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
I think, again, the board made a factual finding there.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
The board did not credit their expert testimony on this issue, whether or not the special notifications in Sadlowski are at the application level versus the system level.

[00:14:27] Speaker 01:
Again, that's the purview of the board and substantial evidence supports the board's decision with respect to claims 7, 9, 18, and 25.

[00:14:35] Speaker 01:
Now if you turn to claims 8 and 19, so Judge Prost, now I'm on page 850 of the board's decision.

[00:14:48] Speaker 01:
Again, there, the board considered all the arguments and evidence presented by both the parties.

[00:14:54] Speaker 01:
The board simply agreed with Google's positions and the evidence it presented.

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
As a preliminary matter, I'll note BlackBerry's actually made a lot of new arguments on appeal with respect to claims 8 and 19 that it never made before the board.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
But even if you leave that aside, there was again more than substantial evidence here that supports the board's findings

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
with respect to claims 8 and 19.

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
So as a reminder, these claims deal with the option of providing wireless networking to turn that on or off.

[00:15:23] Speaker 01:
And what Dr. Olson, Google's expert, testified that you would actually have a reason to provide an option in Cadiz, Cadiz's interfaces for basically a configuration option that would allow you to turn the wireless networking on or off for reasons of

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
Safety and courtesy, example when you're on an airplane.

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
And Seidelowski actually tells us that.

[00:15:45] Speaker 01:
So this came directly from the references and is supported by the testimony of Google's expert.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
Again, there's more than substantial evidence that supports the board's finding with respect to claims 8 and 19.

[00:15:57] Speaker 01:
Unless there are any questions on those claims, I'll quickly address the email-centric issue, which actually applies to both of the proceedings.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
And I had to address that already briefly.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
I'll just make a couple of minor points.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
I heard counsel say that the paragraph 72 is the one in question here, of Qadis should only be read in one way.

[00:16:17] Speaker 01:
Again, the board looked at the evidence, it looked at the language of Qadis, it looked at the expert testimony from both experts on that point.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
And it agreed with Google's evidence and arguments, saying Cadiz does only disclose a limited email functionality, so there would have been reason to modify the references here as proposed by Google.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
Again, the board's decision is more than supported by substantial evidence.

[00:16:43] Speaker 01:
And the board even looked at their expert testimony

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
Which, again, I did not hear anything about their expert testimony, but their expert actually admitted that there would be only limited functionality with respect to email window 1020.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
And then their expert also admitted on A4275 to 76 that when you have an instance of an application, it doesn't necessarily give you the full features of that application.

[00:17:10] Speaker 01:
So unless there are any other questions, we request that the court affirm the board's decisions here.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
I just wanted to quickly address a couple of points, Your Honors.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
With respect to the dependent claims, and particularly the wireless networking function, Google argues that because Zeta-Likowski says that changing the wireless networking function would provide safety and courtesy, for example, on an airplane, that provides sufficient motivation to include the wireless networking function in Cadiz.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
But the claim requires that the wireless networking function be in the expanded dynamic bar.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
That's why Google had to argue and the board had to find that it would have been obvious and it would have been obvious to include the wireless networking function in those particular windows.

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
And there's no explanation for why putting it in those particular windows, as opposed to putting it where the references say that they should go,

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
why a person with a skill in the art would have been motivated to that, and how that would promote safety and courtesy.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
Turning to the email-centric interface, Google's counsel mentioned that Blackberry's expert admitted that the email window 1020 only includes a subset of the functionality.

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
And that's true.

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
But that's because email 1020 is only representative of the first implementation that Cadiz tells us about.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
Cadiz also tells us that there's an alternate implementation of the email window.

[00:18:59] Speaker 00:
And that implementation is, as both experts agree, the fully functioning email application.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
So in view of that, there's no evidence in the record about why a person with a skill in the art would have been motivated to make Google's proposed modification when Cadiz already discloses

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
invoking the full email software application directly from the sidebar, which would provide a better user experience.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
Are there any other questions?

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
We thank both sides.