[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
We have one case on calendar this morning.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
Mayan Works Patness versus Samsung Electronics, 2019-1308.

[00:00:12] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:00:13] Speaker 04:
Richards?

[00:00:14] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:18] Speaker 04:
We understand you want to save 10 minutes for a bottle?

[00:00:21] Speaker 02:
Yes, thank you.

[00:00:22] Speaker 04:
Well, you can stop whenever you wish.

[00:00:25] Speaker 04:
Please proceed.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
Starting with the claim term camera unit in the 078 patent, the district court's claim construction order committed what this court has called one of the cardinal sins of patent law, reading limitations from the written description into the claims.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
Instead, as this court has enunciated many times, the name of the game is the claim.

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
To determine the scope of the invention, the claim must be consulted first.

[00:01:00] Speaker 02:
Claim is the most important evidence of the scope of the invention.

[00:01:03] Speaker 04:
Doesn't the patent tell us what camera unit means?

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
Column two, figure five, shows a block diagram of a camera unit.

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
We look at figure five and the question is the battery, right?

[00:01:19] Speaker 04:
And battery is inside the camera unit.

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
Well, that's certainly one of the questions, but in the portion of the specification you reference at column four, line 23, it begins in principle.

[00:01:30] Speaker 02:
which as I understand the idiom means without regard for the specific details and then it says by example the camera card consists of and then it enumerates the elements in that example but this court has long held that even if that were the only embodiment disclosed in the specification that doesn't limit the claims and the claims here for example claim one

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
specifically defines camera unit and what it is comprising to have five elements.

[00:01:59] Speaker 02:
So under the Liebel case and the Kara Technologies case, even if figure five were the only example in the specification, that still wouldn't limit the claims.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
Would you agree that in column four, line 26, it talks about the camera arrangement, which is the same as the camera unit, right?

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
Uh, well, in the... Is the camera arrangement the same as the camera unit?

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
I don't think that that is perfectly clear, but in the portion you referenced, it says the camera card.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
Now it's a little bit ambiguous because the sentence... But assuming that camera arrangement and camera unit are the same, it says camera arrangement, which comprises camera and optics, image processing, battery and interface.

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
So this is telling us that the camera arrangement or camera unit includes those things, right?

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
In that example, it includes those things.

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
So, you mean camera unit has different meanings in different places?

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
Yes, we believe that camera unit is not, camera is a term that everyone in the art would understand.

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
Camera unit is not a term of art.

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
And so there's an example of what a camera unit is in the portion of the spec that you reference and in figure five.

[00:03:24] Speaker 02:
But the claims specifically define camera unit to have certain elements.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
And those elements are different than the example in the specification.

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
This isn't a case like the cases that Samsung cites where the patentee has repeatedly and consistently said this is the invention.

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
This isn't an invention about a camera unit and having special items.

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
That's not what the invention is about and it's not like those cases.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
This is like the other cases where there is that example in the spec and there's also the example in the abstract that doesn't have those elements and then the claims specifically define what a camera unit is.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
So as I read this patent, why don't you start with figure one and two for me, just to make sure that I understand, which I think I do, the technology disclosed to your end.

[00:04:19] Speaker 01:
So if you look at figure one with me, that is a disclosure of a camera unit contained within an integrated within a cell phone, correct?

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
And figure one on the bottom, or what is figure two actually, figure two

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
is a camera unit contained on a removable camera card.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
These are two discrete and different embodiments disclosed throughout the spec.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
And there are different claims that are clearly directed to each of those two different embodiments.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
Is that also true?

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
I can walk through with you because I've already done it and I can tell you which independent claims are directed to each one if you'd like.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
But I personally see

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
different claims, some of which clearly are directed to a removable camera card and others of which are expressly state they're in part of an into the camera unit is integrated into the housing.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
So yes, seems to me that some claims are to one embodiment and others are to the others.

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:16] Speaker 02:
I agree with that.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
And I had the sense

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
as I read the claims at issue, which I understand to be 136 and 73, that each of those are the integrated version and not the removable camera card version.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
So is it possible that a camera card could require a battery?

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
because actually the camera card is listed as only generally having what you call in the patent volatile memory, what I would call RAM.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
And so it has to have a battery.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
Because if you pull the card out, what's going to happen if there's no battery in the RAM?

[00:05:55] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, and that's exactly what's discussed at the bottom of column four and the top of column five.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
Expressly tells you that without that backup battery on a camera card embodiment, what happens to the pictures?

[00:06:08] Speaker 02:
They go away.

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
Yeah, right.

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
They're stored in short-term memory.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
So when it's disconnected from the battery, the pictures evaporate.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
Yes, in the camera card embodiment, which is not what these claims are.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
And it also said that in a camera unit you could have a backup battery.

[00:06:25] Speaker 01:
But it's not really necessary because the unit isn't removable.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
It's within the housing and the phone itself has a battery, correct?

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
Exactly, consistent with comprising.

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
And the column four to column five language actually says that.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
It says the backup battery is necessary for the card or you'll lose the pictures.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
And then it says in the integrated embodiment, you could have a backup battery.

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
Yes, I agree, Your Honor.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
Any questions for the questions about camera unit or shall I move on?

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
I'd like to talk next about the means for interpreting the received voice commands in the 239 patent.

[00:07:05] Speaker 03:
In the 239 patent, these claim terminology doesn't appear in the specification, the means for interpreting, the means for selecting.

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
Why is there something in the prosecution history that explains to us why the claims use different language than the specification?

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
your honor you're correct the word interpreting literally does not appear in the two three needs for selecting also uh... correct performing the context specific inquiry that this court has previously ordered you can tell what the means are maybe so but i'm just asking why it's an odd situation where we have these two claim limitations which are not referenced using the same language

[00:08:02] Speaker 02:
I do not know and it may well be because this patent is from Nokia and it may have been originally written in another language I don't have an explanation as to why the exact same words were not used but I will say that if you if you perform the context specific inquiry you can tell that they do match up and

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
If you're correct, it is a little bit more difficult than normal because those words are not used, but one of ordinary skill in the art could match it up.

[00:08:31] Speaker 02:
I think everybody here today, including the district court judge, which is not here today, but would agree that Figure 3 and the portions of Column 5 and 6 do disclose some algorithms.

[00:08:42] Speaker 02:
The question is, are they the right algorithms?

[00:08:44] Speaker 03:
Well, the question is whether they're the algorithms that relate to the means for selecting.

[00:08:51] Speaker 03:
And when the first report construed means for selecting, the structure that appears in column five, which you rely on for the means for interpreting, was

[00:09:04] Speaker 03:
attributed to the means for selecting.

[00:09:08] Speaker 03:
So you haven't appealed that claim construction with respect to means for selecting.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
How can it be that if that structure is structure for means for selecting, that it can be the structure for the means for interpreting?

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
Well, it's not the same structure for both terms, but those structures are disclosed in the same portions of the specification.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
I think that can be seen most clearly with regard to Figure 3.

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
So the means for selecting uses the result of the means for interpreting.

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
In this patent interpreting,

[00:09:51] Speaker 02:
means comparing.

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
And what you're comparing is the spoken identifier to the stored sub identifier.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
So if you look at Figure 3, 302 relates to the means for receiving the sub identifier in the claim.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
And then at 303, the comparing begins.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
This is the calculating of the probability.

[00:10:15] Speaker 02:
And the means for interpreting structure is from 303 to 306.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
Because in this patent, interpreting means comparing.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
And then the means for selecting starts at 307.

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
So no doubt they're integrally related.

[00:10:32] Speaker 02:
And they're discussed in the same areas of the patent in Figure 3 and Columns 5 and 6.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
But they're distinct steps with distinct structures.

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
And I think that can be seen more clearly if we just back up a little bit.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
Figure 1 discloses this voice control unit at item 2.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
And the voice control unit has many subparts.

[00:11:03] Speaker 02:
Part of, I think, what's creating confusion is that Ironworks construction specifically identified which subparts are involved in the means for interpreting.

[00:11:12] Speaker 02:
If you look at item two, all of the items in the voice control unit are hardware, except for the voice recognition means.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
Sometimes it's called the speech recognition means.

[00:11:23] Speaker 02:
Sometimes it's called the voice recognition means.

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
In our construction, it's called the voice recognition circuitry and programming.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
All those are the same thing.

[00:11:32] Speaker 02:
To your honor's point, if you look at the re-exam file that's in the appendix at 3337.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
In terms of column 5, where you say provide instruction, which part of column 5 is the selecting means and which part is the means for interpreting?

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
And the first line says moves to a choose telephone number mode.

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
Is that the means for selecting?

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
I know that is a strangely worded name for the overall mode.

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
The means for interpreting starts at 59.

[00:12:07] Speaker 02:
The voice control unit calculates the probability.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
And then let me just take a look and see where the means for selecting start.

[00:12:24] Speaker 02:
So the interpreting is the comparing and then the selecting is after that the means for selecting starts at five There's one word on 15 after the probability has been created So after the comparison then the phone makes the selection selecting that's the means for selecting so you compare which ones I'm saying that the means for interpreting starts at five and

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
nine and goes uh... until five fifteen and then the means for selecting goes from five fifteen uh... i suppose through twenty five or twenty six in that column right but what i was saying earlier is that the district court in interpreting means for selecting said that

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
everything that you just identified was structure for the means for selecting.

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
You didn't appeal that or dispute that.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
If that's the structure for the means for selecting, it can't be the structure for the means for interpreting.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
Why not?

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
Why can't it be the structure for means for interpreting?

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
Isn't it the case in electrical systems that the same software can perform multiple functions?

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
Doesn't it happen actually all the time?

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
Can't the same algorithm achieve two different parts?

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
yes yes your honor and it's that it's uh... related software first it you are you have your phone and you say the identifiers you say i want to call judge more

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
so it it tries to compare it she's saying she's saying more she's saying lori and then based on which one it thinks i'm saying based on the comparison and it selects so they're they're integrated integrally related and they're both disclosed and possibly here

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
in the means for selecting by over including a portion of the algorithm that really goes to the means for interpreting and means for selecting.

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
Neither party appealed that, and that's not an issue in front of us, right?

[00:14:25] Speaker 01:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
The only thing that you all both briefed and appealed to us is, is there an algorithm and a corresponding structure for a means for interpreting?

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
Yes, exactly, Your Honor.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
So in the appendix at 3337, this is part of the re-exam prosecution history.

[00:14:43] Speaker 02:
It talks about the voice recognition means comparing the received identifier and the stored identifier.

[00:14:48] Speaker 02:
Everybody agrees that it's the voice recognition means that performs the interpreting.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
It's all throughout Samsung's brief.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
They use the two interchangeably.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
It's talked about in the re-exam that way.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
And the only view of the person of ordinary skill in the art values also says it and treats it that way.

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
So the question really in finding the algorithm is what does the voice recognition means do?

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
And I think it all comes down to what's in 5 at 32.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
It talks about the comparison made by the voice recognition means.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
Council, as you see, it's not so easy to save 10 minutes.

[00:15:24] Speaker 04:
Your time is just about exhausted, but we'll give you two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court?

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
Let me address the 078 camera unit issue first, and then I'll turn to the 239 patent, if that's okay.

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
The camera unit

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
As counsel conceded, it's not a term of art.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
It has no plain and ordinary meaning.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
So the analysis is proper to look to the specification as the district court properly did and looked at the entirety of the specification and concluded that the camera unit does, in fact, as the specification tells us, conform to the components in figure four, conform to the structure in, I mean, figure five, pardon me.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
its figure five shows a representation of the camera unit?

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
In column two, as you point out, it states figure five shows a block diagram of the camera unit.

[00:16:26] Speaker 04:
On the other hand, when I look at column four, it refers to camera unit 14.

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
When I look at figure five, 14's A, B, and C are

[00:16:41] Speaker 04:
dotted lines that don't include the battery.

[00:16:50] Speaker 04:
What's the answer to that?

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
Let me address that, Your Honor.

[00:16:52] Speaker 04:
It doesn't include the battery.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
It does include the battery, because if we go back to Figure 1 and 2, there are, as Judge Moore correctly pointed out, there's two, really two, embodiments of this camera unit that include the same components.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
The camera unit's integrated into the device in Figure 1,

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
and the camera units arranged in the card in figure two.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
And in all instances, the camera unit includes the components shown in figure five.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
And how do we know that?

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
Figure one says the device is implemented by means of an integrated camera unit.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
Figure two says it's implemented by means of a camera unit arranged in a card.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
And then both embodiments point to figure five

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
as the block diagram of the camera unit there's one camera unit includes the same components and the reason we know that is in column three

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
That camera unit, it says the battery is on the camera card.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
And then maybe there's some confusing language about a camera arrangement that I don't totally understand.

[00:18:06] Speaker 01:
But throughout the entire spec, camera unit is always number 14.

[00:18:10] Speaker 01:
And there's an A, a B, and a C. Sometimes there's an O. I figured out that's a typo.

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
It's not 14-O, it's actually number 140 in the drawings.

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
But there are always three components.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
You know, it's the norm in patent drafting that when you identify something by its number, and then if it has A, Bs, and Cs, those are all within it.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
But other things that have a separate number are not necessarily within it, unless there's a dotted line thing that encapsulates them or something.

[00:18:42] Speaker 01:
We don't have any of that here.

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
understood your honor there's some ambiguity here and that's why we need to look at the entirety of the specification and it's a it's a fair question but let me give the court some comfort on that and i think your honor even pointed to this language uh... regarding the battery in uh... column four lines forty three through forty seven it says the batteries mainly used to ensure that images are maintained in volatile memory in the card okay so it's used to ensure that in the card

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
batteries part of the card and then it says it can also be used for the same purpose in the camera unit integrated into the notebook.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
The way I read it is nothing suggests that the battery there is optional.

[00:19:26] Speaker 00:
It could perform

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
other purposes for example it powers the camera itself or it powers the microprocessor it it does other functions this is a true attorney made up argument right now on the spot it's not anywhere in here and nor did you make that argument to us or below at any point in time understood your honor and the the then on the next column column five lines

[00:19:55] Speaker 00:
three through six it says by virtue of battery 21 the operation of microprocessor and the memory unit so forth is quote assured in all circumstances.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
In a camera card that entire paragraph is about the camera card embodiment look at line 65 the topic sentence and you know grammar says all sentences in a paragraph follow the topic sentence it says this is about the camera card embodiment which is number 15.

[00:20:22] Speaker 00:
Understood but if we look back to

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
If we look, it says all circumstances in that sense.

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
Aren't the claims in this case, with the exception of the re exam, the originally filed claims.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
They are claims part of the spec.

[00:20:37] Speaker 00:
They are.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
And so when you read a spec to ascertain what claim terms mean.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
And in this case where you have claimed terms that actually define the camera unit and they were part of the originally filed spec, Witness Guild artisan look at them as well as what's in the written description to assess the meaning of the term.

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
sure your honor they would certainly look a person skilled in the art would look to the claims as part of the original spec there's nothing wrong with that those claims simply add additional functions and and configurations it don't address what the camera unit structure is they add things like a memory for uh... retrieving image information and so forth like that that adds

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
additional specificity.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
But let me get back to this battery issue because I can see this as an issue.

[00:21:26] Speaker 00:
Where we go to column four, lines 23 through 25, it says, in principle, the structure of both camera card 15 and camera unit 14 conforms to the block diagram in figure five.

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
That has no ambiguity in it.

[00:21:44] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, where are you?

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, column four, lines 23 through 25, where it says the structure of both the camera card, so we're talking about the card unit, I mean the card embodiment, and camera unit 14, which is the integrated version, conforms to the block diagram shown in figure five.

[00:22:03] Speaker 01:
And then it says by- But it expressly tells you that the camera unit in block diagram number five is number 14.

[00:22:11] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say,

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
every single one of the things in block diagram five are part of the camera unit.

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
In fact, the camera arrangement includes the battery and the interface and everything else.

[00:22:25] Speaker 01:
It doesn't, but it doesn't, I don't, I personally don't read that as saying camera unit 14 must contain all of the elements in figure five.

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
the the the clear statement that is stated there is that the structure of both conform to figure five and Figure five includes the battery component within the box not not the dotted line But it's in it's in there and then the specification tells us that it can be used for the same purposes in the card The camera card which is number 15 and the camera unit 14 are totally interchangeable and contain all of the same elements all the time and

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
I believe that's a fair read of the specification.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
I believe that there's really one embodiment of the camera unit, and there's two embodiments of where it appears, the card and the integrated version.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
And in both of those versions, the same camera unit embodiment shown in Figure 5 is included.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the dotted lines in Figure 5 mean?

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
They seem to be attempting to encapsulate some components but not the battery, and to indicate those components represent

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
a subset of the whole card.

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
So what do you think those dotted lines mean?

[00:23:52] Speaker 00:
Well, it's interesting because it says that the camera arrangement, which you flagged, it says 140, but it is 14.0, right?

[00:24:02] Speaker 00:
And that's a typo, but the dotted lines are around those components with the exception of the battery.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
But the text says, by example, the card consists of the camera manager.

[00:24:14] Speaker 01:
It's also with the exception of the interface as well.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
Neither the interface nor the battery are contained within the dotted line.

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:24:20] Speaker 00:
And then what it says though, even in that embodiment, it includes the camera arrangement plus the battery and interface.

[00:24:32] Speaker 00:
So the battery is included in our view in the camera unit itself.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
Unless there's other questions, let me briefly address the 239 patent, if I may.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
I'd like to address the means for interpreting just quickly.

[00:24:47] Speaker 00:
So this is a very straightforward issue in our view that there's a complete absence of any algorithm here and the specification does not disclose

[00:24:59] Speaker 00:
any aspect or any steps for interpreting voice commands and your honor's pointed to and asked counsel about the lines that they're relying on in column five and that is you're correct your honor that that is dealing with the means for selecting and while the same types of means

[00:25:18] Speaker 00:
can deal with different functions in electronics.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
We're dealing with the function here of interpreting a voice command, not choosing the telephone number, but interpreting the voice command.

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
And the lead-in to that section in column five, which appears at the bottom of column four, tells us that the voice commands have not been recognized or interpreted.

[00:25:43] Speaker 00:
It says, after the voice control unit has recognized the given command,

[00:25:49] Speaker 00:
and as the activation command of the choose name process, and then it goes forth into selecting the telephone number.

[00:25:56] Speaker 00:
So that tells us right there that the command, voice command, has already been interpreted and recognized, but there's no steps in the specification interpreting whether this is a, hey, store a number, call a number, or do something else with the phone.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
There's no steps in here regarding interpreting a voice command.

[00:26:19] Speaker 00:
And so aristocrat and other cases tell us that in that instance you can't backfill it with an expert declaration or the like.

[00:26:26] Speaker 00:
There's no basis for that and the district court properly held that indefinite.

[00:26:30] Speaker 00:
Now quickly on the means for storing, of course the court doesn't need to get to the means for storing or means for selecting if it agrees.

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
that the interpreting means is indefinite and invalid.

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
But I will say, on the means for storing, it's also a simple issue.

[00:26:45] Speaker 00:
We're dealing with a very specific function.

[00:26:49] Speaker 00:
And that function is the storing of sub-identifiers.

[00:26:53] Speaker 00:
That's not co-extensive with a general purpose machine, general purpose computer, or microprocessor.

[00:27:00] Speaker 00:
We're talking about a function of storing sub-identifiers which can be spoken or keyed in, requires special programming,

[00:27:07] Speaker 00:
The CATS exception doesn't apply.

[00:27:11] Speaker 00:
EON holdings tells us that the CATS exception is narrow.

[00:27:16] Speaker 00:
That is correctly decided by the district court and the column four lines 19 through 54, which disclosed those steps for storing, line up perfectly with the function recited in the claim, which is storing sub-identifiers.

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
And so all I will say then with respect to the means for selecting is the district court conducted a proper analysis, 112.6, identified the function recited in the claim, and then looked to the specification as to the structure that corresponds to performing that function.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
And there's no need to append the word equivalence to the

[00:27:56] Speaker 00:
structure that corresponds to that, but there's numerous cases that don't do that.

[00:28:01] Speaker 01:
Can you go back to the means for interpreting?

[00:28:04] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:28:05] Speaker 01:
I'm struggling to understand your argument about why the algorithm disclosed in column five, like nine through 16, isn't actually an algorithm for a means for interpreting voice commands.

[00:28:20] Speaker 00:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:28:21] Speaker 00:
Basically what that is talking about there is the voice control unit calculates the probability between the first stored identifier and the pronounced identifier.

[00:28:32] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:28:32] Speaker 01:
So it's trying to identify a voice command.

[00:28:37] Speaker 01:
That's the pronounced identifier is a voice command.

[00:28:40] Speaker 01:
Somebody pronounces a word and it's trying to see if that word corresponds to something it has in memory.

[00:28:45] Speaker 00:
I don't believe that's what it says.

[00:28:47] Speaker 00:
What it's saying is, in counsel's example, we've entered this mode.

[00:28:51] Speaker 01:
What do you think a pronounced identifier is?

[00:28:54] Speaker 00:
It's a pronounced identifier.

[00:28:56] Speaker 00:
We're talking about a very specific function.

[00:28:57] Speaker 01:
It's a word that you speak out loud, correct?

[00:28:59] Speaker 00:
Yes, but it's not a voice command.

[00:29:01] Speaker 00:
It's not a command.

[00:29:02] Speaker 00:
In the context of this patent, in the background of the invention, it says... So let me get this straight.

[00:29:05] Speaker 01:
You've got a telephone, which is trying to interpret voice commands, but when they say a pronounced identifier, you think it's not a voice command.

[00:29:12] Speaker 00:
No, because think about it.

[00:29:13] Speaker 00:
The phone is telling you to pronounce the identifier.

[00:29:17] Speaker 00:
You're not commanding the phone, hey, I want to enter a mode to make a call or store a number.

[00:29:25] Speaker 00:
That's the command.

[00:29:25] Speaker 00:
You have to put the phone or the device into some kind of mode to store a number, make a call.

[00:29:33] Speaker 00:
This is part of the algorithm that you've pointed to is taking

[00:29:37] Speaker 00:
the steps to figure out, I'm going to now call Judge Moore.

[00:29:42] Speaker 00:
I've already gotten the voice command and the phone says... I don't follow you.

[00:29:46] Speaker 01:
A pronounced identifier seems to me to be the voice command and then the next sentence says subsequently it's examined whether any other identifiers are stored in memory.

[00:29:54] Speaker 01:
So then it's taking that voice command and comparing it to what's in memory in order to see what it should do with it.

[00:30:02] Speaker 00:
In your hypothetical, Your Honor, you're not giving... It's not hypothetical.

[00:30:07] Speaker 01:
I'm reading the language in the spec.

[00:30:08] Speaker 01:
That's not actually a hypothetical.

[00:30:10] Speaker 00:
You're not giving the phone a command to do anything.

[00:30:14] Speaker 00:
That's already happened.

[00:30:15] Speaker 01:
So why would you be talking to a phone if not giving it a command?

[00:30:18] Speaker 01:
Do you think there's someone on the other line?

[00:30:20] Speaker 01:
Do you think that when they say pronounced identifier, they're having a conversation with somebody through the phone?

[00:30:24] Speaker 00:
Specification and the claims are very clear.

[00:30:27] Speaker 00:
We have to look at the function recited in the claim and the lead into that for interpreting the received voice commands.

[00:30:34] Speaker 01:
This is talking about a pronounced identifier and then taking that and comparing it to what's in memory to see if it matches up to anything so that can then instruct the phone what to do with it once it has figured that out.

[00:30:46] Speaker 00:
Nowhere in this record does the word identifier get equated with command, nowhere.

[00:30:52] Speaker 01:
It's not in the specification.

[00:30:56] Speaker 01:
I don't understand what a pronounced identifier is.

[00:30:58] Speaker 01:
This isn't actually complicated.

[00:31:01] Speaker 01:
This is not hard.

[00:31:02] Speaker 00:
I agree.

[00:31:03] Speaker 00:
The phone is asking me to pronounce the identifier.

[00:31:07] Speaker 00:
I'm not commanding the phone to dial a number.

[00:31:10] Speaker 00:
That step has already happened.

[00:31:11] Speaker 00:
The specifications clear on that.

[00:31:14] Speaker 00:
It's again at bottom of column four, line 66 and 67.

[00:31:19] Speaker 00:
Before we get into the sub identifier issue and pronouncing identifiers,

[00:31:23] Speaker 00:
It clearly states the voice control unit has already recognized the command.

[00:31:29] Speaker 00:
It's already interpreted the command, but there are no steps set forth, no steps at all, describing, for example, I want to command the phone to store a number versus make a call.

[00:31:42] Speaker 00:
There are no steps where the phone is deciphering that I've commanded it to store versus make a call.

[00:31:48] Speaker 00:
None of that's there.

[00:31:49] Speaker 00:
There's a complete absence of an algorithm here.

[00:31:54] Speaker 00:
is very similar to aristocrat.

[00:31:56] Speaker 00:
You can't have the expert come in and interpret this and now say sub-identifiers as a command and twist it, your honor, respectfully.

[00:32:04] Speaker 00:
So with that, my time is up.

[00:32:07] Speaker 00:
Unless there are further questions, I will yield.

[00:32:11] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:32:13] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:32:13] Speaker 04:
Richards has two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:32:18] Speaker 02:
I'd like to spend some more time on the means for interpreting in the 239, just backing up a step from what my colleague from Samsung said.

[00:32:28] Speaker 02:
Samsung bears the burden of showing that this claim because of this term is indefinite.

[00:32:33] Speaker 02:
It's their burden, and they have to prove it by clear and convincing evidence.

[00:32:38] Speaker 02:
It's clear from everything in the record, including the re-exam file history, the specification, and the only view of anyone of skill in the art

[00:32:48] Speaker 02:
that interpreting means this comparison in this patent, and it's done by this voice recognition means.

[00:32:55] Speaker 02:
At column 5, the patent explains what the voice recognition means does, step-by-step in an algorithm.

[00:33:03] Speaker 02:
He just spent a lot of time talking about voice commands and how column 5 is talking about interpreting voice commands and not sub-identifiers.

[00:33:10] Speaker 02:
I don't understand what that could mean because at column 5, line 6, it says,

[00:33:16] Speaker 02:
The user can pronounce the sub-identifiers in any order.

[00:33:21] Speaker 02:
And then skipping ahead down to 5-9, it says the voice control unit calculates the probability that what you're saying matches what's in the database.

[00:33:30] Speaker 02:
And it does use the word voice control unit, but the patent makes clear that the specific part of the voice control unit that's doing that probability is the voice recognition means or in our construction, the voice recognition circuitry and programming.

[00:33:48] Speaker 02:
And then if you look at, we haven't talked much about column 6, but if you look at column 6, lines 9 through 11, let me just make sure I said those lines right.

[00:33:59] Speaker 02:
Yeah, after the mathematical equation, there's a sentence that begins, the voice control unit two defines the probability to all the subidentifier compositions.

[00:34:09] Speaker 02:
Here comes the key part.

[00:34:11] Speaker 02:
And the subidentifier composition, which is given the highest probability, is the final result of the recognition.

[00:34:18] Speaker 02:
The district court took the further step of adding voice recognition in there, signaling that it understood that what the voice recognition unit does is the comparison.

[00:34:29] Speaker 02:
or the district court got confused, I think, is in the fact that the voice recognition means is just a sub-part of the voice control unit.

[00:34:37] Speaker 02:
He said, well, there are algorithms here that relate to the voice control unit, but it's not clear to me, the district court, that they relate to the voice recognition means.

[00:34:46] Speaker 02:
But if you look at those portions of the spec, 5 at 32, 6 at 9 through 11, and then it also point the court to 5 at 18 through 20,

[00:34:56] Speaker 02:
It says it can be assumed that the identifier is the correct one.

[00:35:00] Speaker 02:
So you can see again the result of what the voice recognition means does is it performs the comparison which can then be used in the means for selecting the telephone number.

[00:35:13] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:35:14] Speaker 04:
Case in the middle.

[00:35:31] Speaker 03:
The Honorable