[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
cases number 20-1036, Space Data Corporation against Alphabet Incorporated.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Mr. Liebler.

[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
When faced with two competing plain and ordinary meanings of claim one of the 193 patent, the District Court erred in picking the more restrictive of the two meanings.

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
The district court wrote in a requirement that appears nowhere in the claim language itself and nowhere in the specification, specifically that in order to determine a relative location between two balloons, you must use a vector drawn between them.

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
In contrast, the specification of the 193 patent.

[00:00:48] Speaker 04:
Mr. Lieber, this is Judge Dyke.

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure that what the

[00:00:53] Speaker 04:
that the court was doing.

[00:00:54] Speaker 04:
I read the district court as rejecting your argument that simply plotting the locations of the balloons on the map satisfies the determining staff.

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
And that seems to me to be correct, that it requires something more than the ability to determine.

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
It requires actual determination.

[00:01:19] Speaker 04:
Well, your honor, but that that answers the second question here as to whether there's a genuine issue of material facts that precluded summary judgment.

[00:01:31] Speaker 04:
It's a different different issue under the district court's claim construction.

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
Well, your honor, safe data contends that what the district court actually did is picked up language

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
a location that is measured in relation to some other object or reference point, and that is measured in language, is specifically a vector.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
That if you look at the district court opinion at lines 11 and 12, at appendix 14, the district court there actually pretends that that quotation that it's articulated is Dr. Hansman's entire definition of what relative location is.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
But that's not actually what Dr. Hansman's opinion was.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
Dr. Hansman's opinion went on from that particular point.

[00:02:25] Speaker 00:
The district court actually truncated the sentence.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
Dr. Hansman continued that sentence and wrote, i.e., it is a vector measured at the distance and direction from one object to another.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
So we contend, Your Honor, that it's not just that the district court rejected our view,

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
But the district court picked up Dr. Hansman's view, which wrote limiting language into the actual language of the claim.

[00:02:51] Speaker 00:
Now, with respect to our view, our view is that the claim language itself, determining locations of one or more neighbor balloons, deserves its full scope.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
And there's no limitation in the specification that requires any vector or measurement.

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
Let me see if I can explain to you what

[00:03:12] Speaker 04:
what I think is going on here, and you can tell me why I'm wrong or whether I'm right, that you could have a system, and it's my understanding that Google contends that that's what its system is, in which you plotted the absolute location of the balloon, that you didn't care in determining whether to move a particular balloon, what had happened

[00:03:39] Speaker 04:
in real time to the other balloons that were plotted.

[00:03:44] Speaker 04:
All you cared was whether the balloon is in its assigned space or somewhere else.

[00:03:51] Speaker 04:
And they're saying that that's what their system does and that that is non-imprinting.

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
If I understand your contention is that under the Google system something more is being done that

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
you take that map and you make a determination if a balloon has drifted from its assigned space and you consider the relative position of other balloons in making that determination and that that's infringing.

[00:04:21] Speaker 04:
Is that an accurate description of the difference between the parties?

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
I think not quite, Your Honor, and let me demonstrate that point by

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
the diagram that's in our brief, in the blue brief, at page 12 or at appendix 1106.

[00:04:39] Speaker 00:
And that's the small world graphical user interface.

[00:04:45] Speaker 00:
And if we take a look at that and mapping that back to the exact claim language, here's what that diagram does.

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
The first thing that that diagram does is it determines the location of the target balloon.

[00:04:58] Speaker 00:
And that's balloon 241 in the center bottom of the page.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
And that balloon 241, the Small World GUI, specifically articulates its latitude, longitude, and altitude in the left column.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
And the triangle to the right and going down from 241 projects that balloon's forward path.

[00:05:23] Speaker 00:
That's actually the target balloon, as the exact claim language describes it.

[00:05:29] Speaker 00:
What that GUI then does is it determines the location of three other balloons, 242, 214, and 240.

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
In relation to that target balloon, you can see exactly where they are on this GUI relative to 241.

[00:05:45] Speaker 00:
Now, this GUI draws a distinction.

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
Nowhere on this... That seems to be saying that you could use the data to determine relative position

[00:05:58] Speaker 04:
but that in order to infringe, you don't actually have to use that information about relative position.

[00:06:06] Speaker 04:
That seems to me not correct.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, the issue it seems to me is that there is no specification in the claim language or anywhere in the 193 or 678 specification.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
that says how precise that relative location needs to be determined.

[00:06:25] Speaker 00:
We can see from the face of the GUI that 240 is mostly to the east of 241 and a little bit south.

[00:06:33] Speaker 00:
We can see that 242 is to the west and north.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
And we can see that, for example, 240 is closer to 241 than 214.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
Now, that GUI never articulates the latitude and longitude for 242, 214, or 240.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
Those are the exact neighbor balloons that the claim language calls out.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
And so that GUI does exactly what the claim language says we need to infringe.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
It determines the location of a target balloon, and then it determines the location of neighbor balloons relative to that.

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
Nowhere in the specification, anywhere in the patent, does it say you've got to determine that location to within an inch, a yard, a mile, or any other particular amount, nor does it say that you have to determine direction at three points off the compass or any other specific direction.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
And that's what Google actually contends here, is that the patent language requires both a distance and a direction from that target balloon.

[00:07:41] Speaker 00:
So we think that the Small World GUI demonstrates not just that Small World can infringe, but that it does infringe, Your Honor.

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
So the question here, it seems to me, that's presented is, is GPS mapping within the full scope of the claim language within claim one of the 193?

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
And we say that it was.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
The specification of the 193 mentions GPS four separate times.

[00:08:11] Speaker 00:
And in one instance, it says, and this is column 18, lines 15 to 21 of the 193, that the present invention uses a GPS unit to determine the platform's geographic coordinates.

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
And that, of course, is the language that's picked up in claim one, determine.

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
So the specification itself suggests that a GPS can be used to do the determination that Google now claims requires a vector.

[00:08:39] Speaker 00:
And then similarly, if you go back to the 678 specification, which is the specification that Google itself wrote, that specification says, and this is at column 22 of the 678, the locations of one or more neighbor balloons could be determined using GPS.

[00:08:58] Speaker 00:
And so, Your Honor, that exactly, that part of the specification from the 678 describes exactly what the Small World GUI does that I've just spent some time walking through.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
Can I ask this question?

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
So one of the things that I guess occurred to me in reading through this was that it seemed to me that all of your arguments

[00:09:29] Speaker 03:
about exactly what was doing the determining were directed to particular software systems that were doing something and not to the engineer sitting in front of the screen and looking at a small world graphical user interface.

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
That you haven't made an argument

[00:09:57] Speaker 03:
that the engineer, by looking at this image, is the agent of Google doing the determining?

[00:10:07] Speaker 00:
Well, that's actually, I think that's exactly what's going on, which is to say that if you look at our expert's opinion at footnote 300 at appendix 1044,

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
He writes, small world is a visualization into Google's fleet control system, particularly focused on allowing Google's flight engineering team to track and operate a fleet of balloons.

[00:10:35] Speaker 00:
So this GUI is not sitting there in the abstract.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
An engineer is actually using it to determine, i.e.

[00:10:42] Speaker 00:
observe, the locations of other balloons

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
uh... as input to whatever uh... mechanistic operation he then wants to apply to them i think that i don't manually move them if i don't i don't recall in your briefing argument that determining is being done by the person sitting in front of the small world screen

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
who notices that this balloon is a little bit southeast of the target balloon for purposes of taking any action that Google wants to take in operating its system.

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
I don't know that we made that argument in our brief directly, Your Honor, but it beggars the imagination that an engineer is going to be sitting and looking at Small World and doing nothing with it.

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
Well, it's not doing nothing with it.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
It's doing something that involves noting the spatial relationship between the two balloons.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
And I'm not sure you've made an allegation to that effect, which may be the difference between the ability to look at the map and determine something and actually doing it.

[00:12:06] Speaker 00:
Well, what else can Small World be used for, Your Honor?

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
Small World is just not sitting there in the abstract.

[00:12:15] Speaker 00:
Someone is using it for a particular purpose.

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
And that record was in front of the district court on summary judgment in terms of our expert's opinion saying Small World is actually being used to manage Google's fleet of balloons.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
Right, but it may not be used to be using the visually available relation

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
spatial relation between the target and the neighbor.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
I think he must be from the face of the small world GUI, Your Honor.

[00:12:43] Speaker 04:
Well, must be doesn't really raise an issue.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
I understand what Dr. Pollan says at appendix 1080, paragraph 231.

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
He says that the Oregon dispatcher determines

[00:13:03] Speaker 04:
the role of the position of the balloon.

[00:13:06] Speaker 04:
Now, the question is whether that allegation is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
Google said no because he didn't examine the source code.

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
What's your answer to that?

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
I think there are other places in Mr. Poland's opinion where he specifically articulates, and I think it's right around footnote 31044,

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
in which Google engineers use Small World to move balloons manually.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
With respect to Oregon Dispatcher, I think... That's not... This paragraph doesn't involve manually using the data to make the determination.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
It talks about the Oregon Dispatcher source code.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
Well, you're correct.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
The paragraph that you articulated does, Your Honor.

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
And I don't think we're using Oregon Dispatcher source code as a source of our allegation that engineers use Small World to track and operate a fleet of balloons.

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
I'm going to 1044 in... What are you saying?

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
You're not relying on Paragraph 231?

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
Are you bringing a genuine issue of material back?

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
I don't think 231 necessarily does.

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
I do think that footnote 300 and paragraphs 165 and 66 of Pullen do raise a material fact.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
In other words, in footnote 300, there's a specific allegation that Small World is a visualization focused on allowing Google's flight engineering team to track and operate a fleet of balloons.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
And it's that operation, based on this observation, that creates an issue of material factor, Your Honor.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
Yeah, but all that footnote, 300, says it allows the flight engineers to track and operate.

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
It doesn't say that they do track and operate.

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
Please proceed.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, was that to me, Your Honor?

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
Please respond to Judge Dyck's question.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
I mean, the answer is that Small World can't be used for any other purpose.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
It comes off of the face of Small World that that's what it's used for.

[00:15:44] Speaker 04:
So there's no statement in the expert report that the engineers actually used this data to determine relative location.

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
I believe it's here, but I can't identify it as I'm standing here right now, Your Honor.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
We'll save you rebuttal time and perhaps that will help to clarify.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
Let's hear from the other side.

[00:16:11] Speaker 02:
Mr. Campbell.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the court.

[00:16:17] Speaker 01:
There was a single straightforward issue before the district court.

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
Does the loon system

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
determine the location of one or more neighbor balloons relative to the determined location of the target balloons.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
There's no disagreement about how the system works.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
The balloon determines the latitude, longitude, and altitude of every balloon in the system, and then plots those locations on the same map, the small world that we were just talking about.

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
That act of plotting it was the only basis provided by Space Data's expert as to why the balloon system allegedly determined the locations of balloons relative to a target balloon.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
The district court correctly found that although plotting balloons on a map shows that the balloon system has the information from which to determine the location of one balloon relative to the location of another, it's not evidence that such a determination is ever made.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
It seems counterintuitive to me that you would have a system like this and that you wouldn't make a determination of relative position in deciding whether to remove a balloon.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
I mean, balloons drift around.

[00:17:36] Speaker 04:
You're trying to maintain coverage of the target area.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
And I suppose in theory, you could have a system where

[00:17:46] Speaker 04:
You only pay attention to whether a balloon has strayed from its assigned spot, and you try to put it back without regard to what happened to the other balloons.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
I suppose in theory that could be the case, and I guess Google's contention is that that is the case.

[00:18:04] Speaker 04:
You don't care whether other balloons have moved.

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
You only care whether the particular balloon that you're focusing on is over its target area.

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
Am I correct about that?

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
That's entirely correct, Your Honor.

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
The balloons operate without knowledge of and completely independent of one another.

[00:18:23] Speaker 01:
They don't know it.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
And I also agree that it's somewhat counterintuitive.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
And I think that's part of the reason that Space Data has struggled with this.

[00:18:32] Speaker 01:
But that counterintuitiveness is also discussed within the record at Appendix 1332, where Dr. Hansman, Google's expert, talks about how and why

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
that approach is rather distinct from traditional flight control systems.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
Well, where does Dr. Hansen say explicitly that Google's system does not make a determination of relative position?

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
I mean, he seems to address himself to particular features of the system, but I don't see an overall statement

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
that says that they don't make a determination of relative position.

[00:19:13] Speaker 04:
Am I mistaken about that?

[00:19:16] Speaker 01:
I think so, Your Honor.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
I think Dr. Hansman addressed the opinion that was, he was rebutting Dr. Pollan, of course.

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
And Dr. Pollan's opinions with respect to this element, this second step of claim one are at 11,

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
13 through 14 of the appendix.

[00:19:39] Speaker 01:
And it was really those that Dr. Hansman then took on is that this plotting does not qualify as a, this plotting on a map that's discussed in paragraphs, let me see, paragraphs 305 through 307 of Dr. Pohn's report, that plotting does not qualify as

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
a determination of the relative locations of neighboring homes.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
OK, I understand that.

[00:20:09] Speaker 04:
But that's not my question.

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
My question is, is there any place in the record where your expert witness says explicitly that the Google system does not determine relative position?

[00:20:26] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
I think it may be in the context of the next step, Your Honor.

[00:20:33] Speaker 01:
So it's Paragraphs 145 of Appendix 1332, where he's saying that 193 patents, excuse me,

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
The Loon Stratospheric Communication System does not, quote, determine locations of one or more neighbor balloons relative to the determined location of the target balloon.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
So that's the second sentence of paragraph 145, Your Honor, at appendix 1332.

[00:21:16] Speaker 03:
And the next sentence?

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
Specifically, the Loon System does not determine the location of any balloon in the network relative to the location of any other balloon in the network.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
In short, at no step in the control of balloons, network of balloons, does the system determine the distance and direction of one balloon from any other balloon within the network.

[00:21:46] Speaker 01:
Space data presented no evidence that there was any such determination being made other than, again,

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
at appendix 1113 through 14 when it talked about plotting the balloon locations on the map.

[00:22:01] Speaker 01:
And the theory that was posited in the answer to an earlier question that the graphical user interface of Small World somehow meets this because it identifies a target balloon and neighboring balloons

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
That theory is not presented and was not presented by Dr. Pullen at those appendix sites.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
He was not saying and doesn't say that there was any calculation being made or any determination of a target balloon.

[00:22:36] Speaker 01:
In fact, there's no mention of a target balloon in that discussion.

[00:22:42] Speaker 01:
All he says is that each balloon's location,

[00:22:46] Speaker 01:
is relative to every other balloon's location expressed in the same manner.

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
This theory based on Small World is certainly not one that their expert presented and it's not one that they presented in the briefing before the district court here.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
Now, Judge Taranto, I want to address your question actually from earlier about the engineer doing the determining.

[00:23:15] Speaker 03:
Sitting in front of the small world screen and looking at it.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
Again, that theory was not one that Dr. Pullen put in his report, and it wasn't a theory that they made down below in trying to oppose summary judgment.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
I think there's a reason for that is the balloons are flown using these different algorithms that are discussed in the briefs.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
They're the seeker algorithms.

[00:23:43] Speaker 01:
and some of the Oregon dispatcher algorithms as well.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
And none of those operate the balloons.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
Balloons aren't flown manually by flight engineers looking at the small world map and that user interface in order to move them.

[00:24:02] Speaker 01:
So the problem that they have here is that step two requires this determining locations relative to a target balloon

[00:24:12] Speaker 01:
And then step three, of course, requires determining a desired movement of the target balloon based on those relative positions, those relative locations.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
And there's no point at which, in step three, an engineer is relying on anything that would be happening in step two in order to make the balloons move, fly them.

[00:24:38] Speaker 01:
And I think that's the reason, the practical reason, really.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
It was a logical reason.

[00:24:42] Speaker 01:
why you don't see Dr. Pollan making that argument down below and why there's really no record of that position.

[00:24:58] Speaker 03:
Can I just ask you this question?

[00:24:59] Speaker 03:
I think I remember your brief saying that while, and I may get this not quite right, that while Dr. Hansman said,

[00:25:12] Speaker 03:
determining location of A relative to B is defining a vector from one to the other in either direction.

[00:25:23] Speaker 03:
The direction doesn't matter, but distance and direction.

[00:25:26] Speaker 03:
And I think your red brief says, but the district court did not adopt that vector piece of what Dr. Hansman says.

[00:25:38] Speaker 03:
Why do you, what's the distinction between what the district court adopted and a vector?

[00:25:46] Speaker 03:
Just the degree of precision with which direction and distance are being measured?

[00:25:52] Speaker 01:
I think it may be a degree of precision question.

[00:25:56] Speaker 01:
I think the issue here is that looking at appendix page 14,

[00:26:04] Speaker 01:
What space data is saying the court did in terms of adopting a vector construction, I think, misstates the record.

[00:26:12] Speaker 01:
There's no place in the district court judge's opinion where she says, I'm limiting this claim to a particular vector or a particular calculation of distance and direction.

[00:26:29] Speaker 01:
There may be other ways or various ways to make the determination.

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
limited to any one particular one.

[00:26:37] Speaker 03:
But would all of them, if one puts aside the issue of precision, then is there a substantive difference between saying vector and identifying distance and direction from one to the other?

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
I don't know that there's a substantive difference between those two, but there are also other ways one could imagine doing it, whether you give an angle, for example, or some other methodology.

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
I imagine there are various different ways to express a quantifiable determination that is then output in step two into step three to make the determination on how to move a balloon.

[00:27:30] Speaker 01:
I'd like to talk just briefly about this issue of whether there's a claim construction going on here.

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
Google moved for summary judgment based on the plain meaning of the claim language, which again requires determining the locations of balloons relative to a target balloon.

[00:27:51] Speaker 01:
no point at which Google asked Judge Freeman to depart from that claim meeting, and she did not do so.

[00:27:57] Speaker 01:
She didn't take this on and think that there was a claim construction issue here.

[00:28:03] Speaker 04:
Well, I think there was, because the patentee here is arguing that the ability to make the determination is sufficient to satisfy the determining staff, and she rejected that.

[00:28:16] Speaker 04:
So that's a claim construction.

[00:28:18] Speaker 01:
I think it's fair to say, Judge Dyches, that the district court did consider space data's interpretation of the claim language on summary judgment and deemed it implausible.

[00:28:28] Speaker 01:
Whether one calls that implausibility determination claim construction or not, I think, is a semantic point on which this court's authority is not always consistent.

[00:28:42] Speaker 01:
Looking at the Summit Six case, for example,

[00:28:46] Speaker 01:
the court equated applying a plain meaning construction with declining to construe the claim.

[00:28:52] Speaker 04:
I don't know what the difference is.

[00:28:55] Speaker 04:
They asked for a claim construction, which she rejected.

[00:28:58] Speaker 04:
They're arguing that she was wrong.

[00:29:00] Speaker 04:
The question before us is whether the limiting construction that they offered was correct or not.

[00:29:07] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:29:08] Speaker 01:
We completely agree with that.

[00:29:09] Speaker 01:
And with respect to the intrinsic record that Judge Freeman looked at,

[00:29:14] Speaker 01:
in resolving that issue of whether or not this claim one of the 193 patent was broad enough to cover simply the idea of plotting the locations of balloons on a map.

[00:29:30] Speaker 01:
She found that it was not, we think, correctly based on the intrinsic record before her.

[00:29:40] Speaker 01:
Mr. Liebler points to

[00:29:42] Speaker 01:
The fact that the specification talks about GPS identifying location, there's nothing that ties that to step two of the claim here.

[00:29:53] Speaker 01:
Step one requires determining the location of a balloon in the system, and that's what GPS does.

[00:30:02] Speaker 01:
Step two requires determining the locations of neighboring balloons relative to a target balloon, and that's not something that GPS plotting alone does.

[00:30:17] Speaker 01:
There certainly was nothing in the 193 patent that the judge found that warranted departing from the plain meaning of the plain language and interpreting the phrase, quote, determine the location of one balloon relative to the determined location of the target balloon to encompass plotting balloons on the same map without more, without some actual form of determination.

[00:30:43] Speaker 01:
And again, Dr. Pullen never identified one.

[00:30:47] Speaker 01:
either in his analysis of step three or his analysis, for that matter, of the various different algorithms, including Oregon dispatcher or the seeker algorithms.

[00:31:02] Speaker 01:
I think it's... The district court probably said it best at appendix 1973.

[00:31:14] Speaker 01:
She found that Google didn't seek claim construction

[00:31:16] Speaker 01:
She said that space data could have but didn't.

[00:31:20] Speaker 01:
And in any event, that she considered their belated arguments as inconsistent with the plane meaning overall and the specification.

[00:31:27] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:31:29] Speaker 02:
Any more questions for Mr. Canda?

[00:31:33] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:31:33] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:31:34] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:31:35] Speaker 02:
Mr. Lieber, you have three minutes.

[00:31:37] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:31:38] Speaker 00:
Judge Dyck, I'd like to address the question that you asked Mr. Kamber.

[00:31:41] Speaker 00:
There was a claim construction that's going on here, and space data contends that it was Google that actually wrote a limitation into the actual language.

[00:31:51] Speaker 00:
The claim itself doesn't say anything about a vector or any measurement.

[00:31:55] Speaker 00:
It says determining.

[00:31:57] Speaker 00:
and space data is entitled to the full scope of determining unless there's some disavowal in the prosecution history or lexicography going on.

[00:32:06] Speaker 00:
None of that is going on in this patent, and space data is entitled to the entire scope of determining, which includes space data's plain meaning that we offer to the district court at summary judgment.

[00:32:18] Speaker 00:
I do want to point the court to the specification in the 678 at column 22, lines 15 and 16.

[00:32:26] Speaker 00:
That specification reads the locations of the one or more neighbor balloons could be determined by using GPS.

[00:32:36] Speaker 00:
That seems to me to be a reference to step two, as Mr. Kamber points out, of what the patent claim requires, which is to say determining the locations of those neighbor balloons.

[00:32:48] Speaker 00:
I agree that it doesn't say relative to the target balloon, but it can't be anything else.

[00:32:56] Speaker 00:
Unless there are any more questions from the panel, I would submit.

[00:33:00] Speaker 02:
Any more questions, Mr. Lieber?

[00:33:04] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:33:05] Speaker 02:
Thank both counsels.

[00:33:07] Speaker 02:
The case is taken under submission.