[00:01:07] Speaker 04:
All right, our next case for argument is 2019-1835, Unilock versus LG Electronics.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
Mr. Foster, please proceed.

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
Please the court, the invention here goes back to 1999, 2000, the first year of what we now refer to as Bluetooth, although the standard has changed substantially over the last 20 years.

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
There was a technical problem with the original Bluetooth specification, which is outlined in the patent and in all the briefs.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
But to spend 30 seconds just describing how the original Bluetooth was supposed to work,

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
It was, the idea was to set up ad hoc networks between wireless networks between devices.

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
By that I mean devices which had never seen each other or contacted each other before could connect and have a network and be able to communicate.

[00:02:30] Speaker 02:
The way the original Bluetooth specification was designed to do that was through what I'll refer to as a handshaking process.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
It would send signals back and forth over a period of maybe 30 seconds or so.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
And when that process was concluded, they would be in active connection.

[00:02:45] Speaker 02:
I stress the word active.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
They could send stuff back and forth between them immediately without any difficulty.

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
That was fine.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
But there was a sector of the technical arc where it didn't really work out very well.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
And that was battery-powered human interface devices, for instance, a keyboard or a mouse.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
The way the active connection works, if you have a computer and a battery-powered keyboard, which is wireless connection, about every 10 milliseconds or so, the computer will ask the keyboard, do you have any keystrokes?

[00:03:20] Speaker 02:
Do you have any keystrokes?

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
Mr. Foster, what would you say that the claims are directed to in this case?

[00:03:26] Speaker 02:
The claims are directed to, and puts it in boldface in the brief, Your Honor, but it's reducing latency in ad hoc networks by adding to what's called an inquiry message.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
a section which is supposed to pull a second device, and then the second devices are able to recognize that there's an extra field, that they have been pulled, and that they are supposed to send data back to the first device if they had been pulled.

[00:03:59] Speaker 01:
So getting back to... So would it be equivalent to say there was a communication protocol?

[00:04:05] Speaker 01:
You all realize there was a

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
form of dysfunction in that communication protocol, you all realize there was some dead space that could be used to improve the communication protocol, and that's what the patent is directed to, which is not abstract.

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
How about your formulation?

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
I want you to disagree with me if you think there's something off about what I said, and there's a better way to put it.

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
Well, that's a way of describing it, but I would step back.

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
The way I look at it is that you have a communication protocol which isn't working for a particular second technology.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
There's a need to solve that problem because you have a 30-second delay with getting a keyboard back in line.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
The problems the inventors were challenged with was how do we solve this technical problem?

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
They observed that there was a signal

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
being used in the Bluetooth process for a different purpose.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
That's what I mean, the dead space.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
The inquiry has, I forget what it was, but a bunch of dead space enough that it could also ask, do you have any data question in that?

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
The dead space was there.

[00:05:23] Speaker 02:
It was there for another purpose.

[00:05:25] Speaker 02:
And the inventor says, hey, we don't need all of that for that purpose.

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
We can squeeze this in.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
And if we squeeze this in,

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
we can accomplish the result that we need to accomplish.

[00:05:36] Speaker 02:
Now, once the devices are actively connected, what happens with the battery-powered devices is they go to sleep sometimes because you're not typing and you go to get a sandwich or something, whatever the reason.

[00:05:51] Speaker 02:
After 30 seconds, the keyboard goes to sleep.

[00:05:55] Speaker 02:
And the problem with the original Bluetooth spec was in order to get it active again, it took 30 seconds for various

[00:06:02] Speaker 02:
signaling the reasons, and that really wasn't working out very well.

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
That's where we got to the point where... Let me step back a step.

[00:06:11] Speaker 02:
The keyboard had to re-enter the network and establish the connection.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
That's different from the handshaking process by which the network is set up in the first place.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
That's something that I guess LG didn't appreciate in their brief.

[00:06:24] Speaker 02:
It doesn't involve inquiry processes.

[00:06:26] Speaker 02:
The reentry is a separate process for that.

[00:06:29] Speaker 02:
But the inventor saw that by using this inquiry process, which is borrowed from the handshaking area of the system, they could establish an immediate connection between the master and the slave and pull the slave for user data and get rid of the 30-second delay.

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
Now, this is the 101 case.

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
It was a technical problem, and it was clearly, in my view, a technical solution.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you this question?

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
These claims are written as means plus function claims, right?

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
Some of them are, you're right.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
I think the ones we've been discussing there are.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
Well, I know there was some dispute about what was representative, but are both one and two?

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
One and two are means plus function claims.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
Are means plus function, in which case

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
And there's been no effort to overcome, because this uses means language, the Williamson presumption that they are means plus function.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
Doesn't that mean that the specific structure in the spec is actually part of this claim scope?

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
Yes, the specific structure and equivalence of the structure as well, Your Honor.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
You did mention that in our brief.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
Not a lot of argument back and forth on that.

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
Well, I understand why both sides might be a little bit reluctant to press the issue too far, because you don't know where it leads for infringement purposes, et cetera.

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
Think about later in the case.

[00:07:57] Speaker 02:
But for one one purposes, you're absolutely right.

[00:07:59] Speaker 02:
The details of the spec are carried into the claims to the extent they correspond to the means provisions.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
And that's how we get to talk about Bluetooth, right?

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
Because claims one and two don't talk about Bluetooth, do they?

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
Well, they don't.

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
But I think there are one or two different kinds of claims we should do.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
Am I wrong?

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
I've got a bunch of Bluetooth patents.

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
There may be.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
But I think you've argued this as there is one or the other as a representative claim, right?

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
Either one or two.

[00:08:24] Speaker 02:
Well, our position is that it was claim one, because the features of both terminals are in claim one.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
This judge, for whatever reason, wanted to limit it to claim two.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
And we have checked it down there.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
And here we are laying to our patents in front of this court.

[00:08:39] Speaker 02:
So if you have described the technical issues and why we think there's a technical solution to a technical problem, then you come to the legal issues.

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
This is where a lot of problems are 101 area, but here if the advance on the heart

[00:08:58] Speaker 02:
is as you described in your summary.

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
I don't see that as abstract by any stretch of imagination, but that's for the court to decide.

[00:09:06] Speaker 02:
And we covered that in our brief.

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
I'm picking up that the court is aware of the nature of the invention, so I'm happy to answer any questions.

[00:09:18] Speaker 02:
But if you have no further questions, I'm going to sit down.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
Very good.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
We'll save the rest of your time for rebuttal.

[00:09:34] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
May I please the court?

[00:09:39] Speaker 03:
The fundamental problem here is that the claims are drafted at way too high a level.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
They claim a concept.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
The claims broadly recite what is necessary.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
Is that true even if we treat these as means plus function claims?

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
Because it seems to me if we do, we start pouring in all this stuff about the Bluetooth protocol.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, I'm not quite sure how to answer that question, because Unalak has taken the position that these are not means plus functioning claims.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
So we have assumed that we're just looking at the plain language.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
I don't mean to distract you from where, but where have they said that?

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
In a district court pleading that was filed, they took the position.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
I have it here.

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
Is it in the appendix?

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
I don't believe it is.

[00:10:31] Speaker 03:
It wasn't an issue.

[00:10:33] Speaker 03:
And it's a DI-91, where Unilock has not contended any limitations are governed by 112-6.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
And so we have not gone down that path, because as your honor recognizes.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
And there is no claim construction issue in the case.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
They've not raised claim construction as a basis for not looking at 101.

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
So I think it is fair, as the district court found, that the claims really are just to this general inventive concept.

[00:11:03] Speaker 04:
Well, I mean, before we're going to declare claims ineligible, if there's a question about the construction, ought that not to be resolved?

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
There is not a question about the construction, Your Honor.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
That's, I think, my point is that the parties have not raised claim construction.

[00:11:21] Speaker 04:
I don't really care, because it's a question of law.

[00:11:24] Speaker 04:
And these are means plus function claims.

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
And I don't see any way around that.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
So once I start with what do these claims cover,

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
I then look to the spec.

[00:11:33] Speaker 04:
I pull in the Bluetooth protocol.

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
I don't see how these are abstract.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
I see them as being directed to an improvement in network or computer functionality exactly like was excluded from Alice's coverage of 101 and eligibility, the opposite of the opinions that I recently issued on the topic.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
So I'm completely baffled.

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
First of all, Unalak has not raised plain construction as a basis for an error in the district court.

[00:12:04] Speaker 04:
I have claims in front of me, and I'm supposed to decide whether they're ineligible.

[00:12:08] Speaker 04:
In order to undertake that, I have to figure out what they're directed to.

[00:12:12] Speaker 04:
The Supreme Court told me that.

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
So I have to look at the claim language.

[00:12:15] Speaker 04:
And what these claims seem to me to be directed to is an improvement in Bluetooth networking.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
Well, as I said, I believe it's claimed at a way too high a level is what the problem is.

[00:12:28] Speaker 04:
Because if you look at the- But inherent in that, Mr. Jakes, is my acceptance that these aren't means plus function claims, which you seem to want me to accept.

[00:12:37] Speaker 03:
We have not argued about means plus function either side in this case.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
You made some passing references to it in your brief, I think, which I took as a kind of acknowledgment that maybe this

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
is worth adverting to because there's something lurking here.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
We only referred to their brief which said these claims may include such things as, and I think our point was they haven't really made a structural argument and told us what that corresponding structure is.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
I actually think there is a problem if you go down that path because as to what is the inventive concept

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
There really isn't any structure that describes it.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
What you have is the existing Bluetooth structure.

[00:13:24] Speaker 03:
And then you have what the claim adds, adding to each inquiry message an additional data field.

[00:13:32] Speaker 03:
That's it.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
And that's what the patent describes as the general inventive concept.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
They recognized that you could allow parked devices to communicate by keeping this open channel utilizing, in particular,

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
a data field that was already present, that seems like a very specific solution, not a sort of result-oriented claiming approach, but rather a specific solution to a problem.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
And there's no doubt that they have alleged, and the record supports, that this solution dramatically reduced the lag time or wait time in these systems between when you move the mouse and when you actually have a reaction on the computer.

[00:14:16] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I think we have to focus on the claim language.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
There's nothing about part devices in the claim language.

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
There's nothing about latency in the claim language.

[00:14:26] Speaker 03:
The only thing that is described is adding to the inquiry message an additional data field.

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
But doesn't that way of putting it overlook the distinction between the inquiry message and polling, which is in the claim language?

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
Which in some way is kind of the heart of what they say they noticed and fixed.

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
Well, I understand your question, Your Honor.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
Maybe I can answer it this way.

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
The inquiry message has a plurality of data fields.

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
That's in the claim.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
And that is known.

[00:15:05] Speaker 03:
There's nothing new about that.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
So they did recognize something.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
They basically said, hey, let's make one of these fields polling data.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
They're basically just labeling what that data is in the communication protocol.

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
And they allege that you get all these great results.

[00:15:24] Speaker 01:
Why is that just labeling?

[00:15:25] Speaker 01:
I thought it was undisputed that polling is a specific kind of request that triggers the ability for the slave to send data right back.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
You're right, Your Honor.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
My point is that the

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
Inquiry message has a number of predetermined data fields.

[00:15:49] Speaker 03:
And they're just saying, look, we'll call one of them polling data.

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
And you can use that.

[00:15:54] Speaker 03:
But the communication.

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
Not call one of them polling data.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
We'll use one of them to poll, which had not been done previously, at least alleged according to this patent at this stage in the record.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
If you look at Claim 2, it does call it polling data.

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
It doesn't really say what happens with it.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
There's nothing that...

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
There's nothing further.

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
That's why I say it's a too high a level.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
It just basically says, for the message inquiry, put in some polling data in one of these data fields.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
Mr. Jakes, on the opponent's brief on page 7, up towards the top.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
it references to the pen, it says, the means for adding the field, which seems to suggest that maybe these are means plus function claims, the means for adding the field would include.

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
And then it goes on and states what would be included, what was created by rewriting the code for this particular pen.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
That's more than just nothing, right?

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
Well, I think we addressed that, Your Honor, saying

[00:17:01] Speaker 03:
that these means may include something is not the same as saying, this is what the corresponding structure is in the specification, and the claims are limited to that.

[00:17:11] Speaker 03:
They have not done that.

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
And as I said in document number 91 in the district court, they say that 112 paragraph 6 does not apply to any limitation.

[00:17:19] Speaker 03:
So by saying these claims include that, we don't really have a problem with that, because they could certainly cover it.

[00:17:27] Speaker 03:
But that's not the same thing as saying,

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
They're limited to the particular structure and then pointing to that structure and specification.

[00:17:35] Speaker 03:
And one of the problems is all the structure is conventional Bluetooth.

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
That's all it's described.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
You have the patent saying use the communication protocols that already exist.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
There's no new communication protocol.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
So on that same page, there's a second paragraph.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
And this starts, in the invention, but not in the Bluetooth 1.0b specification, the parked HID would respond to the poll.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
So isn't that adding more than what's just in the Bluetooth specification?

[00:18:10] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, that is right.

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
The Bluetooth specification doesn't say in these data fields in the inquiry message to put polling data.

[00:18:22] Speaker 03:
And that is what would be different.

[00:18:25] Speaker 03:
And as we know, when you look at what the claims directed to you, you look at what the claim advances.

[00:18:31] Speaker 03:
And the only thing in the claim is adding that polling data.

[00:18:35] Speaker 00:
So that's not in the poll.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
If that's a change in the technology, that's a technological change, and it resolves a technological problem, then why aren't we looking at infish here?

[00:18:48] Speaker 03:
I don't think this is an infish situation because

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
There is no, well, first of all, the result, the latency, it's not claimed.

[00:18:59] Speaker 04:
This could be... It's not claimed, but it's expressly mentioned in the specification that it's the result of performing the process this way.

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
You know, the claims don't say that.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
And I think the focus has to be on the claims.

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
In Enfish, the claims didn't say in them that it reduced data consumption or it made more efficient searching.

[00:19:20] Speaker 04:
Claims didn't say that in Enfish.

[00:19:22] Speaker 04:
In, let's say, McRoe, the claims didn't say it.

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
In Affinity Labs, the claims didn't say it.

[00:19:30] Speaker 04:
We've often looked at the spec to describe what the advantages are of what is actually claimed.

[00:19:34] Speaker 03:
That I understand.

[00:19:36] Speaker 03:
Yes, you do.

[00:19:37] Speaker 03:
But here, all we have is that the very high level general statement add polling data into one of these fields.

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
And I think the district court was correct when she said, that's what this is directed to, putting polling data in one of these fields.

[00:19:54] Speaker 03:
Now, that was described as a general inventive concept in the patent.

[00:20:01] Speaker 03:
And there really isn't anything more to it.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
And that's why it comes down to being an abstract idea.

[00:20:09] Speaker 01:
Can I just ask about that?

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
Therefore.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
Let's assume for a minute that one puts aside means plus function and stop talking about Bluetooth.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
But there are certain words here.

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
And there's an inquiry message from a master to a slave or whatever the claim language, primary and secondary or something.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
In that inquiry message, there's now going to be placed a particular kind of new data field, one that includes polling data.

[00:20:44] Speaker 01:
Now, a certain amount of claim construction has to be done, whether formal or otherwise, to understand what is going on.

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
But even at that level, why is that not a technical improvement in how this little communication network works?

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
I believe it's because it's claimed at way too high a level and so that it's merely the abstract idea of adding polling data.

[00:21:12] Speaker 03:
There's nothing additional to that.

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
It doesn't say what the data is, what the rules are for it, how it works.

[00:21:20] Speaker 03:
There's none of that included.

[00:21:21] Speaker 03:
It's just pure functional language at the highest level that says, put polling data in this space.

[00:21:28] Speaker 03:
It's a discovery that, hey, there's a little bit of space here.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
Sounds like an abstract idea, and I believe it was, unless there's something more to it.

[00:21:37] Speaker 04:
Well, I mean, you seem to discover there's a little bit of space here.

[00:21:40] Speaker 04:
And then they specifically figured out what to use that space for and how it would reduce latency, which in your red brief at 54, you call a, let's see, what is it, a inherent result of performing polling as part of the inquiry process, which hadn't been done before because nobody knew the space was there to do it.

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
There's always been polling, and that's conventional.

[00:22:05] Speaker 03:
So there's nothing new there.

[00:22:07] Speaker 04:
Yeah, the old polling resulted in tenths of seconds of response time.

[00:22:10] Speaker 04:
And when they figured out that you could actually include polling data on the inquiry message because there was enough room to do so, it cut that time down by an order of magnitude.

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
Which you recognize in your brain.

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
Just to be clear, it's only polling during that inquiry message period.

[00:22:28] Speaker 03:
Polling works perfectly fine the rest of the time.

[00:22:32] Speaker 03:
It's only in that 10.24 seconds when you may be doing that that polling wouldn't be available.

[00:22:39] Speaker 03:
And so the effect on latency is there may be there.

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
You could have one.

[00:22:46] Speaker 04:
The effect on latency is only sometimes.

[00:22:48] Speaker 03:
It could be.

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
So therefore, it's not an invention because it only improves the response times sometimes.

[00:22:55] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, that's part of the problem with an abstract idea is it's not fleshed out when you just say add some polling data to the inquiry message and nothing more.

[00:23:08] Speaker 03:
It's just, as the patent calls it, a general inventive concept with nothing else that's added in the claims.

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
And the focus is on the claims.

[00:23:16] Speaker 03:
There's a lot in the specification.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
There's nothing about parked stations.

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
And so I think that's where the focus is.

[00:23:24] Speaker 03:
And when you look at it, it really adds nothing to what was already there in Bluetooth, other than recognizing that some of this data could be called polling data.

[00:23:39] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:23:46] Speaker 04:
Mr. Foster, you have some rebuttal time.

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I'm here to assist the Court in any way I can.

[00:23:52] Speaker 02:
If you have any questions about the invention of a missile, but not a wave.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
Mr. Jake said in, what, DI, docket, whatever, item 91, you said, we're not urging that any of the claim language

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
that's under discussion here is 112.6 language.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
That's news to me, Your Honor.

[00:24:17] Speaker 01:
They look like means plus function claims to me, and I remember it.

[00:24:21] Speaker 01:
Do you know what this document is that he was referring to?

[00:24:25] Speaker 02:
Well, we can check if you don't have... I'll have to look it up, but...

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
I've seen a lot of claims in my life, and these are clearly mean plus function claims.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
Other than that cited reference in your brief on page 7, where you use a word, the means for adding the field, did you make an argument anywhere else with respect to means plus function claiming?

[00:25:05] Speaker 02:
I have a recollection that I'm writing a brief.

[00:25:07] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I mentioned that the means plus function claims incorporate the details, but I frantically tried to find it.

[00:25:16] Speaker 02:
When I was sitting there, I didn't find it, but might be able to.

[00:25:20] Speaker 00:
But you didn't make that argument.

[00:25:22] Speaker 00:
Other than just saying those words, is there any work where you fleshed out an argument that means plus function claiming would have some sort of impact here?

[00:25:32] Speaker 02:
Other than saying that means plus function claims incorporate details from the specification, I recall a sentence or two on that, which I cannot try to find, but there's no paragraph talking about means plus function claims.

[00:25:46] Speaker 02:
You did make the argument.

[00:25:48] Speaker 02:
Other than what I remember, I don't know.

[00:25:55] Speaker 02:
I'll take any other questions, but otherwise we're going to wait one more.

[00:26:00] Speaker 04:
Well, I think you make the argument.

[00:26:02] Speaker 04:
On page 28, I'm going to help you answer Judge Raina's question.

[00:26:05] Speaker 04:
I mean, at least there you talk about claims reciting concrete means for achieving.

[00:26:19] Speaker 04:
Now, granted, it's not in the context of 112.6, but I mean, throughout your argument, I understood you in talking about what these claims are directed to

[00:26:28] Speaker 04:
to be importing in from the specification the structure and Bluetooth protocols as though they were part of these claim elements.

[00:26:36] Speaker 04:
Maybe you didn't set it up in that old-fashioned patent lawyer way you should have where you say, these are 112.6 claims.

[00:26:43] Speaker 04:
Here's what the means correspond to and the structure and the spec will be imported in.

[00:26:47] Speaker 04:
But nonetheless, I read your brief as sort of just automatically importing that into your argument as though it was there.

[00:26:54] Speaker 04:
Is that correct?

[00:26:56] Speaker 02:
I think that's at least correct for that reason, Your Honor, but also the fact the inquiry message is defined in the specification, so what language is there necessarily takes its context from the specification.

[00:27:11] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:27:11] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. Foster.

[00:27:12] Speaker 04:
The case is taken under submission.