[00:00:00] Speaker 00: Our first case for argument this morning is 21-1124 Blackberry versus Hirshfield. [00:00:08] Speaker 00: Mr. Glass, please proceed. [00:00:16] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:00:23] Speaker 01: May it please the court, James Glass, repellent Blackberry Limited. [00:00:31] Speaker 01: Your honors, in the IPR below, the board made several key errors primarily related to the language in claim one, specifically the displaying phrase and the notifications term, as well as errors in the failure to consider arguments on motivation to combine. [00:00:47] Speaker 01: I'm going to start with the claim construction issues and specifically the phrase displaying a new incoming message. [00:00:55] Speaker 01: With respect to that phrase, the board incorrectly determined that it was sufficiently broad to encompass Dallas to disclosure, Dallas to the prior art reference, the primary prior art reference, specifically to include disclosure on Dallas that requires user intervention. [00:01:10] Speaker 01: In relevant part, this phrase requires, in the context of a silenced message, displaying the new incoming electronic message in an inbox together with any message thread not flagged as silenced. [00:01:23] Speaker 01: Now, the board specifically found this phrase was rendered obvious by functionality in Dallas called ignore. [00:01:29] Speaker 01: And there's no dispute between the parties as to what this ignore functionality does. [00:01:34] Speaker 01: It collapses messages as they're received. [00:01:36] Speaker 01: They're automatically hidden and collapsed into a single heading, and that heading alone is displayed. [00:01:42] Speaker 01: In fact, and I believe this was cited in the intervener's brief, Dallas expressly states the point of this ignore function is to stop seeing new documents in a particular thread. [00:01:52] Speaker 01: So at the outset, there's a fundamental disconnect between Dallas's disclosure of the ignore feature and the claimed displaying step. [00:02:02] Speaker 01: The claims require displaying. [00:02:03] Speaker 01: The ignore feature stops displaying. [00:02:06] Speaker 01: Petitioners below recognize this issue and focus on additional functionality in Dallas that allows the user to expand a thread after it was processed, after it was received, and after it was hidden to display messages in the inbox. [00:02:22] Speaker 01: The issue then is whether the scope of the displaying phrase includes this functionality. [00:02:27] Speaker 01: Now, the board below focused on the claim breadth of the claims, specifically focusing on the fact that this was a comprising claim. [00:02:37] Speaker 01: And as such, it was open-ended and specifically, according to the board expressly, allowed for user intervention. [00:02:45] Speaker 01: Now, while the board was, of course, correct that comprising claims are open-ended, [00:02:49] Speaker 01: It erred in giving the claim such breadth that it read out specific terms of the claims. [00:02:56] Speaker 01: Specifically, the board erred in determining that the scope of this phrase encompassed a user expanding a message thread after activating Dallas's ignore feature. [00:03:06] Speaker 01: This over-breath read out the word incoming from the phrase new incoming message. [00:03:14] Speaker 01: The term incoming is a simple term. [00:03:15] Speaker 01: It's not one that has a special meaning. [00:03:18] Speaker 01: It's an ordinary meaning. [00:03:19] Speaker 01: It simply means at the time of receipt. [00:03:22] Speaker 01: It's a message that's in the process of coming in. [00:03:25] Speaker 01: It's clear from the entire thrust of the claimed invention that incoming messages are displayed at the time of receipt. [00:03:31] Speaker 01: For example, the very limitation we're discussing now also requires, in addition to displaying, [00:03:38] Speaker 01: that while displaying a new incoming message, that further receipt notifications are silenced. [00:03:45] Speaker 01: Receipt notifications, there's no dispute, occur at the time of receipt. [00:03:49] Speaker 01: Displaying while silencing must therefore also take place at the time of receipt. [00:03:55] Speaker 01: Our proposed interpretation of this phrase is entirely consistent with the thrust of the invention in the claims. [00:04:01] Speaker 01: It's also consistent with how the patentees describe the invention during prosecution. [00:04:06] Speaker 01: We've mentioned this in our briefs. [00:04:08] Speaker 01: I'm not going to walk through the entire quote. [00:04:09] Speaker 01: But the patentee, in connection with this phrase, specifically said that this displaying step allowed the user to conveniently see messages at a glance. [00:04:19] Speaker 01: If the user then had to go in and expand that message thread, it would no longer be convenient. [00:04:26] Speaker 01: And again, we're not saying that was an express disclaimer. [00:04:29] Speaker 01: We're not saying that that disclaimed coverage, we're saying that's consistent with our interpretation of that phrase. [00:04:35] Speaker 01: Intervener's interpretation, however, is entirely inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence. [00:04:41] Speaker 01: Intervener argues that in the world of email, an incoming message can only be made sense when juxtaposed against an outgoing message. [00:04:49] Speaker 01: According to the Intervener, there is no temporal component to an incoming message. [00:04:55] Speaker 01: An incoming message is still incoming as long as it's not an outgoing message, as long as it's unread. [00:05:01] Speaker 01: Intervenor embraces the notion that a message that is not read for minutes, seconds, presumably a decade, is still an incoming message so long as it is not an outgoing message and as long as it's not read. [00:05:15] Speaker 01: Taking that to its extreme, if you deleted a message, if it was an unread message, according to Intervenor, it's still an incoming message. [00:05:25] Speaker 01: That simply doesn't make sense from either the plain English language of the claims, referring to an incoming message, displaying messages while silencing further notifications. [00:05:36] Speaker 01: It's also inconsistent with the thrust of the invention and the citation to the specification that we've laid out. [00:05:44] Speaker 02: What if it says display the received electronic message in an inbox? [00:05:49] Speaker 01: Would that be different? [00:05:51] Speaker 01: It is different, because received connotes that it's been received at some point in the past. [00:05:56] Speaker 01: And I think that's kind of, I believe that's what Indirvena was getting at, when they said that as long as it's received, it still could be new. [00:06:03] Speaker 01: Our point is that it's in the process of being received. [00:06:06] Speaker 01: It's at the time of receipt. [00:06:07] Speaker 01: The system itself processes the message. [00:06:11] Speaker 01: So the short answer to your questions, I think there is a difference. [00:06:16] Speaker 01: This claim is about an instantaneous moment. [00:06:19] Speaker 01: It's about creating an inbox that's more convenient for the user. [00:06:23] Speaker 01: And the way this does it is in a very specific way. [00:06:27] Speaker 01: So Dallas does it by, I believe, it talks about shutting off the fire hose. [00:06:31] Speaker 02: I'm just trying to understand what you think your claim is referring to. [00:06:35] Speaker 02: You're talking about, I guess, a processor that's configured to do something at a very instantaneous moment in time? [00:06:43] Speaker 02: It acts on the messages as they're coming in. [00:06:45] Speaker 02: And the point is- I'm sorry. [00:06:48] Speaker 02: I just need a yes or no. [00:06:49] Speaker 02: You're telling me that your claim is defining something that occurs at a particular instantaneous moment in time. [00:06:59] Speaker 02: That's what you're arguing, right? [00:07:03] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:07:03] Speaker 01: That instantaneous moment in time is at the time of receipt, correct. [00:07:09] Speaker 02: So you have to, once at that very moment it arrives, [00:07:15] Speaker 02: Now you have to look at what's happening to the display. [00:07:19] Speaker 02: And it's not just your inbox and looking at the messages that are in the inbox. [00:07:26] Speaker 01: So if I understand the question correctly, Your Honor, the claim is it receives the message. [00:07:31] Speaker 02: I mean, in one sense, I see a list of incoming messages. [00:07:37] Speaker 02: all the received incoming messages. [00:07:39] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:07:39] Speaker 01: And you see, in this particular invention, the way it allows you to manage that inbox is by displaying silence threads together with non-silence threads in a different manner and silence the notifications for those silence threads. [00:07:54] Speaker 02: Right. [00:07:54] Speaker 02: But none of that has anything to do with what happens at that instantaneous moment when a given message arrives. [00:08:00] Speaker 02: It's more about an organization and display of a whole collection of messages that are [00:08:05] Speaker 01: two categories, one of the silenced, one of the non-silenced. [00:08:08] Speaker 01: I understand the question, Your Honor. [00:08:09] Speaker 01: And the point is that by allowing the user intervene, that would be contrary to the organizational structure set out in the claims, that you have this convenient thing that the user can at a glance look at and see his or her silenced messages and unsilenced messages and not be bothered by notifications. [00:08:32] Speaker 01: So the temporal component, I think, [00:08:34] Speaker 01: is playing from the face of the claims. [00:08:36] Speaker 01: It's also consistent with the purpose of the invention, allowing you to still see these messages side by side without being bothered by the notifications. [00:08:52] Speaker 01: I'll pause for a second. [00:08:52] Speaker 01: Have I answered your honor's question? [00:08:56] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:08:56] Speaker 01: Unless there are any other questions, your honors, on the display, and I'm going to move on the time I have left to the notification issue. [00:09:05] Speaker 01: The board initially agreed with our position that our proposed construction for notification was captured the ordinary meaning as supported by the examples in the specification. [00:09:17] Speaker 01: And specifically, we argue that's the notification in addition to being some form of visual, auditory, or physical cue. [00:09:24] Speaker 01: It must be some form of auditory or physical cue that draws the attention to an incoming message that would not have otherwise been noticed. [00:09:33] Speaker 01: At institution, the board initially agreed with us that that captured the ordinary meaning. [00:09:38] Speaker 01: We again stated in our surply that our position was ordinary meaning. [00:09:42] Speaker 01: This was consistent with how the district court agreed with us that our construction captured the ordinary meaning. [00:09:48] Speaker 01: By the time of the final written decision, however, the board had recast our construction. [00:09:53] Speaker 01: The board found that we had not provided the citations to our specifications. [00:09:56] Speaker 01: We had not provided sufficient [00:09:59] Speaker 01: proof that the specification defined, gave a special meaning to this term, that there was no unique meaning. [00:10:07] Speaker 02: What if hypothetically I had my inbox open on my monitor, and it's filling up the entire screen, and then a message comes in, a new message, and when I look at, I'm staring at my monitor, I can see my inbox right there. [00:10:30] Speaker 02: And I can see the new entry. [00:10:33] Speaker 02: It's flashing in red. [00:10:37] Speaker 02: So I'm seeing it. [00:10:40] Speaker 02: And then in the bottom corner of the monitor, there's a separate pop-up window that says, new messages come in from Chief Jake Moore. [00:10:52] Speaker 02: I've already noticed the arrival of that message in my inbox. [00:10:58] Speaker 02: So that pop-up window isn't some kind of cue that tells me about an incoming message that I wouldn't have otherwise noticed. [00:11:09] Speaker 02: So in that circumstance, does that pop-up window [00:11:14] Speaker 02: satisfied your construction of notification. [00:11:18] Speaker 02: It does. [00:11:19] Speaker 02: But I already knew about it before the pop-up window showed up. [00:11:23] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:11:23] Speaker 01: And that is, Your Honor, you hit exactly on the point that we were trying to make below. [00:11:28] Speaker 01: That it is irrelevant if our construction does not require a subjective inquiry into the user's state of mind, whether the user was actually bothered. [00:11:37] Speaker 02: Well, I don't know what it means then when you say, [00:11:41] Speaker 02: The construction has to have the limitation that the email wouldn't have otherwise have been noticed. [00:11:50] Speaker 01: It has to be of the form that would not have otherwise been noticed. [00:11:54] Speaker 01: This was our attempt to capture... [00:11:58] Speaker 02: I don't understand. [00:11:59] Speaker 02: You've just added a new word to the proposed construction. [00:12:04] Speaker 01: Our proposed construction is some form of visual, auditory, or physical cue to draw the attention to an incoming message that would not have otherwise been noticed. [00:12:14] Speaker 01: Our point was that by saying some form of visual, et cetera, notification, that would not otherwise have been noticed. [00:12:25] Speaker 01: That captures the examples and the statements and the specification of what is a notification, the pop-ups, the auditory alerts, the physical vibrations. [00:12:35] Speaker 01: Those are the type of notifications this patent is concerned with, not whether something is a blue text or a bold font. [00:12:45] Speaker 01: That's actually exactly what the specification states is not a notification. [00:12:49] Speaker 01: That's how you indicate a silenced message. [00:12:52] Speaker 01: So our point is that the board below said, well, this patent's not about notifications. [00:12:59] Speaker 01: It's about silencing notifications. [00:13:00] Speaker 01: It's about silencing specific types of notifications. [00:13:04] Speaker 01: Those are the form, the type, the category that would be the type that you would not have otherwise have noticed. [00:13:10] Speaker 01: And there's more than sufficient. [00:13:12] Speaker 02: So getting back to my hypothetical, what's wrong with when I've got my inbox open? [00:13:19] Speaker 02: And then the new message arrives, and I see an entry in my inbox, and that entry is flashing in red. [00:13:25] Speaker 01: Why wouldn't that be a notification? [00:13:28] Speaker 01: Because that is not of the form that's something that you would not have otherwise been noticed. [00:13:32] Speaker 02: That's not of the type of- No, and if it had just slid into my inbox, looking like all the other messages, I easily could not have noticed it. [00:13:43] Speaker 02: But now it's coming in. [00:13:45] Speaker 02: big and flashing and red, so now it's yanking my attention over to that portion of the display. [00:13:58] Speaker 01: I understand the question, Your Honor, and again the [00:14:00] Speaker 01: The purpose of our construction is to capture the types, the forms of notifications that are laid out in the specification. [00:14:08] Speaker 01: The pop-ups, the types that are not part of the inbox, they're not part of the message. [00:14:14] Speaker 01: There are types of messages that are of the form that could direct your attention if you are not looking at the inbox itself. [00:14:23] Speaker 01: And this gets into our discussion, and the parties brief this extensively. [00:14:30] Speaker 02: It has to be a note of when you're, it's telling you, it's notifying you about something when you're not looking at the inbox. [00:14:39] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:14:40] Speaker 01: Like a pop-up. [00:14:41] Speaker 01: Flashing, flashing lights, pop-up, auditory and vibrating. [00:14:45] Speaker 01: It's the type of thing that you don't have to be looking at the inbox. [00:14:48] Speaker 01: It's the type, form or example of a notification that would draw your attention. [00:14:54] Speaker 00: Council, you've used all your time and almost all your rebuttal time. [00:14:57] Speaker 00: Would you like to say some? [00:14:59] Speaker 01: One last point, Your Honor, just very quickly on the motivation to combine. [00:15:03] Speaker 01: We argued you could not combine LeBlanc and Dallas. [00:15:08] Speaker 01: We argued that rose to the level of a teaching away. [00:15:10] Speaker 01: The board disagreed with us. [00:15:12] Speaker 01: Board below, however, ignored one of our arguments. [00:15:15] Speaker 01: We also argued in line with Clara's case that even if it doesn't rise the level of teaching away, it still is relevant to the motivation combined. [00:15:23] Speaker 01: That argument was not only not considered by the board in any respect, it was also not even mentioned by intervener. [00:15:29] Speaker 01: On that count, the motivation combined that the board erred. [00:15:35] Speaker 00: All right. [00:15:36] Speaker 00: Let's hear from the PTO, Ms. [00:15:38] Speaker 00: Lateef. [00:15:40] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:16:04] Speaker 03: May it please the court. [00:16:06] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:16:08] Speaker 03: Based on the intrinsic evidence in this case, the board properly construed the claim term notification to mean some form of visual, auditory, or physical cue to draw attention to an incoming message at the time of its receipt. [00:16:21] Speaker 03: And whether you... [00:16:22] Speaker 03: You look at the board's construction or Blackberry's construction. [00:16:25] Speaker 03: The board properly determined that substantial evidence found that these claims are unpatentable as obvious in view of Dallas or alternatively in view of Dallas and LeBlanc. [00:16:36] Speaker 03: With respect to council's claims about the displaying limitation, Dallas teaches this limitation [00:16:45] Speaker 03: even though it requires user intervention. [00:16:49] Speaker 03: There's nothing in the claims that prevents a user from expanding the silence thread in Dallas. [00:16:56] Speaker 03: And there's nothing in the intrinsic evidence or in the spec that says that this is not something that can occur. [00:17:03] Speaker 03: This idea that there is no, that it has to be instantaneous is just not supported anywhere in the claims or in the specifications. [00:17:12] Speaker 03: With respect to this idea about notification and whether or not under the board's construction it was proper, there is no support in the intrinsic evidence for this disputed language that would otherwise not have been noticed. [00:17:26] Speaker 03: There's nothing, there's no definition of notification in the spec and there are examples in the spec of things like visual cues as pop-ups, [00:17:36] Speaker 03: But it also says that notifications can be in one or more of a variety of ways. [00:17:41] Speaker 03: And having this idea that there should be some sort of notification that otherwise would not be noticed is highly subjective. [00:17:50] Speaker 03: And all that a notification is is a feature of the software. [00:17:54] Speaker 03: This is a communication system. [00:17:56] Speaker 03: The notification is whatever the software deems it to be to alert someone, I'm sorry, to alert a user that there is a new message. [00:18:04] Speaker 03: So there's no support, no reason to include this disputed language that Blackberry is arguing. [00:18:09] Speaker 00: Council, when you say notification is a feature of the software and that this is a communication system, why doesn't that same logic apply to the display limitation? [00:18:21] Speaker 03: And just so I'm clear, as is [00:18:24] Speaker 03: When you say, why doesn't it apply to the display limitation, do you mean why? [00:18:27] Speaker 00: Does it apply to the display limitation? [00:18:29] Speaker 00: Is the display limitation a feature of software in this communication system, as claimed? [00:18:34] Speaker 03: Well, even if it is, Your Honor, yes, I do believe that it is, Your Honor. [00:18:38] Speaker 03: But I don't think that that cuts against the argument that a user couldn't also just click. [00:18:44] Speaker 03: This idea of instantaneous, it's still going to be displayed. [00:18:47] Speaker 03: If a user expands the norm. [00:18:48] Speaker 00: Well, no, it's not going to be displayed absent user intervention in Dallas. [00:18:54] Speaker 00: Correct? [00:18:55] Speaker 03: That is correct, Your Honor. [00:18:56] Speaker 00: So the system itself isn't doing it. [00:18:58] Speaker 00: The user is causing it to happen. [00:19:01] Speaker 03: So the way Dallas works is you have these, they call them ignored, ignored threads and they have a knot symbol over them. [00:19:11] Speaker 03: It's not as if the message isn't in there. [00:19:13] Speaker 03: It's just that a user cannot visualize it. [00:19:16] Speaker 03: It's still in the inbox. [00:19:17] Speaker 03: It's still displayed there. [00:19:18] Speaker 03: But to see it, you have to click Control plus to, as a user, be able to look at it and see it sitting next to a non-ignored thread. [00:19:28] Speaker 00: When you say it's still displayed there, I thought displaying the new incoming electronic message meant displaying the message. [00:19:38] Speaker 00: I didn't think the board found [00:19:40] Speaker 00: Or that you were arguing that it's displayed by virtue of the fact that it's in the silenced portion. [00:19:47] Speaker 00: I thought you were arguing and the board found that it was displayed by virtue of the user clicking on it. [00:19:53] Speaker 03: That is correct. [00:19:54] Speaker 03: Maybe I wasn't as articulate as I wanted to be. [00:19:57] Speaker 03: What I was trying to say is that this idea, if we're going with the idea that it's a feature of the system, it is still [00:20:06] Speaker 03: That message still comes in, but if you want to actually, as a user, see it displayed there in the inbox, yes, you will have to, under Dallas, click Control Plus to actually see it physically shown in addition. [00:20:20] Speaker 00: And how do you have a communication system which is displaying the new incoming electronic message? [00:20:27] Speaker 00: I mean, is the person now physically part of the system? [00:20:30] Speaker 03: No, but the claims don't. [00:20:35] Speaker 03: don't aren't written such that you can't have human intervention. [00:20:40] Speaker 03: There is nothing in the claims or the specification to say that that can't be done. [00:20:44] Speaker 03: The way the claim is written, as long as it gets displayed, there it is. [00:20:49] Speaker 02: It's a new incoming message with the silence thread along with a... I guess the idea must be when the user clicks on the mouse, there are instructions [00:21:03] Speaker 02: loaded into the communication system that programs it to display the incoming message? [00:21:09] Speaker 03: Under Dallas, yes. [00:21:11] Speaker 03: It's still being displayed. [00:21:12] Speaker 03: And that system is allowed. [00:21:13] Speaker 03: That's the way that that particular system allows it to be displayed. [00:21:16] Speaker 03: And while Blackberry's system may be different, it's not written such that it must be. [00:21:22] Speaker 03: And there's nothing in the specification to say that it can't be run in the exact same way that Dallas is run. [00:21:31] Speaker 00: Well, I mean, doesn't the specification disclose examples, all of which show the message in the inbox so that it is in fact displayed as opposed to hidden in Dallas? [00:21:41] Speaker 03: Yes, but it doesn't say you can't have user intervention. [00:21:44] Speaker 03: And if you look at Dallas, Dallas has figures as well that show the messages being displayed that way. [00:21:49] Speaker 03: It just explains that in order to get there, you have to have user intervention. [00:21:54] Speaker 03: So what I was saying is that there's nothing in the spec that says user intervention is prohibited. [00:22:00] Speaker 03: And at the end of the day, they both disclose, I'm sorry, Dallas discloses a situation where the inbox has both messages displayed just like the claimed invention does. [00:22:12] Speaker 03: And with respect to this idea that the board did not properly articulate a motivation to combine, that's actually not accurate. [00:22:23] Speaker 03: I just wanted to touch on that a little bit. [00:22:27] Speaker 03: When the petitioner filed this petition, it articulated a motivation to combine. [00:22:33] Speaker 03: Blackberry came back and said, no, this teaches away. [00:22:37] Speaker 03: There's no motivation to combine here. [00:22:39] Speaker 03: The board responded to those teaching away arguments, as well as talked about the fact that LeBlanc is kind of like a substitution. [00:22:46] Speaker 03: It was an alternative reference. [00:22:49] Speaker 03: If there was no notification found in Dallas, you did have LeBlanc, which has sort of the same types of notifications, pop-ups, [00:22:57] Speaker 03: And so the board said we were not persuaded by Blackberry's arguments and we find that there is a motivation to combine here. [00:23:07] Speaker 03: It didn't ignore anything and not make a finding. [00:23:10] Speaker 03: This isn't like Magnum Oil. [00:23:12] Speaker 03: This isn't a case where there's some sort of due process issue or there wasn't notice. [00:23:17] Speaker 03: There was, they responded by saying there was a teaching way and the board simply wasn't persuaded and found that there actually was a motivation to combine. [00:23:25] Speaker 00: Can I ask you to go back to the questions I had before? [00:23:28] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:23:28] Speaker 00: The claim says the non-transitory media readable by the data processor comprising coded program instructions adapted to cause the processor to display the new incoming electronic message. [00:23:43] Speaker 00: If the code has to be written in such a way to cause the processor to display the new incoming message, [00:23:54] Speaker 00: Is it really fair to suggest that that is true in a situation where the user has to intervene in order for that to happen? [00:24:04] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor. [00:24:05] Speaker 03: And what the board found was the code still allows for that when the user hits the Control plus button. [00:24:12] Speaker 03: And that's still requiring the system. [00:24:15] Speaker 00: I guess I think there's a difference between adapted to cause and a system capable of. [00:24:21] Speaker 00: And adapted to cause, that language seems to suggest that the processor and the code is supposed to cause these things to happen, to cause it. [00:24:32] Speaker 00: The claim says to cause these things to happen. [00:24:34] Speaker 00: I don't know. [00:24:37] Speaker 03: So what the board said in response to your explanation here was that Dallas does cause that to happen by allowing a user to expand its thread. [00:24:49] Speaker 03: Yes, these threads are automatically collapsed, but we have a way for our system to display this information together. [00:24:57] Speaker 03: And the way that we do that is by having this function that a user can initiate. [00:25:03] Speaker 03: And so that is how Dallas causes that to happen in its system. [00:25:08] Speaker 03: Is it identical? [00:25:09] Speaker 03: It is not. [00:25:10] Speaker 03: This is an obvious misclaim, and there's nothing in the claim preventing user intervention. [00:25:21] Speaker 03: And so I just, if the court doesn't have any further questions, I just want to remind the court that if it agrees with the parties, with the board's claim construction, it doesn't need to reach the issues about whether or not Dallas teaches notifications or not. [00:25:37] Speaker 03: And even if it doesn't agree with the board's claim construction, Dallas does teach notifications and there's also LeBlanc which teaches such notifications. [00:25:47] Speaker 00: Where did the board articulate its motivation to combine in its decision? [00:25:52] Speaker 03: so the board was responding to the petitioners motivation to combine and saying that it Was persuaded by it and not persuaded by Blackberry so on page 8 px 34 Under that part C conclusion on the independent claims that [00:26:17] Speaker 03: It says, if you go three lines down, the combination is supported with sufficient motivations to combine, and that patent owners' arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. [00:26:26] Speaker 03: But then also, just a little bit before, on page APPX32, it talks about how, sort of at that paragraph right before displaying, if you go about five lines down, [00:26:42] Speaker 03: talks about how petitioners relying on LeBlanc solely for the substitution of the different types of notification. [00:26:47] Speaker 03: Again, saying you can sort of put this in here. [00:26:51] Speaker 03: It's just being used as a substitution. [00:26:57] Speaker 03: And those are the two places where I would point this court to talk about where the motivation to combine was supported. [00:27:03] Speaker 03: Because the Buckberry never [00:27:07] Speaker 03: really attacked what the petitioner said about motivation. [00:27:10] Speaker 03: And I would just direct this court, if it wanted to look at that, to APPX 278. [00:27:17] Speaker 03: That's the petitioner's rationale for motivation to combine that the board was responding to. [00:27:23] Speaker 03: And because Blackberry didn't sort of attack that in particular, but just said, no, these wouldn't be combined because you're teaching away, that's when the board said, well, [00:27:34] Speaker 03: We disagree with that, talked about teaching away and why I disagreed, and then just said there was sufficient motivations on APPX 34. [00:27:47] Speaker 00: And if there are no further questions. [00:27:49] Speaker 00: Okay, thank you, Mr. Thief. [00:27:51] Speaker 00: Mr. Glass, I'll give you two minutes of rebuttal time. [00:27:55] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:28:13] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:28:14] Speaker 01: Just two actually very quick points. [00:28:18] Speaker 01: Intervenors said there's nothing in the claims that preclude user intervention. [00:28:22] Speaker 01: I said this in my opening. [00:28:23] Speaker 01: The claim, the very same display limitation, requires that while the silence messages are being displayed, excuse me, the new incoming messages are displayed while silencing further notifications. [00:28:39] Speaker 01: There is no way the user can intervene while further notifications are being silenced to go in and display the notifications. [00:28:51] Speaker 01: This plainly contemplates the processor, the system, displaying the messages while silencing further notifications. [00:29:01] Speaker 01: So the intervener said there's nothing in the claims. [00:29:05] Speaker 01: It's right in the very same claim limitation. [00:29:09] Speaker 01: On the issue of notifications, Intervenor relies and the board relied exclusively on one line in the specification that the notifications could occur one or more of a variety of ways. [00:29:26] Speaker 01: look at that line contextually. [00:29:28] Speaker 01: They take that as the doorway to open up this patent to any type of notification. [00:29:34] Speaker 01: Right after that sentence, there's about a half-column description of the very same notifications that I walked through in my opening. [00:29:42] Speaker 01: The patent is clearly talking about one or more type of a variety of notifications that are listed in the patent. [00:29:50] Speaker 01: So they're saying we're not going to limit ourselves to these specific examples, but it's the type of notifications. [00:29:58] Speaker 01: On the point of motivation to combine, Your Honor, hearing the intervener's discussion, I don't think there's any dispute here. [00:30:07] Speaker 01: The board did not articulate a motivation to combine. [00:30:10] Speaker 01: It simply agreed with the petitioner. [00:30:16] Speaker 01: And there was no articulation of where the board considered our teaching away argument in the context of it being just relevant to a motivation to combine. [00:30:27] Speaker 01: And I see that I'm over, so I'll stop there, Your Honours. [00:30:29] Speaker 00: Okay, thank you, Mr. Glass. [00:30:31] Speaker 00: I thank both councils. [00:30:32] Speaker 00: The case is taken under submission. [00:30:33] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honours.