[00:00:02] Speaker 00: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session. [00:00:07] Speaker 00: God save the United States and this honorable court. [00:00:11] Speaker 01: The first case for argument this morning is 20-1634 Centripetal Networks versus Cisco system. [00:00:19] Speaker 01: Mr. Hannah, whenever you're ready. [00:00:22] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:24] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:25] Speaker 00: May it please the court. [00:00:28] Speaker 00: This case is a classic case for reversal as the board applied the wrong claim construction in the underlying proceedings. [00:00:38] Speaker 00: As this court knows, one of the fundamental issues in this case and in the following case is the construction of the term dynamic security policy. [00:00:50] Speaker 00: The board construed dynamic security policy as any rule, message, instruction, file, data structure, or the like. [00:00:58] Speaker 00: that specifies criteria corresponding to one or more packets and identifies packet transformation function to be performed on packets corresponding to the specified criteria. [00:01:08] Speaker 01: And Mr. Hanna, this is Judge Prost. [00:01:10] Speaker 01: They got that definition right from the spec, did they not? [00:01:14] Speaker 00: They got that definition from the spec, but the spec said that a dynamic security policy includes that information and never said that it's [00:01:24] Speaker 00: is that information, and it never also removed the word dynamic from the word dynamic security policy, and that's the main issue here. [00:01:34] Speaker 01: Well, can I, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the includes thing, it sounded like it was kind of an academic discussion, because it's not clear to me what effect that has on the obviousness issue. [00:01:49] Speaker 00: The effect that it has is that the word dynamic is being read out of the term dynamic security policy. [00:01:56] Speaker 00: And for the obviousness issues, it's unrebutted and uncontested that the prior art, Naraswami, does not disclose dynamic security policies. [00:02:06] Speaker 04: This is Judge Raina. [00:02:08] Speaker 04: You're saying that dynamic is being read out of the claims because [00:02:14] Speaker 04: There's no requirement that the management server be configured to automatically update the rules, correct? [00:02:20] Speaker 04: But where can you show where the patent explicitly requires that the dynamic security policy be automatically updated? [00:02:30] Speaker 00: Where the panel said that or they said that it doesn't require that? [00:02:33] Speaker 04: The patent, where the patent says that. [00:02:35] Speaker 00: Oh, where the patent says that? [00:02:37] Speaker 00: Yes, sure. [00:02:38] Speaker 00: So there's several portions of the patent. [00:02:41] Speaker 00: I think one of the cleanest ones is column 14, lines 56 to 60. [00:02:46] Speaker 00: And there it specifically talks about how you have these dynamic security policies that are on the security policy management servers and that their information is automatically updated. [00:02:58] Speaker 04: And there's a reason. [00:03:00] Speaker 04: But doesn't it say it may be configured to automatically update? [00:03:05] Speaker 04: The language says... [00:03:08] Speaker 00: I'm sorry, Your Honor, go ahead. [00:03:09] Speaker 04: No, go ahead. [00:03:11] Speaker 04: Does it not say that the management server may be configured to automatically update, may be configured? [00:03:19] Speaker 00: It doesn't. [00:03:19] Speaker 00: Yes, it says it may be configured to automatically update, but that doesn't, there's nothing in the disclosure that says that the dynamic security policy may be static. [00:03:28] Speaker 00: And that's the major issue. [00:03:29] Speaker 04: But doesn't that mean, doesn't that mean that the dynamic security policy must be automatically updated? [00:03:37] Speaker 04: That's your argument, that it must be automatically updated. [00:03:42] Speaker 00: Absolutely. [00:03:43] Speaker 00: It needs to be non-static and automatically updated. [00:03:45] Speaker 00: That is the common understanding of the word dynamic, is that it's non-static. [00:03:52] Speaker 01: Mr. Hanna, I'm just a little confused because I see a difference between non-static and automatic updating. [00:04:01] Speaker 01: If the board had adopted just non-static to be something like subject to change, that wouldn't necessarily have included the automatic. [00:04:12] Speaker 01: You're resting and you're relying and you're requiring the automatic part, not just the non-static, right? [00:04:20] Speaker 00: No, I would say that it's the non-static as well. [00:04:23] Speaker 00: I mean, just with the word non-static, [00:04:25] Speaker 00: The board specifically said that Naraswami discloses static security policies, so a construction of non-static would absolutely wipe out the Naraswami reference completely, because it's undisputed that those are static policies that are disclosed, which is the opposite of what a dynamic security policy is. [00:04:48] Speaker 00: And that's the major issue here, is that [00:04:50] Speaker 00: There's nothing in the patent specification of the 213 that says that dynamic has an opposite meaning. [00:04:57] Speaker 00: Now it means static. [00:04:59] Speaker 00: And that's essentially what the board has done here. [00:05:01] Speaker 00: They have removed the word dynamic, which goes to one of the principal innovations for the 213 patent in that the purpose of these dynamic security policies is to be able to react [00:05:17] Speaker 00: in a dynamic way to network threats that are coming in over the network. [00:05:23] Speaker 00: And so, you know, there's another citation I was going to give, you know, for your honors, is that if you look at 23, calling 23, line 19 through 24, it really hits home, and it talks about figure 13, it really hits home why you have these dynamic security policies. [00:05:42] Speaker 00: And in this embodiment, it discloses [00:05:44] Speaker 00: If I have a dynamic security policy that says I want to protect against all malicious traffic coming from Russia, for instance, and Russia keeps changing their IP, they keep changing where they're going to be hitting from, you know, what servers they're going to be attacking from. [00:06:06] Speaker 00: These dynamic security policies can automatically non-statically update [00:06:13] Speaker 00: in response to that type of traffic. [00:06:16] Speaker 00: Now, Naraswami, you can't do that. [00:06:19] Speaker 00: A person would have to go in every single time and try to manually configure the policy. [00:06:28] Speaker 04: In that hypothetical that you gave, it's a dynamic security policy. [00:06:34] Speaker 04: Must it be automatically updated? [00:06:37] Speaker 00: It must be non-static and automatically updated. [00:06:40] Speaker 00: I mean, I view those as synonymous. [00:06:42] Speaker 00: It's non-static and automatically updated. [00:06:44] Speaker 01: Go ahead, Judge Proctor. [00:06:47] Speaker 01: No, no, I'm sorry, Judge Raina. [00:06:49] Speaker 01: Please proceed. [00:06:50] Speaker 04: I was simply going to point back out to the language on column 1456-59 that says, [00:06:56] Speaker 04: that the security policy management server may be configured to automatically update. [00:07:02] Speaker 04: Doesn't that mean that it doesn't have to automatically, that you can configure it to automatically update the rules? [00:07:11] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:07:12] Speaker 00: I agree that that's what the language says, but that's support for the fact that that's what dynamic means. [00:07:19] Speaker 00: So if the claims required another type of security policy, if they didn't require a dynamic security policy, then you could possibly apply a static security policy. [00:07:29] Speaker 00: But that's not what the claims require. [00:07:31] Speaker 00: They require this embodiment, which is a dynamic security policy. [00:07:36] Speaker 00: It is non-static. [00:07:37] Speaker 01: And it goes- Didn't the board, and I know this may be a patent from the second case, the 205 patent, but the board pointed to the fact that there were manual embodiments. [00:07:48] Speaker 01: in which an administrative can manually do something. [00:07:51] Speaker 01: And that was the reason they rejected your kind of automatic requirement, right? [00:07:58] Speaker 00: It's in this case, too, Your Honor. [00:08:00] Speaker 00: So it's in both cases. [00:08:01] Speaker 00: But you have to look very carefully in terms of what the board says and all the quotes. [00:08:07] Speaker 00: It says that you can manually construct the dynamic security policy. [00:08:12] Speaker 00: But it never says that the dynamic security policy can be manual. [00:08:16] Speaker 00: And that's a big difference is that they really gloss over this whole thing that says that you can use a user interface to, and I'll look at, if you look at appendix, you know, page 22, which is a part of the 213 patent, where the board, where it talks about the board's reasoning, they say that you can use a user interface and it permits an administrator to update the dynamic security policy manually. [00:08:41] Speaker 00: Well, of course, a user can go in and create a dynamic security policy. [00:08:46] Speaker 00: But once that security policy is launched, it's dynamic. [00:08:50] Speaker 00: It's automatically updated. [00:08:51] Speaker 00: That's the whole point. [00:08:53] Speaker 00: And so when you look at the record, every single citation that they have, and including the defendant citations, it says an administrator may manually construct these dynamic security policies offline. [00:09:05] Speaker 02: Council, I'm looking at column four, line [00:09:12] Speaker 02: And Judge Prost referred to the clamp construction as coming from the specification. [00:09:22] Speaker 02: And there it is. [00:09:23] Speaker 02: As used herein, a dynamic security policy includes any rule message, et cetera. [00:09:29] Speaker 02: That is really definitional. [00:09:31] Speaker 02: And if it had been intended to mean automatic, that is the place where it would have been found, and it's not there. [00:09:42] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I mean, I would disagree that it's definitional in that it says that a dynamic security policy includes any rule, message, instruction, file, et cetera. [00:09:52] Speaker 00: It doesn't say dynamic security policy is, and it further doesn't go so far as to say dynamic security policy is a static security policy, in that it would totally wipe out what dynamic means. [00:10:07] Speaker 00: Here it's just explaining that it can include [00:10:10] Speaker 00: any rule, message, instruction file, data structure, et cetera. [00:10:14] Speaker 00: I mean, this, you know, comes down to the cases that are cited in our briefing in which this court has found when you're going to use the word includes, you still have to include... It includes means what the term is going to actually include. [00:10:28] Speaker 00: And so one of the cases that was cited by a defendant says it was a boat including a cabin. [00:10:34] Speaker 00: But they didn't read out the word, this court did not read out the word boat from the construction. [00:10:40] Speaker 00: That's the same thing here, is that if a dynamic security policy includes a rule message, et cetera, but it doesn't say that you're going to remove, what is it that includes a rule? [00:10:52] Speaker 00: It still has to be a dynamic. [00:10:54] Speaker 02: Then there is column after column that talks about what it may include. [00:11:00] Speaker 02: And it was all. [00:11:04] Speaker 02: It was broad and it was inclusive. [00:11:08] Speaker 00: In terms of what the dynamic security policy can include, but when it talks about what the dynamic security policy is and how it works, that's when you look to column 14, lines 56, or you're going to be looking at the embodiment for figure 13, which gives these examples in terms of what the dynamic... But that's also permissive. [00:11:34] Speaker 02: may be configured. [00:11:37] Speaker 00: But it's permissive, but it doesn't say that you're going to completely remove the word dynamic from the definition. [00:11:43] Speaker 00: And that's the point here is that there needs to be patentable weight given to the word dynamic. [00:11:48] Speaker 00: And the board completely removed that from the claims. [00:11:52] Speaker 00: And they're not shy about it. [00:11:53] Speaker 00: They said that they removed it from the claims. [00:11:55] Speaker 00: They said that it could be static. [00:11:57] Speaker 00: They said that the [00:12:00] Speaker 00: The word dynamic actually means the opposite. [00:12:03] Speaker 00: In my mind, dynamic and static are completely opposite. [00:12:07] Speaker 00: And they completely remove that word from the claims. [00:12:10] Speaker 01: Well, you're trying to say that dynamic is equivalent, is defined as non-static, is defined as automatic, and therefore excludes the manual updating. [00:12:25] Speaker 01: And I just think this definition and the specification is just broader than that. [00:12:31] Speaker 00: Well, the definition of specification doesn't say that you can remove the dynamic name. [00:12:38] Speaker 00: Please finish your step. [00:12:43] Speaker 00: The definition is there's no definition in the spec that removes the word dynamic. [00:12:49] Speaker 00: It still has to give it patentable weight. [00:12:52] Speaker 00: And what it can include and what it cannot include is set forth in the spec that every time that it says, [00:12:57] Speaker 00: what the dynamic policy is and how it functions, it constantly provides the non-static limitations and then even further clarifies that it's automatically updated. [00:13:11] Speaker 04: Let me ask a question before I answer some. [00:13:14] Speaker 00: Absolutely. [00:13:15] Speaker 04: OK. [00:13:15] Speaker 04: So let's look at column three. [00:13:21] Speaker 04: This is appendix 188. [00:13:23] Speaker 04: It's column three and line. [00:13:27] Speaker 04: It's about 48. [00:13:28] Speaker 04: It says, figure three illustrates an exemplary dynamic policy. [00:13:34] Speaker 04: It goes on talking about that. [00:13:37] Speaker 04: But does that figure contain any requirement that the table must be automatically updated? [00:13:42] Speaker 04: It doesn't contain any requirement that the table be automatically updated, correct? [00:13:50] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, if you look at that table, it has a bunch of wild cards that are in there. [00:13:55] Speaker 00: And those wild cards can be applied to, like I was saying, like if you have these IP addresses that are coming in from Russia that are constantly changing, a static security policy is only going to look at the particular address that was manually put in by the administrator. [00:14:10] Speaker 00: But if you have a dynamic security policy, they act to a variety of IP addresses. [00:14:15] Speaker 00: And so when you have these asterisks here that say like the star port or the star source address and the destination address, that means that those source addresses can change. [00:14:25] Speaker 00: you can have multiple addresses here. [00:14:30] Speaker 00: And then if you look at that in the context of the rest of the specification, it provides this exact embodiment that I'm talking about, and that it'll constantly update. [00:14:41] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I heard a tone. [00:14:42] Speaker 01: I don't know if that means I think it's... Yes, you are into your rebuttal time, so why don't we hear from the other side, and we'll reserve time for rebuttal. [00:14:50] Speaker 00: All right, thank you, Your Honors. [00:14:51] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:14:52] Speaker 01: Mr. Blake? [00:14:55] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:14:55] Speaker 03: Jeffrey Blake on behalf of the Appellee Civil Systems, Inc. [00:15:00] Speaker 03: I think it's important to start with one of the threshold points which was not raised in Appellant's argument is we're under the broadest reasonable construction standard in this particular proceeding. [00:15:13] Speaker 03: And certainly when you think of what is reasonable, it is reasonable to hold the patent owner to the definition that they put in their own specification. [00:15:26] Speaker 03: That is the construction comes word for word out of their own specification. [00:15:31] Speaker 03: It's reasonable to hold them to that under the standard that we have. [00:15:35] Speaker 01: Well, I think the argument, as you know from the other side, as I understand it, is that what we call a definitional statement uses the word includes rather than is or means. [00:15:50] Speaker 01: And so doesn't the inclusion of the word includes [00:15:55] Speaker 01: connote something other than a pure one-for-one definition? [00:16:00] Speaker 03: Respectfully, Your Honor, I would say no. [00:16:04] Speaker 03: First of all, if you look at where this definition, in my opinion, is placed in the patent in column four, it's right at the beginning of the detailed description in a paragraph in column four that runs from lines 48 to 65. [00:16:18] Speaker 03: that has several other definitions that are included. [00:16:21] Speaker 03: This is your traditional paragraph that you would see where a patentee is telling you, this is what these terms are going to mean when I've discussed the embodiments for the rest of this patent. [00:16:30] Speaker 03: And to that extent, I think this case is very much on all fours with the N. Ray Bass opinion, 314, F3rd, 575. [00:16:40] Speaker 03: And Appellant's attorney made reference to it. [00:16:43] Speaker 03: If you look at that opinion, it talked about the term motorized [00:16:48] Speaker 03: sports boat, and it was construing that term. [00:16:51] Speaker 03: And this specification said it includes a cabin and has a length in the range of about 20 to 50 feet. [00:17:01] Speaker 03: And the argument came, well, this is a motorized sports boat. [00:17:04] Speaker 03: The patent owner said, well, you're reading out the idea that it has to be a sports boat as opposed to another type of boat. [00:17:12] Speaker 03: And the Federal Circuit did not agree with that. [00:17:14] Speaker 03: The Federal Circuit looked at that, including Landers, [00:17:17] Speaker 03: It's your definition and your specification. [00:17:20] Speaker 03: You cannot change or modify it on appeal. [00:17:22] Speaker 03: If you define the terms such that motorized sports boat doesn't include a sports boat, you define another way using the word includes. [00:17:30] Speaker 03: It's your definition and you're stuck with it. [00:17:32] Speaker 03: And frankly, the same should apply here logically. [00:17:36] Speaker 01: But what do we do about, this is Judge Prost, what do we do about the fact that the construction doesn't deal with the word dynamic, which is clearly a word in the claim? [00:17:47] Speaker 01: And so even if the board didn't go as far as saying a dynamic means automatically updating, shouldn't it have at least discussed what the word dynamic means? [00:18:01] Speaker 01: Is there anything that you can point to in the board's opinion that tells us this is a dynamic security policy as opposed to just a security policy? [00:18:12] Speaker 01: We have to give some meaning to the word dynamic, do we not? [00:18:15] Speaker 03: Well, first of all, Judge Prost, I would say that the in-rate bass decision says, regardless of what you say, if you choose to give it an overly broad definition as a patent owner, that's your decision. [00:18:27] Speaker 03: You know, I could define up and down if I decided to so do so. [00:18:31] Speaker 03: But secondly, I would say that the construction is broad enough to encompass dynamic changes. [00:18:39] Speaker 03: Because it does refer to the policy includes a rule that specifies criteria or packet transformation functions. [00:18:48] Speaker 03: And depending on conditions, those things can change. [00:18:53] Speaker 03: And so they can be dynamic. [00:18:55] Speaker 03: It can also change when you implement a rule such as this. [00:18:58] Speaker 03: I mean, one of the parts of the 213 patents that no one has discussed yet is column nine, line 33 to column 10, line three. [00:19:09] Speaker 03: where there's a specific embodiment, and I'll start it here, that says a dynamic security policy may also include one or more rules or rule sets, the combination of which may effectuate a phased restoration service within the network environment. [00:19:26] Speaker 03: This is an example that talks about when you implement the rules may change depending on network conditions in response to what they refer to as a DDoS attack that says you may implement [00:19:38] Speaker 03: You know, a first rule of the policy at this time, depending on your network conditions, and a second rule at this time, and a third rule at this time. [00:19:44] Speaker 03: This is nothing about updating. [00:19:46] Speaker 03: Nothing about automatically updating. [00:19:48] Speaker 03: It's like the embodiment that is within the context of a dynamic security policy and what it can include that is completely separate from the concept of automatically update. [00:19:57] Speaker 03: It says you can do this. [00:19:58] Speaker 03: And the construction that the board has adopted would cover this type of dynamicism. [00:20:05] Speaker 03: Because you have a rule with criteria [00:20:09] Speaker 03: in it, i.e., what are the network conditions in the DDoS attack, and a packet transformation function, as in which you have a policy, excuse me, that has criteria about this is a DDoS attack, where are we, and packet transformation functions, as in which particular rule are we going to apply, depending on the criteria that we're seeing. [00:20:28] Speaker 03: And this allows for dynamicism in that way. [00:20:33] Speaker 03: And what I would go on to note is, if you look at [00:20:37] Speaker 03: appellant's construction of a non-static set of rules. [00:20:42] Speaker 03: The word non-static never appears in this patent. [00:20:45] Speaker 03: It's not in the claim. [00:20:46] Speaker 03: It's not in the specification. [00:20:48] Speaker 03: It's nowhere. [00:20:49] Speaker 03: The concept of updating, having to update a policy in a dynamic security policy is not in the claims. [00:20:57] Speaker 03: So, you know, the idea of non-static non-claims, the idea of updating is not in the claims. [00:21:02] Speaker 01: Automatically is, though, in this specification, right? [00:21:06] Speaker 03: automatically is in the specification. [00:21:08] Speaker 03: You're absolutely correct. [00:21:09] Speaker 03: It is one of the ways that a policy could be dynamic. [00:21:15] Speaker 03: It is not the only way, as I think each of the judges have noted during appellant's counsel's argument, it's not the only way that something could be dynamic. [00:21:25] Speaker 03: Respectfully, I would say, and this has been a point of contention, [00:21:29] Speaker 03: that the manual construction of a policy is one way that a policy can be dynamic because an administrator can look at criteria and say, based on these criteria, I'm going to update the policy. [00:21:43] Speaker 03: I'll update the way the policy works. [00:21:47] Speaker 03: What you would do in that situation is you have a policy. [00:21:51] Speaker 03: The administrator says, okay, I need to make changes to the policy to account for additional criteria. [00:21:58] Speaker 03: And then I'll upload that policy. [00:22:00] Speaker 03: Again, it's not, the dynamic security policy is not restricted to updating. [00:22:07] Speaker 03: One of the ways it could be done is that you manually construct a new policy and add it in. [00:22:13] Speaker 03: And that's what's taught in the specification is one of the ways that's in column 14, lines 23 to 47. [00:22:19] Speaker 03: There's also the column nine. [00:22:22] Speaker 03: discussion of the way you implement the policy can indicate that it is dynamic. [00:22:27] Speaker 03: And that is covered by the construction that the board adopted as well. [00:22:33] Speaker 02: In other words, you're saying that if there's column after column after column that the sites with a dynamic security policy may be one particular permissive possibility isn't mandatory. [00:22:49] Speaker 03: Absolutely. [00:22:50] Speaker 03: That is correct. [00:22:53] Speaker 03: Even if you look at column 23, lines 19 to 24, which Appellant is now focusing upon kind of newly, even that says it is an exemplary embodiment and says that it is something that may be done. [00:23:09] Speaker 03: This updating in response to some type of a security tech says that's something that may be done when talking about figure 13. [00:23:19] Speaker 03: And I forget which one of the panel asked this question, but if you go back to the discussion of Figure 3 and you look at Figure 3, it doesn't have any type of an update required when it discusses what the rules are in Figure 3 that make up the dynamic security policy. [00:23:36] Speaker 03: It states the rules, five of them. [00:23:38] Speaker 03: It states the action, which would be the packet transformation function. [00:23:41] Speaker 03: The rules provide the criteria for this dynamic security policy. [00:23:46] Speaker 03: The action provides the packet transformation function. [00:23:49] Speaker 03: Figure three is directly in line with what was adopted in this case from the specification. [00:24:03] Speaker 04: Another, uh, point of the policy that I would like to make is going back to figure three, uh, figure three does not, am I correct? [00:24:13] Speaker 04: The figure three does not contain any requirement that the table be automatically updated. [00:24:19] Speaker 03: You are correct. [00:24:20] Speaker 03: Figure 3 does not contain any requirement that it be automatically updated. [00:24:27] Speaker 03: It notes that there's some universal kind of star. [00:24:30] Speaker 03: I think the Appellate's Council referred to these universal expanders, what you would see as the stars in Figure 3. [00:24:37] Speaker 03: Those do not require automatic updating. [00:24:39] Speaker 03: What those indicate is that you could have different criteria that are available in the source address. [00:24:46] Speaker 03: that make up part of the rule, which is the dynamic security policy. [00:24:50] Speaker 03: It does not require updating. [00:24:56] Speaker 03: As a matter of fact, I would point to columns seven, lines seven to eight, appendix page 190, which specifically states that figure three illustrates an exemplary dynamic security policy. [00:25:12] Speaker 03: Another element relating to the dynamic security policy that has not yet been addressed is the concept, and I'll try to address it briefly, in Appellant's argument that a dynamic security policy has to have one or more rules. [00:25:28] Speaker 03: Respectfully, I don't think that the set has to be more than one rule. [00:25:32] Speaker 03: It could be one or more rules. [00:25:34] Speaker 03: one or more rules. [00:25:35] Speaker 03: It does not require that there be multiple rules as part of the dynamic security policy. [00:25:40] Speaker 03: Appellate construction appears to acknowledge this as well in their proposal, because I believe it's a non-static set of one or more rules. [00:25:47] Speaker 03: But in any event, I would point out that the embodiments throughout the specifications say that the dynamic security policy could be one rule or more than one rule. [00:25:58] Speaker 03: And for examples of this, I would cite column 6, lines 11 to 12, that appendix page 189, [00:26:03] Speaker 01: I didn't understand how that related to anything on the merits of the case, how that made any difference. [00:26:13] Speaker 01: Can you explain that to me quickly? [00:26:16] Speaker 03: That's a good question, Judge Prost. [00:26:18] Speaker 03: I don't think it changes the merits of the case. [00:26:21] Speaker 03: I would assume maybe they will argue that this hasn't been raised, but maybe they're trying to get at the idea of arguing that only one rule is disclosed in the ARC, but certainly there's been no discussion [00:26:33] Speaker 03: of why it affects the merits of the case, and I don't believe it does. [00:26:40] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:26:41] Speaker 01: Anything further? [00:26:42] Speaker 03: One additional point on that, getting off of the construction itself, Your Honor, and talking about the references, because I heard appellant's counsel to say that if automatically is required in the construction, then the Narayana-Swami reference would be eliminated as prior. [00:27:00] Speaker 03: And respectfully, we disagree with that wholeheartedly. [00:27:03] Speaker 03: Narayana Swamy itself is replete with references to the fact that it involves dynamic security policy provisioning, and it specifically refers to the fact that it can automatically determine which policies are implemented as part of its dynamic security provisioning. [00:27:22] Speaker 03: I would cite Appendix 2481, paragraphs 6 and 7 of Narayana Swamy as just one of the examples. [00:27:31] Speaker 03: There are numerous other ones. [00:27:32] Speaker 03: cited in our briefs, Narayana Swami itself dynamically selects the policy. [00:27:38] Speaker 03: So I don't want to leave any type of a implication that even if automatically was addressed, which was required in the construction, which again, it should not be, Narayana Swami still would disclose the automatic updating, even if that were required, even, you know, to be read into the claims in the narrower construction that [00:28:01] Speaker 03: the appellant is seeking. [00:28:06] Speaker 03: If there are no other questions about the dynamic security policy, I'd turn briefly to the motivation to combine point. [00:28:13] Speaker 01: Well, the other side did not get into that. [00:28:16] Speaker 01: It's your choice. [00:28:17] Speaker 01: It opens the door for him on rebuttal. [00:28:21] Speaker 03: I guess you raise a good point. [00:28:23] Speaker 03: He didn't really get into it, so I guess I'll just cede the remainder of my time, unless there are questions. [00:28:32] Speaker 01: No. [00:28:33] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:28:34] Speaker 01: Mr. Hanna, you've got a few minutes left to rebuttal. [00:28:39] Speaker 00: Yeah, thank you, your honor. [00:28:41] Speaker 00: The council started off saying that it's not reasonable, that the construction needs to be reasonable, and it is not reasonable to read a term out of the patent dynamic. [00:28:53] Speaker 00: And your honors, when they ask councils, where does the board address what dynamic means? [00:29:01] Speaker 00: There's silence there because the board doesn't address that. [00:29:05] Speaker 00: At the very least, this needs to be remanded for the board to specifically address what does dynamic mean and whether that definition of dynamic is in the prior art. [00:29:17] Speaker 00: And the board simply does not do that. [00:29:22] Speaker 04: I thought that the board construed the term dynamic security policy to mean, and then it went on with any rule of message, et cetera. [00:29:30] Speaker 00: Right, but it never disclosed what dynamic means. [00:29:36] Speaker 04: Isn't that part of its construction? [00:29:37] Speaker 04: It says dynamic security policy to mean, and then it moves on. [00:29:42] Speaker 04: You're saying that every word in that term should have been individually construed? [00:29:52] Speaker 00: Absolutely. [00:29:53] Speaker 00: You cannot, there has to be patentable weight given to the word dynamically. [00:29:56] Speaker 00: It has to mean something. [00:29:58] Speaker 01: Well, I mean, your argument would fit better if they had said security policy means. [00:30:03] Speaker 01: Then you could say there's an absence of any discussion of the word dynamic. [00:30:08] Speaker 01: But the so-called definitional portion of the spec is the whole term, including dynamic, right? [00:30:15] Speaker 00: But they still do not address, it says dynamic, this goes to the arguments that dynamic security policy includes. [00:30:23] Speaker 00: As counsel said in the motorized sports boat, this court still said it's a boat that includes a cabin. [00:30:29] Speaker 00: So here it still has to be something that includes these rules, has to be dynamic security policy. [00:30:36] Speaker 00: The board never head on addressed what does the word dynamic mean in dynamic security policy. [00:30:41] Speaker 00: it completely wipes that word out. [00:30:43] Speaker 00: So at the very least, this needs to be remanded for the board to determine, okay, there has to be meaning to the word dynamic. [00:30:51] Speaker 00: What does that mean? [00:30:56] Speaker 01: Finish your thought, please. [00:30:58] Speaker 00: I would just say that it has to be able to explain that and then explain in the context why static security policies meet the definition of the word dynamic. [00:31:09] Speaker 00: And that is not in the record, so at the very least, this needs to be remanded for the board to consider what does the word dynamic mean in that context. [00:31:20] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:31:20] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:31:21] Speaker 01: We thank both sides, and the case is submitted. [00:31:24] Speaker 01: And we'll see you back shortly, I guess, Mr. Hanna. [00:31:29] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:31:30] Speaker 00: Just see you shortly.