[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Case for argument is 20-1713, centrifugal networks versus Cisco systems.

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hanna, welcome back.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
This forum is very interesting and new to me.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
So thank you for having me back on the line.

[00:00:20] Speaker 03:
So Your Honor, may it please the court.

[00:00:22] Speaker 03:
So with respect to the 20-1713,

[00:00:26] Speaker 03:
This appeal involves two different patents, the 205 patent and the 077 patent, but again has the same issues with regard to the dynamic security policy that we talked about with regard to the 1634 in that the board reads out the word dynamic from the definition.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
Here the prior art, but there are additional reasons.

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
You know, I would say rather than waste any time

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
go over those arguments again that we just discussed, I would say that the junk reference here does not even have a dynamic security policy in any sense in that it doesn't even have rules that are going to be able to be sent to these different devices.

[00:01:14] Speaker 03:
Looking at junk, and that's the J-U-N-G-C-K reference,

[00:01:21] Speaker 03:
It discloses only pieces of information that an administrator can use.

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
And this is even farther removed from the board's construction of any rule.

[00:01:34] Speaker 03:
Again, Dynamics completely read out for the same reasons.

[00:01:40] Speaker 03:
The disclosure is similar in the 205 and the 077 patent that Dynamics needs to have some patentable weight

[00:01:47] Speaker 03:
But even then, there's not even any rules that are going to be sent from these different devices.

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
Now, the 205 patent specifically requires that you're going to receive a plurality of dynamic security policies from a security policy management server.

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
That means that security policy management server must have the dynamic security policies on there.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
And there's just no evidence that Junk has any of that.

[00:02:13] Speaker 00:
The board devoted quite a few pages to this, and they concluded that Jung teaches boundary-specific rules, right?

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
Can you take issue with that?

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
Oh, absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
This argument pertains to both the 205 patent and the 077 patent, and the issue here

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
is that in fact the board only talked about it for, I would say it was very cursory and they essentially said that we, that centripetal did not contest that.

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
And then, and that's just simply wrong.

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
I mean if you look at appendix page 152, the board specifically says that centripetal did not argue the point regarding the boundary rule limitations of the 077 patent or the 205 patent.

[00:03:13] Speaker 03:
and they just simply got that wrong.

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
And so based on NRA and NUASA, there needs to be some explanation for its action.

[00:03:23] Speaker 03:
And here, the board didn't feel like it needed to give any explanation because it didn't think that we contested that.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
And we argue the point is, you know, in our briefing at pages 47 through 51, we have numerous citations to it.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
demonstrating why the boundary rule limitations are not met.

[00:03:45] Speaker 03:
So at a threshold matter for the boundary rule limitations, there's simply just no explanation that we can respond to.

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
But getting to the actual prior art, junk does not teach receiving these rules from a policy server.

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
It simply doesn't.

[00:04:06] Speaker 03:
In these various embodiments, it has

[00:04:09] Speaker 03:
these pieces of information that might be able to come down.

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
There's this vague reference to these other external devices in these various embodiments.

[00:04:19] Speaker 03:
I mean, junk is this very long and complicated reference.

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
But it never teaches that you're actually going to provision devices with these boundary rules.

[00:04:29] Speaker 03:
And if you look at the 077 patent, which we've now turned to, that is a specific requirement of the claim.

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
The claim requires that you have to provision

[00:04:38] Speaker 03:
each of the plurality of devices with these one or more rules generated based on a boundary of a network.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
That disclosure is simply absent from junk.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
It never teaches that you're going to be able to take rules from other devices and then provision another device based on those boundary conditions.

[00:05:03] Speaker 03:
And so for at least those reasons, Your Honor,

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
This issue simply was not addressed.

[00:05:12] Speaker 03:
And so it needs to be remanded, at the very least, in order for the board to consider the arguments and to actually provide a reasoning.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
Or it should be reversed because they didn't provide... Council, these are combination rejections, aren't they?

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
And you haven't talked about FATIA.

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
Well, for the boundary rule claims that we turn to for the 077 patent,

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
They don't use Batia for those limitations.

[00:05:42] Speaker 03:
Now, so for Batia, Batia they use for saying that it's a dynamic security policy, which applies to the 205 patent.

[00:05:51] Speaker 03:
And Batia simply discloses, they point to the fact that it has an address, just a number, an IP address, which was just a number that is going to be able to

[00:06:05] Speaker 03:
be used.

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
But there's no rule there.

[00:06:11] Speaker 03:
I mean, that's what it comes down to is that this reference is even farther away.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
These references are even farther away in that they just have these pieces of information that wouldn't even constitute a rule.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
So in addition to the fact that dynamic was being read out of the claims, they don't even meet the criteria.

[00:06:26] Speaker 03:
For Bastia, for instance, it doesn't talk to anything about

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
these any rules, much less the dynamic security policy, because it only talks about receiving particular IP addresses without more.

[00:06:38] Speaker 03:
And that, I mean, under both parties, the board's construction, our construction, it is going to require more information that it can't just be just an IP address by itself without any more information.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
So BOTC definitely, that's what they rely on BOTC for is for the 205 patent,

[00:06:58] Speaker 03:
and to try and teach also a dynamic security policy.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
It doesn't even meet any of the criteria for that.

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
They also rely on Botia for teaching this, you know, allow list, you know, issue and that the claims in the 205 patent specifically require you have a rule and that rule tells you what packets to forward.

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
And then you have another rule that tells you the packets to drop.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
And this is this allow list.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
And if you look in the specification, the 205, it actually talks about and it uses those words.

[00:07:36] Speaker 03:
It's an allow list.

[00:07:37] Speaker 03:
Batia is a completely different system.

[00:07:40] Speaker 03:
Batia is about voice-over IP.

[00:07:43] Speaker 03:
And so its goal is to not drop packets.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
And that's why you have this authentication issue.

[00:07:50] Speaker 03:
So with a voice-over IP system, with these real-time communications,

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
You want to do everything that you can not to drop packets.

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
And so what BOTC will do is it'll have these rules that are set up and what it's going to try to do is it puts these packets on a rest list.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
And that rest list is done for authentication and different measures.

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
But it's never going to, you don't want to just drop this traffic.

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
And we have a nice diagram I think, you know, in our briefing in which it shows the table in terms of what the 205 patent has and the,

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
and what Batia discloses.

[00:08:26] Speaker 03:
And what happens is these are just completely different concepts.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
And so there is nothing in the record that says that they're going to have these drop rules.

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
And the board comes back and says, well, someone would have known that ultimately these would be dropped.

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
Well, that's not enough.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
That's not enough, particularly when they have claim limitations that specify that you need to drop these packets.

[00:08:55] Speaker 03:
You need to have rules that tell you to drop.

[00:08:59] Speaker 03:
It's not enough to punt it off to another REST list to do some type of authentication.

[00:09:06] Speaker 03:
So that's where BOTDIC comes in into the mix with regard to the 205 packet.

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
An additional argument for the 205 patent is the Engate issue, and that the Engate issue, Engate is not a printed publication.

[00:09:29] Speaker 03:
Now, this applies to claims 8, 24, and 40.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
And it's undisputed that Beer testified that, and this is a reminder, so Beer was set up to testify regarding the public availability of Engate in the underlying proceedings.

[00:09:49] Speaker 03:
And he testified at appendix 5777 to 78, this is referenced in our apply at page 9, that you need a login.

[00:09:58] Speaker 03:
You need a login in order to access these documents.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
And so it's on a password protected website.

[00:10:06] Speaker 03:
So one of skill in the art or interest parties will not be able to readily access this document.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
What the board said about that, right, is that they agreed you needed a login, you needed to create a login.

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
But if you create one for yourself, you can access the site, right?

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
Just as you can access your email or your work computer because you created a login.

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
So what is there about creating a login that makes this inaccessible?

[00:10:39] Speaker 00:
I'm not understanding.

[00:10:41] Speaker 03:
No, no, it's the fact that there's no evidence that anybody actually did that.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
That password protection is not just widely disseminated and that you actually had to do that.

[00:10:49] Speaker 03:
You would think that if they had evidence of people logging in to be able to access EngAid, they'd have some evidence.

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
They were able to testify that, oh, yes, we have records of people logging in.

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
Here are the records.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
And it's just a lack of proof on their behalf to show that people that were interested actually were able to access and did access to EngAid reference.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
And so when the board acknowledged this, it really turns on whether papers that are left on a back table in a conference, whether that's sufficient to be public dissemination.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
Because Beer testified that the paper was not discussed.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
He said, didn't show anybody.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
He said the only two people that looked at it were him and a fellow employee at Cisco.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
And so it turns on if you have a stack of papers on a table in the back of a conference with no indication, no evidence that someone actually picked up that paper and read it, and he didn't discuss it at the conference, well that's enough to be a printed publication.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
based on all the case law, that is just not enough evidence.

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
That's just not enough.

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
You can't have a paper sitting out someplace at a conference and have that.

[00:12:06] Speaker 00:
It seems to me, maybe I'm misremembering the record, but the board cited quite a few pieces of evidence based on the declaration from the author, right?

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
And it was more than just being on a back table.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
They said the reference was published and available.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
It would have been posted online in the ordinary course.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
It was on the website shortly after it was published.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
I mean, there's a lot more than just it being left at the back of the table that the board relied on, right?

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
I mean, I'm looking at appendix 108 through 12.

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
Respectfully, Your Honor, I think you may be thinking about maybe the ACNS reference, which was in the first case in which they said that it was

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
published pursuant to a link?

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
I don't think so.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
But anyway, go ahead.

[00:13:02] Speaker 03:
What was that citation?

[00:13:03] Speaker 03:
And then I just heard the buzzer.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
What was the citation?

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
Appendix 108 through 112.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
108 through 112.

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
That's talking about Engate.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
Yes, correct.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
This is talking about Engate.

[00:13:20] Speaker 03:
But again, it goes to the same thing.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
So the only evidence that they really point to is that these two people accessed it, the author and this Mr. Krishna.

[00:13:31] Speaker 03:
They said it was on a, during the deposition, he said it was on a, that was password protected.

[00:13:36] Speaker 03:
And then they point to the way back machine.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
That couldn't be verified.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
Mr. Beer's testimony said,

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
during his deposition said it couldn't be testified.

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
Okay, well, we all can read what they said.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
I didn't want to take your time.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
I was just pushing back on what seemed to me to sound as if you were saying the only thing was that they were in the back of the table in the back of the room.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
Well, I think, and to just clarify, that's the only thing that his deposition was contrary to all these other points except for the papers being left on the table.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
That was my point.

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
Okay, I think, Joseph, did we hear the buzzer?

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
Are we into rebuttal time?

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
Yes, we are.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
Okay, so why don't we hear from Mr. Wagner and restore your, keep your rebuttal time, Mr. Hanna.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
Mr. Wagner.

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
I'll go ahead and start by picking up on Chief Judge Pro's question here of, you know, the board did rely on a significant amount of additional evidence other than the in-gate reference has just been on.

[00:14:37] Speaker 02:
a table in the back, and the whole record is replete with evidence that shows that Engate, as a company, was looking to publish and disseminate this Engate article.

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
It's not something that was password protected.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
There's no expectation of confidentiality.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
Every fact is pointing in the same direction.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
They wanted to get this out, and looking really at the standard itself for public accessibility,

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
You know, we see from the Acceleration Bay case that a reference is considered publicly available if it was disseminated or otherwise made available to the public to the extent the person's interested exercising reasonable diligence can locate it.

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
And that's the fact that we have here on the Engage article.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
The Engage reference itself on its face is a partner information guide.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
Mr. Beer testified that partners are customers, potential customers, and that the Engage reference itself was authored

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
uh... to disseminate this information to customers and potential customers it was posted to the website under routine business practices which the triple doesn't seem to deny uh... once you got to the website you see there's only five maybe six white papers depending on the time and it would certainly be easy enough to find from that page not buried somewhere it's right there on the web page uh... contribute reply does assert that uh... even ultimately the board factual findings

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
are insufficient to establish the person's interest or skill in the art would have been independently aware of even the in-gate website they would include in these five or six pieces and that's uh... simply not true and the board relied on the evidence that's there of of mister bear stating that he'd actually shared that in-game website with people he's pointed to them them to document uh... there's nothing about this screenshot that shows that it would have needed an account uh... and to the earlier discussion if an account is needed you simply

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
Go freely, go to the website, you create an account, you log in and you can access the documentation as Mr. Beer testified in his deposition.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
But even beyond just the website, the explicit link to the ingate reference was widely disseminated via the knowledge base article that Mr. Beer talks about as well.

[00:16:50] Speaker 02:
And that knowledge base article, it's that appendix 4762, include a direct link to the ingate reference.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
and Mr. Beer testified these are the things that were disseminated on the website via email to seminars to hundreds of customers and potential customers and that's confirmed from the knowledge base article itself that says at the top to be removed from the email distribution send a note to this person.

[00:17:15] Speaker 02:
The direct link was sent out to all of these customers and potential customers as marketing material and what Mr. Beer also testified to when discussing whether an account was required or not was that if you did have this

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
direct link, it's highly likely that you would not have needed an account or any login there.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
So even if there was a login required for some part of the website, if you had this direct link from the knowledge base article, you probably wouldn't need that login anyway.

[00:17:41] Speaker 02:
So people using reasonable diligence would have known where the link was.

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
They would have known where to get to the website.

[00:17:47] Speaker 02:
The evidence clearly establishes those facts and fully supports the public accessibility finding of the board.

[00:17:55] Speaker 02:
Similar to the physical

[00:17:56] Speaker 02:
distribution that's there.

[00:17:59] Speaker 02:
This just lines up exactly with how these conferences work and the facts that came out here.

[00:18:03] Speaker 02:
Mr. Beer drafted this in-gate reference.

[00:18:06] Speaker 02:
He posted it to the website.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
A few days later, he takes it to a conference to present about the concepts in the paper.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
He sets the paper out for people to take.

[00:18:16] Speaker 02:
Certainly, the people that are there for this network security conference, using reasonable diligence, could find that paper.

[00:18:21] Speaker 02:
That, again, meets the standard for public accessibility and the facts.

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
fully support that issue.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
Mr. Wagner, this is Judge Prose.

[00:18:30] Speaker 00:
Could you respond to what your friend said about the Jung reference, the comments he made before we got to this printed publication question?

[00:18:39] Speaker 02:
Certainly.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
With respect to the boundary-specific rules, Your Honor?

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:18:44] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:18:45] Speaker 02:
Certainly.

[00:18:45] Speaker 02:
So, if we look at the 077 patent, Claim 1, which is, I believe, where Mr. Hanna was focusing, was that we have these

[00:18:53] Speaker 02:
one or more rules that are based on a boundary of a network.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
And it turns out that Yonk and the 205 pattern describe these boundary-specific rules almost identically.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
In the 205 pattern, for instance, starting at column 16, line 52, the 205 pattern gives these examples of what a boundary policy is.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
They say a dynamic security policy that implements ingress filtering may comprise one or more rules that filter based on the packet source address that they can look to see

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
Are these downstream packets coming from a possible source that we know?

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
We know why only serve these many clients.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
We know the world of possible IP addresses.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
We're going to let those in and exclude all the others.

[00:19:38] Speaker 02:
And that's necessarily going to change based on which boundary you're in.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
The 205 patent says we want to do this to prevent spoofing.

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
When we turn to the Yonk reference at paragraph 111,

[00:19:49] Speaker 02:
For example, we see the exact same type of discussion.

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
We see that Young is talking about ingress filtering, so both the 205 patent and Young call this ingress filtering for boundary-specific rules.

[00:20:02] Speaker 02:
Young says we do it because there might be a forgery instead of spoofing, but that's really the only distinction here between the 205 patent and Young on what these boundary-specific rules are.

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
and young goes through a specific example in that paragraph about that same idea we know which clients we serve we know where these packets could possibly be coming from if it's something different uh... we are not we're not going to let that through uh... where it comes from where do these rules come from in embodiment three uh... we see that uh... there's a discussion that this could come from from a subscribing server a virus watch service uh... this kind of for example language that

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
follows exactly, you know, follows exactly this concept of the subscribing server or the virus watch service in embodiment three.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
When we turn to embodiment... Let's interrupt you before your time runs out.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
Can you respond to the argument that Yonk and Fadia just disclosed pieces of information and not rules?

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
You know, they certainly don't.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
I think embodiment four is certainly one that is of interest in looking at figure six.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
We actually see

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
the concept of rules right in this router.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
They're using the same word.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
And I know, obviously, using the exact same word in different references doesn't always mean the same thing.

[00:21:23] Speaker 02:
But here it does.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
What they're talking about in Yonkri, these are the types of packet filtering rules that we need to determine what to do with these packets.

[00:21:33] Speaker 02:
And they are being defined remotely by these external devices.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
or by this management device.

[00:21:39] Speaker 02:
These type of rules say they analyze the header and then they determine is this something we're going to forward or is this something we're going to drop.

[00:21:46] Speaker 02:
That necessarily requires the indication of the criteria.

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
What is the IP address, for example, or what is it about this packet that we're looking at?

[00:21:56] Speaker 02:
And then what do you do with it?

[00:21:58] Speaker 02:
That meets the condition that it is a rule.

[00:22:01] Speaker 02:
There's a condition that causes something to occur.

[00:22:04] Speaker 02:
And it just wouldn't work otherwise.

[00:22:07] Speaker 02:
It can't just send an IP address, and this is true for Yonk and Batia.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
If you just send an IP address randomly to a device, it's not going to do anything with it.

[00:22:16] Speaker 02:
It's not going to know what to do with that IP address or any other simple chunk of information for that matter.

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
What it needs when these are being remotely programmed is to say, here's the IP address or the criteria, and here's what you need to do with it.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
When we look at Batia, in that example, I believe I heard a

[00:22:34] Speaker 02:
Mr. Hannah said, you know, it's just sending IP addresses.

[00:22:37] Speaker 02:
But again, for the same reason, that's not the case.

[00:22:40] Speaker 02:
It has to indicate where that IP address is supposed to go.

[00:22:44] Speaker 02:
Is that IP address associated with the white list, which means that we're going to forward the packets?

[00:22:49] Speaker 02:
Or is that IP address associated with the black list, which means we're going to drop the packets?

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
That indication of which list it should go on is indicative of the exact function that needs to be tied with that address.

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
So I would like to briefly turn to the allow list issues that Mr. Hanna raised as well.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
And there's been a little bit of a point of contention throughout the IPRA proceedings as well as in the briefing.

[00:23:21] Speaker 02:
And that goes to the steady state or the rest list issue that has been brought up.

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
And in the steady state concept, what I mean by that and what comes out of the briefing and the testimony is that where the rest list effectively ends up

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
being empty bachia has seen all the packets that are that that are coming down from its clients that has the server here it knows again to murder young which quite could be receiving some at some point seen all of those uh... and it comes to that steady state for every i p address is going to be on the white list or the blacklist uh... centripetal accused us of egregiously misrepresenting some testimony from from doctor just say uh... and i i just don't understand that

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
how they're reading in a different way.

[00:24:04] Speaker 02:
So I think looking at appendix 2873, page 68 of the testimony, starting at line 18, Mr. Price asks, Dr. Jusay, so there's a ton of traffic from that could potentially be received from IP addresses that aren't on the white list or the black list, correct?

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
Dr. Jusay ultimately answers in a practical sense, no.

[00:24:28] Speaker 02:
that fully supports the steady state concept that's cited by the board, that Dr. Jusay discusses as well in his, in his declarations.

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
And since your problems seem to take any issue with at the steady state, Batia certainly teaches this allow list functionality.

[00:24:45] Speaker 02:
They take issue with whether it would occur or not, but again, the only evidence, the testimony that they cite saying it wouldn't, I believe they're actually just misreading.

[00:24:54] Speaker 02:
But even outside of the steady state in Bhatia, it still meets these limitations because while centripetal takes issue with the packet needing to be further processed when it's first received, the ultimate piece is that it does end up on the whitelist or the blacklist.

[00:25:10] Speaker 02:
If it comes in and it's already not on there, they say, okay, we're going to authenticate it.

[00:25:14] Speaker 02:
It's authenticated.

[00:25:14] Speaker 02:
The IP address goes on the whitelist and the packet's forwarded.

[00:25:18] Speaker 02:
If it's not,

[00:25:19] Speaker 02:
the packet goes on the blacklist and the packets drop.

[00:25:22] Speaker 02:
So in any case, every packet that's dropped corresponds to an IP address that's not on the whitelist.

[00:25:28] Speaker 02:
So it also meets those limitations as well.

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
Anything further?

[00:25:36] Speaker 02:
I could briefly address the dynamic security policy issue just in the slight differences that we see here with the 205 patent, if that would be helpful to your honors otherwise.

[00:25:46] Speaker 00:
Well, I think we elided the claim construction argument, if that's what you're referring to, to the first case argument.

[00:25:54] Speaker 02:
Okay, perfect.

[00:25:55] Speaker 02:
Then I will yield the remainder of my time.

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:25:58] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:25:59] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hanna.

[00:26:02] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:26:02] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:26:04] Speaker 03:
So I will just go in order.

[00:26:05] Speaker 03:
You know, in terms of what the board relied upon in terms of the public accessibility of Engage is that

[00:26:12] Speaker 03:
VORA applied upon the declaration but ignored the deposition testimony.

[00:26:16] Speaker 03:
And that's the point that we're trying to raise here is that you need to consider the deposition testimony, which was contrary to the statements that these vague inferences that were made in the declarations, which we point out with the citation I gave earlier.

[00:26:30] Speaker 03:
With regard to the junk reference saying that on the boundary limitations for the 077 and then also certain claims of the 205 patent,

[00:26:41] Speaker 03:
You know, again, we'll point to appendix out page 152.

[00:26:45] Speaker 03:
And in page 152, the board specifically said, and I quote, Pat Nohner does not address these aspects of petitioner's arguments.

[00:26:53] Speaker 03:
And that is just incorrect.

[00:26:55] Speaker 03:
If you look at our opening brief at pages 47 to 51, we provide numerous citations to the record in which we specifically argue that point, and we don't have a record from the board saying, and any argument from the board that we can potentially address is going to say why did those limitations are met, specifically with regard to provisioning of the devices with these boundary, with these boundary.

[00:27:21] Speaker 03:
And the council didn't point to anything that,

[00:27:25] Speaker 03:
where the board actually addressed our arguments.

[00:27:29] Speaker 03:
And so that's why that argument fails.

[00:27:33] Speaker 03:
With regard to the rules aspect, and this is, you know, to the 205 patent and the 077 patent, I mean the 205 patent, you know, with the pieces of information that are coming down, what you constantly hear is that it is only these pieces of information.

[00:27:51] Speaker 03:
Nothing in the record shows

[00:27:53] Speaker 03:
that you actually have a complete dynamic security policy on a security policy maintenance server and having that being transferred to another device, such as a package security gateway.

[00:28:08] Speaker 03:
And that is specifically what's required in the claims.

[00:28:11] Speaker 03:
And so while there's these indications, the council said, well, there's these rules that could be created and this information could happen, the reference doesn't actually disclose that.

[00:28:20] Speaker 03:
And that's the issue for those limitations.

[00:28:23] Speaker 03:
Unless there are any questions, I heard the buzzer.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
Yes, thank you.

[00:28:28] Speaker 00:
We thank both sides and the case is submitted.