[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
The next case for argument is 21-1123, Inray Robbins.

[00:01:11] Speaker ?:
you.

[00:01:23] Speaker 03:
Is it Mr. Kleber?

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
I was going to ask.

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
It's Kleiber, actually.

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
Mr. Kleiber.

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
Yes, thank you.

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
Please proceed.

[00:01:32] Speaker 00:
All right, thank you.

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
Well, good morning and may it please the court.

[00:01:36] Speaker 00:
I am Jim Kleiber from Mr. Richard A. Robbins and Therapy Services, LLC, which is the owner of the 4.0 patent application.

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
As the current pandemic has taught us anything, it's that people in nursing homes and similar facilities are greatly at risk.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
and one of the driving forces behind this patent application is to improve the video surveillance systems that are used in facilities like that.

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
Let me just go to the heart of it.

[00:02:03] Speaker 03:
You're not claiming to have invented a way of blurring video itself.

[00:02:08] Speaker 03:
I could not agree more, Your Honor.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
Okay, so you're just saying we're taking what's conventional and has been used in a hundred other settings and want to use it in the healthcare setting.

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
I would say there's no evidence that blurring a video in the way that is described in this patent application was conventional.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
So I would accept that out from what you said there.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
Not conventional in a technological advancement thing?

[00:02:38] Speaker 03:
Or not conventional in terms of people weren't using it all the time?

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
I would say if we're going to get to the routine conventional and well understood aspect of blurring,

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
then I would say that it is not.

[00:02:51] Speaker 00:
Because there's simply no evidence that it is.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
In this record, I mean, the board... I'm sorry.

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
Blurring is not routine or conventional, or it's not routine or conventional in the healthcare setting?

[00:03:02] Speaker 00:
Both, I would say.

[00:03:03] Speaker 00:
Because we have to look at 2012.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
We have to look at when this application was filed.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
What's your evidence for blurring of faces to conceal identity is not routine and conventional?

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
I mean, I think we've all heard about anybody that's watched TV shows with secret informants has seen them blur faces on TV programs.

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
So the idea of blurring, right?

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
I mean, just this abstract, if you want to call blurring an abstract idea, which I don't necessarily think that it is.

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
Blurring in order to conceal the identity of the people that are on video.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
That's what Judge Hughes, I think.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
Yes, right.

[00:03:36] Speaker 00:
I mean, that concept.

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
in and of itself, right, is existed, right?

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
We know that, okay.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
But here, there's no evidence that that was ever done in a healthcare facility or it's video data that was generated and protected by- The problem there, let's assume that the idea of blurring to conceal identity stated at that broad level is an abstract idea.

[00:03:59] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
We have said in numerous times that confining an abstract idea

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
to a specific setting still means it's an abstract idea and doesn't it get out of 101.

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
Why isn't the case here?

[00:04:12] Speaker 01:
The first question to you was have you invented a new form of blurring?

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
I think you said no.

[00:04:19] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:04:21] Speaker 00:
What we've done though is to use blurring in combination with an access system.

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
in a way that has never been done before.

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
And there's no evidence of any sort of comparison system.

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
I mean, we imagine that this blurring, however it's done in pre-2012 blurring, involves some manual

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
Blurring.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
Who knows how that worked?

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in the record about it.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
I mean, that's one of the things that I think is very difficult in this case, is that the board, the examiner, at every stage, introduced no evidence of how blurring was done in the past.

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
So are you impending that you invented a new way of blurring?

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
No, what we're inventing here is a way of applying blurring with a pre-existing caseload system separately patented, which is an access rule system like in many cases.

[00:05:20] Speaker 00:
court has found to be patent eligible.

[00:05:24] Speaker 00:
Ancora, TechSec, a number of the cases we cite in our brief that talk about how you combine a specific rule-based system with some other step to create a patent eligible system.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
Where is the rules-based system in this claim?

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
What's that?

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
Where's the rule-based system on the claim?

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
That is the caseload.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
Caseload is something that's specifically called out in the claim.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
And actually, the caseload description is incorporated by reference from a prior application by Therop and by some of the same inventors.

[00:05:51] Speaker 00:
So what we have here is a 35 USC 100B new use of a previous system, caseloads access system.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
Can you quickly describe exactly how the claim works?

[00:06:03] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
I just want to make sure I understand it.

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
Is the claim system contemplating always blurring a particular part of the image and then storing that and then giving access to that partially redacted video content to someone that has the privilege to access that?

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
Depending on the level of

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
access a particular person is entitled to, they may see a version where there's no blurring going on, or they may see a version where there's partial blurring, or they may see yet another version where there's a lot more blurring.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
Which one is it?

[00:06:52] Speaker 00:
Well, you've actually described quite a few there, but it's sort of on the latter half of that.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
The idea here is that the prior art was simply recording and storing.

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
And the problem with this environment is... Okay, so you're starting to migrate away from my question.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
Let's go back to the question.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
No, no, I'm returning to your question.

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
That's the thing.

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
Let me ask it again.

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
Okay, so there's a question of being able to access this content, this video content.

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
And then based on the authorization, they're going to get some version of the video content.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
That is exactly correct, Your Honor.

[00:07:32] Speaker 02:
And they're either going to see a version that has no blurring, or they're going to see a version with some blurring.

[00:07:40] Speaker 02:
Is that how this claim convention works?

[00:07:42] Speaker 00:
There's actually a version where they may not.

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
Oh, please.

[00:07:45] Speaker 00:
Can you say yes for now?

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
Yes, but there's another version where they don't see anything at all.

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
And I swear that is.

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
Denied complete access.

[00:07:51] Speaker 00:
Yes, denied access.

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
So we've had a lot of cases where these sorts of authorization to access certain things, we've called that an abstract idea.

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
In some cases, yes.

[00:08:09] Speaker 02:
And then we also have other cases where we've said the notion of

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
redacting content from some larger content is also an abstract idea, without anything more.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
Have you heard of content extraction, for example?

[00:08:31] Speaker 02:
That's the case about the checks where certain content got redacted and we said that's an abstract idea, just the idea of redacting some content from some document.

[00:08:43] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:08:43] Speaker 00:
And so I think the thing is here we talk about context a little bit, the healthcare information industry and so on.

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
What we're talking about though here is a combination in an unusual way of taking that access system

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
which is so critical with health information, and applying it to this blurring in a very specific way, because you're comparing information that's already in and stored in the system.

[00:09:10] Speaker 00:
That's the determining step in the claim, is you're determining

[00:09:14] Speaker 00:
you're identifying, and the specification describes how to do that, you're identifying the person in the video by their physical characteristics, and then you are determining, based on those physical characteristics, who's in the video, and then you're comparing it to the access

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
Again, as you say, depending on how many people are there and what they're doing.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
What they're doing is often, that's also covered by the claim that we have this idea of the program as being part of the caseload, what a caseload is.

[00:09:47] Speaker 00:
This is something that access can be tailored to the particular members of the audience and that is exactly what was going on in Texas.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
The ineligible concept here is redacting confidential information based on privilege rules.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
What's wrong with that?

[00:10:10] Speaker 00:
That's an oversimplification of the claim.

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
Because this is very specifically limited to video.

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
you know comparing images right and and and you know this is image data here that is being you you know if you're simply just redacting something based on you know whatever uh... you know information you may have but this is this is a very specific where you're going in looking at the video

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
identifying who is in there and then comparing it to a set of rules, this caseload rules-based access.

[00:10:40] Speaker 00:
So we have, you know, in my view, this is sort of a combination.

[00:10:43] Speaker 02:
How is that different than from what the board said?

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
Because, I mean, that sounded a lot like relying on a set of privilege rules and then redacting some portion of the image based on those privilege rules.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
redacting the display of certain information based on that?

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
Because it leaves out the identity of the individual in there, right?

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
The problem is that is the privilege rules have to be tied to the identity of the people in the act.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
That's a very specific thing that's in this claim, is that we're talking about some individuals that you do have access to, other individuals that you don't, and that you're identifying those individuals as part of the claim.

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
So the permissions

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
And their redactions or non-redactions based on them are more specific.

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
Yes, it's a specific.

[00:11:30] Speaker 01:
This is one of the things that's in your law.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
But it's not just redacting information.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
It's just a more specific application.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
It is a very specific application.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
And that's the kind of specific improvement in video processing technology.

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
How does it improve processing?

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
It's just using the computer to give you more complex authorizations.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
But it's still just an authorization process.

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
It's just further refined.

[00:11:54] Speaker 00:
Well, the board said this is a purported improvement in video processing technology.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
That's what they said.

[00:12:01] Speaker 00:
And I'm taking the bit at their word.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
I mean, if you want to disagree, that's the one thing that we're going to get it right.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
It is a purported improvement, but it's not.

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
I mean, it's an improvement only in terms of the rules can be more complex and deal with video as opposed to just text-based information.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
But it doesn't change the way the computer works, the processor works, the camera works, or any of that, does it?

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
Well, it doesn't have to.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
It's exactly like Diamond v. Deere, where the added step was temperature measurement.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
And if you look at the claim in Footnote 5 of Diamond v. Deere, there's the claim.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
It says, measuring temperature.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
And that's all it says.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
So blurring.

[00:12:41] Speaker 00:
This step of blurring, we don't have to disclose precisely how blurring is done.

[00:12:47] Speaker 00:
We don't have to improve the way that blurring is done.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
We have to attach that blurring, that new blurring step to something else to make a new and unconventional process, which is what we've done.

[00:13:01] Speaker 03:
I guess you have to parse your last sentence in a lot of different ways.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
We add something.

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
There were contradictory phrases in your sentence.

[00:13:14] Speaker 03:
Are you doing something new and different?

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
Or are you characterizing it as being new and different because you're doing something old and conventional in a new system?

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
in healthcare, where it's never been done in healthcare.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
It's been done in other industries numerous times in different ways, but we're applying it here in a specific way to the healthcare industry.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
So are you claiming that the specific thing you're doing is inventive?

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
Are you claiming that doing it for the first time in the healthcare industry is what's inventive about this?

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
I'm just not clear.

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
I think both of those things are true, Your Honor.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
I think that because there is nothing in the

[00:13:53] Speaker 00:
because the examiner and the board at every stage and right up into the director's brief failed to provide any evidence of how other boarding systems worked.

[00:14:03] Speaker 00:
They merely said it was conventional.

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
They merely said that this step as added in here didn't add anything.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
They didn't look in the healthcare industry for any evidence of this.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
And meanwhile, we supplied evidence, a declaration.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
The specification itself talks about how this is an issue, an unsolved problem in the health care industry.

[00:14:23] Speaker 03:
Well, the specification talks about video blurring, and it talks about it as if it's a known technique, right?

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:14:29] Speaker 03:
It says, information and audio or video files can also be shown after removing or blurring individuals beyond recognition to staff who do not have caseload access on them.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
Yes, that's describing exactly how this system works.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
That's not saying that it's something that already exists.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
It's actually saying that this is something new.

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
This is part of the invention.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
That you invented what?

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
What is it?

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
Blurring?

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
I thought we already established... This idea of differential blurring based on access rules is something that just simply did not exist.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
And it is a very specific solution to a very specific problem that really only arises in this kind of 24-hour video surveillance system where you have multiple people who have access to a very large volume of data.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
And this is why it's very similar to the TechSec case, where the idea was that you were adding, in that case there was encryption, there was labeling.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
TechSec didn't claim to have invented encryption or labeling.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
What they were claiming to invent was adding those things to a security system.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
by which only certain people would have access.

[00:15:44] Speaker 03:
But in using rules to limit who can access information and obscuring information, the user isn't authorized to see, is that really a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks or computers?

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
Yes, it is.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
In video surveillance systems, it totally is.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
Because the issue is, as I said, that there's no evidence in the record of anything in the prior art other than taking video and storing video.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
And then the issue was who gets access to the data.

[00:16:13] Speaker 02:
But we also accept that blurring video was also a known thing to do.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
I mean, that's where we began this floral argument.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
And the idea is that I have to admit that the concept of blurring was out there.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
you know, before this application was filed.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
That's true.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
How did those blurring systems work?

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
What was done with those?

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
Were they done manually?

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
Was there anything like this?

[00:16:45] Speaker 02:
And there's nothing in this claim that distinguishes the

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
the step of blurring here, the act of blurring, whatever the technical requirements are to blur a portion of the video from what was already known and established in the art of blurring, right?

[00:17:05] Speaker 02:
You're not claiming, and this is a specific way that we want to do the blurring here for the purposes of this claim.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
Right, we've said many times in the briefs that

[00:17:15] Speaker 00:
we're not claiming a new way of blurring.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
We're not writing code to blur it.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
Or a specific way.

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
Actually, because blurring is a subset of redaction, the claims here were amended.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
At one point, the claims did say redaction, and then that was changed.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
It was changed to blurring because the specification actually disclosed several ways of redacting.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
So blurring is actually a specific solution to this particular problem.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
You can imagine

[00:17:41] Speaker 00:
and in fact it's disclosed in the specification, that rather than blurring, you could entirely remove a section of the image.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
You could put a smiley face over someone's face.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
There's a lot of ways to do it.

[00:17:55] Speaker 02:
What if I wrote a claim to generating a document, and I said in the claim, generating a document using Microsoft Word,

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
The fact that I preside in the claim using Microsoft Word, it narrows the claim, but I don't think that all of a sudden transforms an otherwise ineligible claim into a patent-eligible claim merely by the fact that I've limited the scope of the claim to the use of Microsoft Word, have I?

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
again that if we look at deer, right?

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
If we look at deer and how deer was decided, right?

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
Are you suggesting that the recitation of use of Microsoft Word could be

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
I'm saying that the context, if the industry that we're talking about, which you didn't, this has to be looked at through the lens of the industry.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
That's the thing.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
And then that was certainly not done here by the board.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
There's almost no references in the board's decision or in the director's brief to the health

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
information technology issue.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
Health information technology is actually something defined by Congress as being an area of technology in the High Tech Act.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
I mean, it's very unusual when we have a case where we're arguing whether something is an area of technology that may be improved, where here we actually have a congressional definition that this is an area of technology that can be improved.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
We're way beyond our time.

[00:19:25] Speaker 03:
So let me hear from the other side.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
may it please the court daniel castan on behalf of the u s p t l i'm sorry just please restore your mask the invention here and this is is to take a technology that exists and apply it to the high-tech space but this is i think ultimately and this is i think what judge you said in the beginning cases like intellectual ventures and OIP have all said you don't make an idea not abstract by just limiting it to one field

[00:20:08] Speaker 04:
So I kind of think that disposes of the case.

[00:20:11] Speaker 04:
Basically, we have a technology of blurring, which they're not describing, and they're not explaining how the technology of blurring is working.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
They're just applying blurring based on a set of rules.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
They're sort of applying a set of rules that is a standard abstract idea, as this case court found in Abel and other cases like that.

[00:20:31] Speaker 04:
And so then, I mean, I guess that's really all I have to say.

[00:20:36] Speaker 04:
I'm happy to take questions.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
If not, you can ask.

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
Sorry.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
What about his references to deer and also his arguments that this is based on this caseload thing and this is just different enough that withstands scrutiny under cases like deer and deer's analysis and the other case he referred to, which was, I guess, Texas.

[00:21:05] Speaker 04:
So I think in tech, what you have is the use of the label and the technology is actually affecting the technology that you're using.

[00:21:13] Speaker 04:
That's what's missing here is there's the abstract idea of blur, like you don't get to see people you shouldn't see and you do get to see people you should see, sort of like Pacer has that if I'm not logged in, I can't see the sealed version, I could see the unsealed version.

[00:21:27] Speaker 04:
And then the technology, but there's not the, the fact that you want to use it in high tech,

[00:21:32] Speaker 04:
is still just a set of rules that you're going to be used and i think that's fundamentally where why this case is different than tech second the other cases of that uh... is that there's been there's been no connection to the technology it's just the technology on one side and the abstract and the set of rules and just saying put them together apply so we're going to keep referring to these caseloads that are in the claim and that that makes this different and not abstract

[00:22:00] Speaker 04:
I mean, but the caseloads are, if you have permission to see it, you see it.

[00:22:04] Speaker 04:
And if you don't have permission to see it, you don't see it.

[00:22:07] Speaker 04:
That's, that's just an idea of how you do it.

[00:22:09] Speaker 04:
It's like a rule of the game.

[00:22:11] Speaker 04:
There are like, or it's like an intermediated settlement in the Supreme Court cases.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
These are all just.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
It's not a specific way of telling you how to give authorizations.

[00:22:23] Speaker 01:
It's the idea of some people get authorizations based upon certain access, some people get more, some people get less, some people get zero.

[00:22:32] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I wish I had said it as clearly as that.

[00:22:34] Speaker 04:
Yes, that's exactly right.

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
And so that's, I think, fundamentally why there's not a technological invention here.

[00:22:43] Speaker 04:
There's just applied technology in the space.

[00:22:48] Speaker 04:
and then you know and he keeps talking about how we don't what we haven't introduced evidence but i feel like that happen alice the supreme court has no problem saying we know that computers exist we know that uh... and if you know who was that in dispute whether blurring existed it would sort of be important to the examiner to show that they've never argued that blur they've candidly admitted that blurring was out there before and if it wasn't then the spec doesn't teach how to do it so that's

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
I mean, I guess that's where I feel like it's just a specific application of a technology.

[00:23:25] Speaker 04:
But the real invention here is the abstract idea of applying it in the high-tech space.

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
I mean, in the healthcare space.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
But there could be a circumstance where they're applying it in a detailed, very specific

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
and novel way, and wouldn't that take that out of the realm of the abstract?

[00:23:43] Speaker 04:
I mean, I think it would be sort of to use Judge Chen's example.

[00:23:47] Speaker 04:
If I say, do this by turning on your computer, using Microsoft Word,

[00:23:53] Speaker 04:
typing the seven letters or whatever right like the fact that you're getting very specific instructions about how to do it just like the sort of the railway tickets of like a hundred year ago one uh... at ineligibility cases the very the the it's not the details that really are where you're going to get eligibility the question is under step one of alice what ultimately is the claim directed here the claim is directed to deciding who gets to see information

[00:24:20] Speaker 04:
And that could have been done by people in their head.

[00:24:23] Speaker 04:
That's just an idea out there.

[00:24:25] Speaker 04:
And then just using the blurring technology, the off-the-shelf blurring technology to implement that.

[00:24:32] Speaker 04:
And so that's how I see the difference between this in cases like Taksak and Deere and makes it more akin to the cases like Erickson or last week's case of the USR, the universal storage and these other cases about

[00:24:48] Speaker 04:
who gets access to information and there many and uh... in the metal article the cataclysm catalogs a lot of them in one place i see the case now you can start and i'm sorry for jumping

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
Okay, will we still have two minutes of rebuttal if we need it, Mr. Kleiber?

[00:25:12] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
I will be as brief as possible.

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
I think one of the things my colleague said is that he doesn't think that this affects the technology that it's used in.

[00:25:22] Speaker 00:
I think my client would certainly disagree with that.

[00:25:24] Speaker 00:
I mean, this is a very specific use of very specific technology to make a specific improvement in an area that was absolutely necessary.

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
An improvement in the technology.

[00:25:36] Speaker 00:
Yes, in health information technology.

[00:25:39] Speaker 00:
One thing that I would direct the court's attention to is Appendix 1281, which is an actual screenshot from the prior patent that shows a caseload field and all of the information that goes into it.

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
The description of caseloads, and without oversimplifying,

[00:25:57] Speaker 00:
caseloads, there's a great deal of flexibility in how a caseload is set up and it's described in some detail in the prior patent that's incorporated by reference.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
So to say it's merely just who gets to see what and who gets to, you know, things like that, I mean, you know, at a very high

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
an oversimplified level, that's true.

[00:26:14] Speaker 00:
But the caseload here, which is, we called out this as a term, caseloads, and didn't just use the word access rules.

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
We could have put something like that, or just privilege rules, or something like that in the claim.

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
We're not claiming just privilege rules.

[00:26:29] Speaker 00:
We're claiming a very specific caseload application.

[00:26:32] Speaker 00:
And caseloads is something, again, that we incorporated from this prior patent into this application.

[00:26:38] Speaker 02:
So what am I supposed to think about when you say the word caseloads?

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
A caseload in this particular area, in health information technology, a caseload

[00:26:48] Speaker 00:
It can be based on the identity of the individual or the aspect of whether that individual is enrolled in a particular program within the healthcare facility.

[00:27:01] Speaker 00:
That's one of the things here is that this is directed to people with severe cognitive disabilities.

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
There's an example in the specification of this application.

[00:27:09] Speaker 00:
talking about how there's an individual who's learning to brush his teeth and meanwhile there's a fight going on in the background.

[00:27:15] Speaker 00:
This is a very specific problem that is in this area that is being handled by this application.

[00:27:23] Speaker 00:
There simply was nothing like this manual or automated in this industry before that.

[00:27:30] Speaker 00:
The application of the caseload's type of access rules, a specific kind of access rules, with blurring technology is what's being claimed here.

[00:27:38] Speaker 00:
And that's why I think the board should be reversed.

[00:27:41] Speaker 00:
And it's particularly in view that there's no substantial evidence of any blurring technology, anything like this, in this industry.

[00:27:51] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
We thank both sides in this case.