[00:00:02] Speaker 05:
The first case for argument this morning is 20-2345, com software versus NetApp.

[00:00:12] Speaker 05:
Mr. Farnan, you'll be appearing on video for all four of these arguments.

[00:00:19] Speaker 05:
I think we're set up.

[00:00:20] Speaker 05:
Can you see the panel?

[00:00:22] Speaker 05:
Can you see the judges?

[00:00:23] Speaker 05:
You want to unmute yourself?

[00:00:27] Speaker 05:
Unmute.

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
He doesn't look like he's seeing anything.

[00:00:31] Speaker 05:
Are you hearing us?

[00:00:45] Speaker 05:
Can you see us?

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:00:48] Speaker 05:
OK, and you're unmuted now.

[00:00:50] Speaker 05:
All right, and you can see the judges.

[00:00:51] Speaker 05:
OK, very good.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
Yes, I'm unmuted.

[00:00:56] Speaker 05:
Okay, all right, very good.

[00:00:59] Speaker 05:
All right, Mr. Farnan, we've called to your first case, 2345.

[00:01:02] Speaker 05:
Please proceed.

[00:01:03] Speaker 02:
In this first case, the board was found that the patent issue was invalid in two different references, Carter and Dibble.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
In starting with Carter, the primary issue is one of claim construction.

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
what we call the file-based term, either virtual file-based non-valve storage and the file-based automatic system.

[00:01:35] Speaker 02:
During prosecution, Kaelin Gray cleared what its invention was in this case.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
It said that it provided for virtualization at the file system level.

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
It referred to it as a file system.

[00:01:50] Speaker 02:
What this means is the invention was able to

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
interface with different types of file systems.

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
In other words, store data and then use data.

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
But I only know the underlying workings of those file systems, how that data is actually stored.

[00:02:05] Speaker 05:
So what's the problem with the board's conclusions with respect to Dibble here?

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
With respect to Dibble?

[00:02:11] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:02:13] Speaker 02:
With respect to Dibble, the problem is that Dibble is a single super computer.

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
And therefore, it does not dispose

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
playing two computer systems in communication with each other.

[00:02:26] Speaker 05:
Well, the board had an answer to that, right?

[00:02:29] Speaker 05:
You made that argument before the board.

[00:02:30] Speaker 05:
And the board says that in the context of a supercomputer, a network of multiple computers that communicate over the network to store and index data is sufficient.

[00:02:42] Speaker 05:
And one, do you agree that that's a substantial evidence finding?

[00:02:46] Speaker 05:
And two, if it is, why isn't there sufficient substantial evidence to affirm the board on that conclusion?

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
I think that is still a claim to truck issue, Your Honor, on what is in your system.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
The floor does point in to be local file systems of level, and our potential that does not meet what would be considered a computer system in the meaning of claims.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
A computer system has to be operating at a higher application level.

[00:03:12] Speaker 02:
You know, if you look at the specification and talk about how those systems are each able to actually do the selection of what file are we going to read.

[00:03:20] Speaker 02:
I just pulled a data.

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
So the local file system, all they're doing is managing their underlying data.

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
They're not actually, he's not disclosing two different computer systems.

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
He's got one computer.

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
It is operating, the PIFS operates at the application level, at that top level.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
The local file systems are all underneath that.

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
They're not separate computer systems.

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
And Bill does not disclose the hint at combining his single computer with any other computer system.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
And there's certainly no description or suggestion of how that could be going to be done.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
In fact, if you look at Dibble's new coordinates in there, he talks about how it's different than a uniprocessor system.

[00:04:03] Speaker 02:
It can't be combined, you agree with the uniprocessor system.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
And essentially, if you wanted to, if you wanted to take Dibble and add it to sorting, you would have to add a new processor for it, and you would just do it there.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
There's no rationale or reason given to Dibble.

[00:04:18] Speaker 02:
And there's nothing found but a board

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
Why didn't you then create two different computers to split it?

[00:04:24] Speaker 05:
So I take your point.

[00:04:25] Speaker 05:
But assuming we were to disagree with you or to think there's substantial evidence to support the board's conclusion, does that end both of these IPRs?

[00:04:34] Speaker 05:
Because does accepting the conclusions with respect to Dibble take care of the Carter stuff that is involved in one of the IPRs?

[00:04:46] Speaker 05:
Same claims, right?

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
So the one difference here would be the meat.

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
If you were to rule, um, towards like, uh, Dibble, and that would take care of all of Carter.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
Uh, Dibble, however, also includes, uh, the means plus function claims.

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
So those claims were not contested in Carter.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
I think those are close to 15.

[00:05:11] Speaker 02:
Those will stand.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
And those might still stand in the absence of Carter.

[00:05:14] Speaker 05:
Right, right.

[00:05:15] Speaker 05:
But everything in Carter is included within DIVL, all the claims.

[00:05:27] Speaker 05:
Any further arguments you made on DIVL?

[00:05:30] Speaker 05:
Again, if we accept the supercomputer issue for the board, anything else on DIVL that's problematic?

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
So the other thing that... So the other thing I think with DIVO, and this is sort of related to the communication issue that's first about it not being different computer systems, they're also going to think that DIVO has actually disclosed a communication network.

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
The stuff that they relied on in their processing, in their processor communication, that wasn't being done with

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
bridge and tools and nibble.

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
And so to the extent of the claim to requiring that you got to have a computer, and if you're going to rely on support and OFS for that, they're not showing up a communication network between those things anymore.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
What is your conception of what a communications network is?

[00:06:34] Speaker 03:
Is it nothing more than a direct line between two computers?

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
No possible devices in between?

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
I think they have possibly a voice in between.

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
I don't think that that is being shown by DIP or Califesta.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
They're not initiating communication with each other.

[00:06:55] Speaker 02:
They're not capable of doing that.

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
These are just processes attached to hard drives.

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
Everything else about the higher level of stuff with DIPL is being done on the bridge.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
When you say everything that's

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
on a higher level is being done by the bridge server.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
Exactly what do you mean by that?

[00:07:18] Speaker 03:
I mean, obviously there's disclosure and dibble about how the processor that's associated with each individual LFS is running the LFS.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
It is, but the LFS again is just simply a file system.

[00:07:34] Speaker 02:
All it's doing is just managing that

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
that underlying hard drive.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
It's moving the data in and off of it.

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
That's not doing anything.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
It's not providing applications.

[00:07:44] Speaker 02:
It's not providing the way in which you would actually not select the data bits of a file, but the way you would actually select a file.

[00:07:53] Speaker 02:
It is a simulation.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
All that stuff about how are we running this system, how are we, what I think about a read from a user's perspective, all that being done up at this level.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
I'm finding by the board that the LSF is to do anything like that.

[00:08:19] Speaker 05:
Anything else or should we turn to the other side and reserve your time for rebuttal?

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal at this point.

[00:08:28] Speaker 05:
Okay, thank you.

[00:08:33] Speaker 05:
Mr. Stach?

[00:08:36] Speaker 05:
Let our staff move over.

[00:08:38] Speaker 05:
We're moving you over, Mr. Farman.

[00:08:42] Speaker 05:
No, Mr. Farman is able to see the bench during this time.

[00:08:46] Speaker 05:
OK.

[00:08:48] Speaker 05:
Mr. Satch, please proceed.

[00:08:50] Speaker 05:
Yes, you can remove your mask if you wish.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
May it please the court for the reasons that it appears that

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
you already appreciate.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
I'd like to focus today on the Dibble IPR, because if the court affirms, then there's no need to reach the Carter IPR.

[00:09:09] Speaker 01:
And if we set aside the forfeiture and waiver issues that we noted in our briefs, of which there are many, COM does raise two primary arguments, as we just heard from Mr. Farnell.

[00:09:20] Speaker 05:
But you raised those forfeiture arguments.

[00:09:23] Speaker 05:
Those are his alternatives, right?

[00:09:25] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:27] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
We generally also explained why those arguments were incorrect on the merits.

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
So first come argues that Dibble does not disclose or suggest multiple computer systems.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
But there are really two independent reasons why Dibble does.

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
And in fact, the board cited those disclosures in Dibble.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
And substantial evidence supports those determinations.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
One relates to the LFSs, the local file systems, and they are in fact structured as separate computers, and they do in fact function as separate computers.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
As Dibble tells us, each of the LFSs has its own processor, has its own memory, has at least one attached hard drive.

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
These are disclosures that are in the appendix, for example, 2231 and 2238.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
Is everything with a processor and a hard drive a computer?

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
I don't know that we have to go that far, Your Honor, because of the next point that I am planning to make, which is that Dibble discloses that these function as independent autonomous systems.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
And I think if you have a hard drive and memory,

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
and a processor that's functioning autonomously in some ways, then yes, that would be a separate computer.

[00:10:51] Speaker 01:
I don't know if I would go so far as to say that anything with a processor is.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
But here, I don't think we need to reach that.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
Because of the way Dibble talks about, then, the function of the LFSs.

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
And in particular, if we look, I'm thinking about a passage in Dibble at appendix 2238 where it says, LFSs

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
may be used as autonomous file systems as well as components in a PIFS.

[00:11:19] Speaker 01:
In that case, the bridge server does not have complete control over the LFSs.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
So the idea here is that these are autonomous, independent nodes with sufficient hardware to qualify them to perform things, functions of an independent computing system, and they also happen to provide functionality that relates to the PIFs.

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
What does it mean that the PIF doesn't have complete control over an LFS in that case?

[00:11:48] Speaker 03:
Well, in that case... It means that it certainly has some control.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
It does.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
Maybe a lot of control.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
It may have varying levels of control.

[00:11:59] Speaker 01:
In some instances, it may have complete control.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
In others, though, we're told that the systems can perform independent backups, for example.

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
The LFSs can do that.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
Dibble tells us that, for example,

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
at appendix 2258.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
That says if every LFS includes a backup device, backup can run entirely at the LFS level.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
There are other things that Dibble tells us about how these are, he uses the term self-sufficient local file systems.

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
This is at appendix 2210.

[00:12:44] Speaker 01:
So he tells us specifically that when there are functions related to parallel storage of data,

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
then the bridge server can control those aspects.

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
The other aspects, though, can be controlled by the LFSs themselves independently.

[00:13:03] Speaker 01:
For example, at Appendix 22.22, Dibble states that local file systems are complete self-sufficient file systems.

[00:13:12] Speaker 01:
The PIFS relies on them to implement every feature of the file system that doesn't in some way involve parallelism.

[00:13:20] Speaker 04:
So he's explaining where the line could- Can you remind me, is there a construction of the term computer systems?

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
There is not an express construction of that in the record.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
And just remind me, was one requested?

[00:13:34] Speaker 01:
No, your honor.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
So as I, there's something at least linguistically different about a file system that is autonomous as a file system.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
And on the other hand, using different terminology, a computer system.

[00:13:56] Speaker 04:
Is your view that a computer system, the language computer system applies to any autonomous memory with a little bit of intelligence to get things in and out of that memory without doing anything else?

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
Is that a computer system?

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
Well, I think the LFS's here do more than that.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
So I think there's a terminology.

[00:14:30] Speaker 04:
Let me expand it.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
Listen, normal memory functions.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
Let's say that's backup and the range of memory things.

[00:14:37] Speaker 04:
But that's a computer system?

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
If a computer is a- The answer may be yes, but there's a linguistic difference.

[00:14:45] Speaker 04:
And I'm trying to understand why one would call

[00:14:49] Speaker 04:
what the issue is about whether that term applies, including what was ever argued about it.

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
And there's two aspects to the answer.

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
And the first is that, yes, when you have a computing device that

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
runs independent processes, is able, as Dibble tells us, to essentially be not under full control of the bridge server, and is able to do other things.

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
So let me just give you the picture that I guess is trouble.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
When I hear the word computer system, I think it's running.

[00:15:33] Speaker 04:
This is a system that performs a variety of processes.

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
But the processes are in no way limited to memory processes.

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
They're calculating things.

[00:15:43] Speaker 04:
doing other things that computers do.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
Let's just say calculating things and then spitting out information to the one requesting the calculation.

[00:15:54] Speaker 04:
That's what I guess I think of intuitively as a computer system, in which memory is of course an adjunct.

[00:16:01] Speaker 04:
to that kind of processing.

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
But I'm not sure I would think of those processes that are just for using or keeping up to date the memory as enough to make the system a computer system.

[00:16:20] Speaker 04:
And that's, I guess, the picture I'd like to have dispelled, whether by forfeiture, whether whatever.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
Certainly.

[00:16:28] Speaker 01:
I think part of the question stems from the terminology Dibble uses, calling these LFSs, they call them local file systems.

[00:16:38] Speaker 01:
They are more than just a file system.

[00:16:41] Speaker 01:
In fact, Dibble discloses separately that they implement something called the elementary file system as the actual file system in the LFS.

[00:16:51] Speaker 01:
So he's not saying, even though he named these local file systems, he has specifically said elsewhere that the file system within those is implemented using something different called the EFS, the elementary file system.

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
So he is not saying... Okay, so there's something more in the LFS than the EFS.

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
What's the more?

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
One of the things that is the more is performing backups, for example.

[00:17:21] Speaker 04:
Sounds like a memory function to me.

[00:17:24] Speaker 01:
It is a memory function.

[00:17:25] Speaker 01:
However,

[00:17:27] Speaker 01:
It needs to know what data and when to actually create the backup.

[00:17:34] Speaker 01:
It is a processing function.

[00:17:36] Speaker 01:
It is not a I just write data and keep the data.

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
It is something beyond that.

[00:17:42] Speaker 01:
And it requires some level of intelligence and programming beyond just I'm now storing data because I was told to store data.

[00:17:52] Speaker 01:
That's one example.

[00:17:55] Speaker 01:
Let's see.

[00:17:59] Speaker 01:
Security for the files is also something that is more than just, I need to write this file now.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
Dibble at Appendix 2222 does say, if the PIFS is to support file security, it must be implemented at the LFS level.

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
So this is, and he speaks elsewhere about how all of the security functionality

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
is implemented there, that's going to be running logic of sorts.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
Do I need to protect this?

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
Can I allow access to this or can I not allow access to it?

[00:18:33] Speaker 01:
All of that is a set of logic functions that the LFS's Dibble discloses that they are performing those functions as well.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
Because he is primarily focused

[00:18:47] Speaker 01:
with parallelizing in different ways the data.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
He does not necessarily get into all of the other types of applications that the LFS could run.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
He gives some examples, and he says that the bridge server only is limited to controlling limited aspects, but that these can be autonomous in other ways.

[00:19:10] Speaker 01:
And he's leaving open that possibility, but one of ordinary skill in the art

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
including from testimony of our expert, which is supported by Dibble's disclosures, says that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood based on these disclosures that these are functionally separate computer systems and therefore they meet the multiple computer language directly.

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
And as the board found as well, there's at least a suggestion of multiple computers

[00:19:41] Speaker 01:
As far as the LFSs go, that's directly about how they function, how they're disclosed to be autonomous and only perform some aspects that are related to the PIFS system and then everything else can be.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
whatever the hardware may be capable of, whatever a user might want to use the system for.

[00:20:00] Speaker 01:
I did want to mention though that Dibble also says that no aspect of the design or the implementation is specific to the butterfly or a shared memory architecture, which is Appendix 2246.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
And the shared memory architecture portion of that statement is significant, because that's really, when you think of a supercomputer and what makes it a supercomputer, at least a classical one, shared memory is one of those defining features.

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
And when you go beyond and say, we're not limiting our disclosures to a shared memory system, when you start to have systems that have their own memory, that is independent, that is separate,

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
then you are crossing over into the realm of multiple computer systems as well.

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
So you've got the LFSs that are disclosed to be autonomous in many ways.

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
You also have Dibble saying just generally, we are trying to make this a general parallel system that's not limited to even a shared memory architecture, much less the butterfly.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
There are other disclosures on Appendix 2246 about how our PIFS design should run well on any reasonable hardware.

[00:21:12] Speaker 01:
Our PIFS implementation is on a butterfly, but it was carefully written as a generic parallel program.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
These disclosures further bolster the suggestion that we're not limited to this shared memory architecture.

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
And when you look at how he describes the LFSs, it bears that out because they are autonomous in many ways and qualify as separate computers.

[00:21:46] Speaker 01:
Are there any other questions on that court?

[00:21:51] Speaker 01:
I mentioned originally there were two primary arguments that Com has raised.

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
One was multiple computers.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
The other is the network, as we heard Mr. Farnham talk about earlier.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
For the network, the reply brief,

[00:22:10] Speaker 01:
In the great brief, COMP says that they are disputing the network aspects on page 24, and they say even if Dibble's LFSs are considered to be different computer systems, they are not in communication with each other via a communication network.

[00:22:24] Speaker 01:
But then when they give their reasons,

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
they collapse everything down into the question of whether there are multiple computers.

[00:22:31] Speaker 01:
So for example, in their reply in the gray brief on 25, they say, the cited portions of Dibble do not disclose the actually claimed communication network, which must be between the different computer systems.

[00:22:44] Speaker 01:
So the idea here is that they say they're giving an independent reason that relates to the network.

[00:22:51] Speaker 01:
But all of the reasons that they've given are actually them saying, this is still a single supercomputer.

[00:22:58] Speaker 01:
The connections between the system components are not between separate computers.

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
So it really collapses the whole network argument down into the original question of, are these multiple computers?

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
Is there a suggestion of multiple computers?

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
And as I mentioned, substantial evidence supports that these are, in fact, multiple computers, both in terms of Dibble's disclosures as well as NetApp's expert's testimony.

[00:23:27] Speaker 01:
Unless the court has any further questions.

[00:23:33] Speaker 05:
Mr. Farnan, give us a minute.

[00:23:34] Speaker 05:
We've got to reorganize here.

[00:23:38] Speaker 05:
OK, we're ready, Mr. Farnan.

[00:23:40] Speaker 05:
Can you hear us?

[00:23:41] Speaker 05:
Mute.

[00:23:42] Speaker 05:
Take out your mute.

[00:23:43] Speaker 05:
Unmoved.

[00:23:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Rainer.

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
I'd like to fall off on a line of questioning that was just raised here.

[00:23:51] Speaker 02:
I think that you've touched on a very important point here in regards to DIVL.

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
And one of that is, what is actually a computer system?

[00:23:59] Speaker 02:
I think the patent, when you look at it in your figures, you're very clear that they're talking about a full computer system capable of processing many different ways.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
For example, is this a processor associated

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
A similar thing, you know, like my laptop, I have a CPU, I have a photographic processor.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
A photographic processor is not a computer system.

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
I don't think anybody would think it was.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
You know, all of these devices have many different processors, but not all function processors, and they operate in many different aspects of computers.

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
That doesn't make all those different processors computer systems.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
I think that's the point I'd be right here.

[00:24:39] Speaker 02:
And digital is basically different than that.

[00:24:42] Speaker 02:
People are saying, look, we have a special, we have a whole system processor, and we have this particular function for it.

[00:24:49] Speaker 02:
And that's managing file systems.

[00:24:51] Speaker 02:
That's managing all of those local file systems.

[00:24:57] Speaker 02:
And I think that's just our point that here what we need is when we're talking about computer systems, I think that's more robust.

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
Can I just ask you, what did you argue, and with what evidentiary support did you argue to the board about what the preconditions are for a system to constitute a computer system, either as a matter of claim construction or otherwise?

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
So a specific claim construction was not argued before the board.

[00:25:29] Speaker 02:
I don't think either side did it.

[00:25:32] Speaker 02:
I'm interested in providing one.

[00:25:33] Speaker 02:
Maybe that this case actually should be remanded so the court could actually consider that in the first instance.

[00:25:41] Speaker 02:
In terms of the evidence, it's essentially the same evidence for line-up now describing the local file system and what they are.

[00:25:49] Speaker 02:
But there was not, too, I think, what is the question there.

[00:25:51] Speaker 02:
There was not a natural plank construction that I think addressed this issue very much with the system.

[00:25:59] Speaker 04:
So we're really left to, I guess, the expert characterization.

[00:26:04] Speaker 04:
Yes, I would use the term, and artisans would use the term computer system to describe the LFSs in Dibble.

[00:26:15] Speaker 04:
And if that's just not a claim construction issue, it's just a substantial evidence question.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
Well, I think this is a planning construction issue, and I think it goes to planning construction.

[00:26:30] Speaker 02:
I would cite the HBC case here that we don't have to present it by the party with specific construction below to have it be a planning construction issue now that we're on a people.

[00:26:41] Speaker 02:
Here, the way that these are structured, this is an issue of what is that construction.

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
Um, there's something I wanted to point out here because they did mention some particular functions, um, like backup.

[00:27:02] Speaker 02:
You know, the backup that's being talked about there is just, again, within that local file system.

[00:27:07] Speaker 02:
You know, actual backup in Dibble has to be done by a tool.

[00:27:10] Speaker 02:
Now, Dibble would strike its data across all these processors.

[00:27:14] Speaker 02:
So, that's all in that own system of managing that data.

[00:27:19] Speaker 02:
And that's all the OS is doing.

[00:27:20] Speaker 02:
If you're talking about back-end files in Dibble, in the sense of what a back-end file is,

[00:27:29] Speaker 02:
Um, then, you know, they, they pointed at the end here to some of these statements of Devo about the different architectures that could be on.

[00:27:40] Speaker 02:
You know, Devo was very clear that he was for an ancestor for a generic.

[00:27:46] Speaker 03:
Mr. Farnham, what is that ringing sound?

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
Um, I'll stop that.

[00:27:53] Speaker 02:
Devo was very clear that, um, it was a great intervention for

[00:27:58] Speaker 02:
parallel processing computer.

[00:28:00] Speaker 02:
That was a hard detection that was aimed at.

[00:28:15] Speaker 02:
So, the other statement is that there is not a very specific description.

[00:28:25] Speaker 02:
It has some generic statements.

[00:28:27] Speaker 02:
sort of using other systems, it doesn't provide any detail about how one would do that.

[00:28:32] Speaker 02:
It doesn't provide any real motivation for doing that in other systems other than a parallel processing system.

[00:28:38] Speaker 05:
Anything further?

[00:28:39] Speaker 02:
I don't know.

[00:28:44] Speaker 05:
OK.

[00:28:44] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:28:44] Speaker 05:
We thank both sides, and the case is submitted.