[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
number 21 1247 Lenovo holding company Incorporated against you doubts licensing solutions LLC, Mr.. Stockwell May it please the court good good morning your honors I

[00:00:25] Speaker 05:
Claim construction is the dispositive issue in this case, and we think the board.

[00:00:33] Speaker 05:
We think the board erred by importing a negative limitation into the term NIM template such that it has to exclude compiled code or executable code.

[00:00:45] Speaker 05:
That's the principal error on appeal.

[00:00:48] Speaker 05:
In doing that, the board did not recite and did not discuss this court's standard for importing negative limitations into claim terms.

[00:00:59] Speaker 05:
And that was error.

[00:01:01] Speaker 05:
Under this court's standard, the first place to look to see whether or not a negative limitation can be imported into a claim term, like NIM template, is the claims themselves.

[00:01:13] Speaker 05:
And in this case, not only does the claim language not support a negative limitation, it actually counts as against it.

[00:01:19] Speaker 05:
And for that, your honor, I'd point you to the 083 patent.

[00:01:23] Speaker 05:
The claim one of the 083 patent expressly says that the NIM template that the board construed

[00:01:30] Speaker 05:
must include, quote, instructions configured to cause, unquote, either creating the GUI or pulling up and requesting content for the GUI, the graphical user interface.

[00:01:44] Speaker 05:
That claim one also includes language that discusses processors that, quote, execute the first networked information monitor template.

[00:01:55] Speaker 04:
Well, it has to be execution, the use of the word

[00:01:59] Speaker 04:
execute doesn't suggest that there's come I'm sorry your honor I can't quite hear you the fact that they use the word execute doesn't mean very much because it doesn't necessarily mean that this compiled code even if you're talking about

[00:02:20] Speaker 04:
just language here.

[00:02:24] Speaker 04:
It still has to be executed.

[00:02:26] Speaker 04:
The template instructions have to be executed one way or the other.

[00:02:32] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, if we look at the specification here, it seems to be almost definitional.

[00:02:41] Speaker 04:
If you look at 21.45 to 60.

[00:02:46] Speaker 04:
And it says the NIM definition defines the structure.

[00:02:53] Speaker 04:
to say while advantageously avoiding the need to distribute and support a hard-coded compiled application.

[00:03:02] Speaker 04:
So if that language from the specification is definitional, you lose on the claim construction, right?

[00:03:10] Speaker 05:
I would agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:03:11] Speaker 05:
And I think the point that we made below and that we made before this court is that's one embodiment.

[00:03:18] Speaker 05:
And that was certainly an embodiment

[00:03:21] Speaker 05:
board relied upon.

[00:03:22] Speaker 05:
But I would also direct your honor to.

[00:03:24] Speaker 04:
But it doesn't seem to be just an embodiment if you look at the language.

[00:03:27] Speaker 04:
It does refer to the XML embodiment.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
But then the rest of that paragraph goes on to more generally talk about NIM definition and what's required by the claims, by what constitutes the invention.

[00:03:46] Speaker 05:
So Your Honor, I understand your question.

[00:03:49] Speaker 05:
And the board certainly pointed to that XML embodiment in supporting its decision.

[00:03:54] Speaker 05:
It acknowledged it was only one embodiment.

[00:03:57] Speaker 05:
And may I turn to the specification and point to the other embodiments that directly contradict that?

[00:04:03] Speaker 05:
So first, just to be clear.

[00:04:05] Speaker 04:
I don't think you're quite addressing my language.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
Because contrary to the way you present this passage in your brief,

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
This other language here doesn't, on its face, appear to be limited to a particular embodiment.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
It says the NIM definition defines the structure of the NIM, and then it goes on and has the language that I read to you.

[00:04:31] Speaker 04:
I mean, I guess the question before us then becomes whether this is just talking about one embodiment or whether it's talking more generally.

[00:04:39] Speaker 05:
And that's precisely, I think, the point that we make, Your Honor.

[00:04:42] Speaker 05:
And if I could point to the other embodiments, I think that's helpful for the court to understand.

[00:04:48] Speaker 05:
And if you look at the board's decision at A50 and 51, one of the things they said was they said dots or application media packages are synonymous with the NIM template.

[00:05:04] Speaker 05:
And if we look at the 083 patent, column 45, lines 50 to 56 in the record at A10, it says, quote, the home dot application 200, that is a NIM template, itself may be packaged as a dot.

[00:05:26] Speaker 05:
It says it has special responsibilities and rights.

[00:05:29] Speaker 05:
But it is, quote, as much a dot as any other dot.

[00:05:33] Speaker 05:
This embodiment enables the application executable.

[00:05:37] Speaker 05:
That is, the home dot is an application executable.

[00:05:41] Speaker 05:
That's at column 45.

[00:05:42] Speaker 05:
At column 9, line 17 through 19, the specification says there are control calls contained within an application media package, the dot or nym template, that are also parsed and executed.

[00:05:57] Speaker 05:
The 407 patent says at column 11, lines 2 through 6 at A259, it's talking about the home NIM.

[00:06:06] Speaker 05:
It says the home NIM, again, the NIM template, is executed with the client parser application.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
And it says that... Everything has to be executed.

[00:06:16] Speaker 04:
The fact that it talks about execution doesn't do anything.

[00:06:19] Speaker 04:
I mean, even if, whether it's markup language or...

[00:06:25] Speaker 04:
of compiled code, it still has to be executed, right?

[00:06:29] Speaker 05:
But Your Honor, that is the point.

[00:06:32] Speaker 05:
It's executable code.

[00:06:33] Speaker 05:
This is calling the NIM template an executable application, and the board is saying, well, the NIM template has to exclude an executable application, but the very thing the specification says that you're downloading, the dot or the application media package is characterized as an executable application.

[00:06:52] Speaker 05:
And moreover, Your Honor,

[00:06:54] Speaker 04:
If you look at... But am I not correct that whether your view is right or your patentee's view is correct, there still has to be execution one way or the other?

[00:07:08] Speaker 05:
Well, Your Honor, I would dispute that in this sense.

[00:07:12] Speaker 05:
Executable has an ordinary meaning of requiring executable code, not simply usage, which was what... But executing as a verb,

[00:07:24] Speaker 04:
is required, whichever view you take of the scope of this patent, right?

[00:07:35] Speaker 05:
Well, I don't know.

[00:07:36] Speaker 05:
I think if you're saying is execution a synonym with use, I would say no, because execution means something to skilled artisans here.

[00:07:48] Speaker 05:
And this context of the specification suggests it's executable or compiled code.

[00:07:52] Speaker 04:
Don't you have to execute the code?

[00:07:54] Speaker 04:
NIM template, regardless?

[00:07:57] Speaker 05:
Yes, and computers do that through instructions, Your Honor.

[00:07:59] Speaker 05:
That's what code is.

[00:08:01] Speaker 05:
So how do you exclude from the definition of the NIM template the very mechanism the patent discloses as being a NIM template, which is a downloadable application that is executable?

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
And I would also point out, not only does it talk about the application being... The point is that you have to have execution whether there's downloadable code or not, right?

[00:08:25] Speaker 05:
I guess I don't agree with that your honor in the sense that execution refers in this sense to Executable code if you're saying we have to use what's downloaded the data or the code that's being downloaded.

[00:08:37] Speaker 05:
I would agree with that Okay And if I could remember We're not talking about an affirmative construction here.

[00:08:47] Speaker 05:
We're talking about a negative limitation that excludes

[00:08:51] Speaker 05:
Code or compiled code and again on the exclusion I would point you to the 407 patent at column 11 lines 15 through 18 at a 259

[00:09:03] Speaker 05:
And this goes to your central question, Your Honor.

[00:09:06] Speaker 05:
Well, was this language the board relied on applicable to all embodiments, or is it contradicted by other embodiments?

[00:09:13] Speaker 05:
And the board said they looked in the specification, and they saw no other embodiments in which there was compiled code or executable applications.

[00:09:20] Speaker 05:
I've pointed to the executable application embodiment.

[00:09:24] Speaker 05:
Here's another one.

[00:09:25] Speaker 05:
Quote, in some embodiments, the home name.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
What column in line are you on?

[00:09:29] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry.

[00:09:31] Speaker 05:
Column 11, lines 15 through 18.

[00:09:35] Speaker 05:
In some embodiments, the home NIM is distinct from other NIMs in the sense that a large proportion of the home NIM in such embodiments is precompiled.

[00:09:46] Speaker 05:
The very thing that the board said was the NIM template the specification says has the compiled code and the executable code There's no basis for the board to import a negative limitation into that claim term with this specification in hand and your honor started by asking well, what is the meaning of execute and

[00:10:09] Speaker 05:
And it's true that the board pointed to Dr. Sacerdote's testimony that essentially said, well, execute really means just use.

[00:10:18] Speaker 05:
And they cited the paragraph 66 of that testimony.

[00:10:22] Speaker 05:
This is what Dr. Sacerdote said.

[00:10:24] Speaker 05:
Where are you?

[00:10:24] Speaker 05:
What page?

[00:10:25] Speaker 05:
This is in the board decision.

[00:10:30] Speaker 05:
They were citing this around A53 to A55.

[00:10:33] Speaker 05:
They cited a paragraph 66 of Dr. Sacerdote's.

[00:10:37] Speaker 04:
But you're asking us to look at his testimony.

[00:10:40] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:10:40] Speaker 05:
Where is that?

[00:10:40] Speaker 05:
A2425.

[00:10:43] Speaker 05:
What volume?

[00:10:45] Speaker 05:
I believe that's the second volume, Your Honor, but I don't have my volume in front of me, so it may be the third.

[00:11:12] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:11:13] Speaker 05:
So, and I'm reading from my notes, and hopefully I noted this appropriately, but in paragraph 66, what the board relies on here... That's not paragraph 66, okay.

[00:11:25] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:11:27] Speaker 05:
Dr. Sacerdote says, he's talking about construing execute, and he says, because a template is a data structure, not an executable program, then he goes on to talk about how execute could just mean a skilled artist would execute

[00:11:41] Speaker 05:
means use.

[00:11:43] Speaker 05:
But he's assumed the conclusion here.

[00:11:45] Speaker 05:
He's assumed, well, a template's just a data structure, not an executable program.

[00:11:49] Speaker 05:
Then he construes the language.

[00:11:51] Speaker 05:
This is not the kind of extrinsic evidence that is entitled to any Teva deference whatsoever.

[00:11:57] Speaker 05:
And it contradicts the intrinsic evidence of the specification that I just went through.

[00:12:02] Speaker 04:
Did you put in expert testimony to contradict this?

[00:12:05] Speaker 05:
We did not, Your Honor, because we relied on the intrinsic evidence itself.

[00:12:08] Speaker 05:
I'm not aware of this court requiring

[00:12:11] Speaker 05:
parties arguing intrinsic evidence to require them to have expert testimony.

[00:12:18] Speaker 04:
Well, it's a question of whether the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence, right?

[00:12:23] Speaker 05:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:12:24] Speaker 05:
I did not hear you.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
I say it's a question of whether the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence when there's this expert declaration, which is uncontradicted.

[00:12:35] Speaker 05:
I think the way I would put it is it's a question of whether this court reviews the construction de novo or gives some Teva deference to the board's reliance on Dr. Sacerdote's testimony.

[00:12:47] Speaker 05:
And we addressed this in our brief.

[00:12:49] Speaker 05:
And I would remind the court of what you did on remand in Teva, where Teva argued that simply because they had

[00:13:00] Speaker 05:
an expert testify about the factual issues, that was enough to obtain Teva deference.

[00:13:08] Speaker 05:
And this court said Teva cannot transform legal analysis about the meaning or significance of the intrinsic evidence into a factual question simply by having an expert testify on it.

[00:13:19] Speaker 05:
Determining the significance of disclosures in the specification or prosecution history is also part of the legal analysis.

[00:13:26] Speaker 05:
And that's on remand 789 F-3RD 1342.

[00:13:30] Speaker 05:
So in other words, just because Dr. Sacerdote looks at the language of the claims and assumes the end result, that is, that the data structure, not an executable, and testifies about that is not entitled to deference.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
Anything else at the moment?

[00:13:44] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:13:45] Speaker 01:
I have a couple of questions.

[00:13:46] Speaker 05:
I see I'm in a mire about it all the time, Your Honor.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
I have a couple of questions before you sit down.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
Am I correct that the board made two independent findings?

[00:13:57] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, certainly my friend on the other side argues that there is an independent finding that would be an alternative basis for justification.

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
If we were to agree with that, that there is an independent finding,

[00:14:11] Speaker 02:
or alternative findings, and we affirmed on one of them, then that disposes of the case, correct?

[00:14:20] Speaker 05:
I would agree with that if you accept their argument.

[00:14:22] Speaker 05:
We have set forth that, in fact, it's not an independent finding.

[00:14:25] Speaker 05:
It's under the whole NIM template analysis.

[00:14:28] Speaker 05:
That's actually the title of the section that the board is doing.

[00:14:31] Speaker 05:
And it follows after the board has announced that a NIM template

[00:14:34] Speaker 05:
cannot include code, and after it's found that the channel applications and Java applets we were pointing to had code.

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
But the briefing seems to just limit the case to one issue, and that does not include whether the prior art contains both a NEM and a NEM template.

[00:14:52] Speaker 05:
That's correct, Your Honor, because the NIM template was found not to be present in the prior art.

[00:14:59] Speaker 05:
And that was the basis for the board's decision.

[00:15:01] Speaker 05:
That was the issue that the board found in that entire section of the opinion.

[00:15:06] Speaker 05:
And that was the only ground on which it rejected Lenovo's obviousness challenge.

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
Anything else at the moment?

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
No, thank you.

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
All right, we'll save your rebuttal time.

[00:15:16] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:15:22] Speaker 01:
Okay, so will you enter Mr. Goldberg?

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
So far I just see the seal of the court.

[00:15:34] Speaker 04:
There we are.

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
Can you hear us, Mr. Goldberg?

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
You're still muted.

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:15:52] Speaker 01:
OK, we hear you.

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
Can you hear us all right?

[00:15:56] Speaker 03:
I can hear you very well.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:15:59] Speaker 01:
OK, we hear you, so I think we're OK.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:16:03] Speaker 03:
I'm just going to remove the barriers.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
Yeah, good idea.

[00:16:08] Speaker 01:
All right, I think we're ready.

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
You may proceed when ready, Mr. Goldberg.

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
Perry Goldberg from Progress LLP, and may it please the court.

[00:16:20] Speaker 03:
Your Honors.

[00:16:21] Speaker 03:
As Judge Raina alluded to, there's a threshold question here of whether the board's decisions are based on two independent grounds, as we believe, or just one, as Lenovo contends.

[00:16:37] Speaker 03:
We believe that the board's decisions are crystal clear, that even if the board had agreed with Lenovo's claim construction, Lenovo still failed to meet its burden because Lenovo failed to identify... Can you hear me?

[00:16:51] Speaker 01:
Can you hear Judge Dyke?

[00:16:53] Speaker 03:
I can, yes.

[00:16:55] Speaker 04:
Does the fact that you're starting with this alternative argument suggest that you have doubts about the correctness of the board's decision itself on the executable construction?

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
Not at all, Your Honor.

[00:17:13] Speaker 03:
I just believe that that is the simplest basis for a permit, because if Your Honors agree

[00:17:19] Speaker 03:
there are two independent grounds and only one of them is challenged, then summary affirmations would be appropriate.

[00:17:26] Speaker 03:
It's also the basis for our pending motion that this appeal be deemed frivolous, because under these circumstances, there is precedent that an appeal such as this is frivolous.

[00:17:38] Speaker 03:
So we believe strongly in each of our arguments.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
This simply is the most expedient way to move forward and to simplify the issues.

[00:17:48] Speaker 04:
But what about in terms of the board's construction?

[00:17:51] Speaker 04:
They point to column 11, line 15, where it says, in some embodiments, the home NIM is distinct from other NIMs in the sense that a large proportion of the home NIM in such embodiments is precompiled.

[00:18:09] Speaker 04:
How am I able to understand that?

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
Two points, Your Honor.

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
First, the home NIM.

[00:18:17] Speaker 03:
is different from the NIMs that are downloaded.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
So the home NIM is essentially the client parser application.

[00:18:25] Speaker 03:
So the whole framework here is that you have an application, the client parser application, that is already resident on the client's computing device.

[00:18:38] Speaker 03:
And then the NIMs that are defined by the NIM templates are the things

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
The NIM templates are what get downloaded from a server.

[00:18:49] Speaker 03:
And then the definitions are used by that client parser application to create the NIMs.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
So that's my first point is that the home NIM is a special thing.

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
That's the client parser application.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
Secondly, we're hearing some arguments today that are very different from

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
what Lenovo argued below and what they argued in their briefing.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
So quite a bit of it, frankly.

[00:19:19] Speaker 03:
But let's see.

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
Here, we believe that the board was absolutely correct in the way that it defined the term NIM template.

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
And we believe that that construction is entitled to deference.

[00:19:34] Speaker 03:
Indeed, two separate panels came to the same conclusion.

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
below because there were two separate trials with two separate panels at the PTAP.

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
But even if the negative limitation were removed from the construction, that still leaves the affirmative part.

[00:19:54] Speaker 01:
Can you hear Judge Dyke?

[00:19:57] Speaker 03:
I didn't hear.

[00:19:57] Speaker 03:
No, I didn't hear that last bit.

[00:20:00] Speaker 01:
We'll try again.

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
Why is the construction entitled to deference?

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
Oh, the construction is entitled to deference because it relies in part on factual findings, including a weighing of the evidence with respect to the expert testimony that was submitted.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
And so under those circumstances, under this course precedent, it's under the substantial evidence standard.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
Yeah, and that's Teva, for example, and Microsoft Corporation, and the organic case.

[00:20:56] Speaker 03:
Any PTAB factual findings based on extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony and documents, not previously a record, are reviewed for support by substantial evidence in the record for the PTO.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
So that's our understanding, at least, Your Honor, but under any standard, we believe that

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
the board had it right.

[00:21:15] Speaker 03:
But I think also another important point is Lenovo has the burden of showing not just that there was some error that was committed, but there is an error that would make a difference to the outcome.

[00:21:29] Speaker 03:
So they have not submitted any showing that even if the board were wrong to include a negative limitation, that would change the outcome.

[00:21:39] Speaker 03:
And that's because there is the affirmative part of the definition of the claim construction

[00:21:44] Speaker 03:
that is unchallenged.

[00:21:46] Speaker 03:
And the affirmative part requires that the template be a data structure.

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
Not just that you have some data, but that there is a data structure.

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
And so they have not pointed to anything in the record that would suggest that the prior art utilizes data structures for the definitions.

[00:22:08] Speaker 03:
even if they could show that compiled code could somehow count, that compiled code would need to include a data structure.

[00:22:15] Speaker 03:
And they have just simply not shown any such data structure within their compiled code.

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
Now, in addition to all of those different reasons why this court can affirm the decisions, there's also an affirmative ground of affirmance that we have urged.

[00:22:40] Speaker 03:
That has to do with whether the prior art relied upon by Lenovo even qualifies as prior art.

[00:22:49] Speaker 04:
How are we supposed to decide that issue on appeal?

[00:22:55] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, Judge Dyck, it's difficult for me to hear you.

[00:22:59] Speaker 04:
How are we supposed to decide that issue on appeal about contention that it's not prior art?

[00:23:07] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:23:08] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:23:08] Speaker 03:
Well, so in terms of whether it's appropriate for appeal, it's an issue that was raised by us below.

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
There are two different aspects to the issue.

[00:23:19] Speaker 03:
One pertains to the Berg reference in particular, which is a printed publication.

[00:23:26] Speaker 03:
And the other issue relates to whether, quote unquote, secret prior art should qualify as prior art.

[00:23:37] Speaker 03:
And I'd like to address the second question first, which is that's a question that does not require any analysis of the facts of the case.

[00:23:46] Speaker 03:
And all the information that's needed to decide that is already of record.

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
But just at a high level, the point is the patents that are relied upon by Lenovo, and this pertains to both of their combinations, all of the patents were not publicly accessible.

[00:24:07] Speaker 03:
None of them were publicly accessible.

[00:24:09] Speaker 03:
That's the touchstone when it comes to obviousness.

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
And this goes back to the Hotchkiss case, the US Supreme Court from 1851.

[00:24:19] Speaker 03:
And in enacting the Patent Act, it was expressly stated that Hotchkiss was essentially incorporated, that the case law under Hotchkiss was not meant to be superseded.

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
But the analysis, I'm sorry, Jeff.

[00:24:34] Speaker 01:
Isn't the question just whether they're a reference as to their filing date or as their issue date?

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
Yeah, so that's a great question, Your Honor.

[00:24:46] Speaker 03:
So there's a difference between the filing date of the application, which is what Lenovo relied upon, and then the issue date.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
And of course, a lot can happen in the patent office between the filing of an application and the issuance of a patent.

[00:25:01] Speaker 03:
And it's very common.

[00:25:02] Speaker 03:
for language to change, for things to change during prosecution.

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
So the fact that there was an application filed prior to the priority date, the critical date here, doesn't mean that that application contained all of the identical language in the issue patent.

[00:25:22] Speaker 03:
So there's no showing that even the secret application contained the relevant information

[00:25:32] Speaker 03:
But even if it did, our point is that the public didn't know about it.

[00:25:38] Speaker 03:
So when you look at Hotchkiss, which has a functional approach to considering obviousness and has to do with the background skill of the calling, we have always assumed that an application secret or not counts, right?

[00:25:58] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:25:59] Speaker 03:
That is the assumption.

[00:26:01] Speaker 03:
And there is a difference, of course, between a publication or, I'm sorry, an application that's been published versus an application that hasn't.

[00:26:09] Speaker 03:
But yes, Your Honor, this has not been something that, to my knowledge, that's been challenged.

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
No, because it's in the statute.

[00:26:17] Speaker 01:
So you don't have to guess.

[00:26:18] Speaker 01:
Does in 102A establish answer the question?

[00:26:24] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:26:26] Speaker 03:
So in terms of 102, you know, for anticipation, whether something is meets that standard, the novelty is a different circumstance than the obviousness analysis.

[00:26:40] Speaker 03:
So our point and, you know,

[00:26:42] Speaker 03:
It's not critical to the appeal, but we do think it's an interesting issue that hasn't been addressed is that for obviousness under Hotchkiss, we're supposed to be looking at what's the background skill of the calling.

[00:26:57] Speaker 03:
And when someone has a secret patent application, that's not the background skill of the calling.

[00:27:03] Speaker 03:
That's just information that one person happens to have.

[00:27:09] Speaker 03:
We wanted to tee up that issue because we do believe that the obviousness analysis would benefit from some further guidance from the court about secret prior art, and particularly the burden in terms of showing at least that what was filed is equal to what eventually is issued, which has not been done here.

[00:27:31] Speaker 03:
They've just merely shown what was ultimately issued.

[00:27:34] Speaker 03:
That doesn't even mean that that was in

[00:27:37] Speaker 03:
the application.

[00:27:38] Speaker 03:
They haven't submitted the application as opposed to the final patent.

[00:27:47] Speaker 03:
Those are my points I wanted to make, Your Honors.

[00:27:50] Speaker 03:
If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

[00:27:52] Speaker 03:
Otherwise, I'll yield my time.

[00:27:53] Speaker 04:
You seem to want to talk about everything except the board's claim construction.

[00:28:00] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, we've addressed that in our brief.

[00:28:02] Speaker 03:
We think that the board's claim construction was absolutely correct.

[00:28:07] Speaker 03:
The terms, like the NIM term, for example, that's not a term that has any ordinary, plain and ordinary meaning.

[00:28:14] Speaker 03:
That's not a term anyone has ever used, to my knowledge, outside of the patents.

[00:28:20] Speaker 03:
So when it comes to whether there's, you know, you should be looking to plain and ordinary meaning versus how these terms are defined in the patent, we think you should look to how they're defined in the patent.

[00:28:37] Speaker 03:
All of the discussion of the NIMP template demonstrates, it's very expressed, that you're talking about data structures and not compiled code.

[00:28:49] Speaker 03:
It even says that it's not compiled code.

[00:28:52] Speaker 03:
It has that phrase, quote, not compiled code.

[00:28:55] Speaker 03:
So we're not asking the court to do something in terms of a negative limitation that's not supported by the specification.

[00:29:03] Speaker 03:
In any event, there's also expert testimony from our expert, Dr. Satradoti, that supports our view of how one of ordinary skill in the art would read these patents.

[00:29:15] Speaker 03:
And in rebuttal, the NOVO submitted no evidence, no expert testimony to rebut that.

[00:29:21] Speaker 03:
They have an expert that chose not to rebut Dr. Satradoti's testimony.

[00:29:26] Speaker 03:
They had every opportunity to do that, and they didn't, and that's very telling.

[00:29:30] Speaker 03:
So we believe the board's constructions were correct.

[00:29:34] Speaker 03:
The executable module that they're referring to is part of the client parser application that I referred to earlier.

[00:29:41] Speaker 03:
It's not an example of a template that gets downloaded from the server.

[00:29:47] Speaker 03:
It's not a NEM template.

[00:29:49] Speaker 03:
It's something different.

[00:29:50] Speaker 03:
It uses the definition that gets downloaded, but it isn't the definition itself.

[00:30:00] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:30:01] Speaker 01:
Anything else for Mr. Goldberg?

[00:30:05] Speaker 01:
Any more questions for Mr. Goldberg?

[00:30:07] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:30:09] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:30:10] Speaker 01:
And thank you.

[00:30:43] Speaker 01:
You understand?

[00:30:44] Speaker 01:
We remove these because otherwise, the reflection for the camera, you just can't see us, whoever's speaking remotely.

[00:30:53] Speaker 01:
There's a lot more logistics nowadays.

[00:30:55] Speaker 01:
We're back to work.

[00:30:56] Speaker 01:
That's good.

[00:31:02] Speaker 05:
So I want to address two points the the separate independent ground point which your honor raised and council addressed and I think the best way to do that is if you just look at the the board's decision There was the this the structure of the decision there was a claim construction and then beginning on

[00:31:25] Speaker 05:
Page 28, they analyzed the Razavi and Banzai grounds.

[00:31:32] Speaker 05:
And they had the same structure earlier with respect to Hoff and Byrd beginning on page 19 when they analyzed that obviousness ground.

[00:31:44] Speaker 05:
At page 22, after they talk about that background, there is a Section A, Claim 1, the NIM template limitation.

[00:31:54] Speaker 05:
And they set out the claim, and then they explained Petitioner's contentions and explained that we were asserting that the channel application contained was the NIM, contained the NIM and the NIM template.

[00:32:06] Speaker 05:
And we acknowledged the channel application had executable code.

[00:32:11] Speaker 05:
And they recite how that is, but they say Petitioner's arguments are not persuasive because Petitioner does not show persuasively that Hoffs and Burbs channel application

[00:32:22] Speaker 05:
containing the alleged NEM template comprises a data structure which defines the characteristics of a NEM and which excludes executable applications compiled code.

[00:32:33] Speaker 05:
And then they go through and explain how we admitted that the channel applications or the Java applets had compiled code.

[00:32:40] Speaker 05:
They contrast that to the claimed NEM template that uses data structures rather than applets or applications.

[00:32:47] Speaker 05:
And then they say further, both parties agreed that the NIM and the NIM template were separate and distinct claim elements.

[00:32:55] Speaker 05:
And they go on to say, well, the channel application can't constitute the NIM template because they've already found that the NIM template has to exclude code or compiled code.

[00:33:08] Speaker 05:
And we acknowledge the NIM template had it.

[00:33:11] Speaker 05:
That is the independent ground they point to is only under the structure of the board's decision is all about the NIM template.

[00:33:20] Speaker 05:
It's not about you did not show the NIM.

[00:33:23] Speaker 05:
It's you didn't show the NIM template because the thing you're pointing to, the channel application, has code in it.

[00:33:30] Speaker 05:
So we don't think that's an independent ground

[00:33:35] Speaker 05:
sufficient for rejection of Lenozo's obviousness case.

[00:33:39] Speaker 05:
And certainly, the board didn't put it that way.

[00:33:41] Speaker 05:
And indeed, this court has recognized that, yeah, claim elements may be different.

[00:33:45] Speaker 05:
They may have different meanings.

[00:33:46] Speaker 05:
But you can find them in one structure.

[00:33:47] Speaker 05:
And the board didn't say, well, you can't find these two elements in one structure.

[00:33:52] Speaker 05:
So that's just not an independent ground.

[00:33:55] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, you asked about the hominem to counsel.

[00:33:59] Speaker 05:
And I want to point out that,

[00:34:03] Speaker 05:
Again, the 083 patent at column 20 through 45, 20 line 45, says a home NIM is, quote, as much a dot as any other dot, unquote.

[00:34:17] Speaker 05:
And if you look at other parts of the specification, they give examples of, like, suppose you never had your home NIM or home dot and you're downloading a dot of interest for the first time.

[00:34:27] Speaker 05:
You click on it.

[00:34:30] Speaker 05:
can automatically download the home dot with the dot of interest.

[00:34:33] Speaker 05:
The home dot is the executable.

[00:34:36] Speaker 05:
And the home dot includes other system dots.

[00:34:39] Speaker 05:
We're not saying there aren't some dots that are only data.

[00:34:41] Speaker 05:
But this specification clearly has dots or NIM templates that have both compiled code in them and are executable.

[00:34:49] Speaker 05:
And that's why the board's construction is wrong, unless there's any questions.

[00:34:53] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:34:56] Speaker 01:
Any questions?

[00:34:58] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:34:58] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:34:59] Speaker 01:
Thanks to both counsel.

[00:35:01] Speaker 01:
The case is under submission.