[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
2320, Sensormatic Electronics, LLC, against Wise Labs, Incorporated.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
Mr. Krinsky.

[00:00:10] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:12] Speaker 05:
I'd like to make, subject to Your Honor's questions, three points that I think cut across the issues in this appeal.

[00:00:19] Speaker 05:
First, there is no basis to say that the components of the claim systems

[00:00:28] Speaker 05:
And in particular, the ICDs of the claims are conventional.

[00:00:33] Speaker 05:
Second, one aspect of what all of these claims are directed to is the novel configuration of these components, not to the abstract ideas that the district court identified.

[00:00:46] Speaker 05:
And third, independently of the configuration, we have separate patents here directed to separate technological inventions and the district court aired

[00:00:55] Speaker 05:
in lumping them all together and simply concluding that they are all directed to the same abstract ideas of lawyerless communication and surveillance.

[00:01:06] Speaker 05:
To start with the first issue, if your honors agree with this point, I can sit down.

[00:01:12] Speaker 05:
The ICDs are not conventional, and there's nothing in the record to suggest that they are conventional.

[00:01:20] Speaker 05:
If you take a close look at WISE's arguments, and in particular at page 6 of the red brief, you'll see that WISE focuses on the components of the ICDs.

[00:01:34] Speaker 05:
The notion being that, you know, because these have conventional camera equipment in them or because they have processors in them, therefore they must simply be conventional computer hardware.

[00:01:47] Speaker 05:
But this is not a case like the mine run of Section 101 cases where we have simple conventional computer hardware on which we are implementing an abstract idea.

[00:02:01] Speaker 05:
This is a claim directed to a configuration of devices that our inventor in a log cabin created.

[00:02:11] Speaker 05:
And there's no basis, certainly not on the Rule 12 motion,

[00:02:16] Speaker 05:
to conclude that the ICDs themselves are conventional components.

[00:02:24] Speaker 05:
On the contrary, the claims expressly recite that they have a processor.

[00:02:29] Speaker 05:
These are, in the words of the specification, intelligent appliances capable of communicating with other ICDs.

[00:02:37] Speaker 05:
And the claims also contain recitation of a receiver, which is not something that there's any indication in the record prior security cameras had.

[00:02:46] Speaker 04:
But Council, you're not claiming an input captured device, the first input captured device.

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
I gather what you've got is a conventional structure here for passing information back and forth.

[00:03:05] Speaker 04:
And doesn't, under our law, the fact that you're passing information back and forth on a conventional device mean that the invention is considered abstract?

[00:03:16] Speaker 05:
Your honor, I disagree with the premise.

[00:03:20] Speaker 05:
These claims are directed to a configuration of multiple devices and the devices themselves are not conventional.

[00:03:28] Speaker 05:
That is a crucial difference between this case and, for example, the Chamberlain case in which the district court relied so heavily.

[00:03:34] Speaker 05:
There, the record reflected there was a concession in the specification that the

[00:03:40] Speaker 05:
devices themselves were conventional and that all that the invention was directed to was replacing wired links with wireless ones.

[00:03:50] Speaker 05:
Here there's no such analog, there's no prior art configuration of components, nor for that matter are there any of these ICDs that in 2004 you could just go buy at the store meeting the limitations.

[00:04:02] Speaker 04:
Does the configuration have physical differences over the prior art or

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
Were the electronic circuits different or was it just software?

[00:04:16] Speaker 05:
Yes, yes, to both of the first two points.

[00:04:19] Speaker 05:
They are new, different devices and it is not just software.

[00:04:23] Speaker 05:
It is hardware.

[00:04:24] Speaker 04:
Why aren't the devices claimed per se?

[00:04:28] Speaker 05:
I'm sorry, Your Honor?

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
Why aren't the devices claimed per se?

[00:04:34] Speaker 05:
The claims here recite a configuration of devices that together serve a novel purpose.

[00:04:40] Speaker 05:
I can't speak to why there is not a claim to an ICD before the court today, but the question is whether these devices in the configurations of these claims are abstract, and there's no basis to say that they are.

[00:04:56] Speaker 05:
You could not buy, to my knowledge, and certainly there's nothing in the record to suggest that you could buy

[00:05:03] Speaker 05:
an ICD with a receiver and a processor operable to directly communicate with other ICDs.

[00:05:11] Speaker 05:
The prior art being distinguished here is where you have a security camera with a one-way configuration over a wire to some central base station, where you have, for example, a security guard watching televisions.

[00:05:24] Speaker 05:
The prior art did not have ICDs that were capable of communicating directly with one another.

[00:05:31] Speaker 05:
nor did the prior art involve wired connections between them.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
You know.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
But how does the specification here teach how to do that?

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
It doesn't.

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
I mean, the specification.

[00:05:46] Speaker 02:
It's the idea of such communication.

[00:05:49] Speaker 02:
It doesn't teach one how to do it.

[00:05:53] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, I disagree.

[00:05:54] Speaker 05:
I mean, first of all, I think that's an enablement question.

[00:05:58] Speaker 05:
You know, the question of whether the person of ordinary skill in New York having been provided with the concept of an ICD and this configuration of ICDs could put one together based on the disclosure of the specification is different from the question of whether these claims are directed to such a configuration.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
Yeah, but if the only thing that's being described,

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
is a mode of communication without any further detail about it, that can be abstract.

[00:06:29] Speaker 02:
And so I'm asking you, is there any level of detail other than the concept of communicating this way?

[00:06:38] Speaker 05:
And I think the answer to that question is yes.

[00:06:40] Speaker 05:
Even in the claims themselves, you have ICDs that are required to have a receiver, a processor,

[00:06:48] Speaker 05:
and direct cross control with other ICDs.

[00:06:52] Speaker 05:
None of those things exist in the prior art, and those are not devices that were conventional.

[00:06:58] Speaker 05:
There's no finding here, nor could there be a finding on Rule 12.

[00:07:03] Speaker 05:
that that was something that existed in the prior art.

[00:07:06] Speaker 05:
And that takes this away from claims that are simply directed to the use of existing computers as tools.

[00:07:16] Speaker 05:
These are themselves claims to novel configurations.

[00:07:22] Speaker 05:
I mean the configuration itself recited in the claims is a technological solution.

[00:07:27] Speaker 05:
to the problems of prior art systems and that have capabilities above and beyond the prior art systems.

[00:07:35] Speaker 05:
And there's no requirement in this court's case law that the claims recite details about how every element operates so long as they're sufficient to meet the enablement requirement and the written description requirement.

[00:07:51] Speaker 05:
The requirement for 101 is that what the patentee

[00:07:57] Speaker 05:
puts forward as their invention be something more than an abstract idea, what the claims are directed to.

[00:08:04] Speaker 05:
And here, that is this overarching configuration of unconventional devices.

[00:08:12] Speaker 05:
And the configuration itself is unconventional.

[00:08:16] Speaker 05:
I think, you know, WISE makes a considerable deal in its briefing about this question of whether the specification or the claims

[00:08:26] Speaker 05:
recite sufficient either specificity or sufficient advantages of these configurations.

[00:08:35] Speaker 05:
But if Your Honor looks at the other cases where this court has upheld similar configurations of devices under Section 101, for example, the Tallis case, you see a level of detail and a configuration of components that itself is concrete.

[00:08:54] Speaker 05:
and is what the invention is directed to and is sufficient to confer patent eligibility.

[00:08:59] Speaker 05:
In the TALIS case, you had a system comprising two sensors and an element adapted to receive signals.

[00:09:06] Speaker 05:
And there was a 101 challenge on the basis that all this was was the idea of using these sensors to calculate the position of an object in a particular way and the idea of communicating between these sensors.

[00:09:21] Speaker 05:
this court held that's not the case.

[00:09:23] Speaker 05:
This is a novel configuration of components.

[00:09:29] Speaker 05:
And the directed to inquiry ends there.

[00:09:36] Speaker 05:
There's no need to parse the details of how these things are configured.

[00:09:45] Speaker 05:
in the specification, you know, what further guidance the person of ordinary skill is given as to how to put these together.

[00:09:51] Speaker 05:
There's no indication the proposal would have any trouble doing that.

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
Yes, but we have to understand what the novel configuration that you're talking about is.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
Are these, I think you answered in the affirmative when I asked you before, are they physically configured to be novel?

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
or is it in the software that constitutes the configuration?

[00:10:22] Speaker 05:
They are physically configured to be novel.

[00:10:25] Speaker 05:
These ICDs, there is no suggestion in the record that these ICDs were a conventional component.

[00:10:34] Speaker 05:
You had prior art security cameras and some of the components of the ICDs

[00:10:39] Speaker 05:
are conventional.

[00:10:40] Speaker 05:
But that's true of almost any machine.

[00:10:42] Speaker 05:
If someone has a claim to a configuration of iPhones in communication with one another, the fact that the iPhones contain a conventional Wi-Fi chip doesn't render the invention abstract.

[00:10:55] Speaker 05:
On a motion to dismiss, it was improper for the court simply to assume that these ICDs are conventional.

[00:11:04] Speaker 05:
and to ignore the recited configuration of multiple ICDs.

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
And I guess the ICD is a component of the surveillance system, right?

[00:11:17] Speaker 05:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:21] Speaker 04:
The ICD, it's a claim to the surveillance system.

[00:11:27] Speaker 05:
The claim is to a surveillance system and the configuration of components, these ICDs that are

[00:11:33] Speaker 05:
operable to directly communicate with one another and with the DIR, that configuration is novel and takes us into a world away from simply implementing an abstract idea on a conventional system.

[00:11:48] Speaker 05:
We're not here talking about a computer system that existed before as a configuration.

[00:11:52] Speaker 05:
But on top of that, the individual components, the ICDs themselves, are non-conventional.

[00:11:58] Speaker 05:
And there's no basis to conclude, again, on a World 12 motion, that these

[00:12:03] Speaker 05:
are simply conventional components.

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
Well, the problem is it doesn't say what they are.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
It just says they can communicate with each other.

[00:12:12] Speaker 02:
That's certainly an abstract idea to have proponents that can communicate with each other, right?

[00:12:20] Speaker 05:
No, Your Honor.

[00:12:21] Speaker 05:
I don't see how Your Honor can draw that conclusion, given that the ICDs themselves are recited as having these multiple different components.

[00:12:30] Speaker 05:
These are devices that

[00:12:32] Speaker 05:
have one or more sensors in them but also are operable to communicate with other ICDs.

[00:12:40] Speaker 05:
I note my time has expired.

[00:12:41] Speaker 05:
I don't know if the panel has further questions.

[00:12:43] Speaker 05:
I would also like to direct the panel to the fact that we have five separate patents here and in our briefing we raised two additional inventions that are separately claimed in separate patents and can't be lumped together as being the same

[00:13:01] Speaker 05:
same underlying invention.

[00:13:02] Speaker 05:
In particular, dual encoding is an example of the type of technological solution that arises newly in this context of wireless communication between devices and remote access directly to those devices where there are bandwidth considerations you wouldn't have in the wired world.

[00:13:24] Speaker 05:
And the solution to that problem that the inventor identified and claimed

[00:13:28] Speaker 05:
is to encode simultaneously.

[00:13:32] Speaker 05:
That's analogous to what this court concluded at that time, whether it's BASCOM, and it is, you know, quite far removed from the district court's identification of direct communication, direct wireless communication, or surveillance itself as the underlying abstract ideas.

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
Is this correct?

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
that the district court did no analysis under Section 102 or 103, that the decision was entirely under Section 101?

[00:14:08] Speaker 05:
That's correct, Your Honor, and that's part of the problem.

[00:14:10] Speaker 05:
This was a Rule 12 motion to dismiss on Rule 101 grounds, Section 101 grounds.

[00:14:16] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
Any more questions at the moment for Mr. Krinsky?

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
Okay, we'll save the rebuttal time.

[00:14:23] Speaker 03:
And Mr. Chin?

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:14:27] Speaker 01:
Good morning, and may it please the court, Ruben Chen from Cooley LLP on behalf of the Pelley Wise Labs, Inc.

[00:14:34] Speaker 01:
Your Honors, this case has no real differences from this court's Chamberlain case, where the Federal Circuit found claims involving wireless communication to be directed to the abstract idea of wireless communication and having no inventive concepts.

[00:14:49] Speaker 01:
Symptomatic appears to argue that Chamberlain did not involve direct wireless communication between two devices

[00:14:56] Speaker 01:
without a server, but that is wrong.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
Chamberlain specifically involved direct wireless communication between a main device and a peripheral device or devices without going through a server.

[00:15:09] Speaker 01:
That is, the main device could communicate wirelessly without a server with a peripheral device, and the peripheral device or devices could communicate wirelessly without a server with the main device.

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
This is shown in the Chamberlain patent, US patent number seven,

[00:15:23] Speaker 01:
224, 275, that figure is 1, 2, and 6, and corresponding descriptions in column 5, lines 39 to 43, and column 7, lines 53 to 58.

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
Moreover, in holding that the broad concept of communicating information wirelessly is an abstract idea, the Federal Circuit in Chamberlain made no distinction between indirect and direct wireless communication

[00:15:52] Speaker 01:
And this makes sense because the communication between devices in Chamberlain was direct wireless communication.

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
Now with respect to step two of the ALICE test, the asserted claims here do not recite an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.

[00:16:08] Speaker 01:
There is nothing recited in the claim that is significantly more than the abstract idea.

[00:16:15] Speaker 01:
And the specification of the asserted patent confirmed this

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
the claimed ICDs or input capture devices merely use commercially available technology such as antennas and known peer-to-peer protocols like Bluetooth and 802.11.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
In a sensor-matics reply brief in MISPS at pages 29 to 30, sensor-matics states that the ICDs use, quote, commercially available and unclaimed

[00:16:47] Speaker 01:
video technology and wireless protocols," end quote.

[00:16:50] Speaker 01:
And what I appear to be hearing from Mr. Krinsky today is actually a new argument that the ICDs somehow include components that are not conventional, but that's found nowhere in the briefing.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
And the specification confirms that only generic components, such as antennas,

[00:17:11] Speaker 01:
And only standard known communication protocols such as 802.11 and Bluetooth are used for the direct wireless communication here.

[00:17:23] Speaker 01:
Now, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment is insufficient to transform the claim into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
So applying direct wireless communication to the technological environment of video surveillance can't somehow transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.

[00:17:52] Speaker 01:
Nevertheless, it's worthwhile to point out that the specifications themselves here recognize the known use of direct wireless communication in video surveillance.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
For example, the 129 patent identifies prior art

[00:18:06] Speaker 01:
like US patent application publication number 2004 slash 0008255 to Llewellyn, which describes a video surveillance system in one police car directly communicating with a video surveillance system in a second police car using Bluetooth without going through a server.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
Okay, but when you're considering prior art, you're no longer talking about 101, right?

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
You're talking about 102 or 103.

[00:18:38] Speaker 01:
Not necessarily, Your Honor, because here the specification is identifying the prior art and discussing what was already known, what was already conventional.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
And I just want to make it clear that Judge Connolly's decision first addressed the step one question of whether these claims, the focus of these claims are directed to abstract ideas.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
And he found that they were.

[00:19:06] Speaker 01:
And then separately, he rebutted arguments that were raised by sensor Matic and the district court brief as to why they believe there was an alleged improvement in technology.

[00:19:18] Speaker 01:
And that was when Judge Connolly discussed the complete of particular components or communication protocols, Your Honor.

[00:19:31] Speaker 01:
And so if I can continue, this is shown in

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
The 129 path specification at appendix 32, at column 2, line 50 to column 3, line 3, and this is also shown in Llewellyn at figures 3, 5, and 8, and further described in paragraphs 43, 45, 46, and 47.

[00:19:58] Speaker 01:
For example, paragraph 47 states that quote,

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
to vehicle video systems 300 and 300A may exchange digital information with each other," end quote.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
Therefore, the specifications themselves show that wireless direct cross-communication without going through a server was known in the technological environment of video surveillance.

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
Now, Your Honor,

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
I believe we're asking the right questions as to what is missing in the specifications here of the asserted claims.

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
There is no how that's described here.

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
There's no, and that's the problem for sensormatic when you're considering either step one or step two of the ALICE test.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
Sensormatic claims do not recite how to remove the servers, where to place and configure the ICDs, how to program the ICDs, or how to otherwise make them communicate with each other directly other than identifying antennas and standard known communication protocols like Bluetooth and 802.11.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
And that is the problem there.

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
Now, Sensormatic does raise three additional arguments.

[00:21:30] Speaker 01:
for less improvements in surveillance technology and for step two in inventive concepts.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
Sensormatic argues first that the ICDs extend wireless range by acting as data repeaters.

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
Second, Sensormatic argues specifically the 370 and 129 patents that fuel encoding is an improvement in the use of bandwidth and device compatibility.

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
And Sensormatic argues, thirdly,

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
that specific to the 772 and 019 patents, that the claim dimension improves retention of significant data by prioritizing trigger.

[00:22:09] Speaker 01:
At the outset, wise respectfully request that the court reject these arguments, because these arguments were never raised by censormatic in district court, and we think they should be deemed forfeited or waived.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
Censormatic even has the gall to fault the district court

[00:22:25] Speaker 01:
for not addressing arguments it failed to raise.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
For example, Sensormatic on page 39 of its opening brief and page 15 of its reply brief faults the district court for not identifying the abstract idea of repeating data.

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
But Sensormatic never raised the argument in district court that the ICDs can improve range by acting as data repeaters.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
A search in Sensormatic's district court brief reveals no argument about extending wireless range or data repeaters.

[00:22:54] Speaker 01:
Similarly, bandwidth appears nowhere in CensorMatic's district court brief.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
And with respect to CensorMatic's third argument, prioritizing storage or retention based on trigger events or based on anything else, for that matter, appears nowhere in CensorMatic's district court brief.

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
In any event, why does Appellee brief address all three of CensorMatic's new arguments?

[00:23:19] Speaker 01:
And I'll now further address them, starting with the data repeater limitation, notably

[00:23:24] Speaker 01:
Data repeater is only found in one dependent claim, claim four of the 7-7-2 patents.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
And Sans-Termatic can't argue that all ICDs are necessarily data repeaters because it's stated in the district court records that no claim construction was required.

[00:23:42] Speaker 01:
Moreover, a data repeater which simply repeats data is just a feature of the abstract idea of wireless communication.

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
An apt analogy is the use of smoke signals

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
by soldiers on the Great Wall of China during ancient times.

[00:23:57] Speaker 01:
And being able to repeat a message over a distance can also be seen in a common example of grade school children passing a note from student to student to student in a class.

[00:24:08] Speaker 01:
Additionally, the benefits of improved range that sensormatic points to are simply not claimed.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
Further, even if it were claimed, an improved result, as your honors know, without more stated in the claim,

[00:24:21] Speaker 01:
is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea.

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
Moving on to sensormatic's second argument, sensormatic argues that dual encoding improves the use of bandwidth and device compatibility in the 129 and 370 patents.

[00:24:40] Speaker 01:
But dual encoding is not at the heart of the claims, first of all, which again is directed to the abstract ideas of wireless communication and remote surveillance.

[00:24:49] Speaker 01:
The concept of dual encoding based on bandwidth is at most found in a handful of dependent claims.

[00:24:56] Speaker 01:
Dependent claims 20 of the 129 patents, which by the way doesn't even recite dual encoding, and dependent claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 of the 370 patents.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
However, even if considered to be at the heart of the claims, dual encoding based on bandwidth is itself abstract.

[00:25:16] Speaker 01:
The Federal Circuit

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
in adaptive streaming found dueling coding based on bandwidth to be an abstract idea.

[00:25:22] Speaker 01:
Specifically, the court recognized an abstract, an abstract, the, quote, idea of format conversion from an incoming signals format, so a variety of formats suited to different destination devices, end quote.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
And the claims at issue in adaptive streaming specifically recited in coding in different formats, quote, in response to change in bandwidth condition.

[00:25:48] Speaker 01:
So here, like in that adaptive screening, the claims don't claim an improved way of dueling coding.

[00:25:53] Speaker 01:
Rather, the specification makes clear that the claimed dueling coding is merely encoding two known formats simultaneously.

[00:26:01] Speaker 01:
One, a video format, and two, a format consisting of a series of still images, and deciding which of those formats to use based on bandwidth capability.

[00:26:11] Speaker 01:
So the claims here are no different than those found and ineligible

[00:26:17] Speaker 01:
in adaptive streaming.

[00:26:19] Speaker 01:
Moving on to Sensormatic's third and final argument, Sensormatic argues that prioritizing recording and retention based on trigger events is an alleged improvement in technology in the 772 and 019 patents.

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
But prioritizing recording based on trigger events is not at the heart of the claims, which again are directed to the abstract ideas of wireless communication and remote surveillance.

[00:26:44] Speaker 01:
However, even if considered to be at the heart of the claim, this is just the feature of the abstract idea of remote surveillance, or itself an abstract idea, the idea of retaining important information, or more broadly, the idea of organizing, classifying, and storing information.

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
Many Federal Circuit decisions have found such claims patent and eligible.

[00:27:06] Speaker 01:
The Federal Circuit's electric power decision is directly on point.

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
Notably, the representative claim at issue in electric power

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
included the following limitation, detecting and analyzing events in real time from the plurality of data stream.

[00:27:23] Speaker 01:
And at step one, the Federal Circuit found the claims directed to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.

[00:27:34] Speaker 01:
And at step two, the Federal Circuit held that merely selecting information by content or source for collection, analysis, and display

[00:27:42] Speaker 01:
does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.

[00:27:48] Speaker 01:
So, Your Honor, having addressed all the symptomatic arguments for alleged improvements in technology and our inventive concepts, I would just reiterate again that this case is no different than Chamberlain.

[00:28:00] Speaker 01:
Unless Your Honors have any questions for me, I'll see the remainder of my time.

[00:28:05] Speaker 03:
Any questions for Mr. Chen?

[00:28:08] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:28:09] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:28:09] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:10] Speaker 03:
Then we'll hear from Mr. Khriski.

[00:28:12] Speaker 03:
You have your rebuttal time.

[00:28:14] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:15] Speaker 05:
I'll begin at the end with Chamberlain.

[00:28:18] Speaker 05:
I think counsel's argument illustrates exactly how WISE is missing the point and how the district court erred, because the question here is not, as I heard my friend on the other side say, whether the claims somehow involve wireless communication.

[00:28:32] Speaker 05:
The question is whether that is what the claims are directed to.

[00:28:36] Speaker 05:
And unlike in Chamberlain,

[00:28:37] Speaker 05:
where there was the only described difference between prior art systems and the claim systems is that the status information about the system is communicated wirelessly.

[00:28:46] Speaker 05:
Here, we absolutely dispute that that is the only difference from the prior art.

[00:28:51] Speaker 05:
Council pointed to our reply brief where we conceded that the ICDs contain some conventional components.

[00:28:59] Speaker 05:
Our point there is that that's not what our claims are directed to.

[00:29:02] Speaker 05:
That's not what we were claiming.

[00:29:03] Speaker 05:
We're not claiming some new and improved camera such that it matters.

[00:29:06] Speaker 05:
whether our claims include camera technology that was known.

[00:29:12] Speaker 05:
Council failed to read the very next sentence in which we raised this exact argument.

[00:29:18] Speaker 05:
Wise fails to demonstrate that the advancements attributed in the, excuse me, I'm reading your own passage.

[00:29:24] Speaker 05:
The, at any rate, the improvement, this new configuration is not,

[00:29:35] Speaker 05:
is something that was in the prior argument, certainly not something that can be concluded is conventional at Rule 12.

[00:29:41] Speaker 05:
On the point about the separate inventions, the dual encoding and the trigger events, here we have entirely separate patents.

[00:29:53] Speaker 05:
The 370 patent in fact has dual encoding in its title.

[00:29:56] Speaker 05:
It includes additional disclosure at Appendix 58 about how to do dual encoding.

[00:30:02] Speaker 05:
The notion that this is just some tack on to the prior invention is just simply wrong.

[00:30:07] Speaker 05:
The claims here are directed to a new invention that is a solution to this technical problem that arises in this new context.

[00:30:19] Speaker 03:
Please continue your thought.

[00:30:21] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:30:22] Speaker 05:
I was just going to say the same is true of trigger events.

[00:30:25] Speaker 05:
These are a technological solution that is separately called out.

[00:30:30] Speaker 05:
in the 019 patent and certainly cannot be dismissed as the idea of wireless communication or the idea of surveillance.

[00:30:39] Speaker 05:
We have concrete inventions here involving a concrete configuration of unconventional components and the court should not have dismissed this case at Rule 12.

[00:30:50] Speaker 03:
Any questions for Mr. Krinsky?

[00:30:53] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:30:55] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:30:56] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:30:57] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:30:57] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:30:58] Speaker 03:
Thanks to both counsels.

[00:30:59] Speaker 03:
The case is taken under submission.