[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
The next argument this morning is trusted ink versus next color ink 20-1950.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
Mr. Picard, I understand you have reserved five minutes of your time for rebuttal.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
And Ms.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Columbia, you have reserved two minutes for rebuttal on the cross appeal.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
If that's correct, then we're ready to proceed, Council Picard.

[00:00:24] Speaker 00:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
I'd like to start with the operational status issue in our appeal.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
And this issue hangs on one narrow question, that being, did the board's final written decision find that Martin alone teaches operational status information?

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
And I say that because the briefing in this case has revealed the following.

[00:00:49] Speaker 00:
There's no dispute from Nextcaller that they argued that Martin alone and not Abramson

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
or Abramson in combination with Martin, taught this limitation.

[00:00:57] Speaker 00:
And they do so quite forcefully in their red brief page 35.

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
And they do not dispute that if that is the case, that if the board found Abramson was a necessary part, necessary art for its operational status information finding, that that would be an error under the APA.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
So with that, let's turn to what the board found in its final written decision.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
This question is a bit

[00:01:22] Speaker 00:
cleaner for Claim 13, so I'd like to start with Claim 1 insofar as it may present a slightly more difficult spin on this issue.

[00:01:32] Speaker 00:
As an initial matter, I'd like to direct the Court to Appendix 55, page 55 of the final written decision.

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
And this is the discussion again of Claim 1.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
And here we see in clear, unequivocal language what the Board did for its operational status information finding.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
Quote, we find that petitioner shows that the combination of Martin and Abramson teaches.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
And then it quotes the limitation.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
Now that finding squares with the board's framing of the issue.

[00:02:01] Speaker 00:
And if we look to appendix 53 and 54 where the board summarized Next Caller's position and its petitions, we see that the board erroneously misunderstood that Next Caller had presented an alternate theory

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
of a combination wherein Martin would be modified by Abramson to include Abramson's validation checks.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
This particularly appears at Appendix 54 where the board wrote, petitioner further contends that one having ordinary skill in the art would have reason to modify Martin's central monitoring station to perform Abramson's validation checks.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
Their site to the petition for that is at pages 26 to 29 which corresponds, I believe, to Appendix 192 to 195.

[00:02:45] Speaker 00:
The problem with that is that if you

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
to that portion of the petition.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
That is not the discussion of the operational status information limitation.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
It's the discussion of source origin confirmation, metric, forgive me.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
So the board fundamentally misunderstood the starting point of the petition.

[00:03:03] Speaker 00:
And when it analyzed the art, it makes only one passing reference to Martin.

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
And it describes Martin's teaching, but it does not connect in any way the teachings of Martin.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
This is that appendix 54.

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
to the operational status information limitation.

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
The only place it does that is that appendix 55, where it turns to Abramson and begins importantly.

[00:03:26] Speaker 00:
And I think that's an important signal from the board about what's going on here.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
And in the second sentence, the board, in the only place of this final written decision, connects in clear language the teaching of the art, in this case Abramson.

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
It says, for instance, Abramson describes, and it connects what's in Abramson to what's described in the patent.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
So we are left with a clear record as to claim one, at least that the board found there was a combination of Martin and Abramson for its operational status information finding.

[00:03:55] Speaker 00:
That is an error under the APA because that was not.

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
And this is Judge Stoll.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
I just want to ask you, what about the sentence at the bottom of page 54 where they say, we agree with petitioner and give credit to the testimony of Mr. Geyer.

[00:04:11] Speaker 02:
For instance, Martin teaches

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
If they receive caller ID information 75 matches caller ID information 200, stored in memory 140, in processing 130, read status bits 210 to 330.

[00:04:26] Speaker 02:
Why isn't this reference to the status bits 210, 330 of Martin sufficient?

[00:04:32] Speaker 02:
Because that's what the petitioner was relying on for Martin's teaching of operational status information, right?

[00:04:43] Speaker 00:
That is what they relied on.

[00:04:45] Speaker 00:
I think the only fair reading of the board's discussion of Martin and particularly that sentence, it is simply summarizing what Martin discloses but it is not connecting that disclosure to the claim limitation and it makes that clear when it provides that summary paragraph at the conclusion of this where they say we find the combination.

[00:05:10] Speaker 00:
I think that's made even more clear when we look at the board's decision on rehearing.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
This is that the discussion here is at Joint Appendix 111 to 112.

[00:05:20] Speaker 00:
And we are into the board that the findings for Claim 1 and also Claim 13 represented a new ground that wasn't in the petition.

[00:05:30] Speaker 00:
And the board states that, furthermore, the petition clearly sets forth as ground to obviousness over Martin and Abramson and identifies disclosures of both Martin and Abramson

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
And then it talks about this as being a second alternate ground.

[00:05:42] Speaker 00:
What the board seems to be doing is reconfirming that their mistake can view that somehow, having put Martin and Abramson generally in play, that they could rely on both of them in combination for the findings as to claim one.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
What if I were to read it as saying that instead, what the board is saying is that Martin should use that claim element, and in addition, Abramson

[00:06:08] Speaker 02:
teaches that claim element and the combination of the two teach that claim element.

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
I mean, what if it's just extra, their reliance on Abramson is just extra non-necessary information because they also found that Martin teaches that claim element.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
Is there an APA violation then?

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
So, if we were to rewrite the decision in a way that... Just for a minute, just take the hypothetical that my reading is that it says,

[00:06:38] Speaker 02:
Martin teaches it, and Abramson teaches it.

[00:06:43] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
Happily, Your Honor.

[00:06:45] Speaker 00:
So of course, we don't think that's what's presented on this final written decision.

[00:06:49] Speaker 00:
But had the board said, we find that Martin, the status bits, teach the operational status information, it would not be error for the board to say, and in the alternative, Abramson also teaches it.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
Our position, of course, is that's not what happened here, as is clearly spelled out

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
in the board's summary in its discussion of that, where it talks about we find the combination of Martin and Abrams.

[00:07:16] Speaker 00:
Now, Your Honors, hypothetical would be more difficult to fit into the discussion of Claim 13, where this decision is devoid of any mention of Martin whatsoever.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
And the next caller in its red brief really doesn't contend with this.

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
They suggest that,

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
Somehow the board here was, I think, incorporating by reference its discussion on the earlier from its discussion of claim one.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
The language of the final written decision at page 65 doesn't bear that out.

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
They take an independent analysis of claim one and rely entirely on Abramson.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
I'll pause there if there are further questions on operational status information.

[00:08:05] Speaker 00:
If there aren't, I'd like to discuss briefly claim four.

[00:08:11] Speaker 00:
Claim four requires that the electronic system determine whether the format of the calling party number or billing party number is valid.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
And substantial evidence lacks, there's no substantial evidence to support the board's finding.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
The theory advanced by next caller was that

[00:08:32] Speaker 00:
Martin, by determining whether there was a match or mismatch of the incoming call information with the data stored in its memory, that that would, in the words of their expert, indicate the format is valid.

[00:08:47] Speaker 00:
There's a couple of problems we, of course, have disputed.

[00:08:50] Speaker 00:
And Gaier agreed during deposition that whether there was a match or not wouldn't indicate anything about the format.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
But more importantly, the theory that Nextcaller has advanced is that one could

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
infer certain things in the event of a match or mismatch, but that doesn't meet the claim limitation, which requires not that a pose that could infer or some human after the fact could infer, but the electronic system itself make a determination whether the format is valid.

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
And Martin simply doesn't have that.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
And for that reason, the board should set aside, sorry, this court should set aside the board's finding as to claim four.

[00:09:31] Speaker 00:
And I'll pause there for questions at claim four.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
Lastly, I would like to briefly touch on the source origin confidence metric, if I may.

[00:09:47] Speaker 00:
There are some similarities in the board's finding for source origin confidence metric that we see as parallel to its findings on the operational status information.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
What happened for the first time in the final written decision, the petition had advanced a theory that you would need to modify Abramson in order to generate a probabilistic score instead of a binary measure.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
And the board in its final written decision changed the thrust of the rejection to say there was not a need to modify Abramson, but that Abramson expressly taught

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
that a score, in this case, between 0 and 3 was returned by Abramson.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
And by changing the thrust of the rejection or proposed ground of unpatentability, that is likewise an error.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
I'll pause there.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
If there are questions, I'm happy to answer them.

[00:10:40] Speaker 00:
Otherwise, I will reserve the remainder for my rebuttal.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
We thank you, counselor.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
Counselor Columbia?

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
Hello?

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
Columbia, you may begin.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
Could you speak up a little bit?

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
Is that better, Your Honor?

[00:11:11] Speaker 01:
A little bit better, not much.

[00:11:16] Speaker 03:
Let me try my speakerphone.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
Maybe that will be better.

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
Is that better, Your Honor?

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:11:22] Speaker 03:
OK, I'll rely on the speakerphone.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
Shall I proceed?

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, I will begin where my colleague left off with source origin confidence metric.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
Source origin confidence metric was clearly disclosed in the petition and in the decision to institute.

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
Really, the complaint is that the specific reference to paragraph 74 of the Abramson reference

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
was not specifically cited for claim one in the petition or in the decision to institute and was cited in the petitioner's reply brief.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
However, the content that is that Abramson could be used to derive a probabilistic score using exactly the process ultimately found by the board was in the petition at appendix 195, citing to Geier at appendix 1299 to 1301,

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
And the only reason that the paragraph 74 came into play is because in patent owner's response, patent owner said it would not have made sense to use Abramson to derive a probabilistic score in that manner.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
And it turned out that Abramson itself discloses exactly that in paragraph 74.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
So I think this is an attempt at a gotcha, but it's an attempt at a gotcha that does not work.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
Furthermore,

[00:12:57] Speaker 03:
Patent owner clearly had an opportunity after the petitioners replied, both the file was surreplied and a motion to strike.

[00:13:08] Speaker 02:
This is Judge Stoll.

[00:13:09] Speaker 02:
I wanted to direct your attention to that first issue about operational status information.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
And I wanted you to address the argument that on the bottom of page 55, when the board says,

[00:13:24] Speaker 02:
you know, we find that the petitioner shows that the combination of Martin and Abramson fixes that claim limitation.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
Whether, you know, the board violated the APA by improperly relying on Abramson to teach the claim element of operational status information.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, the board did not violate the APA by bolstering its findings

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
in reliance on Abramson.

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
I would like to point out two things in response.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
One is, as you pointed out during my colleague's argument, the sentence at the bottom of page 54 clearly says that Martin teaches operational status information.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
It's not English because of the references, but if you look at that sentence that says, for instance, Martin teaches,

[00:14:20] Speaker 03:
it cites to Martin at paragraph 627 in figure 5.

[00:14:26] Speaker 03:
And if you go to figure 5 and work through the flow chart on figure 5, it is that sentence in the board's final written decision is clearly saying that Martin teaches operational status information, which is

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
the information in 145 of Martin Figure 1, which is elucidated in Figure 2, which has the status bits 210 to 330.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
Furthermore, for both Claim 1 and Claim 13, the claim as a whole is a claim to deriving the source origin confidence metric using the

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
status information.

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
What about the language on page A53 that says what petitioner's argument is?

[00:15:23] Speaker 02:
It says, petitioner reports to Martin's teaching of status bits 210 to 330.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
And that's under the heading of this whole claim element.

[00:15:30] Speaker 02:
And then on the next page, right before the sentence you were just talking about, talking about the status bits 210 to 330, they say, we agree with petitioner.

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
So wouldn't that be referring back to the argument that the petitioner made regarding Martin?

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
I think that's another clear indication that the board indeed found independently that Martin teaches the operational status information limitation.

[00:15:59] Speaker 03:
And the fact that the board went on then in the context of a claim that is about, that is directed to

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
using that operational status information to derive source origin confidence metric, the board went on to bolster its finding using Abramson, which is not a violation of the APA.

[00:16:27] Speaker 03:
The other point I would like to make just briefly is that the claim 13 is

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
just like claim one has the combination of source origin confidence metric with operational status information and so the fact that the board having already found that Martin teaches operational status information at the bottom of page 54 went on within that claim limitation to discuss Abramson is simply an indication that the board had already found the operational status information and was

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
moving to the rest of the claim.

[00:17:10] Speaker 03:
With respect to claim four, the board clearly found that it relied on Geyer, the expert, and found that the Martin reference teaches the

[00:17:31] Speaker 03:
determining whether the format of the calling party number or billing number is valid.

[00:17:37] Speaker 03:
Trusted's argument is that the technique of Martin, which of matching numbers, doesn't tell you whether the format is valid.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
But indeed, if there is a match, and the expert explained this, then the format is valid.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
And of course, the prior art does not have to practice a limitation every time in order to render it obvious.

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
Furthermore, the board expressly relied not only on Mr. Geier's explanation of Martin's teaching, but also on paragraph 124 of Mr. Geier's declaration at appendix 1313, which clearly explains that to the extent additional disclosure was necessary, it would have been obvious and straightforward to check for the validity of the claim.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
And that was not just a conclusory sentence or two as trusted argues, but rather an explanation of how a person of skill would have made that straightforward change to address things such as the format of whether the number had a 10 digits or had a 1 or a 0 at the front, which the board itself pointed out had been well known since the early 1960s.

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
If there are no other questions, I will turn to the cross appeal.

[00:19:02] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
The cross appeal has to do with the limitation of a personal risk score and the fact that the QE reference, which was cited in the petition, clearly teaches through its explanation of trust ratings a personal risk score.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
Trusted really takes no issue with the fact that Keely does indeed teach a personal risk score and indeed that can be seen in the petition at appendix 211 footnote 23 which walks through the trust rating description in the Keely reference and maps it to the personal risk score.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
So this is not just a procedural point, but in addition to the fact that Keeley on its merits teaches a personal risk score and also teaches the motivation to, sorry, and the petition included a clear explanation of the motivation to combine at appendix 186 to 189.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
This is Judge Stoll.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
Maybe I misheard you, but I thought you were saying that this footnote at page A211, footnote 23,

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
showed me that it's undisputed that Keeley teaches the claim element, but I don't see that.

[00:20:27] Speaker 02:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:20:29] Speaker 03:
If I may have misspoken, I apologize if I did.

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
I was simply pointing out that the board found that the petitioner had not explained how Keeley's complaints and the trust rating map to personal risk factors, and in fact, the petition at

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
Appendix 211 maps the trust ratings to the personal risk factors including explaining... I thought it maps the personal risk factors to the complaints.

[00:21:08] Speaker 03:
The complaints are the basis for the Healy

[00:21:11] Speaker 03:
Trust rating, Your Honor.

[00:21:13] Speaker 02:
I get it, but it's the personal risk factors are the basis for the trust rating, too.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
I mean, I'm just a little confused.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
So you agree, though, it says Keeley discloses the personal risk factors, e.g.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
complaints.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
So it's mapping the complaints to the personal risk factors, and then those are used to determine a trust rating, right?

[00:21:32] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you.

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:21:35] Speaker 03:
And the board also found that the petitioner had failed to explain the motivation to combine and I would address the court to the petition at appendix 186 to 189 and footnote 22 which explains the motivation to combine to improve the system of Martin and also notes that Keely being a voice over IP system that Geyer explained why it would have been

[00:22:05] Speaker 03:
advantageous to combine Martin with Keely, with Keely being an advance with the voice over IP capability.

[00:22:16] Speaker 02:
Do I remember correctly that the petition also informed the board that Keely had been relied on during prosecution of the patent or some related patent and that the board, the examiner had made certain findings as to what Keely taught?

[00:22:32] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
The examiner

[00:22:35] Speaker 03:
found in three separate office actions that the Keeley reference rendered obvious the personal risk factor limitation.

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
And as part of our appeal, we have argued that the board should at a minimum have acknowledged the examiner's prior findings and either given deference as the board does to the examiner's findings in situations such as the advanced bio med case

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
cited in our brief, advanced bionics case cited in our brief, either given deference to the examiner's findings or, at a minimum, acknowledge those findings and explain why the board had arrived at a different conclusion.

[00:23:18] Speaker 02:
Did the board explain at all the basis for its finding that the petition didn't explain why Keely taught personal risk factors?

[00:23:30] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor, the board simply states

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
in a single sentence, and I'm struggling to find it, and I can get that for you when I come back, but the board simply states in a single sentence that petitioners failed to explain its position on this.

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:24:01] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:24:01] Speaker 03:
So it's a single sentence just simply saying that we didn't explain it and we didn't explain the motivation to combine and both things are in fact explained in the petition itself.

[00:24:18] Speaker 03:
Unless there are questions, that completes my argument.

[00:24:21] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:24:22] Speaker 01:
Are there any questions from my colleagues?

[00:24:25] Speaker 01:
Councillor Colinda, we thank you for your argument.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
Yes, Mr. Picard, you have five minutes to the extent that you need the time.

[00:24:38] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:24:38] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
I would like to start with the question of whether the board and its discussion of operational status information was merely bolstering a Martin finding when it turned to Abramson in the final written decision.

[00:24:57] Speaker 00:
And there's a few important things that show that that was not the case.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
First, if we look at when the board first turns to Abramson, it gives the intro of importantly, and I believe it's that page 55 of the appendix.

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
And immediately following that lead in of importantly, a very important signal, the board connects the Abramson teaching to the description and the patent.

[00:25:26] Speaker 00:
As I mentioned before, in the very next paragraph,

[00:25:30] Speaker 00:
It summarizes, the board summarizes what they have done.

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
And in the only place they summarize it with the word fine, we find that petitioner shows the combination of Martin and Abramson Peaches, which harkens back to its incorrect characterization about the alternate ground of a combination of Martin to include Abramson validation checks.

[00:25:52] Speaker 00:
And we see elsewhere in the final written decision

[00:25:57] Speaker 00:
where the board, when it finds, when it makes an alternate finding, it does so in express terms which we don't see in production of operational status information.

[00:26:04] Speaker 00:
We pointed this out in our, in our yellow brief and that, an example of that appears in the joint appendix at 45, that last paragraph where they're explicit in saying that they find as an independent reason and then they find further evidence.

[00:26:24] Speaker 00:
So the board, when they intend to make an alternate or bolstering finding, they do so with express terms in this final decision.

[00:26:31] Speaker 00:
And that's completely lacking.

[00:26:33] Speaker 02:
Mr. Picard, this is Judge Stoll.

[00:26:35] Speaker 02:
I understand your reference too importantly.

[00:26:38] Speaker 02:
And I see that as the clue that you're referring to.

[00:26:42] Speaker 02:
I understand your point.

[00:26:44] Speaker 02:
But what about a point that when you look at page 53, there's the identification of the claim element.

[00:26:52] Speaker 02:
And then it says what the petitioner points to for teaching this claim element.

[00:26:56] Speaker 02:
And it's pointing to Martin and the status bits 210 to 330.

[00:27:01] Speaker 02:
And then also, you know, refers the next sentence, first two sentences there about Martin and status bits 210 to 330.

[00:27:08] Speaker 02:
And then, you know, after some discussion, they say, we agree with petitioner and give weight to the testimony of Mr. Guyer.

[00:27:16] Speaker 02:
So why doesn't that support the idea that they thought that Martin,

[00:27:21] Speaker 02:
Maybe as well as Abramson, but Martin taught the operational status information through status bits 210 to 330.

[00:27:30] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:27:30] Speaker 00:
So as Your Honor points out, that sentence on 53, petitioner points out Martin's teaching of status bits 210 to 330.

[00:27:39] Speaker 00:
That is the one and only theory that petitioner advanced in their petition.

[00:27:44] Speaker 00:
But the board continues, and at 54,

[00:27:48] Speaker 00:
They state incorrectly, this is the first full sentence, I believe, relying on the testimony of Mr. Geier, petitioner further contends that one having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Martin's central monitoring station to perform Abramson's validation checks.

[00:28:06] Speaker 00:
And then it cites to a portion of the petition that has nothing to do with the operational status information.

[00:28:12] Speaker 00:
So when the board says we agree with the petitioner and credit and give way to the testimony of Mr. Geier,

[00:28:18] Speaker 00:
At best, it's inconclusive about which theory they are agreeing with.

[00:28:22] Speaker 00:
And when we turn to that summary paragraph on page 55, the board makes crystal clear that what they have found is not Martin and bolstered by Abram, but a combination of Martin and Abramson.

[00:28:33] Speaker 00:
It is clearly saying that this further theory that they incorrectly understood the petitioner to have advanced.

[00:28:45] Speaker 00:
If there are no further questions on operational status information, I would like to make a brief point on claim.

[00:28:54] Speaker 00:
The issue is not simply whether Mr. Geier's testimony was conclusory as we pointed out in our brief.

[00:29:00] Speaker 00:
When pressed on what the matching function in Martin does and whether it would reveal anything about the format of the number itself, Mr. Geier couldn't give a satisfactory explanation.

[00:29:12] Speaker 00:
Martin simply doesn't explain

[00:29:15] Speaker 00:
what that status bit 250 does.

[00:29:17] Speaker 00:
And by the time we had gotten past the institution decision, it was 250 that was the particular status bit that the parties were fighting over.

[00:29:29] Speaker 00:
For the cross appeal, I'm happy to rest on our briefs unless the panel has any questions that they would like me to address.

[00:29:43] Speaker 01:
No, there doesn't appear to be any more questions.

[00:29:46] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:29:48] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:29:48] Speaker 01:
We appreciate the arguments of the parties today.

[00:29:53] Speaker 01:
This case will be taken under submission, and this court now stands in recess.

[00:30:02] Speaker 02:
The Honorable Court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 AM.