[00:00:00] Speaker 05:
Morning our first case for argument today council please keep your mask on You may take your mask off only when you're standing at the podium and arguing Our first case for argument today is two zero one nine dash two one three seven Unlock versus Google.

[00:00:18] Speaker 05:
Is it mr. Cody?

[00:00:22] Speaker 00:
Please proceed Thank you

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
I want to first start with the meaning of the negative limitation without requiring registration.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
The claim language is without requiring registration of a conference call server for establishing the voice communication by the potential members, plural.

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
The language goes on to further define if one amounts to kind of essentially a parenthetical of potential members, including first party and at least one other party.

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
The claim precludes requiring parties that register at the conference call server, and this includes all potential members.

[00:01:04] Speaker 00:
Even if you buy into Google's Venn diagram analogy,

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
Their Venn diagram repeatedly shows three elements.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
They show registration with a conference call server and by potential members.

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
But Google can't show a Venn diagram, and they don't, of the first party and at least one other party.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
That's because further clarification of potential members does not move up the first party and the other party to the level of potential members.

[00:01:28] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you this question?

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
Please tell me if you can't hear me and I'll try to... I can hear you.

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
First of all, do you agree that the by goes with registration?

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
That it's registration by potential members or do you think by goes with communication?

[00:01:50] Speaker 00:
Let me consider that, Your Honor.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
I think I had understood everybody was on the same page that

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
The by goes with registration.

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
Yes, it goes by with registration.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
OK, another question.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
Claim one is not here, but it was the principal focus of the board's decision.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
Claim one puts the definite article the in front of potential members.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
The other independent claims do not.

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
I have not seen anybody make anything of that difference.

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
Do you make anything of it?

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
I have not considered it, Your Honor.

[00:02:29] Speaker 00:
Let me think about it.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
I don't think it makes a difference.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
I can't think of a difference here.

[00:02:40] Speaker 00:
Maybe they stated it that way.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:02:46] Speaker 03:
This all seems very hard and very confusing to me.

[00:02:49] Speaker 03:
And as Judge Toronto's questions, we're all playing with these words here in one individual.

[00:02:54] Speaker 03:
Am I correct that your reading of this clause would be the same, even if the including language and everything that follows that?

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
I mean, you mentioned it was a parenthetical.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
Would your reading be any different if that clause were not in the phrase, if that phrase were not in the clause?

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
Well, there might be some impact to kind of link up the potential members to the first member and the second member.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
But I think the answer to your question, Your Honor, is no, it could not be any different.

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
We read it as.

[00:03:23] Speaker 03:
So isn't that kind of contrary to principles that we're supposed to give words some meaning?

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
And there's not even a common.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
I mean, you mentioned it was parenthetical.

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
There's no parentheses in this claim.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
And there's not even a comma preceding the word, including.

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
So I'm having trouble accepting what you're trying to have us accept.

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
I understand, Your Honor.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
Certainly, we often, you as jurists and we as litigants, often deal with

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
the nature of claims where they're like one entire run-out sentence.

[00:03:56] Speaker 00:
I think fairly red, it is a parenthetical.

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
We note the example of the toy that is not a cube with primary colors, including red, yellow, and blue.

[00:04:08] Speaker 00:
That'd be very similar here.

[00:04:13] Speaker 00:
just as primary colors of potential members is collective term for a group that is already defined.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
Isn't this just too hard?

[00:04:20] Speaker 03:
I mean, you're the drafter here.

[00:04:23] Speaker 03:
You have to show, do you not, in the circumstances we find ourselves today, that their construction is unreasonable, or the board's construction is unreasonable, right?

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
Well, just to back up your honor, I do agree this is a very, to me this is very hard because we're dealing with a negative limitation, so my brain has to kind of

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
Well, it's harder than many negative limitations.

[00:04:43] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
But again, the potential members is the thing that's defined.

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
And again, the fair reading of I read it as, then it's just saying, OK, the potential members, here's what the potential members are.

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
It's not saying,

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
That and and including merely kind of makes everything rise up to the level of the things that are included, the three things in their Venn diagram.

[00:05:13] Speaker 03:
So including doesn't mean including.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
It does for just to define what the potential members are, but it's not kind of directed to the negative limitation.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
And what grammatically leads us to the conclusion?

[00:05:29] Speaker 00:
I just think the context, Your Honor,

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
Um, uh, it refers to members, plural.

[00:05:35] Speaker 00:
So under, um, the board's construction, they find it sufficient that only, you know, only one of, if they could find one, one member that is only registered.

[00:05:46] Speaker 00:
I mean, we, we know that in, uh, the liversage

[00:05:50] Speaker 00:
reference, there's always registration at least by the team member initiating the call.

[00:05:56] Speaker 00:
So if you just had a two-way call with that person, the person initiating the call, and some other person, the members would not be registered.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
So it's the nature of the plural, which I think is important here, that the court's, the board's application of this just doesn't, is conflicted with the plain language of the claim.

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
And the second part of my question, just to conclude, is that the standard here would be that you would have to show the board's construction was unreasonable.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:06:24] Speaker 00:
But as I just noted, it conflicts with the plain language of the claim that potential members plural, that wouldn't be a reasonable construction.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
You do agree that the board's and Google's construction is, in fact, the broader of the two, because it keeps more stuff under the coverage of the claim.

[00:06:45] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
Yeah, you're right.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
Yeah, that's true, because it's a negative limitation.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
I know that was that mirror negative limitation.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
I know.

[00:06:52] Speaker 00:
I have to think everything twice every time in these cases.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
Unfortunately, both of them deal with negative limitations.

[00:06:59] Speaker 00:
Well, let me move on to the prosecution history disclaimer.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
On that one, Google's primary argument is that to the extent there was any prosecutionary disclaimer that might have occurred, it was undone by a subsequent amendment that moved forward prior before registration.

[00:07:16] Speaker 00:
And as we noted, that amendment was made in response to a 112 indefiniteness rejection.

[00:07:22] Speaker 00:
Applicant did not rescind the earlier disclaimer, and the examiner did not renew the Hamburg rejection after the prior was removed.

[00:07:30] Speaker 00:
And there's no indication that either the examiner or applicant saw a need to revisit it.

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
One case, which just for the court's full disclosure is not cited in our brief, which is similar to this,

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
is Hakeem versus Cannon-Avint.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
That's 479, Fed 3rd, 1313.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
The pinpoint site is 1317 to 18.

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
And in that case, the court noted that an applicant cannot recapture claim scope that was surrendered or disclaimed.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
And then it notes a narrow exception.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
It says, disclaimer made during prosecution can be rescinded, permitting recapture of the disclaim scope.

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
uh... when the prosecution must be sufficiently clear to inform the examiner that the previous disclaimer and the prior that was made to avoid being revisited.

[00:08:17] Speaker 05:
How is it clear in this case counsel when it used to say prior registration and the word prior was removed so how is it clear

[00:08:28] Speaker 05:
that the disclaimer is now the broad disclaimer you're seeking, as opposed to since simply a disclaimer of prior registration.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
I understand, Judge Mark.

[00:08:39] Speaker 00:
I think our point is we didn't say the possibility to say, OK, well, here's what this one term means, or here's what it imports.

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
We said this is what our invention is.

[00:08:51] Speaker 00:
Our invention is not this.

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
And so we're burdened with those comments and those arguments.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
We can't take it back unless there's something in the record saying, OK, we're undoing that.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
And there's nothing saying we undo those comments.

[00:09:04] Speaker 05:
I mean, if this is a reverse situation and we were- Why don't you tell me exactly what prosecution language you think says our invention is this, such that we ought to treat it as a disclaimer?

[00:09:16] Speaker 05:
Because I understand the circumstances of this prosecution exchange.

[00:09:20] Speaker 05:
to be all based on prior registration and Hamburg.

[00:09:24] Speaker 05:
I don't understand it to be defining the scope of the invention generally.

[00:09:28] Speaker 05:
So you show me where in the prosecution history exactly you think this disclaimer language is the strongest for you.

[00:09:34] Speaker 00:
OK, Your Honor, I understand.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
It is true, Your Honor, that the Hamburg rejection did refer to language, arguments did refer to prior.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
We also have the alternative argument for the alternative embodiment.

[00:09:48] Speaker 05:
Well, I ask you to show, you said, in the prosecution, you said our invention is this, and that we're bound by it.

[00:09:55] Speaker 05:
So show me where in the prosecution history

[00:09:59] Speaker 05:
You did that, what you just stood here and said you did.

[00:10:02] Speaker 05:
Show me where you did that.

[00:10:04] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:10:04] Speaker 00:
And what I was trying to be responsive to, Your Honor, all I'm saying is I was going to, there were two bases for prosecution's disclaimer, the Hamburg and also the alternative to this embodiment.

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
And so then the examiner there, and this is noted in our Blue Bee for pages 33 to 34, they noted the alternative in both.

[00:10:23] Speaker 05:
Where in the prosecution history?

[00:10:24] Speaker 05:
You see, this is the appendix.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
Yes, I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:10:27] Speaker 05:
Show me where in the prosecution history

[00:10:29] Speaker 05:
I can see what you're suggesting.

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
I understand.

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
Hang on a second.

[00:10:36] Speaker 05:
I'm betting you're going to take me to 1,059.

[00:10:39] Speaker 05:
I'll try to help you out.

[00:10:44] Speaker 05:
But I could be wrong.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
Just give me a second.

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
I'll look at 1,059 if you...

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
No, I was going to direct your honors to, yeah, I'm sorry, 1,059.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
This is where it's described in our brief, and it does refer to 1,059.

[00:11:30] Speaker 00:
Uh, the applicant expressly explained that is referred to the alternative and hence disclaimed embodiment described in paragraph.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
Where are you on 10 59?

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
Uh, I'm sorry.

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
Hang on a second.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
The middle of the first, the middle of the one that the paragraph that starts with the examiner.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:11:48] Speaker ?:
Um,

[00:11:50] Speaker 00:
And so they're talking about here, alternative embodiments described, they might have described with respect to paragraph, do not require the prior registration of the conference server.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
Indeed, the conference server may simply strip telephone numbers from the conference message.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
So they're disclaiming this embodiment.

[00:12:08] Speaker 05:
They're disclaiming registration or prior registration?

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
I think both, Your Honor.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
But it's definitely, I mean, they're noting the fact that it is prior registration, but it's a registration that does occur previously.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
But in any way, just to get back to what I was arguing,

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
there's no indication that the applicant wanted to retract that earlier disclosure uh... examiner didn't need to revisit it and so under that Hakeem vs. Kennanay event group case we think that their prosecution disclaimer should still apply do you want to save the rest of your time?

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
I will your honor yes

[00:13:13] Speaker 05:
Council, please put your mask back on.

[00:13:14] Speaker 05:
If I have to tell you again, you're not going to take it off again the rest of the time.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
May it please the court?

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
Claim limitation requires three things.

[00:13:55] Speaker 04:
And I find it simplest to think about it as if it were a positive limitation.

[00:13:59] Speaker 04:
And if it were a positive limitation, it would require the combination of registration with a conference call server by the parties listed in the claims.

[00:14:07] Speaker 04:
But it's not a positive recitation.

[00:14:09] Speaker 04:
It's a negative one.

[00:14:11] Speaker 04:
So if it were positive, to be within the scope of the claims, you would have to be in the combination of all three things.

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
Since it's a negative limitation to be within the scope of the claims, you can be anywhere except in the combination of those three things.

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
Unilock's arguments on appeal are all attempts to add things to that carve out, the one thing that is excluded from the scope of the claims.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
They do that based on the timing of the registration, or the type of registration, or the parties who can be required to register or not.

[00:14:43] Speaker 04:
But the simplest path to resolve the case is the one the board chose, which is focusing on the third requirement, the width of conference call server.

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
The board mapped the conference call server and the claims to call server 50 in Liversidge.

[00:14:59] Speaker 04:
And no one has ever argued that anyone registers with call server 50.

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
With that, with no call server 50 registration, with no conference call server registration, you cannot be

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
that carve out that requires all three things and so the board found that Registration is fine prior registration registration by looking something up in a table whether it's one member or all the members It doesn't matter as long as it's not with a conference call Do I remember right that in your petition?

[00:15:33] Speaker 01:
You've never said

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
In LiveRessage, the conference call server is the call server, and nobody registers with it, QED.

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
You have one sentence that says something, I think there's several ping-pongs in the sentence, but it was only about the VTE server, which you didn't quite say was not the conference call server.

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
But in any event, you didn't say that the call server was.

[00:15:59] Speaker 04:
you remember correctly, and the board was posed that exact question.

[00:16:04] Speaker 04:
And they relied on this court's Itamatsu case, which said this is how an IPR works.

[00:16:10] Speaker 04:
And the patent owner was actually, the petition really talked about the collaboration services suite, which is the whole system.

[00:16:17] Speaker 04:
That's really the language the petition used most, but you're right.

[00:16:20] Speaker 04:
It never said that one sentence about the conference call server being call server 50.

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
The argument was raised in the patent owner response.

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
And the petitioner responded as they are allowed to do under Itamatsu and the statute itself to

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
Respond in the reply and in the reply they did so and said no.

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
No, we didn't mean the VTE server We mean the conference call server and the board found that that was not too late and they could rely on it I'm sorry conference call server is not a term in liver sit.

[00:16:48] Speaker 04:
No, that's right.

[00:16:49] Speaker 04:
It's call server call in liver stitch That's right, and the board noted the different servers in the institution decision they noted that there's a presence server a VTE server that and a call server and

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
And then in the reply, the petitioner explained that the VTE server is not the call server.

[00:17:07] Speaker 04:
But even if it is the call server, Liversidge still is not within that carve out because Liversidge allows non-team members to join the IM session, which is then converted automatically without a separate registration step into the voice call.

[00:17:25] Speaker 04:
The board found the clearest and easiest path, which is to take out... Can I summarize for a second to make sure I understand this right?

[00:17:31] Speaker 05:
Yes, please.

[00:17:32] Speaker 05:
The board found LiberSage discloses that without registration limitation, even if the VTE server is read as the claimed conference call server, and you really should affirm on that basis.

[00:17:45] Speaker 05:
The board alternatively found the call server 50 could be the conference call server,

[00:17:52] Speaker 05:
and that that would likewise not affect registration.

[00:17:58] Speaker 05:
And what we were talking about first is whether there's a SAS or an APA problem with that alternative finding because you didn't allege that in the petition.

[00:18:08] Speaker 05:
You never pointed to call center, call server 50.

[00:18:12] Speaker 05:
and said that is the conference call server.

[00:18:15] Speaker 05:
Is that right?

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
Because what we said is registration is never required with any server in Liversage because non-team members are allowed.

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
And then when they picked a specific part of it, the VTE server, we responded that no, that's not it because the call server is what initiates the conference call.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
And the board reasonably found that same mapping.

[00:18:34] Speaker 04:
It even looked at a prior IPR that Unilogged did not appeal.

[00:18:38] Speaker 05:
Stop for a sec.

[00:18:39] Speaker 05:
I just want to make sure I understand.

[00:18:41] Speaker 05:
If I were to conclude that it was improper under SAS, in light of the APA, for the board to make this alternative finding about call server 50 because that was not ever identified in your petition as corresponding, you still think we should affirm under a substantial evidence standard because what was identified was the VTE server

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
and you think the board was correct in concluding that doesn't do the registration yes that's right okay so make sure I understand thank you for the clarification Chief Judge Moore but that background is what puts you into the negative limitation soup which is fine I mean we can talk about the VTE server and and the reasons that if we go to the if we take away the conference call server and say that VTE server is going to I'm sorry the call server 50 and we say that the conference call server is

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
VTE server in in liver said we are still not in that car about for several reasons.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
I think the simplest one is that VT that liver said never requires registration.

[00:19:45] Speaker 04:
They allowed non team members into the call and they say in paragraph 82 and paragraph 125.

[00:19:52] Speaker 04:
135, they talk about inviting a non-team member into the call.

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
Even if they don't have a VTE client installed in their computer, you can invite them in just by looking up their phone.

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
As I understand Unilock's position, Unilock does not dispute that if not all of the potential members have to register, then they lose.

[00:20:17] Speaker 01:
That piece of their argument, I think, is dependent on their client construction.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
Yeah, so I think that's right, thank you.

[00:20:25] Speaker 04:
And regardless of which parties or how you resolve that potential members issue, Liversid is still within the scope of the claims and not in the carve-out for the additional reason that what they point to as registration, so we're not in the potential members circle, we're in the registration circle, what they point to is joining a team.

[00:20:44] Speaker 04:
as the registration, supposedly, in Liversidge.

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
And that is done, as the board noted, with presence server, not VTE server.

[00:20:52] Speaker 04:
And that's in Figure 14.

[00:20:53] Speaker 04:
It shows the process of joining a team, creating a team.

[00:20:58] Speaker 04:
And the presence server, it's on the right-hand side of Figure 14, is the thing that actually creates the team.

[00:21:04] Speaker 04:
It is also... And that notifies VTE when the registration's complete.

[00:21:06] Speaker 04:
That's the whole thing.

[00:21:07] Speaker 04:
That's right.

[00:21:07] Speaker 04:
And it also maintains Status Table 43, which is where the team information is looked up.

[00:21:12] Speaker 04:
All of that is done by the presence server.

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
So even if VTE server is the conference call server, there's not registration with it because the registration in Liversidge is with the presence server.

[00:21:24] Speaker 05:
In fact, it even notified VTE registrations.

[00:21:26] Speaker 05:
Registration is kind of hard to imagine VTE is affecting registration when it's been notified registrations complete.

[00:21:32] Speaker 05:
That's right.

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
There's another reason also.

[00:21:35] Speaker 04:
The third reason would be the board's construction requires that members not need a separate registration with the conference call server, something at the time of or around the conversion.

[00:21:52] Speaker 04:
And so what Uniloc points to there is the convert session, that while an IM session is going on,

[00:21:58] Speaker 04:
One of the current participants of the IM session, as the claim says, can push or select the convert session function, which causes the conversion from the IM session into the conference call.

[00:22:13] Speaker 04:
And the way that happens is the VTE server translates that convert session request.

[00:22:19] Speaker 04:
That's all in figure 32.

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
And it looks up the right dial-in information for each of the members.

[00:22:25] Speaker 04:
and then sends it along to the call server to establish the call.

[00:22:29] Speaker 04:
So that's all happening behind the scenes.

[00:22:31] Speaker 04:
It's not requiring anything additional or separate, which is what the board said is the right construction or the right way to read the without requiring.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
So those are three separate reasons why even if the VTE server is the conference call server, Oliver said is still not in that carve out.

[00:22:53] Speaker 05:
happy to answer any other questions.

[00:22:55] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:22:56] Speaker 05:
Garner.

[00:22:56] Speaker 05:
Let's have some rebuttal time.

[00:23:00] Speaker 05:
Mr. Coyote, did I say it right?

[00:23:02] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:23:02] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
With my time, I just want to briefly adjust the conference call server, which I didn't get to just in the opening.

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
in response to Mr. Arner's comments, claims 6, 11, and 16 each recite that the conference call server is for establishing voice communications.

[00:23:30] Speaker 00:
As just Toronto noted in the petition at 11, 13, they stated VTE server initiates the conference call between the users A, B, C without additional involvement of the first user.

[00:23:46] Speaker 00:
So our point broadly, Your Honors, is that there

[00:23:49] Speaker 00:
kind of statement that it initiates is linking up the establishing the voice communications.

[00:23:55] Speaker 00:
And the board never explained why the VTU server should not be included.

[00:24:01] Speaker 01:
If you know- Can I redirect you just back to something you said in your opening argument, which I maybe you can, I just want you to elaborate.

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
You made a point to the effect.

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
that the claim construction of the negative imitation that the board adopted and that Google presses creates something that I think you described as just sort of not very sensible in practice, that it would exclude too little or something.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
This is not ringing a bell?

[00:24:33] Speaker 00:
No, I'm sorry.

[00:24:34] Speaker 01:
So then you're not going to be able to elaborate.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
I'm sure I didn't say that.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
I might have either misspoke or I don't understand.

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
Sorry.

[00:24:41] Speaker 00:
The only thing I want to say for the remaining time is the 149 patent in the conference call server, which is described in the bodies of 149 patent, it has communication with both packet-based and voice.

[00:24:59] Speaker 00:
Let's say appendix 73, column 6 lines 22 to 29.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
It also notes that the instances that are blue group at 7, that the conference call server can be implemented in a distributed way.

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
And I think the error the board made, kind of in a nutshell, is they looked at liver stage, and they saw conference server.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
They saw the similarity, and they were just, you know, in a server, you have to look at the functionality of something, not merely what something's called around the box.

[00:25:28] Speaker 00:
And so they didn't include the VTE server, I think was their primary error.

[00:25:32] Speaker 00:
That's all I have, Your Honor.

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
Other than that, what were servers?

[00:25:35] Speaker 05:
Okay, thank you Council.