[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
This case is taken under submission.

[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
Our next case for argument is 2019-2277, also Unilock versus Google.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
Mr. Coyne, please proceed.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court, I want to first address the claim construction of the single request.

[00:00:24] Speaker 01:
The board misconstrued the phrase, single-proquest, as we noted in our blue to 25.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
The claim language at least implies that the potential targets are identified as part of the generating step.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
not as part of the single request made by the requester.

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
For instance, as we noted, if the single request required individual selection of the potential targets, it wouldn't make sense for the claim to further require generating a conference poll request identifying each of the potential targets.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
Let me turn to the specification.

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
The board misconstrued the spec as well, including that two different body was for both in encompass the main dispute between the parties is that.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
Uniloc views, and this is appendix 173, the paragraph that starts with, as shown in figure three, that both parties focus on.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
Uniloc has a position that these are alternate embodiments.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
Google accuses Uniloc of creating phantom sub-embodiments that we're kind of dividing everything to, finally.

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
And the point I want to make is both parties refer to the more robust language that starts off this paragraph.

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
And it's not really teased out in our briefs.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
But by that, the applicant was meaning like an all bells and whistles embodiment with everything that could be possibly included.

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
It wasn't saying this is the embodiment that corresponds to one particular claim.

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
You would note, for instance, figure three is about one of the most robust figures I've ever seen in a patent thing.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
It spans three pages.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
The description of figure three is almost two columns.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
So not all features are claimed that are shown in Figure 3.

[00:02:14] Speaker 01:
For instance, Figure 3 refers to property user for credit card info and whether the credit card can be charged.

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
But none of the claims, even the dependent claims in the patent, recite anything about the credit card.

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
So I'm just pointing that out because Google's logic seems to want to force everything that's described in Figure 3, including the Step 312, to then be

[00:02:39] Speaker 01:
encompassed, and necessarily, in reality, they're two alternate embodiments.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
One case that we wanted to highlight is PPC broadband supporting.

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
That's 815 at 747.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
That's a Federal Circuit decision which

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
After first noting that the patent specification at issue had 50 figures and 20 embodiments, the court noted, we will not adopt a position that the broadest reasonable construction is always the one which covers the most embodiments.

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
The fact that one or more construction may cover more embodiments

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
then the others is not categorically rendered a construction.

[00:03:17] Speaker 04:
Counsel, can I just ask you a clarification?

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
In the earlier case you were arguing in now in this one, is this case that you refer us to now cited in your brief?

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
This is not.

[00:03:26] Speaker 01:
If we could prefer.

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
So again, in the first appeal we just heard, you made the same assertion.

[00:03:31] Speaker 04:
You discussed in some detail one of our precedents that was not discussed in your brief.

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
This argument, the principle that I'm saying, was stated, we didn't cite this case.

[00:03:42] Speaker 01:
We didn't set any case for this proposition.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
I'm just bringing it to your attention now.

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
I was brought into this case Earlier this month.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
I I was aware of this case and so when I started prepping for this I wanted to flag it I thought I should bring it to the court's attention On the amendment

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
The board erred by assuming that there could be no disclaimer where the patent applicant distinguished art on multiple limitations.

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
Here, and I could go through the steps, but I think it's fairly clear, the applicant's remarks confirm the proper understanding of single press advocated by Uniloc, an amount to a disclaimer that Haynes does not teach or suggest the method claim one, because Haynes proposes that a user determine whether attendees are available

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
or whether you select one for invitation.

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
This is a, and I'm going to raise another case, Judge Prost, but this one came up fairly recently.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
This is Speed Track, which is Amazon.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
He came on July of this year, and keeping in mind he was briefed a while ago.

[00:04:56] Speaker 04:
This is stating where... That's why we have 28 J letters, right?

[00:05:00] Speaker 04:
For new precedent.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
That's true.

[00:05:02] Speaker 01:
Again, I identified this very late in my prep, so I'm just trying to flag it.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
But an applicant's argument that a prior reference is- Counsel, I was going to pause you for a minute.

[00:05:12] Speaker 03:
We get 28 jail letters sometimes as late as the day before argument.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
You're citing cases that you had a month ago, according to you, the PVC case, but never cited to us.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
And now a case that came out in July that you never cited to us.

[00:05:26] Speaker 03:
And I understand you may have been brought on late.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
Just to clarify your record, I was not aware of this.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
I was not aware of this.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
Follow our rules.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
I understand, Your Honor.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
I'm bringing to the court's attention because I'm aware of it now and I think it's relevant.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
Just for the record, I was not aware of the PPK.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
But you understand the problem.

[00:05:43] Speaker 04:
The other side hasn't had the benefit of your raising this case.

[00:05:46] Speaker 04:
And so in their briefing, they didn't respond, as they would also if you had introduced a 28-J letter, they would have the opportunity to respond.

[00:05:55] Speaker 04:
So that's problematic, is it not?

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
I understand your concern, Your Honor.

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
But I do want to at least read it to the record, and that case says, an applicant's argument that a prior reference is distinguished on a particular ground can serve a disclaimer of the claims scope, even if the applicant distinguished the references on other grounds.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
I think it's fairly well said, but we argued that proposition in our brief.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
Again, we did not submit case law supporting it.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you to talk about the

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
board was sustainable, that is that there was substantial evidence to support the board's finding that there was a motivation to combine Tanagawa with liver siege that you would lose even under your construction.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I think Your Honor is asking if we lose on motivation to combine, then that kind of kills it for us.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
And that is right.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
We're dependent solely on the Panagawa versus Liversidge combination.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
We're going to be totally on motivation to combine.

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:07:09] Speaker 02:
Maybe I might be confusing cases at this point, which I apologize.

[00:07:13] Speaker 02:
But you don't really make an argument in your blue brief that if you combine the two, that there is something missing.

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
your argument is that there wasn't a motivation to combine.

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
So why is there an absence of substantial evidence to support the board's finding of a motivation to combine, to take Tamagawa and use the single notification kind of method of literacy?

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
Yeah, to address Your Honor's question, our argument is

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
that the sole conclusion that they made was, well, first of all, let me take a step back.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
The board decision does motivation to combine on an element by element basis.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
So they look at one element and they say, since there was a motivation to combine, for this element, there's a motivation to combine.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
They don't say broadly, okay, for all of these, this whole claim, we're going to combine Tanagawa and Libercich.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
So for the specific

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
limitation at issue, the only conclusion was that the appendix is page 34.

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
And that's where they say petitioner's expert Mr. Lipoff credibly testifies that Tonigawa and Lipschitz both described similar systems for converting IM session conference call.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
And this is where the punchline is.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
That Opposito, it's spelled out longhand, would have understood that using a single vendor to generate a conference call request would also operate successfully.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
and our only point there this is the case with this

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
thankfully cite your honors, is the personal web tech case.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
And that basically stands for the proposition that it's not enough to have understood they could have been combined or something could be operating together.

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
You have to show a motivation to combine.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
So our point, Judge Taranto, is that there is no finding for this limitation of a motivation to combine.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
They just say they could operate together.

[00:09:08] Speaker 01:
That's not the motivation to combine standard.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
So that's our main point.

[00:09:14] Speaker 01:
With that, I'll leave the rest for Republican senators.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
There are three separate paths to affirm the board's decision, as we noted in our brief.

[00:10:07] Speaker 00:
The court can affirm the board's claim construction on single request, where Unilock has not provided any contrary argument under the construction that the board adopted.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
The court can affirm the board's findings of obviousness based on Tanagawa alone.

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
And then the third is the one that I would like to focus on initially, is the

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
The court confirmed the board's findings regarding the combination of tanagawa with liver-stitch.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
As discussed already with counsel for Uniloc,

[00:10:41] Speaker 00:
does not require the court to reach the question of what the term single request means, at least not to resolve the dispute that's currently between the parties.

[00:10:50] Speaker 02:
Can I just, while I'm thinking about it, so on page 28 of the appendix, which is also 28 of the board's decision, the board recites your argument, petitioner relying on testimony from Mr. Lipov.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would use the single convert session button, would use the single convert session button of Liversidge in the interface of Tanegawa, and here's the reason to provide the benefit of a simple user-friendly way to automatically initiate a conference call between IAM participants.

[00:11:22] Speaker 02:
Is there a place where the board said, we agree with that?

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
On the would question,

[00:11:31] Speaker 00:
They did say that they agreed that Mr. Lipoff testified credibly.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
That appears later in the board's decision on page 34 of the appendix.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
This is just above the heading where it says set conference call request.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
The board found... Right, right, but that's the sentence that Mr. Coyde says with I think some possibility that on its face that sentence doesn't actually say

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
The particular portion of what Mr. Liboff said, namely that the skilled artisan would be motivated to do it to gain the benefits of simplicity is something that we agree with.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
Two responses to that, Your Honor.

[00:12:30] Speaker 00:
One is that I believe they cited paragraph 86 does say the would.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
as well as if we go to appendix page 38 of the board's decision, the board did split the generating limitation, which is the limitation that contains the single request requirement.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
They addressed it under two subheadings, but at the appendix 38, the board expressly adopted this rationale on why it would have been obvious to combine the conversion section.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
This is right at the top, the carryover from 37 to top of 38.

[00:13:03] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, because it would simplify the graphical interface of Tanigawa to do so.

[00:13:08] Speaker 00:
Providing the benefit of a simple user-friendly way to automatically initiate a conference call between participants of an IM session So this isn't a situation where we don't know what the board's rationale was for the wood component I always think of obviousness in terms of could you have combined the references and would one of ordinary skill have combined them and

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
And our expert addressed both, and the board provided rationale and cited to our expert on both of these points.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
And then separately, not just citing to our expert who said these things, separately said that exact feature that we relied on as the single request, the convert session button from Liversidge, the board said it would have been obvious, the wood component that Unilock is contending the board did not address.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
This says that it would have been obvious, and it gives a reason for why it would have been obvious to do that.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
And you think it makes no difference that this is under, let's call it a separate headache in the board's decision?

[00:14:07] Speaker 00:
No, I do not think it makes any difference because it was all discussed in the context of the generating limitation.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
The board did take that in two pieces.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
It's one limitation.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
It has two parts to it.

[00:14:21] Speaker 00:
I think of it as, are we left to wonder why the board found this motivation?

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
And the answer is no.

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
The board expressly told us why the combination would have been made by one extraordinary skill.

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
And this is similar, actually, to a number of cases.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
I know Unilock cited the in-rain evasive case as supporting their argument, but it actually supports our argument.

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
And the reason is because in-rain evasive,

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
The court talks about rationales that it found sufficient when it reviewed board decisions.

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
And two of those examples, one of the rationales that the court approved in in-renovative was to minimize waste in the production process.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
The court talks about an earlier case, Nike versus Adidas.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
It says that was the rationale the board provided there, and that was sufficient.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
So not only did that case find that rationale sufficient, but Inray New Basis said, we doubly approve of that as a rationale.

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
It can be short.

[00:15:24] Speaker 00:
It can be to the point.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
Another one was discussed in rain evasive to allow for a greater degree of movement between the jaws of heavy machinery.

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
That was in the allied engineering or allied erecting versus genesis attachments case that is discussed in rain evasive.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
You can see that the bar is not very high for determining whether the boards

[00:15:51] Speaker 00:
provided enough rationale for this court to review and then affirm.

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
And the board here not only provided a rationale that is at least as extensive as those that were approved and then renovated, but also found Google's expert's testimony credible, which provides substantial evidence for that view, and also provides additional support for the rationale for why the board decided the way that it did.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
I don't see how Unalak can argue that there was an insufficient rationale provided here when the board expressly provided it and then cited evidence that confirmed that.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
I do think that the Tanigawa and Liversidge combination is the most direct route to affirmance, potentially, just because there's no need to then get into the questions that Unalak has raised about claim construction.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
As you heard, they're not disputing that if there is a sufficiently articulated motivation from the board, then there is substantial evidence.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
They're not disputing, at least, that there's substantial evidence.

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
And we've identified evidence in our brief related to that.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
Another path, though, to affirmance is the Tanagawa combination, or rather, Tanagawa obviousness findings from the board.

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
The board found that Tanagawa discloses the single request, even under Unilox construction.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
This is another path that does not require resolution of Unilox claim construction argument.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
And the board relied on Tanagawa's teaching that the user Taro issues an instruction, singular, to request voice chatting with the other two participants who were then in an instant messaging chat room, essentially, with that user Taro.

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
And what ends up happening in the reference is the parties are all together in the instant message session.

[00:17:50] Speaker 00:
tarot issues, that singular instruction, and then all of the parties end up in a voice chat session.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
Now, Uniloc frames the issue here as being about silence within Tanegawa and that the fact that Tanegawa does not say, we're not going to select the potential participants, the potential targets.

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
that the fact that Tanegawa does not say that, they say, is fatal to Google's obviousness position.

[00:18:21] Speaker 00:
But that's not all that Tanegawa says.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
We're not pointing to a blank portion of a page and saying, ah, that's the disclosure of the limitation.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
Tanegawa actually discloses selecting users or selecting potential targets when you're setting up the initial IM session.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
And that makes sense because you might have a very long, large address book

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
And when you don't have any communication ongoing at that point in time, you do need to select users.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
And there's no dispute, Unilog's brief agrees that there is selection of users at the IM portion.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
But then when you already have an ongoing IM session,

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
And the idea is to continue the conversation by voice, because maybe things get too complicated.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
You'd rather just continue it.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
It'd be easier to resolve by voice.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
You want to continue that conversation with everyone who you have already been chatting with.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
So there isn't a reason why you would need to then select those users.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
And our expert testified to that point as well.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
We're looking at the context that surrounds it.

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
We're looking at the fact that when Tanigawa says,

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
that users are going to be selected.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
He told us that.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
And that's only in the stage where you're setting up the initial IM session.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
And then when transitioning over to the voice chat, Tanegawa does not say, I then need to select those users again.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
So it's not a pure silence argument.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
And we cited the AC Technologies case in our brief for support for the fact that a reference need not state a feature's absence in order to disclose a negative limitation.

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
Substantial evidence supports the board's findings here.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
They cited Google's expert as well as the reference itself.

[00:20:08] Speaker 00:
And that is another path to affirming the board's decisions of obviousness.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
With those two being perhaps the most direct path, I am wondering if the court has any questions about the claim construction section.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
I have just a couple thoughts to share on that.

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
I'll just say briefly that... Hey, see if you can do it without hand gestures.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
Go ahead.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Chief Judge Moore.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
Selecting targets is not the same thing as issuing a request for a conference call.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
And if we look at Figure 6, which is cited in our red brief, Figure 6 of the triple zero patent,

[00:21:00] Speaker 00:
There is a figure that shows the user interface.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
It lists a number of potential targets.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
It identifies them by name.

[00:21:16] Speaker 00:
the potential conference call requestor can check the boxes.

[00:21:21] Speaker 00:
And that would be selecting users.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
But the thing is, when the boxes are checked, nothing happens.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
There's no conference call that ends up being initiated at that point.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
There's no request for a conference call at that point.

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
It's really only the Start Call button

[00:21:38] Speaker 00:
that once the users or potential targets, rather, are selected, the Start Call button is what actually issues the request to start the conference call and then does cause the system to then create the conference call request.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
So there's really a distinction between selecting users and actually issuing a single request for the conference call.

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
And I think it's highlighted well in that figure.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
Does the court have any questions?

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:22:43] Speaker 01:
I just want to address two brief issues.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
First, on the motivation to combine and Google's reliance on the Altery decision.

[00:22:54] Speaker 01:
It'd be one thing if the boy's decision said, look, here's what the experts said.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
Based on everything the experts said, there was a motivation to combine.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
That's the Altery case.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
That's similar to the Altery text.

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
That's not what happened here.

[00:23:09] Speaker 01:
Again, for this element, what happened here is they said they credibly, that Mr. Locke credibly testifies, and the thing they focus on is something that's not the standard of motivation to combine.

[00:23:20] Speaker 01:
It's been rejected by this court in the personal web text.

[00:23:23] Speaker 02:
What about the bit at the very top of page 38, which I think is what Mr. Stach points to as

[00:23:33] Speaker 02:
making clear, or in Supreme Court terms, making what reasonably discernible, fairly discernible, that the Board was in fact endorsing the motivation, which is incredibly simple.

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
That is, the simplicity of a one push button is the incredibly simple motivation.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
But again, that section's in a different element.

[00:23:58] Speaker 01:
I mean, again, we read the board's decision as kind of breaking motivation and combined down by elements, looking at everything individually.

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
And so what they did here is they looked at the element of issue, and their finding for that element of issue was not a motivation to combine as their point in a nutshell.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
Your honor.

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
In addition, also in this section, too, again, the other point, too, is they kind of attempted to shift the burden.

[00:24:25] Speaker 01:
They said, unilog's argument's wrong here.

[00:24:27] Speaker 01:
They shot down our argument for motivation to combine, but there's no affirmative finding in motivation to combine.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
The other point I wanted to address is Tanegawa.

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
Well, if we don't agree, if we think there is an affirmative finding, it's just not in this section where you would like to see it.

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
I mean, sometimes motivation to combine is entirely its own section.

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
It's not even done on some sort of element by element basis.

[00:24:49] Speaker 03:
It's hard for me to buy into what you're saying because the statement that spans 37 and 38 is really directly on point adopting what on page 34 they say the petitioner argued that using a single button would increase simplicity and then 37 to 38 they said this convert session button would simplify graphical interface providing the benefit of a simple user friendly way to automatically initiate the call.

[00:25:18] Speaker 03:
It's kind of

[00:25:19] Speaker 03:
And your argument that it's not in exactly the right section, but it's sort of exactly on point.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
I don't know.

[00:25:26] Speaker 01:
Well, our point is, Your Honor, certainly if the board wrote the final decision a different way, but that's how the board structured its arguments.

[00:25:33] Speaker 01:
So we're just responding to how the board structured its arguments.

[00:25:37] Speaker 01:
I understand the point, Your Honor, is making.

[00:25:39] Speaker 03:
The other point I wanted to address is... And so, just so I know, though, if I don't agree with you, if I find the material spanning 37 to 38,

[00:25:48] Speaker 03:
to adequately make a finding of motivation to combine adopting the petitioner's argument.

[00:25:53] Speaker 03:
Does that end this case, or do I still need to necessarily reach the other issues?

[00:25:59] Speaker 01:
If we do not win on motivation to combine, as Judge Toronto had asked me, that's our only basis.

[00:26:05] Speaker 01:
And you find that there is a motivation to combine that would end the case.

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:26:11] Speaker 01:
We don't dispute the underlying reason of motivation to combine or something in the references.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:26:18] Speaker 01:
The other thing I wanted to address, Your Honor, briefly with my time remaining, is proving the absence of a negative.

[00:26:26] Speaker 01:
And Google relies on the AC Tech case.

[00:26:31] Speaker 01:
And again, as we noted in our briefs, that case is distinguished because the court determined that the reference taught uncoded films and did not merely find that the reference did not teach coding.

[00:26:40] Speaker 01:
Again, much more important is the IBM Bianco case, which is cited in our briefs again.

[00:26:45] Speaker 01:
But that one is, albeit not presidential, that deals with a similar limitation, single sign-on operation.

[00:26:51] Speaker 01:
And there they found that silence would not by itself suffice for the petition to prove there was no user authentication action in this scenario.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
So we think it's much more relevant.

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
With that, unless there are any other questions, we'll stand in our place.

[00:27:05] Speaker 03:
Thanks both counsel for the argument.

[00:27:07] Speaker 03:
The case is taken under submission.

[00:27:08] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much, Your Honor.