[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Our next argument is 20-1802, Unilock v. Verizon.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
Mr. Belloli, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court, Mark Belloli for the Appellant.

[00:00:13] Speaker 04:
This appeal concerns the construction of the term resynchronization marker in the 118 path.

[00:00:19] Speaker 04:
Unilock has identified two incorrect aspects of the District Court's construction.

[00:00:26] Speaker 04:
The District Court

[00:00:27] Speaker 04:
Verizon and Uniloc all look to the same portion of the specification with respect to these two issues, and that is the critical section of the specification for all issues on appeal.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
That section is column four, lines 47 to 65.

[00:00:42] Speaker 04:
The first incorrect aspect of the district court's construction I would like to address is the for-all motion.

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
Council, before you get into the construction, and maybe this is putting my district court hat on, but I always hate to be the only one in the room who doesn't really know what's going on.

[00:00:57] Speaker 02:
And so my question is trying to determine why these fine distinctions matter.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
So you allege in the complaint that Verizon infringes because its devices practice the H264 standard.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
And then ultimately, you guys agree that there's no infringement based on the court's claim construction.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
Are you saying that the court's claim construction renders the 118 inconsistent with the standard?

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
Or are you saying that because of this, it's clear that the Verizon doesn't really practice the standard?

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
So I'd put it a touch differently, Your Honor.

[00:01:49] Speaker 04:
So the construction, the part that the parties agree on is you have this sequence of bits that can do two things, serve as a resynchronization point,

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
and an error concealment reconstruction point for these excluded macro blocks, these little pieces of a frame of video.

[00:02:05] Speaker 04:
And the erroneous part is the for all modes of coding.

[00:02:09] Speaker 04:
So what the district court did was import this requirement that you essentially need to have this single omnibus resynchronization marker that can handle all modes of coding instead of

[00:02:23] Speaker 04:
You could have different resynchronization markers for the different modes of coding, or you could have a resynchronization marker that handles all modes of coding.

[00:02:32] Speaker 02:
By limiting it.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
Are there more than just the three modes that are identified?

[00:02:37] Speaker 04:
There are the three modes, and then there's variations of those modes as well.

[00:02:41] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
So it's your position.

[00:02:45] Speaker 02:
So the H264, does it have a?

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
Re-synchronization that addresses only singular modes?

[00:03:00] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:03:00] Speaker 02:
Only one?

[00:03:01] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:03:02] Speaker 04:
The standard.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
So that's different than the flag?

[00:03:07] Speaker 04:
Well, these are flags.

[00:03:09] Speaker 04:
These re-synchronization markers can be called flags.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
And so you could have flags in the standard and work thing in the patent as well.

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
that you have these flags that could be for one mode, two modes, all three modes, or variation.

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
But there's no omnibus marker in the H.264 standard that covers all three and variations thereof.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
It's kind of like saying- And so the rising products don't cover all three and variations thereof, right?

[00:03:46] Speaker 04:
The markers that we would be pointing to for our infringement read don't cover all of them, correct?

[00:03:51] Speaker 04:
They cover one or maybe two, but not all three and all variations thereof.

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
So what we're saying... I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
This is Judge Crouse.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
So you're saying the invention, not withstanding statements about the invention, the invention means that the method does not have to work for the IP and B mode.

[00:04:17] Speaker 04:
No, it could.

[00:04:19] Speaker 04:
What we're saying is you could have three kinds of resynchronization markers.

[00:04:23] Speaker 04:
You could have one for I, one for P, one for B. You could have one that does two of the three.

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
You could have one that does all three.

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
It's like saying if you had... But it would be infringing if you only did one.

[00:04:38] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:04:39] Speaker 04:
So you'd meet the limitation.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
In that instance, the invention wouldn't work for all modes.

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
But it would still be infringing.

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
And if the investigation is coming an invention that necessarily, and I think this is what the district court construed it as, that the method has to work for all three modes, then you're off.

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
And you're just saying it doesn't have to work for all three.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
If it works for one, it's covered by the claim.

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
Not that the message... It's like, Ali, I'm trying to figure out what's going on here.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
Yes, the method could be read on all three modes.

[00:05:19] Speaker 04:
But the resynchronization marker, the marker itself, is a sequence of bits.

[00:05:24] Speaker 04:
And that sequence of bits has to do this resynchronization function, as well as this error concealment reconstruction function.

[00:05:33] Speaker 04:
But it doesn't have to qualify as a resynchronization marker.

[00:05:36] Speaker 04:
That single set of bits doesn't have to be able to do it for all three modes.

[00:05:44] Speaker 04:
So like if you had a car with tires and you have rain tires, snow tires, regular tires, you're not, and the specification says you could use this invention with any of those three, you don't have to have, the claim doesn't mean the tires have to be all three of those, would be the analogy.

[00:06:06] Speaker 01:
So if you're only working, if you're alleged infringer and you're only working on the P mode,

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
that would be infringing conduct?

[00:06:17] Speaker 04:
The P mode, if the flag that you're pointing to for the infringement rate serves as a resynchronization point and serves as an error concealment reconstruction point for an excluded macro box in the P mode, then it would be a resynchronization marker, as opposed to this other prior flag that's contrasted in the beginning of that critical section of specification

[00:06:43] Speaker 04:
which wasn't for reconstruction, and it was only used in a specific instance.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
So you don't point to this, but is it significant that the word or is used rather than and?

[00:07:04] Speaker 04:
I think that there's three things significant in that sentence.

[00:07:07] Speaker 04:
One is the or, one is the word possible,

[00:07:11] Speaker 04:
And the other one does not entail the insertion of any specific flag.

[00:07:15] Speaker 04:
When you limit the construction to all modes of coding, you are limiting it to a very specific flag, one that covers everything.

[00:07:24] Speaker 04:
It precludes the existence of different flags that would be covered by the resynchronization marker.

[00:07:31] Speaker 04:
Because you're limiting it to one kind of flag, one that has these two functions, resynchronization and reconstruction,

[00:07:40] Speaker 04:
But for all modes, so now you've limited it to one specific flag, which is contrary to that sentence that says it does not entail insertion of any specific flag, and it's possible that you could have these resynchronization markers for I, P, or B coding.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
Okay, but you didn't point the court to the or language, did you, when you tried to say that somehow that, you know, changed the concept of what all modes means?

[00:08:10] Speaker 04:
Well, the briefing... Are you sitting at the district court level, Your Honor?

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
Well, you didn't argue with us either.

[00:08:18] Speaker 04:
Well, page... I believe it's page 17 of our opening brief.

[00:08:26] Speaker 04:
We highlight that at the top.

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
17 of your opening brief here?

[00:08:34] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:08:36] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:08:37] Speaker 02:
All right, I'll look at it.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
Where it says possible for all modes, I, P, or, and we put emphasis on the or there as well.

[00:08:46] Speaker 04:
This specific issue was not briefed to the district court.

[00:08:49] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, this is Judge Crouse.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
Just to be clear, I'm looking at page 17, and I see we're at the top.

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
You highlighted the four words, but in the sentence that follows that you're talking about it, I don't see you're talking about anything other than possible.

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
Yeah, Your Honor, it's possible for each of those, but it's not mandatory in order to qualify as a resynchronization marker that it necessarily covers all of them, because then you're limiting it to that specific flag, or to a specific flag.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
And that same sentence is clear that this invention does not entail the insertion of any specific flag.

[00:09:31] Speaker 04:
It's possible to have them for IP, or B,

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
any combination thereof.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
Anything further?

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
Do you want to?

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
If there's nothing further from the panel on the almost issue, the disclaimer issue, the construction should also reflect the disclaimer from the same

[00:10:05] Speaker 04:
portion of the specification, which contrasts itself with the invention.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
The disclaimer is disclaiming this MPEG-4 un-coded flag, which is not used for reconstruction.

[00:10:16] Speaker 04:
It's merely an indicator to replace an un-coded macro block with the same macro block in a prior frame.

[00:10:26] Speaker 04:
It's only to be used with one form of coding and is only useful in a certain context within that

[00:10:35] Speaker 04:
type of coding, and when you're replacing one block with the same block as before, there's no movement going on, no texture change, and this portion of the specification, and Verizon doesn't seem to disagree because they do contend that this flag is excluded by the specification, that there is a clear disclaimer of this one flag and the construction should reflect the disclaimer of this prior flag.

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
Well, but just because you disclaimed the Prior Art flag doesn't mean that what you're claiming doesn't encompass a broader invention than just, and not just limited to that disclaimer.

[00:11:23] Speaker 04:
We agree the claim does encompass the broader invention.

[00:11:27] Speaker 04:
It encompasses using resynchronization markers in any context they arise.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
But it doesn't require that the resynchronization marker itself to qualify has to be this one single stream of bits that's operable in all modes of coding.

[00:11:45] Speaker 04:
It just requires that the sequence of bits serve as a resynchronization point and serve as an error concealment reconstruction point for this excluded macro block.

[00:11:55] Speaker 04:
You could have a resynchronization marker that functions its way for one mode of coding,

[00:12:01] Speaker 04:
two modes of coding, or all modes of coding, but it would still be a resynchronization marker.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
It doesn't stop being a resynchronization marker just because it functions in one context.

[00:12:16] Speaker 04:
Putting it another way, a resynchronization marker, you could have many different, or at least several different kinds, I, P, or B, as long as it has the two critical functions about reconstruction,

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
and resynchronization and can function in that way, you could have different kinds of resynchronization markers.

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
Okay, so putting aside the language of the claim, where in the specs does it make it clear that your choice of any one of them is possible and part of the invention?

[00:12:53] Speaker 04:
It's the same sentence of that same course and specification at the end of the section that's column 4, lines 47 to 65.

[00:13:03] Speaker 04:
It's the last sentence of that paragraph.

[00:13:09] Speaker 04:
And it's saying that the exclusion of macro box from coding according to the invention does not entail the insertion of any specific flag.

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
When you read it on, may I finish your honors?

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
Yes, I assume.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
The exclusion of the macro blocks from coding according to invention does not entail the insertion of any specific flag.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
When you read this or when you import a requirement that it has to handle all modes of coding, you are limiting the invention to a specific flag, one that covers all modes of coding.

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
But this sentence is clear that it's not limited to any specific flag, and it's possible to have

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
flags that cover I, P, or B coding, as long as they meet the other requirements of the resynchronization marker, which are those two key aspects that no one disagrees with, which are serving as a resynchronization point and serving as an error concealment reconstruction point.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
Will we start a little rebuttal, and let's hear from Ms.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
Woodward.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:21] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
This case is somewhat unusual in that both parties clearly do agree that there is a disavowal and that it's based on the final paragraph of column four of the patent.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
The only question is, what is the appropriate scope of that disavowal as it relates to the claim limitation, the resynchronization marker?

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
Not one, but two district court judges have found that the appropriate scope is that the resynchronization marker must be used in order to mark excluded blocks

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
of all three types of coded images.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
So the Verizon products, they don't practice the disclaimed type of flag, correct?

[00:15:03] Speaker 00:
That is correct.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
And I heard counsel concede, which is true, that following the standard, the standard is not set up for exclusion of macro blocks of all three types.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
There is no dispute that following the standard, one cannot

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
exclude I type of macro blocks, for example.

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
I would actually say, though, that there's a second part of it which relates to the more conventional use of a resynchronization marker, which is that the resynchronization marker has to also serve as a resynchronization point.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
The aspect of the H264 standard that UNILOC is pointing to, and this is at

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
Appendix page 005050.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
This is from their complaint.

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
What they're pointing to as a resynchronization marker is actually a skip flag.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
It serves one and only one purpose.

[00:16:07] Speaker 00:
which is to mark if there is an excluded macro block.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
It actually does not mark for purposes to serve as a resynchronization point.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
And so we actually think that under the court's claim construction, there's two separate reasons that neither the standard nor any of Verizon's products that implement the standard can infringe as a matter of law.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
So under the standard, you're not excluding

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
You're only excluding, what, P, or are you able to exclude the others?

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
I don't think that there's any evidence on that.

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
I think that what we know is that it's not possible to exclude I. And the reason for that and the reason that I hesitate is that it actually has to do with the way that you are going to reconstruct the types of coded images.

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
And I images have to be reconstructed using spatial

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
recognition.

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
So the information has to be within the image itself.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
And so there's no question that that type of reconstruction, which has to be performed on I coded images, is not possible in the standard.

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
So I do want to talk though about what is the appropriate disavowal and why the district court judges got it right.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
I agree with counsel that we need to look at the last paragraph of column four.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
where first I want to draw the court's attention to actually the last sentence of that where it has the key words which are according to the invention.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
This is not according to embodiments of the invention or certain aspects.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
This is what the invention is.

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
And that sentence reads, the exclusion of macro blocks from coding according to the invention does not entail the insertion of any specific flag

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
and the exclusion of macro box from coding is thus possible for all modes of IT.

[00:18:04] Speaker 01:
Well, we had a little discussion.

[00:18:06] Speaker 01:
This is Judge Brooks.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
We had a little discussion with your friend about the import of the word or.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
I must say, I read it as inclusive, so it didn't trouble me.

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
It's like saying I have no dietary restrictions, so I can eat nuts, dairy, or wheat.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
Is that the way you read it?

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
That's exactly the way that I read it, Your Honor.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
And I think that that is grammatically correct.

[00:18:30] Speaker 00:
Might it be more clear if the word and was there?

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:18:35] Speaker 00:
But we think that it is clear as it's written.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
And certainly, if you look at the key language, which is all modes, there is absolutely no ambiguity that what you're talking about is every one of the modes that follow.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
And the second point that I think brings this home, and this is really what Judge Gilstrap focused on,

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
is where it's earlier in the paragraph disparaging the prior art.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
There's a very parallel structure in what's set up about the problem of the prior art and then ultimately the solution that this invention brings.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
And that's again at column four, lines 55 to 56, where it says that as a consequence, this prior art MPEG-4 standard flag

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
can only be used for p-coded images.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
So that's the problem.

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
That's the problem that we're trying to solve, is that it can only be used for a certain type of coding.

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
And what this invention solves, and we know that because going to the end of the paragraph, we're talking about coding according to the invention, is that it is now possible for all modes of coding.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
The problem was it could only be used for p-coded,

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
the solution is that it's now possible for all modes of coding.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
So any potential ambiguity with the word or is certainly in context with the words all modes, very clear that it has to encompass all.

[00:20:04] Speaker 02:
And the rest of the discussion, I mean, I see in that discussion that they say one of the reasons it's bad to have just decoded images is because

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
in that those very images are implicitly echoed in B-coded images, which makes sense.

[00:20:20] Speaker 02:
So is there any discussion of I-coded images elsewhere in the specification?

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
There is, and it's at Column 7.

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
And this is talking about all of Column 7, I think, is very consistent with Verizon's position and what the district court judges found.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
which is that you have to have a resynchronization marker that's going to work for all three types of coding.

[00:20:47] Speaker 00:
And there's two things within this column that I want to bring the court's attention to.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
The one is where it does talk about I coding.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
And that's the paragraph that is at column seven and begins at like line 32.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
And this again is talking about once we have received

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
the video packet, which we know is going to have excluded microblocks, macroblocks, excuse me.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
This is talking about it can be any of the three types.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
It says we might have I for intercoded or we might have externally coded images P or B. I'm referencing the lines 42 to 45.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
And what this paragraph is talking about

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
is that the decoder is going to be able, the resynchronization marker has marked that we've got an excluded block.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
But there's nothing in that resynchronization marker that tells us which type of image is it.

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
So what we have to do, according to this paragraph, is actually try and test various types of error concealment.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
And that was from line 49.

[00:21:56] Speaker 00:
It actually refers to that as an advantage, advantageous part of the embodiment that's presented here, is that you can try and test various types of error concealment.

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
We know that it works for all three types, and if there was a flag that was only for eye-coded images, we wouldn't need to do this trial and error, because we would know that you have to be doing spatial reconstruction.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
And so this part of the specification

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
which does talk about using all three types, is consistent only with the resynchronization marker that is marking all three types.

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:22:35] Speaker 03:
Woodworth, Judge Cleger, the district court didn't like your definition of resynchronization, but they didn't like the plaintiffs either.

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
So it came up with its own, which it's entitled to do.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
How does the district court's definition of resynchronization or construction of resynchronization marker differ from the one you offered?

[00:23:05] Speaker 00:
So it's similar to the one that we offered in one important way, which is that it has to be a resynchronization marker that can serve the dual purpose that we talked about, which is the conventional purpose of serving as a resynchronization point, and then the new added purpose

[00:23:22] Speaker 00:
which is for error concealment and reconstruction, that you are going to actually mark if there's an excluded macro block.

[00:23:29] Speaker 00:
So that was something that Verizon argued for below and is consistent with what the district court judge did.

[00:23:34] Speaker 00:
The second part of his construction, which is that it has to mark that exclusion for all modes of coding, was actually, it's in line with the disavowal that we urged below, but we had just urged it in connection with another part of the claim.

[00:23:49] Speaker 00:
We had urged that the preamble, which refers to coding a digital image, needed to be construed consistently with the disavowal to perform coding for all types of digital images.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
And what Judge Gilstrap found was that this part of the specification that the parties agreed with the disavowal was more clearly linked with the resynchronization marker and the way that you mark the exclusion of macro blocks

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
than to the types of digital images.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
And so his overall construction was consistent with the various aspects that we were putting forward.

[00:24:27] Speaker 00:
We had just urged it in connection with a different part of the claim.

[00:24:33] Speaker 03:
So he ended up giving you a little bit more than you actually asked for.

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
I would say that he just put it in a different part of the claim.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
But I think that it is consistent with what we asked for, and it was what led to the non-imprisonment stipulation.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
The final point that I want to make is that Council had referred to in his argument that there are variations of those modes, variations of IP and B coding.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
There's absolutely nothing in the record that supports that.

[00:25:04] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in the intrinsic record that supports it.

[00:25:07] Speaker 00:
And both Uniloc and Verizon submitted declarations here.

[00:25:11] Speaker 00:
And there was nothing that Uniloc can point to from either of those declarations that support that there are multiple types of modes of each coding such that that's how you could construe the all modes of coding.

[00:25:26] Speaker 00:
The other thing that he said is that the first part of that disavowal sentence that's describing the invention says that you cannot have any specific flag.

[00:25:38] Speaker 00:
And UNILOC argues that that means you cannot have a resynchronization marker that's used for all three types of coding.

[00:25:47] Speaker 00:
Somehow that would be a specific flag.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
Whereas Uniloc's position that you have a resynchronization marker that works only for I or only for P would not be a specific flag.

[00:26:00] Speaker 00:
There's no reason to justify that.

[00:26:04] Speaker 00:
If anything, a flag that marked only I images or only P images is a more specific flag and serves a more specific purpose than a resynchronization marker that can work for any type of coding.

[00:26:20] Speaker 00:
And finally, the point that if that's what we have, if we have a system where you have a different type of resynchronization marker that can work for I and that can work for P and that can work for B, and I want to focus on P here for a second, we have exactly what the patent said was bad about or the problem with the prior art.

[00:26:43] Speaker 00:
If we have a resynchronization marker that can only be used for coded images, that is what

[00:26:50] Speaker 00:
Column 4, line 54 through 55 was describing as the problem with the MPEG-4 standard.

[00:26:58] Speaker 00:
This patent had two improvements over that standard.

[00:27:02] Speaker 00:
The first is that it added the dual purpose.

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
It was no longer requiring a flag that served only the purpose of marking excluded blocks.

[00:27:11] Speaker 00:
Instead, it was going to reuse the existing resynchronization points or resynchronization markers for that purpose.

[00:27:19] Speaker 00:
And then the second is we were going to make it possible with that resynchronization marker for all modes of coding.

[00:27:26] Speaker 00:
That is consistent with the district court judge's construction of the term.

[00:27:31] Speaker 00:
And for that reason, unless there are any further questions, we ask that the judgment be affirmed.

[00:27:37] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
Mr. Belloli, will we store two minutes of rebuttal in case we've eaten into that?

[00:27:45] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure yet.

[00:27:47] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:27:48] Speaker 04:
The first point I'd like to address is this notion that there's no evidence that there's multiple modes for each of IP or B. That critical section of the specification clearly says there are.

[00:28:02] Speaker 04:
When it says, is thus possible for all modes of IP or B coding, that necessarily

[00:28:12] Speaker 04:
implies that there are multiple modes for each of I, P, or B. And again, this is saying that it's possible to have a resynchronization marker for any one of those modes.

[00:28:27] Speaker 04:
But again, the sentence isn't mandating that this single sequence of bits must cover all modes of coding for each of those types of images.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
This sentence clearly implies that there can be many different modes for each of those and that there is no specific flag that covers all of those modes.

[00:28:49] Speaker 04:
One last point on the issue of the word or, whether it was argued, we pointed the court to page 17 before.

[00:28:57] Speaker 04:
Page 20 of the opening brief as well, which cites to the bottom of page 20, also talks about this.

[00:29:06] Speaker 04:
that this sentence that I just discussed is not stating or implying that all modes of I-coding are covered, all modes of P-coding, and all modes of B-coding are covered by a single resynchronization marker.

[00:29:20] Speaker 04:
It's just stating a benefit of the invention, which is you could have a resynchronization marker for each of these different kinds of modes.

[00:29:28] Speaker 04:
And I'd like to thank the panel.

[00:29:30] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:29:31] Speaker 01:
We thank both counsel and the cases submitted.