[00:00:00] Speaker 03: Our next argument for today is 21-1532, Apple versus MPH technologies. [00:00:07] Speaker 03: Mr. Palmore, please proceed. [00:00:10] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the Court. [00:00:12] Speaker 02: I'm Joseph Palmore here for Apple. [00:00:14] Speaker 02: This is a consolidated appeal covering a number of issues, but there are some common threads. [00:00:18] Speaker 02: The Board artificially narrowed broad claim language, set too high a bar for obviousness, and made unsupported findings. [00:00:26] Speaker 02: I'd like to turn to the first issue, which is the source address question. [00:00:31] Speaker 02: The board here committed a claim construction error by concluding that the claim required that a message be sent, quote, directly to a network address for it to qualify as the recited first network address. [00:00:43] Speaker 02: And I think the issue here is well highlighted by the illustration that's reproduced at page 29 of our brief, because the question comes down to whether network address NA in the prior art [00:00:56] Speaker 02: is the first network address within the contemplation of independent claim one and dependent claim 11. [00:01:02] Speaker 00: There are a couple of things that are... Mr. Palmer, this is Judge Toronto, and the problem, I think, for you is that Y did not use NA as the address it used to send the message to N. It used NB. [00:01:19] Speaker 02: Your Honor, a couple of responses to that. [00:01:20] Speaker 02: The claim language simply says sent to. [00:01:23] Speaker 02: It uses the passive voice. [00:01:26] Speaker 02: So the only question is, was the message sent to NA? [00:01:30] Speaker 02: And NPH's expert agreed that it was sent to NA. [00:01:36] Speaker 02: 3167 through 3169 is that testimony. [00:01:41] Speaker 00: Now, to be sure... I'm sorry, this is the testimony where he says that N, the intermediate device receiving it at NB, [00:01:50] Speaker 00: And he equates, I'm not sure that this is right, but anyway, he equates the address with an interface. [00:01:57] Speaker 00: And doesn't he say that n moves this message from interface at nb to interface at na? [00:02:08] Speaker 00: Why does that mean that the message was sent by the mobile computer, which is y, to na? [00:02:18] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, I just wanted to respectfully suggest that the premise isn't correct because the claim language, which the relevant claim language is in claim one, this is column 22, lines 47 through 49, says that the intermediate computer is configured to receive from a mobile computer a secure message sent to the first network address. [00:02:42] Speaker 02: So it uses the passive voice in the sent to. [00:02:45] Speaker 02: It doesn't require that it be sent to [00:02:48] Speaker 02: by the mobile computer. [00:02:49] Speaker 02: It doesn't say that it has to be the destination address, which is a term that's used elsewhere in the patent. [00:02:55] Speaker 02: It doesn't say that it has to be addressed to this address by the mobile computer. [00:03:00] Speaker 02: It just, in a passive voice sense, has to be sent to NA. [00:03:05] Speaker 02: And it's undisputed that this message is sent to NA. [00:03:10] Speaker 00: In that view, can you explain to me what claim 11 adds to claim 1? [00:03:17] Speaker 02: Sure. [00:03:18] Speaker 02: So claim one requires that there's a there's a separate part of claim one, which the board found was disclosed and is not in dispute here. [00:03:27] Speaker 02: This is column 22, line 59 through 62. [00:03:31] Speaker 02: that requires the, says that the intermediate computer will securely forward the encrypted data payload to the destination address, use that phrase, using a network address of the intermediate computer. [00:03:46] Speaker 02: So that's just any network address will suffice. [00:03:48] Speaker 02: But claim 11 adds is that it has, the source address has to be the first network address. [00:03:53] Speaker 02: And what is a first network address? [00:03:55] Speaker 02: It's an address that, to which the, [00:03:59] Speaker 02: message is sent. [00:04:01] Speaker 00: Here's what I guess I'm puzzling about is how under your view of the, you know, the page 29 figure, which is not a patent figure, how it wouldn't always be the case [00:04:18] Speaker 00: that the address that is being used for the second leg would be the same address as the address for the first leg because if it got to NA, that being the second, [00:04:36] Speaker 00: source address then it must have been sent there and then it seems to me it would always be the case that the address being used as the source address on the second transmission out the transmission out of N would always in your view be the same as one address where it was received. [00:05:00] Speaker 02: I don't think that's that's right your honor because the [00:05:04] Speaker 02: The elements of claim one that we just talked about contemplates that there could be network addresses that could be used as a source address that did not receive the message. [00:05:14] Speaker 02: The element that claim 11 adds is that it has to be a network address that it was sent to, that it transited through. [00:05:20] Speaker 02: And that's what it adds. [00:05:22] Speaker 02: So it's not just any network address. [00:05:24] Speaker 02: It's one that it was sent to, and it's unquestioned here. [00:05:27] Speaker 00: So again, using N. N could use as its [00:05:33] Speaker 00: as the source address that it's using and what it is sending out, an address of a location different from the place that the message is being sent out from? [00:05:46] Speaker 02: Yes, that's what the patents contemplate. [00:05:50] Speaker 02: That's the difference between the part of claim one that we were discussing and claim 11, because claim one talks about using a network address. [00:06:00] Speaker 02: of the intermediate computer as a source address. [00:06:02] Speaker 02: And what claim 11 adds is that it has to be the first network address. [00:06:05] Speaker 02: And the first network address is an address that the message was sent to. [00:06:11] Speaker 02: And so it's not just any other address on the computer. [00:06:15] Speaker 02: It has to be one that it was sent to. [00:06:16] Speaker 02: And here it's undisputed on the fact that it is sent to, and A, it's sent, yes, indirectly [00:06:22] Speaker 02: And that was a claim construction that the court imposed on the claim language. [00:06:27] Speaker 02: It's simply not there and it's not supported by the intrinsic record. [00:06:32] Speaker 02: If there are no other questions on issue one, I'd like to shift to issue two, if I could. [00:06:41] Speaker 02: The board, this is the partition fields issue. [00:06:44] Speaker 02: The board made a straightforward claim construction error here when it concluded that claim four's use of the plural fields requires more than one field. [00:06:53] Speaker 02: In a number of cases, this court has applied the rule that after the use of a claim term like plurality, that the plural can include the singular. [00:07:03] Speaker 00: This is just, oh, I'm sorry, somebody else wanted to answer. [00:07:08] Speaker 03: Judge Moore, I was just going to say, I think you stated it correctly just now in oral argument, but you overstated it in your brief. [00:07:16] Speaker 03: You said can include in oral argument, and I don't have any problem with can include. [00:07:22] Speaker 03: Each of the cases that say when a plural is used in a claim, it can include a singular if in context there's evidence that that's what is supposed to happen. [00:07:33] Speaker 03: Like, for example, when one of the cases you cite went on to say one or more afterwards, which clearly indicates the plural was meant to include only one, right? [00:07:43] Speaker 03: So context, context really matters. [00:07:46] Speaker 03: So what is the context in this case? [00:07:49] Speaker 03: Because there's certainly not a blanket rule that plural always includes singular. [00:07:53] Speaker 03: That doesn't exist anywhere in our precedent. [00:07:56] Speaker 03: So what is the context that you think [00:07:59] Speaker 03: drives the otherwise plural word to include singular? [00:08:06] Speaker 02: Sure, Your Honor. [00:08:07] Speaker 02: I think the context here is that the patent as a whole makes it clear that this partition table serves a purpose which is mapping, right? [00:08:17] Speaker 02: And the reason that it has two partitions is to allow information to appear on one side related to the first network connection and on the other side related to the second network connection. [00:08:28] Speaker 02: That's all that the significance that the patent provides. [00:08:32] Speaker 03: And if you look at... Well, I don't, Counsel, if there's more. [00:08:35] Speaker 03: I don't disagree with you that the patent doesn't explain why you would necessarily benefit from or need more than one field. [00:08:43] Speaker 03: But its disclosures do have more than one field. [00:08:46] Speaker 03: Figure three, for example, shows that when you're looking to the embodiment with information fields, there are multiple fields. [00:08:55] Speaker 03: So there are no embodiments [00:08:56] Speaker 03: in this patent that have articulate only, for example, a single field and purport to be the invention. [00:09:02] Speaker 03: I agree there is no articulation of why it would be important to have more than one information field, more than one of them, but that's not usually what is required in order for us to give [00:09:18] Speaker 03: weight or meaning to claim limitations. [00:09:20] Speaker 03: Is there some requirement that I'm not aware of that the spec must justify or explain the necessity of every claim limitation a patentee adopts? [00:09:31] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor, but I think that in light of the patent drafter's choice not to use plurality, it does raise the question of whether there was significance attributed to the use of the simple plural, which the board seemed to apply. [00:09:45] Speaker 03: I'm sorry, I don't understand. [00:09:46] Speaker 03: When you say the patent drafter's choice not to use plurality, they did use plurality. [00:09:51] Speaker 03: They said fields. [00:09:52] Speaker 03: So I don't understand. [00:09:53] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, no, but they didn't use the word plurality. [00:09:56] Speaker 03: which this court has said is... Wait, we have to include the word plurality in their opinion in order for otherwise plural words to be given plural meanings? [00:10:06] Speaker 02: Well, that's the way to lock it up and make it absolutely clear and absent that then it becomes a contextual inquiry. [00:10:11] Speaker 02: And I would like to point you, Your Honor, to... Because I agree that the specification is important. [00:10:15] Speaker 02: So this is Appendix 151, Column 17. [00:10:21] Speaker 02: Um, there's a passage here talking about the mapping table, right? [00:10:24] Speaker 02: In figure six, this starts at line 31. [00:10:27] Speaker 02: Um, and it says figure six is simply one method. [00:10:31] Speaker 02: Um, and then, and it describes it. [00:10:33] Speaker 02: And then that line 45, it says other methods of determining the security gateway to be, or to be used may be employed. [00:10:39] Speaker 02: And then continuing on at 49 to 50, the patent, the specification says the exact details are not relevant to the invention. [00:10:47] Speaker 02: So the invention doesn't turn, there's no inventiveness that's disclosed in this patent in terms of the actual kind of structure of this table, or much less the number of fields that would apply. [00:10:59] Speaker 02: So the context indicates that it serves a purpose, but it doesn't suggest that there's significance to the number of fields. [00:11:09] Speaker 02: And of course, there's a second argument that we have here. [00:11:12] Speaker 03: Which is that even if the claims do... So is your argument then that if the patent doesn't explain the significance of any given claim element, then we can just railroad over that and not really proceed with the understanding that it's actually a limitation? [00:11:27] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor. [00:11:30] Speaker 02: I mean, I think what this court's cases teach is that when a plural word is used in a claim term, that's the beginning, not the end of the inquiry. [00:11:41] Speaker 02: And then you have to kind of roll up your sleeves and look at the patent specification and determine whether there is an indication that that use of the plural was intentional or was something inventive that that patent actually intends to claim only plural. [00:11:56] Speaker 03: The problem with the way you're articulating it is you're assuming that the starting point is that we don't know what a plural word means. [00:12:03] Speaker 03: But in fact, the starting point is we do. [00:12:05] Speaker 03: It's plural. [00:12:06] Speaker 03: Now, in context, if there's evidence that it shouldn't be read as plural, [00:12:11] Speaker 03: then that's fine. [00:12:12] Speaker 03: But all you've pointed to is a lack of evidence that the patentee really considered it significant that it be read as plural. [00:12:20] Speaker 03: That's different from proving there's evidence that it shouldn't be read as plural. [00:12:25] Speaker 02: Your honor, I understand your point. [00:12:27] Speaker 02: And I just think that under Versa and Dayco, they don't really create a presumption one way or the other. [00:12:32] Speaker 02: It's a neutral inquiry. [00:12:33] Speaker 02: And it's a plain, ordinary language question. [00:12:36] Speaker 02: And just like a spreadsheet could have a column for expenses and a column for liabilities, [00:12:41] Speaker 03: You're right, counsel. [00:12:42] Speaker 03: It is a plain and ordinary meaning, and that's the presumption, right? [00:12:45] Speaker 03: The presumption is that words in a claim get their plain and ordinary meaning. [00:12:50] Speaker 03: And when you have a word that's plural, the plain and ordinary meaning of that word is that it involves more than one of those things. [00:12:57] Speaker 02: Well, like in the spreadsheet example that we give in our brief that I was just articulating, I think no one would suggest that if that spreadsheet has only one entry for an expense, that that was somehow not a spreadsheet, even though that column was for expenses. [00:13:09] Speaker 02: In any event, there's a backup argument here, of course, which is that it would have been obvious. [00:13:15] Speaker 03: You're out of time for your main argument, but I really wanted you to touch upon what I'll call your third argument. [00:13:21] Speaker 03: Let's get away from information fields and move to unique identity argument. [00:13:26] Speaker 03: I wanted to hear you address that, please. [00:13:29] Speaker 02: Yes, I'd be happy to. [00:13:30] Speaker 02: The board on that issue erred by failing to recognize that the prior ARC use of tumbling in which an entirely new outside header is placed on a message replaces that message's unique identity. [00:13:42] Speaker 02: And so I think it's critical to focus on the entire phrase, substitute the unique identity with another unique identity. [00:13:50] Speaker 02: The board focused on substitute, but it lost sight of the unique identity part of the element. [00:13:58] Speaker 02: Agreeing with Apple's expert, and this is at page 31 of the appendix. [00:14:03] Speaker 02: It's just a few pages earlier than the discussion with respect to this limitation. [00:14:09] Speaker 02: The board found that the unique identity is the outer IT packet header. [00:14:13] Speaker 02: And MPH agrees, it's common ground in this case, that the prior arts tunneling involves, in MPH's words at page 44 of its brief, adding an entirely new outside header. [00:14:27] Speaker 02: So the old header then becomes encapsulated in the packet, but it's no longer the outside header and therefore it's no longer any part of the unique identity. [00:14:38] Speaker 02: So the new outside header is the new unique identity. [00:14:41] Speaker 02: It has completely replaced the old one. [00:14:44] Speaker 02: So, and it doesn't matter that the old header is still there in some vestigial form in the inner packet. [00:14:52] Speaker 02: It's not part of the unique identity anymore. [00:14:55] Speaker 02: So, I think that there's a basic kind of [00:14:58] Speaker 02: disconnect in the board's order between its description of what counts as the unique identity under these patents and the fact that it was uncontested. [00:15:08] Speaker 02: And this is at page nine of the appendix that the prior art disclosed the unique identity as uncontested that it was the outer headers. [00:15:16] Speaker 02: There's a disconnect between all of that and the board's conclusion that there was no replacement of the... Counsel, let's just touch more again. [00:15:23] Speaker 03: I guess I'm sympathetic to your argument, but my concern is your argument feels to be kind of going head-on against the board's claim construction. [00:15:32] Speaker 03: I know you framed it as substantial evidence, and on appeal, you suggest you're not appealing claim construction, but this feels like exactly the claim construction argument that the board, in fact, resolved. [00:15:44] Speaker 03: Help me understand how it's not. [00:15:47] Speaker 02: Your honor, it's not because the claim construction is of substitute, right? [00:15:51] Speaker 02: So changing, replacing, or modifying, not merely adding to. [00:15:55] Speaker 03: We have no quarrel with that. [00:15:57] Speaker 03: Right. [00:15:57] Speaker 03: But what was the dispute over the word adding to? [00:16:01] Speaker 03: It was adding the header, right? [00:16:06] Speaker 03: This is on page 24 of the board's opinion. [00:16:09] Speaker 03: Conversely, petitioner argued during the oral hearing that adding the header is the same as replacing the header, because at the end of the day, you have a different header than what you had before, a completely different header. [00:16:22] Speaker 03: That feels like exactly the same argument you're making to us today. [00:16:27] Speaker 02: Well, Your Honor, I think they did quote that, but then they go on in a separate, whole separate part of the [00:16:35] Speaker 02: of its order to talk about the argument that we're talking about here, which is even given that claim construction, was this replacement of the unique identity or was it simply added to? [00:16:45] Speaker 02: And I think that the key, there's a key passage of appendix 44 that shows where I think the court, where the board got it wrong, where it said that tunneling is adding something to an existing packet [00:16:59] Speaker 02: They use that phrase in the existing packet. [00:17:01] Speaker 02: But that's not the claim language. [00:17:03] Speaker 02: The claim language is merely adding to the unique identity. [00:17:08] Speaker 02: The old unique identity in the prior art isn't there anymore. [00:17:11] Speaker 02: It's no part of the unique identity any longer. [00:17:15] Speaker 02: It's encapsulated. [00:17:17] Speaker 02: So this isn't simply adding to the unique identity. [00:17:20] Speaker 02: It has been completely replaced. [00:17:25] Speaker 03: Council, you've exhausted all your time. [00:17:27] Speaker 03: I'll restore some rebuttal. [00:17:28] Speaker 03: Let's hear from Mr. Hahn, please. [00:17:31] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:17:37] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:17:38] Speaker 01: May I proceed? [00:17:41] Speaker 00: Yes, please. [00:17:43] Speaker 01: May I please support Brian Hahn for Appellee and Patent Owner and PH Technologies? [00:17:49] Speaker 01: Your Honors, we heard a lot of arguments from Apple today. [00:17:53] Speaker 01: I think Mr. Palmore said there's a common thread here. [00:17:55] Speaker 01: And MPH agrees with that statement. [00:17:57] Speaker 01: And that is that Apple's positions over and over strain the claim language. [00:18:03] Speaker 00: Can you get to the specifics, please? [00:18:05] Speaker 00: Start with the first one, please. [00:18:08] Speaker 01: Sure. [00:18:09] Speaker 01: With respect to the different network address, meeting the claimed same network address, I think Your Honor has touched on a key admission by Apple. [00:18:20] Speaker 01: And this was that the prior actually [00:18:24] Speaker 01: has the message sent to, received at, and forwarded from. [00:18:28] Speaker 01: Well, the Priorit receives and forward messages from different network addresses. [00:18:36] Speaker 01: And if we look at the oral hearing, Apple actually admitted that the packets that are sent from host Y to the server have an address of NB. [00:18:44] Speaker 01: This is at appendix page 636. [00:18:47] Speaker 00: So I took it that Mr. Palmer's point on this is that it really doesn't matter what is in, what address, what destination address like NB is in the message being sent from Y to N. All that matters under this passive voice language of the claim is that the message sent from Y ends up at NA. [00:19:18] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor, I understand that's their argument. [00:19:22] Speaker 00: Why is that wrong as a claim language matter? [00:19:28] Speaker 01: If we look at the claim language, I'm on appendix page 153. [00:19:31] Speaker 01: There are, I think, four elements that line up with the address here in claim one. [00:19:38] Speaker 01: We have the intermediate computer is assigned with the first network address, and then they have the intermediate computer which receives from [00:19:46] Speaker 01: a mobile computer, a message which is sent to the first network address, and later it forwards the payload from the same network address, right? [00:19:57] Speaker 01: So you have to be assigned with the address, you have to receive at that address, it has to be sent to that address, and it has to be forwarded from that address. [00:20:04] Speaker 00: Right, and I think Mr. Palmer, I'm sorry, I think it's Mr. Palmer's point, if I understand it right, is that everything you just said is true of NA in a message coming from Y. [00:20:17] Speaker 01: We wouldn't agree, Your Honor, that the intermediate computer receives messages from the mobile computer at address NA. [00:20:26] Speaker 01: Just like Apple admitted at the oral argument, they're actually addressed to NB. [00:20:32] Speaker 01: So intermediate computer doesn't receive those messages at NA, it receives them at NB. [00:20:39] Speaker 00: And just remind me, where is the claim language that says [00:20:45] Speaker 00: that the intermediate computer has to receive it at the address to which it is sent? [00:20:55] Speaker 01: Sure, this is Appendix 153, Column 22, Line 47, intermediate computer. [00:21:04] Speaker 00: I may be looking at a different TypeScript, so which clause of the claim does that? [00:21:11] Speaker 01: The third clause of Claim 1 of the 494 patent. [00:21:17] Speaker 00: The intermediate computer configured to receive from a mobile computer a secure message sent to the first network address? [00:21:24] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:21:26] Speaker 00: So wasn't N configured to receive from Y a message sent to NA? [00:21:40] Speaker 01: No, I think the message was sent to NB, and Apple's counsel admitted this at the oral hearing. [00:21:47] Speaker 01: The address of the message actually going from the mobile computer to the intermediate computer has an address, NB, not NA. [00:21:55] Speaker 01: So it's not sent to NA. [00:21:57] Speaker 01: It's not received at NA. [00:21:59] Speaker 01: It's sent to NB and received from NB, at NB. [00:22:09] Speaker 00: Okay, I'm done with this. [00:22:10] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:22:12] Speaker 03: Council, can you move on to the fields argument, please? [00:22:15] Speaker 01: Absolutely. [00:22:19] Speaker 01: I guess, first of all, you know, Apple admitted that its first reference, the RSC 3104, didn't disclose any translation table at all, much less one that had a partition with multiple fields. [00:22:31] Speaker 01: So it relied on the secondary reference, Grabelsky, and the Figure 21. [00:22:37] Speaker 01: This is at Appendix Page 1918. [00:22:40] Speaker 01: which did not disclose two partitions, each with information fields. [00:22:45] Speaker 01: And I think as Your Honors recognized, Apple cited no support from the patents that information fields can be singular, and that's because there's not a single embodiment here in the patents that have a single information field. [00:22:58] Speaker 01: I think we looked at Figure 3. [00:23:00] Speaker 01: Figure 5 is also plurality of information fields. [00:23:05] Speaker 01: And even Figure 6, which Apple raised in its opening argument, [00:23:08] Speaker 01: as a plurality of information fields. [00:23:12] Speaker 01: Apple also raised some case law here, but significant is that Apple actually admitted to the board that it cited no case law at all to support interpreting fields as singular. [00:23:23] Speaker 01: This was during the hearing at Appendix 6. [00:23:25] Speaker 03: Council, that's not really a very persuasive argument. [00:23:28] Speaker 03: Claim construction is a question of law. [00:23:31] Speaker 03: You're suggesting if Apple didn't cite a case to me that tells me how to construe the law, I can't construe it that way. [00:23:37] Speaker 03: I can't look to that case. [00:23:38] Speaker 03: The fact that they didn't cite particular cases isn't relevant, really. [00:23:42] Speaker 03: It's not very helpful. [00:23:46] Speaker 01: Understood, Your Honor, but Apple is trying to turn this into a claim construction issue, but Apple only actually saw the construction of the term unique identity below and responded to MPH's constructions of mobile computer and substitute. [00:24:00] Speaker 01: So first of all, this was a fact finding by the court that the prior didn't have information fields, and I think Apple is trying to secure de novo review on this issue by arguing that it's a claim construction issue, but this is reviewed for substantial evidence. [00:24:14] Speaker 01: Even the cases that it's citing now for claim construction like the VersaCorp case, I think Your Honor's recognized that what those cases say is that context matters a lot. [00:24:25] Speaker 01: In the VersaCorp case, the claim construction was on the air channels and whether air channels was plural or singular. [00:24:32] Speaker 01: I think the court ultimately found that air channels could be singular in that case because there are embodiments with singular and plural air channels. [00:24:40] Speaker 01: And that's just not the case here because every embodiment has a plural [00:24:45] Speaker 01: information fields. [00:24:47] Speaker 01: I think we also talked about whether or not the patents described some significance to the plurality of information fields. [00:24:56] Speaker 01: And if I could direct Your Honor's attention to Column 9, this is Appendix 147, and Lines 4 through 26 discuss the information fields. [00:25:10] Speaker 01: At around Line 12 it says, [00:25:12] Speaker 01: The translation occurs by identifying the translation table entry by comparing against one partition and mapping into the other. [00:25:20] Speaker 01: If you look at the addresses and SPI values here, when you have that plurality of information fields, then you can take each of those values in one partition and map them into the second partition. [00:25:37] Speaker 01: It goes on in that paragraph to talk about traffic flowing in both the forward and the opposite direction. [00:25:42] Speaker 00: I'm sorry. [00:25:42] Speaker 00: I'm sorry. [00:25:43] Speaker 00: This is Judge Toronto. [00:25:46] Speaker 00: You can map from one space to another even if the second space is tiny and tinier than the first space. [00:25:54] Speaker 00: I don't see why plurality of the first space implies plurality of the second space just because there's a mapping. [00:26:05] Speaker 01: Well, if we look at [00:26:07] Speaker 01: Apple's prior art, figure 21 on Appendix, page 1918, this is Apple's alleged two-partition table. [00:26:17] Speaker 01: And if, take your honors example, you look at one value on the left side, which was Apple's first partition, the network address, if we look into the right side of the table, which they alleged is the two columns of SPI values, [00:26:31] Speaker 01: there is no address on the right side to map into. [00:26:35] Speaker 01: You can't map the address from one side into the address on the other side. [00:26:38] Speaker 01: That's what's lacking when you have only a single information field. [00:26:44] Speaker 01: There isn't enough values on both sides of the table to provide information about the secure connection. [00:26:51] Speaker 01: I think this is why Apple's spreadsheet analogy also fails because [00:26:57] Speaker 01: The claims say these are information fields related to a secure connection, so there's context there. [00:27:02] Speaker 01: You do have a plurality of information fields that provide the information about the secure connection. [00:27:09] Speaker 01: Apple says, well, it's like saying a spreadsheet has a column for expenses and a column for assets, and no one would expect that it's not a spreadsheet just because you identify one expense or one asset. [00:27:21] Speaker 01: But I think a more applicable analogy would be [00:27:24] Speaker 01: a spreadsheet that has a column for expenses relating to a business and a column with assets related to the business. [00:27:32] Speaker 01: I think few people would expect that you would have only one expense or one asset for a business. [00:27:41] Speaker 01: If there's no further questions on this issue, I'd like to turn to the substitute limitation. [00:27:47] Speaker 01: This is the 494 patent claim two and the 362 patent claim three. [00:27:53] Speaker 01: As Your Honors noted, the Board construed this limitation to mean changing or replacing or modifying but not merely adding to. [00:28:01] Speaker 01: And Apple's Priority Tunnel Packet clearly involves adding an outer header. [00:28:10] Speaker 01: If we look at Appendix page 1190, this is the RSC 3104 reference. [00:28:17] Speaker 01: It states if N is able to find a matching mapping, it tunnels the packet [00:28:22] Speaker 01: to X according to the tunneling mode in effect. [00:28:26] Speaker 01: And the Grubelsky reference clearly, the secondary reference clearly says that tunneling is adding an outer header. [00:28:35] Speaker 01: There's a very good reason that Apple sought the claim construction for this particular claim limitation, and that's because the patents repeatedly disparage the use of adding extra packets to the headers. [00:28:51] Speaker 01: If I could direct the Court's attention to Appendix Page 145 of Columns 5 and 6 of the 494 Patent, Column 5, Line 33 says, the above method, and this is a prior art method, solves the mobility problem at the cost of adding extra headers to packets. [00:29:17] Speaker 01: In Column 6, Line 21 says, [00:29:20] Speaker 01: To summarize, the known solutions either employ extra tunneling, causing extra packet size overhead, or use separate tunnels, and it goes on. [00:29:30] Speaker 01: Line 65, it says, in the method of the invention, there is no extra encapsulation overhead as in the prior ART methods. [00:29:38] Speaker 01: So again, there's a very good reason why NPH sought and received that claim construction, and Apple is absolutely trying to circumvent that claim construction here by saying, well, [00:29:50] Speaker 01: We're adding an outer header, but adding that is really replacing it. [00:29:53] Speaker 01: It's really not. [00:30:01] Speaker 01: I'm happy to address any additional questions by the court. [00:30:06] Speaker 00: Can I just double check on this unique identity? [00:30:13] Speaker 00: What I hear from your argument and had taken away from the patent is that the patent is very clear that it is doing something from tunneling. [00:30:25] Speaker 00: Everybody understands and indeed I think everybody agrees here that tunneling takes the previous set of information bits, encapsulates it, puts a new outer header on it. [00:30:38] Speaker 00: So whatever is going on with, [00:30:41] Speaker 00: with and the argument about claim construction was that can't be what is being talked about with the substitute, the unique identity, which seems like a very strong point, even if it's the case that the unique identity is nothing but the unique tag, which is the outer header. [00:31:05] Speaker 00: And that is different between the resulting and the starting message. [00:31:11] Speaker 00: just an override of what one would take in the absence of the discussion of tunneling from the simple language, even of the claim construction itself. [00:31:24] Speaker 00: Have I understood that right? [00:31:30] Speaker 01: As I understand it, you're characterizing it. [00:31:34] Speaker 00: The new outer header is different from, which is the unique identity or identifier, which is different from the previous one. [00:31:43] Speaker 00: That's not adding to the previous one, it's replacing it. [00:31:48] Speaker 00: But that seems to be exactly what tunneling does, which the claim construction was meant to distinguish as [00:31:56] Speaker 00: because the spec means to distinguish it. [00:31:58] Speaker 00: Is that the lay of the land for this issue? [00:32:05] Speaker 01: Yes, I think that's correct, Your Honor. [00:32:11] Speaker 03: Okay, thank you, Mr. Hahn. [00:32:12] Speaker 03: Hearing no further questions, Mr. Palmore will restore your three minutes of rebuttal time. [00:32:19] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:32:20] Speaker 02: On the first issue, the source address issue, [00:32:23] Speaker 02: I think it's critical to note that the language does not use destination address. [00:32:28] Speaker 02: It does not require that the message be addressed to the first network address. [00:32:35] Speaker 02: All that's required is in the passive sense that it be sent to the network address. [00:32:40] Speaker 02: And again, it's undisputed that this message in the prior ARC is sent to NA. [00:32:47] Speaker 02: Is it sent there indirectly? [00:32:49] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:32:51] Speaker 02: But it is sent there nonetheless, and it was the board's erroneous claim construction. [00:32:56] Speaker 00: And just to be clear, you would agree or you would resist the notion that not only is it sent indirectly, it's sent by a different sender? [00:33:08] Speaker 02: I would disagree with that, Your Honor, because the whole point in the prior art [00:33:12] Speaker 02: was to get that message into address field A, right? [00:33:16] Speaker 02: It was an intermediate computer that was doing routing over the internet. [00:33:20] Speaker 02: So it is sent there by the mobile computer. [00:33:23] Speaker 03: I don't think that's actually a requirement. [00:33:25] Speaker 03: Is this kind of your argument? [00:33:26] Speaker 03: Am I understanding it right? [00:33:27] Speaker 03: So at my dinner table, I got four kids. [00:33:29] Speaker 03: And if Billy's on the end, and I say, please pass me the potatoes, and he hands them to Bobby, he hands them to Matthew, he hands them to Katie, he hands them to me, they were sent to me by Billy. [00:33:38] Speaker 03: Now, I didn't receive them by Billy necessarily. [00:33:41] Speaker 03: I received them directly from Katie, but you think they were nonetheless sent by Billy. [00:33:45] Speaker 03: Is that your argument? [00:33:48] Speaker 02: Exactly, yes. [00:33:49] Speaker 02: They were sent to you by Billy. [00:33:50] Speaker 02: And also important is they were just sent to you in the passive voice sense because you received them. [00:33:57] Speaker 02: And that's all that the claim language requires. [00:33:59] Speaker 03: Well, no, the claim language... That's not all the claim language requires. [00:34:02] Speaker 03: The claim language requires that it has to receive from a mobile computer a secure message sent to the first network address. [00:34:10] Speaker 02: Right, the intermediate computer itself has to be configured to receive from a mobile computer. [00:34:16] Speaker 02: Right. [00:34:16] Speaker 02: But then the next part, which is what we're talking about, is a secure message sent to the first network address. [00:34:21] Speaker 02: It doesn't say sent to by the mobile computer. [00:34:24] Speaker 02: I think even if it did, it would be satisfied here, but it doesn't say that. [00:34:30] Speaker 02: On the second issue, [00:34:33] Speaker 02: I think the board, contrary to what MPH's counsel said, was clearly doing claim construction. [00:34:41] Speaker 02: The board said the name of the game is the claim. [00:34:45] Speaker 02: It said it rejected Apple's argument [00:34:48] Speaker 02: that, and this is Appendix 46, that the limitation here refers only to the type, not to the number of fields. [00:34:56] Speaker 02: And Apple was clear all along that it was making a claim construction argument, and the board rejected that claim construction argument. [00:35:04] Speaker 02: And just because we didn't ask for claim construction at the outset doesn't mean that that's not what happened here. [00:35:11] Speaker 02: And as I've mentioned, of course, there's a second argument on fields, which is even if it does require plural [00:35:18] Speaker 02: that it would have been obvious to add a second field. [00:35:24] Speaker 02: There's nothing inventive or remarkable about having multiple fields in a partition and a table. [00:35:31] Speaker 02: And in fact, the prior art table has multiple fields on one side. [00:35:36] Speaker 02: And so it would have been unremarkable to add multiple fields on the other. [00:35:40] Speaker 03: And finally on the third element of... No, Mr. Palmore, you heard I gave you extra time. [00:35:45] Speaker 03: You used all your time. [00:35:46] Speaker 03: Mr. Hahn used less than all his time. [00:35:48] Speaker 03: And you don't just go on finally well after the buzzer reach. [00:35:51] Speaker 03: At least you would have said if the court would permit it, I'd like to address one more point. [00:35:55] Speaker 03: But since you didn't, your argument is over. [00:35:59] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor.