[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
We originally had four cases this morning.

[00:00:02] Speaker 02:
The fourth case has been rescheduled.

[00:00:06] Speaker 02:
So we begin with number 20, 2059, Cup Computing AS versus Trent Micro Inc., Mr. Hanna.

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:00:29] Speaker 00:
it please the court.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
May I proceed?

[00:00:32] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:00:35] Speaker 00:
Your honors, this is a case in which the board failed to construe a key term that is at dispute between the parties.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
And that term is the word implemented.

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
And it's used within the phrase implemented on a trusted network.

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
Now, I'd like to

[00:00:58] Speaker 00:
briefly go through the system that we're talking about here in the 164 patent to tell you why that this term is so important and why it needs to be construed.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
So if you look at figure three of the 164 patent, which is found on appendix 97, it's also page five of our opening brief, what you'll see there is you'll see an exemplary security system.

[00:01:26] Speaker 00:
And on that,

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
A diagram, you have a security administrative system, the IT administrative system at 325.

[00:01:36] Speaker 00:
You have the network security system at 320.

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
And what the claims require is policies that are implemented on the trusted network by the IT administrator on the security administrative system.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
That's 325.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
And then additional policies are configured based on that implemented policy in the network security system or the mobile security system.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
So you have two different systems, the IT administrative system that has its policies, and then you have the network security system that also has policies that are configured based on those.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
doesn't have the IT administrative system at all.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
It simply does not have it.

[00:02:30] Speaker 00:
And so what the petitioner had to do was say that the policies that are implemented are in the mind of the administrator.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
I thought Grooval specifically talked about having identical policies on the trusted network and on the mobile network.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
If it does not.

[00:02:49] Speaker 02:
What about gate 95, com, well, left hand com?

[00:02:56] Speaker 02:
While our security management systems may enforce certain functions or security parameters consistently across disparate or heterogeneous clients and network?

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, but there is no IT administrative system that has those security policies and that you have security systems that are based on those.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
You might have mobile devices

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
that might have some security policies.

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
But the issue here is an IT administrative system that's on a trusted network.

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
And you have to have policies on there.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
And they have to be implemented.

[00:03:31] Speaker 00:
And the petitioner's position in this was that those policies could be in the mind of the administrator.

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
And so we came up with a construction based on their expert's testimony, based on the common dictionary, Merriam-Webb dictionary, based on the intrinsic record.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
And we said implemented means you have to put it into effect.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
You have to put the policy into effect on the trusted network.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
Are you saying that the petitioner or the board said that the policy is implemented if it only resides in the mind of the IT administrator?

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
What they said was that element is met by the mind of the IT administrator.

[00:04:12] Speaker 00:
Yes, but they never told us what implemented meant.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
But it seemed pretty clear that they did not mean at least that if it simply resided in the head of a human being, they did not seem to be arguing and the board did not seem to be persuaded that that would satisfy implemented.

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
Do you disagree with that?

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
I would not disagree with that, and that's why we need a construction.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
That's why we have this inconsistency in the construction is that we said it means it has to be put into effect.

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
The board at APX 14, they simply said, it does not mean it has to be put into effect.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
What does it mean to be put into effect?

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
The policy.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
What does it mean to be put into effect?

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
That you actually have to put the policy so that it's going to be able to be used on the trusted network.

[00:04:58] Speaker 00:
Be able to be used?

[00:05:00] Speaker 00:
It has to be used on the trusted network.

[00:05:02] Speaker 00:
Not be able to be used.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
I'll be specific.

[00:05:04] Speaker 00:
I apologize.

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
To be used on the trusted network.

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
It has to be implemented.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
If I'm going to implement a policy, that means that policy has to be in effect.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
You have to do it.

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
You have to be able to base something off of it so if I have a policy on it on an administrative system I can take my security system and say okay I'm going to configure my policies based on that implemented policy and That makes sense in the context of this patent because that's what they're trying to do.

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
They're trying to increase the efficiency

[00:05:35] Speaker 03:
Can I just ask for clarification about something?

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
So when I'm looking at Figure 3, there's the squiggly line that separates the trusted enterprise from the non-trusted.

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
And there are both, 325 and 320, are on the left-hand side, seemingly on the trusted

[00:05:55] Speaker 03:
enterprise.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
The claim language, you've been talking about how a policy needs to be implemented on 325.

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
Why isn't it enough for it to be implemented on 320 or anything else on the west side of the squiggly line?

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
Well, I think that as long as the claim language implemented on the trusted enterprise network.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
So anywhere in on that anywhere.

[00:06:24] Speaker 03:
Does this make any difference?

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
The answer to my question.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
Well, it makes a difference in that all parties agree and the board said that there's three separate

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
components that have to be there.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
You have to have an IT administrative system that's separate from the network security system, separate from the mobile device.

[00:06:41] Speaker 00:
I think that that's the board.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
In your view, would it be enough?

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
Well, is it right to say that a policy, one of the IT administrators' policies, it's enough under the claim language that it would be implemented on the network security system 320, even if it were not implemented on the security administration system 320?

[00:07:08] Speaker 00:
No, not per the claim language.

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
It has to be implemented on the IT administrative system as well.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, where do you get that by the way?

[00:07:15] Speaker 00:
So if I look at claim one, claim one and the element that says be at least a portion of the security code, and if you go down to line 22,

[00:07:30] Speaker 00:
It talks about data being managed by one or more information technology administrators using an IT administrator system on a trusted network.

[00:07:40] Speaker 03:
But the implemented language is the language at the end, right?

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
It's referred to an antecedent basis.

[00:07:46] Speaker 03:
So then one or more policies implemented by the one or more administrators on the trusted enterprise network.

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
I'm not understanding

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
whether it's crucial to your argument to say, as you, I think, repeatedly have been saying this morning, that it has to be implemented on 325, that it's not enough that it be implemented under 320.

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
And I don't really see that in the claim language.

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
I think I see what you're pointing at, Your Honor.

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
As long as it's implemented on two devices, then at two separate devices,

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
then I think it needs the claim language.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
Does that answer your question?

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
It has to be on an IT administrative system.

[00:08:28] Speaker 00:
And then you have to have policies that are configured based on that implemented policy.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
And so the reason that I keep saying implemented on the trusted network is because that's just the language of the claims.

[00:08:39] Speaker 00:
It says implemented policies on the trusted network.

[00:08:43] Speaker 00:
So it has to be on two separate devices that those policies are implemented.

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
And the second policy has to be configured on the other policy that's put into effect.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
And by the board not construing this term, we have no idea what it means.

[00:09:02] Speaker 02:
And so we have to go to the... But Grimloll shows common policies on the trusted network and the mobile device, doesn't it?

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
on a mobile device, but nothing on an IT administrative system.

[00:09:13] Speaker 00:
And then you don't have anything in growing wall that shows a separate system.

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
It does show identity of policies, right?

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
It does show policies.

[00:09:22] Speaker 00:
But it never shows two different systems in which you have a policy, and then you have another policy that's configured based on that.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
So you need to have these two.

[00:09:34] Speaker 00:
You actually have to have three separate systems here.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
The crux of the matter here is, if you have a policy that's implemented, what does that mean?

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
And that means it's put into effect.

[00:09:47] Speaker 00:
It can't just be in the mind of the administrator.

[00:09:49] Speaker 00:
It has to be something that he... They agree with that.

[00:09:51] Speaker 02:
That's not a mission.

[00:09:54] Speaker 00:
I don't think they agree with that.

[00:09:55] Speaker 02:
I think that they... It doesn't have to be just in the mind of the administrator.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
I mean, if you look at their brief, starting even in the summary of the argument on page 9, they say that the policies can be in the mind of a person.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
Right, but they don't say it's implemented in the minds of a person.

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
I think we already went over that.

[00:10:14] Speaker 04:
You know, we'll have a chance to ask them, but can you focus us on if you're right that implemented

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
only and always means put into effect, why is that not disclosed in Grown and Doll?

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
Because Grown and Doll, if it has to get to have two separate systems, that you have a first system that the policy is implemented on, then you have a second system that configures policies based on that, and then you have a mobile device that is actually going to end up receiving the protection.

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
So you have these three different systems.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
If you accept our construction of put into effect,

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
then Grunendahl does not teach the two separate limitations of having an implemented policy and then policies being configured to do that because Grunendahl only discloses one policy.

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
It only discloses an IT administrator setting up one policy and then those policies going to mobile devices.

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
It never has a separate system in which an IT administrator implements a policy for the network

[00:11:17] Speaker 00:
And then another system that's going to take that policy, configure that, and then pass that to a mobile device.

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
If you look at Grunendahl, you see a server, and then you see mobile devices that are connected to it.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
Do you agree that Grunendahl shows using identical policies on the trusted network and the mobile device?

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
I would not phrase that a little bit differently.

[00:11:40] Speaker 00:
I would say that Grunendahl discloses having policies for mobile devices.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
But that is, you're looking at just something that's sending policies to the mobile devices.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
You don't have an IT administrative system at all.

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
You don't have that third piece of the puzzle.

[00:11:58] Speaker 00:
And that's what this introduces.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
That's why this introduces the efficiency, because I can be an IT administrator, implement my policies on the network, and then it automatically gets pushed to the network security systems, which then can push those to the mobile devices.

[00:12:15] Speaker 00:
And so that's where I get the efficiency from, is that I can be an IT administrator and set up my policies and everything is going to reflect that.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
Grunendahl doesn't have that at all.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
Grunendahl is, I can set up a policy and push it to mobile devices, but it has no notion of protecting a network or configuring policies based on that implementation.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
And so to answer your question, Your Honor, if you accept our construction, which is a reasonable construction, but put into effect,

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
The only reason they have is to complete the two different limitations of the IT administrative system and the network system.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
They have to complete those two.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
And that's simply missing from the records.

[00:13:02] Speaker ?:
OK, you want to save your rebuttal?

[00:13:03] Speaker 00:
Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:07] Speaker ?:
Mr. Pershing?

[00:13:09] Speaker ?:
May I proceed, Your Honor?

[00:13:12] Speaker 02:
Yeah, you're not sick, are you?

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
The mask prevents ventilation from getting in.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
I am perfectly healthy, I assure you.

[00:13:24] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
I'm Robert Berge for Trend Micro.

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
As an initial matter, CUP counsel said that the policies of the configured slash implemented limitation have to be implemented on the IT administrator system.

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
That's false.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
The claim language doesn't say that.

[00:13:44] Speaker 01:
What the claim language says is that they have to be implemented on the trusted enterprise network.

[00:13:50] Speaker 01:
So as an initial matter, any implementation on the trusted enterprise network is fine.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
Moreover, if we're looking at that limitation closely, the implementation actually doesn't even have to be on the trusted enterprise network.

[00:14:07] Speaker 01:
The language says is implemented by the one or more IT administrators on the trusted enterprise network.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
And there's a principle of basic grammar where an adjective phrase like on the trusted enterprise network is presumed to modify the most recent noun.

[00:14:25] Speaker 01:
In this case, that's IT administrators.

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
So it's the IT administrators that have to be on the trusted enterprise network, not the implementation.

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
That last point actually doesn't make a difference for purposes of Groen and Dahl because Groen and Dahl does disclose an implementation on the Trusted Enterprise Network.

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
I just wanted to point that out so that we interpret the limitation entirely precisely.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
Did the board make that second point about what exactly the phrase on the Trusted Enterprise Network modifies, whether it's the administrator or

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
If I remember correctly, I believe that was at least implicit in the board's decision.

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
Cup Council also argued that the prior art, Groenendahl, doesn't disclose an IT administrator system.

[00:15:21] Speaker 01:
That also is false.

[00:15:22] Speaker 01:
Groenendahl absolutely does disclose an IT administrator system, which is

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
Computer 104A combined with GUI 116.

[00:15:30] Speaker 01:
And when I say GUI, that's the acronym GUI, which stands for Graphically User Interface.

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
Those are shown in Groenendahl's Figure 1.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
Cup Council argued that Groenendahl doesn't disclose policies on the IT administrator system.

[00:15:46] Speaker 01:
And again, the policies don't have to be on the IT administrator system, as I just explained.

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
But Groenendahl does disclose that.

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
as the board found when the IT administrator inputs settings and policies into the GUI 116.

[00:16:08] Speaker 01:
Those are an implementation in the GUI.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
The reduction of a policy in the mind of the IT administrator into the GUI is an implementation of that GUI.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
And the board found in four different places in its final written decision

[00:16:26] Speaker 01:
that entering settings into the GUI is an implementation.

[00:16:31] Speaker 01:
In our briefs, we cite those four places.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
They're on appendices, pages 30 to 32, if I remember correctly.

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
So the board confirms that Grunendahl does disclose an IT administrator system where there are policies that are implemented.

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
CUP Council argued that the phrase implemented needs construction.

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
That's not correct.

[00:17:00] Speaker 01:
It's a plain English word.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
It doesn't need construction.

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
Not all claim terms need construction.

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
And additionally, if it were to be construed, to put into effect construction that CUP proposes,

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
is not well supported.

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
That phrase does not come from the intrinsic evidence.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
It doesn't come from the specification or the prosecution history.

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
It also doesn't come from any extrinsic evidence.

[00:17:23] Speaker 01:
It doesn't come from a dictionary or a treatise or a publication.

[00:17:29] Speaker 01:
For lack of a better word, it comes from thin air.

[00:17:31] Speaker 01:
It's not supported by any document.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
If we were to adopt that construction,

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
Grown-and-All still discloses the configured implemented limitation under CUBS Construction.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
In particular, and we set forth two ways, that's true in our briefs.

[00:17:55] Speaker 01:
The first way is, again, when the IT administrator inputs settings into the GUI and hits the Finish button,

[00:18:05] Speaker 01:
Those policies are put into effect because as soon as the administrator hits finish, those policies are the operative policies.

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
For a trusted network?

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
For a trusted network?

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:18:17] Speaker 01:
In particular, for Trusted Network 112, which is the trusted enterprise network shown in Groen and Dahl's Figure 1.

[00:18:31] Speaker 01:
Those policies take effect on that network, in part because Grown Adults discloses that the mobile devices can move in and out of that trusted network.

[00:18:39] Speaker 01:
In figure one, there are three mobile devices at the bottom that are shown outside of the trusted network.

[00:18:43] Speaker 01:
But Grown Adults says they can move inside the trusted network, too.

[00:18:46] Speaker 01:
And that's not surprising, because they're mobile devices.

[00:18:49] Speaker 01:
They can move around.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
And so the policies take effect on that trusted network.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
And they impact all mobile devices that may happen to be on that network.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
Grundel also disposes giving effect to those policies outside the network, but that's a separate conversation and not necessary to show the limitation is satisfied.

[00:19:09] Speaker 01:
So I outlined one way that the limitation is satisfied if we assume that implemented means put into effect.

[00:19:21] Speaker 01:
The second way that we outline

[00:19:23] Speaker 01:
in our briefs is Groenendahl's sending certain selected security profiles 150 and configuration profiles 152 to mobile devices.

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
When Groenendahl does that, it is selecting which profiles to send based on the superset of profiles that are stored on the server.

[00:19:47] Speaker 01:
And the superset of those profiles are policies that are implemented.

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
Those policies are put into effect.

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
They're stored on the server, 102, and they're given effect.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
I don't think there's any dispute about that.

[00:19:59] Speaker 01:
And so the particular profiles that are sent to the client are configured based on that superset of policies, thereby satisfying the limitation.

[00:20:09] Speaker 01:
So there are two alternate ways that Grunendahl discloses this limitation.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
If we adopt the put into effect claim construction,

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
Did the board say that, or is that just your position?

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
That is trend micro position.

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
The board did not reach those mappings because it didn't need to, because it didn't adopt the put into effect construction.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
In fact, it rejected the put into effect construction, which was the correct result.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
It said that construction is not necessary.

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
And can you clear up the mind of the administrator issue?

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
Did you or the board argue that?

[00:20:45] Speaker 04:
something meaningful to the claim limitations can happen solely in the head of the IT administrator?

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
Yes, Trend Micro did argue that, and that argument was narrowed.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
to one particular word, which is the word policies.

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
And to be clear, I'm talking about the word policies as it appears in the phrase, one or more policies, not to be confused with the claims recitation of policy earlier in the claim when it talks about.

[00:21:12] Speaker 02:
Well, you're not suggesting that a policy is implemented solely in the mind of the administrator.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
Not at all.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
Not at all.

[00:21:18] Speaker 01:
If we just start with a policy and take this in very small steps, the policy by itself could be in the mind of the administrator.

[00:21:24] Speaker 01:
An implementation, of course, cannot just be in the mind of the administrator.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
But if we start with a policy, everything starts with a policy in someone's mind.

[00:21:32] Speaker 01:
In the briefs, we give the example of a company saying that its employees can't access social media.

[00:21:39] Speaker 01:
That is a policy in the mind of the administrator.

[00:21:42] Speaker 01:
Of course, it may be implemented elsewhere.

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
But just that idea, that rule, if you will, starts as a policy in the mind of the administrator.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
Then the next baby step is to see if that policy is implemented.

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
And it has to be implemented.

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
under this limitation, and the implementation would require it to be stored in computer memory somewhere.

[00:22:07] Speaker 01:
Again, in the case of Grunendahl, that could be entering the policy into the GUI, the GUI-116.

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
It could also be the GUI propagating it to server 102, and then server 102 propagating it to all the mobile devices and giving an effect throughout the entire system.

[00:22:28] Speaker 04:
Is there a dispute about the policies having to be stored in memory?

[00:22:36] Speaker 01:
If Your Honor is referring to the one or more policies?

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:22:44] Speaker 01:
I don't think, well.

[00:22:53] Speaker 01:
I don't think there is and here's why I say that.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
Both parties agree that the implementation has to be stored in memory somewhere.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
So both parties agree that the policies eventually have to be stored in memory somewhere.

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
I think the parties do dispute whether, if you're looking at just the word policies,

[00:23:19] Speaker 01:
Those can be in the mind of the, in someone's mind.

[00:23:24] Speaker 01:
Trend Micro's position is that policies by themselves, not necessarily implemented, can be in the mind of the administrator.

[00:23:30] Speaker 01:
I think.

[00:23:31] Speaker 04:
So you would say they don't have to be stored in memory.

[00:23:35] Speaker 04:
They can just be passing through a human's memory.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
Just the policies, correct.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
And again, just the policies, not the implementation of the policies.

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
And will this implementation require storage?

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
The implementation does require storage somewhere.

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
That could be storage in the GUI itself.

[00:23:52] Speaker 01:
It could be storage on the server.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
But somewhere there has to be storage for there to be implementation, correct?

[00:23:58] Speaker 03:
Did your argument depend on or did the board's findings depend on treating the policy's entry into the GUI itself full stop as

[00:24:17] Speaker 03:
the implementation that meets the limitation?

[00:24:22] Speaker 01:
I think the board did find that entering the policies into the GUI by itself is an implementation.

[00:24:29] Speaker 01:
That is what the board found and I think that's correct.

[00:24:33] Speaker 03:
But is that because the finish button makes, is this pre-finish button?

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
I think the board found that pre-finish button, it is an implementation and I also think the board found that post-finish button, it's a further implementation.

[00:24:49] Speaker 03:
And the post-finish button sends the rules that the policy calls for outside the GUI to something that the interface is communicating with that will then operate in a certain way.

[00:25:11] Speaker 01:
Exactly right.

[00:25:11] Speaker 01:
In particular, the GUI will.

[00:25:14] Speaker 03:
There's something a little bit uncomfortable

[00:25:17] Speaker 03:
About talking about implementing a policy on the piece of paper by which I mean GUI That it will in turn be used for something else before it's ever used for something else But I'm gathering you're saying that's not a necessary part of the board's reasoning

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
I understand Your Honor's point and correct that it's not a necessary part of the board's reasoning if the court is uncomfortable with the assumption that merely entering settings into the GUI is an implementation by itself.

[00:25:55] Speaker 01:
I think the board went further and the board found that the propagation of the rules to the server 102 and then the rest of the system also was an implementation.

[00:26:13] Speaker 02:
Anything further?

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
Nothing further, Your Honour, thank you.

[00:26:30] Speaker 00:
I'd just like to pick up where the council left off.

[00:26:34] Speaker 00:
He was talking about the notion of entering it into the GUI as being the policy that's implemented before hitting the finish button.

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
This is why the construction of implemented is important because that policy has not been put into effect.

[00:26:50] Speaker 00:
I don't think any reasonable person would say that entering items into a GUI before you hit the finish button is putting something into effect.

[00:27:01] Speaker 00:
And the problem with continuing it is if you hit the finish button, those are the second set of policies that the board mapped to the claims.

[00:27:11] Speaker 00:
not the implemented policies on the trusted network.

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
Those are the configured policies.

[00:27:16] Speaker 00:
And so that's why you have this issue of conflating the claim limitations.

[00:27:21] Speaker 00:
Because once you hit that Finish button, they map that to the second set of policies.

[00:27:27] Speaker 00:
And so it's this first set of policies, this implemented policies, is why we need a construction.

[00:27:33] Speaker 00:
And that's what we haven't heard today.

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
We haven't heard a construction.

[00:27:37] Speaker 00:
From the from trend micro we haven't heard it from the board and we need that construction and if you use the construction that is in common use as You know set forth by trends micros expert at 32 84 appendix 32 84 in the Merriam-Webster dictionary of 3190 supported by the specification that a PPX 107 and 110 is

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
All of those show that implementation means put into effect.

[00:28:03] Speaker 00:
It's not simply filling out a GUI.

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
I mean, you can make an error on the GUI.

[00:28:07] Speaker 00:
You could do something else, and then the administrator could fix it.

[00:28:12] Speaker 00:
But before you hit finish, it's not reasonable to say that that is implemented.

[00:28:22] Speaker 00:
We're done unless you guys have any questions.

[00:28:26] Speaker 02:
Thank you.