[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Our final case this morning is number 21-1438, IPA Technologies versus Google, Ms.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Momber.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
The evaluation of reasonable pertinence is a problem-driven analysis, and it requires the articulation and comparison of the problem confronted by the patent and the reference.

[00:00:26] Speaker 03:
Here, the board legally erred when it failed to articulate any problem solved in the 128 patent and invention, which integrates known GPS technology and speech recognition into the inventor's agent architecture.

[00:00:39] Speaker 03:
Second, the record does not and cannot support that a skilled artisan would have reached for the Steiner reference, which relates to handheld personal digital assistance with a GPS antenna and solving the 128 patent and invention.

[00:00:54] Speaker 03:
This alone is grounds for reversal.

[00:00:57] Speaker 03:
The board did not articulate any problem solved by the one-to-eight patent invention, nor could it, because quite simply, there was not a new problem or challenge solved in the one-to-eight patent.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
The one-to-eight patent issued from a continuation in part.

[00:01:13] Speaker 03:
The Avengers took their distributed agent architecture, cleaned in the parent application, and added GPS.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
This addition extended the benefits of the inventive architecture and capitalized on the problems already solved by the new architecture.

[00:01:29] Speaker 03:
The very benefit of the inventive distributed agent architecture allowed for it to be dynamically expandable, allowing for the integration of limitless agents written in different programming languages to be added to one system and used to efficiently accomplish user tasks.

[00:01:47] Speaker 03:
In short, these things were accomplished by registering agents and their capabilities with a facilitator using a common language, thus allowing limitless agents to interact through the facilitator to accomplish user tasks in an efficient manner.

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
In the CIP, the inventors here specifically added a GPS agent for location ascertainment to their inventive architecture.

[00:02:11] Speaker 03:
Embodiments disclosed provided for various agents, including user interface agents,

[00:02:17] Speaker 03:
natural language agents, and location-aware agents providing positional information using GPS.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
All of this, the patent discloses, improves the mobile user experience.

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
Many embodiments are disclosed, which show the benefits to the user by allowing drivers and passengers to interact with the navigation system and communicate.

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
But the 1-2-A patent didn't solve a new problem.

[00:02:42] Speaker 03:
It merely took the distributed agent architecture

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
And again, added GPS.

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
The board stated that the one-state patent in the invention includes a, quote, location ascertainment aspect.

[00:02:55] Speaker 03:
And that's in Appendix 24.

[00:02:57] Speaker 03:
But in aspect, the invention does not meet the reasonable pertinence test, which requires that the actual problem in the patent must be articulated and then compared to the problem in front of the Steiner reference.

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
Here, the patent explains that

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
GPS was known, that it was a new technology, it was known, it was available in cars already.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
There was no problem in integrating GPS.

[00:03:25] Speaker 03:
The patent doesn't talk about any issues or concerns with integrating that new agent into the architecture.

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
And it, again, explains that it was well known.

[00:03:37] Speaker 03:
And this also was corroborated by Google's own expert, Dr. Olson.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
So if GPS is new,

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
then how can the addition of GPS make the thing non-obvious?

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
If GPS isn't new and wasn't a problem that had to be solved, why is the addition of GPS in the 128 patent an addition that's non-obvious?

[00:04:11] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, this is a perfect example of a situation which comes up time and again in patent law, which is where there is a, this is a new combination of known elements.

[00:04:26] Speaker 03:
And we cannot get to an obviousness discussion in this case unless and until we... But you're saying the prior art isn't relevant because it's not addressed here.

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
You're saying the prior art's not relevant because it's not addressed to a problem.

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
that was solved by the patent.

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
And at the same time, you're saying the addition of GPS helps to make this patentable.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
It's a little inconsistent.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, it's not inconsistent if you consider that these inventors invented this ancient architecture.

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
The ancient architecture itself is an established priority date in 1999.

[00:05:03] Speaker 03:
The inventors filed a continuation in part, which merely added

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
in combination with known technology.

[00:05:12] Speaker 03:
The novelty of this invention is still within the agent architecture itself.

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
They nearly thought to add the GPS component to their architecture, which was already patented and which this patent relies on the priority dates for.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
Polaris and other cases in this court consistently

[00:05:35] Speaker 03:
to the fact that often patents are new combinations of known components.

[00:05:42] Speaker 03:
And that's exactly this case, except that the known component of the agent architecture was actually the inventor's invention.

[00:05:50] Speaker 03:
And they capitalized on that and expanded it and extended it by adding in an additional agent, which was GPS.

[00:06:01] Speaker 03:
They were the only ones that could do that because the architecture itself was

[00:06:05] Speaker 03:
patented, and it was their patent.

[00:06:10] Speaker 03:
Does that establish our belief that this is not inconsistent, or do you have further questions?

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
Go ahead.

[00:06:19] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
As I indicated, Google's own expert, Dr. Olson, testified that GPS was well known to the public, that this was not special knowledge of one skill in the art.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
He stated that GPS was publicly known.

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
It was in the public eye.

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
It quote, it was not in, that's an appendix, 6661, lines one through five.

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
He was very clear that this was not, GPS alone was not a special knowledge known to one skilled in the art.

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
And that is exactly the problem here.

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
Where we're considering whether or not a reference is reasonably pertinent

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
to one skilled in the art, we have to consider whether a skilled artisan would have reasonably consulted the reference in solving the relevant problem confronted.

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
And here there is no indication that a skilled artisan, or indeed anyone, would have consulted the sign-art reference when faced with what the inventors were doing in the 128 patent, which was taking their distributed agent architecture with the facilitator

[00:07:35] Speaker 03:
the common language and integrating that with other known components such as GPS and natural language agents.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
There's no challenge confronted in the 128 pattern that would logically require a proposal to reach for Steiner to help them solve.

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
Put another way, the commonality between Steiner and the 128 pattern and the only commonality is GPS.

[00:08:03] Speaker 03:
But GPS was well known by the public at large, and in fact, as stated in the patent itself, it was already available on Mars.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
There is nothing to cause a skilled artisan to reach outside of the field of endeavor here, which the board found is that distributed agent architecture to look at a reference relating to personal digital assistance with smart antennas and GPS.

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
And if the court doesn't have any further questions, I'll turn it over to my opponent.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
Malmberg.

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
Mr. Modi?

[00:08:45] Speaker 00:
Good morning again, Your Honors.

[00:08:47] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
The board correctly determined that Snyder is analogous art under the reasonably pertinent test.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
In fact, as this court knows, this is a question of fact.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
Substantial evidence more than supports the board's decision.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
So if you look at the board's decision, we believe it's well-reasoned and again supported by substantial evidence.

[00:09:06] Speaker 00:
The board started with laying out the legal standard.

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
You can see that at 819, it recognized that it had to address and find the problem, identify the problem in the patent and in the prior art.

[00:09:17] Speaker 00:
And then the board said it looked at the evidence and basically concluded that Google had met its burden.

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
The board started with the disclosures of the 128 patent.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
You can see that at 820.

[00:09:28] Speaker 00:
The board noted that this patent 128 is a continuation in part and what was added to this patent was the concept of adapting OA to a mobile computing environment with GPS.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
Judge Dyke, as you pointed out, that was precisely what they were trying to do with this patent, and the board recognized that.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
The claims and the specification recognized that.

[00:09:49] Speaker 00:
The addition here was the idea of adding GPS and location ascertainment.

[00:09:54] Speaker 00:
The board turned to the state of the art.

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
It looked at the Martin reference, which was the main prior art reference here.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
They recognized that

[00:10:01] Speaker 00:
that that reference taught the distributed architecture already.

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
So what was left was the location ascertainment aspects.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
So then the board basically rejected their view that the reasonable pertinent problem

[00:10:15] Speaker 00:
here is directed to only distributed agent architecture.

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
And then it concluded, it looked at Steiner, said Steiner also pertains to the same problem and that on appendix A24 to 25, the board said Steiner is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the 128 patent and would have commended itself to one seeking to solve the problem.

[00:10:35] Speaker 00:
Both are concerned with adapting a computing system to a mobile environment by the incorporation of GPS and the like in order to ascertain the user's location

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
on the electronic map and in fact in doing so the board looked at Dr. Olson's testimony.

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
So the board's decision here is more than well supported and we believe should be affirmed.

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
We also raised the argument that the field of endeavor test also the board should have found

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
the reference analogous.

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
The only thing I want to point out there is IPA asserts that Google should have cross-appealed.

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
We did not need to cross-appeal, Your Honor.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
In fact, it would have been improper to cross-appeal in this case.

[00:11:11] Speaker 00:
So I just wanted to make that point.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
And unless the court has any questions on that issue.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
This is a doctrinal question, more than one specific to the case.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
But some of the language in our cases about what constitutes analogous art focuses very specifically on the problem that this particular inventor was trying to solve.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
How does one square that with the aspect of KSR that quite specifically says that at least obviousness analysis as a whole cannot be limited to what problem the particular patentee was trying to solve, but problems that anybody of skill in the art might have been trying to solve that might have led to this?

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:12:01] Speaker 00:
So Your Honor, I agree with you.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
I think the analogous art, as this court has said, it's looked at broadly.

[00:12:06] Speaker 00:
And I think consistent with KSR, this court should look at broadly.

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
And I think if you look at the specific facts of the case, I think they want to say today that

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
if you bring that to sort of apply that to here, that they're saying, well, the inventors weren't concerned with GPS.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
But that's not what they said.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
So if you look at, for example, in the gray brief three, they said, there's no indication that the inventors would have reached for Steiner in their quest to integrate GPS with the inventive architecture.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
We think that's fatal to their case here, because that's precisely why 104 in a scale would look at Steiner.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
And there was, of course, testimony from Dr. Olson on that point.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
So unless your honors have any other questions, we request that this court

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Moody.

[00:12:49] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:12:49] Speaker 02:
Malmberg?

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honors.

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
If I could just address a couple of issues.

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
Mr. Moody, I pointed to the indication in our brief that this was an integration of GPS, and just because the inventors

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
integrated GPS into their inventive agent architecture, that in itself does not represent a problem.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
There has to be an actual challenge.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
Problem indicates a challenge that the inventors were trying to solve.

[00:13:27] Speaker 03:
And in this situation, there is no indication.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
Google has not pointed to any indication.

[00:13:32] Speaker 03:
There is no indication in the specification, or the file history, or even with Google's own expert, Dr. Olson,

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
that there was any challenge presented with integrating GPS with the ancient architecture.

[00:13:49] Speaker 03:
GPS, again, it was known.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
And in fact, Dr. Olson points out that this, he says, if we go home in GPS, what is the location?

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
Or I just go online and I look it up.

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
Anybody can tell me what my current location is.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
This was not hidden.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
It was not obscured.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
It did not sit in one paper in the corner of the universe.

[00:14:18] Speaker 03:
People knew about it.

[00:14:20] Speaker 03:
So there is absolutely nothing, again, with the fact that just because GPS was integrated with the agent architecture, that this presented any sort of issue, problem, or challenge that would cause one's field in the art to go and look for a way or assistance in integrating it.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
And again, the board's statement

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
that the, quote, problem included a location ascertainment aspect is just not sufficient to articulate a problem under this towards President and Donner, which similarly required a reversal where the board failed to articulate a problem.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
OK, anything else?

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honors, thank you.

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you.

[00:15:13] Speaker 02:
Thank both counsel the case has submitted that concludes our session for this morning