[00:00:00] Speaker 02: Our final case, argued case this morning, is Microsoft versus Unilock 2021-2039. [00:00:07] Speaker 02: Good morning, Mr. Mason. [00:00:11] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:12] Speaker 00: Thank you for your patience. [00:00:13] Speaker 00: I was just waiting for a former appellant to clear the table. [00:00:20] Speaker 02: We heard a lot about Apple in the previous cases. [00:00:23] Speaker 02: This case deals with Apple. [00:00:26] Speaker 00: And I was going to make that clear. [00:00:27] Speaker 00: I'm not going to discuss Apple today. [00:00:30] Speaker 00: Only app fell with an app. [00:00:32] Speaker 00: So if I misspeak, please humor me. [00:00:36] Speaker 00: May it please the court. [00:00:38] Speaker 00: Here, the prior art app will disclose as a compatibility check that compares a potential upgrade and the board erred in finding otherwise. [00:00:47] Speaker 00: So I can invite the court to appendix 371. [00:00:50] Speaker 00: This is APFL column 9. [00:00:51] Speaker 00: There are two passages in APFL which illustrate the court's error. [00:00:55] Speaker 00: APFL column 9 leaves no doubt that APFL assesses compatibility. [00:00:59] Speaker 00: If we look at lines 36 to 40, it discusses that line 36, quote, different update packages for different version combinations, different operating systems, and different languages. [00:01:11] Speaker 00: And so here, APFL is not just providing any upgrades. [00:01:17] Speaker 04: one of them compatibility general I mean certainly Apple teaches you have to make sure it's compatible but the board went through and looked at it and said you haven't proven that Apple does the steps in the same way the patent does the patent does it a certain way and [00:01:37] Speaker 04: And APFL has some general disclosures. [00:01:39] Speaker 04: And you also argued inherently, which baffles me because the board freaks out when you use the word inherently. [00:01:46] Speaker 04: But they just said, these are the steps in the claim. [00:01:49] Speaker 04: It requires these three things. [00:01:50] Speaker 04: You don't show specifically that it does these three things, just generally that APFL does a compatibility check. [00:01:57] Speaker 04: Why isn't that right? [00:01:58] Speaker 04: Why isn't that enough to say you haven't shown APFL renders this obvious? [00:02:04] Speaker 00: So the decision here by the board hinged on this term compatibility. [00:02:10] Speaker 00: And at the board, there was not a dispute, as the parties didn't brief or didn't argue, whether the compatibility in Apple involved a comparison. [00:02:18] Speaker 00: The focus by Unlock at the board was whether compatibility [00:02:24] Speaker 00: was done at all by APFL. [00:02:25] Speaker 00: And that's if we look at Appendix 17 in the board's final written decision, it says, APFL only determines that a new upgrade is available, not that there is a known compatible upgrade available. [00:02:38] Speaker 00: And again, at Appendix 20, it says, [00:02:41] Speaker 00: at lines one through six, Apple only describes providing an upgrade package and does not describe that the available upgrade is compatible. [00:02:51] Speaker 00: And so here, I don't think there's been any dispute that the compatibility is one type of comparison. [00:02:57] Speaker 00: It's a type of comparison. [00:02:58] Speaker 00: So when Apple performs its compatibility check, it's performing a comparison. [00:03:04] Speaker 00: And we submit that Apple column 9 leaves no doubt here as to the compatibility. [00:03:11] Speaker 00: But if we also look at Apple column 7, which the board did not squarely address. [00:03:15] Speaker 04: I mean, I think you're missing part of the board's analysis when you just focus on the compatibility. [00:03:23] Speaker 04: They go in detail about the determining the component and all of that and the specific ways it does that compatibility check. [00:03:32] Speaker 04: say you haven't shown that Apple does it that way. [00:03:36] Speaker 04: I mean it's not just does Apple have a cap compatibility check. [00:03:39] Speaker 04: If it did you would win but I don't think that's the way the board looked at it. [00:03:43] Speaker 04: They looked at here's three or four different steps from the patent and it has to do these and it doesn't do at least one or two of these. [00:03:52] Speaker 04: And it's not one of those isn't just a compatibility check. [00:03:55] Speaker 04: It's specific things about determining components and then comparing that components to upgrades and determine whether compatible. [00:04:02] Speaker 04: And that's I think what the board said. [00:04:04] Speaker 04: Apple doesn't necessarily do this way. [00:04:07] Speaker 04: And it explains how Apple does it in a different way. [00:04:11] Speaker 04: Well, I might not agree with that, but it has a reasonable reading of this that seems to me supported by evidence. [00:04:20] Speaker 04: So why, under the standard of review here, which is all substantial evidence, shouldn't we affirm? [00:04:27] Speaker 00: Well, because at full column seven, [00:04:29] Speaker 00: I mean, the board did have to hinge its decision on the specific claim language, namely the determining step and the comparing step. [00:04:36] Speaker 00: And so I understand it walked through that language. [00:04:37] Speaker 00: But its decision hinged on this finding that there is no compatibility check. [00:04:42] Speaker 00: And I think the way that Atfold does this check and when it does the compatibility comparison is clear in column 7, which the board did not squarely address. [00:04:50] Speaker 00: At column 7, which is appendix 370, [00:04:54] Speaker 00: This explains what the Apple server does when it gets the request. [00:04:57] Speaker 00: And I think that the key here is the board misunderstood how the Apple server processes this request. [00:05:03] Speaker 00: So column seven, appendix 370, line 13 says, the servers are responsible for assessing two things, right? [00:05:09] Speaker 00: They first assess upgrade availability, right? [00:05:13] Speaker 00: So do I have something available that is an upgrade to the requested component? [00:05:17] Speaker 00: Okay, now I have an available component. [00:05:18] Speaker 04: And then it says- Wait, where does Apple identify a specific component that it requests an upgrade for? [00:05:24] Speaker 04: When it sends it to the server, I thought that's one of the problems Is that Apple just asked for are there upgrades available in general not is there an upgrade for this component? [00:05:34] Speaker 00: Well to the extent the board's decision hinged on that that that's also an error by the board because the claims that themselves do not require That the request specify a component that is one example from figure one of the patent I think if we look at figure one, which is that appendix 36 of the challenge 08 a patent? [00:05:54] Speaker 00: It does show, and this is the upper left-hand corner, the box labeled 20. [00:06:00] Speaker 00: It says it wants a specific upgrade to A, version 2.0. [00:06:04] Speaker 00: But as we pointed out in our briefing, the request in the 08A patent may not specify a particular upgrade. [00:06:13] Speaker 00: And that's made clear at column 4, appendix 40. [00:06:18] Speaker 00: If we look at column four, line 56 to 59, it states, other types of requests which may be processed by the reconfiguration manager, 10, of figure one, include requests for an upgrade to a particular device feature. [00:06:33] Speaker 00: So that's not requesting a specific upgrade. [00:06:35] Speaker 00: And I don't see anything in the claim. [00:06:37] Speaker 04: Why isn't that requesting a specific upgrade if it's asking for an upgrade to a specific feature? [00:06:42] Speaker 00: It's saying upgrade this feature, but unlike figure one, it's not saying upgrade this feature to version 2.0. [00:06:50] Speaker 00: What's missing in this, you know, what the 08 contemplates is I could just say, please update my web program. [00:06:57] Speaker 00: And then it will go out and say, [00:06:59] Speaker 00: Okay, do I have updates to this current version available? [00:07:03] Speaker 00: Okay, I do have some updates, then I'll see if they're compatible. [00:07:05] Speaker 00: Apple does the same thing. [00:07:06] Speaker 00: If I tell Apple, please update, and I think this is illustrated in the example discussed in the gray brief, Apple will say, please update my web authoring program. [00:07:17] Speaker 00: And in response, the server says, OK, do I have a web authoring program upgrade? [00:07:22] Speaker 00: Yes, I do. [00:07:23] Speaker 00: And then Apple column 7 leaves no doubt, is that upgrade compatible? [00:07:27] Speaker 00: It checks the compatibility there. [00:07:29] Speaker 00: And so Apple is doing this in the same way as the 08A pattern. [00:07:32] Speaker 04: So you're saying that the determining at least one device component language in claim one, which the board discusses throughout, doesn't actually require determining at least one device component. [00:07:44] Speaker 00: Oh, I mean, certainly the processor, once the request is received by your database server or your processor. [00:07:50] Speaker 00: I mean, if we look at claim one, it's a processor implemented method, right? [00:07:54] Speaker 00: So this is a processor carrying out this method. [00:07:57] Speaker 00: It receives the request, and then the processor determines it. [00:08:00] Speaker 04: By the way, why did you argue inherency here? [00:08:02] Speaker 04: Why didn't you just argue, as a general matter, AFEL teaches this? [00:08:05] Speaker 04: Well, so, and I- When you use the word inherency, the board is going to look through the prior art in specific [00:08:11] Speaker 04: specificity and say does this have the exact same precise steps and if it doesn't they're going to reject it as not inherent. [00:08:20] Speaker 00: Yes, I understand it. [00:08:22] Speaker 00: We understand that inherency has a higher standard and is a red flag at the board. [00:08:25] Speaker 04: You need to try to board down a bad path here. [00:08:27] Speaker 04: That's what they key their language and their entire decision off of. [00:08:30] Speaker 00: But I think a key distinction here is we argued inherency, but only as to the specific types of lists recited in the claim. [00:08:38] Speaker 00: The claim recites known good lists and known bad lists. [00:08:42] Speaker 00: And what we said that Apfel expressly discloses [00:08:45] Speaker 00: is some type of comparison. [00:08:47] Speaker 00: And we said, it's inherent that you've got to have a known good list, or you've got to have a known bad list if you're going to do that comparison. [00:08:53] Speaker 00: But the board misunderstood that inherency argument, because Atfield does expressly disclose the comparison. [00:09:01] Speaker 00: We discussed our blue brief at page 20. [00:09:03] Speaker 00: We explained how we argued inherency only as to the list's aspect of the claims. [00:09:09] Speaker 00: The board never reached that aspect of the claims. [00:09:11] Speaker 00: It said, does the compare look at an available upgrade? [00:09:15] Speaker 00: It said, there's no compatibility check. [00:09:16] Speaker 00: You can't be comparing an upgrade to anything. [00:09:19] Speaker 00: Hard stop. [00:09:20] Speaker 00: We're not going to look any further. [00:09:23] Speaker 00: It may have couched it as inherency in its final written decision, but the issue it was deciding, we had not presented as inherency. [00:09:30] Speaker 00: And so what this court should do is reverse and find that Apple does disclose comparing an available upgrade to determine its compatibility. [00:09:39] Speaker 00: And then the board can determine what- Well, how can we reverse? [00:09:43] Speaker 04: Why don't we just make it- Yeah, excuse me. [00:09:45] Speaker 00: You'd reverse on that issue and then remand for the board to fully consider the actual inherency argument that was presented. [00:09:52] Speaker 04: Well, wouldn't we just remand altogether? [00:09:54] Speaker 04: I mean, the board has done a very confusing job of making its arguments. [00:09:58] Speaker 04: Your arguments are a little confusing to me, too. [00:10:01] Speaker 04: But to the extent they didn't look at that one passage you cited, shouldn't we just send it back for them to look at that? [00:10:07] Speaker 00: Absolutely. [00:10:08] Speaker 00: I mean, at the very least, the court should remand for the board to consider and directly address that passage in column seven, lines 13 to 19. [00:10:17] Speaker 00: Because there's no way to read that passage other than that app [00:10:20] Speaker 00: Determines your available upgrade and then compares that upgrade to determine its compatibility Apple does a compatibility check. [00:10:29] Speaker 00: I see I'm just about at my Time so if there's no further questions, I will reserve the remainder for rebuttal. [00:10:35] Speaker 02: We will save it for you. [00:10:40] Speaker 01: Thank you Morning may I please record [00:10:45] Speaker 01: This court should affirm the judgment of the board for two straight. [00:10:49] Speaker 03: I look at page 22 of the board's decision, and the bottom of the page, citing columns 7, 13 to 19, I see a description by the board itself that at full describes a compatibility check. [00:11:07] Speaker 03: And when I look at the patent and the description, the written description, it seems to be exactly the same. [00:11:14] Speaker 03: For example, if you look at column four, beginning at line 28. [00:11:19] Speaker 03: So if they do a compatibility check, what's the problem here when they seem to do it exactly the same way in APFL as the specification describes doing it here? [00:11:34] Speaker 01: It's incorrect to say that they're doing it exactly the same way. [00:11:38] Speaker 03: You agree that Apple describes a compatibility check, right? [00:11:44] Speaker 01: No, we disagree with that. [00:11:45] Speaker 01: We disagree. [00:11:46] Speaker 03: The board seemed to think it did. [00:11:49] Speaker 03: It describes it exactly that way. [00:11:50] Speaker 03: It says, stating that Apple would not allow the download of a version of the web authoring component that is incompatible with the computer. [00:11:59] Speaker 01: Right, at the bottom of page 22. [00:12:02] Speaker 03: That's describing a compatibility check. [00:12:05] Speaker 01: The server would not allow the download of versions that do not match the query. [00:12:09] Speaker 01: So the board looked at Apple. [00:12:15] Speaker 03: How can you say that Apple doesn't describe a compatibility check when the board itself described it as doing a compatibility check? [00:12:24] Speaker 01: But the board was very clear that, OK, [00:12:28] Speaker 01: If they do a compatibility check, it's clear under the board's decision that they don't do it in the way that it is claimed. [00:12:38] Speaker 03: How is it that it's not in the way it's claimed? [00:12:41] Speaker 01: Because the claims have two separate steps. [00:12:45] Speaker 01: where you determine the component that's needed in order to implement the requested reconfiguration. [00:12:54] Speaker 03: Where does the specification describe two separate steps? [00:12:56] Speaker 03: When I read column four, line 28, it seems to me that it's describing exactly what Apple does. [00:13:03] Speaker 03: For example, reconfigure manager first determines whether a special upgrade is compatible. [00:13:09] Speaker 03: That doesn't sound like two separate steps. [00:13:12] Speaker 01: So you're asking where in the specification of the 08A patent? [00:13:17] Speaker 03: Yeah, the specifications seem to describe a process that's identical to what happens in Apple. [00:13:25] Speaker 01: Column 2, line 34 to 41 talks about the reconfiguration manager determined focus on [00:13:39] Speaker 03: the part of column four that I showed you. [00:13:43] Speaker 03: That column is identical to ATFIL, isn't it? [00:13:48] Speaker 03: Where it describes the compatibility check. [00:13:50] Speaker 01: Column four of the 088 patent? [00:13:52] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:13:54] Speaker 01: But you asked me where does ATFIL, or sorry, where does the 088 show that the determination is a separate step from the comparing? [00:14:04] Speaker 03: I'm asking you to look at this description in column four beginning on line 28. [00:14:09] Speaker 03: the for example paragraph, which seems to describe a process which is identical to APFL. [00:14:18] Speaker 01: But the claim as written is different than the way that APFL discusses it. [00:14:24] Speaker 03: So the specification is not describing what happens with the claim? [00:14:27] Speaker 01: No, the specification is describing two different things. [00:14:31] Speaker 01: What what you're looking at is you can ask for a particular component, but then he also Just identified another Disclosure in in the OAA No, I don't agree with that because [00:14:59] Speaker 01: Even though in column four, you're telling in the request, I want to upgrade a particular component, it still then has to do a comparison of that component with another component and a list of known [00:15:28] Speaker 01: compatible configurations and a list of unknown compatible configurations. [00:15:32] Speaker 04: But isn't that what Apple is doing? [00:15:34] Speaker 04: I mean, all of this is very, very, I mean, you kept using the word clear. [00:15:40] Speaker 04: But I don't think there's anything clear about this case. [00:15:43] Speaker 04: Apple sends in a request for an update. [00:15:46] Speaker 04: And whatever manager they have there looks at what updates are available and determines which one configurations are compatible and sends it back. [00:15:55] Speaker 04: If you let me ask you this to clear is the basis for the board's decision Finding this not obvious that Apple doesn't do a compatibility Determination or that it doesn't do it in the same way that the patent does and if it's Show me where that is in the board's decision The the board in in pages 16 to 26 on every single page [00:16:24] Speaker 01: They address Microsoft's argument that there is a compatibility check. [00:16:30] Speaker 01: And they repeatedly find that Apple doesn't do a compatibility check in the way that the claim requires. [00:16:40] Speaker 03: So you agree that the board found that Apple does a compatibility check. [00:16:46] Speaker 01: What I'm saying is... No, no, answer the question. [00:16:49] Speaker 01: No, I don't believe the board found that they did a compatibility check. [00:16:53] Speaker 04: Well, so your answer to my question is the basis for the board's decision is that there's no compatibility check in APFL. [00:16:59] Speaker 04: Not that it's not done in the same way. [00:17:02] Speaker 04: It's one or the other. [00:17:04] Speaker 01: I think there's two answers to that. [00:17:07] Speaker 04: They don't believe... Well, the first answer is clearly wrong because APFL does a compatibility check. [00:17:12] Speaker 01: But by saying somehow compatible, [00:17:15] Speaker 04: That's how can you determine something is compatible without doing a compatibility check? [00:17:21] Speaker 01: There's only compatible or incompatible is used once in the entire specification. [00:17:28] Speaker 01: It uses. [00:17:31] Speaker 04: I think these are not. [00:17:33] Speaker 04: Kind of if this then if not this and that arguments it Apple either The basis for the board's decision is either that Apple doesn't do it at all or it doesn't do it in the same way as the patent Which is it that it doesn't do it in the same way as the patent? [00:17:49] Speaker 04: Okay, and and what supports that? [00:17:53] Speaker 04: because the language in the specifications sure seems to Suggest that it does it in a very similar way to at all well [00:18:03] Speaker 01: It's really undisputed that Apfel does one search and no further comparison on that component. [00:18:14] Speaker 01: It does its lookup, it identifies a component, and there's no further comparison on that component. [00:18:22] Speaker 01: And the board's repeated emphasis was- What further comparison does the patent do? [00:18:33] Speaker 01: The 08A patent? [00:18:36] Speaker 04: That's what we're talking about, isn't it? [00:18:37] Speaker 01: OK. [00:18:39] Speaker 01: In column two, lines 34 to 45, it explains that it identifies the component. [00:18:54] Speaker 01: It determines the component, then compares the needed and currently implemented components with a previously stored list of known [00:19:03] Speaker 01: acceptable and unacceptable configurations. [00:19:07] Speaker 01: That completely mirrors the claim language, where there is a determination step and a separate comparing step. [00:19:17] Speaker 01: The determination step determines the component that's needed. [00:19:22] Speaker 01: And then the next step compares the determined component. [00:19:28] Speaker 01: How can you compare a component that hasn't yet been determined [00:19:32] Speaker 01: So it does a separate comparison of the determined component with other components and these lists of known, acceptable, and unacceptable configurations. [00:19:45] Speaker 03: So where does the board say that that's the problem here, that there are no two separate steps? [00:19:51] Speaker 03: Repeatedly. [00:19:52] Speaker 03: No, no. [00:19:53] Speaker 03: Don't give me repeatedly. [00:19:54] Speaker 03: Show me. [00:19:55] Speaker 04: Sure. [00:20:13] Speaker 01: Page 19, almost the end of the first paragraph. [00:20:20] Speaker 01: We do not see how Apfel further discloses comparing this newer version, the determined component, with information B and C of the comparing step. [00:20:31] Speaker 03: OK, but that's not quite the same thing as saying it has to be two separate things. [00:20:36] Speaker 03: That they're saying that they're that at Phil is not meeting the the claim as written No, it's just that that's true But I don't see where the board says the problem here is it doesn't do it in two separate steps particularly when the L88 PAC itself describes a process that doesn't involve two separate steps and [00:21:07] Speaker 01: Well, the claim requires two separate steps. [00:21:11] Speaker 01: And the logic and grammar of the claim requires two separate steps. [00:21:19] Speaker 04: If it requires two separate steps, it doesn't mean they can't be done at the same time, as long as there's a determining and a comparing. [00:21:28] Speaker 01: Well, but again, the board said, how do you do a comparison on a component before it's been determined? [00:21:38] Speaker 01: And so the board very clearly said, you have to determine it and then do a check on it, which Abtl does not do. [00:21:54] Speaker 04: I really don't understand any of this. [00:21:58] Speaker 04: If Appful gets a request to update something, is there an update for, can we just use it? [00:22:05] Speaker 04: These, these determining components and stuff are difficult. [00:22:08] Speaker 04: I mean, it would be help, had been helpful if you'd used examples more specifically. [00:22:13] Speaker 04: Appful, they get a request to update Microsoft Word. [00:22:20] Speaker 04: And then they look at it and they see, and it comes with all the information that that computer has. [00:22:27] Speaker 04: And they look and they say, yeah, we have a new update to that version of Word. [00:22:31] Speaker 04: And doesn't APFL imply that if they're going to send a update back, it has to be compatible with all the component equipment on the computer? [00:22:41] Speaker 01: But APFL never explains or discloses that it does that. [00:22:47] Speaker 01: It says somehow compatible. [00:22:49] Speaker 03: And the board's own description says that's what it does. [00:22:53] Speaker 03: It says stating that Apple would not allow the download of a version of the web authoring component program that is incompatible with the computer. [00:23:02] Speaker 03: That's the board's own description of Apple. [00:23:05] Speaker 01: Incompatible with the query sent by the computer. [00:23:09] Speaker 01: The distinction is. [00:23:10] Speaker 03: No, it doesn't say with the query. [00:23:12] Speaker 03: It says incompatible with the computer. [00:23:16] Speaker 01: You're looking at the bottom of 22. [00:23:17] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:23:19] Speaker 01: The server would not allow the download of versions that do not match the query information sent by the computer, citing 17.13.3.19. [00:23:30] Speaker 04: But isn't the query information from the computer? [00:23:33] Speaker 04: Here's the update we're looking for, and here's all the other information you need to know to determine whether one is available and compatible? [00:23:41] Speaker 01: It determines is it available, and the most that APFL [00:23:49] Speaker 01: discusses about compatibility is somehow compatible. [00:23:53] Speaker 03: No, no. [00:23:55] Speaker 03: You ignored the language I read to you from the bottom of 22. [00:23:58] Speaker 03: This describing Apple itself and the parenthetical stating that Apple would not allow the download or version of the web authoring component program that is incompatible with the computer, not with the query, incompatible with the computer. [00:24:17] Speaker 03: That's the board's own description. [00:24:20] Speaker 01: And I'm saying that that can't be read in isolation to the proposition that it's citing for immediately before. [00:24:31] Speaker 03: Do you agree that this describes a compatibility check, that parenthetical? [00:24:39] Speaker 01: I agree with the board that this is going towards the query. [00:24:43] Speaker 03: Does the parenthetical describe a compatibility check? [00:24:51] Speaker 01: No, it describes, is it going to download something that is not consistent with the query? [00:25:00] Speaker 03: No, it says with the computer, doesn't it? [00:25:03] Speaker 01: And the query has the information about the computer. [00:25:07] Speaker 01: And so I think the disagreement here is that the board felt that [00:25:17] Speaker 01: The lines in 1713 through 19 was talking about the query, not about a compatibility check, as is done in the claims in Apfel, where there is a determination. [00:25:32] Speaker 01: And then after the determination, there is a comparison of that with these other items. [00:25:43] Speaker 01: nowhere in Atfield where they do this comparison of these four different items. [00:25:50] Speaker 01: If there are no more questions, thank you, Your Honor. [00:25:53] Speaker 02: Thank you, Mr. Cummings. [00:25:55] Speaker 02: Mr. Mason, you have five minutes if you need it. [00:25:59] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:26:00] Speaker 00: I think Judge Dyke hit the key points. [00:26:02] Speaker 00: The board itself agreed that Apple performs a compatibility check. [00:26:06] Speaker 00: And it did not square that with its findings elsewhere that Apple somehow does not compare. [00:26:11] Speaker 00: And I think also important is that Apple does this. [00:26:14] Speaker 04: Is there a difference between comparing in the specific way the patent asked it to be done and a compatibility check? [00:26:22] Speaker 00: No, there's no difference. [00:26:24] Speaker 00: A compatibility check is a type of comparison that was never an issue at the board. [00:26:28] Speaker 00: That's not been an issue in the briefing before this court. [00:26:30] Speaker 00: They're the same thing. [00:26:31] Speaker 00: They're synonymous. [00:26:33] Speaker 00: And also, to that point, I think Judge Dike pointed to column four of the 088 patent, which also discusses doing this in the same way that Apfel describes doing it. [00:26:42] Speaker 00: So Apfel's compatibility check here [00:26:46] Speaker 00: makes clear that it satisfies the claim elements, and the board erred in finding otherwise. [00:26:51] Speaker 00: I think Unalak Council pointed to column two. [00:26:57] Speaker 00: I think that's summary of the invention, but I think the important part of the 088 patent, the important part is column four, describes this being done in the same way as ATFL. [00:27:07] Speaker 00: This court should reverse, going back to the point of reversal, this court should reverse [00:27:13] Speaker 00: on the question of whether Apple describes a compatibility check. [00:27:17] Speaker 00: And then I think the remand is for further proceedings. [00:27:20] Speaker 00: At the very least, however, the court should remand for a consideration of this compatibility check disclosure in Apple column 7. [00:27:28] Speaker 00: And again, I want to reiterate, Apple column 7 describes two things happening. [00:27:32] Speaker 00: One, is my upgrade available? [00:27:34] Speaker 00: So if I'm looking for an update to my app, [00:27:41] Speaker 00: my Word program, my document editing program. [00:27:46] Speaker 00: It will check first, do I have an available upgrade for that specific program? [00:27:50] Speaker 00: And then Apple says, the next step is, is that particular upgrade compatible with my system? [00:27:56] Speaker 00: And only then will it download. [00:27:57] Speaker 00: So it describes the two steps. [00:28:00] Speaker 00: And so if there are no further questions, I rest my case. [00:28:04] Speaker 02: Thank you, counsel. [00:28:05] Speaker 02: The case will be taken under submission. [00:28:08] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:28:08] Speaker 02: And this concludes our arguments for this morning.