[00:00:00] Speaker 05:
All right, we're ready to proceed.

[00:00:02] Speaker 05:
The next case for argument is 20-2102, mobile pay versus unified patents.

[00:00:10] Speaker 05:
Mr. Mort, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
The court should reverse the board for two primary reasons.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
First, the board erred by failing to articulate a reasonable basis by decoding email by an internet email server

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
does not provide sufficient written description of a pod service capable of decoding received binary data from a mobile device according to the board's view of the third mechanism element of claim one.

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
Second, the board erred by failing to articulate a reasonable basis why combining Tang and the Inuit reference would have a reasonable expectation of success.

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
When combining the two references would render Tang's card reader inoperable

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
for processing credit card swipes.

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
That is, if the court's familiar with the credit card, you can either have a magnetic stripe where you can swipe it or a digital IC that's embedded in there or a chip that the card reader could read.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
If you combine those two references, the Inuit reference has a digital buffer which would interfere with the analog transmission of the swiped credit card data to the device.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
The board provided no explanation of why it would be motivated when it would disable the reference in such a way.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
Mr. Moore, can I ask you about the written description issue?

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
So I understand that third mechanism requires uploading binary data to a cloud service for decoding and that that's been the undisputed construction is that

[00:01:49] Speaker 02:
It has to be capable of uploading binary data to a cloud service for decoding, where a cloud service is a service that's capable of decoding the uploaded binary data.

[00:01:58] Speaker 02:
I'm looking at all of your citations for alleged supportive disclosure of that claim element.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
And all I see is that there's internet connection using TCP IP protocol.

[00:02:13] Speaker 02:
I don't see anything about decoding using cloud or anything like that.

[00:02:17] Speaker 02:
So where do you think is the best place for me to look to for finding that particular disclosure?

[00:02:25] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:02:26] Speaker 00:
And to give, Your Honor, the immediate support would be the expert declaration that we provided, cited on appendix 743 to 744.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
And in Bridgeport, his paragraphs 45 and 46 on appendix

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
744 described that the iPhone has the capability of uploading email to an email server.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
And that when that email server would receive the email, it would then decode the email so that it could determine who the recipient of that email is so that it could store and forward the email to the recipient.

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
Where is the original disclosure in the application?

[00:03:10] Speaker 00:
Yes, as described by our expert, we describe the iPhone as the primary embodiment of the mobile device.

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
You're relying on the disclosure that says the present invention has been illustrated by way of example and not by limitation with Apple's iPhone?

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
That as well.

[00:03:32] Speaker 00:
But also that the iPhone itself.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
So when we dispose the iPhone as an embodiment,

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
A person skilled in the art knows that that comes with all the features and abilities of the iPhone, including the transceiver in the iPhone that's able to upload binary data to a network.

[00:03:51] Speaker 00:
So a person skilled in the art, so perhaps I'll back up.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
Within written description, the requirement is not for us to give a detailed, specific embodiment of all the detail that's there.

[00:04:05] Speaker 00:
We have to disclose to a person skilled in the art

[00:04:08] Speaker 00:
that our person was in possession of the invention.

[00:04:11] Speaker 00:
The invention with respect to element three is simply uploading data to a network.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
The remaining of the claim of the cloud service itself is not a claim element.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
It is something that the phone transmits data to.

[00:04:28] Speaker 00:
What the cloud service does with that data, decoding, is an intended purpose.

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
So if the cloud service decides to just destroy

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
the data and not decoded, we still have the claimed embodiment, which is an iPhone with the card reader and the board stated that's all we're part of that is that it's capable of uploading the data to the cloud service for decoding.

[00:04:54] Speaker 00:
It doesn't have to be decoded, but we certainly have provided evidence in the record by our expert looking at what a person's coding art would see from the disclosure to say,

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
There is an email server that this phone is capable of applying email to, which would be decoded.

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
The board never addressed this support for our written description.

[00:05:18] Speaker 00:
And because of that, they have failed to articulate or negate our claim that we are supported by the written description.

[00:05:32] Speaker ?:
So the additional piece, too, is

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
The board has said that, so Tang gives us the knowledge, and I don't think anybody disputes it, is when an iPhone transmits data to the cellular network using GPRS encoding and further encodes email with TCP IP encoding, that that has to be decoded.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
Tang talks about it encoding the reverse operations.

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
Decoding, the board never describes why

[00:06:03] Speaker 00:
Decoding PCP IP packets or decoding TPRS packets to obtain the underlying data is not decoding It simply says it's not decoding.

[00:06:15] Speaker 00:
I think that that's a failure on the board again to recently articulate a reasonable basis of why We do not have written description support.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
I think that's their burden

[00:06:33] Speaker 00:
So going on to Tang and the combination, and then we briefly.

[00:06:40] Speaker 00:
So the Tang reference discloses a mobile device that's connected to a credit card reader.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
The credit card reader is able to process two types of, or a credit card that either has a chip or a credit card that has a magnetic stripe.

[00:06:58] Speaker 00:
And again, the timing of thinking about the prior art would be the,

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
If you're looking at the combination, you have to be determining that Tang is prior art.

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
Again, contend it's not.

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
But the time of determining the obviousness combination would be our filing date, which I believe was March 10, 2010.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
In 2010, the majority of credit cards did not have the chip.

[00:07:29] Speaker 00:
So the suggestion by,

[00:07:32] Speaker 00:
The petitioner is that you would combine a buffer from Inuit, a digital single-bit buffer in line between the credit card reader and the microcontroller to provide some kind of a buffering effect.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
The problem with that principally is that it would interfere with the microcontroller to receive any analog data from the credit card reader, which would prevent it from reading any or processing any credit cards that only use magnetic stripe

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
The board considered this argument, expressed it, right?

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
And its response was that the test, you've got to look at KSR, and it's not a bodily incorporation combination that's occurring here, and that you are requiring bodily incorporation, right?

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
And how do you respond to that?

[00:08:25] Speaker 00:
Well, it's confusing.

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
So this is a shifting target for us.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
It was argued in the petition that Inouye

[00:08:32] Speaker 00:
and pain would be combined.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
So we demonstrated, I think, quite persuasively that you would not combine these two for many reasons.

[00:08:40] Speaker 00:
So then we had a shift from it, and the argument was, well, we're not going to combine that exact buffer, but this gives you the idea to add a buffer.

[00:08:50] Speaker 00:
The problem is, we don't know what buffer that is.

[00:08:53] Speaker 05:
Well, in addition to what Judge Stoll referred to, I mean, the board had a relatively detailed analysis.

[00:09:00] Speaker 05:
And it credited expert testimony from the other side in terms of the efficiencies would be added.

[00:09:07] Speaker 05:
And we were on a substantial evidence review.

[00:09:09] Speaker 05:
I think you would agree.

[00:09:10] Speaker 05:
So how do we dislodge that based on what I understood, as Judge Stoll, I think, did, that your argument was just that you can't bodily incorporate it all?

[00:09:22] Speaker 05:
And that's the problem.

[00:09:23] Speaker 05:
And that's, in my view, arguably been rebutted by the board, certainly under the substantial evidence test.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
So I have a couple of responses.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
First, the only argument for a benefit argued or presented was the evidence of the experts saying it would be more efficient.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
He didn't describe how this would be more efficient.

[00:09:44] Speaker 00:
He said it would be more efficient.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
So we believe that, first, that's conclusory evidence that does not provide substantial evidence.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
Second, I think that we've demonstrated by the factual record that it's less efficient because it adds a delay of transmitting the data from the card reader to the device.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
Further, the other issue beyond substantial evidence is there's a failure to articulate a reasonable expectation of success.

[00:10:11] Speaker 00:
Even if there is a benefit to combining the two, which we don't agree with, if the combination renders a primary reference

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
inoperable for its intended purpose, that is a suggestion that the combination does not work despite a small benefit.

[00:10:29] Speaker 05:
Mr. Moore, maybe, I'm sorry, this is Judge Prest again, but maybe you can illuminate me.

[00:10:33] Speaker 05:
I didn't see that argument raised anywhere in the blue.

[00:10:37] Speaker 05:
I know you raised it in gray, but was that reasonable expectation of success argument argued in blue?

[00:10:44] Speaker 05:
And if so, can you show me where that is?

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
I would, Your Honor, I don't have the exact site before me, but I believe that that's the government of our argument, but perhaps during the recess.

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
Fair enough.

[00:11:00] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
And I think that I'm just at the edge of my rebuttal, so of my time.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
Let's hear from Miss Marks.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors, and may it please the court.

[00:11:14] Speaker 03:
My name is Jessica Marks, representing Unified Pats in this appeal.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
There are two issues before the court today, and both turn out questions of fact that were heavily scrutinized by the board and decided in unified favor based on substantial evidence.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
First is the question of whether TANQ qualifies as prior art, which depends on whether the Challenge 706 patent can claim priority to its provisional application.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
Specifically, whether the provisional provides written description support for the claim cloud service for decoding the binary.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
Do you think that you could specifically address the points raised by your adversary on written description, specifically why the material that he referred to about the iPhone is insufficient?

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
First of all, I would note that the decoding the email argument is one that wasn't presented in the briefing.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
The arguments that were presented are somewhat similar, but they were pointing to an iPhone with an always-on internet and the use of TCP IP protocol.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
And the board carefully reviewed the provisional's disclosure to find that it fails entirely to mention a cloud service for any decoding function.

[00:12:23] Speaker 03:
The provisional discloses embodiments where it's the mobile device that's decoding the binary data.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
The board specifically considered and rejected MobilePay's arguments that the provisional's application is referenced to and always on internet that uses TCP IP protocols to package data for transmission

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
That doesn't support the claim third magnet.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
Can I just back it up for a second?

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
Because you're saying a lot.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
I want to make sure I understand it all.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
And just slow down a little bit.

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
But one of the things that I think you're saying is that packetization of data, packetizing and depacketizing, is in the TCP IP protocol, where you're just putting together the bits for how they're going to be transferred.

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
That that is not encoding and decoding.

[00:13:09] Speaker 02:
Is that what I hear you to be saying?

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
That is correct, that the packetization and de-packetization of data doesn't suggest the decoding of the encoded data that's in the TCP IP packets.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
That is, there's a fundamental difference between de-packetization for the transmission of data via the internet, which is at most what the provisional discloses

[00:13:31] Speaker 03:
and the decoding of the binary data within those packets by a cloud service, which is what the claims require.

[00:13:37] Speaker 02:
So decoding, just to make sure I understand, that actually takes the data and makes it into something that's differently understood, I suppose, would be one way to look at it.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
Whereas the packetization is simply how you're going to send data in different packages, if you will, along when you're sending it somewhere to the internet.

[00:14:00] Speaker 03:
That is correct.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
And that is what the provisional lacked, but the prior art that we presented added to it and was able to find that element to be disclosed in the prior art.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
And the board made this fact finding?

[00:14:14] Speaker 02:
Did the board make that fact finding that these were different?

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
Yes, they specifically found that Tang's disclosure was not identical to provisional.

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
For example, at the appendix page 60, they explain that different from the provisional application, TANG disposes a transaction server that decodes to recover the transaction data and payment details.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
That is, TANG is decoding the data to recover the data, not just your de-packetization of the data.

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
And then one thing your adversary said was that, I think I heard him say, that doesn't really matter because the claim is just requiring a third mechanism that's configured to upload binary data.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
And then it has a functional language to a cloud service for decoding.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
It doesn't matter what the cloud service is doing.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
That's what I understood him to be saying.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
How do you respond to that?

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
So he did make that argument down below, and the board considered it.

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
rejected it that it was not just a mere intended use because the cloud service for decoding adds limitations.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
As the specification explains, the cloud service implementation changes the operation of the iPhone because then the cloud service decodes the binary data and the phone doesn't need to, so the phone can be relatively dumb.

[00:15:28] Speaker 03:
That section was reviewed at the appendix of the board's final written decision pages 18 through 19.

[00:15:34] Speaker 03:
And that section of the specification that explains how a cloud service for decoding the signals changes the operation of the entire system, that is found at appendix 77, lines 15 through 22.

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
And I would also note that the written description support was also analyzed by both mobile pays and unified experts, and the board found unified experts' testimony to be persuasive on what a person of ordinary skill in the art would clearly conclude if the inventor had invented

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
There's been a lot of discussions on whether the iPhone could possibly have done this, if maybe email somehow does this.

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
Again, this wasn't briefed, but the standard that we're dealing here I think is well articulated in the Lockwood case, which explains that it's not sufficient for purposes of description requirements when combined with knowledge in the art that one would be one to speculate as to the modification that the inventor might have envisioned but failed to disclose.

[00:16:31] Speaker 03:
And that's what we have here.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
We have an iPhone that we're arguing about whether it might have been able to work with a cloud service, but it's not clearly disclosed to Episida that that's what was actually invented.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
The embodiments that were reviewed in the provisional all rely on the receiving mobile device to decode the binary data, which requires a different configuration for the mobile device than is envisioned in the cloud service, which was added when the 706 patent was filed.

[00:16:59] Speaker 03:
Therefore,

[00:17:00] Speaker 03:
With this evidence and others, the board properly concluded that the priority date could not be relied upon and Hank did qualify as a prior heart.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
On motivation to combine, I heard Mr. Mort say that your expert's testimony was maybe conclusory and just said things, it would make things more efficient to have the buffer.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
Do you think that's correct or was there more elaboration?

[00:17:27] Speaker 03:
No, it was not a conclusory.

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
The board considered several times relying on cross-examined testimony in addition to the deposition testimony of the efficiency because it would lead to a more stable staging of the data because it improved data integrity.

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
These were the reasons that the board relied upon.

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
It was not just a mere conclusion that this would be obvious.

[00:17:51] Speaker 06:
In what respect does it increase the data integrity?

[00:17:56] Speaker 06:
Is this to allow more accurate transition from one format to another?

[00:18:06] Speaker 06:
Or in what respect?

[00:18:07] Speaker 06:
Or was that explained?

[00:18:09] Speaker 06:
Or is it implicit in the statement?

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
So it was explained that it allows

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
one piece of data to be held in the buffer while a previous piece of data is being processed.

[00:18:20] Speaker 06:
Right, I understand the buffering, but was it explained, and maybe this goes with buffering, it's just natural to a person of skill in the art, but was it explained that you have an increase in accuracy when you have an effective buffer?

[00:18:39] Speaker 03:
The term accuracy was not reviewed by our expert.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
He relied on the language of efficiency, better data integrity, and more stable staging.

[00:18:51] Speaker 06:
What does that mean in this context?

[00:18:52] Speaker 06:
I guess I'm trying to translate that into lay English.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
deposition in the cross-examination deposition testimony he further explained you know regardless of maybe some minor inefficiencies you might get by adding a buffer because electronically it may add a small delay it improves the efficiencies by not having to swipe the card twice not having to sweep the swipe the card twice did you say okay correct

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
Well, what specifically about better data integrity?

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
What can be explained about that?

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
In what way is it better data integrity?

[00:19:36] Speaker 06:
What does that mean to?

[00:19:40] Speaker 06:
Are you not hearing us?

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
No, I think I heard.

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
So the question is, what does it mean to have better data integrity?

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
Respectfully, I don't think that that was

[00:19:54] Speaker 03:
in further detail in the record that we have.

[00:20:00] Speaker 06:
What would that mean to a person of skill in the art?

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
So I would, again, be speculating because our expert wasn't further asked to further clarify how better that integrity meant to him.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
But he did testify on how that would be a desirable trait.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
And that would be one reason why you would combine a buffer

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
into the tank system.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
And after considering the expert testimony from both sides, the board credited our expert as having the persuasive position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
And they also noted the Distar Textile Farbin case as an example of there being an implicit motivation to combine when the improvement results in a product that's more desirable, for example, because it's more efficient.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
And so because the board provided several rationales at the appendix at 46 and 47 as to how using the known buffer technique to provide the predictable results of bi-directional data communications would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to make this combination.

[00:21:12] Speaker 06:
I suppose that, correct me if this is wrong, but I suppose that data integrity really

[00:21:23] Speaker 06:
has to mean either accuracy of transmission or, and perhaps and, relative speed of transmission, one of the two, particularly the former.

[00:21:37] Speaker 06:
Is that a fair statement of what the general understanding of data integrity would be?

[00:21:44] Speaker 03:
Yes, I believe so.

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
That would be my understanding and

[00:21:48] Speaker 03:
I do believe that it was the former, the idea of having accurate data being transmitted by allowing a staging place for the data before it gets processed is what the efficiencies that our expert was addressing.

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
And so, relying on this expert testimony and the

[00:22:17] Speaker 03:
rationales and the well-known aspect of adding a buffer to such a system, the board ultimately concluded and credited our expert's testimony to find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the combination that unified is presenting.

[00:22:40] Speaker 03:
And if there are no further questions, I will rest.

[00:22:45] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:22:46] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:22:48] Speaker 05:
Mr. Moore?

[00:22:52] Speaker 06:
You're muted, Mr. Moore.

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
Sorry.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, Judge, in response to the question you posed to me at the end for the support, if you would, in the blue grid, if you would find it on page 3738, when we talk about the reasonable expectation of success.

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
So I want to address real quickly the discussion regarding the so-called benefits.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
I think I heard the post-counsel say,

[00:23:18] Speaker 00:
that the data integrity would be that you don't have to swipe the credit card twice.

[00:23:24] Speaker 00:
The entire problem with that is that it will not work when you add his buffer to ever swipe the credit card.

[00:23:32] Speaker 00:
One time, a thousand times, if you put a digital buffer between the analog line, it would not pass the analog data.

[00:23:40] Speaker 00:
So that is a false benefit.

[00:23:43] Speaker 00:
That's the problem, is it would interfere.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
they're trying to get that would make the data integrity better, they render the system inoperable to get any data at all.

[00:23:54] Speaker 00:
So you can't make the system have better data integrity if you destroy the integrity.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
I think that that's the problem that we have here is they can't find the buffer, and I don't think one exists that can buffer both digital and analog data.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
And the notion that this is a single-bit digital buffer

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
that's going to retrieve maybe 100 bits of data from your credit card.

[00:24:20] Speaker 00:
And a bit of data in modern times is going to be an integer or whatever is going to take at least four bits, up to eight bits.

[00:24:29] Speaker 00:
You can't start processing the received data until you receive everything.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
And so you can validate it.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
It's conclusory, throw-a-wing terms that are expert used.

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
Now, with respect to paying, I would like the court to look at a couple of things regarding decoding.

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
which is if you look at the 706 patent, the board makes a big deal about that's the first time we talk about cloud service.

[00:24:53] Speaker 00:
Of course, we put it in quotes because it's a common term that many people use, refer to an internet server.

[00:25:03] Speaker 00:
We provided the board with examples and patents of IBM and Motorola describing it.

[00:25:08] Speaker 00:
And it simply says that the cloud service could decode the data.

[00:25:14] Speaker 00:
Payne says,

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
that the data is encoded in GPRS packets and then decoded at the network.

[00:25:20] Speaker 00:
It doesn't go into elaborate detail of what kind of decoding is going on or any super requirements.

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
And I think that the court just noted in our questioning that certainly when you process incoming GPRS packets to reassemble that data into the initial TCP IP packets, that's decoding.

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:
Further, when you reassemble TCP IP packets

[00:25:44] Speaker 00:
back into the original email at the application layer, that again is decoding.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
When the email server receives an email and has to determine who is it from, who is it to, so it knows how to forward that along, that's decoding.

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
We have evidence to the record of that.

[00:26:03] Speaker 00:
The board failed to address the evidence we provided.

[00:26:07] Speaker 00:
And with respect to substantial evidence, it's not sufficient for them

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
even if they were correct, to identify two or even three of four examples that we should show that support the written description requirement for our claim.

[00:26:24] Speaker 00:
We have the burden of production to be provided.

[00:26:28] Speaker 00:
They have to provide some evidence or articulate for each scenario some evidence to demonstrate that we don't have the support.

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
Simply saying decoding or

[00:26:40] Speaker 00:
deep packetization, I think is the term.

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
I don't think that's a term of art, but it's their term.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
Is not decoding according to the claim is insufficient to meet the burden under the APA.

[00:26:53] Speaker 00:
So for both of those reasons and individually each, we believe the court should reverse.

[00:27:01] Speaker 00:
And if not reverse, vacate and remand.

[00:27:04] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:27:05] Speaker 05:
We thank both sides, and the case is submitted.