[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Our first case for argument today is 20-2271, Vernettix v. Mangrove Partners.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
Mr. Kinnaard?

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
Am I saying that right?

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
Kinnaard.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
No, it wasn't.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
No is the answer.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
No, it wasn't.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Mr. Kinnaard, please proceed.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
In Mangrove 1, based on prosecution disclaimer, this court held that the claim term VPN

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
requires direct communication between the client and target computers.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
And the court construed the claim to exclude methods where the client computer has a point-to-point connection with an intermediary and, quote, cannot open a connection with the target itself.

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
The board never applied this court's full claim construction, and QG does not disclose direct communication.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
And the simplest way to see that

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
would be to compare Kiuchi directly to the disclaimer.

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
So if I may ask, please, the court to turn to Appendix 77-64, which is the disclaimer.

[00:01:09] Speaker 00:
And I would ask the court to focus on the first graphic there, which is Aventale's proxy chaining embodiment.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
And the preceding paragraph explains it.

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
And it says that the Aventail user can communicate with a target via a number of proxies.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
But, quote, the user does not communicate directly with the proxy servers other than the one immediately downstream from it.

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
So if you look at the graphic left to right, you see a client with a separate connection to a first proxy.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
That first proxy has a separate connection over the internet with a second proxy.

[00:01:47] Speaker 00:
And that second proxy has a separate connection with the destination server.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
And the disclaimer goes on to say that this last SOX proxy, it resides on the same private network as the destination server, which means it's a server-side proxy.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
Kiuchi has the same communications architecture.

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
And if I now may ask the court to turn to Appendix 13,

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
Well, before you do that, though, the one sentence you read isn't the only sentence, right?

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
There are other sentences in this dialogue.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
Like at 7765, you further explain, Aventail does not disclose a VPN where data can be addressed to one or more different computers across the network, regardless of the location of the computer.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
Why doesn't that sentence, for example, support exactly what the board did in this case?

[00:02:41] Speaker 01:
I mean, it's one thing for you to point to a sentence that says,

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
what you would like maybe for us to look at, but you've made lots of sentences or sentences.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
That sentence actually supports us.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
So in order, and it goes back to the point that the client has to be able to open a connection with the target server in order to address messages to the target server.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
And that's what does not happen in Kyuchi.

[00:03:09] Speaker 00:
And the only thing that they can point to is a URL.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
But a URL, you have to click on a URL if you want to display a webpage, no matter how the network is configured, whether there are SOX proxies, HTTP proxies, or no proxies.

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
So it's a feature of both indirect and direct communication.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
And in fact, in Aventail, they refer to the host, destination host name, which is part of the URL, and it's just extracted from it.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
And so that is why there is, and please be clear, at the trial, both Apple's expert and Vernetix's expert and Vernetix's expert in the PTAB all said there is no direct addressability between the user agent and the client

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
and the origin server.

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
And they had no expert testimony to the contrary.

[00:04:08] Speaker 00:
No expert attested that there's direct communication or direct addressing between the client and target computers.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
Can I just quickly stop you on that?

[00:04:17] Speaker 02:
When we say direct addressability, direct communication, and direct connection, are we talking about all the same thing, or are those three different things?

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
They're all related.

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
So for direct communication, you have to be able to open

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
a connection a direct connection with the target and the way that you open a a connection over the internet under the tcp protocol that applies here is that the client and the target will exchange their ip address the port information which is where it was specific to the application and uh... in allows you to address

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
your message to the IP address and the port.

[00:04:58] Speaker 00:
That's the only way the applications can talk to each other.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
So a connection is defined, and this is at 5444, as a virtual transport layer circuit between the applications on two computers.

[00:05:11] Speaker 00:
And you can't have that on Kyuji.

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
And if you look at Appendix 13, which is Petitioner's depiction of Kyuji, you see the exact same graphic you see on the horizontal axis,

[00:05:23] Speaker 00:
four computers, a user agent with two proxies in the middle, and the origin server.

[00:05:30] Speaker 00:
And their expert drew little black lines to show the separate connections.

[00:05:34] Speaker 00:
But they drew a red, the attorneys drew a red line that just streaked through the proxies if they weren't there.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
But they had no expert support for that.

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
That's simply attorney argument.

[00:05:47] Speaker 00:
And so what Kiuchi explains is that the user agent

[00:05:53] Speaker 00:
will have a connection only with the client-side proxy.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
It only directly communicates with that proxy.

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
And that's an HTTP connection.

[00:06:03] Speaker 00:
And then the client-side proxy establishes, this is step three to five, a separate CHTP connection with the server-side proxy.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
And the server-side proxy itself has a separate connection with the origin server.

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
User agent cannot send messages.

[00:06:24] Speaker 00:
It doesn't have the IP address and the port.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
So here's the thing.

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
You didn't disclaim intermediaries, right?

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
We disclaimed anything that's direct.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
If you use these proxy intermediaries.

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
You couldn't have disclaimed intermediaries, because your own TARP system that you disclosed in the 135 patent is all about having intermediaries.

[00:06:43] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, that's a completely different issue.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
And if I may, that's at the network layer.

[00:06:48] Speaker 00:
The connection between computers is at the transport layer.

[00:06:52] Speaker 00:
so at the network layer that's what deals with delivering traffic over distance through the physical networks that constitute the internet.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
Did you not disclose this claim having intermediaries?

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
Only at the network level, not at the connection level.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
You're saying there can be nothing that direct connection means there can be no intermediary, not even a pass-through intermediary, no intermediary between the

[00:07:18] Speaker 00:
origin and the ultimate destination at the trip that would be corrected the transport layer member of the transport layers of virtual circuit and it's just saying we're both exchange we're both agreeing it's good that messages will be sent to this i p address and this court so you have to designate a port for the application so there is a little bit here or doesn't mean there aren't stops and in the middle i decide to mail you a letter and i know that from my house i'd like your name and address on it i stick in my mailbox

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
It's going to make a lot of stops on route to your house.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
Those are all could be arguably intermediaries.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
The postman is going to take it to the post office and then it's going to be on a truck somewhere else.

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
But I addressed it to you and only the addressing was necessary.

[00:08:04] Speaker 01:
for it ultimately to reach you.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
No important changes were made to it.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
Nobody opened it, refilled it with something else.

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
The data got to you that I wanted to get to you.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, your analogy would be with the network layer.

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
We're not saying that there are no intermediaries at the network layer.

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
There are all kinds of routers.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
As Cisco held, routers don't impede direct communication.

[00:08:28] Speaker 00:
To have direct communication, you have to open a connection.

[00:08:32] Speaker 00:
It's a virtual concept.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
It means you have to exchange your address and port information, and so you can send messages directly.

[00:08:40] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly what Aventail does not do and Kiyuchi does not do.

[00:08:47] Speaker 00:
And so in fact, Kiyuchi says that the client doesn't even know the origin server exists.

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
To the user agent, it appears all the resources are on the server-side proxy, and it's only to the server-side proxy IP address and port

[00:09:04] Speaker 00:
the messages are directed.

[00:09:06] Speaker 02:
I want to come back to the disclaimer just for a second.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
Didn't our court already say what the disclaimer was?

[00:09:10] Speaker 00:
It did.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
And did we distinguish between the network layer and the transport layer?

[00:09:14] Speaker 00:
Well, I think when you said you have to open a connection itself, what they're talking about is the transport layer.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
But did we limit the finding of a disclaimer in the way you seem to need us to limit it now?

[00:09:29] Speaker 00:
I think that's just inherent with what was said in terms of you have to open a connection.

[00:09:35] Speaker 00:
And if you have a point-to-point connection only with an intermediary, and that's what Kiuchi does.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
It's only a connection to the client-side proxy.

[00:09:43] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I'd also like to address the 151.

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
No, I want to follow up on Judge Stark's question.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
Where in the disclaimer would I find that you made it clear and unmistakably clear that

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
you were distinguishing between the network layer and the transport layer in terms of the disclaimer you were making.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, there's a reference to the socket layer.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
And these are socket layer communications, and Apple agreed below that that refers to the transport layer.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
So there is no discussion here of what's happening at the network layer.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
That's not where the SOX proxy operates.

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
And you can see that from the stack in 7767.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
It's above the transport layer.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
So the transport communication structure is exactly the same.

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
The network intermediaries have nothing to do with it.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
And that's why Cisco recognized that, and all the experts testified, the direct addressability was to send the IP address in the port.

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
And the presence of these routers in between does not impede direct communication.

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
So I think it is very clear.

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
On the 151 patent, there are two issues.

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
And on the first, the module requirements, important to recognize, these are apparatus claims.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
All the claims recite a data processing device or a computer readable medium that stores a DNS proxy module that causes the device to perform certain functions.

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
And on remand, petitioners clarified that they were mapping the DNS proxy module

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
only to the client-side proxy.

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
They did that because, as they stated in their petition, client-side proxy is a module stored in a data processing device.

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
But the board blazed its own path, redefined the DNS proxy module as the combination of the DNS of the client-side proxy and the name server.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
And by doing that, they violated the module requirement

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
these are separate components of this court said and then i would like to know if you know that there's inconsistent mapping and how the board did it did you make that argument to the board well again this only come i came up with the board in his final written decision redefined the module this one so you didn't make it to the board but you would say you didn't have an opportunity exactly and the other limitation is before the limitation of which this court previously

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
uh... right uh... reversed the the board in your bottle time if you want to keep going ahead uh... i think i just want to be very quick on this so that the claim requires that you have a dns request one sent by a client to intercepted and if it's really if it's for a insecure

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
Target that the then sends it forwards that request to a DNS function QC says it does exactly the opposite it says it performs the client-side proxy performs DNS lookup

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
And so that is, as their own experts said, the client side proxy, which has DNS functionality, initiates the DNS request.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
So there's no user agent DNS request that is sent, intercepted, and forwarded.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
I'll reserve the remainder of my time.

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
Mr. Lee, please proceed.

[00:13:19] Speaker 03:
You may proceed, Your Honor.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
May it please the court.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
My name is Bill Blaine, together with my partner, Rick Imati.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
I represent Apple.

[00:13:27] Speaker 03:
Let me turn directly to the 135 pen.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
The arguments that were just made to you by phonetics directly contradict the positions they took in the earlier phonetics appeals.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
And they directly contradict what this court and the district court said to sustain the verdict and the damages award in the first case.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
The only question is whether Kayuchi, as a matter of fact, and mostly what you heard was facts, discloses a direct communication.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
All of the other limitations are considered to be present.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
A direct communication under this court's precedent is a communication from A to B, the user computer to the origin server.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
This court explicitly said that there can be intermediate components.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
And if I were to quote,

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
From 767 Fed 3rd at 1320, this court said, routers, firewalls, and similar servers do not impede direct communication.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
If you read Kaiuchi, it's all about proxies that are used as firewalls.

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
The district court said precisely the same thing at 925 Fed Stop at 831.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
This was important because, as the court may recall, there was a NAT server in the FaceTime embodiment in the first case.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
So the communication went from the user server to the NAT server that had, Your Honor, a different IP address, and then on to what we would call the origin server.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
Vernet successfully claimed with you to sustain the first verdict that that was a direct communication.

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
They successfully claimed that having interposed a different component that created a firewall or the NAT did not mean you didn't have direct communication.

[00:15:19] Speaker 03:
In fact, you did.

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
And that was the basis for sustaining the large verdict.

[00:15:25] Speaker 03:
We also know that the position the court took, the position the district court took, the position that

[00:15:32] Speaker 03:
they took on FaceTime is consistent with the TARP embodiment, and that's what the board said.

[00:15:37] Speaker 03:
The TARP embodiment is a direct communication.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
If you look at the summary invention, the very first sentence talks about the TARP embodiment.

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
Fernetix admits that it's a direct communication.

[00:15:51] Speaker 03:
The only argument made to you today and in the briefs, only in the reply, was that somehow the layers matter.

[00:15:59] Speaker 03:
That's an argument that was not made in Bernetics 1 to the district court or to you.

[00:16:05] Speaker 03:
It was an argument not made to the board.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
It was an argument not made in the opening brief.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
It's an argument that was first made in reply.

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
So we know well what a direct communication is.

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
And as a matter of fact, Kayuchi is just that.

[00:16:22] Speaker 03:
a direct communication from the user computer to the origin server with two proxies interposed for the purpose of encrypting and decrypting, creating a firewall.

[00:16:34] Speaker 03:
We also know what a direct communication is not, and that's Aventail.

[00:16:39] Speaker 03:
And to go to your honor, to Chief Judge Moore's question, if you read the next two pages beyond the page cited by counsel,

[00:16:48] Speaker 03:
It tells you what Aventail is.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
And Aventail is a point-to-point communication.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
A point-to-point communication is a communication where the packets, all of these communications are done in packets.

[00:17:02] Speaker 03:
The packets are sent from point A to point B, and they are collected and accumulated at point B before they are sent on.

[00:17:11] Speaker 03:
And they are then relayed.

[00:17:14] Speaker 03:
That is not the way that Kaiuchi works.

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
It's not the way that a direct communication works.

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
That is why in the first case, FaceTime with a relay server did not infringe because it was point to point from the user computer to the relay server.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
And that was Avintail, not what was claimed in the patent.

[00:17:39] Speaker 03:
at 925 Feds up at 830 to 831.

[00:17:44] Speaker 01:
I have probably a dumb question.

[00:17:47] Speaker 01:
Does point to point mean there can't be an intermediary?

[00:17:50] Speaker 01:
I found a lot of the linguistics in this case to lack clear definition that I could really grasp onto.

[00:18:01] Speaker 03:
Point-to-point, if you just looked at the couple diagrams that council was referring to, you could say, well, that's point-to-point.

[00:18:06] Speaker 03:
But if you read the entirety of the disclaimer, they're talking about point-to-point for relay purposes.

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
And it turns out, as the board recognized, there's a difference between relaying and forwarding communications.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
When you forward a communication, which is what happens in the patent and what happens in Kaiuchi,

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
The communication is broken into packets.

[00:18:30] Speaker 03:
It is sent to the proxies, which are firewalls.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
When they arrive, the packets are not accumulated.

[00:18:36] Speaker 03:
They're not collected.

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
They are received, encrypted, and it's called forwarded, a term that has meaning to one of skill and the art.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
The difference in point to point in Avondale is that the packets arrive, and they're accumulated until the entire message is there, and then

[00:18:56] Speaker 03:
The accumulated message is forwarded on after the server does whatever it does.

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
That's why in the very next page that your honor cited to counsel, you will find the term relay.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
And in the very next page, you'll hear point to point.

[00:19:11] Speaker 03:
That is the difference between Aventail and what the patentee was describing as a direct communication.

[00:19:19] Speaker 02:
And you say the board recognized that distinction between forward and relay.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
Where would we find that?

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
It recognized it when it talked about point to point.

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
And that.

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
But where would we find that the board recognized that point to point means relay and does not mean forward?

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
I think, Your Honor, if you look at the disclaimer itself, you will see that it's referring to relay.

[00:19:39] Speaker 03:
And in fact, they cite for you a generic set of dictionary definitions about proxies.

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
In the very next couple of pages, they distinguish between relay and forward.

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
So what the board recognized is there's a distinction between a direct communication that can have interposed components, so that can be more precise, and point-to-point.

[00:19:59] Speaker 03:
The question that the chief is asking is, what is point-to-point?

[00:20:03] Speaker 03:
And it is, if you look at what the board's citing and the disclaimer, it is where you are relaying, not forwarding.

[00:20:10] Speaker 03:
And the best indication that you don't have to take my word for it is if you look at the first case,

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
The communication that went in the version of FaceTime to a NAT router with a different IP address and on was characterized by Vernetic successfully as a direct communication.

[00:20:32] Speaker 03:
A communication that went to a relay server, and I can give your honor the precise, it's at 925, said stop, second at 830 to 831.

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
This is where the district court is saying it's the relay server.

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
that makes it not direct, and that's the difference.

[00:20:51] Speaker 03:
And most importantly, what the court found here, I'm sorry, what the board found is as a matter of fact, this is not a direct communication.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
Remember that direct communication is not a claimed term.

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
direct communication exists only because of the disclaimer.

[00:21:08] Speaker 03:
And the importance of the direct communication is only to distinguish Aventail.

[00:21:13] Speaker 03:
And Aventail is, on its face, distinguishable.

[00:21:18] Speaker 03:
But, most importantly, as a matter of fact, the board found that Kayuchi is a direct communication

[00:21:26] Speaker 03:
that has nothing more than proxies interposed as firewalls.

[00:21:31] Speaker 03:
And when you read pages appendix 5367 to 5368, every time one of the proxies discuss, Your Honor, it's talking about the firewall, the creation of a firewall, specifically what this court referred to earlier.

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
The second argument that frenetics made concerned direct addressability.

[00:21:50] Speaker 03:
And Judge Stark, you asked a question about that.

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
And I think the answer was,

[00:21:55] Speaker 03:
They're related but different.

[00:21:58] Speaker 03:
There's nothing in the claims that requires direct addressability.

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
There's nothing, in fact, that requires direct communication.

[00:22:05] Speaker 03:
It's just the disclaimer.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
The fact of the matter is that direct communication can and does occur using the URL or the DNS.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
There's no requirement that you have the IP address of the origin server and that you address it to that.

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
How do we know that?

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
That was going to be my next question.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
How do we know that?

[00:22:28] Speaker 03:
We know that because that's precisely the position that vernetics took successfully in the first case, that the existence of the relay server prevented it from being a direct connection.

[00:22:44] Speaker 03:
So as I said at the outset, the positions that are taken today

[00:22:48] Speaker 03:
are contrary to the positions that were taken to sustain a large verdict.

[00:22:55] Speaker 02:
Did anything about what vernetics did in the first case come up in front of the board in this case?

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
Did the board say you're a stop?

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
from arguing these things or anything like that?

[00:23:05] Speaker 03:
No, no.

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
I don't think we could characterize what the board said.

[00:23:08] Speaker 03:
It's a stop.

[00:23:09] Speaker 03:
I mean, the board had in mind this court's opinion in frenetics was being remanded to them.

[00:23:17] Speaker 03:
They truly knew about what had occurred before.

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
But what the board decided was, and I think it's pretty clear at appendix pages 6 to 7, the board said, it's been remanded to us.

[00:23:28] Speaker 03:
The question is direct communication.

[00:23:30] Speaker 03:
The question is, as a matter of fact,

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
Is there a direct communication?

[00:23:35] Speaker 03:
And it found, as a matter of fact, there was.

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
And it rejected the arguments of direct addressability as not required by the claims.

[00:23:45] Speaker 03:
It rejected the arguments about modification of the message because there was none.

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
And then, as I said on this argument, the third and only other argument made on the layer, this is an argument that wasn't made to the board, wasn't made in the opening briefs.

[00:24:02] Speaker 03:
and it wasn't made to you before.

[00:24:04] Speaker 03:
And that's why the quote that I provided from the district court and this court is so clear that firewalls and routers are not allowed.

[00:24:13] Speaker 02:
I understand that we shouldn't reach the layer issue, but if we were to,

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
Have we said something about it before?

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
Is it within the scope of the disclaimer?

[00:24:23] Speaker 03:
It doesn't matter.

[00:24:24] Speaker 03:
It's completely irrelevant whether there's a direct communication or not.

[00:24:28] Speaker 03:
There's a reason that the argument wasn't made before, having had at least three or four occasions to make, because it's got nothing to do with whether this is Avondale or this is the patent.

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
And Kayuchi is, as a matter of fact, the patent.

[00:24:44] Speaker 03:
Let me talk very quickly about the 151 patent.

[00:24:48] Speaker 03:
There really only

[00:24:49] Speaker 03:
two arguments that are being made to you.

[00:24:51] Speaker 03:
They are both substantial evidence arguments.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
First, the argument that I thought I heard at the end that we had not contended that the combination of the CHTTP server and the client server were in fact the DNS proxy module is not true.

[00:25:10] Speaker 03:
It was made from the outset

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
You can go back to A2652 and you'll find it was made in the mangrove petition.

[00:25:17] Speaker 03:
This is the alternative mapping that was mentioned in this court's opinion but not addressed because the board didn't address it.

[00:25:26] Speaker 03:
It had been an issue.

[00:25:27] Speaker 03:
That is the mapping that the board took up.

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
It's mapping the board applied.

[00:25:34] Speaker 03:
And it found that the combination of the CHTTP server and the

[00:25:42] Speaker 03:
client proxy.

[00:25:44] Speaker 03:
Those two together performed all three of the functions.

[00:25:48] Speaker 03:
Determining, forwarding, automatically creating, and they do.

[00:25:52] Speaker 03:
The two arguments made to you in the briefing are these.

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:
First, that the claims require a single component.

[00:25:59] Speaker 03:
They don't.

[00:26:01] Speaker 03:
Claims don't require a single component

[00:26:03] Speaker 03:
Specification doesn't require a single component.

[00:26:06] Speaker 03:
In fact, specification at column 38, lines 32 and on, says you could have multiple components in any configuration that you would like.

[00:26:17] Speaker 03:
And in fact, as we cite in our briefs, frenetics has said, this is not about the configuration of an apparatus, as counsel argued.

[00:26:25] Speaker 03:
This is about having components perform functions.

[00:26:29] Speaker 03:
The only other argument made to you was that each of the components has to perform all three of the functions.

[00:26:35] Speaker 03:
Again, nothing in the claims that suggests that.

[00:26:39] Speaker 03:
Again, nothing in the specification that suggests that.

[00:26:43] Speaker 03:
And the board found as a matter of fact that the CHTTV server

[00:26:50] Speaker 03:
And the client-side proxy perform the functions of determining, forwarding, and automatically creating.

[00:26:58] Speaker 03:
That is substantial evidence to support the finding of the board.

[00:27:02] Speaker 03:
Now, are there other questions?

[00:27:04] Speaker 02:
I guess just one more to be clear.

[00:27:07] Speaker 02:
Mr. Kinnaird says that his client didn't have an opportunity with respect to the 151 to make the inconsistent mapping argument.

[00:27:14] Speaker 02:
you disagree, but could we point to something in the record that would support your disagreement?

[00:27:19] Speaker 03:
Well, I would say two things, Your Honor.

[00:27:21] Speaker 03:
We can look at the support decision that was remanded, and it refers specifically to an alternative mapping that wasn't considered.

[00:27:28] Speaker 03:
And then if you go back to the record, including 82652, I think is the right page, you'll see that this alternative discussion about a DNS proxy module was made at the Mangrove petition from the outset.

[00:27:43] Speaker 03:
Recall that DNS proxy module is not in the specification anywhere.

[00:27:48] Speaker 03:
It first appears in the claims.

[00:27:49] Speaker 03:
It is, as the Williamson court suggested, in a different context.

[00:27:53] Speaker 03:
It's not something that has a structural meaning in and of itself.

[00:27:57] Speaker 03:
So the question is, what does the spec tell us?

[00:28:01] Speaker 03:
It tells us that it can be one component, it can be multiple components.

[00:28:04] Speaker 03:
That's precisely what it is.

[00:28:07] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mark.

[00:28:07] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Lee.

[00:28:09] Speaker 01:
Mr. Knar, do you have some rebuttal time?

[00:28:13] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:28:14] Speaker 00:
On the 135, a proxy is not a firewall.

[00:28:17] Speaker 00:
It's not a router.

[00:28:19] Speaker 00:
Kyushu was an issue in Cisco, and the court held that Kyushu did not disclose direct communication because the proxy servers terminate the connection.

[00:28:30] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly what we argued below.

[00:28:32] Speaker 00:
That's what proxies do.

[00:28:34] Speaker 00:
They're defined as an intermediary that breaks the connection.

[00:28:37] Speaker 00:
They're different.

[00:28:38] Speaker 00:
And so that is exactly what we have.

[00:28:42] Speaker 00:
The relay issue is a red herring.

[00:28:44] Speaker 00:
When you talk about a point-to-point connection with an intermediary, you're talking about the first connection with the client-side proxy.

[00:28:52] Speaker 00:
And there, it's only open there.

[00:28:54] Speaker 00:
They cannot open a connection, as Mangrove 1 requires the client to be able to open a connection to the origin server.

[00:29:03] Speaker 00:
They never address that, either in their briefs or at oral argument.

[00:29:08] Speaker 00:
And the NAT router, again, that is a router that creates a special combination address that's unique for the origin server.

[00:29:18] Speaker 00:
There's direct addressability.

[00:29:20] Speaker 00:
On the 151 issue, it's simply false that they mapped the combination.

[00:29:26] Speaker 00:
You could look at 4708, note four, they clarified.

[00:29:30] Speaker 00:
And they had to, because that's the only way they could meet the stored module requirement.

[00:29:36] Speaker 00:
So, Your Honor, I think it's clear there is no direct communication, and the relay is also a red herring.

[00:29:45] Speaker 00:
All a relay means is that you don't rewrite the request, because the SOX server exists, is not at the application layer like an HTTP, but both of them have to forward the data, and so they both relay.

[00:30:00] Speaker 01:
We're not out of time, Counsel, but I do have a final question for you.

[00:30:03] Speaker 01:
Is Mr. Lee

[00:30:04] Speaker 01:
correct that you did not raise this distinction between the network and the transport layer prior to your reply brief in this case?

[00:30:12] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, we argued that there was no connection, and it's only when... No, I didn't ask if you argued there was no connection.

[00:30:21] Speaker 01:
That's been your argument throughout.

[00:30:22] Speaker 01:
My question is, did you make this much more fine-tuned distinction between saying there

[00:30:28] Speaker 01:
Connection means one thing in the network layer and a different thing in the transport layer.

[00:30:32] Speaker 00:
I think connection only means... I'm not asking what you think it means.

[00:30:35] Speaker 00:
I'm asking did you make the argument and if so where?

[00:30:37] Speaker 00:
We did not specifically discuss layers.

[00:30:41] Speaker 01:
Okay, then that argument is not fairly in front of you.

[00:30:43] Speaker 00:
Oh, no, I think it is, Your Honor, because... I disagree.

[00:30:46] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:30:48] Speaker 01:
All right, that concludes this case.

[00:30:50] Speaker 01:
It will be taken under submission.