[00:00:05] Speaker 01: Jim X LLC versus Netflix. [00:00:09] Speaker 01: Did I pronounce your finance name? [00:00:11] Speaker 01: Oh, you did. [00:00:11] Speaker 01: I was just giving Judge Chet a moment. [00:00:14] Speaker 03: Whenever you're ready. [00:00:14] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:00:15] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:15] Speaker 01: May it please the Court? [00:00:17] Speaker 01: My time is very limited here, and we've raised a number of issues on appeal. [00:00:20] Speaker 01: And so I'd like to focus the Court's attention to the fullest extent possible on the area where I think the Board made the most clear error. [00:00:28] Speaker 01: And that's with respect to the construction of framed decryption strictly. [00:00:33] Speaker 01: So in prosecution, Fetkovich was before the examiner. [00:00:39] Speaker 01: And Fetkovich is a system where there's a periodic key update. [00:00:43] Speaker 01: The examiner rejected claims over Fetkovich, including claim 15, which required synchronized encryption frames with decryption information within an input stream. [00:00:56] Speaker 01: And that's out of appendix 287. [00:00:57] Speaker 01: After that occurred, the applicant sought an amendment. [00:01:02] Speaker 01: where it added more limitations about synchronization of encrypted frames and decryption information. [00:01:10] Speaker 01: And that, too, wasn't sufficient. [00:01:11] Speaker 01: There wasn't a formal rejection. [00:01:15] Speaker 01: But there was another examiner interview, at which point the examiner proposed an amendment to the claims adding frame decryption stream to each of the claims. [00:01:27] Speaker 01: Each of the allowed claims requires a frame decryption stream. [00:01:32] Speaker 01: The board, however, found framed decryption string to be met over precisely the same teaching in Feckovich, a periodic key update put into the string. [00:01:44] Speaker 01: That can't be right. [00:01:45] Speaker 01: A safe harbor here is the exact teaching effect of it that was overcome based upon the examiner's amendment, a framed encryption stream, cannot be the basis to find the claim invalid. [00:01:57] Speaker 03: If I recall correctly, there were other additional limitations added in the examiner's amendment and notice of allowance. [00:02:03] Speaker 03: Is that right? [00:02:05] Speaker 01: It is, but can I speak to that? [00:02:06] Speaker 03: Sure. [00:02:07] Speaker 01: So if you look at claim one, and the only additional limitation that my friends point to you is the encryption key pointer. [00:02:16] Speaker 01: They say that, too, was material. [00:02:18] Speaker 01: And it was. [00:02:20] Speaker 01: That's not in Fekevich. [00:02:22] Speaker 01: But the encryption key pointer is not in claim 14. [00:02:27] Speaker 01: So that could not have been the basis for allowance of claim 14. [00:02:30] Speaker 01: And if we go to the examiner's reasons of allowance, she identifies three limitations. [00:02:36] Speaker 01: She identifies the key pointer. [00:02:38] Speaker 01: She identifies the assembling limitation, also in claim one. [00:02:42] Speaker 01: And the third limitation that she identifies is framed encryption springs. [00:02:46] Speaker 01: So if we look at claim 14, that's the only material limitation that the examiner cited that was the basis for allowance. [00:02:57] Speaker 01: Now, to make matters worse, the board did not analyze the prosecution history. [00:03:04] Speaker 01: And it wasn't because we didn't present it. [00:03:05] Speaker 01: We did. [00:03:07] Speaker 01: So we have a situation where the claim is allowed, the claims are allowed, over Fekevich, which is indisputably [00:03:15] Speaker 01: a periodic key update system where that is added to the stream. [00:03:21] Speaker 01: And the board says, we're going to find this claim invalid if there's a periodic key update in the stream, interleaved into the stream, but does not address the prosecution history at all. [00:03:33] Speaker 01: But it gets worse still, because the board also essentially wrote the frame decryption stream limitation right out of the claim. [00:03:42] Speaker 01: If you look at appendix 21 and 22, the board says by virtue of the assembling limitation of claim 1, we don't even need to look at the frame decryption stream limitation. [00:03:54] Speaker 01: So we've got a key limitation that is the basis for allowance, at least in the case of claim 14, which the examiner [00:04:03] Speaker 01: That's why the claims were allowed. [00:04:05] Speaker 01: And the examiner was very familiar with Petrovich. [00:04:08] Speaker 01: Yeah, please. [00:04:10] Speaker 03: Let me see if I understand this. [00:04:12] Speaker 03: This is the claim limitation about the one-to-one correspondence between decryption information and a given frame. [00:04:20] Speaker 01: Just to be precise. [00:04:21] Speaker 03: Every frame gets its own corresponding decryption information. [00:04:25] Speaker 01: that is the construction we presented. [00:04:28] Speaker 03: And so what in the prosecution history tells us that we must be compelled to understand this [00:04:39] Speaker 03: A little bit generic term of synchronized frame decryption stream as perhaps requiring this one-to-one correspondence between decryption information and frame. [00:04:50] Speaker 01: To be precise, we are not arguing that you have to find that our construction is correct. [00:04:55] Speaker 01: That is not our position. [00:04:57] Speaker 01: Our position is you have to find that the board's construction is wrong. [00:05:01] Speaker 01: And that's because it's allowed over Petkovic, which is a periodic key update system, [00:05:08] Speaker 01: And the board doesn't analyze the prosecution history. [00:05:12] Speaker 01: The examiner was well aware that Feckovich is a periodic key update system. [00:05:18] Speaker 01: The examiner, in rejecting original claim 14, is at appendix 283, specifically cited Feckovich at column 7, lines 2 to 21. [00:05:31] Speaker 01: That references Vakovich's figure two, which makes clear that you have periodic encryption information multiplexed into the street. [00:05:42] Speaker 01: And it's undisputed. [00:05:43] Speaker 03: I guess, is there something in the examiner's notice of allowance that explains what his or her thinking was when she or he made this particular amendment to these claims? [00:05:56] Speaker 01: The only express statements. [00:06:01] Speaker 01: We do have to make some inferences. [00:06:03] Speaker 01: But the only expressed statements is, after an interview, she found our, based upon our agreement to her amendment, she found our arguments persuasive. [00:06:12] Speaker 01: She identified the three limitations that we talked about previously, only one of which is in claim 14. [00:06:19] Speaker 01: And she allowed the claims. [00:06:20] Speaker 01: But I think there's more in the record that is illuminating. [00:06:25] Speaker 01: I would like to direct, as I mentioned earlier, we made an interim amendment. [00:06:31] Speaker 01: which the examiner did not reject formally, but we were asked to make comments in connection with that amendment, which we did. [00:06:41] Speaker 01: We specifically directed the examiner to our patent's discussion of Figure 6. [00:06:50] Speaker 01: Our patent's discussion of Figure 6 is the only portion of our patent where the phrase framed decryption stream is found. [00:06:58] Speaker 01: And if you go through Figure 6, [00:07:00] Speaker 01: It's an algorithm that says, should we encrypt a frame? [00:07:04] Speaker 01: If so, let's add encryption information to the frame decryption stream, and then let's go down. [00:07:10] Speaker 01: Do you want to encrypt another frame? [00:07:11] Speaker 01: Okay, let's add another frame decryption information into the stream. [00:07:18] Speaker 01: We can infer appendix 309, it's not the only side. [00:07:21] Speaker 01: There are other portions where we cited to the examiner the teachings of figure six. [00:07:25] Speaker 01: Again, the only portion of our patent that mentions the phrase, frame decryption stream. [00:07:33] Speaker 01: And so if you're trying to infer what the examiner thought, it makes sense to me that we pointed the examiner to the teachings of figure six, she latched on to frame decryption stream, and in that context, [00:07:47] Speaker 01: Frame decryption stream, you're adding decryption information on a frame by frame basis. [00:07:52] Speaker 01: And if you proceed on to column seven, the beginning, it makes clear that you do that even when you're not updating the key. [00:08:00] Speaker 03: This sounds like a pretty long story the court would have to write in a Federal Circuit opinion to make the case. [00:08:07] Speaker 01: May I offer a different possibility? [00:08:09] Speaker 03: Right. [00:08:09] Speaker 03: I mean, normally there's a sentence [00:08:13] Speaker 03: And it's a killer sentence, and we can easily lift it out, paste it into an opinion, and say, see, there it is. [00:08:20] Speaker 03: So this chain of inferences is, pardon the expression, a little spooky. [00:08:27] Speaker 01: Well, I don't think the court has to go through that exercise. [00:08:31] Speaker 01: You have options. [00:08:32] Speaker 01: This is de novo review. [00:08:33] Speaker 01: I think one of the options that you have is to send it back to the board and just say, look, board, you didn't even talk about the prosecution history. [00:08:43] Speaker 01: You didn't discuss the prosecution history, and yet you're finding the claims invalid over Fekevich and the key teaching of Fekevich. [00:08:51] Speaker 01: Why did you do that? [00:08:52] Speaker 01: Can you please explain yourself? [00:08:53] Speaker 01: You don't have to do that. [00:08:54] Speaker 01: This is de novo review. [00:08:54] Speaker 01: You can reach the ultimate question. [00:09:00] Speaker 01: Again, I think the clear safe harbor is that a periodic key update, as in Vekovic, that can't be affirmed to Kurchin's stream based upon that prosecution history. [00:09:12] Speaker 02: But you're offering us the alternatives of we don't have to say your construction is correct. [00:09:18] Speaker 02: What is wrong about the board's construction, I guess? [00:09:22] Speaker 02: Well, I just don't think it can be squared with the prosecution history. [00:09:26] Speaker 02: The prosecution history, which you think was not adequately discussed. [00:09:30] Speaker 01: It was not analyzed at all. [00:09:33] Speaker 02: I mean, we can look at it. [00:09:34] Speaker 02: And so where would that leave us if we weren't sure that your construction was right, but maybe we didn't think the board's was correct? [00:09:42] Speaker 02: What do we do at that point? [00:09:43] Speaker 01: Well, so I think there were decisions, I believe from this court, again, remember the citations off the top of my head, where the court says we only have to construe a limitation to the extent necessary to decide the issue. [00:09:55] Speaker 01: And so if you decide that the board's construction is wrong, you can do this because they presented two alternative theories below. [00:10:05] Speaker 01: At least, that's what the board might do generously. [00:10:10] Speaker 01: Let's assume for the sake of argument that's so. [00:10:13] Speaker 01: We both agree that the first alternative theory would satisfy the claim. [00:10:18] Speaker 01: The second theory that the board proceeded to find the claims invalid on, that's based upon a periodic key update. [00:10:24] Speaker 01: So if you find that that is inconsistent with the prosecution history and other plain construction principles, you could reverse that finding, remand it back. [00:10:34] Speaker 01: Or if you want, as Judge Chen suggested, because the prosecution history is tortured, let's say, you could also ask the board to provide a further analysis of it. [00:10:46] Speaker 03: It's intrinsic evidence, the prosecution history, right? [00:10:49] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:10:49] Speaker 03: So it is de novo. [00:10:51] Speaker 03: So de novo. [00:10:52] Speaker 03: I mean, it's something that we could do on our own. [00:10:56] Speaker 01: Of course. [00:10:57] Speaker 01: Of course. [00:10:58] Speaker 01: So I would like to preserve my rebuttal time, if possible. [00:11:02] Speaker 01: But I think I have one more minute, so I'll try to address it briefly. [00:11:06] Speaker 01: And that's going to be the byte size offset, so claim 10 and 19. [00:11:11] Speaker 01: Addressed and passing, but I think it's another instance where I think the board just got it wrong. [00:11:15] Speaker 01: So that claim requires information identifying a byte size offset. [00:11:21] Speaker 01: petitioner of a portion Encrypted that is encrypted petitioner points to a slice the experts agree a slice has a variant size and more specifically I Think I said I may have miss spoken based on the note I just got so it's the data field socks if I said something other than that I apologize okay, I'm Very good, so [00:11:49] Speaker 01: Something with a varying size, if you just say every fourth slice, which is what Dekovic does, and each slice is different in size, that's not information identifying a data field size. [00:12:04] Speaker 01: So unless there are questions on anything I've said, I'd like to reserve the rest of my rebuttal. [00:12:11] Speaker 00: I'd like to start off with the synchronized frame decryption stream and make sure we're clear on the term that was construed below. [00:12:23] Speaker 00: The full term is synchronized frames decryption stream. [00:12:27] Speaker 00: And to be clear as to Judge Chen's question about what is the issue here, the issue is a one-to-one course, a transmission correspondence. [00:12:35] Speaker 00: So what DIVIX is contending that in the transmission with each frame, you have to also send the decryption information with that frame. [00:12:43] Speaker 00: So with the Institute of Ground and the finding of invalidity, the board found that you could send, for example, with every two frames, every four frames, every eight frames, this periodic transmission. [00:12:54] Speaker 00: So the question before the board was, [00:12:57] Speaker 00: Did the term synchronized frame decryption stream, was it limited to a one-to-one transmission correspondence? [00:13:04] Speaker 00: And if we look at the final written decision, the board walked through the claim language as a first instance and said, is there anything in the claim language that supports this narrowing of the claim to a one-to-one transmission correspondence? [00:13:15] Speaker 00: And there's nothing in the claim language that would be so limiting. [00:13:19] Speaker 00: And as we see on appeal now, DIVIX has really seized on this word stream as of the portion of this claim term to argue that stream itself requires this one-to-one transmission correspondence. [00:13:30] Speaker 00: But that's not supported by the claim language. [00:13:32] Speaker 00: The board then went to the specification. [00:13:34] Speaker 00: Now, what's notable, I think, an oral argument here today is DIVIX's counsel has run away from Figure 9, which relied upon it below in the briefing here for this court, for its arguments. [00:13:43] Speaker 00: Now it's saying, well, let's focus on Figure 6. [00:13:45] Speaker 00: I'd like to start with Figure 9 and then switch over to Figure 6. [00:13:48] Speaker 00: So Figure 9 and Appendix 105, there's a description of Figure 9 on Column 9, 27 through 30 of the patent, which is cited by both parties in the briefing. [00:13:57] Speaker 00: And it says, in the exemplary embodiment, the decryption information 995 may be incorporated within or otherwise transmitted in conjunction with the encrypted video stream. [00:14:08] Speaker 00: So it's very open-ended language as to what is required in terms of this decryption information and how this decryption information is transmitted. [00:14:17] Speaker 00: And then if we go to the figure six language, and that's on appendix 103 and column six, lines 59 to 61, when describing [00:14:27] Speaker 00: Figure 6, which was cited by my colleague here today, says, thus, once a frame has been encrypted per step 610, the information needed to decrypt the encrypted, I assume it says frame, can be added into a synchronized frame decryption string. [00:14:42] Speaker 00: Again, there's no reference to any sort of one-to-one transmission correspondence, any reference to how the transmission has to be effectuated. [00:14:50] Speaker 00: And the board recognizes in its analysis the specifications. [00:14:52] Speaker 03: What about the prosecution history? [00:14:53] Speaker 03: That seems to be the main event of the morning for the felons counsel. [00:14:58] Speaker 03: and what happened in the examiner's amount amendment. [00:15:01] Speaker 03: And Petkovic was right there in front of everybody. [00:15:04] Speaker 03: And there's different claims, not just claim one that got amended. [00:15:09] Speaker 03: And why didn't the president deal with this? [00:15:12] Speaker 00: So I will start with it, because you asked a number of questions on that in my colleague's time. [00:15:16] Speaker 00: And I'd like to address those in turn. [00:15:18] Speaker 00: So first, as he said himself, he kept on inferring what we could speculate as to what the examiner intended. [00:15:25] Speaker 00: He said, we have to make inferences. [00:15:26] Speaker 00: He said, it makes sense to me. [00:15:28] Speaker 00: It's a lot of speculation as to what the examiner meant. [00:15:31] Speaker 00: What is notable is the prosecution history is silent as to any discussion of a one-to-one transmission correspondence. [00:15:38] Speaker 00: There's no discussion of it at all. [00:15:39] Speaker 00: The thing that they're seizing upon still is the term stream. [00:15:43] Speaker 00: And saying stream has to require this one-to-one correspondence, even though it's not in the claims and it's not in the specification. [00:15:48] Speaker 00: And what I think is notable is that, in addition to that, both sides' experts testified as to the meaning of string. [00:15:55] Speaker 00: So they asked our expert, and we pointed out where they excerpted this testimony, but on Appendix 3603, our expert said, well, certainly the instituted combination has a string because you have encrypted frames that are being interleaved with the decryption information. [00:16:10] Speaker 00: And that certainly should satisfy it. [00:16:11] Speaker 00: And then the board also noted that that's exactly what the DIVIX infringement allegations in the district court contended. [00:16:17] Speaker 00: They contended that synchronized framed decryption stream, and this is appendix 855 of their complaint, they said, synchronized framed decryption stream is satisfied when Netflix synchronizes the framed decryption information by interleaving [00:16:31] Speaker 00: and so interweaving the information with the frames. [00:16:35] Speaker 00: So that's consistent. [00:16:36] Speaker 00: And I do want to go to DIVX's expert testimony on this point, because I think it's really a core issue that they've not addressed in their argument about the meaning of string. [00:16:45] Speaker 00: So if we turn to appendix 3075, [00:16:48] Speaker 00: We repeatedly asked DIVIX's expert in deposition, what does the term stream mean? [00:16:54] Speaker 00: So if you look at the top of Appendix 3075, we asked the question, what does the word stream mean in the phrase synchronized frame decryption stream? [00:17:03] Speaker 00: And the answer was, well, there's many different definitions depending on the context that we're in. [00:17:08] Speaker 00: So you think, well, you don't really know what stream means. [00:17:10] Speaker 00: It depends on context. [00:17:12] Speaker 00: And we didn't stop there. [00:17:12] Speaker 00: We asked then on the next page, Appendix 3076, we asked, [00:17:17] Speaker 00: Well, at the bottom of 3075, we asked again, and then he responded, what I'm saying is that stream has a lot of different meanings. [00:17:26] Speaker 00: And if you go down to the bottom of his answer there, he says, because otherwise stream has so little meaning. [00:17:31] Speaker 00: You have to analyze the term as a whole. [00:17:33] Speaker 00: So Diffix doesn't have any support. [00:17:35] Speaker 00: They didn't submit dictionary definitions or any other support below to argue that stream has this one-to-one correspondence meaning. [00:17:43] Speaker 00: And their own expert says it could have a lot of different meanings or it has little to no meaning. [00:17:49] Speaker 00: So in terms of the prosecution history, what we have is the examiner giving multiple reasons and a notice of allowance. [00:17:55] Speaker 03: That's for claim 1. [00:17:57] Speaker 00: Claim 1. [00:17:57] Speaker 03: What about claim 14? [00:17:59] Speaker 00: Examiner is silent as to claim 14. [00:18:01] Speaker 00: So what we have is the examiner made multiple amendments as well for claim 14. [00:18:06] Speaker 00: So there's nothing clear in the file history. [00:18:09] Speaker 00: They haven't argued a disavowal or a disclaimer of claim scope. [00:18:13] Speaker 00: What if one's shown it? [00:18:14] Speaker 00: They're just saying we should infer that somehow that there should be this one-to-one correspondence. [00:18:21] Speaker 03: Is it your opinion that Vetkovich anticipates claim 14? [00:18:25] Speaker 00: I think our position is, does Feckovich anticipate claim 14? [00:18:28] Speaker 00: I have to think about that one, Your Honor, because we did an obvious to this combination with three references for a lot of different claim limitations. [00:18:38] Speaker 03: Well, it's obvious. [00:18:39] Speaker 00: Yes, it is. [00:18:40] Speaker 00: And what we noted, and I want to point out, that the board addressed Dvicks's arguments about the prosecution history and the institution decision. [00:18:48] Speaker 00: So on appendix 4865 through 4867, [00:18:51] Speaker 00: They spent three pages addressing, well, you're complaining that Fekevich was already before the examiner, that examiner considered Fekevich, whether these teachings are duplicative. [00:19:01] Speaker 00: And the board concluded in the institution decision that, no, we're pointing to different teachings in Fekevich. [00:19:06] Speaker 00: And we pointed out that we had teachings for column five and column six, these other teachings that were about the sending of the framed decryption information rather than Fekevich's teachings about synchronization. [00:19:19] Speaker 00: So the board had already addressed this issue at the institution stage. [00:19:26] Speaker 00: So if there is any other further questions. [00:19:28] Speaker 02: So Petrovich does disclose the periodic synchronization, correct? [00:19:34] Speaker 00: Yes, I don't think there's any dispute that I think both Ueno and Feckovich have explicit description of synchronization and how to deal with synchronization and the loss of sync or loss of synchronization. [00:19:47] Speaker 00: So you want to ensure how do you know that the decryption information that you're receiving is the right decryption information for a particular frame, like if there's a loss in the transmission. [00:19:55] Speaker 00: So I think that was clear below. [00:19:59] Speaker 02: Do you have any response to the suggestion that we don't need to decide whether DIV-X's construction is correct, just whether the board's is incorrect? [00:20:10] Speaker 00: I think that's a strange position to take, I guess. [00:20:13] Speaker 00: But I guess the issue that I would have is it's clear that DIVIX is contending and asking for a much narrower construction. [00:20:21] Speaker 00: So is there any basis for narrowing the claim to a much more limited one-to-one transmission correspondence when there's no evidence in the record that would warrant a one-to-one transmission correspondence and there's been no argument for disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope? [00:20:39] Speaker 00: There's no further questions on that. [00:20:40] Speaker 00: I would like to turn to the claim 10 and 19 argument that they made. [00:20:43] Speaker 00: So on claims 10 and 19, [00:20:48] Speaker 00: And I want to get the claim language right. [00:20:51] Speaker 00: So on claim 10, the term that I believe my colleagues wanted to recite was, the decryption stream includes information identifying a data field size. [00:21:02] Speaker 00: And they say, well, you don't know the size of these substructures, the slices. [00:21:07] Speaker 00: So the board was incorrect in its finding. [00:21:10] Speaker 00: So I think, first off, I think that is a substantial evidence question and not a de novo question here. [00:21:17] Speaker 03: Do slices have a fixed size? [00:21:22] Speaker 00: Yes, slices do have a fixed size. [00:21:25] Speaker 00: You have a sliced size pre-compression. [00:21:28] Speaker 00: And then when you compress it, it changes into a different size. [00:21:31] Speaker 00: So I have a couple points of evidence I'd like to direct you to on this issue. [00:21:35] Speaker 00: So the first is both the Fekovitch and Demos references that we relied upon, or references that use slices that the unit of data that they use is a slice to decide on what to encrypt. [00:21:48] Speaker 00: What portion of the framework they encrypt and then decrypt, it's a slice. [00:21:53] Speaker 03: And so there's a certain number of slices that make up an individual frame? [00:21:57] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:21:57] Speaker 03: And there's a certain number of macro blocks that make up a slice? [00:22:01] Speaker 03: Correct. [00:22:02] Speaker 03: Okay, keep going. [00:22:03] Speaker 00: So as an initial matter, we have two different prior art references that show that people were actually doing encryption and decryption using slices. [00:22:14] Speaker 00: They knew how to identify the slice pre-compression, and then in compression, they were able to identify slices for encrypting and decrypting. [00:22:22] Speaker 00: And I think I'd like to turn briefly to Appendix page 3465, which is Dvicks' expert's declaration. [00:22:35] Speaker 00: And if you see on that page, paragraph 78, [00:22:40] Speaker 00: concedes this point that Fekovitch is teaching a partial frame encryption which would then proceed to encrypt portions of the frame as defined by frame substructures such as every fourth slice of the frame. [00:22:52] Speaker 00: So he's conceding that the prior art is teaching a way of identifying the fourth in slice that you want to encrypt and then encrypting that fourth in slice. [00:23:02] Speaker 00: I think this is also notable for the board also cited the infringement contentions by DIVIX on this issue. [00:23:09] Speaker 00: And I think it's telling. [00:23:11] Speaker 00: Because if we turn to Appendix 1408, the infringement contentions from the district court, what's shown there is that DIVIX was identifying slices as being the infringing data unit. [00:23:24] Speaker 00: So if you look at the bottom of 1408, which is page 19 of their contentions, [00:23:28] Speaker 00: they describe the now unit, which is, they say the subsample 8 is an IDR slice as shown below, a now unit containing video information. [00:23:37] Speaker 00: This subsample contains 80 encrypted bytes and 11 unencrypted bytes. [00:23:44] Speaker 00: So even the evidence they were pointing to in the district court that the board credited in its analysis is showing that the slice has a defined number of bytes for encryption, decryption, it has a noble location. [00:23:56] Speaker 00: What is the argument that DIVIX is trying to contend is that, well, these slices can change when they're compressed. [00:24:03] Speaker 00: Well, yes, data gets compressed, it changes in size. [00:24:06] Speaker 00: And slices can vary in size. [00:24:08] Speaker 00: A slice doesn't have to be a certain size, but they're still knowable what the sizes of the slices are. [00:24:14] Speaker 00: And if you turn to [00:24:15] Speaker 00: appendix page 1409, what you see there is they have the different slices with the number of unencrypted bytes and encrypted bytes, and each slice, yes, they vary in size, but you know the size of each slice and the number of bytes within each slice. [00:24:30] Speaker 00: There's no other questions. [00:24:32] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:24:33] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:24:35] Speaker 01: So just to make a few points, I didn't hear much disagreement on the reasons of allowance. [00:24:39] Speaker 01: I walked you through how there were three. [00:24:40] Speaker 01: I heard no disagreement that the only reason for allowance-identified limitation was frame decryption information. [00:24:46] Speaker 01: I saw a reference to Appendix 855, which is our complaint. [00:24:55] Speaker 01: If you read the very next sentence, it says the encryption is by frame. [00:24:59] Speaker 01: So I would just direct your honors to that paragraph on 855-276. [00:25:03] Speaker 01: There's no inconsistency in our position. [00:25:06] Speaker 01: I want to point out something just so you don't think I got something wrong. [00:25:12] Speaker 01: If you look at the claim 14 was allowed, there is errant underlining. [00:25:17] Speaker 01: So if you look at it at first glance, it may seem like there's more that was added to the claim than there actually was. [00:25:22] Speaker 01: But if you do a comparison of the underline to the crossed out, almost all of it is the same. [00:25:27] Speaker 01: So I just want to flag that, should anyone look at it. [00:25:32] Speaker 01: There was an argument that the board addressed this in the institution decision. [00:25:36] Speaker 01: That's just wrong. [00:25:37] Speaker 01: The argument we presented at that time, pre-institution, was that 325D dictated non-institution because Vekovic was for the board. [00:25:47] Speaker 01: We believed that they were arguing one-to-one, just like argued the claim. [00:25:52] Speaker 01: The issue of claim construction of framed encryption stream was not before the board. [00:25:58] Speaker 01: And even putting all that to the side, as this Court has said in Intelligent Biosystems, [00:26:04] Speaker 01: the board still needs to address the question once it's fully joined in the final decision. [00:26:09] Speaker 01: So that just doesn't have merit. [00:26:11] Speaker 01: Briefly, I'll address slices. [00:26:14] Speaker 01: I heard agreement that slices do not have fixed sizes, that this is particularly true when they're compressed. [00:26:22] Speaker 01: I can explain that if it needs to be explained. [00:26:25] Speaker 01: And something was read from one of our infringement contemptions, but I heard it said 80 encrypted bytes. [00:26:32] Speaker 01: So there is a science so with that I've got one minute remaining. [00:26:36] Speaker 03: I would just like to address any questions that arms may have It's an abusive discretion to consider to review whether or not the board Correctly found an argument preserved in petition correct or or [00:26:51] Speaker 03: found that an argument wasn't preserved. [00:26:54] Speaker 01: May I leave a parting gift for the court? [00:26:56] Speaker 01: I don't know. [00:26:57] Speaker 03: It depends. [00:26:58] Speaker 01: I would like to withdraw that argument, and I would like to withdraw the secondary considerations argument. [00:27:04] Speaker 01: So no one needs to spend time addressing that in the decision. [00:27:07] Speaker 01: But you're correct. [00:27:08] Speaker 01: To answer your question, you're correct. [00:27:11] Speaker 02: Will we take that gift? [00:27:12] Speaker 02: I'll vote yes. [00:27:13] Speaker 01: I'll vote yes. [00:27:15] Speaker 01: Thank you very much, Your Honor. [00:27:16] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:27:17] Speaker 01: Thank you.