[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Next case, the argument is 22-1590, bicep corporation versus tendon host.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
Ready?

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Mr. Lawley, welcome.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
Please proceed.

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

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
The first inquiry, this is obviously a Section 101 case, and the inquiry is, is this directed to statutory subject matter?

[00:00:23] Speaker 03:
And I think, kind of from the get-go, that question is easily answered with a yes.

[00:00:29] Speaker 03:
I mean, this is directed to a manufacturing process, and that is a section.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
Explain something about patent tuning.

[00:00:35] Speaker 00:
How does this not, patent not cover an auto body assembly line?

[00:00:40] Speaker 03:
It would, well,

[00:00:43] Speaker 03:
It wouldn't cover an assembly line because you have to manufacture the components, but it would cover, in the context of auto manufacturing, the manufacture of components where you use the intersection parameters in the manufacture of the component with a machine that's specialized and capable of doing that.

[00:01:02] Speaker 03:
It is not limited to building.

[00:01:04] Speaker 00:
But why wouldn't a robot, which assembles the parts of the body on the auto assembly line,

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
using those parameters not do the same thing as your pen?

[00:01:18] Speaker 03:
Because the claims recite the manufacturing machine making the component based on the intersection parameters.

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
So if it's automated assembly,

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
But the components aren't based on the intersection.

[00:01:32] Speaker 03:
That's automated assembly.

[00:01:34] Speaker 03:
What this patent about is not that.

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
It's you're going to make one component.

[00:01:37] Speaker 00:
Isn't that unified body that's produced a component of the automobile?

[00:01:43] Speaker 03:
The unified so the unified bodies put together, but then that then that body would need to be built based on its intersect If that's the component based on this intersection with some other part, right?

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Right and in the manner as claimed and it would have to be out of the 3d model I mean, there's a lot more going on there So it could cover not a body assembly the part that produced where they produce the body by taking three different big pieces and matching them together that's what I would

[00:02:09] Speaker 00:
reading when I read the pet.

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
Yeah, the answer is no, Your Honor, because you would need to make the individual parts.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
So you're making one component, and you're making it based on the intersection with a component that's not being manufactured now.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
Subsequent assembly does happen with both structural steel beams and auto parts, but if it's automated assembly, frankly, there's no need to.

[00:02:34] Speaker 03:
So just

[00:02:35] Speaker 03:
What happens in the infringing device is my client's device is the device is found to infringe.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
You've got, for example, a steel beam.

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
And you etch automatically the shape on it.

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
And what happens on the floor, they take them and you can line it up and you can assemble it precisely.

[00:02:54] Speaker 03:
So you know exactly where it intersects.

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
If you're using a robot, you don't need to do that because the robot's going to do it for you without the marking.

[00:03:01] Speaker 03:
So probably not in that context, Your Honor.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
But back to the point is, even if it did cover that,

[00:03:09] Speaker 03:
it's directed to manufacturing.

[00:03:12] Speaker 03:
And that is statutory subject matter, which is like deer.

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
Because in Diamond v. Deer, plainly, that claim, which is reproduced in our reply brief, is to using the Arrhenius equation to determine when to open the door on a rubber press, if that's the right word, and automatically open the door.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
The Arrhenius equation, they were opening doors.

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
They were doing it by hand.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
They were using the Arrhenius equation.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
And the invention there was that.

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
And the Supreme Court said, that's a process for curing rubber.

[00:03:44] Speaker 03:
Right?

[00:03:44] Speaker 03:
Because that's what the claim says.

[00:03:46] Speaker 03:
And if one compares it to Fluke, Fluke was an alarm and, I think, a petrochemical plant.

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
But the claim wasn't limited to that.

[00:03:53] Speaker 03:
It was calculating the number, whether it was for scientific purposes or something else.

[00:03:58] Speaker 03:
And so this is a very rare case, because, Your Honor, I've read all the 101 cases I could lay my hands on, at least.

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
And it's daunting how often patents are invalidated under 101 by this court and other courts below this court.

[00:04:10] Speaker 03:
And the fact is- It's daunting, but that's our governing precedent right now.

[00:04:14] Speaker 03:
It is, but none of them are manufacturing processes.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
None of them.

[00:04:19] Speaker 03:
They are all things like detecting fraud in a credit transaction.

[00:04:22] Speaker 03:
I mean, the list goes on and on.

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
Things like washing an airplane in Echo Services, well, that was statutory because it's directed to it.

[00:04:28] Speaker 03:
And so when the Solicitor General filed their brief on Wednesday in the interactive wearables,

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
petition for certiorari, they advocated for certiorari because they said the question should be, is it directed to, in that case, the personal wearable interactive device?

[00:04:47] Speaker 03:
Or is it directed, you know, how do we do that?

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
And the Solicitor General said it was.

[00:04:52] Speaker 03:
This case is easier.

[00:04:53] Speaker 03:
I mean, there's a lot of software going on here.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
This case is about many facts.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
SG's brief is not something we're governed by.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
We're governed by our own precedent.

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
We have lots of precedent that says automating something that had previously been done by hand

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
is not really the sort of thing that's eligible for the patent system.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
That's just nothing more than perhaps, in a larger sense, like a mental step type of problem.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
And this is plainly not.

[00:05:25] Speaker 03:
I mean, I question that because it seems like if that's all that was done, it would be obvious and invalid anyway.

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
Well, that's a different problem, perhaps, for these claims.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
But for what we have right now, this patent

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
I call it thin and you know the figures don't show me a lot but it's pretty clear to me that the whole point of this was you had a CAD design model that contains information and you're trying to transfer that information to some manufacturing machine and before a lot of that had to be done by a person doing that and now this invention's insight is

[00:06:10] Speaker 02:
Well, let's avoid human intervention.

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
Let's automate that process of extracting data out of a design model and feeding it into a manufacturing machine.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
And if that's an accurate summary of the claimed advance by the inventor of these claims, then what we have here is another example of

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
automating something that had previously been done by man.

[00:06:38] Speaker 02:
We have multiple cases.

[00:06:40] Speaker 02:
Enric Killian is a recent example where we've said, no, sorry, you can't get a patent on that under Section 101 under our understanding of the abstract idea exception.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
Yes, and plainly, this is not merely automating.

[00:06:52] Speaker 03:
And so if I could just slightly divert before I go directly there, Your Honor.

[00:06:59] Speaker 03:
The district court was kind of all over on what the idea was, but kind of landed where Your Honor had said at identifying, extracting, and transferring data from a design file.

[00:07:10] Speaker 03:
And Peddinghaus in Briefing adopts that definition on pages 18, 28, and 42.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
But when it comes to things like preemption and whatnot, they can't do that.

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
That's not the idea because, of course, that's not being preempted.

[00:07:23] Speaker 03:
And so they say the idea is creating a design model that includes dimensions and, they say, intersection points.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
It should be intersection parameters that define an intersection because that's claim seven.

[00:07:34] Speaker 03:
of, they say, the components.

[00:07:36] Speaker 03:
It should be one component being manufactured as it intersects with a component that's not yet being manufactured of a three-dimensional design.

[00:07:46] Speaker 03:
Identifying and extracting that information from the three-dimensional model and then converting that information to instructions for manufacturing the physical object and

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
transmitting those instructions to the manufacturing machines, which are specially adapted to receive them, because that didn't exist in the prior art before.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
And I would suggest that that is pretty darn concrete.

[00:08:09] Speaker 03:
It's still a little bit too broad, but it's pretty darn concrete.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
And this was not merely automating, because what would happen if

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
I mean, the only evidence about what was conventional came from Beechup, notwithstanding, but proof over here.

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
But what would happen conventionally is they would be manufacturing these things, and they would take them off the line.

[00:08:28] Speaker 03:
They would use hoists to take them off the line.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
They would get a 2D printout, not the three-dimensional drawing.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
They would determine by hand, OK, we think this is where the intersection is.

[00:08:39] Speaker 03:
They would write it out.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
Highly skilled operators have to do this, subject to reliability and quality problems, of course.

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
they would get a crane and put it back on the line and then run it on through.

[00:08:49] Speaker 03:
And so lots of problems with that, as it turns out.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
You need separate layout stations to take it off the line and put it there.

[00:08:56] Speaker 03:
So it requires a lot more manufacturing floor space.

[00:08:58] Speaker 03:
You need special operators who can read those drawings and do the markings and the speed, the reliability, the cost.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
And the manner of doing it is not the same.

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
It is fundamentally different to derive the information from the three-dimensional model than it is to take a printout and a ruler and try and figure out where it is, which is one of the other fundamental errors in both the district court opinion and in Peddinghaus's briefing, which is a predicate.

[00:09:28] Speaker 03:
They say that this was simply taking the data out of the three-dimensional CAD model because it was in there.

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
It was not in there.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
I mean, and so two parts of this, your honor.

[00:09:42] Speaker 03:
First, there are two kinds of information that the patent talks about.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
One is things like dimensions, right?

[00:09:48] Speaker 03:
How long is the steel being?

[00:09:50] Speaker 03:
That information is in the CAD model conventionally.

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
and you could take it out and you could cut it.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
And the patent talks about you need to do that automatically to reduce error, right?

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
That's not why we're here.

[00:10:02] Speaker 03:
That's not the invention that we're here talking about.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
The second part is, and we're also going to include intersection parameters.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
And they say also include intersection parameters.

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
And they say extract dimensions, then identify and extract

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
intersections, because the intersections weren't there.

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
And that's how it's described in the patent.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
But were there any ambiguity on that point, Your Honor?

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
There was evidence from Feachep that affirmatively established that the intersection parameters that define the intersection are not in conventional CAD models, which is why this was such a big deal that was lauded in the industry when it came out.

[00:10:41] Speaker 03:
This is huge.

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
We don't have, we can

[00:10:44] Speaker 03:
They can get it out of the CAD model, even though it's not there.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
Dimensions, sure.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
That's not why this patent was granted.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
Intersection parameters that define the intersection, they were not there.

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
So this isn't simply getting and transferring data.

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
You have to first, at least as compared to what was conventional, get it.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Now, after this patent, people copy.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
This is all in the record.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
People copy.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
So where in the claim does it talk about

[00:11:11] Speaker 02:
whatever, some computer somewhere doing the derivation work to figure out where the intersection points are for the intersection parameters.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
That is where in the processor identifies a plurality of intersection parameters.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
What's the site to the spec?

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
This is claim seven.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
I don't have the line number in front of me, but it's about the fifth, sixth limitation.

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
I was a little confused.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
I couldn't tell from your arguments whether it's at this part of the claim where the processor identifies a plurality of intersection parameters, where the intersection parameters get derived, or are they already kind of embedded in the design model creation step in the first step of your apparatus, where

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
the computing device is adapted to create a design model.

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
Because it felt like in some parts of this patent you're talking about, the design model comes ready-made with the intersection plan.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
So thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
One has to distinguish conventional with post-patent infringement.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
Conventionally, you had to derive.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
It wasn't there.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
They didn't use them in the manufacturing line.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
It wasn't there.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
You had to derive it.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
After Fichup's invention, and there's proof of this in the record, and notwithstanding that Fichup doesn't have a firm, after Fichup's invention, the CAD model designers copied and said, oh, bang, we should put that in, apologies for the informality, we should put that into the CAD model.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
And so identifying now means finding it in the CAD model.

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
But if one is looking at what happened in the prior art or this change that this made, it wasn't in the CAD model.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
OK, so then it sounds like you're not saying the processor that identifies the plurality of intersection parameters is where the intersection parameter derivation work is occurring.

[00:13:12] Speaker 02:
It's actually at the first step.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
It can be an either.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
It can be either.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
kind of big claims.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
So now it's moving around.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
It's not moving around, Your Honor, because what is... Well, you just read it could be either.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
Yes, claims often cover more than one embodiment of an infringement and what happened.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
And you have to identify the interrupt section parameters and have them in the model.

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
And that never happened in the prior art.

[00:13:37] Speaker 03:
And so Fitchup did it.

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
It columns four, five, and six in different places.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
The patent talks about how a design model typically includes

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
a lot of information, including intersection parameters.

[00:13:49] Speaker 03:
That is a description of the preferred embodiment, Your Honor.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
And before that, it talks about how you extract dimensions, and then you have to identify and include intersection parameters.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
And at the beginning of the patent, it refers to, in column one,

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
at lines 49 to about 55.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
Above that, it talks about use dimensions, use them automatically, and then to increase efficiency, include intersection parameters, because they weren't used in same effects before.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
It seems to me that what you're patenting is the question rather than the answer.

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
That is, the question is, what's the intersection parameter within the CAD program?

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
And then somebody else

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
looks at it and says, oh, well, here's the answer.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
No, what the patent is getting them and using them during manufacture using a machine that can do it, which allows it to be done on the manufacturing line, which is why the claim is directed to the manufacturing system, not the identification of intersection parameters.

[00:14:51] Speaker 00:
No, no, I'm not saying that.

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
So you said getting them when you answered my question.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
That's the question.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
The answer is the algorithm that does this.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
within the CAD program.

[00:15:06] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
The invention is not how intersection parameters are identified.

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:
It's that they are identified and used during manufacture, something that never happened before, at least not using a manufacturing machine.

[00:15:19] Speaker 03:
It could only be done by hand.

[00:15:21] Speaker 01:
There was no way to do it otherwise.

[00:15:27] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Nathaniel Love for Pettinghouse Corporation.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
I'm going to start with Judge Chen's question about intersection parameters, and there certainly is some confusion about exactly what the invention is.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
One of the arguments that counsel has made is that the invention or the innovation or the inventive step at part two of ALIS

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
is that the identification of intersection parameters is done differently than what was done by human operators.

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
But if you look at the claim, and you were looking at the language just now, there's no description of how that process is actually done.

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
And what they told the district court, and this is at appendix 214, is that the invention covers any way that a computer might identify the intersection parameters.

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
So it is, to your point, Judge Wallach, it's just about the whole question.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
It's not about some specific way of doing it.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
The other point about intersection parameters that Council raised was whether or not the intersection parameters are present in the design models.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
And the representation just now was that they were not in the prior art and that the innovation here was to place them in the design models.

[00:16:31] Speaker 01:
So I'd first direct the Court to the patent and what the patent actually says.

[00:16:35] Speaker 01:
In the abstract, the abstract refers to existing design models and the use of existing design models.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
And column two is very clear.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
The systems and methods, I'm sorry, line three of column two of the present invention may be based on information included as part of existing computer aided designs.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
So this is an invention that replaces the human operator who previously sat between the CAD design

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
and took that information out to feed it to the manufacturing machine.

[00:17:06] Speaker 01:
What's been replaced there using the same design models and going to the same machines is a set of these generic computer components.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
Why isn't this patent broad enough to cover a CAD designed box, metal box that's produced using markings and then put on the line and manufactured?

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
At the level of abstraction that these claims are recited, Your Honor, I agree with you.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
We would appear to cover that.

[00:17:39] Speaker 01:
I hadn't considered your question with respect to an auto manufacturing line.

[00:17:44] Speaker 01:
I'm not trying enough about it to answer that question competently.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
I probably don't know enough to ask the question, but just from what I've seen.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
It certainly is not limited to any specific setting.

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
And I'd actually like to talk a little bit to where counsel started about manufacturing.

[00:17:59] Speaker 01:
Manufacturing here appears at the very end of this claim.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
It is fully in the category of a post-solution activity that this court has addressed in many of its cases.

[00:18:10] Speaker 01:
Counsel emphasized that many of this court's cases in this area about information processing take place in the digital realm.

[00:18:17] Speaker 01:
and there was an effort to contrast this case from those digital realm cases.

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
If you go and look at the claim, what's happening here is we start with a CAD file, that is by definition a digital file, and then we're manipulating, we're identifying information, potentially manipulating that information, or simply just copying it out and then passing it electronically to a machine that accepts electronic input.

[00:18:40] Speaker 01:
Everything about what I just said takes place in the digital realm.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
There's no physical aspect to any of that.

[00:18:47] Speaker 01:
It starts and finishes with electronic manipulation of data.

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
And that's well within this court's decisions in electric power group, content extraction, University of Florida.

[00:18:58] Speaker 01:
All those are about

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
Process identifying data processing data and passing it from one place to another which is which is what this plane concerns I also go ahead keep going the last point I wanted to address about Whether the invention concerned adding let me just interrupt your first thing If you in your first step, it's not like I would say it's not identifying data It's asking someone else to identify data, which is why I said it was a question

[00:19:28] Speaker 01:
So I think part of what I was about to say goes to that, Your Honor, because there is some ambiguity as to what counsel is saying is the innovation.

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
Is the innovation that somehow intersection parameters will now already be in the design model?

[00:19:41] Speaker 01:
And if that's the case, then the question is, well, how did they get there?

[00:19:45] Speaker 01:
Because the patent doesn't describe that.

[00:19:47] Speaker 01:
And what shows up in the claim is that there's an identifying step that happens after the design model has already appeared.

[00:19:54] Speaker 01:
And so the claim, this claim, claim seven, which is representative of all the claims at issue, has an identifying step.

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
If the intersection parameter information is already there, then the identification step doesn't do anything.

[00:20:06] Speaker 01:
It's just copying.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
And then we're just copying data from one place to another.

[00:20:11] Speaker 01:
So with respect to whether or not there are intersection parameters in the design models of the invention, counsel pointed to columns five and six, and I believe that's where you were referencing, Judge Chen.

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
What those passages say is that the design model typically includes information like intersection parameters.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
And if the entire novelty of this invention was to add intersection parameters to design models that had never had them before,

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
Typically is a very odd word to use to convey that.

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
It is describing consistent with the abstract and column two, which discusses existing design models, consistent with the idea that intersection parameters were present in design models.

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
And one example of that can be found in column four.

[00:20:55] Speaker 01:
Column four, line 25, refers to a bolt fixing point, essentially a bolt hole.

[00:21:00] Speaker 01:
That's an intersection parameter.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
That's what column four at line 25 says.

[00:21:04] Speaker 01:
That's an example of an intersection parameter.

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
And there's no dispute that bolt holes were part of CAD design models.

[00:21:12] Speaker 01:
So what we're left with is where is the inventive step, the inventive concept that could save us at step two?

[00:21:19] Speaker 02:
Let's just assume the patent's ambiguous about whether conventional design models included the intersection parameters.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
So sure, suppose you take the method argument and say this was novel or this was the event of element.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
So first, then there's no need for the identifying step in the claim.

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
The claim doesn't describe how that information gets there.

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
So perhaps they have some innovation where they found a way to improve design models and make an improved design model that has intersection parameters built in.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
That's not disclosed in this patent, and it's not claimed in this patent.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
So it can't provide the inventive concept that would get this claim to survive Step 2 of ALICE.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
And if it's something else, if it's the identifying step, there's a lot in the briefs about the declarations from their expert and their inventor.

[00:22:10] Speaker 01:
about how a person of skill would know that there are algorithms you could use to identify intersection parameters.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
That's not in the patent either.

[00:22:20] Speaker 01:
There's nothing said about this other than identifying takes place.

[00:22:25] Speaker 01:
There's no specific algorithm claimed.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
It's any kind of identification.

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
And they're very clear about this.

[00:22:31] Speaker 01:
In the reply brief of page 26, it says the improvement does not depend on the algorithm for identifying intersection parameters.

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
So whatever this purported innovation might be, if it's about finding the intersection parameters earlier and putting them in the design model, not claimed, not disclosed in the patent, if it's about the identifying step, any method will do.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
Any possible way of doing this on the computer is covered, and that's the preemption problem.

[00:23:00] Speaker 02:
What about the story on the other side?

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
It's not quite clearly made in the patent itself, but

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
the story that the manufacturing process gets done differently when you are so fortunate enough to have the intersection parameter information transmitted directly to the manufacturing machine.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
So you don't have to take things off the assembly line or something like that, hoist things.

[00:23:31] Speaker 01:
There's two pieces to that.

[00:23:34] Speaker 01:
First is something that Council said earlier, that these machines were altered.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
They've said that in their briefs also, that the machines are specially adapted in some way to incorporate this new information.

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
You won't find anything in the patent that

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
discusses that at all.

[00:23:48] Speaker 01:
The discussion of manufacturing machines in the patent is fully consistent with the manufacturing machines of the prior art.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
This invention is about replacing what's in the middle between the CAD drawing and the manufacturing machine.

[00:24:01] Speaker 01:
And actually, at Appendix 1278, which is part of the joint client construction brief, Fichette makes a reference saying that humans used to program these machines to make marks, and now the computer is going to program those machines to make marks.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
So we're talking about the same machines that the humans used to program would now be programmed automatically by the computer.

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
The second aspect you raised there was this idea that once you implement this process using a computer, you don't have to hoist things off the line.

[00:24:35] Speaker 01:
None of that is in the claims.

[00:24:37] Speaker 01:
There's nothing in the claims about moving any objects or changing an assembly line in any way.

[00:24:43] Speaker 01:
The only thing that's claimed is this process of translating what's in the CAD model to something to feed into the manufacturing machine.

[00:24:49] Speaker 01:
So it's just simply something that's not reflected in the claims at all.

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
We're in the patent.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
There's no discussion of moving things on the line.

[00:24:56] Speaker 01:
And if there are no further questions, we'd rest on the briefs and ask you to affirm it.

[00:25:01] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:25:01] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:25:03] Speaker 02:
Will you store three minutes of your time?

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
I appreciate the additional time.

[00:25:10] Speaker 03:
I'd like to respond to just a few of the things there in terms of

[00:25:15] Speaker 03:
of whether it was present in the design models, it was proved not to be.

[00:25:21] Speaker 03:
So if the patent's ambiguous about is it in the design model, is it not, there was affirmative proof from Feach Up.

[00:25:26] Speaker 03:
It was not in the design model.

[00:25:28] Speaker 03:
Now, Peddinghaus has access to the prior art.

[00:25:30] Speaker 03:
They could come in and say, here's the CAD model.

[00:25:33] Speaker 03:
Here's the intersection parameters in the CAD model.

[00:25:36] Speaker 03:
They weren't there in the prior art, which gets me to my next point, which is a fundamental error of the district point.

[00:25:41] Speaker 03:
You can't just

[00:25:42] Speaker 03:
you know, transfer the data based on what was conventional.

[00:25:47] Speaker 03:
After the patent, people started including it in CAD model, and the invention here isn't when or where the intersection parameters are identified.

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:
It's that they are identified, not done automatically before, and that they are used in the manufacturing line, which gets me to the council's last point, which is, where is it in the claim about hoisting things here and there?

[00:26:08] Speaker 03:
Fair enough.

[00:26:09] Speaker 03:
It talks about an apparatus for manufacture of an object, right?

[00:26:13] Speaker 03:
So there's your assembly line.

[00:26:15] Speaker 03:
It talks about, in the second paragraph, at least one manufacturing machine to make the component.

[00:26:20] Speaker 03:
That's your manufacturing line.

[00:26:21] Speaker 03:
Typically it's at least four or five machines, but the claim says at least one.

[00:26:26] Speaker 03:
And then it talks about manufacturing the component.

[00:26:29] Speaker 03:
That is your manufacturing line.

[00:26:31] Speaker 03:
And the reason you can do it without hoisting it off the manufacturing line to do the marking is because we have a machine that's adapted to receive the instructions.

[00:26:41] Speaker 00:
Here's what confuses me.

[00:26:45] Speaker 00:
In column five, in the detailed description, it says, if the object to be manufactured is an architectural structure representing a shed,

[00:26:59] Speaker 00:
And then it goes through.

[00:27:00] Speaker 00:
And it doesn't stop just saying this is how CAD works.

[00:27:04] Speaker 00:
It goes on to say it can be manufactured without human intervention.

[00:27:09] Speaker 00:
Right?

[00:27:11] Speaker 00:
Is that not something that can be manufactured using this patent?

[00:27:18] Speaker 03:
Is a shed something that could be?

[00:27:20] Speaker 03:
Uh, yes, in practice, what tends to happen is the objects tend to be not the whole shed, but a wall for the shed.

[00:27:28] Speaker 03:
But yes, if, if that, this patent would cover that.

[00:27:31] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:27:32] Speaker 03:
So it would, assuming the limitations are all met.

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:27:35] Speaker 00:
And it would cover a box and it would cover those auto body parts.

[00:27:39] Speaker 03:
So assuming the limitations are met, which is, which is great because the context of the invention, the context of everything that's conventional, the context of every infringement,

[00:27:49] Speaker 03:
has all been manufactured steel, I-beams.

[00:27:52] Speaker 03:
But if this invention has broader application

[00:27:56] Speaker 03:
the claims would cover that, and that does not remove it from Section 101.

[00:27:59] Speaker 03:
A broad claim is not a Section 101 ineligible claim.

[00:28:03] Speaker 03:
So it identifies an actual improvement to manufacturing that has plain application for manufactured steel, which is the example in the patent, and it has broader application, which everybody who drafts patent claims know.

[00:28:18] Speaker 03:
Would I like a picture claim here?

[00:28:20] Speaker 03:
Of course.

[00:28:21] Speaker 03:
But that's not what we have.

[00:28:22] Speaker 03:
But that doesn't make it not patentable.

[00:28:24] Speaker 03:
And I'm down to 17 seconds.

[00:28:26] Speaker 03:
I'll answer, of course, any other questions.

[00:28:28] Speaker 01:
You're over.

[00:28:29] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.