[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
22-1707 Jet Service Net LLC vs. United Paths.

[00:00:08] Speaker 04:
Mr. Irwin.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
Please proceed.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
Thank you and may it please the court.

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
So as I see it, I'm here today to discuss one issue, and that issue is claim construction.

[00:00:26] Speaker 03:
And that's the claim construction of the two linked elements at the end of the first representative claim that are picked out as elements four and five by the board and previously by the parties.

[00:00:40] Speaker 03:
and this is a situation where we're dealing with claim construction not in terms of the Definition of a technical term but in terms of how does this claim work?

[00:00:51] Speaker 04:
Well, let me just ask you at the outset just that if We were to affirm hypothetically on the claim constructions.

[00:00:57] Speaker 04:
There are no other substantial evidence arguments in this case and other things, right?

[00:01:03] Speaker 04:
It's just a claim construction

[00:01:05] Speaker 03:
Yes, I do believe that according to the posture of the appeal, that the only dispositive issue really is claim construction.

[00:01:12] Speaker 03:
And that if just service loses on the claim construction issue, then there are no remaining issues.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
And when you say claim construction issue, do you mean whether the file must be stored on the local client device?

[00:01:25] Speaker 03:
So whether the file that's displayed, so whether the information sent from

[00:01:34] Speaker 03:
the virtual server must be about a file that is on the local client device.

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:01:42] Speaker 03:
Such that it can be in the key phrase selected from that information.

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
So that the... So this is the one issue in the case.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
If we affirm the board's construction on this local file question, then that's the end of the appeal.

[00:01:58] Speaker 02:
Is that fair to say?

[00:01:59] Speaker 03:
Yes, I believe that is correct.

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
And I also believe that it's correct to say that if you reverse on that one issue and change the claim construction to require that, if that file is selected, that it's necessary that the court reverse and remand for further proceedings at the board.

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
I believe that although certain factual issues are raised in the responsive brief,

[00:02:28] Speaker 03:
Those are requests for the court to change the factual findings of the board below.

[00:02:36] Speaker 03:
But no cross appeal has been filed in this case.

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
And because the board issued fact findings on whether or not the prior art, in terms of Proust and Walker, teach in particular displaying

[00:02:55] Speaker 03:
information about local files that are associated with the account.

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
But that's not an issue that's necessarily before the court on which reversal is possible or affirmance is possible.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
But is it also true that Unified contends that even under your constructions, that the claims are still unpatentable?

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:03:16] Speaker 03:
I do believe that that is the argument that they make in their brief.

[00:03:19] Speaker 03:
But I would just like to direct the court's attention to, and this is at page

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
56 of their brief where they make this representation that the board's finding that the combination of Proust and Walker teach displaying information about local files selected for upload.

[00:03:39] Speaker 03:
And I submit that that's actually untrue.

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
The board, in fact, made the opposite factual determination in its final written decision.

[00:03:48] Speaker 03:
And I would direct the court to appendix page 51 in the first paragraph at the top of the page where the board finds

[00:04:01] Speaker 03:
excuse my reading, I know I'm not speaking substantially up here, where the board finds that Petitioner, however, has not shown how either Proust or Walker teaches or suggests that the virtual server transmits the client device, sorry, transmits to the client device information about locally stored files, i.e.

[00:04:20] Speaker 03:
the first virtual representation as required by these claims.

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
So in this context, the claim the board is discussing

[00:04:29] Speaker 03:
claim number 11.

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
And so claim number 11 has the explicit requirement that there's a representation both of a file, a locally stored file, and a file on the virtual server.

[00:04:47] Speaker 03:
Now, as you'll see in the briefs, that's not necessarily the same case with claim number one.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
However, it remains the same issue.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
The same issue is whether

[00:04:59] Speaker 03:
the prior art teaches or suggests that there's

[00:05:03] Speaker 03:
that there's transmission of information about locally stored files.

[00:05:07] Speaker 03:
So based on this explicit finding by the board here at Appendix Stage 51, we believe that, in light of the lack of a cross appeal, that this is not a basis on which the board could, that the court could affirm.

[00:05:26] Speaker 03:
Necessarily, if the claim construction is such that the

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
The transmitted information that has been selected from for the file to upload must include information about an associated locally stored file.

[00:05:48] Speaker 04:
And that's the board's discussion at 22 and 23.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
This is the board's discussion at page 45 of their opinion, which is appendix at 51.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
Okay, this is your response to the Attali's backup argument.

[00:06:10] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:06:10] Speaker 02:
That if we, even if we agree with you on the correct claim construction about whether we're talking about local files versus virtual server files, you should still, you should win and they should still lose.

[00:06:22] Speaker 02:
But the main event is whether the claim actually requires the recited file to be a locally stored file.

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
So why don't we get to that?

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
Okay, yes, I'll return there.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
And so, even though we're addressing claim construction, not of the meaning of the technical term, we still use the same tools.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
And those tools are the logic and grammar of the claim and the disclosure and the specification.

[00:06:52] Speaker 03:
And so in particular here, the board discusses three of just services arguments for its claim construction.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
And those are the antecedent basis argument first, and then the claim differentiation over claim two.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
And also figure six, where figure six shows the display

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
information about locally stored files on the left that are associated with the account.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
So this is transmitted data about locally stored files and then on the right it shows.

[00:07:32] Speaker 02:
I guess the difficulty we have here is that claim one is silent about something and that something is how does the

[00:07:46] Speaker 02:
file that gets uploaded from the client device to the virtual server.

[00:07:50] Speaker 02:
How does that file first get to the client device in the first place?

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
I understand you want us to read into this claim that there's an unstated limitation

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
that the virtual server is scanning the local client device for whatever files are stored there so that the virtual server will then transmit all this information about said files to be displayed on that client device.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
None of that's actually written in the claim, but that's what you want us to infer is inherent in this claim.

[00:08:24] Speaker 02:
But the board had

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
surmise there's another way that the file could end up on the client device and that is if the file you know not stated in the claim but it gets sent down from the virtual server first so it's sitting on the client device in that way and then eventually that same file gets uploaded back up to the virtual server so I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what is it about this claim

[00:08:54] Speaker 02:
Any word or words in this claim that necessarily excludes the board's embodiment of what it saw was also covered by this claim.

[00:09:05] Speaker 02:
Certainly, claim 11, dependent claim 11, excludes that kind of embodiment, because you've actually written it into that claim, and that claim's found to be patentable.

[00:09:16] Speaker 02:
But for independent claims like 1 and 10, there's no such express limitation.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
file that we're all talking about has to be locally stored on the client device.

[00:09:28] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:29] Speaker 03:
And I would like to say the specific language that you're looking for there is the fourth reason that Just Service raised.

[00:09:37] Speaker 03:
And that's the language selected from.

[00:09:39] Speaker 03:
The board's hypothetical falls apart when it looks to selected from.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
If the displayed information

[00:09:49] Speaker 03:
does not include the file that is selected from, then the claim limitation is not met.

[00:10:01] Speaker 03:
And to go a little bit beyond that, to talk about your issue about reading into the claim, the scanning limitation, this is an issue that came up during oral argument before the board for the first time that

[00:10:15] Speaker 03:
and is relied on in their decision, but we submit that that's a mistake.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
There's no requirement that a patentee claim every element of a process.

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
And although this is beyond the briefs in this particular context, although there is case law talking about whether there are essential elements of a claim that must necessarily be claimed,

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
There's no finding of that sort from the board here, nor any support for such a limitation here.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
So with respect to these claims, with respect to claim one, claim one is agnostic as to how that information is in the virtual server.

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
It doesn't necessarily require it to be done by scanning.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
However, it nonetheless requires that that information be displayed such that it can be selected from.

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
Does that answer your question, Judge Stein?

[00:11:23] Speaker 02:
I guess it sort of does, but just thinking about the prior combination, the way I understand the prior combination is there's a set of files associated with the user account.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
they're on a remote storage system and then information about those remotely stored files are displayed on the client device and then ultimately a file among the files of which there's information displayed gets sent up back to the remote storage system.

[00:12:03] Speaker 02:
So

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
and that file had previously been downloaded, but why doesn't that match up with the claims?

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
So if the file is modified and re-uploaded, if it's saved down to the file, it's going to have different file information.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
This is a different file located in a different place.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
Even if that file is

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
has some of the same information, that doesn't make it the same file about which information is displayed.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
For example, if two files have the same size, it wouldn't meet the claim limitation simply to say because information was transmitted about one file that was, for example, 64 kilobytes.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
What if I had a file and then I wrote it yesterday and then today I

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
I opened it up and changed the date that's listed in my memo, and then I saved that.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
That's not the same file.

[00:13:02] Speaker 02:
That's a new and different file.

[00:13:05] Speaker 03:
I do believe that that's a different file because it has been modified.

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
It's not going to have the same information.

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
And particularly here, it's not about whether it's the same file.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
It's about whether the information about that file was transmitted such that it can be selected from.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
So if what you're doing is on the local device changing the date of that file, that change date is not something that was transmitted from the virtual server.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
Does that answer your question?

[00:13:37] Speaker 02:
I think I understand your point.

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
One of your arguments is about ordering of steps.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
Can you tell me how that kind of fits into the different prior art combinations, the Proust and Walker or Chi?

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
I just want to note that I'm well into my rebuttal time.

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
But I can go ahead and answer your question.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
So the ordering of steps is something that results from this selected from language and also from the uploading language.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
And this is somewhat recognized by the board in referring to how the file is subsequently uploaded.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
But it's more developed necessarily on appeal in our arguments on appeal in response to some arguments made by unified patents.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
And so because the information must be displayed in order for it to be selected from, there's a necessary, as a result of logic and grammar,

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
ordering to those two steps.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
And that ordering is consistent with the specification where the information is shown as displayed before the uploading of those files occurs.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
I am Michelle Aspin on behalf of Unified Patents.

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
Now, just service just told you that this is all about claim construction, but important factual findings by the board, supported by substantial evidence, render these claim construction arguments this temporal limitation moot for either ground.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
And either ground would dispel with all issues on appeal.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
Starting with Chu, which I feel like we didn't get to touch on in the opening, the board cited Chu's disclosure that the server, which a user can access via a web page just like the 868 patent, starts up and displays a client-sent program, processes file transfer requests, and stores package information about a file in a database.

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
And in at least one context, CHU does disclose displaying information about a local file before it is ever uploaded to the system.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
Specifically, there's a resume upload feature where a user inputs information into a web page.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
I don't recall.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
Did the board sidestep this entire claim construction debate about local files in the CHU-based rejection in its analysis?

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
Did it say, well, we just had a big debate about claim construction on whether the files have to be locally stored.

[00:16:25] Speaker 02:
And we just resolved that.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
And now for the true base projection, it turns out that wasn't even important at all.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
Well, the board did note that they were rejecting patent owners' claim construction.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
And they summarized the parties' arguments.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
And so while they didn't tie the bow that this is a temporal

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
order process, because Just Service didn't present that issue to them that way.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
The board did agree with Unified's position about how CHU's technical disclosures worked, and they did cite provisions of CHU where information about local files is what the server is storing and displaying.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
So for example, the board cited disclosures at paragraph 65 and 94 of CHU, which starts into this figure six embodiment.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
And in the figure six embodiment, there is this resume upload feature.

[00:17:19] Speaker 02:
I'm getting a little lost.

[00:17:21] Speaker 02:
I think you want me to believe that the board's true base projection didn't rely in any way on this claim construction debate that it resolved earlier in its opinion.

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
Can you show me where in its analysis that I can feel convinced of that?

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
So the board cites the disclosure of paragraph 65 and 94 at appendix 65 to 66.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
And then later, and they're talking about element 5 here, but they note Unified's argument that at paragraphs 12 and 55 of Chu, the user may store files on the server for transfer later.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
The only argument just service made to the board.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
Is there a sentence you want me to read?

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
Because right now, I'm assuming that it

[00:18:14] Speaker 02:
that the claim construction issued earlier in this opinion, it did rely on it for the true based rejection.

[00:18:20] Speaker 02:
You're telling me that's not the case.

[00:18:22] Speaker 02:
Is there a sentence you can show me that I can see that?

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
Like I said, they didn't tie that.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
I was saying even under just service as construction, the claims are disclosed.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
But we have to put this decision in context with what patent owner was even arguing about you in the first place, which is that the server never transmits files, information about files.

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
And so they cite in their reply group, they cite incomplete portions of the decision to suggest that the board was only relying on this figure three embodiment.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
That's just not true.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
In discussing the display element of figure four, the board did cite the portions of two where it's about the files that are local to the client device that are about to be sent.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
And I do want to note that the final written decision does note unified arguments regarding the resume upload feature in Figure 6 and Paragraph 7.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
And these are just so clear that the server transmits the user's previous inputs about an incomplete upload in order for the user to valid and props the user to validate.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
Are we talking about true?

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
I'm talking about true, which is where the board cited when they were summarizing unified arguments.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
Just Service never argued that there was another way to read the Figure 6 embodiment before Chu.

[00:19:44] Speaker 00:
And so while I do wish that the board said we agree with Unified even based on this construction, I just don't think that there's any other way to read how Chu works in any case.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
So if you do disagree with the board's construction and

[00:20:06] Speaker 00:
find that more specific findings are needed.

[00:20:10] Speaker 00:
We think that remand is the appropriate answer.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
But because Just Service's argument was just that the server never transmits information about local files and the board cited provisions of CHU where it does talk about the local embodiments.

[00:20:26] Speaker 02:
I don't know why you're not talking about Proust and Walker in the actual claim construction debate.

[00:20:31] Speaker 02:
Instead of inviting us to remand something.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
OK, thank you.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
In the final indecision at appendix 45 to 46, pages 39 to 40, the board said a posita would be motivated to combine press with walker.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
And they found that press and view of walker renders obvious a system where the user may download a file from the server and reupload it.

[00:20:58] Speaker 02:
We know what the board said.

[00:20:59] Speaker 02:
We want to know why you think the board got the claim construction right.

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
I mean, isn't it fair to say that the board's claim construction, when it opened up the claim to encompass the prior art combination, ended up reading the claim to encompass an embodiment that doesn't have any support in the written description of the patent?

[00:21:26] Speaker 02:
Is that fair to say?

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
No, I don't think so.

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
I mean, the patent describes a backup system in general in the abstract.

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
But what we have is Figure 6 in the patent.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
Right?

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
Figure six is all about the files being stored in the local client device.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
And then you scan the local client device to see what files are there that are associated with the user account and then the virtual server then displays that information on some web page on the client device showing all the information about files stored on the local device.

[00:22:02] Speaker 02:
I mean, that's what the Patent Written Description is talking about.

[00:22:05] Speaker 02:
I don't see anything in the patent's written description talking about some other idea where all the files are exclusively on the virtual file.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
And then, you know, you download one of those files and then you mess around with it, update it, modify it, and then upload that version back up to the virtual server.

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
I don't think that the patent owner specifically claimed the Fig.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
6 embodiment.

[00:22:31] Speaker 00:
They claimed something more.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
and what they claimed was a server that has five functions, and these functions are delineated separately.

[00:22:39] Speaker 00:
Element four requires transmitting for display information about one or more files associated with a particular user storage account.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
Because the patent does describe that it is a file backup system, we don't think that we are asking you to read something in the claim that's not supported by the written description.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
This wasn't really

[00:22:57] Speaker 00:
at issue below if we were, the backup systems you typically could overwrite and replace files.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
That's often how they worked.

[00:23:06] Speaker 00:
And that's similar to what is happening with Preston Walker in terms of a collaboration system.

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
But in your view, how, if at all, did the board rely on counsel's concessions or statements during claim construction?

[00:23:22] Speaker 00:
I don't think I would say that they relied on the concession to construe the claim.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
I think that conversation between the board and the patent owner was part of a long dialogue to understand what their construction was.

[00:23:35] Speaker 00:
Because in their response brief to the board, the patent owner just said that the file had to at least

[00:23:40] Speaker 00:
be on the local device.

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
And now, on appeal, there's this issue of exclusivity.

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
It has to exclusively be on the local device and not be uploaded.

[00:23:50] Speaker 00:
So they asked Just Service about this hypothetical to better understand the construction, to understand how information about a file is displayed and how a file can be associated with a particular storage account before the server

[00:24:05] Speaker 00:
ever has information about the file.

[00:24:08] Speaker 00:
And I'll note that when Just Service did make this concession, the judge stopped them because they were a little surprised and asked the question again to clarify, and Just Service did.

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
And then the board clarified again, and Just Service admitted that this idea that the server is displaying information to the client about itself is

[00:24:26] Speaker 00:
is a little circular.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
But I also want to note, Just Service relies on this antecedent basis argument to suggest that a temporal limitation can be read into the claims.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
And that's kind of the crux of their argument.

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
But they're also reading a lot more to get there, because the claim doesn't say select it from the information.

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say,

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
that the information is transmitted for selection.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
It's transmitted for display.

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
That is very broad.

[00:24:54] Speaker 00:
So it's not that this file has to be selected from the information that's displayed in element four.

[00:25:04] Speaker 00:
They are delineated and they are separate.

[00:25:07] Speaker 00:
The reliance on this definite article, the definite article is there because it's necessary to comply with the rules regarding definite and indefinite articles in order to convey that what we're talking about is there has to be the ability for the server to have some overlap between what is displayed and what is uploaded.

[00:25:28] Speaker 00:
In other words, the server must be capable of displaying information about a file that has been uploaded.

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
The word the doesn't create this

[00:25:36] Speaker 00:
and a seen a basis, and the selected from doesn't say selected from the information, but that's what your service would have you read into the claim.

[00:25:47] Speaker 00:
It is awkward, but note that similar passive voice was considered in this Microsoft Uniloc decision presented in Unified's 28-J letter.

[00:25:56] Speaker 00:
And this is non-precedential, but it presents similar grammatical issues that are before the board here.

[00:26:03] Speaker 00:
There, the claim recited determining device component to implement a reconfiguration request and then comparing the determined component and other information with a list of known information.

[00:26:15] Speaker 00:
And the court found that the board there erred because it concluded that the steps needed to be performed in order.

[00:26:22] Speaker 00:
Here, elements four and five can be performed as ordered steps, but they do not have to be to read on the claim.

[00:26:29] Speaker 00:
And there's an important reason why we have this presumption of not reading in order unless it's clear.

[00:26:34] Speaker 00:
It's a notice issue.

[00:26:36] Speaker 00:
Element four, when you read it.

[00:26:37] Speaker 04:
Is there a presumption to be applied in nothing claims and not an apparatus claim?

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
I don't think that apparatus claims are, because they're not described as an ordered process, you're correct.

[00:26:49] Speaker 00:
The presumption is applied in method claims.

[00:26:52] Speaker 00:
These system claims and the computer readable medium claims aren't presented as ordered systems.

[00:27:03] Speaker 00:
They're delineated as separate functions that the server is capable of doing or configured to do.

[00:27:08] Speaker 00:
And so we think that's even more the case that you don't import temporal requirements because there's not even a process there in the system claims.

[00:27:21] Speaker 00:
And there's another assumption baked into patent order's construction that the user has no way of seeing or selecting a file for upload if the server is not transmitting for display information about the file.

[00:27:33] Speaker 00:
But the idea about what is displayed is selectable.

[00:27:39] Speaker 00:
That's not in the claim.

[00:27:41] Speaker 00:
What could be displayed is just a confirmation that the file is uploaded.

[00:27:44] Speaker 00:
And the information doesn't need to be the same.

[00:27:46] Speaker 00:
So when a user downloads the file, that is the same file that is stored on the server if it's a copy of the file.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
And the server is still displaying information about that file.

[00:27:57] Speaker 00:
And that's where the board got into this idea of downloading and then uploading again.

[00:28:02] Speaker 01:
According back to Judge Chen's hypothetical, is it the same file when the, I believe it was date, gets modified?

[00:28:11] Speaker 00:
We think it's different versions of the same file.

[00:28:13] Speaker 00:
I think it is the same file.

[00:28:15] Speaker 00:
It's in the same location usually in the file storage system.

[00:28:21] Speaker 00:
If it's not the same file, I think that makes all the more reason why the press and Walker Ground should be upheld.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
Because this indicator is displayed on the file, for example.

[00:28:31] Speaker 00:
And if it is a different file, then you are displaying some information about a file that is exclusively local.

[00:28:36] Speaker 00:
You're displaying that it's on the client.

[00:28:40] Speaker 00:
and that the server-related version is locked for editing to other users.

[00:28:46] Speaker 00:
And that's information of the file that share the same name.

[00:28:49] Speaker 00:
So we think it's interesting that they're saying that this is not the same file, because at least in Prestonview of Walker, the board did say that a Posita would be motivated to incorporate this indicator element.

[00:29:02] Speaker 00:
into process system.

[00:29:04] Speaker 00:
And while we didn't map that to ... I noticed that there's this part about dependent claim 11.

[00:29:08] Speaker 00:
We didn't map that to dependent claim 11 in our petition, and the arguments never went back to that.

[00:29:14] Speaker 00:
So I don't think we're a stop from bringing this position to claim one, because we did bring it.

[00:29:18] Speaker 00:
It was in the petition, and we noted it in response to the claim arguments that you have to construe the claims together.

[00:29:26] Speaker 00:
So yes, I do think that they are the same file.

[00:29:29] Speaker 00:
But to the extent they're not, I think that makes the board's findings regarding the combination of Preston Walker even more clear under their own construction.

[00:29:41] Speaker 00:
I just want to note about this indicator, because I know I'm short on time, that Just Service has told you that it's only indicated to other users.

[00:29:48] Speaker 00:
They never raised that before at the board, and it's just not true.

[00:29:51] Speaker 00:
They said the abstract of Walker.

[00:29:53] Speaker 00:
There are other provisions in Walker that talk about how this is a field on the client device.

[00:29:56] Speaker 00:
If they raised that argument to the board, we would have responded to it, but they didn't.

[00:30:01] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:30:17] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honors, just to briefly respond to some of the issues.

[00:30:24] Speaker 03:
I agree that the board does sidestep the current construction issue with respect to Chu in a way that it doesn't with respect to Walker and for us because

[00:30:37] Speaker 03:
The ground virtue is not applied to claim 11.

[00:30:42] Speaker 03:
So there is no discussion in the board's final written decision about an instance where it's explicitly required for there to be display of both, not just one, as in claim one, but both locally stored files that are associated with the account and

[00:31:07] Speaker 03:
files stored on the virtually server associated with the account.

[00:31:11] Speaker 02:
And further... I'm just a little lost.

[00:31:13] Speaker 02:
When it came to the Chu based rejection, the board didn't need to rely on that claim construction made in the first instance when it ruled that the claim doesn't require the files to be locally stored.

[00:31:28] Speaker 02:
Is that right?

[00:31:30] Speaker 03:
I believe I disagree.

[00:31:33] Speaker 03:
But I think I might be getting into a double negative here.

[00:31:36] Speaker 03:
The board found that it did not need to address the issue of whether Chu displayed, sent for display information about locally stored files because it had already resolved the claim construction issue earlier in the decision.

[00:31:56] Speaker 03:
Had it not already resolved that claim construction issue, it would have had to reach that issue.

[00:32:04] Speaker 03:
in the same way that it did with respect to Walker and the other reference in addressing claim 11.

[00:32:12] Speaker 03:
But because the ground involving Chu is not directed to claim 11, it never had to directly address that factual issue in the way that it did, as I previously pointed to at appendix 51.

[00:32:27] Speaker 03:
Does that answer your question?

[00:32:29] Speaker 02:
Well, I understand your position.

[00:32:33] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:32:33] Speaker 03:
Just to elaborate briefly, Just Service does contest that Chu displays this.

[00:32:41] Speaker 03:
And in particular, the citation for that would be in paragraph 97 of Chu at appendix 1840.

[00:32:53] Speaker 03:
there's a discussion of what is transmitted in this re-resumed statin.

[00:33:00] Speaker 03:
And what is transmitted there is information about the, is information about the

[00:33:10] Speaker 03:
function.

[00:33:11] Speaker 03:
And so the claims make a clear distinction between transmitting information about transmitting the functions and transmitting information about the files.

[00:33:22] Speaker 03:
And in the resume step, what's transmitted is information about the functions.

[00:33:27] Speaker 04:
Thank you.