[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
20-2348, left and right versus 43 across.

[00:00:05] Speaker 02:
Mr. Brunette, am I saying that right?

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

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

[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Your honors, the board erred by failing to apply the specifications express definition of the term unused space.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
As a result, the board conflated identifying blank space on a web page with identifying unused space as a portion of a user display in its analysis of both the Ramanathan and Parkinson references.

[00:00:34] Speaker 04:
Well, but you take as a given that this is the express definition.

[00:00:39] Speaker 04:
So that's the rub, right?

[00:00:42] Speaker 04:
I mean, language in the spec, which kind of cuts against that or suggests this is not an express, exclusive definition, the one that you provided, right?

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I get that point.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
The specification clearly contains an express definition.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
It's at column 2, lines 10 to 12, where the specification says, and I quote, as used herein, unused space refers to a portion of a display that is not being used to display rendered primary content.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
And I take it the part of the spec

[00:01:13] Speaker 01:
that you're talking about that arguably cuts against that is figure 1M and the corresponding text.

[00:01:20] Speaker 04:
In column 4, yes.

[00:01:22] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
And so I would say a couple of things about that.

[00:01:26] Speaker 01:
First, it doesn't matter whether there is an embodiment and an exhibit, or figure 1M and the corresponding text is described as an alternative embodiment.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
It doesn't matter whether there's an alternative embodiment that is contrary to or would be read out by the express definition.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
That was this court's holding in Sinochem.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
That's exactly what happened with the example 10 in Sinochem, which was contrary to the express definition.

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
And this court held that the express definition had to be applied nonetheless, and that the example in example 10 was merely an unclaimed alternative embodiment.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
I would say that that is at worst what happens with figure 1M and the corresponding text.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
I would also add that figure 1M is perhaps a little bit misleading in the way that it identifies the box at the bottom of the web page off the screen as unused space.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
Because the corresponding text in column 4 explains that the alternative embodiment there involves a pre-rendering process where there's a prediction being made about where unused space will potentially be in the future.

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
And so I'm not even sure that it's an unclaimed embodiment contrary to that.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
I have column 5, lines 42 to 50.

[00:02:44] Speaker 02:
That also has unused space covered by another application on the screen.

[00:02:51] Speaker 02:
So that would also seem to conflict with your definition in column 2.

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
Again, Your Honor, I think that these are at worst examples in the specification that

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
even if they are inconsistent.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
Okay, what about column 3, line 37, use of 50, switching between tabs in a browser with different unused space?

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
Again, I guess the point I'm making is the examples are sort of

[00:03:19] Speaker 02:
seem to be piling up of examples, which lead us to believe, since we have to construe, at least me, we have to construe specification in terms of the whole specification.

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
We don't take a sentence in isolation outside the context of the document.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
It's becoming harder for me to conclude that column two represents clear and unmistakable definition in light of all the other locations that wouldn't comport with it.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
So I think the first response to that is that there's clearly definitional language in column two in that line.

[00:03:53] Speaker 02:
But you're saying clearly definitional language if you only read that sentence.

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
We don't read a sentence in isolation, we read a specification.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
So it has to be clearly definitional in light of the whole specification, not in light of the single sentence.

[00:04:08] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
So I think that sentence clearly purports to provide a definition.

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
And then the question is, does the rest of the specification so clear that it overcomes?

[00:04:17] Speaker 02:
No, it's not as the rest of the specification so clear it overcomes.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
I think you misunderstand the burden.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
The burden is for us to look at a specification and to conclude if it is clearly and unmistakably lexicography, claiming a particular definition.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
Not to look at a sentence in isolation and see if anything else overcomes it.

[00:04:35] Speaker 02:
but to read the specification as a whole and ascertain whether that specification clearly and unmistakably conveys to a skilled artisan the intent to define.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
That's the burden.

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
So we look at it all together.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
You have the burden.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, getting back to your reference to column three, I think that what's happening there is the specification is explaining that when you're switching between tabs, it's dynamic.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
And so the assessment of whether there is unused space has to be redone once you switch a tab that may have unused space in a different location.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
And I think unused space there is being used consistently with the definition.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
And I would also argue that in the discussion of 1M,

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
The discussion is not inconsistent with the definition in the sense that it is discussing making a prediction about where unused space will be if that language is later moved onto the user display.

[00:05:32] Speaker 00:
What about the abstract that says, or on other portions of the display?

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
It's a broadening term.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
The abstract.

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
Sorry, I'm looking to get the context for that quote.

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
Well, it's almost definitional.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
I mean, I think that that quote is still referring to other portions of the display, not other portions of a web page or content.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
And I think that that is supportive of the definition of unused space as being part of a display.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
And I think reading the specification as a whole, it makes a distinction between content and a display very clearly.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
And the distinction includes that there may be parts of a display that are not content.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
In other words, you could have a browser window that doesn't take up the whole display.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
And you could have empty space as part of the display that's entirely outside the content window.

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
And you may also have an external display, that's referenced in the specification, that may have its own separate unused space.

[00:06:44] Speaker 01:
And then you may have parts of a web page or content that have blank spaces in them that may or may not be part of the display.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
And that's the key difference between what was in the prior art and what's taught in the 934 patent.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
In other words, that you can't just look at whether there are blank spots in a web page.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
What you really need to look at is the user display and whether there are empty spaces not being used to render primary content that exists in the display.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
And I think it's helpful to think about a Venn diagram here that illustrates the difference between this distinction and the express definition that I would argue is in the specification and the board's definition.

[00:07:24] Speaker 01:
So on one hand, imagine a circle that is all the examples of empty or blank space within a user display.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
And on the other hand, another circle that is empty or blank spaces within content.

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
Now, those two circles certainly overlap.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
There are examples where there are empty spots in content that are also on a user display.

[00:07:43] Speaker 01:
But there are empty spots on the display that are not in content, and empty spots in content that are not in the display.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
And the express definition of the patent says, as used here in unused space means essentially the display circle.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
And the error that the board made was to say, well, but there's overlap with the content circle.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
And therefore, the definition that they adopted is essentially the content circle.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
In other words, they said, and this is from appendix 11, unused space must be construed to encompass unused space on a web page whether or not that space is currently visible on the display.

[00:08:20] Speaker 01:
Well, that's not the display circle whether or not it overlaps with the content circle.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
That's the content circle whether or not it overlaps with the display.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
I know there's also been discussion about a line of cases about the high bar to establish lexicography.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
I would add that all of the cases that 33 across cites in that context do not involve any kind of expressed definition.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
They're trying to read general statements in the specification into the claims.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
And there's a much higher bar when there is not expressed definitional language, such as as used herein, as there is in this case.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
Now assuming for a moment that the court agrees with us on the claim construction issue, that overcomes grounds one through three.

[00:09:14] Speaker 01:
So ground one is anticipation based on Rahm and Nathan.

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
argument made by the board or by 33 across is based on the incorrect thing construction.

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
And grounds two and three are both obviousness grounds where Rahman Nathan is used and there's nothing added.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
So all of those rely on

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
the incorrect definition and should be reversed.

[00:09:37] Speaker 01:
Ground four is slightly more interesting.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
But there, the board dismissed the secondary considerations evidence relying on its anticipation finding in ground one, more specifically saying because there's been anticipation under Henny Penny,

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
there's no nexus because whatever this secondary consideration relates to is also in the prior art.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
But that, of course, all rests on the anticipation finding, as though there would at least have to be vacator

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
And then turning to Parkinson, so the board also talks about the Parkinson reference in ground four.

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
But this analysis of the Parkinson reference in part rests on the flawed plane construction, and in part conflates two different varieties of ads.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
There are both static ads that go into the margins, which are just like the ads in Rahman Nathan.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
And those are discussed in paragraphs 49 and 53 of Parkinson.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
Paragraph 52 of Parkinson talks about a different embodiment that uses mouse tracking ads.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
But there, they're tracking just whether the tip of the mouse is over unused space or not.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
And so even though the mouse is constrained to be in the display, there's no analysis of whether there is an unused space for an ad.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
And what that space is to identify that space, it's simply presenting an ad next to the cursor if the tip of the cursor is in space that is not identified as pain content.

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
In addition, there's a serious motivation to combine problem because the board's analysis of motivation to combine Parkinson and Ramanathan turns on the idea of organizational benefits.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
And those organizational benefits don't make any sense in the context of the mouse tracking part of Parkinson

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
Because that's not part of the div tag structure or the underlying structure of the web page.

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
It's an add-on overlay that's tracking where the mouse is.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
And so there's no basis to say that there would be additional organizational benefits.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
And certainly, the board did not wrestle with that issue.

[00:11:42] Speaker 01:
And there should be a remand for the board to at least consider that issue in the first instance.

[00:11:47] Speaker 01:
Your Honors, I would reserve the balance of my time unless there are any further questions.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Burnett.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:11:54] Speaker 03:
Walsh?

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
I plan on addressing the claim construction issue, followed by the issues relating to Monathon and Parkinson, unless the panel has any questions that it would like me to answer up front.

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
As stated by Left and Rights Council, many of their arguments turn on a challenge to the board's claim construction of unused space to exist within a display.

[00:12:23] Speaker 03:
a term which the board correctly determined to be a portion of the display that is not being used to display primary content, and also finding that the definition of unused space includes unused space on a web page, and that there is no requirement that the unused space be currently visible on a display.

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
Can I ask you about your friend referred to in his briefs and also here today, that statement by the board about encompassing a new space must be construed to encompass a new space on a web page.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
And did you understand the board's use of the word encompass definition was limiting?

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
I did not understand the board's definition to be limiting to space on a web page.

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
It's fairly clear from the specification that there are embodiments where the unused space is either partially outside of a web page, like part of it is on the web page, part of it is outside of the web page, and that are also the embodiments where the unused space is entirely outside of the web page.

[00:13:30] Speaker 04:
Like 1 and E. So if that were the correct construction of what the board said, it would exclude those two.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
So one can assume they weren't doing that.

[00:13:38] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:13:39] Speaker 03:
Yes, that is how.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
I understand the board's construction.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
How does the board's construction comport with column two, the lines we were discussing?

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
So the statement at column two, lines 10 through 12.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
So the board's construction comports with these lines because this

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
The description at lines 10 through 12 describes how unused space refers to a portion of the display that is not being used to render primary content.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
Those lines go on to describe what content is.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
And so it gives examples such as HTML, XML content, Flash, graphics, text, et cetera.

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
Those are things that someone of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be on open page.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
And so it's looking at things that are

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
content that's rendered on a web page, and the language here refers to part of a display, but it can also include space that's on a web page.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
Well, but what if the web page is not on the display?

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
Isn't it then inconsistent with the language at line 10, as used here in unused space refers to a portion of the display?

[00:15:09] Speaker 03:
So I think that

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
This kind of comes down to a bit of a timing issue that's addressed in claim one, because the phrase that's being construed here and that the board was addressing is unused space to exist within a display.

[00:15:25] Speaker 03:
And in view of that language in the claim and in view of the other embodiments that exist within the specification, that is a statement that the unused space is to exist at some point.

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
It doesn't necessarily have to be existing at the point that it is identified.

[00:15:43] Speaker 03:
But the intent is that an ad will be displayed in that unused space.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
And we believe that that is the best way of squaring the embodiments that we see in the specification with the statement at column two, lines 10 through 12.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
When we're looking at the noun, there are multiple displays.

[00:16:05] Speaker 04:
There's a client display, and then there's a client application display area.

[00:16:12] Speaker 04:
They're all different, right?

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
I think it depends on where you're looking exactly in the claims and the specification.

[00:16:20] Speaker 03:
Generally, a display seems to be, for example, a screen.

[00:16:26] Speaker 03:
display area appears to sometimes refer to what is on a web page and sometimes it seems to exclude what's on a display sometimes it doesn't wait wait you're telling me that the definition of the word display includes things that are on the website but are not visible on the screen that feels like an extrinsic evidence kind of question you're not an expert you're a lawyer did the board make a finding to that extent the board did not make a finding based on a

[00:16:53] Speaker 03:
extrinsic evidence.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
The board did rely on the language to exist within a display at appendix 11.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
But did the board conclude, as you just suggested, that the definition of display includes things on a website that are not visible?

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
The board did not address that specific question, no.

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
So how can that support the board's conclusion?

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
Again, I would go back to the claim language of the unused

[00:17:24] Speaker 03:
the identified unused space to exist within a display.

[00:17:28] Speaker 03:
And I believe that the board also relied on the embodiments such as what's shown in.

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
I guess, but I'm struggling to understand your argument.

[00:17:37] Speaker 02:
Is your argument that because the claim says the identified unused space to exist within a display, are you saying it would be superfluous for them to say it has to exist within a display if unused space always had to exist within a display?

[00:17:50] Speaker 02:
Is that your argument?

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:17:53] Speaker 03:
That is one of the things that we have argued in our briefs in support of our claim construction.

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
If it were clear from the specification that the unused space must exist on the display, then there would be no reason for the language to address the idea that the unused space is to exist when a display.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
Well, maybe it's the rest of that sentence of the claim, which is,

[00:18:19] Speaker 02:
They identified unused space to exist within a display of the client computing device when an application presents primary contact within the display.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
So maybe what they're trying to do is to key in on the temporal context.

[00:18:34] Speaker 03:
I think that's correct.

[00:18:36] Speaker 03:
And I think the issue here kind of boils down to the claim language refers to a display.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
And the intent of the invention is eventually to display an ad somewhere where a user can see it.

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
And then the claim language describes how the unused space is to exist within a display when the application is presenting primary content.

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
And so once the content is loaded and once the portion of the display, or once the unused space appears in a portion of display, it serves an ad.

[00:19:15] Speaker 00:
You still have unused space.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
So I believe that addresses several of the arguments that we made in support of the board's claim construction.

[00:19:32] Speaker 03:
The idea that if unused space has to mean that it's only unused space on display, the remainder of the claim language there is rendered surplusage.

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
Both the board and the court here is recognized that the embodiment support the idea that unused space can include unused space that is identified outside of the display area.

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
For example, something that exists outside of the web page display before it loads.

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
Did the board find even under the alternative claim construction that the claims would have been obvious in light of

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
Ramanathan and Parkinson?

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
That is correct.

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
So it's an alternative finding.

[00:20:20] Speaker 02:
So for them to prevail, they have to convince us that the claim construction was incorrect.

[00:20:26] Speaker 02:
And that the board's alternative findings regarding obvious, even under their claim construction, were also incorrect.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
That is correct.

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
Or in fact, lacked substantial evidence, because most of their arguments relate to fact questions and the obviousness analysis.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
That is correct.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
And ground for it, the board found that Ramanathan and

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
Parkinson in combination rendered obvious speech of the claims.

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
Even under their construction?

[00:20:50] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
The gist of that argument was that the Parkinson reference describes a process where the system is basically looking for the position of a user's mouse.

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
The user's mouse is, by definition, pointing at something on the display.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
So the unused space there is on the display.

[00:21:15] Speaker 03:
Left and right tries to make a distinction between a couple of the embodiments that are disclosed in the Parkinson reference.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
And we believe that those should not affect the board's ultimate conclusion.

[00:21:29] Speaker 03:
Parkinson describes two things.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
They describe the process of looking for a user's mouse position.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
And then it also describes a process of basically measuring the space on the web page to determine a place where

[00:21:46] Speaker 03:
an ad can go or secondary content, something like that.

[00:21:53] Speaker 03:
These two embodiments are not mutually exclusive because the Parkinson reference describes how they can be used at the same time.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
The process can basically look at where the margins are and the size of the ad.

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
and then look at the user's mouth position to determine whether to show or hide the ad at the same time.

[00:22:19] Speaker 03:
And so contrary to left and rights arguments, those are not mutually exclusive.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
And those arguments do not counsel disturbing the board's findings.

[00:22:31] Speaker 03:
In addition, with respect to the motivation to combine, the board credited the testimony

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
left and rights expert in determining that there was a motivation to combine, basically recognizing the benefits of using a div tag that was described in Ramonathon, along with the organizational structure and the process of locating space and using the user's mouth position that was described in Parkinson's.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
The board determined that Ramonathon didn't teach away from Parkinson,

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
and that there was a reasonable expectation of success as well as determining that it doesn't necessarily indicate that Parkinson was deficient in its organization and Ramonathon supplied what was missing in the book.

[00:23:37] Speaker 03:
Briefly with respect to the objective factors of non-obviousness,

[00:23:42] Speaker 03:
The board looked at the evidence that long felt that unresolved need industry acclaim and commercial success for two of those The board relied solely on the idea that the element was already found in the prior art specifically Ramonathon and then in commercial success the board also noted that

[00:24:08] Speaker 03:
The patent owner had presented data relating to market share, but did not give any sort of relative information to determine whether or not that increase in market share represented commercial success, such that it would support a finding of non-obviousness.

[00:24:25] Speaker 03:
And if there are no further questions, I will conclude.

[00:24:28] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:24:29] Speaker 02:
Mr. Burnett, you have your bottle closed.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:34] Speaker 01:
First, going back to Judge Moore's question about column 3 at 33 to 50, that is explaining the difference between figures 1j and 1i, which shows the flipping between different tabs.

[00:24:47] Speaker 01:
And when different tabs are open, different unused space becomes part of the display.

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
So I think that that is consistent with the express definition in column 2.

[00:24:56] Speaker 01:
Second, there was a lot of discussion when 33 across was talking about alleged surplusage or redundancy in the claim language.

[00:25:04] Speaker 01:
First, that was not an argument that was presented to the board and is waived.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
And second, and perhaps more importantly, the language that they say is surplusage in the claim is reiterating things from the express definition in column two, and therefore is not inconsistent with the express definition.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
Moreover, the identified unused space to exist ellipsis when language is not talking about timing.

[00:25:37] Speaker 01:
It's not temporal.

[00:25:38] Speaker 01:
It's talking about tying or linking

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
a specific area of the display being unused to the primary content that's being displayed.

[00:25:48] Speaker 01:
And when there's a change to the primary content because a window is moved or something is scrolled or the content changes for any reason, then that analysis of what on the display constitutes unused space has to be redone.

[00:26:01] Speaker 01:
And so it's merely linking unused space on the display as defined at one time versus another.

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
And that's consistent with the change between 1i and 1j discussed in column three.

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
Finally, as to Judge Moore's question to 33 Across about what happens if our claim construction is adopted with respect to ground four, a critical issue that requires vacator and remand to the board is secondary considerations.

[00:26:30] Speaker 01:
As 33 Across admitted, at least two of our forms of secondary considerations evidence were rejected by the board under Henny Penny.

[00:26:39] Speaker 01:
based on a reliance on the anticipation finding that falls if our claim construction is adopted.

[00:26:44] Speaker 01:
Therefore, at a minimum, ground four would have to be vacated and remanded for consideration of the secondary considerations evidence.

[00:26:51] Speaker 01:
In addition, with respect to ground four, the board clearly applied

[00:26:56] Speaker 01:
the wrong construction in at least part of its analysis or most of its analysis when it was talking about Parkinson.

[00:27:03] Speaker 01:
And there are citations that I won't go through here with the limited time, but they're in the blue brief at pages 32 to 33.

[00:27:09] Speaker 01:
Now the board does have a throwaway comment about the mouse always being on the display, so even in our construction that works.

[00:27:16] Speaker 01:
But the board really doesn't wrestle with how that meets the claim terms.

[00:27:19] Speaker 01:
We'll go through that analysis.

[00:27:21] Speaker 01:
And finally, Judge Proce asked a question about client application display area.

[00:27:26] Speaker 01:
And that refers to the client application window, like a web browser window.

[00:27:31] Speaker 01:
And the site for that is column two, lines 45 to 50.

[00:27:37] Speaker 01:
Unless there are any other questions, that concludes my argument.

[00:27:40] Speaker 02:
OK, I thank both counsels.

[00:27:41] Speaker 02:
This case is taken under submission.