[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
The first argued case this morning is number 21, 1960, Pursua Engineering Corporation versus Samsung Electronics America.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Mr. Carey.

[00:00:11] Speaker 04:
Good morning, and may it please the court.

[00:00:17] Speaker 04:
Pursua Engineering's 591 patent, invented by Pursua's founder, Dr. Prieto, claims a specific system for replacing

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
an image in a video stream with a user-selected image taken from a second video stream, substituting the second for the first image, and then creating a third stream containing the edited video.

[00:00:45] Speaker 04:
The way that the claims operate is the first stream, the first image comes from what's defined in the claims as the original video stream.

[00:00:57] Speaker 04:
The user selected, and that's the image that is supposed to be replaced.

[00:01:03] Speaker 04:
The second image comes from the stream that the claims call the user input stream.

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
That's the image that the user wants to use new.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
That's the replacement image.

[00:01:17] Speaker 04:
And then the third resulting composite modified stream is called in the claims the displayable edited video stream.

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
So the claims have these three defined video streams, which have important functions.

[00:01:31] Speaker 04:
Now, the way that the claim is set up to operate is it performs this selection and substitution process in a very specific way.

[00:01:41] Speaker 04:
And what will be seen is that the specific way the claims of this patent operate are fundamentally different than the way the other image processing systems of the two prior references operate.

[00:01:54] Speaker 04:
So in the 591 patented claims, what happens is the user uses a data entry device.

[00:02:02] Speaker 04:
For example, a keyboard or a touch screen, something which allows entry of data.

[00:02:08] Speaker 04:
The user uses a data entry device that's coupled with a display device, which displays the original video.

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
And again, that's the video that has the image that is desired to be replaced.

[00:02:23] Speaker 04:
The user interacts, uses the data entry device, operates the data entry device to interact with the display device and select one or more pixels to use as the first image, which is again the image to be replaced.

[00:02:41] Speaker 04:
Then the user has something that the claims call a video.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
Let me ask you a question.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
selection of one or more pixels is that something that the user can do has to do on a pixel by pixel basis in the claims or is it enough for the user for example to circle a face and then the face consists of a number of pixels but is that a selection of pixels in your view?

[00:03:09] Speaker 04:
A selection of, so the claim language merely, the claim language states selection of one or more pixels so the user could either

[00:03:18] Speaker 04:
pinpoint a particular pixel or a group of pixels.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
So if the user just circles the face in the original video, that would be a selection of pixels.

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
I believe so, Your Honor.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
Now, that issue doesn't drive any issue or dispute in this appeal, but I believe that's a fair reading of that claim language.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
If I'm correct, one of the issues in appeal is what is disclosed in Citrix Figure 1, including whether there's a display, right?

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
That's an issue in dispute?

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
That's a very big issue in dispute.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
So isn't that a fact question that is what is disclosed in the prior art reference and one that the board resolved and seems to have had substantial evidence in favor of what they found?

[00:04:07] Speaker 01:
That's the correct way for us to ask the question, right?

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
I think the framing of the question is proper.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
They have an expert who says a person of skill in the art would read this as an actual display and not, as you call it, like a mere cartoon or a conceptual drawing.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
Why wasn't it appropriate for them to credit that testimony?

[00:04:35] Speaker 04:
Very simply, Your Honor, because that is an obvious misreading of the prior art reference.

[00:04:41] Speaker 04:
The court is

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
operates under the substantial evidence standard, but as the Supreme Court has instructed and this court's precedent has confirmed, that's not a rubber stamp of the agency fact-finding.

[00:04:53] Speaker 04:
The court here looks at the legitimacy of the fact-finding to determine if it has enough support in the record.

[00:05:01] Speaker 04:
And here, simply looking at that disclosure, because the finding on Citric

[00:05:06] Speaker 04:
that the board's finding that Citric disclosed, so there are two claim limitations that we've brought in this appeal, that we're focusing this appeal on.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
The first one is whether there is in Citric and Semphner a display device displaying an original video stream.

[00:05:26] Speaker 04:
The board's finding on that question is entirely dependent, the only citation to Citric

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
is what's in Cifric Figure 1 for that.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
As interpreted by Samsung's expert who says that one of skill in the art would read that as an actual physical display.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
And this court has said in the cases that we've cited, for example, the Calum Technologies case, that when an expert paid expert testimony, when their conclusions aren't supported by the actual reference, that the expert testimony is not given away.

[00:05:59] Speaker 03:
Why is the expert testimony not supported by the reference?

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
Because, Your Honor, if you look at figure one of Citric, there is clearly no display being shown.

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
What they're calling the display is identified in figure one by the number in that figure is number 120.

[00:06:20] Speaker 04:
Number 120 is the box with two faces, okay?

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
And that is a depiction of the video, the program, the video program.

[00:06:32] Speaker 04:
It's not a device displaying the program.

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
It's very clear in Citrix that that is true.

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
Paragraph 63 of Citrix specifically says that item 112 is the video program.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
It's not a device.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
It's not a piece of equipment.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
Can you give us the appendix site to Paragraph 63 of Citrix?

[00:07:06] Speaker 04:
It's appendix page, your honor, 1987.

[00:07:08] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:07:12] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:07:13] Speaker 04:
That's the wrong one.

[00:07:14] Speaker 04:
It's appendix 1985.

[00:07:15] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
And I misidentified the number in the figure.

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
It's number 120.

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
That's what the board relied upon as being the

[00:07:27] Speaker 04:
the video display device.

[00:07:29] Speaker 04:
So paragraph 63 of Citric on Appendix 1985 says that what 120 is in Figure 1, what 120 is is the program content.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
It's not a piece of equipment.

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
It's not a display.

[00:07:44] Speaker 04:
It's the video program.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
I'm not following why that contradicts what the expert said.

[00:07:54] Speaker 04:
Because it's not a disclosure, your honor, of a display device that's playing a video.

[00:08:01] Speaker 04:
It's a depiction of what's in the video itself, the data in the video.

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
It's a display of the program.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
It shows what the program does.

[00:08:10] Speaker 04:
It's not a disclosure of a device.

[00:08:14] Speaker 04:
Let me show you, Cedric.

[00:08:19] Speaker 04:
Look at figure 13 in Citric.

[00:08:21] Speaker 03:
Pardon?

[00:08:21] Speaker 04:
Which one?

[00:08:22] Speaker 04:
Figure 13 in Citric, which is appendix page 1978.

[00:08:27] Speaker 04:
At the bottom of this figure, this figure is described in the spec of Citric as an embodiment of the output of the Citric system.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
There's a display shown in figure 13.

[00:08:47] Speaker 04:
When Citric wants to

[00:08:48] Speaker 04:
to disclose a display, he clearly knows how to disclose a display.

[00:08:54] Speaker 04:
And by the way, the 1344 inside the display of Figure 13, 1344, the spec reference of 1344, is a video program.

[00:09:04] Speaker 03:
So there's a disclosure in the program.

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
Doesn't the program control its display?

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
The program, Your Honor, is the video content.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
It's the movie or the TV show.

[00:09:14] Speaker 04:
It's not the thing displaying the movie or TV show.

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
And there's no disclosure.

[00:09:22] Speaker 04:
Figure 1 just talks about the content.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
It says, here's content.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
There's two faces.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
We can take one face and replace one face with another face.

[00:09:32] Speaker 04:
But there's no display of that content, of that original content.

[00:09:38] Speaker 04:
And there's a very good reason why

[00:09:40] Speaker 04:
In Citric, there's no display of the original content.

[00:09:43] Speaker 04:
Because Citric has no function or purpose whatsoever for display of the original content.

[00:09:47] Speaker 04:
In the 591 patent, the reason that there is an image display device displaying the original video with the frame you want to take out is because the user goes in there and selects what you want to take out.

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
But in Citric, the user doesn't do that.

[00:10:04] Speaker 04:
In Citric, there

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
The selection of what to take out is not done by the user.

[00:10:10] Speaker 04:
It's done by a computer program, which Citrix calls the tracking subsystem.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
So the user doesn't identify in Citrix what to take out.

[00:10:19] Speaker 04:
Therefore, the user doesn't need to see the video in order to say, I want to take that out.

[00:10:24] Speaker 04:
There's no purpose of an original video displaying the original video in Citrix, so he doesn't have it.

[00:10:32] Speaker 04:
He wouldn't even be able to use it if he had it.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
What about Synthner?

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
Sempner, I notice, does not deal with claim two, but it deals with all the other claims.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
If we were to ignore Citric altogether, would we have to reverse as to claim two, even assuming that we agreed with Sempner's assessment of the other claims?

[00:11:10] Speaker 00:
Claim 2 is not an issue in your district court case, so maybe you don't care.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
But I'm just, as a matter of trying to figure out which of these two references has what effect.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
I'm curious.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
Your Honor is correct.

[00:11:24] Speaker 04:
Claim 2 was found obvious over Citric.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
So if Citric doesn't render Claim 2 obvious, the board found that Centford does not render Claim 2 obvious.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
So there would be nothing

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
uh... rendering claim to a patent would you be urging a reversal in that issue or is that not an issue that ultimately is significant to your case I'm sure my client would like to have claim two back but the focus of our appeal is on the limitations of claim one and we have focused on that because and even if

[00:12:03] Speaker 04:
I mean, I think it's very, it's an obvious, if you look at figure one, it's obvious in Citrix.

[00:12:09] Speaker 04:
It's obviously not disclosing a display device.

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
It's just disclosing the program, not the display of the program.

[00:12:19] Speaker 04:
But, and Dr. Delk,

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
petitioners um... expert doesn't give any reasons but if the program requires a display doesn't that satisfy your honor not every program requires a display i can hand you a dvd that has a program on it doesn't have to mean may or may not be displayed okay it's it's it's a it's a it's a disk with data saved on it in that case video data so that's the program and that's what what is in figure one it's a program

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
picture from a program.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
A display is like a TV monitor, computer monitor, something displaying a program.

[00:12:58] Speaker 04:
Figure one is just disclosing the program itself.

[00:13:02] Speaker 04:
Again, Citric doesn't even use a display of the original program.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
In the patent of 591, the user needs to display the original program to find the thing that he wants to replace.

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
In Citric, the user doesn't do that at all.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
There's an automated system called the tracking subsystem and it generates, identifies in the video all the reference objects that it wants to tag for potential replacement.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
That's an automated process.

[00:13:33] Speaker 04:
The user doesn't do that.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
Citric's computer does that.

[00:13:37] Speaker 00:
The user then comes in... In Citric though, when the user

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
decides, well, I want to replace, let's say, Judy Garland.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
Among the video library that you have in the Citrix setting, you could have replaced the cowardly lion or the scarecrow, but wants to replace Judy Garland's face.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
Isn't that user, by making that determination, in effect, selecting one or more pixels for replacement?

[00:14:04] Speaker 04:
Depending on how that is implemented in Citrix,

[00:14:07] Speaker 04:
it's unclear.

[00:14:09] Speaker 04:
For example, the user could be given a text list of the characters.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
But you're saying that the problem is that the Cowardly Lion and Judy are not displayed to the user for the user at that point.

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
In Cedric, what the user

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
is getting the reference objects that the computer has tagged from the original video, but the user is not looking at the original video.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
It's creating its user input.

[00:14:37] Speaker 04:
It's taking its own phase.

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
and it's causing its own face to be plugged in to one of those reference objects.

[00:14:45] Speaker 04:
The reference objects in Citrix are analogous to the first images in 591.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
And you're saying that the user in Citrix never sees

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
the faces uh... that are subject to the most replacement what what the user doesn't do in citric is the user doesn't doesn't select the image to be replaced from a display of the original video okay but that's your interpretation the petitioner's expert different interpretation why is that interpretation well we get now why as to whether or not there is any

[00:15:26] Speaker 04:
display of an original video, the expert merely and only points to Figure 1.

[00:15:31] Speaker 04:
And Figure 1 does not show a display.

[00:15:34] Speaker 03:
Did you have an expert who contradicted the petitioner's expert?

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor, we do.

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
We submitted opposing expert testimony on that.

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
The inventor?

[00:15:44] Speaker 04:
The expert was the inventor, correct.

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
OK, well, we're out of time.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
We'll give you two minutes for one.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
And may it please the court, Richard Rainey on behalf of Samsung.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
This is a substantial evidence appeal with two independent bases.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
Before you get into the merits of your argument, could you help me out on claim two?

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
Does claim two rely solely and exclusively on Citric?

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
Am I right in that?

[00:16:18] Speaker 02:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
But they've not separately appealed any limitations with respect to that.

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
And so therefore, the issue is

[00:16:25] Speaker 02:
The only issue that's been appealed are the two limitations in the independent claim, claim one.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
So you think they've waived any argument with respect to claim two?

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:16:35] Speaker 02:
It would have been incumbent upon them if they wanted... They say claims one through four.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
Right, but there's no independent argument about claim two.

[00:16:43] Speaker 01:
But what if there's two limitations at dispute in the appeal?

[00:16:47] Speaker 01:
What if we don't find both of those in Citric, but we find them in Senfner?

[00:16:52] Speaker 01:
Claim two would survive, wouldn't it?

[00:16:53] Speaker 02:
Except there's no argument in the brief that you should reverse only on claim two.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
So again, just applying basic waiver principles that issues.

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
This entire appeal rises and falls on the two independent grounds in claim one.

[00:17:05] Speaker 02:
That's our position.

[00:17:06] Speaker 01:
But if we disagree with you entirely on Citric and agree with you entirely on Centner, then claim two survives.

[00:17:13] Speaker 01:
Just doesn't matter logic, doesn't it?

[00:17:15] Speaker 02:
As a matter of logic, but not as a matter of there's no, there's no, the words, that argument is nowhere in the top side brief in this case.

[00:17:23] Speaker 02:
But I understand the point and logically, yes, that would be correct.

[00:17:27] Speaker 02:
I would also add claim two is not issue in the district court case.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
So that's perhaps why they haven't separately challenged that.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
Let me just focus, since the topside argument focused mostly on Citric and on this argument about image display.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
I believe counsel said that the only disclosure is in Figure 1.

[00:17:49] Speaker 02:
That's incorrect.

[00:17:50] Speaker 02:
It's simply incorrect.

[00:17:51] Speaker 02:
It's the text of the entire reference and the testimony of the expert.

[00:17:54] Speaker 02:
And in fact, if I direct the court to our expert's declaration, paragraph 11, at Appendix A2156, paragraph 11,

[00:18:05] Speaker 02:
where our expert testified to the board based on these disclosures.

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
And I'm quoting.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
And he's talking about the background, the entirety of the patent, where the patent talks about bringing in general purpose computer technology.

[00:18:20] Speaker 02:
And by the way, this was also at issue with respect to claim 11 in the prior appeal, this general concept.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
Our expert says, a person of ordinary skill in the art, a posita, would understand

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
that the personal computers disclosed by Citric would utilize an input device, such as a keyboard, mouse, and or touch screen, which input devices were all well known in the art as evidenced by the texts referenced by Citric, at least because a user would need to select a replacement image as well as a target image in order to carry out

[00:19:02] Speaker 02:
certain aspects of the invention disclosed by Citric.

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
OK, but that passage you just read doesn't address the argument that Mr. Carey is making, which is that it doesn't select from the original video feed.

[00:19:19] Speaker 02:
Our expert went on.

[00:19:21] Speaker 02:
So that's setting up at figure one, because he's citing to figure one in this paragraph, has to be read, understood by personal or just on the art,

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
as in the context of a personal computer where you have a display and you have input devices, including a touch screen.

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
And then he goes on to specifically deal with this limitation in other paragraphs of his report.

[00:19:46] Speaker 02:
He talks about, for example, in Citric itself, in paragraph 7, this is an appendix 1979, it is a further object of the present invention to provide various means for selecting

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
tracking and substituting portions of the predefined audio-visual presentation.

[00:20:03] Speaker 02:
That's the original video with the user's selected visual image.

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
That's the image you want to replace.

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
So Judy Garland is in the predefined audio-visual presentation, to borrow Judge Bryson's example.

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
And our expert goes on to say, a person who organized Schiller would understand that the user selects images with a data entry device, such as a keyboard,

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
And that a person of ordinary skill in the art would also understand from Citric that a user would necessarily have to select one or more pixels in order to select an image or portion of an image as disclosed in Citric.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
But the question that is posed, I think, by Mr. Kerry is, is there any point based on Citric in which Citric says that the previous video, the first video,

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
the one from which the target images are drawn, is in fact displayed to the user.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
Yes, it says in... Putting aside Dr. Delp, what Dr. Delp's characterization, where in Citric is that laid out most clearly in your view?

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 31 as well.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
First of all, the Figure 1 itself is showing you what looks like a TV screen with the original characters in it.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
So that's one.

[00:21:19] Speaker 02:
And then the text accompanying Figure 1, which is in Appendix 1980,

[00:21:23] Speaker 02:
This is paragraph 31 of Citric.

[00:21:26] Speaker 02:
And I quote, in the figure, and this is figure one, representations of two people, a first person, 123, and a second person, 127, are visible in the program video 120.

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
Our expert relies on that.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
The board pointed to that specifically.

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
We submit that as substantial evidence on that basis.

[00:21:50] Speaker 02:
The court should affirm.

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
And that, do you think, is the clearest example of a display of the original video to the user?

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
Absolutely.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
Yes, I do.

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
Could the board alternatively have credited Dr. Prieto and said, it's just a cartoonish sort of conceptual drawing.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
It's not an actual video display.

[00:22:10] Speaker 02:
So on this point, I don't know that that would be a credible finding.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
I would challenge that as lacking substantial evidence.

[00:22:16] Speaker 02:
This finding plainly is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:22:20] Speaker 02:
But in either case, under this board's review of agency findings, even if there is a reasonable interpretation on the other side, because our interpretation is certainly reasonable, the court has to affirm.

[00:22:34] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you about the data entry device limitation?

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
Where does Citric teach that it's the first image that is being selected by the user as opposed to the second image being selected by the user?

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
Where do we find that?

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
disclosed in Citric.

[00:22:52] Speaker 02:
Well, so first of all, there's no separate challenge to first and second image.

[00:22:56] Speaker 01:
Well, there is before us, but you think it was waived.

[00:23:02] Speaker 01:
Is that right?

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
Well, so there's an argument that the board was confused about the first and the second image in its findings on Citric, and that is absolutely not correct.

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
The only argument that was made by Pursua below is

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
is actually in their patented response that Citrix does not disclose that the user operates Citrix computer to select at least one pixel generally.

[00:23:30] Speaker 02:
They never challenged the pixel first image.

[00:23:34] Speaker 01:
Which image the pixel had to come from.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
But they are saying before us that that is an issue, correct?

[00:23:42] Speaker 02:
I think they're trying to make that argument, but if you look at Appendix 277,

[00:23:47] Speaker 02:
which is page 58 of our paper below and 278, we clearly point out that both images, the first image and the second image, are selected.

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
And we cite to and quote from the Citric reference where that happens.

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
And let me just get to this point, Judge Stark, that you raised.

[00:24:05] Speaker 02:
Because if you look, and again, I'm switching over to this waiver point that I want to point out.

[00:24:13] Speaker 02:
At appendix 8A836 is where Pursua responds to the argument I just pointed you to at A277.

[00:24:25] Speaker 02:
The only thing they say, the entirety of their argument below, is, quote, Citrix does not disclose that a user operates Citrix computer to select the at least one pixel.

[00:24:35] Speaker 02:
Full stop.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
That's it.

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
The only sight they have is to Prieto's declaration

[00:24:42] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 157, which is at appendix 3305 to 3306.

[00:24:49] Speaker 02:
What she points to, and that is very clear, is the selection only of the replacement image.

[00:24:56] Speaker 02:
That is, the second image.

[00:24:57] Speaker 02:
There's no discussion at all in that of the first image.

[00:25:00] Speaker 02:
And so when the board discusses the second image in its opinion, which is what they're pointing to as being confusion, the board is responding to the only argument that pursues a made

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
that they say to us in their gray brief at three that they did make this argument, and they cite to A820-25, A3262, A3274.

[00:25:24] Speaker 01:
I take it they're wrong that they made that argument, but is there an easy way for me to understand that?

[00:25:32] Speaker 01:
I mean, I'm pointing you to the totality of what they cited in response to our... How would you characterize these seven pages where they say they did make the very argument they're making to us?

[00:25:43] Speaker 02:
As just generalized arguments that were not specific to this particular issue, where we raised it and they responded to it.

[00:25:51] Speaker 02:
But regardless, our paper at A277, A278 argues and points to disclosure in Citrix

[00:26:02] Speaker 02:
for both the first image and the second image.

[00:26:06] Speaker 02:
This is also worth pointing out here.

[00:26:08] Speaker 02:
This is one of the two references on which the board.

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
There's been no discussion of Sempner here at all.

[00:26:14] Speaker 03:
Where do we find their response?

[00:26:17] Speaker 03:
Answer to that.

[00:26:20] Speaker 03:
Where do we find their response, the portion of their response, the seven or eight pages that they cite?

[00:26:26] Speaker 03:
Where do they respond to this argument in the petition?

[00:26:30] Speaker 02:
uh... the only the only the page the page where they respond is that a eight three six eight three six eight three six that's the corrected supplemental patent response so it's that one sentence citric does not disclose that's correct your honor if the court has no further questions uh...

[00:26:59] Speaker 02:
We would ask the court to affirm.

[00:27:01] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:27:02] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Rainey.

[00:27:03] Speaker 03:
Mr. Kerry, you have two minutes.

[00:27:07] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, quickly, and then I wanted to talk about Sentinel, but very quickly.

[00:27:11] Speaker 04:
The suggestion that item 120 in figure one of Citric discloses a TV screen is completely unfounded.

[00:27:20] Speaker 04:
Not even Dr. Delk says that.

[00:27:23] Speaker 04:
That never even been argued.

[00:27:25] Speaker 04:
Item 120 in CITRIC is specifically defined to be program content, not a piece of equipment like a TV screen.

[00:27:32] Speaker 04:
Just because it's every rectangle in the pattern drawing, now a TV screen?

[00:27:35] Speaker 04:
That's not a legitimate argument.

[00:27:39] Speaker 04:
Second, on claim two, we appealed as to claims one through four and eight

[00:27:44] Speaker 04:
Claim two is dependent on claim one.

[00:27:45] Speaker 04:
So the limitations on claim one that are the subject of our brief, if you agree Citric doesn't disclose those, then it doesn't disclose them for claim two either and there'd be no basis for obviousness on claim two.

[00:27:56] Speaker 04:
We did appeal as to all the challenge claims, one through four and eight.

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
Let's look at our conclusion.

[00:28:01] Speaker 00:
But you have no separate argument with respect to claim two.

[00:28:03] Speaker 04:
No separate argument as to two.

[00:28:05] Speaker 04:
But two is dependent on one, so it has the same limitations as one, which are the ones that we did discuss.

[00:28:10] Speaker 04:
So I want to get into center because that has come up and I haven't had a chance to talk about that yet.

[00:28:14] Speaker 04:
Synthener lacks, like Citric, the display showing the original video stream, and it also lacks the data entry device that the user operates to select the image to be replaced.

[00:28:30] Speaker 04:
And the reason that Synthener lacks those two things is there's, in Synthener, a digital artist, not the user, a digital artist takes the original videos

[00:28:42] Speaker 04:
and creates prepared videos by identifying all the items in the video content that want to be targeted for potential replacement, and stores them in the database.

[00:28:53] Speaker 01:
Where did you make that digital artist argument below?

[00:28:57] Speaker 01:
Because your friends on the other side argue you waived it.

[00:29:00] Speaker 04:
Well, we argued that the disclosure wasn't there.

[00:29:04] Speaker 04:
Synthner had no disclosure of a display device for an original video.

[00:29:08] Speaker 04:
or for a data entry device.

[00:29:10] Speaker 04:
Because of a digital artist?

[00:29:12] Speaker 04:
Not specifically as to the digital artist.

[00:29:16] Speaker 04:
You could forget the digital artist.

[00:29:18] Speaker 04:
The point is there's no user in Centner that is identifying which images to be targeted for replacement.

[00:29:25] Speaker 04:
it's the user is not involved in the center process at that time the user comes in after the prepared videos have been prepared and they've been targeted they've been defined as having things that could be substituted out then the user comes in and can select its image to stick into one of those to one of those uh... prepared videos so in in the center reference there's neither

[00:29:50] Speaker 04:
a display device showing the original video, because the user comes to only prepared videos.

[00:29:55] Speaker 04:
The only argument that has been advanced for this is that there's a library in Sentinel of videos.

[00:30:02] Speaker 04:
But the library of videos in Sentinel is uniformly and exclusively a reference to the prepared videos that have already been modified from the original videos.

[00:30:12] Speaker 04:
The library is not the original video.

[00:30:16] Speaker 04:
In other words, it's not an original video library.

[00:30:19] Speaker 03:
I think we're out of time.

[00:30:20] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:30:20] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Court, very much for your attention.

[00:30:23] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Kerry.

[00:30:23] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Rainey.

[00:30:24] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.