[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Okay, our next case is number 22-1421, Google versus ITC, and Sonos versus ITC, and we've divided this into two separate arguments, and we'll begin with the Google cross-appeal.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Dan Magatell on behalf of Google, with me are Lance Yang and Andrew DeFrain.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
I'd like to start, if I may, with non-infringement of the 896 setup patent, because that affects both Google's original products and the redesigns that are an issue in Sonos' appeal.

[00:00:38] Speaker 01:
If you agree with us on this issue, it will move both the first issue in Sonos' appeal and the second issue in our appeal, which involves validity of the 896 patent.

[00:00:49] Speaker 01:
The claims of the 896 patent

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
require that the controller receive user input indicating that a user wishes to set up the playback device on the network that the controller is using before establishment of the initial communication path.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
But it was agreed that that user input must be objectively verifiable.

[00:01:08] Speaker 01:
That was a stipulation, and it was entered and agreed to by the commission.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
There's no real dispute about how the products operate.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
We've all seen the screens in the brief ad nauseam.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
And Google's products don't infringe because the screen where the users indicate their network preference occurs after establishment of the accused initial communication path.

[00:01:28] Speaker 01:
Now, the commission said it was before at the device found screen.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
The problem with that is that that screen just asks, would you like to set up this device?

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
That's all it asks.

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
The user doesn't indicate a Wi-Fi network preference until a couple of screens later, which is the connect to Wi-Fi screen, that occurs after establishment of the initial communication path.

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
And that says, choose a Wi-Fi network you would like to use with your device.

[00:01:55] Speaker 01:
That's when the user indicates their preference for what network they want to use to set up.

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
The Commission's ruling was legally wrong.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
because it was based on what the accused controllers were designed to assume.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
That's the language the ALJ used throughout his analysis.

[00:02:09] Speaker 05:
Do we need to see this as a question of law as opposed to reviewing it for substantial evidence in order for you to prevail on this aspect of your cross-appeal?

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
Yes and no.

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
You could stop and remand on the basis that the Commission's legal analysis was incorrect, that it changed the construction and looked at what

[00:02:28] Speaker 01:
uh... the controllers were designed to the destruction by eliminating the objective their fireball sack component but i would say you should go to the river or see that they didn't report to have done that right well they didn't report to have examined the objective variable uh... intent of the user but i think if you look at all four pieces of evidence that solace in the commission of relied on none of them can satisfy the stipulated construction requiring

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
indication of the users objective uh... objectively verifiable intent that but that part that you just said we reviewed the or the commissions contrary finding for substantial evidence uh... you would review to see whether what the commission's analysis was can it support uh... under the correct claim construction requiring the objectively verifiable users intent so it's it's a hybrid all okay

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
I'll grant that much.

[00:03:24] Speaker 05:
Quickly tell us why it would not survive substantial evidence.

[00:03:28] Speaker 05:
You've got the user guide, you've got expert testimony, you've got the screen, you've got the highlighting.

[00:03:35] Speaker 05:
Sounds like substantial evidence.

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
I'll take all four.

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
The first thing they point to is that the controller stores the name of the app, the network the app is using, after the user hits yes after the device, at the device found screen.

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
That's the first thing they rely on.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
The problem with that is that doesn't indicate any user preference.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
At most, it's some sort of assumption by the person who programmed Google's app.

[00:03:57] Speaker 01:
The user has no idea what's going on in the background.

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
You're asked to choose the Wi-Fi network you would like to use with your playback device.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
Now, that's what's asking for the user's input.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
And there would be no point in asking that if they'd already gotten the input two screens earlier.

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
So what's the next thing they point to?

[00:04:12] Speaker 01:
The next thing they point to is at that connector Wi-Fi screen.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
It's highlighted.

[00:04:16] Speaker 04:
At the first step or user test, whether he or she wants to proceed, there's an indication of what the network is, right?

[00:04:26] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:04:28] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:04:28] Speaker 04:
No?

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:04:31] Speaker 04:
Where's the screen, the first screen?

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
The first screen is just, you have some beacons going out, and they say, ah, we found it.

[00:04:37] Speaker 05:
Can you tell us in the appendix where we would see one of the, see the screenshot?

[00:04:41] Speaker 05:
I know it's in there several times.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
Oh, I can get it to you in our brief.

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, I don't, I can translate to it.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
On page nine of our brief, and that's appendix 60428, it says, Google Home Mini Found, would you like to set up this box?

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

[00:05:01] Speaker 05:
Put page here brief again.

[00:05:02] Speaker 01:
I read nine of the red brief.

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
So yeah, it says, would you like to set up this device?

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
And that's based on there's some beacons going around and says, ah, we found a device.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
Would you like to set this one up?

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
It then has to go out and form an initial communication path and find out what

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
Wi-Fi networks, that device can see.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
And it can't form this connect-to-Wi-Fi screen that's on page 10 until it's done that.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
That's after you've established the initial communication path.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
And then, at the connect-to-Wi-Fi screen, it says, choose the Wi-Fi network you would like to use with your Google Home Mini in this case.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
OK, but on page 10, it does identify the network, right?

[00:05:51] Speaker 01:
At that point, it does.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
That's after establishment of the initial communication path.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
And it does, and I'll admit this, that it highlights in blue the network that the controller is currently using.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
But you have a choice here.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
You have a choice of, I guess, eight different networks.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
In my house, it would be probably seven.

[00:06:06] Speaker 01:
But in any event, you have a choice of different networks.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
You don't hit.

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
Until you hit next, you haven't indicated whether you want the first one, the second one, the third one, the fourth one, the fifth one.

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
There's simply no indication by the user until you hit next.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
So what's the third thing?

[00:06:21] Speaker 05:
Yeah, the instructions.

[00:06:22] Speaker 05:
What about the instructions?

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
Oh, OK.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
I was going to say the third screen is if you differ between what you're using for your phone and what you're using for the speaker, it tells you that and says you want to use the two that are on the same network.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
It has nothing to do with what happened two, three screens before.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
Let's go to the Get Started web page.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
The Get Started webpage was something that was on Google's website before the hearing.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
It was taken down, but in any event... Where can we see that in the record?

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
The Get Started webpage is... Should have this.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
Let me look at it in my reply brief, because I've got it there.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
That's 50706.

[00:07:30] Speaker 04:
Is it set forth in the reply brief?

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
Yes, I quoted it at page 19 of the reply brief.

[00:07:41] Speaker 01:
uh... it says it basically i'll read it it says it connects and it it recommends this is never requirement this is something that was on the web support is there's no indication anyone saw it use it's taken out for the year but in any event people who didn't recommend that for ease of doing the connection you can connect your mobile phone to the wifi network that you use for your speaker okay that shows that you will want to make it easy for people to do that that's the easiest way to go you can

[00:08:08] Speaker 01:
You don't have to click anything else.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
You can just use whatever one is highlighted in blue.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
But that is not an objectively verifiable user indication.

[00:08:20] Speaker 05:
Isn't it probative, though?

[00:08:21] Speaker 05:
It's evidence one might reasonably consider in determining whether that first step is an objectively verifiable indication of the user's intent.

[00:08:33] Speaker 01:
Not really.

[00:08:33] Speaker 01:
And here's why.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
For two reasons.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
One is that the Commission didn't rely on it for that.

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
The Commission merely relied on it for what Google's intent was in designing its system.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
The Commission never said, and it isn't, evidence of what any individual user preferred to do.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
There's no evidence that any user actually saw it or used it or followed it.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
You don't have to say, click, I agree, I certify hereby that I have read the instructions and am following the instructions.

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
There's nothing like that.

[00:08:59] Speaker 01:
The only thing the user ever sees is this Wi-Fi screen saying, choose your Wi-Fi network, and that happens

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
Undisputedly, that occurs after establishment of the initial communication path.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
There's no way around that.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
So basically, there are two relevant screens.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
One is the device selection screen.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
That occurs before establishment of the initial communication path, and you select your device.

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
And then there's the other screen, the network selection screen, and that undisputedly occurs after establishment of the initial communication path.

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
And that means that neither Google's original products nor the designer rounds infringed.

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
This is limitation 1.6.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
The issue we deal with in Sonos' cross-appeal deals with limitation 1.8.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
It's an additional round for non-infringement.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
So if there are no further questions on that issue, I will turn to the 896 invalidity issue, if the court wants to hear about it.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
You better do it quickly, because you're running out of time.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
The issue there is the initial communication path established by the CD3O prior art.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
And you had an ethernet crossover cable, a physical cable, that you would connect to the computer and connect the network.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
And the commission held that that initial communication path, that cable constituted an initial communication path.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
And it was established too early to count because you hadn't received the first message and the user input yet.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
The problem was that he stopped there.

[00:10:28] Speaker 01:
He never analyzed the alternative paths that Google argued.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
Google said, well, we don't think that's a communication path.

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
But they said, even if that is an initial communication path, there are other initial communication paths.

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
And this doesn't have to be different.

[00:10:40] Speaker 05:
So content that we could find in validity, only that we could, at best, remand.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
There are two things that Asuna says, oh, he didn't actually make a construction.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
But the only thing he looked at, the only thing he considered was whether it was the first one.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
So there's two things that could have happened.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
Either he construed it to mean only the very first one, or else he just didn't consider the alternative grounds Google raised.

[00:11:01] Speaker 01:
Either way, you've got to send it back.

[00:11:04] Speaker 04:
OK, I think we're out of time.

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
I'll save my non-existent time for rebuttal.

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
We'll give you a couple minutes.

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
Mr. Hathorne?

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
Hathorne, yes, sir.

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
may please the court let's start with the ninety-six uh... and uh... the agreement issue uh... for moving on to the invalidity and five-time the nine forty nine uh... for the infringement issue but this is subject to substantial evidence uh... your honors the commission found both direct and induce infringement based on the finding that clicking yes on the device found screen uh... satisfies the claim user input even though the user doesn't know what network is

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
You know the user does not know it.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
Well, that's a really good question, Your Honor.

[00:11:54] Speaker 00:
At that point, what's supposed to finding that the user does is that it's the online instructions that Google made publicly available on its website.

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
And the logical inference from that is that the inference is that it's meaning that it's US consumers and potentially US consumers who would then rely on that, on how to set up the device.

[00:12:15] Speaker 04:
OK, but without that, you have a problem, right?

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
Well, without that, there's still substantial evidence, I would argue.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
Really?

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
How so?

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
So if you think about what happens when a user clicks yes on the device found screen, what that does, that's an affirmative selection, because there's a choice to either set up or skip, right?

[00:12:35] Speaker 00:
And if the user clicks yes set up,

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
That triggers a cascade of steps within the Google Home app.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
Among those are, the first thing it does, it saves the network on which the controller is operating, and then later fetches that to pre-select that same network on the later connected Wi-Fi screen by highlighting in blue.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
and now what happens at that subsequent connect to wifi screen is that if the user agrees with the pre-selected blue highlighted network and she would click yes, sorry, would click next and then would then be connected to operate with the controller.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
If she wants to use a different network she would switch and then what that would do is that triggers an

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
I understand that, but it seems to me before you get to that screen, it may be difficult to say that there's an objectively verifiable choice absent the online instructions.

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
Well, for that, Your Honor, I would say if we look at the claim language, the claim language says nothing about a choice.

[00:13:37] Speaker 00:
The claim language just says user input indicating that a user wishes to set up a playback device to operate on the secure Y line.

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
What about the agreed claim construction?

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
Excuse me?

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
What about the agreed claim construction?

[00:13:51] Speaker 05:
You agree that user input means an objectively verifiable indication of the user's desire to use a particular network, correct?

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
Yes, yes I do, because this is something that came up through Markman, and in the ID, the AOJ does not adopt a construction that excludes objectively verifiable, and indeed

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
By clicking yes on that device found screen, that generates an electronic signal.

[00:14:19] Speaker 00:
That's objectively verifiable.

[00:14:20] Speaker 05:
We don't have a dispute about whether to apply objectively verifiable indication, do we?

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, you said it one more time?

[00:14:27] Speaker 05:
Everybody here agrees we should apply the objectively verifiable indication.

[00:14:31] Speaker 05:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
You're not fighting that.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
No, I'm not fighting that.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
But if you look at the interruption screen, which is what I was getting at before, Your Honor.

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
if the user selects the network on the connect-to-wifi screen that's not highlighted the pre-selected one chooses another one an interruption screen comes up and it pauses uh... set up because it is confirmed what do you objectively verified we want to do well i think what that confirms your honor is that is that you cannot connect the playback device to the content for to use on the computer cannot successfully set it up unless they're both on the same network

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
So that confirms that by clicking yes on the device found screen, the user wishes to set up the playback device to operate with the controller because it has to be on the same network.

[00:15:17] Speaker 04:
Where are the online instructions?

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
What page of the appendix?

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
The online instructions are, that is 471

[00:15:29] Speaker 00:
or seven swine three point two four seven one four seven four seven one four no i was not with which one i'm sorry five zero seven zero six five zero seven yes sir which one three

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
So if we take a look at the online instructions, and again, made publicly available for everyone in the world to look at who has an internet connection.

[00:16:05] Speaker 03:
I have this text in marked confidential.

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
The one that you just sent to us.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
Is that confidential, that publicly available instruction?

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
That's OK.

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
You keep marking stuff which shouldn't be marked.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
So if we take a look at the instructions here, Your Honor, the first thing it says, of course, to do is to plug in the playback device.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
And the very next thing it says to do is to connect your mobile device to the Wi-Fi network that you'll use for your speaker or display.

[00:16:46] Speaker 00:
And then after that,

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
it says to launch your Google Home app, which then presents the screens that we're all discussing here.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
The first screen being the device found screen, where then the user would click yes.

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
And again, that's the objectively verifiable indication, the user input.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
If I can say, I know I'm running out of time.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
If I can make a couple of points about the ability to issue, Your Honor.

[00:17:12] Speaker 04:
Well, just before you get into that, is this step two here at the bottom, connect your mobile device to the Wi-Fi network that you'll use?

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
They don't know what it is, right, at that point?

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
Or is that referring to the later choice?

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
That's step two, Your Honor.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
Well, they would know, or they can find out, which network the controller is off.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
So, for example, if you're trying to set up your speaker with your handheld phone,

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
you can look to see what Wi-Fi network you're on or what wireless you're on.

[00:17:44] Speaker 05:
Is there any evidence in the record that any user ever saw this and followed this instruction?

[00:17:50] Speaker 00:
None that I'm aware of.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
assume that what you said it's probative it's at least circumstantial evidence.

[00:17:56] Speaker 05:
Isn't it true the commission relied on this for evidence of what the intent of Google was in designing these screens and not for what the user's intent was?

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
Well it's both your honor because if in the

[00:18:09] Speaker 05:
in the a l g's findings on inducement uh... it shows that who does not dispute uh... the additional uh... findings on the distance so i'm on it really which i know you want to get to it seems to me either the commission did silently construed the initial path to mean the first ever which you say the commission didn't do or just failed to address all of google's arguments what what possible other outcome is there what neither actually so book

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
There's a third outcome for the claim construction.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
There's no indication whatsoever that the commission can shoot an initial communication path between the first ever communication path.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
The words first ever don't appear in the ID.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
But they didn't do that.

[00:18:53] Speaker 05:
Why didn't they address all of Google's arguments?

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
But they did address whether layering a UDP and TCP addressing protocols creates a new communication path.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
If you turn to appendix 240,

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
what the ALJ does, it agrees with Sonos that the claimed establishing an initial communication path does not require connection with a particular application or on a specific layer of the network stack.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
And so here what Sonos is referring to is the layering of the UDP and TCP addressing protocols.

[00:19:26] Speaker 00:
And so that means that the Commission agreed with Sonos that using those protocols over the Ethernet cable in the CD3O system does not create a new and different communication path over the Ethernet cable.

[00:19:38] Speaker 05:
But the Ethernet was only part of their argument, Google's argument, isn't that right?

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
Well, yes, it was.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
But if you take out the fact, if by using an addressing protocol of UDP or TCP, if that doesn't create a new communication path, then we're left with what the communication path is, the plugging in of the ethernet cable.

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
That's the communication path that's under all this.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
And again, Your Honor, that's consistent with the patent too.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
If you look at column 10, appendix 10186, lines 18 through 19, the patent teaches the rudimentary or the initial communication path may operate over wireless or wired ethernet protocols.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
And there's no mention there about operating or being established by switching to addressing protocols such as UDP and TCP.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
Also in column six, this is appendix 10184,

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
There's a distinction being made between addressing protocols and communication protocols.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
In lines 39 through 52, it speaks of addressing protocols and gives specifically TCP as one example.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
Later on in column 6, it speaks in lines 53 through 61.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
It talks about the communication protocols for wireless and wired network interfaces, and gives examples of these protocols.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
But there's no mention of these UDP and TCP addressing protocols.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
And I'll also note one last thing, Your Honor.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
I know I'm at my time.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
That even CD3O's co-founder, at the hearing, he declined to refer to the UDP and TCP messaging in the CD3O system as being different paths over the ethernet cable.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
That's at appendix 7-0.

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
1-3-0.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
I think we're out of time.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
Mr. Rosencrantz.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:21:38] Speaker 02:
As I please the court, Josh Rosencrantz representing Sonos.

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
Let me start with the infringement issue and going directly to Judge Stark's question.

[00:21:48] Speaker 02:
This is a substantial evidence question.

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
There's only one legal issue that Google has raised, which is the use of this word assume rather than indicates.

[00:21:59] Speaker 02:
Now, Judge Dyke asked whether there is an objectively verifiable indication

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
that the user has chosen the network that she is on before that initial path is established.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
And that is specifically at the device found screening.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
The answer is yes, for several reasons, but two in particular.

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
First, you asked about the instructions.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
They are laid out on page 45 of our brief.

[00:22:32] Speaker 02:
yes it is correct that the commission described them as instructions that explain what the user interface does and how the system operates.

[00:22:41] Speaker 02:
Now the most important thing to understand about the interaction between the instructions and the code and these interfaces is that they're all designed by the same engineers and they're designed to communicate, that is the interface, designed to communicate to a user what they're supposed to do and then

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
to understand what the input means when the user does that.

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
Does the user know that she is on a network at the point at which she presses yes on the device found screen?

[00:23:14] Speaker 02:
Of course she does.

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
We all know that.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:23:18] Speaker 02:
She has not chosen the network from a list of preferences.

[00:23:24] Speaker 02:
But the claim doesn't require her to choose a network from a list of preferences.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
The claim requires her

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
to be on a network and to indicate that is to provide a user input that she wants to add the device to that network.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
The fact that she can later decide, Oh, wait a minute.

[00:23:42] Speaker 02:
I chose the wrong network is neither here nor there for purposes.

[00:23:47] Speaker 02:
of the infringement analysis because she's made the choice.

[00:23:51] Speaker 04:
This seems to boil down to the question of whether you're right that she doesn't need to know which network she's on in the first place or whether the objectively verifiable construction requires that she know which network, right?

[00:24:09] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor.

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
It boils down to a decision whether the commission had substantial evidence supporting the conclusion.

[00:24:16] Speaker 02:
No, no.

[00:24:17] Speaker 04:
I understand that.

[00:24:18] Speaker 04:
But that's the fact finding.

[00:24:22] Speaker 04:
And interpreting the claim construction and applying it to the facts, that's the choice.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
So correct.

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
On the claim construction question,

[00:24:35] Speaker 02:
The issue is whether the claim requires the user to choose from a list of possible networks, and it doesn't.

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
And Google has never argued that.

[00:24:48] Speaker 04:
I don't think it requires choosing from a list of possible networks, but the argument is that it requires the user to know what network has been selected.

[00:24:58] Speaker 02:
It requires that the user know that she is on a network and that she wants to do the speaker to join that network.

[00:25:04] Speaker 02:
That is all that it requires.

[00:25:06] Speaker 02:
Everything else after that is substantial.

[00:25:08] Speaker 04:
But she doesn't need to know what network.

[00:25:10] Speaker 02:
She does not need to know what network, but is perfectly reasonable for the commission to conclude

[00:25:15] Speaker 02:
and there's substantial evidence supporting the Commission's conclusion that the way this is designed, users generally know which network they're on.

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
When I'm at home, I've got an office network, and I've got a home network.

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
I know which one I'm on, and the instructions tell me to do that.

[00:25:30] Speaker 05:
Yes, but the get started page was no longer available, evidently, by the time the Commission was making its decision.

[00:25:35] Speaker 05:
Well, it was up, and it was down, and it was up.

[00:25:38] Speaker 05:
Can I ask you a question?

[00:25:39] Speaker 02:
Oh, I'm so sorry, Your Honor.

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:25:40] Speaker 05:
Does that make a difference?

[00:25:42] Speaker 02:
It should not make a difference.

[00:25:43] Speaker 02:
Why not?

[00:25:43] Speaker 02:
Because for the reasons that you were articulating earlier in oral argument, that the instructions demonstrate how the system was designed, how it was intended to be used, and it is yet more evidence of what it means when you press yes, because Google explained to people what it means when you press yes.

[00:26:07] Speaker 02:
I know I'm out of time.

[00:26:08] Speaker 02:
If I may just very briefly address the validity.

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
Judge Stark, the ALJ did not neglect to decide an issue that Google put on the table before the ALJ at trial.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
Google made exactly one argument at trial.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
The argument that Google made was you've got an ethernet cable.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
It goes from here to there.

[00:26:36] Speaker 02:
Initial communication path does not start until later.

[00:26:40] Speaker 02:
They never made the argument that there are two possible communication paths, one of which is the first, the other of which is the initial.

[00:26:49] Speaker 02:
They quote from their briefs to the commission on their petition for review.

[00:26:55] Speaker 05:
Would you agree if they did point to other things besides the ethernet that could be the initial communication path, the commission had an obligation to reach those?

[00:27:05] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:27:08] Speaker 02:
If they made the argument, and they will cite to you all these points in their briefs before the ALJ, if you look at those points, every single one of them is about that first argument that I mentioned.

[00:27:23] Speaker 02:
Not a single one of them.

[00:27:24] Speaker 02:
And I challenged my colleague to read a sentence that says, there were two paths, and the infringing one was the second one.

[00:27:34] Speaker 02:
They will point to one thing, which is expert testimony about different prior art that uses the word first ever.

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
That's at the bottom of page 25 of their reply brief.

[00:27:46] Speaker 02:
That's the only place where anyone ever made an argument that was about first ever, and it was not necessary to the disposition of that issue.

[00:27:54] Speaker 02:
And of course, Google never made that argument about CD3O.

[00:27:59] Speaker 04:
Okay, I think we're out of time.

[00:28:00] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:28:01] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:02] Speaker 04:
Mr. Bagatell, two minutes.

[00:28:10] Speaker 01:
I'd like to start by correcting one factual misapprehension by the Commission.

[00:28:15] Speaker 01:
Yes, you absolutely can set up the speaker to operate on a different network than the controller does.

[00:28:22] Speaker 01:
In fact, that's what happens at that screen.

[00:28:24] Speaker 01:
It tells you, oh, you've got a different network that you're using.

[00:28:28] Speaker 01:
But you absolutely continue to go on by your very way.

[00:28:32] Speaker 01:
something you can continue to set up the speaker, or else you can go off and do your own work and let your kids play on that speaker.

[00:28:39] Speaker 01:
You absolutely can.

[00:28:41] Speaker 01:
I think you can find that at 60292 and forward in the record.

[00:28:46] Speaker 04:
So why does the user on this first issue need to know which network has been selected initially?

[00:28:54] Speaker 01:
The user needs to know...

[00:28:57] Speaker 01:
It needs to know which network it because it needs to know it's on the same It wants to set up on the network that the controller is using Okay, so by the way, if you take a look at the claim language the claim language requires that that Indication of the user's intent has to come through essentially the app.

[00:29:15] Speaker 01:
It can't be like going through settings or something else That's actually part of the claim language in claim one It specifically requires that you get this through that interface this GUI So you have to be this has to be part of the setup process

[00:29:27] Speaker 04:
And it's not something that you just selected in... I don't really think that's an answer to my question.

[00:29:32] Speaker 04:
So why does the user have to know which network as opposed to knowing that it has chosen a network?

[00:29:39] Speaker 01:
By the claim language, it needs to know that you're choosing an indication, an objectively verifiable indication that they want to use the network that the controller is currently using.

[00:29:48] Speaker 01:
That's straight out of claim one.

[00:29:51] Speaker 01:
So you need to know it's that particular network.

[00:29:53] Speaker 01:
You may not have to memorize the exact

[00:29:56] Speaker 01:
18 letters of the name, but you need to know it's that particular network.

[00:30:01] Speaker 01:
That's exactly what the claim language requires.

[00:30:03] Speaker 05:
Just very quickly on the invalidity, where can I find where you argued to the commission there were other places to find the initial communication path besides the ethernet?

[00:30:13] Speaker 01:
At pages 24 of our gray brief, we set forth

[00:30:17] Speaker 01:
you're all the places where we say that including the expert testimony which uh... is cited at uh... page five nine oh four two and five nine four i don't i think you just look at them and he's going to go to twenty six of our reply brief it'll be the easiest way we can't time to walk through it all if if if you agree though that we raised this argument

[00:30:38] Speaker 01:
And Sonos acknowledged that we raised this argument when we argued it to the commission.

[00:30:42] Speaker 01:
So if you agree that we raised this argument, the ALJ just simply didn't reach it.

[00:30:46] Speaker 01:
The C-A-A-L-J, I should say, simply didn't reach it.

[00:30:49] Speaker 01:
And we need to reimagine.

[00:30:50] Speaker 01:
But I hope you don't reach it, because I hope you'll find non-infringement.

[00:30:53] Speaker 04:
OK, so I think we're out of time.

[00:30:56] Speaker 04:
Thank you all.

[00:30:57] Speaker 04:
The Council of Cases submitted.

[00:30:58] Speaker 04:
And that brings us to Sonos' appeal.

[00:31:04] Speaker 04:
We'll start with Mr. Rosenberg.

[00:31:06] Speaker 04:
Should we stay in place?

[00:31:08] Speaker 04:
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[00:31:12] Speaker 02:
Your honors, the inventions at issue in this case revolutionized home video.

[00:31:17] Speaker 02:
The ITC found every single one of them valid and infringed, yet Google's knockoffs continue to flood the market.

[00:31:25] Speaker 04:
I'm probably not going to be convincing you with cosmic arguments.

[00:31:29] Speaker 02:
I'm not making cosmic arguments, but I am making an argument.

[00:31:33] Speaker 02:
that what the commission did was to accept 11th hour claim constructions that allowed three of these patents, the products to escape three of the patents.

[00:31:48] Speaker 02:
Now, what I'd like to do is spend the bulk of my time on the 896.

[00:31:53] Speaker 02:
But I'll start with the 258, because I think it's really important to get it in there, and then just a brief point on the 959.

[00:32:03] Speaker 02:
On the 258, the commission found the redesign non-infringing based upon two elements, represent a clock time and generate.

[00:32:19] Speaker 02:
As to the first, our point is very simple.

[00:32:21] Speaker 02:
The claim calls for sending information that represents a clock time, an integer.

[00:32:27] Speaker 02:
that is assigned to a unique clock time and stored in a lookup table to be plugged into a formula as clock time represents clock time.

[00:32:37] Speaker 02:
It is a proxy for clock time.

[00:32:40] Speaker 02:
It's just like saying T sub 1 equals 9 o'clock and 0 seconds.

[00:32:45] Speaker 02:
And like T sub 1, the integer has no meaning beyond that.

[00:32:50] Speaker 02:
No meaning that is separate.

[00:32:51] Speaker 05:
This issue is an application of claim construction that we review for substantial evidence, correct?

[00:32:56] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, I think this particular one is debatable.

[00:32:59] Speaker 02:
The others are clear claim constructions.

[00:33:03] Speaker 02:
This one, I think it is a new claim construction because what the Commission did was to... Nobody asked for a claim construction on this issue, right?

[00:33:12] Speaker 04:
I mean, it's got to be substantial evidence.

[00:33:14] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, what the Commission did was to interpret the claim on the fly.

[00:33:18] Speaker 02:
But regardless,

[00:33:21] Speaker 02:
There is no dispute about how these clocks work.

[00:33:25] Speaker 02:
There is no dispute about how clock time is.

[00:33:27] Speaker 05:
It seems to me that there's substantial evidence to support the view that you're articulating, but there is also substantial evidence to support the rejection of that and to go with Google's view.

[00:33:39] Speaker 05:
Do you have an argument against that?

[00:33:42] Speaker 02:
Yes, we do have an argument against that.

[00:33:45] Speaker 02:
There is no substantial evidence

[00:33:47] Speaker 02:
that an integer that is assigned to a time, the time of a clock, does not represent the clock time.

[00:33:57] Speaker 02:
An expert said it, but it is simply not true as a matter of substantial evidence that cannot be accepted as a legitimate way to apply the term represents.

[00:34:09] Speaker 02:
And just to complete the answer,

[00:34:13] Speaker 02:
The extra limitations were added at page 95, and in particular, 95, note 17.

[00:34:20] Speaker 02:
The commission said, quote, because the incrementing counter is an incrementing integer that goes up by one,

[00:34:35] Speaker 02:
It is not information representing a time value, and thus cannot be the claimed clock time information.

[00:34:42] Speaker 02:
That's the commission reinterpreting the word represents.

[00:34:46] Speaker 02:
But let me turn to the generates point.

[00:34:50] Speaker 02:
The commission's ruling on generates was based on two explicit claim constructions.

[00:34:56] Speaker 02:
They're hidden, but they are explicit.

[00:34:58] Speaker 02:
They are found at page 96, notes 19 and 20, where the commission in note 19 rejected our position that the claim language does not require the clock time information to be generated by the transmitting player's device clock.

[00:35:16] Speaker 02:
And then at note 20, the commission also rejected our position that quote, the construction for clock time information

[00:35:25] Speaker 02:
allows it to be generated by a component that takes an input from a device clock.

[00:35:32] Speaker 02:
Either one of them, if wrong, is reversible error and they are both wrong.

[00:35:37] Speaker 02:
To start with the first

[00:35:38] Speaker 02:
Nothing in the claim requires that the integer had to be generated by the leader's device clock.

[00:35:45] Speaker 02:
The first zone player has to have a device clock that is configured to generate clock time information for the first zone player.

[00:35:56] Speaker 02:
Google speakers most certainly do that.

[00:35:58] Speaker 02:
But nothing in the claim says that the first zone player's device clock must be the source of the clock time information mentioned way down later.

[00:36:08] Speaker 02:
When the inventors wanted to do that, as they did in claim 16, they said it explicitly.

[00:36:14] Speaker 02:
It recites that the transmitted clock time information is, quote, clock time information for the first zone player generated by a device clock of the first zone player.

[00:36:32] Speaker 02:
which is the independent ruling and an independent basis for reversal, the claim construction that a device clock must act alone in generating the clock time information.

[00:36:43] Speaker 02:
The simple point to make there is that the spec explicitly points to a place, which is the DAC clock, where the time clock information is translated by a component other than the device clock.

[00:36:59] Speaker 02:
Now, unless there are questions on the 258, let me turn to the 896.

[00:37:04] Speaker 05:
On the 896, by the way, I believe your friend on the other side started off the morning by saying, if we agree with him on his 896 cross-appeal, your appeal is moot on the 896.

[00:37:19] Speaker 02:
Just on the 896.

[00:37:20] Speaker 05:
On the 896, you agree with that?

[00:37:21] Speaker 02:
Yes, that is correct, Your Honor.

[00:37:23] Speaker 02:
So the 896 claim construction issue is about the phrase, at least a second message containing network configuration parameters.

[00:37:33] Speaker 02:
So there are messages and there are contents, and everyone agrees on what has to be contained.

[00:37:40] Speaker 02:
Two, network configuration parameters, an identifier and a key.

[00:37:46] Speaker 02:
And everyone agrees where they have to be contained in

[00:37:50] Speaker 02:
quote, at least a second message, which means one message or multiple messages.

[00:37:55] Speaker 02:
If the claim had said multiple messages containing network configuration parameters, it would be clear that each message does not have to contain each of the two items.

[00:38:07] Speaker 02:
It would be enough that they collectively contain them.

[00:38:11] Speaker 02:
And that is exactly what this claim means.

[00:38:13] Speaker 02:
Obviously, if there is only one message, the two parameters have to be in the message.

[00:38:19] Speaker 02:
But if there are multiple messages, then the parameters can be distributed among the messages and don't have to be within each individual message.

[00:38:28] Speaker 02:
Plain English resolves this in our favor, but so do the cases that this court has decided long ago, 10 years ago, on what O1 Communique and the more recent cases.

[00:38:40] Speaker 02:
This claim has the structure of the claims that were at issue in O1 Communique, in Nasira,

[00:38:47] Speaker 02:
and in the first half of Convall, and lacks the antecedent structure that prohibited distribution in Finjan, Salazar, and the other half of Convall.

[00:38:59] Speaker 02:
The antecedent cases defined functionality over several clauses, each one adding additional functions by saying first a computer and then

[00:39:12] Speaker 02:
The computer does B, the computer does C, the computer does D, and so forth.

[00:39:18] Speaker 02:
The repetition of V is what led the court in those cases to say that there was no distribution allowed.

[00:39:26] Speaker 02:
But we don't have that here.

[00:39:28] Speaker 02:
And Finchan reconciles all of the cases.

[00:39:31] Speaker 02:
It distinguishes, oh, one communique on exactly that ground.

[00:39:37] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:39:37] Speaker 04:
I think we're out of time.

[00:39:37] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:39:38] Speaker 04:
I will give you two minutes for Mr. Hadhorn.

[00:39:55] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, I will begin with the two five eight patented track.

[00:40:01] Speaker 00:
Uh, so this council's, um, ordering, um, so here at issue are two independent non infringement findings and personas to prevail.

[00:40:10] Speaker 00:
Uh, it must show that both findings lack substantial evidence.

[00:40:13] Speaker 00:
Uh, first that the integer is not the claimed clock time information.

[00:40:17] Speaker 00:
And the second that the integer is not generated by the device clock.

[00:40:21] Speaker 00:
Um, for the first issue,

[00:40:23] Speaker 00:
It's important to point out that the parties agree below how to construe clock time information.

[00:40:28] Speaker 00:
It's information representing a time value indicated by a device's clock that was agreed to, that was stipulated to, and SOTA should be held to that.

[00:40:37] Speaker 05:
Did the commission take a view on that construction?

[00:40:40] Speaker 00:
It just adopted it.

[00:40:42] Speaker 00:
It was agreed to prior to Markman, and the ALJ adopted it.

[00:40:45] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure that I understand what the word representing means.

[00:40:50] Speaker 00:
Well, that's a good question, your honor.

[00:40:53] Speaker 00:
I know what it doesn't mean.

[00:40:54] Speaker 00:
It doesn't mean the integer here in this case is representing clock time information.

[00:40:58] Speaker 00:
Because here, so the clock time, the redesigned integer, what it is, it's generated by a separate component, the time sync requester, and it's generated every time a packet is sent to the follower speaker.

[00:41:13] Speaker 00:
So it's not based on time.

[00:41:15] Speaker 04:
I understand what happens.

[00:41:17] Speaker 04:
I'm just not clear what we're representing.

[00:41:21] Speaker 04:
I guess it could mean two different things.

[00:41:23] Speaker 04:
It could mean clock time information or it could mean something with a surrogate.

[00:41:28] Speaker 00:
Well, yes, if it represents anything in this case, it's the number of the packet that's sent out, because that's what it tracks.

[00:41:35] Speaker 00:
Whenever someone requests, say, for example, a song to be played, a packet is sent to the follower, and that packet has an integer attached to it, to use layman's terms.

[00:41:47] Speaker 00:
So it might be number 74, and then you'll request a song to be played later on, it'll be number 75.

[00:41:52] Speaker 00:
So if it represents anything, it's just the packet number.

[00:41:55] Speaker 05:
And that's a finding in the... Is associated with a lookup table that keeps track of the time that it was set.

[00:42:00] Speaker 00:
Well, yes, Your Honor, that's true.

[00:42:02] Speaker 00:
But that lookup table is with the leader device.

[00:42:07] Speaker 00:
And that lookup table is reserved there.

[00:42:09] Speaker 00:
It's never sent to the follower device.

[00:42:12] Speaker 00:
and also uh... in generating that energy honor it doesn't take into account the clock time again it's just only based on the packet number so it's not as if and this gets into the second alleged uh... claim construction error here about whether

[00:42:26] Speaker 00:
uh... the device clock working in tandem somehow time sync questioner uh... can can generate this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this

[00:42:54] Speaker 00:
It's not necessary to win, but that's exactly true, Your Honor.

[00:42:56] Speaker 00:
It has no access to that looking table.

[00:42:59] Speaker 00:
That looking table is always in the leader device in Google's product, and it's never sent there.

[00:43:06] Speaker 00:
So this gets into the cases cited by Sonos here, where, for example, on a car dashboard, there is a light of a tire.

[00:43:20] Speaker 00:
It's a symbol of a tire, and the case law, this is

[00:43:24] Speaker 00:
Waseca it says well that when that link goes on it does represent something because it symbolizes a low tire pressure even though it doesn't indicate the precise psi of the air pressure within that tire but if you look at our case here there's nothing is that that clock time information of that sorry that integer that's transmitted to the follower it doesn't symbolize any time whatsoever there were no

[00:43:51] Speaker 00:
units of measure attached to it, minutes, seconds, hours, it's just an incrementing integer and that's it.

[00:44:00] Speaker 00:
I see I'm running low on time so I'll just go right to the 896 unless there's any other questions.

[00:44:09] Speaker 00:
So here the 896, the Commission correctly construed the second measure limitation.

[00:44:15] Speaker 00:
What Sonos is trying to do here is entirely rewrite the claim which is

[00:44:20] Speaker 00:
which is improper, it's trying to read it as one or more second messages that collectively contain those messages.

[00:44:27] Speaker 00:
But the word collectively is not in the claim, and there's no support of the specification to read the claim in that manner.

[00:44:36] Speaker 00:
Whereas the commission's construction, there is support there.

[00:44:42] Speaker 00:
It's the SETNET patterns message taught in the specification.

[00:44:47] Speaker 00:
and that's represented in Figure 3B and described in Columns 13 and 14.

[00:44:54] Speaker 00:
And also as far as the cases, I know I'm over my time, Your Honors, but as far as the cases, I know that Surveillance Council talks about 01 Communique.

[00:45:04] Speaker 04:
Okay, I think we're familiar with the cases.

[00:45:07] Speaker 04:
I think we're about out of time.

[00:45:08] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:45:09] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much.

[00:45:10] Speaker 04:
Mr. Bagotow?

[00:45:13] Speaker 01:
I'm happy to talk about either the 896 or the 258.

[00:45:17] Speaker 01:
Do your honors have a preference?

[00:45:19] Speaker 01:
You can use your time.

[00:45:21] Speaker 01:
Well, why don't I start where we left off with the 896.

[00:45:26] Speaker 01:
The problem is that Google's redesigned controllers send the two required network configuration parameters in different messages.

[00:45:35] Speaker 01:
And the patent always talks about them as a package.

[00:45:39] Speaker 01:
The only issue here is literal infringement.

[00:45:41] Speaker 01:
Sonos made a DOE argument

[00:45:43] Speaker 01:
commission level, they lost.

[00:45:44] Speaker 01:
So this is really only a question of what the claims literally require.

[00:45:47] Speaker 01:
And every time that it refers to these parameters, it refers to them as a group, both in the claims and in the figures.

[00:45:54] Speaker 01:
It's figure 3B.

[00:45:56] Speaker 01:
We think the plain language is certainly in our favor.

[00:45:58] Speaker 01:
If you tell a friend that you plan to give her at least a book involving women in science, you're going to send her a book or two.

[00:46:07] Speaker 01:
uh... that involves women insights and that's just you you have to have both these things are going together they are uh... one single thing that's what you need to know if you work if you sit well i think the dog that rolls over and has his sticks out of form i have to say that's my all-time favorite and i think it really does apply here but as you said you've read the cases and i don't you have a whole volume of twenty eight two letters and i don't intend to do that but i i i do think that but we have both the claim language in our favor the specification in our favor

[00:46:38] Speaker 01:
and this court's precedent in our favor.

[00:46:39] Speaker 01:
But even if it came down to some sort of tiebreaker, you go back to the general rule that if the specification supports a narrower construction, you go with a narrower construction.

[00:46:50] Speaker 01:
That's the athletic alternatives line of cases that this court has had since the 1990s.

[00:46:54] Speaker 01:
It's the tennis racket case from the 1990s.

[00:46:58] Speaker 01:
Briefly, on the 258, there are two issues, first of which is entirely an issue of fact.

[00:47:05] Speaker 01:
It's the application of the claim construction

[00:47:08] Speaker 01:
If you have an integer that's 22, it means it's the 22nd clock sync request.

[00:47:19] Speaker 01:
It does not indicate 22 seconds after midnight.

[00:47:21] Speaker 01:
It does not indicate 22 milliseconds after any particular time.

[00:47:26] Speaker 01:
As I think has been pointed out, the clock time information has to be sent to the other device.

[00:47:30] Speaker 01:
The only thing that's sent to them is the number 22.

[00:47:33] Speaker 04:
If the device had access to the lookup table, you'd probably lose.

[00:47:37] Speaker 01:
The leader has access to it because you need to correlate it.

[00:47:41] Speaker 04:
If the receiving had access to the lookup table, you'd probably lose, right?

[00:47:48] Speaker 01:
No, but for different reasons.

[00:47:50] Speaker 01:
It's partly because the other reason would be generated by a device clock.

[00:47:54] Speaker 01:
But remember, you've got the stipulated construction.

[00:47:56] Speaker 01:
The time information has to come from the device clock.

[00:48:00] Speaker 01:
And we have 17.2 that says the first zone player must have a device clock configured to generate clock time for the first zone player.

[00:48:08] Speaker 01:
Well, it doesn't say that about the second zone player, but the accused zone player being the leader is the first zone player.

[00:48:13] Speaker 01:
So it has to come from a device clock.

[00:48:16] Speaker 01:
And it simply doesn't.

[00:48:17] Speaker 01:
It comes from a time sync requestor.

[00:48:20] Speaker 01:
It just generates an integer.

[00:48:22] Speaker 01:
It doesn't have

[00:48:23] Speaker 01:
It only later on can you possibly correlate it with the clock time.

[00:48:28] Speaker 01:
And that's just simply not what the patent had in mind.

[00:48:33] Speaker 01:
The patent had in mind sending clock time information from either the first to the second or the second or the first.

[00:48:37] Speaker 01:
We simply don't send clock time information.

[00:48:40] Speaker 01:
It doesn't represent a particular clock time.

[00:48:42] Speaker 01:
And it doesn't come from a clock time generator.

[00:48:45] Speaker 01:
So for two reasons.

[00:48:46] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:48:48] Speaker 01:
Mr. Rosakrantz, two minutes.

[00:48:57] Speaker 02:
So on the 896, Judge Dyke, I completely agree with the way you are thinking about this integer.

[00:49:07] Speaker 02:
And I would say that if the integer is clock time information, for the reasons that we talked about, because it's correlated with a clock time, then it is clock time information without regard to whether the recipient knows what it means.

[00:49:23] Speaker 02:
It's still clock time information.

[00:49:26] Speaker 02:
Analogies are not always helpful.

[00:49:27] Speaker 02:
But if a messenger is sent with the time to start an ambush, that is clock time information without regard to whether the messenger understands what's in the message or it's coded.

[00:49:40] Speaker 02:
Now, the Commission says that the claim doesn't say collectively.

[00:49:45] Speaker 02:
And I agree.

[00:49:46] Speaker 02:
The claim also doesn't say each.

[00:49:49] Speaker 02:
And collectively was not in claims in Nassirah.

[00:49:54] Speaker 02:
and in convolve, which went our way, or in O1 communicating.

[00:50:00] Speaker 02:
On the 258, the time sync requester.

[00:50:04] Speaker 02:
Yes, it generates integers.

[00:50:06] Speaker 02:
But it generates integers that are immediately indexed to a clock time that happens before it is sent.

[00:50:15] Speaker 02:
So it is clock time information because it is indexed

[00:50:21] Speaker 02:
to a particular clock time.

[00:50:25] Speaker 02:
If there are no further questions, I thank the court for its attention.

[00:50:31] Speaker 02:
And for all of these reasons, the commission's ruling should be reversed.

[00:50:37] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:50:37] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:50:38] Speaker 04:
Thank all counsel.

[00:50:40] Speaker 04:
The two cases are submitted.