[00:00:00] Speaker 04: Next case is Unilock 2017 LLC versus Google LLC number 22-1245. [00:00:10] Speaker 04: Mr. Jackson, you have reserved five minutes of your argument time for rebuttal, correct? [00:00:16] Speaker 04: Yes, Your Honor. [00:00:17] Speaker 03: Okay, we're ready for you. [00:00:20] Speaker 03: May it please the courts. [00:00:28] Speaker 03: In this case, the board erred in at least two significant ways. [00:00:36] Speaker 03: First, the board erred by conflating the specific acts recited in dependent claim seven as being equivalent to or the same as the independent acts recited in claim six, independent claim six. [00:00:51] Speaker 03: And secondly, the board erred in construing [00:00:54] Speaker 03: the claim term key fact, which the part, it's not disputed that that was a, was not a term of art and therefore it could only be construed by looking at the specification. [00:01:06] Speaker 02: At the outset, can you just, is there, is it clear that you don't have 2017 LLC has standing? [00:01:15] Speaker 02: Was it, was this the case in which there had been some litigation about that? [00:01:19] Speaker 03: There had been, Your Honor, and this court reversed the district court's ruling on standing. [00:01:25] Speaker 02: And we held that there was standing or just that it had to go back and be decided? [00:01:31] Speaker 03: I believe the court determined that there was standing and remanded the case back to the district court. [00:01:38] Speaker 03: Now, since that time, the district court has administratively closed the case pending certain appeals, including this appeal. [00:01:47] Speaker 03: So there hasn't been any further action on that. [00:01:48] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:01:50] Speaker 03: Sorry for that. [00:01:50] Speaker 03: It's okay. [00:01:51] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:01:54] Speaker 03: So with respect to the conflating claims six and seven, the doctrine of claim differentiation under that doctrine, there is a presumption that the elements of the dependent claim recite something in addition to what's recited in the independent claim. [00:02:13] Speaker 03: In this case, the board in particular, at Google's behest, but the board didn't cite any evidence to overcome that presumption. [00:02:21] Speaker 03: They simply, in their opinion, laid out the party's respective positions and then concluded, we agree with Google. [00:02:28] Speaker 03: But there was no analysis. [00:02:29] Speaker 03: There was no evidence cited, nothing certainly in the intrinsic record to overcome the presumption that those steps, those acts rather, in claim seven, [00:02:40] Speaker 03: or something in addition to what was recited in claim six, for which there's a presumption that those things are separate. [00:02:47] Speaker 03: The structure of the claim also strongly suggests that those are additional acts. [00:02:53] Speaker 02: Can you remind me why this point matters? [00:02:58] Speaker 03: Well, because to invalidate the claims, what happened was in the petition, Google pointed to this morphology analysis as satisfying [00:03:09] Speaker 03: what's been referred to in the, in the briefing as elements 6A1 and 6A2, as well as the elements in claim 7A. [00:03:17] Speaker 03: Morphology analysis from some piece of prior art. [00:03:19] Speaker 03: Right. [00:03:19] Speaker 02: From the great and hardened, harder. [00:03:22] Speaker 02: And your position is that might satisfy claim seven, but not claim six. [00:03:26] Speaker 03: Exactly. [00:03:26] Speaker 03: Claim seven, claim 7A expressly recites a morphology analysis. [00:03:31] Speaker 03: And so what, what the petition did is they looked to that morphology analysis that eventually is claimed in claim seven. [00:03:38] Speaker 03: and said, well, that satisfies element 6A1 and 6A2 in the independent claim. [00:03:43] Speaker 03: And our points are, those are distinct acts. [00:03:46] Speaker 03: Those are additional acts. [00:03:49] Speaker 03: And the presumption under the law is that they are distinct. [00:03:52] Speaker 03: And so there had to be some evidentiary basis to overcome that presumption. [00:03:57] Speaker 03: And the board didn't identify any evidence to support overcoming that presumption. [00:04:02] Speaker 03: And so it erred. [00:04:04] Speaker 03: In addition, claim seven, [00:04:08] Speaker 01: I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying about the interrelationship between six and seven. [00:04:14] Speaker 01: Certainly, they are related as dependent and independent claims. [00:04:19] Speaker 01: And that means that the independent or the dependent claim has to add something to what was in the dependent claim, but it doesn't have to be [00:04:29] Speaker 01: the case that you can't prove infringement, for example, or coverage of both claims with the same evidence, right? [00:04:38] Speaker 01: I mean, if you had an independent claim which claimed a bucket, and the dependent claim said a bucket of claim one, which is white, then you could prove both of them, coverage of both, by proving the existence in prior art, for example, of a white bucket, right? [00:04:53] Speaker 01: So isn't that what's going on here? [00:04:55] Speaker 03: I don't think so, Your Honor. [00:04:57] Speaker 03: And as I get into the argument further, I'll elaborate on that a bit. [00:05:01] Speaker 03: But here, these acts are distinct, based not just on the presumption, but also on the structure of the claims, as well as the specific language of the claims, the specific acts that are recited in the claims. [00:05:18] Speaker 03: Conceptually, they don't overlap. [00:05:22] Speaker 03: So what I was going to say about claim seven, claim seven [00:05:26] Speaker 03: recites that... I'll get the patent here just to make sure I'm quoting it exactly. [00:05:32] Speaker 03: It says that Claim 7 depends from Claim 6, and it says the key fact-based text retrieval method of Claim 6 wherein the step of key fact extracting comprises the steps of and then it lists for below that. [00:05:48] Speaker 03: The key fact extracting step in Claim 6 is what in the briefing was referred to as one of the overarching steps. [00:05:55] Speaker 03: in claim six. [00:05:55] Speaker 03: There's three in claim six. [00:05:58] Speaker 03: Under each of the overarching steps in claim six, there are acts that are recited. [00:06:04] Speaker 03: So there's the step and then there are acts that are recited. [00:06:07] Speaker 03: In claim six, for example, the key fact extracting step includes the act of analyzing a document. [00:06:14] Speaker 03: I'm just going to paraphrase this. [00:06:16] Speaker 03: Analyzing a document in user query. [00:06:18] Speaker 03: extracting keywords and extracting key facts. [00:06:22] Speaker 03: So those are the three acts under the key fact extracting step. [00:06:26] Speaker 03: Claim seven says wherein the step of key fact extracting further comprises the steps of and then it lists for additional acts. [00:06:36] Speaker 03: So juxtapose that claim seven structure against claim eight. [00:06:40] Speaker 03: Claim eight depends on claim seven and claim eight says [00:06:44] Speaker 03: where in the step of analyzing morphology comprises the steps of, and then it also lists four paragraphs underneath that. [00:06:51] Speaker 03: So in claim eight, it's clearly referring back to claim seven, one of the acts in claim seven, the first act, analyzing morphology. [00:06:59] Speaker 03: So when the applicant intended to elaborate on an act that's in the claim, in the higher level claim, they did that in claim eight. [00:07:11] Speaker 03: They referred back to the act of analyzing morphology. [00:07:14] Speaker 03: In claim seven, the structure is different. [00:07:17] Speaker 03: Claim seven specifically says it's elaborating on the key fact extracting step, the overarching step, not one of the acts that's provided under that step in claim six. [00:07:31] Speaker 03: But the way that the prior art was applied was to say that the analyzing morphology act of claim seven is a replacement where it satisfies the analyzing act of claim six. [00:07:44] Speaker 03: But it's not. [00:07:44] Speaker 03: Claim seven is adding additional acts to the list that are recited in claim six for the key fact extracting step. [00:07:53] Speaker 01: But if one is to find that claim seven covers a particular embodiment, you have necessarily found that all of the elements of claim six are satisfied, correct? [00:08:11] Speaker 03: Conceptually, if a dependent claim has been shown to be invalid properly, then you necessarily have to show that the independent claim is also invalid. [00:08:23] Speaker 01: Well, for purposes of infringement, if you're trying to prove infringement of claim seven, you have to prove all the elements of claim six. [00:08:32] Speaker 01: That's correct. [00:08:36] Speaker 02: Can you address your second point about the format of the Keef Act, for which I guess I focus to some extent on column four, lines 58 to 60? [00:08:55] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor. [00:08:58] Speaker 03: And you're correct. [00:08:59] Speaker 03: That is sort of the focus of the issue, if you will. [00:09:03] Speaker 03: A key fact, that term, it's not disputed. [00:09:06] Speaker 03: That is not a term of art. [00:09:09] Speaker 03: And yet it's in the claims. [00:09:11] Speaker 03: So in order to understand what that claim term means, you have to look at the intrinsic record. [00:09:16] Speaker 03: And in this intrinsic record, there are three, I think, primary places where the key fact is described. [00:09:24] Speaker 03: And here in column four, lines 58 to 60 is one of those locations. [00:09:31] Speaker 03: The parties [00:09:33] Speaker 03: agree, and the board agrees as well, that a key fact is something that describes a semantic relation between words, and it's extracted from either the document that's being analyzed or the query. [00:09:50] Speaker 03: The issue was whether this particular form that's described here in column four is required to be a part of the definition of a key fact. [00:10:00] Speaker 03: The board and Google in their briefing as well looked at the specification to the other parts of the specification where the key fact is described and were willing to accept those teachings. [00:10:13] Speaker 03: But when it came to this particular form, for whatever reason, the board rejected that and didn't accept it. [00:10:19] Speaker 03: So this term not being a term of art, you have to look at the entirety of the specification under Phillips and determine what it means. [00:10:29] Speaker 03: that part was rejected, and we don't believe that that's appropriate. [00:10:33] Speaker 03: In fact, every instance in the specification of a key fact is always of the form that's described here in column four. [00:10:39] Speaker 03: There's the object, comma, property. [00:10:43] Speaker 03: Regardless of whether the object has multiple tags or not, there's an object and there's a property associated with the key fact. [00:10:51] Speaker 03: Looking at the entirety of the specification and [00:10:54] Speaker 03: coming up with the construction of what a key fact is, it was error to ignore the form that's specified in the specification as well. [00:11:02] Speaker 02: Tell me if I'm misremembering. [00:11:03] Speaker 02: I thought the board said two things. [00:11:06] Speaker 02: One, that even if that's true, it endorsed the other side's expert who said, here I'm going to summarize perhaps unfairly, when I see a triple, I see a double. [00:11:21] Speaker 02: And second, even if [00:11:24] Speaker 02: I didn't, the double is obvious in light of the triple. [00:11:28] Speaker 03: Generally, I think that's a general characterization of what the board did. [00:11:33] Speaker 03: With all due respect though to the board, a triple is not a double and it's not proper to say that the form has to be a double, to use that terminology, object and property. [00:11:45] Speaker 03: And to say that when we look at a, so in the prior art, the format was word, relation, word. [00:11:53] Speaker 03: In the key fact scenario, it's object property. [00:11:58] Speaker 03: In the briefing, I noticed it got conflated a little bit, I think for argumentation purposes. [00:12:04] Speaker 03: But the elements of the two structures are entirely different. [00:12:10] Speaker 03: They're not the same. [00:12:11] Speaker 03: Word, relation, word in the prior art, object property here. [00:12:17] Speaker 01: Well, object property is really just, is it not just a shorthand version [00:12:23] Speaker 01: of saying word and another word, which a priori has a certain relationship to the first word. [00:12:34] Speaker 03: Not quite, if I could, Your Honor, I'm sorry. [00:12:36] Speaker 03: But in the prior art, it literally was word, word from the document or from the query. [00:12:44] Speaker 03: It was extracted out. [00:12:45] Speaker 03: It might have been reduced to its base form, but it was the word. [00:12:49] Speaker 03: In the 908 patent, [00:12:53] Speaker 03: It's not necessarily, you know, it's a tag that's a construct or a representation of a word. [00:13:02] Speaker 03: So it's not literally taking out the words. [00:13:03] Speaker 03: And this is one of the points that was made in the briefing. [00:13:06] Speaker 03: The 908 patent in part distinguishes the prior art as being insufficient because it literally used word-based searching or phrase-based searching as well. [00:13:18] Speaker 03: But it was based on what literally was in the document or in the query. [00:13:22] Speaker 03: Whereas in the 908 patent, it's more of a factual extraction, in fact, the claims and the specification talk about. [00:13:29] Speaker 03: It's a factual extraction from those sources. [00:13:34] Speaker 03: So it's not, as your honor's question, it's not literally sort of a reorganization of those concepts. [00:13:44] Speaker 03: OK. [00:13:44] Speaker 03: You're into your rebuttal. [00:13:45] Speaker 03: Yes, I apologize, your honor. [00:13:47] Speaker 03: I'll reserve the rest. [00:13:49] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:13:49] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:13:51] Speaker 03: Mr. Goldberg. [00:13:52] Speaker 00: May it please the court. [00:13:54] Speaker 00: Unilox claim construction arguments are immaterial to the outcome of this appeal. [00:13:58] Speaker 00: Even assuming Unilox claim constructions are correct, which they are not for the reasons stated in our red brief, substantial evidence still supports the board's findings that the claims are obvious. [00:14:10] Speaker 00: Starting with Unilox claim differentiation arguments, which seek to differentiate claim sixes analyzing [00:14:16] Speaker 00: a document collection, and a user query from Claim 7's analyzing morphology of an input sentence. [00:14:24] Speaker 00: We articulated in the bullets on page 56 of our red brief how the board identified different features of Braden Herter for Claim 6 than for Claim 7. [00:14:35] Speaker 00: The first two bullets on that page show the identification that the board made of what in Braden Herter corresponds to the analyzing in Claim 6. [00:14:46] Speaker 00: And the third bullet shows what the board identified in Braden-Harder as corresponding to the analyzing in Claim 7. [00:14:55] Speaker 00: Unilock did not dispute in its pre-brief that these features of Braden-Harder meet the limitations of Claim 6 and of Claim 7. [00:15:04] Speaker 00: Instead, it argued that the portion of the final written decision that Google had referred to was dealing with some broader concept and not dealing with the analysis [00:15:15] Speaker 00: step in claim six. [00:15:18] Speaker 04: What happens if we disagree that claim seven has distinct acts from those in claim six? [00:15:26] Speaker 04: Does that dispose of the case? [00:15:33] Speaker 00: Yes, if you disagree that there have to be distinct acts, then [00:15:38] Speaker 00: that disposes of the case as to this claim differentiation argument because Unilock's only arguments are premised on its claim differentiation, claim construction. [00:15:57] Speaker 00: If we turn to appendix pages 37 and 38, that is the paragraph [00:16:04] Speaker 00: that is referred to in Google's red brief at page 56 in the bullets. [00:16:12] Speaker 00: And that paragraph specifically responds to the claim differentiation argument as Unilock made it below in its patent owner response. [00:16:23] Speaker 00: We can see at the bottom of page 37, at the start of that paragraph, the board is referring to patent owner's arguments about the key fact extracting step [00:16:34] Speaker 00: and it points to the patent owner response at pages 23 and 24. [00:16:39] Speaker 00: Those are appendix pages 348 and 349. [00:16:42] Speaker 00: If we turn to those pages of Unilock's patent owner response, we can see that these are the arguments arising from petitioner's failure to recognize claim six affirmative recites certain acts. [00:17:00] Speaker 00: So this is their claim differentiation argument below. [00:17:03] Speaker 00: We can see that when we get to the end of that argument on appendix page 349, they conclude by specifically calling out the analyzing a document collection in a user query part of claim six. [00:17:20] Speaker 00: They say, and this is starting at the fourth line on that page, the petition fails to identify any alleged key fact extracting step in Braden-Harder. [00:17:31] Speaker 00: that includes analyzing together both a document collection, i.e. [00:17:35] Speaker 00: multiple documents, and a user query in the context of a key fact-extracting step. [00:17:40] Speaker 00: So this is the argument that the board is responding to at appendix pages 37 and 38. [00:17:46] Speaker 00: We know that because if you look at the second sentence of the last paragraph in appendix page 37, the board again refers to the analyzing of a document collection and user query. [00:17:59] Speaker 00: If we go to the next page, [00:18:01] Speaker 00: The board explains how Braden-Harder teaches this analysis, citing to Google's petition and substantial evidence in the form of Dr. Jansen's declaration and Braden-Harder itself. [00:18:13] Speaker 00: As just one example, starting about eight lines down, the board says that Braden-Harder describes that each document is subjected to natural language processing and user-supplied query is analyzed in the same manner. [00:18:27] Speaker 00: So user-supplied query is analyzed. [00:18:29] Speaker 00: This is the same manner. [00:18:30] Speaker 00: as what just happened in the documents, being subjected to natural language processing. [00:18:36] Speaker 00: The board also noted at the bottom of appendix page 37, starting at the second to last line, patent owner fails to identify what is missing from petitioners showing. [00:18:47] Speaker 00: That is still the situation today. [00:18:49] Speaker 00: Unilock has not identified what is missing in Braden-Harder for claim six or claim seven. [00:18:56] Speaker 00: So substantial evidence supports the board's finding that [00:19:00] Speaker 00: Braden-Harder renders those claims obvious, even if Unilock's claim construction differentiation argument is right. [00:19:09] Speaker 00: And again, as we noted in our red brief, it is not. [00:19:13] Speaker 00: Turning to the key fact itself, again, even if the court was to accept Unilock's arguments as to the specific format required for the key fact, [00:19:28] Speaker 00: Again, that would not impact the outcome of this case, because as Judge Toronto had noted earlier, the board already found that one, Braden Herter discloses it, a triple being another form of a double. [00:19:40] Speaker 00: And then also crediting Google's expert that it would have been obvious to remove that relation in the regulation. [00:19:48] Speaker 02: Can I just ask you about the first part of that? [00:19:53] Speaker 02: struggling to understand why it could be the case that the experts said, even if the key fact is a fact expressed in a [00:20:07] Speaker 02: be two elements, an ordered pair, not an ordered triple, something like 3 equals 2. [00:20:16] Speaker 02: Obviously, that's ridiculous. [00:20:18] Speaker 02: So help me understand why what the expert said is something different from that. [00:20:23] Speaker 00: So there's a little bit more nuance here. [00:20:25] Speaker 00: The claim construction, the specific construction that Unilac articulates for what is the key fact, that has been somewhat of a moving target before the PIA tab and even here. [00:20:38] Speaker 00: on does it just need the format? [00:20:40] Speaker 00: Does it need the format? [00:20:41] Speaker 00: But then you have to add this requirement that it can't have anything extra. [00:20:45] Speaker 00: And when the expert is saying, well, three can be two, of course, if we were to expressly say, well, it can't have anything extra. [00:20:54] Speaker 00: It has to just be those two. [00:20:56] Speaker 00: It can't have anything extra. [00:20:58] Speaker 00: Then that would be an issue. [00:21:00] Speaker 00: But if you just go by the book. [00:21:04] Speaker 02: But now you're, I think, not accepting [00:21:08] Speaker 02: the claim construction premise. [00:21:09] Speaker 02: So the premise of, I think, what I'm trying to ask is that the patent as a whole, most particularly in my mind, column four, lines 58 to 60, specify a quite particular format, which is an ordered pair, not an ordered three-double. [00:21:32] Speaker 02: And then I realized there's a kind of, you know, the prior art teaches that. [00:21:39] Speaker 02: The expert said, in any event, if it doesn't, it's obvious. [00:21:41] Speaker 02: I'm putting aside that last thing, and I'm trying to explore just to understand how that first thing could be a reasonable thing to say. [00:21:52] Speaker 00: I think it's because when, in that portion of the patent that you're referring to, it expresses that format. [00:22:02] Speaker 00: There's a little ambiguity in that statement as to whether it's the format of the representation that it's talking about or if it's the format of the QFACT, but also if you have... [00:22:19] Speaker 02: The opening paragraph that says, key fact is a fact, and the next sentence says something about its representation. [00:22:26] Speaker 02: That's already a difficulty, because a fact is not a representation. [00:22:30] Speaker 02: I take those two things to be put together to mean a fact as represented. [00:22:35] Speaker 02: And then later, it adds, in fact, represented in the following way. [00:22:40] Speaker 02: And I don't remember seeing this is only an embodiment language in the column four. [00:22:47] Speaker 02: So I guess I want to just take as a given that a key fact is a fact represented in a particular way, a precise ordered pair, and nothing else. [00:23:01] Speaker 00: If we say, and nothing else, then yes, a triple would not be a double in that circumstance. [00:23:09] Speaker 00: The pattern itself does not say, and nothing else. [00:23:12] Speaker 00: That's what the difference is. [00:23:14] Speaker 00: But as you recognize, [00:23:16] Speaker 00: Even if that fails, the board also found that it would still be obvious to modify the triple in Braden-Harder to remove that relation. [00:23:28] Speaker 00: And then you are at this literal exact format. [00:23:32] Speaker 00: This is at? [00:23:33] Speaker 02: And remind me what the stated motivation to make that modification is. [00:23:39] Speaker 00: The motivation is to [00:23:44] Speaker 00: If we look at Appendix Page 39, this is the board's final written decision. [00:23:48] Speaker 00: And it actually goes through this issue. [00:23:52] Speaker 00: Braden Harder describes that its invention can readily utilize any other form. [00:23:57] Speaker 00: So we don't have an issue of changing from the triple to what we've been referring to today as a double. [00:24:05] Speaker 00: The board goes on to recognize that Braden Harder further describes that the criteria for determining a match can be relaxed to encompass [00:24:13] Speaker 00: paraphrases as matching. [00:24:16] Speaker 00: Dr. Jensen testified that Braden-Harder's descriptions would have led a person of ordinary skill and the art to be motivated to generate logic of forms that did not include the relations for non-appositive or relative clause constructions to increase matches with sufficiently similar semantic content, thereby ensuring that all relevant documents are retrieved from the document collection. [00:24:40] Speaker 00: So it's essentially you're saying we're not going to require that you look at that middle part because we want to get more matches. [00:24:49] Speaker 00: So we're going to not be as restrictive and require that you look at that middle part so the middle part can be taken out. [00:24:55] Speaker 00: That's what the expert testified to at paragraph 221 of his declaration. [00:25:01] Speaker 00: That's what the board relied upon. [00:25:03] Speaker 00: The board gave substantial weight to the expert's testimony and agreed with Google that it would have been obvious [00:25:09] Speaker 00: to generate other logic forms that do not include the relations to enable structural paraphrasing. [00:25:15] Speaker 00: That structural paraphrasing is the taking out the middle so that you can get more matches. [00:25:21] Speaker 00: And Uniloc, they had no response to this timely at the board. [00:25:28] Speaker 00: Here their response is to try to add [00:25:33] Speaker 00: create burdens that they say Google should have met below, things like saying that Google needed to preemptively articulate why this modification would not have rendered Braden-Harder inoperable for its intended purpose. [00:25:51] Speaker 00: It's not clear where that argument goes. [00:25:54] Speaker 00: They have no testimony about it. [00:25:56] Speaker 00: They have no evidence on it. [00:25:58] Speaker 00: Braden-Harder itself, as I mentioned before, recognizes [00:26:02] Speaker 00: that its invention can readily utilize any other form, and it specifically recognizes the possibility of removing this relation. [00:26:11] Speaker 00: So that doesn't seem to go anywhere. [00:26:14] Speaker 00: In any case, as I mentioned, all of the arguments that Uniloc has made, saying that this is not substantial evidence, they're all waived. [00:26:24] Speaker 00: They were not made below at the time of the patent matter response. [00:26:30] Speaker 00: Uniloc's only response to that is to say, [00:26:32] Speaker 00: Well, Google changed its arguments in its reply, so that somehow gives them an excuse to be making new arguments in their server reply. [00:26:41] Speaker 00: Or here, that is not the case. [00:26:44] Speaker 00: If you look at appendix page 39, toward the top there's an id on the fourth line. [00:26:49] Speaker 00: That's the petition. [00:26:51] Speaker 00: If you look back at appendix page 38 at the bottom, specifically petition page 47, [00:26:58] Speaker 00: And the board goes on to cite every portion of Braid and Herder, every portion of the expert declaration in that paragraph that we've been discussing was cited in the petition at page 47. [00:27:10] Speaker 00: That is appendix page 124. [00:27:16] Speaker 00: We can see on appendix page 124, exhibit 1020, that's Braid and Herder, column 11, line 51 to 55. [00:27:26] Speaker 00: column 25, line 49 to 60, the expert declaration, exhibit 1003, paragraphs 221 to 222. [00:27:33] Speaker 00: There's nothing new in Google's reply. [00:27:35] Speaker 00: These are all arguments that are stemming from the petition that the board agreed with, that the board found, showed that the claims are obvious. [00:27:44] Speaker 00: This is substantial evidence showing that the claims are obvious, even under the very narrow construction by Unilock. [00:27:51] Speaker 00: The court should affirm [00:27:53] Speaker 00: the board's findings because they are all supported by substantial evidence. [00:27:57] Speaker 00: And unless there's any questions, I'll stop there. [00:28:01] Speaker 04: Thank you very much. [00:28:03] Speaker 04: Jackson, I've restored you to three minutes for rebuttal time. [00:28:07] Speaker 03: Thank you, your honor. [00:28:07] Speaker 03: I appreciate that very much. [00:28:09] Speaker 03: I'll try to be as brief as I can. [00:28:11] Speaker 03: And so I'm going to ask your honors to look at the underlying record. [00:28:16] Speaker 03: But to address Google's first point, and this is the bullets that are on pages 56 and 57 of the red brief, [00:28:25] Speaker 03: That is not an accurate characterization of the evidence that was relied upon to show those elements. [00:28:31] Speaker 03: On page 56, if you look at the first two bullets, they're pointing to pages APPX 112 through 114 when the actual element is addressed on pages 114 to 115. [00:28:43] Speaker 03: And if you look at 114 to 115, it relies on this morphological analysis, which is the same thing that they concede they relied on for claim seven in the third bullet. [00:28:54] Speaker 03: If you look at page 57 in the first bullet, they point to pages 117 and 118 of the appendix, but the correct side is to 116, which is in the same section. [00:29:05] Speaker 03: But on page 116, when they talk about the element, they again point to the morphological analysis, which again they rely on in the second bullet, when on page 57 of the brief. [00:29:15] Speaker 03: Obvious to modify, they mentioned that their expert opined on that. [00:29:24] Speaker 03: Concededly, the Patent Office almost verbatim relied on the briefing that Google put together for the idea that the key fact in Braden-Harder could be modified. [00:29:36] Speaker 03: The problem is that the expert misread or mischaracterized Braden-Harder quite clearly if you actually read Braden-Harder itself. [00:29:45] Speaker 03: Braden-Harder, in the section they rely upon, this is in column 25, [00:29:51] Speaker 03: lines, roughly lines 53 to 57, it says here, this is the idea that you could, actually it begins earlier at line 49, but Brayden Harder says, we can also, we've heretofore been talking about an exact match. [00:30:05] Speaker 03: We required an exact match. [00:30:06] Speaker 03: But you could relax the standard to try to catch paraphrases. [00:30:11] Speaker 03: And then they give examples of the type of paraphrases that could be caught. [00:30:14] Speaker 03: They could be lexical or [00:30:16] Speaker 03: So you can either have synonyms and try to catch them using the Braden-Harder method, or you can reorder the phrases. [00:30:24] Speaker 03: And they give some examples down below with respect to the phrase, the president comma Bill Clinton, and how you can reorder that and try to capture that using their system. [00:30:33] Speaker 03: It never says that you drop out the relation from the triple. [00:30:40] Speaker 03: It doesn't say we're going to capture [00:30:42] Speaker 03: these paraphrases by dropping out relation from the word, relation, word, triple, it never says that at all. [00:30:49] Speaker 03: It's simply saying we can relax the matching standard in some fashion. [00:30:53] Speaker 03: Frankly, it's not disclosed how they're going to do that, but they're leaving open that possibility. [00:30:57] Speaker 03: There's never a discussion of removing the relation and [00:31:02] Speaker 03: with respect to removing the relation, that's a semantic relation, which is expressly required in the 908 patent, again, at column four, forgot the line numbers, but where it talks about the form, it talks about the form, this is at lines 58 to 60, it says, all key facts express semantic relation between the words in the form of object property. [00:31:28] Speaker 03: So the board, [00:31:32] Speaker 03: took the unusual position that we can remove the semantic relation from Braden-Harder's triple and yet somehow satisfy the requirement in the 908 patent that the key fact has to express a semantic relation. [00:31:43] Speaker 03: That makes no sense. [00:31:45] Speaker 03: In addition, in Braden-Harder, that relation, that semantic relation, is used to determine weights to be given to various search terms or triples when they're searching the documents. [00:31:59] Speaker 03: You can't get to the weights of Braden-Harder unless you have the relation. [00:32:03] Speaker 03: So the clear teaching is relation is never removed in Braden-Harder. [00:32:07] Speaker 03: It's an essential part of the teaching of that patent. [00:32:13] Speaker 03: You've run out of time, sir. [00:32:14] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor.