[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Okay, our next case is number 23, 1750, Avago Technologies versus Metcars.

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
Okay, Mr. Young.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:50] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court, Dan Young with Corliss and Brady for Avago Technologies.

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
In this appeal, the board incorrectly found that claims 1 through 29 of the 938 patent were obvious in view of the Lee, and in some cases, the Lee and Smith references.

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
With respect to the independent claims, which are claims 1, 22, and 27, the board relied on claim 1 as representative of the three independent claims.

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
As part of the board's finding, which in this claim relates to user configuration information, or UCI,

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
the board found that Lee disclosed those references in four different ways.

[00:01:30] Speaker 00:
The first way was with respect to user preferences, which in the Lee reference, the user, when the user registers, can list what his or her preferences are with respect to the content list or the content title of the movies that he or she.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
A lot of issues are appeal.

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
What do you think is your strongest issue?

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
With respect to the independent claims, Your Honor?

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Yes, with respect to the independent claims, the strongest issue is that all four of these types of UCI were allowed by the board through an impermissibly broad construction of the term UCI.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
And they all relate to slightly different limitations of the claims, but they all kind of result with respect to the construction that the board applies.

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
So for example, with user preferences.

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
UCI is user configuration information.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
And what the board found with respect to user preferences, one of the things that has to happen is that you have to update the UCI based on the provision of the media content streaming service to a first device.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
And what the board found was that the term provision of a service, that's what matters.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
And the board said that the, so they took out the term media content streaming.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
And this is on their final written decision pages 18 and 19.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
And they said,

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
Thus, we determine the controlling provision of a service, as recited by the claims, can include, but is not limited to controlling streaming of media content.

[00:03:11] Speaker 00:
So obviously, there's lots of ways to update user configuration information.

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
You can update it through a screen, through an input by the user.

[00:03:23] Speaker 00:
But in this case, the claims require that you have to update it

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
based on the provision of the service to the first computing device.

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
Now, the specification of the 938 patent does talk about manual inputs, and that's one of the things that... Actually, this whole manual input thing is, in a way, beside the point, because to sustain the board's ruling with respect to Claim 6, which has the dynamically requirement,

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
we would either have to find that UCI is satisfied by user history or by stop points, right?

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
And the manual updating has nothing to do with that.

[00:04:05] Speaker 00:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
So would you like me to handle the user history and stop points?

[00:04:11] Speaker 02:
Well, I think those are the key issues if we look at all the claims together.

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
So with respect to user history,

[00:04:19] Speaker 00:
Now remember, in this case, the board made two specific findings with respect to user history.

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
They said they did not rely on Netflix's expert declaration.

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
Netflix submitted an expert declaration of well over 140 pages with respect to all three of these IPRs.

[00:04:38] Speaker 00:
And the Lee reference is a short reference.

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
It's seven pages long.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
In the citations to the Lee reference, it references the TV anytime specification with a specification that controls how various inputs are stored and managed by the system.

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
And that TV anytime specification is not in the record.

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
So with respect to user history, the reference goes through and says exactly how this recommended content list is created.

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
And it says in the title, it says, based on user preferences and device information, with respect to what is stored by the system, the Lee reference also says that it stores user preferences, device character information, and the indication of the exact point of download was interrupted, which is the stop point or user conditions.

[00:05:30] Speaker 00:
And then at the conclusion of the apologies, when it's talking about what is stored by the system,

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
The board, the Lee reference says, user preferences are managed by metadata.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
Metadata is a capital M. And it says, it has been constituted according to the XML metadata schema to find the TV anytime specification.

[00:05:51] Speaker 00:
And then the conclusion also repeats that these recommendations are based on user preferences, device information, and then obviously the stop points.

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
And then the board decided user history based on two

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
two references in the Lee document.

[00:06:10] Speaker 00:
The first, it says that when you log in, the user is presented with a recommended content list created based on usage.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
Do you want to direct us to a particular page in the appendix?

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
I've got the Lee reference in front of me.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
Yes, so the Lee reference that I'm requiring to you right now is in 1133, section 3.1.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
And the board anchored its findings on usage history based on this one section.

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
And it says that the recommended content list created based on usage history, which is the information, the content the user has played through streaming, and the details of the profile, which is obvious.

[00:06:48] Speaker 00:
I won't read them all, but that's the user preferences.

[00:06:57] Speaker 00:
And then the board also looked at, when it talks about the history DB, or history database.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
And again, this is in section appendix page 1132, section 2.5.

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
And it says, that database stores and manages content list and timestamp, and the user's most recent logon to the server and recent streaming.

[00:07:25] Speaker 00:
And then again, that storage and that database is controlled by the TV anytime specification.

[00:07:30] Speaker 00:
The board made a finding that is critical to the usage history determination.

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
The board made a finding that, and this is on appendix page 43, that the content list stored in the user database was different than

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
the recommended content list.

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
So the board said that the board read the reference, again, without expert testimony from Netflix, and said that what is stored in the user database, this content list, is somehow different than the recommended content list.

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
And what the board's finding is that the lead reference stores this history of every single thing that the user watched in the system,

[00:08:11] Speaker 00:
and then somehow use that information to generate the recommended content list.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
And our position is that that finding is just not supported by the Lee reference, particularly.

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
Why not?

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
Well, because if you look at what, in order for something to be used to generate the content list, it has to be stored.

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
You have to have a storage somewhere.

[00:08:31] Speaker 00:
And Lee specifically tells you what is stored.

[00:08:35] Speaker 00:
And if you look at section 2.2.3 and also figure 5, which is an example, and it shows the steps you go through, it tells you what is stored.

[00:08:45] Speaker 00:
And it's user information, that's password, you know, user ID, password, user preferences, that's what the user fills out at the beginning of the, when he or she registers with the system.

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
and then client device information.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
And then that is exchanged between the client device and the server in steps one and two.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
So your contention is that the priority reference only discloses user preferences in advance and not user history usage?

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
If I understand your question right, yes or no.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
The usage history is not stored and maintained and used to create

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
the recommended content list.

[00:09:27] Speaker 00:
The reference is very clear as to what it does use.

[00:09:29] Speaker 00:
But the board made a fact finding to the contrary.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
Yes, and that's what we're disputing, particularly when the board made that finding without relying on expert testimony and without relying on requiring the TV anytime specific.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
Your argument is based on a lack of substantial evidence, right?

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
I mean, it's not your view that the board has to rely on expert testimony, right?

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
No, the board does not have to rely on expert testimony.

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
But this is a case where the Lee reference tries to talk about what is stored in these databases, references a third reference, the TV anytime specification, which is not part of the record.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
and decided just based on one clause in section 3.1 made this finding that, oh, yes, we have this list of everything that the users ever watched.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
We store it, and we use that to create this recommended content list.

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
And our expert has, in his declaration, says, well, that's actually really hard to do.

[00:10:30] Speaker 00:
And there's all kinds of reasons.

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
So you may watch something, and you may say, well, I didn't really like that.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
You wouldn't want to use that as part of the algorithm or whatever to recommend it because the user didn't like it.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
These are very complicated, and this is an early reference.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
It's seven pages long with almost no disclosure as to how it actually does it.

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
And it cites to a reference that's not part of the record.

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
And the board made these findings without

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
expert testimony.

[00:10:59] Speaker 00:
So we believe that that does not rise the level of substantial evidence.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
And if I can move on then to stop points.

[00:11:08] Speaker 00:
And then I would like to talk briefly about dependent claim 18.

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:
With respect to stop points, again, the claim language.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you something?

[00:11:19] Speaker 01:
Yes, sure.

[00:11:19] Speaker 01:
Before I go to the last point you're making.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
What about the language in 3.1?

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
And maybe you already talked about this, and I apologize if you did, but it says specifically on page A1133, one is presented with a recommended content list created based on usage history, which is the information that content the user is playing through the streaming service, and the details of the user's profile.

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
Why isn't that sufficient evidence, substantial evidence, support of fact-finding?

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
Because, Your Honor, the term usage history is not described, or there's no explanation in reference to how that's actually used.

[00:11:58] Speaker 00:
The only history that respect to the user that's shown up.

[00:12:01] Speaker 01:
But it says which is the information of the content the user has played through the streaming service.

[00:12:07] Speaker 00:
And then when you look at the, and the board found that that information was stored in the user database.

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
And if you look at section 2.5, it describes the user database.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
And it says... Because it doesn't identify that, you say that this sentence, even though it says usage history is information of the content the user has played through the streaming service, that that sentence is incorrect.

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
I think that sentence is ill-defined.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
And the reference throughout the reference, in the title, in the abstract, in the conclusion, in the introductory paragraph, it all says what the recommended content list is generated by.

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
And it's user preferences, it's device information, and it's the stop points.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
It says that throughout.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
And the user database, the only thing it says is it stores the content list.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
and the most recent logon information.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
And what the board found was that the term content list is different than the recommended content list.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
And the content list, if you look at figure four, it shows the user, I'm sorry, the database manager.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
And one of the things that it stores is when the user signs into the system,

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
he or she will list the content titles that he or she likes.

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
And this is a very rudimentary recommendation.

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
And again, this was done in 2006, I believe.

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
And our expert has testified testimony that

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
If you just have that one sentence standing alone, a person of ordinary skill and the art would not look at that based on the totality of the reading of that reference and say, oh, this is clearly what it's saying.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
It's storing this list of everything that's ever been used and using that information to somehow create this recommended content list without any other disclosure.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
And you're on just one last thing I'm running out of time with respect to dependent claim 18.

[00:14:06] Speaker 00:
Before we discuss the independent claim 18, it's important to show what is actually disclosed

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
in the Lee reference.

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
So Lee reference figure one shows these external networks and then the home network.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
And there's actually a dividing line, a horizontal line between those two networks.

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
And what it's saying is that everything to the left of that horizontal line, those are where you get the content.

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
And the whole purpose behind Lee was this was when streaming services, the amount, the streaming times were very slow.

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
And what it said was, well, we're going to download this information.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
We're going to put it on the server, the home server.

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
And then when a user will log in with his or her device one, watches an hour of it, hits stop, then they don't have to redownload it.

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
They can just continue it on another device.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
But everything is controlled from that home server.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
And what dependent claim?

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
for 18 says, is that at least one of the priority computing devices configured to control provision of the media content streaming service to the first and second computing devices from a server remote of the system.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
So what it's saying is that one of these devices will go to a server outside of the system and then use that, control that to allow streaming.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
And that's not what's going on in Lee.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
Lee simply has a,

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
It will go to the external server.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
It will get the movie.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
It will put it on its server.

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
But everything is controlled from the home server.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
So, Your Honor, if that's any of the questions, I'll save whatever time I have left for a rebuttal.

[00:15:47] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:15:47] Speaker 02:
We'll give you two minutes.

[00:15:48] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
Mr. Batts?

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
May it please the Clerk, Harper Baths, on behalf of the Pelley Netflix.

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
I think it makes sense to start with usage history, unless you had any specific questions for me.

[00:16:21] Speaker 03:
Go ahead.

[00:16:21] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:16:21] Speaker 03:
So for usage history, I do think we actually did hit some of the relevant portions of Lee, but I do want to go into that in a little more detail.

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
So if we go back to the Lee reference and specifically

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
I'd like to talk about the different portions that were discussed, including 3.1.

[00:16:39] Speaker 03:
And as Judge Stoll pointed out, I really do want to focus on this language.

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
Because it sounds like Appellant's argument now is that you can have a teaching in a reference, but a single teaching isn't good enough.

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
You need to have more teachings or additional teachings.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
And I don't think that's proper under this court's guidance.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
If you read 3.1, the sentence says explicitly, if one is already a registered user,

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
One is presented with a recommended content list, and then it says what it's created from.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
Created based on the same languages they have in their claim, usage history.

[00:17:14] Speaker 03:
And then it doesn't leave this, I think there was this kind of question of, well, is it really usage history, or it could be user preference, or what does this mean?

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
It goes on to define usage history immediately after, comma, which is the information of the content the user has played through the streaming service.

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
And then the sentence continues to say,

[00:17:32] Speaker 03:
The recommended content list is based upon two components.

[00:17:35] Speaker 03:
It's based upon this usage history.

[00:17:37] Speaker 03:
And then after the and, it goes on to say, and the details of the user profile, which is based on information set by users regarding their preferred content, title, actor, so user preferences.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
I don't think there's any dispute between the parties that the second part of that sentence is user preferences.

[00:17:53] Speaker 03:
So we clearly indicates in this paragraph that it's teaching using usage history for the recommended content list.

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
And when we go back to the other portions of Lee, including that section 2.5 that opposing counsel noted, it does describe the user database and what's stored in Lee and what's in the user database.

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
And specifically, it says, the user history database on the top right-hand side of that page, appendix page 1132, it states, user history database stores and manages content list and the timestamp of the user's most recent login to the server and received streaming.

[00:18:32] Speaker 03:
So it has different pieces of information, including what was received for streaming in that database.

[00:18:38] Speaker 03:
And they didn't point to figure 3, which is on appendix page 1131.

[00:18:43] Speaker 03:
And figure 3 on appendix page 1131 shows the streaming system structure.

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
And on the top left-hand side of that figure, it includes the user database and what's stored in the user database.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
And it includes the user preferences and the usage history.

[00:19:02] Speaker 03:
So there are two different sets of preferences and content that are being stored there, the UCIs, the user preferences, and the usage history.

[00:19:11] Speaker 03:
That's consistent with 3.1.

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
So there's definitely substantial evidence here consistent with 3.1.

[00:19:16] Speaker 03:
3.1 alone would decide this, but the other portions of the reference are consistent on that.

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
And their second argument that they made on this point was they went into

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
the conclusion, section four of Lee, found on 1135.

[00:19:32] Speaker 03:
And section four is the conclusion of a paper giving a study saying, hey, this is the system that we have.

[00:19:37] Speaker 03:
This is what we're developing.

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
And it says, the system proposes the implementation of this streaming system.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
And it says the proposed system is capable of doing these different things.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
And then this is the last sentence that they rely on.

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
Further studies on determining the preferred content by automatically figuring out the user's preferences and device character information are necessary.

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
There's two problems with their argument here.

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
First is that sentence is specific to user's preferences and device character, so device information.

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
it doesn't even discuss usage history.

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
So for them to say that that sentence says usage history wasn't possible, the sentence isn't even discussing usage history.

[00:20:14] Speaker 03:
The second problem with that sentence is that that sentence still applies today.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
People are still trying to improve recommendation engines.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
The fact that recommendation engines existed back in 2007, people are still trying to do further improvements, further work on it.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
Whether a reference teaches something, whether it can be improved upon, whether there's subsequent developments in the field, doesn't negate the expressed teachings of Lee on this point.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
That's what I have for usage history.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
If there's any questions, I can cover the other topics.

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
I did want to address.

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
I don't know how much I need to go into the case law here, because multiple judges on this panel are familiar from their own decisions.

[00:20:50] Speaker 03:
But the Belden decision, I think, clearly laid out.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
And I think counsel agreed that expert testimony is not required for the PTAB.

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
And the Belden decision included explaining how a petition on its face, including in the prior art references themselves and the teachings, are sufficient to provide the basis for invaliding decision by the PTAB.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
And on page 1079 of the Belden decision, it not only noted that, but then it went on

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
to say specifically that the board members, because of their expertise, may more often find it easier to understand and soundly explain the teachings and suggestions of prior art without expert assistance.

[00:21:27] Speaker 03:
So we cited to Belden.

[00:21:28] Speaker 03:
I think Belden was the foundational case on this presidential case.

[00:21:31] Speaker 03:
And then we also cited to the FanDuel case and the Vernetics case, both cases in which the court built upon Belden, cited back to Belden, and said expert testimony isn't necessary.

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
And I can address those briefly, at least.

[00:21:44] Speaker 03:
So for the fan dual case on page 1344, there is this argument about there is expert testimony on one side, but not the other side.

[00:21:54] Speaker 03:
And there's an argument, was the board required to defer to the expert's testimony?

[00:21:59] Speaker 03:
And the court was clear here that the board does not have to.

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
It does its own independent fact-finding.

[00:22:05] Speaker 03:
And again, that's consistent with the Vernetics case.

[00:22:07] Speaker 03:
So I don't know if you have any questions, but I want to be clear.

[00:22:09] Speaker 03:
There's multiple cases, including presidential cases, by the Federal Circuit saying that expert testimony is not required.

[00:22:15] Speaker 03:
And the board, in fact, can make decisions on its own.

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
Then I do want to address stop points, at least briefly, since Your Honor raised it.

[00:22:26] Speaker 03:
I know it wasn't addressed, but if there are any questions about that, I can at least

[00:22:29] Speaker 03:
briefly go through the stop points, since that is the other theory that does cover and encompass dependent claim six.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
They had an argument, their argument was that

[00:22:40] Speaker 03:
The provision of the multimedia content streaming service is not based on the stop points, but is instead based on user input.

[00:22:48] Speaker 03:
So the stop points are simple.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
You're watching the matrix with the movie that's the example in Lee.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
If you pause the stream, it says it stopped at 10 minutes and 37 seconds, or whatever that exact time is.

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
And it's stored by the system so that when you press resume again on your stream, you start at the same place as you stopped.

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
The dispute here is that Alago argued that it is the user that is controlling the system by pressing resume on their remote or whatever device to resume the stream.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
That is what is controlling the stream.

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
not the system itself and not the stop points.

[00:23:25] Speaker 03:
And the board on appendix page 47, the final written decision, noted that that's a false dichotomy and that both the user's input and the stop points were controlling the content stream.

[00:23:37] Speaker 03:
And actually, I think it goes further than that when you think about this for a second.

[00:23:39] Speaker 03:
Because even more so, the stop points are the user configuration information that's actually controlling the provision of the service.

[00:23:48] Speaker 03:
The user is merely requesting a resuming of the stream.

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
They don't know necessarily exactly what the stop point is at the exact time.

[00:23:55] Speaker 03:
They're just saying, hey, system, I want to keep watching the movie that I paused earlier.

[00:24:00] Speaker 03:
And in their reply brief, Avago does not dispute that control can be based on both.

[00:24:06] Speaker 03:
But they're saying, well, it's not really based on.

[00:24:08] Speaker 03:
And I think the best analogy I have for based on is, if I ask Judge Stoll, hey, what's a good restaurant nearby to eat at after this argument, and she gives me a recommendation, and I go to that restaurant, I'm going to that restaurant based on her recommendation.

[00:24:22] Speaker 03:
But I'm also going because I'm hungry.

[00:24:25] Speaker 03:
There's an underlying reason I'm going there.

[00:24:27] Speaker 03:
But it's still based on the recommendation.

[00:24:31] Speaker 03:
So what the service does to effectuate the user's request is the use of the stop points.

[00:24:36] Speaker 03:
And I don't think Avago has been able to effectively overcome that issue.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
And then the second point that they had on this was they argued that the stop points weren't updated.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
And we specifically, the board found that both the Lee reference teaches and also it would be obvious to update the stop points because you might press the pause and resume button multiple times.

[00:24:59] Speaker 03:
And Lee clearly teaches that when you stop and exit out, it saves the stop point so that you can resume the stream.

[00:25:08] Speaker 03:
I guess I'm playing 18 unless there's any other questions.

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
I'm happy to answer questions on that.

[00:25:14] Speaker 03:
But I think it's clear that the board found

[00:25:17] Speaker 03:
And I don't believe there's a factual dispute that the media comes from a server remote from the service.

[00:25:23] Speaker 03:
And therefore, a claim 18 is satisfied.

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
Anything else?

[00:25:29] Speaker 03:
I see you have any questions.

[00:25:30] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:25:52] Speaker 00:
With respect to usage history, very quickly, the section that we're talking about the most is section 3.1 of the Lee reference.

[00:25:59] Speaker 00:
And it talks about this is the usage history discussion.

[00:26:02] Speaker 00:
And at the very end of that same paragraph, that same paragraph that we're discussing, it says, if one is using the service for the first time, the user profile will be saved to create the content list that will be available after one logs on and identification is approved.

[00:26:20] Speaker 00:
That situation is saying that you go into the system as the user.

[00:26:24] Speaker 00:
You put in your preferences.

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
It creates a content list for you.

[00:26:29] Speaker 00:
That's shown in figure four.

[00:26:31] Speaker 00:
It will show the user database.

[00:26:34] Speaker 00:
The Netflix Council referenced figure three of the Lee reference, where it talks about the databases.

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
That database is controlled by the database manager, and that is shown in figure four.

[00:26:48] Speaker 00:
So what the board said when it made its finding that the content list and the recommended content list are two different things, that pulls against the expressed disclosure in Lee.

[00:27:00] Speaker 00:
which says that this content list is created based on user preferences, which is exactly what 3.1 just said, which is what I just read.

[00:27:09] Speaker 00:
And again, the board made this finding without expert testimony and without the TV anytime specification, which controls and dictates how this database is managed.

[00:27:18] Speaker 00:
And with respect to stop points, the language in the claim

[00:27:26] Speaker 00:
states that you control it based, you control the provision of the media content streaming service to the first computing device based on user configuration information.

[00:27:36] Speaker 00:
In the stop point example, nothing is going to happen with respect to the provision of content media streaming from the home server to the device unless the user puts in and clicks on a continuous play functionality.

[00:27:51] Speaker 00:
So I think I'm out of time, but Your Honor, if you have any questions.

[00:27:54] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Young.

[00:27:55] Speaker 00:
Thank both counsel and cases.