[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Next case is centripetal networks versus parallel networks 23 16 54 Yes, good morning good morning morning honors may please the court The board's decision in this case should be reversed or at the very least remanded

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
because the board failed to construe a key term that was in dispute.

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
Was it in dispute?

[00:00:36] Speaker 00:
It was absolutely in dispute, Your Honor.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
And this was acknowledged in the board's decision in Appendix 29 through 32.

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
And that's for the 028 patent.

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
And this term was absolutely in dispute because... Did you see the construction of it?

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
Absolutely.

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
We put our construction into it, into our servo-reply, into our patented response, and into our servo-reply.

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
And we specifically said that the actions that follow in the claims are going to be triggered based on the network threat indicators.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
And the board did not construe this term.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
where can we see your construction and Understand that it was proposed as a construction.

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
I would say it was in our in our patent owner response to the page Well if you don't mind I'll get the page for the actual construction, but this is acknowledging the board's decision if we look at a

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
the appendix at 29 through 32, the board specifically stated on page 30 that we disputed what the response to a determination limitation meant.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
And then what the board said, and I quote, at appendix 18, it said, to the extent interpretation of this term is necessary,

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
We consider the meaning of the claim language in the context of determining whether the prior art teaches or suggests a limitation at issue.

[00:02:26] Speaker 00:
I think that code answers your question, Judge Stark, that it was absolutely in dispute that there was a construction at issue here.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
Because the board went through this entire analysis.

[00:02:38] Speaker 04:
So what is your position about what this claim language?

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
First of all, which particular claim language responsive to determination by the filtering device

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
satisfying a filter rule based on one or more network indicators.

[00:02:54] Speaker 04:
The next actions, the applying then has to itself be based on the threat indicator.

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
Exactly.

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
And the communicating.

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
If I say something is based on variable X and variable Y,

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
Why wouldn't it be right to say that my decision is based on X?

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
Not only X, but based on X. And isn't that what's going on in the source fire?

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
It's relying on something in the heading and also something else, but it is relying on the something in the heading.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
Well, the heading, and you have to be careful about this, the heading

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
is only to determine whether the packets at issue should be analyzed at all.

[00:03:44] Speaker 00:
It has nothing to do about the conditions, or also called the arguments, that are gonna actually trigger an action.

[00:03:51] Speaker 00:
And that's laid out in Appendix 2040, where it specifically details what the rule header is.

[00:04:00] Speaker 00:
Now, using your example, nothing would happen in Sourcefire

[00:04:05] Speaker 00:
if there are not conditions and arguments that are actually in the rule to be applied.

[00:04:11] Speaker 00:
That's why you have to, if you look at the evidence, what does source fire say?

[00:04:15] Speaker 00:
It says, as a threshold in order to say, okay, if I'm gonna narrow packets to be analyzed, I'm gonna look in the rule headers.

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
But that doesn't trigger any rules.

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
The rules that are triggered are based on the arguments and conditions.

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
And that's why construction's necessary.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
And explicit construction is necessary here

[00:04:35] Speaker 00:
Because based on how the board is going to interpret that claim, you're going to see in sourcefire that if the board says, OK, you can have conditions that can trigger these actions of communicate or applying an operator.

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
If those conditions and arguments are not in sourcefire, nothing's going to happen at all.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
So if they try to interpret it that way, then it's not going to read on it.

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
If they say it does require this, it does require this to trigger these actual operations, then again, it's not going to read on the prior art because those actions aren't going to happen.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:
So that's why we need an explicit construction.

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
The language that they use that they're going to interpret this in light of the prior art runs afoul all of this court's precedent, saying that

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
You need an explicit construction before you analyze the prior art.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, we agree with that.

[00:05:41] Speaker 03:
Why shouldn't we just do the construction ourselves?

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
You can do the construction yourselves, absolutely.

[00:05:47] Speaker 00:
And I think that if you do do the construction yourselves and you look at the evidence, that would warrant a reversal.

[00:05:53] Speaker 03:
You mean look at the intrinsic evidence related to the patent is what you're talking about.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:05:58] Speaker 00:
If we look at the intrinsic evidence and how this operates, how the device that's in the 028 and the 126, how it operates, when it says based on the network threat indicators, what happens in that instance is that you have these reports, network threat intelligence reports, that give these network threat indicators and the device

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
will, based on those threat indicators, perform these actions.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
It does not talk about performing additional actions that are gonna later trigger some other type of mechanism.

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
And so that's what you're gonna see based on the intrinsic record.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
So our position is that it can be reversed, but at the very least remanded to provide an explicit construction.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
And that's the purpose of getting a construction is so that we have notice

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
and we can argue it, some triptal can, but your honors can.

[00:06:55] Speaker 00:
Your honors can look to see, is this construction correct on appeal?

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
At this point, you don't know.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
We don't know what the board's construction is for this term.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
It was argued extensively during the oral hearing.

[00:07:13] Speaker 00:
It was acknowledged in the final written decision as being one of the major issues,

[00:07:20] Speaker 00:
rather than apply this explicit construction for both of the cases, the 028 patent, the 028 patent and the 126 patent, referring to the patents rather than IPR numbers, just easier for me.

[00:07:33] Speaker 00:
But they sidestepped it.

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
In Appendix 61, they even said this, we acknowledge the effect of the responsive to language in the challenge claims, but we'll consider whether the grounds of unpatentability satisfy that requirement below.

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
They again sidestep the issue completely.

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
I'm glad you brought up that quote.

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
Do you know what that means?

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
I have no idea what that means.

[00:08:00] Speaker 00:
That's exactly the point.

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
It's like, I don't know what that means at all.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
And that's in Appendix 61.

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
And so when we look at this and we look at the issues, we actually see that because we don't have a construction, there's an actual inherent inconsistency between the 028

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
and the 126.

[00:08:20] Speaker 00:
In the 126, the board used this reasoning saying that the comprising language essentially allows additional conditions to be able to be met in order to satisfy the applying and the communicating limitations.

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
The O2A patent takes a completely different approach.

[00:08:45] Speaker 00:
They don't mention the comprising language at all.

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
And so we have this inconsistent reasoning, inconsistent positions between the two patterns that we cannot resolve without an explicit construction.

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
And so, I mean, again, we could reverse if your honors come up with a construction, but I think at the very least you need to get remanded.

[00:09:10] Speaker 00:
And the additional inconsistencies come

[00:09:14] Speaker 00:
And this is on Appendix 32.

[00:09:16] Speaker 00:
So this is, again, for the I-126 patent and not for the O-28.

[00:09:23] Speaker 00:
But there they suggest that the claim language only requires the rule to be satisfied in order to make the determination without the network threat indicators.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
Again, it's an inconsistent decision between the two decisions.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
They're using additional criteria, interpreting the claim in different ways.

[00:09:46] Speaker 00:
And without explicit instruction in both of them, we have an issue.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
And that needs to be resolved.

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
I'm hoping when you come back, you'll show us where you set out your construction for the board.

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
But in the absence of that, the red brief at 46 says, I think, what the petitioner thinks your construction was.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
It's a paragraph that starts third.

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
They say that centripetal suggests or implies

[00:10:16] Speaker 03:
that the Responsitude Limitation requires that rules must trigger based only on network threat indicators and not network threat indicators plus other criteria, which I think is what Judge Toronto was getting at with his question to you earlier.

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
Is that a fair recitation of the construction that you proposed and would potentially have us say is correct?

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
Yeah, I would say, I'm sorry, what page was that?

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, page 46 of the red brief.

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
Oh, the brief.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
I thought you said the appendix.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
No, it was the brief.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
Trying to infer what your construction is.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
So Reddit 46.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
So I think that that is largely correct.

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
But I think the key is that the trigger, I think it's largely correct.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
I think that the way that the claim's written, it says responsive to a determination that a rule is satisfied based on network threat indicators, and then you have to do these two operations.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
So I do think that in order for those operations to happen, they have to be triggered based on the network threat indicators.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
And only the network threat indicators.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
Only the network thread indicators in the fact that you can't have additional application of a rule or some intervening criteria that's actually going to do the triggering.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
If that makes sense.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
So I take it that when you say we are free to de novo do the construction ourselves,

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
What we would be asking ourselves is whether or not to limit the term to the trigger based only on the network threat indicators or alternatively be based triggered on network threat indicators plus other criteria.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
That would be the claim construction dispute in front of us.

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
Fair?

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
I think it's mostly there.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
My only concern with that is that when you're saying it's only triggered on the network threat, the only trigger on the network threat indicators, I wanted to make clear that the network threat indicators are going to be what has to trigger, the network threat indicators have to trigger the operations, if that makes sense.

[00:12:44] Speaker 00:
You can't have additional criteria that's going to be used to trigger it.

[00:12:49] Speaker 00:
It has to be based on those network threat indicators.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
I think that might be what you're saying, but I just want to, in my mind, make clear that that's what the based on is for, is that you have to have these network threat indicators, and then based on that, you're going to have these operations occur.

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
And that's what the claim says, and that's what the intrinsic record would support.

[00:13:10] Speaker 02:
into your bubble time.

[00:13:13] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
I'll reserve the rest.

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
Mr. Howard Dreemeyer.

[00:13:24] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
The claim construction that centripetal asked for was with respect to the phrase responsive to and they argued that responsive to meant in reaction to.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
The board

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
as this court has said, didn't need to resolve any claim construction dispute other than as necessary to resolve this case.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
And on page 32, they specifically address this argument saying that the claim language is drafted that in response to is tied to a determination that the rule has been satisfied.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
in reaction to the fact that the rule has been satisfied.

[00:14:08] Speaker 01:
There is no intermediate step.

[00:14:11] Speaker 01:
There's no intervening action by the user or anything else.

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
It's direct that as soon as it's a determination that the rule has been satisfied, in response to that, the operation occurs.

[00:14:25] Speaker 01:
What counsel wants to argue now is that related to means related only to.

[00:14:34] Speaker 01:
Now that argument was never made in their patent owner response.

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
He said related to.

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
Did you mean responsive to?

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
Because there was two different.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
So then following on, the claims say that the rule must, I said related to, I'm sorry, based on.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
based solely on.

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
I apologize.

[00:15:01] Speaker 01:
So responsive to is drafted as responsive to a determination that the rule has been satisfied.

[00:15:10] Speaker 01:
The rule is satisfied

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
based on the network threat indicators.

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
But in your view, and I think the board's view, not based only on that.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
Not based only on that.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
So it could be an AND operator.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:15:22] Speaker 04:
And Y and the X. Exactly.

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
This is a really bad source, but we want to know something else.

[00:15:28] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
And of course, on that point, Sam Trippert never argued that based on meant based only on.

[00:15:39] Speaker 01:
Now in the 076,

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
the board sort of surmised that and addressed it on page A79 saying that that's also not what it says.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
It says based on, it doesn't say based solely on.

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
And they, in that context, relied on the comprising language of the preamble

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
as suggesting that what is recited as based on the network threat indicators would not exclude also other steps such as the determination that a second criteria was also met.

[00:16:15] Speaker 01:
So the board addressed the claim construction arguments that centripetal argued and rejected them as inconsistent with the claim language.

[00:16:26] Speaker 01:
Now what

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
is really in dispute here is what does source fire teach.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
Because counsel asserted that it was somehow uncontested, although it is definitely contested, that source fire treats the rule header only as restricting which packets we're going to investigate further.

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
But the board rejected that construction of source fire, just as this court rejected that construction

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
of source fire in the appeal from the 722 patent.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
And this is at A6883, where it affirms that the board reasonably rejected the contention that source fire treated the rule header merely as a restrictive feature.

[00:17:22] Speaker 01:
And there is absolutely sufficient

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
of substantial evidence to support the board's determination that the rule header is part of the rule.

[00:17:35] Speaker 01:
The board found on page 31, 831, the rule includes conditions in both its header and options, and further that a packet must match all conditions in a rule to trigger the rule and then perform.

[00:17:53] Speaker 01:
Now that's supported at A76, which says that if the packet data matches all of the conditions specified in the rule, the rule triggers.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
And also at A762, where specifically Sourcefire says that the components, including the rule header and rule options, make up a standard rule.

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
So the rule includes both the header and options.

[00:18:23] Speaker 01:
the board, rather, went further to find in the alternative that there's no requirement that a rule include options.

[00:18:33] Speaker 01:
As the word indicates, options are optional.

[00:18:35] Speaker 01:
And that's what Dr. Lee testified to in his deposition.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
And the board says this twice on page 32.

[00:18:45] Speaker 01:
It indicates that a rule is triggered when a packet matches source and destination IP addresses.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
network threat indicators in the rule header.

[00:18:56] Speaker 01:
And then it says parens and any criteria in the rule option section indicating that there need not be.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
There may be some if there are any.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
And then further down on page 32 when in describing how source fire operates it says when a source fire rule contains conditions in addition to IP addresses in the rule header

[00:19:23] Speaker 01:
The operator is applied when the packet matches all the conditions.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
Again, when it does so, indicating it's understood, as Dr. Lee testified, that it doesn't have to.

[00:19:34] Speaker 04:
Help me understand this.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
Is what you are saying right now that even on centripetal's view that the

[00:19:50] Speaker 04:
that based on means based only on surefire teaches that because sometimes there won't be other conditions.

[00:19:58] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:19:59] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:20:00] Speaker 04:
Did the board conclude that?

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, that's on page 32 where they're describing that, where they describe the options in optional language, saying any

[00:20:17] Speaker 01:
condition in the options section, or when, in addition to the IP address, which is in the rule header, it contains additional criteria.

[00:20:26] Speaker 01:
Those are findings that, in Sourcefire, those are optional.

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, are you referring to the top of page A32?

[00:20:36] Speaker 01:
It's on the top of page A32 when it describes how a rule is triggered.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
Because a rule is triggered when a packet matches source and destination IP addresses in the rule header, and then it has a parenthetical, which indicates that the rest is not essential, and the language the board uses confirms that, and any criteria in the rule options section.

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
So recognizing that that's not required for there to be a rule, we find that Sourcefire makes a determination

[00:21:09] Speaker 01:
that the packet satisfied the rule based on one or more of the source and destination IP addresses.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
And so later on in the same page, they say that when source fire rule contains conditions in addition to IP addresses in the rule header, the operator is applied when the packet matches all the conditions.

[00:21:34] Speaker 01:
But again, the when it includes something other than IP addresses

[00:21:38] Speaker 01:
reflects that they understood that an additional criteria beyond IP addresses is required.

[00:21:44] Speaker 03:
You said reflects that they understood.

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
But this is where I have concern that the board didn't carefully tell us what their construction was.

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
They say at 18, they'll get to it to the extent necessary.

[00:21:58] Speaker 03:
Then they sort of weave a little bit of it in to their discussion of source fire, but I don't see here But help me if I'm missing it where they say we understand what the dispute is about the claim scope We're siding with the petitioner and here's why I

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
And even if we sided with the patent owner, we still would come to the same obviousness conclusion.

[00:22:22] Speaker 03:
Are you saying we can find all that here on 32?

[00:22:25] Speaker 01:
Yes, your honor.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
But in terms of the claim construction point, it's immediately above the language that we were discussing.

[00:22:32] Speaker 01:
Because that's where they characterize patent owners' argument that it requires that

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
It says, Patnord argues that even if the rules are triggered based on criteria in the rule header, this does not determine whether the specified operators in those intrusion rules are performed in reaction to.

[00:22:58] Speaker 01:
That's the claim construction argument that they had meant, that in response to or responsive to means in reaction to.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
And they thought that in reaction to connoted some kind of immediacy.

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
they said in reaction to responsive to a packet matching specified IP addresses in the rule header.

[00:23:20] Speaker 01:
And they said we disagree.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
We disagree with that claim construction argument.

[00:23:24] Speaker 01:
Rather than requiring that the operator be applied responsive to a packet matching IP addresses, it doesn't go from operator to IP addresses.

[00:23:36] Speaker 01:
Rather, the claim language requires applying the operator responsive to

[00:23:42] Speaker 01:
a determination that the rule is satisfied.

[00:23:45] Speaker 01:
And that's exactly what the claim language says in 1C1.

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
It says, responsive to a determination by the packet filtering device that the first packet satisfies a first packet filtering rule.

[00:24:01] Speaker 01:
So responsive to is tied to a determination

[00:24:05] Speaker 01:
that the rule is satisfied.

[00:24:07] Speaker 03:
What I'm hearing you saying is that one sentence, the rather than requiring, is the board's claim construction analysis.

[00:24:16] Speaker 03:
And I guess it's just so clear and unambiguous that we don't have to go through the specification.

[00:24:24] Speaker 03:
We don't have to go through the other claim language.

[00:24:26] Speaker 03:
We don't have to go through the prosecution history.

[00:24:29] Speaker 03:
Just trust us.

[00:24:30] Speaker 03:
This is the right construction.

[00:24:31] Speaker 01:
I think that what they are saying is that Centripetal is trying to tie responsive directly to the network threat indicators.

[00:24:44] Speaker 01:
And that's not how the claim is written.

[00:24:46] Speaker 01:
And that is absolutely correct.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
That is their construction.

[00:24:49] Speaker 01:
It is a correct construction.

[00:24:51] Speaker 01:
But I also maintain that the board did not feel it was necessary

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
to construe because Sourcefire discloses that the rule would be satisfied in some instances based solely on the IP headers.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
And that's clear in the language we were discussing previously where they reflect twice that any additional criteria in the options is optional.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
Where they say any criteria in parens and then when they later say when

[00:25:26] Speaker 01:
there is a criteria in addition to IP addresses in the header.

[00:25:33] Speaker 01:
So twice, the board indicates that that's optional.

[00:25:37] Speaker 01:
So source fire.

[00:25:38] Speaker 01:
And of course, this is an obviousness challenge, not anticipation.

[00:25:44] Speaker 01:
And so it would be enough that it simply discloses it.

[00:25:47] Speaker 01:
It doesn't have to say that explicitly.

[00:25:51] Speaker 01:
And Dr. Lee, in his deposition testimony, said exactly

[00:25:56] Speaker 01:
This is at appendix 9678.

[00:26:00] Speaker 01:
He said, it doesn't say that a condition has to include a set of keywords or arguments.

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
That's the optional element.

[00:26:11] Speaker 01:
Sourcefire says that these are in the option part.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
Why they are called option part is optional.

[00:26:19] Speaker 01:
This definition doesn't say conditions has to include keywords and arguments.

[00:26:25] Speaker 01:
So there's substantial evidence to support the argument.

[00:26:29] Speaker 01:
And in fact, elsewhere, and this is at A2136, there's a diagram that shows the rule header.

[00:26:42] Speaker 01:
And then there's a place to click Add Options if you want to add options.

[00:26:46] Speaker 01:
It demonstrates that.

[00:26:48] Speaker 01:
And then on A2138, Sourcefire says, when adding keywords and arguments

[00:26:54] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say you must add.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
It just says when you add them, then it has this effect.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
So there's substantial evidence for the finding that the options part is optional, as Dr. Lee said.

[00:27:08] Speaker 01:
But also, it's clear that they did construe responsive to as being tied to the determination that the rule was satisfied.

[00:27:18] Speaker 01:
not directly to the IP addresses.

[00:27:25] Speaker 03:
Can you give us your view on the sentence at A61, this arises with the second patent IPI, the 126, the one I was discussing with Mr. Hanna?

[00:27:37] Speaker 03:
As such, we acknowledge the effect of the responsive to language in the challenge claims and consider whether the grounds of unpatentability satisfy that requirement below.

[00:27:46] Speaker 03:
What does that mean?

[00:27:47] Speaker 01:
I think it has the same meaning as what they said in the 028, where they said, we're going to address this as necessary in our discussion below.

[00:27:59] Speaker 01:
And there is, at page A78 to A79, the very same discussion that, you know, patent owners saying responsive to means

[00:28:13] Speaker 01:
in reaction to, and that's fine enough.

[00:28:16] Speaker 01:
It can mean in reaction to, but what the claim says is it's in reaction to the rule being satisfied.

[00:28:23] Speaker 04:
Can I just ask, I think I'm looking at the right sentence, the bottom of A62, the as such sentence.

[00:28:30] Speaker 04:
Although we acknowledge the disclosure of the specification, which I think is, they're describing the disclosures in which, in fact, there isn't anything, any other

[00:28:43] Speaker 04:
Argument variable contributor to the decision We're not persuaded that it teaches or suggests that the generation and this is doesn't does not preclude should that say precludes It's just saying it's not limited to that or is not limited to that That it's an embodiment, but it's not it's not limitation yeah, I mean it's possible that that's just essentially a typo that I

[00:29:12] Speaker 04:
we're not persuaded that it teaches or suggests that the generation does not preclude human input.

[00:29:19] Speaker 01:
I think maybe... So, it's that the... it doesn't preclude, i.e.

[00:29:27] Speaker 01:
it is not

[00:29:29] Speaker 01:
impermissible.

[00:29:29] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say only.

[00:29:31] Speaker 01:
It says that you would also have another criterion.

[00:29:35] Speaker 04:
There are two knots in this.

[00:29:36] Speaker 04:
I think one of them doesn't belong.

[00:29:38] Speaker 01:
Quite possibly, Your Honor.

[00:29:39] Speaker 01:
I think the meaning is clear.

[00:29:41] Speaker 01:
That they do not believe that the specification precludes another criterion.

[00:29:51] Speaker 01:
But again, even if it did, the board made findings of fact with respect to what source flyer discloses, that source flyer discloses that the rule could be triggered on the basis of the IP header alone.

[00:30:05] Speaker 01:
And again, we argued collateral estoppel, although the board did not apply it.

[00:30:10] Speaker 02:
Counsel, your time is expired.

[00:30:13] Speaker 02:
I want to briefly conclude your thought.

[00:30:16] Speaker 01:
I will just, with respect to the collateral stoppable, this court in affirming the board's finding with respect to the 722 patent said it affirmed the board's finding that source fire teaches filtering packets based on the network threat indicators as required by the claims.

[00:30:37] Speaker 01:
That is a finding of fact with respect to what source fire

[00:30:40] Speaker 01:
Determined and it was necessary for the findings in that case so that finding a fact with respect to its source fires teaching It stops them from speeding it now.

[00:30:50] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:30:50] Speaker 02:
Thank you counsel Mr. Hanna you can take your full three minutes

[00:30:59] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you very much.

[00:31:00] Speaker 00:
I appreciate that.

[00:31:01] Speaker 00:
Judge Stark, the citations to the patent owner's response, so it's referenced on Appendix 18, which is the 02, this is an example, the 028 final written decision.

[00:31:12] Speaker 00:
It specifically references patent owner response pages 26 through 27, which is Appendix 537 to 538.

[00:31:19] Speaker 00:
There you'll find it's responsive to constructions and the arguments surrounding that, which is consistent with what I've been arguing today.

[00:31:28] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:31:28] Speaker 00:
Judge Crono, you asked me early on, and I was trying to think about this when I was sitting down, you said, if it said, if the equation was if x and y, that was the hypothetical you gave me.

[00:31:43] Speaker 00:
And so what I wrote down, just kind of in my own pseudo code, it's like, respectfully, it's the wrong equation.

[00:31:50] Speaker 00:
The equation for this patent is if x apply rule y,

[00:31:57] Speaker 00:
and then rule Y will trigger the action, right?

[00:32:02] Speaker 00:
That's what Sourcefire does.

[00:32:05] Speaker 00:
Sourcefire says, if X, apply rule Y. It's not if X and Y, and that's the issue, is that if you don't have, if you're not basing it, Sourcefire does not base it on the network threat indicators in order to perform the action.

[00:32:23] Speaker 00:
Now, counsel kept saying that

[00:32:26] Speaker 00:
there's this optional field and whatnot.

[00:32:29] Speaker 00:
Well, that's referring to one line of a deposition in which the Dr. Lee, on cross-examination, said the word optional.

[00:32:38] Speaker 00:
If you look at the evidence, if you look at exhibit 2040, or if you look at appendix 2040, or 2035, there you will see that the reference, every time it talks about the IP address, is whether you're going to apply rules at all.

[00:33:00] Speaker 00:
So I mean, if I look at 2035, I'll just read it for the record.

[00:33:03] Speaker 00:
It says the IPS.

[00:33:04] Speaker 00:
2035?

[00:33:04] Speaker 00:
This is 2035.

[00:33:06] Speaker 00:
We can do either.

[00:33:07] Speaker 00:
2035 is the beginning of the chapter 20, which talks about these intrusion rules.

[00:33:12] Speaker 00:
This is what they rely upon throughout their petition.

[00:33:17] Speaker 00:
It says IPS compares packets against the conditions specified in each rule.

[00:33:23] Speaker 00:
And if the packet matches all the conditions specified in a rule, the rule triggers.

[00:33:28] Speaker 00:
Those conditions, that's not the IP address.

[00:33:32] Speaker 00:
That's not the IP address that we're talking about.

[00:33:34] Speaker 00:
And that's clear on 2040, appendix 2040, if you go a couple more pages, it says,

[00:33:43] Speaker 00:
Rule headers, we're talking about the rule headers, not the rules themselves.

[00:33:47] Speaker 00:
The rule headers include the source and destination IP addresses of traffic that the rule inspects.

[00:33:54] Speaker 00:
You can restrict packet inspection to the packet originating from specific IP addresses or those destined to a specific IP addresses.

[00:34:04] Speaker 00:
This reduces the amount of packet inspection the system must perform.

[00:34:08] Speaker 00:
That's what these rule headers are doing.

[00:34:13] Speaker 00:
causing actions to be triggered based on conditions in a rule, this is merely reducing the amount of packet inspection that can occur at all.

[00:34:23] Speaker 00:
And so this is why it led to these inconsistent results between the 126 and the 028.

[00:34:31] Speaker 00:
And so I think, and Judge Stark, you're asking questions about this.

[00:34:35] Speaker 00:
This is on Appendix 79, where

[00:34:40] Speaker 00:
The board, in this case, they actually said, we can acknowledge that the filtering processes in Sourcefire might not be identical to the process disclosed in the 126 patent.

[00:34:50] Speaker 02:
That's so your red light is on, and that's one thing we're responsive to.

[00:34:56] Speaker 00:
They gave me some more time, because you said the full three minutes.

[00:34:59] Speaker 00:
But OK.

[00:35:01] Speaker 02:
Well, you are in your red time.

[00:35:04] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:35:05] Speaker 02:
Beyond that.

[00:35:05] Speaker 00:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:35:06] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:35:06] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:35:07] Speaker 02:
Your case is submitted.

[00:35:08] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:35:09] Speaker 00:
Appreciate it.