[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Our next case is the same party sent Tripital Networks versus Palo Alto Networks, 23-17-85.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hannah, I think.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
All right, Your Honor.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:16] Speaker 01:
And I'll stick to my time this time.

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
I apologize for that, Your Honor.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
But in this case, the board's decision should be reversed or at least remanded.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
Because the board, when you analyze the evidence, really provided a results-driven decision, it changed the construction of the term boundary, and it completely ignored documentary evidence from an installation guide, which proved that petitioners' read was impossible.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
It was documentary evidence, and it was completely ignored by the board.

[00:00:49] Speaker 01:
The board didn't touch it.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
And we'll get into specifics.

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
But this was an issue that was argued extensively at the oral hearing.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
So let me just kind of set the stage to kind of change.

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
We're still dealing with source fire here.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
But instead of dealing with the issues that we were just talking about, we're talking about the placement of what's called these sensors that are going to be used by source fire for a variety of functions.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
Now, the claims at issue here require

[00:01:22] Speaker 01:
that you have to have these device that's at a boundary between a protected network and an unprotected network.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
And petitioners submitted this petition.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
They gave their explanation of the art and they actually drew a figure and they submitted it.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
The figure was wrong.

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
They drew the figure wrong.

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
They misunderstood how Sourcefire worked.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
And to support that, we submitted evidence of an installation guide.

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
And what that installation guide said, and it even used the precise language of the claims almost, it said, you can't have these sensors at a boundary.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
You must isolate the sensors.

[00:02:14] Speaker 01:
You must.

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
I think we can all agree that when it comes to prior art, the word must is a very, very strong word.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
You must isolate the sensors.

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
And how did we explain why you do that?

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
You do that because if you have these sensors... Isolate the sensors from what?

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
You have to isolate the sensors from an unprotected network.

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
It has to be within the protected network.

[00:02:37] Speaker 04:
So can you, within the network, isolate?

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
So what do you do about your figure 2A with a tap?

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
So figure 2a with the tap.

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
So a tap.

[00:02:50] Speaker 04:
So there's something between, according to this drawing, the boundary to the dangerous outside world and the network sensor in the box.

[00:03:02] Speaker 04:
It doesn't have to be the very first thing.

[00:03:04] Speaker 04:
You can have some kind of gate in there between.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
Well, a tap, what a tap does, is it merely.

[00:03:12] Speaker 04:
If that's right, then your argument

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
This feature argument depends on saying a router is not a tap.

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
Well, a router is definitely not a tap.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
But I think a tap is part of the inspection device in that figure, and that's what we laid out.

[00:03:26] Speaker 01:
Because all a tap does is it's going to just duplicate the traffic and send it up to the device that's at the boundary.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
And if you look at the specification, that's exactly what it does.

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
So when you look at that figure, that network device, they have taps on two sides of that network device.

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
That's so that the device that's analyzing the traffic is sitting at the boundary.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
Because that network device could be a firewall, it could be a router, it could be a variety of things, and you're gonna be able to analyze this traffic at the boundary before and after

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
in order to analyze the traffic.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
So that's what figure two is showing.

[00:04:08] Speaker 01:
And to answer your earlier question in terms of with the sensor, why do you have to have the sensor?

[00:04:13] Speaker 01:
So if you go to 9252, and this is the key portion that we cited in the IPR, and we cited that route,

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
This is where it should describe 92.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
This is your isolated segment?

[00:04:49] Speaker 03:
Correct, yes.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
I think it is 92.52.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
Yeah, and what it says specifically, it says, to secure the data, you must isolate the sensors and defense center from unprotected networks.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
I mean, that's essentially the language of the claims.

[00:05:09] Speaker 03:
The claims say... There is a sentence before that, and that's what the red brief of 55 points us to, and suggests that this is just in one very specific embodiment, I think, where you're geographically dispersed, suggesting that if you're not geographically dispersed, you don't have to worry about whether your sensors are in the protected or unprotected network.

[00:05:33] Speaker 03:
What's your response to that?

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
My response to that is that all the documentary evidence otherwise shows that the sensors have to be behind at least a router.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
Because if you don't have that sensor, if you have that sensor in an unprotected network, it's going to get attacked.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
It's going to get attacked by hackers.

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
They're going to flood that thing because it's not doing anything but just sensing the traffic.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
So if you have that outside of your protected network,

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
it's gonna be constantly attacked.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
And so when it's talking about this geographic disbursement, that's saying, okay, I'm not gonna have a, in the other diagram it shows a router, and then it can show the sensor behind the router, right?

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
If you're gonna have a geographically diverse, you have to have them in the unprotected networks behind two different routers.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
And so it's just ensuring that, but it's just cementing home the fact that you have to have these sensors behind

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
some type of protection device.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
The board finds that at least sometimes in Swift Fire the sensors are not behind a router.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
Is it correct that the board made that finding?

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
No, I don't think so.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
I don't think they ever made that finding.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
What they tried to, and so my reading of it anyway, is that what the board said was

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
the unprotected network, I mean, the boundary between the protected network and the unprotected network could be behind a router.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
And that's being failed.

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
You mean it could be within the protected network from your perspective, which you disagree with.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
That's what they said, right.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
And I think that's technically wrong, factually wrong, and it's contrary to what the claims say.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
The claims say it has to be at the boundary between

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
the protected and the unprotected network.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
And these sensors, they have to be behind a router.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
In another example, if you had a sensor... When you say behind, I'm not immediately summoning up the image that I think you have clearly in your mind.

[00:07:37] Speaker 04:
Further away that the router is between

[00:07:43] Speaker 01:
Wiles and your correct and the routers between the internet like your home But your home has a router right it's between the internet and Your computer do you know that you have for your home office or something of that nature?

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
So when I say behind the router I mean your routers in front and it

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
Controls outward facing outward facing and then behind that is your protected network or your home office or something behind it So that's what I mean by behind you think that in source fire the router is always At the boundary between the unprotected internet and the protected network.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
Yes 100% I mean every single diagram that they refer upon.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
I mean we can go to appendix 30 which is

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
happens when you get two of these back to back.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
So if you go to appendix 30, this is one of the diagrams that the board relied upon.

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
First of all, this was not relied upon in the petition.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
So granted, and Judge Starkey actually said earlier, is this something that the board just came up on its own without a record to support it?

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
I think this is a clear case of that, that they came up with this on its own.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
And this is why I referred to results-driven decision in this case.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
But here, you can say this is their primary figure that they're relied upon.

[00:09:18] Speaker 04:
Just to be clear, the board here is citing your patent owner response?

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
No, the board is citing a different page of a document that was introduced and was not in the petition.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
So at least purport to be citing to 40 to 41 of your... Oh, right, right, right.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
But I'm saying it was not in the petition.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
It wasn't in the petition cited to support this element.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
What they did is they actually provided a diagram that was

[00:09:45] Speaker 03:
Incorrect in terms of where the bound but then you submitted this additional guide installation guide correct And are you questioning the board's authority to rely on what you submitted in your response?

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
I think that they can I think they can rely upon that and they can they can discuss it, but my point is this figure was not Was not relied upon in the petition and it was an incorrect figure so the board tried to fix it with this figure is my point

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
But in any case, yes, you're right.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
This is a site in our patent owner response.

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
But as you can see here, the IPS, that's what we're talking about, the sensor here, is behind the router.

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
And just Ron, when you said, this is, I was trying to illustrate with your home, when I say behind, I mean it goes internet, router, and then the tap.

[00:10:37] Speaker 01:
And then the tap goes to the IPS.

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
So in every instance,

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
it's gonna be behind this router.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
And that's consistent with what Sourcefire says.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
Sourcefire actually says that the router is the first line of defense.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
That happens on appendix 9244.

[00:10:56] Speaker 01:
And that makes sense because the router, what it's gonna do is, first of all, it's gonna protect your internal network from attackers because it's gonna hide the IP addresses or the internet protocol addresses that are within your network.

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
If you were completely exposed, someone could go and compromise different aspects of your network.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
And so that's another reason that this sensor has to be behind the router, and it's behind that first line of defense.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
So it's never going to be at the boundary, and so that's why we submitted the installation guide and whatnot.

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
And just so you know, I didn't see any figures or anything in the record that will actually

[00:11:35] Speaker 03:
that put the sensor in front of that router.

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
While you challenged where the boundary is actually located in sourcefire, you did not argue that it would not have been obvious to locate it between the protected and the unprotected networks.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
That is, they're saying even if sourcefire doesn't expressly disclose the limitation, as you would understand it, it would render it obvious to want to scale the arc.

[00:12:05] Speaker 03:
Did you contest that?

[00:12:07] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
We did contest it.

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
I would contest it.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
It goes to what I alluded to earlier when we said,

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
that if you have it outside the router, then those sensors are going to be attacked.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
Those IP addresses are going to be known to hackers.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
And if you can hack what's supposed to be sensing malicious traffic, you're going to get into that network.

[00:12:31] Speaker 01:
That's number one.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
Number two, as we cited at Appendix 568, this is Dr. Goodrich's textbook.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
And there he explains how any intrusion prevention sensors are going to be within protected networks for that same reason.

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
So we absolutely would get to test that.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
I know I'm getting late into my time, so I'd like to reserve unless you have questions.

[00:12:54] Speaker 00:
We will do that.

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
OK, thank you.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
Mr. Ledge.

[00:13:11] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:13:14] Speaker 02:
I'd like to start with this notion that source fire discloses only locating the 3D sensor, which is the packet filtering device, behind a router.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
And that is both factually incorrect, but also irrelevant to what the claim language requires in view of the specification.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
So I'd like to start with the source fire reference itself that was our

[00:13:38] Speaker 02:
not the installation guide, which is something that the patent donor brought up in their response.

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
That's a separate document with a later date.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
The source file reference itself, this is at appendix 1526, contains an image of the location of a 3D sensor.

[00:14:00] Speaker 02:
This is the figure that we included at our petition at Appendix 144 to 145 that we edited.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
Did the board end up relying on this?

[00:14:09] Speaker 02:
The board cites their argument that we mislabeled.

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
This is Appendix 27.

[00:14:14] Speaker 02:
The board discusses their argument that we mislabeled this figure and then says that argument was unavailing.

[00:14:20] Speaker 02:
So they rejected the notion, this is Appendix

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
27, he said, it's unavailing that we mislabeled this figure.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
To the extent they've suggested in their briefing that you didn't dispute that you made a mistake in the drawing, you do dispute that, right?

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
Absolutely.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
We disputed that in our petitioner reply.

[00:14:37] Speaker 02:
We said their relabeling was arbitrary, and we discussed this at length at the oral hearing.

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
I presented the argument.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
I explained exactly what we explained in our red brief here, which is that... The caption here makes clear that the host is

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
is the protected internal.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
Exactly.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
It's a host.

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
They say that the host at the bottom is actually the broad internet.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
There's no way to read that.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
So what we have here is that the first device between the internet at the top and your internal network is the 3D sensor.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
So them saying there's absolutely no documentary evidence of this being the first device is contrary to the express teaching on appendix 1526 of the source fire reference that we relied upon.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
And the explanatory text could not be clearer.

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
It also says that, under the figure, that the different interface pairs, which is within the 3D sensor, is the interface between the two networks.

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
So we know that this is an express example of source fire disclosing, it being the first device between the unprotected network, the internet, and your protected network.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
The board then went on to address their arguments about the installation guide.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
And it's critical that what the board said that they omitted from what their argument was is the same thing that council omitted today.

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
So this is Appendix 31 of the final written decision.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
This is discussing the installation guide, that separate document, where it has different explanations of where the 3D sensor can go.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
And the 3D sensor can go outside of a firewall,

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
or inside of a firewall.

[00:16:22] Speaker 02:
And it says it's on Appendix 31.

[00:16:23] Speaker 04:
And this is in reference to the figure that's at the top of page 30, which is at 9253, 43, right?

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
That is right.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
And that figure was included in their patent owner response.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
That's why the board was addressing it.

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
We did not use the installation guide because that was not part of our grounds, but we nevertheless addressed it because they brought it up.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
But what the installation guide states and what patent owner fails to mention is referenced on Appendix 31,

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
is that even though it does say that the rider can provide the first line of defense, it often is not used to protect the internal network.

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
It says, not typically used.

[00:17:04] Speaker 02:
Although you can configure.

[00:17:05] Speaker 04:
What are you reading from here?

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
So this is the first paragraph, first full paragraph on Appendix 31, where the board states, patent owner fails to mention that the next sentence of the source fire installation guide states,

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
Although you can configure most routers to block unwanted packets, this is not typically used to secure the network bandwidth between the router and the firewall.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
And so what it's saying is that firewalls can have this function, but it's typically not used in a network protective way.

[00:17:37] Speaker 02:
So your first line of defense actually in that situation is the 3D sensor.

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
So again,

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
The source file reference we rely upon does have the 3D sensor as the very first device.

[00:17:49] Speaker 02:
But even if you look to the installation guide and to its configurations here, the router is typically not used to protect the network segment.

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
So therefore, it was reasonable to conclude, especially on an obviousness ground, that the 3D sensor is the device that's protecting the network.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
The router does not have a protective function in that regards.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
The board went on to explain that based on this disclosure, the patent owner's argument that the placement of the 3D sensor between the firewall and the router indicates that the 3D sensor is on the protected side of the network is unavailing.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
Because again, the router is not providing a protective function.

[00:18:31] Speaker 02:
That's on Appendix 31.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
And so it was free based on the evidence to conclude that where the source fire installation guide expressly says the router does not provide a protective function,

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
it is not acting as the boundary between the protected and unprotected networks.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
Even if the router had some functioning, that would be completely consistent with figure 2A of the patent.

[00:18:57] Speaker 02:
So what does figure 2A of the patent show?

[00:19:00] Speaker 02:
This is at appendix 78.

[00:19:03] Speaker 02:
This is figure 2A of the 413 patent.

[00:19:11] Speaker 02:
So at PINX 78, you have the packet filtering device.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
That is element 144.

[00:19:17] Speaker 02:
Between it and network D, which is the unprotected network, there are network devices and optionally a TAP.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
The specification, this is PINX 105 at columns 3, 47 to 58.

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
Make clear that the TAP is optional.

[00:19:32] Speaker 02:
And that it's the network devices, which include things like routers, that are interfacing between network D

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
the unprotected network, and network A, the protected network.

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
So even within the context of the 413 patent, figure 2A, which both parties agree is an embodiment of what is claimed, show that the packet filtering device, which is at the boundary in figure 2A, still is behind network devices, 202, which includes such things as a router.

[00:20:02] Speaker 02:
So we know it's permissible, and within the scope of the claims, to have

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
a packet filtering device at a boundary of a protected and unprotected network, even if it is not the first network device in that configuration.

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
And I'll just turn it up again to appendix 105, which is the explanatory text for that figure.

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
And this is at column three, starting at lines 47.

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
It says that the packet filtering device may be located at boundary 150 between networks 102 and 108.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
It goes on to say that the network devices 202 are what interface the hosts 110, 112, and 114 of the protected network with network 108 of the unprotected network.

[00:20:50] Speaker 02:
So just to summarize what we have here is we have express disclosure in source fire of the 3D sensor, the packet filtering device,

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
being the very first device between the unprotected network and the protected network.

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
In the installation guide, we have disclosure that the router, if it's there, does not always provide, typically does not provide any network protective function.

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
So even from the installation guide, the board had substantial evidence to conclude that even in those configurations, the 3D sensor is providing the first line of defense and therefore is at the boundary.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
Do you want to discuss the relevance of the McCauley?

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
The McCauley reference?

[00:21:26] Speaker 02:
Sure, so the pattern didn't address this, but McCauley is brought in for the teachings of the scoring elements of the claims.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
And so what the claims require and what was proposed, what was claimed to require, right, is ranking network threat indicators based upon various criteria.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
Among them, the independent claims is a number of network threat intelligence providers that had identified that network threat identifier.

[00:21:55] Speaker 02:
And then there are dependent claims that add additional criteria.

[00:21:58] Speaker 02:
Macaulay teaches this exact same sort of ranking system, identifying the number of cyber threat intelligence providers that identified certain network threat identifiers, and using that numbering and other criteria disclosed in the system of source fire.

[00:22:16] Speaker 02:
What source fire discloses is a system that it's a network protective device.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
It is an IPS, intrusion prevention system.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
when it sees a packet of interest, it will block it or allow it, and then it will log that information.

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
And what Sourcefire discloses is that a network administrator can set a priority level, high, medium, or low, for these detected events, which is not a particularly granular sort of identification of the threat.

[00:22:47] Speaker 02:
And it doesn't give any indication, Sourcefire, of how to set the priority.

[00:22:51] Speaker 02:
It leaves it up to the administrator, high, medium, or low,

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
And so what our petition was based upon, and what our expert explained, was that a person who were in a school yard would look to the teachings of McCauley about ranking threats and implementing the priority levels of source fire.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
It provides multiple benefits, including a more granular identification beyond just high, medium, and low.

[00:23:14] Speaker 02:
Their own expert admitted that in the source fire system, you may have hundreds and hundreds of pages of high-ranked events

[00:23:21] Speaker 02:
And so this more granular teaching of how to rank events would have led a posita to be motivated to apply Macaulay's teaching to source fire.

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
So the board then cited Dr. Lee's testimony in its final written decision.

[00:23:37] Speaker 02:
It cited it throughout its final written decisions on motivation to combine.

[00:23:40] Speaker 02:
Dr. Lee's testimony at paragraphs 117 and 118 of his declaration.

[00:23:46] Speaker 02:
Those are appendix 1194, 1195.

[00:23:50] Speaker 02:
It spent 10 pages, actually 11 pages of its final written decision, discussing the motivation to combine, analyzing the arguments, two and a half pages of findings.

[00:23:59] Speaker 02:
Those findings cite to Dr. Lee's testimony.

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
Again, it paragraphs 117 and 118 of his report.

[00:24:05] Speaker 02:
That's substantial evidence supporting their findings of a motivation to combine.

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
They rejected reliance on their expert, and they credited our expert's opinions.

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
I think that supports the board's decision.

[00:24:17] Speaker 03:
Did the board ever address the language about you must isolate the 3D sensors at 9252?

[00:24:23] Speaker 02:
The board did not, I believe, address that expressly in its opinion, but I think that this was discussed at the hearing and it's

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
I think what's critical about it is two points.

[00:24:35] Speaker 02:
One, if you look at the installation here, all of the 3D sensors are within the firewall.

[00:24:41] Speaker 02:
So we're talking about specifically the configuration where the 3D sensors are within the firewall.

[00:24:47] Speaker 02:
And as we know from what the board did discuss, and this is the figure at appendix 9243, there are other configurations where the 3D sensor is outside the firewall.

[00:24:56] Speaker 02:
So this is talking about a specific configuration where all the 3D sensors are within the firewall, so it's within the protected network in that configuration.

[00:25:04] Speaker 02:
and you have a multiple site deployment.

[00:25:07] Speaker 02:
In that specific configuration, internal 3D sensors, multiple site deployments, and you're communicating with this thing called a defense center, which is an aggregator of information from a 3D sensor, you don't want to transmit information between the 3D sensor and the defense center through the open internet.

[00:25:28] Speaker 03:
So you would acknowledge, though, that this document can only be read as indicating, in those limited instances at least, you must isolate the 3D sensors and the defense center from the unprotected networks?

[00:25:42] Speaker 02:
If you want to secure the data.

[00:25:43] Speaker 02:
You don't have to, but if you want to secure the data, which one would reasonably want to do, then you have to.

[00:25:48] Speaker 02:
in that specific deployment.

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:
So what do we make of the fact that, first of all, is there evidence?

[00:25:53] Speaker 03:
What you're saying makes sense to me, but is there evidence that that is how one of SkillMeOut would read this document?

[00:25:59] Speaker 03:
And what do we make of your concession that the board never addressed this point?

[00:26:03] Speaker 02:
This was never presented as part of the grounds.

[00:26:05] Speaker 02:
This is a separate document.

[00:26:06] Speaker 02:
We relied upon the source fire user manual as our grounds.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
They raised this as a different document.

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
This is not the part of the obviousness grant.

[00:26:13] Speaker 03:
But it's in the record.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
It's in the record.

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
So the board was

[00:26:17] Speaker 02:
free to credit the evidence that we presented at the petition, which was the actual user guide, which shows that the 3D sensor is the first item between the unprotected network and the protected network.

[00:26:30] Speaker 02:
So that's the evidence it said its relabeling was unpersuasive.

[00:26:35] Speaker 02:
It then turned to this other document, and it described that in the context where you have the sensor external.

[00:26:44] Speaker 03:
But I only said the board would have an obligation, even on substantial evidence review, to consider the evidence that maybe cuts against its findings.

[00:26:52] Speaker 03:
So I'm just, I'm concerned with how we can just, how we can ignore the fact that the board ignored this evidence.

[00:26:58] Speaker 02:
Well, I think, because it focused, I don't think it ignored the evidence.

[00:27:01] Speaker 02:
It focused on the deployment, as shown in 9243,

[00:27:04] Speaker 02:
where the 3D sensor is external to the firewall.

[00:27:09] Speaker 02:
And it did not discuss the other deployments because that was irrelevant to the arguments.

[00:27:14] Speaker 02:
The deployments where it's within the firewall, we would acknowledge that may be within the protected network.

[00:27:19] Speaker 02:
And all that the, on Appendix 9252, the 3D sensor is always in that figure, in that deployment, within the internal network.

[00:27:30] Speaker 02:
That was not what was discussed as part of

[00:27:33] Speaker 02:
the arguments.

[00:27:34] Speaker 02:
The arguments are always about what does it mean when the 3D sensor on 9243 is external to the firewall.

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
And so that's what was relevant.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
And that's what the board was addressing about their arguments.

[00:27:47] Speaker 03:
And do we have the pages of the oral argument that you're referring to where this issue was discussed with the board?

[00:27:55] Speaker 02:
There are some of the pages of the... There are pages from the oral argument in the record at appendix

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
This is appendix 707 through 743, where there is discussion about the installation guide.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
But what's not here is the discussion about the source fire manual user guide that we're relying upon.

[00:28:22] Speaker 02:
This shows it's the first device.

[00:28:24] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:28:24] Speaker 04:
At page 721 is the sentence, to secure the data, you must isolate a 3D sensor and defense center from the unprotected networks.

[00:28:33] Speaker 02:
That was counsel's argument at Appendix 721.

[00:28:36] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:28:39] Speaker 02:
That was counsel's argument.

[00:28:41] Speaker 02:
There's not expert testimony saying that that configuration applied in all circumstances in Section 9.

[00:28:51] Speaker 02:
So it was attorney argument.

[00:28:52] Speaker 02:
The board was free to credit it or not.

[00:28:54] Speaker 02:
And it did not credit that argument, particularly in the context where

[00:28:58] Speaker 02:
The Sourcefire user guide explicitly shows that the 3D sensor is the very first device between the unprotected internet and a protected network, and the board found their relabeling to be an unavailing argument.

[00:29:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Raj.

[00:29:13] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:29:15] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hannah has some more bubble time.

[00:29:22] Speaker 01:
Yes, thank you very much your honors Judge shark.

[00:29:25] Speaker 01:
I think I think you hit it on the head We don't know what the board is going to say about this document this the must language Was one of the key pieces of evidence that was relied upon throughout this proceeding it was cited in our patent owner response It was doubled down in our sir reply, and I would say almost half of the oral hearing was discussing that document

[00:29:48] Speaker 01:
and discussing that specific language that says, you must isolate the censors.

[00:29:55] Speaker 01:
All we have now is attorney arguments saying, oh, OK, maybe there might be different deployments of what you can and cannot do.

[00:30:01] Speaker 01:
We don't have the board's reasoning for explaining this away.

[00:30:06] Speaker 01:
And we're entitled to that.

[00:30:08] Speaker 01:
And frankly, your honors are entitled to that in order to make a decision as to whether that is a sound decision.

[00:30:15] Speaker 01:
This was put up as one of our first slides in the oral hearing.

[00:30:21] Speaker 01:
Everyone was talking about this language.

[00:30:24] Speaker 01:
When we get the final written decision, it was completely silent.

[00:30:28] Speaker 01:
We need an explanation, at the very least, we need a remand back to the board for them to try to justify why, when the installation manual says you must isolate the 3D sensors from unprotected networks, why is that phrase irrelevant?

[00:30:44] Speaker 01:
Especially when it almost uses the exact language of the claims.

[00:30:48] Speaker 01:
We need a reason.

[00:30:50] Speaker 01:
Quickly, I'll address some of the other citations to the record that counsel discussed.

[00:30:57] Speaker 01:
On APX 27, they referenced that portion of the appendix saying that this is where the board contended that their drawing was a mislabeling.

[00:31:10] Speaker 01:
If you actually look at appendix 27,

[00:31:12] Speaker 01:
The board says the patent owner's arguments are unavailing, but then it discusses the patent.

[00:31:18] Speaker 01:
It never said that the drawings that the petitioner did were correct.

[00:31:24] Speaker 04:
Well, maybe I'm wrong about this.

[00:31:28] Speaker 04:
So the sentence, patent owner's arguments are unavailing, refers to what?

[00:31:34] Speaker 04:
was just recited in patent owner's arguments before that.

[00:31:38] Speaker 04:
And that includes, on page 26, about 10 lines up from the bottom, a string site, which includes, I think, that drawing, which is page 235, wasn't it?

[00:31:53] Speaker 04:
1626, isn't that the figure?

[00:31:58] Speaker 01:
You're talking about appendix 27?

[00:32:00] Speaker 01:
The sentence patent owners arguments are unavailing.

[00:32:06] Speaker 04:
That's on Appendix 27.

[00:32:08] Speaker 04:
What that is rejecting is what has just been described, which is what kind of

[00:32:17] Speaker 04:
Two paragraphs, one very long paragraph, one very short paragraph.

[00:32:21] Speaker 04:
And it's included in that material, isn't it, this argument that you made about the mislabeling of this key drawing?

[00:32:30] Speaker 01:
I agree with you that those arguments are within that.

[00:32:33] Speaker 01:
But I think what the board here is this is where they change their definition of the boundary.

[00:32:38] Speaker 01:
And they're trying to say that you can actually be at a boundary within a protected network.

[00:32:44] Speaker 01:
Because if you look at the following paragraphs, they start to try to justify their opinion based on the specification.

[00:32:52] Speaker 01:
The board never explicitly states that their drawing was correct, or their drawing was wrong, in fact.

[00:33:00] Speaker 01:
I mean, they left that one out there as well.

[00:33:03] Speaker 01:
We have no record to support that either way.

[00:33:08] Speaker 00:
With regard to... This is your final concluding summary sentence.

[00:33:13] Speaker 01:
I'll turn to page 1526.

[00:33:17] Speaker 01:
We have that picture that we talked about with the network traffic and the router and then the host on the bottom.

[00:33:24] Speaker 01:
If you look at the caption underneath, it consistently refers to your network traffic, your traffic on your network.

[00:33:31] Speaker 01:
And so when it has that bubble that says network traffic, that's not internet network traffic.

[00:33:36] Speaker 01:
That's your network traffic, the traffic of your internal network.

[00:33:39] Speaker 00:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:33:41] Speaker 00:
And the case is submitted.

[00:33:42] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:33:42] Speaker 01:
Thank you, your honor.