[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
We will hear argument next in number 231313 Daedalus Blue v. Houdel.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
Kevin McNish from McNish PLLC, repellent Daedalus Blue LLC.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
The patent trial appeal board's decision to hold claims 15 through 25 of the 132 patent obvious rests on an overbroad construction of the term plurality of clients in the limitation receiving one or more attributes of the file from one of the plurality of clients.

[00:00:36] Speaker 03:
the clients comprising at least two different computing platforms.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
I'm going to just ask you a question.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
I personally am thinking right now that maybe a client construction argument is asking for an advisory opinion from us.

[00:00:50] Speaker 00:
And one of the reasons why is because even if I agree hypothetically,

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
with your construction, or I look at the board's construction, I don't know how that relates to the second prong, the reasonably pertinent to the same problem prong for analogous art.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
Could you explain that to me?

[00:01:13] Speaker 00:
Certainly.

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
I tend to agree with the board that maybe you're reading the field of the invention into the reasonably pertinent to the same problem prong of analogous art.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
Well, I would say it's actually the opposite.

[00:01:28] Speaker 03:
The board read out the distributed storage systems from the specifications description of that problem.

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
And so the plurality of clients construed to be in a networked environment then reflects that the claims are solving problems in the networked environments of distributed storage systems.

[00:01:46] Speaker 03:
And at that point, the board's reasonable pertinence argument

[00:01:51] Speaker 03:
At that point, the board's reasonable pertinence finding cannot stand because there is no finding that GELD is solving the broadened problem that the board identified or defined in contradiction to the specification that this problem is purportedly beyond distributed storage systems.

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
So your view is that the problem that the inventor was facing, all of the problems that the inventor was facing were only solely limited to a distributed storage scenario?

[00:02:25] Speaker 03:
I would say that the problems that the inventors stated that they were addressing are in distributive storage systems.

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
They don't exist in other storage systems.

[00:02:34] Speaker 03:
Even if they do, the specific problems that the inventors are addressing, as they themselves stated in the 132 patent, the specific problem that they were addressing is that problem as it exists in distributed storage systems.

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
So just continuing with the claim construction argument, again it is something that's important both to our reasonable pertinence argument and our field of endeavor argument.

[00:03:07] Speaker 03:
Against claim language reflecting that clients are communicating, that receiving one or more attributes of a file from one of a plurality of clients,

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
Against the specification declaring that the invention relates to networking and particularly to policy-based data management on a distributed storage system, a networked environment with networked clients, and against the rest of the intrinsic record reflecting that the invention addresses problems in the networked environments of distributed storage systems, the board held that the claimed clients don't need to be networked.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
That over-broad claim construction led the board to define an over-broad field of endeavor.

[00:03:45] Speaker 03:
And Judge Spil, getting to your point again, that over-broad construction also led the board to improperly broaden the problem to be solved in contradiction to specification.

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
The specification, again, states that the inventors are solving problems in distributed storage systems correctly construed.

[00:04:02] Speaker 03:
The claims also reflect that the inventors are solving problems in this distributed storage systems with these network clients.

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
Turning first to the language of the claims the word client itself Do you think that the phrase distributed storage system?

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
So all all distributed systems are networked not all networked systems are distributed So if we're solving problems in distributed storage systems we are necessarily solving those problems in a networked environment and

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
and networking in your community as well?

[00:04:48] Speaker 03:
So in the 132 patent, we have networks, local area networks, wide area networks, even the internet.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
We have something that is in contrast to the centralized mainframe architecture that we see in Gelb, where there's just a single machine present.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
There's no networking.

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
All of the peripherals are directly attached.

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
You may remember the old SCSI cables for hard drives.

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
That's not what we're dealing with in the 132 pattern here.

[00:05:15] Speaker 03:
We're dealing with some kind of networking among multiple machines.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
What kind of machine can't be on the far end of the cable for it no longer to be networked?

[00:05:37] Speaker 04:
You said there's some sort of

[00:05:41] Speaker 04:
mainframe machine with some kind of connector to something that you don't want to say makes that connection a network.

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
So you need to define what the limit is, like the hard drive, on the thing at the non-mainframe end of that line to keep it something other than a network.

[00:06:07] Speaker 04:
What is that?

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
I would say the distinction I would draw and the distinction the 132 patent draws is, you know, peripheral storage devices versus actual machines.

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
When we're talking about... I'm sorry, isn't the peripheral storage device a machine?

[00:06:24] Speaker 03:
Not a...

[00:06:26] Speaker 03:
You have storage, but it's being connected to this centralized architecture.

[00:06:30] Speaker 03:
It's not a self-contained machine when we're thinking about this.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
When we contrast that to the clients in the networked environments of the 132 patent, these are machines.

[00:06:38] Speaker 03:
They operate, they have what they need to do to perform as a machine as opposed to these simple parts, these peripherals that are being discussed in GELD.

[00:06:53] Speaker 04:
So no processor in

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
in the peripheral.

[00:06:56] Speaker 04:
Is that what we're talking about?

[00:06:57] Speaker 04:
No memory in the peripheral.

[00:07:00] Speaker 04:
I think we're getting a little bit beyond the briefing, but I would say, you know, the distinction we're trying to draw here is... You're trying to make, I mean, right at the heart of your argument is some difference that you want to say is kind of a sort of bright line difference between the mainframe world with something

[00:07:21] Speaker 04:
not very intelligent or capable connected to it, and what you call a network world.

[00:07:27] Speaker 04:
And it feels to me as though maybe one needs to have some precision about what characteristics can't be on both ends.

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
I take your point, your honor.

[00:07:42] Speaker 03:
So the distinction I would draw is this.

[00:07:44] Speaker 03:
When we're talking about a distributed system, we're talking about multiple machines, and these machines are processing instructions, capable of processing instructions, capable of functioning as part of the distributed system or autonomously as well.

[00:07:59] Speaker 03:
Contrast that to what we have in GELD, where again, we just have these peripheral devices, these being hooked up directly by cables.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
into this centralized single machine architecture.

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
So I would say the best distinction I can draw with respect to network and with respect to plurality of clients here is when we're thinking about clients, we're thinking about these machines.

[00:08:21] Speaker 03:
Contrast that to what we have in Gel, which is not some, which, again, these just peripheral storage components that aren't necessarily processing or carrying out any instructions or otherwise participating in a distributed system.

[00:08:36] Speaker 01:
Is there something peculiar about a network system compared to the single mainframe machine of Gilt that would make it peculiarly hard to translate Gilt's teaching into a network environment?

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
And when I say Gilt's teaching, I'm saying managing a bunch of data files according to some policies.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
Yes, so distributed storage systems present many, many problems, particular to distributed storage systems that simply don't- What makes you so typical about taking that concept, that notion, from GEL and translating that into a situation where you're also storing a bunch of files according to certain set of rules, but now it's a networked environment?

[00:09:28] Speaker 03:
So I want to make two points on that.

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
So first, your question is, to me at least, respectfully seems to be veering into motivation to combine.

[00:09:37] Speaker 03:
If Gelb is not analogous art, and we contend that it's not, there's no motivation to combine at all.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
And then the second point I would make is that there are unique

[00:09:50] Speaker 03:
Problems that arise in distributed environments that don't arise in the mainframe systems of GELD, such that persons of ordinary skill wouldn't have even looked to GELD in the first place.

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
Those include things like prioritizing operations among multiple machines in the distributed storage system, achieving consensus, maintaining state across multiple machines in the network environment.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
All of that exists regardless in a network system, regardless of whether you're trying to manage data files according to a set of rules.

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
That's correct, and that's exactly why Gelb's teachings are not pertinent to the distributed storage systems that we're describing in claiming in the 132 patent.

[00:10:31] Speaker 03:
There are particular challenges arising in the distributed environment that Gelb's teachings simply don't address.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
Gelb is simply trying to simplify programming for mainframes, these single machines, non-network environments, centralized architecture.

[00:10:52] Speaker 04:
If you are into your rebuttal time, you can use some of it now or you can save it anyway.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
I do want to just briefly hit one point on analogous art on the field of endeavor and then one point on reasonable pertinence.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
The board's decision rests, in our view, on this claim construction.

[00:11:14] Speaker 03:
There's no findings that Gelb is in the field of endeavor as we believe it should be, distributed storage systems as reflected by a plurality of clients being construed to be in a networked environment.

[00:11:25] Speaker 03:
And there's no findings that Gale would have been reasonably pertinent to a problem in distributed storage systems.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
The board simply took its broader problem and declared Gale to be reasonably pertinent to that broader problem, which in our view contradicts the specification.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
And because it contradicts the specification, it can't even be sustained on substantial evidence review.

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
For those reasons, the board's decision that its claim construction of plurality of clients should be reversed, and its decision that Gelb qualifies as analogous art should be vacated and the case remanded.

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
I may please the court.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
I think that the most straightforward way to approach this case is the reasonable pertinent analysis.

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
And the board correctly identified the problem in the 132 patent and the problem in Gelb and found that they were the exact same problem.

[00:12:27] Speaker 02:
It was this idea of data management system, managing files, and being able to perform operations on them without input from the author of the file.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
So just looking at the attributes of the file and then selecting a storage location or

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
prioritizing operations and the fact that Gelb is not a network system really has no relevance to that problem.

[00:12:57] Speaker 02:
The problem is about data management and how a system is able to identify attributes in a file and

[00:13:08] Speaker 02:
perform functions on that file based on the attributes.

[00:13:11] Speaker 02:
And that's it.

[00:13:12] Speaker 04:
So Mr. McNish says that, and the section in this brief also says that the pertinence analysis is dependent on the climate construction.

[00:13:24] Speaker 04:
Why is that not right?

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
That's not right because his argument is really conflating the field of endeavor and reasonable pertinence.

[00:13:33] Speaker 02:
So he's saying that because the field of endeavor is network systems, that no art that does not address network systems can be reasonably pertinent.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
But that's, I mean, the whole point of the reasonable pertinence analysis is to look outside of the field of endeavor.

[00:13:54] Speaker 04:
And so the claim is his only argument on that score that if it's not in the same field endeavor, then no art can be pertinent, isn't it?

[00:14:08] Speaker 04:
Isn't there a more key-specific argument about reasonable pertinence that here it's wrong to say that something outside the field

[00:14:20] Speaker 04:
endeavor that this particular, because of the clamp construction, is actually not pertinent because the problem is so different.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
Well, I think that, and I don't know if there's a case holding this, but in this court's decision in Donner, which both parties addressed in the brief, there's a footnote about how there's this contemplated exception where the field is so specific that there couldn't be any art outside of the field that would be reasonably pertinent.

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
But from what I know,

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
There's no case ever actually applying that, and I don't think we have that here.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
Isn't the question really whether there's substantial evidence to support the board's fact-finding that we don't have that case here?

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
I mean, this is... What evidence is there?

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
Excuse me?

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
What evidence is there that supports the board's finding that

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
distributed storage systems are not so far afield of what's disclosed in Gelb that a person of ordinary skill may or wouldn't do them, as Gelb is being reasonably pertinent to the problem that the inventor was confronting.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
I think if you look at both the specification of the 1-2 patent and the prosecution history, you can see that

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
the the patentee was defining the problem as a data management problem not as a network problem.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
So I think that the if you look at the prosecution history especially there are some nice clear statements that for example

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
On appendix page 1093 it says, the claim dimension deals with the problem of storage systems treating all files alike.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
And then on the next page it talks about how the concept of

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
having a storage system treat a first file differently than a second file in accordance with some policies.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
That's the inventor's own words or the patentee's own words about what the problem to be solved was.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
And that's exactly what Gelb is doing.

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
And nothing in here says that the problem changes because of a network system versus a non-network system.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
It's a system receiving files

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
and operating on them based on policies.

[00:16:43] Speaker 02:
And I think there's substantial evidence that both the 132 patent and GEL are specifically addressed to that problem.

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
There's nothing further.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
So I'd like to start by picking up on, Judge Tarano, your point about case-specific analysis being required.

[00:17:25] Speaker 03:
And that's exactly it.

[00:17:26] Speaker 03:
We're not asking the court to go full Donner Technology footnote here.

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
Case law, going back to Attiker, to Enrey Clay, holds that the environment in which the invention operates, the field in which the invention operates, can shape what's reasonably pertinent.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
In clay, we had these storage tanks as the invention.

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
We had this subterranean formation in the prior art.

[00:17:47] Speaker 03:
That subterranean formation wasn't reasonably pertinent, in part because it operated at a different temperature and in a different environment than the storage tanks claimed in the invention.

[00:17:58] Speaker 03:
In Rayettaker, same thing.

[00:18:00] Speaker 03:
We have this metal hose clamp.

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
The problem's fastening a metal hose clamp.

[00:18:05] Speaker 03:
Different environment than women's garments, which is where the reference that was held not reasonably pertinent

[00:18:10] Speaker 03:
by this court came from.

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
Turning to the point on the file history, I just want to read appendix 1093 here.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
And it's true, the patentee did say, in contrast, the claimed invention deals with the problem of storage systems treating all files alike.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
It continues, however, by saying, the claimed invention notes the problem as,

[00:18:31] Speaker 03:
known distributed storage systems generally do not account for the different requirements placed on these files.

[00:18:38] Speaker 03:
So when we're looking at appendix 1093 through 1096, when we're talking about the problems the patentee is looking to solve, these are problems in distributed storage systems.

[00:18:47] Speaker 03:
This confirms the specification statements that the patentees are solving problems in distributed storage systems, and it further confirms that the claims reflect these preoccupation with the problems in these distributed storage systems,

[00:19:00] Speaker 03:
which have networked clients, which are in a networked environment.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
Judge Stoll, I want to turn to your question about whether there's substantial evidence to support the notion that GELD is reasonably pertinent to a distributed storage system.

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
I'll straightforwardly say there is not.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
Their board did not make factual findings to that effect.

[00:19:18] Speaker 03:
It rested its holding that GELD was reasonably pertinent on this broader problem, which the board criticized us for focusing on saying it's in distributed storage systems.

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
So if the court holds, as it should, that there is not substantial evidence to support the board's formulation of the problem, this broader formulation that inappropriately excised distributed storage systems from a problem the specification and the file history, I might add, shows is a problem in distributed storage systems, vacate and remand would be warranted for that reason as well.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
So ultimately, what this comes down to is, you know, GELB, again, single machine,

[00:19:57] Speaker 03:
Single machine, non-networked, centralized architecture, not pertinent to problems in the multi-machine networked distributed storage systems in which the invention operates, as reflected by our construction of plurality of clients as clients in a networked environment.

[00:20:10] Speaker 03:
Again, we'd ask that the court reverse the board's claim construction, vacate its final written decision, and remand for further proceedings.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
And I'll take any more questions in my remaining time.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
Thanks to all counsel.