[00:00:02] Speaker 02: Okay, we have five appeals this morning. [00:00:05] Speaker 02: Four of them are going to be argued. [00:00:08] Speaker 02: The first argument of the morning is docket number 22-2263, Fitbit versus Conan Clique Phillips. [00:00:16] Speaker 02: Mr. Kinnott, you've reserved three minutes, correct? [00:00:21] Speaker 02: That's correct. [00:00:22] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:00:23] Speaker 02: Please begin whenever you're ready. [00:00:24] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:25] Speaker 03: May it please the Court. [00:00:27] Speaker 03: Two salient points will aid this Court in resolving the appeal. [00:00:31] Speaker 03: First, Phillips elected to prove obviousness by anticipation. [00:00:37] Speaker 03: And thus, Phillips must prove that federal discloses all elements of the claim arranged exactly as in the claim. [00:00:47] Speaker 03: And second, the independent claims here recite a very precise arrangement. [00:00:52] Speaker 03: They require generating an emergency alert message with [00:00:58] Speaker 03: two components, primary and supplemental, and the primary must have each of four required sub-components. [00:01:07] Speaker 03: So this is a very precise four plus one arrangement in the message. [00:01:13] Speaker 03: And we maintain that federal does not disclose at all two of the primary subcomponents, actor ID information and emergency type classification. [00:01:24] Speaker 03: But what is indisputable is that it does not disclose those in the required four plus one message to a responder. [00:01:34] Speaker 03: And under Theracents, that's dispositive. [00:01:37] Speaker 03: Phillips and the board were not entitled to treat Theriol as simply a spare parts catalog, plucking one part from one embodiment, another part from another. [00:01:48] Speaker 03: So we think that alone compels reversal. [00:01:50] Speaker 03: The board decided this case on 103, correct? [00:01:54] Speaker 03: It did, but on the grounds that anticipation [00:01:58] Speaker 03: is the epitome of obviousness. [00:02:00] Speaker 00: Well, so be it. [00:02:01] Speaker 00: That's a nice phrase, but the decision was based on obviousness. [00:02:07] Speaker 00: Right, Your Honor, but the analysis, the appropriate analysis would normally be focused on obviousness and the standards and the tests to establish obviousness, correct? [00:02:19] Speaker 03: Your Honor, I think this Court has said that is not necessary. [00:02:23] Speaker 03: If you prove anticipation, you prove obviousness. [00:02:26] Speaker 03: There are experts disclaimed having done any traditional obviousness type analysis. [00:02:31] Speaker 03: There is no evidence at all on whether a person's skill in the art would modify the disclosures of the references to reach the claim. [00:02:41] Speaker 03: So I think that's not available to them. [00:02:43] Speaker 02: I thought this appeal was just about whether substantial evidence supports the Board's fact finding. [00:02:49] Speaker 02: about whether Theriot discloses two claim limitations, one being the actor ID information and the other being emergency type classification. [00:03:00] Speaker 03: Well, Your Honor, there's certainly substantial evidence. [00:03:02] Speaker 03: But at the end of our brief, we do make the whole Therisense point. [00:03:06] Speaker 02: And we. [00:03:07] Speaker 02: I mean, I'm just looking at the headings of your blue brief. [00:03:09] Speaker 02: And that seems to be the direction of what this case was all about. [00:03:14] Speaker 03: Right, Your Honor. [00:03:15] Speaker 03: But I would point you to, if you look at 63 [00:03:19] Speaker 03: Part of the substantial evidence, there has to be substantial evidence that these are disclosed in the claim message, which is a four point plus one message. [00:03:31] Speaker 03: And at 63 to 64, we make the point now whether this is substantial evidence or maybe it should have been more framed as a legal issue, but they still have to satisfy the rigors of anticipation. [00:03:44] Speaker 03: But I'll turn now to the accurate identification information [00:03:48] Speaker 03: And I think that that determination is flawed in multiple respects. [00:03:53] Speaker 03: So Phillips relies on the disclosure of a unique device ID. [00:03:59] Speaker 03: But critically, Theriot discloses no such [00:04:04] Speaker 03: ID as being part of a message to a responder as the claims require The only disclosures of the unique this message to a responder Argument that I saw in your gray brief. [00:04:18] Speaker 02: I didn't see it in your blue brief. [00:04:19] Speaker 02: Was it in your blue brief? [00:04:21] Speaker 02: Yes, your honor It's in Blue brief Twenty [00:04:30] Speaker 03: to 22, 32, where we say the unique identification code is merely to verify messages to and from the server. [00:04:40] Speaker 03: I'm sorry. [00:04:42] Speaker 02: You want me to look at page 32? [00:04:44] Speaker 02: Yeah. [00:04:45] Speaker 03: So there's a number of places that I would take. [00:04:50] Speaker 03: How about the best place, so that I can see the words? [00:04:54] Speaker 03: All right. [00:04:55] Speaker 03: So I just would say that earlier we make the point throughout, it has to be in the claim message. [00:05:01] Speaker 03: That is a message to the responder. [00:05:03] Speaker 03: And in 32, so we talk about that Ferial never discloses that it's system- Sorry, where are you right now? [00:05:13] Speaker 03: Middle of 32. [00:05:16] Speaker 03: Fairial never discloses that its system uses the monitor's unique identification code to identify the person being monitored. [00:05:25] Speaker 03: Instead, Fairial expressly explains what the unique identification code is. [00:05:30] Speaker 03: a code identifying Portable Monitor 14 and what it is used for merely to verify messages to and from the server. [00:05:39] Speaker 03: And then in their response brief, Phillips came back and said, oh, they've conceded it because they said it's in a page message. [00:05:45] Speaker 03: But there are different kinds of page messages. [00:05:49] Speaker 03: And you do have the unique ID in a page message that is sent back to the monitor to verify that there's proper receipt. [00:05:59] Speaker 03: But we never said, [00:06:00] Speaker 03: that is part of the message to respond. [00:06:03] Speaker 02: Just to let you know, this page of your blue brief, to me, reads more about whether it's accurate and fair to equate a monitor ID code with a person ID identification. [00:06:20] Speaker 03: We say it's used. [00:06:21] Speaker 03: merely to verify messages to and from the server. [00:06:25] Speaker 03: So that would exclude any message to the responder. [00:06:28] Speaker 01: Is that the best place where you make this argument? [00:06:31] Speaker 03: Well, I think that's probably the primary part. [00:06:35] Speaker 03: But we would say, I mean, throughout, let me just go to 20. [00:06:46] Speaker 03: First of all, we're saying that it has to be included in the primary message component. [00:06:49] Speaker 03: We say that throughout. [00:06:51] Speaker 03: implicitly, at least, the primary message component is the message component in a message to the responder. [00:06:59] Speaker 02: Right. [00:06:59] Speaker 02: But there's a limitation F in claim one, which talks about how you electronically send both the primary and supplemental alert message components [00:07:09] Speaker 02: to at least one designated responder. [00:07:11] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:07:11] Speaker 02: And I didn't see on appeal you challenging that claim limitation as it relates to Therial. [00:07:20] Speaker 02: And that would be the claim limitation, I would think, where you would want to say, OK, regardless of whatever the content is of the page message in Therial, [00:07:30] Speaker 02: that the page message isn't getting sent to the responder C, our claim limitation 1F. [00:07:36] Speaker 02: But that's not the argument. [00:07:37] Speaker 02: The argument the whole time through has been about what is the content of the page message in Therial, specifically the monitor ID code. [00:07:49] Speaker 02: Can the monitor ID code be fairly said to be corresponding to your claimed actor identification information? [00:07:58] Speaker 03: And, Your Honor, I think we say it again in 2122, where we would say that the primary component of the alert message, that's the message to the responder, must actually include the actor identification information. [00:08:12] Speaker 03: While there's no disclosure in Therial to support the board's new theory, Therial expressly supports Fitman's arguments that the monitor's unique code is used to identify the monitor for verifying messages to and from the portable monitor. [00:08:28] Speaker 03: But I would also point out with regard to this, actor, a unique device ID, and here these devices are transferable, they're actor agnostic, they do not itself convey in the message what the actual actor identification. [00:08:46] Speaker 03: They have to, either the responder has to have independent knowledge or the system must associate [00:08:53] Speaker 03: the device with the subscriber. [00:08:56] Speaker 03: But there's no disclosure of it being in a 4 plus 1 message. [00:09:00] Speaker 03: I'd like to turn now, if I may, to the emergency type classification. [00:09:08] Speaker 03: And there are also multiple reasons there. [00:09:11] Speaker 03: There, the petition relied on the disclosure in Theriol [00:09:16] Speaker 03: that a page message, and that would include the page message to the responder, may have detailed information regarding the nature of the alarm condition. [00:09:28] Speaker 03: But detailed information, just simply saying there may be generic detailed information, which can be anything, it could be blood pressure is 160 over 90, is not a classification [00:09:38] Speaker 03: of an emergency by type. [00:09:42] Speaker 03: And the board relies on figure nine, but that is simply a log of reportable alarm conditions. [00:09:52] Speaker 03: They are not emergency type, and they're not in the primary alert message. [00:09:58] Speaker 03: This is a graphical user interface that simply provides a log. [00:10:02] Speaker 01: Doesn't the board find that Tario's detailed information consists of a number of things? [00:10:08] Speaker 01: and they say, want to skill me art, would understand some part of that detailed information to track to the primary message of your claims and some of it to track to the supplemental message. [00:10:20] Speaker 01: And isn't that supported by substantial evidence? [00:10:23] Speaker 03: I don't think that's it. [00:10:24] Speaker 03: That doesn't satisfy anticipation, Your Honor. [00:10:27] Speaker 03: You know, a genus doesn't disclose every species. [00:10:30] Speaker 03: If you had the disclosure of a mammal, that wouldn't necessarily disclose a mouse. [00:10:36] Speaker 01: But no one said that here. [00:10:38] Speaker 01: Didn't they point to specific aspects of the detailed information? [00:10:42] Speaker 03: interio and track some of that One part of your claims and some of it to another part of your but the key is your honor also They did not point to any part of a four plus one message that had that information So this is a part of the fundamental error of cobbling together different parts of therial this is simply a log of reportable events and [00:11:06] Speaker 03: And it is not part of any alert message. [00:11:09] Speaker 03: And so they could have had a theory if they pursued single reference obviousness. [00:11:12] Speaker 03: They said they could have said a personal skill in the art would have modified the primary message and could have included that. [00:11:19] Speaker 03: That's not their theory. [00:11:20] Speaker 03: Their theory is anticipation. [00:11:22] Speaker 03: They have to be held to it. [00:11:24] Speaker 03: But I would also point out that these are the figure nine events are not emergency type classifications. [00:11:33] Speaker 03: And again, one of the key points is that Feral is a monitoring system, not strictly an emergency response system. [00:11:43] Speaker 03: And its definition of alarm condition is anything requiring a reportable event to a monitor, whereas an emergency situation requires that the actor either desire or require assistance. [00:11:56] Speaker 03: So if you look at the crying episode doesn't count no, that's not an emergency These are duration of one minute four minutes. [00:12:03] Speaker 03: That's not an emergency your honor But even if it was it's not a classification by type. [00:12:09] Speaker 02: How do we define what an emergency is? [00:12:12] Speaker 02: I mean, we're we're in fact-finding territory right now I don't recall there being a claim construction dispute about the meaning of emergency type classification so now I have to [00:12:24] Speaker 02: try to understand, what is your conception of an emergency type classification that's so indifferent that it couldn't include no diaper change or a crying episode? [00:12:35] Speaker 03: Well, you have a definition in the patent, Your Honor, and that is that the actor has to require or desire assistance. [00:12:43] Speaker 03: And the things that are listed in Figure 9, and I think they all have to be considered certain to be [00:12:50] Speaker 03: a kind and those are things like is the monitor connected? [00:12:54] Speaker 03: Is it disconnected? [00:12:55] Speaker 03: Has a diaper been changed? [00:12:57] Speaker 03: That's something that somebody may want to monitor, they want to know, but that doesn't show that the actor requires or desires assistance. [00:13:05] Speaker 03: The diaper may be unsullied. [00:13:07] Speaker 03: So, and the same with the crying episode. [00:13:10] Speaker 03: There's a one minute, four minute, in some circumstances, [00:13:14] Speaker 03: crying could indicate that there is the presence of an emergency condition. [00:13:18] Speaker 03: But this is not itself a classification of an emergency by type. [00:13:22] Speaker 01: Why is this argument better understood as an untimely claim construction argument, and that what you really had in mind was a very narrow conception of this term? [00:13:32] Speaker 03: Well, I think what we argued, Your Honor, it's not of the kind that [00:13:36] Speaker 03: is exemplified in the patent, which are fire, medical, security. [00:13:42] Speaker 01: But if you want the claim term limited to those types of events, didn't you have an obligation to tell the board, this is our construction? [00:13:51] Speaker 01: No. [00:13:51] Speaker 03: I mean, I think, again, we don't have an obligation to do anything below as the patent owner. [00:13:55] Speaker 03: I think the question is, did the board satisfy [00:14:00] Speaker 03: substantial evidence and the demands of anticipation doctrine and I would say that it did not and I think There was also an internal inconsistency. [00:14:09] Speaker 03: I see I'm running into my own bottle time. [00:14:11] Speaker 02: So why don't we try to save some of your love at all? [00:14:14] Speaker 04: Thank you Okay Mr. McCartney Good morning, and may it please the court [00:14:29] Speaker 04: The challenged patent in this case is a simple one. [00:14:32] Speaker 04: It is directed to what information is included in an alert message to a responder when an event occurs. [00:14:39] Speaker 04: That alert message includes a primary component, which is basic information about the event, and a supplemental component, which is additional information that gives context to the event. [00:14:50] Speaker 04: Because of this simplistic nature, the petition set forth a single reference obviousness ground based on therial, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand therial to teach each of the limitations of the challenge. [00:15:03] Speaker 02: Why didn't you do a 102? [00:15:04] Speaker 02: Why is this a 103? [00:15:06] Speaker 04: We could have done a 102, Your Honor. [00:15:08] Speaker 02: But why did you do a 103, since the actual argumentation tracks like a 102? [00:15:14] Speaker 04: We took a conservative approach to argue what one skilled in the art would understand from Theriot under 103, rather than presenting it as a 102 argument. [00:15:24] Speaker 04: The fact that the board found that Theriot was so good of a disclosure that it actually disclosed every element was proper under this court's precedent that says you can bring a single reference under 103, and it can disclose all limitations. [00:15:41] Speaker 01: But our precedent includes precedents that say an IPR can only proceed on theories articulated in the petition. [00:15:47] Speaker 01: And your petition doesn't articulate an anticipation theory, does it? [00:15:52] Speaker 04: It sets forth a 103 ground, Your Honor. [00:15:56] Speaker 04: The petition is a 103 ground. [00:15:58] Speaker 04: What did the board do? [00:15:59] Speaker 01: Didn't the board only do an anticipation analysis? [00:16:02] Speaker 04: No. [00:16:02] Speaker 04: The board instituted on a 103 ground. [00:16:04] Speaker 04: It instituted on obviousness. [00:16:06] Speaker 04: And it found all challenge claims unpatentable under that obviousness grant. [00:16:13] Speaker 01: OK. [00:16:14] Speaker 01: But is it fair to say the only obviousness analysis they did [00:16:18] Speaker 01: was an anticipation analysis. [00:16:20] Speaker 01: And then they added as sort of the punch line, anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. [00:16:27] Speaker 04: I don't think that's necessarily true, Your Honor. [00:16:29] Speaker 04: They set forth the standard for obviousness at the beginning of their written description. [00:16:33] Speaker 04: They do discuss throughout the written description what a person of ordinary skill and art would understand from the reference. [00:16:39] Speaker 04: Those characterizations are obviousness related. [00:16:43] Speaker 04: So even though it chose to use the words epitome of obviousness versus obviousness itself, there's no patentable distinction there. [00:16:57] Speaker 04: Notably on this appeal, Fitbit concedes that Theriot disclosed the purported invention of the 462 patent, namely the supplemental component of the alert message. [00:17:10] Speaker 04: Its only challenge is to the primary component, the basic information, which the 462 patent itself concedes was well known in the prior art. [00:17:20] Speaker 04: Substantively, there are only the two issues on this appeal. [00:17:25] Speaker 04: And they both relate to the primary component. [00:17:27] Speaker 04: The first is whether one skilled in the art would understand Theriot's identification code to disclose the 462 patent's claimed actor identification information. [00:17:40] Speaker 04: And second, whether one skilled in the art would understand Theriot's event classifications to satisfy the 462 patents claimed emergency type classification. [00:17:53] Speaker 04: The board found, based on Theriot and the arguments presented below, that both of those were disclosed by Theriot. [00:18:01] Speaker 04: As to actor identification information, [00:18:05] Speaker 04: We heard some that the monitor ID was not included in the page message. [00:18:12] Speaker 04: That argument was first raised in their reply brief. [00:18:16] Speaker 04: They actually say in their opening brief at page 30, at the beginning, the first sentence starts describing Theriot's page message. [00:18:28] Speaker 04: than about a third of the way down, quote, the page message also, quote, includes data from GPS locator 60, unquote, and, quote, the portable monitor's unique identification, end quote. [00:18:44] Speaker 04: They admit that the page message includes the monitor ID. [00:18:50] Speaker 04: At page 32, which counsel addressed, the monitor ID is used to verify messages to and from the monitor. [00:18:58] Speaker 04: The monitor ID is used to send messages to the monitor. [00:19:01] Speaker 04: The server knows that it's receiving a message from the monitor because of that unique ID. [00:19:08] Speaker 04: And on page 36, they again concede that Theriot's system disclosed use of a monitor's unique identification code in each page message sent from the monitor to the server. [00:19:20] Speaker 04: So the monitor ID code is included in the page message. [00:19:25] Speaker 01: He and I may be confused on the technology here, but he seemed to say it's not disclosed as going to the responder. [00:19:34] Speaker 01: Do you understand there to be a distinction that they're trying to have us draw? [00:19:39] Speaker 04: I think that is now a separate distinction they are trying to have you draw, but as presented below and based on therapist's disclosure, the page message is forwarded to the responder. [00:19:50] Speaker 04: So if it's forwarded, one in skilled in the art would understand anything that was included in the page message gets forwarded to the responder. [00:19:57] Speaker 01: So would you say this is both a new argument but also one that's immaterial? [00:20:02] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:20:03] Speaker 01: Because it's going to end up at the responder anyway? [00:20:04] Speaker 04: Because it ends up at the responder. [00:20:11] Speaker 04: Addressing the event type classification, they don't set forth a construction of what would be a proper classification. [00:20:21] Speaker 04: They say that crying episode is too specific. [00:20:24] Speaker 04: No diaper change is too specific. [00:20:27] Speaker 04: I heard an opening that it's not even an emergency. [00:20:31] Speaker 04: The 462 patents definition of what an emergency is is very broad. [00:20:38] Speaker 04: That definition includes [00:20:41] Speaker 04: any event that causes an actor to require or desire assistance, regardless of the severity or whether a need for assistance is actual perceived. [00:20:52] Speaker 04: Council said that a crying baby is not an emergency. [00:20:56] Speaker 04: I don't have kids, but I am an uncle. [00:20:58] Speaker 04: And when there's a crying baby, I know that you go and attend to the baby. [00:21:04] Speaker 04: Feral defines its alarm conditions in the same way. [00:21:06] Speaker 04: It's any event that requires a response from a remote person, from the subscriber. [00:21:19] Speaker 04: The classifications in theriotype aren't too specific. [00:21:23] Speaker 04: They're a shorthand of what the event is. [00:21:28] Speaker 04: For example, crying episode. [00:21:31] Speaker 04: That's a shorthand descriptor for a situation where a child is crying at an unusual time [00:21:36] Speaker 04: such as 8.33 AM for a certain amount of time, such as one minute and 11 seconds. [00:21:42] Speaker 04: That's an appendix 8.30, 16.1 to 2, figure 9, which we cited to pull up. [00:21:49] Speaker 04: They argue that those classifications might not even be sent in the alert message. [00:21:57] Speaker 04: They are. [00:21:59] Speaker 04: Theriot says that the information included in the page message can be provided via the user interface. [00:22:07] Speaker 04: So one skilled in the heart would understand that the same information from the alert message is being provided in figure nine. [00:22:14] Speaker 04: So that figure nine information would be included in the alert message. [00:22:18] Speaker 01: The other argument that I think we heard a lot of from your friend this morning has to do with whether the elements are disclosed in Ontario arranged in the same order as in the challenged claims. [00:22:33] Speaker 01: Is that an argument that you think was properly put before us? [00:22:37] Speaker 01: And either way, what's your response to it? [00:22:40] Speaker 04: I don't think it was, but I do have a response, Your Honor. [00:22:46] Speaker 04: their result is generating what it characterizes as detailed information. [00:22:54] Speaker 04: Its detailed information contains multiple subcomponents of it. [00:22:59] Speaker 04: One would be a classification of the event, as shown in Figure 9. [00:23:04] Speaker 04: Additional information would be the sensor readings, where one could infer what's causing the event. [00:23:12] Speaker 04: So the information is being generated and is, as arranged in the claim, the alert message has the components that are described in the 462 path. [00:23:24] Speaker 04: There's no other further questions. [00:23:25] Speaker 04: I'd be happy to get back to the talk. [00:23:28] Speaker 02: One other argument was that in serial, their detailed information is, their disclosed detailed information is getting carved up. [00:23:43] Speaker 02: And some of it being assigned to the primary message component in the claim. [00:23:49] Speaker 02: and other pieces of that detailed information being assigned to the supplemental information portion of the claim. [00:23:58] Speaker 02: And I guess they are arguing that that's some kind of artificial construct of how things inside of the ethereal primary reference are getting artificially distributed to match up to different claim limitations. [00:24:15] Speaker 02: Can you just comment on that? [00:24:18] Speaker 04: I think this is a game of semantics. [00:24:19] Speaker 04: What Serial describes as detailed, the 462 patent describes some of it as primary or basic, and some of it as supplemental. [00:24:31] Speaker 04: The fact is that the information is being generated. [00:24:35] Speaker 04: Some of it, by the 462 patent's definition, is basic. [00:24:39] Speaker 04: An event type classification is basic. [00:24:42] Speaker 04: It's no patentable distinction that Theriot chose to use the word detailed information for an event classification. [00:24:51] Speaker 04: And that it uses detailed information for the supplemental information. [00:25:01] Speaker 02: OK. [00:25:02] Speaker 02: We have your argument. [00:25:03] Speaker 02: Thank you, Mr. McCarty. [00:25:04] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:25:07] Speaker 02: Two and a half minutes for Mr. Menard. [00:25:13] Speaker 03: Your Honor, I heard my colleagues say that they raised a single reference obviousness theory. [00:25:18] Speaker 03: That's simply not true. [00:25:19] Speaker 03: And the board specifically said this was in anticipation. [00:25:23] Speaker 03: This was proceeding as intended. [00:25:25] Speaker 01: You're saying that petition doesn't even say single reference obviousness? [00:25:29] Speaker 03: It doesn't. [00:25:30] Speaker 03: It doesn't say. [00:25:31] Speaker 03: Well, it says obviousness. [00:25:33] Speaker 01: Yeah, it says Prop 1 is obviousness based on Ontario than nothing else. [00:25:36] Speaker 03: But if that were true, then they fail for lack of proof. [00:25:41] Speaker 03: Because to show single reference obviousness, you have to show differences between the prior art and the claims. [00:25:48] Speaker 03: and you have to show that there would have been modification of the prior art in order to... When have we ever said that you have to show differences? [00:25:57] Speaker 03: Well, that's in what 103 says, that you examine the differences in the art. [00:26:03] Speaker 03: And that single reference. [00:26:04] Speaker 01: But if there are no differences, have we said, aha, you have to show differences. [00:26:10] Speaker 01: So then you can show that there aren't differences. [00:26:12] Speaker 01: Have we said that? [00:26:13] Speaker 03: Well, but Your Honor, that would dilute anticipation. [00:26:16] Speaker 03: I mean, anticipation is very precise. [00:26:19] Speaker 03: And that's the theory that the board examined. [00:26:22] Speaker 03: And so I think they're- What I'm hearing is we haven't said that. [00:26:25] Speaker 03: But I'm not sure, Your Honor, that I haven't looked at all the single reference obviousness claims, because that was not what the board decided. [00:26:32] Speaker 03: But we'd be happy to brief that to you, Your Honor, if you'd like. [00:26:35] Speaker 03: And Your Honor, I ask without if this anticipation issue and arrangement exactly in the claims was raised, that's clearly [00:26:42] Speaker 03: in 63 to 64 of the blue brief. [00:26:45] Speaker 03: But that's it, right? [00:26:46] Speaker 01: And passing in your last paragraph of the blue brief, not in your statement of issues and not elaborated anywhere else. [00:26:52] Speaker 03: No, that's not true, Your Honor. [00:26:53] Speaker 03: I think you look at the summary of argument and actually each of the component arguments, we're constantly saying it's not disclosed in the alert message, right? [00:27:03] Speaker 03: We say that throughout the brief. [00:27:05] Speaker 03: So I don't think that that is accurate. [00:27:08] Speaker 03: And they haven't shown anything where there's a 4 plus 1 message that has all these elements. [00:27:16] Speaker 03: They maintained to this court that anything sent by the page message, by the monitor in a page message to the monitoring server, [00:27:26] Speaker 03: That's all going to be in the alert message to the responder. [00:27:30] Speaker 03: Nothing ethereal says that, and that's implausible. [00:27:32] Speaker 03: You can't put all the data coming in from the devices in an alert message. [00:27:36] Speaker 03: They're two different things. [00:27:37] Speaker 03: They had to show an alert message to the responder, and they didn't. [00:27:44] Speaker 03: And so I think for all these reasons, Your Honor, the case should be reversed.