[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Our next case is Inward Pressure Technology Partners, 2024-1037.

[00:00:06] Speaker 04:
Mr. Carr again, will you be ready?

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, may I please the court, or Carr again, on that third gesture.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
The board incorrectly construed the computer apparatus term in independent claim a weapon as not limited to a unitary device.

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
For claim construction of expired patents and re-exams, the board failed to apply the Phillips Standard for the claim construction of apparatus and its two pages of analysis in Appendix 10 and 11.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
Instead, the board provided a definition from dictionary.com and reasoning based on the MPEP and 35 U.S.C.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
101.

[00:00:49] Speaker 00:
Independent claim 11 of the 079 patent recites a computer apparatus comprising a light source camera and a processor adapted to determine a gesture.

[00:01:00] Speaker 00:
Because the specification of the 079 repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively discloses the claim light source camera and processor adapted to perform the gestures being disposed within the same computing device,

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the computer apparatus terms means a single computing device, such as the laptop computer or handheld computer that's shown in figure one and two and three of the 079 patent.

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
The board is free to consult dictionaries as long as the dictionary definition does not contradict the definition found or ascertained in reading of the patent documents.

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
But here the definition provided by Dictionary.com clearly conflicts with the ordinary meaning of computer apparatus in the patent, i.e.

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
a single computing device, and should be disregarded.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Every environment of 079 that includes the light source of camera and a processor for determining the gesture discloses those components as disposed within the same computer apparatus.

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
And this court has defined the apparatus as a tangible item and has noted that it's synonymous with the device.

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
For example, in the Hewlett-Packard case at 909 F.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
2nd, 1464, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.

[00:02:30] Speaker 00:
So by having this construction,

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
that it's not limited to a single device.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
The board improperly used the Lieberman reference, which is a distributed system and that has a central processing facility or center and cannot anticipate the claims of the 079 patent under the proper construction of apparatus.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
Lieberman is fundamentally different because it is a distributed system with a public kiosk for use by a deaf person and a geographically separate and physically separate central processing facility.

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
If you look at

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
Figure two and three of Lieberman, which is at appendix 306 and 307, there's diagrams showing the center that's geographically separate from the kiosk where the deaf person is.

[00:03:31] Speaker 00:
And specifically in figure three, it shows the central processing facility where it notes the completion of processing and other services in the center.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
And besides Lieberman not being able to meet the claims when the apparatus is properly construed as a single device, Lieberman also fails for the additional reason that claim 11 requires that the processor determines a gesture based on the output of a camera, whereas Lieberman determines a sign language based on identifiers that are generated at a different physical location.

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
And again, in this case, we raised the jurisdiction issue.

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
I will not go over that again.

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
And I'd like to reserve the rest of my time.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors, and please the court.

[00:04:55] Speaker 01:
The main issue in this appeal is whether claim 11, the apparatus claimed in that claim 11, can include multiple devices, or more specifically, whether the camera, the central processing unit, and the light source must be located within the same device.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
The answer to that question

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
And the board found that to be the case for several reasons.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
First, beginning with the claim, nothing in the claim requires that those three items be located within one device.

[00:05:39] Speaker 01:
And that is where the board began.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
So, and you'll see in the very next case that Gesture knows how to draft a claim where all of those things need to be in the same device because, for example, they use the word housing to indicate where everything is located.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
How would you argue that a distributed system is a device, is an apparatus?

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
Yes, for a claim,

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
A distributed system is an apparatus and it can include different parts and components in different locations.

[00:06:25] Speaker 01:
And that is what the board found.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
Is a distributed system a single device?

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
You're saying it's not?

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
It's not a single device.

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
It doesn't have to be.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
But the board did, after looking through the claims and seeing in the claims that these three items didn't have to be in a single unitary device, nothing in the claim said that.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
The court, the board then looked to what does an apparatus mean, because that's what just your argument just... An apparatus, something different from a device?

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
uh... no your honor it's uh... it's not different from a machine that's what the board found that uh... section 101 lists uh... four categories of invention it doesn't list apparatus but it does list machine and under this court's precedent a machine typically even though this is something that needs to be cited on a case by case basis machines typically include a device or devices and there's no uh...

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
cases that we're aware of where they said all those devices need to be located in the same place.

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
the board then looked at the dictionary definition and found that for machines, machines can be made up of a device or different devices working together towards a common goal.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
And so there's nothing in the claims, the specification, or a person with a skills understanding of the word apparatus that would indicate that these all need to be a unitary device.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
And in fact, if you

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
look at appellant's argument in their brief at page 12, their opening brief, their blue brief, they say that, they make this argument that all the embodied is having a camera, a light source, and

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
CPU also these items in a unitary device but if you look and again they say this is in figures one and six of Lieberman but if you look at figures one and six of Lieberman

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
Let's start with Figure 6 because that's the most clear.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
If you look at Figure 6, you'll see that Cameras 902 and 910 do appear in a handheld device that has a CPU, and it's the handheld computer, 901.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
But you can see very clearly in Figure 6, you don't see a light source there.

[00:09:08] Speaker 01:
So that's one of the two embodiments that they say limit the camera, the CPU, and the light source being in the same device.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
So that's true of Figure 6.

[00:09:25] Speaker 01:
Less clear, but still somewhat ambiguous, is Figure 1.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
If you look to Figure 1, which actually depicts three different embodiments, you can also see that Cameras 105 and 106 in this particular embodiment are found in Screen Housing 107.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
Whereas light 122 and the CPU are all found in camera keyboard 102, that component.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
So there is an issue whether this screen

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
and the cameras it holds, the screen housing and the cameras it holds are a separate device or devices where the keyboard includes the computer or the CPU and the light source.

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
So even their figures that they point to as being the embodiments showing that all these things are part of one device are not clear.

[00:10:28] Speaker 01:
Figure one is ambiguous and figure six doesn't even show the light source being part of that handheld computer.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
So their best argument for why the specification limits the claims in this way so that

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
All these devices need to be within the same apparatus or machine.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
It's just not so.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
Case law holds that either the claims have to specify that this is a unitary item, or they need to disavow very clearly in their specification non-unitary items, and they have not done that here.

[00:11:15] Speaker 01:
Are there any other questions on the claim construction issue?

[00:11:20] Speaker 04:
No, but Pellin's brief asserts that CSIS is non-analogous art.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
The prison council didn't mention it this morning, but it's in the case.

[00:11:33] Speaker 04:
You would say it's analogous art, probably, and why?

[00:11:36] Speaker 01:
The board found that it was analogous R for two reasons.

[00:11:41] Speaker 01:
Under the first problem of analysis, the analogous R test, the board found that these inventions, R, Sears, and the Plane Defender, are in the same field of endeavor.

[00:11:55] Speaker 01:
They both relate to gesture-based

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
movements, tracking those movements, and then using that to perform a function, decide what function should be performed.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
And that's very clear from looking at the specification and just even the title of SEERS, SEERS patent.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
So,

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
And that, the board's only also found that it's found at the appendix that APPX 19.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
And then the board also found that Sears would be reasonably pertinent to the question involving claims two and three, which is the board defined as selecting a light source.

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
And when gesture responded that selecting a light source is just too broad a category, the board said, well, even if we narrow the category to selecting a light source for a gesture-based environment, Sears also is reasonably pertinent to that question.

[00:13:22] Speaker 02:
So in the Wednesday cases, I think there's an issue of analogous art.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
to the same court we're talking about here, Lieberman, or is it something else?

[00:13:32] Speaker 01:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:13:33] Speaker 01:
Fair enough.

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
I was second on a different case on Wednesday.

[00:13:38] Speaker 04:
I think it was a man reference.

[00:13:42] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:13:43] Speaker 04:
You say no, or you don't know?

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
I don't know.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
Let me clarify.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
There's a man reference.

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
The present counsel can correct me if that's wrong.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
Yes, your honor.

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
I do know that this nail that is our issue is also raised in the next appeal that you'll hear and specifically involving Sears reference Are there any more questions on that or any other issue?

[00:14:15] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
Have a good day.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
Just real quick.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
What about the analogous art issue in the other cases?

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
Does it involve Sears?

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
I believe, yes.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
You think so?

[00:14:46] Speaker 03:
Who wants from Wednesday?

[00:14:48] Speaker 03:
Who's the one up next?

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
Wednesday.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
I believe on Wednesday, but I don't want to.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
I'd have to check, Your Honor.

[00:15:00] Speaker 04:
We have ways to find out.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
Real quick, proposing counsel didn't mention the Hewlett Packard reference, which basically equates apparatus to a device.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
Proposing counsel is correct.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
Figure six doesn't show the light source, but all of the preceding figures, one through three, show a single device.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
And the entire specification covers single devices.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
There's no distributed system.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
So Lieberman cannot anticipate those seven-line claims.

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
And then, with regard to the analogous art question of Sears, the proper field of endeavor for Sears is an electronic reading machine, essentially OCRs, documents, and has... It's not reasonably pertinent?

[00:15:49] Speaker 04:
It has gesture, and is there a title?

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
The gestures are different because it's determining character recognition.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
It's not like the 079 pattern that is directed towards a finger, or a human, or people.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
It's a different type of field of reasonable pertinency.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
If it was the same type, if it was directed to recognizing gestures, we wouldn't even be getting to analogous art.

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
It would be the same art.

[00:16:22] Speaker 03:
Why isn't it reasonably pertinent when it's technology corrected to

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
Those kind of things.

[00:16:31] Speaker 03:
I mean, I don't understand your argument.

[00:16:33] Speaker 03:
You're limiting analogous heart in a sense, in a way that we would never have analogous heart.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
But if it has to be that close, if it's that close, it's the same field.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
I understand, Your Honor.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
It's not that close.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
It's a different field.

[00:16:56] Speaker 03:
That's the whole point.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
Analogues aren't doctrine if it's a different field, but it's reasonably pertinent because they're both directed to gesture-based recognition.

[00:17:05] Speaker 03:
Then why isn't that sufficient?

[00:17:08] Speaker 00:
Because Sears is optical character recognition, whereas the 079 Patton recognizes fingers and gestures from a human.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
Nothing further to say.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
First counsel, the case is submitted.