[00:00:00] Speaker 03: Councilor Guilford, you reserve three minutes of time for rebuttal, right? [00:00:04] Speaker 00: Yes, please your honor. [00:00:05] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:00:06] Speaker 03: I think we're ready. [00:00:08] Speaker 00: May it please the court. [00:00:09] Speaker 00: My name is Ben Guilford. [00:00:10] Speaker 00: I represent Appellant Universal Electronics Inc. [00:00:14] Speaker 00: This appeal relates to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's referements of the examiner's rejection of Universal's 954 application. [00:00:24] Speaker 00: The 954 application is directed to a method of turning an ordinary smart device into [00:00:29] Speaker 00: such as a standard iPhone, into a universal remote control. [00:00:34] Speaker 00: The smart device includes a remote control application that is launched using a predetermined input. [00:00:40] Speaker 00: Once a remote control application is launched, a virtual remote control is immediately displayed on the smart device. [00:00:46] Speaker 00: The user can then press one of the virtual buttons, which in turn causes the smart device to issue commands to a target appliance as if the smart device were a universal remote. [00:00:57] Speaker 01: on two different limitations, I believe, right? [00:00:59] Speaker 01: And one of them is the direct response limitation. [00:01:02] Speaker 01: Is that right? [00:01:03] Speaker 00: Today, Your Honor, I'm going to focus on the, yeah, I totally forget what we call it exactly in the briefs. [00:01:10] Speaker 00: I know there's two invoking limitations in the claim. [00:01:13] Speaker 00: I'm going to be focusing on that first invoking limitation. [00:01:17] Speaker 00: And I think it's helpful, Your Honor, to kind [00:01:19] Speaker 00: You know, it's a fairly long limitation. [00:01:21] Speaker 00: And I was going to break it down for the court and really get into what the claim requires, and then we can go into the board's decision. [00:01:27] Speaker 01: OK. [00:01:28] Speaker 01: Can I actually point you to a few things and ask you to kind of address these up front? [00:01:32] Speaker 01: And then, of course, you can flow back into the other argument points you wanted to raise. [00:01:37] Speaker 01: Do you agree that your argument for this limitation, this first invoking limitation, depends on interpreting invoke to mean open? [00:01:47] Speaker 00: No, Your Honor, I don't think the court needs to get into the claim construction here. [00:01:51] Speaker 00: The way the board... I don't even want to say interpreted, just the way they read the limitation. [00:01:58] Speaker 03: The board or the examiner never used the term invoked, did they? [00:02:03] Speaker 00: One of the problems here, Your Honor, is in the board's discussion of the invoking limitation, they do use the term invoked. [00:02:14] Speaker 00: They just say, [00:02:16] Speaker 00: You know, I'm going to kind of circle back to this exact language further in my argument, but the real singular sentence here where the board's conducting, quote unquote, an analysis of this first invoking limitation, it's just a single sentence that says, we agree with the examiner's finding that selecting an icon provided on the smart device see Rosenblatt. [00:02:42] Speaker 00: What page you on? [00:02:42] Speaker 00: Sorry, Your Honor. [00:02:43] Speaker 00: It's appendix page six. [00:02:47] Speaker 00: And again, this is really where the rubber meets the road on this first invoking limitation argument. [00:02:53] Speaker 00: We have this one sentence. [00:02:54] Speaker 00: That's it. [00:02:55] Speaker 00: The board says, we agree with the examiner's finding that selecting an icon provided on the smart device, C, Rosenblatt figure 47B, icon 622, invokes a remote control application on the smart device. [00:03:11] Speaker 00: That's it. [00:03:11] Speaker 00: So they're using the term invoke. [00:03:14] Speaker 00: in their discussion. [00:03:14] Speaker 00: There's no explanation of what the board thinks invoking means. [00:03:18] Speaker 00: They're just saying selecting an icon is invoking a remote control application. [00:03:23] Speaker 00: That's all we have to go with. [00:03:25] Speaker 00: And what I wanted to say, Your Honor, is that we don't need to get into claim construction here because, as I'll show you in a second, when we take that board finding that selecting an icon is invoking an application and plug it back into the claim language, we see it's so facially incorrect [00:03:43] Speaker 00: that we don't even need to get to claim instruction. [00:03:45] Speaker 00: Now I'm happy to kind of get into claim instruction if the court feels it's necessary. [00:03:52] Speaker 00: But again, I think that's not really where the argument needs to go, because again, there's such a facially incorrect interpretation of the claim here that reversal is the only reasonable conclusion we could come to. [00:04:09] Speaker 00: So kind of turning again back to the claim language, because again, I think it's somewhat important here for our discussion. [00:04:15] Speaker 00: If we turn to appendix page three, again, we see that there's two invoking limitations in the claim. [00:04:22] Speaker 00: Again, I'm going to be focusing primarily on this first invoking limitation. [00:04:29] Speaker 00: So claim one recites three different things that must happen in the first invoking step. [00:04:35] Speaker 00: So first, claim one requires that a first predetermined input be provided to the smart device. [00:04:41] Speaker 00: Second, claim one requires invoking a remote control application in direct response to the first predetermined input. [00:04:47] Speaker 00: And third, claim one requires displaying a main remote control user interface in direct response to the remote control application being invoked. [00:04:57] Speaker 00: And I don't think this is in dispute, but the board found that the examiner's primary reference, Rosenblatt, teaches the first invoking step of claim one. [00:05:05] Speaker 00: So we're only really talking about Rosenblatt here. [00:05:08] Speaker 00: If we turn to appendix page five and look at the very last sentence on the page, we see kind of the beginning of the board's discussion, so to speak, of the first invoking step. [00:05:20] Speaker 00: And I'm just going to go ahead and read this entire discussion for the court in its entirety. [00:05:24] Speaker 00: It's very brief. [00:05:26] Speaker 00: Appellant argues that Rosenblatt fails to teach a main remote control user interface to be displayed in a display of the smart device [00:05:34] Speaker 00: in direct response to the remote control application being invoked. [00:05:38] Speaker 00: Appellant contends that in Rosenblatt, one must invoke the remote control application, then subsequently select a further user interface. [00:05:46] Speaker 00: We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. [00:05:48] Speaker 00: We agree with the examiner's finding that selecting an icon provided. [00:05:51] Speaker 01: So counselor, you previously indicated that it's so facially wrong how the, I believe the word invoke, you're talking about the post-invoking limitation, was interpreted. [00:06:04] Speaker 00: Expand on that like that seems like something Yeah So again, I don't think there's any dispute here that the way the board Construed or interpreted or whatever their their entire analysis for invoking is just saying selecting an icon is invoking an application So let's take that that kind of wording selecting an icon. [00:06:27] Speaker 00: We're going to go back to appendix page three and Start plugging in selecting an icon into invoking [00:06:34] Speaker 00: And see if that just makes sense reading it that way. [00:06:37] Speaker 00: So here we have in claim one, using the board's language, selecting an icon on a smart device in direct response to a first predetermined input being provided to the smart device, a remote control application of the smart device, wherein the remote control application causes a main remote control user interface to be displayed in a display of the smart device [00:06:59] Speaker 00: in direct response to the remote control application being selected an icon. [00:07:05] Speaker 00: Now, I'm sure your honors are kind of thinking that wording didn't make any sense. [00:07:12] Speaker 00: And I agree. [00:07:13] Speaker 00: The way the claim reads when you take the board's finding and plugging into the claim just facially doesn't make any sense. [00:07:22] Speaker 00: And frankly, the board's decision doesn't make any sense either. [00:07:26] Speaker 00: Another issue here. [00:07:28] Speaker 00: is that the claim clearly requires that the step of invoking a remote control application is something that the smart device performs. [00:07:39] Speaker 00: If you look at the preamble of the claim, it says there's these computer-readable instructions. [00:07:49] Speaker 00: And when they're executed, they quote, cause the smart device to perform steps comprising. [00:07:54] Speaker 00: And it goes on to say, invoking the remote control application. [00:07:58] Speaker 00: So I don't think there's any dispute that in the claim, the step of invoking the remote control application is performed by a smart device. [00:08:05] Speaker 00: But obviously, selecting an icon is something that a user does. [00:08:10] Speaker 00: So I mean, for that additional reason, we can see right away that the board's interpretation or whatever you want to call it of the claim just makes zero sense. [00:08:19] Speaker 00: It doesn't fit within the playing language of the claim. [00:08:22] Speaker 00: And therefore, we know it's wrong. [00:08:26] Speaker 00: Two minor points I'd just add. [00:08:28] Speaker 00: Again, I don't think the court really needs to get there to find four are universal. [00:08:33] Speaker 00: But it's two other things to point out. [00:08:38] Speaker 00: First of all, the board says that it agrees with the examiner's findings. [00:08:41] Speaker 00: It doesn't explain why. [00:08:43] Speaker 00: The board simply concludes the examiner's right without providing any explanation, without providing any analysis. [00:08:51] Speaker 00: And this alone is error. [00:08:53] Speaker 00: And second, the board's discussion ignores most of the claim language of the first invoking step. [00:08:58] Speaker 00: As I mentioned earlier, and this is where the claim language becomes really important, is that the first invoking step requires three different things. [00:09:06] Speaker 00: We have one, providing a first predetermined input to the smart device. [00:09:10] Speaker 00: Two, invoking a remote control application in direct response to the first predetermined input. [00:09:15] Speaker 00: And then three, displaying a main remote control user interface in direct response to the remote control application being invoked. [00:09:22] Speaker 00: And here, other than just simply saying that Rosenblatt teaches invoking a remote control application, [00:09:27] Speaker 00: The board fails to explain how Rosenblatt allegedly teaches any of these other requirements of the first invoking stuff. [00:09:34] Speaker 00: So again. [00:09:36] Speaker 01: The board does cite non-final office action, right? [00:09:41] Speaker 01: So isn't that something you would also need to address if you're going to say that the board did something that you contend is insufficient? [00:09:49] Speaker 00: Well, again, this is why I'm pointing these two things. [00:09:51] Speaker 00: It's very secondary things. [00:09:52] Speaker 00: The main central problem here is that selecting an icon simply does not make sense in the context of the claim. [00:09:58] Speaker 00: I'm happy to turn to the nine final action at five and discuss it, but there's really no need to go there. [00:10:05] Speaker 01: I feel to me, as I'm sitting here, you're just telling me things don't make sense, but you're not showing me support for why you think things don't make sense. [00:10:15] Speaker 01: You can obviously point to what you think would help support that and persuade me. [00:10:20] Speaker 01: So I will leave that up to you. [00:10:22] Speaker 00: Yeah, I mean, again, I think the claim language itself is the clearest thing here, is that the claim requires that the smart device perform the step of invoking the application. [00:10:37] Speaker 00: And again, they're saying selecting an icon is the same thing as invoking an application, but selecting an icon is something a user does. [00:10:45] Speaker 00: The user takes their finger, presses an icon. [00:10:48] Speaker 00: So how could that possibly fit within a claim term that needs to be done by the smart device itself? [00:10:57] Speaker 00: I think that's pretty straightforward. [00:10:59] Speaker 00: Again, if you plug in [00:11:01] Speaker 00: selecting an icon into the claim in place of invoking, you get a claim that just doesn't read in a sensical way. [00:11:09] Speaker 00: Also, the claim itself separately requires a first predetermined input. [00:11:15] Speaker 00: So in the board's reading of the claim, what is the first predetermined input? [00:11:20] Speaker 00: How is the remote control application allegedly being invoked in direct response to that first predetermined input? [00:11:29] Speaker 00: None of that's explained, and the claim requires all these different things, and we're left with one sentence. [00:11:34] Speaker 00: So I mean, at the very least here, there needs to be a remand for the board to kind of elaborate its findings so we can have a meaningful discussion. [00:11:41] Speaker 00: But again, I don't think we need to get there because the board's finding is so facially wrong the way I read it that we... I know you're running short on time. [00:11:51] Speaker 01: Do you want to address the widget limitation, or do you want to just stand on the briefing? [00:11:55] Speaker 00: I think stand on the briefing for the widget. [00:11:58] Speaker 00: Really, the core argument before the board was this first invoking step. [00:12:04] Speaker 00: And I think the court doesn't need to go any farther outside of that. [00:12:09] Speaker 00: Again, I'm happy to get into claim construction on this first invoking step, Your Honors. [00:12:14] Speaker 00: But again, I think that's a step too far because we don't even really know. [00:12:19] Speaker 03: Well, it's up to you. [00:12:21] Speaker 03: But you are getting out of time, so. [00:12:25] Speaker 00: Yeah, I mean, I'll just be very brief. [00:12:28] Speaker 00: I mean, I think to your point, Judge Cunningham. [00:12:30] Speaker 03: You're into your rebuttal time. [00:12:34] Speaker 00: Yeah, I guess I'll see if my colleague here brings up claim construction and thinks it's important to discuss, but I personally don't. [00:13:00] Speaker 02: May it please the court. [00:13:01] Speaker 02: I'm Fahad Patel with the Solicitor's Office. [00:13:04] Speaker 02: There's a couple of points I want to raise up front. [00:13:07] Speaker 02: The first is that UEI's entire briefing was about claim construction. [00:13:12] Speaker 02: What does a claim term invoking mean? [00:13:14] Speaker 02: And that you did not hear any argument from counsel on what invoking means. [00:13:19] Speaker 02: They specifically, in their briefing, in their opening brief, say that invoking has to mean opening. [00:13:25] Speaker 02: It's invoking, comma, IE. [00:13:28] Speaker 03: So before you go further, is your use of the term invoking? [00:13:33] Speaker 03: Is that the same term or the same usage by the examiner? [00:13:41] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:13:42] Speaker 02: We have interpreted the claim term invoking consistent with the examiner's findings in the case. [00:13:50] Speaker 01: The one caveat I would give is, while I agree that when I was asking the questions, I didn't think [00:13:55] Speaker 01: He was engaging on claim construction and invoking whether or not it meant open. [00:14:00] Speaker 01: But I did hear something about equating invoking to selecting. [00:14:03] Speaker 01: So if you could also address that aspect. [00:14:06] Speaker 02: I mean, the claim term invoking is broad enough to encompass a situation where a user with an iPhone can click a button to then invoke the application or select a button. [00:14:21] Speaker 02: So invoking can involve a selection as part of the invoking. [00:14:26] Speaker 02: So I think that's simply, and for some reason, UEI doesn't believe that a selection can be involved in the invoking process. [00:14:35] Speaker 02: But actually, in their own specification, I believe, the invocation involves a user input. [00:14:44] Speaker 02: So I think that argument that selection cannot be part of invoking an application, I don't think that's consistent with their own specification. [00:14:54] Speaker 01: Do you have a proposed construction that you're relying on for invoking? [00:15:00] Speaker 02: In our briefing, Your Honor, we did articulate [00:15:05] Speaker 02: a interpretation of invoking that we believe is consistent with what the examiner articulated. [00:15:12] Speaker 02: And it's on page 41. [00:15:13] Speaker 02: And we say that it causes the application of the director's brief. [00:15:27] Speaker 03: 41 of what? [00:15:29] Speaker 03: The red brief, did you say? [00:15:31] Speaker 03: Of the director's brief. [00:15:33] Speaker 03: The director's brief. [00:15:37] Speaker 03: The red brief, yeah. [00:15:49] Speaker 02: This is at the very bottom, the last sentence. [00:15:55] Speaker 02: We say that the user selection of the hybrid button invokes the application because it causes the application to take further action. [00:16:08] Speaker 02: i.e. [00:16:09] Speaker 02: open the remote control interface. [00:16:13] Speaker 02: So by invoking, you're telling the application to do something. [00:16:18] Speaker 02: You don't have to open it from scratch or launch it. [00:16:24] Speaker 01: So you don't think that invoke is limited to opening, but it could encompass opening? [00:16:28] Speaker 01: Exactly. [00:16:28] Speaker 02: Exactly. [00:16:36] Speaker 02: So in the briefing, this sort of comes back to the claim interpretation issue. [00:16:43] Speaker 02: In UEI's briefing, their argument is that invoking has to mean opening an application from scratch. [00:16:51] Speaker 02: So the application is closed. [00:16:54] Speaker 02: It's invoked to open it. [00:16:56] Speaker 02: According to UEI, invoking cannot encompass interacting with an application that's already open. [00:17:03] Speaker 02: And that's kind of the interpretation distinction here. [00:17:06] Speaker 02: And keep in mind, this is a case from original prosecution. [00:17:10] Speaker 02: So UEI is prosecuting this case in front of the examiner. [00:17:13] Speaker 02: They have every opportunity to amend their claims, to say invoking, to say launching, to say whatever they want, as long as they have support and respect for it. [00:17:21] Speaker 02: They chose not to do that. [00:17:22] Speaker 02: They kept the claim term invoking. [00:17:24] Speaker 02: It's what we have before us. [00:17:26] Speaker 02: And now we're being asked to reinterpret invoking in view of the prior art. [00:17:31] Speaker 02: That's really not the order of operations here. [00:17:34] Speaker 02: And so we would ask that the panel essentially reject this claim construction attempt, which is late in addition, because there's no claim construction argument made to the board or the examiner. [00:17:51] Speaker 02: The only example of does invoking mean opening? [00:17:55] Speaker 02: Does invoking mean launching? [00:17:57] Speaker 02: That discussion all comes up in the briefing before this court. [00:18:01] Speaker 02: And so the board didn't even have an opportunity to do any kind of claim construction. [00:18:04] Speaker 02: They weren't asked to do that. [00:18:06] Speaker 02: And so this is sort of a late argument that's introduced in the briefing. [00:18:12] Speaker 02: And now they're sort of backing off of it, an argument here before the court. [00:18:16] Speaker 02: They think it's not about claim construction. [00:18:18] Speaker 02: But it seems like that's what they're making it into. [00:18:21] Speaker 02: And if it's not about paint construction, I don't know what it's about. [00:18:23] Speaker 03: With respect to invoking, is your argument here consistent with the position taken by the board of the examiner? [00:18:32] Speaker 02: Yes, it is. [00:18:33] Speaker 02: It is. [00:18:33] Speaker 02: Because it really comes down to what the reference discloses, the prior reference Rosenblatt. [00:18:39] Speaker 02: I'm happy to look through the figures. [00:18:40] Speaker 01: Yeah, so counsel, maybe just to close the loop for us, why don't you describe why there would be substantial evidence support for the board's finding with respect to this direct response limitation? [00:18:50] Speaker 01: in light of the combination of references? [00:18:52] Speaker 02: Yeah, sure. [00:18:53] Speaker 02: I could walk through that. [00:18:53] Speaker 02: So the primary reference is Rosenblatt. [00:18:58] Speaker 02: And we can sort of look through the figures, because it's the easiest way to look at Rosenblatt. [00:19:03] Speaker 02: And I'm on Appendix 703. [00:19:11] Speaker 02: And this is Figure 47. [00:19:21] Speaker 02: So in figure 47, this is a graphical, just a GUI on your smartphone, basically. [00:19:27] Speaker 02: And the idea is you're trying to control your DVR from your phone. [00:19:33] Speaker 02: And in Rosenblatt, what's happening is that the user at 47A clicks on Control DVR, which then goes to the next screen, which is 47B. [00:19:45] Speaker 02: And at this point, the user can select from multiple different types of remote controls. [00:19:50] Speaker 02: There's a classic remote. [00:19:52] Speaker 02: There's a hybrid remote, a universal remote. [00:19:54] Speaker 02: There's different formats of remotes that a user can select from. [00:19:58] Speaker 02: So when the user selects classic remote 622, this is what the examiner said. [00:20:04] Speaker 02: This is the examiner's mapping was that clicking on classic remote 622 will perform. [00:20:11] Speaker 02: That's the invoking. [00:20:12] Speaker 02: At that point, you're invoking the application [00:20:15] Speaker 02: to take the step of displaying in 47c the particular remote that the user wants. [00:20:22] Speaker 02: So the invoking the application is mapped to the clicking of the classic remote button 622. [00:20:32] Speaker 02: And that's essentially the mapping that [00:20:35] Speaker 02: that sets out the prima facie case of this invoking indirect response to. [00:20:40] Speaker 02: Because in direct response to the user clicking on classic remote, the very next screen is the remote. [00:20:47] Speaker 01: Opposing counsel argued that to say invoking encompassed selecting was basically nonsensical. [00:20:55] Speaker 01: Can you respond to that? [00:20:56] Speaker 02: Yes, so we can go back to the specification of this patent to kind of look at what it says. [00:21:07] Speaker 02: You see a very similar, if you go to the figures, this is in Appendix 63. [00:21:23] Speaker 02: Just to get a sense of the context here, [00:21:27] Speaker 02: We have a very similar type of invention here. [00:21:32] Speaker 02: These inventions in the art, they're all about displaying on a phone a GUI. [00:21:40] Speaker 02: And the whole point of what you're doing with the GUI is you're touching it. [00:21:42] Speaker 02: You're selecting it. [00:21:44] Speaker 02: And so the invoking can include touching the screen to invoke an application. [00:21:54] Speaker 02: That's how an application would be invoked. [00:21:57] Speaker 02: I don't know any other way to invoke an application on your phone apart from touching your screen. [00:22:03] Speaker 03: Maybe you could shake your phone. [00:22:10] Speaker 02: In the claims, the widget and the application are somewhat separate. [00:22:14] Speaker 02: They're used independently, so the widget would not be used to invoke the application. [00:22:22] Speaker 02: The widget is just a shortcut. [00:22:24] Speaker 02: If a user does not want to invoke the entire application for the remote control, they can have a shortcut widget that has reduced functionality. [00:22:35] Speaker 02: So maybe for your TV, you only want to quickly turn the volume up or down. [00:22:38] Speaker 02: For that, you can use the widget. [00:22:41] Speaker 02: And it opens quickly. [00:22:42] Speaker 02: You don't have to worry about the whole application. [00:22:44] Speaker 03: So that changes the term invoked, doesn't it? [00:22:49] Speaker 02: Invoking is used in the claim for both the application and the widget. [00:22:52] Speaker 02: But it's used consistently. [00:22:53] Speaker 03: No. [00:22:54] Speaker 03: In the terms that you use, you're using invoke. [00:23:00] Speaker 02: Does it change my meaning of invoke? [00:23:02] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:23:03] Speaker 02: It does not I don't I don't see how it would because in invoking a widget can be invoked in the same way as the application can be invoked They both can be invoked by selecting an icon or something else I'm happy to look a little bit more at the spec [00:23:37] Speaker 02: So maybe this goes back to the question about selection being invoking. [00:23:49] Speaker 02: I have a little bit of time left. [00:23:50] Speaker 02: I can just run through this. [00:23:51] Speaker 02: Appendix 52. [00:23:52] Speaker 02: This is the specification of the application here. [00:24:01] Speaker 02: And it talks about invoking a widget. [00:24:07] Speaker 02: And it talks about how a widget could be invoked. [00:24:10] Speaker 02: And it says, widget GUI 502 may be invoked. [00:24:15] Speaker 02: Sorry, I'm reading from line 10, appendix 52. [00:24:21] Speaker 02: It says, widget GUI 502 may be invoked at any point without switching to the main remote control application, for example, by activating an icon provided for that purpose. [00:24:36] Speaker 02: So the spec is telling us that selecting or activating an icon can cause invoking a widget. [00:24:42] Speaker 02: So for UEI to get up here and say selecting an icon can't be invoking, it doesn't match its own spec. [00:24:49] Speaker 02: Can't be right. [00:24:56] Speaker 02: No further questions? [00:24:56] Speaker 02: OK, thank you. [00:25:05] Speaker 03: Mr. Guilford, we give you three minutes. [00:25:07] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:25:09] Speaker 00: Your Honor, I think Council for the Director is really dancing around the central issue here. [00:25:14] Speaker 00: The discussion from my colleague was really how to invoke an application. [00:25:19] Speaker 00: They say, well, you can press an icon, and that invokes an application. [00:25:25] Speaker 00: That's not in dispute. [00:25:27] Speaker 00: The problem here is, what does invoking an application really mean? [00:25:33] Speaker 00: Obviously, our position, which is borne out in the briefs, and I think it was really in the briefing before the board, I think. [00:25:43] Speaker 01: You said danced around the central issue. [00:25:45] Speaker 01: In your opinion, what is the central issue? [00:25:48] Speaker 00: Well, invoking means, in our opinion, and again, this was explained in the briefs, it means launching, opening, loading. [00:25:56] Speaker 00: Those are all fair characterizations of what invoking means. [00:26:01] Speaker 00: What I have heard from the director, [00:26:03] Speaker 00: and it's not in the board's opinion, is what they think invoking means. [00:26:08] Speaker 00: They say you can invoke. [00:26:10] Speaker 01: He's not even pointing us to page 41 of the red brief as to what he thought invoking meant. [00:26:14] Speaker 00: No, he said that you can use an icon to invoke an application. [00:26:18] Speaker 00: So he's just using the word invoke in his definition of invoke. [00:26:22] Speaker 00: And all I'm hearing is how you can invoke an application, but not what. [00:26:25] Speaker 01: But page 41 had some other words besides invoke there. [00:26:29] Speaker 01: If you look at the last sentence, at least what I heard and what I read had some other words there. [00:26:35] Speaker 00: You're saying appendix page 41? [00:26:38] Speaker 01: Red brief 41 is what I heard opposing counsel point us to for their definition of invoke. [00:26:44] Speaker 00: Causes the application to take further action, I think, was? [00:26:47] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:26:48] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:26:48] Speaker 01: So that's not just using the word invoke. [00:26:50] Speaker 01: I'm just responding to what you're saying. [00:26:51] Speaker 01: You can keep going. [00:26:53] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:26:53] Speaker 00: So your honor, [00:26:56] Speaker 00: The problem I have is that definition's not really advancing past the issue we have with saying selecting or interacting with or any of those things, because that's something the user's doing and not something the smart device is doing. [00:27:13] Speaker 00: And again, the claim plainly requires that the smart device itself is the thing that's doing the invoking of the application. [00:27:20] Speaker 00: So it's not the user. [00:27:21] Speaker 00: It's the smart device. [00:27:22] Speaker 00: The user's doing the first predetermined input. [00:27:25] Speaker 00: So causing the application to take further action, interacting with selecting, that's all stuff the user's doing. [00:27:31] Speaker 00: But it's the smart device itself that's doing the invoking. [00:27:36] Speaker 00: So our definition, which is launching, opening, loading, that all makes sense within the context of the claim, because the smart device itself is what's doing those things. [00:27:45] Speaker 00: And their construction doesn't make sense. [00:27:48] Speaker 00: I think, again, I have very limited time, but appendix page 387, I think, is the best [00:27:55] Speaker 00: evidence, so to speak, of what the applicant meant by invoking. [00:28:02] Speaker 00: And if we look at 387, I'll be really brief, because I know I have just seconds here. [00:28:08] Speaker 00: On the second full paragraph, the applicant said, turning out to James is respectfully submitted that James discloses a system in which a user can provide gesture-based input for the purpose of navigating between user interface pages [00:28:21] Speaker 00: Emphasized in an already invoked application eg a digital music player application so clearly The context here is invoked means opening the application and when you're doing stuff within already invoked or launched application you're not Invoking the application anymore. [00:28:37] Speaker 00: It was already invoked some time ago [00:28:38] Speaker 00: So I think our construction is totally consistent with the intrinsic evidence. [00:28:43] Speaker 00: And frankly, I haven't heard a meaningful construction that fits within the plain language here from either the board or the director's counsel. [00:28:52] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:28:54] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:28:54] Speaker 03: That concludes today's arguments. [00:28:56] Speaker 03: This court now remits some recess.