[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
We have four argued cases this morning.

[00:00:02] Speaker 03:
The first is number 22, 1916 on the tracks, LLC versus Platform Science Inc., Mr. Wilcox.

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Judge Steich, and may it please the court.

[00:00:15] Speaker 00:
Jason Wolcox on behalf of Omnitrax.

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
The board invalidated Omnitrax's patent by allowing hindsight and appeals to common sense to supply claim limitations that are missing from the prior art.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
An approach this court has repeatedly rejected.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
in cases like DSS Technologies, Arendi, and KS Hemp.

[00:00:35] Speaker 00:
This led the board to make a series of errors, but the most problematic and the one I want to focus on this morning is how it approached the motivation to modify the prior art or combine the two prior art references together.

[00:00:47] Speaker 00:
So the Jankey reference displays a vehicle's current location, not its driven route, much less the driven route determined by location information received from the vehicle.

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
The only explanation the board gave for why a skilled artisan would modify Jankey to display the driven route was that it would supposedly make it easier to more closely monitor a vehicle's movement.

[00:01:12] Speaker 00:
You can see that.

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
Doesn't it make practical sense

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
that if you're going to have a display of a planned route, like say from here to Washington, and the display is on a vehicle, and the display can also show you deviations from the route, or other displays can show you a route that's been deviated from, or the location of a vehicle,

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
Why would it not just be practical for a person of one other skill in the art to connect it to?

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
And to say, why don't I have one display that shows me the planned route, but that also shows me the route that the vehicle has deviated, has taken as a deviation?

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
Well, Judge Raina, I don't think there is a prior law reference that teaches displaying the driven route of the vehicle using location information that's supplied by the vehicle.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
So when you don't have that... What Kadayama does?

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
I don't think that is what Kadayama does.

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
Well, it says it does, right?

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
Well, I think if you read Kadayama as a whole and all of its teachings rather than just the one statement that the board focused on, which I admit does use the word travel well... There does seem to be substantial evidence that one statement

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
Well, I don't think you're supposed to read the prior art in isolation.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
You're supposed to read it as a whole.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
And if you look at every other teaching in Kadayama, Kadayama is teaching that what you do is use mathematical approximations.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
So when it shows, for example, in figures 15 and figure 20, the destination line and the return line, those are just straight lines that it draws.

[00:02:57] Speaker 03:
Kadayama doesn't say they're mathematical representations, right?

[00:03:00] Speaker 00:
I mean, it doesn't say their mathematics representatives, but it just draws them to straight lines in areas where there's no map information, which is what it says at column 10, lines 56 to 60.

[00:03:11] Speaker 00:
But even if you think that Katayama does teach showing the location information derived from the vehicle, and we disagree with that, but I understand you have a different view, Judge Dyke.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
There's still no motivation to combine that.

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
All that the board offered, again, was a suggestion that, well, it would have been obvious because it would make it easier to keep an eye on the situation.

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
teaches, discloses the navigation system for vehicles that display map and current positional information.

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
So you have a map.

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
And justly, you can have a planned route.

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
I don't understand why Katayama does not disclose when it says the current positional information.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
That's got to be information that's coming from the vehicle.

[00:03:58] Speaker 00:
Yes, I agree that Karayama discloses current positional information.

[00:04:03] Speaker 02:
So if on the way to Washington, the driver makes a pit stop in Bowie,

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
And it's showing that the vehicle is now in boot.

[00:04:12] Speaker 02:
Why doesn't that meet the limitations of the claim?

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
Because it's just showing you the current location of the vehicle.

[00:04:19] Speaker 00:
It's not showing you the driven route of the vehicle.

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
And there's, in Kadayama, we submit, does not teach you to make that next step, which is how you- That's what I'm asking.

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
Wouldn't a person with a lawyer skill in the art look at that and say, why don't I just show you the route that this car is deviated from?

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
It's almost there.

[00:04:41] Speaker 00:
I mean, it's close, Judge Raina, but what was the magic here was figuring out how to make that connection.

[00:04:46] Speaker 00:
What you have to do is figure out how to make that connection.

[00:04:47] Speaker 03:
I didn't say it was close.

[00:04:48] Speaker 03:
The board said it's there in Katayama.

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
It says it explicitly in Katayama.

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
well the board said that at appendix thirty seven but then immediately in the next second sentence backed off from that and said well that's not even why platform science is relying on and that all platform science is relying on is for the idea that you would show both some type of plan route and some type of

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
uh... other around information at the same time and that one of the local stocks actually are or not the plan routes doesn't matter we think the board is wrong about the local stocks we think that everything in katayama is about math but we also think that it's motivation to combine teachings are simply insufficient you may be right judge reyna that it sounds like common sense and it sounds intuitive what this court has said over and over again is when you have a missing limitation not just a missing motivation to combine

[00:05:35] Speaker 00:
You can't supply that by just saying we'll be common sense for it.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
But KSR teaches us that a person of skill in the art also has practical sense and can apply that practical sense in situations like this.

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
It does teach that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity and isn't an automaton.

[00:05:58] Speaker 00:
I agree with that, but it uses that in the context of a motivation to combine, not supplying what we submit as a missing limitation.

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
That is such a big leap.

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
I mean, the prior does teach, although it suggests the very things you're arguing.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
So we disagree that the prior route even suggests displaying the driven route using location information that's sent by the vehicle.

[00:06:24] Speaker 00:
We agree.

[00:06:24] Speaker 00:
Katayama suggests displaying.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
Here's what we think the driven route is.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
It does it based on mathematical calculations, is our explanation.

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
Katayama places black dots along the route that a truck has taken, a vehicle has taken.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
It places black dots along the mathematical approximation of the route that the vehicle took, not using location information actually supplied by the vehicle.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
Yes, I agree with that, Judge Raina.

[00:06:49] Speaker 02:
But I think that next week... You wouldn't get the black dots if it's not coming from the vehicle.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
If you know where you deviated from the route, so I know where I left the route, and I know where I am right now, what you do, as our expert explained, that it won't... How do you know that?

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
That information is coming from the vehicle.

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
Not the black dots.

[00:07:06] Speaker 00:
What you know is the present location from the vehicle, and you know from the vehicle, here is where you left the route.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
What you don't know is... That's where a person of skill in the art, using just practical experience, all they need to do is connect the dots.

[00:07:22] Speaker 02:
And we have a deviated route, and it's coming from the vehicle.

[00:07:27] Speaker 00:
But figuring out how to get those dots, how to connect them in a way that actually maps onto a map grid is inventive, we think.

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
And that's certainly not what's happening in Katayama, because you can see it, column 10, minus 56 to 60.

[00:07:39] Speaker 00:
The Katayama says it only shows you those black dots and those various lines when you're in an area where there is no map information.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
So you can't actually map it onto the driven route or the roads the vehicle actually follows.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
Now, setting that aside, even if I'm wrong about Katayama and you think that there's substantial evidence for the board's decision, the board's analysis had two steps.

[00:08:01] Speaker 00:
The first step was to conclude that when Genki is just showing its planned route and occasional location updates without showing any deviation, that a skilled artisan would have known that that is showing you both the planned route and the driven route.

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
So that's step one of the board's analysis.

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
that the board didn't rely on Katayama for that.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
Then at step two, the board did rely on Katayama and said, well, when you have a deviation for the reasons that Judge Reyna said, maybe you would actually connect the dots rather than just showing your present location.

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
But we think the board is also wrong about first step.

[00:08:36] Speaker 00:
It didn't rely on Katayama.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
And instead, it made just factually wrong statements about what Jenke teaches.

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
So for example, it said that Jenke continuously is probing the vehicle for its location information.

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
said that at appendix 26 and it said that at appendix 30.

[00:08:51] Speaker 00:
But that's not what Jankey says.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
Jankey says at column nine, lines one through four, that it only checks the location of the vehicle periodically.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
It says that those are waypoints of when it makes those check-ins.

[00:09:03] Speaker 00:
So it says that at column five, lines 16 to 20, and column five, lines 24 to 28.

[00:09:08] Speaker 00:
And those are manually entered by someone on a keyboard, which is again inconsistent with continually checking the location of the vehicle.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
What that means is that when you're outside of those periodic checkpoints, the vehicle can be deviating from its route, but what would be displayed in Jankey wouldn't tell you that information.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
Similarly, Jankey says at column five, lines 18 and 26, and column seven, lines 27 to 28, that it only reports significant route deviations.

[00:09:37] Speaker 00:
And when the vehicle deviates significantly,

[00:09:40] Speaker 00:
The math of how it works out is it's actually almost a half mile that it can be off.

[00:09:44] Speaker 00:
So if you're a person using Jenki system, and you're watching the vehicle periodically show its location information, and it looks like it's just following the planned route, it could actually be the actual driven route of the vehicle could be an entire half mile away.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
In DC, you could be on 9th Street when you're supposed to be on 13th Street, and in Jenki system, you wouldn't report any deviation.

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
So one of the central pillars of the board's analysis

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
that the planned route mirrors the driven route unless you have a reported deviation is simply wrong.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
And equally importantly, Moore didn't even address our arguments about compliance corridors or significant deviations and the fact that you can have these wide corridors where you're actually off the driven route.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
But Jenke isn't reporting that and isn't displaying that in any way.

[00:10:31] Speaker 00:
uh... we made that argument at appendix four sixty four and five ninety four our expert talked about it at appendix thirty sixty six sixty seven can you read before your time has ever addressed the items of service uh... limitation yes i'm happy to do that judge uh... rena so we think that even if you disagree with everything else that i said today at least for claim three

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
in the 216 patent, the board misconstrued that claim by saying that the phrase based upon location information modifies the display and not the hours of service.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
The board's construction is inconsistent with the last antecedent rule, and it's not a natural reading of the claim language.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
So under the last antecedent rule, which this court has applied in HTC and is well recognized in Supreme Court precedent, a limiting clause or phrase, like based upon location information, should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately forms.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
I'm baffled as to what exactly you're arguing.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
Is it a suggestion that the court

[00:11:35] Speaker 03:
Display doesn't display the hours requirement with respect to a particularly geographic location?

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
And really what our point is, Judge Zeich, is that the display, what matters isn't what the display is based upon location information from the vehicle and how it's displayed.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
It's the hours and services themselves.

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
They make a calculation, they display it.

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
So I'm not sure

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
What's the difference between the two?

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
Is there some?

[00:12:07] Speaker 00:
It's how the calculation is done.

[00:12:09] Speaker 00:
So for example, the prior art that the platform science relies on, what happens is users in their truck manually make log entries that say, I was on duty for five hours, and then I took a break, and then I was on duty for four more.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
They report those to a central station, and then the central station reports back and tabulates them up.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
That's what the prior art does.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
So what do you understand the board to have said here?

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
that a manual entry is sufficient?

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
That a manual entry is sufficient as long as... What language do you rely on in the board's decision as suggesting that?

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
I think it's the language on Appendix 113 where the board says, when correctly applied...

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
113, where it says what?

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
It says, when correctly applied, based upon the location information, modifies the display of information and not hours of service.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
Okay, but that's not saying that the displayed information isn't calculated.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
automatically the hours are calculated manually.

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
Where do they say that?

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
Well, that was our entire argument for the claim construction.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
Was it that... Where does the board say that that's what their view is?

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
If you read appendix 112 through 113, the board is responding to our argument.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
But where does it say that we're using manual input, we're considering the claim as

[00:13:49] Speaker 03:
only requiring manual inputs.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
That's, as I understand it, your argument, right?

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
That is our argument, because that's exactly what the Tebow reference teaches.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
That's all the Tebow reference teaches.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
So where does the board say that that's what the claim construction is?

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
So what the board says is Appendix 112.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
Where?

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
I'm trying to give you the exact quote.

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
It says that the board contends because, sorry, we reject patent owners represent, that's the change claim construction.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
Their expert testify this is the very bottom appendix 112 Mr. Andrews testifies that the boat teachers generating a to us compliance alerts which we based on the location of the vehicle to ensure proper compliance conturia would be displayed that saying that you'd change it based on the display.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
And then what the board says at Appendix 113 at the end is, thus, even accepting patent owner's argument, that's our argument, when correctly applied based upon the location information, modifies the display of information, and not hours of service.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
Our argument was that manual data entry is not enough.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
Our argument was you have to do it automatically.

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
I see my time is up.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
I give you two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
Mr. Fultz.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
John Phillips, representing EPILE platform science.

[00:15:47] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
This is a straightforward, substantial evidence appeal that on the tracks attempts to characterize the term the legal error, even though there is no legal error.

[00:15:57] Speaker 01:
I'd like to respond to several of the points that opposing counsel made during his presentation.

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
One of the primary arguments is that janky does not continuously or constantly sample location.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
Therefore, it can't show the actual driven route.

[00:16:17] Speaker 01:
And that's interesting because it appears that on the track it's trying to draw a distinction between continuous versus periodic.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
First of all, neither one appears in the claim.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
Second of all, either one would satisfy.

[00:16:30] Speaker 01:
I mean, I don't know if he's getting at the distinction between analog and digital, but it doesn't say it has to be analog or digital either.

[00:16:37] Speaker 01:
It's just if you have discrete points, all you've got to do is connect them.

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
If you have continuous data, I don't even know how you would use that to display a path.

[00:16:45] Speaker 01:
You'd have to sample that continuous form.

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
So I think that disposes of that argument.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
So Judge Raina mentioned about the motive, and she's exactly right that the motive as the judge relied on was common sense.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
It was its most fundamental basis of motivation, and it's consistent with the KSR.

[00:17:12] Speaker 01:
And improving the functionality of a primary reference with the functionality shown in the secondary reference is common sense.

[00:17:22] Speaker 01:
Genentee specifically says that it has means for displaying the route and the vehicle location information.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
And it makes sense under KSR that also displaying the actually traveled route is common.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
It's not a great leap.

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
The opposing council notes that in Katayama, they make some interesting arguments that have absolutely no support in the record about mostly the locus is a mathematically constructed hypothetical path.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
None of that appears in Katayama.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
One of the criteria or one of the rationale that I believe the opposing council used was that the other lines other than the locus line

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
are straight, and apparently implying that the locus line is not straight, although figure 20A of Kadayama shows a straight locus line, which wouldn't require a technical person determining the intersection.

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
An intersection doesn't appear in Kadayama either.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
As Your Honor noted, Kadayama actually specifically says that the locus is the driven round, and that's column 12, lines 51 to 55.

[00:18:42] Speaker 01:
So there's really no doubt about that.

[00:18:46] Speaker 01:
And in terms of the detour argument and the last antecedent rule,

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
They're both irrelevant.

[00:18:55] Speaker 01:
First of all, there are no detours contemplated in Janaki.

[00:19:01] Speaker 01:
And even if they were, Figure 3 clearly shows, as explained in detail by the board, that the sampling is, whether you want to call it continuous or periodic, it keeps happening, no matter what, whether you're in the corridor or whether you're outside the corridor.

[00:19:16] Speaker 01:
And you can see that in the Figure 3

[00:19:21] Speaker 01:
You look at boxes 152 where it determines the location, 154 where it determines whether or not you're within the compliance corridor, and 160 sends the location information and it shows that it looped.

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
That just keeps happening every interval of T1.

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
So again, those are digital periodic points which certainly indicate a continuous path that's actually driven.

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
The fact that they're discrete points doesn't matter.

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
It's not in the claim, and that's basically for all digital display, you're displaying discrete points, not continuous, not analog display, at least in modern technology.

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
The President's Council also made a point that there's no sampling other than at waypoints at specific locations designated by, I guess, the central station.

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
That's just not true.

[00:20:25] Speaker 01:
Jackie mentioned waypoints twice, and it's in the background section, and it merely says it would be advantageous to know at a waypoint whether there's a significant deviation in route or time of arrival.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
Then after that, in the detailed description and the figures, there's absolutely no discussion of waypoints.

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
And as I just mentioned, figure three shows continuous slash periodic sampling no matter what.

[00:20:51] Speaker 01:
So with the detour argument, I believe that's waived.

[00:20:56] Speaker 01:
It wasn't made below.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
But it's also not only incorrect, it's irrelevant.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
So opposing counsel says the compliance corridor could be up to 2,300 feet

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
Some plus 2,300 feet.

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
And it doesn't matter because if the continuous corridor is 2,300 feet, the vehicle would still be within the corridor, pre-determined corridor, because the compliance zone is part of the route.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
So it would not, admittedly not report under that scenario, would admittedly not report an out of corridor condition.

[00:21:34] Speaker 01:
But again, a figure three shows it would keep sampling no matter what.

[00:21:38] Speaker 01:
So if you take Appellant's view on the track's view, if it's three blocks away, you are sampling data for two reasons.

[00:21:51] Speaker 01:
One, it's within 2,300 feet, presumably, depending how big the blocks are.

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
And two, it's continuously sampled whether it's in the corridor or not.

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
So what about climb three?

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
They say that claim three requires automatic calculation of the hours worked by the driver and that the prior art shows manual input, as I understand there are.

[00:22:17] Speaker 01:
Yeah, and that's not necessarily wrong that the driver does input it according to people, but the claim doesn't say automatic.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
It just says, display, two things.

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say calculating the hours of service.

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
Well, it must be calculating, right?

[00:22:35] Speaker 01:
No doubt it is, but it's not in the claim.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
The claim says, display the hours of service.

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
Well, you can't display it if you don't calculate it.

[00:22:42] Speaker 01:
I understand it, but the claim does not have to describe the entire body.

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
So let's assume by the moment that it requires calculation.

[00:22:48] Speaker 03:
Let's assume that.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
I assume that, yeah.

[00:22:50] Speaker 03:
OK, so your argument is that

[00:22:55] Speaker 03:
It does calculate it in the prior art based on manual input, and that's sufficient because that comes within the claims?

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
The claim says, so again, the claim does not have to be enabling to itself.

[00:23:09] Speaker 01:
It doesn't have to recite an entire embodiment, the embodiment enclosed in the specification.

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
The inventor is allowed to claim different parts of the invention even if they're not, include all of the details in the specification.

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
But so to require that, to require that claim requires calculating when it specifically says displaying.

[00:23:29] Speaker 01:
In fact, the entire patent says nothing about calculating.

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
But I'm asking to assume that it requires calculating.

[00:23:36] Speaker 03:
I don't see how you can display it without having calculated it.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
Certainly it discloses calculating, but I'm just curious.

[00:23:42] Speaker 03:
So the real argument is that a manual input doesn't qualify, doesn't come within the claim scope.

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
What's the answer to that?

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
Claim doesn't require automatic.

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
It doesn't exclude manual input.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say calculating.

[00:23:57] Speaker 01:
Although the embodiment no doubt calculates hours of service, the claim only requires displaying.

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:24:07] Speaker 03:
Go ahead.

[00:24:17] Speaker 01:
I think I've covered the topics I wanted to address.

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
I'd be happy to entertain any questions from the panel.

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:24:24] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Collins.

[00:24:28] Speaker 03:
Mr. Wilcox, you have two minutes.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Judge Dyke.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
I think we're now on the same page about what the board understood the claims to require, or at least what platform science's argument is.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
But just in case, let me try and take another run at explaining how I think you can tell that that's how the board understood the claims.

[00:24:50] Speaker 00:
So if you look at appendix 1136 to 1137, and specifically appendix 1137, and this is our patent owner response.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
And what we say there, Judge Dyke, while you're turning there, is that determining whether a driver's hours of service are in compliance with the location-specific regulations is not the same, which was their argument, is not the same as determining the hours of service from location information.

[00:25:22] Speaker 00:
And we go on to explain that that's what the patent requires, is determining the hours of service from location information from the vehicle,

[00:25:30] Speaker 03:
And they say the prior art.

[00:25:38] Speaker 03:
shows manual input and that that's within the scope of the claims here.

[00:25:43] Speaker 03:
What is it in Claim 3 that says you can't rely on manual input, but it has to be done automatically?

[00:25:49] Speaker 00:
So what Claim 3 says is the hours of service have to be based on location or information from the vehicle.

[00:25:56] Speaker 00:
And that's the automatic calculation.

[00:25:59] Speaker 00:
What they're saying is it doesn't have to be based on hours of information.

[00:26:01] Speaker 03:
Why can't it be based on manual input?

[00:26:03] Speaker 03:
Is there something in the specification that says it can't be based on manual input?

[00:26:10] Speaker 00:
Well, so I think if you look at the examples in the specification, like in column 3, lines 47 to 52, they are all automatic input.

[00:26:17] Speaker 00:
But even if you don't believe that and you think it could be based on manual input, what the T-bar reference actually teaches is not even manual input of location information.

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
that then gets you to the calculation, it's manual input of the hours actually driven by the driver.

[00:26:33] Speaker 00:
So whether it's automatic or manual, it doesn't teach calculating the hours of service based on location information from the vehicle.

[00:26:41] Speaker 00:
It teaches doing it based on manual input of hours by the driver.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:26:47] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Judge Seck.

[00:26:47] Speaker 03:
Thank both counsel and basis of minutes.