[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Our next case is Realtown Trapper versus Rolex doing business as Lexus Nexus.

[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
2023, 1756.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
Mr. Gophers will be ready when you are.

[00:00:41] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:43] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
My name is Robert Goethals, and I represent Appellant Real-Time Tracker, Inc.

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
In this patent infringement action, the District Court erred in granting a Rule 12b6, a motion to dismiss applicants' first amended complaint under Section 101.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
We're here on appeal because the District Court made several clear errors.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
this is a pretty strange.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
And I'm looking at a method comprising a computer program, a computer program.

[00:01:22] Speaker 03:
Well, in this instance, yes, your honor.

[00:01:25] Speaker 03:
So if you look through the rest of the claim, you'll see that the computer

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
The method is using a computer implementing a specific structured implementation.

[00:01:37] Speaker 03:
And the implementation includes what we refer to as a front-end interactive timekeeper entry box which has specific functionality.

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
Among other things, it has a

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
and it also has an entry for the client identifier.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
So the claims essentially.

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
It uses standard or conventional computer components, but the structured architecture or implementation that's described in the claims is the inventive concept.

[00:02:30] Speaker 02:
What do you think is the

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
technology innovation here.

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
I mean, it sounds like an idea.

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
You're going to detect that a phone call has been received, and then you're going to automatically start a second client identifier timer to start.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
So the lawyer, I guess, doesn't forget to change their time tracker for the entry they're on, right?

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
what is the technological hurdle or technological improvement that was ever come?

[00:03:00] Speaker 02:
Did it have something to do with the phone talking to the computer or so?

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
I don't see it in the claim.

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
It's more like at a high level.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
directed to the idea of accomplishing this.

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
I can work backwards, but the benefits that result from the technology is increased accuracy, integrity of the time entry, as well as what we refer to in the papers as authenticity, which is the verification.

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
So the nature of the invention is

[00:03:35] Speaker 03:
that you are contemporaneously tracking the time for a specific task by user, by client, and then it's recorded.

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
So you contemporaneously track it and then record it.

[00:03:57] Speaker 03:
And that creates a verification that isn't available in manual time entry or the prior computer-based time entry systems.

[00:04:07] Speaker 01:
But couldn't you do that same sort of tracking using a pen, paper, and a stopwatch?

[00:04:11] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
The point I just made, Your Honor, is that in doing it in this way where you're contemporaneously tracking and recording, you have a creation

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
a verified record that can later substantiate the billable time that you submit to your client, for example.

[00:04:31] Speaker 03:
That doesn't exist in manual.

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
Manual, you can manually write it on a piece of paper.

[00:04:38] Speaker 03:
It may ultimately later be entered into a computer system and generated as a bill.

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
But you don't have the verification that exists in this instance.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
There is a verification in your

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:04:49] Speaker 03:
The verification has to do with the fact it's.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
Most directly relates to

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
where it's an individual time entry box, contemporaneously tracks time associated with some personal code, and client identifiers a telephone call to track time for individual by client on a telephone call by telephone call basis using the computer.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
So the key is using the computer.

[00:05:33] Speaker 03:
Using the computer is the

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
the means for using this.

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
Why isn't this an Alice situation?

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
You know, Alice, where the Supreme Court says, if it's an abstract idea, we're not going to determine that it's patent eligible just because you're doing it on a computer.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
This is distinguished from Alice in the sense that I just mentioned it.

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
There's specific structured implementation.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
There's always advantages of doing things on a computer, right?

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
I mean, there's efficiency.

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
The Supreme Court decided it doesn't matter if it's more efficient.

[00:06:11] Speaker 03:
I agree.

[00:06:11] Speaker 03:
This is not an efficiency issue.

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
In fact, that's one of the things the judge in the district court erred on.

[00:06:17] Speaker 03:
He ignored the benefits of the invention and instead characterized it as simply being able to speed up a entry, a time billing entry, using a computer.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
And we disagree with that.

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
So I'm having a hard time seeing it in your claim also.

[00:06:36] Speaker 02:
So what is it that's in your claim?

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
Is that it verifies?

[00:06:42] Speaker 03:
Yeah, it's the nature of the invention.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
Why is it verifying?

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
Because it's on a computer?

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
Because it's on a computer and you're contemporaneously tracking and creating.

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
But if I was contemporaneously tracking and maintaining in the old fashioned way with pen and paper,

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
How is that not any different?

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
The only difference seems to be that one does it on the computer and one does it by paper.

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
Because in our invention, the contemporary creation and tracking occurs in connection with the detection of the initiation of the task.

[00:07:22] Speaker 02:
And you don't think that the person could do that?

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
So in this instance, for example, one of them is editing a Word document.

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
So that's separately verifiable.

[00:07:36] Speaker 03:
You've connected that task with the creation of this particular time entry.

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
So you're contemporaneously creating a time entry at the same time that you're also in a Word document, for example.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
and if so, where did you use that one?

[00:07:59] Speaker 03:
Yeah, so the problem is identified if you turn to Appendix 89, Item 1.

[00:08:09] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
second.

[00:08:31] Speaker 03:
And it starts at line 35, and it continues through line 41.

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
But it says, moreover, in an increasingly cost-conscious environment, clients have justifiably mandated strict guidelines and specific support for all-time bill down to the minute.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
This has increased the burden on professionals, such as attorneys, to keep a running track record of every hour, every minute of the billable time.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
and to provide adequate justification for such billable time on a daily basis.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
So the justification is that you have verification by virtue of this invention.

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
You're contemporaneously creating.

[00:09:16] Speaker 03:
At the same time, you are performing the task.

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
I still am having a hard time seeing how that concept is encapsulated in Claim 29, because it doesn't say anything about, you know,

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
keeping track of exactly what a person's working on or anything like that?

[00:09:37] Speaker 03:
It does in the sense that one of the limitations is detecting the initiation of the task.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
So you have the task being performed on one hand, for example, in a Word document, which is independently verifiable.

[00:09:51] Speaker 03:
And then on the second hand, you have contemporaneously creating a time entry and storing it on this recording it on the system.

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
So you have these

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
to operating in tandem.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
And that helps provide for what we refer to as authenticity or the verifiable nature of the invention.

[00:10:11] Speaker 02:
I have a separate question, which is, is there a reason why you didn't include any representative claims at the beginning of your brief under our court's rules when you have a patent case, and especially one where

[00:10:24] Speaker 02:
the patent language of the claim matters an awful lot.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
We require that the claim be included in the blue brief at the front of the brief.

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:10:37] Speaker 03:
I didn't appreciate that it was lacking in this instance.

[00:10:46] Speaker 03:
So if I may, I would like to address the threshold issue here is that the district court erred in ignoring and not taking into account our factual allegations in the complaint.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
So before we even get into the Alice issue, the question is that the district court erred in the first instance.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
The district court dismissed or disregarded our factual allegations and then just jumped right into an Alice analysis.

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
And we believe that's clear error.

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
He should have accepted our factual allegations as true.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
And then we've identified technological improvements, benefits resulting from

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
improvements and that should have resulted in dismissal of the motion under 12b6 on 101 at the outset.

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
So do you have a part of the district court's decision that you want to point us to where you think there was this specific error made represented?

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
I'll first point you to what might explain the error.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
But the opinion doesn't address our factual allegations.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
All it does is it characterizes them as locutions, arguments, and gloss.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
So on the surface, he didn't attribute any significance to our factual allegations.

[00:12:12] Speaker 02:
And then secondly, want to identify.

[00:12:14] Speaker 02:
I know you're missing a brief, but is there any particular allegation that you think is strongest that should have been considered?

[00:12:22] Speaker 02:
that's in your complaint?

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
In the first instance, we characterized the invention as a specific structured implementation, having a front end timekeeper entry box with the specific functionality that I mentioned before.

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
Why is that a factual allegation as opposed to a legal issue understanding the scope of the claim and claim construction?

[00:12:50] Speaker 03:
We believe it is factual based on the intrinsic evidence of the patent.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
The claim language.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
But looking at the claim language, the intrinsic evidence, the claim language specification, even the prosecution history where relevant is a legal question under Supreme Court precedent.

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
But it's contingent on factual findings, factual underpinnings.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
Councilor, you're well into your battle time.

[00:13:18] Speaker 00:
I assume you're going to save it.

[00:13:20] Speaker 03:
Actually, I just want to complete the thought that I had earlier.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
What might explain that this issue or this error by the district court is if you look at

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
I don't know if I can point you exactly to it, but in the district court, he characterizes the legal standard for 101 as being purely an issue of law.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
That's quote unquote.

[00:13:49] Speaker 03:
That's what he identified.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
And if you look to see, he cited another district court case from the Southern District of New York.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
If you go to that case, it's

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
to the district court.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
And if you look at Lumenview Tech versus find the best dot com.

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
You'll find that there's no citation or authority provided for legal standard because there is none.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
There's no there's no district court citation.

[00:14:16] Speaker 03:
There's no federal circuit authority for that position.

[00:14:18] Speaker 03:
So he launched into the district

[00:14:25] Speaker 03:
with the understanding that it's purely an issue of law.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
So that explains why he disregarded entirely our factual allegations.

[00:14:59] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
I'm Oleg Keretan.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
I represent a Pelley Relic Sync.

[00:15:06] Speaker 04:
The patented issue here is a quintessential do it on a computer patent.

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
Quintessential.

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
Quintessential, yes.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
It acknowledges in the very few first paragraphs of the specification that the problem here is that the traditional process of keeping track of the time, doing it using a pen and paper,

[00:15:28] Speaker 04:
It's cumbersome.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
It's not efficient because people forget to enter some of their time.

[00:15:32] Speaker 04:
Time gets lost.

[00:15:33] Speaker 04:
It's not good for business, not good for clients.

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
And the solution it proposes is privacy in the computer because that's more efficient.

[00:15:41] Speaker 04:
It encourages people to enter the time because you get an automatic time entry window that pops up.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
and you get to put in your employee ID, your client code, and there's a timer that's very handy because it keeps track every time you have to do it on, you know, using the stopwatch.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
How do you respond to the argument being made that the reason why this is inventive is because it provides some sort of validation to the attorney's entries?

[00:16:10] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure that argument was really made in the opening brief.

[00:16:15] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure it was made below.

[00:16:17] Speaker 04:
I'm not sure it's really made in the specification of the patent.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
And ultimately, it's not clear to me why that is something that is unique to this invention as opposed to something that's inherent in using a computer.

[00:16:32] Speaker 04:
to do what previously was a manual process.

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
So, for example, in the Accenture case, which was decided even before Alice, this court examined a method that involved

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
essentially creating reminders for tasks for an insurance organization.

[00:16:53] Speaker 04:
Here's a task, here's the person responsible for it, when the due date comes, here's a reminder.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
In that case, the court found that using a computer to accomplish what was previously a manual process really didn't

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
take the pattern from the realm of abstract ideas into something that is not abstract.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
Do you agree that at least the claims here don't claim this sort of validation type concept?

[00:17:24] Speaker 04:
It's not really described anywhere in the claims.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
I'm not even sure if it's really described in the specification.

[00:17:29] Speaker 04:
The claims here are exceedingly simple.

[00:17:31] Speaker 04:
There's only just three steps, detecting a task,

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
then there's a time entry window that is generated.

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
So you can enter your employee ID and the client ID.

[00:17:42] Speaker 04:
And then the software records the time that you're spending on the task.

[00:17:48] Speaker 04:
Those tasks are essentially inherent in any method of keeping track of global time.

[00:17:53] Speaker 04:
If I'm doing it using a pen and paper, well, yes, I'm registering that I'm starting a new task for a client.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
Then the specification acknowledges that

[00:18:04] Speaker 04:
Often, the way people kept track of their time manually was using a pre-formatted paper sheet, like a time entry sheet, which would obviously have a field for entering your employee code, a field for entering the client code.

[00:18:20] Speaker 04:
That stuff is essentially baked into any process, computerized or manual, of keeping track of both.

[00:18:25] Speaker 04:
billable time because the whole point of keeping track of billable time is to do it on, you know, account for specific employees doing specific tasks for specific clients.

[00:18:34] Speaker 04:
And finally, you know, the last step is that the software tracks time, the professional spending on the task.

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
Again, that is a concept that is baked into the definition of keeping track of a professional's billable time.

[00:18:49] Speaker 01:
So if we were to agree that this alleged invention or the claims here are directed to an abstract idea, what is your response to their argument that there was a saving inventive concept?

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
I'm not really sure what they articulate to be the inventive concept.

[00:19:14] Speaker 04:
And I'm going to talk a little bit about that.

[00:19:15] Speaker 04:
The representative claim point 9 includes these 3 steps and everything is done using a generic computer.

[00:19:20] Speaker 04:
That has a generic computer program residing on it.

[00:19:24] Speaker 04:
There's no even

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
to keep in track of the time spent on the task.

[00:19:36] Speaker 04:
We're not well understood routine or conventional.

[00:19:41] Speaker 04:
As I indicated, those steps are essentially baked into any kind of process, manual or computerized, that's keeping track of available time.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
What is your response to the argument being made that the district court ignored important material factual allegations made in the complaint?

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
There are no well-planned factual allegations that the district court was required to accept.

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
It addressed the allegations, it just didn't define them to be the type of allegations that the court has to accept as true because they were both conclusory and contradicted by the intrinsic record.

[00:20:16] Speaker 02:
So for example... Not factual, maybe.

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
and not factual.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
So, for example, the complaint alleged, the argument on appeal is that at step one, the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality, just so to, I think, the point that you were making earlier.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
That's not really a factual question.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
That's step one is essentially a legal inquiry where you're looking at what is the focus of the invention as described in the specification and in the claims.

[00:20:41] Speaker 04:
And here, if you look at the claims and the specification, but really you're focused on the claims, there's no, everything is done using a completely generic computer.

[00:20:50] Speaker 04:
There's no indication that the way in which this computer accomplishes the steps of detecting a task, of generating a time entry window, of keeping track of the time, is any better, more efficient than existing computer technology would have been capable of accomplishing.

[00:21:09] Speaker 04:
So that's a purely conclusive legal allegation, and in fact the specification contradicts it because it explains that really the whole point here is just we're doing the same process that was previously done manually, keeping track of available time, and we're trying to save people time, we're trying to make it more efficient by simply implementing it on a computer.

[00:21:30] Speaker 04:
There's some discussion by counsel for appellant of the specific structured user interface that's discussed in the claims.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
The claims really don't describe any such interface.

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
I mean, the interface that's described in the claims is essentially a time entry window that has two fields.

[00:21:49] Speaker 04:
One for entry of a client code, one for entry of an employee ID.

[00:21:55] Speaker 04:
That's all there is to that interface.

[00:21:57] Speaker 04:
It's really no different from, for example, a pre-formatted paper timesheet that people might have been using or using long before this patent.

[00:22:09] Speaker 04:
So there's nothing unconventional about that user interface.

[00:22:13] Speaker 04:
There's also discussion in

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
in the brief by Poland that the backend system that accomplishes these tasks was an improvement in computer functionality.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
Again, you know, to reiterate, everything according to the patent and according to the claims is done using a generic computer.

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
That's generic hardware, a generic computer.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
There's nothing unconventional about that either.

[00:22:42] Speaker 04:
So ultimately, the scope of preemption here, which is, of course, the underlying concern behind the Supreme Court's section 101 jurisprudence, is exceptionally broad, because the claims here essentially preempt any kind of computerized method of keeping track of billable time.

[00:23:04] Speaker 04:
The claims.

[00:23:04] Speaker 02:
Is that really true?

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
To be honest with you, it does have some limitations about you get a phone call, then you start a second time entry.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's not going to cover any system for entering.

[00:23:17] Speaker 04:
That might have been an overstatement, but it preempts a whole lot.

[00:23:23] Speaker 04:
So, for example, even the idea of tracking multiple tasks.

[00:23:29] Speaker 04:
for multiple clients.

[00:23:32] Speaker 04:
But that's sort of inherent, again, in any method of billable timekeeping, even manual methods.

[00:23:38] Speaker 04:
If I'm keeping track of my time manually using a pen and paper, well, I'm going to keep track of whatever time I'm spending on that specific task that I'm performing at the time.

[00:23:50] Speaker 04:
Then if I get a call, that's maybe for a different client.

[00:23:54] Speaker 04:
I'm going to start a separate entry and keep track for that client.

[00:23:58] Speaker 04:
And then maybe when I'm done with that task, I'm going to come back to the first task I was doing and resume keeping time for that task.

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
There's nothing in that process that can't be done manually with pen and paper and a stopwatch.

[00:24:14] Speaker 04:
that aspect of the invention, which is not even present in any of the independent claims.

[00:24:19] Speaker 04:
I think it's only some of the dependent claims talk about keeping the program being capable of keeping track from multiple tasks, multiple clients at the same time.

[00:24:30] Speaker 04:
There's nothing inventive or unconventional even about that aspect.

[00:24:47] Speaker 04:
Appellant did not really dispute that Claim 29 is representative below.

[00:24:54] Speaker 04:
I mean, in our opening brief, our opening motion to dismiss, we had a whole section that was entitled Claim 1 is representative.

[00:25:01] Speaker 04:
We made it very clear that that was the argument that we were making.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
Claim 1 or Claim 29?

[00:25:06] Speaker 01:
I thought we were just talking about Claim 29.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, the argument below was that claim 29 is representative.

[00:25:14] Speaker 04:
Appellant did not address, dispute that point in their opposition to our motion to dismiss.

[00:25:18] Speaker 04:
And the court pointed out in its decision that plaintiff, or I'm sorry, yes, the plaintiff, appellant, did not really dispute the representativeness of claim 29.

[00:25:29] Speaker 04:
But at the same time, the district court did specifically address, out of abundance of caution, the other claims.

[00:25:37] Speaker 04:
And it simply noted that,

[00:25:38] Speaker 04:
You know, the limitations that are present in those other claims, both independent and dependent, really fall into a couple of different categories.

[00:25:48] Speaker 04:
Some of the claims talk about additional fields being included in the time entry window like the date or the document or task description.

[00:25:55] Speaker 04:
There are some claims that talk about additional

[00:25:57] Speaker 04:
features, maybe not specifically fields, but features that are included in the time entry box, like a timer that has a pause and resume buttons.

[00:26:07] Speaker 04:
And then there are some additional processing steps that are described in some of the dependent claims, like, for example, the information that's recorded in the time entry window is then stored by the computer system for later for inclusion into a sort of a comprehensive summary of that person's available time.

[00:26:26] Speaker 04:
Claim 29 is representative.

[00:26:31] Speaker 04:
The district court didn't make any error in using it in that matter.

[00:26:36] Speaker 04:
And in any event, I don't even think that the appellant really preserved their argument for appeal.

[00:26:42] Speaker 00:
Anything for the council?

[00:26:47] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:26:48] Speaker 04:
If the panel doesn't have any other questions, then I'll be happy to include my argument.

[00:26:53] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:26:55] Speaker 00:
Mr. Gophers has a minute left.

[00:26:57] Speaker 00:
We'll give you two minutes for battle if you need it.

[00:27:08] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:27:08] Speaker 03:
I'd like to get back to one of the issues that we were discussing as to the factual allegations contained in the complaint that were not addressed and ignored by the district court.

[00:27:21] Speaker 03:
You know, the threshold error before he engaged in any of his

[00:27:32] Speaker 03:
I'm going to move on to the

[00:27:41] Speaker 03:
essentially through Appendix 147, but starting with Paragraph 13 on Appendix 143.

[00:27:51] Speaker 03:
So this is the context for the technological improvements.

[00:27:58] Speaker 03:
They derive from the technical distinctions that were identified by the examiner during prosecution, particularly in light of two references, Goitman and Collado.

[00:28:10] Speaker 03:
So in part of our factual allegations, we identified these technical distinctions as the basis for the technological improvements of the invention.

[00:28:22] Speaker 03:
And the district court just flat out ignored these, didn't take them into consideration.

[00:28:28] Speaker 03:
At any stage, the

[00:28:30] Speaker 03:
the threshold issue as to whether there were factual allegations that he must accept as true.

[00:28:36] Speaker 03:
And then secondly, when he got into his 101 analysis where he went through and again didn't attribute any weight to the factual allegations in our complaint.

[00:28:52] Speaker 03:
And with regard to the invention, one thing to keep in mind is the simultaneous nature that was mentioned by my colleague during his response is that there are claims directed toward simultaneous operation.

[00:29:12] Speaker 03:
And that brings even more emphasis to the benefits that are attributable to the invention, the accuracy, the integrity, as well as the verifiable nature of the invention.

[00:29:23] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Counselor.

[00:29:26] Speaker 00:
Your time has expired.

[00:29:27] Speaker 00:
We have your case.

[00:29:28] Speaker 00:
Thanks to both, Counselor.

[00:29:30] Speaker 00:
The case is submitted.