[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
The third argued case for the morning is docker number 23-1798.

[00:00:04] Speaker 01:
Safe driving technologies versus Ford Motor Company.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Please begin, thanks.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
May it please the court.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
I would like to begin by addressing the different format limitation that's included in

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
Appeal claims for all three patents that are the subject of the appeal.

[00:00:25] Speaker 03:
For example, claim one of the 170 patent recites a device.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
Is there a reason why our rules weren't followed and there aren't in the start of the brief we don't see a copy of the claims?

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
explain your honor and then it's very convenient helpful during argument have access to these things especially when it's so important

[00:00:59] Speaker 03:
So claim one of the 170 patent recites a device with two output formats, an original format and a different format.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
When movement of the device is below a threshold, the original format is provided to the driver.

[00:01:15] Speaker 03:
When movement of the device is above a threshold, the output is provided to the driver in a different format.

[00:01:21] Speaker 00:
Where is that disclosed in your specification?

[00:01:25] Speaker 03:
Well, it's in the claims, which are part of the specification.

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
Were those the original claims that were filed with the specification?

[00:01:31] Speaker 03:
And it's also described in the specification as well.

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
That was the answer to my question.

[00:01:42] Speaker 00:
Did you know if those claims were amended and added to the patent, or they originally filed claims?

[00:01:49] Speaker 03:
We'd have to check that, and I don't have the answer to that.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Okay, so Ben, you said it's in the specification.

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
Could you point me to where it is?

[00:01:57] Speaker 03:
Yes, and if I can reserve that for a bottle to be able to come back to you with a site to the specification.

[00:02:03] Speaker 00:
You don't know where it is in your specification?

[00:02:07] Speaker 03:
In terms of... I saw examples.

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
Yeah, there are plenty of examples.

[00:02:11] Speaker 01:
There are plenty of examples that talk about disabling the phone, right?

[00:02:17] Speaker 01:
So there's...

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
So maybe that's a different format?

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
Well, there are also different formats that are described as being less distracting throughout the specification.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
I have a greater specification three times and I can't find it.

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
So I think it would be important to me that you find it.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
It's fine if you want to give it on rebuttal.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
So in terms of

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
The board determined different format includes muting, based on claim 14 of the 170 patent.

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
The board further found that inhibiting an output alerting signal entirely in the Hardin reference was muting the device, as recited in claim 14.

[00:03:04] Speaker 03:
But those findings are inconsistent with the language of claim 14 and claim 1.

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
The only way to read muting the device in the context is... So finding, when you say finding, just to be clear, one of them is actually not a finding.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
It's a legal conclusion, right?

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:03:21] Speaker 03:
It is a legal conclusion in terms of claim construction.

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
And the other question about what the prior teaches and whether... Exactly.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
It is a finding.

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
So it's inconsistent with the claim language in both claim 1 and claim 14.

[00:03:38] Speaker 03:
And the only way to read muting the device in the context of claim 14 as an example of providing the output to the driver in a different format is if muting is read to mean soften or muffle the sound, which would mean it would still provide some output to the driver.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
What's the ordinary meaning of muting?

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
What's the?

[00:03:56] Speaker 00:
Ordinary meaning of muting.

[00:03:58] Speaker 00:
I think the ordinary meaning is turning it off or making it softer.

[00:04:02] Speaker 00:
It could be either, right, or muting.

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
There were multiple definitions.

[00:04:05] Speaker 03:
And the parties did.

[00:04:06] Speaker 03:
The board adopted a construction of muting that included dead meat softened or muffle the sound of a thing or person.

[00:04:14] Speaker 00:
And that was the word on six of Mary?

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:04:17] Speaker 03:
These are all extrinsic evidence.

[00:04:19] Speaker 00:
Which we review for substantial evidence, right?

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
Or whether it's clearly erroneous?

[00:04:25] Speaker 03:
Yes, but the finding would be that.

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
But in the context of the claim as a whole, and where the board went astray, was by adopting an extrinsic evidence definition that didn't fit the intrinsic evidence of the claims.

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
What is it about the intrinsic evidence that you think changes the definition of muting

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
to exclude silencing, which I take it is your position.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
Yes, because there still has to be the claims require providing an output to the driver.

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
They still require providing an output to the driver.

[00:05:01] Speaker 03:
So the way to read them harmoniously is that muting has to be of an existing output.

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
There still has to be some output that's provided to the driver.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
And if the hardwood reference, what it describes, was completely inhibiting

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
the output so that no output's ever provided to the driver and it doesn't fit claim 1, claim 14.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
But if we read the patent specification to be really directed to a conception of disabling the telephone signal, you know, once a certain threshold is met, then that's entirely consistent with this notion of muting the telematic devices recited in this client.

[00:05:49] Speaker 03:
You know, the way I would answer that is that disabling, completely disabling, no outputs provided.

[00:05:58] Speaker 00:
So what if your specification, the only change it suggests as a different format is disabling?

[00:06:07] Speaker 00:
Or it doesn't use the language different format, but the only thing it teaches is disabling.

[00:06:11] Speaker 00:
It doesn't teach doing anything else to the input.

[00:06:16] Speaker 00:
Wouldn't we understand then that this is a fair reading?

[00:06:19] Speaker 00:
Well, it's not the specification.

[00:06:22] Speaker 03:
Sorry.

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
It's not the input that we're focusing on.

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
It's the output.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
Well, that's what I'm talking about.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
So what I'm trying to say is I read your specification.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
It says there is an original output.

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
And the only thing we're going to do to change the output is disable it.

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
I don't see any other description of changing the output in response to determining, for example, that the driver is driving.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
And so I'm having a hard time understanding why the interpretation of the word is inconsistent in any way with the specification.

[00:06:59] Speaker 00:
In fact, it seems quite consistent with the specification.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
I just want to make sure you understand my views.

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
Yes, I do understand and will do my best to address it with my rebuttal time.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
Another thing about the claim to output.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
The claim speaks in terms of the telematic device having an input and having an output.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
And I'm not really sure what to think about the term having.

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
In other words, it could well be that we're talking about a telematic device that has the capacity to input something into it and then also the capacity to produce an output.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
And so this claim really could be more directed to just the abstract

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
I don't hate to say abstract idea, but just the idea of the telematic device having an input and an output, not necessarily a claim in which the telematic device is being put into action and necessarily always producing an output.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure the claim is actually written that way.

[00:08:21] Speaker 03:
For example, it is requiring that the output be provided to the driver in a format that is different than the original format.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
Yes, but this gets us back to the problem of the fact that providing the output to the driver in a different format can be, among other things, muting the telematic device, which then gets us back to the spec and diagrams, which plainly show the notion of disabling the telephone.

[00:09:03] Speaker 03:
But that wouldn't be an output that's provided to the user.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
If the telephone was completely disabled, it may fit other, you know, for example, claim 8 recites where the audible tone is prevented from being provided to the driver.

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
So the claim 1 and claim 14 require that output to be provided to the driver in a different format than the original format.

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
Obviously, claim drafters can write claims any old way they want to.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
And it could well be that this claim drafter chose to think about providing an output in a different format as being

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
silencing and disabling the telematic device.

[00:09:53] Speaker 03:
But then our position would be that there is no output that's provided.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
What about this, though?

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
I mean, I understand your position.

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
There is no output if it's disabled, is what you're saying.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
But the specification doesn't disclose any other way of mooting.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
It doesn't go into the technical details of how the system is going to work when it moves.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
And so with that,

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
Why wouldn't the only thing it actually does disclose is disabling?

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
And so why wouldn't that?

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
I mean, why should we worry about the technical details of exactly how the mooting occurs when there is no description at all in the specifications about those technical details?

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
I do believe that the specification does describe

[00:10:45] Speaker 03:
customization of outputs to reduce distractions in a way that voice feedback or the tones or the visual display can be changed.

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
It's at a very high level.

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
It says you can change this, I guess.

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
I don't even know if it says that.

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
But it doesn't say, OK, this is how we're going to do it.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
Yeah, I believe that column 20 lines 43 to 53, column 20 line 60 to column 21 line 2.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
I'm not going to be able to keep up with you that fast.

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
My apologies.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
These are not briefed at page 23.

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
The driver can customize the voice used in any voice feedback, or the tones used, or the tactile response, or the visual display.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
The driver modifying these things isn't the same thing as what you've got claimed, is that there's an original output.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
is going to be provided in response to sensing some condition.

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
So I don't know what those things about the customer being, the driver being able to customize things.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure if that's responsible.

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
No, it's to have outputs provided in original and different formats to make them less distracting.

[00:12:07] Speaker 03:
And those examples from the specification are cited at page 23.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
Would you want to tell us which the best one is?

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
So this is now you're answering the question that you said you were going to answer.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
No, I'm trying my best to answer.

[00:12:22] Speaker ?:
OK.

[00:12:22] Speaker 00:
So if you want, you can do that now.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
Yeah, and I may supplement it on the model, too.

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
If I could, I'd like to turn quickly to a... Just to be clear, what I want you to be able to do is tell me exactly where to look, and we'll read it together.

[00:12:41] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
And I'd like to turn to the COIN 31's

[00:12:51] Speaker 03:
changing an original input interface to an alternative input interface.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
And there's no dispute that hardwood contains a one-sentence description of a keypad.

[00:13:02] Speaker 03:
The board acknowledges that keypad doesn't physically change, but Eridan concluding that it could somehow be both an original and a changed alternative input interface.

[00:13:11] Speaker 03:
different than the original input interface based on Harlan disclosing a keypad that enables operations below a predetermined speed and disables operations above a predetermined speed.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
To reach that conclusion, the board construed Claim 31 incorrectly to not cover an interface that was partially functional.

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
It ignored the use of accessible

[00:13:37] Speaker 03:
You know, in the claim that the input interface had to be accessible to the driver, and in this context, accessible means something that is usable, and that's supported by... Why is that necessarily the case?

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
Maybe you're just about to tell me something.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
I am, Your Honor.

[00:13:54] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
I'm using the specification Claim 12 and Claim 31.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
They all require the interface to be capable of being used, at least partially functional.

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
And that is Claim 12, in particular, recites that the... Claim 12 of which patent?

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
The 170 patent, yes.

[00:14:20] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
I apologize.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
Either that Claim 12 recites having visually accessible information change to verbal announcements.

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
So that implies that accessible means that those are usable and able to be seen.

[00:14:37] Speaker 03:
So that's one embodiment.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
Encompassed by Claim 1.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
Well, that's what we're saying gives insight to what accessible means.

[00:14:48] Speaker 02:
What were you citing for that again?

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
What were you citing for that?

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
Claim 12 or the 170.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
Claim 12.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:14:57] Speaker 03:
And I'd like to also turn to, if there are no further questions on the input.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
You have seven seconds of time.

[00:15:10] Speaker 01:
You can say whatever plane limitation did you want to say something about.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
It would have been plane 10 providing the driver a signal based on.

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
Providing a signal to the user.

[00:15:22] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:15:23] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:15:23] Speaker 01:
We'll give you a little bit of time on the bar.

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
may it please the court.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
My name is Christopher Smith, and I'm arguing on behalf of the Appellee Ford Motor Company.

[00:15:55] Speaker 03:
And I was going to address a couple of issues with different format first.

[00:16:01] Speaker 03:
First of all, as the court pointed out, there's no disclosure of this format.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
And the primary disclosure in the specification would even be

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
appears to be relevant is disabling a phone, which again would be cutting off the sound.

[00:16:19] Speaker 01:
As far as... Is there some disclosure in the patent about reducing, I don't know, the level of distraction that a phone would be conveying to a driver?

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
And so maybe one way of doing that, accomplishing that, would be muting the phone while at the same time maybe having some kind of visual indicator

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
In on the screen of the phone that phone calls coming in I don't believe it's disclosed like that however So claim 14 this is what I would say on that point

[00:17:10] Speaker 03:
Clone 14 has various examples of what it means to be a different format.

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
One of them is the muting of the telematic device.

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
It also has blocking video output, but permitting audio output.

[00:17:22] Speaker 03:
So for the purposes of different limitations that have different meanings, I would suspect that muting the telematic device of Clone 14 is different scope and a different limitation than blocking video output, but permitting audio output.

[00:17:38] Speaker 03:
And so, again, I would submit that in this case, and because there's one use of the word mute in the whole patent, and it's not inconsistent with what the board found, using the dictionary definitions, that muting could be completely deadening sound.

[00:17:54] Speaker 00:
I found three uses of muting.

[00:17:56] Speaker 03:
Of what?

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
I found three uses of muting, but I don't know.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
Well, in the claim.

[00:18:02] Speaker 00:
Are you column eight, and column 15, and column 16?

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
I'm looking at column 8 specifically, where it talks about muting, flashing lights, buzzers, ringers.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
Do you think muting could be both sound and video?

[00:18:18] Speaker 03:
I do because it talks about meeting flashing lights for example I guess I mean whether it's video or not you could debate but it could be visual I guess is what I'm saying but clearly based on the dictionary definitions which the board relied on which you know I believe is a substantial evidence for purposes of finding any intrinsic evidence the board was correct in finding that the planar immunity of muting would include deadening the sound

[00:18:43] Speaker 03:
And there's nothing that I see in the specification that would artificially limit it beyond that.

[00:18:50] Speaker 03:
As far as having an output, Mr. Chenere, again, if you have a stereo system with a speaker, it has an output, whether it's on or not.

[00:19:00] Speaker 03:
The speaker's the output.

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
And so I think in this context of these claims, that's what we're dealing with here.

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
There is an output.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
Whether or not it's activated or not will depend on, obviously, the threshold being met.

[00:19:11] Speaker 03:
And if it's not activated, obviously, it's muted.

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
And I think that's consistent with what muting means based on the board's findings.

[00:19:20] Speaker 03:
I'd also point out the claim 14, when the other examples of a different format is changing the volume,

[00:19:28] Speaker 03:
which seems to me to encompass this idea of softening the sound, affecting the sound, as opposed to completely killing the sound, which would be muting again, which would be consistent with more of a reading of muting.

[00:19:42] Speaker 02:
And so, again, as our... Well, muting can be both, right?

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
Muting can be both.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
A violin has a little thing that you can put on the bridge, and it will make the violin softer.

[00:19:56] Speaker 02:
It's called a mute.

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:19:59] Speaker 04:
I agree with that.

[00:20:00] Speaker 03:
However, typically if you think of a stereo, which we're in that kind of realm, we're in sound, audio analysis, audio output, it's a phone maybe versus a stereo, but you hit a mute button, it kills the sound typically.

[00:20:12] Speaker 02:
It can be both though, right?

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
It could be both, absolutely.

[00:20:15] Speaker 03:
I'm not arguing that it can't be both.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
uh... uh... uh... uh...

[00:20:30] Speaker 03:
And I don't know if this is in dispute, but Clone 14 seems to be really the only clear indication of what this different format limitation even means.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
I mean, it doesn't show up in the patent.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
We can kind of imply that when it discusses some of these things, like disabling a phone, it's talking about different format.

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
But ultimately,

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
The only real place in this record where different format is addressed by the patent owner is Claim 14, and it says muting the device.

[00:20:56] Speaker 03:
So we would submit that the board was correct in construing Claim 1 and the related claims of similar language to include muting for different format.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
Is it fair to say that the board, in looking at it, relied on Claim 14 to say muting is an example of a different format, and then it relied on the dictionary

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
to say that mooting could include both turning it down to zero, and also making it softer.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:21:26] Speaker 00:
I mean, basically, I guess it's a construction within a construction, because again- Well, it's relying on extrinsic evidence, which we review for substantial evidence in this case, right?

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
The extrinsic evidence, yes.

[00:21:35] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:21:35] Speaker 03:
And it had to, because the record, these claims have a lot of terms in them.

[00:21:41] Speaker 03:
Another one that's at issue here is telemat device.

[00:21:44] Speaker 03:
They have a lot of terms that have very limited or no real explanation of what they are.

[00:21:50] Speaker 03:
And the consistent theme in this appeal and this whole IPR proceedings have been is the patent owner trying to, what I say, artificially narrow the claims to avoid the prior art.

[00:22:01] Speaker 03:
And I think this is another example of that.

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
And we submit that there's nothing in the record that should preclude this quote from finding that muting should be given this kind of plenary meaning, which I agree could be both softening or deadening.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
And I don't think there's any dispute.

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
And the substantial evidence shows that hardly one would at least disclose deadening the sound in that muting context.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
Let me show you one.

[00:22:38] Speaker 03:
First of all, again, we're talking about an input interface and an alternative input interface, other terms that don't really show up in the patent, in this form, at least.

[00:22:50] Speaker 03:
As far as accessibility,

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
I'll read on it is that accessibility is accessible to the driver in the car.

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
So if you've got a phone and there's a keypad there, it's accessible to the driver, whether you can make a call from it or not.

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
Claim 12 talks about, I think, making a visual signal accessible to the driver or visual display.

[00:23:15] Speaker 03:
I'll find it here.

[00:23:17] Speaker 03:
But again, it's accessible.

[00:23:19] Speaker 03:
I mean, if you're in the car, it's accessible in that case.

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
I don't think it really changes anything from our reading.

[00:23:25] Speaker 03:
I mean, just like the keypad's accessible, and you can see it, and you can touch it, what have you, either way.

[00:23:29] Speaker 03:
Because all it's got to do is be accessible in the vehicle.

[00:23:36] Speaker 03:
Now, I don't think there's also not a dispute, and the board promised substantial evidence,

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
I guess the question on 31 really comes down to what does it mean to say an alternative input interface.

[00:23:52] Speaker 02:
If you've got the same phone and it goes from being on to being off, is the off fairly characterized as an alternative input interface?

[00:24:07] Speaker 02:
And if so, why?

[00:24:09] Speaker 03:
Well, I think it is for a couple of reasons.

[00:24:12] Speaker 03:
One, as the board found and is supported by unrebutted expert testimony, when you inhibit call origination, you're necessarily cheating.

[00:24:25] Speaker 03:
You're inhibiting the ability to make a call, right?

[00:24:26] Speaker 03:
So if there's a button that says call, for example, let's use that as an example.

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
When it's fully functional, you could hit that button, and it would send out a signal.

[00:24:36] Speaker 03:
when it's not, that button's not going to work.

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
Now, it merely, Hardin says inhibiting making a phone call, it doesn't necessarily say that you inhibit everything.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
Okay, now the board kind of looked at both sides of this, because I know our expert talked about partial disablement versus full disablement.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
It's the end button.

[00:24:55] Speaker 03:
Yeah, it's the end button.

[00:24:56] Speaker 03:
For example, if a call came in, there's nothing in Hardin that says that the button that answered it would be

[00:25:05] Speaker 03:
disabled.

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
It only says that the ability to originate a call, make a call, would be disabled.

[00:25:10] Speaker 02:
But it doesn't say the contrary.

[00:25:11] Speaker 02:
It doesn't address the point that the appellants are making, which is to say that this dead phone is not an alternative interface.

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
That's their argument, as I understand.

[00:25:25] Speaker 02:
That is correct.

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
And Harlequin does not directly speak to that, right?

[00:25:32] Speaker 03:
Well, I would say that the 1-7 patent has there's some corollaries in the 1-7 patent that speak to it.

[00:25:38] Speaker 03:
For example, first of all, and I'll give this in the context of the output, but we know from Claim 14 that the idea of deadening something, disabling something can be, for the output side, would consider being an alternative.

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:
And we can, different from an alternative interface, we're kind of,

[00:25:53] Speaker 03:
two sides of the same coin, right?

[00:25:54] Speaker 03:
They're different terms, but we're kind of talking about something different happening.

[00:25:58] Speaker 03:
This case is happening with the interface with the driver, in this case, to make a phone call on the outputted sound.

[00:26:06] Speaker 03:
So the patent doesn't specifically, per se, speak directly to the server on the output.

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
The other thing I think is it's not so much that the interface is

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
I guess what you're saying is it's as if the patent said changing the status of the interface to an alternative status.

[00:26:36] Speaker 02:
That's your argument.

[00:26:37] Speaker 02:
You're reading the language that said input interface of the alternative input interface being changed as a change of status.

[00:26:47] Speaker 03:
I think that's correct.

[00:26:48] Speaker 03:
I mean, again, if you've got, if the interface is the keypad, and we can agree on that, if I'm in my car and I have a keypad that I can dial, okay, it's fully functional.

[00:26:57] Speaker 03:
I can do it otherwise.

[00:26:58] Speaker 03:
So it's an interface with a fully functional keypad.

[00:27:02] Speaker 03:
Now you can do something.

[00:27:03] Speaker 03:
Whether you disable all of it or you disable part of it,

[00:27:06] Speaker 03:
It's changed.

[00:27:07] Speaker 03:
It's changed from a fully functional keypad to a semi or non-functional keypad.

[00:27:13] Speaker 03:
So the interface with me has changed.

[00:27:15] Speaker 03:
That's how I would explain it.

[00:27:16] Speaker 03:
And I would also point to column 20 of APPX 1293.

[00:27:24] Speaker 03:
It's around line 28 or so to 40.

[00:27:28] Speaker 03:
It talks about making phone calls, dialing numbers, these kind of things that you would do with a keypad.

[00:27:35] Speaker 03:
And at the end, it talks about, so at least under some conditions, certain communications to and from the driver may be restricted or suppressed.

[00:27:42] Speaker 03:
So again, I would say this seems to at least imply that activities like dialing a phone number could be suppressed in certain circumstances, which is kind of effectively what we're arguing with respect to Hardin, and with respect to what our expert testified to, and with respect to what the board found the substantial evidence showed from Hardin.

[00:28:04] Speaker 01:
So I guess you're saying the specification is contemplating an altered state of the input interface in terms of functionality.

[00:28:17] Speaker 01:
And isn't speaking so narrowly as to demand that there still be some functionality of the interface in all states.

[00:28:29] Speaker 03:
Yes, I agree with that.

[00:28:30] Speaker 03:
Again, at some level, we are left to kind of interpret this because the words alternative input interface do not show up in the claims or the patent, excuse me.

[00:28:40] Speaker 03:
So we have to kind of take a leap.

[00:28:42] Speaker 03:
But I think it does imply that when it talks about functionality like dialing a phone number and it talks about suppressing certain functionality like that.

[00:28:50] Speaker 03:
I would add, though, that, you know,

[00:28:54] Speaker 03:
And we submit that completely disabling the functionality of the keypad would be an alternative interface, but we also still raised, you know, what our expert opined to, which was not rebutted, which the board also looked at, which was this idea of a partial disablement of the keypad, which makes a lot of sense, because again, Hardin teaches inhibiting originating a call,

[00:29:15] Speaker 03:
So there's going to be some buttons and some functionality on that keypad that would be inhibited because they don't want you to make a phone call.

[00:29:20] Speaker 03:
But it doesn't necessarily disclose that everything's got to be disabled.

[00:29:24] Speaker 03:
There are other functionality that could be on a phone that may not be disabled, which is what our expert described in his obviousness declaration, in which Pat Noor did not rebut, in which the board also looked at.

[00:29:38] Speaker 03:
So I would also... Was the board adopted?

[00:29:40] Speaker 04:
Well, the board... The board did say,

[00:29:45] Speaker 04:
in its order.

[00:29:51] Speaker 03:
So I'm looking at APPX1256.

[00:29:54] Speaker 03:
The board did talk about, you know, petitioner relies on harder ones, wireless telephone, fully enabled keypad, and disabled, or partially disabled keypad for disclosing the recited telemat device.

[00:30:10] Speaker 03:
Original input interface and alternative input interface, respectively.

[00:30:13] Speaker 03:
And then the rest of this discussion is talking about it generically.

[00:30:17] Speaker 03:
So my randomness as the board is defining this disabled keypad as being disabled for or partially, and then it goes on to talk about all the evidence about disabling the keypad and whether it meets the limitation.

[00:30:30] Speaker 03:
So our views as the board did rely on it.

[00:30:34] Speaker 01:
Yeah, but I don't think you can point me to something that makes that clear.

[00:30:40] Speaker 03:
Other than the board appearing to define disabling the mean both.

[00:30:45] Speaker 01:
Defining your argument to be that, yeah.

[00:30:49] Speaker 03:
But the board never says that it rejects that argument.

[00:30:52] Speaker 03:
It never says.

[00:30:53] Speaker 03:
It just goes on to discuss the evidence and discuss Mr. Andrews at length, who was the one that, in his declaration, had this opinion about the partially disabled keybed.

[00:31:04] Speaker 03:
So with that, I have no other questions.

[00:31:09] Speaker 03:
issues of the court does not have any other questions.

[00:31:11] Speaker 03:
I would ask that you affirm the board's decision on these three IPRs fully.

[00:31:16] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you.

[00:31:20] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:31:22] Speaker 01:
We'll give the appellant two minutes.

[00:31:40] Speaker 03:
Briefly, the partial functionality theory that was referenced was never adopted by the board, and it was based on another reference that was not included in the ground.

[00:31:54] Speaker 03:
It was harder when only, but it added the boys reference, which was never adopted by the board.

[00:32:01] Speaker 03:
To get back to the question about the places in the specification, in addition to what I had described earlier,

[00:32:10] Speaker 03:
in the 170 patent, column 16, lines 49, 50 to 51, it talks about changing the volume on the radio.

[00:32:23] Speaker 00:
Does it say that it's... Changing the volume on the radio.

[00:32:32] Speaker 01:
That's line 50 on column 16.

[00:32:36] Speaker 03:
Yeah, it's, you know, such as.

[00:32:39] Speaker 03:
Modifying the cabin temperature, changing the volume on the radio, extending the sound visor, etc.

[00:32:45] Speaker 00:
It doesn't sound like it's doing that in response to detecting anything.

[00:32:50] Speaker 00:
It talks about modifying the cabin temperature.

[00:32:56] Speaker 03:
Yes, but generally, throughout the specification, what it's talking about is basically, and again, this is also in column 20, about customizing inputs or outputs to the devices.

[00:33:11] Speaker 03:
Column 20, lines 20.

[00:33:12] Speaker 01:
These seem to be conditions that would trigger the disabling of the vehicle telephone.

[00:33:18] Speaker 01:
That's how the sentence starts.

[00:33:20] Speaker 01:
In addition, other sensors could also be provided to disable a vehicle telephone.

[00:33:26] Speaker 03:
It references disabled, but in other places in the spec, it talks about how various communications, and this is in column 20, lines 25, 26, and 27, various communications or inputs or outputs to or from the devices in the vehicle may detract differently from the driver's attention.

[00:33:44] Speaker 03:
And then if you go further down in column 20,

[00:33:46] Speaker 03:
to lines 62, 63, where it says the driver can select the type of feedback provided by the system, audible, visual, tactile, et cetera, and when the feedback is provided, for example, not during telephone call.

[00:33:58] Speaker 00:
Do you agree that this language, which you referred to before, about the driver can select the type of feedback, doesn't say it's going to select the type of feedback for the different format, or it just says they can select the type of feedback.

[00:34:11] Speaker 00:
It doesn't ever say,

[00:34:12] Speaker 00:
we're going to have a different output based on certain conditions being met.

[00:34:19] Speaker 03:
It doesn't say that, but in context, a person of skill would have understood that in light of the claims and the specification the way it's written about customizing the type of- Do you have any place where it says, many times it says, in response to sensing something, we will disable the telematic device.

[00:34:39] Speaker 00:
Is there any place where it says, in response to something, we will

[00:34:43] Speaker 00:
do something different than disabling.

[00:34:47] Speaker 03:
Well, that's where I pointed to in column 16, changing the volume on the radio.

[00:34:52] Speaker 00:
I don't read that as saying changing the volume on the radio.

[00:34:55] Speaker 01:
If a person is changing the volume on the radio, then that's a condition that will trigger the disabling of the telephone.

[00:35:02] Speaker 01:
That's how I read that sentence.

[00:35:03] Speaker 01:
Well, changing the volume could be lowering it, as opposed to... Right, when the user is changing the volume on the radio, then the sensor will say, aha, the driver is distracted, the driver is messing around with the radio volume, I'm now going to disable the telephone.

[00:35:21] Speaker 00:
Is there anything where it says, aha, the driver is distracted, it would do something other than disable it?

[00:35:30] Speaker 00:
That's the big question.

[00:35:32] Speaker 03:
Well, that, again, is in column 20 with, you know, customizing the response to reduce distraction or annoyance caused in the system.

[00:35:43] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:35:43] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:35:43] Speaker 01:
I think we have your cases submitted.