[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
The next case for argument is 24-1345 from Dave vs. Apple.

[00:00:06] Speaker 04:
Please proceed.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
Good morning, again, Your Honors.

[00:00:11] Speaker 04:
In this obviousness case, the board regalered by adopting its own construction of auditing financial transactions to mean official examination of financial transactions, which is broader than any of the evidence and should be reversed.

[00:00:26] Speaker 03:
Can I just ask you a housekeeping question?

[00:00:29] Speaker 03:
Yes, ma'am.

[00:00:29] Speaker 03:
Which is, if hypothetically we were to disagree with you on the case we just argued, does that wipe this case out, because this is just a piece of that case?

[00:00:40] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:42] Speaker 03:
And is there any other litigation pending involving patents, patents other than those it issued in the earlier case, that have the same language that was construed here?

[00:00:58] Speaker 04:
I believe there may be another IPR off the top of my head.

[00:01:03] Speaker 04:
Give me one second.

[00:01:18] Speaker 03:
I think there's one other IPR that I'm aware of.

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

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
I believe that case number would be 25-12-25.

[00:01:28] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:01:35] Speaker 03:
Please proceed.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:01:40] Speaker 04:
So in addition to the claim construction being incorrect because it's broader than the evidence submitted, additionally, the board erred in determining that the prior art to DIL disclosed

[00:01:55] Speaker 04:
auditing financial transactions because it discloses verification of a transaction identifier that's used to execute the transaction.

[00:02:04] Speaker 04:
And finally, Dill is also missing the limitation that the subscriber deposits funds into his own account.

[00:02:13] Speaker 04:
The board mistakenly found that was present by misinterpreting the sender and the recipient and Dill to be the same party at the same time, which is not disclosed.

[00:02:23] Speaker 04:
First, Your Honor, turning to the claim construction of auditing financial transactions, the parties agreed that there wasn't helpful intrinsic evidence in the record.

[00:02:34] Speaker 04:
Apple submitted that auditing financial transactions be interpreted based on its plain meaning.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
And Fenton presented a construction drawn from a textbook, an accounting textbook, that had a number of variations of the definition of audit.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
The board adopted it, Simone.

[00:02:51] Speaker 00:
Yes, sir.

[00:02:53] Speaker 00:
Do you not get some mileage out of the fact that a phrase in which auditing financial transactions appears

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
is one in which immediately preceding that phrase is executing financial transactions which might be taken to suggest that the use being made in DIL, which is clearly part of executing the financial transaction,

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
Is something different from auditing?

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:24] Speaker 04:
We argue that in our brief.

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
The DILS verification of a transaction identifier is actually the process to execute the transaction.

[00:03:34] Speaker 04:
First of all, no transaction has yet occurred to audit.

[00:03:38] Speaker 04:
And secondly, the transaction identifier doesn't officially

[00:03:42] Speaker 04:
financial transactions because it identifies or it verifies the transaction identifier which is part of executing the financial transaction.

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
And it can't be both because as you recognize our clean language has limitations both to executing the financial transaction and to auditing the financial transaction.

[00:04:05] Speaker 03:
And what the board says about that, maybe it's somewhere else.

[00:04:10] Speaker 03:
I have appendix 64.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
They say, based on these disclosures, we find that Dill's money transfer facilitators verifying a transaction by using the transaction identify sufficiently implicates the official.

[00:04:26] Speaker 03:
Is there anything more that you know of in the board decision that gives us some meat on the bones about what sufficiently implicates means?

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
Let's see.

[00:04:40] Speaker 04:
To me, they're reading the transaction identifier, verification of the transaction identifier in DIL, which is part of executing the transaction, but I don't know how it can implement an official examination of the financial transaction

[00:05:03] Speaker 04:
as well as execute the transaction, because there's nothing to audit if there's not a body of financial transactions available to audit.

[00:05:13] Speaker 04:
And here, we're looking at one potential financial transaction, and we're looking at a verification code, which is a PIN code in many instances.

[00:05:23] Speaker 03:
So even if you said, what's the essence of your argument, as I'm recalling now, there are kind of two pieces to this.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
One is that they misconstrued auditing as an official examination, and it wasn't sufficient.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
And then there's this temporal argument you also have, and what's the temporal argument?

[00:05:43] Speaker 03:
So that's a different limitation.

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
We can go to that?

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
But tell me about then, so your argument with respect to this claim construction is simply confined to whether or not it's an official examination is an appropriate definition of auditing?

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:06:01] Speaker 04:
And we're concerned because an official examination is broader than the broadest construction in the only evidence of record, which is the textbook.

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
And the textbook, which has several constructions, but the broadest construction in the textbook is

[00:06:17] Speaker 04:
the dictionary meaning of audit is an official examination of accounts.

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
And the board extracted the term of accounts.

[00:06:26] Speaker 04:
So the problem with that is you're not looking necessarily at something that has occurred.

[00:06:34] Speaker 04:
You're not performing an audit.

[00:06:36] Speaker 04:
And the textbook says that when you do an examination, an auditor is going to look to see

[00:06:44] Speaker 04:
whether the accounts and the books and the original entries are correct and express some opinion thereon, but you can't do that when you're looking at verifying an identification, a transaction identifier, because there are no financial transactions to look at.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
As I understand the auditing contention though, it really is a claim construction dispute.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
If we were to affirm the board's understanding of audit, which as you say is very broad, you don't have an argument that Dill fails to disclose that, correct?

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
Actually, we do, Your Honor, and I'll go through that.

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
So remember, auditing, if you look at the board's construction, is an official examination of financial transactions.

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
And DIL, the board relies on paragraphs 41 and 105 of DIL.

[00:07:40] Speaker 04:
And it says that those paragraphs show that

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
The transaction ID is used to verify the transaction.

[00:07:47] Speaker 04:
But it doesn't say that.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
If you look at paragraphs 41 and 105, for example, paragraph 41 says the application of the money transfer facilitator in turn can receive and verify the transaction identifier.

[00:08:04] Speaker 04:
So it's not verifying the transaction.

[00:08:07] Speaker 04:
It also says the identifier can be used to identify the sender and recipients, and both can be used to transfer by the transfer option module.

[00:08:18] Speaker 04:
Again, it's verifying the identifier.

[00:08:21] Speaker 04:
And finally, a third point, verifying the identifier is further disclosed in DIL as verifying the PIN.

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
And that's at paragraphs 10, 13, and 45.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
One more thing, Apple's expert doesn't explain how verifying the transaction identifier or the underlying identification of senders and receivers is a verification or an official examination of a financial transaction.

[00:08:47] Speaker 00:
Can you just step that way?

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
Help me understand.

[00:08:52] Speaker 00:
What is a transaction?

[00:08:57] Speaker 04:
So a transaction identifier is something that says, hey, I have this transaction coming from this sender to this recipient, and this is what it is, and I want to verify that that's the transaction.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
For example, I think a good example would be if I file my taxes

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
and the IRS takes a look to see if I filed my taxes, they look at my social security number, and they verify that, yes, Meredith Addy filed her taxes.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
But that is nowhere in audit.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
They certainly haven't looked at the underlying data that I submitted to determine whether or not it's accurate.

[00:09:33] Speaker 04:
And that's what we believe is going on here, Your Honor, that it's just a verification of a number.

[00:09:42] Speaker 03:
And I believe we also discussed this.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
I mean, it seems like what the board was thinking that verifying the transaction, that using a transaction identifier, verifying the transaction, is at least part of verifying the transaction.

[00:09:57] Speaker 03:
In certain circumstances, it may be insufficient, but it at least isn't verifying the transaction identifier a piece, verifying the transaction, and is that right?

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
And if so, why isn't that sufficient?

[00:10:14] Speaker 04:
That's right, Your Honor, but it's not sufficient, because that is not performing an audit on transactions, a body of transactions, to determine whether or not they're correct.

[00:10:25] Speaker 04:
Verifying an identifier to determine whether a transaction can go forward has nothing to do with the underlying transaction, and the claim requires auditing financial transactions.

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
identification verifier does is merely look to see if that part of the transaction, that identifier is correct, but not the underlying financial transaction.

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
And just help me understand one further step.

[00:10:51] Speaker 00:
What does it mean to verify that an identifier is correct?

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
It means to check a number.

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
Say it against what?

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
How do they do that?

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
What does it even mean?

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
Do they look up your phone number, call you, say is this your social security number?

[00:11:27] Speaker 00:
I'm going to show you a second on your cell phone or something so that I make sure I'm talking to the right person.

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
Literally, I don't understand what it means to verify an identifier.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
And without that, I'm having trouble having a clear picture in my mind of why it's not.

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
What I think I do understand is auditing.

[00:11:51] Speaker 04:
So the identifier is a pen.

[00:11:57] Speaker 04:
And it's a pen that's used to identify the sender.

[00:12:02] Speaker 04:
or the recipient, or both.

[00:12:05] Speaker 04:
And that's in paragraph 105 of DIL.

[00:12:10] Speaker 04:
However, it's not used to do anything about the underlying transaction that the sender or the recipient are trying to complete.

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
And in fact, we don't even know when it verifies the PIN if that transaction actually is completed.

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
Before your time runs out, because we'll give you, you never got to the point about the temporal argument you're making.

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
Can you just discuss that briefly, please?

[00:12:45] Speaker 04:
The board also aired when it held that Dill disclosed a deposit transaction where the sender deposits money into his or her own account.

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
And relying on Paragraph 52 of Dill, the board says that any, in this quote from Dill, any given entity and or device associated with that entity can alternatively act as the sender or the recipient.

[00:13:09] Speaker 04:
And the board recognized in its decision at pages 52 to 53 that alternatively means that the sender can be the recipient, the recipient can be the sender.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
It said that's not limited by transaction type.

[00:13:24] Speaker 04:
I get that.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
But then it also said it's only limited temporally.

[00:13:30] Speaker 04:
So what does that mean?

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
Well, if the sender is the same party because the sender is sending to his own deposit account, then there's no disclosure in DIL that the sender can be the same party at the same time to the same account.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
That's the temporal limitation that we raised.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
The word temporal, I guess,

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
Maybe this is just a language issue, but I guess I sort of understood that your argument, not about the deposit transaction language, but about the auditing language, in fact had a temporal component.

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
Oh, I see.

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
Yes, that's what I was going to do.

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
After the transaction had been executed, you're looking to see if the underlying records that went into the transactions represent reality in some way we can check.

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, I picked up on the board's use of Temporal and I'm sorry I threw you off.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
Yes, when we prepared what we considered to be a summary of this textbook, we used the term retroactive to describe the audit.

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
It has to occur on something that's already happened.

[00:14:46] Speaker 04:
I can understand a construction that may not use the term retroactive.

[00:14:49] Speaker 04:
When you look at all of the constructions in this textbook, they all occur on something that's already happened.

[00:14:56] Speaker 04:
So when you say that an audit is an official examination on accounts, those accounts contain transactions.

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
And DIL does not do that?

[00:15:06] Speaker 04:
DIL does not do that because it is looking at a transaction identifier before the transaction has occurred.

[00:15:13] Speaker 04:
Okay, thank you.

[00:15:13] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:15:35] Speaker 03:
Please proceed whenever you're ready.

[00:15:37] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
Sprint is ready for Apple.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
Regarding the auditing term, all offentive arguments on claim construction and the prior disclosure are premised on the assumption that transactions have to be fully complete before they're audited or examined.

[00:15:56] Speaker 02:
But that assumption is incorrect because it is unsupported by the intrinsic and not required by the extrinsic record.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
So where do they have to be in the process?

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
When you're talking about auditing a transaction,

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
Can it be before the transaction occurs, once the first step of the transaction occurs, but nothing else is there?

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
What's your temporal sort of step?

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
The transaction just needs to exist, but it does not need to be complete before it is audited.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
And that's what Fenton is arguing when it says transaction has occurred.

[00:16:36] Speaker 02:
It's actually injecting this requirement that the transaction be complete.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
But there's no requirement in the claims or the specification that requires a financial transaction to be complete.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
The claim just recites broadly

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
Auditing financial transactions, so you were but where is is it any limitation like the transaction can be audited if somebody just Files their name and then you do an audit of it I mean I do have any line at which it doesn't have to be complete but something has to be done in order to constitute an auditing of a transaction and

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
Well, I'll go back to what I said earlier, which is the transaction has to exist.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
And in DIL, the transaction exists when it is assigned an identifier.

[00:17:24] Speaker 02:
The transaction identifier, which is discussed at paragraph 41 of DIL.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
So you're auditing only what?

[00:17:31] Speaker 03:
What are you auditing?

[00:17:32] Speaker 03:
The question of whether or not there's an identifier or the identifier is correct.

[00:17:38] Speaker 03:
What is there to be audited at that point?

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
The thing that is being examined and verified in DIL is whether the transaction identifier corresponds with a transaction that has been initiated.

[00:17:53] Speaker 02:
So there is this examination of a transaction that has already been initiated by a sender.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
That is what it's verifying.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
It has to at least start, is that right?

[00:18:05] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:18:05] Speaker 01:
In order to exist, we have to begin, take some step.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:18:09] Speaker 02:
So something in the transaction is already happening, as in it is born, and then you're checking to make sure that you are proceeding with the correct transaction.

[00:18:21] Speaker 02:
You're checking to see if this transaction was actually initiated.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
And so I still, when I hear about checking something there's a piece of information and you want to check it for correspondence with something else.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
What is the something else?

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
And don't use the word transaction.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
The DIL actually talks about this, gives some flavor of what it means by the transaction identifier when it talks about... I think I understand auditing completed transactions in terms of auditing books.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
One book says, you know, I had this amount of income from this number of sales, and you get a check.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
foreign income against sales records, day-to-day receipt records.

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
So you're seeing if these numbers add up to this number.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
I understand what it means to check that against that.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
What is the checking of that against that in DIL?

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
In DIL, at paragraph 77, it talks about identifying the recipient and transaction information, for example, the amount and other information.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
What does it mean to check the amount?

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
Somebody is sending, please give me $77.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
What does it mean to check that amount?

[00:19:47] Speaker 02:
There's enough in your account to actually transfer.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
Is that what it means?

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
That's one way that Dale talks about transaction information being checked.

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
What's the transaction identifier?

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
That doesn't sound like, does he have enough money in his account?

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
The transaction identifier is just stated as the thing that is assigned to the transaction.

[00:20:15] Speaker 00:
And so that is the first step in this ongoing transaction that needs trouble.

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
The trouble is that if it is a name or a number or something of a proposed transaction in which step one, namely a request, has occurred, I don't understand how the work brought it.

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
Applies to that.

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
Audit can include verification.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
I don't think the parties dispute that verification is a type of audit.

[00:20:41] Speaker 02:
Okay, so there's a number.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
Okay, so that's a PIN number or something.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
I don't know if PIN is wrong.

[00:20:47] Speaker 00:
There's some sort of number.

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
This is gonna be transaction A237-70.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
Now, what does the system that's doing the verifying do with that little string of characters?

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
It's just checking to see if... Checking that against what?

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
Is there a record somewhere of that?

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
That is what is implied in DIL, because it says that it's verifying the transaction identifier, and that means that this number that the money transfer facilitator receives corresponds with the number that the sender initiated.

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
Does that make sense?

[00:21:29] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
So the money transfer facilitator is receiving this transaction request from a sender.

[00:21:36] Speaker 02:
And it just needs to make sure that the thing that it's going to be transferring as part of this transaction was something that was actually initiated by someone.

[00:21:44] Speaker 02:
In case, you know, the numbers get screwed up during communication, it just wants to make sure that this thing was actually started by a sender requesting to transfer money.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
And so that is the first step to make sure this was actually requested, this transaction was requested, and we may proceed to the next steps of getting the money from the account, giving it to the right recipient.

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
And that's also part of the examination that Dill discloses.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
That's what the board found as well.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
It uses, it first makes sure that this transaction identifier corresponds to an initiated transaction.

[00:22:20] Speaker 02:
And then it uses that verified transaction identifier to identify the proper recipient, sender, and delivery method.

[00:22:28] Speaker 02:
And these are all things that it needs to ensure and examine in order to proceed with the transaction.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
This may be a slightly

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
different ways.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
So the verifying entity to verify some piece of information that the verifying entity receives must have other information against which to check that piece of information.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
In the DILS situation, what is that other information that the verifying entity has to check the newly submitted request against?

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
some data records that actually Dr. Ho, Apple's expert, wrote in his declaration.

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
And I can provide the site for that, which is at 8, 28, 14 to 15, paragraph 97.

[00:23:24] Speaker 02:
Can you say that again?

[00:23:25] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
8, 28, 14 to 15, paragraph 97.

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:34] Speaker 01:
Would you?

[00:23:35] Speaker 01:
It's at least an unusual definition of audit.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
I don't know if you would agree with that.

[00:23:40] Speaker 01:
But it seems to me it's so broad as to at least not be our typical use of audit.

[00:23:45] Speaker 01:
And it allows for, as the blue brief points out, for auditing financial transactions to occur, whether or not the transactions ever actually become completed transactions in the end, you would agree that that is a possibility under the board's broad construction.

[00:24:05] Speaker 02:
We would agree that auditing includes examining completed transactions, but is not limited to only one transaction.

[00:24:12] Speaker 01:
Right, and therefore, if I understand correctly, if you think there can be an audit when we just begin a financial transaction, therefore,

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
If that, let's say the verification doesn't add up and we terminate that transaction, if that transaction never gets completed, you would still say within the meaning of this patent, an audit has occurred of a financial transaction, even though no financial transaction was ever completed.

[00:24:41] Speaker 02:
Yes, but that's not really what is at issue here in Dill because

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
what they're verifying is a transaction that is eventually completed.

[00:24:51] Speaker 02:
And there's actually further extrinsic evidence to support, which Apple submitted below.

[00:24:56] Speaker 02:
In the same context of a 386 patent talking about monetary transactions, where an audit was used to determine whether a transaction can proceed.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
And so audit... Are you referring to that other patent?

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
186?

[00:25:09] Speaker 01:
The 184.

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
184.

[00:25:11] Speaker 02:
The 184 Patent Honor.

[00:25:12] Speaker 02:
And the board considered it at A-17, and it identified that as Exhibit 10-19.

[00:25:20] Speaker 02:
So the actual 184 Patent Passage is at A-34-22, Columns 5, Lines 27 to 34, where it says, the result of the audit

[00:25:32] Speaker 02:
can be provided and used, for example, as an indication that the transaction can go forward, e.g.

[00:25:44] Speaker 02:
validating regarding the transaction amount and source.

[00:25:48] Speaker 02:
And so this is an example of using the word audit on an ongoing transaction, which supports what the board found here in DIL using

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
using, examining part of a transaction which Fenton agreed is shown in DIL to determine whether the transaction can continue to proceed.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
And there's really nothing in the intrinsic evidence that limits transactions or auditing to only be performed on completed transactions.

[00:26:23] Speaker 02:
And in fact, the opposite.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
The claims are all directed to conducting monetary transactions.

[00:26:30] Speaker 02:
They list multiple steps that are taken to

[00:26:35] Speaker 02:
complete a transaction, and even focusing in on limitation 1.3, which is where the auditing term occurs, that's talking about business workflows.

[00:26:45] Speaker 02:
So something that's live and ongoing.

[00:26:48] Speaker 02:
And then other things that are listed along with the auditing term as examples of business workflows,

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
are executing financial transactions, error handling, logging platform objects.

[00:27:00] Speaker 02:
These are all things that are happening while a transaction is ongoing.

[00:27:04] Speaker 02:
And so taking the context of the claims under consideration, this further supports no need to inject this completeness requirement that Fenton is arguing here.

[00:27:17] Speaker 02:
And so, really the sole basis for Fenton's argument to impose this completeness restriction is from this accounting textbook, which is diverse from the context of the 386, because the 386 doesn't even talk about accounting, never uses the word.

[00:27:35] Speaker 02:
And the board found as a factual matter that the textbook, that accounting textbook, doesn't require the retrospective restriction that Fint of argued and is not actually appealing here.

[00:27:50] Speaker 01:
So the construction in your view, I think, was largely done, if not entirely, on the extrinsic evidence?

[00:27:58] Speaker 02:
Well, I think there's a little bit of weight in there, but faintive sole basis for the retrospective restriction was solely based on extrinsic.

[00:28:08] Speaker 02:
The board properly chose to leave out the accounts language from the textbook because that conflicted with the plain language of the claims, which makes clear that auditing is performed on financial transactions and not accounts.

[00:28:22] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you on the deposit

[00:28:25] Speaker 01:
You wrote at the Red Reef at 10 that Dill expressly contemplates a scenario where a sender delivers money into an account of a recipient where the sender and the recipient are the same entity.

[00:28:38] Speaker 01:
I don't see, can you point out where Dill expressly contemplates the sender and the recipient being the same person in the same transaction, which is what I understood you to be telling us at page 10.

[00:28:51] Speaker 02:
You write it on it.

[00:28:52] Speaker 02:
That's at Paragraph 52 of DIL.

[00:28:55] Speaker 02:
And then there's also additional support with regards to the board's reliance on the withholding system delivery method.

[00:29:04] Speaker 02:
But let me first just turn to Paragraph 52 of DIL, which is talking about... Get this language in front of me.

[00:29:15] Speaker 02:
Yes, that's A2936.

[00:29:17] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:29:20] Speaker 02:
So it's helpful, I think, to break up exactly what Dil was saying here.

[00:29:25] Speaker 02:
It's first thing, the main sender and recipient, okay, they're different names, but they're not actually referring to separate entities.

[00:29:34] Speaker 02:
Bill says the names are used only to illustrate a particular entity's function.

[00:29:40] Speaker 02:
So first of all, when we see sender and recipient, we're talking about an entity's function.

[00:29:46] Speaker 02:
And then the next sentence says that these names are not intended to imply any limitations on the functions that can be performed on

[00:29:55] Speaker 02:
performed by a given entity.

[00:29:57] Speaker 02:
And so it's further saying, do not limit what an entity can do.

[00:30:02] Speaker 02:
And then the last sentence says, that is, any given entity can alternately act as sender and recipient.

[00:30:09] Speaker 02:
And so it's saying you can act as

[00:30:12] Speaker 02:
there's no need to limit sender and recipient to different transactions because we just told you don't limit the function of what an entity can do.

[00:30:25] Speaker 00:
I wonder if there were a description of a passer and a receiver in football and you would say same player, one sender can be the passer and the next sender can be the receiver.

[00:30:38] Speaker 02:
You wouldn't ordinarily think that language is referring to the quarterback catching his own pass But the contents the context of your analogy is different your honor because a sender would not be

[00:30:50] Speaker 02:
you know, receiving his own pass.

[00:30:52] Speaker 00:
But in the context here, a deposit transaction would be something quite different from a normal, from, I don't know, a transfer transaction.

[00:31:03] Speaker 00:
You wouldn't use the same language to refer to those and then get back at the deposit transaction in this very indirect way of saying, well, maybe the passer could be the receiver.

[00:31:14] Speaker 02:
Well, that's why I pointed to the withholding system disclosure in DIL, because when we think about withholding system, like tax withholding, what you're depositing is for yourself.

[00:31:25] Speaker 02:
It's being withheld, withheld for yourself.

[00:31:28] Speaker 02:
And I think that particular disclosure that the board relied on, relied on further supports this contemplation in view of this very explicit broadening language that the recipient that is receiving the deposit fund

[00:31:42] Speaker 02:
is the same as the second.

[00:31:44] Speaker 03:
Maybe I'm just misconstruing the language that you referred to us in paragraph 52.

[00:31:49] Speaker 03:
But somewhere at the middle of that paragraph, it says it should be noted that the namesender and recipient, should be the namesender and recipient, are used only to illustrate a particular entity's and or device's function at a given time.

[00:32:07] Speaker 03:
and are not intended to imply any limitations on the functions that could be formed by any given entity.

[00:32:16] Speaker 03:
Don't you read that?

[00:32:17] Speaker 03:
It says, using Judge Toronto's thinking, in a game, you have a function.

[00:32:22] Speaker 03:
But that doesn't mean that in a different game, you can't also do something else.

[00:32:28] Speaker 03:
Isn't that what this language I just read you means?

[00:32:32] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor.

[00:32:34] Speaker 03:
Okay, it does say at any given time.

[00:32:36] Speaker 03:
At a given time.

[00:32:37] Speaker 03:
So when it says so, okay, can be at a given time, but that doesn't imply that at another time, they can't be performing other things.

[00:32:45] Speaker 03:
I mean, this one was just clear.

[00:32:46] Speaker 03:
I don't purport to have any clear understanding of what they're saying here, but isn't that a reasonable read?

[00:32:52] Speaker 02:
Well, you could read it that way, but it's a factual determination with regard to what Dill discloses, and I think it was also reasonable for the board to read this and conclude, as supported by substantial evidence, that it's contemplating the sender and recipient

[00:33:10] Speaker 02:
the same entity functioning first as the sender, then as the recipient within the same transaction.

[00:33:19] Speaker 02:
They're not happening at the same time, and Fintib's argument that the board was reading out this temporal restriction is incorrect.

[00:33:27] Speaker 02:
Because just even as a matter of logic, you have to first send something

[00:33:32] Speaker 02:
in order to receive it.

[00:33:33] Speaker 02:
So the receiving happens after the sending.

[00:33:36] Speaker 02:
And also in DIL, as shown in Figure 5, has this whole elaborate process of the steps that have to occur for money to get from a sender to a recipient.

[00:33:49] Speaker 02:
There's all this back and forth, including verification and then confirmation.

[00:33:54] Speaker 02:
The sending does not happen at the same time as the receiving.

[00:34:00] Speaker 02:
That argument about simultaneous and reading out the temporal restriction is incorrect.

[00:34:08] Speaker 02:
Unless the court has further questions.

[00:34:23] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:34:25] Speaker 04:
I'll be brief.

[00:34:26] Speaker 04:
I believe one of the questions was where does an audit start?

[00:34:33] Speaker 04:
Well, an audit certainly isn't while the transaction is ongoing, because while you can stop a transaction because there's a problem, that would be error handling.

[00:34:44] Speaker 04:
And again, as with executing a transaction, error handling is also part of the same body of that claim language.

[00:34:52] Speaker 04:
Number two, I want to remind the court that the claim construction is broader than the extrinsic evidence submitted and there was no, Apple did not submit any evidence.

[00:35:06] Speaker 04:
Finally, Apple referred to paragraph 97 of its expert report.

[00:35:13] Speaker 04:
That entire paragraph is conclusory.

[00:35:16] Speaker 04:
He quotes from Dill, and he says there's a transaction identifier, and then he draws the ultimate conclusion that that's auditing the financial transactions.

[00:35:25] Speaker 04:
There's no explanation for how he gets from one or the other.

[00:35:29] Speaker 04:
So in conclusion, Your Honor, auditing financial transactions can't devolve into any examination of any part of any potential transfer that may become a financial transaction.

[00:35:41] Speaker 04:
This case should be reversed.

[00:35:42] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:35:43] Speaker 04:
Thank you.