[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
The next case for argument is Geoscope Technologies versus Google, number 24-1003.

[00:00:05] Speaker 00:
Mr. Gilman, when you're ready.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Timothy Gilman from Schulte Rothenzabel on behalf of Appellant Geoscope.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
The patents on appeal here concern improvements to geolocation.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
As detailed in the complaint, specific improvements on how to take electronic signals of opportunity and use them to determine where a phone is.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
as laid out in the complaint, conventional approaches and in the specification suffered certain technological challenges due to having sparse reference points and having the irregular propagation of electronic signals in the environment.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
And the claims introduced a novel data structure called grid points that improves how the phones determine location by making it able to do it faster, more accurately, and using less computing resources.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
Given the 12C posture of this case, the district court was required to credit these pleadings and these characterizations in the specification, and its failure to do so is reversible error here.

[00:01:10] Speaker 01:
Figure six from the patents, which is reproduced on page 19 of our brief, illustrates what these new data structures, these new grid points are.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
It's not disputed that these are not the plain and ordinary meaning of the term grid point.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
These are a new type of data, a new type of grid where you don't know the coordinates or the boundaries until you start to populate it with measurements.

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
Now the district court interpreted the word grid point and the word

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
non-uniform grid point to mean the same thing, right?

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
They were largely treated co-extensively below.

[00:01:47] Speaker 00:
And do you agree or have you challenged that claim construction?

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
In the context, we have not challenged that claim construction.

[00:01:55] Speaker 01:
In the context of how grid point is used in the 753 patent, the 104 patent family always uses the term non-uniform grid point.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
In the context of how it's used in the 753 patent,

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
it's essentially always going to be non-uniform as well, as is discussed in the specification as both the district court and the parties... But what was the district court's interpretation of grid point and non-uniform grid point?

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
So specifically, a grid point was a point associated with representative calibration data for an area.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
And so there are three separate aspects of it that are all tied together.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
And as detailed in the district court's claim construction opinion,

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
There's no dispute that the term grid point means also an area as well as being a point at the same time.

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
And as well as this concept of having representative calibration data, the district court was specific.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
That term that it used for the construction means having sufficiently statistically similar calibration data that is being fed into determining the coordinate and the boundaries of that grid point.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
Now, I read the district court's opinion as saying that

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
the point about the novel data structure that's not in fact recited in the claims or a lot of the things that are being relied on as being I suppose an inventive concept or to satisfy LSF 1 is not actually recited in the claim.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
What's your response to that?

[00:03:18] Speaker 01:
Well, I think this is the second fundamental issue we had with the way that the district court approached the issue, which was that it did not apply its claim construction that it had ruled on a few weeks before.

[00:03:27] Speaker 01:
It rolled on the 12C motion.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
And so it used a different concept of grid points for 12C than it had in the claim construction ruling.

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
And that was a fundamental error too, that once you have the claim construction.

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
Well, how about if we do this then?

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
Tell me, with the claim construction that the district court arrived at, which you just told us,

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
How is it that that claim construction makes it so you've satisfactorily recited the claim, the claim satisfactorily recite what you think is the inventive concept, being this novel data structure?

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
That the three different aspects of the claim construction, that it's a point, that it's associated with representative calibration data, and it reflects an area, are all tied together at the core.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
the heart of the invention, as shown, I think the best illustration of that is figure six, which we show in our brief, that you have an area where you don't know what the boundaries are until you start to populate it with measurement.

[00:04:21] Speaker 00:
Because the representative aspects, the representative calibration data... Where in the claim does it say that you have an area where you don't know what the boundaries are until you start filling it in?

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
That is... as the...

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
Bill 753, Claim 1.

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
Yeah, that is the order of the steps where you start with the calibration data and then you generate the grid points from the calibration data in combination with the district court's construction, which we don't challenge of what that term grid point means.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
That it has to be, you group the calibration data that you've measured

[00:05:05] Speaker 01:
in a way that there's statistical similarity between the points that makes the grid point that you're generating representative of those calibration points that you're grouping together.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
And that that, geographically, is illustrated in figure six, and that's what's going on in the process.

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
And that, getting back to the initial point that Your Honor Rose raised, that's why, if you do this with the types of signals that are claimed here, the types of signals of opportunity that are gonna be propagating irregularly

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
you're going to get irregular boundaries, non-uniform boundaries, when you do the steps of the 753 patent, if you're performing them in a way to generate the grid points as claimed.

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
Do I remember correctly that calibration data is the location data for another known location?

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
Calibration data and the observed network measurements are a little bit more specific.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
in this case, Your Honor, as the District Court construed, calibration data, and this is at Appendix 2740, is construed as modified or unmodified network measurement data associated with a defined geographic location.

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
And then network measurement data was defined on appendix 2742 to be a measurement data from a network measurement report, i.e.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
a report used in cellular networks which provides the results of a measurement from a mobile device on one or more cells.

[00:06:25] Speaker 01:
So it's a very specific type of data that's being used from a particular source and that's fed into what the calibration data is.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
It's not used in a more generic sense, if that was your honest question.

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
And so in addition to the 12C issue of not crediting the allegations, the plot of airments and the complaint.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
The fact that the district court did not appear to use the claim construction it had just rendered in its 101 analysis is also error.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
I think this issue has come up and was disputed a little bit back and forth between the parties, but I think this court's jurisprudence is clear that if you have a claim construction, that should be applied in the 101 analysis, whereas here that claim construction

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
has an impact and an influence on what the one-on-one analysis is, it's important to perform that claim construction, which was done here.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
There's an issue that was raised by the other side about whether Geoscope waived the right to rely on the claim construction as part of the 12C analysis for 101.

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
I don't think that that holds up here.

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
The specific claim construction the court had ordered was discussed extensively at the oral argument.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
for the 12C motion.

[00:07:41] Speaker 01:
And it was also referenced in the briefing.

[00:07:43] Speaker 01:
I think the defendants were incorrect in their brief when they said to the contrary.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
In the briefing for the 12C motion at appendix 2668 and 2670, Geoscope noted the interplay of the pending claim construction with the pending 12C motion.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
And I think this was a little bit unusual because it wasn't that there was a disagreement as to claim construction

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
that would influence 12C, both parties agreed at the clamp construction phase that grid points had a very particular meaning, was not plain and ordinary.

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
So here it was agreed that if it had a very particular meaning, that meaning then must have to be applied for the 12C analysis as well.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
And then once you have that construction, cases like McCrow and Enfish make clear that it's the terms as construed that claims as construed that then apply for the one-on-one announcers.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
And the pleadings go through in detail, appendix 265, 267 to 28, 274 to 75, the specific technological challenges of using these signals of opportunity.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
to perform geolocation because they're not signals that are intended to be used for geolocation.

[00:08:59] Speaker 01:
So you have sparse reference points if you're using cell towers.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
The signals that they're sending out are gonna be impacted by natural features like mountains, structures.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
They're not gonna propagate in ordinary ways, which means that you're gonna have to figure out a way to take irregular measurements that you then detect in the environment and then tie them back

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
to do the geolocation, which is how you end up with this concept of grid points that create irregular patterns to make sense of the irregular data.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
And before I reserve my time for a bottle, having reviewed the briefing, I don't think that there's a dispute that the particular approach that's shown in figure six

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
of the patents, a new type of grid that can be formed from the data.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
I don't think that there's a dispute that that can be patentable subject matter, that creating a regular grid that looks nothing like a grid that anybody would ever conceive of can be patentable subject matter if it's solving a technological challenge.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
if you're doing it in a way that you're grouping together disparate data points to create what is then comprehensible for geolocation, but what looks completely irregular on a map.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
That's not like any concept of grid that would exist in the art.

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
I don't think that there's also either a dispute reading the briefs that the claims as construed require that new kind of grid.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
So that's what the construction of grid points, non-uniform grid point mean, that you are creating a new grid that's based on what you're measuring, not applying a grid and then filling in the boxes with the measurements.

[00:10:31] Speaker 01:
and that to be able to do this with the complex data and at the speed and at the accuracy, to have it actually spit out for your cell phone, to be able to use geolocation for your cell phone, which is now a fundamental aspect for almost all cell phone functions, that there's no analogous human activity that would have been known in the art or known before the patents.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
And I think when you tie those three together,

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
ends up being dispositive that this is a specific solution to a technological problem, and therefore is patentable subject matter.

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
Unless there are any questions, we reserve the remainder of our time.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, my name is Brian Rosenthal.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
I'm arguing on behalf of both the appellees in this case.

[00:11:32] Speaker 02:
The issue that is presented by this case is whether these broad, generic, functional claims that recite processing data in order to determine the location, whether they are saved from ineligibility by the fact that they mention grid points.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
Our view is that they are not.

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
We think the district court got it exactly right.

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
First of all,

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
The process of step one should start with an analysis of the claim language itself.

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
And if we look at the 753 patent as an example, those claims are virtually indistinguishable from the electric power case.

[00:12:12] Speaker 02:
Those claims recite providing calibration data, then generating grid points, then obtaining network measurement data, then

[00:12:28] Speaker 02:
analyzing that data, selecting certain of that data, and then determining a location.

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
At no point... The invention at issue in this case is not the same invention that was at issue in Electric Power Group, right?

[00:12:41] Speaker 02:
That is correct.

[00:12:42] Speaker 02:
In Electric Power Group, the question was, or the invention in that case, was gathering all of this information from disparate sources, putting it together in a way that allegedly had never been done before to ultimately rely at a reliability indicator at the end of the claim.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
In this case, now we're talking about location.

[00:13:02] Speaker 02:
It's taking information from a variety of different sources, putting it all together, analyzing it, and coming up with a result, which is, in this case, the location.

[00:13:11] Speaker 02:
Now, that is no more or less technological than what was written down in the electric power group.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
You're really relying on the electric power group, I think, for the breadth.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
of the claim, is that right?

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
For an analogy on the breadth of the claim?

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
That this claim, I mean, presumably, if the claim really did, was narrow enough to recite a technological improvement, then that really wouldn't depend on electric power grid, would it?

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
I think the last part of your question is exactly right.

[00:13:44] Speaker 02:
If there was a how in this patent, if there was a how in the 753, electric power grid would be distinguishable.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
What I'm relying on electric power grid for is the fact that, like electric power grid, the claim elements are written at such a high level of generality.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
I suppose you could use the word breadth, but I really think that our point is its generic, general, result-oriented language that does not provide any how.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
The other thing about it is that... Do you think the specification provides how?

[00:14:18] Speaker 02:
The specification provides a number of examples of how you might do that.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
In fact, in the 753, there's all kinds of figures, figure 49, 59, figure 40.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
There's all kinds of analysis about how you might determine grid points, generate grid points, how you might select grid points, how you might

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
Um, analyze grid points, how you might determine the location.

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
Not a single piece of that is written in the claims or has been interpreted to be included in the claims.

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
And, um, Geoscope has not appealed the court's claim construction.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
The court explicitly refused.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
to bring into the claims any how the grid points are generated.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
In fact, in the claim construction, the district court explicitly said what geoscope was pointing to in the abstract dealt only with how the

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
grid points are generated, whereas the claims merely recite that the grid points are generated.

[00:15:19] Speaker 02:
So what we end up with, and this is why I say it's indistinguishable from electric power or automated location or any of those automation technologies,

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
that all that it does is it recites, and I don't have to skip over any claim language to make this argument, it simply recites providing certain data, generating additional data, selecting some of that data, and then

[00:15:44] Speaker 02:
determining a location from that data.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
And when you look at the language of the claims, it talks about using predetermined criteria, but it doesn't specify what those criteria are.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
It talks about characterizing parameters, but it doesn't tell you what those characterizing parameters are.

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
It tells you you analyze the grid points or the calibration information as a function of the grid points, but it doesn't tell you what that function is.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
It is completely bereft of any

[00:16:12] Speaker 02:
particular specific improvement to the way that the computer works.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
And the problem that the claims are trying to solve is a distinctly non-technological problem.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
And that is determining where something is in the world.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
So this idea of grid points being used in that process is itself an abstract concept on top of the original abstract concept of determining location.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
I do want to address what Appellant essentially is resting its entire argument on because it's really just incorrect.

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
They are essentially resting their entire argument on the idea that non-use or that grid points in the 753 patent must be

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
In fact, I heard counsel say that they are always going to be non-uniform, and that was an argument that they made in their reply brief as well at page 14.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
In practice, they'll always be irregular.

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
That is absolutely incorrect.

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
Appellant below during claim construction briefing explicitly agreed that the grid points in the 753 include uniform grid points,

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
or non-uniform grid points.

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
I think that refers to non-uniform grid points.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
Non-uniform grid points.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
It's the 104 patent claim 2.

[00:17:39] Speaker 02:
So there's two families of patents.

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
And in the 104 patents, those dependent claims recite that the data in the database includes non-uniform grid points.

[00:17:48] Speaker 02:
So there's two different analyses here.

[00:17:50] Speaker 02:
In the 753, to start with that, it is absolutely clear that they can include uniform grid points.

[00:17:56] Speaker 02:
In fact, in the specification of the patent,

[00:17:59] Speaker 02:
At column 10, line 29, the patent explicitly states a non-uniform grid generator can be included, can be generated, and then it goes on line 32.

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
It can be generated by a fixed uniform grid defined over the region.

[00:18:20] Speaker 02:
it explicitly states that this includes fixed uniform grids.

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
Now, the 104 patent is different.

[00:18:26] Speaker 02:
The 104 patent does explicitly say that it is a non-uniform grid, but the district court below construed those terms to mean the same thing.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
And there is no dispute that that construction governs here.

[00:18:39] Speaker 02:
And in the district court case, during claim construction, appellant agreed that those grid points include non-uniform grid points,

[00:18:50] Speaker 02:
or uniform grid points.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
The other point is that even if, and what's going on here is that the appellant is trying to read all of this stuff in from a specification that is not actually claimed.

[00:19:03] Speaker 02:
In fact, counsel just said, figure six is the best illustration

[00:19:09] Speaker 02:
of these non-uniform grid points that he says are embodied.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
The figure six that he's referring to is from a different patent in a different family, the 784 patent, which is not on appeal here.

[00:19:23] Speaker 02:
That figure that they recite in their brief over and over as being the best evidence that this is a concrete invention is from a different family of patents.

[00:19:33] Speaker 02:
This patent

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
And these claims are what are at issue here.

[00:19:38] Speaker 02:
And these claims, talking about the 753 first, merely require the use, the generic, unconstrained use of grid points.

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
Now, the question is whether that use constitutes a concrete enough addition to a specific technological field.

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
And the answer to that is no.

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
Council said

[00:20:02] Speaker 02:
that what we've done here is we've claimed a novel, unique data structure, presumably relying on cases like Enfish.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
That is not what's happening.

[00:20:12] Speaker 02:
The district court explicitly held in at appendix, I think it's appendix 23 and 22, explicitly held in the 101 order that these claims do not require how you generate the grid points.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
They do not require that the grid points are a denser map of points than the cell towers.

[00:20:34] Speaker 02:
And specifically that there is no particular data structure that is required.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
grid point was construed to mean an association of two things, an association of a point with representative calibration data.

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
How you represent that in a computer is completely left up to the implementer.

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
That's totally different from cases like Enfish or Uniloc or ADASA, those cases that are relied on in the briefs, where there was a specific change to how the computer operates.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
In these claims,

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
There is no change, there is no improvement to how the computer operates.

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
Instead, the claims recite using computers to gather and process data in a way that could be done with or without computers.

[00:21:23] Speaker 02:
Just looking at calibration data and grid points and determining from them a location is something that computers are not necessary for at all.

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
And it certainly doesn't change

[00:21:34] Speaker 02:
or make any specific improvement to the way the computer operates as is required in ENFISH.

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
I do want to address one question that was raised prominently in the briefs and again today.

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
And that is, did the district court err by not specifically reciting the claim construction?

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
The answer to that is no, because every aspect of the District Court's analysis in the 101 decision was consistent.

[00:22:03] Speaker 02:
This was a judge who had just two weeks earlier resolved the claim construction issues.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
And all of the Federal Circuit cases that are cited say if there is a claim construction issue,

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
that impacts the 101 analysis.

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
That claim construction issue should be resolved before the 101 is resolved.

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
Makes sense.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
That was done.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
The claim construction issues were resolved, and then this judge turned to the next issue, which was the 101 analysis, and everything in that 101 analysis was consistent with that decision that he had rendered two weeks earlier.

[00:22:39] Speaker 00:
What specifically is your response to the argument that the district court had a broader construction of grid points?

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
I disagree.

[00:22:48] Speaker 02:
And first of all, the district court explicitly wrote out the construction of grid points in the claim construction order.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
And then during the 101 decision at appendix 23, explicitly hearkened back, not by reference to the claim construction decision, but specifically said,

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
There is nothing in this claim, I'm going to quote instead of paraphrasing, claim one recites a method that includes generating one or more sets of grid points without providing any limitation on how the grid points are generated.

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
That is exactly the holding he had made just two or three weeks earlier at appendix 2785.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
During the claim construction order, the court said all of the arguments that Geoscope is making pertain to how the grid points are generated, but that's not in the claims.

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
I am merely construing the word grid point.

[00:23:51] Speaker 02:
because that's the only thing that's been presented to me.

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
So what we're left with is a claim that has plain language, English language, it's not technical language, so we can all understand it, that simply says, provide calibration data, generate grid points for that calibration data, the district court has told us what grid points means, it's an association of one piece of data to another, and then analyze that data to determine the location.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
that there is nothing in the claim construction.

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
You could read the claim construction order over and over again, and there will be nothing in there that ever says that the claims are limited to how.

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
And if there were any doubt about that, the court explicitly stated at Appendix 23 in the 101 decision that there is no recitation in the claims.

[00:24:42] Speaker 02:
And on Appendix 22, which is the page before that in the 101 decision,

[00:24:47] Speaker 02:
The court went even further and said at the top of the page, nothing in the claims requires the grid points to be arranged in a denser map, to be determined from the analysis of calibration data, or to be organized in any specific format.

[00:25:05] Speaker 02:
These are rulings that are entirely consistent with what the court had just ruled in the claim construction.

[00:25:12] Speaker 02:
There's no support anywhere in the Federal Circuit jurisprudence for the notion that the court's failure to explicitly cite the order that he had just issued in analyzing it means that we have to throw out that decision.

[00:25:28] Speaker 02:
The claim construction is clear.

[00:25:30] Speaker 02:
It resolved all the issues.

[00:25:31] Speaker 02:
And under that claim construction, there is no specificity that would render these claims concrete.

[00:25:38] Speaker 02:
I didn't really address step two very briefly, nor did counsel, but in step two, there is nothing more to these claims that adds to that abstract concept of analyzing data, comparing data to determine a location, because there's nothing concrete, there's no new machinery, there's no new computer, there's no new database.

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
The only thing that they point to, it always comes back to the same thing, rich points.

[00:26:07] Speaker 02:
And grid points just isn't enough standing by itself.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
Nor is it in the 104 family.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
Merely by saying non-uniform grid points, that doesn't make it any more concrete.

[00:26:17] Speaker 02:
Those claims are even more abstract and generic than the 753 when you read those claims.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
All it says is that among the data are non-uniform grid points.

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
So unless the court has any other questions, that's all I had to say.

[00:26:34] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Kyle.

[00:26:35] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:26:40] Speaker 02:
Mr. Gelman, you have about four minutes for a rebuttal.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:26:57] Speaker 01:
Starting with the electric power group.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
As this court noted in electric power group as part of its decision, the claims in this case do not even require a new source or type of information or new techniques for analyzing it at 1355.

[00:27:11] Speaker 01:
We believe that's entirely distinguishable here with the grid points, the non-uniform grid points.

[00:27:17] Speaker 01:
The fact that you have to have a point associated with a region associated with calibration data is the exact new type of information or new techniques for analyzing it.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
that distinguishes electric power group.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
The fact that there might be different ways of doing it that are taught in the specification, as defendants acknowledged, there are specific embodiments of how you do those non-uniform grid points in the specification.

[00:27:39] Speaker 01:
But this court's case law is also clear that even on a one-on-one question, it's okay to have genus claims.

[00:27:44] Speaker 01:
McCrow decision specifically addresses that it's okay to have a class of factors that are used in calculations of morphing weights.

[00:27:52] Speaker 01:
The claim that was found, patent eligible claim two, required modifying the permutation in time.

[00:28:03] Speaker 01:
That was the key element, the key limitation that was

[00:28:06] Speaker 01:
found to confer eligibility.

[00:28:07] Speaker 01:
It didn't say how you modify it in time.

[00:28:09] Speaker 01:
But the idea of modifying in time was what made the patent a concrete improvement.

[00:28:19] Speaker 01:
The incongruity between the claim construction decision and the 101 decision, I believe, is illustrated from what was just recited by counsel on Appendix 22.

[00:28:34] Speaker 01:
For purposes of claim construction, the court required, and we believe properly that grid point requires, a non-uniform grid point require associating a point and a geographic region, and that also ties together representative calibration data, which the court said required a level of statistical similarity to group it together.

[00:28:55] Speaker 01:
When the court then turned to the 101 decision, it treated

[00:29:01] Speaker 01:
grid points in a generic sense, that nothing in the claims require the grid points to be arranged in a denser map.

[00:29:07] Speaker 01:
I'll come to that in a second.

[00:29:08] Speaker 01:
But also, nothing in the claims requires that the grid points be determined from the analysis of calibration data.

[00:29:14] Speaker 01:
That's directly contrary to the claim construction that says it has to be representative of the data that's being acquired.

[00:29:19] Speaker 01:
Nothing requires that grid points be organized in a specific format.

[00:29:23] Speaker 01:
Again, contrary to the claim construction, it requires grid points to reflect both the point and the geographic region, as well as the representative data.

[00:29:30] Speaker 01:
The court never mentions the claim construction in this opinion, never addresses the argument.

[00:29:36] Speaker 00:
Can I ask you a quick question?

[00:29:37] Speaker 00:
The district court said that your claims are directed at the abstract idea of determining a location based on data.

[00:29:43] Speaker 00:
Do you think it makes a difference if your claims are directed to determine location based on the relative location to known points, known locations?

[00:29:53] Speaker 01:
I would disagree with the characterization overall, but I do believe that the technique of generating that grid points, of filling in the map, and this gets to the denser map question about whether that's required by the clients, because we believe it is, if you generate these grid points to create new reference points,

[00:30:11] Speaker 01:
that that is a patent-eligible concept, especially the specific type of new reference points that are being added into the claim by the specific requirements.

[00:30:20] Speaker 00:
The specific type being non-uniform.

[00:30:22] Speaker 01:
Non-uniform, as well as that you're tying together the different characteristics as required by the claim construction.

[00:30:28] Speaker 01:
And the fact that this creates a denser location is explained at detail in our complaint

[00:30:37] Speaker 01:
which, again, the court erred by not crediting it on 12C motion under Atrix and other parts of this court's jurisprudence, that it's required to credit the allegations that are pled in the complaint describing how the claim grid points result in a denser map.

[00:30:51] Speaker 01:
But it's also a little bit self-evident that if you're creating these new grid points because of the technological challenges being confronted where you have sparse cell towers,

[00:31:01] Speaker 01:
if you create new reference points, you're necessarily creating a denser map because now you have more reference points, not just the cell towers that you're using to begin with.

[00:31:08] Speaker 01:
And so that's explained in detail in the complaint and the environments that should have been credited, but it's also, I think, self-evident from the figures and from the specification.

[00:31:18] Speaker 01:
Just the point on figure six.

[00:31:19] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Mr. Goldman.

[00:31:20] Speaker 02:
You're out of time.

[00:31:21] Speaker 02:
The case will be submitted.

[00:31:23] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.