[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Our last case is Longitude Licensing versus Google, 2024-1202.

[00:00:05] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Mr. Karanko.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court?

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
The claims at issue are directed to improvements in the ways computers make adjustments to digital images.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
They are not directed to the mere use of a computer as a tool.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
The district court aired by generalizing all 66 claims as directed to a single abstract idea.

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
Quote, the idea of improving image quality by adjusting various aspects of an image based on features of the main object in the image.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
In reaching that conclusion, first, the district court did not assess the actual limitations either alone or as an ordered combination of any claim.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
Second, the district court did not assess the claims in view of the specification evidence for each patent, including the portions of the specifications that explain how the claimed embodiments improved upon prior computing devices and processes for performing image adjustments.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
And third, the district court erred by accepting as fact without any evidence

[00:01:22] Speaker 01:
that the steps and limitations recited in the asserted claims recited only conventional steps or what the district court called standard steps.

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
On the intrinsic record here, the claims viewed in light of the specifications and read in view of the specifications

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
are directed to improvements to computer functionality itself.

[00:01:45] Speaker 05:
Can you drill down to a particular claim or different elements?

[00:01:48] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:01:48] Speaker 05:
You know, you're running out of time, and these kind of general statements don't, for me, move the ball down the field.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
For example, claim 32 of a 365 pattern is directed to a process that improves the computer's ability to make tailored adjustments to main objects in digital images based on the characteristics of the image itself.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
The claim recites

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
that the main object is determined, and then the process acquires the properties of the main object image data that has been determined, then acquires correction conditions corresponding to those properties of the main object image data, and uses those correction conditions to make adjustments to the main object.

[00:02:30] Speaker 02:
So the invention is focusing on the main image?

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
The claim 32, yes, is focused on the main object image data itself.

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
in the background of the specification.

[00:02:41] Speaker 01:
It does.

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
It recites acquiring the properties of that main object image data and acquiring correction conditions corresponding to the main object image data.

[00:02:50] Speaker 04:
Is there a claim construction argument as to the meaning of correction conditions?

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
There hasn't been a specific claim construction presented.

[00:02:58] Speaker 01:
We're not urging one.

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
The correction conditions are described in the specification.

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
as parameters such as hue, saturation, brightness.

[00:03:07] Speaker 05:
When I say correction conditions in the claim, should I just basically think correction information?

[00:03:14] Speaker 01:
No, I think conditions are changes.

[00:03:17] Speaker 05:
Acquiring correction conditions from a database, I think the claim says.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
There are tables presented as specifications that describe the corrections to be made based on the properties corresponding to the properties of the image data, yes.

[00:03:31] Speaker 05:
I guess the question becomes,

[00:03:33] Speaker 05:
Why should I think about this as being some kind of implementation idea when the claim just talks about some form of undefined correction information that the alteration of the image will be based upon?

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
So the correction information- Why isn't this like hawk or rectangle?

[00:04:03] Speaker 05:
Well, we're going to display a bunch of images on this one screen using spatial and temporal parameters.

[00:04:12] Speaker 05:
And we didn't talk about what those parameters were.

[00:04:15] Speaker 05:
And we didn't even talk about how those parameters would be used or how those parameters got generated.

[00:04:22] Speaker 05:
But it just said parameters.

[00:04:24] Speaker 05:
And it sounded like a great idea to be able to display a bunch of things.

[00:04:32] Speaker 05:
use some special parameters to do that but we said no that wasn't good enough and now I'm trying to compare that you know on a general level to these claims where we're talking about we're going to improve the appearance of

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
The, we have a different evidentiary record here than in Rekognikor or Hawke.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
Here, the specification explains that there were prior computer approaches

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
to making adjustments to digital image that did not use the acquisition of properties of the main object, did not use a correlation, a correspondence between the properties and correction conditions to determine which conditions to use to adjust the main object.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
The specification explains, in the background, the prior processes performed a standardized image adjustment without taking into account the properties, it calls the subtle characteristics, of the main object data itself.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
Prior to that, users had to manually interact with the software in order to subjectively make changes.

[00:05:49] Speaker 03:
So the computer picks up information and processes the information.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
So why isn't that abstract?

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
The computer specifically acquires properties of the data and makes a correspondence between the properties and the correction conditions in the system.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
And that's what's different than the prior systems described in the background that were inferior and could not make tailored adjustments to objects.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
So we're not talking about obviousness.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
So isn't this just software?

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
It is software, but software can be patent eligible.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
This is akin to McRoe or Enfish, where the intrinsic record, the intrinsic evidence, tells us that this improved upon prior software computing processes.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
As in HAWK, as in Recogn Corp, or electric power systems, for example, there was evidence cited by the court that

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
what the claim was recited had been done for, and the computer was merely being used as a tool.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
Here, the intrinsic record tells us that what is being claimed is an improvement to the computer functionality itself, not the mere use of the computer as a tool.

[00:06:58] Speaker 03:
Well, the claims use the word acquiring twice.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
How does the acquiring occur?

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
The claim does not specify precisely how the acquiring occurs.

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
The system acquires it from maybe stored in memory, but the claim does not specify exactly how.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
The how provided in the claim is how to make an adjustment to the main object image data itself as compared to the prior inferior processes which performed a standardized image adjustment process without acquiring properties of the main objects and without

[00:07:33] Speaker 01:
acquiring correction conditions corresponding those properties to make a more specific adjustment.

[00:07:38] Speaker 05:
Would you agree that the claims here are a tougher case for patent eligibility compared to McCrow, given that McCrow's claim had more specificity as to the rules that were being employed there in order to have a synchronized animation?

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
I respectfully disagree.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
And the reason is, again, the intrinsic record and evidence in both cases.

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
The claim alone must be read in view of the specification, so we have to look at both.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
In McCrobe, the claim read in view of the specification.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
The specification provided evidence that what was recited in the claim, the rules, and specifically, I believe, the sub-morph weights, were an improvement over prior computerized processes for performing such animation.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
Similarly here,

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
The specification provides the same evidence.

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
And April 12, and in the analysis at step one of ALICE, when we look at the intrinsic record, here the intrinsic record is all one way.

[00:08:38] Speaker 05:
But you're not seeking any kind of claim construction here.

[00:08:42] Speaker 05:
So you're not trying to shovel in any of the content from the written description into the claim list.

[00:08:50] Speaker 05:
Is that correct?

[00:08:50] Speaker 05:
That's correct.

[00:08:51] Speaker 05:
You're more just trying to use it as a backdrop to better understand

[00:08:57] Speaker 05:
That's correct.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
And using it specifically as the evidentiary record we have that these inventions, what is claimed, what is recited there, improves upon prior computing processes and devices and renders these claims patent eligible.

[00:09:16] Speaker 02:
And as in... And what's specific is focusing on the main object.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
What specific is focusing on the main object?

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
Focusing on determining the main object and then operating only on that, yes, including acquiring the properties of that specific data, then acquiring the correction conditions corresponding to those properties as illustrated in the tables we've reproduced in our brief and the figures of the pad.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
Other claims

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
your honor, recite different improvements to the way the computers adjust image data.

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
For example, claim five of the 365 pattern describes an improvement to the accuracy the computer has in determining what is the main object in a digital image.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
Claim five recites segmenting

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
the image into a plurality of areas and acquiring position data for each of the areas and analyzing the position data and the image data to identify where main objects reside in the image.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
And again, the specification explains that prior processes did not perform those operations, did not segment the data into areas.

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
And as a result, would make erroneous determinations of the main object.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
For example, it explains that prior systems would use only analysis of color data to determine where a main object might be.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
That produced what it calls determination errors.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
For example, if somebody is wearing a sky blue shirt,

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
The computer may mistake that search for what is actually a sky blue sky and misidentify the main object in the image.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
So by using both position data and image data to analyze where the main object resides, the invention in Claim 5 improves the accuracy that the computer can provide in determining the main object compared to prior systems.

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
The 056 patent, your honors, relates to both improving accuracy and improving color balance correction on images compared to prior processes.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
The 056 patent explains, with reference to the embodiments described in claim 10,

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
that prior systems performed only color balance correction, what they call across the entire image, which produced inferior results, like if you had a bluish or lightish background, perhaps making the skin of a person red-tinged instead of its actual color.

[00:11:48] Speaker 01:
But in claim 10 of the 056 patent, by using a determination method to identify a specific subject area, using a location of a target area and pixel values in that target area to identify the specific subject, calculating a specific subject characterization value, again, from the data in the specific subject area, not all the data in the image, and calculating the correction value to be used for color balance correction using

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
the specific subject characterization value.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
and a target characterization value to obtain the correction value, and then using that correction value, again, tailored to the data in the main object itself to perform color balance correction, that allows the computer to more accurately represent and display, for example, a human face with the correct skin tone as compared to the prior approaches identified in the specification that could render, that performed color balance correction only across the entire image.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
Finally, the 109 patent recites claim one recites an approved image file that includes image data, location data of a person in the image, and scene shooting information to specify, for example, a portrait scene being applied.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
That allows the computer, compared to prior approaches that included only image data, to identify the precise location of the person in the image,

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
and perform a sharpness adjustment on that person when the scene shooting information specifies that it is a portrait scene.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
That is like the Finchian case, where there is a new computer file with new information.

[00:13:27] Speaker 01:
The specification explains this is new, this is different, and it is improved that enables the computer to perform those operations that otherwise had to be done by what the specification calls ad hoc selection of data for sharpening.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
You are approaching your time limit.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
I assume you want to save what you have left.

[00:13:45] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:13:46] Speaker 01:
I reserve the remainder of my time.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
Anders.

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
Ginger Anders for Google LLC.

[00:14:03] Speaker 00:
So Longitude's claims are directed to the abstract idea of adjusting digital images based on the main object of the image.

[00:14:10] Speaker 00:
rather than the image as a whole.

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
So starting with claim 32, which the parties have treated as the main claim here, the subject of that claim is a quintessential abstract idea.

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
The court has held over and over again that manipulation of data, analysis of data, including enhancement of digital images, is abstract.

[00:14:26] Speaker 05:
Is manipulation of data always an abstract idea?

[00:14:29] Speaker 05:
Data processing?

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
I think data processing is almost always going to be an abstract idea.

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
The question would be, the harder question would be, is the claim directed to

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
that abstract idea.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
And I think there, when the claim does concern data manipulation.

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
And that claim wasn't directed to the abstract idea because the rules that were incorporated in those claims were so specific.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
And so I think the overarching question the court is trying to answer is, is this an improvement in the computer's functioning as such, or is it merely an improvement in the uses to which the computer can be put?

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
And the court has used the specificity of the claims as sort of a marker to help answer that question.

[00:15:13] Speaker 05:
Many of these claims, let's say the representative claim 32, had many more steps in how you go about getting the properties of the image data and getting the correction conditions and then applying those correction conditions to the properties of the image.

[00:15:35] Speaker 05:
Like let's say you

[00:15:38] Speaker 05:
you identify that person in the picture as a particular person.

[00:15:45] Speaker 05:
And you've already pre-stored in your memory what the ideal coloring of the skin of that person is.

[00:15:54] Speaker 05:
And then you go look that up and then see that there's actually something off here.

[00:16:00] Speaker 05:
There's a differential with this particular captured image of the person.

[00:16:04] Speaker 05:
And then you undertake a series of steps

[00:16:07] Speaker 05:
to modify the captured image of the person so that it looks like the ideal color that's stored in the memory.

[00:16:19] Speaker 05:
And let's just say that takes a lot of steps to do all of that.

[00:16:22] Speaker 05:
Would that be patent-legal?

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
I think it might well be.

[00:16:26] Speaker 00:
And so here's why.

[00:16:27] Speaker 00:
So what the court has done is it has looked to what the patentee claims is the technological innovation, the improvement in the technological functioning of the computer.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
and then asked whether, as Hawke put it, there's a sufficient recitation in the claim of how that improvement is achieved.

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
So here Longitude says the improvement of claim 32 is tailoring the correction conditions to the main object in the image.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
And so the question is, does the patent explain how to do that?

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
I think this claim does not, because it simply says acquire.

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
So you're saying that in Judge Chan's hypothetical, the steps are part of the claim.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
So if the steps were part of the claim, if there were a recitation of exactly how,

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
to tailor the correction conditions to the main object, then we might have a situation more like McRoe.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
But we don't have that here, because all the claim says is acquire the properties of the correction conditions, determine the correction conditions, and then correct the object.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
It just claims that functional result.

[00:17:21] Speaker 05:
And so because of that, I think it's... What if everything that I just said in my hypothetical claim was something that people did already?

[00:17:32] Speaker 05:
So maybe there's a 102 or 103 problem,

[00:17:37] Speaker 05:
the claim would recite a series of, I don't know, a long series of steps that you would do to fix the image, to get it right, to get it the way you want it to be.

[00:17:52] Speaker 05:
But those were steps that were already done by humans in altering a photo or a picture of a person.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
I think issues like that might be better addressed through 102 or 103, but I think in the context of the abstract idea analysis, this is directed to an abstract idea.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
I think we're mostly asking what kind of improvement is the patentee claiming and have they recited how to achieve that improvement in technological function.

[00:18:18] Speaker 00:
Now, you might say there's no improvement in technological function if all of the steps have already been done in the prior art.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
So that might be one way to get at it through the abstract idea part of 101.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
But I think here, there's sort of no, we don't even get to that question because the steps are so broadly functionally claimed.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
I think that is a strong indication.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
I think it's basically just positive here that the patentee is just claiming the result here.

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
It's just claiming an improvement in the use to which

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
computer can be put, its existing functions can be put, because there's no explanation of how to achieve the claimed invention of tailoring the correction conditions to the main object.

[00:19:01] Speaker 05:
Does the articulated abstract idea by the district court capture claim five, which is really more about position data?

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
I think it does because the RID description actually says that

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
that claim five is an aspect of the same invention.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
So I think they're all related here.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
They share that written description.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
And so what claim five is simply doing is the first step of determining the main object.

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
So I do think that the district court's analysis captures all that.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
And this court said in Trinity that when all of the claims go to one basic abstract idea, they can all be considered together.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
So I think that's what the district court

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
did here, and I think claim five suffers from the same basic problem, which is longitude claims that the improvement here is better detecting, more accurately detecting the main object.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
But of course, the claim does not say how to do that.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
It simply says you acquire the image data and the position data and then determine the main object using that position data and the results of analysis.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
It's hard to imagine a more generic functional term than use the results of analysis to determine the main object.

[00:20:10] Speaker 00:
So I think there, too, it's very clear that this is simply claiming the result.

[00:20:15] Speaker 00:
And as this court has said, when there isn't a recitation of how the claims actually achieved the result they're trying to achieve, that is an indication that the claims are abstract, because they're not actually describing an improvement in computer functioning.

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
So in that sense, I think they're very much like the claims that were at issue in hawk, which was a method of taking multiple surveillance videos and altering their format and then transmitting them

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
And the patentee said, well, that is an improvement because it allows us to conserve data without sacrificing quality.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
And the court said, no, the claims are simply directed to this sort of very generic converting the video sources into a particular resolution using a set of temporal and spatial parameters.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
And those weren't explained in the claims.

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
I think it's the exact same thing here in claim five and claim 32 in each of these claims, where you have the claim saying,

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
acquire the position data, do the results of the analysis, and then determine the main object.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
So it's simply the result that's claimed.

[00:21:13] Speaker 00:
And that is an abstract idea.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
And I think the same thing is true with respect to claim one of the 109 patent, which is the one involving an image file.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
So that one too is simply about adjusting the main object of the image.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
It's about increasing the sharpness of the main object.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
And Longitude has said that that uses a new image file structure.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
But in fact, the written description proves that this is a standard image file.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
It says that the XF file is a format standard for digital still cameras.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
That's on Appendix 106.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
And you may also use other image files that are generated by a digital video camera or scanner.

[00:21:52] Speaker 00:
And that's on Appendix 107.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
So I think it's pretty clear here that the image file is simply a standard format.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
And the information that's included in the image file is standard as well.

[00:22:03] Speaker 00:
That is location information, so where you focus the camera is what the written description says.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
And the scene information is when you choose, the photographer chooses the scene on the camera like when you choose portrait mode.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
So the specification, the written description makes clear that those are the types of information that can be used.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
That's simply standard information.

[00:22:23] Speaker 00:
So I think this court looks to prior cases to determine

[00:22:29] Speaker 00:
you know, as a marker to determine whether something is directed to an abstract idea.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
As I said, I think this case, these claims are very similar to Hawke, they're very similar to Sanderling, to Rekognikorp.

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
The only case that Longitude has pointed to as similar is McRoe, but I think that comparison actually helps us, because if you look at the claim there, it had been construed to include this incredibly specific rule that

[00:22:54] Speaker 00:
that set all the variables that explain how they should be applied in the animation process.

[00:22:59] Speaker 00:
I think it's worth just reading what that rule was.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
It said, define a morphoid set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and times associated with said phoneme sequence.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
Apply that to each subsequence of timed phonemes.

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
So that was incredibly specific.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
Compare that to these claims, which say,

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
acquire the position data, use the results of analysis, determine the main object, apply the correction conditions, just these generic terms that tell us that these claims are not revealing an improvement in how the computer functions technologically.

[00:23:43] Speaker 05:
Do you and Google think there's something here that could be at least patent eligible?

[00:23:47] Speaker 05:
Maybe not patentable, but in your view, but nevertheless at least crosses the threshold for consideration for a patent?

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
So I don't think that Longitude has pointed to anything in the patent that would be patent eligible.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
So for instance.

[00:24:04] Speaker 05:
I'm asking you what you think based on your review

[00:24:09] Speaker 00:
So no, I don't think so.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
And I guess the main reason, I would say, is that all of those, as the court said in charge point, all the technical details in the written description can't be imported into the claims.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
And of course, Longitude has never, you know, they haven't.

[00:24:24] Speaker 05:
It's not about whether a patent eligible claim could be drafted in light of this, you know, 28-column patent with all this math.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
It may well be that, in theory, a patent-eligible claim could be drafted.

[00:24:38] Speaker 00:
If you think about McRoe, I think that provides a model for how one might do it.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
But that is not these claims, the point I was just making, that they look very, very different.

[00:24:50] Speaker 00:
The claims of McRoe are incredibly specific.

[00:24:52] Speaker 00:
That matters because, of course, it is the specificity that tells us that the patentee is describing an improvement in the computer's technological functioning.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
rather than simply a new use to which existing computers can be put.

[00:25:07] Speaker 02:
And so I think... That's the problem of overbred, right?

[00:25:09] Speaker 02:
Even if you've got a mathematical construct that gives you a specific patentable invention, that doesn't mean that you can claim more broadly without incorporating the specifics in the client.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
That's exactly right.

[00:25:22] Speaker 00:
And it goes to one of the core concerns of Section 101, which is preemption, which is that a claim like Claim 32

[00:25:28] Speaker 00:
broadly preempts a lot of ways of adjusting the main object of an image because it is so generically drafted.

[00:25:35] Speaker 00:
And that's why the court said in charge point, you can have all of these technical details in a specification, but they can't just be imported into the claims in order to make the claims patent eligible because it really does matter what the claims say.

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
That's the bounds of exclusion that the patentee is claiming.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
And so this preemption concern is very, very present when you have generic claims like these.

[00:25:56] Speaker 00:
And so I think that's the real concern here.

[00:25:59] Speaker 00:
And of course, one to two is free to ask for claim construction.

[00:26:02] Speaker 00:
They chose not to do so.

[00:26:04] Speaker 00:
And so I think we take the claims as we find them.

[00:26:06] Speaker 00:
And they are incredibly broad, incredibly generic.

[00:26:09] Speaker 00:
And they do not reflect any kind of technical detail that you might find in the written description.

[00:26:14] Speaker 03:
Math is quintessentially abstract.

[00:26:18] Speaker 00:
Math can be abstract.

[00:26:19] Speaker 00:
A claim can be non-abstract, even if it has a math formula in it.

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
But I think these claims are just simply so functional, so generic, that it's very clear that they're not directed towards a technological improvement.

[00:26:31] Speaker 03:
Anything further?

[00:26:33] Speaker 00:
Not if the court has no further questions.

[00:26:35] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:26:41] Speaker 03:
Mr. Farrin Crowe has some rebuttal time, two minutes.

[00:26:45] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:26:47] Speaker 01:
All software claims recite manipulation of data and functions at some level.

[00:26:52] Speaker 01:
The court's precedents are consistent that where there is evidence in specification that what is claimed as here in all of these patents is an improvement over a prior computing process that delivered inferior results

[00:27:08] Speaker 01:
Those claims are patent eligible either at step one, as in micro, or at step two, as in CosmoKey.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
And the claim in view of the specification on that record is what tells us how to separate those claims from claims that are merely organizing information and using a computer as a tool to speed that up.

[00:27:28] Speaker 01:
The length of the claim itself and the number of limitations is not the relevant test.

[00:27:32] Speaker 01:
For example, visual memory systems recited a main memory, a cache, and a programmable operational characteristic determines the type of data stored by the cache, and that's it.

[00:27:43] Speaker 01:
But the intrinsic record, the intrinsic evidence said that is an improvement upon the computer systems that came before, and that's what we have here.

[00:27:51] Speaker 01:
What we don't have here, unlike hawk,

[00:27:55] Speaker 01:
charge point, electric power systems, we don't have evidence that what is recited in these claims has ever been done before by people, in computers, or otherwise.

[00:28:07] Speaker 01:
So all the evidence says these are patent eligible improvements.

[00:28:11] Speaker 01:
There is no evidence to support the principle that this is merely automating a known fundamental concept

[00:28:18] Speaker 01:
using the computer as a tool, because prior automated processes existed, like the standardized image adjustment that did not use correction conditions corresponding to properties.

[00:28:27] Speaker 01:
And the claimed inventions, for example, claim 32, improve upon those systems by more accurately making adjustments to main objects in digital images.

[00:28:37] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:28:38] Speaker 03:
Thank you, both counsel.

[00:28:39] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.

[00:28:41] Speaker 03:
That concludes today's argument.