[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
We will hear argument next in number 241177, power block holdings versus IFIT.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Mr. Hardman.

[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
More to your honors, may it please the court.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
The 771 patent claims motorized systems for changing the weight type, the weight of a type of adjustable weight dumbbell called a selectorized dumbbell.

[00:00:22] Speaker 02:
The planes are fighting combinations.

[00:00:24] Speaker 02:
Can I ask about that?

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
This is a word I've never heard before.

[00:00:27] Speaker 02:
Is this actually common in the dumbbell field?

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
It is a word that is discussed in the specification.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
You're referring to selectorized dumbbells.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
Yes, so this is a term of art that is discussed in the patent.

[00:00:44] Speaker 01:
There are prior art patents that use the term selectorized dumbbell.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
In particular, Power Blocks, the inventor's prior art patents use this term.

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
It is a

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
If you look at the prior art, it dates from approximately 10 years before the priority date at issue in this case.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
There's a provisional application that was filed in 2006, to which the 771 patent claims priority.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
The prior art that's discussed in the patent dates to the mid-1990s, and it is the inventor's own prior art.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
The patent talks about the claim system's technical improvements over the prior art, including enhanced usability and safety and new functionalities, such as the... So one of the things that comes up often in 101 cases is something that I...

[00:01:38] Speaker 02:
I think what you just said is to me illustrative.

[00:01:42] Speaker 02:
Safety is not a technical improvement.

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
Safety can be a result of a technical improvement.

[00:01:48] Speaker 02:
The 101 line requires the specification of a technical improvement

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
It's not enough just to say something we have done which we're not going to actually describe to you has certain Lifty properties to it like safety or efficiency so what?

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
What are the technical improvements and on this I guess?

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
I wonder if you can at least entertain the possibility that may be claimed 20 is different from claim one and

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
So focusing on claim 21st, there are technical improvements that are provided.

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
So one of those improvements is a feature that was not present in the prior art, a technological feature, which is the ability to perform remote weight adjustment.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
So you want to focus on structure.

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
What is the structure, not just the ability, that

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
allows selectorizing or selecting the different weights.

[00:02:51] Speaker 00:
That is the concern, right?

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
I mean, is there enough in that claim so it's not just an ability?

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:02:58] Speaker 01:
So the claims do differ in this regard.

[00:03:01] Speaker 01:
Claim 20, the structure is the selectively energized electric motor that couples weight plates to both ends of the dumbbell's handle.

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
Claim one is a little bit different.

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
It requires a movable selector that is capable of being deposed in different adjustment positions and an electric motor that is coupled to the selector that moves the selector according to the desired weight.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
What you just described is actually a

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
A genuine I don't want to draw the conclusion a genuine difference in the amount of structure described Having a structure to pick something up or move it in to put into position which is in claim one That's not really in claim 20 and and I will tell you when I read claim 20 almost the first thought was oh This is O'Reilly against Morris claim eight right the the mid 19th century case where this one

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
erratically overbroad claim in Morse's telegraph patent said use any kind of force or any some sort of force to produce a result

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
at the end, making markings of distance.

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
And the Supreme Court said, that's not enough structure.

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
A whole bunch of other claims in the telegraph patent had just enough additional structure that they escaped that invalidity.

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
In that case, as you know, whatever its original intent has become the kind of foundational case for 101 limitations.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
Why isn't at least claim 20 like that?

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
It just says, cause something to occur without identifying a structure for it to occur.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:04:57] Speaker 02:
So I have to turn the motor on.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
So I think there is a difference.

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
And it's what is being caused to happen, because it's not just weight being added in the abstract.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
There's a specific way that weight is added to the dumbbell, which is that weight plates are coupled to both ends of the handle.

[00:05:16] Speaker 01:
There are alternative methods to adding weight to a dumbbell.

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
Weight plates is a specific approach.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
It's different from something like adding balls of weight or cubes of weight or something like that.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
So yes, there is more structure in claim one as compared with claim 20.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
But claim 20 does still include enough structure so that it is a specific means and would survive 101.

[00:05:42] Speaker 03:
So for example, if you had a selectorized dumbbell, where instead of adding weight plates, it added different size plates.

[00:05:52] Speaker 03:
So if you wanted 50 pounds, it would take a 25-year and 25-year and swap out the plates for different size plates.

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
That wouldn't infringe as much.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
The devil's in the details, but if we're talking about a weight and a configuration other than a weight plate, which is something that's known in the art and discussed in prior selectorized dumbbell patents, then that would not practice claim 20.

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
I'm thinking two types of typical weight structures.

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
One, you've got weights of the same size and weight, and you select how many of them you're going to lift.

[00:06:30] Speaker 03:
and other systems where you select different size weights to increase weight.

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
This seems to be the main structure you're pointing to in Claim20 is this

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
adding weight plates.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
So we're in the realm of weight plates as opposed to different size weights.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
I think that's one type of structure that's discussed in claim 20.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
I would agree that if there are different configurations of weights aside from a weight plate that are added to both ends of the dumbbell handle as opposed to some other way of attaching them to the dumbbell, then that would be outside the scope of claim 20.

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
So let's say we've got one structure that seems to

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
scope this down, because 101, we're kind of concerned about capturing the whole idea.

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
What is the other structure in claim 20?

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
What else besides these weight plates can we kind of sink our teeth into?

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
Yes, the other structure is an electric motor.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
And an electric motor is a specific kind of motor.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
The specification talks about motors generally, and then says, in particular, an electric motor.

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
There are other approaches to motorized weight adjustment.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
So things like hydraulic motor or pneumatic motor would be structural alternatives to the electric motor that's recited in claim 20.

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
What about selectively energized?

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
What sort of work does that do in the claim?

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I think that does some work as well.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
So selectively energized would mean that the electric motor is only operative at certain times.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
It has to be selectively energized.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
It's not sort of continually energized or continually powered.

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
So the selectively energized would be a more efficient approach to carrying out this weight adjustment.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
But it's not the only approach.

[00:08:20] Speaker 00:
Does that work in tandem with the limitation directed to the data entry device controlling the energization of the motor?

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
It does.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
It does.

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
The data entry device is accepting a weight selection decision.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
It's input by the user.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
It's that weight selection decision that operatively controls the energization of the motor.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
So that is another

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
another part of the claim, another part of the claim language, and a requirement that must be met that does absolve some of the preemption concerns that underline the district court's decision.

[00:08:59] Speaker 01:
I do want to talk a little bit about the district court's approach to the precedent that it considered.

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
I think it's important to consider that there's no other decision that we're aware of, certainly no decision from this court,

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
that found or held a claim that was directed to a mechanical system comprising physical components that coordinate to perform mechanical process as falling under the abstract ideas exception.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
There are other cases that deal with combinations of physical components.

[00:09:35] Speaker 02:
And O'Reilly against Morris is not such a thing, which is even better than a federal circuit precedent.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
Um...

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
So I think this goes to the difference, though, between merely reciting physical components and what processes they're performing.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
In O'Reilly versus Morse, the process related to the use of electromagnetism.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
That's an abstract process.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
It's not something tangible or physical.

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
In other cases that deal with physical components, so I think cases like you versus Apple or Chamberlain, there were physical components that recited.

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
But they don't really do anything mechanical.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
They're there for receiving information, for performing processes regarding information, for wirelessly transmitting information, which is a similar substance.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
I don't have Morse Claim 8 in front of me.

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
I do.

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
Oh, you do.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
I do.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
It says, I do not propose to limit myself to the specific machinery or parts of machinery described in the foregoing specification claims, semicolon.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
It's a different way of claiming.

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
The essence of my invention being the use of the motive power of the electric or galvanic current, which I call electromagnetism, however developed for marking or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters, and any distances being a new application of that power of which I claim to be the first inventor or discoverer.

[00:11:08] Speaker 02:
So marking.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
So at the distal end, there's something mechanical going on.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
I think the substance of that claim and what the language appeared to be directed to was the use of electromagnetism.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
It's specifically called out in the claim language.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
That's an intangible.

[00:11:26] Speaker 01:
phenomenon as opposed to a mechanical process that involves physical components coordinating together to achieve a physical act or perform a physical act.

[00:11:37] Speaker 02:
Just so you, maybe you do, but just to make sure you understand my point, that the last bit of claim eight is a physical act of making marks.

[00:11:51] Speaker 01:
That is, I understand Your Honor's concern.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
That is, so a specific result that is accomplished via this intangible

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
a phenomenon of electromagnetism.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
So the only physical act that is discussed in claim 8 was simply the result of using the abstract idea.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
That's different from claim 20, which involves physical components that are actually performing mechanical actions, as opposed to just the end result of

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
of weight is added to the dumbbell.

[00:12:27] Speaker 01:
There's a specific process that's recited in the claim or that's contemplated by the claim that it's a stepwise process where the data entry device operatively controls the energization of the motor.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
The motor couples weight plates.

[00:12:45] Speaker 01:
It's two weight plates or

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
a number of weight plates that have to be coupled to both ends of the dumbbells handle.

[00:12:52] Speaker 01:
So that is a different result in nature from what O'Reilly versus Morse talks about.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
Thinking about the more recent cases, so the example that comes to my mind is Chamberlain, which involved a movable barrier operator system.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
But the claims, although they recited some physical components, those physical components weren't actually moving the barrier.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
They were transmitting wireless information, or transmitting information wirelessly, as opposed to via hardwired connection.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
So that's another information to the garage door moving device.

[00:13:34] Speaker 01:
Um, information to the, uh, like, trying to remember where exactly the information is going.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
Open it or close it.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
These are the only two relevant pieces of information.

[00:13:42] Speaker 01:
No, it's actually, that's actually not the case.

[00:13:45] Speaker 01:
The claim was transmitting status information about the system.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
So it wasn't even, uh, here's a signal that we're sending wirelessly to that you would assume would ultimately result in the garage door opening or closing.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
It's just a status, uh, check on the system.

[00:13:59] Speaker 01:
That's the only information that was, uh, being communicated.

[00:14:02] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
If there are no further questions, I'll reserve the balance of my time.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
OK, thank you.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
May it please the court, my name is Mark Ford.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
I represent IFIP, the Accused Infringer and Appellee in this case.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
Power Block argues that the claims at issue here are purely mechanical, and they lack any commonality with claims that this Court has ever held ineligible because the claims of the 771 patent fail to recite a general purpose computer.

[00:14:43] Speaker 04:
Power Block asserts that the types of mechanical systems claimed by Power Block are, quote, foundationally protectable under Section 101, and that affirming the District Court decision would represent a sea change in Section 101 jurisprudence and put at risk every claim to a mechanical device.

[00:15:00] Speaker 04:
There's a lot wrong with this argument, but I'll address two problems.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
First, Power Block's assertion that the claims at issue are purely mechanical is wrong.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
They are not.

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
While the claims recite some mechanical components, they also recite electronic components.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
Mr. Ford, why doesn't claim one

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
give enough structure to make it so it's not abstract.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
Some of our case law says you can't really claim the function.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
You can't say a article for doing this.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
I mean, so why isn't it enough that it has a particular electric motor coupled to a selector that is energized from a source will physically move the selector into a position?

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
Why isn't that specific enough to not be abstract?

[00:15:56] Speaker 04:
So if you look at the difference between Claims 1 and Claim 20.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
Let's focus on Claim 1 for now.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
Because you think there's a difference between 1 and 20.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
But I just want to focus on Claim 1 because I really don't necessarily see the parties arguing these separately.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
So I would like to have your take on that.

[00:16:11] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:16:12] Speaker 04:
So Claim 1, the selectorized dumbbell in Claim 1, recites more structure as you've identified than, for example, Claim 20.

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
But the structure that's identified

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
and recited in claim one is nothing more than conventional components that have existed in these selectorized dumbbell sets.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
What about the combination of components?

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
I understand what you're saying.

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
We do have some case law that says when you're trying to determine what a claim is directed to under step one, sometimes we're going to really look at what is the focus of the novelty, if you will,

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
purported novelty of the invention.

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
But in this case, where you have these components all interacting with one another, how can you ignore certain structure in trying to figure out what these claims are directed to?

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
Do you understand my question?

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
I do, yeah.

[00:17:14] Speaker 04:
So the way that the claims are connected is they use very result-oriented functional limitations.

[00:17:24] Speaker 04:
Right?

[00:17:25] Speaker 04:
So they reside a dumbbell.

[00:17:27] Speaker 04:
They reside an electric motor in claim one.

[00:17:29] Speaker 04:
They add a data entry device in claim two.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
But if you look at the way that these components are connected, they use a lot of functional result-oriented.

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
What about the language?

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
I mean, I just said to you specific things that I thought were structural in the claim.

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
So it says, you know, I'm going to give you more then.

[00:17:47] Speaker 00:
There's a stack of nested left-weight plates and nested right-weight plates.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
There's a handle.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
important parts, there's a selector having different adjustment positions and it's configured a couple numbers of left weight plates to the end of the handle or selected numbers of right weight plates to the end of the handle.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
Then it says there's an electric motor operatively connected to the selector that at least whenever weight adjustment takes place

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
and that that, when energized, physically moves the selector into the adjustment position.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
I mean, so it seems like there's a description of the

[00:18:30] Speaker 00:
it says operatively coupled, so there could be some interlinkings in between.

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
But why isn't this sufficient structure to make it so this is not just functional or an abstract idea?

[00:18:42] Speaker 04:
So if you look at the background of the invention, they identify

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
well-known components of a selectorized dumbbell, and it lists all those components.

[00:18:53] Speaker 04:
For example, column 1, line 30, it talks about the selector comprising a connector pin manually inserted into different locations on the handle to vary the number of blades.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
In my description of the priority, is there an electric motor operatively connected to this selector?

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
No, I don't disagree that there's not in the prior art.

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
So you're saying in your argument really that it's not novel or it's not non-obvious?

[00:19:18] Speaker 03:
I mean, if these components were in the prior art and this combination is just adding another component or adding a few more components, aren't you using your problem really 103 and not adding the subsequent?

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
Well, there is a little bit of overlap, I think, with Section 103, but the inquiry in Section 101 is different.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
And changing, merely changing the technological environment in which a known component or a conventional element is used is not enough to get around Section 101.

[00:19:50] Speaker 04:
For example, in Affinity Labs, the claims recited an abstract idea, and it says that the limitation

[00:20:03] Speaker 04:
The restriction of delivery of out-of-region content to an electrical device doesn't alter the result.

[00:20:09] Speaker 04:
All that limitation does is it confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.

[00:20:15] Speaker 04:
In this case, cellular telephones.

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
And I would say, in this case, we have selectorized dumbbells, and we've changed the technological environment in which these selectorized dumbbells are used from a manual environment to an environment where a selector pin is moved via a data entry device and an electric motor.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
And if you – if you look at the steps – But what you just said, like, what if the claim said – the claim said

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
making the selectorization of the weight automatic.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
That might be a problem.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
But what you just said was you said there's a motor and it changes the selector pin.

[00:21:00] Speaker 00:
Why isn't that enough to make it so in this mechanical invention it's at least not abstract?

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
There might be other problems with the claim.

[00:21:11] Speaker 04:
So moving a selector pin is exactly how the manual systems operated.

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
So there has not been a change in the process, right?

[00:21:19] Speaker 04:
So the way that the conventional selectorized dumbbells worked was you would manually turn a knob and it would move the selector pin.

[00:21:28] Speaker 04:
And in this case, we've changed the technological environment so that that selector pin is now being moved not via a manual rotation of a knob, but rather via a data input device and a

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
Is there a reason why, I mean a lot of the case law I think you cite and are relying on is involved in computer technology, software technology, and there there's some ideas that you can't just say do it on a computer and so it feels like maybe you're adopting some of that concept to say you can't just say do it automatically.

[00:22:02] Speaker 04:
Yeah so I think I think the

[00:22:06] Speaker 04:
The – I don't disagree that the weight of the case law on – in this area of automation is with the computer, but not exclusively.

[00:22:17] Speaker 04:
And I think the Chamberlain case is a good example.

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
And in that case, a general purpose computer was not recited, but components that could be used in a general computer were recited.

[00:22:29] Speaker 04:
And the claims were found to be patent ineligible.

[00:22:31] Speaker 04:
They recite a controller, an interface, and a data transmitter.

[00:22:36] Speaker 04:
They didn't recite any general purpose computer.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
And when this court found those claims to be abstract, it rejected this very argument that PowerBlock is now making.

[00:22:46] Speaker 04:
This court said the patentee's reliance on the asserted claims be directed to a physical, real-world manifestation of an improved machine is misplaced.

[00:22:55] Speaker 04:
Without more, the mere physical nature of the claim elements, controller interface, wireless data transmitter, is not enough to save the claims from abstractness.

[00:23:03] Speaker 04:
These conventional components, all recited in a generic way, are no better equipped to save the claim from abstractness than were, for example, the conventional computer in Alice.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
So it's a little different though, don't you agree?

[00:23:17] Speaker 00:
As your adversary said I think that that was really focusing on sending a signal as opposed to a physical action or physical Here the claim does have more physical characteristics response to that So that case was about garage door openers right and sending a signal to a garage door to make it open or close I thought it was sending it to a controller of a garage door

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
I mean you see the slight difference.

[00:23:44] Speaker 00:
There's a difference if you're interacting with sending signals to a controller of whatever as opposed to physically moving a weight.

[00:23:54] Speaker 00:
Is there a difference?

[00:23:55] Speaker 04:
So I think that the controller in both of these cases does a similar function, right?

[00:24:00] Speaker 04:
It controls the – it receives the data from a data input device.

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
It converts it into an electric signal, and then it sends it to the electric motor that then interprets that signal to either – in the case of Chamberlain, open or close a garage door.

[00:24:15] Speaker 04:
In the case of PowerBot, add or remove weights from a selectorized dumbbell.

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
So the prior art description of the non-electric selector, can you just describe how that works?

[00:24:32] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:24:32] Speaker 04:
So the systems work exactly the same way, Your Honor.

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
Yeah, but I don't understand how the new one works either.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
So I want to start from the old and understand

[00:24:43] Speaker 02:
what the new might add.

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
Yep, so there's a selector that moves inside the selectorized dumbbell, and depending on its position, it will either grab or release certain weight plates from the ends of the handle.

[00:24:58] Speaker 02:
So in the pre-electric one, it doesn't move by itself.

[00:25:01] Speaker 02:
Is a human being with a hand moving it?

[00:25:03] Speaker 02:
That's the level of detail I'm asking about.

[00:25:05] Speaker 04:
I apologize.

[00:25:06] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:25:06] Speaker 04:
So in the pre-, in the purely manual selectorized dumbbells, a person would actually

[00:25:13] Speaker 04:
Rotate a knob, and that knob will then affect the movement of the selector.

[00:25:18] Speaker 02:
There's some gear on the knob that translates the rotary motion into some kind of linear motion.

[00:25:25] Speaker 02:
Exactly.

[00:25:25] Speaker 04:
It moves the selector to either, like I said, add more plates or remove plates from the selectorized dumbbell.

[00:25:33] Speaker 02:
And now in this patent, what's happening?

[00:25:40] Speaker 04:
So with regard to the dumbbell, the exact same thing is happening.

[00:25:44] Speaker 04:
A selector pin is moving to either add more weights or take weights off of the dumbbell.

[00:25:52] Speaker 04:
Now the way that that selector pin receives its instruction

[00:25:57] Speaker 04:
is a different technology.

[00:25:59] Speaker 02:
It might, for example, be an electric motor with a belt attached to the old knob.

[00:26:05] Speaker 02:
So it turns the knob that otherwise a hand would have to turn.

[00:26:09] Speaker 04:
That's exactly right.

[00:26:10] Speaker 04:
So in this system, you have a data entry device where somebody inputs an amount of weight.

[00:26:17] Speaker 04:
That amount of weight is then converted to an electric signal and sent to the

[00:26:22] Speaker 04:
sent to the electric motor, and then the electric motor converts that electric signal into physical movement of the selector.

[00:26:29] Speaker 04:
But the result is the same, and that's a big distinguishing feature in cases like McRoe, right, where you had actually a different process implemented

[00:26:41] Speaker 04:
to the underlying automated action, right?

[00:26:47] Speaker 04:
In McRoe, you have a set of rules that's implemented by a computer, as opposed to the prior art way of doing it, where animators would just sort of use their intuition to figure out ways to move the face, right?

[00:27:00] Speaker 04:
There was a difference in that case in the way it was done, the actual process.

[00:27:05] Speaker 04:
Same with finjam.

[00:27:07] Speaker 04:
In this case, there's no difference in the process.

[00:27:10] Speaker 04:
At the end of the day, the selector pin is being moved one direction or the other to either add or remove weights from the dumbbell.

[00:27:24] Speaker 04:
So I wanted to just briefly touch on this case.

[00:27:29] Speaker 04:
It's cited several places by this court cardio net.

[00:27:31] Speaker 04:
I think it's also cited in McBrow.

[00:27:33] Speaker 04:
But the focus of step one is whether the claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, or are they instead directed to a result or effect that is itself the abstract idea.

[00:27:44] Speaker 04:
The claims of the 771 patent failed both of these inquiries.

[00:27:48] Speaker 04:
They're not directed to a specific means or method, and they do not improve the relevant technology.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
So when determining whether- I forget.

[00:27:58] Speaker 00:
What is the procedural posture of this, right?

[00:28:03] Speaker 00:
It's just a motion to dismiss.

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:28:06] Speaker 04:
That's right.

[00:28:06] Speaker 00:
So this was- So how can you say, as a matter of law, it doesn't improve the technology when the patent specification itself says

[00:28:16] Speaker 00:
there are some ported advantages that come from doing this automatically.

[00:28:21] Speaker 00:
For example, you don't have to worry about the user hurting themselves because they haven't placed the pin properly.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
So I'm just wondering, because that's a fact question, right?

[00:28:38] Speaker 04:
There are certain improvements that will weigh in favor of patent eligibility under Section 101, but not all improvements, right?

[00:28:48] Speaker 04:
They have to be improvements to the technology.

[00:28:51] Speaker 04:
And this court's case in ADASA is very instructive, because it identified examples of what technological improvements are.

[00:29:00] Speaker 04:
It says they can be, for example, an improvement to a technological process.

[00:29:06] Speaker 04:
or to the underlying operation of a machine.

[00:29:09] Speaker 04:
But they can't be improvements that are generated by virtue of the automation or the abstract idea itself.

[00:29:18] Speaker 04:
So the claims in this case don't improve either the process of weight adjustment on a selectorized dumbbell, and they also don't.

[00:29:27] Speaker 00:
But what about where the spec says it does improve the process because it provides a better safety, like it's more likely that it's going to be done properly, the pen will be put in properly.

[00:29:36] Speaker 00:
And the reason why I say that is I hear what you're saying about those cases.

[00:29:39] Speaker 00:
You've got really good arguments here.

[00:29:42] Speaker 00:
I would just say in response to that, we always have to be careful when we read statements that are in a specific opinion from the court to bear in mind

[00:29:53] Speaker 00:
the facts of that case, meaning the claims and the invention that is recited in that case, right?

[00:29:59] Speaker 00:
And so here, I just keep on thinking, well, why can't I credit or should I at least credit for purposes of a motion to dismiss that this specification says that this structure for moving the weight using the motor to change

[00:30:19] Speaker 00:
the selector and change how many weights are picked, that that provides an advantage and that people are less likely to do it improperly.

[00:30:29] Speaker 00:
So there are, like I said, certain improvements that... So it's your view that under our case law, that is not the kind of improvement that I should take into account.

[00:30:39] Speaker 04:
Yeah, absolutely.

[00:30:40] Speaker 04:
And there's cases that I would point this court to that do identify changes to the process that are relevant to a Section 101 inquiry.

[00:30:49] Speaker 04:
And one of them is McRoe, where mathematical rules were used instead of subjective determinations.

[00:30:56] Speaker 04:
FinJan is another one, where you were using

[00:31:01] Speaker 04:
code to identify malware as opposed to, I can't remember exactly, but there were other elements that were used in the manual process to identify this malware.

[00:31:14] Speaker 04:
Here, in this case,

[00:31:16] Speaker 04:
the same process is being used, where all that's happening on the selectorized dumbbell is the selector pin is being moved to either grab more weight or take more weights off.

[00:31:27] Speaker 04:
Another good example – I know I'm out of time, but one more good example is the Echo Services case.

[00:31:33] Speaker 04:
In that case, the very first improvement that this court identified when finding those claims patent-eligible was that it produced an improved

[00:31:44] Speaker 04:
a higher degree of quality of engine washing procedure.

[00:31:48] Speaker 04:
In other words, the underlying process had improved.

[00:31:51] Speaker 04:
In this case, if you took a dumbbell that was manually adjusted to 30 pounds, and you took a dumbbell that was adjusted with an automated system to 30 pounds,

[00:32:02] Speaker 04:
and you put those two dumbbells in front of somebody and you say, could you tell the difference between each of these?

[00:32:07] Speaker 04:
Which one was done manually and which one was done under an automated system?

[00:32:11] Speaker 04:
You wouldn't be able to tell because they would both just help.

[00:32:13] Speaker 00:
What about the fact that the specification says that for one of them there might be an error?

[00:32:19] Speaker 04:
Well, my response to that, Your Honor, would be that errors are not uncommon in electric systems as well.

[00:32:27] Speaker 00:
I know.

[00:32:28] Speaker 00:
It's just a fact question.

[00:32:29] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:32:29] Speaker 04:
But the patent itself actually points out that there can be errors in the electric systems.

[00:32:38] Speaker 04:
For example, in

[00:32:41] Speaker 04:
Column 8, line 20.

[00:32:46] Speaker 04:
It talks about if the signal is not received or if an air signal is received due to overheating or jamming of the motor.

[00:32:53] Speaker 04:
Got it.

[00:32:53] Speaker 04:
OK, thank you very much.

[00:32:54] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:32:55] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:33:03] Speaker 02:
To be your claims cover, having an electric motor with a belt attached to the knob of the old device

[00:33:11] Speaker 01:
Yes, there are dependent claims that specifically recite the electric motor.

[00:33:18] Speaker 01:
Speaking of claim 13 and claim 14, which depend on claim one, that recite the specific system that uses a motor drive shaft that is included with the electric motor that is connected with selectors for a plurality of dumbbells.

[00:33:36] Speaker 01:
through a belt and pulley system.

[00:33:39] Speaker 01:
So that kind of specific approach was claimed, in fact.

[00:33:44] Speaker 01:
I want to quickly respond to just three points that my friend raised.

[00:33:50] Speaker 01:
As Judge Stoll was asking about the procedural posture here, it is important.

[00:33:57] Speaker 01:
This was a 12b6 motion.

[00:33:59] Speaker 01:
The factual statements have to be taken as true.

[00:34:04] Speaker 01:
I need to clarify Council's description of the prior art process for adjusting the weight in a selectorized dumbbell, because that process is not discussed in the background of the invention.

[00:34:17] Speaker 01:
The background of the invention actually describes the process differently.

[00:34:21] Speaker 01:
Rather than turning a knob to move the selector, the background of the invention specifically states in column one,

[00:34:27] Speaker 01:
beginning in line 49, the selectors used to adjust the weight of the dumbbell are mechanical members that must be directly gripped and manipulated by the user.

[00:34:39] Speaker 01:
So it's not a knob that causes some other action to occur.

[00:34:44] Speaker 01:
It's the selector itself that has to be manually manipulated by the user.

[00:34:48] Speaker 01:
In fact, the system that my friend was describing is actually a different aspect to the invention that's discussed elsewhere in the specification that uses a configuration other than an electric motor and a data entry device to effectuate adjustment.

[00:35:05] Speaker 01:
That's shown in Figure 11 and discussed in Column 6.

[00:35:10] Speaker 02:
And what's your third point?

[00:35:13] Speaker 01:
That was only my first point.

[00:35:15] Speaker 01:
I'll get to my next point.

[00:35:19] Speaker 01:
Your honor was asking about raising some questions about obviousness.

[00:35:23] Speaker 01:
I do agree that I think the thrust of the district court's opinion really sounds more like an obviousness decision.

[00:35:29] Speaker 01:
I think the language that the district court used

[00:35:31] Speaker 01:
with something along the lines of the data entry device and electric motor, or only the conceivably, your plane 20 recites only the conceivably necessary components to perform automated weight stacking.

[00:35:44] Speaker 01:
But whether something's conceivably necessary or not, that's the language of obviousness.

[00:35:49] Speaker 01:
Obviousness is a separate inquiry from 101, as the court knows, and it involves certain requirements that would not be present under 101 and certainly not on a motion to dismiss.

[00:36:01] Speaker 01:
It requires underlying a factual finding.

[00:36:04] Speaker 01:
It requires the lack of hindsight, which I think is important.

[00:36:07] Speaker 01:
We're in 2025 thinking about an invention that claims priority to a 2006 application.

[00:36:13] Speaker 01:
In 2006, given the state of this technology, it's unclear what components would have been conceivably necessary at that time.

[00:36:20] Speaker 01:
The third point, and I'll be quick, is about Chamberlain.

[00:36:25] Speaker 01:
Chamberlain, again, does not concern actual movement of the barrier.

[00:36:29] Speaker 01:
It concerns transmission of status information about the system.

[00:36:33] Speaker 01:
So there's not a mechanical process that's contemplated by the claimant issue in Chamberlain.

[00:36:38] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:36:39] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:36:40] Speaker 02:
Thanks to both counsels.

[00:36:41] Speaker 02:
Case is submitted.