[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Our first case for argument today is 24-1721, Soba versus Amazon.

[00:00:09] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hadley, please proceed.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
The court's cases say that considering ALICE step one, the question focuses on what patent asserts is the advancement over the prior art.

[00:00:25] Speaker 01:
That advancement in the CIPA patents is an improved digital picture frame.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
It is not improved computer technology, and it can't be.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
In fact, Amazon admits that the improved picture frames that allows accessing and updating of photographs does so without the computer.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
That that is the invention.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
But then it argues that that invention is abstract because it does not improve computer technology.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
It makes no sense.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
If the invention operates without a computer, then how could it be that it is abstract because it doesn't improve computer technology?

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
The picture frame does have computer processors, correct?

[00:01:13] Speaker 01:
That is part of the invention, correct.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
It includes a computer processor that was never in a digital picture frame before.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
It includes a upgraded memory that can interact with a processor computer and a communications link that was never in a digital picture frame before.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
And it includes a communications link

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
that was never in a digital picture frame before.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
And it includes programming that, and the key to the invention is that this programming allows the digital picture frame to operate without any user input.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
In fact, the claims make clear that the, because it's not a computer, that there is no user interface like they would have in a computer that allows the digital picture frame to operate

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
So it requires a user to operate the digital picture frame.

[00:02:12] Speaker 03:
But don't the claims simply look like sending and receiving data using generic hardware and software?

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
The hardware, the processor, and the memory were known.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
We don't contend otherwise.

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
But the invention isn't generic hardware.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
The invention itself is the environment that consists of hardware that had never been before been used in a digital picture frame.

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
One doesn't claim the environment.

[00:02:51] Speaker 03:
You claim the system.

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
And maybe in a different world, we might say that the system is not abstract.

[00:03:00] Speaker 03:
But that's not the world we live in.

[00:03:02] Speaker 03:
And if one breaks down a system claim and finds that it's passing information back and forth with generic components, that's where we are.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
Well, the past precedent teaches that just because a device uses components that were already known doesn't mean that a device that uses those components is necessarily abstract.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
There are a number of inventions that this court has held to be non-abstract that use quote unquote generic components.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
In other words, you don't have to invent

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
a new type of computer or a new component to satisfy section 101.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
In fact, this quote's recent decision in Contour versus GoPro is a very good illustration of that.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
That case involved a generic point of view camera, small camera, that already existed.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
It had all of the components that were already known in the art.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
And the invention was to take that camera and add to it the capability to generate multiple streams.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
The process of generating multiple streams of video was certainly well known at the time.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
It was done with computers and other types of existing equipment.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
But this court found that that invention was not abstract because it was the first device

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
that took those existing hardware components and put it in a point of view camera so that that camera could do something that the camera never did before, namely allow a user to have a high quality recording on the device itself and a low quality recording on something like a mobile phone.

[00:05:07] Speaker 04:
Council, what would you say is the specific improvement that this claim is directed to?

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
The specific improvement that this claim is directed to is the use of

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
of hardware and software that had never before been put in a digital picture frame so that a person without any technical training whatsoever can take the device, plug it in, connect it to a phone line, and receive photographs from a remote site automatically and have those photographs updated

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
periodically at a preset time.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
And that involves the specific steps that are required in the claim involve making sure that the device itself is authenticated.

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
You don't want to receive photos that are intended for a different device.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
You only want the photos that are intended for your device to contact the repository.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
and to receive those photos so that you walk as explained.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
I'm surprised that you have not mentioned as a specific improvement the clean limitation of physically separable.

[00:06:39] Speaker 01:
That is another one.

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
And that is the back end.

[00:06:44] Speaker 01:
I was describing what is novel about the computer.

[00:06:48] Speaker 04:
As far as I understand, you said up to this point is, well, a computer.

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
And the point is that the picture frame itself is not a computer.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
In fact, the claims and the specification are clear that it's not a computer for no other reason.

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
The computer requires a user input.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
But on the back end, as you said, the other improvements on the back end includes that it is physically separable.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
so that it can be remotely controlled by somebody who is computer savvy.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
And that allows for all sorts of other enhancements, namely in the security area.

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
Again, so that the device doesn't receive photos that aren't intended for it.

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
It can be updated, and the user can play on the remote side the

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
the back end can communicate or somebody can communicate with the device itself to the extent that that needs to take place.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
That's all part of this invention and that was all things that were never done with conventional picture frames.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
And as a matter of fact, as the patent explains,

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
These were all things that were never even done with computers before.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
The patent talks about prior systems that could allow for the sharing at the time.

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
This goes back to 1999 when dial-up was the standard communications that computers could do to obtain photos.

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
And it talks about email systems and the limitations with email systems and why those email systems didn't work.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
why this was an improvement over the email systems.

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
The email systems obviously work, but it required special software, special programming, and a bulky computer.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
It also explains why prior ARC push systems didn't work, systems that could automatically update a computer.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
And it explained why things like what's called a pull system, namely a web browser,

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
was insufficient.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
And why those things cost thousands of dollars at the time and this device could be made, this invention could be made for a couple hundred dollars and required no technical ability whatsoever.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
in contours, our contours case helps you position?

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
Yes, I think contours is directly on point for a couple of reasons.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
One is because contours involve the use of existing hardware in a device where it had never been used before.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
to allow the device to do something that it had never done before.

[00:09:37] Speaker 01:
And that is exactly like this invention.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
This invention took an existing digital picture frame, the one that existed at the time was the Sony CyberFrame, and it greatly improved it.

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
It put in hardware that had never been put in a digital picture frame before.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
And it allowed a digital picture frame to do things that a digital picture frame had never done before.

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
Like what?

[00:10:07] Speaker 04:
I'm trying to get you to the position to really address with a little bit more specificity.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
What is it that is eligible?

[00:10:18] Speaker 04:
or is not abstract under step one with this?

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
The ability to obtain new photographs automatically without any user input whatsoever or any user operation whatsoever that others remotely separate from the device itself

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
can put into a dedicated storage location, and the device itself can access that through an authentication procedure.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
That is the improvement, or the main improvement, and to update those photos.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
That is what had never been done before.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
And that's not an abstract idea.

[00:11:01] Speaker 01:
Just the device itself, I don't think it

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
yeah i i'm aware of the cases talking about generic components but when you put those generic components into a concrete device an actual physical device that's described in the complaint in the uh... in the claims

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
It's hard to say that that device that's described in these claims is abstract.

[00:11:26] Speaker 01:
It's a real thing.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
It's a physical thing that you can read about and hold.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
And whether it has conventional components or not is really not the question of whether it's abstract.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
And a number of this court's cases.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
Whether it's a real thing that you can hold has nothing to do with whether it's abstract.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
Yes, I agree with that.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
It is a real thing.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
It doesn't matter.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
Everything's a real thing.

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
People aren't filing patents on fake things.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
Well, it's not just software.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
It's not an improved computing mechanism.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
It is an improved digital picture frame.

[00:12:07] Speaker 01:
And just like the point of view camera in Contour was an improved thing in this court decision, talked about that it was not abstract because it was in the context of an improved camera.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
Are all the patents in issue expired?

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
I believe there is still some time left on one of the patents.

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
But I think the others have largely expired.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
do you know which one is?

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
There's still a sign left on one of them.

[00:12:41] Speaker 00:
Which one?

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
I am not sure.

[00:12:44] Speaker 00:
Maybe on the bottle, could you?

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:12:47] Speaker 00:
Maybe you'll find that out for me on the bottle.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, I will attempt to do that.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
OK, great.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
And I think that on the flip side, the case that is different and can be easily distinguished is Charge Point.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
In Charge Point, this court was very clear in explaining that the

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
that by adding a communications network to an EV charging station, the EV charging station still had all of the components that it previously had.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
That there were, and it could still be.

[00:13:18] Speaker 00:
You don't want to save any time for rebuttal?

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
Because this is your rebuttal time you're using now, so.

[00:13:26] Speaker 01:
The last point is that the EV charging station, if you wanted to compare it to the SEVA patent, would have simply communicated what the user was doing.

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
So in SEVA, the invention is not communicating what photos somebody is looking at.

[00:13:42] Speaker 01:
I'll save the rest of my time to read out.

[00:13:54] Speaker 02:
And please record, they've had it for Amazon.

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
The district court correctly found that these patents claimed ineligible subject matter.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
The patents claimed the abstract idea of automatically accessing a data store for updated content without a computer and without other user interactions in the context of a digital picture frame.

[00:14:18] Speaker 02:
But the claims claim that idea using purely functional reserve-oriented language.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
573 back in claim 19 is illustrative.

[00:14:31] Speaker 02:
It claims a digital picture frame with software configured to operate according to preferences defined by user.

[00:14:40] Speaker 02:
and a user interface configured to obtain image data and said preferences from said user.

[00:14:48] Speaker 02:
And a server system is configured to periodically relay said image data and said preferences to a said at least one digital picture frame.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
And finally, the picture frame is configured to obtain an update for said operating system software.

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
So, counsel, how do you distinguish this case

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
from our decision in Contour IP holding, which your opposing counsel brought up a couple of times, which by the way says a camera process configured to in the claim there.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
The word configured to is sprinkled throughout the claims in the Contour case as well.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
So I don't think the fact that it just says configured to in the phones in your case

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
necessarily mean it's not eligible because that same language is sprinkled throughout the claims in contour and the court concluded otherwise there.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
Well, in contour, Your Honor, the claims covered the specific improvement to the point-of-view camera.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
And in particular, the court focused on the fact that it, in parallel, at the same time, recorded two separate streams, a high-quality stream and a lower-quality stream, and streamed the lower-quality stream wirelessly to a device.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
That was a new specific functionality that was added in those claims to the device.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
But likewise, how isn't the new functionality in this claim exactly what Judge Raino was inquiring about, which is the physical separability?

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
Prior to this claim, you had to maybe take a little storage device to insert your pictures into the digital

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
picture frame, making a physical connection, whereas here there's a separable wireless transfer permitted.

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
So how does that not compare to the same kind of improved functionality that was at issue in Contour?

[00:16:55] Speaker 02:
Yes, Shauna.

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
The difference is here that improvement is just accessing information over network.

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
As Judge Lurie pointed out, this court's precedent of very clear that that is an abstract idea.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
We go back to if any labs versus Amazon.

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
The claim was to streaming content to a user's wireless device using a customized interface.

[00:17:21] Speaker 02:
And because the claims captured only that idea in result-oriented language, the court found it abstract.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
And there's no difference here.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
The same is true in TLI, right?

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
In TLI, the idea is sending an image from a phone to a server with classification information.

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
And the core found out it was abstracted because it was claimed just at that high level.

[00:17:48] Speaker 02:
In this case, it's exactly kind of the reverse of TLI.

[00:17:51] Speaker 02:
Here we have a server sending a photo to a device for viewing, claimed at the same high functional level.

[00:18:01] Speaker 04:
The difference here, though, is that the person, the user, that's using the interface,

[00:18:07] Speaker 04:
does not have to be physically close to the frame.

[00:18:11] Speaker 04:
In fact, we could have multiple users throughout the country that are sending pictures to the grandfather or to somebody, and those things are being automatically uploaded.

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
But that is claimed, again, in just dysfunctional language.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
The idea is you have a user interface, which they say is separate, could be a web image.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
In existing technology, especially with the cyber devices, you have to be at the device itself.

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
So somebody had to go up and use a phone driver or something to provide the photo for the digital frame.

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
This, in which it seems to me,

[00:18:51] Speaker 04:
especially with the language in clone 19, that a user interface is physically separable.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
That was not the cyber device, was it?

[00:19:01] Speaker 02:
In the Sony device, there was not a separable interface.

[00:19:05] Speaker 04:
So this point, this clone language, is something that was not practiced before.

[00:19:12] Speaker 04:
This is not part of the cyber device.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
It was not part of the Sony device, but the idea of being able to receive data through an interface or remote from the device that is no different than TLI or GoTV, all those situations, the user can do something.

[00:19:32] Speaker 02:
and then receive information either from a server or to a server.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
So the fact that you can interact with the web page separate from the device, that can't be the invention.

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
In fact, Siva did not even claim that that is an inventive concept here.

[00:19:52] Speaker 02:
The inventive concept that they claim is nothing but the idea itself that is of a automatically updating picture frame.

[00:20:02] Speaker 02:
Again, there's no improvement to any underlying technology.

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
And there is no instance.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
So I don't think that this case has any concrete

[00:20:19] Speaker 02:
implementation of any new technology, which is the test at step one.

[00:20:25] Speaker 04:
In control, we found improvement to a portable planar view digital video camera.

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
Here, the descriptive language in the claim says a user interface that is physically separable.

[00:20:44] Speaker 04:
So that is descriptive language.

[00:20:48] Speaker 04:
Would you consider, do you agree with me?

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
I agree that the claim talks about having a separable user interface.

[00:20:57] Speaker 04:
So how is this different from contour?

[00:20:59] Speaker 02:
Because a separable user interface, as the patent explains, is just a web page.

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
Web pages were known in conventional.

[00:21:08] Speaker 02:
The idea that you could, you can send someone an email through a web page, you can provide information through a web page.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
The web was around 15 years before these patents.

[00:21:19] Speaker 04:
In contour... Is that true in the field of digital frames, picture frames?

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
Well, digital picture therapy is just a consumer product that, as Gianna pointed out, has internal components, computer components, a processor, and a display.

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
All of these things were standard.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
What you're talking about here with respect to the remote interface is just a web page that people can provide information to.

[00:21:50] Speaker 02:
That is distinct from whether it's going to a digital picture frame, or a PC, or a tablet computer.

[00:21:58] Speaker 02:
In fact, what they claim infringes these buttons are tablet computers.

[00:22:03] Speaker 02:
So there's nothing specific about this being tied to a digital picture frame, except for their product idea.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
That was their product.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
And it may have been a good product idea.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
But it's still just an abstract idea the way it is claimed, because they claim no specific improvement to any technology.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
Patents expired.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:22:27] Speaker 02:
Let's see.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure, John.

[00:22:30] Speaker 02:
I think there may be one that's still outstanding, but hopefully he can answer that question for you, sir.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
So.

[00:22:40] Speaker 02:
I don't think that this claim can be distinguished from GoTV, TLI, Affinity Labs, or several other cases in this flow recently that have found that this type of functional language is not sufficient, either step one, to claim a specific improvement to computer network technology,

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
Or to step two, because again, as this court held in GoTV, it just doesn't pass muster as far as identifying a concrete technical implementation improvement that is required as step two.

[00:23:22] Speaker 00:
How do you define what our court did in contour IP?

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
I mean, certainly there's so many data points out there, and you're pointing to the ones that help you.

[00:23:32] Speaker 00:
But the hardest one for you, it seems to me, is Contour IP.

[00:23:36] Speaker 00:
So can you really do the best job possible of explaining to me how this case is different from that?

[00:23:44] Speaker 02:
Yeah, I think the best is that the claims and the device that was claimed there did this

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
dual recording in parallel as the quote relied on.

[00:23:58] Speaker 02:
So it's taking, it's recording two streams at the same time of different quality and it's streaming one of them to this remote device.

[00:24:09] Speaker 02:
So that is a concrete technical change.

[00:24:16] Speaker 02:
We're now recording two streams simultaneously.

[00:24:20] Speaker 00:
Okay, but here in this case, I'm just going to draw some analogies for you.

[00:24:25] Speaker 00:
In this case, it's never been the case that these digital picture frames before sent and received information

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
in a manner that did not require the person to physically be present or have these authentication functions as a component of their process.

[00:24:47] Speaker 00:
So those are highlighted as technical improvements to the visual picture frame technology.

[00:24:54] Speaker 00:
I would think that kind of parallels in my mind to multiple video streams in the Contour IP case.

[00:25:02] Speaker 02:
Well, I think receiving information remotely is not the concrete improvement that we see in CONTOUR, where you are reporting twice a day.

[00:25:16] Speaker 00:
Oh, it's happening completely.

[00:25:16] Speaker 00:
In fact, in CONTOUR, the court said,

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
here claim 11 describes more than wireless data transfer within a particular technological environment.

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
Instead, it enables a POV camera to operate differently than it could otherwise by both recording multiple video streams in parallel and wirelessly transferring only one of them to a remote device.

[00:25:40] Speaker 00:
So it has a kernel of something different in the way it operated to effectuate the data transfer.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
Is there something like that in the claims at issue vis-a-vis the authentication function or the remote triggering or something like that?

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
I don't think there is, Your Honor.

[00:26:03] Speaker 02:
The authentication, as this court held in my mail and other cases, is something that is abstract of itself.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
And there is nothing concrete about what is

[00:26:13] Speaker 02:
claimed in the authentication step here.

[00:26:17] Speaker 02:
And beyond that, then we're left just with receiving information.

[00:26:21] Speaker 02:
And the court has, again, repeatedly said that that is abstract.

[00:26:26] Speaker 02:
So we are, I think, far from contour as far as how concrete this patent claimed a technical improvement.

[00:26:36] Speaker 02:
contour, we had something concrete.

[00:26:38] Speaker 02:
We had these two streams being recorded different quality simultaneously.

[00:26:45] Speaker 02:
Here we're talking about authentication and receiving and sending information.

[00:26:50] Speaker 02:
Concepts that this court has repeatedly held are abstract.

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
And there's nothing in the claim that describes any new or improved way to achieve either the authentication or the sending or receiving of the image information.

[00:27:05] Speaker 02:
All of the claims just talk about configured to do what the user wants.

[00:27:11] Speaker 04:
Assuming that the claims are abstract, do they reside in the benefit concept?

[00:27:17] Speaker 02:
No, they don't, Your Honor, and see they never identify one.

[00:27:22] Speaker 02:
And what they identify in their brief in this page 19 of the reply is nothing but the abstract idea.

[00:27:33] Speaker 02:
They say at page 19,

[00:27:34] Speaker 02:
that the invented concept is the unconventional functionality of the digital picture frame that automatically configures itself upon power-up, automatically and periodically retrieves new photos for display, allows others to send photos for automatic retrieval and display, and allow users to remotely configure and control the frame.

[00:27:55] Speaker 02:
That's nothing but the abstract idea.

[00:27:58] Speaker 02:
And this court's precedent is clear that at step two, the invented concept, has to be some concrete implementation improvement to the technology.

[00:28:09] Speaker 02:
And they have not identified any, not any element of the claim or specific combination of those elements.

[00:28:19] Speaker 02:
Finally, they haven't raised a fact dispute.

[00:28:22] Speaker 02:
Their only purported fact dispute is that there was claims for the commercial product.

[00:28:29] Speaker 02:
But the district court correctly rejected that because it's a wrong one.

[00:28:36] Speaker 02:
The failure a claim to is a matter of law because they did not identify anything except the abstract idea.

[00:28:45] Speaker 02:
And even if you look at what the praise is, as Siva says herself in page 57 of its blue brief, the primary advantage that was repeatedly praised in the cited evidence was the ability for a non-tech savvy user to plug in the device and have it automatically set itself up and start periodically downloading pictures.

[00:29:06] Speaker 02:
That is, again, nothing but the abstract idea.

[00:29:10] Speaker 02:
So that cannot create a fact dispute at step two.

[00:29:16] Speaker 04:
So you're saying that a physically separable user interface that's separate away from the digital camera, that that's not concrete?

[00:29:28] Speaker 02:
Well, it's not, because all they're talking about is a web page that someone could access.

[00:29:34] Speaker 02:
That's not concrete, that's not a new improvement.

[00:29:38] Speaker 02:
They're just saying that somehow you can configure this thing using something different than the device itself.

[00:29:44] Speaker 04:
In fact, in Affinity Labs versus Amazon... The background of this place suggests that in the field of digital frames, picture frames, that in the prior field, like under the cyber devices,

[00:30:00] Speaker 04:
the user had to be close or on top, touch the device in order to upload pictures.

[00:30:09] Speaker 04:
Here, the steps taken through the sequences for the user can be anywhere.

[00:30:15] Speaker 04:
It's physically separate.

[00:30:17] Speaker 04:
Why is that not concrete?

[00:30:19] Speaker 02:
Well, it's the same as in affiliate labs versus Amazon.

[00:30:23] Speaker 02:
There was this issue of a customer user interface that was separate from the device.

[00:30:28] Speaker 02:
It was essentially a web page that would be used to select the content that would be streamed.

[00:30:34] Speaker 02:
It's exactly the same thing here.

[00:30:35] Speaker 02:
There was nothing concrete about this separate user interface.

[00:30:39] Speaker 02:
There was just any mechanism other than pushing a device on the frame itself.

[00:30:45] Speaker 02:
And in the patent, it's described as a generic web page.

[00:30:49] Speaker 02:
That is not the idea of providing or sending information or even setting up a device using a webpage is both abstract and nothing new.

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

[00:31:06] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:31:08] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hadley.

[00:31:15] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, in answer to your question about whether the patents had expired, unfortunately, I can only say that I'm not entirely sure.

[00:31:22] Speaker 01:
The 930 patent and the 656 patent were both extended by over a thousand days, but both subject to terminal disclaimers.

[00:31:31] Speaker 01:
And my understanding is that they have been expired, but I would need to check that with prosecution counsel, because there's been some recent case law on how the extensions interplay with terminal disclaimers.

[00:31:45] Speaker 01:
It is not correct that the physically separable user interface is just a web page.

[00:31:53] Speaker 01:
If it were, then when you came and turned on the device,

[00:31:58] Speaker 01:
it would get thousands and thousands of photographs that may not be intended for the device.

[00:32:04] Speaker 01:
It is much more than just a web page, and the patent explains the unique features and properties of that interface to make sure that the device itself receives only the photos that are authorized to be sent to it.

[00:32:21] Speaker 00:
Where do the claims do that?

[00:32:23] Speaker 01:
The claims do that in

[00:32:28] Speaker 01:
It's actually the limitations that was mentioned, the limitations that talk about the physically separate device that the... Why don't you take a minute and get your patent?

[00:32:39] Speaker 00:
I'm not going to cut your time off.

[00:32:41] Speaker 00:
I want to let you be able to answer the question.

[00:32:50] Speaker 00:
I think that we were focused generally on claim 19 of the 573, if you have that one handy, but... Claim five of the 656 patent.

[00:32:59] Speaker 01:
It talks about authenticating the server system and the way that authenticating refers to the process of determining what content is

[00:33:12] Speaker 01:
he is in the physically separable user interface that is intended for that device.

[00:33:17] Speaker 00:
Okay, but I mean, the authentication claims, the full extent of the claim is an authentication function configured to authenticate.

[00:33:28] Speaker 00:
I mean, that's kind of a little bit general-seeming.

[00:33:33] Speaker 01:
It goes to the construction of authentication, as interpreted through the specification.

[00:33:53] Speaker 01:
Yes, it's the construction.

[00:33:57] Speaker 01:
And then finally, I don't believe this case can be distinguished from Contour.

[00:34:02] Speaker 01:
Contour had no new hardware recording the two streams.

[00:34:06] Speaker 03:
You didn't cite Contour in your brief.

[00:34:09] Speaker 03:
How could it be so critical?

[00:34:11] Speaker 01:
Because Contour was decided after we provided our opening brief.

[00:34:17] Speaker 01:
So we cited it in our reply.

[00:34:20] Speaker 01:
recording the two streams was already known at two different qualities.

[00:34:27] Speaker 01:
And this still found a technical improvement because the camera that incorporated that functionality was able to do something that it was not able to do before, just as the SEVA digital picture frame with its new functionality was able to do something that it was not able to do before.

[00:34:47] Speaker 00:
Well, the problem for you that I'm having is in Contour,

[00:34:51] Speaker 00:
our court said the claims are drawn to a specific means or method that improves enrollment technology and that specific means or method it goes to in detail describing the two streams, one of higher quality, one of lower quality, them being recorded in parallel and only the lower quality one sent and then it goes on to explain how that resulted in an improvement in bandwidth.

[00:35:18] Speaker 00:
I don't see anything like that in your claims.

[00:35:22] Speaker 00:
I just see data transfer and authentication with no level of detail.

[00:35:26] Speaker 00:
I see really general statements of purpose, but without any of the specificity that the contour claim

[00:35:35] Speaker 00:
We relied on Incontour to say that's what made a difference.

[00:35:40] Speaker 00:
It's a specific way of doing it.

[00:35:41] Speaker 00:
Not just competing to authenticate by authenticating, but competing to authenticate by blank, some very specific way.

[00:35:50] Speaker 00:
And those claims had a very specific way and your claims just feel like they generally cover any way of accomplishing it.

[00:35:57] Speaker 01:
I think the specific way is covered in a number of different places.

[00:36:01] Speaker 01:
One is the separate user interface that doesn't require a person to actually plug in a thumb drive into the device to download pictures.

[00:36:13] Speaker 01:
And then the other is the claims to talk about not just authentication, but talk about the interface, the programming, and how the programming is done.

[00:36:27] Speaker 01:
to not just authenticate, but then to contact the separate user interface to download the photos that are intended for that particular device.

[00:36:37] Speaker 01:
And then the final key is that it's all done automatically, and then the specification explains how it's done automatically and the patent.

[00:36:47] Speaker 01:
is clear that it's not a computer with a user input that would allow a user to accomplish those functions.

[00:36:54] Speaker 01:
So I think that in much the same way as Contour, there's no question that the device could do things that are spelled out in the claims that existing digital picture frames couldn't do before.

[00:37:06] Speaker 00:
Okay, I think we're careful with cases taken under submission.