[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Our next case is Nantworks, LLC versus Niantic, Inc.

[00:00:05] Speaker 03:
24-2216.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Mr. Blackburn, you have reserved five minutes at a time to rebuttal.

[00:00:15] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, Matthew Blackburn, on behalf of the Nantwork's Appellants.

[00:00:20] Speaker 02:
The district court here invalidated two augmented reality patents by oversimplifying detailed method steps in the claim bodies that describe techniques for how to achieve certain technological improvements, and by ignoring either unrebutted factual evidence showing that there was inventive concept or failing to address that factual issue.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
We would ask the court to reverse the district court.

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
With the court's indulgence, I'm going to start with step one and start with the 518 patent.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
The district court here reduced the claim to providing information based on a location.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
Do you agree that claim seven is representative of the 518 patent claims?

[00:01:05] Speaker 02:
We do, for purposes of this bill.

[00:01:10] Speaker 02:
Now, the 518 patent is talking about how to place AR into a scene.

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
And if you take a look at the claims, there's a lot of detail in there about specifically how to do that.

[00:01:20] Speaker 02:
And it's beyond merely providing information based on location.

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
So first, you have to associate the AR content objects with tessellated tiles in a tile map.

[00:01:32] Speaker 02:
Then you have to identify tile sub-areas based on device location.

[00:01:36] Speaker 02:
Then you have to selectively populate the device memory with only the AR content objects that are associated with the tiles in that sub area.

[00:01:46] Speaker 02:
And then you have to, and this is an important step that might be overlooked, you have to render the AR objects, but only those in the view of interest.

[00:01:55] Speaker 02:
And so what this claim is trying to balance is that in the prior art discussed in the specification, you had precaching of AR objects.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
And that was taking up a lot of memory and bandwidth in these edge devices that have limited memory and bandwidth.

[00:02:11] Speaker 02:
And that was causing AR to be delivered poorly.

[00:02:14] Speaker 02:
And so by doing this, you're limiting the number of AR objects that have to be provided to the device.

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
And you're also providing just enough so that if the user moves the mobile phone, they can see a second or third AR object without having to wait for it to spool up.

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
And so this was allowing them to place AR objects in a way that hadn't been done before.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
The second patent... So what is that?

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
An improvement in the field of augmented reality?

[00:02:44] Speaker 02:
It's a technological process that improves the AR technology.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
And under the case law, that is exactly what is patentable.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
One of the things that I think the court did wrong was overgeneralizing the claims.

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
And that's something the parties hotly debated.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
Under TechSec, you really can't overgeneralize the claim.

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
You have to look at the claim and see, is it telling you how to do the process?

[00:03:16] Speaker 02:
And we would say that our claim is certainly telling you how to do the process more than just merely providing information based on a location on the map.

[00:03:24] Speaker 04:
Council, did you say something to the effect of the claim that issue requires selectively populating?

[00:03:31] Speaker 04:
Did you use that terminology?

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
Yeah, it's worth citing the claim.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
Selectively populating device memory with AR content objects associated with tiles in the sub area.

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
That's that column 27 lines 1 to 5 in claim 1.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
Claim 7 is a dependent claim off of that.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
Did I answer your question, Your Honor?

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
I see the words populate.

[00:03:59] Speaker 04:
It might just be that I'm not reading as quickly as you are.

[00:04:02] Speaker 04:
Where is the selectively populated?

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
I don't think the word selectively is there.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
I think it's because when you read the rest of the language in there, it's talking about what you populate into the memory.

[00:04:12] Speaker 02:
And it's only the AR objects that are in the tile sub area.

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
Is a map grid a set of tessellated tiles?

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
I think it could be, it doesn't have to be, but more than a tessellated tile is required by this claim.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
That's why that analogy sort of falls.

[00:04:32] Speaker 02:
Certainly maps with grids were known, but that's not what this claim is describing.

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
It's talking about sending data to this device

[00:04:42] Speaker 02:
as needed and not before, and sending enough data so that you can get a good AR experience without having to have the data spool.

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
That's not a problem that you would have ever had in SMAP context.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
And I think that's important because of DDR.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
These claims are definitely rooted in technology.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
Augmented reality can't exist in... What technology?

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
Augmented reality.

[00:05:09] Speaker 02:
cannot exist anywhere excepting in computing devices.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
And so the question is, is the process that's embodied in our claim, is there a real world analog?

[00:05:19] Speaker 02:
And if you're looking for that real world analog in the map context in a gridded map, there's not enough there.

[00:05:26] Speaker 02:
It's not the entirety of what's described in the how in our claims.

[00:05:31] Speaker 02:
which is talking about not just using test-related tiles, but also deciding when to send the information, what information to send, and what to render.

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
That's not something you have a real-world analog for.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
How do you distinguish the Sanderling case?

[00:05:46] Speaker 02:
I thought that might come up.

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
So that has to do with, I think, mostly the other patent, the 051 patent.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
And Sanderling is talking about location-based ads.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
And that is exactly an example where you had a long-standing practice outside the context of computers of providing ads based on location.

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
One example that comes to mind is you might get a flyer when you move into town that gives you all of the ads for the close businesses.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
Here, there's no evidence in the record that shows that with the 051 patent, which is talking about a different invention where you're trying to enable context-sensitive AR experiences, that that was actually known long ago.

[00:06:38] Speaker 02:
And so if you look at the claims for the 051 patent, this is the other AR patent, unrelated.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
It talks about determining context for the AR device and pertinent to the environment based on device location.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
That's the involvement of location, determining context.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
Then you identify the relevant AR objects that correspond to that context.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
And then you determine whether and how to alter

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
the AR object presence based on location as well as something called the virtual element attribute.

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
That's something that has never been done before outside the context of augmented reality.

[00:07:20] Speaker 02:
And so the Sandling case doesn't have, in a long-standing practice, we don't.

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
They did not involve AR.

[00:07:28] Speaker 02:
They did not have a virtual element attribute.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
So it's actually quite different.

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
That answer your question, Your Honor?

[00:07:38] Speaker 02:
Now, the other thing I wanted to talk about was the analogies.

[00:07:44] Speaker 02:
No, actually improvements.

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
One of the debates between the parties is whether or not the improvements in the claims have to be recited in the claim.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
And there was some language in the district court decision that suggested that they did.

[00:07:57] Speaker 02:
I would suggest, whether it's Unilock, Cosmo Key, or Enfish, that this court's precedent says that absolutely you do not have to say, my invention improves this AR technology this way in the claim.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
All that's required is that you have to claim something in the claim that provides the benefit, and the benefit has to be explained in the specification.

[00:08:21] Speaker 02:
That's what this court's cases stand for.

[00:08:24] Speaker 02:
Now, they've cited, I believe it's Synopsis, Erickson, and Two Way Media.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
Those cases can each be distinguished because what they're talking about in those cases was situations where the specification

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
was describing a benefit that was separate and apart from what was being claimed.

[00:08:43] Speaker 02:
So for example, in one case, you had a benefit that was attendant to using a mobile device, but they didn't claim a mobile device.

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
So you couldn't take credit for that improvement in a mobile device when you weren't claiming it.

[00:08:57] Speaker 04:
What do you intend as the technological improvement that is kept by the terms here?

[00:09:02] Speaker 02:
So in the context of the 518 patent, it's really talking about reducing bandwidth and using memory more efficiently.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
And that's the idea that you're only providing AR content to the user's device when they're in the right location.

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
What was that?

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
It reduces bandwidth?

[00:09:24] Speaker 03:
It's reducing bandwidth?

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
It reduces bandwidth and also uses memory more efficiently.

[00:09:34] Speaker 02:
And then in the second patent, it's the 051 patent.

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
It's talking about intelligent AR object rendering.

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
And again, you look at the specification of that one.

[00:09:44] Speaker 02:
And there was a problem that the old systems of AR did not allow for objects to interfere with one another.

[00:09:55] Speaker 02:
And because of that, you wouldn't have realistic AR performances.

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
And so all of the steps in the 0-5-1 pattern are trying to get to a point where you can alter the presence of an AR object in a way that convincingly demonstrates that there's an interference between the AR objects.

[00:10:14] Speaker 04:
Can you point me to where in the claims I can see it that's captured what you just described?

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
So it's 051, patent claim one.

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
And we talked about how in column 21, line 59 is the first step determining context.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
So that's based on the... Column 50 line, 51 line what?

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
Column 21.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
Oh, column 21.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
59 to 61.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
So the first step is that you determine context related to the AR device and pertinent to the environment based on location.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
Then you identify the AR objects that correspond to that context.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
Then, and this is probably the limitation that you should focus on, Your Honor, at line 65 to 67 in column 21, you determine whether and how to alter

[00:11:12] Speaker 02:
the presence of an AR object based on location and the virtual element attribute.

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
And then you render the objects according to the altered presence.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
And if I can go back into the specification to kind of explain some of those words.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
Column three, lines 30 to 34.

[00:11:37] Speaker 02:
It says that this interference

[00:11:41] Speaker 02:
is not a mere filtering.

[00:11:46] Speaker 02:
Column 17, line 50 to column 18, line 9, it's talking about how you alter the presence of AR based on interference functions.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
And then column 18, lines 23 to 29 talks about how you want to alter the presence to get a full spectrum of experiences.

[00:12:09] Speaker 03:
Would you say that

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
Augmented reality is a separate, distinct technological field?

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
I would.

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
Distinct from non-augmented reality methods or systems?

[00:12:26] Speaker 02:
It's not artificial intelligence.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
So what is it that this does within the field of augmented reality?

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
I know what it does mechanically and the whole thing, which is very interesting.

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
You know, we have found that if you have a claim that is a technological answer to a technological program, you understand those line of cases.

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
So what are we dealing with here?

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
Is this a technological solution within just the AR?

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
field?

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
I think it is, Your Honor.

[00:13:08] Speaker 02:
And the way I would analyze it is I take a look at the abstract idea that was identified by the court and, in general, that's been providing information based on location.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
And then I look at the software steps in the claim, and there's something more than just that in the claims.

[00:13:25] Speaker 02:
And the specification describes that those software steps are what are allowing you to contextualize the AR experience to allow

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
objects to appear to interfere with each other to provide this more realistic augmented reality experience.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
The fact it's not in the real world, I don't think makes it any less of an invention.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
Does that answer your question, Your Honor?

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
Yes, it did.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
See, I'm in my rebuttal time.

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
I wanted to just briefly talk about the step two analysis, if I may?

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
So I'm going to focus basically on the 051 patent.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
I'm going to rest on the brief on the other one.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
That was a summary judgment decision.

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
And I think what's interesting there is that they withdrew their expert's testimony.

[00:14:10] Speaker 02:
So we've got a situation where the court decided step two against us, the non-movement, where there was no evidence that the steps in the claim were not conventional.

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
And in fact, we did have evidence in the claims that they were.

[00:14:29] Speaker 04:
But did the district court rely on that testimony that was withdrawn?

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
It did not.

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
But the court said, I think reading from the launch, it was not very clear.

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
She seemed to believe that all that was in the claims was the abstract idea.

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
And I think when you look at the body of the claim, there's more there than just providing information based on location.

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
So there's more than just the abstract idea, which wasn't analyzed.

[00:14:50] Speaker 04:
So it sounds like your primary argument with respect to that patent relies on winning under step two.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
So one of the questions I heard, Your Honor, ask was,

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
How does this improve augmented reality technology?

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
Is this actually a separate field?

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
And I think the answer is that it doesn't improve augmented reality technology at all.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
All we have here is a series of steps in order to get

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
obtain information, analyze the information, and then send the information somewhere else.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
Nothing about the technology is being changed.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
It's just a matter of maybe which information is being sent.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
And I think it's critical for us to go back for the 518 to look at the fact that

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
My learned colleague was trying to say that the entire patent is about selectively sending and only sending and only a piece and only a little bit so that you get this benefit of reducing latency or somehow making the computer work better.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
But a careful read of the claim does not show that at all.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
The word selectively does not appear.

[00:16:07] Speaker 00:
Instead, you're actually just told to pick an object to send.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say send only the objects from within that field.

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
It says, OK, I've got an entire area database, and then I have my gridded map within that area database.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
And then I'll look to a smaller area within that gridded map, and then I'll pick at least one thing from that map and send it on.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
In fact, the claim could actually be read to send only one piece of information, but the claim could also be read

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
that if I tessellate my map only into two pieces and all the information's in the first piece, then all of a sudden I'm sending all the information down.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
So I've reduced no latency.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
I've provided no benefit to the computer whatsoever because the computer is just working in its normal, ordinary fashion in filtering.

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
And of course, if you filter, if you do manage to find a smaller subset, though the claim doesn't require it,

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
then you would achieve that result.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
But that's not because of the claim.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
And therefore, there is only the abstraction here.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
And then we go into step two for the 518.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
Again, we have only the abstraction of simply sending information based on the location.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
And they just say, but it's somehow the tessellated tile.

[00:17:22] Speaker 00:
And it's that I have these different areas to pick.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
But the claim doesn't require you to do anything that would result in the benefits that we just heard about.

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
Unless Your Honors have any other questions for the 518, I'll turn over to the 051.

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
Now on the 051, Your Honor asked specifically about the Sanderling case, and I really like the Sanderling case for the 051.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
Because the Sanderling case, if you actually read the patent that's involved in the Sanderling case, it talked about taking digital data and putting it, sending it down to be applied to a photo.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
So a real world thing.

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
You're taking a digital representation and you're applying it to a real world thing.

[00:18:02] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly what the 051 patent is telling us to do.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
It's saying, make sure you know where you are, get your location information.

[00:18:11] Speaker 00:
Then make sure that you understand what you're going to grab from this database.

[00:18:15] Speaker 00:
And maybe check out the context, too.

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
You're not just in Washington, D.C., but you happen to be at the federal courthouse.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
So we'll send you a sticker that says All Rise.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
And you can put the All Rise on your photo because we have that information and we send it to you.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
We heard instead that the entire thrust of the patent in the specification in the claims is about interference.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
But the problem is they didn't claim interference.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
This is a case that's very much akin to the you, why you versus Apple case.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
In You versus Apple, the specification went on and on about how its invention to produce better pictures was to use a four lens, four sensor system, where three were color and one was black and white.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
But by the time they got to the claims, they only claimed two sensors and lenses.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
Didn't restrict what they were or how they were.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
That is exactly the same as the case here.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
But specification does talk about, they thought one of the problems was interference.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
In other words, if I'm looking at, say, something in front of the podium, you can see my whole body.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
But if I'm behind the podium, you might not be able to because the podium is blocking me.

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
And so the patent says it was trying to maybe think of a way to do that.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
But that's nowhere in this claim.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
The claim simply says, figure out your location, figure out the

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
virtual element attribute, which from the claim construction, which has not been challenged here, is just the plain meaning of the term.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
And we know from appendix 5895 that that's just plain meaning.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
And we know from appendix 5902 that networks claim that plain meaning to be a feature associated with the virtual element.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
So just something about it.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
So you're going to use the location and something about

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
the piece of information to decide whether or not to alter the presence.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
But we know from the joint claim construction that, again, hasn't been appealed.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
Alter presence just means alter the presentation.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
And we know from Appendix 71, Column 18, Lines 18 through 23, that altering a presence can be as simple as turning something on or off, make it not present.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
Therefore, the claim simply requires

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
Figure out what you're going to send.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
And then alter the presence could just be send it.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
Send that sticker.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
And that's all we have.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
Interference is not mentioned in any way.

[00:20:45] Speaker 00:
And you cannot read it in from the specification just because they wished they had claimed it.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
So it did sound like with respect to the 051 patent, opposing counsel is arguing that the expert testimony might have created a genuine dispute of material fact, including summary judgment with respect to commissionality.

[00:21:04] Speaker 04:
I felt like that was the argument.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
I do feel like that's the argument that he's making.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
My response is twofold.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
The first is we didn't ever withdraw our expert.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
We simply didn't rely on the expert.

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
And the court did not rely on our expert and said, when reviewing the Turk expert declaration, that they could ignore it because of MortgageGrader and Amaranth, which says if it's merely conclusory observations, no facts, or

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
pointed to things that are not in the claims.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
And that's specifically in the Amaranth versus Apple decision, where if the expert's discussion of that which is novel or supposedly inventive is to an unclaimed element, then it can be ignored.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
Here, Turk referred over and over again to the interference, which is nowhere in the claims.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
The rest of Turk's paragraphs are just conclusory statements, either quoting the claim

[00:22:01] Speaker 00:
or then saying, therefore, it is not inventive.

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
And so there was nothing for the court to wrestle with.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
And that's what the court said.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
And that's how that all came to be.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
If Your Honors want, I can go through each one of the paragraphs that was cited and explain to you why they're each conclusory.

[00:22:18] Speaker 00:
But I think they are pretty clear on their face that they're both conclusory and.

[00:22:22] Speaker 04:
What do you think is your best case for under step one for the old bad one, Jen?

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
I think my best case for the 051 patent is probably Sanderling because Sanderling, like the 051, looks to finding information based on location and then sending that information down and the patent in Sanderling makes clear that that information could have been digital virtual type information that was combined with a real-world photo.

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
I do, however, also think that it's very important for the 051 at step one to

[00:22:57] Speaker 00:
reference the fact that even if you could find that there were these number of steps, there is no how.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
And the court came down with its decision in 637 versus Google very recently that really emphasized that even if you have a series of steps, you still have to explain how they're accomplished.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
And not to pile on, but I would also add the AI Visualize case.

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
In the AI Visualize case, much like in this case, you had a series of information stored in a large database.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
And then you used a request or, in this case, location to

[00:23:31] Speaker 00:
simply bring a portion of that down to the user who wanted to see it.

[00:23:36] Speaker 00:
It wasn't actually changing anything at all.

[00:23:38] Speaker 04:
So I think all three of those cases are very helpful for step one.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
So for the 518, as much as I like Sandaling, I think Sandaling applies very, very well here as well.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
I also very much like the IBM versus Zillow case.

[00:23:57] Speaker 00:
In IBM versus Zillow, there was a database of information that was stored in a server somewhere, and in that case, the user could actually define a sub-area

[00:24:09] Speaker 00:
And from that sub area, the computer would then send only that information and populate a list so you could see exactly what it was.

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
In many ways, the Zillow case is actually a little more complicated than this case because the user got to define the entire area instead of it just being, I walked up to a location and it was just graphed.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
So I would put Zillow first, otherwise also Sanderling.

[00:24:32] Speaker 04:
And my last question at least, well,

[00:24:34] Speaker 04:
don't hold me to that, but that's what I think of my last question.

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
I was trying to talk to opposing counsel about testing of towels and maps.

[00:24:42] Speaker 04:
Do you have any specific response you want to give in respect to that?

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
Absolutely.

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
So the first thing I'd like to say is that there is

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
a construction for tessellated tiles that was not disputed, and that is just tiles fitted together to cover an area without gaps.

[00:24:57] Speaker 00:
And I do think that a gridded map is an exactly appropriate analogy.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
So you have a series of information, and then you just divide the information into squares.

[00:25:07] Speaker 00:
Then from those squares, he says, oh, but it's tessellated, and then there has to be a sub-area, and then there has to be a view of interest.

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
But all you're doing there is I've got my map of the United States and it's gridded out and then I say that my area of interest is California and then within California I'm looking right to the Bay Area and I only want the information that's in the Bay Area.

[00:25:26] Speaker 00:
That's exactly what's happening with this tessellated tile just filtering down, down, down from the gridded map to another area to a smaller area to maybe what someone's looking at.

[00:25:36] Speaker 03:
And to do that do you need an AR soap?

[00:25:41] Speaker 00:
I don't soap.

[00:25:42] Speaker 00:
Is there a difference between an AR server versus a non-AR server?

[00:25:46] Speaker 00:
I don't think so.

[00:25:47] Speaker 03:
All you need here... Would you agree that the AR technology is a distinctive technology?

[00:25:54] Speaker 00:
So while I can agree that AR technology can be distinct, I think there are things about how you specifically render objects with each other in a single field.

[00:26:06] Speaker 00:
None of that's claimed here.

[00:26:07] Speaker 00:
And so while AR may be a different separatable technology, it's certainly not invoked here, and there's certainly no discussion of how to accomplish it in AR versus anywhere else.

[00:26:19] Speaker 00:
Instead, we're just taking

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
information that happens to be AR, and we're sending it down, which is no different from electric power, where we had information about power, but we just happen to be sending that information down versus some other kind of information.

[00:26:35] Speaker 00:
Unless your honors have any other questions.

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
I appreciate your time.

[00:26:38] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:26:44] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:26:45] Speaker 02:
If you've got any questions based on that, I'm happy to answer them.

[00:26:47] Speaker 02:
But I did want to address the 637 case that counsel provided to us on Sunday.

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
I think if you look at that case, there was no discussion, none, in the claims of how to accomplish the technological improvement.

[00:27:05] Speaker 02:
That's the distinction.

[00:27:06] Speaker 02:
We have in our claims a discussion of how to achieve these benefits.

[00:27:11] Speaker 02:
Again, going to the 518, we identify the tile sub-area.

[00:27:19] Speaker 02:
In the 518, it's really about placing AR objects in specific spots in an AR scene.

[00:27:26] Speaker 02:
So, again, you have to look at all the steps.

[00:27:29] Speaker 02:
First, you're identifying a tile sub-area based on device location.

[00:27:34] Speaker 02:
Then you're associating AR with

[00:27:37] Speaker 02:
a sub area, then you're populating just the AR objects in that sub area into the device memory, and then you're rendering the AR content.

[00:27:48] Speaker 03:
Do you need a separate computer to do that, a specialized computer?

[00:27:54] Speaker 02:
You do not need a specialized computer, Your Honor.

[00:27:56] Speaker 02:
You do need computer components, but that's not what this case is about.

[00:27:59] Speaker 02:
There's been no allegation that the components are specialized.

[00:28:03] Speaker ?:
Good.

[00:28:04] Speaker 02:
So we heard about the 637 patent case.

[00:28:09] Speaker 02:
We've talked about that.

[00:28:10] Speaker 02:
There was some criticism about selective, and I think that was picking up on your question.

[00:28:15] Speaker 02:
We think that selective is just a natural outcome of following the claim language.

[00:28:20] Speaker 04:
But it's not in the claims.

[00:28:21] Speaker 04:
You can agree with that.

[00:28:21] Speaker 02:
The word selective is not in the claims, but that's the effect of the claim language.

[00:28:26] Speaker 02:
Interference, that's something that I tried to address on my opening remarks.

[00:28:32] Speaker 02:
The word doesn't show up in the claim, but it's effectively there because the claims talk about altering presence of the AR content.

[00:28:42] Speaker 02:
And at column 17, line 50, to column 18, line 9, they talk about how to suppress and enhance the presence of AR objects using the interference function.

[00:28:53] Speaker 02:
So it's clearly embraced by that claim language.

[00:28:59] Speaker 02:
Another point that counsel made on step two, she tried to distinguish Turk and his testimony on the 051 and whether there was an inventive concept.

[00:29:12] Speaker 02:
What I thought was interesting about that argument is that there was no evidence put forward by the court or by my colleagues on the other side to show that the 051 patent claims don't have an inventive concept.

[00:29:25] Speaker 02:
There's simply no evidence on their side.

[00:29:27] Speaker 02:
It's their burden.

[00:29:30] Speaker 02:
Because there's no evidence and it's their burden, we would win on that.

[00:29:33] Speaker 02:
And summary judgment should have been denied.

[00:29:36] Speaker 02:
See, I'm out of my time.

[00:29:41] Speaker 02:
Is there any more questions?

[00:29:44] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:29:47] Speaker 03:
Thank the party for their arguments.