[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Our next case is Peter Henrik Pedersen versus United Patents, 2024-2090.

[00:00:06] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Mr. Greenspan.

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

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

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

[00:00:15] Speaker 00:
The board found Funk discloses claim limitation 1.4, but substantial evidence does not support that conclusion.

[00:00:23] Speaker 00:
Two reasons why.

[00:00:24] Speaker 00:
First, Funk's delivery parameters are not

[00:00:29] Speaker 00:
messenger-specific.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
Claim 1.4 requires, and I'm going to quote from the claim, delivery parameters specified by a recipient of where, when, and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered to the recipient.

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
We told the board that Funk lacks this at appendix 350, also 423 to 24.

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
Since Funk is missing profiles organized on, quote, a one-to-one basis between recipients and messengers.

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
The 920 patent teaches this at column nine, starting line five.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
A recipient selects a messenger, then specifies preferred delivery parameters for that messenger.

[00:01:17] Speaker 00:
That is messenger-specific profiling.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
But look at Funk's figure eight.

[00:01:22] Speaker 00:
This is what the board relied on.

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
Sections 808, 810, and 812 contain timing, composition, and formatting parameters.

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
These are sections applying to content types.

[00:01:37] Speaker 00:
They're not organized by messenger.

[00:01:40] Speaker 00:
That figure is, by the way, in appendix page 885.

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
That's the fatal gap.

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
The board never found that parameters are specified per messenger.

[00:01:52] Speaker 00:
The board just repeated petitioner's contentions

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
did not independently analyze Func's structure.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
And without per messenger profiling in Func, there's no substantial evidence to support obviousness.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
Then the second point to make, Your Honors.

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
Information sources are not messengers in the first place.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
Just ponder that for a second.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
It's an information source, as described in Func.

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
It's not a messenger.

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
Func's processor receives information from information sources.

[00:02:23] Speaker 00:
and stores that information.

[00:02:25] Speaker 00:
So the processor is the active one.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
The processor does the receiving.

[00:02:29] Speaker 00:
The sources are passive.

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
That's why they're called sources.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
You're the source of information that you're presenting to us, but aren't you the messenger?

[00:02:40] Speaker 00:
That's a very good analogy, and I wish I had thought of that, because that supports our case.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
I'm the source.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
I'm so sorry.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
Let me go back.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
I'm the messenger, but the source

[00:02:53] Speaker 00:
is, let's say, my appellate briefing.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
That's perhaps also bad.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
But the source is the case law and the factual record.

[00:03:02] Speaker 00:
So I'm the messenger to your honors.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
We created an analogy in our briefing to help convey this point.

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
This court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, every day sends out ECF messages to the bar, to the people registered for a particular case.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
Every now and then,

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
those ECF messages are going to contain a decision that cites, for example, the Supreme Court's Markman decision.

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
So under unified patents theory, under the board's theory, the Supreme Court is a messenger in that instance of that ECF email, just because something that originated way back when from a Supreme Court writing was used as a resource for composing this court's message.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
of what you know, and you are therefore the source of what you're transmitting to us.

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
Not necessarily the ultimate source, but neither is the Wall Street Journal.

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
Well, in this instance, the Wall Street Journal is mentioned in Funk, so let's go there.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
The Wall Street Journal is never sending any information to a recipient in Funk.

[00:04:15] Speaker 00:
The recipients are getting information from the intermediate aggregator.

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
And an excellent point here is that the Wall Street Journal, there's no disclosure in front that the Wall Street Journal composes any kind of capsule or package with an address on it or with a recipient ID on it that gets deposited into the intermediate system and then is on whatever basis then delivered to the recipient.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
So in other words, the Wall Street Journal never provides a recipient ID, no address C,

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
We made this point in several places in the record.

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
For example, the record at the oral hearing before the PTAB is quoted on page 33 of the appendix where we made this point.

[00:05:02] Speaker 00:
We made this point at page 427 of the record.

[00:05:04] Speaker 00:
That's a sir reply.

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
So Funk therefore just doesn't disclose anything that could be considered a messenger in the first place that is subject to profiling.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
So Funk does disclose, I don't want to over argue this, Funk does disclose one messenger.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:
in its entirety.

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
And that's this little blurb.

[00:05:23] Speaker 00:
I think it's reference number 310 on the bottom of figure 3.

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
That's a message that's just tacked on for unfiltered delivery, unprofiled delivery from Dave S., who sends a message to John.

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
But even in that instance, no recipient profile controls that delivery.

[00:05:42] Speaker 00:
And for information sources like Reuters or Weather Services,

[00:05:47] Speaker 00:
FUNC never uses the terminology send.

[00:05:49] Speaker 00:
It only uses the terminology send for this completely unprofiled, unfiltered single message.

[00:05:56] Speaker 00:
So conclusion, two independent gaps.

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
FUNC's parameters are not per messenger.

[00:06:03] Speaker 00:
We see that in Figure 8 and discussion about Figure 8.

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
And information sources do not send.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
The board pointed to no evidence supporting either element.

[00:06:11] Speaker 00:
So therefore, we request reversal, and I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
My name is Kelly Hughes, and I'm here on behalf of Unified Patents.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
Today we're discussing two issues relating to limitation 1.4 of Funk.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
And the first issue is whether Funk's information sources are messengers.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
And the second is whether Funk discloses the claim delivery parameters recited by the claim.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
Starting with the first issue, Funk discloses two types of messages, and this is found by the board, information sources and third parties, which the patent owner has acknowledged are messengers.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
Focusing on the information sources, these are entities like the Wall Street Journal or Associated Press, and these information sources send information to Funk's internal processing system.

[00:07:41] Speaker 01:
and the internal processing system receives that information and then stores them in a database to communicate them later to recipients.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
For example, Funk discloses that the internal processing system has a database and that this database is dynamically updated by the information source.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
And this can be found at appendix 894, column 743.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
And so this demonstrates that these information sources are the ones sending information to Funk.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
Patent owner's own citations actually undermine the argument that these information sources are being retrieved from.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
Because it teaches that the processor, Funk's processor system, the central processor, receives the information.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
And if that information is being received, then it has been sent by the information source.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
And Padler has also argued in the briefing that this disclosure of the dynamic updating doesn't apply to the limitation because the board specifically addressed it in a different limitation, claim 1.9.

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
But that's enough for substantial evidence.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
Claim 1.9, all the limitations of FUNC relate to messengers.

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
And so the board discussing the messenger functionality and the later claim limitation

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
relating to the messenger actions is appropriate.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
And I'd like to turn to the second issue, unless there's any questions.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
The second issue is whether bunk discloses the claim delivery parameters.

[00:09:27] Speaker 01:
The funk discloses that a recipient creates a configuration profile and they can indicate the information sources that they'd like to receive information from.

[00:09:37] Speaker 01:
They can indicate the content type and where, when, and how those messages are received.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
Patent owner is raising a new interpretation of the same on appeal.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
And I just want to note that because this is a new interpretation being raised for the first time, it's not necessary for the court to address it.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
However, if the court does choose to address this interpretation, it should be rejected.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
Patent owner seems to be arguing that the prior art needs to suppose identifying separately where, when, and how for every type messenger pair in the art.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
And this essentially results in a requirement that you are indicating

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
separately two types of messages and separately where, when, and how for those messages and messengers.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
This is not required by the claim.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
This interpretation departs from the plain meaning of the claim, and it improperly narrows the limitation, and it's not supported by the specification.

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
Appendix 65, 765.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
The specification of the 920 patent recites a broader embodiment where a user can enter one or more sets of profile data and the patent refers to this as message profiles and you can in fact indicate where, when, and how for each of these message profiles.

[00:11:04] Speaker 01:
But the patent also teaches that these message profiles can indicate one or more types of messages and one or more types of messengers.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
So the patent discloses that you can indicate one messenger profile

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
that has multiple messengers, multiple types of messages, and you can indicate where, when, and how that's delivered.

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
And that's exactly what func does.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
Patent onerous interpretation would rule out this embodiment that's recited in a specification.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
And even looking at the plain language of the term, the language is very broad.

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
The language just requires that you have profile data.

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
Not certain sets of profile data, just profile data

[00:11:47] Speaker 01:
that indicates delivery parameters of where, when, and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered to the recipient.

[00:12:00] Speaker 01:
And if there's no further questions on that, Your Honor, I would like to yield my time.

[00:12:08] Speaker 02:
You would like to sit down?

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
Huh?

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
You would like to sit down?

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:12:12] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:12:14] Speaker 02:
Mr. Crane's phone has some rebuttal time.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
I won't take very much, Your Honor.

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
Just that I'm pointing now the court to page 885 of the record.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
That is Funk's Figure 8.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
This is where the board says there is messenger-specific profiling.

[00:12:35] Speaker 00:
I'll just read through it.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
802, identification.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
804, user background information.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
806, database description information.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
808 timing information, 810 email composition information, 812 formatting information.

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in this figure, and there's nothing in the description about this figure that says that the profiling for delivery parameters created by the recipient is on a messenger-specific basis.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
That is the heart of our appeal, and that is why this court should reverse.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
To both counsel, the case is submitted.