[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Cases on the calendar this morning.

[00:00:02] Speaker 03:
They will be submitted in the briefs and will therefore not be argued.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Our first case is Express Mobile versus Facebook et al.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
2023-16-46.

[00:00:16] Speaker 03:
Mr. Hirshman.

[00:00:42] Speaker 05:
Thank you, and may it please the court.

[00:00:44] Speaker 05:
I want to address three errors by the board.

[00:00:47] Speaker 05:
First, the board applied an incorrect construction of style based on a misreading of Express Mobile's proposed construction.

[00:00:54] Speaker 05:
We argued that styles can be associated with one or more objects.

[00:00:59] Speaker 05:
They have the capability to be associated with one or more objects.

[00:01:03] Speaker 05:
As Intel versus Qualcomm makes clear, in the context of a capability, or can mean both,

[00:01:11] Speaker 05:
And so our proposal required that Stiles could be associated with one object and also with more than one object.

[00:01:19] Speaker 03:
But the board decided that it didn't matter because Lee May discloses the limitation either way.

[00:01:29] Speaker 05:
So the board made a two-fold error.

[00:01:32] Speaker 05:
First, the board misread our proposed construction.

[00:01:35] Speaker 05:
Our proposed construction was clearly that a style could be associated with one object or more than one object.

[00:01:41] Speaker 05:
So Intel versus Qualcomm says that.

[00:01:43] Speaker 05:
But in addition to the ordinary meaning of our proposal, we specifically connected our proposed construction to the embodiment in the spec.

[00:01:52] Speaker 05:
And the spec has a style.

[00:01:54] Speaker 04:
But I took the question to be, what if the board was wrong

[00:01:59] Speaker 04:
about that.

[00:02:00] Speaker 04:
Didn't the board also say it wouldn't matter?

[00:02:03] Speaker 05:
So the board believed that there was no dispute about the claim construction because it believed our construction allowed a style that could only be associated with one object and could not be associated with multiple objects.

[00:02:18] Speaker 05:
So it failed to apprehend that there was a dispute because it misunderstood our construction.

[00:02:22] Speaker 04:
And there's no, and just to be clear that I understand this, and there's no basis for the board decision that would be sufficient, you're saying, independent of that error.

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:02:35] Speaker 04:
So two points.

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
So just to be clear, what you're saying is that there is no finding by the board that the prior teacher's style, as you're arguing, it should have understood your construction to be

[00:02:48] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:02:49] Speaker 05:
And so in appendix 22 through 23, two points on that.

[00:02:52] Speaker 05:
So the board says our construction is satisfied where a style can only be associated with a single object.

[00:02:58] Speaker 05:
And so that's the basis for the board's decision.

[00:03:01] Speaker 05:
Additionally, the board never makes a finding that a style can be associated in LeMayWeb, the asserted part, with more than one object.

[00:03:09] Speaker 05:
Now, Metta argues on appeal that the style can be associated with multiple frames of an image animation.

[00:03:16] Speaker 05:
And that argument, first of all, the board never said that.

[00:03:19] Speaker 05:
The board, in appendix 22 through 23, never points to the animation frames as being multiple objects.

[00:03:26] Speaker 02:
So under your view, if you did agree with your claim construction, or at least agree that the board misunderstood your claim construction, there would have to be a remand?

[00:03:36] Speaker 05:
So we believe that the court agreed with our claim construction that a style must be able to be associated with multiple objects.

[00:03:46] Speaker 05:
we think the court can reverse because the petition never argued that individual frames could be multiple objects.

[00:03:54] Speaker 05:
The patent is very clear.

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
Right, but I thought you had indicated that Metta had made an argument here that there is actually a way of satisfying your

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
claim construction, and why wouldn't the right thing to do to be to send it back?

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
And you can argue, among other things, that they're wrong, but also that it wasn't in the petition.

[00:04:20] Speaker 04:
But we don't have rulings on that, do we?

[00:04:22] Speaker 05:
So we don't have a ruling on whether, under the claim construction, the Lemay Web teaches multiple objects.

[00:04:30] Speaker 05:
We believe that it's not in the petition.

[00:04:32] Speaker 05:
Mata never argued it.

[00:04:33] Speaker 05:
This court could reverse, but this court could also read in.

[00:04:38] Speaker 05:
So turning to the substance of our plane construction, in terms of ordinary meaning, the word style implies consistency across multiple things.

[00:04:52] Speaker 05:
So for example, a style manual promotes consistency across multiple documents.

[00:04:57] Speaker 05:
architectural style reflects consistency across different buildings.

[00:05:01] Speaker 04:
Can I ask, I was a little bit unclear, am still a little bit unclear, about what if any relationship there is between the two separate points, those points that you make

[00:05:15] Speaker 04:
It has to be separate and it has to be something that is capable of being applied to a number of different objects, not only one.

[00:05:24] Speaker 04:
I can see how they might be something like two sides of the same coin, but I want to try to understand.

[00:05:31] Speaker 05:
That's exactly correct.

[00:05:33] Speaker 05:
So there are two sides of the same coin, but they're also distinct requirements.

[00:05:38] Speaker 05:
Our proposed construction in Appendix 22.55 was very clear that there's two pieces to this construction.

[00:05:44] Speaker 05:
So in the prior art, you had formatting information that was embedded in a single object.

[00:05:50] Speaker 05:
If you had five objects on the page, you had to go and change, and you wanted to change, say, the font size, you had to go and change it in five different places.

[00:05:57] Speaker 05:
So what the 168 patent does, it takes a style, it makes it a separate thing which can be associated with multiple objects.

[00:06:05] Speaker 05:
So on one hand, it's separate.

[00:06:07] Speaker 05:
The user in the patent

[00:06:09] Speaker 05:
can define a style and then not define any objects, can come back later and define the objects associated with that style.

[00:06:16] Speaker 05:
But additionally, the style can be used to control the appearance of more than one object.

[00:06:22] Speaker 05:
So they're related but distinct.

[00:06:24] Speaker 02:
So when you talk about separate, you mean that the user can separately identify it?

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
It's just hard in software to think about what's separate from another thing in software.

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:06:35] Speaker 05:
And so the board in Meta tries to make separate kind of metaphysical.

[00:06:40] Speaker 05:
But the claim here, claim one, is directed to a user interface.

[00:06:44] Speaker 05:
And it recites accepting user input to create a website that's defined in terms of objects and styles.

[00:06:51] Speaker 05:
And so our proposed construction is that the style is defined separately from the object.

[00:06:58] Speaker 05:
So the user can create a style, say for example how heading should look in a document, and then later come and define

[00:07:06] Speaker 05:
the actual heading objects.

[00:07:08] Speaker 05:
And so that's what separate means under our construction.

[00:07:11] Speaker 04:
Can you walk through what also confuses me, which is exactly what you think that the board said about separateness and about the one or more, not theoretically, but with specific reference to the arguments that had been made

[00:07:30] Speaker 04:
with respect to the, what, five or six line bit of code would be the applet at the front and the back?

[00:07:38] Speaker 05:
If the court would please turn to appendix 2357, because I think that makes it very easy to see what the board is doing.

[00:07:47] Speaker 04:
Is this 23 to 27?

[00:07:48] Speaker 05:
Sorry, 2357.

[00:07:49] Speaker 05:
This is in the appendix.

[00:07:52] Speaker 05:
This is a document, is it?

[00:07:54] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:07:54] Speaker 05:
2357 is met as briefing below.

[00:07:57] Speaker 05:
And so I think it makes it easier to see

[00:08:00] Speaker 04:
Is this the petition or the reply?

[00:08:03] Speaker 05:
So this is their reply.

[00:08:08] Speaker 05:
And so what the petition argues is in terms of defining the claim construction requires defining the style separately from the object.

[00:08:19] Speaker 05:
The petition argued or meta argued below that this applet tag, this HTML code, is how the user puts the animation object, which it identified as the object, on the page.

[00:08:32] Speaker 05:
It is also in these attributes here, such as width and height, where the style is.

[00:08:37] Speaker 05:
And so at the bottom of the page, Meta says the attributes are associated with the image animation as they are part of the applet tag that defines the object.

[00:08:47] Speaker 05:
And so the... And just to be clear,

[00:08:54] Speaker 04:
The attributes include not only width and height, but also the start time and timing points.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
Does everybody agree that the applet starts at the beginning of line one and ends in line six?

[00:09:09] Speaker 05:
Yes, the slash applet.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
The forward slash says that.

[00:09:12] Speaker 05:
Everything within that construct.

[00:09:17] Speaker 05:
Then, you know, subsequently, what meta says and what the board said is that animator dot class, this executable code is Java code.

[00:09:27] Speaker 05:
It's not displayed on the web page.

[00:09:30] Speaker 05:
If you looked at it, it would just be ones and zeros.

[00:09:32] Speaker 05:
It's Java code.

[00:09:33] Speaker 05:
And in fact, it's the same no matter what the animation is.

[00:09:36] Speaker 05:
It's code that, given a series of images, will create an animation.

[00:09:41] Speaker 05:
But it is a program that animates an image on the screen.

[00:09:46] Speaker 05:
So the board said animator.class is separate.

[00:09:50] Speaker 05:
But the board never said animator.class is an object under the claim.

[00:09:54] Speaker 05:
or is defined separately, the board simply just didn't address that.

[00:09:59] Speaker 05:
It appeared to believe that animator.class could be a separate object, although it made no findings that would meet the requirements.

[00:10:09] Speaker 05:
But the board's decision seems to be based on the fact that there is this HTML code with the style, and there is at least some separate sub-piece of the animator.class.

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
Counsel, is it correct that this patent expired more than five years ago?

[00:10:24] Speaker 05:
So I don't believe this patent expired.

[00:10:29] Speaker 03:
It's a continuation of a December 1999 file.

[00:10:34] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, this patent expired several years ago.

[00:10:38] Speaker 05:
That is correct.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
Oh, I see.

[00:10:41] Speaker 03:
1,100 days.

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
1,100 days, that's what.

[00:10:44] Speaker 03:
23 years.

[00:10:47] Speaker 05:
Yes, I think that's correct.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
So it still has expired.

[00:10:50] Speaker 05:
It has expired.

[00:10:52] Speaker 05:
We filed district court litigation against several defendants in 2017, 2018.

[00:10:59] Speaker 05:
And that's continuing.

[00:11:01] Speaker 05:
And that's continuing.

[00:11:02] Speaker 05:
It's currently pending the IPRs, but there's damages going back six years.

[00:11:07] Speaker 05:
So if the court has no further questions, all those are for the rest of the rebuttal.

[00:11:11] Speaker 03:
We will save it for you, Ms.

[00:11:12] Speaker 03:
Keith.

[00:11:19] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:11:20] Speaker 01:
Heidi Keefe representing Facebook Now Meta.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
I'd like to actually pick up where I think we just stopped.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
What I heard was, what did the board say the object was?

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
What did the board say the styles were?

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
So how are they separate?

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
I think that was a question Your Honor was asking specifically from the order.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
So in the order at appendix 18, the board found that the objects take the form of

[00:11:47] Speaker 01:
the image animations that include both the graphical images and the executable code of the Java animation applet.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
So the object is the animation, which includes those images and the applet.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
We know that the applet basically says, go grab the executable animator class.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
and apply these styles to it.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
But it does that on top of the TIFF images, one through 12.

[00:12:16] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, apply the attributes not to the animator class.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
But to the images that are pulled in.

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
To the image that's going to be created, yes.

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
Right?

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
And that makes sense, because what you're saying, and if you read LeMay and what the board found, is that what LeMay is doing is LeMay is saying, hey, I've got a Java applet that's going to act

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
And on these images, I'm going to use the attributes that are in the applet to modify those images.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
That's the whole point, is that you end up with a movie that has a height and a width, and you know which that is, and that it has a start time of TIFF number one, and it goes through TIFF number two, and we know to pause in between each of those.

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
relied on, therefore, was the combination of- What is your best part of the board's language for your proposition that the board identified the object as being the applet, as opposed to the animator.class?

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
On appendix 18.

[00:13:16] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
In particular, petitioner argues LeMay web- Can you just tell- I see it.

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
In the middle of the page.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
In the very middle of the page, discloses objects of a plurality of web pages in the form of

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
image animations that include both the graphical images and executable code, i.e., the animation applet to display the images in sequence.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
Then when we go forward and have the board applying all of that to the actual claim limitation, the board talks about the fact that it is the applet and the images.

[00:13:52] Speaker 01:
And so what we see, for example, on

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
Appendix 21 carrying over into Appendix 22, the board says that it includes the animator class.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
It's referring to LeMay and how LeMay discloses that the image files that are displayed as the animation object are separate from the HTML.

[00:14:12] Speaker 01:
So the board is saying it's image files as well that are separate from the HTML.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
and the applet that's separate from the HTML.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
The board goes on to say, at the very bottom of that paragraph, LeMay tells you, put all the image files, the class files, and your HTML file in the same directory, so saying that these are all going to be separated out.

[00:14:35] Speaker 01:
Image files separate from class file, separate from HTML file.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
So the board is finding that, in fact, those are all separate.

[00:14:42] Speaker 01:
And that substantial evidence, therefore, absolutely supports that.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
As far as... Yes, please.

[00:14:50] Speaker 04:
No, I continue to be confused each time I try to think about this.

[00:14:56] Speaker 04:
So what in your view is the object and what in your view is the style that is separate from the object?

[00:15:09] Speaker 01:
So the object is the animation files, so the image files.

[00:15:16] Speaker 04:
with the image files or the image produced?

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
Image, the image files, the animation image files that go into the animation.

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
Isn't the thing called animator.class?

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
Animator.class is the executable.

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
It's the little piece of Java code.

[00:15:31] Speaker 02:
On looking at what we're looking at on page 21, what are you saying is the object?

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
Again, if you go back to 18... When you just say animation, I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[00:15:46] Speaker 01:
So the animation object, the animation object includes the image files as well as... Looking at page 21, we've got six lines there.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
Are you saying all six lines are the object?

[00:15:59] Speaker 01:
What part is the object?

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
No, those six lines, applet code, parameter, parameter, parameter name, is that what you're asking me?

[00:16:06] Speaker 01:
In those, that is the HTML code.

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
That is not the object.

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
That is the style.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
The HTML code, and you see that here.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
Petitioner points to LeMay's disclosure of entering HTML code for the attributes discussed above to define the object's visual appearance for teaching the object's style.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
That HTML code, which is

[00:16:30] Speaker 01:
applet code animator class, with a width and a height, with parameters.

[00:16:34] Speaker 01:
That's the style, because those are the attributes that are going to be applied to the object, and the object becomes the animation, which is the images and the executable code that allows those things to happen.

[00:16:50] Speaker 01:
So essentially, the HTML code, I hate to do analogies, but the best way I can think about it is

[00:16:58] Speaker 01:
The object, if you think about decorating a cake, the object is the cake itself, the animation that you want displayed, and the HTML code that we see here, these six lines.

[00:17:12] Speaker 01:
Those are the style menu.

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
Go make it three tiers high and circular, and make sure that you use certain frosting on one side and certain on the other.

[00:17:23] Speaker 01:
Those are the parameters how you're going to do this.

[00:17:25] Speaker 01:
And chocolate.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
And chocolate.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
Always chocolate, Your Honor.

[00:17:28] Speaker 01:
And so that's the way we separate those two things out.

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
And so substantial evidence absolutely supports that these files are separated.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
You've got the chocolate being applied to the cake.

[00:17:39] Speaker 01:
Chocolate parameter, cake object.

[00:17:43] Speaker 04:
It's really hard enough to think about what's actually in front of us without which again I'll go right back to if you read very carefully on page 21.

[00:17:51] Speaker 04:
I took it that the other side was making an argument that the Attributes which as a group you are saying is a style are actually part of the object Yeah, they tried to say that but I don't understand why I think what they were trying to do Well, if you look at the six lines of code

[00:18:09] Speaker 04:
The parameter lines, the four parameter lines, seem to have all the attributes.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
Actually, almost all of them.

[00:18:18] Speaker 04:
Then the first line are two more attributes.

[00:18:21] Speaker 04:
But it's all part of this applet.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
So no.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
The applet is what's called.

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
The animator class, the applet code, that says I'm going to call on that applet.

[00:18:35] Speaker 01:
The lines you see here, these six lines, that is the HTML code that is used to define what it's going to look like when the applet runs the code.

[00:18:49] Speaker 01:
And that's why what you see on page 21 is that the board is saying part of the way that we know that these things are separate is because the HTML information is passed to

[00:19:04] Speaker 01:
the applet.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
And that's why you have the language talking about passing to.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
Let me make sure that I quote that for you.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
It's about 10 lines from the bottom.

[00:19:16] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
And so they say, LeMay web explains that you can use the pre-built Java applets on your page to create the effect by downloading the applet to your system and further shows that they are separate because it's called on to create that.

[00:19:30] Speaker 01:
The whole notion is you can't pass something from one to another unless they're separate.

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
And the board found that as another example of why.

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
This is not something that's embedded.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
Instead, it's a set of instructions that can be used to apply to the object itself so that it has a set of characteristics.

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
Unfortunately, like I said with the chocolate cake, you've got the instructions on how to decorate it.

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
And that's what you use to decorate it.

[00:19:55] Speaker 01:
That's why those are separate.

[00:19:57] Speaker 01:
And everyone agreed that those files are in fact separate.

[00:20:00] Speaker 01:
The applet is not actually contained here.

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
It's that this is the animator class.

[00:20:05] Speaker 01:
That executable is what's going to be used to do this.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
That's what the HTML instructions are.

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
So can I switch to the second piece of the construction that the other side proposed, that the style has to be capable of being used by a plurality of objects.

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
OK, so first off, Your Honor, that's not what the plain language one or more means.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
And here the word can does not mean capability.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
It is a passive can.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
It may.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
It may do this, or it may do that.

[00:20:41] Speaker 04:
That's an interpretive question.

[00:20:43] Speaker 04:
So I guess I'm first interested in the answer to the question, which I discussed with your friend on the other side.

[00:20:53] Speaker 04:
Well, we discussed with your friend on the other side.

[00:20:56] Speaker 04:
If the board was wrong about that,

[00:21:00] Speaker 04:
Is there an independent basis for nevertheless affirming the board, or does that require at least a remand?

[00:21:07] Speaker 01:
So I believe that there is an independent basis to affirm what the board did, and there is substantial evidence for that as well.

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
On page 23 of the board's decision, at the very top, this is the second full sentence talking about LeMay.

[00:21:22] Speaker 01:
In the second half of that sentence, the board points out, but LeMay web's technologies are not limited to one object or particular settings for that object.

[00:21:33] Speaker 01:
Because LeMay did not limit itself to that.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
You could have multiple objects within its passages.

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
Those passages are those little bits of code that would be used to bring in.

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
And so the board did find that it was not, in fact, limited to one object or particular settings for that object.

[00:21:51] Speaker 01:
And so it can be affirmed.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
On that basis alone, there is substantial evidence citing to the record itself.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
In the other event, Your Honor, as we pointed out in our red brief,

[00:22:05] Speaker 01:
If we had known that this was the way they were interpreting plain language of one or more, which I contend is a very unique and different way of looking at this, which they did not propose before, had they put that in their response, we would have been allowed to put into our reply that there are, in fact, multiple images that make up an animation file, each of which has settings applied to it.

[00:22:32] Speaker 01:
And therefore, the claim language is still met.

[00:22:35] Speaker 01:
But the language alone on page 23, where the board did say that LeMay was not limited to one or applying it to only one, does support the definition as well.

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
So we think you can affirm on that basis alone, Your Honor.

[00:22:50] Speaker 02:
You know, when I look at what you're pointing to on page A23, and I read the sentences after it, I'm not sure if I read it the same way you do.

[00:23:00] Speaker 02:
At least it's not clear to me.

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
So I want to make that point and see what your response is because, you know, it says LeMay web provides a template with default values that can be changed.

[00:23:10] Speaker 02:
That doesn't necessarily, to me, mean that there's a finding that styles can apply to more than one object.

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
Well, I think if you look at what was happening just before, they were trying to argue that

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
the reason that they're not separate is because they're all just one.

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
And so they were arguing that they can't be separate because they're just one.

[00:23:29] Speaker 01:
And the board is saying, it doesn't have to be just one.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
LeMay is not limited to one.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
So I think if you read the sentences ahead of it, it does support the fact that the board is saying that LeMay is not limited to one, that these styles can be applied to more than one thing, and that that supports that.

[00:23:45] Speaker 01:
These paragraphs go on to also talk about the fact that you can also jigger these things to

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
prove again that they're separated, because if you jigger one, you're not jiggering the other.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
And so that's another reason to show the separation.

[00:23:59] Speaker 01:
So I think both apply, Your Honor.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
And if the panel has no further questions, I'll yield my time.

[00:24:07] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:24:08] Speaker 01:
We appreciate it, Your Honor.

[00:24:09] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:24:10] Speaker 03:
Mr. Herschel.

[00:24:18] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:24:20] Speaker 05:
So Judge Stoll, just to address the independent basis argument first, I think you're correct that the board at Appendix 23 is not saying that LeMay Web teaches a style that can be associated with multiple objects, and that's clear for two reasons.

[00:24:37] Speaker 05:
First, simply, the board doesn't say anywhere how LeMayweb's style, the applet tag, can be associated with different objects.

[00:24:46] Speaker 05:
But more importantly, at the very end of this paragraph, what the board says is that LeMayweb discloses that, sorry,

[00:24:53] Speaker 05:
Just as this quoted passage shows that the values for the style of an object can be individually set in the 168 patent through user input, LeMayWeb discloses that a user assigns values for various parameters of an animated Java object.

[00:25:09] Speaker 05:
So what the board is saying is that the user can edit the parameters of multiple objects.

[00:25:16] Speaker 05:
And the portion of the specification that the board quotes here is very important.

[00:25:22] Speaker 05:
What you're referring to, this disclosure at column 32, the 168 patent discloses an embodiment where styles can be associated with more than one object.

[00:25:35] Speaker 05:
And when you update the style, the changes are reflected in all associated objects.

[00:25:41] Speaker 05:
What it also discloses in the spec is that the user can set a flag in each object to override the style.

[00:25:50] Speaker 05:
For example, if out of 10 headings you only want one heading to not change in font size when you update the style, you can set a flag to do that.

[00:26:00] Speaker 05:
First of all, that supports our construction because you wouldn't need to override an individual object.

[00:26:07] Speaker 05:
if the style couldn't be associated with multiple objects.

[00:26:10] Speaker 05:
But in addition to that, the portion that the board is pointing to to support its position is about how flags can be individually set in each object.

[00:26:19] Speaker 05:
And stepping back, the point that council made

[00:26:23] Speaker 05:
about it's separate because in LeMay web, if you jigger the settings in one object, it won't affect the other, but that's exactly why it doesn't teach the invention.

[00:26:34] Speaker 05:
The point of a style in the patent is that you can have a style that can control the settings of multiple objects to provide a consistent appearance.

[00:26:43] Speaker 05:
So the whole point is that if you change the settings in the style, it will affect all of the associated objects.

[00:26:49] Speaker 05:
And what LeMay Web is teaching with its styles in the applet tag is not that.

[00:26:54] Speaker 05:
If you have three different applet tags, three different styles, you have to individually change each one.

[00:27:01] Speaker 02:
Now, can I also ask you, one of the comments that was made by your adversary was that

[00:27:10] Speaker 02:
You did not make your claim construction clear, is kind of what I heard.

[00:27:14] Speaker 02:
And had they known that by or you meant something different, then maybe they would have taken a different approach.

[00:27:20] Speaker 02:
So I wanted you to have an opportunity to respond to that.

[00:27:23] Speaker 05:
Yes, so I think there's two points there.

[00:27:26] Speaker 05:
First, our claim construction was very clear.

[00:27:28] Speaker 05:
In our response brief, which they had the opportunity to respond to at 2255, we're in the same sentence where we propose our construction of one or more objects.

[00:27:40] Speaker 05:
We say, the style can be associated with one or more objects.

[00:27:45] Speaker 05:
allowing changes to the style to be automatically applied to each associated object.

[00:27:52] Speaker 05:
And in the same sentence, we refer to the embodiment and the specification, which undisputedly, I think, refers to multiple objects.

[00:28:01] Speaker 05:
And so we're very clear in the response brief.

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
But in addition to that- Were you citing page A 2255 for your position?

[00:28:08] Speaker 05:
Yes, that's our response brief.

[00:28:11] Speaker 05:
But in addition to that, there's two more points.

[00:28:15] Speaker 05:
In the PTAB, the parties depose each other's experts to get information about claim construction.

[00:28:23] Speaker 05:
And so before they've metafiled its response brief, it had the opportunity to depose our experts.

[00:28:30] Speaker 05:
sorry, before Meta filed its reply brief.

[00:28:33] Speaker 05:
And in Appendix 2499 and 2501, our expert repeatedly says that a style is something that can be associated with multiple objects, so when you change the style, it affects multiple objects.

[00:28:45] Speaker 05:
So they had every

[00:28:46] Speaker 05:
They had total notice of our proposed argument.

[00:28:50] Speaker 04:
I hate to do this.

[00:28:50] Speaker 04:
Can you say a word about the separateness question?

[00:28:54] Speaker 04:
Yes, of course.

[00:28:55] Speaker 05:
And I'll try to keep this very brief.

[00:28:57] Speaker 05:
So on Appendix 18, what Council for Meta points to, there's no finding that, although the board is summarizing the arguments, there's no finding that a animator.class and the frames are themselves objects.

[00:29:13] Speaker 05:
And in fact, what the board says quoting metaspetition is animator.class includes frames and it includes executable code.

[00:29:21] Speaker 05:
But for example, a car might include tires and it might include a steering wheel.

[00:29:26] Speaker 05:
But that doesn't mean that the steering wheel meets the requirements for the whole car.

[00:29:31] Speaker 05:
In addition to that, the patent is very clear at figure 58 and columns 58 through 59 that an animation object is a single object.

[00:29:39] Speaker 05:
And the frames, particularly column 58 through 59, it discusses the animation frames as part of the animation object, not a separate object.

[00:29:48] Speaker 05:
And finally, appendix 2357, the claim construction that we proposed is that objects are defined separately.

[00:29:56] Speaker 05:
The user can define a style and then later define the object.

[00:30:00] Speaker 05:
And 2357, at the very bottom, meta admits, concedes that the style attributes are, quote, defined

[00:30:09] Speaker 05:
are part of the applet tag that defines the object.

[00:30:14] Speaker 05:
So there's a concession that is not separate under our proposed construction.

[00:30:21] Speaker 03:
Thank you.