GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD. v. GOOGLE LLC
Oral Argument — 03/03/2025 · Case 24-1003 · 31:23
0:00
Judge Stark (merged with attorney)
The next case for argument is Geoscope Technologies v. Google, number 24-1003.
0:07
Mr. Ed Sherlman, are you ready?
0:10
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
May it please the Court, Timothy Gilman from Schulte Roth and Zabel, on behalf of Appellant Geoscope.
0:17
The patents on appeal here concern improvements to geolocation.
0:21
As detailed in the complaint, specific improvements on how to take electronic signals of opportunity
0:27
and use them to determine where a phone is.
0:31
As laid out in the complaint, conventional approaches and in the specification
0:35
suffered certain technological challenges due to having sparse reference points
0:40
and having the irregular propagation of electronic signals in the environment.
0:44
And the claims introduced a novel data structure called grid points
0:47
that improves how the phones determine location.
0:50
By making it able to do it faster, more accurately, and using less computing resources.
0:57
Given the 12C posture of this case, the district court was required to credit these pleadings
1:04
and these characterizations in the specification.
1:06
And its failure to do so is reversible error here.
1:10
Figure 6 from the patents, which is reproduced on page 19 of our brief,
1:15
illustrates what these new data structures, these new grid points are.
1:20
It's not disputed.
1:21
These are not the plain and ordinary meaning of the term grid point.
1:24
These are a new type of data, a new type of grid,
1:29
where you don't know the coordinates or the boundaries
1:32
until you start to populate it with measurements.
1:34
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
Now the district court interpreted the word grid point
1:38
and the word non-uniform grid point to mean the same thing, right?
1:43
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
That's correct.
1:44
They were largely treated coextensively below.
1:47
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
And do you agree or have you challenged that claim construction?
1:51
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
In the context, we have not challenged that claim construction.
1:55
In the context of how grid point is used in the 753 patent,
1:59
the 104 patent family always uses the term non-uniform grid point.
2:02
In the context of how it's used in the 753 patent,
2:07
it's essentially always going to be non-uniform as well,
2:10
as is discussed in the specification as both the district court and the partners.
2:15
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
But what was the district court's interpretation of grid point and non-uniform grid point?
2:19
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
So specifically at grid point,
2:21
was a point associated with representative calibration data for an area.
2:25
And so there are three separate aspects of it that are all tied together.
2:28
And as detailed in the district court's claim construction opinion,
2:32
there's no dispute that the term grid point means also an area
2:35
as well as being a point at the same time.
2:37
And as well as this concept of having representative calibration data,
2:41
the district court was specific.
2:43
That term that it used for the construction means
2:45
having sufficiently statistically similar calibration data that is being fed.
2:51
And that has been very effective in determining the grid points of the project.
2:54
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
Now I read the district court's opinion as saying that
2:59
the point about the novel data structure,
3:02
that's not in fact recited in the claims
3:05
or a lot of the things that are being relied on as being,
3:08
I suppose, an inventive concept or to satisfy LS step one
3:13
is not actually recited in the claim.
3:16
What's your response to that?
3:18
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
Well, I think this is a second fundamental,
3:21
issue we had with the way that the district court approached the issue, which was that
3:24
it did not apply its claim construction that it had ruled on a few weeks before it ruled
3:28
on the 12C motion, and so it used a different concept of grid points for 12C than it had
3:34
in the claim construction ruling, and that that was a fundamental error, too, that once
3:37
you have the claim construction...
3:38
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
Well, how about if we do this, then?
3:39
Tell me, with the claim construction that the district court arrived at, which you just
3:44
told us, how is it that that claim construction makes it so you've satisfactorily recited the
3:53
claim, the claim satisfactorily recite what you think is the inventive concept, being
3:57
this novel data structure?
3:59
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
That the three different aspects of the claim construction, that it's a point, that it's
4:04
associated with representative calibration data, and it reflects an area, are all tied
4:08
together at the core, the heart of the invention, as shown, I think the best illustration of
4:13
that is figure six.
4:14
Which we show in our brief, that you have an area where you don't know what the boundaries
4:19
are until you start to populate it with measurement, because the representative aspect, the representative
4:23
calibration data...
4:24
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
Where in the claim does it say that you have an area where you don't know what the boundaries
4:27
are until you start filling it in?
4:29
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
That is, as the...
4:40
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
We could look at, for example, 753 in claim one.
4:45
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
Yeah, that that is the order of the steps, where you start with the calibration data,
4:49
and then you generate the grid points from the calibration data.
4:52
In combination with the district court's construction, which we don't challenge, of what that term
4:58
grid point means.
5:00
That it has to be...
5:02
You group the calibration data that you've measured in a way that there's statistical
5:06
similarity between the points, so that makes the grid point that you're generating representative
5:10
of those calibration points that you're grouping together.
5:13
And that that, geographically, is illustrated in figure six, and that's what's going on
5:18
in the process.
5:21
And that, getting back to the initial point, that you're on a roadmap.
5:25
That's why, if you do this with the types of signals that are claimed here, the types
5:30
of signals of opportunity that are going to be propagating irregularly, you're going to
5:35
get irregular boundaries, non-uniform boundaries, when you do the steps of the 753 patents,
5:39
if you're performing them in a way to generate the grid points as claimed.
5:44
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
Do I remember correctly that calibration data is the location data for another known location?
5:51
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
Calibration data and the observed network measurements are a little different.
5:54
It's a little bit more specific in this case, Your Honor, as the District Court construed.
5:59
Calibration data, and this is at Appendix 2740, is construed as modified or unmodified
6:05
network measurement data associated with a defined geographic location.
6:10
And then network measurement data was defined on Appendix 2742 to be a measurement data
6:17
from a network measurement report, i.e., a report used in cellular networks which provides
6:22
the results of a measurement from a mobile device.
6:24
So, it's a very specific type of data that's being used from a particular source, and that's
6:30
fed into what the calibration data is.
6:33
It's not used in a more generic sense, if that was Your Honor's question.
6:40
And so, in addition to the 12 issue of not crediting the allegations, the
6:46
pled of arrearance and the complaint, the fact that the District Court did not appear
6:51
to use the claim construction it had just rendered in its 101 analysis is also an error.
6:57
I think that's a good point.
6:57
I think this issue has come up and was disputed a little bit back and forth between the parties,
7:01
but I think that this Court's jurisprudence is clear that if you have a claim construction,
7:06
that should be applied in the 101 analysis.
7:09
Whereas here, that claim construction has an impact and an influence on what the 101
7:14
analysis is.
7:16
It's important to perform that claim construction, which was done here.
7:19
There's an issue that was raised by the other side about whether GeoScope waived the right
7:26
to rely on the claim construction.
7:28
As part of the 12 analysis for 101, I don't think that that holds up here.
7:34
The specific claim construction the Court had ordered was discussed extensively at the
7:38
oral arguments for the 12 motion, and it was also referenced in the briefing.
7:43
I think the defendants were incorrect in their brief when they said to the contrary.
7:47
In the briefing for the 12 motion at Appendix 2668 and 2670, GeoScope noted the interplay
7:56
of the pending claim construction.
7:59
I think this was a little bit unusual because it wasn't that there was a disagreement as
8:04
to the claim construction that would influence 12 .
8:07
Both parties agreed at the claim construction phase that grid points had a very particular
8:11
meaning, was not plain and ordinary.
8:13
So here it was agreed that if it had a very particular meaning, that meaning then must
8:17
have to be applied for the 12 analysis as well.
8:26
Once you have that construction, cases like McRow and Enfish make clear that it's the
8:32
terms as construed.
8:33
They can't be applied.
8:33
They can't be applied for claims as construed that then apply for the 101 analysis.
8:39
And the pleadings go through in detail, Appendix 265, 267 to 28, 274 to 75, the specific technological
8:50
challenges of using these signals of opportunity to perform geolocation because they're not
8:55
signals that are intended to be used for geolocation, so you have sparse reference points if you're
9:00
using cell towers.
9:02
The signals that they're sending out are going to be impacted by network.
9:05
They're going to be impacted by natural features like mountains, structures.
9:07
They're not going to propagate in ordinary ways, which means that you're going to have
9:12
to figure out a way to take irregular measurements that you then detect in the environment and
9:16
then tie them back to do the geolocation, which is how you end up with this concept
9:21
of grid points that create irregular patterns to make sense of the irregular data.
9:27
And before I reserve my time for rebuttal, having reviewed the briefing, I don't think
9:36
that there's a dispute that the particular approach that's shown in Figure 6 of the patents,
9:41
a new type of grid that can be formed from the data, I don't think that there's a dispute
9:44
that that can be patentable subject matter, that creating a regular grid that looks nothing
9:49
like a grid that anybody would ever conceive of can be patentable subject matter if it's
9:53
solving a technological challenge, if you're doing it in a way that you're grouping together
9:58
disparate data points to create what is then comprehensible for geolocation but what looks
10:04
completely irregular on a map.
10:06
That's not like any concept of grid that would exist in the art.
10:12
I don't think that there's also either a dispute reading the briefs that the claims as construed
10:17
require that new kind of grid, but that's what the construction of grid points, non-uniform
10:22
grid point mean, that you are creating a new grid that's based on what you're measuring,
10:26
not applying a grid and then filling in the boxes with the measurements.
10:31
And that to be able to do this with the complex data and at the speed and at the accuracy,
10:37
to have it actually spit out for your cell phone, to be able to use geolocation for your
10:40
cell phone, which is now a fundamental aspect for almost all cell phone functions, that
10:47
there's no analogous human activity that would have been known in the art or known before
10:53
the patents.
10:54
And I think when you tie those three together, that ends up being dispositive that this is
10:59
a specific solution to a technological problem and therefore is patentable subject matter,
11:05
unless there are any questions.
11:07
We reserve the remainder of our time.
11:09
Thank you.
11:10
MR.
11:18
Mr. Rosenthal.
11:19
MR.
11:19
Judge Stark (merged with attorney)
Thank you, Your Honor.
11:20
I'm sorry.
11:21
I have a frog in my throat.
11:23
Excuse me.
11:24
Thank you, Your Honor.
11:25
May it please the Court.
11:26
My name is Brian Rosenthal.
11:27
I'm arguing on behalf of both the appellees in this case.
11:31
The issue that is presented by this case is whether these broad, generic, functional claims
11:39
that recite processing data in order to determine the location.
11:43
Whether they are saved from ineligibility by the fact that they mention grid points.
11:50
Our view is that they are not.
11:52
We think the District Court got it exactly right.
11:56
First of all, the process of step one should start with an analysis of the claim language
12:02
itself.
12:03
And if we look at the 753 patent as an example, those claims are virtually indistinguishable
12:10
from the electric power case.
12:11
Those claims recite providing calibration data, then generating grid points, then obtaining
12:24
network measurement data, then analyzing that data, selecting certain of that data,
12:31
and then determining a location.
12:34
At no point…
12:35
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
MS.
12:35
The invention at issue in this case is not the same invention that was at issue
12:39
in Electric Power Group, right?
12:41
Unknown
MR.
12:41
Judge Stark (merged with attorney)
That is correct.
12:43
The invention in that case was gathering all of this information from disparate sources,
12:49
putting it together in a way that allegedly had never been done before to ultimately rely
12:55
on a reliability indicator at the end of the claim.
12:57
In this case, we have…
12:59
Now we're talking about location.
13:01
It's taking information from a variety of different sources, putting it all together,
13:06
analyzing it, and coming up with a result, which is, in this case, the location.
13:11
Now, that is no more or less…
13:13
MR.
13:14
…technological than what was written down in the Electric Power Group.
13:17
MS.
13:17
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
You're really relying on Electric Power Group, I think, for the breadth of the claim.
13:22
Is that right?
13:23
MR.
13:23
For an analogy on the breadth of the claim?
13:25
MR.
13:25
I…
13:26
MS.
13:26
That this claim…
13:26
I mean, presumably, if the claim really did… was narrow enough to recite a technological
13:34
improvement, then that really wouldn't depend on Electric Power Group grid, would it?
13:40
Unknown
MR.
13:41
Judge Stark (merged with attorney)
I think the last part of your question is exactly right.
13:44
If there was a how in this patent, if there was a how in the 753, Electric Power Grid
13:51
would be distinguishable.
13:52
What I'm relying on Electric Power Grid for is the fact that, like Electric Power Grid,
13:57
the claim elements are written at such a high level of generality.
14:02
I suppose you could use the word breadth, but I really think that our point is it's
14:07
generic, general, result-oriented language that does not provide any how.
14:14
The other thing about it is that…
14:16
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
Do you think the specification provides how?
14:18
Unknown
MR.
14:18
Judge Stark (merged with attorney)
The specification provides a number of examples of how you might do that.
14:22
In fact, in the 753, there's all kinds of figures, figure 49, 59, figure 40, there's
14:29
all kinds of analysis about how you might determine grid points, generate grid points,
14:36
how you might select grid points.
14:37
How you might analyze grid points.
14:40
How you might determine the location.
14:42
Not a single piece of that is written in the claims or has been interpreted to be included
14:47
in the claims.
14:48
And GeoScope has not appealed the court's claim construction.
14:52
The court explicitly refused to bring into the claims any how the grid points are generated.
15:02
In fact, in the claim construction, the district court explicitly said, what does that mean?
15:07
And what GeoScope was pointing to in the abstract dealt only with how the grid points are generated,
15:14
whereas the claims merely recite that the grid points are generated.
15:19
So what we end up with, and this is why I say it's indistinguishable from electric power
15:23
or automated location or any of those automation technologies, that all that it does is it
15:31
recites, and I don't have to skip over any claim language to make this argument, it simply
15:37
recites providing certain data, generating additional data, selecting some of that data,
15:43
and then determining a location from that data.
15:46
And when you look at the language of the claims, it talks about using predetermined criteria,
15:51
but it doesn't specify what those criteria are.
15:54
It talks about characterizing parameters, but it doesn't tell you what those characterizing
15:59
parameters are.
16:00
It tells you, you analyze the grid points or the calibration information as a function
16:05
of the grid points.
16:06
But it doesn't tell you what those parameters are.
16:07
But it doesn't tell you what that function is.
16:08
It is completely bereft of any particular specific improvement to the way that the computer
16:16
works.
16:17
And the problem that the claims are trying to solve is a distinctly non-technological
16:23
problem, and that is determining where something is in the world.
16:27
So this idea of grid points being used in that process is itself an abstract concept
16:34
on top of the original abstract concept.
16:37
I do want to address what Appellant essentially is resting its entire argument on, because
16:46
it's really just incorrect.
16:48
They are essentially resting their entire argument on the idea that grid points in the
16:55
753 patent must be irregular.
17:00
In fact, I heard counsel say that they are always going to be non-uniform, and that was
17:05
an argument that they made in their reply brief as well at page 14.
17:09
In practice, they will always be irregular.
17:12
That is absolutely incorrect.
17:15
Appellant below during claim construction briefing explicitly agreed that the grid points
17:22
in the 753 include uniform grid points or non-uniform grid points.
17:28
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
What about if there's one dependent claim, I think, that refers to non-uniform grid points?
17:35
Non-uniform grid points.
17:37
It's the 104 patent claim 2.
17:38
Judge Stark (merged with attorney)
So there's two families of patents, and in the 104 patents, those dependent claims recite
17:43
that the dependent claims are non-uniform.
17:44
The data in the database includes non-uniform grid points.
17:47
So there's two different analyses here.
17:49
In the 753, to start with that, it is absolutely clear that they can include uniform grid points.
17:56
In fact, in the specification of the patent, at column 10, line 29, the patent explicitly
18:03
states a non-uniform grid generator can be generated, and then it goes on line 32, it
18:13
can be generated by a non-uniform grid generator.
18:14
So it's a fixed uniform grid defined over the region.
18:19
It explicitly states that this includes fixed uniform grids.
18:24
Now, the 104 patent is different.
18:26
The 104 patent does explicitly say that it is a non-uniform grid, but the district court
18:31
below construed those terms to mean the same thing, and there is no dispute that that construction
18:38
governs here.
18:38
And in the district court case, during claim construction, appellant agreed that the non-uniform
18:46
grid points include non-uniform grid points or uniform grid points.
18:51
The other point is that even if, you know, what's going on here is that the appellant
18:58
is trying to read all of this stuff in from a specification that is not actually claimed.
19:02
In fact, counsel just said, figure six is the best illustration of these non-uniform
19:10
grid points that he says are embodied.
19:13
There is no...
19:14
Figure six that he's referring to is from a different patent in a different family,
19:19
the 784 patent, which is not on appeal here.
19:22
That figure that they recite in their brief over and over as being the best evidence that
19:28
this is a concrete invention is from a different family of patents.
19:32
This patent and these claims are what are at issue here.
19:37
And these claims, talking about the 753 first, merely require the use of non-uniform grid
19:44
points, the generic, unconstrained use of grid points.
19:48
Now, the question is whether that use constitutes a concrete enough addition to a specific technological
19:58
field.
19:58
And the answer to that is no.
20:00
Counsel said that what we've done here is we've claimed a novel, unique data structure,
20:07
presumably relying on cases like Enfish.
20:10
That is not what's happening.
20:12
The district court explicitly held at appendix, I think it's appendix 23 and 22, explicitly
20:21
held in the 101 order that these claims do not require how you generate the grid points,
20:27
they do not require that the grid points are a denser map of points than the cell towers,
20:33
and specifically that there is no particular data structure that is required.
20:38
Grid point was construed to mean an association of two things.
20:43
An association of a point with representative calibration data.
20:47
How you represent that in a computer is completely left up to the implementer.
20:52
That's totally different from cases like Enfish or Unilock or Adasa,
20:59
those cases that are relied on in the briefs where there was a specific change to how the computer operates.
21:06
In these claims, there is no change, there is no improvement to how the computer operates.
21:13
Instead, the claims recite using computers to gather and process data
21:19
in a way that could be done with or without computers.
21:22
Just looking at calibration data and grid points and determining from them a location
21:28
is something that computers are not necessary for at all.
21:32
And it certainly doesn't change or make any specific changes.
21:36
There is a significant improvement to the way the computer operates,
21:38
as is required in Enfish.
21:41
I do want to address one question that was raised prominently in the briefs and again today.
21:47
And that is, did the district court err by not specifically reciting the claim construction?
21:54
The answer to that is no, because every aspect of the district court's analysis
21:59
in the 101 decision was consistent.
22:02
This was a judge who had just two weeks ago
22:06
resolved the claim construction issues.
22:09
And all of the Federal Circuit cases that are cited say
22:11
if there is a claim construction issue that impacts the 101 analysis,
22:17
that claim construction issue should be resolved before the 101 is resolved.
22:23
Makes sense. That was done.
22:25
The claim construction issues were resolved and then this judge turned to the next issue,
22:30
which was the 101 analysis.
22:32
And everything in that 101 analysis was consistent
22:36
with that decision that he had rendered two weeks earlier.
22:38
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
What specifically is your response to the argument that
22:42
the district court had a broader construction of grid points?
22:46
Judge Stark (merged with attorney)
I disagree.
22:48
And first of all, the district court explicitly wrote out the construction of grid points
22:53
in the claim construction order.
22:54
And then during the 101 decision at Appendix 23,
23:00
explicitly harkened back, not by reference to the claim construction decision,
23:05
but specifically said there is nothing in this claim,
23:11
I'm going to quote instead of paraphrasing,
23:15
Claim 1 recites a method that includes generating one or more sets of grid points
23:21
without providing any limitation on how the grid points are generated.
23:26
That is exactly the holding he had made just two or three weeks earlier
23:32
at Appendix 2785.
23:35
During the claim construction order,
23:38
the court said all of the arguments that GeoScope is making
23:42
pertain to how the grid points are generated.
23:46
But that's not in the claims.
23:48
I am merely construing the word grid point
23:50
because that's the only thing that's been presented to me.
23:54
So what we're left with is a claim that has plain language,
23:57
English language, it's not technical language so we can all understand it,
24:01
that simply says provide calibration data,
24:04
generate grid points for that calibration data,
24:09
the district court has told us what grid points means,
24:12
it's an association of one piece of data to another,
24:15
and then analyze that data to determine the location.
24:19
There is nothing in the claim construction.
24:22
You could read the claim construction order over and over again
24:26
and there will be nothing in there that ever says that the claims are limited to how.
24:31
And if there were any doubt about that,
24:33
the court explicitly stated,
24:35
as stated at Appendix 23 in the 101 decision,
24:39
that there is no recitation in the claims.
24:41
And on Appendix 22, which is the page before that in the 101 decision,
24:47
the court went even further and said at the top of the page,
24:50
nothing in the claims requires the grid points to be arranged in a denser map,
24:57
to be determined from the analysis of calibration data,
25:00
or to be organized in any specific format.
25:05
These are rulings that are entirely consistent
25:07
with what the court had just ruled in the claim construction.
25:11
There's no support anywhere in the Federal Circuit jurisprudence
25:15
for the notion that the court's failure to explicitly cite
25:20
the order that he had just issued in analyzing it
25:25
means that we have to throw out that decision.
25:27
The claim construction is clear, it resolved all the issues,
25:31
and under that claim construction,
25:32
there is no specificity that would render these claims concrete.
25:38
I didn't really address step two very briefly,
25:42
nor did counsel, but in step two,
25:45
there is nothing more to these claims
25:47
that adds to that abstract concept of analyzing data,
25:51
comparing data to determine a location,
25:54
because there's nothing concrete,
25:56
there's no new machinery, there's no new computer,
25:59
there's no new database.
26:01
The only thing that they point out,
26:03
and point to, it always comes back to the same thing,
26:05
grid points.
26:06
And grid points just isn't enough standing by itself,
26:10
nor is it in the 104 family.
26:12
Merely by saying non-uniform grid points,
26:15
that doesn't make it any more concrete.
26:17
Those claims are even more abstract and generic
26:21
than the 753 when you read those claims.
26:23
All it says is that among the data are non-uniform grid points.
26:28
So unless the court has any other questions,
26:32
that's all I had to say.
26:33
Thank you, counsel.
26:35
Thank you.
26:40
Mr. Gilman, you have about four minutes for rebuttal.
26:53
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
Thank you, Your Honor.
26:54
May it please the court.
26:56
Starting with electric power group,
26:59
as this court noted in electric power group,
27:01
as part of its decision,
27:03
the claims in this case do not even require
27:05
a new source or type of information
27:07
or new techniques for analyzing it at 1355.
27:11
We believe that's entirely distinguishable here
27:13
with the,
27:14
the grid points,
27:15
the non-uniform grid points,
27:16
the fact that you have to have a point
27:18
associated with a region associated with calibration data
27:20
is the exact new type of information
27:22
or new techniques for analyzing it
27:24
that distinguishes electric power group.
27:27
The fact that there might be different ways of doing it
27:29
that are taught in the specification,
27:31
as defendants acknowledged,
27:32
there are specific embodiments
27:35
of how you do those non-uniform grid points
27:37
in the specification,
27:38
but this court's case law is also clear
27:40
that even on a one-to-one question,
27:42
it's okay to have genus claims.
27:44
McRow decision specifically addresses
27:47
that it's okay to have a class of factors
27:49
that are used in calculations of morphing weights.
27:52
Kanika,
27:54
Kanika,
27:54
Lika,
27:55
excuse me,
27:56
the claim that was found,
27:58
patent eligible claim two,
27:59
required modifying the permutation in time.
28:02
That was the key element,
28:04
the key limitation that was found to confer eligibility.
28:07
It didn't say how you modify it in time,
28:09
but the idea of modifying in time
28:11
was what made the patent accountable.
28:13
It was a concrete improvement.
28:21
The incongruity between the claim construction decision
28:24
and the one-to-one decision,
28:26
I believe, is illustrated
28:27
from what was just recited by counsel
28:31
on Appendix 22.
28:33
For purposes of claim construction,
28:36
the court required,
28:38
and we believe properly,
28:39
that grid point requires,
28:41
a non-uniform grid point requires,
28:43
associating a point and a geographic region,
28:45
and that also ties together
28:47
representative calibration data,
28:49
which the court said required a level
28:51
of statistical similarity to group it together.
28:55
When the court then turned to the one-to-one decision,
29:00
it treated grid points in a generic sense,
29:03
that nothing in the claims require the grid points
29:05
to be arranged in a denser map,
29:06
I'll come to that in a second,
29:07
but also determined,
29:09
nothing in the claims requires that the grid points
29:11
be determined from the analysis of calibration data.
29:14
That's directly contrary to the claim construction
29:16
that says it has to be representative of that.
29:18
The data that's being acquired.
29:19
Nothing requires that grid points be organized
29:21
in a specific format,
29:22
again, contrary to the claim construction
29:24
that requires grid points to reflect both the point
29:27
and the geographic region,
29:28
as well as the representative data.
29:30
The court never mentions the claim construction,
29:33
and its opinion never addresses the argument.
29:35
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
Can I ask you a quick question,
29:36
which is, you know,
29:37
the district court said that your claims are directed,
29:39
the abstract idea of determining a location based on data.
29:42
Do you think it makes a difference if your claims
29:44
are directed to determine a location based on
29:47
the relative location to known points,
29:51
known locations?
29:54
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
I would disagree with the characterization overall,
29:57
but I do believe that the technique of generating
30:00
that grid points,
30:01
of filling in the map,
30:02
and this gets to the denser map question
30:04
about whether that's required by the claims,
30:06
because we believe it is,
30:07
if you generate these grid points to create
30:09
new reference points,
30:11
that that is a patent eligible concept,
30:13
especially the specific type of new reference points
30:16
that are being added,
30:17
into the claim by the specific department.
30:20
Judge (Dyk or Stoll)
The specific type being non-uniform.
30:21
Appellant Attorney (Timothy Gilman)
Non-uniform,
30:22
as well as that you're tying together
30:24
the different characteristics
30:25
as required by the claim construction.
30:27
And the fact that this creates a denser location
30:33
is explained at detail in our complaint,
30:36
which again,
30:37
the court erred by not crediting it on 12 motion
30:40
under ATRIX and other parts of this court's jurisprudence,
30:43
that it's required to credit the allegations
30:46
that are pled in the complaint,
30:48
describing how the claimed grid points
30:49
result in a denser map,
30:51
but it's also a little bit self-evident
30:54
that if you're creating these new grid points,
30:56
because of the technological challenges being confronted
30:58
where you have sparse cell towers,
31:00
if you create new reference points,
31:02
you're necessarily creating a denser map,
31:04
because now you have more reference points,
31:05
not just the cell towers that you're using to begin with.
31:08
And so that's explained in detail
31:10
in the complaint and the averments
31:13
that should have been credited,
31:13
but it's also, I think, self-evident
31:15
from the figures and from the specifications,
31:18
just the point on figure six.
31:19
Judge Stark (merged with attorney)
Thank you, Mr. Goleman.
31:19
You're out of time.
31:21
The case will be submitted.
31:22
Thank you, Your Honor.