or hopefully granting of the motion i would like to move the admission of grace st vincent who was a member of the barnes good standing with the highest courts of delaware and illinois i have influential in the courts softball team i don't you know whether it's a winning team i do know that many years ago a famous sports writer vincent and she's also been a very helpful contributor to my chambers and i know she'll be a very positive presence in our barn we're lucky to have are at our farm so the motion is grant who is a member of the bar and is good still in good standing with the highest courts or virginia and the district of columbia i have knowledge of her credentials and i am satisfied that she possesses the necessary qualifications outstanding member of the bar unique identifier limitation rather than look to and account for all of the relevant language in the claim the board only looked at part of it and in doing so the board left out something that unique identifier identifies any information sent over the computer network with the board's construction doesn't account for the actual claim language it doesn't even say that the identifier must unique identify from there are three requirements for the about the information that must be met the eight identifier must uniquely identify information and everyone agrees about that at times we were criticized as if we had said the identifier must identify the computer that was in our point it is information that is identified but that information is information se over said computer network sent from the computer and sent to said server the part that the board left out is sent from the computer  identifier must uniquely identify the information that is among other things sent from the computer and the board didn't address that as a matter of fact on page eight of the final written decision the board said claim eleven further only reports that the unique identifier identifies information that is sent over the computer network it left out the rest of the what google said computer or the computer so why do you have to read that into the words unique well the information you need identifier scuse me or that's a step along the way toward addressing whether the the logan reference meets the limitation and thus anticipates it whether whether the claim whether that language is read to the construction or just considered without construction the logan account no account number doesn't meet the limitation because all it does is identify information about the user it has no capability to identify the information sent from the computer and we've explained in our brief why that multiple users with different account numbers can use the computer and the logan user can use different computers so regardless of of how it gets in they're judged all the logan account number doesn't meet the limitation but the board of the board focused only on the information and not on the requirement that it be sent from the computer now the reference to the computer network i'm sorry the computers now with respect to the logan account number it's clearly not a claim eleven unique identifier all agree and the disclosure of logan is quite clear that the logan account number is a user identifier and it has no reference to the computer the particular computer being used by the user and this of course is id information coming from the computer right it does not uniquely does do so your honor but yes it does it doesn't a sense that the account number refers to a specific individual and it does identify information is being about that user but it doesn't tell you whether it comes from the computer all you know is that is information about a given use identifying information coming from a computer it doesn't have to identify the computer right it does not have to identify the computer but the requirement your honor is that the identifier claim eleven uniquely identify information sent from the computer if all we have is an identifier of the user it isn't uniquely identify oneself from the computer and logan makes this clear with the possibility that two users with different account numbers could be using the same computer therefore the account respect to this limitation about the unique identifier the clause sets wherein the unique identifier uniquely identifies information sent over the network from the computer to  so it is a part of what the claimant choir's that there be a unique identification of what's sent from the computer it's a part of the discussion about this so i guess you're saying if if the claim didn't have that final clause from the computer to said server then then you wouldn't be able to make the argument you're making that's true if it just said you know identify uniquely identifies information sent over said computer network then you would be stuck and you wouldn't be able to make the argument that the unique identifier has to be associated with you can have it some computer we wouldn't be your honor because that's the one that is the connection that is the languages on which we rely yes the from the computer point right i guess and i'm trying to understand why that extra cause even makes a difference when it just talks about information coming over a computer network necessarily that's information that's coming from the client the user that's being transmitted to the server well it isn't it isn't so clear ties back to a couple of things first of all in column seventeen in the three one four patent there is a disclosure of multiple ways that the idea might be provided there are two examples that show the id clearly being provided in a way that would identify information sent from a computer the references first to providing the identifier to the specific item of software on the client computer and the second is identifying the providing a cookie which also identifies the specific item of software so the reason that that's important is is three c proposal there's a comparison of identifiers that are cookie paste and identifiers that are like the w three c proposal that identify the user and w three c advocates  what's mentioned an independent claim sixteen is not inconsistent at all but what we're saying it could be the case that individual users also have use right and as we pointed out in our brief it's not the case that the claim groups one to three my own one to three hours one to three philip so in that case that identifier the full identifier could uniquely identify individuals at the same time it could mean the limitation as we see it by uniquely identifiable information cept for the computer by use of the one two three or so one two three alice and one two three philip would meet both limitations the one two a unique identifier and i think with all deference to my colleague i think the problem here is focusing on what the unique identifier has to uniquely identify and looking at the language of claim eleven on th over said computer network from the computer to said server so i think what the identifier is identifying is the information the rest of it is a description of how of how the information gets from one place to another but i don't think that there's any basis for saying that identifier has to necessarily be tied to the computer in the language of the claim itself and let me explain a couple of other reasons for that earlier in plame eleven on line forty seven one of the steps is acquiring demographic information about the user and then later in the claim on on line sixty six and sixty seven it talks about demographic information associated with said unique identifier so it's clear from the claim that the identifier can be about a user because we have demographic information about a user say only that the identifier can only identify the user it just says it can identify the user in addition to the computer and it seems as if that language in claim sixteen really confirms that point and then turning to the specification language my friend talked about the language in column seventeen column seventeen as we discussed in our brief is replete with the term user id and assigning a unique id to the  lots of references to user id so my friend's construction of the claim would weed out that embodiment that's in the specification so for all of those reasons we think there's  very very very strong evidence to support the board's determination that unique identifier can refer to either a computer or a user and so the logan does anticipate that  argument before the board and raised again in the briefs is that the identifier has to be provided by the server of the board project of that construction and said any system process or entity providing a unique identifier to the computer is enough again turning back to claim eleven it doesn't say anything about where the unique identifier comes from it just says on line fifty nine providing a unique identifier t computer further down in that claim at the top of column twenty three there is an identification transferring said content from said server to import a limitation from the specification in sort of claim that just doesn't appear there your point is that they know how to say from censoring the claim exactly your honor if they want to say where it comes from they can say that they said it just a few lines down in the let me briefly touch on on the third argument that's advanced by the other side which is the argument that logan does not anticipate selecting advertising for transfer in accordance with demographic information and here the argument is logan doesn't select advertising content based on demographic information the three fourteen does therefore on line fourteen and then it talks about the two factors that are used in selecting advertising one is the interest match which compares subject matter codes there in the advertisement with subject matter codes associated with the user and then turning to column twenty five on the next page line for it says in a description in addition to the interest match value determined above where it may be given to the subscribers personal characteristics and then it talks about the demographic match process so it's clearly says in the selection process to considerations interest magine demographic match and then online fifteen it turns from selection says all advertisement schedule for a given subscriber may then be prioritized based on the calculations that have been calculated in the interests match in that demographic match so clearly sets up a as you are said selection whether there was a motivation to increase security by having a cookie based security here and the board found that there was talk about an increase in security being an advantage of combining those and that robinson expressly discloses the interest in as much security as possible and therefore provided a rational basis for combining references my friends in their reply brief or even raise a new argument that wasn't raised in their opening brief about encrypted and the advantages of encryption these would be cookies again not an argument discussed at all in their opening brief the claim that because last issue i'd raise is the motion to amend obviously a very deferential standard in evaluating the board's decision here written description support for the proposed amendment was a very long string site that had lots of different citations instead of site including citations to four four pages of the application and the board rejected is insufficient we think they were well within their authority to do that  based on the absence of any real direction in terms of what was pointed to and because there is nothing in what they did in one cited there to provide the requisite written description of the amendment talks about selecting advertising for transfer new language in accordance with real time and other computer usage information and demographic information associated with said unique identifier they point in their reply brief to a passage on page eight sixteen seventeen but that describes selection based solely on real time information that doesn't explain it all how the three factors will be brought to bear in making the selection unless the court has any further the unique identifier has to get from the computer to the server and logan account number doesn't do that and therefore that there's something about the phrase from the computer to the server that saying here's where the information we're talking about of the information that's being sent by the user has to come from computer and up to the server and that's what we want to be tied to this identifier so i don't think there's any basis there in saying that identifier must be tied to the computer for the reasons i was discussing earlier first of all because a lot of the discussion of the identifier in that claim is tying into the user's demographic information which seems to clearly require an identifier or at least allow room for the identifier that's tied to the user second of all claim sixteen's use of the exact same phrase to refer to a user as opposed to  a computer and the language in the specification that talks about user id it's just difficult in light of all of that to say that that florence requires that the computer be identified then there's a separate argument that they advance which is well even if that's not true the identifier has to be provided by the server and that we submit has no basis in the plain language because there's nothing in the plan that says anything about where the identifier comes demonstrate written description support for the amended claims be a does not challenge claim construction necessary always well you don't need clinton's book claim construction informs the bears the burden of showing the pattern ability of the many claim terms and part of that process is defining the scope of the claim terms so that the claims can be compared to the prior ar when you read that there are some instances where the claim terms are so plainly clear on their face that you know the stated requirement of doing a claim construction is the sort of form over this is certainly not one of those situations where we're introducing language claim language for the first time what was it that was mysterious about this claim language is what it seems to be just saying you're making these advertising selection doing it in real time based on what the viewer could use your happen to be looking at the viewer happen to be browsing that seems pretty straightforward right also if the if  scope of real time and how much time is real time the problem here is that you're selecting advertising content in accordance with three things real time information computer other computer usage information information so there's no discussion about how real time information differs from those other types of information how a selection is done when you have those three types of information how things are the more important yes the here the pad owner just provided the board with a number of page and line citations with no explanation of how those citations support the newly amended claim and the regulation doesn't require that kind of full explanation doesn't the regulation just says that you have to demonstrate in description support and that's that's not something new to  and you know one ip are proceeding and lots of other proceedings before the patent office and district court parties have to show written description support and we don't believe that it's sufficient to just hand the board a number of alone provides the support that would you imagine situations where maybe there's only just one or two sites provided and it's pretty darn clear that there's more yeah i mean that this the case that international flavors case that be allies on is one of those circumstances  and it's really going to depend on how complex the invention is it's going to depend on how extensive the claim amendments are i mean there are certainly situations where you could add to the words real time here in the pa  i don't believe they filed a petition for a hearing before the board this is really you know this was of a very plainly stated clearly quire meant that they knew about beforehand so you know they had your intervention actually provide the answer there your honor is that the claim language is brought it doesn't claim any specific way of doing that any formula of doing it it simply says in accordance with so it's broad claim language not requiring further limitation or further written description support and each of those things is mentioned in the specification much of it in the original claim a lot of which made reference to of course demographic information and want targeting in original claim eleven isn't done with computer usage information it's clearly collected and associate so it's all it's all there and the claim language doesn't require the proposed plain language doesn't require any further ref judge told there's a couple of other references in column sixteen there's a reference a line twenty five the reactive targeting provided by clear software application ten is handled in real time rather than is simply building a library and there's another reference lower in income sixty but we maintain that from a computer those are words of limitation and mr pinkus also said that there are references to a user id that the id can be associated with the user we don't dispute that but the claimant requires that it identify what set for the computer one claim sixteen mr