interpretation of the judge reference and the subsequent erroneous application of that reference to the sonic wall applications before us today now there are two specific claim imitation is the sort of what would like to address in this context specifically a trusted user on an internet and then further receiving an indicator prom that trusted user concerning whether a name should remain on a white list and these two claim elements appear throughout all the independent claims of the now white listing is a methodology that's used to prevent influx of spam into an e mail network and in its simplest form white listing involves me putting a name on a list such that when someone sends me an email i'm able to receive it so for example judge laurie i put your name on my white list you subsequently send me an email i received it whereas judging mally if your name is not on my white list and try to send me an email that e mail messages either quarantine or i never receive it at all now there's typically two ways of creating a white list one is manually entering names on that list simply typing them in and the list populated a more convenient way of doing so however involved a user sending a message to a recipient and the recipients name automatically the list so for example just rayna if i was to send you a message as that message goes on the outbound it would be added to the white lists under the theory that at some point you're going to reply to me and since i would like to receive your reply it's added to the white list of so that i can see that now herein lies the problem where in the sonic was a solution eventual comes into play is that in a perfect world people on an e mail network environment for example at work only use their email for work you know they talk to vendors the talk of the people in the company we all know that's not what happens people talk to their friends they talk to their family they start signing up for newsletters lipservice group on fantasy football and the next thing you know there's all these people on the white list the concerts fam in the company start overwhelming e mail network so what sonic wall has done is to solve this problem by only allowing trusted users to add names to the white house and this comes in the context of the first plane limitation a trusted user on the internet now we trust a user is more than just a simple user a simple any user on the network a trusted user as the name suggests is one that has some semblance of trust now the specification of the white the application talks about in one instance for example a trusted user cou ld be people that belong to a certain group or a certain division and this is found in the appendix a page seventy seven so a perfect example would be the i t department or the network administration apartment their jobs are going to be very protective of the network is that their job so they can be considered a trusted you to this ongoing allow email traffic or adding names to the white list that should be on the list another example is found on page eighty two of the appendix is something to determine my policy so for example i can say well only the heads of each department are going to be considered trusted users or only certain people that have a certain security clearance can be trusted user so i can use a policy to determine who goes on that white list the spring aware of the patent office fall short on the anticipation with  simply is not in judge the heart of the patent office argument with respect to the trust and use argument can be passed around on page forty two of the appendix which is column six line forty nine through fifty one there is a singular reference at line forty nine through fifty one concerning the system of the president pension operates between a set of trusted peers now it first glance that sounds trust appears sounds a lot like a trust user but if you read the rest of the context of that area or that part of the specification of the judge reference there's no discussion about what a trusted peer is and in fact if you read further in the judge referenced over columns seven specifically around lying a trusted peer is not a user on the internet so for example someone sending an e mail that trusted here is actually part of a peer to peer based messaging notification system that is operated between messaging security systems so we're not talking about users and judge with respect to the trusted peer we're talking about different e mail security systems along the internet not even the internet but in addition to that they're not actually users it's the systems as a whole so there is no trust the user and the judge reference just security systems that are trying to maintain trust in a network environment now the patent office makes numerous references to the judge and the judge had to try to support its interpretation of this trusted peer the person obviously being a column six line forty nine another example is found in the read brief on page seven they talk about judge column three line fifty three but that portion of the judge reference really says nothing i agree and the the standard for upholding but there is at the same time the standard is there substantial evidence to uphold the findings of the novice and sonics what's on a course argument is there is no evidence of that binding because in each of these instances there is no reference to a trusted peer at the clearly erroneous misinterpretation of what the judge reference teaches or in more specifically what the judge referenced does not teach so for example a column three there's no real discussion about  trusted peer it's talking about a network in general and actually if you read further from the patent offices reference a column three over in poland or at line seven they actually talk about that network having a number of security risks that does not sound like a they talk about in judge is so backing up what the claim covers it is how do you know i have my white list now i've got it and people in that white house over time certain people might start abusing their abilities and e mail or you know i love getting e mail from my mom but i can only take you know so many border jokes that you know sometimes that they're off so it's some point a user might start to abuse their whiteness privilege so we need to update that list and judge does talk about updating it but what judge does is a machine a machine only a computer network only update so for example it looks at metrics such as how many times has an e mail been sent to a person how many times an e mail been received from a person how long they've been on the list things of that nature where the machine m purely binary determination on statistics and probability correct well i won't even i would necessarily say probabilities it's more stick sissoko statistically driven but probability could theoretically come in what's the indicator in the plane so the indicator in the claim comes from the trust user and this is the distinction where the judge is a pure machine learning or a pure network implemented solution the the invention here allows the user to interact and i can use my personal knowledge my personal ability to observe context and say hey this guy sent me an email probably not appropriate but it's a one time thing so i'm not going to boot him up the white list or if i see a trend of you know hey this guy is you know he was sending the legitimate email first but i'm starting to see this trend where he's sending me more and more and more garbage i'm going to kick him off the whiteness so it relies upon the ability of a trusted user to provide an indication of he needs to stay or this guy needs to go and that's something that a machine implemented solution cannot necessarily do and again it's not only the user that indication an affirmative instruction from the user it's that trust a user on the internet that's providing that indication with respect updating and maintaining the white house sounds like kind of an awkward system meaning you're white listed it's simply based on whether i decide to plug into it and tell you to keep the leon takes of the it's not necessarily awkward and that whether or not it's effective is a different issue but it combines the ability of making  convenient where the email does go out and a person gets added to the list but it only gets added to the list if the person sending the email is the trusted user to begin with so i have reduced my population of people that can add people to the white list to begin with to a small community that radically have the best interest of the company in mind and are not going to sally be using the email network for their own personal business but at the same time realizing that just because someone gets on the white list once does not necessarily they should meet and they need to be on that white  forever so that i or other people that are connected that white list can say you know hey this guy's been abusing his privileges he's been spending a lot of spam we're going to remove him a kick him up he might get added on back later but if i need to remove him for something going on in the interim i can do that and that might actually be very effective for example think of a situation where someone is on a white list a recipient outside the network and that recipients computer gets taken over by sort of malicious email program and just start sending you know boatloads of spam i need to keep them off user i can then interact with the system in reintroduce him to the white this community so it's in that context with respect to those two plane limitations that sonic walk contends that the patent office engaged in  judge reference and then an erroneous application of that reference to thoughtful application as there is no trusted user on the internet nor is there any indication from a trusted user with respect to maintaining the white house there's no furthe six on page forty two of the record the system of the president mentioned operates between a set of trusted trusted peers that's very good evidence that there is trust involved with these peers on the local network of judge respectfully inviting the court's attention to pages twenty four and twenty five of the record where judge discloses his figures there are before the firewall going out to the internet the firewall is drawing item one four zero there are local clients which we refer to in our brief that these local clients it's twenty four though i judge's disclosure and figure two there right in the middle of the four again the firewall before going out to an internet the firewall is item one for zero before then are all these applicants claim and specifications keep the word trusted as just a generic as just general for example applicants on specification says that and i met page seventy three of the record which is page six of applicants specification one and three lines from the bottom applicant and his disclosure says that trusted users are ones the system aims to protect from spam so if you are the subject of being protected from spam your trusted and that's as close as applicant gets to defining trusted well right in the judge reference on page forty one of the record which is a column for of judge and we discussed in our brief there's a passage about and judge is very clear that all the people on the inside being protected from spam judging columns for beginning about line forty five talks about spam as being not desired so all the clients on the inside of the firewall and judge are trusted to the same extent that whiny key discloses what the word means it's very generally used in claim one and only again generally as protecting from spam used in the specifications there is definitely of one to one correspondence for trusted an applicant's disclosure and trusted in the earlier judged expanse of reference that that deals with a lot of technology the  trusted others at least substantial evidence that the trusted has a one to one correspondence and we submit that there's more than substantial evidence to show that the board was correct in that finding that trusted is in judge a judge on the column twenty four talks about building the white list and maintaining it and then using it and in these three significant columns as the board describe them there are tracking over time where you keep track of and trees on the list and do you want to keep that entry on the list and you're that you were for page nineteen of the red phrase you refer to column twenty four and you started down  sixty four in column twenty four of judge talks about an accounting keeping count of which here we go internal users internal users the trusted ones reports reports on an outbound address and then what happens you can clean up the list in real time so we have going on here is the reporting on addresses in real time to clean up the list and this isn't significant column twenty four but the reporting and judge is simply the sending of it for i know your honor judge refers to other types of outbound messages being sent as as outgoing messages this reporting in real time that's the key here is that what you have going on is  list clean up in real time and also at the top of page column twenty six of judge is a trial tracking all of the addresses over time that you're looking at a snapshot in time and you may or may not keep someone on a white list this invention is pretty straightforward that when you have a year what you're saying is that the indicator and judge is simply the standing of method is that right that that's one part of judge and judge also does at the bottom of column twenty four in real time to clean up the list so the reporting has to be happening contemporaneously with what's going on or else in real time in the list you know concepts disclosed there to a person skilled in this art and people are very skilled in the sort would read this and say yes you clean up a list in real time and there's reporting by the internal users you have some substantial evidence yes and then at the top of column twenty six there is a tracking of addresses over time and that tracking is done internal to the system and all we have here is that the left has outside the mailers who can e mail in and the list is being made this is claim one the list is being made from outgoing email and changes with email activity and internal determinations that's all the same claim one and as the agency noted judge which is a very big reference has three full four columns dedicated to white listing that has all the features of this very broad played the claim just talks about a bit of a determination a an indicator and what you have with tracking addresses over time is indicators going back and forth and that's all you need is you need an indicator from within the system to get someone off of the list and judge which again is a very you know technologically advanced reference has many passages devoted to this concept of having an internet and the users have a list of outside in mailers who can email them i think a lot of us know about that and the list is made from outgoing email which judge describes and email and e mail activity there iterations going on here and internal determinations and judge at the bottom of column twenty six talks about calculating trust values that's the same thing as determining a singular a probability so and vention is really broad you're supposing calpol argues that doesn't disagree with you on what you're saying judge shows that judges try think it does your head you send emails out and that the number of times you send them out and the number of times you get e mailed back in and and that activity will give you some statistical basis to decide whether or not someone should stay on a white list he's saying that's a totally different indicator than the indicator that that is that is claimed in the application no it's not your honor respectfully because judge expressly discloses to people skilled in the art about maintaining the list and that means keep on or drop offs and this area that you keep on or drop off based on the relying on there's no other reference to reporting everything else is just a to six based on the activity levels back and forth right no your honor the tracking addresses over time and column twenty six is again that there's this snapshot being looked at for a particular address are people in the group you know corresponding with this person say or having activity and then when you have that tracking addresses over time that leads down to in these columns we see about building the white list maintaining the white list using the white list and then down at the bottom also on calculating trust values and it's very similar to what applicant does in a specification about calculating a probability and comparing it with a threshold so the same thing that applicant does is in judge columns twenty six twenty five and twenty four has four minutes for a bottle thank you aaron generally i two specific issues that you raise are questions that you raised are one of them being the importance of trust and while the applicant specification does provide an example where all the users on the internal side are trusted users that to suggest that limits all the claims in such a way a would be an improper limitation of the specification of the cla but more importantly would disregard various other key facts the specification for example as i referenced earlier at page seventy seven of the appendix at line three and four there is a discussion of trust of users being specific groups or divisions and then again page eighty two the appendix also at line three and four as i referenced earlier the implementation of policy so to adopt a construction of trusted users as being all users on the internet what a would be to disregard the component of trust but he would be to disregard these other specific environment there disclosed within the specification so to adopt the construction advocated by the patent office would be to have basically an inconsistent interpretation of the client's versus the specifications but more importantly returning to that trusted peers language in column six again trusted pure trusted peers appears in the specification of judge a single time and that's a column six there's no explanation of who these trusted peers are what they are what they do the only thing that makes sense is in the context of column seven where it talks about the peer to peer based messaging notification system and again as i explained prior that's a system on the internet in an actual email system it's not the individual users inside the internet more importantly regardless of what trusted peers may or may not mean in politics there's absolutely no correlation of column six lines forty nine through fifty one to figure t o'malley correctly noted figure one is actually the prior art and just shows a fire wall and internet and then figure to show something similar in fact the first reference to figure two and what figure to mayor may not be teaching doesn't appear actually until several columns later on column twelve of the judge reference and that's on page forty five new and exciting it would be an error to suggest that the trust appears reference in columns six somehow correlates to the disclosure of column one in column two notwithstanding the fact that the sonic wall contends that the trust appears are actually the e mail system not the users and i think that's clear when you look at column seven line  issue aside it's generally i believe he also correctly noted the sonic wall does not spew there's any number of white listing techniques disclosed in the judge reference and sonic was not attempting to say that they invented white misting what they have invented is an improvement upon white listing that uses some basic white listing techniques but uses a novel and non obvious extension of that in among those are the introduction of the trust of users in addition to using the industry feedback and i don't think the patent office is interpretation of the outbound in real time meets that limitation because the only way you can really have an out and a real time updating is for the mail be going through the firewall i can't sit there and click yes or no yes or no on each individual email and honestly suggest that that is real time that's if anything that's periodic or not real time so to adopt or to interpret the specification of just the patent office advocate i think goes against the plain language of the specification but makes even less sense in the general context of the remainder of all those discussions of white listing which yes their white listing techniques but that update the white list but they're done automatically by the system there is no feedback or interaction by the user and the language of the claim is very clear receiving an indicator from the one or more users the trusted users on the internet as to whether the sender of the receive message should remain on the white list there is no indication th