Simply put I think it's a matter of perspective. To give an audience a meaning of understanding one should not over complicate ones perspective. A question should have been posed at some point to the judges. "Have you ever had to go to your email account or cell phone to retrieve a six digit code and have to enter that code on a website you would like to access?" This, "in a nutshell" is the essence of the MFA/OOBA patent. This process is so widely used at this point I would think all judges can relate to having gone through it themselves. Forget the aunt Sally at the preschool or a banker making a phone call for verification OR using snail mail, none of which drew a conclusion as to what MFA/OOBA really IS. Rather than having to decipher misleading conjecture or candor, illustrate what people may already be familiar with. I have trained countless individuals on process, analytical, and common sense procedures and have found that we are all students and some aren't as easily trained as others, myself included. I would have thought illustrations in the brief would have put our IP in better understanding. Listening to the oral argument if I didn't already know what our patent entailed I would have been left confused. Articulating software use and function can be daunting to people of the generation who were sitting on the bench when they should be at home on the couch.OMO. GLTA