[00:00:14] Speaker 04:
The next case for argument is 18-2098, Weir versus Kawasaki.

[00:01:03] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
My name is Darius Cahoney.

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
I represent Mr. Scott Blair, the patent owner and appellant in this matter.

[00:01:21] Speaker 03:
The issue on appeal here relates to the patent board's, what the patent owner, what Mr. Blair believes,

[00:01:34] Speaker 03:
non-substantiated bringing together or consideration of Namikawa and the Sisao reference.

[00:01:46] Speaker 03:
As we argued in our briefing, Sisao is a reference that is distinct from all the other references that the board cited to and

[00:02:03] Speaker 03:
relied upon that Kawasaki argued.

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
It is so remote that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered this, would not have pulled this reference out of any stack or choices of possible references out there.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
It's very important to look at the type of precedent that this type of

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
approach that the board took in terms of considering the Cissot reference and its final written decision would create.

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
You have a situation here, and it's very important in all of these cases, when we are looking to decide whether something is analogous or relevant art, to get a little bit into the facts and think about

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.

[00:02:58] Speaker 04:
Can I ask you, I mean, as you know, as you well know, there's a threshold issue about whether or not you appropriately preserved this argument with respect to non-analogous art.

[00:03:09] Speaker 04:
And the only response is I understand it, so tell me if I'm wrong.

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
You have is that it was somehow implicit, because obviously if the board was going to consider this piece of prior art, they would have thought that that was analogous.

[00:03:23] Speaker 04:
To me, that's really not sufficient for you to have preserved your argument on analogous art, so tell me why I'm wrong or tell me what else there is.

[00:03:35] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, the issue of whether art is analogous or not

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
is a factual determination underlying the issue of non-obviousness, the legal issue of whether or not a claim is obvious or not obvious.

[00:03:50] Speaker 03:
The factual considerations that we raise on appeal, every single one of which we raise in the patent board proceedings, in particular,

[00:04:08] Speaker 03:
the differences between the function and structure, which we describe and we argue repeatedly that the case is this out.

[00:04:17] Speaker 03:
We're dealing with a cabinet, the hiding of a cabinet, a rear projection TV, a cabinet for rear projection TV behind the wall in a house or commercial setting versus a TV media system in a subway car.

[00:04:35] Speaker 03:
How can you compare, how can you,

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
How could you look at these two as relevant contexts?

[00:04:41] Speaker 03:
So we've made these art.

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
This is a structural function difference.

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
There's a mounting of the TV in the subway car.

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
The TV in Sasau is sitting on the floor, pushed against the wall in a room.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
There are safety considerations.

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
There are temperature considerations.

[00:05:00] Speaker 03:
There are all kinds of contextual considerations.

[00:05:03] Speaker 03:
These considerations, these arguments were all made

[00:05:07] Speaker 03:
during the course of our arguments at the Patent Board.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
We have at Appendix 257, Appendix 267, Appendix 387, even during oral argument.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
I personally argue, when I was asked by Judge Lee at the Patent Board, couldn't somebody just make the screen substantially flush, some ordinary skill in the art?

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
And I argued, it's in the transcript,

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
at Appendix 387, I said, the question isn't whether one could do this.

[00:05:42] Speaker 03:
The question is whether it would be, whether ordinary skill in the art would have taken, would have found relevant really the different contexts, the different environment, the different circumstances and factors to bring these two together.

[00:06:01] Speaker 03:
And we also specifically, and this is in our brief,

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
Appendix 267, we specifically argue that the problem is different.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
We're dealing with the two references, the invention, Mr. Blair's invention, and the Sasau reference relates to a different problem.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
And the problem in Sasau was how do we hide a TV, I'm sorry, a TV cabinet that created sort of distraction

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
in another room, outside of the room, whereas the problem in Blair was how do we often replace TV screens at a particular angle on the walls of a subway car.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
So function and structure and problem, those are the synchonon of analogous art or define analogous art.

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
And we argued

[00:06:59] Speaker 03:
explicitly that this is a different problem, and we argued explicitly this is a different structure and function throughout our briefing, including at trial at the board.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
There was no requirement, Your Honors,

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
that a specific magic word be used.

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
In fact, the word non-analogous art is not consistently used by various panels in the precedent.

[00:07:29] Speaker 03:
When defining what is obviousness, for example, the Klein case,

[00:07:34] Speaker 03:
The court speaks to four factors of what defines Section 103, obviousness.

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
It doesn't reference analogous art as one of them.

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
It later discusses analogous art as one way to think about, for example, is the prior art

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
Is the scope and content of the prior art relevant?

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
Is there substantial similarities between the prior art and the invention?

[00:08:02] Speaker 03:
So the notion or the concept of non-analogous art is not even articulated as an element itself under the governing precedent, but rather a way to think about the similarity of the art, the relevance of the art.

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
It's a predicate.

[00:08:19] Speaker 03:
a concept that is embedded or is inherent in a non-obviousness argument.

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
And there's no reason why the patent owner needed to, say, use the magic word.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
Rather, the patent owner came forward and argued the facts, argued that the structure and function are different in all the references that I made.

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
Also, we went through the specification of the Blair patent.

[00:08:41] Speaker 03:
We pointed out all the various claim elements that are distinct structurally and functionally.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
from the Cissat reference.

[00:08:49] Speaker 03:
Let me just name a few, for example.

[00:08:51] Speaker 03:
In the Blair patent, we're talking about a TV media system, not a single television, a TV media system in an underground subway car situated at the top side surface, obliquely facing downwards.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
A substantial amount of the passengers can see this TV media system on all sides.

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
It's a TV media system in a subway car, a subway car TV media system.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
SESAO has got a complete different structure and function.

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
We're talking about a cabinet, a rear projection, one of these huge televisions back in the 70s and 80s, some 90s, that is in a room and you're trying to hide this TV cabinet.

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
And you have the luxury of a separate room.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
this huge space in a separate room.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
So this is a complete different structure and a complete different function we're looking at.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
And we've argued all these facts.

[00:09:53] Speaker 03:
And hiding a large cabinet for rear projection TV in a separate room is a completely different structure and is a completely different problem.

[00:10:01] Speaker 03:
And we argued repeatedly in the record, including the exemplary references that I mentioned, that we have a different problem.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
and we have a different structure and function.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
And those are the key elements.

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
that this court, its various precedent, has pointed out as defining analogous or non-analogous art.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
So we've argued all these facts.

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
And in our appeal here, we've not raised any new facts.

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
We've not raised any new arguments.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
We have simply reiterated the factual arguments that we made.

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
These factual arguments underlie or are inherent in a non-obviousness argument and also relate to the claim elements

[00:10:44] Speaker 03:
rather the claim elements, but the elements of what non-obviousness is, Your Honor.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
And so we do believe that we've preserved the record on this issue.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
The only thing more we could have done, Your Honor, is to actually have said the word non-analogous art.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
Now, we have a situation here, which we did not do, admittedly, but otherwise the record is complete with a plethora of references and arguments, even at the hearing, at the trial, where we make the point that this is a reference that's not functionally, not structurally analogous, and it's a different problem.

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
And this also goes to the issue of the motivation to combine.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
How would a posita

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
have the motivation to combine.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
Where would that come from when you're dealing with a reference that is in a completely different environment?

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
Even the references that Kawasaki cites and the patent board relies upon are all similar, except for the Sasawa reference.

[00:11:52] Speaker 03:
They all involve monitors in rail cars or subway cars.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
Amano, Namikawa,

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
every one of them, except Sasau.

[00:12:05] Speaker 03:
Sasau was needed.

[00:12:07] Speaker 03:
The board could not find a reliable reference or could not be comfortable with a reference.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
involving a media system in a car.

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
He could not find one.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
There was none that he could be comfortable with and apply that has a substantially flushed screen.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
It had to go to a TV in a house.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
A reference that was not actually about the TV screen, but it was a cabinet, hiding a cabinet in a house.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
And this was about trying to deal with, you know, having more space and sort of disposition of the cabinet, not the screen.

[00:12:50] Speaker 03:
And that's the only reference that they could find.

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
In fact, the only aesthetic reference in this Sasau reference was about the frame around the screen in this cabinet, on the TV, which actually was protruding.

[00:13:05] Speaker 03:
from the wall, so it wasn't even flush.

[00:13:08] Speaker 03:
That was the only aesthetic reference.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
And we cross-examined Kawasaki's expert, I cross-examined him myself, and asked him the questions regarding whether you would think an LCD would have to be cooled down.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
And he admitted that an LCD needed to be cooled.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
He admitted that having things in the wall would create more heat.

[00:13:32] Speaker 03:
He admitted that there would be limitations of space.

[00:13:37] Speaker 03:
In the case of Sasau, there are no limitations of space.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
In fact, they used a whole room to put a TV in there.

[00:13:44] Speaker 03:
We didn't have the luxury in a railcar to have a separate room to put a cabinet in it.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
There were other factors that were also considered.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
They were found to be contrary to any motivations of the crime.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
This fire safety issue came up.

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
And Kawasaki's expert conceded that there is a fire safety concern.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
In fact, the FRA that the board relied on and Kawasaki argued throughout this hearing was about this FRA document, was a sort of aspirations about what are the best standards for designing these rail cars.

[00:14:26] Speaker 03:
And fire safety was one of the lead concerns.

[00:14:30] Speaker 04:
Look, I don't want to interrupt you, but you're well into your rebuttal time.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
Okay, I'll stop at this point.

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you.

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court?

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
I'm Sheila Mordazavi, representing Appellee Kawasaki.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
This Court should affirm, because substantial evidence in the record supports the Board's finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to, and able to, flush-mount video displays in railcars at the time of the alleged invention.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
The primary reference, Nami Kabla, teaches all of the limitations

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
of independent claim one, except arguably having the screen substantially flush, and then only because a portion of the sides of the LCDs in Namakawa appear to protrude slightly.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
So the question is, are the differences between the subject matter that was sought to be invented, and that which was in the prior art, such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious?

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
And in this case, the evidence clearly suggests that it would have been, and the board correctly found that to be the case.

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
Yeah, but the board did combine a reference, which your friend argues was non-analogous art, and therefore it was precluded in his view.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
The board did rely on that reference and did combine the references, but I would submit to the court that there is substantial evidence to support the board's findings independent of CISAL, which themselves would independently support obviousness in this case.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
And what I mean by that is if you turn to the board's opinion on page 28, the board found that with the introduction of video systems in rail cars,

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
During this time period, the requirement for smooth or clean interior surfaces, along with the proposed FRA regulations, would have motivated those of ordinary skill in the art in the industry to flush or substantially flush mount video systems inside rail cars.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
The board went on to address why one of ordinary skill would have been so motivated and how one of ordinary skill would have accomplished this.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
and how that was within the knowledge and ability of a person skilled in the art.

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
So under this court's precedent, including the Nike case, which is recited to the board below, and in our appeal brief at 812 F 1326 page 1335, that case says that a claim to mention may be obvious even when the prior art does not teach each claim limitation, so long as the record contains some reason why one ordinary, excuse me,

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
ordinary skill in the art would modify the prior art to obtain the claim invention.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
So the board's factual findings support or have an independent basis for the conclusion of obviousness, even if you don't even look at CSAIL, which when it comes to CSAIL, I would say that thank you.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
With respect, this is how they first waived the argument.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
These are adversarial proceedings.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
If that's what they wanted to argue to the board, they should have said so.

[00:17:30] Speaker 00:
The fact that the board didn't have fair notice of this argument is apparent when they summarized what the patent owner's arguments were below.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
And they didn't say that patent owner argued that

[00:17:41] Speaker 00:
So Sal was not analogous, all right, because they never made that argument.

[00:17:45] Speaker 00:
They didn't say the words.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
They didn't cite any cases that go to that issue.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
They didn't cite the test.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
So everything that they argued was in the context of, well, would there have been a motivation to combine?

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
Would there have been a reasonable expectation of success?

[00:18:00] Speaker 00:
So they didn't give the board or us notice that they were making this argument.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
and it should be found waived for that reason.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
But even if you're going to consider this argument, there is substantial evidence in the record to support that this is analogous art.

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
There's a lot of similarities in terms of structure and function.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
You have two references that are directed to display devices.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
Now, there's a case law that says the field of the endeavor doesn't have to be the narrowest concept of the field or the particular focus within the field.

[00:18:35] Speaker 00:
They're both related to display devices.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
They're both related to display devices that are structured to be housed at the interior of a wall.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
They both have in common CRT televisions, claim one doesn't limit it to LCDs.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
And SESA clearly discusses CRTs as well as rear projection televisions.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
So there's sufficient commonality between the two that it would have been analogous art as a matter of law.

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
And I can go more into the details of why the board's motivation finding is supported by substantial evidence irrespective of CSAO.

[00:19:16] Speaker 00:
The board pointed on page 28 to the American railcar specifications, which required smooth and clean interior surfaces.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
And that was to conserve space and for aesthetic purposes.

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
This was accomplished, as Mr. Malo, our expert, set forth in his declaration, by flush mounting equipment.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
So there were a variety of things that were being flush mounted at the time.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
PA systems, fans, lights.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
And there was even a reference in the record that Mr. Malin described as part of the state of the art, which shows a video display, flush mounted in a rail car.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
That was the Japan Train Operator Association magazine reference.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
That was part of the non-institutional grounds.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
It was an alternative reference that we relied on.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
But it was part of the state of the art that Mr. Malo described in his declaration.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
So when they say that there's no evidence of a flush-mounted video display in the rail car, that's just not true.

[00:20:10] Speaker 00:
That is included in the record.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
There was also evidence of a proposed federal regulation.

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
There was an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking by the Federal Railroad Administration that required interior fittings to be recessed or flush mounted to avoid injuries to passengers in the event of a collision or derailment.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
These rules were developed with the help of industry and were meant to create comprehensive safety standards for the rail car industry.

[00:20:37] Speaker 00:
So all the motivations that the board relied on aren't hindsight, as Blair alleges, but evidence of industry consensus of best practices before the time of the invention that wasn't just known by document by federal agency.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
So there's more than enough evidence in the record to support that there was a motivation to flush out LCD screens and rail cars at the time.

[00:21:00] Speaker 01:
If we were to affirm here, then that would render your motion for issue preclusion and move, is that right?

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
If you were to affirm yes, but we do have that motion pending because there was a second IPR where a similar issue was decided by the board.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
They didn't appeal that, so it's a final judgment on the merits addressing the same issues that found adverse to Blair on this point.

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
And issue preclusion would attach

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
to that, even though this case is on appeal, because the elements of preclusion are met and there's no evidence, as Blair argues, that there was any unfairness to the board's proceeding or inherent in the PTAP process or anything of that nature that would somehow indicate that issue of preclusion should not be applied in this case.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
Going back to CISAL for a moment, in addition to the field of Endeavor that I mentioned, why these two references are part of the same field of Endeavor, I'll just note, I know it's not dispositive, but they belong to the same international classification on the face of the patents.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
So that is an indication that they are part of the same field.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
In addition, they address the same problems.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
The patent talks about moving the screens back so that they're substantially flush to achieve a better aesthetic outcome.

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
Sasau also talks about reducing the visual noise factor, which is directed to aesthetics, and it shows how that helps the viewer from the perspective of the viewer looking at this.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
You don't have anything jutting out, and therefore it's more aesthetically pleasing.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
So there is evidence in the record to support that they have common purposes, which means they're addressing the same problems as well.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
So under the second part of the analogous arc test, it would also be found pertinent.

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
Addressing for a minute their arguments about fire safety and cavity space, these are arguments they made below what the board found in Kawasaki's favor based on substantial evidence, the board found on page 27.

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
that Namakawa has a cavity space that would allow flush mounting of screens and somebody of ordinary skill would know how to flush mount.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
With respect to fire safety, the board found that the cavity space of Namakawa can have wires and conduits and still provide for ventilation of TVs and that the Namakawa LCDs don't even generate enough heat so they wouldn't have needed ventilation in the first place.

[00:23:33] Speaker 00:
That's based on substantial evidence in the record and should be affirmed.

[00:23:37] Speaker 00:
Now, they didn't put in any evidence of their own on the fire safety issue in their patent owner response.

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
They raised this for the first time in a post-reply deposition of our expert.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
And we pointed out in our observations that the testimony that they cite for this proposition isn't supported by what Mr. Mallett said and, in fact, is supported by what the board cited of Mr. Mallett's testimony, which is somebody of skill in the art would have known how to do this.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
This is not a very difficult thing to do.

[00:24:05] Speaker 00:
and well within the knowledge and ability of a person's skill in the art.

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
There is also a dependent claim here, claim four, for which they've made what I will say a separate patentability argument, but not really.

[00:24:27] Speaker 00:
All that claim requires is that the video system be sound free.

[00:24:32] Speaker 00:
The board spent two pages of its opinion, at page 36 and 37, going through the testimony on this issue as to why it would have been obvious to want a board near skill in the art.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
If they didn't put in a contrary testimony, all they said is,

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
Well, if that were the case, and this would have been obvious, then the prior art should have said so.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
And I would submit that based on the evidence that's actually in the record, the board's finding is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
One point I'd like to address is the board also found on page 28, in addition to the specifications and the FRA, that flush mounting was the norm in the rail industry.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
And as I mentioned, there was testimony that other equipment was being flush mounted.

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
Now, Blair, below at pages, appendix pages 233, 243, 244, and 247,

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
Conceded that it's reasonable to conclude that prior to 97 one skilled in the art would have been aware of installing interior fittings In a rail car and every sister flush method manner now They said that doesn't include TVs, but they didn't provide any persuasive evidence by that wouldn't apply to TVs and if you look at the definition of interior fittings and the FRA proposed regulations, you'll see that No, nowhere excludes TVs.

[00:25:58] Speaker 00:
It says that it's any auxiliary component.

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
That's meant to be projecting into

[00:26:03] Speaker 00:
the rail car.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
And their experts said that a TV could be an auxiliary component and therefore would have been subject to the rules.

[00:26:30] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:26:32] Speaker 03:
The field, as Kawasaki argues, that's appropriate, is this video display systems, which if a video display systems is the appropriate field, Jumbotrons in my cell phone in my pocket would be a video display system.

[00:26:47] Speaker 03:
Clearly not the appropriate video, I mean, appropriate

[00:26:52] Speaker 03:
a field of endeavor for a TV media system in a railway car.

[00:26:57] Speaker 03:
In fact, all the references that Kawasaki presented to the board and were considered by the board all involved, specifically, as I noted earlier, TV media systems in a rail car or subway car.

[00:27:11] Speaker 03:
So there's no support, and it would be a sliding scale to broaden the relevant art or field of endeavor to a video display system.

[00:27:21] Speaker 03:
And that is so broad, anything could be a video display system.

[00:27:25] Speaker 03:
It would not provide any assistance to one of ordinary skill in the art in trying to figure out what the relevant reference is, because anything that could display video or TV would be relevant.

[00:27:36] Speaker 03:
We submitted.

[00:27:38] Speaker 03:
that the relevant endeavor here is a subway TV media system or a rail car media system.

[00:27:44] Speaker 03:
And all the references that are relied on address that.

[00:27:48] Speaker 03:
This FRA that, except for CSAO, excuse me, all the references the board relied on except CSAO involved, again, a rail car.

[00:27:56] Speaker 03:
Kawasaki's expert admitted that, on the record, that fire safety was a concern, and the FRA was to be interpreted in light of its objectives was to prevent fires.

[00:28:09] Speaker 03:
So obviously, it was a major consideration, and things needed to be flushed, provided that they don't create a fire.

[00:28:17] Speaker 03:
I guess my time is up.

[00:28:20] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.