[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Cane 2099 Campbell's Suit versus Yavin Plus, again.

[00:00:05] Speaker 04:
At least we're done with design patents for now.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
May I proceed?

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
Ready.

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:35] Speaker 03:
Okay, so the technology in this case, now a utility patent, is still pretty simple.

[00:00:39] Speaker 03:
We're dealing with gravity feed dispensers where you load cans into chutes, they roll down a ramp, and they're dispensed.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
Gravity feed dispensers have been known in the art for decades, and there's no question that the dispenser that's claimed in claim 27 of the 111 patent differs only slightly from the prior art.

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
Those differences are obvious, predictable variations to a simple mechanical device that are not patentable.

[00:01:02] Speaker 03:
So we have the Claim 27, which was the parties broke down into 11 new enumerated elements.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
And we presented the board with a single patent that issued 75 years ago, Weixelbound.

[00:01:13] Speaker 04:
Can I just take you to limited time and there's several issues floating around here.

[00:01:18] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:22] Speaker 04:
I wanted to address you to limitation 10, the forward edge portion and the rearward recess.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
I find this frankly somewhat confusing and maybe if I don't understand it at the end of the day the tie goes to the patent board.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
Can you explain your position of why the board was incorrect on the forward

[00:01:44] Speaker 04:
Edge portion yes, your honor so do you have a figure or anything?

[00:01:48] Speaker 03:
Yeah, it probably will help your honor to keep three figures relatively handy so page 37 of our blue brief page 39 and 41 So taking them in reverse order page 41 is what the patent owner presented and what the board seems to have cited page 39 is the patent owner's infringement contentions and page 37 is our illustration of how Weichselbaum the prior art reference meets that claim element and

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
So element 10 kind of gets read in conjunction with elements 9 and 11.

[00:02:19] Speaker 03:
Those three together form the return feature, which is basically just a way that you can take a can out of the rack and then put it back in by setting it on top of something in the lower chute.

[00:02:31] Speaker 03:
So element 10, so we have element 9, which refers to the panels.

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
So Element 9 talks about the distance between the stop structure of the second chute being offset from the first chute.

[00:02:46] Speaker 03:
That's where you put the can back.

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
It then says, 9 goes into 10 and says, and said panels having a forward edge portion.

[00:02:54] Speaker 03:
And so we know the panels are basically the sides of the dispenser.

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
The sides of the dispenser have a forward edge portion.

[00:03:02] Speaker 03:
And what we know about the forward edge portion is that it extends vertically adjacent loading openings of the chutes.

[00:03:07] Speaker 03:
And that the forward edge portion defines a rearward recess that is adjacent to the dispensing ends, both dispensing ends.

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
And so if you look at Gammon's infringement contentions on page 39, and you see the green line, what Gammon contended there is what we say the proper construction is, which is the panels.

[00:03:29] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, what page are you on with this green line?

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
39.

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
39 of our 40-worm.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
The petitioner presented for purposes of infringement is consistent with how we're saying this claim language should be construed here.

[00:03:43] Speaker 03:
So the panels are the sides of the dispenser.

[00:03:46] Speaker 03:
The forward edge portion is a forward-facing portion that runs from the top to the bottom.

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
That forward edge portion defines a recess that's adjacent both dispensing ends.

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
So the recess you have to look at, the recess extends from the stop structure of the first shoot up to the top of the second shoot.

[00:04:06] Speaker 03:
That's how Gammon defined this claim element for purposes of infringement.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
So if you look at page 37, which is our showing of how Weichselbaum teaches that claim limitation, we did the same thing.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
Go back to 41.

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
Of course, Your Honor.

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
What is it that you think is wrong about how this picture is drawn?

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
You don't think the rearward recess is that thing in the middle.

[00:04:30] Speaker 02:
You think it's down below.

[00:04:31] Speaker 03:
What's wrong is, the purple lines kind of confuse things, but what the patent owner proposed, and the board never actually expressly construed claim 10.

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
They just said, well, we think that... I know, just tell me what's wrong with this.

[00:04:44] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:04:44] Speaker 03:
So what's wrong with it, Your Honor, and what the board seems to have agreed with is the board construed the front edge portion to be only the part that's vertically adjacent to the loading openings, and then they drew a straight line there.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
They just made that a planer cut off.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
So they drew a straight line down and cut off.

[00:04:59] Speaker 03:
the bottom part of the forward edge portion of the panels.

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
I don't understand that to be the board's opinion at all.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
I don't understand that to be what the board construed.

[00:05:08] Speaker 03:
So what the board said is that, again, the board defined the recess of element 10.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
They started from just that loading end portion, the top part of the panel where the cans are loaded into.

[00:05:25] Speaker 03:
And it defined a recess from the bottom of that loading end portion.

[00:05:28] Speaker 04:
Can you refer us to a page in the board's?

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
53 should be the page in the board's.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
So with the board, and I'm actually looking at 54.

[00:05:41] Speaker 03:
So at 53 and 54.

[00:05:43] Speaker 03:
So the board defined the recess basically from the base of the loading area to behind the second stop structure.

[00:05:58] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry 54 is turning to the discussion of Weisselbaum, right?

[00:06:05] Speaker 02:
Okay, are you understanding that discussion to contain the claim construction?

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
It does see the again the board never fully construed the claim so what they did is they agreed that They agreed with patent owner that you start the recess from Basically the bottom of the loading end the bottom of that loading chute area

[00:06:26] Speaker 03:
and then you extend backwards from there towards the second chute structure.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
So to the board, the recess seems to end at the second chute stop structure.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
And so what the board did then is look at Weichselbaum and decided Weichselbaum didn't meet that limitation because if all you're looking at,

[00:06:55] Speaker 03:
is the space between the bottom of the loading area and the second stop shoot, you don't get a rearwardly defined recess.

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
Even if that is correct, wouldn't the horizontal distance limitation also result in an affirmance in this case?

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
So you have to get over both of them, it seems to me, to get an affirmance.

[00:07:19] Speaker 02:
So tell me what's wrong with the horizontal distance limitation.

[00:07:23] Speaker 03:
The horizontal distance limitation,

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
This what we're referring to is the return feature functionality I'm referring to referring to the words horizontal distance right so the horizontal distance in the claim.

[00:07:33] Speaker 03:
That's limitation nine So it's a horizontal distance But the stop structure of the second shoot is offset rearwardly from the stop structure of the first shoot sufficient that a product removed can be replaced so with the board found in this we think they did get correct is that that is

[00:07:53] Speaker 03:
limitation is defined in functional language.

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
And under Inrei Schreiber, if there's a prior art structure that's capable of performing that functionality, it meets that element.

[00:08:03] Speaker 03:
And Weizelbaum does that.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
That device, when it's loaded with cans that are smaller than happen to be shown in its embodiments,

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
meet that limitation.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
And that's something that Gammon actually admitted at the hearing.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
Except that your problem is that Weitzelbaum says throughout in multiple places that you could use different size cans by also modifying the dimensions of the structure.

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
So Weizelbaum, I'm not going to say it teaches away from the use of smaller cans, but it actually expressly suggests that you could vary the size of the can and then vary the structure size accordingly.

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
So why would one of Skill in the Art have modified Weizelbaum to use smaller cans without also then following its teaching that if you're going to use smaller cans, you're going to want to

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
but vary the rest of the size of the structure.

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
And then you wouldn't have that feature.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
You wouldn't have a device capable of.

[00:08:57] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
So what we're dealing with here is it's not a modification of WexelBound itself.

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
The device is the device.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
The question is what cans you put into the device.

[00:09:04] Speaker 02:
It is a device because it claims cans.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
This utility patent claims cans also.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
And it even specifies the dimensions of the cans and everything.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
It just says that they're a predetermined diameter.

[00:09:16] Speaker 03:
It doesn't say that they are a particular size in relationship.

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
You mean a Weichselbaum?

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
In Weichselbaum.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
Oh, I was like, because claim 27 actually tells you the dimensions of the can, comparing diameter to length.

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
So Weichselbaum just says that Weichselbaum is a dispenser, and it claims cans of a predetermined size.

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
But it doesn't tell you what that size is.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
So if you look back at in Ray Schreiber, that's where you were dealing with the funnel of an oil can that was found to be capable of serving

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
as the top of a popcorn dispenser.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
So that wasn't a modification of that funnel.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
The funnel was what it was.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
You didn't give any motivation for someone of skill in the art to modify what is disclosed in Weizelbaum, which includes cans that have a particular size compared to the device vis-a-vis the pictures.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
And you're saying, don't use cans like that.

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
Use much smaller cans.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
Then it would work the same way.

[00:10:03] Speaker 02:
That's what you're saying.

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
That is a modification of what is disclosed in Weizelbaum, for sure.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
And you haven't given me a reason to think a skilled artisan would choose to do that, especially where Weizelbaum itself says, if you want to use a different size can, change the dimensions of the device.

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
So Weizelbaum claims a dispenser for cans, and it shows embodiments.

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
And those embodiments show cans of a particular size.

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
But to read that to say that Weizelbaum can only be used with cans of that size,

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
I think, is to read Weiselbaum too narrowly.

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
So getting back to a point that- No, but I don't think that's Judge Moore's point, nor was it the PTAB judge who wrote this.

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
It's because the way he construes Weiselbaum is the statement there is directed towards altering the size of the display device if you sought to accommodate different can sizes.

[00:10:58] Speaker 04:
So that, yeah, different can size means you're going to alter the size of the display device, right?

[00:11:03] Speaker 04:
So it's not going to make any difference for your purposes.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
So, but Weizelbaum teaches structure, right?

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
And again, that's what M. Ray Schreiber was about.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
It teaches structure.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
It teaches a structure that is capable of that return feature functionality, which Gammon did admit.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
So, for example, I'm just- Capable how?

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
Capable how?

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
Because once you put smaller cans into it, Weizelbaum teaches a device that's been on the shelves for 75 years, or that's been in the company.

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
But is there anything, Weizelbaum, that teaches you put smaller cans in, so therefore you can have this claim limitation?

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
Weichselbaum notes that it can be used with different sized cans.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
If you change the dimension of the device, there's nowhere where it says it can be used with smaller sized cans without attaching to it this other condition.

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
That's your problem.

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
I think you have to take the structure that Weichselbaum teaches.

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
You have to take a reference for what it discloses.

[00:11:55] Speaker 02:
You don't take the structure for what it teaches.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
You take a reference for all that it discloses.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
It does.

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
But as you said, Wixlebound doesn't teach away from putting any particular size cans in there.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
So Wixlebound teaches a device that's been in the public domain for 75 years.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
And basically, what we're hearing and what we're seeing is that if you put dog food cans into it, maybe it doesn't have return feature functionality.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
If you put soda cans into it, it will.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
And so that which it fridges, if it comes earlier, can it fringe if later.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
We're into your rebuttal, so I'm going to hear from the other side.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
Can I draw your attention to page 35 of our brief, if that's available?

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
This shows the actual inside of the Wexelbaum device and how the size of the cans is critically connected to the operation of this device, which is actually a fairly clever one.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
It's designed to have cans loaded on top.

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
And the designer noticed that people tend to take out cans from the bottom first.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
For some reason, it was more accessible.

[00:13:03] Speaker 01:
And so he made this locking function so that you'd unload the bottom part, and it would be eventually empty.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
And to make sure you have a throughput of cans so you don't get a really old one staying in there, you would then take out the only can you could take out would be the front one of the upper dispenser.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
And then you pull that out, and it would release the can in the back,

[00:13:23] Speaker 01:
And then you could.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
advanced to load the bottom again.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
So as a result, you're kind of scooching out one at a time the cans in the upper shelf above the lower shelf.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
And that is different than what you've claimed.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
This is a different line because it's the positioning of the cans being in a different position.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
It's a whole elaborate thing, but we have two separate chutes that come down.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
And what we've claimed is really, in a sense, it's not as good as Wexelam because

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
You could leave something in our design rack longer than that configuration.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
But this doesn't have the return feature, which people like.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
It doesn't have a return feature, no.

[00:14:07] Speaker 01:
It's a critical problem here.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
And the distance between the stops has to be enough to allow the canopy taken out and put back in.

[00:14:15] Speaker 04:
But you're talking about your patent now?

[00:14:18] Speaker 01:
Yes, our patent, yes.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
Because there's a distance between the stops which is great enough to allow that That this this feature isn't present.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
I want to ask you a big picture question I don't I don't really want you to you can explain in a second Maybe somebody would like to hear you explain the front edge portion discussion But for me if I can affirm this case based on the nine element nine, which is the horizontal distance portion I'm just wondering if there's any need for me to

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
to wade into that front edge portion at all, given that an affirmance is an affirmance.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
But let me just tell you, I'm probably sending this case back for SAS.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
So keep that in mind.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
So now do you need me to, because there are unresolved petitioned arguments in this case as well.

[00:15:09] Speaker 02:
Assume you're not going to get me on waiver on that.

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
So if this case is going back for SAS.

[00:15:13] Speaker 01:
Can I get you on just the fact that the facts that are resolved here will resolve all those issues?

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
Well, that's where I was trying to go.

[00:15:19] Speaker 02:
Where I was trying to go is, given that I'm going to send it back, is there, see, here's your problem.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
Rogers, they argued the Rogers, I went through every ground and I made a table.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
So you can see I'm pretty invested in my current position.

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
Because I went through every ground they alleged, and we made a table.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
to look.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
And for claim 18, they also allege that in addition to Weisselbaum disclosing the horizontal distance of claim 9, Rogers also discloses it.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
So there's one claim, and only one claim, which is claim 18.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
Of all the claims they've argued for, all the petitioned arguments that weren't addressed, there seems to be only one place where horizontal distance is argued in a manner that this case of ours will not resolve everything for.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
So, technically, I think you're right.

[00:16:11] Speaker 02:
I think I could actually resolve all the other grounds for the PTO and save him the hassle, but I don't know what to do about Rogers and Clayton.

[00:16:17] Speaker 01:
I don't know.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
I think that includes Wexelbaum, Nesso, and Rogers on top, don't they?

[00:16:22] Speaker 02:
Yes, it does, but they argue either what both Wexelbaum and Rogers each independently disclose the horizontal distance.

[00:16:29] Speaker 01:
The other problem you have is also that the board found that you can't combine

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
Weisselbaum with Nesso.

[00:16:35] Speaker 02:
So if I agree that you can't combine Weisselbaum with Nesso, then you're right.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
Rogers doesn't provide some of the stuff they need from Nesso, so that gets rid of that.

[00:16:45] Speaker 01:
I don't think Rogers has the same thing.

[00:16:49] Speaker 04:
Just for edification on the SAS issue, the board used to decline to institute not just because they found no sufficient ground, but because of redundancy.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
that I saw that with some frequency.

[00:17:03] Speaker 04:
And when I look at my chart about what's been instituted and what hasn't, I'm just interested, did you, would you construe, was it your view that the stuff that wasn't instituted was because it would be redundant?

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
They were going to institute on these main references?

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
The stuff that wasn't instituted was because it was a different expression of the distances between the parts.

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
We actually said it would be the distance from the front stop to the backstop was greater than the diameter of a can.

[00:17:34] Speaker 01:
That was an affirmative expression of it, and it was clearly absent in the references that were cited.

[00:17:42] Speaker 01:
And it actually is a combination of things here too.

[00:17:44] Speaker 01:
There's a vertical compactness with this setback.

[00:17:48] Speaker 01:
The other issue of course which is highly important.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
We haven't talked about is the secondary considerations here because My client sold 30 million dollars of this rack to Campbell soup That's commercial success, and it's a 30 million 31 million don't 31 million so That's a pretty significant thing and then when Campbell soup got tired of Paying my client for these racks they start copying it

[00:18:15] Speaker 01:
and they've fastidiously copied it so it looks very much like it, strikingly so.

[00:18:22] Speaker 01:
And there's a bunch of exhibits in here that show that incredible similarity.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
And the number of things they did copy are this and general appearance and what not.

[00:18:32] Speaker 01:
So there was a challenge to the commercial success only on the issue of how much our racks had contributed to the increase in sales that Campbell Soup encountered.

[00:18:43] Speaker 01:
That doesn't go to the copying of this, which they basically admitted by a non-admission admission.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
And they argue that you didn't sell any more soup.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
In their briefs, they say there's no commercial success because more soup was not sold.

[00:19:07] Speaker 01:
Well, commercial success is selling the racks, first of all, the $30 million of sales to them.

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
But they also have in their annual

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
stuff in 2007, they concede increasing condensed soup cans was due to intralia, the gravity feed systems.

[00:19:28] Speaker 01:
I can read you the exact quote.

[00:19:30] Speaker 01:
It's appendix... 1612.

[00:19:33] Speaker 02:
1612?

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
Yes, okay.

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
So I can hide this page.

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
There's actually one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine different places where Campbell's annual reports attribute the increase in their soup sales to the display rack.

[00:19:48] Speaker 01:
So and the board said this apparently contributed to some improvement sales, and that's a commercial success, too, in addition to the copy and the large number of sales to Campbell's soup.

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
So OK, so I don't have anything more.

[00:20:05] Speaker 01:
OK, thank you.

[00:20:11] Speaker 04:
So can you begin by addressing the SAS question and whether or not, if we were to affirm on one or any or all bases, what's left?

[00:20:20] Speaker 04:
Is there anything realistically that's left for the board to do on the other combinations that they didn't institute on?

[00:20:26] Speaker 03:
I think there are, Your Honor.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
There are factual findings to be made on those other combinations.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
Which ones?

[00:20:34] Speaker 03:
Including the one that your honor was talking about, the Rogers combination.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
There's going to need to be findings of fact as to whether there would be a motivation to combine Wexelbaum, for example, in view of Nesso and Rogers and what Rogers teaches about the return feature functionality.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
But that's only for one, as far as I can tell, that's only for maybe one or arguably two claims in the whole petition.

[00:20:58] Speaker 02:
It seems to me that everything else is

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
entirely resolved.

[00:21:02] Speaker 02:
If we were to affirm this case across the board, everything else is entirely resolved.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
If you were to affirm this case across the board... Let me give you, for example, every single claim contains the horizontal distance limitation.

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
You know, so... Correct, Your Honor.

[00:21:21] Speaker 03:
If I may touch on just a couple of points.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
First, just going back briefly to what Weichselbaum teaches, there's evidence in the record at appendix pages 1274 to 75.

[00:21:30] Speaker 03:
that when you put smaller cans into Weichselbaum, there sometimes will be no need to make any change to the device at all to still achieve the same type of locking and guiding functionality that it teaches.

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
So second, I think where that takes you more broadly is you have to look at the question before the court is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Weichselbaum with the teachings of Nesso to arrive basically at a dispenser having two chutes.

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
And we put evidence into the record that there are two reasons why a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to do that.

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
Gammon did not dispute either of those reasons, and the board's rejection of them is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

[00:22:10] Speaker 03:
And lastly, on the issue of secondary considerations, I know I'm close to out of time, what's missing here is an important nexus.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
You can't tie commercial success to the gravity feed dispensers generally.

[00:22:20] Speaker 03:
They were out there in the art.

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
There has to be something patentably distinct about this claimant's claimed invention.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
that contributed to the commercial success.

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
The only thing that seems to be even arguably patentably distinct here, and we obviously submit that it's not, is that return feature functionality.

[00:22:37] Speaker 03:
And there's nothing in the record to suggest that anyone thought that that particular functionality had anything to do with the success that Campbell's may have achieved in using gravity feed dispensers generally as part of a broader system.

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
I'm just saying both sides, the case is submitted.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
The honorable court will be adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock a.m.