[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Mr. Angeliari, please proceed when you're ready.

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

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court, Frank Angeliari for Global IP Holdings, which is a, it owns the ownership property for a Tier 1 auto supplier in Michigan.

[00:00:40] Speaker 04:
We believe the board erred because the particular material recited in the claim for the composite panel is not critical or important to the claim invention.

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
If you don't mind, can I direct you to something I want to talk about?

[00:00:59] Speaker 04:
Yep.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
On appendix page 6 of the board's opinion, I am very troubled by the regardless sentence.

[00:01:08] Speaker 03:
Thus, regardless of the predictability of results of substituting alternatives or the actual criticality of thermoplastics in the overall invention, appellant specifications will not give up.

[00:01:18] Speaker 03:
I guess my problem is, I think this is an absolutely inaccurate statement of law by the board.

[00:01:23] Speaker 03:
Having said that, which, of course, is a friendly comment for your purposes.

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
Having said that, though, does the board's opinion still require reversal, or is there enough here otherwise with regard to all the facts?

[00:01:37] Speaker 04:
I believe it requires reversal for two reasons.

[00:01:40] Speaker 04:
One is I think you have to apply the methodology.

[00:01:43] Speaker 04:
So when there's an improper methodology as a matter of law, at the very least, I think we're entitled to it.

[00:01:47] Speaker 03:
Yeah, but if all the facts are otherwise clear and under the correct methodology, the result would be the same, which I'm trying to ask you to help me understand why that's not true here.

[00:01:56] Speaker 04:
You're asking me why is it untrue under the correct methodology?

[00:02:00] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:02:00] Speaker 04:
Because there's no evidence that it's critical.

[00:02:02] Speaker 04:
In fact, the evidence is strong that it's not critical.

[00:02:06] Speaker 04:
the specific material.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
The examiner found differently, right?

[00:02:10] Speaker 04:
I don't know that the examiner actually addressed criticality.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:02:14] Speaker 01:
Did the board address criticality, or did the board just say, regardless of criticality, there's no written description support here?

[00:02:24] Speaker 04:
Our view is the latter, that they did not address criticality, and they only said, regardless of criticality, there's no written description support because, in their view, the spec only cites thermoplastic.

[00:02:35] Speaker 04:
However,

[00:02:36] Speaker 04:
The thermoplastic reference is actually, it only comes up twice in the detailed description.

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
Once with respect to how it's made and a second time in the context of, and that's at, that's at appendix, it's column four, lines 35 to 51 talks about how it's typically manufactured.

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
And then at column 5, lines 19 to 25, it talks about thermoplastic again.

[00:03:09] Speaker 04:
This is the detailed description I'm talking about.

[00:03:11] Speaker 04:
It says that it further limits it as being polypropylene or woven glass fiber fabric.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
Do you understand your position to be, well, it's true that the specification only discusses thermoplastic and doesn't say that there could be something else, that the specification should not be

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
Well, one of ordinary spill-me-art wouldn't read the specification and think that's all the inventor came up with, all that was in his possession.

[00:03:40] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
And that's reinforced by, for example, the Statement of Reasons for Allowance, which focus on the living hinge feature of the invention.

[00:03:48] Speaker 04:
That's at Appendix 370, 371.

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
So the point is, you've got to look at what the invention is.

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
The invention focuses on an improved living hinge.

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
In the background, it talks about the fact that

[00:04:03] Speaker 04:
In the prior art, these were made with thermoplastic materials with the layering and the reinforcing ribs.

[00:04:09] Speaker 04:
And if you look at figure four, the way it's described, they cut it to make a living hinge base that was where the material itself was flexible.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
The panel itself was flexible.

[00:04:17] Speaker 04:
This invention gets around that and creates a living hinge based on the covering layer, the fabric.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
And when you focus on the fact of the living hinge, the fabric living hinge or the covering layer living hinge is the invention, then the particular material inside the fabric is

[00:04:33] Speaker 04:
essentially it's almost irrelevant, certainly not critical.

[00:04:38] Speaker 04:
The appendix site that I cited you, appendix 373.71, it's an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance.

[00:04:45] Speaker 04:
I know you're looking at me puzzled.

[00:04:46] Speaker 04:
Why would you have reasons for allowance if it was rejected?

[00:04:50] Speaker 04:
That's reasons for allowance if we cured the written description problem.

[00:04:53] Speaker 04:
So from the standpoint of the prior art, if you look at 373.71, the examiner is basically saying, hey,

[00:05:01] Speaker 04:
Living hinge is patentable if you've got written description.

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
So I say that because I think the examiner is endorsing our view, which is that the invention here is really about the improved living hinge, which makes the thermoplastic plastic issue irrelevant.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
Do you think we can decide that, though?

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
I mean, as an appellate court, even if we were to agree with you, wouldn't we have to remand so that that could be determined by the board in the first instance?

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
the position to decide, as a matter of fact, the criticality of thermoplastic.

[00:05:38] Speaker 04:
That's fair.

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
And I think we're entitled to at least three men.

[00:05:41] Speaker 04:
But I think that there is no substantial evidence of criticality, which is why you could reverse.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
The examiner doesn't point to anything.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
The board doesn't point to anything.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
Well, the examiner on page 369, Judge Stoll had asked you earlier whether or not the examiner made a finding about criticality.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
And you said you didn't think that the examiner had done that.

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
I guess for me, page 369 feels like it's pretty close to a finding on criticality by the examiner, because the examiner says basically there are only two types of material that have routinely been used, right?

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
Thermo-setting materials and thermoplastic materials.

[00:06:18] Speaker 03:
And then he explains, or he or she, I don't know, but they say, quote,

[00:06:24] Speaker 03:
This fact flies in the face of applicants' argument that the disclosed species of thermoplastic is not critical to the invention.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
So it kind of feels like the examiner is making a criticality finding.

[00:06:36] Speaker 04:
So let me clarify what I mean by that.

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
The only thing supporting the examiner's criticality finding, to the extent they have made it, is the fact that we recite thermoplastic.

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
I think you need to do more in the cases where the... So if all the examiner has

[00:06:55] Speaker 03:
and has cited nothing else is the fact that you identify a particular species and don't mention the other species, but you don't say anything about why that particular species ought to be the one used as opposed to other species, then that's not enough to conclude criticality.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
Could you just mention one species of multiple species?

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
Mentioning only one species is what triggers the criticality analysis.

[00:07:20] Speaker 04:
So you can't resolve the criticality analysis

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
by saying you only mentioned one species.

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
It's what implicates the need to go into the criticality analysis is the fact that you only mentioned one.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
The fact that you only mentioned one can't be dispositive of it, or that would be the end of the inquiry.

[00:07:36] Speaker 04:
Yes, that's exactly our position.

[00:07:37] Speaker 03:
OK, I understand.

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
But let me go back, because I think you've got me.

[00:07:42] Speaker 03:
So let me go back to where Judge Stoll was, which is, can we make this decision on appeal, or do we need to remand?

[00:07:49] Speaker 03:
Written description is a question of fact.

[00:07:50] Speaker 03:
Criticality is a question of fact.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
I mean, yes, the examiner hinged his or her criticality argument, it seems, on simply the absence of mention of the other type of species that could have been used.

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
But how do I know that when we tell them that wasn't enough, that there isn't more that the examiner would then be able to proffer?

[00:08:13] Speaker 04:
That is fair.

[00:08:14] Speaker 04:
But what we do know is that,

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
I don't know this technology.

[00:08:18] Speaker 03:
Despite what appears to be relative simplicity, I don't understand the technology.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
I'd like to add something too, which is that in the background of the invention section of your specification, there's something about cold pressing and then things about how the prior art used the thermoplastic.

[00:08:36] Speaker 01:
I can't tell from this discussion, with my level of skill in the art,

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
whether this discussion is suggesting that there's some advantage of using the thermoplastic.

[00:08:49] Speaker 01:
I can't tell.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
And it might be there that somebody else would see.

[00:08:52] Speaker 01:
That's one of the things that would make me reluctant to make a fact finding.

[00:08:57] Speaker 04:
Do you have a response to that?

[00:08:58] Speaker 04:
I understand the court's reluctance to make fact findings.

[00:09:01] Speaker 04:
And in fact, we even put in our brief that we get that.

[00:09:04] Speaker 04:
I think it's fair, though, also.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
But our position is simply that there's no substantial evidence in the record that anyone's pointed to.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
not even on appeal.

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
The only thing that's been pointed to on appeal in terms of substantial evidence is, back to Judge Moore's question, the fact that it's the only reference.

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
So at the very least, my colleagues haven't pointed out anything that's a substantial evidence to support it.

[00:09:29] Speaker 04:
So therefore, we believe you can determine that there's no substantial evidence.

[00:09:33] Speaker 04:
You don't even need to make a finding because there's been no evidence to support a criticality finding.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
But the board didn't address the examiner's finding.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
And instead, the board said, regardless, it doesn't matter.

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
Absolutely.

[00:09:45] Speaker 04:
The board did not.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
Do you agree on a separate point that the test for whether there's written description support or not isn't whether something's critical?

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
However, when somebody says, hey, look, this isn't even critical,

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
That's a relevant factor that has to be considered when you determine whether a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would have thought the inventor was in possession of the invention or not.

[00:10:10] Speaker 04:
I agree the test is not criticality per se.

[00:10:13] Speaker 04:
There is a case from this court, Peters, which we cite at length in its precedent stare decisis, and it goes on the proposition of criticality.

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
That doesn't make the test.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
But if it's very clear that a particular feature that's disclosed, a particular species

[00:10:28] Speaker 04:
is not critical.

[00:10:29] Speaker 04:
In fact, here we're saying the genus isn't critical to the invention.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
In other words, whether it's plastic or thermoplastic, the material itself is not critical.

[00:10:39] Speaker 04:
So therefore, because it's not critical and the clear evidence of record is it's not critical, then the reasonable person that's convicted of skilling it, the standard test applies because of the absence of any evidence of criticality.

[00:10:52] Speaker 04:
But I'm not suggesting that criticality is the new test.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
It's just that

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
When there's clear evidence that it's not critical, then it's reasonably conveyed to the person of skill in the art that the genus is supported by the species.

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
All right, Mr. Angeliari, I think we have your argument.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
Why don't you say the rest of your time for rebuttal?

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:11:09] Speaker ?:
And let's hear from Ms.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
Kaeper Han.

[00:11:10] Speaker 03:
Can you tell me how you say your name?

[00:11:11] Speaker 02:
Kaeper Han.

[00:11:12] Speaker 03:
Kaeper Han.

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
Kaeper Han.

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
I would like to address the point that you brought up, whether there is enough here to otherwise affirm the decision below.

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
And there is.

[00:11:26] Speaker 02:
you pointed to APPX369, which are the examiner's findings made below.

[00:11:32] Speaker 02:
And what the examiner pointed to is the fact that even though Global IP had presented evidence that other types of plastic, including thermosetting plastics and thermoplastics, were used to fabricate load floors, the Global IP had not shown that these types of plastics were interchangeable.

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
And Global IP also, the fact that one of scale in the art would have known that multiple types of plastics were available, yet Global IP's inventors specifically chose and deliberately chose to limit their invention to thermoplastics, skins, and cellular.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
You're saying they had the burden of showing that another kind of plastic would work.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
They had to show that in their specification, or where did they have to show that?

[00:12:21] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:12:21] Speaker 02:
Well, once the examiner established the prima facie case here, which the examiner did below,

[00:12:26] Speaker 02:
The examiner first looked at what the broad claims.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
But you agree the board didn't address this point, right?

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
The board did not bless the examiner's fact finding.

[00:12:35] Speaker 02:
Well, the board did point to all of the examiner's fact findings, including this criticality.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
I understand that.

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
At APTX4.

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
But that was not my question.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
My question isn't, did the board repeat the examiner's fact finding?

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
My question was, what did the board say about the examiner's fact finding?

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
The board said that, regardless even of this evidence,

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
that was shown below that global IP had not shown possession of the invention.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
Because it wasn't within the four corners of the specification.

[00:13:03] Speaker 02:
It was not within the four corners.

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
Do you think that's a correct statement of law?

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
I think it's inartfully worded, and I think if anything, it's harmless error here because what is... First, let me back up.

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
The test is whether one of scale and the art would recognize based on the disclosure that the inventors possessed the claimed invention.

[00:13:24] Speaker 02:
So that is the test, and that's the test that was articulated by this court in Ariad.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
Now, whether or not a disclosure of a specific species also shows that the inventor had possession of the broader genus, whether to determine that, you first do look at the specification, look at the four corners of the specification, but you also determine whether one of scale and the art would have known

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
that the broader genus was predictable and whether it was not critical that only the species were identified.

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
I think that's what they submitted evidence on.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
That is what they submitted evidence on.

[00:13:59] Speaker 02:
But what the examiner found based on that evidence was that, in fact, they had not shown that it was interchangeable to be able to use different types of plastics.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
And that is partly because... Why is it okay for us to say

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
that it's fine, we can just go right to the examiner's determination.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
It doesn't matter that the board didn't address this.

[00:14:20] Speaker 02:
I think here it's fine because overall, the evidence as a whole shows that global IPs, inventors, did not have possession of the broader genus.

[00:14:31] Speaker 01:
How can we make that determination without knowing whether the answer to the criticality question?

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
Well, I think the examiner does give you the answer to the criticality question.

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
No, but the board didn't.

[00:14:41] Speaker 01:
Bless that.

[00:14:42] Speaker 01:
You just want us to accept it.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
The board, I think the board was focused on what the specification disclosed, what the four corners of the spec disclosed.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
And here the four corners of the specification only disclosed using thermoplastic components fabricated using a thermoplastic method.

[00:15:01] Speaker 01:
That's not early.

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
Our law isn't just look at the four corners of the specification and ignore the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.

[00:15:08] Speaker 01:
When you're trying to determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would have thought the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
But that's not how our law works.

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
Well, that is correct.

[00:15:18] Speaker 01:
But why isn't that an error that should be such that we should vacate remix?

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
Sure, because here there is enough to find that if the board had applied the proper

[00:15:30] Speaker 02:
the proper determination here.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
Here, there's enough to find that the species was not critical and that the alternatives were not predictable to one of skill in the art.

[00:15:41] Speaker 03:
The problem is that's all fact-finding, right?

[00:15:43] Speaker 03:
If that were a legal question, you'd be on much more sound footing.

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
But since that's a fact question, I just don't think I can do that on appeal.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
But the examiner did make those fact-findings at APBX369.

[00:15:56] Speaker 03:
But the closest the board came

[00:15:58] Speaker 03:
which isn't really adopting him, is laying out all arguments and saying he thinks the examiner has better arguments.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
Well, not enough.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:16:07] Speaker 02:
I will say that.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
Not enough.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
And so I'm a little nervous about what you're asking me to do.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
It may be right and maybe what happens at the end of the day in terms of the outcome, but I just don't think that it's my role to do it.

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
Well, I will also say that it is often the case that a disclosure of a single species does not mean that the inventor has possession of the broad genus.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
That's not always the case.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
And that's clear from cases such as Tronzo, ICU Medical, and Curtis.

[00:16:35] Speaker 02:
I think those cases have shown that you take into account whether it would have been predictable for the other types of species to be interchanged within the claimed invention.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
What the board decision here says, regardless of the predictability of the results,

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
because the specification doesn't disclose something other than thermoplastic.

[00:16:52] Speaker 01:
That's all the inventor is entitled to.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
Well, I think what the board was really looking at there was the totality of the evidence that was presented.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
And based on the totality of the evidence, global IP has not shown criticality or that the alternative species were interchangeable.

[00:17:07] Speaker 02:
And because of that, they have not shown that the other species would be predictable options for one of scale in the art upon reading that disclosure.

[00:17:17] Speaker 02:
upon reading the four corners of the disclosure of the 233 patent.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
Is there anything else that you want to add?

[00:17:25] Speaker 03:
We definitely understand your argument.

[00:17:27] Speaker 03:
And I think you understand where we are too.

[00:17:28] Speaker 03:
So anything else?

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
I mean, I think the only additional thing is, I would say, is that what is skill in the art would have understood that different types of plastics could be used.

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
But here, the inventors made the specific decision to limit their invention to thermoplastic components

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
And the only method that's disclosed to fabricate this vehicle load floor is a thermoplastic method.

[00:17:52] Speaker 02:
And that's clear from the four corners of this presentation.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
To what extent does it matter that the patent, Appendix 24, Column 1, begins to discuss the priority?

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
And the second paragraph that I'm referring to is paragraph 33.

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
Such a method is particularly advantageous because of the fact it goes on and talks about the

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
advantage of using thermoplastic.

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
What impact does that have on the board decision?

[00:18:20] Speaker 02:
I think that's compelling here, because the inventors recognize that a thermoplastic method is advantageous because the vehicle load floor could be fabricated in a single step.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
And if they have used thermosetting plastic, for instance... Does this take it out of the species genus argument?

[00:18:37] Speaker 02:
I think it does, because it shows that it wouldn't be predictable for one of ordinary steel and the art to use that method that's disclosed with thermosetting materials.

[00:18:45] Speaker 02:
And that's because thermosetting materials cannot be melted and cannot be formed using cold form molding.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
So because of that, I think that is indicative of showing that it's not only critical, but the other species would not be predictable to one of ordinary scale in the arts.

[00:19:02] Speaker 02:
And also one last thing I would like to mention is that we're only talking about thermosetting and thermoplastic plastics.

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
But the applicant repeatedly said in its submissions to the examiner that this species is broad.

[00:19:17] Speaker 02:
They said it could include thermosetting plastics and thermoplastics, but there's no indication that there aren't other types of plastics also that are encompassed by the term plastic.

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
So I think the fact that they're trying to broaden their claim to include various species of plastics when they themselves have only disclosed thermoplastic components

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
and a thermoplastic method, which is advantageous for fabricating the vehicle load floor, I think that is compelling in view of all the evidence below.

[00:19:47] Speaker 02:
There are no further questions.

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
I ask that you confirm the court's decision.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
Keprahan?

[00:19:54] Speaker 03:
Hand?

[00:19:55] Speaker 03:
Hand.

[00:19:55] Speaker 03:
Keprahan, right?

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
Keprahan?

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
Got it.

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
Go ahead, Mr. Angeliari.

[00:19:59] Speaker 03:
We've got some rebuttal time.

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
I was just going to answer Judge Raina's question, unless anyone else on the court has questions.

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I don't think that the prior

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
description is relevant to this because it's a priori method of making the panel that's inside the fabric layer that's really cleaned.

[00:20:15] Speaker 04:
And there's nothing that talks about the particular structure of that panel impacting the invention, which is a living hinge that's created by the perimeter fabric or the covering layer it's called.

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
It's actually in a spot where there is no structure.

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
I considered that argument, but it seemed to me that what the inventor is doing in the pen is adopting

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
the prior art conventional way of let's say doing something and here it's advantageous to to Use them a thermoplastic and it seems to me that upon making that decision There it's a consideration of preference.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
I Prefer thermoplastic here because it's advantageous.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
This has been shown and proven out by the prior art.

[00:21:03] Speaker 00:
So that part I'm going to adopt

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
So it seems to me that I think it has a determinative type result on whether we have a species genus situation here at all.

[00:21:24] Speaker 04:
I don't understand the last part of your question about whether we have a species genus situation at all.

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
Well, if the patent itself identifies thermoplastic as being advantageous,

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
then what does it matter that there's other species that could be used as well?

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
It matters because the advantageous aspects have nothing to do with the claim invention.

[00:21:48] Speaker 04:
Because the claim invention is focusing on... But it goes to the criticality argument.

[00:21:53] Speaker 04:
It's not critical because the advantages that are described in the background, the prior method of making,

[00:22:02] Speaker 04:
don't provide any benefit to this claim invention, because the claim invention has to do with the covering layer, and in particular, a portion of the covering layer where there is no panel whatsoever.

[00:22:14] Speaker 04:
So if you look, for example, at, you know, Figure 6, it's got the panel we're talking about on the bottom, and then the cover panel, which is shown vertically.

[00:22:24] Speaker 04:
The focus of the invention is 44, where the covering layer comes together at a point where there is no panel whatsoever.

[00:22:31] Speaker 04:
Which is why we say, definitionally, the structure of the panel is certainly not critical to the invention.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
And arguably, it's virtually irrelevant to the invention, because the invention is focusing on a place where there's no panel at all.

[00:22:49] Speaker 04:
Have I answered your question?

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
Yes.

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

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
And unless anyone else has any other questions, I will sit down.

[00:22:55] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Angeliari.

[00:22:56] Speaker 03:
I thank both counsel for their argument.

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
The case is taken under submission.