[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
We will hear argument next in case number 181636, IPCO against Emerson Electric.

[00:00:26] Speaker 02:
Mr. Gonzalez, welcome back.

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
May it please the court of the board's obviousness decision

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
is based upon an incorrect claim construction.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
It may be easier if you turn to page 100 of the appendix at column 23, line 44.

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, could you repeat that site?

[00:00:49] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:00:49] Speaker 01:
100 of the appendix, column 23, line 44.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
In the patent.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
Column 33.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
Column 23.

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, 23.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Line 44.

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
Claim one recites that, and I'm quoting, a digital controller changes the transition paths of clients to optimize the transmission paths, including changing the transmission path from the client to the gateway.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
The board erred by omitting the plain and ordinary meaning of three important claim terms from its claim construction.

[00:01:36] Speaker 01:
Number one, the claim term transmission.

[00:01:39] Speaker 01:
Number two, changing the transmission path.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
And number three, optimizing the transmission path.

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
The term path in this claim limitation is preceded by the adjective transmission.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
And therefore, the path must transmit data.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
A list of nodes in a network that are not operating

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
and that are not transmitting does not qualify as the claimed transmission path.

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
And you're making an argument of ordinary meaning at this point.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
And it seems to me there's nothing odd about saying yesterday this path was working.

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
And so that was a transmission path.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
And I'm going to change it, because today it's not working.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
This is just a different version of the I-95 way of thinking about this problem.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
The reason why the I-95 scenario is not applicable to this problem is because there's a fundamental difference between transmitting data and driving on a highway.

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
In order to transmit data,

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
from one node to another.

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
I probably confused things by saying, I think of this as like the unidentified.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
Just get back to where I started.

[00:03:00] Speaker 02:
Yesterday, this path worked for transmission.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
But I'm going to keep calling it a transmission path.

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
And I'm now changing it, because today it doesn't work.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
I'm changing it to a transmission path that works.

[00:03:14] Speaker 02:
Just as a matter of ordinary meaning, there doesn't seem to me to be anything odd about referring to the

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
the path that today is not working as a transmission path?

[00:03:27] Speaker 01:
Well, I believe that's incorrect, because in order to be a transmission path, it has to transmit at the time that you change it or optimize it.

[00:03:41] Speaker 01:
The use of the term changing within the claim limitation further confirms that the transmission path must exist, because a transmission path or anything else

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
cannot be changed unless it exists.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
Similarly, the use of the term optimizing within the claim limitation further confirms that the transmission path must exist because a transmission path or anything else cannot be optimized or improved unless it exists.

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
The board also erred in failing to consider that the claim requirement of changing and optimizing

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
an existing transmission path is consistent with the specification.

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
The specification of the 516 patent confirms that the claims require changing and optimizing an existing transmission path.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
At appendix in page 93, column 9, line 6 through 8, the specification states that the present invention is constantly attempting

[00:04:51] Speaker 01:
to optimize itself for the best data transmission.

[00:04:55] Speaker 01:
By the way, there is no dispute here that this patent has expired.

[00:04:59] Speaker 01:
So the patent office, as well as this court, should be construing the claim according to the Phillips standard, which places a lot of importance on the specification.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
At page 93 of the appendix, column 9,

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
Lines 11 through 15, the specification explains that the invention will look for a better path if an existing path includes a client node that is too busy.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
The traffic of data packets, this is a quote from column 9, line 11.

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
The traffic of data packets through a particular client mode may be large such that it is better to route the data

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
from neighboring clients through other clients.

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
The specification also explains that the invention looks for a better path if an existing path includes a link that is less robust or slower at column 9, line 16 through 19, which says as follows, some radio links may be less robust or may be slower than other links, such that the optimization may result in a routing of data

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
around the less robust or slower links.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
At column 11 of the patent, page 94 of the appendix, the specification indicates that a client with an existing path to a server will listen for shorter paths to the server.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
It says as follows.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
The optimization occurs when clients hear transmissions from other clients that have a better, i.e., shorter path to a server.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
Now, the board's flawed construction of changing and optimizing an existing transmission path requires reversal of its ruling that the prior out would have taught this limitation.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
The board in Emerson relied on Birchfield's disclosure of finding paths when a repeater fails or a new terminal enters the network.

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
And this is at their red brief, Emerson's red brief at pages 36 to 37.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
But as I explained, the claims require changing and optimizing the existing transmission path.

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
What about the part of the board's rationale that relies on Birchfield teaching optimizing the paths once new terminals are added to the network?

[00:07:34] Speaker 03:
Forget about the part where the repeaters fail, but the portion where the board is focusing on Birchfield disclosing that when you add new terminals to the network, paths get recalculated.

[00:07:47] Speaker 03:
And I assume the board is therefore saying there might be more efficient paths from one particular terminal to the base station through the new terminals that have been added.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
I understand your question.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
There's only two situations that are in Birchfield, and you mentioned one of them, is when a terminal enters the network.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
When a terminal enters the network, there cannot be an existing transmission path through that terminal because it hasn't yet entered the network.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
And that's number one.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
And there's no indication in Birchfield's initialization routine

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
that after it calculates a path to a terminal that just entered the network, that it recomputes other paths.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
That's simply not in Birchfield.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
I believe that the board cited pages 247 and 248 of Birchfield, and Birchfield doesn't say that.

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
But that's the board's understanding of Birchfield.

[00:08:55] Speaker 03:
Am I right?

[00:08:56] Speaker 03:
The board's reading of Birchfield, I just want to make sure I understand the board's reading of Birchfield, is that paths do get recalculated.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
And perhaps more efficient paths are found once new terminals are entered.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
So then you can hop through the new terminals.

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
instead of the pre-existing terminals.

[00:09:20] Speaker 03:
Is that a fair understanding at least of what the board thinks Birchfield is teaching?

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
I think the final written decision is a little bit ambiguous on that point, but

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
The one thing I remember from the hearing is that.

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
So you're saying to me it's not so clear to you that the board had two separate rationales of why it found Birchfield is disclosing, is changing the transmission paths to optimize?

[00:09:48] Speaker 03:
Well, it's clear to me that.

[00:09:49] Speaker 03:
I thought I saw the board saying two different things.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
One was relying on when nodes fail in Birchfield, you can redirect the path.

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
But then the other rationale is when new terminals, new nodes enter the network, then you can reroute through those new nodes if it's a more efficient way of doing it.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
That, you're right.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
Those are the two basis on which the board found that this claim limitation would have been obvious.

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
So then you have to overcome both those rationales.

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
And in the rationale where a terminal fails, there's no existing transmission path through that terminal.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
And with respect to a terminal entering the network, there is no existing transmission path through that terminal because it has not yet entered the network.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
And there's no indication in Birchfield, which during the hearing, the board reminded me that they don't take, for instance, expert testimony to be true on its face, that they could actually go back and look at the reference themselves.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
In fact, this was at Appendix 569, line 15.

[00:11:03] Speaker 01:
Judge Gianetti said, we could read the references ourselves and disagree with him, meaning the expert.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
So when you look at the Birchfield reference itself on the pages cited in the final written decision and in Emerson's papers, there's no indication that after a terminal enters the network and a path is computed to that terminal, which does not qualify as changing an existing path because the path does not yet exist, there's no indication that

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
it will recompute paths to other terminals that have already been initialized into the network.

[00:11:51] Speaker 01:
With respect to the board's I-95 theory, what I was attempting to say before is there's a fundamental difference between driving a car in I-95 and a transmission path.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
And here's the difference.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
In order to have a transmission path between one radio frequency node and another, both radio frequency nodes have to be operating.

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
They have to be functioning.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
If they're not functioning, if one isn't transmitting or receiving, or the other is not transmitting or receiving, you cannot have a transmission path between the two.

[00:12:27] Speaker 01:
But in the case of driving on I-95 between the patent office in New York City, which was the example that the board gave,

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
Even if the power was cut to the entirety of New York City and also cut to the Patent Office to where neither endpoint was functioning, the road would still be there.

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
And that's why, there are two reasons why it was inappropriate for the board to bring up the I-95 theory, because it's totally different than the situation we have with the claimed invention, number one,

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
And number two, it wasn't raised until the hearing.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
And this court has indicated on multiple occasions that it violates the APA's notice provision to introduce new theories at the hearing, whether this was something that Emerson shouldn't have done and the board should have prevented Emerson from doing it.

[00:13:24] Speaker 01:
But the board actually did it themselves.

[00:13:27] Speaker 02:
You are into your rebuttal time.

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
You can use it now or save it.

[00:13:32] Speaker 01:
I think I'll save it.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
Mr. Davis.

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
Jim Davis for Emerson Electric, Your Honor.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
Each of those arguments fail for several independent reasons.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
Not only is the board's claim construction correct as a matter of law, but substantial evidence also supports the board's finding that these limitations are met not only under the board's construction, but also under IPCO's.

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
Starting first with the issue of claim construction, the board properly pointed out that the plain meaning of the term change in the transmission path

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
is simply that the transmission path needs to be changed.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
As Your Honor pointed out, if a transmission path existed yesterday and was working yesterday and today is no longer working and needs to be changed, that would meet the claim limitations.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
Is there anything in the specification that talks about moving away from a path that is at the moment of moving away not functioning at all, as opposed to

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
not functioning very well, comparatively not functioning compared to when you're moving to.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
So in particular, I think it was the column nine material that was referenced seemed to be all about transmission paths in at the time of moving away were functioning.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
Yes, General, thank you for the question.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
I think if you just continue reading down in column nine, this is at lines 51 to 53.

[00:15:17] Speaker 00:
The line there says, however, even if a radio modem is turned off, the remaining clients will reroute through other clients as will be assessed subsequently.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
That's precisely that situation where

[00:15:29] Speaker 00:
that particular node in the path is no longer working, there needs to be changes to the paths because that node is no longer working, and that's consistent with the rest of the disclosure.

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
They're just another form of the same thing, simply changing a transmission path.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
That interpretation that the board had is supported in the specification itself and in the very neighboring passages that IPCO's council is citing.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
And the topic came up of power failure.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
If you look earlier on in that same column, column 9 around line 29, if a client 18 is lost, for example, to a power or system failure, the data packets for client 18C can be routed through client 18D.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
Again, talking about a similar circumstance where you're rerouting the particular node is no longer operating, no longer transmitting or receiving.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
But turning to the next issue, though, of whether or not the board's findings were supported by substantial evidence, Judge Chenna, as you correctly pointed out, this is supported not only under the board's construction, but also under IPCO's construction.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
At appendix 2514, the board identified a passage in Birchfield that's

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
expressly discussing the situation where a repeater fails and you need to recompute minimum distance routes, so you need to optimize in that circumstance.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
And that would meet the construction under the board's proper interpretation

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
of the claims, but also under IPCO's interpretation of the claims.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
Your Honor had mentioned that there were two places, and I believe the closing counsel acknowledged there are two different theories here.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
The second theory being on appendix, I think it's at 24, where the board analyzes Birchfield, also under patent owner's interpretation of this changing the transmission path limitation

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
and finds that as petitioner points out, this is in the first full paragraph there, Birchfield constantly performs dynamic routing changes that involve optimization, citing to Birchfield at pages 247 and 248, which I believe corresponded 25, 13, and 14 of the appendix.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
as well as page 250 of Birchfield, which corresponds to appendix 2516 of the Birchfield reference.

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
I guess where in Birchfield does it actually say when these new terminals come on board the network?

[00:18:10] Speaker 03:
then we're going to see if it makes sense to change the existing pathway over and create a new, more efficient pathway through one of these new nodes, one of these new terminals.

[00:18:25] Speaker 03:
Birchfield doesn't quite come out and say it like that.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
It doesn't use those precise words, but I think the notion is there, as the board properly found one particular place to look at his own page, appendix 2516.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
That was the third of those three sites that the board had provided.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
At the very bottom of the page there, this is in the first column, left-hand side.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
last partial paragraph, this is the control process.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
And this is the control process for the station.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
So the control process for the station is another independent process for initializing the network and causing dynamic routing changes in response to changes in repeater terminal propagation connectivity.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
So as new repeaters or as new terminals report in, you might have new, better routes that become available.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
And it says that it's

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
It's making these changes dynamically.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
So as there become new, better routes become available, those changes are then made to reroute according to the minimum distance route.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
So I assume that that was the 824 citation to 250.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
That 824 citation also is to 247, 248.

[00:19:43] Speaker 02:
Can you pinpoint where on 247, 48 you think that citation goes to?

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
The notion, I think it's this whole discussion on 247 and 248, and I think there's further particular passages that are pointed out.

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
If you look at A24,

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
It also cites the declaration from Emerson's expert, Mr. Geyer.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
This is paragraph 66 of his declaration that the corresponding site is appendix 4139.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
And Mr. Geyer walks through several passages and excerpts from pages 247 and 248 of the Birchville reference.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
I'll direct the court's attention just to a couple of spots.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
On appendix 2513,

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
the notion of relabeling.

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
If you look at the right-hand column at the very top, it's talking about the station using search packets, arriving to generate the connectivity matrix, but also to relabel.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
So as new, better paths become available, relabeling takes place, providing the individual nodes with better connections, minimum distance connections back to the station.

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure it matters if you're right about the claim construction, but I thought part of what you were talking about was the idea that even under IPCO's claim construction, in which, as I understand it, and I may be summarizing incorrectly,

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
The claim is all about two existing functioning transmission paths and a choice between them, and not at all about choosing a functioning path over a non-functioning path.

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
So where in this, 247, 248, et cetera, is there a reference to making a choice between two functioning banks?

[00:22:01] Speaker 00:
And I think that the passage on page 250, Your Honor, is probably the best place for that.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
passage at the bottom where it discloses causing dynamic routing changes in response to changes in the repeater terminal propagation connectivity.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
So as you have... Is propagation connectivity simply will it get there or is that a more non-discreet, non-binary measure of how good the getting there is?

[00:22:32] Speaker 00:
The latter, Your Honor.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
It is a

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
As you have new paths that arise that are better, more optimal, a shorter distance, if you will, that's what that passage is referring to, making those dynamic changes as the network setup changes.

[00:22:54] Speaker 00:
I think in the example that Judge Chen used earlier was when a new terminal would join the network, it might create

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
shorter path or a new repeater joins the network it might create a shorter path between two points than what previously existed and that relabeling that would then take place because the connectivity had changed would then allow the station to optimize and under IPCO's construction make a choice to choose a new and better minimum distance route.

[00:23:34] Speaker 00:
Ipko had also alluded to the issue of the I-95 analogy that was simply an example where the board was properly using an analogy to identify a flaw in Ipko's analysis.

[00:23:50] Speaker 00:
It wasn't a change in the theory.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
It was simply a way to illustrate why Ipko's arguments were incorrect.

[00:23:57] Speaker 00:
Similar to the example that your honor gave of a path working yesterday and no longer working today and needing to change.

[00:24:07] Speaker 03:
Why doesn't the claim term optimize just inherently suggest we're looking at trying to improve an already working situation and make it better?

[00:24:20] Speaker 03:
Go from a good thing to a better thing.

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
And I think there is that notion of optimization, but I think that's met in multiple ways by Birchfield as well as the Schwartz reference.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
Birchfield looking for minimum distance routes.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
If a repeater fails, for example, at a particular time.

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
If a repeater fails, then you're going from nothing to something that functions.

[00:24:48] Speaker 00:
At that particular time, you're going from nothing to something that functions.

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
But it may come back online.

[00:24:53] Speaker 00:
It might have moved.

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
These are dynamic networks, and they're dynamically making improvements and changing.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
In addition to the fact that Schwarz's reference talks about four different possible optimization criteria beyond simply minimum distance, but you might have it based off of speed, or based off of least traffic, or based off of robustness in terms of security.

[00:25:17] Speaker 00:
All those are different optimization criteria that can be applied.

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
And as Birchfield points out, and as the board properly found,

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
That's done dynamically.

[00:25:26] Speaker 00:
That's done as the network changes over time.

[00:25:31] Speaker 00:
And you would need to relabel particular nodes.

[00:25:36] Speaker 00:
If there are any further questions, Your Honor.

[00:25:39] Speaker 00:
Thank you for your time.

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
Thank you for your argument.

[00:25:48] Speaker 01:
I'll be really quick, Your Honor.

[00:25:51] Speaker 01:
The passage that was decided by my colleague in Birchfield

[00:25:55] Speaker 01:
which starts on APPX 2516 at the bottom of the last paragraph on the first column and extends over to the second column.

[00:26:06] Speaker 01:
That paragraph is speaking about dynamic routing changes in response to changes in repeater terminal propagation connectivity or repeater failures.

[00:26:17] Speaker 01:
That means that this paragraph pertains to when there is not a connection

[00:26:23] Speaker 01:
when there's a repeat of failure, in which case there's not a connection then either.

[00:26:28] Speaker 01:
When it talks about the connectivity matrix, there's no dispute in this case that the connectivity matrix in Birchfield does not have any paths in it.

[00:26:37] Speaker 01:
Instead, it just talks about whether a node has a connection to a neighboring node.

[00:26:44] Speaker 01:
And so just because the connectivity matrix may be updated, that doesn't mean that you're changing an existing path in the network.

[00:26:54] Speaker 02:
And with respect, what do you understand dynamic routing to be in that field?

[00:27:00] Speaker 01:
OK, the word dynamic means that it's not static, that it happens on the fly as time is going on, right?

[00:27:10] Speaker 01:
So Tom Brady makes a plan, but then there's a blitz.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
So he dynamically makes a different plan, throws to a different receiver.

[00:27:19] Speaker 01:
That's all that that term means.

[00:27:21] Speaker 01:
And then you figure out, well, in what context is it?

[00:27:23] Speaker 01:
And you continue reading on that paragraph.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
And you say it says it's in the context of repeater or connectivity failures.

[00:27:31] Speaker 01:
So in those cases, the path does not exist.

[00:27:36] Speaker 01:
And you're just creating a path.

[00:27:41] Speaker 01:
And with respect to claim construction, if I may,

[00:27:44] Speaker 01:
This is my cell phone, and I know that this isn't functioning because this is the battery.

[00:27:50] Speaker 01:
The battery's not in the phone.

[00:27:51] Speaker 01:
It requires electricity to run, and it's not functioning.

[00:27:55] Speaker 01:
There are no transmission paths through this phone that doesn't have a battery in it that can be changed.

[00:28:02] Speaker 01:
Last question.

[00:28:03] Speaker 03:
Do you have an expert declaration commenting on this particular aspect of Birchfield at 825-16 and then

[00:28:13] Speaker 03:
2513-14.

[00:28:14] Speaker 03:
I know it's there.

[00:28:32] Speaker 01:
I'm trying to find it.

[00:28:36] Speaker 03:
If you cited it in your briefs, I'm sure we'll find it.

[00:28:38] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I did cite it in your briefs.

[00:28:40] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:28:41] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:28:41] Speaker 02:
We'll find it then.

[00:28:43] Speaker ?:
OK.

[00:28:43] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:28:43] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:28:44] Speaker 02:
Thank all counsel.

[00:28:45] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted.