[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
We have five cases on the calendar this morning.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
Four of them patents.

[00:00:22] Speaker 03:
One submitted on the briefs and won't be argued.

[00:00:28] Speaker 03:
Two from the PT's PTAB and one from a district court, and we have a claims case.

[00:00:34] Speaker 03:
Our first case is R2 semiconductor versus Intel Corporation.

[00:00:44] Speaker 03:
2019, 1031, et cetera.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
Mr. Fairholen.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:53] Speaker 04:
Morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:54] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:59] Speaker 04:
There is one thing that is obvious in this matter, and that's that everyone wants to put as much circuitry as possible on an integrated circuit.

[00:01:10] Speaker 04:
That's why we've developed system on chips over the years.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
But wanting to do something is a far cry from showing how to do it.

[00:01:22] Speaker 04:
And in this case, that's the crux of why, in our view, the PTAP committed error is, in general, it referred to aspirational statement or a one-sentence statement that used the word chip and then said, well,

[00:01:42] Speaker 04:
Everyone would have known how to do that.

[00:01:44] Speaker 03:
But if something is anticipated or obvious, the reason for creating it isn't necessarily the point if it is or would have been.

[00:01:55] Speaker 03:
When we're talking about obviousness, every one of these groups that says something that is obvious gives me a stop, because we're talking about the past.

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
Was or would have been obvious.

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
That's correct, John.

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
But if it is, the reason isn't relevant, is it?

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:02:11] Speaker 03:
Then why is it?

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
Because you need to go to the time period in which the patent issue was filed, in this case, the 250 patent.

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
The 250 patent, for the very first time, did disclose how to put some spike protection circuitry within, inside, an integrated circuit.

[00:02:32] Speaker 04:
No one had ever disclosed how to do that before.

[00:02:34] Speaker 04:
And there's no single reference that even gets close to describing

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
this solution implemented on an integrated circuit, except... So it was unreasonable for the board to see Hibino saying, do all this on a chip, Shekawatt saying, do this all on a single die, and it's just totally unreasonable for the fact finder to take these references at their word?

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
I guess that's your position, and that's what we must say if we're going to reverse that fact finding.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
Under Section 311, the IPR task, the task of the board, the IPR, is to look at the prior art.

[00:03:24] Speaker 04:
Expert testimony can interpret that, can talk about it, but it can't make up a whole new solution that's not put in there for how to do something.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
And if I could just...

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
I don't know, start with an assumption that if a document says you can do these things on a single chip, you can do these things on a single die, that presumptively we can take that, that skilled artisans at that time had knowledge of how to do that?

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
Absolutely not.

[00:03:59] Speaker 04:
I mean, let's take your word for it.

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
I mean, there's nothing here that discloses of circuitry

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
that can be used, and how to use it, so that you don't get your chip to blow up.

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
I don't understand.

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
Are you saying that every sentence that a prior art reference says, we can't take it at its word?

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
No, no, Your Honor.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
I'm not saying that.

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
Well, that's what you're asking us to do for these particular sentences and these particular prior art references.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:04:28] Speaker 04:
The question is, what does the art disclose?

[00:04:32] Speaker 04:
It discloses, we can do this on a die.

[00:04:35] Speaker 04:
That's all it discloses.

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
That's like saying, it would be great to have a time machine.

[00:04:41] Speaker 04:
You're not saying how you do it.

[00:04:44] Speaker 04:
They're aspirational statements.

[00:04:46] Speaker 04:
And so it's not so much a question of looking at the sentence and saying, I disagree with the sentence or not.

[00:04:53] Speaker 04:
I'm not taking the sentence.

[00:04:55] Speaker 04:
The question is, what does the sentence disclose?

[00:04:58] Speaker 03:
You're saying it's not enabled.

[00:05:00] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:05:02] Speaker 04:
If you look at both of these.

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
Wait, so your argument isn't, like you say in your brief, that it doesn't disclose it.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
Your argument is that it does disclose it, but it doesn't enable it?

[00:05:15] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
It doesn't disclose it, and thereby, it's not enabled, is what at least I interpreted.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
And you're saying just because it says it, it doesn't disclose it.

[00:05:23] Speaker 02:
Just because it says, do these things on a single chip.

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
Well, Habino expressly discloses implementing the snubber and regulatory circuitry on a chip, quote.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
On a chip.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
So what, I have to assume that's not on a chip or that you explain to a skilled artist how to do it on a chip, therefore I should disregard the disclosure in its entirety?

[00:05:43] Speaker 04:
No, but you should look at the whole disclosure, Your Honor.

[00:05:46] Speaker 04:
And if you look at that sentence, it's referring to figures in which the snubber circuit is connected via bond wires, not on an integrated circuit.

[00:05:57] Speaker 04:
And so the very sentence that uses the word chip is referencing an illustration.

[00:06:04] Speaker 04:
There's many illustrations, but say, Figure 7B uses the word on a chip.

[00:06:08] Speaker 04:
And if you look at the figure, you can see that there's bond wires.

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
The snubber is not within the chip that has a voltage regulator.

[00:06:21] Speaker 04:
It's connected by a bond wire.

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
They're on the same substrate.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
But they're not the same integrated circuits.

[00:06:31] Speaker 04:
And that's the whole crux.

[00:06:34] Speaker 04:
Now, I think it's relevant, Your Honors, that- Well, OK.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
So what you've just said, and honestly, I find this about pretty much all of the issues that you appeal, is that you've made an argument for why, in a de novo world, maybe the reference shouldn't be interpreted that way.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
Your problem, though, is the board did interpret the on a chip language as implicating integrated circuitry.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
Your bond wire argument is not lost on me, but the board went the other way.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
The presence of bond wires would suggest that they're not all on a chip.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
I mean, it doesn't say 1A substrate.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
It says 1A chip.

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
Well, Chip has many meetings that use different ways in the industry.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
And the board gets substantial evidence to decide which one applies in a given circumstance.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
Your problem is you want me to review these very dense and detailed factual issues de novo.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
But you don't get de novo review.

[00:07:33] Speaker 01:
You get substantial evidence review.

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
And I don't see anything in your briefs that

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
makes it such that I could reverse the board and say there's no substantial evidence.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
We're arguing right now about something about which maybe reasonable minds could disagree, but it's a substantial evidence review.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
There's no disclosure, Your Honor, of how to put this circuitry on an integrated circuit in Habino.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
Did you raise specifically below and on appeal to us the argument that even if the reference discloses it, the reference doesn't enable it?

[00:08:06] Speaker 04:
No, I don't believe so.

[00:08:07] Speaker 04:
I just answered his honor's question.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
Yes, but then that argument to me doesn't, unfortunately, overcome your problem in this case.

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
Well, again, for IPRs under 311, the rule is, a petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable one or more claims of a patent only

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
on a ground that could be raised under Section 102 or 103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.

[00:08:45] Speaker 04:
The practice guide that goes with that, the PTO, says, quote, because an inter partes review may only be requested on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications, expert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure.

[00:09:01] Speaker 04:
from patents are printed of publications," close quote.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
And what has been supplied, the only place you find the description of this is in conclusory expert testimony.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
There is no disclosure in Habina of the Snubber circuitry or the Snubber circuitry in the 250 patent or the Snubber circuitry on a single IC.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
Our argument on appeal, Your Honors,

[00:09:30] Speaker 04:
is that it doesn't disclose the use of the technology on an integrated circuit, or how to do that.

[00:09:39] Speaker 04:
Just mentioning it could be done in an aspirational statement is not disclosing how to do something.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
What about Sheffalot, which says on a single die?

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
Well, shekelot, I think Your Honor is referring to the following sentence.

[00:09:57] Speaker 04:
In various embodiments, this is the second to last paragraph of the patent.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
The last one is the typical lawyer disclaimer that this is everything.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
But the second to last paragraph says, quote, in various embodiments, all or a portion of power converter systems, 410, 510, 10, 110, 210,

[00:10:19] Speaker 04:
Shona figures 1, 3, and 5, and 6 can be implemented on a single or multiple semiconductor dies commonly referred to as a chip or discrete components.

[00:10:28] Speaker 04:
That's the sentence that does not disclose how to put Shekawatt on an integrated circuit.

[00:10:35] Speaker 04:
It doesn't.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
That's enablement.

[00:10:37] Speaker 01:
That's not disclosure.

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
Disclosure.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
It is, in fact, disclosed.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
You're saying it wouldn't be enabled.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
That would have required assessing whether a skilled artist would know how to do it based on that disclosure.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
That's not the issue for this court.

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
That wasn't an issue you raised below.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
With respect to our argument with the expert on Shekawat, well, first of all, I don't believe the board relied on that statement about a single die.

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
So the board didn't even rely on that statement.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
I know that Intel does.

[00:11:13] Speaker 04:
But what the board relied on was one sentence concerning the word MOS.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
This is at A136.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
Quote, because Chekhovart expressly contemplates implementing the disclosed invention in MOS technology, i.e.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
integrated circuit, comma, the orderly skilled artisan would know how to implement the voltage regulator and the snubber circuit on a single die.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
That's what the holding was of the PTAB.

[00:11:48] Speaker 04:
Well, the reference to MOS technology in Chekhovah is not to the snubber circuitry.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
And the error in the reasoning of the PTAB is to the assumption that the fact that you could do MOS for one aspect, because it's already in the prior art, does not mean that you can do every aspect within a single integrated circuit.

[00:12:11] Speaker 04:
There's no description of that.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
Guarantee your bottle time which you wanted to say yes, I'll reserve for us.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
We'll save it for you.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
Mr. Somerskill Please the court Michael Somerskill on behalf of appellee Intel Corporation this is a case in which are to argue to the board that the 250 patent had two core points of novelty and

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
The PTAB properly found those allegedly novel limitations to be known and disclosed in the art, and then art to abandon that novelty story, and now argues on appeal that six different limitations are the features that make its claims novel.

[00:12:56] Speaker 01:
Just to be clear, I'm wondering if you're really intending to go into six limitations, since all he addressed in oral argument is this one.

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
I am not, Your Honor, and I'll jump right to the integrated circuit limitations.

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
So I'll start with where Mr. Verhoeven started, which is that the prior references are merely aspirational.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
And I believe he was making that argument specifically with respect to the Shekowat reference.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
I'll start there.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
As Judge Chen noted, references are presumed enabled.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
And that's the Inrei Antor case, Federal Circuit 2012.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
And prior references need not be enabling on their own.

[00:13:42] Speaker 00:
The question is, what do they suggest to a person with an ordinary skill in the art?

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
So you look to the express disclosure, and then what a person with an ordinary skill in art would understand from that reference.

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
And here, there is substantial evidence that a person with an ordinary skill in the art would understand how to implement, take the express disclosure of either Shackawatt

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
And to be no and implement a voltage regulator on the same die with a stubborn circuit dr. Lieb testified to that that's appendix four five nine four paragraph 32 and then his testimony supported by other

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
references, including the Larson reference, which explicitly put a snubber circuit and a voltage regulator on the same chip nine years before the 250 patent.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
And I think Mr. Verhoeven said in a number of instances that the references don't explain how to do this, that it's in there, but they don't explain how to do it.

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
Well, they're no more aspirational than the 250 patent is itself.

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
The 250 pattern in the written description mentions putting them on the same chip three times.

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
In each instance, it doesn't say how to do it.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
It merely mentions doing it.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
And so column 16, line 56 is one of those instances.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
This is the 250 pattern.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
As shown, the spike protection circuit 1910 is located on the same integrated circuit 1930 as the series and shunt switch elements.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
That's what it says.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
It doesn't explain how to do it.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
It says you do it.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
In other words, it's assuming that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to do it.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
And so in Chackawatt, you've got an explicit

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
reference to putting the voltage regulator and snubber circuit on the same chip and there's substantial evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to do that.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
Now let me step back to Mr. Verhoeven's argument on bond wires with respect to the Habino reference.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
Now again the

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
Hibino reference explicitly describes placing a snubber circuit and a voltage regulator on a chip.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
Dr. Lieb testified that Hibino's disclosure, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that to be referring to placing them on an integrated die.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
And the board evaluated Intel's evidence, evaluated the patent owner's evidence, and made a classic substantial evidence

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
determination.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
Now, R2 argues that... Why would there be bond wires if it was all truly on a single chip, an integrated circuit?

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
A couple of things, Your Honor.

[00:16:46] Speaker 00:
It doesn't make sense, does it?

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
Well, the presence, I think the issue, Your Honor, is that the presence of bond wires, and this is what the Board found, the presence of bond wires doesn't negate other connections.

[00:16:59] Speaker 02:
And so what, belts and suspenders kind of connections?

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
No, but bond wires can be used.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
And Dr. Lieb testified about this.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
Bond wires can be used to make internal connections on their way out to external connections.

[00:17:17] Speaker 00:
And the presence of bond wires on a device doesn't necessarily mean it's not an integrated circuit.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
Dr. Lieb testified.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
This is appendix 4529.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
Isn't your interpretation that bond wires are not being used to connect the snubber circuit to the voltage regulator?

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
Well, actually, Your Honor, if you look at Dr. Lieb's testimony, then we look at figure 7B, which is the figure at issue.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
Dr. Lieb testified that the connections P, U, and N are the traces of an integrated circuit.

[00:17:57] Speaker 00:
And then if you look specifically at figure 7B, you can see that the snubber circuit 300 is connected to trace P, and the switching circuitry 130 is connected through another circuit to P. And so they're both connected via trace P. And that's consistent with what is in Hibino.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
Paragraph 102 of Habino, Appendix 3623 states, as shown in Figure 7B in this example, the snubber circuit 300 is directly connected to the wiring patterns P and N, and then it says each of the switching devices 130 is connected to an associated one of the wiring patterns P

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
and U. So they're both connected to the wiring pattern P, which Dr. Lieb testified is the wiring pattern of an integrated circuit.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
And so what Hibino expressly states.

[00:19:03] Speaker 01:
What about the rest of that paragraph 102 at the bottom of the last part of the sentence where it explains

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
about the switching device above the wiring pattern U is connected to the snubber circuit by an associated one of the bond wires.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:19:21] Speaker 01:
What does that mean then?

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
Well, I think that's referring to, see there are two, in figure 7B there are two switching devices, 130.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
And the lower one is, on the lower half of the figure, is connected to the snubber circuit 300 via a bond wire.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
The top one,

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
doesn't have a bond wire over to the snubber circuit 300.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
And so what Hibino is discussing there is that basically you can have multiple different connections.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
And if you look earlier in Hibino, it talks about the fact that there can be multiple different connections.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
I think, Your Honor, the bottom line is that Hibino expressly discloses putting them on a chip.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
What the board found is that simply using showing bond wires doesn't negate that express disclosure.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
And so, again, this was a classic substantial evidence determination.

[00:20:25] Speaker 01:
So figure nine is the same way, though.

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
It says figure nine is an example of a chip arrangement with a snubber circuit, an inverter circuit.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
It goes through, and then when you look at figure nine, everything is connected to everything else via bond wires.

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
So it says it's on a chip, but then it has a bunch of bond wires.

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
So everything is connected via bond wires.

[00:20:48] Speaker 01:
So your figure 7 description doesn't apply to figure 9.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
I think that's true, Your Honor.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
But the focus of the argument has been on 7b.

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
And of course, every embodiment in Habino doesn't need to be on a chip.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
I think what Habino says, and this is in paragraphs 98 and 99,

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
of Habino is that you can make these connections in a host of different ways.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
And I think it's important to come back to what the reference specifically discloses, which is that it's on a chip.

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
And Dr. Lieb testified one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that to mean on an integrated circuit die.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
And so the fact that

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
you've added bond wires in some embodiments doesn't negate the fact that it's on a chip.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
I think R2's argument to the contrary is like saying, because a house has a side door, it must not have a front door, even though the description of the house says it has a front door.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
The presence of bond wires doesn't negate other connections.

[00:21:58] Speaker 00:
And Dr. Lieb has testified that

[00:22:01] Speaker 00:
Those traces P, U, and N are the traces of an integrated circuit.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
Now, the final point I'll address, unless you have other questions, Your Honor, is Mr. Verhoeven's argument that we're somehow only relying on expert testimony.

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
And that's simply not accurate.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
Habino expressly discloses on the same chip.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
Shackawatt expressly discloses on the same chip.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
And Dr. Lieb, a 27-year tenured professor of MIT, reviewed those references and testified that a person of ordinary skill would understand that to mean on an integrated circuit.

[00:22:49] Speaker 00:
So he's expressly relying on the primary references, or not simply relying on expert

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
Testimony you're just using an expert to help the board and Understand what the references do in fact disclose that's correct standard.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
That's correct your honor, okay?

[00:23:05] Speaker 03:
Thank you under Thank you counsel.

[00:23:08] Speaker 03:
Mr. Verhoeven has four minutes plus the fee needs it Three minutes plus Thank You honor

[00:23:22] Speaker 04:
When Council was just talking and answering questions, we heard a lot of references to Dr. Lieb.

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
And I heard the phrase, quote, Dr. Lieb is assuming a portion of ordinary skill in the art would know how to do it.

[00:23:39] Speaker 04:
Well, the how is the question for obviousness.

[00:23:44] Speaker 04:
Like I said, everybody wants to put stuff on an integrated circuit.

[00:23:47] Speaker 04:
The challenge is, how do you do it?

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
What's the priority date for this patent?

[00:23:55] Speaker 02:
2009?

[00:23:56] Speaker 02:
I believe so.

[00:24:06] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
December 23, 2009.

[00:24:08] Speaker 04:
So as of that date, nobody had put this protection, this circuitry protection, together with the switching device on an integrated circuit.

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
So all we have,

[00:24:25] Speaker 04:
is Dr. Lee's testimony that a person would know how to do it.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
Well, no, we have the presumption that references are enabled, that you didn't introduce any evidence to rebut.

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
It's not even disclosed.

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
OK, well, if we disagree with you as to whether it's disclosed, your argument, as I understood it, has been even if it's disclosed, it's not enabled.

[00:24:50] Speaker 04:
Yes, that's correct.

[00:24:53] Speaker 03:
That's why we started early.

[00:24:55] Speaker 03:
But what a reference discloses is a question of fact to which we give the board substantial evidence discretion.

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
Yes, but the board, as Your Honors well know, because I've read it in opinions written, has to explain how and why it's finding that something is obvious.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
And let's take the Dino here.

[00:25:24] Speaker 04:
And we're looking at what the board says, not what attorney argument is.

[00:25:27] Speaker 04:
And the board said he agrees with the expert that the use of bond wires is not inconsistent with doing it on an integrated circuit.

[00:25:42] Speaker 04:
And then it continues.

[00:25:43] Speaker 04:
Dr. Pedram, that's our expert.

[00:25:46] Speaker 04:
Dr. Pedram, however, does not explain, and it is not clear from Abino that the bonding wire referred to in that excerpt of Abino

[00:25:54] Speaker 04:
is used in every connection between this number and regulatory circuitry.

[00:25:59] Speaker 04:
What we have here is the P-tab has switched the burden of proof.

[00:26:03] Speaker 04:
The burden of proof is supposed to be on the petitioner and has said, well, you haven't proven the absence of something.

[00:26:18] Speaker 04:
not the way the analysis is supposed to go.

[00:26:21] Speaker 04:
It's supposed to be the plainest burden of proof to show the disclosure and explain how, explain why people would put things together.

[00:26:29] Speaker 04:
It's just not existing in here.

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
All we have is- Does your 250 patent disclosure disclose those kind of details?

[00:26:37] Speaker 04:
Absolutely.

[00:26:37] Speaker 04:
It's the circuitry.

[00:26:40] Speaker 04:
So the question is, what I heard is, any person of skill in the art would know how to do it.

[00:26:47] Speaker 04:
Cite Dr. Lieb.

[00:26:49] Speaker 04:
But no one disclosed how to do it until 250.

[00:26:54] Speaker 04:
And 250 came up with this elegant circuitry that's simple, that will take care of spikes.

[00:27:00] Speaker 04:
Here's the problem.

[00:27:01] Speaker 02:
I don't really see the nuts and bolts in your written description for how you, in 2009,

[00:27:09] Speaker 02:
went through all the fascinating details to figure out how to put a snubber circuit and this voltage regulator on the same chip.

[00:27:17] Speaker 04:
The 250 patent talks about the fact that when you put stuff on chips, and as chips become smaller and smaller, they become more susceptible to blowing up.

[00:27:37] Speaker 04:
And this invention

[00:27:39] Speaker 04:
And if you put the snubber circuitry on a chip in the past snubber circuitry, it would blow up.

[00:27:47] Speaker 04:
And so what 250 discloses is a way to avoid the spikes so that the system doesn't blow up when it's on an integrated circuit.

[00:27:57] Speaker 04:
That's the how.

[00:27:59] Speaker 04:
And it's disclosed in the actual claim.

[00:28:02] Speaker 03:
It's useful as you see your time, because it's quiet.

[00:28:05] Speaker 03:
So we will take the case under review.

[00:28:08] Speaker 04:
Thank you.