[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
This is Chamberlain Group versus One World Technologies, 18-21-12, Mr. Draxett.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court?

[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
This argument is a little bit simpler, just a straight.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
question about applying the actual explicit language in a claim.

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
No experts on what disclosures are.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
No incorporation.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
It's claim construction.

[00:00:24] Speaker 01:
And we say it is the ordinary meaning.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
I always have said that it's the ordinary meaning of this claim.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
And it's what we call limitation three or step three of the claim, which says identifying the activities to be completed by the user.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
Activities in the plural.

[00:00:42] Speaker 01:
When this started petitioner proposed a construction that said, well, you have to identify which of the activities.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
That is a word activities in it, but that's not identifying a plural.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
Which of the activities covers singular?

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
And so we came back and we said, well, that is not a proper reading of the claim.

[00:01:02] Speaker 01:
It requires identifying plural activities, not identifying one activity.

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
Well, you did argue that, but you didn't argue the response of two points.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
Responsive two is an additional that there are we have two bases for this so and It's consistent throughout our ultimate construction that you have to in step three identify plural activities is the construction so to speak the the scope of the claims that we've always sought the responsive to is additional intrinsic evidence to support that and so we've always been consistent in saying that it has to be an identification in step three

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
So what you're saying is that even if we were to find the responsive to argument is waived, that the multiple activities argument was made and that that in itself is sufficient to be where you want to go?

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

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
And that's applicable to all the claims.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
So the responsive to is claims 18 through 20.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
And the order of the requirement that you identify all the steps before you execute them or instruct on them is true for all of the claims.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
And so that, even outside of the response of two, is in the claim language of the claims, because it says...

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
Step two, identifying the present status.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
Step three, identifying activities, plural, to be completed.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
And then when you get to step four.

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
But if you just look at the language about identifying by the control of the activities to be completed, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be done all at once.

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
It could be done as part of different cycles.

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
It doesn't have to be done all at once, but it can't be done as part of different cycles.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
And here's why.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
If you look at the last step, it says that it talks about the first and second identifying steps.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
Well, that's the problem that you need to rely on the responsive to language to get where you want to go.

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
Because without the responsive to language, it doesn't seem to me that you can construe this as forbidding it happening in different cycles.

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
I don't think the term responsive to, though.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
It's not the term responsive.

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
It could be subsequent to.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
Really, without the responsive to what the claim requires, if you take responsive to out of there, it still has to be subsequent to.

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
The term subsequent to doesn't have to be in there.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
But the reference to the second and third steps is referencing steps that are already completed.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
And we cite multiple cases on order of steps.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
several of them talk about performing multiple actions in an earlier step and then performing other actions in a later step all of those construed the claim to require them to require that the multiple actions and be performed first before and one of them that I think is particularly relevant is Apple versus Samsung because it uses the reasoning absent the word responsive to that we want here in Apple versus Samsung

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
But the claim says responsive to the first and second identifying steps.

[00:04:09] Speaker 03:
It doesn't say responsive to the first, first responsive to the first, and then second responsive to the second step.

[00:04:19] Speaker 03:
That would create the type of timing or temporal limitation that you're seeking, but that's not what the claim says.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
We don't care about the timing either between identifying the activities or between identifying the status of the barrier.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
We don't care about the timing of how things are identified vis-à-vis identifying other things.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
You could identify over a course of time.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
We're not worried about the timing of instructing one step versus the other.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
That's where the board got off track is worrying about this other timing.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
The only timing we're worried about is the timing of instructing

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
to the timing of identifying the steps.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
And that is required because it's responsive.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
I'll take out responsive.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
The last step refers to the second identifying step.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
And so it has to occur after the second identifying step has occurred because of that antecedent reference.

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
And that's where Apple versus Samsung comes in, which is the Motorola 556 patent in there.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
There were a lot of patents.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
So I'll direct the court to the 556 patent.

[00:05:32] Speaker 01:
And there, the patent said forming an outer code, forming an inner code, and then multiplying the outer code by the inner code.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
And the court said because of that language, you have to fully form

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
both codes.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
The two precedent codes had to be fully formed before you could multiply them.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
And there was a finding that, technologically, you could actually multiply them before they were fully formed.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
But the court said that didn't matter because the claim required a reference back.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
The multiplying step was a reference back to the codes that were created in the prior steps.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
And so similarly here, the

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
Identify or the transmitting guidance step the fourth step of this claim refers back to the second and third step just like the Apple versus Samsung referred back to the first code or I'm sorry the outer code in the inner code So just like there the codes had to be fully formed here the steps have to be fully completed you can't perform half of an identification step step three

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
then go and perform step half of step four and then go back and perform the second one because step four refers to the third step in an antecedent way and that third step requires a plurality.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
I'd like to push back a little bit on the waiver point.

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
The way this dispute was formed is it started with the petitioner saying well you have to identify which of the

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
of the steps to do and which covers singular.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
And so we came back and I can tell you that at A101, they pointed to 104, which limit should be set.

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
Lipoff, their expert, also referred in the singular at A388.

[00:07:26] Speaker 01:
his declaration that went along with their petition.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
He was talking in the singular.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
Schindler establishes which limit setting activity, that's singular, a user should perform based on whether the door last traveled up or last traveled down.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
And at 420, this is Mr. Lipoff again, their expert, a user must perform the activity, singular, of setting the down limit position or whether the user must perform the activity, singular,

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
of setting the up limit position.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
And so their petition was focused on singular.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
We came back in our response and said, well, there isn't singular in the prior art.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
The claims require plural, and so singular in the prior art doesn't cut it.

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
That's when they then went to this two loop theory.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
And they started using the phrase that there are multiple steps in Schindler during the program mode.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
And you see that throughout their reply and throughout Lipov's second declaration.

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
They've shifted now their theory to, well, OK, we'll move away from singular.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
We'll admit that it's multiple.

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
But our position is that it's multiple during the program mode.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
So once you get into programming, it doesn't matter how you loop.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
You can do it whenever.

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
And they don't argue to this core really claim the ordinary language.

[00:08:49] Speaker 01:
They jump right to the flowchart that's in our patent.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
which is figure six, and I'd refer the court to gray brief at six, page six of the gray brief, where we line that up with the claim language to show that this theory of during the program mode, meaning you can have multiple partial loops, instead of performing the claim fully from top to bottom, you can perform half of a step and half of another step, and then go back up and perform half of one step and half of another.

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
If you look, this flowchart has determining user steps, that's box 253 near the top, multiple steps.

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
So the flowchart is doing the determination, which is also identifying the

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
Spec also when it discusses this, it says the controller 208 determines the user activities or steps needed during the learn process.

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
So activities and steps are synonyms.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
This flowchart is determining those steps right up top.

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
No looping.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
It determines multiple steps.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
Then it checks the status, that's the other determining step.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
And then those last, well not last three blocks, but the next three blocks with the loop, that's the instruction part of the flow chart.

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
So yes, you can then instruct

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
Wait for the user to push the button or whatever.

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
And then more actions is meaning, do you instruct on more actions in that flowchart?

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
So you've already, at the beginning, you've identified multiple activities.

[00:10:28] Speaker 01:
You don't loop back up.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
You don't identify one activity and then instruct on one activity, and then go all the way back up.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
Identify one more activity, instruct on one more activity.

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
That's what the prior art does.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
It's not what our invention does.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
Our invention identifies multiple activities.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
And then it loops and instructs on those activities.

[00:10:51] Speaker 01:
And the box in the flowchart says, determine user steps in the plural, consistent with what our claims are.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
And really, the only construction that our opponent has to get around the ordinary meaning and the Apple versus Motorola holding is to say, well, this figure six shows something, and it doesn't.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
The figure six does show identifying multiple activities right at the top.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
and then instructing or providing instructions on those activities, just as the claim says.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
I'll reserve the time.

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Franks.

[00:11:27] Speaker 00:
Mr. White?

[00:11:30] Speaker 00:
Yes, good morning again, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
Chamberlain's arguments on appeal are based on a purported claim construction dispute about timing that it did not raise before the Board.

[00:11:40] Speaker 00:
Chamberlain presents two different arguments about the ordering of the steps in the claim

[00:11:45] Speaker 00:
They present the first argument based on the response of two language, but I think realizing that that may be trouble for them, they present the second argument.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
They try to shoehorn it in under the guise of the second identifying step in claim 18.

[00:11:57] Speaker 00:
But regardless of how this argument is premised, they never argued for a construction that would require specific ordering of the claim steps in their patented response.

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
The only claim construction issue that they raised was whether the claims require identification of multiple actions, not when the identification of the actions have to occur.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
So you heard them.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
They viewed our petition as being improper in saying, you identify setting the down limit first.

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
You identify setting the up limit second.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
That identifies multiple actions.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
That's what the claim requires.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
They said, no, no, no.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
You're talking about identifying single things at a time.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
The claim requires identifying multiple things.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
But we're in the patent over response.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
Do they address this issue?

[00:12:49] Speaker 02:
Where they address?

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
The issue we're talking about, not at the oral argument, but in the patented response.

[00:12:57] Speaker 02:
I don't believe that they addressed the issue of the order.

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
No, no, they did argue in the patented response that it requires multiple activities.

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
Oh, identifying them, sure.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
Let me find that.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
So the first spot, I believe,

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
The claim construction issue is on Appendix Site 1197.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
We found 1197.

[00:13:34] Speaker 00:
And then at the bottom of that page, in the claim construction section, the subheading is A, identifying by the controller the activities.

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
And then on page four, which is appendix site 1198, they go through and they talk about a single activity versus activities.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
You can read that page and you won't see anything about the timing, which is the issue that they've raised now.

[00:14:03] Speaker 00:
And I think the other important point to make while you're looking at is the board agreed with them on this issue about whether or not you have to identify a single activity or multiple activities.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
And we don't really dispute that.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
The board sided with them on this issue, heard them out and said, yes, the claim requires identifying multiple activities.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
What the board disagreed with them on is that you have to do that simultaneously or in any certain order.

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
As long as you identify multiple activities and provide signals giving guidance to the user of those activities, the claim is invalidated.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly what the prior art does.

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
The prior indisputably identifies setting a down limit, providing signals about that, and setting an up limit and providing signals about that.

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
It's indisputed that that happens.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
The issue that they've got is they say there's a dispute about whether or not you have to identify both of the things simultaneously at the start of the process.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
And we think that's the wrong construction.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
The board found that was the wrong construction.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
And that's why there's substantial evidence to support the board's finding.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
But if we get back to the waiver argument, as I said, the only argument that they made about claim construction below was about whether there was a single activity or multiple activities, and the board sided with them on that.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
The first time they made its timing argument that you're hearing now about the second identifying step was in this appeal.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
As you noted, the responsive to argument first came up at the hearing, the oral hearing at the PTAB before the board, and the board found that that argument was waived in the final written decision.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
They asked about whether or not it was in the briefs, asked why, and they found that argument to be waived.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
I think Chamberlain realizes that there's problems with that now, so now they've tried to shoehorn that same argument into this second identifying step.

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
But that argument never came up at the board.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
That first appeared in the briefs here, which is obviously too late.

[00:15:51] Speaker 00:
So the board's determination that they forfeited the argument based on the responsive to language we think was well founded

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
And we think it's proper to find that their argument about the second identifying step was forfeited because it was never raised below.

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
Now, they could have raised the issue after the issue came up with the oral argument.

[00:16:08] Speaker 00:
They could have taken action before that.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
They could have asked the board for additional briefing.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
They could have deposed one world's witnesses.

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
They could have done observations on that evidence.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
And they could have even asked for a rehearing after the final written decision.

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
All those avenues were available to them to address this issue below if they wanted to.

[00:16:23] Speaker 00:
They didn't avail themselves of any of that.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
So this issue that they've been denied due process, I think, is simply wrong.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
The board's requirement that it follows its rules and procedures was proper.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
And we believe the court should follow its rules and procedures here and not let them raise a new issue on appeal.

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
I want to point out that the reason why it's important for them to raise these issues in the board in the first instance is important because we identified statements in the Schindler Prior Art Reference that actually show multiple activities are identified before any signaling occurs.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
So if for somehow the board found that to be a requirement, it could have addressed that and still found it in our favor, but it didn't.

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
It never reached that argument because it wasn't raised below.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
But we absolutely made that argument.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
So again, if there's any concern this court has about whether the board got it wrong, it would have to be remanded for findings on that.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
But if they raised it below, it could have been addressed, but it wasn't.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
Another quick issue I want to point out before I move on is that remember that this proposed construction of responsive to language is only relevant to claim 18.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
Claim 21 is a separate independent claim, and claims 21 through 25 do not have this requirement.

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
So regardless of the court's finding on claim 18, it has to affirm the finding among patentability for claims 21 through 25.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
I want to switch gears now and talk about that if you consider the merits of their argument, why they do not require reversal or remand to the board.

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
These issues were addressed in the final written decision.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
And as the board found, there's nothing in either the responsibility limitation or the rest of the claim that requires activities to be identified together at the same time.

[00:18:02] Speaker 00:
So even though this issue wasn't raised below, I find it interesting that the board in the final written decision, this is appendix page 24, they said there is nothing in either the responsive to limitation of claim 18, and this is the quote, or the rest of the claim that requires the activities to be performed together at the same time.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
So all you have to do is identify multiple activities, provide signaling about them, and that's enough to meet the claim limitation.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
That's what the board found the prior disclosed.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
That's why there's substantial evidence that supports the conclusion.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
I think one other issue to point out is Chamberlain's own expert agreed with this during his deposition.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
This is appendix site 1589 through 1590.

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
The question and answer start at the bottom of 1589 on line 22 and they go over to the top of 1590.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
So their expert, Dr. Davis, was asked during his deposition,

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
So my question was, does claim 18 require that multiple activities are identified by the controller before transmitting the guidance signals?

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
So the argument that they're making now is that you have to identify multiple things before any transmitting occurrence.

[00:19:08] Speaker 00:
You heard them say that's the only timing that they're concerned with.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
So that question was posed directly to their expert.

[00:19:13] Speaker 00:
His answer was, I don't think there's a time sequencing requirement, period.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
So their own expert does not support this new argument that we're hearing for the first time on appeal.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
I also think that Figure 6, which they talked about, doesn't support their construction.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in the specification.

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
The figure's anywhere that supports requiring the sequence and the timing events as they presented it today.

[00:19:44] Speaker 00:
As I mentioned before, because we do think that there's evidence that if a timing is required, that it is shown in the prior reference, that at a minimum, there should be a remand and not a finding in the opponent's favor here.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
So unless you have any additional questions, I would cede the rest of my time back in this one as well.

[00:20:15] Speaker 01:
We did not and I'll explain why They didn't have timing until their reply.

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
So let's go to a 101 to 105, which is their petition

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
This two-loop idea, that's what brought in our timing response.

[00:20:36] Speaker 01:
The idea that you can go through it twice, half.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
You have to do half of it the first time and do half of it the second time.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
That does not exist in their petition.

[00:20:46] Speaker 01:
And if you look at 101 to 105, I can take you through multiple places where what they are saying is, we identify one.

[00:20:54] Speaker 01:
So we meet the requirement of identifying which of the activities.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
One activity meets which of.

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
So if you go to 101, the paragraph that comes over from the previous page, the concluding sentence for that.

[00:21:10] Speaker 01:
Therefore, so they've done their analysis here.

[00:21:12] Speaker 01:
Actually, let me back up really quick.

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
Page 100, back up one page.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
bold language that's four and three lines from the bottom.

[00:21:22] Speaker 01:
The controller, this is they're talking about criminals, establishes which of the predetermined activities a user must complete, one or the other.

[00:21:30] Speaker 01:
It's either this activity of push the button to have the door go up, that's one of the criminals' activities, that's one activity.

[00:21:37] Speaker 01:
The other one is push the button to have the door go down.

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
So page 100, this is the right top of their analysis of that limitation.

[00:21:46] Speaker 01:
Then you go to page 101, next paragraph.

[00:21:50] Speaker 01:
So it's the paragraph that comes across the page, the last sentence.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
They do their analysis and they say, therefore, Schindler discloses establishing which of the predetermined limit setting activities a user must complete.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
So their petition again is focusing, we did one.

[00:22:07] Speaker 01:
We did which of.

[00:22:11] Speaker 01:
Then I'll flip you to page 103.

[00:22:16] Speaker 01:
the last full paragraph before heading D, they're now summing up this whole analysis for that limitation.

[00:22:23] Speaker 01:
They say in sum, Schindler discloses microprocessor that

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
establishes based on the position of the door which of the predetermined activities of setting the up or setting the down so one activity is up one is down and the user pushes the up button that's the only thing the user does for the one activity so they're either picking that one activity or they're picking push the down button activity so which one of those that singular next page 104

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
The first full paragraph says, just like the 611 patent, Schindler teaches transmitting guidance signals to a device that provides indications, jump over the parenthetical, and that these signals are responsive to the first and second identifying steps, i.e.

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
they indicate which activity singular

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
the user must perform.

[00:23:16] Speaker 03:
Just to be sure, this is one world's reply brief, right?

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
The petition.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
This is their petition.

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
So this is what we then file our patent owner response.

[00:23:25] Speaker 01:
That's our allowed brief.

[00:23:28] Speaker 01:
We file our patent owner response and we say, they keep talking about singular activities.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
They do it again on page 105.

[00:23:34] Speaker 01:
Over and over, they're talking about which of.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
So we come back and we say, well, step three requires plural activities.

[00:23:40] Speaker 01:
We engaged with what they argued.

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
Then if you switch over to their reply brief, then they start saying, well, there's multiple activities during the learn mode.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
You'll see this during the learn mode over and over in their reply.

[00:23:58] Speaker 01:
So they've shifted.

[00:23:59] Speaker 01:
Not saying, well, it's enough to identify one activity.

[00:24:02] Speaker 01:
That was their petition, which we responded to.

[00:24:05] Speaker 01:
Their reply says, during the learn mode.

[00:24:08] Speaker 01:
So we can do half and half.

[00:24:10] Speaker 01:
So they changed their argument.

[00:24:12] Speaker 01:
That's why our response.

[00:24:14] Speaker 01:
didn't deal with that.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
And it's why we rejected to this, by the way.

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
I don't know exactly what they found.

[00:24:25] Speaker 01:
If they found it's just wrong.

[00:24:26] Speaker 01:
If you look at these briefs, it's

[00:24:29] Speaker 01:
against what the briefing shows.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
They started with singular.

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
We responded to the singular.

[00:24:35] Speaker 01:
Then they went to this.

[00:24:36] Speaker 01:
Well, you can do two loops during the learn mode.

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
And that's what we wanted to respond to.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
And the one document that we filed that counsel didn't refer to is at A1759-62, and that's when we objected.

[00:24:49] Speaker 01:
And if you look at our objection number three,

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
We say Schindler's, the argument that we're objecting to of them is that Schindler's identification of multiple activities is the same as that described in the 6-1-1 patent.

[00:25:02] Speaker 01:
In other words, they had shifted and said, oh, well, you guys loop.

[00:25:06] Speaker 01:
We get to loop.

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
And we said, that's a new argument.

[00:25:09] Speaker 01:
This looping argument is new.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
And we objected to that.

[00:25:14] Speaker 01:
There were certainly other things that we might have done.

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
We might have asked for a sir reply now.

[00:25:19] Speaker 01:
If you'd follow IPR.

[00:25:22] Speaker 01:
Procedure you know that asking for a serve reply two years ago was the equivalent of asking for an amendment Two years ago.

[00:25:29] Speaker 01:
It just it was a unicorn It's theoretically available, but it's not available.

[00:25:35] Speaker 01:
They've changed those rules in the last year So I don't think there's a waiver and I think I think both counsel the case