[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
God save the United States and this honorable court.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Good morning, counsel.

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
This is the time set for oral argument in Fatigue, Fracture, Technology versus Navistar, case number 20-1094.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
Both counsel are ready to proceed.

[00:00:32] Speaker 00:
Yes, your honor.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
Addy, fire away.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
This obviousness appeal turns on missing limitations.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
The claims require two specific force limitations, the fatigue force that weakens the part and the dynamic force that separates the part.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
Addy.

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

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
This is Judge Wallach.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
On page 42 of the

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
the blue brief, Fatigue Factor argues that the PTAP erroneously, I'm quoting, relied on Mr. Brobold's declaration where he provides a general definition of fatigue.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
But he does not link that definition to anything in his prior art patent.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
Then citing four of the 2018 PTAP trial practices, structure argues expert testing

[00:01:28] Speaker 01:
take the place of a disclosure in a prior art reference.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
But page five of the guide provides that expert testimony may explain patents in printed publication.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
In light of that, how does the PTAB's reliance on Mr. Brobold's declaration blame the disclosure of his prior patent alone?

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, the PTAB's reliance on Mr. Brobold

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
to explain his patent is okay, but the PTAP cannot rely on Mr. Brobold to expand his patent beyond that which is disclosed because Mr. Brobold is the inventor of that patent.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
So under this court's precedent such as Woodland Trust and others, testimony by an inventor needs to be corroborated.

[00:02:23] Speaker 00:
So while he can testify as to what his patent says, he can't testify about things

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
that are not in his patent, and he can't expand the disclosure of his patent beyond that.

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
In addition... Aren't those cases where the inventor is attempting to benefit from his explanation of his patent?

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
Yes, and I would argue that this case, the inventor is also attempting to benefit from the explanation of his patent.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
He's attempting to expand the scope of his patent to cover something that's not disclosed in his patent.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
But in addition, Your Honor, I think there's another difference.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
And that difference is that Mr. Brobold's patent talks about fatigue breaks and fatigue fail of the part, whereas the claim limitation is explicit that it is applying at least a fatigue force to the part.

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
So while Mr. Brobold's patent is clear that it's applying

[00:03:20] Speaker 00:
a ductile ultra-low cycle force that is always load bearing, and that causes the part to break, which he calls a fatigue break, that's different from the claim limitation, which is applying a fatigue force to the part, and that fatigue force is specifically defined

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
as a time-varying force that causes fluctuations of stresses that weaken the part.

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
There is no disclosure in any of the prior art of fluctuations of stresses weakening the part.

[00:04:03] Speaker 00:
And that is where the difference in fatigue force as claimed, and as Mr. Brobold defines it, is different from Mr. Brobold's naming of his break, a fatigue break.

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
In addition, your honor, none of the prior art teaches that this fluctuation of stresses weaken but do not separate the part, which is required by the claim.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
For example, Broval's single-shot embodiment is a load-bearing force that separates the part.

[00:04:39] Speaker 00:
Broval's two-to-three-shot fatigue-fail embodiment also separates the part.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
Cavallo's mechanical parting force

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
separates the part, and Bayless's fatigue fracture force separates the part after a prolonged period of time and admittedly with extreme cooling, which if it isn't there, Bayless says causes ductile deformation, which you cannot have in this industry.

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
Addy, this is Judge Chen.

[00:05:07] Speaker 03:
Just getting back to Brovald, my understanding was the focus on Brovald was the embodiment in which up to three cycles

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
a force were being applied to the part.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
And the first two would be regarded as a fatigue force, forces being applied that don't break the part.

[00:05:32] Speaker 03:
It would be the last cycle that would break the part.

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
And my recollection is that the patent owner's expert, Dr. Mastavoie, acknowledged that

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
those first couple applications of force would be cyclic forces, which necessarily are fluctuations of stresses, and that the last force being applied would be a dynamic force.

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
I believe that's what he said in his deposition, to break the rod.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
So what's wrong with

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
or why was it unreasonable for the board to understand Provol in that manner, in the sense that the embodiment with multiple applications of a force, the first few are being applied and sort of breaking down the part, weakening the part, but not breaking the part, and then you've got the final force applied that actually breaks the part.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:06:45] Speaker 00:
There are several reasons.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
But first, remember, the PCAB construed the Claims Fatigue Force as a force of time varying, a force that causes fluctuations of stresses that weaken the part.

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
Nowhere in the record is there any testimony that there's fluctuations of stresses imbrogled

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
And that makes sense because Grobold is this ultra-low cycle force.

[00:07:15] Speaker 00:
You hit it once, it's load bearing.

[00:07:17] Speaker 00:
If it breaks, you're done.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
But if it doesn't, then you reload the force and you hit it again.

[00:07:22] Speaker 00:
There's no disclosure there.

[00:07:24] Speaker 00:
But secondly, and I think Mr. Mastavoie was very clear on this.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
When council asked him if Grobold's force causes fluctuations of stresses on the connecting rod, he says, no, not fluctuations.

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
it causes a continuous increase in stress until the part fractures.

[00:07:45] Speaker 00:
And that's at appendix 525, Your Honor.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
So at least for this fatigue force that is applied to the part in the claim, that's different from this load-bearing force.

[00:07:59] Speaker 03:
Did Mastavoy refer to Brovald's force as a cyclic force?

[00:08:03] Speaker 03:
I believe he did.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
He did, Your Honor.

[00:08:05] Speaker 00:
He said it was a cyclic force, but he didn't

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
say that it causes fluctuations of stresses.

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
He said, no, it doesn't.

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
It causes an increase in stress until the part breaks.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
And that's different.

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
Because if you think about elastic fatigue, which is several thousand fluctuations of stresses, and that's what we have here, that is different from this one or two or three shot load-bearing force that comes in from grogels.

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
So that addresses the fatigue limitation.

[00:08:36] Speaker 00:
But on the

[00:08:37] Speaker 00:
the dynamic force limitation, your honor.

[00:08:40] Speaker 00:
Brovald also cannot satisfy the dynamic force because the dynamic force logically must be greater than the fatigue force.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
Just so I understand, I thought one of your criticisms of Brovald was two cycles of force cannot be a fatigue force.

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
You would need many, many more applications of force

[00:09:05] Speaker 00:
Yes, and I think there's a little bit of confusion here because a fatigue force, we believe, is synonymous with an elastic force.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
It's a time-varying force that causes fluctuations of stresses that weaken the part.

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
An elastic force is 10 to the fourth or higher fluctuations, and so that's where the confusion is.

[00:09:30] Speaker 00:
Fatigue fractures fatigue force is an elastic force, but the board did not find that it was an elastic force.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
So we believe that's the case.

[00:09:40] Speaker 00:
We can distinguish on other grounds as well, and I'd like to do that.

[00:09:42] Speaker 00:
Yes, sir.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
Daddy, this is Judge Waller.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
Let me take you back to what you just talked about, which I found on page seven of the Gray brief, the assertion that because independent claim blends force breaks the part,

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
You say, logically, the dynamic should be of greater magnitude than the applied fatigue force.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
Why is that the only possibility, and what record evidence supports that?

[00:10:11] Speaker 00:
It's the only logical possibility, because again, consider you're applying a force that is

[00:10:21] Speaker 00:
weakening the part, if you just applied that same force, you continue to weaken the part.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
If you want to separate the part, you have to apply something a little higher.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
So, but secondly, and I- Can I just ask you, I mean, why is that right?

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
I mean, maybe, you know, each of the fatiguing forces, you know, let's say, is at a level of five and you need, you know,

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
20 of them or something to go down from 100 to zero, and you do a lot of the fives, and at some point, you know, all that's left is, you know, a force of three or something to get over the hump of finally breaking it.

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
And yet the dynamic force would be the breaker, but why logically does it have to be stronger than each of the multiple applications of the fatigue force?

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, it's stronger because the claim says that you're applying a fatigue force to weaken and then a dynamic force to separate.

[00:11:30] Speaker 00:
So if the fatigue force had dropped in load, then it would have separated the part.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
But the fatigue force hasn't separated the part.

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
The dynamic force that's claimed is what separates the part.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
And I think it's helpful to look at Navistar's exhibit 1056, which is in our reply brief at 11.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
And Navistar's exhibit 1056, on the far right side, it shows the peak force at fracture is smaller than the peak of the cyclic load.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
And that doesn't make any sense, because once you have a fracture, you don't apply anything else.

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
Once the force is, once the part is

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
Go back to part of my question.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
What evidence supports your, quote, logic, close quote, argument?

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
It seems to me that this is all a turning argument.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, the specification is replete with statements that say applying the dynamic force raises the stress intensity factor to exceed the fracture toughness of the material.

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
And if you don't, and the first one's at 103, it's also at 111 and 112.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
And if you don't exceed the fracture toughness of the material, you do not break the part.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
And if you go, and by the way, the board recognized this force has to be greater in magnitude than the fatigue force.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
It did that at 82 and 83 and 84 of the institution decision.

[00:13:08] Speaker 00:
But it said, quote,

[00:13:09] Speaker 00:
Petitioner has not established adequately where the disclosure of drill bolts teaches applying an increased hydraulic force when the connecting rod is nearing complete fracture.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
And Your Honor, petitioner never taught that.

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
Petitioner never established where that is in the record because it's not taught.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
Addie, this is Judge Toronto.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
Can I just, before you sit down, I know your time is either short or out, but can you give a short explanation of what you think is wrong with the board's ground seven, the Cavallo and Bayless, which has nothing to do with what we've been talking about up till now, but if correct, would support the judgment?

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
So first of all, just as when the other grounds, neither reference discloses the claim to the T-force that requires fluctuations of stresses that weaken but do not break the part.

[00:14:06] Speaker 00:
That's what the claim requires.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
Secondly, one of skill in the art would not add Bayless to Cavallo because both references are directed to forces that fracture the part.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
Thirdly, you wouldn't add Bayless to Cavallo because Bayless is even slower

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
and has the same problems as Brobold.

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
So there's no teaching or suggestion to add in Baylis, because Cavallo was trying to split the rod faster, and Baylis is even slower than Brobold.

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
So it doesn't make any sense.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
And Cavallo, Baylis, I'm sorry, Baylis admits that it's even slower without the extreme cooling, with the extreme cooling, but without the extreme cooling, it produces ductile necking, which you cannot have.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
So for the same reason, bailus is inappropriate to combine as grovel.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
And there's no teaching to stop it.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
Sorry, I'm done, and I see I've reached my time.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
So I will hold the rest for rebuttal.

[00:15:14] Speaker 01:
Mr., pronounce your name, sorry.

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
Is it Lovell?

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Judge.

[00:15:19] Speaker 04:
It's actually Level.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
It's pronounced easier than it's pronounced.

[00:15:23] Speaker 04:
Go ahead, Mr. Lovell.

[00:15:26] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the Court.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
Affirmance in this case is warranted and straightforward.

[00:15:32] Speaker 04:
This is just an example of an AIA where the AIA in the PTAB has worked exactly as intended to efficiently dispose of an invalid patent claims in an IPR proceeding.

[00:15:44] Speaker 04:
There's nothing remarkable about the proceeding below other than perhaps... I'm sorry, can you get to the merits rather than the general, please?

[00:15:51] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
First of all, let me address the comment in response to Judge Chen's question about whether there's testimony from Dr. Most of all about the fluctuation of stresses in Brovald.

[00:16:05] Speaker 04:
He clearly admitted that, and that's on Appendix 526 in his deposition at page 144, lines one through eight.

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
And secondly, with respect to the higher force logic,

[00:16:20] Speaker 04:
that was discussed by the question from Judge Wallach.

[00:16:24] Speaker 04:
And I think we mentioned this in our brief.

[00:16:26] Speaker 04:
To this court, we certainly mentioned it in our brief to the P tab.

[00:16:29] Speaker 04:
Think of an example of a paperclip.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
If you bend the paperclip and you fatigue a paperclip, it gets weaker and weaker.

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
And then that last dynamic force to actually separate the paperclip can be a very, very small force, smaller than the forces that you've used to fatigue the paperclip.

[00:16:48] Speaker 04:
So I completely disagree that the logic necessarily requires that the dynamic force be greater in magnitude than the fatigue force.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
If I heard Ms.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
Addy correctly, and you'll correct me if I didn't, I thought she said that the board repeatedly said that the dynamic force has to be greater than the fatigue force.

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
No, I don't believe that's correct.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
In the institution decision, the board initially took issue and found that Navistar did not establish that in the Brovald reference that the magnitude of that final dynamic force did increase.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
And that was in the institution decision.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
And we argued that, we explained that in our initial petition, in order to make sure we covered all the bases, regardless of what claim construction might be adopted.

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
But when the board adopted the constructions that it adopted, which were FFT's proposed constructions for fatigue force and dynamic force, and in light of the admissions that Mr. Mostavoy and FFT made, that every fatigue force is also a dynamic force,

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
There was no longer a need for us to establish that the dynamic force had to be higher in magnitude.

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
We argued that in the petition in order to cover our bases, but the board in the final written decision never found that, and the board's claim construction, there's no requirement of any magnitude.

[00:18:22] Speaker 04:
The claims don't discuss any magnitude or relative magnitude of the forces.

[00:18:28] Speaker 04:
I think what Ms.

[00:18:29] Speaker 04:
Addy was referring to in the institution decision, which was changed and a different result in the final written decision, which found anticipation by Brovold.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
And what do you do with the slightly odd fact, if I'm understanding it correctly, that in Brovold we're talking about an application of a force two times is supposedly cyclic.

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
which seems something fairly far in practical, for practical comparison purposes to what this patent seems to be about.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
Well, if you look at Brovald, and this is not Brovald's testimony, this is his patent.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:19:16] Speaker 04:
The patent says in column two, lines 30 to 33, that the tool system is adaptable for either brittle fractures

[00:19:24] Speaker 04:
or for cycling the members to cause fatigue breaks, generally under a low number of cycles.

[00:19:30] Speaker 04:
So we argued that it's not necessarily limited to just a couple of cycles.

[00:19:34] Speaker 04:
But even if it is, that's enough.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
The Brovald patent also talks about cracking or breaking.

[00:19:44] Speaker 04:
And that's in account for lines 6 through 14.

[00:19:50] Speaker 04:
And Brovald also talks about the quality of the fracture.

[00:19:54] Speaker 04:
At column 1, 9 through 12, the field of the invention is to provide a properly fitting bearing cap.

[00:20:03] Speaker 04:
And the abstract refers to quality control of the parts.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
At column 1, line 20 to 29, it talks about when properly broken, the two parts of the bearing house will fit back together exactly as they separated.

[00:20:15] Speaker 04:
There's others.

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
I could go on.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
But Grovald is talking about a high quality fracture separation.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
And the fact that he can do it in a relatively low number of cycles is enough.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
The claim doesn't require any more than one fatigue cycle.

[00:20:36] Speaker 04:
With respect to the Bayless being slower argument that we saw quite a bit in

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
and FFT's brief and councilman.

[00:20:46] Speaker 02:
I think I actually understand the response to the slower.

[00:20:50] Speaker 02:
What exactly, and if you can point me to the place in the board decision, the response to this, where did the board say here is the affirmative motivation for combining Cavallo and Bayless?

[00:21:05] Speaker 02:
Most of this discussion seems to be the patent owner says, oh, no, no, no, there isn't such a motivation.

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
and talks about the cooling and the length of time, basically those two things.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
But where's the board's affirmative statement, a relevant skilled artisan would be motivated to combine Cavallo and Bayless because?

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
And then.

[00:21:32] Speaker 04:
Well, I understand.

[00:21:35] Speaker 04:
And how I read the board's final written decision and how we presented the grounds to the board

[00:21:40] Speaker 04:
is that essentially the motivation for grounds four and seven are very similar.

[00:21:47] Speaker 04:
That a person with skill in the art knew a fatigued rod would require a lower dynamic force compared to a non-fatigued rod.

[00:21:55] Speaker 04:
And that Cavallo invites the use of fatigue force.

[00:21:58] Speaker 04:
So I think how properly read the board's final written decision should include those motivations, the general motivations, the ones that are not specific to Brovald's particular,

[00:22:10] Speaker 04:
In other words, people of skill in the art knew about fatigue.

[00:22:13] Speaker 04:
They knew that a fatigue-connecting rod would fracture more easily, and that there was a motivation to reduce the final magnitude.

[00:22:23] Speaker 04:
And that that logic applied to both grounds.

[00:22:26] Speaker 03:
So the board... This is Judge Chen.

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
I mean, as I read the board opinion at A42 to A43, the board appears to be summarizing your

[00:22:40] Speaker 03:
theory for why it would be, there would be a motivation to combine aspects of Bayliss with Cavallo.

[00:22:51] Speaker 03:
And then at the very end of the analysis at A48, the board simply says, in conclusion, petitioner is demonstrated by preponderance of evidence, the unpatentability of claim one over Cavallo in view of Bayliss.

[00:23:05] Speaker 03:
And I mean, one way to read all of this

[00:23:09] Speaker 03:
section of the board opinion is that the board adopted your understanding of why they're a skilled artist and hypothetical one would have been motivated to combine these references in this manner.

[00:23:23] Speaker 03:
Is that the best way to get there?

[00:23:26] Speaker 03:
I'm not saying it's great, but is that the best way to understand what the board has done and how we can discern what the board's thinking is here on Judge Toronto's question?

[00:23:40] Speaker 04:
Yeah, Judge, and thank you.

[00:23:41] Speaker 04:
I certainly agree that that's a fair way of reading, that the board just, you know, they're at the end of the, they had already found invalidity on four other grounds, and they just neglected to recap and say that they were agreeing with our arguments.

[00:23:54] Speaker 04:
But I think that's a fair reading of their final written decision.

[00:23:58] Speaker 04:
But also in the context of all the reasons for ground four as well, with respect to the motivation to add fatigue force in place of Caballo's reload.

[00:24:09] Speaker 04:
But yes, I agree with you, Jim.

[00:24:11] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
Mr. Lovell, did the other side of fatigue force ever contend below that Baylis does not teach a fatigue force?

[00:24:25] Speaker 03:
Maybe I should be asking the fatty this, but I'm just, if you recall.

[00:24:31] Speaker 04:
Their experts certainly admitted that Baylis discloses

[00:24:36] Speaker 04:
fatigue force and exact, you know, longitudinal fatigue exactly as claimed in claim one of the 915 patents.

[00:24:44] Speaker 04:
I can get the site for that.

[00:24:46] Speaker 04:
Now, I think council for FFT would argue that, well, we never admitted that it's fatigued to weaken, but not separate is their argument.

[00:24:58] Speaker 04:
And, you know, and I would argue that's attacking the references individually, which is under the Brady and technologies cases and proper.

[00:25:06] Speaker 04:
You know, because once you combine bailus with the bio, you've got that dynamic force that's added, and you've got the claimed invention.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
But the bigger point is there's nothing in the court's claim construction that requires fatigue to weaken but not separate.

[00:25:23] Speaker 04:
The fatigue force can be applied simultaneous with the dynamic force.

[00:25:27] Speaker 04:
It can contribute to the fracture separation, the preferred embodiment, and the patent.

[00:25:33] Speaker 04:
Each is exactly that.

[00:25:35] Speaker 04:
And the construction of fatigue force, which FFT agrees with, and they tell this court they agree with, does not require that.

[00:25:45] Speaker 04:
They never argued for any other construction below.

[00:25:48] Speaker 04:
The PTAB adopted their construction.

[00:25:50] Speaker 04:
They waived any argument that that was required by the claims.

[00:25:56] Speaker 04:
Similar to the St.

[00:25:57] Speaker 04:
Jude medical case from October, which we submitted in the supplemental brief,

[00:26:03] Speaker 04:
If Fatigue Fracture wanted a particular claim construction, it was incumbent upon them to ask for it, and they did not.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
This is just Toronto.

[00:26:13] Speaker 02:
Can I just ask this?

[00:26:17] Speaker 02:
Do we have to accept the proposition, and by putting it that way, I'm not trying to express skepticism, that a uniform force or a force

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
repeatedly applied can serve as both the fatigue force and the dynamic force.

[00:26:45] Speaker 02:
Do we have to accept that so that the last application, the one that snaps the thing, will then constitute the dynamic force?

[00:26:57] Speaker 04:
I don't think you have to accept that for us to win because in

[00:27:02] Speaker 04:
in the combinations, certainly in the obviousness rounds, we've got a separate distinct dynamic force.

[00:27:09] Speaker 04:
However, I think it is correct under the constructions that were adopted by the PTAB, which were proposed by FFT, both in the litigation and at the PTAB.

[00:27:22] Speaker 04:
Their expert admits that every fatigue force is also a dynamic force.

[00:27:26] Speaker 04:
So I would argue that Baylis arguably anticipates

[00:27:29] Speaker 04:
But we didn't argue that below.

[00:27:31] Speaker 04:
We combined it with Cavallo's preload, or I'm sorry, Cavallo's dynamic force.

[00:27:36] Speaker 04:
So to answer your question, you don't need to find that that's correct in order to affirm, but I think it is correct.

[00:27:50] Speaker 04:
And one point, and I think it sounds like the panel has this already, but on the bailus's slower issue,

[00:27:59] Speaker 04:
And we didn't argue this, we didn't point this out in the brief, but if you read the specification of the asserted patent, it says that the dynamic force can be a slow rate dynamic force that would take one tenth of a second.

[00:28:14] Speaker 04:
And in Baylis, which is operating at 40 hertz, in a tenth of a second, you're going to have four cycles of fatigue.

[00:28:23] Speaker 04:
So the argument that Brovald's

[00:28:27] Speaker 04:
dynamic force is too slow and that it takes too long to go from low magnitude force to the breaking force.

[00:28:36] Speaker 04:
That's the criticism that Cavallo makes.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
Cavallo is talking about a split second fraction of a cycle duration that it takes to build up the hydraulic fluid to get to that pressure.

[00:28:48] Speaker 04:
The specification, the preferred embodiment says to apply the dynamic force for one tenth of a second.

[00:28:56] Speaker 04:
So Bayliss would be plenty fast.

[00:28:59] Speaker 04:
In one-tenth of a second, Bayliss can go through four cycles of fatigue.

[00:29:03] Speaker 04:
So it can certainly go from low force to fracture force in less than one-tenth of a second.

[00:29:13] Speaker 04:
And unless the panel has any further questions, I think I can wrap up my argument.

[00:29:19] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Counselor.

[00:29:20] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:29:21] Speaker 01:
Addie?

[00:29:22] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:29:23] Speaker 00:
I'll be short.

[00:29:24] Speaker 00:
Council argued that global force can satisfy the two separate force limitations in the claim.

[00:29:31] Speaker 00:
But that simply doesn't make sense.

[00:29:32] Speaker 00:
And this is a tale of two different forces, like apples and oranges.

[00:29:37] Speaker 00:
And there's no teaching or suggestion to use two forces in any of the prior art.

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
Not any.

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
And that's not taking it singly or combined.

[00:29:47] Speaker 00:
There has to be a teaching or suggestion.

[00:29:49] Speaker 00:
Secondly, there was no

[00:29:52] Speaker 00:
affirmative statement because there can't be of any indication to combine dayless with grovel.

[00:29:59] Speaker 00:
You know, Navistar's argument that the board should have included that analysis doesn't satisfy the strict requirements of the APA that require an explanation.

[00:30:09] Speaker 00:
There's not one because there isn't one.

[00:30:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:30:12] Speaker 00:
I appreciate your hearing argument.

[00:30:16] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Council.

[00:30:17] Speaker 01:
The matter will stand submitted.