[00:00:01] Speaker 02:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
God save the United States and its honorable court.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
We'll hear argument first in number 19-1821, Hayward Industries, Inc.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
versus Pentair Water Pool and Spa.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
Mr. Toms.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
And may it please the court.

[00:00:27] Speaker 02:
The board committed reversible error because it failed to properly apply the Hayward 1 claim construction of optimized energy consumption, and once again, failed to consider the DiCenzo prior reference for everything that it teaches.

[00:00:40] Speaker 02:
I will address two principal issues, Your Honors.

[00:00:42] Speaker 02:
First, DiCenzo's express energy optimization teaching, and second, the board's improper requirement for automatic mode switching.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
For optimizing energy, Your Honor, there are four takeaways that I'll discuss in more detail.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
First, this court required system optimization, which DiCenzo teaches.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
And the board cannot depart from that to require component optimization.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
Second, DiCenzo's optimization teachings map on the construction's requirements.

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
Third, DiCenzo shows a controller optimizing energy consumption when disconnected by expressly incorporating its energy optimization teachings into its dual-mode capable controllers.

[00:01:19] Speaker 02:
And fourth, all the board's findings to the contrary

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
improperly rely upon optional, non-limiting teachings of Vicenzo.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
So first to your honors, in the prior appeal, this court found that the 597 patent requires consideration of multiple components of the system and that energy optimization requires holistic factors.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
The board departed from this... As I understand it, your position is that whether or not

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
its system optimization or component, that is, pump system optimization, you still win, right?

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
DeCenzo in paragraph 51, which we provided an annotation on page 17, teaches optimizing at the system and or component level.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
And DeCenzo teaches optimizing at any level of system hierarchy.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
Yet it's still improper for the board to depart from this court's finding of system-wide optimization.

[00:02:16] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 51 also teaches

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
optimizing performance characteristics, which it defines to expressly include energy usage.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
And DeCenzo's teaching, and second, Your Honors, DeCenzo's teachings on this topic show that it maps specifically on what this court said optimizing energy consumption requires.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
From the Hayward One decision, we understand that the construction of a reduction of energy consumed over time relative to the ultimate pumping function slash application

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
is satisfied by a controller that's capable of doing two things.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
First, considering information from either other devices in the system or about the system's ultimate application, and two, adjusting the system to use less energy compared to an unoptimized system.

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
Well, the TENZA teaches controllers with precisely this capability.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
First, the TENZA Paragraph 51 teaches specifically

[00:03:14] Speaker 02:
It incorporates this optimizing performance characteristics of a process globally.

[00:03:20] Speaker 02:
Optimizing a process is a view of the ultimate pumping application.

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 59 incorporates these teachings into the context of a variable speed fluid pump, just as in the 597 patent.

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
And like the 597 patent, paragraph 59 expressly teaches not only substantial energy savings by matching the system's flow demand,

[00:03:43] Speaker 02:
but also the further technique of optimizing across the complete range of operating modes based on the time spent in each mode.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
Consideration of the complete range of operating modes is a view of the ultimate application, and Paragraph 29 expressly teaches energy reduction.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
Vincenzo also teaches in Paragraph 84 through 94 a dynamic optimization algorithm that can be used by a controller to determine the system optimal operating point.

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
And Duchenneau, in paragraphs 17 and 18, teaches an optional technique for using correlated efficiency data within an allowable range to reduce energy.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
And it specifically teaches in paragraph 17 that that allowable range of operation is a range of operation where the process equipment is making good product.

[00:04:34] Speaker 02:
which paragraph 18 teaches, can be employed to control the pumping system so as to minimize power consumed by the system.

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
Again, considering a range where the system is still making good product to reduce energy consumption falls within this course construction and teaches optimized energy consumption.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
Duchennezo also expressly incorporates its energy optimization teachings into its dual mode capable controllers

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
such as Controller NC1 taught in the system of Figures 16 and 17.

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
I'll specifically direct you to Paragraph 158 of DeCenso, Your Honors, which illustrates the optimization aspects of the invention and specifically teaches optimizing one or more performance characteristics, which are the term that's defined by DeCenso, Paragraph 51, to expressly include energy usage.

[00:05:33] Speaker 02:
Then in paragraph 59, it teaches that this pump controller, motor controller MC1, determines the system operating point based off of its consideration of performance characteristic information obtained from other devices in the system or sensors in the system.

[00:05:51] Speaker 02:
Again, it's illustrating the optimization aspects of the invention and adjusting the system based off of information it obtains from other devices in the system, which meets the construction.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
It also teaches that this controller MC1 is optionally connectable to a host computer when the Hayward 1 court found meets the master-slave limitation as well.

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
And of course, a controller that's optionally connectable is also optionally disconnectable.

[00:06:22] Speaker 02:
So the MC1 controller in the figure 16 and 17 systems both optimizes when disconnected from the host

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
and also as a slave when the host is optimizing the system.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
Fourth, your honors, all of the board's findings to the contrary on energy optimization improperly limit Duchenne's teachings based off of optional non-limiting teachings, what things that Duchenne specifically says are not required or optional, which

[00:06:58] Speaker 02:
cannot detract from these express energy optimization teachings we've been discussing.

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
As mentioned, Vincenzo teaches optimizing at the system or component level.

[00:07:09] Speaker 02:
And in paragraph 62 specifically teaches optimizing at any level of system hierarchy.

[00:07:15] Speaker 02:
So the board is simply incorrect that Vincenzo doesn't teach component optimization.

[00:07:19] Speaker 02:
Second, the board improperly limits Vincenzo's teachings

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
this correlation of efficiency information, which is expressly taught in paragraph 141 as a non-limiting example of the broader performance characteristic optimization teaching.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
Also, the board is, contrary to what the board says, we know exactly what the CHMSA is optimizing at any given point in time because it is optimizing one or more performance characteristics, which is a term it has defined to specifically include energy usage.

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
The fact that the Chinzo is versatile enough that it's capable of optimizing other performance characteristics, if the user so chooses, does not detract from its express teachings of optimizing energy usage.

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
So turning to the second issue, your honors, the board's improper reading of switching into the claim limitations.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
There's three takeaways from this that I will address.

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
First, the board's consideration of switching is simply outside of the mandate, because it reopens the master-slave issue and independent issues that were decided in the first case.

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
Second, switching is simply not a requirement of claim one.

[00:08:43] Speaker 02:
And third, the TENSAS controllers are capable of switching if that were required.

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
So first, Your Honors,

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
The board may not reopen the master-slave and independent mode limitations decided in the Hayward 1 case in the guise of switching, but it did exactly this by finding specifically that nothing in Jacinto discloses switching between these operating modes based on whether the controller is connected to the host.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
This court specifically remanded to the board for the sole purpose

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
of determining whether the optimizing energy consumption limitation was present.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
And Pentair actually sought reconsideration to expand the mandate to specifically consider the interrelation or alleged interrelation of optimizing energy consumption and the master, slave, and independent mode limitations.

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
And this court denied that reconsideration.

[00:09:43] Speaker 02:
So it was not proper for the board to take this issue up on remand.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
Second, switching is just simply not required by claim one of the 597 patents.

[00:09:55] Speaker 02:
You'll note that the word is notably absent.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
The word switching is notably absent from claim one.

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
And particularly when you compare it to claim 18, which does specifically require automatic switching, the absence of the language that NTAIR used to claim that switching functionality is stark.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
Pentair appears to agree that claim one does not require automatic switching, but what it fails to consider is that any switching of modes that are triggered by a disconnection would be an automatic switching.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
And also, Your Honors, you'll note that in the specification of the 597 patent itself, it teaches two specific embodiments of these dual-state capable controllers.

[00:10:52] Speaker 02:
A first embodiment where the local controller is configurable to operate independently, and another controller where it's configurable to be slaved to a host computer, and then another embodiment entirely

[00:11:12] Speaker 02:
where it's configured to switch.

[00:11:15] Speaker 02:
The court should not read the switching functionality into claim one, which reads on the first configurable embodiment.

[00:11:23] Speaker 02:
Finally, to the extent that switching is required, it's taught by claim one.

[00:11:30] Speaker 02:
This court found that the TENSA discloses two discrete relationships between the host computer and the individual controllers, and it can employ those relationships

[00:11:40] Speaker 02:
alternatively or in combination, which teaches that the controller, NC1, has the capability of switching should it be required.

[00:11:49] Speaker 02:
And notably, the information that that controller requires, that Sotted 160, does not specifically require any information from the host, as it teaches that the data sources, when it optimizes independently, are from other controllers in the network, sensors, and or the host.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
So it does not need information from the host.

[00:12:15] Speaker 02:
So that, Your Honors, unless there's further questions, I'll reserve the remainder for rebuttal.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
Okay, that's fine.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
Mel?

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
The board did not ignore the full scope of DeCenso's teachings, nor hold that certain paragraphs limit others.

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
Help me to understand what's going on here.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
As I understand our prior decision, we said that Desenzo disclosed two things.

[00:12:45] Speaker 01:
One, the host computer controlling the pump system, and alternatively, a controller at the pump controlling the pump system, correct?

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

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
That figure 17 in paragraph 160

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
disclosed alternate embodiments where a controller had those capabilities.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
So if that's the case, then it seems to me that paragraph 51 of the CENSO patent discloses controlling

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
energy efficiency of the pump.

[00:13:34] Speaker 01:
Am I mistaken in reading it that way?

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I think the more pertinent question.

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
No, but I don't.

[00:13:51] Speaker 01:
Before we get to your more pertinent question, stick with mine for a moment.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
Well, I don't believe that paragraph 51

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
teaches optimizing energy consumption as construed by the court in Hayward 1 in paragraph 51 or otherwise.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
Paragraph 51 simply states that efficiency can be optimized at a system level or a component level or certain performance characteristics can be quote unquote optimized at a system level.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
And one of those performance characteristics is energy.

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
Noelis, Judge Clemenger does reference to the component include the pump.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
That's what I thought Judge Dyke was perhaps asking.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
I misunderstood you, Your Honor.

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
A component of the system could be a pump.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
But we have to be careful when we're talking about Desenzo

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
of whether we're talking about what we mean by component.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
But yes, I would agree that a pump could be a component of a system.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
OK, so.

[00:15:09] Speaker 03:
And then isn't your argument that paragraph 51, although it discloses energy optimization at a component, and a component could include a pump, your argument is because it doesn't specifically include a pump,

[00:15:25] Speaker 03:
then it doesn't disclose the teaching of optimization at a pump?

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
The teaching as it respects to the performance characteristics is that the performance characteristics can be optimized at a system level, not at a component level.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
So that would teach the system.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
Where does 51 limit the performance levels to the system?

[00:15:58] Speaker 03:
I'm looking at paragraph 51.

[00:16:00] Speaker 03:
It would help me if you could point to the language in 51 that limits energy optimization as a characteristic to the system, as opposed to a component.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
When performance characteristics is referred to, Your Honor, at appendix 1122, one or more performance characteristics of the entire process are optimized globally.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
Moreover, as discussed herein, aspects of the invention can be employed in connection with optimizing many higher level systems.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
The higher level system optimization may prescribe not operating at an optimum efficiency point with regard to energy utilization.

[00:16:51] Speaker 01:
I'm having trouble with that.

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
invention and association with optimizing system and or component efficiency.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
And I thought you agreed that a pump could be a component.

[00:17:06] Speaker 01:
And why isn't that saying that you can optimize the component efficiency with regard to energy usage?

[00:17:17] Speaker 00:
Two clarifications, Your Honor.

[00:17:22] Speaker 00:
Efficiency is not optimizing energy use.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
So DeCenso says you can optimize individually or rather systematically or at a component level efficiency.

[00:17:35] Speaker 00:
It doesn't make the same statement with regard to the performance characteristics.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
But what is really important here is that this court has given a construction of optimizing energy consumption that doesn't just, that requires more than,

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
Isn't optimizing efficiency one of the performance characteristics?

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
Answer yes, right?

[00:18:05] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:18:06] Speaker 03:
OK, so just help me.

[00:18:08] Speaker 03:
I'm having trouble.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
You seem to be moving over the first sentence of paragraph 51.

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
It says the figures, they illustrate the invention and association with optimizing system or of component efficiency.

[00:18:25] Speaker 03:
That's referring to a performance characteristic, right?

[00:18:35] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, although it's a little confusing that... Yes, and then it goes on to say those performance characteristics may be optimized individually or in combination.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
Meaning?

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
individually would be things like noise, vibration, energy use, or efficiency.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
You could optimize any one of those performance considerations itself, or in combination with another performance characteristic.

[00:19:09] Speaker 01:
So it's what you're saying that it discloses optimizing pump efficiency, but somehow doesn't disclose optimizing energy usage?

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
At the component level, yes, Your Honor.

[00:19:26] Speaker 00:
You could optimize energy usage of the full system, but even once we say that, that is not optimizing energy consumption as is claimed and described and as this Court construed for the 597, because this Court held that the specification explicitly required consideration of the interrelation of water movement

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
associated with various functions and or auxiliary devices in conserving energy.

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
That's at appendix 20735.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
So optimizing energy consumption is not just reducing the amount of energy over time, rather it is a reduction of energy consumed relative to the ultimate pumping application function.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
And that is the primary lacking

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
disclosure of Desenzo, along with the lack of disclosure of optimization of energy consumption when the controller is disconnected from the system, much less a single dual-state pump controller that optimizes energy consumption in both respects.

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
So simply saying that the way we interpret the claim

[00:20:50] Speaker 03:
in the previous decision mean that the Zenzel has to teach optimizing energy consumption of the pump as a specific component?

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
So optimizing energy consumption, it's more than the words optimizing and energy use.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
that decenso paragraph 51 lists energy use amongst the performance characteristics that may be optimized is insufficient because it doesn't teach a reduction of consumption relative to the pumping application and function.

[00:21:36] Speaker 00:
It's not just a reduction of energy consumed over time, but a reduction relative to the ultimate pumping application and function.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
And this court was very careful

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
in faithfully reading the specification and requiring that when you talk about optimizing energy consumption, you must consider the interrelation of water movement associated with the various functions and or auxiliary devices in conserving energy.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
DeCenso doesn't discuss any of that.

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
There's no overlapping water flows or interrelated water movements, for example.

[00:22:18] Speaker 00:
Hayward relies very heavily on paragraph 59 here and in its brief.

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
And as we've laid out in our brief, paragraph 59 is directed to optimal upfront equipment selection.

[00:22:32] Speaker 00:
And at best, it teaches that running a variable speed motor at a slower speed uses less power than, let's say, a flow restrictor.

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
That's the table one.

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
But again, simply using less energy is not optimizing energy consumption.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
But even if we take Hayward's very generous reading that you might modify a flow rate based on what mode you're in, and mode is never described or defined in descenso, that's still not optimizing energy consumption.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
In fact, what Hayward is arguing here with regard to paragraph 59 is nothing more than its prior rejected construction, which was use of a minimal amount of energy possible

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
by continuously adjusting the speed in real-time response to sensed parameters of the water.

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
This court cited that in 20733 and specifically rejected that as meeting the definition of optimizing energy consumption as it is used in the 597.

[00:23:34] Speaker 01:
I'm still having problems here with your reading of paragraph 51.

[00:23:40] Speaker 01:
Would you agree, if I understand it, that it

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
talks about improving pump efficiency, but you're somehow suggesting that the rest of the sentence, which says that the performance characteristics can include optimizing energy efficiency, is not one of the characteristics that can be optimized with respect to the pump.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
It says component efficiency can be optimized.

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
Although it will be recognized, the performance characteristic of a motorized system may be optimized individually or in combination.

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
Which performance characteristics include energy usage?

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
It says, furthermore, the aspects of the invention may be employed to provide optimization at a higher system level.

[00:24:42] Speaker 01:
You're talking about a different sentence than I am.

[00:24:46] Speaker 01:
I'm talking about the previous sentence, which says that the performance characteristic is energy usage.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
I agree with Your Honor, but still, there is no discussion, contemplation, or teaching

[00:25:12] Speaker 00:
of the interrelation water movement associated with various functions, nor is there, even if we talk about modes within the system, taking it entirely out of water movement, there's no teaching, for example, that you should run two modes at the same time that both require a high flow rate or a lot of energy from the motor, because by running them both at the same time,

[00:25:42] Speaker 00:
you will require less time for the motor to run at that higher point.

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
Nor is there a contemplation, for example, that if the filter is clogged, don't run any of those modes then, but rather wait until the filter is released.

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
All that is contemplated by Desenzo is that if you run a motor at a slower rate... Ms.

[00:26:08] Speaker 03:
Noll, you're confusing me.

[00:26:10] Speaker 03:
Are you saying now

[00:26:12] Speaker 03:
that the problem with paragraph 51 is it doesn't teach how the motor achieves energy use efficiency in the same way that the patent teaches doing it.

[00:26:28] Speaker 03:
Yes, that's precisely correct.

[00:26:31] Speaker 03:
There's no teaching.

[00:26:33] Speaker 03:
There's no specific teaching in paragraph 51, as I can see it, about how Jacenzo achieves

[00:26:42] Speaker 03:
energy usage efficiency in the pump.

[00:26:50] Speaker 00:
That's precisely right, Your Honor.

[00:26:52] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:26:53] Speaker 03:
So what you're saying is, yes, you agree that Dicenzo teaches a system in which the energy usage optimization of the pump can occur,

[00:27:07] Speaker 03:
It doesn't tell you how to do it.

[00:27:10] Speaker 03:
And the patent tells you how to achieve that by these mixed usages.

[00:27:15] Speaker 03:
And the failure to teach the specific way to achieve the optimized energy of the pump is the failing of the Senso.

[00:27:27] Speaker 00:
That is certainly the primary failing of the Senso.

[00:27:31] Speaker 00:
I think your honor has summarized that.

[00:27:33] Speaker 03:
So your argument is that your patent

[00:27:36] Speaker 03:
For example, DeCenzo wouldn't infringe your patent because your patent teaches a specific way to do this and DeCenzo doesn't have that.

[00:27:48] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:27:49] Speaker 01:
But that's not what the board said, right?

[00:27:55] Speaker 00:
The board said it couldn't really read what DeCenzo was showing.

[00:28:02] Speaker 00:
There was no... But answer my question.

[00:28:04] Speaker 01:
That's not what the board said.

[00:28:06] Speaker 01:
The argument you just made is not one that the board adopted, correct?

[00:28:12] Speaker 00:
On appendix four, the board held.

[00:28:15] Speaker 01:
Yes or no?

[00:28:17] Speaker 00:
I don't believe it spoke of infringement or not.

[00:28:23] Speaker 00:
What it specifically said was that there was no reduction on appendix four.

[00:28:27] Speaker 01:
No, but what you're arguing is that DeCenzo doesn't teach how

[00:28:31] Speaker 01:
to optimize energy efficiency, and that's the defect.

[00:28:35] Speaker 01:
The board did not say that, correct?

[00:28:39] Speaker 00:
I'm trying to answer your question respectfully, Your Honor.

[00:28:43] Speaker 00:
It did specifically hold no reduction over time relative to the ultimate pumping application function.

[00:28:54] Speaker 00:
But it did say that Desenzo, it just isn't

[00:28:59] Speaker 03:
Concerned with component.

[00:29:02] Speaker 03:
Just stop for a second.

[00:29:03] Speaker 03:
Why don't we, I'm looking at the opinion.

[00:29:06] Speaker 03:
The opinion of the appendix five says, Descenzo simply is not concerned with component optimization.

[00:29:17] Speaker 00:
Yes, you're at the same sentence I was at, your honor.

[00:29:20] Speaker 00:
And so we don't actually know whether it optimizes any particular component at any given time as claimed.

[00:29:27] Speaker 00:
And as claimed,

[00:29:29] Speaker 00:
What does the board say as claimed?

[00:29:36] Speaker 00:
It says that, Your Honor, right where you were reading, it's page four of the opinion, which is appendix five.

[00:29:44] Speaker 03:
And so we don't actually know where they said as claimed.

[00:29:52] Speaker 00:
I'm looking at it.

[00:29:54] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:29:55] Speaker 00:
In the middle of the top paragraph, DeCenzo is simply not concerned with component optimization.

[00:30:01] Speaker 00:
And so we do not actually know whether DeCenzo optimizes any particular component at any given time as claimed.

[00:30:09] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:30:12] Speaker 00:
And Your Honor, if I may.

[00:30:15] Speaker 03:
You're saying we can dig out of the as claimed, the requirement that DeCenzo would need to teach not only

[00:30:23] Speaker 03:
the energy savings efficiency at the pump, but how it is that the patent goes about achieving it?

[00:30:31] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, and the resuscitation, I believe, at the prior page where the board specifically refers to this as well, specifically the reference to the ultimate pumping function application.

[00:30:50] Speaker 00:
The second main feeling of DeCenso is, if I may, Your Honors, is there's no single dual-mode pump controller that optimizes energy consumption both when connected and independently when disconnected from the control system.

[00:31:07] Speaker 00:
In fact, there's no teaching or disclosure of any embodiment in which the controller operates independently to operate

[00:31:15] Speaker 00:
energy consumption specifically when disconnected from the control system.

[00:31:21] Speaker 00:
Figure 17 and paragraph 160 clearly articulate that the host computer is connected to the controller.

[00:31:33] Speaker 00:
And in fact, MC1, the fact that it can act independently doesn't mean it's disconnected.

[00:31:41] Speaker 00:
Those are two very different concepts.

[00:31:45] Speaker 00:
And here, there is a specific condition that a structure must be capable of the functionality based on a condition, and that condition is disconnection.

[00:31:58] Speaker 00:
Paragraph 160 affirmatively suggests that even when the controllers act independently, they're still connected to the host because it's still able to determine control points based on information from the host.

[00:32:13] Speaker 00:
So obviously there must be a connection there.

[00:32:16] Speaker 00:
Hayward points to Figure 16, but Figure 16 is not a disconnected state.

[00:32:21] Speaker 00:
It's a different embodiment in which there is no host computer whatsoever.

[00:32:28] Speaker 00:
Hayward didn't argue this to the board, but even on the substance, never being connected is not the same thing as disconnected.

[00:32:37] Speaker 00:
And very importantly, Your Honors, Figure 16 is on a different network.

[00:32:42] Speaker 00:
It's on network 1602, then figure 17, which is on network 1702.

[00:32:47] Speaker 00:
So 16 is not just 17 disconnected from a computer.

[00:32:54] Speaker 00:
It's an entirely different system.

[00:32:57] Speaker 00:
Paragraphs 158 and 159 only describe the optimization aspect employed with respect to the controller.

[00:33:05] Speaker 00:
There's no mention of a host computer.

[00:33:08] Speaker 00:
Figure nine also doesn't teach disconnected.

[00:33:11] Speaker 00:
And again, Hayward didn't, while it argues it now, it didn't make that argument to the board.

[00:33:16] Speaker 01:
It sounds as though, in this perspective, you're trying to re-argue what we decided earlier, which is that there were two different embodiments, one of host control and one of local control, and that those two embodiments can be in a single device.

[00:33:36] Speaker 00:
Oh, no, Your Honor.

[00:33:39] Speaker 00:
in making its holding was looking at figure 17 itself in paragraph 160.

[00:33:47] Speaker 00:
And you held that figure 17 could have a controller that acted independently or as a slave.

[00:33:56] Speaker 00:
But within all of that, figure 17 is always connected to the host computer.

[00:34:02] Speaker 00:
You didn't address or make any ruling

[00:34:06] Speaker 00:
on what figure 17, what would happen if it was ever disconnected from a host computer.

[00:34:12] Speaker 00:
So those are two very different things.

[00:34:14] Speaker 00:
And if you look at the claim itself, master slave is in the third and fourth clauses, but optimizing energy consumption is found in clauses six and seven.

[00:34:28] Speaker 00:
And clauses six and seven specifically call out the disconnected and connected state.

[00:34:34] Speaker 00:
So respectfully, I don't believe we are challenging your prior decision, excuse me, decision.

[00:34:43] Speaker 00:
Also, contrary to Hayward's suggestion in its reply, with respect to figure nine, the alternatively or in combination language of 134 does not refer to whether the connection is optional.

[00:34:59] Speaker 00:
It only refers to an alternative type of information

[00:35:02] Speaker 00:
that may be sent to the control system.

[00:35:05] Speaker 00:
That's found Appendix 1132 at 134.

[00:35:10] Speaker 00:
Now, Hayward argues in its reply at page 10 that a person with an ordinary skill would immediately see the combinability of these figures.

[00:35:21] Speaker 00:
Now, we disagree, but even if that were true, it misses the point.

[00:35:26] Speaker 00:
Critically, you can't have anticipation when you have a missing element.

[00:35:32] Speaker 00:
even if a person of ordinary skill in the art might immediately envisage that missing element.

[00:35:37] Speaker 00:
As this court recently held, quote, Kenimental does not permit the board to fill in missing limitations simply because a skilled artisan would immediately envision them.

[00:35:50] Speaker 00:
That's the night.

[00:35:52] Speaker 01:
Excuse me.

[00:35:53] Speaker 01:
Excuse me.

[00:35:53] Speaker 01:
Mr. Chestnut, is Ms.

[00:35:56] Speaker 01:
Knowles still within her time, or is she over time?

[00:35:59] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:35:59] Speaker 02:
She's about over seven minutes.

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

[00:36:03] Speaker 01:
I think unless there are further questions from the panel, Ms.

[00:36:06] Speaker 01:
Noll, we're about out of time.

[00:36:08] Speaker 01:
Does any of my colleagues have further questions for Ms.

[00:36:10] Speaker 01:
Noll?

[00:36:12] Speaker 03:
I just had one question with her.

[00:36:14] Speaker 03:
I assume, Ms.

[00:36:15] Speaker 03:
Noll, that we agree with you that the Senso doesn't teach energy opposition.

[00:36:21] Speaker 03:
What are we supposed to do with the challenge that claims 33 and 59 is obvious?

[00:36:32] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:36:33] Speaker 00:
Your question is if you agree with us that it does not disclose.

[00:36:39] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:36:40] Speaker 00:
Those are dependent claims, and that would also require the optimizing energy consumption.

[00:36:45] Speaker 00:
So you could simply affirm the board's decision.

[00:36:52] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:36:52] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:36:53] Speaker 01:
Noll.

[00:36:55] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:36:55] Speaker 01:
Mr. Toms, you have a couple minutes.

[00:36:59] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:37:00] Speaker 02:
I'll address just a couple of points.

[00:37:02] Speaker 02:
So first, DETENZA does specifically, as the court pointed out, show component optimization.

[00:37:11] Speaker 02:
And I'll also highlight paragraph 62 teaches that its invention affords implementation across numerous system levels for hierarchies, e.g., the individual machine, the cluster of machines to process on up.

[00:37:28] Speaker 02:
And in paragraph 50,

[00:37:30] Speaker 02:
It teaches that the invention provides methods and systems for controlling a motorized system in order to achieve setpoint operation, as well as optimize one or more performance characteristics associated with the system.

[00:37:43] Speaker 02:
So this is clearly showing that the tens of contemplates and expressly teaches that you can optimize at any level of system hierarchy.

[00:37:52] Speaker 02:
And particularly, I'll also direct you to paragraph

[00:37:57] Speaker 02:
which I note that Pentair cites in its briefs as a demonstration or a description of this efficiency correlation technique, which the first line of paragraph 73 says, implementing variable speed motor control for pumping applications can provide direct savings and reduce energy consumption as described herein.

[00:38:20] Speaker 02:
And I'll also note back to paragraph, what I discussed about paragraph 17,

[00:38:26] Speaker 02:
And then paragraph seven teaches that efficiency is energy efficiency in this context as well.

[00:38:32] Speaker 03:
Mr. Thompson, Judge Cleminger, Ms.

[00:38:36] Speaker 03:
Noel argues that her client's claim teaches how to maximize the energy efficiency of the pump, how specifically to do that, and that paragraph 51 doesn't disclose the how.

[00:38:53] Speaker 03:
You heard that argument.

[00:38:55] Speaker 03:
What's your response?

[00:38:57] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:38:58] Speaker 02:
So our response is that the construction does not require any specific technique for optimizing energy consumption.

[00:39:05] Speaker 02:
And that's precisely what this Court found in the Hayward One opinion.

[00:39:10] Speaker 02:
I'll note that Pentair proposed the construction of a reduction in energy consumed over time relative to the ultimate pumping application function.

[00:39:18] Speaker 02:
And that construction is literally meant

[00:39:21] Speaker 02:
By any reduction, however, it's achieved, so long as it has a view towards the ultimate pumping function and application.

[00:39:28] Speaker 02:
And as I discussed, the TINBA teaches that in multiple places.

[00:39:33] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 17 and 18 define a range where the system still makes good product.

[00:39:39] Speaker 02:
And it teaches using efficiency information to adjust the system to specifically use less power.

[00:39:47] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 59 teaches optimizing across the complete range of operating modes.

[00:39:52] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 64 teaches an algorithm for determining the optimal operating point, and so on.

[00:39:59] Speaker 01:
Okay, Mr. Tombs, I think you're out of time unless there are other questions from my colleagues.

[00:40:09] Speaker 02:
No, thank you.

[00:40:11] Speaker 01:
Hearing none, thank you very much.

[00:40:12] Speaker 01:
Thank both counsel, the case is submitted.

[00:40:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.