[00:00:01] Speaker 05:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:06] Speaker 05:
God save the United States and this honorable court.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
I now call the first case for argument, Huawei Technologies versus Yanku, case number 20191494.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
Mr. Trello, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:24] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:25] Speaker 05:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:00:27] Speaker 05:
In its decision in this IPR proceeding, the board rejected four of the five asserted grounds of unpatentability, but it accepted the fifth because it made two key mistakes.

[00:00:38] Speaker 05:
It misconstrued the claims by holding that they do not require that a synchronized mobile device always ignore timing deviation information in a contention-based random access process, and it misread the R1072197 reference

[00:00:54] Speaker 05:
to teach a mobile device applying or ignoring timing deviation information based on the device's synchronization status.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
Mr. Trello, this is Judge Wallach.

[00:01:05] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:06] Speaker 03:
On page 23, footnote four in the blue brief, Wallach says that, and I'm quoting now, the contention resolution referenced in step four in TS36300 is essentially a placeholder.

[00:01:22] Speaker 03:
With most of its provisions for further study, how does that affect the explicit disclosure of TS36.300?

[00:01:30] Speaker 05:
Well, I don't think it affects it other than to indicate perhaps that the compilers of TS36.300 recognize that there could be contention problems, which you would expect in a contention-based random access process.

[00:01:50] Speaker 05:
and that they would need to be resolved somehow.

[00:01:53] Speaker 05:
But beyond that, it was, I think that the indication was FFS for further study.

[00:01:59] Speaker 05:
And it does not provide any means of resolving any contention-related problems.

[00:02:05] Speaker 03:
On page 55, this is Judge Wallach again.

[00:02:09] Speaker 03:
On page 55 of the blue brief, Wallach says, and I'm quoting, Dr. Mattis said he said nothing about the mobile device entering synchronous

[00:02:20] Speaker 03:
status after applying the original TA command.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
He said only that the mobile device, and you have internal quotes, has a synchronous status at that point, and contends that the distinction is crucial.

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
And the board's failure to recognize it is fatal to its analysis.

[00:02:42] Speaker 03:
You're saying that in the blueberry.

[00:02:44] Speaker 03:
Where in the record did Huawei point out that crucial distinction?

[00:02:49] Speaker 03:
saying it was a crucial distinction.

[00:02:52] Speaker 05:
Well, Your Honor, the emphasis on Maddissette saying has a synchronous status, and the board reading that to say enters a synchronous status, well, that first appeared in the final written decision.

[00:03:08] Speaker 05:
Now, Huawei made clear throughout that the mobile device in the R1 reference is always in synchronous status.

[00:03:17] Speaker 05:
That was our position all along.

[00:03:19] Speaker 05:
And the board, in fact, recognized that we were arguing that it was always in synchronous status.

[00:03:26] Speaker 05:
So phrased in terms of a crucial distinction, no, we didn't say that because nobody had suggested that has means answers until the final written decision.

[00:03:37] Speaker 05:
But the fact that the mobile device in R1 was always in synchronous status was a key part of the argument from the beginning.

[00:03:45] Speaker 03:
On page 30 of the red read, this is Judge Wallach again.

[00:03:49] Speaker 03:
On page 30 of the red brief, the director says, quoting, this is not a case where the prior art gives no direction as to which of many possible choices is likely to be successful, nor does the claimed electronic circuitry qualify as unpredictable arts.

[00:04:11] Speaker 03:
And I'm quoting them again.

[00:04:14] Speaker 03:
Huawei waived consideration of this issue by failing to properly raise it to the board.

[00:04:20] Speaker 03:
So where did Huawei properly raise this before the board?

[00:04:24] Speaker 05:
We raised it, Judge Wallach, at appendix pages 449 to 450.

[00:04:32] Speaker 05:
We point out that Samsung, the petitioner, has made no showing, hadn't even mentioned reasonable expectation of success.

[00:04:41] Speaker 05:
And at appendix page 50, the board recognized that we made that argument.

[00:04:47] Speaker 05:
They didn't suggest any waiver or forfeiture, but they just didn't address it.

[00:04:52] Speaker 05:
They just blew past it.

[00:04:58] Speaker 05:
And the director concedes that we did, in fact, raise it, but suggests that we didn't say enough about it.

[00:05:03] Speaker 05:
But the point was that reasonable expectation of success is an essential requirement of the obviousness analysis.

[00:05:10] Speaker 05:
The petitioner, the one challenging the validity, the patentability of the claims,

[00:05:17] Speaker 05:
didn't address it at all, and that's a fatal flood.

[00:05:22] Speaker 05:
There's no burden on Huawei then to go forward and prove the negative that no person of ordinary skill could have reasonably expected success.

[00:05:31] Speaker 05:
The burden was on Samsung.

[00:05:33] Speaker 05:
Samsung ignored it, and the board ignored Samsung's failure.

[00:05:37] Speaker 05:
So I don't think there's any waiver here.

[00:05:39] Speaker 01:
Mr. Trela, Mr. Trela, this is complicated technology, and I need some help in trying to understand

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
what the contentions are.

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
If I understand correctly, you're trying to make a distinction between timing information, which causes a change from an asynchronous to a synchronous state, and timing information, which is just maintenance information, which adjusts the relationship so it's more synchronous.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
Is the timing information

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
timing deviation information within the meaning of the claim, information that is involved in the R1 transmissions?

[00:06:26] Speaker 05:
No, I don't believe it is, Judge Dyke, because the timing deviation information in the claims, it's specifically defined in the claims to be timing deviation information included in a random access response in a contention-based random access process.

[00:06:44] Speaker 05:
And that is different.

[00:06:46] Speaker 05:
than the timing adjustment information that is used in the R1 reference.

[00:06:52] Speaker 05:
Among other things, pardon me, the R1 reference is not dealing with a contention-based random access process, which means that it's using completely different communication channels.

[00:07:02] Speaker 05:
The R1 reference is using dedicated uplink and downlink channels between the base station and the mobile device, whereas the patent and the TS36300 reference

[00:07:14] Speaker 05:
are using the contention-based process, where essentially the information is broadcast to all mobile devices in the area.

[00:07:21] Speaker 01:
So where do I find in the patent a teaching that tells me that the difference between maintenance timing information and synchronous timing information, which I understand is the distinction that you're making.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
And you're saying that, correct me if I'm wrong about this, that the R1

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
method doesn't deal with synchronicity, but only with maintenance.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
How do I know that when the patent talks about timing deviation information, it's only talking about one category and not the other?

[00:08:03] Speaker 05:
Well, I'm not sure that I can add anything to what I tried to explain a moment ago, Judge Dyke, but I'll try.

[00:08:09] Speaker 05:
The claims are talking about

[00:08:13] Speaker 05:
First of all, they're talking about devices in synchronous and asynchronous status, and they're talking about information in a random access response in a contention-based random access synchronization process.

[00:08:27] Speaker 05:
That is different, and there was never any dispute that that is different than the timing maintenance procedure that R1 discusses for a mobile device that has already gone through the random access synchronization process.

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
OK, but is it fair to say that the issue that I'm asking about is sort of at the heart of what you're getting at?

[00:08:51] Speaker 05:
Well, I think what is at the heart of what we're getting at is that these are very different processes.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
No, but it's the difference between maintenance timing information and synchronous timing information.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
That's the distinction that you're making.

[00:09:09] Speaker 01:
Am I correct?

[00:09:10] Speaker 05:
That is certainly a key distinction, Judge Dyck, absolutely.

[00:09:15] Speaker 05:
And it's a key distinction because, in part, the processes are very different.

[00:09:22] Speaker 05:
I don't want to repeat myself, but using different channels and the problems that the patent is addressing can't arise in the R01 system and the problem that R01 is addressing can't arise in the random access system that the patent is talking about.

[00:09:38] Speaker 00:
Mr. Trello, this is Sharon Price.

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
And I think Mr. Mattel can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is somewhere in the argument that the solicitor is making before us.

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
I agree with Judge Dyke.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
This is enormously complex.

[00:09:54] Speaker 00:
But is it unfairly simplistic to just parse out of the board's opinion that it relies, it concluded that TF-36 teaches timing signals on a per need basis.

[00:10:08] Speaker 00:
and then to take R1 using R1 only for the broad teaching that mobile devices can make the decision whether to ignore unnecessary commands.

[00:10:19] Speaker 00:
Under substantial review, why can't we feed out enough in the board to affirm on that basis?

[00:10:26] Speaker 05:
Well, Your Honor, for a couple of reasons.

[00:10:30] Speaker 05:
One is because I don't think that's actually the finding the board made.

[00:10:34] Speaker 05:
And let me take a couple of steps here.

[00:10:37] Speaker 05:
One is that at appendix pages 18 and 19 and 24, the board specifically found, pardon me, that the TS reference did not teach the ignoring limitation.

[00:10:49] Speaker 05:
And in fact, the undisputed expert testimony was that the mobile device at issue in the TS reference never ignores timing information.

[00:10:58] Speaker 01:
Well, clearly they're getting the ignoring step from R1.

[00:11:02] Speaker 05:
Yeah, absolutely.

[00:11:03] Speaker 05:
And that's the next point I was going to make.

[00:11:06] Speaker 05:
The board did not, contrary to what the director says, the board did not rely on R1 only to say that the mobile device can make the decision whether to ignore or apply.

[00:11:17] Speaker 05:
It needed R1 to find the ignoring limitation because it's not in TS.

[00:11:22] Speaker 05:
And we think that when the claims are properly construed and R1 is properly read, it's not in R1 either.

[00:11:28] Speaker 05:
And so I don't think that the

[00:11:31] Speaker 05:
I think it would be overly simplistic, because I don't think the board, that's not the analysis the board applied.

[00:11:35] Speaker 05:
The board relied on R1 to teach the ignoring limitation, and it needed to rely on it, because it's nowhere else in the prior art.

[00:11:43] Speaker 05:
And we don't think it's there either, but that's the mistake the board made, I think.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
So what you're saying is that R1 teaches ignoring maintenance correction information, but doesn't teach ignoring information that

[00:12:01] Speaker 01:
essential to synchronicity.

[00:12:04] Speaker 05:
Is that fair?

[00:12:05] Speaker 05:
Well, that's fair.

[00:12:06] Speaker 05:
I would also maybe put it a little bit differently, which is that R1 doesn't teach ignoring based on the synchronous or asynchronous status of the mobile device, because the mobile device is always synchronized.

[00:12:20] Speaker 05:
So it really doesn't teach anything about the mobile device doing anything based on synchronization status.

[00:12:26] Speaker 05:
And that's really what the claims are all about.

[00:12:28] Speaker 05:
And that's, I think, the fundamental misreading

[00:12:31] Speaker 05:
of the, that the board made of the R1 reference based on its misreading of Madisoni's testimony.

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
Well, it really depends on whether there's a material difference between ignoring maintenance timing information and ignoring synchronicity timing information.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
Whatever the line may be between those two.

[00:12:52] Speaker 05:
Well, I think that's certainly true.

[00:12:55] Speaker 05:
But it goes, I think, a little bit further because, again, the claims require

[00:13:00] Speaker 05:
The claims have these basically two mutually exclusive paths.

[00:13:03] Speaker 05:
You do one thing if you're synchronous.

[00:13:05] Speaker 05:
You do another thing if you're asynchronous.

[00:13:07] Speaker 05:
And R1 has nothing to say about that because the mobile device there is always synchronous.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
We heard the gong a few minutes ago, but we'll restore your rebuttal time, Mr. Torella.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
And why don't we hear from the PTO now?

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:13:24] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
Mr. Martal, whenever you're ready.

[00:13:30] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
Your honor, may it please the court?

[00:13:33] Speaker 02:
I suppose I should home in on the issue that Judge Dyke raised in his questions.

[00:13:38] Speaker 02:
There are two parts of the R1 reference that I'd like to direct the court's attention to that I think provide more than ample evidence to sustain the board's conclusions about that reference.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
It's a short reference.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
It's at pages 3265 through 66 in the record.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
And at the very introduction of 3265 through 66.

[00:14:00] Speaker 02:
In the introduction of the reference at the very beginning, the reference itself makes clear that it's about the transmission of an uplink timing advance to ensure synchronous operation of the mobile device.

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
So the reference opens up by explaining that it's there to ensure the synchronicity.

[00:14:20] Speaker 02:
And then the key aspect of the reference, which is at the bottom of the next page,

[00:14:24] Speaker 02:
that the board relied on to find that whether the timing advance command is ignored or not depends on synchronous operation, as the two scenarios the reference describes, where the mobile device sends either a positive or a negative acknowledgement back.

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
Where are you on this page?

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
On page, let's see.

[00:14:49] Speaker 03:
This is Judge Wallach.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
I think you're referring to the UE can ignore a timing advance command if the UE has already performed the timing advance command.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
Yes, yeah.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
I misspoke earlier, page 3267.

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
And this is in about the middle of the page.

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
So the reference describes a scenario where the... But give us... Wait, wait.

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
Is it the paragraph beginning in the second case?

[00:15:16] Speaker 02:
Yes, yeah, and the paragraph above that in the... Yeah.

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
in the first case.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
But the board describes scenarios here where a timing advance had been sent by the base station.

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
And in the R1 reference, a message is always sent back to the base station to acknowledge whether or not that's been received.

[00:15:34] Speaker 02:
In the first scenario, it properly receives a timing advance command, sends back a positive acknowledgement, and the base station misinterprets that and says, oh, this was

[00:15:47] Speaker 02:
thinks it's a negative acknowledgement and therefore sends another timing advance command.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
R1 makes clear that in this scenario the mobile device can ignore that new timing advance command.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
So direct quote from the reference and that's all the board needs to conclude that this is a reference that describes a scenario where if your timing is already correct you don't need to process that other command and the decision to ignore it can be made right at the mobile device.

[00:16:14] Speaker 01:
Do you agree that there's a difference, as Mr. Trela is suggesting, between maintenance timing information and timing information that relates to synchronicity?

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
It's a slight difference.

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
And once you teach a person of skill in the art that you need to make these adjustments, first of all, the board simply concluded that whether you're adjusting timing just to stay on the right path

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
or whether you're completely out of synchronization, it all relates to synchronization.

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
And the reference itself describes that if a timing advance isn't processed, for example, then you have incorrect timing.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
When you're correcting for incorrect timing, for example, I think that provides ample basis to conclude that this itself relates to synchronization, even if the device isn't so completely unsynchronized, that it can no longer communicate at all with the base station.

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
Well, is that what synchronization means?

[00:17:10] Speaker 01:
If it's asynchronous, it can't communicate with the base station at all?

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
If it's completely asynchronous, then at some point it loses its ability to communicate.

[00:17:21] Speaker 02:
But the R1 reference also contemplates degrees of asynchronization, where you can still communicate with the base station, but you're beginning to be misaligned.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
And if it's not fixed, you eventually will lose the connection.

[00:17:33] Speaker 02:
And the board has effectively concluded that that's also a type of asynchronous status.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
Again, the reference expressly refers to the timing being incorrect and refers to correcting that.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
The board reasonably could read that as, you know, if you're making a new command because of incorrect timing, you're making it in relation to synchronicity or asynchronicity.

[00:17:55] Speaker 01:
That sounds like a claim construction dispute as to whether synchronicity includes maintenance information.

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
There was no claim construction fight raised over this particular issue, but as you get deeper into the references, there is some dispute about that.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
But even if one were to construe the reference another way, and say synchronicity only means when you're completely out of synchronicity, R1 still teaches you

[00:18:29] Speaker 02:
that you need to make these adjustments to avoid falling into asynchronicity.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
That's the whole purpose of the reference to avoid a situation where you completely lose communication.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
And by teaching that to a person of skill, making these maintenance adjustments to avoid complete asynchronicity, you effectively also teach that person that you'd make the same decisions in relation to complete asynchronicity, even if, you know, partial asynchronicity were not the same thing as asynchronicity for the purposes of the claims.

[00:19:03] Speaker 02:
If there's another point I could emphasize, you know, the briefing on this appeal is all focused on the R1 reference, but R1 actually wasn't even the principal reference in this case.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
The board found in the first substantive 10 pages of its decision, this is pages 15 to 25 from the record, that it's actually TS 36300.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
That means virtually all the limitations of the claims.

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
At page 20, the board summed up everything it found.

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
and noted that the only thing that was disputed by Huawei was whether that final ignoring decision could be made at the mobile device or at the base station.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
From pages 20 to 25, the board analyzed the competing evidence, and it finally can credit the testimony of Huawei's expert that although the decision could be made at either device, the reference didn't actually show it being made at the mobile device, and therefore the petitioner hadn't met its burden.

[00:19:55] Speaker 02:
That was the only element that was missing from TS-36300, and that the petitioner needed to identify the R1 reference.

[00:20:05] Speaker 02:
And the R1 reference undisputedly teaches that the ignoring decision can be made at the mobile device.

[00:20:12] Speaker 02:
Not only is there substantial evidence for that in the showings from the examples from page 3267 that I described earlier, but this point was effectively conceded by Huawei

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
As the board notes at 43 through 44 of its decision, Huawei conceded that the R1 reference does show making the ignoring decision at the mobile device.

[00:20:34] Speaker 02:
The board could have noted that Huawei also conceded this point in its surreply.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
I'm referring to a passage at page 620 of the record where the board noted that in the context, well, Huawei stated in the context of a motivation to combine argument that the R1 reference does teach ignoring

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
a timing advance command.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
You know, just last Thursday, this court issued a decision that made clear that these statements by a patent owner describing the scope and content of the prior art are binding through the proceeding.

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
I'm referring to the court's decision that could be a Boston scientific, number 1370 from 2019.

[00:21:13] Speaker 02:
In that case, this court actually reversed the board for failing to have considered and attributed appropriate ways

[00:21:21] Speaker 01:
What statement are we talking about?

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
What statement that's an admission are we talking about here?

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
At page 43 through 44, the board describes how in its preliminary response, Huawei conceded that this ignoring that the R1 reference does show making an ignoring decision at the mobile device.

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
Now, Huawei still disputes whether the reference is similar enough that a person of skill would have looked to it, argues it's not analogous enough, and then there's no motivation.

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
The only element that was actually still needed after TS3600 is showing that you can make the decision whether to ignore that timing advance command at the mobile device and not just at the base station.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
Well, I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that you're not entirely defending what the board said.

[00:22:11] Speaker 01:
Because if I understand what the board said, it says that the R1 method or whatever it is,

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
brings it into synchronicity.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
And if I understand correctly, you don't seem to be defending that.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
Am I mistaken?

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
I am defending it on the basis of, again, the examples at page 3267 in the R1 reference where it describes making or not making the processing of a new TA command based on whether the timing is correct or incorrect.

[00:22:47] Speaker 02:
The reference clearly describes.

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
In other words, you're defining synchronicity as the kind of timing, is including the kind of timing information that's in the R1 reference, right?

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
Yes, yes.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
And not only is there that overlap, but again, by teaching the person of skill that you need to make these adjustments in order to stay and avoid falling into complete asynchronicity, it would at least suggest to that person that you make these decisions in relation to that ultimate goal as well.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
Again, this case was really about TS-36300.

[00:23:37] Speaker 02:
That was the principal reference the petitioner relied on.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
The petitioner actually argued TS-36300 shows everything.

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
And Huawei, again, didn't contest that it does show almost all of these limits.

[00:23:47] Speaker 02:
It's just that last element of, can the decision to ignore these commands be made at the mobile device?

[00:23:53] Speaker 02:
That element is amply shown in the R1 reference, and in fact, Huawei effectively conceded that at various points throughout the proceeding.

[00:24:03] Speaker 02:
This was always principally a case about that other reference, and there's very little work that is called on for the R1 reference to serve, and it more than fulfills that purpose.

[00:24:15] Speaker 02:
It clearly shows, again, in the words of that reference, the mobile device can ignore the new timing advance command,

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
That provides ample basis for the board's conclusion that it satisfies that one last piece that was missing from TS36300.

[00:24:35] Speaker 02:
If there are no further questions from the panel, I'm prepared to yield the balance of my time.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
I don't have it.

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
That's fine.

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Ben Mark and Mr. Trela will restore all of your rebuttal time.

[00:24:50] Speaker 00:
It will turn to you.

[00:24:52] Speaker 05:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:24:54] Speaker 05:
Let me pick up roughly where counsel left off.

[00:25:00] Speaker 05:
He is correct that the TS reference was the primary reference below.

[00:25:08] Speaker 05:
He's not correct in describing how much it teaches.

[00:25:13] Speaker 05:
In fact, it's not just a question of whether an ignoring decision can be made at the mobile device.

[00:25:22] Speaker 05:
found, and this is at appendix pages 18 and 19, and also appendix page 24, that TS doesn't teach anything at all about ever ignoring a timing advance command.

[00:25:39] Speaker 05:
And in fact, as I think I mentioned in my opening section, the expert testimony was clear

[00:25:47] Speaker 05:
that it doesn't disclose any circumstances under which timing advanced commands would ever be ignored.

[00:25:52] Speaker 05:
So it's not just a question of can you, you know, where can you make the decision.

[00:25:57] Speaker 05:
It's whether would you ever, would a mobile device ever ignore timing advanced information received from a base station?

[00:26:04] Speaker 01:
So when you say timing advanced information, you mean timing information that distinguishes between synchronicity and asynchronicity because it certainly does

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
ignore some timing information, right?

[00:26:19] Speaker 05:
Well, not in the TS reference.

[00:26:21] Speaker 01:
Oh, I'm sorry, in the R1 reference, yes.

[00:26:24] Speaker 05:
Yes, correct.

[00:26:25] Speaker 05:
And that's where I was about to go.

[00:26:27] Speaker 05:
The R1 reference actually is carrying a lot more weight than council suggests because it needs to show that timing advance information, timing adjustment information in that case, can be ignored.

[00:26:41] Speaker 05:
And so it needed to do that.

[00:26:44] Speaker 05:
As I explained, the board misread the R1 reference to teach that it applies or ignores based on synchronization status, and it doesn't.

[00:26:54] Speaker 05:
And I think there was a significant choice of words in counsel's argument when he said the board effectively concluded that what R1 is talking about is a kind of asynchronous status.

[00:27:06] Speaker 05:
Well, the board didn't conclude that.

[00:27:08] Speaker 05:
The board concluded that it was actual asynchronous status because of the

[00:27:12] Speaker 05:
confusion between, you know, has a synchronous status and enters a synchronous status when it applies that TA command.

[00:27:19] Speaker 05:
And it's not just the, I think the argument that, well, knowing that you need to adjust the timing a little bit would certainly suggest to somebody that, you know, if the timing is way off, you really need to adjust it.

[00:27:35] Speaker 05:
That's not actually what the problem here was or what these claims are about.

[00:27:39] Speaker 05:
It's not about

[00:27:41] Speaker 05:
It's about knowing when to ignore, when it's safe to ignore timing deviation information.

[00:27:47] Speaker 05:
That was a problem that was unresolved, and it was a problem in the establishment of initial synchronization, and R1 is not talking about that.

[00:27:58] Speaker 05:
R1 is just talking about, you know, do you, if you've already applied a command, do you apply it again?

[00:28:05] Speaker 05:
which is a different problem that cannot arise in the system of TS 36300 and the patent.

[00:28:14] Speaker 05:
And going back to R1, because the board misconstrued the claims to cover a situation where timing deviation information can sometimes be ignored and sometimes be applied when a device is in synchronous status, it found that R1 taught this limitation when the claims are properly construed, it does not

[00:28:35] Speaker 05:
teach this limitation.

[00:28:36] Speaker 05:
TS36300 doesn't teach this limitation, as the board found.

[00:28:40] Speaker 05:
And so absent that erroneous claim construction and the further misreading of R1, that limitation is not there.

[00:28:47] Speaker 05:
And so the proposed combination of these two prior references does not produce the claimed invention.

[00:28:55] Speaker 05:
If the court has no further questions, I am prepared to stop talking.

[00:29:00] Speaker 00:
Well, thank you.

[00:29:02] Speaker 00:
And we thank both sides and appreciate your indulgence during these trying times.

[00:29:09] Speaker 00:
The case is submitted.

[00:29:10] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:29:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.