[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:00:22] Speaker 00:
We have four different grounds to go through of

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
four grounds found by the board, and I'd like to start with the Keneshi grounds.

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
We have to reverse all of them for you to survive, right?

[00:00:35] Speaker 00:
You do.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
On the Keneshi grounds, the petitioners conceded below that Keneshi discloses a stator can made of polydicyclopentadine, which I'll call poly-D.

[00:00:49] Speaker 00:
And it's undisputed that poly-D is not a thermoplastic, and it's also undisputed that the stator can

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
of Kenishii must be made of a thermoplastic in order to meet the claims.

[00:01:00] Speaker 00:
So the issue before the board was whether it would have been obvious to substitute a thermoplastic in place of poly-D in the stator can of Kenishii.

[00:01:09] Speaker 00:
And I asked the court to look closely at the actual evidence presented by the parties on this issue.

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
The petitioners had the burden of proof and submitted just two conclusory sentences from their expert Dr. Trumper.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
The first, which appears in paragraph 86 of his declaration at appendix 3110,

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
asserted that the substitution would have been obvious because Kenichi teaches using thermoplastics to seal the stator core.

[00:01:32] Speaker 00:
That's the stator core.

[00:01:34] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you, at the threshold, was there any attempt to narrow these claims, to restrict them to the interpretation that's now being presented by amendment?

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
No, not during the IPR proceedings, Your Honor.

[00:01:55] Speaker 02:
There's no doubt that Kenoshi says you could use the same material for both parts, right?

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
Kenoshi does not say that with respect to the stator can.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
It says with respect to sealing the stator core, you could use either a thermoplastic or the poly-D material or some other materials as well.

[00:02:14] Speaker 01:
I thought there was some passage that says at least some of the time, both pieces, the can and the mold,

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
can be made of the same material.

[00:02:25] Speaker 01:
What it doesn't say is that regardless of what the material is, you can use the same material for the can and the mold.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
And that's what the board, that I take it, is your central

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
factual objection to what the board concluded, that that's just an unsubstantiated inference, that because Kanishi says you can sometimes use the same material, it implies that you can use the same material always, including one that would be inappropriate for the camp.

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
That's absolutely correct, Your Honor.

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
So what about Kanishi's issue to that last point?

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
which is the hurdle you have to overcome.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
When you've got Kanishi saying, you can at least sometimes use the same material, what in Kanishi itself tells you that you can't use it all the time?

[00:03:23] Speaker 02:
You can't use the same material all the time.

[00:03:26] Speaker 00:
Kenichi itself does not address that.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
It's a patent.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
It's not a theoretical article.

[00:03:33] Speaker 00:
But what we have is the evidence presented by both sides.

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
And as I was starting to allude to, the evidence presented by the petitioners was two conclusory sentences by their expert, Dr. Trumper.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
We presented on the other side a detailed explanation from our expert as to why one would not, one skill in the art would not substitute a thermoplastic in the state or can region because of the heating concerns and the melting and softening of the thermoplastic that would occur.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
So is your argument that the board always has to have expert testimony in order to interpret a prior reference?

[00:04:14] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor, the Board doesn't always need expert testimony.

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
But the board needs evidence.

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
And there's nothing in Kenichi itself that says or even suggests that the thermoplastic material may be used at the state or can.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
It does suggest that, as Judge Toronto was saying, that you can use a thermoplastic material in parts and that you can use the same material for everything in some circumstances.

[00:04:43] Speaker 00:
But it does not say that you can use thermoplastic for all parts in all circumstances.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
And so what more should the expert, the petitioner's expert, have had to say?

[00:04:56] Speaker 00:
Well, the petitioner's expert said nothing on reply.

[00:04:58] Speaker 00:
And I think in reply the petitioner's expert could have contradicted the factual allegations made by our expert, Dr. Garris, if in fact he had any disputes with those points that he had made.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you, I'm not sure.

[00:05:16] Speaker 01:
And you can tell me if I'm wrong about this.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure the board relied on this, and I'm not sure that the petitioners relied on this.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
But what do you make of paragraphs 30 and 38 of Kenishi?

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
This might be taken to mean that a synthetic resin can be used for the whole thing.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
As I say, I don't remember either petitioners or the board relying on that.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
I wonder whether it should give us some pause.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
Your expert, I think, referred to, in 38, says metal synthetic resin or fiber-reinforced.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
And I think your expert referred only to the metal and the fiber-reinforced resin in a little table in his declaration and said nothing about synthetic resin.

[00:06:15] Speaker 00:
There is a reference to synthetic resin here, but again, it's to seal the stator core in paragraph 30, and not to create, rather, the stator can.

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
And I don't think that there is a fair inference in Kenishi itself that you would make the stator can out of the thermoplastic material.

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
Well, why isn't sealing the stator core

[00:06:42] Speaker 02:
the same thing as to making the molded portion five and the stator can 51.

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
How else do you seal the core?

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
You seal the core with, you can seal it with a thermoplastic resin on the exterior, sealing the outer core, but the can itself is a different component.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
We think at the very least that a person skilled in the art reading these passages would understand, as we explained by analogy, about making a wooden fireplace in a house, that you wouldn't do that.

[00:07:22] Speaker 00:
That's not a reasonable reading of this, because a person skilled in the art would know that in the very heat-sensitive region of the state or can, you're not going to want to use a material that can soften or melt.

[00:07:42] Speaker 00:
And I would emphasize that that's the position put forth by our expert and there was nothing in reply or rebuttal from the expert of the petitioners.

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
If we thought that the board had relied on a mistaken inference about using the same thing, including whatever you might use for the molding, is a remand on that issue warranted or an outright reversal on that?

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
I think it's an outright reversal because the circumstance is that there's no substantial evidence

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
currently supporting the board's conclusion.

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
And the petitioners had every opportunity to present that substantial evidence, either with their petition or on reply.

[00:08:32] Speaker 00:
And so I don't think that there's a basis for permitting the petitioners a second crack at the substantial evidence apple, or bite at the apple.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
What about Zimmerman?

[00:08:43] Speaker 00:
Zimmerman.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
How do we know that those corners are too thick?

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
We know those corners are too thick.

[00:08:51] Speaker 00:
Umida has the same issue as well, but Zimmerman has exclusively that issue.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
We have the plastics treatise and Dr. Garris' testimony about the plastics treatise, which explain that... I'm not questioning that it's important that material not be too thick.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
I'm not questioning that, for purposes of this question, that the board misread the plastics treatise.

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
Nevertheless, your argument depends on looking at what's in Zimmerman and saying, at least those corners, which look like fairly large squares, those are too thick.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
And I'm asking, I guess, how do we know that?

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
I understood, Your Honor.

[00:09:40] Speaker 00:
We know that first of all because there's the testimony of the two experts on the one hand is no testimony and on the other hand is the testimony of Dr. Garris that they are in fact too thick.

[00:09:57] Speaker 02:
But Zimmerman itself says it's not drawn to scale.

[00:10:01] Speaker 00:
No, it's not drawn to scale, but it still provides information to a person of skill in the art.

[00:10:07] Speaker 00:
Zimmerman's not drawn tightly around its pipe and its other components to show an irregular shape of thin material around a component.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
It's shown drawing a big blocky thing around the whole pipe and everything else.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
Yeah, but when you've got figures in a patent,

[00:10:28] Speaker 02:
when they're not drawn to scale.

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
Very often what you have are things that normally would be extremely tiny and they're blown up, for example, to show you how it would work.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
So how do we know that that's not what's going on here?

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
Well, I don't think there's any indication in Zimmerman that is what's going on here.

[00:10:47] Speaker 00:
And we do have the burden of proof issue, which we believe indicates that the petitioner had the burden of showing that Zimmerman was suitable for injection molding.

[00:11:00] Speaker 02:
Are you arguing that Zimmerman teaches away because of its thickness or apparent thickness?

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
Teaching away is a strong term, but I think we're arguing that it comes pretty close to that, yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
Is there anything in the Zimmerman figure, and forgive me, I don't remember what your expert said about this,

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
Am I remembering right?

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
Your evidence is that the question about thermoplastics is not so much absolute thickness, but comparative thickness across different components of the same material.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
Am I not remembering that?

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
It's a little bit of both, Your Honor.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
The absolute thickness certainly matters.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
Because you could get holes inside.

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
You could get holes inside.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
uniformity of thickness matters as well.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
On the uniformity, does something about the key figure in Zimmerman

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
What kind of measurements those must be given that the curvy pipes must be a certain measurement?

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
Or is it nothing but looking at a drawing and not being able to know even internal relative scales?

[00:12:44] Speaker 00:
Well, I mean, we know a little bit about scale just because Zimmerman is described as a pump for removing liquid from a reservoir and that the pump is going to be submerged in the entire reservoir.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
So I think we're talking about a sizable object that

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
just on scale alone would be unsuitable for injection molding but in addition to that the pipe I don't know that there's critical functionality described in terms of the shape of the pipe but it is the shape of the pipe that's disclosed and with that shape you're going to have large areas between large gaps in the curves and serpentines of the pipe.

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
If you compare

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
the Zimmerman figures to the Stefan and Neil figures, what is it about that comparison that shows you that Zimmerman is a much thicker product?

[00:13:43] Speaker 00:
Well, the first is that Neil is disclosed as being essentially a miniaturized device for driving a disk drive and similar things.

[00:13:53] Speaker 00:
And so the parts are inherently much smaller.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
And looking at, for example, figure three, the thicknesses, particularly when you take into account the internal components that are embedded in the

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
in the monolithic body, that the thicknesses are relatively uniform as well.

[00:14:21] Speaker 00:
And again, we do have the opinion of Dr. Garris on that point in our expert declarations.

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
What about Stefan?

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
Figure 7.

[00:14:31] Speaker 02:
Stefan.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
Figure 2 of Stefan.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
Yeah, figure 2 is just the stator itself, so that's not thermoplastic.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
Figure 7,

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
Again, it is a relatively miniaturized component, and the thickness is fairly uniform throughout.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
You see I'm down to 21 seconds.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
I'd be happy to reserve that for rebuttal, or if you have more questions.

[00:15:05] Speaker 03:
We'll save some rebuttal time.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
Let's hear from Mr. Barney.

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:15:24] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court, the Board has found each of the claims at issue unpatentable over four separate grounds, and affirming any one of these four grounds is sufficient to affirm the Board's overall judgment of unpatentability.

[00:15:35] Speaker 04:
I'd like to start with the Keneshi ground unless the panel would like to hear something different.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
The only issue the court needs to decide for Kanishi is whether substantial evidence supports the board's finding that it would have been obvious to use thermoplastic material to form Kanishi's state or can.

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
We believe there is, and that evidence includes Kanishi itself, as well as the testimony of Dr. Trumper.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
So what was Dr. Trumper's testimony with respect to why the thermoplastic could be used on all aspects of Kanishi?

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
Dr. Trumper testified that thermoplastics, such as those disclosed in Kenish, were well known to be suitable for high-temperature operations.

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
And that's exactly what the stator can would be exposed to in that area of the motor.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
Dr. Trumper's... But why didn't you respond to the patent owner's expert when he discussed the fact that

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
that there are certain high temperature operations and then there are extreme high temperature operations and they're different things.

[00:16:40] Speaker 04:
I don't know why he didn't respond, Your Honor, but what I can say is there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that Kenichi... I'd like to just take a step back to answer your question.

[00:16:54] Speaker 04:
Kenichi itself discloses pretty much everything you need to know about the use of the thermoplastic motor for the stator can.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
As you alluded to earlier, Judge Amali and Judge Toronto, there are passages in Kenichi

[00:17:06] Speaker 04:
that refer to the fact that the stator can, in combination with the stator molded portion, are what is sealing the stator.

[00:17:14] Speaker 04:
And then there are other passages that say that sealing the stator core, et cetera, can be done using thermoplastic resin.

[00:17:24] Speaker 04:
So those two disclosures together is a teaching that you can use thermoplastic resins before the stator can.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
What was the last thing that you just were referring to?

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
Well, Kaneshi discloses that both the molded portion and the stator can can be made of synthetic resin.

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
That's an undisputed point.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
Kenishi also discloses that the synthetic resins that can be used to, quote, seal the stator core, et cetera, include thermoplastic resins.

[00:17:49] Speaker 04:
That's the paragraph 30 that you referred to.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
And did the board or you rely on that?

[00:17:54] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:55] Speaker 04:
The board relied on those teachings to conclude.

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
On paragraph 30?

[00:17:58] Speaker 04:
On paragraph 30 as well as the paragraph 38, I believe, but certainly paragraph 30.

[00:18:05] Speaker 04:
and concluded that there's a teaching, at least a teaching or suggestion in Kenichi to use thermoplastic resins for both the stator molded portion as well as the can.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
Now this is an obvious... Where is that in the board opinion?

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
So I'm on appendix page 90.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
And the board says at the middle of the bottom paragraph, moreover, Keneshi discloses various types of thermoplastics that may be used, quote, to seal the stator core, et cetera, citing the paragraphs 30 and 31.

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
Keneshi also discloses that injection molding is an exemplary method of sealing the stator core, paragraph 37.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
Earlier, in the previous sentence, it cites to paragraph 38 for the proposition that Kenishi explicitly states that the stator mobile portion and stator core are formed as a single unit.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
Now, to be clear, this is an obviousness argument.

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
So even if there's not an express disclosure that specifically says you can make the stator can out of a thermoplastic resin, there's still substantial evidence to support the board's finding because this was an obviousness argument.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
And what the board found was,

[00:19:41] Speaker 04:
You take that teaching of Kenichi in combination with the testimony of Dr. Trumper who said that thermoplastic resins of the type that are disclosed in Kenichi are suitable for high temperature environments that you would experience in the state.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
Those two teachings together are substantial evidence to support the board's finding.

[00:20:00] Speaker 04:
I would also venture to say that Dr. Trumper's testimony on that point is fully supported by other evidence in the record about the state of the art.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
Would you just mind giving me the JA site for the Trumper testimony that you just mentioned?

[00:20:12] Speaker 04:
The Trumper testimony can be found at appendix 3110 to 11.

[00:20:26] Speaker 04:
Now, if I may just add that Dr. Trumper's testimony is also supported by record evidence regarding the state of the art generally for the use of thermoplastics to encapsulate various motor components.

[00:20:40] Speaker 04:
And that was just one example.

[00:20:42] Speaker 04:
The Neil reference, which is part of the state of the art and of record in this proceeding,

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
discloses the use of thermoplastics that can withstand up to 700 degrees Fahrenheit and can be used to directly encapsulate the windings of a stator, which is where the heat is going to be generated in these motors.

[00:21:00] Speaker 04:
And in fact, Neil discloses the same preferred thermoplastic that the 348 patent discloses as its preferred embodiment, a material called conduit with a K.

[00:21:09] Speaker 04:
And the record contains many other examples of the use of thermoplastics to directly encapsulate the windings of a stator.

[00:21:16] Speaker 04:
And so this is further evidence supporting not only Dr. Trumper's opinion, but also the finding of the board that it would have been obvious to use a thermoplastic material for the stator can.

[00:21:28] Speaker 04:
Now, unless there's other questions on Kenishi, I'm happy to answer those, or I can move on to Zimmerman.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
Now, with respect to the Zimmerman combination, which was Zimmerman in combination with Stefan and Neal, the only issue the court needs to decide is whether substantial evidence supports the board's finding that it would have been obvious in view of Stefan and Neal to use injection molded thermoplastic to form Zimmerman's monolithic body.

[00:21:58] Speaker 04:
And we submit there is, and that evidence includes

[00:22:01] Speaker 04:
The Neal and Stefon references themselves, as well as the plastics treatise, all of which the board considered.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
Why wasn't it your burden to prove that Zimmerman wasn't too thick, as opposed to shifting the burden to the patent holder to show that it was?

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, we disagree that there was any shift of any burden to the patent holder.

[00:22:25] Speaker 04:
We know that that's what their argument is.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
But if you look at what the board did, the board considered the argument they were making, which is essentially an argument against motivation to combine.

[00:22:34] Speaker 04:
So in that sense, it's no different than an argument about teaching a way or an argument that the two references are incompatible.

[00:22:40] Speaker 04:
or that they would render one of the essential teachings of the patent inoperable.

[00:22:46] Speaker 04:
These are all types of arguments that are made against motivation to combine.

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
And what KSR and what Graham instruct and what this court has instructed is that the board is to take all of that type of evidence of non-obviousness and weigh it against the evidence of obviousness to determine whether the patent, excuse me, the petitioner has carried its burden by proponents of the evidence.

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
And that's what the board did.

[00:23:10] Speaker 02:
plastics treatise that the board relied on, it only talked about minimum levels of thickness.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
It didn't define what would occur at a maximum level of thickness or what a maximum level of thickness was, and it said repeatedly that you don't want it to be too thick.

[00:23:27] Speaker 04:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:23:28] Speaker 04:
It did say that it's the minimum thickness.

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
The conclusion the board drew from that was only that the disclosure suggests that the resin appropriate for a part's desired thickness may be chosen to avoid or mitigate the dimpling problem.

[00:23:44] Speaker 04:
concrete conclusion that my colleagues are suggesting.

[00:23:49] Speaker 04:
It simply drew from that discussion that there is a suggestion in that reference that you can choose different types of thermoplastics to achieve different results in your injection molding process, including thicknesses.

[00:24:01] Speaker 04:
But the plastics treatise wasn't the only thing the board relied on.

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
The board relied on the Stephon reference as well as the Neal reference.

[00:24:10] Speaker 04:
And I know that you went through the Neal reference during my colleague's time.

[00:24:15] Speaker 04:
I'd like to refer to Stephon, which is another reference the board relied upon.

[00:24:19] Speaker 04:
And if you refer, for instance, to the drawing, the annotated drawing at appendix page 504,

[00:24:27] Speaker 04:
You can see that Stefan, the lower housing portion of Stefan is formed through injection molding.

[00:24:34] Speaker 04:
And although it does have... Which figure are you talking about?

[00:24:36] Speaker 04:
This is going to be the annotated figure two of Stefan, which you can find at appendix page 504.

[00:24:43] Speaker 04:
And the point that the board relied upon is that Cephon is an example of using injection molding where you not only get thin portions, which you can see on the walls of the lower housing, but you also get substantially relatively thicker portions in the form of the wedge-shaped cutoff sections.

[00:25:01] Speaker 04:
And you can see a profile of one of those wedge-shaped cutoff sections labeled as number 40.

[00:25:07] Speaker 04:
And so the board relied on that evidence.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
It didn't put the burden on the patent owner.

[00:25:12] Speaker 04:
It weighed the evidence.

[00:25:13] Speaker 04:
It took the patent owner's evidence of face value, but then weighed that against other evidence that was countervailing.

[00:25:20] Speaker 04:
And this Stefan reference, in addition to the Neil reference, were two of the things it relied on, as well as the

[00:25:27] Speaker 04:
plastics treatise, which has a teaching that is directly contrary to what their experts said, which is that you wouldn't be able to use injection molding to form components of varying thicknesses.

[00:25:38] Speaker 04:
So I think the board did the proper analysis, did the proper weighing of the evidence, and we believe the evidence does support

[00:25:51] Speaker 04:
I've addressed the two references that my colleague addressed during his oral argument.

[00:25:56] Speaker 04:
I don't know whether the panel has any questions about Gould and Yamita, but I would point out that these are two additional independent grounds that the board relied on to find these claims unpatentable.

[00:26:09] Speaker 04:
And again, any one of these grounds would be sufficient to affirm the judgment.

[00:26:13] Speaker 01:
It's a factual question about Gould.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
Does Gould itself teach, or do some experts say,

[00:26:20] Speaker 01:
The chopper blade, this is in the garbage disposal, has some sort of fan-like angle to it or not?

[00:26:29] Speaker 04:
I don't know that there was any evidence one way or the other about the angle of that, Your Honor.

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
Isn't that what would cause either the water to be sucked down and out or to spit back up in the dishwasher's face?

[00:26:44] Speaker 04:
Not being a person of ordinary skill in the art, I would tend to agree with you that.

[00:26:52] Speaker 01:
the water goes down much faster when the garbage disposal is on.

[00:27:07] Speaker 04:
If I understand your question correctly, I agree with that.

[00:27:10] Speaker 04:
I don't think there was any testimony specifically about the angle, but there was testimony from Dr. Trumper that that pump, excuse me, that cool apparatus would operate like a pump because the impeller would impart a force to the fluid.

[00:27:25] Speaker 04:
If you look at the design of that

[00:27:26] Speaker 04:
Gould pump is very similar to many centrifugal type pumps, where you have some sort of an impeller in the middle spinning around and parting as a centrifugal force to the liquid.

[00:27:37] Speaker 04:
And if you look at where the outlet of Gould is, it's right there in that outer portion of that centrifugal casing.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
I had a hard time trying to understand how it

[00:27:46] Speaker 02:
2017 YouTube video has anything to do with 1950s garbage disposals?

[00:27:52] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, it was just an example that it was well known in the art essentially that conventional garbage disposals can be utilized as pumps.

[00:28:04] Speaker 04:
It certainly was not intended to in and of itself be a secondary reference.

[00:28:08] Speaker 04:
For instance, it was just additional evidence to show that this is mainstream knowledge that you can use a garbage disposal as a pump.

[00:28:16] Speaker 04:
And the board relied on it only to that extent.

[00:28:22] Speaker 04:
Unless your honors have any additional questions.

[00:28:27] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:28] Speaker 03:
And Mr. Stewart.

[00:28:40] Speaker 00:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:28:42] Speaker 00:
Just a couple of points.

[00:28:44] Speaker 00:
Regarding the Stefan reference and the annotated figure on appendix page 504.

[00:28:51] Speaker 00:
We think Stefan itself is quite clear that the figure two is just a cross-section of the Stefan pump, but with the outer housing not cut away and shown in the lower right-hand corner.

[00:29:06] Speaker 00:
And that's just from a reading of Stefan itself.

[00:29:10] Speaker 00:
I don't know that there's testimony on that.

[00:29:12] Speaker 00:
But that's not a thick, blocky region of thermoplastic.

[00:29:16] Speaker 00:
It is the thin outer wall of the funnel-shaped

[00:29:20] Speaker 02:
But that's a factual finding.

[00:29:21] Speaker 02:
I mean, the board made a factual finding that it does, in fact, show a thick area.

[00:29:29] Speaker 02:
You want us to reread the references and disagree with the board's factual conclusions?

[00:29:35] Speaker 00:
I think there's no evidence in Stefan to support that factual conclusion.

[00:29:40] Speaker 00:
It's simply an acceptance of an attorney argument that was made in briefing without any supporting factual evidence.

[00:29:50] Speaker 00:
I was going to move on to Neil if there's no further questions on Stefan.

[00:29:58] Speaker 00:
The Neil 554 patent as well as the patent in suit or the patent under review, the thermoplastic does come into contact with the windings, but the whole point of both of those patents is to cool those very regions

[00:30:17] Speaker 00:
either by bringing a fluid coolant very close to the windings or in the NL554 to put cooling inserts right next to those regions.

[00:30:28] Speaker 00:
And this is something that I believe that our experts addressed as well, and that's just not something

[00:30:35] Speaker 00:
that indicates that the stator can of Kenishi would be able to withstand the heat in that environment.

[00:30:49] Speaker 00:
Lastly, on the Gould patent, following up on Judge Toronto's question,

[00:30:55] Speaker 00:
There's just no evidence in the record that the Gould impeller imparts a downward force or an outward force on the liquid flowing through the garbage disposal.

[00:31:07] Speaker 00:
So I just don't think there's any evidence in the record that there's a pumping force there or a pump at all.

[00:31:13] Speaker 01:
And either downward or outward would, given the direction of the exit conduit,

[00:31:27] Speaker 00:
Yeah, if the impeller's spinning.

[00:31:30] Speaker 01:
Mr. Barney's reference to the centripetal force.

[00:31:33] Speaker 00:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:31:36] Speaker 00:
If the court has nothing further, I'll rest.

[00:31:40] Speaker ?:
OK, thank you.