[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Argument this morning is 20-1077, International Technologies versus Samsung.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
Mr. Haynes, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:11] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
This is John Haynes, and I represent the Appellate International Technologies, who I'll refer to as IDTEC in my argument.

[00:00:21] Speaker 02:
The entire purpose of the method recited in claim one of the 652 patent was to allow for newer technologies such as cell phones to communicate with the 21 million conventional card readers that had already been deployed at merchants throughout the country.

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
The district court's construction of the phrase exhibiting a different sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, or sorry, to magnetic fields defeats that purpose.

[00:00:51] Speaker 02:
by importing structural limitations that prevent the method from being used with the very conventional card readers with which it was designed to work.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
Neither the claims nor the specification place structural limitations on the reader heads in those conventional card readers.

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
Claim one merely acknowledges that the reader heads and conventional card readers exhibit a different sensitivity to external magnetic fields.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
What was your proposed claim construction Mr. Haynes?

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
Our proposed construction was that the leader heads exhibit a different sensitivity to the same magnetic field.

[00:01:34] Speaker 02:
And what we were referring to there was the external magnetic fields that are being generated as part of the claim method.

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
And perhaps we should have been more explicit about that, but the patent itself is actually very explicit about that.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
Every time it refers to the magnetic fields that are at issue and that the reader heads of the conventional card readers must respond to, it refers to those magnetic fields as the external magnetic fields.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
And we see that, for example, at Column 5, Line 59, it states,

[00:02:11] Speaker 02:
the heads of the conventional magnetic stripe card readers exhibit a different sensitivity to an external magnetic field.

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
And that tells us two things.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
First, it tells us that conventional card readers inherently exhibit a different sensitivity when they're exposed to those fields.

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
And second, it tells us that the sensitivity at issue is how the reader heads respond to external magnetic fields.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
That's what the claim method is about.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
It is about providing the ability to generate magnetic fields external to a conventional card reader such that the conventional card reader can receive and interpret those magnetic fields.

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
And that's all that's required.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
The district court's construction requires that those reader heads exhibit

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
a different output intensity in response to the same change in applied magnetic flux.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
That construction provides no clarity at all.

[00:03:20] Speaker 02:
It substitutes output intensity for sensitivity and then defines magnetic fields to be the same change in magnetic flux.

[00:03:35] Speaker 02:
That construction is wrong for at least three reasons.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
The first is that it introduces the notion that the sensitivity that the claim is referring to must be in response to the same change in applied magnetic flux.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
Neither the claims nor the specification refer to the external magnetic fields as creating the same change in applied magnetic flux.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
To the contrary, in the claimed invention, the magnetic fields at issue are those that are transmitted externally from the card reader.

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
and those external fields when they're received by the separate reader heads contained in those conventional card readers will not cause the same change in magnetic flux on those reader heads as a matter of physics.

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
Instead, each reader head will receive the externally generated fields at different strengths and exhibit a different output sensitivity regardless of the structure of the individual reader heads if considered in isolation.

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
This is Judge Toronto.

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
Can I ask this question, and forgive me if I get some of the language wrong, but I took it that you agreed, if not expressly, then implicitly in your gray brief, maybe in the blue tube, but in your gray brief around page nine, that if you look at figure 3B of the patent, that that is in idealized form

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
showing the adapter or the outside source as conveying to the two read heads at equally distant from the production of the magnetic field and therefore one assumes in that scenario

[00:05:33] Speaker 02:
that the two heads are in fact getting the identical strength magnetic field.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
And finally, that therefore 3B requires an internal inherent structural inductance difference between the two heads.

[00:05:54] Speaker 02:
Do I understand your understanding of 3B to be what I just said?

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
Not exactly.

[00:06:05] Speaker 02:
In figure 3B, and what we refer to on page 9 of our brief, the gray brief, is Samsung's view that that magnetic field would be received by those reader heads.

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
But then you respond not by denying it, but by saying, well, that's just one of the two ways reader heads can exhibit different sensitivities.

[00:06:26] Speaker 02:
And now look at 4B, where the magnetic field gets to 10A and 10B at different times.

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
And therefore, 10a and 10b each experience a different strength of the magnetic field.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
And they will then exhibit a different sensitivity because they're actually getting a different strength of the magnetic field.

[00:06:46] Speaker 02:
And that's an alternative way that must be covered by the language.

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
But as to 3b, I did not see you doing anything but accepting that the read heads in 3b had to have inherent structural inductance differences.

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
You're correct, Your Honor, that we didn't explicitly take that point on.

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
And the reason for that is that it requires a deeper discussion of the physics that are involved.

[00:07:13] Speaker 02:
The fact of the matter is that the magnetic fields that are generated are not going to be received with exactly the same strength, even in figure 3B.

[00:07:22] Speaker 02:
But it's pretty close in 3B.

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
We do concede that.

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
I mean, the positioning of the inductor in that claim is going to generate magnetic fields that are very close.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
in strength and therefore the difference in sensitivity will be minor.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
And you're correct that figure 4B is a much clearer example of the field strength that will undoubtedly and unquestionably be received with a different strength.

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
Right, I guess the single thing that seemed to me to weigh most in favor of the other side's point of view on this is that

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
3B seems for all the world to be about inherently different structural features of the heads, independent of the locational difference with respect to the source of the magnetic field.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
And then when the patent immediately goes on to say, there's another way you can align this, look at 4B, it merely shows an alternative location, but says not one word about suddenly that now

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
producing the required exhibited difference in a completely different way, even if there are inherent, even if the two read heads have identical inherent structures.

[00:08:44] Speaker 02:
And the absence of any description of the difference between 3B and 4B in terms of anything other than, look, you can put this in a different place.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
seemed to me to be rather strong confirmation for the idea that everything about the description of the read heads in terms of differences is about inherent differences.

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I respectfully disagree with part of that, which is in Figure 4B, the statement is apart from the difference in spatial orientation of the inductor relative to the two reader heads.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
That is noting that there is a difference in operation.

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
And that difference in operation is due to the fact that the inductor is located at a different position in figure 4B.

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
But I think it's also important to understand that the claim doesn't require the position in either 3B or 4B.

[00:09:45] Speaker 02:
It says that you can put that adapter anywhere proximate to the card reader, anywhere around it.

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
The notion that conventional card readers exhibited different sensitivity to external magnetic fields is something that's assumed in the specification.

[00:10:05] Speaker 02:
That's not a point of novelty or something that's special or different about conventional card readers or that was novel about this invention.

[00:10:14] Speaker 02:
What was novel about this invention was that it worked with conventional card readers by generating external magnetic fields.

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
What did you just say about what the patent kind of assumes about the character of the conventional card readers?

[00:10:33] Speaker 02:
The patent describes the characteristic of conventional card readers having a difference in sensitivity as an assumed property of conventional card readers.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
It says that conventional card readers exhibit a different sensitivity.

[00:10:49] Speaker 02:
It doesn't say that that sensitivity must be due to a difference in the structure of the reader head.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
It says they exhibit a different sensitivity to externally generated magnetic fields.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
And that's important because the district court's construction ignores the fact that the fields we're talking about in the claim are externally generated magnetic fields.

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
And that the difference in sensitivity is a response

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
to those externally generated magnetic fields.

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
And there is a difference in sensitivity because in the claim, you can generate those external magnetic fields anywhere in proximity to the card reader.

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
And the only limitation that is directed to the field strength in that claim relates to the externally generated magnetic fields.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
And those are required only to be of sufficient strength

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
to be received by their respective reader heads.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
And so while claim three, and frankly claim four, it could be the case that in a conventional card reader, you might have a different structure for the inductors.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
You might.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
And if you did, that would give you a difference in sensitivity.

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
But you also may have exactly the same reader heads.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
And if you have exactly the same reader heads, conventional card readers will still generate

[00:12:15] Speaker 02:
a difference in sensitivity with respect to externally generated electromagnetic fields.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
Mr. Haynes, this is Judge Lynn.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
It seems to me you're saying that both of the reader heads in a conventional reader would exhibit different sensitivities based on the different fields that are applied.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor, what I'm saying... If you're saying that reader heads are all exhibit different sensitivities depending on where the external coil is located.

[00:13:03] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, the difference in sensitivity is between the two reader heads that are located in the conventional card readers.

[00:13:11] Speaker 02:
So with respect to each other,

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
they will exhibit a different sensitivity to an electromagnetic field that is generated external to the card reader.

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
If you move that electromagnetic field somewhere else.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
That's, you're referring to what is illustrated in 4B, correct?

[00:13:32] Speaker 02:
It's illustrated in 4B, but again, the claim requires that you can place that adapter anywhere you want, proximate to the card reader.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
Yeah, but in order to achieve that result, then the reader heads themselves have to have a different sensitivity, such as in 3B.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
No, given the spatial positioning of the reader heads within the card reader, you will have a difference in sensitivity with any conventional card reader.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
The patent explains, gives specific examples of conventional card readers that work with the invention.

[00:14:15] Speaker 02:
And there's no real dispute that those conventional card readers, that there are at least some conventional card readers that have the same structural inductance.

[00:14:24] Speaker 02:
And the district court's construction would say that the hypercom terminal that is specifically identified in the specification as working with the invention does not work with the invention.

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
And that cannot be a correct result.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
And it's important to recognize that we're importing a limitation into the structure of the conventional card reader, which was not the point of the invention.

[00:14:48] Speaker 02:
The point of the invention was to work with all the 21 million conventional card readers that were already out there.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
And I'm not sure if I heard the beep, but I think I may have heard the beep.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
I could tell either.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
I think you did.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
We'll retain some of your rebuttal time.

[00:15:08] Speaker 01:
Let's hear from Mr. Cordell.

[00:15:11] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
Please support Ruffin Cordell for Samsung.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
I'd like to begin with the claim language, if I might, because the claim language to me really tells the tale here.

[00:15:24] Speaker 00:
The claim begins with a recitation of not just a reader head, but a magnetic

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
stripe reader device.

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
So we have both a system and then a component within it.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
And all of the action, if you will, in this appeal is about the reader head.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
But at each stage of the proceeding, when ID Tech tries to take us back to a higher level, introduce things like distance and orientation into the equation, they really seem to be talking about the magnetic stripe reader device rather than the reader head itself.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
But the claim is very specific.

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
It tells us that this reader head has a specific characteristic, that the reader head exhibits different sensitivity to magnetic fields.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say that it's at a particular distance from a source.

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say that it's oriented in a particular relationship.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
It says that it exhibits, it has a characteristic of having a different sensitivity to magnetic fields, plural.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
Let me just describe at least one thought that I've been contemplating.

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
One way to look at this is that the claim language doesn't actually resolve this question.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
As long as you keep the word exhibiting in front of the rest, exhibiting different sensitivity to a magnetic field could mean

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
what two things do when in a specific location so that, for example, you know, two students in a classroom, one near the window, one near the inside wall, might exhibit different sensitivity to outside noise even if they have the identical hearing characteristics.

[00:17:17] Speaker 02:
So it seems to me that the language of the claim all by itself could be read in the way that I think ID Tech is reading it.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
But might also refer to something inherent in, to use my analogy, the hearing ability of the two students in the classroom.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
And that it's therefore necessary to go look at what the specification is doing to illuminate whether we're talking about, whether it is talking about an inherent characteristic or rather something that is shown

[00:17:53] Speaker 02:
when things are in a particular location.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
What am I missing in the claim language itself about why you think that claim language points distinctively toward the inherent characteristic meaning?

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
So first, I absolutely agree with you that when you get to the specification, it lays to rest any question that you have.

[00:18:20] Speaker 02:
Well, subject to the big issue that it seems to me you need to address, which is the whole point here is to make 21 million conventional magnetic stripe readers work.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
And I will get right to that.

[00:18:34] Speaker 00:
But I'd like to pause with the plain language if I can, because IDTAC has put great significance into the term exhibiting.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
But what it really is is you need a verb there to associate a characteristic with the reader head.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
And it's odd that we've overlooked the term sensitivity.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
Both experts agreed that sensitivity is in fact a characteristic of an inductor embedded in a structure we call the reader head.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
And that's not in dispute.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
They both agree that that's true.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
And to take your Honor's example with respect to hearing, we don't talk about the sensitivity of one's hearing based on the proximity to the speaker.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
It's a comparative.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
It's a figure of merit.

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
It's something that tells me something about my ability to receive and decode signals.

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
And if you're going to allow an additional degree of freedom into that analysis,

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
based on the distance to the source, essentially the power of the signal, that's not sensitivity.

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
That just relates to your position, the power of the signal that you get.

[00:19:44] Speaker 00:
So the only way that sensitivity really makes any sense, and the way the experts discuss it, is if everything is equal and fair.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
If two devices are compared to the same change of magnetic flux, the way the court described it,

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
and they produce different outputs, then that means they have different sensitivity.

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
It doesn't simply mean that they receive different signals, which is what IDTAC advocates.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
And if I can then go to your question about the 20 million some odd point of sale terminals.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
We've gotten into a great debate about what a conventional point of sale terminal is, but the patent doesn't really allow us to have that debate.

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
So if we begin at the bottom of column five,

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
at line 63 or so.

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
It says the following discussion of the operation of the adapter according to embodiments of the present invention relies upon information taken from ISO standard 7811.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
These are standardized devices.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
This isn't a question where we need to go in and do lots of research.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
The patent tells us how they are configured.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
Just above that, it tells us the heads

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
This is about line 59.

[00:20:57] Speaker 00:
The heads of the conventional magnetic stripe card reader exhibit a different sensitivity to an external magnetic field.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say that they're positioned differently.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say that they were treated in different ways.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
It says the heads exhibit exactly the claim language, different sensitivity to an external magnetic field.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you this?

[00:21:19] Speaker 02:
And this may not be quite a precisely formulated question.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
Does the record contain ISO standard 7811 and whether or not it contains it?

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
Does it say that the reader heads have inherently different, I guess, inductance properties?

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
It does not, Your Honor.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
It is neither part of the record, at least not explicitly.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
We didn't put it into the appendix.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
It is referenced in the patent, however.

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
The 7811 standard actually relates to the tracks

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
on the credit card and gives us precise information about the bit density and the position of those tracks.

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
And Mr. Haynes went on and on about external magnetic fields.

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
The external magnetic fields in a conventional card reader are generated when you swipe the card through the card reader.

[00:22:15] Speaker 00:
And the movement of the magnetic domains on the stripe set forth in 7811 generate the magnetic field.

[00:22:23] Speaker 00:
But if I can stay with that for a moment, remember we're talking about a conventional card reader.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
And that conventional card reader is actually the one shown in figure one of the patent.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
And in figure one of the patent, it tells us that all of this discussion about distances and changing the sensitivity of a conventional reader head based on moving a source around is simply nowhere to be found.

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
And instead what you find is that the reader heads in a conventional point of sale terminal are fixed right next to the tracks that exist on the credit card.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
In my family, in the days when we only had mag stripes, we would wear out a credit card because the magnetic stripe abuts against the reader head as it moves through there.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
There are no variable distances.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
The distances are very small and they're made to be so intentionally

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
to maximize the signal received by the reader heads.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
Figure one is not exactly precise about showing, let's just call it the alignment of the tracks with the reader heads.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
Is there something in the specs description of figure one say the two tracks align with the two reader heads in the precise sense

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
that the distance from track one to head one is the same as the distance from track two to head two?

[00:23:56] Speaker 00:
You know, I had searched for the same thing, Your Honor, looking for, you know, a micron explanation, and it's not quite there.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
In the discussion of column six, there is a extensive discussion about the typical configuration of conventional reader heads, and that typical configuration lines up track one

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
with the track one reader head and track two with the track two reader head.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
But it doesn't give you the separation dimension per se.

[00:24:26] Speaker 00:
We do have a reference in the appendix at appendix 6194, which is the deposition of Mr. Wallner, where he describes the fact that these reader heads are intended to abut the tracks and be very, very close.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
Is it 10 microns?

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
Is it 50 microns?

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
I can't tell you.

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
But it is intended to be very, very close.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
And if I can stay with the column six discussion, we've also had much of the briefing where IDTAC attempts to set aside the only example that the patentee gives us of what different sensitivity really means in terms of a numeric quantification.

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
And they say this 20 dB example

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
It's just an example, but that's not what it says.

[00:25:16] Speaker 00:
What it tells us in column 6 at about line 19, starting at 18, it tells us that accordingly the track 1 reader head 10B is typically configured to detect an external magnetic field approximately 20 dB more sensitive than the track 2 reader head.

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
This isn't just an example, this is the typical configuration of a standardized point of sale terminal.

[00:25:39] Speaker 00:
And that's the evidence we get directly from the intrinsic record, directly out of the specification.

[00:25:45] Speaker 02:
Just to, I think, complete the thought that at least I'm understanding is that when therefore you get to the later paragraph that enumerates a host of in-service conventional card reader devices,

[00:26:07] Speaker 02:
there is not at that place anything that describes the inherent properties of the reader heads.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
And in the absence of that, one has to look to the column six to assume that they're actually different.

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
And that's what the patentee told us.

[00:26:25] Speaker 00:
Now, I think what ID Tech has done is they went out and found a variant of one of the terminals, and they put in some extrinsic evidence

[00:26:34] Speaker 00:
sort of after the initial claim construction ruling, but before the district court had affirmed the special master's report, where they suggested that the one they tested showed very similar reader heads.

[00:26:49] Speaker 02:
But I thought that that declaration also says, beyond testing or describing the particular one, also says that since the 1990s, these devices

[00:27:02] Speaker 02:
were sold with structurally identical reader heads.

[00:27:07] Speaker 00:
So they had two different declarations.

[00:27:09] Speaker 00:
They had one from their expert where he tested this one variant of, it wasn't a T7, it was a T7P or T7PF.

[00:27:16] Speaker 00:
They never really explained what the difference was.

[00:27:18] Speaker 00:
And then they had a declaration from one of their executives who said he was in the business and that he believed that these were, the reader heads were somewhat similar.

[00:27:29] Speaker 00:
But all of that extrinsic evidence, you know, even if we overlook the timing of it and the fact that it was put in after the fact, all of that extrinsic evidence can't contradict what is set forth here in black and white in the intrinsic record.

[00:27:42] Speaker 00:
They tell us that these conventional point of sale terminals have reader heads with radically different sensitivities manifest into a 20 dB difference between the two.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
That's a hundred times difference in terms of its sensitivity.

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
And there's really nothing to contradict that in the record.

[00:28:03] Speaker 00:
There's not a shred of evidence anywhere that suggests that those reader heads had different sensitivities based on the distance to the field source.

[00:28:15] Speaker 00:
Because as I pointed out, the field source was a credit card moving through the slot at micron distances from the reader heads themselves.

[00:28:29] Speaker 01:
Anything further, colleagues?

[00:28:32] Speaker 03:
Not for me.

[00:28:33] Speaker 03:
No, thank you.

[00:28:37] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:38] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:28:41] Speaker 01:
Mr. Haynes, you've got some time, a few minutes left for rebuttal.

[00:28:46] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:47] Speaker 02:
Let me start by picking up where Mr. Ruffin left off.

[00:28:52] Speaker 02:
The specification says absolutely nothing to require

[00:28:57] Speaker 02:
that the reader heads of conventional card readers must have a different structure.

[00:29:03] Speaker 02:
But what it does say over and over and over again is that this invention works with conventional card readers available at the time.

[00:29:12] Speaker 02:
Says it in the first sentence of the abstract, the first sentence of the summary of the invention, and the first sentence of the detailed description.

[00:29:20] Speaker 02:
It's the whole point of the invention.

[00:29:23] Speaker 02:
The limitation that's being imported into the claims

[00:29:26] Speaker 02:
makes that impossible.

[00:29:29] Speaker 02:
No one is disputing and Mr. Ruffin won't tell you that the district court's construction will allow the invention to work with the 21 million conventional card readers that had been deployed at the time.

[00:29:43] Speaker 02:
And your honor's already pointed out that at appendix 5802, there's unrebutted testimony from somebody that has been working in the industry his entire career.

[00:29:56] Speaker 02:
that, as of the 1990s, most of the conventional card readers did not have a difference in structural inductance.

[00:30:06] Speaker 02:
So there may have been some.

[00:30:09] Speaker 02:
And the part of the invention that is not claimed, that requires selective communication, where you actually transmit magnetic fields having different strengths, which is referenced in Claim 7 but not Claim 1, may take advantage of

[00:30:26] Speaker 02:
some subset, but the broadest claim won and the invention itself was designed to work with all card readers.

[00:30:34] Speaker 02:
Can you just specifically address the column 6 use of the word typically?

[00:30:41] Speaker 02:
It does say typically in column 6 in the context of the specific embodiment of selective communication.

[00:30:49] Speaker 02:
That sentence is also odd

[00:30:51] Speaker 02:
because when it talks about what is typical, it's referencing, it says it's typically configured to detect external magnetic field, approximately 20 dB more sensitive.

[00:31:04] Speaker 02:
So the external magnetic field that it's talking about are the magnetic fields that are outside the carburetor.

[00:31:10] Speaker 02:
Now, Mr. Ruffin indicated that the external magnetic field is the magnetic field generated by the card swipe, but that's not what it's talking about.

[00:31:18] Speaker 02:
The external magnetic fields that are being talked about in this invention are specifically designed to be outside of the card slot.

[00:31:26] Speaker 02:
The title of the invention is external adapter.

[00:31:30] Speaker 02:
And if you read the specification, there are numerous examples, references to the fact that what they wanted to avoid was getting in the way of the conventional card reader being used with a credit card.

[00:31:43] Speaker 02:
So instead, you're going to transmit fields outside of that slot.

[00:31:46] Speaker 02:
And those are the external fields that it's talking about.

[00:31:50] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:31:51] Speaker 01:
I think we heard the buzzer go off.

[00:31:54] Speaker 01:
We thank both sides and the case is submitted.

[00:31:57] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:31:59] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:32:01] Speaker 01:
That concludes our proceeding for this morning.

[00:32:05] Speaker 01:
The Honorable Court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.