[00:00:00] Speaker 00: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session. [00:00:07] Speaker 00: God save the United States and this honorable court. [00:00:13] Speaker 01: Our first case this morning is number 20-1270, Kinetic Inc. [00:00:18] Speaker 01: versus Samsung Electronics. [00:00:21] Speaker 01: Mr. Beam. [00:00:24] Speaker 02: Thank you and good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:25] Speaker 02: This is Edward Beam, RU on behalf of Appellant Kinetic, Incorporated. [00:00:29] Speaker 02: We are appealing the board's use of the broadest possible interpretation in erroneously construing the sleep command limitation to not be logically correlated to the steps of the step motion algorithm and the erroneous construction of the term sleep by allowing motion sense during sleep to be executed upon reactivation of the step motion algorithm. [00:00:50] Speaker 02: The board interpreted the claims devoid of any context of what the patent teaches and indeed the board's construction is inconsistent with the intrinsic record. [00:00:58] Speaker 02: Although this court has held that the correct inquiry is, quote, not whether the specification prescribes or precludes some broad reading of the claim, that is precisely what the board did here by adopting Samson's argument that, quote, nothing in the claims or the specification precludes using data sent during the sleep period in commands that are executed after the system is reactivated. [00:01:20] Speaker 02: The claim invention includes a step motion algorithm, which requires that the algorithmic steps of claim 22 to be logically and conditionally related to each other as a set of instructions in accord with the specification and the intrinsic record. [00:01:36] Speaker 01: What do you mean by logical relationship? [00:01:39] Speaker 01: Do you mean by that that the motion instruction has to bring about the sleep period after it's executed? [00:01:50] Speaker 02: Yes, the step motion algorithm is an algorithm, which is a process of rules that are followed by a computing system to problem solve different operations. [00:02:04] Speaker 02: Here, the step motion algorithm solves the problem. [00:02:07] Speaker 01: All the term algorithm requires is that steps be executed in order. [00:02:11] Speaker 01: It doesn't, in and of itself, require a logical relationship, right? [00:02:18] Speaker 02: As part of that logical relationship, the specification also conditions. [00:02:24] Speaker 01: No, no. [00:02:24] Speaker 01: Wait. [00:02:24] Speaker 01: Try to answer my question. [00:02:26] Speaker 01: Sure. [00:02:28] Speaker 01: In terms of plain and ordinary meaning, algorithm just means the steps are performed in order. [00:02:34] Speaker 01: The term algorithm itself doesn't require a logical relationship. [00:02:40] Speaker 02: Well, I would say that they must be performed in order. [00:02:45] Speaker 02: So there is a logical relationship that the algorithm is performed [00:02:48] Speaker 02: in a step-by-step procedure to solve for a problem or accomplish some sort of end. [00:02:56] Speaker 02: So yes, they must be performed. [00:02:57] Speaker 02: And one would, a facility would understand that the algorithmic steps of an algorithm would be followed in the recited order. [00:03:06] Speaker 02: Otherwise, it would not solve the intended problem. [00:03:09] Speaker 01: They have to be done in the recited order. [00:03:12] Speaker 01: But you're saying that there has to be something more here besides being performed in order. [00:03:17] Speaker 01: You say that there has to be a logical relationship, but the meaning of algorithm only requires that they could be performed in order, right? [00:03:29] Speaker 02: Well, they are performed in order, but we also are saying that they are conditioned upon each other, that one must follow the other. [00:03:37] Speaker 00: Are you saying it has to be immediate, though? [00:03:40] Speaker 00: That it has to follow it immediately? [00:03:44] Speaker 02: Yes, that it's followed. [00:03:47] Speaker 02: For example, the execution, the fleet command is conditioned upon the execution command. [00:03:55] Speaker 02: If you would refer to our blue brief at page 29, figure 12 of the 146, shows the stepwise algorithm. [00:04:07] Speaker 02: It's the simple step motion algorithm implemented on top of the motion input algorithm. [00:04:12] Speaker 02: And the execution of step 1204 [00:04:17] Speaker 02: then a sleep command is sent to a motion input algorithm at 1206. [00:04:22] Speaker 02: So that is sent is an affirmative statement. [00:04:27] Speaker 00: And so it conditions the... Well, the board agreed that the one had to cause the other, but the board said that there could be intervening acts between the cause and the result, right? [00:04:44] Speaker 02: They tried to go down that road that there could be intervening acts, and certainly there could be things added within the algorithm because of the comprising language, but you can't render the existing claims a nullity. [00:05:03] Speaker 02: The fleet command must follow the execution command. [00:05:08] Speaker 04: Are we talking about sleep command limitation or the after the command is executed? [00:05:15] Speaker 01: Judge Clevenger, you're breaking up a bit. [00:05:17] Speaker 01: I'm sorry. [00:05:20] Speaker 05: Can you hear me now? [00:05:22] Speaker 01: Try that. [00:05:23] Speaker 05: Yes. [00:05:26] Speaker 05: Are you talking about the sleep command limitation or are you talking about the after the command is executed limitation? [00:05:33] Speaker 05: Or are you mixing them up? [00:05:35] Speaker 02: The after the sleep command limitation is step two of the step motion algorithm, which includes the after command is executed language that you're referring to. [00:05:50] Speaker 02: So step two is instructions to send the sleep command to the motion input algorithm after the command is executed. [00:05:56] Speaker 02: And that command is executed in step one of the algorithm. [00:06:00] Speaker 05: Yes, I understand. [00:06:02] Speaker 05: But I understood your argument about [00:06:05] Speaker 05: the after not being limited solely to temporal, but it also had a conditional requirement. [00:06:13] Speaker 04: Correct. [00:06:15] Speaker 05: And that's what I understood you to be talking about in your logical relationship, whether or not the outer mass to be performed in order. [00:06:24] Speaker 02: Well, I think it's logical and conditional because the way the board has construed it, you know, after can mean any time after. [00:06:33] Speaker 02: So there's no sort of [00:06:35] Speaker 02: It's temporal only and no, you know, end in time. [00:06:39] Speaker 02: So indeed, under their construction, you know, it still may not have happened. [00:06:44] Speaker 02: You know, here we're saying that not only is it logically correlated, but it's conditioned on the execution of the command from step one. [00:06:53] Speaker 02: And as that is done, the sleep command, instructions to send the sleep command are executed or are set to be after the command. [00:07:02] Speaker 01: I don't understand the board to be saying [00:07:05] Speaker 01: that you could have the sleep command take place before the motion command is executed. [00:07:13] Speaker 01: Are you suggesting that? [00:07:14] Speaker 02: No, I'm not suggesting that as before. [00:07:18] Speaker 02: Certainly not. [00:07:18] Speaker 02: I'm just saying that the instruction to send the sleep command must happen after the command is executed, the execution of the [00:07:31] Speaker 02: the command from step one, that it happened. [00:07:33] Speaker 01: Well, doesn't the board agree with that, that the sleep command has to happen afterwards, temporarily? [00:07:44] Speaker 02: Well, temporarily, I think, is the board's possible interpretation of the term after, because they're providing such a, again, allowing the after to occur at any possible time later. [00:07:59] Speaker 02: in undefined time. [00:08:00] Speaker 02: Here we're seeing conditions. [00:08:02] Speaker 00: What in the specification would lead us to the conclusion that there can't be a great gap of time or a lot of other activity that occurs between the command and the sleep function actually occurring? [00:08:22] Speaker 02: Well, again, I'd refer you back to, you know, Figure 12, which is an affirmative [00:08:28] Speaker 02: use of the is-sense language, demonstrating the stepwise function of the algorithm. [00:08:38] Speaker 02: And certainly we need the purpose of the invention is to block returning motion. [00:08:51] Speaker 02: Hello? [00:08:52] Speaker 02: Oh, I'm sorry. [00:08:58] Speaker 02: The delaying of the execution is not consistent with the sleek command or the specification. [00:09:04] Speaker 02: That means the specification explains that the invention must allow the system to readjust without cursor moving on the screen by ignoring the motion that is returning, which means that the sleek command must be executed after the execution of the command from the motion input algorithm of step one. [00:09:24] Speaker 01: But what does that have to do with logical relationship? [00:09:27] Speaker 01: That seems to me to be an argument that after means immediately after or almost immediately after. [00:09:48] Speaker 02: Yeah, if it's not conditional, it defies the [00:09:55] Speaker 02: purpose of the claim to ignore returning motion. [00:09:58] Speaker 02: The fact is that upon execution of the command from step one, it must then go into a sleep command. [00:10:07] Speaker 02: I mean, that's the conditional relationship. [00:10:09] Speaker 00: If we don't follow that conditional relationship... But are you asking us to import the word immediately into the claim? [00:10:18] Speaker 02: Well, the specification teaches that in order for a returning motion to be ignored, the SLEEC command must conditionally follow the execution. [00:10:27] Speaker 02: I don't know necessarily if we need to import anything. [00:10:29] Speaker 02: I think the specification clearly teaches that, and there's nothing in the specification that teaches, frankly, away from that that teaches otherwise. [00:10:43] Speaker 05: Mr. Clever, what's wrong? [00:10:45] Speaker 05: I'm looking at the claim position [00:10:47] Speaker 05: in appendix 10 to 11. [00:10:51] Speaker 05: And they say that the after means that there's a temporal relationship between the executed command and the sleep man that requires the executed man to occur. [00:11:02] Speaker 05: And then at some later point in time, the command is issued. [00:11:04] Speaker 05: So there is a conditional relationship. [00:11:07] Speaker 05: It's just that there can be a long period of time. [00:11:13] Speaker 02: So I don't understand. [00:11:17] Speaker 05: But with all due respect, I do not understand what you mean by a conditional or a causal relationship, because the interpretation says that the command requires the executed command first to occur, so that the second command is conditioned on the occurrence of the previous event. [00:11:43] Speaker 05: Well, the prior R that is cited here is the condition on the... I'm not interested in prior R. I'm interested in what you're telling me is supposed to happen that isn't covered by the claim instruction. [00:11:58] Speaker 05: Isn't there a conditional relationship between the executed command and the suite command? [00:12:06] Speaker 02: Yes, and there must be, because again... But I'm saying, wouldn't it be the definition that the board gave? [00:12:14] Speaker 05: What more do you want? [00:12:17] Speaker 02: Well, the board gave us only a temporal relationship, which means it could happen at any time, meaning that the returning motion that the invention is seeking to block would otherwise be sensed and commands would be issued thereon. [00:12:33] Speaker 02: The sleep command has to issue after the execution of the command from step one. [00:12:39] Speaker 02: There cannot be this sort of lag in time between step one and step two [00:12:44] Speaker 05: Otherwise, returning motions... Now you're saying that there is a relationship, but it allows a lag in time. [00:12:58] Speaker 05: The presiding judge was asking earlier as well as Judge O'Malley what's wrong with the interpretation that says there is a point in time [00:13:11] Speaker 05: between the executed command and the sleep command? [00:13:17] Speaker 05: Why does the existence of a period of time negate and condition a causal push? [00:13:26] Speaker 02: Because the sleep command is triggered by the execution of the command from step one. [00:13:33] Speaker 05: And again, that... Let's assume it's triggered [00:13:38] Speaker 05: immediately or if triggered at an undetermined moment in time, it's still triggered by and therefore conditional. [00:13:47] Speaker 02: But if it's not triggered immediately, if it doesn't immediately follow, then the motion, the returning motions that are sought to be ignored by the invention, as taught by the specification as the purpose of the invention, [00:13:59] Speaker 02: would be not ignored. [00:14:01] Speaker 02: I mean, it would go against the teaching of the specification in whole. [00:14:05] Speaker 00: Right. [00:14:05] Speaker 00: So your point is that if it's construed the way the board construed it, then it totally negates the entire point of the invention, right? [00:14:16] Speaker 00: Yeah, absolutely. [00:14:16] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:14:18] Speaker 01: So what you're saying is that after ought to be construed to mean immediately after. [00:14:26] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:14:26] Speaker 02: And again, there's nothing in the specification. [00:14:28] Speaker 01: Did you ask for that construction before the board? [00:14:35] Speaker 02: We did not ask that the immediate. [00:14:37] Speaker 02: We did say that it should be conditionally argued, that it's conditionally related, and that it should be followed upon the execution. [00:14:48] Speaker 05: But as the board interprets, [00:14:53] Speaker 05: I mean, I understand you to have admitted that the board's definition has a conditional element. [00:15:01] Speaker 05: It's just that it has an open-ended time for performing the condition. [00:15:06] Speaker 02: No, I believe that it does not have a conditional element, that the board's construction is only temporal. [00:15:12] Speaker 02: And that we have always argued that there is a conditional requirement as well. [00:15:18] Speaker 02: I mean, there's a logical. [00:15:20] Speaker 05: But you can read the interpretation of the final page 10 going to 11 to say that indicates a temporal relationship between these two events, meaning the time is open-ended. [00:15:37] Speaker 02: I'm sorry. [00:15:40] Speaker 02: I don't know if I followed your question. [00:15:41] Speaker 05: The board's interpretation, as I read it, says that they recognize that there is a temporal relationship between an executed command and a sleep command that requires the one to occur before the other. [00:15:57] Speaker 05: It's temporal in nature in that it's open-ended, but it's still conditional, because the relationship between the two is conditional. [00:16:08] Speaker 02: I would argue that the [00:16:09] Speaker 02: If it is indeed conditional, then one would follow the other. [00:16:17] Speaker 05: Why would it follow immediately? [00:16:19] Speaker 02: Well, it would follow immediately. [00:16:24] Speaker 02: The algorithm has stated there is no room for interpretation by the computer device that's running it. [00:16:34] Speaker 02: If the instructions to execute the command are sent, then [00:16:39] Speaker 02: the executions to send the sleep command follow because of the executing of the command from step one. [00:16:46] Speaker 02: There is no intervening time. [00:16:48] Speaker 05: It is conditioned upon the... Well, the last figure, figure 12, doesn't indicate any amount of time between the two arrows. [00:16:57] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, you broke up, sir? [00:16:59] Speaker 05: Figure figure 12 is showing the relationship, right? [00:17:04] Speaker 02: Yes, figure 12, figure 12, right. [00:17:06] Speaker 05: And the sleep kit is then... And figure 12 has the arrows, but it doesn't... It doesn't dictate whether that's immediate or at some point in time. [00:17:18] Speaker 02: Right, but when you look into this, when you read the specification and the purpose of the invention, it's specifically to ignore returning motion. [00:17:26] Speaker 02: And the only way to ignore returning motion is to immediately [00:17:34] Speaker 02: have step two send instructions for the sleep command after step one is executed. [00:17:41] Speaker 02: If there is any sort of time delay in there, again, undefined time delay, not even described in the specification, that would allow returning motion to not be ignored. [00:17:52] Speaker 02: I mean, it would go completely against the purpose of the invention. [00:17:56] Speaker 01: Well, that makes sense, but what it seems to turn on is not whether it's temporal [00:18:02] Speaker 01: or logical in your view, but on whether the thing has to happen immediately or soon thereafter. [00:18:10] Speaker 01: And what I'm asking is you didn't tell the board that their construction had to mean immediately. [00:18:25] Speaker 02: No, we said it could not be a time difference. [00:18:29] Speaker 02: We said it couldn't be days, weeks. [00:18:31] Speaker 02: I mean, the time here is completely undefined. [00:18:35] Speaker 02: And again, the specification speaks to the fact that if there is any gap in time. [00:18:41] Speaker 01: But a temporal construction doesn't necessarily mean that it can be forever. [00:18:47] Speaker 01: A temporal construction could mean temporally but immediately or temporally or soon. [00:18:56] Speaker 02: But the specification, reading the specification tells one of skills in the art that it's immediate because you have to ignore returning motion. [00:19:05] Speaker 02: I mean the motion, the device is always in motion. [00:19:08] Speaker 02: There are calculations flying in. [00:19:11] Speaker 02: Any sort of time gap between step one and step two is going to allow that returning motion to come in and frankly corrupt the system. [00:19:22] Speaker 01: Fine, but it doesn't depend on whether it's a logical relationship or a temporal relationship. [00:19:29] Speaker 01: The construction you're urging is that it should be immediate. [00:19:35] Speaker 01: But as I understand it, you didn't argue that to the board. [00:19:38] Speaker 01: You said instead that it couldn't be temporal and had to be logical, whatever that means. [00:19:46] Speaker 02: Well, it's temporal logical because it's an algorithm, temporal because it happens after, but it's also conditioned upon. [00:19:56] Speaker 02: And that is the key thing we're arguing that once the instructions execute the command from step one come, step two happens immediately thereafter because it's conditioned upon receiving that command from step one. [00:20:11] Speaker 02: And again, it's an algorithm that [00:20:13] Speaker 02: There is no space to make a decision otherwise. [00:20:17] Speaker 02: It's a stepwise function. [00:20:21] Speaker 02: Step one happens, and step two happens as a response to step one. [00:20:27] Speaker 01: OK, well, unless my panel members have other questions for Mr. Bean, I think we'll hear from Mr. Cytron. [00:20:37] Speaker 01: Are there any further questions? [00:20:38] Speaker 05: Could I just clarify, if I raise one thing, perhaps it would help Mr. Beam in the time that he has while we're looking at the patent owner's cert reply to the board on this issue, sir, Mr. Beam. [00:20:56] Speaker 05: And I noticed that on page two of your cert reply, you did complain that the petitioner's view [00:21:04] Speaker 05: provided that the sneak command need only be sent at some indefinite time after the command is executed. [00:21:11] Speaker 05: And I wonder if you further develop that argument before the board. [00:21:19] Speaker 05: So what I'm citing in your surreply at least is some indication that you were worried about the length of time after the command is executed. [00:21:34] Speaker 05: This goes to Judge Dyke's question about whether, the presiding judge's question about whether you raised this amount of time issue before the board. [00:21:47] Speaker 05: That's my only point. [00:21:49] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:21:50] Speaker 01: Mr. Bean, we'll give you two minutes for a rebuttal. [00:21:55] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:21:58] Speaker 01: Mr. Svitron. [00:22:02] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:22:02] Speaker 03: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:22:03] Speaker 03: Can you hear me? [00:22:05] Speaker 03: Yes, we can hear you. [00:22:07] Speaker 03: May it please the court. [00:22:08] Speaker 03: My name is Philip C. Doran, and I'm arguing on behalf of Appellee Samsung. [00:22:13] Speaker 03: Kinetic's argument today focuses on whether the board erred by not construing the Claim 22 so that the, quote, instructions to send the sleep command are conditioned upon, whereas noted today must occur immediately after the prior instructions to execute a command from the motion input algorithm. [00:22:33] Speaker 03: As the board explained at A10 to 11, neither the claims nor the specification support such a narrow construction. [00:22:40] Speaker 00: The board's construction here is... Well, doesn't the specification, I mean, the language doesn't say maybe sent at some future point in time. [00:22:48] Speaker 00: The language says that it is sent, right? [00:22:52] Speaker 00: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:22:53] Speaker 00: And that's what Figure 12 says. [00:22:55] Speaker 03: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:22:56] Speaker 03: But the language that's used in a specification, which is very similar to the term after that's used in the claim, is that it's sent following execution of the motion input command. [00:23:06] Speaker 03: So looking at the claims and that explanation in the specification, that term doesn't imply or require some sort of conditional relationship. [00:23:15] Speaker 03: It implies some temporal relationship, which is the same conclusion that the board reached. [00:23:20] Speaker 00: Broadest reasonable construction still has to be a logical construction in light of the specification as a whole, doesn't it? [00:23:27] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor, that's absolutely correct. [00:23:29] Speaker 03: And we believe the board's construction here is consistent with the specification and is a reasonable interpretation based on both the claims and the specification. [00:23:39] Speaker 00: Well, wouldn't it completely negate the whole point of the invention? [00:23:44] Speaker 03: We don't believe it would, Your Honor. [00:23:46] Speaker 03: And what Connecticut attempted to do in its preaching is focus on really one sentence in the specification, which states that the forces caused by returning motion must be ignored. [00:23:58] Speaker 03: But there's a few issues with that argument as an initial matter, as Your Honors know, the claims themselves. [00:24:05] Speaker 01: I'm totally confused. [00:24:06] Speaker 01: Look, as Judge O'Malley points out, [00:24:09] Speaker 01: And this invention, even if you regard it as a temporal limitation, suggests that the sleep period has to happen soon thereafter. [00:24:23] Speaker 01: It can't be a matter of days or weeks. [00:24:25] Speaker 01: That makes no sense in terms of the invention. [00:24:28] Speaker 01: So even if you view it as a temporal limitation, there has to be some notion in the temporal limitation that it's happening pretty soon thereafter. [00:24:39] Speaker 01: And what I was trying to get at with Mr. Beam is whether that construction, which seems to make some sense, was one that Kinetic asked the board to make. [00:24:55] Speaker 01: I mean, do you agree that the temporal limitation, there has to be some short period of time that we're talking about rather than weeks, right? [00:25:10] Speaker 03: Your Honor, I don't think that the claims or the sophistication necessarily require that. [00:25:15] Speaker 03: And here's why. [00:25:17] Speaker 03: There is a discussion of what step motion means in Columns 13 and 14 of 146 Patent, which is at Appendix 55. [00:25:26] Speaker 03: And it defines it simply as allowing for readjustment between the system, excuse me, allowing readjustment of the system between steps without using sliding zero code, which is a prior art [00:25:39] Speaker 03: algorithm that's used. [00:25:42] Speaker 03: It then goes on to explain that using permissive language that you can allow forces caused by returning motion to be ignored. [00:25:50] Speaker 03: That's at the bottom of column 13, line 63 to 65. [00:25:54] Speaker 03: In column 14, it then goes on to describe, and this is in line 3, the simple step motion algorithm has an additional feature based on the introduction of an insensitivity timeout, also known as a sleep period. [00:26:07] Speaker 01: And if you go further down, you're not answering the question. [00:26:12] Speaker 01: The question is, I mean, it makes sense that the temporal period of time, if that is the construction, has to be a very short period of time. [00:26:21] Speaker 01: And I don't understand how you can really dispute that. [00:26:26] Speaker 01: The question is, was that [00:26:30] Speaker 01: requirements, one that was argued to the board. [00:26:32] Speaker 01: We had a case recently, an Uber case, where the language was responsive to and then again involved in what the period of time was. [00:26:42] Speaker 01: We looked at specification to determine what the period of time was. [00:26:46] Speaker 01: And so here, it seems to me to make sense to say if you're going to have a temporal limitation, which is what it is, you look at the specification to see how long that period can be, and here it has to be pretty short. [00:27:00] Speaker 01: And I just don't understand how you can argue otherwise. [00:27:04] Speaker 01: The question is whether that construction was presented to the board. [00:27:10] Speaker 03: Sure, Your Honor. [00:27:11] Speaker 03: So I don't believe that precise construction was argued before the board. [00:27:15] Speaker 03: That is, does it need to occur immediately after a prior motion command? [00:27:23] Speaker 03: That was not presented before the board. [00:27:26] Speaker 03: I don't believe that term was even used before the board. [00:27:29] Speaker 03: And one point I think I'd like to make that's important here is that [00:27:33] Speaker 03: Even if a short period of time is required, or even if it must be immediate, which is what Connecticut is arguing today, this limitation would still be disclosed by the combination of Naguero and Liberty, which we explain in our briefing, because in that combination of sleep command, [00:27:53] Speaker 03: does occur upon a current movement of the cursor and looks at the velocity, how fast it's moving. [00:27:59] Speaker 00: But that would require some fact finding that we shouldn't be doing in the first instance. [00:28:05] Speaker 00: If we disagree with the construction, shouldn't there be a remand? [00:28:09] Speaker 03: So for this particular factual issue, the board did actually make these factual findings. [00:28:14] Speaker 03: That's in appendix 21 to 22. [00:28:17] Speaker 03: and they cite to the teachings of liberty itself and also to the expert testimony provided by Samsung's experts. [00:28:24] Speaker 03: So I don't think for this particular factual issue a remand would be necessary. [00:28:28] Speaker 03: I think the record is complete and the court can make a determination based on the record. [00:28:36] Speaker 00: Let me back up to the claim construction. [00:28:38] Speaker 00: So you would agree with your friend on the other side who argued to the board that the board's [00:28:45] Speaker 00: that your proposed construction, which put no temporal limit, left it wide open, that it could be years even between the execution and when the command is adopted, right? [00:29:02] Speaker 03: The claims are broad enough to encompass a longer period of time, and the specification is open about the types of movements. [00:29:09] Speaker 03: It says that you can change the orientation any way the user wants. [00:29:14] Speaker 03: some vagueness in the specification about how long the time period would need to be, depending on that needs to be excluded. [00:29:22] Speaker 00: But in the construction, there is no time limit. [00:29:26] Speaker 00: So it could be years, right? [00:29:30] Speaker 03: Correct, Your Honor. [00:29:31] Speaker 03: That is correct. [00:29:33] Speaker 03: There is no limitation in the board's construction. [00:29:35] Speaker 03: It merely requires that it recur after the prior movement command is executed. [00:29:41] Speaker 03: That's correct. [00:29:44] Speaker 03: I think one additional point I'd like to go back to, and this is going back to what the purpose is, is that the, again, the idea of ignoring motion, which is the sentence that Kinetic focuses on, that is one feature that's described in the specification. [00:30:04] Speaker 03: But it's not the, quote, additional feature of the sleep period, which is that what is actually claimed. [00:30:10] Speaker 03: In that feature, all that happens is that the, [00:30:13] Speaker 03: the input algorithm is paused. [00:30:17] Speaker 03: And that need only occur at some point after. [00:30:20] Speaker 03: So I just want to make that one last point there. [00:30:25] Speaker 03: So at the end of the day, I think the board's construction is not only trying to preclude other types of construction. [00:30:32] Speaker 03: I think it is consistent with the claims and the specification here. [00:30:37] Speaker 03: With that, Your Honor, unless there are any additional questions, I will get back my time. [00:30:42] Speaker 03: I have nothing further. [00:30:45] Speaker 01: Okay, hearing no further questions, we'll hear from Mr. Bean for two minutes. [00:30:52] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:30:53] Speaker 02: And to address Judge Clepinger's comment, the appellant did address the fact that there's no time limitations in their blue brief at the bottom of page 30, moving into 31. [00:31:07] Speaker 02: But I believe, you know, to address Judge O'Malley's comments about, you know, the period of time [00:31:12] Speaker 02: You know, I think that the specification clearly teaches that the time has to be short enough to ignore the returning motion. [00:31:20] Speaker 02: You know, we make clear, the Patentee makes clear in specification that the simple step motion out of the requires... That's just to make sense, but did you ask the board to do that? [00:31:29] Speaker 01: Did you ask for that construction? [00:31:32] Speaker 02: Yes, we asked that it would, that the, that it be, that the, [00:31:37] Speaker 02: the steps be conditioned on one another and... Well, condition doesn't limit the time period. [00:31:43] Speaker 01: Condition could still be weak. [00:31:46] Speaker 01: You know, that doesn't get you anywhere. [00:31:50] Speaker 05: Mr. Beam? [00:31:51] Speaker 05: Yes. [00:31:53] Speaker 05: Following up on the presiding judge's question, in your patent office, your patent owner's initial response to the petition, you made the argument that the [00:32:07] Speaker 05: steps needed to be performed as you said because otherwise you'd be allowing forces caused by the returning motion to be ignored. [00:32:14] Speaker 05: So I see that that argument was being made and that argument relates to the period of time, doesn't it? [00:32:21] Speaker 05: I'm trying to get at whether or not you gave enough information to the board to let it understand that you were arguing against this unreasonably long period of time. [00:32:33] Speaker 02: Yes, thank you. [00:32:35] Speaker 02: And we definitively were, and in part because we were arguing against what the board construed as this ballet period, where you could take in the emotion over a period of time and use it. [00:32:49] Speaker 02: Without ignoring the returning motion, immediately following the motion command, the motion's not ignored, and the teaching [00:33:04] Speaker 02: the specification would be corrupted. [00:33:10] Speaker 02: And I would also say there's no teaching that the return motion is non-convertible. [00:33:15] Speaker 05: I don't have in front of me at the moment the, of all the briefing that was below, but I'm looking at both the patent owner's response as well as, as I said earlier, sir, a reply on the issue. [00:33:29] Speaker 05: And you certainly were complaining [00:33:32] Speaker 05: that Samsung's interpretation left an indeterminate amount of time after before the command is executed. [00:33:40] Speaker 05: And you had been arguing that you were certainly wanted to avoid the allowing the forces caused by the returning motions to be ignored. [00:33:50] Speaker 02: Yeah, absolutely, Judge Clefinger. [00:33:51] Speaker 02: I mean, I think the open-ended period of time makes the construction that the board settled on [00:33:59] Speaker 02: You will not have a goal to the clean dimension. [00:34:05] Speaker 01: All right. [00:34:06] Speaker 01: Unless there are further questions. [00:34:09] Speaker 01: Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Bean. [00:34:10] Speaker 01: Thank both counsel. [00:34:11] Speaker 01: The case is submitted. [00:34:13] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:34:15] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor.