[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:05] Speaker 04:
God save the United States and its honorable court.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
This is the time set for argument in the first of our cases, Apple Inc.

[00:00:21] Speaker 02:
versus USR 20-1222.

[00:00:27] Speaker 02:
Mr. Sell, when you're ready to proceed.

[00:00:29] Speaker 05:
I am, Your Honor.

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
And before you begin, you're reserving three minutes.

[00:00:35] Speaker 02:
When you hit your 12 minutes, you'll hear a tone, and I'll remind you if you're running into your rebuttal time.

[00:00:42] Speaker 02:
But unless we're eating up your rebuttal time with questions, you're going to be eating away at it yourself, and you won't be able to recover it.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
You understand?

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
I understand.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
Why don't you go ahead and proceed, then?

[00:00:57] Speaker 05:
Good morning.

[00:00:58] Speaker 05:
May it please the court, Mark Selwyn, presenting for Apple and Visa.

[00:01:02] Speaker 05:
The board made three cross-cutting errors, two relating to its failure to properly view the disclosure of the prior art in light of the correct meaning of a claim term, and a third resulting from its failure to consider the argument made in the petition.

[00:01:16] Speaker 05:
First, the board erroneously construed the term handheld device in its final written decision to require that the device be, quote, intended to be held in the hand during use

[00:01:27] Speaker 05:
rather than applying the terms plain meaning, that is, merely being capable of being held in one's hand.

[00:01:33] Speaker 05:
This led the board to conclude that because, as USR had argued, it was likely that Maritzen's personal transaction device 100 was intended to be mounted in a car's sun visor, dashboard, windshield, et cetera, the PTD did not disclose the claimed term handheld device.

[00:01:52] Speaker 05:
That was error.

[00:01:53] Speaker 05:
Even if

[00:01:54] Speaker 05:
USR were correct that the PTD is a personal device intended to be mounted on the car's sun visor, et cetera.

[00:02:01] Speaker 05:
That should only serve to confirm that the PTD is a handheld device.

[00:02:06] Speaker 05:
Because as a matter of basic common sense, any device that can safely be mounted on something as small as a car's sun visor must be of handheld size.

[00:02:15] Speaker 05:
Furthermore, the board failed to consider that Morison also shows handheld devices such as a cellular phone

[00:02:22] Speaker 05:
as depicted in PTB 610 and Figure 6A.

[00:02:26] Speaker 05:
Even USR's own expert agreed when deposed that Figure 6A shows a device, quote, in the general shape that matches some cell phones.

[00:02:38] Speaker 04:
But the board disregarded Apple's evidence.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
Mr. Selwyn, this is Judge Toronto.

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
Can I just ask you, the first two points you made about the claim construction

[00:02:47] Speaker 04:
and the size of the device.

[00:02:52] Speaker 04:
The second point relies on the first, right?

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
That is that anything sufficiently small that is capable of being held in hand would be a handheld device.

[00:03:07] Speaker 04:
The only argument that you have, actually what argument do you think you have that's independent of that claim construction argument?

[00:03:19] Speaker 05:
There are two.

[00:03:20] Speaker 05:
Even under the construction that a device that is handheld must be intended to be held in the hand.

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
During the use contemplated.

[00:03:29] Speaker 05:
During use.

[00:03:31] Speaker 05:
The evidence would still show that Maritza discloses such a device in PTD 610 and 640.

[00:03:38] Speaker 05:
But that construction reads in a requirement that the intrinsic evidence doesn't support.

[00:03:45] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:03:47] Speaker 04:
And can I also ask you a question about the relationship between this case and I guess the two other cases involving the 826 this morning.

[00:04:03] Speaker 04:
One is if we were to affirm invalidity under 101 of the 826

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
claim at issue in the district court case, then what would be the appropriate disposition of the present case, of the present appeal?

[00:04:24] Speaker 05:
If the court were to affirm Judge Connolly's decision on 101, then it would moot the four IPR appeals.

[00:04:35] Speaker 04:
And so we would just dismiss with vacator or what?

[00:04:45] Speaker 05:
Judge, affirmance of the district court's decision would cover all the claims that are at issue in the IPR appeals.

[00:04:53] Speaker 05:
So for that reason, the IPR appeals would become moot upon affirmance of the district court's decision.

[00:05:02] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:05:02] Speaker 04:
And then as to the relationship between this case, the 1222 and the, and I mean that to include the 1234, of course,

[00:05:12] Speaker 04:
But the relation between this one and the next one, the 1223, we now have, I gather, conceded invalidity of the independent claims, which were the only things that the board analyzed in the current case.

[00:05:32] Speaker 04:
First, what is the effect of that on what we should do here?

[00:05:36] Speaker 04:
And second, if in the 1223,

[00:05:40] Speaker 04:
We affirmed the board's conclusions there about the independent claims, the 7, 14, 26, and 34, that one group, and then claim eight.

[00:05:51] Speaker 04:
What effect would that have on our disposition here?

[00:05:57] Speaker 05:
The board's finding in 1223 that all the independent claims and seven dependent claims are unpatentable has not been challenged by USR.

[00:06:09] Speaker 05:
So there are five claims between the two IPR appeals, dependent claims 7, 8, 14, 26, and 34 that were determined by the board to be not unpatentable.

[00:06:23] Speaker 05:
Those are an issue in both of the appeals 1222 and 1223.

[00:06:28] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:06:30] Speaker 04:
And in 1223, the board actually addressed them and rejected

[00:06:38] Speaker 04:
your arguments there.

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
In this IPR, the board, just correct me if I'm wrong, did not address those independent claims.

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
And so I'm trying to understand what we should do in this case if we affirm the board's conclusions in the other IPR as to those dependent claims, the very same five claims.

[00:07:06] Speaker 04:
that are now surviving.

[00:07:09] Speaker 05:
The board did address in the present IPR the five dependent claims.

[00:07:16] Speaker 05:
Those were challenged in the IPR.

[00:07:17] Speaker 05:
Those were addressed in the final written decision.

[00:07:20] Speaker 05:
Certain of the evidence that Apple presented in support of unpatentability were considered waived by the board.

[00:07:29] Speaker 05:
That was error.

[00:07:32] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:07:35] Speaker 05:
Again, the board disregarded Apple's evidence, strongly finding that Apple had waived reliance on it by raising for the first time in its reply.

[00:07:44] Speaker 05:
But in fact, Apple's petition had cited PTD 610 and 640 and included images of figure 6A and 6B as evidence of the handheld device limitation.

[00:07:57] Speaker 05:
Furthermore, when USR disputed in its response.

[00:08:02] Speaker 04:
Am I understanding correctly that the element specific discussion, is it 1A, just forgive me if I've got the numbers wrong, did not include a reference to the figure six figures, but those figures were referred to in 1B where what was being discussed was the biometric information element.

[00:08:27] Speaker 04:
Is that, do I, just as a factual matter, as a description of those two pieces of the petition, is that right?

[00:08:37] Speaker 05:
It's close.

[00:08:38] Speaker 05:
As part of figure 1A, Apple explained in its petition and supporting expert declaration that Maritzen discloses a personal transaction device, 100, that is a handheld device.

[00:08:52] Speaker 05:
Apple included first handheld device.

[00:08:54] Speaker 05:
in boldface brackets next to personal transaction device 100.

[00:08:59] Speaker 05:
Two pages later in the petition, in demonstrating that Bariton discloses limitation 1B, which includes the term handheld device, the petition showed the images of figure 6A and 6B and refers to figure 6A and 6B as the PPV.

[00:09:17] Speaker 05:
And on the same page, the petition refers to the biometric input

[00:09:21] Speaker 05:
630 and 660 of the PTDs is something that can receive a finger or thumbprint.

[00:09:29] Speaker 05:
So it was disclosed in the petition.

[00:09:31] Speaker 05:
And then it was reinforced in the reply, because when USR in its patent owner response argued that Morrison didn't disclose the PTD as handheld, Apple responded to that in its reply and in its supporting declaration.

[00:09:47] Speaker 05:
And Apple and its expert

[00:09:49] Speaker 05:
noted that, quote, figure 6A and 6B disclose handheld devices.

[00:09:55] Speaker 05:
And specifically, that, quote, figure 6A is a cellular telephone, which is a handheld device.

[00:10:03] Speaker 05:
And again, I wish to emphasize that there is no dispute regarding the size of the PCP.

[00:10:08] Speaker 05:
USR's expert admitted that figure 6A is in the general shape that matches some cell phones.

[00:10:15] Speaker 05:
And, uh, USR agrees that the PPD is small enough to be mounted on a car's sun visor.

[00:10:24] Speaker 05:
And anything that is small enough to be mounted on a car's sun visor would be something that you could hold in your hand.

[00:10:32] Speaker 05:
Morrison doesn't even disclose a mounting device.

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
This is Judge Stowell.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
I have a question for you.

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
My question is this, why isn't there substantial evidence to support the finding that Merrittson's PPD

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
shown in Figure 6A is not handheld given that the PTD is in a vehicle.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
There's no size or scale in the patent.

[00:10:56] Speaker 01:
And given that the board credited Dr. Jacobson's logical, I think, explanation that it's more likely that the PTD is mounted on a vehicle and not held in the hand so as not to distract the driver while driving.

[00:11:14] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, three reasons.

[00:11:16] Speaker 05:
First, the, uh, uh, Morrison refers to biometric input 630 and 660 of the PTDs as something that can receive a finger or thumbprint.

[00:11:28] Speaker 01:
And that is... Is there a position that the only way you could make that work is by having it in your hand?

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
I mean, why couldn't you just put your thumb on there while it's on the visor or while it's mounted on the dash?

[00:11:41] Speaker 05:
Well, even in that case, it would be something that would be capable of being held in one's hands, because anything that you could put on a sun visor.

[00:11:47] Speaker 01:
So, in other words, your argument requires me to agree with your claim construction, right?

[00:11:53] Speaker 05:
It doesn't, because even under USR and the board's construction, the PTD would be something that could be held in one's hands.

[00:12:03] Speaker 05:
Anything that could be put on a sun visor.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
Ford said, I thought that the difference between the claim constructions was yours is that it merely has to be capable of being held in the hand and that the other proposed construction is that it has to be intended to be held in the hand.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
So why, why is there, explain to me if the construction is intended to be held in the hand, why is it that this PTD mounted on the dash

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
would satisfy the requirement of being intended to be held in the hand.

[00:12:40] Speaker 05:
Because any such device would be one that would be capable of being held in the hands, it would be intended to be held in the hands.

[00:12:47] Speaker 05:
Anything that you could mount on the dashboard or the sun visor, such as the PTD610, the cell phone that is shown in Maritzen,

[00:12:55] Speaker 05:
would be something that you could have in your hand.

[00:12:58] Speaker 01:
It would be a handheld device.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
It sounds like you're saying intended to be held in the hand is the same as being capable of being held in the hand.

[00:13:06] Speaker 01:
Is that what your position is?

[00:13:08] Speaker 05:
It's not.

[00:13:09] Speaker 05:
But in this case, the evidence supports that Ritzen discloses a handheld device under either view.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
I'm having a hard time with the intended to.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
What evidence is there?

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
that something that's mounted on the dashboard for the driver to use is intended to be held by the hand of the driver.

[00:13:31] Speaker 05:
Because we see that in the images of the PTD610 and 640 as a cell phone.

[00:13:38] Speaker 05:
That is evident on the board simply disregarded.

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
Where does the patent, where does Merican say that that's a cell phone?

[00:13:46] Speaker 05:
It doesn't use the word cell phone, but the image of it clearly is a cell phone.

[00:13:51] Speaker 05:
And that's something that the board just did not consider.

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:13:56] Speaker 05:
And I will reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:14:04] Speaker 02:
Mr. Matthews.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
You've got 15 minutes.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
May it please the court.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
Mr. Matthews on behalf of Appellee USR.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
I'd like to focus on the two determinations, really, since the court's questioning appears to focus primarily on the handheld device, I'd like to focus primarily on that.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
First I... Mr. Matt, I have a question for you.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
This is Judge Waller.

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
On pages 6 and 11 of the blue brief, Apple claims that neither Muritzen nor Jacobson were considered by the PTO during prosecution of the 826 patent.

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
Were those references brought to the PTO's attention?

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
I don't believe... I believe that is true.

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
They were not considered during the prosecution of the claims of the 826 patent.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
Yeah, but my question is, did USR bring them to the PTO's attention and they just didn't consider them?

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
I believe that they were not brought to the attention of the PTO.

[00:15:15] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:15:16] Speaker 02:
On page 23 of the Gray Brief, Apple asserts that in the co-pending proceedings in 813, USR did not even dispute that Jacobson's user authentication device satisfied the first handheld device limitation.

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
Is that correct?

[00:15:44] Speaker 03:
So I guess in the adage of you win some, you lose some, in the next appeal, the 1223 appeal, it is certainly the case that with respect to the Jacobson disclosure and the patent application, which was the primary reference in 1223, we did not dispute that Jacobson discloses a handheld device.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
But that, of course, is not the basis that Jacobson is relied on here for 1222.

[00:16:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
Certainly.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
It is certainly undisputed, we believe, that there's no express disclosure in Maritzen of a handheld device.

[00:16:30] Speaker 03:
In fact, Apple's petition in 1222 merely assumed that Maritzen's PTD is a handheld device without submitting any evidence in support.

[00:16:39] Speaker 03:
When we pointed this defect out in our patent owner response, Apple raised a number of new arguments on reply, three in fact, and the board found all the reply arguments to be deficient.

[00:16:49] Speaker 03:
The personal device argument that Apple argued was that based on the fact that the PTD100 stands for personal transaction device, it was a personal device, and since they argued all personal devices are typically small, it would be capable of being held in one's hand.

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
That's akin to the argument

[00:17:08] Speaker 04:
heard today that... Can I... This is... Mr. Matthews, this is Judge Matthews.

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
Can I just ask... Many of the points I don't think were raised this morning by Mr. Selwyn, and I... But what about the point that even the petition, though not in the subsection about claim element 1A, but rather two pages later in the subsection about 1B,

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
a claim element that repeats the term handheld device.

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
6A is referred to, and 6A just is a flip phone with a biometric, with a fingerprint pad.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
It seems to me, I guess, that, can you just focus on that?

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
So that was the third argument that Apple raised on reply to the board that those figures are clearly handheld devices, and specifically that 6A shows a cellular telephone.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
And the board determined that that was a new invalidity theory.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
And it wasn't about the figures per se when the board reached that conclusion, although they did identify as referenced earlier this morning.

[00:18:30] Speaker 03:
that those figures were only referenced in connection with limitation 1B and had been used to support the existence of different claim elements, right?

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
But limitation 1B requires a handheld device, right?

[00:18:46] Speaker 04:
So when making the point in the section of the petition about 1B that 6A shows it, it was saying that 6A is a handheld device, right?

[00:18:59] Speaker 04:
Or is that wrong?

[00:19:00] Speaker 04:
It didn't do it in 1A, but 1B contains the same term, doesn't it?

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
So I would encourage the... Well, I mean, the handheld device appears in a number of limitations in Claim 1 because it is the focus of the claim.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
But the petition, if you were to focus on the appendix 4479 to 4482, the four pages of the petition, where the limitations 1A and 1B are mapped,

[00:19:29] Speaker 03:
I think it will be clear and it certainly supports the board's conclusion that the reason those figures were cited 6A and 6B and for limitation 1B was for purposes of showing that there was an element that was capable of receiving a biometric input.

[00:19:50] Speaker 03:
And in fact, in the figure in the petition, the portion of that figure that's boxed is 630 and 640

[00:19:59] Speaker 03:
And it's not for the purpose of identifying a handheld device.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
The board went through the petition, identified in limitation 1A that the only element that had been identified as a handheld device was PPZ100, which is shown in figures one through four.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
There was no reference to figure 6A and 6B.

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
But more importantly, that what the board had determined

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
is that, and this is shown at appendix 17 and 18, is that it was Apple's reply arguments that did not appear in the petition.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
That Apple never asserted that the devices in figure 6A and 6B are handheld.

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
That the, Apple had never asserted that PTB 610 in figure 6A is a cellular telephone.

[00:20:51] Speaker 03:
And then that Maritzen does not disclose anywhere that they are handheld devices depicted in figures 6A and 6B, or that either of them is a cellular telephone.

[00:21:02] Speaker 03:
And, you know, given that the date of invention of the Maritzen patent is 2000, you know, it's easy to look at these figures through the eyes of somebody in 2021 and imagine what they might be and what they might disclose and what the scale might be.

[00:21:20] Speaker 03:
Absent an expressed disclosure in the Maritzen reference, there was certainly substantial evidence to support the board's conclusion that Maritzen does not disclose a handheld device and that Apple had never made those arguments that figures 6A and 6B are either a cellular telephone or I think the other argument was that they reveal that the dimensions of the device are proportioned for handheld mutes.

[00:21:50] Speaker 02:
This is Judge Wallach.

[00:21:52] Speaker 02:
Didn't your expert concede that that illustration was a cellular telephone?

[00:22:00] Speaker 03:
No, in fact, he did not concede that it was a cellular telephone.

[00:22:05] Speaker 03:
I think you can see this.

[00:22:07] Speaker 03:
They cite a portion of his deposition testimony, but the remainder of that deposition testimony, when he asked if that was a cellular telephone, he said, it's in the general shape, but I would not believe it's a

[00:22:20] Speaker 03:
a cellular telephone, it's not a mobile phone," he said.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
And he went on to explain that it would make more sense to have it be a mounted device to avoid distracted driving.

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
So, no, I don't believe that the testimony, the deposition testimony supports the argument that Dr. Jacobson believed that that was a... What's the purpose?

[00:22:45] Speaker 03:
...cellular telephone.

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
A Maritzen device.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, I didn't hear the first part of your question.

[00:22:52] Speaker 02:
What's the purpose of the Maritzen device, the underlying purpose?

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
The underlying purpose is to make it easier as a car is approaching a toll booth gateway to affect a transaction.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
And in fact, Maritzen's TTD 100 is described as a key enabled personal transaction device.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
And so the purpose of it is to be able to provide some level of security, biometric security for the device and to be able to wirelessly affect toll booth transaction.

[00:23:35] Speaker 01:
Counsel, this is Judge Stull.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
In my copy of merits in the appendix as well as its duplication and the petition and in the expert report,

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
It's really hard for me to see what that figure is showing.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
It's a very blurred depiction, figure 6A and 6B.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
Is that the case for what everybody has been looking at, even the board, or all of the copies of this pretty poor quality?

[00:24:04] Speaker 03:
That's exactly the case, Judge Stoll.

[00:24:08] Speaker 03:
Every one of the images of that, for whatever reason, for reasons unknown,

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
Images of 6A and 6B don't get any better than what the court has now.

[00:24:17] Speaker 03:
And that, therein lies the issue with respect to proving that the device is handheld, relying on those figures.

[00:24:26] Speaker 03:
Even if those arguments hadn't been newly raised as a new theory of invalidity, that those figures depict cellular telephones or proportions to be handheld, nobody can figure out for sure what they are.

[00:24:39] Speaker 03:
What we do know is that Maritzen does not describe them

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
as cellular telephones, never talks about a cell phone or a mobile phone or a handheld device anywhere in the specification.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
With respect to the argument about the, you know, whether the court should have construed the claim handheld or the term handheld to be something that is intended to be held during use,

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
Certainly, that comports with common sense.

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
The board's finding that size is not controlling as to whether a device is handheld.

[00:25:16] Speaker 03:
Plenty of small devices are not handheld devices.

[00:25:19] Speaker 03:
And I think the board determined that consistent with its own common sense,

[00:25:27] Speaker 03:
that you can have a device you can hold in your hand, but that no one would consider them to be handheld.

[00:25:32] Speaker 03:
Whether we're talking about hearing aids or light bulbs or pacemakers, the list goes on.

[00:25:37] Speaker 03:
There's no guarantee that because a device is small that anybody would consider it to be a handheld device.

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
And specifically with respect to Maritzen,

[00:25:47] Speaker 03:
The board determined that size would not indicate whether the PPD is handheld.

[00:25:52] Speaker 03:
In fact, as the court noted, the board sided with our expert, Dr. Jacobson, who testified that to avoid distracted driving, it was more likely that a skilled RSA would consider

[00:26:03] Speaker 03:
PTD 100 to be mounted to the vehicle during use and not handheld.

[00:26:08] Speaker 03:
And the board found USR's expert testimony more persuasive on this point and rejected Apple's argument on that basis.

[00:26:15] Speaker 03:
And it's not legal error or an abuse of discretion for the board to decide that one expert is more persuasive than the other, especially when the expert provides objective evidence and analysis as Dr. Jacobson did.

[00:26:26] Speaker 03:
But even though we believe that the board's common sense conclusion

[00:26:32] Speaker 03:
that size is not indicative of whether a device is hand-held is correct, that determination is not essential to the board's rejection of Apple's argument because the board had already determined that Apple failed to prove the other two legs of its argument, that all personal devices are typically small or that even if they were typically small that the PTD in Maritzen would be small enough to be held in your hand.

[00:26:59] Speaker 03:
Those two

[00:27:00] Speaker 03:
evidentiary gaps in the record were sufficient by themselves to support the board's rejection of the argument that, well, Maritza must be a handheld device because it's small enough to be capable of being held in the hand.

[00:27:16] Speaker 03:
In addition, the board also rejected the argument that Apple had raised that Maritza disclosed a PTV that was the size of a credit card.

[00:27:27] Speaker 03:
based on the citation of paragraph 69 at appendix 1215.

[00:27:33] Speaker 03:
The board looked at that and disagreed, said, you know, that paragraph says that the privacy card can be the size of a credit card, but not the PTD.

[00:27:41] Speaker 03:
And it also does not disclose that an integrated system that has both the card and the PTD would be the size of a credit card.

[00:27:49] Speaker 03:
And so with that rejection, with the rejection of the personal device argument, the syllogism that, you know,

[00:27:58] Speaker 03:
Personal devices must be handheld.

[00:28:01] Speaker 03:
The identification that new arguments have been raised with respect to 6A and 6B that had not been in the petition, that could have been raised in the petition, the board's ultimate conclusion that Moritzin doesn't disclose a handheld device if supported by substantial evidence.

[00:28:17] Speaker 03:
I will say that with respect to the notion

[00:28:27] Speaker 03:
that... Well, I guess we could talk about it, and then I'll go ahead and close now.

[00:28:37] Speaker 03:
So I was going to make a comment about 1223, but I'm sure we'll have plenty of questions when that arises.

[00:28:42] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:28:48] Speaker 02:
Mr. Sellen?

[00:28:49] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:51] Speaker 05:
Your Honor, three points.

[00:28:53] Speaker 05:
Three points.

[00:28:54] Speaker 05:
The board's construction of handheld device requiring the device to be intended to be held in the hand during use wasn't one that any party had advanced, nor was it a construction that the board had put forward at the institution stage.

[00:29:09] Speaker 05:
That term handheld device, like all claimed terms, should be accorded its broadest reasonable interpretation.

[00:29:17] Speaker 05:
Here, nothing in the intrinsic evidence restricts the meaning of handheld device.

[00:29:22] Speaker 05:
Second point.

[00:29:23] Speaker 05:
The board simply erred in disregarding the evidence that Apple had submitted regarding PTD 610 and 640 in Britain.

[00:29:32] Speaker 05:
The board found that had been waived when in fact Apple had raised it in its petition and in its reply was responding to a specific argument that USR had made.

[00:29:44] Speaker 05:
Had the board considered that evidence together with the other evidence, it would have been clear

[00:29:50] Speaker 05:
that figure 6A depicted a handheld device.

[00:29:54] Speaker 05:
As Apple said in its reply brief and in the SHOOP reply declaration, figure 6A and 6B show fingerprint scanners, 630 and 660.

[00:30:04] Speaker 05:
That reveals the dimension of the entire device in proportion for handheld use.

[00:30:10] Speaker 05:
And third and final point, Your Honors, it's not like there was anything novel as of 2006 in using a handheld device to control access to secure systems.

[00:30:20] Speaker 05:
Even the 826 patent admits that such devices were available at column 4, lines 24 through 27.

[00:30:28] Speaker 05:
At the very least, Morrison would render obvious the handheld device of the challenge claims.

[00:30:35] Speaker 02:
Anything further, Counsel?

[00:30:40] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:30:41] Speaker 02:
Then the matter will stand submitted.