[00:00:00] Speaker 05: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session. [00:00:06] Speaker 05: God save the United States and this honorable court. [00:00:12] Speaker 02: Good morning. [00:00:12] Speaker 02: We'll hear argument first in number 20-1442, Barkin Wireless IP Holdings versus Unified Patents LLC, Mr. Larson. [00:00:25] Speaker 07: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:26] Speaker 07: Blaine Larson on behalf of the appellant, Barkin Wireless. [00:00:30] Speaker 07: The board made three errors in this final written decision. [00:00:33] Speaker 07: First, it misapplied AIT in holding that Samsung and Verizon were not real parties in interest. [00:00:39] Speaker 07: Second, it interpreted the term regulate data flow in a manner that is inconsistent with the prosecution history. [00:00:46] Speaker 07: And third, it misconstrued the term unique identity by holding that the unique identity need not be associated with a particular base station. [00:00:55] Speaker 07: I'll address the appealability issue first. [00:00:58] Speaker 02: How can you maintain your position about appealability in the light of our decision in ESIP? [00:01:08] Speaker 07: Yes, Your Honor. [00:01:10] Speaker 07: The ESIP decision specifically addresses the appeal of an institution decision, not of the board's final written decision. [00:01:19] Speaker 02: It was an appeal from a final written decision, wasn't it? [00:01:22] Speaker 07: It was, Your Honor, but the patent owner specifically appealed the institution decision and not the final written decision. [00:01:29] Speaker 07: The panel states it's holding in the first paragraph. [00:01:34] Speaker 07: It states, we find no error in the board's obviousness determination, and the board's decision to institute inter partes review is final and non-appealable. [00:01:44] Speaker 07: The panel repeats that frame several times. [00:01:48] Speaker 07: What was appealed was the board's decision to institute. [00:01:53] Speaker 07: At page 1386 of the opinion, the ESA opinion even cites some argument from the patent owner in the decision. [00:02:03] Speaker 07: The patent owner argued, it was improper for the board to consider the IPR petition in the Institute and IPR. [00:02:11] Speaker 07: The decision, Your Honor, was specifically addressing whether or not a party can appeal the RPI decision in an institution decision, not in a final written decision. [00:02:22] Speaker 07: ESIP does not address Section 319, which covers the appealability of a final written decision, nor does it address 315E, which covers the estoppel impact of a final written decision for real parties of interest. [00:02:39] Speaker 07: It's our position that this case did not address the specific issue we are appealing. [00:02:44] Speaker 07: And similarly, Thrive does not cover either, Your Honor. [00:02:48] Speaker 07: It does not govern. [00:02:49] Speaker 07: Because Thrive specifically addresses the time bar provision under 315B. [00:02:54] Speaker 07: 315G. [00:02:56] Speaker 06: I'm sorry. [00:02:57] Speaker 06: Mr. Larson, this is Judge Bryson. [00:03:00] Speaker 06: Let me see if I understand the implications of your position. [00:03:03] Speaker 06: So if we were to rule in your favor, wouldn't an appellant in a case such as this in every single case simply say, [00:03:16] Speaker 06: Well, I'm appealing not just from the institution decision, but from the final written decision. [00:03:25] Speaker 06: It seems to me this would make ESIP a dead letter. [00:03:31] Speaker 07: I disagree with that, Your Honor, that ESIP specifically addresses the institution decision, and the purpose of 314D is to... Right, but suppose that in ESIP they had said, [00:03:43] Speaker 06: We object to the institution and the maintenance of this action before the PTAB, and therefore we want you to say in your final written decision that there is a violation of the real party and interest requirement. [00:04:05] Speaker 06: Is it your position that that would then be enough to make a difference in terms of appealability, and if so, [00:04:13] Speaker 06: Why wouldn't everybody say exactly that? [00:04:19] Speaker 07: Yes, Your Honor, I think that is sufficient if assuming the board addresses the real party and interest issue in the final written decision, the statute unambiguously says that a party dissatisfied with the board's final written decision, quote, may appeal the decision. [00:04:35] Speaker 07: There's no clarifying language in section 319. [00:04:38] Speaker 07: I think if a party is appealing analysis in the final written decision, [00:04:43] Speaker 07: that should be appealable, regardless of what. [00:04:46] Speaker 06: So would there ever be a case in which someone would be foreclosed from appealing, as long as they said the magic words and we object to the fact that the board maintained this proceeding after the institution? [00:05:07] Speaker 07: I apologize, Your Honor. [00:05:07] Speaker 07: Could you repeat the first half of your question? [00:05:09] Speaker 06: Yes. [00:05:10] Speaker 06: What I'm trying to see is if [00:05:13] Speaker 06: you are making an exception to the ESIP rule that would effectively wipe out the ESIP rule. [00:05:21] Speaker 06: That is to say, anyone who, assuming we were to agree with you, anyone who later files an appeal seeking to appeal from the board's position on real party interests would simply say, [00:05:40] Speaker 06: we object to the board's maintenance of its position on real party and interest in the final written decision. [00:05:50] Speaker 06: Either that or if the board could simply avoid the problem by not mentioning the real party and interest issue in its final written decision. [00:06:01] Speaker 07: I think the answer, Your Honor, is that [00:06:05] Speaker 07: ESIP is just an application of 314D. [00:06:07] Speaker 07: The institution decision can't be appealed. [00:06:12] Speaker 07: Any analysis in the final written decision is appealable under the statute. [00:06:17] Speaker 07: And ESIP doesn't address that question. [00:06:19] Speaker 07: So I understand Your Honor's concern about parties just saying, we're appealing the final written decision. [00:06:27] Speaker 07: But there is an ongoing obligation to update real party and interest throughout a proceeding. [00:06:33] Speaker 07: The flip side of that argument is that it leaves analysis in the board's final written decision that can't be appealed. [00:06:40] Speaker 07: We made the argument in our brief. [00:06:42] Speaker 03: Council, this is Judge Hughes. [00:06:44] Speaker 03: If we agree with you that this is reviewable, what is the remedy you propose? [00:06:49] Speaker 03: Is it to tell the board to dismiss the IPR because it was improperly instituted? [00:06:56] Speaker 07: The remedy would be to order the board to correct its final written decision [00:07:02] Speaker 07: and state that Samsung and Verizon are real parties in interest. [00:07:07] Speaker 07: I'm not sure we can go back to the institution decision because that's... Well, isn't that the result? [00:07:12] Speaker 03: Isn't that the result, though? [00:07:14] Speaker 03: Isn't your view that if these entities had been identified as real parties in interest, it couldn't have been instituted? [00:07:23] Speaker 07: Yes, but that's a separate question, Your Honor, and that part is not appealable. [00:07:28] Speaker 02: Your theory is that [00:07:31] Speaker 02: a board decision on real party interest wouldn't affect the institution, but that it would affect the estoppel. [00:07:39] Speaker 02: That's your theory as to why the board should have to decide this, right? [00:07:43] Speaker 07: Yes, Your Honor. [00:07:45] Speaker 07: Real party interest is unique in the IPR provisions because it's addressed in 315E, which specifically mentions final written decisions. [00:07:57] Speaker 07: This is something that's impact or the real party interest question is something that impacts the final written decision and impacts moving forward and later proceedings as well. [00:08:07] Speaker 07: So this is not something that's just tied to the institution decision. [00:08:13] Speaker 02: Okay, unless my colleagues have further questions on this part of it, can we turn to the claim construction? [00:08:20] Speaker 07: Yes, General, let me start with the regulate data flow term. [00:08:24] Speaker 02: What do you mean by regulating data flow through the gateway? [00:08:28] Speaker 02: I'm not sure that there is any illumination in the patent as to what that means. [00:08:36] Speaker 07: What does it mean? [00:08:38] Speaker 07: I apologize, Your Honor. [00:08:39] Speaker 01: What does it mean? [00:08:42] Speaker 07: We know what it doesn't mean. [00:08:44] Speaker 07: The prosecution. [00:08:45] Speaker 01: No, but I'm not asking you what it doesn't mean. [00:08:47] Speaker 01: I'm asking you what it does mean. [00:08:52] Speaker 07: The claim requires a controller adapted to regulate data flow between the mobile device and the data network. [00:09:01] Speaker 07: So it requires data from a mobile device through a gateway to a packet-based data network. [00:09:11] Speaker 07: So it is establishing a connection from a mobile device through a gateway to a packet-based data network. [00:09:19] Speaker 02: Prior Art does that. [00:09:21] Speaker 02: There's no question about that, right? [00:09:25] Speaker 07: Your Honor, what the Prior Art teaches is allocating RF channels between a mobile device and the gateway. [00:09:32] Speaker 02: No, but it teaches a gateway and the signal goes through the gateway, right? [00:09:38] Speaker 07: What was cited is a signal that goes to the gateway, Your Honor, not through the gateway. [00:09:44] Speaker 07: And more importantly, [00:09:45] Speaker 07: The specific configuration that the board cited here was distinguished by the patent owner during prosecution history. [00:09:53] Speaker 02: OK, but what is regulating through the gateway meet? [00:09:59] Speaker 02: What are you talking about? [00:10:01] Speaker 07: It's transmission between a mobile device through a gateway all the way to a packet-based data network. [00:10:10] Speaker 02: Just transmission? [00:10:13] Speaker 02: There doesn't have to be any regulation? [00:10:15] Speaker 07: There has to be some sort of regulation, but it has to be through the whole channel, Your Honor. [00:10:21] Speaker 07: It can't be just part of the channel. [00:10:23] Speaker 02: What's an example of regulation through the whole channel? [00:10:28] Speaker 07: For example, regulating access to the network would be regulating through the channel, Your Honor. [00:10:33] Speaker 07: That was something we pointed to in our brief. [00:10:36] Speaker 07: The error the board made here is that the specific configuration that the board cited [00:10:42] Speaker 07: that allocating RF channels was distinguished by the patent owner. [00:10:47] Speaker 07: And the board never really explains why it reached a contrary result from the examiner. [00:10:52] Speaker 07: It mentions the argument at 32 and 33 of the final written decision, but it never actually addresses why it reached a contrary position. [00:11:04] Speaker 07: And my last little bit here, I'd like to turn to the unique identity term. [00:11:09] Speaker 07: The specification specifically distinguishes the board's finding on unique identity. [00:11:15] Speaker 07: The specification teaches that this unique identity is important because these base stations are mobile and they're designed to be installed by individual users rather than a cellular network operator. [00:11:28] Speaker 07: And for that reason, it's important that each base station has a unique identity. [00:11:34] Speaker 07: And that's how the network can track where each base station is and what it is. [00:11:38] Speaker 02: I don't see the board as saying the opposite, really. [00:11:43] Speaker 02: I just see them as saying that the base station gets a unique identifier through the SIM card in the phone. [00:11:51] Speaker 07: Yes, Your Honor, but the patents at column two distinguishes that very configuration. [00:11:57] Speaker 07: Column two, line 34, or line 35. [00:12:00] Speaker 07: A novel feature of the base station is a unique property of each device. [00:12:05] Speaker 07: This allows its use as an add-on base station. [00:12:08] Speaker 07: In prior art, each phone had a unique identity. [00:12:11] Speaker 07: However, the base stations had no unique properties. [00:12:15] Speaker 07: The prior art systems had mobile devices with unique identities that were associated with particular subscribers. [00:12:22] Speaker 07: The base stations themselves did not. [00:12:25] Speaker 07: Now, what the board cited as disclosing this limitation was exactly what the specification taught was disclosed in the prior art and distinguished here, Your Honor. [00:12:39] Speaker 02: But what is the board when the board at 39 and 40 says that the SIM card information provides a unique identified identity achieved by a unique number when the SIM card is added to the base station? [00:12:55] Speaker 02: They say that adding the SIM card to the base station gives the base station a unique identifier, right? [00:13:03] Speaker 07: Yes, Your Honor, but that is a unique identifier of a subscriber. [00:13:07] Speaker 07: It is not a unique identifier of the base station. [00:13:10] Speaker 07: And in fact, Lucidarm, the reference, teaches that a single base station can have multiple SIM cards installed. [00:13:16] Speaker 07: Those are SIM cards that are associated with an individual user, not SIM cards that are associated with a base station. [00:13:23] Speaker 07: When you use an identifier for a base station that's associated with an individual rather than the base station, [00:13:29] Speaker 07: That's no longer a unique identifier of the base station, which is what the claims require. [00:13:33] Speaker 07: That's a unique identifier of a user. [00:13:36] Speaker 07: And the specification in column two, line 35, and column 12, lines 11 through 12, I apologize, column 11, lines 11 through 12, specifically distinguishes that exact configuration. [00:13:49] Speaker 07: It says prior art systems taught that a mobile device could have its own unique identifier, but a base station did not. [00:13:57] Speaker 07: This system is different because the base station itself must have a unique identifier that's different from the unique identifier of an individual user or a subscriber. [00:14:12] Speaker 02: OK. [00:14:12] Speaker 02: Unless my colleagues have further questions, I think we're out of time. [00:14:16] Speaker 02: We'll give you two minutes or rebuttal. [00:14:19] Speaker 02: Any further questions? [00:14:22] Speaker 02: Hearing none, we'll hear from Mrs. Schoenfeld. [00:14:28] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:14:30] Speaker 04: May it please the court, under Thrive and ESIP, the board's real party in interest determination, regardless of whether it's made at institution or in the final written decision, is not reviewable on appeal. [00:14:44] Speaker 04: And if there is not further questions about this issue, I will yield the remainder of my time. [00:14:50] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:14:54] Speaker 02: Hearing none, thank you. [00:14:57] Speaker 02: Next, we'll hear from Mr. Bajaj. [00:14:59] Speaker 02: Am I pronouncing that correctly? [00:15:01] Speaker 05: Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Bajaj. [00:15:02] Speaker 05: Thank you, though. [00:15:05] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:15:05] Speaker 05: Thank you, Your Honors, and may it please the Court. [00:15:07] Speaker 05: My name is Raghav Bajaj on behalf of Unified Patents. [00:15:11] Speaker 05: Unified agrees with the Director's positions on reviewability of the real party and interest issue. [00:15:16] Speaker 05: The determination is institution level under Section 312, and again, Thrive and ESIP Series 2 foreclose review of the issue. [00:15:24] Speaker 05: Barkin's attempt to recast the appeal as an appeal from a section 315e decision fails because there is no determination under that section. [00:15:34] Speaker 06: Mr. Bajaj, suppose that something happens after institution, but before the final written decision that would affect the status of real party and interest and it's raised by the patent owner. [00:15:52] Speaker 06: Do you think the decision and the final written decision would then be appealable? [00:15:59] Speaker 05: Your Honor, I am not entirely, it depends on the posture of what happens after that. [00:16:04] Speaker 05: If the real party and interest facts come out after institution and the board enters the final written decision, I would still submit that that is not appealable and I believe that's what [00:16:17] Speaker 05: your honors wrote to that effect in the Wi-Fi one descent. [00:16:23] Speaker 05: I'd also [00:16:24] Speaker 05: Point to section 319 and 318. [00:16:27] Speaker 05: Section 319 authorizes review of the final written decision, but 318 says that the final written decision is with respect to patentability. [00:16:35] Speaker 05: So I don't believe that the issue would still be reviewable merely because it appears in the final written decision. [00:16:42] Speaker 05: It's still an institution level decision that, you know, if facts come out after institution that the board should not have instituted, it's still a section 312 and barred by 314. [00:16:57] Speaker 05: So even if the court were to review the issue, there's still no reason to reverse the board's decision. [00:17:03] Speaker 05: The board applied the correct standard as set forth in the trial practice guide and is confirmed by this court in applications and internet time. [00:17:10] Speaker 05: Barkin's issue is with the board's weighing of the evidence, not of the legal test applied by the board. [00:17:17] Speaker 05: This is the type of decision that is reviewed for substantial evidence as the court found in AIT. [00:17:22] Speaker 05: And here, substantial evidence supports the board's conclusions. [00:17:27] Speaker 05: I'd like to turn to the merits of patentability and, first, the regulating data flow term and how that is met by Ferris. [00:17:34] Speaker 05: This court should come to the same conclusion as the board. [00:17:37] Speaker 05: Regulating data flow between the mobile device and the packet-based data network requires nothing more than controlling the flow of data between those two endpoints. [00:17:47] Speaker 05: And the claim language speaks for itself. [00:17:49] Speaker 05: The claim resides a controller adapted to regulate data flow between the mobile device and the data network. [00:17:55] Speaker 05: The claim does not recite the phrase through the gateway and does not require regulation of data flow through the gateway. [00:18:01] Speaker 05: It simply requires controlling the flow of data and the claims do not provide any further specificity. [00:18:08] Speaker 05: Barkin is attempting to confuse two issues by suggesting that because data flows through the gateway, it must be regulated through the gateway. [00:18:15] Speaker 05: But it is not in dispute that data flows through a gateway. [00:18:18] Speaker 05: What is at issue is where such data regulated between the two. [00:18:23] Speaker 02: If you look at the prosecution history, isn't there a suggestion there by the patentee that it has to regulate through the gateway? [00:18:33] Speaker 05: I don't believe that's the case, Your Honor. [00:18:35] Speaker 05: I believe that in the prosecution history, the portions that Barkin is pointing to are ambiguous on that point. [00:18:44] Speaker 05: I believe that the applicant was distinguishing the Johnson reference based on the Johnson references type of network, meaning between a circuit switch and a packet switch network, and the presence of a gateway at all in Johnson, not whether Johnson regulated data flow [00:19:03] Speaker 05: through a gateway or that regulating data flow through a gateway is required. [00:19:11] Speaker 05: And importantly, I recognize Your Honor's confusion as to what through the gateway means. [00:19:16] Speaker 05: We don't really know what that means, and we don't know... We know what through the gateway means. [00:19:23] Speaker 05: We just don't know what regulating through the gateway means. [00:19:27] Speaker 05: That is fair, and I apologize for that, Your Honor. [00:19:30] Speaker 05: And a bit of that confusion is because the specification, as the board pointed out, does not use the word regulate. [00:19:37] Speaker 05: So if we are looking at the intrinsic record and what's in the patent, we resort to the claim language and regulating between those two endpoints just means regulating anywhere [00:19:50] Speaker 05: on that path between the mobile device and the packet-based data network. [00:19:56] Speaker 05: And as Your Honors noted, in Ferris, the prior art reference, data is regulated between the mobile device and the gateway. [00:20:03] Speaker 05: And that data flows through the gateway and onto the packet-based data network. [00:20:07] Speaker 05: That is not in dispute here. [00:20:09] Speaker 05: And so Ferris meets the claim limitation as construed correctly as controlling a flow of data. [00:20:16] Speaker 02: What do you understand [00:20:18] Speaker 02: the prosecution history to mean when the examiner says that the, if I recall correctly, that the parties agree that there's no controller in the Johnson prior art? [00:20:32] Speaker 05: So in the Johnson prior art, the applicant, I'm sorry, the examiner confirmed that in prosecution that [00:20:48] Speaker 05: Johnson does not disclose a controller adapted to regulate flow between the mobile device and the data network. [00:20:53] Speaker 05: So the examiner admitted that that was not what Johnson was cited to teach. [00:20:58] Speaker 05: Instead, the zoo reference, XU, was cited to teach that limitation. [00:21:04] Speaker 05: And so the applicant's statements as to Johnson were not material as to whether their claim required through a gateway or not. [00:21:15] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:21:18] Speaker 05: And so if this court comes to the same construction as the board, the findings that Ferris anticipates the independent claims must be affirmed. [00:21:25] Speaker 05: Again, Ferris regulates data flow between the gateway and the mobile device, and that data flows through the gateway and onto the packet-based data network. [00:21:34] Speaker 05: And turning to the unique identity recitation in claims six through eight, again, the board's findings. [00:21:40] Speaker 02: I understand your position that by regulating the choice of the RF frequency, [00:21:46] Speaker 02: regulates the first half of the data flow and that's sufficient, is that what you're saying? [00:21:53] Speaker 05: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:21:55] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:21:57] Speaker 05: Turning to the unique identity recitation and claims six through eight, again, the board's findings here are supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. [00:22:05] Speaker 05: Again, the question turns on one of claim language. [00:22:08] Speaker 05: The claim recites a gateway comprising a unique identity and nothing more is required of the unique identity. [00:22:14] Speaker 05: The claims do not specify the nature of the unique identity, a point which Barkin cannot contest without resorting to it reading in additional limitations not present in the claims text. [00:22:25] Speaker 05: Based on the claim language, the unique identity is not attributed to or limited to or associated with the gateway. [00:22:32] Speaker 05: The board's finding that Lucidarm discloses a unique identity as claimed is supported by the record. [00:22:38] Speaker 05: And as was noted, Lucidarm operates consistent with one of the examples in the patent itself. [00:22:45] Speaker 05: The patent discusses insertion of a smart card with a unique number into the base station to achieve the unique identity. [00:22:52] Speaker 05: Lucidarm likewise describes. [00:22:53] Speaker 06: Where is that in the patent? [00:22:56] Speaker 06: I've lost my reference to it. [00:22:59] Speaker 05: Your Honor, this is at column 11, lines 25 through 28. [00:23:03] Speaker 05: Does various means may be used to achieve the unique identity? [00:23:05] Speaker 06: Oh, right. [00:23:06] Speaker 06: Yeah, OK. [00:23:06] Speaker 06: Yeah, I see it. [00:23:07] Speaker 05: And so, Lucidarm likewise describes configuring a base station by inserting into the base station a user's SIM card or a smart card. [00:23:15] Speaker 05: And that smart card has a unique number in the form of a private key. [00:23:19] Speaker 05: So, Lucidarm's... Sorry? [00:23:22] Speaker 06: No, no, I see it. [00:23:23] Speaker 06: Yeah, thank you. [00:23:24] Speaker 05: So, Lucidarm's base station comprises a unique identity in the same manner as the 284 patent's base station comprises a unique identity. [00:23:32] Speaker 05: And this court should affirm the board's finding that Lucidarm teaches the dependent claim features. [00:23:38] Speaker 05: Unless the court has any further questions, I will see the remainder of my time. [00:23:43] Speaker 02: Okay. [00:23:44] Speaker 02: Hearing none, thank you. [00:23:45] Speaker 02: Mr. Larson, you've got two minutes. [00:23:48] Speaker 07: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:23:49] Speaker 07: Let me start with the regulate data flow terms. [00:23:52] Speaker 07: Page 578 of the appendix is the prosecution history, and Your Honor discussed this with counsel. [00:23:59] Speaker 07: When the patent owner is describing Johnson, the prior art reference, it literally bolds and underlines the following language, allocating a plurality of channels, and it states on 578 and 579 that allocating a plurality of RF channels is not regulating data flow through the gateway, or not regulating data flow [00:24:22] Speaker 07: That's exactly what the board has identified in this case. [00:24:25] Speaker 07: They have identified the exact feature that was distinguished during prior RART. [00:24:29] Speaker 07: And the board has not explained why it reached a contrary decision. [00:24:33] Speaker 07: There's no dispute about what the prior RART taught in this case, Your Honor. [00:24:38] Speaker 02: Where is the reference? [00:24:39] Speaker 02: This is on 579? [00:24:42] Speaker 07: 578. [00:24:43] Speaker 07: The top of 578, Your Honor, under the heading the Johnson reference? [00:24:48] Speaker 02: Yeah. [00:24:48] Speaker 07: The second line, there's a bolding of allocating of a plurality of channels. [00:24:55] Speaker 07: And then that is a quote from the Johnson reference itself. [00:25:00] Speaker 07: And then on the next page, page 579, the first full paragraph starting with applicant respectfully. [00:25:06] Speaker 07: The fourth line starts, namely, the limitation of regulating data flows through a gateway [00:25:18] Speaker 07: is neither taught nor suggested by any of the citing references. [00:25:25] Speaker 07: And then a couple of lines down furthermore. [00:25:27] Speaker 02: They said they agreed that there was no controller, right? [00:25:33] Speaker 07: Correct, Your Honor. [00:25:35] Speaker 07: And the controller is what's doing the regulating. [00:25:38] Speaker 07: So Johnson allocates a plurality of channels, and the board said, or the examiner said, that's not regulating. [00:25:46] Speaker 07: That's not regulating data flow. [00:25:48] Speaker 07: That's just allocating channels. [00:25:54] Speaker 03: If I briefly turn to you. [00:25:56] Speaker 06: I'm sorry, but where does the examiner say that exactly? [00:26:00] Speaker 07: This is the final office action response before the claims were allowed. [00:26:08] Speaker 06: Right, but what page of the appendix do you have the quote from the examiner? [00:26:13] Speaker 07: The very last two words on 552, your honor, starts with Johnson, however, and then that sentence proceeds onto page 553. [00:26:35] Speaker 07: And that is the office action that preceded the discussion on 578 and 579. [00:26:43] Speaker 07: of this term. [00:26:44] Speaker 07: The examiner is saying that allocating RF channels does not disclose a controller adapted to regulate data flow. [00:26:52] Speaker 07: Once again, this is the exact position that the board adopted from the lucid arm reference. [00:26:58] Speaker 07: I apologize from the fairest reference. [00:27:03] Speaker 07: To briefly turn to the unique identity term, the council pointed to column 11, lines 28 through 30. [00:27:12] Speaker 07: about the smart card, that is a smart card that's associated with an individual user. [00:27:17] Speaker 07: Earlier in that column. [00:27:19] Speaker 02: I think we're about out of time. [00:27:20] Speaker 02: You're way over your two minutes. [00:27:22] Speaker 02: So unless my colleagues have further questions, I think we're going to have to stop here. [00:27:30] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:27:31] Speaker 02: Hearing no further questions, thank all counsel. [00:27:33] Speaker 02: The case is submitted.