[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
for argument is 20-1993, FGSRC versus Microsoft Corporation.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
Now we're ready for you, Mr. Kasen.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Jay Kasen for the Appellant FGSRC.

[00:00:16] Speaker 01:
I will discuss three issues.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
The first is the board's erroneous construction memory module bus.

[00:00:25] Speaker 01:
The fact that the local bus of the Tutsui reference is not a memory module bus and there is no direct connection between the FPGA and the memory module or the microprocessing unit in Tutsui.

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
And finally that the original Tutsui reference exhibit 1007 that was presented in the petition is not a printed publication.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
The board aired in its construction of memory module.

[00:00:51] Speaker 03:
Can I first ask a sort of housekeeping question?

[00:00:55] Speaker 03:
You say in your opening brief that exhibit 1038 is an entirely different exhibit from exhibit 1007, but they seem to be the same document to me.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
Am I missing something?

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, they're all different versions of the same reference that was presented in various stages in the process in a conference.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
1007 was an exhibit that was never publicly made available.

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
It was submitted to the conference for review.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
There's no date in it, it's not authenticated, and it's even partially illegible.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
There was a, Microsoft presented another version of 1007,

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
And they tried to expunge and replace 1007 with 1032 and with 1036 and with 1038.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
So there was actually four versions of this.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
And there was differences.

[00:01:58] Speaker 03:
But the board was referring to 1007 when it said, when it found that it includes an ACM trade inscription, a copyright symbol, and an ISBN number, right?

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, and the board is plainly wrong.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
I would urge the court to look at exhibit 1007, and you will see no date.

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
You will see no ACM trade symbol.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
You will see no copyright symbol, and you will see no ISBN number.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
The board was just plainly wrong on that.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
In fact, the board itself called exhibit 1032 a different document.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
This is Judge Crouse.

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
You've pointed to alleged differences between Exhibit 10-1007 and some of the others, such as missing text.

[00:02:49] Speaker 02:
But none of the text that was relied on by the board or the parties or the experts is far as an argument on the merits, right?

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:02:59] Speaker 01:
Our only point here is that when it was presented in the petition,

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
We had no way of knowing what, if this was even prior art or not.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
This was just a matter of a few months.

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
This was earlier in 1997, and the priority dates for the 524 patent go back to December of 1997.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
And there was none of that

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
authenticating information present in Exhibit 107.

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
Taking your point, seems to me the problem for you is you didn't object within the 10-day time frame to Exhibit 1007 on authenticity grounds.

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, we did not object within 10 days of institution, but shortly thereafter when Microsoft sought to expunge and replace it, we objected.

[00:03:47] Speaker 01:
We also once again objected within four days when they introduced it again in the reply.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
It, however, doesn't absolve Microsoft of the responsibility of presenting the grounds based on properly authenticated prior art, and they agree

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
that the required evidentiary authentication of exhibit 1007 simply doesn't exist.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
And in fact, their own experts in deposition said they didn't rely on 1007.

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
They relied on 1032.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
So we believe that there is really no version of TSUI that qualifies as prior art in the petition.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
And we should decide that there was no obligation for your side to object?

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
Objections are contemplated for matters such as this.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
Are they not?

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
They are, Your Honor.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
And yes, we did not object within the 10-day period.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
Our only point here is that while we didn't,

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
there is, it is entirely within the discretion of the board to whether they should, you know, pay attention to that or not.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
And in fact, we took a separate procedural path that is still valid, which is that we objected to their expunging and replacing, and we took that path, and the board initially agreed with us and did not let them

[00:05:24] Speaker 01:
makes that replacement.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
But then in the final decision, they made a plainly erroneous statement that exhibit 1007 has all these ACM markings, copyrightized VN numbers, et cetera, which is simply not true.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
And based on that, they let exhibit 1007 in.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
I want to spend a little bit of time talking about the construction of memory module bus.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
The memory module bus, we believe, is a bus that does not include a peripheral component interconnect bus, that is the PCI bus, or any other equivalent IO bus that suffers from the same limitations as a PCI bus, meaning that it has low data transfer rates, high latency, high congestion.

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
And the memory module bus was designed to be a fast, dedicated bus, and

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
meant to be separate and apart from a slow bus, like a peripheral bus.

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
Figure five of the 524 patent, which is on the front page of the patent, shows that very clearly.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
Item 216 versus item 210.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
We can see that item 216 is a high-speed 2.1 gigabyte per second memory module bus.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
So, again, I think Judge O'Malley brought this up in another case.

[00:06:48] Speaker 02:
I mean, you've proposed a number of constructions throughout these proceedings, have you not?

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
We have actually, the only thing that we've done is we had an extra statement about how the memory module bus should be compatible with applicable standards, and the board took that out, and we are not appealing that.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
So that specific clause,

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
about being compatible with applicable standards, we note in page 34 of our blue brief that we are not contesting the fact that the board took that clause out in their definition.

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
What we're instead saying is instead of just having a carve out for a PCI bus,

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
What the board made a mistake was that it should have carved out PCI buses, and in fact, all peripheral buses that suffer from the same limitations that the memory module bus was designed to address.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
In fact... So you're saying we should expand the disclaimer, this express disclaimer of a PCI bus to cover all other buses, even though there was no express disclaimer?

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
What we are saying is that, in fact, the patent does have an express disclaimer of buses that are like PCI buses that suffer from the same limitations as a PCI bus.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
Figure 5 shows an AGP bus.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
It shows an SM bus.

[00:08:20] Speaker 01:
And all of them are along with the PCI bus, AGP being the Accelerated Graphics Processor bus and the System Maintenance bus and the PCI bus.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
Similarly, in column 7,

[00:08:33] Speaker 01:
line 48 onwards in the 524 pattern, you can again see that those types of buses are lumped together.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
And the board erred in not recognizing that we have the memory module bus, which is a high-speed bus, and then we have the peripheral bus.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
under the doctrine of claim differentiation, you can see the same terms, memory module bus in claim one and peripheral bus in claim three.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
And they have, by definition, different meanings.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
We believe that there is unambiguous disavowal of... I don't even understand.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on your claim differentiation argument.

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
I don't see where there's a differentiation problem because the memory bus and the peripheral bus are two different elements performing different functions.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
That's the reason why we believe that the memory module bus

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
should not be construed to include the peripheral bus because it is the data that is being transmitted on the memory module bus.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
And as claim three shows, it's the control information.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
So one is a data connection and the other is a control connection.

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
And what we're saying is that memory module bus

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
should be construed to exclude a peripheral bus.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
In fact, the patent goes on to say the only reason why the patent repeatedly mentions as opposed to a PCI bus is because the PCI bus is a canonical example.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
The patent tells us in column one, line 48, that it happened to be the highest performance external interface bus at that time.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
That's the only reason why

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
It mentions a non-PCI bus, but what figure five shows and the teachings in the patent show is that all of these PCI-like buses would not be used to connect

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
the reconfigurable processor to the memory because it's simply not fast enough.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
And we want that 2.1 gigabytes per second link as opposed to the slower 256 megabytes per second link which is found in the peripheral bus.

[00:10:59] Speaker 01:
There is also overwhelming evidence that TSUI does not disclose a memory module bus.

[00:11:08] Speaker 01:
relied, I'm sorry, the board relied on the local bus of Tutsui to say that it's a memory module bus.

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
But Tutsui is a four-page reference, and in the two middle pages, two and three, no less than four times, Tutsui tells us that the local bus is slow, the local bus is congested, the local bus simply would not be a memory module bus.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
Microsoft expert Dr. Haup's testimony

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
that the PCE bus, that the local bus, would in fact meet the limitation of a memory module bus is just flatly wrong.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
It's contradicted by the specific statements in TUSUI itself.

[00:11:55] Speaker 02:
What's our review of that?

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
I mean, this seems to be close to a credibility determination that the board made with respect to Dr. Hug's testimony.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, this Court has repeatedly noted that when expert testimony is flatly contradicted by the actual teachings of a reference, then it should be given no weight and it should be set aside in cases such as

[00:12:27] Speaker 01:
Homeware's household and in Erickson versus IP and so on, versus IV, I'm sorry, and so on.

[00:12:35] Speaker 01:
Here we have a situation where Dr. Howe's testimony is contradicted by how the local bus is described.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
The architecture of Tutsui is actually on three separate cards.

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
And we can see that in Figure 2, which shows the physical layout.

[00:12:52] Speaker 01:
There is no way for the local bus, which is on the MPU card, for it to have a direct connection to the memories that are on the main card and to the FPGA, which is on an FPGA card that is on the left.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
So they have three separate cards.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
There's no way for a direct data connection whatsoever.

[00:13:12] Speaker 01:
So here we have, and our experts pointed all that out.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
OK, you're into your rebuttal time.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
It's up to you whether you want to keep going.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honors, I will stop right here.

[00:13:23] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
Mr. Trela.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
SRC's arguments in this proceeding have been a moving target all along, and that's continued with what you just heard.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
I just want to call out one right at the outset.

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
I think my friend suggested that the priority date

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
actually should not be the 2001 date, but 1997.

[00:13:48] Speaker 00:
And that's just wrong.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
Appendix page 506, in fact, SRC told the board that Microsoft's arguments, which we're sort of assuming a 1997 priority date, were wrong, and that 2001 is the right date.

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
So that's just the latest example of a switch.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
Let me turn

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
to where SRC's council left off, and that's with this direct connection issue.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
The board squarely addressed that, and it found that Tsutsui on its face discloses the direct connection.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
The board explained, and this is at appendix page 32, in the local bus configuration, the quote, transport data stream is directly input into the FPGA, close quote, and so quote,

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
Tsutsui discloses the claimed FPGA and direct data connection of the processor element for a memory module bus of a computer system, close quote.

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
The board cited a particular passage of SUTSUI that's at appendix page 1952.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
And that passage says, using only the bus architecture and implementation style of our target system should be similar to figure 11.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
The transport data stream is input into the FPGA directly.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
Figure 11 of SUTSUI at appendix 1955, in fact, shows the direct connection.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
Microsoft's expert, Dr. Hauk, explained that.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
And the board expressly found that Dr. Haug's testimony was consistent with Tsutsui's text and figures, and that's Appendix Pages 36.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
Two things.

[00:15:23] Speaker 03:
One is you're going to have to slow down a little bit.

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:15:27] Speaker 03:
You need to take a breath or something between sentences.

[00:15:30] Speaker 03:
But putting that aside, what is your response to the fact that a local bus can't possibly accomplish what Tsutsui is claiming?

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
Well, the local bus can certainly accomplish what Tsutsui is claiming.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
I mean, it is, after all, Tsutsui's local bus.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
Now, Tsutsui points out that there are disadvantages to using the local bus and proposes three separate connection configurations, but it clearly proposes the local bus, says that it will work,

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
in the yards YARDS system that Tsutsui is disclosing.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
It discloses a direct connection as the board found from the local bus to the FPGAs and direct provision of data on the local bus.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
So it squarely meets the limitations of the 524 patent claim as construed by the board.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
And I would also note

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
that our expert Dr. Hauk testified without contradiction that a person of ordinary skill who read Tsutsui would know, in fact, that the local bus is not a PCI bus.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
That's at page appendix 1772 to 73, paragraphs 190 to 91.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
And before the board,

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
SRC never argued that the local bus in Tsutsui was a PCI bus.

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
In fact, it just said, well, it's analogous to or it shares some characteristics with a PCI bus.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
So this notion that the local bus in Tsutsui could not be a memory module bus, it's just squarely contrary both to the text of Tsutsui and undisputed expert testimony that the board found credible.

[00:17:27] Speaker 03:
Can we go back to the references themselves?

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
I mean, I'm so confused by all these different exhibits, but I mean, you say that FG had an obligation to object to the original Tsui reference on authentication grounds within a period of time and that they waived that objection, right?

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
But then turning it around to you, when you went to submit

[00:17:56] Speaker 03:
the second version of the reference.

[00:18:01] Speaker 03:
You didn't actually ask for permission under the regs, did you?

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
Here's the way things unfolded, Your Honor.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
We submitted the petition with expert declarations and they had Exhibit 1007 attached.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
Then we discovered that

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
The copy of Tsutsui that was attached was not the same copy that the experts had been citing to.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
The digital copy was Exhibit 1007, which had been attached.

[00:18:32] Speaker 03:
I got all that.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
My question is, how did you then go try to submit the new one to the board, the correct one to the board?

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
Did you file a motion?

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
Well, you have to seek permission to file a motion.

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
We sought permission to file a motion.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
to swap in 1032 for 1007.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
The board denied that, but at appendix page 491, it said, we're not going to allow you to do this now, but you can file 1032 at the appropriate time.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
What does that mean?

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
Well, I think as it unfolded, what that meant was in SRC's patent owner response, they, for the first time, raised some sort of an objection to exhibit 1007, and that's the paragraph

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
appendix page 551 on that.

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
In reply, we then submitted evidence to corroborate that exhibit 1007 is in fact exactly what it was represented to be, namely a copy of the Tsutsui paper that was presented at the 1997 conference.

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
And exhibit 1032 was submitted as part of that submission, basically to corroborate that it was in fact, that exhibit 1007 was in fact what it was represented to be.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
And that's the way the board treated it.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
It treated it, it didn't treat exhibit 1032 as a separate prior art reference.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
It didn't rely on it as the prior art reference.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
It relied on it as corroborating evidence to show that exhibit 1007 was in fact exactly what Microsoft said it was.

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
The same thing is true of 1036 and 1038, which are additional copies of the digital version obtained from CD-ROMs that were at academic libraries.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
And again, they're identical to exhibit 1007, submitted as corroborating evidence to show that 1007 was in fact exactly what we said it was, which is the, although it was untimely, that was the SRC authentication challenge, which the board thought it was untimely, but also went on to find that on the merits that we had in fact established the authenticity of exhibit 1007.

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
Now, I do, that does raise a question.

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
My friend commented that he said that the board made a mistake in finding that there was an ACM inscription and copyright symbol and all of that with Exhibit 1007.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
I think that that ignores exactly what the board found and importantly the context in which the board found it.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
As the board explained, and this is at Appendix 12, Microsoft had argued that Exhibits 1036 and 1038 were self-authenticating and that because they're identical to 1007, it was self-authenticating as well.

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
Among other things, Microsoft had argued that Exhibit 1038, which as I've said, was another copy of the digital version, it had an ACM inscription, copyright symbol, and ISBN.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
and that exhibits 1007 and 1036 were the same document and thus were self-authenticating as well.

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
The board agreed with Microsoft's argument.

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
Appendix 13, it says, we agree with petitioner that exhibits 1007, 1036 and 1038 are self-authenticating.

[00:21:54] Speaker 03:
So that's what the board found and it's completely... Am I correct that there's no argument in this appeal that 1036 and 1038 should have been excluded?

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
Are you self-authenticating?

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
Yes, I don't believe that there was certainly nothing in either of SRC's briefs seems to present any argument at all on 1036 or 1038.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
They argue about 1007 and they argue about 1032, although as I said, 1032 was submitted merely to corroborate that 1007 was what it was supposed to be.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
So, right, 1036 and 1038 are identical.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
The Tsutsui article in them is identical in all three copies and no challenge as far as I know to 1036 and 1038 as not being authentic or genuine.

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
Turning with the court's permission to the claim construction issue, first, SRC did not propose

[00:23:02] Speaker 00:
the construction is arguing about now to the board.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
There is a substantive difference in the constructions, although SRC tries to dismiss the standards and protocols part of the construction below is somehow not substantive or irrelevant.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
In fact, it consumed substantial argument before the board.

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
The board specifically acknowledged that argument in the final written decision and rejected SRC's contention in that regard.

[00:23:27] Speaker 00:
They also insert this notion of equivalent

[00:23:31] Speaker 00:
into the construction, which was not presented to the board.

[00:23:34] Speaker 00:
But even beyond that, the notion that the disclaimer should be broader than just the PCI buses just flies in the face of the specification.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
And this court's precedent concerning claim disclaimers.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
The case law, as the court is well aware, is very clear.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
Disclaimers have to be clear and unmistakable.

[00:24:01] Speaker 00:
use words of manifest exclusion and restriction.

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
The specification in this case repeatedly talks about PCI buses and only PCI buses.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
Council mentioned the fact that the specification also refers to system maintenance and accelerated graphics port buses, SM and AGP buses.

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
And that's a significant fact because the patent indicates that

[00:24:30] Speaker 00:
The inventors were well aware that there are these other buses, and they don't mention them at all in this supposed disclaimer.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
The fact that they say that any of these three buses, PCI, SM, and AGP, could be used for the control connection does not say that buses other than PCI couldn't also be used for the separate memory module bus connection.

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
So the notion that

[00:24:57] Speaker 00:
somehow there was a disclaimer of anything besides PCI buses, just has no support in the specification.

[00:25:03] Speaker 00:
Also, the claim differentiation argument, as I think the panel, Chief Judge Prost may have suggested, doesn't really seem to follow logically.

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
The claims recite separate, the dependent claims two and three recite separate elements, one for the memory module bus, the other for the control connection.

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
The board construed those as SRC's request to be separate components, separate pieces of the structure.

[00:25:36] Speaker 00:
And they are, in fact, separate pieces of the structure.

[00:25:39] Speaker 00:
The fact that you might be able to use the same type of component in two different places, that doesn't contravene claim differentiation.

[00:25:49] Speaker 00:
So the notion that the board's construction somehow runs afoul of that

[00:25:55] Speaker 00:
doctrine just does not hold any water.

[00:26:02] Speaker 00:
I think that that covers the questions that the court raised and that I heard, the argument points that I heard from SRC's counsel.

[00:26:13] Speaker 00:
Certainly happy to answer any additional questions the court may have, but otherwise we will stand on our brief on the other issues.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
Hearing nothing from the panel, thank you, Mr. Trela.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
Mr. Kasen, you have some time left for rebuttal.

[00:26:35] Speaker 01:
Yes, thank you, Your Honors.

[00:26:38] Speaker 01:
First, Exhibit 1007 is absolutely not identical to 1032 or 1036 or 1038.

[00:26:48] Speaker 01:
There are differences.

[00:26:51] Speaker 01:
We did not make any challenge to 1036 or 1038 because Microsoft said that they are not relying on that.

[00:27:00] Speaker 01:
They said they are relying only on 1007.

[00:27:02] Speaker 01:
And exhibit 1007 was never distributed publicly.

[00:27:08] Speaker 01:
The only time we realized there was a problem with it was because when we were taking the deposition of your expert,

[00:27:17] Speaker 01:
It was only at that time we realized that the expert had relied on a different version of the Tutsui reference.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
Exhibit 1007 was never distributed publicly, so therefore it was never a printed publication.

[00:27:33] Speaker 03:
Council, what is your response to the argument on the other side that the later submission of the later Tutsui reference was

[00:27:43] Speaker 03:
properly considered by the board for purposes of authenticating the original reference?

[00:27:51] Speaker 01:
Your honor, it was their burden to introduce properly authenticated prior rock references that are properly dated in the petition.

[00:28:06] Speaker 01:
What we have here is a moving target.

[00:28:09] Speaker 01:
what we have here is various versions being introduced in order to qualify and meet the evidentiary standards.

[00:28:16] Speaker 01:
And in fact, you know, we have, here's a reference where they admitted that it wasn't publicly available.

[00:28:26] Speaker 01:
And so right on the face of the petition, the four corners of the petition, we have their main reference is unauthenticated and didn't meet the evidentiary standards.

[00:28:37] Speaker 01:
on its face and subsequently after institution they've tried to bootstrap this and at the end we have a board that says that 1007 in fact has an ACM trade symbol and ISBN and so on and so forth and it's just simply not there.

[00:28:54] Speaker 01:
It's just simply not there.

[00:28:57] Speaker 01:
I do want to mention that Tutsui does not

[00:29:02] Speaker 01:
say whether the local bus is a PCI bus or not.

[00:29:06] Speaker 01:
It simply says that it's slow and congested.

[00:29:08] Speaker 01:
In fact, it goes on to say, let's connect the FPGA to the microprocessing unit using a two-port S-RAM instead of the local bus, because the local bus is congested.

[00:29:21] Speaker 01:
Our expert, Dr. Buccioni, said

[00:29:24] Speaker 01:
We don't know what that local bus is, but it's like a PCI bus.

[00:29:28] Speaker 01:
It's not a memory module bus.

[00:29:31] Speaker 01:
And so Dr. Hauck's testimony was flatly contradicted by what is taught in Tutsui and by the layout of the three cards.

[00:29:40] Speaker 01:
So there was no direct connection whatsoever.

[00:29:43] Speaker 01:
And so I'll stop right here.

[00:29:45] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:29:45] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:29:46] Speaker 01:
We thank both sides and the case is submitted.