[00:00:00] Speaker 03: Good morning. [00:00:01] Speaker 03: Our next case is North Star Innovations, Inc. [00:00:03] Speaker 03: versus Hirschfield, case number 20-1874. [00:00:07] Speaker 03: Mr. Flynn, you have reserved five minutes for rebuttal. [00:00:13] Speaker 03: Is that correct? [00:00:15] Speaker 02: Yes, it is. [00:00:16] Speaker 03: OK, you may proceed. [00:00:18] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:00:20] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:21] Speaker 02: This appeal involves three claim construction issues, two claim terms from claim one, [00:00:28] Speaker 02: and one claim term from claim two. [00:00:31] Speaker 02: We respectfully submit that the board erroneously construed these claim terms and that when they are properly construed, there is really no dispute that the term prior art reference fails to disclose the limitations of these claims. [00:00:48] Speaker 02: I'd like to start with the limitation in claim one of a first capacitor whose second terminal is coupled for receiving a boost signal [00:00:57] Speaker 02: and a second capacitor of a second, I'm sorry, a second terminal of a second capacitor that is coupled for receiving the boost signal. [00:01:07] Speaker 02: The plain meaning of this claim language as confirmed by the specification under Phillips is that the second terminals of these capacitors must be connected in such a manner that the boost signal is actually received at those terminals. [00:01:25] Speaker 02: And in its claim construction portion of its final written decision, the board actually construed this limitation in that way, requiring that the second terminal is connected in order to receive the boost signal. [00:01:41] Speaker 02: That was the board's construction. [00:01:43] Speaker 02: But then later in its final written decision when discussing the churn reference, it appeared to construe connected in order to receive [00:01:54] Speaker 02: to require only that the terminals of the capacitors... So, Counselor, this is Judge Raina. [00:02:01] Speaker 03: What is it in the references? [00:02:03] Speaker 03: What's the language that you can point me to that would demonstrate defining opposite as inverted rather than just something, an example of an inverted signal? [00:02:17] Speaker 02: Judge Raina, I actually started with a different claim term. [00:02:21] Speaker 02: The opposite signal, I was reserving for later. [00:02:25] Speaker 02: I'm actually on the claim limitation that requires the second terminals of the capacitors to be coupled for receiving the boost signal. [00:02:33] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:02:34] Speaker 03: That's fine. [00:02:35] Speaker 03: This particular issue is important for me, so just be sure you get back to it. [00:02:41] Speaker 02: Okay, great. [00:02:44] Speaker 02: And then even back to the limitation of the terminals, the second terminals being coupled for receiving. [00:02:50] Speaker 02: As I indicated, the board actually construed that term to say that the terminals were connected in order to receive the boost signal. [00:02:58] Speaker 02: But then when they later in the decision discussing churn, the board construed the term or seemed to construe the term to be connected in order or to be coupled to intervening circuitry that creates new signals that are in some way derived from the boost signal. [00:03:18] Speaker 02: There's no requirement under the proper claim construction that the boost signal be applied directly to the second terminals of the first and second capacitors. [00:03:28] Speaker 02: The claim does allow the boost signal to be applied to other terminals of intervening circuitry on its way to the second terminals of the capacitors. [00:03:38] Speaker 02: But the boost signal, as long as it passes through that intervening circuitry and reaches the second terminals of the capacitors, [00:03:47] Speaker 02: That's okay. [00:03:49] Speaker 02: But in this case, it is an incorrect construction to say that if the intervening circuitry creates new signals such that the terminals of the second capacitors receive those entirely new signals rather than the boost signal itself, then the claim limitation is not met. [00:04:10] Speaker 02: That would essentially say, transform the claim language to recite [00:04:16] Speaker 02: that the terminals of the capacitors be coupled to the boost signal, but not coupled for receiving the boost signal and not in accordance with the way the board originally construed that claim term. [00:04:29] Speaker 02: When the patentee intended to require only that a terminal be coupled to another terminal, he said so very clearly in the same element of the claim. [00:04:39] Speaker 02: With respect to the first terminal of each of the first and second capacitors, the claim recites that it [00:04:44] Speaker 02: needs to be coupled to the output terminal. [00:04:47] Speaker 02: But with respect to the second terminal of each of those capacitors, the claim explicitly recites that it has to be coupled for receiving the boost signal. [00:04:58] Speaker 02: So it's not enough. [00:05:00] Speaker 02: Does it always have to be coupled? [00:05:05] Speaker 02: Whenever it is coupled, whenever it is connect or coupled, yes, it needs to always be receiving the boost. [00:05:11] Speaker 02: It always needs to be coupled for receiving the boost signal. [00:05:15] Speaker 03: Where in the specification do you find support for that? [00:05:20] Speaker 02: That is the entire description of the operation of the 875 circuit. [00:05:26] Speaker 02: The second terminals of the capacitors must always be receiving the boost signal in order for the double complementary pumping circuit to work in the way it's described. [00:05:38] Speaker 02: While one side of the circuit is charging, the other side of the circuit is boosting. [00:05:43] Speaker 02: And if the second terminals of the capacitors were not always coupled for receiving, not always receiving the boost signal, it would not operate in the way that is described. [00:05:54] Speaker 02: It's the entirety of the specification that describes the operation that makes clear that those second terminals must always be received. [00:06:04] Speaker 02: And again, that is consistent with the way the board initially, at least, construed that they had to be connected in order to receive [00:06:13] Speaker 03: Does a single received always have to be in a non-inverted or an inverted version of the boost signal? [00:06:22] Speaker 02: The fact of the matter is, Judge Raina, that if [00:06:25] Speaker 02: If the second terminal of each of those capacitors is receiving the boost signal, then it's always going to be either inverted or non-inverted. [00:06:33] Speaker 02: It doesn't matter that the word inverted or non-inverted isn't in the claim. [00:06:37] Speaker 02: The way that the circuit is described in the specification, that's what's happening. [00:06:42] Speaker 02: In order for one side of the circuit to be charging and the other side to be boosting at the same time, the boost signal that's received by each side of the circuit [00:06:53] Speaker 02: has to be inverted from the boost signal that's received at the other side of the circuit. [00:06:57] Speaker 02: Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to have the circuit, one side of the circuit charging while the other side of the circuit is boosting and vice versa at all times. [00:07:08] Speaker 02: So if it is properly construed to require that the second terminals of the capacitors must actually receive the boost signal, then really that's the end of the story because there's no dispute that [00:07:23] Speaker 02: the capacitors in the churn reference do not receive the boost signal. [00:07:30] Speaker 00: Excuse me, counsel, this is Judge Stoll. [00:07:33] Speaker 00: I understand your argument, and I appreciate the argument you've just made. [00:07:36] Speaker 00: I'm wondering if you could now maybe address Judge Raina's question before, as I had a question about opposite and what support you had for what the specification says, for example. [00:07:54] Speaker 02: I missed the last part of your question, Judge Stoll. [00:07:56] Speaker 00: Well, I just want you to address Judge Raina's question about the meaning of the word opposite. [00:08:02] Speaker 02: All right. [00:08:02] Speaker 02: So with respect to the claim language opposite, we submit that that plain and ordinary language means inverted. [00:08:10] Speaker 02: And the support in the specification is, again, the entirety of the specification that describes the operation of the circuit. [00:08:18] Speaker 00: What about the language at column one? [00:08:21] Speaker 00: lines, it's around lines 33 through 34 that say, describe the signal at the non-overlapping clock signals, C1 and C2, which are 180 degrees out of phase, which that's the exact language, I believe, that your adversary [00:08:43] Speaker 00: submitted their proposed claim construction. [00:08:47] Speaker 00: And it comes right from the specifications. [00:08:49] Speaker 00: So why isn't that sufficient? [00:08:51] Speaker 00: I mean, people don't usually think opposite necessarily means inverted. [00:08:56] Speaker 00: And if you meant inverted, then presumably you would have used that word in the claim. [00:09:02] Speaker 02: The language that you're pointing to in the specification, the non-overlapping and shift to the 180 degrees out of phase with respect to each other, inverted signals are not [00:09:12] Speaker 02: and shifted 180 degrees out of phase. [00:09:15] Speaker 02: But that language by itself in the specification is broader than the language and the claim of opposite two. [00:09:24] Speaker 02: So opposite two is a subset of non-overlapping signals shifted 180 degrees out of phase. [00:09:30] Speaker 02: But opposite two, in fact, the references that we submitted, the extrinsic references that we submitted that were never [00:09:38] Speaker 02: indicate that it is properly understood, that when the term is used opposite to, signals that are opposite to each other, they are indeed inverted. [00:09:48] Speaker 00: So it's not... What do I do? [00:09:51] Speaker 00: I think there were like... You relied on some extrinsic references for the meaning of opposite, and I believe that there were other extrinsic... I believe Kingston had other [00:10:04] Speaker 00: prior references that provided meaning of the word opposite. [00:10:09] Speaker 00: What do we do in a situation like that where the board is confronted with different extrinsic evidence, it's extrinsic evidence because it's prior patents, other articles about the meaning of a term and they credit some and they don't credit others. [00:10:26] Speaker 00: or they say, you know, we're crediting all of them and we're going to take the broadest meaning, which encompasses, you know, both opposite meaning inverted and opposite meaning out of phase with one another. [00:10:39] Speaker 00: What sort of deference do we give that? [00:10:41] Speaker 00: Isn't that a fact-finding and we have to review it for substantial evidence? [00:10:46] Speaker 02: Judge Stoll, the references that Kingston submitted, in fact, were not references that were directed to opposite phase signal. [00:10:54] Speaker 02: What the references that they submitted [00:10:56] Speaker 02: referred to the language from the specification, signals that were non-overlapping and shifted 180 degrees out of phase. [00:11:03] Speaker 02: And the references that they submitted indicated that when that language alone is used, it can be inverted, but it doesn't have to be inverted. [00:11:11] Speaker 00: Can I ask you something? [00:11:12] Speaker 00: I feel like you're not answering my question because my question was, do I review this determination for substantial evidence? [00:11:19] Speaker 02: Well, I'm sorry. [00:11:21] Speaker 02: I am trying to answer your question. [00:11:22] Speaker 00: There really isn't. [00:11:23] Speaker 00: Well, answer my question first, and then you can tell me about what you think the references teach. [00:11:27] Speaker 00: So the question first is, do I review the board's finding with regard to what these references teach with regard to the meaning of the word? [00:11:37] Speaker 00: Do I review it for substantial evidence under Supreme Court precedent that says, claim construction can have underlying facts? [00:11:44] Speaker 02: Yes, you do review those findings under the substantial evidence factor. [00:11:49] Speaker 02: But those references do go to the proper claim interpretation. [00:11:54] Speaker 02: And the point that I was attempting to make was that in this case, I understand your question to be that if the board has to review conflicting references, then does not the substantial evidence standard apply to their review of those references? [00:12:08] Speaker 02: And I agree, it does. [00:12:09] Speaker 02: But what I'm suggesting is that, in fact, the references that were submitted by the parties here were not conflicting references. [00:12:16] Speaker 02: We were the only one that created references [00:12:18] Speaker 02: that used the words, used the language, signals that were opposite to, that used opposite. [00:12:24] Speaker 02: The references that Kingston submitted never used the word opposite. [00:12:28] Speaker 02: They only used the broader language of the specification. [00:12:32] Speaker 03: You're referring to the references Higa Sisho, Pasternak, and Imig, correct? [00:12:41] Speaker 03: Is that what you're talking about? [00:12:43] Speaker 02: The references that we submitted to show that they were [00:12:48] Speaker 03: Are those the references I just named? [00:12:52] Speaker 03: Yes, I believe so, Your Honor. [00:12:55] Speaker 03: Well, what is it in those references that has the effect of defining opposite as inverted? [00:13:05] Speaker 03: I mean, I see that the references disclose inverted signals and opposite signals, but I don't see the limitation of why we should limit the claims the way you want us to. [00:13:21] Speaker 02: The references do describe signals that, when they refer to opposite signals, they do describe that those signals are inverted. [00:13:33] Speaker 03: The references have examples of inverted signals. [00:13:38] Speaker 02: Yes, they do. [00:13:39] Speaker 02: And the purpose of us submitting those references was to show what was commonly understood by signals that were referred to as opposite signals. [00:13:49] Speaker 02: And so when those examples were used or submitted in those references, when that language was used, the signals there that were pointed out in the references were inverted. [00:14:00] Speaker 02: There were no non-inverted signals that were used in those references that specifically referred to signals that were opposite. [00:14:08] Speaker 02: And in fact, that's again, if you look at the specification, I think to go to the rest of Judge Stoll's question, if you look at the specification for further support, [00:14:17] Speaker 02: It is, again, the description of the operation of the circuit. [00:14:21] Speaker 02: The operation of the circuit, it can only work in the way that is described throughout the specification if these signals are inverted. [00:14:30] Speaker 02: That's the only way you can have both sides of the circuit, one side pumping, boosting, while the other side is charging at all times. [00:14:40] Speaker 00: If you have... Mr. Flynn, this is Judge Stoll again. [00:14:43] Speaker 00: I was looking at Sochima. [00:14:46] Speaker 00: which is the reference that was relied on or pointed to by Kingston and that the board relied on. [00:14:51] Speaker 00: That's the extrinsic evidence. [00:14:54] Speaker 00: And you earlier said that it doesn't use the word opposite, but it does. [00:14:58] Speaker 00: For example, at column two, lines 63 through 66, it talks about how these clock signals [00:15:09] Speaker 00: correspond to each other and are supplied with COX signals opposite each other in phase. [00:15:14] Speaker 00: And it uses the words opposite each other in phase. [00:15:16] Speaker 00: And if you look at those signals, they are opposite in phase, but they're not inverted. [00:15:23] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor, if I could. [00:15:25] Speaker 00: I've talked about that at length, so I'm wondering why you told me that the, that Sejima does not use the word opposite, because that is the word we're construing, right? [00:15:35] Speaker 02: Your Honor, if I may clarify. [00:15:37] Speaker 02: What I was referring to when I said that the references submitted by Kingston did not refer to opposite, they were the extrinsic references that Kingston had submitted. [00:15:46] Speaker 02: Kingston never relied on the Sojima reference. [00:15:50] Speaker 02: The Sojima reference was introduced by the board at hearing. [00:15:54] Speaker 00: So none of the extrinsic reference. [00:15:58] Speaker 00: But it is extrinsic evidence, right? [00:16:00] Speaker 02: Yes, all I'm saying is that Kingston wasn't the one that submitted that and that the references that Kingston submitted [00:16:06] Speaker 02: They were the references that I was referring to when I said that those references don't refer or use the word opposite. [00:16:12] Speaker 00: OK. [00:16:13] Speaker 00: But the reference that the board actually relied on in reaching its conclusion, SOGIMA does. [00:16:18] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:16:18] Speaker 02: So it uses the word opposite. [00:16:20] Speaker 02: But what it refers to are signals that are opposite in phases. [00:16:25] Speaker 02: There is a difference. [00:16:26] Speaker 02: In fact, one of the board members at the hearing acknowledged that there was a difference between signals that are opposite to each other [00:16:34] Speaker 02: and signals that operate in opposite phases of the circuit. [00:16:38] Speaker 02: So in the SOGIMA, those signals were in opposite phases of the circuit, but they were not opposite to each other. [00:16:46] Speaker 02: And so what we tried to point out in our briefs when we delved further into the SOGIMA, the reliance by the board on SOGIMA, was that the SOGIMA reference was only used by the examiner to disclose the limitation of the originally filed claim one. [00:17:04] Speaker 02: of the H75 patent, which disclosed non-overlapping and anti-phase signals. [00:17:09] Speaker 02: Anti-phase is the same thing as shifted 180 degrees out of phase. [00:17:13] Speaker 02: So it used SOZOMA to disclose that limitation of the originally filed Claim 1. [00:17:19] Speaker 02: But there were two other claims, 19 and 22, that used the same words that are used in issued Claim 1, signals that are opposite to each other. [00:17:31] Speaker 02: And for those claims, [00:17:34] Speaker 02: The examiner did not rely on SOGIMA. [00:17:37] Speaker 02: The examiner looked to another reference, the young reference, that actually disclosed signals that were inverted. [00:17:45] Speaker 02: So for one of the claims, the signals that were inverted disclosed by the young reference was enough to anticipate one of those claims, but for the other claim, they originally filed 19, which ultimately became issued claim one. [00:18:01] Speaker 02: there were other limitations that the young reference did not meet. [00:18:05] Speaker 02: So the point is, is that when the examiner wanted to... Can you start concluding, please? [00:18:14] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:18:15] Speaker 02: So that's the explanation of SOGMA, that it really was not used to disclose or to invalidate claims that required signals that were opposite to each other. [00:18:24] Speaker 02: I really had wanted to get into my [00:18:28] Speaker 02: argument on the inverting and non-inverting buffer. [00:18:33] Speaker 02: I believe I am over my time. [00:18:35] Speaker 02: Do I have permission to at least try? [00:18:37] Speaker 03: Yeah, you're over your time. [00:18:38] Speaker 03: In fact, I think that we ate up your rebuttal time. [00:18:42] Speaker 03: I'm going to restore rebuttal time, and I'll give you a minute to answer this to address this other issue you're talking about. [00:18:47] Speaker 02: OK. [00:18:50] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:18:50] Speaker 02: I appreciate that. [00:18:52] Speaker 02: So the other claim term is from claim two, and it is the [00:18:59] Speaker 02: claim limitation of inverting and non-inverting buffer. [00:19:03] Speaker 02: And again, the claim meaning of these claims as supported by the specification and as further supported by standard dictionary definitions is that these are circuits that have single inputs and single outputs. [00:19:16] Speaker 02: In the case of an inverting buffer, the output is always inverted from the input. [00:19:20] Speaker 02: In the case of the non-inverting buffer, the output is always non-inverted from the input. [00:19:24] Speaker 02: Kingston had never proposed a construction for either of those terms. [00:19:29] Speaker 02: Kingston had only proposed a construction for buffer and proposed a construction that it isolates or decouples the output from the input. [00:19:38] Speaker 02: And under that construction, that brought enough that indeed a buffer can include multiple inputs and multiple outputs. [00:19:45] Speaker 02: But the claim terms are inverting buffer and non-inverting buffer. [00:19:48] Speaker 02: They are specific kinds of buffers. [00:19:51] Speaker 02: And the specification and the extrinsic dictionary definitions that we submitted [00:19:57] Speaker 02: indicate that inverting buffers and non-inverting buffers, they are single inputs and single outputs. [00:20:03] Speaker 02: So, for example, the specification for the inverting buffer uses the electrical symbol of a NOT gate, and the technical dictionary definitions that we submitted show that a NOT gate is the same thing as an inverter, and that an inverter is referred to as an inverting buffer. [00:20:20] Speaker 02: For the non-inverting buffer, [00:20:21] Speaker 02: The specification used the symbol of a buffer gate and the same kind of thing in the references that we submitted. [00:20:27] Speaker 02: It's commonly understood that a buffer gate is a single input, single output. [00:20:33] Speaker 02: So all of the devices that were disclosed in the references that we submitted, all of those devices, while some of them used AND gates and NAND gates and NOR gates that had multiple inputs, all the inputs were always tied together. [00:20:49] Speaker 02: so that it resulted in a single input and a single output. [00:20:53] Speaker 02: OK. [00:20:53] Speaker 03: I think we've got that argument. [00:20:56] Speaker 03: Do my colleagues have any other questions? [00:20:59] Speaker 03: OK. [00:21:02] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:21:03] Speaker 03: Thank you, sir. [00:21:04] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:21:05] Speaker 03: Mr. Flynn, you have five minutes rebuttal, but we kind of went over. [00:21:12] Speaker 03: You have five minutes if you need it, OK? [00:21:15] Speaker 02: Thank you, sir. [00:21:16] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:21:20] Speaker 01: You may proceed. [00:21:23] Speaker 01: Hi. [00:21:23] Speaker 01: This is William Lamarca for the PTO. [00:21:25] Speaker 01: Hopefully you can hear me clearly. [00:21:27] Speaker 01: It may please the court. [00:21:28] Speaker 01: And as a response to that opening argument, I'll start with the opposite equals inverted argument. [00:21:36] Speaker 01: As we point out in our brief, Your Honors, nowhere in the claim is the word inverted mentioned. [00:21:43] Speaker 01: Nowhere in the written description is the word opposite mentioned or defined. [00:21:49] Speaker 01: All that's in the specification, I think Judge Stoll referenced it, is column one, lines 30 to 35, where it defines how the phased relationship works to a pair of non-overlapping clock signals, which are 180 degrees out of phase to one another. [00:22:06] Speaker 01: So really, that's what's defining how the claim operates. [00:22:11] Speaker 01: And it's true that the word opposite is in the claim, but [00:22:15] Speaker 01: Opposite can be opposite phases. [00:22:17] Speaker 01: It doesn't have to be inverted. [00:22:19] Speaker 01: And so I don't think the board or the agency disputes that inverted can be an opposite signal. [00:22:27] Speaker 01: It's just saying it's not limited to that. [00:22:29] Speaker 01: I think that's the position of the agency and that's the position of the board. [00:22:33] Speaker 01: That was also the position of the petitioner and the petitioner's expert, which basically the board agreed with. [00:22:39] Speaker 01: So I think that's the crux of the argument. [00:22:43] Speaker 01: You know, the agency's view is the intrinsic evidence is the first thing to look at and the most important, which is the language of the claim. [00:22:50] Speaker 01: And the language of the claim doesn't include the word inverted, which it could have. [00:22:53] Speaker 01: They could have said inverted instead of opposite, but they chose not to. [00:22:56] Speaker 01: Number two, they read the context of that claim. [00:23:00] Speaker 01: They read it in the context of the specification. [00:23:02] Speaker 01: And I just read what Judge Stoll had referenced. [00:23:05] Speaker 01: The specification doesn't say opposite equals inverted. [00:23:09] Speaker 01: It doesn't mention inverted. [00:23:10] Speaker 01: It doesn't mention opposite. [00:23:11] Speaker 01: All it says is non-overlapping clock signals that are 180 degrees out of phase. [00:23:16] Speaker 01: Well, churn, the prior art, indeed, there's no dispute. [00:23:20] Speaker 01: It discloses non-overlapping clock signals that are 180 degrees out of phase. [00:23:24] Speaker 01: Now, they're not inverted. [00:23:26] Speaker 01: They're not inverted mirror images of each other. [00:23:28] Speaker 01: But they are opposite of each other, or they're opposite in phase. [00:23:31] Speaker 01: They operate in opposition to each other. [00:23:35] Speaker 01: So we think the agency believes that not only did the agency, the board construe the claim correctly because they based it on the language of the claim and the context of the written description. [00:23:45] Speaker 01: But in addition, when you read the claim in the correct way, there's no dispute that substantial evidence in the record shows that churn anticipates that claim phrase. [00:23:57] Speaker 01: Now, the only other point that was brought up by appellant is what about the extrinsic evidence? [00:24:02] Speaker 01: When you go back beyond the language of the claim and beyond the written description, which we don't think you even have to, but if you do, you look at these other references. [00:24:10] Speaker 01: And indeed, North Star's counsel brought forth evidence of references that show inverted signals that are opposite. [00:24:18] Speaker 01: And no one disputes that, that an inverted signal is opposite. [00:24:22] Speaker 01: However, the board did cite to other references that show [00:24:26] Speaker 01: non-inverted signals, like the Soejima reference, that are also described as opposite. [00:24:32] Speaker 01: Furthermore, there were three other references, I believe, cited by petitioners that the board referenced. [00:24:37] Speaker 01: One is called Perez, one is called Lamb, and one is called Song. [00:24:40] Speaker 01: And they were all examples of non-overlapping, 180 degrees phase-shifted signals. [00:24:47] Speaker 01: And they weren't inverted. [00:24:49] Speaker 01: So the point is, it's well-known in the art. [00:24:51] Speaker 01: I think that's the whole point, is it was well-known in the art to have non-overlapping, [00:24:56] Speaker 01: signals in a charge pump circuit, which is what these are, the whole purpose of this circuit is to take a singular voltage and then pump that voltage up higher than the input and get a higher output with a single voltage source. [00:25:11] Speaker 01: That's the idea. [00:25:12] Speaker 01: And they use capacitors to help store charges that are alternatively back and forth charged and then you use the benefit of that stored charge to help boost the voltage. [00:25:20] Speaker 01: Well, churn does exactly that. [00:25:23] Speaker 01: Now it may not do it [00:25:24] Speaker 00: Mr. Lamarca, this is Judge Stoll. [00:25:28] Speaker 00: I was just curious as to your answer to the question I asked in the opening, which was what sort of standard of review do we apply when we're looking at the board's interpretation of that extrinsic evidence, including sojumma? [00:25:43] Speaker 01: Well, we agree, Your Honor, that claim construction is a question of law. [00:25:47] Speaker 01: But as you pointed out, the Teva case at the Supreme Court [00:25:52] Speaker 01: made clear that it is possible to have underlying fact findings to help resolve that claim construction. [00:25:58] Speaker 01: However, that's kind of rare. [00:26:00] Speaker 01: And here, what we do have is extrinsic evidence that the board looked at as part of their overall evaluation of the claim. [00:26:08] Speaker 01: It really wasn't competing testimony. [00:26:10] Speaker 01: It was essentially extrinsic evidence. [00:26:12] Speaker 01: But there were expert reports that gave commentary on that extrinsic evidence. [00:26:18] Speaker 01: So in a sense, I could see how [00:26:21] Speaker 01: there's an argument to be made that those were fact findings that underlie the claim construction. [00:26:26] Speaker 01: However, it's pretty rare that that happens. [00:26:28] Speaker 01: Typically, the court approaches claim construction as a question of law and it re-evaluates what, in this case, what the agency did de novo. [00:26:38] Speaker 00: So it's a little bit like ultimately it's a question of law. [00:26:42] Speaker 00: and we could give deference to the board's interpretation of those references. [00:26:46] Speaker 00: It doesn't mean we'd give deference to the board's weighting of those references as compared to like intrinsic evidence or something like that, but just more how the references were read and understood. [00:26:56] Speaker 01: I think that's right, Your Honor. [00:26:57] Speaker 01: I think the way we see it is we recognize that the question of law that's de novo reviewed by the court and the court has authority to reevaluate that de novo, but there were these factual determinations that the board engaged in when it looked at these [00:27:12] Speaker 01: to the extent that there would be any fact findings there, it would be how they looked at those and made findings with respect to those extrinsic. [00:27:23] Speaker 01: And in this particular case, the board did look at the Sohejima reference, and the board did make findings about the Sohejima reference, and I think that was brought up in the argument. [00:27:31] Speaker 01: So I think that's where we're at. [00:27:35] Speaker 01: But in general, claim construction is a legal question, and we recognize that. [00:27:41] Speaker 01: Okay, thank you. [00:27:42] Speaker 01: Now, back to Soajima, I believe, you know, just to go back to what... And remember, we're past the language of the claim now. [00:27:51] Speaker 01: We're past the written description, and we think that resolves it. [00:27:53] Speaker 01: But let's go ahead and just look at the Soajima reference, because the appellant, you know, brought it up not only in their briefs, but also here in argument today. [00:28:02] Speaker 01: But if you look at Soajima, what you find out is, sure enough, Soajima expressly does say, [00:28:11] Speaker 01: Remember, they're not inverted signals, but they do call those clock pulses signals opposite of each other in phase. [00:28:17] Speaker 01: And on the next page, on page appendix 1123, they say as a result of column three, lines four and five, another reference beyond the one that you pointed to, the first and second booster circuit sections operate in opposite phases to each other. [00:28:32] Speaker 01: And then further down, I mean, the point is they describe those phase signals that are [00:28:39] Speaker 01: not overlapping, and sure enough, they're not inverted, but they're not overlapping, and they're 180 degrees out of phase. [00:28:45] Speaker 01: Just like churn, they describe those as opposite phase signals is what they describe them as. [00:28:51] Speaker 01: And if you look at appendix page 1119, you will see a drawing called figure 3B, which I believe the board reprinted in the board decision. [00:29:00] Speaker 01: And they show figure F2 and F4, the clock signals, as not overlapping [00:29:05] Speaker 01: yet not inverted. [00:29:07] Speaker 01: So the point is you can have non-overlapping phase shifted signals that are opposite to each other, even though they're not inverted. [00:29:16] Speaker 01: And that's consistent, you know, with the interpretation of the board that evidence now appellant brought up the prosecution history and the examiners. [00:29:26] Speaker 01: Let me ask you. [00:29:30] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:29:31] Speaker 03: This is judge Raina. [00:29:32] Speaker 03: Let me ask you a quick question. [00:29:34] Speaker 03: Um, [00:29:34] Speaker 03: Northstar argues that churn doesn't meet the limitations because its clock signals involve dead time intervals. [00:29:42] Speaker 03: And this is when both gates are closed. [00:29:44] Speaker 03: Can you address that issue? [00:29:46] Speaker 01: Yeah. [00:29:48] Speaker 01: It's true. [00:29:48] Speaker 01: There are little intervals of dead time, which means there are periods of time, and I believe it's in their brief. [00:29:54] Speaker 01: And they've highlighted two little bands in green and red. [00:29:58] Speaker 01: And if you look at the figure three, if I can take you to that page out of the brief, I'll show you [00:30:04] Speaker 01: where that is. [00:30:06] Speaker 01: I think we may have even reprinted that in our brief, Your Honor, in colorized form. [00:30:12] Speaker 03: Look at page 33. [00:30:14] Speaker 03: I believe that may be it. [00:30:16] Speaker 01: Is that 33 of their brief? [00:30:18] Speaker 01: Yeah. [00:30:19] Speaker 01: Let's go there. [00:30:20] Speaker 01: And what they're talking about is these delay periods, and they call that dead time. [00:30:27] Speaker 01: OK. [00:30:28] Speaker 01: So down at the bottom of page 33 of the opponents brief, [00:30:32] Speaker 01: you see a green zone and a red zone. [00:30:33] Speaker 01: And those are called dead time zones. [00:30:35] Speaker 01: And what it means is signal phi 3 and signal phi 4, which are the first and second clock signals that are found in churn, sure enough, they are non-overlapping clock signals. [00:30:51] Speaker 01: And they are also shifted 180 degrees of each other. [00:30:53] Speaker 01: However, they're not inverted. [00:30:55] Speaker 01: And because they're not inverted, that reflects this dead time. [00:30:58] Speaker 01: And the dead time is where both signals [00:31:00] Speaker 01: had a low period, and they're in the low state at the same time for a short window. [00:31:05] Speaker 01: And then there's another short window, the red, where they're in the low state at the same time. [00:31:09] Speaker 01: All that means is, if they're in the low state at the same time, no current would be flowing during that low state. [00:31:16] Speaker 01: Now, the expert and both experts, as well as the parties, agree that if you have two clock signals with their low state at the same time, [00:31:26] Speaker 01: That's not really a problem, because that doesn't defeat the operation of the circuit. [00:31:29] Speaker 01: But if they're both high at the same time, that would be a problem. [00:31:33] Speaker 01: If they were both high at the same time, then you could have current flowing from two switches simultaneously. [00:31:38] Speaker 01: That could cause a short circuit. [00:31:40] Speaker 01: That would be a problem. [00:31:42] Speaker 01: Here, what's happening in churn is very common. [00:31:45] Speaker 01: Similar to many of the other extrinsic evidence references that were submitted, those two or three other ones that we talked about earlier, when you see non-overlapping signals [00:31:56] Speaker 01: that are 180 degrees shifted, but they're not overlapping, there's always going to be these little periods of dead times. [00:32:01] Speaker 01: And those little periods of dead times don't stop the operation of the circuit. [00:32:05] Speaker 01: They simply have small windows of time where there's no pumping taking place. [00:32:10] Speaker 01: Now, that's not really a problem because here, remember what's happening. [00:32:13] Speaker 01: There's a voltage source coming in. [00:32:16] Speaker 01: The pumping charges up a capacitor. [00:32:19] Speaker 01: And when one switch is open, you're benefiting from that extra charge in that capacitor, and then you're boosting the voltage, right? [00:32:26] Speaker 01: But then that capacitor on its own is naturally discharging anyhow, so that the charge of that capacitor goes down. [00:32:33] Speaker 01: Meanwhile, the other capacitor is being charged up. [00:32:35] Speaker 01: You switch back to the other one, and then you get the boosted voltage from the other one. [00:32:39] Speaker 01: The only difference is here in turn, it's true, you might not boost quite as much. [00:32:45] Speaker 01: You might boost a little less because of this dead time. [00:32:47] Speaker 01: But at the end of the day, [00:32:49] Speaker 01: you still end up with an output voltage which is greater than the input voltage, and that is all the claim requires. [00:32:55] Speaker 01: The claim doesn't require that the boosting has to occur all the time, which is one of the things Appellant argues. [00:33:02] Speaker 01: The claim simply requires that these components are there in a cooperative relationship where you have two switches, you have two capacitors, [00:33:11] Speaker 01: you have a boosting signal, and you're able to switch back and forth in a phase relationship to ultimately give you a higher output voltage than the input voltage. [00:33:20] Speaker 01: Nowhere in this plane does it have to be just as high as they say it has to be. [00:33:26] Speaker 01: Now, so that's kind of our answer to that question, Your Honor. [00:33:29] Speaker 03: OK, yeah, that helps. [00:33:31] Speaker 03: No, that helps. [00:33:31] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:33:33] Speaker 00: Mr. Lamarca, can I ask you about [00:33:37] Speaker 00: the non-inverting and inverting buffer construction and the board's reliance on the manual. [00:33:42] Speaker 00: I think it was called Marston. [00:33:45] Speaker 01: Right. [00:33:46] Speaker 00: So do you agree? [00:33:46] Speaker 01: Yeah, there was a manual that they were referred to. [00:33:49] Speaker 01: I think that. [00:33:50] Speaker 00: They looked at a figure. [00:33:51] Speaker 00: They looked at a figure in there, and they said that Marston taught that you could use, I think it was NAND-based as inverting buffers, and that it would have more than one [00:34:06] Speaker 00: But if you look at the figure that they were referring to, that Martin was referring to, the inputs were tied together, and it was a single input, single output. [00:34:17] Speaker 00: I was wondering if you had a response to that. [00:34:20] Speaker 01: Well, I think this is really not about the opposite equals inverted. [00:34:24] Speaker 01: This is really more about the other claimed feature, inverted buffer or not inverting buffer, right? [00:34:31] Speaker 01: That's where we're getting at now. [00:34:32] Speaker 00: That's right. [00:34:33] Speaker 00: That's right. [00:34:34] Speaker 00: And I'm just, I'm not sure if I agree with the board's reliance on that manual to teach that you can use NAND and NOR gates as the inverting buffer element with the NAND and NOR gates having two inputs. [00:34:48] Speaker 00: Because in the figure, in the manual that shows that, just figure 3.15, those NAND and NOR gates are shown as having the inputs together. [00:34:58] Speaker 00: So it would be single input, single output. [00:35:02] Speaker 01: Yeah, I think that, I think, let me try to find it here so I can respond directly. [00:35:07] Speaker 01: I think we actually addressed this in our brief. [00:35:10] Speaker 01: And let me take you to that section where we talk about this, because I provide citations there that might be helpful. [00:35:17] Speaker 01: And I apologize, because it's a large record here, and I'm trying to get you to the point. [00:35:25] Speaker 00: I don't know if you can hear me, but the figures at JA 1902. [00:35:30] Speaker 01: 1902. [00:35:31] Speaker 01: OK, let's go there. [00:35:42] Speaker 01: Right. [00:35:43] Speaker 01: OK, yeah, you see figure 3.15 in the language, any NAND or NORGATE can be used as an inverting buffer element. [00:35:50] Speaker 01: I think that's what the board referenced. [00:35:52] Speaker 01: The language right there next to figure 3.15, quote, any NAND or NORGATE [00:36:00] Speaker 01: can be used as an inverting buffer element. [00:36:01] Speaker 01: And that was kind of the basis for their view. [00:36:05] Speaker 00: What about the fact that figure 3.15 actually shows that there's just single input, single output on all of those figures? [00:36:14] Speaker 00: Maybe I'm looking at the wrong figures. [00:36:16] Speaker 00: I just see single output. [00:36:18] Speaker 01: I think 3.15 is above, not below, right? [00:36:22] Speaker 00: Right. [00:36:23] Speaker 01: You're right. [00:36:24] Speaker 01: And you're right. [00:36:24] Speaker 01: It shows a single line going out. [00:36:27] Speaker 01: Right. [00:36:29] Speaker 01: If you read also on the earlier section on the prior page 1901, practical CMOS inverters are often called inverting buffers. [00:36:37] Speaker 01: If you have an application where you need only one or two inverters, you can usually get them by connecting [00:36:43] Speaker 01: bare NAND and NOR gates in a way shown in figure 3.15. [00:36:46] Speaker 01: I think all they're doing in that figure is just saying, look, you can hook these things up, and you can use them as a tool to create an inverter or a non-inverting buffer. [00:36:56] Speaker 00: But this was manually relied on by the board to say specifically that it's not single input, single output, that this shows an example of single input, single output. [00:37:05] Speaker 00: But I don't see it because it says that you can come up with an inverting buffer, as you say, [00:37:11] Speaker 00: by using NAND or NOR gates, but in the way shown in figure 3.15. [00:37:16] Speaker 00: And when you look at figure 3.15, it's single input, single output. [00:37:20] Speaker 00: So I'm having trouble seeing this, reading this reference in the way that the board did. [00:37:26] Speaker 01: Yeah, I mean, to me, and the way we presented it in our brief, and I tried to interpret the board, and I can go to the board's decision. [00:37:33] Speaker 01: I think it's appendix page 24 of the board decision where they cite this reference that you're referring to right now. [00:37:41] Speaker 01: Yeah, here we go. [00:37:42] Speaker 01: Let's go right here if I can find it. [00:37:50] Speaker 03: What page are we on, 24? [00:37:51] Speaker 01: I'm on a page, appendix 24 of the board decision. [00:37:56] Speaker 00: Are you talking about the sentence that says, moreover, extrinsic evidence of record, specifically a prior manual, shows that inverting buffers have more than one input? [00:38:06] Speaker 00: There you go. [00:38:07] Speaker 00: There's more than one input there, but okay. [00:38:10] Speaker 01: Well, remember, an AND or NOR gate by definition, AND means you're ANDing two things together, you're bringing two things together, and NOR means [00:38:19] Speaker 01: you're selecting, I think. [00:38:20] Speaker 01: I think, by definition, these are logic gates. [00:38:23] Speaker 01: They're not physical connections. [00:38:25] Speaker 01: It's the logic of a NAND or a NOR gate that they're talking about that can be used as an inverting buffer or a non-inverting buffer. [00:38:32] Speaker 00: And I think... Do you agree, though, that figure 3.15 shows a single input and a single output for the NAND and NOR gate? [00:38:42] Speaker 01: Well, I don't want to say for sure, but to me, figure 3.15 are [00:38:48] Speaker 01: They are logic symbols that go into your circuit diagram is what they are. [00:38:53] Speaker 01: That's what those are. [00:38:53] Speaker 01: If you see, they show blank or blank equals the thing on the right. [00:38:58] Speaker 01: So it's like something or something else equals this. [00:39:01] Speaker 01: So you have two options going in, and you have a output on the right. [00:39:05] Speaker 01: So something or something equals something. [00:39:08] Speaker 01: Do you see that, Your Honor? [00:39:09] Speaker 00: I do. [00:39:10] Speaker 00: I do. [00:39:10] Speaker 00: I just don't think that the things that are, you know, [00:39:13] Speaker 00: I just think that all three of them are put in single output. [00:39:16] Speaker 00: But I thank you for your answers to my questions. [00:39:19] Speaker 01: Yeah, I think maybe another way to look at this is even if you didn't look at those figures, the text of this manual does say when you need only one or two inverters, you can usually get them by connecting spare NAND or NOR gates. [00:39:31] Speaker 00: But it does say, as shown in figure, it says in the way shown in figure 6.5. [00:39:36] Speaker 00: So I don't think you can read that without reading the full sentence. [00:39:41] Speaker 01: Right. [00:39:41] Speaker 01: I understand. [00:39:43] Speaker 01: But at the end of the day, I think what the real argument is, is does the claim require a singular input that is always inverting or always not inverting, which is what the argument is being made by appellant. [00:39:58] Speaker 01: And I think the board's response is the claim is just not that narrow. [00:40:01] Speaker 00: I understand. [00:40:02] Speaker 01: If we have a circuit that gives you that result some of the time, and it's capable of doing it, even though it is capable of doing other things, it has more flexibility to be used in other ways, [00:40:13] Speaker 01: That doesn't mean it's not anticipatory of the claimed invention, Your Honor. [00:40:17] Speaker 01: So I think the crux of the real argument here is appellant's argument is they're trying to, again, narrow this claim beyond what it says. [00:40:27] Speaker 01: The claim doesn't say that it always has to be inverting or it always has to be non-inverting. [00:40:33] Speaker 01: Let's say it does it sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't, or there are other options that you can manipulate in the circuit, in the churn circuit, it would still qualify and still anticipate the prior art. [00:40:43] Speaker 01: I mean, it would still. [00:40:44] Speaker 00: Mr. LaMarca, I think I understand what you're saying. [00:40:47] Speaker 00: And this is a little bit different way of saying it also. [00:40:49] Speaker 00: You're saying that even if I didn't agree with the board's interpretation of this extrinsic evidence, nonetheless, there's intrinsic evidence to support the board's claim to instruction. [00:41:01] Speaker 00: Is that right? [00:41:01] Speaker 01: I think that's right, Your Honor, yes. [00:41:04] Speaker 00: OK, thank you. [00:41:05] Speaker 01: And now, I hope I've answered all the questions. [00:41:09] Speaker 01: I hope I've addressed all the issues. [00:41:11] Speaker 03: Well, let's find out, Mr. Lamarca. [00:41:14] Speaker 03: Do my colleagues have any other questions? [00:41:18] Speaker 01: There was only one final point, Your Honor. [00:41:21] Speaker 01: I didn't get to mention about the examiner allowing Claim 19 that had the word opposite. [00:41:27] Speaker 01: I did have a response to that if you wanted to hear it. [00:41:29] Speaker 01: Yes, go ahead. [00:41:31] Speaker 01: But if you go to the examiner's office action from the original prosecution, which is what appellant was referring to, and you go to [00:41:41] Speaker 01: I can take you to that page, appendix 494 of the joint appendix. [00:41:49] Speaker 01: It says in there, Sojima discloses figure 3A, a circuit comprising a first booster and a second booster, the clock pulse is applied, are opposite each other in phases. [00:41:59] Speaker 01: So that confirms that Sojima indeed describes them as opposite. [00:42:04] Speaker 01: But now, appellant came back and say, hey, wait a minute, claim 19 and another one, claim 22. [00:42:09] Speaker 01: Claim 19 was ultimately rewritten as claim 1, and it included the word opposite. [00:42:13] Speaker 01: And he said, therefore, they changed the language, and therefore, that made it different by putting the word opposite in the claim. [00:42:19] Speaker 01: However, if you look at the reasons for allowance, that's the part that we haven't looked at. [00:42:24] Speaker 01: At appendix page 509, allowable subject matter, the examiner says, claims 19 through 21, which includes that claim 19 that included the word opposite, [00:42:35] Speaker 01: These claims would be allowed because none of the prior reference disclosed a booster circuit having a first and second switch coupled between input and output terminals and two capacitors. [00:42:45] Speaker 01: Nowhere do they, in other words, there were other features in the claim missing from Soejima and therefore that's how that claim got allowed. [00:42:54] Speaker 01: It had nothing to do with the word opposite being put in there. [00:42:58] Speaker 01: If you read what's in the reasons for allowance. [00:43:01] Speaker 01: So I would submit, [00:43:02] Speaker 01: that the conclusions that appellants trying to draw from this prosecution history doesn't really get them there. [00:43:08] Speaker 01: There were different reasons why that claim was originally allowed. [00:43:12] Speaker 01: And that's my final point, Your Honor. [00:43:14] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:43:15] Speaker 03: We thank you, Mr. Romarco. [00:43:17] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:43:17] Speaker 01: Thank you very much. [00:43:19] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:43:25] Speaker 03: Councilor Flynn, we used up your rebuttal time, but I'm going to restore your five minutes to the extent that you need to use it, okay? [00:43:33] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:43:34] Speaker 02: I appreciate that, Your Honor. [00:43:35] Speaker 02: I hope not to have to use it all, but thank you. [00:43:39] Speaker 02: I'd like to start, if I could, with, again, the inverting and non-inverting buffer issue, and particularly the Marston issue. [00:43:47] Speaker 02: Judge Stoll, you are correct that figure 3.15 [00:43:51] Speaker 02: does show single input, single output devices because the inputs are tied together. [00:43:58] Speaker 02: And we also, if you look at page 60 of our brief, referring to figure 3.27, that figure 3.27 is captioned methods of using AND gates as simple buffers. [00:44:15] Speaker 02: So this is a non-inverting buffer. [00:44:17] Speaker 02: And the figure is above the caption. [00:44:19] Speaker 02: And again, what you see there are AND gates that have multiple inputs, but they're all tied together and so they form a single input and there is a single output. [00:44:29] Speaker 02: So in each, and in fact the Marston reference teaches, if you look at appendix page 1904, the Marston reference specifically teaches that sometimes when you're using multiple input AND gates, you don't want to use all of the input terminals. [00:44:48] Speaker 02: And so it specifically says that in this case, the unwanted inputs can be disabled by either tying them high or by simply shorting them to a used input in the manner shown in figure 3.26, which is what I just directed you to. [00:45:03] Speaker 02: And in that way, the AND gates can be converted into non-inverting buffers by either tying all but one of their inputs high or by simply shorting all of their inputs together. [00:45:18] Speaker 02: So that is expressly teaching that that's the way you use multiple input and gates to make a single input, single output non-inverting buffer. [00:45:29] Speaker 02: So the only other point I would make is that, and again, in the, what we pointed out in our brief, the board had pointed to what it thought was figure 3.27 to show a non-inverting buffer made of multiple input and gates where the inputs weren't all tied together. [00:45:48] Speaker 02: But that was a mistake because they were pointing to what actually was figure 3.28, not 3.27. [00:45:55] Speaker 02: And in fairness to the board, that's what Kingston had put in their papers. [00:45:59] Speaker 02: And so the board relied on the same mistaken figure that Kingston was asserting. [00:46:04] Speaker 02: But the real figure 3.27 shows the inputs tied together. [00:46:08] Speaker 02: So the other response I would have then about whether there's any evidence in the intrinsic record [00:46:15] Speaker 02: that would suggest that these inverting buffers and non-inverting buffers can be anything but single input, single output? [00:46:20] Speaker 02: And the answer is no. [00:46:22] Speaker 02: There is nothing in the intrinsic record that would suggest anything other than single input, single output. [00:46:27] Speaker 02: And again, the specification uses those common electrical symbols. [00:46:31] Speaker 02: And that was the whole purpose of submitting the dictionary definitions to show that those electrical symbols of a NOT gate and a buffer gate, they are commonly understood to be single input, single output. [00:46:43] Speaker 02: And the board credited, expressly credited [00:46:45] Speaker 02: that that's what those references disclose. [00:46:48] Speaker 02: It just overcame those references by its mistaken reliance on the wrong figure of 3.27. [00:46:54] Speaker 02: So I respectfully submit to you that there in fact is nothing in the intrinsic record that would suggest that these non-inverting and inverting buffers are anything but single input, single output. [00:47:05] Speaker 02: If I can quickly move to the claim limitation about whether or not the signals are opposite phase signals [00:47:14] Speaker 02: and relying on the specification. [00:47:18] Speaker 02: If we are going to rely on the specification as we must under Phillips to describe the meaning or to inform the meaning of the claim term, the signals that are opposite to each other, you can't just look at one portion of the specification. [00:47:31] Speaker 02: You have to look at the entirety of the specification. [00:47:34] Speaker 02: So the director, my colleague, points to the language in the specification that refers to non-overlapping and shifted 180 degrees out of phase. [00:47:42] Speaker 02: Again, opposite phase signals are included in that category. [00:47:46] Speaker 02: But what there's no mention of is Figure 2A, which is also part of the specification. [00:47:52] Speaker 02: And as Kingston conceded at oral argument, Figure 2A discloses those phase signals, C1 and C2, as being inverted signals. [00:48:02] Speaker 02: And the rest of the entirety of the specification that describes the operation of the circuit, that requires those signals to be inverted signals. [00:48:12] Speaker 02: I disagree with my colleague that there would be no adverse consequences if you had the dead time that would result from using churn signals. [00:48:20] Speaker 02: The adverse consequences is that it would not be boosting at all times, and that is specifically what the 875 patent specification indicates at column three, lines five, where it talks about [00:48:36] Speaker 02: that the capacitive device or capacitive device 48B is driving load at all times. [00:48:42] Speaker 02: That means it's boosting at all times. [00:48:48] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:48:48] Speaker 02: That's all I have. [00:48:50] Speaker 03: Thank you very much. [00:48:53] Speaker 03: This case will now be taken under submission.