[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Our next case is Cell Spinsoft versus Panasonic in Garmin, 2020-1948.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
So we'll hear from Mr. Gottheiser again.

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
Obviously, these cases are quite similar, but somewhat different, and there's no need to repeat what has been said unnecessarily.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
I'm here today on behalf of Cell Spin.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
And as the court noted, we've already heard about the Cell Spin versus Cannon.

[00:00:40] Speaker 00:
And there is some overlap, as the court has pointed out.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
Well, it's the same patent, same claims, different defendant, different prior art, right?

[00:00:50] Speaker 00:
Right, correct.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
And about the prior art, Your Honor, there's passing references here and there to Bluetooth, but they never even

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
Mentioned pairing paired how it would be done.

[00:01:04] Speaker 00:
They didn't they they you mean the board The prior art eyes the prior art Never talk never use it the word pairing and these are a lot of this prior art is is translations from Japanese applications and There's also a failure to show how you would combine these things and in kind of in the canon of

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
Like in the other decision, we have a situation here where some things are just being ignored.

[00:01:36] Speaker 00:
Going to our arguments about claims five and eight and why that should be reversed.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
And we don't really want it to be remanded.

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
I've got to be honest, Your Honor.

[00:01:44] Speaker 00:
We've waited five years in the Northern District of California to get the trial.

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
And we've been stayed this entire time.

[00:01:50] Speaker 00:
And so.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
Pellants want a win, not a remand.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
So.

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
We want the W. And with respect to that, the board, again, it's like they didn't realize that the Supreme Court came down with the SAS ruling.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
And they need to look at what's in front of them with respect to the petition that Panasonic has brought and address that.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
And what I mean by that is they come up with their new theory that Mashida and Hirashi alone teaches all the elements of Claims 5 and 8.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
But Panasonic's theory rested on a combination of Mashida, Hirashi, and Onichi.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
So again, going back to the six elements or six steps that has to be done by one single application.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
And we talk about the need for that one single application in our opening brief at pages 7 to 10.

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
They just kind of discount Onichi altogether, going back to my argument about claims five and eight in what Panasonic originally raised.

[00:03:07] Speaker 00:
So the reason why that's important is the board goes on and just seems to forget that it's important to understand that if you're going to say,

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
Panasonic relied on just Mashida and Harashi.

[00:03:32] Speaker 00:
It needs to be accurate.

[00:03:33] Speaker 00:
And it's just sloppy.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
And they didn't include Onichi.

[00:03:36] Speaker 00:
And it was very clear in our opening brief pages 56 and 57 that they clearly relied on Onichi to provide the GUI to delete a media file.

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
And this, again, as in,

[00:03:57] Speaker 00:
Canon, that's the sixth element that's definitely required.

[00:04:02] Speaker 00:
And the prior art does not teach.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
Pushing a button on the side of a flip phone does not address a GUI to delete in providing that through one single software application.

[00:04:21] Speaker 00:
So similar as we've mentioned, O2 Micro should be applied.

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
Panasonic argued that O2 micro doesn't apply if it comes from the PTAB.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
We strongly disagree.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
And in fact, this court's already addressed this in housewares 865, F3, 1372.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
And with respect to, going back to,

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
This also was in Cannon, but also here in Panasonic.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
What we have is by the board not addressing a single patent, a single mobile application, software application, doing all six steps, they start to then, the board held a storage medium, storage program codes, implementing functions

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
of the communication devices in the digital camera and cellular phone.

[00:05:11] Speaker 00:
This is at the appendix 49.

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
But this represented the board's own theory of claims five and eight.

[00:05:17] Speaker 00:
Panasonic never raised this argument.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:
We also refer to it as like the one box theory.

[00:05:22] Speaker 00:
And that's different.

[00:05:23] Speaker 00:
And there's no, again, there's no teaching on why you would combine these different aspects.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
And part of the confusion comes from Panasonic

[00:05:36] Speaker 00:
the board taking arguments that Panasonic raised with respect to Claim 13, and then applying it to Claims 5 and 8.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
Claim 13 is completely independent, and it relates to basically a floppy disk or storage medium that would contain one single application that you might use and load up to a device.

[00:05:56] Speaker 00:
So Claim 13, and with respect to Canon, they did something similar.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
Each word in the claims five and eight in all the claims, especially as well method claim one, that they never show that was actually done.

[00:06:19] Speaker 00:
So it was never implemented.

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
And with respect to the short range paired wireless connection, short range has a meaning within 100 meters.

[00:06:33] Speaker 00:
paired has a meaning you remember the device because you store something about that node you have a mutual agreement to talk with and

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
also wireless connection.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
Well, you can't have a wire between the devices.

[00:06:50] Speaker 00:
So every one of those words means something.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
And again, it was improper to use VRI as an excuse, really, to make it so broad that it covers more than a person who organized a deal in the art would understand the word paired to mean.

[00:07:13] Speaker 00:
And also, there's an option to... I'm going to reserve the rest of my time at this point, except for one after I make this last point.

[00:07:25] Speaker 00:
Appreciate your patience.

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
What's unique about Panasonic's decision are

[00:07:32] Speaker 00:
opposition is that they raise a situation where they say, well, a pin is sufficient to do the paired connection.

[00:07:42] Speaker 00:
And this is relating more to the invalidity side.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
But a pin doesn't establish pairing.

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
That's important to remember.

[00:07:51] Speaker 00:
And again, Dr. Foley, who for 10 years was over the Bluetooth Specification Committee,

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
he was director of it, he explained that a PIN code is used for authentication and pairing only happens when hosts store the link keys for future use.

[00:08:11] Speaker 00:
And so I think that's a very concise way to make that point.

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
And with that, I'll reserve my time.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
Bostwick, I can tell you in advance that if your co-appellate counsel does not use the time you have agreed to, you will be able to come back and fill in the blanks.

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
I appreciate that, Judge Larry.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
It may have pleased the court.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
I want to address the same two issues that have been part of the canon argument and now this argument, and that's pairing on the one hand and then the requirement of claims five and eight.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
regarding a mobile software application, and then I will also address the GUI briefly.

[00:08:58] Speaker 01:
Starting with pairing, the board's construction does give meaning to the word pairing, and I think we just heard Salisbury's Council say that

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
Each set of these words, short-range paired wireless, has a meaning.

[00:09:14] Speaker 01:
And what he said for paired is mutual agreement.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
A mutual agreement to communicate.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
That's what the board found.

[00:09:19] Speaker 01:
That's what the specification of the 698 patent teaches.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
And that's certainly present in the prior art, Mashita Reference, which also discloses

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
Bluetooth connection.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
I do think that that gives meaning to the word paired.

[00:09:33] Speaker 04:
What would it look like not to have mutual agreement?

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
Could they talk without mutual agreement?

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
Certainly.

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
There are many ways to talk without mutual agreement.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
I think some examples might help.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
If I'm out on my boat and I pull out my VHF radio and I try to use that to communicate, I have no control over who's on the other side of that.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
All manner of people might be tuned to the same channel.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
It's a common communication channel.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
It's not a mutual agreement between two specific parties to communicate.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
On the other hand, if I put on my, I wanted to say Bluetooth headset, I'm not sure it's Bluetooth, but if I put on my headset that I use to communicate just with my partner on my boat as we're moving around, that's a paired connection.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
That's a mutual agreement between the two parties to communicate with each other.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
So I do think, again, that the board's construction gives it meaning.

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
If the court is concerned that the board's construction does not go far enough, that doesn't mean you would need to adopt the particular requirements of self-spins construction.

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
Rather, I think it is the common pin entry that provides that additional evidence of pairing.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
And so I'd cite to the Bluetooth specification, which is at appendix 5592, and it talks about a pairing procedure will be used.

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
A pin code will be requested on both sides of the connection and authentication performed.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
Based on this pin code now, CellSpin has argued that yes, that's authentication, that's not pairing.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
The two are clearly related, not only in the Bluetooth specification, but also in the claim language, which talks about establishing a short-range paired wireless connection comprises

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
authenticating the identity of the cellular phone.

[00:11:15] Speaker 05:
So yes, they're related, but that doesn't mean... Right, but you're arguing in this little piece of it that the use of the PIN is sufficient, not just necessary.

[00:11:27] Speaker 05:
And I think what you just said about the Bluetooth support, including the language of comprising, doesn't get you to sufficiency.

[00:11:38] Speaker 05:
So I think... Bluetooth might well say, I don't have it in front of me, or bastard might say, for pairing you need the following three things, the first of which is pin.

[00:11:51] Speaker 05:
That wouldn't support your view that if we want to look at Bluetooth, we can find pin alone to be sufficient for pairing.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:12:00] Speaker 01:
That wouldn't, but that's not what the Bluetooth specification does.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
What the specification does and what our expert testified at Appendix 2052-2053 is that

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
Establishing this pairing link and inputting the same pin into the two devices is what gets you pairing.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
And that's what the board relied on at appendix 32 to 33 to find pairing.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
The fact that the Mashita reference in Japanese or otherwise may not use the specific term pairing, of course, is not relevant under this

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
Courts, while established precedent, what matters is that a person of ordinary skill would understand it to disclose pairing.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
And there's certainly substantial evidence for the board's finding to that effect.

[00:12:43] Speaker 05:
I don't remember whether you said that.

[00:12:44] Speaker 05:
I mean, your patent owner's attorney referred to Dr. Foley saying the opposite.

[00:12:50] Speaker 05:
Did you have an expert saying, supporting your view?

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
Yes, that is Dr. Strong, and that's at appendix 2052 to 2053.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
It explains, Posita would understand that establishing a link and inputting the same pin into both the cellular phone and the digital camera both result in a paired connection.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
And the board did rely on that testimony.

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
If I can move to claims five and eight, unless there are further questions on pairing.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
So a mobile software application, to begin with, the court doesn't need to get into the claim construction question, because the board did find that this limitation was satisfied, even if it has to be one application, because it can be one application with multiple software modules.

[00:13:35] Speaker 01:
That's, in fact, what Figure 2 of the 698 patent shows.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
We explained in our reply brief in response to Selspin's argument that you needed this one single application.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
The board found that that was proper rebuttal.

[00:13:52] Speaker 01:
Selspin does not show that that board's finding in that regard was an abuse of discretion.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
And they also don't challenge that under that understanding of modular software that there is substantial evidence to support

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
the board's decision.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
So I think you can affirm on that basis alone.

[00:14:07] Speaker 01:
But if the court wanted to get into the claim construction question.

[00:14:11] Speaker 05:
Can I just ask you, and I realize this may be slightly unfair, but is the determinations in this board opinion that you just relied on, do they have a substantively identical counterpart in the 1947?

[00:14:32] Speaker 01:
The board uses slightly different language in these two opinions.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
But I think in substance, it's finding the same thing.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
And I apologize.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
I'm relying a bit on memory of the 1947 appeal.

[00:14:42] Speaker 01:
But I do think the substance of both findings is the same.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
And so there would be substantial.

[00:14:49] Speaker 01:
They have different priorities.

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
I'll let them address that.

[00:14:53] Speaker 01:
But I do think it's the same.

[00:14:56] Speaker 01:
But if the court were to get to the claim construction question, I think, you know, I heard Selspin's counsel in the first tip, he'll say the context matters in referring to it to Varma.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
And I think that's absolutely correct.

[00:15:09] Speaker 01:
And here, the context of this patent is much closer to the 01 Communique case than it is to the Henry Varma case.

[00:15:18] Speaker 01:
So in 01 Communique,

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
You had claims that required a locator server computer with a location facility which was understood to be software for performing several functions and the issue was whether you could have that software distributed among multiple locator server computers

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
And the court held, yes, there was no reason in the patent to limit it to one server with one software application.

[00:15:45] Speaker 01:
Here, too, there's nothing in the patent that suggests that you would need to do that.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
I don't believe salesman has cited anything

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
Contrary, and in fact, the language that Judge Strana, you pointed to in column 10, respectfully part ways with Cannon's counsel, I do think it reinforces our interpretation of the claims, because in talking about processor, that is what the claim language in claims five and eight do as well, right?

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
The language here is not a mobile software application that does certain things.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
It's the cellular phone comprises a mobile software application.

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
that when executed by a processor of the cellular phone is configured to control the processor of the cellular phone to do those four or five things.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
And so the fact that the patent specifically contemplates that you can even have more than one processor, more than one memory, I think that reinforces the fact that the singular is not driving this invention.

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
If I can very briefly address the graphical user interface.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
If I understand Selsman's argument, they're essentially saying that to have a GUI in 2007, you needed a touch screen so that you were navigating on the screen itself and not by buttons.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
And of course, there's nothing in the record to support that.

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
Rather, as we have shown at appendix 7360, the graphical user interface depicted in the Onishi reference

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
looks pretty well identical to the one in the 698 patent.

[00:17:20] Speaker 04:
Council keeps saying the board ignored the GUI is to delete part of the limitation.

[00:17:27] Speaker 04:
What's your response to that?

[00:17:28] Speaker 01:
Yes, that's simply not true.

[00:17:31] Speaker 01:
The board at appendix 47 finds that, so the board first finds that Mashita does teach a graphical user interface and that's what we argued.

[00:17:42] Speaker 01:
But then it goes on to find that Onishi supplies the fact that you use that graphical interface to delete the file off of the camera.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
And Onishi discloses that at Appendix 1302, paragraph 51.

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
And the board cited that at Appendix 47.

[00:17:59] Speaker 01:
The court has no further questions.

[00:18:04] Speaker 01:
We'd ask the court to affirm the board in all respects.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
You might get a return engagement.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
Mr. Handel

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
Good morning again, Your Honors.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
I'm still Josh Handel for the intervener.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
Judge Toronto, I would like to just reestablish the connection.

[00:18:25] Speaker 03:
I don't get into that.

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
I'm not authorized to speak.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
Judge Toronto, I would like to just modestly revise and extend my answer to you from the first argument.

[00:18:35] Speaker 03:
So I believe I said that the only live issues still available in this case are the APA challenges to the proceedings on remand.

[00:18:43] Speaker 03:
After looking at my notes, I recalled that there was also a brief objection in Selspin's initial opening brief to the concept of panel stacking.

[00:18:53] Speaker 03:
So this idea that the director can expand or otherwise reconfigure a PTAD panel in order to achieve her preferred outcome for three very quick reasons.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
And Mobility Works doesn't specifically address that, is that right?

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
I do not believe it does, Your Honor.

[00:19:09] Speaker 03:
And for three very quick reasons, we think that this claim lacks merit.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
So number one, it was not raised before the agency and is thus forfeited.

[00:19:19] Speaker 03:
Number two, panel stacking indisputably did not occur here.

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
To the contrary, the same

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
panel of three APJs presided over the IPR proceedings from institution to disposition.

[00:19:32] Speaker 03:
And number three, even if this claim were preserved and relevant to this case, the concern that the director will exercise too much control over the disposition of IPR proceedings is directly contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Arthrex, which held that control by a politically accountable actor is compelled by the Constitution.

[00:19:52] Speaker 05:
And the failure to raise the point because this is something that had it been raised to the board, the board could have done something about it as more like the old, is it DBS or something like that?

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
I think that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:20:08] Speaker 05:
It's not like Arthrex where that government response was rejected.

[00:20:14] Speaker 05:
basically because the board couldn't have done anything about it anyway.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
Exactly.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
And I believe there is language also in Mobility Works about how an agency may not have authority to declare a statute unconstitutional.

[00:20:29] Speaker 03:
So it's unshared.

[00:20:31] Speaker 05:
But it could have changed the panel in response to an objection without declaring anything unconstitutional.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
Absolutely.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
Because this is just an internal agency procedure, it's necessary to raise that objection before the agency itself.

[00:20:46] Speaker 02:
What about the argument that the board members had a financial interest in the decision?

[00:20:57] Speaker 03:
think that that is flatly untrue.

[00:20:59] Speaker 03:
And it's also controlled by a number of different requirements that are imposed on PTAB members and also imposed on other subordinates within the agency, so the Department of Commerce.

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
has just kind of a blanket rule against participating in decisions where you have... It's still a live issue, isn't it, correct?

[00:21:22] Speaker 03:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
I misunderstood, Your Honor.

[00:21:25] Speaker 03:
So the question about whether the structure of instituting IPR is sort of a conflict because it funds the agency or because the

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
that there are potentially performance bonus implications.

[00:21:41] Speaker 03:
So that is all entirely controlled by Mobility Works, which rejected those exact arguments.

[00:21:48] Speaker 05:
And nothing new has happened since then.

[00:21:51] Speaker 05:
I'm recalling somebody citing a preliminary GAO report.

[00:21:57] Speaker 05:
Is that Post Mobility Works or not?

[00:21:59] Speaker 05:
And it's only preliminary anyway, but what's the time?

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
So your honor, I'm not exactly familiar with what you're discussing, but I will say Mobility Works, the grounds there,

[00:22:09] Speaker 03:
were structural, right?

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
They were talking about how the PTO is funded by Congress.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
It's congressional appropriations.

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
It's a submission that are sometimes somewhat loosely based on a budget submission by the president.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
None of that is controlled by individual APJs or even by the director of the PTO.

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
Unless the court has further questions, rest on our briefs.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:22:37] Speaker 02:
Mrs. Bostwick, I trust we don't need 45 seconds?

[00:22:40] Speaker 05:
No, thank you, your honor.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
Mr. Gottheiser has some rebuttal time.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:22:48] Speaker 00:
Didn't want to talk about the constitutional issues, but the perception is reality.

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
That's the way, when I was an officer, that's how you had to look like you knew what you were doing, because people looked up to you.

[00:22:59] Speaker 00:
And right now, with the board, the perception that they need to be following what the petitioner

[00:23:06] Speaker 00:
gave them, needs to be a reality.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
And that's definitely true from the guidance in SAS.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
And a lot of these situations that were just brought up by the government are still open in a lot of people's mind.

[00:23:27] Speaker 00:
And for example, Stacey Marigold was one of the PTAP board members.

[00:23:34] Speaker 00:
She was a partner at ORIC.

[00:23:37] Speaker 00:
Now she's not making that salary.

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
It looks bad.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
And so she shouldn't have been on this panel when Oreck is representing Panasonic.

[00:23:48] Speaker 00:
So going back.

[00:23:52] Speaker 05:
Was that one of the specific issues you appealed to as a conflict?

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
It's a conflict.

[00:23:59] Speaker 00:
I apologize.

[00:24:00] Speaker 00:
It's a conflict.

[00:24:02] Speaker 00:
came to my own knowledge I wasn't I wasn't I'm helping my colleagues with this appeal because it's important to our client and that's why I'm here today before you and why it was important to our client we try to get the best expert we could we got the person that was involved in the crucial period of time in two thousands

[00:24:30] Speaker 00:
2001, 2008, when all this was going, irrelevant.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
Panasonic and Canon, they've got an expert, Dr. Strom and Dr. Mattesetti, respectively.

[00:24:43] Speaker 00:
But they're not experts in Bluetooth.

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
And yet here they are opining on what paired means.

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
And they were looking to the Bluetooth specification for guidance on what pairing meant.

[00:24:59] Speaker 00:
It's not surprising, because also the other standards, Zigbee, Wibri, and the Wi-Fi standard, they all looked to the Bluetooth standard to understand what pairing is.

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
And so the idea that these other standards don't support the definition that you have to be able to reconnect and connect as part of the pairing process is not true, because

[00:25:27] Speaker 00:
what they didn't argue it because we would have addressed it because the Zigbee standard does actually support our position and we address how in our papers thoroughly how how the the board got it wrong when it said that the Encryption part was done

[00:25:48] Speaker 00:
after the pairing.

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
We didn't know that the board was going to make that argument.

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
Again, it's a SAS type argument.

[00:25:59] Speaker 00:
But once we found out about it, we put it in our papers, and we addressed it.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
And we addressed it by showing the Bluetooth, the Zigbee chart.

[00:26:13] Speaker 00:
So it's the pairing table.

[00:26:17] Speaker 00:
Zigbee had its own pairing table.

[00:26:18] Speaker 00:
And so for them to go, aha, in there, finally in the report, we didn't get a chance to address it.

[00:26:24] Speaker 00:
But it says, the pairing table shall contain.

[00:26:27] Speaker 00:
Pairing table shall contain security link key.

[00:26:30] Speaker 00:
The link key is to be used to secure this pairing link.

[00:26:33] Speaker 00:
So Zigbee does that in phase two in the pairing.

[00:26:38] Speaker 00:
Phase three is additional security.

[00:26:40] Speaker 00:
And had we had the board given us the opportunity to brief that, we would have explained it to the board.

[00:26:45] Speaker 00:
Lastly, the board also does not mention Onichi.

[00:26:52] Speaker 00:
OK, so there are citations that counsel for Panasonic brought up to their brief, but they're not to the board's ruling.

[00:27:03] Speaker 00:
The board said that they came up with their own theory.

[00:27:07] Speaker 00:
Mashida and Hirashi alone teach all elements of claims five and eight.

[00:27:12] Speaker 00:
But again, Panasonic's theory also rested on Onichi, as Judge Stark pointed out.

[00:27:18] Speaker 00:
And the board, it wasn't like it was

[00:27:21] Speaker 00:
you know, a harmless error.

[00:27:23] Speaker 00:
They said it three times.

[00:27:24] Speaker 00:
Petitioner shows that the combination of Meshida and Harashi teach recited functions.

[00:27:29] Speaker 00:
They recited this new theory, again, three times, as if saying it more times would make it true.

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
It's conclusory, and it's wrong, and it wasn't even what Panasonic argued.

[00:27:39] Speaker 00:
And then what they do is, for both claims in 5 and 8, they fail to even mention the GUI to delete at all.

[00:27:48] Speaker 00:
And so again,

[00:27:51] Speaker 00:
They didn't, I don't know why they didn't do it.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
Again, it could be that they drafted their original opinion off a canon, and then they truncated that portion that left out what the GUI had to do.

[00:28:02] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure, but I know that it cannot stand.

[00:28:06] Speaker 00:
So you got SAS, NRA Magnum Oil Tools, and also Cerrone Dental Systems.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
Anything for other counsel?

[00:28:18] Speaker 00:
I would just encourage.

[00:28:23] Speaker 00:
the Court just to remember three points in closing that we have to recall in today's world of perception that the whole idea that we have separate entities in Article 3, we respect the chance to be here before you and have this de novo review.

[00:28:43] Speaker 00:
And pairing is construed too broadly.

[00:28:46] Speaker 00:
Claims 5 and 8 should survive under Andre Varma.

[00:28:50] Speaker 00:
The board came up with their own new theories, so we ask that it be reversed.

[00:28:56] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:56] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:28:57] Speaker 02:
The case is taken under submission.