[00:00:01] Speaker 04:
This, the series, at number 21, 1840, New Current Incorporated, against Samson Electronics Company Limited.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
Again, Mr. Billigan.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Before I get into the merits, a brief word on our form selection clause argument.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
We acknowledge that it's foreclosed by the presidential Canoe decision.

[00:00:24] Speaker 01:
We respectfully submit that Canoe was wrongly decided for the reasons Judge Newman stated in your dissent.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
But since this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, I won't address it further unless the panel has questions, which I'm, of course, happy to answer.

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
So to the merits, the board

[00:00:41] Speaker 01:
This court should reverse the board's holding that claimed 36 is unpatentable.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
I'll begin with obviousness and then I will move to anticipation and indefiniteness.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
Chang is not analogous art.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
The claimed invention of the patents in question concerns inductors that couple external magnetic flux in order to wirelessly transfer energy.

[00:01:08] Speaker 01:
Chang, in contrast, concerns inductors that couple their own magnetic flux in order to block the transmission of energy.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
Those are diametrically opposed goals.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
And in fact, Chang's inductors are not capable of transferring energy because they're contained within a shield of non-conductive ferrite.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
And I would note that as a factual matter, there is no dispute about this aspect of Chang.

[00:01:36] Speaker 01:
Samsung's expert, Dr. Baker, admitted that Chang, quote, just doesn't do energy transfer, end quote.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
And so I would submit that this case is on all fours within Ray Klein.

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
The patent there claimed a container with movable dividers that was used for mixing nectar ingredients.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
And this court, on substantial evidence review, reversed the board's finding that prior art disclosing containers with stationary dividers was analogous, because the court said that art was directed to a different purpose than the claimed invention.

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
And a similar conclusion is appropriate here.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
Chang's inductors and the inductors of the claimed invention

[00:02:21] Speaker 01:
are used in different applications, and they're designed to achieve very different and, indeed, opposite purposes.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
I think that this case is also very similar to in-ray clay.

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
Do you want to address sung in anticipation?

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
I'm happy to move to that.

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
So the issue in dispute for sung is quite narrow.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
It's are the coil strands

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
115A and 115B that are on either side of the substrate in some second embodiment.

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
Are they connected in series or are they connected in parallel?

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
We submit that the only correct reading of song is a reading that they are connected in series, and there are three reasons for that.

[00:03:06] Speaker 03:
What are we supposed to do if the songs express disclosure that both ends of each of the coil strands 115A and 115B are electrically connected to each other to thereby entirely form a parallel circuit

[00:03:19] Speaker 03:
combined with the expert testimony that what that means is that they are in parallel as required by the claims.

[00:03:27] Speaker 01:
So the way we read it, Your Honor, is that the strands making up 115A are connected in parallel, and then the strands making up 115B are.

[00:03:37] Speaker 03:
I understand, but think about the substantial legal standard.

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
And we've got an expert looking at express disclosure that sounds like it's the claim limitation, right?

[00:03:47] Speaker 03:
And then an expert explaining what that means in a reasonable way.

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
And the only question is whether a reasonable fact finder could have found that some teaches this claim element.

[00:03:56] Speaker 01:
I understand, Your Honor.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
And I think that in the typical case where you have a disclosure that's arguably ambiguous about whether it discloses the limitation or not, that is the type of thing that would be affirmed on substantial evidence review.

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
I think, however, though, that in this case, the three reasons that we've provided for why the layers are connected in series sort of carry the day here.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
And the first one is because when

[00:04:26] Speaker 01:
Everywhere else, other than the disputed paragraph 108, where Sung uses the term parallel, it's using it to talk about strands within a single layer.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
And it analogizes to lits wire, which is a similar concept, that you have multiple strands in one layer that make up sort of one inductor.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
But even if the board had credited that, 108 could be enough to make Sung anticipating, isn't that right?

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
I think that that's true.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
If all we had was that elsewhere it uses parallel to talk about strands within a single layer, then I think I would agree with that, that the board's reading of paragraph 108.

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
But we have more than that here.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
We also have that figure 6 displays only a single via.

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
And it's undisputed that a single via can

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
be used only to create a series connection.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
It cannot be used to create a parallel connection.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
And tellingly, I think in order to argue that there are actually two vias that connect 115A and 115B in parallel, Samsung's expert had to create basically a new figure that's not in Sung that drew on an extra via where Sung does not say that there's one.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
And then the final reason, which is in some sense I think perhaps the clearest, is that if you plug the relevant values that Sun gives you for its circuit into the governing equations, you get that the number of coil turns is equivalent to what it would be if it were a series connection.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
And Samsung

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
doesn't in their briefing, they don't really respond to this on the merits.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
They say that we cherry picked the numbers, but as we showed in our reply brief, you can really use

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
any reasonable assumptions, and you still get the answer that it is a series connection rather than a parallel one.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
Their principal response is a waiver argument.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
But we presented the evidence of the equation to the board.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
This point was argued at the oral hearing.

[00:06:43] Speaker 01:
While it was argued in less detail than we have here on appeal, we think that what we did below was sufficient to preserve the argument under the William Wrigley case cited in our brief.

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
Is there even a single application of that calculation before the board or just reference generally to the equation?

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
We did not walk the board through the calculation.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
Did you think that they would do it or how did you think they would understand your point?

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
Did you think that they could figure it out just from knowing those equations?

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
Well, we didn't explicitly walk the board through the math, but we did make the point at the oral hearing that Sungs Paragraph 112 gives you these values, and we have these equations that you can use to calculate the effective number of turns, given that you know the coil diameter, the inductance, et cetera.

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
If there are no additional questions on anticipation, I'll move briefly to indefiniteness.

[00:07:42] Speaker 04:
Yes, please do.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
So I think that the key point to recognize- Just a quick question first before you go there.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
Am I correct in understanding that if we affirm on any of these grounds, obviousness, anticipation, or indefiniteness, that resolves the- That's correct.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
Any one of the grounds would be dispositive.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
I think that the key point to recognize on indefiniteness is that

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
Samsung's anticipation arguments and the board's anticipation analysis effectively defined the claim scope of the configured for use limitation.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
They said that this limitation is disclosed in the prior art because there is prior art disclosing antennas that are capable of being used for wireless power transfer at a frequency of 110 to 205 kilohertz.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
Because that anticipation analysis defined the scope of the claim, we think that that resolves the indefiniteness issue in our favor.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
Now, the board principally focused on the fact that the specification doesn't explicitly tell you

[00:08:59] Speaker 01:
What physical characteristics would the inductor need in order to function as an antenna and wireless power transfer at this frequency?

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
But what that analysis ignores is the background understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
And our expert explained that a person of skill in the art would be able to tell, when presented with a given inductor, whether it could

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
could work to wirelessly transfer power at a frequency of 110 to 205 kilohertz.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
And Samsung's expert Dr. Baker did this effectively as well.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
For example, when

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
when analyzing the prior Pertobi reference, he looked at it and he said, yes, based on what Pertobi discloses, I can tell this would work in wireless power transfer at 110 to 205 kilohertz.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
That's pretty broad, right?

[00:09:56] Speaker 03:
110 to 205.

[00:09:58] Speaker 03:
It seems to me that the claim limitation might be broad, but maybe not indefinite.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
believe that there was a factual finding, or that I'm thinking of right now, testimony one way or another on the breath.

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
Are you arguing that the claim's not indefinite?

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
No, yes, yes.

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
No, I 100% agree with you.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
My point was going to be, even if the limitation is broad, that breath is not indefiniteness.

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
And I think here that the, so Samsung criticized our expert's analysis as being sort of effectively, oh, well, I know it when I see it.

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
I know if an inductor can work in wireless power transfer at this frequency.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
We don't think that's a fair characterization of his testimony, but even if it were, that's the same type of evidence that this court found sufficient to impart definiteness to a claim in cases like Nebro where

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
the claim was directed to an apparatus that could generate a paresthesia-free signal in a patient, and there was evidence that, well, you could test this on a given patient and tell whether they experienced paresthesia or not.

[00:11:08] Speaker 01:
We have a similar situation here, although, in fact, I would say our case is a stronger definite in this case than Nevro because the sensation of paresthesia

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
is relatively subjective, whereas here you have an objective question about, does the antenna work to wirelessly transfer power at this frequency or not?

[00:11:30] Speaker 01:
If there are further questions, I'm happy to answer them.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
Otherwise, I'll reserve the balance of my time.

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:11:38] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:11:40] Speaker 04:
Let's hear from the other side.

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
Mr. Moody.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
Please, the court.

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
I'll focus on the merits.

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
As to the merits, the claims at issue, the board found them unpalatable on three independent bases, just all as you recognize.

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
If the court agrees with any of those bases, we believe each of them is supported by the board's well-reasoned decision.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
This court should affirm.

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
And for today's argument, I'd like to focus on just the Sangha anticipation issue.

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
I'm obviously happy to address any questions you may have on any of the other issues.

[00:12:12] Speaker 00:
We do believe that's dispositive and supported by substantial evidence.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
So if you look at what the board did with respect to the Sangha anticipation issue,

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
The sole issue here is whether the coils 115A and 115B in Sung's Figure 6 embodiment are connected in parallel.

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
The board looked at the Sung reference itself.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
It looked at the testimony from both sides expert, including Samsung's expert, Dr. Baker.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
It credited that testimony.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
And this is what the board said at the end of its decision.

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
And this is at Appendix 67.

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
Having reviewed the evidence of record, we conclude that petitioners' anticipation position regarding Sung's disclosure.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
as explained by petitioner's expert, is better supported than Pat Noonan's position.

[00:12:57] Speaker 00:
We think that should end the inquiry here.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
That is the epitome of a decision that should be supported by substantial evidence.

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
In fact, Jed Stoll and Jed Stark, as you pointed out, paragraph 108 is dispositive in this case.

[00:13:08] Speaker 00:
It's very clear on its face.

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
Even if you had any doubts, there was testimony supported by Dr. Baker.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
You can find that at appendix 4357 to 4361.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
Again, testimony that the board credited.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
They complained that Dr. Baker had a figure that he annotated from Sung that certainly allowed for experts to do, certainly when it's supported by the evidence.

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
And that was the case here.

[00:13:34] Speaker 00:
So we do believe

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
that Stang more than anticipates this claim.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
And the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:13:41] Speaker 00:
Unless the court has any questions, I am happy to give the rest of the time back to the court.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
What about the math argument?

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
If we were to say it was not forfeited, is it a problem for your side on this anticipation question?

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
No, Jed Stark, it's not.

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
And I'm glad you asked me about that.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
And for a couple of reasons.

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
If you look at, again, our view is Paragraph 108 is enough by itself.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
Again, that's more than substantial evidence to support the board's decision.

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
But what did they do to do the math?

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, as you pointed out and as Jed Stoll pointed out, there was no discussion of this math.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
The equation was certainly provided by their expert.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
Nowhere did they below provide all the calculations that they do here.

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
But I think the most important point is this, that they made assumptions that are simply not supported by Sunk.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
For example, they said this would be a square coil.

[00:14:35] Speaker 00:
Well, nowhere does Sunk disclose that.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
In fact, if you look at the PCB, the substrate, it's rectangular.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
So they made assumptions that we believe are not supported by the sung reference.

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
Those were cherry picked to arrive at their conclusions on appeal.

[00:14:51] Speaker 00:
And again, that should not be allowed.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
And even if this court were to look at it, we believe that's enough evidence.

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
And those assumptions are just not supported.

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
And this court can disregard the matter.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
So unless you have any other questions, we ask that the court respond.

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
Minister Modi, while you're sitting down, I assume that you then agree

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
Were the other points made by your friend on the other side?

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor, I do not.

[00:15:17] Speaker 00:
We believe the board's decision with I'm happy to address them on the Chang reference being analogous art and on indefiniteness.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
We fully believe the board got both of those issues right.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
They're supported by the evidence with respect to both of those issues.

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
For example, I'll just maybe spend one minute since you asked Judge Newman with respect to analogous art issue.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
I think what's key here is if you look at the Chang patent and the 960 patent, they're in the same international US patent class and subclasses.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
And you can find that at Appendix 631 and Appendix 2682.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
This court construes analogous art broadly.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
And again, the board's findings with respect to analogous art both on the field of endeavor

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
and on the reasonable pertinent test.

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
They're more than supported by substantial evidence.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
Those are factual findings.

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
And we would ask the court to affirm.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
With respect to indefiniteness, I think you don't need to look beyond their expert's testimony.

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
With respect to indefiniteness, he used terms like when he was deposed and asked about the boundaries of the claim, he used words like, well, this is a judgment call.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
You can find that at Appendix 3996, pages 66, 8 to 15.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
He said, well, he could not tell us whether 50% flux coupling is sufficient for the antenna to be configured for wireless power transfer.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
So when you have testimony from the expert that cannot define the boundaries of the claim, that's per se indefinite.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
So we do believe the board's decisions with respect to those issues are also well supported.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
Again, unless Your Honor has have any other questions, I'm more than happy to address anything else that may be on your mind.

[00:16:57] Speaker 04:
No, no

[00:17:08] Speaker 01:
Thank you your honors, I'll just make three very brief points one on on each issue as to indefiniteness I think this case is on all fours with never oh because there there is Unrebutted testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art could tell when presented with a given inductor whether it can function in wireless power transfer at the claims frequency and

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
And I think this case is also similar to this court's decision in Honeywell, where the claim required a local color display that had perceptible color.

[00:17:44] Speaker 01:
And this court said, well, that's enough to be definite, because someone can tell if color is perceptible, just so here a skilled artisan could tell if the antenna would work in wireless power transfer.

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
On obviousness, I would just again reiterate the comparison to this Court's decisions in Klein and Clay.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
We discussed those cases at length in our briefing.

[00:18:07] Speaker 01:
Samsung did not substantively respond.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
We think we are on all four with those cases and that even though this is a factual issue, the Court's reasoning finding clear error or lack of substantial evidence in those cases

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
Council's in favor of finding the same here.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
And finally, as to anticipation, I think if the court concludes that the argument about the mathematical equation is properly before it, then I think that essentially resolves the case, because we have run the calculation with many, many assumptions.

[00:18:45] Speaker 01:
There is no cherry picking here, and that's explained in our reply brief.

[00:18:49] Speaker 01:
And there has been no response from Samsung on the merits.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
I think in response to your question, Judge Stark, my friend on the other side basically focused on the forfeiture points, which we think is incorrect under the William Wrigley case for the reasons I explained in my opening arguments.

[00:19:06] Speaker 01:
I'm happy to answer any further questions you have.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, I will cede the balance of my time.

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
Any questions for your counsel?

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:19:14] Speaker ?:
No.

[00:19:15] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:19:16] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
Well, thanks to both counsels.