[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
2021-1260 and 1362.

[00:00:05] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lloyd, please proceed.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
Thank you, and may it please the court.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
On Renaissance's appeal, the board erred because it read plain disclosures about hardware to refer to software.

[00:00:20] Speaker 02:
The disputed limitation is functional.

[00:00:22] Speaker 02:
It simply requires checking whether a clock gate is on or off and turning the gate on or off based on the result.

[00:00:30] Speaker 02:
The board focused on whether one reference, Van Hook, expressly discloses using that functionality.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
Although Van Hook teaches checking whether a signal processor is off, the board thought that that was insufficient because a person of skill could have read that to refer to sending the signal processor a software instruction rather than controlling the processor's clock.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
The board based that finding on testimony from Broadcom's expert, Mr. McNair, who said that

[00:01:00] Speaker 02:
Another possibility for controlling a processor was to send a software halt instruction.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
But the problem with that finding and the testimony on which it was based is that the relevant disclosures in Van Hook expressly do not use a software halt instruction.

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
Instead, the relevant disclosures at appendix 970 make clear that Van Hook teaches to use hardware control registers to halt the processor.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
As our expert explained and was unrebutted on this point,

[00:01:29] Speaker 02:
quote, this is a hardware discussion.

[00:01:31] Speaker 02:
That's at appendix 2774 to 2777.

[00:01:34] Speaker 02:
He said, these are not instructions, and that skilled artisans would have known that when you're talking about hardware registers, the hardware registers are, quote, directly controlling something, end quote, in the circuit.

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
That's the same site I gave before.

[00:01:50] Speaker 02:
And so the problem here is you had testimony that talked about generally

[00:01:55] Speaker 02:
Generally, it is known that you could control a processor using software instructions, but that testimony, the critical testimony in which the board relied, never connected that general knowledge about software to anything in Van Hook, and there would be nothing to connect it to in Van Hook, because in fact, Van Hook uses a hardware mechanism.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
And our expert went further.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
He didn't just explain that hardware would be used, but he explained how a person of skill in the art would understand the specific disclosures of Van Hook.

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
And it was not just that there are control registers, but that in addition to control registers, Van Hook gives a specific architecture for its clock scheme, in which what our expert said was a comment.

[00:02:48] Speaker 01:
In looking at this record, it seemed to me that there was testimony from your own witness saying that Grand Hook could have disclosed a different way, that there's different ways that you could implement a halt signal and that there's, you know, ways, for example, by controlling the clock signal, but there's other ways that the halt signal could operate.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
Is that true?

[00:03:13] Speaker 02:
No, that's not true, Judge Stoll.

[00:03:16] Speaker 02:
I think the testimony you're referring to is at appendix 2775, where our expert was asked whether can it mean send a control signal to the signal processor rather than simply cutting off the clock.

[00:03:29] Speaker 02:
And our expert did say, I can't rule that out entirely.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
But the question there, the it, can it mean, was not referring to something in Van Hook.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
The discussion had started with our expert saying that on 2773, our expert said that the ordinary meaning, the ordinary usage of the term halt, even outside of Van Hook, generally would refer to freezing or halting, would refer to the clock.

[00:03:57] Speaker 02:
So the discussion was about the word halt by itself.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
And so he did concede that the word halt by itself might have meant something broader.

[00:04:05] Speaker 02:
But that was the extent of the concession, because the rest of his discussion, he repeatedly said in 2773, 2774, 2775, and 2776, that that's clearly not what Van Hook means.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
He said, 2776, that it's unambiguous that Van Hook is not referring to software.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
This is not a software discussion.

[00:04:30] Speaker 02:
This is a hardware discussion.

[00:04:32] Speaker 02:
I think you have to read that testimony in context.

[00:04:36] Speaker 02:
And in context, the only thing he said was that the word halt by itself.

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
But we're not talking, and I think that's where the board got off track, Judge Stoll, is it simply looked at the word halt and said, well, could the word halt mean something more?

[00:04:51] Speaker 02:
But you have to consider the word halt in the context of the specific disclosure of Van Hook.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
And in the context of Anhook, it doesn't just say halt the processor any way you want.

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
It says halt the processor using these control registers.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
And on that issue, on what it would mean to halt the processor using control registers, the only testimony was from our expert.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
It's like you just, I know this.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
Go ahead.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
Do you think that testimony should be ignored?

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
Sorry, I missed part of the question.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
What is your position with respect to Professor McNair's testimony, which reads as being contrary to that of your expert?

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
I mean, because it seems like a battle of the experts here.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
So how do you explain away Professor McNair's testimony?

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
It's not a battle of the experts, Judge Stoll, because only one expert actually spoke about the relevant issue.

[00:05:49] Speaker 02:
So if you look at the testimony that the board relied on,

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
that's at appendix 2688 to 89, and this is paragraph 52.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
The first part of that paragraph does say, Mr. McNair does say, I disagree with Dr. Colwell's conclusion about Van Hook, but then the critical part of the paragraph, the second part, simply says that generally, he says, this is 26889, that another possibility would be to send a control signal to the processor to stop operation.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
That is very common.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
for computers to have a halt instruction.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
And the halt instruction would generally operate this way.

[00:06:28] Speaker 02:
But he never ties that to anything in Van Hook, because there would be nothing to tie it to in Van Hook.

[00:06:34] Speaker 02:
Just to kind of make this less abstract, it would be as if the question were whether traveling from point A to point B via automobile would involve tires.

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
And you had an expert who came and said, well, I disagree with that because another way to travel from A to B would be to take a train.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
And that would, in fact, be a very logical way to do it.

[00:06:55] Speaker 02:
That testimony would not actually speak to the relevant issue, which is whether traveling from A to B via automobile involves tires.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
And that is the kind of testimony that you have here.

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
You have testimony saying, well, another way to halt a processor

[00:07:09] Speaker 02:
would be to send a software instruction, but that testimony does not answer the question about what does it mean to halt a processor using hardware control registers, which is what the ART discloses.

[00:07:20] Speaker 02:
And this court has consistently held in the cases like Erickson, Mobile Media, and the other cases that we cite that even when you have an expert

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
That is not the end of the story.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
The substantial evidence standard of review is a standard of review and requires this court to ask whether a reasonable fact finder could, in fact, draw the conclusion from that testimony.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
And here the answer is no.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
And his testimony does rely on something in Van Hook.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
He relies on Van Hook's statement about the display processor 500.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
Why is that not sufficient?

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
Well, I think the display processor 500 was actually something that the board talked about in its decision.

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
I don't remember seeing that in Mr. McNair's testimony, Your Honor.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
But that paragraph, if anything, only supports us.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
And it certainly would not support the contrary conclusion.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
Because when you look at that paragraph, it, in fact, uses software terms when talking about software.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
It refers to passing a command to the display processor, which was a different part of Van Hook.

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
But it never once suggests that when you talk about using control registers that that would involve software.

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
So that's my answer on that question.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
I would like to reserve the remainder of my time to address the cross-appeal and rebuttal.

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
We will save that for you, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Johnson.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
Yes, good morning.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
Again, this is Brian Johnson and may it please the court.

[00:08:51] Speaker 00:
And you want to save two minutes for

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
rebuttal on the cross appeal.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
Proceed.

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I'd like to address during this segment both the appeal and cross appeal, but I will start with the renaissance appeal in this case.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
Your Honors, renaissance below relied on Van Hook as a secondary reference and

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
Their reliance was also on a technical misunderstanding of that reference.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
And the board should be affirmed because it conducted a careful review of all the evidence and came to the right conclusion on the technology.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
And that's a conclusion that was fatal below and fatal to Renaissance's appeal now.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
Claim 17 relates to a processor that determines the status of at least one gate that controls the flow of a clock signal.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
And Renaissance's argument was simply that a particular register

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
provided information about a co-processor's clock.

[00:09:50] Speaker 03:
Now, Van Hook in general didn't have to do with power management or clock gating, so this was expert testimony that they believe supported this, and they simply didn't have that testimony, and that's what the board acknowledged.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
Responding to a couple of arguments

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
uh... that that renaissance council made they argued that mister mister mcnair's testimony was somehow unrelated or outside the context of van hook and they refer to his testimony specifically about the fact that stopping a processor by stopping a clock would uh... would create errors in transition state which was pivotal test pivotal testimony the board relied upon he highlights paragraph fifty two but the full context is fifty to fifty four

[00:10:37] Speaker 03:
which identifies Van Hook nine times, as I recall, is clearly grounded in that context, and that was precisely what he was referring to.

[00:10:47] Speaker 03:
And the board also conducted an analysis of Van Hook to further confirm why it supported Broadcom's expert in that case, specifically finding that the HALT command meant allowing a processor to stop its existing tasks.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
And that's inconsistent with Renaissance's position, because stopping a clock would do so instantly.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
So this was a well-reasoned analysis.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
I'd like to also briefly address the testimony from Mr. McNair, or pardon me, from Mr. Colwell in deposition.

[00:11:18] Speaker 03:
Context does matter.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
It's very important.

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
And so is reading that entire section in context.

[00:11:25] Speaker 03:
The appendix is 2775 to 76.

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
Dr. Colwell did make a statement about the use of HALT generally, and then the questioner specifically asked him to pin down his context to Van Hook, asking what it meant in Van Hook.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
And that's where the critical testimony came, where he conceded that it could be done with a control signal, and that in the context of Van Hook, he could not rule out that that's what it was referring to.

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
So his testimony and all the expert testimony that the board credited was within the proper context.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
If there's no further arguments on that, Your Honor, or no further questions, I'd like to move on to Broadcom's cross-appeal on Claim 25.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, on Broadcom's cross-appeal, the board's finding that Claims 25 and 26 were obvious over Albin and View of Fallas should be reversed.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
Claim 25 represents an improved clock gating feature.

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
As the 583 patent explains, historically, clock gating has been conducted with hardware control alone.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
That was the typical technique.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
And that didn't work for Broadcom, who had customers with specific application needs not anticipated when the hardware was developed.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
So for that, Broadcom developed a dual control mechanism, both hardware and software control.

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
And the software, which generally resides at the system level, had the ability to directly control the status of clock gates at the circuit level.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
Now, this dual control of this exact same logic gate created conflicts and control, and Broadcom had a solution for that.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
It developed the overriding feature to resolve those conflicts, and all of that's in Claim 25D.

[00:13:02] Speaker 03:
Now, the board erred in relying solely on references that disclose the admitted prior art technique of the 583 patent, hardware control clock gating.

[00:13:11] Speaker 03:
And we believe the board should be reversed for three reasons.

[00:13:14] Speaker 03:
First, the board improperly found that software control clock gating was obvious, even though it wasn't disclosed in any asserted reference.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
And the board also relied on motivation far too generic to render obvious Broadcom's specific overriding limitation.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
And finally, the board did not address reasonable expectation of success at all and resurrected an abandoned argument by Renaissance.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
On the first issue,

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
The board should be reversed for finding that software clock gating was obvious when it wasn't disclosed anywhere.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
Albin, the primary reference, is a hybrid hardware-software power management scheme.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
It discloses both hardware and software.

[00:13:54] Speaker 03:
And software is on the system level.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
In fact, Albin describes that.

[00:13:58] Speaker 03:
It says that it changes the power management mode of the subsystems, and it can do that by changing it between activated and full power mode.

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
at system level control.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
Now it does describe circuit level control as well, specifically clock gating control.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
And there, hardware control is how it's conducted.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
That's what the board found.

[00:14:16] Speaker 03:
In fact, they found that issue undisputed, that Albin uses hardware control unit 12 to control the status of clock gates.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
And ultimately, the board was reasonably forthcoming in what it believed Albin lacked to reach the asserted claims.

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
This is the wording of the board, and the numbering is my own gloss, but the board believed that ALBIN must be modified in three different ways.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
That ALBIN CPU 4 must 1, directly control the status of a gate independent of Control Unit 12, 2, to override the power management decisions made by Control Unit 12, and 3, directly overwrite a status of off or on that was previously written to by Control Unit 12.

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
Now, the board relied on two other references to allegedly cure those deficiencies, but they have precisely the same deficiencies.

[00:15:06] Speaker 03:
Both of them describe hardware, software, power management schemes that are similar to Albin.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
Albin is already a fine-tuned hybrid system, and it understands the efficiencies of both hardware and software, and nothing within those references would have motivated Albin or won a skill to modify Albin in any way.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
FALA is the secondary reference.

[00:15:28] Speaker 03:
And FALA is a textbook.

[00:15:31] Speaker 03:
And it describes precisely the same types of procedures.

[00:15:35] Speaker 03:
It refers to what are called DPM algorithms and explains what those are.

[00:15:40] Speaker 03:
They refer to selectively slowing down or shutting off system components that are idle.

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
That's system components and changing them between active and standby mode.

[00:15:49] Speaker 03:
That's precisely the same thing Alvin does when it changes the power management mode of subsystems.

[00:15:54] Speaker 03:
There it uses full power and automatic mode, but it's the same system level control.

[00:15:59] Speaker 03:
Now, FALA does describe circuit control, or at least describe clock gating, but that comes several sections later.

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
13.3 that discusses circuit level power management.

[00:16:11] Speaker 03:
And there, clock gating is exclusively in hardware.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
As we describe in our briefing, there are two forms of clock gating described, both of them being in hardware.

[00:16:20] Speaker 03:
So this reference is cumulative at best.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
and with respect... This is Fred Scholl.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
I was reading FALA as saying that the dynamic power management, which includes the clock heating, could be implemented in software or hardware.

[00:16:37] Speaker 01:
That's at JA777.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
Do you disagree with that?

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
I disagree with that characterization.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
What it refers to is DPM algorithms and it's on

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
Appendix 774 that describes what those are, where they selectively slow down and shut off system components.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
And it's the next Section 13.2 that describes how the DPM algorithms work.

[00:17:00] Speaker 03:
Taking a step back, FALA is a textbook about power management, and the title itself distinguishes these two levels I'm referring to.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
The title is referred to as Circuit and System Level Power Management.

[00:17:13] Speaker 03:
So 13.2, which describes the

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
system-level power management does describe DPM algorithms.

[00:17:19] Speaker 03:
The clock gating comes in the next section, that's 13.3, and that is the circuit level, and there, there is no discussion of software whatsoever, no mention of DPM algorithms whatsoever.

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
So what the introduction section that your honor's referring to in Appendix 777 is referring to system-level control, and precisely the same thing that Albin does.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
And Benini is even worse.

[00:17:43] Speaker 03:
In fact, it teaches a way in that it describes clock gating in a section that the board never addressed.

[00:17:50] Speaker 03:
And there, it actually explains why hardware control clock gating is best.

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
And it describes that as being ideal because it's faster.

[00:17:59] Speaker 03:
And that's, again, precisely the 583 patent admitted prior art.

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
And so these references are cumulative at best and teach away at worst.

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
And either way, they wouldn't motivate One of Skill to modify Albin at all.

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
That's a fine-tuned system that understood the efficiencies of hardware and software and already utilized it to maximize those efficiencies.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
But even if we accept what the board has said about motivation and we accept the specific motivation that we found, One of Skill would not have actually recreated the overriding limitation.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
So the motivation that they found was additional software in power management control.

[00:18:38] Speaker 03:
And power management is a general concept, particularly when in the context that that motivation is found, it's hard to understand why one of skill would have applied that to clock gating at all and certainly would have done that with respect to the overriding limitation.

[00:18:53] Speaker 03:
Recall the overriding limitation had to do with dual control and resolving a conflict in two types of control of the same gate.

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
So simply adding software wouldn't have gotten to that claim element.

[00:19:05] Speaker 03:
And the facts here are similar to that in Rivalma.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
And that case had to do with thermal conductivity at a certain level, 42.

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
All the prior art references in that case disclosed something less.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
But the board found that limitation obvious because one of skill would have been motivated to increase thermal conductivity.

[00:19:25] Speaker 03:
Now this court vacated.

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
Even accepting that motivation, as this court explained,

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
One of skill wouldn't necessarily have reached 42 and the board has the same problems here.

[00:19:35] Speaker 03:
Even if we accept that one of skill would want to use software, how would they have actually One of skill wouldn't have applied that to clock gating or the overwrite technique.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
And in fact, the facts here justify reversal even more so in Revalma because

[00:19:50] Speaker 03:
Unlike thermal conductivity, hardware and software is not a sliding scale where if you use more and more and more software, you somehow arrive at the claimed invention.

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
This is a specific implementation not disclosed anywhere.

[00:20:02] Speaker 03:
And it's improper for the board to try to disclose motivations or to supply motivation through, pardon me, undisclosed elements through obviousness.

[00:20:13] Speaker 03:
And that's the Hareware case that explains

[00:20:15] Speaker 03:
If you're gonna supply missing elements not disclosed anywhere, it can only be done on very peripheral issues.

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
And this is not a peripheral issue at all.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
This is precisely the issue that Broadcom uses to distinguish the prior art that I referred to.

[00:20:30] Speaker 03:
That's in column two and column five of the 583 patent.

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
This is also the claim element that the examiner found distinguished the prior art there.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
It's the reason Broadcom has a patent.

[00:20:39] Speaker 03:
So this is an important issue.

[00:20:41] Speaker 03:
And ultimately, those two claim elements

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
are not disclosed anywhere.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
And it's improper for the board to create them.

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
That's hindsight.

[00:20:49] Speaker 03:
And finally, one other issue.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
The board should be reversed for not conducting any analysis on reasonable expectation of success.

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
And that's the board's burden to do.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
And that's particularly problematic in this case, because as we've explained in our briefing, they created a combination of Albin and Fallah that no party advocated for.

[00:21:11] Speaker 03:
Broadcom identifies

[00:21:13] Speaker 03:
a particular conflict in the combination that Renaissance tried to create, and Renaissance affirmatively walked away from that combination.

[00:21:20] Speaker 03:
The board suespante resurrected that and resolved the conflict on their own, creating a new combination, making Broadcom unable to discuss reasonable expectation of success at all.

[00:21:30] Speaker 03:
And, Your Honor, with that, I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
We will hold it for you.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lloyd has considerable time remaining.

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Judge Laurie.

[00:21:44] Speaker 02:
I'd like to begin where my colleague left off on Broadcom's appeal and then touch a couple of rebuttal points on Renaissance's main appeal.

[00:21:52] Speaker 02:
On Broadcom's appeal, Broadcom's case depends on asking this court to draw different inferences from the references and to read the references in a cramped way that the board rejected on the facts.

[00:22:04] Speaker 02:
Start with the point that Broadcom says that the prior only discloses hardware control of clock gates.

[00:22:10] Speaker 02:
The board, in fact, found the opposite.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
The board, at appendix

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
31 to 32 expressly found that Alden teaches a hybrid approach.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
It similarly found for Appendix 26, Appendix 28, and Appendix 33 that FALA also discloses a hybrid approach.

[00:22:27] Speaker 02:
FALA teaches, in the board's words, that the algorithms for controlling power management can be implemented in software and or hardware.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
Broadcom asks the court to ignore the and part of that and read it as only disclosing one or the other, but in fact FALA teaches

[00:22:44] Speaker 02:
that you can use both software and hardware, the same kind of hybrid approach that Broadcom now claims to have invented.

[00:22:51] Speaker 02:
Broadcom also argues that, well, even if those have hardware approaches, they're at the system level and not the component level.

[00:22:59] Speaker 02:
But Broadcom's arguments are contradicted by the references themselves, and at least the board reasonably rejected that based on the references.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
If you look at Albin, the Albin reference

[00:23:13] Speaker 02:
And this is at appendix 854 at column 7.

[00:23:17] Speaker 02:
It talks about how, it talks, well it previously talked about how software can intervene to override what the hardware is doing, the overriding that Broadcom wants you to focus on.

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
And it explains that that intervening happens not just for the entire system at column 7, but at the subsystem level.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
And when you look at Albin,

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
at appendix 850, those subsystems are down at the device level.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
It's the individual components.

[00:23:42] Speaker 02:
So Albin is not talking, as Broadcom suggests, about simply some kind of broad software control.

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
And Broadcom says, well, Broadcom claims that the board found against that, but that was not the board's finding.

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
The only difference that the board found between Albin and the claims is in how the elements were arranged.

[00:24:02] Speaker 02:
The board believed that Albin taught only software overriding

[00:24:05] Speaker 02:
that was indirectly done, and the board read the claims to require directly overriding.

[00:24:12] Speaker 02:
But even if there is that difference between all of them, that's the kind of difference that obviousness that generally looks at.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
That's KSR, where you have the elements that are known in the prior art.

[00:24:23] Speaker 02:
And the only question is whether a person of skill in the art would have thought to arrange them in the manner claimed.

[00:24:29] Speaker 02:
That's ordinary obviousness.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
This is not a here where

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
or a DSS type case where you have some kind of missing limitation.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
The board found all limitations known in the prior art.

[00:24:40] Speaker 02:
On the FALA reference, there was already some discussion with the court about this, but I just wanted to respond to this idea that FALA is only talking about software and hardware hybrids for system level and not component level.

[00:24:56] Speaker 02:
at appendix 776 to appendix 777, in fact, talks about how the DPM, that's the acronym they use for dynamic power management, the DPM algorithms operate for systems and their constituent components.

[00:25:12] Speaker 02:
It's talking about using power management at the system and the component level.

[00:25:17] Speaker 02:
And then it goes on to talk about how those algorithms can be implemented in both software and or hardware.

[00:25:23] Speaker 02:
And it gives the same exact benefits that Broadcom claims

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
were what drove its invention.

[00:25:28] Speaker 02:
It identifies that hardware is more efficient, but software can be more flexible.

[00:25:33] Speaker 02:
And this, of course, is all in the introductory section, when there are only two sections in this entire chapter.

[00:25:41] Speaker 02:
One is system level, which Broadcom says is the only thing you should focus on from FALA.

[00:25:45] Speaker 02:
But one of them is clock gating, the exact thing that Broadcom claims to have invented here.

[00:25:52] Speaker 02:
And at appendix 786 to 787, when it talks about

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
clock gating, it refers to that as dynamic power minimization.

[00:26:00] Speaker 02:
The same type of dynamic power control that Fala already tells you can be implemented in both hardware and software, not just one or the other, a hybrid approach.

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
Broadcom also complains that somehow the board required these very detailed modifications with the, I think Broadcom's council had one, two, and three modifications

[00:26:25] Speaker 02:
But the board's finding was, in fact, that there was only one change required.

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
That's at appendix 27, where the only change was to have the CPU and albin directly control clock gates instead of indirectly doing that.

[00:26:38] Speaker 02:
And the board rejected, at appendix 31 to 32, Broadcom's argument that there would be some kind of complicated change.

[00:26:46] Speaker 02:
And then again, at appendix 35, that this would somehow require completely changing everything about albin.

[00:26:52] Speaker 02:
So Broadcom's arguments on motivation to combine rely on this court finding that there were gaps in the priority that the board rejected and then somehow filling those gaps.

[00:27:03] Speaker 02:
Because Broadcom is wrong about there being any gaps to begin with, its motivation to combine arguments fail.

[00:27:10] Speaker 02:
On reasonable expectations of success, Broadcom's arguments fail for at least one of two reasons.

[00:27:17] Speaker 02:
First, the petition and our expert testimony, in fact, did address reasonable expectation of success.

[00:27:23] Speaker 02:
And the board itself, at Appendix 28, quoted the portions of our petition that addressed this, where we explained that hybrid approaches to clock gating were known in the art and can be used for clock gating.

[00:27:36] Speaker 02:
And we supported that with expert testimony, which the board also cited.

[00:27:39] Speaker 02:
So Broadcom's wrong on the facts.

[00:27:41] Speaker 02:
But then, of course, this issue, Broadcom clearly waived.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
across four filings over more than 100 pages, Broadcom never once said anything about reasonable expectation of success.

[00:27:51] Speaker 02:
So that issue is waived.

[00:27:53] Speaker 02:
On Broadcom's appeal, I think we had the discussion already about the experts and that the law is clear that just because an expert gives a conclusion is not enough to be substantial evidence when that conclusion is not based on anything in the record and in fact contradicts the plain record evidence.

[00:28:11] Speaker 02:
And for that reason, we'd ask that you affirm on Broadcom's appeal and on Renaissance's appeal, you reverse us to those claims.

[00:28:20] Speaker 02:
I'm happy to answer any other questions the Court has.

[00:28:25] Speaker 00:
Not hearing any.

[00:28:26] Speaker 00:
I thank you very much, Mr. Lloyd.

[00:28:29] Speaker 00:
Mr. Johnson has a couple of minutes to bottle on the cross appeal.

[00:28:35] Speaker 03:
Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:38] Speaker 03:
Council cited KSR pointing out that as long as there are known prior art elements, that case supports combining.

[00:28:45] Speaker 03:
But that's not our case.

[00:28:47] Speaker 03:
Because both software control clock gating and the overwriting implementation are not disclosed anywhere.

[00:28:53] Speaker 03:
And I understand that Council for Renaissance has an argument that software control clock gating is disclosed and falla, which we disagree with and explain that in our brief.

[00:29:02] Speaker 03:
But where he seems to have no argument is the overwriting limitation.

[00:29:06] Speaker 03:
The board specifically looked at whether Alvin disclosed overwriting and found that it did not.

[00:29:12] Speaker 03:
And that's the specific implementation that Broadcom claimed.

[00:29:14] Speaker 03:
And I've seen no evidence and no argument and no finding that the overwriting limitation was disclosed anywhere in FALA.

[00:29:21] Speaker 03:
It's not there.

[00:29:24] Speaker 03:
Renaissance's council also points out that Alvin is a hybrid approach.

[00:29:28] Speaker 03:
So is FALA.

[00:29:29] Speaker 03:
The problem is that cuts against their argument.

[00:29:32] Speaker 03:
Because it's already a hybrid approach, one of skill would not have been motivated to modify Albin.

[00:29:36] Speaker 03:
Albin already recognized the importance of software and power management, and that's why they conducted in a way to maximize those efficiencies.

[00:29:44] Speaker 03:
It is system level, and that's precisely what the board found.

[00:29:47] Speaker 03:
The control with respect to the clock gating, the board found correctly was undisputedly hardware control.

[00:29:55] Speaker 03:
And Albin is already a fine-tuned system, and as we explain in our brief, it counts the advantages of software in the way it implements them.

[00:30:02] Speaker 03:
So this cuts against their motivation argument.

[00:30:05] Speaker 03:
And then Council for Renaissance suggests that we

[00:30:09] Speaker 03:
say that we invented clock gating, not so.

[00:30:12] Speaker 03:
It's the particular control within clock gating.

[00:30:14] Speaker 03:
And that's important.

[00:30:15] Speaker 03:
And he identifies FALA in pages 786 to 787 as discussing clock gating.

[00:30:21] Speaker 03:
And that's important, because that entire discussion does not mention software.

[00:30:25] Speaker 03:
The word software does not exist, and there's no discussion of DPM algorithms that is a form of control that was discussed in the introduction.

[00:30:34] Speaker 03:
And Renaissance would like this court to infer that the introduction was referring to the section 13.3, telling that there's no discussion of software whatsoever.

[00:30:45] Speaker 03:
And so this, too, cuts against obviousness.

[00:30:48] Speaker 03:
And finally, with the reasonable expectation of success, the testimony that council refers to is just general testimony about use of certain things in the prior.

[00:30:58] Speaker 03:
It is not testimony about reasonable expectation of success, and Broadcom did not waive it, because the kinetic case, which we cite in our brief, rejected precisely this argument.

[00:31:07] Speaker 03:
It is an affirmative requirement that the board identify and support reasonable expectation of success.

[00:31:13] Speaker 03:
They did not, because they had no expert testimony to rely on.

[00:31:18] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:31:19] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:31:20] Speaker 00:
To both counsel, we will take the case under submission.