[00:00:01] Speaker 00: Our first taste is Willis Electric versus Everstar, 2021, 1870, Mr. Aarons. [00:00:27] Speaker 01: Good morning. [00:00:28] Speaker 01: May it please the court, counsel. [00:00:30] Speaker 01: My name is Patrick Ahrens, and I represent Willis Electric. [00:00:35] Speaker 01: Willis Electric was the first company ever to conceive of a decorative light string using internally reinforced wire. [00:00:42] Speaker 01: Yet the board found every claim obvious based on three errors that I'd like to address today. [00:00:48] Speaker 01: The first error is an incorrect claim construction of light string. [00:00:53] Speaker 01: an unsupported argument that a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine old references to make the wire more durable, and the disregard of real-world evidence that shows the non-obviousness of these claimed inventions. [00:01:10] Speaker 01: I'd like to address these three hairs with the panel, and I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal. [00:01:16] Speaker 00: Council, could I stop you there for a minute? [00:01:18] Speaker 00: I don't see the time here. [00:01:24] Speaker 00: Okay, we moved it up there. [00:01:29] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:01:29] Speaker 00: Please proceed. [00:01:30] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:01:31] Speaker 01: Let me start with the first claim construction error. [00:01:35] Speaker 01: Claims one through six, and this claim construction error affects claims one through six, or the board's decision of it. [00:01:43] Speaker 01: It's about the construction of light strength. [00:01:45] Speaker 01: Now, the board's construction of LightStream was a collection of electric lamps connected by wires in a flexible configuration. [00:01:54] Speaker 01: And what it left out in the error in it is that it was Willis's proposal that it is intended to be hung on, draped on, or wrapped around or about an object to provide a decorative effect. [00:02:07] Speaker 00: Yes, but doesn't the specification show that the invention includes [00:02:15] Speaker 00: being in the tree as well as on the tree? [00:02:21] Speaker 01: Not so, Your Honor, in terms of the light string. [00:02:23] Speaker 01: Now, what the specification does show is, I think you're referring to figures 22A through D. And 22A through D shows various embodiments for how the light string is configured to be electrically connected, which is one element of claim one for sure. [00:02:43] Speaker 01: Those various embodiments really just focus on the configured to be electrically connected to. [00:02:49] Speaker 01: So you could have a traditional plug-in socket in 22A. [00:02:52] Speaker 01: You could have a wire-to-wire connector set outside of the trunk in 22B. [00:02:58] Speaker 01: 22D is very similar to 22A in another sort of connection. [00:03:03] Speaker 01: What 22C addresses, and that's whatever Star raised on appeal, it's not something they raised at the board. [00:03:09] Speaker 01: This is not something that the board relied on to come to its construction. [00:03:13] Speaker 01: But 22C shows that a wire, excuse me, that the light stream could have a wired connection in the trunk of the tree to a power wire. [00:03:25] Speaker 01: But that does not inform the proper construction. [00:03:27] Speaker 02: It shows part of the wire being inside the tree, at least, right? [00:03:32] Speaker 01: Yes, part of the wire, part of the light stream is inside the base of the tree. [00:03:36] Speaker 01: That would be correct, Your Honor. [00:03:39] Speaker 01: But that is how the light string is configured to an electrical source. [00:03:44] Speaker 01: And it is still error to define and construe light string to be so broad that the entire light string could be inside a branch or inside the tree like in Harris. [00:03:55] Speaker 01: In fact, when you look at the specification excerpts, [00:04:01] Speaker 01: It consistently and repeatedly shows a light string is on or applied to a tree or object. [00:04:08] Speaker 01: Clearly, that's what's being shown in figures 19 and 20. [00:04:11] Speaker 01: In column 13, it discusses a light string being flexibly distributed about a structure. [00:04:20] Speaker 01: Column 17, the light strings applied to a tree. [00:04:24] Speaker 01: Column 17, again, talks about it being external to the tree. [00:04:28] Speaker 01: And I think the main error from the board was a recognition that there was nothing in the specification that prohibited the light stream from being inside the tree. [00:04:39] Speaker 01: And of course, that's the same error the board made and that this court reversed on in Henry Smith. [00:04:44] Speaker 01: Henry Smith was a dispute over the term, an undefined term body in an oil and gas drilling tool. [00:04:52] Speaker 01: And what's notable about Henry Smith is that was the BRI applied, whereas here the Phillips standard applies, so we're not as broad as Henry Smith. [00:05:02] Speaker 01: Yet this court still found an error, because like here, the specification repeatedly and consistently refers to, in that case, the body as a separate component. [00:05:14] Speaker 00: Prior cases, the different specifications shared a little light, no pun intended, on specific cases like this, which depend on what's in the particular patent. [00:05:29] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor, and we would submit in excerpts that we've identified that the light string is consistently and repeatedly about or on external to a tree. [00:05:41] Speaker 01: And I think what the core dispute is, is the light string sort of at least in part, if not in full, external to the tree, or can it be inside the tree like it is in Harris? [00:05:54] Speaker 01: And for the reasons that the board described, none of the specification excerpts that the board relied on show that the light string is internal to the tree. [00:06:04] Speaker 02: You admit that part of it can be inside the tree. [00:06:07] Speaker 02: How much can be inside the tree? [00:06:10] Speaker 01: Well, I would concede, Your Honor, that the electrical connection could be inside the part where the wire is electrically connected to a power source could be inside a tree. [00:06:21] Speaker 01: But the specification, at every point where it is showing and describing the lighted portion of the tree, it's about being external to the tree. [00:06:31] Speaker 02: So your theory is that some part of the wiring has to be outside the tree? [00:06:38] Speaker 01: We would submit that, Your Honor. [00:06:39] Speaker 01: That would be the proper construction that some portion of the light string would have to be external to the tree. [00:06:44] Speaker 01: And that is the consistent and repeated disclosures of the specification. [00:06:47] Speaker 02: Is that the construction that you urged on the board? [00:06:51] Speaker 02: Is that a construction that you urged on the board? [00:06:55] Speaker 02: That some part of it has to be outside? [00:06:58] Speaker 01: Well, I believe it is consistent with our proposal. [00:07:02] Speaker 01: We didn't use the word in part. [00:07:04] Speaker 01: We did explain that it had to be external, wrapped around the branches. [00:07:08] Speaker 01: And what I think the proposal was trying to convey, which is what I'm trying to argue here, [00:07:13] Speaker 01: which is that there's a fundamental difference between a wire that is inside a branch or inside a tree and one that is intended to be wrapped around or draped or applied to the external part of the tree, especially in the context of this invention. [00:07:28] Speaker 01: And I'll move on shortly to the motivation combined where the alleged motivation combined is to make it more durable. [00:07:35] Speaker 01: And obviously there's gonna be a fundamentally different kind of context for that if it's external, the tree or inside and protected by the branches. [00:07:43] Speaker 04: I would also submit. [00:07:45] Speaker 04: Did you say, you're arguing that part of the wiring can be inside the tree? [00:07:53] Speaker 01: What I would concede, Your Honor, is that in figure 22C, it does show that there could be an electrical connection at the end of the wire that could be connected to a power wire inside the tree. [00:08:08] Speaker 04: So then it becomes a case of how much is permissible and how much is not. [00:08:16] Speaker 01: Well, we would submit there's no disclosure in the specification for anything but the end point, the electrical configuration, to be internal to the tree. [00:08:27] Speaker 01: And so when you're talking about the light stream in earnest in terms of the branches or the tree, it should be applied externally applied to the branches or the decorative object. [00:08:38] Speaker 04: Your argument seems to me to be, when you're talking about wrapped, somewhat like a net. [00:08:44] Speaker 04: I'm not saying a net, but you just simply wrap it around the tree. [00:08:49] Speaker 04: What about where the wires are wrapped around the branches in the trunk, and the only thing you can really see are the lamps? [00:09:00] Speaker 01: Well, that situation would still be external to the tree. [00:09:05] Speaker 01: It would still be wrapped around or strung on the exterior portion of the tree. [00:09:11] Speaker 01: And in fact, that's one of the goals of the invention is to reduce the bulkiness and make it more attractive, to be able to have sort of an improved wire that would be less visible, but it would still be outside of the tree. [00:09:27] Speaker 01: It is a fundamental difference from the Harris reference from almost 100 years ago. [00:09:35] Speaker 01: I would also submit that the construction that we're offering is very consistent with what the board construed a light string to mean in a related patent, the 186 patent, that is incorporated by reference. [00:09:49] Speaker 01: in which case the board found a very similar reference, the Smith reference, meaning similar to Harris, not to teach a light string because they construed a light string to mean a string of lights that can be positioned over a plurality of branches, which of course is consistent with our dispute here. [00:10:11] Speaker 02: Different specifications. [00:10:14] Speaker 01: Well, the 186 patent is incorporated by reference in the 588 patent. [00:10:18] Speaker 02: Different specification in the Smith patent. [00:10:23] Speaker 02: Different specification in this other patent that they construct. [00:10:27] Speaker 01: Well, the Smith patent does have a different specification. [00:10:30] Speaker 01: However, the disclosure, when you compare the figures, they're almost identical in terms of a wire being internal to the branches. [00:10:38] Speaker 01: And I would submit. [00:10:41] Speaker 01: with a proper construction of light string, as we've argued, that the board's finding that Harris, implied suggestion that Harris would not be limited to the circuitry of the tree would not be supported by substantial evidence. [00:10:57] Speaker 01: Eversar offered no expert testimony on that, no evidence at all. [00:11:02] Speaker 01: And the disclosure of Harris does make clear that the circuits or circuits constitute the integral part of the tree construction. [00:11:10] Speaker 01: I will move on to the second error at this point. [00:11:12] Speaker 01: And that has to do with the board's decision on finding a motivation to combine Harris and Lin with Fuji or Wang. [00:11:25] Speaker 01: And of course, Everstar bore the burden throughout this proceeding to prove with detail, with particularity, its obviousness combinations and specifically why a person skilled in the art would combine these references. [00:11:38] Speaker 01: And the problem with Everstar's argument and the board's decision, it is a solution in search of a problem. [00:11:45] Speaker 01: What the petition sets forth is that it alleges a person's field in the art would try to find a more durable lawyer, combining Harris with Fuji to make it more durable. [00:11:58] Speaker 01: It identified a similar problem, perceived problem of insufficient strength. [00:12:02] Speaker 01: But the problem with this is it just lacks an evidentiary basis. [00:12:07] Speaker 01: There are conclusory statements, conclusory allegations. [00:12:11] Speaker 01: Because on the record below, [00:12:13] Speaker 01: Everstar took the position, and the board seemed to accept, that there's no disclosure of what the wire is in Harris or Lin, and more durable is a relative concept. [00:12:26] Speaker 01: So without knowing whether the wire was insufficiently strong, or if it was sufficiently strong, there would be no reason to make it more durable. [00:12:37] Speaker 01: And for that reason, it can't be a predictable solution to combine known elements, again, if a wire was already sufficiently strong. [00:12:45] Speaker 00: Doesn't increased durability and strength generally are good things? [00:12:51] Speaker 00: Do you need a specific, to make a distinction between retaining strength and durability versus increasing it? [00:13:00] Speaker 00: Is that real? [00:13:01] Speaker 01: It is. [00:13:02] Speaker 01: It's real and it's critical. [00:13:03] Speaker 01: And in fact, if you look at Fuji, which is one of the central references relied on, it does not teach increasing durability or increasing strength. [00:13:13] Speaker 01: At Appendix 1330, Column 1, Lines 41 through 47, it discusses specifically an invention to provide a wire conductor for a harness whose breaking force is equivalent to that of a conventional harness wire. [00:13:31] Speaker 01: And the reason for that, Your Honor, is as set forth in the 5.8 APAT, is this is a multi-dimensional complex [00:13:39] Speaker 01: kind of set of considerations to offer an improved wire. [00:13:45] Speaker 01: If you are going to increase durability, you're going to risk increasing its cost. [00:13:49] Speaker 01: You're going to risk making it bulkier. [00:13:51] Speaker 01: You're going to risk making it unsightly. [00:13:54] Speaker 00: Those are considerations to be considered in making something. [00:13:58] Speaker 00: But when you're considering non-obviousness to get a patent on a non-obvious invention, [00:14:08] Speaker 00: It seems very powerful. [00:14:10] Speaker 00: Do you want to say the rest of your time? [00:14:12] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:14:14] Speaker 01: If I could just respond briefly. [00:14:16] Speaker 01: It was Everstar's burden in its petition to set forth its motivation combined. [00:14:22] Speaker 01: It's the one that chose a more durable wire. [00:14:24] Speaker 01: And it's conclusory and unsupported. [00:14:26] Speaker 01: And I'll reserve the rest of my time. [00:14:28] Speaker 00: We'll give you two minutes. [00:14:49] Speaker 03: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:14:51] Speaker 03: May it please the Court. [00:14:52] Speaker 03: My name is Brent Babcock. [00:14:53] Speaker 03: I'm with Loeb and Loeb. [00:14:55] Speaker 03: I represent the Appellee Everstar. [00:14:58] Speaker 03: We were the petitioner at the PTAB on the IPR. [00:15:03] Speaker 03: I think the first thing is to make sure that we're not conflating the claim construction issue of light string width on a tree. [00:15:13] Speaker 03: It seems like there was a lot of discussion about on a tree as part of the claim construction of light string, and that's not what happened. [00:15:19] Speaker 03: There was one issue for claim construction that was what is light string. [00:15:24] Speaker 03: The board defined what a light string is. [00:15:28] Speaker 03: A light string is a noun. [00:15:30] Speaker 03: The board defined what the light string is. [00:15:32] Speaker 03: The board said it's a collection of electric lamps connected by wires and a flexible configuration, a pretty reasonable [00:15:40] Speaker 03: construction based upon the specification of the 588 pattern. [00:15:46] Speaker 03: The parties agree that that's the construction, except Willis says, oh, we need to add an intended use to the construction of light string. [00:15:55] Speaker 03: So to the construction of now, we need to say, in addition, what does it do? [00:15:59] Speaker 03: And Willis said, oh, we need to add that it is intended to be hung on, draped on, or wrapped around, or about an object to provide a decorative effect. [00:16:11] Speaker 03: Well, that's not what a light string is. [00:16:12] Speaker 03: That's what it does, the intended use, board correctly, as a matter of law, that it's a de novo issue for the court. [00:16:21] Speaker 03: Court correctly said we're not going to add an intended use for a couple of reasons. [00:16:25] Speaker 03: First of all, that language doesn't come from the specification of the 5-8 patent. [00:16:28] Speaker 03: It can't even make extrinsic evidence from experts. [00:16:30] Speaker 03: So it's not even in the patent. [00:16:32] Speaker 03: Second of all, [00:16:35] Speaker 03: The preamble, and I think we should look, we're going to look at the, if we can, claim one. [00:16:40] Speaker 03: We always love the claims. [00:16:42] Speaker 03: Claim one is page 111 of the appendix. [00:16:46] Speaker 03: It's the back of the blue bridge. [00:16:48] Speaker 03: But the preamble already provides an intended use. [00:16:52] Speaker 03: It says a light string, and then it says, for use, what? [00:16:55] Speaker 03: On an artificial lighted tree, having an electrical power source. [00:17:00] Speaker 03: So by adding the proposed construction of to be wrapped around an object, but is it for an object or is it for use on a tree, they're not even consistent. [00:17:11] Speaker 03: So the board correctly said. [00:17:13] Speaker 00: But is the preamble limiting here? [00:17:16] Speaker 03: Well, Your Honor, the parties have agreed to that. [00:17:19] Speaker 03: They agreed that it's limiting. [00:17:20] Speaker 03: They did. [00:17:22] Speaker 00: Even though all that follows seems to be self-sufficient structurally. [00:17:28] Speaker 03: I'm not going to take a different position than what was argued to the board, Your Honor. [00:17:31] Speaker 03: Both parties acknowledged in the trial proceeding at the PTAB that it was limiting. [00:17:36] Speaker 03: So I'm not going to advocate a different position here. [00:17:39] Speaker 03: So on the de novo issue, the only de novo issue for the panel here, for the court here, is Lightstream construed correctly. [00:17:46] Speaker 03: I think the answer is yes, it was correct de novo. [00:17:49] Speaker 03: So now we get to substantial evidence questions on a tree, which is one, and increased durability. [00:17:58] Speaker 03: So it's interesting that, and this panel and the court understands how often we get hung up on little English prepositions on, in, about, around. [00:18:09] Speaker 03: And this issue of on a tree was two sentences in Willis's briefs below. [00:18:14] Speaker 03: And now it's become like the major argument on appeal. [00:18:19] Speaker 03: The board addressed it, but only as personally as Willis did, which is, yeah, Parrish shows on a tree. [00:18:26] Speaker 03: Let me show you why. [00:18:28] Speaker 03: There's a lot of discussion about the light string. [00:18:31] Speaker 03: We have to first define what is the light string. [00:18:35] Speaker 03: And the claim, claim one, tells us what the light string is. [00:18:39] Speaker 03: It has several components. [00:18:40] Speaker 03: It's not just the wire between the bulbs. [00:18:43] Speaker 03: That's part of it. [00:18:45] Speaker 03: But the claim says a light string comprising what does include lamp assemblies, a first power wire, a second power wire, [00:18:56] Speaker 03: a plurality of reinforced light connecting wires, and those are the wires between the bulbs. [00:19:01] Speaker 03: And then you also have the plug, that's in the specification, and you have the sockets. [00:19:07] Speaker 03: Claim 5 talks about the sockets. [00:19:08] Speaker 03: So when you say a light string on a tree, you have to first understand what is the light string, and it's multiple components. [00:19:17] Speaker 03: And that's set forth in the claim, set forth in the specification, it's multiple components. [00:19:24] Speaker 03: Now, the other thing to look at is, well, how does the specification show a light string on a tree? [00:19:32] Speaker 03: What's embodied when you're showing that? [00:19:34] Speaker 03: Well, claim one says that the light string has a, that the tree has a power source. [00:19:39] Speaker 03: The preamble says electric, lighted tree having a power source. [00:19:44] Speaker 03: First power wire wherein the source of the light, it says wherein [00:19:50] Speaker 03: it says to the electrical power source of the lighted artificial tree, second power wire. [00:19:57] Speaker 03: At the end of the limitation, electrical power source of the tree. [00:20:01] Speaker 03: Okay, so if you spin through the figures and you say, well, which of these figures show a tree with a power source? [00:20:08] Speaker 03: And there's really only one, it's figure 20. [00:20:09] Speaker 03: And there you have a tree with a light string and it has a plug coming out of the base. [00:20:17] Speaker 03: And if we look at [00:20:21] Speaker 03: Figure 20, right here. [00:20:26] Speaker 03: We're talking about this one because there's the tree and then out of the base is the little power cord. [00:20:30] Speaker 03: I got some nice annotations in our briefs to try to illustrate that. [00:20:34] Speaker 03: 19 is arguably just the string kind of hanging out. [00:20:40] Speaker 03: So we focus on 20, that's what the board looked at, figure 20. [00:20:43] Speaker 03: And then you got some further embodiments or further in details in figure 21 and then 22, 22B, CD. [00:20:52] Speaker 03: We focused on 22C because there are two parts of the light string that are internal. [00:20:59] Speaker 03: They're called the power wires. [00:21:01] Speaker 03: The claim calls them the first power wire and the second power wire. [00:21:05] Speaker 03: Judge Dyke referenced those, saying aren't those inside the tree? [00:21:09] Speaker 03: Yes, that's part of the light string based on the claim definition, and it's inside the tree. [00:21:15] Speaker 02: So what you're saying [00:21:17] Speaker 02: is that the light string has these multiple components. [00:21:21] Speaker 02: That the specification shows that some of the part of the light string can be inside the tree. [00:21:29] Speaker 02: Exactly. [00:21:30] Speaker 02: And that with errors, it is also true that part of the light string is outside the trunk of the tree on the branches and part of its inside. [00:21:40] Speaker 03: You're exactly right, Your Honor. [00:21:42] Speaker 03: And we tried to, on page 50 of our red brief, [00:21:46] Speaker 03: We have a table where we try to summarize this. [00:21:49] Speaker 03: And we have, OK, here's the components of the light string. [00:21:52] Speaker 03: We've got the bulbs, the sockets, the power wires, the power plug, interconnecting wires, and the star on Harris. [00:22:00] Speaker 03: And then we show which parts in Harris are internal, which are external. [00:22:04] Speaker 03: which parts of the 580 patent are internal and external. [00:22:08] Speaker 03: And it's not identical, but it's pretty similar. [00:22:11] Speaker 03: And there's parts on both that are inside and parts that are outside. [00:22:14] Speaker 00: How about motivation to combine? [00:22:16] Speaker 00: OK. [00:22:17] Speaker 00: And strengthening versus maintaining speed? [00:22:21] Speaker 03: So that is the third issue that I want to address. [00:22:25] Speaker 03: And that is there was one key reason to combine, increased durability. [00:22:31] Speaker 03: That's the reason. [00:22:33] Speaker 03: that the board relied upon primarily. [00:22:35] Speaker 03: It instituted on that issue. [00:22:38] Speaker 03: The board said that adding the polymer fibers to electrical wire would increase its durability, because polymer fibers are more durable than metal strands. [00:22:52] Speaker 03: So this issue was clearly raised in the petition. [00:22:56] Speaker 03: The board adopted it in the decision on institution, the DI. [00:23:02] Speaker 03: Parties argued it. [00:23:04] Speaker 03: This isn't a situation where it was ignored. [00:23:07] Speaker 03: Both parties presented evidence born against durability from their experts during the patent owner response, the expert declarations, the reply brief, expert declarations, the surreply. [00:23:21] Speaker 03: So there was a lot of evidence going back and forth on this issue. [00:23:25] Speaker 03: uh... our brief kind of goes through kind of all of the times where the parties were arguing about increased their ability and there was a lot of reading on that issue but that's the test isn't here here what willis has been asking you to do in their briefs is to say we wait the evidence that we think the board got it wrong that the evidence actually favored no increased their ability reason why but as we know on this issue it's a substantial evidence passed [00:23:55] Speaker 03: The board weighed the arguments, it weighed the evidence, it considered the expert testimony, it weighed the credibility of the witnesses, and it said, we think on balance, the evidence here, because we put it both on the scale, and we think on balance, the evidence favors the petitioner's argument that increased durability is a sufficient reason to go under 103. [00:24:22] Speaker 03: I went through Willis's brief, and again, it's really re-arguing the merits of the case and explaining why they think that the panel got it wrong, that the panel below got it wrong. [00:24:34] Speaker 03: And that's not the correct approach to this court. [00:24:38] Speaker 03: The correct approach is [00:24:41] Speaker 03: Was there substantial evidence? [00:24:43] Speaker 03: Now, yes, not a scintilla, but was there enough evidence to support the trial courts or, in this case, the board's decision? [00:24:50] Speaker 03: And here, yes, there was. [00:24:51] Speaker 03: We kind of do a litany of... We have quotes from all the experts, our experts, explaining... And it's not a complicated issue, right? [00:24:59] Speaker 03: I mean, you know polymers are pretty flexible, and they're more flexible and more durable than wires. [00:25:05] Speaker 03: You bend, you bend, you bend, you bend. [00:25:07] Speaker 03: You're going to break a metal wire. [00:25:08] Speaker 03: You're not going to break a polyester strand. [00:25:11] Speaker 03: And so it's not a complicated technical issue. [00:25:14] Speaker 03: The experts talked about it. [00:25:15] Speaker 03: The board agreed with our expert and said, on balance, weighing the evidence, we find that the evidence favors the petitioner. [00:25:23] Speaker 03: And it's preponderance. [00:25:24] Speaker 03: Our burden, only a preponderance standard, they found it did. [00:25:27] Speaker 03: So this isn't a situation where the board said, we're going to discount all of one party's evidence and only weigh the other. [00:25:35] Speaker 03: There's plenty of discussion in the decision from the record of evidence on both sides. [00:25:41] Speaker 03: And that's what the board is supposed to do. [00:25:43] Speaker 03: It's supposed to put the totality of the evidence on the scales and balance it. [00:25:49] Speaker 03: In this situation, this is a very simple affirmance, in our view, because it's a substantial evidence question. [00:25:56] Speaker 03: And substantial evidence supports the board's determination. [00:26:00] Speaker 03: And it's not up to this panel to say, well, let me reread the record and re-evaluate the witness's testimony. [00:26:05] Speaker 00: Well, there is a claim construction issue. [00:26:08] Speaker 03: So the only issue there, Your Honor, was Lightscreen. [00:26:12] Speaker 03: So with regards to de novo, you can de novo if this court believes that light string has to include another intended use, as a matter of law, this court is authorized to, of course, change the claim instruction. [00:26:27] Speaker 03: But our view, and I think the reasonable point of view here, is that from a purely legal sense and from looking at the specification and what the proffer was from [00:26:42] Speaker 03: from Willis to add an intended use in the light stream, conflicting with the intended use of the preamble itself. [00:26:51] Speaker 03: Not a compelling argument by any means. [00:27:01] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:27:01] Speaker 03: Anything further? [00:27:02] Speaker 03: Nothing. [00:27:02] Speaker 03: Nothing further. [00:27:03] Speaker 00: Thank you for your time. [00:27:05] Speaker 00: We'll see you in a little while. [00:27:07] Speaker 00: Mr. Ahrens, two minutes for rebuttal. [00:27:18] Speaker 01: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:27:21] Speaker 01: Again, this is a solution in search of a problem. [00:27:25] Speaker 01: And while this court does not reweigh the evidence, it is always Everstar's burden to come forward with particularized evidence of a motivation to combine. [00:27:35] Speaker 01: And here, the patent sets forth that there existed sufficiently strong wires in this industry. [00:27:43] Speaker 01: The UL standards with Everstar embraced in its position and specifically said instructed and would teach known options about how to meet durability requirements. [00:27:55] Speaker 01: There was no problem here that was going to force skilled artisans to try to seek to combine references. [00:28:02] Speaker 01: And again, the record is silent. [00:28:05] Speaker 01: absence of evidence as to Harris and Lynn as to what those wires taught or disclosed. [00:28:12] Speaker 01: And without knowing that those wires are having any reason to believe that those wires would not be durable, durable enough, there'd be no reason to make them more durable. [00:28:22] Speaker 01: And also, as we identified [00:28:26] Speaker 01: And as Everstar's experts conceded at times, there are concerns in terms of what skilled artisans would look to. [00:28:35] Speaker 01: There are drawbacks to increasing durability in terms of if you're going to make it bigger, if you're going to increase the cost. [00:28:41] Speaker 01: That, sure, you can make a wire more durable, but that's not making it a better wire. [00:28:46] Speaker 01: That's not making it improved. [00:28:47] Speaker 01: And specifically, Everstar even conceded in its reply at the board level, that cost was a paramount. [00:28:54] Speaker 01: And that adding a polymer strand was going to add cost. [00:28:59] Speaker 01: And so with that, we would submit that the board's decision fails for substantial evidence, and we'd ask for a reverse. [00:29:08] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:29:09] Speaker 00: Thank you both. [00:29:09] Speaker 00: The case is submitted.