[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Okay, Mr. Wilkerson.

[00:00:02] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:04] Speaker 01:
May I please court?

[00:00:05] Speaker 01:
My name is David Wilkerson.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
I'm here on behalf of the patent owners.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
All the issues in this appeal stem from a wrongly translated and improperly certified translation of a patent.

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
What difference does the translation make?

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
You agree that the machine translation is acceptable?

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, we were asked at the hearing whether or not

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
We informed the court that there was another translation in the record that actually was submitted as part of a grandfather or grandparent application.

[00:00:38] Speaker 01:
Are you going to answer my question?

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
What's the difference?

[00:00:42] Speaker 01:
The difference is critical because we believe that both translations are incorrect.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
The machine translation?

[00:00:53] Speaker 01:
That it's incorrect as well.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
I thought you'd agreed to use the machine translation.

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
We were asked if that would be an appropriate remedy.

[00:01:01] Speaker 01:
And we thought at the time that that machine translation, which was contained in the record because it was in the examiner's file, was a better translation than the one that was in the record, the one that had been submitted.

[00:01:15] Speaker 03:
Did you ever tell the board that you didn't accept the machine translation?

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
After the order from the board,

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
They ordered us to be able to file... What's the answer to the question?

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
Yes, no, maybe.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
Okay, where?

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
So after, in the motion that we were allowed to file... Tell me where you told the board the machine translation wasn't acceptable.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
The way that we did that, Your Honor, was we were at the same hearing.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
We were able to file a motion.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
Okay, where in the appendix do we find such an objection?

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
I will find that, Your Honor, and if I could do that during the break, but explain a little bit about how this process happened.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
We were given permission at the same hearing after we said that the other translation was perhaps an acceptable remedy because it was better than what we had.

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
thought about that issue prior to the hearing.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
And we were asked on the spot to look at that.

[00:02:25] Speaker 01:
We were given permission to file a motion for a late objection and an emotional motion for additional discovery.

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
And in that motion, we did not ask the court consider this other translation as an acceptable remedy.

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
What we said is we want to be able to object to the translation that's here and then we also wish to be able to depose the translator because we think there are critical problems in this translation.

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
So there's nothing to do with the machine translation.

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
What's the problem with the translation anyway?

[00:02:59] Speaker 03:
How does it help you?

[00:03:01] Speaker 01:
So the original translation that was filed by the petitioner says

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
500 to 1,000 milligrams of an organic solvent for dissolving the urease inhibitor and or the nitrification inhibitor and the binder into a suspension.

[00:03:18] Speaker 03:
And so where we... It doesn't talk about just dissolving the binder, which... Right.

[00:03:24] Speaker 03:
The machine translation... Go ahead.

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
...talks about dissolving the binder.

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
What it says is binder suspension is dissolved.

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
That's what it says in the machine translation.

[00:03:38] Speaker 03:
So where did you tell the board what the correct translation would be?

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
So after we asked for that motion, the board denied our motion.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
We then said, we have proof, and we asked for a conference call with the board, because at this point, we had been told by the petitioner that Miss Kayla Garcia did not translate the document.

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
We were told that.

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
We thought that there's nothing to do with the machine translation.

[00:04:07] Speaker 03:
The board relied on the machine translation.

[00:04:09] Speaker 03:
I'm trying to get you to tell us where you told the board that they couldn't use the machine translation, because that, too, was wrong.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
When we asked for the conference call, we asked for permission to file supplemental information.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
In that motion that we filed for, in that request, we asked to file supplemental information.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
Two things.

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
One was in addition, we had a new translation that we had received, Claim 1 at that point.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
Only after this issue came about,

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
We went out and got a new translation of claim one.

[00:04:43] Speaker 01:
That new translation would have made it clear that only the binders are dissolved.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
How do I know that?

[00:04:50] Speaker 03:
It's not in the record.

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
The court wouldn't allow us to file it.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
I mean, the panel would not allow us to file it.

[00:04:55] Speaker 01:
And they would not even give us a conference call so that we could create a record today.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
They denied us a conference call.

[00:05:02] Speaker 01:
And in their email denying the conference call, say, we've denied you the ability to file supplemental information.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
We then filed a request for a rehearing on their decision, because we wanted to let the court know that in the panel's decision, they said that they thought there was no reasonable expectation.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
We had not presented enough evidence to show that this translation was not properly certified.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
Well, before the petitioner filed their response, they had told us that the person who certified the translation did not translate it.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
We thought that they were going to tell the board that, but they did not in their response.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
And so we asked for permission to share that new declaration and to be able to file our new translation claim warrant.

[00:05:51] Speaker 01:
And the board denied that.

[00:05:53] Speaker 01:
They denied our request for rehearing.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
We never even got a conference call to be able to tell the board that.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
And, Your Honor, in our request for a rehearing of their decision, we told the board that the machine translation in the record

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
was not properly certified.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
The only certification that was actually contained with that translation certified the headings and the name of the inventor.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
It didn't translate any of the language in the patent.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
And so at the time when we were dealing with this field of endeavor, which we really talked a lot about in this case, because what happened was that the petitioner defined the field of endeavor

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
as dissolving a urease inhibitor in a solvent system, at that time we did not know the board was going to switch, allow them to switch the field of endeavor.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
We knew this case is about CN400 and we thought that the machine translation that said binder solution or binder suspension is dissolved

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
was better than the translation from the petitioner, which was not.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
But there's no doubt today, as it sits in front of you, neither one of these translations that the board based its decisions on were certified.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
Everybody admits that one is a machine translation.

[00:07:16] Speaker 01:
It had no certification that the machine translation was correct, and that the other translation was not.

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
And just to finish this story about the translation, how this story ends, we asked the court to take

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
judicial notice of this because we couldn't get it in the record because they would not allow us to file it.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
Just to be clear, did you before the board agree or accede to the machine translation?

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think that in the hearing, my language was unfortunate.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
That means you did agree.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think that we said that words that I used was it would be an acceptable remedy for the board to use this.

[00:08:02] Speaker 02:
Well, if you made that argument, how can you be making this argument today?

[00:08:07] Speaker 01:
I think at the time, Your Honor, first of all, I had not examined at that time from the grandfather, grandparent, at the time of the hearing,

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
This was something we were taking on at the time.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
We were asked this at the hearing and not fully examined the machine translation and the declaration that went with the machine translation at the time of the hearing and answered that question to the best of my abilities I'm trying to do here today and said that I think that that would be an acceptable remedy because we thought that suspension was

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
that dissolving the suspension made more sense, or binder suspension is dissolved.

[00:08:53] Speaker 01:
It was better than what we had.

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
And quite frankly, Your Honor, we thought the court was going to rule against this, which they ended up doing, or the panel was, on our motion for additional discovery at that point.

[00:09:06] Speaker 05:
The following is perhaps a kind of segue into the merits, but what very, very concretely do you think is the difference made

[00:09:15] Speaker 05:
for the merits discussion between but by the difference between the machine translation and the one that you now favor.

[00:09:29] Speaker 05:
Your honor, the critical point here is... The board ultimately said we don't rely on anything to which any of this would make a difference.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
So what... Right, and why that's wrong, in our opinion.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
We think that's error because CN400 actually teaches away from

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
dissolving MBPT.

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
It teaches away from that.

[00:09:48] Speaker 01:
CN400 is a patent that talks about binding.

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
Both urea and MBPT are solid room temperature.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
It talks about binding solid urea to solid MBPT, the ureaase inhibitor.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
If CN400 dissolved the MBPT, that patent would not work.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
It uses a fluidized bed procedure where the solvent is actually dissolved.

[00:10:16] Speaker 01:
But the way the patent works is it takes a binder material, which is acrylic resin or ethyl cellulose, and it dissolves it with a certain

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
The preferred is industrial alcohol, but DMSO is listed as one.

[00:10:31] Speaker 01:
And then it is mixed together with MVPT to form a suspension, which we have lots of dictionary definitions of suspension is not a solution.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
And then that suspension is then combined with the urea and the binder material binds that solid to a solid.

[00:10:51] Speaker 01:
So the point, our argument in this case, is that there is no way that someone skilled in the art would look to a patent that talks about how to dissolve a binder, which is not related in any way to MBPT or urease inhibitors or nitrication inhibitors.

[00:11:08] Speaker 01:
That's related to acrylic resin and ethyl cellulose.

[00:11:11] Speaker 01:
Somebody would look to that patent when they're looking for an ideal solvent for DMSO.

[00:11:17] Speaker 05:
Because actually- Is your argument only

[00:11:20] Speaker 05:
at this kind of threshold stage of whether a skilled artisan would even look to it, or do you, assuming that that's wrong, that your argument is wrong, that of course this is in the same field or somebody would look to it, do you have a separate argument that the combination is not supported by ordinary obviousness analysis?

[00:11:49] Speaker 05:
getting past the wood, that this art is now on the wall.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
This would not be analogous art, because these patents weren't even trying to solve the same problem.

[00:12:08] Speaker 05:
I'm trying to get beyond the whole analogous art.

[00:12:11] Speaker 05:
Let's assume that this was analogous art.

[00:12:13] Speaker 05:
Do you have a separate argument that either under the right translation or otherwise obviousness standards are not met?

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
I believe so, Your Honor.

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
Nobody would be motivated to combine these patents because they're in totally different fields of endeavor.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
They're not pertinent to the same problem in any way.

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
Does your argument change if we were to rule that this is in the same field of endeavor?

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
No, our argument does not change, Your Honor.

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
Even if it's in the same field of endeavor, Your Honor, nobody would be motivated to combine this because DMSO does not dissolve the urease inhibitor in this patent.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
It does not do that.

[00:13:08] Speaker 01:
In fact, it teaches that that doesn't happen.

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
So that if you take DMSO and you dissolve the binder,

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
You get a solution from those two to that combination.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
Then you add NBPT, you get a suspension, which tells us that it did not dissolve.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
So that means that that patent actually teaches away from the invention of the 108 patent, which is only involved with dissolving and solution.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
And I'm going to reserve the rest of my time if that's OK.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
Caprahan, you can begin.

[00:13:52] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the court.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
So central evidence here supports the board underlying factual findings, and the board did not err in denying the appellant's motion for additional discovery.

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
First, I would like to address the translation issue.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
As appellant concedes, even today, the appellant indicated during the oral hearing

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
that it would be an acceptable remedy for the board to rely on the machine translation of the CN400 reference.

[00:14:21] Speaker 00:
And that is what the board did.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
The board relied on undisputed portions of the CN400 reference in finding the claims here obvious.

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
That's to the first issue.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
As to the second issue.

[00:14:34] Speaker 05:
Just on that, and I'm afraid I didn't follow the chronology as well as I might have.

[00:14:41] Speaker 05:
that the request to do more that was denied by the board, did that come after the oral argument or before?

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
The request to do more from the board came after the oral hearing?

[00:14:59] Speaker 05:
So why does the fact that it seemed at that time of the oral hearing that this was an acceptable remedy effectively preclude

[00:15:11] Speaker 05:
the requests that were in substance walking that back that came after.

[00:15:18] Speaker 00:
So in the additional request that was made by the patent owner here, the patent owner did not make the argument that the machine translation was incorrect.

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
The patent owner argued that the machine translation

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
was more reliable than the translation that the petitioner submitted.

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
But that is all that was argued in the request for more.

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
In addition, although the patent owner discovered that the petitioner's translator was not the one who translated that particular document, the patent owner was aware of that information

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
prior to filing its motion.

[00:16:08] Speaker 00:
And it did not include that information in that motion.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
It only included the information after the board had denied that additional discovery.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
So these requests for additional requests were only made in its request for rehearing once the board had denied that additional discovery.

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
So the second issue raised by

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
the pattern or state is that the combination would have been inoperable.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
Now, the board here relied on the teachings of the prior art and specifically the board relied on the Ayanato reference as the primary reference here.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
And the Ayanato reference undisputably discloses urea fertilizer compositions that include urea and solubilized NBPT.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
That is the primary reference that the board relies on.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
Now, the Ionata reference also teaches that it was preferable to have fertilizer compositions that were non-toxic and ecologically primal.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
Now, based on those teachings, the board found that the CN400's disclosure of DMSO as a possible organic solvent in these types of formulations would have given a person of ordinary skill motivation

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
to use DMSO as another type of organic solvent in these urea fertilizer compositions.

[00:17:44] Speaker 05:
I have a question.

[00:17:45] Speaker 05:
The document exhibit 1015, that's at page 691 of the appendix, which looks like a page from a website of Santa Cruz Biotech, which is about the

[00:18:02] Speaker 05:
The MBPT and List Solubility includes DMSO.

[00:18:07] Speaker 05:
But it has a date on it that is considerably after the priority time.

[00:18:14] Speaker 05:
On the other hand, page 17 of the appendix, the board says, quote something, which I don't have, declaration testimony saying that that publication was available to the public at least as early as January 2011, which would be prior.

[00:18:33] Speaker 05:
What's that very page with the entire set of solubility of solvent listings available?

[00:18:41] Speaker 05:
I don't have this page, so I don't know what.

[00:18:45] Speaker 05:
I can't check this myself.

[00:18:47] Speaker 05:
The board did rely on it.

[00:18:49] Speaker 05:
You make a passing reference to it in your brief as well.

[00:18:53] Speaker 05:
But if it's not prior art, it doesn't do very much, in which case we're back to CNN CN 400.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
Yes, I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
That declaration testimony is not in the record, although the board spikes to it as indicating that this information was available to the public at least as early as January 19th, 2011, which is prior to the October 1st, 2012 priority date.

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
But there are also additional evidence that the board relied on that indicates that there are only a finite number of

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
of solvents here that were used, commonly used in agricultural formulations.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
And a skilled artisan would have known that DNSO was substitutable for other types of solvents, such as those used in Ionata.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
Ionata discloses the use of methanol, for instance, as an organic solvent that can be used in these agricultural formulations.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
And one of skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, would have known that DNSO was a substitutable

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
solvent that could have been also used in these types of agricultural formulations.

[00:20:06] Speaker 00:
So they were relying on not only exhibit 1015, but a number of additional underlying pieces of evidence in making a determination that here there was sufficient motivation, not just based on the design factors of improving the toxicological and ecological profile of these urea-based fertilizer formulation, but also because it was

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
predictable, and there were only a certain number of finite solutions in exchanging these types of solvents.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
And the board also found that here there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making a urea-based formulation that included NPT that was solulized.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
So these findings were all at, they began at APFS 14 and continued throughout the board's decision, including on APPS 27.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
If there are no additional questions, I yield the rest of my time.

[00:21:05] Speaker 05:
Can you just address the point made about the boards having identified or defined a field of endeavor in the final written decision that's different from the one that is stated in the petition

[00:21:30] Speaker 05:
Seemingly even different from the one stated in the petition reply if there is a one stated there But I took the blue brief as making among its arguments a kind of lack of fair notice point Sure, so the board here as a fact-finder takes the evidence and the arguments that are raised in the petition and

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
and the patent on the supply and makes its own factual findings.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
And here what the board found in reviewing the entire disclosure of the 108 patents is that it was not limited to solely dissolved solutions of NBPT.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
In fact, the specification also disclosed formulations where the NBPT was in a suspension.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
And because of that, the board found that the field of endeavor was not as limited as just to what is recited in claim one.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
And in making that determination, the board cited to the inmate met pay decision in which this court also found and rejected the

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
there are the appellant's argument that the field of endeavor was limited to particular claims cited, but in fact, the field of endeavor was broader within the written description included in that patent that was at issue in that case.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
So the board here was properly looking at the entire field of endeavor that is disclosed in the written description of the 108 patents.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
In addition, the board also found that here,

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
the CN400 reference means the second test that's recited under the analogous task determination.

[00:23:17] Speaker 00:
And here it is reasonably pertinent to a particular problem in which the inventor was involved.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
And the 108 patent discloses that it was preferable to find or to formulate urea fertilization compositions that were ecologically friendly and non-toxic.

[00:23:35] Speaker 00:
And the CN400 reference also

[00:23:38] Speaker 00:
discloses the preference for making ecologically friendly urea-based formulations.

[00:23:50] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
Mr. Wilkerson, we've got a little over a minute.

[00:23:57] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:23:58] Speaker 01:
I just want to address a few things that I don't think I completely did last time.

[00:24:02] Speaker 01:
And one question about the timeline about this.

[00:24:05] Speaker 01:
There was a point made there that we had knowledge that this person did not translate this document and didn't put it in our motion.

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
That was one of the things I felt most egregious by the court's order, by the panel's order.

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
I received an email at 4.55 PM on the day we were filing our motion telling us that there was a

[00:24:25] Speaker 01:
new declaration where she would admit she didn't translate the document, but somebody else did.

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
In the meantime, we were trying to file our motion.

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
Who cares about that?

[00:24:32] Speaker 03:
We're talking about the machine translation.

[00:24:35] Speaker 01:
Well, OK, Your Honor.

[00:24:37] Speaker 01:
I mean, I was trying to address the point that was made by the intervener.

[00:24:43] Speaker 01:
And appendix 4212 is where we told the court that the declaration was not proper on the machine translation.

[00:24:51] Speaker 01:
That came after

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
the oral hearing in this matter, where we had made this.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
Where did you say that?

[00:24:57] Speaker 01:
4212.

[00:24:58] Speaker 01:
It's our motion for rehearing.

[00:25:00] Speaker 03:
Rehearing motion, OK, but not before that.

[00:25:04] Speaker 01:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
That's after the hearing took place where I made this submission about the remedy.

[00:25:11] Speaker 01:
but after they rejected our motion to put additional discovery.

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
We also sent an email to the court after this day asking for a conference call to be able to submit... The rehearing decision was after the final decision.

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
The rehearing decision was before the final decision.

[00:25:27] Speaker 01:
Before the final decision.

[00:25:28] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:25:30] Speaker 01:
It was, Your Honor.

[00:25:37] Speaker 05:
This is a re-hearing of the denial of the request to submit it more.

[00:25:40] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:25:41] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:25:44] Speaker 05:
And that's at 42 what?

[00:25:45] Speaker 01:
4207, the pin site where we talk about the fact the machine translation is not properly certified is 4212.

[00:25:59] Speaker 01:
And then, Your Honor, in my remaining time, because I extended here, I want to... Wait, wait.

[00:26:06] Speaker 01:
Where do you say that the machine translation wasn't accurate?

[00:26:15] Speaker 01:
If you can see the paragraph, the second full paragraph on 4212, the translation contained in exhibit 2006, that's when we filed the...

[00:26:28] Speaker 01:
filed by a third party was accompanied by a declaration of Matthew Perrone.

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
Upon closer inspection, the declaration only certifies the names of the inventors.

[00:26:38] Speaker 01:
We don't have 4212.

[00:26:41] Speaker 04:
It's in the little volume.

[00:26:42] Speaker 04:
The second small line.

[00:26:45] Speaker 01:
I apologize.

[00:26:45] Speaker 05:
Is exhibit 2006 the machine translation?

[00:26:50] Speaker 01:
Yes, it is.

[00:26:50] Speaker 01:
It's part of the grandparent application, Your Honor.

[00:27:00] Speaker 05:
But what you were just reading doesn't say that that translation is wrong.

[00:27:05] Speaker 05:
It's just saying there's a certification problem.

[00:27:08] Speaker 05:
That's right.

[00:27:09] Speaker 05:
Oh, OK.

[00:27:09] Speaker 01:
Well, that may be true.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
I think elsewhere in here, we might say that we thought it was more correct, but not fully correct, Your Honor, when we argue that.

[00:27:31] Speaker 01:
Well, that's important.

[00:27:33] Speaker 01:
Where did you say that if you did?

[00:27:35] Speaker 01:
You can hear, Your Honor.

[00:27:38] Speaker 01:
What we said on the next page, 4213, Patent Owner's Council statement, the hearing the board could use it was not an admission that it was correct.

[00:27:47] Speaker 01:
And we said we believe it is more correct than petitioner's flawed translation.

[00:27:52] Speaker 01:
And it supports the validity of the patent, but is still a machine translation and is confusing and imperfect.

[00:28:00] Speaker 03:
But you didn't tell him what was wrong with it.

[00:28:04] Speaker 01:
Well, I think at the hearing we did, Your Honor, I did.

[00:28:07] Speaker 01:
I was asked at the final hearing that took place.

[00:28:14] Speaker 01:
Where did you say that?

[00:28:22] Speaker 03:
If you're going to preserve a point, you have to tell the board that

[00:28:26] Speaker 03:
there's something wrong with the translation, and that it affects the result.

[00:28:32] Speaker 01:
I understand, Your Honor.

[00:28:33] Speaker 01:
I don't have the site from the hearing document offhand where I told the court the distinction.

[00:28:41] Speaker 01:
I think that the board understood the distinction, though.

[00:28:44] Speaker 01:
They understood our point that CN400 does not dissolve, and that the machine translation had a better statement of that.

[00:28:54] Speaker 01:
When it said the

[00:28:56] Speaker 03:
binder suspension is dissolved, that was much better than saying the organic solvent is used to dissolve both chemicals.