[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
21-1035 APA, I think, versus UUSI.

[00:00:04] Speaker 03:
And Ms.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Degny?

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court, Lauren Degny for APA.

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
Let's start with the board's failure to take up the combination of Chu and Schwarzbach relating to the supply voltage limitation.

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
The board abuses discretion because the petition, and certainly the reply, put the board on notice of the theory of invalidity.

[00:00:38] Speaker 02:
And so what I thought I would do is start with the petition and briefly highlight a few areas.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
And in the petition, starting at Appendix 264, it identifies the signal generation circuitry, generating a scan signal with a peak voltage of 30 volts, and the signal generation

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
generator circuitry is the oscillator.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
Every time the petition talks about a specific voltage in CHU, it references that 30 volts.

[00:01:08] Speaker 02:
It talks specifically to compare the 30 volts to the 15 volt input, the supply voltage, and that was enough to put everyone on notice.

[00:01:19] Speaker 06:
You're talking about CHU, the CHU reference.

[00:01:21] Speaker 06:
Yes, yes, Your Honor.

[00:01:24] Speaker 02:
And that was enough to put the board and USI on notice that our theory with respect to the limitation of the supply voltage being less than the oscillator voltage relied on the 30 volts issue.

[00:01:37] Speaker 06:
Well, now, you refer to, at this point, the 30 volts as being the peak voltage, which is the language that's used in claim 94.

[00:01:46] Speaker 06:
You don't use the term oscillator voltage here.

[00:01:50] Speaker 06:
which is the term that's used in claim 37.

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
That is correct.

[00:01:53] Speaker 06:
And this is just a general overview of Chu.

[00:01:57] Speaker 06:
My problem with your position is that when you get to the description of Chu itself, I mean of claim 37 itself and talk about Chu, then there's no reference at all to the 30 volt theory.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
So I agree that on the particular page on 37, it doesn't reiterate the 30 volt.

[00:02:14] Speaker 06:
I mean the whole section of 37, which is about 30 pages, there's not a single reference to the

[00:02:20] Speaker 06:
30 volt theory.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
Well what it does do is on page 278 it refers to the microprocessor 90 having a voltage and referring back to section 3.A.4 which again talks about the supply voltage of

[00:02:39] Speaker 02:
Excuse me, the output voltage of the signal generator circuitry of microprocessor 90 being greater.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
And again, I know 30 volts doesn't appear there.

[00:02:49] Speaker 02:
But literally on the previous page, when talking about that same concept, they used the word 30 volts.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
And if there's any lack of clarity, the reply is certainly put an end to that.

[00:02:58] Speaker 05:
Wait, what was it on the previous page, the voltage of the 30 volts?

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:03:02] Speaker 05:
So if we look to 278 is what you're referring to on my right pages.

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, so 278 referred us back to section 3.A.4, which is on page 267.

[00:03:13] Speaker 02:
And then on the previous page 266, again, it's referring to the voltage of the microprocessor 90 being 30 volts.

[00:03:24] Speaker 02:
I agree.

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
It wasn't repeated, the 30 volts.

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
The peak voltage.

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
The peak voltage.

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
Not the oscillator voltage.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
That's true, but again, the oscillator is defined as the signal generator circuitry.

[00:03:34] Speaker 06:
And the oscillator, do you agree that the oscillator is the portion of the, in 2, is the portion on 2's figure, I think it's 6A, the portion of the TM has 1670 microprocessor that's, in your diagram, is colored K0 through R0.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
That is the signal generator circuitry that we are pointing to for the oscillator.

[00:04:06] Speaker 06:
And that's the oscillator, right?

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
That is what we're pointing to as the oscillator.

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:10] Speaker 06:
Right.

[00:04:10] Speaker 06:
And that does not include, I take it, the driver circuit?

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
No, it does not.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:04:16] Speaker 05:
So that's the problem, right?

[00:04:18] Speaker 05:
I mean, the confusion I have is particularly exactly on the point that Judge Bryson is making, that in 94, you certainly talk about the voltage, the peak voltage,

[00:04:29] Speaker 05:
The voltage measured that 30 volts after it's gone through the driver circuit How do we know that in the claim for claim 37 when we're talking about oscillator voltage?

[00:04:41] Speaker 05:
We're not talking about let's take the 6a that's on 287 of the appendix Where you talk about the periodic output signal coming?

[00:04:53] Speaker 05:
How do we know we're not talking about exclusively that and not what you describe in 94 is the peak voltage being something that happens after it goes to the driver circuit?

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
How do we know that?

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
So I would have a couple of points for that.

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
First, the driver circuit is simply amplifying the signal, the

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
the scan, the periodic output voltage that comes from the oscillator circuit.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
And amplification doesn't change the fundamental nature of it's still an oscillating signal generated by the oscillator that is ultimately delivered to the touch powder ray.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
And so in that context, you see even in 287, the pink signals, the ones that are highlighted in sort of a fuchsia pink, they're also periodic output signals.

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
The discussion is that we've got these periodic output signals.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
They are, in fact, amplified.

[00:05:49] Speaker 02:
But amplification, again, doesn't change the fundamental nature.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
And it's really not that different from element 230 in figure 6 of the 183 patent.

[00:05:58] Speaker 02:
In terms of in figure 6 of the 183 patent, there is an oscillation of a wave generator and then boosted up to a higher voltage.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
And in that part of the 183 patent, it describes

[00:06:14] Speaker 03:
oscillator is included in the driver's circuit, right?

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
It includes this circuit 230 which does the amplification.

[00:06:22] Speaker 02:
I don't think it calls it a driver's circuit.

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
So now I'm confused because in answer to Judge Bryson's question you said in CHU the oscillator doesn't include the driver's circuit but in 183 it does include the driver's circuit.

[00:06:39] Speaker 03:
So in terms of reading

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
the patent here should we, when we're talking about an oscillator, should we use the true definition, which doesn't include the drawable circuit, or the patented definition, which does include the drawable circuit?

[00:06:55] Speaker 02:
So I think we want to go back to the claim language.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
It simply says an oscillator voltage, which is the voltage of a signal being generated by what we're calling the oscillator.

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
OK, but you understand my question.

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
We've got two different definitions of oscillator, as I understand it.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
One, in the patent.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
which includes the driver's circuit, and one in the shoe that doesn't include the driver's circuit.

[00:07:17] Speaker 03:
Am I correct about that?

[00:07:18] Speaker 02:
So I'm not sure I'd call either a definition.

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
I think we're certainly, things are pointed to the oscillator circuit.

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
Well, I'll just withdraw the word definition.

[00:07:28] Speaker 03:
In the shoe, the oscillator doesn't include the driver's circuit.

[00:07:35] Speaker 03:
In the patent, it does include the driver's circuit, correct?

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
The way it is drawn in the patent that is correct that the core function of the oscillator circuit is to generate this periodic output Wait, am I correct that we have two different meanings of oscillator one in shoot?

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
where it doesn't include the driver circuit and one in the 183 pattern where it does, right?

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
I would say the embodiment that we're talking about in the 183 pattern does, the oscillator includes both something that generates an oscillating signal and something that amplifies that signal.

[00:08:12] Speaker 03:
So in reading claim 37, how do we view the term oscillator?

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
Does the term oscillator in claim 37 include the driver circuit?

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
It doesn't have to.

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
It doesn't have to?

[00:08:25] Speaker 02:
I'm going to say it wouldn't.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
The idea is the oscillator is something that is generating, according to the client language, this periodic output signal.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
And that's what matters.

[00:08:35] Speaker 05:
Well, how do we know?

[00:08:37] Speaker 05:
What you have to show and have shown the board is that the 30 volt

[00:08:43] Speaker 05:
is the product of the oscillator signal.

[00:08:45] Speaker 05:
No, what am I missing?

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
No, we agree with you in what we're saying.

[00:08:48] Speaker 05:
And how do you do that when the description of the 30 voltage is the peak voltage that you described clearly in 94 is coming after the driver circuit?

[00:08:59] Speaker 05:
I think that's the same thing that Judge Dyke is getting at.

[00:09:02] Speaker 05:
If you concede

[00:09:04] Speaker 05:
And so if you're conceding that the oscillator voltage is before you get to the driver circuit, how do we know that that's the 30 volts in Chu?

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
Well, we're not conceding that the claimed oscillator voltage is before you get to the driver circuit.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
The oscillator voltage is the voltage of a signal, an oscillating signal that's generated by the oscillator.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
It can go through other components that don't materially change its nature.

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
I have difficulty with that argument, but the question seems to me is what's meant by oscillator in the patent in the Plan 37 and whether it includes the driver circuit or doesn't include

[00:09:48] Speaker 03:
If it doesn't include the driver circuit, you're in trouble.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
If it does include the driver circuit, maybe there's an argument.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
And I'm not sure that I'm understanding what you're saying.

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
You seem to be saying, well, it doesn't matter whether it includes the driver circuit or not, because the signal, even if it gets to the input portion, has been amplified.

[00:10:18] Speaker 03:
at least you got peak voltage there of 30.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
But you have a problem if the term oscillator is defined by 2 rather than the fact.

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
You have a problem if the oscillator doesn't include the driver circuit.

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
And you seem to be saying, well, I don't know if it includes the driver circuit or not.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
I would say as a matter of claim construction, it does not have to include an amplifier.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
that the oscillator, according to the claim, is generating this periodic output signal.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
That is what it needs to do according to the claim language.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
And context can matter.

[00:10:57] Speaker 02:
And so in CHU, the signal generation circuitry, is the oscillator that generates this oscillating signal.

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
This oscillating signal is amplified.

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
Do you agree that the term oscillator in the 183 pattern does not include driver circuit?

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
I would say an embodiment

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
in the patent does include this element 230, which is essentially similar to a driver's circuit.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
It amplifies.

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
But I would not say it defines it that way.

[00:11:27] Speaker 06:
Let me see if I understand.

[00:11:30] Speaker 06:
Are you saying that the signal that's coming out of the TMS 1670 and what has been called the oscillator, which is on figure 6A at page 287 of your

[00:11:46] Speaker 06:
of your petition is in blue.

[00:11:49] Speaker 06:
That's the oscillator, right?

[00:11:52] Speaker 06:
Yes.

[00:11:52] Speaker 06:
All right.

[00:11:53] Speaker 06:
And that signal is the oscillator voltage, correct?

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
Coming out of that oscillator.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
I disagree.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
I would say that that is a signal that has a voltage that can qualify as an oscillator voltage.

[00:12:05] Speaker 06:
Well, let me read from 277.

[00:12:07] Speaker 06:
This is your petition.

[00:12:09] Speaker 06:
At the bottom of the page, you say, if Lucina would have understood that the output voltage of the signal generator circuitry

[00:12:15] Speaker 06:
the oscillator voltage in the TMS 1670 microprocessor system is greater than the supply voltage.

[00:12:24] Speaker 06:
That's, it seems to me, the periodic output signal which is between the oscillator and the driver circuit as I read your petition.

[00:12:34] Speaker 06:
Isn't that correct?

[00:12:35] Speaker 02:
I see what you are saying.

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
I would point to your attention, however.

[00:12:39] Speaker 06:
But am I right that you have defined oscillator voltage as that which comes out of the microprocessor?

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
I would disagree.

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
To the extent, I appreciate the language you read to us.

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
But in context, I would say that it's the voltage

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
of the oscillating signal, which is the signal generation circuitry.

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
That, if you look in page 287, the purple, the fuchsia colors are also periodic output signals, the purple ones that are later down in the circuit.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
So I don't think we can just look at the blue and say that is the only thing in the circuit that qualifies as a periodic output signal.

[00:13:21] Speaker 02:
And I think what we see as after it leaves the driver circuit, that signal has been amplified to the 30 volts.

[00:13:29] Speaker 06:
And you think that we've been talking about a pretty subtle point here.

[00:13:34] Speaker 06:
You think that all of this was so clearly spelled out in your petition that the board should have recognized that you had not one theory, the 18 volt theory of Schwartzbach and Chu, but two theories, the 18 volt theory and the 30 volt theory that ultimately you expressed in connection, but solely in connection with claim 94.

[00:13:59] Speaker 06:
You think that was just clear as a bell, and it's an abusive discretion for the board.

[00:14:04] Speaker 06:
to have not recognized that as a separate theory?

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
I think when you look at the reply and the clarification that was made in the reply.

[00:14:13] Speaker 06:
But it has to be under the board's rules.

[00:14:14] Speaker 06:
It has to be in the petition.

[00:14:16] Speaker 06:
You can't fix it in the reply, right?

[00:14:19] Speaker 02:
But we are allowed under this court's precedent to clarify and expand upon.

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
And so as long as it's the same theory with the same evidence.

[00:14:26] Speaker 03:
That's the key.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
Is it the same thing?

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
We would say it is, given the use.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
So can I ask you to look at 298?

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
claim 34, you say that the oscillator includes the driver circuit.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
Now, claim 37, you say it doesn't.

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
So in the petition, the theory was that it did not.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
Now, I will say that if you- If this is part of the petition.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
No, for claim 37, Your Honor.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
For claim 37.

[00:14:57] Speaker 03:
We have different definitions of oscillator for claim 37 and claim 94.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
they were different elements in the company, in the system method, method requirements.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
That is what the petition says, yes.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
Now this issue, I know.

[00:15:12] Speaker 05:
So there's a problem, right?

[00:15:13] Speaker 05:
I mean, how do you get to the 30 volts, which occurred after the driver's circuit, which is laid out clearly with respect to the petition in claim 94, how, and everything else, which just points to the oscillator being the first part of it, how do you

[00:15:32] Speaker 05:
get to their surmising that 30 volts would necessarily be part of the oscillator voltage.

[00:15:39] Speaker 05:
And in addition to the fact that the two claims use different terms, peak voltage and oscillator voltage, so there's a presumption that they're talking about two different things.

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
So I think your question assumes that the oscillator voltage has to be directly exiting from the component that's called the oscillator.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
And we disagree with that assumption, and that is an argument that UUSI had made.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
There's nothing in the pattern that requires that.

[00:16:08] Speaker 05:
What is the clearest statement in your petition, not the reply?

[00:16:12] Speaker 05:
that indicates what you say clearly in 94, which is the, where you say the peak voltage is what comes after the drive, what you measure after the driver's circuit.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
So I would say the clearest thing we said in the petition alone

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
It's sort of a combination.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
You start with the analysis at claim 37 and 278 that talks about the output voltage of the signal generation circuitry of microprocessor.

[00:16:38] Speaker 06:
I'm sure.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
What page are you reading from?

[00:16:41] Speaker 02:
278.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
278.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
And that would be the claim 37 discussion.

[00:16:44] Speaker 02:
So just bear with me.

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
That says that the output voltage of the signal generator circuitry of microprocessor 90 is greater than supply.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
That doesn't say 30, but it refers us back to section 3.8.4, which again refers to the output voltage of the signal generation circuitry of microprocessor

[00:17:04] Speaker 02:
90 being greater than supply.

[00:17:07] Speaker 02:
Again, I realize it doesn't say 30 there, but on the immediately previous page, when we talk about the voltage of the signal from the signal generation circuitry, 90 is the 30 volts.

[00:17:19] Speaker 02:
And I know we didn't repeat the 30.

[00:17:21] Speaker 02:
And I say we didn't have to, given how close the time they were.

[00:17:23] Speaker 05:
But do you remember when you're talking about, even if we allow this, the overview or the preceding sections, when you talk about 264 and you talk about the 30 volts, peak voltage.

[00:17:34] Speaker 05:
30 volts talked about in 266.

[00:17:39] Speaker 05:
That's not clear, right, that you're equating that with the output voltage?

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
So I would say a peak voltage, if we're focusing on the word peak, peak voltage is still a voltage or an oscillator voltage, because it's the voltage of a signal being generated by what we're calling the oscillator in the true reference.

[00:17:57] Speaker 02:
So I wouldn't get you hung up on the peak versus not peak, because certainly a peak voltage is n.

[00:18:03] Speaker 06:
Oscillator voltage and that's the claim talks about only a possible way to explain Your two theories to the board in the petition.

[00:18:13] Speaker 06:
Have you put it in?

[00:18:14] Speaker 06:
My head is that I don't see that contention in the petition

[00:18:19] Speaker 06:
The petition, if you read the petition with moderate care, I would say, you come away, as I did at least, thinking that 37 is based on the Schwarzbach 18 volts as being larger than the supply volts of 16.

[00:18:36] Speaker 06:
And that's the oscillator voltage, the oscillator signal, and that 94

[00:18:42] Speaker 06:
Now you look at the peak voltage, which is after the driver circuit.

[00:18:46] Speaker 06:
And that is also larger than the supply voltage of 16.

[00:18:50] Speaker 06:
But I don't see that second argument being made with respect to claim 37.

[00:18:56] Speaker 06:
That's my problem.

[00:18:56] Speaker 02:
OK, and if I could just ask you to look at with me briefly, appendix 277, which is the Schwartz-based theory that you just referenced.

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
OK, and it has a concluding sentence that says, therefore, essentially,

[00:19:12] Speaker 02:
the supply voltage, the output voltage is greater than the supply voltage.

[00:19:17] Speaker 02:
It kind of concludes that argument with that sentence.

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
And then we go on to the next page in 278 and says, OK, here's another theory, another new paragraph that's discussed previously, and it talks about the output of oscillator 90 in 2 and kind of ends with the same kind of sentence.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
I know maybe it's subtle and could have been more direct.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
But to me, that is one theory concluding with a sentence that repeats the claim language about the supply voltage being less than the oscillator voltage.

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
And then there's a new theory on page appendix 278.

[00:19:50] Speaker 06:
And this is the beginning of section 37C.

[00:19:55] Speaker 02:
It's that right before you get to 37.

[00:19:57] Speaker 02:
It's still it's like theory one is on on starts with Schwartz on page appendix 277 has the concluding sentence and then the next page it says as previously discussed again referring to the background section.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
We also have this output voltage of the microprocessor 90.

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
which, again, was talked about as the 30 volts.

[00:20:18] Speaker 05:
I actually, I don't want to try to help you out, but I actually read the best argument on your side to even precede that, to be in that first paragraph, which concludes on 277.

[00:20:30] Speaker 05:
The last sentence of the Schwartzback paragraph says, you're doing the 18 volts, and then you're also saying, which seems like something different, which is you're pointing to the 2,

[00:20:43] Speaker 05:
is greater than the supply voltage in Microsoft 90.

[00:20:46] Speaker 05:
Or is that something else?

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
I think the way you read that is fair.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
To me, when I read it, I thought the alternative argument started on page 278.

[00:20:55] Speaker 02:
I'll just be very candid.

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
Let's assume that we were to conclude that you did raise the issue.

[00:21:05] Speaker 03:
I have a problem in seeing

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
works if you're saying that the voltage that exits the oscillator hasn't been shown to be greater than the input voltage to the oscillator.

[00:21:20] Speaker 03:
How do you read the claim as encompassing

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
Sure let me talk about a couple things there because I think there's nothing in the patent that requires the signal that you look at to be directly exiting what you're calling the oscillator and there's a couple of things we can point to

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
First, the specification in the patent talks about the amplitude of the oscillator voltage can change, and that is on Appendix 214 around column 3, lines 51 to 56.

[00:21:55] Speaker 02:
The specification also talks about peak voltage, which inherently means the amplitude of the voltage will change.

[00:22:00] Speaker 02:
So the patent is describing these voltages generated from an oscillator as not being static, they change, and so the idea... It may be that peak voltage changes after it leaves the oscillator, but we're not dealing with that terminology in Plane 37.

[00:22:17] Speaker 03:
We're dealing with something which seems more natural to be read as talking about the voltage as it leaves the oscillator.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
So I would say that the part on column three is just oscillator voltage having an amplitude change.

[00:22:33] Speaker 02:
And so that tells us that amplitude

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
oscillator voltage can have its amplitude change and still retain its character as an oscillator voltage.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
There's another part of, and this is sort of analogous, another part of the specification where the supply voltage is 5 volts for the oscillator.

[00:22:50] Speaker 02:
It can be changed to 26 volts and then becomes the supply voltage again to the microcontroller.

[00:22:58] Speaker 02:
So like the supply voltage's amplitude can change and that doesn't

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
Where are you referring to now?

[00:23:04] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
For that one, it takes a little bit of an effort.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
So if you look at column 12, this is on appendix.

[00:23:14] Speaker 06:
Column 12 of the patent.

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
Of the patent.

[00:23:16] Speaker 02:
I'll kind of walk you through how the supply voltage.

[00:23:18] Speaker 05:
So it's appendix 218 and 219.

[00:23:21] Speaker 05:
I think what I understand you're talking about is column 13.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
But I'm going to start with column 12, Your Honor, because that tells us that there's a supply voltage

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
Looking at column 12 1 through about 32 to paraphrase It says there's a 5 volt supply voltage to the oscillator and the oscillator generates a square wave having a 26 volt amplitude and that 26 volts is supplied to the microcontroller now we know that the microcontroller supply voltage

[00:23:56] Speaker 02:
a supply voltage can apply to the microcontroller in claim 94.

[00:24:00] Speaker 02:
And so what we're seeing is that a supply voltage is 5 volts in supply, and it can be 26 after it's been amplified.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
And it's still considered a supply voltage.

[00:24:10] Speaker 03:
And so what the takeaway when you see that is... Where does it use the supply voltage terms in column 12?

[00:24:18] Speaker 02:
So in column 12,

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
It doesn't specifically say this is a 5-voltage, but we're just describing how the voltages are generated and then delivering to 5-voltage.

[00:24:32] Speaker 06:
This is starting around line 13 and going down a few lines.

[00:24:34] Speaker 06:
Is that what you're calling?

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
So it says in line 10, it says that, maybe starting in 9, it says you get a square wave.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
It has an amplitude of 26 voltage peak, and it's then

[00:24:48] Speaker 02:
supplied by line 201 to the microcontroller.

[00:24:53] Speaker 02:
All right, so this 26 volts is a supply voltage to the microcontroller.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
So a supply voltage to be 26 volts is also a supply voltage.

[00:25:04] Speaker 03:
Excuse me?

[00:25:05] Speaker 03:
It doesn't call the supply voltage.

[00:25:07] Speaker 02:
I agree.

[00:25:07] Speaker 02:
And this passage doesn't call it a supply voltage.

[00:25:10] Speaker 02:
But I think when we look at, you know, the board said that the supply voltage in claim 94

[00:25:17] Speaker 02:
is the supply voltage of the microcontroller.

[00:25:20] Speaker 02:
So this tells us that the supply voltage can change.

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
And it's still considered a supply voltage, whether it be to the oscillator or to the microcontroller.

[00:25:30] Speaker 02:
And changing the amplitude, which is a pretty common function, doesn't change the fundamental character of a signal.

[00:25:37] Speaker 02:
And so, again, this is an analogy to deal with the oscillator voltage.

[00:25:41] Speaker 02:
Again, in column three, it talks about the amplitude of the oscillator voltage.

[00:25:47] Speaker 02:
being something that can change without saying it's no longer called an oscillator voltage.

[00:25:56] Speaker 02:
I know.

[00:25:57] Speaker 03:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:26:03] Speaker 03:
May it please the court.

[00:26:10] Speaker 00:
There's three reasons why the board correctly

[00:26:14] Speaker 00:
interpreted the oscillator voltage limitation in claim 37 and found that it was not met in either CHU or Schwartzbeck.

[00:26:23] Speaker 00:
If we start with Schwartzbeck, that's easy.

[00:26:26] Speaker 00:
The petition that we've looked at at appendix page 277

[00:26:33] Speaker 00:
deals with Schwartzback alone.

[00:26:36] Speaker 00:
And as the court has noted, Judge Bryce noted, 30 bolts is not mentioned anywhere in the section dealing with Schwartzback.

[00:26:44] Speaker 05:
What about the last sentence of that paragraph on 277?

[00:26:47] Speaker 00:
It's that's dealing with different signal generator circuitry that was the wrong signal generator circuitry.

[00:26:54] Speaker 00:
Remember the signal generator circuitry that we're dealing with here in terms of the output of the oscillator voltage is the voltage that controls the scan signals.

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
I don't understand what you're saying.

[00:27:08] Speaker 03:
The sentence seems to say would have unincluded the output voltage of the signal generator circuitry, the oscillator voltage.

[00:27:16] Speaker 00:
Yes, and that's the signal generated circuitry of Schwartzbeck.

[00:27:25] Speaker 00:
Schwartzbeck, the signal generated circuitry of Schwartzbeck that the petitioner was pointing to was signal generator circuitry that controls control signals that are unrelated to scan.

[00:27:39] Speaker 05:
Wait, are we talking about, isn't that a reference to figure 6A and 2?

[00:27:45] Speaker 00:
No, this is just talking about Schwartzback, not Chu.

[00:27:48] Speaker 00:
I'll get to Chu in a moment.

[00:27:50] Speaker 05:
Well, it says, the sentence itself says, in the TMS 670 microprocessors, they're describing Chu.

[00:27:58] Speaker 05:
That sentence doesn't say anything about Schwartzback.

[00:28:02] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:28:03] Speaker 00:
That is because the same TMS 1630 processor is used in both Schwartzbeck and Chu.

[00:28:11] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:28:11] Speaker 00:
So what this is saying, this whole paragraph deals with Schwartzbeck and not Chu, except in the combination.

[00:28:21] Speaker 03:
Schwartzbeck and not Chu, it talks about Chu.

[00:28:25] Speaker 00:
But it's a continuation of Schwartzbeck.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
So in other words, in the combination, what

[00:28:30] Speaker 00:
What the patentee said, or the petitioner said, was you take the processor of Schwartzbeck, and you put it in CHU, and then see what happens.

[00:28:40] Speaker 00:
But in this particular section, in dealing with 37B, the oscillator voltage limitation, in this part of the petition, the board correctly found that this was the Schwartzbeck argument.

[00:28:53] Speaker 05:
OK, so let's move on to the paragraph on 278, which your friend called out, which does deal with Chu, right?

[00:28:59] Speaker 00:
That does.

[00:29:01] Speaker 00:
Let's assume that that addresses Chu.

[00:29:03] Speaker 00:
I think it's ambiguous.

[00:29:04] Speaker 00:
But even aside from that, let's go back to the introductory.

[00:29:07] Speaker 00:
Let's assume that.

[00:29:09] Speaker 00:
Assume that the petitioner raised Chu.

[00:29:14] Speaker 00:
Two points.

[00:29:15] Speaker 00:
First of all, the board did essentially provide a construction of oscillator voltage, said that the parties agreed that the oscillator voltage, not surprisingly, is the output voltage of the oscillator.

[00:29:30] Speaker 00:
So in Chu, what is the output voltage of the oscillator?

[00:29:33] Speaker 00:
That is, the oscillator, according to this theory,

[00:29:37] Speaker 00:
is circuitry inside the Chu microprocessor that generates a signal output frequency.

[00:29:46] Speaker 00:
There is nothing in Chu that says what that output voltage is.

[00:29:50] Speaker 06:
We know that it's a... Signal output frequency being a signal.

[00:29:53] Speaker 03:
uh... being a signal at a particular frequency and there is absolutely nothing in the board said that there is nothing in that the petitioner pointed to into that said what that is instead what the petitioner pointed to things which seem not correct which is not correct they use synonyms for it they use sometimes the word oscillator

[00:30:23] Speaker 03:
They're using synonyms for the same thing, which is permissible.

[00:30:29] Speaker 00:
They're using synonyms, but regardless of whether you use a synonym or not, there is still nothing in CHU that says what the output voltage of the oscillator is.

[00:30:41] Speaker 00:
Instead, the theory is that the input voltage into the input touch rows is 30 volts.

[00:30:48] Speaker 00:
That's their theory.

[00:30:50] Speaker 00:
if that was their if that's their theory you have a driver's circuit in between you wouldn't need a driver's circuit unless you're going to be amplifying what the output argument that their contention is wrong that their theory is wrong which may have merit but it's not the same thing as saying they didn't raise it I'm assuming they raised it well you're assuming wait now I'm really confused you're assuming

[00:31:17] Speaker 06:
You're assuming they did raise the Schwarzbach-Chu argument with respect to the analogy to Schwarzbach to the 18 volts of Schwarzbach.

[00:31:27] Speaker 06:
That's clear, right?

[00:31:28] Speaker 06:
But the question is, did they raise the 30 volt theory?

[00:31:32] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:31:34] Speaker 06:
And you're assuming they raised it?

[00:31:35] Speaker 00:
In response to Judge Pro's question, she asked me to assume that they raised that.

[00:31:39] Speaker 00:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:31:40] Speaker 00:
Oh, OK.

[00:31:41] Speaker 00:
So I'm saying, OK, assuming that they raised it.

[00:31:44] Speaker 00:
And I'm not conceding they did, because I don't think they did.

[00:31:47] Speaker 00:
But assuming they did, why doesn't that work?

[00:31:49] Speaker 05:
Well, you're talking about the paragraph.

[00:31:52] Speaker 05:
So it's a question of what the paragraph means at the top of 278?

[00:31:56] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:31:57] Speaker 00:
And assuming that that means we're just looking at CHU and whether CHU discloses a supply voltage into the oscillator that's greater than the, or less than the output from that oscillator, there is no disclosure in CHU or in the combination that shows that it is.

[00:32:17] Speaker 00:
Again.

[00:32:17] Speaker 03:
But that's a different argument.

[00:32:19] Speaker 03:
That's a merit argument.

[00:32:21] Speaker 03:
We're trying to figure out whether they raise the issue here.

[00:32:25] Speaker 03:
And the material on CHU

[00:32:28] Speaker 03:
of 77 and 278 seems to say that identify the supply voltage and then to say that the output voltage is greater than the supply voltage.

[00:32:44] Speaker 03:
I mean the issue as to where you measure that, whether that's true or not, but they seem to raise the issue, don't they?

[00:32:54] Speaker 00:
I don't think they do because they don't say that they don't mention the 30 volts exactly.

[00:33:00] Speaker 06:
On the previous page, they mentioned Schwartz box 18 volts.

[00:33:03] Speaker 00:
They mentioned Schwartz box 18 volts.

[00:33:06] Speaker 06:
Reading it, I read that to be the voltage that was greater than the 16 volts.

[00:33:13] Speaker 00:
That's the way I read it.

[00:33:14] Speaker 00:
That's the way I read it as well.

[00:33:16] Speaker 03:
Is the 30 volts that they described as the peak voltage, is that the output voltage under claim 37?

[00:33:24] Speaker 00:
No, it is not an output voltage under claim 37.

[00:33:28] Speaker 00:
It is a input voltage into the touch circuitry after it's gone through the driver circuit.

[00:33:34] Speaker 05:
If the output voltage of... But that's kind of a merits argument.

[00:33:38] Speaker 05:
So my question is, was that argument raised and decided by the board, or was that argument not raised, or was it raised and not decided by the board?

[00:33:50] Speaker 00:
It was raised in the context of what does the output voltage of an oscillator mean.

[00:33:58] Speaker 00:
And at appendix 48 through 49, the board said that the oscillator, I'm sorry, I misspoke.

[00:34:08] Speaker 00:
The board addressed it in saying, what is an oscillator voltage?

[00:34:12] Speaker 00:
And the board said, everybody agrees the oscillator voltage is the output voltage of an oscillator.

[00:34:18] Speaker 00:
It would be just like if you had a water pump.

[00:34:20] Speaker 00:
Right, OK.

[00:34:21] Speaker 05:
How does that construction answer the question about whether or not we're talking about before or after the driver's circuit?

[00:34:28] Speaker 00:
it because it would take for example a water pump and you said okay this has a rating output of so many cubic feet per minute of water you would know that that is the output voltage of what a pump produces you wouldn't say that the output voltage of a water pump

[00:34:43] Speaker 00:
is somehow the output capacity of a water pump is somehow what the water volume is going into some different device down the line.

[00:34:56] Speaker 03:
But that's a merits argument.

[00:34:58] Speaker 03:
That's not an argument that they didn't raise.

[00:35:00] Speaker 03:
They may be wrong, but they seem to have raised the argument.

[00:35:05] Speaker 00:
Again, I come back to the fact that there is nothing in

[00:35:10] Speaker 00:
appendix page 277 to 278 that talks about the 30 volts.

[00:35:18] Speaker 00:
They knew how to do it because they did it with respect to the peak voltage in claim 94.

[00:35:24] Speaker 03:
They know how to raise this argument.

[00:35:40] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, not 272.

[00:35:43] Speaker 03:
On 266, which is all part of this discussion of frame 27, they do say the voltage in a scanned pulsing generated by the microprocessor having a peak voltage 30 volts greater than the supply voltage.

[00:36:01] Speaker 00:
And that's the element in claim 94.

[00:36:03] Speaker 00:
It talks about the peak voltage of the output having a greater voltage than the supply voltage.

[00:36:09] Speaker 06:
And this is, I gather, in the overview section, right?

[00:36:13] Speaker 06:
It's the overview of Chu, overview of Schwarzwak, and the combination of Chu and Schwarzwak, not specific to claim 37.

[00:36:19] Speaker 00:
Exactly.

[00:36:20] Speaker 00:
It was in the overview.

[00:36:21] Speaker 00:
And when they got to the specifics, and remember under SAS, the petitioner is confined to what they raise in the petition.

[00:36:29] Speaker 00:
And so the point is that they know how to do it.

[00:36:31] Speaker 00:
If they wanted to raise the 30 volts and say 30 volts is greater than the supply voltage, there's no clear example that they knew how to do it than their discussion of claim 94 at appendix 266.

[00:36:44] Speaker 00:
And they don't have that when they get to the analysis of 37B.

[00:36:49] Speaker 03:
Well, doesn't that depend on whether peak voltage is interpreted to be a supply voltage or not?

[00:36:56] Speaker 00:
No, the peak voltage is referring to what comes out of the microprocessor in that limitation of claim 94.

[00:37:04] Speaker 00:
And their argument on, and this is a different issue, but the argument on claim 94 that has been raised is that the

[00:37:14] Speaker 00:
output from the microprocessor, the peak voltage, is the same as what goes into the touch circuits.

[00:37:22] Speaker 00:
But again, and I know this goes to the merits, but again there is no evidence in the record that that's what happened, and in fact I don't think it does because otherwise you wouldn't need the driver circuit in CHU.

[00:37:34] Speaker 00:
I'm into my revoke.

[00:37:36] Speaker 05:
Well, is your answer, I mean, one of the key paragraphs for me is on appendix 82, which is the board's real paragraph while they're saying that they're not going to entertain petitioner's argument.

[00:37:50] Speaker 05:
And it's a little hard for me to understand, but it says, as discussed above, petitioner relies on an implicit construction of oscillator voltage.

[00:38:00] Speaker 05:
to mean the output voltage of the oscillator.

[00:38:02] Speaker 05:
Well, that's something everybody agreed to.

[00:38:04] Speaker 05:
That's not controversial.

[00:38:05] Speaker 05:
And then it says no such construction.

[00:38:09] Speaker 05:
And I don't know what that refers to.

[00:38:11] Speaker 05:
No such construction is suggested or mentioned in the overview sections.

[00:38:16] Speaker 05:
No such construction meaning what?

[00:38:19] Speaker 00:
I think what that means is no such construction that somehow the output voltage of the oscillator means the input voltage

[00:38:29] Speaker 00:
of a signal going into the touch circuits after it's gone through a driver circuit.

[00:38:34] Speaker 05:
Okay, so they never related the oscillator voltage to being the 30 volts.

[00:38:41] Speaker 05:
Correct.

[00:38:42] Speaker 05:
Which are the peak voltage.

[00:38:43] Speaker 00:
That's absolutely right.

[00:38:45] Speaker 00:
That's what the board found.

[00:38:48] Speaker 05:
Did anybody, I mean, it seems to me like one way you can look at this issue is really the so-called merits issue we've been talking about here, which would have probably been preceded by a request for claim construction, right?

[00:39:00] Speaker 00:
I would have thought so, but the board said we don't need to do claim construction because the petitioner said that the output, that the

[00:39:10] Speaker 00:
Oscillator voltage is the output of the oscillator, and we agree.

[00:39:15] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly what's shown, by the way, in figure 11.

[00:39:17] Speaker 05:
Well, maybe mistakenly or not, they seem to have made an assumption that the peak voltage, 30 volts, is the same as the oscillator.

[00:39:27] Speaker 00:
They did that with respect to claim 94, because claim 94 uses the term peak voltage.

[00:39:33] Speaker 00:
If you look at claim 94, the term oscillator voltage is not used in claim 94.

[00:39:39] Speaker 00:
when it talks about one thing greater coming out than what goes in.

[00:39:44] Speaker 00:
Instead, it refers to the peak voltage.

[00:39:47] Speaker 00:
Oscillator voltage is not used in things anymore.

[00:39:49] Speaker 05:
So is it your view, do you agree, if we were inclined to say that the board should have considered everything, including what was said in the overview, that the statements in the overview or the discussion of the combination up front in the petition doesn't get them there anyway?

[00:40:07] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:40:08] Speaker 00:
It doesn't get them there anyway.

[00:40:14] Speaker 05:
Sorry, go ahead.

[00:40:17] Speaker 00:
I'm into my rebuttal time.

[00:40:18] Speaker 00:
I'd like to reserve the rest.

[00:40:21] Speaker 00:
I did want to raise it.

[00:40:22] Speaker 03:
So there's nothing to reserve if you haven't argued the cross appeal.

[00:40:26] Speaker 00:
Well, there's the cross appeal, and then there's the board's decision to finding that there was no reasonable expectation of success in combining Meadows with Chu and Schwartzback.

[00:40:40] Speaker 00:
We think that that decision was correct.

[00:40:44] Speaker 05:
as to both theories of... That's the main appeal in responding to the argument that they didn't get to in their... Correct.

[00:40:52] Speaker 00:
And that is when you look at what the purpose of the combination was in terms of adding meadows, there are basically two intended purposes of meadows.

[00:41:09] Speaker 00:
One is to reduce

[00:41:11] Speaker 00:
external noise so you can detect the touch circuits, and the other is to reduce internal noise that the system might make.

[00:41:21] Speaker 00:
In terms of external noise,

[00:41:23] Speaker 00:
The board addressed that at appendix 95 through, and going on, sorry, at appendix 95.

[00:41:36] Speaker 00:
And that's really not in dispute.

[00:41:38] Speaker 00:
The board said that there is no way that that would work because just putting in a voltage-controlled oscillator and a pseudo-random number generator can't deal with outside noise unless you have some back-end circuitry.

[00:41:50] Speaker 00:
And there was no explanation of that back-end circuitry.

[00:41:53] Speaker 00:
So the petitioner then turned around and said, well, yeah, but there's a second reason.

[00:41:58] Speaker 00:
in Gerpheid for including the additional circuitry.

[00:42:05] Speaker 00:
And that is to reduce the noise that the device itself would make.

[00:42:10] Speaker 00:
Two problems with that.

[00:42:11] Speaker 00:
One is that there is no evidence anywhere that the device internally, if you just had the shoe-swarchback combination, that it would generate any noise.

[00:42:21] Speaker 00:
Unlike Meadows, which uses an old CRT cathode ray tube,

[00:42:25] Speaker 00:
which generates a lot of noise.

[00:42:27] Speaker 00:
And secondly, the board said that even if there was some intent to reduce internal noise, which is not there, it still wouldn't work.

[00:42:44] Speaker 00:
Because in order to reduce that noise, what you have to do, what petitioners experts said, is take this random number, this random generation of frequencies, and make it non-random.

[00:42:56] Speaker 00:
So right away, they're changing what Meadows says.

[00:43:00] Speaker 00:
And then the board said, if you did that so that you could actually determine where on this touchpad somebody touched, you've got a problem because now when you have made this modification to Meadows to go away from a random number signal generator to something that is at a predetermined frequency, there's no showing that it would reduce the internal noise at all.

[00:43:26] Speaker 00:
And in fact, the board explained, and this is at appendix 93, why it probably wouldn't, because you no longer have the random frequencies that you need to eliminate internal noise.

[00:43:42] Speaker 00:
And so we think that substantial evidence does support the board's decisions on both theories and should be affirmed.

[00:43:50] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:43:50] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:43:50] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:43:51] Speaker 03:
We're out of time.

[00:44:00] Speaker 02:
I'd like to focus in on this implicit construction issue and be very clear.

[00:44:08] Speaker 02:
There was no implicit construction that the oscillator voltage had to be directly exiting whatever is the oscillator.

[00:44:19] Speaker 02:
That was not something the board

[00:44:22] Speaker 02:
address at all, even in the section in appendix 48 to 49 where I just suggest there's an implicit construction, this issue arose in the server file.

[00:44:31] Speaker 02:
This directly exiting is a requirement.

[00:44:34] Speaker 02:
To the extent there is suggestion that there was output voltage

[00:44:38] Speaker 02:
oscillator, it was not something that was directly outputting, because you can look at, for example, an appendix.

[00:44:47] Speaker 05:
Well, the problem, I think, for you is that, at a minimum, there's a lack of clarity which you, as the moving party, should have made clear.

[00:44:56] Speaker 05:
And that lack of clarity is amplified, excuse the expression, on Appendix 299, where the petitioner is talking about

[00:45:08] Speaker 05:
Chu describes that its driver circuit amplifies the pulse signals from the signal generator circuitry, Karen's oscillator, to produce the claimed signal output frequencies, which is the 30 volts, right?

[00:45:25] Speaker 02:
It does say that there, but on Appendix 264, it says the signal generation circuitry generates a 264.

[00:45:37] Speaker 02:
It says the signal generating circuitry generates a scan signal with a peak voltage of 30.

[00:45:43] Speaker 02:
So elsewhere, we are saying that the oscillator, the signal generating circuitry, does in fact generate this scan signal with the peak value of 30 volts.

[00:45:52] Speaker 05:
It's coupled to the touch responsive pad.

[00:45:55] Speaker 05:
Correct.

[00:45:57] Speaker 02:
But the touch-responsive pad isn't generating the signal.

[00:45:59] Speaker 05:
Well, you'd agree that there is at least some confusion or ambiguity that would emerge by reading that.

[00:46:04] Speaker 02:
Which is why the reply goes in and clarifies.

[00:46:08] Speaker 02:
But I want to focus on your question.

[00:46:10] Speaker 02:
The court, excuse me, the board never addressed this claim construction issue of directly exiting.

[00:46:16] Speaker 02:
That was not something we advanced.

[00:46:18] Speaker 02:
It came up very late in the proceedings in the sir reply.

[00:46:20] Speaker 02:
There's certainly no implicit construction from us on that, because everything we pointed to was 30 volts.

[00:46:26] Speaker 02:
So here, this issue of directly exiting is something that has not been addressed, not been fully by the board at all.

[00:46:35] Speaker 02:
And so I wanted to make sure that that issue was clear.

[00:46:37] Speaker 02:
And I think if we were to address it, I think the burden should be on UUSI, because they're taking an attribute of a preferred embodiment

[00:46:46] Speaker 02:
which doesn't amplify after the oscillator, enforcing it into the claim that only says n oscillator voltage, does not limit it to the voltage of a signal directly exiting the oscillator.

[00:47:00] Speaker 02:
And again, there's not lexicography.

[00:47:01] Speaker 02:
There's not disclaimer.

[00:47:02] Speaker 02:
It's just an attribute of the embodiment of figure 6.

[00:47:05] Speaker 02:
And it's wrong to use that to construe the claims in a limited way like that.

[00:47:11] Speaker 06:
I think you said, I didn't hear you exactly, but you said

[00:47:16] Speaker 06:
Everything you said related to 30 volts.

[00:47:20] Speaker 06:
Did I get you right?

[00:47:21] Speaker 02:
With respect to 2 and the microprocessor 9D, we were always pointing to the 30 volts status quo.

[00:47:26] Speaker 06:
Well, but on page 277, that's when you talk about Schwarzbach and 2 putting them together, you point out, well, I guess we don't know from 2 alone what the output of the microprocessor was, but it's the same microprocessor, and you make that point, and then you say the microprocessor from Schwarzbach is 18 volts, and then you say,

[00:47:49] Speaker 06:
the output of the microprocessor is greater than the input, which is 16 volts.

[00:47:54] Speaker 06:
It seems to me that the strong implication there is the 18 volts is greater than the 16, and there's your answer to why the oscillator voltage is higher than the supply voltage.

[00:48:06] Speaker 01:
That's certainly a case with the theory that uses the short box and the 18 volt.

[00:48:11] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:48:11] Speaker 06:
So the 18 volt theory is in the case.

[00:48:14] Speaker 06:
The only question is, did you raise the 30 volt theory in connection with claim 37?

[00:48:20] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:48:20] Speaker 02:
And when I said that when we speak of 30.

[00:48:22] Speaker 06:
I wanted to make sure that.

[00:48:24] Speaker 02:
I was not intending to exclude that other theory.

[00:48:28] Speaker 03:
I think we're out of time.

[00:48:31] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.