[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Our first case is Massimil versus Apple, as our next two.

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
This one is 2022, 1631.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Some of these issues overlap.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
You, of course, have to make what arguments you need to make.

[00:00:20] Speaker 00:
To the extent that you can avoid unnecessary repetition, that would be a good thing.

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lawson.

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
Good morning, your honor, and may it please the court.

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
I'd like to begin with a board error that both parties agree requires reversal.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
And that is, the board found obvious claims 1418 of the 554 patent at issue in IPR 1539.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
I can suggest you needn't spend time on that.

[00:00:48] Speaker 04:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:00:49] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
We believe the court should also reverse, as to all the IPRs,

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
because the board erred in its motivation to combine analysis by finding a person of skill in the art would place a convex surface over peripheral detectors, even though there was no dispute that such a surface would direct light away from the periphery and toward the center.

[00:01:13] Speaker 04:
Apple's expert repeatedly admitted a convex surface would direct light towards the center of the lens, including in Apple's combinations

[00:01:22] Speaker 04:
And yet, Apple's combinations play detectors at the periphery of the lens.

[00:01:27] Speaker 04:
And the board never grappled with Apple's expert admissions with regard to Apple's proposed combination.

[00:01:35] Speaker 04:
In fact, here it's not just that the board ignored certain Apple expert admissions.

[00:01:41] Speaker 04:
It's our view that the board ignored really the entire optics theory supporting many of Apple's IPRs.

[00:01:48] Speaker 04:
Apple's theory was that a person of steel in the arc would add a convex surface to increase light concentration and rely it on art that placed a convex surface over a central detector.

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
And you see in Apple's petition the theory was that this would direct light towards the center detector.

[00:02:07] Speaker 04:
And we asked Apple's expert about the prior art that Apple was relying on, in particular, Inukawa.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
Inukawa places a convex surface over a central detector with a dotted line down the middle with arrows pointing towards the center.

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
And we asked Apple's expert about that reference.

[00:02:22] Speaker 04:
And he testified that, yes, the goal in Inukawa is direct light towards the center detector.

[00:02:29] Speaker 04:
And then we asked him, what would be the impact if you were to move the detectors

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
and the LEDs.

[00:02:35] Speaker 04:
And he testified, then it wouldn't be so clear that Inakawa would provide you that benefit.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
It isn't so obvious, he testified.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
Can I ask you a housekeeping question?

[00:02:45] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Do you agree that the greatest curvature theory and the most pronounced curvature theory are interchangeable?

[00:02:52] Speaker 01:
I've seen a couple of different theories in the briefing here.

[00:02:55] Speaker 04:
Well, it's not really clear from the board's decisions whether that's the case.

[00:02:59] Speaker 04:
And that's one of the issues here.

[00:03:01] Speaker 04:
As we go through these three appeals, you're going to see the board adopt three different theories regarding the optics.

[00:03:08] Speaker 04:
In the first appeal, we're going to be discussing the greatest curvature theory that Apple advocated, among many other theories that the board selected in the first appeal.

[00:03:16] Speaker 04:
The second appeal, we're going to be looking at

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
a theory that light would increase everywhere.

[00:03:21] Speaker 04:
Somehow a lens would concentrate light everywhere.

[00:03:24] Speaker 04:
You get to the third appeal and you see the board talk about most pronounced curvature.

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
It's not clear from the board's decision what its rationale was.

[00:03:34] Speaker 04:
I know that Apple stopped advocating the greatest curvature theory in the later IPRs, and so it may be that

[00:03:40] Speaker 04:
the board was still relying on that theory as the one that the board selected, even though it wasn't really being advocated anymore.

[00:03:47] Speaker 04:
In fact, Apple's primary theory was a reversibility theory, the fact that you could swap the detectors and the LEDs, and that would have the same impact.

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
But the board didn't adopt that theory.

[00:04:00] Speaker 04:
So the analysis looks to be very similar, but it's not clear from our perspective.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
Now, after Apple recognized the weakness in its position, it changed its position and advocated many theories.

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
Initially what we have is that the board never reconciled the theory that it chose, the greatest curvature theory, with many issues on the record because that wasn't Apple's theory in its petition.

[00:04:25] Speaker 04:
For example, there's no analysis balancing the undisputed flow of light to the center from a convex lens that you have from Apple's initial petition, Apple's expert admissions.

[00:04:35] Speaker 04:
In fact, in the third appeal, you'll see Apple's appeal brief even acknowledges that a convex lens would direct light towards the center.

[00:04:42] Speaker 04:
So you have the board adopting this greatest curvature theory without providing analysis of if there were some benefit from the greatest curvature theory.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
If the board had not credited Dr. Kinney's testimony on the greatest curvature theory, would the board's analysis on the motivation to improve light collection have been adequate in your opinion?

[00:05:07] Speaker 04:
No, because if you remove Dr. Kinney's theory attempting to provide some support for directing light towards the periphery,

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
Now you're left with just Apple's admissions and its petition and its expert declaration, and Apple's expert's many admissions during his deposition, that a convex surface would direct light towards the center.

[00:05:29] Speaker 04:
So in our view, a person of skill in the art, having that knowledge of a convex surface, which you see in a Nikawa,

[00:05:35] Speaker 04:
would not have been motivated to add a convex surface over peripheral detectors, in particular to increase light concentration, which was the assertive motivation in six of the IPRs that issued today.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
In the 10 others, the board primarily relied on a motivation to increase adhesion and provide protection, and didn't rely on a motivation to increase light concentration.

[00:05:58] Speaker 04:
But our view, we still argued that a person of skill in the art would take into account the optics, and that would be a reason for the person of skill in the art not to add the convex lens.

[00:06:10] Speaker 04:
And so, I mean, these admissions are extensive.

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
Apple's expert testified, yes, a convex lens would condense light towards the center.

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
And that's because light's being directed from the periphery towards the center.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
And so we have these extensive admissions.

[00:06:25] Speaker 04:
We don't have a balancing of the Apple's greatest curvature theory with those admissions.

[00:06:30] Speaker 04:
We also don't have an explanation of how the board's greatest curvature theory can be reconciled with the many different illustrations of the lens and Apple's combination.

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
And you'll see that throughout these three different appeals.

[00:06:42] Speaker 04:
The lens shapes all over the map.

[00:06:44] Speaker 04:
And the reason for that is because Apple's petition didn't rely on a particular curvature at any particular location.

[00:06:52] Speaker 04:
Apple's petition relied on this Geronius theory.

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
Well, it's true that a comic surface with direct light towards the center, but Apple's combination placed detectors on the periphery.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
If we bring a backhoe that the greatest curvature theory is an expansion on the motivation to improve light collection already discussed, what is your best

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
I think that

[00:07:21] Speaker 04:
The board itself needs to provide an explanation for its reasoning.

[00:07:25] Speaker 04:
I think you see that from the case law.

[00:07:27] Speaker 04:
We cited several cases where the board erred when it failed to address admission.

[00:07:33] Speaker 04:
We see where the board erred when it failed to address key disclosures of the prior art.

[00:07:38] Speaker 04:
We know from cases like applications and internet time, the board is not allowed to selectively weigh the record.

[00:07:44] Speaker 04:
The board is not allowed to provide a shortcut its consideration of the factual record.

[00:07:51] Speaker 04:
And in fact, in cases like Kemor's, the board actually discussed evidence.

[00:07:58] Speaker 04:
And the federal court said the board didn't consider it.

[00:08:02] Speaker 04:
In other words, the court explained, it didn't adequately consider it or didn't grapple with it enough, given the importance of the evidence.

[00:08:09] Speaker 00:
Counsel, we understand due process.

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
But these are complex cases.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
There's a lot of close prior art.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
The board wrote a lot on all of these.

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
And what you're saying is, well, they didn't quite connect everything together.

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
Don't we owe them some deference to the extent of respecting that they did a thorough job with a lot of issues and a lot of claims and a lot of patents in close prior art?

[00:08:43] Speaker 04:
Well, I think deference to the board is based on a presumption that the board didn't commit fundamental errors when it was analyzing the evidence.

[00:08:52] Speaker 04:
And although there's a lot of paper in this case, there's a lot of board decisions and a lot of discussion, our appeal really focuses on two primary buckets of evidence that we believe before the board failed to adequately consider that undermines all the motivations.

[00:09:08] Speaker 04:
The first is Apple's admissions.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
extensively that a convex surface would direct light towards the center.

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
And we believe that directly undermines the board's motivation to combine

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
to increase light concentration in six of the IPRs.

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
And we looked at this carefully.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
And at best, you maybe see a reference to it in the background.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
We don't see the board reconciling its decision or squarely addressing certainly the full scope of these admissions in its analysis of the party's positions.

[00:09:39] Speaker 04:
The other bucket, we'll talk about it in a little bit, is a really key critical disclosure in the Osaka reference that the board relied on heavily throughout all these IPRs.

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
And there, the assertion motivation was a motivation to increase adhesion.

[00:09:54] Speaker 04:
And the board started with Izawa, as you know, a sensor that would be placed on the wrist side that teaches that its flat surface provides adhesion.

[00:10:05] Speaker 04:
And the board reasoned that a person of steel and the art would take the protrusion from Osaka and change Izawa's flat surface to a protrusion to increase adhesion.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
But the board failed to address the most critical disclosure, in our view, in Osaka that says that Osaka's protrusion has a tendency to slip at Aizawa's measuring location.

[00:10:30] Speaker 04:
And so what you left with from this record is a lumber.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
Is that a teaching the way argument?

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
It could rise the level of teaching away.

[00:10:36] Speaker 03:
Do you think legally that rises to the way of teaching away?

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
I think it rises to the level of a teaching away.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
What if we conclude that it doesn't?

[00:10:45] Speaker 04:
Even if it doesn't rise to the level of a teaching away, I think the sports precedent makes clear that it can still undermine a motivation to combine.

[00:10:53] Speaker 04:
It doesn't have to rise the level of teaching away if it directly undermines the motivation to combine.

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
And if the board had addressed it and explained it, explained its reasoning and why it was rejecting that portion of Osaki, that might be one thing.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
But we have this critical disclosure in Osaki that says its protrusions would have a tendency to slip off at Aizawa's measuring location.

[00:11:16] Speaker 04:
And we don't see the board addressing that.

[00:11:21] Speaker 04:
That error in that bucket, that fundamental error, I think is, from our perspective, pretty straightforward, undermines the board's motivation to combine in the other 10 IPRs we're going to see in the three appeals today.

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
Now, the only other motivation the board relied on was the motivation to provide protection.

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
And you see that whenever the board relied on the motivation to increase adhesion with NOSOKI, then the board would also rely on a motivation to provide protection.

[00:11:51] Speaker 04:
But there was no dispute that a flat cover provided the same protection as a protrusion.

[00:11:59] Speaker 04:
And so in our view, for example, the Winter International royalty case, where the evidence was that the change wouldn't provide any benefit, our view is there's really no substantial evidence support.

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
to say that a person of skill in the art would be motivated to change Aizawa's flat plate, which Aizawa describes as providing an increase in adhesion, to a protrusion that provides the same amount of protection

[00:12:29] Speaker 04:
And that it's undisputed also provides disadvantages.

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
So is it your view that our case law is that you have to show that the combination or the motivation has to show that there would have been a benefit or substantial benefit, or just that there's an alternative way of doing it?

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
Maybe it's a little better.

[00:12:47] Speaker 03:
Maybe it's a little worse.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
It could be cost savings, et cetera.

[00:12:51] Speaker 03:
Am I correctly describing our case law that if you do not have to show, it would have been better?

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
In some cases, I would agree, the case law shows it doesn't have to be better.

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
I think those cases involve where there is a finite number of predictable solutions, and one could easily choose between them.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
And in this case, Apple's expert testified there's a universe of potential lens shapes that a person of seal in the art might consider and might choose.

[00:13:17] Speaker 04:
And so when you have, especially with Aizawa, which has these peripheral detectors, and they're designed to be measuring different locations at the wrist, with these narrow cavities that are all designed to take measurements right at those locations, the idea that a person of steel in the art would take its surface that already provides protection, be motivated to change it to a protrusion which completely changes the optics of Aizawa, it's undisputed it would create scratches

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
We don't think that motivation would be there.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
When it's undisputed, it would provide no more benefit.

[00:14:16] Speaker 02:
Of the many issues, Massimo raises on appeal, almost all of them turned on the substantial evidence standard.

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
And we would submit applying that standard this court should affirm.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
I'm going to start with the adhesion issue where counsel sort of made it up.

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
Could you start from where he started, which is at the center in Apple's expert testimony?

[00:14:40] Speaker 02:
Absolutely.

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
So you want me to discuss the convexity?

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
Sorry to throw you off your feet.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
No, no, no.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
I'm happy to talk about anything you want to, Judge Prost.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
I think where we can start with this is that the motivation to combine in the petition discussed using a convex lens based on Inakawa's teachings, that that would improve the light-gathering ability of the sensor.

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
Now, that motivation combined does not focus on any sort of theory that all light must go to the dead center in a convex lens.

[00:15:19] Speaker 02:
That's not there.

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
Your expert said towards the center, right?

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
He said towards the center, your honor.

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
And in connection with dependent claims, claim 12, which has the mean path length, he gives an example showing how a particular exemplary beam of light would be directed more towards the center.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
And that is true.

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
But what he also explained is that the generalized teaching of Inukawa does two things.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
One, that a person with a skill in the art would understand that you could tailor the convexity of the lens so that it could direct light towards the detector, depending where the detectors are, and also in general.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
A lens, given the nature of the light being backscattered and diffuse, would also increase the light-gathering ability.

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
And I'd ask you to take a look at the figure that he provides at paragraph 42 of his second declaration in appendix 4553.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
And there, that figure, he shows the green arrows where the light is backscattered.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
He's got red arrows showing how the light is moved towards the center.

[00:16:43] Speaker 02:
And what you see is that the light being backscattered all over the place does go towards the direction of the detectors.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
Now, the detectors are not at the very edge.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
They are not in the dead center, but they are between the dead center and the edge.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
So in that figure, we see that the light can be

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
direct it inward and still be in the direction of the sensors.

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
In light of time, can I follow up on the question that Judge Cunningham asked earlier of your friend on the other side, which is this greatest curvature theory seems to result in a lot of spilled ink.

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
Let's assume we have some trepidation or some concern

[00:17:22] Speaker 03:
about the board's invocation and what we now call the greatest curvature theory.

[00:17:27] Speaker 03:
Is there enough, the board said, other than that, to provide a basis for a firm, or is that a problem?

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
It is not a problem, Your Honor, and I think what I would direct you to is the discussion, starting at the board's discussion, say, appendix 51 through 54.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
The board starts the discussion by explaining that the nature of this light being backscattered, which was, you know, supported with respect to the optics book it cited, and even it cites an agreement by Massimo's expert.

[00:17:59] Speaker 02:
The niche through light itself would have suggested that a lens might be useful to

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
increase the amount of collected light.

[00:18:06] Speaker 02:
The board then follows that up by citing to Inukawa itself, which as we know teaches that using a lens will increase the light gathering.

[00:18:14] Speaker 02:
So that is the fundamental teaching.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
And from that, the claims do not require specific curvatures.

[00:18:23] Speaker 02:
And really, the board relies on and talks about this theory of greatest curvature or most pronounced curvature in order to rebut, to reject an argument by Massimo that the combination would not work, would not be able to direct the light to the appropriate sensors.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
I think they are your honor.

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
I think the board use different language and Subsequently when you read them and you read the board's decisions.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
I don't see a lot of daylight between If we are okay with the light collection I can talk about adhesion so on adhesion

[00:19:12] Speaker 02:
Let me just address at the outset this statement in Osaki at paragraph 23 that putting the, discussing the figures three showing that there is a tendency to slip.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
At most, at most this statement could discourage using Osaki's exact sensor, which by the way was made of glass,

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
on the front of the wrist while the wrist was in motion.

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
As most, it could be somewhat of a discouragement of that.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
The claims here are not limited to the front of the wrist.

[00:19:43] Speaker 02:
They're not limited to in motion.

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
And substantial evidence supports the board's finding that Osaki as a whole

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
teaches adhesion benefits of a convex protrusion.

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
That's of course in paragraph 25, discussing figure four.

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
And figure four is the only part of a subject that teaches, and that compares, curved, convex, versus flat.

[00:20:05] Speaker 02:
Figure three doesn't do that.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
And I'll remind you, one of the skills in the art, we'll look at the combination, and Aizawa's cover

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
is made of acrylic.

[00:20:16] Speaker 02:
It's an acrylic plate-like member.

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
And the acrylic is going to have different properties.

[00:20:20] Speaker 02:
It's taught by

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
Izawa to be instrumental in improving adhesion.

[00:20:27] Speaker 02:
And so there's nothing in Osaki that is certainly no teaching away.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
But again, if you remember, we're looking through the lens of one of skill in the art who knows both teachings eminently supported by the board and substantial evidence that one of skill in the art would have naturally been motivated to get the benefit of the convex protrusion and the acrylic material.

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
Do you agree that Apple's expert conceded that the adhesion improvement can be achieved without an acrylic material?

[00:20:59] Speaker 02:
I think what expert experts stated was that the acrylic material is one kind of material that could be used.

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
And so I think that's as far as he went, frankly.

[00:21:10] Speaker 02:
But nevertheless, we're really talking about neither reference having a teaching away from this combination.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
And so even if he acknowledges other materials would be fine, I think the board was allowed to rely on the expressed language of the references themselves to conclude that a person's field in the art would have been motivated to combine them.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
Do you agree that the sense of protection issue rises and falls with the adhesion motivation issue?

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
I think it depends a little bit on the combination, because in the Mendelson

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
799 combination, so Mendelssohn and Osaki, that's then the 1536, the 1538, and the 1714.

[00:21:53] Speaker 02:
Mendelssohn 799 has no cover at all.

[00:21:56] Speaker 02:
And so I think that, for that, again, there's multiple reasons to make this combination in Mendelsohn with Osaki, only one of which is protrusion.

[00:22:05] Speaker 02:
But certainly for Mendelsohn 799, which has no cover, protecting the elements would be an independent and fully supported reason to combine.

[00:22:16] Speaker 02:
In terms of the, I guess, with Osaizawa, which has a cover, I don't think it stands or falls with adhesion.

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
I would say there, the response is a bit different.

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
One of skill in the art, in order to prove motivation to combine, as Judge Post indicated, your case law does not say we have to show it's better in a categorical sense.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
I think the Intel PACT case that came out earlier this year, I'm sure you all are familiar with it, but it's at 61 Fed Forth at 1380 to 81.

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
says so expressly that it doesn't have to be a categorical improvement or an improvement in a categorical sense, just a suitable option.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
And frankly, it was building upon the principles that were in the Amaral case we cited in our briefs.

[00:22:59] Speaker 02:
And so when we've got two suitable options, which no question flat and curved or convex are suitable options,

[00:23:06] Speaker 02:
There was no burden upon Apple as petitioner to prove one is categorically better than the other for there to be a motivation to combine.

[00:23:14] Speaker 02:
But again, that is the third motivation to combine with respect to the combination of Aizawa and Osaka.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
So maybe the question I should ask is, do you think we need to reach that issue with respect to the sensor protection?

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
You do not, Your Honors.

[00:23:28] Speaker 02:
Any one of them would be sufficient.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
And just for some housekeeping, the adhesion one covers every asserted claim in the 1631 case.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
and many of the claims in the other fields.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
So if the court has no other questions, I will get back and balance my time.

[00:23:56] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:23:57] Speaker 04:
Given that we have three appeals today, I'll just make a couple quick points.

[00:24:01] Speaker 04:
One is Apple pointed to its experts' declaration showing the Riveros on Inacaba.

[00:24:11] Speaker 04:
This was Apple's experts' reply declaration, to which we never had an opportunity to respond.

[00:24:16] Speaker 04:
And again, this is contrary to Apple's expert's testimony of how a person of skill in the art would interpret Inukawa.

[00:24:22] Speaker 04:
This was Apple's attempt to reinterpret, reimagine its positions to put some light concentration towards the exterior.

[00:24:31] Speaker 04:
The only other point I'll briefly make

[00:24:34] Speaker 04:
is, counsel mentioned that, argued that Aizawa's acrylic material is what provided the adhesion.

[00:24:42] Speaker 04:
And again, Apple's expert admitted that it was Aizawa's cover that reduced the slippage.

[00:24:48] Speaker 04:
And you can see this, for example, at APPX05428, 134-9-14.

[00:24:54] Speaker 04:
It says, Aizawa's plate is described as a plate-like number.

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
It doesn't explicitly require the use of acrylic.

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
At a PPX 0694625712, Apple's expert testified that Izawa describes the use of a cover to reduce slippage.

[00:25:14] Speaker 04:
And we think Izawa itself also makes that clear.

[00:25:18] Speaker 04:
The issue, again, is we never had a chance to address this because this was a determination the board made on its own for the first five minutes decision that it was Izawa's acrylic material as opposed to flat plate that would provide adhesion.

[00:25:30] Speaker 04:
Unless you have more questions, I'll...