[00:00:00] Speaker 02: Our final case for argument is 22-1474NXP versus Impinge. [00:00:09] Speaker 02: Counsel, how do I say your name? [00:00:11] Speaker 04: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:00:12] Speaker 04: It looks odd, but it's actually easy. [00:00:14] Speaker 04: It's pronounced Sweezy. [00:00:16] Speaker 04: Ms. [00:00:16] Speaker 04: Sweezy, please proceed. [00:00:18] Speaker 02: I was not going to say that, so I'm glad I asked. [00:00:21] Speaker 04: It's not intuitive. [00:00:22] Speaker 04: Good morning and may it please the court. [00:00:25] Speaker 04: Impinta's claims before this court are its third iteration of claims in this IPR and the last written description. [00:00:32] Speaker 04: These new claims recite a very specific way of making a combination that goes well past the disclosure of the original application [00:00:41] Speaker 04: What this patent is even about and this morning? [00:00:44] Speaker 04: I'd like to focus on two aspects of these new claims and because I'm going to try to orient myself in the order of steps because this is a rather detailed and lengthy Limitation let me just remind the court There's four steps in this limitation one retrieving one code from a memory bank second retrieving another code from another memory memory bank a different memory bank third a [00:01:09] Speaker 04: concatenating the two codes to form a combination, and fourth, backscattering the combination. [00:01:15] Speaker 04: And my first point I'd like to specifically focus on that third step strictly of concatenating the two codes. [00:01:23] Speaker 04: And then secondly, I'd like to turn collectively to steps one through three of retrieving, retrieving, and concatenating. [00:01:30] Speaker 00: Can I just ask, because I'm not sure if this point is about concatenating or about the combination of the two, is it possible for a concatenator to concatenate things before both are in the concatenator's possession? [00:01:48] Speaker 00: I don't understand how that could be true. [00:01:51] Speaker 00: Which is to say, I don't understand that the other side seems to resist the notion that [00:01:59] Speaker 00: Whatever is doing the concatenating doesn't actually have to have received both things. [00:02:06] Speaker 00: And I don't even understand how that's possible as a understanding of the word concatenate or an understanding of the word combine for that matter. [00:02:16] Speaker 00: Nevermind the retrieving step. [00:02:19] Speaker 00: Maybe you can clarify this for me. [00:02:21] Speaker 04: I agree with you, your honor. [00:02:22] Speaker 04: I think we're saying the same thing in that, in other words, to [00:02:25] Speaker 04: perform the function. [00:02:26] Speaker 04: This is an action, an operation, a function of concatenating. [00:02:31] Speaker 04: It needs to have the things that are going to be concatenated. [00:02:34] Speaker 04: In the claim language itself, that's the logical meaning of the claim language. [00:02:39] Speaker 04: And to be clear, before the board, all the parties in the board also understood that we were all having the same conversations. [00:02:46] Speaker 04: I do think it goes to the retrieving point. [00:02:48] Speaker 04: But whether you could even separate the retrieving steps out, you need to have [00:02:53] Speaker 04: the two codes in possession in order to concatenate them. [00:02:57] Speaker 04: So I think that does go to the second point, which I'm happy to start there first or go back to strictly the third. [00:03:04] Speaker 00: Just to pursue the matter, I mean, I guess I had [00:03:08] Speaker 00: I had trouble seeing that you made an argument to the board about the sequence of the receiving step and the concatenating. [00:03:21] Speaker 00: So I'm thinking, well, maybe this is this rare case where a forfeiture should be overlooked because it's perfectly clear what's required. [00:03:30] Speaker 00: And then I think, well, my concern about, or my current understanding of concatenating [00:03:36] Speaker 00: as requiring both things to be there and therefore have been received is perfectly true of, what is it, figure 12, with the word combination turned into a verb. [00:03:51] Speaker 00: So that there clearly would be written description support for that. [00:03:56] Speaker 00: So I'm not sure. [00:03:57] Speaker 04: Let me see if I can take your points, Judge Toronto. [00:03:59] Speaker 04: Maybe I can take them in the order you raised them, if I understand them. [00:04:04] Speaker 04: The first thing did we raise the sequence of order points and then the second, figure 12, which I agree figure 12 and the corresponding paragraph are probably what's really key here because that's really all the board and impinged point to this 26 page original disclosure and what might potentially be concatenating it isn't. [00:04:23] Speaker 04: But on the point about did we raise the sequence? [00:04:25] Speaker 00: And maybe figure 13-2, depending on whether it matters, whether there's a pause or not, as long as there's no intervening code, that might be concatenating as well. [00:04:33] Speaker 00: Who knows? [00:04:35] Speaker 04: And isn't, in our view, because neither one really shows this function of linking two things together. [00:04:41] Speaker 04: But with respect to the point about did we raise the sequence, so we did. [00:04:45] Speaker 04: In our opposition to the revised motion to amend, which is at appendix 515 to 516, [00:04:50] Speaker 04: We said that Impinj failed to show the operations of retrieving codes and concatenating the codes. [00:05:00] Speaker 04: This isn't complicated language. [00:05:02] Speaker 04: This is just plain, ordinary speak that I think we're doing and looking at the claim language. [00:05:06] Speaker 04: But the antecedent of the codes are the codes that have been retrieved. [00:05:12] Speaker 04: And again, this is something that all the parties understood. [00:05:14] Speaker 04: Impinj described its claims in the very beginning in its revised motion to amend. [00:05:20] Speaker 04: It's concatenating the retrieved codes. [00:05:24] Speaker 04: That's in Appendix 464 in its revised motion to amend. [00:05:28] Speaker 04: it again in its reply at appendix 574 and 575 and 578 to 579 used exactly that same formulation of concatenating the retrieved code. [00:05:39] Speaker 04: So the codes have to have been obtained for the concatenating to take place in the processing block. [00:05:46] Speaker 04: And the board understood this in its final written decision at appendix 28 where it uses very similar language saying [00:05:53] Speaker 04: The claimed subject matter is about concatenating two codes retrieved from memory. [00:05:59] Speaker 04: So again, we were all having the same conversation. [00:06:01] Speaker 04: What's changed is on appeal. [00:06:04] Speaker 04: Impinj has now said that that's not what the claims require, but the claims by their own language and by all parties' understanding and the board's as well, make clear there is a sequence required. [00:06:14] Speaker 04: The problem is that the board didn't find any specification support for it, never noted any. [00:06:20] Speaker 04: And impinge on appeal basically essentially concedes there isn't any specification support. [00:06:25] Speaker 00: In the page 515 material, do you go on and say not only does the claim require this, but there is no written description support? [00:06:39] Speaker 00: Because when you look at figure 12, that doesn't show the sequence. [00:06:44] Speaker 04: not in so many words, Your Honor, but by reciting what Impinj had already described and acknowledged its claims to require as to the sequence, by us repeating that in the claim language. [00:06:54] Speaker 04: And again, it was understood throughout the proceedings at the oral hearing. [00:06:58] Speaker 04: Again, the timing element, the chronological element came up before the board, and Impinj's counsel agreed at 670 and 659 to 660. [00:07:07] Speaker 04: Again, there's retrieving and then concatenating. [00:07:09] Speaker 04: So we were all having the same conversation then, and by saying that the [00:07:14] Speaker 04: patent owner that impinged and the specification failed to show this retrieving and concatenating, we were addressing all of the deficiencies. [00:07:22] Speaker 04: This is the case of written description where there isn't some disclosure in the patent. [00:07:28] Speaker 04: There's nothing. [00:07:29] Speaker 04: There's no reference to concatenating. [00:07:31] Speaker 04: There's no reference to linking. [00:07:33] Speaker 04: There's no reference to retrieving and then concatenating. [00:07:36] Speaker 04: We're simply dealing with an absence of disclosure. [00:07:38] Speaker 04: So this is actually, I know the court has complicated cases of written description, but here what we're talking about. [00:07:44] Speaker 01: Just aside from the whole question of whether it discloses retrieving before concatenating, you would argue. [00:07:57] Speaker 01: Getting back to Judge Toronto's point, I don't understand how one could concatenate without first having the codes on hand. [00:08:06] Speaker 01: And so therefore, you have to get the data to concatenate the data. [00:08:12] Speaker 04: Let me give you two answers to that, Judge Toronto. [00:08:15] Speaker 04: One of the ways that MPIN distinguished these claims from the prior art, I'm sorry, Judge Chen, excuse me, pardon me, Judge Chen, is that the [00:08:25] Speaker 04: The prior art, Impinj argued, had already concatenated the codes and then retrieved them. [00:08:31] Speaker 04: So a different order of operations. [00:08:33] Speaker 04: And on appeal, Impinj points out, you could also simultaneously retrieve and concatenate at page 33 of its red brief. [00:08:41] Speaker 04: So there are different ways this could happen, but with the claims requiring the specific order, that's what there has to be corresponding disclosure in for the specification, and there isn't. [00:08:52] Speaker 04: If I can turn to Figure 12, because I know you asked about that as well, Judge Toronto. [00:08:57] Speaker 04: Figure 12 is about the combination of codes that's being backscattered. [00:09:02] Speaker 04: That traces back to the original claims that Impinj had in this patent when it applied for them in 2008, and which stand canceled. [00:09:10] Speaker 04: Impinj canceled it. [00:09:11] Speaker 04: This was a non-contingent motion to amend. [00:09:14] Speaker 04: And that is simply showing what this patent is about, which is taking one code [00:09:21] Speaker 04: and then another code elicited in response to the same command. [00:09:25] Speaker 04: So it's simply showing two codes that come after one command, and so does Figure 13. [00:09:30] Speaker 02: Those are identical figures and identical disclosures other than... I don't understand why it was an error for the Board to conclude that that shows the two codes linked together, especially since it expressly says no interim pause in Figure 12. [00:09:47] Speaker 04: Chief Judge Gore, let me give you a few reasons. [00:09:50] Speaker 04: One is that there is no reference to concatenating in the figure or in the specification. [00:09:54] Speaker 02: Yes, but we know what the words mean, and so why doesn't this show exactly what the words mean? [00:10:03] Speaker 04: Your Honor, you're right. [00:10:04] Speaker 04: We know what the words mean. [00:10:06] Speaker 04: It is a plain English word given a plain English meaning. [00:10:09] Speaker 04: And when the specification doesn't use that plain English word or its plain English meaning of linking, there isn't disclosure. [00:10:16] Speaker 04: What figure 12 shows is one code coming after another. [00:10:19] Speaker 04: Again, what's always been in the claims in the first iteration that were brought into the IPR and then in the second. [00:10:25] Speaker 02: The problem for you is that your standard of review, we're not looking at this de novo. [00:10:29] Speaker 02: It's written description. [00:10:30] Speaker 02: The board found substantial evidence that this [00:10:33] Speaker 02: figure which shows these two codes expressly with no interim clause suffices to demonstrate that those two codes are in fact linked together and therefore meet the definition of concatenate and I don't see how I can overturn that under a substantial evidence standard of review. [00:10:52] Speaker 04: We do think you can, Your Honor, because the board's conclusion isn't supported by the written description. [00:10:57] Speaker 04: So it's undisputed here. [00:10:59] Speaker 04: Figures are part of the written description. [00:11:01] Speaker 04: They are. [00:11:01] Speaker 04: But the figures only show codes that are in combination. [00:11:06] Speaker 04: And Impinj agrees. [00:11:08] Speaker 00: So one of the places certainly in my memory where I've seen concatenation is I'm going to call it spatial concatenation. [00:11:17] Speaker 00: ABC concatenated with DEF is ABCDEF. [00:11:21] Speaker 00: We're not talking about that. [00:11:22] Speaker 00: We're talking about temporal concatenation, right? [00:11:25] Speaker 00: One thing after the next. [00:11:27] Speaker 00: So why doesn't figure 12 show that? [00:11:31] Speaker 00: And I don't understand. [00:11:32] Speaker 00: You seem to have some idea of what linking means. [00:11:37] Speaker 00: And I don't understand what linking means that isn't beyond. [00:11:44] Speaker 00: It comes right after, if we're talking about temporal concatenation, which I think everybody agrees we are. [00:11:51] Speaker 04: I'm not sure, Your Honor. [00:11:52] Speaker 04: We're really talking about just the plain and ordinary meaning of linking. [00:11:55] Speaker 04: And so it is important that there isn't a disclosure. [00:11:58] Speaker 00: What would it mean for a sequence in time to have its member linked? [00:12:05] Speaker 04: No, because- No, I don't know. [00:12:07] Speaker 00: What I don't know is not an answer to a what would it mean question. [00:12:11] Speaker 04: What would it mean? [00:12:12] Speaker 00: What would it even mean to say that things that are concatenated in time are linked with each other that goes beyond one just comes after the next. [00:12:27] Speaker 04: If I understand your question, Your Honor, I think that the difference here is that concatenating simply means linking, and it is a particular function. [00:12:35] Speaker 00: You're not helping me by using a term whose meaning I am asking you about. [00:12:39] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:12:41] Speaker 04: Let me see if I can answer it this way. [00:12:43] Speaker 04: In the context of the claim language, this is an order of operations that has to be done. [00:12:48] Speaker 04: It's a verb. [00:12:49] Speaker 04: It's an action. [00:12:50] Speaker 04: It's a thing that has to be performed. [00:12:52] Speaker 04: So simply showing figure 12, where one code comes after the other, maybe in quick succession, in figure 13, impinges experts said it could happen between as much as an hour in between the two codes, that isn't [00:13:09] Speaker 04: demonstrating a disclosure that impinge at the time it filed this application in 2008 had possession of this very specific way of forming that combination. [00:13:20] Speaker 01: What is that specific way? [00:13:22] Speaker 01: I guess what I'm wondering is, I'm just staring at figure 12, what more do you think is required to [00:13:30] Speaker 01: to have possession of concatenate without using the word concatenate or link. [00:13:35] Speaker 01: I'm trying to get a picture in my mind of what you think is the set of operations that have to be described so that we can see and be satisfied that the inventor was contemplating concatenating one code with another. [00:13:51] Speaker 04: Sure. [00:13:51] Speaker 04: So what we would want to see is a disclosure before figure 12 of what's happening in the processing block, which is where this operation needs to take place, and something putting the two codes together. [00:14:03] Speaker 04: And what does that mean? [00:14:05] Speaker 01: That's what I'm really trying to get at. [00:14:07] Speaker 01: I read your blue brief and your gray brief really carefully to try to figure out what you really think can catenate [00:14:13] Speaker 01: calls for, I couldn't quite get it out, like as a technical matter, what has to happen to concatenate one code with another code. [00:14:21] Speaker 04: of programming a software, some sort of command and internal operation and action that actually links those two codes together. [00:14:30] Speaker 04: Maybe I can try to answer it with an analogy, which is always dangerous, but two television shows might come contiguously. [00:14:38] Speaker 04: That does not convey that the network is actually concatenated or links those shows. [00:14:43] Speaker 04: I can stand next to someone and be even shoulder to shoulder. [00:14:46] Speaker 04: That conveys that we are contiguous, we're adjacent, we might be touching. [00:14:51] Speaker 04: but that does not show that we're linked arm and arm and concatenated or linked. [00:14:56] Speaker 01: And again, I think this- So there needs to be some kind of physical attachment of one code to another code. [00:15:03] Speaker 04: or logical, but some sort of operation, because what Impinj did was introduce into this claim this particular way of making the combination. [00:15:16] Speaker 04: Combination has always been there. [00:15:18] Speaker 04: That's what Figure 12 and Figure 13 show. [00:15:20] Speaker 04: A combination in the context of this patent is one code coming out to the other, being elicited in response to a single command. [00:15:27] Speaker 04: That does not convey to a person of ordinary skill and the art looking at the four corners of the specification without the claims in hand that impinge had possession of this particular concatenate. [00:15:38] Speaker 01: I know you're almost out of time. [00:15:39] Speaker 01: Do you have an expert reporter that says, look, this is what concatenate means in this field, and it requires something much more than just [00:15:48] Speaker 01: one code following immediately after the next code. [00:15:52] Speaker 01: That is not concatenate. [00:15:53] Speaker 01: What concatenate is in this part is requires some type of software action that actually, if not physically, logically attaches one code to another code. [00:16:07] Speaker 04: I would actually point to Impinj's own expert, Dr. Durgan, who gave this the ordinary meaning of linking the series. [00:16:13] Speaker 01: OK. [00:16:13] Speaker 01: But in terms of your... There's no expert report on your side. [00:16:17] Speaker 04: Our expert said there wasn't adequate written description, Mr. Fisher, at appendix 2370 to 2374. [00:16:22] Speaker 02: OK, counsel, let's hear from our closing counsel, Ms. [00:16:26] Speaker 02: Curtis. [00:16:28] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:16:30] Speaker 03: Good afternoon, Your Honors. [00:16:31] Speaker 03: May it please the court? [00:16:33] Speaker 03: Chief Judge Moore, you were absolutely correct when you said that there is substantial evidence support for the board's finding here that the specification disposes concatenating. [00:16:43] Speaker 03: I'd like to start with Judge Toronto's question about the sequence of how to retrieve and concatenate the code. [00:16:52] Speaker 03: It is possible to have these things going on simultaneously. [00:16:56] Speaker 03: A good analogy that has helped me is thinking of Scrabble tiles in a bag. [00:17:00] Speaker 03: Each bag could be considered one of the memory banks. [00:17:04] Speaker 03: You pull bits or letters from each of the banks and you arrange them as you're pulling. [00:17:11] Speaker 03: That could be how retrieving and concatenating could occur simultaneously. [00:17:16] Speaker 03: Alternatively, you could pull the entirety of the bits, store them in some register. [00:17:20] Speaker 03: and concatenate once you have retrieved all of the bits. [00:17:23] Speaker 03: But I think the key point here- Let me understand that. [00:17:26] Speaker 00: I guess I had understood that the code here, the portion of the code was a unitary thing. [00:17:34] Speaker 00: So think of two tiles, Scrabble tiles, no more. [00:17:38] Speaker 00: You cannot concatenate two tiles unless you have both of them. [00:17:43] Speaker 00: You may go concatenate more tiles by getting more of them, but the claim is just about [00:17:49] Speaker 00: getting two things and putting them concatenating, aligning them either temporally or spatially next to each other. [00:18:00] Speaker 03: I would agree, Your Honor, that you cannot concatenate, or that the codes have not been concatenated until you do have all of the bits that you need in order to concatenate those codes. [00:18:09] Speaker 03: I would agree with that. [00:18:13] Speaker 03: I just wanted to point out that that is not necessarily the only way that the order of steps can happen. [00:18:19] Speaker 03: They can go on simultaneously, or they can all be retrieved and then all be condemned. [00:18:25] Speaker 00: One of the reasons I'm sort of harping on this is it seemed to me noticeable that in your red brief you never say, argument forfeited about retrieving coming before. [00:18:38] Speaker 00: But even if not forfeited, [00:18:41] Speaker 00: So that even if the sequence is necessary, Figure 12 shows that too. [00:18:48] Speaker 00: So there's written description support. [00:18:49] Speaker 00: And so I was thinking, you must be trying to preserve some, for infringement purposes, some scope of the claim that doesn't require having the two things before you concatenate them. [00:19:07] Speaker 00: I don't understand how that's even possible. [00:19:13] Speaker 03: A couple of things, Your Honor. [00:19:15] Speaker 03: I do believe we raised the forfeiture issue in the red brief. [00:19:19] Speaker 00: Yes, but you didn't say, even if we're wrong about forfeiture, there's still written description for support. [00:19:25] Speaker 03: Understood. [00:19:25] Speaker 03: I think there's one more step there also that this claim language doesn't actually require the order of steps of retrieving, concatenating. [00:19:34] Speaker 03: There's nothing clear in the specification or prosecution history that would require those steps. [00:19:39] Speaker 03: But I agree, even if those steps are required, Your Honor is correct that Figure 12 does show retrieving whatever bits you need to retrieve, concatenating those bits, and then sending out the combination. [00:19:55] Speaker 01: You don't think this claim encompasses concatenating first, retrieving second, right? [00:20:00] Speaker 03: I think it could, I don't know how technically that would really be possible to do all of the concatenating before it's been retrieved. [00:20:08] Speaker 01: Right, code 1 from memory bank 1, code 2 from memory bank 2, logically it's impossible to concatenate those suckers before you retrieve them from their independent memory banks. [00:20:21] Speaker 01: So I'm trying to understand your legal argument as, oh, you can go any which way with these steps, because there's nothing in the law that requires the steps to be done in one particular sequence. [00:20:36] Speaker 01: But at least concatenating first, retrieval second, it doesn't make any sense to me. [00:20:43] Speaker 03: Right. [00:20:43] Speaker 03: I agree with that, Your Honor. [00:20:44] Speaker 03: It would either be retrieving everything and concatenating [00:20:48] Speaker 03: or retrieving and concatenating kind of as you go through the memory banks. [00:20:55] Speaker 02: So one of the things that the board relied upon on pages A27 and 28 is the application and in particular paragraphs 125 [00:21:12] Speaker 02: as providing written description support. [00:21:15] Speaker 02: On pages A27 and 28 of the board's opinion, they talk about how these paragraphs pertain directly to figure 12. [00:21:24] Speaker 02: Is that your understanding? [00:21:28] Speaker 02: You're talking about the top of... The board's decision, the bottom of A27 and the top of A28, where they conclude that figure 12 provides written description support, they point to [00:21:41] Speaker 02: paragraphs from the patent application, which can be found, I believe, at page 981 of the appendix. [00:21:50] Speaker 02: Do you have that handy? [00:21:51] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor. [00:21:53] Speaker 03: So paragraph 125 that's being cited by the Board. [00:21:58] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:22:02] Speaker 02: I understand the Board is citing both paragraph 125 and 128 as demonstrating how figure 12 [00:22:08] Speaker 02: meets the definition of concatenating. [00:22:12] Speaker 02: Is that your understanding? [00:22:13] Speaker 02: I believe that's correct, Your Honor. [00:22:17] Speaker 02: Paragraph 128 talks about how the first code and the second code, and there's no interim pause, and so they occur contiguously. [00:22:28] Speaker 02: That seems to me to be the definition of concatenate, but I understand [00:22:34] Speaker 02: opposing council wants it to be more linked or somehow intertwined or something more than just contiguous. [00:22:43] Speaker 02: So what about paragraph 125? [00:22:45] Speaker 02: Doesn't that support the, even under their construction notion that the board has demonstrated that this paragraph shows that these bits are interchanged and included? [00:22:59] Speaker 03: Yes, Your Honor, absolutely. [00:23:00] Speaker 02: So it seems like even if there were some further [00:23:04] Speaker 02: requirement to concatenation that required some sort of linking, this paragraph 125 seems to me demonstrates that. [00:23:13] Speaker 02: I mean, I could be wrong. [00:23:14] Speaker 03: I think that's correct, Your Honor. [00:23:16] Speaker 03: And even if we just simply look at figure 12, it calls the code a combination of code. [00:23:21] Speaker 03: It's clear that the code that's coming out is one piece of code made up of the two formerly separate parts. [00:23:30] Speaker 00: And what we've just been talking about, this is column 13, lines 42 and following, I think. [00:23:35] Speaker 00: Is that right? [00:23:36] Speaker 03: Column 13, I believe up to 14, Your Honor. [00:23:39] Speaker 01: The top of column 14 uses the occurs contiguous language. [00:23:43] Speaker 03: That's correct. [00:23:43] Speaker 03: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:23:46] Speaker 03: And it also uses the no interim pause language. [00:23:49] Speaker 03: I would just briefly like to touch on the points about whether we considered retrieving before concatenating in some of our language to the board. [00:24:09] Speaker 03: And I believe that those statements were not attempting to set up what is specifically required by the claim language. [00:24:19] Speaker 02: I'm not sure I understand your argument. [00:24:21] Speaker 02: Are you now, I think, perhaps, like others today, think it would be hard to concatenate two things if you don't have them both? [00:24:30] Speaker 02: Are you now sort of disputing or pushing back on that notion? [00:24:34] Speaker 03: No. [00:24:38] Speaker 01: Is your point about waiver? [00:24:40] Speaker 01: Is that what you're getting at? [00:24:42] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:24:43] Speaker 03: My colleague seemed to suggest that because we had [00:24:47] Speaker 03: talked about these claims in a particular way, they somehow haven't forfeited this order of steps argument. [00:24:54] Speaker 03: And that is incorrect, I believe. [00:25:00] Speaker 03: If there are no further questions, I'll yield. [00:25:02] Speaker 02: Thank you, Ms. [00:25:03] Speaker 02: Curtis. [00:25:03] Speaker 02: Ms. [00:25:05] Speaker 02: Sweezy, you have some. [00:25:07] Speaker 02: Did I say that right? [00:25:09] Speaker 02: No? [00:25:09] Speaker 02: She said it was easy, like Sweezy. [00:25:12] Speaker 02: Ms. [00:25:12] Speaker 02: Sweezy, please proceed. [00:25:14] Speaker 02: I knew I didn't say it right. [00:25:16] Speaker 04: Thank you for the additional time. [00:25:18] Speaker 04: Let me see if I can respond briefly in a few quick points. [00:25:23] Speaker 04: Combination, contiguous, and concatenating do not mean the same thing. [00:25:27] Speaker 04: We have impinged agreeing that combination and concatenating are different, Appendix 659 and page 33 of its red brief. [00:25:36] Speaker 04: And just, again, we're talking about plain English words and their plain English meaning. [00:25:40] Speaker 04: Being contiguous to something is not concatenating or linking it. [00:25:47] Speaker 04: It shouldn't be lost. [00:25:48] Speaker 01: Couldn't contiguous also, I don't know, suggest some kind of attachment? [00:25:55] Speaker 01: The plain meaning of contiguous. [00:25:57] Speaker 04: I don't think so, Your Honor, and not in the context of Figure 12 and what this patent is about. [00:26:02] Speaker 04: And keeping in mind that when Impinj added this narrowing limitation, it called it a narrowing limitation. [00:26:10] Speaker 04: It wasn't trying to claim what's in Figure 12 and Figure 13. [00:26:15] Speaker 04: It was trying to narrow it, and it narrowed it by doing this concatenating function, which isn't disclosed. [00:26:22] Speaker 04: With respect to Paragraph 125, that isn't really adding anything. [00:26:27] Speaker 04: The board simply cited that paragraph to say that the codes could either be partial or full. [00:26:32] Speaker 04: But paragraph 125 is just a generic discussion about backscattering the combination, which again was always there dating back to 2008, but not a combination that has been concatenated. [00:26:44] Speaker 04: Finally, I would just add that the notion of temporal concatenation hasn't been in the record, wasn't part of this. [00:26:53] Speaker 04: It is simply the plain meaning of linking this additional function was added to the claims and Impinj shouldn't be entitled to these new claims added more than a decade later. [00:27:03] Speaker 04: When this was the very basis, and this is that appendix 578 to 579 where Impinj argued against the prior art, [00:27:10] Speaker 04: both in terms of concatenating and the order, because it argued that concatenated codes nearby each other, even when then truncated and retrieved, wouldn't meet its claims of retrieving two codes and then concatenating them. [00:27:26] Speaker 04: We would ask the court to reverse. [00:27:28] Speaker 04: I thank both counsel for their argument. [00:27:29] Speaker 04: This case is taken of your submission.