[00:00:10] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:15] Speaker 01: Good morning. [00:00:16] Speaker 01: You may have pleased the court. [00:00:17] Speaker 01: My name is Robert Brinelli. [00:00:18] Speaker 01: I represent O'Lotte, the appellant in this case. [00:00:23] Speaker 01: This appeal flows from a final decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, finding all claims of the 432 patents invalid, either as anticipated or obvious. [00:00:36] Speaker 01: The board's findings are all based [00:00:41] Speaker 01: real-time. [00:00:43] Speaker 01: Under a proper construction, independent claim 1 and all its dependent claims should be found valid. [00:00:50] Speaker 01: Separately, the board's holding that dependent claims 7 and 8 are obvious is unsupported by substantial evidence. [00:00:59] Speaker 00: Doesn't mean are obvious, you mean were or would have been. [00:01:03] Speaker 00: We're talking about a time in the past, not today, where [00:01:09] Speaker 00: When I'm talking about what is all this, all of this. [00:01:13] Speaker 01: I agree. [00:01:14] Speaker 01: I apologize for the mistake. [00:01:18] Speaker 00: Is the issue here whether continuous should be read into the claims? [00:01:25] Speaker 01: No, I believe the issue here is that real time is not to be judged by an outcome. [00:01:39] Speaker 01: which is what the board interpreted the term to mean. [00:01:44] Speaker 01: It should be interpreted based on time. [00:01:48] Speaker 01: And what does real time really mean? [00:01:50] Speaker 01: It happens as right now we are in real time. [00:01:59] Speaker 01: By adding a distinction [00:02:03] Speaker 01: to this claim language that ties the term real-time to a machining outcome. [00:02:13] Speaker 01: The board eliminated the time constraints entirely. [00:02:18] Speaker 02: What do you mean by machine outcome? [00:02:20] Speaker 02: Are you referencing to whether the machine stops or pauses? [00:02:28] Speaker 02: I thought the real-time was [00:02:31] Speaker 02: real-time meaning, there's no pausing, no termination, as opposed to stopping the mating process in order to check a dye or to check on the material. [00:02:46] Speaker 01: Let's make sure we're all up, that I'm on the correct page here. [00:02:51] Speaker 01: I understand that an analyzer will be getting information from sensors. [00:02:59] Speaker 01: that analyzer will make a determination that an adjustment to power must be made to support the machine process somehow, make a better quality product, preserve the tool, what have you. [00:03:18] Speaker 01: The analyzer sends the information. [00:03:22] Speaker 01: It is determined. [00:03:25] Speaker 01: Yes, an adjustment is required. [00:03:27] Speaker 01: It sends that information to a controller. [00:03:30] Speaker 01: The controller receives the information and then needs to adjust power, either to the feed or to the tool, whatever. [00:03:41] Speaker 00: Absolute. [00:03:41] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:03:42] Speaker 00: Are you walking away from the continuous argument? [00:03:45] Speaker 00: The brief, the blue brief, which does not contain your name, says the real time requires continuous machine operation. [00:03:56] Speaker 00: Are you abandoning that argument? [00:03:59] Speaker 01: Not abandoning it, but I'm not focusing on it during this argument, Your Honor. [00:04:05] Speaker 02: That's your primary argument in your brief. [00:04:09] Speaker 01: I believe that continuous is subsumed into the timing. [00:04:15] Speaker 01: If we're looking at the [00:04:19] Speaker 01: Controller, the claim language says the controller needs to do something in real time. [00:04:25] Speaker 01: That something is the adjustment of the power. [00:04:28] Speaker 01: What is real time? [00:04:31] Speaker 01: It's essentially instantaneously. [00:04:34] Speaker 01: What the board ended up doing was saying, well, these references that are being applied don't disclose how quickly the controllers in these references [00:04:49] Speaker 01: are doing anything. [00:04:52] Speaker 01: And so if we have to look at a time constraint, we can't, my reading of the written decision, we can't find how these references support that notion. [00:05:11] Speaker 01: But these references are directed to creating a particular [00:05:19] Speaker 01: quality product. [00:05:22] Speaker 01: And so what the board did, as I view it, is they correlated an outcome and says that if that outcome can be achieved, it did it quickly enough. [00:05:38] Speaker 01: And quickly enough equals real time. [00:05:42] Speaker 01: I'm suggesting real time is not quickly enough. [00:05:46] Speaker 01: Real time is essentially instantaneous. [00:05:49] Speaker 01: And I think that's where this all went off the tracks. [00:05:52] Speaker 01: The way Pat Nohner attempted to get those concepts into the claim construction was through the notion of time response constraints. [00:06:07] Speaker 01: That was advanced to the board. [00:06:11] Speaker 01: The board didn't accept that and chose to move in a different direction, the direction proposed by petition. [00:06:20] Speaker 01: That, to me, is where everything went awry, at least on that issue. [00:06:31] Speaker 02: What happens, in your view, when you have a real-time adjustment? [00:06:34] Speaker 02: Exactly what happens in the process? [00:06:38] Speaker 01: The analyzer will identify that an adjustment needs to be made and run through its algorithm. [00:06:45] Speaker 02: To make that adjustment, do you got to turn off the machine or slow it down? [00:06:49] Speaker 02: Or do you keep on going at the same rate? [00:06:56] Speaker 01: So the machine is doing its thing, and then the controller gets the instructions. [00:07:00] Speaker 01: The controller says to the machine, now you must do something. [00:07:05] Speaker 01: Am I following the court? [00:07:06] Speaker 02: Yeah. [00:07:06] Speaker 02: To do that one thing, that adjustment, do you have to stop the process? [00:07:11] Speaker 02: No. [00:07:12] Speaker 01: It has to happen in real time. [00:07:13] Speaker 02: And that's your argument, that it's real time. [00:07:16] Speaker 02: There's no stopping the process. [00:07:17] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:07:18] Speaker 01: Sounds continuous. [00:07:20] Speaker 01: It is continuous. [00:07:21] Speaker 01: And it's subsumed in this concept of real time. [00:07:24] Speaker 01: Yeah. [00:07:26] Speaker 01: Agreed. [00:07:28] Speaker 01: That wasn't a conclusion. [00:07:30] Speaker 01: I understand, Your Honor. [00:07:40] Speaker 01: If [00:07:41] Speaker 01: Court agrees that the construction that was adopted and applied by the board is not accurate. [00:07:53] Speaker 01: I would ask that all of the findings of invalidity be vacated. [00:08:00] Speaker 01: And I believe we can have just a reversal. [00:08:04] Speaker 01: But if a remand is what the Court thinks is appropriate, fine as well. [00:08:09] Speaker 01: I'd now like to turn to. [00:08:12] Speaker 01: separately the board's holdings of claims seven and eight being found obvious. [00:08:21] Speaker 01: Claim seven depends from claim one and requires that a portable display device communicate with the controller to inform a user of power adjustments made by that controller. [00:08:35] Speaker 01: The board found both Orabi and Dalio, the primary reference, disclosed display devices that could communicate with a controller and that Eddie disclosed a machining system having a controller that could communicate with a portable display device. [00:08:52] Speaker 01: The board found that a PASIDA would have combined these references to render claims seven and eight obvious. [00:09:01] Speaker 01: The problem with the board's finding is that neither Delio nor Orabi disclose displaying information that informs a user of power adjustments made by the controller. [00:09:17] Speaker 01: At the best, the evidence establishes that operational data can be displayed. [00:09:25] Speaker 01: It seems undisputed based on the record that the changes in power [00:09:31] Speaker 01: reflected in operational data could be due to any number of reasons, not only because of an adjustment made by a controller. [00:09:42] Speaker 01: The board nowhere in its decision identifies any evidence that any reference discloses sending to a display information informing a user that the controller made a particular power adjustment. [00:09:57] Speaker 02: So is it the case that you can't tell [00:10:00] Speaker 02: on what adjustments were made or how they were made based solely on operational data. [00:10:08] Speaker 01: That is the point. [00:10:09] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:10:10] Speaker 02: You had expert testimony in that regard. [00:10:12] Speaker 01: We did. [00:10:14] Speaker 02: And as far as I can tell, and I invite the other side to address this, I didn't see that that was rebutted or that there was evidence to the contrary submitted by the other side. [00:10:27] Speaker 01: My reading of the record indicates the same, Your Honor. [00:10:31] Speaker 01: I think the point here is that we've got two references, neither of the references identifying on a display adjustments made by the controller. [00:11:02] Speaker 01: or that could have been made by the controller. [00:11:05] Speaker 01: The references are agnostic to the operational, how the operational data occurred. [00:11:17] Speaker 01: And that does violence to the claims. [00:11:21] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:11:22] Speaker 00: We will say, for the rest of your time, Mr. Lyons. [00:11:29] Speaker 05: Your Honor, I have Michael Lyons for a pause. [00:11:32] Speaker 05: I'll just jump in where counsel did on claim construction. [00:11:38] Speaker 05: First of all, counsel advanced a new interpretation of real-time that was never adopted by any expert, never put in any brief of saying real-time means essentially instantaneous. [00:11:54] Speaker 05: That's new. [00:11:54] Speaker 05: I don't think it's appropriate to have a new argument raised for the first time oral argument. [00:11:58] Speaker 05: Council objected to the board's construction as being directed to an outcome [00:12:06] Speaker 05: That was based on both parties agreement that the construction should include language that it is to achieve a desired machine system performance. [00:12:18] Speaker 05: That was agreed language. [00:12:19] Speaker 05: That wasn't advanced exclusively by petitioner. [00:12:26] Speaker 05: That was the patent owner's belief as well. [00:12:29] Speaker 05: The question was what language would go with achieving that result. [00:12:37] Speaker 05: And the language that was advanced by Petitioner was quickly enough. [00:12:42] Speaker 05: Interestingly, that language came from and was derived from the expert testimony from the patent holder. [00:12:49] Speaker 05: That was the language that the patent holder used. [00:12:55] Speaker 05: The language that was advanced by the patent holder was a time response constraint sufficient to achieve the results. [00:13:04] Speaker 04: Do you see any difference between those two? [00:13:08] Speaker 04: Is a time response sufficient or quickly enough? [00:13:11] Speaker 04: I mean one sounds more technical and formal, but it sounds to me like they mean the same thing. [00:13:16] Speaker 04: It's sufficient to get something done. [00:13:19] Speaker 05: That's exactly where the board landed, and I agree with you, Your Honor. [00:13:23] Speaker 05: The board said, quote, the patent owner and its experts both appear to equate sufficient time response constraints to quickly enough or the like. [00:13:33] Speaker 05: The testimony, and it's right out of their expert, you put the lot into expert's testimony. [00:13:39] Speaker 05: I mean, here's the question, as clear as it could be, to their expert question. [00:13:42] Speaker 05: First of all, what do you mean by time response constraints? [00:13:47] Speaker 05: Their expert said, quote, that the real-time adjustments must be done sufficiently quickly, so to speak, so that they can have the beneficial effect that is intended by a controller, for example, preventing chatter. [00:13:59] Speaker 05: So I mean, that's where the quickly enough came from. [00:14:02] Speaker 05: And the board found both experts on both sides agreed that that's all that's required to be in real time. [00:14:10] Speaker 05: Nothing is instantaneous, by the way. [00:14:12] Speaker 05: I mean, you can't detect a problem. [00:14:15] Speaker 05: So you're running a machining operation. [00:14:18] Speaker 05: You detect a problem. [00:14:20] Speaker 05: Some force on the tool is exceeding a boundary. [00:14:23] Speaker 05: You're getting chatter, which is when the cutting piece starts vibrating and you hear noise. [00:14:30] Speaker 05: You can try to correct that. [00:14:33] Speaker 05: Nothing is instantaneous. [00:14:35] Speaker 05: You'd love it to be instantaneous, but things take time. [00:14:37] Speaker 05: You have to observe it. [00:14:38] Speaker 05: You have to calculate a response. [00:14:39] Speaker 05: You have to send a signal. [00:14:40] Speaker 05: The machine has to then respond to that signal. [00:14:43] Speaker 05: So there's always going to be some lag. [00:14:45] Speaker 05: And so one of the questions that did come up is, you know, what is fast enough? [00:14:49] Speaker 05: And what every expert turned to and what the board ultimately adopted was it's a functional definition, that it's got to be fast enough to achieve the result. [00:14:59] Speaker 05: The only problem the patent actually talks about is chatter. [00:15:03] Speaker 05: And in, for example, the Delio reference, it also has a system for addressing chatter. [00:15:08] Speaker 05: And it has a system that talks about making a feed halt and doing it. [00:15:14] Speaker 05: And in that case, it says fast enough to stop the chatter, so it would meet that definition. [00:15:18] Speaker 05: But even if it didn't meet that definition, it actually says it makes the halt within 10 milliseconds. [00:15:26] Speaker 05: So that's a tiny fraction of a second. [00:15:28] Speaker 05: And it says it does that in order to avoid chatter that could potentially harm the device. [00:15:33] Speaker 05: So any way you look at it, you've got clear disclosures that meet any reasonable construction. [00:15:40] Speaker 05: And I would also point out that the patent doesn't provide any time limit. [00:15:45] Speaker 05: So council suggested that things went awry somehow because the board failed to adopt a construction saying, you've got to give me a time limit. [00:15:55] Speaker 05: You will make this adjustment within one second, or that's not real time, or even faster, instantaneous. [00:16:02] Speaker 05: I don't know what could beat that. [00:16:05] Speaker 05: But the patent that's the subject of the decision does not provide any time restrictions at all. [00:16:13] Speaker 05: It also talks just in functional terms. [00:16:15] Speaker 05: I mean it does say it's trying to adjust chatter That's why the parties agreed that if it's fast enough to do that That would work the experts also explicitly testified. [00:16:25] Speaker 05: There is no time limit So a lot of these expert testified quote there is no time limit so to speak that qualifies as real time everybody agreed [00:16:36] Speaker 05: There is no time limit. [00:16:38] Speaker 05: You can't just say it's a half second, it's a tenth of a second. [00:16:42] Speaker 05: It really depends on what you're trying to achieve. [00:16:44] Speaker 05: In the Araby reference, the goal was to avoid tool wear. [00:16:48] Speaker 05: And so the way Araby did that in his inventive system that he actually built, his PhD thesis was he would measure the force on the tool [00:17:01] Speaker 05: and try to keep it in certain boundaries. [00:17:03] Speaker 05: Because what he found is if you, in the process of machining, you go outside of the boundaries, what you're going to do is you're going to wear out the tool. [00:17:11] Speaker 05: But if you detect what the force is on the tool, make an adjustment that's quick enough to achieve the result, it'll preserve the cutting edge by not going outside of the restrictive bounds. [00:17:24] Speaker 05: And so I don't think you can [00:17:25] Speaker 05: I think the board was correct in its plan construction. [00:17:28] Speaker 05: I don't think you can import some kind of time limit. [00:17:30] Speaker 05: And it certainly doesn't make any sense to adopt this essentially instantaneous construction that was raised for the first time today and is not supported by any expert testimony. [00:17:43] Speaker 00: Now, the patent does mention continuous, continuously a couple of times. [00:17:49] Speaker 00: It says May. [00:17:51] Speaker 00: What's your comment about that? [00:17:53] Speaker 05: So that's true. [00:17:54] Speaker 05: The patent in two places refers to continuous. [00:17:58] Speaker 05: The board found, and Alati ultimately agreed, that when it says continuous, it's not talking about the machining operation. [00:18:05] Speaker 05: It's talking about the adjustment process. [00:18:10] Speaker 05: And so in other words, the whole idea of the adjustment process is you're monitoring. [00:18:14] Speaker 05: You're looking for excursions outside of the range. [00:18:19] Speaker 05: You're looking for chatter. [00:18:20] Speaker 05: You're looking for force that's going beyond some threshold. [00:18:24] Speaker 05: And so you can monitor for that continuously, even if the process has a pause in it. [00:18:33] Speaker 05: And I'll just say that the word continuous, so the word continuous is never used to refer to the machining operation. [00:18:38] Speaker 05: The board specifically found that, and that isn't, I think, in dispute. [00:18:46] Speaker 05: And as you point out, it says May. [00:18:51] Speaker 05: The appellant is not only trying to limit the claims to a particular embodiment that doesn't really even apply since it's talking about the adjustment process, but it's saying it may happen. [00:19:04] Speaker 05: It's not saying it must happen. [00:19:06] Speaker 05: So there's certainly no reason or justification to read that continuousness into the claim. [00:19:12] Speaker 05: There's also a fact issue here. [00:19:15] Speaker 05: The way they're trying to use this continuous requirement is to say if anything pauses for any amount of time, so if the cutting tool is rotating but the feed pauses for even a second, suddenly the machining operation is no longer [00:19:34] Speaker 05: ongoing but what the experts said is you're doing like a simple right corner cut which is in a machining device like literally you're just making a cube like in the simplest shape you can imagine [00:19:46] Speaker 05: Both experts agree the feed would have to come to a stop in one direction. [00:19:52] Speaker 05: It would have to start up in the other direction. [00:19:55] Speaker 05: So these momentary pauses are an ordinary part of machining operations. [00:20:01] Speaker 05: So drafting this continuous language into the definition of real time, where there's no basis in the specification, there's no factual basis under the record with the experts, just doesn't make any sense. [00:20:14] Speaker 05: The other issue that council focused on was the dependent claims and that focuses on specifically claim seven which adds to the independent claim the notion of a portable display device operatively associated with the at least one controller such that the portable display device can inform a user of the adjustments made by the controller. [00:20:41] Speaker 05: So here again the patent [00:20:43] Speaker 05: says precious little about this idea, probably because it's not very complicated. [00:20:48] Speaker 05: It's got a sentence or two saying, by the way, if you're making adjustments, you may want to send that to a display device. [00:20:57] Speaker 05: And it says it could be a personal digital assistant. [00:21:00] Speaker 05: That's exactly what EGEE has. [00:21:02] Speaker 05: It has a personal digital assistant that receives information from a controller. [00:21:08] Speaker 05: But what the board found was that Claim 7 only requires that the display device can inform a user of the adjustments made by the controller. [00:21:18] Speaker 02: What's the evidence that the board based that particular decision on? [00:21:24] Speaker 05: It's literally reading the claim language. [00:21:26] Speaker 05: So that's, it just says of, this I think is how it reads the claim language. [00:21:31] Speaker 05: So the claim language literally says, [00:21:34] Speaker 05: The portal device can inform a user of the adjustments. [00:21:37] Speaker 05: That's all that's required. [00:21:39] Speaker 05: And what the board found in applying that language was that it doesn't require displaying adjustment information. [00:21:46] Speaker 05: It just basically means notify them that there's been an adjustment. [00:21:51] Speaker 05: That was at least one basis for its decision. [00:21:55] Speaker 05: And that was never disputed. [00:21:57] Speaker 05: That's something as simple as identifying the fact that adjustments were being made. [00:22:01] Speaker 02: Didn't the appellant introduce expert evidence that disputes that point? [00:22:08] Speaker 05: They interpret that provision differently. [00:22:12] Speaker 05: They said a display device can inform a user of adjustments. [00:22:19] Speaker 05: They interpret that to be shown. [00:22:21] Speaker 02: I guess the point I'm interested in is whether the evidence that was submitted by the appellant on this point that we're talking about with respect to claim seven, whether that was ever rebutted by you. [00:22:33] Speaker 05: Absolutely, Your Honor. [00:22:35] Speaker 05: There was expert testimony from Hawes as expert that when you combine the Araby, which is making real-time measurements, that was agreed. [00:22:48] Speaker 05: It was making adjustments to... You're talking about what Eddie teaches, right? [00:22:56] Speaker 02: No, I'm talking about Araby. [00:22:57] Speaker 02: You're talking about something else, yeah. [00:22:59] Speaker 02: I'm asking you with respect to Eddie. [00:23:02] Speaker 05: Oh, so Eddie was not relied upon by the petitioner, Hawes, to show the adjustments. [00:23:12] Speaker 05: It was relied upon to show the display. [00:23:16] Speaker 05: And there was a combination. [00:23:17] Speaker 05: And there was specific argument in the petition. [00:23:21] Speaker 05: For example, at page 64 of the petition, [00:23:26] Speaker 05: where it was argued that a faceta would have appreciated that Eddy's display system, when incorporated into Orabi's adaptive control system, would be configured to display, to store and display the sense parameters, including adjustments to the spindle speed, feed rate, cutting rate on the portable device. [00:23:48] Speaker 05: Similarly, for Delio, [00:23:51] Speaker 05: In the petition it was argued, supported by the expert, that a faceta would have recognized the advantages of having ED's portable device to display the sensed and calculated values generated by Delio's system to monitor the status of the machining operation. [00:24:10] Speaker 05: So you've got, in Araby, in Delio, you've got it [00:24:14] Speaker 05: creating these adjustments and expert testimony and the board's conclusion that it would have been obvious that you would have that information so you have a display. [00:24:26] Speaker 03: So Edie doesn't need to teach making the adjustments or [00:24:30] Speaker 03: or transmitting the information about the adjustments, it just has to teach. [00:24:35] Speaker 03: Because you get all that from Araby or the other one, right? [00:24:40] Speaker 03: They're the ones that make the adjustments and have the information about those. [00:24:46] Speaker 03: All you're going to ED for is a system that will display that information once it's transmitted to it. [00:24:52] Speaker 05: That's correct. [00:24:53] Speaker 05: It's a portable display. [00:24:54] Speaker 05: Now we did point out all the ways in which it would be easy to combine those systems because ED has a lot of details about collecting information from a system and monitoring changes. [00:25:06] Speaker 05: But the combination we were relying on, the controller, that's the controller that we're focused on is in claim one. [00:25:13] Speaker 05: That's an Araby. [00:25:16] Speaker 05: Araby's making the dip changes, the adjustments. [00:25:19] Speaker 05: It's also in [00:25:26] Speaker 05: The Delio reference that's making the changes, that's all going on there. [00:25:31] Speaker 05: And then it just would supply that to an external display. [00:25:35] Speaker 05: And that would be provided by you. [00:25:37] Speaker 02: Going back to the question I asked your friend on the other side, Eddie only displays operational data. [00:25:45] Speaker 02: And he said that's correct. [00:25:47] Speaker 02: Do you agree with that? [00:25:49] Speaker 05: No, I don't agree with that, Your Honor. [00:25:51] Speaker 05: It does display operational data. [00:25:53] Speaker 05: It also did calculations. [00:25:55] Speaker 05: If you're just talking about ED in isolation not combined with a Robbie, it was doing much more complicated displays. [00:26:05] Speaker 05: Some of those were shown in the figures and the petitions. [00:26:09] Speaker 02: The question is whether the data that is displayed by ED, whether it can inform a user of the adjustments that are made by the controller. [00:26:19] Speaker 02: And I had a little difficulty on this particular point. [00:26:23] Speaker 05: I think there's two ways you can get there. [00:26:25] Speaker 02: The reason I had difficulty is I don't see any evidence on the other side. [00:26:30] Speaker 02: They presented evidence that is largely unrebutted. [00:26:35] Speaker 02: Can you address that? [00:26:37] Speaker 05: Yeah, the expert declaration that was submitted and relied on by the board does point to and say the adjustment information would come from a Robbie, it would come from Delio, and it would be obvious to display that on ED. [00:26:52] Speaker 05: The board also found that even if you just looked at adjusting parameters, like if you had a system that was programmed to run at 1,000 RPM and you saw an adjustment to 1,100 RPM, that would inform the user. [00:27:09] Speaker 05: Remember, you don't have to display the changes. [00:27:11] Speaker 05: You just have to inform the user. [00:27:13] Speaker 05: about an adjustment, that would inform a user an adjustment. [00:27:17] Speaker 05: And if you think about the Delio system in particular, it has very distinctive features that would be obvious to the user, where you have a feed halt, where the feed goes to zero. [00:27:27] Speaker 02: Does it inform as to an adjustment, or does it inform as to how the adjustment was made, or what the specific adjustment is? [00:27:35] Speaker 05: It shows of the adjustment, what the adjustment was, everything. [00:27:40] Speaker 05: So if you're showing for the Delio feed halt, [00:27:43] Speaker 05: You would see the feed suddenly drop from a steady feed rate to zero for a millisecond. [00:27:54] Speaker 05: You would see the speed change, and then you'd see the feed rate go back. [00:27:59] Speaker 05: That profile only relates to a feed halt in Delio. [00:28:03] Speaker 05: A user seeing that can come to one conclusion or one conclusion only. [00:28:07] Speaker 05: There was an adjustment made because there was chatter recognized and adjustment made to address it. [00:28:14] Speaker 00: Thank you, counsel. [00:28:15] Speaker 05: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:28:16] Speaker 00: Mr. Brunelli has a little rebuttal time. [00:28:19] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:28:26] Speaker 01: Your Honor, speaking up with claim seven, question, several questions, I'll answer them. [00:28:35] Speaker 01: One question was concerning rebuttal evidence on [00:28:44] Speaker 01: whether the rebuttal evidence question was posed. [00:28:50] Speaker 01: I'm reading from appendix page 1954. [00:28:52] Speaker 01: This is the deposition of the expert of Haas question. [00:29:00] Speaker 01: So not every change in current would necessarily indicate an adjustment to the power exerted by the spindle drive system or feed drive system by a controller, correct? [00:29:13] Speaker 01: Was that an objection? [00:29:14] Speaker 01: the witness answers. [00:29:17] Speaker 01: In general, not every change in current is due to the adjustments by the adaptive and adaptive control system. [00:29:24] Speaker 01: I think that is specific. [00:29:28] Speaker 01: Finding by their own expert that [00:29:33] Speaker 01: Adjustments can be made for many reasons. [00:29:36] Speaker 01: And if you're not identifying what reason is being an adjustment being made, you can't inform the user that it was made by the controller. [00:29:50] Speaker 01: Next, there was a question of what did the board point to in deciding obviousness of claims seven and eight with regard to the combination of Ormby and Eddie. [00:30:03] Speaker 01: pointed to pages 62 and 68 of the petition, which is at appendix 192 to 198. [00:30:11] Speaker 01: With regard to the combination of Delio and Eddy, it points to the petition pages 109 to 113. [00:30:20] Speaker 01: That's appendix pages 239 to 243. [00:30:25] Speaker 01: If you look at those pages, there is nothing [00:30:33] Speaker 01: Information the information indicating that the controller made an adjustment Set forth and that is the significant problem With regard to the claim construction issue in real time There was a notion that the patent does not list time limits I Would take issue with that It does it specifically says real time [00:31:02] Speaker 01: We, in common parlance, know what real time is. [00:31:07] Speaker 01: It is essentially instantaneous. [00:31:10] Speaker 01: It incorporates the notion of continuous. [00:31:15] Speaker 01: Plain and ordinary meaning of real time does not come down to a particular result divorced from a time response constraint. [00:31:29] Speaker 01: Thank you for your time, members.