[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Our first case for argument today is 22-1320, One World Technologies versus Chevron Limited.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
Mr. Penikowski, please proceed.

[00:00:11] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
Stanley Penikowski for Appellant One World Technologies.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
I plan to reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
The board's final written decision should be vacated because of two sets of legal errors that, together, affect all challenged claims.

[00:00:30] Speaker 02:
First, the board misconstrued One World's arguments relating to the use of an electrical supply contactor, which is simply an electric on-off switch with figure 10 of the UT's prior art reference.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
In doing so, the board imposed a non-existent legal requirement for showing obviousness.

[00:00:52] Speaker 02:
Specifically, the board required one world to show that the other known prior art techniques for stopping the rotation of the blade in the lawnmower would not be used in order to prove that the use of the relied-upon technique here, the electrical supply contactor, was obvious.

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
But this court is held in Muttet, Medekem,

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
and most recently in Intel versus PAC-XPP, that a known technique may not be the best option in order to be an obvious variation.

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
Rather, it need only be a suitable option, and it can even be an inferior option.

[00:01:32] Speaker 00:
Can you help me understand the nature of your argument both today and in the petition?

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
Figure one is the figure that

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
sort of expressly discloses the first control device.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
Figure 10 is the figure that discloses the second control device.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
Is that accurate?

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
Is it fair to say that Figure 10 does not, on its face, have the first control device?

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
That is, what is it called, the electric... Supply contactor.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
Yeah, the electric supply contactor.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
Yes, that is correct, Your Honor.

[00:02:11] Speaker 00:
OK, so Figure 10 doesn't.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
So is your argument that Figure 10 inherently discloses the electric supply contact?

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
Or is your argument that it's obvious to take the electric supply contract from Figure 1 and put it into Figure 10?

[00:02:25] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, our argument today is neither of those.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
The first argument based on inherency was made below.

[00:02:32] Speaker 02:
The second argument about taking

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
The electric supply contactor from Figure 1 and combining with Figure 10 was not made below.

[00:02:40] Speaker 02:
Our argument is that it would be an obvious variation of Figure 10 to use an electrical supply contactor as the first control device.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
Well, I may be wrong, but my recollection of the board's opinion is the board said there are at least three different ways that you could effectuate the safety

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
control that that is otherwise called for by the first control device.

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
The electric supply contact is one of them.

[00:03:09] Speaker 00:
I think they said a break.

[00:03:10] Speaker 00:
I think they were, am I remembering right?

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
They said there are three possible ways.

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
And I think what they concluded is that you didn't put forth a reason or a motivation to choose the one that you're mentioning, per se, and put it in here rather than any of the other options.

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
Does that sound right?

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, not quite.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
What the board said is that figure 10 of Utis did not necessarily disclose the electric supply contactor, because there were those three options for controlling the blade.

[00:03:43] Speaker 02:
However,

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
In making that finding, the board was treating our argument as if it were only an inherency argument.

[00:03:52] Speaker 02:
And we see that at appendix page 31 in the board's decision.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
when the board says Petitioner contends that a proceda would have understood that the embodiment of Utis's Figure 10 already had a specific type of control device, then on Appendix Page 32, the board says, with that understanding, we turn to our analysis of Petitioner's contentions.

[00:04:15] Speaker 00:
And what about the board's opinion at Appendix Page 36?

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
where I realize this is in the context of the regulation, which requires a safety mechanism.

[00:04:28] Speaker 00:
But the board said there that you don't persuasively explain why the regulation requires an electrical supply contactor as opposed to one of the other two possible components that could achieve the same thing.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
correct your honor and when the board said that on page 36 as well as on page 38 and on page 33 of its decision it was making that finding repeatedly based on

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
an incorrectly limited understanding of our argument.

[00:05:04] Speaker 02:
It wasn't just an inherency argument.

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
It was an argument that this would be an obvious variation.

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
So for inherency, the board's finding that there are three possible options and you haven't shown that the electric supply contactor is required.

[00:05:21] Speaker 02:
that has bite with respect to inherent C but it does not have bite with respect to obviousness under mootet medicam and Intel because they are all we need to do is to provide a motivation to combine as a suitable option and that motivation to combine

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
was articulated at appendix pages 358 and 359 of the petition, supported by appendix pages 957 and 958 of One World's expert's declaration.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
And the two motivations to combine were avoiding the danger of a rotating blade when it is not desired, and to save power when not needed.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
Where the board most went astray is in not perceiving that this paragraph of the petition, from which I was just quoting, did contain an argument that it would be obvious to use an electrical supply contactor, which again is just a simple switch.

[00:06:26] Speaker 02:
with figure 10 of Utes.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
So the board's opinion in this respect is on page 39?

[00:06:34] Speaker 02:
Yes, your honor.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
The fifth?

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
Correct, your honor.

[00:06:38] Speaker 03:
Is your view that they misunderstood your argument or that they erred by saying you had to show it was necessary to use an on-off motor switch?

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
Your honor,

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
The board misunderstood the argument because the board was correct insofar as it pointed to, in the board's words at appendix page 39, petitioner's contention that it would have been obvious to add an operation assembly to Utis's figure 10.

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
But then the board misunderstood the argument when it then said, even if we agree with that, such a modification does not necessarily mean

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
that the assembly would use an electrical supply contactor.

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
And we weren't simply arguing inherently that it necessarily means that we were also arguing obviousness, that it would be an obvious variation.

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
It is true, as the board is describing in that sentence, Your Honor, quoted at begins fifth, that this argument was found under the claim limitation for the operation assembly.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
But it is a necessary part of the argument that one world was making that when we say, Priscilla would have found it obvious to include

[00:07:59] Speaker 02:
the claimed operation assembly to enable the user to selectively control, activate, and deactivate the motor.

[00:08:05] Speaker 02:
And that one motivation for that is to save power.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
It's necessarily a part of that argument that the operation assembly is controlling an electric switch, which is the electrical supply line.

[00:08:17] Speaker 00:
But let's see evidence of any of that.

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
The problem is this sounds a lot like attorney argument.

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
But where was your evidence?

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
Because I read, I'm even looking at your reply right now, and most of your argument was inherency.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
Most of your argument was figure 10 actually teaches necessarily includes the first control device.

[00:08:36] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:08:36] Speaker 00:
So you're saying, but we also, alternatively, made this obvious, this argument.

[00:08:41] Speaker 00:
But I don't really see it much, to say the least.

[00:08:44] Speaker 00:
I see that you sort of made it, but now it's everything to you.

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
And where is the evidence regarding that obviousness argument?

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
The evidence is in the re-declaration paragraph.

[00:08:55] Speaker 00:
The problem was that expert declaration is verbatim, your petition.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
Verbatim.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
It is a cut and paste job.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
And the board said, accordingly, it was conclusory and didn't find it persuasive.

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
How can I find fault with that?

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, the test for whether something is conclusory is not whether the petition and the declaration have the exact same verbiage.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
It seems appropriate given one world's obligation to provide evidence that the petition would present verbatim what was in the declaration.

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
It doesn't mean the declaration is not evidence.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
When you said the petition would articulate what was in the declaration, are you making an assertion right now, which I think you can't because I would assume it's attorney of work product, but are you now claiming that your expert wrote his own declaration and you all just formulated the petition according to what he said as opposed to the other way around because the board

[00:09:53] Speaker 00:
found it conclusory.

[00:09:54] Speaker 00:
The board looked at this in the other direction.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
It appeared to the board that the expert just said what you wanted him to say, copying the petition.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
It doesn't, but you're sort of suggesting today, oh no,

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
we wrote the petition after our expert did all of this.

[00:10:10] Speaker 00:
That feels like attorney work product.

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
It feels like maybe you don't want to go into that.

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
It also feels like maybe it's not part of the record.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
I don't know.

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
I'm a little nervous about this.

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
And that is not what I'm suggesting.

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
It is not what I'm representing.

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
I have neither the personal knowledge to represent either way nor the liberty to do so, even if I did have knowledge under the attorney work product doctrine.

[00:10:33] Speaker 02:
But if the board was premising

[00:10:36] Speaker 02:
a ruling that this is just conclusory on the board's assumption that all that happened was that attorney argument from the petition was being put in the expert declaration, then Your Honor, that is an even bigger problem than what we have here for the board to make inferences about the attorney expert workflow and then make rulings based on that.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
I think, Your Honor, that the better standard for whether this

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
statement is conclusory is simply to look at it on its own terms and doesn't give a reasoned explanation.

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
And here it does give a reasoned explanation.

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
page 957 to 958, the re-declaration, which, as Your Honor correctly noted, is verbatim what is in appendix page 358 to 359.

[00:11:28] Speaker 02:
And so, yes, those are the same.

[00:11:32] Speaker 02:
And here we do have a concise but reasoned explanation that a proceeding would have found it obvious to include the claimed operation assembly to enable the user

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:
to selectively control the motor and thus the blade.

[00:11:49] Speaker 02:
And we have two reasons that are being given for that.

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
One, if you include that component

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
then you can avoid the danger of a rotating blade, because the power can be cut when you have a problem here.

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
And here the problem that you would have is that the handle is in the wrong position, and therefore can expose the user's body to the rotating blade.

[00:12:16] Speaker 02:
And then there's another motivation

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
to make that combination, which is to save power when not needed.

[00:12:23] Speaker 02:
And the to save power when not needed rationale is another indication.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
The problem is what this goes to, the danger of the rotating blade and the safe power, he is saying here that this operation is necessary.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
But he hasn't said this particular form of first control device in the form of the electric supply contractor is what's necessary or obvious.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
This paragraph doesn't even mention that.

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
It just is the operation.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
The safety feature is necessary.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
But that's why the board said there's lots of safety features.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
There's a brake.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
There's an electric supply contractor.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
There's all these different ways to achieve this operation.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
So your expert is saying in this paragraph that it would be obvious to want to employ this operation.

[00:13:08] Speaker 00:
But he isn't saying it has to be or would be obvious to do so in this way.

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, you're correct that the expert does not state that in so many words.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
There is one more dot to be connected.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
But the dot is connected here because in talking about controlling the motor and saving power in paragraph 74, that excludes the other two options.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
There's no testimony and no evidence of that.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
Nowhere.

[00:13:37] Speaker 00:
That's attorney argument only.

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
Nowhere in this record did you produce evidence to that effect.

[00:13:42] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
This is an explanation by attorneys of the record and why this argument was present here.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
What I just said is not stated in so many words in the record.

[00:13:56] Speaker 03:
So am I missing something?

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
I don't understand the board to be rejecting this because it's conclusory.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
I read the board as rejecting this on the ground that you haven't explained why you would do the motor cutoff.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
as opposed to one of the other alternatives.

[00:14:11] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
That is my understanding, too, of why in this particular paragraph, the board did elsewhere make reference to this as conclusory, but in this particular paragraph at appendix page 39, the board was saying that we haven't excluded the blade decoupling and the breaking of the blade, which are

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
non-electric means of stopping the blade.

[00:14:38] Speaker 02:
But the board's analysis, again, would be appropriate for refuting an inherency argument.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
It's not appropriate under this court's precedent for refuting an obviousness argument.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
And with that, Your Honor, there are further questions now.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
I will sit and reserve my remaining time for rebuttal.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
Mr. Nicodemus, am I saying that right?

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
Please proceed.

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors, police, the court.

[00:15:05] Speaker 01:
This is a substantial evidence case.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
The board found several times that one world never argued that it would be obvious to modify Figure 10 embodiment to include the electrical supply contactor of the Figure 1 embodiment.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
And by the time the case got to the final hearing, the argument was indeed inherent.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
And that's shown... But they have an alternative argument that we're looking at on page 39, which is not inherency.

[00:15:30] Speaker 03:
And that alternative... And as I understand your brief, you appear to agree that the board misconceived the argument in saying that they weren't arguing for an on-off switch on the motor.

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
No, we are not saying the board misconceived anything, Your Honor.

[00:15:46] Speaker 01:
The argument they made for obviousness, which counsel just mentioned, was on a different claim element.

[00:15:51] Speaker 03:
If you read...

[00:15:54] Speaker 03:
The board seems to say they weren't arguing for an on-off switch, and that there are alternative ways of doing this.

[00:16:00] Speaker 03:
Do you agree that their petition argued that it was obvious to add a motor on-off switch?

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
I don't agree.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
Their argument was it would be obvious to add the claimed operation assembly, which is a different claim element than the electrical supply contact, than the first control device.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
If you look at their petitions,

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
The claimed operation assembly according to one world is the hold to run component 30, the handle.

[00:16:31] Speaker 01:
It is not the electrical supply contact.

[00:16:33] Speaker 03:
But the claim itself says the operation assembly for being operated by a user to control the motor.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
And if you keep reading, it says to control the first control device.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
There's an operation assembly, a first, second, and third control device.

[00:16:48] Speaker 03:
They're different.

[00:16:49] Speaker 03:
You're saying they didn't argue that it was obvious to have an on-off switch for the motor?

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
They didn't argue that.

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
And the board said that several times.

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
And if we look at footnote 17 on appendix page 33, that is one of the instances where they said that.

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
If we look at footnote 17, appendix page 33, again, as discussed above, petitioner does not argue.

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
that it would have been obvious to modify the embodiment of Figure 10 to include an electrical supply contactor.

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
They never argued that.

[00:17:22] Speaker 03:
But that's a different argument.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
That's not the one we're talking about now.

[00:17:26] Speaker 03:
We're not arguing any more about Figure 10.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
They've given up on that.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:17:31] Speaker 03:
They're arguing that this fifth paragraph here, rejecting their obviousness argument that was obvious to add an electric motor on-off switch,

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
was misconceived by the board.

[00:17:47] Speaker 03:
And then when they argued that it was obvious to add the claimed operational assembly, that was an argument that it was obvious to add the motor on-off switch.

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
But somehow you don't see the argument as being that?

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
No, I don't see the argument as that.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
Because when the board was mentioning the electrical supply contact or motor brake and brake coupling

[00:18:10] Speaker 01:
I believe it was doing that in the context of their argument for inherency, because they were saying, you haven't shown that it's necessary and inevitable to choose that one.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
And they were also, as footnote 17 shows, saying... They say on 358, it would be obvious to include one to enable the user to selectively control, activate, and deactivate the motor.

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
Pretty clear that they're talking about an on-off switch for the motor, isn't it?

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
No, no, sir, because on 358 it says to the extent it's determined that the claimed operation assembly is neither taught nor inherent in hotels, Poseida would have found it obvious to include one.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
The claimed operation assembly is not the first control device.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
It is a separate claim element.

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
Just all you have to do is read the claims.

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
Okay, suppose we disagree with you on that and we think that they did argue

[00:19:05] Speaker 03:
that it was obvious to add an on-off switch.

[00:19:09] Speaker 03:
Did the board then err by failing to consider that?

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
No, because the board did consider that.

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
If you look on page 33, the board considered that.

[00:19:21] Speaker 03:
No, we're talking about page 39.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
OK, let's go to 39.

[00:19:26] Speaker 03:
39 is dealing with this argument that it's obvious to add an operation assembly.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
Just to make sure I am on track,

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
even on page thirty nine though it's uh... adding the operation assembly to figure ten right because that's what it says that i think it's all isn't figure ten the baseline for everything this yes they said they said making sure and by the time they got a final hearing they were lying on figure ten exclusively yes and you're on the internet is that the the handle right i'm sorry location car figure ten figure ten does not have the the it has elements uh...

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
It's a rotational cutoff.

[00:20:05] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
So they're arguing that it would be obvious to add the motor cutoff to figure 10 here.

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
I have to disagree, Your Honor, because look what the board said in the full paragraph beginning with the word fifth.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
It says, even if we agree with petitioner that it would have been obvious to add the operation assembly to the embodiment of figure 10, such a modification does not necessarily mean that the assembly would include

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
Hold to run component 30 controlling an electrical supply contactor.

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
Again, petitioner does not adequately explain why the operation assembly could not include, for example, hold to run component 30 controlling a motor brake or a brake coupling as disclosed in utils.

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
Why do they have to show that it would necessarily use a motor?

[00:20:53] Speaker 01:
Because if we go to... Motor cutoff.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
If we go to appendix page 3042, the final hearing,

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
where Judge Mayberry was questioning One World's attorneys, 3042.

[00:21:09] Speaker 01:
Judge Mayberry says, excuse me, counsel, it's Judge Mayberry.

[00:21:12] Speaker 01:
A couple of questions on that.

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
First, what I believe the argument you're making is that the embodiment of figure 10 implicitly discloses a control-like hold to run 30, a switch-like electrical control contactor, and some type of cable in connecting the two.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
And he goes on, and then he says, is that a correct understanding?

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
And counsel says, it is, your honor.

[00:21:32] Speaker 01:
It is.

[00:21:33] Speaker 01:
So at that point, they're arguing that these things were inherently disclosed.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
Well, they were arguing that, but they're also arguing pretty clearly that even if the board rejected that, it was obvious to add the motor cut-off switch to Figure 10.

[00:21:50] Speaker 01:
The motor cut-off switch is not the claimed operation assembly.

[00:21:54] Speaker 01:
The claimed operation assembly, according to their petition, is the handle.

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
It's the hold to run component

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
30 and I can show you in the appendix page 356.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
But if you're wrong about that, the board should have considered the argument that it was obvious they had a motor on off switch and they didn't do that, right?

[00:22:15] Speaker 01:
They never made that argument.

[00:22:17] Speaker 03:
But if they did make that argument, the board should have considered it, right?

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
Well they should consider the arguments that they did make, yes, but they never made that.

[00:22:25] Speaker 01:
The board said it at least a half a dozen times.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
And if you look at 356 that Judge Moore cited, it says right here, UTIL's handle 1 has an operation assembly 30, which may be a handle, a lever, et cetera.

[00:22:40] Speaker 01:
So they're saying in the PTAB that the claimed operation assembly is component 30, which is a handle.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
It's not the electrical supply contactor.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
So when counsel argues today and in their briefing that we made this obvious in this argument,

[00:22:56] Speaker 01:
that it was obvious to add an electrical supply contact or an on-off switch, whatever you want to call it, they never did, Judge, because the claims are very specific.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
They say they have a operation assembly.

[00:23:09] Speaker 01:
They have a first control device, a second control device, and a third control device.

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
One fact on that page 356 in the sentence right above the one you read, doesn't the petition expressly make it crystal clear that element 1D and 6D, which one is the operation assembly and the other is the first control device, are separate

[00:23:25] Speaker 00:
Devices and separate claim limitations.

[00:23:27] Speaker 01:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:23:28] Speaker 01:
And we argued that several times in our brief before this Court.

[00:23:34] Speaker 01:
And as I indicated, this is a substantial evidence case.

[00:23:36] Speaker 01:
And when they looked at Mr. Reed's declaration, they found a conclusory.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
They found that he didn't answer many questions.

[00:23:42] Speaker 01:
And I think if the Court looked at Appendix Page 35, the Board goes through quite a recitation in the first full paragraph about the failings of Mr. Reed's declaration.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
giving examples of what he didn't explain.

[00:23:58] Speaker 01:
And of course, they concluded by saying, Mr. Reed's testimony merely parrots the language from the petition.

[00:24:05] Speaker 01:
Now, the board was not holding One World to some inappropriate obviousness standard.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
They made the finding.

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
Well, let's be clear about something.

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
The board used loose language.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
I don't love some of the rhetoric in the opinion.

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
I may think it, under a substantial evidence standard, shall be affirmed.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
But the board did sort of use this notion that they had to disprove other things, which is probably not a particularly good way to phrase it.

[00:24:38] Speaker 01:
Well, I think, Your Honor, when you read it in context, because a lot of their argument, as Your Honor pointed out, was inherency, they used that language that way.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
But then you have to look at everything they say.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
And if you look at footnote 17, they're saying, and one world you didn't argue that it would have been obvious to modify figure 10 to include the electoral supply contractor.

[00:25:01] Speaker 01:
So both of those reasons, I think, informed the language that you see.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
And with that, I will rest.

[00:25:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
Mr. Padachowski, I'll restore two minutes of rebuttal time.

[00:25:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:25:19] Speaker 02:
said that the PTAB is required to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.

[00:25:28] Speaker 02:
With respect to both issues here, that didn't happen in one world request.

[00:25:33] Speaker 03:
Could you address the question of whether you argued for a motor cutoff switch?

[00:25:38] Speaker 03:
And the board at least seems to rest its argument entirely on the notion that you never argued for a motor cutoff switch.

[00:25:48] Speaker 03:
Did you argue for that?

[00:25:50] Speaker 02:
Yes, one world did in the context of the operation assembly claim limitation because in the operation assembly section of

[00:26:03] Speaker 02:
the declaration at paragraph 74, there was a discussion that Episcida would have found it obvious to include the operation assembly to enable the user to selectively control the motor.

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
Not simply control the blade, control the motor and thus the blade.

[00:26:20] Speaker 02:
And then the only way in the context of an electric lawnmower for that operation assembly to control the motor is to use an electric switch

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
which is an electric supply contactor that is discussed at appendix page 960 in connection with the limitation, a first control device configured to be controlled by the operation assembly.

[00:26:42] Speaker 02:
Again, Your Honors, one world did not argue in so many words that it would have been obvious to add an electrical supply contactor.

[00:26:52] Speaker 02:
There is one more dot that needs to be connected, but there's no other way to understand the evidence that's given at pages 957 and 958.

[00:27:03] Speaker 02:
about the operation assembly selectively controlling the motor, and with one of the motivations to do so being to save power when not needed, and then when that is made in conjunction with the disclosure of the electrical supply contactor.

[00:27:18] Speaker 02:
Therefore, one won't ask this court to vacate all four IPR decisions.

[00:27:22] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:27:23] Speaker 00:
I thank both counsel for their argument.

[00:27:25] Speaker 00:
This case is taken under submission.