[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Final case for argument this morning is 22-1344, Ultravision Technologies versus Lux Visual.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
We're ready whenever you are.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, this appeal, the 1344 appeal, challenges the board's determination that claims 1, 10 through 13, 19, and 20 are obvious over the Kaluwa reference and ordinary skill as illustrated by the Watchfire reference.

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
The board's determination lacked substantial evidence because the combination does not teach the claim signed sections.

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
The claims require two separate structures, display modules and signed sections having a front-facing portion that defines an array of bays that receive the display modules.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
The patent discloses a retrofit kit for use with existing billboards.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
It describes the signed sections

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
as structural frames in one embodiment that form an array of bays into which display modules are inserted.

[00:01:07] Speaker 01:
Kalua discloses display modules that are stacked on one another.

[00:01:13] Speaker 01:
The board found that the video image units of Kalua are the claimed display modules.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
Kalua has no disclosure, however, of signed sections with an array of bays.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
The board ignored these two separate structural requirements and collapsed them into one.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
According to the board, merely stacking the display modules of Kalua on top of one another creates the sign sections that define the array of bays that receive the display modules.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
In the board's scenario, the bays that are supposed to be defined by the sign sections are the housings of the display modules that are being received by the bays.

[00:01:56] Speaker 01:
This means that Kahlua's image units are both the bays and the display modules under the claims, and there are no signed sections in Kahlua.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
The signed section limitations are therefore not met by Kahlua, and the claims can't be obvious.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
The board found that because display modules in Kahlua can be stacked in a way that creates an array, they, quote, can be viewed, quote, end quote, as having signed sections and bays.

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
This is incorrect because display modules are claimed separately from the signed sections, and so they're separate structures.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
The embodiments in the specification support this view.

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
The purpose of the signed structure is allow video modules to be inserted and removed as necessary.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
In Kahlua, all the modules are stacked up on one another.

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
They may even be joined together and stacked.

[00:02:52] Speaker 01:
One cannot remove, let's say at the bottom of the pile of Kahlua modules, one of these modules needs to be swapped out because it's defective.

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
Under the patented invention, one can simply remove from the bay the video module and replace it with a working one.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
Under the board's reading of Kalula in view of Watchfire, the video module can't be removed.

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
The entire assembly would have to be taken down to get to the one module at the bottom, which was defective.

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
And so reading the claims the way that the board has

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
removes one of the most important features and benefits of the claims, which is having this separate structure that's mounted to the billboard and has bays in the front and separate display modules which can be inserted in order to retrofit the billboard.

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
I frankly find all of this very confusing.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
But on this particular point, I think this is the point.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
I mean, your argument is that what the board said doesn't make any sense because the display module and the sign sections can't be the same thing, right?

[00:04:02] Speaker 02:
But Red, to me, had a pretty compelling response to that point, which says, the board did not find that each of Kaluwa's video imaging units is itself a signed section.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
It found that an array of such video imaging units constitutes a signed section.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
Why is that wrong?

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
Because an array of display modules, or more than one display modules, still does not provide a second structure of a signed section.

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
So now we're saying that instead of one display module being a bay, now if we put, say, six of them in a pile, now we have a sign section.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
But we still don't have the separate structure that the claim requires.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
We just have a pile of display modules.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
Those display modules don't magically become sign sections, which are separate structures, merely because they happen to be arranged in an array.

[00:04:57] Speaker 04:
for a claim construction of sign section A at all, but B, that would require the sign section to have structures separate and apart from the structure of the bays themselves, which are just

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
I think, as the board said, the frames around the display, the display model.

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
I do not believe that we advocated for that kind of construction.

[00:05:27] Speaker 04:
What I took to be the

[00:05:30] Speaker 04:
Part of the board's view on the sign section argument was, might be put this way, that in the absence of a claim construction, the sign section need not itself be a physically distinct thing from the bays or the video modules that go into that.

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
It's just the grid that one can even just imagine in one's field of view looking at it.

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, we think that even in the absence of a construction, that that type of reading is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim.

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
The claim creates sign sections that have a front-facing portion that define the bays, and then they have a rear-facing portion for mounting to a surface of the existing signage mounting structure.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
So that defines in its plain meaning a structure that's got a back which is attached

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
to the billboard and a front which has bays.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
So simply stacking all these display modules and imagining that those display modules have signed sections, as mentioned by the claims, doesn't meet the rest of the limitations.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
It doesn't show that there's any connection in the back.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
This is a freestanding structure, the way that it's claimed.

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
It is not just a geometric idea.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
that is claimed with respect to display modules.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
And that's really what the board did.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
The board looked at this and said.

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
Can I just ask you, as an aside, you had some other claims that were in dispute that were upheld, right?

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
And the difference, as I recall, looking back at it between these claims and those claims, is the absence that the others, the upheld claims, had a structural frame, and these lack the same structural frame.

[00:07:23] Speaker 02:
Am I right about that?

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I don't recall how the Templeton combination was allowed.

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
Sorry to distract.

[00:07:33] Speaker 01:
No problem.

[00:07:35] Speaker 04:
I just want to press on this a little bit.

[00:07:38] Speaker 04:
And I might be wrong in what I have been focusing on, but this is what I have been focusing on, which is that the board effectively says that the signed sections need not themselves be

[00:07:50] Speaker 04:
structures separate and apart from the columned and rowed array of video displays, each one with enough of a surround to be a bay.

[00:08:07] Speaker 04:
And part of

[00:08:09] Speaker 04:
What I took to be sort of central to that was that in support of the idea that it can just be a geometric description of portions of the overall sign was that there are some other claims that do require an actual

[00:08:34] Speaker 04:
physical grid into which the rest can be inserted or removed without destruction of the grid itself.

[00:08:43] Speaker 04:
Well, the board... But the claims of health.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
And the board erred in that regard because the fact that there's a dependent claim that talks about structural members doesn't mean that the independent claim is not a structure and that the structure is only being supplied by the dependent claim.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
The dependent claim is just

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
is claiming a narrower type of structure for the signed sections.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
I go back to the fact that, number one, the claim itself requires that these signed sections have attachment points as well as having certain structures within them which receive.

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
simply stacking display modules so that they appear to be in a grid and have signed sections does not supply all the structure that's required for signed sections.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
So that even if you could imagine the geometry of it, that doesn't give you the rest of the structure that's involved.

[00:09:45] Speaker 04:
And secondly, I'm sure, where's the attachment point language?

[00:09:51] Speaker 04:
Is this claim one or claim 12 or what?

[00:09:53] Speaker 01:
So looking at claim one in the second major limitation, last clause, the rear-facing portion for mounting to a surface of the existing signage mounting structure.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
So the idea here is that we have a grid of some sort that's attached in its back to the billboard.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
And then the front of it has bays which take the modules.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
So we can't have this structure if all we're doing is stacking Kaluha modules and envisaging the geometric relationship between them.

[00:10:32] Speaker 01:
That just doesn't work.

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
And as I pointed out- It's not enough to attach the bays to the back.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
It's not enough to attach- Right.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:10:42] Speaker 01:
It's not enough to have bays in the front which receive

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
the modules, there is also a rear-facing portion for mounting to a surface of the existing signage mounting structure.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
So that is not provided by stacking KALUA modules.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
And so you're not getting to the requirements for sign sections simply by pointing to a part of the video modules of KALUA, which is its casing, and calling those bays

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
and then saying a group of those together make sign sections.

[00:11:19] Speaker 01:
You're just pointing to structure that's already part of the display module to supply this other structure, and still you haven't provided all of the features that are required, and therefore you don't get the benefits of the invention, which is the ability to remove and replace modules from anywhere in the display.

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
With Kahlua, you can't just pull the bottom one out.

[00:11:41] Speaker 01:
You'd have to take the whole sign apart, and I think that's a major

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
that's a major issue where you would be reading this claim in a way that eviscerates one of the important features of the invention.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
And that's at appendix 151, column 14, line 59, 57 to 62 is a discussion of the ability to remove and replace video modules as necessary.

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
I might move on to claim 12 quickly.

[00:12:07] Speaker 01:
Claim 12 was found to be obvious by the board, and that should be reversed because there's no

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
substantial evidence that Kaluha discloses a plurality of power extensions that extend from a node to the base.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
This requirement is only in Claim 12.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
It's not in Claim 1.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
So the idea is that in a given science section, you have a node that's receiving power.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
And then from that node, you have a plurality of power extensions that are going to the individual modules.

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
Kalua does not disclose sign sections to begin with.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
There are no sign sections, and so there can't be a node associated with a sign section that doesn't exist.

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
But secondly, there is no feature in Kalua in which there is a spot from which power is distributed to multiple panels in Kalua.

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
Kalua's panels all receive their power directly from the power source.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
in the patent receives power from the power source and then distributes it to a certain number of modules.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
That physical structure is not disclosed in Kahlua.

[00:13:20] Speaker 01:
And so claim 12, there's an additional reason why claim 12 is not obvious, and that is the lack of this plurality of power extensions.

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
The final issue that I wanted to raise quickly is the issue of the board's discounting the testimony of Mr. Crudell.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
When discussing his obviousness opinions, the board found that Mr. Crudell's testimony should be discounted because his arguments

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
essentially copied or were tracked closely or mostly repeats the statements made by the patent owner.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
And the board also said that his testimony lacked factual support.

[00:14:07] Speaker 01:
Well, to the extent that the board discounted Mr. Crudell's testimony because it mostly repeats statements made by patent owner, of course, the board

[00:14:18] Speaker 01:
has no way of knowing who's repeating whom.

[00:14:21] Speaker 01:
And the fact of the matter is that it is typical practice in an IPR where an expert provides opinions and support for opinions that the brief setter filed closely track that.

[00:14:35] Speaker 01:
No petitioner or patent owner wants to be accused of having opinions which are not.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
Do you acknowledge that the board said that they discredited him from lack of support?

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
They also mentioned a lack of support.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
They're saying that because they added this other issue that that involves the board created a new legal rule.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
It certainly did create a rule which is inappropriate.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
The lack of support, however,

[00:15:01] Speaker 01:
is the second issue they brought up.

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
And if one looks at the record and looks at Mr. Flask's conclusions against Mr. Crudel's, our briefing shows that Mr. Crudel's opinions were supported by the record.

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
He has numerous citations throughout his declaration.

[00:15:21] Speaker 01:
to the same evidence that Mr. Flask cites.

[00:15:25] Speaker 01:
Our principal brief at pages twenty through thirty provide examples of how Mr. Crudell relied on the same evidence as Mr. Flask to support his opinions that watch fire does not supply a person of ordinary skill with the knowledge of how to retrofit a billboard using the Kaluha displays.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
He provides, he looks at the same evidence.

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
What's interesting is that the board found that because Mr. Crudell admitted that

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
the installation method of watchfire is not determinable, that evidence is not in the record, that it undermines Mr. Crudell's conclusion that it's not combinable with Kaluah because of the issue with doors behind the Kaluah display modules and whether those would be accessible.

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
But the fact that watchfire does not disclose its installation method is actually evidence for why it's irrelevant to obviousness.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
Because a person of ordinary skill

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
without the knowledge about how watchfire works, has no information that it could use to allow it to use Kaluha to retrofit a billboard.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
You're way over your time.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
You used our rebuttal with Kaluha's story.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
As it may please the Court, Jordan Bach from Goodwin Proctor on behalf of the Appalachians.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
The board properly invalidated the challenge claims, which disclose nothing more than a kit for converting a non-electronic billboard

[00:16:50] Speaker 00:
into an electronic billboard by attaching an electronic sign to a non-electronic sign.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
Ultravision's challenge to the board's decision rests on two narrow factual disputes.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
Neither has merit.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
First, Ultravision argues that the term sign section requires some form of superstructure beyond the array of housings or bays.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, that's not a factual dispute.

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
This is a claim construction.

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
It's legal.

[00:17:15] Speaker 00:
I believe that Ultravision is turning their argument.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
They are attempting to turn their dispute

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
with the board's decision into a claim construction argument, when the core of the board's decision was what Kaluwe discloses and what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kaluwe to be disclosing, that is a factual question.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
And they didn't make a claim construction proposal to the board at all?

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
There was no claim construction about what a signed section requires.

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
So I think the way this is now being framed in their brief is

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
partially as a claim construction issue to turn it into a legal argument.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
But really, this is just a run of the mill question of whether the board's findings about what someone of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kaluah to disclose is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
And just turning to that, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the board's finding that someone of ordinary skill in the art would understand Kaluah to disclose what's in the independent claims in the 791 patent.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
Kaluah teaches a kit for converting

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
Kaluwis teaches an array of display panels in housings that are arrayed in rows and columns.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
What the board said, and I'll just quote their language, is the teachings in Kaluwis suggest that to an ordinarily skilled artisan, its image units can be arrayed in multiple columns and rows.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
Those arrayed imaging units can be viewed as having multiple different sign sections, and therefore, now I'm no longer quoting, it would suggest to someone of ordinary skill in the art that

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
the claim one of the 791 patent, the same limitations of claim one of the 791 patent.

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
And I don't think that... I took that language to be the decisive aspect of the board's opinion.

[00:18:55] Speaker 04:
And in my mind, that is saying that a relevant artisan would, in the absence of a claim construction, understand that the term sign sections could cover

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
What is nothing but an imaginary grid that allows a viewer to refer to portions of this overall sign with no independent structure.

[00:19:26] Speaker 00:
That's correct, your honor.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
And I think a couple of points further bolster the board's finding on that point.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
One, as we were discussing, there are dependent claims not at issue here that use the term compound structural frame.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
So there are these references to an additional... And I understand how additional claims can bear on claim construction, but you say we don't have a claim construction question.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:19:48] Speaker 00:
There is no claim construction dispute, but I think it further... It at least goes to the argument on appeal, even if I don't think

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
you know it would provide a basis for reversing the board's decision because I think at the end of the day what they're arguing is a factual dispute but in terms of you know I think they're now essentially in part raising a claim construction argument that wasn't raised before the board to the extent they are trying to raise that I don't think it works because of the structural frame I mean for multiple reasons but in part because of the structural frame language that's found in the dependent claims that are not in the claims at issue on appeal they don't think there's any

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
anything in the claim language that would show that the claims 1, 10 through 13, 19, and 20, the ones that are actually at issue here, require this type of additional superstructure.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
And as Judge Toronto has pointed out, there was no proposed claim construction of the term sign section below that would require.

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
Claim one sign section.

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
It has a front-facing portion and a rear-facing portion.

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:20:50] Speaker 03:
And on the rear-facing portion, since I came up along the prior argument, I'd make... So the rear-facing portion is for mounting to a surface of the existing signage mounting structure?

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
So what would that be in the KALUA array of video image units?

[00:21:10] Speaker 03:
What would be the rear-facing portion of KALUA's sign section?

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
Kalua describes that you have a set of image units placed in these housings that are then connected together by guides.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
I mean, Kalua, what the board found is

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
Kalua combined with ordinary skill and the art is how you would get to the retrofit kit of actually attaching the array of rows and columns to the back of the non-electronic billboard that you're actually retrofitting.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
What Kalua discloses or teaches specifically, what the board found that Kalua would teach to someone of ordinary skill and the art was the actual array of image units of columns and rows that are then going to be attached together so that that structure, as informed by the watchfire references, could then be attached to a non-electronic billboard.

[00:21:59] Speaker 03:
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out what's the rear-facing portion of the, you know, organized set of video image units from Kahlua.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
It would be part of the, it could be part of the housing itself.

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
There's nothing in the claim language in the 791 claim that says that the rear-facing... I guess I'm trying to figure out, are we talking about an imaginary thing or are we talking about a real thing when we're talking about

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
front-facing portion and a rear-facing portion of that thing.

[00:22:31] Speaker 00:
We're talking about a real thing in that we're talking about the structure that you would have on either what's disclosed in the clue or disclosed in the patent for how you would end up with an array of rows and columns attached to the non-electronic billboard.

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
I guess I'm trying to figure out, is the sign section nothing more than an array of bays?

[00:22:54] Speaker 03:
Columns and rows of bays, and that's it?

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
I will also say... So then the sign section does, in that sense, have some structure, because it's talking about a collection of bays, an organized collection of bays.

[00:23:08] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:23:09] Speaker 00:
And you could... I mean, there is... It's not that Kahlua doesn't disclose any structure.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
Kahlua has just described having guides on the sides of the panels and the tops and bottoms of the panels for... Do you understand why I'm struggling here?

[00:23:20] Speaker 03:
I mean, we're going back and forth trying to figure out

[00:23:23] Speaker 03:
is a sign section just O when I look at the overall combination of

[00:23:29] Speaker 03:
Kahlua video image units.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
I'll just define this one zone over here as one sign section, and then I'll look over here and proclaim that another zone of video image units is a second sign section.

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
Like the northwest section and the northeast section, just describing for... But maybe a more specific way of thinking about it is, well, it's this array of bays over here in the upper left.

[00:23:59] Speaker 03:
that is the sign section over here, not just the area itself.

[00:24:06] Speaker 03:
I'm trying to understand because the claim does say, well, this has a front-facing portion and a rear-facing portion, which all of a sudden starts to sound more structural and less mental thought, mental association of some area of an array of image units.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
I'll make two points on that.

[00:24:29] Speaker 00:
First, before I forget, I did want to mention that this argument that Ultravision raised before the court today about the rear-facing portion wasn't raised before the board and doesn't appear in their brief.

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
They specifically did not challenge in their brief on appeal anything related to the rear-facing portion.

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
So I did just want to emphasize that that was not in their brief.

[00:24:48] Speaker 00:
Now, in terms of this broader question about whether this is sort of an imaginary section or provides actual structure, I'll go back to the board's language, which is that

[00:24:56] Speaker 00:
an array of image units in columns and rows would give you the sign structure.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
I don't think where the attachments are coming from to attach the image units to the display would be coming from the bay or the housing itself.

[00:25:12] Speaker 00:
So in that sense, we do understand the sign section language to be an organizational term in effect that's describing a section of the

[00:25:22] Speaker 00:
image units in columns and rows, but doesn't actually provide any sort of superstructure that then would be used to attach the arrays in columns and rows, the array of bays, to the sign section itself.

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
Another way to think about it could be there is discussion in the patent of how these were actually shipped out from the factory, and in that context the specification does refer to shipping sign sections out from the factory, so in that sense it's also just another organizational term for describing groupings of the

[00:25:52] Speaker 00:
imaging units that then could be assembled together.

[00:25:55] Speaker 00:
But again, nothing in the claim language requires that there is any sort of additional structure.

[00:26:01] Speaker 00:
What the claim language says is the front-facing portion defining a two-dimensional array of bays arranged in a plurality of rows in a vertical and horizontal direction.

[00:26:11] Speaker 00:
Certainly the board conclusion, and again, this is an obviousness case, looking at Kaluwa, that Kaluwa discusses having, again, an array of

[00:26:20] Speaker 00:
electronic display panels in housings in rows and columns could say correctly that someone of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you would get from, that Kaluwa's disclosure of those array of imaging units in housings would teach the same overall plurality of display modules and sign sections that then disclosed in claim one of the 791 patent.

[00:26:45] Speaker 00:
In terms of the other points that Older Vision touched on,

[00:26:48] Speaker 00:
They focused on this fact that in the 791 patent, it emphasizes that you can remove the imaging unit from the bay, which Ultravision says would separate what's happening in the 791 patent from Kaluha.

[00:27:02] Speaker 00:
Kaluha has a similar discussion of being able to remove the video display panels from the housings.

[00:27:09] Speaker 00:
It's in paragraphs six and seven, which is on appendix 892.

[00:27:12] Speaker 00:
And Kaluha specifically talks about that one of the problems in the prior art was that the panels

[00:27:17] Speaker 00:
If they're entirely encased so that they're not separable from their housing, if there's damage, then you lose the entire panel and you can't correct it.

[00:27:25] Speaker 00:
So paragraph six specifically says, there's a need for a video display panel that's sealed, but that can be dismantled for repair and replacement of component parts.

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
And then paragraph seven then goes on to talk about how the display panel and the housing can be disassembled for replayer and replacement of damaged components.

[00:27:41] Speaker 00:
So I don't think that's a meaningful distinction, particularly if you're thinking about what Kaluha would teach to someone of ordinary skill in the art.

[00:27:50] Speaker 04:
I think I understood what you just said, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that Kaluha does teach removing the video display panels from the housing.

[00:27:59] Speaker 04:
And their point, I think, on the other side is that

[00:28:04] Speaker 04:
Um, the patent, this patent teaches, um, removing the bays from the structure.

[00:28:15] Speaker 04:
And you want to say that's not right because the housing is what the board found to be the definition of the bays.

[00:28:22] Speaker 04:
Um, so, um, those would remain in the Kahlua situation of taking out, um, the video, uh, panels.

[00:28:31] Speaker 00:
I think if I understood your question correctly, what I was trying to communicate is Kaluwa likewise teaches to someone of ordinary skill in the art that you would want a system where you can separate out, both can separate out the panels from the housings that they're enclosed in, and then also can, you'd have individual housing units that are then being attached together, because with paragraphs six and seven really emphasize.

[00:28:53] Speaker 04:
But in Kaluwa, you can't, without the whole thing tumbling down, take out.

[00:29:01] Speaker 04:
a entire unit, including taking out the housing.

[00:29:06] Speaker 00:
I don't think there's anything in Kalua that suggests that that wouldn't be possible in, in two senses.

[00:29:11] Speaker 04:
I thought they're just stacked with pegs and holes to keep them in order.

[00:29:16] Speaker 00:
They are, there are guide units on them that attach them together, but I don't think there's anything in the specification that suggests that if you have rows and columns of them, that if you take one out, the entire structure would collapse.

[00:29:28] Speaker 00:
If you're, you know, if I just think about stacking

[00:29:31] Speaker 04:
But they're not, I mean, the edges are lined up.

[00:29:34] Speaker 04:
They're not overlapping.

[00:29:37] Speaker 00:
I think, I mean, two points.

[00:29:39] Speaker 00:
I think the first point I'd say is I don't think there's enough.

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
I don't think that the.

[00:29:46] Speaker 04:
You may not need this additional point, that if you can take out, to the extent that the patent owner's argument here is about the purpose, that the purpose of being able to remove individual defective units and swap in a better one is served even if the housing remains.

[00:30:09] Speaker 00:
I think that's correct.

[00:30:10] Speaker 00:
And the way I understood their purpose argument was about talking about moving, and I may have misunderstood it, but as removing the display panels from the housing specifically, because they were focused on the board's conclusion that there was nothing prohibiting having these self-contained panels themselves that would have both the housing and the video display unit in it.

[00:30:29] Speaker 00:
And Kaluua makes clear that you could separate out the display panel from the housing so that you could then correct it if there was an issue.

[00:30:37] Speaker 00:
I see that I'm running low on time.

[00:30:39] Speaker 00:
I'll jump to the evidence issue first, unless there are specific questions on the power node.

[00:30:45] Speaker 00:
So on the evidence point, the board, I think two points.

[00:30:49] Speaker 00:
Number one, regardless of the board's determination of its view of Mr. Crudel and his testimony, the board's primary justification for motivation was that obviousness doesn't require a showing specifically that you could physically combine the two references in the prior art.

[00:31:04] Speaker 00:
And this is an ally directing and a series of other cases quoted there.

[00:31:08] Speaker 00:
What the board said was,

[00:31:10] Speaker 00:
Putting aside the expert testimony, the question here is whether someone of ordinary skill in the art would understand the teachings of the references together.

[00:31:18] Speaker 00:
Mr. Crudell's testimony, and Ultravision hasn't responded to that in their briefs.

[00:31:21] Speaker 00:
I didn't hear them respond in their argument.

[00:31:24] Speaker 00:
Mr. Crudell's testimony focused on, could you physically combine these references?

[00:31:28] Speaker 00:
And the board said, you don't need to show that you can physically combine the references, because the question is, what are the teachings of the references taking together?

[00:31:36] Speaker 00:
Second point I'll make briefly to conclude.

[00:31:38] Speaker 00:
The board did not come up with a rule that you can't quote expert testimony.

[00:31:42] Speaker 00:
What the board said is Mr. Cadell's testimony is conclusory.

[00:31:44] Speaker 00:
It's not based on anything and all.

[00:31:47] Speaker 04:
Just to be clear, you don't think, do you, that it's suspect that a petition uses language that is

[00:31:57] Speaker 04:
it's substantial part identical to the attached declaration.

[00:32:02] Speaker 04:
I mean, we see that every single week and it would be kind of crazy for there to be, for that to be suspect because as your friend on the other side says, you then have a problem of arguments unsupported by what's in the declaration.

[00:32:21] Speaker 00:
No, I think what you are describing, we do not have an issue with.

[00:32:25] Speaker 00:
What the board found it had an issue with, which we agree with, is there was nothing supporting the actual expert testimony in the declaration.

[00:32:32] Speaker 00:
And not only was it nothing supporting it, the board actually found that Mr. Crudell contradicted himself.

[00:32:36] Speaker 00:
And given that, the board was well within its discretion to decide to discredit the expert testimony on the basis of the testimony in particular, not the quotes in the brief.

[00:32:45] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:32:46] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:32:47] Speaker 01:
A couple of quick points of rebuttal, please.

[00:32:50] Speaker 02:
Let's restore three minutes.

[00:32:53] Speaker 01:
With respect to the claim itself, our primary argument here is that the display modules and the signed sections are two separate independently claimed structures, and that the signed sections have to define the bays which receive the display modules.

[00:33:13] Speaker 01:
Stacking modules and calling a portion of those modules the bays

[00:33:19] Speaker 01:
does not create a structure which receives the display modules.

[00:33:23] Speaker 01:
The display modules, according to the board's view, are defining the bays themselves.

[00:33:28] Speaker 01:
And so the language of the claim, the plain meaning of the claim, excludes the concept that one can simply arrange display modules in such a way that you create bays.

[00:33:39] Speaker 04:
I think it's just correct.

[00:33:41] Speaker 04:
I guess I thought what the board said was that the housing around the display manual

[00:33:47] Speaker 04:
modules are the bays.

[00:33:49] Speaker 04:
So there's nothing odd about saying that those housings receive the module that goes into them.

[00:33:56] Speaker 01:
But that housing is part of the module.

[00:33:59] Speaker 01:
So how does the module receive itself?

[00:34:01] Speaker 01:
How does a bay defined by the module receive a module?

[00:34:05] Speaker 01:
It's just not consistent with the meaning of the claims.

[00:34:08] Speaker 01:
With respect to the mention of watch fire and the issue with

[00:34:15] Speaker 01:
whether Watchfire provides a retrofit kit or provides the ability to do that.

[00:34:23] Speaker 01:
The testimony is that the structure of Watchfire and how the signs, the digital signs, are attached to or received by or otherwise made it to the boards is not in the record.

[00:34:36] Speaker 01:
There is no evidence as to how it is that the digital signs are placed on the watchfire billboard so that you can retrofit the billboard.

[00:34:48] Speaker 01:
So a person of ordinary skill in the art in observing watchfire with the evidence that's been provided does not receive any, does not have knowledge of how to structurally

[00:35:00] Speaker 01:
create a retrofit kit based on Kalua.

[00:35:03] Speaker 01:
There's no information provided at all.

[00:35:05] Speaker 01:
If one said, Mr. Flass doesn't explain, well, based on looking at watch fire, a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the Kalua modules and create a retrofit kit and create a billboard as follows.

[00:35:20] Speaker 01:
Now, the board said there isn't a requirement for a physical combination or bodily combination.

[00:35:26] Speaker 01:
But we're not talking about actually physically putting Kalua on a Watchfire billboard.

[00:35:31] Speaker 01:
We're not talking about a bodily combination.

[00:35:33] Speaker 01:
What we're saying is that there's no information at all made available by Watchfire that would allow someone to take the Kalua modules, which are not a retrofit kit, and use them as a retrofit kit with respect to a billboard.

[00:35:48] Speaker 01:
So it's not a physical or bodily incorporation argument we've made.

[00:35:52] Speaker 01:
We're simply saying a person of ordinary skill, knowing watch fire, cannot necessarily use Kahlua as a retrofit.

[00:36:05] Speaker 01:
Nothing further.

[00:36:05] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:36:06] Speaker 02:
We thank both sides.

[00:36:07] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted, and that concludes our proceeding for this morning.