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

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
I'd like to begin where we left off in the last argument, which is the oscillator voltage limitation in claim 37.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
And the issue in this appeal is not the output, but rather it's the input.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
What does supply voltage mean?

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
And the board correctly determined that a supply voltage is the voltage into the oscillator.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
There are at least three reasons for that.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
One is that you're dealing with a limitation that begins an oscillator.

[00:00:41] Speaker 01:
So it's clear that this limitation is talking about what the oscillator is.

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
The argument on appeal that is raised in the cross appeal is that supply voltage in the wherein clause

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
You'd be starting with the cross-appeal then.

[00:00:59] Speaker 01:
I am starting with the cross-appeal, if that's OK, just because we left off with that.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
No, no, you can't do that.

[00:01:05] Speaker 04:
Oh, OK.

[00:01:05] Speaker 04:
You've got to address your appeal first, and then you'll get a chance to address the cross-appeal.

[00:01:13] Speaker 01:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
But I'm happy to go into our appeal first.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
And there I'd like to raise the issue of reasonable expectation of combining the Ingram-Cadwell, what they call the Ingram-Cadwell system, with Gerfied.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
And as the court knows, this is the second time that this issue has been before the court.

[00:01:37] Speaker 04:
OK, let me ask you a question here, because obviously the question of combining Gerfied with Ingram-Cadwell was properly an issue on the remand before the board.

[00:01:48] Speaker 04:
But you say that the issue of combining Ingraham and Caldwell itself is before the board.

[00:01:55] Speaker 04:
I don't read the mandate as leaving that question open.

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
The scope of the remand is to consider, based on the proper payments, are we vacating the remand of the board to consider whether Samson has shown to be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teaching of Gerfod with the teachings of Ingraham and Caldwell?

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
So that seems to be the scope of the remand, and yet you're arguing that the board heard by failing to address something that wasn't within the scope of the remand.

[00:02:27] Speaker 01:
Because it had never been addressed in the earlier final written decision at all, and it's foundational to whether you can then add Gerpied to that combination, and that's why we raised it.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
Are you saying, in effect, that

[00:02:40] Speaker 02:
the combination of Ingram and Caldwell is incorporated within the question of the combination of Ingram, Caldwell, and Gerphide?

[00:02:48] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
That's our argument.

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
But if you read our mandate, it's not leaving that open.

[00:02:54] Speaker 04:
You've got a problem.

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
We do with that particular combination, but not with the combination of adding Gerphide to that system.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
You would agree that principles of law of the case apply here?

[00:03:06] Speaker 01:
I would.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
Yeah.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
And that is actually one of the issues.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
The board read the- You didn't raise in the first appeal the Ingram-Codwell combination issue, right?

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
We didn't because we didn't have to.

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
The board had found in favor of us based on combining, whether Curbhide could be combined with Ingram-1 and Cadwell.

[00:03:29] Speaker 04:
So it never got to the foundation- But we raised a number of other issues that would give you a win.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
Yes, your honor and and that's it and I'll move to that and that's the reasonable expectation of success in Combining gerpied with ingram one and cadwell and that was plainly within the scope of the mandate.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
Yes, but the board We don't think read it that way It seemed that what the board in the second final written decision did was essentially assumed that

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
that GURPAID could be combined with INGRAM-1 and CADWELL and work for the intended purpose of reducing interference in that combination.

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
And therefore, the only question that was remanded to the board was whether that combination could select from multiple possible frequencies.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
And that's essentially taking the claim language and saying, in hindsight, would that combination do it?

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
And that was all the board looked at, was whether that combination could select from multiple possible frequencies.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
It never went back and considered the evidence in the record of whether that combination could be made in the first place to reduce electrical interference.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
The reasonable expectation of success

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
that it would work for that particular intended purpose.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
But we don't think that that's an accurate reading of what this court said in the mandate.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
The court expressly said that it was remanding to the board to consider whether Samsung has shown that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Durpied with the teachings of Ingram 1 and Cadwell to arrive at the claimed invention.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
And to do that,

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
there has to be some sort of teaching in the teaching in GERP-HIDE of reducing the interference had to have been shown in the petition.

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
The petition had to say that a person of learning skill in the art would have understood that GERP-HIDE's teachings of reducing interference could have worked with the Ingram 1 CADWELL system.

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
And in order to reduce that interference, what GURPIDE says is there has to be some way of measuring what that interference is.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
GURPIDE offered several ways that it could be measured, and we showed that none of those ways would work to reduce interference in the INGRAM-1 CADWELL system.

[00:06:11] Speaker 01:
And in fact, the way Ingram 1 and CADWEL works, with the touch circuits being either on or off, there is no possible way in GURPAID or any other combination to measure whatever interference there might be in that combination.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
It simply wouldn't work.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
And that is not disputed.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
There is nothing in either the petition itself

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
or in the board's analysis that explains how you would measure interference in Ingram, One, and Cadwell, such that you could take the teachings of GURPAID to measure what that interference is and then correct for it.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
It is simply not there.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
And for that reason, we think the board not only erred, but again, it essentially assumed that it didn't have to find the teachings of GURPAID, that the teachings of GURPAID would include some way of measuring interference, because the board knew and the petitioner knew that that can't be done in their foundational combination system of Codwell and Ingram 1.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
And you don't really have to go any further to know that than to look at the petition itself, the starting point of any analysis.

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
And the petition at page 139 through 142

[00:07:43] Speaker 01:
first of all, doesn't have any separate discussion of reasonable expectation of success.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
You look at the headings, it talks about the motivation to combine.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
In Samsung One, this court found that there would have been a motivation to combine and reverse the board on that issue.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
But there was no separate discussion of reasonable expectation of success.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
And in fact, in the first board decision, the board looked at the evidence in the petition and said, yeah,

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
Petitioner, you don't explain how it is that the teachings of GERP Heide 1 for measuring interference can be used in the combination to reduce that interference.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
And then in the second final written decision, the board completely reversed itself

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
and said, well, okay, now we're finding that the evidence is there.

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
The problem is that the parties agreed and the board ordered that no new evidence would be presented, and no new evidence was offered.

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
So how does the board find that the evidence that was insufficient to show that GERP-HIDE would work to reduce interference, or that GERP-HIDE would not work to reduce interference in the first final written decision

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
And now in the second written decision, that evidence suddenly suffices.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
Well, the way it- Because we said in our decision that the reasonable expectation of success finding, lack of reasonable expectation of success finding by the board the first time around was based on incorrect implicit claim construction.

[00:09:29] Speaker 04:
So there's nothing inconsistent with that in using the evidence to reach an opposite conclusion under the correct construction.

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
That's what this court said.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
But then in the remand, it said go back and using the correct construction, re-look at that evidence, and determine whether the teachings of GERP-HIDE could satisfy the intended purpose for adding GERP-HIDE in the first place.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
And again, that intended purpose is to reduce

[00:09:58] Speaker 01:
internal interference which requires an interference measurement which the board correctly found the first time around

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
could not be done, and the petitioner presented no evidence to show that it could be done.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
And if it couldn't be done the first time without any additional evidence, it couldn't be done the second time, even when you apply this court's correct claim construction.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
And instead, what the board did was it essentially said, well, it

[00:10:31] Speaker 01:
The board basically said, let's look at the patent donor's arguments, and characterized those arguments in a way that A, wasn't accurate, and B, effectively shift the burden of proving that the combination would allow for an interference measurement to reduce interference, put that burden on the patent donor.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
and said that the patent owner didn't satisfy that burden.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
That turns the relative burden.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
What were you pointing to in the, they said that the patent owner didn't satisfy that burden?

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
Where does that?

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
That is, the entire discussion is on one page.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
of the final written decision at page twenty seven and they're looking at that yes and they're the the board address the patent owners arguments and said uh... well they're wrong but it did but what the board never did on that page or any page before was goes back to the evidence under the correct plane construction say does

[00:11:35] Speaker 03:
I agree.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
It doesn't mean they're shifting the

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
So the rest of what they're saying is that they, as Judge Dyke pointed out, they talk about the fact that under the Federal Circuit's construction of selectively providing, blah, blah, blah, and they talk about the need not incorporate the specific features.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
And then they went on to review the evidence, which we review on substantial evidence.

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
What is the gap?

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
The gap is that there was no discussion of how you would take Gerpied's teaching in the board's decision

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
of measuring interference to reduce, or sorry, measuring interference so that you could select a frequency to reduce it, there was no discussion of how that would work in the combination of Codwell and Ingram.

[00:12:33] Speaker 01:
And the reason they didn't discuss it, and the reason that it's not discussed in the petition, is because it wouldn't work to eliminate interference.

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
There is simply no possible way to combine GURPAID with Ingram-1 and Codwell.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:12:49] Speaker 02:
Since you argued that the argument that you're making incorporates Ingram, Caldwell into Ingram, Caldwell, Gerfied, don't you think therefore it's fair to say if the board finds there's a reasonable expectation of success for the combination of Ingram, Caldwell, and Gerfied, that that

[00:13:14] Speaker 02:
subsumes the question of whether there's a reasonable expectation of success with respect to Ingram and Caldwell.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
Well, not necessarily because our original patent donor response pointed out a number of independent reasons why you couldn't combine Ingram and Caldwell in the first place.

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
The interesting bit of argument is that they just didn't make such a finding.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
Isn't their finding that they make at the bottom of page 27 that there was a reasonable expectation of success, whether you agree with that finding or not, and you obviously don't agree.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
But isn't that a finding that incorporates the question of reasonable expectation of success in combining Ingram and Caldwell, as well as Ingram, Caldwell, and Durfine?

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
Again, I don't think so, because it's mixing apples and oranges.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
In looking at reasonable expectations.

[00:13:59] Speaker 02:
Well, didn't they decide that both the apples and the oranges were both actually such?

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
I think that they left out the oranges in that the original combination of Ingram-1 and Cadwell couldn't be combined for a different reason, and that's because the scan frequencies are – that's because the frequencies in which they operate are a thousand times different, which is not the issue in the – when you add in Gerpite.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
And again, that's the issue that there is no way of measuring.

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
If there's no other questions, I reserve the balance of my time for the supply voltage issues.

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
I'm going to start with the reasonable expectation of success issues and just make a couple of points.

[00:14:51] Speaker 00:
I really would like to get to this fly voltage claim construction issue, if I may.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
With respect to the reasonable expectation of success issues, the substantial evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Subramanian, which the board credited, we believe more than supports the board's factual findings here, they simply cannot overcome the high barrier that's required under substantial evidence.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
As Judge Postu pointed out, with respect to the graffiti issue, we believe the board's decision very methodically follows this court's mandate in Samson 1, and goes through, looks at the evidence from both sides, looks at the arguments, and simply concludes that they did not find their arguments persuasive, and they agreed with Samson with respect to this issue.

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
And I think there's one sentence that I'd like to point the court to, which is in Appendix 27,

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
And this is where it's in the middle.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
This is what the board said.

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
Petitioner asserts, supported by evidence from Dr. Subramanian, that the Ingram-Caldwell combination would have been modified based on GERFIDA to provide features that adjust the oscillator signal frequencies provided to the input portion 13.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
to negate the effect of interference on the input portion 13 and touch sensing circuits.

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
And of course, on the previous pages, they actually cited to that testimony from Dr. Subramanian.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
So we believe substantial evidence more than supports the board's findings here.

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
Unless you have any questions on the reasonable expectation of success issues, I'd like to move to the SPI voltage clinical structure.

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
So I have one question on P38.

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
specific to what you make of that.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, we agree.

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
And I think this goes back to, I think, Judge Dike, your question.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
To the extent it's not foreclosed by the mandate, and going back to your advice, and you pointed out, we do believe the board did make enough findings with respect to Ingram and Caldwell, and Ingram and Caldwell ended up fighting.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
And the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence with respect to those issues.

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
OK, why don't you go ahead and claim construction.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
With respect to the supply voltage claim construction issue, we believe the board did incorrectly analyze that issue.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
If you look at the claim language, it states an oscillator providing a periodic output signal having a predefined frequency where an oscillator voltage is greater than a supply voltage.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
Now, the board obviously added the words off the oscillator to supply voltage in that claim.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
And we believe that was improper for at least five reasons.

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
First, it's undisputed.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
Obviously, the claim language does not have those words.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
Second, the specification, there is no disclaimer in the specification.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
So the plain and ordinary meaning of the term should govern.

[00:17:45] Speaker 00:
In fact, UUSI knew, this gets to my next reason, UUSI certainly knew when it wanted to limit the terms to the oscillator, it did so.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
In fact, if you look at the language in claim 37, they referred to the oscillator voltage.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
They didn't call it an output voltage, they said the oscillator voltage.

[00:18:02] Speaker 00:
So they certainly knew how to limit the term to the oscillator if they wanted to.

[00:18:06] Speaker 00:
And I think if you look at the other claims that we have here, for example, if you look at claims 61, 83, and 94 that talk about the microcontroller, there again, what the board did was they said, well, that refers to the supply voltage of the microcontroller.

[00:18:20] Speaker 00:
But that again violates a fundamental canon of claim construction that they are attributing different meanings to different claim terms.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
And we think that's improper, especially if you look, for example, if you look at claims to the same claim term.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
Yes, Ron.

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
And if you look at claim 61, for example, it refers to the microcontroller, and it talks about the supply voltage, but it doesn't say it's the supply voltage of the microcontroller.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
But I think what's telling here is if you actually look at claim 65, maybe we can do this together.

[00:18:47] Speaker 00:
If you can look at appendix 105, and that's the 183 pattern.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
So if you look at column three on appendix 105, it has claim 61.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
and if you look at right around line 40 on column 3, it talks about the microcontroller, right, and at the end of that limitation, that's around line 49, it says the signal output frequency is greater than the supply voltage.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
Again, it did not specify that

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
it's the supply voltage of the microcontroller.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
But what did the board do here?

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
The board actually limited that term to say it's the supply voltage of the microcontroller.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
But that can't be right, because if you look at dependent claim 65, and that's on column 4 on the same page,

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
And that's around line 22.

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
It says the capacitive responsive electronic switching circuit, as defined in claim 61, wherein the supply voltage is a voltage regulator supply voltage.

[00:19:51] Speaker 00:
So they certainly knew, Your Honors, how to specify and limit the supply voltage if they wanted to limit the scope of the supply voltage.

[00:19:57] Speaker 00:
And of course, there are other claims in this patent, claim 3, claim 55, claim 81, that all refer to the supply voltage and limit it, right?

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
Perhaps in that case,

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
the if and the claim was intended to limit the supply voltage to something coming from the voltage regulator as opposed to simply a supply going

[00:20:21] Speaker 02:
into the oscillator without a voltage regulator.

[00:20:24] Speaker 02:
Is that a possible reading of those two claims?

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, certainly, I think that is one reading of that claim, but again- Which would take care of the argument, right?

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
Well, but I think you have to- I think my point is more simpler, Your Honor.

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
They certainly knew how to limit this by voltage- Yeah, that argument comes up a lot, where different language is used in different settings.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
Let me ask you this.

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
In the course of the prosecution history for the re-examination,

[00:20:48] Speaker 02:
the patentee was giving the written description support for this very portion of the claim.

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
And that prosecution history indicates to me, at least as I read it, you're nodding, so I assume you're familiar with this.

[00:21:12] Speaker 02:
It wasn't in the materials.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
It indicates that the supply is the regulated 5 volts power to the oscillator via lines 104 and 105 and also the 26 volts via 106.

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
That seems to me to pin the tail on the donkey as to what

[00:21:31] Speaker 02:
supply voltage is not.

[00:21:33] Speaker 02:
That's coming right from the mouth of the patentee.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I agree.

[00:21:38] Speaker 00:
And I think that actually goes to one of our arguments.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
So I think this goes back to the figure four embodiment, right?

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
But why doesn't this indicate to us that supply voltage is that which is coming into the oscillators?

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
And so I don't believe it does, Your Honor, because if you actually look at, and I don't have that particular page, but I believe I know what you're referring to, if you look at the prosecution history of the re-exam, they actually point to the voltage regulator as well when they're pointing to- Well, but the voltage regulator and the oscillator are essentially part of the same unit.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
I mean, the voltage regulator is taking these unregulated voltages and knocking it down to 26 and 5.

[00:22:16] Speaker 02:
And that's all supply into the oscillator, as opposed to supply to some circuit that's way down

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
Somewhere out some component way down farther in the circuit, right?

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
So I disagree your honor and if we could look at this together I think this is what I was trying to get to is if you can go to appendix 71, which is the figure four and If you look at it, you'll see that the voltage regulator is actually a separate component from the oscillator.

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
It is, but the voltage regulator and the oscillator

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
operate in tandem, in effect, to take voltage that's coming in that's not suitable, presumably, for the oscillator.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
The voltage regulator fixes the voltage to something that the oscillator can use and then the oscillator sends it on.

[00:23:00] Speaker 02:
It seems to me not unreasonable to say that supply voltage is either the voltage from the voltage regulator to the oscillator or the voltage that is coming into the voltage regulator.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
That's all supply for the oscillator.

[00:23:15] Speaker 00:
So your honor, if the board had actually said that, I don't think we would be having this argument.

[00:23:20] Speaker 00:
The board actually, so our point is, in fact, if your reading is right, right, that the oscillator supply voltage could come from the voltage regulator, right, the supply voltage of the voltage regulator, then I believe then this court needs to correct the board's claim.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
Well, why would it make any difference to the outcome of the case?

[00:23:38] Speaker 00:
Here's why, Your Honor, because if you look at, for example, it goes back to the issue of what is the supply voltage, right?

[00:23:45] Speaker 02:
Assuming that I would accept that it could be either of those two, but nothing else.

[00:23:51] Speaker 02:
Well, so, right, and that's what I would agree with.

[00:23:53] Speaker 02:
And that is an assumption that seems to be entirely fair, given my characterization, at least as I see it, of the relationship between the supply voltage coming to the voltage regulator and the supply voltage coming to the oscillator.

[00:24:06] Speaker 02:
as being quite different in kind from other types of supply voltage downstream.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
So I would certainly disagree that if you were to limit it to just those two.

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
But that proves our point, that what the board said from a supply voltage perspective, that reading claim 37, the board based its decision entirely on claim 37 and the way it was laid out.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
And they said, based on what claim 37, the way it's written, that the supply voltage has to be the supply voltage of the oscillator.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
And we believe that's incorrect.

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
And I think part of your reasoning, I think, supports that.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
That, for example, their reading excludes the voltage regulator supply voltage.

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
And, of course, the dependent claims, again, when they knew how to limit those claims, right?

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
They knew, for example, in claim 65 that I pointed to, they actually said it's the voltage regulator supply voltage.

[00:24:59] Speaker 02:
Well, taking a step back a little from the details of the argument, why would it make any sense

[00:25:07] Speaker 02:
to make anything turn on the supply voltage to some component that's way down somewhere else in the circuit.

[00:25:14] Speaker 02:
That just doesn't seem to, I can understand why the relationship between the supply voltage to the oscillator and the output is an important relationship.

[00:25:23] Speaker 02:
I can't understand why the supply voltage to some other component that has little or nothing to do with the oscillator matters.

[00:25:32] Speaker 02:
Yeah, so I think you're right at that.

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
I understand, Your Honor, and I understand kind of the, I think what's perhaps troubling you.

[00:25:40] Speaker 00:
But I think the issue here is they are the drafter of their claims.

[00:25:44] Speaker 00:
They said it's fly voltage, right?

[00:25:45] Speaker 00:
And there's nothing special.

[00:25:47] Speaker 02:
We have to give the construction a common sense interpretation, assuming

[00:25:53] Speaker 02:
that they had something in mind other than just throwing a few words in arbitrarily.

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
So why would it make sense to say supply voltage relates to something that has nothing to do with the oscillator?

[00:26:03] Speaker 00:
And your honor, I'm not suggesting that it doesn't have to do anything with the oscillator.

[00:26:07] Speaker 00:
I think our point is, again, from a system.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
Sorry, Your Honor.

[00:26:13] Speaker 04:
What is the supply?

[00:26:15] Speaker 00:
So the supply voltage, we would believe, should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which is a voltage supply to a circuit or circuit component.

[00:26:22] Speaker 02:
Even if it's anywhere in the circuit?

[00:26:25] Speaker 00:
It would obviously have to be related to the circuit, right?

[00:26:28] Speaker 00:
And so I'm not saying that you would go and plug it out of some other circuit.

[00:26:31] Speaker 00:
It obviously has to be related to the circuit.

[00:26:33] Speaker 00:
I think the problem is, again, they drafted the claims.

[00:26:36] Speaker 00:
They certainly knew how to limit the claims.

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
And there's nothing special.

[00:26:39] Speaker 00:
about the supply voltage in this claim, right, with respect to, if you look at the specification, there's nothing special about saying, okay, well, for this claim that the supply voltage has to be, right, that oscillator's output voltage has to be greater than the supply voltage.

[00:26:54] Speaker 00:
The specification says very little about this issue.

[00:26:56] Speaker 04:
So what should we make of the fact that Apple doesn't agree with

[00:27:00] Speaker 00:
So, Your Honor, we respectfully, obviously, disagree with Apple.

[00:27:03] Speaker 00:
This is an issue of claim construction.

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
This Court reviews this de novo.

[00:27:07] Speaker 00:
And from our perspective, the Board did err in this.

[00:27:11] Speaker 00:
And the other thing I would point to is, Judge Bryson, going back to your question with respect to Figure 4,

[00:27:18] Speaker 00:
If you read the supply voltage the way they are, it excludes examples from the specification, right?

[00:27:24] Speaker 00:
So going back to that re-examination example you pointed to, it excludes the supply voltage that's coming into the oscillator, this 26-volt signal, it excludes that.

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
And we don't believe that's an improper reading of the, that's an improper reading of the claims.

[00:27:39] Speaker 00:
So because under their reading, Judge Dyke, they would basically say that that is not a supply voltage of the oscillator because it's 26 volts, right, which would equal what's on the output of that circuit.

[00:27:52] Speaker 00:
So under their reading, it would exclude that example, and we just think it leads to really results that, again, they are the draft of the claim.

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
They certainly selected the language when they needed to, but here we believe they did

[00:28:06] Speaker 00:
It shows the claim very broadly and this court should give the broad meaning to this.

[00:28:12] Speaker 02:
In that section in which they talked about the support for the oscillator voltage is greater than a supply voltage, they do refer to the voltage regulator as well as the oscillator.

[00:28:24] Speaker 02:
So I'm not sure I understand why you think that

[00:28:27] Speaker 02:
their interpretation would exclude this claim.

[00:28:31] Speaker 00:
So here's why, Judge Bryson.

[00:28:33] Speaker 00:
If you look at, under the reading of the claim, so when it comes to infringement, for example, they would say, all we need to point to, so let's say you had a device that had a signal going in that was a 5 volt signal and a 26 volt signal, like figure 4.

[00:28:50] Speaker 00:
and they would say, aha, this device infringes because it actually does have a signal that's coming in that's five volt, but let's ignore the other 26 volt signal, right?

[00:29:00] Speaker 00:
So my point is, again, they knew how to draft these claims, they certainly chose other words in other claims, and this court should really adhere

[00:29:09] Speaker 00:
to the canons of claim construction and really reverse the board's claim construction on this issue.

[00:29:14] Speaker 00:
And in fact, it should reverse here because there is no dispute that under the correct claim construction, this needs to go back.

[00:29:20] Speaker 00:
So we would ask that this court reverse.

[00:29:22] Speaker 00:
And I'll save the rest of my time for everybody, unless you have any questions.

[00:29:28] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:29:28] Speaker 04:
Mr. Dupont, would you like to address the process issues?

[00:29:33] Speaker 04:
Do you have anything that you want to say to us?

[00:29:38] Speaker 04:
Obviously, the director of communications addressed those questions.

[00:29:45] Speaker 04:
If it were Hadley, he'd take questions out of it.

[00:29:49] Speaker 04:
He's not going to answer them.

[00:29:50] Speaker 04:
Otherwise, I don't feel like he's going to need to.

[00:29:51] Speaker 04:
I'm proud of our staff.

[00:29:51] Speaker 04:
Apparently, there are no questions.

[00:29:52] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much.

[00:29:54] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:29:57] Speaker 04:
OK, Mr. Hadley.

[00:29:59] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, on the supply voltage issue, again, I would start with the language of Claim 37.

[00:30:07] Speaker 01:
where that term appears, which is in the oscillator limitation.

[00:30:11] Speaker 01:
So clearly, this limitation is dealing with the oscillator.

[00:30:16] Speaker 01:
And the only other point that I would make is that when you look at the claim language in the wherein clause, there are two essentially parallel terms.

[00:30:25] Speaker 01:
There's oscillator voltage and then there's supply voltage.

[00:30:29] Speaker 01:
Everyone agrees what the oscillator voltage is.

[00:30:32] Speaker 01:
It's the output of the oscillator.

[00:30:37] Speaker 01:
And the drafters, the patent owner, didn't have to say oscillator voltage of the oscillator to know that you're dealing with the output of the oscillator.

[00:30:48] Speaker 01:
Same thing if you look at the supply voltage.

[00:30:51] Speaker 01:
The patent owner didn't have to say supply voltage

[00:30:57] Speaker 01:
The oscillator to know that you're dealing with the supply voltage of the oscillator it is Inherent it's explicit under every rule of claim construction that the context in which the terms appear Controls and the context in which the peer these terms two terms appear controls here and again the you're dealing with the oscillator limitation and

[00:31:21] Speaker 01:
And you don't need the prepositional phrase of the oscillator in either the oscillator voltage limitation or the supply voltage limitation to know that you're dealing with the output of the oscillator and the input to the oscillator.

[00:31:34] Speaker 02:
Do you regard the input to the voltage regulator as being part of the input to the oscillator?

[00:31:42] Speaker 01:
It can, but again, for the reasons that you explained, Your Honor, it doesn't matter whether you have

[00:31:49] Speaker 01:
a voltage regulator that is part of the oscillator or not.

[00:31:54] Speaker 01:
I personally believe that it is not.

[00:31:58] Speaker 01:
I think that when it talks about the supply voltage, you're talking about the supply voltage of the oscillator.

[00:32:04] Speaker 01:
And that's the way the board read it, I believe, correctly.

[00:32:08] Speaker 01:
But again, it really doesn't matter.

[00:32:11] Speaker 01:
And going back to the argument that was made about Figure 4 versus Figure 11, elsewhere in the briefing, I think everybody agrees that these claims read on the embodiment of Figure 11, which is the multiple array embodiment, and not Figure 4, which is the single touch embodiment.

[00:32:31] Speaker 02:
Now, one other question, technical question here.

[00:32:34] Speaker 02:
As I understand it, on figure four, lines 104 and 105 are 5 volts.

[00:32:41] Speaker 02:
And lines 106 is 26 volts.

[00:32:44] Speaker 02:
Now, which is the supply voltage to the oscillator?

[00:32:50] Speaker 01:
The claim language says a supply voltage.

[00:32:52] Speaker 02:
So it could be any of them.

[00:32:54] Speaker 02:
As long as any one of them is less than the output, that satisfies the claim language?

[00:32:59] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:33:00] Speaker ?:
OK.

[00:33:01] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:33:04] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[00:33:04] Speaker 04:
Mr. Modi, this is one of the... Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:33:09] Speaker 00:
Just a couple of points.

[00:33:10] Speaker 04:
One minute.

[00:33:14] Speaker 00:
This is the time.

[00:33:15] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:33:16] Speaker 00:
Just a couple of points.

[00:33:17] Speaker 00:
Going back to the claim language, I think you do have to look at, again, if you look at the language of the claim, it said oscillator voltage and then it said supply voltage.

[00:33:27] Speaker 00:
It did not say the supply voltage off the oscillator.

[00:33:30] Speaker 00:
So the court has to give the claim its natural broad reading from our perspective.

[00:33:35] Speaker 00:
And again, if you look at the other claims, the dependent claims and other claims that I pointed to, they certainly knew how to limit this fly voltage issue when they wanted to.

[00:33:46] Speaker 00:
And then, Judge Bryson, just going back, and I do think you understand this issue with respect to the 26 volt issue, it becomes a cherry picking exercise from them when they want to make it broad.

[00:33:56] Speaker 00:
They say, well, it's A's fly voltage, but then they don't want to limit it.

[00:34:00] Speaker 00:
So it does become a cherry picking exercise, which is why there's nothing in the specification here that compels a disclaimer.

[00:34:08] Speaker 00:
So this court should give the terms fly voltage its broad meaning and send this back to the board.

[00:34:15] Speaker 00:
And actually, like I said, it should be reversed because they don't otherwise dispute the issues.

[00:34:20] Speaker 00:
Unless you have any other questions.