[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Before we get started, we at the Federal Circuit would like to welcome Judge John Murphy from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who is sitting by designation with our court on today's cases.

[00:00:12] Speaker 01:
So welcome, Judge Murphy.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Our first case for argument is 23-1270, 3G licensing versus Hyde Well.

[00:00:20] Speaker 01:
Tell me how to say your name, counsel.

[00:00:22] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:23] Speaker 00:
My name is Nadia Lourizidis.

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
Say it again.

[00:00:27] Speaker 00:
Nadia Lourizidis.

[00:00:28] Speaker 00:
Lourizidis.

[00:00:29] Speaker 00:
Lourizidis.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
OK, got it.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
It's a very difficult name to pronounce.

[00:00:32] Speaker 00:
I'm getting it.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
Go ahead.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:00:36] Speaker 00:
May I please the court?

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
Nadia Lourizidis, an associate at Dublin Law Firm, LLC, for the appellant 3G licensing essay.

[00:00:42] Speaker 00:
I would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
So the issue before the court today is a narrow one, and it concerns the board's erroneous claim construction of the

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
limitations in the challenged method and system claims, but it is a crucial one because the board's erroneous claim construction contaminated its other findings, which ultimately resulted in invalidation of the challenged claims.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
For this, because of this, the board... Did the Patent Owner put on any kind of challenge for limitation 1B?

[00:01:12] Speaker 02:
I saw that below at the IPR, there was a lot of argument from the patent owner about limitation 1C, but nothing about limitation 1B.

[00:01:23] Speaker 02:
Is that correct?

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
So, Your Honor, our challenge was to the claim construction of the board, and element 1B and 1C are both... Well, let me be a little more specific.

[00:01:34] Speaker 02:
Let me try one more time.

[00:01:36] Speaker 02:
When I read your patent owner response, your preliminary patent owner response, your cert reply, it was all devoted to limitation 1C.

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
Is that fair to say?

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
I didn't see anything about limitation 1B.

[00:01:49] Speaker 02:
And so therefore, the board's institution decision and the board's final written decision both expressly point out that the patent owner made no argument about limitation 1B.

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
So was that an incorrect statement by the board?

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
so your honor elements of 1B and 1C are critically interlinked so I know you're saying that now what I'm trying to figure out is what you said to the board at the IPR level my understanding is that the IPR level you were exclusively devoted to limitation 1C and said nothing about limitation 1B I mean if you can find something

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
in your patent owner response with a heading related to limitation 1B or a particular discussion of limitation 1B and why our reference TS 45.008 does not disclose limitation 1B.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
I'd be happy to read it right now, but I didn't see it when I went through the JA.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
So what I fear from your side is that you've truly forfeited slash waived any argument related to limitation 1B.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
And so this appeal, the scope of it, can't really go beyond limitation 1C.

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
So Your Honor, as I explained earlier, we focused on the algorithm.

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
in claim 1.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
Elements 1b and 1c are critically interlinked.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
It is true that our argument below focused on element 1c.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
but uh... the same argument applies to element one b so i don't know what the board have known that if you never said anything about that to the board what i have to do here is put myself in the shoes of the patent board and try to imagine what issues are they responsible for answering what issues have been raised by the parties what are they on notice of that they've got to answer

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
I think when I read it, I read it the same.

[00:04:11] Speaker 02:
Read your papers below.

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
I read them the same way that the board apparently did, which is to say, quote, Pat no one does not argue that TS 45.008 does not teach or suggest the subject matter of this limitation, i.e., limitation 1B.

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
So the petition focused for element 1B, as you correctly pointed out, on TS 45.008.

[00:04:36] Speaker 00:
and we address that reference as well.

[00:04:39] Speaker 00:
Let me point you to appendix page 5762, paragraph 97.

[00:04:45] Speaker 00:
That's our experts declaration.

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
That's the first one.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
Yeah, but you don't really expect the patent board to read through your expert declaration completely if there are things in there that are not contained in your cert reply or your patent owner response or your preliminary patent owner response.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
I mean, those are really the crux of where you make your arguments, of where you tell the board, please consider these arguments.

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
Right, Your Honor.

[00:05:17] Speaker 00:
So on Appendix Pages 382 and 383, we address specifically what TS-45008

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
Yeah, aren't these limitations, it's talking about limitation 1C, is it not?

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
The not considering said cell or said second rat as a candidate for a reselection of said cell of the second rat is not suitable for camping.

[00:05:45] Speaker 02:
That's limitation 1C.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
Am I correct?

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
Council, can I get you to move on, if you don't mind, to the suitability to the actual claim construction?

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
I mean, I think that we understand the 1B1C point at this.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
Would you mind addressing your arguments on the suitable for camping claim construction?

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
May I follow up to that?

[00:06:16] Speaker 04:
So with respect to that claim construction, I just want to make sure that I understand what you're asking for.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
I think you're asking for a narrower claim construction that requires the UE to consider suitability using all the criteria that are listed on Appendix 2520 and not just whether it's barred or not.

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
Is that what you're going for?

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
So appendix 2520, that's a page from the specification TS25304.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
And that lists only barred and restricted cells as arguably not suitable.

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
So our algorithm goes much further than that.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
Our algorithm requires at element 1b where you select a suitable cell,

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
to screen out all types of insuitability, not just barred cells and not just reserved cells.

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
Okay, that's what I thought.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
So then my follow-up question is what is the claim construction that you are proposing?

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
So what claim term would you have us construe and what would you have it mean?

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
All right, so at element 1b the claim resides determining if the cell is suitable for

[00:07:37] Speaker 00:
is suitable for camping.

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
So suitable for camping, it means a cell suitable for normal use only.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
That's the definition of suitable for camping.

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
This is supported by the language of the claim, the specification including the purpose of the patent, and our expert testimony.

[00:08:00] Speaker 00:
So it means that the

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
It means that you screen out all types of unsuitability, not just BART cells.

[00:08:09] Speaker 00:
So you screen out acceptable cells, BART cells, reserved cells, cells for which synchronization cannot be achieved, cells for which system information cannot be decoded, and any other cells, for example, cells that belong to a different network.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
And then at step one C, you do not consider those unsuitable cells that you screened out as candidates for reselection.

[00:08:35] Speaker 00:
Does that answer your question, Your Honor?

[00:08:37] Speaker 02:
It helps.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
Where in the specification does the specification call for suitable, assuming that your new construction raised for the first time on a bill for limitation 1B for the term suitable is actually preserved?

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
Where in the specification does it say all these things defining the term suitable?

[00:09:03] Speaker 02:
about acceptability and whatnot.

[00:09:05] Speaker 02:
I mean, to me, it looks more like you're trying to define your claim based on what TS 25.304 says, not based on what your own specification says.

[00:09:31] Speaker 00:
So I would refer honor to appendix page 43 at the very bottom, column 6, lines 66, where it explains that, however, is the cell is unsuitable because it is barred for any reasons, and then it gives you examples, then it is not, it is barred as a candidate for reselection for the time t barred.

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
So as you can see, elements 1b and 1c are, going back to my previous point there, intertwined.

[00:10:08] Speaker 00:
1b is written in the affirmative, and then 1c is its corollary written in the negative.

[00:10:14] Speaker 00:
So suitable and unsuitable, the whole universe of cells under our pattern is divided into suitable and unsuitable.

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
And suitable is only the cells that are

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
used for normal use where the cell can obtain service normally.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
Why does 45.008 not teach limitation 1b?

[00:10:37] Speaker 02:
Obviously your appeal must be premised on 45.008 not disclosing that limitation and the board's finding to the contrary lacks substantial evidence.

[00:10:51] Speaker 02:
I'm just wondering, did you argue in your briefing 45.008 does not teach?

[00:10:57] Speaker 02:
It's unreasonable to say that that reference teaches the 1D limitation?

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
It is unreasonable, Your Honor, because let me refer you to Appendix 2425, and you can see in Section 665 the algorithm for reselection, and that specification teaches that you choose to set six stronger cells

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
So that specification actually discloses a method that our patent expressly criticizes when it talks about then current 3GPP specifications that choose cells for reselection based on the strength of the signal, regardless of whether the reselection can ultimately take place.

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:
Did you say any of this in your blueprint?

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
I believe you did, Your Honor, but I would like to get back to you on that one-way bottle.

[00:11:54] Speaker 00:
I will try to find a specific page.

[00:11:56] Speaker 04:
May I squeeze in one more question quickly?

[00:11:58] Speaker 04:
What about in 25.304?

[00:12:00] Speaker 04:
There's a disclosure that's referenced throughout the argument.

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
So in Appendix 2534, it's right in the middle of the page vertically.

[00:12:12] Speaker 04:
It says, if the UE is camping on another cell, the UE shall exclude the barred cell from the neighboring cell list until the expiry of a time interval t barred.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
Does the claim not read right on that?

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
So Your Honor, it does say that on that page, but it does not disclose the same algorithm.

[00:12:32] Speaker 00:
So our claim one says you first screen out all of the unsuitable cells at element 1B.

[00:12:41] Speaker 04:
And you need to put in a lot of other stuff into what is unsuitable.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
You need the claim to require checking a lot more boxes.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
That's the claim construction you need.

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
I'm still trying to understand that.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
So the claim construction is the starting point is suitability.

[00:12:57] Speaker 00:
So element 1B checks for suitability.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
If you check for suitability to see if that cell is suitable for normal use, then you screen out everything that is unsuitable.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
So for the various criteria of suitability that you want in there.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
So yes.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
And Your Honor, if you look at the board's opinion, for example, on appendix 1819, it is clear that the board

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
when it looked at claim one, implied that there is some conditionality built in there.

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
So it's like it checks for barred or acceptable, et cetera.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
Our position is that it checks for all of those, barred and reserved and acceptable, and all the other reasons why it is unsuitable.

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
Got it.

[00:13:42] Speaker 04:
I don't want to, I won't even be able to save some time, sorry.

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
But I understand your answer.

[00:13:46] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
We'll save the rest of your time for rebuttal.

[00:13:51] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:13:51] Speaker 01:
I said thank you.

[00:13:52] Speaker 01:
We'll save your remaining time for rebuttal.

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
Mr. Calverson?

[00:14:09] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
Eric Calverson from K & L Gates LLP on behalf of Appalachian.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
May I please report?

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
3G licensing's entire appeal is predicated on an incorrect application of claim language that's not present in any claim of the 383 patent.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
No claim in the 383 patent uses the word any.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
No claim in the 383 patent requires testing all surrounding cells.

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
No claim in the 383 patent requires testing for all reasons of unsuitability.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
However, and I want to direct your attention to claim five of the 383 patent, which specifically clarifies that the barred cell, or excuse me, that the cell that is unsuitable for camping is a barred cell.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
My colleague was up here suggesting that claim one should be narrowed to specifically require testing for all forms of unsuitability.

[00:15:05] Speaker 03:
and that's plainly inconsistent with the language of claim five.

[00:15:08] Speaker 04:
Well, there's BARD and there's BARD, right?

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
There's BARD determined by the network and BARD determined by the UE.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
So the claim you're pointing to could be consistent with appellant's argument, right?

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
Depending on which part it is.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
Depending on which part it is, but it's not that specific.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
And so the plain language of that claim as it relates to claim one suggests the other interpretation, we believe.

[00:15:33] Speaker 04:
Could you help me understand your understanding of the nature of the appeal?

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
Is the key issue in the appeal whether the claim

[00:15:39] Speaker 04:
ought to be interpreted narrowly to require the UE to sift through to actually check the different types of acceptability?

[00:15:49] Speaker 04:
Is that the nature of the appeal?

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
It's not entirely clear what the nature of the appeal is.

[00:15:54] Speaker 03:
I agree with the questions that came out on the opening argument.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
I didn't mean to imply it was ambiguous.

[00:15:58] Speaker 04:
I'm just asking.

[00:16:00] Speaker 03:
But we think that what the appellants are trying to argue is that the claimed determination of suitability does require going through a multitude of different steps to test for a number of different types of suitability.

[00:16:15] Speaker 04:
And do you understand that to be relevant to limitation 1B or 1C?

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
That would be relevant to 1B, Your Honor.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
I couldn't be relevant to 1C in the interpretation of the claim term cell.

[00:16:28] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure I understand that.

[00:16:29] Speaker 03:
But what do you mean by that, Your Honor?

[00:16:31] Speaker 04:
Well, that's fine.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
That's all I got.

[00:16:37] Speaker ?:
Go ahead.

[00:16:37] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:16:37] Speaker 01:
Counsel, where in your brief did you make the argument?

[00:16:43] Speaker 01:
You haven't certainly raised it so far, an oral argument.

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
Where in your brief did you make this argument that

[00:16:50] Speaker 01:
The appellant's arguments with regard to suitability under 1B are waived separate and apart and distinct from 1C.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
I don't believe we raised that point independently in our briefing, Your Honor.

[00:17:02] Speaker 01:
Do you agree with me that the law permits waiver of waiver, meaning for a court

[00:17:10] Speaker 01:
to determine something was waived, the party has to actually argue it was waived.

[00:17:16] Speaker 01:
And otherwise, it is entirely possible under, by the way, all existing law, that a party can waive the waiver argument.

[00:17:27] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I'm not sure if a party can waive the waiver argument.

[00:17:29] Speaker 01:
So you're not sure because you didn't raise this argument, correct?

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
OK, thank you.

[00:17:34] Speaker 01:
Go ahead.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
I thought you did argue waiver though of claim construction.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
We argued waiver of claim construction, correct Your Honor.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
We argued that the argument that is being presented now that any term in the 383 patent needs to have a specific construction was waived below.

[00:17:52] Speaker 04:
Okay, but if you look in the board's decision, it's pages

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
16, 17, and 18 of the board's decision.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
For example, on page 17 of the board's decision, what they're talking about is the scope of the claim and whether it requires checking these different types of cells, the acceptability or suitability criteria with respect to these different types of cells.

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
That's a claim scope issue, right?

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
It's a claim scope issue, Your Honor, but it's not a claim construction issue.

[00:18:19] Speaker 04:
What's the difference?

[00:18:20] Speaker 03:
One is mapping the prior art to the claim.

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
The other is defining the entire scope of the claim.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
Is it possible that what's going on here is that the board did actually do some form of claim construction?

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
Maybe we'll call it implicit claim construction with respect to limitation 1C, the not suitable step.

[00:18:43] Speaker 02:
And that's what's going on at A18, A19.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
But at the same time, it didn't comment on the meaning of limitation 1B.

[00:18:56] Speaker 02:
And so, therefore, whatever your waiver argument was is overly broad because it was premised on no claim construction happening at the board level where, in fact, the board was commenting on and understanding a conception of the scope of 1C, but 1C alone.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
The board's analysis that you're flagging at A-18 and A-19 is the application of the prior order to that claim.

[00:19:25] Speaker 03:
I think the waiver argument stems out of the fact that in the institution decision, before the patent owner response went in, the board said, the party has argued that no claims need to be construed.

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
That happened based on CISPL's argument and its preliminary response, excuse me, 3G licensing's argument and its preliminary response, which is effectively identical to the argument that it's raising now.

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
And as a result of that interpretation of the claims, there was no additional claim construction positive or term identified that needed to have a specific meaning.

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
And because of that, that's where the basis for our waiving argument comes from, is they had the opportunity to say, no, no, this is what the claim means, and this is the argument for that, and they never did that.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
OK, but right on Appendix 18, the board says patent owner contends

[00:20:16] Speaker 04:
that the claims explicitly require dot dot dot.

[00:20:20] Speaker 04:
The claims explicitly require something.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
And then the board says that that's not persuasive because it's not consonant with the language of the claims.

[00:20:28] Speaker 04:
Isn't that claim construction?

[00:20:30] Speaker 03:
I know I think this is the board rejecting the reading of words into the claim that are not part of the claim.

[00:20:37] Speaker 03:
So when patent owner argued that the claim... That's claim construction.

[00:20:41] Speaker 03:
Well, what they were doing is saying the claims explicitly say this or the claims explicitly require this, which is saying that the word appears in the claim.

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
And the read of this passage of the final written decision is saying that that word is not part of the claim.

[00:20:56] Speaker 03:
The idea that this more in-depth algorithm

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
You don't think that's claim construction?

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
I personally think that determining the scope of the claim is claim construction, right?

[00:21:07] Speaker 03:
I would agree that determining the scope of the claim is claim construction, yes.

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
So we see this a lot of times on appeal where maybe there's no markman formal claim construction.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
And then we have to ask ourselves, OK, what's going on in terms of application of the claim to the reference or the accused product?

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
Is it purely a fact-finding question, or is there somehow in the application some expression of a certain conception of a claim term that ends up being a claim construction, a de facto claim construction that then is getting applied to the Q's product or the prior art reference?

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
And so I think there's a very good argument that with respect to limitation 1C, that A1819

[00:21:55] Speaker 02:
That is, in fact, what happened here with the board, expressing a certain conception of the not-suitable limitation, and then going forward and comparing that against TS25304.

[00:22:07] Speaker 02:
So assuming that's right, then can you tell us what the board said about the not-suitable limitation, limitation 1C is correct, its understanding of that claim limitation?

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
So the board's analysis in the final written decision is correct because the board identified exactly the scope of the claim, excuse me, identified an instance within the scope of the claim that is also part of the prior art.

[00:22:37] Speaker 03:
So an analysis of a UE on one cell looking at another cell, determining that that cell is barred and then not considering that cell falls within the scope of the claim as the board interpreted that claim.

[00:22:53] Speaker 03:
And so that analysis there is the proper read of the claims of the 3-3 path.

[00:23:02] Speaker 01:
So your argument, if I'm going to try restating it just to see if I understand it, is that regardless of the breadth of the claim construction, the board identified a piece of prior art that undisputedly falls within it game over?

[00:23:17] Speaker 03:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:23:19] Speaker 01:
Do you have anything further?

[00:23:23] Speaker 03:
uh... one last point is judge chen was looking for an instance of an argument of uh... claim element one b and there is none i'm sorry what can you tell me what that last point is i missed it judge chen was looking for an instance of an argument about claim element one b by the patent owner and there was not one and did you make that argument on appeal

[00:23:50] Speaker 03:
We did not respond to that argument on appeal because that argument was never raised by Pat on our appeal.

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
So first you answer Judge Chance.

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
question.

[00:24:18] Speaker 00:
On page 28, we briefly discussed TS45008.

[00:24:27] Speaker 00:
through 29 and there we explain that TS-45008 does not teach the limitations for the same reason as TS-25304 because a different version of TS-25304 is incorporated because that specification incorporates by reference TS-25304.

[00:24:51] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:24:54] Speaker 02:
I'm looking for 45.008.

[00:24:57] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:24:58] Speaker 00:
So at the very bottom of page 28 of our blue brief, the last line starts with TS 45.008.

[00:25:06] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
And another reason we had to address both elements 1B and 1C on appeal, one of the reasons is that we had to address many other arguments that

[00:25:21] Speaker 00:
many other conclusions of the board in the final written decision, one of them being the antecedent basis.

[00:25:31] Speaker 00:
So it's the antecedent basis basically saying that cells that go through determination in 1C are different cells than go through cells in 1B.

[00:25:43] Speaker 00:
So we had to go back and address limitation 1B for that reason as well.

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
So the antecedent basis is a red herring argument, because we never argued that it's different cells that go through step 1B and 1C.

[00:26:02] Speaker 00:
The board seems to misunderstand that the numerosity of cells is not an issue.

[00:26:08] Speaker 00:
The claim is clear.

[00:26:09] Speaker 00:
It's one or more cells.

[00:26:10] Speaker 00:
What is an issue is the number of types of unsuitability for which our patent tests for.

[00:26:20] Speaker 00:
Here, we tested for any and all reasons, so all types of insurability.

[00:26:26] Speaker 01:
Okay, counsel, your time has been expired for about 30 seconds, so we're going to have to call this argument.

[00:26:31] Speaker 01:
I thank both counsels.

[00:26:32] Speaker 01:
This case is taken under submission.