[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Our next case for argument is 22-2008 in case of trading versus cognitive power.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Mr. Clark, please proceed.

[00:00:12] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:00:13] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:13] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court?

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
I'd like to focus on just three points this morning out of this record.

[00:00:20] Speaker 04:
The first two relate to procedural errors that the Board made first in deciding that

[00:00:29] Speaker 04:
Petitionary and its expert, Mr. Bohannon, failed to identify the so-called secondary bias circuits.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
He did not.

[00:00:38] Speaker 04:
He did so, and he did so consistently.

[00:00:40] Speaker 04:
And in fact, as we understand Cogni Power's briefing, they aren't even arguing actually any longer that Mr. Bohannon failed to either initially identify those circuits or do so in a consistent fashion.

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
The second procedural error has to do with re-tasking.

[00:01:00] Speaker 04:
One of the primary alternative rationales for the motivation to combine that had to do with accommodating very low voltages in a way that was not what the rationale was and relied on new evidence that the petitioner never had an opportunity to address.

[00:01:17] Speaker 04:
And then the last point is just the substantive point to emphasize the key portions of the MAL reference that, in fact, were never disputed by the patent owner or its expert.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
On this issue of, so on the first point of identifying the secondary bias circuits, I'll be relatively brief unless your honors have specific questions.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
I can provide some citations to the record, but with respect to the Zhu reference,

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
In figure three, this is at A160, figure three, Mr. Bohannon and the petition consistently identified the voltage V out generated by this diode 313 stored on a capacitor 314 that was applied to the secondary controller.

[00:02:05] Speaker 04:
So those components were consistently identified.

[00:02:07] Speaker 04:
The petition says so at A250 and A257.

[00:02:14] Speaker 04:
The petition in those locations cites the Mr. Bohannon's declaration.

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
And again, exemplary, his 031 declaration, paragraphs 49, which is A2686, 84, 143, 188.

[00:02:27] Speaker 04:
That's A2699, A2721, A2738.

[00:02:36] Speaker 04:
All of those paragraphs very specifically identify the circuit components

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
And the board, when it said both in its initial determination that he did not identify the circuits and in the final written decisions where they say he did not identify the circuits, the board didn't cite any of that.

[00:02:55] Speaker 04:
We don't know why.

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
I don't know if it was an error or for some other reason, but the fact is he clearly and consistently identified them.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
Didn't the board just find him inconsistent and therefore not credible and aren't those factual findings that we should give deference to?

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
Well, the first part is what they purported to do, yes.

[00:03:16] Speaker 04:
And the second is, no, you don't defer to them because the board was clearly wrong in saying that he didn't identify.

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
Well, you disagree.

[00:03:23] Speaker 02:
I don't know that they were clearly wrong.

[00:03:24] Speaker 04:
Well, no, Cotty Potter doesn't even disagree with all due respect, Your Honor.

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
I mean, you look at the declarations.

[00:03:29] Speaker 04:
It's there.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
We can do it here in real time.

[00:03:32] Speaker 04:
I mean, he was repeatedly laid out what those circuit components were.

[00:03:38] Speaker 04:
We don't know why the board didn't look at those paragraphs, why the board... I mean, it'd be one thing if the board had looked at them and said, okay, Mr. Bohannon, I see you're pointing to A, B, C, and D. I don't think that qualifies, or the opposing expert doesn't think that qualifies.

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
In fact, on this record,

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
Cogni Power, in its briefing, doesn't dispute that.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
Cogni Power's expert never came back and said, oh, those things that Mr. Bohannon identified are not, in fact, involved in providing bias to the secondary controller.

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
And so, to get to the second part of your question, it isn't the sort of case, therefore, where you, I think, defer to the so-called credibility finding, because the credibility finding is predicated on this clearly erroneous determination

[00:04:23] Speaker 04:
that the expert didn't do something.

[00:04:25] Speaker 04:
And that got this whole train going the wrong direction.

[00:04:28] Speaker 01:
I thought your main legal argument was that the board applied the wrong standard for obviousness by even requiring that there be a bias.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
Am I misunderstanding?

[00:04:39] Speaker 04:
No, you're not.

[00:04:41] Speaker 04:
You're not.

[00:04:41] Speaker 04:
That's an independent argument.

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
And that's also true.

[00:04:45] Speaker 04:
The fundamental motivation combined here comes expressly from the Mao reference itself.

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
And that was to apply Mao's improved bias circuit to any power converter in which the output voltage of the converter could vary.

[00:05:02] Speaker 01:
In which there's a bias circuit and you need to apply an improved bias circuit.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
I mean, one thing I was thinking about was

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
Yes, that would, in a vacuum, be a narrow way to look at an obviousness case.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
But it also seems consistent with the way your obviousness case was presented in your petition.

[00:05:23] Speaker 04:
Well, on that point, Your Honor, I'm actually glad you mentioned that.

[00:05:26] Speaker 04:
Because the petition and the expert both said two things.

[00:05:33] Speaker 04:
The first part of the motivation to combine discussion says, Mao has this express suggestion

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
to make this combination.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
And it would have been made.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
To provide an improved bias circuit.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
That could work at low voltages, right?

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
Merely because if you've got a conventional power supply where the output voltage can vary under all sorts of conditions, MAL can fix that.

[00:05:59] Speaker 04:
Then both the petitions and Mr. Bohannon go on to say, and in fact, you could also

[00:06:06] Speaker 04:
It actually taped Mao's circuit and combined it with the circuits of Zhu or Sipeshi.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
So it wasn't a... So it replaced the bias circuit of the primary reference with the bias circuit of the secondary reference.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
That's true.

[00:06:19] Speaker 01:
I thought that's what the combination was.

[00:06:21] Speaker 04:
It was.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
In the petition.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
It was.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
Well, again, it was an alternative, right?

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
There was there was the the original broad motivation.

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
One example because there's a whole bunch of primary references and a whole bunch of secondary references.

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
No, there's one secondary reference.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
But do you want to give me an example in your petition where you think that you said something broader than a substitution of one bias circuit for another?

[00:06:46] Speaker 04:
Yes, happy to.

[00:06:48] Speaker 04:
One second here please.

[00:06:52] Speaker 04:
So the 031 petition

[00:06:56] Speaker 04:
for example, begins at A252 and there's a heading there, motivation to combine, and the first paragraph under motivation to combine talks about the expressed teaching of Mao, that Mao expressly

[00:07:25] Speaker 04:
subject to output voltage fluctuations.

[00:07:29] Speaker 04:
That was Mr. Bohannon's opinion of that teaching.

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
And by the way, because this is also a very important point, Your Honors, Mr. Bohannon's interpretation of that passage of Mao at 150 to 55 was never contradicted by cognitive powers experts.

[00:07:47] Speaker 03:
But the board disagreed with it.

[00:07:49] Speaker 03:
The board disagreed with it, though.

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
The matter was contradicted.

[00:07:53] Speaker 03:
I mean, unless I'm mistaken, I mean, the sentence you're talking about, October 1, is based on instances which vary.

[00:07:59] Speaker 03:
So why isn't the board free to disregard or disagree with Mr. Bohannan's testimony?

[00:08:05] Speaker 03:
There doesn't have to be contrary testimony.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
There doesn't look at the reference and reach a contrary conclusion.

[00:08:10] Speaker 04:
Well, with all due respect, I mean, the board is not populated with people of skill and the art.

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
I think the board has to do one of two things.

[00:08:18] Speaker 04:
that you'd have to point to the contrary expert and say, this is disputed and we choose to believe expert B instead of expert A. That didn't happen here with respect to Mao.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
No, no.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
With all due respect, instead you brought in a witness that bounced all over the place in what he identified.

[00:08:36] Speaker 03:
Let's see.

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
If I were to go through this little benchmark one here, his original declaration, the overview of Mao is not the section described in the proposed modification.

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
In the section describing another vehicle, how the circuitry could be combined, the diagram shows rectifier diode 313 and capacitor 314.

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
Mr. Bohann in his day as the circuitry of now has been attached in place of the bias circuitry he's due, which merely powered the secondary controller output.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
Then he switches.

[00:09:02] Speaker 03:
In his deposition, he says it's just a wire.

[00:09:04] Speaker 03:
He never mentions diode 313 or a capacitor.

[00:09:07] Speaker 03:
Then in the supplemental decoration, he switches again.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
I think that it was reasonable for the board

[00:09:13] Speaker 03:
under the circumstances in which Mr. Bohannon is jumping all over the place between his original deposition, his declaration, and then his supplemental declaration to reach the conclusion that they did.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
So, can I break that down?

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:09:28] Speaker 04:
I agree with you there that Mr. Bohannon in deposition did not identify, again, all of the certain components.

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
Okay, that's a fact.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
And you agree there's a difference between his original declaration and his supplemental declaration?

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
No, not at all.

[00:09:41] Speaker 03:
They're exact.

[00:09:42] Speaker 04:
Because the board told us to.

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
That's part of the error here.

[00:09:45] Speaker 04:
The board initially says, you didn't identify, Mr. Bohannon, the relevant circuit components in these bias circuits.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
He did.

[00:09:54] Speaker 04:
He clearly did.

[00:09:55] Speaker 04:
And Cogney Howard doesn't even argue the opposite now.

[00:09:57] Speaker 04:
OK, that's wrong.

[00:09:59] Speaker 04:
And then they say, and because you didn't, do it during trial.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
Develop it during trial and tell us where those components are.

[00:10:07] Speaker 04:
And Mr. Bohannon does that.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
And he identifies exactly the same circuit components.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
And in fact, when he does so, his lead-in is, as I said in my initial... Did his supplemental declaration say for the very first time, the components of the bias circuit are not being physically replaced in combination, only functionally replaced?

[00:10:30] Speaker 04:
Okay, and that is actually not the first time he said that.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
So I'm glad you raised that.

[00:10:35] Speaker 04:
Let me...

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
This has to do with the fact that some of the circuit components perform multiple roles in the circuit.

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
And the board faulted him, and Cogney Power faulted him, for allegedly making that up in his supplemental declaration the first time.

[00:10:50] Speaker 04:
He didn't.

[00:10:51] Speaker 04:
Let me direct you to A2686, which is his 031.

[00:10:56] Speaker 04:
Is that a kind of form or is it?

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
It is the second one.

[00:11:00] Speaker 04:
You're on one of the declarations in it.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
I think it starts on 32-23 or that's the first one.

[00:11:13] Speaker 03:
Sorry, which one do you want me to look at?

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
It's A-2686.

[00:11:18] Speaker 04:
So this is Mr. Bohannon's initial 031 declaration.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:11:29] Speaker 04:
There are two paragraphs of relevance, 48 and 49.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:11:35] Speaker 04:
48, he says, this is with respect to Zhu, and he said exactly the same thing for Zhu.

[00:11:44] Speaker 04:
He identifies in paragraph 48 that a rectifier and a capacitor are used to develop the regulated output voltage.

[00:11:52] Speaker 04:
So the rectifier and the capacitor create the output voltage.

[00:11:58] Speaker 04:
49, he says, as related to the bias circuitry for the secondary control circuit,

[00:12:05] Speaker 04:
That circuit takes its supply directly from Vout, relying upon the rectifier diode, 313, and the capacitor, 314.

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
So those same components are doing two things.

[00:12:18] Speaker 04:
They're generating the output voltage, and because the output voltage is applied to the secondary controller, they're involved in providing power to the output, or excuse me, to the secondary controller.

[00:12:29] Speaker 04:
They're doing two things.

[00:12:30] Speaker 04:
He was absolutely clear about that.

[00:12:33] Speaker 04:
And so when he said the same thing again in his supplemental declaration, that's not new information, that's not backfilling, and so that the criticism of him on that ground by the board and by Cogni Power is not well taken.

[00:12:48] Speaker 04:
Now there was a similar argument made, Your Honor, if this is in your notes or your bench memo.

[00:12:53] Speaker 03:
Okay, before you leave this, can you go to paragraph 58?

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
50, sorry?

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
Of this first declaration.

[00:13:01] Speaker 03:
58, yes.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
Tell me what I take away from paragraph 58.

[00:13:09] Speaker 04:
If you're, are you referring to the combo figure?

[00:13:11] Speaker 03:
Didn't you say the buying circuit was replaced in paragraph 58?

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
Yes, I do say in place of, yes, I do see that.

[00:13:20] Speaker 03:
So how is that not a basis for the board as a matter of a fact finding with I review for substantial admins to reach the conclusion it did?

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
Because in that figure, the... You have offered conflicting testimony, I see.

[00:13:32] Speaker 03:
what you pointed to, and the two paragraphs you pointed to, and I credit you with that.

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
The problem is, I'm reviewing this for substantial evidence, and in paragraph 58, I feel like he led the board astray with regard to what his position might have been vis-a-vis those other two paragraphs.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
And I'm reviewing this as a credibility assessment, and you agree.

[00:13:51] Speaker 03:
In this deposition, you just said, why are you didn't mention any of this?

[00:13:54] Speaker 03:
So can't you see, under my standard of review,

[00:13:58] Speaker 03:
why I don't just credit those earlier to paragraphs when paragraph 58 gave the board reason to be confused about what he was saying and then the definition said something completely different than what's in this declaration.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
You don't think that it was reasonable under those circumstances or that under the incredibly deferential standard I have to apply I could say in light of this evidence it was reasonable for the board to find him not credible on these points?

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
I think the board

[00:14:26] Speaker 04:
made its ultimate conclusion after, on the basis of its initial error, that Mr. Gohannon failed utterly to identify the bias circuits in these references.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
Okay, yes.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
I have to find substantial evidence, right?

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
I can't put myself in the brain of the board.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
You're telling me you think everything was tainted by this initial error that they have.

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
And I'm saying they kind of went through all this and they said it wasn't in

[00:14:55] Speaker 03:
the first declaration, and I'm saying paragraph 58, in my view, supports their confusion.

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:15:02] Speaker 04:
Two very quick points, because I'm conscious of the time.

[00:15:05] Speaker 04:
The board itself said that its understanding that Mr. Bohannon failed to identify the right circuit elements tainted a space through the rest of it.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
Didn't it expressly say it wasn't

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
Not dispositive, but they said it was no small issue three times.

[00:15:28] Speaker 03:
Is there anything else you really want to touch on before, because you're out of time.

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
I want to give you a quick minute.

[00:15:36] Speaker 03:
Is there something that we didn't let you reach that you can reach quickly?

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
I'll deal with the rest of the robot.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
I'd like to start by just addressing a couple things Council raised.

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
One, we absolutely disagreed about the inconsistency of the identification of the circuits and that's in our brief pages 50 to 58.

[00:16:06] Speaker 03:
When you say you disagree, do you mean the same thing that I just walked through or are you talking about a different issue?

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
The same thing I walked through?

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:16:15] Speaker 03:
And you think what I said was right?

[00:16:18] Speaker 03:
what the board concluded, whether it's right or wrong, is irrelevant, because I review it all under a substantial evidence standard.

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

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
The board was faced with a situation where, sure, there may have been some statements about these components in the initial declaration.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
There was also the statement that you pointed out that those would be replaced.

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
Paragraph 58.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
Paragraph 58.

[00:16:37] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
And then we have a deposition where... Where it's just a wire.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
The bias circuit was just a wire.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
That's a quote from the deposition.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
Other components.

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
Diodes and...

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
I don't want to dwell too long on this, Your Honors, because the case does not turn on the identification of these circuits.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
One thing that was important was that these primary references are regulated, which means that there is a certain type of feedback that allows them to maintain the voltage at a constant level or something near to it.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
Because of this,

[00:17:12] Speaker 00:
the mal circuitry that is allegedly the forward pulse feature is not necessary.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
And that was not just something that the board came up with because they disagreed with Mr. Vahanan.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
It is something they affirmatively relied on Mr. Sandler's testimony, our expert.

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
And you'll notice that the brief from... So, I'm sorry, just to make sure I'm following you, I just want to make sure I'm with you.

[00:17:36] Speaker 03:
Is this your argument that the first three are

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
regulated and now it's unregulated so they're winning the motivation to combine them?

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:17:45] Speaker 03:
Okay, I just want to make sure, it's a very complicated case.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
Go ahead.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
So the fact that they're regulated, the board relied heavily on this because, and there's testimony, we have testimony from Mr. Rohanan where he agrees that they are regulated, that- And is your argument, again, I'm just trying to make sure I'm with you, that that is an independent reason to justify civil rights resolve?

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:18:08] Speaker 03:
So, regardless of what happened with Bo Hannon?

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
Regardless of what happened with Bo Hannon and whether the board made a mistake in what he did or did not correctly articulate in the first declaration, this is an independent reason?

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:18:24] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:18:24] Speaker 03:
Go ahead and keep going.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
Regardless of how the circuitry could or could not be combined, that was a finding of the board.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
And just to take a step back,

[00:18:33] Speaker 00:
What we have here is a pretty remarkable situation.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
The board spent over 120 pages focused on motivation to combine.

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
The reason I think there's been so much confusion and disagreement is the petitioner at the board has this page, one page of explanation of motivation to combine.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
This is one example, Appendix 1079, two paragraphs.

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
It's the same, effectively, motivation to combine

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
for every combination, not only in these.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
Is this 1079?

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
And it's very conclusory.

[00:19:13] Speaker 00:
And this is important.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
The board said that not only the expert, but also the petitioner, very conclusory, as well as inconsistent.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
And part of the problem we have here is that when we came back and responded to this Motivation to Combine, we had a lot of new arguments that showed up.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
on reply.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
But notably, for motivation combined, there were initially four.

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
Two of those are not being argued on appeal.

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
The additional topologies, the constant current mode, those aren't being argued.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
What we do have are the fluctuations, which as I pointed out, the fluctuation issue is not relevant to Zhu or Matsumoto.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
Because they're regulated.

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
The patented invention is also regulated.

[00:20:01] Speaker 00:
The main feature is a regulation feature.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
The other issue was this accommodating very low voltages.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
Likewise, we don't need to look at the circuitry.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
We have independent basis.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
For example, these are flyback converters.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
Mr. Sandler, our expert, cited evidence saying those are directed to high voltage applications, not low voltage applications.

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
I mean their argument in response to that that these high voltage regulators would potentially have short circuits or things and therefore this bias circuit would benefit them, but there was no real connection to that.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
So that's something they argued for the first time in reply.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
In the motivation to combine, what they said is,

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
you could have a constant current mode that would cause the output voltage to drop to a level that was insufficient.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
That is a motivation combined that they have not pressed on appeal.

[00:21:05] Speaker 00:
They separately said the circuit would be unable to accommodate very low output voltages.

[00:21:11] Speaker 00:
To support that, they cited this TSM document, Appendix 2934, that talks about applications requiring low voltage battery charge.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
Then, somewhat remarkably, in reply they came back and said, oh no, we're not talking about low voltage applications.

[00:21:29] Speaker 00:
We're talking about these near short circuit events, which is something very different.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
We know it's different because Mr. O'Hannon, petitioner's expert, has a footnote in his reply supplemental declaration where he says,

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
These are very different things.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
Short-circuit situation, very different than an application that's designed to be low-power.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
So for me, at maybe a less sophisticated level of knowledge as to the art, my takeaway from this was the primary reference wouldn't exhibit the problems that would suggest combining it with the secondary reference because there'd be no motivation to do that because you wouldn't be having that problem if you were practicing the primary reference, so you wouldn't go there.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
And that's basically what the panel has decided.

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
There was no motivation to combine.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
And in a nutshell, that's absolutely correct.

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:22:24] Speaker 03:
And it didn't sound unspecified at all.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
And just to reiterate, the board spent over 120 pages addressing this issue that the petitioner, not only the petitioner, but also their experts spent really only a paragraph in all of their petitions addressing motivation to combine.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
I'm happy to talk more if you want about the circuitry.

[00:22:46] Speaker 00:
This isn't a bodily incorporation case.

[00:22:48] Speaker 00:
This isn't something where the board looked to what would actually happen with the circuit.

[00:22:54] Speaker 03:
I think that you may be the only person in the room who would be happy if you talked more about the circuitry.

[00:23:01] Speaker 03:
I could be wrong about that.

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
You're good.

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
I think you're good.

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:23:05] Speaker 00:
Yes, you're good.

[00:23:10] Speaker 04:
Let me go very briefly and just reverse order and address, Judge, a bunch of angular observation.

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
The primary references absolutely have this problem of what happens if the voltage at the output drops and the impact that has on supplying power to the bias circuit.

[00:23:28] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, that's a question we would review for substantial evidence, right?

[00:23:34] Speaker 04:
Sure, yeah.

[00:23:36] Speaker 04:
But it's actually, I don't think on this record that fact is disputed.

[00:23:41] Speaker 04:
The board in its initial determinations actually agreed

[00:23:45] Speaker 04:
that the primary references did in fact have that problem and they credited Mr. Bohannon at that stage for recognizing that was the problem.

[00:23:52] Speaker 04:
And if you look in the appendix at 197, I'll just give you one concrete example on that.

[00:23:58] Speaker 03:
Okay, you've got one minute.

[00:24:00] Speaker 03:
You're already beyond your time, so however you want to spend your one minute, you've got to go.

[00:24:04] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:24:04] Speaker 04:
Well, I would like to address that concern of Judge Ben Chavango.

[00:24:11] Speaker 04:
So 197, this is the

[00:24:15] Speaker 04:
The Gepesci pattern, okay?

[00:24:25] Speaker 04:
Column five, line 24 to 27.

[00:24:28] Speaker 04:
Very important the supply behave well when the output is open or short circuited.

[00:24:35] Speaker 04:
In a short circuit condition the supply voltage for the secondary side controller gradually disappears.

[00:24:42] Speaker 04:
It drops.

[00:24:43] Speaker 04:
short circuits result, even when you have a regulated output, all sorts of things can happen on that output that cause the voltage to drop.

[00:24:51] Speaker 04:
And that is why you would combine MAL with the primary references.

[00:24:55] Speaker 04:
Just a last point in my eight seconds.

[00:24:58] Speaker 04:
Again, I want to emphasize that the express teaching in MAL to use MAL's bias circuit to address that fact was undisputed by Coggy Power's own expert.