[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
My first case for argument today is 23-1444, Gesture versus Unified.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
How do I say your name, counsel?

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Mr. Wittenzahler, Your Honor.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
Mr. Wittenzahler, please come on up.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
Please proceed.

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
May I reserve three minutes for your bubble?

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
You can try.

[00:00:24] Speaker 00:
To be honest, my client, Gesture Technology Partners,

[00:00:29] Speaker 00:
appreciates the opportunity to be heard.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
We are here today and on Friday in regards to seven different IPR appeals, due in large part to the fact that unified patents is structured in a way to permit its paying members to circumvent certain estoppel provisions that were put into the AIA as a balance for patent owners.

[00:00:50] Speaker 00:
First issue I'd like to address.

[00:00:52] Speaker 03:
Wait, this isn't the case.

[00:00:53] Speaker 03:
This isn't the one that has the real party and interest question in it, is it?

[00:00:57] Speaker 00:
Both do, and different flavors, you know.

[00:00:59] Speaker 03:
This one does?

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
I thought that was the next one.

[00:01:02] Speaker 03:
Well, this is the discovery question.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Is this where you're saying discovery?

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
So you're saying that the board erred by denying discovery where you would get real party forward to show who was the real party and interest.

[00:01:14] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:01:15] Speaker 01:
But that order was after the final written decision, right?

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
So the order itself was the request was made before the final written decision in anticipation of the 315E1 estoppel attaching after the first final written decision on the 4-3 patent issue.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
Does your notice of appeal specifically identify the order that you were appealing from?

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
Because I see that you've identified in your notice of appeal the final written decision and all underlying orders.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
I don't see how an order issued by the board following the final written decision would be an order underlying the final written decision.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I think it's encompassed within there.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
And in addition... Why?

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
Because it pertains to the issue and what we are bringing up to the court.

[00:02:05] Speaker 03:
In addition... No, don't in addition.

[00:02:07] Speaker 03:
That answer made no sense.

[00:02:09] Speaker 01:
Flush that one out.

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
It makes a difference on whether we have a jurisdiction or not.

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
So it's really important.

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
and your notes of appeals at A2700.

[00:02:20] Speaker 01:
And if you look at that language, I'm just struggling with understanding how it would include the board's order denying the discovery.

[00:02:30] Speaker 00:
So the board actually had several orders denying it.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
The first one was before the final written decision.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
And there, the board denied it as premature.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
So at a minimum, the appeal would be yes to that.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
said, wait on this, right?

[00:02:47] Speaker 01:
I mean, you're not appealing the denial of something as premature.

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
You're appealing the denial of the order itself, the order that said you're not going to get discovery, because it's too late.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
The two are linked, though, because first the board said, this is premature.

[00:03:03] Speaker 00:
And then the board subsequently said, well, this is too late.

[00:03:06] Speaker 00:
So it's the same transaction.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
Do you have any case law to support that?

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
you know, that understanding of how we would interpret your notice of the deal and how we would understand orders underlying a final written decision or any order.

[00:03:20] Speaker 00:
I think that's, I'm not aware of that specific transaction coming up.

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
Can you just, just as an aside, I don't want to spoil for this, but why didn't you just go to the board in connection with the Samsung

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
exam.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
Why were you going here and not there?

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
There's a few reasons, Your Honor.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
The first issue is that the Board is not involved in export-free reexaminations.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
It's the crew.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
re-examine, the re-central re-examination unit.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
Another big issue is that the USPTO does not have subpoena power over parties and ex parte re-examination.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
Okay, why didn't, then what ever happened to that case?

[00:04:03] Speaker 02:
Did that issue, is that out?

[00:04:05] Speaker 00:
That case is, we have a final decision there and

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
I was currently on the court stock and I think our briefing is due in the next month.

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
And does that implicate the same patent claims that are at issue here?

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
It does, Your Honor.

[00:04:21] Speaker 00:
And the issue is, one, the lack of subpoena power.

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
All right.

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
I don't want to...

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
So it's our position that the PTAB denying that request was an abuse of discretion, which this court has found previously, specifically on the real party and interest issue.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
And the court has remanded before to allow, repeatedly, to allow patent owners to seek that discovery after a final decision.

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
But not in circumstances like this?

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
Not this particular set of circumstances relative to the appeal notice that we were discussing earlier, but in instances where

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
The that the request went back after the final decision in fact point case that we brought up In our briefing was that in the ariosa?

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
PTAB decision will get exactly what we requested the board actually entertained a request for additional discovery on real party interest and

[00:05:23] Speaker 00:
after the final written decision.

[00:05:25] Speaker 00:
And the reason that the timing works that way is because 315E1 only attaches after a final written decision is made.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
But that wasn't a circumstance as here where you were really implicating the re-examine Samsung and that issue and asking the board in the separate IPR to deal with the real party and interest question with regard to another independent proceeding, right?

[00:05:44] Speaker 00:
That was actually the issue in Arioso.

[00:05:46] Speaker 00:
The PTAB did the exact same thing.

[00:05:48] Speaker 00:
So we were simply following the precedent.

[00:05:50] Speaker 00:
and procedures that have been previously done.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
Did you want to talk about computer means and computer means limitations?

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
With respect to the computer means limitation, there are really two issues.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
The first has to do with the corresponding structure.

[00:06:11] Speaker 00:
Neither of the parties can test that the corresponding structure for the computer means is a general purpose computer, programmed with a specific algorithm,

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
The issue is that what was identified as the alleged disclosure in Numizaki is not a general purpose computer.

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
It's a specific hardware block, or contains specific hardware blocks designed for specific purposes.

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
They are not programmed.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
They're akin to application specific integrated circuit, or ASIC.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
They're specialized blocks, and that's... Is there, like, do you think that's what it says in the specification?

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
Like, for example, the figure in

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
Figure 74 is part of what the board relied on, and there was expert testimony on this as well, right?

[00:06:57] Speaker 00:
Competing expert testimony, Your Honor.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
And I think the picture speaks a thousand words there.

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
There are specific blocks that perform specific functions.

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
For example, one of the figures relied upon was figure one.

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
That's appendix 900.

[00:07:14] Speaker 00:
And there, each block has different functions.

[00:07:18] Speaker 00:
For example, block 251 is designed to only detect fingertip position unit, or fingertip position.

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
That's the overall unit, Your Honor.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
But as you see when you look at Numizaki, it's a larger PC unit with various functions.

[00:07:37] Speaker 00:
But what's been identified in the petition and relied upon in the board's final written decision is a specific hardware block, the feature generation unit.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
And that is not a general purpose computer.

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
It's specific hardware designed and essentially burned into silk and it performs specific functions that is not programmable.

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
That's certainly not for general purpose.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
It can't be programmed to do something else and perform another function.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
In addition, with respect to the computer means, the claims require that the computer means analyze said image with a forced set image referring back to the claimed camera.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
The issue here is that that specific image is not analyzed by the computer means.

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
Rather, it's a synthetic image.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
That's the difference between two images captured at two times under two different lighting conditions.

[00:08:30] Speaker 00:
The computer means, alleged computer means, in Numizaki cannot perform those functions on a single image.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
They necessarily can only operate on that synthetic image, which is a limitation of Numizaki, does not meet the claim limitations.

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
With respect to the computer means, our position is that the disclosure is very specific about the nomenclature it uses.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
It walks through for seven embodiments and uses the term photodetection unit.

[00:09:05] Speaker 00:
And then in the final embodiment, the handheld embodiment, it changes language to photodetection sensor unit.

[00:09:12] Speaker 00:
there's a difference between a sensor and a camera.

[00:09:14] Speaker 00:
And Numizaki very meaningfully differentiates between those embodiments.

[00:09:18] Speaker 00:
It serves improper to rely on the earlier embodiments for embodiment eight under an anticipation grant.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
But embodiment eight incorporates the earlier embodiments, right?

[00:09:30] Speaker 00:
using different terminology.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
I believe it refers back, but there's different terminology used and specifically calls out this photo detection sense unit instead of merely referring back and using the same terminology.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
So you think it was an error for the board to interpret or to conclude that in volumes one through seven, which used

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
What's the term they use?

[00:09:56] Speaker 03:
Photo?

[00:09:57] Speaker 03:
I can't even say photo.

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
So for the first seven embodiments, it's photo detection unit 102.

[00:10:02] Speaker 03:
And then in embodiment eight, it's called, there's something else, photo?

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
Photo detection sensor unit.

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
Photo detection sensor unit?

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
And so you think it was a mistake for the board to conclude that embodiments one through seven, that it's photo detection unit is the same as the photo detection sensing unit in eight?

[00:10:25] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
Or could it be that the thing in 1 through 7 is a subset of what is covered in 8?

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
I mean, that kind of seems like what the board found to me.

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
Is that not right?

[00:10:40] Speaker 00:
I think it's an error, Your Honor, because... It can't just be an error.

[00:10:44] Speaker 03:
It has to be no substantial evidence, because it's a fact-finding about what a piece of prior art discloses, and that's hard.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
Look, I'm generally with you.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
If the same patent uses two different words, it's talking about two different things.

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
But I don't get to review things de novo.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
So I have to give substantial evidence deference to the board.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
And those two things sound an awful lot alike.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
And they're described with similar functionality in the description of those two of the different embodiments and stuff.

[00:11:12] Speaker 03:
So why isn't that substantial evidence that causes me to leave alone something I may not have done on my own or agreed with if I was de novo review?

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
So I think there's a few things that come into it.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
First,

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
the board really didn't rely on much evidence to begin with.

[00:11:30] Speaker 00:
There was competing expert testimony.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
And when you look through Numizaki, it's not just the fact.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
But that problem, when you say there's competing expert testimony and a substantial evidence review, unfortunately, that doesn't help you, right?

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:11:45] Speaker 00:
But Numizaki itself, I think, shows that this wasn't an unintentional error.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
The change in terminology was made specifically when the embodiments changed from

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
large-scale devices to a handheld device.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
So it's intentional and is indicative of the fact that the previous seven embodiments disclosure of the photo detection unit 102 is not compatible with and is not in that eight embodiment for a handheld device.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
I know, but the problem you have is on its face, Numisaki says in eight that it, what does it say, something like it contains the information from the input generation apparatus as from embodiments one through seven.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
whether the board was right or not, ultimately, whether what you're saying is more accurate reading of it isn't the question.

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
Is there substantial evidence?

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
And I don't see how I'd get around that.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
Understood, Your Honor.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
I would rely again on the fact that it's made an intentional shift in terminology when it got to a significantly different embodiment, which is a handheld embodiment.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
Do you want to save the rest of your time for rebuttal?

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
I will, Your Honor.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
OK, sure.

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
This isn't the comments.

[00:13:00] Speaker 03:
This is the comments.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
Please proceed.

[00:13:14] Speaker 04:
I want to just add one quick thing to the RPI discussion and the discovery.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
Judge Stowe, you pointed out that that order came after the final written decision.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
I would point out that the earlier determination that they were going to defer is not actually in this record.

[00:13:33] Speaker 04:
It's not anything that was designated.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
But I would point out at 557, which is where my opponent points to,

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
With respect to that background in the deferral, the board said, we denied the request as premature with leave for Patmoner to renew the request after issuance of the final decision.

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
This was based on Patmoner's statement that its request only applied after the final decision issued.

[00:14:01] Speaker 04:
So it was effectively Patmoner's request to wait and defer that issue until later.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
would they have had.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
Do we have jurisdiction to review an order after the final decision.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
Why not if they put it in the notice of appeal.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
Why wouldn't we have had it.

[00:14:18] Speaker 04:
Well I think what Judge Stone pointed out that I had not caught was that it actually isn't part of what they notice.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
If it wasn't in the notice of appeal we would have jurisdiction over it wouldn't we.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
Oh absolutely.

[00:14:29] Speaker 03:
Absolutely.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
And so you think now that since it wasn't in the notice of appeal

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
we don't have the jurisdiction to decide that issue.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
Is that your now decision?

[00:14:41] Speaker 04:
I think that's right.

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
I think that's right.

[00:14:43] Speaker 04:
But even if you go there, I think it's an abuse of discretion standard.

[00:14:47] Speaker 04:
The board said you knew this from the patent owner's preliminary response was an issue, and you didn't go there.

[00:14:54] Speaker 04:
So it was completely within their discretion to deny it, even if the court chose to review it.

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
And you think we have the choice to review it?

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
I guess what I'm trying to get at is this, is this truly to our jurisdictional boundaries, in which case we have no choice, or is this one of, there are many instances where we have the ability to waive things, for example, if, you know, we have choices.

[00:15:23] Speaker 03:
Like we can say something is forfeited, but we can decide it even if it was forfeited, right?

[00:15:27] Speaker 03:
Is this one of those kinds of things?

[00:15:28] Speaker 04:
I think if you didn't put it in your notice of appeal and it's not within the scope of what you appealed, then you actually do not have jurisdiction to review it.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
I want to jump quickly to the merits argument.

[00:15:43] Speaker 04:
So as Your Honors pointed out, this is its anticipation.

[00:15:47] Speaker 04:
Anticipation is very fact-intensive.

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
It is under substantial evidence review.

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
And there's nothing being challenged here that the board didn't support with that.

[00:15:59] Speaker 04:
I'm happy to answer any specific questions the court has.

[00:16:01] Speaker 02:
Why don't you address just the final point your friend was making about the use of different language.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
And typically in our analysis, as the chief pointed out, when people use different terms, we construe them as meaning different things.

[00:16:13] Speaker 02:
So why we shouldn't do that with respect to embodiment eight.

[00:16:16] Speaker 02:
Right, right.

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
I think as your honors have already pointed out, what's very clear in the language with respect to the eighth embodiment is that the eighth embodiment incorporates the structures that are taught from figures one and figure two.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
And I think that's very clear.

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
And I'm happy to point to that.

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
That is at

[00:16:45] Speaker 04:
uh... column fifty on appendix one thousand five and it talks about all of the figures.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
What lines would you identify?

[00:16:55] Speaker 04:
Yes ma'am it's at lines nineteen beginning at line nineteen referring now to figure seventy-four to figure seventy-eight and our hand, figure seventy-nine excuse me and our hand held device is figure seventy-eight

[00:17:09] Speaker 04:
The eighth embodiment of the present invention will be described in detail.

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
This eighth embodiment is directed to a system configuration incorporating the information input generation apparatus of the present invention as described in the above embodiments.

[00:17:27] Speaker 04:
And we know from Figure 2, which is at Appendix 881, that our PMA means

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
That's an issue here.

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
I think that's not the same pattern anymore.

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
It's a very long pattern.

[00:18:04] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:18:06] Speaker 04:
we've got it.

[00:18:07] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
We know from Fig.

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
881, I mean from Appendix 881, Fig.

[00:18:13] Speaker 04:
2 that our camera means that we're talking about here is the box, the photo detection optics 107 and the reflected light extraction unit 102, that whole box.

[00:18:31] Speaker 04:
And that's expressly incorporated in what I just read from Appendix 105

[00:18:36] Speaker 04:
And it clearly says it applies to all the figures.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
So if I remember correctly, the board said that figures 74 to 79 in their view were the different, I forget the words they used, but the different

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
implementations of the system that was described earlier.

[00:18:55] Speaker 04:
I think that's right.

[00:18:56] Speaker 04:
And it is super confusing that there's a reference even if you look in our boxes that talks about the first photo detection unit, the second photo detection unit.

[00:19:05] Speaker 04:
So they use the term photo detection pretty frequently in here.

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
But if you look, I think also consistent with the board's findings.

[00:19:15] Speaker 04:
And I had this up just a minute ago.

[00:19:20] Speaker 04:
There is discussion, they refer to the photo detection section at times early in the SPAC.

[00:19:26] Speaker 04:
Column 10, I'm now looking at line 44.

[00:19:29] Speaker 04:
Okay, that's 985?

[00:19:34] Speaker 04:
Yes, excuse me, appendix 985.

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
Column 10.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
They use the word photo detection section.

[00:19:48] Speaker 04:
And if you look at the description, they're clearly talking generally about how the photo detection section works.

[00:19:55] Speaker 02:
So there's a little bit of loose language, but I think it is clearly appropriate given... Is the ultimate question we'll look about is whether it's a camera?

[00:20:03] Speaker 02:
Is that the question?

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
Okay, because it's... I think...

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
You'll have to ask on rebuttal to make sure that the... Well, what the board said is it's clear from the disclosure that New Mosque, that photo detecting refers to obtaining an image, which is what the patent owner asserts is the function of a camera.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:20:24] Speaker 04:
I think that's right.

[00:20:25] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:20:25] Speaker 04:
The board has clearly found this is a camera, that it teaches a camera.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
And there's substantial evidence to support that.

[00:20:32] Speaker 04:
I would suggest that is one argument that gesture tech has made on appeal.

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
The other argument, if I understand it, it's always hard to make somebody else's argument for them.

[00:20:43] Speaker 04:
If I understand the other argument, the question is whether or not the computer piece, the feature data generation unit, then analyzes the image.

[00:20:54] Speaker 03:
I mean, the only difficulty in this case, it seems to me, is that embodiments one through seven say photo detection unit, and embodiment eight says photo detection sensor unit.

[00:21:05] Speaker 03:
And that generally would cause me pause.

[00:21:10] Speaker 03:
But this is substantial evidence review.

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
And Numizaki expressly says eight incorporates in one through seven.

[00:21:18] Speaker 03:
So I think the case on this point is over.

[00:21:20] Speaker 03:
Is there anything else that you need to raise with us?

[00:21:24] Speaker 03:
And it's a good plan.

[00:21:25] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:21:26] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
OK, Mr. Whitten-Zellner, you have some rebuttal time.

[00:21:38] Speaker 03:
I want to remind you before we start your time that your rebuttal is limited to what you discussed in your opening and what she discussed in her response.

[00:21:47] Speaker 03:
And there are many issues you all didn't cover, many of which are still in the next to come.

[00:21:52] Speaker 03:
But I just want to make sure you abide by the rules, which is you're limited to what was already discussed.

[00:21:59] Speaker 03:
And you can't branch in your rebuttal out into the other issues.

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
So come on up and whatever you have to say about these issues, we'll happily hear.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
Two brief points, again, on the discovery issue.

[00:22:16] Speaker 00:
First, I did have an opportunity to review the notice of appeal.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
And we do ask for review of the board's factual findings, conclusions of law.

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
Are you looking at the notice of appeal right now?

[00:22:29] Speaker 00:
Correction okay, so tell me what your this is twenty seven hundred okay correction or I have twenty five seventy Just two spots your honor in the first portion of

[00:22:48] Speaker 00:
in the first paragraph it reads, quote, and from all underlying orders, decisions, rulings, and opinions that are adverse to GTP.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
I believe that was the language that you're on it.

[00:22:57] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:22:58] Speaker 01:
I think the dispute here is whether an order that occurred after the final reading decision is an underlying order.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
I think that's where your biggest hurdle is.

[00:23:08] Speaker 00:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:23:08] Speaker 00:
And I think the underlying doesn't necessarily modify all of the different terms in that sentence.

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
If you don't, well, it says from the final written decision and from all underlying orders.

[00:23:20] Speaker 01:
Underlying what?

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
Underlying the final written decision.

[00:23:24] Speaker 00:
Right, but then it lists other decisions in the same sentence.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
So my point is that underlying doesn't necessarily modify decisions, rulings, and opinions in the same sentence.

[00:23:32] Speaker 00:
In addition, at the final sentence of that same paragraph in the middle of the page,

[00:23:40] Speaker 00:
We're also appealing the board's factual findings, conclusions of law, or other determinations supporting or relating to the above issues.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry, where is that?

[00:23:48] Speaker 01:
You're at the bottom of that same page?

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
Sorry, it's the bottom of the first paragraph on the same page.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
Oh, got it.

[00:23:55] Speaker 00:
And it reads, quote, the board's factual findings, conclusions of law, or other determinations supporting or relating to the above issues.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
I believe that language, to the extent there's a hang up on the first set of language, that language,

[00:24:07] Speaker 00:
Is broader and would encompass the requested relief for remand on additional discovery?

[00:24:14] Speaker 00:
one other brief Issue I wanted to bring up in response to my counterparts argument

[00:24:19] Speaker 00:
is the point that we did not raise RPI earlier in the case.

[00:24:23] Speaker 00:
The issue is that the PTAP's precedential opinion in Shark Ninja actually tells us we're not allowed to unless there is a time bar or a stop on the 315E1 is basically live at that point, which was not the case until the final written decision issued, which is why we did not seek this discovery earlier.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:24:44] Speaker 03:
This case is taken under submission.