[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
The next case for argument is 22-2257, global products versus Apple.

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
So before you start, let me reiterate the point.

[00:00:31] Speaker 01:
And we'll ask Ms.

[00:00:32] Speaker 01:
Oliver as well to confirm that if we were hypothetically to affirm the first case that we just heard in Samsung, then this case would go away or be mooted out.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
Is that right?

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
I don't know offhand when

[00:00:49] Speaker 00:
collateral stopple would kick in.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
Certainly, Gracia de Cotter would until there's finality.

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
But at the end of the day, when it shakes out, the claims have been invalidated.

[00:01:00] Speaker 00:
And we're at the end of the road, then they're just invalid.

[00:01:04] Speaker 00:
But I have not looked into two at the same time.

[00:01:07] Speaker 01:
All the claims covered in the Apple case are included in the Samsung

[00:01:12] Speaker 00:
Actually, I don't have a list, but that's not correct.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
One of them challenged all the claims.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
I thought Samsung was the one that challenged all claims, and Apple challenged a subset of those claims.

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
And I believe your honor is correct.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
So in other words, one would not...

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
Taking that down its logical road, there would still not be a total overlap.

[00:01:32] Speaker 00:
It depends on what the court's going on.

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
No, I don't think there's a total overlap.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
I think Samsung is a larger mass.

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
And therefore, if somehow we were to affirm all of those conclusions in Samsung, that would mood out the argument here.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
I mean, if we're affirming the invalidity of all the claims in one case, we'd have to do it twice.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
I'm going to argue on the assumption that we're not going to get there.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
Bless you.

[00:01:54] Speaker 01:
You're free to do that.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
Please proceed.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
Turning to Apple, different prior art.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
I'm going to spend most of my time on the 021, 077, and 320.

[00:02:13] Speaker 00:
The primary reference there is Goon Lock and then Lee.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
So it's Goon Lock, Lee is the primary combination.

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
For the 020,

[00:02:25] Speaker 00:
The primary reference is Babow, and it's combined with Gunlock.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
So there are some overlapping arguments, but most of them are different.

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
So what are you going to do, Gunlock and Lee?

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
I'm going to spend most of my time there, since it impacts three of the patents.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
But if I have time, we'll cover Babow as well.

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
All of the unpatentability determinations for the O2

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
1, 077, and 320 rise or fall on whether it was obvious to modify Gunlock in view of Lee's unique figure 12 device.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
Of the 15 or plus embodiments in Lee, there's a single embodiment in figure 12 which has a switch 470.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
The importance of switch 470 was switch 470 is what Apple and the board used to find the switching device for which is in all of the claims.

[00:03:31] Speaker 00:
Switching device is in all the claims.

[00:03:33] Speaker 00:
The difference is for the O2O, the electronic device, the case electronic device protects the case of the switching device.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
For the other three, the case of the switching device protects the case of the electronic device.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
The board went to links in discussing the wireless charging versus the physical contacts of GoonLaunch.

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
And so be that.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
But it did not state any motivation

[00:04:13] Speaker 00:
to modify GoonLaunch in view of Lee's figure 12.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
And what's required is a motivation to achieve the patented invention, not just a general motivation to combine with wireless charging.

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
And my friend may say there was another theory.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
We addressed it in our reply brief.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
And if she says that, then I will address it in about all the time permitted.

[00:04:38] Speaker 00:
But that was Apple's theory, and we have many, many sites from the record.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
They put quotes around the word switch when they're talking about switch 470.

[00:04:46] Speaker 00:
That's exactly what the board did, and that was the switch that was found.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
Again, I apologize.

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
I guess I may be misunderstanding completely, but I understood that Apple's argument was that a person skilled in the art would have modified gun lap to use the coil and switch shown in the figure 12.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
Because those components are part of Lee's inductive charging circuit.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
Why is that wrong?

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
That is what they've said here on appeal.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:
But they're not a part of... Lee has, as I mentioned, 16 different embodiments.

[00:05:25] Speaker 00:
Wireless charging does not require a switch 470.

[00:05:29] Speaker 00:
The reason there's a switch 470 in figure 12 is because

[00:05:34] Speaker 00:
That's a very unique invention on its own to where it has a dual-use transducer coil.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
So for the figure 12 device, unlike all the other devices in Li, unlike all other wireless charging devices in the world, as in figure 12, they take the charging coil, and that's also the speaker coil.

[00:05:55] Speaker 00:
That's that dual-use transducer coil.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
It's a unique configuration.

[00:05:58] Speaker 00:
The board just made no finding as to why any of that.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
And the only reason why you have

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
switch 470 is because if you have that dual use coil.

[00:06:09] Speaker 00:
Because switch 470 tries to isolate the coil so you don't have interference from the power.

[00:06:15] Speaker 00:
So we say, and I think the courts should agree, that to combine with Lee's figure 12, there needs to be motivation to use switch 470.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
That's not a necessary element of wireless charging.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
Lee itself shows that.

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
Because Lee itself shows that all of its other embodiments don't have that.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
This is a very unique device.

[00:06:40] Speaker 00:
And it was picked in hindsight so they could find a switch.

[00:06:45] Speaker 00:
But there's no articulation of motivation by the board to do that.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
Can you point us the board's opinion where it includes that analysis of the two, the combination?

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
So it's extended.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
It's extended.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
So it's appendix 87 through 98, 154 through 165, and 222 through 237.

[00:07:14] Speaker 00:
In most cases, it's very, very similar.

[00:07:18] Speaker 00:
But it goes at length to talk about how wireless charging might be more reliable, how wireless charging might

[00:07:29] Speaker 00:
make for something that's more compact, all these different things that the board discusses, which separately, and I don't think we'll have time to get to it, but it's separately brief, we has pointed out the incorrectness of all those justifications for replacing a well-known, well-accepted, perfectly reliable contact charging with wireless charging, but be that as may,

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
the board still, in all those pages, you will not find, and I don't believe my friends have pointed to, any place where the board has said there's motivation to combine.

[00:08:03] Speaker 00:
And to say that just simply by justifying wireless charging, that that somehow pulls in Lee's figure 12 device

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
is not a proper statement of what motivation to combine requires.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
It's a motivation to combine to achieve the patented invention.

[00:08:20] Speaker 01:
I'm looking at page 87 and 88.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
Does the patent owner call out this figure 12 thing?

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
Does the patent owner call it out?

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
I presume they must have, because that's what your argument is today.

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
Well.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
When you say, I'm not exactly sure, Your Honor, and I apologize, what you mean by call it out, what the patent owner argued was, essentially, Samsung argued for wireless charging.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
Samsung did not really justify the need for this unique figure 12 device.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, Apple, my apologies.

[00:09:03] Speaker 00:
This unique figure 12 device.

[00:09:05] Speaker 00:
And they may be able to point somewhere when they're briefed.

[00:09:07] Speaker 00:
They did.

[00:09:08] Speaker 00:
But the board did not adopt or endorse.

[00:09:10] Speaker 00:
The board did not use those as a motivation.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
And I apologize for the pages, but it's hard to prove a negative.

[00:09:17] Speaker 00:
But the board did not articulate a motivation to use that switch and that unique Figure 12 device.

[00:09:28] Speaker 00:
Apple's own briefing.

[00:09:30] Speaker 00:
besides this idea of just it carries along with wireless charging, which is simply not correct.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
Nor is that something that the board found.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
Nor is that something the board found.

[00:09:40] Speaker 00:
That's just simply

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
apples after-the-fact justification for what the board did.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
The board never said, well, we found wireless charging.

[00:09:48] Speaker 00:
Therefore, somehow that carries along this unique figure 12 device.

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
Well, I think I'm looking at the correct portion of the board's opinions at the 80s, starting at 85 maybe, and going on for 10 pages, discussing all of the arguments and relying on Dr. Tolyot.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
Was he relevant to this discussion?

[00:10:08] Speaker 00:
Dr. Tolyot was we's technical expert, Your Honor.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
So they seem to discuss it in some detail.

[00:10:15] Speaker 00:
They discuss the pluses and minuses.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
They had discussed the parties' arguments.

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
And in some cases, their evaluations of those arguments for and against wireless charging at length.

[00:10:31] Speaker 00:
But they don't discuss any motivation for this.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
unique figure 12 device.

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
What about, look at page 97, where they explicitly talk about your argument on figure 12 and their agreement with the petitioner's arguments.

[00:10:47] Speaker 01:
Is that something different or isn't that relevant to what you're telling me about?

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
Well, we argued that the figure 12 device would result in energy loss and they refuted that, but that is not a motivation to use

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
the unique figure 12 device, just if they didn't buy Gui's argument, that it was an inefficient system.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
So you're not complaining that the petitioner didn't make the argument.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
You're complaining that the PTAB did not adopt, embrace, or articulate.

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
I don't believe the petitioner made the argument either.

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
I think they focused on wireless charging in general.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
And I don't recall them pointing out in their response brief where they did argue for a particular

[00:11:31] Speaker 00:
Figure 12 device.

[00:11:32] Speaker 00:
My read of the argument was that they just said it simply carries through with the idea of wireless charging in general.

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
But I think my statement was, if they're able to point to something in their brief, the board did not adopt that as its own.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
I certainly have read those opinions carefully.

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
I do not see that.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
That's a threshold question that applies to all of the claims.

[00:11:58] Speaker 01:
In the 021-077?

[00:12:01] Speaker 00:
In those three, correct.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
In those three.

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
With respect to... You're in your rebuttal time, so you want to... There are just a couple.

[00:12:15] Speaker 00:
With Bobot, there is no substantial evidence of Bobot having a switching device.

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
His operational mode is not a switching device.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
We explain that in our brief.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
And then with Bobot, there is simply

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
no substantial evidence for this backup laser printer.

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
It's just complete after the fact.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
It's just complete reverse engineering to try to get it.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
And is that the O2O patent?

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
That's in the O2O.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
Those are all Babow.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
And then lastly, the court, this is hopefully one clear for the court.

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
There's one where with Babow, the lid has to be configured to the switching device.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
And what Apple relied on and what the board relied on was,

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
a flat, planar lid, which isn't configured to anything.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
I'll reserve the rest of my time for a vote.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:13:32] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:33] Speaker 01:
Could you start with the question we've been starting with, which is the effect of what we resolve in the first case, how it impacts this case?

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
Do you have a view on that?

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:13:42] Speaker 02:
So the Samsung case challenged all of the claims that are at issue.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
Apple's IPR has challenged a subset.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
So if the court were to affirm in Samsung's case, then that would mood out the issues in this case.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:13:55] Speaker 02:
I'd like to begin by addressing the IPRs involving the 021, 077, and 320 patents where my friend began.

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
And the primary issue here is this motivation to combine GunBlock's clamshell case with Lee's inductive charging, including Lee's Figure 12 and Switch 470.

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
The motivation to use Switch 470 is on the face of Lee itself because it's part of Lee's Figure 12 circuitry.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
In other words, Lee already did the work of combining

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
that switch and the dual purpose coil in an inductive charging system.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
And there's no need to show a separate motivation to combine elements that are already combined together in the prior art.

[00:14:37] Speaker 01:
Now with respect to Lee.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
A lot of your friend's complaints or concerns are with the board having failed to say certain things.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
Did the board say anything about what you present as kind of a self-evident proposition?

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
Sure, yes.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
And I think there's more details, particularly why one of skill in the art would have used figure 12 as opposed to other embodiments as well.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
So I think it's helpful to look at appendix pages 93 through 95.

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
There's some earlier findings on appendix 87 as well, but I think 93, beginning at 93 is helpful.

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
So on appendix 93, the board is addressing

[00:15:22] Speaker 02:
one of the benefits that's brought about by this combination, and that is a compact form factor.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
And the court here, excuse me, the board here relies on the testimony of Apple's expert, specifically paragraph 44, and that explains why one of skill in the art would have used figure 12, because like Gundlach, the leave reference was seeking a charging solution that achieved a reduction of size

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
and weight.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
And Lee achieved that goal by using this single dual-purpose coil that serves two functions.

[00:16:01] Speaker 02:
And that allowed Lee to reduce the size and weight and minimize the additional hardware that would be needed there.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
And so Dr. Cooper-Stott explained that Lee's Figure 12 avoids having this separate dedicated inductive charging coil that would introduce unnecessary bulk to the design.

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
So Lee's figure 12 is particularly consistent with the smaller form factor that was desired by the gun block reference.

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
And so the board addresses this at appendix page 93.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
Again, they cite the top of 94.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
They cite Dr. Cooperstock's paragraph 44.

[00:16:36] Speaker 02:
And then they go through and explain some of that, too.

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
So the next sentence, the top of 94, says, Lee describes a charging solution for wireless headsets that achieves a reduction of size and weight.

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
And so, again, I think that's the reasoning that the board was using here, based on its citations to the experts, paragraphs 44.

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
And then similar reasoning later when you look at the interoperability benefit that was a separate benefit, discussed and found by the board.

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
That also relies on Apple's expert testimony there, paragraph 45.

[00:17:11] Speaker 02:
And that also, again, discusses

[00:17:14] Speaker 02:
the potential size penalty of avoiding additional hardware.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
And that's a benefit of using Figure 12's dual-purpose coil that eliminates that additional hardware.

[00:17:23] Speaker 02:
So I think that provides a motivation to use Figure 12 as opposed to other embodiments.

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
And again, with respect to Switch 470, because it's already part of Figure 12, there's no reason to provide a separate motivation for the Switch in particular.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
So I'll turn next to the 020 patent.

[00:17:49] Speaker 02:
And I believe the first issue that my friend briefly addressed was the motivation to add the recess to Babat's primary module.

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
And that is to protect the detachable headset.

[00:18:02] Speaker 02:
And adding a recess to the headset allows the headset to nestle in place to help prevent it from falling off when it's dropped or jostled.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
So the primary module's

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
has a recess and the headset fits in there to prevent it from falling off.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
This helps achieve one of the expressly stated goals in the prior art, which was to avoid an untimely detachment that would lead to loss of the headset.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
Now, Gui's primary argument on appeal is that it would make it less readily available to do that, but the board considered that in its analysis and found that that would not dissuade an artisan from making this combination.

[00:18:37] Speaker 01:
And you want to give us a site to the board's opinion?

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
So the board addresses this particularly at appendix page 32 and 33.

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
There the board says this would more effectively secure the headset and would be further advantageous.

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
So the next issue that my friend briefly addressed on the O2O patent was this backup laser pointer.

[00:19:05] Speaker 02:
Here, Apple relied on a third reference, the Lee reference, which is a Bluetooth earphone with a laser pointer on it.

[00:19:12] Speaker 02:
And the board found that an artisan would have added a laser pointer to the headset on the Babat gunlock combination to provide the user with a backup option when the laser pointer on the primary module is unavailable.

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
So if you've left it in your car, if the battery's dead, something like that.

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
This is useful for business presentations.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
And the board made these findings from appendix page 50 through 54.

[00:19:35] Speaker 02:
And Gui's argument here is simply that you wouldn't add one because the primary module has a laser pointer, but that misses the motivation that we've provided, which is a backup option when the primary option is not available.

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
The last issue that my friend raised is with respect to whether Gundlock discloses a lid with a recess.

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
This affects only certain dependent claims of the 020 and 021, and then affects the independent claims of the 077 and 320 patents.

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
And here there is substantial evidence supporting the board's decision.

[00:20:10] Speaker 02:
This is found most easily, I think, by just looking at Gun Block's figure 18B, which is at 2480 in the appendix.

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
That's just the plain version of the figure.

[00:20:21] Speaker 02:
without any annotations and you can see from the drawing that there is a recess in the lid and that's what the board relied on.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
Apple's expert also explained that clamshell cases typically had recessed lids to accommodate a headset or headphones that are stored therein and he provided other examples in the art of clamshell cases that were used to hold headsets and that's at appendix 1789 paragraphs 90 and 91

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
of his declaration, which the board discussed at appendix page 43.

[00:20:58] Speaker 02:
So unless there are any additional particular questions from the court, we would sum up by just saying that Gui's arguments have repeatedly challenged the board's factual findings, but they failed to provide any basis to overturn those findings, particularly under substantial evidence review.

[00:21:13] Speaker 02:
So unless the court has further questions, we would request that the court affirm.

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, my friend pointed to pages 93 and 94 for a motivation to combine with the figure 12 device.

[00:21:41] Speaker 00:
But that's simply not stated there.

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
What is stated is that the board is addressing a separate issue about Dr. Tolley, a Glees expert, had argued that this was inconsistent with a compact design.

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
And the board credited Dr. Cooper's testimony that it was consistent with

[00:22:03] Speaker 00:
compact design, but that was not stated as a motivation to make the combination.

[00:22:08] Speaker 00:
That's just simply discounting a contra-argument that Dr. Toglia had made.

[00:22:12] Speaker 00:
With respect to Paracorecta on page 94, the interoperability issue had nothing to do with figure 12 or a dual-use transducer coil.

[00:22:26] Speaker 00:
That had to do with

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
whether wire charging was more interoperable than wireless charging had nothing to do with figure 12.

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
So if that's what Apple's relying on, that does not show any motivation to combine.

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
There's certainly no statement of it.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
With respect to this statement about the recess in the primary module, my friend talked about the recess.

[00:22:49] Speaker 00:
There are also claims that are drawn to the not just recess,

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
a lid.

[00:22:57] Speaker 00:
And the theory was that you put the device in a closed device, and that's completely at odds with everything that Bebeau is made to be, which is made to be something that avoids needing to put it inside a container.

[00:23:12] Speaker 00:
And so the arguments I heard with respect to recess, I heard no arguments to defending this very far-fetched theory of putting Bebeau's device in a clamshell case.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
With respect to the recess of the lid, my friend said, look at figure 18.

[00:23:36] Speaker 00:
We just asked the court to look at figure 18.

[00:23:38] Speaker 00:
It's a flat, cleaner lid.

[00:23:40] Speaker 00:
It's a flat, cleaner lid.

[00:23:42] Speaker 00:
And I think my friend was just paraphrasing.

[00:23:44] Speaker 00:
My friend said, we think there's a recess there.

[00:23:46] Speaker 00:
The claim limitation is a recess that's configured to the switching device.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
So there's nothing configured.

[00:23:55] Speaker 00:
to any device about a flat planer lid.

[00:23:57] Speaker 00:
It just simply hangs in the air above the other device.

[00:24:00] Speaker 00:
And my friend said that their expert had mentioned other devices have it, but the theory that Apple advanced and the theory that the board found was not that it would be obvious to have a lid configured.

[00:24:13] Speaker 00:
What it found was that that was met.

[00:24:15] Speaker 00:
And so whether other devices might do that or not was not the theory, nor is it what the board relied upon.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
So that just simply

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
which is not useful for the court.

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
We thank both sides.

[00:24:29] Speaker 01:
Thank you.