[00:00:00] Speaker 00: Our next case is Gunter and Zimmerman, Instruction Division, versus Goddard and Smith, Instruction Company, 2022, 1831, 33, 35, and 36. [00:00:12] Speaker 00: Mr. Andre. [00:00:13] Speaker 00: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:00:26] Speaker 04: May it please the Court. [00:00:28] Speaker 04: I don't know if [00:00:29] Speaker 04: anyone on the panel who's ever worked construction or have family members or friends who work construction. [00:00:34] Speaker 04: But if you did, you probably know that modifications of heavy machinery is very rare. [00:00:39] Speaker 04: And it's taken over very careful considerations. [00:00:43] Speaker 04: The reason it's very rare is because heavy machinery handles heavy loads. [00:00:50] Speaker 04: So when you look at the priority in this case, you look at it under that filter. [00:00:55] Speaker 04: That modification is very difficult. [00:00:57] Speaker 04: And it's very serious. [00:00:58] Speaker 04: So modifications to heavy equipment is very rare. [00:01:02] Speaker 04: Now, this case is a little bit unusual. [00:01:04] Speaker 04: We have empirical evidence that the PTAB used hindsight to get this obvious determination. [00:01:12] Speaker 04: Empirical evidence is this. [00:01:14] Speaker 04: The base prior art in this case is 1974. [00:01:17] Speaker 02: Your argument in your brief speaks a lot about hindsight. [00:01:22] Speaker 02: Explain to me what your view of that, what does that mean to you, this hindsight? [00:01:27] Speaker 04: It means you look back and you use the patented technology as a roadmap to apply it to the priority. [00:01:38] Speaker 01: Without the patented technology... If it's based on the patent and the patent technology, how is it hindsighted? [00:01:45] Speaker 04: Well, you're using that as a roadmap. [00:01:47] Speaker 04: So you're looking back at the priority and saying, in hindsight, we could have done this feature. [00:01:52] Speaker 04: Like in this particular instance, the base part goes back to 1974. [00:01:57] Speaker 04: For 36 years, every concrete paver manufactured of record was built the same way. [00:02:05] Speaker 04: 2010, our invention comes out and things change. [00:02:10] Speaker 04: So for 36 years, that's empirical evidence to show that nothing changed in the way they were designed. [00:02:17] Speaker 04: Now, that design is having the column, jacking column attached to the crawler track. [00:02:24] Speaker 04: Nothing changed until the patent came out. [00:02:27] Speaker 04: There's no regular connection between the crawler track and the column in any piece of prior art. [00:02:34] Speaker 04: And the PTAB doesn't point to any. [00:02:36] Speaker 04: So how they try to cure the lack of prior art and make an obvious determination is they found Rio, a piece of prior art from 2005. [00:02:47] Speaker 04: And Rio has a [00:02:51] Speaker 04: rotation, a rotating connection, but it's not between the crawler track and the column. [00:02:57] Speaker 00: What are you arguing, Mr. Andre, that the prior art was not all analogous, that there was no motivation to combine, or that the secondary considerations overwhelmed any presumption of obviousness? [00:03:11] Speaker 04: Well, I do want to get to the secondary considerations. [00:03:13] Speaker 00: You're telling a story. [00:03:14] Speaker 00: Why don't we focus on the particular issues? [00:03:17] Speaker 04: OK, so the prior art [00:03:19] Speaker 04: The prior doesn't teach the rotary component, rotor connection, where it is found in patent. [00:03:28] Speaker 04: So what I'm arguing here is Rio doesn't solve the problem. [00:03:33] Speaker 04: So there's no motivation to combine, and it was based on hindsight. [00:03:38] Speaker 04: So those are two legal components. [00:03:41] Speaker 04: Rio had multiple problems. [00:03:43] Speaker 04: One, it wasn't a concrete paving machine. [00:03:46] Speaker 03: Do you agree that Rio expressly discloses [00:03:49] Speaker 03: And I think maybe just to help point us to something, it's on appendix 2497 in column 5, lines 8 to 11, if you have access to the appendix. [00:04:02] Speaker 03: Do you have access? [00:04:04] Speaker 03: Do you have the appendix? [00:04:05] Speaker 01: Do you have your files with you? [00:04:06] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:04:09] Speaker 03: When you take a look at that particular section of Rio, do you agree that that supports disclosure that the rotary actuator [00:04:18] Speaker 03: can be located on the lifting column along the axis. [00:04:22] Speaker 03: And I point you to Appendix 2497, Column 5, Lines 8 to 11. [00:04:33] Speaker 04: Sorry, I can't repend, is that my glasses? [00:04:39] Speaker 03: I wear glasses, yes. [00:04:42] Speaker 04: Can you say Column 1? [00:04:44] Speaker 03: Column 5, Lines 8 to 11, Appendix 2497. [00:04:49] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:04:50] Speaker 04: It's located, it's spaced apart from the first actuator along the lifting column axis. [00:04:56] Speaker 04: Now the key here, and what's admitted to by petitioners brief, is that it's on the column. [00:05:04] Speaker 04: It's on the axis of the column. [00:05:06] Speaker 04: It's always on the column. [00:05:08] Speaker 04: It's never separate from the column. [00:05:10] Speaker 04: Rio always teaches [00:05:11] Speaker 04: that the rotating connector along the axis is always on the column. [00:05:17] Speaker 04: This is page 34 of Pelley's brief, and you'll see that. [00:05:22] Speaker 04: If I was a jacking column, I wanted to look right. [00:05:29] Speaker 04: Under Rio, I'd have to turn my whole body to go right. [00:05:34] Speaker 04: Our invention put in a separate component, like a neck, and we could just look right by doing that. [00:05:38] Speaker 04: So it's a big difference between Rio. [00:05:42] Speaker 04: Rio is very explicit. [00:05:43] Speaker 04: It's always on the column, and it rotates the entire column. [00:05:47] Speaker 04: It never rotates just the crawler track. [00:05:49] Speaker 04: And that's the big difference. [00:05:50] Speaker 03: So why doesn't this support what is found in the decision on appendix page 74? [00:05:56] Speaker 03: And the paragraph begins with, we find that Rio does not limit the position of rotary actuator 44. [00:06:11] Speaker 04: I'm sorry, what? [00:06:13] Speaker 04: 74? [00:06:13] Speaker 03: Appendix 74. [00:06:14] Speaker 04: We find Rio does not limit the position of the rotary actuator to the top of the lifting column. [00:06:18] Speaker 04: It's not to the top of the column. [00:06:20] Speaker 04: It can be anywhere on the column. [00:06:21] Speaker 04: We stipulate to that. [00:06:23] Speaker 04: And when we say that in our brief, you can put Rio anywhere on the column. [00:06:26] Speaker 04: That's key. [00:06:27] Speaker 04: It's explicit. [00:06:28] Speaker 04: It has to be on the column. [00:06:30] Speaker 04: Well, our invention was that we took it off the column. [00:06:32] Speaker 04: We put it between the column and the crawler track. [00:06:35] Speaker 04: It's nowhere on the column. [00:06:37] Speaker 04: That's a big distinction, because if it's on the column, in order to rotate, it has to turn the column. [00:06:43] Speaker 04: That's a major redesign of the product. [00:06:48] Speaker 04: In fact, if you look at what the board relied on, they relied on a declaration of an expert that actually reconstructs the entire column of Rio, makes it obsolete. [00:07:02] Speaker 04: The key feature of Rio is no longer applicable. [00:07:06] Speaker 04: So in order to get to that position, you had to redesign the complete column of Rio and take the rotating component and move it someplace where Rio explicitly says it should not be. [00:07:24] Speaker 04: Rio explicitly says it's on the column or anywhere along the column. [00:07:28] Speaker 04: So that's a big distinction. [00:07:31] Speaker 04: If you look at the expert declaration, and this is paragraph 53 of the expert declaration, appendix 1755-56, the expert declaration is just exactly that type of using the patent as a roadmap in hindsight bias. [00:07:48] Speaker 04: So that's the first point. [00:07:50] Speaker 04: I'm saying there's absolutely no reason why someone would go back and redesign a product like Rio, which is not a paving machine. [00:07:58] Speaker 04: completely do it against the way Rio teaches. [00:08:01] Speaker 03: If we don't buy your hindsight argument, what would you say is your best argument to win in this case? [00:08:07] Speaker 04: Within the secondary considerations of non-obviousness. [00:08:11] Speaker 04: In this case, this case is very similar to the Volvo Penta case that came out last August from this court, where there was long felt knee. [00:08:22] Speaker 04: We established the industry praise. [00:08:25] Speaker 04: We established copying. [00:08:26] Speaker 04: In fact, the PTAB found that there was nexus between the Longfellow Need and the industry praise. [00:08:32] Speaker 04: So all you had to do was show the evidence of the Longfellow Need. [00:08:36] Speaker 04: Now, in this case, we put in affidavits or declarations from people in the industry. [00:08:42] Speaker 04: And those declarations, they established there was a Longfellow Need for at least 10 years, going back to the early 2000s. [00:08:50] Speaker 04: The board found that it made two legal errors. [00:08:53] Speaker 04: First, they misapplied the Zaxcom case. [00:08:56] Speaker 04: They say XACSCOM reduces the weight of the long felt need because there is an embodiment in the prior art. [00:09:08] Speaker 04: There is no embodiment of the rotating component in the prior art located where it was. [00:09:15] Speaker 04: They came up with some kind of analogy saying on the ground versus in the air. [00:09:19] Speaker 04: which is a weird analysis. [00:09:21] Speaker 04: That's how the device functions. [00:09:25] Speaker 04: It's not a claimed embodiment, whether it's on the ground or in the air. [00:09:29] Speaker 04: The claimed embodiment, there is no claimed embodiment in the prior arc. [00:09:32] Speaker 04: That's the reason they had to cobble together this piece of prior arc. [00:09:36] Speaker 04: So they misapplied the Zaxcom case to start with to reduce the weight of long felt knee. [00:09:42] Speaker 04: And then they came up with an arbitrary determination that 10 years is not long felt, it's not long enough. [00:09:48] Speaker 04: That's just not the law. [00:09:50] Speaker 04: It can't be the case that 10 years, and actually the Volvo Penta case has very similar circumstances. [00:09:57] Speaker 04: That 10 year period, the long felt need was there, and that was more than sufficient. [00:10:02] Speaker 04: But the board just said, not long enough. [00:10:05] Speaker 04: The second aspect was industry praise. [00:10:08] Speaker 04: We had declarations put in once again from people in the industry. [00:10:12] Speaker 04: They called this invented technology game changer and revolutionary. [00:10:16] Speaker 04: We put in an industry publication talking about how this has changed the industry. [00:10:19] Speaker 04: This invention changed the industry. [00:10:22] Speaker 04: And the board criticized that industry praise because it didn't come from a competitor. [00:10:30] Speaker 04: Now granted, the court has said that if it comes from a competitor, it deserves more weight. [00:10:35] Speaker 04: But you don't take away the weight just because it's not from a competitor. [00:10:38] Speaker 04: In fact, it came from multiple sources. [00:10:41] Speaker 04: And it seems to acknowledge that that should be more than enough to establish the industry praise. [00:10:46] Speaker 04: And finally, with my last minute here, I want to talk about copying. [00:10:51] Speaker 04: There was evidence to show that the product that was the subject of the invention from Genesee, my client, was introduced to the market in 2010. [00:11:02] Speaker 04: The petitioner's product came out in 2015, and there's evidence to show they're substantially similar. [00:11:08] Speaker 04: And they had access to it because we were at trade shows with our product. [00:11:12] Speaker 04: We would be in-game market share. [00:11:14] Speaker 04: And there was a major shift in the industry as soon as we launched with our new crawler track design, where you could turn it on. [00:11:22] Speaker 03: Were you asking this court to essentially reweigh the evidence put in on secondary considerations? [00:11:28] Speaker 04: Well, there is not necessarily a reweigh, but the application of law where they de-weighed it. [00:11:34] Speaker 04: Look at the application of Zaxcom. [00:11:36] Speaker 04: That's the issue of law where they just misinterpreted the case. [00:11:39] Speaker 04: They said that there was no evidence that there was an embodiment and a priority. [00:11:47] Speaker 04: So it's not actually reweighing the evidence, but it's taking away the negating factors. [00:11:53] Speaker 04: And then the 10 years was not enough. [00:11:56] Speaker 04: This is not weighing the evidence. [00:11:57] Speaker 04: Is 10 years enough of a long felt need? [00:12:00] Speaker 04: Is industry praised? [00:12:03] Speaker 04: is the fact that it's not from a competitor. [00:12:06] Speaker 04: Is that enough? [00:12:08] Speaker 04: Because the board came up with a very conclusory statement in its findings saying that they didn't like the language of the declarations and completely ignored industry publications that were saying the praises of the invention. [00:12:24] Speaker 04: I'll reserve the rest of my time if you have no further questions. [00:12:27] Speaker 00: We will save it for you. [00:12:28] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:12:30] Speaker 00: Mr. Rose. [00:12:40] Speaker 05: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:12:41] Speaker 05: May it please the court. [00:12:45] Speaker 05: The board here considered a lot of obviousness evidence. [00:12:49] Speaker 05: It considered evidence about the prior art, evidence from motivation to combine, testimony from witnesses, evidence from expectation of success. [00:13:02] Speaker 05: It even considered evidence from GNZ's own experts that supported Gomezco's case of obviousness. [00:13:09] Speaker 05: It considered evidence of state-of-the-art. [00:13:12] Speaker 05: It put all of this evidence on a scale, and it considered it alongside of GNZ's secondary considerations evidence. [00:13:20] Speaker 05: And it found obviousness. [00:13:23] Speaker 05: This is exactly what the board is supposed to do under this court's law. [00:13:28] Speaker 05: It put everything on the scale first, made no premature conclusions, and then made the obviousness finding after. [00:13:35] Speaker 00: What about the testimony that it was a game changer, revolutionary? [00:13:41] Speaker 00: One would almost think that in and of itself, that should overcome any presumption of obviousness. [00:13:51] Speaker 05: Sure, your honor. [00:13:51] Speaker 05: I think that is overstated and doesn't compare in reality to what the state of the art and the prior art evidence shows. [00:14:02] Speaker 05: To answer that question, I think it's important to understand what the purported point of novelty is. [00:14:07] Speaker 05: In that patent, when you read just the face of the patent, it discloses a control system for moving a swing leg for a slip form paver in coordination with the crawler track. [00:14:22] Speaker 05: And it does so with a rotary actuator. [00:14:25] Speaker 05: We found a prior reference, the real reference, that does exactly that. [00:14:30] Speaker 05: Then they had to pivot, no pun intended, and come back to the location of the power drive. [00:14:36] Speaker 05: So they made this whole appeal or the whole case about the location of the power drive. [00:14:40] Speaker 05: It's really the control system with a rotary power drive that gets you the advantages that your honor was speaking about a moment ago. [00:14:47] Speaker 05: And Rio provides those advantages. [00:14:49] Speaker 05: So it's important to not look at that statement detached from reality and view it in context [00:14:56] Speaker 05: with what the prior art was. [00:14:57] Speaker 05: This long-felt need that existed for this long period of time, Rio solved that long-felt need in 2005. [00:15:03] Speaker 05: There was no decade-long long-felt need. [00:15:06] Speaker 05: If you ignore Rio, then you can make arguments, but you can't ignore Rio in the analysis. [00:15:12] Speaker 05: This was a feature that was known, the feature that they're arguing is novel, that was known for a long time. [00:15:17] Speaker 05: Putting a rotary drive at the bottom of a jacking column in a road construction machine, such as a slip form paver, and using it to turn a crawler track [00:15:26] Speaker 05: was known for decades. [00:15:28] Speaker 05: And it kept being reintroduced in various designs in the prior art. [00:15:32] Speaker 05: The Miller reference in the 70s, the Littman reference in the 80s, John's reference years after that. [00:15:40] Speaker 05: So these were design choices that were being made. [00:15:44] Speaker 02: This isn't an anticipation case, though. [00:15:47] Speaker 02: So the prior art did not disclose the exact invention. [00:15:53] Speaker 02: Is that right? [00:15:54] Speaker 05: Well, the prior art, once they narrowed the case down, so there's no dispute that the combination of references discloses all of the non-power drive limitations in the claim. [00:16:05] Speaker 05: So they narrowed this down to one potentially non-obvious feature, and it was the location of the power drive. [00:16:13] Speaker 05: It wasn't even the coordinated movement between the leg and the crawler track. [00:16:16] Speaker 05: It was the location of the power drive. [00:16:18] Speaker 05: And our point was, they're arguing that was a product of hindsight. [00:16:22] Speaker 05: are responsible that it can't be a product of hindsight because that feature was known in the art. [00:16:26] Speaker 05: Now, if that feature wasn't known in the art, then their hindsight argument might have some legs. [00:16:30] Speaker 05: But the reason that state of the art reference is so helpful, the state of that reference is the Miller reference, the Littman, and the Johns reference. [00:16:39] Speaker 05: The reason those are so helpful is because it allows you to conclude that there was no hindsight. [00:16:44] Speaker 05: By definition, there was no hindsight. [00:16:45] Speaker 05: There was no roadmap for the patent for you to use because it was known. [00:16:51] Speaker 05: So even though this is not an anticipation case, the zeroing in of the state of the art evidence and the disclosures in Rio about that feature are very relevant and probative to obviousness. [00:17:10] Speaker 03: What is your response to opposing counsel's statements about on the column, like kind of the discussion I was having with him with respect to Rio? [00:17:20] Speaker 05: I think that one was addressed squarely by the board. [00:17:26] Speaker 05: What jumped out to me there was the gum on the shoe footnote. [00:17:31] Speaker 05: It's on appendix page 74. [00:17:33] Speaker 05: The footnote reads, to the extent Pat Milner argues that positioning rotary actuator 44 at the bottom of lifting column 46 is not, quote, positioned on the lifting column 46, [00:17:50] Speaker 05: as disclosed in Rio, we do not agree. [00:17:53] Speaker 05: And then it cites to the patented response, seemingly arguing that positioning rotary actuator 44 at the bottom of lifting column 46 is not on the lifting column. [00:18:03] Speaker 05: Then the board says, and I think this is the important point, to use a simple analogy, if a person gets gum stuck on the bottom of his or her shoe, that gum is on the shoe. [00:18:11] Speaker 05: So if it's at the bottom, it's still on, it's just on the bottom. [00:18:16] Speaker 05: Importantly, regarding that point, Your Honor, [00:18:19] Speaker 05: Even if that is a situation where parties can disagree, this is where, which I don't think you can, and I think the board got it right. [00:18:27] Speaker 05: It based its decision on a factual analysis of the prior art. [00:18:31] Speaker 05: But even if this is a situation where parties can disagree, the Substantial Evidence Review, I think, takes care of that. [00:18:42] Speaker 05: So as this court stated in Monsanto Tech v. E.I. [00:18:47] Speaker 05: Dupont, [00:18:50] Speaker 05: If two inconsistent conclusions may reasonably be drawn from the record of evidence, the board's quote, decision to favor one conclusion over the other is the epitome of a decision that must be sustained upon review for substantial evidence. [00:19:05] Speaker 05: I think a lot of the arguments in this case boil down to that. [00:19:08] Speaker 05: They're not really arguing that the board failed to consider something. [00:19:12] Speaker 05: This is a very detailed, thorough set of four opinions. [00:19:16] Speaker 05: They consider the arguments of the parties, both parties. [00:19:18] Speaker 05: They analyze all the arguments. [00:19:21] Speaker 05: and what resulted in over 400 pages of final written decisions in these four IPRs. [00:19:26] Speaker 05: So they did their work. [00:19:28] Speaker 05: And because of that, not much, if anything, was overlooked. [00:19:31] Speaker 05: Not much, if anything, was analyzed. [00:19:33] Speaker 05: So they don't say the board failed to consider this critical evidence. [00:19:36] Speaker 03: You said not much, if anything, was analyzed? [00:19:38] Speaker 05: Sorry. [00:19:39] Speaker 05: It was forgotten to be analyzed or overlooked. [00:19:41] Speaker 05: I apologize, Your Honor. [00:19:42] Speaker 03: I meant to say... Like in 450 pages? [00:19:44] Speaker 03: I think they were doing a little analysis. [00:19:46] Speaker 05: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:19:46] Speaker 05: That was us. [00:19:47] Speaker 05: a misstatement. [00:19:48] Speaker 05: So they analyzed every argument full speed ahead. [00:19:55] Speaker 05: And because of that, what they're left with is a record of a bunch of facts on the scale. [00:20:02] Speaker 05: And the most they can do is disagree with what the board did. [00:20:05] Speaker 05: And that's substantial evidence. [00:20:06] Speaker 05: That's where substantial evidence review matters so much. [00:20:07] Speaker 05: Because if you have two people disagreeing over something and the board finding in one favor, that gets affirmed under substantial evidence. [00:20:18] Speaker 05: If the board doesn't have any questions about secondary considerations, I'm happy to see the rest of my time. [00:20:26] Speaker 00: That's fine. [00:20:26] Speaker 00: We're not the board, but that's... I mean, the court, Your Honor. [00:20:30] Speaker 05: Sorry, Your Honor, the court. [00:20:32] Speaker 00: Thank you very much. [00:20:33] Speaker 00: Mr. Andre has some more bottle time. [00:20:45] Speaker 04: Going back to Judge Cunningham's question about the rotation component connection, where it's located. [00:20:55] Speaker 04: As my colleagues talked about in their brief, they say the rotor actuator can be located, rotate the collar track on the jacking column at different locations, including the bottom of the lifting column. [00:21:09] Speaker 04: It's always on the column. [00:21:10] Speaker 04: The claim language is very specific. [00:21:12] Speaker 04: The rotary connection is between the jacking column and the crawler track. [00:21:17] Speaker 04: It's not on it. [00:21:18] Speaker 04: And the board's analogy with the piece of gum on the shoe is if you had a patent claim that said that the gum has to be on the bottom of the shoe and it was on the top of the shoe, then it wouldn't be the same thing. [00:21:33] Speaker 04: It would be on the shoe, but it wouldn't be the same thing. [00:21:35] Speaker 04: Here, the rotation connection is very specific in every single claim. [00:21:42] Speaker 04: It's between the column and the track. [00:21:46] Speaker 03: I mean, doesn't Rio actually have some language talking about along the column as opposed to on the column? [00:21:53] Speaker 03: Do you see a distinction there? [00:21:54] Speaker 04: Not really, because the key to being along the column is what it's rotating. [00:22:01] Speaker 04: Rotation connection in Rio always rotates the column and what is attached to it. [00:22:07] Speaker 04: And that's a big distinction. [00:22:08] Speaker 04: because it just wouldn't work with a concrete paver. [00:22:11] Speaker 04: Rio is a much smaller device. [00:22:13] Speaker 04: It's a fraction of the size of a concrete paver. [00:22:15] Speaker 04: That's the reason you couldn't find a concrete paver that actually had these components in it as prior art. [00:22:21] Speaker 02: The prior art shows that the actuator can be anywhere along the column. [00:22:27] Speaker 02: The prior art shows that. [00:22:31] Speaker 02: It's not a big leap, it seems to me, for a person skilled in the art to say, well, let's just put it between the crawler and the column jack. [00:22:38] Speaker 04: except no one did it for 36 years. [00:22:42] Speaker 04: That tells you it's not obvious. [00:22:44] Speaker 04: That's the empirical evidence. [00:22:46] Speaker 04: If it had been a simple determination, they would have done it before 36 years. [00:22:51] Speaker 04: That is the key component on the obvious determination. [00:22:54] Speaker 04: That's the issue of law here. [00:22:57] Speaker 04: If it would have been so simple. [00:22:58] Speaker 02: That's different, though, right? [00:23:00] Speaker 02: I mean, even if Sumow is correct, that a person of skill in the yard could [00:23:09] Speaker 02: not put too much effort to say, well, look, if the actuator can go anywhere along the column, why wouldn't I put it down here on the bottom, in between the crawler and the column? [00:23:19] Speaker 02: You're saying, well, that can't be right, because 30 years went by and nobody did it. [00:23:23] Speaker 02: That's a separate argument. [00:23:25] Speaker 04: Well, and if you take it off the column, you have to redesign the column altogether, because the column is designed to turn. [00:23:31] Speaker 04: You have to take the column that's disclosed in Rio and completely redesign it. [00:23:34] Speaker 04: And their expert actually said, that's what their expert said in paragraph 55 of his declaration. [00:23:39] Speaker 04: He said, I have to redesign the column. [00:23:41] Speaker 04: This is how I would do it. [00:23:42] Speaker 04: But there is no basis to do so. [00:23:44] Speaker 04: And it actually takes the column and makes it ineffective altogether. [00:23:47] Speaker 04: And finally, just to the conclusory of the Longfellow Knee on page 87, 88, that conclusion is enough to say that they didn't meet the proper analysis for Longfellow Knee. [00:24:00] Speaker 04: Thank you, counsel. [00:24:01] Speaker 04: Appreciate it. [00:24:01] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:24:02] Speaker 00: The vote is due. [00:24:02] Speaker 00: The case is admitted.