[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
The next case is image processing versus LG electronics, number 232136.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
Mr. Carson, when you're ready.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:00:15] Speaker 02:
My name is Michael Carson of Winstead PC, and I represent plaintiff and appellant here, Image Processing Technologies, LLC, often also abbreviated IPT.

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
This case presents a relatively clean claim construction issue.

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
But more fundamentally, the question here is whether a patent can be broadened through claim construction beyond even its broadest reasonable interpretation just to be invalidated.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
And invalidated by the inventor's own work that the PTO had repeatedly considered and found insufficient to invalidate the patent.

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
Because that's what happened here.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
There are two undisputed technical realities that really drive the issue here.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
One, one histogram calculation unit can only calculate one histogram at a time.

[00:01:17] Speaker 02:
Two, any one histogram is only representative of a single parameter.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
So there is a one to one to one relationship between histogram calculation units, histograms, and a parameter.

[00:01:38] Speaker 02:
Here, the last limitation of claim one of the 293 patent, the only claim at issue in this case, introduces the capabilities of the claimed histogram calculation units.

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
All the other limitations from the preamble until that last limitation describe the requirements of the visual perception processor, which must include two histogram calculation units at a minimum.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
The last limitation changes the focus and talks about the capabilities and what the histogram calculation units must be configured to do.

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
And that change in focus makes the change in language critically important.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
The first clause of the last limitation, the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter, is the phrase in dispute.

[00:02:32] Speaker 02:
And it should have been construed to mean the at least two histogram calculation units being configured to each form a histogram

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
representative of at least one common parameter.

[00:02:45] Speaker 02:
That's the common parameter requirement.

[00:02:47] Speaker 01:
Perhaps that's how the claim should have been drafted.

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
Isn't the more natural reading that the antecedent basis for the parameter, the repeated phrase, goes all the way back to at least one digitized parameter?

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
in the preamble.

[00:03:01] Speaker 01:
We don't normally separate out the preamble from the rest of the claim when it uses the same language.

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I respectfully disagree because the focus of the claim changes in that last limitation.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
I'm not familiar with that concept of we can use the same words

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
We can have an antecedent basis, but yet we're going to shift the focus at a certain point in the claim.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
Where have we said that that allows a patent drafter to change the meaning of a word by shifting the focus in a claim?

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, it's a function of those undisputed technical realities.

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
There is no such thing as a histogram of multiple parameters.

[00:03:38] Speaker 02:
No party has suggested otherwise.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
There is no such thing as two histogram calculation units

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
kind of co-processing a single histogram.

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
There is parallel processing, multiple histogram calculation units processing multiple histograms.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
But there's no co-processing, and no party has suggested otherwise.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
Are you saying it's technically impossible to have two HCUs, each sending out or creating one histogram on their own,

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
So we've got two HCUs, two histograms.

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
And it turns out that those two histograms at a moment in time are related to two different parameters.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
That's technically impossible?

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
I believe the answer is that is not impossible, if I understood the way you said it, Judge Stark.

[00:04:32] Speaker 02:
Two histogram calculation units can generate two histograms, each histogram calculation unit making one histogram.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
That's not technically impossible.

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
That's what happens.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
That can happen.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
They spit out, for lack of a better word,

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
one histogram.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
That can happen, yes your honor.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
And the histogram, those two histograms could be representative of different parameters.

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
But that's not what claim one requires.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
Well, that's the dispute.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
The board's construction would rule out that embodiment that you and I just talked about, correct?

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
The construction that the patent holder has always advocated for, which was adopted by the PTAB in prior proceedings, would rule that out.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
Would rule that out.

[00:05:16] Speaker 01:
And I thought what your argument was

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
We shouldn't let that happen because it's technically impossible, but you're now agreeing with me.

[00:05:24] Speaker 01:
It's not technically impossible, it's just you say not what you claim.

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
What you've described, Justice Stark, is not technically impossible.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
What I was saying was technically impossible is the idea of two histogram calculation units working on one histogram.

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
That is not something that the 293 patent discusses.

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
That would be what I would term kind of co-processing.

[00:05:45] Speaker 02:
That's not what the patent talks about.

[00:05:47] Speaker 02:
And there is no notion of one histogram, which would have been generated by one histogram calculation unit, being representative of more than one parameter.

[00:05:58] Speaker 02:
So the technical reality means that if you've got a histogram calculation unit configured to form a histogram,

[00:06:08] Speaker 02:
representative of the parameter as a function of the technical realities involved here, that has to only be one parameter in the histogram.

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
And because you have to have two histogram calculation units configured to do this, both histogram calculation units

[00:06:24] Speaker 02:
must form a histogram of the same parameter.

[00:06:26] Speaker 02:
That's the common parameter requirement.

[00:06:28] Speaker 02:
You could have an embodiment, Judge Stark, where you would have, say, 16 histogram calculation units comprised in a matrix.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
It is not the case that all 16 must create a histogram of the same parameter.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
What this limitation requires, however, is at least two of those histogram calculation units at some point

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
treat a common parameter when they form their histograms.

[00:06:55] Speaker 02:
And the technical reality is what requires this common parameter requirement.

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
It's been there in the claim language.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
It's in the specification.

[00:07:04] Speaker 02:
It was recognized in the intrinsic record when this issue was first brought to bear in an IPR.

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
And that first IPR is important.

[00:07:12] Speaker 02:
In that first IPR, the 336 IPR, the petitioner in its petition applied the claim

[00:07:22] Speaker 02:
to require one parameter, I believe there it was called an x-axis, to be the parameter for two histograms simultaneously.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
In the response, IPT

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
offered an express construction of this term, which is the same express construction that is offered all throughout all proceedings.

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
And there, that wasn't offered to get around some argument that the petitioner was making in the IPR.

[00:07:49] Speaker 02:
It was perfectly consistent with the argument the petitioner made in the IPR.

[00:07:53] Speaker 02:
It was offered to clarify things.

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
Now, we have always maintained that the scope of this claim has never changed.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
It's always included this so-called common parameter requirement.

[00:08:04] Speaker 02:
But even if this court were to disagree, that assertion in the 336 IPR is a clear narrowing of the claim.

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
And once that was done and adopted by the PTAB as the broadest reasonable interpretation,

[00:08:21] Speaker 02:
It's error for the district court under the Phillips standard to announce an even broader claim construction, especially- Only if the board was right.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
Not if the board was wrong.

[00:08:32] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
And no party appealed any of those IPR decisions.

[00:08:36] Speaker 02:
In fact, my friend also filed an IPR petition.

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
LG also filed an IPR petition here.

[00:08:43] Speaker 02:
LG told the PTAB apply the same construction in that PTAB procedure.

[00:08:48] Speaker 02:
The same construction we've advocated.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
Well, did the district court hear that there was a disclaimer along the lines of what you're pressing here?

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I'm not sure that the district court heard it in the term of disclaimer.

[00:08:59] Speaker 02:
And as we noted in our reply brief, I think that that is a reasonable, though perhaps imperfect, word, because it suggests a change in claim scope.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
And we contend the patent holder has always maintained a consistent claim scope.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
You added this whole last limitation to overcome this recall of prior art, correct?

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
I thought at least one of your arguments to us is that was a disclaimer of claim scope.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
But I didn't see you argue that to the district court.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
Did I get that wrong?

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
Not in the terms of disclaimer, but the same intrinsic evidence that we have advocated before this court is the same intrinsic evidence, both pre-issuance

[00:09:45] Speaker 02:
and post issuance that was advocated to the district court.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
So whether it is in the terms of disclaimer or in the terms of the intrinsic record that the PTAB has repeatedly time and time again looked to and found persuasive, the same argument was presented to the district court below.

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
Notably, nowhere did the claims require this single parameter.

[00:10:08] Speaker 02:
But the specification, importantly, that column 21, line 43 to 47, in the context of figure 32, which I see I'm in my rebuttal time.

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
May I continue?

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
It's your time.

[00:10:20] Speaker 02:
Which no party disputes relates to claim one.

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
There the specification says, the control unit provides overall control and determines which of the parameters, identifying 21 of them, are to be processed at a given time by one

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
or several dedicated polyvalent histogram units.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
That's where the specification describing this common parameter requirement reflected in the killing.

[00:10:50] Speaker 02:
Unless the court has any further question or reserve, any remaining time for the public.

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
Council, how do you pronounce your last name?

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
Oh, Liang.

[00:11:04] Speaker 00:
Mr. Liang, when you're ready.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
Your honor, may it please the court?

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
My name is Mark Liang.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
Today I'll be speaking on behalf of the LG Appellees.

[00:11:12] Speaker 03:
Your honor, as was noted in the opening remarks just now, the parameter is not singular, or at least is not required to be singular.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
It could be plural because it finds and is seen basis in the word at least one parameter, which appears twice earlier in the claim.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
The preamble, where it says at least one digitized parameter, and then immediately preceding limitation.

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
It says at least one parameter.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
And we cited several cases in our briefing, Owen Comique, Baldwin, Sandus, holding that this situation, where a noun finds endocene basis in a prior term, the inherits the numerosity of the term from which it draws endocene basis, in this case, at least one parameter.

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
There's no exception to this rule that's ever been cited by the other side.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
We could not find any.

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
Instead, they tried to create other arguments.

[00:11:57] Speaker 03:
And we heard a couple in Mike Pleasant Caldwell's opening remarks.

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
One of them is this technically possible argument, which is that at any given time, you have one HCU, one histogram, one parameter.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
And that's fine, technically, but that's not what the claim says.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
The claim says you have multiple HCUs.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
There's no dispute about that.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
And there's also not the case that there's only one histogram.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
Instead, it says a histogram representative of the parameter.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
And this invokes another numerosity rule, which is that a means one or more.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
So when we look at it correctly from those rules of numerosity,

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
The claim is actually perfectly consistent.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
We have multiple histogram calculation units, HCUs.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
We have one more histograms, and then we have at least one parameter.

[00:12:42] Speaker 03:
So there's no singularity requirement here.

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
In fact, I think in their brief, the reply brief, page 11, footnote 3, and I think they hinted at this in their remarks just now, they basically contributed to their position.

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
They stated in footnote 3, page 11 of the reply,

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
Claim one, this is their position on what the claim means.

[00:13:01] Speaker 03:
Claim one requires multiple HCUs to separately treat the same parameter at the same time, generating separate histograms.

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
Emphasis on the last three words, generating separate histograms.

[00:13:11] Speaker 03:
So they actually stated that this claim has separate multiple histograms.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
Well then, how can there only be one histogram?

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
If there are separate multiple histograms, why do they have to be for the same parameter?

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
Why can't they be for different parameters?

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
The other argument they make is, it was also made earlier in the remarks, was that there's actually been a change in what the claim is about.

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
The earlier part of the claim was about overall system with multiple parameters.

[00:13:39] Speaker 03:
And when we get to this claim, we're actually talking about a subpart or something that had effect, a subpart of the system with only one common parameter.

[00:13:46] Speaker 03:
But there's nothing in the claim to support that understanding.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
In fact, the limitation immediately before the disputed phrase says almost the same thing.

[00:13:54] Speaker 03:
at least two histogram calculation units for treatment of the at least one parameter.

[00:14:00] Speaker 03:
And then the disputed phrase falls immediately after that, referring then to plural HCUs being configured to form a histogram represented with the parameter.

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
There's nothing separating those two limitations and nothing else in the claim suggesting that the claim should be limited to a subpart, or we're talking about a different type of parameter.

[00:14:18] Speaker 03:
In fact, that defeats the whole unseen basis rule.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
The whole point of using the parameter is because it's referring to exactly the same, at least one parameter earlier in the claim.

[00:14:27] Speaker 01:
You have an argument, if I understand correctly, that the specification actually discloses embodiments that would be excluded under their construction.

[00:14:37] Speaker 01:
If that's right, can you help me see an example of that?

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
In fact, every embodiment in the specification, including the figure 32 embodiment they talked about, envisions multiple HCUs, each processing a different parameter.

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
In figure 1 and 30,

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
This is actually the only use case.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
Can you show me, I understand how it envisions multiple HCUs, each HCU generating one histogram, but how can I see that those histograms are all representing different parameters and no two of them are representing a common parameter?

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
How do I see that?

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
Yeah, that's in figure 1 and 30, both those embodiments, which their construction excludes.

[00:15:22] Speaker 03:
They each show five HCUs.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
They're labeled A, B, C, D, and E. And each of them receives a separate parameter, A, B, C, and D, and E. So in those ones, those two embodiments, they don't even contemplate two HCUs processing or more HCUs processing the same parameter.

[00:15:37] Speaker 03:
Each of them only allows each HCU to process a different one of the parameters.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
So to be consistent with their construction,

[00:15:45] Speaker 01:
it would have to be at least one of A through E, HCU A through E, at least two of them would have to generate a histogram tracking the same parameter.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
So two of them would say A, for example.

[00:16:00] Speaker 03:
Yeah, under their construction, you would have to require at least two of them to process the same parameter, but that contradicts those embodiments.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
So that's our issue, really, with their construction.

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
And on that note, I just want to conclude by talking about the PTAB history here, because they rely quite heavily on that, the IPRs that Samsung and LG have filed.

[00:16:23] Speaker 03:
First off, I think he was a bit misleading in our view about what LG's position was.

[00:16:29] Speaker 03:
They were also misleading in the reply.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
LG didn't propose the common parameter construction, or even implicitly adopt it.

[00:16:37] Speaker 03:
Rather, in our petition, we stated, this is Appendix 3350, I'll just quote, and this was in our response brief, petitioner LG

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
reserves the right to dispute this construction, the common parameter construction, and other proceedings, including to the extent the claims argue to require a common parameter.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
However, there is no need to address that dispute here, where the prior art discloses claim one, even under the board's narrow common parameter construction, applied by picture here for processes proceeding only.

[00:17:05] Speaker 03:
So we actually recognized there was a dispute over this construction.

[00:17:10] Speaker 03:
We thought the board's construction was too, as we said, narrow.

[00:17:13] Speaker 03:
But it wasn't worth spending the space, limited words that we had in the IPR, to address the dispute when we didn't think it mattered.

[00:17:20] Speaker 03:
We probably aren't disclosed the common parameter requirement anyway.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
The board ultimately denied institution for discretionary reasons.

[00:17:27] Speaker 03:
But that was our position.

[00:17:30] Speaker 03:
We seemed to each party spend about 50 pages on this one issue.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
And we didn't have the space to spend on an issue that didn't matter in the IPR.

[00:17:38] Speaker 03:
As to Samsung, that was a separate party.

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
And they never proposed the common paragraph construction either.

[00:17:43] Speaker 03:
That was something that IPT proposed.

[00:17:45] Speaker 03:
And the board adopted in the first IPR.

[00:17:47] Speaker 03:
And they just carried forward that wrong construction through subsequent proceedings.

[00:17:51] Speaker 03:
A couple of other quick things, and I'll conclude.

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
They've repeated at the outset and again that we can't be broader than the BRI.

[00:18:01] Speaker 03:
Well, the whole dispute is, was that BRI right?

[00:18:04] Speaker 03:
So if it's not right, then that doctrine is kind of irrelevant.

[00:18:08] Speaker 03:
And to this point, in our briefing, we cited, and I want to reemphasize this case, the Exmark versus Briggs case from this court in 2018.

[00:18:18] Speaker 03:
where the PTO had initially adopted one construction, a BRI, for a claim term, confirmed the claims over the prior.

[00:18:28] Speaker 03:
And then the district court adopted a different Phillips construction that was actually broader.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
This court affirmed that broader construction, finding there was nothing wrong with the fact that it was broader, nor the fact that

[00:18:40] Speaker 03:
it could lead to a situation where the jury could find the same claims invalid.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
So the situation has arisen before.

[00:18:48] Speaker 03:
And then finally, on the disclaimer point, Your Honor,

[00:18:54] Speaker 03:
Well, first off, on the record, the original prosecution with RIPCA was never raised in lower court.

[00:19:00] Speaker 03:
This is a totally new set of arguments they're raising.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
As to the disclaimer for the IPRs, two points.

[00:19:10] Speaker 03:
One, as we say in our briefing, disclaimer, or if you want to call it something else, prosecution statements, can't be used to refute or contradict the plain language of the claims, which is what's happening here, adding unstated limitations.

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
This is a legal doctrine that the other side is not disputed.

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
And IBTE also tried to make, I guess, a fairness argument that if the situation were reversed, we were trying to propose a broader construction than what we had set forth for the PTO.

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
We wouldn't be allowed to do that.

[00:19:39] Speaker 03:
But that's not what's happening here.

[00:19:41] Speaker 03:
That's precisely the point.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
They're actually trying to take the construction that they proposed to the PTO

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
in a parallel proceeding at the same time as litigation and say, well, since we said that to the PTO at the same time as litigation, you have to follow it.

[00:19:53] Speaker 03:
And that raises policy concerns and should not be permitted here.

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
With that, Your Honor, if there's any further questions, we request affirmance of the district court's construction.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
The claims require this common parameter requirement and not only can it be seen in the change in language where parameters used as the parameter as opposed to other places in the claims where it's at least one parameter or claim twos parameters plural but also the requirement that you have to compare

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
the parameter and the selection criterion C. That's also singular.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
The claim reflects these technical realities.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
And those technical realities are what went in to what was stated in the original 336 IPR.

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
Now, the fact of the matter is this court has found that the intrinsic record includes IPR proceedings before the PTO.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
And contrary to what my friend just said, the time IPT made the statement

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
about this common parameter requirement in an IPR was in the Samsung IPR, not a parallel proceeding with the LG case that we're hearing.

[00:21:12] Speaker 02:
And this court has found in 2022 in the Cup Computing AS versus Trend Micro Case 53F41376 at 1383 that to be clear,

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
A disclaimer in an IPR proceeding is binding in later proceedings, whether before the PTO or in court.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
There's no dispute that IPT's proposed construction is narrower than what the district court found.

[00:21:39] Speaker 02:
And so when you've got this narrow construction or a broad construction, and the patentee in an earlier proceeding

[00:21:48] Speaker 02:
has elected, to the extent that you think the claim scope has changed, has disclaimed any broader scope and identified its scope.

[00:21:57] Speaker 02:
That is binding.

[00:22:00] Speaker 02:
That clear statement of claim scope should have been taken into account by the district court and should have been given effect.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
The fact of the matter is, I submit if we were here having made the exact same statements in the IPR, the 336 IPR,

[00:22:16] Speaker 02:
the same statements we have made repeatedly, because we've always taken a consistent position here.

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
If we were here seeking the broad construction that the district court awarded, and my friends didn't want that, this court should and would hold against us the statements we made in the IPR.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
They reflect claim scope.

[00:22:37] Speaker 02:
They put the public on notice of the scope of the claims.

[00:22:39] Speaker 02:
There are reliance interests involved here.

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
But just because the

[00:22:45] Speaker 02:
accused infringer is in the somewhat strange circumstance of seeking a broader construction in district court in pursuit of an invalidity attack, then there is not a disclaimer.

[00:22:58] Speaker 02:
Or we don't have to look at what happened in the IPR proceedings.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
We can ignore what happened there.

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
I don't know that no one's saying ignore it, but the prosecution history can't be relied on to contradict the plain language of your claims.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
And the plain language of the claims presenting parameter in the singular and different

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
Then all the other presentations of parameters throughout claim one and including claim two, which depends from claim one, as well as the- That's the dispute.

[00:23:23] Speaker 01:
What do you say about the specification?

[00:23:25] Speaker 01:
They say that your construction would read out the embodiments, for instance, of figure 30.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
Figure 30 is not an embodiment that is described by claim one.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
There is no requirement that every claim be construed to cover every embodiment.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
Any indication in the specification that figure 30 is not part of claim one?

[00:23:45] Speaker 02:
Yes, figure 30 refers to the specific parameters by name, data A, data B, data C through E. Those specific parameters are identified in claim three, for example.

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
They are not identified in claim one.

[00:24:00] Speaker 02:
Claim one describes multiple histogram calculation units

[00:24:04] Speaker 02:
which can generate histograms with a common parameter.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
And claim two talks about them being in a matrix.

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
That's figure 32, the only embodiment that has a matrix of histogram calculation units.

[00:24:16] Speaker 02:
And because that embodiment is the only one that relates to claim two, it should be beyond question.

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
It certainly relates to claim one as well, because claim two depends from claim one.

[00:24:25] Speaker 02:
And the figure 32 embodiment allows for 16 HCUs to treat as many as 21 parameters.

[00:24:34] Speaker 02:
There's already more parameters than HCUs.

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
That's why you need this common parameter requirement reflected in the claims with parameter and the comparison to the criterion C. Thank you, Mr. Carson.

[00:24:47] Speaker 00:
The case is submitted, and that concludes our argument for today.