[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Our final case this morning is also in the Adjust Your Technology, 2024, 1038.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
Mr. Rippon, Senator.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court?

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I'd like to start just by clarifying one of the questions about non-analogous art.

[00:00:20] Speaker 02:
The reference at issue before the panel on Wednesday was the man reference, whereas today, both in this case and the previous one, it's this year's reference.

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
So they are different.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
My focus today will also be with respect to non-analysis art.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
I'd like to start with the first test and really the field that the patent office set forth.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
The field of endeavor for the 949 patent is a picture-taking system that performs real-time analysis of gestures by sensor that captures an image based on whether the gesture is performed.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
With respect to SEERS, the field of endeavor is electronic reading machines.

[00:01:05] Speaker 02:
There's no dispute that there is disclosure of some gesture use in SEERS, but it's simply in a different field of endeavor.

[00:01:12] Speaker 02:
One looking in the field of endeavor of the 949 patent would not consider art in the field of electronic reading machines.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
That is not reasonably pertinent?

[00:01:24] Speaker 02:
No, Your Honor.

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
So the issue is

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
really what problem was trying to be solved and whether that issue and the problems with electronic reading machines versus the problems of if you're standing and you'd like to take a picture without using a remote, are those reasonably pertinent to each other?

[00:01:53] Speaker 02:
There's a detection, but my apologies.

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
The issue in Sears is navigating around text with something sitting basically right in front of you.

[00:02:04] Speaker 02:
You're physically manipulating that page underneath the structure of Sears, maneuvering text around cameras and pointing.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
It's significantly different than the problem of taking a picture without having to have your hand on a remote or having a timer to work with.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
Those problems are not reasonably pertinent to each other.

[00:02:32] Speaker 02:
And so that is why the Sears reference does fail the second test for analogous art.

[00:02:51] Speaker 02:
So also the issue to discuss, Your Honors, with respect to the processing unit in Claim 13 is our position that the term should not be interpreted as

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
That means plus function limitation and construed under 35 USC 112 paragraph 6.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
For the simple reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood what that term means, frankly the term central processing unit is ubiquitous.

[00:03:17] Speaker 02:
And so a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood what a processing unit is.

[00:03:23] Speaker 02:
There's no need to construe it under 35 USC 126.

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
Putting that aside, the board

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, the examiner and then the board affirmed an analysis in which there is no linkage between the disclosure in Numizdaki and that specific structure.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
And so there's a failure there and not substantial evidence to support the finding.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
Finally, Your Honors, I would like to add one note about the jurisdictional issue.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
One additional, there are several rights that are taken away, as my colleague discussed.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
Additional rights that expire at the end of the public grant are the right to exclude, cannot get injunctive relief after the expiration.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
And then, patent owners also have the right taken away to amend or cancel claims after the expiration of that right, which further supports our opinion or our argument.

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
I have nothing further, unless Your Honors have any questions for me.

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
Can we turn it up?

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
We'll save your time.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
Craven.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
Good morning, your honors, and may it please the court.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
The board correctly found claims 8 through 18 of Gestures 949 patent obvious over Sears.

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
Namazaki is not a prior art that is involved in this appeal.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
Substantial evidence supports the board's findings that Sears is analogous art and that it teaches each of the disputed limitations in claims 13, 15, and 18.

[00:05:12] Speaker 00:
For analogous art, the board

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
Substantial evidence supports the board's findings that Sears is in the field of endeavor, and also that it is reasonably pertinent to the question facing the inventor of the 949 patent.

[00:05:24] Speaker 00:
I'm happy to address any questions the court has about analogous art.

[00:05:32] Speaker 00:
Therefore, I will rest on my briefs unless the court has other questions.

[00:05:37] Speaker 01:
That's fine.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
If you have something to robust Your honor's I simply wanted to correct a mistake I mistakenly said new Mazaki instead of Sears in my argument my apologies Thank you to both counsel your case is submitted and that concludes today's argument