[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
Our next case this morning is Link Labs versus Samsung, 2023-1934.

[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
Mr. Schreiner, we're waiting when you are.

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

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court, my name's Steve Schreiner.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
I'm appearing here on behalf of patent owner Link Labs in connection with the PTABS decision on the 697 patent.

[00:00:24] Speaker 00:
I'm joined here by my colleague Steve McBride and Jim Carmichael.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
There's four arguments that are presented in the briefs, and I'd like to focus on two of them today, if the court permits.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
And the first argument is that the proposed combination regarding the modified OBA PC does not meet the requirement of an LED lighting device pursuant to limitation 1H, which sets forth that all the recited elements must be contained within a package.

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
The second argument is that the capacitor coupled battery ground of limitation of 1F is not met because there's no predicate showing that the OBAPC has a noise problem in its battery circuit to provide a reason to modify it pursuant to HERA.

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
And I'll start with the first argument related to the term package.

[00:01:22] Speaker 00:
The board's analysis of limitation 1H basically consists of two sentences, and this is in Appendix 26 in the final written decision.

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
The board states, Patent on our certs and the district court litigation that a cell phone, tablet, and watch constitute a quote-unquote package, as that term is used in the 697 patent.

[00:01:43] Speaker 00:
Thus, we find that the laptop computer aboba constitutes a package.

[00:01:47] Speaker 00:
That's essentially the entirety of the board's analysis on limitation 1A.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
Did you ask the board to construe the term package?

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
Yes, we did.

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
We did.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
And the patent on a response, we cited to the definition of package in the patent, which is at column five, lines 46 through 50 of the 697 patent.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
That's appendage 113.

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
And it states, it should be noted that package is defined herein as an integrated unit to be used as a discrete component

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
in either of the manufacture, assembly, installation, or modification of an LED lighting device or system.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
So distilled down to its relevant essence here, it's saying that a package is a discrete component of an LED lighting system.

[00:02:32] Speaker 00:
So what did the board do below regarding limitation 1H and package and LED lighting device?

[00:02:40] Speaker 00:
Instead of analyzing the Priorart OBA PC against the claim language,

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
the board pointed to infringement contentions and accused devices in those infringement contentions.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
Now the board and Samsung provide no authority for the proposition that you can establish obviousness by pointing to accused devices in litigation.

[00:03:03] Speaker 00:
Secondly, so we submit that that was an error of law on its face by the board.

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
Secondly, the board erred by not even comparing the prior modified OVA PC

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
to these accused products.

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
The board never compared the modified Oba PC to the cell phone, tablet, and watch that were accused devices from preliminary infringement contentions.

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
So this is another reason for reversal.

[00:03:28] Speaker 00:
And additionally, the board erred by improperly expanding the express definition of package to include some LED devices mentioned in the background section of the invention in the 697 patent.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
And that's referring to general lighting, specialty lighting, signs, and decoration.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
And we submit that was an erroneous claim construction.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
The term package is explicitly and clearly defined in column five.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
There's no reference to the passage from the background of the invention.

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
But even there, in applying its erroneous claim construction, the board erred in failing to determine whether the prior art modified oba PC

[00:04:08] Speaker 00:
fell into any of these categories of LED devices, general lighting, specialty lighting, etc.

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
Now, what did Samsung do below?

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
Samsung never provided any evidence nor any argument in any of its papers that the modified Oba PC was a discrete component of an LED lighting device.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
Instead, Samsung argued that the Oba PC has a housing and therefore a housing meets

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
meets the requirement of a package.

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
Now, Link brought up this issue about the construction, the express definition of package in its patent owner response.

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
So Samsung knew about it, and they had an opportunity to respond.

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
And they submitted, I think, a 30-page expert reply declaration.

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
Did not address the issue.

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
Now, the construction of the term package, it was not only not a surprise to Samsung because Link

[00:05:05] Speaker 00:
The patent owner brought it up in its patent owner response, but Samsung itself advocated this claim construction for package in its Markman papers submitted two months before it presented this petition.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:
So if I could refer the court to appendix 8178 through 8179, this is a Samsung's Markman brief from July, 2021 presented two months before the petition.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
And in that Markman brief, Samsung said,

[00:05:34] Speaker 00:
that the definition, the construction of package is, quote, an integrated unit meant to be used as a discrete component in the manufacture, assembly, installation, or modification of an LED lighting device or system.

[00:05:46] Speaker 00:
So under these circumstances, there was no excuse for Samsung not to reduce any evidence that its proposed modified OBA PC met the LED lighting device requirement of limitation of 1H.

[00:05:59] Speaker 00:
Now, Samsung makes several new arguments on appeal.

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
They're all new arguments, and they should all be deemed waived.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
But I'll go ahead and touch on them.

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
Its first new argument is that the Oba PC has a couple indicator lamps, BL and PL, battery lamp and power lamp.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
And Samsung argues that, well, they transformed the Oba PC into an LED lighting device.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
But a PC would understand that an LED lighting device is

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
is a device that provides illumination of an area or space so that a user can see.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
And that certainly is not satisfied by these little indicator lights, which just merely communicate information.

[00:06:43] Speaker 00:
Samsung makes a second new argument on appeal, which is that the Gillespie reference, which has an LED touchscreen, which would be inserted in place of Oba's mouse touchpad,

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
that that transforms Oba's PC into an LED lighting device.

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
Again, it's waived on appeal, but it also fails on the merits because this LED touchscreen of Gillespie, what does it do?

[00:07:08] Speaker 00:
It displays information to the user.

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
It's not functioning as an LED lighting device to illuminate a space for a user to be able to see.

[00:07:18] Speaker 00:
Samsung makes a third new argument on appeal, which is that the prior Oba PC is, quote, consistent with

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
the lighting devices mentioned in the background section of the invention.

[00:07:30] Speaker 00:
That's the general lighting, specialty lighting, signs, and decorations such as a Christmas tree.

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
I think it's fair to say that a posita would not consider the modified oba personal computer.

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
You're talking about a person with a skill in the art, speaking English.

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, Your Honor.

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
So a person of skill in the art would not consider

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
Oba's personal computer to fall within any of those categories.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
A personal skill in the art would not consider, for example, Oba's PC to be specialty lighting, or to be a sign, or certainly to be a decoration such as a Christmas tree.

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
So at the end of the day, Samsung adduced no evidence that the proposed prior combination with this modified Oba PC meets the package limitation which requires it to be contained within

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
an LED lighting device.

[00:08:25] Speaker 00:
And we submit that the decision on the claims should be reversed and should be done so without remand because there's just no evidence in the record below to support a finding that these claims are impassable.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
The second issue relates to limitation 1F, which recites that there is a capacitive coupled battery ground connected to at least one of the previously recited components.

[00:08:52] Speaker 00:
And the Pacita would not have a reason to modify OBIS-PC, because number one, OBIS-PC does not have this standing wave antenna noise problem that's identified in the HERA reference.

[00:09:04] Speaker 00:
And secondly, OBIS-PC, its battery circuit, does not have any noise issue to call for the solution

[00:09:13] Speaker 00:
provided by Hera.

[00:09:14] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
This is a substantial evidence review, and their expert testified that persons skilled in the art would have understood.

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
And I think this evidence was unrebutted, this testimony, that someone, a person skilled in the art would have understood that Oba's laptop would experience issues from noise that permeates from such a power source.

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
Is there anything on the other side of the equation?

[00:09:38] Speaker 04:
Did your expert rebut this in any way, shape, or form?

[00:09:41] Speaker 00:
Yeah, I'd respectfully submit that

[00:09:43] Speaker 00:
that the petitioner's expert did not provide evidence that Oba's battery circuit had noise.

[00:09:49] Speaker 00:
What he said was, he said, and this is in, let me give you the citation.

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
This is appendix 8143 through 44.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
He says, moreover, the AC power connected to Oba PC would have been known as a source of noise.

[00:10:11] Speaker 00:
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such noise would have been mitigated through filtering.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
So what he says is that AC power is a source of noise.

[00:10:19] Speaker 00:
He does not go the further step.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
What was the page you gave me?

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
Oh, sure.

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
8143 through 8144 is the petitioner's expert's reply declaration.

[00:10:31] Speaker 00:
So he simply says that AC power is a known source of noise.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
He doesn't go the further step of saying that

[00:10:41] Speaker 00:
that would create noise within OBIS battery circuit.

[00:10:44] Speaker 01:
Because what we're talking about is... Isn't it a reasonable inference for the board to draw from that unrebutted testimony that you just read to us?

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
I don't think so, because the AC power could theoretically create noise in any number of circuit components in OBIS, as a matter of theory.

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
But what we're talking about here is modifying OBIS battery circuit to add a capacitor.

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
So there needs to be a showing

[00:11:10] Speaker 00:
that there is noise at OBIS battery circuit.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
In other words, it delivers noisy DC power in order to provide the justification for the combination.

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
Samsung's expert does not make that provide that evidence.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
He's very careful in his testimony.

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
He says that AC power is a known source of noise, but he doesn't go the further step of saying that that noise would infect OBIS battery circuit.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
And Samsung's expert has to be credited

[00:11:40] Speaker 00:
for not just simply going the extra step and providing evidence for an opinion that he obviously was not willing to make.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
And as to the point that, you know, could the board have made an inference?

[00:11:54] Speaker 00:
The board could make, you know, obviously lots of inferences based on the testimony that was provided by Samsung's expert.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
But the board didn't articulate that inference.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
You know, the board is required to provide articulated reasoning.

[00:12:07] Speaker 00:
tied to identified evidence supporting its findings.

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
Council, you're into your battle time.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
You can continue or save it as you wish.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
I'll just add, the only thing the board found was that, quote, AC power is a source of noise.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
And this is at appendix 21 in the final written decision at page 19.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
There was no finding that OBIS battery circuit had, was delivering noisy DC power.

[00:12:32] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
Mr. Weinberger.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, substantial evidence supports the board's conclusion that OBA has a package as claimed.

[00:12:54] Speaker 02:
Now, Link hinges its argument on the definition and the specification that includes an LED lighting system.

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
But the board was applying that definitional statement when it looked to the specification to understand what it meant and said that the field of LED lighting systems is broad and includes things like

[00:13:14] Speaker 02:
general lighting, specialty lighting, signs, and decoration.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
And thus, there was no reason for the board to conclude that OBAA, either alone or as modified by Gillespie, which has an LED that produces light, is not a package that includes an LED lighting system.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
And in fact, the board in Appendix 22 and 23, they went through the issue of whether OBAA alone or as modified by Gillespie

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
had an LED, because there is an LED limitation, and they concluded that it does over the arguments of Link Labs.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
They said that OBA itself has the LED lamps that produce light and signal various indications on the device, and in the alternative, that it would have been obvious to modify OBA to have either an OLED or an LED backlight that also would have produced light.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
LED disputed those issues below, but it does not dispute those issues on appeal.

[00:14:05] Speaker 02:
And what I think is also particularly illuminating here

[00:14:08] Speaker 02:
is to look at how Link raised its argument about package below.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
It had a single sentence at appendix 399 where it said, petitioner fails to show that the prior combination of ground one is an LED lighting device or system.

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
It didn't explain what it meant by that, but it made that argument within the section of its response where it disputed that OBAA alone, or in combination with Gillespie, has an LED at all.

[00:14:35] Speaker 02:
They argued OBAA, or OBAA as modified by Gillespie, doesn't have an LED, it doesn't meet the LED limitation, and then they tacked on the sentence saying it doesn't meet the package because it doesn't have an LED lighting system.

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
That's how we understood their argument, that's how the board understood their argument, and so once the board had dealt with that argument,

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
and concluded that, in fact, the LED limitation was met.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
There is an LED.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
It produces light.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
Then the board concluded that a package which has an LED lighting system is also met because it produces light.

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
And there wasn't some unique way to interpret the words in the specification with that definition to give it some peculiar meaning.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
Briefly on the infringement contentions, I'll just note that the only way the board used those contentions here

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
was to confirm its understanding of the specification, where it saw that LinkLabs was applying the meaning of package in district coordinates and infringement contentions in a manner that was consistent with how it was interpreting the package, and it didn't use it in any larger extent.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
Turning to the capacitively coupled battery ground limitation, the board's determination there is also supported by substantial evidence.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
And at Appendix 18 in particular, you'll see that the board made three key findings based on Dr. Baker's testimony.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
One, that Ova's laptop itself has a battery ground.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
Two, that a person of skill in the art would have understood from Hara that there would have been a desire to apply capacitive coupling between a battery ground and the circuit components to filter for noise.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
And three,

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
that a person of skill would have been motivated to apply capacitive coupling between OBA's battery ground and OBA's circuit components in order to ensure a steady supply of power.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
Now, Link says that this is a solution in search of a problem, but that is not true, and Dr. Baker provided detailed testimony over many pages to explain why, in fact, there would have been a problem of noise in OBA.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
For example, in appendix 8145 and 8150, he explained how, contrary to Link's arguments,

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
there would have actually been space between the circuit components and the battery in OBAA that would have resulted in noise.

[00:16:45] Speaker 02:
It might have been at a different frequency than in HARA, but there still would have been noise, as Dr. Baker explained.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
He also explained at appendix 8146 to 8147 how HARA would have been applicable to OBAA because HARA, while it certainly has disclosures where there are lengthy power lines, it also has disclosures of portable devices much like OBAAs.

[00:17:07] Speaker 02:
that there's a notebook PC500, there's an embodiment where it's a portable type.

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
And even in that portable type example, it still makes use of a capacitive coupling between battery ground and the circuit components to deal with noise.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
In addition, Dr. Baker explained how AC power was an additional source of noise.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
He explained how OBAA has two alternative sources of power, a battery and AC power, and how AC power

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
can be used to charge the batteries.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
It's not one or the other.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
They can both be engaged at the same time.

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
And that was undisputed.

[00:17:41] Speaker 02:
Link didn't dispute below that AC power would have been a source of noise in any manner whatsoever.

[00:17:47] Speaker 02:
There's certainly enough evidence below from Dr. Baker's testimony, Oba, Hara, and the contemporaneous evidence that Dr. Baker cited for the board to have concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the advantages of applying capacitive coupling

[00:18:05] Speaker 02:
between a battery ground and the circuit components of Oba's device to support a finding that there was substantial evidence for the board's conclusion.

[00:18:15] Speaker 01:
You have any specific response to the sentences at 81, 43, and 44 that counsel read to us?

[00:18:22] Speaker 01:
I take it part of your response is there's more to what the experts said.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
But how about those two sentences?

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
Are they themselves substantial evidence to support?

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
They are substantial evidence.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
Because for one, the board was certainly entitled to conclude that what Dr. Baker was talking about there was the AC power in OBA.

[00:18:43] Speaker 02:
What else would he have been talking about?

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
He was responding to the arguments that Link was making.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
He was observing how OVA has an AC power feature and AC power is a source of noise.

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
And then in the next sentence he talks about how capacitive coupling between the battery ground and the circuit components would have been a way to deal with that noise.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
And the fact that Link doesn't dispute this at all below means that the board really had no reason not to credit that testimony.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
This isn't a situation like TQ Delta where the expert was really concluding on the ultimate question of law about is this obvious or not.

[00:19:21] Speaker 02:
He was providing testimony on a particular factual issue.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
He's an expert.

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
He has experience in the field.

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
He also cited contemporaneous evidence of the time, and LinkLab simply didn't dispute this below.

[00:19:32] Speaker 02:
So that in itself is substantial evidence for the board's conclusion, but as Your Honor said,

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
Here there is more.

[00:19:38] Speaker 02:
The board didn't limit itself to only the AC power issue, which cited all of Dr. Baker's testimony and found

[00:19:43] Speaker 02:
all of it to be compelling.

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
And in Dr. Baker's testimony, he also talked about how OVA itself, as I said before, with the distance between the circuit components and the battery would have been a source of noise.

[00:19:55] Speaker 02:
He also disputed specifically Neil Jobs' argument about the standing waves, where the board certainly did not, contrary to Link's representations on appeal, that the board did not agree with them about the standing wave.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
It simply said,

[00:20:07] Speaker 02:
Even if Link was right about the standing wave issue, they still lose.

[00:20:12] Speaker 02:
And Dr. Baker disputed the standing wave issue.

[00:20:14] Speaker 02:
He explained how in OBOT, even though the standing waves might be at a different frequency because you'll have different lengths of the wires, there's still going to be a standing wave because there's still going to be noise coming from components that radiates at the batteries.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
And a person of ordinary skill certainly would have had a motivation or seen advantages to providing capacitive coupling to deal with that noise.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
If there are no further questions, I'll return the rest of my time to the court.

[00:20:46] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
You will not have further use of that time.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
Mr. Schreiner.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
First, the board essentially did agree with Link that OBIS-PC did not have the standing wave antenna noise problem.

[00:21:07] Speaker 00:
If I could refer the court to Appendix 20, the final written decision at natural page 18, the board stated, the capacitive coupling to battery ground, however, need not be used in OVA to solve the same problem identified in HERA.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
And that was the board essentially saying, there's no evidence that OVA's PC had the standing wave antenna noise problem that was addressed by HERA.

[00:21:32] Speaker 00:
Secondly, LINC's expert declaration

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
Mr. Crudell disputed throughout that OBA had a noise problem.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
So I really disagree with Samsung Council on that.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
And third, Samsung Council refers to 8145, 8150, the appendix pages, where their expert on reply argued that OBA's PC would have the standing wave antenna noise problem.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
But that was first presented on reply to the board, and Link objected to that.

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
and the board properly did not address that or credit that because it was presented for the first time on reply.

[00:22:13] Speaker 00:
As to the three factual findings that were made by the board, none of them established the factual predicate that is required here.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
The board found

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
The board found that OBA's PC had a battery ground.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
That was its first factual finding.

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
And the second factual finding was that Hera's capacitor could be used to filter noise.

[00:22:45] Speaker 00:
And then the third factual finding was that the application of Hera's capacitor to OBA would provide smooth delivered power, which is basically saying it would provide the solution.

[00:22:59] Speaker 00:
But none of those factual findings of the board

[00:23:02] Speaker 00:
established that OBA's battery circuit had a problem with delivering noisy DC power.

[00:23:08] Speaker 00:
That is the factual predicate that is required to make the combination of OBA's capacitor into the Harris capacitor with the battery ground of OBA.

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
And that was never established by the board.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
And we submit it's more than a substantial evidence issue.

[00:23:27] Speaker 00:
It's the fact that the board didn't make the factual predicate at all, which we believe is an error of law.

[00:23:32] Speaker 00:
Turning to the issue of limitation 1H with regard to package and an LED lighting system, I believe Council made some reference to the Board making a finding regarding the battery lamp and the power lamp of OBIS-PC.

[00:23:55] Speaker 00:
I'm looking through the Board's findings on this term.

[00:24:01] Speaker 03:
You better look through fast because that light means your time is up.

[00:24:07] Speaker 00:
Okay, I'll just refer to... You may finish your thought.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
The board made no factual findings to support limitation of 1-H.

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
I appreciate your time.

[00:24:18] Speaker 03:
I give to both counsel a case to submit it.