[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Our next case is also Link Laboratories versus Samsung, 23, 1935.

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
Mr. McBride.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
The issue here is the construction of the term receiving power wirelessly.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
The board in the final written decision below, Sue Esponti, construed the term wirelessly as without the use of a wire, without any prior notice to either party.

[00:00:28] Speaker 03:
Thus, this is a new construction entitled Judanova review on appeal.

[00:00:34] Speaker 03:
The proper construction for receiving power wirelessly is receiving power from an external source not physically connected to the apparatus.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
And we made this construction on appeal because the board of the petitioner's construction takes the position that all capacitors necessarily transfer power wirelessly.

[00:00:59] Speaker 03:
But petitioner's evidence for the board's construction and the board's evidence as well only discloses that circuits can be designed to use capacitance for wireless power transfer in certain circumstances and certain applications.

[00:01:12] Speaker 03:
Neither the board nor the petitioner identifies anything in the intrinsic record that supports the board's construction.

[00:01:19] Speaker 03:
In fact, the 290 patent contradicts the board's construction.

[00:01:23] Speaker 03:
Claim six requires receiving power wirelessly in the apparatus.

[00:01:27] Speaker 03:
where the apparatus includes an LED circuit.

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
So the apparatus is actually receiving power wirelessly from the external circuit, and it's in the context of wireless power transfer in an LED circuit.

[00:01:38] Speaker 03:
So it's in a specific context of the 298 patent, not just the term wirelessly in a vacuum.

[00:01:46] Speaker 03:
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, and 21 and 22.

[00:01:49] Speaker 03:
These are the other claims that discuss the term wireless power transfer.

[00:01:55] Speaker 04:
Did he disagree with you on the claim construction question?

[00:01:58] Speaker 04:
Is the case over or do you have other arguments?

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, if you do not agree... If we do not agree with you, if we agree that the board correctly construed... I think the appropriate thing would be to remand so that we could... so that Pat Nooner would have the ability to brief the issue in front of the board.

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
Brief what issue?

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
The proper construction for the term wirelessly.

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
No, let's assume we disagree with you and we think the board was correct in its construction.

[00:02:23] Speaker 04:
Are you left with any arguments on substantial evidence of the application of that construction in this case?

[00:02:28] Speaker 03:
Yes, substantial evidence would be that in the Burrell reference itself, it talks about connecting a lighting panel to the wall in order to form a wired circuit with capacitors.

[00:02:44] Speaker 03:
It refers to this as a direct connection circuit.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
I understand the question would be

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
If we agree with the board's construction, do you challenge its finding that there was substantial evidence for what they found, the obviousness or anticipation of your claims?

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
For claim six on the rail reference, yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
So the only issue that would be left for us if we agree with the board on the construction is the claim six?

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:03:16] Speaker 03:
That's the only issue on appeal.

[00:03:24] Speaker 03:
But to go back to Burrell, it actually distinguishes between the use of the direct connection circuit and wireless communications.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
So, and that's it.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
That's it, Burrell at appendix 1190, lines 14 through 24.

[00:03:47] Speaker 03:
It talks about data communications between devices or elements.

[00:03:54] Speaker 03:
may be achieved by means of wireless techniques such as radio frequency.

[00:03:58] Speaker 03:
So that's one option.

[00:04:00] Speaker 03:
Infrared, that's a second, it's not relevant here.

[00:04:03] Speaker 03:
Or direct connections such as modulation of the external power source used by the device.

[00:04:08] Speaker 03:
So Borel is distinguishing between the direct connection technique of forming capacitors by the light pile attaching to the wall and wireless techniques.

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
So Borel itself says it is not wireless.

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
That's one of the things we've relied on in terms of our construction as evidence of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand.

[00:04:41] Speaker 03:
The other parts of the intrinsic record also support our construction.

[00:04:47] Speaker 03:
The claims that refer to wireless power transfer are talking about transferring from one device to another.

[00:04:53] Speaker 03:
We can see that in claim one, for example.

[00:04:56] Speaker 03:
There are various other claims to claim either the transmitting device or the receiving device for wireless power transfer.

[00:05:02] Speaker 03:
So that's why we've used

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
That's why we've used the term receiving power from an external source not physically connected to the apparatus, because that's what the claims are talking about.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
The specification also supports this.

[00:05:20] Speaker 03:
There are a number of references to receiving wireless power RF signals in the specification.

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
But we've highlighted figure 37 and figure 51 in our briefing, and they both show an antenna receiving an external source, receiving a signal from an external source.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
So the antenna is receiving an RF signal or something like that that is providing power to the circuit that is claimed.

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
And I would call Your Honor's attention to

[00:05:56] Speaker 03:
298 patent, figure 51 for example, that's appendix 94.

[00:06:03] Speaker 03:
The 298 patent refers to antenna 260 in figure 51 as a generator that can be used in place of generator 2061.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
So if you look at figure 51, the symbol for generator 2061 is an AC power supply.

[00:06:19] Speaker 03:
And the antenna 2060 is also referred to as a generator that is a substitute or an alternate for that power supply.

[00:06:26] Speaker 03:
So this is how the 298 patent is talking about receiving wireless power.

[00:06:40] Speaker 00:
Anything further, counsel?

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:06:42] Speaker 03:
Moving on to the issue here from the board's decision in terms of whether Burrell's capacitors teach wireless power transfer, the 2998 patent actually discusses capacitors as wired circuit components that are part of a single wired circuit.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
So the 2998 patent and the figures it's talking about, and this is discussed at our opening brief from 19 to 22,

[00:07:08] Speaker 03:
has a number of references to capacitors as circuit components.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
And they're never used in the context of wireless power transfer.

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
But this is a substantial evidence question, correct?

[00:07:19] Speaker 04:
And the board discussed it, I think, at page 50 and 51, accredited their expert from your expert's comfort testimony not persuasive.

[00:07:33] Speaker 04:
What do we do with that on appeal?

[00:07:35] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, that wasn't counter testimony.

[00:07:38] Speaker 03:
the expert's testimony and the Patent Owner's response.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
So I'm looking at the board's opinion.

[00:07:43] Speaker 04:
I'm quoting the board's opinion.

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:07:46] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:07:47] Speaker 03:
And what I'm trying to explain is he wasn't addressing the construction for the term wirelessly.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
He was just discussing whether Varell was disclosing wireless power transfer.

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
So he didn't actually address a construction of the term wirelessly.

[00:08:03] Speaker 04:
Well, what the board says

[00:08:05] Speaker 04:
Appendix 51 may be on misunderstanding that the counter testimony is not persuasive because he does not explain in any detail why one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the capacity of coupling the transfer's power to be a wireless system.

[00:08:19] Speaker 03:
Yes, he was explaining Burrell and why Burrell does not transfer power wirelessly, which is why he wasn't relying on intrinsic testimony because he wasn't providing his instruction at that point.

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
This was his opening testimony.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
There's no rebuttal testimony he's entitled to.

[00:08:38] Speaker 03:
So he's talking there about claim six, and he's explaining that Burrell

[00:08:44] Speaker 03:
is talking about a wired circuit where you connect the panel with magnets to the wall and form capacitors through that.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
And as part of that, he's saying these are ordinary capacitors and not transferring power wirelessly.

[00:08:58] Speaker 03:
So in reply, Petitioner inserted intrinsic evidence arguing that capacitors can be used in certain circuits to transfer power wirelessly.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
But that doesn't mean that in every circuit

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
capacitors are used to transfer power wirelessly.

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
And that's the gap here between the positions and between the constructions.

[00:09:25] Speaker 03:
Does that answer your question, Your Honor?

[00:09:29] Speaker 03:
Yes, thank you.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
Yeah, at this point I have nothing for the rest of my time.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
We will save it for you.

[00:09:35] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:09:46] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Anna, and may it please the court.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
This is fundamentally a sufficiency of the evidence appeal.

[00:09:51] Speaker 02:
This is not a claim construction challenge.

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
First of all, the board was correct in giving the term wireless sleats plain meaning.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
And we would argue that Link does not contend that Burel does not anticipate claim six under the board's plain reading.

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
And in fact, it cannot actually legitimately contend that.

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
As the board observed, there is no dispute

[00:10:12] Speaker 02:
that capacitive coupling in Burel does not use a wire or any other form of direct contact to transmit power.

[00:10:18] Speaker 02:
This is at appendix 49.

[00:10:20] Speaker 02:
And Link's own expert conceded that Burel's capacitive coupling has no direct wire connection between the power source and the lightning tile.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
This is at appendix pages 50 to 79, 50 to 80.

[00:10:33] Speaker 02:
Moreover, Link never presented his claim construction of to return wirelessly that it advocates now, and it cannot do so for the first time on appeal.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
Secondly, even if the board is deemed to have implicitly construed the term wirelessly, that construction is correct, and the board's anticipation finding is amply supported by substantial evidence.

[00:10:52] Speaker 02:
The board correctly noted that nothing in the claim language or specification excludes the use of capacitors to receive power wirelessly.

[00:11:00] Speaker 02:
And the board credited the extensive evidence we presented that the use of capacitive coupling to transfer and receive power wirelessly was well known in the art.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
Moreover, with respect to Burel,

[00:11:11] Speaker 02:
The board expressly observed that particular advantage of Burel and Burel's use of capacitive coupling is that the device may be coupled to the power source without requiring any direct connection between the conductive elements.

[00:11:23] Speaker 02:
That's also in Appendix 49.

[00:11:24] Speaker 02:
And that is so because Burel permits the lightning tile to be easily removed and replaced on the supporting surface without any damage.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
More of us will get in our brief even if

[00:11:38] Speaker 02:
Burel actually would disclose receiving power wirelessly, even on the link's construction.

[00:11:44] Speaker 02:
Burel contains an NHS supporting surface with an external power source and no direct-wide connection to Burel's lighting tile.

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
Again, link's own expert acknowledged that there is no direct-wide connection to capacity of coupling in Burel.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
So therefore, the rest capacitors would disclose receiving power from an external source, which is not physically connected to the apparatus, which is the construction, the way of construction that Link now presses on appeal.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
I appreciate you went through all the steps.

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
It's hard for me to see how it's not, at least in part, a claim construction dispute.

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
It doesn't the question of whether two devices are wirelessly in connection with one another.

[00:12:27] Speaker 01:
whether it requires that they be physically separate or not, isn't that a question of the scope of the claims and therefore it just is a claim construction question?

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
Ioanna, I think there is a question of what the term wirelessly means.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
So I think what we are arguing is that the board gave it a plain language meaning, which is correct in this situation.

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
So I think whether the court would characterize the question of a plain meaning as a dispute about claim construction or not

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
we would argue that the court really doesn't need to decide that here.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
Even Terry Leading would go to what is the scope of the claim.

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
You know, that is correct, right?

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
And I think, and again, here the board's construction is, we would submit, it is correct.

[00:13:11] Speaker 02:
There is, as the board said, there is nothing in the specification that would contradict that construction.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
The term, wirelessly, is most plainly read to mean it is something, it is without the use of the wires.

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
And if the court actually, if a court needs some,

[00:13:25] Speaker 02:
reference in the intrinsic evidence, you can look at Appendix 111 at Column 3, Lines 44-44, where in the background in the invention, this pattern discusses that it is possible to transfer power without any wires.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
So again, the plain meaning of the term wirelessly in this context is without any wires, without use of the wires, which was the board's either plain reading or the board's construction.

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
Unless the court has other questions, we are prepared to rest in our briefs.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
Mr. McBride has some more bottle time.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
Yes, as Judge Struck was pointing out, we do view this as a claim construction issue.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
It was not briefed below.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
The term, meaning the term wirelessly was not briefed, and that's why.

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
when the board went to look for intrinsic evidence, it didn't find any because the parties hadn't briefed this as a claim.

[00:14:29] Speaker 03:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
That is why when the board in its final decision

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
engage in this claim construction analysis, it did not find any intrinsic evidence because the parties had not briefed it as a claim construction issue.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
So we do believe this is a claim construction issue.

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
We believe that at this point there is no intrinsic evidence that the other party is relying on.

[00:14:54] Speaker 03:
In order to support the board's construction, the board is not relying on the intrinsic evidence, but Pat Nooner has put forward intrinsic evidence.

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
uh... for a different construction so we think the board can reverse here or if not we think this is uh... many p a violation and would be subject to remand did you argue it's an a p a violation in your brief?

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:
uh... we did not your honor so that's not before us is it?

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
uh... we did not briefly your honor no uh... one of the things that the petitioner just said is that

[00:15:31] Speaker 03:
Borel teaches that there is a space between its capacitive elements.

[00:15:36] Speaker 03:
All capacitors have a dielectric between the two capacitive plates.

[00:15:39] Speaker 03:
That's how they're formed.

[00:15:40] Speaker 03:
This is not an air gap or anything like that.

[00:15:43] Speaker 03:
This is just the way you make a capacitor.

[00:15:45] Speaker 03:
It's a circuit component.

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
What Borel does not teach is any kind of wireless power transfer across a capacitor.

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
And that's what the root of the dispute goes to.

[00:15:59] Speaker 03:
The petitioner did mention

[00:16:01] Speaker 03:
The 514 patent at column 3, lines 33 through 34, we would contend that that's consistent with our construction as well.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
It's talking about 100 years ago, providing wireless power to electric motors, to inductors, and things like that.

[00:16:20] Speaker 03:
And that's what the claims use when they talk about how the wireless transfer of power is performed, is induction.

[00:16:28] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor, and unless there are any other questions, I'll rest.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
The case is submitted.