[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Our third case this morning is number 231455 macro air technologies versus the Delta T. Mr. Maloney.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:00:11] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
The inventor of the 588 patent improved on the design of large commercial scale ceiling fans.

[00:00:21] Speaker 02:
The inventor came up with a design that is very durable, strong, and resists all the forces involved in these systems, but also allowed for the removability of the arm members that attach the central rotating hub to the fan blades themselves, so that when those arm members are worn, they can be easily replaced without having to replace the entire hub.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
The solution involved the hub that has the number of slots in it.

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
The arm members are positioned within the slots and fastened to the hub in those slots.

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
Just open this up, we're very familiar with the case.

[00:00:57] Speaker 00:
Sure, that you are.

[00:01:00] Speaker 02:
The board erred in finding that Clint 15 invalid based on Matson, fundamentally, for three reasons.

[00:01:09] Speaker 02:
Two are claim construction, and one is

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
really just a fundamental failure to address what the claim actually requires.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
And that's where I'm going to start.

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
The board found that Madsen renders Claim 15 obvious without ever making any findings that Madsen's disclosed fan assembly allows for the removability of the fan

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
blade mounting arms.

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
There weren't two arguments presented by the petitioner below, right?

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
There was one that was, Madsen teaches the claim limitation of the armed member being detachably secured in the openings.

[00:01:47] Speaker 00:
And the other one was that I think there was lots of expert testimony as to why one of Ordinary Scalming Art would have been motivated to modify the armed members so that they would be detachably secured.

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
So some of your arguments, to me, sound as if you're ignoring KSR and suggesting that a person with ordinary scaling is an automaton, that line of thinking.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
We're talking about modifying Madsen, even assuming that Madsen doesn't teach the detachable limitation.

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
there's five different reasons provided in the expert report, I mean expert testimony, for why it is that one of ordinary's killing the other would have modified it.

[00:02:32] Speaker 00:
So why isn't that enough right there?

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
Why do we have to look about, look at, you know, all the different, you're kind of making these specific mechanical arguments that don't make much sense to me.

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
Well, the reason, Your Honor, is we have to look at all of those arguments and all of the motivation evidence that was submitted

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
in light of what the actual modification was that the petitioner was arguing for.

[00:02:56] Speaker 02:
And we have to get into the specifics of the mechanical assembly of Manson because in that assembly

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
The hub member, and we have to look at the fact findings that the board made.

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
The hub member, according to the board's findings, includes that entire assembly in the middle, the top plate, the bottom plate, the disc that allows for rotation of the arms, the crank arm and crank pins, which is part of the rotating device, and those two components called bearing housings.

[00:03:23] Speaker 02:
The arms are in the bearing housings and can rotate because the bearings allow for the rotation.

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
The first argument for the petitioner was there are unlabeled fasteners that secure the bearing housings to the top and bottom plates.

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
And argument number one was a person of ordinary skill would have understood those to be removable fasteners, essentially an anticipation argument.

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
That's not the argument that was adopted by the board.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
And the second argument was if those fasteners are not essentially inherently removable,

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
A person of skill would have understood it would have been obvious to make those fasteners removable, screws or bolts and nuts.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
That's as far as their argument went.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
That's as far as the petition went and as far as the expert report went.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
Our point is making those fasteners removable, which is the obvious modification that the board accepted, only at most would make the bearing housings removable.

[00:04:22] Speaker 02:
The claim requires that the arm members be removable without damaging the remainder of the hub.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
We should look at the findings that the board did make.

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
The board clearly found that Matson's arm members... Do you want to point to a particular page?

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
I will, Your Honor.

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
At Appendix APX 31-34, there's a discussion of Matson.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
And the arm numbers are identified at APPX 33-34 as being Matson's mounting shafts 48.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
That's the arm number, mounting shaft 48.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
That's the piece that has to be removable per the claim without damaging the remainder of the hub.

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
The board made specific findings of what is the hub number.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
at a p p x twenty-one the board tells us that the hub member of mattson is hub twenty-four that is that entire central apparatus in figure three of mattson so your argument is that the hub is damaged when you remove element forty-eight because you also have to remove parts of the hub not because you have to remove parts of the hub your honor because there's no disclosure in mattson nor was there any evidence provided

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
that these components can be taken apart.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
According to the board's findings, the hub includes the top plate, the bottom plate, the disc, the bearings and bearing housings.

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
Why can't they be taken apart?

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, Your Honor?

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
Why can't they be taken apart?

[00:06:02] Speaker 02:
Because they're welded together.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
You have an arm member, there's a perpendicular component called a crank arm that has a pin

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
and the crank arm and pin are connected to the arm member.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
That apparatus in turn is connected to the disc.

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
It was required to meet the claim.

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
So you're saying it wouldn't have been obvious to substitute a other kind of attachment mechanism in place of a weld?

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
There was no argument or evidence regarding the nature of the connection between the arm member, the mounting shaft 48,

[00:06:42] Speaker 02:
and the crank arm and the crank pin and the group disc.

[00:06:44] Speaker 01:
That was the petitioner's burden.

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, Your Honor?

[00:06:48] Speaker 02:
There was no evidence that it was welded?

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
The reference is silent.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
The reference shows fasteners in a number of other... We don't know that, though.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
Well, it's the petitioner's burden to show... In other words, we don't know whether it was welded.

[00:07:01] Speaker 02:
Our expert, Dr. Paulus, put in evidence that it is a welded joint.

[00:07:06] Speaker 02:
He relied on the fact that there are no fasteners.

[00:07:09] Speaker 02:
What did their expert say?

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
Their expert didn't address this in the petition, in his initial declaration whatsoever.

[00:07:16] Speaker 02:
Their expert stopped at where I began.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
All their experts... He has a second declaration, right?

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
Does the second declaration of Dr. Sheard address this?

[00:07:28] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:07:29] Speaker 02:
The second declaration submitted in the reply brief for the first time.

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
addresses what should have been addressed in the petition.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
Dr. Schuch says he admitted in his deposition that we don't know the nature of the connection between the arm number 48 and the shaft number 48.

[00:07:44] Speaker 02:
and the crank arm or the crank pin.

[00:07:46] Speaker 02:
He admitted his deposition.

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
Matson doesn't teach the nature of that.

[00:07:49] Speaker 02:
He then offered opinions that it would have been obvious to modify Matson to make that connection removable.

[00:07:57] Speaker 02:
That's a brand new obviousness theory that was never in the petition.

[00:08:00] Speaker 00:
Did you argue before the PTAB and did they agree that this was a new argument?

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
I can't remember.

[00:08:07] Speaker 00:
There's been a lot of cases today.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
Yes, we absolutely.

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
And the board said, no, this is not a new argument.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
It's responsive.

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:08:15] Speaker 02:
No, the board, we argued that it was a new argument.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
We had argued prior to that.

[00:08:21] Speaker 02:
that in order to remove the R-member, one would have to disassemble the R-member from the crankshaft and the pin, and disassemble the pin from the groove disc, and that there was no evidence of the nature of those connections or that they were separable without damaging.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
Then came the reply with Dr. Sheard's brand new opinions about the nature of those connections.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
The final written decision doesn't address any of Dr. Sheard's

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
of belated opinions in the reply.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
I think the board appropriately realized those are brand new obviousness arguments raised for the first time in a reply.

[00:08:58] Speaker 00:
Does the board say that?

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
No, the board is completely silent in this regard.

[00:09:03] Speaker 02:
The board does not address the board's side to one or two of Dr. Shearer's opinions

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
reply opinions, but did not cite to or rely on any of Dr. Scheer's related opinions about the nature of his connections.

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
What about Dr. Scheer's opinions about how they were welded and that couldn't be changed?

[00:09:24] Speaker 02:
Dr. Scheer's opinions were in his second declaration, which are

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
It's exhibit 1024 below, which is in the appendix starting at APPX 972.

[00:09:46] Speaker 02:
And his opinions, specifically, Your Honor, about removal of the mounting shafts and separating of the crank arm and the crank pin and the groove disc, 985 to 990.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
Give me a page.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
Tell me where he said this.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
He says at 1002, paragraph 50.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
1002.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 49 and 50.

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
He interestingly says that removal of the mounting shaft would also require removing the crank arm and the crank pin.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
Can you tell me which paragraph you're pointing to?

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 49, Your Honor.

[00:10:31] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you.

[00:10:33] Speaker 02:
Paragraph 49, that's a direct acknowledgement by Dr. Sheard.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
that removing the arm would require removing the crank arm and the crank pin as well.

[00:10:43] Speaker 02:
The crank arm and the crank pin are part of the hub.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
What does he say couldn't be done?

[00:10:48] Speaker 02:
The claim requires the arm be removable from the remainder of the hub.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
The board found that the crank arm

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
and the crank pin are part of the hub.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
That means the arm has to be separable from the crank arm.

[00:11:01] Speaker 01:
Where does your expert say these are welded and you couldn't change it?

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
Our expert says that in his declaration.

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
This is at Appendix 1281.

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
Through 1283, this is Dr. Paulus's supplemental declaration.

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
He says, Cracon 36 is welded to the mounting shaft 48.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
Cracon 46 cannot be removed from the rest of the mounting shaft 48.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
And an important point here.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
But that's not the same thing as saying you couldn't change from a weld to a detachable connection.

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
That issue was never raised, Your Honor.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
OK, but he doesn't say that.

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:
He says it's welded.

[00:11:47] Speaker 01:
He didn't, the reason he doesn't say it is because it was never raised by tradition.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
He didn't address whether it could be changed to a detachable connection.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
You are correct.

[00:12:03] Speaker 02:
It is not our burden to show.

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
But their expert came in and said it could be.

[00:12:08] Speaker 02:
Their expert came in in his reply declaration and said it could be.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
But the important point is

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
The board did not rely on any of Dr. Sheard's reply declaration on these issues.

[00:12:21] Speaker 02:
The board confined its final written decision to the theory set forth in the petition, which was limited to removing the fasteners that hold the bearing housings and only go so far as to show that the bearing housings themselves could therefore be removed.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
the board made specific findings that there are all these other components of the hub.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
And the board specifically found what the arm number was, the shaft 48.

[00:12:49] Speaker 02:
Therefore, the board was required to make findings and explain its analysis of how the arm number itself could be removed without having to break a connection.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
The board made no such findings.

[00:13:02] Speaker 02:
It would have been entirely improper to have relied on Dr. Sheard's opinions for the first time in a reply brief

[00:13:08] Speaker 02:
that didn't say that those connections are removable.

[00:13:12] Speaker 02:
He said that it would have been obvious to modify Matson in additional ways to make those connections removable.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
Dr. Shear in fact acknowledged that they're not removable in Matson because he said to remove the arm, you have to remove the arm with the crank member, with the crank arm and with the pin.

[00:13:32] Speaker 02:
So this was the petition of Vernon.

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
The law is clear that they have to prove their case in the petition.

[00:13:38] Speaker 02:
They did not do so.

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
They had this confused argument that removing the screws would allow the bearing housings to be removed, when the claim clearly requires removing the arm members.

[00:13:50] Speaker 02:
The claim has nothing to do with removing a bearing housing.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
And the whole point of the invention is that when an arm member wears out, you want to be able to remove just that component, separate it from the remainder of the hub without damaging the hub, and replace the worn arm with a new arm.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
And so this entire proceeding got off on the wrong track because in the petition all they showed was that it would have been obvious to make these screws removable so the bearing housings could come out and then they conflated that issue

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
with the relevant issue of whether the arm numbers could be separated.

[00:14:26] Speaker 02:
And when you look at the fact findings that the board did make, it's very clear what the board found to be the arm number, what the board found to be the hub components, about six or seven components comprising this hub.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
And so it's very clear, therefore, that the invalidity theory required showing that those shafts 48 could be removed from the crank arm and the crank pin

[00:14:48] Speaker 02:
and that the crank end and the crank pin could be removed from that disc in the center.

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
The board, in fact, made another finding that it was the engagement between the pin at the end of the crank arm and the disc that keeps the arm from flying out of the hub when the hub is rotating.

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
That is another finding that is contrary to any notion of the arm being separable

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
From from this hub it is permanently attached to the hub so that it doesn't fly out unless there's any other Thank you, Mr.. Burke

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:15:39] Speaker 03:
May it please the court, John Berg for petitioner, appellee Delta T. The board found below, as MacroAir concedes now, that it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Madsen to make the fan blade supporting members removable.

[00:15:56] Speaker 03:
Judge Stoll, as you acknowledged in the opening arguments, there are at least five separate reasons put forth by Petitioner's Expert why that modification would be desirable.

[00:16:05] Speaker 03:
And the board adopted that and extensively discussed how it credited Petitioner's Expert for all of those reasons, being able to access, service, and replace the bearings contained in the bearing housing that will wear out as Madsen is used.

[00:16:19] Speaker 01:
So would they say the board didn't credit the testimony about replacing a weld with a detachable connection?

[00:16:26] Speaker 03:
I would disagree with that.

[00:16:27] Speaker 03:
The board did actually cite to Dr. Sheard in terms of looking at Dr. Sheard's testimony that it was irrelevant whether or not the crank arm and crank pin were removed from the arm member.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
Contrary to what Macro's counsel said a moment ago, the board expressly found that the crank arm and the crank pin are additional elements that don't line up with any of the recited elements of Claim 15.

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
The board stated first that they're not the R members, but in that very... So what if they're not required by the patent?

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
They're there in the prior R reference.

[00:17:02] Speaker 01:
And to make the modification, you'd have to take account of the fact that they are there.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
Correct, Your Honor, but Dr. Sheard testified in his supplemental opinion that it would be obvious to modify those

[00:17:14] Speaker 03:
elements, because Madsen is silent.

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
There's no teaching in Madsen that it's a prominent connection.

[00:17:19] Speaker 03:
And as Dr. Scheer testified in his supplemental opinion... So where do we find the word agreed with that?

[00:17:25] Speaker 03:
the border i think she said the board did you know that the board said it was irrelevant so much of the board agreed with doctor shared so much as it's reasonable to conclude because all that's necessary here is that there's substantial evidence in support of the board's obviousness finding that doctors testimony was substantial evidence and the fact that macro where didn't emphasize that to the board below it didn't come up with an argument and there's no dispute

[00:17:49] Speaker 03:
I think that once those fasteners, which the board found could be modified to be removable, and McElroy concedes it would be obvious to use removable fasteners to secure the bearing housing in place between the top and bottom hub.

[00:18:01] Speaker 03:
Once those are removable, there's no dispute that the bearing housing can be removed from the hub.

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
And there's also, I think based on Dr. Sheard's testimony, which the board did credit, no dispute that the center of Madsen is a groove disc.

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
It's just a disc with an annular groove around the outside.

[00:18:17] Speaker 03:
Madsen describes that disc as engaging the crank pin, not being attached to the crank pin, engaging the crank pin.

[00:18:24] Speaker 03:
and the paragraph of Dr. Sheard's supplemental report that the board cites to is where he goes on to say, it clearly has to be a loose connection.

[00:18:30] Speaker 03:
It's not an attachment that restrains movement.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
It merely causes the crank pin to move up and down because that's necessary for Madsen to rotate the fan blade support members.

[00:18:40] Speaker 03:
So the board credited that testimony, and the board credited Dr. Sheard's opinions in general that it would be obvious to modify Madsen to make those arm members removable.

[00:18:50] Speaker 03:
And that's enough, Your Honor.

[00:18:51] Speaker 03:
If this court agrees that there's substantial evidence to support that obviousness inquiry, there is no need to get into the mechanics, to get into all of the hypotheticals that the board could have addressed in more detail, because this court's precedent is clear.

[00:19:03] Speaker 03:
So long as there's substantial evidence, the fact finder could reasonably conclude that the board reached the right decision.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
That's enough.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
And if there's two competing conclusions that could be drawn, the fact that the board reached one and not the other is also enough.

[00:19:16] Speaker 03:
That's the very epitome of the type of substantial evidence necessary.

[00:19:20] Speaker 03:
So here, Your Honor, we would contend that that's exactly the case.

[00:19:22] Speaker 03:
And Dr. Sheard put in plenty of evidence.

[00:19:25] Speaker 03:
And even going back to the petition, McElroyer understood that this was merely a refinement of the argument put forward in the petition.

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
It wasn't a new argument, as the board found.

[00:19:35] Speaker 03:
It was merely clarifying in response to McElroyer's arguments that removing those fasteners necessarily involved removing the bearing housing, and that once that's removed, the arm member itself is also removable.

[00:19:49] Speaker 03:
Next, Your Honor, again, I have to reiterate that because the crank arm and crank pin are additional elements, not part of the arm member, and we disagree, the board did not find them to be part of the hub member.

[00:20:00] Speaker 03:
The board said that the hub member was Madsen's hub assembly 24,

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
including in addition to those openings in the bearing housing.

[00:20:10] Speaker 03:
When Madsen talks about hub assembly 24 and the board quotes this discussion, Madsen says the hub assembly is the top plate, the bottom plate, the driving flange, the bearings, and the bearing housing, not the crank arm, not the crank pin.

[00:20:25] Speaker 03:
those all relate to the pitch control mechanism, which is a separate element of MADCIN.

[00:20:31] Speaker 03:
And that supports the board's proper finding that the crank arm and crank pin are additional elements not required.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
So therefore it is irrelevant whether or not those are removable from the fan blade support members, because if they're not, there's no damage to the hub, because they're not part of the hub member required in claim 15.

[00:20:50] Speaker 03:
Next, Your Honor, Macquarie also raises in its brief for the first time vertical structures in Madsen that purportedly would make it impossible to remove the bearing assembly.

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
That's a red herring.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
That wasn't briefed by Macquarie below.

[00:21:03] Speaker 03:
That argument was waived.

[00:21:05] Speaker 03:
All they cite to in support is questions asked during oral argument that were answered in oral argument a mere two pages later in the transcript.

[00:21:12] Speaker 03:
Turning to the claim construction, Your Honor, McElroy improperly tries to revisit the arguments it raised before the board and the board discounted, and it's trying to import limitations into the claims.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
First, they try to read detachably secured as requiring or prohibiting, rather, that there be any rotation by the arm members.

[00:21:31] Speaker 03:
There's no support for this in a plain reading of the claim.

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
The claim nearly requires arm members that are positioned in the openings and detachably secured in that position.

[00:21:41] Speaker 03:
It doesn't recite fasteners.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
You mean they're not going to go flying off the fan?

[00:21:45] Speaker 03:
Exactly, Your Honor.

[00:21:46] Speaker 03:
They're going to stay restrained with the fan during operation.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
And that's common sense.

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
You couldn't have the fan blade spinning off the fan.

[00:21:53] Speaker 03:
It wouldn't work.

[00:21:54] Speaker 03:
That would go against the purpose of Madsen and the purpose of the 588.

[00:21:58] Speaker 03:
And in construing that, Mappert says you need to look at the preferred embodiment, but it's improper to do so.

[00:22:04] Speaker 03:
And indeed, as the board found, the term securing is used in the specification to refer to elements that can rotate independently of one another.

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
Just as you would say your tire is secured to your car, despite the fact that the tire rotates and the car does not, here you can have an odd number that's secured in the fame, regardless of whether or not it rotates.

[00:22:22] Speaker 03:
And the securing assembly the board credited supports that position in the intrinsic evidence.

[00:22:27] Speaker 03:
Finally, Your Honor, McAware attempts to argue that the point of attachment has to be in the opening as well, that there needs to be fasteners there.

[00:22:36] Speaker 03:
Claim 18 disproves this.

[00:22:39] Speaker 03:
Looking at claim 18, that recites fasteners that extend from below the plate, through the arm member, and above the plate.

[00:22:44] Speaker 03:
Claim 18 depends from claim 15.

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
So not only does claim differentiation apply, it shows that claim 15 can't be read narrower than claim 18.

[00:22:54] Speaker 03:
For all those reasons, Your Honor, because there's substantial evidence and because the Board properly construed, detachably secured in the openings, its finding of obviousness should be affirmed.

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
If there are no further questions.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
Mr. Maloney, next in line.

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
Sir, Your Honor.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
Two minutes.

[00:23:13] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:16] Speaker 02:
First of all, the Board did not find that the crank arm and crank pin are not part of the hub assembly.

[00:23:22] Speaker 02:
In fact, it found just the opposite.

[00:23:24] Speaker 02:
It clearly articulates the hub assembly of the hub, including the crank arm and the crank pin.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
It made the point that the crank arm and the crank pin... Can you give us a site for that?

[00:23:33] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry?

[00:23:34] Speaker 00:
Do you want to give us a site for that?

[00:23:37] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
At APX 20,

[00:23:44] Speaker 02:
The very pitch control mechanism that Kelchel just said was not part of the hub.

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
The board says just the opposite.

[00:23:50] Speaker 02:
It says in Figure 3 also shows the part of the hub assembly that permit rotation of the fan blades.

[00:23:56] Speaker 02:
This includes just a bunch of components, including the bearings, the bearing housings, top and bottom hub plates, pitch control rod 40, groove disc 42, crank arm 46, and crank pin 44.

[00:24:09] Speaker 02:
All of those components are part of the hub per the board's findings.

[00:24:13] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, about where on the page were you?

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
Page A20.

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
I have it here.

[00:24:23] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
Those next two sentences.

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
That's a finding of what is included in the hub.

[00:24:37] Speaker 00:
So you think the fan blade and the fan blade mounting shaft 48 are part of the hub?

[00:24:42] Speaker 02:
Well, the claim refers to the hub

[00:24:45] Speaker 02:
in a way that includes those components as a hub assembly, and then refers to the fan blades and the mounting shafts, and then the hub member that has the openings for the mounting shafts.

[00:24:58] Speaker 02:
So it's a little bit wonky there.

[00:25:00] Speaker 02:
But in terms of what the board said is the corresponding hub member, which is the claim language, of Matson, it identified all of those components, actually multiple times.

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
So it says a HUB member in the claim and not a HUB assembly, right?

[00:25:20] Speaker 02:
Yes, but the court, but the board also said at APPX 21, you see in about halfway down, page APPX 21, for example, for the HUB member limitation, Matson teaches HUB 24.

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
So HUB 24 in Figure 3 is an entire assembly.

[00:25:45] Speaker 02:
24 is a general reference number pointing to that entire assembly.

[00:25:49] Speaker 02:
And the earlier language I showed you on page 20 is going into more detail of what's included in hub 24.

[00:25:56] Speaker 02:
Hub assembly 24 includes all of those components.

[00:26:00] Speaker 02:
And this is a very different mechanism.

[00:26:01] Speaker 01:
I think the board said this was a comprising claim and that the crank pin and the crank arm were not part of the hub assembly.

[00:26:09] Speaker 02:
The board never said that the crank pin and the crank arm were not part of the hub assembly.

[00:26:13] Speaker 02:
The board was addressing a different issue of whether the language in the claim required the arm to comprise a constant cross section.

[00:26:22] Speaker 02:
In that context, the board said, because of the word comprise at the beginning of that specific limitation, we don't consider the crank arm and the crank pin to be part of the arm number.

[00:26:33] Speaker 02:
The board never said those are not part of the hub assembly.

[00:26:36] Speaker 02:
The board says right here on page 20 that they are part of the hub member.

[00:26:40] Speaker 02:
So there's some confusion going on there, but the board never said that these elements are not part of the hub or the hub member.

[00:26:49] Speaker 02:
And in terms of... What's the point?

[00:26:52] Speaker 02:
The point is that the crank arm and the crank pin are part of the hub member.

[00:26:56] Speaker 02:
So what?

[00:26:58] Speaker 02:
the arm number has to be detachable from the remainder of the hub without damaging it.

[00:27:03] Speaker 02:
There was no evidence that that arm number could be detachable from those components, and therefore there is sales.

[00:27:09] Speaker 02:
No, no, but you said that their reply declaration did say that.

[00:27:12] Speaker 02:
Their reply declaration was not relied on whatsoever in the final written decision.

[00:27:17] Speaker 01:
No, no, no, you said there is no evidence, but there is evidence in the reply declaration.

[00:27:21] Speaker 02:
Please, let me, if I, my last point, your honor, this court has to review the agency's finding.

[00:27:26] Speaker 02:
No, no, please take my question.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
You said there's no evidence, but in fact, there is evidence.

[00:27:30] Speaker 01:
There's evidence in the record.

[00:27:32] Speaker 01:
Don't interrupt me.

[00:27:32] Speaker 01:
There is evidence in the reply declaration, right?

[00:27:36] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:27:37] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:27:38] Speaker 02:
May I make one point, Your Honor?

[00:27:40] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:27:40] Speaker 02:
That evidence was not relied on by the board.

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
And this court has to review the agency's decision based on the findings that were made.

[00:27:47] Speaker 02:
There were no findings made based on that evidence or any other evidence that these armed members could be detachable.

[00:27:55] Speaker 02:
And there's no explanation of how any of that evidence would show that those are members are detachable.

[00:28:00] Speaker 01:
I think we're out of time.

[00:28:01] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:28:01] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:02] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.