[00:00:00] Speaker 03: The final case for argument this morning is 23-2022, Mypac holdings versus Samsung. [00:00:08] Speaker 03: Good morning. [00:00:08] Speaker 03: Please proceed. [00:00:09] Speaker 04: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:00:10] Speaker 04: May it please the court, Mitch Yang on behalf of Appellant Mypac and with me today is Jim Carmichael. [00:00:16] Speaker 04: Everyone agrees that monolithically integrated means fabricated from a single piece of material. [00:00:22] Speaker 04: The issue here is, even though that is the construction the board should have used, the board's prior analysis used a different construction on a single chip. [00:00:31] Speaker 04: In doing so, the board implicitly changed the construction of monolithically integrated, which under this court's precedence is a legal error subject to de novo review. [00:00:40] Speaker 04: Based on the briefs, I expect my colleague on the other side to come up after me and present three reasons to affirm the final decision. [00:00:48] Speaker 04: I will address them in the order that they're briefed unless your honors have a different preference. [00:00:56] Speaker 04: Hearing none, the first argument is that these two constructions mean the same thing, that essentially fabricated from a single piece of material mean the same thing as on a single chip. [00:01:08] Speaker 04: To be frank, Your Honor, that is just contrary to the direct meaning of these two terms. [00:01:13] Speaker 04: The word fabricated from indicates the beginning of the process. [00:01:16] Speaker 04: When something is fabricated from, that means you take a single piece of material and you use that to create the chip. [00:01:23] Speaker 04: When something is simply on a single chip, that refers to the outcome of the process. [00:01:27] Speaker 04: At the end of the fabrication process, you have a single chip. [00:01:31] Speaker 04: But that speaks nothing of how the fabrication process works or what kind of materials you used to begin the process. [00:01:38] Speaker 04: If I could give an analogy in the archaeological context where the word monolithic originated, there are two kinds of columns in archaeology. [00:01:47] Speaker 04: In ancient Egyptian columns, they would take a single piece of rock, a giant piece of rock, and they would chisel a complete column out of this piece of rock. [00:01:56] Speaker 04: And in that case, that column is monolithic. [00:01:59] Speaker 04: It's chiseled out of the single piece of rock. [00:02:02] Speaker 04: If the column cracks during the choosing process, they would, in fact, throw the column away. [00:02:07] Speaker 04: By contrast to that, Roman columns are made out of stone blocks about this high. [00:02:12] Speaker 04: They're in drums. [00:02:13] Speaker 04: And you would stack each of these drums on top of each other. [00:02:16] Speaker 04: So at the end of the stacking process, you would have a column as well. [00:02:19] Speaker 04: But that column isn't monolithic, because it's made out of all these individual stone blocks stacked on top of each other. [00:02:25] Speaker 04: So in both of these examples, only one column, the one that's made out of a single piece of material, is monolithic. [00:02:31] Speaker 04: The other column, the one that's made out of multiple pieces of material stacked on top of each other, that is not monolithic. [00:02:37] Speaker 04: And that's the same issue with these two constructions. [00:02:39] Speaker 04: When you begin with a single piece of semiconductor material and you fabricate the chip out of that one single piece, then that speaks to the fact that the material is monolithic. [00:02:50] Speaker 04: If at the end of the process you have a single chip, that doesn't speak of anything of how this chip was created. [00:02:56] Speaker 04: In fact, we have expert testimony and evidence from textbooks at the time of the invention that describes two different types of integrated circuits, which are a single chip. [00:03:06] Speaker 04: One of these types is the monolithic integrated circuit. [00:03:10] Speaker 04: That is the circuit that's created from, fabricated from, [00:03:14] Speaker 04: a single piece of material. [00:03:15] Speaker 04: The other type is called a hybrid integrated circuit. [00:03:17] Speaker 04: And even though that is also a single chip, at the end of the process, the process doesn't start with a single piece of material. [00:03:24] Speaker 04: In a hybrid integrated circuit, you have more than one piece of material. [00:03:27] Speaker 04: You put those together, and you still get a single chip. [00:03:30] Speaker 04: But that single chip isn't made from a single piece of material. [00:03:36] Speaker 03: Can you just give us a little bit more information about this case and the pieces of prior art and why into your argument [00:03:43] Speaker 04: Certainly, Your Honor. [00:03:45] Speaker 04: That is actually the third argument. [00:03:48] Speaker 04: Their argument is that the prior art evidence of on a single chip is equivalent to the agreed construction, which is fabricated from a single piece of material. [00:03:59] Speaker 04: So there are two principal pieces of prior art that we're looking at here. [00:04:03] Speaker 04: And the first one is the Zarev reference. [00:04:07] Speaker 04: In the Zarev reference, what it shows is it has some figures in it. [00:04:12] Speaker 04: which shows a single chip at the end of the fabrication process, which appellees have argued shows all of the claimed, the claimed elements, the circuit elements in independent claim one, which has now been disclaimed. [00:04:25] Speaker 04: The issue is, I asked director Mr. Alainius directly, does Zarev teach how this [00:04:31] Speaker 04: chip is fabricated, and his answer was no it doesn't. [00:04:34] Speaker 04: If the prior art doesn't teach how the chip is fabricated, then it tells you nothing about whether it's monolithic or not, because the evidence demonstrates that there are two types of chips. [00:04:44] Speaker 04: One is monolithic, the other is not. [00:04:46] Speaker 04: They haven't shown that this particular chip in Xerox [00:04:48] Speaker 04: is monolithic because the illustration only shows what the end result of the fabrication process is. [00:04:55] Speaker 04: It doesn't tell you anything about whether this chip is made from one piece of material or multiple pieces of material. [00:05:02] Speaker 04: field at the time I mentioned understood. [00:05:03] Speaker 04: There could be both ways of fabricating a chip. [00:05:06] Speaker 04: So it's completely silent as to whether this chip is one piece or multiple pieces. [00:05:11] Speaker 04: All they have is one figure that shows the result. [00:05:13] Speaker 04: But the words monolithically integrated is directed to the input of the process, not the result. [00:05:19] Speaker 04: So because it only shows the result, and it's silent on the input process, it doesn't teach anything about monolithically integrated. [00:05:28] Speaker 04: And the same is true of the other piece of prior art that they use in their second ground, which is Leo. [00:05:34] Speaker 04: Exactly like Xerov, Leo has a single chip at the end of the process, and we don't dispute that. [00:05:41] Speaker 04: The problem is, it only shows the single chip. [00:05:43] Speaker 04: It doesn't tell you how that chip was made. [00:05:46] Speaker 04: Because it doesn't tell you how that chip was made, it doesn't tell you whether the process starts out monolithically with a single piece of semiconductor material, [00:05:53] Speaker 04: or if it starts out with multiple pieces of material and you put them together like a jigsaw puzzle. [00:05:58] Speaker 04: In either case, you end up with a single chip. [00:06:01] Speaker 04: But only in one case, when you start with a single piece of material, does that meet the monolithically integrated limitation. [00:06:08] Speaker 04: In order to meet this limitation, petitioners have to identify somewhere in either of these two references, prior art, [00:06:14] Speaker 04: a teaching that the fabrication process started out with a single piece of material. [00:06:19] Speaker 04: There's simply no teaching whatsoever in either piece of prior art. [00:06:22] Speaker 04: In fact, they asked Mr. Olanius, their expert, and he said, no, it doesn't teach anything about how these chips are created. [00:06:29] Speaker 00: But as long as they have a limitation, why do they have to show how it was, as you're terming how it was built? [00:06:38] Speaker 00: I don't see this as a case involving claim construction. [00:06:42] Speaker 00: It seems like your arguments are all about the scope and the content of the prior art, but yet there's an agreement that the prior art all contains the same limitation that you're now arguing. [00:06:53] Speaker 00: This is production from a single die. [00:06:57] Speaker 04: Judge Raina, I respectfully disagree with that. [00:07:00] Speaker 04: The issue is that the board changed the client construction on us after we've already agreed to it. [00:07:06] Speaker 04: Our agreed construction is monolithically integrated means you have to start with a single piece of material. [00:07:11] Speaker 00: But does Everett and Leal, they both disclose a limitation correctly that this is construction from a single die? [00:07:20] Speaker 04: No, Your Honor, it discloses a single die. [00:07:22] Speaker 04: It doesn't disclose how that die is constructed. [00:07:25] Speaker 04: In fact, I asked Mr. Elanius, their expert, how is this die constructed? [00:07:28] Speaker 04: He said it doesn't disclose anything about the construction. [00:07:31] Speaker 00: Why does it have to describe how it is made from a single die if the limitation is manufactured from a single die? [00:07:40] Speaker 04: Because the words fabricated from means that you start the process with a single piece of material. [00:07:45] Speaker 04: This, I think, is the other confusion that they're trying to create, which is [00:07:50] Speaker 04: The semiconductor material is not a die. [00:07:52] Speaker 04: The die refers to the chip at the end of the process. [00:07:55] Speaker 04: So when you have a single die, at the end of the process you have a single chip. [00:07:58] Speaker 04: That is what they've shown. [00:08:00] Speaker 04: The problem is that monolithically integrated isn't directed to the single die at the end of the process. [00:08:05] Speaker 04: It's directed to the single piece of semiconductor material at the beginning of the process. [00:08:09] Speaker 04: In order to show monolithically integrated, they have to identify a single piece of semiconductor material that they're using to create the dye before any of the fabrication occurs. [00:08:19] Speaker 04: They have not done that. [00:08:20] Speaker 04: All they've shown is that here's this piece of dye after the fabrication process. [00:08:23] Speaker 04: It's one dye. [00:08:24] Speaker 04: We agree with that, but that's not what the word monolithically integrated means under the party's construction, which the board has adopted. [00:08:31] Speaker 04: Monolithically integrated specifically refers to the single piece of material at the beginning of the process. [00:08:37] Speaker 04: That's what they've [00:08:39] Speaker 04: failed to identify in the prior art. [00:08:41] Speaker 00: In fact, that is why the board switched the constructions on us, is because the board couldn't find any teaching in the prior art where... So wasn't there an agreement on monolithically integrated as fabricated from a single piece of semiconductor material? [00:08:58] Speaker 04: That's correct. [00:08:59] Speaker 04: That's the construction. [00:09:02] Speaker 04: The keywords there are fabricated from. [00:09:04] Speaker 04: The words fabricated from mean that you're taking the single piece of material and that's what you're making into the die. [00:09:11] Speaker 04: When you're fabricated from a single piece of material, you take the single piece of material and you turn that into a die. [00:09:17] Speaker 04: So it's exactly identical to the column analogy I described earlier. [00:09:23] Speaker 04: It means you start with the rock. [00:09:25] Speaker 04: They have to identify what the single piece of rock is. [00:09:27] Speaker 04: You can't look at the column that you chiseled out of the rock. [00:09:30] Speaker 04: That could or could not be made from a single piece of rock. [00:09:32] Speaker 04: You have to identify the single piece of rock at the beginning. [00:09:35] Speaker 04: What they've in turn identified is the column at the end. [00:09:38] Speaker 04: We don't know if the column at the end is made out of a single piece of rock or if it's constructed out of multiple pieces of rock. [00:09:44] Speaker 04: That's not disclosed anywhere in the prior art, as their expert has testified and agreed to. [00:09:48] Speaker 04: So when they say a single die, that's looking at the column or the die after the process has been completed. [00:09:55] Speaker 04: A single die has nothing to do with the single piece of semiconductor material that's being used to craft the die. [00:10:01] Speaker 04: That is what the prior art needs to teach. [00:10:07] Speaker 04: And I see I'm a few seconds close to my rebuttal time. [00:10:11] Speaker 04: I'd like to reserve the rest of it. [00:10:12] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:10:28] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:10:30] Speaker 01: May it please the Court. [00:10:32] Speaker 01: This is not a method claim. [00:10:33] Speaker 01: This is a circuit claim. [00:10:36] Speaker 01: The only thing that the parties seem to have a disagreement about is whether the PTAB understood the meaning of its construction and agreed to. [00:10:44] Speaker 01: And it's clear from reading the Board's opinion that the Board certainly did agree. [00:10:48] Speaker 01: Can you speak up just a tiny bit? [00:10:49] Speaker 01: Sir, it's clear from reading the Board's opinion that it did understand the construction quite well. [00:10:53] Speaker 01: It merely made a factual finding that disagrees with the arguments Patent Runner is making. [00:10:57] Speaker 01: So in particular, the board was very careful to explain, both with respect to Zverev and Liaud, how the structure and the evidence that is presented to the board met that construction. [00:11:10] Speaker 01: Turning to the analysis of the Zverev reference, which begins really, I suppose you could say, it begins in earnest at page 38 of the appendix. [00:11:22] Speaker 01: The board carefully stepped through the exact argument that Pat Hunter is making to this court. [00:11:28] Speaker 01: and said that the board was finding in favor of Petitioner because specifically it believed that what's described in Zarev, both in the figures and the text as well as after reviewing and relying on the expert's explanation of that prior art, the board found, quote, Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that switch T2 and since MOSFET T3 are monolithically integrated [00:11:54] Speaker 01: on a single semiconductor chip, CH1. [00:11:58] Speaker 01: It goes on to say... What page? [00:12:00] Speaker 01: I'm sorry. [00:12:01] Speaker 01: I'm beginning from page 38 of the appendix. [00:12:05] Speaker 02: And what line roughly... Oh, I see. [00:12:08] Speaker 02: Petitioner demonstrates persuasively about line eight. [00:12:11] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:12:13] Speaker 01: Then it goes on to say, Petitioner also demonstrates persuasively that Zebra's use of the term [00:12:21] Speaker 01: i.e. [00:12:21] Speaker 01: a single chip or die, as opposed to package, i.e. [00:12:24] Speaker 01: two chips arranged together, shows that the single semiconductor chip is synonymous with single semiconductor die, i.e. [00:12:32] Speaker 01: fabricated from a single piece of semiconductor material. [00:12:36] Speaker 02: Well, the place that I think your opposing counsel gets off the train here is the i.e. [00:12:44] Speaker 02: Well, yeah. [00:12:45] Speaker 02: That doesn't follow. [00:12:47] Speaker 02: And therein lies the flaw. [00:12:49] Speaker 02: What is your response to that? [00:12:51] Speaker 01: Well, there's no dispute that a dye is the end result of a semiconductor manufacturing process. [00:13:00] Speaker 02: Right. [00:13:01] Speaker 02: But what he says there is a dispute is whether the dye, or a dye in general, is necessarily manufactured from a single piece of semiconductor material. [00:13:13] Speaker 02: You disagree. [00:13:14] Speaker 02: So he says, I'm putting words in his mouth, but I think he would say that [00:13:19] Speaker 02: The problem with this sentence is the IE that doesn't follow. [00:13:22] Speaker 01: So what's your response to that? [00:13:23] Speaker 01: Well, perhaps, but there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary, right? [00:13:26] Speaker 01: There's no evidence that the expert presented that there's a way to make a die that isn't monolithically integrated. [00:13:31] Speaker 01: In fact, the evidence was exactly the opposite. [00:13:33] Speaker 02: OK, that's what then we need to know. [00:13:36] Speaker 01: Yeah, OK, sure. [00:13:37] Speaker 01: So we cataloged that in the brief. [00:13:39] Speaker 01: So for instance, in appendix 1483, this is their expert's testimony to the board. [00:13:45] Speaker 01: He says, based on [00:13:47] Speaker 01: This is paragraph 45 of his declaration. [00:13:50] Speaker 01: Based on figure three and the description of a single silicon die, a person would understand that a single silicon die comprises a single piece of silicon, right? [00:14:00] Speaker 01: He's saying exactly what, and he goes on in paragraph 46 to quote from various extrinsic references, all of which say the same thing. [00:14:06] Speaker 01: Everyone in the world uses this term monolith to be integrated to mean manufactured in a single piece of silicon. [00:14:11] Speaker 01: And that's exactly the same meaning the board applied when it interpreted the prior art in Zebra, saying, aha, I see he uses a chip. [00:14:17] Speaker 01: I see what they've done. [00:14:18] Speaker 01: This is a single piece of silicon. [00:14:20] Speaker 01: Therefore, it's monolithically integrated. [00:14:21] Speaker 02: So what you're saying, in effect, is that to take his analogy that there's no such thing as Roman columns. [00:14:29] Speaker 02: In this technology, they're all Egyptian columns. [00:14:32] Speaker 01: What I would say is I think neither of those analogies is particularly apt for how a semiconductor is actually manufactured. [00:14:37] Speaker 01: because how a semiconductor is manufactured in general starts with a silicon substrate, a single piece of crystal, and it's built upon that to make a bigger crystal. [00:14:45] Speaker 01: So you're essentially growing the Egyptian column starting from a piece and growing on top of it. [00:14:49] Speaker 01: You're not just stacking individual pieces of silicon together. [00:14:51] Speaker 01: That would make no sense. [00:14:53] Speaker 01: You have to create a single crystal, and they do that from the beginning, from the bottom. [00:14:56] Speaker 01: The only other point I would make, then, is respect to Liyah. [00:14:59] Speaker 01: You can see this directly in the figure of Liyah, which is reproduced at page 41 of the board's decision. [00:15:06] Speaker 01: They show figure four of LiA. [00:15:08] Speaker 01: There they're describing our argument, the argument Petitioner made to the PTAB as saying, again this is page 41, figure four of LiA is presented and the board says, Petitioner argues that annotated figure four shows each of these additional active components monolithically integrated on high voltage chip 60 with a single substrate 86. [00:15:29] Speaker 01: You see from that picture there, that substrate 86 is on the bottom. [00:15:32] Speaker 01: That's the base that begins this building rep process of the whole monolithic structure. [00:15:38] Speaker 01: The board then goes on in its analysis of page 42 to find, quote, we determine that LiAO's disclosure of how its active components are integrated on a single chip, i.e., [00:15:52] Speaker 01: teaches that LIA's additional active components are monolithically integrated. [00:15:56] Speaker 01: So again, it does the same analysis with respect to LIA. [00:15:58] Speaker 01: It looks at this figure. [00:15:59] Speaker 01: It sees, yep, I see a single crystal. [00:16:00] Speaker 01: I see all the pieces, all the parts to the circuit that we need to see monolithically integrated on a single crystal. [00:16:05] Speaker 01: That's the constructions. [00:16:06] Speaker 01: That's how the board reached the final written decision here. [00:16:09] Speaker 01: So all we really have is the other side saying, well, we disagree with its factual finding that that's monolithic. [00:16:14] Speaker 01: But the board was free to make a factual finding as to whether that's monolithic or not. [00:16:17] Speaker 01: In fact, there's literally no evidence in the record that that could be anything other than monolithic. [00:16:22] Speaker 01: It's a single crystal. [00:16:23] Speaker 01: Leal explains that's grown through epitaxial growth. [00:16:27] Speaker 01: So you start with a crystal on the bottom, you build a bigger crystal on top, and you're done. [00:16:30] Speaker 01: And that's what the claim covers. [00:16:33] Speaker 01: Unless the court had any other questions, I'll give back the balance of my time. [00:16:46] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:16:47] Speaker 04: I think first we've heard my prison counsel say that [00:16:50] Speaker 04: All semiconductor chips are monolithic because they're all fabricated from a single piece of material. [00:16:55] Speaker 04: First of all, I have to point out, they've never presented any evidence of that in the proceedings below. [00:17:00] Speaker 04: They've never shown any evidence of that. [00:17:02] Speaker 04: In an IPR, the burden of proof is on them. [00:17:05] Speaker 04: And so in order for them to establish this [00:17:09] Speaker 04: fact, which has not been established, they have to present some evidence of it. [00:17:12] Speaker 04: They haven't. [00:17:13] Speaker 04: On the contrary, we've presented evidence below that's unrebutted that a semiconductor chip is not always fabricated from a single piece of material. [00:17:20] Speaker 04: We presented two types of evidence. [00:17:22] Speaker 04: The first is the declaration from our expert, Dr. Ferris. [00:17:25] Speaker 04: It's at JA 1495, where he describes, he lays out these two separate types of integrated circuits, monolithic integrated circuits that are made from a single piece of material, and hybrid integrated circuits that are made out of more than one piece of material, and you put them together. [00:17:39] Speaker 04: But that's not all the evidence that we have. [00:17:42] Speaker 04: We also put in a textbook from around the time of the invention. [00:17:45] Speaker 04: That's a JA1553. [00:17:48] Speaker 04: And that textbook corroborates what our expert has said. [00:17:52] Speaker 04: That textbook also says there are two types of semiconductor chips. [00:17:55] Speaker 04: There are monolithic ICs, which is one chip made out of one piece of material. [00:18:00] Speaker 04: And there are hybrid ICs. [00:18:02] Speaker 04: And the textbook says the defining feature of a monolithic chip [00:18:06] Speaker 04: is that this monolithic chip is made out of one piece of material. [00:18:10] Speaker 04: So using logic, it must mean that a hybrid IC supporting Dr. Ferguson's conclusion is made out of more than one piece of material. [00:18:18] Speaker 04: That is the evidence that we presented that's been completely unrebutted by petitioners. [00:18:22] Speaker 04: And they bear the burden of proving an IPR to show that a chip is always monolithic. [00:18:28] Speaker 04: They've simply failed to present any evidence of that. [00:18:31] Speaker 04: I'm going back to the final written decision. [00:18:33] Speaker 04: The other issue that they've [00:18:35] Speaker 04: convinced the board of is that the board makes its conclusion that the prior art is fabricated on a single piece of material, but that conclusion is always premised on factual planning using a different construction on a single chip. [00:18:51] Speaker 04: The board never identifies anywhere where any other prior art talks about, hey, this is where we make our chip, and it's made out of a single piece of material. [00:18:58] Speaker 04: The board hasn't identified any teaching of that whatsoever in the prior art. [00:19:03] Speaker 04: If the board had done that, this would have been a very different appeal and I wouldn't be here. [00:19:06] Speaker 04: And that's what I'm asking of you. [00:19:08] Speaker 04: It's for you to require the board to identify where the prior art teaches. [00:19:12] Speaker 04: fabrication process starts from a single piece of material. [00:19:15] Speaker 04: They haven't done that. [00:19:16] Speaker 04: All they've done is they've looked at figures of the prior art after the fabrication process. [00:19:21] Speaker 04: Once it is already a single chip and say, this is a single chip after the process, which is on a single chip, that's the construction they've changed it to. [00:19:29] Speaker 04: And then they've said, because the prior art shows the result of the fabrication process, [00:19:33] Speaker 04: is a single chip, we're going to conclude from that that it was fabricated from a single piece of material. [00:19:38] Speaker 04: That is a logical leap that I disagree with and I think is legal error. [00:19:41] Speaker 04: They've essentially said the prior art teaches X, therefore we conclude it teaches Y. [00:19:47] Speaker 04: That, to me, is a logical non sequitur that shouldn't be allowed. [00:19:52] Speaker 04: If it is, then no patent at the PTO would ever be found valid ever again. [00:19:57] Speaker 04: They would be able to identify something in the prior art that has nothing to do with what the claims are directed towards and say, this is what the prior art teaches. [00:20:04] Speaker 04: Therefore, it invalidates the claims. [00:20:05] Speaker 04: That is precisely what the board has done. [00:20:07] Speaker 04: If you look at Appendix 38, the board's factual findings are all that [00:20:12] Speaker 04: Xerof's use of the term chip as opposed to package shows the single semiconductor chip. [00:20:18] Speaker 04: is synonymous with the single semiconductor die on appendix 38. [00:20:21] Speaker 04: What the board is saying is there's a single semiconductor die here after the process. [00:20:25] Speaker 04: And then they put an IE after that to say IE fabricated from a single piece of material. [00:20:30] Speaker 04: That's the issue we have, is that they've equated the chip at the end of the process with the single piece of material at the beginning of the process when there's evidence that the process may or may not use a single piece of material to arrive at a single chip or die at the end. [00:20:45] Speaker 04: That is an error that the board has made for both Zarev and Leol. [00:20:49] Speaker 04: They've looked at the figures in Zarev and Leol. [00:20:51] Speaker 04: They've identified where it shows a single chip. [00:20:54] Speaker 04: And then they've said the single chip after the process is equivalent to monolithically integrated. [00:20:58] Speaker 02: Is it fair to say, based on that bit of text and the board's opinion and others, that the board has made a factual finding [00:21:08] Speaker 02: that a single semiconductor chip is the same as a single semiconductor die, which is to be something that's fabricated from a single piece of semiconductor material. [00:21:25] Speaker 02: That's a finding of fact, and that we would have to accept that unless we find that it's not supported by substantial evidence. [00:21:33] Speaker 04: Well, here's the interesting thing, Gerardo. [00:21:35] Speaker 04: The board never actually said what you just said. [00:21:38] Speaker 02: Suppose that I read that as saying what I just said. [00:21:43] Speaker 02: Would you view that as a finding of fact? [00:21:46] Speaker 04: No, because that's the conclusion that's premised on its erroneous claim construction, where it says that the prior teaches on a single chip. [00:21:55] Speaker 04: And then they equate that with fabricated from. [00:21:58] Speaker 02: But what they're saying is that [00:22:02] Speaker 02: single semiconductor chip is a single semiconductor die, which is fabricated for a single piece. [00:22:10] Speaker 02: Let me put it this way, if you accepted that as true, would you still have an argument to make? [00:22:18] Speaker 04: I do, Your Honor, because the issue there is that the board hasn't tied these two pieces together. [00:22:26] Speaker 04: They're not saying... The IE is what ties them together. [00:22:29] Speaker 04: The IE is saying that it's making the conclusion that the prior teaches monolithically integrated because they're pointing to the evidence that they're citing. [00:22:39] Speaker 04: The because evidence is that there's a single chip at the end of the process. [00:22:43] Speaker 02: That's the evidence you're looking at. [00:22:44] Speaker 02: That seems, sounds to me like an attack on [00:22:47] Speaker 02: the evidence that the board is using to draw its conclusion. [00:22:50] Speaker 02: What I'm asking is, does that conclusion, if true, defeat your argument? [00:22:56] Speaker 04: The problem is that that conclusion hinges on evidence under the wrong claim construction. [00:23:01] Speaker 04: The evidence is under the construction that there's a single chip. [00:23:05] Speaker 04: That's the construction the board used to analyze the prior art. [00:23:10] Speaker 04: Then from that evidence analyzed under this incorrect conclusion, the board then makes the determination that [00:23:17] Speaker 04: the correct construction is Todd because it looked at the prior art under the wrong construction. [00:23:23] Speaker 04: Like I said, if this was allowed to stand, the board could change constructions willy-nilly for whatever reason and invalidate every single patent because it would simply be able to determine the prior art Todd had under one construction and then conclude that it's there under a completely different construction. [00:23:40] Speaker 04: The board essentially changed constructions.