[00:00:00] Speaker 04: Our next case is number 24, 1763, Nearmath, USA. [00:00:06] Speaker 04: This is Pictometry International Corporation. [00:00:11] Speaker 04: OK, Ms. [00:00:11] Speaker 04: Degna? [00:00:12] Speaker 01: May I please support Lauren Degna for Nearmath? [00:00:16] Speaker 01: There was no dispute over the meaning of oblique image before the board. [00:00:21] Speaker 01: The entire dispute was about the meaning of primary. [00:00:24] Speaker 01: The board used primary as a vehicle to impose a requirement that the primary image must be displayed in front of all other displayed images. [00:00:35] Speaker 01: The board took this requirement from the terminology section, despite the patentee's explicit statement not to limit the claims to the meanings provided in that section. [00:00:49] Speaker 01: The board used extrinsic evidence as the justification to disregard the patentee's explicit instruction. [00:00:56] Speaker 04: OK, do we have any case where we've said that an explicit definition in the specification can be ignored because of that kind of boilerplate? [00:01:06] Speaker 01: So, Your Honor, the Rex Nord case is about as close as the case we found insofar as the Rex Nord case had similar language describing how the description should not be considered limiting. [00:01:19] Speaker 01: And if we just take the public notice function of the patents and the fact that the ordinary way to do lexicography is not to include such a statement, I think to give [00:01:31] Speaker 01: meaning to the patentee's election to provide a broader definition of primary, even if there's not a case that's directly these facts, the principles of this court tell us that when the patentee tells the world this example is not limiting, we must pay fealty to that instruction. [00:01:54] Speaker 04: Well, I don't think it's an example. [00:01:56] Speaker 04: It's a definition. [00:02:00] Speaker 01: So respectfully, Your Honor, given that the terminology section is directly under the statement where the patentee told the world it should be understood that the terminology employed in here is for the purposes of description, like an example, and should not be regarded as limiting. [00:02:19] Speaker 01: To read those harmoniously, we would have to understand that the terminology section is providing mere examples akin to a preferred embodiment. [00:02:30] Speaker 01: And so it would not meet the test of lexicography when there is an explicit statement saying, please, do not hold me to this specific description of primary oblique image. [00:02:42] Speaker 03: Mr. David, let me ask you the definition that we have. [00:02:45] Speaker 03: And I realize there's a question about whether it's binding. [00:02:47] Speaker 03: It says, a displayed oblique image that can be considered in front of the other displayed images, and then it says, [00:02:56] Speaker 03: The primary oblique image can also be a master image. [00:03:01] Speaker 03: What importance do you attach to the word can in that definition? [00:03:05] Speaker 03: It seems to be a permissive word. [00:03:08] Speaker 01: Absolutely, Your Honor. [00:03:10] Speaker 01: We think the use of can in both sentences describes permissible examples [00:03:18] Speaker 03: And in particular, the- What did the board say, in your view, with respect to the word can? [00:03:27] Speaker 01: Well, the board did not sort of look at can in terms of permissible. [00:03:31] Speaker 01: It looked at only the first sentence and said, this can be considered sentence. [00:03:37] Speaker 01: was really transformed into a must-be-considered in front of other images. [00:03:43] Speaker 01: And I think if you look at the juxtaposition, it really says that the oblique image can be considered X, it can also be considered Y. That's a traditional either-or format and doesn't require only one or only the other. [00:03:59] Speaker 03: But when they were talking, I guess I'm looking at page 23 of the Joint Appendix, when they're discussing the master image, they there seem to get into a discussion of looking at it as being permissive. [00:04:13] Speaker 01: Well, with respect to the master image, I think Your Honor is correct. [00:04:17] Speaker 01: The board assumed the first sentence use of can had this requirement, this must. [00:04:23] Speaker 01: But the second use of can, the board said, well, that would be optional. [00:04:27] Speaker 01: And I think that is an inconsistency, really, given the entire description of primary oblique image in column 6. [00:04:35] Speaker 03: Did your side argue below [00:04:38] Speaker 03: A what I'll call by way of shorthand and correct me if I'm out of line on it Did your side argue below or in your briefs here this permissive? [00:04:49] Speaker 01: interpretation of the word can Our position throughout before the board and on this appeal is that it's improper to [00:05:00] Speaker 01: graph the requirement based on the only sentence, the first sentence alone. [00:05:05] Speaker 04: Does the answer to that no? [00:05:06] Speaker 01: I cannot think off the top of my head where we specifically talked about can being permissible. [00:05:13] Speaker 01: I do know that in several places we spoke of the two sentences being alternatives. [00:05:18] Speaker 03: And so there... You're talking about with respect to oblique and master. [00:05:22] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:05:24] Speaker 01: So to answer your question, I don't have a site at my fingertips that would say, you know. [00:05:30] Speaker 03: Excuse me for jumping in, but time is fleeting. [00:05:33] Speaker 03: How about before us? [00:05:36] Speaker 03: And correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I didn't see in the briefing before us where you made the argument that we've been discussing here about CAN being permissive. [00:05:46] Speaker 03: There are a number of arguments made, but I didn't see that. [00:05:48] Speaker 03: Am I wrong? [00:05:51] Speaker 01: I think in context, when we're comparing and contrasting the two sentences, we are making the argument about can being optional. [00:06:02] Speaker 01: Can I find a place where we said that in connection with the first sentence alone, not off the top of my head, Your Honor? [00:06:08] Speaker 01: But I think in context, we have been making the argument that this particular [00:06:14] Speaker 01: description is an either or sort of thing. [00:06:16] Speaker 01: And that argument fundamentally encompasses what your honor has sort of recast as a permissible use of can. [00:06:24] Speaker 02: Assume for this question that I agree with you that the so-called definition in the terminology section is not binding as like lexicography [00:06:34] Speaker 02: What in the specification would support a different construction than the one the board came up with anyway? [00:06:41] Speaker 02: Because you have to concede it's at least an example of what a primary oblique image could be, even if not lexicography, not binding. [00:06:51] Speaker 02: The figures seem to be consistent examples with the definition the board came up with. [00:06:57] Speaker 02: What, if anything, can I find in the specification that supports some different construction? [00:07:01] Speaker 01: I guess, Your Honor, so really the rest of the specification as a whole does not support importing that limitation. [00:07:08] Speaker 01: The specification never uses the term in front of, except in that non-limiting definition. [00:07:13] Speaker 02: But the images it shows appear to be in front of, correct? [00:07:18] Speaker 01: So, Your Honor, the specification never says they are. [00:07:21] Speaker 01: And I think it's debatable. [00:07:23] Speaker 01: I accept that our expert did look at them as, in figure three alone, that one would be in front of the other. [00:07:29] Speaker 01: I would direct your attention to the rollback description in column 11. [00:07:33] Speaker 01: And in column 11, talking about how a new primary oblique image, and if I can get you there, Your Honor, in column 11 around line 38, talks about column 11. [00:07:48] Speaker 01: around line 38. [00:07:50] Speaker 01: It says, performs a rollback transition, where you have the old primary oblique image being rolled back. [00:07:59] Speaker 01: And underneath it, you see a new primary oblique image. [00:08:02] Speaker 01: So this rolling back is an example of an embodiment where a primary image is considered underneath another displayed image, the one that's being rolled back. [00:08:14] Speaker 01: And so that is some description in the specification that contemplates a broader invention. [00:08:21] Speaker 01: And even if there were only a single embodiment, which we dispute, but if there were only a single embodiment as the board- Yeah, but in that example you just gave, both of these things are referred to as primary oblique images. [00:08:35] Speaker 04: It's not as though the second one of these is a primary oblique image and the first one isn't. [00:08:42] Speaker 01: Yes, they both are. [00:08:43] Speaker 01: And that shows the breadth. [00:08:45] Speaker 01: The one on top is the old primary oblique image. [00:08:49] Speaker 01: And the one being revealed as the top one is rolled off is also a primary oblique image. [00:08:54] Speaker 01: So there's showing the breadth that both can be on top of or behind and not be limited to this in front of requirement. [00:09:02] Speaker 02: If I think best for you the intrinsic evidence is somewhat unclear, then I would have to get to the extrinsic evidence. [00:09:10] Speaker 02: And you've already referred to your own expert, Dr. Forsyth. [00:09:12] Speaker 02: The board read him, I think him, as being completely supportive of the other side's construction. [00:09:19] Speaker 02: First of all, don't I have to defer to that reading? [00:09:22] Speaker 02: And second of all, it seems pretty clearly that's what Dr. Forsyth is saying. [00:09:26] Speaker 01: OK, well, I have a multi-part answer to that question, if you'll permit me. [00:09:31] Speaker 01: First, I don't think there's a deference owed. [00:09:33] Speaker 01: This is a situation where, if you look at the testimony of Dr. Forsythe, he is being asked only what do you think the construction is. [00:09:41] Speaker 01: And the legal question of what the construction is does not get the TEBA substantial evidence deference, if that's what you're talking about, sir. [00:09:50] Speaker 01: In terms of looking at his testimony as a whole, [00:09:53] Speaker 01: I think what we see when we get into the testimony is first he says that the entire description, both sentences, [00:10:01] Speaker 01: He says only that it appears to be ordinary and customary, or something very close to it. [00:10:08] Speaker 01: So that's ambiguous. [00:10:09] Speaker 02: He's not saying that the definition... You would not just say he applied that construction in his analysis, correct? [00:10:15] Speaker 01: Well, I think the fair way to read his testimony is he applied what he saw in this non-limiting definition as part of his analysis. [00:10:23] Speaker 01: I don't think he says that's the only thing he applied. [00:10:26] Speaker 01: And when you look at even other parts of his deposition, he says several times, [00:10:30] Speaker 01: that the main view of Snavely is certainly a primary oblique image. [00:10:35] Speaker 01: That's Appendix 1907, Appendix 1937. [00:10:38] Speaker 01: In his first declaration, he says the main view is a primary oblique image. [00:10:43] Speaker 01: In his second declaration, around Appendix 228 through 29, 30 and 31, he points out that he rejects Pictomete's construction. [00:10:54] Speaker 01: He points out there was a second sentence, so he is not agreeing with [00:10:58] Speaker 01: Tomarchy's interpretation of his testimony. [00:11:00] Speaker 04: What's his construction according to you? [00:11:02] Speaker 01: Say that again. [00:11:03] Speaker 04: What's his construction according to you? [00:11:05] Speaker 01: He doesn't provide an overall construction. [00:11:08] Speaker 01: He says there's improper to limit the claims to the in front of requirement. [00:11:12] Speaker 01: He says that unequivocally in his second declaration. [00:11:14] Speaker 04: He doesn't tell us what it means. [00:11:17] Speaker 01: Well, correct, Your Honor, because primary is a commonly understood word with a widely accepted lay meaning. [00:11:24] Speaker 01: Our position below, and as the expert, was that a lay definition, any synonym or primary would do. [00:11:32] Speaker 01: This is not uncommon in claim constructions when a claim is not construed because it's an easily understood word. [00:11:39] Speaker 01: We don't give dictionaries to the jury. [00:11:40] Speaker 01: So primary means primary, and he never gave a further explanation of what synonyms we would use for primary, because that's simply not required. [00:11:50] Speaker 01: I see amendment on my rebuttal term. [00:11:52] Speaker 01: Would you have more questions, Your Honor? [00:11:55] Speaker 04: Okay, you can save your rebuttal time. [00:11:57] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:11:59] Speaker 04: Ms. [00:12:00] Speaker 04: Vu? [00:12:07] Speaker 00: May it please the court, Laura Vu on behalf of Pictometry. [00:12:10] Speaker 00: The board correctly construed the primary oblique image limitation to include the in front of requirement. [00:12:17] Speaker 00: And that construction is supported by both the intrinsic and the extrinsic evidence. [00:12:23] Speaker 00: I'd like to take the court first to the intrinsic evidence that supports that construction, and that is the terminology section. [00:12:31] Speaker 04: Yeah, but what about the statement that this is non-binding? [00:12:36] Speaker 00: So the non-limiting statement, that statement does not mean that you completely ignore how the specification describes the primary oblique image. [00:12:48] Speaker 00: And I know New Maps Council raised the RexNOR case. [00:12:53] Speaker 00: That case is distinguishable because in that case, there was no dispute that the Plain and Ordinary meeting was broader. [00:13:00] Speaker 00: And so the specification was consistent with a broader interpretation. [00:13:05] Speaker 00: Here, there is expert testimony from both sides that the plain and ordinary meaning is narrower. [00:13:12] Speaker 00: and the specification through the terminology section and all the other consistent disclosures in the specification show that the meaning is narrower. [00:13:23] Speaker 00: And in the other cases that are addressing non-limiting statements such as wireless agents and interdigital and sandbox, the court did not say that the non-limiting statements outweighed those disclosures. [00:13:37] Speaker 04: Okay, but did either expert say that there's an art-specific meaning to primary? [00:13:42] Speaker 00: Our expert testified that the plain and ordinary meaning of this term in view of the specification because we interpret the plain and ordinary meaning in view of the specification not in a vacuum. [00:13:54] Speaker 04: But I don't think that's helpful. [00:13:56] Speaker 04: I don't think we need experts to interpret the specification unless they're bringing to bear some knowledge about industry usage. [00:14:07] Speaker 04: And that's not happening here. [00:14:09] Speaker 00: The primary oblique image limitation, it's an image that has a specific function within the context of this specification. [00:14:18] Speaker 00: And so both experts testified that in view of the specification, the plain and ordinary meaning is an image that includes the function. [00:14:27] Speaker 04: But why should I pay any attention to that? [00:14:31] Speaker 04: I mean, we used to, years ago, we used to have testimony by experts as to what claims meant. [00:14:38] Speaker 04: And we've said that we don't care about that in terms of their interpretation of the intrinsic evidence. [00:14:47] Speaker 00: Well, so here the experts are both testifying that the plain and ordinary meaning of primary oblique image is consistent with the specification. [00:14:58] Speaker 04: Where do they get the plain and ordinary meaning from? [00:15:01] Speaker 00: It's supported by the disclosures and the specification. [00:15:05] Speaker 03: What do you understand the board said about the word can? [00:15:12] Speaker 03: Because I don't want to sound like I'm hung up on it. [00:15:15] Speaker 03: Maybe I am. [00:15:16] Speaker 03: But it seems to me to be a totally permissive term. [00:15:20] Speaker 03: And it can means, you know, can but not necessarily. [00:15:25] Speaker 00: So the board found that in the context of the second statement. [00:15:30] Speaker 00: for the language can be considered, which is in the first sentence, the board did not say that that use of the word can is permissive. [00:15:39] Speaker 03: Oh, you're absolutely correct. [00:15:42] Speaker 03: That's what they said. [00:15:43] Speaker 03: But isn't that inconsistent? [00:15:45] Speaker 03: I mean, can has to mean the same thing in the first place as in the second place, doesn't it? [00:15:52] Speaker 00: Not in this case. [00:15:53] Speaker 00: And the reason why is because the language actually says can be considered. [00:15:57] Speaker 00: And so what that [00:15:59] Speaker 00: frees means in the context of this invention is that the properties the primary bleak image appears in front of other images and but can would suggest well it can appear but doesn't maybe have to because it is totally permissive isn't it no it's not here and uh... but you agree in in normal [00:16:21] Speaker 03: discourse is permissive. [00:16:24] Speaker 00: Yes, but yes, in normal discourse it would be, but here it can be considered. [00:16:29] Speaker 00: And the reason why is because where the invention is trying to disclose the display of images on top of each other on a screen. [00:16:40] Speaker 00: And so physically the images are not actually, you know, in front of or on top of the other, but it appears that way on the screen. [00:16:51] Speaker 00: And so that's what can be considered means in the first sentence of the definition of primary oblique image. [00:16:59] Speaker 00: It appears in front of other images. [00:17:03] Speaker 02: It appears to look as if it's in front of it, because really, it's a two-dimensional screen. [00:17:09] Speaker 02: Nothing's in front of anything. [00:17:10] Speaker 02: But is there evidence in the record to support that reading? [00:17:14] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:17:14] Speaker 00: There is other disclosures that are consistent with that understanding. [00:17:20] Speaker 00: We discussed the rollback transition statement at column 11 of the specification. [00:17:27] Speaker 00: And so to look at that language more closely, it says, [00:17:33] Speaker 00: you perform a roll-back transition where the old primary image appears to be rolled to the side and then the new area is filled with the new primary oblique image and the new primary oblique image would appear in front of the others. [00:17:46] Speaker 02: Does it say that the new primary image will appear in front of or you're reading that in? [00:17:51] Speaker 00: Well, through the definition, the primary image appears in front of other images, and then we have the rollback phrasing, which is consistent. [00:18:01] Speaker 00: And again, we're talking about two-dimensional space on a screen, and so a rollback visual, you're just pulling it to the side and making it appear as if it is behind other images. [00:18:20] Speaker 00: So the specification talks about primary images that transition to secondary oblique images when they're no longer the primary oblique image. [00:18:30] Speaker 00: And so that's what's happening here. [00:18:31] Speaker 00: You have the old primary oblique image, which is transitioning to the secondary oblique image, which is why it is then being rolled back. [00:18:40] Speaker 00: And then the new primary oblique image is going to be on top of the others. [00:18:45] Speaker 00: We also have the statement directly before that statement in the specification at lines 36 to 37. [00:18:52] Speaker 00: It says, you draw the new primary oblique image over existing images. [00:19:00] Speaker 03: Ms. [00:19:00] Speaker 03: Wu, to pick up a little bit on your colloquy with Judge Start, I seem to get the sense that what you're saying is that can be considered in the primary oblique image definition [00:19:13] Speaker 03: You're basically saying can be considered means you should look at it as being on top of. [00:19:18] Speaker 03: Is that what you're saying? [00:19:19] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:19:20] Speaker 03: Is that what you're saying can be considered means in that context? [00:19:23] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:19:23] Speaker 03: As opposed to a permissive approach when we're talking about master image. [00:19:29] Speaker 02: Yes, that's exactly right. [00:19:33] Speaker 02: Did your expert talk about that that can be considered means it just sort of appears to be in front of, but since we're in a two-dimensional space, we all know it's not really in front of, or is that just what you would have us figure out for ourselves, I guess, based on the intrinsic evidence? [00:19:49] Speaker 00: So I don't recall any expert testimony, but there was discussion on this language in the oral hearing before the board. [00:19:59] Speaker 00: And so I'm happy to point the court to that question. [00:20:05] Speaker 02: If you have it at hand, but if not, I'll find it. [00:20:08] Speaker 03: Oh, I'm sorry. [00:20:10] Speaker 03: Were you finished with your question? [00:20:13] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:20:14] Speaker 03: Excuse me. [00:20:15] Speaker 03: Let me ask you, I was often told never ask a witness why. [00:20:20] Speaker 03: But you're not really a witness, so I'll ask you why. [00:20:23] Speaker 03: Why do they have in here this, if these definitions are so important, why put in here this disclaimer at the top of the definitional section that appears at column six? [00:20:37] Speaker 03: Everybody's arguing this is what it means, but yet [00:20:41] Speaker 03: sort of picking up maybe with what Judge Dyches said earlier, disregard it. [00:20:45] Speaker 03: Why is that in there and what's the purpose of it? [00:20:50] Speaker 00: You know, I think what the patent owner was trying to do was [00:20:57] Speaker 00: you know, preserve non-limiting instances where it is relevant. [00:21:03] Speaker 00: And I'd like to point the court to other definitions that expressly recite that those definitions are not limited in that specific way in the actual definition. [00:21:14] Speaker 00: So for example, if we look at the definition for the term transition, starting at line 38, [00:21:21] Speaker 00: the very last sentence of the definition for transition says, this can include and is not limited to fading images and directly replacing images. [00:21:31] Speaker 00: In the very next definition, transition event, it also says in the last line, the transition event can include but is not limited to the act of panning or a user action such as a mouse click. [00:21:44] Speaker 00: And so there are other definitions where the [00:21:49] Speaker 00: the definition may not be limiting, but that is not the case with the primary oblique image because that definition doesn't have that explicit non-limiting language. [00:22:00] Speaker 04: Haven't we said in other cases that some boilerplate statements aren't to be given effect? [00:22:06] Speaker 00: Yes, and the court has said exactly that. [00:22:09] Speaker 00: The cases that are cited in the briefing in this case are wireless agents, interdigital, and sandbox logistics. [00:22:18] Speaker 02: Is it your view then that maybe because it's boilerplate or for other reasons that we should entirely disregard the statement that says, hey, this isn't limiting? [00:22:32] Speaker 02: Or do we need to consider it as part of the intrinsic evidence? [00:22:37] Speaker 00: I would say the court shouldn't completely disregard it. [00:22:40] Speaker 00: But given the weight of the definition, [00:22:43] Speaker 00: the consistent disclosures and the specification with the figures, the expert testimony. [00:22:50] Speaker 00: All of that evidence shows that the definition here has a narrower definition or construction, which includes the in front of requirement. [00:23:01] Speaker 02: Does in front of those words in that order, does that appear anywhere other than in the terminology section? [00:23:07] Speaker 00: So the word in front of doesn't appear anywhere else, but again, we have other similar words, like roll back over. [00:23:16] Speaker 00: We have the testimony of the experts who both agree that the images in figures 3a and 3b show a primary oblique image over the other oblique image, and so all that evidence is consistent to support the definition, which includes the in front of requirement. [00:23:37] Speaker 03: I just noticed here that in the primary and bleak definition, in front of is in quotation marks. [00:23:52] Speaker 03: Now maybe I'm missing that, but I didn't see quotation marks anywhere else. [00:23:57] Speaker 03: Why are quotation marks there? [00:23:59] Speaker 03: Is there some significance to that? [00:24:01] Speaker 00: Again, I think it goes back to the fact that we're trying to portray images in two-dimensional space. [00:24:09] Speaker 00: And so again, it just appears in front of the others. [00:24:12] Speaker 00: I think an analogy is when you have multiple application windows open on your computer screen, you have the active application window that appears in front of the other images, even on the two-dimensional space of the screen. [00:24:30] Speaker 00: because the screen is not three-dimensional space, so you're not physically putting it on top of like you would in real life. [00:24:39] Speaker 03: So quotes mean, in other words, kind of in front of or kind of on top of, is what you're suggesting? [00:24:46] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:24:46] Speaker 00: It appears, or it's perceived, or along those lines. [00:24:53] Speaker 00: If the court has no further questions, I pick Tom to respectfully ask the court to defer our decision. [00:25:00] Speaker 04: OK. [00:25:02] Speaker 01: Yes, Your Honor. [00:25:04] Speaker 01: So if we could focus on your question about, is there any testimony from spectometry's expert, Dr. Bajaj, about the specific meaning in the context of the field, completely devotionist patent? [00:25:18] Speaker 01: The answer is no. [00:25:20] Speaker 01: We look at Appendix 2101. [00:25:22] Speaker 01: What he talks about is that primary oblique image includes [00:25:28] Speaker 01: image that can be considered in front of others. [00:25:31] Speaker 01: He doesn't even say limited. [00:25:32] Speaker 01: He says includes consistent with our view of the specification showing that this definition is broadening the ordinary meaning of primary. [00:25:41] Speaker 04: Okay, let's assume that the definition is not limiting. [00:25:44] Speaker 04: What is it in the specification or the claims that tell us that it means something else other than the rollback example that you gave us earlier? [00:25:55] Speaker 01: So besides the rollback and the two sentences, there's nothing in the specification. [00:26:01] Speaker 01: Again, we're trying to prove a negative. [00:26:02] Speaker 01: There's nothing in the specification, no indicia of saying the present invention is X. The present invention includes. [00:26:09] Speaker 04: It's particularly important that we consider... Well, is there any example in there that tells us that it's something that would be inconsistent with the definition? [00:26:18] Speaker 01: Well, the example I would have to do, I think our best example is the rollback example, Your Honor. [00:26:22] Speaker 01: But we contrast that with the other example even counsel showed you, which is right immediately above it. [00:26:28] Speaker 01: It talks about drawing an image over. [00:26:32] Speaker 01: So the first example is drawing an image over. [00:26:34] Speaker 01: The second image is rolling it back. [00:26:36] Speaker 01: Where is this in the staff? [00:26:37] Speaker 01: This is in column 11, Your Honor. [00:26:39] Speaker 01: We go down to approximately line 35, we're given. [00:26:42] Speaker 01: three examples of a transition. [00:26:45] Speaker 01: One is writing over. [00:26:47] Speaker 01: One is rolling back so that the new primary oblique image. [00:26:51] Speaker 02: Why isn't primary over harmful to your argument? [00:26:54] Speaker 01: I'm showing breath, Your Honor. [00:26:55] Speaker 01: I mean, I think there's breath. [00:26:57] Speaker 01: The description as a whole shows us many embodiments where the primary oblique image may be over, may be under. [00:27:04] Speaker 01: The third one is transitioning, fading in and out is neither. [00:27:08] Speaker 02: It's showing breath. [00:27:09] Speaker 02: Where is it showing under? [00:27:10] Speaker 02: Where is it showing a primary oblique image under? [00:27:12] Speaker 01: That would be our view of the rollback transition, because the new primary oblique image is revealed as you roll the other image to the side. [00:27:22] Speaker 01: So it can be considered under as you're rolling the other image to the side. [00:27:27] Speaker 02: So we're saying... That's the moment at which the former primary is no longer primary. [00:27:33] Speaker 01: However, the patent is telling us right here that the old primary is still called primary and the new primary is called primary. [00:27:41] Speaker 01: But even if you think there's only one embodiment, this court has said repeatedly that absent something like president invention is particularly important or disparaging other ways of doing it, having one embodiment is the only reason to limit. [00:27:54] Speaker 01: And none of those attributes appear in the specification. [00:27:57] Speaker 01: If you read it without paying mind to the description of the... There was reference to our cases about boilerplate. [00:28:05] Speaker 02: Do you have anything to say about that? [00:28:06] Speaker 01: I do, Your Honor. [00:28:07] Speaker 01: So here, what we have in our case is in great close proximity, there is not a generalized boilerplate statement. [00:28:16] Speaker 01: It's a particularized statement saying, [00:28:18] Speaker 01: Terminology is not for limiting purposes and it's immediately before the description. [00:28:24] Speaker 01: At the end there is other what you might call boilerplate statements in column 12. [00:28:29] Speaker 01: So I think when we have to weigh the general versus the particular, the particular here tells us that [00:28:35] Speaker 01: one sentence away, when we get to terminology, it should not be considered limited. [00:28:39] Speaker 02: And what do you do with the other definitions that themselves say we're not limiting, sort of an extra we're not limiting, which is missing in the primary oblique image? [00:28:49] Speaker 01: I would characterize that as some additional belt and suspenders, in addition to the well-stated and specific non-limiting terminology section above. [00:28:59] Speaker 01: OK. [00:29:01] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:29:02] Speaker 04: Thank you for the basis to that.