[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
dish twelve twenty-two in ray electronics limited

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
how far the KSR simple substitution national can be carried in the obviousness inquiry when the prior references themselves do not actually have an access to teaching or suggestion for the motivation to combine two references in a specific to replace some of the elements in the primary reference with some of the elements on the secondary reference.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
Is the heart of your contention that Kato doesn't show using blue light?

[00:00:55] Speaker 02:
And your argument is that it would be difficult to bring in UV light and combine it with Keta, right?

[00:01:23] Speaker 02:
No, we're not arguing that.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
From a technical standpoint, it would not be visible.

[00:01:29] Speaker 02:
Because the wire reference actually exactly says one could use either a blue light or a UV light as the excitation light.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
The real issue here is then what happens to the rest of the cable structure.

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
So the device is the one that generates a RGP3 farmer college mic in sequence and is projected.

[00:01:58] Speaker 02:
So at the upstream end, there is the excitation light, which could be going to require either UV or blue light.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
And CAHO itself uses a UV light.

[00:02:13] Speaker 02:
And then somewhere downstream is this plate that has different segments.

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
that carried what we call a wavelength conversion material that would absorb the excitation light and convert it to a red, blue, or green light or other colored light.

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
And between these two components, there is the so-called dichroic element, or dichroic mirror, that would allow the upstream excitation light to pass down to the plate where the wavelength conversion materials are.

[00:02:47] Speaker 02:
But it would reflect the converted light, which are longer wavelengths, they're different colors, to prevent them from traveling backwards.

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
And that's what the Cato overall structure is.

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
So Cato uses a UV light because it's more energetic.

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
It's shorter weightless than both RGB lights.

[00:03:09] Speaker 00:
So the downstream... The only thing that's missing is blue line, right?

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
What is missing is the blue excitation light.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
But then, in the Kato device, if you change the UV excitation light to a blue light, then most of the components downstream from the excitation light source would have to be changed as well.

[00:03:34] Speaker 02:
Because these wavelength conversion materials, they're chemicals.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
They have a specific absorption spectrum, meaning they would only absorb certain wavelength ranges.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
And then they would have the emission spectrum, which would be RGD colors.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
So if you change the excitation light from the UV light to something else, to blue light, then you would have to use different phosphors, or at least different chemicals, different compounds.

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
And the element in between, the dichroic mirror, also has specific bandwidth that they would pass.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
And specific bandwidth that they would reflect.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
So if you change the UV light to blue light, then the dichroic mirror will have to instead

[00:04:30] Speaker 02:
UV light, now they have to pass blue light.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
Are the claims of the 114 infringed by the use of a device with UV light?

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
No, it wouldn't, because it would specifically require the excitation light source to be a blue light.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
Since the claims are open-ended, if you use both a UV light and a blue light, it would still be infringed.

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
But you would have to use at least one blue light as the excitation light source.

[00:04:59] Speaker 02:
That you have to at least use some blue line.

[00:05:19] Speaker 02:
So really, the heart of our contention is both the time examiner and EPAP, when he formulated this simple substitution, the KSR rationale, what he said is the only change he had to make was to change

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
the UV light into blue light.

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
And one of the multiple segments would have to be made into a clear for a segment that doesn't carry a wavelength conversion material.

[00:05:52] Speaker 02:
Because when it's a blue light, then you really don't need to convert it.

[00:05:55] Speaker 02:
Because the downstream blue component can be satisfied with the light source itself.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
So these two components that would have to be substituted are actually two different parts of the entire system.

[00:06:08] Speaker 02:
And they already said that that's one, only one missing feature.

[00:06:12] Speaker 02:
And this argument is carried in the solicitors' belief as well.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
They have to write status.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
The only difference between Kendo and Kendo 1 being this one difference.

[00:06:28] Speaker 02:
There are actually two components that have to be substituted.

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
But we're arguing that in order to substitute two components, you have to substitute

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
most of the sediments in the dichroic mirror, because now they have to pass a different light.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
And also that the other wavelength conversion materials, not just the one that is changed from a blue phosphor to a clear sediment, the red and green phosphors will also have to be changed, because now they must absorb a blue light.

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
It says UV light.

[00:07:01] Speaker 02:
They must be changed to some chemical.

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
So one problem with the DDAAS position is that they fail to recognize what the actual substitutions have to be, what multiple substitutions have to be.

[00:07:18] Speaker 02:
And so when they formulate this simple substitution rationale under KSI, there's only one change that needs to be made.

[00:07:28] Speaker 02:
So really, when you correctly look at, from the technical standpoint, what needs to be done to change the primary reference into our claim, we'll call it a wholesale substitution.

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
Almost nothing of relevance in terms of claims components would be left.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
Everything would have to be changed to something else.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
Not to accommodate blue light, right?

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry?

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
To accommodate blue light instead of UV light.

[00:07:59] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
So legally, when they humiliated their objection and the PTAF, when they upholstered the examiner's objection, the legal argument was the only missing element was the blue light plus the clear segment.

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
But in reality, it wasn't.

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
Actually, the patent examiner, from a technical standpoint, the patent examiner actually recognized that these other multiple substitutions would have to be made.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
But that's after he said he applied this for the use of the KSR rationale, that the typical substitution of

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
of one element for another was committed to a result.

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
And then he said, OK, well then I recognize that these other substitutions would have to be made from technical standpoints, correct?

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
But they're all obvious.

[00:09:05] Speaker 02:
So really, the legal issue is when you

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
When you apply and you use, when the priority itself actually does not supply an actual suggestion or motivation, when you support an obviousness conclusion based on this articulated by the pattern examiner or the PPAP national of simple substitution, how far can you go?

[00:09:34] Speaker 02:
At what point does it stop being a simple substitution of one element or another?

[00:09:44] Speaker 00:
the rest of your time for rebuttal.

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:
Mr. Hickman.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
Epitronix's device is the same device as Kato's device, except that Epitronix's device can use a blue light source instead of a UV light source.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
McGuire teaches that a blue light source can be used in place of a UV light source.

[00:10:21] Speaker 01:
To show why the board's obvious misanalysis was correct, I'd like to briefly cover three points today.

[00:10:27] Speaker 01:
First, I'd like to recap the Epitronix device so we all understand the parts of that device and what those parts are doing in the device.

[00:10:34] Speaker 01:
Second, I will review Tito and McGuire and show how they disclosed the exact same parts doing the exact same thing as the parts in the claimed electronic device.

[00:10:45] Speaker 01:
And finally, I will explain why, in light of what Tito and McGuire teach, the board's obviousness analysis was correct.

[00:10:54] Speaker 01:
Figure 1 of the Epistronic Staton, which is the page A118 of the appendix, provides a pretty good summary of the claim device.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
Figure 1, page A118, basically what we have is a light source, number 100.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
That light source can either emit UV light or blue light, and it emits the light toward a rotary wheel, which is number 104 in the figure.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
that rotary wheel rotates and the rotary wheel has different regions on it.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
If we turn to page A119 of the appendix, figure 3B, we see that there are different regions in this particular rotary wheel.

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
The idea is that the real approach is converting the incoming UV or blue light into red, green, blue, or white light.

[00:11:53] Speaker 01:
To produce a visual image for a screen, we need at least red, green, and blue light.

[00:12:00] Speaker 01:
The first two components are the light source and the rotary rail.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
The third component that's been issued here is the dichroic filter.

[00:12:07] Speaker 01:
The dichro filter is somewhere between the rotary wheel and the light source.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
And what the dichro filter does is that it ensures that only UV light, or blue light, enters the wheel.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
And then when the converted light exits the wheel, the dichro filter ensures that the converted light doesn't bounce back towards the light source.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
Now let's take a look at what Kato and Midwire does for us.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
Cato's device is the same device that closed an apatronic's patent, except that it uses only UV light instead of blue light.

[00:12:45] Speaker 01:
And if you look at page 8207 of the appendix, page 8207 has figures from Cato's device.

[00:12:54] Speaker 01:
And we can see that the device, the figures show that the two device, that apatronic's device and Cato's device were quite similar.

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
It's figure one you're looking at.

[00:13:06] Speaker 01:
Figure one, the numbers are a little hard to read, but in the upper left hand corner is figure one.

[00:13:12] Speaker 01:
And at the very bottom of that figure there's kind of a box with a round hop on it.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
That's the light source.

[00:13:18] Speaker 01:
That's element number 101.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
And then the rotary reel is just above the light source.

[00:13:26] Speaker 01:
It's element 102, although it's hard to read from the page.

[00:13:33] Speaker 01:
It's the same thing that's happening in the avatronic device.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
The light is emitting.

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
UV light is hitting the rotary wheel.

[00:13:43] Speaker 01:
And if we look at figure three, which is in the other right-hand corner on page 837, we can see two different perspectives of the rotary wheel.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
The top perspective

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
shows the side of the wheel that faces the light source, and that's where the dichroic film is.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
So, as in the electronic device in Cato, the dichroic film is ensuring that only UV light reaches the wheel and ensures that when that light exits the wheel, it doesn't bounce back towards the light source.

[00:14:18] Speaker 01:
The bottom perspective of the wheel under page 8207 is the exiting side of the rotary wheel, and that's where they're able to convert the material cars, probably phosphors.

[00:14:31] Speaker 01:
They actually convert the incoming UV light into the radiating blue light.

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
So, the only thing that electronics and devices can do that Tuxedo's device can't do is that electronics and devices can use blue light in addition to UV light.

[00:14:52] Speaker 01:
And Maguire tells us that blue light can be used instead of the UV light.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
That fact has been understood in this case.

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
McGuire also tells us that the rotary wheels have what is called a non-fluorescent region on the wheels, what it has blue light.

[00:15:08] Speaker 01:
McGuire's specification explicitly says this, page A223, column 4, line 25 and 33.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
The idea of what you think is a non-fluorescent region or a transparent region of the wheel is that if we have blue light coming in from the light source, we don't want to convert the blue light into something else.

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
We want to let that blue light pass through the wheel.

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
So in light of what Cato and Maguire teach, the board's legal conclusion of obviousness was correct.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
Cato's and the glider's teachings show us that a person's ordinary skill in the Arctic has the knowledge to construct the precise invention that Aptronix claims.

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
McGuire shows this in a simple substitution of common elements to use the blue light instead of the UV light source.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
And that when one uses UV to use the transparent region on the wheel paired with the, I'm sorry, when one uses the blue light source to use the transparent region on the wheel to simply let blue light pass through.

[00:16:15] Speaker 01:
So if some person with an ordinary skill in the art would have had the background knowledge and creativity to make these simple substitutions, Cameron McGuire provides solid evidence of that.

[00:16:26] Speaker 01:
And for that reason, we would ask the court to confirm the board's decision.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Heckman.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
Chen.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
Yes, the question really is, it's not very easy to put these different components together.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
Technically, there's not much of a challenge of putting these things together.

[00:16:53] Speaker 02:
The real question is, why?

[00:16:54] Speaker 02:
Why is it that the starting point of a person going to school in the arts is the caterability life?

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
And it uses a UV light.

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
And there's really no perceived problem with using a UV light.

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
The Kato system itself is perfectly self-contained.

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
It's fine.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
It has all of the elements that are necessary to generate the sequence of light.

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
So the simple fact that one can, one could, paint seven out of eight components of Kato and change it to something else

[00:17:29] Speaker 02:
the lack of technical difficulty in doing that is really not the issue.

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
Why would someone do that?

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
Well, what you seem to be suggesting is that the invention of using blue light is not an invention at all because it has no benefit.

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
At the end, both systems, both using blue or UV light, would output the same sequence of... Is there a benefit to using blue light?

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
Is there a benefit to using blue light instead of UV light?

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
So why isn't that a reason to substitute blue for UV?

[00:18:30] Speaker 02:
But that is McGuire reference does not discuss which one is more beneficial or in terms of practical consideration.

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
And also, you know, with different technologies... But we've held the motivation to combine doesn't have to be in the prior art reference, right?

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:18:50] Speaker 02:
So the Ninth and Fourth World Examiners articulated any of these practical reasons.

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
What they said was these white teachers either or.

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
One could say either or.

[00:19:08] Speaker 02:
Now that kind of rationale or line of thinking works when it truly is a simple substitution.

[00:19:15] Speaker 02:
You would just take two components of a photo and they both do the same thing.

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
And maybe one designer just happened to pick one versus the other.

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
But in this case, every component needs to work together.

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
So without some overall consideration as to the relative damages or disadvantage of the light source or the other components, including the wavelength conversion devices, because they are chemicals, they do have properties that

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
are not entirely predictable.

[00:19:51] Speaker 02:
And a lot of times, with the advance of technology, different chemicals may become available that work better or worse with UV or blue light.

[00:20:01] Speaker 02:
So all of these are considerations that are not explained.

[00:20:08] Speaker 02:
So just to take a simple conceptual point that the Maguire prior said it could be UV or blue, and just say then,

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
In the Cato case, you want to change the beauty of the blue light, and along with that, all of the almost all of the components downstream without actually explaining what happened to me by the effect of, you know, why someone of Guinness or an art would do that.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
I think that basically that the decision was efficient lacks substantial support and substantial evidence for that either.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
Okay, thank you, Ms.

[00:20:50] Speaker 00:
Chen.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
Thank both counsels.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
The case is submitted.