[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
whenever you're ready.

[00:00:05] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
This case turns on the all elements rule.

[00:00:11] Speaker 02:
Every claim of the 973 patent requires a natural time lag.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
However, the board failed to identify where in the prior art a natural time lag with a random transmission occurred.

[00:00:26] Speaker 02:
And because this limitation is missing from the prior art, obviousness fails

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
And the case should be reversed.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
Doesn't that depend on what kind of a natural time lag we're looking for?

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
Well, the board construed natural time lag, Your Honor, and the board was specific in its construction.

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
Right, right, I understand that.

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
But what you're doing, I'm looking at the claim, a 25 in the record, a natural time lag between various internal clocks.

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
Now, if I'm not mistaken, you're rewriting that claim language to say a natural time lag within and between

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
That's what the construction by the board requires and the construction is based on the specification.

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
So specifically, the board's construction says automatically and randomly inducing time shifting of transmission from the clocks.

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
And if you look at the specification at A24, column 2, the specification says

[00:01:32] Speaker 02:
By virtue of this natural time lag, that's at 17.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
It says it automatically time shifts.

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
I'm at 17 through 24 that talks about... You're in a column?

[00:01:50] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
Column 2, page 24.

[00:01:53] Speaker 02:
17?

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
And it goes through 24.

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
You're talking about the internal clocks in the wheel?

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:02:09] Speaker 00:
And at 20, it says... Well, there's no doubt that that embodiment in the specifications is talking about variations within the clocks.

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
But the claim language talks about natural time lag between the clocks, not within the clocks.

[00:02:25] Speaker 02:
And the natural time lag, as defined by the board, based on the specification, requires a randomness in transmission

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
And because of that randomness in transmission.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
There can be a randomness in transmission between the internal clocks for each wheel without necessarily having a variation within the clocks.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
Take a look, Your Honor, if you will.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
Right?

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
You can have a variation between the clocks without there necessarily being a variation within the clocks.

[00:02:58] Speaker 02:
I don't think it would be random, Your Honor, if the variation within the clocks was known.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
then the pattern between the clocks would also be known.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
Because of that, we know that the variation within the clocks has to also be random, but we also know that from the specification at column three, specifically lines 32 through 43, and more specifically, line 35.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
Well, you're right.

[00:03:31] Speaker 00:
What you think the claim interpretation by the board meant, how could they have missed the fact that the prior art doesn't teach randomness within?

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
Your Honor?

[00:03:44] Speaker 00:
I mean, how could, you didn't frame this argument.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
I mean, first of all, I think we'd be arguing why it is you haven't waived this, because that's the argument from your counsel, your adversary.

[00:03:58] Speaker 00:
Clearly the board didn't understand the argument you're presenting to us now.

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
If they couldn't have come to the conclusion, they did.

[00:04:06] Speaker 02:
On the art.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, there's no waiver because we presented the failure to identify a prima facie case from the beginning of these proceedings.

[00:04:17] Speaker 02:
And you can find that.

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
Where in your presentation to the board can you tell me that you were clearly arguing that

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
But this claim language, even though the claim language reads a natural time lag between, it should be read as a time lag within.

[00:04:35] Speaker 02:
We're not changing the claim language, Your Honor.

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
We're focusing on the construction of the natural time lag.

[00:04:41] Speaker 00:
Does the claim say anything about a natural time lag within a clock?

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
Yes or no?

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
The claim language, the words of the claim.

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
natural time lag between various internal clocks.

[00:05:00] Speaker 00:
That means there's an internal clock here and there's a time lag between the two of them.

[00:05:04] Speaker 00:
And that's correct.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
But the board's construction, which is right out of the spec, shows that the natural time lag that occurs between the clocks is the result of the random transmission from each clock.

[00:05:22] Speaker 02:
And that is how you get the natural time lag in the clocks that causes the randomness between the clocks.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
And that's where the prior arc is lacking.

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
Well, that's as a result of.

[00:05:35] Speaker 00:
But as I'm saying to you, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim would be that all you care about is the variation between the clocks.

[00:05:46] Speaker 02:
But the broadest reasonable.

[00:05:48] Speaker 00:
Right?

[00:05:49] Speaker 00:
If you were in litigation, and it

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
patent had survived and you got an adversary out there who doesn't have a variation within the clocks but has a variation between the clocks, you'd sue them dead on the claim language.

[00:06:04] Speaker 00:
So the board is saying that's the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and within the broadest reasonable there's no art out there that teaches, there's art out there that clearly teaches the variation between the clocks, which is why you've got the result you've got.

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
Your Honor.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
You can only prevail if I put the variation between, within the clocks into the claim and then ask if there's prior or that reads on that.

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, we disagree with you there, but also we can prevail even under that interpretation, which we don't believe is correct.

[00:06:41] Speaker 02:
But under that interpretation, there is no motivation to combine because for three reasons.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
First, there's no prima facicae.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
Second, and more towards your point, the tire pressure monitor references, specifically Derbyshire and Bailey, teach a way from using a bowers-like solution.

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
They teach specifically towards precision.

[00:07:13] Speaker 02:
Even when they disclose something that's less precise, they teach that

[00:07:18] Speaker 02:
there's a requirement to correct for the tolerance every single time.

[00:07:24] Speaker 02:
So for example, if you look at A50, column 14, line 44 through 47, it says the RC oscillator requires Manchester coding.

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
And the Manchester coding corrects for the inaccuracy caused by the RC oscillator.

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
In addition,

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
At A53, column 20, lines 24 to 26, it says, as long as the reduction in accuracy is compensated for, you can use a less accurate clock.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
So everything about Derbyshire and Bailey talks about precision, and it does not take advantage of the natural time lag

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
In fact, if you were to try to take advantage of the natural time lag, Derbyshire specifically says that it would correct for that because it doesn't want that to work.

[00:08:31] Speaker 02:
It doesn't think that will work.

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
And that's the teaching away, Your Honor, about as clear as it can get.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
Third, assuming you combine Bowers with Derbyshire, and I think this is similar to the teaching away,

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
that tolerance has to be accounted for somewhere in the system.

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
And the rejection doesn't tell you how to accommodate for that tolerance.

[00:08:57] Speaker 02:
There's a receiver that won't know what it's receiving.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
You can see that at A51, 45 through 50.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
It's not clear what you would get, but it wouldn't work, and it wouldn't be a tire pressure monitoring system with a natural time lag.

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, I also direct you to look at Bowers at A66, column 8, lines 22 through 26.

[00:09:46] Speaker 02:
Bowers discloses that the non-transmission interval is fixed for a particular device.

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
And that's different from the specification of the 973 patent.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
which discloses that the non-transmission interval is random for a particular device.

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
Can I explain it with an example?

[00:10:11] Speaker 02:
Would that help?

[00:10:12] Speaker ?:
Sure.

[00:10:14] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
For example, if you consider a dart board, and under bowers, one player throws a dart, and he wants to hit the bullseye,

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
Instead, he hits a 10.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
The fact that he hit that 10 may be a random manufacturing tolerance as disclosed in Bowers.

[00:10:37] Speaker 02:
But he's going to throw it again, and he's going to hit a 10.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
He's going to throw it again, and he's going to hit a 10.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
Every time, he'll hit a 10.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
And the next player comes along.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
She throws.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
She misses the bullseye.

[00:10:48] Speaker 02:
She hits a 5.

[00:10:50] Speaker 02:
Every time under Bowers, she hits a 5.

[00:10:54] Speaker 02:
By contrast, in the 973 disclosure,

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
One player throws, he misses the bullseye, he hits a ten.

[00:11:02] Speaker 02:
The next time he hits a seven and a five and a three, he never hits the same or rarely hits the same number again.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
It's random.

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
Player number two gets up, she hits a five.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
But every time she throws, she hits another number as well.

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
It's random.

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
That's the difference disclosed in Bowers, I mean disclosed in the 973 patent, that none of the prior art discloses.

[00:11:26] Speaker 02:
That's the randomness.

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
Why don't you save your rebuttal, let's hear from the government.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
May I please support?

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
This is actually a textbook case where waivers should apply.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
Their argument now is that there's basically two time lags.

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
There's a time lag between devices and there's also a time lag within a single device.

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
And before the board, they never argued that there was a time lag within a single device.

[00:11:59] Speaker 01:
But the board's language was kind of confusing or a bit inaccurate or inarticulate, correct?

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor, I don't think so.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
The board said introducing the context for its claim construction, it says, quote, as in connection with internal clocks of a wheeled unit.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
Can I ask where you're quoting from, Your Honor?

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
I think it's today's press.

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
So your honor, if we go to A5, and this is where the board quoted from their initial decision to institute trial, they say, and this is where they use the word random.

[00:12:57] Speaker 03:
And I'm in the block quote.

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
They say the 973 patent sets forth that natural time lag of the transmission of data from the individual clock components of each wheel arises due to substantial tolerance.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
And then later they say by randomly time shifting each frame transmission from a wheel unit relative to other wheel units.

[00:13:18] Speaker 03:
So when they introduced this word random, they were speaking of the time shifting being random as between different wheel units.

[00:13:27] Speaker 03:
So, by way of example, if I had a bucket and I filled it with 100 clocks and I picked out any one single clock, I don't know beforehand if that clock is going to run a millisecond fast or if it's going to run a millisecond slow.

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
That's the randomness.

[00:13:44] Speaker 03:
And that's the randomness that comports with the claim language.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
And if we go to the claim...

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
Ms., Ms., Ms., as Addie's argument was, in essence, as I understood to me, was that you can't have randomness as within the definition

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
supplied by the board, unless you have variations within the clocks.

[00:14:02] Speaker 00:
Because I said to her, well, come on, can't you have randomness between wheels, even if your internal clocks aren't all consistent, that are not at variance?

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
And she said no, but she didn't say why.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
Well, the board says right here, when they use the word random, they're talking about random as between clocks.

[00:14:23] Speaker 03:
And that's exactly the way that Bowers uses it.

[00:14:25] Speaker 03:
And if we go to Bowers,

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
at A56 in the abstract, Bauer says that the non-transmission intervals are fixed for a given tag that are random between tags due to manufacturing tolerances.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
So it's the exact same type of... What I was trying to get at is, I didn't come back and nail down the point.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
She can get up on rebuttal if she disagrees.

[00:14:48] Speaker 00:
It seems to me the case turns on whether or not, under the definition by the PTO,

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
Can you achieve randomness simply by having variations between the clocks, between the wheels as opposed to the hands?

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
And if the answer is yes, then Hershey's going to lose.

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
From my perspective, she can get up on her bottle and say why.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
Yes, so the way the board used the word random, they were talking about randomness as between clocks.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
Again, if I pick any one clock out of a bucket, I don't know.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
But come back now, doesn't the specification teach

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
that at least one way, in fact, the only embodiment, the way to achieve randomness between the clocks is to establish randomness within the clocks.

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, this brings me back to my waiver point.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
No, but I mean, just if we're looking at, let's assume that this was an infringement case and I was construing the claim.

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
And I'd have the language here on the claim that says, oh, the randomness is between the clocks.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
Right?

[00:15:50] Speaker 00:
And then I look at the specification and say, what's the specification teach?

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
And it teaches that the randomness between the clocks is achieved by having randomness within the clocks.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
Right?

[00:16:03] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I can't answer the question.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
Well, you can read the patent probably better than I can.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
Right?

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
But doesn't the patent or all the examples in the patent teach that the randomness, that there is randomness within the clocks?

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor,

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
Again, for instance, if you look at figure two or you look at column three at line, this is at age 25, I believe, starting at line 33, it says, this has the consequence of randomly time shifting the transmissions of the first frames of the message, but also of the following two frames.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
So if I had a clock on my desk and I knew that clock was five minutes fast,

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
And I had a conference call at 1 o'clock, I had a conference call at 2 o'clock, and a conference call at 3 o'clock.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
I know that I'm going to be five minutes early for my first conference call.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
I know I'm going to be five minutes early for my second conference call.

[00:17:01] Speaker 03:
And I know I'm going to be five minutes early for my third conference call.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
My point is that I think... We're not connected.

[00:17:09] Speaker 00:
What I'm getting at is that the language of the claim itself talks about a natural time lag between the clocks.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
not within the clocks.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
But when you look at the specification to say, well, how do you get, how do you manage to achieve a time lag between the clocks?

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
The specification is teaching you do it by having each of the internal clocks themselves having variation.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I don't think you have to read the patent that way.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
I'm just trying to have an adult conversation about what the spec teaches about how do you achieve the clean result.

[00:17:56] Speaker 03:
Okay, for instance, if you turn on the engine and one clock, let's say that all the clocks are set to transmit at 60 seconds, just by manufacturing variance or tolerance, one of the clocks is always going to run one second fast.

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
One of the clocks is always going to run one second slow.

[00:18:15] Speaker 03:
So even if they're all set to transmit at 60 seconds, one is going to transmit at 59 milliseconds.

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
Well, I understand how you can achieve the variation, the time lag between the various clocks and not having substantial variation within the clocks.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
But when I read the specification, it seemed to me to say, well, the way to get the result that's clean is to tinker with each individual clock to make certain

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
that it has this variation you're talking about, manufacturing tolerance.

[00:18:51] Speaker 03:
And Your Honor, my point is that that is a factual question the board should have answered in the first place.

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
That the patent owner should have asked the board to answer in the first place.

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
Because after the board instituted trial, the patent owner had two critical pieces of information.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
The patent owner knew the board's claim construction and the patent owner knew

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
that the board was using Bowers to teach this natural time lag.

[00:19:16] Speaker 03:
And if we go to A220, and this is in the decision to institute, under the section C, Obviousness, under the section number one, Derbyshire, Bailey, and Bowers, a few lines down, the board says, it is readily apparent that a tolerance of plus or minus 20% for a clock circuit

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
squarely encompasses a suitable, quote, natural time lag, quote, quote, quote, as between a plurality of such clock components when transmitting data.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
Indeed, we do not discern that there is any dispute in this regard.

[00:19:55] Speaker 03:
After the board instituted trial, the patent owner had one shot to come forward with all of their best arguments and all of their best evidence.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
At this point, the patent owner should have said, no, no, no.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
You don't understand Bowers.

[00:20:09] Speaker 03:
You don't understand our invention.

[00:20:11] Speaker 03:
Let me tell you what the specification says.

[00:20:14] Speaker 03:
Let me tell you what figure two says.

[00:20:15] Speaker 03:
Let me tell you what figure three says.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
Let me show you how Bowers is different.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
And they never did that.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
And we can see that in their patent owner response.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
For instance, if you look at section B, which starts at A254 and goes through A256,

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
They never talked about this natural time lag being not only between devices, but within one clock, and also in the summary of the argument.

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
And this is at A257 and 258.

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
Again, they never raised this argument.

[00:20:49] Speaker 03:
So the board should have been able to make all these factual determinations, and they never were given that opportunity.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
Now, we'd have a different case, wouldn't we, if the claim actually read a natural time lag within and between.

[00:21:09] Speaker 03:
We might have a different case.

[00:21:11] Speaker 03:
I agree with you, the claim is clear that it's between devices.

[00:21:15] Speaker 03:
Bowers clearly teaches that.

[00:21:17] Speaker 03:
But, Bowers also teaches a time lag within one clock.

[00:21:22] Speaker 03:
And if I may explain.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
If we go to Bowers,

[00:21:31] Speaker 03:
at A66, column 8, starting at line 43.

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
Bauer says, in addition, even should two or more devices initially transmit their memory data at the same time or at overlapping times

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
because the length of the non-transmission interval is much greater than the length of the transmission interval.

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
The non-transmission interval among the devices should vary enough such that the next or subsequent transmission interval for each device will likely occur at a different instance.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
That's within a clock.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
That's within a clock.

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
And this is clearly shown in the drawings of ours.

[00:22:21] Speaker 03:
And if we go to A60,

[00:22:26] Speaker 03:
What this drawing is showing us is there are four... Which line was it?

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
Figure 4B.

[00:22:32] Speaker 03:
4B.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
So in this drawing... It looks like Greek to me.

[00:22:39] Speaker 00:
How does it teach?

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:22:41] Speaker 03:
So there are four tags, tag one, tag two, tag three, tag four.

[00:22:46] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:22:46] Speaker 03:
The next line says read.

[00:22:48] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:22:48] Speaker 03:
That's telling us that the computer is reading the tag.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
And the final line says time, and that's just points in time.

[00:22:55] Speaker 03:
So T1 is the first point in time, T2, T3, et cetera.

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
OK, so in the first T1, you see that Tag1 and Tag2 transmit at the same time.

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
And so if you look at the read line, you'll see that there's an X. That means that because the two transmissions are simultaneous, the computer cannot read it.

[00:23:19] Speaker 03:
There was data collision at that point, T1.

[00:23:21] Speaker 03:
T1.

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
Now, because there's variation within a single clock, when you go to T4, which is the next transmission of Tag 1 and Tag 2, you'll see that Tag 2 is slowly starting to desynchronize with Tag 1.

[00:23:38] Speaker 03:
You'll see that it's a little bit to the right of Tag 1.

[00:23:42] Speaker 03:
At time 4.

[00:23:50] Speaker 03:
So you see that there's some variation and now tag four is actually transmitting a little slower than tag one.

[00:24:00] Speaker 03:
If we go all the way down to the third set of lines, all the way over to the right at T13 and T14, now there's so much variation between tag one and tag two that they're transmitting at completely different times.

[00:24:20] Speaker 03:
So if we look at the read line, which is one, two, three, the fifth line down, you'll see that the computer was able to read tag one.

[00:24:28] Speaker 03:
It was able to read tag two because they're completely desynchronized at this point.

[00:24:34] Speaker 03:
So if we use the dartboard analogy, it's not true that every time in Bowers when you throw that dart that you're always going to get 10 or you're always going to get five.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
The first time you might get 10, the second time you might get 10.

[00:24:50] Speaker 03:
but the third time you might get nine, the fourth time you might get eight, and so forth.

[00:24:57] Speaker 03:
So if there's a variation within the clock in the 973 patents, there's also a variation within the clock in the Bowers patent.

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
Bowers is dead on to this patent, and it teaches toward the invention, and we can see that

[00:25:18] Speaker 03:
Column 10, this is at A67.

[00:25:23] Speaker 03:
Starting at line 16, Bowers says, it will also be apparent to those of skill in the arts that the device can be used in many other commercial applications.

[00:25:33] Speaker 03:
Further down, he says, it will be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the arts that the inventive concepts disclosed are applicable to other devices which would benefit from the output protocol disclosed herein.

[00:25:46] Speaker 03:
Bowers is all about

[00:25:48] Speaker 03:
preventing data collision.

[00:25:49] Speaker 03:
It was known in the art that these tire pressure monitoring systems had a problem with data collision.

[00:25:57] Speaker 03:
And Bowers is teaching, hey, if you want to avoid data collision, use the protocol that I described here.

[00:26:03] Speaker 03:
And that's the motivation to combine, and that's the teaching directly toward the invention.

[00:26:08] Speaker 03:
If there are no further questions, thank you.

[00:26:18] Speaker 02:
I want to look at the record at A220 that council directed you to.

[00:26:27] Speaker 02:
If you look at that sentence that talks about where the board is talking on its decision to institute a tolerance of plus or minus 20%, that might encompass a natural time lag, but there are many different kinds of tolerances and there's no evidence to assume that

[00:26:47] Speaker 02:
Fixed manufacturing tolerances are the same as the 973's natural time lag.

[00:26:53] Speaker 02:
And the specifications actually disclose the opposite.

[00:26:57] Speaker 02:
Bowers manufacturing tolerance is fixed.

[00:27:00] Speaker 02:
As we talked about it, A66, column 8, lines 22 to 26.

[00:27:07] Speaker 02:
And we went through the record.

[00:27:12] Speaker 00:
Do you disagree with Ms.

[00:27:15] Speaker 00:
Stewart on her reading of Bauer's to show variation within a clock?

[00:27:21] Speaker 00:
I do, Your Honor.

[00:27:22] Speaker 00:
I think she's confusing.

[00:27:24] Speaker 00:
Do you want to run us through the example?

[00:27:30] Speaker 02:
I do, Your Honor.

[00:27:30] Speaker 02:
I think she's confusing variation with random.

[00:27:36] Speaker 02:
The variation is a manufacturing tolerance, as Bauer said.

[00:27:40] Speaker 02:
If you look at column 8, specifically, look at column 8, line 21.

[00:27:56] Speaker 00:
What page of the appendix?

[00:27:58] Speaker 02:
A66.

[00:27:58] Speaker 02:
A66.

[00:28:01] Speaker 02:
A predetermined tolerance level, such as plus or minus 20 percent tolerance, that although the non-transmission interval is a fixed link

[00:28:10] Speaker 02:
for a particular device, the length of the non-transmission interval varies, it's not random, it varies, among a plurality of devices due solely because of the manufacturing tolerance, which is fixed.

[00:28:26] Speaker 02:
And we know it's fixed because the non-transmission interval that includes the manufacturing tolerance is fixed.

[00:28:33] Speaker 02:
A variation that is fixed is not a random transmission.

[00:28:40] Speaker 02:
In addition, the solicitor's direction to the 973 patent at column 3, which is on A25, confirms this point.

[00:28:56] Speaker 02:
Column 3, line 33, column 3, line 33, it says,

[00:29:08] Speaker 02:
This has the consequence of randomly time shifting the transmission from the first frame of a message, but also from the following two frames.

[00:29:17] Speaker 02:
This is a message within the wheel unit, not in different wheel units.

[00:29:22] Speaker 02:
So the specification is clear.

[00:29:26] Speaker 02:
But finally, I want to also make sure that it's clear that even if you combine these, you don't get the claimed invention.

[00:29:36] Speaker 02:
Because Derbyshire teaches precision.

[00:29:39] Speaker 02:
And every time you have to put in a less precise clock, Derbyshire teaches that you have to accommodate for that lack of precision.

[00:29:50] Speaker 02:
In fact, if you put in a less precise clock, as the board suggested, it wouldn't work.

[00:29:55] Speaker 02:
Because the receiver in Derbyshire wouldn't know what it was getting.

[00:29:59] Speaker 02:
It's looking for a precise transmission.

[00:30:02] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:30:04] Speaker 02:
I see my time has expired.

[00:30:06] Speaker 02:
Thank you.