[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
Next case is Sociedad Espanola versus Blue Ridge X-Ray Company 151102.

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
Mr. Laramaco.

[00:00:48] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:00:56] Speaker 04:
Just to make things clear, I will be referring to the plaintiff's esthetical that had belonged

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
Spanish name at times.

[00:01:04] Speaker 00:
May I please escort?

[00:01:11] Speaker 04:
We're here to address three errors by the district court.

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
Two of which are claim construction issues, and the third is a procedural issue allowing late contentions in the case that are completely polar to contentions carried up forth for years in the litigation.

[00:01:28] Speaker 04:
The two claim construction issues are first,

[00:01:31] Speaker 04:
the term two insulated chambers, and the second is magnetic cores.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
Now when we look at the orders that are on appeal, that is the Markman order and the final summary judgment order where the court found inoperability and non-infringement, and looking for where was the tipping point?

[00:01:54] Speaker 04:
Where did the court get this wrong?

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
And that's found in the Markman order.

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
Although the final ruling of the Markman order for two insulated chambers doesn't come forth and say those must be sealed, that's what the court ultimately found in its summary judgment order.

[00:02:17] Speaker 04:
Where did the court go wrong?

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
And that is by finding a disavowal in the file history when there wasn't one.

[00:02:24] Speaker 04:
The court actually misquoted the file history instead of saying,

[00:02:31] Speaker 04:
insulated chambers, which is what was said in the file history in distinguishing the serial reference.

[00:02:37] Speaker 04:
The court highlighted bolded and italicized isolated chambers.

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
That wasn't said, that was never said.

[00:02:45] Speaker 04:
That's the linchpin of the error.

[00:02:47] Speaker 04:
That's the tipping point of the error for a very significant reason.

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
When we went to the Markman hearing, Settico was presenting a position to the court that

[00:02:58] Speaker 04:
Insulated chambers means two chambers that are insulated from each other.

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
Do you want the words electrically in there?

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:03:04] Speaker 04:
Exactly, Your Honor.

[00:03:06] Speaker 04:
And the court, during the Markman order even, said that has common sense appeal.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
The district court thought that that made sense, just as one would when reading the specification.

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
This patent is all about having voltage elements that have the immense voltage potential difference of up to 160 kilowatts.

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
The idea is to prevent stray capacity.

[00:03:33] Speaker 04:
It's electrical insulation.

[00:03:35] Speaker 04:
But right on the heels of the court saying that that has common sense appeal, that makes sense.

[00:03:40] Speaker 04:
The court then got into disavowal, misquoted from the file history, and then concluded that therefore we have two different chambers that are then sealed.

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
Now, I'm not sure if the court actually

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
felt that way at the time of Markman.

[00:03:56] Speaker 04:
I think the court got it wrong in not adopting electrically insulated.

[00:04:02] Speaker 04:
But what happened, and in fact, at the Markman ruling, the court said it's inconclusive whether that means totally sealed, whether it must require totally sealed.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
But years later, when defendants were allowed to bring forth an inoperability defense and change the theory of the case and it

[00:04:23] Speaker 04:
That's when the court was left to come back to its markman ruling and actually construe its own ruling.

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
And when the court, that's what we believe happened because when the court then looked at the disavowal, ends up adopting defendant's argument that insulated must mean isolated physically, sealed.

[00:04:48] Speaker 04:
Now, defendants have been careful to not say sealed.

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
I told the court all the way back at the time of Markman that it sounded like his argument was getting towards saying these must be sealed.

[00:04:58] Speaker 04:
The court has been careful to not say sealed when getting rid of this case, but it's clear the court never could have found as it did.

[00:05:08] Speaker 04:
I can cite two portions of the summary judgment order if that would help, but the court would never find of it as it did.

[00:05:14] Speaker 04:
That is, inoperability and non-infringement if they were not sealed.

[00:05:21] Speaker 04:
How do we know this?

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
Because what the core determined is that the cores must be something that all of the elements are isolated from each other and finding that therefore, according to the engineers, this won't work.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
Well, of course it won't work.

[00:05:44] Speaker 04:
You can't have a device that is called a transformer

[00:05:48] Speaker 04:
that doesn't have a magnetic core circling, it just isn't possible.

[00:05:54] Speaker 04:
Now when I say magnetic core there, I did exactly one of the problems that's been in this case.

[00:05:59] Speaker 04:
Magnetic core has always been used in two different contexts by persons skilled in the art.

[00:06:05] Speaker 04:
It's often the short version of saying the full core ring.

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
Back at a time before cores was a term in dispute in this case, back at the time of Markman,

[00:06:19] Speaker 04:
That's how everybody used the term.

[00:06:21] Speaker 04:
In fact, defendants had the very same understanding of cores in the claim as plaintiff, very same.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
You look at figure one, the claims have the benefit of saying seven and seven prime.

[00:06:35] Speaker 04:
They have the benefit of numbers in the claim from the European practice.

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
Seven and seven prime are shown as being two segments, two separate segments of a full core ring.

[00:06:47] Speaker 04:
We know from figure one that the chambers cannot be completely sealed as the court finally adopted.

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
We know that the core ring passes between the two chambers.

[00:07:01] Speaker 04:
Figure one is said in the patent as being, you take the cover off, you're looking down inside the housing.

[00:07:08] Speaker 04:
The specifications clear that all of the transformer elements are found inside the housing.

[00:07:14] Speaker 04:
There's no other way to look at it.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
But the court, taking defendants' argument that you can disavow a figure, the court then went on to find, effectively, that the chambers are sealed, that there's nothing that can pass between them.

[00:07:31] Speaker 04:
Therefore, this can't work, and it's absurd.

[00:07:35] Speaker 04:
That is not.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
Is that the sole referring to figure one, where we see the bar, what looks like a bar, going across item six?

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
Is that the sole area, place where the two chambers are joined, where the two cores are joined?

[00:07:54] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:07:55] Speaker 04:
Actually, the reason that sealed or completely physically isolated should not be read into the claim is looking at the specification of the claims in context overall.

[00:08:08] Speaker 04:
Claim one, specifically referencing seven and seven prime, and that's shown in figure one, is an example

[00:08:15] Speaker 04:
a fairly blatant example of what the court ignored.

[00:08:19] Speaker 04:
But the court ignored that the claim should be read in context of the specification.

[00:08:23] Speaker 04:
That's electrical isolation, electrical insulation.

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
And the gaps and voids that the court finally found that existed in the accused product and thereby found that there's no infringement is actually just a small gap around the outer edges.

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
What's happened is the court has

[00:08:42] Speaker 04:
has adopted something that's contrary to the specification teaching.

[00:08:46] Speaker 00:
Do you have any problems with the court's statement that a core must be connected all the way around for flux to flow because flux has to return on itself?

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
How is it going to do that if we don't have a continuum?

[00:09:01] Speaker 04:
That's true.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
The core ring must have a continuum.

[00:09:04] Speaker 04:
That's true.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
The court conflates the use of the term core between

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
Core being a reference to an entire core ring.

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
But in context, it's clear it's also referencing, at times, persons skilled in the art use core to talk about a relevant segment of the core ring.

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
That is, the segment that's associated with the carrier of either the negative or the positive voltage components.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
This is a problem here, the fact that this is obviously

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
foreign originated patent that is not written the way it might have been written if it was written here and filed here in the United States to start with.

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
And as a result, there are lots of little gaps here and there.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
The district court struggled to try to figure out how to piece this all together.

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:
Isn't that the problem here?

[00:10:04] Speaker 04:
Oh, I disagree with that last statement.

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
But it is true that this came from a foreign translation.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
Then there were some preliminary amendments made.

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
And even the amendment after the office action, which really clarified some things, such as that the abstract, the only voltage elements are 1 through 5, not the core.

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
For example, there is nothing in the written text of the specification that talks about a core being a complete

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
closed loops so that there would be a magnetic flux.

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
That's not really explicitly discussed.

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
That's not the result of a foreign application coming into the United States.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
In fact, defendants own... There isn't anything in there that describes that explicitly, correct?

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
No, but my point is that was... I'm not saying that's fatal, but I'm just asking you.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
Isn't it correct that the specification doesn't describe that?

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
Doesn't say we have two portions of a core with coils wrapped around them, and that the core is, as everyone would understand, a complete closed loop so that there's a complete magnetic flux that flows.

[00:11:21] Speaker 04:
True.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
That statement is not in the specification.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
And the problem is, because it's not in there,

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
Then you sort of look to the drawings to see exactly what the structure is.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
And you see in figure one, there's the bar that Judge Shaw mentioned connecting seven and seven prime.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
But then you look at figure three and you look for the connection on the bottom, the bottom part of the core and you don't see it, it's missing there.

[00:11:55] Speaker 01:
And then you have to say, well,

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
but that drawing is not necessarily engineering-wise accurate, et cetera, et cetera.

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, what's important is that the term CORS, reading the specification of the claims, is in light of one person of ordinary skill in the art.

[00:12:16] Speaker 04:
This is not a problem with errors coming from an application that is drawn from Spain to the United States.

[00:12:23] Speaker 04:
This is merely how the term is used.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
Defendant's own expert at the same time of the invention filed his own patent application.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
That is that core piece on the bottom connecting seven and seven prime is missing from figure three, correct?

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
If you were to say that, if you were to assume where, that that cross section view is depicting the side plank, if one were to assume that there was testimony at the time of the mark minutes in the record that person skilled in the yard recognized

[00:12:55] Speaker 04:
Figure 3 is demonstrating a very significant part of the invention with regard to the voltage elements.

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
It doesn't impart something that draws one to say that the core is... You're not answering my question.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
Where is there illustrated in Figure 3 the bottom portion of the magnetic core?

[00:13:17] Speaker 04:
It is not, Your Honor.

[00:13:20] Speaker 01:
So that's a missing piece that creates some

[00:13:23] Speaker 01:
question or ambiguity or something that the district court had to wrestle with to try to.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
Making certain assumptions of that cross-section line, yes, that would be a missing piece.

[00:13:37] Speaker 01:
Now, I think your argument is probably that, well, implicit is a disclosure because the specification talks about, in column 3, for example, line 44,

[00:13:52] Speaker 01:
says the transformer of the invention.

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
So the use of the word transformer, you can argue, implicitly discloses a device having a closed magnetic flux loop.

[00:14:08] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, it wouldn't be a transformer.

[00:14:10] Speaker 01:
And it goes on to say characterized in the fact that the conventional elements it is comprised of

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
are arranged, et cetera, et cetera.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
I think that allows one to look as what a person skilled in New York would interpret in reading this.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
And it's highlighting, Your Honor, what this Court has said should not be done at the time of claim obstruction, certainly to the point of saying something's inoperable.

[00:14:37] Speaker 04:
You must read it in light of the specification and with an understanding towards that which the purpose is directed.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
This is directed to be a transformer.

[00:14:47] Speaker 04:
that prevents stray capacitance.

[00:14:50] Speaker 04:
It's not inappropriate to ignore that.

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
In fact, it's appropriate to understand that.

[00:14:56] Speaker 04:
And hence, it should be a circular ring core.

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
Now, again, had that been at issue at the time of Markman, had we known that core was at issue, which it was not,

[00:15:08] Speaker 04:
then I think this wouldn't have gone anywhere.

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
Frankly, at the time of the Markman hearing, the experts wouldn't have been in artful.

[00:15:15] Speaker 04:
When they talked about core ring, they would have said core ring.

[00:15:18] Speaker 04:
And when we talk about core, the segments such as shown in the claim, that would be clear.

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
What defendants had done was bring in an operability theory, 180 degree different theory than that which maintained throughout the litigation at the end of the case.

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
after Markman, after the time to amend the contentions, which was scheduled by the pretrial order, after fact discovery, they brought in an inoperability theory that was completely opposite of their own contentions throughout the case, how everybody had understood this patent to be read for years.

[00:16:01] Speaker 04:
And this is including back in the time of early in the case.

[00:16:04] Speaker 04:
There was a re-examination request filed.

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
These claims are... The letter maker, as you can see, your red light is on.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
You've consumed your time.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
We will give you three minutes of rebuttal.

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
I think now we have the core of your argument.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
We'll hear from Mr. Fulton to see what he has to say.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
Let's see if Mr. Fulton can close the loop.

[00:16:27] Speaker 03:
I don't think the patent requires me to, Your Honor.

[00:16:33] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
I'm Brady Fulton.

[00:16:37] Speaker 03:
I'm here on behalf of Blue Ridge X-Ray, DRGEM Corporation, and DRGEM USA, the Apple East in this matter.

[00:16:45] Speaker 03:
Your honors, this court can and should affirm the lower court's judgment for three separate reasons, because there were really three reasons in the record that support the district court's decision.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
Mr. Rademacher touched on a couple of them.

[00:17:02] Speaker 03:
the insulated chambers restriction in the claim.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
Isn't it implausible that a patent which describes a mechanism such as this is inoperable?

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
People don't write inoperable patents very often.

[00:17:20] Speaker 03:
It's true they don't do it very often, Your Honor, but it has happened before and this court has declared patents invalid under sections 101 and 112 as inoperable.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
in the Heyman-Edix versus Baxter healthcare process control versus hydro claim and other cases that this court has had.

[00:17:37] Speaker 03:
So you're right, it doesn't happen very often, but it did happen in this case.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
And the one basis that we briefed to the district court, the district court quoted a part of their expert's testimony about this, but didn't really close the loop on it, your honor, is that the claim requires that

[00:17:59] Speaker 03:
all of the elements of each group.

[00:18:02] Speaker 03:
The claim describes a group of positive voltage elements and a group of negative voltage elements.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
Those groups of elements, no, I'm sorry, two differentiated groups.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
Let me read from the claim so I don't get this wrong.

[00:18:20] Speaker 03:
It says that the rectifiers, filters, resistive dividers, high voltage switches, and the magnetic cores

[00:18:29] Speaker 03:
are arranged in two differentiated groups.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
The patent then goes on in the last sentence to say, so that at an equal distance from the zero voltage level, the elements of each group have equipotential voltage.

[00:18:45] Speaker 03:
And that's very important because clearly under the claim language, the magnetic core is one of those elements of each differentiated group.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
By the plain terms, this isn't something that requires any claim construction, but by the plain language of the patent claim, those magnetic cores being elements of the two differentiated groups, the elements of each group have equipotential voltage.

[00:19:16] Speaker 03:
And the experts all agreed that if you have a transformer, you cannot have voltage

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
on the magnetic core.

[00:19:28] Speaker 03:
The magnetic core, in theory, is supposed to remain at zero voltage.

[00:19:34] Speaker 03:
But what this patent claims and what I believe is figure two of the patent shows is voltage on the magnetic core.

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
And there's no dispute among the experts, there's no dispute anywhere, that a magnetic core with voltage

[00:19:57] Speaker 03:
Equip potential, in other words, the same as the voltage levels on those other voltage elements, it won't work.

[00:20:04] Speaker 01:
But you're reading that claim very, very narrowly and in a way that would be inconsistent with the way one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the operation of a transformer to be.

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
I mean, the core in a transformer doesn't have any voltage.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
It's a magnetic element.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
There's a magnetic field, a flux that flows through the core.

[00:20:36] Speaker 01:
And it flows through the core because it's a complete loop and it has different portions.

[00:20:42] Speaker 01:
Everybody knows that.

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
And the patent makes clear, this is a transformer and it's made of conventional elements arranged in a particular way.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
I agree with Your Honor in theory, but as the cases of this court hold, the court's job is not to redraft the claim language.

[00:21:04] Speaker 01:
Well, the court's job is also not to read a patent in a way that results in an inoperability conclusion.

[00:21:15] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I understand that this court has referred to that as not

[00:21:21] Speaker 03:
axiom of first resort.

[00:21:23] Speaker 03:
But if the claim language is clear, which this claim language is, because this claim language very carefully distinguishes out the components of the claimed invention that are voltage elements.

[00:21:37] Speaker 03:
And that last line of the claim, it says so that at an equal distance from zero voltage level, that elements of each group have equipotential voltage, it does not say the voltage

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
elements of each group have equipotential voltage.

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
So whether that's an error, whether that was something because the patent came out of Spain, I don't know.

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
I'm just telling you that if you read the claim exactly as it's written, it's talking about the elements of the two differentiated groups and says the elements, which includes the magnetic core, must have equipotential voltage.

[00:22:20] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I agree with you in theory.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
But I think that the cases from this court say you can't rewrite the claim language, especially here, where there are several instances throughout the claim where the claim does carefully distinguish between something that it calls an element and something that it calls a voltage element.

[00:22:42] Speaker 03:
So we don't have it.

[00:22:44] Speaker 01:
Clearly, this is not a model of clarity.

[00:22:46] Speaker 01:
This specification is difficult at best.

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
I just find it difficult to say that the claims can't be read and wouldn't be read by one of ordinary skill in the art in a way that would render it operable.

[00:23:04] Speaker 03:
I think if you do that, you're straying into the area that this court has previously said you cannot do, which is rewriting the language of the claim.

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
I don't think you have to rewrite anything because the claim can be understood in a way that renders it operable without rewriting the claim because you're talking about there is some ambiguity, but it's not, in other words, the conclusion of inoperability is not the only conclusion that you can draw.

[00:23:45] Speaker 03:
Well, I agree, Your Honor, you can make that argument.

[00:23:47] Speaker 03:
But respectfully, it's our position, and I think supported by the clear language of the claim, that there's a difference between something that's an element of a group and something that's a voltage element of a group.

[00:23:59] Speaker 03:
And this claim requires the elements to have equipotential voltage.

[00:24:04] Speaker 03:
And Your Honor, if I could move on to our second contention regarding the meaning of the term magnetic cores in this patent.

[00:24:16] Speaker 03:
Cetical's own brief acknowledges, your honor, that magnetic core is what they refer to as a synecdoche.

[00:24:24] Speaker 03:
In other words, it's kind of a loose slang word, can mean either a leg, what they call a leg of the magnetic core, or they say it could mean the entire core itself.

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
Let me back up.

[00:24:41] Speaker 03:
All the experts agree that the common parlance

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
for referring to a magnetic core is a magnetic core is a continuum, as your honor alluded to, so that the flux can return.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
The experts agree that the vertical parts, what are typically vertical, that have the windings around them, those are referred to as legs of the core, or what I call core legs in the brief.

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
And the part that goes across the top is what is referred to as a yoke.

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
that connects the two legs.

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
So you have a magnetic core made up of legs that are wound and yolks that connect, and it's all continuous.

[00:25:23] Speaker 03:
Now, synecdoche, a word that, and they're trying to say that, oh, well, when we said magnetic core, we actually meant the core legs.

[00:25:35] Speaker 03:
We didn't really mean an entire magnetic core, even though the claim says magnetic core,

[00:25:41] Speaker 03:
And what they told the district court repeatedly was, oh, when we said magnetic core, we didn't really mean a magnetic core.

[00:25:49] Speaker 03:
We meant a leg of a magnetic core.

[00:25:52] Speaker 03:
And the problem with that interpretation is that it's inconsistent with the specification in several respects.

[00:26:02] Speaker 03:
First of all, in the background of the invention, column two of the patent,

[00:26:09] Speaker 03:
the inventor identifies a prior art device as having core legs, which is the same thing that Cetakal says you should interpret magnetic cores to mean.

[00:26:21] Speaker 03:
But then after identifying the prior art device as having core legs, the applicant then goes on to claim not core legs, but magnetic cores.

[00:26:34] Speaker 03:
So there's a difference there.

[00:26:36] Speaker 03:
And as this court held in the PFC computer case, I acknowledge that's a slightly different context, but I think the rationale is the same.

[00:26:43] Speaker 03:
So that one arose under the doctrine of equivalence.

[00:26:46] Speaker 03:
But under the PFC computer case, if an applicant identifies some prior art device but then does not claim it, claims something different, then the applicant is deemed to have dedicated to the public the prior art

[00:27:03] Speaker 03:
device that was not claimed.

[00:27:05] Speaker 03:
And in that case, it was a case involving circuits, involving clips that are used in circuits.

[00:27:11] Speaker 00:
How can you dedicate to the public a prior op device?

[00:27:15] Speaker 03:
Well, I'm sorry.

[00:27:16] Speaker 03:
It was claim coverage, Your Honor.

[00:27:18] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:27:18] Speaker 03:
I misspoke.

[00:27:19] Speaker 03:
Thank you for correcting me.

[00:27:21] Speaker 03:
Claim coverage.

[00:27:22] Speaker 03:
And in that case, the applicant had identified plastic types of clips.

[00:27:30] Speaker 03:
But then in his claims, specifically claimed

[00:27:32] Speaker 03:
metallic clips and tried to recapture the plastic clips that had been identified as under the doctrine of equivalence.

[00:27:40] Speaker 03:
And this court said, no, you can't do that because you've identified that as being out there, but then you didn't claim it.

[00:27:47] Speaker 03:
You claimed something different.

[00:27:48] Speaker 03:
And the same rationale applies with this case is that they identified prior art as including core legs.

[00:27:59] Speaker 03:
Then they came to the district court and they said,

[00:28:01] Speaker 03:
Well, our claim says magnetic core, but really that means core legs.

[00:28:06] Speaker 03:
And under the PSC computer's case, they shouldn't be allowed to do that because the inventor has acknowledged a distinction between core legs and magnetic cores.

[00:28:21] Speaker 03:
The other thing in the patent is that figure

[00:28:30] Speaker 03:
Cetica wants magnetic core to mean just the leg, and they say, oh, it just means that part that's wound.

[00:28:36] Speaker 03:
It's that one limited part that's wound.

[00:28:38] Speaker 03:
But if you look at figure one of the pattern, it identifies what are called seven and seven prime, and you see there's a line that's pointing to what we would call the leg over here, and there's a separate line that points to what's called the yoke.

[00:29:00] Speaker 03:
they're using in Figure 1 those numbers to identify the entire magnetic core, the yoke and the legs.

[00:29:10] Speaker 03:
But then they come into the court and they say, oh, we just want to limit that to the leg.

[00:29:15] Speaker 03:
But that's inconsistent with Figure 1.

[00:29:17] Speaker 03:
That's inconsistent with the reference to the prior art as including core legs and then claiming magnetic cores.

[00:29:25] Speaker 03:
So the question here is,

[00:29:30] Speaker 03:
In this patent, what would one of ordinary skill in the art read and think of as the magnetic core?

[00:29:36] Speaker 03:
Is it a complete magnetic core or is it just a leg?

[00:29:41] Speaker 03:
The intrinsic evidence in this case is clear that they distinguish prior art as including core legs and then claimed magnetic cores.

[00:29:58] Speaker 03:
The last thing I'll address briefly, Your Honor, because I'm running out of time, is this two insulated chambers.

[00:30:03] Speaker 03:
And that limitation was a basis only for non-infringement, not for invalidity.

[00:30:10] Speaker 03:
And the district court got this right.

[00:30:13] Speaker 03:
Because if you look at the figures shown on pages 16 to 18 of our brief, they show very clearly that all of these elements on the positive and the negative side reside in a single chamber.

[00:30:28] Speaker 03:
not two insulated chambers.

[00:30:30] Speaker 03:
There is in those drawings shown, in the accused product shown, a dividing wall.

[00:30:36] Speaker 03:
But that wall allows all kinds of space above, below, and around all sides.

[00:30:44] Speaker 03:
So that essentially this is one chamber, not two different chambers.

[00:30:49] Speaker 03:
And that's what the important disclaimer was in the prosecution history.

[00:30:55] Speaker 03:
Prosecution history said,

[00:30:57] Speaker 03:
they have to be two different chambers.

[00:31:02] Speaker 03:
The ordinary meaning of chamber requires something to be enclosed.

[00:31:06] Speaker 03:
And obviously, if these two enclosures have to be different, they cannot open up to one another like the accused products do.

[00:31:16] Speaker 03:
So, Your Honors, I thank you for your time.

[00:31:19] Speaker 03:
I respectfully request that you affirm the judgment of the district court.

[00:31:23] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:31:24] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Fulton.

[00:31:25] Speaker 00:
Mr. Rademacher has

[00:31:27] Speaker 00:
three minutes for a bottle if you need it.

[00:31:32] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:31:33] Speaker 04:
I'll try to be very brief.

[00:31:35] Speaker 04:
First, I want to address the opening argument by the defendant is an argument that was raised in their opposition brief, not part of the appeal.

[00:31:45] Speaker 04:
It also was not part of the court's judgment.

[00:31:48] Speaker 04:
The court didn't find that it did because the cores supposedly have an equal potential or carry potential.

[00:31:57] Speaker 04:
The court rightfully ignored that argument.

[00:32:00] Speaker 04:
It's an absurdity and exactly how claims are not to be read to find something which is directly contrary to the specification.

[00:32:11] Speaker 04:
But most importantly, I'm going to direct the court's attention.

[00:32:13] Speaker 04:
I don't have time to go through it in detail.

[00:32:15] Speaker 04:
But page five of our reply brief has a breakdown of the claim, which shows this claim is a whittling down.

[00:32:22] Speaker 04:
There are the transformer elements.

[00:32:24] Speaker 04:
Certain of those are differentiated into groups.

[00:32:26] Speaker 04:
of those certain comprised voltage elements.

[00:32:30] Speaker 04:
The latter part of the claim, and this must be read in context, unlike defendants want to do, the latter part of the claim is all dealing with the voltage elements.

[00:32:39] Speaker 04:
And it says that the positive and negative voltage elements are arranged in this equal potential arrangement so that those elements, the elements of, so it's not as counsel is trying to have the score

[00:32:55] Speaker 04:
and tried to have the district court reference that the latter part, the elements of each group in the last part of the claim should refer to the transformer elements at the top.

[00:33:06] Speaker 04:
It must be read in context, as this court has said in its precedent.

[00:33:13] Speaker 04:
Judge Lynn, you're correct in that the claim construction which is proffered by defendants in saying that the core must have equal potential gradient

[00:33:24] Speaker 04:
is in fact something that is contrary to what one skilled in the art would understand in reading specification.

[00:33:33] Speaker 04:
And most importantly, I think if we look at cases like Marine Polymer, it's directly contrary to how this court has said claims must be read.

[00:33:43] Speaker 04:
You don't read in an absurdity.

[00:33:47] Speaker 04:
With regard to CORE, I have to clarify, we put in a review, just wanted to highlight that, you know, we don't try to read legs into the claim.

[00:33:55] Speaker 04:
Actually, we weren't using the term legs throughout this case.

[00:33:59] Speaker 04:
That was defendant expert.

[00:34:02] Speaker 04:
He was asked to talk about why he himself used CORE as identifying just a segment of a full CORE ring and a patent application filed around the same time, commencement with the present patent.

[00:34:14] Speaker 04:
And he said, well, that's a leg, that's a segment.

[00:34:16] Speaker 04:
So that did appear in our brief, quoting their expert.

[00:34:20] Speaker 04:
So it's a mischaracterization to say that we're trying to read leg into the claim.

[00:34:25] Speaker 04:
The patent specification, the 829 patent, is very clear as to what's meant by cores.

[00:34:31] Speaker 04:
There are two.

[00:34:32] Speaker 04:
There's one associated with positive, one associated with the negative components.

[00:34:37] Speaker 04:
It's shown as seven and seven prime.

[00:34:39] Speaker 04:
Thankfully, we have the numbers in the claim to direct us to that.

[00:34:44] Speaker 04:
But the distinction regarding the prior art in column two of the patent was not a distinction saying, oh, the prior art has legs and we don't.

[00:34:55] Speaker 04:
That's a mischaracterization for sure.

[00:34:57] Speaker 04:
That distinction was distinguishing the Japanese reference for the very same reason all of the other prior art can be distinguished, the serial reference, which is also part of the file history.

[00:35:09] Speaker 00:
As you will see, your red light is on, which means your time is up.

[00:35:14] Speaker 00:
So we'll take the case on revisement.

[00:35:16] Speaker 04:
Thank you.