[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
in number 16, 1526.

[00:00:04] Speaker 03:
CF, is it Crespi?

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Is that the?

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
Correct, Crespi.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
Crespi, like critters, right?

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
Silicon against silicon labs.

[00:00:20] Speaker 03:
Whenever you're ready, Mr. Smith.

[00:00:23] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:00:24] Speaker 04:
May it please the court that we had reserved two minutes for rebuttal?

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
We asked the court to reverse the board's decision in this case because it improperly construed the term input RF signal in the 585 pattern.

[00:00:42] Speaker 04:
And as a result of that improper construction, it resulted in improperly interpreting the prior art that it was under consideration.

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
The board improperly construed the input RF signal because it relied on a dictionary definition of just the term RF, radio frequency.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
And it ignored, in our view, the intrinsic record that supported an alternative construction that was actually consistent with the claims and the specification.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
Didn't you also have extrinsic evidence that you relied on?

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
We had extrinsic evidence in the form of an expert declaration.

[00:01:21] Speaker 04:
So we did not put forward a separate dictionary definition for the term RF.

[00:01:27] Speaker 04:
Our view was that the term input RF signal should be construed as a unitary term as a whole as opposed to doing what the board did which is it didn't interpret the words input or signal and it just went right to the dictionary and said what does RF mean and then gave a broad range of frequencies for RF.

[00:01:49] Speaker 04:
We submit that that

[00:01:50] Speaker 04:
type of construction is wrong, because not only does it go against the claim construction principles that we've been taught for years, that you start with the intrinsic record and look at that record.

[00:02:00] Speaker 04:
And when we presented that record to the board, the board said, our construction is not without appeal, meaning that we actually had some merit to the construction we were proposing, because our construction is based on the intrinsic record, but then discounted it by saying there was one reference in a figure

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
that instead of saying input RF signal said input signal and in parentheses RF.

[00:02:26] Speaker 04:
And based on that one site said that all the intrinsic evidence that we cited to that talks about an input RF signal and what we think consistently supports the patent owner's construction was all

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
not considered as part of the construction.

[00:02:43] Speaker 03:
Can you help me just understand what it means to say it's received at the receiver prior to processing?

[00:02:51] Speaker 03:
I mean, it can't mean prior to the processing that takes place after it's received because, definitionally, it can't be processed by the thing that it's coming into until it's in there.

[00:03:04] Speaker 03:
So you think that it means there has never been any processing of that signal before it arrives?

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
So our contention is that we're talking about a raw signal coming in, like a satellite signal, a terrestrial signal, a cable signal.

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
That is what the 585 Platinum is trying to accomplish here, that you're taking this raw signal coming in.

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
Well, raw doesn't, isn't in my hearing making it any

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
clear.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
I'm struggling to understand what either raw means or without processing means.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
Something created that signal and didn't spring without somebody processing something, so I'm trying to understand what this means.

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
When we refer to processing, we're referring to the fact that there are these frequency conversion circuits.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
What's happening in the 585 pattern is you take in what we're referring to as this external signal and you begin the process of processing it in order to get it to the point where you could show it on a TV.

[00:04:11] Speaker 04:
And so you start with a external signal such as what's getting beamed down by the satellite or what's coming in through the cable transmission.

[00:04:20] Speaker 04:
Then you have to go through a sequence of changes and it's that sequence of changes that we think is important here because

[00:04:27] Speaker 04:
The patent is very clear that there's a difference in the terminology that the claim and the specifications using.

[00:04:33] Speaker 04:
On the one hand, they talk about an input RF signal, which we say is an external signal that hasn't been processed by the circuitry at all.

[00:04:41] Speaker 04:
And then you have an intermediate frequency signal, something that has been processed, something that has been converted.

[00:04:47] Speaker 04:
And as a result of this change, there needs to be a distinction in the claims in terms of what do these two terms mean.

[00:04:55] Speaker 04:
the input RF signal is different from the intermediate signal.

[00:04:59] Speaker 04:
They are two different terms and should be interpreted differently as a result.

[00:05:03] Speaker 04:
However, the board in its construction doesn't have a distinguishing construction.

[00:05:09] Speaker 04:
Instead, its construction of input RF signal is so unreasonably broad, it encompasses every RF signal that's described in the pattern, including an intermediate frequency signal.

[00:05:21] Speaker 04:
So there's no distinction as a result of the board's construction

[00:05:25] Speaker 04:
between an input RF signal and the intermediate frequency signal.

[00:05:30] Speaker 04:
And we submit that, as a result, that can't be the right construction.

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
These two terms were used very clearly in the specification and in the claims to mean different things.

[00:05:41] Speaker 04:
And we think that our construction, which the board found to be not without appeal, is actually supported pretty well by the intrinsic record and the specification.

[00:05:51] Speaker 04:
The independent claims talk about the input signal coming into the tuner and then being converted to a different intermediate frequency signal.

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
What in the patent specification talks about the lack of pre-processing?

[00:06:07] Speaker 04:
So the words pre-processing do not appear in terms of a reference to just the fact that that signal's pre-processed.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
The use of pre-processing we take from the fact that the specification clearly talks about the input RF signal

[00:06:21] Speaker 04:
being a signal such as a terrestrial signal or cable transmission, meaning these are signals that would be coming in where they hadn't been processed by a frequency conversion.

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
It doesn't say specifically that they shouldn't be or cannot be, right?

[00:06:36] Speaker 04:
Well, I think that it does in the sense that one of the advantages that the 585 patent provides in the specification is it says it can take in signals in any manner.

[00:06:47] Speaker 04:
and it talks about the fact that specifically you can take in these terrestrial signals and satellite signals and those are examples of the signals that are coming in that aren't requiring something else to filter them or to change the frequency of them.

[00:07:03] Speaker 04:
This is unlike some of the prior art that's been relied upon in this case where you see

[00:07:08] Speaker 04:
prior to the 585 patent, people having this external hardware.

[00:07:13] Speaker 00:
That's one of the problems I'm having with the claim construction is it feels like it's driven by the priority and avoiding it, as opposed to the actual specification that doesn't say anything about processing, pre-processing, or not pre-processing.

[00:07:29] Speaker 04:
I think that the distinction becomes clear when you try to interpret input RF signal and the signal that is the intermediate frequency signal.

[00:07:37] Speaker 04:
I mean, those are different.

[00:07:39] Speaker 04:
One is clearly processed because the intermediate frequency signal is the one that goes through the conversion that takes place, whereas the input RF signal is not.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
And every reference to the input RF signal and specification is referring to examples of signals that are external that have not been processed.

[00:07:58] Speaker 04:
And so I think the specification actually is fairly clear that what we're talking about is bringing in this external signal, then doing

[00:08:07] Speaker 04:
the conversion and then you get to an intermediate frequency signal.

[00:08:11] Speaker 04:
And so I think the specification actually is much clearer than Apele would suggest it to mean because there is a clear distinction between these two signals.

[00:08:20] Speaker 04:
And the only way to make sense of that distinction is to make sure that how they're construed

[00:08:26] Speaker 04:
reflects the fact that they are different signals, meaning one is going through a conversion, the other has not gone through a conversion.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
The other one has come in from this terrestrial source and now is coming into the circuitry for purposes of being converted and ultimately demodulated so that a TV can actually display it.

[00:08:47] Speaker 04:
The dependent claims also support our construction because the dependent claims talk about the fact that the input RF signal

[00:08:56] Speaker 04:
comprise RF signals received from terrestrial broadcast, satellite broadcast, and cable transmission.

[00:09:04] Speaker 04:
Here again, the depending claims can be looked at as a guide to understanding what the input RF signal is.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
And here it's explicitly indicating that they're coming from an external source and that these are signals the terrestrial satellite and cable.

[00:09:20] Speaker 03:
External to what?

[00:09:22] Speaker 04:
external to the circuitry that the 585 patent is trying to accomplish, meaning the receiver that is going to then start the conversion process.

[00:09:31] Speaker 03:
And I don't remember this, so forgive me if I'm just way off base.

[00:09:34] Speaker 03:
But once the board got past the claim construction, the prior art that the board relied on essentially looked inside some box and said that there is receiving over here

[00:09:51] Speaker 03:
Something coming in but all within the box or something.

[00:09:55] Speaker 04:
That's that's pretty close your honor So they they rely after they get through the claim construction They then take that broad construction and say if you look at the Thompson reference Which I believe is the one you're referring to the Thompson reference although it says you've got this satellite signal so what we're calling an external signal satellite signal coming in and

[00:10:14] Speaker 04:
And then there's something that they claim is then converting that signal into an intermediate frequency signal and then bringing that intermediate frequency signal into the structure that Thomson is describing as their invention.

[00:10:30] Speaker 04:
And so the conversion is happening sort of outside of view of their invention, meaning the conversion of that satellite signal is happening outside of it in some, they call it an outside source.

[00:10:41] Speaker 04:
But the reason that they do it is Thompson isn't concerned about having a unit that can bring in these external signals and be able to take care of them all in one place.

[00:10:50] Speaker 04:
They're only concerned about what happens after this conversion has taken place.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
And Thompson recognizes that they couldn't bring in sort of the raw satellite signal.

[00:11:01] Speaker 04:
They need, in order for their tuner to be able to work, they need to be able to convert that and convert it into an intermediate frequency.

[00:11:10] Speaker 04:
in order for it to be able to work properly.

[00:11:13] Speaker 04:
And so when the board looked at Thompson, it was easy for them to say, well, your intermediate frequency signal is an input RF signal, because they had defined the input RF signal so broadly as to encompass almost any RF signal you could imagine.

[00:11:30] Speaker 04:
And so as a result, when they looked at the intermediate frequency that actually goes into the Thompson circuitry,

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
They said, well, it looks like it has frequency that fits within that range, and therefore it must be an input RF frequency.

[00:11:44] Speaker 04:
Our view is that that would be improper because it is taking input RF frequency and giving it such an unreasonably broad definition that it's indistinguishable from any other RF frequency signal that would be out there, including every single one that would be listed in 585 pattern.

[00:12:02] Speaker 04:
There'd be absolutely no distinction, and there'd be no reason for the claim drafters to call something

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
input RF signal if it in fact was any signal because they knew how to distinguish between the input signal and the intermediate signal.

[00:12:16] Speaker 02:
I suppose you could have written your claim as receiving a signal from an antenna and then inputting said received signal into the converter to down convert to an intermediate signal.

[00:12:31] Speaker 02:
I mean that would have been perhaps a clearer way of capturing the thought you're

[00:12:36] Speaker 02:
trying to capture now?

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
Perhaps.

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
I mean, I think they did the best they could by using input RF signal consistently throughout the pattern and giving examples of what they consider to be an input RF signal.

[00:12:49] Speaker 00:
They're just examples, aren't they?

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
I mean, an RF signal is a term of art, isn't it?

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
So input RF signal is not a term of art.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
Well, not input.

[00:12:57] Speaker 00:
An RF signal is a term of RF.

[00:13:01] Speaker 04:
And there's no dispute here that RF is a radio frequency signal.

[00:13:04] Speaker 04:
I mean, there's no dispute about that.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
It's just that in this patent, the inventors used the term input RF signal consistently.

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
And they gave examples of what they considered it to be.

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
And they have dependent claims that talk about what the source of it is.

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
And so all of the intrinsic record supports the idea that we're talking about these terrestrial signals.

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
It's your two minutes.

[00:13:30] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
That they're taking this signal, and they're then going to be converting the signal.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
And so I think that consistency supports it.

[00:13:40] Speaker 04:
And I think the board recognized that consistency, although it decided to go with a dictionary-first definition for this term.

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:13:51] Speaker 01:
Mr. Ayers?

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
Ayers, Your Honor.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Judge Toronto.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
I'm going to please the court.

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
I think what we've heard in this case is that the patent owner in this case wants this court, as it did the board, to ascribe a unique definition to treat input RF signal as if it were a coined term, rather than just a concatenation of relatively well-known terms, input and RF signal.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
about the other side's argument that when you look at the claim, when you're doing a claim construction of the claim, there's a term called intermediate signal in the claim and then also an input RF signal.

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
And so as a matter of claim construction, different words, different terms that really ought to mean different things.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
And so there's some kind of misunderstanding to treat input RF signal and equate it with an intermediate frequency signal.

[00:14:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:50] Speaker 01:
There's no inconsistency between the board's construction of our input RF signal and the claims use of intermediate frequency.

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
There was no separate dispute on the meaning of intermediate frequency or IF signal, and that largely was driven by some concurrent litigation.

[00:15:11] Speaker 01:
And so the patent owner never took a position in the case about what intermediate frequency signal means,

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
broad and the broadest reasonable interpretation of that in light of the specification is simply a signal with an intermediate frequency.

[00:15:28] Speaker 01:
And there's nothing inconsistent with saying that the input RF signal is a signal in the RF spectrum and that the intermediate frequency is a signal that has an intermediate frequency that differs

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
from that signal.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
And in fact, it actually supports the board's construction because the tuner, the frequency conversion circuit that converts the input RF signal to the intermediate frequency is focused on the frequency, changing the frequency of that input signal to the intermediate frequency.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
So actually the claim language and the specifications support the board's construction that input RF signal

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
means an input signal that's in the RF spectrum.

[00:16:15] Speaker 01:
The specification clearly defines RF as radio frequency, and the board naturally just looked to the IEEE, a well-known dictionary, to see what that spectrum is.

[00:16:28] Speaker 01:
And there's no dispute that the spectrum that the board chose

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
falls within the RF spectrum range.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
They could nibble around the edges and say it's broader, but it's immaterial to this dispute because Thompson clearly falls within the range that the board selected.

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
This is not a case like Texas Digital or some of the others where the board just reached out and grabbed Webster's dictionary to find the broadest reasonable

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
the broadest construction that it could.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
It went to a well-respected technical dictionary and found a technical question.

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
Can I ask this?

[00:17:07] Speaker 03:
Is the board's position, is this a fair implication or set of consequences of the board's position?

[00:17:17] Speaker 03:
The board's claim construction here says there have to be three signals, one starting, one

[00:17:28] Speaker 03:
ending, or it doesn't have to be ending, and something in the middle, or frequency change, and intermediate.

[00:17:32] Speaker 03:
So there's a little window with three signals, or a signal in three shapes, and any set of circuits in which we can move that window around and find three, that would cover this, as long as they're doing the other things.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
Well, I guess I would disagree slightly, because clearly if the input signal was an X-ray signal, for example, which is outside the RF.

[00:18:03] Speaker 01:
So I guess I'm having a little trouble with your hypothetical, Your Honor.

[00:18:06] Speaker 01:
I want to be responsive to that.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
There has to be an input RF signal.

[00:18:10] Speaker 01:
There has to be a signal that's input that's in the RF spectrum.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
There has to be a circuit that converts the frequency of that signal to an intermediate frequency.

[00:18:19] Speaker 01:
And then some processing gets done and it produces baseband signals.

[00:18:24] Speaker 03:
That's what makes the middle one intermediate.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
Yes, exactly.

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
So there's nothing inconsistent with saying that the claim requires an intermediate frequency signal and an input signal that has a different range than that intermediate frequency.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
And you have to understand that there was a lot of context in this IPR, as you might imagine.

[00:18:48] Speaker 01:
And the petitioner put on evidence that it is well known in the art to use cable boxes, to use satellite boxes that would take what the patent refers to as a broadcast signal.

[00:19:01] Speaker 01:
And that's the signal that comes out of the medium, the original source that's transmitted.

[00:19:07] Speaker 01:
And I'll refer the panel to

[00:19:10] Speaker 01:
column one line 23 from 26 where it says the television or video recorder includes a television signal receiver to receive terrestrial Broadcast cable television or satellite broadcast television signal so actually the whole factual predicate to their argument that the that the patent is

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
universally uses the term input RF signals to mean a signal that originates from the source is actually wrong.

[00:19:41] Speaker 01:
The patent actually refers to that as a broadcast signal, as a transmitted signal.

[00:19:47] Speaker 01:
And it's not surprising that the patent uses the term consistently input RF signal so much, because that's used in the claims 20 times.

[00:20:00] Speaker 01:
So it's not surprising

[00:20:01] Speaker 03:
The same term is used, but it's not the term that refers to the broadcast signal And I know I've lost your question That's right no it seems to what I keep thinking when I read this claim is it starts with receiving yes, and the receiving Just means the starting point of what we are talking about that starting point could be I'm imagining that

[00:20:29] Speaker 03:
a set of circuits that has, I'm going to make up this number, 23,000 components.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:20:36] Speaker 03:
And you could start that, the receiving at component number 17,000, as long as you somewhere after that had an intermediate and something else.

[00:20:48] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:20:49] Speaker 03:
And that's what I mean by moving this three-part window

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
anywhere in the service, and they have a vision of something more discreet with a well-defined entry.

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
And that's what I'm, it seems to me what the board has done is said, we're going to take this claim language literally, receiving means starting anywhere, anywhere at all, as long as we have the three pieces.

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
That's what the claim says.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
And that's why it defines it as an input signal.

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
It's not concerned about what happened upstream of that.

[00:21:24] Speaker 01:
And we actually put in evidence, and I would cite the panel to A2779, where petitioner's expert, Dr. Holbert, talks about how televisions were used in practice in the industry.

[00:21:40] Speaker 03:
Can I just double check?

[00:21:42] Speaker 03:
Can the RF signal come over a wire?

[00:21:44] Speaker 03:
Yes, it can.

[00:21:47] Speaker 03:
It just depends on the frequency.

[00:21:51] Speaker 01:
What's interesting, Your Honor, is that we hear from the patent owner that this signal can't be pre-processed and yet it can be a satellite signal that goes apparently directly into the television.

[00:22:03] Speaker 01:
That doesn't exist.

[00:22:05] Speaker 01:
And in fact, the patent itself makes clear, and this is the concern about relying on silence as a disclaimer, and to use that as a basis for lexicography.

[00:22:16] Speaker 01:
If you look to column three of the patents beginning at line 46, it says, and this is talking about now the preferred embodiment, the television receiver 50 receives input RF signals

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
such as those received on an antenna or a cable line on input terminal 52.

[00:22:34] Speaker 01:
What's missing from there?

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
A satellite.

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
And you know why?

[00:22:40] Speaker 01:
Because a satellite requires pre-processing.

[00:22:43] Speaker 01:
It requires a satellite dish to receive that signal.

[00:22:46] Speaker 01:
Televisions don't receive satellite signals.

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
And this is, if you look at A6217,

[00:22:57] Speaker 01:
There's a description of a typical prior art, as was known in the art at the time, configuration of a television that was used in conjunction with a satellite.

[00:23:09] Speaker 01:
But the signal that's input to the television, it basically spoofs the television receiver into thinking it's receiving a terrestrial broadcast signal by basically mapping that broadcast

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
the frequency of that broadcast signal down to a frequency that it can process, it can recognize.

[00:23:29] Speaker 01:
But that doesn't mean that it's not an input RF signal, because that same input, as we all know, can be connected directly to an antenna.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
So if the signal coming off the antenna qualifies as an input RF signal, then certainly the signal that's coming out of the box that's input to that

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
television also qualifies as an input RS signal.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
That's basically all that the board found.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
And there's evidence in the record to support that.

[00:24:00] Speaker 01:
I didn't hear anything about the other two grounds.

[00:24:05] Speaker 01:
I take that to mean that the other two issues, I take that to mean that the patent owner concedes that they waive those, and I would just

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
There was some briefing in the reply that they relied on Navajo Nation versus United States as sort of setting the framework for waiver.

[00:24:27] Speaker 01:
And I just want to point the court to Inray Watts, 354 F.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
3rd, 1362, where this court said that it requires more than just putting

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
the elemented issue that the patent owner has to make the factual argument that it's making on appeal to the board in order to develop that record.

[00:24:52] Speaker 01:
And in this case, the patent owner didn't make either the argument with respect to the plurality of the modulators or to the digital to analog converter.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
And so I would just like to point the panels

[00:25:09] Speaker 01:
attention to their patented response with respect to the plurality of demodulators.

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
And it's quite clear, this is on page A1078 of the appendix, their only argument before the board was that the digital demodulator only produced video output.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
It did not produce analog.

[00:25:39] Speaker 01:
They made no argument with respect to the analog demodulator at all.

[00:25:44] Speaker 01:
And now here on appeal, that's their only argument.

[00:25:48] Speaker 01:
And of course, the record now is silent as a result.

[00:25:51] Speaker 01:
And so they're seizing on that silence to try to actually misconstrue the court's claim construction.

[00:25:58] Speaker 01:
The court was quite clear that it was just clarifying its construction that it was broad enough to embrace a single signal

[00:26:08] Speaker 01:
that encoded both video and audio.

[00:26:11] Speaker 01:
And that's why it used the permissive word may.

[00:26:14] Speaker 01:
And now on appeal, the patent owner is arguing that it must mean must.

[00:26:19] Speaker 01:
But the problem with that is that it's belied by its own specification.

[00:26:23] Speaker 01:
That would actually exclude the one and only embodiment that they described in their patent, which is an analog demodulator that produces both

[00:26:32] Speaker 01:
produces separate video and audio, which is exactly what Thomson described.

[00:26:39] Speaker 01:
The same is true on the digital to analog converter.

[00:26:43] Speaker 01:
The only argument that they made was that Kerth couldn't be combined because Kerth was priority from a telephone and Thomson related to a television.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
And because of the speeds that were involved, it wouldn't be possible to combine that.

[00:27:02] Speaker 01:
And that's at A 1099 through 11.

[00:27:06] Speaker 01:
Now they're making a completely separate argument that the, I guess it's a little bit hard to understand, but basically that the digital to analog, that you have to demodulate the digital to analog converter, or the digital signal, again,

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
The combination that the board relied upon is exactly the same combination that's described in column five, line 54 through 58, which is a digital to analog converter that's interposed between the digital signal processor and an analog demodulator.

[00:27:50] Speaker 01:
So again, even if the panel finds that it hasn't been waived,

[00:27:55] Speaker 01:
It's just wrong on the facts.

[00:27:58] Speaker 01:
And unless there's any other questions, I'll see you in my time.

[00:28:02] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:28:04] Speaker 03:
Mr. Smith, two minutes.

[00:28:06] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:28:13] Speaker 04:
With regards to the input RF signal, I think it's important to remember that nothing in the claims, in the specification, or anywhere else in the record except for the dictionary definition

[00:28:25] Speaker 04:
and the arguments that we've heard talks about construing the RF and the input RF signal as the frequency range, meaning the patent doesn't talk about a frequency range for the input RF signal.

[00:28:38] Speaker 04:
And so the starting point for the board's construction was looking at a dictionary definition and taking that dictionary definition, which is extraordinarily broad, and it even says in the dictionary, it says it's roughly this huge range of frequencies and saying,

[00:28:53] Speaker 04:
That's the starting point for our conclusion that the input RF signal is this broad construction that can include any of these RF frequencies.

[00:29:03] Speaker 04:
We submit that that's the wrong starting place.

[00:29:06] Speaker 04:
The starting place should be looking at the intrinsic record, looking at what the intrinsic record teaches us about the input RF signal, and I think you've heard

[00:29:15] Speaker 04:
Some arguments that I would disagree with with regards to the idea that it can't be a broadcast signal.

[00:29:20] Speaker 04:
Dependent claims specifically call out broadcast signals as being input RF signals.

[00:29:26] Speaker 04:
And so those are explicitly stated as being input RF signals within the patent itself.

[00:29:33] Speaker 04:
Just the way the specification calls out and specifically indicates that the input RF signal

[00:29:39] Speaker 04:
has terrestrial signals, can have the cable signals to it.

[00:29:44] Speaker 04:
And the only way to reconcile these terms, the input RF signal and the intermediate signal in these claims, is to have a construction where they're not the same.

[00:29:53] Speaker 04:
And the board's construction, the way it is articulated, would include not only the IF signal within the claim, but every other signal that's described throughout the entire patent.

[00:30:03] Speaker 04:
Because the broad construction that they've given would cover any signal.

[00:30:08] Speaker 04:
And so it would mean any signal can come into this when that is not what the patentee was trying to accomplish, meaning that the advantages that the patentee articulates is this idea that you can bring in these terrestrial signals

[00:30:21] Speaker 04:
and then do the conversion, which is different, very different from what Thompson is saying.

[00:30:25] Speaker 04:
Thompson is actually saying, we can't do that.

[00:30:28] Speaker 04:
We're not able to bring it in.

[00:30:30] Speaker 04:
And we need to have something external to our system that can make this conversion and then be able to filter it.

[00:30:37] Speaker 04:
I see that I'm out of time.

[00:30:38] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:30:40] Speaker 03:
Thanks.