[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
1853, Glasgow, Inc.

[00:00:04] Speaker 03:
versus Apple, Inc.

[00:00:27] Speaker 03:
That's not calling for a lifeline help fund, is it?

[00:00:34] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:00:36] Speaker 03:
Please, Mr. Quinlan, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:42] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, CLASCO believes that the patent trial on the appeal board made three reversible errors.

[00:00:51] Speaker 04:
What I'd like to do first is address the failure to give credence to the patent owner's objective evidence of non-obviousness.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
And I think the easiest way to do that is to, because it's a little bit, I think it can be confusing as to how all of this stuff works together.

[00:01:12] Speaker 04:
So I brought along the product that was the subject of the industry praise.

[00:01:20] Speaker 04:
the consumer testimonials, the licensing, and the commercial success.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
This is actually the product.

[00:01:31] Speaker 04:
It's a Classco 9500.

[00:01:32] Speaker 04:
Can I just double check?

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
Is there any disagreement that what you have in your hands and next to you is, in fact, the product?

[00:01:43] Speaker 04:
Well, Apple has not objected up until this point.

[00:01:49] Speaker 04:
Well, there's a picture of this in the Teleconnect article that's part of the record.

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
And that's a 1653 of the record.

[00:02:02] Speaker 04:
And it's a 9,500 as the model number.

[00:02:06] Speaker 04:
And it has this grill here.

[00:02:10] Speaker 04:
And behind this grill, there's a speaker.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
But I just want to be clear.

[00:02:15] Speaker 04:
We're going to be talking about different speakers doing different things.

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
This is not the speaker.

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
This speaker has nothing to do with the invention.

[00:02:26] Speaker 04:
So, actually the Teleconnect article has a really nice description of how this works.

[00:02:35] Speaker 04:
And taking along with the patent, the first thing you do when you get the box is you plug, there's a jack here that's called, that says line.

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
You connect that jack to the demarcation point in your house, and that's the point where all the telephone lines come into the house.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
The demarcation point also has lines that go to all of your telephones, your extension telephones in the house.

[00:03:06] Speaker 04:
You connect that line to this jack called phone.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
Then generally the demarcation point is someplace like the basement or some central location if it's an apartment.

[00:03:21] Speaker 04:
So what you do is you use these buttons on the front and you record, you can record one or more items of what the patent calls identity information.

[00:03:35] Speaker 04:
So record and you say, it's Bob calling.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
And then you associate that recording with one or more telephone numbers, which the patent calls caller identification data.

[00:03:51] Speaker 04:
So then, as the article says, there's a handset switch here.

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
And you flip that handset switch to on.

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
And then basically, you don't even know this box is in the house.

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
Because what happens when you get a call

[00:04:10] Speaker 04:
And if it's a call from somebody that you've recorded the identity information for, this telephone rings.

[00:04:24] Speaker 04:
And just for the record, this telephone is shown in the appellant's brief, and it's also

[00:04:32] Speaker 04:
It's mentioned in the patent.

[00:04:34] Speaker 04:
It says that the unit can be used with any sort of standard telephone, including a speakerphone.

[00:04:43] Speaker 04:
That's in the second breast declaration at A1769.

[00:04:48] Speaker 04:
And it's also stated in the patent.

[00:04:52] Speaker 03:
And the phone you have does or does not have a speakerphone?

[00:04:56] Speaker 04:
This happens to be a speakerphone.

[00:04:58] Speaker 04:
But you can also use the invention with a portable phone.

[00:05:02] Speaker 04:
that you can take out in the garden.

[00:05:04] Speaker 04:
It can also be used with just a telephone that you have a wire connected into a jack in a wall.

[00:05:15] Speaker 04:
So any standard extension telephone is what the invention is talking about.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
So if you go to the Teleconnect article, it says, quote... What page are you reading from now?

[00:05:29] Speaker 04:
A 17, oh sorry, A 1653, I believe it is.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
It's hard to get all the paper up here in all the big volumes.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
So what the Teleconnect article says is, quote, you can lift the handset without answering the call, close quote.

[00:05:58] Speaker 04:
The reason that's

[00:05:59] Speaker 00:
What the board said about that is where is that in the claim?

[00:06:03] Speaker 00:
I think that's one of the big issues before us.

[00:06:05] Speaker 04:
It is one of the issues, Your Honor.

[00:06:08] Speaker 04:
And it's in the claim where it says, well, can we hold it for just a second?

[00:06:15] Speaker 04:
Because I'm getting there.

[00:06:17] Speaker 04:
OK, so now what happens is you lift the handset, you pick up the handset, but that doesn't answer the call.

[00:06:25] Speaker 04:
And that's what the article says.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
And the reason it doesn't answer the call is because this box is in the line between the demarcation point and the telephone.

[00:06:41] Speaker 04:
So then the article says the unit, quote, then announces over the inside line, meaning the speaker of the handset.

[00:06:56] Speaker 04:
What you can do, as the article says, quote, you can answer, hello, Bob, or you can just hang up, close quote.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
Can we get to the patent now?

[00:07:10] Speaker 04:
We are.

[00:07:11] Speaker 04:
So in the patent, in the claim, there's an audio announcing circuit.

[00:07:19] Speaker 04:
And the audio announcing circuit is what

[00:07:23] Speaker 04:
is operable to cause this identity information to be announced over the caller voice signal.

[00:07:37] Speaker 04:
And that's the quotes I just quoted from the Teleconnect article.

[00:07:45] Speaker 04:
that it said that it has this box allows you to pick up the phone and hear the recording you made, the identity information over the same speaker as the caller's voice signal.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
I agree with you that Claim 2, for example, and Claim 1 have the idea of having a single speaker through which both you hear the other person talking on the phone and you can hear this caller identification announcement.

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
But why is it necessarily so in claim one or two that that would cover the idea that you're not going to learn who the identity of the person is until you pick up the handset, for example?

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
Well, claim two comes in because

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
The article says, quote, you can record up to 20 identity announcements.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
So this clearly has a memory.

[00:08:40] Speaker 04:
So it's claim one.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
It's claim two.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
Maybe a version of the question is this.

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
Maybe the claims cover both what you described and a pure speakerphone system.

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
And as long as it covers a pure speakerphone system, then prior art about a speakerphone system

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
would be a problem even if the prior art didn't show the handset version.

[00:09:08] Speaker 04:
Is that right?

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
Well, I guess I'm not quite sure I understand the question because it doesn't really cover just the standard speakerphone system because there's no audio announcing circuit in the standard speakerphone system that would give you the identity information over that speaker or even the speakerphone speaker.

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
So the Teleconnect article praises these features, this particular feature, by saying, quote, they really add utility.

[00:09:50] Speaker 04:
It frees you from being tied to the proximity of the box and lets the device serve multiple extensions and wireless phones.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
Wireless in that

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
in that day and age in 1995 was what we call a portable phone now.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
So there's another article.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
Can I just tell me, do the claims require a multiplicity of devices connected to that, or do the claims cover where one and only one?

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
Just one, Your Honor.

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
So part of what was praised is actually not claimed.

[00:10:32] Speaker 04:
The part that says multiple extensions.

[00:10:37] Speaker 04:
I agree with you.

[00:10:41] Speaker 04:
There's another article in a computer telephony magazine, which is at A1828.

[00:10:47] Speaker 04:
I think it also has a picture of this box.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
And it's also another example of a clear nexus to the claims.

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
And it says, quote,

[00:11:01] Speaker 04:
If the 9500 is connected right at the phone line, sorry, if the 9500 is connected right as the phone line comes into your home and all of the phones behind it, as soon as you pick up the phone, it can play the name of the caller.

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
What if you had the speakerphone embodiment?

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
Because the claim does cover.

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
So we agreed that the claim covers a speakerphone embodiment, correct?

[00:11:32] Speaker 00:
Say there's a speakerphone.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
Give me a minute, please.

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
That's all right.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
Where the speakerphone might, for example, have both the persons talking, the person on the other line talking, and also have the caller identification announcement coming out of the speakerphone instead of having to pick up a handset.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
Because the claim's broad enough to cover that.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
That's right.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
Only if you have this box there.

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
Well, let's say you have that box, but you're using a speakerphone.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
I mean, the claim is broad enough to cover that embodiment, right?

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
Well, would the praise still apply that as soon as you pick up the phone, it'll play the name?

[00:12:09] Speaker 00:
Or is, I mean, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
I'm trying to figure out the problem here is just the nexus question.

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
And either through the law or through the facts themselves, I'm trying to understand how your claims are limited such that it would

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
this praise would necessarily apply to the claim.

[00:12:33] Speaker 04:
Well, the praise talks about if you have this unit with its audio announcing circuit, which is what it's called in the claim, then what will happen is, in accordance with the claim, the speaker you're used for the telephone conversation

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
whether it's this speaker or that speaker, you will not only be able to use it for the telephone conversation, but the identity information you've recorded on this box will also come through that speaker.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
And then what that allows you to do is you don't need any sort of special equipment.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
It works with every telephone in the house, and that's what

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
The praise it's talking about.

[00:13:27] Speaker 03:
You are into your rebuttal time and you reserved a relatively small amount of it, so if you... I knew that was going to go fast.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
I'll leave the rest to the briefs, Your Honor.

[00:13:38] Speaker 04:
I think they're very clear.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
Okay, thank you.

[00:13:41] Speaker 04:
Reserving the rebuttal time, yes, of course.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
Mr. Matsui.

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:13:55] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Brian Matsui for Apple.

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
The board's reexamination decision should be affirmed in its entirety.

[00:14:02] Speaker 01:
Substantial evidence supports the board's decision on claim two.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
The record evidence fully supports the board's finding that it would have been obvious to combine Fujioka and Gullick by adding the ubiquitous speakerphone capability to a prior art color ID device that just had one speaker instead of two.

[00:14:23] Speaker 01:
Now, I'd like to address the secondary considerations evidence, because my friend on the other side addressed that first.

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
And with respect to that.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
Before you get to that, I don't know if this question has an answer, but you spent a little bit of time in your brief pointing to the Marui.

[00:14:42] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:43] Speaker 03:
Is that the right pronunciation?

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
Prior art.

[00:14:46] Speaker 03:
The board didn't get to that.

[00:14:48] Speaker 03:
And I guess I'm a little bit puzzled.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
It seems like it might be.

[00:14:53] Speaker 03:
a fuller combination than the one it relied on.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, Marui discloses a speaker that plays expressly caller voice signals, caller ID signals, and ringtone signals, but the board found it unnecessary to reach the rejection based upon a Fujiokan view of Marui.

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:
because Gullick disclosed everything that was necessary.

[00:15:19] Speaker 02:
Well, but presumably, I have the same question.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
Presumably, the board had a reason for thinking, well, let's go with the combination of Fujioka and Gullick as opposed to Marui.

[00:15:30] Speaker 02:
And I'm kind of curious if there's a problem with Marui that led the board to choose the other option.

[00:15:36] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:15:36] Speaker 01:
We see no problem at all with Marui.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
I just decided that this is more challenging to do.

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
Your honor, I disagree that it's more challenging because what Gullick teaches... Well, let me put it this way then.

[00:15:48] Speaker 02:
Marui might have been less challenging.

[00:15:52] Speaker 01:
Certainly.

[00:15:53] Speaker 01:
I think that Marui did disclose the caller ID signals and the caller voice signals.

[00:15:59] Speaker 01:
I think that this is taking far too rigid a view of obviousness, which my friend on the other side has taken.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
Well, just to complete this, I mean, I know you would have disagreed with anything that the other side said to try to distinguish Marui, but what did they say?

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
What did they say?

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
Here's why Marui is not such a great piece of prior art.

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
And maybe the board thought, oh, that's more to think about than we have to think about with Gulick.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
I think that you'd have to ask the other side of that question more because we focused on appeal more on just the Gullick reference.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
And I think Marui does provide... You brought up Marui in your brief.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:37] Speaker 01:
And we do think that Marui is relevant in the sense that this is the substantial evidence standard review, so any evidence that supports the board's factual finding can be looked at.

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
And Marui further supports Gullick's teachings that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you could take

[00:16:53] Speaker 01:
a single speaker, and it could play audio from different signals.

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
And Merui just provides further support for that, because our expert, Dr. Sprang, examined Gullick.

[00:17:02] Speaker 01:
He examined Merui, and he said that it would be very easy for a person of ordinary skill in the art to take a single audio transducer and make it so that it could play a variety of signals, such as color ringtones, ringtone signals, color ID signals, and color voice signals.

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
So do you want to get back on the highway of secondary considerations?

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
So with respect to the secondary considerations evidence, the fundamental flaw with all this evidence is that there's no nexus.

[00:17:28] Speaker 01:
And the board found that, as a matter of fact, and substantial evidence supports it.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
If we take a look at JA 1653, which my friend on the other side was talking about, the language in the middle column says, when the switch is on, the VAC ID switches the phone out of the loop so you can lift the handset without answering the call.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
And then it goes on to what was discussed.

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
So the feature that's being talked about here is the ability to pick up the phone without connecting the call.

[00:18:00] Speaker 01:
Well, that's not claimed anywhere in claim 14.

[00:18:02] Speaker 00:
Doesn't the idea that there's one speaker that provides both the caller identification and the person who's the caller speaking, doesn't that go toward that feature?

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
I mean, you certainly couldn't have that feature without having a single speaker, right?

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
I think that it's certainly a requirement, but that's not the feature that's getting the praise.

[00:18:25] Speaker 01:
Because if we take a look at claim five of the patent, and that's at column nine at J28, this is where the sort of the picking up the phone feature is discussed.

[00:18:38] Speaker 01:
And it says, an isolation circuit operative to prevent the telephone system from completing the telephone call from the caller telephone to the call telephone

[00:18:48] Speaker 01:
while the audio announcement circuit is producing audio using the audio transducer at the called station.

[00:18:56] Speaker 01:
So what it's talking about there is that's the feature that's being praised, is that ability to pick up the telephone without answering the call.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
Do you agree that's in dependent claim five?

[00:19:07] Speaker 01:
That is in dependent claim five.

[00:19:08] Speaker 00:
So because dependent claim five depends from claim one, it's at least within the scope of claim one, right?

[00:19:16] Speaker 01:
Yes, but the feature itself,

[00:19:18] Speaker 01:
is actually the praise that the feature is being directed to is to that that's recited in claim five, not in claim one.

[00:19:29] Speaker 00:
Had your friend on the other side argued claim five separately?

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
Would that have made a difference?

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
I don't think so, Your Honor, because the board found that really, for the most part, this is really more just a recitation of the elements of the features, and it's not really pure praise.

[00:19:45] Speaker 01:
And in addition, I don't think that you could take a look at this secondary consideration evidence and say that it outweighs the very strong obviousness case that's in this.

[00:19:55] Speaker 00:
But the board didn't do that.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
I mean, what the board did here was say there's no evidence.

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
I mean, no nexus, no nexus, no nexus.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
There was no weighing here, right?

[00:20:06] Speaker 01:
That's true, that there was no expressed weighing.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
But I think that the board's decision, though, was based upon the absence of a nexus.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
That finding is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:20:18] Speaker 01:
Because if we just look at the actual article on JA 1653, it's really directed at what's recited in Claim 5.

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
And it's Claim 2 and Claim 14, which are the elements that are at issue in this case.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
What was the status of Claim 5?

[00:20:35] Speaker 02:
Was that one of the ones that was canceled?

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
No, it wasn't, Your Honor.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
So what is the current status?

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
I mean, it is canceled now, yes, Your Honor.

[00:20:43] Speaker 02:
It rises and falls, I believe, with... But it wasn't one of the ones that was canceled earlier on in the process.

[00:20:49] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:20:51] Speaker 01:
But they have argued that all the claims rise and fall based upon claims two and claims 14.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
And so it would be far too late for them to raise any arguments now based upon dependent claim five.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
And it's very clear that when you look at this evidence,

[00:21:06] Speaker 01:
It's all directed to unclaimed features, or it's directed to features.

[00:21:09] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
I was just going to ask you about nexus generally.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
I mean, our cases say that it has to be reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claim.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
What is your understanding of what that means?

[00:21:22] Speaker 01:
I think that it does need to be reasonably commensurate so that it doesn't need to be a perfect fit.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
But here, it's not a perfect fit at all, or even close to a fit at all, because the praise itself is directed to those features.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
that aren't recited in Claim 2 or in Claim 14.

[00:21:39] Speaker 01:
And that's a factual finding.

[00:21:41] Speaker 01:
The court's decision in Rambas indicated that whether or not there's a nexus is a question of fact.

[00:21:48] Speaker 01:
Substantial evidence supports that based upon the board's findings here.

[00:21:51] Speaker 01:
I mean, it went through over six pages in the board's decision, going through all the evidence that Class Go submitted and determined, as a matter of fact,

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
that it was not persuasive, there was no nexus, or it was something that was exclusively disclosed in the prior art, such as the ability to assign names to telephone numbers.

[00:22:11] Speaker 01:
That, of course, was something that was disclosed in Fujioka.

[00:22:14] Speaker 03:
Can I ask you a question, particularly on the Teleconnect magazine?

[00:22:20] Speaker 03:
The question might apply to a few of the others.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
What is the audience for this magazine?

[00:22:29] Speaker 03:
would you call it technical magazine, a business person's magazine directed at who, or does the record not tell us?

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
The record doesn't tell us.

[00:22:39] Speaker 01:
I believe it's a trade magazine.

[00:22:40] Speaker 01:
I assume it's a trade magazine.

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
The record's not entirely clear on that point.

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
But again, to the extent there is any sort of praise here in this evidence, it's directed to an unclaimed feature or something that was exclusively disclosed in the

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
in the prior argument.

[00:23:00] Speaker 00:
It's an embodiment within claim one, right?

[00:23:04] Speaker 00:
But there's other embodiments to which the praise might not apply?

[00:23:07] Speaker 00:
Is that your argument?

[00:23:09] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:23:10] Speaker 01:
I mean, I think that there still has to be a nexus between the praise itself and what's being claimed.

[00:23:16] Speaker 01:
And if the praise is directed to something that's not found in claim one, or claim two, that's really being directed to that, then you can't say there's a nexus there.

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
And that's what the board found.

[00:23:27] Speaker 01:
It was entitled to find that.

[00:23:29] Speaker 01:
as a matter of fact in this case.

[00:23:31] Speaker 01:
Because the real nifty feature was the ability to pick up the phone without connecting the call to hear who was calling.

[00:23:40] Speaker 01:
Or it was the ability to have the device work with a plural number of phones all throughout the house.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
But of course, none of that is recited in the claims.

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
None of that is sufficient to show a nexus between this evidence then and the claim features.

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
Are you familiar with our decision in Cal, Henry Cal?

[00:24:02] Speaker 00:
In that case, we said that an applicant doesn't have to test every embodiment that falls within the scope of his or her claim.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
But you should be able to show that the praised benefit, or I think here was unexpected results actually, would apply to all the different embodiments.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
So thinking of that, could you imagine a scenario of a device that falls within claim two, but that it wouldn't have the feature of picking up the handset and being able to hear who it is who is calling you?

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:24:40] Speaker 01:
If the praise was directed to the ability to announce audibly who was calling,

[00:24:47] Speaker 01:
and that was what was being praised alone, then that seems like something that might fall within the scope of claim one and there'd be a nexus.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
Or if it hadn't been exclusively disclosed in the prior art with respect to claim two, the ability to store names associated with telephone numbers.

[00:25:04] Speaker 01:
That's additionally something that if the praise had been directed to that and hadn't been exclusively disclosed, that would be another example where there could be a nexus.

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
the actual praises, and I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, is directed to something else.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
It's directed to what's recited in claim five.

[00:25:23] Speaker 01:
And because of that, the board was entitled to find, as a matter of fact, that there was no nexus.

[00:25:29] Speaker 01:
And relying on that evidence, there is substantial evidence to support the board's determination there.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
Now, I'll just briefly touch upon the other issues with respect to claim two, which is just that Gullick, of course, does teach a person of ordinary skill in the art

[00:25:45] Speaker 01:
that you can take a single speakerphone and you can play audio from different signals.

[00:25:51] Speaker 01:
And Clasco's argument really is directed to a very particular type of speakerphone that says that there would be technical impediments to being able to produce that, such as a speakerphone that had very, very loud audio so you could hear it 16 meters away or the ability to hear high fidelity audio very, very close.

[00:26:09] Speaker 01:
That's not required anywhere in the claims as well.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
Can I ask you another question, going back to Nexus?

[00:26:14] Speaker 00:
Certainly you are.

[00:26:15] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:26:15] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:26:16] Speaker 00:
On page, I think it's page 13 of the board's opinion, they say that they failed to demonstrate, the patent order failed to demonstrate that the claims recite the system as, quote, capable of audible announcement based on caller ID.

[00:26:32] Speaker 00:
Do you agree with that?

[00:26:37] Speaker 00:
It's about the sixth line down.

[00:26:45] Speaker 01:
Right, and I think that, yes, Dr. Lunow's, Mr. Lunow's not, his evidence is not sufficient to show that.

[00:26:52] Speaker 00:
Would you agree, yeah, but it says does not, Mr. Lunow states that the market included such and such, but does not demonstrate that the claims recite the system is capable of audible announcement based on caller ID.

[00:27:05] Speaker 00:
Do you agree that these claims don't talk about audible announcement based on caller ID?

[00:27:12] Speaker 01:
I believe that the,

[00:27:15] Speaker 01:
The board here is talking about the device itself and the particular devices that are sold, and it's not necessarily referring to the claims themselves, because the claims do have a device that can produce audio announcement based upon caller ID.

[00:27:29] Speaker 01:
I would acknowledge that, of course.

[00:27:31] Speaker 01:
And so the board was saying that there was not enough evidence here that the actual commercial success related to anything that was within the scope of the claims.

[00:27:42] Speaker 00:
I read this as saying that the claims don't cover a system capable of audible announcement based on caller ID.

[00:27:52] Speaker 00:
Therefore, the patent doesn't demonstrate a sufficient nexus.

[00:27:56] Speaker 01:
See, I would disagree with that, Your Honor, because it's very clear when you look at the board's opinion in full that it understands that the claims do provide caller ID information with an audible announcement.

[00:28:08] Speaker 01:
And that's why I think that it's really referring here to the device.

[00:28:12] Speaker 01:
and the failure of proof on that respect, not that it's misreading the claims.

[00:28:17] Speaker 01:
Because I don't think that if you take a look at that one sentence, it's inconsistent with the rest of the opinion, which is very clear that the board understood what the claims recited.

[00:28:29] Speaker 01:
There are no further questions?

[00:28:39] Speaker 03:
No, thank you.

[00:28:39] Speaker 03:
Mr. Quindlen, you have a couple of minutes left.

[00:28:42] Speaker 04:
of two minutes worth, Your Honor.

[00:28:46] Speaker 04:
I think the idea that the article that the praise in the consumer in the magazines of record is directed to Bean Apple to pick up the phone is just collided by a lot of the other objective evidence of record of industry praise.

[00:29:07] Speaker 04:
We have a Phillips News release that says that

[00:29:11] Speaker 04:
The voice announce feature indicates who is on the phone, no matter where the consumer is in the house, and eliminating the need for more than one caller ID.

[00:29:25] Speaker 04:
And in response to your question about what kind of publication is Teleconnect, in the Luna litigation declaration, which is of record,

[00:29:41] Speaker 04:
He points out Teleconnect magazine gave awards at the Consumer Electronics Show.

[00:29:50] Speaker 04:
So it's clearly a publication for technical people related to telephone systems.

[00:30:00] Speaker 04:
That's all I have.

[00:30:02] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much.

[00:30:02] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:30:04] Speaker 03:
Cases submitted.