[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
As it must, that the claim phrase, an entire body of an operator, includes the operator's hands and arms.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
This concession is all that is required to reverse the injunction.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
As the district court accepted the undisputed fact that the accused platform does not support the rider's hands and arms.

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
Thus the injunction.

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
But the patent itself, in column two, line 37,

[00:00:38] Speaker 02:
talks about how the steering controls may be mounted on the suspended platform, implying they don't have to be.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
But then more importantly, a little bit lower at line 51, the patent says the operator platform supports an entire body of the operator.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
Now there's no doubt from the picture the operator platform is 70 which includes the mechanism for the foot rest and the base that the chair would sit on.

[00:01:10] Speaker 02:
But the operator platform does not include in any drawn embodiment or at any disclosure in the specification

[00:01:17] Speaker 02:
The operator platform does not include the steering controls.

[00:01:20] Speaker 02:
In fact, the steering controls have both a separate number and at column two, right after that sentence where it says the operator platform supports an entire body of the operator, it says the steering controls of the vehicle are connected to the operator platform.

[00:01:35] Speaker 02:
So steering controls are clearly, in light of this patent, delineated as a separate element, separate from the platform,

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
And the platform itself is the thing that supports the entire body of the operator as disclosed throughout this patent.

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
So why then is it your view that the steering controls

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
must be construed as part of the operator platform, directly contrary to the teaching of the specification.

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:02:02] Speaker 03:
So there's two points in response to that.

[00:02:04] Speaker 03:
One is the, I agree with you that the operator platform and the steering controls are separate, much like the seat is separate or the footrests are separate.

[00:02:11] Speaker 03:
All those are separate elements that are pieces that would be manufactured on.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
But as it relates to the question that this court has to decide today, what is the construction of an entire body of an operator?

[00:02:22] Speaker 03:
The only thing that this court needs to decide is, does that include the hands and arms?

[00:02:25] Speaker 02:
And the parties agree that- No, I think that the patent tells us what supports an entire body, the operator platform, despite the fact- I mean, I'm not construing the words entire body in a vacuum.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
I'm construing them in light of their utilization in the specification.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
And this specification says the entire body of the operator is supported by the platform, which, by the way, doesn't even include the seat itself.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
So when this patent talks about an entire body being supported,

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
Every time in this specification, it says the entire body is supported by the platform.

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
And the operator platform doesn't even include the seat, much less the steering controls.

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
So why aren't I construing what the claims mean when it says something that will support an entire body by reference to the same words being used in the spec in multiple places?

[00:03:12] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
There's a lot of very good questions.

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
And I'll start with the question of construing support.

[00:03:18] Speaker 03:
Obviously, the district court didn't construe the term support below.

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
The claim construction dispute between the parties below was, what does an entire body of an operator mean?

[00:03:26] Speaker 03:
Toro argued that it had to include hands and arms.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
Where did the district court say an entire body doesn't include hands and arms?

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
Where is that expressly said?

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
So the district court's construction of a person having ordinary skill in the art

[00:03:43] Speaker 03:
would understand the entire body limitation in reference to how a person sits in an ordinary chair is an adoption of Skaggs' arguments that the entire body... I don't see where the district court said an entire body doesn't include hands and arms.

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
The district court's construction had to mean that because the district court made a factual finding.

[00:04:02] Speaker 03:
The platform does not support the rider's hands and arms.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
Wasn't that in the section of its opinion where it was reiterating what the arguments were?

[00:04:09] Speaker 03:
It is not.

[00:04:09] Speaker 03:
The district court, in that passage, and I'll take you there now,

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
it says it on APPX 10.

[00:04:16] Speaker 03:
So it starts, SCAG argues.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
That is a statement of an argument.

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
In opposition, the defendant's focus, that is a statement of the argument.

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
Then the court says a statement of undisputed fact.

[00:04:27] Speaker 03:
All of the accused mowers have steering controls connected to the chassis.

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
not the suspended operator platform.

[00:04:32] Speaker 01:
Every other sentence in that paragraph is repeating what somebody's arguing.

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
Agree.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
Agree.

[00:04:37] Speaker 03:
And the sentence after that does the same thing.

[00:04:38] Speaker 03:
And the next paragraph down starts, SCAG counters.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
Does your whole argument rest on me interpreting the district court's opinion this way?

[00:04:48] Speaker 03:
No, but I firmly believe it's true, because then the court goes on in the next paragraph.

[00:04:53] Speaker 03:
SCAG counters.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
Fair enough.

[00:04:54] Speaker 03:
That's an argument.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
But then it starts to state the law that it's applying, still in that paragraph.

[00:04:59] Speaker 03:
while construction may not part limitations.

[00:05:01] Speaker 03:
Now it's talking about the law.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
So the court certainly makes... Well, when I was talking about the law, it's going to apply, right?

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
Which is not uncommon.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
In fact, when I write opinions, I often say, they argue, they argue.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
Now here's the general law I'm going to apply.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
Then I apply it to the facts of a given case.

[00:05:17] Speaker 02:
And you want us to construe that single sentence sandwiched in the middle of the discussion of all the arguments the parties are making before they even get to the general law that applies in the case as nonetheless a fact finding.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
That's a very strange structure for an opinion for me to interpret it that way.

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
Well then even when we go on to where the court's analysis is on APPX 12, the court goes on to say that the fact that the defendant's lawnmowers have steering controls attached to the chassis.

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
So it's referring back to that earlier fact statement that it made.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
Where is this on page 12?

[00:05:50] Speaker 03:
APPX 12.

[00:05:52] Speaker 03:
The first, I would say, full paragraph starting more than halfway down accordingly.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
The court agrees with SCAG that the fact that

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
the defendant's lawnmowers have steering control.

[00:06:02] Speaker 03:
So it's referring back to its previous fact-finding.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
And the reason that we know... No, it's referring... It's not referring to previous fact-findings.

[00:06:08] Speaker 02:
It's referring to... I mean, it's an undisputed fact that the defendant's lawnmowers have steering controls attached to the chassis.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
Isn't it?

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
I mean, I don't understand that to be disputed by either party.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
It is.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
It is.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
I agree with that.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
It's a distinct... So why would you need to make a fact-finding of an undisputed fact?

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
That's what I'm telling you.

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
I think the court is saying on page 8PPX10, which means that the platform does not support the writer's hands and arms,

[00:06:30] Speaker 03:
arms and hands, is a statement of undisputed fact.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
Because the parties dispute it.

[00:06:34] Speaker 01:
Actually, your analysis doesn't make sense because he says it's not a defense to infringement.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
If he actually made the fact finding that you're saying that he made earlier in the opinion when he was repeating everybody's arguments, then his ultimate fact finding here on page 12 would make no sense.

[00:06:49] Speaker 03:
Because he said it doesn't matter.

[00:06:51] Speaker 03:
The district court's fact finding was it doesn't matter if the platform supports the operator's hands and arms because it supports the torso and the feet.

[00:06:59] Speaker 02:
Where does he say it supports the feet and isn't that inconsistent with the thing you want me to construe as a fact finding on 12 where the district court says a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the entire body limitation in reference to how a person sits in an ordinary chair.

[00:07:15] Speaker 02:
I've never seen an ordinary chair that has a foot rest.

[00:07:19] Speaker 02:
Have you?

[00:07:20] Speaker 02:
Your chair doesn't support your fee, right?

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
I'll tell you what, I think the ordinary chair construction has no support anywhere.

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
It came out of thin air.

[00:07:26] Speaker 03:
It does not have any support in that patent.

[00:07:28] Speaker 03:
The patent doesn't talk about an ordinary chair.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
It has no support anywhere.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
And the reality is, this isn't a case about an ordinary chair.

[00:07:34] Speaker 02:
So OK, so the ordinary chair has no support.

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
Maybe you actually could garner our agreement with that.

[00:07:40] Speaker 02:
But I don't still understand how that gets you to a successful construction, because the district court did look at these very sentences and make the conclusion that this doesn't support the construction that you're seeking.

[00:07:53] Speaker 02:
And I don't see how you prevail on that construction, given what the patent expressly says.

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
Follow-up to that is where does the specification say that the controls support the hands and arms?

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
That's a good question so the the entire case is about this mower that supports the operator from shock loads right and

[00:08:20] Speaker 03:
And so that's the whole point of the fact.

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say supports.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
It says it dampens or reduces vibrations.

[00:08:25] Speaker 01:
It never says that it supports the hands and arms.

[00:08:28] Speaker 03:
Well, that isn't what the invention is about.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
The SCAG now argues on appeal that support means weight.

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
Keep in mind, that was not an argument made to the district court below.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
The word weight never showed up in SCAG's briefing.

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
So SCAG wants this court now to say support means weight.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
But the problem with the prior, it wasn't that it didn't support the operator's weight.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
It was that it didn't isolate the operator from shock.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
But the claims don't say isolate from shock.

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
They don't.

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
They say support the entire body.

[00:08:50] Speaker 03:
But support doesn't mean weight in this patent.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
It absolutely does not.

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
The word weight was not used by either party in the district before the district court.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
The parties didn't ask.

[00:08:58] Speaker 03:
I thought you said that support was not interpreted.

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
Wait.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
The SCAG did not use the term weight in its briefing before the district court.

[00:09:06] Speaker 03:
The parties agreed that supportment isolate before the district court.

[00:09:08] Speaker 03:
And this is important, I think.

[00:09:11] Speaker 03:
So before the district court, the parties did agree that supportment isolate.

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
Toro explained.

[00:09:18] Speaker 03:
This is on page APPX 369, that the patent was directed to an operator platform suspended from a chassis, quote, to protect the operator's entire body from vibrations and shock loads.

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
SCAG responded that its proposed construction of entire body of the operator, which, as I said, focused solely on support of torso and feet, quote, and this is on page APPX 442.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
Quote, harmonizes with the 475 patents distinction over prior art devices featuring a suspension system for a seat, but where the operator's feet are supported by the chassis and thus subject to additional vibration.

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
So both of the parties absolutely agreed before the district court that support meant isolate from shock loads.

[00:10:06] Speaker 03:
That's the only way that the district court's opinion makes sense.

[00:10:09] Speaker 03:
Because the district court's saying, I get it.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
The controls are mounted to the platform, not the chassis, which would mean that they are allowing vibrations to go into the operator's arms.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
I don't care, because the only thing I care about is whether vibrations are going to the torso and to the feet.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
That's the only way the district court's decision makes any sense.

[00:10:28] Speaker 03:
And that's why the district court's finding the platform does not support the rider's hands and arms.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
Arms and hands didn't matter.

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
The district court wasn't looking for support of hands and arms.

[00:10:36] Speaker 03:
It was only looking for support of feet.

[00:10:40] Speaker 03:
If, as Skagg argues, support means support the weight.

[00:10:44] Speaker 03:
A, there is absolutely no factual evidence in this record that the controls don't support the operators, the weight of the operator's arms.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
And in fact, these mowers, the way that they work is you push controls forward to move forward, you push controls back to move back.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
If you see these people riding them, they're getting a workout for riding these things.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
It's not touch a button, cross my arms, and wait for something to happen.

[00:11:09] Speaker 03:
If it meant weight, which it does not, then it does support the weight.

[00:11:13] Speaker 03:
And there's no evidence in the record that the weight of the arms aren't supported.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
Again, the only evidence in the record about what the platform does support is this statement from the district court.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
The platform does not support the rider's hands and arms.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
There's nothing else in the record.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:11:28] Speaker 02:
Huey, you're into your rebuttal time.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
Would you like to say that?

[00:11:30] Speaker 02:
I would.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
Let's hear from the posting counsel, Mr. Graves.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
Morning.

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:11:48] Speaker 00:
My name is Michael Griggs.

[00:11:50] Speaker 00:
With me are my colleagues Adam Brookman and Sarah Wong.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
We're from the Boyle FedEx firm in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

[00:11:58] Speaker 00:
Toro argues that the district court abused its discretion by construing the claim term an operator platform that supports an entire body, the operator, as excluding the hands and arms.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
What's your response to Ms.

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
Huey's argument that support does not mean weight?

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
My response is that.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
The specification uses the word support in many instances.

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
So for example, the specification describes the chassis as supporting a drivetrain.

[00:12:30] Speaker 00:
There is also a description of a frame supporting a mower deck.

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
There is also a description, as Your Honor pointed out, of an operator platform supporting the body of the operator.

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
On the contrary, when you're talking about isolating from vibration,

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
Patent is very clear when it's having conversations about that.

[00:12:49] Speaker 00:
And this is also reflected and carried over into the claims themselves.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
For example, in the claims at issue, for example, claims 11 and 14, there is a claim requirement that the chassis supports a drive train.

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
And later in that claim, it says the operator platform supports the entire body of the operator.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
Now, if you were to accept Torrell's argument that support means isolate,

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
then that interpretation of support as isolating from vibration would also have to carry over to the claim limitation where the chassis is supporting the drive train.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
Now, the patent makes no mention that the drive train has to be isolated from vibration with respect to the chassis.

[00:13:32] Speaker 01:
Also... Where in the patent is the support language for supporting the chassis?

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
This is in claims 11 and claim 14.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
And also, when... I don't see that in claim 11.

[00:13:44] Speaker 02:
What am I missing?

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
Give me one second, Your Honor.

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
It says, it's the second line, a chassis that supports a drive train.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
No, that's OK.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
I jumped over some long patents.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
And that language appears in all of the claims that are at issue here, claim 11, 14, and claim 21.

[00:14:03] Speaker 00:
And in contrast, for example, if you look at claim 5, it talks about a configuration to reduce transmissions of vibrations between two components.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
So the patent is very explicit when it's talking about isolating from vibration.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
And it also uses the word support in the conventional sense, when one component is supporting the weight of another component.

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
So this patent, the court should not construe support as meaning isolate from vibration.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
Those are two separate concepts.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
The patent deals with those two concepts separately.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
And the claims also delineate between those two concepts.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
I want to ask you about utility vehicle.

[00:14:50] Speaker 01:
That's pretty broad language in claim 14.

[00:14:52] Speaker 01:
And then claim 21 says a riding utility vehicle.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
What's a utility vehicle and what's a riding utility vehicle?

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
Do they differ at all?

[00:15:01] Speaker 00:
A utility vehicle and a riding utility vehicle?

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
I would say that the patent describes these vehicles.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
It does put this into context as a riding lawnmower.

[00:15:13] Speaker 01:
But isn't an SUV a utility vehicle?

[00:15:17] Speaker 00:
You may consider that, but interpreting a utility vehicle as an SUV, for example, that is not really how the specification is addressing this.

[00:15:30] Speaker 01:
It's a sports utility vehicle.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
Claims are pretty broad, right?

[00:15:34] Speaker 01:
Just directed to a utility vehicle or a driving utility vehicle.

[00:15:39] Speaker 01:
What does riding add?

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
I think riding would be more as you would conventionally see someone on a riding lawn mower as opposed to sitting in a compartment in a car of a regular vehicle.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
So it's more a sense of you're riding a bike, you're riding in a car.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
You're not riding in a riding vehicle.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
I'd like to ask you about anticipation.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
The district court's opinion feels a bit cryptic or underdeveloped to me.

[00:16:13] Speaker 02:
So what is it that you understand about why he, she, I don't know who it is, is it he or she?

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
He, Judge Randall.

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
Why did he conclude there's no anticipation?

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
The only sentence is Hendrickson discloses

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
a heavy-duty truck with a driver's compartment, not an operator platform, as described by claims 11 and 14, and therefore it's not an anticipatory reference.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
Why is the driver compartment not an operator platform?

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, first, to the extent you would characterize the district court's decision as underdeveloped, I would like to point out that Toro's argument was very underdeveloped on the record.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
They didn't introduce any

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
declarations from either technical experts or fact experts in support of their invalidity arguments.

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
They actually only had about six pages, or six pages, six paragraphs of argument.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
But getting back to her question.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
So getting back to her question, I think when you look at the Henriksen reference, and again, when you're considering what the 475 patent is directed to, the district court found that this driver's compartment

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
a very heavy duty vehicle, is just not the same as a suspended operator platform.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
And that was the court's factual finding.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
Why?

[00:17:37] Speaker 02:
I mean, why?

[00:17:39] Speaker 02:
I mean, just saying it's not the same, I mean, you're not the same as me, but we're both human beings.

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
What is it about these claims?

[00:17:47] Speaker 02:
What element of an operator platform does the driver's box fail to contain?

[00:17:52] Speaker 02:
Or why is it different?

[00:17:54] Speaker 02:
You can tell me it's his factual finding, but a factual finding that has no basis is not supportable.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
So tell me what the basis is.

[00:18:02] Speaker 02:
Don't just tell me they're different.

[00:18:03] Speaker 02:
Tell me why they're different or how they're different.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
Well, I mean, I can go into the specific claim language.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
OK, that would be useful.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
Seems like a good idea.

[00:18:11] Speaker 00:
Yeah, for example, when you look at claim 14, for example, there are requirements with respect to the linkage and how the linkage interacts between

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
the operator platform and the chassis.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
In Hendrickson, the back.

[00:18:30] Speaker 00:
Precisely.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
Precisely.

[00:18:31] Speaker 02:
In Hendrickson.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
No, not Hendrickson.

[00:18:33] Speaker 02:
You just said linkage.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
I don't even know what the heck you mean by that.

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
Take me to the precise claim element that you're talking about.

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
Claim 14.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
Claim 14, a linkage system connecting the front portion of the operator platform to the front portion of the chassis and connecting the rear portion of the operator platform to the rear portion of the chassis.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
So the linkage must connect the front portion of the operator platform to the front portion of the chassis, and the rear portion of the operator platform to the rear portion of the chassis.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
This is not what the district court held.

[00:19:05] Speaker 02:
The district court didn't hold that there was some deficiency in Hendrickson as to how various elements interact with each other.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
The district court held, precisely, an operator platform is not a driver's compartment.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
I agree.

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
That's the district court's holding.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
Is it your position that because the operator platform is basically one platform or one layer, when you add walls and a ceiling, it's no longer a platform?

[00:19:37] Speaker 01:
Is that what you're arguing?

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
Well, again, when you look at the claims, claim 11 and claim 14, both relate to how this linkage connects the operator platform to the chassis.

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
Was that argued before the court below?

[00:19:55] Speaker 00:
No, I don't believe that we argued the particular linkage configuration below.

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
In particular also because... Did you argue about the lack of a seat in Henriksen below?

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
I would have to check the group.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
I don't know that off the top of my head.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
But at the very least, it's an alternate ground for affirmance now because Henriksen is clearly missing a drivetrain, which it doesn't even mention, which is required by all three of the claims here that is supported by the chassis.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
And the district court also made findings with respect to them.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
You want me to make a fact finding after a PI on scant briefing when there was no briefing below, and you want me to make a fact finding as an appellate court something about a drivetrain and a chassis on appeal?

[00:20:43] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, again, this is Toro's burden.

[00:20:47] Speaker 00:
They have to present a substantial question as to the validity of this path.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
And we don't believe they did that below.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
And the district court did not either.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
So we're asking you to affirm the district court's decision.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
What if we don't agree for some of the claims, but we agree?

[00:21:04] Speaker 01:
So we don't agree with the determination.

[00:21:06] Speaker 01:
There's not a substantial question for some of the claims, but we agree with the district court on one of the claims.

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
What happens then?

[00:21:15] Speaker 00:
Well, the injunction would remain in force.

[00:21:17] Speaker 00:
You only need one infringed valid claim that you're likely to succeed on, combined with the other factors in order to sustain the injunction.

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
Do you have anything else you'd like to add?

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
No, unless the court has any other questions, I'll conclude my argument.

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
OK, we're good.

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:21:44] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:21:44] Speaker 02:
Huey, do you have some rebuttal time left?

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
I just want to follow up on this.

[00:21:53] Speaker 03:
Support does not mean weight.

[00:21:54] Speaker 03:
I think I've already pointed out that's not how the parties argued it below.

[00:21:57] Speaker 03:
Nobody talked about weight.

[00:21:59] Speaker 03:
The district court's opinion does not refer to weight.

[00:22:01] Speaker 03:
It clearly isn't talking about weight.

[00:22:02] Speaker 03:
There's no fact finding that would support weight.

[00:22:05] Speaker 03:
And just to remind the court once again, this invention is not about supporting the weight.

[00:22:09] Speaker 03:
It's about isolating the operator from those shock loads.

[00:22:12] Speaker 03:
You can read the patent.

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
You can read how Skagg brief talks about the patent.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
That's what this invention is.

[00:22:17] Speaker 03:
And keep in mind, too, that this invention is during use of the machine, which is to say when you're mowing, it is being used.

[00:22:25] Speaker 03:
And I also remind the court that the district court's statement about the functionality of the mowers not providing support for the operator's hands and arms, that is what the court said.

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
And the court has said that in the Moore case we cite, the court must have meant what it said.

[00:22:38] Speaker 03:
I also want to fall quickly on anticipation.

[00:22:41] Speaker 03:
I agree with the court that the anticipation discussion is certainly underdeveloped to

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
I would agree with that.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
And I want to point out that there's no support in the record for the court's finding.

[00:22:52] Speaker 03:
It seems like it's contrary to law to the extent that it's suggesting that the addition of elements would avoid anticipation.

[00:22:58] Speaker 01:
What about obviousness in claim 21?

[00:23:01] Speaker 01:
Where in the priority is a mower deck disclosed?

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
That's a good question.

[00:23:06] Speaker 03:
So obviously, we have made the position that Henrickson includes everything.

[00:23:10] Speaker 03:
It was a vehicle.

[00:23:12] Speaker 03:
The claims are related to vehicles.

[00:23:15] Speaker 03:
So claims 14 and 21 have vehicles.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
The claim 21, which includes a mower deck,

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
And it does not, the Henrickson doesn't include a mower deck, but the arguments below were that it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art who was looking to have a utility vehicle that was a mower include a mower deck.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
To add a mower deck to Henrickson?

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
To add a mower deck to the vehicle, yes.

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
And to follow up again on the court's question about what would happen if the court agrees on some claims but not others, it would be required to vacate and remand the injunction because the question of scope would be important to be decided by the district court.

[00:24:04] Speaker 02:
Why?

[00:24:04] Speaker 02:
I don't understand.

[00:24:07] Speaker 02:
His argument sounded perfectly reasonable to me.

[00:24:09] Speaker 02:
An injunction is warranted if any claim of a patent is valid and likely to have been infringed.

[00:24:17] Speaker 02:
And if you don't win on 21, why in the world don't we just affirm the injunction?

[00:24:21] Speaker 03:
Well, there's obviously, in our briefing we talked about the problem of the injunction being vague, being overbroad.

[00:24:27] Speaker 03:
Separate from that.

[00:24:28] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:24:28] Speaker 03:
So separate from that, the scope of the injunction has to be directed to the claims.

[00:24:33] Speaker 03:
And certainly, our TORO would be in a position where it could potentially provide machines that would not infringe claims 11 and 14, but would not run afoul of an injunction that was directed only to claim 21.

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
The injunction, as it stands now.

[00:24:47] Speaker 01:
So your complaint is that the injunction would have to identify which claim?

[00:24:51] Speaker 03:
It would have to identify the functionality, certainly.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
Certainly.

[00:24:54] Speaker 03:
Absolutely.

[00:24:58] Speaker 03:
there are no further questions.

[00:25:02] Speaker 03:
I do want to make one more point on going back to the controls.

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
I think the court understands clearly our point is that Toro's controls are mounted to the chassis like the prior art, not to the platform.

[00:25:14] Speaker 03:
I just want to make that clear.

[00:25:15] Speaker 03:
I don't know if I might have misspoke at one point.

[00:25:17] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:25:19] Speaker 02:
Thank both counsels for their argument.

[00:25:20] Speaker 02:
The case is taken under submission.