[00:00:25] Speaker 03:
The next case for argument is 15-1630, nature of technology versus Sandisk Corporation.

[00:01:16] Speaker 03:
Mr. Tan, ready?

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
May it please call?

[00:01:23] Speaker 00:
I reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
Would you like to address

[00:01:36] Speaker 00:
The issue of incorrect claim construction first, and if time allows, also addressed the issue of insufficient back-finding from the panel office.

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
A key issue in this re-examination is the construction of the term directly accessing in claim one.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
We consider this term to mean accessing

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
without communication protocol conversion.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
And the board construed this term to mean directly controlling access of the fresh memory.

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
Now, both claim construction is incorrect because this construction actually is against the plan meaning of the term.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
It is against

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
the claim language itself.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
And also, it's a... How is it against the claim language?

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
In claim language, for this particular term, the claim element actually, as a whole, reads deriving access data through the, based on USP standard, through the established data exchange channel.

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
and then by processing the data access operation requests issued by user.

[00:03:03] Speaker 00:
So clearly it's a data access, it's not a control operation.

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
That's the language itself made it pretty clear that's the data access instead of a controlling access.

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
And also claim six to further explain how this is performed

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
And the claim six actually made its steps.

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
But eventually, the last element of claim six is the firmware is supposed to return the results of the access back to the driver in the operating system.

[00:03:38] Speaker 03:
Maybe you can answer this.

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
I mean, I found this case very challenging because there's so many issues and there's so many references.

[00:03:46] Speaker 03:
But it's my understanding, and I think I correctly understood this to be Sandus' argument, that even if you were correct on this claim construction, which I think this is the only one they maintain that you have not waived, that would only eliminate or affect the rejections based on the Terasaki reference.

[00:04:08] Speaker 03:
which was only one of any number of combinations that the board relied on in the obviousness analysis.

[00:04:16] Speaker 03:
And so if you take Terasaki off the table, you've still got other things going on in obviousness.

[00:04:22] Speaker 03:
And the other reference is, it doesn't make any difference what this limitation is under any construction.

[00:04:29] Speaker 03:
It wouldn't make any difference on obviousness.

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
Well, you're saying correct?

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, that's what the Senate's position is, and I think that it's questionable because there's two points I have.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
First of all, in the board decision, actually the board did not discuss this only related to Tarasaki.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
Actually, in the board's decision, it is

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
discussed in the board decision 18, that's appendix 19, in related to the reference Sator.

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
So this is the only reference the board discussed in related to claim one.

[00:05:20] Speaker 00:
So this is the place that the board also discussed this directly accessing.

[00:05:26] Speaker 00:
in the last paragraph of page 18 of the decision.

[00:05:34] Speaker 00:
And it's in 19.

[00:05:36] Speaker 00:
So the second point I want to make is this is a key claim term, because that really makes the claim the invention actually different from the prior.

[00:05:51] Speaker 00:
And that claim construction

[00:05:55] Speaker 00:
the board did not provide anything alternative to that construction.

[00:05:59] Speaker 00:
So if this construction is incorrect, and it is, and then the entire analysis is just not right.

[00:06:10] Speaker 00:
It's not, because every reference, whether it's MacLit or the other PAN reference and these references, they all have to address this particular element.

[00:06:24] Speaker 00:
And also, with the correct claim construction, and also use the look at element as a whole, our position is none of those references actually teach that element in claim one.

[00:06:43] Speaker 00:
with the direct accessing element.

[00:06:45] Speaker 00:
And also, obviously, claim six, it's a little bit detailed operation.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
So none of those references actually teach those elements with the correct claim construction.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
And Your Honor, actually you mentioned that there's some sort of waiver arguments.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
And also, our position is none of the claim construction arguments actually can be waived, at least for two reasons.

[00:07:20] Speaker 00:
The first reason is those claim constructions, it's not really new because the board, the examiners, none of them actually provides explicit claim construction.

[00:07:33] Speaker 00:
So by discussing that, actually, we already have those claim constructions in the original

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
a brief to the board.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
It's not explicit, but none of them did any explicit claim construction.

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
So I think that's the argument actually should favor.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
I don't understand.

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
I mean, do you agree that you made no claim construction, there was no claim construction dispute with respect to the special read instruction and the magnetic fist operation format?

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
Oh, no, you know, we actually, we tried to make a point that we already made, I mean, this is not a new argument.

[00:08:20] Speaker 03:
Where did you make it?

[00:08:20] Speaker 03:
Did you make the same arguments to the board below?

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
We believe we did, but not very explicitly.

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
What does that mean?

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
That means we did not say this term means this.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
We did not say this before.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
OK, so the opposite of you say you made them implicitly?

[00:08:45] Speaker 03:
What are you saying?

[00:08:46] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:08:46] Speaker 00:
We made it implicitly, yes.

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
What does that mean?

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
That means we mixed together with the obviousness discussion, as did by the examiner and the board and the scientist itself.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
There's no explicit claim construction in this re-examination, other than the couple of directly accessing we talked about.

[00:09:08] Speaker 00:
But none of them actually provide anything explicit.

[00:09:12] Speaker 00:
I say this term means this.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
It's just not there.

[00:09:16] Speaker 00:
So it's all implicitly made.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
Now you're arguing before us that the board incorrectly construed those terms.

[00:09:23] Speaker 00:
Exactly, but that's what I mean too.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
It's implicitly construing mixed together with the 103 obviousness analysis.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
Which we think also it's maybe.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
It seems to me that you raised factual issues with respect to the tourists.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
But I don't see that you argued how the claim construction impacted those factual arguments.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
Well, obviously it does.

[00:09:53] Speaker 00:
Because if you instill in a different way, obviously that now has to change.

[00:09:57] Speaker 01:
You're arguing that now.

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
Yes, I understand that.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
But did you argue that below?

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
We did.

[00:10:04] Speaker 00:
For example, on direct access, we did that for special read instruction.

[00:10:10] Speaker 00:
We also did that, but it's not in that very explicit way.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
I agree.

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
But yes, we did that.

[00:10:19] Speaker 00:
And also, the arguments we made in this appeal, it's merely to support the scope of the claim.

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
As this code in the CCS fitness case,

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
It says certainly that even if it's a new argument, if it supports the scope of the claim construction, it should not be waived.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
And that's one argument I want to make on this.

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
And also, these are just barely questions of law.

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
For both construction of the term direct access and special reading instruction, especially on special reading instruction, as you know, that term itself has no plain meaning other than you have to look at it in the context of the specification.

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
So this term actually has to be construed.

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
And I also want to point out there's a significantly insufficient of fact findings by the examiner and the board.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
Particularly, we want to point out that there's no clearly stated rationale for the combination, because there's so many references and so many objections.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
And there's just no clearly stated rationale for combining those references.

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
Sometimes the man has five references.

[00:11:58] Speaker 00:
And there's one single rationale used by the examiner, which is no more than applying a known technique to a known method to yield predictable results.

[00:12:09] Speaker 00:
But they never explained why this is the case, and the examiner did not

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
discussed any state of the art, did not discuss anything of the level of person of ordinary skill in the arts.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
The examiner did not even look at the publication dates of the references, which was also made in this appeal, which is also the Pellee actually

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
is alleging that this is a new argument.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
We think it's not a new argument because it's just to support our argument that says the examiner just failed to do sufficient fact-finding and therefore there shouldn't be sufficient substantive evidence for supporting those.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
Could you dispute

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
The publication dates before the board?

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
But in the re-examination, the examiner actually has a duty to perform independent investigation.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
And if you think that's an error, then you should have argued that before the board, right?

[00:13:34] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
But if the error is so obvious, we do think that the examiner actually has a duty to get it right.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
Maybe the more obvious the error is, the more responsibility you have to argue it before the board.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
We did bear some responsibility, yes.

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
But we do think that it's a question of law, because there's not much fact finding.

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
It's just looking at the first page of the reference.

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
So and also, I mean, our argument is this actually supports, yes, Your Honor, we did bear some sort of responsibility.

[00:14:20] Speaker 00:
But I think the argument we made is that shows that the exam actually failed to do the fact-finding together with all the other insufficient fact-finding examples here.

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
You know, for example, there's so many factors or things that the examiner failed to consider when considering our declarations.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
And it does not even discuss in the record for all these documentary evidence we supported, like we have photos of prototypes from a block diagrams, circuitry diagrams and schematics, source code.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
and the fresh disk specification, memory maps, all those things.

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
It's never discussed.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
And also, another clear indication of there's no sufficient evidence for support for both decision years, they use the wrong reason to reject the dollar decoration and the exhibits.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
Mr. Tam, you're well into your rebuttal, so I think you might want to sit down and say some rebuttals.

[00:15:32] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:15:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, Daryl Adams for the Appellee Sandisk Corporation.

[00:15:47] Speaker 02:
If I first might address a few of the issues that were raised in the opening argument.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
The panel is correct.

[00:15:56] Speaker 02:
The directly accessing only impacts the Terasaki reference.

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
My colleague points out that there was some discussion of the board at A-19.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
That had to do with a different issue.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
It had to do with the motivation combined, actually a teaching away issue.

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
Most importantly, nowhere in the briefing to this court is the issue of whether that directly accessing impacts any of the references other than Tarasaki.

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
So on this appeal, and indeed below,

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
before the board and before the examiner, there was never an issue about directly accessing as related to anything but Terasaki.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you about the other point we were discussing with your friend, which is that we're seeing a lot of IPRs come up now.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
And it is the case that somehow parsing between what we do in district court proceedings, clearly claim construction markman is separate from the obviousness of validity issues.

[00:16:53] Speaker 03:
It seems like in some of these IPRs we're seeing, it's not really posited as a claim construction question that claim construction disputes do arise in the context of

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
of the obviousness analysis.

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
Do you understand what I mean?

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
So why isn't that kind of okay or give you a little flexibility in terms of saying waiver of a claim construction if clearly the claim construction issue was joined in connection with obviousness?

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, first I'd point out this is not an inter-parties review.

[00:17:25] Speaker 02:
The standards for inter-party review are vastly different than the standards for inter-party re-examination.

[00:17:31] Speaker 02:
In fact, there is no longer an inter-party re-examination, as the courts review.

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
The standards are very different.

[00:17:37] Speaker 02:
The standards in an inter-party re-examination were very similar and were handled just like a prosecution.

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
The examiner put forth their findings as to what was in the art.

[00:17:49] Speaker 02:
The burden then shifted to the patent owner to point out the errors in the examiner's determination or rejection.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
Interesting, we have no explicit, we being the petitioner, have no explicit part in that.

[00:18:05] Speaker 02:
We're completely a third party.

[00:18:07] Speaker 02:
So the answer to your question is, although it may be more similar in a quasi-litigation, re-examine, inter-parties review, here that's not.

[00:18:20] Speaker 02:
It's purely the burden is on them to identify any errors that they perceive within the examiner's rejection.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
They failed to do it.

[00:18:29] Speaker 02:
And it's really a red herring here, Your Honor, in the fact that they're just trying to raise a legal issue for the purposes of appeal.

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
For example, magnetic disk operation.

[00:18:39] Speaker 02:
Their argument is really just restating the ordinary meaning.

[00:18:43] Speaker 02:
They say, well, magnetic disk operation is an operation in magnetic disk format.

[00:18:47] Speaker 02:
That doesn't raise a claim.

[00:18:49] Speaker 02:
That's just the ordinary meaning.

[00:18:50] Speaker 02:
They didn't raise it to the board.

[00:18:53] Speaker 02:
We don't dispute.

[00:18:55] Speaker 02:
In fact, we established that the prior art references teach an operation in magnetic disk format.

[00:19:03] Speaker 02:
So the claim construction arguments they're trying to raise here for the first time don't affect the outcome.

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
The things that they raise in there were considered by the examiner, were considered by the board.

[00:19:16] Speaker 02:
So it's really just trying to.

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
avoid the heavy burden of proof.

[00:19:21] Speaker 02:
Instead of establishing that there is lack of substantial evidence to support the board's finding that the magnetic disk operation format was in the prior art, they're trying to say, well,

[00:19:36] Speaker 02:
the examiner or the board or somebody should have construed this term, then we can now have an issue of law and hope that you remand back to the board with this, quote, new construction.

[00:19:49] Speaker 02:
And that's really all they're doing here with the claim construction issue.

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
I'll point out one other issue.

[00:19:57] Speaker 02:
They bring up the publication dates.

[00:20:01] Speaker 02:
They admit that they don't dispute the publication dates.

[00:20:05] Speaker 02:
But then they say the examiner has a duty to independently determine those publication dates.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
And in the reply brief, they cite to

[00:20:17] Speaker 02:
I have the quote here.

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
I apologize.

[00:20:20] Speaker 02:
The standard innovations case for this.

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
But again, the standard innovation case is an inner party's review.

[00:20:27] Speaker 02:
In an inner party's review, the party contesting the validity clearly does have a burden of establishing the publication dates.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
That was an inner party's review.

[00:20:40] Speaker 02:
This is an inner party's re-exam.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
We had no burden to establish it.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
And all the examiner was required to do was set forth a basis for the rejection, and then the burden switches to NETAC to point out any errors in that.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
Your Honors, this is an unusual case.

[00:20:59] Speaker 02:
It's unusual case A, because of the number of issues that are raised.

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
It's also an interesting case or unusual case in the fact that almost all of the arguments raised at this court were not raised to the court, the vast majority of arguments.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
In addition, it's an unusual case in the fact that there's so many different paths to affirming the board's decision.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
Now, I would like to address one of those paths.

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
And I want to emphasize it's merely one path.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
And that is the path that we identified in our brief, which is the Satori combinations combined with the NETAC reference.

[00:21:38] Speaker 02:
Now, each and every argument that NETAC raises in respect to the Satori combinations was not raised to the board.

[00:21:50] Speaker 02:
Everyone is new.

[00:21:52] Speaker 02:
Every one of those arguments is newly raised here.

[00:21:55] Speaker 02:
In their reply brief, let me back up.

[00:21:59] Speaker 02:
We point that out, of course, in our brief.

[00:22:03] Speaker 02:
In their reply brief, they don't even attempt to dispute that.

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
So we go through each of their arguments.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
We say this was not raised below.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
The reply brief, they don't even attempt to dispute it.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
And in fact, they all are new.

[00:22:19] Speaker 02:
But, Your Honor,

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
We don't have to rely, in this case, on the procedural or the waiver issues.

[00:22:28] Speaker 02:
We also win on the substance in this case.

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
For example, the bond reference, the rejections based on the bond reference.

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
Aside from all those issues being waived, the arguments they make with respect to the bond references don't even really address the issues.

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
With respect to the bond reference,

[00:22:50] Speaker 02:
They really raise very few arguments.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
And again, we respond to all those arguments.

[00:22:59] Speaker 02:
They don't even raise, try to dispute our issues in the reply brief.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
They completely ignore the bond reference.

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
First, they argue, Your Honor, that magnetic disk operation is not disclosed in bond.

[00:23:16] Speaker 02:
But when you look at their argument, the citations they have is to show that it's not disclosed in Bond 2.

[00:23:23] Speaker 02:
This is their brief at page 30, Your Honors.

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
Their real argument is that Bond 2, which is a secondary reference,

[00:23:31] Speaker 02:
that was incorporated by reference into Bond doesn't disclose magnetic disk format operation.

[00:23:38] Speaker 02:
Bond 2 clearly does.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
If you look at column 8, line 29 to 30, it explicitly refers to hard disk memory, which is a magnetic disk format.

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
Likewise, Your Honor, the other argument they make is that the special read instruction

[00:23:55] Speaker 02:
A claim six is not disclosed.

[00:23:58] Speaker 02:
Here, Your Honor, again, they argue that Bond doesn't disclose this, but they don't take any issue.

[00:24:05] Speaker 02:
They don't address the issue.

[00:24:07] Speaker 02:
Actually, Your Honor, they make no argument at all.

[00:24:09] Speaker 02:
It's a single one-sentence statement that Bond doesn't disclose this.

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
But bond two, which is part of the combination, it's incorporated by reference in bond, clearly discloses disk operation and conversion.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
So those are two separate paths to affirming the board's decision.

[00:24:29] Speaker 02:
One, based purely on the waiver issues.

[00:24:32] Speaker 02:
Each of the arguments with respect to the Satori combinations was not raised below to the board.

[00:24:39] Speaker 02:
There's no dispute that they weren't raised below.

[00:24:42] Speaker 02:
NETAC makes no arguments as to how they were raised.

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
Second, Your Honor, if we just ignore the waiver issues and looked purely at the substance, there's no real issue here that the bond combinations anticipate each of these references.

[00:25:03] Speaker 02:
Now, the other issue they raised is the lack of the examiner to make substantial fact finding.

[00:25:14] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, they just really ignore the exit.

[00:25:17] Speaker 02:
First of all, it's waived.

[00:25:18] Speaker 02:
It wasn't raised to the board.

[00:25:20] Speaker 02:
This is an issue that's particularly pertinent to the board.

[00:25:23] Speaker 02:
You're arguing that the examiner did not follow PTO procedure.

[00:25:28] Speaker 02:
But yet they don't raise it to the board.

[00:25:30] Speaker 02:
They don't have the board the opportunity to look at their own procedures and decide whether the examiner did it.

[00:25:38] Speaker 02:
Had they raised it to the board, we would be reviewing this issue based on an arbitrary capricious standard.

[00:25:44] Speaker 02:
Was the board arbitrary and capricious in their determination about what the examiner did?

[00:25:49] Speaker 02:
They didn't raise it to the board.

[00:25:51] Speaker 02:
We don't have any board findings.

[00:25:52] Speaker 02:
There's really nothing to review.

[00:25:54] Speaker 02:
But even so, Your Honor,

[00:25:56] Speaker 02:
If you look at the record, we point this out in our briefing, the examiner did all that it was required to do.

[00:26:04] Speaker 02:
The examiner set out what the prior art was, set out what elements were disclosed in each of the prior art references, set out the motivation to combine the references.

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
That's all that's required.

[00:26:16] Speaker 02:
Furthermore, the examiner incorporated many pages of claim charts that were included in the original request, incorporated in reference back to our arguments as to the motivation combined.

[00:26:32] Speaker 02:
There's really no, first of all, it's waived.

[00:26:36] Speaker 02:
Second of all, the examiner did all the examiner was required.

[00:26:40] Speaker 02:
NETAC has the burden to point out where the examiner is wrong.

[00:26:45] Speaker 02:
And they did.

[00:26:46] Speaker 02:
They repeatedly tried to point out where the examiner was wrong.

[00:26:49] Speaker 02:
And when those arguments would get rejected, they'd come up with a new set of arguments.

[00:26:56] Speaker 02:
And when they would get rejected, you'd come up with a new set of arguments here.

[00:26:59] Speaker 02:
Now, one last point I want to raise on that.

[00:27:02] Speaker 02:
They raised for the first time in their reply brief

[00:27:04] Speaker 02:
that the examiner didn't make an explicit finding of the level of ordinary skill.

[00:27:10] Speaker 02:
This wasn't raised in their opening brief.

[00:27:13] Speaker 02:
They addressed motivation and combined scope and content of prior art.

[00:27:17] Speaker 02:
But they never raised the argument that the examiner didn't explicitly identify the level of ordinary skill.

[00:27:26] Speaker 02:
So it's waived.

[00:27:28] Speaker 02:
It was waived for the first time in reply.

[00:27:29] Speaker 02:
But Your Honor, the law is that the examiner doesn't have to make an explicit finding what an ordinary skill is.

[00:27:36] Speaker 02:
In fact, very few examiners make an explicit finding on that issue.

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
And the law provides that unless it's in dispute, the examiner doesn't have to make an explicit finding.

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
Of course, everything has to be done through the prison.

[00:27:52] Speaker 02:
of a personal or any skill, but there doesn't have to be an explicit finding.

[00:27:57] Speaker 02:
And in fact, Mitak's own case, Enray, cited in the reply brief, Enray, and I will not get this name correct, Via Yantafon establishes that very point, Your Honor, that is not necessary.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
I'm happy to address any other issues.

[00:28:19] Speaker 03:
We have your argument.

[00:28:20] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:35] Speaker 00:
We just tried to correct a few points.

[00:28:40] Speaker 00:
The first one is Sartoria and we actually, why we argued as we did in the brief is because the board actually made a new

[00:28:59] Speaker 00:
decisions based on Sartori reference.

[00:29:02] Speaker 00:
That Sartori reference actually was the only reference.

[00:29:07] Speaker 00:
Sandex did not use it for the co-panning case.

[00:29:14] Speaker 00:
But the board actually used this as a main reference to reject all the claims of 672 pattern.

[00:29:22] Speaker 00:
And the board actually

[00:29:25] Speaker 00:
used, both actually add different combinations to reject this claim.

[00:29:34] Speaker 00:
We filed a request for a hearing to address the new grounds of rejection issues, but both basically rejected our request.

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
So the Satori reference actually

[00:29:48] Speaker 00:
It's the weakest.

[00:29:49] Speaker 00:
It's just merely a USB peripheral device.

[00:29:53] Speaker 00:
It's not, there's no, I mean, a person who is only skilled in art cannot even think to combine this with a storage device as it is in this particular case.

[00:30:07] Speaker 00:
We have this one piece process.

[00:30:10] Speaker 03:
Final thought, your time has expired.

[00:30:14] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:30:14] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:30:15] Speaker 03:
We thank both counsel and the cases submitted.