[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
Okay, the next case is number 161102, Stop Ink, 18 Gazelle Shaft, against JW Hicks, Incorporated.

[00:00:42] Speaker 00:
Mr. Dunn.

[00:00:43] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
May it please the court?

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
This is a case where below the district applied fire wrapper stopper to preclude any application of doctor of equivalence.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
We believe that was erroneous.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
The patent relates to a slide gate which is used to close the opening in a container from molten metal and the container will have an opening or a nozzle.

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
The slide gate will have a refractory plate which will slide into position which also has a nozzle to align the nozzles to open the container or slide the gates away, slide the refractory plates away so the container is sealed.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
Because of the molten metal,

[00:01:30] Speaker 02:
Gates have to be very tightly, with a lot of pressure, secured together so there's no leakage.

[00:01:36] Speaker 02:
And they have to be slideable.

[00:01:38] Speaker 02:
So those are the technical problems that need to be solved.

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
In this particular patent, the invention was to provide slide gates which have guide means, which in dependent claims are recited as rollers, and tracks for the rollers on the slider or on the mounting meets.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
was very clear that the mounting means need to be mounted directly to the container and not to a frame that had been used in the prior art.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
So in order to do this, the mounting means were multiplied.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
So there were two mounting means or two mounting components on each side of the slide gate.

[00:02:14] Speaker 02:
And each of these mounting components had a guide track and a guide element to ride on the guide track to move the slide plates.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
The claims were initially presented

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
in European form with a characterization clause reciting guide means and a track.

[00:02:32] Speaker 02:
And the claim as originally filed, originally presented to the examiner, required that the guide track or the guide means would be either on the slider member or on the housing or vice versa.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
Either way.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Can I just interrupt you for... I'm just curious about something.

[00:02:52] Speaker 01:
The claim one, the claim that's before us.

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:02:56] Speaker 01:
The claim guide tracks are on the slider unit, right?

[00:03:00] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
And then the so-called guide element, i.e.

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
the slide rollers, are on the housing portion.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
Right?

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
And then we looked at the defendant's product, Hick's product.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
They have that in reverse.

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
Reverse, correct.

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
The guide tracks are on the housing portion.

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
And the slider rollers guide elements are on the slider unit.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
They're reversed.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
They're reversed.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
Now, I'm wondering why you didn't assert your claim 15 in this patent, which has the guide tracks on the housing portion and the guide element slide rollers on the slider unit.

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
Then you wouldn't be in this sort of contorted situation of trying to rely on doctrine of equivalence for a reverse orientation with claim one.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
You could just seamlessly and smoothly rely on Claim 15, which has the actual orientation of the defendant's products.

[00:03:56] Speaker 02:
In that respect, yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:57] Speaker 02:
Claim 15 also has that the spring structure is located on the actual slider.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
Whereas in, that's part of Figure 5.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
Whereas, and that's the Claim 15, which was Claim 29 in the application.

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
requires the mounting components of the spring elements which keep the plates tied together to be on the slider.

[00:04:20] Speaker 02:
So we have to have that equivalence where the mounting components would have been or the spring elements would have been on the housing.

[00:04:28] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:04:28] Speaker 01:
Just for my own curiosity, can you show me where in claim 1 and claim 15 the spring elements are in different places?

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
You have, in claim 15, you have the probability of mounting components, and then you have a first end secured to the slider element, spring elements for pressing said refractory valve plate and the other valve plate together, the second opposite end, and the guide element on the second end for riding on the guide tracks.

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
I read that, and we're looking at the... Which claim are we looking at?

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
Claim one or claim 15?

[00:05:11] Speaker 02:
Claim 15.

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
Okay, claim 15.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
The spring elements.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
So you have the first end, the mounting components, which include these spring elements.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
The first end secured to the slider unit.

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
Okay, then spring elements keep the place together.

[00:05:27] Speaker 02:
The second opposite end and then the guide element on the second opposite end for riding on the guide tracks on the housing portion.

[00:05:36] Speaker 02:
So you have the spring elements have one end secured to the slider unit.

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
And that would be different from the accused device.

[00:05:45] Speaker 02:
It's also different from the embodiment shown in Figure 1.

[00:05:51] Speaker 02:
So we would have an equivalence argument on that part.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say where the spring elements are attached to.

[00:06:05] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
That was quite a while ago we went through this analysis.

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
There was the first end secured to the slider unit and the second end opposite the first end.

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
That's required on the mounting components.

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
And then the guide element or the rollers are on the second end for riding on and respect to one of the guide tracks.

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:06:28] Speaker 02:
Which are on the housing.

[00:06:30] Speaker 02:
But the second end has to be secured to the slider movement.

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
And we read that as being directed to figure, being bought into figure five.

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
which is also the reverse of DQ's product.

[00:06:47] Speaker 02:
That was the analysis before the complaint was filed.

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
To go quickly, what happened below was the judge, I believe, made an erroneous finding where he said the claim was narrowed with this specific location of either the guide tracks or the guide elements.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
that was specifically recited, that that narrowing amendment, which we admit was narrowing, was made for the purpose of avoiding the prior art.

[00:07:15] Speaker 02:
I think the file wrapper, the remarks made to the Patent Office and the Patent Office Office action make it clear that the prior art cited required the guide tracks or the guide elements to be either on the side or on the housing portion.

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
Either alternative was within a prior art.

[00:07:33] Speaker 01:
There was also a 112 rejection, right?

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
Yeah, 112 rejection.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
An indefiniteness rejection.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
There was an indefinite rejection, which was not related to the equivalence.

[00:07:43] Speaker 01:
But you then chose to split up a garbled claim that was covering two embodiments into two claims, with each claim covering one of the two embodiments, right?

[00:07:58] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
No, in response to a patentability rejection, you made this amendment and you chose to figure out a way to overcome the indefiniteness rejection in a way that ended up narrowing the claims to individual embodiments.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
No, there was no indefinite rejection which required the either or.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
There was no rejection that the alternative arrangement was indefinite.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
If there had been, I would say absolutely, then electing one or the other would have been done to impatient ability.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
That was my reading of the basis for the indefinite misrejection.

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
What's yours?

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
There were specific questions of some of the indefinites, but the examiner never said.

[00:08:46] Speaker 02:
He goes on specific claims, all the claims.

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
He didn't know what the term the latter is.

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
about what may be in claim one, line three.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
There's no indication what component of the sliding unit is supposed to be longitudinally movable with respect to clarification.

[00:09:08] Speaker 02:
That had nothing to do with the equivalence of issue.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
Claim one, line four, the term may be is unclear.

[00:09:16] Speaker 02:
Clarifications, claim two, the valve plate is singular.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
What claim one, you know, these are going to dependent claims.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
So there's no claim rejection under one, which there could have been.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
I was an examiner.

[00:09:27] Speaker 02:
I could have made that rejection.

[00:09:29] Speaker 02:
I said, you can't claim an alternative.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
But the examiner never made that 112 rejection, and you can't claim the alternative.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
He was fine with the alternative claim.

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
And then the claim was narrowed to pick one.

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
I agree with that, to pick one for one claim section and another for the other claim, other than by the other claim section.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
The claim was also narrowed to have the four components.

[00:09:50] Speaker 02:
that the nothing means we have four components, two on each side, which is what is not shown in any of the prior art.

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
Both the examiner stated the prior art shows both alternatives.

[00:10:05] Speaker 02:
That's very clear in the 102 rejection.

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
There is no rejection in the 112 because the alternative arrangement is indefinite.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
I agree.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
If that rejection had been made, there would have clearly been

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
reason for patentability for the narrowing amendment than it be estoppel.

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
That rejection wasn't made.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
The examiner was fine with the alternative arrangement.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
He actually found the alternative arrangements in the prior art.

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
Although the prior art only one patent has rollers, it had the guide element and the guide and the tracks in the prior art, either on the housing or on the slider.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
That was clear.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
But the examiner found the alternatives in the prior art.

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
The claim was narrowed.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
Okay, in really two ways.

[00:10:50] Speaker 02:
Claim one, or claim 15 application, claim one in the patent was narrowed to specifically recite the guide tracks on the slider and the guide elements on the housing component.

[00:11:02] Speaker 02:
But it was also amended to require that the mounting components had two units on each side, so there'd be four.

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
And this is mounting components having these rollers and guide tracks and springs to get the plates tightly together.

[00:11:16] Speaker 02:
It was this arrangement of two per side on the slider unit which gave the pressure to have the tight seal that would be necessary between the two refractory plates to stop molten metal from leaking.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
That's what the patent was about, was to not have the frame which had been required previously to keep this pressure intact, but instead we're going to use four

[00:11:40] Speaker 02:
individual mounting components spaced on opposite, two on each side spaced so that we could have this equilateral pressure all the way around the plate.

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
And that's what the remarks say.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
The remarks are very clear that the invention was having the guide tracks or the guide elements on either the slider or the housing.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
Either one was part of the invention.

[00:12:02] Speaker 02:
That's the notice that was given to the public, but either one on the invention.

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
Then they come right back and it says, as explained in the specification, the arrangement

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
of the mounting components with respect to have two on each side, which is also a narrowing amendment.

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
That was the narrowing amendment which triggered the patentability.

[00:12:22] Speaker 02:
That's the feature which is not found in the art, and that's the feature that's not part of what our equivalence analysis is.

[00:12:28] Speaker 02:
So what we're here is that the district court below said that the claims were narrowed to exclude the equivalence in order to get patentability.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
That's wrong.

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
That was not the purpose of this narrowing amendment to put the guide tracks on the slider.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
That was not to get patentability.

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
Guide tracks on the slider and guide elements on the sliding member, on the housing, were known in the prior art.

[00:12:53] Speaker 02:
Reversing them were known in the prior art.

[00:12:55] Speaker 02:
Either way, it was known in the prior art.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
It had nothing to do with patentability.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
And that finding was wrong.

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
What is the narrowing of the claim that got us the patentability aspect was the two on each side which is in both claim 1 and claim 15 and those are the features which that's the only feature that I can say that is not found in a prior law is the as the mounting means being spaced in that arrangement.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
That's a narrowing amendment the prior office did not show that the accused device does the only differences excuse me the equivalence issue

[00:13:28] Speaker 02:
I think we've clearly shown from the file wrapper alone that the narrowing amendment of where the guide tracks were and where the guide elements were was not made for a particular reason relating to patentability.

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
And we stated in the file history that our invention included either arrangement.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
We gave notice to the public.

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
Anyone reading the file history would say the invention included either arrangement.

[00:13:55] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Dunn.

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
We'll save you a little time.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
Mr. Brown.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
Good morning, and may it please the court.

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
The public record here is clear, unmistakable, and controlling.

[00:14:14] Speaker 03:
The patent applicant successfully argued its claims were allowable over the prior art following narrowing amendments.

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
And this became a classic case of prosecution history estoppel when the patent owner had to resort to the doctrine of equivalence in court because the very limitations narrowed during prosecution are not literally present in the accused device.

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
Summer judgment should be affirmed under these circumstances.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
The narrowing of the claim is clear.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
It was narrowed during prosecution.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
There's no argument at this court to the contrary.

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
So the question then becomes, is that narrowing related to patentability?

[00:14:51] Speaker 03:
And we look to the patent applicant's own words.

[00:14:55] Speaker 03:
the public record, which confirms that the narrowing amendment was for patentability purposes.

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
And if you look to the file history, pages 248 through 250, repeated references as to why the substituted claim, the narrowed claim, is distinguishable from the prior art.

[00:15:19] Speaker 03:
I'm not going to read all of the quotes.

[00:15:23] Speaker 03:
They're in the record.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
But each time, there's a reference made to the difference being the mounting components, the guide elements, at least with respect to two of those references, and the configuration as being arranged, as recited in the independent claims.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
So what the public at large is entitled to glean from that record is that when you arranged those limitations in a specific way in what issue does claim one, you did it for purposes of getting around the prior art.

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
And then the summary that appears at page 250

[00:16:02] Speaker 03:
is itself telling, as discussed above, the Holterman reference, the Klevat reference, and the Platner reference do not disclose or suggest a plurality of mounting components arranged as recited in claims 15-40.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that new independent claims 15 and 29, and the claims that depend from them, are clearly patentable over the prior art of record.

[00:16:27] Speaker 03:
The focus is on the mounting components, the guide elements, and the arrangement of those.

[00:16:34] Speaker 03:
And it is clear that the arrangement in the HICS device is different.

[00:16:38] Speaker 03:
It is different.

[00:16:40] Speaker 03:
And Judge Chen, with respect to your question about the issued claim 15, what's different primarily here is the mounting component itself.

[00:16:50] Speaker 03:
The claims require that the mounting component have two ends, one affixed in claim one to the housing, the second end having a guide element that then rolls in the guide track that the claim requires being affixed to the slider.

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
In the Hicks product,

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
The guide element, the roller, is directly fixed to the slider unit and the tracks themselves are attached to the mounting components.

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
It's actually a more complex arrangement in terms of how these products are actually used.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
greater tolerances and better efficiency with respect to the product itself.

[00:17:28] Speaker 03:
But he couldn't bring claim 15 because the key is, where is the mounting component located?

[00:17:37] Speaker 03:
And he had the same issue he had with respect to claim 1.

[00:17:41] Speaker 03:
So what I hear the arguments today is that, well, we didn't have to amend the claims for purposes of patentability as it relates to the location of the guide tracks and the mounting components.

[00:18:04] Speaker 03:
But that's not what the public record says.

[00:18:05] Speaker 03:
It's not what the public record reflects.

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
And at the district court level, they tried relying upon an affidavit from a foreign patent attorney who was overseeing US prosecution trying to put a spin on the file history, which is, in essence, what counsel does today, put a spin on that file history, which is really divorced from the plain language, the clear language that the public is entitled to rely upon.

[00:18:29] Speaker 03:
And I would also say that,

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
It's not just the location of the mounting components and the guide tracks that was important for purposes of patentability.

[00:18:42] Speaker 03:
The guide element itself was specifically highlighted when distinguishing Holterman and Klebat.

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
And this is again at page 249 and 250.

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
Klebat does not disclose or suggest mounting components having a spring element and a guide element

[00:19:00] Speaker 03:
in which the mounting components are arranged as recited in the independent claims.

[00:19:04] Speaker 03:
So again, that guide element, that's the nub of the issue right here in terms of what's different between the Hicks product and what was the result of the narrowing amendment here.

[00:19:19] Speaker 03:
So direct connection between the rejection, the amendment,

[00:19:25] Speaker 03:
And then now an attempt to recapture that which was given up.

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
So in our view, public record, which is there for competitors, the public at large should rely upon is clear.

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
There's an argument made in the briefing regarding this cumbersome frame.

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
The real reason that the claims were, what distinguished the invention from the prior art was the absence of this cumbersome frame.

[00:19:58] Speaker 03:
And we heard a little bit about that just briefly.

[00:20:00] Speaker 03:
But claim one does not preclude the use of a frame.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
And more importantly, we highlight in our brief, the prior art,

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
expressly discusses the elimination of a frame as the advantages of its invention.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
This was the Holterman patent at page A316 of the record.

[00:20:19] Speaker 03:
And, again, now focusing on the public record, Stoppick, the patent owner, never argued, like it did with respect to the mounting components with guide elements, that this is what distinguished the claims from the prior art.

[00:20:34] Speaker 03:
And I would say that with respect to that argument, the best that Stoppard can do is say, well, the prior art's ambiguous as to this point that we want to make.

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
But as we know, an ambiguous prior art is insufficient.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, ambiguous file history is insufficient to overcome the presumption that exists here.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
So in our view, what's the scope of the estoppel?

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
Well, the claim was narrowed.

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
to a specific configuration of mounting components with guide elements secured to housing and guide tracks secured to the slider.

[00:21:12] Speaker 03:
The scope of estoppel has to claim one, at a minimum, would preclude doctrine of equivalence arguments with respect to any device with guide tracks secured to the housing or guide elements on the slider unit.

[00:21:24] Speaker 03:
And that is precisely the fixed product.

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
But your friend says the guide elements were in the prior art, and that wasn't the basis for patentability.

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
That's what the argument is made, but that's not what the record reflects.

[00:21:39] Speaker 03:
During the prosecution itself, there's no parsing of the words of the basis for overcoming the rejection in that fashion.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
So again, what does the public record say?

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
And Your Honor, I would say that the EMD Millipore case came out in 2014.

[00:21:58] Speaker 03:
The district court cited it, and I should have cited it more heavily in our brief, but didn't, is directly on point here.

[00:22:07] Speaker 03:
And in there, a claim was amended to require the existing seal have first and second ends with distinct structural elements.

[00:22:15] Speaker 03:
And the applicant said the purpose of the amendment was to make claim one allowable and distinguishable over the cited references.

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
The court said, actually reversed the district court, and then concluded that the limitation was narrowed to overcome a previous rejection.

[00:22:31] Speaker 03:
And the same is true here.

[00:22:37] Speaker 03:
After noting the prior art rejection, Stoppink says claims have been drafted to clarify the arrangement of the mounting components in the slider unit.

[00:22:46] Speaker 03:
Thus, for reasons discussed below which respectfully submitted, new claims are clearly patentable over the prior art of record.

[00:22:53] Speaker 03:
Like the applicant or patent owner in EMD Millipore,

[00:22:59] Speaker 03:
Sopping here chose not to rely upon any of the three Festo exceptions to overcome the presumption.

[00:23:08] Speaker 03:
There's no effort made by them to argue before this court the tangential relation exception.

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
They argued at the district court and lost, and it's argued that having not raised it now that that issue has been waived.

[00:23:26] Speaker 03:
I'll also just address a point that was in the

[00:23:29] Speaker 03:
They made a hypothetical claim analysis for the first time that that's appeared in either the district court level or before this court.

[00:23:41] Speaker 03:
So I didn't have an opportunity to respond.

[00:23:44] Speaker 03:
And they would suggest that their proposed hypothetical claim would avoid the prior art while at the same time accomplishing the accused device.

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
And respectfully, Your Honors, that's too little too late.

[00:23:55] Speaker 03:
First, an argument raised and a reply brief has been waived.

[00:23:58] Speaker 03:
We've cited those cases, Smith-Kline and cross-medical cases.

[00:24:03] Speaker 03:
But even if it were properly raised, the analysis must be properly performed.

[00:24:08] Speaker 03:
And that would include an obviousness analysis that simply has not been done here.

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
Stoppink made no attempt to explain how that hypothetical claim would avoid the prior art under 102 or 103.

[00:24:21] Speaker 03:
And this court has directly indicated that a hypothetical claim analysis cannot operate to the exclusion of the doctrine of prosecution history

[00:24:33] Speaker 03:
for the all elements rule, both of which serve the limit, the doctrine of equivalence.

[00:24:37] Speaker 03:
That's the Moore USA case, 229 F.

[00:24:40] Speaker 03:
3rd, 1091.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
So based on the public record, based on what the public is entitled to rely upon, we believe that the district court got it right, that prosecution of history is stoppable applies.

[00:24:58] Speaker 03:
And we ask that the entry of summary judgment of non-infringement be affirmed.

[00:25:03] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:25:04] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Brown.

[00:25:11] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honors.

[00:25:12] Speaker 02:
Very quickly, in the remarks that were filed, it was clearly stated that the prior art does not show the arrangements for the guide and the tracks as shown in claims 15 and 29, which became 1 and 15.

[00:25:25] Speaker 02:
So at every step that they say where reference doesn't disclose, they discuss the alternative arrangement, that the reference doesn't disclose.

[00:25:33] Speaker 02:
The file history, the remarks do say, as explained in the specification, the arrangement of the sliding gate of the President's invention eliminates the need for a large and cumbersome frame, which increases size cost.

[00:25:44] Speaker 02:
In addition, the arrangement of the mounting components with respect to refractory valve plates and the spring element of each mount allows the valve plate to be closely held together during operation.

[00:25:56] Speaker 02:
The narrowing of the claims, which allow for patentability, and the only reason why claim one, for example, even defines over the platinum reference, which is on page, especially figure three on the appendix A332.

[00:26:12] Speaker 02:
That's a prior reference that was cited by the examiner.

[00:26:15] Speaker 02:
The only way claim one defines over that patent is when you look at the four spaced components.

[00:26:22] Speaker 02:
that are provided.

[00:26:23] Speaker 02:
That is the arrangement which was added to Claim 1 and actually the new Claim 15.

[00:26:28] Speaker 02:
It was a narrowing amendment and that is the narrowing amendment which defines over the cited R. It's the only narrowing amendment which defines over the cited R. So the Patent Office Examiner never rejected the either, the Patent Office Examiner found either or was present in the prior R. The applicant always said,

[00:26:49] Speaker 02:
Our invention includes either or, either as in claim 15 or in claim 29, which became 1 in 15, the patent.

[00:26:55] Speaker 02:
And clearly in the response says it's the arrangement of the mounting components, which is two on a side for a total of four, which makes this thing work.

[00:27:05] Speaker 02:
And that's the defining feature over the platinum reference.

[00:27:09] Speaker 02:
That's why the patent is patented.

[00:27:10] Speaker 02:
And that's not relevant to the equivalent.

[00:27:12] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry I came over.

[00:27:13] Speaker 02:
I apologize.

[00:27:16] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:27:16] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much.

[00:27:17] Speaker 00:
The case is taken into submission.