[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
We have a full day in front of us.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
We have four cases set for oral argument this morning.

[00:00:12] Speaker 03:
And one case has been submitted for resolution on the brief.

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
Is Attorney Friedman here yet?

[00:00:24] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:00:30] Speaker 03:
So let's get started with the first case, Superior Industries, Inc.

[00:00:34] Speaker 03:
versus Massaba, Inc.

[00:00:36] Speaker 03:
15-1594 Counsel you ready you may you may proceed please Now understand that you reserve five minutes of your 15 minutes time to argue user fit five for rebuttal okay, you may proceed

[00:01:05] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
The district court erred by construing terms on appeal to include limitations from the specification without considering the entire context of the intrinsic record.

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
And in essence, what the district court did was rewrite the claims under the guise of claim construction.

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
The intrinsic evidence properly considered in total does not clearly and manifestly surrender any scope and does not limit the scopes, and they are written.

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
In other words, there's been no redefinition of the terms and claims, and there's been no clear disclaimer.

[00:01:40] Speaker 00:
Superior's brief addresses many claim terms that are at issue that were erroneously construed, but I'd like to focus my arguments today on two of those claim terms.

[00:01:50] Speaker 00:
The RAM section language of claim five, Superior's 482 patent, which is one of the truck and loader patents, and the channel beam language of the undercarriage patents.

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
If we decide the case on those two alone, is there a need to address, in your view, any of the other issues?

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
Unfortunately, there is, Your Honor, because some of those other claim construction issues address earlier features of the truck and loader patents.

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
Those are particularly truck and loader patent terms.

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
And there are earlier versions of the truck and loader device that defendant made.

[00:02:29] Speaker 00:
that may be covered by one or more of the claims that contain those terms.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
Those, at some point in time, the structure changed and so claim five, for example, of the 482 patent issued later than the earlier versions and therefore would not be directed just to those earlier versions.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
So there's a few earlier versions that would be necessary to know what the claim construction is for those terms.

[00:03:00] Speaker 00:
The district court erroneously construed the terms first and second ramp section to include both a ramp and a ramp support frame.

[00:03:10] Speaker 00:
The ramp support frame is not stated in claim five.

[00:03:14] Speaker 00:
It was a separate feature of the portable conveyor system that was claimed that was imported from the specification.

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
The district court, in fact, did not find that there was a clear and unmistakable redefinition or definition of that term.

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
the term ramp section in the specification or that there was any clear and unmistakable disclaimer.

[00:03:36] Speaker 00:
The district clerk merely concluded that based on one part of the specification, the quote, intrinsic record, the intrinsic evidence demonstrates to one of ordinary skill in the art that ramp section is a structure comprised of both a ramp and a ramp support frame, which begs the question, why?

[00:03:55] Speaker 00:
Why is that a required feature in claim five?

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
The district court's conclusion is in fact contradicted by a complete review and analysis of the claims and the entire specification.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
As this court has directed, we start with the claims.

[00:04:12] Speaker 00:
Claim five on its face claims a ramp system of a portable conveyor that is comprised of three ramp sections, a first and a second and a third ramp section.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
The first and second ramp sections are claimed

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
as being pivotally mounted on either side of a frame that carries a conveyor belt assembly.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
And the third ram section comprises a grate, and that's carried on the frame above the belt assembly and between the first and second ram sections.

[00:04:43] Speaker 00:
The first and second ram sections are able to be pivoted from a lowered position to a raised position.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
This is according to the claims.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
And the first, second, and third ram sections each are provided with a pair of sidewalls.

[00:04:56] Speaker 00:
on either side.

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
The sidewalls of the first and second ramp sections are claimed to be able to move relative to the sidewalls of the third ramp section when they are raised.

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
The specification is then reviewed, we're told, to understand the meaning of Claim 5.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
But according to this court's precedence, we're not supposed to change or rewrite the claim as part of that review of the specification.

[00:05:23] Speaker 00:
In the specification, the first and second ramp sections

[00:05:26] Speaker 00:
are disposed by reference to ramp sections 26 and 28.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
We have cited to a portion of the specification in our blue brief that the district court did not acknowledge or address that describes ramp sections 26 and 28 pivoting away from the ramp support frame to move the excess material that falls onto those ramp sections into the third ramp section and pivoting back down then for the next transport vehicle.

[00:05:55] Speaker 00:
Further, there's another portion of the specification found on page A31 of the appendix that describes the sidewalls as actually being connected to a side frame number 55 of ramp sections 26 and 28.

[00:06:10] Speaker 00:
The side frame number 55 is part of a frame that carries each of the picking ramps.

[00:06:19] Speaker 00:
An understanding of the intended use of the claim structures of claim five

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
is confirmed by the specification.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
The first, second, and third ram sections function to receive material from a transport vehicle.

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
Most of the material is deposited by the vehicle, falls through the grate, and onto the conveyor assembly.

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
But the first and second sections, with the aid of sidewalls, catch any overflow, which can be deposited into the grate, and then by pivoting those rams upward, can deposit that excess material into the third ram section.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
Based on an entire reading of the specification, it is clear that RAM sections 26 and 28 are a reference to sections of the RAM system that catch excess material and pivot up to clear that material off of those RAM sections.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
This was an independent inventive aspect that was addressed in claim five.

[00:07:16] Speaker 00:
This court's prior decisions made clear that not every aspect of a disclosed apparatus needs to be claimed

[00:07:22] Speaker 00:
can be directed to only one aspect, especially if it has utility separate and apart from the other disclosed aspects.

[00:07:30] Speaker 00:
And a ramp support frame is not necessary for the pivoting ramps to function to catch excess material or to pivot up and clear that material off, and they're not necessary to support the ramps when they're in the down position.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
The pivoting ramp sections can be supported on the ground by other structures in the ramp support frame, such as concrete blocks, metal beams, or one more leg that's found

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
on column seven, lines one through eight on page A41 of the specification.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
So the entire specification does not support the district court's conclusion that first and second ramp sections must be construed to include a ramp support frame, and we ask the district court's construction to be vacated and correctly reported.

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
I'd next like to use my time to address the channel beam language.

[00:08:19] Speaker 00:
The district court erred in construing channel beam to require

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
three complete sides and a partial four side.

[00:08:26] Speaker 01:
The channel beams are a feature.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
So I read the claims and it seemed at first that your argument was pretty strong, but then every time you refer to this in the specification,

[00:08:38] Speaker 01:
and you refer to language in the claim, you also refer to three sides and a partial fourth.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
And then you distinguish between a U-shaped side, which is three, I think, and a C-shaped side, which is the partial fourth.

[00:08:51] Speaker 01:
So haven't you defined that and given that up in your specification?

[00:08:56] Speaker 00:
Well, there's a part that is pointed to in our briefing.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
I believe it's page 25 of our blue brief.

[00:09:08] Speaker 00:
points to a part of the specification that doesn't, it refers to the broader concept of the invention, your honor, outside of the context of the specific.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
Sure, but I get that.

[00:09:18] Speaker 01:
And if there was only one time or two times where you talked about this channel opening being three sides and a partial four side, that may be examples or certain embodiments.

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
But almost every single time you talk about this, and then you also distinguish between a C and a U shape.

[00:09:37] Speaker 01:
when you're describing this channel opening.

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
And I don't see how that doesn't define and limit the scope of your invention.

[00:09:44] Speaker 00:
It doesn't define and limit.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
It discloses an embodiment, but it doesn't define and limit.

[00:09:49] Speaker 00:
It has to be a clear and manifest intent to limit, and I don't think that that does that.

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
There's a broader disclosure of channel beams, a broader concept of channel beams that are arranged with bracing outside of the interior space between the two beams.

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
to create this opening that allows the Upper Supports Fund section, that is not a reference to the specific structure of the embodiment that has those specific features.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
It's not just one embodiment, though.

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
It's throughout your specification.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
And you make a point of distinguishing between a C-shaped opening, which is what you claim, and it even, I think, uses that language.

[00:10:27] Speaker 01:
I could be wrong.

[00:10:28] Speaker 01:
But it certainly, at least the language and your claims are consistent with that, and a U-shaped opening, which it doesn't seem to claim.

[00:10:35] Speaker 00:
I don't think there's any reference to a U-shaped opening.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
The U-shape is one way in which a channel beam... You don't think there's a reference to a U-shaped opening in your specification?

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
I think it's always referred to as a C-shaped channel.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
It's in the one portion.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
You use U-shaped channels in combination with, by welding those to a metal plate to create one version of a channel beam.

[00:11:01] Speaker 00:
But the U-shaped beams

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
are not the challenges.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
They're one part of a structure of one embodiment.

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
And it looks like I'm into my bubble time.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
So if there's any further questions, I guess I'll reserve my time for the bubble time.

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:11:30] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, I'm Tim Shattuck here on behalf of Masaba Inc.

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
I'd like to start with this court's prior decision where it instructed or where it remanded this case to the district court to conduct a factual analysis, an infringement analysis so that this court would have a factual context in which to review the disputed claim construction rulings and the better understanding of how the court's review of those rulings would impact the infringement analysis.

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
In particular, this court asked the district court to look at two issues.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
whether the masabic used in loaders.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
Can you just get to the channel beams already given to me?

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
Because that's what I found the most difficult.

[00:12:07] Speaker 01:
When I'm reading the claims, which we're supposed to start with, I don't see a lot of stuff that says they have to be partially surrounded on the foreside.

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
It talks about having a generally C-shaped beam and the like and parts of them.

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
But it doesn't necessarily, to me,

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
A C shape could also just be three sides.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
I mean, that actually looks like a C to me, just as much as the partial on the fourth side does.

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
Why is the district court's limiting construction requiring the partial four-sided?

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
We start, Your Honor, with the summary of invention.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
And I believe it's both in the abstract and the summary of invention, which would speak to the invention as a whole.

[00:12:57] Speaker 02:
And it talks about the first stretch section having the facing surfaces and then there being a slot in the perimeter edge adjacent to those facing surfaces.

[00:13:10] Speaker 02:
So you have the top beam coming down, the channel beams telescopically receiving those, and the only way you can have a perimeter wall with a slot in it adjacent to the facing surfaces of the received beams is if you have that fourth side.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
And that is

[00:13:27] Speaker 02:
in the abstract, in the summary of invention, and I believe elsewhere in the specification.

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
And at least once in the specification, it does say that the channel beam substantially surrounds all four sides of the... But where does it say all four sides?

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
I'm aware of the references to substantially surround.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
There's one.

[00:13:53] Speaker 02:
Let me find the pattern, Your Honor.

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
Column 5, lines 50 through 50.

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
You're on A72, right?

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
Yes, A72, Column 5, the 101 patent.

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
It talks about how channel booms are configured to surround substantially all four sides of the respective beams that they engage with.

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
And then it goes on to talk about how you can make various

[00:14:53] Speaker 02:
And then at the end of that paragraph, it says where the C-shaped beams include walls defining a slot that are configured to surround substantially all four sides of the respective beams that they engage with.

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
So when you have the abstract, the summary of an invention, and the specification or the written description itself, it's clear that what they claimed was a channel beam with all four sides.

[00:15:22] Speaker 02:
As you point out, Your Honor, there's not any reference to a three-sided beam.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
The invention itself talks about how you have to have this slot so that you can have the beams from the first strut section that are cross-braced so those braces can slide in the slot.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
And likewise, when you have the term elongate opening, which is the slot, that indicates that there is a fourth side with an opening in it.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
So any other questions?

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
Well, and then just let me say, and it's well briefed, I know that MoSaba doesn't have a channel beam with three sides or four sides.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
MoSaba's second strut section consists of a rectangular four-sided tube that is continuous with no slot and no opening anywhere.

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
And as the district court found,

[00:16:22] Speaker 02:
It's self-evident that you can't have a channel beam, whether it's a three-sided beam or a three-sided beam with a fourth side and a slot, when you have a fully enclosed uninterrupted beam.

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
If we were going to determine that the district court misconstrued channel beam and elongated opening, and instead adopt Superior's proposed construction, would you still have a non-infringement position with respect to the 101 and 231 undercarriage patents?

[00:16:53] Speaker 02:
Superior's proposed instruction removes the term beam from, I mean, obviously channel beam must be a beam.

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
And Superior's proposed instruction takes out the beam as well as the channel and says it's any structure that creates a three-sided wall.

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
So what Superior argues is that we have our four-sided beam and then we also have some bracing on the top and bottom of that four-sided beam.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
and that that creates a channel beam.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
So I don't know what the district court would do with that if you adopted their construction of a structure that's a three-sided.

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
Their construction that's any three-sided structure is what Superior is claiming.

[00:17:42] Speaker 04:
Would you have a non-infringement position still?

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
We would.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
It wouldn't be summary judgment, perhaps, but we would still have a position.

[00:17:53] Speaker 02:
But we strongly urge the court not to adopt Superior's construction that completely reads out beam and channel from its construction.

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
Why can't you have a three-sided beam?

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
Why can't you not have a three-sided beam?

[00:18:10] Speaker 03:
Or when we look at Superior's, we look at, let's see, I have what's marked SA-53.

[00:18:23] Speaker 02:
Essay?

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
Supplemental appendix?

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
Yeah, the Massava strut.

[00:18:34] Speaker 03:
It seems to me that you can still have a channel so that you have this internal beam sliding up and down.

[00:18:47] Speaker 03:
So you still have a channel, but why is it necessary to that

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
not having a four-sided beam reads out beam in its entirety.

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
With Superior's proposed construction?

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:19:00] Speaker 02:
Because its construction says not a beam with three sides.

[00:19:05] Speaker 02:
Superior's proposed construction says a structure with three perimeter walls.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
That's what Superior has proposed.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
It has never proposed a construction that includes the word beam.

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
Its proposed construction says a structure

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
with three perimeter walls.

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
And they're doing that not because the specification discloses that, but because they're trying to come up with a construction that would give them an argument of infringement with respect to our four-sided beam that has the cross braces.

[00:19:39] Speaker 01:
Is that because you have a beam and then you have a structure inside the beam that allows for the telescoping?

[00:19:47] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:19:49] Speaker 02:
Yes, our beams are on the outside.

[00:19:50] Speaker 01:
Why couldn't all that whole structure be defined as the beam?

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
Of what we do?

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
Because then it wouldn't be a channel beam, especially as defined and construed in the specification, where it talks about the channel beam being two parallel, plus you have to have two parallel beams.

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
So if the whole structure creates the beam, then you don't have two parallels.

[00:20:16] Speaker 02:
You have one structure.

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
I guess you have two sides to it, but really it would be one structure.

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
But given that the specification talks about it being a beam that substantially surrounds the inner beam, it just doesn't work.

[00:20:37] Speaker 02:
They've tried to be creative in coming up with a construction that would

[00:20:44] Speaker 02:
give them an infringement argument.

[00:20:45] Speaker 03:
Well, they're just saying that the beam doesn't have to have four sides.

[00:20:51] Speaker 02:
They're saying more than that, Your Honor.

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
They're taking beam out and saying it's any structure that has three wall portions.

[00:21:01] Speaker 04:
What about claim one of the 231 patent?

[00:21:05] Speaker 04:
So I'm looking at page A88, round line 65.

[00:21:11] Speaker 04:
And there it says that there's first and second channel beams, each comprising a generally C-shaped render wall, having first, second, and third wall portions.

[00:21:23] Speaker 04:
It says it's C-shaped, but it says it has first, second, and third wall portions.

[00:21:31] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:31] Speaker 04:
So why doesn't that just read on having three wall portions?

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
Because it uses the term comprising.

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
a first, second, and third wall portion, which is a non-limiting term.

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
This is having first, second, and third wall portions.

[00:21:47] Speaker 02:
What line are you on, Your Honor?

[00:21:50] Speaker 04:
66.

[00:21:58] Speaker 02:
Generally in second channel are each comprising a generally C-shaped perimeter while having first and second wall portions.

[00:22:07] Speaker 02:
It doesn't preclude that there's a partial foresight.

[00:22:10] Speaker 02:
It's our argument, Your Honor, that when you read the specification as a whole, the patent as a whole, and the number of times it says that you have to have, it substantially surrounds and has a foresight with a slot, that there's still, their claim language can't change what a channel beam is.

[00:22:32] Speaker 02:
And the specification indicates, and the summary of an invention indicates,

[00:22:36] Speaker 02:
with the channel beam has to have that partial force side in a slide.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
Are you relying at all on the language that describes them as being U-shaped and that being different from C-shaped in any way?

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
We have argued that below.

[00:22:48] Speaker 02:
We didn't brief it in our brief because of page limitations.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
But yes, we have argued that a C-shape is different than a U-shape.

[00:22:58] Speaker 02:
A U-shape is three sides and a C-shape has a partial force side.

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
Why would you say

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
C-shaped if you didn't mean to indicate that there was a partial force side.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
You would just say U-shaped.

[00:23:11] Speaker 02:
And when you read the written description and the use of the C-shaped, it's clear that there has to be that partial force side.

[00:23:19] Speaker 04:
I don't know that I would think that C-shaped and U-shaped are the different, except for the fact that this specification does use both those terms, suggesting that they have a different meaning.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
I would agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
And again, I want to go back to where I started.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
Both in the specification and in the summary of invention, it talks about that the invention has, let me get to the exact language so I'm not, I'm looking at the 231 patent.

[00:24:18] Speaker 02:
Each, I'm looking A70, the 101.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
In the summary, each channel beam is further configured to define a slot in the perimeter wall.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, what line are you at?

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
51.

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
A70, 51 in the summary.

[00:24:39] Speaker 02:
Each channel beam is further configured to define a slot in the perimeter wall adjacent to the facing surfaces.

[00:24:48] Speaker 02:
of the respective beams of the first strut section.

[00:24:52] Speaker 02:
So what that says is that the channel beam is configured to be behind a slot in the wall adjacent to the facing surfaces of the inner beam.

[00:25:03] Speaker 02:
So there has to be a wall adjacent to the facing surface of the first strut section and a slot in it.

[00:25:15] Speaker 02:
And that's why we argue you can't

[00:25:17] Speaker 02:
have a channel beam configured to define a slot in the perimeter wall adjacent to the facing surface of the respective beam of the first fret section unless you have that partial fourth side.

[00:25:30] Speaker 02:
And that's in the summary, it's in the abstract, and I believe it's also in the specification.

[00:25:36] Speaker 02:
And that's one of the things that the district court relied on in finding the partial fourth side because they've said

[00:25:46] Speaker 02:
that their claimed invention in the summary, which speaks not to an embodiment, but to the invention as a whole, that you have to have a slot in the perimeter wall adjacent to the facing surface of the respective beams.

[00:25:59] Speaker 02:
So there has to be that fourth perimeter wall.

[00:26:08] Speaker 02:
With respect to the five, with the 482 patent in claim five, just quickly, because I'm running out of time,

[00:26:16] Speaker 02:
I would just direct the court to the summary of invention for all of the unloader patents.

[00:26:24] Speaker 02:
It talks about that there is a ramp and a ramp support frame for the ramp section and the ramp section is expressly defined in a specification explicitly and expressly as being a ramp and a support frame.

[00:26:39] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:26:40] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:26:40] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:26:46] Speaker 00:
We've already pointed out in our briefing, and it bears mentioning again, that the summary and the abstract are one portion of the specification.

[00:27:01] Speaker 00:
It's not the sum total.

[00:27:02] Speaker 00:
And it's inappropriate to kind of mechanically link the discussion in those sections as the broadest treatment of the subject matter that was disclosed.

[00:27:14] Speaker 00:
that on page A71 of the 101 patent column three through 21, there's a broader discussion of the invention, broader than the abstracted summary.

[00:27:25] Speaker 00:
And this court's precedents make clear that there is not a mechanical review of only portions of the specification.

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
You have to review the entire specification to make sure that there aren't broader expressions.

[00:27:38] Speaker 00:
And in this case, there are broader expressions of the invention,

[00:27:42] Speaker 00:
in the specification outside of the summary in the abstract.

[00:27:44] Speaker 04:
I'd like to ask you about those U-shaped beams, because I think you said your specification didn't use that term.

[00:27:50] Speaker 04:
But doesn't it use that term at page A-72, column 5?

[00:27:54] Speaker 00:
Yeah, I'd like to correct that.

[00:27:55] Speaker 00:
Your opposing, or my co-counsel, pointed that out to me.

[00:27:58] Speaker 00:
Because there's two references to U-shaped beams in the specification.

[00:28:03] Speaker 04:
Two paragraphs that at least describe that.

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
Right, there's different paragraphs.

[00:28:05] Speaker 00:
And one which forms one embodiment of a C-shaped channel beam.

[00:28:11] Speaker 00:
that the shallow U-shaped beams are welded to a metal plate to form the embodiment of the invention.

[00:28:18] Speaker 00:
U-shape and C-shape, I believe your honor mentioned, are really kind of describing the same shape.

[00:28:24] Speaker 00:
It's just whether you're looking at it in one orientation or another.

[00:28:28] Speaker 00:
And the specification, in fact, says other shapes are possible.

[00:28:32] Speaker 00:
So it's not a narrow disclosure or a limiting disclosure.

[00:28:35] Speaker 00:
The shape, what's important and what the specification makes clear

[00:28:40] Speaker 00:
is that this is an invention that allows cross-bracing of both an upper support strut section and a lower support strut section.

[00:28:50] Speaker 04:
But the only concern I have is you do use the word C-shaped in your claim.

[00:28:55] Speaker 00:
So maybe other shapes are possible, but you do use C. In the claims I mentioned, C-shape, I stand by that as a description of the features of that claim.

[00:29:07] Speaker 00:
C-shape requires

[00:29:09] Speaker 00:
a side wall, a top, and a bottom wall.

[00:29:12] Speaker 00:
And that's what helps create a strut section that can be braced outside of the space between those beams so that there's room for the upper strut section, both the beams and the cross supports, to slide within that structure.

[00:29:28] Speaker 00:
And that's the important aspect of the invention that was being claimed here.

[00:29:33] Speaker 00:
It's a structure of a fully assembled strut assembly

[00:29:38] Speaker 00:
that is telescoping and that allows both the upper and the lower strut sections to be cross-braced.

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
And the advantage of that are touted in the specifications.

[00:29:48] Speaker 00:
It allows for better rigidity of the strut assembly and balancing of hydraulic pressures.

[00:29:56] Speaker 00:
Nothing in that requires, says that the fourth partial sidewall plays any role in providing that aspect of the invention.

[00:30:04] Speaker 00:
It's the ability to cross-brace

[00:30:07] Speaker 00:
and form a channel and an open space between them so that you can cross brace an upper strut assembly and have now a fully braced telescoping support strut for improved rigidity and stability in balancing the hydraulic pressures.

[00:30:22] Speaker 00:
There is no emphasis in the specification about fourth partial sidewalls and the role they play in cross bracing or in this stability and hydraulic pressure balancing aspect.

[00:30:37] Speaker 00:
Any further questions?

[00:30:38] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:30:39] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.