[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Is your argument really that the Samuels 851 with its nubby, bumpy, prickly bumps constitutes a ridge?

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
I don't understand.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
It doesn't comport with any plain meaning of ridge that I can envision.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:00:16] Speaker 04:
I think in order to understand, it's useful to look at the prosecution history of the

[00:00:23] Speaker 04:
Samuel's patent, the patent that we're talking about, the 575 patent.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
You keep pointing to that, but that amendment, that proposed amendment, whether or not it was required, but it was never adopted.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
No, there was an amendment.

[00:00:41] Speaker 04:
It was entered into the record.

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
Let me explain what happened, and I think you may know what happened, but I want to make sure that the... But before you explain what happened, why don't you just tell me how in the world those little nubby, bumpy things could be a ridge?

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
I mean, ridge has a plain and ordinary meaning.

[00:00:59] Speaker 00:
I don't see how those nubby, bumpy things can constitute a ridge.

[00:01:05] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:01:06] Speaker 04:
The plain and ordinary meaning of ridge is, as the board said,

[00:01:12] Speaker 04:
a raised strip and they said as of cloud grass.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
Continuously elevated crest for some distance.

[00:01:20] Speaker 04:
That's what those definitions call it.

[00:01:21] Speaker 04:
But I don't think that's what the board found.

[00:01:24] Speaker 04:
The board found that it was a raised strip and the question is whether that raised strip has to be continuous or can it be a series of inflatable bumps.

[00:01:36] Speaker 04:
In this case there's perhaps 30 bumps around the edge of a

[00:01:40] Speaker 04:
of a standard.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
The poor didn't find that Samuels and those nubby bumps constituted a ridge.

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
No, they didn't.

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
No, they didn't.

[00:01:47] Speaker 04:
And the reason they didn't is because they didn't look at the file history of the 575 patent.

[00:01:52] Speaker 00:
OK, but I know you want to go to the file.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
I promise you'll have plenty of time to go to the file history, because we want to hear what you have to say on that, too.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
But I just don't understand how there's any plain meaning that can encapsulate this.

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
And the only example that you've given your spec

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
I mean, everything I know about ridge suggests a continuity to the elevation, not just bump, bump, bump.

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
Under your definition, it seems, when I look down the street at a series of spaced telephone poles that are evenly spaced, you're going to tell me I'm looking at a ridge.

[00:02:19] Speaker 04:
No, under that circumstance, I'm not going to tell you you're looking at a ridge.

[00:02:23] Speaker 04:
And in fact, I'm not going to tell you you're looking at a ridge when you consider, for example, the barbs of Samuels.

[00:02:31] Speaker 04:
What I'm going to say that you're looking at a ridge is if you see a

[00:02:35] Speaker 04:
a ridge which has discontinuities, namely dome shapes that together form a ridge.

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
I think one way to think about it is if you have a line of people, it's not a person in every single spot, it's nevertheless a line of people.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
I think in the same way... A line of people isn't a ridge.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
But a line of people is a lot like the nubby, bumpy things.

[00:03:01] Speaker 04:
It is a lot like the nubby, bumpy things, which is, of course,

[00:03:04] Speaker 04:
my point, and that is that a ridge can be a... it doesn't have to be continuous.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
And the reason I say that, Your Honor... So you're saying each nub is itself a ridge?

[00:03:17] Speaker 04:
No, I'm not.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
I didn't think so, because it has to continuously go around the circumference.

[00:03:21] Speaker 04:
It does.

[00:03:21] Speaker 04:
It has to be a circumferential ridge, which means we are contending that there is a single ridge that goes around the entire... Made up by ten people standing in a line.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
Yes, made up by these inflatable

[00:03:33] Speaker 04:
protrusions, bumps that go around the entire area.

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
So the only example you've given your spec that would ever make any sense in terms of understanding ridge that way is the Blue Ridge Mountains.

[00:03:45] Speaker 04:
Do you actually think that's... No, I think the reason we put that, I mean I agree that's a that's a fanciful example just to

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
to show that a ridge doesn't have to be a strip.

[00:03:57] Speaker 00:
Except that it is.

[00:03:58] Speaker 00:
Do you know why they're called the Blue Ridge Mountains?

[00:04:00] Speaker 00:
I thought to myself, you're going to kill whatever associate put this in your brief.

[00:04:03] Speaker 00:
Because you spent two or three pages in the Blue Bridge, and you bring it up again in the gray.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
And you even include this lovely topographical map of the mountains.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
Do you know why they're called the Blue Ridge Mountains?

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
I don't, Your Honor, no.

[00:04:13] Speaker 00:
Didn't it have made sense to Google that term before you spent literally three pages of your Blue Bridge using that as an example?

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
Because you know what, now you're going to get your civics lesson from me.

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
Because my fourth grader took Virginia, because we live in Virginia, and had to do a project on the Blue Ridge Mountains.

[00:04:26] Speaker 00:
They're called the Blue Ridge Mountains because there are trees on those mountains.

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
And all of this is available, Wikipedia, Google, like crazy.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
So whatever associate put it in there, honestly, you're not going to be pleased with.

[00:04:35] Speaker 00:
They're called the Blue Ridge Mountains because the trees on those mountains emit isoprene, which is a chemical that causes the appearance of a blue haze.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
And so when you look at the mountains, there appears to be a blue haze continuously running throughout the mountain line.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
And it's the blue haze, which is called the Blue Ridge.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
It has nothing to do with the mountains.

[00:04:52] Speaker 04:
Well, thank you.

[00:04:53] Speaker 04:
And I apologize if this is distracting, because I don't want to be distracted from the main part of our argument.

[00:04:59] Speaker 04:
And in order to understand our argument, it is absolutely critical that you understand what happened in prosecution.

[00:05:07] Speaker 04:
And if you'll permit me, I would like to just take a moment

[00:05:11] Speaker 04:
and explain what happened in prosecution.

[00:05:13] Speaker 04:
Because in prosecution, there was an original claim.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
It was a dependent claim.

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
And it had the term circumferential ridge, the very term we're talking about.

[00:05:25] Speaker 04:
It used the term circumferential ridge.

[00:05:27] Speaker 04:
What the examiner did is the examiner rejected that claim under 102 as being fully anticipated by the Samuel's prior art.

[00:05:40] Speaker 04:
And what's important is what happened next.

[00:05:43] Speaker 04:
Because what happened next is that in response to, well, I should say, in making that rejection, the examiner stated... I don't mean to interrupt you, but you have to assume we've read the briefs.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
And you spent a lot of time in a blue brief on this and a lot of time in a gray brief.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
And so we understand the point that you're making is that

[00:06:06] Speaker 01:
The inventor was willing to make an amendment that you think would have supported your view of this claim construction.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
But that amendment was never entered.

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
And in fact, the claim was allowed without that amendment.

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
And the board found that, therefore, it was not going to find that to be particularly meaningful.

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
Are we supposed to disagree with that conclusion?

[00:06:31] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor, and here's why.

[00:06:34] Speaker 04:
First, the amendment was entered.

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
It isn't in the final claim, but it was entered because it... But it was proffered.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
It was entered, and this may be a terminology issue, but... But the allowance was not dependent upon the amendment because the language in the amendment was never incorporated into the claims.

[00:06:56] Speaker 04:
The language was incorporated into the claims, and then there was an interview.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
Not as allowed.

[00:07:01] Speaker 04:
No, no, no, no.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
It's not in the allowed claims, but there was an interview

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
And that language was, it wasn't just removed.

[00:07:08] Speaker 04:
They added other limitations.

[00:07:10] Speaker 04:
Specifically, they added a negative limitation to the claim, which the Mr. Samuels, Dr. Samuels was using to get around the Samuels' prior art.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
So obviously, the examiner didn't think that the amendment was necessary to allow the claims.

[00:07:27] Speaker 04:
Well, you're now, Judge O'Malley, speculating about

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
what the examiner or what the applicant believed.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
You don't have to speculate very much when they don't show up in the final, those words that you're relying so heavily on don't show up in the final claim.

[00:07:42] Speaker 04:
I would agree with you if that word was just taken out of the claim and that was the end of that, then obviously the examiner and Dr. Samuels agreed that that word was not necessary.

[00:07:54] Speaker 04:
But that's not what happened.

[00:07:55] Speaker 04:
What happened is that word was removed

[00:07:59] Speaker 04:
And other limitations were added to the claims to distinguish Samuels.

[00:08:03] Speaker 04:
And specifically what was added was a negative limitation that said these barbs don't pierce the body.

[00:08:11] Speaker 04:
And so that was the limitation that allowed this claim to be patented.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
That's what all this back and forth with the examiner is.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
You don't always know exactly what the examiner is concerned about, and it's clear the examiner is concerned about something different.

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
I would like to direct your attention to the Litton v. Whirlpool case, because that is a case where there was an examiner interview, and after the fact, when they got to district court, they were arguing about what happened at that interview.

[00:08:42] Speaker 04:
And in that case, this court made it very clear

[00:08:47] Speaker 04:
very clear that it is not the obligation of the patent examiner to say what happened.

[00:08:55] Speaker 04:
But if something favorable happened in an interview, it is the obligation of the applicant to raise it then.

[00:09:04] Speaker 04:
And by not raising it, they have acquiesced to that term being a rich.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
And Judge Moore,

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
Perhaps I don't know exactly what a ridge is as it pertains to this claim.

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
But what I do know, I'm sorry.

[00:09:21] Speaker 04:
Go ahead.

[00:09:22] Speaker 04:
What I do know is that the Samuels' prior arc has a ridge.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
I know that because the examiner has told us that, and the applicant has acquiesced to that.

[00:09:32] Speaker 04:
And now we're sitting back trying to get it.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
Isn't Litten distinguishable because, unlike here, the examiner actually accepted the written filing and characterized it as a CIP.

[00:09:43] Speaker 01:
That didn't happen here, right?

[00:09:45] Speaker 04:
No, but something favorable happened to the applicant, and it wasn't a record.

[00:09:50] Speaker 04:
So we can't speculate.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
And the reason I say that is the patent prosecution history has a very important function of serving the public notice about what the patent means and what it doesn't mean.

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
This is part of the intrinsic evidence, which is some of the most valuable evidence.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
And I would argue that it shows the opposite.

[00:10:15] Speaker 01:
that it shows that even if someone was willing to make that change, that that change wasn't deemed meaningful.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
And now what the original examiner might have thought or might have gone back and forth with is not as important to me as what the board found and whether or not the plain meaning of ridge can include all of these indentations.

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
Well, let me tell you what the board said, because I think that's really important.

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
What the board said in its request for reconsideration

[00:10:45] Speaker 04:
The board said the following, and this is in response to the same argument I'm making right now.

[00:10:50] Speaker 04:
They said the board's decision in rehearing, the board clarified and said that it did not adopt Trivascular's proposal because it was inconsistent with the specifications description of circumferential ridges as raised strips.

[00:11:06] Speaker 04:
That statement is interesting because it can't possibly be true.

[00:11:10] Speaker 04:
And the reason I say that is the word strip does not appear in the specification.

[00:11:14] Speaker 04:
The RAID strip does not appear in the specification.

[00:11:18] Speaker 04:
And so what the board is doing is they are not considering the file history.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
And as this board said, in both the Toxicon case and also other cases, and in particular, I'm actually thinking about the Temple Lighting case.

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
Because the Temple Lighting case.

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
Well into your rebuttal time, if you'd like to keep going.

[00:11:41] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I'll just finish this thought.

[00:11:44] Speaker 04:
And that is, in the Temple Lighting case, the court did highlight the importance of the intrinsic evidence and the fact that it's oftentimes more probative than the extrinsic evidence, and also additionally that, in fact, statements or acquiescence of the applicant can be used to broaden the scope.

[00:12:07] Speaker 04:
It's not only for narrowing the scope.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
And with that, I thank you.

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
Council, since we're discussing things Canadian today, are you familiar with Regina versus Ojibwe?

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
I'm not, Your Honor.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
Look it up sometime.

[00:12:24] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
Is there a point in that that you'd like me to respond to?

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
For edification only.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
Mr. Patruso?

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
I think the issue of this continuous or discontinuous file history is odd for a couple reasons.

[00:12:52] Speaker 02:
Most importantly, because it really doesn't have any bearing on the ultimate decision of the board.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
The board found that the prior art didn't show inflatable protrusions.

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
And that's really at the heart of the invention.

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
It's the heart of the grant.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
It's not irrelevant when it's... It's not dispositive.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
But you've got an inventor who was willing to

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
basically feed right into the argument that your opponent is making with respect to the proposed amendments.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
It's a bit odd that he, somehow they're using the word acquiescence to a broader claim, but in this case the board correctly found that it really didn't inform them on the question of what a circumferential ridge is.

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
And this idea that... It sure would have been better if he had said, well that's not a circumferential ridge, right?

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
A bunch of bumps can't be a circumferential ridge, but if it helps you examine or I'll put the word continuous in fright to

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
you know, doubly reinforce what I mean.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
Oh, during prosecution.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
It might have.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's hard for me to go back to what the prosecutor did.

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
But in this case, the board clearly understood that, and your Blue Ridge analysis, when I read it in the brief, being something that wasn't in the record, I think of a ridge like that, I thought, too, that it really was a spine that was basically one continuous spine, which is what people think of a ridge.

[00:14:10] Speaker 02:
And that is how the board viewed

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
the circumferential ridge as some kind of continuous ray strip.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
Appropriately enough, the Blue Ridge Mountains are full of what they call gaps.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
True, but they don't include valleys that go all the way down to sea level.

[00:14:25] Speaker 02:
In other words, the bumps in Samuel, say 5-1, are discrete.

[00:14:30] Speaker 02:
That's why they're not a continuous ridge.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
They're not a continuous ridge.

[00:14:33] Speaker 02:
In fact, the board referred them as recesses in many parts of the decision for that reason, because they really aren't

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
something they could combine with Todd to get the invention.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
So putting that issue aside, I think it's quite clear that the construction under the BRI that the board used for an inflatable protrusion itself has to be inflatable.

[00:14:58] Speaker 02:
And that's a proper construction.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
It's directly out of the patent.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
Column 3, line 54, thereabouts, it talks about the inflatable ridges and how they are fluid communication and they are inflatable.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
And there was some colloquy at the hearing before the board about the site.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
If the board had not found that the ridges in Todd were not disclosed or proven to be inflatable, you'd have a much harder case, wouldn't you?

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
I mean, there's a difference.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
It's a catheter versus a stent.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
But it seems like you'd have a much harder case if those Todd ridges were themselves inflatable.

[00:15:34] Speaker 02:
If the Todd ridges were inflatable, well, you'd still have to have the circumferential ridge.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
they have a circumferential ridge.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
I mean, Todd shows one, two, three, four, five circumferential ridges.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:15:47] Speaker 02:
I mean, if Todd showed our invention, it would be a big problem, because that's what figure one of our invention shows.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
How it works if it shows our invention.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
I mean, if it shows the circumferential inflatable tubes, but they didn't.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
The drawings didn't show it.

[00:16:00] Speaker 02:
It's described in a way that doesn't indicate that they're inflatable.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
And we had experts, and we had witnesses.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
And this was a trial.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
They had no experts.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
They had no witnesses.

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
And the board relied heavily on those witnesses at the joint appendix page 20, for example, and went through that analysis.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
So there was substantial evidence as to the lack of combination in the prior art.

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
And I don't think you can read, Todd, in any way that those were somehow inflatable.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
Now, the colloquy I was getting at, which I think addresses your point, is that they asked at the hearing, would you consider a car,

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
that is sitting on inflatable tires to be an inflatable car?

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
Would you consider treads on a tire to be inflatable treads because they sit on inflatable tire?

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:16:48] Speaker 02:
And that was really directly at the heart of distinguishing what Todd shows, which is a solid rubber seal, in effect, or round piece.

[00:16:58] Speaker 02:
They're not inflatable.

[00:16:59] Speaker 02:
They sit on a device that I suppose is inflatable, but they're not themselves inflatable protrusions.

[00:17:05] Speaker 02:
And that goes to the very heart of the ultimate decision that they made.

[00:17:08] Speaker 02:
and that's why we believe the patent was not invalidated because there was no prior showing that.

[00:17:15] Speaker 02:
Do you have anything further?

[00:17:21] Speaker 02:
I really don't.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
It seems to me to be quite clear.

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
That's fine.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
May it please the court?

[00:17:36] Speaker 04:
I just have two quick points I'd like to make.

[00:17:39] Speaker 04:
The first one is fairly trivial, but the reason the board referred to what I'm calling a ridge is the reason they refer to it as recesses is in fact in the Samuels 851 prior art they are recesses until they are inflated and the purpose of those recesses is very important.

[00:18:01] Speaker 04:
You have a recess and in the prior art you have a barb and when you

[00:18:06] Speaker 04:
position this stent in its proper location, you don't want that barb scraping against the wall.

[00:18:12] Speaker 04:
And so you have a recess.

[00:18:13] Speaker 04:
And then when you inflate, of course, the recess pops out.

[00:18:19] Speaker 04:
It's called domed.

[00:18:20] Speaker 04:
It pops out.

[00:18:21] Speaker 04:
And then the barb, of course, goes into the body.

[00:18:25] Speaker 01:
And so one point that I wanted to make is that it's the barb rather than the ridge that creates the connection.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
Well, the ridge actually physically touches, and the expert, Dr. Clark, confirmed that the bulge actually does make connection.

[00:18:44] Speaker 04:
But the point I want to make is that, Judge Moore, even if you don't believe me that those bulges are former ridge, it's really important to think about KSR in a KSR analysis.

[00:19:00] Speaker 04:
And as I was

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
explaining the Samuel's 851 prior art.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
Think about the problem that one might have with barbs.

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
It's the problem that's being solved by the patented suit.

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
And that is a barb creates damage to the human body.

[00:19:17] Speaker 04:
And so what is the obvious thing to do?

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
The only thing to do?

[00:19:20] Speaker 04:
Well, you take off the barb and you replace it with something else.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
You replace it with something that's not going to pierce the body.

[00:19:26] Speaker 04:
And in the simple example, if those

[00:19:30] Speaker 04:
If those series of inflatable bumps are, in fact, the ridge, then it's easy.

[00:19:36] Speaker 04:
You put on the Todd bumps.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
On the other hand, if you want to use the Todd ring, the ring is not the inflatable ridge.

[00:19:47] Speaker 04:
The ring is just what you want to replace the barbs with.

[00:19:51] Speaker 04:
So if you were going to do that, what would you do?

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
You would, of course, have to modify the prior art Samuels

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
to have a ditch, if you will, to accommodate that ring, and then you would pump it up and the ring would pop out and serve the exact same purpose as the barb.

[00:20:08] Speaker 00:
You wouldn't need a ditch.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
You wouldn't need a ditch at all, because if there's nothing pointy at the end, you don't need the recess.

[00:20:13] Speaker 00:
The reason for the ditch is because of the barb.

[00:20:16] Speaker 04:
Yeah, that's not exactly true.

[00:20:17] Speaker 04:
The reason for the... It is, in a sense, but it's also important to have that if you have a rough surface, if you have a

[00:20:26] Speaker 04:
something with Todd.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
You want to take advantage of the invention of the Samuel's 851 prior art, namely that is to protect the surface while you're moving this stand in and out.

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
And if you move the stand in and out and there's either a rough surface or there's knobs, you want to avoid that.

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
The fact that you might want to protect the surface in both inventions doesn't mean that they're doing it in the same way.

[00:20:53] Speaker 04:
Well, what

[00:20:54] Speaker 04:
Samuel's prior art teaches us is that what you're using to ultimately make contact with the human body can be protected from the human body while you're moving this thing in and out.

[00:21:09] Speaker 04:
And so if the problem is those barbs are no good, those barbs cause problems, then you'd replace it with, I mean we submitted a lot of prior art, but Todd in particular, you just substitute that for

[00:21:21] Speaker 04:
for Samuels, but you still take the advantage of Samuels.

[00:21:24] Speaker 04:
You don't forget about the advantages of Samuels, namely having that device retracted.

[00:21:31] Speaker 04:
That seems to me to be the simple KSR analysis where you've got a mechanical device.

[00:21:39] Speaker 04:
You're simply replacing one mechanical device for another.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
And in fact, the board had no problem with that in the institution decision.

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
The problem- Mr. Bornwell, we're way over our time, so we have to stop here.

[00:21:51] Speaker 00:
I thank both counsel for their argument.

[00:21:53] Speaker 00:
The case is taken under submission.