[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
is 2016-1813, Dragon Intellectual Property versus Unified Patents.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Mr. Mei?

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
Dragon raised a single issue in this appeal, that is, whether the prior reference ALMA inherently discloses the sole limitation of the claim control circuit.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
The sole limitation is a very narrow limitation.

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
You say that's the sole issue, right?

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
That's the sole.

[00:00:38] Speaker 02:
But what about obviousness?

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
Because I thought that I saw in the red group anyway that they have the position that, alternatively, the PTAB found the obviousness.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
The inherency finding is what's found in the context of obviousness analysis.

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
And the law there is very clear.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
in order for Inherency to apply, the limitation at the issue necessarily must be present in the prior references.

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
And the issue here today is the prior reference ALMA does not teach that particular limitation, the sole limitation.

[00:01:19] Speaker 02:
And you don't think there's an alternative argument that even if it's not inherent, one of ordinary skilling art would have been motivated to have just one key

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, that was not in the final written decision by the board.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
And in fact, the board actually addressing a separate issue regarding the keyboard having a record key and playback key.

[00:01:43] Speaker 01:
The board specifically found that element was toward under-inherency and also as obvious in light of the combination of the prior, but not with respect to the sole limitation.

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
analysis with respect to the recited control circuit, which includes the stolen limitation, is very limited.

[00:02:08] Speaker 01:
Just a single paragraph of the final written decision.

[00:02:13] Speaker 03:
I'd like to ask a follow-up question based on your discussion with Judge Stoll.

[00:02:17] Speaker 03:
Would it be fair to say that the board found, because this prior art does disclose a remote

[00:02:28] Speaker 03:
But it doesn't talk about what's on that remote.

[00:02:30] Speaker 03:
It could be a knob, a toggle switch, buttons.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
I mean, most of my remotes have buttons, but they don't have to.

[00:02:37] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:02:38] Speaker 03:
And the court, the board then found that the buttons would be inherent, but then they also found, and I'm at page 16 of the appendix, if that helps you focus on where I am.

[00:02:50] Speaker 03:
The board found it would be inherent, but then they also found

[00:02:54] Speaker 03:
Based on this evidence, we are persuaded it would have been within the knowledge and ability of one of ordinary skill to control Ulmer's device with remote control that includes play and record buttons.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
So they did find obviousness with regard to buttons, but do I understand your argument to me that's not the same thing as finding one button play or control circuit that causes one button play?

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
That's exactly the reason, because the board knew how to

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
conducting obviousness analysis in addition to inherency analysis.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
With respect to the limitation about keyboard having a record key and playback key, the board did use two alternative reasonings here to find that element is present.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
Find the key, the buttons.

[00:03:42] Speaker 01:
Right, right, the buttons.

[00:03:43] Speaker 03:
But not the solely.

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
Solely, yeah, not the playback key.

[00:03:47] Speaker 03:
Right, and for that they found only inherency.

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:03:51] Speaker 03:
Yes, it's hard for me to understand how this is inherently present.

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
OK, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
That's the reason, in this appeal, drag race is only a single issue, not about the keyboard having buttons.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
Even if a keyboard having buttons, there could be a situation where, after recording has begun, there's a stop key, then a playback key, for example.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
And in this particular case, ALMA actually

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
In fact, in many, if not most of the references at the time, you had to push a rewind button and then a play key in order to get play.

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.

[00:04:28] Speaker 03:
And there's nothing about this reference that would suggest that the same type of two button activation might not be required.

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
In fact, there could be additional options.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
Dragon provided multiple examples here for almost specifically because this reference teach skipping commercial breaks.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
So even looking at, I'm going to point to page eight of the blue brief where we listed five steps from ALMA.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
And here, the second step is waiting for the time t. And this t is very unique.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
It corresponds to almost the duration of all of the advertising breaks.

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
So Alma really teaches about, for example, if there are two hours program and there's five commercial breaks, each is two minutes.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
So Alma teaches you have to count all of them together, it's 10 minutes.

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
Then after program starts, after 10 minutes, then the playback can begin.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
So the next step is starting playback.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
And that's not mentioned using any button at all.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
So that's reason Dragon, actually the first Dragon's example was

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
The almost device could be programmed in a way to initiate playback automatically after predetermined time t without any key.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
And also note the language almost, time t that corresponds to almost to duration of the advertising breaks.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
And if any advertising break lasts more than two minutes, so potentially user could use an add one minute key to account for the duration of commercial breaks.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
That's another example Dragon provided.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
And Dragon further provided a timer key to remind the user to start playback, because Alma teaches you wait through the entire.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
I mean, you have to know entire commercial break duration in order to start playback.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
So therefore, I think it's.

[00:06:34] Speaker 03:
No, but the board did reject the automatic playback button.

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
automatic playback argument that you just made, didn't it?

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
Didn't the board reject that because they said it is in fact operator control, user control?

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
I think the board rejected in connection, not specifically, not addressing the inherency issues.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
No, but Olmer does say it's user control.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:06:58] Speaker 03:
Don't go too far.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
So regardless, the inherency requires, the law is very clear, right?

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
last month, I think October, September, is the case, the opinion issue by this court, Southwire v. Sarah Wire, that makes very clear the use of inherency in the context of obviousness must be carefully subscribed, because that which may be inherent is not necessarily known, and that which is unknown cannot be obvious.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
And here, even if it cannot be automatically played back, still does not mean that

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
The playback key was the sole button that was pressed to start playback.

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
To your understanding of our law, there are some statements in our law that talk about the element must naturally flow from the reference.

[00:07:50] Speaker 02:
Is your understanding that means something different than it must necessarily be present?

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
No, not at all, Your Honor.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
I think the board appeared to be confused.

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
We don't know exactly what the standard the board used

[00:08:04] Speaker 01:
in the connection of the standard for inherency, the board actually used natural result as a keyword.

[00:08:11] Speaker 01:
That test seems to suggest that the board did not use necessarily must-be-present standard.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
For some reason, those are two standards.

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
But in par pharmaceutical, I think even though the court used the language necessarily must-be-present or natural result, in that case really is talking about pharmaceutical compounds.

[00:08:33] Speaker 01:
by sometimes natural result of a pharmaceutical compound equates necessarily must be present.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
And it's very clear, reading the context, the Ferro circuit only applied one standard for inherency, which is necessarily must be present.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
So go back to the same case, the Southwire v. Sarawire.

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
The opinion there actually cited par-pharmaceutical again.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
And in the end, that opinion stated the test is necessarily must be present.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
So even though there are confusion with respect to whether that's a natural result or necessarily must be present, the board may be confused.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
But I think the case law, the body of the case law here, make it very clear the test for inherency is necessary must be present.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
And also in the obviousness analysis, that standard is extremely high.

[00:09:27] Speaker 01:
The board cannot meet its standard.

[00:09:29] Speaker 01:
And let me just add.

[00:09:31] Speaker 01:
add one thing.

[00:09:33] Speaker 01:
Because the board's reasoning is so thin, it does not provide the requisite notice to the public regarding its reasoning.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
The Supreme Court in case R has held to facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
Now we are left at, you know, guessing what exactly the board found or did not find.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
And the board's, I mean, the analysis cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
And here, Dragon's experts testified that one button playback wouldn't necessarily be supported by Alma's control circuit, but her cited evidence refers to other limitations, not to the sole limitation.

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
You are using up your rebuttal time.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
Would you like to save it?

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
I'm going to save that for my rebuttal time.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
Very good.

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Mei.

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
Mr. Kickness?

[00:10:41] Speaker 00:
I please the court, Michael Kiklis for Unified Patents.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
There is one question in this case, and that question is whether substantial evidence supports the finding by the board of one-button playback, which is what we call it, they call it, the solely limitation.

[00:11:00] Speaker 00:
This isn't a question about inherency as they would like to frame it for this court.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
Rather, what the board did and what we argued below

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
is whether the electronic device of ALMA itself performs the functionality of one button playback.

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
We showed to the satisfaction of the board that it does.

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
Then the question is, well, is there a control circuit to perform that functionality?

[00:11:27] Speaker 00:
This is an electromechanical device.

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
Well, sir, I think that what you argue to the board

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
is well and good, but what we review is the board decision.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
We don't review your arguments to the board.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
So why don't you focus on what the board actually held explicitly on pages 16 and 17 of its opinion, instead of what you argued to them, but they may not have actually expressly stated in the opinion.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
I believe that they did, Your Honor.

[00:11:54] Speaker 00:
And let me point you to this paragraph of page 17 of the Joint Appendix.

[00:12:01] Speaker 00:
Now, this paragraph is what Dragon points to as saying, aha, there wasn't any finding of the Soli limitation.

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
But first... Well, there was a finding, but the finding was that it is inherently included.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
I don't believe... I wouldn't characterize it that way, Your Honor.

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
Despite the fact that that was the word the board used, therefore we find Ulmer inherently includes the recited control circuit.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
You wouldn't say that's a finding of inherency by the board?

[00:12:30] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, but first they addressed the functionality.

[00:12:35] Speaker 00:
What they said was that unified, here it is, about 12 lines down, we find the petitioners provided sufficient evidence to show that Almer teaches the recited simultaneous recording and playback.

[00:12:52] Speaker 03:
I don't think he's disputed that.

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
He hasn't once mentioned anything about the simultaneous.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
That's a different issue than the one button.

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
So, okay, go ahead, next.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
I don't believe so, Your Honor, because if you look at page 12 of the appendix, this simultaneous recording and playback limitation includes the solely language.

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
On page 12 of the joint appendix, you'll see this limitation is what the board was looking at.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
Actually, if you look at page 17 just further up, lines three through seven,

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
that limitation is quoted.

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:13:25] Speaker 02:
But I'm having a hard time, along with Judge Moore, in seeing why it's not talking about inherency.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
Because even if the passage that you referred us to at the bottom of the paragraph, it says, Omer must have this and must have that, and says inherently, triggering inherency and not obviousness.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
I think the way I read this opinion,

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
is that the board found that the functionality of the device was obvious.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
And this gets to your point, Judge, more about the obvious matter of design choice of the buttons.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
They showed through the preceding 10, 11 pages of the decision that the functionality was obviously, as a matter of obviousness, was being performed by Elmer.

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
And therefore, in this one sentence that they quote to, is it inherent that there's a control circuit there?

[00:14:19] Speaker 02:
I agree with you.

[00:14:21] Speaker 02:
There could be a slim difference here in terms of that everyone agrees that functionality might be an armor, that there's evidence to support that, and the board addressed that.

[00:14:31] Speaker 02:
But what about, we're talking about something subtle, which is the idea of

[00:14:37] Speaker 02:
when the user actuates the record key and then subsequently and solely actuates the playback key.

[00:14:43] Speaker 02:
That's the part that you don't see the board addressing until page 17.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I would disagree with that.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
I would respectfully, I would say that on page 10 of the joint appendix, you'll see that the board specifically says that we have reviewed all of the evidence and arguments

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
our detailed explanation of the prior art.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, where are you quoting from?

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
This is on page 10 of the Joint Appendix, Your Honor.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
In the first paragraph, the Board says we have reviewed Petitioner's detailed explanation identifying where each limitation is there, and they are convinced, on the last sentence on this record, we're persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence

[00:15:29] Speaker 00:
that Elmer Goldwasser teach each limitation of claims one and two.

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:15:34] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:35] Speaker 03:
So what they concluded was not that one of these limitations would be obvious in light of the reference.

[00:15:42] Speaker 03:
What they conclude here is that they teach each limitation that is different from a conclusion that one of the limitations would be obvious to a skilled artisan in light of the reference.

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
So I don't see how

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
that doesn't actually hurt you tremendously rather than help you.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
I think that what the board, Your Honor, is doing here, I think it does help us.

[00:16:06] Speaker 03:
I think the board is just saying that we've relied upon... I can see that you think that, but I don't follow your logic.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
Well, I think what you need to read from this language is that the board is saying we've reviewed all the evidence.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
of the petitioner.

[00:16:18] Speaker 03:
And we believe that these two references teach all of the claim limitations.

[00:16:23] Speaker 00:
I think that's perhaps loose language by the board, but in the following pages... So wait.

[00:16:27] Speaker 03:
So what you now say is loose language by the board because you've done enough patent cases to know that when you say a reference teaches this element, it means that reference discloses that element.

[00:16:38] Speaker 03:
It does not mean, and nor would the board ever say, it means that element is obvious in light of the reference.

[00:16:43] Speaker 03:
Those are two different concepts.

[00:16:45] Speaker 03:
You're a patent lawyer.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
You know this.

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
So you now have to tell me that this is loose language in order to get where you want to go.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
I wish you hadn't even pointed the language out, because it doesn't help your case at all.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
It only hurts your case.

[00:16:57] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I respectfully disagree.

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
I would say that this language supports our case.

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
Do you have other parts of the opinion that you're relying on?

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
What's that?

[00:17:04] Speaker 02:
Do you have other parts of the opinion?

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
I would say, just to respond to Judge Moore, though, I would say that what the board has done here is said we're relying upon the petitioner's arguments and evidence.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
And now I would cite you, Judge Stoll,

[00:17:15] Speaker 00:
to pages 12 and 13 of the joint appendix, where now, at the very bottom, the board of 12, the board is saying, because this claim language recites said playback, he is subsequently and solely actuated to begin delay playback.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
Petitioner describes claim one as requiring one-button playback.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
And then they go on in that paragraph, and they cite 31 to 32 of our brief, which cites to paragraph 66 through 69,

[00:17:45] Speaker 00:
of our experts' declaration which provides ample evidence from support of ALMA itself as well as... Hold on, am I confused?

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
Isn't this entire paragraph simply an articulation of what your arguments are?

[00:17:58] Speaker 03:
Do you view this paragraph as the board adopting all of those arguments?

[00:18:02] Speaker 00:
I believe

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
To answer your question, Your Honor, yes.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
I believe that the board credits our arguments.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
Where did they do that?

[00:18:10] Speaker 03:
Because each sentence is the petitioner argues, the petitioner asserts, the petitioner describes.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
Where is the sentence that says, and we agree?

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
I would say that at the beginning on page 10, the board says, as I pointed you to, the board specifically looks at our entire petition and our declaration says,

[00:18:30] Speaker 00:
We're convinced that by a preponderance of the evidence, the petitioner has proven its case and then goes on to recount our arguments and to rebut the patent owner's arguments.

[00:18:40] Speaker 03:
The board uses the words petitioner asserts.

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:18:44] Speaker 03:
Probably about 50 or 60 times in this opinion.

[00:18:49] Speaker 03:
Look at it.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
Yes, your honor.

[00:18:51] Speaker 03:
And so are you saying to me that the one sentence in the beginning on page 10, which says, going this record, we're

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
persuaded the petitioner is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Omler and Goss Water teach the limitations of claim one and two is an explicit adoption of every one of the next 50 or 60 sentences which articulate your arguments that were made and cite your briefs.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
That one sentence on page 10 is now an explicit adoption of everything you've said thereafter.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, yes, in conjunction with that page on page 10,

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
as well as on page 17, 18, and 21.

[00:19:30] Speaker 00:
On page 17, we find, the board says, we find that petitioners provide sufficient evidence to show that Elmer teaches the recited simultaneous recording and playback, that whole limitation.

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
Page 18, and we are persuaded petitioners assertions and evidence show sufficiently the resulting system would include each of the limitations of independent claim one and dependent claim two.

[00:19:52] Speaker 03:
Again, that's language saying that the references disclose, they contain each of the limitations, but there is no dispute that Ulmer doesn't even disclose buttons.

[00:20:03] Speaker 03:
The word buttons or keys, it doesn't appear in the Ulmer reference anywhere.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
So you have to get to obviousness in order for you to succeed because Ulmer just talks about a remote.

[00:20:14] Speaker 03:
A remote could have a toggle switch, it could have a knob, it could have all kinds of things.

[00:20:18] Speaker 00:
There was ample evidence in the record, Your Honor.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
Am I missing something?

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
Does Ulmer disclose buttons or keys anywhere in it?

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
It does not, Your Honor.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
Our position has been that it discloses remote control operation as operated by a user.

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
And we presented a case below, and the board found that it would be inherent to have a record and playback button on that remote.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
And it would also be an obvious matter of design choice.

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
So those buttons.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
That's true.

[00:20:46] Speaker 02:
But where did the board say?

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
And it would be an obvious design choice to have a single button playback.

[00:20:55] Speaker 02:
I just don't see it here on the inherence issue.

[00:20:58] Speaker 02:
And I just want to back up for a minute.

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
And I apologize because I'm asking you two questions.

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
Sure, that's fine.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
If you look at page 13, even in the language that you cited where it provides your position, everything that is said here is one of where you would understand what Ulmer's system includes.

[00:21:18] Speaker 02:
would understand what it includes signals, inherency, or a direct teaching.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
It doesn't signal obviousness.

[00:21:26] Speaker 02:
One of ordinary scalers would have been motivated to use a single button playback for reason blah, blah, blah.

[00:21:33] Speaker 02:
There's nothing like that in here, either on any of the pages you've cited so far.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
So where do you think that is?

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
That the board is considering obviousness, Your Honor?

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
For this particular limitation.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
Well, I think that, number one, the Board, as I pointed this Court to, on the bottom of page 12 and on 13, it's crediting our evidence.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
I think that's number one.

[00:22:01] Speaker 00:
But there are also subsidiary factual questions here.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
There's evidence in the record, as the Board says on pages 7 and 8, for example, in the Joint Appendix 7 and 8.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
They specifically find and describe how

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
the ALMA device is independent record and playback, simultaneous record and playback, that the mechanisms for record and playback are different, and that it's controlled by a remote control.

[00:22:26] Speaker 00:
And they also cite on page eight of the Joint Appendix this three-step process which counsels describe where you record, start recording, you wait, and then you play back.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
If you tie that all together with control by a remote, user control by a remote,

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
that, as a matter of obviousness, has buttons on it, that's one-button playback.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
I mean, I think it ties all together nicely, Your Honor, and I think that that's what... But I understand what you're saying here for us today.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
What I'm asking you is, where is this obviousness discussion of one-button playback in the board's decision?

[00:23:02] Speaker 02:
Because the board's decision, and here it talks about would

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
understand, what somebody would understand.

[00:23:09] Speaker 02:
And the site that you gave us on page JA 17 is talking about we find Elmer must have this limitation.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
There's nothing about obviousness for that particular limitation.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
Help me.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
I disagree, Your Honor.

[00:23:27] Speaker 00:
I think that what the board has done, starting on page 7 and then again on 10 and continuing all the way up,

[00:23:34] Speaker 00:
is what they've described is that the priority discloses each of the limitations.

[00:23:38] Speaker 00:
The one place where they do use obvious matter of design choice is with respect to the buttons being on the remote control.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
And I think when you tie that all together, again, at page 17, the paragraph on page 17, which council refers to, I think now the board is saying, OK, we see everything in here.

[00:23:57] Speaker 00:
And by the way, it's got to be inherent that there's a control circuit.

[00:24:00] Speaker 00:
So I think that's the way I read their decision.

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

[00:24:13] Speaker 00:
So your honor, I think as we've just described, there were two issues that Dragon alleges that the board didn't even address one button playback.

[00:24:21] Speaker 00:
I think I've shown to this court that in fact that they did, and that it's supported by substantial evidence.

[00:24:33] Speaker 00:
This court should therefore affirm the decision below.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
But even if this court disagrees, this case should be remanded to the board for further consideration and not reversed.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:24:45] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
Council, you have some rebuttal time.

[00:24:58] Speaker 01:
Please proceed.

[00:24:59] Speaker 01:
Your Honors.

[00:25:01] Speaker 01:
Unified expert testified that one button playback would necessarily be supported by almost control circuit.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
So in the underlining proceeding, Unified argued inherent disclosure, not obviousness.

[00:25:14] Speaker 01:
Therefore, this case should be not remanded back, but the board's obviousness finding should be reversed, because nothing in the evidence supports obviousness argument.

[00:25:27] Speaker 01:
There's only an inherent argument made by Unified's patent.

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you, Mr. May.

[00:25:32] Speaker 03:
Is there anything else?

[00:25:34] Speaker 03:
Okay, case under submission.

[00:25:36] Speaker 03:
Thank both counsel for their argument.

[00:25:38] Speaker 03:
Our next case is 2016-2186, Dragon Intellectual Property versus Apple.