[00:00:00] Speaker 03: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. [00:00:04] Speaker 03: I'm happy to join this well-warmed-up panel. [00:00:11] Speaker 03: We have three cases this morning, same parties, same lawyers, different patents. [00:00:21] Speaker 03: We will take them in turn, each on its own time, although being flexible as needed. [00:00:31] Speaker 03: And as you know, the order of the parties is reversed in the third case, and you can choose to stay where you are or switch as you like. [00:00:43] Speaker 03: Our first case is Vicor Corporation versus Sincor, 2016, 2282, Mr. Smith. [00:01:02] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:01:03] Speaker 02: Matthew Smith with the Appellant Bicor Corporation. [00:01:09] Speaker 02: Let me begin. [00:01:09] Speaker 02: This is, of course, the 702 patent case with the board's decision concerning the rejection over Cobos and Pressman as motivated by Jabanovich. [00:01:23] Speaker 02: And I think here we have the case of a clear error in the board's opinion that has become clearer through the briefing process [00:01:32] Speaker 02: And that relates, of course, to the Jovanovich reference. [00:01:37] Speaker 02: The Jovanovich reference, as the board notes on appendix page 22, is there to provide additional motivation to make the combination. [00:01:49] Speaker 02: As explained in the request for reexamination, Jovanovich explains why, in certain situations, a person of ordinary skill in the art might want to have an unregulated bus voltage. [00:02:02] Speaker 02: And that was explained, of course, in the examiner's rejection that were appealed by SYNCOR. [00:02:10] Speaker 02: In the board's opinion, however, the only substantive treatment of the Jovanovich reference appears on appendix page 24, where the board says, requester further pointed to Jovanovich as describing circuit components as modular building blocks. [00:02:31] Speaker 02: according to Pressman colon, and then there's a block quote from the Pressman reference talking about modular building blocks. [00:02:38] Speaker 02: This is, I think, the clear mistake regarding the Jovanovich reference. [00:02:43] Speaker 02: Certainly true that Pressman was cited for his teaching of modular building blocks leading up to figure 3-4 in Pressman. [00:02:53] Speaker 02: However, Jovanovich was cited for motivation to have an unregulated bus voltage [00:02:59] Speaker 02: I think that's made very clear in the request for re-examination at appendix pages 120 and 121. [00:03:05] Speaker 01: Wasn't the proposed rejection to insert Kobo's figure 6B? [00:03:12] Speaker 02: Correct, Your Honor. [00:03:13] Speaker 01: And then the board found that that wouldn't lead to that figure 6B's pulse width [00:03:28] Speaker 01: modulating converter would regulate the converter, right? [00:03:35] Speaker 02: So that I think is the essence of the board's decision that there's some sort of apparent regulation in figure 60. [00:03:42] Speaker 01: Right, so if you combine these two pieces from Pressman 3-4B and Kobos, you wouldn't end up with a non-regulating isolation stage. [00:03:56] Speaker 02: That, I think, is why the Jovanovich reference is so critical. [00:04:01] Speaker 02: I would perhaps have an issue with the factual underpinning there, but I think that line of reasoning illustrates why Jovanovich is critical or would have been critical to the rejection had the board addressed it properly. [00:04:14] Speaker 02: Because Jovanovich is there to say there is motivation to make that front-end stage unregulating, and the board just missed that. [00:04:23] Speaker 02: And Sinclair had two reasons why the board's [00:04:27] Speaker 02: on the Jovanovich reference might be excusable. [00:04:30] Speaker 02: First of all, they said that the reference on appendix page 24 to Jovanovich was just a typo. [00:04:36] Speaker 02: It should have been Pressman. [00:04:37] Speaker 02: And I think that's plausible from reading that paragraph, because Pressman is cited, among other things, for its teaching of building blocks. [00:04:46] Speaker 02: But I don't think that helps the board's opinion in terms of the error it made, because if there's no discussion of Jovanovich, [00:04:54] Speaker 02: in the board's opinion. [00:04:55] Speaker 02: Then the board just missed the import of Jovanovitch in the reference. [00:04:59] Speaker 02: And as the colloquy with Judge Chen showed, it really goes to the very point the board is finding a distinction over the prior art with. [00:05:08] Speaker 02: Sinclair also makes the argument. [00:05:10] Speaker 00: Can I ask, did Dr. Schlicht say anything about Jovanovitch? [00:05:16] Speaker 02: I don't recall, Your Honor, whether Dr. Schleich testified specifically to the import of Jovanovitch. [00:05:22] Speaker 02: The board certainly didn't cite his testimony or rely on it in a final effect. [00:05:28] Speaker 00: Did your reliance on Jovanovitch, or Jovanovitch, whatever it is, go beyond saying, here's why there would be a motivation to combine these other two things? [00:05:44] Speaker 00: If it didn't go beyond that, why aren't we left with the board's decision to say, as based in part on Dr. Schlicht, when you combine those two things, you still don't get there? [00:05:59] Speaker 02: So Jovanovich does provide a motivation to do something in particular, and that something in particular is to have an unregulated bus voltage. [00:06:11] Speaker 02: And that means that the output of the front-end converter, if you remember that diagram that's in our request, is unregulated. [00:06:19] Speaker 02: So it's the reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the yard would make that front-end unregulated. [00:06:25] Speaker 02: So in essence, yes, there is a motivation to, even if the board's reasoning leads you to the point where the front end is regulated, there's a motivation to make that point. [00:06:34] Speaker 01: I guess I'm now confused about what you argued to the board, either at the initial decision stage or in the rehearing stage. [00:06:41] Speaker 01: Did you argue to them that even if COBOS teaches a regulated isolation stage, we have Janovic, or however you say it, that teaches why you would modify [00:06:55] Speaker 01: Copos's regulated isolation stage to be a non-regulated isolation stage, because that sounds like what you're arguing to us now. [00:07:03] Speaker 02: Yes, certainly in the initial request for re-examination, that is what it says. [00:07:09] Speaker 01: If you look at the bridging paragraph... I'm talking about the arguments made to the board. [00:07:12] Speaker 02: In the arguments made to the board, [00:07:18] Speaker 02: I don't think we use the word even if, because remember, we don't believe that Jovanovich, I'm sorry, Kobo's figure 6b is regulated. [00:07:26] Speaker 02: But we certainly made the argument that Jovanovich motivates having an unregulated front end or an unregulated bus voltage. [00:07:35] Speaker 02: So I don't think there's a specific saying this is how you would modify the additions to Kobo's figure 6b that Dr. Schlect says would be there. [00:07:45] Speaker 02: Could you point me to that in the joint appendix? [00:07:48] Speaker 02: I don't think it's in the appendix. [00:07:50] Speaker 02: Oh, OK. [00:07:50] Speaker 02: It wasn't challenged below. [00:07:51] Speaker 02: It's something we didn't argue. [00:07:53] Speaker 02: So it's not showing up in the appendix. [00:07:55] Speaker 02: Not below. [00:07:55] Speaker 02: It's already in the briefing. [00:07:58] Speaker 02: So ultimately, I think this issue, I'm sorry. [00:08:01] Speaker 02: I should back up and say the second point that Simcor made about Jovanovich was that the arguments based on Jovanovich were waived. [00:08:11] Speaker 02: And the waiver argument is, in essence, [00:08:14] Speaker 02: The examiner, when he adopted the rejection from Jovanovich, only said, I incorporate by reference the claim charts, as we explained in the briefing. [00:08:24] Speaker 02: Even the claim charts make the argument that Jovanovich motivates a non-regulated bus voltage. [00:08:30] Speaker 01: OK. [00:08:30] Speaker 01: I'm sorry. [00:08:31] Speaker 01: Could you point me to the pages of your blue brief, then? [00:08:34] Speaker 02: The point pages in the blue brief? [00:08:38] Speaker 01: About Jovanovich. [00:08:39] Speaker 02: Oh, yes. [00:08:53] Speaker 02: So beginning on page 18 in our blue brief, Your Honor, there is a section called Reasons to Make the First Conversion Stage of Pressman Unregulated, which talks about the motivation provided by both Preston and Jovanovich. [00:09:11] Speaker 02: Jovanovich's discussion proper begins on page 20, carrying over to page 22, and the discussion of the board's error [00:09:22] Speaker 02: He's on the following pages with respect to Jovanovich. [00:09:29] Speaker 02: So Jovanovich really goes, I think, to the key distinction that the board made over the prior art, and that is whether this front-end stage is unregulated. [00:09:44] Speaker 02: We also believe that that key distinction over the prior art, that COBOS figure 6B is allegedly regulated, was incorrect. [00:09:53] Speaker 02: I think the board got that wrong. [00:09:55] Speaker 02: And it has, I think, come out through the briefing that that circuit in figure 6B, so that circuit diagram, is not inherently regulated. [00:10:07] Speaker 03: You want to get to ground seven and eight? [00:10:09] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:10:10] Speaker 02: Turn to ground seven and eight, which is the rejection over [00:10:14] Speaker 02: Pressman and Kosakian. [00:10:17] Speaker 02: Here, the board had two points regarding Pressman and Kosakian. [00:10:21] Speaker 02: The first was the Pressman reference allegedly does not teach the starting point, which is the combination of figure 3-3 and figure 3-4b, which we show in the petition on the board's site and in its opinion. [00:10:35] Speaker 01: Can you focus on Kosakian and the synchronous rectifier? [00:10:38] Speaker 02: Yes, Your Honor. [00:10:39] Speaker 02: And the overall argument with Kosakian and the synchronous rectifier is [00:10:43] Speaker 02: First of all, there's no dispute about motivation. [00:10:47] Speaker 02: Kasakian very strongly suggests that synchronous rectification is needed for increased efficiency. [00:10:54] Speaker 02: There's a statement on appendix page 2022 where Kasakian says, for efficiency, the use of synchronous rectification is almost necessary. [00:11:03] Speaker 02: So we're not talking about whether or not. [00:11:05] Speaker 01: Right. [00:11:05] Speaker 01: But could you get to the heart of the matter, which is that Kasakian is in the context of resonant topology. [00:11:12] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:11:12] Speaker 01: And then we have Dr. Schleck testifying and the other side making arguments about how there's nothing about Kosakian's discussion of synchronous rectifiers in the context of a resonant topology that automatically means it's easily transferable to square waveform systems. [00:11:35] Speaker 01: And I didn't see you really take that on in your gray brief, [00:11:41] Speaker 01: I think your main position is that synchronous rectifiers were just generally well known. [00:11:47] Speaker 01: They were generally known how to implement them and so it would just be straightforward to apply that in any kind of system whether it's a square wave system or a resonant system. [00:12:02] Speaker 01: The other side has evidence or at least testimony to the contrary and the board [00:12:09] Speaker 01: made a finding based on that contrary testimony. [00:12:12] Speaker 01: I'm just wondering why isn't that substantial evidence? [00:12:15] Speaker 02: I think the board fundamentally misunderstood the essence of the rejection, and I think you've restated our arguments well. [00:12:23] Speaker 02: Our argument is there's motivation to do it. [00:12:25] Speaker 02: That's not disputed. [00:12:26] Speaker 02: The question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could have done it. [00:12:30] Speaker 02: and that's the implementation of synchronous rectification in Pressman's square wave converters. [00:12:36] Speaker 02: Kasekian does disclose square wave topology, doesn't go into it. [00:12:40] Speaker 01: Right, but then in that particular section of Kasekian doesn't make any mention of synchronous rectifiers at all. [00:12:46] Speaker 01: It only talks about it in the context of the resonant system. [00:12:51] Speaker 02: But it certainly acknowledges the existence of [00:12:53] Speaker 02: square wave converters and acknowledges the fact that people are using synchronous rectification in the art, and then goes on to an advanced topic with high frequency resonant circuits. [00:13:04] Speaker 02: But the law doesn't require the bodily incorporation, obviously, of Kasekian circuits into Preston's teaching. [00:13:10] Speaker 02: The question is, was there enough evidence to show that the ordinary skill in the art could have implemented synchronous rectification [00:13:19] Speaker 02: in Preston's system, and we would submit that the evidence there is overwhelming. [00:13:23] Speaker 02: It's all over the prior art, particularly also when you look at Dr. Starkerwald's prior admissions on this. [00:13:30] Speaker 01: Right, but none of those statements were in the context of a square wave system. [00:13:35] Speaker 01: I'm not saying that there really is, in the truthiness of the world, a distinction between the two, but I'm just saying that right now we're left with a record where there is [00:13:49] Speaker 01: knowledge that a synchronous rectifier and a diode are interchangeable, but we don't have something in the record that says, and yes, you can use a synchronous rectifier in a square wave system just like you can in a resonant topology. [00:14:04] Speaker 02: I think you actually do have that in the record, your honor, and it's in the form of the Cobos article. [00:14:08] Speaker 02: The Cobos article, if you look at, for example, the diagrams that are next to figure six shows square wave rectification happening [00:14:19] Speaker 02: So it is possible in both resonant and square wave. [00:14:25] Speaker 03: Council, you're well into your rebuttal time. [00:14:28] Speaker 03: We'll give you two minutes back and we'll hear from Mr. Ryan. [00:14:33] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:14:48] Speaker 04: May it please the court? [00:14:51] Speaker 04: Vicor raises two obvious combinations on appeal. [00:14:55] Speaker 04: For both, Vicor needed to show the combination meets the claims and that one of skill would be motivated to make the combination. [00:15:06] Speaker 04: For both combinations, Vicor failed at step one. [00:15:12] Speaker 04: The board also found that even if Vicor had made a prima facie case, [00:15:17] Speaker 04: of obviousness, the compelling real-world evidence of secondary considerations outweighed Vicor's obviousness evidence, thus providing an independent ground for affirmance. [00:15:33] Speaker 04: The board's findings were well-grounded in the record, which backs the board's factual findings with substantial evidence. [00:15:41] Speaker 01: Did the board make any findings about Jovanovich's [00:15:44] Speaker 01: relevance and application to the proposed rejection? [00:15:48] Speaker 04: Well, the board didn't need to even get there, because Jovanovich was only urged by Vicor as motivation to combine Cabos' front-end isolating converter with Pressman. [00:16:04] Speaker 04: It was also urged as motivation to remove pre-regulators from Pressman. [00:16:10] Speaker 04: So that the net result would be you start with KAVOS' isolation stage 6b, and then that feeds downstream to pressmen switching regulators with the pre-regulator removed. [00:16:25] Speaker 04: What you're left with then, as your honor pointed out, is KAVOS figure 6b, which the board found based on substantial evidence, is in fact a regulating converter defeating the combination. [00:16:40] Speaker 04: And so Jovanovich is really beside the point because you don't get to the combination with the combination. [00:16:48] Speaker 04: You don't get to the claims with the combination that was urged. [00:16:53] Speaker 04: Now, and that really is essentially the point. [00:16:58] Speaker 04: Because Bicor can't defend the combinations that it actually urged below, it is transformed. [00:17:04] Speaker 00: Can you remind me, what was the evidence on which the board relied for reading [00:17:10] Speaker 00: Was it COBOS as involving a regulated? [00:17:16] Speaker 04: There was abundant evidence on that, Your Honor. [00:17:19] Speaker 04: 6B was described as being a pulse width modulated converter, modulation indicating regulation. [00:17:29] Speaker 04: On top of that, the converter was said to be taking in 40 to 60 volts VC. [00:17:38] Speaker 04: 40 to 60 volts. [00:17:39] Speaker 00: And aiming at 3.3. [00:17:41] Speaker 04: And that's significant because 3.3 was the voltage level to drive logic circuitry. [00:17:47] Speaker 04: And it was well understood, particularly in the context of CAVOs, that you need a tightly regulated voltage for that purpose. [00:17:54] Speaker 04: And so the evidence was presented by Dr. Schlect, citing CAVOs and other things. [00:18:02] Speaker 04: And the board had every right to rely on the evidence. [00:18:06] Speaker 00: Let me ask you this. [00:18:08] Speaker 00: Is it possible that paying attention to Jovanovich could have influenced how the board decided to interpret Khabos? [00:18:24] Speaker 04: I think the answer to that is no. [00:18:27] Speaker 04: Number one, because Vykor did not urge that Jovanovich motivates modifying Khabos at all. [00:18:35] Speaker 00: That was not even... Well, it didn't use that language, but it did [00:18:38] Speaker 00: argue that Jovanovich motivates putting a unregulated front end? [00:18:44] Speaker 04: No, they didn't really say that at all. [00:18:46] Speaker 04: They argued that Jovanovich motivates the combination of Pressman with Cabos, and also that it motivates removing the pre-regulator from Pressman, so that what you'd be left with is Cabos' figure 6p. [00:19:04] Speaker 04: The second important point, Your Honor, is that if you look at Cabos, [00:19:09] Speaker 04: The CAVOS reference is describing the traditional distributed power architecture system, where a DC converter feeds a voltage to a converter on the board, which in this case was an isolating and regulating converter. [00:19:29] Speaker 04: And CAVOS also teaches that if you want to create multiple voltages, you can have multiple isolating, regulating converters, [00:19:38] Speaker 04: potentially multiple secondary whinings coming out of that isolating and regulating converter. [00:19:44] Speaker 04: Jovanovich was not even urged to modify Cabos at all. [00:19:49] Speaker 04: And there's no basis to reverse on the basis of an argument that Vykor did not present to the board below. [00:19:57] Speaker 04: The board considered the arguments that Vykor made. [00:19:59] Speaker 00: Just so that I can please be clear about what's on my mind, even if what's on my mind is confused, put aside the absence of an argument which I [00:20:08] Speaker 00: as far as I can tell is correct, there is absent an argument to modify Kobos in light of Yovanovitch. [00:20:17] Speaker 00: I was asking about whether a full consideration of Yovanovitch might have led the board [00:20:23] Speaker 04: to read Cabos the way they urged Cabos should be read, so there would not have been a need to modify it. [00:20:40] Speaker 00: But what do you do with the reference in, I think it's on maybe page 35 of the blue brief to the Barry article which you all cited which seems to show a pulse width modulator in a unregulated circle, if that's the right language. [00:21:05] Speaker 04: First of all, we think that that's a misconstruction of the BERI article. [00:21:12] Speaker 00: Doesn't it expressly show PWM in unregulated circuit? [00:21:16] Speaker 00: No? [00:21:17] Speaker 04: No. [00:21:17] Speaker 04: It shows a... I'm remembering BERI correctly. [00:21:21] Speaker 00: It shows a... I'm looking at page 35 of the blue brief. [00:21:26] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:21:27] Speaker 00: Figure 1. [00:21:28] Speaker 00: Labeled unregulated isolated DC-DC converter over on the left side. [00:21:34] Speaker 00: like fixed pulse width, and then there's text here saying, look at figure seven, which has PWM in the circuit. [00:21:46] Speaker 00: Is that just not what it seems to me? [00:21:49] Speaker 04: I think you also have to look at the text of Beery, which talks about removing the pulse width modulation if you're creating an unregulated converter. [00:21:59] Speaker 04: You can't just look at a diagram in the abstract. [00:22:01] Speaker 04: You have to look at the text. [00:22:02] Speaker 04: And we explain that in our brief. [00:22:04] Speaker 04: that they are misinterpreting Barry. [00:22:07] Speaker 04: Also, this was not an argument that Vicor made to the board as well. [00:22:12] Speaker 04: So of course, necessarily, it's not an argument that Sinclair addressed below. [00:22:18] Speaker 04: But we think that they are misinterpreting Barry because they're not looking at the text where it talks about actually removing the regulation. [00:22:26] Speaker 04: But returning to your basic point, Judge Taranto, if you looked at caverns, which very clearly [00:22:34] Speaker 04: one of skill would understand is teaching a regulating converter. [00:22:37] Speaker 04: In a DBA architecture, which was the typical architecture at the time, it would be the epitome of hindsight to even read Johavik as modifying [00:22:50] Speaker 04: the regulated converter in cabos, which of course is not what Vykor even argued below. [00:22:58] Speaker 04: There's all sorts of technical reasons why one of skill would not use Giovanovic to modify cabos in the system of cabos teaching. [00:23:08] Speaker 00: Just before you go on, can I ask you something about, on page 10 of your brief, the red brief? [00:23:15] Speaker 00: And I apologize if I'm just confused, but you have a sentence that says, [00:23:19] Speaker 00: One way is to, quote, place the isolation stage first in the power flow, unquote, followed by several DC-DC switching or linear regulators. [00:23:28] Speaker 00: And you cite column 14, lines 20 to 23. [00:23:31] Speaker 00: And maybe I'm just blind, but I don't see that there. [00:23:38] Speaker 00: It connects with the fact that at least until maybe you get to the 021 patent, every single figure has the order of these things reversed. [00:23:48] Speaker 04: In our brief on page 10? [00:23:50] Speaker 00: Yeah. [00:23:51] Speaker 00: The little paragraph that begins the specification also describes, and then the second sentence, one way is to place the isolation stage first in the power flow, followed by several DC-DC switching or linear regulators. [00:24:02] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:24:03] Speaker 04: That is specifically from the text of the pack. [00:24:05] Speaker 00: Right. [00:24:05] Speaker 00: And my question, I'm reading those lines, and I'm not seeing it. [00:24:09] Speaker 04: It's there. [00:24:12] Speaker 04: I don't know that I... [00:24:16] Speaker 04: Mike, the 702 panel. [00:24:34] Speaker 00: Oh, it's later. [00:24:35] Speaker 00: The citation is wrong. [00:24:36] Speaker 00: 33. [00:24:36] Speaker 00: Sorry, got it. [00:24:40] Speaker 04: Your Honor, not only has Vicor transformed their Cabos-based rejection, but they've also transformed their other combination, which was to take the starting point, the supposed starting point, in Pressman and then modify it. [00:25:08] Speaker 04: by adding the very specific synchronous rectification scheme in Cossackian. [00:25:15] Speaker 04: Now, number one, the Bourne found that Bicor's starting point appears nowhere impressive. [00:25:23] Speaker 04: Bicor is combining selective portions of different embodiments while omitting key portions of each. [00:25:30] Speaker 00: This is the argument about 3.3 being modified. [00:25:34] Speaker 00: It seems to me Pressman is explicit about this. [00:25:37] Speaker 00: It says you can do to 3.3 what we do to 3.4. [00:25:41] Speaker 00: I don't understand how there's any doubt about that. [00:25:46] Speaker 04: I think what the text is saying, and multiple boards have reached the same conclusion, that what Pressman is saying is that you'll end up with the figures both in 3.4a and in 3.4b as is. [00:25:59] Speaker 04: And the figures would then be very specific. [00:26:02] Speaker 01: So there's a sentence right after the display of figure 3, 4b saying this type of single secondary winding with multiple output voltage stages can be used in 3, 3, 4, 3, 4a. [00:26:16] Speaker 01: True. [00:26:17] Speaker 01: And so to me, that reads like, OK, you don't have to worry about having multiple secondary windings, one for each converting down of voltage output. [00:26:29] Speaker 04: It does say that, but when it shows a single secondary winding, there is a pre-regulator that it shows in front. [00:26:38] Speaker 04: And it teaches the importance of a pre-regulator, and that while you can eliminate the pre-regulator, that comes at a cost. [00:26:46] Speaker 04: And the selection of the regulators becomes much more limited. [00:26:51] Speaker 04: And not only that, but I think it's important to keep in mind the arguments that were being made about Pressman. [00:26:56] Speaker 04: Pressman is a textbook, a lady textbook. [00:26:59] Speaker 04: that teaches in general the superiority of a single-stage conversion system. [00:27:05] Speaker 04: It shows that efficiency of a single-stage architecture is far superior to a two-stage. [00:27:11] Speaker 00: For all possible uses? [00:27:13] Speaker 04: Yes. [00:27:14] Speaker 04: And it shows that at that time, the perception was. [00:27:18] Speaker 04: And the teaching was that you're going to get about a 72% efficiency. [00:27:23] Speaker 04: when you have a single-stage conversion system, but you're only going to get about a 59%. [00:27:28] Speaker 00: Where did the board make these kinds of findings about the 3.3 not being subject to the modification to make it look like the 3.4a? [00:27:42] Speaker 04: The board found that it's not a starting point because it didn't find the modification, the hybrid circuit at VICOR. [00:27:50] Speaker 00: But I'm not remembering [00:27:52] Speaker 00: the board giving explanations for saying, well, yeah, this language does appear in Pressman, but really nobody would have thought that it meant this for the following additional technical reasons. [00:28:03] Speaker 00: It seems more like the board just missed this. [00:28:07] Speaker 04: Respectfully, I don't think so. [00:28:08] Speaker 04: I think the arguments were made by Sinclair and by Vykor about how to interpret and potentially get to the circuit that Vykor said is the starting point. [00:28:19] Speaker 04: And the board had both parties' arguments in front of it and concluded, including Sinclair's arguments, that you wouldn't use that as a starting point anyway, because one of skill would not just select some miscellaneous two-stage system, given the entire teaching of Pressman against that. [00:28:37] Speaker 04: And the board concluded that FICOR's proposed starting point was improper. [00:28:42] Speaker 04: It didn't go into detail explaining why it was improper. [00:28:45] Speaker 04: That's true. [00:28:46] Speaker 04: But I think the essence of their finding [00:28:49] Speaker 04: was that Vicor is plucking out of a text book, a supposed starting point, that isn't clearly disclosed. [00:28:58] Speaker 04: It's not disclosed in precedent. [00:28:59] Speaker 01: Can you get to Kisakian? [00:29:00] Speaker 01: I'm happy to. [00:29:02] Speaker 01: Because I think that's pretty critical. [00:29:03] Speaker 01: You have little time left. [00:29:05] Speaker 04: OK. [00:29:05] Speaker 04: So on Kisakian, the claims here, they don't just recite controlled rectifiers. [00:29:14] Speaker 04: They call for turning on and off these controlled rectifiers [00:29:18] Speaker 04: in synchronization with the voltage waveform. [00:29:22] Speaker 01: Can you explain what's the mystery behind applying a synchronous rectifier in a square wave system? [00:29:28] Speaker 04: I can't. [00:29:30] Speaker 04: Your Honor, there is no one size fits all with synchronous rectification. [00:29:36] Speaker 04: It was a concept that was known at the time, but it was rarely used. [00:29:41] Speaker 04: And it was rarely used because what works in one circuit won't work in another. [00:29:46] Speaker 04: You need a very carefully designed system for timing the turn-on and the turn-off of the rectifiers. [00:29:53] Speaker 04: The scheme needs to work with the very specific waveforms that you're dealing with. [00:29:58] Speaker 04: What might be routine in one circuit is hopelessly complex somewhere else. [00:30:03] Speaker 04: Context is critical. [00:30:05] Speaker 04: And so the issue here, because it's what Bicor chose as the basis for its proposed rejection, is whether one of skill [00:30:14] Speaker 04: would know how to make the changes [00:30:32] Speaker 04: A very complex, experimental synchronous rectifier designed for his specific circuit. [00:30:37] Speaker 00: This was experimental in, am I remembering right, 1988? [00:30:41] Speaker 00: It was. [00:30:41] Speaker 00: So by 1997, A, it was known, having been published in 88, then maybe a lot more was known, too. [00:30:47] Speaker 04: Well, the important point was it was a very specific, customized controlled rectifier. [00:30:53] Speaker 04: It wasn't your standard controlled rectifier. [00:30:57] Speaker 00: Right, but their ground of rejection [00:31:02] Speaker 00: wasn't take the specific Cossackian synchronous rectifier, fiddle with it in appropriate ways, it was take the idea of synchronous rectifiers, well known by 1997, and a skilled artisan would know how to do it by then. [00:31:20] Speaker 04: Respectfully, I think their proposed combination was to take the Cossackian synchronous rectification scheme, which means not just the controlled rectifiers, but also the timing. [00:31:31] Speaker 04: of how to turn on and off the gates. [00:31:35] Speaker 04: And that one of skill would understand how to use that in pressmen. [00:31:41] Speaker 04: And there were competing arguments that were made about that. [00:31:44] Speaker 04: Dr. Schleck and Dr. Dickens, who's a professor from Texas Tech, both said it's just not that easy. [00:31:51] Speaker 04: It's very complicated. [00:31:53] Speaker 04: And by the way, it's not just a matter of square wave versus resonant. [00:31:57] Speaker 04: There's also the matter of what is the voltage level? [00:32:00] Speaker 04: in a very simple, non-isolated circuit that has very low voltage, it's easier to do. [00:32:07] Speaker 04: But if you have an isolation stage, the timing has to be even more precise. [00:32:12] Speaker 04: And if you have a high voltage that's going down to a low voltage, then the benefit of doing it is even less clear. [00:32:22] Speaker 04: It adds complexity. [00:32:23] Speaker 03: Brian, do you want to finish your thought, please, as you're well into your talk? [00:32:27] Speaker 04: My simple point is that what the board found based on the evidence was that neither Vicor nor the examiner explained how the particular modifications required to combine Pressman and Katsakian, so they found that there had to be modifications, would fall within the skill of one of ordinary skill at the time. [00:32:52] Speaker 04: Substantial evidence supports that fact-finding, and by the way, it's also well-reinforced [00:32:57] Speaker 04: by the abundant secondary consideration evidence that shows that this is really just pure hindsight. [00:33:03] Speaker 04: They're using the claims as a way to try to find prior art and pick and choose. [00:33:10] Speaker 04: Whereas in the real world, one of skill would not have done that. [00:33:13] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:33:14] Speaker 03: Thank you, counsel. [00:33:15] Speaker 03: Mr. Smith will give you three minutes of rebuttal time. [00:33:18] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:33:19] Speaker 02: I only have a few quick points. [00:33:21] Speaker 02: First, on the idea that Kosakian says synchronous rectifiers are only rarely used because they're too complicated. [00:33:28] Speaker 02: Dr. Schlicht explained this in his 1998 tutorial, where he said, this was known, it was discussed, it was used, it was well understood 50 to 20 years before that date, so before 1998. [00:33:39] Speaker 02: The thing holding it back was not the complexity, it was the availability of suitable MOSFETs, the transistors you use, at the right price. [00:33:48] Speaker 02: Once that came around, it became more prevalent in the early 1990s. [00:33:52] Speaker 02: Second, I would like to direct your attention to a specific site in the request for re-examination. [00:33:58] Speaker 02: It's the bridging paragraph at the bottom of appendix page 120, where we specifically talk about Jovanovich providing a motivation to have an unregulated bus voltage and, at the same time, to remove the pre-regulator from Pressman. [00:34:15] Speaker 02: So that is part of the proposed rejection that was adopted by the examiner. [00:34:19] Speaker 02: And I think the point on Pressman [00:34:21] Speaker 01: Did you raise it in your request for rehearing to the board? [00:34:25] Speaker 01: I don't see it discussed in the rehearing decision by the board. [00:34:29] Speaker 01: That's correct, Your Honor. [00:34:30] Speaker 02: We only raised two issues in the request for rehearing. [00:34:32] Speaker 01: So I guess what I'm wondering is if you felt like the board overlooked something in the initial decision by not using Jovanovich in the way that you wanted them to, or at least to consider, then why didn't you raise it in your request for rehearing? [00:34:48] Speaker 02: As you know, Your Honor, the board has [00:34:51] Speaker 02: a rule on rehearing that doesn't allow for straight appellate issues to be reheard. [00:34:57] Speaker 01: Well, if you feel like they've overlooked an argument that you raised and that they didn't address it, that's a grounds for request for rehearing. [00:35:05] Speaker 02: I think it's an issue that they just got wrong, in a sense. [00:35:10] Speaker 02: But there is a judgment call you have to make on what to raise in rehearing. [00:35:14] Speaker 02: And the line is not entirely clear, I think. [00:35:18] Speaker 02: The question, ultimately, on Jovanovich [00:35:20] Speaker 02: Mr. Ryan characterized it as the epitome of hindsight. [00:35:23] Speaker 02: I think you just don't know because the board didn't address Jovanovich and didn't address the thrust of that rejection in its opinion. [00:35:30] Speaker 02: Regarding Cobos figure 6B, the rejection as proposed took the circuit of figure 6B and used it with a fixed duty cycle, 50% duty cycle that was fixed. [00:35:44] Speaker 02: That causes it, I think it's undisputed at that point that if you drive that circuit in that way, it is unregulated. [00:35:50] Speaker 02: in that if you want to regulate the circuit, you actually have to add a feedback loop that will drive it in a specific way that changes the duty cycle. [00:36:00] Speaker 02: And so if you drive it in the way the rejection proposed, I think it's undisputed at this point that that would have been found to be unregulated. [00:36:08] Speaker 00: This is the figure with essentially an empty space in the lower left-hand corner, and everybody agrees there are necessary circuit elements [00:36:17] Speaker 00: that are simply not shown there, and the dispute is what can one infer about what should go in that empty space? [00:36:24] Speaker 02: That's exactly right, O'Connor. [00:36:26] Speaker 02: And on that point, I would also point, in addition to the very article, the evidence that SYNCOR cited in their red brief, Pressman, APPX, 774 to 775, discusses a PWM converter without regulation at all. [00:36:41] Speaker 02: So the name [00:36:42] Speaker 02: that sort of three-letter acronym doesn't convey the sense of regulation at all. [00:36:48] Speaker 02: It's really what the person of ordinary skill can see in COVO's Figure 6B. [00:36:52] Speaker 02: As it is, it is not regulated. [00:36:54] Speaker 02: And if the person of ordinary skill has the ability to envision all the regulation circuitry that was necessary, they certainly have the ability to envision it unregulated as well. [00:37:04] Speaker 03: Thank you, Mr. Smith. [00:37:05] Speaker 03: This case is submitted. [00:37:06] Speaker 03: Thank you very much.