[00:00:05] Speaker 01:
Our case today is 2016-2344, Worldwide Oil Field versus Ameriforge.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Mr. Homer, please proceed.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:21] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:22] Speaker 00:
And may it please the Court, before I address the litany of error, both legal and factual, from this decision of the Board,

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
There are three common themes that run throughout this appeal, and I want to address them up front because they're often layered on top of one another.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
First, the board misapplied the burden of proof on a number of claim elements and indulged the presumption in favor of the petitioner, often being critical of or faulting the patent owner for failing to disprove the presence of several claim elements

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
often without even reviewing evidence or evaluating evidence from the petitioner.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
So that's the first.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
The second is many of the arguments and evidence and configurations came in on reply.

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
At that point in the proceeding, our only option is to take the deposition of their expert witness and file observations with the court, which we did.

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
It's apparent from the decision, however, that every single one of those observations was ignored.

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
All of the testimony is ignored, leaving Dr. Stevick's testimony uncontroverted, essentially, or apparently uncontroverted if you look at the decision.

[00:01:44] Speaker 00:
And then finally, even then, when the petitioner hadn't quite made its case, the board contributed its own legal work on behalf of the petitioner.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
So first, I want to talk about the

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
You began by saying that you think that they wrongly put the burden.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
Show me in the opinion what you think the best example of the board inaccurately placing the burden on the patentee.

[00:02:13] Speaker 00:
They do so with respect to the adjacency.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
Show me the best place in the opinion.

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
Page 21.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
That is where they state, although there are some exceptions, they decide

[00:02:29] Speaker 00:
on one of their several places for the cutting edge because they can't decide where the cutting edge is.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
But they decide that it's on the corner and that the inclined plane is separated by out the bore 212 of Baker.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
And they say although there's some expanse of the horizontal surface of sleeve 212 at the point of the minimum size, it is not apparent why that precludes a determination that the minimum side is nonetheless adjacent to the cutting edge.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
They don't put petitioner to their burden to prove adjacency.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
They don't define adjacency.

[00:03:07] Speaker 00:
And in fact, they can see that they are not adjacent at the final hearing.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
And that's briefed in my reply brief.

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
Mr. Robinson is asked, well, isn't the problem that they're adjacent?

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
Are they adjacent?

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
He says, well, in terms of Schengen vertex, no, they're not adjacent in terms of being right next to one another.

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
And he comes up with this theory of

[00:03:29] Speaker 00:
functional adjacency.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
Well, they're adjacent in terms of what they do, not in terms of where they are, which I don't quite understand.

[00:03:37] Speaker 00:
But nevertheless, they concede that they're not adjacent in the final hearing, and yet here we're faulted for not disproving adjacency.

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
Just curious, if the upper corner is considered the cutting edge of Baker, why isn't the minimum size of that aperture adjacent to that upper corner?

[00:03:58] Speaker 02:
since that minimum size remains consistent all the way along the length of that element 212.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
So this is... I don't see the claim language necessarily saying that the inclined surface or the angled surface has to begin right at where the cutting edge is.

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
Because the gate defines the aperture.

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
The gate defines the aperture.

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
That's what the claim language says.

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
The aperture is defined by the gate.

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
This, to me it seems like creative writing, the notion that the aperture is, the size of the aperture is adjacent.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
I think it's pretty evident from the claim language that it says that the puny edge is on one side,

[00:04:57] Speaker 00:
There's a single inclined surface and defining the aperture.

[00:05:02] Speaker 00:
That defines the aperture.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
A single inclined surface and that the aperture goes from minimum to a maximum adjacent.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
Adjacent to cutting edge to the distal end.

[00:05:12] Speaker 00:
Now, if I'm wrong on that and the point you're making is correct on claim 9, then you've got to reverse on claim 14 because claim 14

[00:05:26] Speaker 00:
erases any question of whether we're talking about the aperture for the j. Claim 14 says, cutting edge adjacent single-incline claim.

[00:05:35] Speaker 02:
Did you make that argument?

[00:05:36] Speaker 02:
That if this understanding of the claim of language in Claim 9 is what I was hypothesizing, then as a separate matter, then Claim 14 has to be considered separately, independently, because Claim 14 in particular specifically says that

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
Inclined surface has to be a Jason right next to that cutting edge.

[00:06:00] Speaker 00:
That is brief.

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
No reply.

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
Yes, sir I'm saying below Well, we didn't get the that wasn't urged below and that was that was that was the creative writing the board that was one of those times when it wasn't the petitioners argument that was the board's theory at least And again my

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
When I read it in the decision, I didn't fully understand, I'll be very candid, that it was trying to make the point that you're making.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
But again, the first time we saw it was in the decision, not in any of the briefing below.

[00:06:41] Speaker 00:
But yeah, since the first time we saw that, we have absolutely briefed it.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
But yeah, claim 14 raises any doubt about whether we're talking about the aperture, we're talking about the cutting edge being adjacent to the single inclined plane.

[00:06:57] Speaker 00:
I still think, though, that the natural, ordinary reading of Claim 9 gets you the same place as Claim 14.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
I still think of it as a frustro conical aperture starting with a cutting edge and ending distal at the cutting edge.

[00:07:17] Speaker 00:
So that is the easiest one to see.

[00:07:22] Speaker 00:
The most egregious one, however, is related to the

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
to claim nine where it says that, well, that we're criticized because we've failed.

[00:07:33] Speaker 00:
Well, claim nine, the board's analysis of claim nine, which starts on page 21 and really goes through to 24, here they turn inherency on its head.

[00:07:48] Speaker 00:
And put simply, rather than putting the petitioner to the burden of establishing that

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
that claim element is met, that a force is imparted by the single inclined surface on a pipe to push the pipe out of the valve.

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
So that's the whole claim element.

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
Instead of putting them to the burden to show that that must necessarily occur in Baker, they flip the burden to us and ask and fault us for not proving that it could never happen.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
in effect, asking us to disprove the operability of Baker.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
And that is, in plain line, this analysis of plain line is really where the layers of error come into play.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
For example, they take a sentence fragment from our expert, where he says, Baker wouldn't necessarily push pipe out of the valve in all circumstances.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
And they say, well, gosh, that's seemingly a recognition that in some cases it will.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
That is, if you ignore the 20 pages of briefing saying it wouldn't, and the rest of that sentence saying that it wouldn't.

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
I took the board as saying, when it looked at the structure illustrated in Baker and the structure illustrated in your 650 patent, the structures are so similar that you would expect

[00:09:24] Speaker 02:
the same outcome with them.

[00:09:27] Speaker 02:
So if one has a downward force on the cut tube, the other one likewise will because they both have that inclined surface.

[00:09:38] Speaker 00:
So the testimony of our expert is that because the shearing face, the outlet bore 212 of Baker is so large, it exerts a purely horizontal force on the pipe.

[00:09:52] Speaker 00:
It doesn't contribute a downward movement of the pipe, in that it bends the pipe horizontally and anchors it inside the valve.

[00:10:04] Speaker 00:
So that's the testimony of our expert.

[00:10:07] Speaker 00:
That's why it wouldn't work, is because their cutting edge isn't adjacent to the single and kind plan, frankly.

[00:10:14] Speaker 02:
So therefore your expert was suggesting that Baker

[00:10:20] Speaker 02:
as disclosed and patented is inoperable.

[00:10:24] Speaker 02:
Absolutely.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
Inoperable to cut tubing.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
In displaced tubing now.

[00:10:29] Speaker 00:
See, because this is another thing.

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
If it were more dignified, I would beg and read, take a critical read of Baker.

[00:10:39] Speaker 00:
Because Baker does not disclose Baker's second and third embodiments.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
The single shearing embodiments don't disclose cutting tubing.

[00:10:51] Speaker 00:
Maybe that's a surprise to you, because the board says that it does, because the part that the board's reading from.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
Is this the part where there was a debate over whether shearing and cutting or?

[00:11:03] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
That's not this debate.

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
It's a different debate.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
We spent a robust amount of briefing in our response, dedicated to the correct position that Baker's single shearing bottom does not cut tubing.

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
It does not expressly cut tubing.

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
And the reason it doesn't is because Baker begins with a dual shearing valve, figures one through five of Baker, where there's a constant aperture through the bore, and it shears a pipe or wire cable on top of the bottom.

[00:11:45] Speaker 00:
And it says, well, the problem with that is you get debris caught in the valve gate.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
So it says it has a modified form of the President's invention.

[00:11:57] Speaker 00:
It refers to the first embodiment is the President invention every time.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
And so you know when you're reading the patent that it says President invention, it means the first embodiment, valve 10.

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
Anytime it says modified version of the President invention, it's referring to the single shear embodiment.

[00:12:15] Speaker 00:
And at the bottom of column nine, the top of column five, there's a pivot where it goes from talking about

[00:12:21] Speaker 00:
the double shearing to the single shearing.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
And in every single occasion where it talks about the single shearing, which is the configuration that's urged against us, it only discusses wire and cable.

[00:12:32] Speaker 00:
Wire and cable, wire and cable, wire and cable.

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
27 times it talks about wire and cable with respect to the single shearing embodiment.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
It never says anything about tubing.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
You're well into your rebuttal time.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
Would you like to save the remainder?

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
Can I go a little longer?

[00:12:46] Speaker 01:
At your peril.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
Go ahead.

[00:12:49] Speaker 00:
Yes, ma'am.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
The board cites as part of the sentence out of the conclusion that says that the present invention provides a great valve which can shear a line or other tubular member, which if you read just that sentence, you might think that the single-shearing embodiment cut tubing, except that refers to the present invention.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
not the modified forms of the present invention.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
The conclusion there pivots again back to the shearing invention, which talks about forms of the present invention, which provide for single shearing of cable towards the end of the conclusion.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
The petitioner has advanced the notion that, well, it also says that the present invention, or should it be the modified forms of the present invention, have all the advantages, quote, all the advantages of the dual shearing volume, except

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
and this is the part they don't quote, the single shearing embodiments will clear debris out of the valve, clear wiring cable out of the valve.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
So let's think about what that means.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
What's the implication of that?

[00:14:00] Speaker 00:
If they're right.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
I still think it doesn't expressly say that it cuts tubing, but let's say they're right for a moment.

[00:14:08] Speaker 00:
What does that mean?

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
It means that Baker would cut tubing

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
Baker's single-shearing embodiments, the modified version of the form of the present invention, would cut tubing, but it would only clear wire and cable.

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
It would not displace tubing from the valve.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
Tubing would get caught in the valve body, and only wire and cable would be cleared, in which case it couldn't meet the elements of clean line.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
And I will save all 42 seconds for the valve.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
Mr. Robinson.

[00:15:06] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:15:08] Speaker 04:
My name is Eagle Robinson.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
I represent Ameriforge.

[00:15:14] Speaker 04:
The board here got it right.

[00:15:16] Speaker 04:
In this court's language from FMC Corp.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
v. Hennessy, seizing upon isolated words and phrases and the underlying opinion, WOM forgets that this court reviews judgments, not phrases and opinions.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
Can you just pick up where the other side left off about the meaning of Baker and the various embodiments and whether or not the embodiment the board relied on actually teaches the cutting of

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
of a tube such that it actually displaces the cut tube away from the gate valve?

[00:15:52] Speaker 04:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
Numerous places throughout the appendix, but I'll start with Baker itself.

[00:16:01] Speaker 04:
One of the very first sentences in the background, and it's just talking about its invention, is that... Right.

[00:16:06] Speaker 02:
His argument is, well, there's a present invention and there's a modified invention.

[00:16:11] Speaker 02:
And so when talking about the modified invention, which is the part that the board relied on,

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
that section of Baker doesn't say anything about cutting a tubular member, unlike the other sections of Baker, which specifically does contemplate cutting wire or a tubular member.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
So that's the point he's focusing on.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
I'd like to hear your response to that.

[00:16:35] Speaker 04:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:16:37] Speaker 04:
First, not all of the sort of broad statements about the invention are couched in terms of the first embodiment of the invention and the modified invention.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
In the background section, it says, the present invention relates to gate valve capable of shearing a wire line or a small pipe extending through its bore.

[00:16:57] Speaker 04:
That's not followed by any qualification or clarification about modified forms of the invention.

[00:17:07] Speaker 04:
Specifically, the portions towards the end of the specification, generally applicable statements about the invention that Mr. Homer was addressing, again say,

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
wire line or tubing.

[00:17:21] Speaker 04:
So the additional clarification about the modified forms of the invention do talk about what is specific to the modified forms of the invention, but they don't detract from the broader statements, both at the very start of the background section and the broader statements in column six.

[00:17:41] Speaker 01:
And I guess your argument would be, wouldn't it, that even if we were inclined to potentially read it differently in line

[00:17:48] Speaker 01:
If we had a de novo review, if we were inclined to read it as the appellant suggested with the present invention and the modified invention being two discrete and different embodiments, and if we didn't think that language applied, that's actually not our job, right?

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
What's the standard of review that we use to determine whether or not the board was correct in what it found disclosed in the prior art?

[00:18:11] Speaker 04:
I would be very careful about telling you what your job is, but that sentiment is exactly consistent with- What's the standard of review?

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
that we used to decide whether the board got something right in terms of whether it was disclosed in the prior art.

[00:18:25] Speaker 04:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:18:26] Speaker 04:
In this instance.

[00:18:27] Speaker 04:
That's a question.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
What is the standard of review that we use?

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
It is clear error for reading the prior art.

[00:18:37] Speaker 04:
That was close.

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
Well, if you'll give me a moment, I can give you a sign.

[00:18:43] Speaker 01:
You know what it is?

[00:18:45] Speaker 01:
Say it.

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:18:48] Speaker 04:
Sorry.

[00:18:49] Speaker 04:
Substantial evidence, Your Honor.

[00:18:52] Speaker 04:
If it's a matter of two conclusions that can be drawn, it's substantial evidence supporting the board's conclusion.

[00:18:59] Speaker 03:
You should really know that, because when you're the appellee in these types of cases, the first thing you should come up here and say is, this is a substantial evidence case.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
We win.

[00:19:10] Speaker 03:
Because that's the way it usually works.

[00:19:15] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:19:16] Speaker 02:
Certainly.

[00:19:19] Speaker 02:
So why do you think when it came to the single shearing gate valve embodiment in Baker, Baker never talked about cutting a tubular member.

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
He always talked about wire lines or cables.

[00:19:34] Speaker 02:
Just curious, why do you think it forgot or neglected or chose not to say tubular member, unlike in other sections of the reference where Baker was specifically talking about

[00:19:47] Speaker 02:
for the double shearing gate valve embodiment cutting a wire line or tubular member?

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, one of the interesting things about Baker is that it talks about broadly the invention is for wire line or tubular.

[00:20:00] Speaker 04:
But even in talking about its dual shearing embodiment, it often talks about wire line as the example that it's specifically addressing.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
So the intent or the reasons behind describing it in that way are not necessarily clear from the face of the document.

[00:20:17] Speaker 04:
In talking about specific examples, it talks about wireline, but broadly, it is clear that it says it cuts tubing or wireline.

[00:20:26] Speaker 04:
And it's not just Baker that the board reviewed in a vacuum.

[00:20:32] Speaker 04:
Dr. Stivik, AmeriForge's expert, analyzed the issue, specifically said, here's what a person of ordinary skill in the art would absolutely understand from what's said here.

[00:20:43] Speaker 04:
There's no reason that this would somehow exclude

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
cutting tubulars.

[00:20:48] Speaker 04:
Ultimately, the board reviewed that, specifically addressed the issue, and came down on the side that Baker does address cutting tubulars with its invention more broadly.

[00:21:03] Speaker 04:
Ultimately, a number of the arguments that WAM raises were waived in this case.

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
Mr. Stevick admitted that the difference in the claim language between claims 14 and 9 was not raised below.

[00:21:25] Speaker 04:
It was also not raised in the opening brief here.

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
And so we believe that issue should have been waived.

[00:21:33] Speaker 04:
Ultimately, Judge Chen, to your point on claim 9 specifically, the claim language of claim 9 does not require that the inclined surface is adjacent to the cutting edge.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
More broadly, though, what the board found was that all of Baker's surface 212 is the cutting edge.

[00:21:54] Speaker 04:
It is the narrow surface that performs the cutting function.

[00:21:57] Speaker 04:
And if the court finds, as we believe it should, that substantial evidence supported that conclusion, it absolutely shares a vertex with the inclined surface.

[00:22:09] Speaker 04:
There can be no debate that those two surfaces meet in Baker's device.

[00:22:15] Speaker 04:
Mr. Homer said that at the oral argument below, I conceded that the upper corner and the inclined surface were not adjacent.

[00:22:24] Speaker 04:
That is absolutely not correct.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
The discussion that that came up in was a question of if you construe adjacency in an ultra-narrow sense where those two surfaces must share a vertex, then if it's only the upper corner of 212, that does not share a vertex with the inclined surface.

[00:22:44] Speaker 04:
But nobody has asked for adjacency to be construed.

[00:22:47] Speaker 04:
The closest that WAM has gotten to asking for that first arose in its reply brief.

[00:22:56] Speaker 04:
In terms of WAM's assertion that the board switched gears on the construction of cutting edge, that's just wrong.

[00:23:10] Speaker 04:
A narrow surface that performs the cutting function is the construction

[00:23:14] Speaker 04:
that WAM advanced.

[00:23:15] Speaker 04:
WAM won that issue.

[00:23:18] Speaker 04:
In the institution decision, the board adopted that construction, and all of the parties have proceeded with it since.

[00:23:24] Speaker 04:
There has been no change.

[00:23:26] Speaker 04:
The board found that Baker's surface 212 is a narrow surface that performs the cutting function.

[00:23:40] Speaker 04:
In terms of whether Baker's inclined surface

[00:23:44] Speaker 04:
imparts a downward force to push a cut pipe away from the gate.

[00:23:48] Speaker 04:
Judge Jen, to your point, the board did look at the similarity between the structure between Baker and the 650 patent and said the inclined surface, when you cut a pipe, are going to perform in the same way.

[00:24:01] Speaker 04:
But again, they didn't do that in the abstract.

[00:24:03] Speaker 04:
They did that based on Dr. Stevick's detailed analysis and comparison between these two structures.

[00:24:09] Speaker 04:
and Dr. Siewick's explanation that that inclined surface just as a matter of the laws of physics necessarily imparts a downward force.

[00:24:18] Speaker 04:
Now, WAM's primary argument about the board's analysis of its expert Mr. Perkins' testimony is that the board plucked certain phrases from Mr. Perkins' testimony about what would happen when that

[00:24:37] Speaker 04:
when that pipe is cut, if it sticks.

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
I'd like to take a moment just to read the full sentence that Mr. Portons provided.

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
He said, Baker's design will not necessarily forcibly push a cut OCTG away from its gate in any and all circumstances, because in some cases its broad shearing surface may not reliably cut, while in other cases the Baker design may pinch the cut OCTG.

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
Ultimately, what the board did was analyze that and analyze Dr. Stevick's testimony and ultimately chose not to credit Mr. Perkins' testimony.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
But the notion that the board just ignored it completely is incorrect.

[00:25:22] Speaker 04:
The board at page 23 of the appendix specifically addressed

[00:25:33] Speaker 04:
Dr. Stivak's skepticism about the 650 patent working in any and all circumstances, and ultimately like it did everywhere else, didn't say we're not going to pay attention to WAM's arguments.

[00:25:46] Speaker 04:
They set out what they found, their factual findings, the evidence that supported those factual findings, and then went a step further to explain why AmeriForge's showing on those factual findings had not been rebutted.

[00:26:05] Speaker 04:
Ultimately, what Wal-Mart asked this court to do is to reweigh the evidence on almost every factual issue in this case.

[00:26:15] Speaker 04:
To the panel's point a moment ago, every one of those factual issues comes down to an issue of substantial evidence.

[00:26:23] Speaker 04:
There is substantial evidence here.

[00:26:25] Speaker 04:
And under this court's precedent, the possibility that two conclusions might be drawn is not enough to second guess the board's conclusion.

[00:26:34] Speaker 01:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Robinson.

[00:26:38] Speaker 01:
Mr. Homer.

[00:26:47] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:26:47] Speaker 00:
In my remaining seconds, I'll remind the court that one of the themes was our cross-examination of Dr. Stevig.

[00:26:58] Speaker 00:
There's nowhere in the opinion.

[00:26:59] Speaker 00:
It's not cited to, it's not discussed at all.

[00:27:03] Speaker 00:
And it is absolutely relevant to a number of elements.

[00:27:07] Speaker 00:
Motivation to combine what others reasonable expectation of success.

[00:27:11] Speaker 00:
In the deposition, he expresses great skepticism about whether or not our device would ever work, which begs the question, why would the ordinarily skilled engineers pursue a device they didn't think would work?

[00:27:23] Speaker 00:
Can I direct the court to appendix 971 and the R observations?

[00:27:29] Speaker 01:
Thank both counsel.

[00:27:31] Speaker 01:
The case is taken under submission.