[00:00:00] Speaker 02: It is number 16, 1897, XY LLC against ABS Global Incorporated. [00:00:08] Speaker 02: Mr. O'Neill. [00:00:14] Speaker 07: Thank you, J.D. [00:00:14] Speaker 07: May it please the court, Kurt O'Neill, for the appellant to XY LLC. [00:00:19] Speaker 07: The Board's holding of obviousness of the claims on the Johnson and Wrens combination cannot stand here because it rests entirely on an input claim construction. [00:00:29] Speaker 07: In reaching that instruction, the board completely vitiated a key element of limitation of the determining step of claim one. [00:00:39] Speaker 07: The board did that, and they did that by making three distinct errors. [00:00:43] Speaker 07: Number one, the board declined to construe the claim according to the subjective preference of the practitioner. [00:00:50] Speaker 07: The board said, page 11 of the decision, is simply not going to do that, despite the fact that the claim is explicitly expressed [00:00:58] Speaker 07: in the context of the desire of the practitioner to sort these cells. [00:01:03] Speaker 07: And this court's jurisprudence is very clear that this type of subjective claiming is permitted as long as it does not render the claim indefinite. [00:01:11] Speaker 07: And there was no finding or suggestion here that it would have done so. [00:01:16] Speaker 07: The second clear error, and let me bring it back up. [00:01:20] Speaker 07: In reaching that conclusion, the board said, we find that the phrase, the operative phrase, having a desired sex characteristic in the claim means that it has a gender. [00:01:32] Speaker 07: Well, that would eliminate the meaning of that claim and render it superfluous because the claim is talking about sperm cells. [00:01:39] Speaker 07: And to say that sperm cells have a gender is superfluous and redundant. [00:01:44] Speaker 07: And consequently, the board's construction [00:01:46] Speaker 07: renders that language of the claim superfluous and having no meaning. [00:01:52] Speaker 07: The second plain error in the board's construction is that it said that construing the claim [00:02:01] Speaker 07: and in particular the sorting rate in the claim, to be limited to the sort rate for a single sex, either X or Y, would exclude from the scope of the claim the circumstance in which the practitioner was sorting and collecting both sexes. [00:02:19] Speaker 07: In other words, in that circumstance where the practitioner desired both sexes and was collecting them. [00:02:25] Speaker 07: That's clear error by the board. [00:02:27] Speaker 07: It's not at all consistent with this court's claim construction jurisprudence. [00:02:31] Speaker 07: This is an open-ended, comprising claim. [00:02:34] Speaker 07: And so the mere fact that a practitioner desired to sort and collect both genders would not be outside the scope of the claim. [00:02:42] Speaker 07: In that case, and there is an example in the specification of this very thing, example three, in that case, a practitioner would infringe this claim if either of the desired sex characteristics that were being sorted and collected [00:02:55] Speaker 07: were sorted at the minimum claim sort rate of 1,200 sorts per second. [00:03:00] Speaker 07: The fact that they were sorting and collecting both would not mean that that example would be excluded from the claim. [00:03:07] Speaker 07: And then the third major error made by the board in this claim construction is that it said you weren't sufficiently explicit in claiming a sort rate that depended on the rate of sorting of one particular sex and not the aggregate number at the same time. [00:03:25] Speaker 07: The board is erroneous there because it neglected to take into consideration that every single example in the specification in which a sort rate is expressed, the specification actually expresses that in terms of the rate of sorting of one particular sex, either X or Y. And consequently, the only construction of this claim that is consistent with this specification [00:03:51] Speaker 07: is a construction in which the discriminating step D of the claim is calling for a minimum sorting rate of sorting or discriminating the particular gender, whether it be X or Y. We don't deny... How does the specification explain how you achieve the sorting rate of 1200 sorts per second? [00:04:14] Speaker 04: Your Honor, there are at least... It's the Moflo cytometer, right? [00:04:18] Speaker 07: It is a cytometer, correct? [00:04:20] Speaker 04: The Moflo cytometer. [00:04:21] Speaker 07: The Moflo cytometer, correct. [00:04:22] Speaker 04: And it specifically says, hey, somebody invented the Moflo cytometer, and it can get up to 1,200 sorts per second. [00:04:33] Speaker 04: That's a real breakthrough in this art, right? [00:04:37] Speaker 07: Well, I mean, that's what the spec says. [00:04:40] Speaker 07: It is an advance in the general art of flow cytometry. [00:04:44] Speaker 07: That announcement or the availability of that product did not enable the display. [00:04:50] Speaker 04: And so for the MOFLOW disclosed 1,200 sorts per second, do you know if the MOFLOW was sorting both X and Y cells together? [00:05:08] Speaker 04: at 1,200 or was it just X cells at 1,200 sorts per second or Y cells only at 1,200 sorts per second? [00:05:16] Speaker 07: A couple of things. [00:05:17] Speaker 07: The Moflo itself was a commercial cell sorter that was not particular to the sorting of any cell type. [00:05:23] Speaker 07: These are used in hospitals and research institutes to sort cancer cells, blood cells, and so forth. [00:05:30] Speaker 07: So the availability of a commercial sorter that was generally faster in speed doesn't lead you to arrive at this invention. [00:05:38] Speaker 04: So it's just sorting any cells at 1,200 sorts per second. [00:05:46] Speaker 07: Well, not 1,200. [00:05:47] Speaker 07: It depends on the cell type and the parameters in which you operate and what you're striving to achieve. [00:05:54] Speaker 07: And I think you've hit on one of the key errors the board made here. [00:05:57] Speaker 07: The board picked a statement. [00:05:59] Speaker 04: Well, I'm just trying to figure out there's one time in this entire patent spec that uses the number 1,200. [00:06:08] Speaker 04: And that's in relation to this reference to this brand new cytometer called the MOFLO. [00:06:15] Speaker 04: And so now I'm trying to understand, well, what is it that it was specifically sorting out? [00:06:20] Speaker 04: Was it just one particular cell out of many, many different available cells? [00:06:24] Speaker 04: And it was that one single cell at 1,200 sorts per second? [00:06:28] Speaker 04: Or was it just all the cells that were in the mix and then they're being sorted? [00:06:35] Speaker 07: If I may, my answer would be in two parts. [00:06:37] Speaker 07: Number one, that passage in the specification is in the detailed description of the inventor's preferred embodiment. [00:06:44] Speaker 07: And in fact, it is the description of the inventor's own work. [00:06:49] Speaker 07: hit on it, that is the section 112 written description support for the claim. [00:06:54] Speaker 07: And what the inventors are describing there are their own achievement of sorting sperm cells at the claimed rate of 1200 per second. [00:07:03] Speaker 07: The board seemed to find that that was some sort of admission of prior art, that others had already achieved that. [00:07:09] Speaker 07: If that were the case, this would be an anticipation. [00:07:12] Speaker 00: Suppose we were to disagree with you on the claim construction? [00:07:16] Speaker 00: Where are we? [00:07:18] Speaker 07: Your Honor, as laid out in our briefs, we still disagree that the obvious conclusion was correct and is defensible as a matter of law. [00:07:28] Speaker 07: Primarily for the reason I've just discussed. [00:07:30] Speaker 07: In order to get there, the board had to say or find that the expression in column seven of the patent that says the MOFLO has been used to achieve the sorting of sperm cells at 1200 is actually the work of others. [00:07:49] Speaker 07: And that's not the case at all. [00:07:51] Speaker 07: I believe that's a finding of fact that has no substantial evidence to support it. [00:07:56] Speaker 07: It, in essence, finds an admission of prior art in the inventor's own disclosure of their preferred embodiment. [00:08:04] Speaker 07: And again, this is in column seven of the patent, deep into the description of preferred embodiment, where the inventors are saying, we have obtained a Moflo sorter commercially available. [00:08:16] Speaker 07: It is a relatively higher speed sorter. [00:08:19] Speaker 07: And in our hands, with the operating parameters, we have devised the chemical coordination of the sheath fluids and all the sorting fluids and all the other parameters we set forth. [00:08:30] Speaker 04: I'm focused on the RENS reference, which I don't know. [00:08:35] Speaker 04: Maybe I'm looking at this a little too superficially, but it looks like virtually a 102, if not an actual 102, because it uses the Moflo cytometer. [00:08:46] Speaker 04: And it says, use the Johnson method. [00:08:49] Speaker 04: with Renz's nozzle, and it can get 1,984 sorts per second, which meets your 1,200 sorts per second. [00:08:58] Speaker 04: And then it says, in example number seven, that it had successful results with that particular embodiment, Moflo cytometer, Johnson method, 1,984 sorts per second. [00:09:12] Speaker 04: And then Renz says there's a strong, strong motive to improve the sort rate. [00:09:16] Speaker 07: It's neither anticipatory nor does it render it obvious. [00:09:20] Speaker 07: Under the correct claim construction, which is 1,200 swords per second. [00:09:24] Speaker 04: OK, but assuming you lose that. [00:09:27] Speaker 07: As I said, if I lose the claim construction, I still believe and would contend that there is no substantial evidence to support the board's broader finding, because the board's analysis. [00:09:40] Speaker 01: How could that be when RENZ is so close? [00:09:43] Speaker 01: How could that be? [00:09:43] Speaker 01: There's no substantial evidence. [00:09:46] Speaker 07: So that's under XY's construction. [00:09:48] Speaker 07: Under XY's construction. [00:09:50] Speaker 01: We're asking you, where are we if we reject your claim construction and affirm the board's construction? [00:09:56] Speaker 01: Under my construction. [00:09:57] Speaker 07: And under those circumstances, Wrens is very close, right? [00:10:01] Speaker 07: It is. [00:10:02] Speaker 07: Well, if you go with the board's construction, then the claim requires 1,200 source per second in the aggregate, and Wrens destroys the staff. [00:10:15] Speaker 07: If you go with XY's narrower construction, then Wren's is short of that, and I believe I prevail here because there was no finding below that these claims are obvious. [00:10:28] Speaker 04: But to sum up, which was going back to Judge Deck's question, if you lose on the claim construction, then there really isn't much left. [00:10:38] Speaker 07: I disagree, Your Honor. [00:10:40] Speaker 07: OK, then what is that that is left? [00:10:42] Speaker 07: The reason is, as I said, in order to get there, the board had to use the inventor's own disclosure against them, principally the passage in column seven of the specification. [00:10:50] Speaker 04: Well, let's just focus on RENS. [00:10:52] Speaker 04: What is wrong with RENS in combination with Johnson? [00:10:55] Speaker 07: You mean as an anticipatory reference? [00:10:57] Speaker 04: No, as the 103 that the board relied on. [00:11:00] Speaker 04: It pointed to RENS. [00:11:01] Speaker 04: It pointed to all the important elements in RENS using Johnson's method. [00:11:07] Speaker 04: to produce what appears to be your claim of invention. [00:11:11] Speaker 04: What is wrong with that? [00:11:13] Speaker 07: I'll respond this way, Your Honor. [00:11:15] Speaker 07: The appellee was pressed at oral argument for evidence to show that there was obviousness here under XY's interpretation. [00:11:25] Speaker 07: And they acknowledged they did not have the evidence. [00:11:27] Speaker 07: They did not have the art nor the teaching. [00:11:29] Speaker 07: And we lay that out. [00:11:30] Speaker 01: But you're talking about the air construction prevailing. [00:11:34] Speaker 01: Well, the question we're asking you is, where are we if [00:11:38] Speaker 01: Your construction does not prevail. [00:11:40] Speaker 01: And we agree with the board's construction. [00:11:42] Speaker 01: You don't have anything. [00:11:43] Speaker 01: I mean, Renz is clearly supports the board's obviousness finding, doesn't it? [00:11:49] Speaker 07: I come back to what I said, Your Honor. [00:11:50] Speaker 07: The board relied very heavily on its finding that the passage in the specification describing the inventor's own work was somehow prior art or the work of others. [00:12:03] Speaker 07: And finding an admission of prior art in the specification is a very high bar. [00:12:07] Speaker 07: very difficult to me. [00:12:09] Speaker 07: But the board did that to us repeatedly, and suggesting that somehow in the description of the preferred embodiment, where the inventors are clearly- But RENZ is priority, right? [00:12:20] Speaker 04: RENZ is priority, isn't it? [00:12:24] Speaker 04: It is. [00:12:24] Speaker 04: It is, Your Honor. [00:12:25] Speaker 04: Did the board point to example seven of RENZ? [00:12:28] Speaker 04: The board did point to example seven of RENZ. [00:12:31] Speaker 02: But going to the point- OK, let's hear from the other side, and we'll say we rebelled. [00:12:38] Speaker 06: Mr. Horowitz. [00:12:43] Speaker 06: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:12:51] Speaker 03: You may please the Court. [00:12:53] Speaker 03: I'd like to focus on the claim construction dispute that's been the focus of the course questions this morning. [00:12:56] Speaker 03: There's no dispute at this point that a sort occurs every single time a flow cytometer deflects an excel in one direction or y-cell in the other. [00:13:07] Speaker 03: There's also no dispute that at least sometimes those in the field are going to want to sort both X and Y cells simultaneously. [00:13:14] Speaker 03: So the only question is whether all of those undisputed sorts count as sorts towards the 1,200 sorts per second limitation of claim one. [00:13:24] Speaker 03: We think all of the evidence points in the same direction. [00:13:27] Speaker 03: Start with the claim language. [00:13:29] Speaker 03: Claim calls for a method that discriminates between cells having a desired sex characteristic. [00:13:34] Speaker 03: Well, the word between naturally suggests that there are two distinct types of cells, each of which is the object of the discriminating between step. [00:13:43] Speaker 03: Then go to the specification. [00:13:45] Speaker 03: You see the disclosure of a method that asks to sort by sending x one way, y the other, so that each can be separately packaged and dealt with, again contemplating simultaneous sorting of both x and y. And beyond that, the board made a factual finding from the extrinsic evidence [00:14:02] Speaker 03: that when those in the field use the term sort rate generically, they mean to count both x and y. And only when they say so explicitly do they depart from that convention. [00:14:13] Speaker 03: So in light of that factual finding, in light of the claim language and the specification, we think board's construction is absolutely right. [00:14:21] Speaker 03: All sorts count as sorts, none are excluded. [00:14:24] Speaker 03: And as the discussion this morning makes clear, there's not much left to decide after the court [00:14:30] Speaker 03: confirms that the board's construction was right. [00:14:33] Speaker 03: By the way, XY's burden here is not to just show that the board was wrong or that the board's construction wasn't the best construction. [00:14:41] Speaker 03: This is an IPR involving an unexpired patent. [00:14:44] Speaker 03: So the burden on appeal is to show that the board was not just wrong but unreasonable, that it's unreasonably narrow. [00:14:52] Speaker 03: XY can't meet that. [00:14:54] Speaker 03: There's at least four distinct hurdles in the claim alone that XY cannot clear. [00:14:58] Speaker 03: There's the word between, which I've already mentioned. [00:15:01] Speaker 03: As the court is aware, XY's strategy with the word between was simply to omit the word in each quotation of the claim language in the argument section of its brief. [00:15:09] Speaker 03: But the word is there, and it has significance. [00:15:11] Speaker 03: And its significance is to count both x and y. Then there's the generic disclosure of a sort rate. [00:15:17] Speaker 03: As I mentioned, in light of the board's finding, that suggests count both x and y. On top of that, there's an undisputed word sort, meaning all deflections. [00:15:27] Speaker 03: And even after all of that, [00:15:28] Speaker 03: The desired sex characteristic is expressed in an indefinite article A, which as a rule, subject to extremely limited exceptions, of this course explained in all the graphic systems, means one or more. [00:15:41] Speaker 03: So discriminating between cells having one or more desired sex characteristics necessarily would be understood by those in the field to mean either X or Y. The grade brief, I believe, pointed to an example in the specification [00:15:58] Speaker 04: Example three, where it says that in that example, they were getting these very, very high sort rates for each sex. [00:16:08] Speaker 04: So does that support the idea that what this claim is really driving at? [00:16:14] Speaker 04: I mean, I find the text of the claim a little garbled. [00:16:20] Speaker 04: I could read it a lot of different ways. [00:16:22] Speaker 04: But getting to that example three, what do you have to say about the gray briefs? [00:16:28] Speaker 04: characterization of it. [00:16:29] Speaker 03: Sure. [00:16:30] Speaker 03: So respectfully, Your Honor, first, to the extent that you think that the claim is garbled and is ambiguous, I think that actually supports the decision below insofar as we're at a brought us reasonable interpretation, incorrect interpretation under Phillips. [00:16:41] Speaker 03: But putting that to one side, as to the speed accomplished in example three, actually example three is among the very slowest of sort rates. [00:16:49] Speaker 03: You have to do the calculation. [00:16:50] Speaker 03: It's over several hours, and they're only in the 100,000s of range. [00:16:54] Speaker 03: So if you do the math backwards, we're talking about sort rates [00:16:56] Speaker 03: 100 to 200 range per second of each type. [00:17:00] Speaker 03: So they're not even close to the claimed sort of rate. [00:17:05] Speaker 03: As Your Honor indicated during XY's presentation, the only disclosure in the specification that gets anywhere close to 1,200 is actually in column seven talking about the Moflo. [00:17:15] Speaker 03: And that generic disclosure would be understood by those in the art in light of the board's factual finding about how these terms are used to be both X and Y. [00:17:26] Speaker 03: That still raises the question, why did they say of each sex in example three, which is the argument in the gray brief that they're really focused on. [00:17:34] Speaker 03: And I think the answer is straightforward. [00:17:36] Speaker 03: The generic disclosure in column seven consisted with what those in the field would expect. [00:17:41] Speaker 03: Then you get to the working examples, none of which, by the way, meet the claimed invention on either side's constructed. [00:17:47] Speaker 03: But you get to the working examples. [00:17:49] Speaker 03: In example one, the inventors are sorting just X. And that's a departure from the conventional understanding of how [00:17:56] Speaker 03: the sorting machine would work if you just set a sort rate. [00:17:58] Speaker 03: So it was important for the inventors to say, when we say 500 cells, we mean 500 specifically X cells. [00:18:05] Speaker 03: Now, having said that in example one, example three, which is the only other example that involves sorting at all, really the rest of them are focused on low dose artificial insemination techniques, which is what you might have thought the invention was if you didn't read the claims. [00:18:18] Speaker 03: But anyway, you get to example three, and they're specifying a sort rate again. [00:18:23] Speaker 03: Now they're sorting both X and Y cells, [00:18:25] Speaker 03: And given that they had expressed that they were just sorting only X, it was important to make clear to the reader, we're sorting both at this point. [00:18:32] Speaker 03: Again, consistent with the way most people would understand the sperm sorter to work. [00:18:41] Speaker 04: What about the other side's argument that the board impermissibly used its own detailed description of the present invention against it? [00:18:52] Speaker 04: I think this goes back to that one section on column seven. [00:18:55] Speaker 03: So the first thing to say is that I don't think it matters one way or another, because on the board's construction, there's no dispute that RENS accomplishes the claim sorting rate. [00:19:04] Speaker 03: 1,984 sorts per second is at least about 1,200 sorts per second. [00:19:09] Speaker 03: So whatever the board is doing with respect to column seven, if it's got the construction right, then RENS or the Johnson renders obvious the claim. [00:19:18] Speaker 03: And counsel for the other side was asked many times, is there any daylight after that construction? [00:19:23] Speaker 03: and kept returning to XY's preferred construction. [00:19:26] Speaker 03: In terms of what the board is doing there, if you look at the disclosure in that column, there's no ambiguity about who has accomplished the increased sorting speeds. [00:19:38] Speaker 03: What it says is these flow cytometers, referring to the mode flow that had just been introduced in the prior sentence, these flow cytometers had increased sorting speeds extraordinarily. [00:19:49] Speaker 03: That's what it says. [00:19:50] Speaker 03: And to the extent that there's any ambiguity whatsoever about what [00:19:53] Speaker 03: inventor's thought about the Moflo, you can look at the lead inventor's article from 2003, a few years later, in which he's providing a retrospective on developments in the field. [00:20:03] Speaker 03: And when he talks about high-speed sorting, he doesn't take credit for that himself. [00:20:07] Speaker 03: Instead, he points to Cyanomation's Moflo, the machine in column 7, and also, by the way, Renz's nozzle. [00:20:16] Speaker 03: which supports the board's obvious misfighting. [00:20:18] Speaker 03: And on top of that, it's not just to be clear he wasn't being modest. [00:20:22] Speaker 03: He does take credit in more or less the very next sentence. [00:20:25] Speaker 03: All this is on page 3907 of the joint appendix. [00:20:29] Speaker 03: He does take credit for having made the advancements in low dose artificial insemination protocols, which again, if you look at the working examples, are the focus of all of them. [00:20:39] Speaker 03: All of those working examples involve dosages that are far below what would have been standard in the field at the time. [00:20:46] Speaker 03: Usually, people would use 10 million cells per straw, per unit, for insemination. [00:20:51] Speaker 03: And all the examples are much lower in some ways, 50,000, 100,000 cells. [00:20:56] Speaker 03: So I don't think there's any doubt that the inventors had credited the moflow with having increased sorting speeds. [00:21:03] Speaker 03: But as I say, it doesn't matter one way or another. [00:21:06] Speaker 03: Because in the board's construction, RENS has the claim sorting rate. [00:21:12] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:21:12] Speaker 02: Anything else from Mr. Harwitz? [00:21:18] Speaker 06: Thank you, Mr. Harwitz. [00:21:22] Speaker 06: Mr. Anvil? [00:21:26] Speaker 07: Obviously, the claim construction is very important to the outcome of this case. [00:21:29] Speaker 07: I laid out three distinct reasons why the board's construction was wrong and impermissibly over-broad. [00:21:35] Speaker 07: In each case, the board violating one of this court's basic tenets of claim construction. [00:21:39] Speaker 07: Number one, vitiating a claim limitation entirely, that claim limitation being having a desired sex characteristic. [00:21:47] Speaker 07: In doing so, the board said, we're not going to destroy [00:21:50] Speaker 07: construed according to the desire of the practitioner even though the claim explicitly and undeniably says that. [00:21:57] Speaker 07: At number two, the board applied some outer space rule of claim construction in somehow ruling that even on this comprising claim that sorting and collecting both sexes at the same time is somehow excluded under XY's interpretation. [00:22:14] Speaker 07: This is obviously not correct [00:22:16] Speaker 07: And number three, the third major error by the board is in not giving due respect for the specification. [00:22:22] Speaker 07: This board has very recently, in the case of N. Ray Smith International, emphasized that under the broadest reasonable interpretation rubric, we are to be finding the claim construction that is consistent with the specification. [00:22:35] Speaker 07: The board did not do that. [00:22:37] Speaker 07: The board said that a droplet deflection is described as a sort in the specification. [00:22:43] Speaker 07: That is true. [00:22:43] Speaker 07: We don't deny that. [00:22:45] Speaker 07: What the board missed was that a droplet discrimination of a desired sex, either X or Y, according to what's desired by the practitioner, is how the specification describes and characterizes the sort rates for this invention. [00:23:02] Speaker 07: As I said, and it's not disputed by my opponent, every example in the specification in which a sorting rate is expressed [00:23:10] Speaker 07: It's done so according to the number of sorts per second of a single sex. [00:23:15] Speaker 04: Do any of those examples show a sort rate of 1,200 for just a particular sex per second? [00:23:27] Speaker 07: That sentence talks about 1,200 and 500. [00:23:30] Speaker 07: The 500 is then later explained in further detail in example one, 500 X cells per second. [00:23:38] Speaker 07: So it's linked together. [00:23:39] Speaker 04: No, I'm trying to ask something more specific. [00:23:44] Speaker 04: All your examples where you're saying, hey, look, we're doing sorts per second for a particular sex, do any of those examples have a sort per second for a single sex of 1,200 or more? [00:24:01] Speaker 04: The other side just told me example 3 has much less than 1200 per second. [00:24:08] Speaker 07: Well, some are less. [00:24:09] Speaker 07: And then some are more? [00:24:12] Speaker 07: Well, in the specific example you mentioned, the 1200 sorts per second is mentioned in the same sentence that refers the reader to the 500 sorts per second. [00:24:20] Speaker 04: No, I'm talking about your examples. [00:24:22] Speaker 04: Forget about column 7. [00:24:23] Speaker 04: I'm talking about your examples. [00:24:24] Speaker 04: In the examples, some... Is there any example? [00:24:29] Speaker 04: OK. [00:24:29] Speaker 07: The answer is no. [00:24:31] Speaker 07: There is no example in the specification in which the sorting rate is expressed with reference to the cumulative sort rate for both. [00:24:39] Speaker 04: No, that's not my question. [00:24:40] Speaker 04: OK. [00:24:42] Speaker 04: Do I need to repeat my question? [00:24:43] Speaker 07: In the examples, Your Honor, that lay out the specific numbers? [00:24:48] Speaker 07: In the specifications? [00:24:49] Speaker 07: Yes. [00:24:49] Speaker 07: The labeled examples, the 1,200 is not there. [00:24:53] Speaker 07: OK. [00:24:54] Speaker 04: All of them are less than 1,200 sorts per second for a particular sex. [00:24:58] Speaker 07: In the detailed examples that are labeled as examples... Is it yes or no? [00:25:03] Speaker 07: Is it yes or no? [00:25:05] Speaker 04: Okay, thank you. [00:25:08] Speaker 04: The ones that are in the specification. [00:25:12] Speaker 04: Yes, right? [00:25:13] Speaker 02: Okay, thank you. [00:25:18] Speaker 02: Okay, thank you. [00:25:19] Speaker 02: That concludes the argument for this case.