[00:00:03] Speaker 04: Okay, the next argued case is number 16-27-36, all of innovation in GMBH against the director, Mr. Matsui. [00:00:20] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honors, and may it please the Court. [00:00:22] Speaker 03: Brian Matsui on behalf of the Patent Owner, all of innovation. [00:00:26] Speaker 03: There are two errors in the Board's decision. [00:00:29] Speaker 03: First, the Board misconstrued the term manual guiding. [00:00:32] Speaker 03: The 427 patent consistently distinguishes between manually doing something and kinematically doing something. [00:00:39] Speaker 03: That is, doing something with mechanical assistance. [00:00:42] Speaker 03: The board's decision holding the manual guiding can include kinematic mechanisms, eviscerated that distinction, and violates this court's basic rule that different terms are presumed to have different meanings. [00:00:55] Speaker 01: Do you think there's a difference between guiding and supporting? [00:00:59] Speaker 03: I don't think that there's really a difference. [00:01:01] Speaker 03: There's not a material difference that I can think of between kinematic guiding and guiding with kinematic support. [00:01:07] Speaker 03: And there's certainly nothing in the record here that would sort of illuminate what that distinction is. [00:01:11] Speaker 03: And the reason why is because this case was litigated to the board and was decided to the board based upon the distinction between manually doing something on the one hand and kinematically doing something on the other hand. [00:01:24] Speaker 03: Basically, the whole point of the invention here was taking a handheld tool [00:01:29] Speaker 03: without the type of mechanical assistance that exists in the prior art, and then not having the type of boundaries that would be there with mechanical arms that provided support or assistance, because instead, the power to the tool would be turned off before the surgeon could move the laser, the cutter, the drill outside the area which is supposed to be cut. [00:01:49] Speaker 02: Well, I guess my understanding of the term manually guiding, manually guiding the tool, the cutting tool, the effector, is to move the tool by hand. [00:01:59] Speaker 02: That's not something that you have a dispute with, is that right? [00:02:04] Speaker 03: I would dispute that, Your Honor. [00:02:05] Speaker 03: It's moving the tool by hand without moving restrictions. [00:02:10] Speaker 03: That latter part is important because that was key to the invention here. [00:02:15] Speaker 03: The inventor was taking basically two disparate pre-existing technologies. [00:02:20] Speaker 02: I guess what if I take this nameplate and I'm moving it by hand and then I move it to right [00:02:29] Speaker 02: here. [00:02:31] Speaker 02: And then now it's supported by this counter. [00:02:36] Speaker 02: Is this counter somehow defeating my manual movement of the nameplate? [00:02:46] Speaker 02: No, Your Honor. [00:02:47] Speaker 02: In that situation... It's providing support. [00:02:48] Speaker 02: It's just propping up the nameplate in the place that I last left it after I let go of the nameplate. [00:02:55] Speaker 02: Certainly, Your Honor. [00:02:56] Speaker 03: No, what you did is when you moved [00:02:59] Speaker 03: your nameplate, and then you placed it on the counter, there was not any sort of mechanical assistance at all for you to place it down. [00:03:07] Speaker 03: And then when you place it down, then it's in its final position. [00:03:11] Speaker 03: Our position on kinematic, doing something kinematically, is dealing with something that's assisting the surgeon, or it's providing sort of additional guidance for the physician. [00:03:22] Speaker 03: And that's well supported in the record in this case. [00:03:25] Speaker 02: That's what I'm thinking about, Musavec's mechanical arm. [00:03:28] Speaker 02: It's not actually, as I understand it, assisting the surgeon in moving the cutting tool from position A to position B, but as soon as the surgeon lets go of the tool at position B, then the mechanical arm just keeps the tool right there at position B without the tool just falling to the ground. [00:03:50] Speaker 02: Is that a fair understanding of Muschabeck? [00:03:53] Speaker 03: It is, in part, Your Honor. [00:03:55] Speaker 03: I mean, Moushebec, in that situation, is providing friction to prevent the tool from falling down, which means that it's providing force. [00:04:01] Speaker 03: It's providing force to keep the tool in position. [00:04:05] Speaker 02: Well, I guess what I'm wondering is why is that somehow contributing to the movement of the tool by hand, by the hand of man or hand of person? [00:04:17] Speaker 03: Well, Your Honor, a couple points. [00:04:19] Speaker 03: The first is that when you're [00:04:20] Speaker 03: that the Muschbeck arm requires additional force from the surgeon due to the friction in it. [00:04:26] Speaker 03: And that's clear at appendix 1095, 1863, and 1132. [00:04:31] Speaker 03: These are all situations which explain that moving the Muschbeck arm requires additional force. [00:04:37] Speaker 03: And it also has restraints. [00:04:40] Speaker 03: It says at appendix 1863, Muschbeck involves a heavy mechanical arm that restricts the surgical range of motion [00:04:49] Speaker 03: to improve safety. [00:04:50] Speaker 03: And so it's restricting the areas that the physician can move the tool, the cutting tool, to improve safety. [00:04:58] Speaker 03: So that's a situation. [00:04:59] Speaker 02: If I think of manual guiding as something that is contributing to the movement of the position of the tool from position X to position Y, if I think of the term that way, then I don't think [00:05:18] Speaker 02: Mushabeck's mechanical arm is contributing at all to the movement of that tool from position X to position Y. Is that right? [00:05:28] Speaker 03: It still is, Your Honor, because when it's holding the tool in air, it's providing force to assist the physician in keeping the tool in air as it's moving the tool from position X to Y. If you were not to have the Mushabeck arm, the physician would have to hold the tool in place, and so additional force would be required [00:05:48] Speaker 03: That's what's understood by kinematic here. [00:05:51] Speaker 03: But Your Honor, if I could just address an additional point on this, which I think it's important to take a step back, because even the kinematic support that you might be describing is distinguished from doing something manually. [00:06:04] Speaker 03: For example, if we look at appendix 45 at column 12 at line 22, the specification says the effector 2 can be, for example, a cutter, a drill, or a laser [00:06:17] Speaker 03: which is guided manually via corresponding handpiece, but can also be kinematically supported, braked, damped, or driven. [00:06:27] Speaker 03: And so the patent right there is distinguishing between manual guiding and guiding with kinematic support, but can also be indicates that that's an alternative. [00:06:38] Speaker 03: There are different ways in which you can do it. [00:06:40] Speaker 03: You can either manually guide it on the one hand, or you can guide it with kinematic support. [00:06:45] Speaker 03: And so even if we say, [00:06:47] Speaker 03: that support is something that is not necessarily affecting movement as much as I believe it is. [00:06:55] Speaker 03: I think that the language of the patent right here makes clear that kinematic support is excluded from manual guiding. [00:07:03] Speaker 03: And that's not the only place in this patent where it distinguishes between manually doing something and doing it with kinematic support. [00:07:11] Speaker 03: At column 13 on the next page, at appendix 46, [00:07:16] Speaker 03: at line 17, it says, to prevent accidental removal of tissue by the manual or kinematically supported arrangement and guidance. [00:07:26] Speaker 03: And so that right there, again, the patent is distinguishing between doing it manually and doing it with kinematic support. [00:07:34] Speaker 03: And so even if we're going to draw a distinction between kinematic guiding and kinematic support, kinematic support was clearly intended to be excluded [00:07:44] Speaker 03: from manual guiding. [00:07:46] Speaker 03: And both column 12 and column 13 make that clear. [00:07:50] Speaker 03: I would also note that claim 26 also draws a distinction between these two concepts. [00:07:56] Speaker 03: And that's at appendix 49, where claim 26 says, using position information of the effector for at least one of manually and kinematically arranging and guiding. [00:08:08] Speaker 03: Now kinematically arranging is a type of kinematic support. [00:08:11] Speaker 03: And so by saying at least one of, [00:08:14] Speaker 03: The patent is making clear that you can have either manually doing it or you can have kinematically doing it. [00:08:20] Speaker 03: And there's a distinction that's being drawn here. [00:08:22] Speaker 03: And I think that, again, just to step back to where I was in the very beginning, the whole point of this invention was to not have the mechanical assistance that existed in the prior art. [00:08:33] Speaker 03: It was to use a handheld tool. [00:08:36] Speaker 03: And the way that the inventor made that clear was by using the term manual guiding. [00:08:41] Speaker 03: And that's why you find the distinction between doing something manually and doing something kinematically or doing something robotically or doing something with mechanical assistance. [00:08:52] Speaker 03: And Your Honor, to your point about there potentially are hand movements when there is something that is being supported, if we turn to column one of the patent, it discusses manually moving a tool in the context of robot-assisted surgery, that you can have robotic-assisted surgery [00:09:10] Speaker 03: where the surgeon still might manually have the opportunity to make some movements by hand. [00:09:17] Speaker 03: No one believed that that fell within the scope of the claim. [00:09:20] Speaker 03: So merely the fact that there's some movement by hand doesn't mean that that falls within the scope of manually guiding in this patent. [00:09:29] Speaker 03: And so once we take out kinematic support, there's simply no basis at all for the board's decision. [00:09:37] Speaker 03: Blue Belt's expert in this case conceded that the Mushebek arm is a type of kinematic support. [00:09:43] Speaker 03: So that basically dictates that the claim construction issue would be dispositive on this appeal. [00:09:51] Speaker 03: I would like to also mention that we do have a contingent motion to amend. [00:09:56] Speaker 03: It was decided before aqua products. [00:09:59] Speaker 04: But didn't the board respond to the proposed [00:10:05] Speaker 04: Narrowing of the claims in the contingent motion, or did you feel that that was inadequately explored in this interaction? [00:10:14] Speaker 03: It was, it was not adequate, Your Honor. [00:10:15] Speaker 03: The burden was clearly placed upon us in our motion to amend. [00:10:19] Speaker 03: This case was decided before aqua products. [00:10:21] Speaker 04: But they did say that even your proposed narrowing was subject to prior art showing the freehand motion. [00:10:33] Speaker 03: The board did do that, but what it did is it made us prove non-obviousness and said that our evidence wasn't persuasive before requiring the petitioner to prove obviousness over the amended claims. [00:10:46] Speaker 01: But didn't the board make specific factual findings about why your amendment would still be obvious? [00:10:53] Speaker 01: And wasn't it based at least in part on the petitioner's arguments? [00:10:57] Speaker 01: I mean, this isn't a case where there was no petitioner or the petitioner had dropped out. [00:11:01] Speaker 01: And the board just said, oh, you don't prove it without going through the details. [00:11:05] Speaker 01: They went through the specific references and made factual findings, at least in part, based on the petitioner's argument. [00:11:13] Speaker 01: Why isn't that just harmless error? [00:11:15] Speaker 03: Well, I think that the question for harmless error would be whether or not it affected our substantial rights. [00:11:19] Speaker 03: And I think that clearly this did. [00:11:21] Speaker 03: And if we look at the board's decision. [00:11:23] Speaker 01: Well, the factual findings made by the board. [00:11:28] Speaker 01: Your Honor. [00:11:28] Speaker 01: The board makes the factual findings and determines that, [00:11:32] Speaker 01: that the scope of these prior art references, that there is a motivation to come on, all of that kind of stuff, and reaches invalidity conclusion, why isn't that a harmless error, even if they use the wrong language on post-Aqua products? [00:11:47] Speaker 03: Because, Your Honor, the factual findings, to the extent that they made them in this case, were saying that we did not prove that there was no motivation. [00:11:58] Speaker 03: And that is the context in which [00:12:00] Speaker 03: the case was decided. [00:12:01] Speaker 01: Didn't they go further than that? [00:12:03] Speaker 01: I thought they did and suggested here are the reasons you would combine this. [00:12:09] Speaker 03: So I think that one of the good examples to take is Appendix 30, where the board's reasonable expectation of success analysis starts at the top. [00:12:19] Speaker 03: And it just says, however, our reference is prior art for all that it teaches and not simply for the invention it is trying to protect. [00:12:27] Speaker 03: And then [00:12:28] Speaker 03: it goes down in the middle of the paragraph says, Pat Noor and Dr. Howe have not explained sufficiently why the pantographic features. [00:12:36] Speaker 03: And so it's basically saying, we haven't explained why there wouldn't be a reasonable expectation of success. [00:12:43] Speaker 03: The same thing is true with respect to motivation to combine, where the board makes clear that it says, [00:12:52] Speaker 03: we do not find this argument persuasive of non-obviousness, which means that we had to prove non-obviousness. [00:12:58] Speaker 01: Well, that's always going to be the case in a pre-Aqua products case, because that was the standard they were applying. [00:13:03] Speaker 01: But that doesn't foreclose a harmless error analysis, does it? [00:13:07] Speaker 02: At 829, the board said, quote, we agree such a combination would be desirable. [00:13:13] Speaker 02: And then it explains why, even if there's some loss of accuracy with using Milken's freehand system, [00:13:22] Speaker 02: there's certain advantages to removing this large unwieldy mechanical arm from the process since it's no longer needed because you're not using the pantograph system anymore. [00:13:33] Speaker 02: So I guess from my point of view, I'm wondering if the board, if we were to read the board's decision in saying we're denying this motion to amend, you didn't meet your burden of proving it's patentable because [00:13:49] Speaker 02: We've looked at all the references and we see why it would be obvious to combine all these references to render the claimed invention obvious. [00:13:59] Speaker 02: Under that circumstance, wouldn't you agree that would be harmless error that they stated or misstated the burden of proof? [00:14:08] Speaker 03: No, Your Honor. [00:14:09] Speaker 03: I think that once the burden has been applied in this manner, it's impossible to sort of disentangle how the case was decided because [00:14:16] Speaker 01: What the board did is that- So you're essentially saying that harmless error can't be applied to an aqua products type issue. [00:14:24] Speaker 03: No, Your Honor. [00:14:25] Speaker 03: I'm not saying that. [00:14:26] Speaker 01: I think that- Well, let me give you a hypothetical then. [00:14:28] Speaker 01: Let's suppose this is a pre aqua products case. [00:14:31] Speaker 01: The board used its prior standard, which we know is incorrect, but went through and said, here are the prior art references. [00:14:39] Speaker 01: We make these factual findings. [00:14:40] Speaker 01: The prior art discloses all of these declaimed elements. [00:14:45] Speaker 01: There's substantial evidence for that. [00:14:46] Speaker 01: The prior art discloses a motivation to combine. [00:14:49] Speaker 01: There's substantial evidence for that. [00:14:52] Speaker 01: Wouldn't that conclusion, even those factual conclusions, all supported by substantial evidence, be sufficient to sustain a pre-Aqua products decision, even if the board used the wrong burden initially? [00:15:06] Speaker 01: They made independent factual findings supporting everything you need to show obviousness. [00:15:12] Speaker 01: Isn't that a, you know, [00:15:14] Speaker 01: a harmless error. [00:15:17] Speaker 03: I think that if the board made factual findings and did not address the petitioner's arguments and looked at the prior references and said that there was a showing of obviousness and then addressed... And let me just make it clear. [00:15:35] Speaker 01: The petitioner did make arguments here, right? [00:15:37] Speaker 01: This isn't a case where the petitioner didn't put anything forth in response. [00:15:41] Speaker 01: The petitioner made arguments, did it not? [00:15:44] Speaker 03: The petitioner did make arguments. [00:15:46] Speaker 03: That is correct. [00:15:47] Speaker 01: And there's expert testimony from the petitioner on these points? [00:15:50] Speaker 03: Yes, but that goes to another point, Your Honor, which before aqua products in our opening brief makes clear that there was not adequate explanation here as to both the motivation and the reasonable expectation of success. [00:16:03] Speaker 03: But setting that aside, Your Honor, it's clear here what happened was the board analyzed [00:16:11] Speaker 03: our arguments first and required us to prove non-obviousness. [00:16:16] Speaker 03: And so when the board's decision is looked at in that lens, it's impossible to disentangle the burden question when we only have to show that it affected a substantial right under harmless error. [00:16:27] Speaker 03: And I don't think that this would be a good first case for this court to say that the aqua products error was a harmless error. [00:16:34] Speaker 03: I'm not aware of any case in which the [00:16:37] Speaker 03: the board's decision to place the burden on the patent owner hasn't gone back to have additional analysis as to the resolution of that burden. [00:16:46] Speaker 03: I don't think that this would be a good first case. [00:16:50] Speaker 04: Let's hear from the office and we'll save you rebuttal time. [00:16:59] Speaker 00: Good morning, Your Honors. [00:17:01] Speaker 00: May it please the court? [00:17:03] Speaker 00: I'd like to start off by addressing a couple of points with the manual e-gallon [00:17:08] Speaker 00: It's a clean construction issue that is driven by the intrinsic evidence. [00:17:12] Speaker 04: But let's talk about the context of this proposed amendment and whether, had it been fully explored, whether it would have resolved the issues that were debating otherwise. [00:17:29] Speaker 00: Okay, so you're talking about the proposed contingent amended claims? [00:17:32] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:17:33] Speaker 00: Yeah, I think the board actually did a good job of addressing the merits of the proposed amended claims. [00:17:41] Speaker 00: They actually say that at APPX 23, when they refer to looking at the procedural arguments that the petitioner had raised, how it was the burden was on the patent owner to show that the claims had adequate written description support under Section 112. [00:17:57] Speaker 00: The board actually said it wasn't going to address those procedural issues and it jumped into the merits of the claims. [00:18:04] Speaker 00: From A-23 to A-30, they did a rather fulsome obviousness analysis that looked at the prior art. [00:18:11] Speaker 00: The three different references disclosed where the limitations were met. [00:18:15] Speaker 00: It looked at the new reference to Mel Kent. [00:18:21] Speaker 00: explained how it would be obvious to use the freehand cutting tool of the Mel Kent device and incorporate it into the Mushabak system to replace Mushabak's mechanical arm and explain how there would be a reason to do that, to free up the freedom of the surgeon's arm. [00:18:41] Speaker 00: So there would be an expectation of success because these freehand tools had been used in prior systems where you were cutting into hard tissue. [00:18:51] Speaker 00: So I think there's factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence. [00:18:56] Speaker 00: And I think, you know, their statement at the very end on A30 where they said, you know, therefore the patent owner has failed to meet their burden would just be a harmless error. [00:19:06] Speaker 00: I think if you just change that last sentence to therefore petitioner has met their burden of proving the unpatentability, I think you could have that exact same analysis. [00:19:17] Speaker 00: The Board did address, it was [00:19:18] Speaker 00: fairly thorough and address both petitioner's arguments and patent owner's arguments and explain why it agreed with petitioner and why it was unpersuaded by patent owner's arguments. [00:19:33] Speaker 04: What I'm thinking about somewhere is in the history and the genesis of the American VINCE Act. [00:19:41] Speaker 04: It was contemplated that when in fact the applicant or the patentee has something that's different [00:19:48] Speaker 04: and has made a contribution, there is an opportunity to sort that out in this procedure. [00:19:56] Speaker 04: And instead, what we saw at Aquaproducts is to how fully remitted time will tell that there was a reluctance to implement that policy, that philosophy. [00:20:13] Speaker 04: And so that [00:20:16] Speaker 04: Responding to the contingent of motion to amend was helpful. [00:20:20] Speaker 04: It was helpful, but the real question is, was it sufficient? [00:20:27] Speaker 04: Was it complete? [00:20:28] Speaker 04: Should this be now restored and repeated so that aqua products can be fully applied? [00:20:36] Speaker 00: Yeah, I understand the question. [00:20:39] Speaker 00: I believe in this case that there was a thorough obviousness analysis on the merits. [00:20:46] Speaker 00: I know there are other cases where contingent motions to amend were denied on a procedural basis where a patent owner hadn't argued extensively on the merits. [00:20:59] Speaker 00: But in this case, I think the board did a good job of addressing the merits, addressing both petitioners' arguments and patent owners' arguments, and they made significant factual findings to support their conclusions with regard to reason to combine and expectation, reasonable expectation of success. [00:21:22] Speaker 04: Okay, proceed. [00:21:24] Speaker 00: Okay. [00:21:25] Speaker 00: Just quickly turning to the manually guiding limitation. [00:21:28] Speaker 00: There's just three points I'd like to make. [00:21:30] Speaker 00: If you focus on the intrinsic evidence, you look at the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. [00:21:37] Speaker 00: Here you have the claim limitation manual guiding. [00:21:40] Speaker 00: It doesn't include a negative limitation that excludes moving restrictions. [00:21:45] Speaker 00: If you look at the specification at column 12, and this is at APPX 45, the specification is very clear in lines [00:21:58] Speaker 00: 21 to 25. [00:21:59] Speaker 00: It actually says that the effector can be guided manually via a corresponding handpiece one, but can also be kinematically supported. [00:22:08] Speaker 00: I think that's a very clear disclosure that you can manually guide the device and you can also have some support for your arm. [00:22:15] Speaker 00: And as you pointed out Judge Chen, just because you have some support for your arm, the effector is actually being moved by hand still. [00:22:23] Speaker 00: And then in the prosecution history, [00:22:25] Speaker 00: The claims, before they included the manually guiding limitation, they were rejected over a prior reference to Glassman, which was a robotic system. [00:22:34] Speaker 00: And they amended the claims to include the manually guiding limitation and stated in the prosecution history that the claims are allowable because they manually guide the effector without robotic control. [00:22:47] Speaker 00: They didn't make a disclaimer as to kinematic support. [00:22:50] Speaker 00: So I think if you look at the extrinsic evidence at all, [00:22:53] Speaker 00: supports the board's construction. [00:22:56] Speaker 00: If there's no further questions, I'll yield the rest of my time. [00:23:01] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:23:01] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:23:02] Speaker 04: Thank you, Mr. McBride. [00:23:15] Speaker 03: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:23:15] Speaker 03: I just would like to make a couple points. [00:23:17] Speaker 03: I'd like to first turn back to manual guiding because I think that it's [00:23:22] Speaker 03: It's important that ultimately we should just resolve this case, where I think that this is a situation where the patent makes clear that there is a distinction between doing something manually and doing something kinematically. [00:23:33] Speaker 03: If the court were to look at appendix 41, for example, at column 3, it makes clear that there is a distinction between manual drilling at line 22 with navigated position information, orientation, and on the other hand, [00:23:52] Speaker 03: drilling with a kinematic mechanism, e.g. [00:23:54] Speaker 03: a robot. [00:23:55] Speaker 03: And Blue Belt's expert testified at appendix 2043 and 2044 that another type of kinematic mechanism, another type of kinematic mechanism, which would be distinguished from doing it manually, would be a support arm. [00:24:10] Speaker 03: And that's at appendix 2043 and 2044. [00:24:14] Speaker 03: So the patent is making very clear here that there's a distinction between doing something manually [00:24:19] Speaker 03: in doing something with some sort of mechanical assistance, whether or not it's guidance or support. [00:24:25] Speaker 03: So I don't think that it's possible to say that manual guiding includes the type of mechanical assistance that the Muschbeck arm would, which both restricts the movement of the surgeon and provides assistance for the surgeon's movement. [00:24:39] Speaker 03: And then to respond to my friend on the other side's reference to column 12 at appendix 45, it says, [00:24:48] Speaker 03: can be guided manually via corresponding handpiece, but can also be kinematically supported, break, damped, or driven. [00:24:55] Speaker 03: But can also be, has to mean it's an alternative because these are comprising claims. [00:25:00] Speaker 03: There are additional steps that could occur. [00:25:02] Speaker 03: And so one alternative would be to have manual guiding, which is required by claim one. [00:25:06] Speaker 03: But an additional step could be having kinematic support. [00:25:10] Speaker 03: And I note it says, break, damped, or driven. [00:25:12] Speaker 03: And driven is active. [00:25:14] Speaker 03: That would be something that's motorized. [00:25:17] Speaker 03: But under the director's interpretation, that means that motorized, something that's kinematically driven, would fall within the scope of manual guiding. [00:25:26] Speaker 03: And that doesn't make any sense at all. [00:25:28] Speaker 03: Now lastly, on the motion to amend, Your Honor, I would just note that the motivation analysis here, one of the additional, the third reference, Melkint, was added. [00:25:37] Speaker 03: There's no motivation to combine analysis with respect to Musabak, Klimek, and Melkint. [00:25:43] Speaker 03: There's just some. [00:25:45] Speaker 03: discussion of Mel Kent alone under this court's decision in Magnum Oil, that's not permissible. [00:25:50] Speaker 03: You can't just take the third reference and say, now we're going to combine it with those other two without doing an obviousness motivation to combine analysis. [00:25:59] Speaker 03: There's a distinction. [00:26:00] Speaker 02: There was an error by them not analyzing the combination of the first two references, but that was what the original claims that were petitioned for were [00:26:12] Speaker 02: they explained why those were invalid based on those two, the combination of those two. [00:26:17] Speaker 02: So then when you added an extra limitation, that's where the third limitation comes in, or third reference comes in. [00:26:23] Speaker 02: I don't understand why there was something wrong with analyzing just whether it would be obvious to combine the third reference to the first two references when they already concluded in the earlier part of the decision whether it would be obvious to combine the first two references. [00:26:36] Speaker 03: Your Honor, I think the motivation to combine analysis requires [00:26:40] Speaker 03: an analysis of all three references to see if there'd be a motivation to combine them. [00:26:44] Speaker 03: It can't be a situation where an additional reference is just added in. [00:26:47] Speaker 03: And it's assumed that given the earlier analysis that there would be a motivation to add that third reference into the combination. [00:26:56] Speaker 03: I see I have no further time, but we would ask the court to reverse or to at least go back on our contingent motion to amend. [00:27:04] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:27:05] Speaker 04: Thank you both. [00:27:06] Speaker 04: The case is taken under submission.