[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Bradium Technologies versus Yonkou.

[00:00:29] Speaker 01:
Mr. Shanahan, please proceed.

[00:00:34] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
Michael Shanahan for Appellant Bradium.

[00:00:41] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, in our opening briefing, pages five and six, we first raised five issues for the Court's consideration today.

[00:00:49] Speaker 04:
And the first four relate generally to patent matters, namely obviousness and claim construction.

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
Or if I could, I'd just like to go quickly to issue five, which was the constitutional issue which we raised regarding the Article III taking.

[00:01:02] Speaker 04:
This briefing was done prior to the oil state's decision, so we don't intend to make remarks regarding that today.

[00:01:07] Speaker 04:
Also, I'd like to bring to the Court's attention that we made a request to brief the Appointments Clause issue today, but that request was denied.

[00:01:17] Speaker 04:
So unless the court feels otherwise, we are not going to address.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
When you're not going to address the unconstitutionality, is it your view that it is because it has been resolved by oil states, and it is not an issue left unresolved that we have to reach in this case?

[00:01:33] Speaker 04:
Based on the question we presented, Your Honor, I believe that's addressed by the oil states decision.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
Now, there are other constitutional issues that float around there.

[00:01:41] Speaker 04:
I think that's beyond the scope of our hearing today, and I'm not going to offer remarks.

[00:01:45] Speaker 04:
However, if you would like to hear

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
the appointments clause.

[00:01:48] Speaker 04:
I'd be happy to give you a couple words, but I think, again, that's beyond the scope of our proceeding today.

[00:01:53] Speaker 04:
So therefore, if I may, I'd like to move on to issues one through four.

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
And those are more standard patent law issues.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
I'll tell you, my biggest claim problem with your appeal is that I see what you're arguing about claim 15 and the failure of the board to have addressed the dependent limitation therein separately and there being maybe an argument that's not present, but I don't see and I'm having difficulty finding where that was sufficiently preserved below for appeal.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
Let's see, let me see if I can help you with that, Your Honor.

[00:02:25] Speaker 03:
Just give me one second.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
That's issue three in our briefing.

[00:02:32] Speaker 04:
So, Your Honor, if you would – if I could direct the Court's attention to our reply briefing pages 20 to 23.

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
And that was preserved in oral argument.

[00:03:05] Speaker 04:
I understand that that's permissible, that we're allowed to.

[00:03:08] Speaker 04:
Well, it depends, right?

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, it does.

[00:03:12] Speaker 02:
So the question is, did the petitioner's reply raise a new argument beyond what they argued in the petition that could potentially permit you to raise an argument, that oral argument, in response to that new argument raised in the petitioner's reply?

[00:03:35] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I'm sorry.

[00:03:36] Speaker 04:
I think I don't understand exactly what you're asking me.

[00:03:39] Speaker 04:
Are you asking me, is the issue preserved based on the record below on our oral argument?

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
And I understand your theory that you raised this argument at oral argument below in front of the board.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
And even assuming if I accept that that's true, you'd still have to have a reason for why that's OK and that's not too late to raise an argument.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
Normally you have to raise an argument in your briefing.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
And raising an argument at oral argument is too late.

[00:04:10] Speaker 02:
Now, Belden, I believe, says it can be okay to wait until the oral argument to raise a new argument, only if it's in response and replied to something that the petitioner said in its reply brief below.

[00:04:27] Speaker 02:
That is a new thing that the petitioner said.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
That's the problem here, I think, which is that the petitioner's reply didn't say something new and different from what the petitioner said in the petition, as to claim 15 and the prioritization limitation.

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
The petitioner's reply is not in the joint appendix, but I do have a copy of the petitioner's reply.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
And when I see the single sentence here in the petitioner's reply,

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
as we're talking about prioritization and why REDI meets that limitation, I don't see in this one sentence the petitioner saying something new, different, or have any daylight compared to what the petitioner said in its original petition as to claim 15 and prioritization.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
So that's the trouble I have as to claim 15 and whether it's procedurally permissible for you to

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
identify new arguments and raise new arguments and wait to raise those new arguments during the hearing at the board.

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
So if I can direct your attention to page 22 of our reply brief, I believe we say that our oral argument regarding claim 15 was responsive to Microsoft's reply declaration.

[00:05:55] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
And the question is, what is it in the reply brief of the petitioner that was new and different?

[00:06:02] Speaker 02:
And the reply brief of the petitioner was still pushing the same theory that the petitioner was pushing in its original petition.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, I guess my response to that has to be that the board didn't exclude our oral argument, nor did Microsoft request that our reply be excluded.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
So we need to admit it improper by waiver then.

[00:06:26] Speaker 04:
It's our fallback position.

[00:06:42] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:06:43] Speaker 04:
So I think probably it makes the most sense to go to the claim construction issue.

[00:06:49] Speaker 04:
the limited bandwidth communications channel.

[00:06:51] Speaker 04:
That affects the majority of the claims in this case.

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
And it is Palin's position that the board really made a far too broad claim construction here, essentially saying that, excuse me, let me just find the boards.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
basically that it's a communication channel that has a limited bandwidth.

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
Now, I think anybody can appreciate that every communications channel has a limited bandwidth, right?

[00:07:31] Speaker 04:
There's no infinite bandwidth communications channel.

[00:07:35] Speaker 04:
And we have attempted to resolve this issue by saying that it's either a wireless or a narrowband communications channel and

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
We believe that that's appropriate, but at a minimum, that it should exclude broadband channels, okay?

[00:07:55] Speaker 04:
And there's really numerous legal reasons why that should be appropriate.

[00:08:01] Speaker 04:
First of all, and maybe the most compelling is the construction that the board offer completely eviscerates the entire purpose of the application.

[00:08:08] Speaker 04:
I think in Ray Smith teaches us that we have to respect

[00:08:12] Speaker 04:
what the purpose of the invention is as we interpret these claims.

[00:08:15] Speaker 02:
Right, but there's a part in the specification, I think it's at column three, which talks about the purpose of the invention is to be able to transmit these very complex images over when you have limited bandwidth conditions.

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
And then it identifies two examples of limited bandwidth conditions, one being a low bandwidth channel, and then another one being, I guess, a high bandwidth channel that is loaded down by multiple concurrent users.

[00:08:42] Speaker 02:
And so wouldn't it be great to be able to send these complex images over a network under either of those situations?

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
And then the application proceeds to describe how your inventors came up with a way of doing that in both situations.

[00:08:57] Speaker 02:
And so when I look at what is the purpose of this invention and as described in this patent, it's really trying to deal with both of these situations.

[00:09:08] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, I think this also came up in a little bit in the

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
the deposition testimony of the inventor.

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
It certainly is true that you can experience a limited bandwidth condition due to concurrent users.

[00:09:20] Speaker 04:
However, we talk about this in our reply brief, whereas there's a difference between a permanently limited low bandwidth connection and one that's generally broadband, but occasionally experiences.

[00:09:33] Speaker 04:
So we have to draw the line somewhere.

[00:09:35] Speaker 04:
So I don't want to add that exception where you have, it's true that the invention is useful, but the claims are really trying to

[00:09:41] Speaker 04:
I'm trying to address something else.

[00:09:42] Speaker 04:
So let me direct the court's attention to what I think is instructive in this issue.

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
And that would be, sorry, I don't have the direct appendix number.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
It's column four of the 343 patent.

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
And I'm going to direct the court's attention to lines 13 through 17.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
And it says, the software system of the present invention provides for reprioritization of image process data requests

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
from a presentation in circumstances, and this is really the important part, where the rate of point of view of navigation exceeds the data request rate.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
So what is that really telling us?

[00:10:19] Speaker 04:
It's telling us any time I consume data faster than I can get it, that's when the invention is useful.

[00:10:27] Speaker 04:
So.

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
Well, what about column one, since we're on the 343, line 28 to 29?

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
It's really just one sentence.

[00:10:38] Speaker 01:
It says, starts at line 25, it says the disclosure is related to a network-based image distribution system, in particular to a system and method for efficiently selecting and distributing image parcels through a narrowband or, and here's the key term since it's the exact claim term, unlike column four where you pointed us which doesn't use the claim term, this does, and it says otherwise limited bandwidth communications channel to support presentation of high resolution images

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
subject to dynamic viewing frustrums?

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
Frustrum, yes, that's correct.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
Point of view.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
It's a fancy word for point of view.

[00:11:14] Speaker 01:
So what about that?

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, again, the invention is useful in that instance, but it's not particularly useful.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
Let me tell you why.

[00:11:23] Speaker 04:
It's because if you have a high bandwidth connection, you're not limited by those small congestions really very effectively.

[00:11:29] Speaker 04:
It's not really a problem.

[00:11:30] Speaker 04:
It's an inconvenience.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
You have a real problem.

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
But you want a definition

[00:11:36] Speaker 01:
that is what, just narrow bandwidth, right?

[00:11:42] Speaker 04:
We would like either, Your Honor, we proposed wireless or narrowband, but we think the court really only has to exclude broadband in order to effectively construe the claim.

[00:11:56] Speaker 04:
It does not have to be so specific.

[00:11:58] Speaker 04:
And Your Honor, if you're struggling with this, let me point to the board's

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
Doesn't your expert say that broadband is synonymous with narrow bandwidth?

[00:12:09] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor, I would say that they're opposite.

[00:12:11] Speaker 04:
I'd say that narrow bandwidth is the limit.

[00:12:12] Speaker 00:
Not you, your expert.

[00:12:15] Speaker 00:
I don't believe our experts.

[00:12:16] Speaker 02:
Your inventor, your co-inventor.

[00:12:19] Speaker 04:
Mr. Lebanon?

[00:12:20] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
And are you talking about his deposition testimony now?

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
That's right.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
No, he's talking about his product, right?

[00:12:28] Speaker 04:
So this is a real mischaracterization

[00:12:31] Speaker 04:
at his deposition, if you read the transcript, pages and pages about 3D view.

[00:12:36] Speaker 04:
How did the product work?

[00:12:37] Speaker 04:
What did the product do?

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
And he talked a little bit about what his product did.

[00:12:41] Speaker 04:
And what they did is they took that completely out of context and said, that's what the patent claim means.

[00:12:46] Speaker 04:
He wasn't even talking about the patents.

[00:12:47] Speaker 04:
He was completely divorced.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
He was just talking generally about his technology.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
But, Your Honor, does that answer your question?

[00:12:55] Speaker 02:
Yeah, it does.

[00:12:58] Speaker 02:
Concerned about column one, the statement that Judge Moore identified, and if we were to be purely textualist here, the otherwise limited bandwidth communications channel can't be narrowband because the statement is narrowband or otherwise limited bandwidth communications channel.

[00:13:20] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I think I can help you with that.

[00:13:22] Speaker 04:
because both of the experts agreed it could be narrowband.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
And I can point to the board.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
So then we would read this sentence as being narrowband or narrowband?

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, the experts aren't here to say why that they agreed that narrowband was appropriate.

[00:13:37] Speaker 04:
All I can do is point you to the testimony.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
So you want us to disregard the specification in favor of expert testimony, which seems to contradict it?

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
I see, Your Honor.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
No, I don't think so.

[00:13:47] Speaker 04:
Again, you're talking about the background of the invention.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
The part that I directed you to was a summary of the invention.

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
I think that's a little bit different.

[00:13:54] Speaker 04:
Again, we're talking about the general background of the technology, as opposed to what the patent claims mean.

[00:14:01] Speaker 04:
And really, there should be two different standards by which you evaluate that.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
You would like to save some time cover-buttle?

[00:14:08] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
Let's have Mr. Foreman.

[00:14:26] Speaker 05:
Thank you, and may it please the Court.

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
I think that this Court... I only have really one question for you, and that is, would you address whether or not the arguments related to the dependent limitation of claim 15 were waived by virtue of not having been raised until the oral hearing for the first instance?

[00:14:44] Speaker 01:
That's the only question I have for you.

[00:14:46] Speaker 05:
Yes, Your Honor, they were waived.

[00:14:48] Speaker 05:
I think you don't even have to reach the issue of whether

[00:14:51] Speaker 05:
they were responding to a new issue in reply.

[00:14:53] Speaker 05:
I think if you just look at the pages cited in the oral hearing transcript, there's nothing about those dependent limitations from claim 15.

[00:15:00] Speaker 05:
The only discussion in those pages.

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
You're talking about the oral hearing transcript?

[00:15:04] Speaker 05:
Correct.

[00:15:05] Speaker 01:
Yeah, but if we were to construe that transcript as having made this argument, which I think it arguably can be, so now answer the legal point that really Judge Chen was articulating and raising with opposing counsel, which is

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
Under what circumstances can they make an argument during oral hearing?

[00:15:25] Speaker 01:
And does this fit within those circumstances?

[00:15:28] Speaker 01:
So I want both.

[00:15:28] Speaker 01:
I want you to start with, what's the rule of law?

[00:15:31] Speaker 01:
When does the PTO permit people to make a new argument during oral hearing?

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
And then tell me how this fits within that.

[00:15:39] Speaker 05:
I think a new argument can be raised in oral hearing if the petitioner's reply brief raises a new argument that

[00:15:48] Speaker 05:
could not have been addressed by the patent owner in the response.

[00:15:52] Speaker 01:
In this particular scenario, they cite the declaration as supporting their right to make this argument in oral hearing.

[00:16:01] Speaker 01:
Was that declaration filed along with the petitioner's reply?

[00:16:05] Speaker 05:
Yes, I believe it was.

[00:16:06] Speaker 01:
So if that declaration makes the argument for the first time, even if the reply brief did not, is that enough?

[00:16:14] Speaker 01:
I mean, what do we do with that?

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
And does it, in this case, do you agree that that declaration makes this different argument?

[00:16:22] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:16:23] Speaker 05:
I don't agree with that.

[00:16:24] Speaker 05:
I think that both the reply brief and the declaration don't raise anything new, as Judge Chen pointed out, with the appellant.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
Well, let's look at 2902-65-68, which is what they cite.

[00:16:37] Speaker 01:
I mean, do you sue?

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
Because there's two ways you can answer this.

[00:16:43] Speaker 01:
The declaration enough doesn't give rise to their right to raise a new argument.

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
Uh, in the second way is in this case, even if it did, it wouldn't.

[00:16:52] Speaker 01:
So you need to be clear with me about which of those two or both, if you want to argue both, but 65 to 68 is what they cite here.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
This is a lot more than just one sentence in the reply brief itself.

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
When could the patentee have responded to this?

[00:17:14] Speaker 05:
Well, again, this is just talking about prioritization in general.

[00:17:17] Speaker 05:
It's not talking about the specific limitations of claim 15.

[00:17:21] Speaker 05:
And like I said before, our argument in our brief was that even if you're going to allow this alleged new argument in the oral transcript, there was no new argument in the oral transcript.

[00:17:33] Speaker 05:
The pages cited in the oral transcript address prioritization in general and don't relate to these specific limitations in claim 15.

[00:17:46] Speaker 05:
So I think under any way you cut it, this argument hasn't been preserved.

[00:17:55] Speaker 01:
So just so I understand what your position is on the law, if the new argument were expressly made by the petitioner in the declaration attached to the reply, would a patent owner have a right then to respond for the first time at the oral hearing to that new argument?

[00:18:15] Speaker 01:
I were to read paragraph 65 as expressly making the argument related to tiles pending download.

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
Right?

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
That's the claim 15 dependent limitation that they're arguing, arguably for the first time on appeal.

[00:18:30] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:18:30] Speaker 01:
Right?

[00:18:31] Speaker 01:
So suppose that I read paragraph 65 of this declaration of the expert, not your expert, but the expert to the petitioner, to articulate why

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
That limitation in particular among tiles pending download is or is not present in the ready reference.

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
If that were for the first time here in this document, would they have a right during the oral hearing to then respond to that argument?

[00:19:02] Speaker 05:
Well, I mean, we didn't address this issue in the briefing.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
I think off the top of my head, I would think they're... You didn't address it in the briefing, but this is what they relied on in the reply.

[00:19:10] Speaker 01:
They didn't rely on the petition or the reply

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
They relied on the declaration attached to the reply.

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
So you should have been arguably unnoticed that this is where they were going.

[00:19:19] Speaker 01:
So what are your thoughts about it?

[00:19:21] Speaker 05:
My thoughts are there needs to be some mention of it in the reply itself.

[00:19:26] Speaker 05:
I think that if you file a reply before the board and then you attach a declaration and the declaration addresses a number of issues, but the reply is silent on those issues, I think that's a problem.

[00:19:40] Speaker 05:
Because what the board is looking at

[00:19:43] Speaker 05:
as the primary source for your arguments is the reply.

[00:19:46] Speaker 05:
And while the declaration can be provided to provide support for those arguments, it's not submitted in place of those arguments.

[00:19:57] Speaker 05:
So I would think that the argument needs to be made in the reply.

[00:19:59] Speaker 01:
You possibly want to take a breath, because if you say that, then it would be wrong, wouldn't it, if the board were to make a finding that was predicated on the evidence in the reply.

[00:20:11] Speaker 01:
but not evidence in the declaration, but not in the reply itself, right?

[00:20:16] Speaker 01:
If the board made a finding that was totally consistent with the declaration that was submitted attached to the reply, but hadn't been in the reply, I think that your argument would be, lead me to conclude that has to be wrong and it's improper for them to do that because you're telling me the patentee doesn't get a right to respond in the oral argument to something in the declaration.

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
They only get a right to respond to something in the reply.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
Well, if they don't get noticed in an opportunity to be heard, even in the oral hearing, then we've got a real problem with the board relying on anything in that declaration that's arguably beyond the scope of the apply.

[00:20:49] Speaker 05:
I see the point you're making.

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
I don't know.

[00:20:51] Speaker 05:
I don't know what the answer to all this is.

[00:20:52] Speaker 05:
And I don't know either, because I don't think that we have to get that deep into this issue.

[00:20:56] Speaker 05:
I think that you can look at the oral hearing transcript and see that these new arguments weren't made in the oral transcript.

[00:21:04] Speaker 05:
And that's the end of the story, that they didn't make this

[00:21:07] Speaker 05:
these arguments about these limitations before the board in any fashion.

[00:21:11] Speaker 05:
So once you make that finding, then... The pending download language didn't appear in the transcript?

[00:21:18] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
Not at all?

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
Like it wasn't highlighted, that separate part of that dependent limitation?

[00:21:23] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:21:23] Speaker 05:
The pages they cite, not at all.

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
So... Okay.

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
Do you have anything further?

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
I think we're good, unless you have anything else you want to say.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
I'm all set.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
All right.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:21:33] Speaker 01:
Mr. Shanahan, you have a little bit of rebuttal time.

[00:21:35] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:36] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:21:37] Speaker 04:
So the court seems interested in the waiver issue, so why don't we address that one as well.

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
I think even before we get that far, I want to direct the court's attention, please, to the appendix at 1092, please.

[00:21:55] Speaker 04:
And I'm going to look at lines 7.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
What was that pension number again?

[00:22:01] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:22:03] Speaker 04:
It's 1092.

[00:22:12] Speaker 04:
Now, if we can look at lines seven through 12, I'll highlight, and I'm quoting now from the record here, I'll highlight claim 15 and 16 for the first prioritization claim segment.

[00:22:22] Speaker 04:
And that, I've highlighted claims 15, the prioritization that the processor is operative to prioritize retrieval of said data parcels among the plurality of selected data parcels pending retrieval.

[00:22:34] Speaker 04:
It's the exact argument that we're making on claim 15.

[00:22:37] Speaker 04:
This is in the record.

[00:22:38] Speaker 04:
So I would respectfully disagree with the government.

[00:22:41] Speaker 01:
Why, so that's just a quote of the claim language.

[00:22:43] Speaker 01:
He's just reading out loud what he highlighted.

[00:22:45] Speaker 04:
Well, and then we go on to talk about that there's a relative priority difference, et cetera, and so forth.

[00:22:50] Speaker 04:
That's just the beginning of that, Your Honor.

[00:22:52] Speaker 01:
Wait, wait.

[00:22:54] Speaker 01:
You can't say by having read the claim out loud, I've preserved an argument that Ready doesn't expressly disclose pending retrieval downloads.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
We're in the text of the discussion as opposed to simply the quote of the claim language, because then you go on when you talk about priority.

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
I understand the rest of the argument to be addressing prioritization, which is the same as the claim 10 issue.

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
I don't understand it to be expressly addressing this narrow part of claim 15.

[00:23:23] Speaker 01:
At least that's what the government argues, and I'd love for you to convince me otherwise.

[00:23:29] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:23:31] Speaker 04:
So I think we talked about parcels.

[00:23:33] Speaker 04:
pending retrieval.

[00:23:34] Speaker 04:
And if we do look at, uh, uh, paragraphs, I think it's 65 to 68.

[00:23:42] Speaker 04:
Let me see.

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
This is the hearing transcript.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
Are you moving me?

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
No, no, no.

[00:23:47] Speaker 04:
I don't want to go.

[00:23:48] Speaker 04:
I don't want to go there yet.

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
Well, you're out of time entirely.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
So I suggest you go wherever your best argument is really quick.

[00:23:56] Speaker 04:
Um, I would just refer you to, um, appendix 1094.

[00:24:01] Speaker 04:
And there, Your Honor, I would say that we address the priority argument on this page of the oral argument.

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
That's the notes that I have.

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
And then there are arguments about prioritization here.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
Unless there's anything further.

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
I take this case under submission and thank both counsel for their arguments.

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.