[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Okay, we have four additional cases this morning.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
The first is number 17-1728, Bremer Manufacturing Company versus Infobionic.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
Is that how you pronounce it?

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:26] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
May it please the Court, Ching Lee Fukuda, on behalf of Appellant Raymore Manufacturing.

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
There are three key issues in dispute for this appeal.

[00:00:38] Speaker 02:
First, the Board adopted an unreasonably broad interpretation for the term central monitoring device.

[00:00:46] Speaker 02:
The reason it's flawed is because the Board did not consider evidence directed to the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
within the context of the 901 and 403 patents.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
When you say the board didn't consider it, I mean, the board was aware of it, but the board found it not persuasive, right?

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
The board did not address, for example, the textbook written by Carr that discussed what central monitoring means in the context of hospital settings.

[00:01:17] Speaker 02:
And that context directly related to the context of the 901 and 403 patents.

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
But those patents

[00:01:24] Speaker 02:
don't talk about hospital settings, do they?

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
The 901 and 403 patents talk about being able to provide the same type of central monitoring you would have in a hospital setting, except on an outpatient basis.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
There are two passages in the 901 patent.

[00:01:44] Speaker 02:
First passage is in appendix 94, column 155 to 59, where it talks about

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
there being a need for an approach that would allow a subject to function normally but be monitored and maintain communication as needed for abnormal or emergency situations.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
So this is for an outpatient basis where the human subject can still be monitored

[00:02:08] Speaker 02:
for emergency as if they're in a hospital setting.

[00:02:11] Speaker 03:
It doesn't say as if they're in a hospital setting.

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
I mean, it even talks about a circumstance where somebody wants to live alone independently and their loved one wants to monitor them.

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
How is that a hospital setting?

[00:02:24] Speaker 02:
Well, in the context of the patent, the second passage points out that's Appendix 94 at column 3, lines 20 to 43.

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
It's talking about the present invention in that paragraph.

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
And at the end of the paragraph, it talks about, in the case of a human subject, this system, as appropriate, can summon medical assistance.

[00:02:45] Speaker 02:
So if you put the context of those two passages together, it talks about medical assistance for emergency situations where the human subject doesn't have to be in a hospital to obtain that type of care.

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
But doesn't it also, in the specification, for example, I believe that column three referred to periodic status queries, suggesting that not every embodiment envisioned expected real-time monitoring?

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:03:12] Speaker 02:
I believe the term real-time here, though it is used to describe the invention, is more loosely used.

[00:03:19] Speaker 02:
It does not require a second-by-second monitoring.

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
However, at the very least, what it requires

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
is that the monitoring happens during a monitoring session.

[00:03:29] Speaker 02:
The problem with the construction is that it so unreasonably broadened the meaning of central monitoring device that it covers prior art devices such as Holter monitors.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
You don't get the data.

[00:03:42] Speaker 04:
The problem I'm having with your interpretation where you add during a monitoring session, I don't know how that differs from saying real time

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
Can you explain to me what you mean by during a monitoring session if it's not monitoring on a regular basis or in real time?

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
So let's take the Prior Art Holder devices.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
They would monitor for a period of 24 hours, collect all the data and the signals.

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
Then that data would be subsequently downloaded and sent to a medical, you know, either a physician or a medical assistant.

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
and they can analyze that data later to diagnose, for example, arrhythmias and things like that.

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
That data, you know, what the whole term monitor doesn't do is it does not have central monitoring during that 24-hour session.

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
All of that data is actually... It has the ability to trigger an alarm if there are improper readings, right?

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
So the prior art that's relied upon by appellees here, the sellers reference, does disclose the ability to

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
for the portable monitor that the patient wears, or the human subject wears, to trigger, I guess, to flag an event if it passes a certain threshold.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
But all that does is it puts a marker on that set of data, so that later, as that data is downloaded for subsequent analysis, whoever's looking at that can note that there is something happened during that period of time, maybe I should pay attention to that data.

[00:05:12] Speaker 01:
It's not about...

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
sending the data in real time as opposed to storing it and sending it later.

[00:05:19] Speaker 02:
There is disclosure, Your Honor, of being able to send the data when certain limits are met.

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
However, there's absolutely no disclosure in sellers that once that data is sent out, that the central monitoring device does anything with that data other than store it for subsequent analysis.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
Where in the claims do you say, show me in the claims where it says this is for purposes of use in a hospital setting?

[00:05:52] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, those express terms are not in the claims.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
And that's part of the problem.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
I mean, the specification even covers monitoring of inanimate objects while in transit.

[00:06:04] Speaker 03:
So how are we to read into these claims a central monitoring system that's akin to a hospital setting?

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
So Your Honor, while the specification does broaden out to inanimate objects, every single one of the claims at issue here are limited to monitoring of the human subject.

[00:06:22] Speaker 02:
So that's one response.

[00:06:24] Speaker 02:
The second is,

[00:06:26] Speaker 02:
it really gets to the heart of our argument on claim construction here, is that central monitoring has a specific meaning to a person of ordinary skill in this art, in the context of these patents.

[00:06:37] Speaker 02:
And even Appellee's expert admitted during deposition that, yes, central monitoring has this specific meaning.

[00:06:46] Speaker 02:
And yes, he did say in a hospital setting.

[00:06:49] Speaker 02:
However, if you read the entirety of the 901 and 403 patents, it does give you at least

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
tells you that what this invention is meant to do is to provide that standard of care.

[00:07:01] Speaker 02:
So it's in the same context.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
So are you arguing that the 901 claims are limited to a hospital setting?

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
No, I am not, Your Honor.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
What I am arguing is that the 901 and 403 are directed to AC.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
So if that's the case, why should we interpret the language as though we're limited to a hospital setting?

[00:07:21] Speaker 02:
Not that we should interpret the language as being limited to a hospital setting.

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
but that the hospital setting informs the purpose of this invention, which is to allow the patient to not be in a hospital, but receive the same standard of care as he or she would in the hospital.

[00:07:36] Speaker 04:
So it's your point that central monitoring device interpreting that broadly to be something other than real time or some monitoring that's continuous, that

[00:07:50] Speaker 04:
that's inconsistent with the specification or unreasonably broad in light of the specification which discloses a hospital environment and those other kinds of environments like that.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
That's exactly our argument your honor which is that if the board's interpretation is so broad that it effectively covers prior art devices like Holter monitors that were never meant to be used in real time and in fact never used.

[00:08:14] Speaker 04:
But the board's construction can be broad it doesn't

[00:08:18] Speaker 04:
I don't think under the broadest reasonable construction, we're not supposed to look at whether the board's construction is so broad that it includes prior.

[00:08:25] Speaker 04:
We're supposed to look at whether it's the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification, right?

[00:08:32] Speaker 02:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
But the other problem with the board's construction is that they completely ignored the evidence about what car.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
Well, what you're saying is that they rejected extrinsic evidence that you offer.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
But the problem is, it's not the board's construction that seems to be broad.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
It seems that what is broad is the specification and the claims.

[00:08:58] Speaker 02:
If you read the board's final written decision, they did not touch upon the car reference at all, nor the appellee's expert's admissions about the car reference.

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
That just wasn't considered.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
Without considering that evidence,

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
They were not informed on the meeting to a person.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
But even in the car reference, talked about assuming you're in a hospital ICU setting.

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
This is what central monitoring is.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
But there's nothing in the specification that says, let's assume that this is all done in a hospital setting.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
In fact, it seems to say just the opposite.

[00:09:36] Speaker 02:
The specification does not limit it to a hospital setting.

[00:09:39] Speaker 02:
But what the specification says is we're providing this type of service that is akin to what you would get in a hospital setting.

[00:09:48] Speaker 02:
But now you can be mobile.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
Where does the specification suggest it's limited to hospital-like settings?

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
Again, Your Honor, it's not limited to the hospital setting.

[00:09:56] Speaker 02:
In fact, it allows the patient to leave the hospital.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
Hospital-like.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
Hospital-like settings.

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:
You say that the claims are directed to hospital settings and hospital-like settings, if I understand what you're saying.

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
Where does the specification say that we're limiting this to hospital or hospital-like settings?

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
I think the closest we get to are the two passages I pointed to earlier, Your Honor, where in column one, the 901 patent talks about abnormal or emergency situations.

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
And in column three, where it talks about the present invention, providing a system where medical assistance can be provided if something were to be treated.

[00:10:37] Speaker 03:
Let's look at column five.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
and start at about line 36.

[00:10:41] Speaker 03:
It says typically the central monitoring device further includes a terminal having a communications device interface to the second transceiver.

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
And then it goes on at the next line, the terminal may be a simple manual system or preferably it may be more complex.

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
And then you go down farther and it talks about the fact that it can be portable, it can be simply something with an antenna.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
I mean it certainly does not seem to contemplate

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
a major central monitoring system akin to what you would see in an ICU system?

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
What this invention does is it takes the capability of a central monitoring console in hospital settings, puts that into a simpler mobile device that is in relatively real-time contact with a central monitoring device so that if an emergency situation happens where medical assistance is needed,

[00:11:37] Speaker 02:
Someone at the central monitoring station or with the device can respond to that.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
Where does it say that in the claims?

[00:11:44] Speaker 02:
So in the claims, and again, one of the arguments we made in our briefs is, for example, in the preamble of claim one, it talks about apparatus for remotely monitoring and assessing the status of a human subject.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
The preamble must be used to inform claim construction.

[00:12:01] Speaker 01:
Well, the preamble doesn't say anything about emergency situations.

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
What it does talk about is monitoring and assessing the status, which means that there's an action being taken by the central monitoring.

[00:12:11] Speaker 04:
But that would be once a day.

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
It doesn't say anything that would suggest the imperative to do it with a certain frequency.

[00:12:20] Speaker 02:
Even if it does it once a day, at least it's doing it during the monitoring session.

[00:12:25] Speaker 02:
What it's not doing is to say, now that the monitoring session is over and I've turned over all the data,

[00:12:31] Speaker 02:
But now some doctor can look at that data much later on and decide whether I had a condition or not.

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
That type of priority device is not remotely monitoring and assessing the status of a human subject.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
There's no assessment going on.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
There's no active assessment going on.

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
Because the data is uploaded to the central monitoring device after all the data is collected.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
That's right.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
And at times, it could be days or a week later.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
Well, except that you agreed earlier that the seller's reference shows contemporaneous uploading or transmission of the data.

[00:13:08] Speaker 02:
Sellers talks about the downloading of data, but there's absolutely no evidence of any assessment going on in the central monitoring device that the appellees pointed to in Sellers.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
You want to save the remainder of your time here?

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:13:24] Speaker 02:
I would like to do that.

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
May I please the Court?

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
I think the place to start here is the claims.

[00:13:43] Speaker 00:
And as the Court has pointed out, there is nothing in the claims that provides for the central monitoring device to do any particular action or at any particular time.

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
If we look at claim one, for example,

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
And this is at A98.

[00:13:58] Speaker 00:
It's an apparatus comprising a central monitoring device, full stop, no explanation of what it does or when.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
And then it goes on to say, as well as a portable monitoring unit.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
And here's where the claim does provide some details.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
It says the portable monitoring unit, which is the patient side part of the device, must be responsive to occurrences of events as they happen

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
It must take that and then be able to communicate it to the central monitoring device.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
Well, how do you read the discussion, the specification that says the invention is a real-time monitoring system?

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
I think, as counsel has conceded, it's not actually real-time.

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
It's real-time-like, I think.

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
And so there could be a real-time aspect in the sense of the portable monitoring unit, for example.

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
which the claim itself contemplates, is recording that data as it happens.

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
Well, the claim also distinguishes between monitoring and assessment, which suggests that assessment is not part of monitoring.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
Precisely.

[00:15:08] Speaker 01:
And she agreed that the prior art shows monitoring in real time, sending the data in real time.

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:
So the argument has to be that assessment has to be in real time.

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
And that's not what the specification says.

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
That's not what the specification says.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
It's certainly not what the claim says.

[00:15:27] Speaker 00:
It doesn't require the central monitoring unit to do any amount of assessing, let alone during the monitoring session itself.

[00:15:36] Speaker 03:
When the board interprets sellers to include a central monitoring, the board seems to be equating the word central with the word remote.

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure how we get there.

[00:15:51] Speaker 03:
everything that's remote necessarily central.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
I think the key here is that it's able to be separate from the patient.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
So some device not tied to the patient itself.

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
And so it could end up, it doesn't have to be remote I guess I would say.

[00:16:08] Speaker 00:
It could be a device, the central monitoring device that is brought into the patient and leaves the patient.

[00:16:13] Speaker 00:
It's not tied to the patient's location I guess is the point.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
And that's what makes it central.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
From a central location meaning

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
not tied to the patient.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
And that's what the testimony is.

[00:16:22] Speaker 03:
So central means anything not tied to the patient?

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:16:28] Speaker 03:
Doesn't central sort of contemplate something a little bit different than that?

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
Well, it also contemplates in the specification that the central monitoring device might be connected to multiple portable monitoring units.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
And that suggests kind of a central control, if you will.

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
I think of central dispatch in the taxi context.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
It doesn't have to be

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
any particular place, it's just that it kind of acts as a bringing together of all the data, I guess.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
You could think of it that way.

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
It could work with multiple patients.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
Exactly.

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
It could work with multiple patients.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
It doesn't have to, but that's... Right.

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
I mean, I think that's what your friend on the other side was really arguing, that that's not a Holter monitor that just reads one machine.

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
That is something where you contemplate that even if

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
even if you only have one necessarily hooked up at a given point in time, the capability of hooking others up and monitoring multiple devices is what central means.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
I think it certainly could hook up to multiple, although if you look at the claims, there are certain claims, like I think claim nine, for example, expressly says that the central monitoring device has multiple patient side units to connect it, which

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
indicates that it doesn't necessarily have to, although a lot of the discussion in the specification is about the ability to connect to multiple.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
But that, again, doesn't come back to the central point here, which is, what does the central monitoring device have to do?

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
And I didn't hear anything in the argument this morning, and I haven't seen anything in the briefs that points to anything in the specification or the claims that would tell us what this central monitoring device has to do.

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
And certainly nothing that would distinguish it

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
over sellers.

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
As the court has pointed out, in sellers itself, it contemplates in columns eight and nine receiving data in real time, responding to an event in real time, and then transmitting that data in real time.

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
But isn't this exactly the extrinsic evidence that Bremer is concerned about?

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
In other words, that central doesn't just equate to remote, which is what you're arguing.

[00:18:39] Speaker 03:
that as long as it's remote, it's by definition central.

[00:18:42] Speaker 03:
And what they're saying is that there was plenty of extrinsic evidence where one of skill and the art would have understood central to have something more uniform, where it's not simply remote, but collective.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
I think that certainly, even if you accepted that, wouldn't distinguish it over cellars, which has the same type of architecture contemplated

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
multiple patient-side devices that can aggregate the data in a central location there.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
It's called the Remote Computer System 110, I think.

[00:19:16] Speaker 00:
And so it wouldn't distinguish it over sellers.

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
That's also not reflected, as I understand it, in the party's joint claim construction.

[00:19:25] Speaker 04:
I understood that the only thing that the patent owner was seeking to add was during the monitoring period.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
That's exactly right, Your Honor.

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
There was agreement as to the basic

[00:19:35] Speaker 00:
meaning of monitoring and even of central monitoring is watching, keeping track of, checking on.

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
And what they attempted to add was the temporal component during the monitoring session.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
And now they've made a lot of arguments about central, but that really wasn't the central, if you will, dispute.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
The dispute is what the central monitoring unit, which pulls in the data, has to do.

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
And I would just point out that in the CAR reference, I heard that several times this morning, and they mentioned it in their gray brief,

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
been four pages on it, pages 9 to 12, about how the board, it was a glaring omission by the board and even now legal error by the board to overlook this car reference.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
Well, putting aside that that wasn't an argument they made in their blue brief, that that was somehow independently an error, the board's treatment of car was exactly commensurate with how they treated it below, which was hardly at all.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
Where is it in their papers at all?

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
Where is it in the record?

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
At patent owner's response, they never mentioned CAR by name, and they only cited it once, and that's at A370, patent owner's response.

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
They cited it in passing, not by name, and even so, it was ultimately considered.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
There was some discussion at the oral hearing below about CAR, and the board ultimately looked at their expert's testimony as to CAR, which cited CAR, and found it not persuasive.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
This is at page A9.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
It specifically called out the paragraph of their expert report, Fernald's, which was at A, 1734, paragraph 41.

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
The board cited to that very paragraph and said it was not persuasive.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
And it was not persuasive because it didn't account for the intrinsic evidence, the specification, and the claims, which nowhere limited what monitoring means.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
And it didn't account for the dictionary definition that likewise contemplated a very broad meaning of monitoring.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
And so for those reasons, the board found it not persuasive.

[00:21:36] Speaker 03:
But that had to do, I thought that was the board rejecting the notion that the monitoring had to be constant versus the notion that central had to be at a more centralized location.

[00:21:52] Speaker 00:
Well, again, the central part of the term wasn't the focus.

[00:21:56] Speaker 00:
So the primary focus was whether this had to do some active response.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
And I think we've seen that in their papers before this court.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
And that's what I take their principal argument to be.

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
And in that context, that's what the board was saying was not persuasive about their expert's testimony and about one of their dictionary definitions, which was confined to that medical nursing context.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
But as the court has noted, nothing in the claims.

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
And I looked in the specification.

[00:22:23] Speaker 00:
I couldn't find the hospital mentioned once, and certainly not in the claims.

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
And so there's no basis to limit the claims to that context in the language of the claims or the specification.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
unless the court has other questions.

[00:22:41] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Mr. Mellon.

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:22:51] Speaker 02:
So Your Honor, I'd like to pick up on the point about this remote central issue.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
Judge O'Malley, you're correct that essentially Appel Lee's argument is that central equates to remote.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
And that's incorrect.

[00:23:04] Speaker 02:
Even though the board adopted a construction

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
that says central monitoring device is a device that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location, the board didn't apply the limitation of a central location.

[00:23:16] Speaker 02:
Remote is not the same thing as central.

[00:23:19] Speaker 02:
We know this because in the claims, as we discussed before, in the preamble, there's this remote assessment and monitoring.

[00:23:26] Speaker 02:
And then a separate limitation about the central monitoring device.

[00:23:30] Speaker 02:
So remote and central are different words.

[00:23:33] Speaker 02:
While a central monitoring device has the capability to remotely monitor and assess, it is not the same thing.

[00:23:40] Speaker 02:
It's not limited to just being remote.

[00:23:42] Speaker 03:
Did you focus on this question of the central location or the fact that it should not equate to just being remote before the board?

[00:23:57] Speaker 02:
I believe that that was not a disputed issue in front of the board, so we had agreed with the central location, and we had also partially agreed with the rest of the monitoring with the understanding that watches keeps track of our checks or active acts by the central monitoring device rather than something that's done for subsequent analysis.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
And so it's the deficiency in the board's analysis with respect to Centro

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
that was highlighted during the appellate process because that was never applied by the board in using its own construction.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
In fact, the board goes so far as to essentially say that central monitoring device itself doesn't really have any meaning, right?

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
It's merely something that the portable unit is capable of communicating with.

[00:24:41] Speaker 02:
So it's just a black box sitting over there.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
And we also have an appellee's expert saying that he didn't attribute any meaning to the central monitoring device.

[00:24:49] Speaker 02:
He just said that it's just something, it just

[00:24:53] Speaker 02:
He said in his deposition, Appendix 2438, almost anything that I called a central monitor, regardless of its function, could meet that limitation of the claim.

[00:25:03] Speaker 02:
There just has to be something there.

[00:25:05] Speaker 02:
If you carry that logic, if my claim is directed to a hammer that's inside a box, it would cover anything that's inside a box, because all the claim says is it has to be inside a box.

[00:25:15] Speaker 01:
It would be- Okay, Ms.

[00:25:16] Speaker 01:
Faguta, thank you.

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
I thank both counsels for the cases submitted.