[00:00:26] Speaker 04:
We will hear argument next in number 17, 1804, Cosmo lighting against Orstar industrial.

[00:00:57] Speaker 04:
Mr. Schloss.

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, the present appeal raises two issues.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
The first relates to Cosmo's belief that the PTAB did not properly construe the term encapsulating as it is used in claim one of the 978 patent.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
With respect to the second issue, we ask this court to conclude that regardless of how encapsulating is construed,

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
Appellee did not carry its burden of proving obviousness, and that claims 1 through 3 of the 978 patent are valid and not obvious in view of the asserted prior art.

[00:01:36] Speaker 00:
I want to ask you a question about the Lin Chinese patent.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
Do you agree that that teaches a transparent insulator that fully encapsulates the LEDs and the wires?

[00:01:50] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, we do not agree with that.

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
There is talk about a transparent package or a capsulation.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
But I think the expert testimony is consistent that it does not cover the bottom of the device.

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
And so for there is not.

[00:02:07] Speaker 00:
What about, I was looking at the appendix at page 1135.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
And I thought I saw depicted there that there was a circle

[00:02:19] Speaker 00:
that fully surrounded, and maybe I'm just misunderstanding it, so maybe you can explain it to me.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
In particular, figures five and six.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:02:30] Speaker 01:
So I think if you look at figure five, that shows the dome, if you will, just sitting on top of the wires.

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
It doesn't go all the way around to the back of the wires.

[00:02:42] Speaker 01:
If you compare that to the picture of encapsulation, which appears in the 978 patent,

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
which can be found.

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
I would refer the court to Appendix 0035 and also Appendix 0040, particularly 35, because I think it shows kind of similar... Can I just ask about that?

[00:03:07] Speaker 04:
I mean, so I guess I'm looking at Figure 5, and I guess on Figure 6, same thing, on 1135.

[00:03:16] Speaker 04:
And this is number 73 is the transparent insulator, I think.

[00:03:20] Speaker 04:
Yes, it is.

[00:03:22] Speaker 04:
Isn't that going all the way around?

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
I don't believe it goes to the back of the device because the device is sitting on the coil and it doesn't show.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
I see.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
And that's because the line is sitting on top of the coil.

[00:03:32] Speaker 04:
Exactly, Your Honor.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
Again, if you compare it to the way the drawing is shown... Yeah, but what would you do with Figure 6?

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
Well, Figure 6, I think, it's just kind of the same thing.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
It shows the two wires on top.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
It doesn't really show and give you an angle where you can show what happens to the dome.

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
And so the fact that this is not circular but sort of ovate is just the shape of the thing.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
It's not a perspective drawing.

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

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

[00:04:01] Speaker 03:
So this is just a bubble sitting on top.

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
Exactly.

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
And I think if both experts have testified that that's what it is.

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
And the board didn't make any contrary finding.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
The board did not.

[00:04:11] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:04:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
The parties in the board appear to agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of encapsulating applies, but we have disagreement of what the plain and ordinary meaning is.

[00:04:34] Speaker 04:
So let me just ask you to focus on, I guess, what has been something of my focus.

[00:04:41] Speaker 04:
What the claim says has to be encapsulated is not the wires, but is rather the

[00:04:52] Speaker 04:
contact pad areas plus the LED.

[00:04:58] Speaker 04:
So why doesn't it make sense to read it the way the board did and not to insist on

[00:05:09] Speaker 04:
essentially reading it to be limited to what may be shown in Figure 6.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
Well, because I think Figure 6 obviously is part of the specification and has to be read in the context to give meaning to the claim.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
I mean, the terms of the claim... Why would the claim not say encapsulating every pair of first and second conducting wires and the surface mounted light emitting

[00:05:36] Speaker 04:
component bonded there too if your construction were right.

[00:05:41] Speaker 01:
Well I guess it could have said that but we all know that claims are sometimes written imperfectly and I think you have to read the claims with figure six and figure one which I think are pretty clear in showing what the encapsulating is about.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
The problem I'm having with your argument is that it kind of

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
there's a line between reading a claim term in light of the specification and importing an embodiment from the specification into the claim.

[00:06:12] Speaker 00:
And I'm not exactly sure where you are on that line.

[00:06:16] Speaker 00:
I mean, you might be importing an embodiment into the claim by saying, look at figure one, look at figure six.

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
And when I say encapsulating the LED in the contact areas, you have to interpret that to mean also

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
encapsulating the wires because that's what's shown in my figure.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
I understand that, Your Honor, and I of course recognize that you can't import the limitations into the, or the specification to create limitations of the claim, but I think in this case there's really nothing else in the claim language or the specification that gives encapsulating any other meaning.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
The term does not appear

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
I think it's only twice, once in the claim and once in the specification.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
I agree with your interpretation of encapsulating, but I think Judge Toronto hit on something important when he said, what is being encapsulated here?

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
So I think the disagreement might be there.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
And I understand that.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
And I think, again, looking at the drawings,

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
which are really the only thing we have to go on as to what is being encapsulated, show that the encapsulation is about, includes the wires in the entire system.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
It is the dome that is shown, the complete dome.

[00:07:33] Speaker 01:
And I don't think there's anything in the claim language which says that cannot be part of the construction.

[00:07:39] Speaker 04:
No, but the board's broadest reasonable interpretation simply says it needn't be, not that it can't be.

[00:07:46] Speaker 04:
And that as long as what you are doing is completing a capsule that makes the particular things, the contact pad area and the LED, completely covered, but not necessarily all covered by the transparent material, then that's sufficient.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
respectfully disagree with the board, your honor, because what the claim says, it's the transparent package that is doing the encapsulating.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
And so if there are other parts that complete the encapsulation, then that, I think, is not what the claim is saying.

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
There was a prosecution history change in reaction to a prior art reference called Marcus, if I remember right.

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
I don't recall either in the prosecution history or in your submission to the board, or maybe even here, a development of an explanation for what that change of language was supposed to signify, a change from enclosing to encapsulating something, either that alone or maybe slightly more change.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
I think the change was only from enclosing to encapsulating.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
And the board offers no, or the examiner offered no explanation as to why it did that.

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
But I think it's reasonable to conclude that that was done to align the claim language with what the actual specification discloses.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
Does the specification use the word encapsulate?

[00:09:23] Speaker 00:
I don't recall.

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
Not really.

[00:09:25] Speaker 01:
It appears once, but not in terms of the way the device works.

[00:09:30] Speaker 04:
The page in the prosecution history on this, which I think is 971, I guess gives no particular explanation whether this has to do with Marcus or has to do with

[00:10:00] Speaker 04:
written description, support, or anything else, right?

[00:10:02] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:10:03] Speaker 01:
It was an examiner's amendment that accompanied the allowance, and no explanation is given.

[00:10:10] Speaker 01:
But I think we would agree that it has to have meaning.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
I mean, there is something about this that the examiner clearly intended encapsulate to mean something different than enclose, because it made that change.

[00:10:23] Speaker 03:
Well, encapsulate.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
Seems to me, in common car lines, it does mean something different from enclosed, right?

[00:10:30] Speaker 01:
I would agree, Your Honor.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
But it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be wholly enclosed by the same subset.

[00:10:41] Speaker 03:
Let me give you an example that comes to mind.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
I mean, you would say a corral encloses an area populated by horses, even though there's nothing on the top of the corral.

[00:10:55] Speaker 03:
But you would say that the barn encapsulates the area populated by the horses.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
Even if the barn has an earthen floor, wouldn't you agree that that barn encapsulates the horses?

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
I would agree in that example, yes.

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
And why isn't that?

[00:11:16] Speaker 01:
This case.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
Because I think in this case we have to look at what the specification says encapsulation means.

[00:11:22] Speaker 03:
But you were just telling us that the specification doesn't really say very much about encapsulation.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
The word doesn't appear much, but the drawings, which are part of the specification, I think show clearly what the inventor intended the encapsulation to be in this case.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
And that, you think, is enough to show that that is consistent with the broadest reasonable

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
We do, Your Honor.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
And if I can just sort of amplify in your barn example, if we talked about the barn enclosure including the floors, that would include the floors.

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
Are you saying that if the barn with an earthen floor is not encapsulating, but the barn with a wooden floor is?

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
No, what I'm saying is the barn itself, the barn structure not including the floor may be encapsulating,

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
And the reason I'm pointing this out is because what the claim says is that the transparent package is doing the encapsulate.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
So if we're talking about the wooden structure, that may not be encapsulating.

[00:12:27] Speaker 01:
But if you had a wooden structure, to take your example, there was a wooden floor.

[00:12:32] Speaker 01:
And the claim talked about a wooden floor encapsulating.

[00:12:36] Speaker 01:
I think that would be different.

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
That would be similar to this claim.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
Because we have to read the claim in its entirety.

[00:12:41] Speaker 01:
And it's not just encapsulating, it's that the transparent package is encapsulating.

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
And that's, I think, the way this has to be read.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
You're about at your dividing mark, but it's up to you how you want to use the three minutes.

[00:12:59] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:13:15] Speaker 04:
Mr. Washer.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:19] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, you're exactly right.

[00:13:22] Speaker 02:
COSMO is trying to incorporate a limitation in the claim language.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
It's just not there.

[00:13:31] Speaker 02:
To begin with, the drawings, they put very much emphasis on figure six of the 978 patent.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
Now, in patent prosecution,

[00:13:44] Speaker 02:
Drawings aren't always required for patent application.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
A drawing is usually required if it will aid in the understanding of the language of the claims.

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
And this court even put significant weight on the language that the inventors use in the Phillips v. AWH case.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
It's all about the lexicography.

[00:14:04] Speaker 02:
What language did they use?

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
I don't really see anything in it that says that a drawing is going to be determinative of what

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
the claim scope is.

[00:14:17] Speaker 02:
If I could direct the court's attention to, we could begin with the patent application that was filed.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
Appendix page 1002, you discussed a few moments ago, shows that the inventor, when they filed for the 978 patent application,

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
had transparent packages enclosing as dependent claim five.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
So what they saw as the invention was the broadest description of it in independent claim one, and transparent packages was something that was added in a dependent claim.

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
Now, it wasn't until it was rejected in the first office action, and they filed their reply incorporating

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
that transparent packages interclaim one in order to add a limitation to overcome the prior art that was cited.

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
And they still stuck with the enclosing language.

[00:15:23] Speaker 02:
This is correct.

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
But the examiner interview summary tells us that the examiner, for whatever reason during that time, decided that he liked encapsulating better than he did enclosing.

[00:15:34] Speaker 02:
There's no way of knowing.

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
It's equally as valid for us to assume.

[00:15:38] Speaker 04:
Is the interview summary different from this examiner's amendment?

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
The interview summary is appendix page 974.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
And his substance of interview describing the general nature of what was discussed, it really doesn't give much detail at all.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
There's no way of getting into the examiner's head reading this as to what he was thinking.

[00:16:01] Speaker 02:
Now, it could very well have been that the examiner just liked encapsulating as a term of art as opposed to enclosing, because if the examiner

[00:16:11] Speaker 02:
is an engineer, former engineer or whatever, he may like that term better.

[00:16:15] Speaker 02:
In my practice, my patent prosecution, a lot of times examiners will do that.

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
Do I have evidence that this is the case?

[00:16:22] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
But it's equally, we could assume that that could be it as well.

[00:16:26] Speaker 03:
Well, I'm speculating, does Kerry with some greater suggestion of coverage, does it not?

[00:16:34] Speaker 03:
I mean, to take the Corral and Varn example.

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
Yes, but as far as electronics assembly technology is concerned, it's a term of art.

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
It's something that's more consistently used as opposed to enclosing.

[00:16:52] Speaker 00:
What about the fact that the patent itself uses the word enclosing, or the claim itself, with respect to the insulating layer on the first conducting wire?

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
I believe it's the third line in the claim.

[00:17:05] Speaker 00:
that uses enclosing in connection with a different element.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
So I'm not sure what to infer from that, but it doesn't seem to me to suggest that the examiner thought that fluid was one that ought not be in a claim or is not one that one of ordinary scaler would understand.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
So you're looking at appendix page 44, the patent claims.

[00:17:41] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
I'm looking at claim one and line, I guess it's about line four in column six.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
It says insulating layer and closing the first conductor.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
Am I?

[00:17:57] Speaker 02:
First insulating layer and closing the first conductor.

[00:18:05] Speaker 04:
And I mean, might one take from that since this is a wire in which the rest of the claim is saying they're actually going to be exposed portions that in closing is actually less covering and by switching to encapsulating in for the transparent material at the end, maybe the examiner was thinking I actually want to be more in covering.

[00:18:31] Speaker 04:
more coverage than merely enclosing, because we know that merely enclosing needn't be complete.

[00:18:38] Speaker 02:
And you're correct, Your Honor.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
We don't know.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
We don't have evidence in the record that says that's the case.

[00:18:44] Speaker 02:
But he very well could have been that he was trying to differentiate that from that language that was used earlier in the claim.

[00:18:51] Speaker 02:
So encapsulating as a term of art

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
Both of the experts that are involved in this case agreed that the surface mount device technology, the methods, the materials and all that, was all well known decades prior to the 978 patent invention.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
So these terms are well known, well understood.

[00:19:17] Speaker 02:
This isn't the first time that it appeared.

[00:19:20] Speaker 02:
And Judge Sorrento, as you pointed out, that the language is encapsulating every pair of first and second contact pet areas.

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
and the surface amount light emitting component bonded there too.

[00:19:33] Speaker 02:
So the transparent package really does just that.

[00:19:38] Speaker 02:
It encloses those two different portions of that invention.

[00:19:44] Speaker 02:
That's the scope of the invention that the applicant recorded.

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
The description in the detailed description section, beginning at the bottom of column four of the patent and extending through column five,

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
furthers that discussion that the language used at a layer of transparent package is further applied to an outer side of every pair of first and second contact pad areas, an outer side, and the surface monolight emitting component bonded there too.

[00:20:17] Speaker 02:
They never do say that it covers the insulated wires themselves.

[00:20:23] Speaker 02:
It's just those.

[00:20:24] Speaker 04:
And the board made something at least which

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
caught my eye out of that word, or the phrase, outer side.

[00:20:32] Speaker 04:
Suggesting, and I really say, I think the board took away from it a suggestion that the sides already covered by something else, like the side of the LED that was covered by the contact pad, or the contact pad underside that was covered by the insulated wire, that those

[00:20:56] Speaker 04:
were not being contemplated as necessarily to be themselves surrounded by transparent material.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
Yes, you're correct, Your Honor.

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
That's exactly what we take away from the board's decision as well.

[00:21:08] Speaker 02:
The board documents out that it looked at that, just as you stated, that it doesn't state that it has to also cover the insulation that's on the bottom of the wires.

[00:21:22] Speaker 02:
Now, the benefits that the

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
patent goes on to describe is that this prevents the surface model light emitting component and the exposed conductors of the conducting wires from electrically contacting external environment and resume the partially ground off first and second insulating layers of the first and second conducting wires.

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
Again, that's readily accomplished by applying the epoxy resin on top.

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
It flows over, covers down to

[00:21:51] Speaker 02:
the edge of the opening for the contact pad areas, but doesn't necessarily have to go beneath the insulating layer of the wires.

[00:22:00] Speaker 02:
That's not part of the description here.

[00:22:03] Speaker 02:
They're reading this into it based solely on a shape that was chosen to depict the transparent package in Figure 6 of the patent.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
There's no support for that in the written section of this description that that is the embodiment that must be read into the claims.

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
And to further that, even the patent applicant did not wish to limit to exactly the embodiments that were disclosed in this.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
If you look at that final paragraph at the bottom of page five, still on appendix page 44,

[00:22:44] Speaker 02:
Yeah, it discusses that it's been described in reference to the preferred embodiments, but variety modifications and changes may not depart from the scope.

[00:22:55] Speaker 02:
That's kind of a standard thing.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
So they're leaving it open for other embodiments, not just what's specified here.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
This was just a preferred embodiment.

[00:23:04] Speaker 02:
So I think it's wrong for Cosmo to try to read limitations into the claims in this regard.

[00:23:10] Speaker 02:
They're unreasonably narrowing the scope of these claims.

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
in an effort to save the patent.

[00:23:25] Speaker 02:
Any questions?

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
If I could just address the rationale that was provided.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
For the Pet Trial Appeal Board, this court and then Rainy Basin

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
make clear that there are two things that the board has to provide that they have to make necessary findings supported by evidence and examine the relevant data and articulate a rational connection between the facts and the choices made.

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
That's very clear.

[00:23:55] Speaker 02:
But the question arises to what level of detail is necessary from the board.

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
At Personal Web Technologies versus Apple, the court clarified that

[00:24:07] Speaker 02:
And that the amount of explanation required really depends solely on the context.

[00:24:11] Speaker 02:
So that a brief explanation might suffice if it's simple technology.

[00:24:18] Speaker 02:
And conversely, if it's complicated technology, then you're going to need additional detail.

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
But simple technology, you might need just a little bit of detail.

[00:24:27] Speaker 02:
And then, you know, turning back into an evasive, the court also stated that the board doesn't have to provide a perfect explanation.

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
that the court can uphold it if the court can reasonably discern that the board followed a proper path even if it's not perfectly clear.

[00:24:46] Speaker 02:
I would offer that the board did provide sufficient detail because we're not talking about extremely complex technology here.

[00:24:54] Speaker 02:
We've presented three prior art references, solid prior art references that aren't being contested that feature the same objectives as the 978 patent that

[00:25:07] Speaker 02:
that demonstrate that all the technologies were well known in practice, well understood.

[00:25:12] Speaker 02:
The experts agree that all of these surface mount device technology methods, materials, were all well within the skill of one of ordinary skill and that were understood decades prior to these.

[00:25:26] Speaker 02:
That this is not complicated technology.

[00:25:30] Speaker 02:
The board documented that it would have been a simple substitution.

[00:25:34] Speaker 02:
They took a number of

[00:25:36] Speaker 02:
We provided pretty much all of the rationale that KSR provides to render an invention obvious under the KSR rationale.

[00:25:48] Speaker 02:
The board chose one and stuck with that simple substitution.

[00:25:51] Speaker 02:
They could have equally chosen others, but I think that they did provide sufficient detail to allow the court to review what it is that got them along that path.

[00:26:06] Speaker 04:
If you have any questions, nothing further.

[00:26:08] Speaker 04:
Thank you for your attention.

[00:26:24] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:26:24] Speaker 04:
Mr. Sloss.

[00:26:25] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:26:27] Speaker 04:
So what do you make of the top of, is it column five with the reference to outer side?

[00:26:33] Speaker 04:
Outer?

[00:26:33] Speaker 04:
Yes, outer side.

[00:26:34] Speaker 04:
Since you couldn't possibly put the transparent material on sort of on the actual interior of the thing, it must mean the otherwise not covered side.

[00:26:49] Speaker 01:
Well, again, top of column five and the bottom of column four begin with a reference to figure six and figure one.

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
What these words are explaining is what is shown in Figure 6 and Figure 1.

[00:27:05] Speaker 01:
That's clear, I think, from the way the columns are set up.

[00:27:12] Speaker 01:
The paragraph at the bottom of Page 4 begins, Figure 6 is in a large cross-sectional view taken along Line 6-6 of Figure 1.

[00:27:23] Speaker 01:
Please refer to Figures 1 and 6 at the same time.

[00:27:27] Speaker 01:
And looking at those figures,

[00:27:29] Speaker 01:
I think it's clear what is intended by the language that appears at the top of column five, that the encapsulation is of everything.

[00:27:37] Speaker 04:
Well, in the figure six itself, and I don't know if anything should be made of this, but there's actually a space between the two conducting wires so that if you wanted to, and the contact pad is the white rectangle on top, if you, part of the outer side of that

[00:27:59] Speaker 04:
contact pad is actually tucked between the two conducting wires underneath.

[00:28:06] Speaker 04:
So in that kind of example, you would need to get some transparent material under there, which you might not if the conducting wires have their insulation flush against each other.

[00:28:21] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:28:21] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure where the space is.

[00:28:26] Speaker 00:
Underneath?

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
between the two wires in the middle.

[00:28:28] Speaker 01:
No, I understand.

[00:28:29] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure.

[00:28:31] Speaker 01:
Is that called a space?

[00:28:34] Speaker 01:
Oh, I don't know.

[00:28:35] Speaker 01:
It's not labeled.

[00:28:36] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I mean, I don't think that's a space.

[00:28:39] Speaker 01:
I think that's... It's sitting directly on top of the conducting wires with the adhesive.

[00:28:46] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:28:46] Speaker 04:
If you... There's like a little... The contact pad is like a little bridge between two piers, and you could drive through there if you wanted to.

[00:28:56] Speaker 04:
That's what I'm looking at.

[00:28:58] Speaker 01:
In figure six?

[00:28:59] Speaker 04:
Yeah, the conducting wires are like this, right?

[00:29:03] Speaker 04:
See, my nose fits between those two things.

[00:29:05] Speaker 01:
Oh, I see what you're saying.

[00:29:06] Speaker 01:
Well, that shows that the encapsulating material fills in between those.

[00:29:13] Speaker 04:
Right, so the description of outer side in the context of figure six would actually require some of this transparent material to

[00:29:26] Speaker 04:
go on the underside, which would be an outer side of a piece of the contact pad.

[00:29:33] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:29:34] Speaker 04:
But the description is what is contemplated is applying it to an outer side of every paired first and second contact pad area, which you wouldn't need the transparent material to go all the way around the insulated portion of the wires.

[00:29:56] Speaker 01:
You may not need it, but I think what the figure shows is that's what the inventor intended.

[00:30:02] Speaker 01:
That's the way the inventor intended for it to work.

[00:30:10] Speaker 01:
Time's up.

[00:30:10] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much.

[00:30:12] Speaker 04:
Thanks to both counsel and the cases submitted.