[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
The argument is 171478 in Rae Chatham.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
We're ready whenever you are.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
And please the court, Sal Torrigo for Chaplain.

[00:01:21] Speaker 01:
Pre-GAT, obvious and stubble patenting, was relatively simple.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
Once a patent issued, the expiration date was fixed by the issue date.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
Thus, a later patent would have a longer patent term.

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
Post-GAT, this is no longer true.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
Rather, post-GAT, the issue date of the patent really provides very little information regarding the patent term.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
In fact, post-GAT, a later patent can expire long before an earlier registered patent or long after.

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
Is it your view that the board committed any error in applying the law as it's been articulated by our court?

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
Yes, absolutely.

[00:02:00] Speaker 03:
How so?

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
I think that the problem is that most of the case law that has developed with respect to, obviously, the snipe double patent has been developed in a pre-GAT scenario.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
And the important point is that once a patent issues, you then have this fixed date as to when it's going to expire, 17 years later.

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
Therefore, an application that exists later is going to have potentially a longer patent term than this earlier patent.

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
double patenting was created to get rid of that inequity.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
In a post-GAAP world, that has changed completely.

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
Now a patent issues and its expiration date is, is unknown.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
It's based on its priority date.

[00:02:48] Speaker 01:
So the priority date becomes very, very relevant here as to what is the priority date.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
If the priority date, for example, let's just take, take an example here.

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
Gore-Tex is invented in

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
the year 2000.

[00:03:03] Speaker 01:
In 2015, the same company that creates Gore-Tex now invents a drone.

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
Obviously, their preferred plastic is Gore-Tex.

[00:03:18] Speaker 01:
So they put Gore-Tex in a dependent claim.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
They get a patent issued very rapidly.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
They've got a very complex claim to this drone.

[00:03:28] Speaker 01:
They have a dependent claim that says we're in the drone

[00:03:31] Speaker 01:
contains vortex.

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
They want to protect their major product that they've had for years.

[00:03:38] Speaker 04:
I'm having trouble following your answer to the Chief Judge's question other than it was a yes.

[00:03:45] Speaker 04:
But what law did the PTO fail to apply properly?

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
It's a one-way test.

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
They follow the law, they cite cases, many of which are post-GAT.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
We've got Berg, we've got Leonardo, all post-GAT cases.

[00:04:02] Speaker 04:
Those post-GAT cases also themselves cite earlier pre-GAT cases, Kaplan and others.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
It doesn't seem... I'm having trouble understanding how GAT

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
in 1994-95 changed the law of one-way obviousness type double patenting in light of the fact that our case law has continued to apply it in the same manner after GATT and continue to rely positively on the pre-GATT cases.

[00:04:27] Speaker 04:
So what am I missing?

[00:04:28] Speaker 04:
What did the PTO precisely get wrong in the law?

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
I think there's two things.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
I think one, you have to look at the invention as a whole.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
That's really, I think, the most important piece that we have here.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
You have to look at the invention of the whole.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
as a whole.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
I mean, that's not just in double patenting, but that's in obviousness generally.

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
How do we do that?

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
We have to look and compare the two inventions.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
The date that that invention was invented is important in that analysis.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
How do you compare two inventions without knowing the order in which they were invented?

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
If one is invented 15 years later, how can that now be prior art?

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
to something that was invented 15 years earlier, where, in fact, Gore-Tex, for example, is prior art to that drone.

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
The claim that the drone has to issue over that.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
One more time.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
I'm struggling a little bit.

[00:05:23] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:05:23] Speaker 03:
I think Judge Moore is wanting to get a precise answer to the question that now both she and I have raised.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
And also, I think it would be more helpful less if you talked about this case.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:05:33] Speaker 03:
As opposed to some hypothetical case.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
We could talk about MVABN.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
It is a virus.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
OK, but what about the question of whether or not, what about our case law?

[00:05:44] Speaker 03:
And it seemed to be you were saying that because they have to look at everything in its entirety, that somehow dislodges what they've said in applying our cases.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
Did they err in their application of our cases?

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
Yes, absolutely, in two ways.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
In two ways.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
One is, yes, you have to look at the prior patent, but you have to look at the claimed invention.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
When was the invention made?

[00:06:09] Speaker 01:
I think that is an intrinsic part of this.

[00:06:11] Speaker 03:
Okay, so how does that question apply to this case?

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
To this case?

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
What did they say wrong about that?

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
To this case, the only thing that matters to the Patent Office, and it's a very simplistic way of looking at double patenting, and it's very efficient, but it's not the right way because it ignores all of the equities.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
The important question here, how they should apply it, is they should look at when was the invention made?

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
the first invention and compare it.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
They're taking an invention that can be made five, 10, 15 years later and calling it prior art to the first invention.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
It's not prior art.

[00:06:51] Speaker 01:
The first invention is real prior art to the second invention, the patent.

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
The patents all, what's being cited against us in the patents, are claims that happen to contain the word MVABN.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
A method of, no, that's what they're missing here.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
They're ignoring the invention completely.

[00:07:12] Speaker 03:
Which invention?

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
The original invention?

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
The inventions, they're ignoring the inventions that are in those patents.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
All of those patents are two separate and distinct inventions.

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
A method of curing cancer or of treating cancer.

[00:07:26] Speaker 01:
That's one of the claims that are in these patents.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
It's a complex method of treating a cancer patient.

[00:07:34] Speaker 04:
So they're looking at the current application.

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
is recited in many of these simply in a dependent claim.

[00:07:43] Speaker 01:
The invention is not MVABN in any of these patents.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
These patents, the invention, if you look at what is the invention, it is something else.

[00:07:52] Speaker 01:
It's a method of treating cancer.

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
It's a... With this drug?

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
No, not necessarily.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
The focus of it is actually the proteins that are in there.

[00:08:01] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:08:03] Speaker 04:
But the patent expressly says, with MVA-BN.

[00:08:07] Speaker 01:
In a dependent claim, for example.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
Yes, that's not what the invention is.

[00:08:11] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, are dependent claims not part of your invention?

[00:08:13] Speaker 04:
I don't get it.

[00:08:13] Speaker 04:
What, dependent claims don't matter?

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
They do matter, but it doesn't, but if it's only in a dependent claim, it can't be the invention.

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
The invention has to be in the independent claim.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
You can't have an independent claim without the invention.

[00:08:26] Speaker 03:
So you're saying that obviously this double patenting only, we only look at independent claims and not dependent claims in our analysis?

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
Is that the rule that you think the board got wrong?

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
I think that's only a piece of it.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
I think it helps us look at what they're doing wrong.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
They're not looking at the invention as a whole.

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
And I think that really if you look at the case law in General Foods, I think that is the most applicable case here, you really get a good understanding of the kind of problem that they're having comparing.

[00:08:57] Speaker 01:
If you look at General Foods, General Foods has a process for making caffeine, which has steps A through H.

[00:09:10] Speaker 01:
Steps A and B are, are, yes, please.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
Ginsburg.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
To be sure I understand your argument.

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
You're not, you're arguing that the error was in the fundamentals of the examination, not in how it was treated after it was determined that the claims are not patentably distinct.

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
I think it, it occurs at two levels.

[00:09:34] Speaker 01:
I think they, they don't do the right comparison.

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
And I think that they're not, they're taking the, in order to compare the claim, the patented claim, to the claim to MVABN, they're ignoring the invention that's in the patents.

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
They're taking it out.

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
They're eviscerating the claim so that all they're left with is MVABN here, MVABN here, it's obviousness type double patenting.

[00:10:00] Speaker 02:
So if, for at least some of these rejections, we think that they were

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
in saying that those claims are not patentably distinct.

[00:10:11] Speaker 02:
Are you still, I didn't see the reliance on terminal disclaimer in those cases.

[00:10:20] Speaker 02:
Those were rejected for double patenting when they should have been rejected on objective grounds of obviousness?

[00:10:29] Speaker 01:
Again, it's impossible for any of those claims to be rejected for obviousness because MVABN

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
has priority back earlier than any of these other patents.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
The patent office has taken our initial invention, MVABN, taken these later inventions that occur six years later, method of curing cancer, reversed the time by six years, and said, now we do the analysis.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
The analysis should be done in the order of invention.

[00:11:04] Speaker 04:
When were the inventions made?

[00:11:06] Speaker 04:
two-way double patenting into this one-way double patenting case?

[00:11:09] Speaker 01:
I think it needs to be a one-way test, but I think you need to look at... I think the one-way test needs to take into account all the two-way stuff.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
It needs to look at the inventions in the order they were made.

[00:11:20] Speaker 01:
If you reverse the order of the inventions, it starts to not make sense anymore, especially when the first inventor, MVABN, was prior ART 102B against some of these later patents.

[00:11:36] Speaker 01:
How can now you eviscerate this later patent, take away everything, take away the invention, be left only with MVABN, where this, the original patent, which were now being, well, the original application, which was earlier, the original invention, which was earlier, how can that possibly, which is prior art against this later patent, how can you now reverse things and say, no, now it's obvious?

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
Again, it doesn't make any sense.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
It made sense in a post-GAT world.

[00:12:08] Speaker 01:
Let me tell you why it's just the equities that are very important here.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
It's an equitable doctrine.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
It serves really two reasons that have been enunciated well.

[00:12:18] Speaker 01:
One is to avoid the extension of time.

[00:12:22] Speaker 01:
And in a pre-GAT world, again, that was very simple.

[00:12:24] Speaker 01:
The patent issues, anything that issues later,

[00:12:27] Speaker 01:
extends the time.

[00:12:28] Speaker 04:
But I think Judge Newman hit the nail on the head with you have no terminal disclaimers here in these particular patents being cited by the PTO, do you?

[00:12:37] Speaker 01:
In these particular, no.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
There were 34 originally.

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
There was a substitution to your problem, isn't it?

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
You know, it's not obvious in this type of patent if there are terminal disclaimers here.

[00:12:46] Speaker 04:
But you didn't, weren't willing to file terminal disclaimers here for a particular reason.

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
Because there's two reasons to file a terminal disclaimer.

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
There's two equitable reasons.

[00:12:55] Speaker 01:
One reason is

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
to prevent this extension of time.

[00:13:00] Speaker 01:
That is not an issue.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
The Patent Office has not raised any issue that we're getting additional time out of this.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
In fact, we've already filed 10 terminal disclaimers to simplify the issues, which have fixed the date of the patent that's going to issue.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
We're not getting any patent term extension out of this.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
That's not an issue at all.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
The other possibility is this harassment issue.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
But all of the harassment

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
that we've read and everything cited by the PTO with respect to harassment, harassment has to do with claiming essentially the same invention.

[00:13:33] Speaker 01:
Here we have two separate and distinct inventions.

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
They're very far removed.

[00:13:37] Speaker 01:
They are not essentially the same invention.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
So there's no equitable reason to have a double patent rejection here.

[00:13:44] Speaker 01:
What is present, however, is the opposite, the inequity on Bavaria Nordic.

[00:13:50] Speaker 01:
Bavaria Nordic has in these patents

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
diverse different kinds of inventions that they have invested millions of dollars in trying to develop.

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
And now if a terminal disclaimer is filed, all of those, their entire portfolio is linked together and they can't try to sell off ownership or create new companies with pieces of it.

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
That's an unacceptable solution, file a terminal disclaimer.

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
Good morning, your honors, may I please support.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
I would first like to begin by addressing some of the arguments that Chaplain has raised as to the merits of the board's decision, and then conclude with the equities that are present here.

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
First, Chaplain argues that the PTO did not consider the invention as a whole.

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
What I think Chaplain is confusing here is that the board applied a one-way test here.

[00:14:55] Speaker 00:
And what the board did is it first construed the claims of the application at issue,

[00:15:00] Speaker 00:
and then construed the claims of the Bavarian Nordics issued claims.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
And in comparison those claims, the board found, and the examiner as well, found that there was no patentable distinction between claims to a particular product, here the MVA BNA virus, and claims to a method of using or producing that particular product.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
Now, I think Judge Moore mentioned the Ingram-Linardo case.

[00:15:23] Speaker 00:
I would just like to quickly address something in my brief.

[00:15:26] Speaker 00:
There's a correction I'd like to make on page 17.

[00:15:29] Speaker 00:
In the parenthetical to Leonardo, I would like to strike the N earlier and A later.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
And I think then that parenthetical is correct.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
And with the premise of that case, as well as the Pfizer v. Teva case, is that there is no patentable distinction between methods to a particular product and methods to acclaim to that product itself.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
Why shouldn't they then just be able to

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
raise their arguments that that was incorrect, that maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, in terms of whether there's a patentable distinction rather than the double patenting?

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
Well, so in finding that there was no patentable distinction between Chaplin's pending application and Bavarian Nordics issued claims, the board found that the pending application was directed to an MVA BNA product

[00:16:27] Speaker 00:
with particular characteristics.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
Chaplain does not contest that construction of that claim, of the pending claim.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
What Chaplain contests is the board's and the examiner's determination that the Bavarian Nordics issued claims are directed to methods of using and producing that same product, MVABN.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
Now Chaplain concedes that the dependent claims in these patents do recite MVABN.

[00:16:55] Speaker 00:
which is the same MVABN that's recited in Chaplin's pending application.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
Thus, the boards and the examiners finding that there was no patentable distinction between claims to a particular product and claims to methods of using that product was correct.

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
But if the relationship is such that the earlier is not citable against the later, then how can you have a rejection?

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
Well, this case is all about choices.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
And here the choices that Bavarian Nordic made are what results in this type of rejection being made.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
Here Bavarian Nordic chose to file a later application to the MVABN product itself.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
And because it chose to file a later application to that product, after it had already filed and received patents on methods of using and producing that product,

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
It's now the reason that this double patenting problem exists.

[00:17:52] Speaker 02:
They say that they aren't identical, that it's the evolution of the science and in the research.

[00:17:57] Speaker 02:
Let's accept that presence, that position for the point that I'm trying to understand.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
Well, if to the extent that they're asserting that the MVA BMA product is prior art and it was known back when the initial PCT application was filed,

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
What Bavarian Nordic should have done at that point was first file claims protecting that building block itself.

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
Bavarian Nordic concedes that MVABN is the building block here, that the current application, pending patent application is directed to that building block and it wants to protect that building block and that these earlier filed patents which have now issued to Bavarian Nordic are directed to claims that use that particular building block.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
So Bavarian Nordic concedes all this, and yet now it's arguing.

[00:18:49] Speaker 00:
What Bavarian Nordic is essentially arguing is that a two-way test should be applied here.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
But it's clear that a two-way test should not be applied.

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
Now, Chaplin's primary argument regarding the equities is that they argue that here there is no time-wise extension.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
of the claims because they have already terminally disclaimed the pending application against other patents it owns.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
But as Chaplain mentioned, there are two policies that underlie obviousness-type double patenting.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
First is to prevent the unjustified time-wise extension, but the second is to avoid the risk of harassment of an alleged infringer by multiple assignees.

[00:19:33] Speaker 00:
And Judge Newman, as you asked, here there is no terminal disclaimer that was filed.

[00:19:38] Speaker 02:
You will never get an alleged infringer.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
if you put artificial obstacles in the evolution of an important invention.

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
I had always thought that the office appreciated and that the law accommodated the policy of evolving research, particularly in such complex fields as we have here.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
But it sounds to me as if that

[00:20:10] Speaker 02:
would just end with the policy that's being implemented in this kind of rejection.

[00:20:16] Speaker 02:
I would think that one would attempt to accommodate the law as in the past to developments.

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
I think what your honor is pointing to is prior case law like Kaplan, where the court recognized that there might be

[00:20:32] Speaker 00:
certain improvements that are made later on that are patentable.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
And here in Chaplin's pending patent application, this simply isn't the case.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
In Chaplin's pending patent application, all they claim is an MVA BNA virus that has certain replication characteristics.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
Now, this is the same MVBNA virus that is the subject of the prior issued claims that Bavarian Nordic already has and that it filed for before it filed for this later pending application.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
So I think it might be helpful for your honor to actually look at one of the prior issued patents, if that would help, to determine whether or not what Bavarian Nordic previously sought patent protection for and has already issued claims on.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
I think one of the... Wouldn't what you're saying then work if the later application were just rejected on the ground of obviousness, rather than double patenting?

[00:21:28] Speaker 00:
No, because these applications are, or sorry, because Bavarian Nordic's prior issued patents are not 102E art, they're not available as prior art references, what they are available here for is for the obvious type double patenting rejection.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
And here when Bavarian Nordic, again, Bavarian Nordic made choices when prosecuting this application.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
It chose to file this application later in time

[00:21:58] Speaker 00:
And then it also chose not to file the terminal disclaimer.

[00:22:01] Speaker 00:
And the reason it chose not to file the terminal disclaimer, which Chaplain itself concedes, is because it did not want to be unduly restrained in being able to license that application or the prior patents that it already has issued.

[00:22:15] Speaker 00:
So I think that goes to the very heart as to why the patent office's rejection here is proper.

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
Because there is this risk of

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
of litigation harassment by multiple assignees.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
And here it's a very real risk because Bavarian Nordic intends to license these patents to different entities.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
Are there any further questions?

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:22:56] Speaker 01:
Your Honors, the PTO has said that Bavarian Nordic has made choices.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
Really, what the PTO is trying to do is eliminate any choices.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
Yes, Bavarian Nordic filed applications early to MVABN, received some, but they would like to get other patents on MVABN with slightly different language for infringement reasons, certainly.

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
What the PTO is doing is stifling the ability for Bavarian Nordic to make progress, to make new inventions later, completely different inventions, and still continue to develop these additional claims to protect their original subject matter.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
There is no fear of extending the patent term.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
All of them are fixed by their priority date.

[00:23:41] Speaker 01:
That's not changing anything.

[00:23:43] Speaker 01:
The later ones, they're completely different inventions.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
I mean, I think the talk about harassment is only applicable if you look at the case law in very narrow circumstances where there's two claims to almost the same thing.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
Clearly not the case here.

[00:23:57] Speaker 01:
I mean, simply overlap between two patents is not enough for harassment.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
That's simply domination that's been by this court has been made that it's clear that domination is not the same as double patenting.

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
Two patents can cover

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
some of the same Shubbick matter.

[00:24:15] Speaker 01:
The point is you can't cover essentially the same thing.

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
I think the other point that I'd like to make just goes to the case law with respect to what the Patent Office is doing.

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
They're taking a claim that may occur five, six, 15 years later, treating it as prior art to an earlier claim.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
This is MVABN.

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
This is a claim for curing cancer.

[00:24:35] Speaker 01:
They're removing the invention and using words in the claim as prior art.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
General Foods says you can't do that, Inray-Sarrett, Inray-Sutherland, Inray-Aldrich.

[00:24:47] Speaker 01:
All of them go to the same point.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
This is not, you can't do this.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
You can't just ignore what's in the claim.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
You have to look at the claim as a whole.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
Look at the invention.

[00:24:56] Speaker 01:
Compare the two inventions.

[00:24:58] Speaker 01:
And what you see in these cases, whether you go this way or this way, doesn't really matter.

[00:25:02] Speaker 01:
They're two completely different inventions.

[00:25:05] Speaker 01:
You can't take the invention out of this one to find that they're the same.

[00:25:09] Speaker 03:
We thank both sides.

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.

[00:25:12] Speaker 03:
That concludes our proceedings for this meeting.