[00:00:01] Speaker 04:
The next case for argument is 18, 1160, Mesa versus Apple.

[00:01:07] Speaker 04:
Okay, I think we're ready to go.

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
Mr. Evans.

[00:01:11] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
The Jersey invention here concerns a very straightforward idea.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
And that idea is that when you're at the pool, in a place of worship, any place where you might get separated a little bit from your cell phone, that you can put a vibrating device on your wrist.

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
And when you get phone calls and text messages, you'll know that you receive them.

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
They'll be displayed for you.

[00:01:36] Speaker 01:
and you can respond without having to pull out your cell phone.

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
Everybody puts cell phones in secure places.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
They put them in, leave them in purses.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
They leave them in coats.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
They leave them in pockets.

[00:01:47] Speaker 01:
This allows you to always be with your cell phone even though it's not immediately on you.

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
Every one of the connections between the cell phone and the watch in the Jersey Patent is a wireless connection.

[00:02:00] Speaker 01:
Every single one.

[00:02:02] Speaker 01:
There's nothing intervening.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
When you're at the pool, there's no cell tower in the deep end to make the connection.

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
It's just straight from the watch to the phone.

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
And it's that way for a purpose because you're not trying to go great distances.

[00:02:14] Speaker 01:
But it's always wireless.

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
Every disclosure is always wireless.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
In face of that, there's claim language that talks about the transmit and receive limitations.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
You have to transmit from the watch to the phone a telephone number and a text message.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
You have to transmit it with a transmitter in the watch

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
to a cell phone receiver in the phone.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
Transmit receive, transmit receive.

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
Dr. Shamus.

[00:02:39] Speaker 04:
Does that answer the question about whether or not it requires an indirect versus a direct?

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
It does, Your Honor.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Why?

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Because, as Dr. Shamus explained, this transmit receive relationship is a very close relationship without any intervening structures.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
What happened here?

[00:02:55] Speaker 04:
Well, I know there was testimony, but we've got substantial evidence review, at least on extrinsic evidence and expert testimony.

[00:03:02] Speaker 04:
And there was contrary testimony, too.

[00:03:04] Speaker 04:
I grant that one of your witnesses say what you said he said, but that doesn't end the inquiry for the board, right?

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
Well, this is claim construction, so it's de novo review.

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
But they're relying on expert testimony?

[00:03:19] Speaker 01:
I believe de novo review is de novo review.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
And where the board got in trouble is they used the word coupled.

[00:03:26] Speaker 01:
Instead of transmit and receive or a wireless connection, they used the word coupled directly or indirectly.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
They didn't make that word up.

[00:03:31] Speaker 04:
That word appears in the specification, right?

[00:03:33] Speaker 01:
It's in the specification, but it's not in the claim.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
Not in this claim element.

[00:03:37] Speaker 01:
It's in other claim elements.

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
It's not in this claim element.

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
And I submit that when you use it in one place and not another, you're trying to send a different meaning.

[00:03:44] Speaker 00:
You agreed to the construction of coupled to as allowing both a direct and an indirect connection.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
I agree with that with limits.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
In the power integrations case, the word coupled was actually in the claim element.

[00:03:56] Speaker 01:
And they tried to read it to say that any of the elements on a circuit were coupled to each other.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
In the federal circuit, this court said that was too broad.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
And so I submit that in this case with Acharya, where they're trying to take and to say that something is coupled when you have a wristwatch that is connected to a laptop that connects to

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
a proxy server that goes to the cloud, that goes to another proxy server, that goes to a gateway for the PSTN to IPR gateway, to a cell tower, to a phone, that you are far beyond anything you could characterize as within the scope of this claim.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
Even if the word coupled was there, you couldn't say those were coupled.

[00:04:36] Speaker 00:
Maybe that would be an indirect coupling, what you just described, but you're still directly or indirectly coupled.

[00:04:43] Speaker 00:
You agreed to that construction, and I don't see why we shouldn't adopt

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
or consider adopting that construction throughout this patent.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
The couple doesn't ever show up as a ward in the claim.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
The claim talks about transmitting to a receiver.

[00:05:00] Speaker 04:
And that begs the question, though, whether or not it's direct or indirect.

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
So generally, we will look at the specification to start to conclude as to whether or not there's a necessity to limit it.

[00:05:13] Speaker 04:
I mean, you're telling us you point to the abidance.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
Those are in the specification.

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
Those are what you point to to show that that means direct.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
Yes, because everything in this case is direct.

[00:05:24] Speaker 04:
The claims don't answer the question, right?

[00:05:27] Speaker 04:
I mean, the claims don't say direct.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
The claims don't say direct, but what I believe is true, what Dr. Shama said is true, is that when you have a transmit-receive relationship between a transmitter and a receiver, in the context of communications, that it is, in fact, an RF wireless connection.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
And that's all you see in this patent.

[00:05:46] Speaker 04:
But what about column four lines 12 through 15?

[00:05:53] Speaker 04:
That's one of the places, at least, where the word couple appears.

[00:05:58] Speaker 04:
It keeps showing up.

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
And coupled, as Judge Raina pointed out, you agree that coupled is connected directly or indirectly.

[00:06:13] Speaker 04:
That's the way we construe coupled, right?

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
But then it goes on to say, in an exemplary embodiment, maybe a wireless radio transmitter, a wireless CDMA transmitter, or a wireless Bluetooth transmitter.

[00:06:25] Speaker 01:
And then, alternatively, electronic transmitter may be any type of wireless electronic transmitter known in the art.

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
So it's constantly tying the word coupled in this context to wireless communications.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
But even if we said coupled in the claim, the power integrations case says, you can't have an unbounded coupling.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
The claim can't be that broad.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
In power integrations, they were trying to say that all of the different elements on a circuit board were coupled to each other.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
And this court said, no, no, no.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
That's too broad for coupled.

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
You can't say that they're all coupled.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
It's less than that.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
In this case, in Acharya, they're trying to say,

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
that it's coupling across an entire network with all the intervening processors.

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
So you're saying, even if we conclude that the claims cover indirect, indirect is not broad enough to cover the priority?

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
The word coupling, whether it's indirect.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
So then we're defining the definition term, right?

[00:07:21] Speaker 04:
So we're defining coupled as including indirect, and then we're defining indirect to mean.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
I think this is all incorrect, and this is all error.

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
I don't think coupled should be part of the definition because coupled is not used in the claim language.

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
Coupled is used in other claim elements.

[00:07:39] Speaker 01:
It's not used in this claim element.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
This claim element says transmit and receive.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say coupled.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
And so even if the patent disclosed something broader, the claim is narrower.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
But transmit and receive doesn't inherently mean direct either.

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
Well, when you talk about a transmitter that transmits and a receiver that receives, I believe in the context of a

[00:07:59] Speaker 01:
These kinds of, it's like a walkie talkie.

[00:08:02] Speaker 03:
You have a- Hi, if I'm talking on my cell phone to my mother, I am transmitting a message.

[00:08:08] Speaker 03:
It is going through a cell tower and a cell network and it's being received on my mother's cell phone.

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
It is transmitting and receiving.

[00:08:17] Speaker 03:
Isn't it?

[00:08:19] Speaker 03:
In the kind of plain language meaning of those terms?

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
Except that when you look at the specification- But you go back and forth between the plain language and the specification.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
The claim language clearly does not include direct, right?

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
It includes transmit and receive.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
It says transmit and receive.

[00:08:36] Speaker 03:
And we can't read direct in just from the plain meaning of those terms.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
We have to look elsewhere.

[00:08:43] Speaker 01:
I believe in this ARC unit that transmit and receive can note the wireless connection that we put forth in our proposed construction.

[00:08:51] Speaker 03:
But we only get there through reading the specification.

[00:08:56] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:08:57] Speaker 03:
But once we start reading the specification and look at the different ways they talk about devices and the like, and then the board looked at expert testimony, and frankly, you tell us we can't rely on that, but you keep talking about your expert.

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
I mean, if it's a battle between your expert and their expert, then we're bound to defer to their expert, aren't we?

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
But then you're still bound by the power integrations case that says that even if it said coupled, you can't read that overly expansively to reach all the way across analysis.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
Maybe not in that case.

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
over-expansively in distinction with what it says in the specification.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
If the specification provides for a really, really broad construction under BRI, and it's supported by the expert testimony, then you can read it as broad as the specification will support.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
But this specification does not read that broad.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
Yeah, but the expert on the other side says it does.

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
When you look at the two, Chauria versus this, I believe that

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
in the context of power integrations can't be read broadly.

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you this hypothetical.

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
Let's assume we don't find enough in the claim language or even in the specification to come up with the claim construction, and that we have to look to extrinsic evidence.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
And this is all hypothetical, but your expert has your meaning, their expert has their meaning.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
Aren't we bound to defer to that under Supreme Court precedent?

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
It's a substantial evidence question when we're talking about extrinsic evidence.

[00:10:30] Speaker 01:
I don't think you get to extrinsic evidence because I believe the specification is clear.

[00:10:33] Speaker 03:
You've got to answer my hypothetical, though.

[00:10:35] Speaker 03:
My hypothetical is we do get to extrinsic evidence.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
And if we have two pieces of competing extrinsic evidence and the board relied on one and not on yours, unless it's completely arbitrary, aren't we bound to defer under substantial evidence standard?

[00:10:49] Speaker 01:
Well, if that's all you're left with, yes.

[00:10:51] Speaker 01:
But I don't believe that's all you're left with.

[00:10:53] Speaker 04:
Why don't you, the clock's running, so why don't you move to, let's assume that we affirm the coin construction, including indirect.

[00:11:01] Speaker 04:
And where does that leave you on the anticipation?

[00:11:04] Speaker 01:
Well, I still think then, under the power integrations case, it's too broad and you can't find it anticipated because you can't, even with a coupled definition, you can't reach that far in the power integrations.

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
What limiting factor would you have us put on indirect based on the specification?

[00:11:22] Speaker 03:
If it doesn't have to be direct, if it can be indirect, how indirect can it be?

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
I don't believe it should be indirect.

[00:11:29] Speaker 01:
But if it's going to be indirect, it's going to be indirect.

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
The embodiments talk about very close distances between the watch and the phone.

[00:11:37] Speaker 01:
Not long, expansive distances across cell towers.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
Nothing require intervening proxy servers and heavy electronics.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
Well, give me an example of what a watch and a cell phone are probably still

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
physically proximate next to each other.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
They can be in the car or across the house.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
Well, what makes a difference than if it's going through a cell tower or if it's going through some other indirect means if it's the same simultaneous transmission?

[00:12:07] Speaker 01:
Because this invention works in remote areas where you might not want to spend all the battery power to have your cell phone, I'm sorry, to have your watch have to find a cell tower to get back to your watch or your iPhone.

[00:12:22] Speaker 03:
I don't understand where that is in the claim limitations or anything.

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
Well, my point is direct.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
What do you mean conceding?

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
I mean, we're not going to make you concede.

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
Assuming we read this as required indirect and direct, what would be an example of an indirect transmission and receipt as opposed to the walkie talkie like direct when you want us to apply?

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
I can't think of one short of a very complicated infrastructure that's clearly not disclosed in this patent specification.

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
So you think that there's nothing outside of direct?

[00:13:03] Speaker 01:
Not within the scope of this claim, no.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
So you're not going to answer the hypothetical that if we disagree with you on claim construction, you still win, because you can't come up with anything where you think it would be covered?

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
Well, I don't understand.

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
I mean, I'm not trying to play games.

[00:13:19] Speaker 03:
I don't understand.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
your construction of direct, what are we left with in terms of construing it as indirect?

[00:13:27] Speaker 03:
What would indirect include that still doesn't cover the reference?

[00:13:35] Speaker 01:
And I can't think of such a thing.

[00:13:37] Speaker 01:
And I didn't propose that construction.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
That's why I think the construction is wrong.

[00:13:40] Speaker 04:
I thought you were still making an argument that even under the thing construction that the board adopted, there would still be no anticipation.

[00:13:48] Speaker 01:
I say that because you can't use the word coupled.

[00:13:51] Speaker 01:
whether it's direct or indirect coupling, you can't use it to reach as far as they're trying to reach you when you look at the power integrations case.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
But let me ask you once again.

[00:13:58] Speaker 03:
We reject your claim construction that it has to be direct.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
We agree with the board's construction that indirect transmission is sufficient.

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
What's wrong with their anticipation finding then, apart from the claim construction issue?

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
What's wrong with their anticipation finding then is that the thing they're trying to link is

[00:14:22] Speaker 01:
is, well, for further reason... Is it not indirect transmission?

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
It is an indirect connection, I would agree with that.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
You're into your read-by.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
Okay, I'd like to hit a few more points, though.

[00:14:38] Speaker 01:
The other problem we have is that the word first electronic signal is used throughout the claims.

[00:14:42] Speaker 01:
The first electronic signal has to do a lot of things.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
What they did here, what the board did here, is the board picked between all the different signals that were in the

[00:14:51] Speaker 01:
Various embodiments.

[00:14:52] Speaker 01:
There were 25 embodiments in Acharya.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
And it selectively connected them.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
They don't appear there as a range in the claims.

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
And if you read the case of net money, net money involves several different protocols with differences.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
And all the elements were there, but they were in different protocols.

[00:15:11] Speaker 01:
And this court found that you can't, it has to be as a range in the claim.

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:
And so I believe net money case precludes them

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
What Apple says is that there's a unified first electronic signal.

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
Well, the board never said unified.

[00:15:27] Speaker 01:
They tried to take all these different signals, which were coming from different embodiments, and arranging them is in the claim with hindsight analysis.

[00:15:34] Speaker 01:
You can't do that on that money.

[00:15:36] Speaker 01:
Finally, I'd like to hit a little bit on Sweeney and Acharya on obviousness.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
There's no motivation combined.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
Their expert provided none.

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
Our expert provided extensive testimony about why there's no motivation combined.

[00:15:47] Speaker 01:
The simple aspects of Sweeney with a complicated

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
SIP infrastructure of Acharya.

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
Kinetic Concept says that when two devices work just fine, there's no reason to combine them.

[00:15:59] Speaker 01:
And the only thing the board found here is it repeated the arguments and then said, we agree with Apple.

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
It said they would be beneficial in places, but that is not a motivation to combine.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
That's not an explanation of why a person of ordinary skill and the art would combine these two devices that work perfectly well.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
I'd like to, at this point, reserve a must.

[00:16:19] Speaker 04:
Well, you've already used your time.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
Your Honors, may it please the Court?

[00:16:39] Speaker 04:
Could you help me out a little?

[00:16:41] Speaker 04:
We understand all the arguments.

[00:16:42] Speaker 04:
We've read all the briefs, but your friend

[00:16:44] Speaker 04:
repeatedly cited the case of power integrations as sort of encompassing everything, affirming everything he's saying here.

[00:16:53] Speaker 04:
And that's not cited in the briefs, I guess, because it's more recent.

[00:16:56] Speaker 04:
I don't know.

[00:16:56] Speaker 04:
So why don't you, if you could address the impact of the power integration.

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:17:01] Speaker 02:
I'm happy to.

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
On two different levels.

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
Number one, under the claim construction ruling itself, and number two, and I'll just hit this point really quickly, it doesn't matter because the board found the 6E and A

[00:17:14] Speaker 02:
eight claim limitations met, the transmit and receive limitations met, even under MAS's proposed construction.

[00:17:21] Speaker 02:
That said, going back to the Enri Power Integrations case, I believe that case did come out slightly after we filed our response brief, or shortly before it wasn't cited in our opening brief.

[00:17:31] Speaker 02:
But that case involved a coupled to limitation that really turned on the unique facts of the claim language and specification there.

[00:17:41] Speaker 02:
In that coupled to limitation,

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
required a digital analog converter coupled to this counter.

[00:17:48] Speaker 02:
And in addition, the counter had to cause the digital to analog converter to adjust the control input and vary the switching frequency.

[00:17:58] Speaker 02:
The prior art disclosed an intervening memory that severed this requisite control relationship.

[00:18:05] Speaker 02:
And so that was the problem in that case.

[00:18:07] Speaker 02:
We don't have anything like that here, number one, because the transmit received

[00:18:12] Speaker 02:
limitations don't have that cause language.

[00:18:16] Speaker 02:
It says transmit, transmit or configured to transmit or a signal received from the cell phone.

[00:18:23] Speaker 02:
And even based on that language, there's no suggestion that there's any intervening circuitry here that's somehow interrupting the signaling pathway.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
So either way, you have signals that are meeting that, those claim limitations.

[00:18:36] Speaker 02:
So this is just a different, different claims, different specification and word issue.

[00:18:41] Speaker 02:
in the Henry Power integrations case.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
We think this is more like the generic use of coupled to or connected to the cases we cited in our brief, the Douglas Dynamics and MEMS technology cases as it relates to the claim construction issue.

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
And the board, thank you for letting me get that off my mind first and foremost.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
The board, other than that, the board found the claims invalid here on five grounds.

[00:19:09] Speaker 02:
really two main grounds, which are independent of each other.

[00:19:12] Speaker 04:
In other words, if we agree with the board on anticipation, we don't reach the obvious.

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
Absolutely.

[00:19:18] Speaker 02:
This court can inform the board's final written decision on either ground.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
Either way, we don't think there's any legal error, and the board's decision and its findings are supported by substantial evidence.

[00:19:29] Speaker 04:
If we disagree with the claim construction, though, on direct, there's no argument made on anticipation, even if we construe the claims as requiring direct.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
The board alternatively found that even under MASA's proposed claim construction requiring the direct impaired connection theory, that actually only applies to the claim limitation 6E and 8.

[00:19:54] Speaker 02:
And the board found under that 6E limitation that that claim limitation was met even under direct, under MASA's direct impaired connection theory, specifically under, on page 22 of the board's decision.

[00:20:10] Speaker 02:
Although the cited sections of Acharya disclosed that in one embodiment, the laptop, well, I don't want to just read from the board's decision for you, but the paragraph in the middle of that page, even under patent owner's nearer reading of the claim, we determined that a posa reading Acharya would at once envision, et cetera, et cetera.

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
And that's the diagram you see in our red brief, that page.

[00:20:40] Speaker 02:
48 of our red brief that illustrates the board's finding there where you have this Direct here connection between the portable device and the cell phone in the bottom right hand corner That's the modification the board came up with so even under their proposed claim construction.

[00:20:55] Speaker 02:
They have that that argument doesn't hold water Turning first to anticipation or turning to anticipation of mosses same first electronic signal argument the board consistently cited to the same signal throughout the claims and

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
It's a signal that initiates a communication session.

[00:21:13] Speaker 02:
And one thing I wanted to highlight on that just to provide a little bit of background context is that it was undisputed before the PTAB that that first electronic signal was a SIPP invitation.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
And you see that in the boards, in the transcript of the PTAB hearing beginning at appendix page 0428, you see this dialogue between the court and MASF.

[00:21:35] Speaker 02:
about the meaning of the memory unit limitation, where Masa was arguing that a SIP invite is not enough.

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
It has to be a caller, a text message that's stored in memory.

[00:21:44] Speaker 02:
And in fact, in page 0431 of the appendix, Masa expressly takes the position that the first signal is an invite request.

[00:21:54] Speaker 02:
So they identified the invite request below.

[00:21:57] Speaker 02:
Really the only dispute with respect to the meaning of the first electronic signal below

[00:22:02] Speaker 02:
was with respect to the memory unit limitation, and that's where you see the need of a court's analysis on this issue in its final written decision with respect to the memory unit limitation.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
And the board found therein that, and also I would point out that the board recognized that the previous discussion leading up to that, it's clear that the board is recognizing that when you're initiating a session, you have this first electronic signal.

[00:22:32] Speaker 02:
So it was undisputed that the first electronic signal involved, at a minimum, a SIP invite.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
And in the board's final written decision, pages 15 to 16, the board agreed and said the claim does not limit the first electronic signal to an incoming caller text message.

[00:22:47] Speaker 02:
But even under MAS's proposed construction, you have this language in column 17 where this control message, the SIP invite, is also holding the media payload, which weds the SIP invite with the media payload.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
And so that was the finding up below, and we believe that was supported by substantial.

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
That's consistent in the limitations throughout reading the passages the board cites.

[00:23:13] Speaker 02:
Turning next to the obviousness grounds, the board provided reasoned, evident supported explanations, and clearly articulated the motivations to combine.

[00:23:24] Speaker 02:
The board relied on teachings from the references themselves.

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
They weighed both parties' expert testimony on that issue.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
and those findings are supported by substantial evidence.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
I'm happy to answer any other questions the court has.

[00:24:00] Speaker 01:
I'd just like to address two points.

[00:24:02] Speaker 01:
The first one is that the board expressly found, quote, this is at page 21, appendix page 21, we agree with petitioner that even under patent owner's narrow reading, Acharya discloses limitation.

[00:24:18] Speaker 01:
But then it goes on to say, Dr. Seamus is correct in stating that Acharya does not explicitly state that the portable device transmits a phone number and a text message directly to a paired cell phone

[00:24:30] Speaker 01:
using Bluetooth.

[00:24:31] Speaker 01:
It's not there.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
It's a missing element.

[00:24:33] Speaker 01:
And so when they go to this it-once-invision test, you can't find missing elements with the it-once-invision test.

[00:24:40] Speaker 01:
This is anticipation.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
The element has to be there.

[00:24:42] Speaker 01:
You can't just envision it.

[00:24:44] Speaker 01:
It has to be there.

[00:24:44] Speaker 01:
That's the NIDAC case.

[00:24:46] Speaker 01:
In NIDAC, they said that when there's a missing element, you can't find anticipation even if you had once envisioned it.

[00:24:55] Speaker 01:
You know, they say it's all agreed that there's this SIP invite signal is the first signal.

[00:24:59] Speaker 01:
That's not correct.

[00:25:01] Speaker 01:
We went through and we tracked the board's decision.

[00:25:03] Speaker 01:
We tracked the petition.

[00:25:04] Speaker 01:
And we tracked all the different signals that they tried to bring together.

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
And we put them in our opening brief in a table that spans pages 30 to 32 of our opening brief.

[00:25:13] Speaker 01:
And it points to all the different embodiments that they tried to combine that they now call the unified first electronic signal.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
And you can't do that under net money.

[00:25:23] Speaker 01:
And we show that because there's all these different signals from all these different embodies and picked and poked and selected.

[00:25:29] Speaker 01:
It's like the different protocols.

[00:25:30] Speaker 01:
You can't do that under anticipation.

[00:25:35] Speaker 01:
And then when you get the obviousness, obviously, we take the position that the board simply affirmed without explanation.

[00:25:43] Speaker 04:
Thank you.