[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
1793, Ignite USA versus Pacific Market International.

[00:00:51] Speaker 02:
Okay, Mr. Schantzel.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court

[00:01:22] Speaker 03:
The context of the 233 claims is important.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
The claims are directed to reducing or dissipating the pressure before it leaves the lid.

[00:01:33] Speaker 03:
The content of these claims and the context of these claims are directed to managing that pressure before it exits the lid.

[00:01:41] Speaker 03:
The Prior Art Albert reference considers sequential opening, what the parties have called pre-venting, where you first open the vent and then open the drink opening.

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
The chafing reference that is largely at issue here is directed to venting to provide a smooth flow of fluid and to isolating the spring assembly to protect it from fouling.

[00:02:05] Speaker 03:
Neither of those prior art patents addressed the problem that was being considered by Mr. Pannelli in the 233 patent.

[00:02:13] Speaker 03:
Neither of those patents managed the release of pressure before that pressure exits the lid.

[00:02:19] Speaker 03:
Claims are to be interpreted to correspond with what and how the inventor describes his invention.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
Part of the problem here is that the board and PMI took the claims out of that context.

[00:02:31] Speaker 03:
As a result, the board has applied an unreasonably broad interpretation of the terms in the claim.

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
Let's try to take these claims and compare them to this prior argument.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
And as I understand it, the board

[00:02:49] Speaker 02:
said that AA, DB, CC, and DT were all vent chambers, right?

[00:02:57] Speaker 03:
They all comprise the extent of the chafe and vent chamber, yes sir.

[00:03:00] Speaker 02:
Okay, let's assume for the moment that a vent chamber, that some or all of those are vent chambers.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
There are various claims in here which impose

[00:03:16] Speaker 02:
other requirements other than the presence of a vent chamber.

[00:03:22] Speaker 02:
And it would be helpful to me if you could address some of those.

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
I'd be happy to, Your Honor.

[00:03:30] Speaker 02:
And one of them is whether this requirement of having the trigger intrude into the vent chamber is satisfied by

[00:03:46] Speaker 02:
Because as I understand it, your theory is that the trigger of Chaffin only goes into area AA and that AA is not part of the vent chamber, correct?

[00:04:02] Speaker 02:
Yes, that is our position, Your Honor.

[00:04:03] Speaker 02:
Doesn't Chaffin also go, the trigger in Chaffin go into DD?

[00:04:10] Speaker 03:
I think not, Your Honor.

[00:04:11] Speaker 03:
That would only be the case if the valve head were considered part of the trigger.

[00:04:15] Speaker 03:
And why isn't it?

[00:04:17] Speaker 03:
Because the valve head is what is protecting the seal.

[00:04:19] Speaker 03:
It's serving as the vent seal rather than the trigger.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
In AA... How do I know that?

[00:04:25] Speaker 03:
How do I know that that's not part of the trigger?

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
Well, you know it because it is affecting the seal and the claim calls for there to be a vent seal.

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
Well, it could do both, couldn't it?

[00:04:38] Speaker 03:
It could.

[00:04:39] Speaker 03:
But in Chaffin, there's no concern with pressure

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
relief before that pressure gets to the exit.

[00:04:48] Speaker 03:
So that's not an issue in Chaffin.

[00:04:51] Speaker 03:
In Chaffin, that part AA that is behind the valve head in no way communicates with the flow of vapor that is being exited from the container out of the cabin.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
Well, that's your theory that AA isn't a vent chamber, right?

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
Yes, sir.

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
But if the valve head in Chaffin

[00:05:11] Speaker 02:
is going into area DD and DD is a vent chamber, then that requirement is satisfied, right?

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
Then DD and CC could potentially be considered the vent chamber.

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

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
But that's contrary to what the board found.

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
As you noted, the board found that AA, BB, and CC and DD were the extent of the chafing vent chamber.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
Okay, and if AA were not considered to be part of the vent chamber, because as you say, there's no possibility of STEAM getting into AA, what's the consequence for the board's decision if AA is not part of the vent chamber?

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
Let's look at that in the context of the claims, Your Honor.

[00:06:02] Speaker 03:
For example, Claim 23.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
Claim 23 calls for a second aperture providing fluid communication between the vent chamber and the trigger.

[00:06:18] Speaker 03:
That second aperture in the 233 patent is the hole through which the trigger extends.

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
So the trigger communicates with the vapor in our invention

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
And it could, if you will, in Chaffin's language, it could be fouled.

[00:06:36] Speaker 03:
It could get dirty as a result of being in the steam of the coffee or tea or whatever's there.

[00:06:42] Speaker 03:
That second aperture has to facilitate, I'm sorry, the second aperture providing fluid communication between the vent chamber, a space for lowering pressure, and the trigger.

[00:06:55] Speaker 03:
In Chaffin, AA would not constitute

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
a space between the vent chamber and the trigger.

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
It would not be that, it would not meet that second aperture limitation because AA would not be part of the vent chamber.

[00:07:10] Speaker 03:
It does not provide the pressure reduction requirement.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
Fluid communication in claim 23 refers to fluid communication between the vapor and the trigger.

[00:07:23] Speaker 03:
In chafing, it would only be between ambient air and the trigger.

[00:07:28] Speaker 03:
So claim 23 would be patentable.

[00:07:33] Speaker 03:
We can look at other claims to find where there was an improper, unreasonably broad interpretation adopted.

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
For example, Claim 2.

[00:07:44] Speaker 03:
Claim 2 calls for the vent seal to close access between the vent chamber and the cavity.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
Between the chamber and the cavity.

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
It's somewhat similar to Claim 21 and Claim 5.

[00:07:59] Speaker 02:
It does close, in chief, and it does close

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
access between the vent chamber and the cavity of BB is the vent chamber, right?

[00:08:11] Speaker 03:
I'm not certain I understand your question, Your Honor.

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
BB is a part of the vent chamber according to the board.

[00:08:18] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:08:18] Speaker 03:
But when that seal is closed, BB is always open to the cavity.

[00:08:27] Speaker 03:
That's part of our point.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
When BB is a part of the vent chamber,

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
then Chafin does not show closing off access to the cavity, because BB is a part of that.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, BB is a part of the chamber, so you're not closing off access to the chamber from the cavity.

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
OK, I understand what you're saying.

[00:08:52] Speaker 03:
And that differs, for example, their point.

[00:08:54] Speaker 03:
If you look at claim one, claim one calls for a vent seal operably closing the vent aperture from the cavity.

[00:09:03] Speaker 03:
The vent aperture is at the very top.

[00:09:05] Speaker 03:
That's the exit opening, if you will.

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
When we get down to claim two, we're not simply closing off the vent aperture.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
We're now closing off the chamber.

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
Now, claim one is not an issue.

[00:09:21] Speaker 03:
The parties didn't bring that one before.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
But in terms of how you interpret claim two, there's a difference between closing off the chamber and closing off the vent aperture.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
And Chaffin does not show closing off the vent chamber for the very reason you say, which is that portion BB is always accessible to the cavity.

[00:09:45] Speaker 03:
As to all of the claims, there is a third claim construction issue that needs to be addressed.

[00:09:51] Speaker 03:
And that's that the board ignored the functional limitation in vent chamber of requiring a space for lowering the pressure.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
Board's definition of vent chamber has a structural and a functional limitation.

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
The structural limitation is that there's a space having an entrance and an exit.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
The functional limitation is that space is for lowering pressure of the vapor.

[00:10:19] Speaker 03:
PMI's position is that anything that allows air to move in or out constitutes a vent chamber.

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
That takes us completely out of context.

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
It puts us in a situation, for example, where just a Starbucks lid with a slotted opening becomes a vent chamber because there's some thickness to the material.

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
There's an entrance and an exit, as they would say to the chamber.

[00:10:43] Speaker 03:
That's not what Mr. Panelli was trying to invent.

[00:10:46] Speaker 03:
That's not within the context of our claims.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
The board likewise lost sight of the context of the claims when it said, well, Chaffin has a venting operation.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
A venting operation does not lead to a chamber.

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
A venting operation is simply allowing pressure to exit the lid.

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
The board tried to fill in that gap by saying the person of ordinary skill would recognize that there's expansion, for example, into that area DB that you noticed, Judge, and that because the person of ordinary skill would be aware of PV equals NRT, the ideal gas law, that that would mean that small area of DB could, for example, serve as a vent chamber.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
But there's nothing in either Chafin or in the patent with which it's combined, Albert, that teaches or suggests the idea of having an area for actually managing the pressure.

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
Merely allowing pressure to vent through the valve chamber does not teach managing that pressure before it gets to the exit.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
This is proven in the context of Chafin.

[00:11:56] Speaker 03:
Chafin discusses three embodiments.

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
The second two embodiments, there's really no legitimate dispute in our mind that the second two embodiments merely show a passageway.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
They show a straight line tube where the valve head comes in and interrupts the flow.

[00:12:16] Speaker 03:
The first embodiment shows a jog.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
It shows, if you will, an elbow fitting of sorts, and the valve sits in that elbow fitting.

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
The first

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
embodiment, Chafin does call a vent chamber, but it's really functioning as a valve chamber.

[00:12:35] Speaker 03:
It simply receives the valve and prevents fluid from flowing out of it.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
I'm going to understand it.

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
Can I bring you back to claim 23 for just a moment?

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
Certainly.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
Providing fluid communication between the vent chamber and the trigger.

[00:12:48] Speaker 02:
If the trigger includes the valve head and DD is part of or is the vent chamber, why isn't

[00:12:59] Speaker 02:
satisfied because there's fluid communication between the vent chamber and the valve head.

[00:13:09] Speaker 03:
I don't know that I would refer to it, Your Honor, as fluid communication.

[00:13:12] Speaker 03:
The valve head would block the flow of vapor when the valve head was closed and when it's open.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
If the valve head is part of the trigger and then the steam is getting to that

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
part of the valve head, the outer surface of the valve head, right?

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
It would contact it, yes, sir.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
So, okay, it seems to me that's an argument as to why claim 23 would have been obvious, but then I still come back to this question of whether Chamber AA, if you're correct, that it's not part of the vent chamber, what the consequences are

[00:13:59] Speaker 02:
with respect to other claims.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
Aside from 23, what effect would that have on the analysis?

[00:14:12] Speaker 03:
What is shown by the board has, as to all the claims that are in dispute, Your Honor, the fact that the board has defined the term vent chamber so broadly as to include a space

[00:14:29] Speaker 03:
that does not participate in the reduction of pressure shows that the board has applied an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim language.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
The vent chamber in the vent chamber as it's called in Chaffin is a vent chamber in name only and as for the reason side of brief the name is not controlling.

[00:14:52] Speaker 03:
AA matters because if you include that as a part of your

[00:15:01] Speaker 03:
as a part of your definition of vent chamber, it shows that you have effectively read out the language that says the vent chamber is for the lowering of pressure.

[00:15:11] Speaker 03:
Because that section is not for the lowering of pressure.

[00:15:14] Speaker 03:
And when you get to claim 23, and the the thou had yes will certainly contact the pressure as it comes from this side to go up.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
But that portion that's behind that goes through, remember it's the second aperture under claim

[00:15:31] Speaker 03:
provides fluid communication between the vent chamber and the trigger.

[00:15:36] Speaker 03:
That second aperture is not providing any fluid communication between the vapor that's going on the other side of the valve and the trigger.

[00:15:51] Speaker 03:
And that's what's important here, is that the vapor is what was being pushed through.

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
I'm about to run out of time.

[00:15:58] Speaker 03:
Is this as to 15 minutes or as to 10?

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
If you want, I want you to save the rest of the time.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
We have two minutes.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
I would.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:16:12] Speaker 02:
Mr. Handel?

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
Yes, sir.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
May it please the court?

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
I have some problems with the board's suggestion that AA

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
is a vent chamber or part of the vent chamber because it seems to me it's pretty clear that the steam as opposed to the outside air is not getting into space AA.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
It's a very good question.

[00:16:41] Speaker 01:
Okay go ahead.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
Okay and the answer is simply that the specification of the 233 and the claims of the 233 do not require that the pressurized gas or steam from the container cavity have access to the

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
to that second aperture where the trigger goes in and out.

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
Well, that may be true.

[00:17:04] Speaker 02:
I mean, but the board did consider AA to be a vent chamber.

[00:17:08] Speaker 02:
It seems to me that's questionable.

[00:17:10] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:17:11] Speaker 01:
But the basis under which they concluded that AA was a vent chamber, was part of the vent chamber, is because number one, they deemed that the entire yellow highlighted area, which is

[00:17:27] Speaker 01:
figure 1050 located on page 24 of the appellant's brief.

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
Sections A, A, C, C, D, D, and B, B all constitute a vent chamber.

[00:17:38] Speaker 01:
And if you look at the agreed claim construction, and this is important because council was trying to take you away from what they agreed to is the claim construction.

[00:17:47] Speaker 01:
The claim construction is a space having an entrance and exit for lowering your pressure of vapor or gas.

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
It is not

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
spaces having entrance and exit for lowering a vapor or gas.

[00:18:01] Speaker 01:
So working in normal operation, our expert, Mr. Dahlgren, very clearly said that a person of ordinary skill would understand that the entire structure, all of the yellow, would be required vent chamber because where else would the valve head reciprocate?

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
Where else would the valve stem come into?

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
And if you look at the specification of the 233 patent, and this is what I think is the most intriguing part, the trigger in the 233 patent, and it's demonstrated in Figures 16, 17, and 18, has an area behind the trigger seal.

[00:18:52] Speaker 01:
Is the valve head part of the trigger?

[00:18:54] Speaker 01:
is the valve head part of the trigger.

[00:18:56] Speaker 01:
Yes, it is.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
It is.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
And their expert, Mr. Angle, did agree that, I'll tell you where, Appendix 2639 to 2640.

[00:19:10] Speaker 01:
And we noted it in our... Which volume is this?

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
This is Appendix 2639 to 2640.

[00:19:20] Speaker 01:
Yeah, but which volume?

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
Oh, I don't know which volume you have, but it's also in our reply.

[00:19:27] Speaker 02:
The summit for you.

[00:19:30] Speaker 02:
Wait a minute.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
2639.

[00:19:35] Speaker 02:
OK, that's in volume three, I guess.

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
2639.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
It's probably toward the back, so it'll probably be later in your collection.

[00:19:50] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
It's his deposition testimony, pages 117, lines 20 to 23.

[00:19:56] Speaker 01:
He admitted that those structures, the valve head 56, valve stem, and helical spring 57 and 58, would at times be in the Schaffen vent chamber, which would indicate portions AA and DD.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
That was his testimony.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
And the board gave credit to that.

[00:20:16] Speaker 01:
Not only that, the board gave credit to Mr. Dahlgren, our expert.

[00:20:21] Speaker 01:
who very clearly indicated that portion A would have to be part of the vent chamber because it is where the head would reciprocate into in order for there to be ordinary operation of that vent chamber.

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
What council, what IGNITE is proposing, and they did this below to the board, was that you should look at each of these portions

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
of this unitary structure and hold up the construction for every single portion and test it to see if it's vented.

[00:21:02] Speaker 02:
Okay, but so what happens if we were to conclude that AA is not properly part of the vent chamber?

[00:21:09] Speaker 01:
Okay, well, under that hypothetical, then I still think you meet the limitations for all of the claims except for potentially one.

[00:21:18] Speaker 01:
And that's number 23.

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
which would be the second aperture where the valve stem, the second aperture where the valve stem of the trigger protrudes into the vent chamber.

[00:21:31] Speaker 02:
Well, wait, does it say valve stem N23?

[00:21:34] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:21:36] Speaker 02:
The trigger.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
Yeah, but it doesn't have to be the valve stem if the valve has its part of the trigger.

[00:21:44] Speaker 01:
Well, that's true.

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
But I'm interpreting the valve stem 57

[00:21:50] Speaker 01:
and the helical spring 58 to be part of the trigger.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
And so when you look at the valve head, I think you should also consider the valve stem 57 and the spring 58 as part of the trigger in Schaffen.

[00:22:05] Speaker 01:
But I disagree that portion AA is not a part of the vent chamber.

[00:22:12] Speaker 01:
That would essentially be looking at this claim as

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
a patent for an automobile for passengers to ride in.

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
And then deeming that the glove compartment in the passenger compartment is not part of the claim because passengers don't ride in the glove compartment.

[00:22:40] Speaker 01:
It's part of the operation of the totality of the system and the claim.

[00:22:46] Speaker 01:
And one skilled in the art, as Mr. Dahlgren testified,

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
understand that portion AA, along with all the other portions, would constitute part, would be encompassed by the vent chamber.

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
And the board actually used that terminology.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
They, in looking and considering the extent of the vent chamber, they concluded on page 21 that the

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
Vent chamber 27 readily conveys that portions AA and DD are encompassed by vent chamber 27.

[00:23:27] Speaker 01:
And they relied on testimony from our expert.

[00:23:35] Speaker 01:
So it would be inappropriate on a number of levels to not accord AA vent chamber status.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
Most important is

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
that it would contravene the parties agreed construction.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
Well, the construction is a space having an entrance and an exit for lowering the pressure of vapor or gas.

[00:24:05] Speaker 01:
It is not spaces in which each space has an entrance and an exit for the lowering of vapor or gas.

[00:24:16] Speaker 01:
Ignite is suggesting a different construction.

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
They allude to the board over applying the agreed construction.

[00:24:27] Speaker 01:
They suggest de novo review, but there's no de novo review here because the construction was agreed.

[00:24:35] Speaker 01:
If you agree with counsel, and we've battled a lot, he's a great guy, but I don't agree with him on that point, that you should look at each portion and test whether each portion

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
meets the agreed construction.

[00:24:51] Speaker 01:
That's the difficulty we have.

[00:24:53] Speaker 01:
If you adhere to the agreement, the stipulations of parties, then you have to look at, as the board below did, at the entire structure, AA through DD, as the vent chamber, because it has an entrance and an exit, and because it's an area, when the head reciprocates, it performs a lowering of pressure.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
I might also point out that the specification of the 233 does not describe how big the chamber has to be.

[00:25:30] Speaker 01:
The specification of the 233 does not talk about reducing pressure.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
The only allusion to pressure in the specification is to avoid a chimney effect.

[00:25:42] Speaker 01:
But there's no discussion as to what that means.

[00:25:45] Speaker 01:
And it only discusses chimney effect in connection with

[00:25:49] Speaker 01:
some dimensional differences between the exhaust tube and the chamber itself.

[00:25:56] Speaker 01:
So to read the limitation that counsel suggests would be to import limitations into the claims of this patent.

[00:26:06] Speaker 01:
And that is impermissible, as this Court has said in Continental Circuits v. Intel earlier this month.

[00:26:17] Speaker 01:
If you look at the claims of the 233, none of the claims talk about reducing pressure from the cavity where the liquids are.

[00:26:31] Speaker 01:
6, 5, 6, and 21 talk about releasing pressure through the vent aperture.

[00:26:39] Speaker 01:
That is different than what counsel is suggesting.

[00:26:43] Speaker 01:
There is no claim that requires that area

[00:26:46] Speaker 01:
or portion AAA be a standalone area, portion, within which you have to apply the test of benching.

[00:26:59] Speaker 01:
Do you have any questions?

[00:27:01] Speaker 01:
Anybody?

[00:27:02] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:27:03] Speaker 01:
Hope I'm not boring everybody.

[00:27:06] Speaker 01:
I'd like to touch on just a couple other things, if you don't mind.

[00:27:11] Speaker 01:
The court, I think,

[00:27:17] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, you raised the issue about the trigger in Chaffin partially sent through the vent chamber, claims 5 and 22.

[00:27:24] Speaker 01:
Here, you are right, the trigger in Chaffin describes valve stem 57, helical spring 58, valve head 56, dimension to project into vent chamber 27.

[00:27:38] Speaker 01:
I want to point out that our expert at

[00:27:44] Speaker 01:
appendix 2497 to 2498, he testified that portion in his view, which is substantial evidence, and it's a substantial evidence test here, that portion AA of vent chamber 27, while portion AA is part of the vent chamber 27 of Chaffin, it does not provide a volume within which gas vapor expansion occurs, since fluid flow to portion AA is prevented by the valve head.

[00:28:12] Speaker 01:
However, and this is

[00:28:14] Speaker 01:
the point that you were trying to make.

[00:28:17] Speaker 01:
However, I do not believe that would cause a person of ordinary skill to understand that portion AA is not a part of the elongated vent chamber 27 and the vent chamber of the 233 patent.

[00:28:33] Speaker 01:
So he addressed that, and the board considered it.

[00:28:37] Speaker 02:
And why would he say that AA is part of the vent chamber if it can't accomplish venting?

[00:28:44] Speaker 01:
The claim doesn't require venting in chamber AA.

[00:28:49] Speaker 02:
It doesn't require venting in a vent chamber?

[00:28:51] Speaker 02:
Pardon me?

[00:28:52] Speaker 02:
It doesn't require venting in a vent chamber?

[00:28:54] Speaker 02:
Oh, no, no, no.

[00:28:55] Speaker 01:
Portion AA is not a vent chamber.

[00:28:59] Speaker 01:
Portion AA is part of the greater vent chamber.

[00:29:03] Speaker 01:
The point here is if you parse these different portions, this is what council wants you to do, parse these portions and apply

[00:29:13] Speaker 01:
the claim construction of vent chamber, but it's not vent chamber.

[00:29:16] Speaker 01:
It's part of an integral unitary system.

[00:29:21] Speaker 01:
All of the vent chambers, the area highlighted in yellow.

[00:29:24] Speaker 01:
You can't just look at one portion and say, that's vent chamber, that's not vent chamber.

[00:29:29] Speaker 01:
It serves the function.

[00:29:32] Speaker 01:
Similarly, the 233 has a similar, the 233 wouldn't stand up to the construction that the council is suggesting.

[00:29:40] Speaker 01:
Because in the trigger of the 233,

[00:29:44] Speaker 01:
The trigger seals, as they're reciprocated in, leave an area to the outside, which would be AA.

[00:29:56] Speaker 01:
And no vapor communication, no fluid communication occurs to that outside area either.

[00:30:01] Speaker 01:
It would be an inconsistent reading with their own specification to accept the proposition that portion AA is not vent chamber.

[00:30:12] Speaker 01:
If you don't have any other questions, you have my time.

[00:30:16] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:30:17] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Handel.

[00:30:18] Speaker 02:
Thank you, sir.

[00:30:20] Speaker 02:
Mr. Schwartzley, you have two minutes.

[00:30:30] Speaker 03:
If I may, Your Honor, I'd like to return to your question as to how do you know about the valve head and whether it's part of the trigger.

[00:30:37] Speaker 03:
If you look at Appendix Page 1527, which is their petition

[00:30:42] Speaker 03:
Which volume is this?

[00:30:44] Speaker 03:
Volume 1.

[00:30:49] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, volume 2.

[00:30:53] Speaker 03:
I apologize.

[00:31:00] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:31:00] Speaker 03:
Page 1527.

[00:31:08] Speaker 03:
In the petition, they mapped the elements.

[00:31:12] Speaker 03:
The elements that they mapped as the trigger, as you see at the middle of the page, is the actuator unit 14, actuator element 50, and element 51, actuator rod 152.

[00:31:25] Speaker 03:
Those are parts of chafing.

[00:31:29] Speaker 03:
They do not include the valve head.

[00:31:31] Speaker 02:
When you look at the next... Where's the figure to which this refers?

[00:31:35] Speaker 03:
That would refer to figures, for example, 12, 11, or 12 of the chafing pattern, Your Honor.

[00:31:41] Speaker 02:
Where do we find that?

[00:31:42] Speaker 03:
What page?

[00:31:44] Speaker 03:
It would be in volume 1.

[00:31:45] Speaker 03:
172, appendix 172.

[00:32:07] Speaker 03:
So in particular, you could turn, for example, over to figure 9 on 175.

[00:32:14] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:32:15] Speaker 03:
That would be the actuator 150.

[00:32:23] Speaker 03:
But on that same page, Your Honor, the first that we talked about at 1527, I think it's important to note that the vent seal is identified as the valve head.

[00:32:35] Speaker 03:
It's not mapped as a part of the trigger.

[00:32:37] Speaker 02:
Well, it could be both, but... But I think they're conf... I'm sorry, Your Honor.

[00:32:43] Speaker 02:
I'm not seeing these numbers in Figure 9.

[00:32:46] Speaker 02:
I'm not seeing 14, 50.

[00:32:49] Speaker 03:
That would be in a different embodiment.

[00:32:54] Speaker 03:
50, for example, if you look at Figure 6, Your Honor, you would see the T-shaped trigger of the first embodiment.

[00:33:00] Speaker 03:
50 referring to the, if you will, the top of the T in Figure 6.

[00:33:11] Speaker 02:
Where does the valve head have a different number?

[00:33:15] Speaker 02:
That's, I guess, what I'm looking for.

[00:33:17] Speaker 03:
The valve head numbers in Figure 6, Your Honor, would be, for example, Figure 55.

[00:33:22] Speaker 03:
Item 55.

[00:33:24] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:33:29] Speaker 03:
But I believe that the petition is what defines the scope of their claim, Your Honor, and that's what we responded to.

[00:33:36] Speaker 03:
They have got to make the argument, for example, that the valve head would be both.

[00:33:40] Speaker 03:
And that's not how they mapped it.

[00:33:43] Speaker 03:
The second point that I would make is that as you saw that T-shaped trigger arm where the valves come back this way, if we were to split that bar and to try and put this lost motion in it so that it would first pass a space so that things didn't happen automatically, all you're doing on that T-shape is you're now on that T-shaped actuator

[00:34:07] Speaker 03:
You're still moving those two valve heads simultaneously.

[00:34:11] Speaker 03:
You're not creating sequential opening.

[00:34:14] Speaker 03:
There's not substantial evidence to show the mapping of that version in Figure 6 with the Albert reference to get lost motion.

[00:34:24] Speaker 03:
There's not substantial evidence for that position in the record.

[00:34:28] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:34:28] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:34:28] Speaker 03:
I think we're out of time.

[00:34:29] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:34:30] Speaker 03:
Thank both counsel.

[00:34:31] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.

[00:34:32] Speaker 03:
That concludes our session for this