[00:00:30] Speaker 00: it will hear argument in our next appeal eighteen dash one nine nine eight in rain fitting the headwear and apparel [00:01:00] Speaker 03: Thank you, and it may please the court. [00:01:03] Speaker 03: This appeal is about two issues, technological plane construction and fabricated art, both by the board, not the examiner. [00:01:13] Speaker 03: Before I address those issues, I do want to point out that I personally handled the re-examination in this case. [00:01:21] Speaker 03: And the reason I'm bringing that up will become apparent later. [00:01:24] Speaker 03: But I want to emphasize, I drafted the claim amendments [00:01:28] Speaker 03: view of cats I put together the arguments to distinguish those amended claims from cats I interfaced with the examiner and knew what she understood and also put together the appeal brief to the board and knew what issues were being the board was being asked to review [00:01:49] Speaker 03: I want to discuss what it was that we disputed with the examiner. [00:01:54] Speaker 03: Now, this case really is about a hood. [00:01:57] Speaker 03: And I think that term's pretty simple. [00:01:59] Speaker 03: We all know what a hood is. [00:02:01] Speaker 03: The claims themselves go into a lot of detail to make it crystal clear what the edge surface of a hood is. [00:02:09] Speaker 03: And that was done not in the re-examination, but in the original prosecution. [00:02:13] Speaker 03: The edge surface is what you think it would be, the edge where the hood transitions from the outer surface to the inner surface. [00:02:21] Speaker 03: It would be, if you're wearing the hood, the part that's in front of your face. [00:02:26] Speaker 03: The examiner understood the edge surface to be just that. [00:02:30] Speaker 03: In fact, she drew a picture, or she annotated a figure for us. [00:02:33] Speaker 03: Now originally, I put together an annotation of Katz's figure two, [00:02:39] Speaker 03: which showed that Katz had an edge surface, which is what the board called a leading edge. [00:02:48] Speaker 03: And the examiner then said, okay, I agree with that, but then said, you forgot about the attached edge surface. [00:02:58] Speaker 03: And she said that this dashed line in Katz's Figure 2 was the attached edge surface. [00:03:06] Speaker 03: Now, we disputed that because, well, quite frankly, Katz says absolutely nothing about the dashed line. [00:03:13] Speaker 03: And if you look at the figures, you'll see that there are many dashed lines. [00:03:17] Speaker 03: And I assume that those dashed lines represent stitching. [00:03:22] Speaker 03: Now, I emphasize I'm assuming that. [00:03:24] Speaker 03: I'm guessing, because Katz doesn't teach us. [00:03:27] Speaker 03: At the same time, the examiner was also assuming and guessing as to what that dashed line is. [00:03:32] Speaker 03: In other words, CATS doesn't anticipate these claims because CATS' dashed line can't be the edge surface. [00:03:42] Speaker 04: We've read the background, read your brief, and understand the interaction with the examiner. [00:03:49] Speaker 04: Moving forward, the board then took a different approach in its understanding of CATS, right? [00:03:56] Speaker 04: And identified a different edge surface in CATS [00:04:01] Speaker 04: So isn't that the analysis that we are supposed to, as an appellate court, be considering? [00:04:09] Speaker 04: And whether that's a correct analysis or not, whether substantial evidence supports the board's determination? [00:04:16] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:04:16] Speaker 03: Thank you for asking that question. [00:04:17] Speaker 03: And I'll move right to that right now. [00:04:19] Speaker 03: So the reason I brought up initially the background is that I want to emphasize that the board created an illogical claim construction for the first time in the decision on appeal. [00:04:30] Speaker 03: and fabricated art. [00:04:32] Speaker 03: And I emphasize art, not prior art. [00:04:33] Speaker 04: Can I ask you a question? [00:04:35] Speaker 04: My understanding is that if the board were to have entered a new ground of rejection and not identified it as such, that it would be incumbent on you to let the board know, hey, I think you've got a new ground of rejection. [00:04:51] Speaker 04: I want to have an opportunity for further prosecution. [00:04:55] Speaker 04: But that doesn't seem to be. [00:04:56] Speaker 04: It's one option that you had available to you. [00:05:00] Speaker 04: But you don't seem to be asking for that form of relief either. [00:05:04] Speaker 04: You didn't ask the board for that. [00:05:06] Speaker 04: And nor do you seem to be asking us for that form of relief. [00:05:09] Speaker 04: Do I understand that correctly? [00:05:11] Speaker 03: That is true. [00:05:12] Speaker 03: And I think it is an interesting question. [00:05:14] Speaker 03: Because is it a new grounds of rejection? [00:05:17] Speaker 03: They applied the exact same art to confirm the examiner. [00:05:23] Speaker 03: And they even made the argument that their position didn't disagree with the examiner. [00:05:28] Speaker 03: It didn't seem to make a lot of sense to say, to designate that as a new ground of rejection, because the board didn't say it was. [00:05:35] Speaker 04: Just for future reference, we do have some case law that talks about when things are new grounds of rejection and when they're not. [00:05:42] Speaker 04: I'm not saying that this is a new ground of rejection, because I didn't analyze that, because no one asked me to. [00:05:47] Speaker 04: But we do have some case law on that. [00:05:49] Speaker 04: And we have had cases where the board didn't identify something as a new ground of rejection, and then an appellant comes up here and asks for that form of relief, and we haven't granted it. [00:05:58] Speaker 04: But nonetheless, so it's not a new ground of rejection, but it is a different view of what the edge could be. [00:06:04] Speaker 04: Why is that view incorrect? [00:06:08] Speaker 03: Yeah, thank you for that. [00:06:11] Speaker 03: The reason why it's an illogical claim construction is, well, first of all, there's two ways to look at this, and I mentioned both of them. [00:06:20] Speaker 03: It's either an illogical claim construction or fabricated art, or both. [00:06:24] Speaker 04: I'm going to interrupt you again. [00:06:25] Speaker 04: I'm sorry. [00:06:25] Speaker 04: You keep on calling it a logical claim construction. [00:06:28] Speaker 04: But do you actually dispute the board's claim construction? [00:06:32] Speaker 04: Or do you dispute how the board has said that the claim reads on cats? [00:06:37] Speaker 04: It's a different question. [00:06:39] Speaker 03: It is. [00:06:39] Speaker 03: And I think the answer to that is that the only way to understand how the board construed the claims is by seeing how they applied the claims to cats. [00:06:50] Speaker 03: So what I mean by illogical is basically their claim construction is that the edge surface can be any arbitrary line on the outer surface of the hood. [00:07:01] Speaker 03: Because it's really indisputable that the zipper on Katz's hood is on the outside of the hood. [00:07:08] Speaker 03: There's really no dispute there. [00:07:10] Speaker 03: I believe the board even acknowledges that. [00:07:13] Speaker 00: My understanding of what the board is saying is that the zipper for the monkey's torso defines what you would call the back portion of the hood. [00:07:26] Speaker 00: But what the board is saying for purposes of this rejection defines an interior that can serve as a hood. [00:07:36] Speaker 00: The interior of the monkey. [00:07:38] Speaker 00: You wear the interior of the monkey on your head and that's a hood. [00:07:42] Speaker 00: Even though the cat's prior art reference also has what I'll call this extra flap that could extend out from the monkey's stomach so that you could use both that flap and the interior of the monkey together as a hood, right? [00:08:06] Speaker 00: So I'll call, like, you've got a hood. [00:08:08] Speaker 00: There's zone one of the hood and then zone two of the hood. [00:08:12] Speaker 00: And for you, both zone one and zone two are what Katz is talking about as being Katz's hood. [00:08:19] Speaker 00: And the board is just trying to say, well, zone one of the hood in Katz itself can serve as a hood. [00:08:25] Speaker 00: And so therefore, that limitation is met by Katz. [00:08:31] Speaker 00: And now the zipper is on that claimed edge that you're referring to. [00:08:39] Speaker 00: And the zipper itself is a fastener. [00:08:43] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:08:43] Speaker 03: And I think your analysis confirms why I'm saying it's illogical, and then also why I'm saying they've fabricated art to support that. [00:08:52] Speaker 00: But I guess your point must be that it's an unreasonable reading of cats. [00:08:59] Speaker 00: It lacks substantial evidence to say that the interior of the monkey can be the hood. [00:09:08] Speaker 03: Actually no, I let's step back and do the claim construction because the claims say that the edge surface defines The it it's and let me just read the claims. [00:09:20] Speaker 03: I'm sorry. [00:09:21] Speaker 03: Let me let me turn to them real quick So the way the claim has been defined we have the hood and [00:09:38] Speaker 03: There's an edge surface forming a continuous edge surface and defining an opening of the hood, the edge surface comprising an attached surface coupled to the perimeter of the blanket and a detached surface, the inner and edge surfaces of the hood further defining an interior volume of the hood. [00:09:57] Speaker 03: So the way that I characterize that is the edge is the point where you transition from being outside the hood to inside the hood, right? [00:10:08] Speaker 03: No matter how you look at cats, if you go from one side of the zipper to the other, you don't go inside to outside or vice versa. [00:10:17] Speaker 03: You're always on the outside of the hood. [00:10:19] Speaker 01: That's not a claim construction issue, though. [00:10:22] Speaker 01: It's an incidental issue. [00:10:24] Speaker 01: I mean, can you point any place in the board's decision where it construed the claim explicitly that you disagree with? [00:10:31] Speaker 01: You're talking about its application of that claim language to the prior art. [00:10:38] Speaker 03: I would say that they read limitations out of the claim. [00:10:41] Speaker 03: It views the prior art differently than you. [00:10:45] Speaker 03: Only because it read limitations out of the claim. [00:10:48] Speaker 04: So the limitation you're saying that specifically among perhaps others that was read out is defining an opening of the hood? [00:10:56] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:10:59] Speaker 03: The zipper does not define an opening of Katz's hood. [00:11:03] Speaker 03: And so the only way that they could have [00:11:06] Speaker 03: reach the conclusion that they reached is by ignoring that limitation. [00:11:13] Speaker 03: Or the other way to look at it is, OK, let's say you cut Katz's hood off, which I think is what the board is really saying here. [00:11:21] Speaker 03: They could take Katz, modify it by cutting the hood 14 off so that all you have is a monkey. [00:11:28] Speaker 03: And then they say, OK, there's your hood. [00:11:31] Speaker 03: OK, but that's fabricated art. [00:11:33] Speaker 03: That's not what Katz teaches. [00:11:36] Speaker 00: I guess, as I understand the board, they're saying that you can wear the monkey on your head, and just the monkey on your head, by tucking the front flap into the monkey's tummy. [00:11:50] Speaker 00: And now you can wear the monkey. [00:11:55] Speaker 03: OK. [00:11:55] Speaker 03: Even with that interpretation, it doesn't change the fact that the edge surface of Katz's hood is still there. [00:12:04] Speaker 03: You tucked it in, but it's still there. [00:12:07] Speaker 01: Yeah, but now the zipper, that part of the hood is no longer being used as a hood. [00:12:12] Speaker 01: The part that's being used as a hood is just the body of the monkey, and the zipper goes around all of that. [00:12:18] Speaker 00: So that defines the opening. [00:12:20] Speaker 01: You don't agree with this reading of cats, but to me this seems like a substantial evidence issue. [00:12:30] Speaker 01: if a reasonable person would conclude from looking at this that that's a Conclusion you could reach even if it's not one that you'd reach or I'd reach that's enough to affirm the board's decision isn't it I Would respectfully disagree because again the only way you get there is if the board Reads out limitations. [00:12:51] Speaker 01: I know can I really don't explain understand that argument at all the board has applied a a [00:12:58] Speaker 01: has applied the claim meaning to require a zipper around the outer edge of the hood. [00:13:05] Speaker 01: That's what you want, right? [00:13:07] Speaker 01: That's the claim construction you want. [00:13:11] Speaker 01: If the board has looked at Katz and said, [00:13:14] Speaker 01: You tuck hood 14 back in, and you're left still with a hood with a zipper around it, then that's the same construction. [00:13:23] Speaker 01: You disagree with the factual reading of this cat's reference. [00:13:30] Speaker 03: I think then that goes into the question of how do you construe hood? [00:13:34] Speaker 03: Because let's be clear, the monkey isn't the hood. [00:13:38] Speaker 03: The hood is the hood. [00:13:41] Speaker 01: Well, the board said, that's not a construction issue. [00:13:46] Speaker 01: That's a factual issue, whether the monkey is a hood or not. [00:13:51] Speaker 04: Do you agree that the monkey is part of the hood, at least? [00:13:54] Speaker 04: You say that the monkey is not the hood. [00:13:56] Speaker 04: I think it's maybe your position that the hood includes element 14 plus the portion 20 that constitutes the part of the monkey's body. [00:14:06] Speaker 04: I'm looking at figure one. [00:14:08] Speaker 03: Yeah. [00:14:10] Speaker 03: The cat says that the toy portion, the monkey, forms the back portion of the hood. [00:14:18] Speaker 04: So it at least includes, you agree that it's at least part of the hood. [00:14:24] Speaker 03: It's attached to the hood, yes. [00:14:25] Speaker 01: So if you've got a fussy kid that doesn't want something to come all the way over the top of his head, shoves the 14 part back into the body of the monkey but still pulls it up over, is that a hood or not? [00:14:40] Speaker 03: I don't know. [00:14:40] Speaker 03: CATS certainly doesn't teach us that. [00:14:43] Speaker 01: The board said you can do that with CATS, and that's still a hood. [00:14:48] Speaker 01: That's a factual finding. [00:14:50] Speaker 01: Is it supported by substantial evidence? [00:14:53] Speaker 01: Why wouldn't that be a hood? [00:14:54] Speaker 01: Isn't a hood something you pull up over your head? [00:14:58] Speaker 03: Even if it is a hood, the claim construction issue is, again, what's the edge surface? [00:15:05] Speaker 01: The edge surface has to be. [00:15:07] Speaker 01: And when you push the hood, the 14 part back, the edge surface in caps becomes the outside part of the thing that's being used for a hood, and it's got a zipper around it. [00:15:18] Speaker 03: Even when you push it back, it still doesn't find the interior volume of the hood. [00:15:22] Speaker 03: You just change the shape of the hood. [00:15:24] Speaker 01: I think that's all factual. [00:15:27] Speaker 00: OK, let's hear from the other side, and we'll reserve some time for you on the bottle. [00:15:39] Speaker 02: May it please the court? [00:15:40] Speaker 02: I think going to the issue of. [00:15:42] Speaker 01: I think your friend is saying, even if you push 14 back into the body of the thing, it's still part of the hood. [00:15:48] Speaker 01: And therefore, cats can't be invalidating art. [00:15:53] Speaker 01: And therefore, there's no substantial evidence. [00:15:56] Speaker 02: I agree that seems to be his position. [00:15:59] Speaker 02: But I think that what the board found was that the trunk of the monkey, item 20 or 21, going to the zipper without looking at 14 can still be a hood. [00:16:12] Speaker 02: And I think turning to the specification of the 5-4-4 pattern. [00:16:16] Speaker 00: It's a little bit of an uncomfortable thing for us, though, because Katz himself is describing what he regards as the hood. [00:16:26] Speaker 00: as being the combination of the monkey stomach and the forward flap that extends out of the monkey. [00:16:35] Speaker 00: And that whole thing is the hood. [00:16:37] Speaker 00: And then you can see it nicely illustrated in Katz's figures. [00:16:40] Speaker 00: So basically what the board is doing is essentially rejecting what Katz himself is describing as the hood. [00:16:49] Speaker 00: and looking at a component of what Katz describes as a hood, and identifying that, characterizing that component as being the hood, when really Katz himself would never contemplate that little section as being a hood. [00:17:06] Speaker 02: I think again it helps looking at the 544 patent specification to see how they talk about what a hood is if you look at I'm on appendix page 26 column 1 or around starting around line 42 It's talking about the attached hood having the opening defining an internal cavity where the blanket is stowed into the internal cavity to provide a stuffed toy and Then if you look at the next page appendix page 27 column 3 starting at line 65 [00:17:37] Speaker 02: says that hood generally comprises an opening defining an interior volume or interior cavity shaped and configured to receive a portion of the user's head. [00:17:46] Speaker 02: So if you look at those two passages what it tells you is that a hood has to have an opening or cavity to receive a portion of the user's head and it also tells you that the hood is the part where the blanket is stuffed into. [00:17:59] Speaker 02: Now if we go to turn to cats [00:18:01] Speaker 02: This is what the board was. [00:18:02] Speaker 00: The term blanket in this patent specification encompasses jackets, right? [00:18:06] Speaker 02: Correct, correct. [00:18:07] Speaker 02: So if you turn to cats, you look at item, the monkey going up to the zipper and stopping at the zipper, that has an opening or cavity designed to receive a portion of a user's head. [00:18:20] Speaker 02: And that's where the hooded sweatshirt is stuffed into. [00:18:26] Speaker 02: Therefore, it meets the requirements of a hood. [00:18:31] Speaker 04: Can I ask you something? [00:18:32] Speaker 04: Sure. [00:18:32] Speaker 04: You said something about an opening for the user's head. [00:18:36] Speaker 04: But I was reading the board's decision that the claim says it has a continuous edge service and that the edge surface defines an opening of the hood. [00:18:49] Speaker 04: And what I thought they were saying is that it doesn't have to be the opening for the head. [00:18:52] Speaker 04: It could be the opening for which you stuff. [00:18:56] Speaker 04: the material into the monkey, if that makes sense. [00:18:59] Speaker 04: There's nothing in the claim that says exactly what that opening, defining an opening, it doesn't say said opening or anything. [00:19:07] Speaker 04: It's just an opening of the hood. [00:19:11] Speaker 02: I think it's both. [00:19:11] Speaker 02: I mean, the specification just says that the hood has to define an opening to receive a portion of a user's head. [00:19:19] Speaker 02: It also has to define an opening to receive [00:19:23] Speaker 02: the blanket or sweatshirt. [00:19:25] Speaker 02: I think that the monkey up to the zipper does both of those. [00:19:29] Speaker 02: It's an opening that is designed to receive a portion of the user's head. [00:19:33] Speaker 04: Well, in looking at the board's analysis at page 8, it says specifically that the edge meets all the claim language and is the edge of the hood when it's in toy farm, i.e. [00:19:45] Speaker 04: it is the edge that defines an opening as you're cited by the claim and to which the garment is stuffed. [00:19:53] Speaker 02: And yeah, I mean, I think the board's not talking about the opening in terms of receiving the user's head, but it's talking about it more in receiving the blanket. [00:20:02] Speaker 02: But I mean, the hood still has to receive a portion of the user's head. [00:20:06] Speaker 02: I mean, it's still... [00:20:07] Speaker 02: we would acknowledge a requirement of a hood. [00:20:10] Speaker 02: That was just my point there. [00:20:11] Speaker 02: I'm not trying to say anything differently than what the board says. [00:20:15] Speaker 02: So I think that, you know, regardless of this item 14 and regardless of the fact that Katz calls it a hood, I think that what the board identified as the hood is sufficient to meet all the requirements of the 544 patent and the claim and that's sufficient to support. [00:20:32] Speaker 00: Well, the patent owner's arguments really revolve around this [00:20:38] Speaker 00: claim term edge surface and all of the requirements and relationships that are identified in the claim as to the edge surface. [00:20:46] Speaker 00: For example, the edge surface has to be interposed between an outer surface and inner surface of the hood. [00:20:55] Speaker 00: And when you look at the figure where a child is wearing this cat's hoodie, [00:21:09] Speaker 00: You don't see the zipper as being necessarily interposed between the inner surface and outer surface of the hood. [00:21:19] Speaker 02: I think two responses to that. [00:21:21] Speaker 02: The first is if you define the hood the way that the board defined it, [00:21:25] Speaker 02: then the zipper is the edge between the outer and inner surface, because what the hood is is just the trunk of the monkey up to the zipper. [00:21:34] Speaker 02: So the zipper is the edge between the outside and the inside. [00:21:40] Speaker 00: So I guess that's what I'm trying to understand. [00:21:41] Speaker 00: Do you think the board thought that the forward flap, once it's tucked into the interior of the monkey, then that flap portion defines [00:21:56] Speaker 00: the inner surface of the hood or do you think it's just that very material of the back portion of the hood it has an outer surface and then it has an inner surface and the inner surface of that single piece of material is the so-called inner surface as recited in this claim and then the flap is really something that's irrelevant to matching up the claim language to [00:22:25] Speaker 02: I think I think it's that second point where you're talking about that the flap is really irrelevant, but I mean that I acknowledge the board did Discuss a scenario where you can fold the flap in but if you look at appendix page 13 this is the board's rehearing decision it says regardless of the position of hood 14 is Essentially irrelevant to the claims because the hood is element 20 in cats which has its own interior and exterior I think that's that's the point [00:22:54] Speaker 02: the crux of the board's decision on that. [00:23:02] Speaker 02: There are no further questions. [00:23:08] Speaker 00: Is the zipper both the fastener and the edge surface? [00:23:13] Speaker 00: The board seemed to at times [00:23:17] Speaker 00: call out the zipper as being the edge surface. [00:23:19] Speaker 00: And I wasn't sure if that could be right, because the claim says a fastener that extends from the edge surface. [00:23:25] Speaker 02: I think that the zipper is mounted on the edge surface here. [00:23:29] Speaker 02: So the surface that includes the zipper is the edge surface. [00:23:33] Speaker 02: The zipper itself is the fastener. [00:23:36] Speaker 04: What about the board's interpretation on page 8 where they say, we do not interpret the claimed edge as necessarily being the leading edge? [00:23:47] Speaker 04: Is that supported by the plain claim language where, as Judge Chen pointed out, it has to be an edge surface interposed between the outer surface and the inner surface? [00:24:00] Speaker 02: There's nothing in the claim about leading edge. [00:24:03] Speaker 02: The word leading edge doesn't appear in the claim. [00:24:05] Speaker 02: And like I said before, I think that if you define the hood as the monkey up to the zipper, then that edge surface is interposed between the outer and inner part of that hood. [00:24:25] Speaker 00: Okay, thank you. [00:24:26] Speaker 03: Thank you I Want to take another look at the claims to emphasize again. [00:24:37] Speaker 03: This is a claim construction issue We pointed out that there are really six structural features of the edge surface and the one that we really haven't discussed yet is the edge surface includes both an attached surface and a detached surface and [00:24:54] Speaker 03: If under the board's construction, they don't identify what, they don't construe that at all. [00:25:00] Speaker 03: They clearly have ignored the attached edge surface because let's say, you know, using their fabricated version of cats, you're cutting the hood off and calling the monkey the hood. [00:25:12] Speaker 03: Well, where's the attached surface? [00:25:15] Speaker 00: Well, wouldn't the attached surface be where the zippers, where the zipper comes all the way down to, I guess, [00:25:23] Speaker 00: the neck of the hood and then the seam that goes around the back of the hood would be the attached surface? [00:25:34] Speaker 03: Well, number one, there is no seam. [00:25:37] Speaker 03: Number two, it's a continuous edge surface that defines the interior volume of the hood. [00:25:47] Speaker 03: No matter how you look at it, there's just no edge surface if you look at just the monkey. [00:25:54] Speaker 03: It really is just a monkey sewn to the hood. [00:25:58] Speaker 03: There's no extension that goes around the back that you could call the attached surface. [00:26:08] Speaker 03: Again, it's illogical. [00:26:10] Speaker 03: It's hard to even put your finger on what it is they were thinking. [00:26:14] Speaker 03: And here's where I'll go back to what the examiner was saying. [00:26:17] Speaker 03: The examiner understood it. [00:26:20] Speaker 03: She knew what the edge surface was. [00:26:21] Speaker 03: She drew a picture of it. [00:26:23] Speaker 03: The dispute was something entirely different. [00:26:25] Speaker 03: And then the board came up with this new fabricated version of cats to match their illogical claim construction. [00:26:35] Speaker 03: And it just doesn't make any sense. [00:26:36] Speaker 04: And the last thing I'll say is that if- You are talking about claim construction. [00:26:43] Speaker 04: And I understand your view is that I think what you're arguing is that it's a claim construction issue because you think that the only way they could have read these claims on cats the way they have is by adopting some sort of claim construction that's inconsistent with the claim. [00:26:56] Speaker 04: I think that's what you're saying. [00:26:58] Speaker 04: But- Yes. [00:27:00] Speaker 04: Is there something expressly in the board's opinion where it says something about what the claim means [00:27:07] Speaker 04: that you disagree with. [00:27:09] Speaker 04: For example, on page 8, where they say, we do not interpret the claimed edge as necessarily being the leading edge. [00:27:18] Speaker 04: Do you dispute that? [00:27:20] Speaker 04: Are there other places in the opinion where they say what the claims mean and you disagree? [00:27:25] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:27:26] Speaker 03: I think there really is no question whatsoever that what they call the leading edge is the detached surface of our claimed edge surface. [00:27:35] Speaker 03: That's exactly what we define in the claims. [00:27:39] Speaker 03: It's interposed between the inner and the outer surface and defines the interior volume. [00:27:45] Speaker 03: That's what the examiner understood. [00:27:49] Speaker 03: So yes, that has to be a claim construction issue because even though they didn't come right out and say, we're construing the edge surfaces as being anywhere on the outside of the hood, they didn't come out and say that, but that's clearly what they interpreted that language as. [00:28:05] Speaker 03: Because the only way they apply cats in the way they have is if they interpret it that way. [00:28:12] Speaker 03: So yes, the claim construction issue is that they ignored a number of limitations in the claims. [00:28:21] Speaker 03: And ignoring claim limitations is an unreasonable claim construction. [00:28:25] Speaker 03: The board has to consider every limitation of the claim. [00:28:29] Speaker 03: That's settled law. [00:28:36] Speaker 03: Got one more minute. [00:28:36] Speaker 03: And the last thing I'll say is the reason I brought up that the board shifted and created this different view of everything is that had we known that we're going to see this illogical claim construction and fabricated version of CATS during the re-examination, we could have thrown in additional claim language just to prevent it. [00:29:01] Speaker 03: We never had that opportunity. [00:29:03] Speaker 03: This was a different view of things. [00:29:06] Speaker 03: Now, whether or not we could have designated it as a new ground of rejection, I mean, is it a new ground of rejection? [00:29:12] Speaker 03: I don't know. [00:29:14] Speaker 03: But that doesn't change the fact that they used an improper claim construction to get the result. [00:29:19] Speaker 03: And on top of that, they fabricated this version of CATS that doesn't include a hood anymore. [00:29:26] Speaker 03: And so for both of those reasons, the decision should be reversed. [00:29:30] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:29:31] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:29:32] Speaker 00: The case is submitted.