[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
Councilor Sepolla, welcome back.

[00:00:05] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
And again, you reserve four minutes of your time for rebuttal.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
Here, the 613 patent, and we only have one claim at issue, claim 28.

[00:00:23] Speaker 02:
But the entire 613 patent is directed to a ZTR vehicle control system, zero turn vehicle control system.

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
that transmits drive signals parallel to the ground or the plane on which the vehicle is used.

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
And the disputed claim language states each integration link being movable in response to a speed input and configured to lie in a plane, and there's a colon after configured to, lie in a plane parallel to any flat surface on which a vehicle that incorporates a steering control system is used and transmit a drive signal

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
that is a product of any received steering input and any received speed input.

[00:01:03] Speaker 02:
And that those two elements, the line, the plane, and transmitted drive signal are offset and indented differently than the rest of the claim after that call.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
Why doesn't figure 14 support the board's conclusion?

[00:01:17] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, your honor.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
Why doesn't figure 14 support the board's conclusion?

[00:01:23] Speaker 02:
Why doesn't it?

[00:01:24] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
Figure 14 was

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
Uh, never discussed in the spec at all, at least the point, the part of figure 14, the slot, it was never mentioned.

[00:01:36] Speaker 02:
And, um, if you look at their expert, again, Mr. Smith, um, his expert, uh, declaration on this purported movement and you it's at appendix one 89, he has a drawing of this purported movement.

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
And if you look at it, it's minuscule.

[00:01:58] Speaker 02:
I don't even know if it's in the tolerance of the devices.

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
What's minuscule?

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
If you look at appendix 189, there's a little angle, I believe, if I've got the right page.

[00:02:17] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
That little angle that goes off to the left on that drawing is the movement that

[00:02:25] Speaker 02:
their expert contended happens, it's vertically.

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's minuscule.

[00:02:32] Speaker 02:
And the spec never even talks about that.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
Our expert put in other evidence that that movement need not occur either.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
I mean, the specification is silent as to that entire slot.

[00:02:48] Speaker 02:
And that could have been taken up with some slop in the device where it wouldn't move at all.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
Or there'd be play in the arms.

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
But they're expert.

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:02:57] Speaker 03:
That angle isn't essentially a geometric necessity because of the slightly curved shape of the slot where the screw is?

[00:03:08] Speaker 02:
It's not a necessity?

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
Our expert?

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
No, no.

[00:03:12] Speaker 03:
If you start and take as a given that you have this slot here that's slightly arc-shaped, then isn't the movement in some angle a necessity?

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
Following from that not that you couldn't have a different slot, but that on this slot isn't there going to be angular movement to whatever degree If there was no play built into the device or if there was no other Accommodation for a movement like you had some sliding arms that were like a telescope that took up that movement You know instead of it happening there

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
uh... yes i think it was all rigid it would move uh... our expert opine that is just as likely that it especially with its silence back in the overwhelming evidence to the contrary like there's twelve different statements how drive signal is provided in the plane uh... that their expert was really speculating that there'd be movement there

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
Just as easy as there's movement, there might not be any movement there as well.

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
So the whole thing boils down to here is the prior art that this whole patent talks about moving that drive signal in a plane.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
And there's no discussion of movement at all.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
They're expert extrapolated on this movement.

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
And the prior art Seabird reference, the only time it delivers a drive signal if you do it perpendicular directly opposite of almost all the entire language of the specification.

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
So the invalidity holding and finding the claim that broad, it's our position that in Ray Smith during IPRs under the BRI standard,

[00:05:23] Speaker 02:
cases came out later, and the Inray Smith case is one of them that said that you can't get too broad.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
You have to look at what is the invention pervasively described in the patent and not just try to make the patent as broad as possible untethered to that.

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
And here, I think it is untethered.

[00:05:45] Speaker 02:
I mean, we have an expert, which is extrinsic evidence, looking at the slot and speculating that there's some movement, minuscule movement,

[00:05:53] Speaker 02:
Whereas that minuscule movement, there's just as much evidence that there is no movement, and it's not even discussed in the patent, that the claim should be construed the way that we propose and not invalidated by a piece of prior art that is exactly the opposite.

[00:06:12] Speaker 02:
And that's it.

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
our entire argument.

[00:06:17] Speaker 02:
I'll sit down.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's a pretty simple case.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
I don't want to waste the court's time.

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
I mean... But can I ask you this?

[00:06:22] Speaker 03:
And I'm not going to formulate this terribly precisely.

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
So sometimes when we look at a specification and we want to know how firmly does that specification's description bind the meaning of the claim.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
we will ask some question of the following sort.

[00:06:49] Speaker 03:
Is this particular restriction that we're talking about central to what the spec overall communicates the inventors invented?

[00:07:03] Speaker 03:
Is it essential to, central to words like that, which are admittedly delicate words in the patent business?

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
Is this one of those that is, is there something about the invention?

[00:07:18] Speaker 03:
Here's what we discovered how to do that, that requires something like absolute only in the horizontal plane or, or is a little bit of wiggling in the vertical plane.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:07:33] Speaker 02:
Yeah, this patent and the, the, the invention, I would say the guts of it were that it moves only in that plane.

[00:07:42] Speaker 02:
and delivers that drive signal while it's in that plane because the whole guts of it and purpose of it is to save space in a riding lawnmower.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
So when you ride in the riding lawnmower, that can be underneath the rider, be in a plane and move instead of moving up and down, taking up space in the lawnmower.

[00:08:02] Speaker 02:
And that is definitely discussed in the specification.

[00:08:06] Speaker 02:
And that's why this claim was drafted that way.

[00:08:11] Speaker 04:
But does the specification go into maybe a slightly vertical why it would be that the horizontal would be better than a slightly vertical movement?

[00:08:24] Speaker 04:
How do you know?

[00:08:26] Speaker 04:
I understand your point about saving space, but there's no exact prohibition saying any bit of elevation is going to reduce that goal of saving space.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
No, I agree there is no exact prohibition

[00:08:41] Speaker 02:
can't move up a little bit or a minuscule amount in the specification.

[00:08:48] Speaker 02:
That's true.

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
But I think the more recent cases, like the Inrace Smith case, focus more on the central heart of the invention and the guts of the invention and trying to tether those claims to it, as opposed to having

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
forbidding something in order to limit a claim, some statement in there that there's no way this thing moves up at all.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
Some absolute prescription.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
I think the recent case law, that Henry Smith case, which I can give you a site here, it's at, well I have a Lexus site, Lexus 18526 at 1213

[00:09:42] Speaker 02:
It states an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention and the specification is more important than a prescription or a prohibition that limits the claim to interpret it.

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
So we rely on that case, Your Honor.

[00:10:04] Speaker 02:
I really don't have much more to say on this case.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
I think it's fairly straightforward.

[00:10:13] Speaker 01:
Councillor Warwick.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honours.

[00:10:21] Speaker 00:
May I please the court?

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
Judge Toronto, I'd like to begin with this question about whether the horizontal movement was central to the invention or key to the invention.

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
We would agree there are a lot of descriptions of horizontal movement.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
What's lacking is any sort of explanation for why it must be solely horizontal.

[00:10:42] Speaker 00:
And in fact, there is this express disclosure of vertical movement.

[00:10:46] Speaker 03:
And even though counsel seems to... And that's figure 14 by the express disclosure.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
Is that what you mean?

[00:10:51] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
And is figure 14, or that aspect of it, I should say, discussed in words in the specification or not?

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
No, not specifically.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
But it is undisputed, or at least was undisputed before the board, that that necessarily results in vertical movement.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
Council seems to equivocate a little bit today, but certainly even in the briefs to this court, it's undisputed that there is vertical movement.

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
So because of that, this isn't like the Smith case.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
In Smith, this court reminded the board that you don't just take the broadest possible interpretation and then look for an express disclaimer or anything that would narrow it in the spec and then just leave yourself with that broadest possible language.

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
It was a reminder that we have to interpret the claim language

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
in view of the disclosures.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
And we submit that it's actually MTD who runs afoul of that directive, because we have this explicit teaching of vertical movement.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
And in terms of the space saving benefit that was referenced, and going back to Your Honor Judge Stoll's question, space saving is referenced in the specification as a possible benefit.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
It's not necessarily claimed in all of the claims, and there's also no reason that a certain amount of vertical movement would avoid

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
that stated goal of space saving.

[00:12:15] Speaker 00:
Turning to Seberg, which is the prior art, I think it's important to note there's no dispute that Seberg has horizontal movement.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
It's just this question of whether there can also be vertical movement.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
And there's also a question in Seberg about whether it's truly horizontal when it's in the idle condition.

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
So first of all, the idle condition the board properly found

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
is the tractor or the lawnmower being in use.

[00:12:41] Speaker 00:
You could use a scoop, for example.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
The motors are running.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
And furthermore, it's not even clear that there's actually an in-use requirement in the claim.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
But in terms of whether the part is ever horizontal, it's not just that the links are horizontal in figure one of Seberg.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
It's also that the spec specifically says when the tractor is in operation,

[00:13:05] Speaker 00:
These links, the follower links, are in a horizontal position, which tells you that they're horizontal relative to the tractor that is presumably sitting on the ground.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
And I really don't know what other reasonable reading there could be of that horizontal term other than horizontal to the ground.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:13:26] Speaker 01:
What you were saying was horizontal to the tractor, but you're saying horizontal to the ground.

[00:13:34] Speaker 00:
Well, what I'm saying to be clear is it would be horizontally, if something is horizontal in the tractor, presumably that's referencing the relationship of the tractor to the ground.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
And that is actually consistent with MTD's own use of the term.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
If we look at MTD's 613 patent that's at issue, column 7 actually used the word horizontal to describe parallel with the ground.

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
And even more telling is that when MTD filed its preliminary patent owner response,

[00:14:04] Speaker 00:
They actually said, quote, well, that the seaborg links were, quote, in a plane parallel to the ground.

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
That's Appendix 728.

[00:14:13] Speaker 00:
And of course, they changed their position later on.

[00:14:16] Speaker 00:
But it just seems that there really can be no reasonable dispute that horizontal in that context means parallel to the ground.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
Unless your honors have any further questions?

[00:14:27] Speaker 01:
No, we thank you very much for your argument.

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
we have a little bit over a five minutes if you need the time but uh... just a couple of points your honor's uh... council stated that seaberg had horizontal movement uh... it doesn't when it's horizontal it doesn't deliver any drive signal it's in the idle couple words about seaberg i mean the claim does require that the uh... drive

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
the drive rods, the integration links be parallel to the plane upon which the vehicle is used.

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
There's no description of a vehicle or a plane upon which it is used in Seabird and therefore we submit that it's not a 102 reference.

[00:15:31] Speaker 02:
I mean they do use the word horizontal

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
Our preliminary brief before we had an expert involved back then was before the point where you could really use an expert.

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
We did use the word parallel to the ground at one point in the brief, but we used horizontal every other time when we were talking about it, and it was a mistake.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
But we submitted substantial expert declarations and testimony that this

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
Contraption in Seabird really could be mounted in any number of ways in a vehicle because it's not shown, the vehicle or the ground is not shown or the ground plane is shown in Seabird.

[00:16:16] Speaker 02:
And the word horizontal really was just used to refer how it is relative to all the other parts that are shown in the drawings.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
So we submit that there

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
Even if they get, and they already have their claim construction, even if the claim construction is not reversed, the Seberg is not an anticipating reference.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
We thank you.

[00:16:42] Speaker 01:
We thank the parties for the arguments.

[00:16:45] Speaker 01:
Next case is 17-2430.