[00:00:01] Speaker 04:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is now open and in session.

[00:00:06] Speaker 04:
God save the United States and this honorable court.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you, and good morning, everyone.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
The first argue case this morning is number 191498, Walleye Technologies Company against Iancu.

[00:00:22] Speaker 03:
Mr. Love, proceed.

[00:00:25] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:26] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:00:28] Speaker 04:
The TTAB's decision should be reversed because the board misapplied the law of obviousness, failing to recognize that identification of a previously unseen problem and providing a solution to that problem is not obvious and inventive.

[00:00:42] Speaker 04:
By assigning no value to the inventor's discovery of the problem and mechanically concluding that since some elements of the solution were in various prior art documents, the claims must be obvious, the board committed legal error.

[00:00:54] Speaker 04:
Donnie He, the inventor, recognized and solved a problem no one else saw while the LTE standard was being developed.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
And this was the problem.

[00:01:03] Speaker 04:
Under the draft security standard, reflected in a document called TR33821, when a user device moved between networks, the first network sent the device's security capabilities to the second network.

[00:01:19] Speaker 04:
that Mr. Hug realized that would cause problems when a device moved in idle mode from a non-LTE network to an LTE network.

[00:01:28] Speaker 04:
So he proposed a solution.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
Have the device itself, not the first network, send its security capabilities to the second LTE network, and that solution is captured in the 848 patent.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
The record here, though, is clear.

[00:01:41] Speaker 04:
Skilled artisans did not see that problem, even when considering the specific prior audit issue.

[00:01:47] Speaker 04:
And they did not see the solution in that prior art either.

[00:01:50] Speaker 04:
In fact, when Mr. He proposed to modify TR itself, the key prior art reference here, to create the claimed invention, the engineers reacted with skepticism.

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
They asked him for further explanations.

[00:02:03] Speaker 04:
They could not understand why the change he proposed was needed, even after his second submission.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
And the board... Counsel, this is Judge Lurie.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
You're approaching this as if you were starting from scratch.

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
But we have a decision here.

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
And the standard is substantial evidence concerning what these two close references disclose and whether there was a motivation to combine them.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
So we're not starting from scratch.

[00:02:35] Speaker 02:
We have a decision to which we have to give deference.

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
Correct, Your Honor, although there's several issues here, some of which are legal issues concerning the obviousness analysis that the board performed.

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
And the board here, first of all, there's a lack of any identified motivation to combine the specific elements of TR to create the claimed invention.

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
To be sure, there are additional errors the board made, which are issues of substantial evidence, but a number of those issues

[00:03:09] Speaker 04:
specifically the nexus error that the board committed are ones that the director really offers no defense of on appeal.

[00:03:18] Speaker 04:
So while I absolutely agree for certain elements of this, the review is deferential where the board made an error and the director's not defending it.

[00:03:27] Speaker 04:
Substantial evidence review is certainly not toothless.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
And those errors absolutely merit at a minimum a remand.

[00:03:37] Speaker 04:
And specifically to address the lack of motivation here, what TR describes, TR describes multiple two network scenarios, which includes LTE to LTE idle mode mobility and active mode handover between LTE and non-LTE networks.

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
Those are two network scenarios, and in all of them, the old network node sends the device's security capabilities to the new network node.

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
The setting of the patent is another two network problem.

[00:04:04] Speaker 04:
and one of skill, looking at TR, would look to the two network solutions.

[00:04:09] Speaker 04:
There's no evidence that anyone other than Mr. Hood, the inventor, recognized that those solutions may not work.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
The one network- Mr. Love?

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
Excuse me, this is Judge Shaw here.

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
You said earlier that the problem, and correct me if I'm wrong, please, that the problem had never been recognized, but really, if you look at the two references here, TR33.821,

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
And I guess it's TR or TS, the other one?

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
TS.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
TS23.401.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
When you look at those together, doesn't the possibility of the problem really emerge from when you see what was already on the table?

[00:04:52] Speaker 04:
You could imagine that the possibility of the problem might be, Your Honor, but there isn't any specific identification of the problem until Mr. Ho's first submission to the engineers of 3GPP in October of 2007.

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
He identified the specific problem and proposed a solution to address it.

[00:05:10] Speaker 04:
And they did not understand his identification of the problem.

[00:05:14] Speaker 04:
They asked for a further explanation.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
When he gave that further explanation, they then questioned whether his solution, having the device and the capabilities, was really needed at all.

[00:05:24] Speaker 04:
And they continued to cling to the idea that it should be done the same way all the other two network scenarios in TR were done, which would be old.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
Excuse me.

[00:05:34] Speaker 01:
Didn't the group, as I read the record, and please correct me if I have it wrong,

[00:05:39] Speaker 01:
But didn't the group come back and on several occasions ask him for more information or more explanation?

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
I didn't see it as a sort of, oh, this isn't something we need or anything like that.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
They seem to be saying, give us a little more information so we can understand it better.

[00:05:59] Speaker 04:
So, Your Honor, there are two key responses from the engineers.

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
The first one, which came from the October 2007 meeting, was articulated as a request for more rationale.

[00:06:10] Speaker 04:
Now, his first submission, which is in the record at appendix 2923, there's a section on that page where he discusses the rationale for it and really lays it out quite clearly to them.

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
So, it's not as if his first explanation, you know, his first proposal offered no explanation at all.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
It did, yet they didn't understand it.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
Now, the real key here in terms of skepticism is the response to his second submission.

[00:06:35] Speaker 04:
And that's found in the record at Appendix 3008.

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
3008, did you say?

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor, 3008.

[00:06:41] Speaker 04:
And it's in the middle of the page there.

[00:06:45] Speaker 04:
And you'll see it's a reference to proposals that end in 039 and also 040.

[00:06:51] Speaker 04:
And you'll see Donnie has his name there.

[00:06:53] Speaker 04:
Now, the discussion here is about modifying an editor's note.

[00:06:56] Speaker 04:
But the key language here is this sentence,

[00:06:59] Speaker 04:
Modify the note to clarify that if security capabilities are needed in Step 3, then possibly they are not needed in Step 1.

[00:07:06] Speaker 04:
And it's very helpful to look at what they're talking about.

[00:07:09] Speaker 04:
Because if you look at his proposal, which was before them, the Step 3 and Step 1, we can see those steps on Appendix 3140.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
That's where he lays out the procedure, which corresponds to the invention of the 848 patent.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
is his proposed solution that the device send the capabilities.

[00:07:31] Speaker 04:
Step three is a step where there's a message from the old network node to the new network node.

[00:07:37] Speaker 04:
So when we read their comment here on Appendix 3008, their position is, well, if the security capabilities are needed in step three, that's the old way of doing it.

[00:07:47] Speaker 04:
then possibly they are not needed in step one.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
So what this comment says to Mr. He is in view your proposal, it could be done the old way.

[00:07:55] Speaker 04:
We don't think your new way is needed.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
So he had, he had proposed possibly they are not needed.

[00:08:01] Speaker 01:
I mean, if I understand what you're saying, Mr. Lovett, it didn't seem, it doesn't mean these remarks, at least when I read them don't seem to have quite the,

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
negative force that you attribute to them.

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
That's just my initial reaction.

[00:08:18] Speaker 04:
Well, certainly I don't think they're overwhelmingly negative, but what's clear is he has presented to the engineers the exact obviousness combination that the petition offers.

[00:08:30] Speaker 04:
The key prior reference here is this TR reference.

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
Mr. He has proposed essentially what Samsung's petition proposed.

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
Here's a solution to solve this problem.

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
And instead of adopting it, well, of course, that's the obvious way of doing it.

[00:08:43] Speaker 04:
They resisted that.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
They asked for explanation.

[00:08:45] Speaker 04:
And even here, I understand they're not outright rejecting it.

[00:08:48] Speaker 04:
But they're questioning why it's needed.

[00:08:50] Speaker 04:
And he responded to that further in the final submission, which was accepted.

[00:08:54] Speaker 04:
And you can see that at appendix 2861.

[00:08:57] Speaker 04:
He specifically addresses this issue with why this editor's note is wrong.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
and why in bold language on Appendix 2861 he says the security capabilities should be carried in step one.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
And he explains yet again the old way of doing it, the step three method where the old network node sends it is not the way to go.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
And they finally accepted it on the third try.

[00:09:18] Speaker 04:
So certainly this is not some sort of violent rejection, but this is the kind of evidence that is, the purpose of this evidence is to prevent hindsight and concluding well this must have just been obvious.

[00:09:32] Speaker 04:
We know it wasn't obvious because this exact obvious combination was put before these engineers and they did not perceive it as an obvious solution.

[00:09:42] Speaker 04:
If there are no more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
Okay, any more questions for Mr. Lowe at the moment?

[00:09:49] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:09:51] Speaker 01:
I'm fine, thank you.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:09:53] Speaker 03:
All right, then we'll hear from the director, Ms.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
Kaser.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, and may it please the court, substantial evidence supports the board's finding that the claims would have been obvious over this combination of these two technical references, the 23401 reference and the 33821 reference.

[00:10:11] Speaker 00:
As the board found, it would have been obvious to have the phone send its security capabilities during the idle mode movement between the 3G and the LT network that is disclosed in 23401.

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
Really, having the phone send

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
was just one of two options that was disclosed in the other reference, the 33821, for transmitting security capabilities.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
So you either have the phone send or the older network send.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
And modifying 23401's process to choose one of these two options, both known... Doesn't this sound like a good case of judicial hindsight?

[00:10:50] Speaker 03:
You picked something that turned out to have special benefits, and, of course,

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I would disagree because I believe the Board follows the exact obviousness rationale that's dictated by the references.

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
So if you start with, and it's important as the Board repeatedly said, you start with 23401 and not as a reference that teaches the exact transition that the claims teach.

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
They teach the idle mode mobility between an older network and a new network, so 3G to LTE network.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
So you're already starting with knowing this transition.

[00:11:26] Speaker 00:
And the 23401 reference says, look, when you're connecting to this new network, you need to establish security.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
But 23401 is a technical document about network architecture, so it doesn't go further into how do you do the security negotiation.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
And so as the board found, that's why you look to 33821, which is specifically about establishing security with LTE networks.

[00:11:52] Speaker 00:
And in fact, it parrots what

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
the 23401 reference says.

[00:11:57] Speaker 00:
It says, when connecting to LTE, you need to establish security.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
And then it goes on and details all the security algorithm selection and key variation determinations as the claims say.

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
So they're not disputing any of the parts of the claim about how you establish security.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
All they're disputing is who would send these security capabilities.

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
And 23821 only gives two options.

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
You either have

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
the phone send, or you have the old network send.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
Both of those are disclosed in 33821.

[00:12:32] Speaker 00:
Both of them are known.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
They're viable.

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
There's no argument of lack of predictability.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
And so as the board looked into in detail, the fundamental dispute is over whose security capabilities.

[00:12:44] Speaker 00:
And just choosing one out of only two finite number of options is just a simple substitution of one known element for another.

[00:12:52] Speaker 00:
So that alone

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
gives you support, substantial evidence support for the obviousness determination here.

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
How about the position that having chosen this option, it turns out to have particular benefits and advantages which were not foreseen or announced or predicted as between just some routine, okay, let's improve security.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I would disagree that there was any surprising or unknown advantages.

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
And in fact, the board found a lack of a showing of unexpected results.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
Well, we don't know.

[00:13:31] Speaker 03:
If it's not in the references, how do we know whether it's surprising or unknown?

[00:13:39] Speaker 03:
You're requiring them to take their invention and disprove it.

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
Well, I would respectfully disagree, Your Honor.

[00:13:50] Speaker 00:
in the trial proceedings assert unexpected results, and the board analyzed that, and you can look at that at page Attendix 66.

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
And notably, Huawei is not disputing that on appeal.

[00:14:02] Speaker 00:
So they're not continuing to assert that the board's findings with respect to unexpected results was incorrect.

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
And with respect to the analysis of the skepticism... Are you sure about that?

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
They certainly...

[00:14:16] Speaker 03:
raised a lot of concern about the attention that was given to the secondary considerations in the final decision.

[00:14:27] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, they do focus very extensively on the skepticism evidence, but there's no argument with respect to unexpected results in their appeal briefs.

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
And with respect to the skepticism evidence, as the board found, and again, I think it's important to note that the board did not find no evidence of skepticism.

[00:14:46] Speaker 00:
What they found was what Huawei had presented was at best weak evidence of skepticism.

[00:14:53] Speaker 00:
Putting the issue of Nexus aside, which I just say briefly, the director is not conceding a lack of Nexus and we have defended it and we do believe the board's decision based on the documents themselves without any declaration testimony, that Nexus decision is fully defendable and supported by substantial evidence.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
But the board went further at Appendix 64 and said, even if you presume nexus, all there is is weak evidence of skepticism because all there was was a request for more information.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
And it's not a request for information because we don't understand it or because we don't need it.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
That because is completely absent from the documents and filled in only

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
respectfully by attorney argument here.

[00:15:43] Speaker 00:
Because again, there is no declaration testimony about why it was rejected.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
Nothing from any members of the working group, nothing from Mr. Hay himself.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
So all you have is this request for more information.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
And there's many reasons that you could request for more information.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
In fact, because they're developing a proposal, it could be we just want you to document the rationale for this so we have it in our records.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
It doesn't mean that we were rejecting your proposal.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
And so with respect to that first, the comment about more rationale is needed.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
The board's decision with respect to that statement that it's only weak evidence at best is supported by substantial evidence.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
With respect to the December 2007 statement about the editor's note, I think it's important to note and look at the documents preceding that.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
So for example, if you look at appendix

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
3140.

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
That is Mr. His revised December 2007 proposal.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
And you can see on that page the editor's note is put in by himself.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
It says under step three it is for further study whether the security capabilities should be carried in step three.

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
So really this document, step one, is having the phone send it.

[00:17:02] Speaker 00:
Step three is questioning whether or not you should have it in

[00:17:06] Speaker 00:
to that step, which would be referring to the old network sending it.

[00:17:10] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hay's own proposal reflects what one of ordinary skill in the art would have seen from these documents, that there's just two options.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
And all we're doing is debating which one of these two known, viable, predictable options we should choose.

[00:17:25] Speaker 00:
The fact that one may have been better, as Huawei asserts, does not mean that the other one would not have been obvious.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
So choosing the phone does not need to be more relevant or more analogous.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
That's a language that Huawei uses in its reply brief that having the old network send would have been the best fit.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
The prior art does not option chosen as obvious, does not need to be more relevant.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
And you also don't need to show that it would have been selected over other treatments.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
So really, at bottom, you have two references, both which disclose just two options, and all the board did was find that it was obvious to choose one.

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
But getting back to the December 2007 skepticism that they've pointed to, so you have Mr. Hay himself putting in this editor's note about whether the security capabilities should be in step three.

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
And so then it's not really surprising when you look at Appendix 3008, which is what council appointed to, that they're modifying this editor's note just to reflect these two options that Mr. Hay put in there.

[00:18:39] Speaker 00:
They didn't edit the actual proposal.

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
They didn't cross off step one, having the phone send it.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
And so really when you have two viable options, a debate about which one to use,

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
as the board found, is really not skepticism.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
In fact, it really just shows how obvious these two were.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
And, excuse me, again, I'd say that the board, it's important to remember that the board did not say no evidence of skepticism.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
They said, at best, it's weak evidence.

[00:19:13] Speaker 00:
And they went on, on appendix 67 and 68, looking at the totality of evidence, seeing

[00:19:20] Speaker 00:
how strong the obviousness case was from these two technical references and the combination of them and considering the weak evidence of skepticism and finding as a whole that the invention would have been obvious.

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
Very briefly, I'd just like to address the emphasis council has placed on the board as hindsight analysis.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
Again, as I step through,

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
The board did not rely on the inventor's conclusion.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
Instead, they stepped through the references, relying on the disclosure of the references themselves to find a motivation to proceed with the phone, sending the security capabilities.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
But where is that motivation in the references?

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
Isn't that motivation purely the imposition of hindsight knowledge that one is indeed preferable?

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
Well, again, I would disagree that one has to be preferable over the other.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
But you need a motivation.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
What do you say is the motivation to go in this direction?

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
So the board has three reasons for motivation.

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
First, the general motivation of that is just one of two options disclosed.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
Where is that motivation?

[00:20:42] Speaker 03:
How do you find the motivation in listing alternatives?

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
So at appendix 35, they say that it was a simple substitution of one for another.

[00:20:52] Speaker 00:
And under this court's precedent, under recently the Uber VX1 decision, another decision in ACO brands, the Fellows, when an ordinary artisan is left with just two choices, each one of those two design choices is an obvious combination.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
And that's consistent with KSR, with the finite number of identified and predictable solutions

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
one of Ordinary Skilled in the Art has good reason to pursue both of those.

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
But the board also went on, and I'll point you to appendix 41 to 42, where they talk about the fact that when you have, when you look at 2341, that is already sending its network capabilities.

[00:21:36] Speaker 00:
So you start with 2341, you have this claim transition from 3G to LTE,

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
and the phone is already sending its network capabilities.

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
And so when you know that you need security because the reference tells you to do that, you know that you need the security capabilities to establish that security because again the reference tells you that, then it would have been obvious if the phone is already sending its network capabilities to also send its security capabilities.

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
But then the board went further and they said that this would make sense to follow the phone

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
and to follow the initial attachment process in 33821, which is the part where the phone sends it, because there was a symmetry already established in 23401.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
In 23401, in both initial attachment and the idle mode between these two different networks, the phone sent its security capabilities.

[00:22:33] Speaker 00:
In contrast,

[00:22:35] Speaker 00:
in 23401 when you had an LTE to LTE transition, so you're within the same network, the phone did not send.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
So the board found it made sense when you were looking outside 23401 that 23401 would also follow initial attachment process because it already did that within its own reference.

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
And then when you look at 33821, it says it seems most natural to assume the phone would send its security capabilities.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
So that really statement alone, if you're one of ordinary skill in the art, you're trying to figure out who is going to send these security capabilities.

[00:23:11] Speaker 00:
And you look at a reference and says, it seems most natural to assume that the phone sends it.

[00:23:16] Speaker 00:
And I already have a symmetry established with initial attachment and idle mode in the reference that I'm starting with.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
That together is, we would say, substantial evidence supporting the motivation to combine in this reference.

[00:23:31] Speaker 00:
I don't believe I have much time left, but I'm happy to address any further questions.

[00:23:36] Speaker 00:
Otherwise, we just request that the board affirm, or excuse me, the court affirm the board's decision.

[00:23:42] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:23:42] Speaker 03:
Any more questions for Ms.

[00:23:43] Speaker 03:
Keeler?

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:23:45] Speaker 01:
No, I'm fine.

[00:23:47] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:23:47] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
Mr. Light, you have your rebuttal time.

[00:23:52] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:23:54] Speaker 04:
I'd like to start with the suggestion that this is just one of two options.

[00:23:58] Speaker 04:
That is a framing of this problem that is absolutely infected with hindsight.

[00:24:03] Speaker 04:
It is not correct to frame this as a simple choice between one of two options.

[00:24:07] Speaker 04:
The TR reference has a uniform solution for two network scenarios.

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
The old network always sends the security capabilities to the new network.

[00:24:16] Speaker 04:
There was no recognition anywhere that in two network scenarios, having the device send security capabilities was an option.

[00:24:25] Speaker 04:
Recognizing that that was a possibility was the first step in Mr. Hayes' contribution.

[00:24:29] Speaker 04:
So once you simply decide that there are two options, you can frame it that way, but that is not how those of skill saw it, and that is not how the prior art suggests it.

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
There's also a continuum of possibilities.

[00:24:41] Speaker 04:
It's not simply two options.

[00:24:42] Speaker 04:
The old network node could provide some security capabilities.

[00:24:46] Speaker 04:
The old network node could query the device and acquire more information and then send that on.

[00:24:52] Speaker 04:
The suggestion that this is a one of two options scenario is simply wrong and not supported by the record.

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
Second, I want to address the question about whether there's a Nexus error.

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
There is no factual dispute about the content of Mr. Ho's proposals.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
He made submissions in parallel that modified two different procedures, LTE to LTE idle mode and non-LTE to LTE idle mode.

[00:25:17] Speaker 04:
That second contribution is the claimed invention.

[00:25:21] Speaker 04:
He proposed in both of those methods that the device would send its security capabilities.

[00:25:25] Speaker 04:
What the board did, they ignored that he had proposed the invention.

[00:25:29] Speaker 04:
They focused only on the LTE to LTE submission

[00:25:32] Speaker 04:
And the rest of it, they erroneously found that what he had proposed, which was the invention, was simply a description of an existing procedure that's found somewhere else.

[00:25:42] Speaker 04:
This is in appendix 59 to 61.

[00:25:44] Speaker 04:
They repeatedly say all he had proposed was an existing procedure that's found somewhere else.

[00:25:50] Speaker 04:
That is absolutely wrong.

[00:25:52] Speaker 04:
And if you look at the director's brief at pages 34 to 35, the director acknowledges that the board made that finding that makes no effort to defend it.

[00:25:59] Speaker 04:
So perhaps they don't come out and concede that there's an excess error, but they haven't defended this.

[00:26:04] Speaker 04:
And if you look at the steps of Mr. Ho's submission and compare it to claim nine of the patent, we can see the elements of the invention are all there.

[00:26:13] Speaker 04:
Further, if it were true that as the board found this was simply a description of an existing procedure, that document, whatever it is, would have been the subject of Samsung's petition.

[00:26:25] Speaker 04:
But it was not because there is no such document.

[00:26:28] Speaker 04:
Mr. Ho's submission was new.

[00:26:30] Speaker 04:
That nexus error at a minimum requires a remand because the rest of the analysis of the secondary considerations, whether you view this as strong evidence of skepticism or perhaps less strong,

[00:26:41] Speaker 04:
And all of the board's analysis was infected by this problem that they failed to see that he had proposed the invention itself.

[00:26:50] Speaker 04:
I'd also like to address the question about unexpected results.

[00:26:53] Speaker 04:
Mr. He explained the rationale for his invention, which describes the benefits that you obtain from using his approach.

[00:27:01] Speaker 04:
Avoiding unnecessary round trips back and forth is how it's described.

[00:27:05] Speaker 04:
That was not appreciated by the three GPP engineers.

[00:27:08] Speaker 04:
He was the only one who saw the need for the solution and the fact that it would provide a benefit.

[00:27:13] Speaker 04:
So we haven't articulated in our brief as an issue of unexpected results, but that's clearly the issue.

[00:27:18] Speaker 04:
He laid this before them and they failed to recognize it until his third submission when they finally accepted it.

[00:27:25] Speaker 04:
I'd also like to briefly touch on the suggestion that the TS itself somehow motivates selection of initial attachments

[00:27:35] Speaker 04:
These attempted analogies between initial attachment and idle mode mobility are simply not found in these references.

[00:27:43] Speaker 04:
That language that council referenced, the language that seems most natural, that the UE sends its capabilities to an MME,

[00:27:50] Speaker 04:
That is a statement in TR and Appendix 1788 that is about initial attachment.

[00:27:55] Speaker 04:
It has nothing to do with two network transitions.

[00:27:58] Speaker 04:
In initial attachment, the context of the statement, only the device could communicate with the network node because there is no old network node to obtain security capabilities from.

[00:28:08] Speaker 04:
So that citation simply does not provide the motivation to combine.

[00:28:13] Speaker 04:
There is not any identified motivation to combine a specific one network solution to solve a two network problem.

[00:28:20] Speaker 04:
The objective evidence of skepticism here should have prevented that hindsight-based conclusion, but the board improperly dismissed that evidence through multiple legal errors, including what is effectively a conceded error in finding no nexus to the claims.

[00:28:33] Speaker 04:
And for those reasons, we'd ask that the decision be reversed.

[00:28:37] Speaker 03:
Any questions for Mr. Love?

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:28:40] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:28:41] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:28:41] Speaker 03:
Thank you all.

[00:28:42] Speaker 03:
Thanks to counsel.

[00:28:43] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.