[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
Choi Rock, Aquairock, Contents Factory, 2021-13-48.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
Bailey, when you are ready.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honors, and may it please the court.

[00:00:28] Speaker 00:
The board's motivation to combine relies on a combination having an interesting effect, having increased play value, being more enjoyable, or opening by magic.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
All of these advantages, all of these motivations are generic, subjective advantages of the combination.

[00:00:48] Speaker 00:
Even if we accept the board's findings as complete,

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
And based on a correct reading of the record, there is still not substantial evidence supporting the board's conclusions.

[00:00:58] Speaker 00:
Without substantial evidence, the board's obvious determination must be reversed.

[00:01:05] Speaker 00:
Generic advantages are inadequate to support obviousness.

[00:01:10] Speaker 00:
The board's final written decisions evidence a disconnect between what is desirable for toys, that they are fun, that they are interesting,

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
and why the modification would be fun or interesting for the specific proposed combination.

[00:01:27] Speaker 00:
The board repeatedly dismissed the patent owner, Spinmaster's evidence, instead relying on a motivation, quote, rooted in the reference's teachings, or relying on Dr. Kudrowitz's testimony because, quote, the record supports it.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
So what's wrong with having a motivation rooted in the teachings?

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
I accept the proposition that you can't just say, because it's a toy, the motivation of making it more fun is always meaningful.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
But here, in the actual teachings, they talk about the benefits of the magic changes that occur to these toys.

[00:02:06] Speaker 01:
So why doesn't that move it past the generic stage into the more specific stage?

[00:02:13] Speaker 00:
Good question, Your Honor, and I have two answers for that, two points made.

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
First of all, the advantage, let's take Tamayama's interesting effect.

[00:02:25] Speaker 00:
That advantage of an interesting effect is not due to the magnetic latch alone.

[00:02:30] Speaker 00:
Tamayama talks about, and I'm going to quote Tamayama, that the interesting effect is the turret popping off

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
and that this interesting effect resembles the effect of a tank hitting a landmine and being destroyed.

[00:02:47] Speaker 00:
So the advantage of an interesting effect in Tamayama is not the latch alone.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
It's the Tamayama toy and hole.

[00:02:53] Speaker 00:
It's the turret popping off.

[00:02:55] Speaker 00:
It's being the simulation of destruction.

[00:02:58] Speaker 00:
So to take that advantage of an interesting effect and say that it's due to the latch alone, and that would be a reason why to modify Shannon,

[00:03:06] Speaker 00:
There's no factual basis for that.

[00:03:09] Speaker 00:
And Dr. Kudowitz's testimony was very much conclusory.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
I invite the court, as I'm sure they have, to read his opinions.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
They are very conclusory.

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
And what happened is it became this circular argument where the board decided this interesting effect, a conclusory statement from Dr. Kudowitz, without nothing more.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
I 100% agree with the court that a teaching or a suggestion and express motivation in the references is a possible motivation to combine.

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
Except here, the teaching or suggestion is this generalized advantage.

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
So we're back to the problem that even the reference.

[00:03:47] Speaker 01:
But doesn't the turret pop off because of the latch?

[00:03:51] Speaker 00:
It does, Your Honor, but if we read Tomoyama, it says that the interesting effect is due resembles the effect of a tank hitting a landmine and being destroyed.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
It is the turret popping off and simulating destruction.

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
Of course, the latch plays a part in that, but to say that the latch alone causes the interesting effect, there's no evidence of record to support that.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
The board allowed hindsight to enter the analysis.

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
And I want to quote a couple of these statements from the petition and from Dr. Kudowitz.

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
In the petition, it said that it's obvious to make the modification, quote, to allow the toy to open upon being rolled.

[00:04:36] Speaker 00:
Dr. Kudowitz said a posita would understand the fact that, quote, could be used if the posita wanted the toy to open upon being rolled over a magnet.

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
As soon as the analysis is whether the modification could be made to allow for the claimed combination, or if a posito wanted the claimed combination, then hindsight has been employed.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
And here, even more problematic, is that the board favorably cited repeatedly to these statements in its final written decision.

[00:05:10] Speaker 01:
And I have- I agree that that was a-

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
That was a strange way to phrase it.

[00:05:19] Speaker 01:
But isn't the point that the board found that you would want to use this magnetically charged mechanism, or that it would be more interesting to use the magnetically charged mechanism to cause the alteration in the toy?

[00:05:34] Speaker 00:
And I would challenge back, where is the evidence to support that?

[00:05:38] Speaker 00:
If all we're relying on is that there's an interesting effect or that it's interesting to use this magnetic latch, at that point it becomes a conclusory generalized advantage and a subjective opinion from the expert.

[00:05:50] Speaker 00:
He didn't provide any rationale, any factual basis.

[00:05:54] Speaker 00:
Again, his opinions are a sentence of an opinion and then no explanation.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
Even now, to this day, with this very full and complete record, I still question some of the motivations combined on where is the why we would even make this proposed change.

[00:06:13] Speaker 00:
So let's take Shannon in view of Tamayama, for example.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
What would you have him say?

[00:06:20] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's more interesting to do it this way.

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
That's not enough.

[00:06:24] Speaker 02:
What would you have him say?

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
So I think there are various ways to satisfy the motivation to combine, perhaps identify a problem to be solved.

[00:06:33] Speaker 00:
I'm not saying that that has to have a problem to be solved.

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
In this context, there wasn't a problem to be solved.

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
So if we allow that... What would you say is sufficient in this context?

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
to establish a motivation to combine?

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
I think that if you had a toy where the latching mechanism was not quite working correctly, for example in Shannon, it didn't latch correctly.

[00:06:54] Speaker 02:
It didn't... That's not this situation.

[00:06:56] Speaker 02:
I mean, what would you say about this combination?

[00:06:59] Speaker 02:
What would you have him say that he didn't say?

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
I think that question shows the problem with the combination, that the motivation is there's these disparate elements in the prior art and we want to get to this claim combination.

[00:07:14] Speaker 00:
I mean, Judge Dyke, respectfully, you're asking me to make a motivation to combine for them.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
And as the patent owner, I'm sorry.

[00:07:22] Speaker 02:
I'm asking you to spell out what was lacking in the detail here.

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
What?

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
So if we'll.

[00:07:29] Speaker 02:
Because he was too conclusory, what was he supposed to say?

[00:07:33] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
I'm going to answer that back with this.

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
There is numerous evidence in the record of the problems with the motivation to combine.

[00:07:42] Speaker 00:
For example, modifying Shannon.

[00:07:44] Speaker 00:
The board dismissed all of Spin Master's evidence and repeatedly said, we don't need that evidence because the motivation, this generic advantage is rooted in the reference's teachings.

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
If we allow that generic advantage to overcome the evidence of substantial redesign, the evidence of a change in the principle of operation and render unsatisfactory for an intended purpose, then we've moved the obviousness determination to can an advantage be established?

[00:08:13] Speaker 00:
If so, then we have obviousness.

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
That's not the source.

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
That would seem that there's a difference between what's your motivation, because we've said it could come from anywhere, and whether there's a reasonable likelihood of success.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
And so when you said it's not even clear that you could do this properly, doesn't that go to the latter instead of the former?

[00:08:35] Speaker 00:
Well, I would suggest that if there is a change in principle of operation, perhaps substantial redesign would go to a reasonable expectation of success.

[00:08:43] Speaker 00:
But a change in principle of operation, I think, does go to the motivation to combine.

[00:08:47] Speaker 00:
It can be used, render unsatisfactory could be used to defeat a motivation to combine.

[00:08:52] Speaker 00:
And when there's evidence of that in the record, and it gets dismissed, outright dismissed, in favor of this generalized advantage, we've taken

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
the obviousness analysis too far.

[00:09:03] Speaker 00:
We've allowed too much leniency in pointing to an advantage and saying that is sufficient for the motivation to combine.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
And I want to maybe go back to what you asked, Judge Dyke.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
I think there's a tendency with this particular technology, because it's toys, to go, it's a toy.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
It's supposed to be magical.

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
It's supposed to be fun and interesting.

[00:09:26] Speaker 00:
But let's take the Aprile modified by Thompson example.

[00:09:31] Speaker 00:
That motivation to combine is because Thompson can be used to play a variety of games.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
But Thompson, the variety of games is hitting the sensitive spot.

[00:09:40] Speaker 00:
It has nothing to do with the proposed modification of taking the fact that Thompson is a round ball.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
And so they say, well, we can do this because balls are ubiquitous, because round balls are ubiquitous.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
Well, let's take that argument to its logical outcome.

[00:09:54] Speaker 00:
Are we now going to say that any toy with any type of latch can be modified to be round because balls are fun?

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
I mean, that's where their argument lies.

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
It's taking an advantage and saying, just because it's a toy, and toys are fun and interesting, that we can make this modification.

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
I see that I have about five minutes left.

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
I'll reserve it for rebuttal, Your Honors, if there's no further questions.

[00:10:21] Speaker 03:
We will save it for you.

[00:10:23] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:10:25] Speaker 03:
Mr. Yu?

[00:10:34] Speaker 03:
May I take off and ask if you wish?

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
Oh, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:10:37] Speaker 04:
I forgot about that.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court?

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
This is Scott Yoo, Counsel for Appellate, Choi Rock Contents Factory.

[00:10:47] Speaker 04:
In each of the three underlying IPRs, the Board provided extensive analysis of how the references teach a motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
And I would like to highlight three things today to show that those findings that the board made are substantially supportive.

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
First, why the prior teachings are not generic.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
Second, why the at least difference in prior latches does not rebut the finding of a motivation to combine.

[00:11:20] Speaker 04:
And third, how Speedmaster is applying a wrong task for the reasonable expectation of success analysis.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
Can you go to where your friend on the other side ended?

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
I do have a bit of a problem with the notion that it feels like the board simply said, oh, these are toys, so it doesn't matter.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
And especially as to the Thompson ball, that variety of games, to say you can use a ball for a variety of games, that seems so broad that it could be applied to almost any toy.

[00:11:52] Speaker 04:
Yes, Ronald.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
I can address that.

[00:11:55] Speaker 04:
In the ground for Aprila and Thompson, you really have to look at the actual teachings of the prior here.

[00:12:03] Speaker 04:
They might seem different, however, if you look at the actual teachings there, they share the common goals of providing interesting effect or surprising effect by changing the shape of a toy through the unlatching of the latch means.

[00:12:20] Speaker 04:
For example, in pre-latch, its purpose is to provide a toy with an amusing effect.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
And Thompson teaches that his ball toy is well suited to play a great variety of games to provide great pleasure for children.

[00:12:35] Speaker 04:
And one of the goals expressed in Thompson is to play the toy for the goal of opening up.

[00:12:41] Speaker 04:
by using of a latch.

[00:12:43] Speaker 04:
And therefore, we think that by looking at pre-latch desire to provide an amusing effect, a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Thompson's ball shape to pre-latch toy to provide a great pleasure for playing games that involve magnetic opening of the toy.

[00:13:02] Speaker 04:
to allow the ball to play with a great variety of games, including tossing the ball or even throwing or rolling the ball.

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
Well, as your friend said, the expert testimony said, well, if you want to get to a magnetic mechanism, then you would look at this magnetic mechanism.

[00:13:22] Speaker 01:
So the question is, why isn't the toy fine the way it is?

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
Why do you need that magnetic mechanism?

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
What does it bring?

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
Because we are talking about a very specific subset of toys, for example, transformable toys that change shape through use of a latch in an interesting or surprising manner.

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
The transformable toys are designed to provide interesting effect.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
When you look at these common goals of transformable toys that are intended to provide an interesting effect, then we think that a desire to make it even more entertaining, more interesting by having a more dramatically opening up of the toy by using a magnetic latch instead of a typical latch,

[00:14:11] Speaker 04:
We think that would provide a good reason for ordinary skill in the art to adopt that magnetic glitch feature.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
So this would mean that any transformable toy would be obvious under this scenario?

[00:14:23] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I wouldn't go that far.

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
We think still the prior teachings here in this case are very specifically tied to transformable toys that change shape in an interesting manner by use of a latch or magnetic latch.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
Counsel, could you tell us the pronunciation of your client's name?

[00:14:50] Speaker 04:
Oh, sure, Your Honor.

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
It's a Korean company.

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
The correct pronunciation would be Choi Rock.

[00:14:56] Speaker 03:
Choi Rock, thank you.

[00:14:57] Speaker 04:
Your Honor.

[00:14:59] Speaker 04:
I would like to move to the second issue.

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
The Speedmaster's reliance on the alleged difference in prior latches is misplaced because it fails to explain why merely having the difference in prior latches

[00:15:13] Speaker 04:
would discourage one of skill in the art from considering the references here.

[00:15:18] Speaker 04:
We would think that rather that person would be motivated to combine the references because of that at least difference.

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
One example, as Judge Umali mentioned, Shannon and Prelai combination

[00:15:32] Speaker 04:
Our proposed modification enhanced the operation of Shannon's toy by adding magnetic interaction to the latch, thereby contributing to achieving the goal of Shannon, which is to provide a dramatic opening.

[00:15:46] Speaker 04:
And Speedmaster presents similar arguments that are deviated from the correct task for obviousness in other parts of this opening brief.

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
And one example of the argument would be that adding Shannon to include another latch means renders the fastener already disclosing Shannon superfluous.

[00:16:06] Speaker 01:
Do you agree that Tamiyana's magnetic latch doesn't actually hold the whole toy together?

[00:16:16] Speaker 04:
Excuse me, Your Honor.

[00:16:18] Speaker 04:
In Shannon toy?

[00:16:19] Speaker 01:
Yeah, it doesn't.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
No, Tamiyana.

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
It doesn't fasten the tank together, right?

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
The magnetic latch?

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
I believe it's faster.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
So it's only transformable in one little way, in other words, the turret popping off.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
OK, so it's not the same concept of holding it together like the opening toy.

[00:16:40] Speaker 04:
Compared to Shannon's rollable shape, I agree, but it still provides the same effect of providing surprise or interesting manner by use of unlatching through two magnets.

[00:16:53] Speaker 04:
So that feature would be similar in both toys.

[00:16:59] Speaker 04:
Going back to my argument about the least difference in prior latches, so two extreme theories are presented by Speedmaster.

[00:17:08] Speaker 04:
If you combine them together, it would potentially eliminate obviousness cases.

[00:17:14] Speaker 04:
For example,

[00:17:15] Speaker 04:
They argue that if there is a similar or same feature in the prior R, then you cannot combine them because it would be a superfluous to add a similar feature to the prior R. On the other hand, they argue that if there is a material difference in prior R, then you cannot combine either because of that difference.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
And even worse, Speedmaster has a third limitation

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
by arguing that if there is a subtle difference in prior R, then you cannot motivate someone to invent something that is so great.

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
But we think that whether there are inconsequential or subtle differences in prior R does not rebut the finding of a motivation to combine in this case, because as I explained, at least the difference in prior latches would rather motivate one of scaling the R to consider combining the references.

[00:18:10] Speaker 04:
I would like to move to the third issue, which concerns the reasonable expectation of success analysis.

[00:18:18] Speaker 04:
Speedmaster comes up with one of the most complicated ways to combine the references and argue non-obviousness based on the assumption that it would be the only way to combine the references.

[00:18:31] Speaker 04:
But as we briefed in our response, the test only requires reasonable, not absolute success in developing the claimed invention.

[00:18:40] Speaker 04:
And when applying this task, two things need to be considered as well.

[00:18:45] Speaker 04:
The first, claims at issue.

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
And second, the level of ordinary scale in the arm.

[00:18:51] Speaker 04:
And talking about the claims first, the claims here only require that a latch is disengaged when magnetic force is generated between the two magnets.

[00:19:01] Speaker 04:
And the claims do not require any specialized latch or any specialized structure for the latch.

[00:19:09] Speaker 04:
Second, the level of ordinary skill in the art in this case is undisputed, which is a person having a butler's degree in mechanical engineering and a minimum of three years of toy design experience.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
And we don't think Speedmaster properly considered these two factors in its analysis.

[00:19:29] Speaker 04:
For example, in the Shannon and Tamiyama ground of 897IPR, the master wrongfully assumes that the entire release mechanism of Tamiyama would need to be modified into the Shannon toy, and they argue that is a very complicated mechanism, therefore,

[00:19:46] Speaker 04:
it would require a complete redesign of the Shannon toy.

[00:19:51] Speaker 04:
But we think that the level of complexity involved in this case does not make our proposed modifications unreasonably difficult because we are not trying to make a special shuttle.

[00:20:03] Speaker 04:
We are only talking about transformable toys and magnets, latches, springs have been used in toys for many decades.

[00:20:12] Speaker 04:
Good example, the Tamayama reference, which is a 1963 reference that already shows how to use a magnetically released latch in a transformable toy.

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
So you're relying on the fact that your expert just said it's within the ordinary skill.

[00:20:28] Speaker 01:
Don't you need a little more than that?

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I believe we provided more than just that testimony from our expert.

[00:20:37] Speaker 04:
We also relied upon the fact that the Tamayama, for example, already shows, according to Speedmaster, a very complicated latch mechanism.

[00:20:48] Speaker 04:
But we also supplemented our expert testimony by relying on Tamayama's teaching of using the magnetic latch mechanism already in 1963.

[00:21:00] Speaker 01:
So on the 508, is the Tamayama alone your primary reference?

[00:21:10] Speaker 04:
In the IPR, it was not the only primary reference.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
On appeal, I think there are three combinations, we allege, that are at issue, Tamayama alone ground, Shannon in view of Tamayama, and Shannon in view of Tamayama in Philly.

[00:21:29] Speaker 04:
So only Tamayama alone, Brown, uses Tamayama as a primary reference.

[00:21:34] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:21:34] Speaker 01:
So my question is, do you think your strongest case is Tamayama alone?

[00:21:39] Speaker 01:
Or do you think that we need to look to the three reference disclosures?

[00:21:46] Speaker 04:
That's something I don't think I can really speak on behalf of the court.

[00:21:53] Speaker 04:
But my belief is that.

[00:21:58] Speaker 04:
To shadow in view of Tamiyama and also in view of Prelet, that ground need to be considered by the panel to the extent that that provides a different motivation to combine reasonable expectation of success analysis.

[00:22:14] Speaker 01:
So you think that's the strongest combination for you.

[00:22:18] Speaker 04:
Not necessarily the strongest combination, but I think we have the right to be reviewed by the panel on all those three grounds, to the extent that they provide a different analysis, Your Honor.

[00:22:31] Speaker 01:
OK, so what do you think is your strongest combination?

[00:22:36] Speaker 04:
I believe it would be Shannon, Tamayama, and Prile.

[00:22:40] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:22:45] Speaker 04:
One more thing that I would like to address about the reasonable expectation of success analysis in Shenmue and Tamayama ground is we have repeatedly argued in the IPR that

[00:22:58] Speaker 04:
the one of scaling the art would understand by looking at Tamayama that only a single latch component from Tamayama's mechanism would need to be incorporated into Shannon because that is what is required for the Shannon toy.

[00:23:14] Speaker 04:
And there is no need to have the driving mechanism of Tamayama including the motors that need to be modified into Shannon because Shannon is already in a rollable shape.

[00:23:29] Speaker 04:
One more thing that I would like to highlight today, Your Honor, is Speedmaster's incorporation by reference of the arguments from the 900 IPR to the 897 IPR.

[00:23:41] Speaker 04:
we already addressed in our response and also in the pending motion to strike.

[00:23:45] Speaker 04:
But I would like to highlight just one more thing in the Shannon Tamayama round of the 897 IPR.

[00:23:52] Speaker 04:
In that round, the Speedmaster's opening brief contains only a single paragraph regarding the motivation to combine analysis that basically incorporated the entire section devoted to the 900 IPR.

[00:24:06] Speaker 04:
But in its reply, they raised new arguments for the first time on appeal that concerned the principle of operational Shannon.

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
I've got to tell you, I think the filing a motion to strike under these circumstances is not proper.

[00:24:20] Speaker 02:
I think it is appropriate for you to address those issues of oral argument.

[00:24:28] Speaker 02:
But I think a motion to strike is not the right way to do it.

[00:24:33] Speaker 02:
But that's just my personal view of it.

[00:24:36] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
But if I may, I would like to finish up my argument.

[00:24:43] Speaker 04:
So those arguments, we didn't have opportunity to address because those were raised in reply.

[00:24:49] Speaker 04:
And some of those arguments are specific to Tamayama's torrent.

[00:24:53] Speaker 04:
that have nothing to do with the pre-life Shannon Brown of the 900 IPR.

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
So if the panel does not have any additional questions.

[00:25:04] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
Bailey has a little time left, five minutes if you need it.

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:25:18] Speaker 00:
I want to address something my counsel said regarding the dramatic opening of Shannon.

[00:25:24] Speaker 00:
And it gets to a larger problem with the motivations to combine overall.

[00:25:29] Speaker 00:
All of these references already have a latching means.

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
So why are we adding another latching means?

[00:25:36] Speaker 00:
It is superfluous.

[00:25:37] Speaker 00:
And your case law does not allow for a superfluous addition to the primary reference.

[00:25:43] Speaker 00:
Additionally, Shannon already has a dramatic opening, so why do we need to add a second external magnet to get a dramatic opening?

[00:25:52] Speaker 00:
What's happening is we're just changing the Shannon invention and toy to something that's different.

[00:25:57] Speaker 00:
It's a different toy overall.

[00:26:00] Speaker 00:
The next thing I want to address is the apreel and the opening by magic language.

[00:26:05] Speaker 00:
I also want to make sure that the court realizes that that language is used in the embodiment with the princess doll.

[00:26:12] Speaker 00:
You can see in the figures the princess doll is rigid, it stands upright, and the second external magnet is housed in the bottom of the princess doll.

[00:26:21] Speaker 00:
And April says that when the princess doll goes and walks up to the toy container, the toy container magically opens because it's this unexpected opening because the magnet is housed in the princess doll.

[00:26:36] Speaker 00:
That is a very different toy play than what is claimed and what is in the proposed combination.

[00:26:45] Speaker 00:
Second, I wanted to address Council's statement regarding that our proposed motivation in reading the references was the most complicated that we can be.

[00:26:56] Speaker 00:
And if I may take a little umbrage at that statement, it's because the petition did not explain whatsoever how the modification was supposed to be made.

[00:27:07] Speaker 00:
It did not explain what was meant by the latch.

[00:27:09] Speaker 00:
It was only during deposition testimony that we understood that Choi Rock was intending a rocker latch with a spring.

[00:27:17] Speaker 00:
So we, the patent owner, were left to try to figure out how the modification was supposed to be made.

[00:27:23] Speaker 00:
So to say that we chose the most complicated one immediately puts us at a disadvantage as the patent owner and the petition did not plead with the particularity required.

[00:27:35] Speaker 00:
I also want to address his comment regarding April and the amusing effect for the doll.

[00:27:41] Speaker 00:
That amusing effect for the doll is the second embodiment that is unrelated to the toy container.

[00:27:46] Speaker 00:
That amusing effect is because the two dolls come together and they kind of jump and dance around.

[00:27:52] Speaker 00:
That's where the amusing effect comes.

[00:27:54] Speaker 00:
So to say that an amusing effect could be applied to Shannon doesn't take into account that they're actually talking about or the combination is based on the

[00:28:04] Speaker 00:
container embodiment.

[00:28:07] Speaker 00:
Also, Dr. Kuziewicz mentioned a couple of times during his declaration

[00:28:12] Speaker 00:
that the combination would have added interactivity or functionality.

[00:28:17] Speaker 00:
And I want to address those statements because, again, it is a conclusory statement without any factual support.

[00:28:23] Speaker 00:
If you go and read where he said this, and I do have the citations if you'd like, there's never any explanation of what is the added interactivity or what is the added functionality or why either of those would be desirable in the combination or would get you to that in the combination.

[00:28:39] Speaker 00:
The most we got from Dr. Kujowitz was, and he was talking about this with respect to Thompson, that it's a ball and balls are ubiquitous.

[00:28:47] Speaker 00:
But then we're kind of back to that same problem of, is he proposing that every toy can be made into a ball because balls are fun?

[00:28:53] Speaker 00:
And then finally,

[00:28:57] Speaker 00:
There's some accusations of bodily incorporation from counsel, and I just want to say that I am very aware of bodily incorporation law, and our briefing is very careful never to say that the entire Tomyama latching mechanism needs to be put into Shannon.

[00:29:15] Speaker 00:
Obviously, something from Tomyama needs to be put into Shannon, but our briefing is not dependent upon a bodily incorporation of everything from a secondary into the primary reference.

[00:29:27] Speaker 00:
If there are no more questions, Your Honor.

[00:29:28] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:29:30] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:29:31] Speaker 03:
We will take the case under advisement.