[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
The last case is Arsas versus Tesla, number 24-1344.

[00:00:03] Speaker 04:
Mr. Bright, when you're ready.

[00:00:06] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
I'm Pat Bright.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
I represent the appellant, Arsas LLC, in this appeal from a decision in an IPR by the Patent and Trademark Appeal Board.

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
I would like to, when we first filed this appeal,

[00:00:29] Speaker 00:
we didn't know about the forthcoming decision in local Breit.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
But it came to pass.

[00:00:36] Speaker 00:
That case came down after.

[00:00:38] Speaker 04:
Can you explain to me how that case matters?

[00:00:40] Speaker 04:
Didn't that case just overrule Chevron?

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
Well, here's how we think of it, Your Honor.

[00:00:46] Speaker 04:
Well, no.

[00:00:47] Speaker 04:
Answer that question.

[00:00:47] Speaker 04:
Isn't that what that case did?

[00:00:49] Speaker 04:
It overruled Chevron.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:00:52] Speaker 04:
We've never given Chevron deference to the PTO on questions of invalidity.

[00:00:58] Speaker 04:
So why does that case matter?

[00:01:00] Speaker 04:
We don't give deference to the PTO, except in a very limited circumstance for procedural regulation it enacted under the AIA.

[00:01:10] Speaker 04:
You're arguing about the merits of the invalidity decision, right?

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
So we don't give deference to them.

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
Very well.

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Robert.

[00:01:20] Speaker 00:
So then there are two issues, and we submit they're both issues of law.

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
The first is, what is the correct claim interpretation?

[00:01:27] Speaker 00:
we submit that the correct claim interpretation is that all the claims at issue are not means plus function.

[00:01:32] Speaker 00:
Why does this matter?

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
The board explicitly said we don't need to decide whether this is means plus function or regular because it's shown as obviousness under both claim interpretations.

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
Because at the end of the day, whatever you decide about that issue, it will still be left for someone else to decide whether

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
to do the claim interpretation.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
The board already did it.

[00:01:53] Speaker 04:
The board said, if we look at this as means plus function, this combination, I think, of Duchamp and Hussein renders it obvious.

[00:02:03] Speaker 04:
If we look at this as non-means plus function claims, Duchamp and Hussein also render it obvious.

[00:02:10] Speaker 04:
So isn't your argument, then, that Duchamp and Hussein don't render this obvious?

[00:02:16] Speaker 04:
And what claim elements are not shown by those two combinations?

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
But whatever you decide on that question will still be left in an enforcement proceeding with some judge having to decide the issue of whether the claims are or not means post-function.

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
Not if we affirm the board's invalidity decision.

[00:02:35] Speaker 04:
The claims will be dead.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
Well, we respectfully disagree with you.

[00:02:40] Speaker 00:
That's all.

[00:02:41] Speaker 04:
Respectfully disagree that if we affirm the board's invalidity decision, the claims are dead?

[00:02:46] Speaker 04:
We think this panel... Why aren't you getting to the point?

[00:02:50] Speaker 04:
What claim elements do Duchamp and Hussein not show?

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
One thing is for sure.

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
The board never told anybody the answer to that question.

[00:03:02] Speaker 00:
We tell the answer in our briefing.

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
We say.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
at page 20 and 21 of our opening brief.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
I think maybe you're misunderstanding the question.

[00:03:11] Speaker 03:
I want to make sure I'm not getting lost.

[00:03:13] Speaker 03:
I think the board clearly said that the combination discloses and renders obvious all the elements of your claim, right?

[00:03:21] Speaker 03:
That's right.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
I thought you're, and Judge Hughes I think is asking you, tell us where the board is wrong.

[00:03:27] Speaker 03:
What element is actually missing from that combination?

[00:03:31] Speaker 00:
We say it on page 21 of our brief, our opening brief.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
The limitation says that prevents said vehicle from being steered beyond the rollover threshold of the vehicle at any rollover capable speed of the vehicle.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
That's not in Deschamps.

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
And the board says so.

[00:03:45] Speaker 04:
Yes, but it's in Hussain.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
Pardon?

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
It's in Hussain.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
No, it isn't.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
That's the point.

[00:03:49] Speaker 00:
It isn't in Hussain.

[00:03:50] Speaker 00:
Where do you say it's not in Hussain?

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
I read it.

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
It's hard for me to explain to you where the absence of something is, Your Honor.

[00:03:57] Speaker 00:
Where is the $5 bill?

[00:03:58] Speaker 00:
It used to be in my wallet.

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
It isn't in there anymore.

[00:04:00] Speaker 00:
So it's absent.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in here.

[00:04:02] Speaker 04:
This is all talking about what's not in Duchamp.

[00:04:05] Speaker 04:
The board did not rely only on Duchamp.

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
Of course not.

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
I know that.

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
It relied on Duchamp and Hussein.

[00:04:10] Speaker 04:
So when the board says everything's in these two elements, you have to show this is in neither of them.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:04:19] Speaker 04:
That's right.

[00:04:19] Speaker 00:
But I wanted to start with the basic idea that an admission here that

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
that the Duchamp reference alone does not invalidate any claim for obvious.

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
That's not the basis.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
You're wasting our time.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
So it must be something absent from Duchamp, it follows, in order to make the argument that the combination of Duchamp and Hussain makes the claim obvious.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
So that raised the question.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
What is it that's absent from Duchamp that is supposedly in Hussain?

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
The board doesn't say it.

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
But we tell you in our brief at page 21 that the elements, should we spell it out, the elements that are absent from our independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are specified on page 21 of our opening brief.

[00:05:04] Speaker 00:
Those are not in Hussain.

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
And there's another point here.

[00:05:08] Speaker 04:
Where does the stuff you're citing to me on 21 say they're not in Hussain?

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
It says on page 21 of our opening brief.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
Doesn't that go to Deschamps?

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
No, these are the elements that are not in Dachamp and not in Hussein either.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
That appears on page 21 of our opening brief.

[00:05:30] Speaker 00:
We say, these elements are not in Dachamp and they're not in Hussein either.

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
Where is there a sentence on this page that says these elements are not in Hussein?

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
I thought the argument on invalidity was that a person of ordinary skill and the art would not combine these two.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
Not that the elements were missing.

[00:05:56] Speaker 00:
I can't hear what you're saying.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
I thought your argument with respect to invalidity was that a person of ordinary skill and the art would not combine these two prior art references, not that the two prior art references lacked some element.

[00:06:10] Speaker 00:
We say both things.

[00:06:12] Speaker 00:
And in support of that, we submitted the declaration of Mr. Gusnell.

[00:06:17] Speaker 00:
is in the appendix at 2145 and following.

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
He is an expert under Rule 702, and he qualified to explain why the elements that are pointed out in page 21 of our opening brief are not insane, but that even if they were, it wouldn't be obvious to combine them.

[00:06:36] Speaker 00:
He's explained all that.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
The countervailing evidence is the declaration of Mr. Andrews.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
But Mr. Andrews admitted, when I took his testimony, he admitted,

[00:06:48] Speaker 00:
that this is on page 27 of our opening brief.

[00:06:52] Speaker 00:
He admitted that in Hussain, I asked him, the activation of Hussain's brake has nothing to do with whether a vehicle is below the threshold of rollover, at the threshold of rollover, or beyond the threshold of rollover.

[00:07:08] Speaker 00:
Isn't that correct?

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
And he said,

[00:07:11] Speaker 00:
The answer is yes.

[00:07:13] Speaker 00:
And I said, so the point is that the activation of the break in Hussein scheme has nothing to do with where the vehicle is with respect to the threshold of rollover.

[00:07:22] Speaker 00:
Is that right?

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
And he said, that's correct.

[00:07:24] Speaker 00:
That's his admission under federal rules of evidence 801D2.

[00:07:29] Speaker 00:
He is the only spokesman for Tesla in this proceeding.

[00:07:32] Speaker 00:
And he admitted that my point about Hussein is correct, which means that it isn't obvious to add anything from Hussein, even if you say.

[00:07:41] Speaker 00:
incorrectly, that some element that's in our claim is also disclosed in Hussain.

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
Consider this.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
Deschamps is talking about a vehicle which presumably has its own braking system.

[00:07:52] Speaker 00:
So why would you add another braking system?

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
It doesn't make any sense.

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
But even if that was true, their sole spokesman looked at what he says on page 28.

[00:08:04] Speaker 00:
So the point is that activation of the brake in Hussain has nothing to do with where the vehicle is with respect

[00:08:09] Speaker 00:
to the threshold of rollover, correct?

[00:08:11] Speaker 00:
And he said that's correct.

[00:08:12] Speaker 00:
And he had the opportunity to change that answer after he got the transcript of this thing.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
And he didn't change it.

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
And the reason he didn't change it was that his answer was the right answer.

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
It was correct.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
And this vitiates the idea that it would be obvious to put anything to the same with Deschamps.

[00:08:31] Speaker 00:
And that's the end of the obvious in strip.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
Now, I said before that Gus and

[00:08:37] Speaker 00:
credentials, if you look at his declaration beginning at appendix 2145, his credentials are stellar compared to Mr. Andrews.

[00:08:46] Speaker 00:
See, when you turn to Andrews' statements that are supposed to be in support of Tesla, you aren't looking at 801b2 of federal rules anymore.

[00:08:55] Speaker 00:
Now you're looking at federal rules of evidence 702.

[00:08:58] Speaker 00:
Does he qualify as an expert by experience and training?

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
And the answer is no.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
He hadn't done any engineering work since the 1990s, and this invention came along in 2010.

[00:09:07] Speaker 00:
He was unqualified to say anything to you.

[00:09:11] Speaker 00:
So if you're not going to decide the question of whether these claims are means plus function and only going to decide whether it's obvious to put Duchamp with Hussein, the answer is given to us by Tesla's own witness, the honorable Mr. Andrews under 801D2.

[00:09:30] Speaker 00:
That answer binds them.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
And that answer says it is not obvious to put them together.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
Add to that what Guston has had to say, which is reproduced on pages 28 and 29, where he explains in detail why Hussein wouldn't be put with Duchamp under any circumstances.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
That's our case on a nutshell for non-obviousness.

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
Your entry, your rebuttal.

[00:09:57] Speaker 04:
You want to save the rest of it?

[00:09:58] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:10:06] Speaker 04:
Counsel, you're going to have to help me with how to pronounce your last name.

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
Fawzi.

[00:10:10] Speaker 04:
Fawzi, OK.

[00:10:12] Speaker 02:
Relatively phonetic.

[00:10:22] Speaker 04:
When you're ready.

[00:10:23] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, Asher Fawzi, counsel for Pelley-Tustle.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
Your honors, there are three reasons the court should affirm the board's decision.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
First, substantial evidence supports the board's meticulous review

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
of the teachings of Deschamps and Hussain to find the challenge claims unfathomable.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
On appeal, ARCIS offers no evidence or arguments to overcome this mountain of support.

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
That ARCIS disagrees with the board's factual findings does not create reversible error.

[00:10:51] Speaker 02:
This court should affirm on this basis alone, without ever needing to analyze whether the rollover apparatus limitations are subject to 112F.

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
Second, ours is focused in its briefing on whether role of reparative limitations should be construed as a meansless function as a red herring.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
It's entirely irrelevant to the answer.

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
Can you just jump right to the merits and explain why you think the board's decision that there's a motivation to combine these two references is supported by substantial evidence and also respond briefly that not all the elements are there, although I didn't really get a clear answer on what elements aren't there.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:30] Speaker 02:
As to the first issue, you raised motivation combined substantial evidence.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
There's substantial evidence in the record, and the board went through it in detail as to explicit motivations as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated combined with references.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
That's starting at Appendix 36.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
Just to highlight a few examples, the board noted that Hussein's end-of-travel brake would provide tactile feedback to the driver in Duchamp's steer-by-wire system, which was a known issue.

[00:12:03] Speaker 02:
The board also noted that Hussein's brake would provide a resistive torque.

[00:12:07] Speaker 02:
That's another motivation.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
And the evidence showed that Duchamp

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
teaches a fixed angular travel for the steering wheel.

[00:12:15] Speaker 02:
And that in and of itself created a reason to look to Hussain as an implementation or a way to implement such a fixed angular travel, steering angle.

[00:12:30] Speaker 02:
And that evidence is also supported.

[00:12:32] Speaker 02:
And the board, in the final decision, credited Mr. Andrews' testimony on that point.

[00:12:37] Speaker 02:
Now, ARCIS argues this morning that as to the

[00:12:41] Speaker 02:
of credibility of Mr. Andrews.

[00:12:44] Speaker 02:
First, I'll note that on appeal, it didn't argue anywhere in its appeal briefs that Mr. Andrews didn't qualify as an expert.

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
So that's new.

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
But otherwise, all of the arguments that are presented in the briefing and on appeal were weighed carefully by the board in the final written decision.

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
And they were rejected.

[00:13:02] Speaker 02:
Those are at appendix 43 to appendix 46.

[00:13:05] Speaker 03:
I'll take you back to motivation to combine.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
You may well have cited substantial evidence

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
But can you show me where the board actually makes a finding on the motivation to?

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
Combine and you know reason of the articulates their reasoning so that we can reasonably discern what their finding was So at appendix 36 The board walks through the asserted reasons for combining the champagne is same and

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
citing to the petition, including some of the examples that I just raised.

[00:13:45] Speaker 02:
And then subsequently, on the following pages from appendix 37 through 41, it addresses one by one each of the arguments raised by our system and why the evidence doesn't.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
I see where it goes through what the parties have argued.

[00:14:04] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
I guess infer that they were persuaded by the petitioner.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
After all, they rule that the claims have been proven unpalatable.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
I'm just not clear on where they're actually making a finding, or where's the best place I can look to for a finding on motivation to combine.

[00:14:44] Speaker 02:
Well, I can address that in, I think, two parts.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
One is that at appendix

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
It states the board states its conclusion as to both constructions.

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
So if we're talking about meansless function construction or non-meansless function construction.

[00:15:15] Speaker 02:
And as a non-meansless function construction in Appendix 28, it reaches the ultimate conclusion that if claim one does not invoke meansless function for the reasons above, petitioner shows that its proposed combination teaches the limitation.

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
Also, at Appendix 43, the board states that, for the reasons above, petitioner shows that Deschamps teaches steering up to the point of roller, that Deschamps is enabled, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Deschamps and Hussain.

[00:15:57] Speaker 01:
Council, what about this argument in the blue brief at the bottom of page 24

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
25.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
This analysis shows neither that Deschamps 2 implementation steering scenarios is or can be rollover prevention apparatus that the claims at issue call for.

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
Neither of Deschamps implementation steering scenarios prevents steering a vehicle beyond a threshold of a role under any circumstances.

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
For that element of the claims at issue missing from Deschamps, the FW

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
D resorts to Hussain, but Hussain doesn't disclose that missing element either.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
I believe that argument's incorrect and the facts and the evidence that the board went through show that.

[00:16:47] Speaker 01:
Can you just point me to that evidence?

[00:16:49] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
First, I think there's two important parts that

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
I think the best evidence is at Appendix 30, in which the board explicitly says and cites to Deschamps' disclosure, which

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
It says, because we find that Duchamp teaches, quote unquote, a maximal angle for the steering wheel based on a criterion that can be 100% of the rollover transverse acceleration, we determine that Duchamp teaches or suggests this limitation.

[00:17:27] Speaker 02:
And what's disclosed there is that Duchamp's fixed steering angle can be set to be exactly 100% of what the rollover angle would be.

[00:17:36] Speaker 02:
It also talks about Duchamp's purpose,

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
As to it being to limit the driver to being able to steer their vehicle within the range of safe movements of the vehicle and and importantly

[00:17:51] Speaker 02:
whether or not the board relied on Hussein for this limitation is dependent upon which construction the board was interpreting it at the time.

[00:18:01] Speaker 02:
Hussein has really looked for the corresponding structure, if meansless function did apply, and to a different aspect of the limitation, if meansless function doesn't apply.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
And the board noted that Hussein may not even be necessary, depending on the breadth of the scope here.

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
I believe, Your Honor, that answers both of Judge Hughes' questions.

[00:18:28] Speaker 02:
I see the missing limitations and the motivation combined, but happy to answer more questions on that if there are.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
I'd like to also just quickly note one more issue with regards to the independent basis for affirmance regarding the shram ground that is in our brief.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
In petitioners' and appellants' reply, they raised In-Rae Lee, arguing that Lee

[00:18:54] Speaker 02:
As far as affirmance in view of ground one.

[00:18:56] Speaker 02:
Did the board reach this?

[00:18:58] Speaker 02:
Excuse me?

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
Did the board reach this?

[00:19:00] Speaker 02:
The board did not reach this in the final decision.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:19:04] Speaker 02:
But we believe it's a pure legal issue under Inrei Koniski.

[00:19:08] Speaker 02:
That is, there are no disputes as to any of the facts that are of record on this issue.

[00:19:13] Speaker 02:
And Inrei Li is inapplicable here, because in that case, there was no discussion in the opinion as to the purported alternative grounds, other than saying they would raise that oral argument.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
And the court noted that the parties needed a fair opportunity to support their positions.

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
Here, the argument was fully briefed before the PTAB.

[00:19:33] Speaker 02:
And it's been briefed as well here.

[00:19:35] Speaker 02:
And there's been a fair opportunity.

[00:19:38] Speaker 02:
If there are no further questions, I'll see my time.

[00:19:50] Speaker 04:
Mr. Bright, you have a little under or a little over five minutes.

[00:19:54] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
On the so-called alternative ground for affirmance, my opponent did not appeal that.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
It went against him at the board, and he didn't appeal it.

[00:20:06] Speaker 00:
So he waived it.

[00:20:08] Speaker 00:
It's gone.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
It never was presented in this appeal, and we didn't brief it for that reason.

[00:20:12] Speaker 04:
I think he probably has a chennery problem, too, for us to affirm on that.

[00:20:16] Speaker 04:
Why don't you address the merits of the actual

[00:20:18] Speaker 04:
basis the board decided the case on.

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
That's the obviousness point.

[00:20:23] Speaker 00:
Obviousness is an issue of law, so we don't have to defer to any board of appeal, which has no Article 1 or Article 3 judges, just some bureaucrats appointed by the Patent Office.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
But we do review their factual findings for substantial evidence.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
That's my point about Loper.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
Loper says you don't do that anymore because you don't have to pay attention to those bureaus.

[00:20:45] Speaker 04:
Stop.

[00:20:45] Speaker 04:
Stop.

[00:20:45] Speaker 04:
That is not what Loper says.

[00:20:47] Speaker 04:
Very well, Your Honor.

[00:20:48] Speaker 00:
That is not even.

[00:20:50] Speaker 04:
We disagree with that.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
You need to be very careful here about making a frivolous argument.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
Yes, sir.

[00:20:57] Speaker 00:
Let me get back to the obviousness argument, if I can.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
And back to our brief, where we point out, as I said on pages 21 and 22, we say, we point out the elements that are absent from Deschamps

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
And likewise, absent from Hussain, and my opponent has not pointed out where these elements are found in either reference, we know that Deschamps alone doesn't invalidate a single patent claim at issue here.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
their experts, so-called expert, Andrews admitted it.

[00:21:26] Speaker 03:
So either they find it in Hussain or it's nowhere.

[00:21:29] Speaker 03:
I still don't see where you actually argued that there's any element that isn't found in either or in the combination of Deschamps.

[00:21:38] Speaker 03:
Hold on, let me just get the question out.

[00:21:41] Speaker 03:
Is page 21 the place?

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
Yes, in my opening brief.

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
So these elements are absent from Deschamps and absent from Hussain.

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
You're saying page 21.

[00:21:49] Speaker 00:
That's where it is.

[00:21:50] Speaker 04:
Where does it say on page 21?

[00:21:52] Speaker 04:
And remember, I do not want to hear frivolous arguments.

[00:21:56] Speaker 04:
Where does it say those elements are absent from Hussain?

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
It says this page.

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
It says, these elements are absent from Deschamps.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
And it says, the board therefore relies upon Hussain to fill the gap.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
But Hussain doesn't have these elements.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
Where does that say that last part?

[00:22:18] Speaker 03:
that Hussein, but Hussein doesn't have these elements.

[00:22:31] Speaker 00:
To my reading, the brief says, and should say to you, that these elements

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
listed on page 21 are not disclosed in Hussain, and my opponent does not even assert otherwise, and my opponent does not even attempt to step away from the admissions of his own expert.

[00:22:47] Speaker 00:
He said not a word about that.

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
Anyway, that's all I have to say on rebuttal.

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:22:52] Speaker 04:
OK.

[00:22:52] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:22:53] Speaker 04:
The case is submitted.