[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
Our first case for argument today is 24-1246, IPA Technologies versus Google.

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
Mr. Hartsell, please proceed.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:11] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court, Stephen Hartsell on behalf of IPA.

[00:00:14] Speaker 04:
This appeal turns on a single legal failure.

[00:00:17] Speaker 04:
Specifically, there is no evidence in the record that Dr. Moran conceived of any of the three novel aspects of the OA facilitator.

[00:00:25] Speaker 04:
That's the subject of section 4.5 of the Martin reference.

[00:00:30] Speaker 04:
Dr. Moran never makes such a claim.

[00:00:33] Speaker 04:
The board ignored this fatal evidentiary defect.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
Instead, the board defaulted to a credibility contest.

[00:00:41] Speaker 04:
The board decided that Dr. Moran was more credible than Mr. Shire and Mr. Martin because he's credible.

[00:00:47] Speaker 04:
Therefore, he must have invented something.

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
That was improper.

[00:00:51] Speaker 04:
general credibility cannot be a substitute for evidence of conception.

[00:00:56] Speaker 04:
I think it's important to step back to this court's earlier opinion in 2022.

[00:01:00] Speaker 04:
There this court acknowledged that Dr. Moran made general technical contributions to the LAA project, but this court said that's not the relevant inquiry.

[00:01:10] Speaker 04:
What's relevant is did he make

[00:01:12] Speaker 04:
Did he make an intervention contribution to the portions of the reference relied on?

[00:01:16] Speaker 04:
Now when we go and we look at section 4.5 of the Martin reference, the very first paragraph says that facilitation plays a central role in OAA.

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
Can I just ask you this?

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
So I'm not remembering with enough precision, so correct me.

[00:01:31] Speaker 02:
I thought that you agreed, and I'm going to summarize it this way, to look at 4.5 actually as a

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
block, not to look inside 4.5 for specific ideas that were the specific ideas carried over into the claims that are not challenged.

[00:01:59] Speaker 04:
Did I misunderstand that?

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
I can't say it was ever IPA's argument.

[00:02:03] Speaker 04:
That may have been Google's argument.

[00:02:05] Speaker 04:
But I think it's kind of important to go back to the earlier decision.

[00:02:08] Speaker 04:
When we're looking at that, again,

[00:02:11] Speaker 04:
The very first paragraph of that says that our notion, being the OAA notion, as a facilitator is similar to that proposed by others.

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
I'm thinking of, and you're going to have to identify it if you know, that you agreed, I don't know whether it was on remand or I think it was on remand, that you agree that 4.5 is the relevant portion.

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
I agree that 4.5 is- Why does that not allow the board to conclude that the issue is whether Dr. Moran contributed to 4.5?

[00:02:49] Speaker 02:
No further refinement.

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
Because the very first paragraph of 4.5 again says, facilitators were known.

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
And then the very last sentence says, the OA facilitator differs in three ways.

[00:03:01] Speaker 04:
And this court, in its prior opinion, said, OK, we look at these three different ways.

[00:03:05] Speaker 04:
Those are the concepts that made it into

[00:03:09] Speaker 04:
the 115 and the 560 patent.

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
So essentially, the very first paragraph of section 4.5 of the Martin reference is just facilitators were known.

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
The OA facilitator differs in three respects.

[00:03:21] Speaker 03:
You mean his testimony might be read to say he only contributed to the first paragraph, the background part?

[00:03:28] Speaker 03:
Is that right?

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
Is that the theory?

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
Because he said he contributed to 4.5, and 4.5 has what you call the three novel features in it, right?

[00:03:37] Speaker 04:
But he never addresses any of the three novel features.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
Why does he have to do that?

[00:03:43] Speaker 03:
He says, I contributed to 4.5.

[00:03:45] Speaker 04:
Because facilitators were known.

[00:03:48] Speaker 04:
So again, this court, in I think its footnote, three of its prior opinion, said that, again,

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
What we really have to look at is we have to look at the reference being considered and the portions being relied upon must be relevant to establishing obviousness.

[00:04:04] Speaker 04:
So again, the very first paragraph, if it's just facilitators are generally known, well, that's a prior art concept.

[00:04:09] Speaker 04:
Again, this court already recognized that it's the three novel features.

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
Those are the concepts that made it into the patent.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
Therefore, it needs to be one of those three concepts that Dr. Moran needs to have conceived of or contributed to or invented in some way.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
OK, so I'm looking at 4.5 itself, which is on 2872 and 2873.

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
And yes, it says facilitators play a central role in the A. But then it goes on to say it talks about delegation, compound goals, which

[00:04:45] Speaker 00:
Third, respect the OAA facilitation extends the basic concept of facilitation.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
So it seems as though the OAA facilitator that is at issue here and being discussed performs what you're suggesting three general things, right?

[00:05:07] Speaker 04:
Yes, I call them the three novel aspects, yes.

[00:05:10] Speaker 00:
Well, then, on page 21 of the board's opinion, I mean, I think I might be the only one new to this case.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
I think my other panelists may have been on this one before.

[00:05:18] Speaker 00:
But at page 21 of the board's opinion, we find that petitioner Dr. Moran has sufficiently identified the facilitator in the Martin reference as his work and persuasively asserted

[00:05:30] Speaker 00:
that his background and experience with OAA and distributed software systems supports his contribution to the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach of 4.5.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
So why isn't that enough?

[00:05:47] Speaker 00:
It's identifying the OAA facilitator discussed in 4.5.

[00:05:53] Speaker 00:
4.5, yes, the first sentence is a general one about facilitators have long played a role, but all the rest of the paragraphs of 4.5 are about what you call these three novel aspects.

[00:06:05] Speaker 00:
And the board has made a precise and specific fact finding that they credit his claim that he contributed to

[00:06:12] Speaker 00:
the conception of the facilitator in the distributed agent approach in 4.5.

[00:06:17] Speaker 00:
Why isn't that enough?

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
Because Dr. Moran's declaration never speaks to any of that.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
Dr. Moran, when you read Dr. Moran's declaration, he's very clear when he claims... Wait, so suppose that... So I don't understand.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
The board found expressly, made a fact-finding.

[00:06:35] Speaker 00:
So you're now saying this fact-finding is supported by substantial evidence?

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
Is that your argument?

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:06:40] Speaker 00:
So the board did make a fact-finding that he contributed to what is disclosed in 4.5, which, as far as I'm concerned, is good enough to cover the novel aspects.

[00:06:49] Speaker 00:
Because it would be weird for the board to say he contributed to the already known concept of facilitators.

[00:06:54] Speaker 00:
That would be written differently than he contributed to the OAA facilitator described in 4.5.

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
Right?

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
I believe so.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
So, so the board made a fact-finding which on its face ought to be sufficient.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
You're just saying I have to look past that fact-finding to the substantial, whether there is substantial evidence for that fact-finding.

[00:07:14] Speaker 00:
And why do you say there is not?

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
Because when you look at Dr. Moran's declaration, nowhere in his declaration... Tell me where, where you want me to look.

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
That's, that's the problem is there's a lack of evidence here.

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
So for 2677, he says,

[00:07:28] Speaker 03:
played a significant role regarding the distribute agent approach and in particular using a facilitator as described in the OAA paper at section four and four point one to four point five.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
But when so for example if you appendix 2669 paragraph 25 Dr. Moran says I conceived of an agent he's talking about a database agent.

[00:07:50] Speaker 04:
He clearly, when he wants to claim credit, he says, I conceived of something.

[00:07:54] Speaker 04:
Appendix 2669, paragraph 26, he talks about security features or not.

[00:08:00] Speaker 04:
He says, I included those.

[00:08:02] Speaker 04:
But then when you get to Appendix 2671, paragraph 29, when he's talking about the OA facilitator itself, he says, the OA facilitator that my team at SRI developed.

[00:08:13] Speaker 04:
He didn't say, me and my team at SRI developed.

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
that my team developed this at my direction based on my specifications, he never claims to have actually developed DOA facilitator much less any of the three novel aspects.

[00:08:28] Speaker 04:
And that's been the problem.

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
I think that's the problem with his whole declaration is that there are no specifics.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
That's exactly what he says here.

[00:08:36] Speaker 03:
He says I played a role, significant role,

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
Developing the facilitator described in 4.5, but we but we don't know what that role is And I think that's the problem if we go back again this court earlier faulted the board for not performing the Duncan parking analysis And I think Duncan parking is very instructive when you go back and look at that case You know what was it at issue there was?

[00:08:59] Speaker 04:
figure eight in the anticipating reference and it was whether the Chief Technology Officer Mr. Schwartz had drawn that.

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
When you finish reading Duncan Parking, you know exactly what Mr. Schwartz was alleged to have conceived.

[00:09:11] Speaker 04:
He did the figure eight, which the electrical element, which was a significant problem.

[00:09:16] Speaker 04:
That was his role.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
That was the part of the project.

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
He was

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
tasked with figuring out, and there was evidence in the record where Mr. Schwartz himself said, I came up with the idea that there needs to be power management blocks next to central controllers.

[00:09:31] Speaker 04:
He says that he conceived of the notion of connecting solar panels to the recharge battery.

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
In other words, in Duncan Parking there was a very, I think there was very, very clear statements from Mr. Schwartz.

[00:09:43] Speaker 04:
We know exactly what Mr. Schwartz was alleged to have conceived, and then of course the evidence to support that.

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
Here,

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
Dr. Moran's declaration just has several high-level statements.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
Again, I played a role.

[00:09:54] Speaker 04:
What does that mean, playing a role?

[00:09:56] Speaker 04:
I sat in the room while it happened.

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
Part of the problem for me is that I have to review those statements under a substantial evidence standard.

[00:10:04] Speaker 00:
The board decided when he said I played a significant role regarding the distributed agent-based approach in 4.5.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
that that was sufficient.

[00:10:15] Speaker 00:
That's not a question of law.

[00:10:17] Speaker 00:
That's a question of fact and substantial evidence.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
What does that statement mean when he says it?

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
Maybe I personally would have said, I need more explanation than that.

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
I played a significant role.

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
It's just not good enough for me personally.

[00:10:29] Speaker 00:
But I don't get to do that.

[00:10:30] Speaker 00:
This isn't de novo.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
Well, I believe in whether there's conception is whether there's inventorship is a de novo review.

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
I know it's based on the underlying facts.

[00:10:42] Speaker 00:
This is a question of whether there's substantial evidence in the form of his declaration to support the board's fact finding.

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
So they're looking at that statement and they're interpreting what he is claiming to have done.

[00:10:56] Speaker 00:
That sounds like fact to me.

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
And I guess we would just disagree, because again, we specifically do not know what Dr. Moran is alert, what he specifically believes that he did.

[00:11:08] Speaker 04:
And I think this is particularly problematic here.

[00:11:11] Speaker 04:
Again, given that the Martin reference already acknowledges that facilitators are known in the arts.

[00:11:16] Speaker 00:
I have a couple of dumb questions.

[00:11:17] Speaker 00:
These are just procedural dumb questions.

[00:11:19] Speaker 00:
Do you have an opportunity to depose Dr. Moran?

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
Did you depose him?

[00:11:24] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
And did you ask him these questions?

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
No, I did not ask him these questions.

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
Why isn't that on you?

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
Because he made a statement.

[00:11:31] Speaker 00:
I played a significant role in this and the board decided that's enough to say he meaningfully contributed to the invention of this concept.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
And you had a chance, you had this declaration in front of you when you deposed him and you chose to ask him no questions to follow up on the nature of his role.

[00:11:46] Speaker 04:
Because this is, I think one of the important points to remember is this came up because this reference was already, had already been excluded by the examiner in the original prosecution nearly 20 years before.

[00:11:58] Speaker 04:
This reference, it came back in because Google's IPR wanted to use it.

[00:12:02] Speaker 04:
So Google bears the burden, as this court already found, of proving that that reference qualifies as prior art.

[00:12:10] Speaker 04:
So when the reference was already disqualified,

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
It's Google's burden to come in and say specifically, given that this reference is already excluded, what specifically did Dr. Moran contribute?

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
What exactly did he do?

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
He didn't do that.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
I don't believe it's IPA's burden to then go back in and fill in the gaps that Google purposely left out.

[00:12:32] Speaker 00:
I don't think there's a gap.

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
I think he made a somewhat conclusory statement, but he made a statement.

[00:12:38] Speaker 00:
The board then relied on that statement, which it's entitled to do, and made a credibility determination.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
And you're saying, well, that statement wasn't detailed enough because we don't know whether it contributed to this or contributed to that.

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
And you had a chance to oppose them, and you chose not to ask those questions.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
I don't know.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
Why don't we save the rest of your time for rebuttal, unless you have anything further?

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
Let's save it for rebuttal, then.

[00:13:09] Speaker 00:
Mr. Zellberger.

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Daniel Zellberger for Google.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
Substantial evidence supports the board's determination that Dr. Moran is a joint inventor of the applied portions of the Martin reference, rendering it prior art under pre-AAA section 102A.

[00:13:33] Speaker 01:
This is a deeply factual case involving conflicting testimony from three fact witnesses, as this court observed in the last decision and as the board observed.

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
His whole point is that there isn't actually conflicting testimony.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
There is a very carefully worded with clever that his characterization would be.

[00:13:55] Speaker 02:
clever placement of commas in that sentence on 2677 so that you can't tell whether he is saying, I contributed to the facilitator, comma, which is used in 4.5, or whether he's saying, I contributed

[00:14:14] Speaker 02:
in a meaningful way, to the particular facilitator used in the way it is specified in 4.5.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
And you just can't tell which those two things mean.

[00:14:26] Speaker 02:
So what does one?

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
I take it that's his argument.

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, and I agree that is IPA's argument, and that's simply not a plausible interpretation of paragraph 39 of Dr. Moran's declaration, and certainly not one that would show the board.

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
Assume with me, I think, it is a plausible interpretation.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
What do I do then?

[00:14:47] Speaker 01:
Well, I would say the board's interpretation, even if that is a plausible interpretation, the board's interpretation of paragraph 39 is the more likely to be correct one, and it's one that's supported by additional evidence.

[00:15:01] Speaker 01:
What's the additional evidence?

[00:15:02] Speaker 01:
Well, besides the testimony itself, which I do want to talk about, there's also Dr. Moran's testimony explaining why he was in a position to make the contributions that he made, talking about his history, the other projects that he worked on, and those other projects even tied in with the article

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
That doesn't make sense to me.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
Talking about the fact that he was equipped to have made a contribution is not saying I made a contribution.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
There's a million people out there that are qualified to do something that have a background sufficient that they could do something.

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
It doesn't mean they did it.

[00:15:36] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think this case is different.

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
It has one very crucial fact that the board found very significant.

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
That was the other article where Dr. Moran was the lead author.

[00:15:47] Speaker 01:
Mr. Martin wasn't an author at all.

[00:15:51] Speaker 01:
This article, which published around the same time, talked about the origins of the OEA system, including the facilitator.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
And it identified two projects that only Dr. Moran had worked on, not Mr. Martin, not Mr. Shire.

[00:16:06] Speaker 01:
And that evidence was so damning to IPA's case that during deposition, Mr. Shire said that wasn't true.

[00:16:12] Speaker 01:
His own article, he's listed as the second author.

[00:16:14] Speaker 01:
He said, what I said in my article wasn't accurate.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
The board specifically pointed to that at Appendix 23.

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
where they said that Mr. Shire disagreed with the article's description of the origins of OAA and the facilitator.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
I'm a little confused.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
How does what you just said tie into the idea that was a central part of your friend's discussion that there are three particular aspects of the facilitator set out in 4.5?

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
Does what you just said about an earlier article relate to those three particular aspects, the transparent delegation, first, second, third?

[00:17:02] Speaker 01:
Well, I was answering Judge Moore's question about why background is relevant.

[00:17:08] Speaker 02:
Why is it relevant?

[00:17:09] Speaker 01:
So the article is also relevant because the article also talks about the facilitator and it talks about functionality.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
that goes to at least one of those three inventive features.

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
It says.

[00:17:28] Speaker 02:
What you're about to say is central.

[00:17:31] Speaker 01:
So I'm all ears.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:35] Speaker 01:
At appendix 4951.

[00:17:46] Speaker 01:
Okay, this is the earlier article that that's right your honor At appendix 4951 in the first paragraph on the right hand side Do we have agents?

[00:17:58] Speaker 01:
About five lines from the bottom it says the natural language system produces a logical form representing the user's request and passes it to the facilitator agent and

[00:18:10] Speaker 01:
which decomposes it into requests that can be handled by the individual application agents.

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
And then when we look at section 4.5 of the Martin reference, that goes to how it describes as what IPA would coin the second novel feature, the OAA facilitator's handling of compound goals, including its involvement of about

[00:18:40] Speaker 01:
Seven lines down in that paragraph, how this involves the selection of one or more agent to handle each of its sub-goals.

[00:18:49] Speaker 01:
Those are describing the very same concept.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
So, Paige, I assume you're directing me to 2872?

[00:18:55] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:18:56] Speaker 01:
The last paragraph, that begins with the word second.

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
About eight lines down.

[00:19:02] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:19:03] Speaker 01:
Well, so the paragraph starts by talking about how it's describing the handling of compound goals

[00:19:09] Speaker 01:
and how this involves selecting one or more agents to handle each of its subgoals.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
I would also say, Your Honor, that I don't think IPA's interpretation of Appendix 2677 is a reasonable one.

[00:19:31] Speaker 01:
If we look at

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
significant role in a vacuum, then perhaps there's different interpretations of what significant role might mean.

[00:19:41] Speaker 01:
But here, we have one sentence where Dr. Moran says, I had substantial experience in distributed systems and contributed to the conception of distributed technologies that are at the core of the OEA paper.

[00:19:54] Speaker 01:
And then the next sentence is describing that conception.

[00:19:57] Speaker 01:
He says, in particular, I played a significant role

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
regarding the distributed agent-based approach and in particular using a facilitator as described in the OEA paper at section 4 and 4.1 to 4.5.

[00:20:13] Speaker 01:
And if there was any question.

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
Does the phrase distributed agent-based approach, how does that map on to the first, second, third items in 4.5?

[00:20:28] Speaker 01:
Well, so the first, second, and third items in 4.5 go to features of the facilitator, characteristics of the facilitator, I would say.

[00:20:36] Speaker 01:
The facilitator is just one component, and the three aspects are really describing characteristics of it.

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
In our view, you don't...

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
You can always go a level deeper.

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
If we said Dr. Moran contributed to the second novel feature, they would say, well, what subcomponent of the second feature?

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
In our view, you look at the component.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
The facilitator is one component of the OEA system.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
The facilitator is what he's saying he contributed significantly to.

[00:21:06] Speaker 01:
The distributed nature of the OEA system that involves really the entire OEA system.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
And Dr. Moran was, even Mr. Martin and Mr. Shire don't dispute that Dr. Moran was the leader of the team.

[00:21:18] Speaker 01:
He was really ingrained in everything.

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
But the issue right now is the facilitator.

[00:21:22] Speaker 01:
And by assisting in the conception of the facilitator and having a leading role in that, he contributed to all three of the novel aspects described in section 4.5.

[00:21:34] Speaker 01:
If there was even still any ambiguity in the sentence describing Dr. Marin's significant role, I think the last sentence of this paragraph is also instructive.

[00:21:47] Speaker 01:
There he says, as discussed above in sections two and three, my personal experiences and background helped me conceive of and add such contributions to the OEA paper.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
So there he's making clear that when he's talking about his significant role, he is talking about conception.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
Was there an opportunity and or a request for further discovery on remand from our previous decision?

[00:22:23] Speaker 01:
There was not your honor.

[00:22:24] Speaker 02:
Neither a request nor an opportunity, hence no request or what?

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
That's right there was further briefing and I would note that in that further briefing

[00:22:38] Speaker 01:
IPA made a point that I think is instructive that the board quoted at Appendix 23.

[00:22:44] Speaker 01:
Here, the board said, quote, Patent Owner also states that Shire and Martin both, quote, here they're quoting the Patent Owner's remand brief, independently testified that Dr. Martin did not make technical contributions to the core infrastructure of OEA, which would have included the facilitator.

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
IP has constantly shifted positions throughout this proceeding.

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
But the dispute between Dr. Moran on the one hand and Mr. Shire and Mr. Martin on the other has always been about who invented the facilitator generally as it applies to the OEA.

[00:23:22] Speaker 02:
We happily have not been discussing this morning this broader idea that Dr. Moran was a mere administrator as head of the project.

[00:23:34] Speaker 02:
We were talking about something much more focused

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
Right your honor and on your question on further discovery that there was none there was further briefing.

[00:23:43] Speaker 01:
It was just further briefing Unless there are further questions, I respectfully ask that the board's decision be affirmed Yeah

[00:24:00] Speaker 04:
Just one or two quick points regarding the other OAA paper.

[00:24:03] Speaker 04:
Mr. Chayer is named on the paper.

[00:24:05] Speaker 04:
The facilitator, what little there is discussed in there.

[00:24:09] Speaker 04:
Again, there's not a lot about the three novel aspects.

[00:24:12] Speaker 04:
That's Mr. Chayer's work.

[00:24:15] Speaker 04:
Nowhere in that paper does Dr. Moran say, this is mine.

[00:24:18] Speaker 04:
Actually, Dr. Moran's declaration and testimony, he didn't testify about that paper.

[00:24:23] Speaker 04:
Furthermore, the fact that his name's on that paper, there's been a lot of testimony in the record about why Dr. Moran's name is included on some of those papers.

[00:24:30] Speaker 04:
And I would note that at Appendix 2673, paragraph 33, Dr. Moran talks about part of his job.

[00:24:39] Speaker 04:
Responsibilities included funding proposals and research publications.

[00:24:43] Speaker 04:
It was his job to get papers about OA out there to get funding.

[00:24:49] Speaker 04:
At the end of the day, unlike the Duncan Parking case,

[00:24:55] Speaker 04:
Nobody can say specifically what dr. Moran Allegedly contributed conceived of or invented as it relates to the the claimed OA facilitator I think that is a fatal defect.

[00:25:08] Speaker 04:
That is a fatal defect in this case Unless the court has any other questions IPA would respectfully request this court reverse the board I think both counsel in this case is taken under submission