[00:00:01] Speaker 02:
Our first case for argument today is 24-2136, Raven Crossbows v. Squires. Counsel, how do I say your name?

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
Jelinchek. Ms. Jelinchek, please begin.

[00:00:16] Speaker 01:
Good morning. May it please the court. Katie Jelinchek of Foley & Lardner, LLP, on behalf of the appellant and patent owner, Raven Crossbows.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
This appeal turns on a single dispositive issue. what it means for a string guide to be mounted to a bow limb.

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
Claim 1 of the 015 patent claims a very specific mechanical relationship, one in which the string guide is attached to the limb in a way that constrains its motion so that it moves with the limb.

[00:00:54] Speaker 01:
Stanzioli 771 does not disclose that structure.

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
Well, one of the problems I have with your proposed construction is the claim already has a limitation rotatable around the first axis. So if I were to import your construction into the understanding of the word mounted, which, by the way, doesn't seem... like anyone's plain meaning. The word mounted does not correlate in anyone's mind with rotatable around the first axis. I mean, that's just not plain understanding of the word. But also, it's a separate claim limitation.

[00:01:29] Speaker 02:
A first string guide mounted to the first limb and rotatable around the first axis. So why would I import rotatable around the first axis, which is its own claim limitation, somehow into the construction of the word mounted?

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
Construing mounted to mean that it's fixed around an access is not importing a rotational element into the claim. It's simply providing structural clarity as to the connection between the limb and the string guide, which is that structural clarity that's disclosed.

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
But that structural clarity comes from its own claim term. That's a claim limitation. That is its own claim limitation. So why would I take something that's its own claim limitation and try to stuff it into the definition of the word mounted?

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
Because the intrinsic evidence... tells you that in every embodiment disclosed by the applicant, Mountain 2 contemplated that specific arrangement that included a physical connection to only allow rotation around that fixed access.

[00:02:42] Speaker 00:
What is your best intrinsic evidence that you can claim supports your proposed claim construction?

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
Figures 10 through 12 and the corresponding description.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
And what is really your response to Chief Judge Moore's other statement about the fact that what you're trying to have us construe, mount it to, would actually be redundant of other language of the claim?

[00:03:13] Speaker 01:
It's not redundant of the other limitations because the other limitations aren't enough to describe that spatial relationship that's contemplated by the mounting two arrangement. Each limitation must carry its own meaning, and the Federal Circuit has routinely held that we can't treat claim language as surpluges.

[00:03:37] Speaker 03:
So what do you mean by that? Because I guess other language says that the string guide has to be rotatable around the first axis, right? So what additional meaning are you getting from your construction magnitude?

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
Well, the other limitations describe the internal structure of the string guide and its interaction with the string and the cables.

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
It doesn't say anything about how the limbs are mounted to the string guide. And mounted to is the only limitation that defines how the string guide is positioned relative to the limb.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
My understanding is you have no dispute with the indirectly connected...

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
interpretation of magnitude. Is that right?

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
The fact that the construction permits indirect connections generally is not the problem.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
The problem is that the board's construction permits an infinite number of indirect connections without any structural or functional limitations as to how the limb and the string guide are meant to interact.

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
Well, could the rest of the language in the claim actually provide those sort of boundaries that you contend are somehow missing?

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
The remaining claim limitations don't speak to that connection between the LIM and the string guide. Those other claim limitations in Claim 1 relate to the configuration of the helical power cable, how it wraps around the cams, ultimately the width of what that looks like and how that interacts in both a released and drawn position of a prospect.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
I guess I'm having trouble understanding that, but I'm probably missing something. So claim one says if we inserted your proposed construction of a rotatable I'm sorry, I've mounted two in there, right? It would be a first string guide physically connected to allow only rotation about a fixed axis to the first bow limb and rotatable around the first axis, right?

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
Right, but that rotatable around the first axis is talking about that string guide's relative movement to the limb.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
But why would you need to say to allow only rotation about a fixed axis if you're also saying rotatable around a fixed axis?

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
The rotation around the fixed access in the proposed construction of mounted two is identifying the physical relationship of the string guide to the limb. The rotation element in the claim, rotatable around a first access, talks about how that string guide is going to operate within the scope of the claim.

[00:06:55] Speaker 00:
Are you arguing for any sort of disclaimer or disavowal in the intrinsic record?

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
No. Raven is proposing a construction of Mounted 2 that aligns exactly with what it disclosed in the embodiments, the three distinct embodiments.

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
Let me follow up on Judge Cunningham's question. You said no to disavowal or disclaimer or anything like that. What about lexicography? Do you think, because I, if I use the word mounted in normal speech, I don't think only rotational about a fixed axis. That's not the definition that pops into my mind for what is otherwise a pretty normal word. So do you believe that there was lexicography in the patent that clearly defined the word mounted to have this very precise and not plain ordinary meaning?

[00:07:47] Speaker 02:
Yes. Yes. Where? Show me exactly where that lexicography occurred.

[00:07:51] Speaker 01:
Specifically, it would be in the three distinct embodiments that are disclosed in the patent.

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
I'm hoping for a column in line, though.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
Sure, of course.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
So, column 5, lines 23 through 26, and appendix 61. Column 5.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
lines 64 through 65.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
Okay, but what, and so in column five, where is the lexicography that the word mounted requires this not plain meaning definition?

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
It's describing how the string guide is physically connected to the link. It's not disclosing... But that doesn't look like lexicography to me. Like, it just looks like a description. I think in this circumstance, it's both. The description of the figures is providing the specific application of the very simplistic crossbow design that's contemplated by claim one. And in each of these distinct embodiments, there is only...

[00:09:08] Speaker 01:
physical connection between the limb and the string guide whereby the string guide is attached in such a way that it's rotating around that limb's fixed axis.

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
The construction that's proposed by Raven addresses the exact problem that the district court judge in the parallel litigation pointed out with the board's construction, whereby that if mounted to means all connections, direct and indirect connections, every component of a crossbow is mounted to every other component. And that's not a hypothetical problem.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
That is exactly how petitioner's expert understood that term. And that's at Appendix 1063, page 146, lines 13 through 24.

[00:10:11] Speaker 02:
So it sounds like what you're saying, and you can help me if I'm not right about this, is that your problem is with the indirect aspect. Because if everything is actually connected to everything else somehow, then theoretically everything is mounted to everything else. And that's not an appropriate use of the term mounted. Is that what your argument is?

[00:10:35] Speaker 01:
That's exactly right, and that is exactly the error that the Federal Circuit rejected in Power Integrations, a panel in which Your Honor was a part of, that rejected an unreasonably broad construction that eliminated the structural relationship that the specific claim language was contemplating.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
Okay, because I just want to make sure this is really clear, because I think one of the very first questions Judge Cunningham asked you is, do you dispute... that there are indirect connections, and you said, no, indirect connections are fine, but what you're really explaining is, no, there can be attenuated indirect connections that aren't fine, and that's why that climate construction is too broad. Is that how I understand you to be arguing this?

[00:11:23] Speaker 01:
That's exactly right, and it's that infinite number of indirect connections or an indirect connection that doesn't provide any structural or functional support

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
information that tells a person of ordinary skill in the art any meaningful connection about that physical relationship between the string guide and the connection between this argument and the argument you're making about mounted two right because it seems like you're saying there can't be any infinite indirect set of connections but then You're saying the remedy is to adopt this construction of mounted two that seems to create all these problems and not be tethered to what mounted two ordinarily means.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
So why do we jump from you can't have an infinite number of indirect connections and be mounted two to your proposed construction of mounted two?

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
The infinite number of indirect connections renders the claim term mounted two meaningless, whereby...

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
requiring a specific construction of mounted to that is tethered to the specific disclosure in figures 10 through 12, and the corresponding description of those figures provides the necessary clarity for a person of ordinary skill in the art as to how do the limbs physically interact with the string guide.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
But what if we're not buying your proposed construction? I understand the argument and the clarification you made to my colleagues here, but at the same time, I'm not buying this proposed construction that you're identifying. Is there something else in the intrinsic record that you think actually could pit the appropriate bounds on your concerns with respect to the indirect connection portion?

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
I think any proposed construction amounted to has to embody the idea that there is a physical connection between the limb and and the string guide, such that they move in combination when the drawstring is pulled.

[00:13:35] Speaker 01:
And they are going to move in tandem. And that string guide, as it relates to other claim limitations, also needs to be able to rotate.

[00:13:43] Speaker 02:
You're almost out of all your rebuttal time, so would you like to save some? Sure. Okay. Ms. Lateef.

[00:13:55] Speaker 04:
Thank you. May it please the court, Monica Lateef for the USPTO. I would like to touch on opposing counsel's comments about there not being appropriate bounds in the claim construction that the board offered. And what creates the boundaries in this claim construction is the claim language itself. I think it was touched on a little bit at the beginning, but if you look at claim one and you were to insert the board's construction, which is connected to either directly or indirectly to the second bolem and rotatable around a second axis, there is your constraint.

[00:14:26] Speaker 04:
If you had an infinite amount of intervening parts, but then the drawstring could not rotate around the second axis, then those intervening parts would not read on this claim. So it's not as if there's either you can only have two or you can have 52. It's do you have something mounted to that then can still what this claim says, which is a string guide mounted to the second bow limb and rotated around a second axis. So there's not some number that should be looked for here in this construction.

[00:15:01] Speaker 02:
So you think the other claim terms, namely rotatable around a first axis, sufficiently cabins in because what I was worried about is this indirect concept. Because when I think of something mounted to something else, I think of some close relationship. They are attached to each other in some close and meaningful way. But if you can have 20 components between two things, they don't seem mounted to me in the way an ordinary person would understand the plain meaning of the word mounted. They might ultimately be attached through many intermediaries, but they are not actually mounted.

[00:15:35] Speaker 02:
And so for me, I will tell you, I came in here today thinking that word should have just been given its plain meaning, and some fact finder should have figured out in an individual circumstance, case by case, what the word mounted means in the context of its use. That's how I came in today, thinking this should have been plain, ordinary meaning because I don't love this indirect piece. I hate their construction. That's not happening. But I don't like the indirect piece because it felt unlimited to me. So I didn't know what to do with it. So I think that what you're telling me is, no, Judge, it's not unlimited.

[00:16:07] Speaker 02:
The rest of the claim terms tell you how narrowly mounted the indirect attachment must be because it still has to do this other stuff. That's correct, Your Honor. That is the point here. Okay. And also... That is a good argument. I didn't understand that argument before.

[00:16:23] Speaker 04:
And I would just like to point out, and I understand the hesitation with the indirect, but Opposing counsel has never disputed that there can be these inversions. Yeah, there's a question of law, Ms. Lateef.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
Yes, understood. I get to do whatever I want.

[00:16:34] Speaker 04:
Understood, Your Honor. Not bound by her arguments. Understood, Your Honor. I just wanted to clarify that if we were looking at intrinsic evidence, even the spec has intervening pieces in it. That was the point that I was trying to make. You know, I agree with the indirect concept. I don't have a problem with it.

[00:16:50] Speaker 02:
It's just it shouldn't be limitless, right? And it's not.

[00:16:54] Speaker 04:
The claim happens in what that means. That's what the rest of that claim language is, and it's showing the relationship between the string guides and the bulletin.

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
I mean I think your adversary focuses a lot on the idea of superfluity and I wonder if you want to I'm sorry I didn't hear you your adversary focuses on the idea of superfluity right like the idea that this ward isn't doing any work on your construction I wonder if you want to address that and when you say the word meaning oh well it's still describing the connection between the string guide and the bowline by being connected I guess I don't really understand the argument that she's making about

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
not doing any work, but it's describing basically how the stream guide works with the spolen. It has to be a physical tethering. It's connected to you either directly or indirectly. So that is the work that it is doing.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
What would you say is the best intrinsic support for your construction of a mounted tube?

[00:18:00] Speaker 04:
I would point to the claims, and I would also point to the specification. But for the best support, it would be the claim language first and foremost.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
Is there a specific part of the specification you would point us to? Yes, Your Honor. Separate from the claims, I mean?

[00:18:12] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor. I would point to where opposing counsel pointed, actually. I think the language that was pointed to actually supports the Board's construction. So, again, at APPX 61, if you look at Columns 5, Just the language kind of mirrors the claim language, to be honest. If you look at line, I think that's 23, string guides 158A and B are rotatively mounted, typically eccentrically, on respective limbs.

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
154A and B on respective axles, 160A, 160B. So there, not only do you have the rotation, cabining, what that mounted to is, but then you also show an intervening piece, which is the axle. And throughout the spec... There's numerous times where that comes up again. If you look a little bit further down in the same column on line 64 to 65, that shows up. If you look at column 6.

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
Okay, where's the intervening piece in 64, 65? The axis 318A. And then also if you look at column 6...

[00:19:26] Speaker 04:
lines 5 through 6, and then again, column 6, lines 34 through 36.

[00:19:34] Speaker 04:
Throughout the specification, it talks about this needing to have this rotation that happens between the string guide and the limb, but it also has an intervening axle that exists, which again...

[00:19:49] Speaker 04:
just to back up, speaks directly to the intervening piece, which no one here seems to be disputing.

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
Okay, so let's go back to that intervening piece. Column 6, which thing is the intervening piece? Second bow limb? No, no, no. That's not the intervening piece, yeah. Strong guides.

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
The axis 368A, I'm looking at column 6, lines 34, 35, 36.

[00:20:20] Speaker 04:
There's an axle within these.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
If you look at the figures, maybe that's easier to point to to show you what the axles look like. So if you look at figure 10, APPX 56, there is 158A, that's the string guides, and the bows are 150. I'm sorry, the bows are 154, that's the bow limb, A and B. And then also if you look at 160A, A and B, those are the axle that it's rotating around.

[00:20:54] Speaker 04:
That's the intervening piece between the string guide and the bow limbs that I'm talking about. Hopefully that was helpful.

[00:21:09] Speaker 00:
Okay, so it sounds like what you would sum up as your best intrinsic support and specification is really this column 5 lines 23 through 26 that clearly identify the intervening portion and also helps pit some bounds on the indirect connections.

[00:21:30] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor. And if there are no further

[00:21:44] Speaker 01:
Raven does not dispute the indirect connection. It really is this idea that system-level connectivity is sufficient to satisfy the Mounted 2 limitation under the Board's construction.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
Opposing counsel pointed to the claim language as being sufficient to constrain the limitless scope to the Board's construction of Mounted 2, but there's not a single other claim limitation, and I didn't hear her say one, that says anything about the structural relationship of the bow limb to the string guide.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
Mounted 2 is the only limitation that defines how the string guide is positioned relative to the limb.

[00:22:32] Speaker 01:
Under the board's construction, Mounted 2 collapses into a mere system-level connectivity, which means the limitation does no work at all.

[00:22:41] Speaker 01:
Raven's construction preserves the distinct role. Mounted to defines the relationship between the limb and the string guide. Rotatable defines the permitted motion within that relationship, as detailed in the claim language.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
Okay. Thank both counsel. The case is taken under submission.