Legal Case Summary

First, our good case this morning is number 2012, 1286, Shimano against REA. This is welcome. Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court. I just want to mention very briefly that I, since I'll be responding to two parties, I split my time eight minutes and seven minutes. Now, I'd like to begin by discussing the very important issue that I think is critical to an understanding of this case. I briefed it fully, but I would like, I think it is very wise for me to bring it up right off the bat to avoid the risk of serious misunderstanding. The problem is in the juxtaposition of Noginos figures two and twenty at page 11 of the director's brief and the treatment of Noginos two mutually exclusive embodiments is being one and the same. As we repeated throughout the re-examination proceeding, it is Noginos second embodiment shown in figure twenty that was relevant in the validity of the claims of the U-PAT. Figure two is from Noginos mutually exclusive first morning. Figure two is not a prospective view of figure twenty and that is very misleading. Figure two is a prospective view of the cylindrical portion eighty-a and Noginos first invited about shown in figure eight that is also at the top of page 13 of our brief. Now, in the, Noginos second embodiment is structured shown in figure two. That's gone. You're getting down to the weeds a little bit. I'll back you up in a moment. Sure thing. As I've found you've raised some lot of confusion but let me see if I can understand what's gone on here. If I understand correctly, you're basically making two arguments. You're saying, Nagano anticipates under the correct claim construction and that the board's claim construction is incorrect. Yes, that's correct. One argument. And the second argument to find or stand correct is that the claims here are obvious over Nagano and other references. And that the board erred in rejecting the examiner's obviousness rejection because Ted said that the prior art didn't show a ring but only show a sleeve. And basically that's two arguments for making here. The arguments was basically that they believed that our basic argument was that Nagano shows they got sidetracked and this argument about sleeves and rings. I don't know about what, wait, I mean that's the question whether they got the one that they made in the state because that in terms of the obvious determination, that was what the board said. That is all the board said. It's anticipatially, it's different from a ring, the prior art doesn't show a ring, right? It's anticipation arguments here on or in the space and the obviousness argument

. Or the obviousness arguments? There was only just a couple of obviousness arguments in the case. I'm trying to help understand this. Yes, my understanding is that the board overturned the examiner's obviousness determination on solely one branch. And that is with the second majority of the claims. And that is solely because a sleeve is not a ring and that the prior art didn't show a ring, right? That was the basis of their entire overturning of everything of the obviousness argument. And anticipation of all the summits. But so let me understand. If I read Nagano correctly, it refers to ADI at EDI as sleeves, red and rings. And you're saying that the board was relying on that use of language and Nagano has a kind of permurnity rings in the prior art. But in fact, if you look at figure 20 of Nagano, you see the ADI in the track. And they are in fact rings, red and sleeves. Yes, that's your art. Yes, that's correct. Any further? I just want to see if I was on the same page. Yes, that is correct. This is a semantic difference with all the substance. These are rings. You can call them sleeves, but they fit even the director's definition of a ring. So you may have helped the court. Given the apparent difficulty in understanding the subject matter, I was wondering if I could perhaps just take two minutes of time to discuss the basic structures that are common to all of these hubs. You, Nagano and Juan, there's just five, just two minutes of just five basic structures, which I think explains how these things all work. Here we go. First you have the hub shaft, which is also known as the hub axle. Then you have a circular sun gear that surrounds the hub axle and rotates around the hub axle. Teeth are formed on the inner peripheral surface of the sun gear. That's two. Three is a set of poles mounted to the hub shaft. One on the top, one on the bottom

. Here's a pole, one on the top, one on the bottom. Now the three end, and the poles are mounted so that the poles can flip up and down. Now the three end of the pole is split into two functional portions. This is what the U-Patton calls the sag portion, and then there's the starper portion. Now I think the Juan reference does the best job of showing what these things look like in real life. So here's figure five of Juan, which was in our brief. This is the portion that's mounted to the hub shaft. Here is the sag portion of the pole, and here is the starper portion of the pole. When the pole is in its upper position, the starper portion of the pole jams against the teeth of the sun gear to prevent the sun gear from rotating. On the other hand, when the pole is in its lower position, the sun gear is free to rotate. Now when the sun gear is free to rotate in the pole is in this position, you notice that the pole does not contact the rotating sun gear. And that eliminates the problem of friction, noise, and abrasion, which you see referenced in the various briefs. Now fourth component is a spring constantly urges the pole to its upward locking position. Finally, we have the pole controlling ring, which is a ring that is rotated by the cyclist whenever the bicyclist wants to change gears, typically by rotating a lever that's mounted to the handlebars. The pole controlling ring only rotates when the cyclist wants to change gears. Now the pole controlling ring encircles the hub shaft and covers the sag portion of the pole. And the pole controlling ring is configured, such that as the cyclist is rotating the pole controlling ring, it causes the pole to go to its upper and down position. Now getting back to Nagano, I'd like to show that here you can see the hub shaft, you can see the poles, and then you see the pole controlling rings. Now the sag portions of the poles, they're covered, remember I just said they're covered by the pole controlling rings, so you don't see them in this picture. All you see is the stopper portion of the poles. Now grooves are formed on the inner peripheral surface of the pole controlling rings, so that just like in the U-pad, grooves are formed on the inner peripheral surface of the pole controlling rings. So then when the cyclist rotates the pole controlling ring, so that the groove lines up with the sag portion of the pole, the pole pops up so that it can lock the hub shaft. Otherwise the pole controlling rings pushes the pole down allowing the pole controlling ring to rotate. Now I see I'm into my rebuttal time, so... There's anything else you need to tell us, we will enlarge your time a little bit. Could I see just a question on Nagano

. Now you, in your exchange with Dijker first, in referred to the sleeve aspect of the Nagano, skewed, spiced, ringed aspects of Nagano priori. Assuming that the board's claim construction of the at least two sets of poles is correct, you also have to get over that problem I take it with Nagano. So getting over the sleeve problem does not solve, does not render Nagano invalidating priori. Well we always have to look at the problems of claim construction which is an issue of law. But I'm assuming, with me for a moment, that the board is correct in its claim construction with respect to the issue that you contest, I recognize. Nonetheless that two sets of poles means that a controlling ring controls at least two sets of poles. Then Nagano does not show that and Nagano is not invalidating priori which respect the anticipation aren't you correct? Well if they require a sleeve to control two sets of poles and if they're with this ring... Right. ...is that Nagano doesn't show rings. You would agree that Nagano does not show a ring or sleeve that controls a single ring or sleeve that controls two or more sets of poles correct. That's where we get into the composite pole controlling ring argument that they've talked about in our brief. Because basically that's the subject that it's on the record that we were sued based on a pole control structure that is two rings connected together by a single connecting pole. And those are two rings that neither one of them controls two or more than one set of poles correct. That's correct but the control of that is my question. There's no... just to clarify that there can be no anticipation if you lose on that claim construction argument. If it is true that that has to be at least two sets of poles... If you lose on two sets of poles.

.. If you lose on two sets of poles... If we can't go into the composite pole controlling ring argument then it is true that I don't really... I'm just trying to limit you to anticipation. It gives you lose on the claim construction argument that you necessarily lose on anticipation. But aside obviously it's for the one. As long as the board requires that a single ring controls two sets of poles with two sun gear... It loses on anticipation. And we can't consider two rings to connect together by connecting bar to be a pole controlling ring... Then we lose on that. But as to obviousness my understanding is that the claim construction is not something that is addressed by the board in connection with obviousness. That the sole round for reversing the obviousness projection was the absence of a ring being shown in the prior art as opposed to a sleep. That appears to be the case I believe. So with that I will... Okay, I don't say very bad on time. I don't see what the other side has to say. But let's see, do you agree that Mr. White isn't with the one who goes first? Good morning and may it please the court

. The board got it right when it construed claim one to require a single. Let's start with the last point, which is about the obviousness projection. The board's obviousness reversal. It was based solely on the absence of a ring as opposed to a sleep in the prior art. Correct? That's correct. Okay. So I know that EDI and EDI in Nagano are referenced in specification as quote, sleeves. But in fact they are really rings, are they not? That's correct. Okay, so it seems to me that's a problem because the board then proceeded on the basis of a mistake. Don't we have to send it back to them to reevaluate the obviousness or in the life of that concession that just made? I don't think that's correct, Judge Dyke, because the board specifically looked at the whole Paul controlling ring limitation. Namely, it's a Paul controlling ring that controls a position of at least two sets of balls. And what the board looked at was Nagano's sleeves, which have a ring-like structure, neither one of which controls two sets of balls. I understand that, and I'm for the moment. Let's assume that you're correct about the claim construction. Okay. I don't see that the claim construction is the basis for the rejection of the obviousness rejection. I don't see that in the board's opinion. All I see is the obviousness rejection is wrong because the prior art doesn't show rings, but only sleeves. I would say that the board was really relying on, and I know, I guess we're not communicating, but it's that whole aspect of what does the ring do and what is the full limitation of the ring that is not suggested. I don't rely on that. I think it's page 38 of the appendix. I don't see the word in connection with an obviousness determination. If the line is not 30, it must be... I don't think the board is relying on..

. It's... It's on the 20s, 29s, 34. I think it's the obviousness rejection. This is the part dealing with the obviousness rejection. It starts on page 31. I already read this. Pardon me? Did you say 39? No, 31. It starts on page 31, but I think when they get to page 34, they're saying, well, the problem is there's no ring in the prior art. And they treat here only two of the references. They don't discuss the Nagano, but earlier they discuss the Nagano and the Nagano as a sleeve in our ring. So, what I'm... It seems to me that the basis for the... For reversing the obviousness rejection is not the claim constructionist to the two sets of poles. It's the absence of a ring as opposed to a sleeve in the prior art. And I think the reason the board's decision seems limited in that sense is because my recollection is the examiner never made that finding. There was never a rejection that the sleeves are somehow obvious or that the rings are somehow obvious in due of the sleeves. The examiner was holding throughout the prosecution that the sleeves of the prior art in the Nagano as well as in the Huang reference correspond directly to a ring that is called for in the claim. The examiner said, you know, a ring is simply a circular hollow body. And what I see in the prior art is what you're claiming is a circular hollow body. I understand that and I will accept that you're right that that part of the examiner's rejection was wrong. But my recollection of the examiner also said that ADI and ADJ were rings. So, the board in this earlier discussion of the anticipation analysis said Nagano doesn't have rings and only has sleeves

. Well, it's true that they use the word sleeves and the Nagano, which in yourself is being used as a degree to the ADI and ADJ their rings and not the leaves. Yes, but again, I guess I would say that while the board is remaining true to the language that Nagano uses to describe elements ADI and ADJ and refer to them as sleeves, I think that the substance of their analysis is not the same. So, this goes back to whether either one of them controls two or more rings or excuse me, two or more sets of poles. That's true in connection with the obvious connection with the anticipation analysis. And I'm assuming for the moment that you're right about that. There's no anticipation because of the claim construction, but that claim construction is not the basis for the obvious rejection. We just don't know at this point it might be that it would be obvious to use the rings to control two sets of poles. I don't know because the board didn't address that question. It only has rested in connection with the anticipation issue. In Tom Peach, 30, with respect to Nagano, they say that Nagano shows in ADI and ADJ, but we agreed that ADI and ADJ are rings and not leaves. And again, I guess the board was limited by the briefheat and the underlying proceedings in which there really wasn't a obvious misprojection based on Nagano's sleeves or rings ADI and ADJ. The examiner did not enter an obvious rejection based on Nagano's sleeves. Is that what you're saying? Nagano's sleeves. The best of my recollection judge pricing that's correct. I don't think that's right. I think this obvious misprojection that the board is discussing at ADJ 34 was based on NET2L1 and Nagano. It might be correct about that. With respect to the rejection based on Nagano's sleeves and rings, 34 is Nagano's sleeves and rings. I think that's the top. At the bottom of that page there's a rejection under 103a of Matsuo, in view of Nagano and Rollo. I think what they were relying on for my suil was the teaching of the clutch mechanism and relying on Nagano for the teachings of Paul's mountit to the hub shaft. This section here is starting at the bottom of A34. Has nothing to do with the sleeve slash ring distinction? I guess I would characterize it. They are still saying that in terms of going through the elements of the claim of claim 1, sleeve for the ring of claim 1 is taught by Nagano's sleeves ADR. It's a long tube for ADI or ADJ or Huang's tube 72. What they were looking at, I believe in the obvious misprojection were some of the other elements and whether other prior art was necessary to bring in those other elements. I don't believe that they were at that point making an analysis or even making the assertion that there is something other than a ring in the prior art but something that makes the ring obvious. At that point they are still saying that there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between a ring which was broadly construed as a circular hollow body and the sleeves rings, tubes etc

. that are taught in the prior art. You are right about that and I am assuming that you are correct about that. That what is really a sleeve is not a ring and that is probably true with respect to Metsuo and Huang but it is not true with respect to Nagano which is one of the references that was relied on. They have this discussion and they are saying there is no ring in the prior art but they ignore the fact that Nagano has shown a ring and earlier they are mistaken I think. I think they are saying that Nagano does not show a ring. They are saying that they are mistaken. The board is initially talking about the first embodiment which has a control sleeve, a tube 80 that extends throughout the entire transmission of the bicycle. Then they go on to say we are also unpersuaded by the examiner's reliance on Nagano's sleeves 80J. In other words they start off on 829 when they say that Nagano does not teach a sleeve or excuse me a ring. I think what they are talking about is the sleeve of the first embodiment of Nagano. Moreover they continue on a 30 that were also not persuaded that these so-called sleeves correspond to the particular claim element because the claim element does require that control the position of the ring. What you are saying is that the extent that Nagano reads on rings and even though it may call 80J and 80J sleeves their rings to the extent that they are rings that is only true with respect to the second embodiment of Nagano figure 20. And that figure 20 does not show the each ring controls at least to such a poll. The question is that that is your position. Do you read the board having said exactly that in so many words? I do. Maybe not quite that directly. That is how I read the analysis. Are you ready to yield to the surprise? I will be on my time. These are sufficiently complex issues. Here is the director's. Thank you, Your Honours. May I please the court? Shimano from the beginning of this re-example. I will just back up a moment. Do you agree with your co-counselt that 80J and 80J show rings? They say sleeves. I know it is called sleeves but it shows rings. Yes, Your Honours. It can add like a ring but it has got length to it. I do not see how it is a ring

. How does this sleeve? That is a question. How does 80J and 80J have a ring other than a connecting bar? They have more than a connecting bar because the diagram you cannot really tell. I think they go into and out of the page, Your Honour. The written description says sleeves. MBI's patent says sleeves are things that act very differently than rings. MBI's figure 6 has a ring where all the falls emanate from the same vertical plane. It is very different than what we see in the prior art. These sleeves with the poles positioned along the x-axis radially going out. We have something very different in MBI's patent with the ring having shortfalls and longfalls all emanating from the same single plane along the shaft. That is very different. What Shimano has been arguing throughout the reexamperceiving into this court, if you look at its blueberry, Shimano has put all its quote and quote eggs in one basket, essentially collapsing obviousness to anticipation that rings are sleeves. I do not think that is true. I think they make separate arguments with respect to anticipation and obviousness. Do you agree that the board's reversal of these obviousness rejection that is on a 34 is based on the fact that they do not find rings in the prior art only sleeves? Yes, Your Honor, and their answering which Shimano argued to the board during prosecution. Shimano and the examiner were aligned and said, rings are sleeves, rings are sleeves. This is our argument. You guys should buy it. That was one of the arguments. But they didn't do it. But they didn't do it. Yes, Your Honor. So, suppose the board is wrong that the prior art doesn't show rings. Don't we have to send it back for them to reconsider the obviousness rejection on that hypothetical? No, Your Honor, because the two devices interact with the Paul very differently. In Nagano, we have the two sleeves going in and out of the page. Each has just bracing points out. I think they are both up on the table. But if I'm not going with my hypothetical, my hypothetical is that the board is wrong that the prior art, at least Nagano, shows rings in EDI and EJ. If the board is wrong about that, don't we have to send it back to the board to reconsider their reversal of the obviousness rejection in the light of the correction of that error? No, Your Honor, because even if there are two rings in Nagano figure 20 with Paul's attached, it is nothing like MBI's patented claims with patented issues with the claims that are directed to a single plane ring with the Paul's, that's not in Nagano, with the Paul's emanating from a single plane

. So, it's drastically different. And the board still had, I'm having trouble with this because I don't see that the board said that. I thought that the board had a very simple ground for reversing the eyewitnessness rejection. And that is no rings in the prior art, which is what Shimano argued to the board. And during the prosecution and in its blue brief that and did not do what KSR now are wrong. In the reading of the board opinion that they say we're going to reverse this eyewitnessness redression because there are no rings in the prior art only sleeves. No, you're absolutely right in that, Your Honor. That the board, if I'm right about that, they don't have to say that. The board is wrong about the prior art and that the Nagano does show rings as opposed to sleeves, don't we have to send it back? I think not, Your Honor, and here's why because it's not a Paul controlling ring with the two sets of Paul's as envies. Well, that may be true, but they didn't say that. Well, they just say Your Honor that the limitation was not met based on Shimano's arguments to it. Because I didn't say that it wasn't obvious to have a ring controlling two sets of Paul's. When they got to the obviousness redression, they didn't say that because Shimano didn't argue with that way to the board. Or to this court which Shimano has been relying on claim construction. I don't think that. Can I? Yes, Your Honor. That to the point you were making earlier where I was a little confused. If you're saying I think that we can look at 80, I and 80, as being part of what we'll call conventionally a sleeve, a long and Matsuo type sleeve as opposed to a ring with a connecting bomb. That's not right. That's not a long sleeve, which is just a good closer. Thank you, Your Honor. Respectfully inviting the court's attention to page 50 of the appendix. That's envies rate detection of what a Paul controlling ring is. A 50 is envies figure six. You see there we have ring 430 with all the Paul's. There are four Paul's going around the clock on that ring and they all emanate from the same single plane. That is drastically different than what's in the prior art and the board responded to the argument. I'm making slightly different questions. I'm really asking a question about Nagano. Specifically what I'm interested in learning is whether 80, and 80, and 80, in figure 20 of Nagano, are connected in a way that one would characterize those two as part of an overall sleeve or as simply two rings that are connected by a connecting bar. I think the latter, Your Honor, I think the latter. Two rings? That's what I thought you had said earlier that they are part of the ring. The two rings are part of the sleeve. Well, a sleeve, and as MBI said, it could be interpreted as a ring. Two rings, not controlling two sets of Paul's. Leave aside for a moment the two sets of Paul's issue. What I'm trying to do here is whether someone looking at Nagano with everything we have available to us in this record would conclude that 80, and 80, are rings or would conclude that they are part of a single sleeve. It's plural, Your Honor, and the best thing is how in the sense that they are two rings. Two sleeves are two rings. Yes, Your Honor, in the specification it refers to plural sleeves. Throughout where it's talking about 80, I and 80, is talking about two. But if they are rings, because if you look at 80, J and 80, I hear it does look like they're thinned. Yes, Your Honor. So if they are rings, then that brings us back to Judge Dykes' question as to why it isn't fair to say Nagano does show rings. Now, I understand that you were making two arguments. Something like that, one of which was that really wasn't the way the case was argued to the bulldozer or to the examiner or to us. The second argument you make is that in any event these rings, even if they are rings, do not either one of them control two or more sets of Paul's. Precisely your Honor. Now, if we conclude that the board found that they were sleeves, part of a sleeve and not rings, and the board predicated its ruling in part on that conclusion, and we conclude that that's wrong, then we have a problem, right? Your Honor, I respectfully disagree because on page A30, the board was addressing the full limitation, fall controlling ring, and says that it has not been shown based on what Shamanos has been arguing that the sleeves or rings control two sets of Paul's. And let us see anticipation rejection. But Your Honor, I mean, we have to take them at their word. They say it doesn't anticipate because of the claim construction. Fine. What's the sooner or later, right? There's no way to see that. And obviously this was not independently argued from PSR or any of those means that I saw in the prosecution. Sure it was

. I'm really asking a question about Nagano. Specifically what I'm interested in learning is whether 80, and 80, and 80, in figure 20 of Nagano, are connected in a way that one would characterize those two as part of an overall sleeve or as simply two rings that are connected by a connecting bar. I think the latter, Your Honor, I think the latter. Two rings? That's what I thought you had said earlier that they are part of the ring. The two rings are part of the sleeve. Well, a sleeve, and as MBI said, it could be interpreted as a ring. Two rings, not controlling two sets of Paul's. Leave aside for a moment the two sets of Paul's issue. What I'm trying to do here is whether someone looking at Nagano with everything we have available to us in this record would conclude that 80, and 80, are rings or would conclude that they are part of a single sleeve. It's plural, Your Honor, and the best thing is how in the sense that they are two rings. Two sleeves are two rings. Yes, Your Honor, in the specification it refers to plural sleeves. Throughout where it's talking about 80, I and 80, is talking about two. But if they are rings, because if you look at 80, J and 80, I hear it does look like they're thinned. Yes, Your Honor. So if they are rings, then that brings us back to Judge Dykes' question as to why it isn't fair to say Nagano does show rings. Now, I understand that you were making two arguments. Something like that, one of which was that really wasn't the way the case was argued to the bulldozer or to the examiner or to us. The second argument you make is that in any event these rings, even if they are rings, do not either one of them control two or more sets of Paul's. Precisely your Honor. Now, if we conclude that the board found that they were sleeves, part of a sleeve and not rings, and the board predicated its ruling in part on that conclusion, and we conclude that that's wrong, then we have a problem, right? Your Honor, I respectfully disagree because on page A30, the board was addressing the full limitation, fall controlling ring, and says that it has not been shown based on what Shamanos has been arguing that the sleeves or rings control two sets of Paul's. And let us see anticipation rejection. But Your Honor, I mean, we have to take them at their word. They say it doesn't anticipate because of the claim construction. Fine. What's the sooner or later, right? There's no way to see that. And obviously this was not independently argued from PSR or any of those means that I saw in the prosecution. Sure it was. I mean, if they did, the obvious rejection. There was an obvious rejection over these three references. Come on. They address, I agree, Your Honor. They agree. They address the rejection in light of the positions taken by the parties and by Shamanos specifically, a ring is a sleeve, and that meets this claim limitation. And that's what the board was deciding and discussing on A30 where it said there are not two sets of Paul's, at least four Paul's total being controlled, or an obvious distinction between those two. The board had it right. The board came out to the right conclusion based on Shamanos arguments. And Shamanos repeated those narrow arguments as well. Can we have any more into the obvious discussion what they said only in connection with the anticipation discussion? Oh, Your Honor, I have great answer for that, I think. We say the board said, right, lower on that page A30, we cannot uphold any of the rejections. Including the obvious rejection. Again, the reason... Wait, they're having it. They're having it. The section is referring to the anticipation rejections, correct? No, Your Honor. Because, let's see, on page A25, it is referring to rejections 1 to 3, 12, 13, and 16. For example, 2 and... Okay, so now, I'm sorry, Your Honor, I have to jump to A36 where the board is summarizing in this long prosecution. That 1, 2 and 3, which I just read as the heading, are obvious rejections that the board said it's not upholding based on its reasoning on A30, that we cannot uphold any rejections. And also, the board got to 13 and 16. Oh, now that's a different claim. This reverse

. I mean, if they did, the obvious rejection. There was an obvious rejection over these three references. Come on. They address, I agree, Your Honor. They agree. They address the rejection in light of the positions taken by the parties and by Shamanos specifically, a ring is a sleeve, and that meets this claim limitation. And that's what the board was deciding and discussing on A30 where it said there are not two sets of Paul's, at least four Paul's total being controlled, or an obvious distinction between those two. The board had it right. The board came out to the right conclusion based on Shamanos arguments. And Shamanos repeated those narrow arguments as well. Can we have any more into the obvious discussion what they said only in connection with the anticipation discussion? Oh, Your Honor, I have great answer for that, I think. We say the board said, right, lower on that page A30, we cannot uphold any of the rejections. Including the obvious rejection. Again, the reason... Wait, they're having it. They're having it. The section is referring to the anticipation rejections, correct? No, Your Honor. Because, let's see, on page A25, it is referring to rejections 1 to 3, 12, 13, and 16. For example, 2 and... Okay, so now, I'm sorry, Your Honor, I have to jump to A36 where the board is summarizing in this long prosecution. That 1, 2 and 3, which I just read as the heading, are obvious rejections that the board said it's not upholding based on its reasoning on A30, that we cannot uphold any rejections. And also, the board got to 13 and 16. Oh, now that's a different claim. This reverse... they did do obviously some view of the Nagano. But at least 2 and 3, those browns, and in obvious this context based on only what Shimano was arguing, and Shimano put all his eggs in one basket on the sleeve is not a ring. And the board addressed what Shimano was presenting to it as supporting the examiner's rejection, and the board... But at the end of the day, these things are drastically different because you have... At least 2 sets of rings that negates Nagano just having... 2 sets of balls, I mean, then negates Nagano having 2 balls and 2 sleeves of rings. And you have them all emanating from the same... I'm page 25. Yes, sir. They don't mention item 14. For example, is these claims being empathendable over Metsuil in Baita-Plau and Nagano? That's not part of this section. 2 and... I respectfully understand, you're honored. 2 and 3 are Roman numerals 2 and 3, and those are obvious rejections, including Nagano as the primary..

... they did do obviously some view of the Nagano. But at least 2 and 3, those browns, and in obvious this context based on only what Shimano was arguing, and Shimano put all his eggs in one basket on the sleeve is not a ring. And the board addressed what Shimano was presenting to it as supporting the examiner's rejection, and the board... But at the end of the day, these things are drastically different because you have... At least 2 sets of rings that negates Nagano just having... 2 sets of balls, I mean, then negates Nagano having 2 balls and 2 sleeves of rings. And you have them all emanating from the same... I'm page 25. Yes, sir. They don't mention item 14. For example, is these claims being empathendable over Metsuil in Baita-Plau and Nagano? That's not part of this section. 2 and... I respectfully understand, you're honored. 2 and 3 are Roman numerals 2 and 3, and those are obvious rejections, including Nagano as the primary... ...reference. And this heading says 1 through 3. So we have 2 and 3, for sure, as obviously... ...paged on what Shimano has been presenting throughout this whole prosecution, for example, starting with its request for re-exam, it was about sleeves of rings and the examiner latched on to that. There's just one other question. You look at page 40 of the yellow ring. Isn't that making exactly the argument that we've been talking about? I'll reply, yes, sir. It's just as an example. Of course, they're saying that calling EDI and EDJ sleeves rather than rings is just the mantecks, and that they really are rings and so on. You're honored? Yes, but they don't meet the rest of the claim about at least two calls sets, which no one has presented or that I could find it. So assuming that for purposes of anticipation, the question is whether the board relied on that in connection with the reversal of the obviousness projection, which is what they do on starting on page 31, in particular, on page 34. And to the extent they did, and we're wrong on that, it's harmless error, your honor, because what was argued, did not have a full-blown KSR, obviously, this type of analysis, it was all in one basket, the sleeves are rings, and that touch of mono chose to prosecute the reexamper seating for this pattern, which has a lot of claims standing. Thank you, Ron. Just wanted to further question if I could. Just to make sure I understand where the various rejections all fall in place. Rejections that are on page 836 labeled, are the number 4 and 5 rejections that include the various claims that are dispute here. And those are metsuie, imbue of fong, and magono, and fong in view of magono. And that's obviousness. So that lure in mono comes into the obviousness. Yes, your honor, and Roman numerals 2 and 3 above, as Judge Dyke pointed out in the heading about magono as the principal reference, there were also obvious rejections going on there

. ...reference. And this heading says 1 through 3. So we have 2 and 3, for sure, as obviously... ...paged on what Shimano has been presenting throughout this whole prosecution, for example, starting with its request for re-exam, it was about sleeves of rings and the examiner latched on to that. There's just one other question. You look at page 40 of the yellow ring. Isn't that making exactly the argument that we've been talking about? I'll reply, yes, sir. It's just as an example. Of course, they're saying that calling EDI and EDJ sleeves rather than rings is just the mantecks, and that they really are rings and so on. You're honored? Yes, but they don't meet the rest of the claim about at least two calls sets, which no one has presented or that I could find it. So assuming that for purposes of anticipation, the question is whether the board relied on that in connection with the reversal of the obviousness projection, which is what they do on starting on page 31, in particular, on page 34. And to the extent they did, and we're wrong on that, it's harmless error, your honor, because what was argued, did not have a full-blown KSR, obviously, this type of analysis, it was all in one basket, the sleeves are rings, and that touch of mono chose to prosecute the reexamper seating for this pattern, which has a lot of claims standing. Thank you, Ron. Just wanted to further question if I could. Just to make sure I understand where the various rejections all fall in place. Rejections that are on page 836 labeled, are the number 4 and 5 rejections that include the various claims that are dispute here. And those are metsuie, imbue of fong, and magono, and fong in view of magono. And that's obviousness. So that lure in mono comes into the obviousness. Yes, your honor, and Roman numerals 2 and 3 above, as Judge Dyke pointed out in the heading about magono as the principal reference, there were also obvious rejections going on there. So obviousness was fairly... So you say this to some of the claims, but the 4T has claimed 16 to 20 and 22 to 25. And that heading does not appear in connection with the discussion that you were referring to earlier. Yes, and I don't think I said 14. I was reading, reciting, the heading that says 1 to 3, 12, 13, and 16 just to then reference which of those were obviousness grounds based on the claim construction argument that should be written. It's a very wide-reaching and a lot of it collapses. The board did a great job with the claim construction analysis that span about 10 pages of its opinion. So a lot of this case, even though it's wide-reaching, collapses, as we saw all that's been raised are three issues. And we haven't even talked about two of them. We just talked about claim construction. It all collapses. And that's how Shimano prosecute the reexample. I'm sorry, one more question. Can I shift gears to the cross appeal? Yes. I mean, you've addressed it in the group itself. This is the issue of the validity of claims seven. Yes, Ryan. Okay, I think you're getting the claim straight. Now, you say you support the conclusion that claims seven is invalid. Correct your honor. It's not supported by the inventor's narrow disclosure. Suppose that instead of amending claims seven, the way it was amended, there had been an amendment that included two new claims, one of which was a policy of the Paul with the SAG portion larger than the extended portion. I think it's the way that terms used. Okay, yes, Ron. That would clearly be supported. Right

. So obviousness was fairly... So you say this to some of the claims, but the 4T has claimed 16 to 20 and 22 to 25. And that heading does not appear in connection with the discussion that you were referring to earlier. Yes, and I don't think I said 14. I was reading, reciting, the heading that says 1 to 3, 12, 13, and 16 just to then reference which of those were obviousness grounds based on the claim construction argument that should be written. It's a very wide-reaching and a lot of it collapses. The board did a great job with the claim construction analysis that span about 10 pages of its opinion. So a lot of this case, even though it's wide-reaching, collapses, as we saw all that's been raised are three issues. And we haven't even talked about two of them. We just talked about claim construction. It all collapses. And that's how Shimano prosecute the reexample. I'm sorry, one more question. Can I shift gears to the cross appeal? Yes. I mean, you've addressed it in the group itself. This is the issue of the validity of claims seven. Yes, Ryan. Okay, I think you're getting the claim straight. Now, you say you support the conclusion that claims seven is invalid. Correct your honor. It's not supported by the inventor's narrow disclosure. Suppose that instead of amending claims seven, the way it was amended, there had been an amendment that included two new claims, one of which was a policy of the Paul with the SAG portion larger than the extended portion. I think it's the way that terms used. Okay, yes, Ron. That would clearly be supported. Right. If I understand you're on the specification, it's like a dumbbell. You have the middle portion. I understand, but I mean, in other words, if the claim were just limited to talking about the relationship between the SAG portion and the extended portion, extended portion doesn't come up as far as the SAG portion. That would be clearly supported. Right. If I understand you're on it without a stop proportion being my reference to the stop proportion at all, it might be a new invention. I don't know from the written description. I'll agree with you on that. Okay, and then also a second claim could be a Paul with a stop proportion that's higher than the extended portion, right? And that would be supported because it's in all of the SAG. Correct? Well, I mean, it's the first claim that's that. It's surely the second. Well, I'm with you. I have paused because the claim at issue has all three elements there with the changes you've got. I know, but if you put those two claims together, you end up with the claim we got. No, you're not. That's my problem. I'd love to speak to that. Please, the specification is narrow because I think we all know where the passage is. In column four above line 50 and below line 50, the inventor there was facing a very particular problem to prevent unwanted information. I understand. I understand the background and so forth. But what I'm really interested in understanding is why you think the two claims that I, drafted, are different in substance from the claim that the patent is drafted. Because, Your Honor, it's not fair to the disclosed invention. The disclosed invention has to have a stopper, an extender, and a SAG. Or else you don't have the Paul controlling ring controlling two sets of Paul's all emanating from the ring where one, I mean, this is really neat invention. It's about the Paul's being different sizes, all starting from the same plane controlling the Sungir 231, which is closer to the ring and the Sungir 232, which is farther, relatively far from the ring. So I now submit, Your Honor, that that would not be the invention to leave out. And this inventor did not possess a Paul set of the longer Paul's not having a stopper portion or not having a SAG portion

. If I understand you're on the specification, it's like a dumbbell. You have the middle portion. I understand, but I mean, in other words, if the claim were just limited to talking about the relationship between the SAG portion and the extended portion, extended portion doesn't come up as far as the SAG portion. That would be clearly supported. Right. If I understand you're on it without a stop proportion being my reference to the stop proportion at all, it might be a new invention. I don't know from the written description. I'll agree with you on that. Okay, and then also a second claim could be a Paul with a stop proportion that's higher than the extended portion, right? And that would be supported because it's in all of the SAG. Correct? Well, I mean, it's the first claim that's that. It's surely the second. Well, I'm with you. I have paused because the claim at issue has all three elements there with the changes you've got. I know, but if you put those two claims together, you end up with the claim we got. No, you're not. That's my problem. I'd love to speak to that. Please, the specification is narrow because I think we all know where the passage is. In column four above line 50 and below line 50, the inventor there was facing a very particular problem to prevent unwanted information. I understand. I understand the background and so forth. But what I'm really interested in understanding is why you think the two claims that I, drafted, are different in substance from the claim that the patent is drafted. Because, Your Honor, it's not fair to the disclosed invention. The disclosed invention has to have a stopper, an extender, and a SAG. Or else you don't have the Paul controlling ring controlling two sets of Paul's all emanating from the ring where one, I mean, this is really neat invention. It's about the Paul's being different sizes, all starting from the same plane controlling the Sungir 231, which is closer to the ring and the Sungir 232, which is farther, relatively far from the ring. So I now submit, Your Honor, that that would not be the invention to leave out. And this inventor did not possess a Paul set of the longer Paul's not having a stopper portion or not having a SAG portion. You're not excluding a stopper portion, you're just not including it in the claim. But I mean, a claim can have less than all of the features of the device, right? I mean, that's surely here. But Your Honor, when there's a functional relationship that is narrowly described here as to this specific problem, this inventor was addressing to prevent unwanted engagement. You then can't broaden and forget about half of the invention this part, then there's no support for that. So, you know, in understanding what Your Honor has been talking about, you know, I think there would be a question about those broader claims because they omit key features that this part of the passage, which talks about, again, it's like a dumbbell, where you have a thin middle and two parts. And the invention is about, you know, describing the two ends of the Paul's, how they interact with the ring. So, we respectfully submit that this question of fact has substantial evidence in the boards, in the inventor's specification, given what he was addressing in the board, had a plausible finding based on the evidence in the specification. Thank You, Honour. Thank you. All right, Mr. Delano, we'll start with 10 minutes. This is who we are. Okay. You honor one of the things that's plagued this case is that MBI keeps urging an interpretation of the claims, which are doing distinctions that just aren't in the claims. If the claims, they're always pointing to this figure in the U-PAT, always pointing to this, if the claims were limited to what's shown in figure six, we wouldn't be here today. And so, what I'm a little bit concerned about is the issue of anticipation because to us, this whole case really comes down to claim interpretation. There's two aspects, the Paul's, the at least two sets of Paul's, does the reference to the Paul's, is that inherently require a single, you know, that a single Paul controlling ring controls two sets of calls, Paul's, because we say that the use of the word, means one or more. So when they say, Paul controlling ring, the means one Paul controlling ring control control control control two sets of calls are two Paul controlling rings control two sets of calls. If so, I think that the anticipation argument to us should be with proper claim construction should be a strong case. Well, suppose you pose on anticipation because we conclude that the claim construction, but that the board adopted was correct. Now, did you make the argument that we have been discussing and that just like has been discussing with you in the other side? Did you make the argument that Nagano renders the invention obvious because Nagano has rings as opposed to Swedes assuming that rings and sleeves are different? I noticed that, just like was referring to these obvious this rejection of Moxelot at all, but we didn't really bring that up as part of the case because it just seemed like we wanted to focus on Nagano because we were just trying to sell the hubs of Shamanos trying to sell the hubs. With respect to Nagano, did you argue before the board that Nagano showed rings as opposed to Swedes in therefore that some of the claims were obvious in the likes of that combination of Nagano with the prior art? Basically what we were saying is, for example, with respect to Moxelot, we need to focus in tightly on the exact question that just died gas, which is the question I was trying to ask as well. Nagano, did you argue that Nagano with respect to the ring or sleeve issue, that Nagano shows rings and Nagano renders the inventions obvious? Yes, I think that can be fairly said that since Nagano discloses ring but it can be fairly said, did you make that argument to the board in this case? I believe we did as part of our obviousness arguments as saying, well, maybe the other prior art references whether it be Wong or whatever, what you do is you replace those things that you call sleeves and substitute them with rings. Did you say that Nagano shows those rings? Yes, I believe we did because we always refer it to, well, take the rings 80, 80, or 80 J or whatever rings, substitute those for these alleged sleeves of the prior art which shows these elongated control mechanisms. Now, of course, remember, by referring to an overall elongated control mechanism as a sleeve, but then looking at the specific structure that controls the pauses of the ring, that's comparing apples to oranges. If I understand what you're saying is that you did argue to the board, to the exam, or into the board, that Nagano, while they called it sleeves, it was really rings. Yes, purposes of the obviousness. Yes, correct

. You're not excluding a stopper portion, you're just not including it in the claim. But I mean, a claim can have less than all of the features of the device, right? I mean, that's surely here. But Your Honor, when there's a functional relationship that is narrowly described here as to this specific problem, this inventor was addressing to prevent unwanted engagement. You then can't broaden and forget about half of the invention this part, then there's no support for that. So, you know, in understanding what Your Honor has been talking about, you know, I think there would be a question about those broader claims because they omit key features that this part of the passage, which talks about, again, it's like a dumbbell, where you have a thin middle and two parts. And the invention is about, you know, describing the two ends of the Paul's, how they interact with the ring. So, we respectfully submit that this question of fact has substantial evidence in the boards, in the inventor's specification, given what he was addressing in the board, had a plausible finding based on the evidence in the specification. Thank You, Honour. Thank you. All right, Mr. Delano, we'll start with 10 minutes. This is who we are. Okay. You honor one of the things that's plagued this case is that MBI keeps urging an interpretation of the claims, which are doing distinctions that just aren't in the claims. If the claims, they're always pointing to this figure in the U-PAT, always pointing to this, if the claims were limited to what's shown in figure six, we wouldn't be here today. And so, what I'm a little bit concerned about is the issue of anticipation because to us, this whole case really comes down to claim interpretation. There's two aspects, the Paul's, the at least two sets of Paul's, does the reference to the Paul's, is that inherently require a single, you know, that a single Paul controlling ring controls two sets of calls, Paul's, because we say that the use of the word, means one or more. So when they say, Paul controlling ring, the means one Paul controlling ring control control control control two sets of calls are two Paul controlling rings control two sets of calls. If so, I think that the anticipation argument to us should be with proper claim construction should be a strong case. Well, suppose you pose on anticipation because we conclude that the claim construction, but that the board adopted was correct. Now, did you make the argument that we have been discussing and that just like has been discussing with you in the other side? Did you make the argument that Nagano renders the invention obvious because Nagano has rings as opposed to Swedes assuming that rings and sleeves are different? I noticed that, just like was referring to these obvious this rejection of Moxelot at all, but we didn't really bring that up as part of the case because it just seemed like we wanted to focus on Nagano because we were just trying to sell the hubs of Shamanos trying to sell the hubs. With respect to Nagano, did you argue before the board that Nagano showed rings as opposed to Swedes in therefore that some of the claims were obvious in the likes of that combination of Nagano with the prior art? Basically what we were saying is, for example, with respect to Moxelot, we need to focus in tightly on the exact question that just died gas, which is the question I was trying to ask as well. Nagano, did you argue that Nagano with respect to the ring or sleeve issue, that Nagano shows rings and Nagano renders the inventions obvious? Yes, I think that can be fairly said that since Nagano discloses ring but it can be fairly said, did you make that argument to the board in this case? I believe we did as part of our obviousness arguments as saying, well, maybe the other prior art references whether it be Wong or whatever, what you do is you replace those things that you call sleeves and substitute them with rings. Did you say that Nagano shows those rings? Yes, I believe we did because we always refer it to, well, take the rings 80, 80, or 80 J or whatever rings, substitute those for these alleged sleeves of the prior art which shows these elongated control mechanisms. Now, of course, remember, by referring to an overall elongated control mechanism as a sleeve, but then looking at the specific structure that controls the pauses of the ring, that's comparing apples to oranges. If I understand what you're saying is that you did argue to the board, to the exam, or into the board, that Nagano, while they called it sleeves, it was really rings. Yes, purposes of the obviousness. Yes, correct. Is there a place in the appendix that we could look to see exactly how that argument was articulated or did we have, I'm not sure we have the briefs that were submitted to the board. I think we have parts of them, but I don't think we have the whole thing. Well, if you can't find it right away, you can write us with that information. That would be very helpful if we could focus on the question of exactly how this was written. Let me ask you another question if I could now turn to the two sets of Paul's issue. Now, you focus our attention on figure eight of the you patent. Isn't not the case in figure eight that the controlling ring for 30 controls both the Paul for 23 and the Paul for 22, which in turn controls sun gear 232 and 233. That's correct. That is a controlling ring that controls at least two sets of Paul's. I thought your argument was that one of the reasons that we conclude that we should not read the two sets of Paul's requirement is suggesting that that is necessary for at least one controlling ring to control two sets of Paul's. That is contrary to figure eight. That because figure eight shows the blue Paul controlling ring which controls the sets of Paul's for only one sun gear. Actually, it's not colored in the in the patent, but that's true. It's not colored in the patent, but we colored it in at page 35 of our brief to show that. So what are you saying then about? I mean, you're not suggesting that figure eight does not show a ring that controls at least two sets of Paul's. No, figuring shows both. They show the red in our brief at page 35 or page 37 of our brief shows the red ring does control two sets of Paul's for two sun gears. But the blue ring controls the sets of Paul's for only one sun gear. You have that the patent only requires that you have one ring controlling two sets of Paul's. It doesn't require that every ring control two sets of Paul's. It requires a ring controlling two sets of Paul's. A Paul controlling ring for controlling the position of the Paul's. If we read the Paul's to mean two at least two sets of Paul's then figure eight is consistent with that reading of the claim. Consistent, but it's also consistent with what the if you do require the Paul's to be two sets of Paul's for one ring controlling two sets of Paul's for two sun gears. Figure eight is consistent with that. And we never argued to the contrary. It's just basically what we were arguing is that if you assume that construction, the still the issue of whether A means one or more. So if A means one or more that means two Paul controlling rings control the Paul's for two sun gears

. Is there a place in the appendix that we could look to see exactly how that argument was articulated or did we have, I'm not sure we have the briefs that were submitted to the board. I think we have parts of them, but I don't think we have the whole thing. Well, if you can't find it right away, you can write us with that information. That would be very helpful if we could focus on the question of exactly how this was written. Let me ask you another question if I could now turn to the two sets of Paul's issue. Now, you focus our attention on figure eight of the you patent. Isn't not the case in figure eight that the controlling ring for 30 controls both the Paul for 23 and the Paul for 22, which in turn controls sun gear 232 and 233. That's correct. That is a controlling ring that controls at least two sets of Paul's. I thought your argument was that one of the reasons that we conclude that we should not read the two sets of Paul's requirement is suggesting that that is necessary for at least one controlling ring to control two sets of Paul's. That is contrary to figure eight. That because figure eight shows the blue Paul controlling ring which controls the sets of Paul's for only one sun gear. Actually, it's not colored in the in the patent, but that's true. It's not colored in the patent, but we colored it in at page 35 of our brief to show that. So what are you saying then about? I mean, you're not suggesting that figure eight does not show a ring that controls at least two sets of Paul's. No, figuring shows both. They show the red in our brief at page 35 or page 37 of our brief shows the red ring does control two sets of Paul's for two sun gears. But the blue ring controls the sets of Paul's for only one sun gear. You have that the patent only requires that you have one ring controlling two sets of Paul's. It doesn't require that every ring control two sets of Paul's. It requires a ring controlling two sets of Paul's. A Paul controlling ring for controlling the position of the Paul's. If we read the Paul's to mean two at least two sets of Paul's then figure eight is consistent with that reading of the claim. Consistent, but it's also consistent with what the if you do require the Paul's to be two sets of Paul's for one ring controlling two sets of Paul's for two sun gears. Figure eight is consistent with that. And we never argued to the contrary. It's just basically what we were arguing is that if you assume that construction, the still the issue of whether A means one or more. So if A means one or more that means two Paul controlling rings control the Paul's for two sun gears. And that is exactly what we're talking about in figure 37 of our brief. Where we do show two rings, the blue ring and the red ring controlling the Paul's for two sun gears. So it really is a claim construction issue. The two things, whether the at least two that the Paul's requires the Paul's for two sun gears. Or whether the Paul's can mean the Paul's for just one sun gear. That's one issue. But then the second issue is whether A means one or more in which case, even if you do say that the Paul's control the two sun gears, you can still have two rings controlling the Paul's for two sun gears. That to us is really a claim construction issue that I think is a key to this case. Any more questions? Anything else you need to tell us? No, I believe I'm probably finished with this. Okay, thank you Mr. Belaylor. Thank you Mr. Belaylor. Thank you Mr. Belaylor. Thank you Mr. Belaylor. Thank you Mr. Belaylor.

First, our good case this morning is number 2012, 1286, Shimano against REA. This is welcome. Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court. I just want to mention very briefly that I, since I'll be responding to two parties, I split my time eight minutes and seven minutes. Now, I'd like to begin by discussing the very important issue that I think is critical to an understanding of this case. I briefed it fully, but I would like, I think it is very wise for me to bring it up right off the bat to avoid the risk of serious misunderstanding. The problem is in the juxtaposition of Noginos figures two and twenty at page 11 of the director's brief and the treatment of Noginos two mutually exclusive embodiments is being one and the same. As we repeated throughout the re-examination proceeding, it is Noginos second embodiment shown in figure twenty that was relevant in the validity of the claims of the U-PAT. Figure two is from Noginos mutually exclusive first morning. Figure two is not a prospective view of figure twenty and that is very misleading. Figure two is a prospective view of the cylindrical portion eighty-a and Noginos first invited about shown in figure eight that is also at the top of page 13 of our brief. Now, in the, Noginos second embodiment is structured shown in figure two. That's gone. You're getting down to the weeds a little bit. I'll back you up in a moment. Sure thing. As I've found you've raised some lot of confusion but let me see if I can understand what's gone on here. If I understand correctly, you're basically making two arguments. You're saying, Nagano anticipates under the correct claim construction and that the board's claim construction is incorrect. Yes, that's correct. One argument. And the second argument to find or stand correct is that the claims here are obvious over Nagano and other references. And that the board erred in rejecting the examiner's obviousness rejection because Ted said that the prior art didn't show a ring but only show a sleeve. And basically that's two arguments for making here. The arguments was basically that they believed that our basic argument was that Nagano shows they got sidetracked and this argument about sleeves and rings. I don't know about what, wait, I mean that's the question whether they got the one that they made in the state because that in terms of the obvious determination, that was what the board said. That is all the board said. It's anticipatially, it's different from a ring, the prior art doesn't show a ring, right? It's anticipation arguments here on or in the space and the obviousness argument. Or the obviousness arguments? There was only just a couple of obviousness arguments in the case. I'm trying to help understand this. Yes, my understanding is that the board overturned the examiner's obviousness determination on solely one branch. And that is with the second majority of the claims. And that is solely because a sleeve is not a ring and that the prior art didn't show a ring, right? That was the basis of their entire overturning of everything of the obviousness argument. And anticipation of all the summits. But so let me understand. If I read Nagano correctly, it refers to ADI at EDI as sleeves, red and rings. And you're saying that the board was relying on that use of language and Nagano has a kind of permurnity rings in the prior art. But in fact, if you look at figure 20 of Nagano, you see the ADI in the track. And they are in fact rings, red and sleeves. Yes, that's your art. Yes, that's correct. Any further? I just want to see if I was on the same page. Yes, that is correct. This is a semantic difference with all the substance. These are rings. You can call them sleeves, but they fit even the director's definition of a ring. So you may have helped the court. Given the apparent difficulty in understanding the subject matter, I was wondering if I could perhaps just take two minutes of time to discuss the basic structures that are common to all of these hubs. You, Nagano and Juan, there's just five, just two minutes of just five basic structures, which I think explains how these things all work. Here we go. First you have the hub shaft, which is also known as the hub axle. Then you have a circular sun gear that surrounds the hub axle and rotates around the hub axle. Teeth are formed on the inner peripheral surface of the sun gear. That's two. Three is a set of poles mounted to the hub shaft. One on the top, one on the bottom. Here's a pole, one on the top, one on the bottom. Now the three end, and the poles are mounted so that the poles can flip up and down. Now the three end of the pole is split into two functional portions. This is what the U-Patton calls the sag portion, and then there's the starper portion. Now I think the Juan reference does the best job of showing what these things look like in real life. So here's figure five of Juan, which was in our brief. This is the portion that's mounted to the hub shaft. Here is the sag portion of the pole, and here is the starper portion of the pole. When the pole is in its upper position, the starper portion of the pole jams against the teeth of the sun gear to prevent the sun gear from rotating. On the other hand, when the pole is in its lower position, the sun gear is free to rotate. Now when the sun gear is free to rotate in the pole is in this position, you notice that the pole does not contact the rotating sun gear. And that eliminates the problem of friction, noise, and abrasion, which you see referenced in the various briefs. Now fourth component is a spring constantly urges the pole to its upward locking position. Finally, we have the pole controlling ring, which is a ring that is rotated by the cyclist whenever the bicyclist wants to change gears, typically by rotating a lever that's mounted to the handlebars. The pole controlling ring only rotates when the cyclist wants to change gears. Now the pole controlling ring encircles the hub shaft and covers the sag portion of the pole. And the pole controlling ring is configured, such that as the cyclist is rotating the pole controlling ring, it causes the pole to go to its upper and down position. Now getting back to Nagano, I'd like to show that here you can see the hub shaft, you can see the poles, and then you see the pole controlling rings. Now the sag portions of the poles, they're covered, remember I just said they're covered by the pole controlling rings, so you don't see them in this picture. All you see is the stopper portion of the poles. Now grooves are formed on the inner peripheral surface of the pole controlling rings, so that just like in the U-pad, grooves are formed on the inner peripheral surface of the pole controlling rings. So then when the cyclist rotates the pole controlling ring, so that the groove lines up with the sag portion of the pole, the pole pops up so that it can lock the hub shaft. Otherwise the pole controlling rings pushes the pole down allowing the pole controlling ring to rotate. Now I see I'm into my rebuttal time, so... There's anything else you need to tell us, we will enlarge your time a little bit. Could I see just a question on Nagano. Now you, in your exchange with Dijker first, in referred to the sleeve aspect of the Nagano, skewed, spiced, ringed aspects of Nagano priori. Assuming that the board's claim construction of the at least two sets of poles is correct, you also have to get over that problem I take it with Nagano. So getting over the sleeve problem does not solve, does not render Nagano invalidating priori. Well we always have to look at the problems of claim construction which is an issue of law. But I'm assuming, with me for a moment, that the board is correct in its claim construction with respect to the issue that you contest, I recognize. Nonetheless that two sets of poles means that a controlling ring controls at least two sets of poles. Then Nagano does not show that and Nagano is not invalidating priori which respect the anticipation aren't you correct? Well if they require a sleeve to control two sets of poles and if they're with this ring... Right. ...is that Nagano doesn't show rings. You would agree that Nagano does not show a ring or sleeve that controls a single ring or sleeve that controls two or more sets of poles correct. That's where we get into the composite pole controlling ring argument that they've talked about in our brief. Because basically that's the subject that it's on the record that we were sued based on a pole control structure that is two rings connected together by a single connecting pole. And those are two rings that neither one of them controls two or more than one set of poles correct. That's correct but the control of that is my question. There's no... just to clarify that there can be no anticipation if you lose on that claim construction argument. If it is true that that has to be at least two sets of poles... If you lose on two sets of poles... If you lose on two sets of poles... If we can't go into the composite pole controlling ring argument then it is true that I don't really... I'm just trying to limit you to anticipation. It gives you lose on the claim construction argument that you necessarily lose on anticipation. But aside obviously it's for the one. As long as the board requires that a single ring controls two sets of poles with two sun gear... It loses on anticipation. And we can't consider two rings to connect together by connecting bar to be a pole controlling ring... Then we lose on that. But as to obviousness my understanding is that the claim construction is not something that is addressed by the board in connection with obviousness. That the sole round for reversing the obviousness projection was the absence of a ring being shown in the prior art as opposed to a sleep. That appears to be the case I believe. So with that I will... Okay, I don't say very bad on time. I don't see what the other side has to say. But let's see, do you agree that Mr. White isn't with the one who goes first? Good morning and may it please the court. The board got it right when it construed claim one to require a single. Let's start with the last point, which is about the obviousness projection. The board's obviousness reversal. It was based solely on the absence of a ring as opposed to a sleep in the prior art. Correct? That's correct. Okay. So I know that EDI and EDI in Nagano are referenced in specification as quote, sleeves. But in fact they are really rings, are they not? That's correct. Okay, so it seems to me that's a problem because the board then proceeded on the basis of a mistake. Don't we have to send it back to them to reevaluate the obviousness or in the life of that concession that just made? I don't think that's correct, Judge Dyke, because the board specifically looked at the whole Paul controlling ring limitation. Namely, it's a Paul controlling ring that controls a position of at least two sets of balls. And what the board looked at was Nagano's sleeves, which have a ring-like structure, neither one of which controls two sets of balls. I understand that, and I'm for the moment. Let's assume that you're correct about the claim construction. Okay. I don't see that the claim construction is the basis for the rejection of the obviousness rejection. I don't see that in the board's opinion. All I see is the obviousness rejection is wrong because the prior art doesn't show rings, but only sleeves. I would say that the board was really relying on, and I know, I guess we're not communicating, but it's that whole aspect of what does the ring do and what is the full limitation of the ring that is not suggested. I don't rely on that. I think it's page 38 of the appendix. I don't see the word in connection with an obviousness determination. If the line is not 30, it must be... I don't think the board is relying on... It's... It's on the 20s, 29s, 34. I think it's the obviousness rejection. This is the part dealing with the obviousness rejection. It starts on page 31. I already read this. Pardon me? Did you say 39? No, 31. It starts on page 31, but I think when they get to page 34, they're saying, well, the problem is there's no ring in the prior art. And they treat here only two of the references. They don't discuss the Nagano, but earlier they discuss the Nagano and the Nagano as a sleeve in our ring. So, what I'm... It seems to me that the basis for the... For reversing the obviousness rejection is not the claim constructionist to the two sets of poles. It's the absence of a ring as opposed to a sleeve in the prior art. And I think the reason the board's decision seems limited in that sense is because my recollection is the examiner never made that finding. There was never a rejection that the sleeves are somehow obvious or that the rings are somehow obvious in due of the sleeves. The examiner was holding throughout the prosecution that the sleeves of the prior art in the Nagano as well as in the Huang reference correspond directly to a ring that is called for in the claim. The examiner said, you know, a ring is simply a circular hollow body. And what I see in the prior art is what you're claiming is a circular hollow body. I understand that and I will accept that you're right that that part of the examiner's rejection was wrong. But my recollection of the examiner also said that ADI and ADJ were rings. So, the board in this earlier discussion of the anticipation analysis said Nagano doesn't have rings and only has sleeves. Well, it's true that they use the word sleeves and the Nagano, which in yourself is being used as a degree to the ADI and ADJ their rings and not the leaves. Yes, but again, I guess I would say that while the board is remaining true to the language that Nagano uses to describe elements ADI and ADJ and refer to them as sleeves, I think that the substance of their analysis is not the same. So, this goes back to whether either one of them controls two or more rings or excuse me, two or more sets of poles. That's true in connection with the obvious connection with the anticipation analysis. And I'm assuming for the moment that you're right about that. There's no anticipation because of the claim construction, but that claim construction is not the basis for the obvious rejection. We just don't know at this point it might be that it would be obvious to use the rings to control two sets of poles. I don't know because the board didn't address that question. It only has rested in connection with the anticipation issue. In Tom Peach, 30, with respect to Nagano, they say that Nagano shows in ADI and ADJ, but we agreed that ADI and ADJ are rings and not leaves. And again, I guess the board was limited by the briefheat and the underlying proceedings in which there really wasn't a obvious misprojection based on Nagano's sleeves or rings ADI and ADJ. The examiner did not enter an obvious rejection based on Nagano's sleeves. Is that what you're saying? Nagano's sleeves. The best of my recollection judge pricing that's correct. I don't think that's right. I think this obvious misprojection that the board is discussing at ADJ 34 was based on NET2L1 and Nagano. It might be correct about that. With respect to the rejection based on Nagano's sleeves and rings, 34 is Nagano's sleeves and rings. I think that's the top. At the bottom of that page there's a rejection under 103a of Matsuo, in view of Nagano and Rollo. I think what they were relying on for my suil was the teaching of the clutch mechanism and relying on Nagano for the teachings of Paul's mountit to the hub shaft. This section here is starting at the bottom of A34. Has nothing to do with the sleeve slash ring distinction? I guess I would characterize it. They are still saying that in terms of going through the elements of the claim of claim 1, sleeve for the ring of claim 1 is taught by Nagano's sleeves ADR. It's a long tube for ADI or ADJ or Huang's tube 72. What they were looking at, I believe in the obvious misprojection were some of the other elements and whether other prior art was necessary to bring in those other elements. I don't believe that they were at that point making an analysis or even making the assertion that there is something other than a ring in the prior art but something that makes the ring obvious. At that point they are still saying that there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between a ring which was broadly construed as a circular hollow body and the sleeves rings, tubes etc. that are taught in the prior art. You are right about that and I am assuming that you are correct about that. That what is really a sleeve is not a ring and that is probably true with respect to Metsuo and Huang but it is not true with respect to Nagano which is one of the references that was relied on. They have this discussion and they are saying there is no ring in the prior art but they ignore the fact that Nagano has shown a ring and earlier they are mistaken I think. I think they are saying that Nagano does not show a ring. They are saying that they are mistaken. The board is initially talking about the first embodiment which has a control sleeve, a tube 80 that extends throughout the entire transmission of the bicycle. Then they go on to say we are also unpersuaded by the examiner's reliance on Nagano's sleeves 80J. In other words they start off on 829 when they say that Nagano does not teach a sleeve or excuse me a ring. I think what they are talking about is the sleeve of the first embodiment of Nagano. Moreover they continue on a 30 that were also not persuaded that these so-called sleeves correspond to the particular claim element because the claim element does require that control the position of the ring. What you are saying is that the extent that Nagano reads on rings and even though it may call 80J and 80J sleeves their rings to the extent that they are rings that is only true with respect to the second embodiment of Nagano figure 20. And that figure 20 does not show the each ring controls at least to such a poll. The question is that that is your position. Do you read the board having said exactly that in so many words? I do. Maybe not quite that directly. That is how I read the analysis. Are you ready to yield to the surprise? I will be on my time. These are sufficiently complex issues. Here is the director's. Thank you, Your Honours. May I please the court? Shimano from the beginning of this re-example. I will just back up a moment. Do you agree with your co-counselt that 80J and 80J show rings? They say sleeves. I know it is called sleeves but it shows rings. Yes, Your Honours. It can add like a ring but it has got length to it. I do not see how it is a ring. How does this sleeve? That is a question. How does 80J and 80J have a ring other than a connecting bar? They have more than a connecting bar because the diagram you cannot really tell. I think they go into and out of the page, Your Honour. The written description says sleeves. MBI's patent says sleeves are things that act very differently than rings. MBI's figure 6 has a ring where all the falls emanate from the same vertical plane. It is very different than what we see in the prior art. These sleeves with the poles positioned along the x-axis radially going out. We have something very different in MBI's patent with the ring having shortfalls and longfalls all emanating from the same single plane along the shaft. That is very different. What Shimano has been arguing throughout the reexamperceiving into this court, if you look at its blueberry, Shimano has put all its quote and quote eggs in one basket, essentially collapsing obviousness to anticipation that rings are sleeves. I do not think that is true. I think they make separate arguments with respect to anticipation and obviousness. Do you agree that the board's reversal of these obviousness rejection that is on a 34 is based on the fact that they do not find rings in the prior art only sleeves? Yes, Your Honor, and their answering which Shimano argued to the board during prosecution. Shimano and the examiner were aligned and said, rings are sleeves, rings are sleeves. This is our argument. You guys should buy it. That was one of the arguments. But they didn't do it. But they didn't do it. Yes, Your Honor. So, suppose the board is wrong that the prior art doesn't show rings. Don't we have to send it back for them to reconsider the obviousness rejection on that hypothetical? No, Your Honor, because the two devices interact with the Paul very differently. In Nagano, we have the two sleeves going in and out of the page. Each has just bracing points out. I think they are both up on the table. But if I'm not going with my hypothetical, my hypothetical is that the board is wrong that the prior art, at least Nagano, shows rings in EDI and EJ. If the board is wrong about that, don't we have to send it back to the board to reconsider their reversal of the obviousness rejection in the light of the correction of that error? No, Your Honor, because even if there are two rings in Nagano figure 20 with Paul's attached, it is nothing like MBI's patented claims with patented issues with the claims that are directed to a single plane ring with the Paul's, that's not in Nagano, with the Paul's emanating from a single plane. So, it's drastically different. And the board still had, I'm having trouble with this because I don't see that the board said that. I thought that the board had a very simple ground for reversing the eyewitnessness rejection. And that is no rings in the prior art, which is what Shimano argued to the board. And during the prosecution and in its blue brief that and did not do what KSR now are wrong. In the reading of the board opinion that they say we're going to reverse this eyewitnessness redression because there are no rings in the prior art only sleeves. No, you're absolutely right in that, Your Honor. That the board, if I'm right about that, they don't have to say that. The board is wrong about the prior art and that the Nagano does show rings as opposed to sleeves, don't we have to send it back? I think not, Your Honor, and here's why because it's not a Paul controlling ring with the two sets of Paul's as envies. Well, that may be true, but they didn't say that. Well, they just say Your Honor that the limitation was not met based on Shimano's arguments to it. Because I didn't say that it wasn't obvious to have a ring controlling two sets of Paul's. When they got to the obviousness redression, they didn't say that because Shimano didn't argue with that way to the board. Or to this court which Shimano has been relying on claim construction. I don't think that. Can I? Yes, Your Honor. That to the point you were making earlier where I was a little confused. If you're saying I think that we can look at 80, I and 80, as being part of what we'll call conventionally a sleeve, a long and Matsuo type sleeve as opposed to a ring with a connecting bomb. That's not right. That's not a long sleeve, which is just a good closer. Thank you, Your Honor. Respectfully inviting the court's attention to page 50 of the appendix. That's envies rate detection of what a Paul controlling ring is. A 50 is envies figure six. You see there we have ring 430 with all the Paul's. There are four Paul's going around the clock on that ring and they all emanate from the same single plane. That is drastically different than what's in the prior art and the board responded to the argument. I'm making slightly different questions. I'm really asking a question about Nagano. Specifically what I'm interested in learning is whether 80, and 80, and 80, in figure 20 of Nagano, are connected in a way that one would characterize those two as part of an overall sleeve or as simply two rings that are connected by a connecting bar. I think the latter, Your Honor, I think the latter. Two rings? That's what I thought you had said earlier that they are part of the ring. The two rings are part of the sleeve. Well, a sleeve, and as MBI said, it could be interpreted as a ring. Two rings, not controlling two sets of Paul's. Leave aside for a moment the two sets of Paul's issue. What I'm trying to do here is whether someone looking at Nagano with everything we have available to us in this record would conclude that 80, and 80, are rings or would conclude that they are part of a single sleeve. It's plural, Your Honor, and the best thing is how in the sense that they are two rings. Two sleeves are two rings. Yes, Your Honor, in the specification it refers to plural sleeves. Throughout where it's talking about 80, I and 80, is talking about two. But if they are rings, because if you look at 80, J and 80, I hear it does look like they're thinned. Yes, Your Honor. So if they are rings, then that brings us back to Judge Dykes' question as to why it isn't fair to say Nagano does show rings. Now, I understand that you were making two arguments. Something like that, one of which was that really wasn't the way the case was argued to the bulldozer or to the examiner or to us. The second argument you make is that in any event these rings, even if they are rings, do not either one of them control two or more sets of Paul's. Precisely your Honor. Now, if we conclude that the board found that they were sleeves, part of a sleeve and not rings, and the board predicated its ruling in part on that conclusion, and we conclude that that's wrong, then we have a problem, right? Your Honor, I respectfully disagree because on page A30, the board was addressing the full limitation, fall controlling ring, and says that it has not been shown based on what Shamanos has been arguing that the sleeves or rings control two sets of Paul's. And let us see anticipation rejection. But Your Honor, I mean, we have to take them at their word. They say it doesn't anticipate because of the claim construction. Fine. What's the sooner or later, right? There's no way to see that. And obviously this was not independently argued from PSR or any of those means that I saw in the prosecution. Sure it was. I mean, if they did, the obvious rejection. There was an obvious rejection over these three references. Come on. They address, I agree, Your Honor. They agree. They address the rejection in light of the positions taken by the parties and by Shamanos specifically, a ring is a sleeve, and that meets this claim limitation. And that's what the board was deciding and discussing on A30 where it said there are not two sets of Paul's, at least four Paul's total being controlled, or an obvious distinction between those two. The board had it right. The board came out to the right conclusion based on Shamanos arguments. And Shamanos repeated those narrow arguments as well. Can we have any more into the obvious discussion what they said only in connection with the anticipation discussion? Oh, Your Honor, I have great answer for that, I think. We say the board said, right, lower on that page A30, we cannot uphold any of the rejections. Including the obvious rejection. Again, the reason... Wait, they're having it. They're having it. The section is referring to the anticipation rejections, correct? No, Your Honor. Because, let's see, on page A25, it is referring to rejections 1 to 3, 12, 13, and 16. For example, 2 and... Okay, so now, I'm sorry, Your Honor, I have to jump to A36 where the board is summarizing in this long prosecution. That 1, 2 and 3, which I just read as the heading, are obvious rejections that the board said it's not upholding based on its reasoning on A30, that we cannot uphold any rejections. And also, the board got to 13 and 16. Oh, now that's a different claim. This reverse... they did do obviously some view of the Nagano. But at least 2 and 3, those browns, and in obvious this context based on only what Shimano was arguing, and Shimano put all his eggs in one basket on the sleeve is not a ring. And the board addressed what Shimano was presenting to it as supporting the examiner's rejection, and the board... But at the end of the day, these things are drastically different because you have... At least 2 sets of rings that negates Nagano just having... 2 sets of balls, I mean, then negates Nagano having 2 balls and 2 sleeves of rings. And you have them all emanating from the same... I'm page 25. Yes, sir. They don't mention item 14. For example, is these claims being empathendable over Metsuil in Baita-Plau and Nagano? That's not part of this section. 2 and... I respectfully understand, you're honored. 2 and 3 are Roman numerals 2 and 3, and those are obvious rejections, including Nagano as the primary... ...reference. And this heading says 1 through 3. So we have 2 and 3, for sure, as obviously... ...paged on what Shimano has been presenting throughout this whole prosecution, for example, starting with its request for re-exam, it was about sleeves of rings and the examiner latched on to that. There's just one other question. You look at page 40 of the yellow ring. Isn't that making exactly the argument that we've been talking about? I'll reply, yes, sir. It's just as an example. Of course, they're saying that calling EDI and EDJ sleeves rather than rings is just the mantecks, and that they really are rings and so on. You're honored? Yes, but they don't meet the rest of the claim about at least two calls sets, which no one has presented or that I could find it. So assuming that for purposes of anticipation, the question is whether the board relied on that in connection with the reversal of the obviousness projection, which is what they do on starting on page 31, in particular, on page 34. And to the extent they did, and we're wrong on that, it's harmless error, your honor, because what was argued, did not have a full-blown KSR, obviously, this type of analysis, it was all in one basket, the sleeves are rings, and that touch of mono chose to prosecute the reexamper seating for this pattern, which has a lot of claims standing. Thank you, Ron. Just wanted to further question if I could. Just to make sure I understand where the various rejections all fall in place. Rejections that are on page 836 labeled, are the number 4 and 5 rejections that include the various claims that are dispute here. And those are metsuie, imbue of fong, and magono, and fong in view of magono. And that's obviousness. So that lure in mono comes into the obviousness. Yes, your honor, and Roman numerals 2 and 3 above, as Judge Dyke pointed out in the heading about magono as the principal reference, there were also obvious rejections going on there. So obviousness was fairly... So you say this to some of the claims, but the 4T has claimed 16 to 20 and 22 to 25. And that heading does not appear in connection with the discussion that you were referring to earlier. Yes, and I don't think I said 14. I was reading, reciting, the heading that says 1 to 3, 12, 13, and 16 just to then reference which of those were obviousness grounds based on the claim construction argument that should be written. It's a very wide-reaching and a lot of it collapses. The board did a great job with the claim construction analysis that span about 10 pages of its opinion. So a lot of this case, even though it's wide-reaching, collapses, as we saw all that's been raised are three issues. And we haven't even talked about two of them. We just talked about claim construction. It all collapses. And that's how Shimano prosecute the reexample. I'm sorry, one more question. Can I shift gears to the cross appeal? Yes. I mean, you've addressed it in the group itself. This is the issue of the validity of claims seven. Yes, Ryan. Okay, I think you're getting the claim straight. Now, you say you support the conclusion that claims seven is invalid. Correct your honor. It's not supported by the inventor's narrow disclosure. Suppose that instead of amending claims seven, the way it was amended, there had been an amendment that included two new claims, one of which was a policy of the Paul with the SAG portion larger than the extended portion. I think it's the way that terms used. Okay, yes, Ron. That would clearly be supported. Right. If I understand you're on the specification, it's like a dumbbell. You have the middle portion. I understand, but I mean, in other words, if the claim were just limited to talking about the relationship between the SAG portion and the extended portion, extended portion doesn't come up as far as the SAG portion. That would be clearly supported. Right. If I understand you're on it without a stop proportion being my reference to the stop proportion at all, it might be a new invention. I don't know from the written description. I'll agree with you on that. Okay, and then also a second claim could be a Paul with a stop proportion that's higher than the extended portion, right? And that would be supported because it's in all of the SAG. Correct? Well, I mean, it's the first claim that's that. It's surely the second. Well, I'm with you. I have paused because the claim at issue has all three elements there with the changes you've got. I know, but if you put those two claims together, you end up with the claim we got. No, you're not. That's my problem. I'd love to speak to that. Please, the specification is narrow because I think we all know where the passage is. In column four above line 50 and below line 50, the inventor there was facing a very particular problem to prevent unwanted information. I understand. I understand the background and so forth. But what I'm really interested in understanding is why you think the two claims that I, drafted, are different in substance from the claim that the patent is drafted. Because, Your Honor, it's not fair to the disclosed invention. The disclosed invention has to have a stopper, an extender, and a SAG. Or else you don't have the Paul controlling ring controlling two sets of Paul's all emanating from the ring where one, I mean, this is really neat invention. It's about the Paul's being different sizes, all starting from the same plane controlling the Sungir 231, which is closer to the ring and the Sungir 232, which is farther, relatively far from the ring. So I now submit, Your Honor, that that would not be the invention to leave out. And this inventor did not possess a Paul set of the longer Paul's not having a stopper portion or not having a SAG portion. You're not excluding a stopper portion, you're just not including it in the claim. But I mean, a claim can have less than all of the features of the device, right? I mean, that's surely here. But Your Honor, when there's a functional relationship that is narrowly described here as to this specific problem, this inventor was addressing to prevent unwanted engagement. You then can't broaden and forget about half of the invention this part, then there's no support for that. So, you know, in understanding what Your Honor has been talking about, you know, I think there would be a question about those broader claims because they omit key features that this part of the passage, which talks about, again, it's like a dumbbell, where you have a thin middle and two parts. And the invention is about, you know, describing the two ends of the Paul's, how they interact with the ring. So, we respectfully submit that this question of fact has substantial evidence in the boards, in the inventor's specification, given what he was addressing in the board, had a plausible finding based on the evidence in the specification. Thank You, Honour. Thank you. All right, Mr. Delano, we'll start with 10 minutes. This is who we are. Okay. You honor one of the things that's plagued this case is that MBI keeps urging an interpretation of the claims, which are doing distinctions that just aren't in the claims. If the claims, they're always pointing to this figure in the U-PAT, always pointing to this, if the claims were limited to what's shown in figure six, we wouldn't be here today. And so, what I'm a little bit concerned about is the issue of anticipation because to us, this whole case really comes down to claim interpretation. There's two aspects, the Paul's, the at least two sets of Paul's, does the reference to the Paul's, is that inherently require a single, you know, that a single Paul controlling ring controls two sets of calls, Paul's, because we say that the use of the word, means one or more. So when they say, Paul controlling ring, the means one Paul controlling ring control control control control two sets of calls are two Paul controlling rings control two sets of calls. If so, I think that the anticipation argument to us should be with proper claim construction should be a strong case. Well, suppose you pose on anticipation because we conclude that the claim construction, but that the board adopted was correct. Now, did you make the argument that we have been discussing and that just like has been discussing with you in the other side? Did you make the argument that Nagano renders the invention obvious because Nagano has rings as opposed to Swedes assuming that rings and sleeves are different? I noticed that, just like was referring to these obvious this rejection of Moxelot at all, but we didn't really bring that up as part of the case because it just seemed like we wanted to focus on Nagano because we were just trying to sell the hubs of Shamanos trying to sell the hubs. With respect to Nagano, did you argue before the board that Nagano showed rings as opposed to Swedes in therefore that some of the claims were obvious in the likes of that combination of Nagano with the prior art? Basically what we were saying is, for example, with respect to Moxelot, we need to focus in tightly on the exact question that just died gas, which is the question I was trying to ask as well. Nagano, did you argue that Nagano with respect to the ring or sleeve issue, that Nagano shows rings and Nagano renders the inventions obvious? Yes, I think that can be fairly said that since Nagano discloses ring but it can be fairly said, did you make that argument to the board in this case? I believe we did as part of our obviousness arguments as saying, well, maybe the other prior art references whether it be Wong or whatever, what you do is you replace those things that you call sleeves and substitute them with rings. Did you say that Nagano shows those rings? Yes, I believe we did because we always refer it to, well, take the rings 80, 80, or 80 J or whatever rings, substitute those for these alleged sleeves of the prior art which shows these elongated control mechanisms. Now, of course, remember, by referring to an overall elongated control mechanism as a sleeve, but then looking at the specific structure that controls the pauses of the ring, that's comparing apples to oranges. If I understand what you're saying is that you did argue to the board, to the exam, or into the board, that Nagano, while they called it sleeves, it was really rings. Yes, purposes of the obviousness. Yes, correct. Is there a place in the appendix that we could look to see exactly how that argument was articulated or did we have, I'm not sure we have the briefs that were submitted to the board. I think we have parts of them, but I don't think we have the whole thing. Well, if you can't find it right away, you can write us with that information. That would be very helpful if we could focus on the question of exactly how this was written. Let me ask you another question if I could now turn to the two sets of Paul's issue. Now, you focus our attention on figure eight of the you patent. Isn't not the case in figure eight that the controlling ring for 30 controls both the Paul for 23 and the Paul for 22, which in turn controls sun gear 232 and 233. That's correct. That is a controlling ring that controls at least two sets of Paul's. I thought your argument was that one of the reasons that we conclude that we should not read the two sets of Paul's requirement is suggesting that that is necessary for at least one controlling ring to control two sets of Paul's. That is contrary to figure eight. That because figure eight shows the blue Paul controlling ring which controls the sets of Paul's for only one sun gear. Actually, it's not colored in the in the patent, but that's true. It's not colored in the patent, but we colored it in at page 35 of our brief to show that. So what are you saying then about? I mean, you're not suggesting that figure eight does not show a ring that controls at least two sets of Paul's. No, figuring shows both. They show the red in our brief at page 35 or page 37 of our brief shows the red ring does control two sets of Paul's for two sun gears. But the blue ring controls the sets of Paul's for only one sun gear. You have that the patent only requires that you have one ring controlling two sets of Paul's. It doesn't require that every ring control two sets of Paul's. It requires a ring controlling two sets of Paul's. A Paul controlling ring for controlling the position of the Paul's. If we read the Paul's to mean two at least two sets of Paul's then figure eight is consistent with that reading of the claim. Consistent, but it's also consistent with what the if you do require the Paul's to be two sets of Paul's for one ring controlling two sets of Paul's for two sun gears. Figure eight is consistent with that. And we never argued to the contrary. It's just basically what we were arguing is that if you assume that construction, the still the issue of whether A means one or more. So if A means one or more that means two Paul controlling rings control the Paul's for two sun gears. And that is exactly what we're talking about in figure 37 of our brief. Where we do show two rings, the blue ring and the red ring controlling the Paul's for two sun gears. So it really is a claim construction issue. The two things, whether the at least two that the Paul's requires the Paul's for two sun gears. Or whether the Paul's can mean the Paul's for just one sun gear. That's one issue. But then the second issue is whether A means one or more in which case, even if you do say that the Paul's control the two sun gears, you can still have two rings controlling the Paul's for two sun gears. That to us is really a claim construction issue that I think is a key to this case. Any more questions? Anything else you need to tell us? No, I believe I'm probably finished with this. Okay, thank you Mr. Belaylor. Thank you Mr. Belaylor. Thank you Mr. Belaylor. Thank you Mr. Belaylor. Thank you Mr. Belaylor