As we have stated in the petition reply, Baarman would be entitled to its priority date through the Drinkware test to establish that the provisional provides support for the claims in accordance with one.
And our expert further testified, as we say -- as we show in the bottom of slide 12, that not only would this combination optimize the power transfer as desired by both of the references, but using the magnets would have it be a user friendly method of positioning and reduce the likelihood of errors.
MR. PETRSORIC: Okay, here I think may be the disconnect, Your Honor, is the fact that with respect to claim element 1.4, they identified that the time -- the parameters obtained from current sensor 322 and the RC circuit, and that's on page 25 to 26 of the petition.
I'll note that the expert declaration is substantially similar, if not parroting what's in the petition and under the Director's precedential decision in Xerox v. Byte Mark, there's a question as to how much weight, if any, should be accorded to it.
MR. PETRSORIC: The art -- the Baarman ‘392 that the petition relies on for claims 5 and 16 is a mechanism to detect if the voltage and current at the secondary coil, which is being fed to the battery, is over an acceptable value.