ready please court morning this is people concerned united states patent number five or six five two one three we call two one three patent and specifically claim eight which is the only claim that's left in the first rejection is a want to go to novelty rejection based soley upon japanese laid open patent application number six one nine seven seven nine five call this the j p seven line five or the japanese reference  council's call that the socket reference the other rejection is a one of three rejection based on obviousness based in part upon the japanese reference j p seven that five and an item that called document an interactive online solution to for documentation problems this is being called document or the real by opposing counsel all of these rejections are defective as a matter of law they also lack substantial evidence in order to stand there patent offices rejections are flawed on multiple levels the higher level the patent i was matter of law the record firmly establishes the patent office should not abuse the japanese reference as invalidating reference because it's undeniably so that it doesn't require separate searching of text and sales information the dispute over the different japanese translations from this still is still an issue your honor because whether or not those are just limitations are found in claim a which we'll talk about throughout the discussion today there were still penalties looking at three separate english translations of the same japanese reference you have to understand this is a japanese applications this was never formalized they never developed that no prototypes were made this is simply a bare bones document that was presented and in filed with the japanese on patent office but what difference does it make if the if the point of where that reference is deemed to be ambiguous yes but it could be ambiguous with respect to an immaterial that and in that case i don't see why ambiguity as to some potently collateral portion of the reference  and there are still other substantial imitations all spewed by various facets of the different in english translations we understand english translations are expert opinions the prior it's actually the reference and the fact that the the request himself or themselves actually submitted in other translation on top to other translations are already in the record clearly indicates are lots of questions ambiguities so should with the right what would you have the office do when ever the patent office intended to rely on a foreign language reference well you know out of the as a matter of law have them in every case obtain some certified translation from some source that is questionable but i think that that you know out of the english translations of foreign language documents need to have certain standards they should meet first of all they should meet certify that the translator certifies their ability to translate has the credentials to translate properly translate the information on the japanese in this case japanese with a foreign language document in addition the translation should be taken from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention those are all very clear requirements under patent law in this case none of the three original translations met those criteria except for the fourth translation which was written by two and three of the two and three partners the appellant in this case so all three of the docu all three of translations were that were effective because they didn't meet that requirement it's very easy and to use hindsight and look at a situation based upon what's going on now compared to what happened twenty years ago is as i stated earlier this pattern was filed in one nine hundred ninety you know there was very little technology in this area back in  hour even if the japanese reference is not considered which it should not be we believe that it's clear that it shouldn't be considered the patent office of violin of this own precedent and improperly cherry picked one of the english translations that were set in front of it and in fact it was a biased and effective translation provided by the reexamined questor instead of using only viable translation with those properly translated from perspective  and in addition were the translator wasn't biased by previewing the two one three pattern before preparing the translation that was the fourth translations called the eb want translation which should've been used by the patent office now the patent office really doesn't dispute that that have a lot translation should have been used aside from sidestepping the issue saying while it's only addressing some issues which aren't of the case because these additional imitation aren't in cla functions but it a could also read that is to say that they could be stored in the same location you're out of that might be true except that if you look at the you know  paragraph top of the column more particularly the book description format of the present and vention is divided into three portions furthur is a book attributes description which includes different attributes about the books which might be help  find common information about the book there is also a second section called book contents description lastly the book format include the actual contents of the book at the next paragraph it says it will be appreciated the book attributes and book contents description the book format of the president mentioned are separated from the actual content of the book can't have much more expressive guideline than that for  office takes the position that all these arguments are over because these two limitations aren't found in claim eight as henri talked about there are three translations already on the books before the translation came along that should have been enough to warrant our caught at least caution patent office not to rely on reference at least look into the issue now this court is held with regard to interpret claims that it's also recognize it's not true claim differentiation and press might be termed limitation differentiation but a claim is supposed to interpret as to give full meaning affect each of the words in the claim and that's exactly what is done here and is consistent fully consistent with the i see him out of time at this point but let me finish my answer fully consistent with the understanding that the claim should be given its full scope and effect of each information but if you have throughout in different places including fifteen for example i would line thirty five and six they can see that you know each disk has the capability of storing up to sixty five sets of textual graphics and descriptive data me that suggests that all of this information can be stored in the same place well that's a meaning that perhaps in the same disk but this court sort of firm the board's decision rejecting claim eight of the two thirteen patent over the prior art the board reasonably interpreted claim eight in view of the specification as a whole rejected the patent is attempt to read additional limitations into the claim during their examination to try and avoid the prior art likewise the board properly reviewed the patent use arguments and expert declarations and recognized that they were directed solely to these unclaimed limitations that to thirteen partners is now trying to read into the claim apply to the first embodiment if you take a look at the disclosure with respect to the first embodiment you see that the specification also teaches that the text and sales information are stored together on the same  memory device in this case optical discs twenty and that is on column four lines twenty three through thirty one but the fact that they are on the same story each device doesn't mean that they are stored together does it well they are stored physically on the same device so in that respect they're stored together but the specification also further teaches that the definition of sales information includes selecting pages and sample chapters of the text of the book and so when the when you take that into account that part of the text is going to be stored together with the sales information because it is as to the propriety of that translation and as the board properly found that is directed toward this idea search ability and search ability is no where in plain language so it's really directed to to translating foreign language documents the patent office has the ability to use machine translations of foreign documents that we but i think that the way that this case this matter transpired was the correct way you have someone put in an accurate translation of the the foreign document and if the certify the accuracy of princely right we do have translators on staff as well but the way that the regulations on the patent office really what we're looking for is accurate translations and in this  case the translation came in as part of the request for examination it was a certified translation there was an affidavit that came along with it that said that it was an accurate and precise translation so the patent office properly relied on that translation the patent raised its issues with it and the board properly took a look at it determined that they were directed toward limitations that were not in the claim and discard them such and i think i touched on this just briefly with respect to the point that the panel just improperly cherry picked the translation that it relied upon as i mentioned before this translation came in as part of the request translating japanese patents and to english so the had others did not improperly cherry pick this translation out of a group it's the one that was submitted with the reexamination request and it also construction to have those as part of the claim language the patent office also just stated that they need to use an after translation well they also need to use a translation which is from want to board skilling art at the time of the invention which who initially reviewed the matter gave no reason whatsoever for picking the heard translation simply said this was the one we're going to use less and that's inadequate and improper under the patent office own now the only excuse that they've used again is that these additional limitations are not a part of playmate and the translation they depend off does not dispute fully undermined both the rejections the associated marsh declaration which is part of the record two because of the patent office is third using third translation violate its own precedents both rejection should be overturned in the claim it should be held ballot