international trade before she came here so i can say with some certainty that when i move the admission and carry ross was a member of the bar in good standing in the highs course of new york and new jersey i have knowledge of her thank you welcome to the bride of the court we look forward to seeing more of you on that side they're not i would imagine that could be the case if if however the document that was presented was produced by one of the parties or a pine employee at a party or by the opposing side and i would imagine that their reliability wouldn't necessarily be at issue in fact the the web site which i presented to the court was founded in so you want to take either one of those particularly a lot went to a point to all of the details of that patent and how what you're talking about really isn't necessarily relevant to those inventive aspects i think the i think that one of its points to consider is that there's two steps to the event the process the first step is the is to the overview or the idea if you will of something and then the second step is the reduction to practice i think the judge was looking at the reduction to practice which can't which follows the general concept that's the word i was looking for so in other words you can be an inventor if you introduce a concept and you could also be the inventor if you introduced the final product but the judge was not looking at the conceptual side of it what in your view how would you characterize the conceptual conceptual thought the court has to find it is saying that and i don't mean it's a matter of law i mean with regard to these past this is where the conceptual idea is the fact that in his disclosure document which was filed with the patent office in june july of two thousand and four  technology can be placed on the shell of the regulator now what the one expended was exactly that they took the handle and put it on the shell of the regulator conceptually nobody had done that before people were disclosed it and you had numerous conversations which is not dispute with lenexa over a period of almost a year and he had tied many discussions reviewing his website with mr slusher and mr silas are stating his depositions he can't recall down by the lower court they said there was no contract issue here but at that time a lennox was inviting inventors to come and talk to them and to tell their ideas and then the website they said we will treat you fairly in which case mr people felt that patent was a flat handle to judge over looked the disclosure document the language he quoted some of the language but he didn't follow up with the rest of the language which is really important like which were people talks about putting the handle on the shell of the regulator and then he also produced some other documents at twelve sixty six which is in the appendix which is a drawing the drawing was also cited by linux in their brief but they cut out the bottom part in the bottom part is also a reiteration saying enjoying the picture he showed the handle and then you'll notice there's an arrow and it says grip with an arrow pointing off to the left what that show is and then below that it after the two thousand after july mr people in his affidavit said he talked with the source foster and told him what exactly is invention was in one of these things now in response to question the judge was looking at the flat plate the judge what was focused on what was the final product of that rather than what the disclosure was and the disclosure documents or in that pattern itself it mentions at column nine lines seventeen it says assisted therefore surrounding or at least part of the pressure regulator mechanism or the flow regulator mechanism of the tank so he actually put that in the pan itself the court did not see that in the court i think focused rather on saying well your finished product was a flat handle but the court did not look to what mr people was actually teaching in his disclosure or what was actually mentioned in the pat language this or ducal which let me take you back to my prior question as you said that there was no such communication i'm going to direct you to thirteen fifty in the record which is what i thought i'd remembered seeing which is a  communication from ben sematic which is part of your rubbermaid in which they say fear chris please do not send them sematic any confidential information we will not review anything you submit to us on a confidential basis what is the bait on that there is no data on it megan are you not familiar with your record i don't have the whole record in front of me but i but i'm if it doesn't have a date on it i cannot tell because the attorney for linux in march two days after they filed their patents sent a letter to mr people saying please do not send us any information in my understanding and my recollection of the record was that was the first time they said don't send anything after they had got i had filed three applications on information mr people given that's what that's why i asked that i don't have a record in front of me i apologize by linux was that the crowd the documents or the lack of documents that let us does not have is not relevant to the inventor ship issue and i think it also toward the credibility issue and the reliability issue of the documents set when x has produced in other words the drawings which have the pencil thin dates that are unsupported by any other witness or signature  for five documents that show up it up on a stack of four of thirty six documents from appendix three fourteen to three forty six the only documents have a pencil and they are documents related to this case which is other scribbles and scratches of different handle designs but the only ones that have a date are the dates that are pertinent here so the question is just where those dates penciled in afterwards and i think that goes to credibility believability user ference context here we have an issue of possible misappropriation which turns on facts and laws correct but it's misappropriation in the context of co inventor ship that's the only issue that's left in this case mr be did have a number of state law claims contract tort claims below the judge ruled on those dismissed as claims and mr bieber didn't appeal to the only issues that are left are the of the the issues that were decided on summary judgment and against protector that surrounds the regulator and surrounds the frag fragile gauge and that's what the linux patents are designed to they're designed to protect those elements mr bebo invented a handle and he is going to handle it might have attached a regulator but or to the regulator itself it's a handle it's designed to to facilitate transporting a pretty large tank that's not loading and then we end lennox invented a device to protect the gauge and so that's not actually corroboration of the inventive ideas of the left that you know so that the entire concept came from him saying he made a contribution but it has to be for people to be  certainly if it's trivial that's something else but these are all different criteria again it's not claiming conception reduction to practice doing a separate fully developed  contribution and it has to be something that's more than prior art in this case what we have is at best evil provided the idea to lennox to put a handle on a sane but prior art from her already in retrospect to say well i could have found about that lennox disclosed that handle pictures of the handle to the p t o the patent issues over that prior art and so the inventive ideas of the lifespans the ideas that mr beaver would have had to invent or would have had to contributed to to be a clone then or the these are different questions he has unitard into a patent office interference which has its own rules for fully developed inventions so i gave you i gave you some ideas good ideas you use them i  misappropriation elements i think that might have come with a state law claim or any of those claims it's simply co inventor shipping to be co inventor your the contribution that people had to make had to be significant standard before us again if there were computing fully developed patent applications are passed is not the issue that's been raised let my understanding of the that standard the case law that i've relied on and that the district court relied on and actually that mr beaver relied on and found saw all involve that same standard of requiring conception of non novel and no in this case however you mentioned can you just go back a little for the history from the mention of your other claims that came down here you this case was initiated that with your filing of a d j that's correct for that he came in with numerous counterclaims was that help she was going to be claiming as we went through kind of early motions practice in early practice with the judge mr beaver represented counsel represented that the only issue that we were dealing with was in better shape or cutco and actually not the ownership so and then to answer your and the and the last point that i want to address is mr beaver spent a good amount of time in his brief and also in front of the score talking about linux's inventor process and how it goes to credibility and it's not a you know this is a different case because it's not a he said she said issue they had to provide corroborating evidence of inventor ship and lennox's inventive process doesn't matter again the case law is clear on that there contribution of the alleged omitted cohen act and it's the same situation here whatever lennix provided or didn't provide doesn't actually have any relevance to what mr beaver needed to show the district court needed to show the district court relationship of conversation back and forth raises interesting questions but the law is careful to provide a or fulfilling it the closer questions that arrange it seems to really were before the district judge and were reviewed the issues of corroboration that he raises i whether it was a handle or a gauge protector if you look at the picture on appendix three twenty seven which is the drawing are rendered drawing dated nine three o four by mr catron how is that handle and that cage protector not one of the same especially if you use the language that you take the handle and you in case the regulator if you look at the drawing there isn't in case man of the regulator by the handle now whether you call it a protector a defender or just simply a handle and casing a regulator is a way to attach the handle to the tank and i think that's the issue that the judge did not see i think that's an issue that protect it well you can call it a gauge protector you can call it anything you want but the fact the matter it doesn't change that it is a handle that encases the regulator and i think that's where mr people's case should have turned rather than saying well mr bieber got a patent on a flat handle therefore he didn't have anything to do with the line expound when he did tell lennox and numerous conversations about his develop the idea of encasing the regulator in plastic and that's what they did and it's it's nothing more than that if you look at the if you look at the drawing three twenty seven and i think you are a concern is that the court did the right thing by not considering this part of the  language of the disclosure document and i i think that's an error i think the court didn't go far enough in considering it stopped short in its citation of the really important part of the quote were discussed how you  regulator around with this handle around the shell of the regulator and that's what i think the