the first set of issues those were dealing with the two thirty one pattern again that relates to the is there a point in the brilliant products is there at the reality of measurement circuits defined within a signal channel in parallel speech other if i understand what's going on here brilliant is are you doing that that limitation is not satisfied because in the specification there was a disclaimer from the prior or which involve borrowing and you say to them well the cross channel embodied in the specification necessarily involves borrowing and they respond to that in turn by saying well it's not really borrowing because it's not a channel that exists elsewhere that can be used for another purpose if in order to have a borrowing you can have a channel which has only a single function which is what's involved in the cross channel and why is that fair way or the other on this particular subject right that's my that is my impression yes that they're the experts had did not know experts really agree certainly didn't agree on  for that question well if you don't already waiver that's a waiver  you have put that measurement circuits here measurement circuit here there can be a second chance input going to one of the measurement circuits but that's not the case we're discussing or in this case the machine has been configure signal path yes and that's why you believe that in that mode this isn't a fringing like yes of what about the other one it strikes me that you've got a problem with literal infringement with respect to the other two patents but also argue doctrine of equivalence yes  an open issue here i'd to be saying that there was there is no literal infringement no i'm not saying that we are not saying that we disagree w what our experts circled happened to include the pastors there are still and there are still two different current paths to alternative current that's this that's different that refers to one mode in which the shunt circuit is closed so we have all of the current going through the through the shunt as an alternative now and that in that particular case the capacitors are serving a dual role in terms of providing feedback but there's there are also being also the current is being shunted out of them being drained from them in that mode in the other motive operation when the sensors open there's no current going through shunt and the car only goes into the password only goes into the right side of that sounds like you're describing a doctor sense that they have two measurement circuits to signal channels one measurement circuit her signal chain and i want to respond to just moore's comment about  flamer in the record but let me skip over that just for now brilliant product and designing configuration of the lens products is conventional in that one measurement circuit per channel is the way t i a s have been designed and built for decades true gives you a kind of a range of things a signal channel could be but what was important in our view is important in our view in these claims is that the defined within the language what the pattern discloses is a time analyzer excuse me that has multiple two or more measurement service per channel if you look at figure one figure one shows the preferred body when it's got two channels environment for sure but i can't measure you against the preferred environment a kind of measure you can claim language that's true that's true but you have to look at we would submit your honor you have to look at the specification in order to figure out what the claim means when it's talking about a plurality of measurement circuits defined within the channel clearly in the prior art there is one measurement circuit per channel than do it ok so i don't i'm just setting  day's work for the work channel is the path the electrical signal travel through so once you accept that the word channel fuse in a predefined circuit and its components but rather the signal  you've got to measure its circuits in that signal path this is what we're arguing is yes the channel is the signal path and yes the components in every time interval analyze can follow up can be linked in different ways there multiplexers that can switch to signals through different components but we're we're suggesting that once you identify a path that  but you think about this what what the inventor did was he solved the problem couple problems by adding a measurement circuit to a channel that's what the patent describes in order to express that notion that you're adding a measurement circuit to a channel that traditionally has just one measurement circuit and you have to find a way to sort of set a context for that for that yet the cooling measurement circuit to a channel to if  channel and then judge will can got that and she says that a measurement circuit has to be contained within a particular channel single channel a given jam so yes there are lots of paths but once you you have a path you have a channel then you've got a measurement circuit that's six to that channel that's what the patent describes and that's how you then express the cats and how the inventor and his attorney express the concept of multiple measurement channel is defined by the physical layout as opposed to what the flow of the same will it does appear shows no worries right definition of signal channel is a path so you have to include the current through the channel what i'm suggesting is you don't vary that channel once you decide what it is you don't on the fly redefine the channel just as you don't on the fly redefined in which channel a measurement circuit is defined the notion of defined within the past to have some sort of permanence in order to be able to express this concept of multiple measurement circuits per channel here's here's a way to think about it in the one channel two edge mode and judge will conduct this very clearly in the one channel two edge mode you can have channel a using both measure circuits you could have channel be using bulk measurement circuits in effect the argument that either channel  channel b could be a signal channel with a plurality of measurement circuits defined within it is an argument that the measurement serves them selves kind of float free they're just sort of sitting out there and it's a dynamic concept defined within it's a dynamic concept in which you define a measurement circuit in a signal channel just by its use and then it's floating free again waiting for some some other channel to use it and it can be defined within channel eight or channel be or whatever tech argued the path and talks about cross channel switching in a second borrowing at a measurement circuit the channel borrowing a measurement circuit in order to use two measurements circuits we pointed out that you can't have cross channel switching which the patent talks about you can't have borrowing unless a measurement circuit is first a part of only one channel in order to borrow it has to belong to that other channel service for another purpose you may get you can use it for another purpose exactly that doesn't mean it's now defined within the other channel that's using it you need to be clear you can argue anywhere in your reference to the us on appeal that there is a legal that in the file history there is prior art there is a there was a drawing submitted by the inventor to the examiner during prosecution with an i d s accompanied by a as to what was not covered it's just hard to imagine the examiner issued this defined within claim over the prior art of the practice still one channel to read function and it does the you haven't even had a chance to explore your validity option  opinion the entire analysis seems to be pertains to literal infringement and then the the open acceptance of these unions says therefore no infringement literally or under the doctrine of equivalence without any separate analysis of their evidence presented grounds that deprives of of the benefit of her views but that doesn't prevent us from deciding issues i would read or think well they have an expert that did provide an expert report and explained the function way and result of this particular claim element which ones that shunting the capacitor being disposed in parallel to each other and doesn't make any mention of that which i find troubling and it does seem to be more detailed than the conclusory sort of thing that in the past we've held isn't enough and so how do we approach that what she did was she referred to that i took had two the by provided of a graphic that shows his understanding of how the operative lee disposed in parallel with respect to the first current circuit language works that's in our brief but each page fifty one that circuit shows the first current circuit a path splitting one going to shut one going to the passage early you can already from the first current circuit to the capacitor can do that if it passes part of the first current circuit and just judge wilkins cited that testimony as support for her ruling and then she said right after that you can't have  about that part of the limitation they completely ignore the response with respect to the first current circuit in other words a person who to find the function do you have to consider the fact that the  summary judgment it is a question of fact on do you know we they put forth evidence about what the function away and result is here and i don't see any evidence from your side to the contrary and given that a summary judgment we have to give them the benefit current between them through the shunt can control whether that path this fall over the alternate path is followed but the path has to exist from the first current circuit to the capacitor and that's the point joe wilson was making if the if the capacitor part of the first current circuit that part of the limitations geim and it doesn't matter whether is literal or dr the equivalence it's not there and she cited the vitiated case for that principle for equivalence so i believe that's what she was doing if she didn't do she said the finding that the capacitor part of the first current circuit precludes both literal and the government's infringement she didn't elaborate i believe what she was relying on was your previous citation of equivalence i think that in order to understand the document equivalence argument you have to go back to the claim construction here the claim construction of operative lead to disposed in parallel was arranged in a manner capable of forming alternative powers of current such that current can slow across one or the other path so it does not say one or the other path does not necessarily say they must be taking a choice exclusive even in the the what what i would consider the worst case scenario where the where use a circle that entire right side of the brilliance instrument schematic there are still there the science the opening or closing of the seans this still performing the function of whether they currently is going in one direction but not performing the function of the house size for