off i'd like to move the admission of matthew forrest tootin who is a member of the bar and is in good standing with the highest court of maryland i have knowledge of his credentials and i'm satisfied that he says is the necessary qualifications which i will discuss in a moment and i'd like to move the mission of devon scott sykes who is a member of the bar and is in good standing with the highest courts of new york district of columbia and texas as well as with the supreme court of the united states the second circuit and the eastern and southern districts of new york and the court of international trade i have knowledge of his credentials satisfied that he possesses the necessary qualifications both of these lawyers have things in common i in addition clerking for me both of them i have known simple technology b s curved wall laboratory for aircraft revolutionize the airplane interiors industry it allowed for the nesting of a laboratory with the seats in front of the laboratory in order to save space in the airplane and therefore allow for significantly more ass injuries are fastened to room on the plane becoming critical important technology that opened the door for a billion dollar industry here is the crux of the many problems with the people abs obviousness decision first there is no laboratory art in the record doesn't it's just not there only the bets called closet now the keep tab found that it would be obvious to put the bets wall such as it such as it may without without significant basis that the secondary considerations are so to speak that what they called moderate they do not address nexis and therefore i mean they don't say look the reason we don't find  secondary considerations to be persuasive is because there is no nexus the fact of the matter is there is significant nexus this is as much a nexus as we can find really in a case so specifically in your brain main point is that the keypad does not find a lack of nexus the fact of the matter is that there is no significant challenge to the nexus problem he said zodiac admits in your blueberry and you that's where many of them about the scallop wall of the b e laboratory these are the components of the past it's a direct correlation between commercial success  better design for me to come up with a much more slimline modular guy who made the airplane which is terrific but i didn't see any discussion about wow they came up with a that's exactly what this patent does obviously when the editor who wrote to the blurb on the crystal cabin or did not have the patent in front of it but adding the six wrote six extra seats or creating the slimline because the technology that's what it's all about the shaping of the wall contoured such that it's substantially conforms to the seat in front of it if we read the specific ation it is all about it's all about saving extra seats that's why they are supposed to be conforming to each other and let me point the court to the rest of the secondary consideration evidence which which is for example in the wall street journal and other articles praising this technology that actually does call out the scallop wall i don't believe that legally your honor there has to be the precise language in the claim that exists can be found in articles or awards down down the line what needs to be clear though and i think that is the case here is that what the claims and mabel is the technology that has won the preakness and it is that is the exact thing that we're talking about here  and understand why you want to keep talking about technology and when i think of technology maybe you and i have competing conceptions of what that means when it comes to putting a dent in the wall but i guess when we try to hone in on what was being praised i saw our statements in those praise documents that was praising the technology and slimming down the bathroom the so that those seats right in front of that wall recline it wasn't about having it was the recessed war wasn't so connected at least in those articles to the some planes for example a dozen refine at all the point of the pattern the pattern in the spec doesn't talk at all about the recline really it's all about moving the seats back to save space i want to go to a different point which is that there is nothing in the record to support peter ups finding that it would be obvious to apply the bets wall to the to a laboratory which is the crux of the argument from zodiac and also the recess in this wall of the airplane cabin why because by doing that i'm going to be able to provide more space in the cabin for passengers and so therefore i didn't see the board solely in singularly relying on as you recall that some paid expert but it was actually relying on a statement from the prior art reference itself and then concluded well that to ok not to move seats backward to save space just for tilting and that's not what the eight three eight b c e patent is about second point is it does say that we have the coats rack the mechanism to lift the coats out of the way so that passengers have more room to walk behind the behind behind the closet it's a non sequitur that more space needs to be saved on an airplane everybody try to do that right it's a decades old problem it's a fixed configuration it needs face needs to be fixed what is missing from bats and all the prior art is doing that with a laboratory there is zero indication anywhere in the prior art that anybody thought of playing around with the laboratory carving the laboratory slimming it down touching it in any way until between and when b did it it really enclosure unit based on those competing statements how can you say that being in blakely misrepresented the record because indeed in mr anderson's testimony he testified that the top of the bet's closet an enclosure the bottom of the bet's closet was an enclosure that the middle portion was not an enclosure and then he circled the entire closet entire but saw evidence of that as an enclosure and so his testimony is consistent with that that's reference which labels the entire enclosure as a closet and so to say that he said that that's was that he only said the bench was multiple enclosures as is inconsistent with his test found some level of nexus between the evidence of industry praise the crystal cabin award and the articles to which these counsel for i think it's fair to assume that there is some nexus there because the board gave some w to those references i think it's also the board's finding factual finding on that which is subject to deference obviously not a substantial i mean standard i think it's entitle to deference because there are elements for instance the part of the appendix that i point recessed and then there's other things that are also identified for reasons from praising this new modular lavatory i think you're i think it's i think each of the each of the pieces of industry do they talk about improved plumbing making use behind the sink and i'm referring to the appendix that thirty seven sixty three sixty four and sixty six which is where these articles will reproduce but each of them has a feature at least some feature or side it other than than the scalp wall itself so at least for those references i think it's fair to say there's something in there again i believe it's fair as you say you're doing me there's no document that they submitted that points way i think the only fair way to look at the bets closet is to look at it as a closet in the cabin of the aircraft which the codes were moved out of the way so that so that the research could be added to the floor wall and forty years before the  wall to allow the seat to sit closer so that enclosure you know that otherwise would have that four walls were flat and still provide a room for the kids to be stored the best lacks the additional benefit of causing claustrophobic passengers to get out of the correct out of the way to provide more room for passengers and then they show in figure but shows in figure one what the result is and that is a recess in the fourt and it's large on the bottom the over enclosure units of closet it has a function that is a store things i think it's a typical closet want to go in there with understand i think a layman would understand their closets function to store multiple things so school here would have known that and the one way in which you know that that's true is that the eighty three patent provides no description whatsoever of what's inside the laboratory how does that oh physically allow a passenger seat to be located into the forward wall and jason structure the bets the bet's recess allows the seat to be placed further back than it would if the wall were flat so if the wall in the  positions already lean back a little bit that that's correct your honor it's definitely not flat in a vertical plane is it as a claim or sight so that's part of it and then the other part of the design constraint for that for that particular aircraft and more particularly back in that time were seats had to be able to recline the recess is larger than it needs to be for the seat just to sit further back and it's upright position to shun a figure wan it also has to allow room for the seat to function and that is resolve our disputes about applying construction and so we actually there were only two disputes about playing construction the first was substantially flat in the vertical plane and the board resolved that dispute finding that a seat that is element that includes enclosure unit or lead story style unit and so the board thrust the two limitations of the attempted to put on that term and that is enclosed on all sides and having one function so the board said both of those limitations are too well if he's not arguing on that then i will not either of us and our braces well all right so very quick points in my remaining time first of all on the claim construction categorically wrong at least with respect to the true terms council mentioned first of all not for the claims require a shape that's not flat in a vertical plane it's the shape that's not flat not the position and it such as this for example the question is where is that that contour the not flat it's this one plane ok that is what has to be fun to work in the definition of a vertical plane and something that has you know it's perpendicular to the degree perpendicular it before applying in that invest figure in that direction but but if you know if the seat is moved in any way or the plane takes off the point is because of you the seat back that's what matters and if we look at the specific the impression anyway or at least as equally plausible that it's using those words to mean different things and then only i part is reasonable construction if we look at the parallel language in the specific ation if use is concord and not flat the the phrase the sentences are effectively the same except that sometimes it uses concord sometimes it's use it uses not flats and uses concord only twice i think yes that's correct and then in the claims it uses not flat i think it's pretty clear that that's what it means what it cannot mean when it says not flat the shaking point when it says the shape is not flat in the vertical line as its shape it's a good portion that flat what it modifies is the shape and it simply cannot be that if but even under the broadest reasonable interpretation it gen on to be that though that whole meaning is changed such that touches on a laboratory and doing something with a laboratory until be evaded and will be either that it created an entire revolution in the space that's got to mean something a patent or that is issued on such revolutionary technology has to be passed means something when the actual record is completely silent on the combination that urged by the other side thank you thank you