you're actually relates to the next case suppose in the next case that we agreed with the district court that the three ten is not have why is there a case or controversy allowing you to proceed in this case where you've stipulated that you have no continuing interest in the invalidity of that  the three ten patent his admissions below conclusively establish northwest co inventor ship and i want to highlight two broad categories of evidence and for individual pieces of evidence within those categories we have both brought out a dense of schwartz's contribution and specific evidence of the particular relied upon components with regard to the broader evidence the best evidence is paragraph forty five of the king declaration which you'll find at page thirteen forty five of the joint appendix where king swears under oath that alex this is his son in it's alex's and then a contribution is limited to conception conception and development of how the various electronical complex components of the meter are interconnected and operate together so king himself credits shorts with the conception satchell battle for the board i think i think with regard to what the standard review is that the standard view for inventor ship is do not vote a question of law but the underlying facts are reviewed for substantial evidence  page ten as we thinking had a high level understanding of the electronics that nature of the king was a kill inventor but it doesn't show that schwartz was not a collimator what the evidence shows just trial is that schwartz was responsible for conceiving of how the one the specific evidence of shortest contribution you'll find and page fifteen thirty three of the joint of one it's where schwartz testified that he had the idea how to quote connect the solar panels to recharge the battery unquote and that specific connection basis upon which this i p r was instituted so in other words the specific connection in the three ten patent you have undisputed testimony that schwartz invented that invented that and king's general admission that shorts conceived of the electrical connection s has a complete disconnect in its theory of the case you're right it's the area of the cases king was the general and the general inventor supervising all of us he had to hurdles one was the mechanical one of how you get a new electric  and george bush or his opinion for the court in our case i think is as close a case as you have to this one that case involved the dog the dog mobility device the inventor of your heart said he exercised complete dominion and control over the development of that invention but it turned out that his veterinarian helped him with one critical piece of which was how to connect the dog's toe to the device using a figure eight loop and this court held that because the inventor admitted that this other your honour's opinion for the court and pan it was another good example where this court found that the cut the co inventor who was left off came up with a a piece of the invention it doesn't have to be equal contribution but where there's a critical piece of it that somebody else comes up with the you have to put all of the inventors on the patent or it's invalid and that's a clear application of the joint inventor ship of the inventor ship entity doctrine so the only evidence that i think the other side does this that's not an answer if you haven't done that the patents invalid and i think the same is true under one or two years it would be under want to do it i mean that i'm sorry's did the board have in front of it a one zero two s challenge to of another under one note that you got in turn connects to the requirements of co invention yes that's correct ok that's right the the only thing i think that the other side can point to is the general claim connection that you think shorts must have invented ok and in particular why would one not read all the claimed elements here saying well if you have to make it you have to have an electrical connection you have to have an electrical connection for there to be information transfer but nothing in the claim claims have all and at most schwartz figured out how but the idea that there had to be all the connection thirty three of the joint of the appendix where he said he came up with the idea of how to connect the solar power to recharge the battery through the power management facility and that that connection is specifically shown in figure eight of the over five four patent and then case we should be a entitle to obtain the use of the seventy one documents that i p s refused to release from the protective order we think that the p temper and its legal analysis of factors three of the government tests that at this point i'd like to basically reserve the discovery so let's hear questions about the discovery issue i probably won't get to it when the inventor ship issue their theory of the case requires you to believe that ip has misled the examiner in naming to recognise that that was a big hurdle and that he looked to alex shorts to figure out how to implement that part of the invention ship analysis is always claims of results and if you look at the three titan claims it only describes a small subset of components which they had in mind well before you launch into the actual development program and all it says for those components is that they have to be connected well look at those components it's a card reader it's a coin validator that are connected to basically a logical system to make sure that the information i receiving is appropriate it's a solar panel that is connected to a battery so charge the battery it's a battery that's providing power of the system that is a very very high level discussions so for instance they're trying to read in from the fi for things like a power management system a power management system in the context of a standalone battery run the vice that's being charged by a solar cell is is a great thing to have far more detail far more components including components that are totally unnecessary to three ten claims to what they're asking you to do is actually commit sort of a double air they not only want you to read disclosure into the claim that's not in the yeah let me let me point out the true answer to your question the first is asked for dave king himself remember seeing himself as an electrical engineer he has had decades of experience and in the cell phone industry sufficient for the system to work so three time would work for that in the opening for you to further improvement those power management which make sure that things aren't brain in the system too quickly and so you get a longer life out of that you get advantages if it's involved right we certainly don't agree with that we think that overstates it but but they've highlighted you'll see that it's the main nor any of the components in the figure they put repeatedly point to testimony the six boxes that they show in yellow the fact that they had to be connected was king's idea from the beginning of nobodies or even three ten claim isn't just the idea of being connected and it says connected to the reader so as to receive information electronically it if it talks about not just the idea of a connection that has a connection that performs specific functions it again due to answers to those first of all nobody's argued that this is he's talking about that in the context of the fight for which has additional features such as a power management facility which makes it a are better system but the other thing that i think is significant here is they have hung their entire argument on the figure eight and as their own i believe it's on page seventeen of their opening brief they show figure eight is actually based on a schematic from alex schwartz and if you look at the they've already settled out of the designs and even the improvements reflected in claims eight in ten of the three ten patent they're still waiting for the printed circuit boards from alex at that point  their own evidence that the thing they're pointing to doesn't come along until july so just as a matter it's the only makes sense as a matter of logic your are if you think about it why is the chain charging ahead with  read elements that are nowhere claimed in those claims from one patent into claims of another and that's just not like we think your honor i don't think that i don't think that i p s given an adequate answer to judge next question about why is not why isn't schwarz and co inventor with regard to the electronics i really don't think you got an answer that i think is plain from the specific testimony that schwartz not only did all of the electronics but he did specifically he came up with the idea of how to connect the solar panel through the power management facility to the rechargeable battery that was his conception and that's it i'm sorry just just on that is do you can show me where the streets and claims as referenced the power management facility so i can follow that yes your are at the charge said that every so is the operator we connected that references the power management facility through which it goes and so it is is there a claim construction that requires the power power management facility through that language i which is column for line sixty four a solar cell operatively coupled with rechargeable battery to charge the rechargeable battery the solar cell being disposed to receive light the of the second window and and so what i pointed out is the general testimony that schwartz and king and this is conceived of all of the electronics the connections to make to make it work and then specifically schwartz said in his deposition i came up with an idea of how to get the solar cell to work with the rechargeable battery that was his idea his conception so i really think the case is very much like in right there off where you had one that the claim that the inventor claimed to be the sole inventor did much of the work if not most of the w some high level idea but schwartz plainly had the specific contribution of how to make the electronics work and i think where the pizza bird was in looking at king's contribution whether he had some high level understanding instead